The diplomatic fallout from Biden's frank talk about Putin

In his recent interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos, President Biden responded directly to the question "Do you think Vladimir Putin is a killer?"

"Yep, I do," said the President. He also suggested - provocatively and puckishly - that he was not sure that Putin actually has a soul, in contrast to former President Bush.

Putin took umbrage and recalled his Ambassador for "consultations," a fairly normal and not unexpected expression of diplomatic pique.

Rhetorically, Putin suggested that Biden was really talking about himself, bringing up the persecution of racial minorities in the United States and other American flaws, though he did not seem to deny it. Truth be told, Putin's black KGB roots have long been showing.

However, there is now a small tempest in the foreign policy community in the U.S. debating whether Biden's shoot-from-the-lip response showed a lack of discipline that might have negative consequences as we try to navigate our difficult relationship with Russia.

It is ironic that Stephanopoulos, a former White House communications director and strategist under Bill Clinton, probably did not give a lot of thought to the diplomatic implications of his question. It was a sensational question. Wearing his journalist's hat, didn't he want a sensational answer that he could hype?

Former President Trump answered a similar question from Bill O'Reilly in 2017 when O'Reilly, speaking about Putin, asked: "He's a killer isn't he?" Trump's response was: "There are a lot of killers. We have a lot of killers. Do you think our country is so innocent?" (Which is pretty much what Putin said in response to Biden.)

So, should President Biden have parried the question? All principals, speaking for the government, are provided talking points on a range of issues to try to assure that the government speaks with one voice with a consistent message. These points are labored over trying to anticipate any blowback that might occur even from a misplaced comma. President Biden, of course, has a long history of going off script.

Some, taking Biden's side, have said that it is refreshing that he told the truth after four years of President Trump's inexplicable reticence to say anything negative about Putin. His spokesperson said: "It was a direct answer to a direct question." Others, however, point out that Biden has said that he wants a unified response to Russia, but such rhetoric makes a number of our European allies skittish and perhaps reluctant to associate themselves with U.S. policy. How else might he have answered that question?

He might have said that name-calling is hardly helpful (that was the "former guy's" M.O.), but that Russia's record in Ukraine and Syria and against various Putin opponents is well documented, which is an indirect - and more diplomatic - way of saying "yep". He might have pointed out that Putin appears prepared to stay in office until 2036, and that we will have to deal with him on some issues. It is noteworthy that the same week that President Biden answered Stephanopoulos' question, U.S. diplomats were meeting in Russia with the parties involved in the Afghanistan negotiations.

Before this teapot-sized tempest, the Biden Administration had very quickly been able to agree with Russia to extend the New START nuclear arms treaty for an additional five years. Both sides wanted that, something that reminds us that "nations don't have friends, they have interests".

In their first phone conversation after President Biden's inauguration, Biden, who has met Putin many times, reportedly said to Putin: "I know you and you know me, so we understand one another." That's perhaps a start. Going forward, we know the U.S. will work with Russia and Russia will work with the U.S. based on their perceived interests.

• Keith Peterson, of Lake Barrington, served 29 years as a press and cultural officer for the United States Information Agency and Department of State.