Boston Globe Editorial - Bush's white lie about Putin

Boston Globe Editorial - Bush's white lie about Putin
Copyright by The Boston Globe
Published: July 5, 2007


After fishing off Kennebunkport, dining on Maine lobster, and discussing a wide range of issues, President George W. Bush and President Vladimir Putin of Russia came out to meet the press on Monday. Asked whether he trusts the erstwhile KGB officer at his side, Bush gave an answer that was bound to dismay Russian democrats and independent journalists, human rights advocates, Georgians, Chechens and anyone else who has been caught on the wrong side of Putin's power.

"When you're dealing with a world leader, you wonder whether or not he's telling the truth," Bush said. "I've never had to worry about that with Vladimir Putin. Sometimes he says things I don't want to hear, but I know he's always telling me the truth. And so you ask, do I trust him? Yes, I trust him." In the realm of big-power diplomacy - where talk about truthfulness is usually a non sequitur - Bush's praise for Putin's sincerity amounts to a little white lie. This fib is defensible only insofar as Bush did not mean what he said about his Russian guest.

One justification for Bush's falsehood is that he had more important fish to fry. The most obvious source of discord was Bush's scheme to place components of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. This project is a fantasy, but it frightens the Kremlin because of the possibility that one day it could become part of an upgraded missile defense aimed at Russia. Or at least that is the fear Russian officials profess to have.

Russian specialists know that the current American missile defense system offers no protection against intercontinental ballistic missiles; its sensors cannot distinguish between live warheads and decoys outside the earth's atmosphere. Whether or not Bush understands this fatal flaw, his attachment to the missile defense illusion has ceded a valuable advantage to Putin on the chessboard of U.S.-Russian relations.

In return for accepting a compromise on missile defense in Europe - something like the siting of a radar station in southern Russia that Putin proposed at Kennebunkport - the Kremlin's chess master may demand suitable recompense. This could entail American receptivity to Russian influence in the old Soviet spheres of interest; accepting Russian preferences for routing oil and natural gas pipelines; allowing Russia to absorb secessionist provinces in Georgia and Moldova; or turning a blind eye to the Mafia-like, authoritarian state Putin has imposed on Russia.

There is a genuine need for Putin's cooperation, for example in international efforts to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. But there is no need to bribe Putin to acquiesce to a missile defense system that doesn't work. Instead of assuring the world about Putin's truthfulness, Bush should be driving sound bargains that accommodate the vital interests of Russia and the