WHEN Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, gave a belligerent anti-Western speech in Munich seven years ago he was tense and angry. But on October 24th he was reportedly relaxed and happy as he delivered his most anti-American diatribe so far. He joked and smiled. He enjoyed flaunting his characteristic toughness in front of foreign journalists and experts who are members of the Valdai discussion club, leaving them stuck for words by his ability to twist facts and distort meanings.

In substance the speech contained little new. Mr Putin blamed America’s “unilateral diktat” for the world’s disorders, and accused the West of double standards and hypocrisy towards Russia, which was only “protecting the interests of the Russian-speaking population in Crimea” against “neo-fascists” when it annexed the peninsula and stirred conflict in the east. The message was clear: if America breaks rules in Kosovo, so can Russia in Ukraine. “The bear will not even bother to ask permission. Here we consider it the master of the taiga. It does not intend to move to any other climatic zones. However, it will not let anyone have its taiga either.”

Mr Putin recalled Khrushchev banging his shoe at the UN as a way to command attention. “The whole world, primarily the United States and NATO thought: this Nikita is best left alone, he might just go and fire a missile—they have lots of them, we had better show some respect for them.” Yet the Soviet Union and America saw each other as equals not just because of their arsenals, but also because they were joint victors in the second world war. The Soviet Union helped to create the post-war order that Mr Putin now wants to destroy. Soviet leaders were hostile to the West but not irresponsible; they harboured deep fears about using nuclear weapons.

Mr Putin is not open to a change of view. “In the past he did everything in his power to change the situation, but now all this is in the past,” says Dmitri Trenin, head of Carnegie Moscow Centre, a think-tank. “He clearly does not trust America and sees no point in talking to it,” says Fyodor Lukyanov, editor of Russia in Global Affairs. The question is why he bothered to make the speech at all.

The answer may have more to do with Mr Putin’s domestic situation than with the West. Anti-Americanism is now a pillar of the Kremlin’s ideology. In 2007 Mr Putin’s Munich speech was a complement to Russia’s strong growth. His latest effort is a substitute for it. Blaming Russia’s economic troubles, including falling oil prices, on America diverts criticism from the Kremlin. Opinion polls show that the Russian public first and foremost credits Mr Putin with the restoration of Russia’s place in the world. On this basis the Valdai meeting in Sochi, site of this year’s winter Olympics, provided a perfect setting for him to demonstrate his strength and agility while the club’s members inadvertently played the part of a television audience.

This does not mean that Mr Putin is ready for a real war with the West. The withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine suggests that his actions are constrained both by sanctions and by the unwillingness of Russians to lose more soldiers’ lives. But Mr Putin’s meddling in Ukraine is far from over. In many ways it is Russia’s weakness, not its strength, that is now the biggest danger.

Correction: This article originally said the Valdai club was organised by Dmitry Kiselev, a TV propagandist. Mr Kiselev was in charge earlier this year, but the club has since been put under a separate foundation. Sorry