When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

You've reached your limit of one free article.

Get unlimited access to Worldcrunch

You can cancel anytime .


Exclusive International news coverage

Ad-free experience NEW

Weekly digital Magazine NEW

9 daily & weekly Newsletters

Access to Worldcrunch archives

Free trial

30-days free access, then $2.90
per month.

Annual Access BEST VALUE

$19.90 per year, save $14.90 compared to monthly billing.save $14.90.

Subscribe to Worldcrunch

Obama Plays Chess, Putin Plays Poker

Where the Russian leader lacks any real strategy, his American counterpart is short on nerve. They're playing two different games and following very different rules.

Putin and Obama at the UN on Sept. 28, 2015
Putin and Obama at the UN on Sept. 28, 2015
Christophe Ayad


PARIS — Poker is an American game as much as chess is Russian. But the current world champion in poker is Russian, while the world chess master is American. The leaders of the world's two biggest military powers aren't playing the same game, and certainly aren't following the same rules, part of what makes it so hard to make sense of what's happening not only in Syria but also the rest of the world.

Since his rise to power in the early 2000s, Russian President Vladimir Putin has been pushing to restore Russia's might. And that implies the creation of a new balance of power with the United States, achieved by multiplying the points of tension.

After the Georgian warning shot during the summer of 2008, Putin geared up for a resolute and audacious new action phase following his return to power in 2012. It came first in Ukraine, where the Russian president annexed Crimea in a matter of weeks, then in the Donbass region, where he supported the emergence of an armed separatist insurrection, thus paralyzing the country's development.

Would it all have been possible without President Barack Obama's August 2013 renouncement of an airstrike campaign to punish the Syrian regime for crossing Washington's "red line" by using chemical weapons against its own population? Probably not.

From that moment on, there was an absence of U.S. leadership in the Middle East. And the Russian intervention in Syria that began September 30 is both the consequence and the illustration of that. On the one hand, we have Putin calling the shots, getting his protégé, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, back on track and setting the military and diplomatic tempo. Meanwhile Obama appears to be tossed around by events, seemingly incapable of using real force and ready to be fooled by Iran.

But things are not that simple. True, Putin is taken up in a kind of "permanent coup de théâtre" policy, stringing up tactical successes along the way. But does he even have a strategy? Taking Crimea was a superb operation, as far as Russian public opinion is concerned. But it was pointless, strategically speaking. A 2010 agreement guaranteed that the Russian fleet could stay in Crimea's Sebastopol port for 30 years. And the annexation was also very costly — $20 billion, according to the French-Russian Observatory. On the other hand, Ukraine's destabilization has led to European and American sanctions that, coupled with falling oil prices, have plunged the Russian economy into a deep recession.

Putin as sheriff

By intervening in Syria alongside Iran, Moscow is alienating the two worst enemies of the Assad regime: Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Saudia Arabia still sets the world's oil prices, a resource vital to Russia. Turkey, meanwhile, is in a crucial position on the route of the South Stream, the Russian gas pipeline project bypassing Ukraine to the south.

Finally, by taking on the rewarding but impossible role of Middle East sheriff, Putin is removing from U.S. shoulders a weight that, since the Iraq and Afghanistan fiascos, Obama no longer wants to carry. Putin has restored the prestige of both Russian diplomacy and its army, but he'll leave behind him a country with no other wealth than its raw materials — without a civil society, without solid institutions and facing a demographic decline. It's a country whose main asset remains its nuisance capacities. But poker is a game in which the player always has to raise his bet if he wants to be credible.

As opposed to those who naively and hurriedly awarded him the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, Obama never thought of himself as the world's president. He's a cold-blooded creature, calculating and without affection. The Syrians know exactly what his reluctance cost them, and his cynical abandonment of them in 2013, when he refused to deliver anti-aircraft weapons to stop the barrel bombings that killed thousands of Syrians, will feature in history books.

Maybe Obama lacks morals and panache, but he does have a strategy. This has translated into an unspectacular policy of failing to intervene, or doing as little as possible, trying to change the balance of power, working for the long term. In the Middle East, his legacy will be visible in two ways. The first will be the end of U.S. dependency on Saudi oil, thanks to his encouragement of shale oil development. The second will be the nuclear deal with Iran, even if that means alienating Israel and Saudi Arabia — again.

The American president thus dealt with the main challenge posed to his country after the 9/11 attacks, the only challenge that George W. Bush completely concealed: how to make the U.S. less dependent on Saudi Arabia, forcing it to reform itself and stop its policy of spreading an extremist and deadly ideology.

In the meantime, the energy revolution enabled the U.S. to turn towards new challenges, including those posed by China. But the problem with Obama's strategy is that his contempt for tactical victories has cost the U.S. too much credibility in the Middle East. International relations are as much a matter of perception as a matter of substance. Obama's other weakness stems from the fact that his successor could choose to undo his strategic choices, unlike Putin, who's here to stay.

To win at chess, you must always have time on your side.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

FOCUS: Israel-Palestine War

How Biden's Mideast Stance Weakens Israel And Emboldens Iran

The West's decision to pressure Israel over Gaza, and indulge Iran's violent and troublesome regime, follows the U.S. Democrats' line with the Middle East: just keep us out of your murderous affairs.

Photo of demonstration against U.S President Joe Biden in Iran

Demonstration against U.S President Joe Biden in Iran.

Bahram Farrokhi


The Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is weak both structurally and for its dismal popularity level, which has made it take some contradictory, or erratic, decisions in its war against Hamas in Gaza.

For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.

Other factors influencing its decisions include the pressures of the families of Hamas hostages, and the U.S. administration's lukewarm support for this government and entirely reactive response to the military provocations and "hit-and-run" incidents orchestrated by the Islamic Republic of Iran and its allies, which include Hamas. Israel has also failed to mobilize international opinion behind its war on regional terrorism, in what might be termed a full-blown public relations disaster.

The administration led by President Joe Biden has, by repeating the Democrats' favored, and some might say feeble, policy of appeasing Iran's revolutionary regime, duly nullified the effects of Western sanctions imposed on that regime. By delisting its proxies, the Houthis of Yemen, as terrorists, the administration has allowed them to devote their energies to firing drones and missiles across the Red Sea and even indulging in piracy. The general picture is of a moment of pitiful weakness for the West, in which Iran and other members of the Axis - of Evil or Resistance, take your pick - are daily cocking a snook at the Western powers.

You wonder: how could the United States, given its military and technological resources, fail to spot tankers smuggling out banned Iranian oil through the Persian Gulf to finance the regime's foreign entanglements, while Iran is able to track Israeli-owned ships as far aways as the Indian Ocean? The answer, rather simply, lies in the Biden administration's decision to indulge the ayatollahs and hope for the best.

Keep reading...Show less

The latest