INTRODUCTION

       Vladimir Putin Is Winning

      How does a nation with a weak and vulnerable economy and inferior military go on an international military and intelligence winning streak the likes of which haven’t been seen in years? How does a nation with a fraction of America’s striking power exert its will in the Middle East and Eastern Europe and sow doubts about the legitimacy of American democracy—further polarizing and dividing an already-divided superpower?

      How does Russia win?

       –DAVID FRENCH, NATIONAL REVIEW ¹

      [Russian information warfare is] about destabilizing democracy and pitting us against each other to limit the influence of the United States on the world stage.

       –JONATHON MORGAN, FORMER STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL ²

      Remember the 2012 presidential election, during which President Obama held off the challenge of the Republican nominee, Mitt Romney?

      Remember the debates? There were three. In the first, Romney scored a decisive win over an off-his-game Obama. In the second, in the “town hall” format, the president rallied and had a good night. And in the third, devoted to foreign policy, the two candidates had this exchange:

      OBAMA: Governor Romney, I’m glad that you recognize that Al Qaeda is a threat, because a few months ago when you were asked what’s the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Qaeda; you said Russia—the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years . . .

      ROMNEY: Russia does continue to battle us in the U.N. time and time again. I have clear eyes on this. I’m not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, or Mr. Putin.³

      Obama won the soundbite war, and he won the election. But five years later, it is clear that Romney’s warnings were correct and that Obama’s dismissals of Vladimir Putin’s Russia were woefully, damagingly wrong.

      Moreover, something else is clear: Putin and Russia are winning at every level in which they are engaged, and there is little sign that their victories will be reversed.

      What has Putin achieved since that October evening when Obama and Romney debated? Consider just the leading points: He has forcibly annexed Crimea from Ukraine, causing international condemnation for Russia but few other genuine costs; he has destabilized and weakened Ukraine, which is fighting a low-level war for its independence and survival. And in the course of moving against Kiev—in a part of the world Russia has always considered its “near abroad”—Putin made a successful bet that the Western democracies, led by the United States, would do nothing to stop him. He was correct then and he appears to be correct still.

      In the charnel house that is Syria, again with the condemnations of world leaders ringing in his ears, Putin boldly intervened on behalf of Bashar al-Assad’s dictatorship despite the risks of a military confrontation with the United States or other Western powers. Here, too, Putin bet that the United States and its Western allies, when push came to shove, would want no part of any fighting in Syria. They would talk, and they would levy sanctions, but if he held firm and stood by his ally, he would prevail. And he has. Assad is in power to stay, and Putin has made Russia a power broker in the Middle East.

      Putin’s triumph in Syria has had the residual effect of causing a refugee crisis that is flooding Europe with desperate people, most of them Muslim and more than enough of whom are prone to radicalism and terror. European capitals are roiling with political anger and divisions over how to handle the influx of people—or whether to accept them at all. The rise of nationalist, antiglobalist parties in most EU countries can in many cases be closely tied to the Syrian refugee