Putin’s seizure of Crimea appears to have been an
improvised gambit, developed under pressure, that was triggered by the fear of
losing Russia’s strategically important naval base in Sevastopol.
NATO’s enlargement remains a sore point for Russian
leaders, and some in the Kremlin certainly dream of restoring Russia’s lost
grandeur. Yet the chaotic manner in which the operation in Crimea unfolded
belies any concerted plan for territorial revanche. Although this might at
first seem reassuring, it in fact presents a formidable challenge to Western
officials: in Putin, they must confront a leader who is increasingly prone to
risky gambles and to grabbing short-run tactical advantages with little apparent
concern for long-term strategy.
Russian President Vladimir Putin gave his annual
address to Russia's Federal Assembly, the Russian equivalent to the U.S.
president's State of the Union address that, as such, carries a great deal of
significance. This year, however, Putin's speech was markedly different from
past addresses in ways that reflect both a shift in Russia's view of the world
and the challenges that Russia now faces.
In Putin's two previous addresses since returning to
the presidency in 2012 for his third term, the Russian leader opened with
optimistic remarks about progress and the advance of reforms inside the
country. This time, however, Putin began in a markedly different tone, focusing
instead on battle. According to the president, "This year Russia faced
trials that only a mature and united nation and a truly sovereign and strong
state can withstand. Russia has proved that it can protect its compatriots and
defend truth and fairness."
This year certainly has been a tumultuous one for Russia.
It started with the uprising in Kiev that ousted the pro-Russia government of
former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich in favor of one looking to tighten integration with the West.
The struggle over the future of Ukraine fueled the
Russian annexation of Crimea and, in turn, led the West to impose a series of
sanctions on Russia. These sanctions have exacerbated the country's sharp
economic decline. Now Russia is teetering on the brink of recession — or
perhaps something worse.
Putin blamed these hardships entirely on the West,
primarily the United States. The president explained that whenever Russia seems
too strong or independent, the West implements a broad policy of containment
and that this strategy has been used for centuries. He asserted that even had
the events in Ukraine not taken place, the United States and its allies would
have devised another excuse to contain Russia's growing capabilities. Moreover,
Putin accused the United States of influencing Russia's relations with its neighbors and said that it had become unclear "whom to
talk to: to the governments of certain countries or directly with their
American patrons and sponsors."
This was not an idle diatribe, but instead a shift in
Putin's view of the United States and of U.S. power. Over the past few years,
Russia has considered U.S. power to be the summation of U.S. President Barack
Obama's capability and bandwidth. This discounted the vast networks and
resources that the United States commands beyond the institution of the
presidency. Under this assumption, Russia took bold and provocative steps to
undermine the United States internationally by co-opting negotiations over
Syria and then by granting sanctuary to U.S. intelligence leaker Edward
Snowden. Moscow advanced the notion that it was a major international player on
par with the United States.
The events of this past year in Ukraine and the
resulting sanctions and other economic pressures have proved Moscow's initial
assumptions wrong. Putin's speech acknowledged this fact and gave the United
States responsibility for much of what is negatively affecting Russia.
As it would happen, Putin's speech came shortly after
a major gunbattle between security forces and
militants in the Russian region of Chechnya, the first in years. The fighting
left 19 dead and raised the prospect of a revival of the Chechen insurgency.
Such a development would deal a major blow to the Kremlin, particularly if it
came amid Russia's ongoing borderland conflict, tensions with the West and an
impending economic crisis. One of the sources of Putin's continued popularity
with the Russian people is his success in quelling the separatist and terrorist
movements in the Northern Caucasus after two wars in the region.
Putin's speech acknowledged the attack in Chechnya and
accused the West of previously celebrating such militants as freedom fighters.
He said that in the past separatists have received information and political
and financial support from "across the pond," referring to the United
States. The speaker of Chechnya's parliament, Dukuvakha
Abdurakhmanov, suggested that the militants behind
today's attack in Grozny could be fulfilling orders from the United States and
NATO to politically and economically weaken Russia.
It may not be a coincidence that pro-Russia
separatists in eastern Ukraine have eased their attacks on Ukrainian positions
in recent weeks, particularly since the latest cease-fire was agreed to Dec. 5.
Also, Russian officials have toned down their rhetoric, with some going so far
as to say that the status of the breakaway territories may be up for
negotiation — which is a far cry from the broad support of the independence of
the Donetsk and Luhansk "people's republics" and their possible
incorporation into Russia.
The de-escalation of the fighting and softer rhetoric
out of Russia have also coincided with growing concerns from Europe about
sanctions against Russia. The Russian economy is so weak that there are fears
of contagion into Europe at a time when the European Union is still mired in its
own financial crisis. For example, the managing director of the Association of
German Chambers of Industry and Commerce stated that one in three German
companies doing business with Russia will have to fire employees or cancel
projects. Many officials from EU countries, including France, Austria and
Bulgaria, have called for the bloc to ease its sanctions against Russia.
In fact Putin now has more reason than ever to
support the de-escalation of fighting in eastern Ukraine, as any major military
moves could prove too costly and undermine his strength at home. These factors
could provide the context of the recently intensified diplomatic activity
regarding the Ukraine crisis. With EU sanctions set to automatically expire in
various phases next year, and with Russia now less aggressive than it was just
a few months ago, these circumstances could pave the way for further
de-escalation on the Ukraine issue.
Still, this does not mean that a broader deal between
Moscow and the West over Ukraine is imminent. For that, Russia would need to
pull its military and financial support for the separatists completely and
agree to resume political and economic ties between the breakaway territories
and Ukraine proper — something that it has not yet proved willing to do. But Moscow's
tenuous financial situation likely will make it more flexible in dealing with
these issues and less willing to act aggressively in Ukraine, and the West in
turn could soften its own demands on Russia. In this way, the rise of one
crisis between Russia and the West could tone down another.
We also should note that the way that the American
media has put it out there is that Russia is being the aggressor, and instead
we're seeing Russia be very reactive instead. NATO starts to build up, then
Russia starts to build up. The United States helps support the revolution that
took place in Ukraine this past year, Russia then takes Crimea and goes into
eastern Ukraine. So it really is a reaction to what is taking place out of the
United States and out of NATO.
For updates click homepage here