U.S. keeps rationalizing Putin |
Featured Commentary

U.S. keeps rationalizing Putin


If someone had told you last fall that Russia would soon invade a neighboring country, annex part of it and occupy another chunk, you might have been skeptical.

You certainly would not have believed that, in the face of this shattering of the accepted world order, the Obama administration would generally consider its Russia policy to be a success.

But that is where we are.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s annexation of the Ukrainian province of Crimea is a fait accompli. He is solidifying his hold on additional territory in eastern Ukraine and likely preparing to take more.

His aggression has borne fruit. Ukraine postponed a trade treaty with the European Union to which Putin objected. Its economy is in trouble. Other countries once part of or controlled by the Soviet Union, from Hungary to Tajikistan, nervously seek to appease Russia’s dictator.

A number of people with a close-up view of this, including the U.S. general who commands NATO forces, are sounding an alarm.

“We have a situation now where the former international border, the current international border, of Ukraine and Russia is completely porous,” Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove said in Bulgaria. “Forces, money, support, supplies, weapons are flowing back and forth across this border completely at will.”

“Russia’s actions represent a clear decision by Moscow to reject the fundamental principles that have shaped international security over the past 25 years,” the general said, adding, “These actions are simply unacceptable.”

Administration officials would not disagree. But they also believe their policy is working. Here’s how they might explain that belief:

• It could be worse. Putin boasted that he could easily take Kiev. At one point he seemed to be eyeing all of southern Ukraine, through Odessa to a Russian-controlled province of Moldova. He has not, thus far, acted on those ambitions.

• The Western alliance is holding. Putin’s goal is not only to subvert Ukraine but also to sow division among the United States and its European allies. The alliance has stayed together as it imposed sanctions on Russia. Therefore, Putin is failing in one of his two core goals.

• Ukraine matters more to Putin than to us. After meeting with Russia’s foreign minister last month in Paris, Secretary of State John Kerry acknowledged “that the United States and Russia have had our differences over Ukraine.” But he stressed that “our goal today together was to try to deepen our ability to be able to work together, to work with Russia where we can.”

Putin is telegraphing in almost every possible way that he does not want to be a partner — from his rhetoric (“the bear will not even bother to ask permission”), to the submarine he dispatches to Sweden’s waters, to the Estonian intelligence agent his forces kidnap, to the war planes buzzing NATO coastlines.

But the Obama administration continues to beseech his help in Syria and North Korea, against ISIS and, most of all, with Iran. Ukraine is less of a priority.

Each successive Putin outrage takes Western leaders aback: the seizure of Crimea, the brazen insouciance when a jetliner is shot down, the breaking of his word not to recognize the separatists’ “election,” now the soldiers and weaponry pouring across the border in defiance of his promised cease-fire. These actions are not rational, from a Western point of view; they isolate Russia further; they will hurt the Russian economy.

But Putin does not share America’s view of what is rational.

Gen. Breedlove believes the Russian leader is sending forces into Ukraine to mold his enclave into “a more contiguous, more whole and capable pocket of land in order to then hold on to it long-term.”

And then? Putin presumably does not want war but he understands as well as the general that, as Breedlove also said, “NATO’s current readiness does not necessarily translate into quick responsiveness.”

Fred Hiatt is The Washington Post’s editorial page editor.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.