The best explanation of the Obama-Putin spitting match I’ve read is from Julia Joffe at The New Republic, first here and then here. The short summary is that the president has done the right thing in completely the wrong way.
The right thing:
And for all the Kremlin’s pouting, there’s also a consensus in Moscow that, well, there’s not much left to talk about. “Obviously, Obama just can’t come to Moscow with Snowden there, but they made clear they’re not totally shuttering the relationship,” says Fyodr Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs, a voice that, traditionally, is not far from the Kremlin’s line. “Okay, well now, the score is now 1-1, but the other problem is that the relationship has no content now. Even if Obama came to Moscow, it’s not really clear what they’d talk about.” Lukyanov, who wrote exactly this almost an entire month ago, elaborates: “No one is prepared to discuss a new agenda”—Asia, who gets what in the Arctic—”and the old one is totally exhausted.”
In other words, the Russians aren’t mad, really. They know, as the Americans know, that they’ve reached a dead end of sorts, a cul-de-sac. The question now is, how do they get out of it? And, then where do they go, and how? Given that both governments have other priorities at the moment, and that both have realized that they don’t really need each other, it seems the answers to those questions won’t become apparent for a while.
in the wrong way:
You can’t back Putin into a corner and leave him no options. If you are a world leader worth your salt, and have a good diplomatic team working for you, you would know that. You would also know that when dealing with thugs like Putin, you know that things like this are better handled quietly. Here’s the thing: Putin responds to shows of strength, but only if he has room to maneuver. You can’t publicly shame him into doing something, it’s not going to get a good response. Just like it would not get a good response out of Obama.
The Obama administration totally f*ed this up. I mean, totally. Soup to nuts. Remember the spy exchange in the summer of 2010? Ten Russian sleeper agents—which is not what Snowden is—were uncovered by the FBI in the U.S. Instead of kicking up a massive, public stink over it, the Kremlin and the White House arranged for their silent transfer to Russia in exchange for four people accused in Russia of spying for the U.S. Two planes landed on the tarmac in Vienna, ten people went one way, four people went the other way, the planes flew off, and that was it. That’s how this should have been done if the U.S. really wanted Snowden back.
What this woman is saying rings true to me.
Unless getting Snowden back had already been written off as impossible at this point. In which case humiliating Putin might be fun. As much fun as he just had tweaking us over Snowden.
The Russians don’t care? Aren’t humiliated? I doubt that. Because the message we sent is that Russia doesn’t matter much to us and bear in mind, however much Americans may be wallowing in declinism, the rest of the world still knows who matters.
The Cold War is over and Russia – despite Putin’s Mussolini routine – is a fading power we don’t really need to talk to very badly. They can defy us and we can dismiss them.
Michael,
You’re sounding a bit Laurence O’Donnell-like, in having complete confidence in a stance. In your case it deals with Putin and Russia being a secondary rated power as compared to the U.S. With O’Donnell, he was arguing with Joffe about knowing Russia has complete control over everything, dealing with Snowden. I personally don’t think anything is entirely ‘knowable,’ by anyone.
IMO, Russia, still very much matters, if not for anything else but their number of nukes. Russians are also a very determined people, known for their ruthlessness. That’s a combination to be cautiously concerned about, rather than to use so much dismissive bravado in saying “we don’t really need to talk to (this fading power) very badly”.
“Unless. . . In which case. . .might. . . doubt. . . ” The use of these words and phrases might cast doubt on your accusation that I have complete confidence.
For the record, I don’t believe (<—- note) I've ever had complete confidence about anything. Ever. In fact, were you to distill down the roughly 22,000 published pages of fiction I've written, one of the recurring themes is how do we know? How do we know what we think we know, how do we know what’s right, how do we know the effect of our action.
What’s my ongoing whine about economics? My belief that the system is too complex to be comprehended. In other words that we cannot know the effect of our actions. Doubt.
What’s confusing you is style: I express my uncertainties with great confidence.
I keep getting a “Last Crusade” treatment with this woman’s last name. “Jehovah, but spelled with an I.” I don’t know if it starts with a J or an I anymore.
I get the idea the whole sparring match between Putin and Obama over Snowden was political kabuki. As I/Joffe points out, if we really wanted him back the whole thing would’ve been a much quieter affair. I get the sense we were loud about it in response to Snowden’s loud self-outing.
What’s confusing you is style: I express my uncertainties with great confidence.
I don’t know why, but I burst out laughing when I read that last line of your’s. Ah, I guess that may be your saving grace for keeping any uncertainties under wrap, by expressing strength of conviction (aka confidence) via your writing skills.
One of these days I’ll have to pick up one of your books and see what you can do, on paper.
What I can do on paper is more than 150 books, starred reviews, New York Times bestseller list, millions of dollars, and a whole lot of people saying that I made them what they are today.