How to solve a problem like Putin?

Any good actuary could tell you how many Russian exiles in Britain are likely to die in a given year. But apparently a Kremlin actuary could tell you which ones, and where. Shall we treat it as a statistical curiosity, or try to do something?

It is of course possible that former Western spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia suffered some lifethreatening natural illness in an English park, suddenly decided to experiment with lethally powerful opiates, or accidentally sat down in the remains of a drug deal or peculiarly situated lab. Or rather, it might have been until we learned they were victims of a sophisticated neurotoxin not typically found in rural Britain.

It seems highly probable that the Kremlin was involved. And there’s an outside chance rogue security service elements decided to pull this one off, and Putin is now denying everything publicly to save face while having a private word with those Kremlin actuaries about the life expectancy of “black ops” agents who embarrass the regime. But as The New York Times put it: “the government of President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia … Western intelligence officials say has, with alarming frequency, ordered the killing of people who have crossed it.”

Putin’s own snarled “Traitors will kick the bucket,” about Sergei Skripal specifically, certainly suggests the Times could instead have said “De boss rubs out people dat annoys him.” Unless this iron-fisted former KGB man is just an innocent bystander while his underlings rampage. Nudge, wink.

Kremlin protestations of innocence are especially hard to swallow given the blustering tone of the two guys accused of the similar 2006 murder of Aleksandr Litvinenko. Former KGB bodyguard Andrey Lugovoy, now in Russia’s parliament, sneered, “The British suffer from phobias,” while military- intelligence- agentturned-businessman Dmitry Kovtun snickered, “if this is not just an accident, then, of course, this is a provocation by British special forces aimed primarily at discrediting Russian government bodies in the run-up to the presidential election.” Exactly the sort of conspiracy theory that makes sense to people who’ve been there and done that.

If James Bond did not conduct a false flag operation here, what are we to do about it? How shall we react to a regime that brazenly mur- ders its opponents in broad daylight in our countries, aids brutal tyrants, annexes Crimea, subverts Ukraine and whose sinister president gives a state of the nation address complete with animated maps of him launching nuclear weapons at America? ( And they call Trump belligerent.)

Many sober commentators say we dare not risk a confrontation with a belligerent nuclear superpower. The same voices reliably say we dare not risk a confrontation with a belligerent North Korea, and would presumably say it about a belligerent Freedonia. And American officials are reportedly very reluctant to respond to Russia’s cyberaggression for fear of provoking worse. But the problem with swallowing provocation after provocation is that it rewards precisely what you want to discourage, so you end up cornered and forced to choose between surrendering entirely or confrontation under highly unfavourable circumstances.

Of course confronting the Kremlin carries risks. As Putin put it with his habitual finesse, it’s why the place bristles with weapons, snatches territory and murders people: “Nobody listened to us. Listen now.” One might reply that there are countries, cultures and people in the world who get listened to for reasons other their eerie resemblance to Al Capone. But Putin’s idea is that because we fear confrontation we will retreat and ultimately surrender. Does it sound good to you?

There’s also the Airplane II plan, “Pretend nothing has happened and hope everything turns out all right in the morning.” Which does sometimes work. Putin might die. Or lose the election. (Ha ha.) And early in the Cold War the United States opted for a policy of “containment” of Bolshevism that, pursued tenaciously if erratically over many years, ultimately found the right balance, and one morning the Soviet Union was gone. But the right balance required patience, prudence, a big stick and some unnerving “brinksmanship” as John Foster Dulles infelicitously named it. Containment was a substitute for spineless retreat concealed by bluster, not a synonym for it.

Anti- bullying is big in schools these days. Maybe adults need to pay attention. And not just to the touchyfeely stuff about hugs. If Putin hugs you, it’s to crush you. Or you feel this strange little prick at the base of your neck … And he is a classic bully, right down to once bringing a big dog into a meeting with Angela Merkel, known to fear dogs. Which she meekly tolerated.

You don’t need to be a Kremlin actuary to predict your fate if you let Putin push, shove, insult and forcefeed lies to you. But they have. It’s why they do it.

PUTIN MIGHT DIE. OR LOSE THE ELECTION. (HA HA.) — JOHN ROBSON