The Putin Test

Flash forward to early next year. A new president of the United States is about to be sworn in. Vladimir Putin is planning an inauguration day test for him – perhaps another foray into Georgia, seizing all or part of the Ukraine, or just flying dangerously close to US ships at sea. There will be a test; count on it.

Western Europe will be worried about its winter gas supplies and continuing to practice historical amnesia. Eastern Europe will be braver because they remember better, but Eastern Europe is too weak to confront a resurgent Russia. China gains by staying on the sidelines.

What will the test be? It probably depends on who the next president is.

A danger in electing Barack Obama is that, even if he is steelier than he appears, even if he won't wait forever to build a coalition of weak partners, Putin is likely to proceed on the basis of PERCEIVED weakness. He is likely to test Obama much more severely than he is likely to test McCain. Then, even if Obama does react with proper speed and swiftness, Putin may have gone a step too far and the situation'll be more dangerous than if McCain had been elected.

Sure, Vlad shouldn't be picking our new president for us. But he's a huge factor in the world the next president will have to face. McCain's resume is good here. If he ever looked into Putin's eye, he didn't see the same thing George Bush did. He's been warning about a resurgent Russia and its ambitions for a long time. He didn't have to think about the proper reaction when Russia invaded Georgia; he wasn't dangerously nuanced in his response.

Now, some will say, what about Sarah Palin? Wouldn't Putin test her as dangerously as he'd test Obama? Probably, he would out of chauvinism if nothing else. But Palin's not at the top of the ticket. If something happens to McCain after an administration has been put together and begun to function, the temptations for mischief-making won't be as great as on inauguration day. Put another way, Putin won't shy away from testing Obama because Joe Biden is the understudy.

McCain told Bush we needed more force in Iraq almost from the beginning of the war; he didn't support Rumsfeld's attempt to win without inhaling too often. McCain was influential in convincing Bush, belatedly, that a surge was needed and would be effective. He supported the surge when it looked like political suicide to do so. Most importantly, it appears he was right. BTW, Biden and I made the same mistake: we thought Iraq couldn't be put together so it was time to partition it; he voted against the surge. Joe and I were wrong; McCain was right; that's what I want in a president.

 

Comments

[Barry Kelly]

Have you read the Rolling Stone cover story?

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

John McCain is pretty clearly a sociopath.

[Pete Warden]

I'm a bit late to the party, but I think your premise 'Foreign leaders think Obama would respond less aggressively than McCain' is wrong. He was the one who promised to strike Al Qaeda in Pakistan without giving their government a veto, and was widely derided by the republican establishment as naive. Now, of course, the administration is doing just that.

Obama is no Jimmy Carter, thank god, and I haven't seen any lack of steel in his approach to foreign policy. Even his prescient opposition to the invasion of Iraq was based on opposing dumb wars, not war in general.

[Barry Kelly]

Tom, I'm aware of the game theory dynamics.

I just dropped by to point out how Russia is indeed suffering from this:

http://www.reuters.com/article/usDollarRpt/idUSN1752725820080917

"Russian financial markets have lost nearly a third of their value, with losses in market capitalization of hundreds of billions of dollars [...] The Russian rouble has depreciated nearly 10 percent"

The war was a reflexive hit to their wallets. This isn't a worry long-term, and to be expected, to be honest.

[Tom Evslin]

Barry:

Actually, in the crazy world of nuclear stand-off and mutually assured distruction, having your opponent believe you're a hothead may not be a bad thing.

[Tom Evslin]

Richard:

I'm flattered by your comment and impressed by your open-mindedness.

[chao lam]

McCain didn't think we needed more forces *before* the war. In fact, he thought we would require less than 100,000 troops!

Asked if it wouldn't require 100,000 U.S. soldiers as occupation troops, McCain demurred. "Oh, no," he said. "I don't think so at all."

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-mccainiraq23mar23,0,7280469.story

So, much for good judgment! The only thing I would say in McCain's favor is that sometimes acting in a random and irrational fashion works. Folks can't predict what you'll do. And McCain has flipped flopped on almost every position. But only sometimes!

[Richard Bennett]

This is one of the most provocative posts on the election I've seen. I'm on the fence, leaning away from Palin, but you might just change my mind.

[Craig]

"McCain was influential in convincing Bush, belatedly, that a surge was needed and would be effective. He supported the surge when it looked like political suicide to do so. Most importantly, it appears he was right."

Right about what? The surge has done nothing except extend an unwinnable war out for more years. Totally ineffective as far as I can tell.

[Barry Kelly]

Also, the Russia thing is a storm in a teapot. Russia sees itself being surrounded, and it doesn't like it. It sees US encouraging breakaways in Slavic brother states (Kosovo/Serbia), and it sees the hypocrisy of the US sticking its nose in when it itself protects a russophilic breakaway from invasion.

Russia is a business masquerading as a government. War scares away the investors. It will self-correct.

[Barry Kelly]

I don't know about that. I think McCain is far weaker than Obama, because he's a hothead and thus easily manipulated. When provoked, you can rely on a predictable (over)reaction.

I don't know about you, but when I'm in a tense situation, a hothead is the last person I need.