Obama Tries to Put Putin in His Place — Again

But the president’s words fall short when viewed against recent history.

Oxfam volunteers wearing caricature heads depicting (L-R) Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, British Prime Minister David Cameron, US President Barack Obama and Russia's President Vladimir Putin pose in golf clothing as part of their End Hunger campaign photocall on June 18, 2013 in Enniskillen, Northern Ireland.
National Journal
Major Garrett
March 25, 2014, 5:31 p.m.

THE HAG­UE, NETH­ER­LANDS — Mo­ments after de­flect­ing a ques­tion about his di­min­ished in­flu­ence on the world stage, Pres­id­ent Obama de­scribed Rus­sia as a “re­gion­al power” op­er­at­ing in Crimea out of weak­ness, not strength.

Not­ing Rus­sia’s long-stand­ing in­flu­ence in all of Ukraine, Obama said Rus­si­an Pres­id­ent Vladi­mir Putin’s il­leg­al an­nex­a­tion of Crimea “in­dic­ates less in­flu­ence, not more.”

I guess that’s why Ukraine’s de­fense min­is­ter resigned and Ukrain­i­an troops bugged out of Crimea, leav­ing it to Rus­si­an forces. This is the only “off ramp“ that mat­ters in Crimea. Ukraine and its rhet­or­ic­ally flor­id West­ern al­lies took it. Not Putin.

Even as the White House in­sists Crimea is not “lost” (Putin can find it without satel­lite im­agery, after all), the grudging lan­guage of con­ces­sion seeps from every cor­ridor of Ukrain­i­an talks here.

“It’s not a done deal in the sense that the in­ter­na­tion­al com­munity by and large isn’t re­cog­niz­ing the an­nex­a­tion of Crimea,” Obama said, be­fore ac­know­ledging the “facts on the ground” favored Rus­sia. “It would be dis­hon­est to say there is a simple solu­tion to resolv­ing what has already taken place in Crimea.”

Obama and European lead­ers are rattled and re­sent­ful, thun­der­struck that the wispy bonds of in­ter­na­tion­al “norms” could be so eas­ily shred­ded. Fear­ful of the pre­ced­ent they ap­pear in­cap­able of re­vers­ing, and des­per­ate to lim­it Putin’s am­bi­tions to Crimea, the G-7 na­tions have ef­fect­ively con­ceded Crimea. They threatened “sec­tor­al sanc­tions” if Putin fur­ther bull­dozed in­ter­na­tion­al law by gob­bling up more of Ukraine or plow­ing in­to Mol­dova. Weak or strong, Putin en­forces the new Crimean status quo. All he’s lost is Rus­sia’s G-8 mem­ber­ship pin and de­coder ring.

The re­lent­less fo­cus on Putin’s land grab and the West’s gradu­al­ist eco­nom­ic re­sponse misses some rel­ev­ant his­tory. Some ana­lysts con­tend the seeds were first planted when Rus­sia at­tacked Geor­gia in 2008 and the West — led by a war-de­pleted, lame-duck George W. Bush — didn’t even im­pose low-level sanc­tions and visa bans in play now. That signaled ac­qui­es­cence to ag­gres­sion and prob­ably whetted Putin’s ap­pet­ite.

But I would ar­gue Putin drew more con­clu­sions about the West’s take on his un­dis­guised ter­rit­ori­al am­bi­tions in 2010. That’s when France agreed “in prin­ciple” to sell Rus­sia four Mis­tral class am­phi­bi­ous land­ing ships. The $1.7 bil­lion arms deal, the first between Europe and Rus­sia since 1945, prom­ised Rus­sia four ves­sels that would re­vive its aging Black Sea fleet and trans­form its abil­ity to pro­ject power there and the Balt­ics. The ves­sels are like small air­craft car­ri­ers, able to move 16 heli­copters, four land­ing barges, 70 vehicles (in­clud­ing ar­mored tanks), and a bat­talion of sol­diers. It’s worth not­ing that when this sale was first hatched, Rus­sia’s new mil­it­ary doc­trine iden­ti­fied NATO as Rus­sia’s top stra­tegic threat.

The deal was form­al­ized in 2011. Com­ments from the in­ter­ested parties are, well, il­lu­min­at­ing.

First, then-French Pres­id­ent Nic­olas Sarkozy: “The Cold War is fin­ished. We have to con­sider Rus­sia a friend and have to work with her to build a vast area of se­cur­ity and prosper­ity to­geth­er.”

Then Putin: “I can as­sure you that if we pur­chase this arm­a­ment we will use it wherever deemed ne­ces­sary.”

The Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion, through then-De­fense Sec­ret­ary Robert Gates, lodged a for­mu­laic protest. But NATO didn’t make a fuss, and a new world or­der of European arms sales to Rus­sia — even in light of Putin’s mil­it­ar­ism in Geor­gia — was born. More Europe-Rus­si­an arms deals fol­lowed. James Co­r­um, a well-traveled Amer­ic­an mil­it­ary his­tor­i­an, com­pared the arms deal to European at­tempts to ap­pease Ad­olf Hitler from 1937 to 1939, ig­nor­ing men­ace at the con­tin­ent’s per­il.

Co­r­um wrote: “Yet, as ap­pallingly in­com­pet­ent as the West­ern lead­ers such as [Bri­tain’s Neville] Cham­ber­lain and [France’s Ed­ou­ard] Daladi­er were when con­fron­ted with a threat to demo­crat­ic na­tions — at least they were not so stu­pid as to sell Nazi Ger­many their latest weapons in or­der to guar­an­tee Ger­man suc­cess.”

Even after Putin moved in­to Crimea, France’s first in­clin­a­tion was to up­hold the Mis­tral deal, call­ing any move to kill it an “ex­treme meas­ure“ best avoided. De­fense Min­is­ter Jean-Yves Le Dri­an im­plaus­ibly de­scribed the war­ships as little more than freight­ers. “We will de­liv­er ci­vil­ian hulls. The cli­ent can then arm the two ships. We will de­liv­er, un­der the signed con­tract, a pack­age which is un­armed.”

How com­fort­ing this must have been to Ukraine’s trans­ition­al gov­ern­ment and nervous lead­ers in the Balt­ics and Mol­dova. By the way, the first French-made ves­sel, the Vla­divos­tok, is already un­der­go­ing sea tri­als. The second ship, ap­pro­pri­ately named the Sevastopol, is due for de­liv­ery at the end of 2015. The Mis­tral deal could be re­voked if — and only if — Rus­sia flexes more mil­it­ary muscle in the re­gion. So, if Rus­sia only vi­ol­ates in­ter­na­tion­al law in Crimea it can keep its con­tract for four am­phi­bi­ous ves­sels, thereby shift­ing nav­al power through the re­gion in its fa­vor for dec­ades. Talk about play­ing the long game.

Obama’s curdled dis­dain for Putin not­with­stand­ing, this doesn’t sound like a po­s­i­tion of weak­ness or di­min­ished in­flu­ence. But it does sound like the West is now sud­denly un­com­fort­able with the cold real­it­ies spawned by the arms deals it wrought.

The au­thor is Na­tion­al Journ­al cor­res­pond­ent-at-large and chief White House cor­res­pond­ent for CBS News. He is also a dis­tin­guished fel­low at the George Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity School of Me­dia and Pub­lic Af­fairs.

{{ BIZOBJ (video: 4843) }}

What We're Following See More »
TAKING A LONG VIEW TO SOUTHERN STATES
In Dropout Speech, Santorum Endorses Rubio
3 days ago
THE DETAILS

As expected after earlier reports on Wednesday, Rick Santorum ended his presidential bid. But less expected: he threw his support to Marco Rubio. After noting he spoke with Rubio the day before for an hour, he said, “Someone who has a real understanding of the threat of ISIS, real understanding of the threat of fundamentalist Islam, and has experience, one of the things I wanted was someone who has experience in this area, and that’s why we decided to support Marco Rubio.” It doesn’t figure to help Rubio much in New Hampshire, but the Santorum nod could pay dividends down the road in southern states.

Source:
‘PITTING PEOPLE AGAINST EACH OTHER’
Rubio, Trump Question Obama’s Mosque Visit
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

President Obama’s decision to visit a mosque in Baltimore today was never going to be completely uncontroversial. And Donald Trump and Marco Rubio proved it. “Maybe he feels comfortable there,” Trump told interviewer Greta van Susteren on Fox News. “There are a lot of places he can go, and he chose a mosque.” And in New Hampshire, Rubio said of Obama, “Always pitting people against each other. Always. Look at today – he gave a speech at a mosque. Oh, you know, basically implying that America is discriminating against Muslims.”

Source:
THE TIME IS NOW, TED
Cruz Must Max Out on Evangelical Support through Early March
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

For Ted Cruz, a strong showing in New Hampshire would be nice, but not necessary. That’s because evangelical voters only make up 21% of the Granite State’s population. “But from the February 20 South Carolina primary through March 15, there are nine states (South Carolina, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Kentucky, Mississippi, and North Carolina) with an estimated white-Evangelical percentage of the GOP electorate over 60 percent, and another four (Texas, Kansas, Louisiana, and Missouri) that come in over 50 percent.” But after that, he better be in the catbird’s seat, because only four smaller states remain with evangelical voter majorities.

Source:
CHRISTIE, BUSH TRYING TO TAKE HIM DOWN
Rubio Now Winning the ‘Endorsement Primary’
3 days ago
WHY WE CARE

Since his strong third-place finish in Iowa, Marco Rubio has won endorsement by two sitting senators and two congressmen, putting him in the lead for the first time of FiveThirtyEight‘s Endorsement Tracker. “Some politicians had put early support behind Jeb Bush — he had led [their] list since August — but since January the only new endorsement he has received was from former presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham.” Meanwhile, the New York Times reports that fueled by resentment, “members of the Bush and Christie campaigns have communicated about their mutual desire to halt … Rubio’s rise in the polls.”

Source:
7 REPUBLICANS ON STAGE
Carly Fiorina Will Not Be Allowed to Debate on Saturday
2 days ago
THE LATEST

ABC News has announced the criteria for Saturday’s Republican debate, and that means Carly Fiorina won’t be a part of it. The network is demanding candidates have “a top-three finish in Iowa, a top-six standing in an average of recent New Hampshire polls or a top-six placement in national polls in order for candidates to qualify.” And there will be no “happy hour” undercard debate this time. “So that means no Fiorina vs. Jim Gilmore showdown earlier in the evening for the most ardent of campaign 2016 junkies.

Source:
×