President Vladimir Putin of Russia is a determined adversary of the United States. He requires relentless U.S. restraint. But we must judge politicians fairly in assessing who falls short against Putin.

For example, if Mitch McConnell is to be called "Moscow Mitch" for doing too little against him, then what should we start calling former President Barack Obama?

I ask this question in light of the liberal fire Senator Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, is now receiving from some quarters. MSNBC's Joe Scarborough says McConnell should be called "Moscow Mitch," and Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank says McConnell is a Russian asset. They're furious over McConnell's refusal to allow Senate votes on bills which aim to prevent Russian interference in the 2020 elections.

The critics have a small point here: Those Senate bills have flaws, but McConnell should legislate to better protect our elections. But if we pay heed to the broader strategic context on Russia, we're left with a big question.

What on earth is Obama to be called?

After all, Obama's failings against Russian aggression are far more numerous and serious than McConnell's. The facts prove as much. For just two examples, McConnell supports the provision of lethal arms supplies to Ukraine and in 2017 voted to sanction Russia over its 2016 attacks on the U.S. election. Obama opposed providing lethal aid to Ukraine, allowed Russia's attempted cover-up of the MH-17 atrocity on Ukrainian soil, and did nearly nothing — and certainly not enough — to prevent Russia's election attacks.

In fact, beyond the sad, embarrassing deference that President Trump has shown Putin in public, Trump is far tougher on Russia than his predecessor.

Where Obama turned a blind eye to German appeasement of Russian energy blackmail, Trump has lashed out against it. And the Republican-led Senate is moving to impose sanctions on the Russo-German Nord Stream II pipeline, so clearly McConnell isn't that much of a slouch.

Dealing with difficult governments on the Russian periphery, Trump has prioritized NATO interests where Obama would instead deliver public (private is the right forum) human rights lectures which, if they accomplished anything, only drove those governments further into Russian hands.

Where Obama accepted Russia's breach of missile disarmament treaties, Trump and Republicans have done the exact opposite. And although his frequent portrayal of the alliance as a business deal is wrong, Trump's demands of increased European defense spending have already made NATO demonstrably stronger.

We have too much partisan name-calling in our present discourse, so I'm not going to add to the fire here. But I will say this. If McConnell deserves to be called "Moscow Mitch," Obama's title might be considerably harsher.