The Atlantic: Punishing Putin just makes him stronger

15:40, 30 August 2018
Politics
805 0
Photo from UNIAN

For Vladimir Putin, winter is coming. The "Crimea effect" that saw his approval ratings rocket after he annexed a part of neighboring Ukraine in 2014 is certainly over, and the popularity boost he expected after Russia hosted the World Cup never really materialized.

Instead, Russian politics are currently dominated by a slate of controversial pension reforms introduced by Putin's government in response to a looming budget crisis, Mark Galeotti, a senior non-resident fellow at the Institute of International Relations Prague, wrote in an article for The Atlantic.

The proposed change, which would raise the retirement age from 60 to 65 for men and from 55 to 63 for women, was deeply unpopular. In some parts of the country, average life expectancy is below the new pension ages. According to the Levada Center, Russia's most reliable polling agency, 89 percent of Russians oppose the reform and only 8 percent support it. More than three million people signed a petition against the measures, as tens of thousands have joined protests organized by the usually torpid Communist Party in the past month.

After staying quiet on the reform for weeks, Putin, in a singularly unconvincing response, blamed his government, and said he himself wasn't happy with the measures. But no one seems to be buying it. Even state polling agency VTsIOM said public trust in him has plummeted to 37 percent. The problem for Putin is that he is caught in a trap largely of his own making. His failure to diversify the economy in the times of plenty during the 2000s and his neglect of the rule of law – crucial for both foreign investment and domestic entrepreneurship – as well as the impact of his adventurism abroad all leave Russia poorly positioned to respond to new pressures.

Read alsoUkraine's envoy says media misinterpreted comment on possible purchase of anti-aircraft systems from U.S.

Putin may make some concessions on the pensions issue. But backing down too far will have serious fiscal consequences, as a smaller proportion of workers support a growing share of pensioners. Will he cut defense spending further, or take a chance on reducing subsidies to restive Chechnya? Impose a windfall tax on big business? The reality, which he surely knows, is that there is no "spare money" and the desperate quest for solutions is only opening divisions in the regime.

From Washington's perspective, now seems like the right time to pressure Putin to modify his behavior. Testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on August 21, Assistant Secretary of State A. Wess Mitchell defined the objective of U.S. policy toward Russia as being "to degrade Vladimir Putin's ability to conduct aggression by imposing costs on the Russian state and the oligarchy that sustains it." Likewise, Marshall Billingslea, the assistant secretary for terrorist financing at the Treasury Department, said that his agency "has been given a straightforward mandate to combat Russian aggression at every turn" through sanctions. As if on cue: The Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act, awaiting debate in the Senate, would deliver "crushing" new sanctions on investments in Russian energy projects, banks, and sovereign debt.

According to the author, the logic at work here is understandable: More pressure on the economy means harder times for both ordinary Russians and Putin's cronies. Harder times, in turn, could force Putin to rein in his aggressive geopolitical campaign to assert Russia's role as a great power, both because the price is too high and because he needs Western investment, capital, and technology. And if he doesn't scale back? Pressure will build, and even if he survives politically, he'll be too busy dealing with a restive population to make mischief around the world.

Read alsoU.S. could give Ukraine weapons to repel possible Russian attack from sea – expert

"The problem with this line of thinking is that it gets Russia backwards: Squeezing Russia gives Putin an excuse to be Putin, not a reason to change," Galeotti wrote.

In Moscow last week, one could feel the people preparing for a long, hard geopolitical winter – one they blamed the West for. Short of what would feel like surrender, there's little real sense of what Russia can do to induce the West to lift sanctions. After all, what the West wants, the Kremlin is not willing or able to concede. Putin can't withdraw from Crimea – most Russians see it as rightfully theirs – and can't pull out of the Donbas or Syria without suffering crippling political damage. And ending his campaign of trolling and needling the West, he seems to feel, would be giving up one of his few levers.

Read alsoNew U.S. sanctions against Russia: Infernal, but not too much

Where does this leave a West looking for some traction on the Kremlin? Sanctions certainly have their place, but there are probably stronger options. Threatening to give Ukraine more economic aid next time Putin unleashes his trolls and hackers, for example, might actually inflict some pain on him, while sparing ordinary Russians, the author said.

Russians are not about to rise up against Putin, and the system is not going to collapse. There is a behind-the-scenes struggle under way between pragmatists and nationalist ideologues – not so much to influence Putin, but rather to shape the regime that will follow him. Piling on the pressure now may feel righteous and may satisfy a desire to "punish" the Kremlin for everything from the attempted Skripal assassination in Britain to continued meddling in U.S. politics. Yet the tragic irony is that it hardens Putin's position and plays to the nationalists, making positive long-term progress all the less likely.

If you see a spelling error on our site, select it and press Ctrl+Enter