As a consequential figure on the world stage, I can certainly understand why Vladimir Putin got selected as Time’s Person of the Year. For all of its problems, Russia remains a country with great sway and power and Putin is therefore a key player on the world stage. His efforts to shut down a nascent democracy deserve mention, attention and worldwide opprobrium. His efforts to reignite the forces of Russian imperialism via bullying former Soviet republics, a likely recognition of the efforts being made by the breakaway ethnic Russian enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia to achieve independence (this in response to any effort on the part of Kosovo to achieve independence), Russia’s withdrawal from the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty and Putin’s own efforts to enhance his cult of personality and his political power at home should be of deep concern to any and all Russia-watchers.

I continue to think that General David Petraeus should have been selected Person of the Year. Just as consequential as Putin, he used his talents for good, leading the troop surge in Iraq and helping to set the country on a path towards reconstruction, political reconciliation and full re-integration into the international community. But as I indicate above, the Person of the Year award doesn’t just go to good people, though in this case, a powerful argument can be made that a good person (Petraeus) deserved it over a deeply flawed and power-hungry one (Putin). The consequence of this “award” should be a renewed emphasis on the threats a belligerent Russian government poses to its own citizens and to other countries. No, this is not the Cold War. Not even close. But it’s nothing to shut our eyes to either.

Or to put matters more succinctly, see this.