Welcome to POLITICO’s West Wing Playbook, your guide to the people and power centers in the Biden administration. Send tips | Subscribe here | Email Alex | Email Max In late January, BLAKE MASTERS, the PETER THIEL-acolyte GOP Senate candidate in Arizona, ridiculed the notion that America would involve itself in the crisis developing between Russia and Ukraine. “[I]nstead of trying to fix these crises here at home they’re looking thousands of miles away to shore up Ukrainian democracy,” Masters said. “They literally want to get involved in a land war in Asia in winter. It’s like: how stupid can you be?” A month later, Masters was more comfortable with the stupid. In a Twitter post just hours before JOE BIDEN’s State of the Union address, he offered a prescription for the type of U.S. engagement in Ukraine that he could support. “We should supply the Ukrainians as they fight for their country,” he wrote. “We should support the Europeans as they get up off their knees. We should sanction Russia so that Putin and his cronies feel the consequences. And we should keep our own military out of this.” What’s notable about Masters’ comments is not that his tune shifted. His campaign didn’t respond to comment and there was, in fairness, a throughline to his statements: no direct military intervention. Rather, what stood out was that the ideas he was offering were, in essence, the approaches Biden had already adopted. The success of Biden’s Ukraine policy can’t possibly be determined just weeks into its application. But it’s evident that, so far, he has hit something akin to the political sweet spot: a mix of aggressive and amplifying sanctions, the rallying of the international community, the shipment of military equipment to the frontlines and clear limits on U.S. military involvement. There have been criticisms. Some Republicans argue he should have acted sooner as a matter of deterrence. Others argue he should be more aggressive now, either through the adoption of a no-fly zone in Ukraine or the covert or overt use of force to stop Russian tanks from rolling over Kyiv. But the loudest of those voices are actually coming from the pundit class — not politicians. Even hawkish Republicans with no love for Biden, like Sen. MARCO RUBIO (R-Fl.), are echoing some of his specific points. "I think people have to understand what that means," Rubio said of a no-fly zone. "That means the willingness to shoot down Russian aircraft, and that would mean World War III.” Considering the relatively wide consensus around Biden’s approach, one would imagine he’d be enjoying something of a political bounce. But the polls indicate that while the public supports the components of Biden’s Ukraine policy, they are mixed on his leadership. Data from the firm Data for Progress, shared exclusively with us, shows that 77 percent of respondents support sanctions directly against VLADIMIR PUTIN ; 72 percent support providing $600 million in military support to Ukraine; and even 57 percent support sending 7,000 troops to support European allies but not to Ukraine itself — all steps Biden has taken. By contrast, a paltry 45 percent of respondents approved of Biden’s overall “response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine," while 48 percent did not approve. How to explain this delta? For one, as POLITICO-turncoat-turned-New York Times scribe BLAKE HOUNSHELL noted, the public historically rallies behind Republican presidents in the midst of war, more so than they do Democratic ones. And as my colleagues CHRIS CADELLAGO and LAURA BARRÓN LÓPEZ report , some Democrats think Biden needs to be more aggressive politically, not just in terms of touting his approach, but also chastising former President DONALD TRUMP and his ilk for being Putin apologists. But Democrats also suspect that Biden is suffering from whiplash among voters; that the fatigue felt over Covid hasn’t been pushed aside by a national pride in standing up to Russia but, rather, is being reinforced by the stand being taken. “Americans agree with the president’s policy and appreciate his leadership in rallying the world in support of Ukraine,” said MARK MELLMAN, a longtime Democratic pollster. “But poll questions can be very blunt instruments. People — including the president — aren’t happy with the outcome to date. Russian troops are still invading and killing. And that’s what these polls are measuring.” There’s some evidence that the public’s opinion of Biden’s Ukraine stewardship is improving. Navigator Research, the progressive data firm, ran a dial group of State of the Union watchers and found that “net confidence” in Biden’s ability to handle the crisis improved from net -31 to net +20. Prior to the speech, Reuters and Ipsos released data showing an eight and nine-point increase, respectively, in how Biden has been handling Russia and Ukraine. But the situation is fluid. And the question facing Biden and his team is what happens if the policy consensus they’ve built and the progress they’ve made unravels or turns into a slog. Mellman conceded that the current numbers could very well be the “high water mark” for Biden on the “particular question” of how he is handling the situation in Ukraine. But he was bullish that voter sentiment was more complimentary than the toplines suggest. “Part of my point is that these simple questions don’t necessarily capture the full range of voters’ views about his handling of this issue,” he said. TEXT US — Are you MEGHA BHATTACHARYA, Doug Emhoff’s former communications assistant who recently moved over to the West Wing? We want to hear from you (we’ll keep you anonymous). Or if you think we missed something in today’s edition, let us know and we may include it tomorrow. Email us at westwingtips@politico.com or you can text/Signal/Wickr Alex at 8183240098 or Max at 7143455427.
| 
