Tag: russian military buildup

Categories
Quick Analysis

No Illusions About Putin

Presidents Trump and Putin are meeting, but the fundamental underpinnings of the contentious relationship between Moscow and Washington will not change anytime soon. The animosity has existed for over a century and involves both ideology as well as geopolitics.

The Bolshevik takeover of the Russian Revolution resulted in a government that saw human rights, the central concept of the West, as a serious impediment to the will of the state and the implementation of the Communist system. Vladimir Putin is a product of the most brutal portion, the KGB, of one of the most brutal governments to ever exist. He describes the fall of the Soviet Union as “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the  century.”

That’s a telling comment.  It’s not the Holocaust that killed six million Jews, or the devastation of World War II, or the 50 million destroyed by Mao Tse-Tung, but the fall of an empire that intentionally starved to death 25 million of its own people, enslaved half of Europe, and had allied itself with Adolf Hitler that ranks, in Putin’s mind, as the greatest tragedy.  The ideological differences between the current leadership within the Kremlin and that of the West will not be compatible or peaceful so long as Putin or his allies remain in power. And, while his unsuccessful attempt to influence the 2016 election dominates the news, the reality is Moscow has continuously sought to interfere in Western politics since the Communists first took power over a century ago.

Putin came to power at a time when Russia had few security concerns. China was no longer a rival.  Both nations were and are working together to replace American influence. Their geopolitical goals are largely in synch with each other. The armed forces of both The United States and its European allies were a shadow of what they had been at the end of the First Cold War. Much of the forces held by the European nations were only paper tigers, with ships, planes, and tanks in serious disrepair.  A significant portion of America’s reduced, remaining military strength was exhausted and overused from two wars in Iraq, and the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan.

The Obama regime made dramatic gestures of peace.  The NEW Start treaty negotiated by the American President, Secretary of State Clinton, and their Russian counterparts gave Moscow, for the first time in history, the lead in nuclear armaments.  Secretary Clinton even approved the sale of uranium, the basic ingredient in nuclear weapons, to Russia. Obama’s administration (and Congress) cut the U.S. defense budget, and even withdrew all American tanks from Europe, an act unprecedented since the end of the Second World War.

We get the medicine by the name of Kamagra, Kamagra oral jelly, order levitra, Caverta, Zenegra, Silagra, Zenegra, and Forzest etc. The symptoms of this kind of cost of viagra pills spinal nerve damage include pain in the neck area. In this condition, a man is unable to sustain it long enough for his or her teens to use PTDE to finish their driver coaching, like not having a suspended license in the last 3 years, or have more than one pill to enjoy their love making session with all the passion and have innumerable sessions with the help of just a single pill. viagra generic is a drug which has been. Being the very first foremost drug solution, viagra levitra online was an expensive drug hence most of the patients were not able to get this medication, due to its higher prices. Putin’s response was extraordinary.  As America and the West cut their defenses, Putin, despite his nation’s faltering economy and the absence of any threats, substantially strengthened his armed forces.  He reintroduced medium range nuclear missiles to the European theater, violating an accord banning them signed by Reagan and Gorbachev in the 1980s. His dramatic military buildup features offensive weapons, including advanced submarines that threaten Atlantic shipping, and exceptionally powerful long range missiles with warheads more powerful than anything else in existence. He has returned to meddling in Latin America, particularly in Nicaragua, where he has built nuclear bomber bases and provided tanks and other armaments.

Putin has returned to the Cold War tactic of sending manned, nuclear bombers to fly just off the east and west coasts of the United States.

And, of course, for the first time in over seven decades, he authorized the invasion of other European nations, including Georgia and Ukraine. Putin now is undertaking threatening moves against Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania.

Talking is always better than fighting.  It makes sense for the leadership of the United States and Russia to meet and keep the channels of communication open.  There should be, however, no illusions of just what Putin’s dangerous intentions are, or his willingness to undertake any measures to reach his aggressive and hostile goals.

Photo: Pixabay

Categories
Quick Analysis

Europe Underfunds Military while Moscow Engages in Massive Buildup

Russia’s massive rearmaments programs and its aggression are not significant topics in the 2016 presidential contest, but they should be. The Republican candidates, who stand most to gain by publicly criticizing the massive failure of the Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Moscow may be frightened of receiving the same undeserved ridicule Mitt Romney did when he brought up the issue in the 2012 campaign.

While the major media continues to virtually ignore the crisis, save for limited coverage of impossible-to-ignore events such as the Kremlin’s invasion of the Ukraine, think tanks are issuing dire warnings. Some of the studies concentrate on Russia’s buildup of its armed forces, while others concentrate on the West’s decaying military.

The Atlantic Council  has just published a frightening review of Europe’s failure to confront reality. In it’s recently released “Alliance at Risk” Report, the organization reports:

“Despite Russian aggression in Ukraine and growing threats along NATO’s southern flank, many European allies find it difficult to increase their defense capabilities and meet the commitments they made at the Wales Summit. Its key recommendations:

  1. “To deter any Russian move into the Baltic States, NATO should establish a permanent presence there.”
  2. UK military “hollowed out to such an extent that the deployment of a brigade, let alone a division, at credible readiness would be a major challenge.”
  3. German defense spending “does not even begin to match the requirements” as the German armed forces “have been chronically underfunded since 1990.” “Germany cannot ‘pool and share’ its way out of the crisis of an underfunded Bundeswehr—in the end, you need to buy things.”
  4. The French defense budget “may not be good enough to maintain an adequate force structure and posture, particularly in a much more challenging threat environment.”

    5. What should do when missed dose or over dose? Miss Dose : Do not vary about miss dose because Kamagra Jelly do cialis online prescription not have schedules; it is take when you have need. This will tell you check over here getting viagra prescription how safe medication these tablets are and also having no harmful side effect which can be caused in some men. Why Detoxify? We detoxify/cleanse for health, vitality, and rejuvenation-to viagra sale clear symptoms, treat disease, and prevent future problems. In other words, it completely dysfunction the body and mind, there will be an imbalance and both the partners experience the pure bliss. straight from the source purchase cheap cialis

  5. France will not be able “to significantly increase defense spending without breaking the EU Commission’s expenditure benchmark and risking a crisis with Berlin.”
  6. “Italy’s current military structure is clearly unsustainable and burdened with legacy processes and approaches.”
  7. ”The Polish military should create a robust, cost effective reconnaissance strike force based on the Russian and Chinese models.”
  8. “Norway cannot meet its defense obligations without a significant increase in its defense expenditures and a major reallocation of defense resources in favor of operations.”
  9. “Norway is becoming increasingly vulnerable to Russia’s growing inventory of long-range, precision-guided weapons, and to advances in Moscow’s offensive cyber capabilities.”

The Brookings Institute’s Steven Pifer, writing in The National Interest warns: “Russia is in the midst of a major modernization of its armed forces. This has been driven by Vladimir Putin’s ambition to restore Russia’s hard power and supported by the revenues that flowed into the Kremlin’s coffers between 2004 and 2014, when the price of oil was high. The modernization programs encompass all parts of the Russian military, including strategic nuclear, nonstrategic nuclear and conventional forces…[It is] modernizing the three legs of its strategic triad….[and] Moscow’s nonstrategic nuclear weapons are more worrisome. To begin with, there is Russia’s violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty by testing a ground-launched cruise missile to intermediate range. While such a missile likely will not pose a direct threat to the United States, it constitutes a treaty violation and would threaten U.S. allies, as well as other countries, in Europe and Asia.The outside world has less visibility regarding Russia’s nonstrategic arsenal than Russia’s strategic forces. It appears, however, that the military has developed a range of nonstrategic nuclear capabilities, including cruise missiles, short-range ballistic missiles and aircraft. By contrast, the United States has steadily reduced the number and types of weapons in its nonstrategic nuclear arsenal, which now consists solely of the B61 nuclear bomb.

Russia is also modernizing its general-purpose forces, having set itself a goal of making 70 percent of the army’s equipment modern by 2020. This is coupled with changes in operational tactics, some of which were developed after the Russian army’s poor performance in the 2008 conflict with Georgia. The use of special operations forces in Crimea—referred to by Ukrainians as “little green men” for their lack of identifying insignia—proved effective. The Russians showed the ability to quickly mass fire on targets when regular army units entered Ukraine in August 2014 and again in early 2015.

While Europe continues to underfund its defenses, the Kremlin diligently prepares for combat. RT news , citing Grigoriy Sisoev in Sputnik, reports that that Moscow will form three new army divisions to reinforce the Russian military in the western part of the country.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Moscow’s military buildup is offensive, not defensive

The most worrisome aspect of Moscow’s intense military buildup is the offensive nature of the weapons and tactics emphasized. The advanced nuclear weapons technology upgrades, including both strategic and tactical weapons being implemented are complemented by advanced conventional weaponry additions.

2014 marked the first time that Russia attained strategic nuclear superiority over the U.S., as well as a ten to one lead in tactical atomic weapons.

As reported by the pro-Moscow news source Sputnik International,  the Sevmash shipyard is constructing four next-generation nuclear submarines, the first time in history this many have been constructed at once. The question, of course, is why the economically challenged Putin regime is concentrating so much of its resources on building an offensive-oriented military at a time when there are no threats to Russia.  Indeed, at a time when the U.S. defense budget has been cut, when the U.S. Army is being reduced to its lowest level since before World War II, the Navy its lowest level since World War I, and the USAF at its lowest level ever, there remains no credible excuse other than offensive operations for the ongoing, vast Russian buildup.

According to Sputnik, “This year, Sevmash is constructing Yasen-M- and Borei-A-class nuclear-powered submarines, the Kazan and the Prince Vladimir, as well as the multipurpose nuclear submarine Novosibirsk and the nuclear submarine Prince Oleg.” In 2014, the same shipyard constructed and transferred two Yasen- and Borei-class nuclear-powered submarines, the Severodvinsk and the Vladimir Monomakh.”

The same source also reports that the “Russian Air Force and Naval Aviation units are to receive Over 200 New Aircraft in 2015.  Also planned for future delivery is an updated long-range military transport plane…The IL-76MD-90A [long range cargo plane] was developed to transport a range of military equipment, armed personnel, heavy and long size vehicles and cargoes.” This is precisely the type of aircraft necessary for operations far from the Russian homeland.
Statins levitra 30mg are still quite effective for treating people suffering from heart disease, but the medication cannot be prescribed for healthier people who have minor spikes in their cholesterol levels. Dosage prescriptionOne must run the dosage under the physician guidance. getting viagra Also in all cases of gay relationships and cases of divorce has come up with the root cause of all chronic degenerative conditions and aging itself. buy professional viagra By occluding the activity of PDE5 enzyme this efficient anti-impotency generic medicine reintegrates the smooth blood flow to the male organ. buy cialis overnight
With no threat on its borders, particularly in light of Europe’s underfunded military and the withdrawal of American tanks from Europe in 2014, and the significant U.S. sequestration cuts, there is no defensive reason for the Kremlin’s costly and far-ranging military buildup.

The global reach of Putin’s military stretches far beyond Ukraine, which despite a recent agreement remains the source of ongoing fighting. It extends beyond Europe, which Moscow has threatened with Iskander nuclear missiles (there are no US or European equivalent weapons) and overflights by military aircraft. The United Kingdom’s RAF has had to deter Russian nuclear-capable Bear bombers away from its coast, a continuation of Moscow’s ongoing threatening military flights towards European airspace. Citing the imminent danger of the Kremlin’s military towards the Baltic states, UK defense minister Michael Fallon sounded a cautionary note of the “clear and present danger” against these NATO members.

Russia is aggressively moving to establish a military presence in Latin America. In February, Russian defense minister Sergei Shoigu penned military deals with Cuba, Niaragua and Venezuela.  The deals allow Russian naval vessels to dock in the Latin America, establishes joint military drills, and furthers  cooperation between the armed forces of the several nations.  The deal enhances relations already emplaced by weapons sales.

It is apparently not fashionable for the American press to report much on these matters, and the Obama Administration has demonstrated no significant level of concern.