The Washington Post has been completely in the tank for Hillary Clinton this year. The latest story is no different — attempting to paint Clinton as a tough opponent of Russia’s Vladimir Putin, which is supposedly the “real” reason he’s opposed to her candidacy. Aside from her infamous “reset,” the Post specifically referenced her as telling Barack Obama that “strength and resolve were the only language Putin would understand.” The problem is that Clinton and Obama have been anything but tough with Putin. According the Post, Hillary’s idea of being tough with Putin is to “snub him” and avoid “flatter[ing] Putin with high-level attention.” In other words, get on your high horse and act like he doesn’t exist. While that type of passive-aggressive behavior might work for one who is seeking to show dominance over weak-minded subordinates, it tends to have the opposite effect on those who are of a discerning mind and see through the power play charade.

Since Obama has been in office, America has witnessed the rise of Russian strength and a rebirth of Cold War-like animosities between the U.S. and Russia. Mitt Romney warned about just that, while Obama and Clinton scoffed. Putin has successfully annexed Crimea, occupied eastern Ukraine, and propped up a once-faltering Bashar al-Assad, essentially securing his hold on power in Syria. Obama and company have issued ultimatums and endorsed sanctions that they have then failed to back up, which is no sign of strength but of weakness. Ignoring problems doesn’t make them go away, and talking tough while ignoring problems only makes one look even more foolish.

While Clinton has the foreign policy “experience” that Donald Trump does not have, the outcomes of her decisions leave little in the way of confidence that the U.S. under her leadership would gain any more strength internationally. In fact, there is a good argument to be made that Putin would rather deal with the known of another four years of Obama-style diplomacy than the unknown of Trump.