Russian President Vladimir Putin took to the stage for a marathon end-of-year press conference on Friday, declaring Russian’s military might, denying accusations of hacking in the U.S. elections, and addressing concerns over a new nuclear arms race.
At the annual event, just shy of four hours in length this year, the Russian president downplayed comments made by U.S. President-elect Donald Trump this week pledging "the United States must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability.”
Putin said the comments, which alarmed non-proliferations experts, were “not unusual” and in line with Trump’s campaign pledges.
"If anyone is unleashing an arms race it's not us," Putin said, pointing to the U.S. withdrawal in 2001 from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, which he says created the conditions for an arms race.
He admitted that the U.S. military is bigger, but said Russia was "stronger than any potential aggressor" because it had modernized its nuclear missiles and other forces. His comments come as NATO plans a troop build-up in the Baltics and Poland, in response to the Ukraine crisis.
He was also quick to reassure the public that “We will never spend resources on an arms race that we can't afford,” as Russia's economy struggles with Western sanctions and lower oil prices.
U.S. Election & Foreign Policy
Mr. Putin had high praise for Trump, and instead pointed the finger at the Democratic Party for its failings in the U.S. election.
"I've said before that the losing side is looking for people to blame outside,” he said. "The current administration and the leadership of the Democratic Party are trying to blame all their failures on external factors.”
He signaled that he looked forward to better relations with the United States, saying "if Trump invites (me) to visit the U.S., I will definitely come."
In terms of foreign policy, the Russian president claimed a victory in Syria with government forces taking full control of Aleppo. He said “the next stage should be a cease-fire on the entire territory of Syria and the launch of talks on a political settlement."
He said Turkey and Iran, which helped broker the withdrawal of the civilians and rebel groups from Aleppo, had agreed that peace talks in Syria should be held in Kazakhstan's capital, Astana.
He added that the assassination of the Russian ambassador to Turkey Andrei Karlov was "an attack on Russia-Turkey relations," but would not derail cooperation between the two countries.
In a year full of developments both at home and abroad, how did the Russian President fare? The Cipher Brief’s Leone Lakhani spoke to Anna Borshchevskaya, Ira Weiner Fellow at The Washington Institute, to find out.
The Cipher Brief: Russian-U.S. relations came up a few times in this year’s news conference, particularly the issue of hacking. Mr. Putin once again dismissed accusations of Russia’s interference in the U.S. elections. Given your knowledge of Russia, would a hack of the extent at the DNC, happen without direction from the top?
Anna Borshchevskaya: I certainly doubt that. I would be very surprised. I don’t see how that could happen without Putin’s approval.
Based on what our intelligence agencies have said, there is evidence that Russia was involved in trying to influence the elections. Personally, I think of course they tried to interfere. They’ve interfered in so many other countries before. I think the question is how they interfered, and to what extent. There’s still a lot we don’t know. What I would like to see is a bipartisan commission that is set up specifically to investigate this issue because we don’t have all the facts.
TCB: We saw Putin praise Donald Trump and downplay the President-elect’s pledge to strengthen the United States’ nuclear capability. What message is her trying to convey?
AB: Putin is looking for some form a reset with the U.S. He very much wants the sanctions lifted and so he’s biding his time, waiting to see what kind of a deal Trump will offer him. Trump is unpredictable and I do think, despite what Putin said, the Kremlin didn’t expect him to win, so now they have to deal with him.
The Kremlin doesn’t like unpredictable behavior, but they do seem to have high hopes. Regardless of who is in the White House, the Kremlin still considers the U.S. an enemy. So I suspect Putin and Trump will get along until they don’t. The question is what will happen in the short-term before that happens, what kind damage there will be.
TCB: In reference to the Russian Ambassador Andrei Karlov’s assassination, Putin said it would not affect the Russian-Turkish relations, but earlier this week, you said that it’s likely to “spur a Russian escalation against 'terrorists' in Syria.” Why?
AB: All indicators are pointing to that. We saw the meeting in Moscow with Russian, Turkish and Iranian officials on Syria. Certainly both Erdogan and Putin are saying that whoever murdered the Russian ambassador was trying to drive a wedge between Russia and Turkey, and some commentators in Russia said it is the West that has exactly such an interest. So there are no indicators that the Russian-Turkish relationship is going to deteriorate.
Putin never actually wanted a real solution in Syria, and he still doesn’t. He says he wants to fight terrorism. He’s been saying it for years, but most of his airstrikes have not been against ISIS. If anything, at certain times he even strengthened ISIS. So one possible outcome is an intensification of operations in Syria under the guise of fighting terrorism. Putin wants to keep Assad in power, or at least if not him, then someone like him, who would ensure Moscow’s interests in Syria and the Middle East. Remember that Putin has been helping Assad carry out an ethnic cleansing in Syria, and it is Assad who is responsible for the rise of ISIS in the first place.
TCB: But he signaled that Russia, along with Turkey and Iran were working towards a proper ceasefire plan. Doesn’t it suit Russia’s purpose, however, to have some kind of peace in Syria? Do they really want to stay in this war, fighting an insurgency?
AB: There is every interest for Russia to come together and fight terrorism, but the problem is what Putin often wants is not what’s best for Russia.
This is a man who became President – when he campaigned for the first time in early 2000 – on taking a strong stand on terrorism. He had this famous slogan “Wipe them out in the outhouse,” in reference to terrorists.
It happened after years of horrific bombings in 1999 in Moscow and a few other cities. At that time, Putin immediately blamed the Chechens. He came out and said that we need a strong stance on terrorism.
There’s still many unresolved questions about those very tragic events that took the lives of many, many Russian citizens. There was speculation that the Russian security services, the FSB, had actually orchestrated the attacks. We don’t fully know.
Historically the Russian government used these types of attacks to justify major crackdowns domestically, and its aggression internationally. Historically also when things get worse in Russia domestically, the Kremlin tends to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy. This isn’t new, it predates even the Soviet Union, it goes back to czarist Russia.
But you’re right, Russia has every interest for a real solution, but it’s simply not what Putin wants. Again, a peace settlement they’re looking for is one that keeps Assad or someone like him in power, and something that looks like a victory of Putin over the West because for him diplomacy is zero-sum. This solution entails more murders, and most refugees will not return to Syria, so Europe will remain destabilized. That’s not a real peace settlement.
TCB: Is that because this war in Syria is not that costly for Russia? It’s a relatively inexpensive operation.
AB: We don’t fully know the true costs of the Russia Syria campaign. Certainly the official numbers are very low. Putin has made every effort to show to the Russian public that the cost has been low, both in blood and treasure.
The last thing the Russian people want is another Afghanistan. When the campaign started in Syria last December, many Russians came out and said Putin is trying to create another Afghanistan for us. So he’s very cognizant of that. I suspect the real costs are higher than what the official numbers are. That said, it does look like they can sustain the costs.
But there are so many other reasons for Russia to be in Syria from Putin’s perspective. It’s an emphasis on greatness. It’s restoring Russia as a great power. It’s about getting people distracted from domestic problems. Getting them to rally around the flag. You know “Forget about domestic problems. Now is not the time because we have bigger concerns here.” There’s a whole host of reasons why Putin is doing this.
TCB: In terms of domestic issues you’re referring to the economy?
AB: Yes, because Russia is on a slow deterioration, economically it has been for quite some time now, and the Russian people feel it. I don’t see a collapse coming. This is a different situation from the final days of the Soviet Union. The economy is managed differently now. But it is on a declining path.
TCB: That seems to be one weak point for Putin. In past speeches this year, he’s gone to great lengths to talk about the economy. Russia is enduring Western sanctions and a sharp drop in oil prices, which are detrimental to the country’s economy. Did he sufficiently reassure the public?
AB: He didn’t say anything particularly new. I think he’s indicating that he is aware of domestic problems, and indeed, a number of his major speeches suggested that he’s quite aware of the problems, but what he’s emphasizing is Russia’s greatness instead, deflecting from domestic challenges. But again, the Russian economy is not yet a point of collapse.
TCB: The other front that’s been a sore point for Putin this year is the planned NATO troop buildup in the Baltics and Poland. How much of a concern is that?
AB: Officially the Kremlin is very concerned. They perceive all of the West’s actions, really since the 1990s, as trying to disadvantage Russia in some way. It’s not just the troops.
Putin genuinely believes that the West orchestrates regime change. From the color revolutions to internal protests against Putin himself. He came out and said in 2011 and 2012, when there were major protests in Russia against Putin’s return to the presidency. Putin said that Hillary Clinton gave the signal for these protestors to come out.
He certainly believes that the Americans orchestrated the Arab Spring, and that’s another reason he’s in Syria. He believes that if he lets Assad fall, he’s next.
TCB: Does he actually believe that?
AB: Yes, I think he believes that. If you look at his statements about the color revolutions and protests, so my impression is that he genuinely believes that the West orchestrates regime change.
It might seem ridiculous to us but he really believes that this is what we do. Paradoxically, this is the position of somebody who is weaker. In many ways, this is defensive from his perspective. If he lets the flag fall, then he’s next.
TCB: But he still enjoys immense popularity within Russia, with approval ratings of more than 80 percent?
AB: We shouldn’t look at approval ratings in Russia the same way we do here because it’s not possible to conduct an opinion poll in an authoritarian country, especially in a place like Russia, where people are afraid to speak honestly with a pollster.
Frankly, I don’t think Putin believes these approval ratings, which is why he always asks the Kremlin-connected pollsters to do more and more polls. If you really believe that 80, 90 percent of your people support you, why do you need constant reassurance?
His suppression of civil society that we’ve seen since 2012 stems from a belief that protests can break out anywhere. If you’re really certain that everybody supports you, you wouldn’t be taking these types of steps. So I think the real answer is, we don’t fully know how many people support Putin.
Leone Lakhani is an executive producer and reporter at The Cipher Brief.
