Staff Reports
In a classic case of trading a couple of American hostages for who-knows-what, the White House has decided that swapping Evan Gershkovich and Paul Whelan for some Russian prisoners was the way to go. As if the average American needed another reason to raise an eyebrow at the Biden administration’s foreign policy decisions, this prisoner swap is being touted as a triumph by the powers that be, despite the fact Whelan has been languishing in Russian jail since 2018.
This latest maneuver has the distinct aroma of desperation wafting from Pennsylvania Avenue, and while Jean-Pierre preps for her briefing at the White House, one has to wonder what’s next on the agenda: perhaps a guest appearance by the Easter Bunny advocating for more feel-good swaps? The fact that these two American citizens faced years in Russian prisons might actually indicate that perhaps governments should take a firmer stand against adversarial regimes instead of shaking hands over a trade deal.
What about the American hostages held in Gaza? Conveniently, Biden swaps Russian prisoners for American journalists three months before the elections. Is the EU interfering in US elections? Does anyone believe that this swap happened because of strong diplomatic “relationship” or… pic.twitter.com/fQ8VCNO6G5
— @tiabo5555 (@tiabo5555) August 1, 2024
Whelan’s prolonged detainment has been a thorn in the side of the U.S. for years, yet this administration chose to act only after it had a media spotlight on it. One cannot help but wonder if a few plush pillows in the press room could have persuaded the White House to act sooner. Meanwhile, Gershkovich’s stint in Russian custody has been more recent, but let’s be honest—he almost should have had a welcome banner waiting for him at the airport rather than a somber “welcome back” from folks who would rather celebrate the exchange than criticize why it happened in the first place.
Trade deals? Maybe the Biden administration should borrow a page from a more straightforward playbook instead of rolling out the red carpet for all the “negotiations” that end with America giving up more than it gains. One shudders to think about what might be on the table next time around, perhaps a couple of presidential golf clubs for a full collection of political prisoners? After all, who needs a secure national image when cooperation seems to equate to a swap meet?
Jean-Pierre may be optimistic about the whole affair, but the American people ought to critically analyze what such deals say about the administration’s commitment to national security and the well-being of U.S. citizens abroad. When dealing with authoritarian regimes, it pays to be tough—not welcoming. Let’s hope the next deal coming from the Oval Office has a bit more backbone and a lot less goodwill for adversaries who wouldn’t hesitate to step on American interests.
