Editor’s note: This commentary is by Maxwell King, who is the former editor of The Philadelphia Inquirer and current vice president of the board of The Vermont Journalism Trust, the umbrella organization for VTDigger.org.
Almost everyone, it sometimes seems, has been offering criticism — and doubts — about Barack Obama’s management of the current crisis with Russian President Vladimir Putin over Ukraine. Republicans, in particular, have blasted Obama as not tough enough to confront Putin. Some have actually sounded appreciative of Putin’s strongman, bullying persona. And even some Democrats have voiced doubts that Obama’s employment of economic and other sanctions against Russia represents a powerful enough deterrent to aggression.
Editorialists and columnists in publications around the world have been worrying over the question of whether Obama is as tough as Putin — or even as tough as Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who has been forceful in what she has said about Putin (questioning whether he is in touch with reality). The cover of the March 22 issue of The Economist shows a shirtless Putin astride a tank, riding over a sign that says, “STOP, or the West will put you on the naughty step.” In newspapers, magazines and websites, the same question has been engaged repeatedly: Is Barack Obama, who has been so much less aggressive with the U.S. military than his immediate predecessor, tough enough to face down Vladimir Putin?
But it is the wrong question.
The right question is: which of these two men, one so clearly focused backwards and the other facing forward, has the right strategy for today’s landscape of international conflict? Putin, the product of the KGB, seems to be oriented toward the Cold War past in his focus on using military might to somehow restore Russia’s power and influence in the world. And President Obama, rightly or wrongly, seems focused on a future in which economic power — and sanctions — may be more effectively determinative than weaponry.
First with Iran and now with Russia, Obama is betting that over time economic sanctions, and economic strength, can be most effective.
What is important here is that this is not a matter of toughness — who is more macho and aggressive. After all, Putin clearly wins that one. The important thing is: who is smarter? Is Barack Obama right that economic sanctions and economic pressure can be the new means through which to back up diplomacy? Is he advancing a new strategic paradigm by which the United States, and other countries, can rely less on military force and more on economic success — and such tools as sanctions — to move events, foes and allies in constructive ways?
Even though he has used force — in Afghanistan, in Libya, with Osama bin Laden — Obama has been more sparing of that tool than President George W. Bush. Instead, first with Iran and now with Russia, he is betting that over time economic sanctions, and economic strength, can be most effective. Obama, who came into office in the midst of the 2008 financial meltdown and had to immediately focus on economic issues, seems to be making a strategic bet that, in a globalized economy, it is money that matters most to most of the people. He is trying out a paradigm under which the U.S. can move its agenda forward through commerce and economics. If he is right, it could represent an advance far more consequential than its immediate effect on the Ukraine situation.
Putin, on the other hand, seems trapped in a paradigm of the past, trying to recapture Russia’s glory through the exercise of military power. Other old hawks may seem appreciative of Putin’s bully-boy version of strength. But what Putin completely misses is that, by turning over his own economy to corruption and cronyism, he has terribly weakened Russia. Putin’s country enjoys little international investment precisely because it lacks the structure, rule of law, and effective court system that underpin the successful economy of his nemesis, the United States.
Putin’s new ally, China, has certainly not missed this truth: China has effectively focused on economic growth as the avenue to international power.
Despite having had the courage to authorize the Navy Seal killing of bin Laden, Obama has never seemed terribly tough or macho, either in his international moves (note the Syrian conflict) or his domestic politics (how many times do you think FDR invited the Republicans over to the White House for lunch and dinner?). But he is smart, and he has sometimes proven to be effectively strategic in his thinking.
It is very unlikely that Putin will be successful at restoring the fortunes of Russia unless he is able to create a strong free-market economy, un-trammeled by the levels of corruption made famous under his rule. For his part, Barack Obama may well be laying one of the most important planks of his legacy in shifting the United States from such a complete emphasis on military might to the skillful use of economic power.
