Last week, a Moscow bookshop set up a special table by the main door in honour of Vladimir Putin's 64th birthday. In pride of place were the three-volume collection of Mr Putin's pronouncements, Direct Speech, alongside heroic histories of the secret services, Mr Putin's old trade, and volumes portraying Russia valiantly standing against the West.
Among these were The Dark Side of Democracy and The West's 1,000-Year War against Russia, and a new work, Anglobalisation: The Secret Power of the British Crown, adorned with a portrait of Queen Elizabeth, who apparently is out to destroy all cultures around the world and remake them on the English model of capitalist finance.
The casual visitor would get the impression of a country on a war footing, though the people in the store seemed more interested in a different future for themselves and their children – English-language textbooks were flying off the shelves.
Unlike the past, these days the Kremlin discourages excessive celebrations of the president’s birthday – he is such a towering figure that there is no need to strive to buff his image. That does not stop bookshops feeling the need to display their loyalty to the man in the Kremlin.
The talk abroad about Russia focuses on the dire economic situation – the reserves built up during the period of high oil prices are rapidly declining, real wages fell 8.3 per cent last year and western sanctions are still in force over his annexation of Crimea. But there is no sign of Mr Putin’s hold on power weakening. Parliamentary elections last month gave him an unprecedented hold on the legislature, and reports of ballot-stuffing provoked only a shoulder shrug.
So, Mr Putin is likely to be in charge until 2025. The only issue is how to secure a smooth re-election in 2018 at a time when the economic outlook is darkening. To prevent an economic crisis, the finance ministry has called for cuts to defence spending, now 5 per cent of gross domestic product (the United States’ figure is 3.5 per cent), provoking outrage from defence minister Sergei Shoigu.
There is no doubt that 2018 will be a year of harsh austerity. The current talk in Moscow is that Mr Putin may bring his re-election forward by a year to 2017, which would provide for a sunnier campaign climate.
The debate about how to finance Russia’s grand ambitions on the world stage with an economy the same size as Spain’s, but with five times the population, is of interest way beyond Russia’s borders. Russian officials have said that Moscow is planning a permanent naval base in Syria as well as reviving its Cold War bases in Vietnam and Cuba, not to mention plans for Egypt.
At some stage reality has to intervene. These tensions may help explain the catastrophe of the Russian-American ceasefire in Syria, which was painstakingly negotiated over months by John Kerry, the US secretary of state, and Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister. It collapsed almost immediately, leading to Russia’s tactic of bombing rebel-held eastern Aleppo.
Middle Eastern experts in Moscow are sure that Mr Lavrov was negotiating in good faith: as a diplomat he has to think of an exit strategy from Syria which would open the way for a new start with the next US administration and the lifting of western economic sanctions. But the Russian military (and the Pentagon too) were against the deal. The world was surprised that Russia could not, or did not want to, bring the regime of Bashar Al Assad into line.
In March, Mr Putin was also thinking of an exit strategy. He announced the withdrawal of most Russian forces, saying they had largely achieved their objective. So why is he now deepening Russia’s engagement?
One reason must be that with Washington in full campaign mode, it is open season for him to display the power of the Russian military. The second reason lies in relations with Iran. Tehran has described its relationship with Moscow over Syria as “strategic”. This is far from the truth. For the Iranians, the preservation of the Assad regime and its permanent alignment with Tehran is a red line. For the Russians, preventing the Salafi-jihadists from taking over the Syrian state is the goal. The fate of the Assad family could be negotiated. This is a complication in Russia’s calculations which is often ignored in the West.
The short-term future is clear, even if it is horrifically grim. Eastern Aleppo is going to be pulverised, because the residents must be forced to leave. The Syrian army does not have the men to take control of a hostile part of the city, while Hizbollah and other Iranian-allied forces will not want to be sitting ducks for rebel snipers and bomb-makers for years to come.
Such an open-ended commitment is beginning to look like the Soviet Union’s engagement in Afghanistan. Not in terms of casualties, where Moscow lost 15,000 soldiers, but in terms of the financial burden and global isolation which contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union. This week Mr Putin had to cancel a visit to Paris in the face of French outrage at the indiscriminate bombing of Aleppo. Could Mr Putin be making the same mistake as the doddering old Soviet leader, Leonid Brezhnev, who stumbled into an unwinnable war in Afghanistan?
A well-connected Russian businessman dismisses the comparison. “Putin understands the global economy and Russia’s place in it. We will have him in power until 2025. He will find a way through these problems.”
To hear such confidence expressed about a man who has ruled Russia for 17 years, is astonishing. It may reflect fears about the chaos which may reign after such a dominant figure leaves the Kremlin. What is certain is that the coming period will be the most challenging for Mr Putin as he tries to match the ambitious global goals he has set for himself with the depleted means of the Russian economy.
Alan Philps is a commentator on global affairs
On Twitter: @aphilps
