"MUNICH THESES"

Russian President Vladimir Putin has again perplexed the world community, this time with his "Munich theses", voiced at the 10 February annual conference on security policy issues. As you may know, the subject of discussion was the US attempt to impose a unipolar system of control on the world.

It is no secret that everyone is used to the extravagant expressions of the Russian president. Unlike his US opposite number George Bush, some of whose expressions are now referred to as "Bushisms", no-one is calling into question Putin's level of education or knowledge of the world situation. Putin's comments have always been noted as being rather straightforward for a head of state, for being close to the "kitchen talk" which is so dear to the millions of Russians who appreciate candour and simplicity in politicians. Suffice it to recall the president's statement, "We will pursue terrorists everywhere. If we track them down in a toilet, we will damp them down right there", which was made in Astana in 1999.

But this time the Russian leader used language far removed from slang. It was evident that he had long been preparing an attack on the Americans and on what he described as their "desire to create a unipolar world".

To be frank, we can say this: Putin said what he had been expected to say for a long time. He had been expected to say this by people in Russia who feel nostalgic for the times when Moscow's word had to be reckoned with in the world. He had also been expected to say this by people in Europe who understand with every passing day that thanks to its petro-dollars and gas profits Russia is again ready to flex its muscles. He had been expected to say this by people in the former socialist countries who had long been watching, with mounting concern (and some with hope - depending on their political views and aspirations), the intensifying stand-off between Washington and some of its West European allies on the one hand and Moscow on the other. Finally, he had been expected to say this by people in the USA, because the Americans have been increasingly making their mark across the world's political map and should have been aware that one day Russia, whose ambitions had been reined in, would set out on a path of open confrontation. But what happened is simply the consequence of problems. Let us try to examine the root causes.

Who is interested in unipolarity?

This is a rather rhetorical question, especially if we take into consideration two factors: the intentions of a superpower which had worked so long for the collapse of the USSR and the ever increasing power of the Asian countries - China and India. But the Asian factor is the subject of a separate discussion.

Let's focus on the US. After the collapse of the USSR, we suddenly discovered that our once great superpower had broken up due to that very power. For many years, the entire might and economy of the Soviet Union had been geared towards strengthening its military and industrial potential. 

Huge amounts of money - the greater part of the USSR budget - was spent on the development of sophisticated and strategic arms. An arms race and a cold war were underway. But, unlike the West, the Soviet-style economy, built on a socialist form of management, was actually falling apart. At the same time we suddenly realized that, thanks to the arms race, the economy of the USA and other capitalist countries was developing at a rapid pace. Defence policy was the focus of a whole new economy -defence and industrial sectors established on the basis of capitalist and market forms of management. Thousands of factories and defence enterprises were fulfilling military orders, thus earning billions and transferring hundreds of millions in tax to the treasury. New jobs were created, science was heavily subsidized. In parallel, the infrastructure and service sectors were also burgeoning. This largely laid the foundation for the immense, I would even say revolutionary, progress (including in the sciences) which we saw, and are still seeing, from the middle of the 20th century. In short, one dollar invested in the military sector brought in 10-20 dollars to the economies of countries which were Moscow's rivals in the arms race. Thousands of people - industrialists and politicians -earned huge fortunes. 

But after the collapse of the USSR and the break-up of the Warsaw Pact the situation changed slightly. The adversary disappeared. Western minds gradually ceased to regard Moscow and Russia as an enemy. The main objective, through which hundreds of billions of dollars were accumulated as gigantic profits to a certain circle of influential persons, had suddenly disappeared. But even the powerful American economy turned out to be unprepared to turn to a completely peaceful path. Even the USA, according to expert assessments, would have faced the threat of profound economic recession if military expenditure had been reduced even by half. The Western military and industrial sectors, facing a reduction in influence, including financial and economic, did everything in their power to hold on to their previous position. Luckily, sufficient political support had been gathered over the years to do just that…

The search for new objectives and new enemies gradually erased the boundaries between such concepts as opposition to the Soviet threat and the struggle for democracy. In the modern world, unfortunately, the struggle for democracy in third world countries and in post-Soviet republics often serves as some sort of a pretext for stepping up military, political and economic clout. Of course? the objective is to preserve, and even expand, the military and political component of the national economy. Although it remains carefully unspoken, this side of the medal is also quite visible and tangible.

Of course, it would be naive to deny the presence of new threats to mankind, including the threat of widespread international terrorism and the policies of pariah countries such as North Korea. However, if we take a closer look at the causes and effects which led to the appearance of these dangerous tendencies, it becomes rather unclear as to whether the real reasons for their appearance are internal or external circumstances.

From difficult to simple things?

It could have been expected that after the collapse of the USSR the tension in the world's political arena would also subside. However, just the opposite has happened. Local conflicts and regional stand-offs are taking on an increasingly alarming aspect. There are very few regions on the world map today which are not affected to some extent: be it a threat of terror or military confrontation. It may be observed that the USA is turning into the main player in all these developments; a courageous fighter for justice and democracy around the world, as it were. In fact, this is often done with a gun in hand. I don't think it is worth repeating how this evolved in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the latter, the USA was looking for nuclear and chemical weapons, but all they found was the enemy of George Bush Sr., Saddam Hussein, who was unceremoniously sent to the gallows. Iraq's rich oil fields were "rendered harmless" and the country's state machinery was destroyed. This took the country to the verge of breakdown into its different constituent parts, with an unclear future.

Meanwhile, NATO enlargement eastwards, closer to the Russian border, continued. With what purpose? It is difficult to give an unequivocal answer. Was this fear of a "re-emerging Russia" which had never given up its imperial ambitions? Was it a wish to set up a club of democratic countries, as some political pundits are saying today - i.e. to introduce democracy by accepting the once undemocratic countries into NATO? Is this an attempt to protect these states from the ambitions of Moscow which, according to analysts, has begun to distance itself from the democratic values it had earlier espoused? Possibly yes, although all these arguments have a weak link. If Russia, as Western politicians were and are saying, has turned from an enemy into a friend and partner, then who is the West protecting itself from by means of NATO and antiballistic missile defence, thus deliberately setting itself against Russia? The West is urging, provoking and literally compelling Russia to refresh its "imperial ambitions" and raise the "battle flag" aloft. Perhaps someone has an interest in the continuation of the cold war.

I would like to quote from Vladimir Putin's speech in Munich. He lambasted NATO's enlargement eastwards, using expressions he had not used before: "And what happened to the assurances given by western partners after the break-up of the Warsaw Treaty? Where are those statements now?" he asked. "No-one even remembers them now! But let me remind you what was said. NATO Secretary General Mr. Werner said in Brussels on 17 May 1990: 'The very fact that we are prepared not to station NATO troops outside the territory of the FRG is giving the USSR reliable security guarantees!' Where are those guarantees now?!"

Alarm-clock for the "Bear"

Let me repeat. According to many experts, whose opinions are shared by the author of this article, Putin's Munich reaction should have been expected. He had almost been driven to make this speech, urged to do so by the action of "some partners", as he himself describes them. "Some partners (USA) are unwinding ever increasing power, have started to use a nonexistent threat to knock additional money out of the US Congress for military needs - for military action in Iraq, Afghanistan and construction of expensive, antiballistic missile defence," BBC quoted Putin as saying. "This is not our problem. It is unclear why the anti-Russian card is being used to solve domestic political problems."

Here is a fact which came to light just two days before the Russian president's speech. On 8 February, in US Congress hearings on defence budget parameters, the new head of the Pentagon, Robert Gates, said: "We (US Defence Department) need the entire spectrum of military resources for conflicts involving the army because we don't know what will happen in places like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc." These potential conflicts, according to Gates, will require a major increase in ground troop numbers and, consequently, additional costs. It is worth mentioning that in the run-up to this speech, US President George Bush sent the Congress a draft federal budget for 2008 which, among other things, envisages a dramatic increase in defence spending -Pentagon expenditure has been put at 481bn dollars. At the same time, the total US military spend has long been in excess of 1 trillion dollars.

In fact, Gates, in a speech in Munich two days after this caustic remark, explained that he "did not include Russia in the same category of countries as Iran and North Korea, but pointed to domestic developments in Russia which are causing concern".  

Another phrase Vladimir Putin used at the Munich conference on 10 February, with regard to the balance of power in the days of the Soviet Union, could be given as a response to Gates. "We should be grateful for the balance of power between these two superpowers," he said. "Of course, this was a fragile and rather scary peace. But it was strong enough… Today, it appears not to be so strong."

Let me return to what I said earlier and express the following opinion. Putin has inadvertently, though quite consciously, taken the step he had been expected to take. He astonished "his partners" by openly challenging and warning them that Russia was no longer going to remain tight-lipped (as a minimum - author). Cornered by NATO's mounting military advance, as well as by the unilateral and consistent actions of the USA which, in my opinion, are intended to make the "holder of imperial ambitions" give them up, Vladimir Putin did what people wanted him to do. Now western politicians will be able to inform public opinion, without any scruples, that Russia "has taken up the glove".

It will now be easier to explain to rank-and-file taxpayers the reasons for a multiple increase in military expenditure, which will be justified by "national security in the face of a new stage of confrontation". Putin has done what he was supposed to do. In fact, this has been appreciated by both "western militarists", as we used to describe them in Soviet times, and the Russians proper, including Russia's own military and industrial sector. So, neither we nor the West will be particularly surprised if Putin is succeeded by Sergey Ivanov, who until recently held the post of defence minister …

As a matter of fact, if we look at what happened in Iran in the last few years, we can draw several parallels with Russia. Just remember what determined the ascent to power of a radical anti-American, Ahmadinejad. He became president as a result of intensified political pressure on Iran, having replaced the more moderate Khatami. It was under the previous president that opportunities seemed to have emerged for a resumption of US-Iran dialogue. According to many political analysts and experts, Ahmadinejad is actually a product of the new US policy of confronting the "axis of evil", not the reason for the appearance of this policy. 

As a result…

Frankly speaking, many politicians actually agree with the Russian president. Here is just one example of that. The leader of the Left Party faction on the Bundestag commission on foreign policy, Wolfgang Gehrcke, recently expressed his agreement with the Russian president's critical remarks about the USA. "Putin's criticism of the USA, which has transcended its authority in almost all areas and is infringing on international law, is very justified… the German political establishment would be right take this criticism seriously," the head of the parliamentary faction said.

According to Gehrcke, "the outburst of emotion on the part of SDPG and HDC politicians over Putin's unusually abrupt remarks cannot overshadow the fact that there is nothing to counter his criticism with."

"The Left Party considers that it will be possible to build an effective European security policy only with the participation and support of Russia," the MP said. And this is only one of many such statements by western politicians.

Some people may suspect that the author of this article is pro-Russian. Not at all! I am personally not very pleased with the prospect that from now onwards we may also find ourselves "between two trenches", "between two worlds" which have again come to the brink of a cold war. In a region like ours such processes will be very painful. And it cannot be ruled out that the day will come when both sides will demand that we reject our current balanced policy in favour of their side. At that point, it will need a very painful choice by Azerbaijan.