Putting Putin in his place – nation.lk
Just after Crimea held its referendum in which its people overwhelmingly chose to break off from Ukraine, The Economist magazine carried a cover showing Russian President Vladimir Putin riding shirtless on top of a war tank. On the ground beside the tank was a crumpled Ukrainian flag. The sentence ‘The new world order’ was written in yellow color above the photo.
If this cover was meant to criticize Putin, as the cover story suggests, it achieved the contrary. The image of Putin, shirtless and therefore exposing his muscular body recalled the comparison between the physical prowess of Putin and President Obama that was found on social media. Putin has an athletic physique despite being over 60 years old. He is a judoka, a good swimmer and has been seen playing ice hockey. Putin’s appearance in the picture appeals the macho tough guy image the Americans tend to admire. It is as if The Economist is carrying out free publicity on Vladimir Putin’s fitness.
To make matters worse, the magazine shows that Putin is controlling ‘The new world order.’ In other words, it was an admission of the impotence of the United States and the European Union in the face of Russian moves. This helplessness is not total since a majority of Ukrainian people, especially in Western Ukraine, support the Western countries. Also, if the West is helpless, Russia would have most probably annexed Luhansk and Donetsk by now. Nevertheless, The Economist cover implies that it is Putin who is running the new world order, a propaganda victory for the Russian President.Meanwhile, the Time magazine of March 31, 2014 had a cover which was far more critical in its content, for it said about the ‘return of the old order’ which should have been the real message for ‘Putin bashing.’
Putin is not just a macho figure who flaunts his muscles and shows his martial arts skills. Over his shoulders is a head which he uses very effectively. He is a politician, and a good one at that. When he was appointed Prime Minister in August 1999, few gave him a chance of surviving long. Those days, no Russian PM lasted long and Putin was a newcomer to politics. The Russian State and its President Boris Yeltsin resembled each other in their health. Both were ailing. Russia could not influence world affairs despite being the biggest country in geographical area. It had been utterly disgraced at the First Chechen War where a small unrecognized state stood up against the ‘mighty giant.’ When the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) bombed Serbia in 1998, Russia could not lift even a finger to protect its ally from the Balkans.
Leader
However, Putin was no ordinary PM. He had an idea of what had to be done to reverse the decline. Several months before becoming PM, he had defended a doctoral thesis at St Petersburg Mining Institute in which he argued that the Russian state should take control of its natural resources to earn money and then use this power to return Russia to the world stage. There were allegations that the thesis was a plagiarized document. However, it was roughly what he wrote in this thesis that he followed once he was in power.
Putin needed a reason to be elected as president in May 2000, in order to carry out his plans. This reason was offered to him by Muslim militants who attacked Russian positions in Dagestan, near Chechnya. With Yeltsin’s health falling, it was clear as to who was running the show. On December 31, 1999, Putin was appointed as acting President and he waged a successful war against the rebels. His law and order image and successful war against the Chechens helped him win the Presidential election.
Once he was in power, he took control of the oil and gas reserves of the country and sidelined all his political opponents. He consolidated his power, eliminating direct elections to regional governorships in 2004. He later re-established free elections temporarily in 2012 when anti-government protestors were marching in several Russian cities. In 2013, he once again took this power to his hands.
Putin’s eight years of presidency between 2000 and 2008 roughly coincided with that of the US President George W Bush. However, their records of anti-terror war were totally contrasting. While the US landed in quagmires in Afghanistan and then in Iraq, Russia led a successful campaign in Chechnya. Even hostage taking could not break Russia’s back as Putin ruthlessly hit back, even without any regards on casualties to civilians. When Putin showed that he was willing to do so, the Chechen rebels lost a potential bargain chip. By the end of Putin’s presidency in 2008, there was next to nothing to be heard of Chechen rebels while Afghanistan and Iraq were on world news everyday.
Eastern Europe
Russia has always been apprehensive of its Western borders. All three invasions of modern Russia, namely the Swedish invasion of King Charles XII in 1707, Napoleon’s Moscow campaign of 1812 and Operation Barbarossa in 1941, have come from the West. Therefore, Imperial Russia and Soviet Russia attempted to control Eastern Europe directly or indirectly. This has created historical animosities between the Eastern European peoples and the Russians which have been increased due to religious differences. The Soviet leaders starting from Stalin attempted to reverse this historical reality through a mixture of repression, bribery and camaraderie. However, repeated uprisings against the Soviet Empire saw the failure of this attempt.
Putin is aware of these political realities. He was apprehensive of the expansion of the NATO towards the borders of Russia. Therefore, he had to act when Ukraine seemed to be moving out of the Russian ‘orbit.’ It would have been strange for Russia to keep silent when things were turning upside down in its neighborhood, especially when Russian influence is being felt in relatively far off places like Syria. Russia was the major factor which protected Bashar Al-Assad from a Gaddafi-style end. After decades of relative international impotence, Russia is expanding its sphere of influence. Therefore, Putin was expected to act.
However, Putin was much craftier in his responses than the West imagined or realized. It was not blatant military force or bullying tactics that he used. Recognizing the fact that former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych had lost his credibility, and it was not easy to protect him, Putin let the anti-Yanukovych forces to triumph in Kyiv. Then he hit back, stalking pro-Russian sentiments in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine. This was Putin’s ground where he was the hero. Crimea was overwhelmingly pro-Russian without any doubt. Eastern Ukraine was not as much pro-Russian as Crimea. Therefore, Putin was much more cautious in his actions in Luhansk and Donetsk.
Therefore, the West has to put Putin in his due place, rather than keeping on harping anti-Putin rhetoric about his militarism and so on. The US, which had large contingents of its troops in Afghanistan and Iraq for a decade is more militaristic. In contrast, Putin is playing a mind game which some leaders cannot understand. He is not just bullying Ukraine. He is aware of the distance that he can go and he is willing to go that distance. But he is careful not to exceed the limits. Since Russia understands its limits and the US does not, Russia is stronger in this crisis. This is the reason why the Ukrainian crisis is Putin’s moment of glory.