Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced today that he will not participate in upcoming presidential debates. Instead, the Russian leader will send representatives to debate on his behalf. Putin, who pledged to develop democracy in Russia, is still expected to win the March 4 presidential election but Kremlin watchers are questioning how the government will handle the aftermath of one of the most intensely contested elections in recent Russian history.

The Wall Street Journal’s Alan Cullison reports that the Kremlin is falling back on anti-Americanism as a useful tool to both smear opponents as “puppets of the U.S.’s CIA and State Department” and bolster Putin’s images as a fierce nationalist. A degree of hostility to the U.S. has always been a staple of Putin’s leadership but the new campaign has gone further, branding his political opponents as American puppets.

A documentary titled “Foreigners Will Help Them,” aired on Russian television last week. The film features supposed secret tapes of opposition leaders accepting instructions from U.S. officials in Moscow and Washington.

On Saturday, Russia’s veto of a U.N. Security Council resolution aimed at ending the 11-month Syrian uprising drew harsh words from Washington — Secretary of State Hillary Clinton characterized that veto as “a travesty” during a visit to Bulgaria this weekend — but Russian obstinance at the U.N. may serve Putin domestically as evidence that he is unafraid to stand up to the U.S. and the West.

News this morning that Putin will send proxies to represent him in upcoming presidential election debates came as a surprise since he had explicitly told journalists on December 28 that he would debate his challengers. Putin, speaking to the journalists, slammed his political opponents, telling them that “the point is that the opposition doesn’t carry out practical work and it always demands the impossible, and then usually nothing is implemented.” He continued, “[Dialogue is required,] and I will decide what form it will take exactly.”

A report released over the weekend by the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan said the civilian death toll of the war there hit an all-time high in 2011. According to the report (PDF), 3,021 civilians died last year in fighting or violent attacks, up eight percent from the 2010 number and nearly double the figure for 2007. Civilian deaths rose for the fifth straight year.

The U.N. placed responsibility for the majority of killings squarely on the shoulders of the Taliban and allied anti-government forces, blaming them for more than three quarters of civilian deaths. Here’s a chart from the U.N. report attributing blame for civilian killings in 2010 and 2011, with blue representing anti-government forces’ responsibility and red representing pro-government forces’ responsibility:

Improvised explosive device (IED) attacks, which accounted for 45 percent of anti-government attacks in a six month period in 2011, caused more civilian deaths — 967 total during 2009 through 2011 — than any other tactic used by anti-government forces. But targeted killings, accounting for nearly 500 deaths in that period, and suicide bombings were also on the rise.

Aerial attacks accounted for the most civilian deaths caused by pro-government forces, which include the U.S.-led international coalition there. The U.N. report noted a nine percent uptick from 2010 to 187 such deaths in 2011. Night raids, which international forces continue to carry out over objections by Afghan president Hamid Karzai, saw a 22 percent drop in civilian deaths from 2010, down to just 63 in 2011.

The report paints a bleak picture for Afghan civilians, with injuries from fighting also on the rise. The report said:

As 2011 unfolded, ordinary Afghan people experienced growing intrusion into and disruption of their daily lives by the armed conflict in their country. Conflict and insecurity displaced 185,632 Afghans in 2011, an increase of 45 percent from 2010.

Thousands more Afghans lost their livelihoods and property, were denied access to justice, had their right to freedom of movement restricted or taken away, and had their access to food, health care and education compromised. The unremitting toll of civilian casualties coupled with pervasive intimidation affected many civilians directly, and many more indirectly, by fueling uncertainty, tension and fear.

With the first signs of possible peace talks and an imminent transition from U.S.-led forces to Afghan forces, the U.N. report called for both sides of the conflict to reaffirm and enforce international humanitarian law.

Out on the campaign trail and in debates, Mitt Romney has tried to paint President Obama as a ineffective commander-in-chief. The former Massachusetts governor regularly says things like the President is “weak” or that he “went around the world and apologized for America” — an assertion the Washington Post said was “based on distortions.”

But it appears that Romney’s baseless attacks on Obama’s foreign policy aren’t sticking. A new Washington Post-ABC News poll out today found that “Obama has big leads [over Romney], including on the question of who would better protect the middle class, handle foreign policy and fight terrorism.” Fifty-five percent trust Obama over Romney (38 percent) to handle international affairs and 54 percent said Obama is more able to deal with the terrorism theat than Romney (38 percent). See the Post’s chart:

Perhaps Romney knows he doesn’t have much on the president’s foreign policy, which might explain why he regularly lobs false and misleading charges at Obama, on issues ranging from Iran, Israel, the war in Afghanistan and the military. Regarding Romney’s charges that Obama is “weakening” the U.S. military, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, himself a Republican, called that line of attack “ridiculous.”