In the past few days, the “anti-Western rhetoric” of Vladimir Putin, which had been rising in pitch for several months, has reached “Soviet levels of shrillness”, says The Washington Post. Putin has accused the United States of “imperialism and diktat” and threatened to target Europe with Russian missiles in response to the Bush administration’s plan to locate a small missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Bush responded by saying that the missile shield was a “purely defensive measure”, aimed not at Russia, but at true threats, such as Iran or North Korea, and invited Putin to “send scientists to visit the planned sites”. But hours later, says Tom Baldwin in The Daily Telegraph, he “risked inflaming tensions” again by declaring that Moscow’s “failure to extend basic freedoms to its citizens was troubling”.
In reality, there is little to worry about, says Bronwen Maddox in The Times. Most of Putin’s threats are “empty” and if the US ignores them, “as it most likely will, then there is nothing he can do about it”. Russia’s population is shrinking and its military budget is “small and stretched”. Its most powerful weapon is oil and its “greatest vulnerability” that the price may fall. If it does, Russia’s confidence would fall, as would the popularity of its president. And in Iran, the one area where Putin could cause trouble, his interests appear close to the West’s. Putin has agreed absolutely with Bush that Iran should not have nuclear weapons and Russia’s recent delays in supplying Iran with nuclear fuel “look like an expression of his disquiet”.
History may yet prove us fools, says Simon Jenkins in The Guardian. Like the 1914 shooting of the Archduke in Sarajevo, the events that trigger conflict are easy to see with hindsight. “At the time they might have turned on a penny. The task of statecraft is to detect the pennies.” Were Nato and Europe wise to snub Russia? Was America wise to provoke Putin by having a military presence close to its borders? “We may be witnessing only the paranoid exchanges of three world leaders on their way out.” Nevertheless, risks are being taken with Moscow, and it is possible that the Iraq war may come to look like a “footling incompetence” when compared with the West’s “misjudgement of Russia over the past decade”.
The West should not expect friendship from Russia, but a return to the direct military confrontation of the Cold War is unlikely, says Max Hastings in the Daily Mail. Modern Russia is as “dependent upon banking our cheques as we are upon buying its oil and gas”. This doesn’t mean the Russians like us. They have lost their empire and endured 20 years of “perceived Western slights and condescension”. No wonder they applaud the sort of “savage harangue” Putin has been delivering to the West and are “thrilled” that Moscow agents have found means to kill a prominent Russian critic in London.
So what will the West do “to rein in Russia”? asks Owen Matthews in Newsweek. The US needs Moscow’s cooperation in confronting “troublesome states” such as Iran and that gives it limited freedom to manoeuvre. Europe is less compromised. Its main interest in Russia is oil and gas, and the Russian threat has helped create a united front dedicated to energy efficiency and independence. Europe is beholden to Russia for only 25% of its energy supply, while Russia looks to Europe for 65% of its oil and gas exports. Putin may come to regret scaring off his best customers.