Putin: I'm 'grateful' to Romney for proving me right about missile defense

Putin said yesterday that Romney's latest comments about Russia as the US's 'geopolitical foe' validate the Kremlin's resistance to American plans for a missile defense system in Europe.

Alexei Druzhinin, Presidential Press Service, RIA-Novosti/AP
In this photo taken on Tuesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin (c.) and Serbian President Tomislav Nikolic, back to camera, have a news conference after their meeting in the Bocharov Ruchei residence in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, Russia.

President Vladimir Putin has lashed back at Mitt Romney's repetitious portrayal of Russia as the US's "geopolitical foe," saying he's grateful to the Republican contender for making it clear that Moscow would be unwise to trust any future verbal commitments made by any US leader.

Mr. Putin was referring to the strategic deadlock between Russia and the US over European missile defense, a problem President Barack Obama had asked him to stop talking about – in an embarrassing open mic conversation caught during a conversation in Seoul last March – until after the November US election.

In his speech at the Republican convention earlier this month, Mr. Romney accused Mr. Obama of letting down US ally Poland by shelving Bush-era plans for comprehensive missile defense installations in eastern Europe, and insisted a Romney administration would show Putin "less flexibility and more backbone."

On a US radio show on Monday, Romney doubled down, outlining several ways in which he regarded Moscow as a bad actor on the international stage, and repeated his view that Russia is a "geopolitical adversary" of the US.

"I'm grateful to [Romney] for formulating his stance so clearly, because he has once again proven the correctness of our approach to missile defense problems," Putin told journalists Tuesday.

"The most important thing for us is that even if he doesn't win now, he or a person with similar views may come to power in four years. We must take that into consideration while dealing with security issues for a long perspective," he added.

Putin has been arguing for some time that the US is not dealing fairly with Russia, and is seeking to achieve "absolute invulnerability" in its strategic efforts at the expense of everyone else.

But he has never before implicitly called Obama's credibility into question as a reliable partner. Indeed, in an interview with the Kremlin-funded RT network last week, Putin expressed a preference for Obama to win over Romney precisely because he believes that would make a deal on missile defense more likely.

"That Mr. Romney considers us to be enemy No. 1 and apparently has bad feelings about Russia is a minus, but, considering that he expresses himself bluntly, openly and clearly, means that he is an open and sincere man, which is a plus," Putin said. "If he is elected president of the US, certainly we will work with him as an elected head of state."

But Romney's tough rhetoric – though it may be largely election sloganeering – does appear to be making what could be a lasting negative impact in Russia's policy-making community, if only by validating pre-existing stereotypes about US hawks.

"[What Romney is saying] is exactly what our generals have been telling us all along, that all these American strategic moves is really aimed against us," says Andrei Klimov, deputy chair of the State Duma's international affairs commission.

"Romney has opened our eyes to the intrigues of American hawks, including the Pentagon and others. Maybe he intends it as election rhetoric, but isn't he expressing what the voters want to hear?" Mr. Klimov says.

"If this is what half of American voters think, then how are we to plan our strategy for years ahead? Romney really has helped us by clearing the fog away from our eyes," he adds.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.