America's Dangerous 'Putin Panic'

SOFIA, Bulgaria - WILL Vladimir V. Putin, the president of Russia, elect the next president of the United States? My guess is not. But reading the avalanche of commentary about Russia's alleged interference in American politics, one might think otherwise.

It reminds me a bit of the Russian satirist Victor Pelevin's absurdist novella "Operation Burning Bush." The story follows a humble Russian English-language teacher, endowed with a powerful voice, who is recruited for a special intelligence operation: to speak with President George W. Bush through an implant in the president's tooth. Following the Kremlin's instructions, the teacher, pretending to sound like God, gives the 43rd president the idea to invade Iraq. Later in the novel, we find out that in the 1980s, the Central Intelligence Agency conducted a similar operation - this time posing as Lenin's spirit to convince Mikhail Gorbachev to initiate perestroika, setting off a chain of events that ended with the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

The C.I.A. didn't actually do that, though it certainly engaged in its share of harebrained Cold War schemes. But in putting the two plots in contrast, Mr. Pelevin highlights the degree of paranoia that haunts Moscow - everything bad that happens in Russia is a result of an American covert operation. And while Mr. Pelevin wrote his story before the current American presidential campaign, it seems his point goes both ways.

It's hard to underestimate the extent of Russia's anti-American paranoia. Russia's leaders take it as an article of faith that the mass protests in Moscow in 2011 and 2012 were orchestrated from abroad, and that Ukraine's Euro-Maidan revolution in 2013 and 2014 was generated with Western resources and inspiration. Even the declining price of oil is, to them, a C.I.A. plot.

There's a kernel of common sense in their madness. In an interdependent world where the borders between foreign policy and domestic politics are increasingly blurred, it follows that interference in the domestic politics of your adversaries - even your neighbors - is an easy and acceptable part of the game.

Still, it is striking just how far the same conspiratorial thinking has permeated the West. Commentators see Mr. Putin behind everything from Brexit and the wave of euroskepticism in Western Europe to the rise of Donald J. Trump in America. As sweeping as the Kremlin's faith in Western malfeasance is, so, too, is the West's "Putin panic."

Of course, as the joke goes, just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't after you. It makes sense that Mr. Putin wants Mr. Trump to be the next American president (though he should be careful what he wishes for). And Democrats have every right to be concerned about possible meddling by Moscow in their party's internal politics.

But it requires an astounding level of exaggeration to believe that Russian interference will decide the election, or that Russia would even try to. The Kremlin's actions are more akin to a black-arts version of the "democracy promotion" that the United States undertakes in countries like Russia, funding liberal NGOs as a way of challenging Mr. Putin's monopoly on power. Annoying, and concerning, but hardly a threat.

The real problem is where the paranoia takes you. Western politicians and commentators are disturbingly eager to blame the impact of Russian propaganda or the manipulations of the Federal Security Service for the problems of our democracies. Mr. Putin obviously will benefit from Brexit, and may even have put a finger on the scale, but is that really the problem? And do we really believe that Mr. Trump's xenophobic appeal would collapse overnight if the Kremlin put its power behind Hillary Clinton?

What is disturbing with the "blame Putin" stance endorsed by serious Western politicians, analysts and news media outlets is that it makes the Russian leader appear omnipotent while making the rest of us seem impotent. Casting blame in Moscow's direction prevents us from productively discussing the grave problems we face as societies, and simplistically reduces the uncertainties and risks of an increasingly interdependent world to the great powers rivalry. It neither helps us better understand Russia and the nature of its government, nor makes it easier for us to have effective policy vis-à-vis Moscow.

Putin panic also unintentionally validates the Kremlin's claim that Russia is strong and run by a great leader, at a moment when the Russian government fails to provide economic prosperity and social justice at home. It unwittingly amplifies Mr. Putin's propaganda machine by fortifying Russia's image as the world's geostrategic ninja, disrupting elections and information networks without leaving a trace.

A "blame Putin" message is not only a propaganda trap; it is also questionable electoral strategy. Recent Pew Research Center surveys show that while most Americans and Europeans view the Russian president negatively, Americans do not feel particularly threatened by Moscow. What generally worries them are terrorism, radicalized Islam, cyberattacks, job loss, cheap Chinese exports and, above all else, migration. The obsession with Mr. Putin only strengthens the Republican message that the Democrats are out of touch with the concerns of ordinary Americans. Mr. Trump is the candidate from hell, but our Putin obsession makes Mrs. Clinton look as the candidate from yesterday.

In today's crazy world, keeping America sane should be the next president's top priority. Getting over our Putin paranoia will be a welcome first step at eroding Russia's destabilizing international influence.

The New York Times