Out of the 4 ships in the Russian fleet, two are support ships, one is a defensive ship (the destroyer) and only one ship represents a threat and that would be the cruiser which really only has one capability and that is to launch missiles. A Russian cruiser doesn't have the capabilities we see in the American and certain allied fleets which have deployed the Aegis Combat System . It would be of little assistance in defending Putin from his imaginary enemies. It could launch nuclear weapons at Australia. But it wouldn't be able to do that for long before being destroyed by Australian or allied vessels. When one enters foreign harbors, if needed local tugs and pilots are used. There really is no need to send a tug halfway across the world to nudge your cruiser or destroyer into a birth unless your captains are really bad at basic seamanship. These ships are relatively small. You don't normally need tugs for ships of this size. The US navy, which is larger than the next 16 largest navies combined, doesn't sent tug boats with its fleets.
Each is their own individual snowflake you can heap them together or not depending of your criteria those 4 russian ships http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_cruiser_Varyag_(1983) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_destroyer_Marshal_Shaposhnikov yaruslov mudry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neustrashimyy-class_frigate boris botuma http://en.itar-tass.com/archive/665931 they all helped against somali pirates in the past Varyag does a lot of this sort of missions it went to san fransisco with then president Medvedev. It could carry nuclear-tipped cruise missiles from a overhaul in vladivostok that ended on october 23 but I doubt that a ship that houses a museum would fire nuclear weapons on a city were Putin will be at the time interesting summit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_G-20_Brisbane_summit
I'd question the use of the word 'paranoid'. But distrust there certainly is, on both sides. The thing is, the role that Russia (not just Putin) sees for itself (one of the world's leading powers) isn't entirely consistent with how Russia's old rivals in the West see things. The West saw the 1991 collapse of communism as their victory and Russia's defeat. The fall of the iron curtain, the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the implosion of the Soviet Union was seen as creating a whole new virgin territory into which the Western alliance system could expand. And expand it did. But now that Russia sees itself as growing stronger again, we are starting to see some push-back, some new Russian determination to stop continued Western encroachments and defend what remains of their own sphere. That doesn't make Putin crazy, from the Russian point of view it makes him a patriot. It isn't surprising that the collision point is Ukraine. Russians see Ukraine historically almost as part of themselves. It's where Russia began as a nation. And by trying to flip Ukraine, the West projects itself almost as deep into Russia as the Nazis at their high-tide in World War II. (Stalingrad isn't far from Ukraine's eastern boundary.) That's the context of the over-the-top Russian rhetoric about "fascists" in Kiev, to them this new incursion isn't unlike what Hitler tried to do to them in 1941-2. That's the association in their heads. China's leaders couldn't have said it better. But as China's power grows, expect them to wield it more assertively overseas. (They aren't conducting their massive military build-up for nothing.) They are already asserting their hegemony over all of the waters (the East and South China Seas) west of what they call the First Island Chain. They expect all of the nations of that region (Japan, the Koreas, the Philippines, Vietnam...) to settle back into their historical role as Chinese clients. And Taiwan is a special case. It's been told that it must accept direct rule by Beijing or face invasion. If we just take the European members of NATO and total their current military forces together, it should be enough to handle the Russians in most conflict scenarios. (The US would still back them up if necessary.) The NATO command structure is already there, all that's really lacking is the will. A good start might be to refrain from turning him into a caricature. Putin's no more a madman than the leaders of China are. They are nationalistic autocrats who are acting to protect and promote what they perceive as their countries' interests. Part of dealing with leaders like that is to try to understand their motivations so as to be able to predict how they might react to future events. There already is a war in Ukraine. Why isn't it bigger? Probably because Putin hopes to protect what he perceives as Russia's vital interests in the least costly and least dangerous way possible. Ideally, that's true. But if there was suddenly a coup in Ottawa, and if Canada suddenly appeared to be headed towards joining a power bloc that Washington perceived as hostile to the United States, I'm sure that military intervention would be very much on the table, even if most Canadians supported the new government. (The US has intervened militarily in Latin America for less.) If this Ukrainian crisis is going to be resolved diplomatically and not by force of arms, a way needs to be found that's as close to win-win as possible. (Otherwise both sides won't sign on to it.) A solution needs to be thought up that gives the Ukranians as much of what they want as possible, in a way that's as least threatening to Russia's perceived vital interests as possible. I'm not sure what it would be, but diplomats need to be thinking about it. Russia isn't returning to wholesale state ownership of everything. What they are likely to end up with is an economic market system combined with an autocratic political system, basically the old Czarist model in modern dress. Just as China's ostensibly 'communist' Party has thrown out communism and established a market system, while retaining the dictatorship. In their case it's basically the old Chinese imperial system in modern dress.
[ Merkel, has said, Putin is divorced from reality. http://topekasnews.com/angela-merkel-finds-putin-another-world-touch-reality/ The difference is the West had placed trust in Putin, before Putin began acting irresponsibly and recklessly. The West perceived the fall of the Soviet Union as the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was much more than just Russia. Poland was a part of the old Soviet Union. Eastern Germany was part of the old Soviet Union. Yet Poland and Eastern Germany are not laboring under such delusions. I don’t think the first thing the West though of when the Soviet Union collapse was expanding Western Alliances. Having lived through the Cold War and the fall of the Soviet Union, the first thing most Westerners thought of was the peace…no more nuclear brinksmanship and maybe we could all just get along. Many former Soviet client states like Estonia, Latvia, Poland, East Germany, and Ukraine wanted to embrace the West and runaway from Mother Russia. That isn’t the fault of the West. Those former Soviet states rejected Soviet militarism, communism and autocracy in favor of more successful models of governance and commerce practiced by Western states. Russia’s misdirected perceptions or use of misdirected perceptions were driven by Putin’s use of nationalism to consolidate his power base, doesn’t mean the world has to subscribe to them. At some point, realism has to enter into the equation. Being divorced from reality is crazy. And those who have spoken with Putin have said, he is divorced from reality (e.g. Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany). Except as with Poland and other former Soviet States, the West didn’t attempt to “flip” Ukraine, and if Russians have some over-the-top notions about Ukraine, one needs to look at who put them there and why. The facts are Ukraine is an independent state. Ukrainians are free to make their own choices. Russian leaders have recognized Ukraine as an independent state and have by treaty sworn to recognize its pre-Russian invasion borders. Neither Ukraine, nor any Western nation invaded Russia or even threatened to invade Russia. If Russians have some disconnected notions in their heads, they need to get those notions straight real quick. The West is well aware of Russia’s many delusions. But just because Russia is delusion, it doesn’t follow that we should all share in those delusions. Indeed, and this has the potential to get really ugly at some point in the future. But for the immediate future, China’s new economy remains very vulnerable to outside pressures and there are a number of internal economic, structural issues, China is trying to dodge with hyper growth. I don’t know how long that can last. I view China as a problem, primarily and economic problem, just waiting to happen. And then there are the political challenges which plague China. US policy is to play for time; hoping economic change will force political change. I have been hopeful but skeptical of that policy. China and Russia are both embracing nationalism as a control tactic for their respective regimes.
I’m not so sure of that and the reason why is because those same NATO countries called upon the US to help them with Libya. The US was called in to initially conduct the airstrikes and subsequently to coordinate those allied strikes. It seems like something that could be easily done by allied forces, but for some reason allied forces required US action in Libya. So that makes me wonder about NATO capabilities. But as I said before, conceptually I agree. Existing European forces should be capable of handling Russia all by its lonesome. But I don’t know that we can look at NATO capabilities in that way. NATO forces are integrated and designed to act as one multistate force and one cannot separate out NATO forces the way you envision and still be effective (US exempted). Well you and I are going to have to disagree on this issue. Putin is the one who is single handedly turning himself into a caricature. No one is forcing him to act like a buffoon and merely recognizing his buffoonery doesn’t make him a buffoon. While both China and Russia are autocratic nationalists, only Putin is invading and annexing his neighbors while telling fantastical fibs about his involvement. I think the West well understand Putin and his motivations. The US Defense Department has forensic psychologist who analyze world leaders to understand their motivations and predict what they might do and war planners make war plans and simulations based on that analysis. That is what they do all day, every day. I don’t think the West suffers from a lack of understanding Putin. I don’t think that is the problem. Putin is acting like a bully and the way you deal with bullies is to confront them. That bully may think he has a right to your lunch money, but that doesn’t make it so. There wasn’t a war in Ukraine before Putin intervened and sent his troops into Ukraine. And why is Ukraine so “vital”. It has a small underdeveloped economy. There is nothing really “vital” about Ukraine. Ukraine could vanish off the map tomorrow, and Russia could continue less all the military intervention into the country, virtually unchanged. There is nothing vital about Ukraine with this exception; it has become red line for Russian aggression. A couple of things, for starters, that isn’t the case. And as long as Canada didn’t present a military or terrorist threat to The United States, who would care? The US wouldn’t care as long as it was something Canadians wanted. Western economic alliances with Ukraine do not present a military or economic threat to Mother Russia. When US intervened militarily in Latin America it was fighting the Cold War and in the case of Panama was defending the Panama Canal and Americans in the country. The Cold War is over. Perhaps Putin hasn’t heard. Western leaders have given Putin face saving options (e.g. recent cease fire). But Putin has chosen to ignore those options. What is disconcerting about what we are seeing with Putin is his replication of Nazi tactics. Chamberlain proved appeasement doesn’t work. The West needs to draw a line for Putin and that line must be in Ukraine. That is why Western leaders are so concerned with Putin’s aggression and are willing to pay an economic price to stop him. Hitler was every bit the nationalist Putin is and has been. That didn’t justify Hitler and it doesn’t justify Putin. Putin is boxing himself into a corner. He cannot win militarily. He cannot win economically. So what will he do? I expect he will become even more aggressive as the pressures mount. The outlook is ugly, especially for Russia. But the West has given Putin options. The West hasn’t totally isolated Russia and has not cut if off completely from the international banking system, nor has it gone after Putin’s secret cash stashes. I think your prognostication here is a correct one. But Putin seems intent on repeating the same mistakes made by the old Soviet Union. He seems intent on trying to win a military war he cannot win. Russia is a 2 trillion dollar one horse economy trying to compete militarily with a coalition of nations with a combined diversified economy worth nearly 50 trillion dollars. Russia is outgunned, out manned, and behind in technology. Many attribute the fall of the old Soviet Union to Russia’s extensive military spending. The fact is the West can out spend Russia 7 ways ‘till Sunday and Russia will only succeed in bankrupting itself as the old Soviet Union did.
Mao does not belong on that list. You are confusing your point. If Putin were to follow Mao's footsteps instead of Hitler's or Stalin's (or Pol Pot's or Suharto's or anygeneral SA/Africa), we and Europe and the Russian people themselves would be much safer from mass murder. Please. Do not mistake W's fatuosity and the manueverings of Halliburton et al greed for some kind of inexplicable Western blindness overall: most Westerners knew what the ascension of head of KGB to head of State meant.
Already cold relationships between Russia and the rest of the world are getting even colder. Russians attempted to board the ships France had built for them. Western European countries are expelling Russian diplomats. Russia is increasing its threatening posture, reverting to Cold War operations it can ill afford to maintain. LONDON — Tit-for-tat expulsions of diplomats. Russian naval ships showing up as world leaders meet in Australia. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany telling Russia sternly to play by 21st-century rules — and President Vladimir V. Putin practically spitting fury over Western reaction to his annexation of Crimea. As relations between Russia and the West increasingly resemble the bygone days of the Cold War, Ms. Merkel abandoned her traditionally cautious tone on Monday, castigating Russia for its actions in Ukraine, for intimidating sovereign states in Eastern Europe and for threatening to spread conflict more broadly across Europe. “The Ukraine crisis is most likely not just a regional problem,” Ms. Merkel said in a speech at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney, Australia. “In this case, we see it affects us all.” “Who would’ve thought,” she said, “that 25 years after the fall of the wall, after the end of the Cold War, after the end of the division of Europe and the end of the world being divided in two, something like that can happen right at heart of Europe?” Ms. Merkel’s speech followed a meeting of the Group of 20 leaders in Brisbane, Australia, where the souring relations were on full display as Western leaders pressed Mr. Putin on Russia’s Crimea policy and support for Ukrainian separatists — and the Russian leader slipped out early, insisting he had business to attend to back home. President Obama said his meeting with Russia’s leader at the summit meeting was “businesslike and blunt.” Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain, who in the days leading up to Brisbane had likened Mr. Putin’s actions to those of Nazi Germany, told the Russian president that he was at a fork in the road over Ukraine. Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada told Mr. Putin, “Well, I guess I’ll shake your hand, but I have only one thing to say to you: ‘You need to get out of Ukraine.’ ” As the meeting wound up, Russia expelled multiple diplomats after Germany, Poland and Lithuania apparently took similar actions against Russian envoys accused of spying. Sweden, which for days recently was transfixed by the appearance off its coast of what appeared to be a Russian submarine, has also said Russia increased its spying this year. But the real surprise was the tone taken by Ms. Merkel in her speech after the summit meeting. In recent weeks, the chancellor has made it clear she sees that “Putin is testing us,” as she told parliamentary deputies. In a discussion at the university, she developed that thought further, asking whether Mr. Putin’s annexation of Crimea and military and political interference in eastern Ukraine meant a return to the times when Moscow decided the fate of its near neighbors. Ms. Merkel seemed to acknowledge that the West should consider Russian sensitivities to Ukraine — with long, close ties to Russia — joining NATO. But she said that was not the case with Ukraine drawing closer to the European Union, which sparked the long-running unrest and conflict with Russia. In such a case, “it cannot be that you forbid a country to act, or that it cannot itself decide freely,” she said. “Otherwise, we have to say: ‘We’re so weak, pay attention, people, we can’t take any more members — we’ll just ask in Moscow whether it’s possible.’ That was how it was for 40 years, or longer, and I really was not wanting to go back there.” “And it is not just a case of Ukraine,” Ms. Merkel continued. “It concerns Moldova, it concerns Georgia. If things go on like this, one can ask: Should we ask about Serbia? Should we ask about the western Balkans? That is certainly incompatible with our values.” In an interview that was broadcast on Germany’s most watched television talk show Sunday evening, Mr. Putin was equally stinging. Interviewed by a German journalist who has long had good access to the Russian leader, he pursed his lips and angrily clipped his words as he said the West had “reacted absolutely inappropriately” over Ukraine. Striking a now familiar line of defense, Mr. Putin cited international law as applied to the independence of ethnic Albanians in Kosovo from Serbia, and declared his actions as more democratic. Kosovo’s independence came only through a parliamentary vote, he said, whereas in Crimea the population voted in March to join Russia — which by then had already secured control through deployment of its elite troops in unmarked uniforms. In an interview late last week in Kiev, Ukraine’s prime minister, Arseniy P. Yatsenyuk, urged Western countries to keep up pressure on Russia, warning that any other approach would only invite further aggression from President Putin. “He is testing the ground,” Mr. Yatsenyuk said. “He will move as far as the world will allow him.” Reports last week by NATO that Russia had recently poured tanks and military vehicles across its border into eastern Ukraine, Mr. Yatsenyuk said, suggested that Moscow intended to enlarge territory controlled by separatist rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk, two regions that have declared themselves independent states, and establish a land corridor to Crimea, which Russia annexed in March. So far, he added, there has been no sharp increase in fighting. “Let me put it bluntly: This is a war,” Mr. Yatsenyuk said. “The well-known diplomatic language of red line is sometimes embarrassing to me because it seems as if we are geopolitically colorblind. Russia has crossed tens of red lines.” Still, the Russian-German exchange is unlikely to stop Ms. Merkel from pursuing what she reiterated is the West’s course: to condemn Russia’s violations of international law, to pursue diplomacy if possible, but to punish with sanctions. Accordingly, on Monday, European Union foreign ministers decided to impose more sanctions on separatists in Ukraine, but also to pursue diplomacy. Ms. Merkel’s foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, travels to Kiev and Moscow on Tuesday. But the fourth element in Ms. Merkel’s description of Western reaction to Ukraine was crucial: to refrain from military action against Russia, which, she noted, would almost certainly not be limited to the region. That perhaps is the strongest Cold War echo of all — the idea that a confrontation in one area would lead to a much bigger conflict. Germans have been reflecting on this all this extraordinary year — which contains the momentous anniversaries of World Wars I and II, as well as of the Cold War’s ending, and shows how conflicts can flare out of control. “And suddenly we are confronted with a conflict which goes to the center of our values, so to speak,” Ms. Merkel said. “Now we can’t hold speeches at commemorations. Now we have to show what we have learned from all this.” Reporting was contributed by Andrew Roth from Moscow; Melissa Eddy from Berlin; Joanna Berendt from Warsaw; Andrew Higgins from Kiev, Ukraine; and James Kanter from Brussels. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/w...german-polish-diplomats-retaliation.html?_r=0
Below is an excellent article written by a former Russian, born and raised in Russia. While I have a few differences with the author, I agree with almost everything he has written. He provides an excellent analysis of crisis. http://www.businessinsider.com/russias-showdown-with-west-will-worsen-2014-11
Putin announced plans to fly Russian bombers on constant patrols all over globe and in particular around American and NATO borders. But here is the thing, Russia doesn't have the capability to do such patrols. It doesn't have the infrastructure to support those missions and it will stress its aging fleet of WWII era bombers. In order to pull off Putin's plans, he needs resupply and repair bases, bases he does not have....damn minor details again. He wants to send his aged fleet of bombers on trips across the world, but he cannot support them. Further, these aircraft present no military threat the US or any NATO member nation. The aircraft are antiquated and easily shot down on a moments notice. The US stopped such flights during the cold war because the flights were dangerous. Accidents happened, we accidentally bombed ourselves and our allies due to mechanical problems, and these missions offered no military or strategic value - even way back then. Strategic bombers have been replaced with advanced weaponry. I guess no body told Putin. So it is kind of odd to see Putin resurrect and expand upon a military strategy that has been defunct for decades and a strategy he cannot afford and doesn't have the capability to pull off. This and Putin's other stunts might lead a rational observer to come to the conclusion that Putin is living in an alternate reality. It's a view that has been vocalized by world leaders and one that has merit. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/11/28/russia-tensions-move-closer-to-home
Indeed...just a little bit. I mean what is wrong with 60+ year old bombers? They are not fast. They are not stealthy. They are easy targets...not to mention the are subject to falling apart and thus in need of high maintenance. When and if they begin this operation, I'll be waiting to hear when one or more of those planes winds up at the bottom of the ocean somewhere.
Well if it helps blow apart Russia's aviation budget, I'm all for more of these Russian patrols. We should let them host another Olympics and throw in a couple of golf tournaments to make sure they stay in recession.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Americans were just reintroduced to this story. Via Max Fisher ↱ of Vox.com: The incident of Vladimir Putin, Angela Merkel, and the dog is a famous one. It was 2007 and Merkel, Germany's Chancellor, was visiting Putin at his presidential residence in Sochi to discuss energy trade. Putin, surely aware of Merkel's well-known fear of dogs, waited until the press gathered in the room, then called for his black Labrador to be sent in. The Russian president watched in unconcealed glee as the dog sniffed at Merkel, who sat frozen in fear. Later, in discussing the incident with a group of reporters, Merkel attempted an explanation of Putin's behavior. Her quote, reported in George Packer's recent profile of Merkel in the New Yorker, is one of the most pithily succinct insights into Putin and the psychology of his 14-year reign that I have read: "I understand why he has to do this — to prove he's a man," Merkel said. "He's afraid of his own weakness. Russia has nothing, no successful politics or economy. All they have is this." And I still enjoy ripping Putin for being a closet case; from afar it's pretty much all the average person has. But just like a prosecutor, such as Eliot Spitzer, shouldn't be renting prostitutes while effecting the prosecution and persecution thereof, neither should Putin be aiding and abetting the persecution of homosexuals. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Top: Ca. 1985, but even then people might have wondered. Bottom: Ca. 2010, and for a guy who allegedly doesn't like homosexuals .... But I think the larger question of "What's with Russia?" is not one to be answered in a specifically geopolitical context. This is something much more intimate. The guy is running his country into the ground, and for what? Today was a fun day for bloggers who like to razz the man I not-so-affectionately refer to as "Puti-Toots". Unfortunately, beneath the laughter is a quiet chorus of suffering as proud Russians are once again cut low by one of their own. Then again, if he gets desperate enough, Putin can always point accusingly at Kansas and say, "But the Americans elected Brownback!" And we'll make lame excuses about it being one state, and Kansas at that, but he would still have a point. And even though our goofball contingent does less damage, such trivialities don't really matter to Vlad and the Put-Ins. They'll rock the house into rubble and then complain about a house fire in Oklahoma. The rest of the world should just look forward to the day we can all comfortably ignore what goes on in Russia. Then again, there is also an object lesson for the rest of the world, as well. I mean, consider the last hundred years. From the monarchy to the Revolution to whatever the hell it is Stalin accomplished on through the end of the Soviet Union, and then on down the merry course that leads us to Vladimir Putin. Trying to get Russians to elect decent leaders? We might as well try to get that many Chinese to vote in a straight election, or convince India to please present its elections in a manner that makes sense to people not from India. (At which point someone will righteously denounce the Electoral College and so forth, but you know the cheer: We've got money, we've got riches, you've got ... er ... um ... right. I suppose it depends on the country. Geopolitics is one facet of life more American "patriots" should take interest in, because it is one of the times when the merits of how we do things shine through as something good instead of, well, not bad. As a nation we are powerful and wealthy enough to be able to afford to lose our consciences, spend some years looking around for where we might have put it, forget what we're looking for, remember again, and then throw our hands up in frustration before wandering off to the pub to find something better to do for the evening.) ____________________ Notes: Fisher, Max. "This quote about Putin's machismo from Angela Merkel is just devastating". Vox. 1 December 2014. Vox.com. 2 December 2014. http://www.vox.com/2014/12/1/7313443/vladimir-putin-merkel
Can bombers not be jets? In Putin's case, his bombers are old fashioned propeller driven aircraft. It's the copied Russian version of the US B52.
More crazy talk form Vlad. He thinks Crimea is Russian holy land because a minor prince converted to Christianity there. He is now referring to his Crimea invasion and annexation as the Crimean Spring. LOL oh Vlad. "Vladimir Putin lives in a scary world, where enemies plot tirelessly to undermine, trick, and destroy Russia. Containment wasn’t just a Cold War policy but a practice of Russia’s rivals for centuries. Even without a conflict in Ukraine, the United States and European Union would have come up with another pretext for imposing economic sanctions; they were an inevitable response to a rising Russia. In his annual state-of-the-nation address on Thursday, the Russian president laid out his version of the year’s events in an effort to shore up support for his confrontation with the West amid growing economic troubles. The one-hour speech, held before 1,000 politicians and other public figures in the Kremlin, was defensive, strident, and formulaic. At moments, it was hard to tell whether Putin really believed everything he was saying — or if he had fallen prey to his own propaganda. Putin’s main message was that despite the challenges Russia faces at home and abroad, the country is united and will prevail. He provided little grounds for optimism. Often Putin seemed to be trying to convince himself that the risks to which he had exposed Russia were worth it and beyond reproach. The presidential address was split into two, with the first half dedicated to foreign affairs and the second to the economy, which is facing recession following the imposition of sanctions and a drop in oil prices. Putin tore into his speech with gusto, skewering the West for its hubris and hypocrisy since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. When he reached the section on domestic issues, Putin calmed down and droned through a list of bromides on boosting entrepreneurship and diversifying the economy that might as well have come from a speech he gave 10 years ago. “An opportunity in every crisis” is hardly a substitute for an economic recovery program. The president’s offer to amnesty any wealth hidden in offshore accounts only seemed to confirm how bad things had become. The most troubling change in Putin’s rhetoric are ethno-religious references that have crept into his speech since the annexation of Crimea in March. The Crimean peninsula’s strategic value as the base for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet is understandable to anybody who consults a map. But Putin’s focus on Crimea as the “spiritual source” for Russians because Grand Prince Vladimir converted to Christianity there 1,000 years ago opens a Pandora’s box of competing historical claims not only in Europe but across Russia. In his address, Putin declared that the ancient town of Chersonesus, outside Sevastopol, is as sacred to Russian Orthodox Christians as the Temple Mount in Jerusalem is to Jews and Muslims. “This is how we will relate to it from now on and forever,” he said, as if to stake an indefinite claim on Crimea. Should Ukrainians be concerned that in March Putin called Kiev “the mother of all Russian cities?” On Thursday, Putin continuously invoked a strong Russia, laying bare an inferiority complex that plays an outsized role in his decision-making. “This year together we faced trials that only a mature, united nation — a truly sovereign and strong state — could withstand. Russia proved that she can defend her compatriots and honorably defend truth and justice,” Putin said in his opening remarks. “We believe in ourselves and that we can do a lot and achieve anything.” Later he complained that Russia had been treated by the international community — presumably the U.S. — as “poorly educated people who can’t read or write.” The litany of offense and humiliation Russia supposedly had to endure is familiar. While it is undeniable that Western leaders have occasionally run roughshod over Russian sensibilities, Putin’s baggage is such a jumble of real slights and imagined insults that it’s almost impossible to pull them apart anymore. To Putin, there apparently is no difference between Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, or between the United States and Europe. While Putin’s complaint about Bush’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is fair enough, Obama approached Putin respectfully with his naive but well-intentioned “reset.” If there is any consistency in Russia policy between the U.S. administrations at all, it’s less ill will than an obliviousness to Kremlin thinking. Putin likewise conflates the United States with Europe in assigning responsibility for the turn of events in Ukraine. It was the EU — and not the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the United States — that was negotiating an association agreement with Kiev. If Obama can be blamed for anything, it was realizing too late that Putin considered the entire country of Ukraine to be his red line. Putin’s assertion that the West supported Chechen separatists in the 1990s in hopes of sending Russia to a fate like Yugoslavia’s is patently untrue. The break-up of nuclear-armed Russia remains a nightmare scenario in all major world capitals. On Thursday, Putin worked himself up as he spilled his frustrations with the world in what at times resembled an attempt at self-therapy. Economic sanctions were a “nervous reaction” by the United States and its allies to Russia’s position on the change of government in Ukraine and had nothing to do with the “Crimean Spring,” Putin said, adding that they would have found a different pretext to thwart Russia’s rise. “The policy of containment wasn’t invented yesterday,” he said. “It’s being used against our country for many years, decades, if not centuries. In short, every time that somebody believes Russia has become too strong and independent, these instruments are put into use immediately.” Russia is the victim, Putin seemed to be saying, though robust and defiant. It was strange that the very sins he accused the West of committing — the cynical exploitation of human rights, disregard for international law, and trampling on another country’s sovereignty — exactly mirrored Russia’s annexation of Crimea and continuing involvement in eastern Ukraine. It was especially strange to hear Putin say: “The lawful interests of all members of the international community must be treated with respect. Only then will legal norms secure the world from bloody conflicts — and not cannons, missiles and warplanes.” Putin, who has been leading Russia for 15 years, shared no vision of where the country is heading. Instead he looked back, portraying Russia as a besieged fortress since time immemorial. Putin’s only goal now is the perpetuation of his own power. His term runs out in 2018, when he will be eligible for another six years. “We will never go the path of self-isolation, xenophobia, suspicion, and the search for enemies,” Putin said. “That would be a sign of weakness, and we’re strong and sure of ourselves.” http://blogs.reuters.com/great-deba...-scary-in-russian-state-of-the-union-address/
Kremlin using information as a weapon: Peter Pomerantsev who worked for Putin’s media empire has written a book documenting his experiences and observations of the Russian media while working for the Russian media. Pomerantsev says Putin has weaponized information by blending entertainment with political manipulation. It kind of reminds me of the American Republican entertainment complex, complete with scripted debates. But in the US, there are other factors at work which mitigate and limit the effectiveness of weaponized information. We have competing news networks. In Russia there are none. It’s Fox News (i.e. party news) and only Fox News everywhere. “Nothing is True, and Everything is Possible”, Peter Pomerantsev http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/kremlin-uses-tv-shape-russian-political-reality/ “Reinventing reality Pomeranstev’s recent work has focused heavily on how Russia reinvented reality as part of an informational blitzkrieg. In Nothing Is True and Everything is Possible, we see how so-called Russian ‘unreality’ was first successfully used on a domestic audience – as Russia was turned ‘from a representative democracy to a society of pure spectacle,’ a process that began with the late Boris Berezovsky’s manipulation of the media – and before it began to export its new propaganda abroad. Russia has learned, and improved upon, quite a few tricks from the West. As Pomerantsev says of Russia’s much-maligned but undeniably clever RT channel: ‘This is a new type of Kremlin propaganda, less about arguing with the West with a counter-model as in the Cold War, more about slipping inside its language to play and taunt it from inside.’ It can be argued that every nation is entitled to its very own brand of ‘unreality’ – certainly the manipulation of the US media in the run-up to the war in Iraq, was a process closely observed by Russian strategists. The trouble with Russia is that it is much more brittle and chaotic than the West. Militaristic rhetoric has been used as a kind of compensating tool for political figures who know that Russia’s position is fragile – that not even a huge nuclear arsenal can make up for shoddy infrastructure and catastrophic social inequality, among many other real threats to Russia’s stability.” https://www.opendemocracy.net/od-russia/natalia-antonova/review-peter-pomerantsev-‘nothing-is-true-and-everything-is-possible’
Well that is the point, isn't it. I don't know if you recall the days of the cold war when the US and the Soviet Union had nuclear bombers in the air 24 hours a day every day ready to drop their bombs on designated targets. But that is what Putin is going back to. As I said before the US dropped that strategy long before the Soviet Union collapsed because it was dangerous and of no strategic value. But even in the glory days of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union wasn't able to pull off what Putin is now claiming he will do. Because the Soviet Union faced the same problems Putin faces. He doesn't have the support facilities to support such an operation. So as I pointed out, it is yet another silly waste of Russian resources. He intimates no one, for the reasons previously mentioned, and it requires precious resources he can ill afford and does not have.
