Putin Makes it Official | Russia Wants Allies to Fight U.S. Global Imperialism
Last Wednesday (February 7th 2007) I took a flippant, and one might even suggest ’sarcastic’ tone as I attempted compare and contrast the full-blown bravado of the prior year ‘Munich Conference on Security Policy‘ to that of the upcoming annual event.
Despite my furious attempts to exaggerate or emphasize some of the more preposterous statements made by various worldly leaders and officials at conferences gone by … I could not have possibly predicted the rancid stench of hypocrisy from this year’s conference numero uno - Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Last Weekend (February 9 thru 11) saw the 43rd Munich Conference on Security Policy and it caused quite a stir.
As Putin’s official Presidential term of office nears its conclusion - with elections set for March of 2008 - it appears the pressures of diplomatic double-speak and the shackles of friendly innuendo have been released. President Putin took the relaxed - almost unofficial - mood of the Munich conference to lay a verbal volley of criticisms directly at the ‘hegemonic’ United States and its aspirations for ‘global domination.’
You could also imagine the audience’s rapture when his speech opened with:
“This conference’s structure allows me to avoid excessive politeness and the need to speak in roundabout, pleasant but empty diplomatic terms. This conference’s format will allow me to say what I really think about international security problems. And if my comments seem unduly polemical, pointed or inexact to our colleagues, then I would ask you not to get angry with me. After all, this is only a conference.”
The audience included the U.S. Secretary of Defense - Robert Gates - and you could imagine him quietly whispering in his aide’s ear - ‘Jesus Christ! Juice my speech up so I can retaliate against this Soviet S.o.B.’
Putin invoked a speech by former U.S. president Franklin D. Roosevelt at the start of World War II, “[He said] when peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.”
This is highly amusing because the German-Soviet Non-aggression Pact allowed for Germany to waltz into Poland and kick off the Second World War with impunity.
Putin begins his assault on perceived U.S. global domination:
The history of humanity certainly has gone through unipolar periods and seen aspirations to world supremacy.
What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish this term, at the end of the day it refers to one type of situation, namely one centre of authority, one centre of force, one centre of decision-making.
It is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. And at the end of the day this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within.
And this certainly has nothing in common with democracy. Because, as you know, democracy is the power of the majority in light of the interests and opinions of the minority.
Incidentally, Russia – we – are constantly being taught about democracy. But for some reason those who teach us do not want to learn themselves.
I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also impossible in today’s world.
The jabs become upper-blocks:
Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts.
We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?
So, is Putin unhappy with the bright neon glow from the fifty foot McDonald’s sign in Red Square? or the Starbucks in the lobby of Lenin’s Tomb?
The force’s dominance inevitably encourages a number of countries to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Moreover, significantly new threats – though they were also well-known before – have appeared, and today threats such as terrorism have taken on a global character.
I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we must seriously think about the architecture of global security.
Putin then mentions a phrase - “BRIC - Brazil Russian India & China” - that we’ll begin to hear a lot more of in coming months. BRIC refers to the growing economic - and hence political - clout of these emerging economic giants - with whom Putin obviously intends to foster greater political leadership and clarity.
The combined GDP measured in purchasing power parity of countries such as India and China is already greater than that of the United States. And a similar calculation with the GDP of the BRIC countries – Brazil, Russia, India and China – surpasses the cumulative GDP of the EU. And according to experts this gap will only increase in the future.
There is no reason to doubt that the economic potential of the new centres of global economic growth will inevitably be converted into political influence and will strengthen multipolarity.
Putin’s eyes become glazed and his words yield a soft romantic edge when he reminisces about his former Soviet Union - of which, we must not forget, he constructed quite a successful KGB career. When he discusses the transformation (or disintegration!) from Soviet Union to ‘democratic state’ - surely there must have been a few snickers in the audience of distinguished leaders.
Did not our country have a peaceful transition to democracy? Indeed, we witnessed a peaceful transformation of the Soviet regime – a peaceful transformation! And what a regime! With what a number of weapons, including nuclear weapons! Why should we start bombing and shooting now at every available opportunity? Is it the case when without the threat of mutual destruction we do not have enough political culture, respect for democratic values and for the law?
Perhaps Putin’s historical perspectives have been as skewed as his definition of democracy. The Kremlin leadership of the Soviet Union - with the world’s biggest nuclear arsenal - was far from comfortable with a ’smooth’ disintegration of the Soviet empire. At one point the ‘August Coup‘ in which hard-line communists within Kremlin walls tried to wrestle power from the reformist Mikhail Gorbachev was but for the grace of God … nearly successful. Imagine the former-Soviet and highly nationalist states fighting an insurgent battle with a renewed Soviet leadership? Cataclysmic?
Lest we also forget the Russian Constitutional Crisis of 1993 when President Yeltsin almost lost his grip on power when the Russian Congress tried to wrestle control of the almost dismantled remains of the Soviet empire and Yeltsin’s drunken grip on power was via the deployment of tanks and the storming of the Russian parliament building.
So no, I think a ‘peaceful transition’ to democracy is a slightly rosy view of a potential disastrous episode in history for Russia and the world. Of course there are many observers of Russia’s current ‘democracy’ that will argue what democratic rights were ensued to Russian citizens in the 1990’s were rolled back and reversed in great measure by President Putin. Read La Russophobe for a fascinating folder of evidence to support this notion.
After Putin’s renewed attack on NATO expansion in the former Soviet Bloc - with a multitude of nations fleeing memories of Soviet aggression by joining the protective umbrella of NATO membership - he pitched one last accusation at the U.S. and its anti-ballistic missile system (formerly known as ‘Star Wars’ in days of olde) and then concluded succinctly but with great emphasis:
In conclusion I would like to note the following. We very often – and personally, I very often – hear appeals by our partners, including our European partners, to the effect that Russia should play an increasingly active role in world affairs.
In connection with this I would allow myself to make one small remark. It is hardly necessary to incite us to do so. Russia is a country with a history that spans more than a thousand years and has practically always used the privilege to carry out an independent foreign policy.
We are not going to change this tradition today. At the same time, we are well aware of how the world has changed and we have a realistic sense of our own opportunities and potential. And of course we would like to interact with responsible and independent partners with whom we could work together in constructing a fair and democratic world order that would ensure security and prosperity not only for a select few, but for all.
Thank you for your attention.
I think if President Putin had ended with ‘You’ve been warned!’ the audience might have received the same chilly message.
Putin has made it official. Russia wants allies to fight U.S. global imperialism.
Posted on February 13th, 2007 under BRIC, Munich, NATO, Putin, Robert Gates • 
Email This Post
• RSS 2.0 feed • Leave a response, or trackback
February 13th, 2007 at 6:57 pm
Hey, guy, you’ve been brainwashed by the USA propaganda
It’s not the Russia, where the evil lurks today, it’s the United States of Freedom Bringing America.
Re-read the speech. After that, throw out that crappy pointless rethoric, and try to argue with any of the accusements Putin made.
Did USA not bullied, for example, Iraq?
Do you really believe they did it because of that overused cheap “freedom” concept of theirs?
Don’t you think they just wanted to control oil and to test their weapons?
Do you really think it’s OK?
I don’t know, how people can live in a country, that brings death and terror everywhere it goes, and seriously consider themselves democratic and honest nation. The truth is, USA are generally disliked almost in every other country on the globe. Nobody likes them, and everybody understands, what are they doing. But the most pissing part of it is that all nation leaders are too afraid to argue. Nobody wants to be banned from the trading with USA. Nobody wants to be their next target.
That’s why, while I am generally not the fan of Putin, here I can only applause. He said exactly the words you will hear from almost every citizen in Russia. He said what most of us thinks.
And I guess in other countries the situation is the same.
February 13th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Vladimir:
I understand what you’re saying - and in a small way I agree that the U.S. (per my earlier posts) a pariah on the world stage because of its failed foreign policy.
BUT Putin has rolled back Democracy in Russia, nationalized your media, protects the sources of corruption that yield to his authoritarian state.
Putin’s Russia is as dangerous on the world stage as Bush’s American vision because it sells weapons to anyone, abuses its near perfect natural gas monopoly in Europe and removes any dissent inside Russia with poison or the bullet.
Do you know what your government is doing in Chechnya? I’m not sure you’re ‘allowed’ to know.
Putin is arming the very people that encourage Bush that his ‘war on terror’ is needed. Iran, Syria, N.Korea, Venezuela, Cuba, etc etc.
Thanks (really!) for the comment - and I’m NO fan of Bush - but Putin is a (dangerous) hypocrite and needs to be recognized as such.
R
February 13th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Putin Makes it Official | Russia Wants Allies to Fight U.S. Global Imperialism…
As Putin’s official Presidential term of office nears its conclusion - with elections set for March of 2008 - it appears the pressures of diplomatic double-speak and the shackles of friendly innuendo have been released. President Putin took the relax…
February 13th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
Richard Buchanan:
> I’m not sure you’re ‘allowed’ to know.
Guess I am. After all, about 33% of russians can freely surf internet and so observe all the foreign media they want. Others just have no stable internet access, but that’s the matter of time, not the political interaction.
I agree, it’s true, that our media is partly controlled by the government. Partly - because the only lies we receive on a daily basis is a lies about how we’re swiftly progressing to a great future. No more, no less - major TV channels nowadays prefer to show good sides of our lives, not the bad ones, that’s all. Still, there are plenty of public channels, magazines and newspapers with different points of view. Nobody takes them down, in fact nobody even bothers to argue with them. They can go as far as they want.
And, of course, there is the Internet. Accessible by the majority, and absolutely free of censorship by definition.
That is the situation in my country now. That, not the lies I read everyday in US newspapers…
Look, for example, at the present situation. Here in Russia I’ve seen plenty of different opinions on the president’s speech in the central newspapers, ranging from extremly critical to quite supportive.
But look at the major US media. There’s only one point of view, only one tone, in which the articles are written. “Putin is a hypocrite; US is doing all right; we’re liberating the world, while they’re dark scary nation led by a former KGB agent”. Nobody even tries to answer the questions Putin has asked. Why bother, it’s pretty much easier just to use cliches and remind of some made-up-for-housewives stories (like Politkovskaya’s or Litvienko’s murders) instead of trying to think of contrarguments.
I do know what my government is doing in Chechnya. I do know more than that: I know what it DID in past, and that is even worse. But imagine US had their state going against them and organizing a bloody rebellion, killing peaceful citizens - and all that on a state scale; don’t you think things would go the same way? Next, look at what US done in Iraq. Don’t you think it’s even worse to kill people saying you’re freeing them, than to sincerely agree that you’re fighting them?
And that’s the flawed logic when you say “Putin is arming the very people that encourage Bush that his ‘war on terror’ is needed”. Why Bush decides, whom to arm and whom to do not? Why do you think the countries Bush said to be bad should be treated different way than the ones Bush approves?
From my point of view, having nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-armed ally today is almost the only way to be free from the constant fear of americans coming to liberate you. I agree, that the nuclear development in the third-world countries is an extremly bad thing, but I also agree that there are no other choices. It’s USA, who forces other countries to develop nuclear weapons. Cause when you see your friend beaten down by a bunch of deliquents, and you’re their next target, and you’re no match for them - you will get a bat. You will get a stone. You will use anything you find to protect yourself. So what’s so bad in helping some countries to protect themselves?
Pardon for size of the answers and a bad english. It’s really hard to stay short when you write in other language
February 13th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Vlad:
Again - you have valid points which i thoroughly respect - as you do indeed live in Russia and I rely on newsources (bbc, mosnews etc) that see from an outsiders perspective?
AND I must again reaffirm - I’m NO fan of Bush. I vigorously state my sincere disappointment with his handling of Iraq (the U.S. military are doing a stellar job but wrong mission, wrong plan, wrongly marketed, wrongly time, wrong place!)
I agree the U.S.’s reputation on the world stage is almost irrectifiably damaged and will take years to fix - BUT again - nuclear weapon proliferation is the answer to standing up to U.S. ‘aggression’ ? That is insanity, sorry.
Putin took two faces to the Munich conference. One for the strongman diplomat that is seen as a unifier / straight talking against U.S. hegemony … and the other - you don’t hear but see on weapons / defense media sites … the rosoborenexports (nationalized weapons exporters) brochures he stuffed in his suitcase for anyone and EVERYONE - regardless of dangerous intent.
THEN he has the balls
to state the U.S. is destablilizing the world he is busily arming?
Hmm. Nice debate Vlad! I DO truly appreciate your opinions and thoughts! I’d love to stay in touch - incase you ever point me in the ‘right’ direction re your Russian perspectives.
richard . buchanan @ opinionist . com
Best,
R
February 14th, 2007 at 1:12 am
Whether Putin is a hypocrite or not, whether Russia is a democracy or not shouldn’t really be the point of discussion.
Fact is that Putin did make valid points: The US are trying to achieve global control: they ignore global treaties, they act without authorisation of the UN and they force their ways and beliefs onto other countries.
This, and here he is correct again, is by no means democracy. The nature of a superpower is that it has to supress other cultures to remain in power. Rome did it, Germany did it, the US are doing it now.
What we need is an equilibrium in the world. Because surely nobody wants the US to be a second German Reich or Roman Empire. The only thing Putin says is that we need other superpowers to step up and keep the US in rein.
I like the idea of Russia (or China or anybody else) arming up as little as anybody else. But the fact is that the US with their nuclear weapons and their current ideology are a danger to the world. Just imagine what would happen if George Bush (or the next president) turned out only half as mad as Adolf Hitler. George Bush’s finger is hovering over a button that could eliminate millions of people within seconds. As long as that button is available to him we certainly need other countries to be able to stand up to that power. If that means arming up then that’s what needs to happen.
Preferably I would say: arm down the US. Why do they have the right to have nuclear weapons, and nobody else does? Who makes George Bush a more responsible person than Putin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
February 14th, 2007 at 2:21 am
Fredo:
Hmm. Luckily for us … Bush does not have much longer in office and the country (and the world) will not take more crazy adventurers with flawed (being generous here) intelligence.
(as an aside, Russian Intelligence also concurred in ‘01 that Saddam had WMD)
Russia already possesses the world’s largest nuclear arsenal so moot point BUT Russia arming OTHER nations - including rogue nations IS the point.
But yes - it is proven in history again and again (so I do agree with u!) that unchecked superpowers eventually abuse their status or get carried away and lose a grip on reality.
I hope historians in 50 years (if we’re still here) are generous with Bush because the facts as they stand do not look good at the moment.
But without trying to contradict myself too much here - whilst I dislike Bush with intensity - I do believe Ahmadinejad & Chavez & Il Jung need to be controlled beyond the means of the UN (a corrupt paper tiger in need of massive reform [including scrapping the security council perhaps]).
Not sure sanctions are the answer. I suppose getting off our arses and finally finding an alternative to fossil fuels will be the ultimate solution?
Cheers for the post and the visit to the blog.
R
February 14th, 2007 at 5:16 am
I definitely see Vladimir’s point which I think possibly you do not Mr. Buchanan.
Rogue states (from the US perspective) are basically states that do not kow-tow to Washinton and US business interests. Pure and simple.
Freedom, democracy is double-speak for US corporate interests.
This is why other nations get armed. Because without a nuclear bomb, the USA will not accept NO as an answer. It is as simple as that.
Most of this “war on terror” is fabricated. Bin Laden was a CIA asset at some point. It’s possible he still is.
Watched 911PressForTruth ?
It’s on google.
How did Al Queda sneak out of Afganistan ?
Putin’s hypocrisy is as bad as Bush’s hypocrisy.
Nearly every weapon producing country sells arms to just about anybody.
It all stinks. All of it.
Even here in the UK, there’s a big pile of shit around Parliament.
Just the other month, Blair stopped a fraud investigation into BAE giving back handers to some Saudi’s related to a big weapon’s contract.
Is Saudi Arabia a democracy ?
Is is ‘free’ like the US ?
Is it a radical state ?
(try visiting Mecca, let me know how you get on).
Does it materially support Sunni insurgents in Iraq that kill US and UK troops ?
No. No. Yes. Yes, probably.
But the “free” press likes to stick to the Iran agenda.
Why ?
Because Saudi Arabia is a US client state and kow-tows but Iran does not.
And the “free” press in the US have their own corporate agenda that aligns with Washington.
And you think “Ahmadinejad & Chavez & Il Jung need to be controlled beyond the means of the UN”. Why ? What are you scared off ?
When has Venuzuela, Iran or North Korea threatened to invade the USA ? Did they ?
Will they ?
Do you think it’s wise for Venuzuela, Iran or North Korea
to threaten to invade the USA ?
They won’t do what the US would like, so they are “rogues” ?
“Bush does not have much longer in office and the country (and the world) will not take more crazy adventurers with flawed (being generous here) intelligence.”
But the US has been having lots of “crazy adventures” since WWII and historically it looks like the US won’t stop
having them.
Yes the UK, Russia and just about everybody else has had “crazy adventures” around the world. The point is for all of us to try to stop all of them.
US, UK or Russian or whoever.
I take it you vote in the USA, I vote in the UK and Vladamir in Russia.
Seems we each have our own little bit of homework to do then.
BTW have you ever read “Manufacturing Consent” ?
Good background on “free” press and US “crazy adventures”. I recommend it.
February 14th, 2007 at 5:22 am
A different perspective on Putin’s speech….
http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index983.htm
February 14th, 2007 at 12:11 pm
Richard Buchanan:
> BUT again - nuclear weapon proliferation is the answer to standing up to U.S. ‘aggression’ ? That is insanity, sorry.
Why’s that? Why do you think US can’t attack and liberate Russia right at this moment? Because they consider us a worthy partner? I am afraid, that’s just because we have nukes here…
So nukes do work. They protect. Are there any other means to do the same?
> and the other - you don’t hear but see on weapons / defense media sites
Of course I did hear. But what do you mean by “for everyone”? According to Putin, the bad guys today is the United States. He didn’t sell weapons to the bad guys, did he?
BTW, short for Vladimir is Volodya, Vova for close friends. I don’t really mind, call me Vlad if you’re used to, but this is purely foreign invention
February 14th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Ok, Hoary:
You had me open minded and interested in some valid points you raised in ur first post.
Yep - we all certainly need to focus on the inadequacies of our nations (US, Russia, UK)
[btw, I'm a Brit - living in Chicago - so perhaps too rosy view of US and too perturbed by UK these days]
BUT your reading recommendation re whatdoesitmean lost its balance when it concludes with this paragraph:
“Fears for the American people are further raised in these reports due the United States Militaries preparing to open their vast concentration camps in the American Southwest regions, and which reports from America show the preparations being made for the American, British and Germany troops being raised to guard these camps:”
Concentration camps!? How the heck did this work into his logic? These ‘vast concentration camps’ ? does he mean the military bases? The U.S. has realized its armed forces are way too few for the insane allocations Bush is making of it across and around the world. Robert Gates and prior to him - Rummy - want (NEED) to enlarge the military recruitment by a large percentage. These bases are to be exlarged, expanded and the necessary logistics for that enlargement is what the author of your post is mistakenly referrring as concentration camps.
Yikes! Bad mistake I fear.
Again - I’m no fan of Bush and his foreign policy. I’m dubious of the recent North Korean ‘progress’ (which has stalled already) BUT at least the State Dept’s attempts at diplomacy with ‘rogue nations’ looks to be working.
btw - wish i could find the URL but post 9/11 a story quietly posted that the Iranians eagerly helped US remove the Taliban from Afghanistan and quiet relations between the U.S. and Iran looked positive. The Cheney/Rummy/Rove morons screwed the pooch and antagonized the Irans and blew any attempts to build better relations with the Ayathollah when Bush was told to use ‘Axis of Evil’ as term for Iran. The State Dept were beyond pissed off.
SO - there is always two sides to any effort and hopefully the Cheney/Rove days have past.
Don’t forget Bush leaves ’soon’. I for one … will breath a sigh of relief.
R
p.s. thanks for your post(s)
February 14th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
Volodya:
Apologies! bad American habit - to shorten folks names without permission!. My silly
re Nuke deterence; yup mutually assured destruction worked for us all re cold war; and I guess kept things in check; but don’t forget the U.S. and the USSR fought each other indirectly thru the likes of … El Salvador, Angola, Vietnam, Korea etc. So - not so good.
I’ll conclude by saying I think Putin is a stand up guy with character (lots of) and good intentions for his country (pride, nationalism, economic resurgence etc) BUT his view of democracy (media repression, nationalized industries) seems a different model, yes?
On the other hand - Putin’s foreign policy is in direct conflict to Bush’s. Both Putin and Bush shall be leaving office soon (officially for Putin, anyway) - I do HOPE the replacements will offer a clearer, less rigid and more tolerant means of solving their nation’s issues.
I’d be FAR more interested in a reformed U.N., removed security council, … one nation, one vote influence with a corrupt-free world body (U.N.) to solve nuclear proliferation, regional conflicts and ‘naughty’ nations.
Yes - no more nation building. it does not work.
Best!
Richard
February 14th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
[...] on Security Policy) Russian President Vladimir Putin rolled up his sleeves and gave his apparently honest opinion of the United States’ hegemonic ambitions and flawed foreign policy actions which, Putin [...]
August 11th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Putin Makes it Official | Russia Wants Allies to Fight U.S. Global Imperialism, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.