Putin’s lack of punctuality reflects his rising fortunes

The Russian leader may often be late for important meetings, but his does his homework.

The list of world leaders kept waiting by Vladimir Putin just keeps growing. This week in Rome, it was the turn of Pope Francis, who had to cool his heels for 50 minutes for the Russian leader to appear. Earlier this month, he was 30 minutes late for South Korean President Park Geun Hye, seen as an insult in a country that takes punctuality seriously.

But that is nothing to what he did to John Kerry, the US secretary of state, who had to wait three hours to get a word with the president. Yulia Tymoshenko, former prime minister of Ukraine and darling of the West, got the same three-hour treatment.

The habit is so ingrained that even people Mr Putin should want to get on the right side of – such as CEOs of major international corporations – are advised to bring a book when they come to Russia. The Russian writer Leonid Bershidsky notes that Mr Putin’s ex-wife Lyudmila often had to wait an hour, or even 90 minutes, on metro station platforms for her fiance to turn up for a date.

When Mr Putin actually arrived on time for a formal meeting – in 2003 with the late Pope John Paul II – the newspaper Izvestia got out the big type for this shock headline: the president was not one second late.

Punctuality is the courtesy of kings, according to an old saw. (Queen Elizabeth II, a stickler for time-keeping, had to wait 14 minutes for Mr Putin when he came to London.) But it does not seem to matter for presidents. This year Forbes magazine has declared the Russian leader to be the world’s most powerful man – a ranking that Steve Forbes, owner of the magazine, stressed did not reflect the economic and military power of Russia, which is hardly top rank, but rather the declining status of Barack Obama.

This week Mr Putin can reflect on one of the more satisfying tactical victories of his third term in power. A long tug-of-war between Russia and the European Union over the fate of Ukraine has been settled in favour of the Kremlin.

Leaders of the European Union and the six states of its so-called Eastern Partnership are meeting this week in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius, and the high point was to have been the signing of an association agreement between Brussels and Ukraine. But that will not happen. After weeks of threats and warnings from Russia about the consequences for Ukraine of throwing its lot in with Brussels, President Viktor Yanukovich announced he was suspending talks with the EU on the agreement.

Ukraine is the biggest country of Europe (apart from Russia, which is mainly in Asia) and thus the swing state for the eastern European region. The announcement was a blow for the EU’s rather half-hearted attempts to expand its influence eastwards.

Ukraine relies on Russian gas for its energy and is deeply in debt. Mr Putin has apparently offered to cut energy costs if Ukraine stays in the Russian orbit, which would save the country from bankruptcy, a very cold winter or both. No such generosity was on offer from western Europe, where many analysts see Ukraine as a corrupt, clan-based economy not yet fit for serious investment.

The dashing of Ukraine’s European hopes led to anti-government protests, but it is hard to see how the battle could have turned out differently. For Mr Putin, Ukraine is the keystone of his grand plan, the Eurasian Customs Union, which would bring together most of the former Soviet states and presumably act as a lever of renewed Russian hegemony. Without Ukraine, the customs union would be stillborn, so he needs Ukraine far more than the Europeans.

The western position was weakened by the demand, most forcefully articulated by German Chancellor Angela Merkel (subject to 40 minutes delay in the Kremlin), for the release of Mrs Tymoshenko, ex-prime minister and now jailed leader of the Ukrainian opposition. With elections scheduled next year, however, it was hardly likely that President Yanukovych would risk his power by releasing his bitter rival just to please the EU.

The role of Russia as “energy superpower” is not guaranteed forever. The EU is moving – rather slowly – to reduce its dependence on Russian gas. It is determined to end the role of Gazprom, the Russian gas supplier, as both a commercial company and instrument of state policy.

But all in all, it has been a good year for Mr Putin. Taking advantage of American indecision, he has bolstered the position of his client, Bashar Al Assad, in Syria. If the Iranian nuclear talks make progress, Russia will inevitably be more closely involved, turning Mr Putin into a necessary partner of Mr Obama. Not long ago, Washington was happy to dismiss him as minor irritant.

Without delving into pop psychology, could there be a reason behind Mr Putin’s lack of punctuality? As a man who could be in power until 2024, does he have the luxury of thinking strategically before starting the next meeting – rather than blundering through a crowded schedule, as more hurried politicians do? He does believe in doing things slowly – working on paper rather than using the internet.

Steve Forbes, his latest booster, seems to think so. This is how he defended his magazine’s downgrading of Mr Obama in favour of the Russian leader. Mr Obama does little preparation before international conferences, he wrote. “He doesn’t arrive with much of an agenda, nor does he interact with other leaders in advance to line up support. He more or less just shows up.”

The world will have plenty of chances next year to count the minutes that foreign leaders wait for their appointments with Mr Putin. On January 1, Russia takes over the presidency of the G8, and there will be a summit in June in Sochi, venue for the Winter Olympics in February. Time perhaps for leaders to think about taking a longer view.

On Twitter: @aphilps