Obama Knows How To Win with Putin
Published in Gazeta Wyborcza
(Poland) on 28 March 2014
by Mariusz Zawadzki (link to original)
(Poland) on 28 March 2014
by Mariusz Zawadzki (link to original)
Translated from
by Jean-Jacques Granas.
Edited by Bora Mici.
Let’s cheer on the Americans, so that they choose someone as reasonable as Obama as their next president.
The Republican Mitt Romney — former Massachusetts governor and Obama’s rival during the last presidential elections — maintained during the electoral campaign that "Russia is America’s number one geopolitical foe." During the televised debates between the two candidates, he was mocked for this view. "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back," the president said, "Governor Romney ... the Cold War’s been over for twenty years!"
Obama claimed then that the greatest threat to America was still terrorism. After the debate, The New York Times wrote that Romney’s comments "display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender."
In the last few days, Romney has on several occasions appeared on various talk shows, and in each he delivered the same message: "I told you so. Obama’s naivety knows no limits!"
***
Strangely enough, the president has not changed his mind and stubbornly continues to claim that he was right during the debate. Even if the "1980s are calling," he consistently and deliberately fails to pick up the phone.
"I don’t think that a Cold War geopolitical chess game is being played out in Ukraine between Russia and America. My interest is seeing the Ukrainian people be able to determine their own destiny," he said in February, when crowds in the streets in Kiev were demanding that Yanukovych step down.
During a press conference last Tuesday at The Hague, Obama stated that Russia was not America’s enemy, but "a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength, but out of weakness. Russia’s actions are a problem [but] don’t pose the number-one national security threat to the United States. I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan."
Many others have said before him that Putin’s aggression was a sign of weakness. The Russian president wanted to keep Ukraine within his sphere of influence, and that’s why he offered it $20 billion in the form of loans and reductions in natural gas prices for the next few years. When this bribe failed to work, Putin had to do something to turn a stinging defeat into a propaganda victory — so he took Crimea.
On Wednesday, in his most important speech in Europe, at Brussels’ Fine Arts Academy, Obama said that "this is not another Cold War that we’re entering into. After all, unlike the Soviet Union, Russia leads no bloc of nations, no global ideology. The United States and NATO do not seek any conflict with Russia."
Since the serious deterioration of relations between Washington and Moscow last year, Obama has consistently disregarded Russia and played down its importance in the world. Last summer, he became the first U.S. president to cancel a meeting with a Russian or Soviet leader. "The differences are so great that there’s nothing to talk about," as the White House spokesman explained.
As for Obama, he said to journalists:
"I don't have a bad personal relationship with Putin .... I know the press likes to focus on body language and he’s got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom. But the truth is that when we're in conversations together, oftentimes it's very productive." Unfortunately, "when President Putin ... came back into power I think we saw more rhetoric on the Russian side ... of the old stereotypes about the Cold War ... And I've encouraged Mr. Putin to think forward as opposed to backward on those issues — with mixed success."
***
From our Polish perspective, such a disregard for Russia and Putin seems highly nonchalant, but it should be borne in mind that Obama has a totally different perspective — that of the leader of a superpower. He knows that territorially vast Russia has exactly the same gross domestic product as territorially modest Italy — with a GDP eight times smaller than that of the United States. Moreover, following many prosperous years from rising energy prices, Putin’s economic model is beginning to stutter — at the moment, Russia’s economy is growing at the paltry rate of 1.3 percent annually.
In the last few years, the U.S. has spent seven times more than Russia on average. Money shows the real rapport de force. If a conventional conflict — i.e., without the use of nuclear weapons — were to break out on account of Crimea, Russia’s army would be smashed to pieces.
Admittedly, the Americans failed to overcome the partisans in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in classic "interstate" confrontations, their firepower is incredible. During the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, only about 200 Americans were killed, compared to 20,000 to 30,000 Iraqi soldiers. During the second Persian Gulf War in 2003 — i.e., during conquest operations, before partisan operations began — 133 Americans were killed, 33 Britons, and from 10,000 to 30,000 Iraqi soldiers.
For each dead American, 100 enemy soldiers were killed. Probably, no army in history has enjoyed such superiority. Of course, the proportions of losses in a war with Russia would be less shocking, but probably no one in his right mind has any doubts that America’s victory would be crushing.
***
During the second week of March, as "unidentified soldiers in uniforms without insignias" were roaming about Crimea and Putin was being compared to Hitler in Poland and in other Central European countries — where those events evoke frightening memories of the Anschluss of Austria and seizure of the Czech Sudetenland — the U.S. president flew to Florida to play golf. It was standard "no drama Obama," as the Americans say.
Europeans have long reproached him for his coolness and indifference. Five years ago, when the first black president enchanted America and the world, enthusiastic crowds greeted him in Berlin, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for good looks alone in Oslo and he beat all popularity rankings in Western Europe. Unfortunately, the American bridegroom turned out to be an ingrate. He didn’t write love letters to Paris, he didn’t call Brussels, he didn’t send flowers to Berlin. He didn’t show up at the spring 2010 summit in Madrid, where the European Union celebrated the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. American diplomats stated that "EU summits are in large measure a waste of time," and Obama had more important matters to attend to.
Then, along with his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he declared that the future of America would be decided in the Pacific region, where the power of China and other lesser Asian tigers is rising, and where the world’s center of gravity is shifting.
On our side of the Atlantic, voices were heard saying that Obama — in contrast to all other U.S. presidents — does not feel any emotional connection with Europe. Why? Perhaps because he was born and spent his entire childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia, where his mother, an anthropologist, had a scholarship for a few years. The Cold War was over by the time he became active in serious politics, and this may be why he fails to understand the threat coming from Russia, or that America and Europe need each other, etc.
In Poland, we blamed him especially for the "reset," the new opening in relations between America and Russia. Obama cancelled the project of the anti-missile shield, which George W. Bush wanted to build here, and in exchange the Russians paid him back by supporting sanctions against Iran, by opening a transit route to Afghanistan for the U.S. military and by agreeing to further reduce nuclear arsenals.
But was any of it so bad in principle? After all, as a result of the reset, America has gained tangible benefits. The shield will be built in Poland anyway, only in a more sensible way. Russia won a historical opportunity to draw a line through the Cold War and to let go of ridiculous zero-sum games — i.e., games in which any gain for America entails a loss for Russia and vice versa.
Is it Obama’s fault that Putin chose not to take advantage of such a reasonable offer, which would have benefited the entire world? Where is his alleged naivety? Either way, the offer was worth making!
***
Last Wednesday, "no drama Obama" delivered a speech at the Brussels Academy of Fine Arts. He saw to it that the majority of the listeners present would be young people and said exactly what needed to be said.
He did not concoct dark visions, he did not talk of a sinister power threatening Europe as Germany had, and he did not call for a great mobilization in the West. He spoke mainly of values that we share, and of a belligerent "local power" which doesn't share them.
"I believe that over the long haul, as nations that are free, as free people, the future is ours. I believe this not because I’m naïve, and I believe this not because of the strength of our arms or the size of our economies, I believe this because these ideals that we affirm are true; these ideals are universal.
"Yes, we believe in democracy — with elections that are free and fair, and independent judiciaries and opposition parties, civil society and uncensored information ... Yes, we believe in open economies based on free markets and innovation, and individual initiative ... And, yes, we believe ... that every person is created equal, no matter who you are, or what you look like, or who you love, or where you come from ... That’s what makes us strong ... The ideals that unite us matter equally to the young people of Boston or Brussels, or Jakarta or Nairobi, or Krakow or Kiev."
In America’s name, he made a strong and unequivocal declaration with regard to its NATO allies:
"What we will do — always — is uphold our solemn obligation, our Article 5 duty to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our allies. And in that promise we will never waver; NATO nations never stand alone."
One more time, he extended a hand to Russia:
"Make no mistake: Neither the United States, nor Europe has any interest in controlling Ukraine. We have sent no troops there. What we want is for the Ukrainian people to make their own decisions, just like other free people around the world. ... So America, and the world and Europe, has an interest in a strong and responsible Russia, not a weak one. We want the Russian people to live in security, prosperity and dignity like everyone else — proud of their own history. But that does not mean that Russia can run roughshod over its neighbors."
Unfortunately, it would seem that such declarations are made in vain. According to the current poll conducted by the independent Yuri Levada Analytical Center, 80 percent of Russians have a positive view of President Putin, and 60 percent think "The country is going in the right direction." But does this mean that Obama should not extend a hand to the Russians in the name of the West, that instead he should declare that we condemn them and wish to have nothing to do with them?
***
Perhaps then, "no drama Obama" is right? Instead of sounding the alarm and scaring ourselves with a new Hitler, let’s just carry on. Let’s remember the values we share with America. Let’s remember that the Trans-Atlantic Alliance needs to be beneficial for both sides, and not only stand for America defending Europe. This, unfortunately, means that European countries need to increase their expenditures on defense. Incidentally, Washington has noticed that they are relatively high in Poland, and we have been recognized for this.
Let’s not demonize the Russian threat — after all, Putin assaulted a country that is very weak and immersed in revolutionary chaos. At the same time, let’s make sure this aggression does not go unpunished. The sanctions announced by the U.S. are a promising beginning, but further ones are necessary. We should, however, apply the punishment with a cool head, without emotions. And let’s not kid ourselves that Ukraine will recover Crimea. Instead, let’s set a goal — to discourage Putin from any further annexations. At the same time, let’s show the Russians that they have an alternative — an opening to the west beneficial to both sides.
Let’s also help Ukraine, but not because "we have a common foe," but because we have values in common. The conditions for successive loans should include authentic reforms and ridding the Ukrainian system of corruption. If this isn't done, then sorry, but Western assistance should be suspended.
Let’s adopt, at last, the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. Even though the world is becoming multipolar, America and the EU share almost half of world trade. The stronger their economic ties, the stronger their military alliance will be.
Finally, lets cheer on the Americans, so that they choose someone as reasonable as Obama as their next president. He won’t need to demonstrate his love for us on a daily basis; it will be enough to know that we can depend on him.
The Republican Mitt Romney — former Massachusetts governor and Obama’s rival during the last presidential elections — maintained during the electoral campaign that "Russia is America’s number one geopolitical foe." During the televised debates between the two candidates, he was mocked for this view. "The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back," the president said, "Governor Romney ... the Cold War’s been over for twenty years!"
Obama claimed then that the greatest threat to America was still terrorism. After the debate, The New York Times wrote that Romney’s comments "display either a shocking lack of knowledge about international affairs or just craven politics. Either way, they are reckless and unworthy of a major presidential contender."
In the last few days, Romney has on several occasions appeared on various talk shows, and in each he delivered the same message: "I told you so. Obama’s naivety knows no limits!"
***
Strangely enough, the president has not changed his mind and stubbornly continues to claim that he was right during the debate. Even if the "1980s are calling," he consistently and deliberately fails to pick up the phone.
"I don’t think that a Cold War geopolitical chess game is being played out in Ukraine between Russia and America. My interest is seeing the Ukrainian people be able to determine their own destiny," he said in February, when crowds in the streets in Kiev were demanding that Yanukovych step down.
During a press conference last Tuesday at The Hague, Obama stated that Russia was not America’s enemy, but "a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors not out of strength, but out of weakness. Russia’s actions are a problem [but] don’t pose the number-one national security threat to the United States. I continue to be much more concerned when it comes to our security with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan."
Many others have said before him that Putin’s aggression was a sign of weakness. The Russian president wanted to keep Ukraine within his sphere of influence, and that’s why he offered it $20 billion in the form of loans and reductions in natural gas prices for the next few years. When this bribe failed to work, Putin had to do something to turn a stinging defeat into a propaganda victory — so he took Crimea.
On Wednesday, in his most important speech in Europe, at Brussels’ Fine Arts Academy, Obama said that "this is not another Cold War that we’re entering into. After all, unlike the Soviet Union, Russia leads no bloc of nations, no global ideology. The United States and NATO do not seek any conflict with Russia."
Since the serious deterioration of relations between Washington and Moscow last year, Obama has consistently disregarded Russia and played down its importance in the world. Last summer, he became the first U.S. president to cancel a meeting with a Russian or Soviet leader. "The differences are so great that there’s nothing to talk about," as the White House spokesman explained.
As for Obama, he said to journalists:
"I don't have a bad personal relationship with Putin .... I know the press likes to focus on body language and he’s got that kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the classroom. But the truth is that when we're in conversations together, oftentimes it's very productive." Unfortunately, "when President Putin ... came back into power I think we saw more rhetoric on the Russian side ... of the old stereotypes about the Cold War ... And I've encouraged Mr. Putin to think forward as opposed to backward on those issues — with mixed success."
***
From our Polish perspective, such a disregard for Russia and Putin seems highly nonchalant, but it should be borne in mind that Obama has a totally different perspective — that of the leader of a superpower. He knows that territorially vast Russia has exactly the same gross domestic product as territorially modest Italy — with a GDP eight times smaller than that of the United States. Moreover, following many prosperous years from rising energy prices, Putin’s economic model is beginning to stutter — at the moment, Russia’s economy is growing at the paltry rate of 1.3 percent annually.
In the last few years, the U.S. has spent seven times more than Russia on average. Money shows the real rapport de force. If a conventional conflict — i.e., without the use of nuclear weapons — were to break out on account of Crimea, Russia’s army would be smashed to pieces.
Admittedly, the Americans failed to overcome the partisans in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in classic "interstate" confrontations, their firepower is incredible. During the first Persian Gulf War in 1991, only about 200 Americans were killed, compared to 20,000 to 30,000 Iraqi soldiers. During the second Persian Gulf War in 2003 — i.e., during conquest operations, before partisan operations began — 133 Americans were killed, 33 Britons, and from 10,000 to 30,000 Iraqi soldiers.
For each dead American, 100 enemy soldiers were killed. Probably, no army in history has enjoyed such superiority. Of course, the proportions of losses in a war with Russia would be less shocking, but probably no one in his right mind has any doubts that America’s victory would be crushing.
***
During the second week of March, as "unidentified soldiers in uniforms without insignias" were roaming about Crimea and Putin was being compared to Hitler in Poland and in other Central European countries — where those events evoke frightening memories of the Anschluss of Austria and seizure of the Czech Sudetenland — the U.S. president flew to Florida to play golf. It was standard "no drama Obama," as the Americans say.
Europeans have long reproached him for his coolness and indifference. Five years ago, when the first black president enchanted America and the world, enthusiastic crowds greeted him in Berlin, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for good looks alone in Oslo and he beat all popularity rankings in Western Europe. Unfortunately, the American bridegroom turned out to be an ingrate. He didn’t write love letters to Paris, he didn’t call Brussels, he didn’t send flowers to Berlin. He didn’t show up at the spring 2010 summit in Madrid, where the European Union celebrated the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty. American diplomats stated that "EU summits are in large measure a waste of time," and Obama had more important matters to attend to.
Then, along with his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he declared that the future of America would be decided in the Pacific region, where the power of China and other lesser Asian tigers is rising, and where the world’s center of gravity is shifting.
On our side of the Atlantic, voices were heard saying that Obama — in contrast to all other U.S. presidents — does not feel any emotional connection with Europe. Why? Perhaps because he was born and spent his entire childhood in Hawaii and Indonesia, where his mother, an anthropologist, had a scholarship for a few years. The Cold War was over by the time he became active in serious politics, and this may be why he fails to understand the threat coming from Russia, or that America and Europe need each other, etc.
In Poland, we blamed him especially for the "reset," the new opening in relations between America and Russia. Obama cancelled the project of the anti-missile shield, which George W. Bush wanted to build here, and in exchange the Russians paid him back by supporting sanctions against Iran, by opening a transit route to Afghanistan for the U.S. military and by agreeing to further reduce nuclear arsenals.
But was any of it so bad in principle? After all, as a result of the reset, America has gained tangible benefits. The shield will be built in Poland anyway, only in a more sensible way. Russia won a historical opportunity to draw a line through the Cold War and to let go of ridiculous zero-sum games — i.e., games in which any gain for America entails a loss for Russia and vice versa.
Is it Obama’s fault that Putin chose not to take advantage of such a reasonable offer, which would have benefited the entire world? Where is his alleged naivety? Either way, the offer was worth making!
***
Last Wednesday, "no drama Obama" delivered a speech at the Brussels Academy of Fine Arts. He saw to it that the majority of the listeners present would be young people and said exactly what needed to be said.
He did not concoct dark visions, he did not talk of a sinister power threatening Europe as Germany had, and he did not call for a great mobilization in the West. He spoke mainly of values that we share, and of a belligerent "local power" which doesn't share them.
"I believe that over the long haul, as nations that are free, as free people, the future is ours. I believe this not because I’m naïve, and I believe this not because of the strength of our arms or the size of our economies, I believe this because these ideals that we affirm are true; these ideals are universal.
"Yes, we believe in democracy — with elections that are free and fair, and independent judiciaries and opposition parties, civil society and uncensored information ... Yes, we believe in open economies based on free markets and innovation, and individual initiative ... And, yes, we believe ... that every person is created equal, no matter who you are, or what you look like, or who you love, or where you come from ... That’s what makes us strong ... The ideals that unite us matter equally to the young people of Boston or Brussels, or Jakarta or Nairobi, or Krakow or Kiev."
In America’s name, he made a strong and unequivocal declaration with regard to its NATO allies:
"What we will do — always — is uphold our solemn obligation, our Article 5 duty to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our allies. And in that promise we will never waver; NATO nations never stand alone."
One more time, he extended a hand to Russia:
"Make no mistake: Neither the United States, nor Europe has any interest in controlling Ukraine. We have sent no troops there. What we want is for the Ukrainian people to make their own decisions, just like other free people around the world. ... So America, and the world and Europe, has an interest in a strong and responsible Russia, not a weak one. We want the Russian people to live in security, prosperity and dignity like everyone else — proud of their own history. But that does not mean that Russia can run roughshod over its neighbors."
Unfortunately, it would seem that such declarations are made in vain. According to the current poll conducted by the independent Yuri Levada Analytical Center, 80 percent of Russians have a positive view of President Putin, and 60 percent think "The country is going in the right direction." But does this mean that Obama should not extend a hand to the Russians in the name of the West, that instead he should declare that we condemn them and wish to have nothing to do with them?
***
Perhaps then, "no drama Obama" is right? Instead of sounding the alarm and scaring ourselves with a new Hitler, let’s just carry on. Let’s remember the values we share with America. Let’s remember that the Trans-Atlantic Alliance needs to be beneficial for both sides, and not only stand for America defending Europe. This, unfortunately, means that European countries need to increase their expenditures on defense. Incidentally, Washington has noticed that they are relatively high in Poland, and we have been recognized for this.
Let’s not demonize the Russian threat — after all, Putin assaulted a country that is very weak and immersed in revolutionary chaos. At the same time, let’s make sure this aggression does not go unpunished. The sanctions announced by the U.S. are a promising beginning, but further ones are necessary. We should, however, apply the punishment with a cool head, without emotions. And let’s not kid ourselves that Ukraine will recover Crimea. Instead, let’s set a goal — to discourage Putin from any further annexations. At the same time, let’s show the Russians that they have an alternative — an opening to the west beneficial to both sides.
Let’s also help Ukraine, but not because "we have a common foe," but because we have values in common. The conditions for successive loans should include authentic reforms and ridding the Ukrainian system of corruption. If this isn't done, then sorry, but Western assistance should be suspended.
Let’s adopt, at last, the Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement. Even though the world is becoming multipolar, America and the EU share almost half of world trade. The stronger their economic ties, the stronger their military alliance will be.
Finally, lets cheer on the Americans, so that they choose someone as reasonable as Obama as their next president. He won’t need to demonstrate his love for us on a daily basis; it will be enough to know that we can depend on him.