Obama Is Losing the (New) Cold War

The White House’s foreign policy is too cautious, and Vladimir Putin makes the most of it, from Ukraine to Syria, and Iran.

For the critics, Barack Obama’s policy toward Russia’s confrontations is a failure. In the last year, Vladimir Putin has always made the right moves, anticipating, or responding, to the moves of the U.S. president. The strategy of the White House, marked by prudence, ultimately appeared too shy, if not weak, in front of the decisive and (sometimes) aggressive actions of the Kremlin on all the playing fields where Moscow and Washington confronted each other: Syria, Iran and Ukraine.

For the Republicans, there is no doubt: The U.S. is losing the new Cold War against Russia. Putin is playing cat-and-mouse with Obama. He moves better and faster, and with greater clarity of purpose: not to lose political stature, but to recover some, and have even more in the region historically within Moscow’s orbit. The (new) grandeur of Russia is being (re)made through the antagonism with the United States, and Putin is nurturing it. Obama is trying to attenuate it, but he seems to always be lagging behind his adversary’s moves. Not only does he lose ground, but also credibility. Caution in this case looks like indecision.

Syria

The White House now claims that the threat to bomb the military structures of the Syrian regime was the reason why Bashar al-Assad dismantled his chemical arsenal. In reality, as everybody knows, the story is completely different. Obama was about to give the order to launch a ready and planned attack, but he changed his mind at the last minute, when he realized that the United Nations and American public opinion were opposed to new, bellicose American action. A forced step back, which Vladimir Putin’s moves also required.

At the United Nations, Moscow opposed decisively each and every resolution that could have allowed military action. Then, it sponsored as its own a proposal for a diplomatic solution — the elimination of the chemical weapons in exchange for stopping the attack — which in reality had been put forward by a hopeless John Kerry. Moscow’s “offer” of a way out became a real slap in the face by Putin to Obama. The Russia president succeeded with diplomacy, where Obama, the reluctant warrior, wanted to get to using missiles and bombs. A striking PR success for the Kremlin, but that was not it. Above all, in this way, Russia avoided the defeat of the only friendly Arab regime — a country that hosts the unique Russian naval base abroad and a big importer of its arms — and it reinforced its political influence in the Middle East.

Iran

Barack Obama is counting on the nuclear agreement signed in Geneva by the P5+1 to take away the threat of an atomic bomb from the ayatollahs. Republicans think that this way is too risky: The Iranians could use the agreement to win some time and reach their objectives. That is the reason why the more moderate ones would like Congress to agree on a new set of sanctions against Tehran, while the more radical ones think there is (will be) no other path to follow than the one often recommended by the Israeli government: Bomb all the Iranian nuclear sites.

Vladimir Putin wormed his way into this mess, and while Obama was acting with caution, he claimed his space. Now, Moscow and Tehran are much closer than in the past. They both support Assad’s regime, and both of them have the same strategic objective: to limit the American presence in the region. If they were competitors in the past in the energy field, now they have concluded a tactical alliance: Not long ago, they signed an “oil for food” agreement, which broke through the sanctions imposed by the United States. But above all, Moscow wants to sell arms and technology for (civil) nuclear development in Tehran. To seal this “friendship,” Putin could go to Iran for an official visit, oblivious of the cautious American attempts to isolate and weaken the regime of the ayatollahs.

Ukraine

Barack Obama exhorted Russia not to act recklessly in Ukraine. However, the answer was crystal clear: The occupation of the Crimean airports by armed men is the signal that Moscow has no intention of loosening its grip on the strategic peninsula. In fact, this is expected to add fuel to secessionist impulses. The White House can’t do much; Once again, it took too much time to react. Putin has the upper hand in the Ukraine game. According to some pundits, Russian intelligence misdirected Western intelligence, creating the impression that the showdown in Kiev wasn’t so close. The American and European reactions arrived far too late, and they were inadequate to handle a crisis that could lead to the division of the country.

The White House can now pressure the Kremlin, but it’s hard to think that Putin will change course. In reality, Obama’s weapons are blunt. He can only support the new government in Kiev with dollars. That money could strengthen the new regime but not prevent Moscow from exerting all its power in Ukraine and ultimately, snatching the Russian-speaking Crimea and its important naval bases.

Datagate

Even Edward Snowden is one of the weapons of this Cold War. The man who unveiled the secrets of the National Security Agency espionage and surveillance systems has been in Russia for months, hosted by Moscow authorities. For many people, it didn’t happen by chance that the young analyst made his revelations just after running away to Hong Kong and then heading to Russia, where he was granted asylum.

The Datagate scandal has caused a profound loss of image and political damage for Barack Obama. The tensions that flared up after the revelations that the U.S. was spying on not only its enemies, but also on its friends and allies alike, are not over yet. Offering hospitality and help to Edward Snowden, Vladimir Putin contributed (a lot) to delivering a blow to Obama’s America. It’s not wonder that soon after the outbreak of Datagate, hostilities between Washington and Moscow increased, so much so as to compel Obama to cancel a bilateral meeting with his Russian counterpart.

Beware of the New Isolationism

For the first time, Secretary of State John Kerry warned against the danger of a new American isolationism. “We are beginning to behave like a poor nation.” The declaration is rather unexpected. Not long ago, Kerry claimed the opposite. Even though he defended the action of his administration, even though he denied that the U.S. is retiring from zones of crisis in the world, the former 2004 White House candidate is now straightforward in saying that Americans think a lot about their jobs, economy and own interests, and they no longer manage to see the connection between these things and the role that the U.S. should play in the world.

John Kerry talked about the cuts imposed by the Department of State. Maybe he was also referring those of the Pentagon. A weaker diplomacy, a smaller army. From here, from the necessity to cut down on expenses, would stem the “new isolationism.” But maybe — and Kerry doesn’t say this — it also stems from the approach followed by the White House in matters of foreign policy. Cautious, prudent, and sometimes almost detached. As The Guardian pointed out, in his last State of Union address, Obama didn’t offer any strategic vision for the U.S. in the world. “The post-imperial presidency starts here,” wrote Simon Tisdall. Vladimir Putin got this point. That’s why he is scoring points, and he is ahead in the game of the “new Cold War.”