JudoPolitik

Malcolm Gladwell, in his superb new book, David and Goliath, examines the nature and impact of uneven “battles” – i.e. “what happens when ordinary people confront giants... powerful opponents of all kinds – from armies and mighty warriors to disability, misfortune, and oppression.”

Gladwell finds that we often misinterpret such confrontations. For instance, what looks like a giant is often just a blustering fool. And the best way to defeat a such giants is to reject their terms of battle, to come at them in a way they are not expecting. In fact, according to political scientist Ivan Aggreuín-Toft, when the weaker side in a battle refuses to fight on the stronger side’s terms (resorting, say, to guerrilla tactics), the weaker side wins over 60 percent of the time.

Much in Gladwell’s book validated thoughts I had during the recent crisis over Syria and its chemical weapons arsenal. Commentators were fascinated how Russia, who seemed to be in a no-win situation, a holdout supporter of a desperate dictator, turned things into a win-win result. The US had been on the verge of “pin-prick” air strikes, which would have occasioned a Russian response in support of their ally, when Putin and his foreign minister flipped an off-handed comment by US Secretary of State John Kerry (“sure, they can avoid a strike by giving up all their chemical weapons”) into a road map away from confrontation.

I mused privately at the time that the reason for Russia’s success was that Putin sees the world in terms of judo, the sport closest to his heart, while President Obama sees it in terms of basketball.

What is the difference? Well, here is one of the guiding principles of judo, from its nineteenth century founder, Kano: “Resisting a more powerful opponent will result in your defeat, while adjusting to and evading your opponent’s attack will cause him to lose his balance, his power will be reduced, and you will defeat him. This can apply whatever the relative values of power, thus making it possible for weaker opponents to beat significantly stronger ones.” And basketball? It is about creating a smoothly oiled machine, executing well-planned plays, putting the right players in the right place at the right time.

In the Syria crisis, the US was playing basketball – setting up plays and putting its strongest shooter in position, but Russia did not play the game the US was offering. Instead, it arrived in its white judogi and threw the unsuspecting three-point shooter to the mat.

Of course this is an oversimplification. And I don’t recount it to express pleasure or displeasure that someone “won” or someone “lost” in a single international scrap. In fact, the whole world wins if we eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons.

No, I raise this because I feel it offers context for understanding and predicting Russian behavior on the world stage in the months and years to come. Hardened by its economic and political challenges of the past two decades, and facing a world in which it is no longer a hulking superpower, Russia should be expected to act unconventionally, to use the rules of the game in ways the dominant players (i.e. the US) do not expect, and to use its opponents’ strengths against them, turning them into weaknesses.

The US, for its part, should probably invest a bit more attention in judo than in basketball. Or, with the winter Olympics coming, in biathlon rather than hockey.

Enjoy the issue.