Putin’s 2018 Presidential Address: A new balance of power in the world?
This is the first half of a post which covers Putin’s recent speech. The second half will be available in a couple of days and will examine how Putin’s speech was covered in the mainstream Western media in the Anglo world.
On March 1, Putin addressed the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. The entire two hour speech can be seen here and read here (Disclaimer: I do not know Russian and my analysis is based on the official English translation). Much of the attention in the Western mainstream media was on the defense part of the speech, which we’ll get to below, but before that it’s worth keeping that part in context.
Putin first spoke at great length (over an hour) about social, human, and infrastructure development in Russia, citing many details and numbers to make a point that although Russia has advanced significantly since 2000 (the year in which he first became president), there is still much to be done. Putin further admitted that his government was not able to achieve some of its previous promises, and tried to mobilize his audience towards working together to attain specific goals.
It’s worth mentioning that Putin’s language — whatever the reality — emphasized democracy, speaking about how Russia “built a democratic society” and that its “people must have a decisive say in the future of their cities and villages”. Along these lines, he spoke about the importance of securing the prosperity of the Russian people as a condition for the success of the state,
As I said in the past, the state’s role and positions in the modern world are not determined only or predominantly by natural resources or production capacities; the decisive role is played by the people, as well as conditions for every individual’s development, self-assertion and creativity. Therefore, everything hinges on efforts to preserve the people of Russia and to guarantee the prosperity of our citizens…
The rhetoric seemed to emphasize national unity as a goal in itself, and perhaps surprisingly for some listeners, no obvious enemy was used to divide “us” and “them”. Consider this statement for example:
The year 2018 in Russia has been declared the Year of Volunteers. It is highly symbolic that the year started with the adoption of a law whereby authorities at all levels were tasked with assisting volunteers.
Or this one:
We consider every person important and valuable. People need to know that they are needed, and they must live a long and healthy life and enjoy their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
For what it’s worth, it definitely seems that the Russians love their children too. These claims were not only high rhetoric. On healthcare, for instance, Putin went into surprisingly specific details (perhaps in preparation for the upcoming elections), claiming that
In the period from 2018 to 2020, we must ensure that each small town with a population of 100 to 2,000 people has a paramedic station and an outpatient clinic. For villages with less than 100 people — we also have villages as small as that — we will organise mobile medical units, all-terrain vehicles with all the necessary diagnostic equipment.
Putin finally reached Russia’s foreign relations after almost two thirds of his speech. He began with a brief survey of the Russian involvement in Syria, where he emphasized Russia’s successes on the battlefield. He then moved on to speak about defense, the topic that made the most headlines in the West.
Putin framed this part of his speech by pointing out that in 2002 the US withdrew from its earlier ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty with the Soviet Union/Russia in 1972, a “cornerstone of the international security system”. Russia, it seemed to the Americans, was on its way to become a failed state. In the meanwhile, the US developed and deployed its missile defense system and encircled Russia from West and East. This threatened to make Russia’s nuclear weapons obsolete, and was seen by the Russians as a dangerous development that would cement the US position as the only superpower.
As Russia’s response, Putin showed Russia’s new missile systems. The Sarmat, weighing over 200 tons, was built to evade modern missile defenses through extreme maneuverability. It has no range limitations, so it could attack targets through the south pole, as a video showed clearly. Other weapon systems include a still unnamed small-scale nuclear weapon that could be installed on an air or ground launched missile. This too could have an unlimited range, unpredictable trajectory and defense evasion system. A yet-unnamed underwater drone is supposed to redesign underwater warfare. Putin went so far as to claim that “there is simply nothing in the world capable of withstanding them [the underwater drones]”. Putin then revealed an already operational hypersonic (faster than 5,300 kilometers/hour) missile, the Kinzhal (Dagger), which could also evade existing anti-missile defense systems because of its speed. A soon to be released high-precision missile is supposed to reach speeds of Mach 20 (21,200 kilometers/hour), making it “absolutely invulnerable to any air or missile defense system”.
This part of the speech emphasized how the new Russian systems made the American ones obsolete. The obvious context was a critique of US military policy of encircling Russia with bases, radars and anti-ballistic missiles to defend against Russian attacks as in the map below. One could also read into it a more opaque critique of US military spending which is almost ten times as high as Russia’s. Putin in essence argued that the US cannot cope with Russia’s genius in developing “highly effective but modestly priced [defense] systems”. Hinting to the US inefficiency in its defense spending makes Russia look better for doing more with less, and this fits the general notion of the speech as celebrating the Russian people. While it is possible that the US has similar highly sophisticated weapons (whether Russia knows about them or not), Putin revealed his hand first and impressed many in the world.
Putin was more explicit in his allusions to the earlier part of his speech when he discussed the key role of the Russian people in his country’s defense. He admitted that other countries would eventually get the technology and weapons Russia currently has, but pointed out that “What matters is that they will never have people or officers like the Russian pilot Major Roman Filipov”. Filipov was the pilot who was shot down over Syria a month ago and who was filmed fighting till his death and blowing himself with a grenade when circled by jihadis. For his action he received the highest honorary title in Russia.
At the same time, it is worth noting that Putin barely mentioned the US explicitly beyond the discussion about the ABM Treaty and what he perceived as American aggression in that context, which he portrayed as the trigger that led Russia to develop its new weapon systems in reponse to maintain its nuclear deterrence. Further allusions to recent US allegations for Russian interference and geopolitical influence were not explicit although one could not think about other potential would-be attackers of Russia today. The lack of direct references to the US in Putin’s speech was a smart rhetoric move that reinforced his message of confidence in resurgent Russian power.
Putin asserted that Russia would respond with nuclear weapons against anyone who would attack Russia or its allies, immediately and “with all the attendant consequences”. These were references to the US considering to develop less destructive (“tactical”) nuclear weapons, as per the recent Nuclear Posture Review published by the Trump administration who claimed to be willing to use nuclear weapons first. Considering the rather crude simulations and animations used for several of the new weapon systems, the decision to reveal them might have been made recently and in response to the escalating rhetoric in the US over the past few weeks.
Putin left the exact identity of Russia’s allies vague on purpose, leaving Russia with room to maneuver in the present and future. This would also present Russia as an attractive patron superpower that would guarantee the safety of its clients. Putin moderated his offensive message by pointing out that “Russia’s growing military strength is not a threat to anyone; we have never had any plans to use this potential for offensive, let alone aggressive goals”.
He re-iterated his image of a more balanced world, calling for negotiation with others instead of escalating rhetoric. This part of his speech is worth quoting in full:
There is no need to create more threats to the world. Instead, let us sit down at the negotiating table and devise together a new and relevant system of international security and sustainable development for human civilisation. We have been saying this all along. All these proposals are still valid. Russia is ready for this… We are interested in normal and constructive cooperation with the United States and the European Union. We hope that common sense will prevail and our partners will opt for honest and equal work together. Even if our views clash on some issues, we still remain partners because we must work together to respond to the most complex challenges, ensure global security, and build the future world, which is becoming increasingly interconnected…
All in all, the speech was meant to emphasize Russia’s return to superpower level. This comes in the context of Obama’s remark from four years ago, in which he dismissed Russia as merely ‘a regional power’ that did not pose a serious threat to the US. Putin seemed to answer to that, demonstrating a resurgent Russia that would be difficult to ignore for much longer.
Are these weapons operational? Is Putin bluffing? Did the Russian announcement catch the US administration by surprise and unprepared? What does the US administration think about Putin’s message? And how is the media answering these questions for the general public? All these questions will be answered in Part 2 of this post in a couple of days!
Did you understand Putin’s speech otherwise? Have any other suggestions? If so, I’ll be glad to discuss this further in the comments!
