Putin and Biden are already locked in a war of words

No wonder, Putin seemed to be saying, that US presidents see “killers” all around them.

Between Washington and Moscow, the words are flying like missiles.  On Wednesday, in an interview with ABC News, President Biden agreed with his host, George Stephanopoulos, that Russian President Vladimir Putin was a “killer.” 

He was speaking after the Director of National Intelligence released a report accusing Russia’s intelligence services of interfering in the 2020 US presidential election in an attempt to sow divisions and get President Trump reelected. “He will pay a price,” Biden said of Putin.

The Kremlin quickly struck back, recalling its ambassador from Washington for consultations in a rare show of diplomatic pique. On Russian TV on Thursday, Putin responded with a touch of verbal judo, suggesting that Biden had really been describing himself: “We always see our own qualities in another person and think that they are like us.”

“Be healthy,” Putin told the US president, emphasizing the words, “I wish you health.” It was an interesting choice of phrase for a leader accused of having his enemies poisoned. 

Later, Putin challenged Biden to some kind of Internet duel. He was ready to meet, he said, for a live, online discussion about world politics. He seemed to think he could best the man his admirer Donald Trump named “Sleepy Joe” in a broadcast debate. 

All this suggests the depths to which US-Russia relations have sunk. 

Insulting foreign leaders is not unprecedented in US politics. President George W. Bush dubbed Iran’s leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a “tyrant,” and North Korea’s Kim Jong-il a “pygmy.” His father, George H.W. Bush, called Panama’s President Noriega an “outlaw in the world community.”

While most presidents go easy on the trash talk, tongues in Congress are less restrained. Senator John McCain made a habit of goading the Kremlin. Putin, McCain said, was a “thug and a murderer and a killer and a KGB agent.” 

This new diplomacy of insults marks quite a change from the flattery with which Biden’s predecessor targeted the world’s authoritarians, including Putin. Foreign strongmen were virtually the only group that Trump did not regularly abuse. 

The question is whether it will work -- and, if so, for whom. Putin quickly turned Biden’s comment to his own propaganda purposes. Interrupting a celebration of the 7th anniversary of Russia’s annexation of Crimea, he launched into a well-rehearsed lecture on the historic brutality of US leaders -- from the extermination of Native Americans, via Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to Black Lives Matter, the name of which he pronounced in passable English. “Still today,” he insisted, “African Americans are subject to injustice and extermination.”

No wonder, Putin seemed to be saying, that US presidents see “killers” all around them. 

His quick pivot to the online talks idea suggests he also saw in this an international opening. Putin named a number of issues he and Biden could discuss -- from the nuclear balance to regional conflicts. 

What he’s up to is not entirely clear. He might just hope to score debating points before a global audience. But it’s also possible he thinks he can jolt the relationship out of the deadlock that has prevailed since Crimea. 

Although not imminently threatened, Putin knows things at home do not look good. The post-Crimea euphoria is long gone. Putin’s approval rating, after crashing at the onset of the coronavirus crisis, remains around 65%. That might sound high, but in a country with heavily restricted media and politics, it’s not so reassuring. 

Heading into a parliamentary election this September, only 42% of those who plan to vote favor the Kremlin’s United Russia party-- its lowest support level since at least 2016. 

Russia’s economy, as measured by its GDP, shrank by 3.1% last year. It could have been worse. Skilled macroeconomic management -- with a flexible exchange rate and inflation targeting -- kept the decline moderate and inflation low, but at the cost of lower social spending and inadequate healthcare funding. 

And, as Putin certainly realizes, the Kremlin has an image problem. In January, the opposition leader Aleksei Navalny -- now jailed-- released a video showing a palatial estate allegedly owned by Putin. (The Russian president denies owning it.) It has been viewed almost 115 million times. Record numbers of Russians say in polls that corruption is the country’s greatest problem.

A major improvement in relations with Washington is not in the cards. Convinced that the US is out to undermine him, Putin see his best defense as an attack. He will not stop cyber operations to spy, infiltrate Western infrastructure, and influence elections. The West does all these things to him, he believes, so why disarm?

In response to such interference, Washington feels obliged to continue piling on sanctions. But few think the kind of targeted asset freezes and travel bans favored recently will change Kremlin behavior. And major, economy-wide sanctions -- such as cutting off access to dollar-based international finance -- would probably backfire, antagonizing ordinary Russians, while harming US allies and threatening its status as the world’s financial superpower. 

Washington’s best bet is to build a global coalition to resist Moscow, while working to show the Russian public how its interests diverge from those of Kremlin insiders. Yet, the kind of insult diplomacy seen in recent days makes that harder. It alienates European and other allies, who see in name-calling a lack of seriousness. And it rallies the Russian public behind their leaders. 

True, Ronald Reagan started out calling the Soviet Union an “evil empire” and ended up negotiating an end to the Cold War with his Russian counterpart. The rhetoric early on did not preclude pragmatism later. Perhaps Biden intends by talking tough to prepare the ground for bargaining. 

But there’s a crucial difference. In Reagan’s case, the turn to negotiation required a change in Soviet leaders. And Putin does not look like he’s going anywhere soon.

Daniel Treisman, the article was published on CNN