Trump Will Reinvigorate NATO

In many precincts, there is this misleading suggestion that Donald Trump is backing off of America’s traditional support for NATO, a claim undermined by a reading of his actual position. Joint security pacts are only sustainable when all participants have security capabilities; Trump gets this. That is why NATO calls for each nation to spend 2% of GDP on defense to avoid free-riders. Otherwise, nations can rely on the defense capabilities of other nations. That isn’t collective security; it is one country providing a free, outsourced military for others.

Sadly, many nations are not spending the 2%, instead benefiting from the U.S. security umbrella without pulling their weight. That is unsustainable; even President Obama has called for more defense spending from NATO allies. Alliances, like personal friendships, are two-way streets. States like Estonia and Poland are meeting the minimum while those like Italy and Spain are in default. Italy, a wealthy country, spends less than 1% of GDP on defense. Germany, home to Europe’s top economy, is little better at a meager 1.2%. Relatively poor countries like Poland, Estonia, and Greece are meeting their NATO requirement while wealthy European states are gladly allowing their military to atrophy, enjoying a defense apparatus subsidized by the American taxpayer who is already carrying over $19 trillion in national debt.

Trump recognizes the 2% minimum is useless without enforcement mechanisms. Unless there are consequences for failing to spend 2% (either a fine or loss of membership), European nations will continue to ignore the requirement. Trump’s plan would simply put in penalties for falling short of 2% and would reinvigorate NATO. By forcing Europe to invest its military and thereby reconfirm its commitment to joint security, the alliance will be stronger and could more easily deter Russia. Putin sees a Europe with decaying powers and weak militaries; it is no wonder he is pursuing expansion. A weak Europe has given Putin room to expand, and by being lax on NATO enforcement, we have allowed Europe to weaken. Given NATO’s reliance on American power, we alone have the leverage to get the 23 members who inadequately invest in defense to meet their commitment. The result will be an energized NATO that makes Eastern Europe more not less safe.

Trump’s push for more NATO spending is the only way to stand up to Putin and protect our allies. Islamic terror, an Expansionist Russia, and a strengthening Iran are global problems. They require global responses. Europe should recognize this, especially after a string of terrorist attacks have hit Belgium, France, and now even Germany. Our current policy of blindly subsidizing many European powers has turned NATO from a collective defense pact into a bunch of nations free-riding on the US (and to a lesser extent the UK, Poland, Estonia, and Greece who are spending the 2%). Our European partners need to determine whether they want to help provide and enjoy collective security and meet their commitments.

Trump’s policy will return NATO to its original promise-a transatlantic alliance of democracies all providing for the security of each other. That will make NATO stronger and its collective defense mechanism more credible. Putin will no longer be able to devour the decaying carcass of Europe; instead, the Continent will be able to deter Putin and other aspiring powers like Russia and China. We can then deal with these nations from a position of strength, striking deals when possible and pushing back when necessary. America and the world will be better for it.

Advertisements

Putin’s Goal: Prove NATO’s Dead

After years of provoking Western powers, Vladimir Putin finally crossed someone who was willing to stand up to an increasingly imperialistic Russia when Turkey shot down a Russian jet that had violated its airspace. It is in many way fitting that the man with the strength to act was President Recep Erdogan who is emulating the Putin model at home. Facing term limits as Prime Minister, Erdogan shifted to the Presidency, which was previously a ceremonial role, and has been moving powers to that office. As such, he remains the de facto leader of the country as evidenced by the fact he, and not the PM, is the person Putin and President Obama interact with during this and other crises. As with Putin in Russia, in Turkey, the powers increasingly are endowed to the man not the office. Just as Putin has ramped nationalistic rhetoric the past decade to consolidate public opinion, Erdogan has let religion creep into a government that has been proudly secular to secure support. In Erdogan, Putin has a worthy and like-minded adversary.

While some of his actions have been unseemly, the fact is Erdogan is an ally in NATO with Turkey an indispensable nation in the Middle East that on balance is a positive influence. That raises the stakes of this incident severely, and a NATO power has not shot down a Russian plane since 1952. With Russian and American planes flying over limited airspace, the risk of accident or unintended escalation is great, and with our nuclear arsenals, the cost of a worst case scenario is unimaginable. Given the mutual defense clause (Article 5), a Turkey-Russia skirmish is equally dangerous.

Now, I do not ascribe to the view that this incident could be the precipice of a world war, despite the fact World War I was beget by a minor incident. Irrespective of constant underestimation by some on the left (who seem to have a real penchant for underestimating threats, mind you), Putin is not an oafish brute, seeking to use hard power everywhere. He is a strategic thinker who uses hard power only when necessary. A direct Turkish-Russian war is in no one’s interest. His goal is a different one entirely with long-lasting geopolitical implications: to prove what we secretly fear to be true, that NATO is dead.

NATO enlargement has been a key policy priority for years, and it is a wise policy assuming two conditions are met. First, the new country’s principles and policies are in-line with the organization’s goals and values (one does not typically allow enemies into an alliance). That condition has largely been met during enlargement, and if anything the former Soviet States who have been the focus of enlargement more forcefully support a united Europe than existing ones. Second, member nations must have the same willingness to provide for the common defense of new members as existing ones, for a failure to defend any nation would undermine the basic fabric of the alliance. If NATO members are unwilling to fight on behalf of Country X, they should not accept Country X into the alliance. This is the condition that Putin is wisely testing. Invading Turkish airspace is not intended to provoke Turkey; it is a test of NATO’s resolve. We must calibrate our response accordingly.

For months, Putin has been provoking the West from buzzing U.S. ships to sending submarines near Swedish waters. Since launching airstrikes in Syria, Russia has violated Turkish airspace several times, and after repeated warnings, Turkey shot down an unmanned drone last month. It must also be noted that the fact Russia is bombing near the Turkish border is your evidence he isn’t focused on defeating ISIS as they do not control that territory. He is bombing moderate rebels to help boost Assad’s grip on power. Putin does want to eradicate ISIS eventually as that’s required to help Assad, but his mission is to roll back all rebel groups and is currently focused on moderate rebels to ensure there is no credible alternative to Assad, or an Assad-like crony. Of course, some of these rebel groups, including the Turkmen, are supported by Turkey, only antagonizing Russian-Turkish relations further.

It is from this perspective that Erdogan’s decision to down a Russian jet must be viewed. Russia has ignored repeated warnings about entering your airspace and is killing the very rebel groups you have been helping. It’s an exasperating situation that can fairly be seen as an act of war. So when a Russian plane entered Turkey, even if it was for less than 30 seconds, Erdogan felt compelled and was entirely justified in acting. To be clear, Erdogan is completely in the right. That said, I think Erdogan likely made a strategic error here. It is one thing to shoot down an unmanned drone; it is another to shoot down a jet, which led to the death of the pilot and a marine. The fact the Russian plane appears to have been shot down over Syrian territory also makes the decision even more questionable.

If anything, this incident has given Putin cover to intensify bombing against the pro-Turkey rebels, and he will likely deter tourism (Turkey has a mock-Kremlin so many Russians visit it) and other joint economic projects. Shooting down a Russian jet also increases the tail-risk of the situation escalating beyond anyone’s controls.

Is a 17 second violation enough to merit being shot down? The slippery slope argument is powerful here, if not 17 seconds, is 1 minute enough, 5 minutes? Further, the history of appeasing strongmen in the hopes their thirst for expansion is satiated is disastrous, and a violation of airspace is a violation no matter how long it lasts. That said, my reaction given the brevity of the incident would have been to give Putin just one more mulligan, have scrambled jets but not shot, come out publicly with the information a Russian jet violated Turkish air space, publicly vow to shoot down any jet that enters the air space going forward, and proactively offer coordination to avoid a similar incident (an offer which Putin would likely ignore). Should a jet violate the airspace after Tuesday, I would then shoot it down without hesitation. This policy to me would not fall into the appeasement camp, but be a final proverbial warning shot that I would then act upon if necessary (unlike certain people who erase their red lines).

We are now in a dangerous situation, one Putin precisely wants to be in. What if he violates Turkish airspace again? Erdogan would have to act again, but does that just result in further escalation from Putin? We also know that Europe, France in particular, sees Putin as an essential partner in Syria. Thanks to years of dithering on our part, Putin has been able to insert Russia as an integral player in a political solution. He and Iran continue to prop Assad up, and unless we are willing to put in our ground troops and risk direct conflict, they will have to acquiesce to any political transition. Putin is using Syria to gain leverage in his real area of territorial ambitions: Europe. Therefore, our response to his aggression needs to be centered in Eastern Europe.

Putin is fully aware Europe wants him involved as a partner in the fight against ISIS, and as such, he has us over a barrel. While Europe seems willing to continue the existing sanctions against Russia over his invasion of Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, they are unlikely to support a significant ratcheting of pressure for fear that will preclude him from cooperating on the Assad question. Putin has the ability to keep provoking with little if any ramification. As such, he will continue poking to find the weak underbelly of NATO to exploit it.

In all likelihood, NATO members urged Erdogan to soften just as we urged France not to invoke Article 5 after Paris, which is shameful. Does anyone really think Italy is willing to face off with Russia over Turkey? NATO membership has devolved into a two-tier system: nations whom we would defend no matter what, and nations who we would defend depending on the aggressor. Now, Turkey is such a critical player in the Middle East, it may be a core member, but this flare-up will only serve to increase the tensions between the Russia hawks and doves in NATO. This could be a prelude to a stiffer test of NATO’s resolve.

Ultimately, there is no strategic reason for Putin to war with Turkey, but there are NATO members that should be worried. In particular, I have concerns about Estonia, which has a 25% Russian-speaking population; remember, Putin used supposed discrimination against Russian-speakers to explain his annexation of Crimea. He also exploited this population to foment an “internal” resistance in East Ukraine that has totally crippled the nation. Estonia is in the process of fencing its Russian border over this very fear. The appearance of an internal rebellion is preferable for Putin as it would make it easier for some NATO members to say Article 5 does not apply (it must be an external aggressor). With its large Russian population, Latvia too is a potential target.

Estonia is a country of 1 million, and Western Europe is uninterested in a direct confrontation with a nuclear power, especially given the pressing problems in Syria. Turkey was the first attack on NATO, and the Baltic States are the obvious next target. While these are small nations, their defense is critical. Once it appears Article 5 does not apply to a member, how can we know what members of NATO are really protected? By enlarging the alliance to nations we are unwilling to protect, we actually risk shrinking the alliance in the long-run. Sure, the U.S., Canada, Germany, France, UK, Poland and others are almost certainly core nations, but Eastern Europe should be petrified. How important are they? Are Germans willing to die for Slovenians should Putin go too far?

NATO is now an alliance without a cause and as a result is dying a slow death. What is its raison d’être now that the Soviet Union is gone? It has been wandering aimlessly without any core objectives; all the while, European armed forces have decayed and much of the continent is headed for economic and geopolitical irrelevance. Eastern Europe sees Putin for the threat he is, but the rest of Europe and current US leadership doesn’t see Putin as a mortal danger. We are minimizing (if not ridiculing) his aggressiveness as a result. We do so at our own peril.

Fracturing NATO and cracking the façade of a united Europe would be a dramatic diplomatic coup and undermine the security order of the world. Action in Estonia, if not responded to, would render NATO impotent and show the US, not only unwilling to enforce red lines, but unwilling to defend allies. That could have cascading ramifications across Eastern Europe and Asia where American allies like the Philippines, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea face an increasingly adversarial and expansionist China. If they question U.S. commitment, we risk capitulations that could up-end the balance of power in that region.

This is what at stake. We are not on the precipice of a Turkey-Russia war (in all likelihood), but we face something equally dangerous. Putin is pushing around the edges of NATO to test how united we really are, and if we actually will honor our commitments. Proving that Article 5 is really more bark than bite for non-core nations could unravel the US-security compact that has kept the world safe, and we in its center, in favor of a world where the Russia-China-Iran axis gains strength and US reliability is questioned. The seeds have been sown for a second Cold War, if it has not already begun.

In response to the Turkish air invasion, we must make crystal clear that NATO support cannot be questioned. We have increased our military presence in the Baltics a bit, but NATO needs to move beyond a token presence. Announcing further deployments to Estonia and the Baltics in the wake of the Turkey incident would be a clear signal to Putin that he should not test NATO resolve. Simultaneously, we should commit to build the cancelled-missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, for which the Poles have clamored. This would apply a real cost to Putin’s actions. If you mess with a NATO country, it must be clear, we will work against your strategic objectives (dominion over Eastern Europe) and redouble commitment to member nations. Putin’s goal here is not to intimidate Turkey; it is to prepare for a grand pivot to Europe. Accordingly, NATO must pre-emptively harden its European positions.  Whether he is actually willing to call NATO’s bluff in the Baltics is uncertain, but we should pro-actively make clear NATO commitments aren’t a bluff to ward off any potential Russian intervention.

With the rise of ISIS, it should be Eastern Europe in a panic. Putin has built leverage over Europe in Syria and is now testing NATO. We must stand firm and signal our commitment to all member nations. Putin, like any thinking person, can see that NATO is divided with many members likely lacking the will to risk war with him over smaller, newer members. Destroying the illusion of NATO joint security and unwavering US commitment to its treaties would be the greatest political coup since Nixon opened relations with China. That is why we must come out now, in the wake of Turkey, and dispel these concerns, affirm all NATO nations stand firm, increase our presence in the Baltics to comfort these nations, and build the begged-for missile defense shield. Maintaining the balance of power not just in Europe but also in Asia requires this reaction and a steadfast commitment to all allies, big and small.

NATO is being tested in a way it hasn’t since the Cold War ended. We must prove it is an organization that has not outlived its usefulness. To do otherwise would undermine US leadership and the quarter-century of great power peace and prosperity it has bought us.

Doomed to Fail: A President Dithers

During a 60 Minutes interview in which President Obama could only offer rambling and incoherent answers to Steve Kroft’s fair and pointed foreign policy questions, the President did manage to shed new, and rather unflattering, light on his disastrous Syria policy. After backing down from his own red line when Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people, Obama decided to launch a $500 million rebel training program whereby the United States would train moderate fighters to oust Assad. With only 4 or 5 trained rebels currently fighting in Syria, it is safe to call this program a failure. Perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised. After all, the President himself said last night, “I’ve been skeptical from the get-go” that the training program would work.

What does it say about a President who built a strategy around a program he deemed doomed to fail? How callous to watch thousands of Syrians die each month at the hands of Assad, and now ISIS, while pursuing a program that you don’t believe can work. It is one thing to try and fail; it is entirely different to pretend to try and fail. In a Presidency chock full of stunning admissions, this has to rank near the top of the list. The Syrian Civil War has raged for over 3 years, and the only strategy the Administration could come up with was essentially fictitious.

While dithering away time and letting Syria devolve into one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises of the past quarter-century, he’s let ISIS stand up and fill the power vacuum. The President doesn’t even have a plan to deal with ISIS, saying that over time “the community of nations” will deal with ISIS. What is this community the President speaks of? China enjoys all the perks of being a world power without assuming any responsibilities, Europe hasn’t led in decades, and Russia is directly flouting Obama’s high-minded goals. The concept of such a community is noble and works well as a dissertation at Columbia University but is dangerously simplistic when applied in the real world. A community of nations only exists when America plays the leading role.

Instead, Obama has stepped back and is now letting Vladimir Putin decimate the rebels we’ve aided without impunity from the air. What message does this send to other potential allies in the region? The US will not stand by you when times get tough, which will undermine our ability to form strategic relations in the region for years. With Putin allied with Iran—the region’s aspiring hegemon—the moderates are being wiped out, leaving only Assad and ISIS, an unpalatable choice, and the Russia-Iran axis will inevitably pivot to push back ISIS from Syria and Iran all while the President awaits for the community of nations to respond.

The overarching failure of President Obama’s foreign policy is a simple one: he dithers until the United States is left with virtually no winning option. In Syria, we could have provided substantive support for moderate rebels and toppled Assad. Now any action risks direct military conflict with Russia, and quickly, the only two feasible options are ISIS or Assad. Three years ago, we had options that could tip the balance in our favor; now, there are none.

In Iraq, we could have signed a “status of forces” agreement to leave residual troops in Iraq, continue to train their military, and ensure the hard-fought gains we made were kept. Instead, Obama made no serious effort to get this agreement, pulled out entirely, leaving Iraq weak and vulnerable, and leaving it easy for ISIS to take large swaths of territory. Now, what is left of Iraq is morphing into an Iranian client state as the US has unilaterally ceded all influence. Obama could have kept troops in Iraq, or he could have provided serious assistance in the fight against ISIS last year. Instead, he has done as little as possible and somehow allowed a nation we spent a decade building to align with our major rivals, Iran and Russia.

In 2014, Obama had a chance to swiftly respond to Russia’s illegal seizure of Crimea by providing arms to the Kiev government and restart the Eastern Europe missile defense shield, a real cost in Putin’s eyes. These actions could have stopped Putin in his tracks, winning Crimea but realizing the rest of Ukraine would not be worth the fight. Instead, Obama merely lectured Putin, so he launched a covert operation in East Ukraine and essentially split the country in two. What can the US do now apart from some meaningless sanctions? Providing the necessary support to the Ukrainian government to roll back Russia would be exceedingly costly and risk direct military confrontation with a nuclear power while giving Putin cover to escalate his involvement. The other option, to accept Russian expansion, would be the most humiliating strategic defeat against Russia since the Carter Administration. By doing virtually nothing serious for 18 months in Ukraine, we face another no-win situation.

Last, Obama foolishly loosened sanctions on Iran just for coming to the negotiating table, ceding the leverage that brought them there. At that point, reasserting the sanctions was all but an impossibility, forcing us to accept an embarrassingly weak deal. Iran doesn’t even care about the few restrictions in the deal, testing a long range missile this week despite that likely being forbidden in the text. They know this administration won’t do anything to nullify the deal because we could never get Russia and China to okay sanctions at the UN again. If we had actually kept sanctions in place during the negotiation, we would have maintained leverage and been able to reach a good deal with real verification. Either we accept a flawed deal that lets Iran become a threshold nuclear state over a decade or we isolate ourselves diplomatically by exiting the deal and imposing further sanctions ourselves.

From Syria to Iraq to Russia to Iran, Obama has been so consistently wrong and soft that we are left with a host of complex situation where there is no clear option for the US. In each situation, had we acted swiftly, we could have gained the initiative and reached a strategically favorable outcome. Instead, American power is being challenged around the world. That is the legacy of this President. His successor will have to navigate minefields just to scrape out draws, by aggressively reasserting our military presence to assuage panicked allies in the Middle East and Eastern Europe alike while reminding bad actors like Putin that the U.S. really is a force to be reckoned with.

Obama’s Presidency is one of bungled opportunities. Would you expect less from a man who expects his own policies to fail?

Beware Russians Bearing Gifts

When addressing the United Nations’ General Assembly on Monday, Russian President Vladimir Putin will surely have a swagger in his step. Thanks to his reassertion of Russian power on the world stage over the Ukrainian crisis, Putin enjoys domestic popularity that Western leaders would salivate over—despite an economy in recession and overly reliant on exporting oil and gas. On top of this, Putin can take additional delight over his ability to reshape the West’s thinking over the Syrian crisis almost overnight by deploying forces to aid President Bashar al-Assad. Putin is now offering assistance in fighting ISIS and supposedly is even willing to fight ISIS single-handedly. However, we must view this offer with deep skepticism. Often, accepting gifts from enemies is a dangerous proposition.

With over 200,000 dead and millions displaced, the Syrian civil war has devolved into arguably the world’s worst humanitarian crisis since Rwanda, and our failure to do anything substantive merits significant blame for this. Europe prefers to live in blissful decline than carry its weight in the Middle East and now faces refugee inflows unseen since the end of World War II, putting tremendous pressure on its political union. At the same time, the President failed to act when Assad crossed his red line by gassing his own people. Our effort to arm moderate rebels has been a total embarrassment; for $500 million, we have trained “4 or 5” active fighters. Considering our government lacks the competence to even count with confidence to 5, it is no wonder this training program has failed at every level.

Unfortunately, power vacuums inevitably get filled; that is the one time-tested truth of geopolitics. By abdicating our leadership role, we left space that has since been filled by ISIS, leaving us with a civil war where both sides are evil. Fight ISIS and the child-gassing Assad stays in power; fight Assad and watch an apocalyptic terrorist state reign. The moderate rebels have been all but vanquished in the cross-fire. From Syria to Ukraine to the Iran deal, the bumbling of the Obama Administration has consistently left the United States with no-win situations.

Our calls for Assad to go have virtually no credibility given our unwillingness to do anything about it. Assad’s days have supposedly been numbered for years after all. At the same time, our effort to roll back ISIS from the air alone is proving to be ineffectual. Since stopping its advance on Mosul, ISIS has regrouped, solidified its territory, and controls large swaths of Iraq and Syria. Containing it is simply not a viable long-term strategy, and when the White House resorts to using inaccurate intelligence, you can be sure things are not going swimmingly.

Enter Russia.

Putin needs to keep Assad in power or at least ensure that a pro-Russia government takes power. Russia has a strategically critical naval base in Tartus, providing the Navy with a year round warm water hub and a replenishment base on the Mediterranean Sea. Putin cannot allow a regime that would threaten this base take power. At the same time, having risen to power in part thanks to his aggressive response to Chechen terrorists, Putin does understand the threat Islamic extremism poses to the world and probably sees the need to crush ISIS. As such, he has moved troops, tanks, and aircraft to Syria to assist Assad. With Russian assistance, Assad can stabilize the fight and even take some territory back.

Putin is now reaching out to the President to form a joint task force to fight ISIS and resolve the Syrian Civil War. While Putin may accept Assad gradually leaving power over time, Putin wants Assad at the negotiating table, a prolonged transition, and assurances any new government will be in-keeping with Russia’s strategic interests. Make no mistake, the timing of this military buildup is not coincidental. Putin is looking to gain leverage into the UN General Assembly where he can make a triumphant return to the world stage and show his citizenry the key role he played in solving this crisis. Putin has picked the perfect time to apply pressure and force the West’s hand.

Already, our European allies are ready to sign on. Nations like Austria and France now appear willing to let Assad remain in power for some time—perhaps indefinitely.

We mustn’t strike a deal with Putin so easily as there is a significant cost. Putin sees the U.S. retreating from the world, particularly the Middle East, and he has the ability to turn Russia into the regional power. Now with its lackluster and unproductive economy, Russia can do little to project power outwardly and compete with the US by itself (though its national will and nuclear arsenal keep it from being influenced by the United States). However, Russia with one or two regional powers can form hegemonic alliances that can effectively counter US power.

We have already seen Putin pivot East, ensuring Russia will be China’s primary energy supplier for decades as he tries to ally with a rising global power and project strength in the Pacific Basin. At the same time, with $150 billion in fresh funds, an economy unshackled, and 77 million people, Iran has the potential to be the regional power in the Middle East, usurping Saudi Arabia over time. Of course, this is another nation Putin is hitching his horse to. Iraq has turned to Iran for help fighting ISIS since Obama has all but abandoned the region. Shia Iraq is quickly turning into Iran’s proxy.

Similarly, Assad is merely an Iranian proxy, and a proxy Iran needs to keep funneling Hezbollah weaponry. Assad is the key to Iran maintaining its sphere of influence throughout Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. This is the danger of inviting Russian participation in a coalition against ISIS and accepting Assad at the negotiating table. Doing so guarantees a Russian-Iranian axis that extends from the Gulf to the Mediterranean. All the while, Russia makes overtures to Egypt and Turkey, which become all the more compelling as Russian dominance in the region becomes clearer. Even without these two nations, this turn of events would be devastating for the United States, shifting the balance of power away from us in the region and isolating the Gulf States who could turn to nuclear weapons to re-balance—opening the door to an arms race in the most volatile part of the globe.

The case for accepting Putin’s offer today may he compelling in the short-term. 2,000 Russian troops would help in the fight against ISIS, and since we have dithered for so long, there is no viable moderate opposition anymore. This makes our position that Assad must go less tenable—there is no one who can replace him. But to strike a deal with Putin today is to ensure Russian influence in the Middle East only grows over time as the balance shifts towards the Russian-Iranian axis. Plus working with him likely weakens Europe’s resolve to maintain sanctions over Ukraine, which will provide his economy with much needed oxygen.

Are we really prepared to welcome Vladimir Putin back to the world stage as the central dealmaker and risk ceding regional influence to him? A weak-willed Europe unwilling to do anything to actually deal with ISIS and Syria is. The United States should not be. Instead of striking the proverbial deal with the devil, the US should fight to win against ISIS, re-engage with Iraq, deploy 10-15,000 ground troops, roll back ISIS, and pry Iraq back away from Iran. Then with ISIS on the run into Syria, we again have leverage over Putin and can resolve the situation there in a more advantageous fashion. Yes, this strategy is more costly today than Putin’s offer of expedient assistance but it will pay dividends in years to come as Russia remains the outsider looking in at the Middle East.