 |
|
| Anatol Țăranu | |
Vladimir Putin’s speech before the Federal Assembly this year was not only the longest of his entire presidential term, but also an eminently electoral one. Two and a half weeks before Russia’s presidential election, the leader from the Kremlin presented a six-year program in which he outlined what he believes is most important to him personally — the issue of war. The conveyed message referred to the special importance of the current moment: in Putin’s eyes, Russia has passed a certain geopolitical milestone beyond which its long-term strategic advantage was established. Putin spoke before Parliament as if he was sure that the milestone had been already passed and his increasingly clear rhetoric signaled self-confidence and pride. Russia has taken the military initiative and gone on the offensive, the Russian leader announced.
Ambition that should not be underestimated
At the same time, Putin in his message resorted to rhetoric with new nuances, different from those he used at the beginning of the war. A year ago, Putin focused on the idea of protecting “our land” and resorted to defensive and even sacrificial rhetoric, but now his message contained the notes of a winner, who speaks not on behalf of a geopolitical victim, but on behalf of a “great, all-sufficient force” drawn into a new “holy war”. This change is explained by the growing belief of the Russian leadership in Russia’s military advantage in the war with Ukraine, which was amplified against the background of the feeling of weakness and disunity of the West.
It would be a great mistake to underestimate the ambition of this message. These statements of the Russian leader seem to be not empty propaganda, but rather a reflection of the ideological expansion, a kind of export of “Putinism” abroad and a signal of encouragement to potential “friends” in the space of the so-called “Russian world”. In other words, the geopolitical battleground for values and new territory annexations is asserting itself with new power in the policy pursued by the Russian Federation, and Putin feels more confident than ever as a guide of this policy.
The Kremlin’s unwavering intention to continue the war
At the same time, Putin interprets the meaning of war for domestic audiences, talking about the “legendary Russian spring” and the coveted “Novorossiya”, glorifies the military personnel participating in the war, boasts of their devotion and sacrifice to the “homeland of citizens”, praises their unity, readiness to work in three shifts and endure material shortages in the name of victory in the war. Sure of the massive support at home, Putin also formulated a call to the West, which in this context has probably become the most important element of the message. Putin did not skimp on threats towards Ukraine’s allies, talking about “nuclear forces on full combat alert”, the Sarmat strategic missile system that was already delivered to the troops, the Kinjal and Zircon hypersonic systems already in use, and so on.
Against this background, the Russian president approached the subject of a dialogue with the United States, which, according to him, is possible only under the conditions enunciated by Russia. Putin announced that the Russian authorities are ready to conduct a strategic dialogue with Washington, but only an “inclusive” one, that is together with the search for a solution for Ukraine. In reality, this means that Russia demands that the United States agree to the partition of Ukraine, which is unrealistic under the current circumstances.
Putin also saw it necessary to raise the growing fears that Russia was planning to attack Europe. Calling them ‘nonsense’, he immediately turned his attention to the West, accusing it of planning attacks on the Russian territory. Putin also mentioned Macron’s statement about the possible deployment of Western troops to Ukraine, threatening such military contingents with “tragic consequences” and the world with the destruction of human civilization as a result of a nuclear war. All these elements of Putin’s message point to the Kremlin’s unwavering intention to continue the war in Ukraine, including with the expansion of the Russian offensive towards Odessa, which will bring the Republic of Moldova under direct danger from the possible Russian military invasion.
The second “awakening” of the U.S. Congress?
A week after Putin’s election speech, U.S. President Joe Biden delivered the annual State of the Union address before members of the Congress. As Bloomberg notes, the incumbent U.S. President’s speech became mostly pre-election and “anti-Trump”. A significant part of Biden’s speech was devoted to the importance of the U.S. continuing to support Ukraine in the war with Russia.
Biden spoke to the Congress about the war in Ukraine, drawing parallels between his speech and the one with which the 32nd U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt addressed the nation in January 1941. It was then that President Roosevelt came to the Congress Hall to warn the American nation of the danger coming from Hitler on the march, who triggered the war that raged through Europe. President Roosevelt’s goal was to wake up the Congress and warn the American people that it was no ordinary moment. “And yes, my purpose tonight is to both wake up this Congress, and alert the American people that this is no ordinary moment either,” said President Biden, referring to the war in Ukraine.
Two candidates and two visions
In his opinion, Ukraine can stop the Russian army and Vladimir Putin, but to do this Washington must provide Kiev with the weapons necessary for self-defense. Biden stressed that Ukraine is not asking for U.S. troops to be deployed on its territory. According to him, there are no U.S. military personnel in the military conflict zone. “If the United States walks away now, it will put Ukraine at risk. Europe at risk. The free world at risk, emboldening others who wish to do us harm. My message to President Putin is simple. We will not walk away. We will not bow down. I will not bow down,” said Biden.
In his speech, Biden stressed that America is a founding member of NATO and today’s tasks of the Alliance remained the same – they continue to pursue the goal of preventing wars and keeping the peace. According to the U.S. President, NATO is now stronger than ever, with Finland and Sweden that joined the bloc the past two years.
These statements by the incumbent U.S. President contrast with the scandalous statements by Donald Trump, the eventual Republican candidate for U.S. President, in which he questioned his readiness to defend the European NATO allies in case of a Russian attack. Trump’s approach to NATO’s role in the world raised concerns in a series of European capitals. NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg reminded that the Alliance’s success so far has been based on the inviolability of the collective defense commitment: “NATO has been able to prevent an attack on the Alliance for 75 years,” the senior NATO official said.
Two election messages about non-ending of war
Two election massages from Moscow and Washington in 2024 leave little hope for an end to the war in Ukraine this year. New horizons of war are taking shape against the backdrop of an increasingly militarily mobilized Russia, confronting a Ukraine that is increasingly tired and annoyed about the uncertainty of robust and guaranteed support from the West, first of all from the U.S., with the prospect of the unpredictable coming of Tramp to the White House as President.
A military catastrophe of Ukraine will definitely mean replication of the catastrophe in the Republic of Moldova. In 1918, in a similar situation of imminent disaster, Bessarabia was saved by the Union with Romania. Today the saving solution for Moldova eastward the Prut River is the same, only that the problem lies in the visionary capacity of the political class in Chisinau. And the window of opportunity, most likely, will close at the end of 2024, condemning the Moldovans to experience again the unlearned history lesson.
IPN publishes in the Op-Ed rubric opinion pieces submitted by authors not affiliated with our editorial board. The opinions expressed in these articles do not necessarily coincide with the opinions of our editorial board.