Do you happen to know why he did that? I've listened to the speech a couple of times and I get what he says, I just don't get why he said it. It was practically a declaration of war on the leading global ideology.
I don't know, but I suspect he expected the split be finalised soon enough anyway—that ball got rolling with the Iraq War, which made those American bases that Putin invited into Central Asia look like a not-so-good idea, and pressuring the region to get rid of them (with China, initially through SCO, IIRC) started in 2005. And in general terms, I think Putin expected some quid pro quo for his massive concessions following 911, and they didn't materialise.
On globalisation trends specifically, there are various internal ones, but one high-profile episode is regarding Sakhalin-II in 2006, a foreign-owned enterprise operating since 1999 (and its predecessor since 1994). Putin's initial proposal was to swap 25% of shares of Sakhalin-II for shares various Gazprom projects, which was accepted. The catch was that immediately afterward, Royal Dutch Shell declared Sakhalin-II costs as increasing from $12B to $20B, which is very significant because by contract, Russia would see no profits until all expenses are paid in full, despite the fact that oil was already produced there for years.
Whatever the underlying reasons, the message received was very clear: it is not for the metropolia to share with the colonies. Not even indirectly, because also by contract, 75% of labour and resources should come from Russia, a figure Sakhalin-II never remote approached beforehand. .. So the result was a study that suddenly found that the ecological damages of Sakhalain-II could be as large as $50B, followed by a rather
interesting meeting (has some English translation; the onscreen text however is untranslated and represents an interpretation of the underlying message behind what's being said). So perhaps what Putin said in Munich was because that was already the way the wind was blowing, so he had little to lose and potential allies to gain.
...
But perhaps instead of being a world game over control of resources and some of the largest enterprises in the world, it is actually about scoring talking points. Perhaps things like e.g. Deripaska and RUSAL is nothing more than principled justice, rather than anything to do with joint US/UK manoeuvring to get its Board of Directors to be dominated by Anglo-Americans and Russian manoeuvring to move the company from UK to Russia, which they were strangely both successful at, IIRC. Though more seriously, if one considered exactly why so many of Russia's companies became foreign offshores, one might come closer to understanding a few things that actually motivate the Russian state (by no means exclusively, of course). From their POV, it is simply a modern form of a colonial tax, and they're the colony.