Putin's problems begin to get legs

WORLD VIEW/Seamus Martin: In recent days, President Putin's rhetoric has taken on a tone sharply critical of the United States…

WORLD VIEW/Seamus Martin: In recent days, President Putin's rhetoric has taken on a tone sharply critical of the United States. His description of America's approach to bilateral relations as "pig-headed" in an address to Russian journalists, may however, have been purely for domestic consumption.

Despite his putting his country's weight fully behind the US in its "war on terrorism", Mr Putin may not be getting the support he feels his due from Washington.

American soldiers are now situated not only in former Soviet republics in Central Asia but on the very frontier of Russia at the Pankisi gorge in Georgia. The Duma, as expected, responded with its customary rodomontade. Deputies spoke of a "ring of American steel" surrounding the motherland and even threatened to give official recognition to the regions of Abkhazia, which has seceded de facto from Georgia, and South Ossetia which has attempted to do the same.

Mr Putin kept his cool. To him the approach of US forces up to the very border of Russia was no big deal. More important issues were at stake, not least the forging of a new relationship through which Russia would have a say in some of NATO's key decisions and might move towards his stated goal of making the alliance more a political than military organisation.

READ MORE

His "pig-headed" remark was accompanied by suitably conciliatory terms. The two countries, he said, needed to build a complete new system of ties in an active and methodical manner. Russia and the US had common concerns and should build a positive relationship but Moscow would defend its own interests including those of a military nature.

The main reason for Russia's annoyance has been the astounding publication, in the Los Angeles Times, of classified sections of the Nuclear Posture Review. In this document, presented to Congress on January 8th, but revealed to the public just a week ago, the Bush Administration listed those countries that might warrant a nuclear assault.

Few were surprised that the "axis of evil" countries were included. But the list also contained Russia and China. The Chinese are reported to have been apoplectic and despite furious back-tracking by Ms Condoleezza Rice, Moscow's political opposition was given a cruise-missile to aim directly at Mr Putin.

His domestic enemies busied themselves by targeting Mr Putin as a president who had fallen completely into step with Washington only to find that his new friends had plans to nuke him.

In the meantime, of all things, chicken legs had become an issue. Poultry portions from the US began to flood the Russian market during the presidency of George Bush Senior. They are still commonly known to Russians as "Bush Legs" even though a large proportion come from the Arkansas company "Tysons", which gave substantial financial support to President Clinton. Now the import of "Bush Legs" has been banned on health grounds with claims that they have been pumped up with antibiotics.

No less a dignitary than the US Secretary of State, Mr Colin Powell, has entered the fray. In a speech during the week, Mr Powell harkened back to his military days in the Gulf War. "Twelve years ago when I was chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, I worried about exchanging missiles with Russia," he said. "I want to assure you," he told an audience of Hispanic Americans "that with the same dedication and willingness to fight that I brought to the task 12 years ago as a soldier, we will win the chicken war."

To Russians it appears the US is prepared, under malign circumstances, to bombard them with atomic bombs and, in the benign scenario, with chicken legs. Once again Duma members took grave umbrage and it seems Mr Putin needed to mollify them.

Nevertheless, Russia is still intent on pursuing a new relationship with NATO even though reports that membership of the North Atlantic Council might be extended to Moscow have been depicted as untrue by NATO's general secretary, Lord Robertson, and suggestions from the West. Suggestions, on the other hand, that a new consultative body linking NATO and Russia be set up, have been described as "wishful thinking" by Moscow.

Russia already has the opportunity to discuss matters of mutual interest with NATO but it wants more than this. The Foreign Minister, Mr Igor Ivanov, is adamant in the view that "additional consultative structures are unnecessary". What is needed, he says, is a mechanism through which NATO and Russia can not only make decisions on specific matters of mutual interest but also can put those decisions into practice.

He has listed among these issues: the struggle against terrorism, combating organised crime, ensuring non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and settlement of regional problems.

In this context, Mr Ivanov makes the assertion that "unfortunately not all in NATO are yet ready to take radical steps to establish the new mechanism. Several (members) hold on to old stereotypes "

Mr Putin's future could hinge on his getting what he wants from the US and NATO. Some analysts consider that his previously impregnable position on the domestic front is showing signs of weakness. Ms Oksana Antonenko, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies, has compared Mr Putin's current situation to that of Mr Mikhail Gorbachev "at the beginning of his long fall from grace". Mr Gorbachev delivered what the West wanted but got little in return.

A concrete reward for Mr Putin's support could be of signal importance. A legally binding arms-control agreement forecast for the May Putin-Bush summit may not be enough to boost Mr Putin's domestic stock. Potential divergences of a far more serious nature than the chicken war have, after all, begun to loom in the form of America's impending actions against Iraq.