The Wall Street Journal - 09.08.2019

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Friday, August 9, 2019 |A

I

t’s been 20 years since Vladi-
mir Putin came to power. On
Aug. 9, 1999, an ailing Presi-
dent Boris Yeltsin anointed
his successor by appointing
the little-known former KGB agent
as Russia’s fourth prime minister in
17 months. Yeltsin declared that Mr.
Putin would guarantee reforms in
Russia if he won the presidential
election in 2000.
In his two decades as either pres-
ident or prime minister, Mr. Putin
has seen four U.S. presidents and
countless other world leaders come
and go. After his first years in office,
he stopped pursuing reforms and be-
came increasingly authoritarian. But

he has also effectively managed to
reassert Russia’s role on the world
stage despite his country’s shrinking
economic power—a gross domestic
product smaller than Italy’s, a de-
clining population, antiquated infra-
structure, dependence on fossil-fuel
exports for 60% of the country’s
budget, and widespread corruption.
Despite these inhibitors, Russia has
reclaimed a seat at the table of the
global board of directors and re-
emerged as a disrupter of Western
interests, both foreign and domestic.
How has Mr. Putin done it?
Americans tend to think of Rus-

Russia is weak, but its

leader makes the most

of the West’s disarray

and indecisiveness.

Putin Plays Judo, Not Chess

sians as skilled chess players. Yet Mr.

Putin’s sport is not chess, but judo.

The Russian president has admitted

that he was a “hooligan” as a child

but that martial arts got him off the

streets: “It was a tool to assert my-

self in the pack.” He credits judo with

teaching him discipline and a specific

outlook on life. In 1976 Leningrad’s

evening newspaper hailed the 23-

year-old “judoist Vladimir Putin,”

who had won a prestigious competi-

tion and been elevated to the rank of

champion. Though he was little-

known then, the article predicted

that would soon change.

In judo, a seemingly weaker prac-

titioner can rely on inner strength

and force of will to defeat a larger,

stronger foe. One basic technique in-

volves putting an opponent off bal-

ance and taking advantage of his

temporary disorientation to strike a

winning blow. Mr. Putin has proved

adept at seizing opportunities pre-

sented by the West’s disarray and its

leaders’ indecisiveness. He had a plan

to restore Russia as a great power

when he took over from Yeltsin; the

U.S. has had no comparable strategy

in the post-Cold War era, and Russia

has taken advantage against its much

stronger competitor.

Mr. Putin’s skills are on display in

the Middle East, where Russia has re-

turned as a key player for the first

time in three decades, engaging all

sides of the region’s multiple con-

flicts. The key moment came in Syria

in 2013. President Obama had warned

President Bashar Assad not to cross a

“red line” by using chemical weapons,

but government forces used Sarin gas

to attack a rebel stronghold. Russia

claimed the rebels had launched the

attack, and in the ensuing weeks Mr.

Putin planted enough doubts interna-

tionally about what had happened

that Mr. Obama, also facing strong

domestic resistance, abandoned any

plans to launch airstrikes to punish

the Assad regime. The red line was

erased. Mr. Putin then stepped in as

peacemaker and proposed that the

U.S. and Russia jointly oversee the

confiscation of Syria’s chemical-

weapons stockpile.

Mr. Putin has exacerbated tensions

within the North Atlantic Treaty Or-

ganization by befriending Turkish

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who

is angry with the U.S. over its refusal

to extradite cleric Fethullah Gulen

and its criticisms of Turkey’s domes-

tic crackdown. Last month Mr. Putin

scored a big victory when Turkey re-

ceived delivery of its first Russian-

made S-400 air-defense system, in

defiance of NATO’s explicit prohibi-

tion on doing so, which led the U.S.

to cut off delivery of F-35 jets. The

episode also raised the larger ques-

tion—one much to Mr. Putin’s lik-

ing—of whether strategically located

Turkey will remain in the alliance.

Russia also took advantage of the

estrangement between the Obama

administration and Saudi Arabia to

build a strong relationship with the

Saudis for the first time. Their coop-

eration extends beyond oil to invest-

ment and diplomatic coordination,

and was entrenched by an elaborate

state visit by King Salman to Moscow

in 2017.

More recently Mr. Putin has seized

on the opportunity presented by the

Trump administration’s escalating

trade war with China to expand the

burgeoning Sino-Russian partnership

and make Moscow more indispens-

able to Beijing by strengthening mili-

tary cooperation. Last September

Chinese troops for the first time par-

ticipated in joint maneuvers in the

Russian Far East. This July came the

first-ever joint Russian-Chinese long-

range nuclear-capable bomber patrol

over the Sea of Japan, which trig-

gered an angry South Korean re-

sponse. Undoubtedly Russia is the ju-

nior partner in this relationship,

given the asymmetry between their

respective economies. But Mr. Putin

has built a partnership with Xi Jin-

ping, a like-minded authoritarian

who never criticizes him or chal-

lenges his domestic policies, as China

is also increasingly at odds with the

U.S.

Finally, Mr. Putin has jabbed the

pressure points in the European

Union. The more Brussels criticizes

Hungary for its increasing illiberal-

ism, the closer Prime Minister Viktor

Orbán moves toward Moscow, which

praises him and presents economic

and political incentives. Italy’s popu-

list and Euroskeptic government is

similarly becoming an outspoken Pu-

tin supporter and critic of EU sanc-

tions against Russia. Mr. Putin knows

how to play the power game; he even

keeps the pope waiting for him, as in

one meeting at the Vatican last

month.

As he marks two decades in the

Kremlin, Vladimir Putin has proved

himself the champion judoist, profit-

ing from divisions in the West, alert

for the next opening to reinforce Rus-

sia’s international clout, and quick to

act. He knows the moves.

Ms. Stent is director of George-

town’s Center for Eurasian, Russian

and East European Studies and au-

thor of “Putin’s World: Russia

against the West and With the Rest”

(Twelve Books).

By Angela Stent

MIKHAIL KLIMENTYEV/TASS VIA GETTY IMAGES

Putin in February

OPINION

Modi’s Kashmir Gambit Puts Pakistan in a Tough Spot

One of Asia’s oldest
disputes reached an
inflection point this
week as India sud-
denly terminated au-
tonomy for Jammu
and Kashmir, the
Muslim-majority
province claimed by
both India and Paki-
stan. The long-term
implications are un-
clear, but one thing appears obvious
already: When it comes to the seven-
decade-old Kashmir conflict, Pakistan
has few cards left to play.
Newly re-elected Indian Prime
Minister Narendra Modi fulfilled a
longstanding campaign promise by
ending a constitutional provision that
gave Jammu and Kashmir extra au-
tonomy from the federal government.
India has divided the state into two—
Muslim majority Jammu and Kashmir
and Buddhist-majority Ladakh—both
of which will be ruled directly by an
official New Dehli appoints. At least
in theory, all Indians will now be al-
lowed to buy property and settle in
either state, as well as attend univer-
sities and fill public-sector jobs long
reserved for locals.
Critics predict an upsurge in vio-
lence as disaffected Kashmiri Mus-

lims, denied meaningful recourse at

the ballot box by the state’s down-

grade, take to the gun. They accuse

the government of violating the

rights of Kashmiris, flouting constitu-

tional safeguards, and besmirching

Indian democracy. “If we let democ-

racy die a silent death in Kashmir, it

will die a silent death in the rest of

India as well,” says Shehla Rashid

Shora, a Kashmiri activist, in a phone

interview from Delhi.

Fearing protests, India has locked

down the already heavily militarized

Kashmir Valley by pouring in thou-

sands of fresh troops, arresting lead-

ers of local political parties, and

shutting down phone services, cable

TV and the internet. In a nationally

televised address Thursday, Mr. Modi

vowed to bring prosperity and good

governance to the territories.

It’s too early to say whether the

prime minister’s audacious gamble,

wildly popular among his supporters

and welcomed by many other Indi-

ans, will pay off. India’s Supreme

Court may well declare the decision

unconstitutional. But Pakistan, which

has long made Kashmir a central

plank of its foreign policy, lacks the

wherewithal to force India’s hand. By

backing jihadist groups in India and

Afghanistan and neglecting its econ-

omy, Islamabad has ensured that it

lacks the stature to make India take

its views on board.

The Kashmir dispute dates back to

the 1947 partition of British India

into Muslim-majority Pakistan and

Hindu-majority but officially secular

India. Under the terms of Britain’s

departure, native princes who ruled

hundreds of nominally independent

kingdoms had to choose between In-

dia and Pakistan. For the most part,

these choices broke along religious

lines. But in Jammu and Kashmir the

Hindu ruler of a Muslim-majority

kingdom, faced with an invasion by

Pakistan-backed irregulars, acceded

to India. In return, New Delhi prom-

ised to respect the state’s right to

make its own laws in most matters.

Now it has voided that agreement.

India controls 55% of the disputed

territory, including the populous Kash-

mir Valley. Pakistan holds 30% percent

and China 15%, including a part ceded

to it by Pakistan. Generations of Paki-

stanis have grown up regarding Kash-

mir as “the unfinished business of

Partition.” The word Pakistan, which

means “land of the pure,” is an acro-

nym in which the K stands for Kash-

mir. India and Pakistan have fought

three wars over the territory.

Pakistan reacted angrily to India’s

latest actions. It downgraded diplo-

matic relations, ended bilateral trade,

banned Indian movies, and sus-

pended a train service between the

two countries. Prime Minister Imran

Khan has promised to take his case to

the United Nations and appealed Sun-

day to President Trump to mediate.

Last month, in a press appearance

with the visiting Mr. Khan, Mr.

Trump claimed Mr. Modi had asked

him to mediate the dispute, which

New Delhi promptly denied as con-

trary to its policy of treating Kashmir

as a bilateral dispute with Pakistan.

So far Pakistan has little to show

for its efforts. The U.S., mindful of In-

dian sensitivities about mediation,

urged “all parties to maintain peace

and stability along the line of con-

trol,” the de factor border in Kashmir.

China made a tepid statement about

India’s act being “unacceptable” after

Home Minister Amit Shah reiterated

Indian claims to Chinese-controlled

territory. The U.N. expressed concern

about “the human rights situation in

the region.”

Pakistanis who find this response

underwhelming ought to blame their

army. Its support for jihadist proxies

has made Kashmiri separatism syn-

onymous with Islamist extremism.

Pakistan could step up that support,

but at the risk of both international

censure and Indian military retalia-

tion. With its economy in the midst

of an International Monetary Fund

bailout—the 13th in three decades—

Islamabad has limited ability to le-

verage its role as a facilitator for the

U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

Meanwhile, India’s $2.7 trillion

economy, more than eight times as

large as Pakistan’s, gives it interna-

tional heft. The Pakistan army’s own

shabby treatment of journalists, op-

position leaders and ethnic move-

ments representing the minority Bal-

uch and Pashtuns, makes it hard for

Islamabad to argue that Kashmiris

will be better off in Pakistan.

In the long term, Mr. Modi’s Kash-

mir gamble may flounder. If it does, it

will be because India foolishly forces

its diversity into a Hindu nationalist

straitjacket, not because of anything

Pakistan does.

Islamabad has little clout,

what with its support for

terrorism and an economy

one-eighth India’s size.

EAST IS
EAST
By Sadanand
Dhume

PUBLISHED SINCE 1889 BY DOW JONES & COMPANY

Rupert Murdoch

Executive Chairman, News Corp

Matt Murray

Editor in Chief

Robert Thomson

Chief Executive Officer, News Corp

William Lewis

Chief Executive Officer and Publisher

EDITORIAL AND CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS:
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N.Y., 10036
Telephone 1-800-DOWJONES

DOW JONES MANAGEMENT:

Ramin Beheshti,Chief Technology Officer;

Kamilah Mitchell-Thomas,Chief People Officer;

Edward Roussel,Chief Innovation Officer;

Christina Van Tassell,Chief Financial Officer

OPERATING EXECUTIVES:

Kenneth Breen,Commercial;

Jason P. Conti,General Counsel;

Tracy Corrigan,Chief Strategy Officer;

Frank Filippo,Print Products & Services;

Kristin Heitmann,Chief Commercial Officer;

Nancy McNeill,Corporate Sales;

Thomas San Filippo,Customer Service;

Josh Stinchcomb,Advertising Sales;

Suzi Watford,Chief Marketing Officer;

Jonathan Wright,International

Barron’s Group:Almar Latour,Publisher

Professional Information Business:

Christopher Lloyd,Head;

Ingrid Verschuren,Deputy Head

Neal Lipschutz Karen Miller Pensiero
Deputy Editor in Chief Managing Editor
Jason Anders,Chief News Editor;
Thorold Barker,Europe;Elena Cherney,Coverage
Planning;Andrew Dowell,Asia;Alex Martin,
Writing;Michael W. Miller,Features & Weekend;
Emma Moody,Standards;Shazna Nessa,Visuals;
Matthew Rose,Enterprise;Michael Siconolfi,
Investigations;Louise Story,Strategy and Interim
Product & Technology;Nikki Waller,Live
Journalism;Stephen Wisnefski,Professional News

Gerard Baker,Editor at Large

Paul A. Gigot,Editor of the Editorial Page;
Daniel Henninger,Deputy Editor, Editorial Page

WALL STREET JOURNAL MANAGEMENT:
Joseph B. Vincent,Operations;
Larry L. Hoffman,Production

A Minuscule Mob Shuts Down a Debate on Reparations

I

t doesn’t take a lot of people to
form a mob. When universities
cancel speeches, it’s almost al-
ways in response to the demands of a
tiny but loud minority. And last
month New York’s Comedy Cellar can-
celed a debate on slavery reparations
in response to a puny protest.
Owner Noam Dworman and his pal
Stephen Calabria have been organiz-
ing debates at the club since 2015,
discussing hot topics from the Iran
nuclear deal to America’s decline.
About a week after tickets for the
July 22 reparations debate went on
sale, they started “receiving ominous,
threatening phone calls and emails
that we should not go forward with
the debate,” Mr. Calabria said.
They reluctantly called off the
event. “There’s no upside to doing

this debate, and the risks were pretty

serious,” Mr. Dworman said. “If there

had been a disturbance there, even if

a security guy properly intervenes, it

could be ugly. You could have some-

one hurt, you could have unfair viral

videos. Who knows what the hell

could happen?” Mr. Calabria disputes

the suggestion that they chickened

out: “It’s very easy for people on the

sidelines to make that sort of judg-

ment call when it’s not their liveli-

hood on the line, not their business

on the line, not their debate series on

the line.”

Still, it seems like an overreaction.

Mr. Dworman estimates the Comedy

Cellar received 10 angry phone calls

or emails. A few dozen more com-

plained about the event on Twitter.

“They never directly threatened vio-

lence” or even disruption, Mr. Ca-

labria acknowledged. “There was in-

timidation and there were veiled

threats.”

The two grew especially alarmed

after a Twitter user posting as

@lionorder19 posted a photo of the

Comedy Cellar’s general manager and

claimed she was “responsible for the

reparations debate.” He urged follow-

ers: “Please do your part. Put an end

to this.” In a separate tweet, the

same user said he planned to call, de-

mand the event’s cancellation, “and if

they refuse, imma hit my contacts

and let some heavy hitters know

[what] is going on.”

@Lionorder19, whose real name is

Larry Boone, said the topic of repara-

tions “as a whole is definitely not up

for debate. It’s not.” Don’t call it de-

bating, but Mr. Boone spent nearly an

hour on the phone thoughtfully re-

sponding to my skeptical questions.

For centuries, he said, blacks in

America have been enslaved, brutal-

ized, raped and otherwise deprived

of basic rights—and that’s undebat-

able since it’s a matter of fact, not

opinion. American descendants of

slavery are citizens who have a con-

stitutional right to hold their govern-

ment accountable. He views repara-

tions as damages due from the

government, not contemporary

Americans, so he sees their opinions

as irrelevant here. Mr. Boone said he

also took offense at the idea of dis-

cussing his ancestors’ suffering at a

comedy club, especially if it’s a for-

profit event.

Mr. Boone said canceling the de-

bate was the right thing to do, but “we

live in a free society. So do what

you’ve got to do. And we’ll do what we

have to do.” But he disclaimed any vi-

olent or disruptive intent. “My ‘heavy

hitters’ are businessmen and -women

as well as those who have strong po-

litical connections,” he said. He said

he advised friends that “no one should

spend their energy to go protest this

thing,” because “we don’t want to get

into a yelling match.” He likened his

tweet of the manager's photo to a pic-

ture in a newspaper: “No one threat-

ened her.” He was dismayed that

Messrs. Dworman and Calabria saw

the tweets as menacing.

It’s possible that others would

have tried to disrupt the debate. But

the Comedy Cellar isn’t usually afraid

of controversy. Last August it was the

site of Louis C.K.’s first set after his

public acknowledgment of lewd con-

duct in front of female comedians.

That’s different, Mr. Dworman said. It

“touched on our core business, which

is presenting comedians....Iwas

ready to take a stronger stand be-

cause if I didn’t, I’d be jeopardizing

the whole way I do business. With

this debate thing, I had to remind

myself I’m just doing this for fun.”

But a comedy club’s business de-

pends on freedom of speech, and an

unwillingness to take risks com-

pounds the danger—a point Mr.

Dworman conceded: “I think it’s very

easy to make the case that when

someone like me buckles—and I did

buckle—there is blood in the water,

and it encourages people to do this

kind of thing.”

Ms. Melchior is a Journal editorial

page writer.

By Jillian Kay Melchior

‘When someone like me

buckles,’ admits the owner

of the Comedy Cellar,

‘there is blood in the water.’

Celine Sui writing for the South

China Morning Post, Aug. 5:

Shanghai’s waste sorting system

adds yet another level to surveillance

in China. In 2018, the city rolled out

smart recycling bins—receptacles

which come complete with video

cameras and scanners, and which are

able to distinguish between catego-

ries of garbage and collect waste dis-

posal data.

To use these bins, residents swipe

smart cards. Those who sort their

waste regularly earn cashable points,

and those who do not might receive

a visit from the neighbourhood com-

mittee.

The next stage—transferring gar-

bage from bin to treatment centre—

also involves high-definition cameras

and AI tools. In March, Shanghai

launched an information platform

that tracks the entire process of

waste disposal. Cameras are installed

on garbage trucks and in transfer sta-

tions, where 2,000 to 3,000 photos of

the trash are taken, then analysed us-

ing AI to detect garbage that has

been misclassified—for example, a

plastic bottle that has been chuck in

with wet waste.

“We know which truck entered

which district when and collected

how much garbage,” Zhang Zhigang,

an executive of the system developer,

told Xinhua.

Setting up a data gathering system

for waste sorting is...aprime ex-

ample of how integrated and multi-

faceted China’s data system will

eventually become.

Notable& Quotable: Recycling