Yesterday Vladimir Putin delivered his yearly address to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation—the Russian equivalent of the American president’s “state of the union” address. His basic themes were (in order of delivery):
- The need to eliminate corruption and ensure fairness;
- The need to stimulate the economy and make it competitive on a global scale, to resuscitate certain key industries (including agriculture) and develop new technologies, to make the ruble a convertible currency;
- The need to modernize in the areas of education and healthcare;
- The need to deal with Russia’s potentially catastrophic loss of population by encouraging larger families;
- The need to improve the country’s means of protection against overt threats and resistance to outside pressure, including the construction of new navy vessels, the development of new weapon systems and defenses, the creation of a predominant professional layer in the armed services;
- The need to create stronger alliances with individual countries and international organizations (including the WTO) and to help reform the UN, whose foundations lie in a completely different epoch, but which continues to be a crucial stabilizing force in today’s world.
The centerpiece of the address was an extended discussion of Russia’s demographic problem—the country has been losing 700,000 people a year. The New York Times properly noted this emphasis in its coverage of Putin’s speech. The Washington Post, on the other hand, ran an AP story with the scare headline: “Putin Hits Back, Criticizing U.S. In Yearly Address; Russian Leader Calls for Stronger Military”; it devoted two scant paragraphs to the topic the Times writer spent most of his time discussing.
In support of point number 1, Putin noted one of the most basic traits of Russian life: the low level of trust of citizens toward certain elements of Russian government and big business. “And it’s perfectly understandable,” he said. The hopes raised by the changes of the early ’90s were not fulfilled. Some representatives of these two groups, “ignoring the norms of law and morality, moved on to engage in personal aggrandizement at the expense of the majority of citizens to an extent that is unprecedented in our country’s history.” He goes on:
In the working out of a great national program seeking the primary good of the greater number, it is true that the toes of some people are being stepped on, and are going to be stepped on. But these toes belong to the comparative few who seek to retain or to gain position or riches or both by some short cut that is harmful to the greater good.
“Fine words,” Putin says. “It’s a shame I didn’t think of them myself. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, 1934. They were spoken during the Great Depression. Many countries have struggled with the same problems we face today. And many found worthy solutions.” (In Putin’s Russian version of the quote, FDR was stepping on other people’s corns, which made it even more painful. FDR’s English was found here.)
As Putin was making his transition to the subject of demographics, a word popped up that is rarely heard in such circumstances, in Russia or the United States:
And now for the main thing. What is that, for us? [A male voice: “Love”] Yes, you’re right. At the Defense Ministry, they know what’s the most important thing for us. And I actually will be talking about love, about women, about children. [Applause] About family. And about the most acute problem in Russian today—demographics. [Applause]
Putin goes on to propose a wide array of benefits and incentives for women who have a second or third child. Whether they will have a measurable impact on a very complex problem (one that is not purely economic in nature) remains to be seen.
While the AP writer cited above played up the military proposals in provocative language, they are actually quite reasonable and moderate, especially given the decline of the Russian armed forces since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Putin notes that as a percentage of gross domestic product, Russia’s expenditures on defense are on the level of other nuclear powers, such as France and Great Britain. But in absolute figures, Russia is spending half as much. And compared to the United States, Russia’s military spending is 1/25. “In the defense field this is called: ‘Their home—their castle.’ And good for them. Good for them!” [“Молодцы!”]
All the US coverage I’ve seen quotes at least the first part of what Putin says next:
But this means that we, too, must build our home, our own home—strong, dependable, because we can see what’s going on in the world. We can see it! As they say, “Comrade Wolf* knows whom to eat.” He eats—and listens to no one [кушает—и никого не слушает]. And, to all appearances, he doesn’t intend to start listening. [Applause]
What happens to all this fervor about the need to struggle for human rights and democracy when it comes time to satisfy one’s own interests? Here, it turns out, everything is possible, there are no restrictions.** But, keeping in mind the acuteness of this problem, we must not repeat the mistakes of the Soviet Union, the mistakes of the “Cold War” period—neither in politics, nor in defense strategy. We must not resolve questions of military construction to the detriment of challenges in developing the economy and the social sphere. This is a dead end, leading to exhaustion of the country’s resources. It’s a dead end. [Applause]
What’s interesting is that Putin proposes an asymmetric approach to the US (the elephant in the Marble Hall of the Kremlin yesterday) that may prove more effective than the arms race that helped bankrupt the USSR (and which may end up doing the same to the US). Among other things, Putin talks about “high-precision” long-range weapons currently being developed that have unpredictable trajectories. In other words, missiles that can elude American “Star Wars” systems (which are barely capable of eliminating missiles that fly straight as an arrow).
Together with means of overcoming anti-missile defense systems, which we have already, new types of weaponry will allow us to preserve that which is indisputably one of the most effective guarantees of a lasting peace—the strategic balance of forces.
In spite of the de rigeur military talk, the speech seemed reasonable and not at all bombastic or belligerent. Notably absent:
- Hysteria about Iran, Korea, etc.
- Any mention of Iraq
- The notion of spreading liberty abroad
- An invocation that God should bless Russia
What did Putin’s fellow citizens think of it?
If one can judge from the roundup of reactions in Московские новости, the address was well received (proof positive for Dick Cheney that Russia is backsliding into totalitarianism). Boris Yeltsin called it a “very solid address,” and applauded the way it addressed the demographic issue. Moscow mayor Yury Luzhkov said it was “pleasant, stunning, and businesslike.” (One wonders what he thought of it before he finished off the bottle.)
Former president of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev thinks Putin is intent on accomplishing major things before he leaves office in a few years. Approving of the proposals in the speech, Gorbachev wondered, “Who will do it?” He doesn’t see the existing governmental structures as being up to the task. “Practically at the very outset of his addres the president remarked on the lack of trust in the powers that be, and with good reason.” Gorbachev noted that, compared to last year, Putin laid out a more serious program, and he was pleased at the way he “very clearly turned his attention back to [ordinary] people.”
A member of the Russian parliament, Vyacheslav Nikonov, also found this year’s address more relevant and more detailed. “Obviously priorities were marked: a firm commitment to eliminating corruption, integration into the global economy, a solution to the demographic problems, strengthening the nation’s defenses.”
The president of Chechnya, Alu Alkhanov, applauded the proposed transition to “contract soldiers” in the armed services and implicitly approved of Putin’s decision to stop using draftees in antiterrorist actions (which is how Putin characterizes Russia’s military activities in Chechnya).
__________
*From an old Soviet joke, according to Konstantin: “Rabinovich and his pet sheep are walking in the woods. Suddenly they fall into a deep pit. A minute later a wolf also falls into the same pit. The scared sheep starts bleating. ‘What do you mean—baa, baa, baa?’—says Rabinovich, ‘Comrade Wolf knows whom to eat.'”
**As noted in the Times article: “Speaking not long after President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had publicly met and complimented the records of two other autocratic presidents in former Soviet states—Mr. Bush met Ilham H. Aliyev of Azerbaijan and Mr. Cheney met Nursultan A. Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan—Mr. Putin suggested that Washington abandoned its public principles on democracy and human rights as it saw fit. Both Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have large reserves of gas and oil, and a growing ability to transfer them to the West.”
