Vladimir Putin’s religious, ethnic rhetoric gets a little scary in Russian state-of-the-union address

By Lucian Kim
December 4, 2014

RTR4GP4Z.jpg

Vladimir Putin lives in a scary world, where enemies plot tirelessly to undermine, trick, and destroy Russia. Containment wasn’t just a Cold War policy but a practice of Russia’s rivals for centuries. Even without a conflict in Ukraine, the United States and European Union would have come up with another pretext for imposing economic sanctions; they were an inevitable response to a rising Russia.

In his annual state-of-the-nation address on Thursday, the Russian president laid out his version of the year’s events in an effort to shore up support for his confrontation with the West amid growing economic troubles. The one-hour speech, held before 1,000 politicians and other public figures in the Kremlin, was defensive, strident, and formulaic. At moments, it was hard to tell whether Putin really believed everything he was saying — or if he had fallen prey to his own propaganda.

Putin’s main message was that despite the challenges Russia faces at home and abroad, the country is united and will prevail. He provided little grounds for optimism. Often Putin seemed to be trying to convince himself that the risks to which he had exposed Russia were worth it and beyond reproach.

The presidential address was split into two, with the first half dedicated to foreign affairs and the second to the economy, which is facing recession following the imposition of sanctions and a drop in oil prices. Putin tore into his speech with gusto, skewering the West for its hubris and hypocrisy since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

When he reached the section on domestic issues, Putin calmed down and droned through a list of bromides on boosting entrepreneurship and diversifying the economy that might as well have come from a speech he gave 10 years ago. “An opportunity in every crisis” is hardly a substitute for an economic recovery program. The president’s offer to amnesty any wealth hidden in offshore accounts only seemed to confirm how bad things had become.

The most troubling change in Putin’s rhetoric are ethno-religious references that have crept into his speech since the annexation of Crimea in March. The Crimean peninsula’s strategic value as the base for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is understandable to anybody who consults a map. But Putin’s focus on Crimea as the “spiritual source” for Russians because Grand Prince Vladimir converted to Christianity there 1,000 years ago opens a Pandora’s box of competing historical claims not only in Europe but across Russia.

In his address, Putin declared that the ancient town of Chersonesus, outside Sevastopol, is as sacred to Russian Orthodox Christians as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is to Jews and Muslims. “This is how we will relate to it from now on and forever,” he said, as if to stake an indefinite claim on Crimea. Should Ukrainians be concerned that in March Putin called Kiev “the mother of all Russian cities?”

On Thursday, Putin continuously invoked a strong Russia, laying bare an inferiority complex that plays an outsized role in his decision-making.

“This year together we faced trials that only a mature, united nation — a truly sovereign and strong state — could withstand. Russia proved that she can defend her compatriots and honorably defend truth and justice,” Putin said in his opening remarks. “We believe in ourselves and that we can do a lot and achieve anything.” Later he complained that Russia had been treated by the international community — presumably the U.S. — as “poorly educated people who can’t read or write.”

The litany of offense and humiliation Russia supposedly had to endure is familiar. While it is undeniable that Western leaders have occasionally run roughshod over Russian sensibilities, Putin’s baggage is such a jumble of real slights and imagined insults that it’s almost impossible to pull them apart anymore.

To Putin, there apparently is no difference between Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or between the United States and Europe. While Putin’s complaint about Bush’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is fair enough, Obama approached Putin respectfully with his naive but well-intentioned “reset.” If there is any consistency in Russia policy between the U.S. administrations at all, it’s less ill will than an obliviousness to Kremlin thinking.

Putin likewise conflates the United States with Europe in assigning responsibility for the turn of events in Ukraine. It was the EU — and not the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the United States — that was negotiating an association agreement with Kiev. If Obama can be blamed for anything, it was realizing too late that Putin considered the entire country of Ukraine to be his red line. Putin’s assertion that the West supported Chechen separatists in the 1990s in hopes of sending Russia to a fate like Yugoslavia’s is patently untrue. The break-up of nuclear-armed Russia remains a nightmare scenario in all major world capitals.

On Thursday, Putin worked himself up as he spilled his frustrations with the world in what at times resembled an attempt at self-therapy.

Economic sanctions were a “nervous reaction” by the United States and its allies to Russia’s position on the change of government in Ukraine and had nothing to do with the “Crimean Spring,” Putin said, adding that they would have found a different pretext to thwart Russia’s rise.

“The policy of containment wasn’t invented yesterday,” he said. “It’s being used against our country for many years, decades, if not centuries. In short, every time that somebody believes Russia has become too strong and independent, these instruments are put into use immediately.”

Russia is the victim, Putin seemed to be saying, though robust and defiant. It was strange that the very sins he accused the West of committing — the cynical exploitation of human rights, disregard for international law, and trampling on another country’s sovereignty — exactly mirrored Russia’s annexation of Crimea and continuing involvement in eastern Ukraine. It was especially strange to hear Putin say: “The lawful interests of all members of the international community must be treated with respect. Only then will legal norms secure the world from bloody conflicts — and not cannons, missiles and warplanes.”

Putin, who has been leading Russia for 15 years, shared no vision of where the country is heading. Instead he looked back, portraying Russia as a besieged fortress since time immemorial. Putin’s only goal now is the perpetuation of his own power. His term runs out in 2018, when he will be eligible for another six years.

“We will never go the path of self-isolation, xenophobia, suspicion, and the search for enemies,” Putin said. “That would be a sign of weakness, and we’re strong and sure of ourselves.”

 

PHOTO: Employees and residents of the retirement home watch a TV broadcast showing Russia’s President Vladimir Putin delivering his annual state of the union speech to members of parliament and other top officials in the Kremlin, in Stavropol, December 4, 2014. REUTERS/Eduard Korniyenko

19 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

perhaps new speechwriters?

Posted by Steven3 | Report as abusive

I sense a hint of desperation in the writers analysis of Putin’ state of mind.

Probably well founded based on events.

But not something you want on a guy’s psyche who controls the atomic might he does. The west should be careful about backing this guy into a corner.

Dont forget his KGB roots. Negotiation is an elective at their academy.

Posted by DaveinKL | Report as abusive

Glory to Russia and Vladimir The Righteous !!!

Posted by Macedonian | Report as abusive

I wonder how a small Ukraine became overnight a devoted friend of so many countries and US.Is Ukraine is a pretext for some big plan? Certainly with a tug of war between big countries a small countries become a playground to lose.
Leaders of small countries usually proved novice to get lost in big currents of the world and world history.Look at Ukraine.Whose countrymen are dead in the game of big countries?As such Ukraine was a promising country for good future but now no more!

Posted by gentalman | Report as abusive

Diagnosis: paranoia.

Posted by UauS | Report as abusive

Incipient madness

Posted by Redford | Report as abusive

Sacred and spiritual references in Putin’s speech were typical political liturgy, the closest source on which this was modelled are US presidents talking about the “finest nation on Earth”, “American exceptionalism” and “God blessing America”.

In turn references to the policy of containment of Russia with the objective of its breakup were right on the spot. Billions of dollars pumped in Ukraine and Georgia for “supporting democracy” become clear after looking at at a map and seeing strategic pliers they create.

Posted by wirk | Report as abusive

What could anyone, Russian or purely a spectator, expect of an ex-KGB agent who insinuated himself into the power-structure of a dissolute Russia (upon Yeltsin’s departure) and then assured that the nation’s natural resources (once the property of all Russians) were shared amongst his KGB-cohorts who became wealthy beyond their most extravagant dreams.

Putin is running a KGB-state the sole purpose of which is to protect the interests of the only people he was trained to trust. It’s as if, somehow after the collapse of the US (its presidency and congress), power over the state and parliament was assumed by the CIA …

Posted by deLafayette | Report as abusive

Change the name of President Putin to President Harry S. Truman and you have doppelgangers. In 1945 Truman initiated the Cold War with his hysterical fear of communism. He changed the nature of the USA from being a military prepared one to a national security one, in his National Security Act and the Truman Doctrine. It has bedeviled this country ever since; Democrats and Republicans alike cannot change the present course of American foreign and domestic policies.

Now that the US has revived the Cold War, which expired in 1991, crunching the Russian economy with sanctions, the only people to suffer as always are the man in the street. Already the life expectancy of the Russian male is dropping below 59 years of age.

Posted by expat75 | Report as abusive

Bad man

Posted by Shanpat | Report as abusive

Vladimir Putin will continue to be portrayed as a ‘bad-guy’ in the Western media as long as he is an obstacle to the new-world-order’s overt ambition to control the world’s wealth and own Earth’s natural resources… It’s amazing to ME that so few see that.

Posted by Heimdallr | Report as abusive

Russia has more troops occupying other countries land than any other nation on Earth. Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine…. Just because people want you to respect international borders doesn’t mean we are trying to “constrain” you. Just get out of other people’s countries!

Posted by DennisMyers | Report as abusive

It’s true. The *real* enemies are the faceless world banking families, and Putin is demonized for not supporting their agenda.

Posted by realtruejohn | Report as abusive

@expat75: your stating point of “Change the name of President Putin to President Harry S. Truman…” is flawed, for Putin is not really a “president”, unless you truly believe that Medvedev was.

Posted by UauS | Report as abusive

Putin is crying 1. Lebensraum, and 2. Russia for Russians. Does this sound familiar? This is a dangerous person!

Posted by Humf9581 | Report as abusive

This is a man who thought the women of Pussy Riot were dangerous. He runs from mice. If you doubt that Putin is petty and cowardly, consider that his only conquest to date includes a nuclear meltdown site around Chernobyl that no one wants anyway. He has blown his wad and country’s fortune…. over re-taking Chernobyl. A bright man he is not :)

Posted by AlkalineState | Report as abusive

It is interesting to note that the majority of Russian wars or battles are being waged on their very border, while every military engagement the U.S. currently pursuing are in numerous nations half the globe away.

There are some contemporaneous explanations for the current foreign policy morass, others more deep rooted and intractable.
The comment above regarding the Truman administration might not be that far off the mark.
This was an era of cold war hysteria that was championed by notable war hawks such as the Air Force’s Gen. Curtis Lemay, Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and a nascent group of policy advisers and analysts comprised of virulent anti-communist and pro-Israeli academics, some from eastern bloc countries, that brought about some of our most sweeping national security changes, the vestiges of which remain today in current policy group think, policy institutes, and their fellowships.

There’s quite a bit to be said here, but the comments section has recently become ever more discriminating in what they’ll allow.

Posted by Laster | Report as abusive

Loony tune!

Posted by usa.wi.vet.4q | Report as abusive

Given Mr. Putin’s propensity for violence and dissociated world view, Mr. Bush’s withdrawal from the ABM treaty not only appears justified, but also well advised.

Posted by branchltd | Report as abusive