It seems like old times. Almost.

To those of us who grew to adulthood during the so-called “Cold War,” it all has a familiar feel about it.

Those rascally Russkies are alleged by every U.S. intelligence agency, the FBI, and probably the Salvation Army and Boy Scouts of America as well, as having been caught with their hands in the cookie jar – yet again.

This time around, the skullduggery has nothing to do with cloak-and-dagger spies, or secret blueprints on microfilm. The world of espionage has largely moved past such antiquated methodologies. The chicanery du jour is to muck about in the virtual world of the internet – ironically given birth by our friends at the Pentagon.

Specifically, a couple of Russian intelligence agencies apparently left their cyber fingerprints all over the hacking of the Democrat National Committee and the personal emails of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta. Parenthetically, what is it about Democrats and security anyway? You would think that after Watergate, not to mention Hillary’s email travails, they’d learn something about protecting their communications.

But I digress.

The purpose of the exercise seems to have been an attempt to influence the U.S. presidential election. No evidence has come to light that vote totals were manipulated, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t a cumulative negative effect from weekly releases of information selected from the purloined trove for its ability to damage the Democratic cause. “Purloined” is a fancy word for “stolen.”

A media scrum salivating for salacious material to fill the news cycle can be played like a violin – and was. The source, or even the accuracy, of the material clearly was not a major concern. Lead off with the disclaimer that “the accuracy of the material cannot be independently verified” and everything, and anything, can be reported without further confirmation. And, for many in the audience, if it’s reported it must be true, right? The old Soviets were masters at such misinformation and disinformation. If it suited their purposes, they could say the sun rose in the west, set in the east, and do so with a straight face. Their successors aren’t bad at it either. The U.S. news hands who dealt frequently with the Soviets of old are either having a belly laugh, or turning over in their graves, as they witness the gullibility of their successors in the Fourth Estate.

So what to do?

President Obama has made the traditional first move. “X” number of “diplomats” and their families are sent back to the motherland. Close a couple of Russian “facilities’ and name some names – none of whom are likely to be stupid enough to ever come within spitting distance of U.S. law enforcement.

The traditional counter move would be for Uncle Vladimir to send a corresponding number of U.S. diplomats packing, close a couple of U.S.-operated dachas, and name some folks persona non grata.

Over time, each side would then quietly allow back an increased number of credentialed “diplomats” and allow the reopening of foreign-operated “facilities.” Eventually, an equilibrium is reached that looks suspiciously like what existed ante bellum.

But Uncle Vladimir is too wily to do the expected. He has opted to largely delay his response until the next administration comes into office on Jan. 20.

Which puts the new president in a world of hurt.

Should he leave the sanctions in place, he endangers his relationship with Uncle Vladimir, whom he apparently sees as a soulmate, and who is key to the resetting of the U.S.-Russian relationship the new president has publicly promised.

Should he lift the sanctions, it is almost an apology for their implementation in the first place, which is not unlike apologizing for being the victim. That won’t fly even in his own party.

To date, the new president has either disputed the evidence put forward by the entire intelligence community, or, in effect, encouraged the country to “move along, nothing to see here.” Neither approach is going to wash in the long run.

What he should consider as a first act after his inauguration is to come out in favor of the appointment of an independent, non-partisan commission to get to the bottom of this attack. Think Watergate. Think 9-11.

Nothing will add to the legitimacy of his presidency more than an unmistakable demonstration that he has nothing to fear about the outcome of such an investigation. Nothing will bring that legitimacy into question more than a perception of apparent reluctance to ferret out the truth.

Your move, Mr. President.