Even with front-page issues like the financial crisis, Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan facing the incoming president, he still had to find the time and the courage to deal with a certain nuclear-armed autocracy that controlled much of the world’s oil and gas. In my article I asked the new president to “make it clear he does not consider the people of Russia to be the enemy of the United States.” As in most authoritarian states, the Putin regime does not represent the interests of a majority of its citizens. (If it did, it wouldn’t have to be authoritarian to stay in power.) Kremlin propaganda works hard to present America as Russia’s adversary. With his fresh start, Obama had the opportunity to strike a blow against that image by speaking out against our dictatorial leader in Russia and making common cause with the people Putin was oppressing.
Of course there were complex issues around how Obama dealt with Russia’s official president, Dmitry Medvedev, and Russia’s real leader, Vladimir Putin. But the central choice was a straightforward one. Obama could treat them like fellow democratic leaders or he could be honest. He could take strength from the fact that he had received nearly 70 million votes while Medvedev had needed only one, that of Putin. Had Obama labeled the Putin dictatorship clearly and openly from the start he might have helped bring hope and change to an entirely different constituency: 140 million Russians.
The first international crisis Obama had to respond to actually came a few months before the election, when Russian and Russian-backed forces in the Georgian breakaway region of South Ossetia finally succeeded in provoking a shooting war with Georgia. Having prepared for this moment for months, Russian ships blockaded Georgian ports and Russian forces sped into Georgia and occupied several cities. It was far beyond the Kremlin’s claim that they were involved only in enforcing the peace and it looked like Russian forces might go all the way to the Georgian capital of Tbilisi.
The initial responses to the violence by the 2008 candidates on August 8 could not have demonstrated their differences more clearly. Obama condemned the violence and pleaded, “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint.” McCain: “Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.” After media fallout over Obama’s timid remarks and more evidence that Russia was the aggressor, Obama hastily issued another statement to upgrade his language and condemn Russia’s “aggressive action.”
The differences were dramatic and would only get bigger. As it appeared in Politico on August 9, “Obama’s statement put him in line with the White House, the European Union, NATO and a series of European powers, while McCain’s initial statement… put him more closely in line with the moral clarity and American exceptionalism projected by President Bush’s first term.”
Just two days later it was clear that McCain’s moral clarity had been accurate while Obama’s position was embarrassing no matter how “in line” it was with others. Putin issued similar statements calling for both sides to show restraint and cease hostilities while his troops raced into Georgia and provided cover for his South Ossetian allies to wipe out ethnic Georgians from the region. On August 11, both candidates issued longer statements. Obama’s was essentially an admission that he had gotten it wrong the first time, although the friendly media didn’t portray it that way. And even while he did pin the blame on Putin for the escalation, his conclusion was not about what America’s role should be, but Russia’s:
“Let me be clear: we seek a future of cooperative engagement with the Russian government, and friendship with the Russian people. We want Russia to play its rightful role as a great nation, but with that role comes the responsibility to act as a force for progress in this new century, not regression to the conflicts of the past. That is why the United States and the international community must speak out strongly against this aggression, and for peace and security.”
Incredible. And remember, this was the tougher statement he made after being bashed as soft on Russia for two days. Russia’s “rightful role as a great nation”? Putin was rolling tanks through a European country as Obama spoke in Hawaii about a KGB dictator acting as a force for progress.
John McCain had long been a staunch supporter of Georgia’s shift toward Western-leaning democracy during and after the Rose Revolution in 2003 and the election of US-educated reformer Mikheil Saakashvili to the presidency. The Republican nominee minced no words in his more extensive August 11 statement, embracing the opportunity to flex his foreign policy credentials and to use the conflict to expose Obama’s conciliatory approach toward foreign policy as naiveté. McCain did an excellent job putting Georgia into the big picture of why the United States should care about this tiny country in the Caucasus:
“The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a democratic Georgia. Russia is using violence against Georgia in part to intimidate other neighbors such as Ukraine for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values. As such, the fate of Georgia should be of grave concern to Americans and all people who welcome the end of a divided Europe and the independence of former Soviet Republics.”
McCain also correctly diagnosed the Russian invasion as a consequence of Western hesitancy: “NATO’s decision to withhold a membership action plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision.” McCain finished his statement powerfully: “We must remind Russia’s leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of the world. World history is often made in remote, obscure countries. It is being made in Georgia today. It is the responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure that history continues to be a record of humanity’s progress toward respecting the values and security of free people.”
Can anyone read those statements and not believe that the world would be a safer, more democratic place today had John McCain been elected three months later? Or doubt that Obama’s evident timidity encouraged Putin’s attack on Ukraine? Of course we have no way of knowing, but I would be willing to bet anything that in the universe where McCain is president, Putin does not invade Ukraine. McCain is often painted as a warmonger in the United States, but calls for friendship don’t deter someone like Vladimir Putin, they encourage him. It’s a tragedy that thousands of Ukrainians, as well as many Russians, are suffering today because the Obama administration failed to learn that lesson.
Obama also failed his first test in the “3:00 A.M. phone call” department as president when the citizens of the Islamic Republic of Iran erupted in protest in June 2009 and the “Green Revolution” participants risked their lives to defend their votes. It was a remarkable moment. Putin and the other members of the “axis of autocrats” were closely watching events in Iran and the Western response. They wanted to know if there would be penalties of any significance for the use of lethal force against nonviolent protestors. Surprisingly, European leaders showed unusual assertiveness in harshly condemning the Iran regime’s actions, while the initial response from the other side of the Atlantic was not encouraging.