The bear growls

Vladimir Putin was reported to have won 76.7 percent of the vote in Russia’s presidential election, more than anyone in the post-Soviet era. But the show of popular support his regime orchestrated for itself was less impressive than it looked. Turnout, at 67.5 percent, was below the 70 percent goal the Kremlin set for itself, even though authorities raised the total with ballot-box stuffing so blatant that videos of it were readily available. Young people did not turn out: According to the New York Times, an exit poll by a state-backed agency showed only about 9 percent participation by voters aged 18 to 25.

In all, it seemed more than understandable that Putin, who is often described as wildly popular, did not take the risk of allowing his most prominent opponent, Alexei Navalny, to run against him. Navalny, who called for a boycott, ended up stealing some of Putin’s show anyway: His live online debate with the officially sanctioned opposition candidate, Ksenia Sobchak, generated far more buzz than Putin’s lackluster victory rally.

Putin based his campaign almost entirely on hostility toward the West.

Putin has promised to raise economic growth above 3 percent from its current level of under 2 percent. But with oil prices flat and Western sanctions increasing in response to provocations like this month’s nerve-agent attack on a former Russian spy in Britain, that appears unlikely. Similarly, Putin has on several occasions declared Russia’s intervention in Syria a mission accomplished. But the war doesn’t appear likely to end anytime soon; Putin’s attempts to broker a settlement have fallen flat. Nor are Russian forces likely to find a way out of the eastern Ukrainian territories they invaded four years ago, where hostilities continue.

These troubles could make Putin more rather than less dangerous. In recent years he has repeatedly used foreign ventures, such as the invasion of Crimea, to distract Russians from domestic stagnation. He can be expected to mount influence operations in the 2018 and 2020 U.S. elections. Might there also be more nerve-agent attacks, or a military probe of a NATO country in Central Europe or the Baltics? Those who rule out the latter should consider that U.S. troops in Syria last month came under attack from an irregular but officially sanctioned Russian force armed with artillery and tanks.

Only forceful Western action will deter Putin. Ukrainian forces should be supplied with more weapons, and cyberattacks should be answered. Above all, Putin and the clique of oligarchs around him should be prevented from stashing their money in Western financial and real estate markets. Putin should know that further adventures abroad will put his newly renewed regime at risk.