Savielly Tratakower, a Russian-born chess grandmaster, once quipped of the game, "The tactician must know what to do whenever something needs doing;the strategist must know what to do when nothing needs doing." The same might also be said about international relations. As such, I can't help but wonder which one Valdimir Putin is worse at; chess, or foreign affairs?
To be certain, Putin has attempted to portray himself as a strongman in Europe, while simultaneously projecting Russian strength around the globe. His bullying of neighbors as been greatly aided by the fact that western Europe remains stubbornly dependent on Russian energy supplies, and thus reluctant to hold Putin's feet to the fire (South Ossetia proved as much). Likewise, Russia's vast stockpile of soviet era weapons, coupled with more recent increases in its military spending, ensures that any armed conflict with the country would be costly, and thus unlikely. Putin understands this fact, and has repeatedly relied on it in his dealings/bullying with other nation-states.
In the U.S., conservatives have been quick to criticize the president for his weakness in handling the Crimea crisis -- you know, because of Benghazi.
Among those most critical of the president is nobody's favorite republican senator, and South Carolina's,Lindsey Graham:
It started with Benghazi. When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this type of aggression. #Ukraine
1:42 PM - 4 Mar 2014
Putin basically came to the conclusion after Benghazi, Syria, Egypt - everything Obama has been engaged in - he's a weak indecisive leader.
2:14 PM - 4 Mar 2014
And then there's John McCain. An ever-constant critic of the president's foreign policy, McCain has characterized the White House's response so far as "feckless" and has gone so far as to
imply his support for possible U.S. military intervention in Crimea (Thank God this man loss in 2008).
But let's be clear. Putin's actions in Crimea aren't a victory lap of a global tyrant. They are instead a desperate attempt by a bully who foresees his grasp on power weakening. Putin as admitted as much. His insistence that the United States and Europe were behind, what he describes as a "terrorist coup" in Kiev is evidence of as much. Loosing his sway in Ukraine would be a massive blow to Putin and the Russian Oligarchs. And that's exactly what is happening. Thus, in Obama, Putin doesn't see a weak president. On the contrary, he sees a global leader who got the better of Russia by stealing Ukraine from its grasp.
On the issue of Crimea, it is very understandable why Ukraine would be angry by Russia's actions. What Putin has done violates the most sacred international norms. He has in effect stolen land from the Ukrainian state, violated its sovereignty, and turned his back on generations of mutual friendship between the two states.
But Ukraine is a basket-case. It is one state with two-nations. There is the pro-European faction, largely located in Kiev and the west, and a large ethnic Russian population in Crimea and the west of the country. Ukrainian politics perfectly reflects these deep divisions. In 2010, former President Tymoshenko lost her re-election bid to newly deposed President Janukovych by fewer than a 1,000,000 votes. For reference purposes, Ukraine has a population of roughly 48 million, of which, some 2.5 million reside in Crimea. In Crimea, nearly 60 percent of the population is is ethnic Russian, and as a region, Crimea has historically supported Kremlin-backed candidates and political parties by margins exceeding 2-to-1. http://s3.amazonaws.com/...
For pro-European Ukrainians, Crimea is not unlike an Alabama or Mississippi for American Democrats. This is to say, that while the region isn't as important politically as say Texas, it is nonetheless, a reliable pro-Russian voting bloc. Loosing this political bloc only weakens Putin's influence in a democratic Ukraine, and makes further integration with the west all the easier.