Why Did Putin Do It: Part 1

Of course Putin hacked the Democrats. Of course he wanted Hillary Clinton to lose the election. Of course he wanted Donald Trump to get elected.

The obvious question that doesn’t seem to get much serious attention: Why?

The US intelligence report offers a glib response:

“…the Kremlin sought to advance its longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, the promotion of which Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as a threat to Russia and Putin’s regime.”

Let’s unpack that a bit. Why do they view it as a threat?

Mainstream US pundits spin it like this:

Putin and his cronies are paranoid. They think that the US is out to get them personally. That the US wants the Russian people to overthrow Putin’s regime. And, putting aside Putin, that the US wants to see a weaker Russia – or, better yet, a fragmented and disintegrating Russia.

Of course, these Russians are crazy. America has no such aspirations, the pundit quickly reassures the reader. Trust me.

Putin is a bully and wants to expand Russia’s influence, and the US is correctly trying to stop him. The US did not choose to confront Russia. Russia decided to compete with us. (If you buy that, you might ask: Then why shouldn’t we try to overthrow Putin? Sounds like a bad and dangerous guy.)

In sum, we are told Russia is run by a bunch of people who are mad, or at least irrational. They are obsessed with a threat that isn’t real. Or they are challenging a Western alliance, which is much more powerful than them, at great economic cost to themselves – just to try to gain more power.

The mainstream US media seems content with this narrative. You don’t hear it questioned. You don’t see US government officials being grilled by Congress under oath. “Sir, is our government trying to overthrow Putin?”

OK, sometimes you hear examples of what might have triggered Putin’s paranoia.

Secretary Clinton encouraged Moscow protesters in 2011 by dissing Russian parliamentary elections as rigged. And she kept up her anti-Kremlin rhetoric during the 2016 election campaign, calling for a “no-fly zone” in Syria. How do you make that work without shooting down Russian aircraft? She never explained.

While protesters marched in Moscow, a US-led NATO coalition bombed Libya to help overthrow Gaddafi. Hillary celebrated when the tyrant was dead with a knife up his ass. (Why would Putin see any parallels to himself here? Gee, these Russians are really paranoid.)

More recently, someone who clearly didn’t like Putin hacked a law firm’s files and released the Panama Papers. There were some embarrassing tidbits there – like, how Putin’s buddy, a musician, keeps $2 billion offshore. Cello players don’t have that kind of money, unless someone more powerful is standing behind them. Corrupt politicians from other countries were also exposed in that leak, but curiously there were no Americans among them. (Of course, it is totally unreasonable for Putin to suspect that the US government, or someone in league with it, did the hacking to try to make him look bad…)

So the vindictive Putin got pissed off (not to mention, scared) by all that and decided to damage Hillary. And might have even felt justified in doing so.

No shit, Sherlock! Obviously, none of the above helped. But these are all small pieces of a bigger puzzle.

Sometimes, the pundits offer a different theory. Forget whether Putin thinks America is plotting against him. It’s just that the things we stand for – freedom of speech, fair elections, gay rights – are a threat to his old-school dictatorship. He hates us for what we are, and views the expansion of our values throughout the globe as undermining his rotting regime.

No doubt, there is some of that going on. But throwing a rock at someone seems like an overreaction, if the only reason you did it was because you found their pink feather boa unsettling. Especially when the person wearing pink is a muscular dude twice your size. Why would Putin start a deadly struggle against America that could end very badly for him, if the only real threat is the “soft power” of America’s ideas?

Also, it’s not clear that America’s ideas, so disturbing to Putin, would disappear even after America got hit by an asteroid. Democracy was not invented by Americans, and will remain a powerful idea regardless of what happens to America. If the real threat is ideology, then the only way America’s demise could help Putin is by ensuring that a rebellion by freedom-loving Russians would not have a strong outside supporter. But the US would be crazy to try to support a rebellion inside Russia. Wouldn’t it?

The questions you never hear from American talking heads are:

What if Putin is correct?

What if certain American actions, willingly or not, seriously threaten his survival?

And even if it’s all made-up paranoia, is it good that the only person powerful enough to barbecue the United States within 20 minutes is thinking like this?

Is imposing more and more sanctions on Russia, and ratcheting up the volume of anti-Russian rhetoric, the best path forward with such a maniacal adversary?

What could happen if the current spiral of confrontation between the two countries continues to escalate?

Shouldn’t the US take a hard look in the mirror and consider changing its behavior?

Shouldn’t we at least try to understand what our Russian adversaries are thinking, and why?

I. The Russian Narrative.

The Russian propaganda machine is vast and complex. It employs many talented writers and speakers, some of whom seem truly passionate about their beliefs. Their web of conspiracy theories is fascinating. It may be mostly fantasy, but frankly it doesn’t even matter what you or I think. Unfortunately, what matters – and could endanger humanity’s survival – is what they think, and why. These people are Putin’s voice, as well as his collective brain.

So, whether or not you agree with them, it’s important to know what they say. Here is their vision, in a nutshell.

The West, led by the US, is in decline. The 2008 financial crisis exposed the weakness of the Western economic system. Epic printing of dollars by the Fed staved off collapse, but did not bring American jobs back, and in the long run is not sustainable. The staggering US national debt cannot be paid off without massive spending cuts and tax increases, so in the long run the US is heading for an economic collapse and a debt default. After that, the primacy of the US dollar as the world’s currency will be toast. And then, America’s ability to manipulate the global financial system will also evaporate.
Western liberal ideas are also in decline. The Arab Spring failed. Autocracies are back in vogue, as is isolationism and nationalism. Brexit and Trump show that the angry masses have rebelled against the liberal globalist elites.
Other, non-Western, powers are on the rise. China, and a while later India, will outgrow the US economically. Nuclear proliferation is making more countries exempt from US military intervention. The world is already multi-polar, whether Washington likes it or not.
Despite all these headwinds, the US and its Western allies are still trying to achieve a global hegemony. They almost got there in the 1990’s and 2000’s when they sought to encircle Russia with NATO expansion, and are still trying to get there. But this goal now seems further out of reach for the US.
Feeling its chance slipping away, the US may try to use its still-dominant military power and propaganda machine to “roll up” its enemies while it still can. If it succeeds, America could finally reach the promised land. If it does nothing, it will slowly fade into irrelevance, like the British Empire.
In order to achieve hegemony, the US must ultimately confront and defeat China. In the long run, China is its most dangerous competitor.
If Russia and China form an alliance, then the US can never win. A marriage of Chinese economic power and giant population with Russian natural resources and military technology would spell doom for American dreams of global hegemony.
As between China and Russia, the weakest link is Russia. The US leadership must have concluded that the best way to defeat, or at least slow down, China is by first destabilizing Russia and causing regime change in Moscow. This would prevent America’s nightmare of a Chinese-Russian alliance. If a pro-American government gets installed in the Kremlin, then China would be surrounded and deprived of its potential ally and supplier. A Russian revolution or civil war would also eliminate another dangerous rival, and obstacle, from America’s path.
Even if the US does not have such devious plans, the Russians say, it is obvious that the US is at least trying to contain Russia and slow down her growth. This is why the US has actively supported anti-Russian regimes in neighboring countries. By building a ring of hostile states around Russia’s western borders, the US hopes to stir up enough regional conflicts and instability to keep Russia busy in her own backyard, limiting her ability to project power elsewhere. This also creates a cordon sanitaire that drives a wedge between Russia and the EU, and blocks a Russian-German partnership — another long-time fear of the US.
Because the US is running out of time and money in the global power race, its efforts to undermine Russia have accelerated and become more aggressive. America is losing the game, and needs a miraculous “Hail Mary” touchdown pass to beat the clock and win.
The Ukrainian revolt in 2014 was orchestrated, or at least actively supported, by the US. It brought to power a pro-American puppet government in Kiev. America’s ambition was, and still is, to suck Ukraine into NATO and expel the Russian navy from Crimea.
Ukraine as a NATO member, especially with US military bases on its soil, was and remains unacceptable to Russia. A loss of Crimean bases would have eliminated Russia’s ability to project power in the Black Sea. A hostile Ukraine would weaken Russia’s ability to defend its airspace and make its nuclear arsenal more exposed to US missile defense systems. It would give America a new vicious ally with a population of 45 million, willing to fight a proxy war against Russia on America’s behalf. And maybe most scary to Putin, the huge land border between Russia and Ukraine could be used to ignite and support a rebellion inside Russia itself. With Ukraine protected by NATO, Russia would then be unable to attack the rebels’ safe haven and put out the fire. Even if no rebellion happens, Russia would have to spend enormous resources, forever, just to guard this newly hostile border.
Russia had to resist this catastrophic change in the regional status quo. That’s why she annexed Crimea and is supporting an anti-Kiev rebellion in the Donbas – basically, doing to Ukraine what the US was hoping to do to Russia. Now, Ukraine’s path to NATO is blocked, unless Russia is forced to retreat. And the US cannot force a nuclear-armed Russia to do that.
Western economic sanctions against Russia prove America’s commitment to hegemony. They are designed to weaken the Russian economy and stir up unrest in Russia. The US has no right to sanction Russia for merely protecting her sphere of influence. Fortunately, most non-Western countries – including heavy hitters like China, India and Brazil – did not join or support the sanctions. This also proves that the world is multi-polar and America’s ability to dominate other countries has weakened. In Europe, voices in favor of lifting the sanctions are growing, so even America’s allies are hedging their bets.
The US is conducting an information war against Russia. It is designed to delegitimize Putin, foment dissent in Russia, obfuscate America’s imperialist goals, and maintain hostility against Russia in other countries. Russia is forced to respond in kind and get her own message out to the public.
In sum, we are already in another Cold War, and Russia has no choice but to win this one, conclude the Russian talking heads. This time Russia must hold firm, or face an even worse collapse than what happened to the Soviet Union in 1991. The US has overreached, and the current status quo is unacceptable – let alone any further retreat. Russia will not withdraw from Crimea or Donbas; this would be a disastrous capitulation because it permits Ukraine to join NATO. The US is wrong to demand this outcome. Instead, the US must lift the sanctions and retreat from Russia’s backyard. The results of the 2014 Ukrainian revolt must be reversed, or at least mitigated by a peace treaty requiring Ukraine to stay neutral. Until all that happens, there can be no “business as usual” between Russia and the US.
The best defense is a good offense. To win this Cold War, Russia must do more than just sit back in a defensive posture. The US has more money and more allies right now, and will continue to nibble at the edges of Russia’s sphere of influence. They might try to start a rebellion in Belarus next, or in Central Asia. Meanwhile, the war in Ukraine will continue to sap Russia’s resources, while sanctions keep hurting Russia’s economy. Right now, the US has no downside from continuing its siege of Russia. The people getting killed are mostly Ukrainians, about whom America doesn’t care much, and the cost of sanctions is mostly borne by EU allies. In order to win – to get the US to retreat – Russia must take proactive steps to impose serious costs on the US, and force the US to the bargaining table.
This means, at a minimum, intervening overseas to stop any further advance of American power in places that matter to Russia. That’s why Russia is in Syria, propping up Assad and focused on defeating US-backed rebels. Her deployment there also sends a powerful message to the rest of the world: the US is not the world’s only policeman anymore and cannot topple hostile regimes without Russia’s consent.
An unstable world is bad for the US, and thus useful for Russia. Freezing the US global expansion is just the first step. To really get America’s attention, Russia can threaten to ruin something America already has. For example, peel away US allies or fracture the EU. (Putin is already playing footsie with Hungary, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey, Israel, Egypt, the Philippines, a maverick Libyan general, and far-right nationalists in France, Austria, and the Netherlands.) More broadly, sowing instability in weak spots where the US is not strongly entrenched can burden the US. Instead of passively letting the US start fires around her periphery, Russia should counter by making trouble in the rest of the world where US interests are present. A shaky world hurts America’s business and, if America chooses to engage, drains US resources and keeps the US military tied up far away from Russia.
The media and the internet are a battleground where Russia can hurt the US. Since the US and its allies are much more rich and powerful than Russia, the most efficient way to fight them is asymmetric warfare. “Information war” for people’s minds is a crucial component. The internet is one promising battleground, where Russia can compete cheaply, has strong expertise, and can cause great damage to US interests.

And that’s how we got to where we are today. This narrative may sound ridiculous to you, but it’s no laughing matter. Millions of Russians, including those in power, believe this stuff. And some of it is right.

II. The American Response.

The American political establishment has plenty of counter-points to all this. But typical US responses do little to put Russian minds at ease. Here is a hypothetical back-and-forth, if Obama debated Putin today.

Obama: The US is not plotting against Russia. The Ukrainian revolution was a spontaneous uprising of the Ukrainian people against a pro-Russian president. They wanted to leave Russia’s orbit and join a liberal democratic Europe. This is progress. It is the natural course of history, and pointless to resist. Putin’s autocracy and similar regimes are destined for the dustbin of history. And of course the US supports this progress, because it advances our way of life and makes the entire world a better place.

Putin: So you’re telling me I’m a dinosaur headed for extinction. That’s not a reassuring story for the dinosaur. I choose to resist. And all I ask you to do is not to encourage such “progress” in Russia’s backyard. Tell the Ukrainians: “Congratulations on your revolution but you need to make peace with your neighbor Russia. We will not defend you against Russia and will never invite you to join NATO. And you should stop all talk about expelling the Black Sea fleet from Sevastopol.” If you had said that in February 2014, Crimea might still be Ukrainian and thousands of Ukrainians would still be alive today.

And if you refuse to do that, it proves my theory that you are actively out to get me. You have a messianic vision of ridding the world of tyrants, and I am an obstacle in your way. You just admitted that you are not content to just stay where you are – you want to keep moving forward!

Obama: Ukraine is a sovereign country and can do what it chooses. Russia has no right to block Ukraine’s desire to join NATO.

Putin: Not when Russia’s security is at stake. And you would do the same. Cuba had a sovereign right to host Soviet missiles on its territory, but the US threatened nuclear war and blockade to force those missiles out. More recently, you invaded Yugoslavia and Iraq, half-way around the world from America. Last year, the US bombed seven countries. Enough with the sovereignty nonsense. The ugly reality is that big countries do what they want, when their geopolitical interests are in play. And if you are going to do it, we have to do it too.

Obama: The US has no moral right to abandon people who choose freedom and want to join our Western camp. America has to step in to protect small countries from being bullied by bigger ones. We are the world’s policeman, the indispensable nation. And if we stop policing, other nations will lose faith in the American model.

Putin: Bullshit. Your moral code seems pretty elastic in other cases. Israel occupied Palestine. Turkey is occupying parts of Cyprus and Iraq. Have you imposed sanctions on either of them? No, you are shipping arms to both of them. You only confront aggressors that you don’t like for some other, geopolitical reason.

Obama: Of course you are a different case. Russia is a strategic competitor and that’s why the US must oppose its efforts to expand. But again, we are not seeking to destroy you, we just need to contain you.

Putin: Ah, now we are getting somewhere more interesting. Competitor – in what? You just admitted that there is a competition. And then wouldn’t it be natural for you to seek to destroy us?

Even if containment is your only goal, that doesn’t sound very reassuring to Russia either. Every great nation seeks to grow. By trying to limit the growth of Russia’s power and economy, you are undermining Russia.

And finally, if your focus is defense, then I don’t know what offense is. You want to expand NATO by including Ukraine and Georgia. You want to overthrow Assad in Syria (and replace him with God knows what). On the other hand, Russia has just been trying to maintain status quo. You are the aggressor, and Russia is the one defending. It’s not like we invaded Canada, for Christ’s sake. You are in our backyard!

Obama: Actually, America would love to be friends with Russia. But only if Russia becomes democratic and shares our values of freedom and rule of law.

Putin: I see where this is going again. I need to leave office. No thanks, I saw what happened to Gaddafi and Milosevic. Why don’t you ask your friends the Saudi sheikhs to hold free elections? Because you don’t want their kingdom to collapse into mayhem, right? But you would love mayhem in Russia, like 1991 all over again. That’s the real reason you are pushing for democracy in Russia. You only enforce your moral values against your competitors, not against your allies.

And on and on it goes. I don’t know about you, but for me, the American moral arguments ring hollow and seem to leave out some key piece. And for most Russians they do too.

Especially for Putin and his gang. The punchline of the moral arguments is that they need to give up power. And that seems to validate their theory that the US would be just fine with seeing them hung from gallows, like Saddam. Peaceful transitions of power are rare in Russia. And, if Putin retired, could a new weak Russian government be pressured by the US to extradite him to The Hague for a war crimes trial? That’s why he will not give up his day job.

So, do you still think Putin is paranoid in believing that the US is plotting his demise?

The grim reality is that Russia will probably be ruled by a repressive regime for decades and decades longer. After Putin, there will be Putin 2.0. A democratic transition will require several generations to take root. Even a democratic Russia could be unstable and capable of relapse, like the Weimar Republic, for a long time. Does this mean that America must confront Russia for the rest of our lifetimes? Or can America accept Russia for what she is? Is compromise possible?