Westerners often call attention to Vladimir Putin’s prowess with judo. For many, it has taken a place alongside his bare-chested horseback riding, tiger tranquilizing and hang gliding to become a kind of running joke: There he goes again, the portrait of silly Russian machismo and power.

But to the Russian president, judo is no joke.

He has practiced it since age 11, earned a black-belt in it, written a book about its theory/practice, and even released an instructional dvd called Let’s Learn Judo With Vladimir Putin.

Putin’s deep-rooted interest in the martial art lies at the very foundation of his identity, and, as such, has shaped more than just his physique. A case can be made that the principles of judo are also shaping Vladimir Putin’s current foreign policy toward the West.

Practitioners of most martial art forms focus mainly on using their own power against opponents. But judo adherents strive to use their opponent’s strength, weight and movement against him—to unbalance and defeat him. This focus allows a weak or light judo practitioner “to overcome a physically superior opponent” (Columbia Encyclopedia, sixth edition).

What are the strengths, weights and movements of the United States and the other Western nations that Putin is challenging? At least on the surface, they are respecting the “voice of the people,” adhering to international law, protecting threatened minorities, and using military force only when necessary.

Economically and militarily, Russia is weaker than the United States. But by using the West’s often lumbering movements against it—like the judo master he is—Putin is punching above his weight, and making some staggering gains for the motherland.

The Large Wheel Throw

Here’s what Putin didn’t do in Crimea: He didn’t march battalions of clearly marked Red Army troops onto the peninsula, brandishing the Russian tricolor and singing “God Save the Tsar!” He didn’t say that Moscow utterly rejects the Western-made systems of law, morality and ethics that have steered international geopolitics almost unchallenged since the demise of the Soviet Union. He didn’t hoist the Russian flag in downtown Simferopol without consulting local authorities and citizens.

Those kinds of moves would have been more like the kicks and punches of a geopolitical kickboxer or karate guru.

Putin is a judo man, so, after deploying undercover agents to destabilize Crimea, he held a referendum to decide whether the people of the peninsula wanted to return to Mother Russia. He basically said, Give the people a voice; let the individuals most affected make this weighty decision; let not my will, but theirs, be done!

After the vote, Putin even spouted off a line that could have come straight out of a Hillary Clinton press conference: “[It was] in full accordance with democratic procedures and international legal norms.”

Of course, the truth is that Ukrainian law unambiguously forbids any such referendum. Its constitution explicitly states that Crimea is “an inseparable constituent part of Ukraine,” and its laws are subservient to those of the central government in Kiev.

But the people spoke.

And remember January 2011, when a referendum resulted in the establishment of South Sudan? At that time, President Obama called it “an inspiration to the world and a tribute to the determination of the people and leaders of south Sudan to forge a better future.” The Sudanese vote was more internationally legitimate than that in Crimea, but that recent history still puts a serious judo leg lock on America’s ability to criticize Crimea for wanting to “forge a better future” for itself.

The referendum in Crimea—regardless of how unfairly it was actually conducted—allows Mr. Putin to say he remained within the boundaries of international law, and that he let the power of the people prevail. He used the West’s weight against it, in something like a standard judo large wheel throw.

Putin: 1; The West: 0

The Shoulder Throw

Perhaps the most blundering geopolitical lunge in the modern era was in the 1990s and early 2000s when the U.S. bombed the Serbs to rubble so that Kosovo and other states could break away from Yugoslavia. For Germany—who orchestrated the bloody maneuver from behind the scenes—it was anything but blundering, but it still set a dangerous precedent.

The significance of this precedent was not lost on Putin, and he cited it for his recent maneuvers in Ukraine. “[T]he Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent—a precedent our Western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation—when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities.”

In fact, Putin is right that there is little difference in what he did in Crimea and what the U.S.—at Germany’s behest—did in Yugoslavia. Here again, judo master Putin is using the strength, weight and movement of the West against it, making it quite difficult for his adversary to take the moral high road against him. By citing the Kosovo precedent, judo master Putin has performed something like a crippling two-arm shoulder throw.

Putin: 2; The West: 0

The Rice Bail Reversal

Next, consider the “Responsibility to Protect,” a norm in international law saying nations must protect their peoples from various man-made atrocities. The U.S. has cited this norm as cause for intervention in such nations as Kenya, Ivory Coast and Libya. “Make no mistake,” President Obama said at the outset of the last of these interventions, “we are answering the calls of a threatened people.”

Compare that to Putin’s April 17 statements regarding the turmoil in eastern Ukraine and the threat it presents to the minority of ethnic Russians living there: “[W]e definitely know that we have to do everything to help these people to protect their rights and decide on their fate. This is what we are going to fight for.”

In the same breath, Putin emphasized his legal right to send in soldiers, and made mention of his reluctance to do so, which almost sounded like it could have been uttered by Jimmy Carter himself: “I sincerely hope I will not have to use this right, and we will use political and diplomatic means to resolve all the critical issues in Ukraine today.”

Under Responsibility to Protect, the U.S. and its nato partners have lunged themselves clumsily across the international stage several times. The precedent set by those lunges now places a judo thrust choke on their ability to criticize Russia. And Putin is in a prime position to harness the momentum of those lunges to execute the geopolitical equivalent of a classic rice bail reversal upon his adversaries.

Putin: 3; The West: 0

Sweeping Wraparound Throw

Since the earliest stirrings of the Arab Spring, President Obama has urged most any leader accused of dictatorial behavior to relinquish power. His strongest of such statements came in February 2012 when he said Syrian dictator Bashar Assad “must step aside and allow a democratic transition to proceed immediately. … Every government has the responsibility to protect its citizens, and any government that brutalizes and massacres its people does not deserve to govern.”

This precedent would make it quite easy for Putin to support an overthrow of Oleksandr Turchynov, the man who became Ukraine’s president after the ouster of Viktor Yanukovych. After all, isn’t all the ongoing unrest and conflict in eastern Ukraine the result of Turchynov’s rule? No, but Putin can say it is if such a claim serves his purpose, and he can persuade ethnic Russians living there to follow suit.

Putin also continues to recognize Yanukovych as Ukraine’s leader. This means that if the Russians currently working to destabilize Ukraine are proven to be there under Putin’s orders, he can say it was the desire of “the lawful leader of Ukraine” to send them in. That would enable him to label the presence as legitimate in terms of international law. The same would be true for a full-scale intervention.

Once again, Mr. Putin has harnessed the momentum of the U.S.’s blundering foreign policy. He has Washington off balance, and is positioned to administer a sweeping wraparound throw.

Putin: 4; The West: 0

We Have a Winner

The examples could go on. But the important thing is that in his struggle against the militarily stronger and heavier U.S., Putin is winning. The annexation of Crimea is a fait accompli, and Putin has his adversaries off balance.

His strategy of justifying his invasions by citing Western-esque rationals such as enabling popular sovereignty, following international law, and protecting threatened minorities has placed him in a dominant stance. Now he is eyeing mainland Ukraine, and may not even need to invade in order to destabilize its eastern regions to a degree that gives him de facto control over them.

Alarmingly, neither the U.S. nor Europe seem to be in a position to regain their footing against Putin any time soon. For the U.S., we shouldn’t expect any leader to emerge who can challenge the Russian judo strategist. But in Europe, the emergence of such a warrior is sure, and will happen soon. For details, read our article, “Europe Will Get Its Vladimir.”