There is much to justly praise in the hostage deal. I have also seen a lot of criticism from those who oppose the Biden administration. Almost none of the criticisms, however, are intellectually defensible or more than a way of rationalizing why Biden could succeed in freeing Americans from the Putin regime while Trump couldn't.
There is one concern expressed by some of the more well-informed critics, however, that does merit attention. These critics have pointed out that trading hostages for criminals and murderers only incentivizes the Putin regime to conduct more hostage-taking, and that the Biden administration's willingness to do this condemns us to an endless cycle of hostage taking by the Putin regime.
This sounds logical, but it misunderstands the current situation. The reality is that we are already in such an endless cycle, whether we like it or not.
During the Cold War, the KGB did take hostages to trade for spies. It took Barghoorn to trade for Ivanov in 1963, Crawford to trade for Chernyayev and Enger in 1978, and Daniloff to trade for Zakharov in 1986. Undoubtedly, the KGB of that era saw Western enemies everywhere and, if left to its own devices, would have arrested more people just on general principles. But its worst tendencies were restrained by the political leadership.
Today, the situation has changed radically. The current political leadership of Russia is composed of former members of the Leningrad KGB and members of Putin's immediate clan. There are no restraining forces, and as a result the Putin regime has given in to its worst impulses.
The regime is not just collecting potential trade bait, it is collecting people who, according to its paranoid and delusional view, are in some way a threat. That means that even if we stop trading criminals and murderers for hostages, the regime will continue to arrest random Americans regardless of whether a trade is in the offing or not.
We will have to find other ways to make them pay for their misbehavior, and there are asymmetrical strategies that can be used. In the meantime, any American who ventures into Russia despite USG warnings is risking summary arrest and imprisonment. At this point, only accredited US diplomats have some guarantee of safety.
Thank you for this column and the clarity it brings to this very complicated litany of issues with the Putin regime in relishing a world view of its administration as oppressive, tyrannical and NOT free. In turning over how things have played out, just in this one political exchange, I dearly invite the spirits, the souls of B. Nemtsov and A. Navalny, and many, many others treated the same way to remain in the forefront, in the eyes of everyone.
There is a point to negotiating for the return of innocents exchanged for criminals in this matter. It is what free people sometimes have to do given that for Putin there appear only to be ends, and the means to ends are quickly forgotten. We are very happy Gershkovich, Whalen, the dissenters and politicals are home. The U.S. administration is once again an extremely effective civil and human rights establishment dealing with impossibilities, and deserves great recognition. While as a free nation, and this is quixotic, there are no goodbyes to this sort of thing, and now the stakes are higher, it might make sense to follow up to suggest setting everything back, back to the beginning twenty five years ago.
The big winner in this exchange was Putin. While I can share in the joy of the hostages and their families on their release, I hate to see a gangster get away with a heinous crime and thereby set the stage for further such crimes in the future. The message Putin gave his released thugs and spies was this: go out and murder Mr. X or subvert ABC country, and don’t worry about getting caught. If that happens, we’ll just kidnap a few hostages and get you out. The Western governments always have to yield to public opinion and family pressure. The real question is how do we put pressure on Putin so that he has to pay a high price for such behavior? Not clear to me there is an easy or simple answer to that question. One thing is clear, however. We certainly want to stop or diminish the spread of Putin’s influence around the world. The best avenue to that goal at present is to double down on our support for Ukraine in order to thwart Putin’s criminal war of aggression there. A clear defeat for Putin in Ukraine would do a lot to cut down his influence and prestige around the world.
I cannot say that I agree one bit. Yes, I am happy for all the good people that are out, but that should not change our assessment that this risks being a big mistake
This swap just repeats the pattern that will lead VVP to challenge Article 5 in the near future (my guess is: before 2026 is up), because he sees that we will *always* find some argument to weasel out of maintaining core principles.
If it is not a core principle that you do not gun down people on our streets (Krasikov), and then get to go home to a hero's welcome -- what is?
There is much to justly praise in the hostage deal. I have also seen a lot of criticism from those who oppose the Biden administration. Almost none of the criticisms, however, are intellectually defensible or more than a way of rationalizing why Biden could succeed in freeing Americans from the Putin regime while Trump couldn't.
There is one concern expressed by some of the more well-informed critics, however, that does merit attention. These critics have pointed out that trading hostages for criminals and murderers only incentivizes the Putin regime to conduct more hostage-taking, and that the Biden administration's willingness to do this condemns us to an endless cycle of hostage taking by the Putin regime.
This sounds logical, but it misunderstands the current situation. The reality is that we are already in such an endless cycle, whether we like it or not.
During the Cold War, the KGB did take hostages to trade for spies. It took Barghoorn to trade for Ivanov in 1963, Crawford to trade for Chernyayev and Enger in 1978, and Daniloff to trade for Zakharov in 1986. Undoubtedly, the KGB of that era saw Western enemies everywhere and, if left to its own devices, would have arrested more people just on general principles. But its worst tendencies were restrained by the political leadership.
Today, the situation has changed radically. The current political leadership of Russia is composed of former members of the Leningrad KGB and members of Putin's immediate clan. There are no restraining forces, and as a result the Putin regime has given in to its worst impulses.
The regime is not just collecting potential trade bait, it is collecting people who, according to its paranoid and delusional view, are in some way a threat. That means that even if we stop trading criminals and murderers for hostages, the regime will continue to arrest random Americans regardless of whether a trade is in the offing or not.
We will have to find other ways to make them pay for their misbehavior, and there are asymmetrical strategies that can be used. In the meantime, any American who ventures into Russia despite USG warnings is risking summary arrest and imprisonment. At this point, only accredited US diplomats have some guarantee of safety.
Well stated, and I agree that asymmetrical strategies are needed to keep Putin in check and on the defense.
Thank you for this column and the clarity it brings to this very complicated litany of issues with the Putin regime in relishing a world view of its administration as oppressive, tyrannical and NOT free. In turning over how things have played out, just in this one political exchange, I dearly invite the spirits, the souls of B. Nemtsov and A. Navalny, and many, many others treated the same way to remain in the forefront, in the eyes of everyone.
There is a point to negotiating for the return of innocents exchanged for criminals in this matter. It is what free people sometimes have to do given that for Putin there appear only to be ends, and the means to ends are quickly forgotten. We are very happy Gershkovich, Whalen, the dissenters and politicals are home. The U.S. administration is once again an extremely effective civil and human rights establishment dealing with impossibilities, and deserves great recognition. While as a free nation, and this is quixotic, there are no goodbyes to this sort of thing, and now the stakes are higher, it might make sense to follow up to suggest setting everything back, back to the beginning twenty five years ago.
The big winner in this exchange was Putin. While I can share in the joy of the hostages and their families on their release, I hate to see a gangster get away with a heinous crime and thereby set the stage for further such crimes in the future. The message Putin gave his released thugs and spies was this: go out and murder Mr. X or subvert ABC country, and don’t worry about getting caught. If that happens, we’ll just kidnap a few hostages and get you out. The Western governments always have to yield to public opinion and family pressure. The real question is how do we put pressure on Putin so that he has to pay a high price for such behavior? Not clear to me there is an easy or simple answer to that question. One thing is clear, however. We certainly want to stop or diminish the spread of Putin’s influence around the world. The best avenue to that goal at present is to double down on our support for Ukraine in order to thwart Putin’s criminal war of aggression there. A clear defeat for Putin in Ukraine would do a lot to cut down his influence and prestige around the world.
agree on the need to double down on aid to Ukraine
I cannot say that I agree one bit. Yes, I am happy for all the good people that are out, but that should not change our assessment that this risks being a big mistake
This swap just repeats the pattern that will lead VVP to challenge Article 5 in the near future (my guess is: before 2026 is up), because he sees that we will *always* find some argument to weasel out of maintaining core principles.
If it is not a core principle that you do not gun down people on our streets (Krasikov), and then get to go home to a hero's welcome -- what is?
fair points