President Putin’s recent statements are highly resonating
By: Aditya Vashisht
Russian President Vladimir Putin’s recent discourse at the 19th Annual Valdai Discussion Club is intriguing. His words along with their context are not new, but the further elaboration of this context by the Russian President is welcome, especially during a time when his country is locked in a war with its neighbor, and is tackling not only the Ukraine but also the West.
This discourse is important for the simple reason that it offers us a glimpse into the Russian mind of how it sees itself in comparison to other nations, of its own vulnerabilities as well as who are its opponents and more importantly, its attitudes towards future trends or to put it more precisely, what place does its aspire for in the world of the coming years. As going by Putin’s recent words, it seems that multipolarity is a concept which is amenable for Russia. But the foundations of this stance find themselves in the background which brought us to the Ukrainian conflict at present.
To go into the origins of the Ukrainian war, one need to clear his eyes and arrive at the conclusion that its not the responsibility for a single party to shoulder the entire blame on itself. Fingers are easy to be pointed at Russia but apart from a role played by the drive for aggression, the need to secure one’s borders is paramount. The collapse of the Soviet Union was a highly significant event, whose elevated status cannot be challenged. The newborn Russian state after losing its grip on its satellites, had elicited promises from the West that it would not induct those of Europe into its NATO umbrella. That promise, as is starkly evident, had been disrespected, with NATO adding 16 more nations and several square miles into its territory, thereby reaching Russia’s frontiers.
Even Ukraine, whose position Russia considered sensitive, had been pursued and to make it more relevant to the present context, 2014 was an important year, in which a pro West regime had been installed through a popular uprising. Russia had demonstrated its willingness to apply force to secure its borders with the occupation of Crimea, or reunification when one says with a Russian tongue. Despite this demonstration of disapproval, Ukraine received backing by the USA with its leadership veering more towards the West, which only enhanced Russia’s ability to vindicate its grievances. It chose to attack and this has produced a war which has been going on for more than eight months.
To see the Ukrainian war only through the lens of Russian aggression is an error, since it is natural for any country surrounded by states mobilized to attack it at any event to react. We have before our own eyes, the glaring example of the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962), when Russia engaged in a tit for tat move in response to USA’s deployment of nuclear missiles near it. Washington DC was rattled, its reaction bringing the world to the brink of war. The situation was at first de-escalated by Russia. The United States’ response was emanated by the need to secure its zone and with that being the case, Russia had reasons to take such a step of which it had provided warnings before.
It is necessary to mention the manner in which aggression has been deployed by both the Cold War rivals, the very nature of their aggression finding its relevance since the year when the Soviet Union saw its demise. The US being victorious continued with its success, with its bipolar focus embracing a unipolar character and this drive for success made it intervene directly in several nations and indirectly impeding others, thereby signaling that it was its words which carried weight and that its power and influence possessed the fundamental right to be respected. This explains the expansion in NATO membership, erupting troubles near the Russian border.
Russia on the other hand was weakened and had to recalibrate its strategy accordingly. It started quietly, continuing its emphasis on defence manufacturing, taking itself out from the Cold War era arms limitation treaties, so that it could strengthen the leverage of nuclear primacy which it possess over USA, which was complimented by the development of hypersonic weapons, a field in which the USA has now started taking its first steps.
The framework of Russian actions is in the nature of deterrence. The aggression that Russia used to employ to tackle USA has been reserved for border countries and that too to be used in circumstances similar to the Ukraine problem. Russia uses only its armed capability and that too to challenge and to progressively erode the influence of its rivals. It hasn’t abandoned its enmity with the USA, but it chooses the wiser option of keeping it subtle and in a manner which other nations, many of whom are its important partners, can accommodate.
This nature is coming to light in the Ukrainian conflict, where Russia has tried to confine the war to Ukrainian borders, and has acted calmly despite provocations against it. Being aware of the staunch backing of the West, it is calling for negotiations, which are undoubtedly the need of hour today. At this juncture, it is the US led West’s drive for power that is revealing itself, as it is incessantly backing Ukraine, even attempting to heed its call for a nuclear strike on Russia. This backing is what is prolonging the crisis. The US leadership is rejecting calls for negotiation, with this stance being mimicked by many European allies. Moreover, it is further upgrading its nuclear stock in Europe and is insistent on its position of ‘calculated ambiguity’ regarding its nuclear doctrine, instead of opting for deterrence. This only vindicates the fact that Russia cannot be uniformly blamed in this whole saga.
When President Putin, during the period of war, lays out a vision in which he praises other nations, even going so far as to making the future belong to a particular country, it demonstrates Russia’s attempt to accept the multipolar reality. Statements like these have been lacking in the US-led West, which makes one suspect its unwillingness to accept multilateralism but instead sniffing for another rivalry. President Putin’s verbal attempts to cozy to the idea of a multipolar world are thus, worthy of appreciation.
