Putin's foreign policy prowess does not surpass Obama's (The White House)

Over the last year there has been a widely accepted narrative in the general public and the media that Vladimir Putin is running circles around Barack Obama in foreign affairs. Beginning with the chemical weapons crisis in Syria up to the dramatic events have unfolded in the ongoing situation in Ukraine in recent weeks it seems to be almost universally accepted that our ivory-tower President is no match for the rugged mountain man presiding in Moscow. In a recent appearance on Fox News, Sarah Palin squawked that “People are looking at Putin as one who wrestles bears and drills for oil. They look at our president as one who wears mom jeans and equivocates and bloviates” and although at this point Palin is seen as a sideshow at best she seems to be echoing the sentiments of a large amount of people. The Cold War is back, the narrative goes, and Putin is kicking our ass because of our weak, idealistic president.

This is an absurd assessment that only makes sense if one is remarkably naive as to how foreign policy works in today’s globalized world. I am not saying Obama has not erred, he has. He had no business drawing his infamous red line in Syria if he knew there was a chance we would not follow through and we did end up looking a bit foolish in that instance. But the argument that declining to attack Syria made us look weak and subsequently encouraged Putin to behave as he has in the Ukraine is downright silly and a classic post hoc fallacy. Intervening militarily in Syria against the strenuous objections of the Kremlin was only going to make Putin more hostile and aggressive, not less.

Repeat after me: Every. Nation. Acts. In. Their. Own. Interests. In. Every. Situation. This notion that we weaken ourselves by not intervening in every global conflict and thus embolden the leaders of other nations in doing so is patently false. Foreign leaders assess their national interests, potential costs and risks, and probable outcomes in every foreign policy decision and act in what they perceive to be their rational self-interest. What a world leader decides in one situation does not necessarily have any bearing whatsoever on how he will react in another.

In this case, Putin rightly concluded that there was a good chance he could send troops (sorry, “unaffiliated self-defense forces”) Crimea and the US would not intervene. But he reached this conclusion because he knows the US has virtually zero strategic interests in Crimea, not because he thinks Obama is weak and afraid to do anything. Ukraine is not a member of NATO and thus cannot invoke Article 5 requiring the United States and other members to come to its defense when attacked. If you think Putin is so emboldened by the way Obama handled Syria or by his taste in pants (those do look a lot like mom jeans, Mr. President) wait and see if Russia ever attacks one of their NATO neighbors like Latvia or Lithuania. There isn’t a chance in hell that will happen because he knows that he would be absolutely crushed if he did so. Once again, current assessments of rational self-interest are driving these decisions, not past precedent.

Still regardless of why Putin is behaving as he is, he has been able to invade a neighboring country and, if things continue the way they have been going, annex a portion of their territory without repercussions. He must be winning the battle against the West and Obama if he is able to do that, right? Well, not so fast - lets not forget what this situation is all about in the first place.

You can read more about the background of the issue here but I will recap quickly. In the fall of last year, Ukraine faced a decision to either take steps towards joining the EU by signing a long-negotiated trade partnership or to strengthen their ties with Russia and Putin’s proposed Eurasian Union. As by far the largest Eastern European country, both geographically and economically, Ukraine is absolutely crucial to any possibility of Putin’s Eurasian union succeeding and so, as Ukraine moved closer and closer to signing the EU pact, Putin threatened President Yanukovych with an end to vital gas subsidies and bailouts that Moscow had been providing Ukraine. Yanukovych duly capitulated and rejected the EU agreement This backfired on Russia however. While the eastern half of Ukraine is heavily pro-Russian, the Western half (which includes the capital city of Kiev) is much more pro-EU and Yanukovych’s decision to forgo the EU pact led to widespread protests in the streets of Kiev and, eventually, the president’s overthrow. With Yanuovych out and a fledgling interim pro-Western government in place in Kiev, Putin chose to cut his losses and annex the isolated Crimean peninsula.

But this is not 1940 or even 1988 and war is not power in today’s globalized world. It is important to look at the actual geopolitical outcomes of what is happening here. Putin’s main objective, to get Ukraine to reject the West and strengthen their ties with Russia, is dead in the water. On top of that, he is now almost completely isolated from the rest of the world while the US forges closer ties with their European allies as they rally against their common Eastern enemy. Remember all the vitriol directed at the US from Europe over our aggressive spying program? Funny how that has not been mentioned much lately. Already, economic sanctions are rolling in from nations around the globe. The G8 is now being referred to as the G7 and the upcoming G8 summit scheduled to be held in Sochi is now almost certain to be canceled. Combined with the roundly mocked Sochi Winter Olympic Games that recently concluded, it would seem that Russia is less powerful than ever. In today’s globalized, connected world unilaterally invading neighboring territories is not a sign of strength, its a sign of weakness and desperation! Let’s start assessing the relative strength of world powers based on actual geopolitical analysis and not which leader looks the best with their shirt off.

Reach Contributor Daniel Lewin here.