The Washington Times: what Putin’s task is

“His views on conflicts are binary: one side wins, the other loses, there are no mutual victories. There are no “resets” built on mutual concessions. Conflicts cannot be resolved through diplomacy; it is only war by other means. He respects strength, but is disgusted by weakness and finds it provocative. As he once said, “the weak are beaten.”

Last week, Fraser Cameron, director of the Brussels-based EU-Russia Centre, asked in a column: “Is Russia prepared to play by international rules, especially regarding the integrity of borders in post-war Europe?” Clifford May thinks the answer is obvious. Cameron added: “In addition, Russia will have to recognize that every state has the right to control its own destiny, including deciding on EU membership.” I think Putin would answer: “Who will force Russia to admit this?” - writes the author.

May considers one of the “deep reasons” for this state of affairs to be “the breakdown of the liberal, rules-based world order.” He explains: “By the end of World War II, there were two great powers: the United States and the Soviet Union. Their competition was neither painless nor safe, but there were limits. Since neither side sought martyrdom, the prospect of mutually assured destruction served as a deterrent."

“When the Berlin Wall fell, the United States assumed the burden of global leadership. However, calls soon began to be heard from both left and right for America to abdicate this responsibility. President Obama has made this his policy. Since taking up his current post, he has begun to “lead behind the scenes,” relying on the “international community.” The problem is that such a community does not exist,” the author writes. — The UN Security Council includes Russia and China, states whose interests and values ​​are very different from the values ​​and interests of the multicultural, disarming, morally relativistic West. The UN General Assembly is dominated by tyrants and despots. We know for sure that history did not end with the end of the Cold War. And we know that Putin intends to make history in Eurasia, as well as in the Middle East.”

May quotes Brookings Institution fellow Robert Kagan, who worked as a speechwriter for the Secretary of State in Ronald Reagan's administration: “Revisionist great powers are never happy. Their sphere of influence is always small for them, disproportionate to their pride or growing security needs. To preserve a favorable world order, the United States must not allow its spheres of influence to be used as a pretext for aggression.”

“However, to achieve this,” May continues, “it is not enough just speeches in which this or that act of aggression from Russia, Syria, Iran or North Korea is declared “unacceptable”, and then accepted as if it were inevitable . The stronger America is militarily and economically, and the more convincing America's willingness to use this force is, the less often it will actually have to be done. Until this paradox is understood and implemented into politics, we can expect Putin to test the limits of what is permissible in dealing with the West on the ground and in the air, Iranian theocrats to test new centrifuges, North Korea to launch new missiles, and jihadists — post new shocking barbaric antics on YouTube.”