Actions Speak Louder

Mikheil Saakashvili knows whereof he speaks when he talks about Russia. Saakashvili was the president of Georgia when the Russians invaded and annexed twenty percent of his country in 2008. He declares that far more important than Mr. Trump's words at the recent Helsinki Summit is what he has actually done, and far more significant than what Mr. Trump said is what his predecessor failed to do.

Here's part of Saakashvili's column:

I consider it unfair that Trump’s performance in Helsinki has garnered harsher criticism than other incidents in recent memory. In 2012, for example, a hot microphone at a global nuclear security summit picked up then-President Barack Obama assuring Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” to negotiate with Putin after the presidential election.

During a debate with GOP opponent Mitt Romney the same year, Obama casually dismissed the Russian threat, quipping: “The 1980s called; they want their foreign policy back.” Although Trump could certainly have been more forceful by condemning Putin’s crimes, his statements at the Helsinki press conference were nowhere near as concerning as his predecessor’s remarks about Russia.

This brings me to my second point: Trump’s actions toward Russia speak louder than words—and so did his predecessor’s. Indeed, the Obama administration’s foreign policy undermined America’s credibility in my region, which Putin considers Russia’s “backyard.” There are many opinions about Trump’s rhetoric on Crimea, but it is a fact that the Russian land grab in Ukraine happened on Obama’s watch.

How, exactly, did this happen? During and after Ukraine’s revolution of 2014, which ousted a Kremlin-backed dictator, on a daily basis the United States cautioned Ukraine not to escalate in response to Russian aggression. Thus, Putin saw an opportunity to annex Crimea without risking a direct confrontation with the West—and he seized it. Putin is a bully, but not a fool.

Rather than changing his course after Moscow redrew the borders of Europe by force, Obama doubled down. Despite bipartisan consensus in favor of selling lethal defensive weapons to Ukraine, and vocal support from his own administration officials (including Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton), Obama repeatedly refused to authorize the sales.

Instead of anti-tank weapons, the Ukrainians defending their territory from Russian invasion received hot blankets and canned goods from the Obama administration. At the same time, Obama asserted that the Ukraine conflict had “no military solution.” With these words—and more importantly, these actions—he was perceived by some on the Russian side as accepting the Kremlin’s sphere of influence in Ukraine.

Despite my warnings, the Obama administration also essentially turned a blind eye to Russian meddling in Georgia’s 2012 elections. The result was devastating not only for Georgia, but for American interests: A Kremlin-backed oligarch (who has substantial interests in Russian energy firm Gazprom) ascended to power in a strategic U.S. ally (i.e. Georgia). Moreover, Russia’s meddling in Georgia’s elections functioned as a proving ground for information operations later used in the United States.

By contrast, Trump authorized the sale of lethal defensive weapons to both Ukraine and Georgia in 2017. The Trump administration went beyond the congressional mandate in sanctioning Russian authorities involved in the annexation of Crimea. Earlier this year, the United States imposed the harshest sanctions yet, targeting Russian oligarchs as well as government officials.

Trump’s rhetoric on energy at the Helsinki summit, which has been largely overlooked, is also a reason for optimism. The backbone of the Russian economy is energy, and Russia’s dependence on fossil fuels is Putin’s Achilles heel. At Monday’s press conference, Trump stated that U.S. liquefied natural gas exports would “compete” with Russian gas in Europe.

This reflects Trump’s comments at the NATO summit, where he criticized Germany for supporting the Nord Stream II pipeline. Trump was correct to call attention to this project, which will enrich the Kremlin at the expense of struggling pro-Western allies like Ukraine.

Saakashvili goes on to outline other interesting options the United States has at hand to punish further Russian misbehavior, but the important aspect of this essay to me was the utter silence on the part of some of the same Democrats when Putin steamrolled Obama contrasted with their cries of treason now when Trump doesn't take as firm a public stand against Putin as he could have.

Whether one thinks Obama's policy was right or Trump's policy is right is not the point. The point is the hypocrisy of the criticism of Trump's words by those who supinely accepted Obama's actions. If one believes President Obama's lassitude in the face of Russian aggression was the correct course of action, how can one now criticize President Trump for conciliatory words?

I wonder how much the progressives in the media and the Democratic Party really care about Russia anyway. Given their silence during the Obama years it's not unreasonable to assume that they probably don't care much.

Concern over Russia, it seems, is simply a convenient cudgel with which they can clobber Mr. Trump in order to distract the American people from the ongoing revelations of Democrat malfeasance during the 2016 campaign and the booming economy that has resulted from the Trump tax cuts and deregulations.

No one who was silent when Obama allowed Putin to seize chunks of Crimea and Ukraine has any credibility now when they condemn Trump for not being sufficiently bellicose.