Putin's first interview with a foreign journalist since he became acting
president was clearly carefully set up with David Frost, and timed just
before the Presidential elections later this month.
It aimed to explain Russia's war in Chechnya in a favourable light and
reopen cooperation rather than confrontation with the west.
More generally it presented Putin as a modern young leader sensitive to the
total management of society in the context of a pluralistic politics. The
choice of a British interviewer may signal an interest in a meeting with
Tony Blair with whom he would probably like comparisons to be made.
When asked if he had ever visited the USA or Britain, he gave a
particularly detailed answer to the places he had visited in Britain, such
as to encourage further discussion after the meeting.
Indeed even more than a presentation for the British public, (with a
limited audience at 9:30 on a Sunday morning) this was a subtle process of
signal sending between world governments.
Afterwards Frost had three commentators one of whom was the former British
ambassador in Moscow, Sir Andrew Wood, who had probably received a
consultation fee for helping to set the meeting up through his contacts.
Sir Andrew thought the key words were partnership, equality, and process.
Prof Geoffrey Hoskins noted that coming from St Petersburg, Putin is more
restrained than most Russians, [and therefore more appropriate for
television]. He also reminded him of Yuri Andropov, the other leader
groomed by the KGB, well informed, but he suggested with a tendency to fall
back on power when he does not know what to do.
However Putin handled most issues with considerable finesse. Asked about
the concept of making Russia strong again he said that this was a matter of
its citizens and neighbours feeling "comfortable". [He is clearly preparing
his image as a strong man to shift from that of aggression to that of
security.]
Frost asked in the light of opinion polls showing Putin at 60% versus
Zhuganov at 23%, whether he was sure of the election. Shrewdly he answered
that he is a sportsman and in sport you learn to respect your enemy. That
meant that Zhuganov had some strengths that he himself did not have. He
noted that Zhuganov and the Communists enjoyed a "substantial support base".
Not only was this a sophisticated analytical way of addressing an electoral
process but it was studiously respectful to Zhuganov. It is consistent with
the deal he struck over the speakership of the Duma to dump Primakov. Now
that Primakov, who held the middle ground, has been knocked out, Putin can
afford to incorporate the Communists in his wider political scheme.
[The corollary is that the Communists will be trapped in pure parliamentary
electoralism if they are just interested in pushing up their vote to 25% or
so, rather than in building democratic coalitions. Sectarianism will be no
answer to bland consensus Third Way politics. The Communists could be as
marginalised as Hague's Conservatives in England unless they join the
consensus politics.]
Putin signalled a sophisticated non-adversarial strategy towards the west.
He did nothing to fan Russian resentment at western interference in
Chechnya and first asked if he might be able to give an "extended" answer
to a question about war crimes there.
He said with apparent candour that in 1996 Chechnya had de facto
independence. But it did not produce a stable government and was divided up
into the rule of various war lords, although "a small and doubtless proud
nation".
He said the power vacuum that had followed had been exploited by extremists.
Several times he emphasised respect for the Chechens but of course managing
despite all this to avoid recognition of their right to self-determination.
The reasonable story he projected was that one of the war lords had
launched an attack on Tajikistan last summer. He repeated the story of
several blocs of Russian flats being bombed and gave a higer figure of 1500
residents killed. [The Chechen spokesperson commenting to Frost however
claimed that a spokesperson for the FSB had admitted in Russia that they
did it.]
Anyway Russia was sadly "forced" to respond the way it did. The "bandits"
had captured innocent civilians. Indeed such bandits - "are they any better
than Nazi criminals?" he asked in a surprisingly naive way, not in tune
with the rest of the interview. However he did say "We do not want them
[the Chechens] to develop a syndrome of a defeated nation." The success of
their policy was inconceivable without the cooperation of the people.
Russian forces therefore aimed to "minimise casualties" as it was not in
their interests to antagonise the population. He did *not* note that it
might be in their interest to torture men of military age to make them
reveal those suspected of serving in Chechen military units.
Concerning the reported video of dead and mutilated Chechens he observed
that "one of the forms of warfare is information warfare", and that this
video has already been refuted by its photographer.
Asked by David Frost in his blandest style, whether international
journalist might go to Chechnya, he said, "I agree, of course".
It therefore seemed that the interview was his countermove on the
information war over Chechnya, and deliberately set in a
non-confrontational tone. Many of his observations prepared an exit
strategy for him once he has won the election.
With the Chechen question defused he could now send the message about the
west.
To even consider Nato as an enemy could "cause damage" and would "not do
any good to Russia or the world". He did not think in terms of spheres of
influence, he said (undermining one of the rationale's of the Chechen war)
but areas of cooperation. He held the door open for Russia joining NATO.
"We believe we can talk about more profound integration with Nato, but only
if Russia is regarded as an equal partner," he said.
Asked if Russia might ever join Nato, he replied: "I do not see why not."
Putin said attempts to exclude Russia from the debate over Nato's eastward
expansion had led Moscow to oppose any such moves.
"Russia is part of the European culture," he said. "And I cannot imagine my
own country in isolation from Europe and what we often call the civilised
world." [Note the racist undertones of this.]
He warned that it was not feasible to pretend Moscow had no part to play in
discussions on international security.
Nato's attempts to exclude Russia is what causes it "opposition" and
"concern" he said.
"But that does not mean we are going to shut ourselves off from the rest of
the world. Isolationism is not an option."
He said that Russia strove for equitable and candid relations with its
partners, and that the problem of resolving issues of international
security had to be resolved, [according to BBC summary].
__________________________
COMMENT
Putin has been positioned as Yeltsin's succesor by a well-crafted plan
financed by finance capitalism. He has won popularity as head of a newly
invented party, as apparently a war candidate.
Soon after taking up the acting presidency he dumped the associates of
Yeltsin most tainted by embarrassing stories of mishandling millions of IMF
derived funds.
His interview was carefully judged and had clearly been negotiated over
some time. He has experts behind him on managing the media.
The idea that a member of the security forces could become a political
leader appears strange in the west, but Putin spent time talking about
boyhood affection for heroes. Where he makes a real and credible transition
is the extent to which the KGB became an information management agency.
This is the bridge to Third Way politics.
Just as the KGB was well informed about the internal problems of the
country, and propelled people like Andropov and Gorbachov into power, so
Blair and Clinton attach enormous importance to detailed information on the
public mood, to the use of focus groups, image management, and diffusing of
opposition.
Putin is fortunately now preparing to distance himself from the more social
fascist features of Russian nationalism, and to become an acceptable member
of the "civilised world".
Under the benign domination of finance capital.
He will get on well with Blair.
Leftists who have opposed western interference in Chechnya have too shallow
an understanding of how the contadictions are playing out.
Even now, democrats in the west should uphold the right of the "doubtless
proud nation" of Chechens to self-determination, support the international
solidarity of working people, and insist that any international financial
aid is conditional on this, not on the good will of the financial oligarchs
behind Putin.
Otherwise we will totally have lost the plot, while the third way makeover
proceeds apace after the presidential election this month.
Chris Burford
London
