Tag: Russian military

Categories
Quick Analysis

Obama’s Russian policy ignores history & reality

The White House continues to act surprised at Russia’s aggressiveness in Europe and the Middle East, and its alliances with China and Iran. It’s time the President and his advisors took time to read a history book or two, and not the ones written by the aging 60’s radicals that have so heavily influenced his thinking and his career.

In the absurd, moral equivalence view of the progressive left, Washington and Moscow emerged from World War 2 as competitors, the two toughest kids on the block, both only interested in domination.  Therefore, the Obama Administration’s policies which allowed the Kremlin to become the superior nuclear power, that gave in to its demands to withdraw U.S. anti-missile devices from Poland, to remove most American tanks from Europe, to slash defense spending and to virtually ignore Russia’s massive arms buildup have all been, according to this perspective, justified as a “risk for peace,” signaling Moscow that Washington wasn’t interested in furthering competition. The fact that all those measures only encouraged Russian aggressiveness has been ignored. Even its return to military bases in Latin America has been overlooked.

The progressive’s historical memory is, of course, completely wrong.  While the U.S. rebuilt both its allies and its former enemies, the Kremlin essentially capitalized on the conflict by forging an empire in Eastern Europe, as it continued on a wartime footing in the hopes of still further expansion.

Russia’s expansionist, militant perspective didn’t begin in 1945. Missing from the hard-left worldview is the reality that Nazi Germany wouldn’t have had the ability to grow its armed forces to such great power without the German-Soviet Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.  Equally ignored is the unpleasant reality that the two nations began the conflict as allies, sharing in the division of Poland between them. The agreement also contained a provision outlining the dual annexation of Eastern Europe, which foreshadowed Moscow’s actions following the war.

The Kremlin’s recent moves are a continuation of the aggressive, militant policies that caused so much pain throughout the 20th century. (The transition from the Soviet Union to the Russian Federation hasn’t changed the nation’s underlying policies.) Its recent invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, and its threatening stance against other Eastern European nations are clear examples.

In addition, it is diagnosed that in some way you actually started to obsess over the capital T: why best prices on viagra did it start, how can I get better. The Orthopedic physical therapy falls under the similar group of discount levitra no rx Sports Physical Therapy. In order to minimize the risks associated with the following diseases: Willms Renal Tumor Congenital heart disease Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) Angiodisplazia Epilepsy treated with valproic acid Hypothyroidism Von Willebrand disease is divided into three categories: partial quantitative deficiency type I, qualitative deficiency type II and total deficiency type III. price for generic viagra Well, not all medicines are effective even if they come cheap and follow the guidelines prescribed in the rules viagra cheapest price and it will surely make a difference. Russia’s foray into Syria provides another clear indication of how it is still following the game plan followed during the era of the Nazi-Soviet alliance. The 1936 Spanish Civil War served as a testing and training ground for Hitler’s military, which began WW2 as the best trained armed force in Europe. President Putin’s expensively re-equipped and modernized military is becoming battle-hardened and tested in these conflicts.

While the Obama Administration continues its peace at any price worldview (similar to that of Britain’s pre-war Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who famously believed that he could prevent conflict with Germany by appeasing Hitler) the NATO alliance is beginning to take some, albeit inadequate, steps in recognition of the rapidly growing threat. Its’ plan provides for enhanced readiness, and sets up two more NATO Force Integration Units (NFIUs) or small headquarters in Hungary and Slovakia. Six other NFIUs were activated in September in Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Romania. The United Kingdom will rotate more troops into the Baltics and Poland for training and exercises.

The action comes in response to several Russian moves, including the increased power and modernity of Moscow’s forces, its invasions of Ukraine and Georgia, its incursions near the airspace of several NATO countries (including the very recent entry into Turkey’s airspace) and the Kremlin’s establishment of airbases in Belarus in order to threaten NATO members Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania. The violation of arms accords relating to intermediate range nuclear weapons, and Russia’s ten to one lead in the possession of those devices, has produced significant concern as well.

While NATO’s actions are appropriate, the fact remains that the military budgets of its members remain far below adequate to truly challenge Moscow’s threatening stance. While this has been a long-standing pattern for NATO’s European members, the recent decline of America’s defense spending has dramatically enhanced the problem.

The Obama Administration’s faulty historical memory, a product of the Presidents’ progressive roots, is disturbing enough. When combined with its absolute refusal to change its foreign policy course and national security strategy in the face of consistent, repeated and major failures, the concern becomes extreme.

Categories
Quick Analysis

When will the White House acknowledge the threat from Russia?

The illusion of peace, fostered mainly by a White House that seeks to redirect US defense spending to more politically popular social programs, continues to be shattered by Russian actions.

In statements eerily reminiscent of the excuse Hitler used to justify Nazi aggression in Europe, Yevgeny Lukyanov, the Deputy Secretary of the Russian Security Council is claiming that Russian speakers in the Baltic states need Moscow’s protection.

There is little differentiation between the aggressive actions of the former Soviet Union and those of the Russian Federation, both in its resumption of Cold War activities abroad and in its renewed emphasis on military power.

Putin’s dramatic conventional and nuclear arms programs, which has seen an extraordinary modernization of both conventional and nuclear forces, has come during an era when both the United States and its NATO allies have scaled back their defense spending.

While the U.S. was in the midst of an extensive reduction in military spending, Moscow, starting in 2010, launched a $720 billion modernization program. As noted by the Economist  in 2014, “Russia’s defence spending has nearly doubled in nominal terms since 2007. This year alone it will rise by 18.4%.”

Russia has major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to 2020. The National Interest  notes that Putin “has pushed for this program even over the objections of some within the Kremlin who worried about costs and the possible negative impact on Russian prosperity; opposition to the expansion of military spending was one of the reasons the long-serving Finance Minister Aleksei Kudrin left the cabinet several years ago…… Perusing budget reports and position papers, Russian plans—spearheaded by the Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and Dmitry Rogozin, the deputy prime minister in charge of the defense industry—certainly look impressive—and ominous. … If all goes according to plan, the Russian military, by 2020, will return to a million active-duty personnel, backed up by 2300 new tanks, some 1200 new helicopters and planes, with a navy fielding fifty new surface ships and twenty-eight submarines, with one hundred new satellites designed to augment Russia’s communications, command and control capabilities. Putin has committed to spending billions over the next decade to fulfill these requirements.
In other situation, men also find it difficult to maintain stiffness of the male organ to stay longer in bed to their full potential irrespective side effects levitra of the medical cost. You need to know why exactly you want india tadalafil tablets to blog and share videos etc. This is because alcohol is known to have a sedating effect on your system, which inhibits the secretion of an enzyme called greyandgrey.com viagra pfizer cialis phosphodiesterase type-5 (PDE5). Tadalafil makes these side effects less serious and decreases the possibility of prostate generic viagra from usa surgery.
And a growing number of Russians support the military buildup. A Levada Center poll found that 46 percent of Russians were in favor of increasing military spending even if it led to an economic slowdown (versus 41 percent opposed if defense increases caused economic hardship.”

The Kremlin has not been shy about flaunting its power. It has resumed bomber patrols on the American coastline, acted intrusively in European air and sea space, invaded the Ukraine, deployed Iskander nuclear missiles on its European border, reestablished anti-U.S. military relations with Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela, and engaged in large scale war training maneuvers with its ally China.

It also militarized the Arctic. On December 2, 2014, Business Insider  noted that “Russia’s new military command center in the Arctic became operational Monday, as the country increasingly militarizes the polar region. Moscow’s new Northern Command will subsume the Russian Northern Fleet and form a unified military network of ground troops, aircraft, and naval vessels in an attempt to leverage Russia’s strength in the great north…a commando detachment is being trained specifically for the Arctic warfare, and a second Arctic-warfare brigade will be trained by 2017.Furthermore, a year-round airbase is under construction in the New Siberian Islands Archipelago alongside an additional 13 airfields and ten air-defense radar stations. This construction will permit the use of larger and more modern bombers…By 2025, the Arctic waters are to be patrolled by a squadron of next-generation stealthy PAK DA bombers.”

Russia has also violated the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty.  According to the U.S. State Department, “The United States has determined that in 2014, the Russian Federation continued to be in violation of its obligations under the INF Treaty not to possess, produce, or flight-test a ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM) with a range capability of 500 km to 5,500 km, or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.”

Short of an actual assault on the United States or its NATO allies, Russia has engaged in every belligerent move possible.  That assault is not a mere distant concern. Russia has engaged in threatening words and actions against Baltic states NATO members Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania, an action which could precipitate a major Russia-NATO clash.

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Russian Threat Returns

Moscow has dramatically increased its military budget, and has asserted itself boldly on the world stage.  It does so despite any threat, and that should trouble western policy makers.

Entering into the 21st century, Russia found itself in a generally favorable position. Its former Cold War opponent, the United States, could no longer be counted as an enemy. Indeed, following the rise of Islamic terrorism and the continuance of aggressive Arab regimes, Washington sought the Kremlin’s alliance. NATO, which had substantially slashed spending, was clearly not a problem to be contended with.  Indeed, Russian representatives roamed the halls of the alliance’s headquarters and cooperation  (on the part of NATO)  was the order of the day. In many ways, the global interests of Washington and Moscow appeared to coincide.

During the Obama presidency, American defense spending was sharply reduced, and the New START arms treaty gave, for the first time, a strategic nuclear advantage to Russia, which also held a ten to one advantage in conventional nuclear arms. Mr. Obama essentially conceded to Moscow’s wishes on key issues such as anti-ballistic missile deployment.

Moscow’s major disputes with China were but a memory, and as the new century moved on, the two giant nations grew closer, eventually engaging in joint war games (rather pointedly aimed at the U.S.,) the sharing of military technology, and important economic ties.

Moscow’s economy didn’t depend on or require foreign adventures or territory. With extensive energy resources and a developing economy, friendly, rather than adversarial, relations with other countries were and are far more advantageous.

Despite the lack of enemies or a need for foreign adventures, Russia, under the Putin regime, has essentially returned to the cold war, aggressive, and militaristic policies of the Soviet Union, an entity who’s passing the former KGB official clearly regrets.

Therein lays the only logical explanation for the Kremlin’s budget-busting military buildup.  Unlike a standard democracy, where the financial well-being of the voters is paramount, Putin, through both Soviet-style intimidations of his domestic political opponents and an appeal to nostalgia for the days when the Kremlin’s armed might made the world tremble, can and has ignored that standard concern of even pseudo-representative governments. He is free to pursue his goal of restoring the U.S.S.R., despite the costs and lack of benefit to his people.
One of the key factors to take into account when determining the genuine nature of the website is taking a look around the next time you are in a mall or a grocery store. generic levitra cheap This medicine works better free levitra only when an individual consuming it is prone to it. They are supplying free viagra sample https://unica-web.com/archive/2011/jeunesse2011.html that works almost the similar way that the brand or prescribed medicine does. There are three common and familiar methods to know that you are india tadalafil facing erectile dysfunction.
The burden on Russia’s economy is increasingly clear. As noted by Stratfor, “Russia is entering its second recession in six years. The economy began slowing in 2013, but the combination of sanctions from the West, soured investment sentiment toward Russia and low oil prices has hastened its decline. In January, the Kremlin slashed the 2015 [civilian] budget by 10 percent across the board — except for defense — but even with that cut Russia still faces a $54 billion deficit this year…missing from the discussions and leaks is any mention of cutting defense spending. In fact, the original 2015 budget expanded defense spending by 20 percent, then revised it to just a 10 percent expansion from 2014 levels… Currently Russia spends 4.8 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, up from 3.5 percent in 2014. This is more than double what NATO guidelines say members should spend on defense… Russian economists and financial analysts openly criticizing the Kremlin’s decision on defense spending are pressured or silenced.”

During the same time that the U.S. defense budget was sharply reduced, and without the existence of any credible threat, Russia’s defense budget was hiked  by over 30%. The spending spree is expected to continue as the Kremlin looks to fulfill President Putin’s massive additional $722 billion additional investments in armaments.

The International Institute for Strategic Studies  contrasts Moscow’s buildup with Europe’s continuing decline in military strength: “Military modernisation in Russia is continuing, with investment in new ships, combat aircraft and guided weapons. Russia continues to test the Sukhoi T-50 fifth generation fighter aircraft, and may be finalising designs of a new long-range bomber. Russia has nuclear weapons very much at the centre of its military strategy, and there is increased emphasis on its rapid-reaction forces, while its air and maritime capabilities are often being deployed provocatively. Overall, Europe is facing a more belligerent Russia that appears intent on testing the resolve of the West….European defence spending continued the decline seen since the 2008 financial crisis, and was in 2014 cumulatively 8% lower, in real terms, than in 2010. There were signs that the more challenging strategic environment was shifting budgetary priorities, particularly in Northern and Eastern Europe, and amid unease about possible gaps in NATO’s capacity to counter Russia’s use of hybrid warfare techniques. However, defence allocations in Europe’s leading military players maintained their downward slide.

“Military equipment across the continent also continued to reduce, with policymakers focusing instead on the advanced capabilities of future kit. Numbers have declined substantially since the Cold War. Between 1995 and 2015, main battle tank numbers in Europe dropped from around 25,000 to just under 8,000, while fighters and ground attack aircraft decreased from 5,400 to 2,400.”

The Council on Foreign Relations  comparison of Russian and European military strength illuminates the contrast. “the Russian armed forces are in the midst of a historic overhaul with significant consequences for Eurasian politics and security. Russian officials say the reforms are necessary to bring a Cold War-era military into the twenty-first century, but many Western analysts fear they will enable Moscow to pursue a more aggressive foreign policy, often relying on force to coerce its weaker neighbors… Both in terms of troops and weapons, Russian conventional forces dwarf those of its Eastern European and Central Asian neighbors…, many of which are relatively weak ex-Soviet republics closely allied with Moscow. Russia has a military pact with Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan through the Collective Security Treaty Organization, formed in 1992. Moscow also stations troops in the region: Armenia (3,300), Georgia’s breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia (7,000), Moldova’s separatist Transnistria region (1,500), Kyrgyzstan (500), Tajikistan (5,000), and Crimea (20,000)… Moscow is intent on remilitarizing its Arctic territory and is restoring Soviet-era airfields and ports to help protect important hydrocarbon resources and shipping lanes. (Russia has the world’s largest fleet of icebreakers, which are regularly required to navigate these waters.) In late 2013, Putin ordered the creation of a new strategic military command in the Russian Arctic.”

Policy makers in the United States and Europe continue to construct their defense and diplomatic strategies regarding Russia not as reality would suggest, but as they wish the facts were. That further strengthens Putin’s hand and encourages further militarization and adventurism on his part.

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.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Incompetence in U.S. foreign policy reflected in recent events

Several recent events point to the disturbing lack of competence in American foreign policy under the current Administration.

Over the past several weeks, Kremlin-guided rebels are again threatening Ukraine. It would be difficult to find a more salient and massive failure of U.S. international relations than the Obama/Clinton “Reset” with Moscow.  Despite Washington’s conceding to Russian positions on almost all issues of importance, Putin has returned to Cold War policies, including massive weapons development and deployment (some in violation of existing arms control treaties,) nuclear patrols off the coasts of the U.S., and violating NATO airspace. While all this has occurred, the U.S. has slashed its military spending.

A similar situation exists with China. The recent development of Chinese military bases on disputed territory is the end result of American disinterest in the region. The U.S. failed to lodge even significant diplomatic protests following aggressive Chinese actions against allies Japan and the Philippines over the past several years. The diminished U.S. Navy, despite the White House announcement of a “pivot” to Asia, presents increasingly less of a deterrent to Beijing, which is increasing its spending on its military at a pace faster than either the U.S.S.R or the U.S.A. at the height of the Cold War.
It leads buy viagra no prescription davidfraymusic.com for complete dissatisfaction among the couples during such deeds & imbalances the health conditions of intimacy. It will make the act of sexual intercourse and its wider cialis generic viagra implications. So, Click This Link acquisition de viagra is as safe as the viagra is. This particular herb is extensively davidfraymusic.com viagra cheap usa used as a natural treatment recommended for oligozoospermia.
While the Mideast has always presented intractable challenges to the West, the mismanagement of U.S. relations with the region by the Obama Administration has been extraordinary.  The premature withdrawal of American forces led to a power vacuum exploited by ISIS. U.S. support for the so-called “Arab Spring” movement allowed anti-western forces to increase their power.  The White House’s “red line” in Syria turned into one of the worst losses of trust in U.S. power in generations. Terrorists now control more territory than ever in the area, and stand poised to make gains in Africa and Afghanistan. In this realm, it is not just incompetence, it is also a complete lack of realism that plagues Mr. Obama, who claimed in his recent State of the Union address, without any supporting facts, that “The shadow of the crisis of terrorism has passed.”

Closest to home is the White House policy towards Latin America.  Despite the increasing presence of Iranian, Chinese, and Russian military influence, the President, rather than addressing the problem, has chosen to largely ignore it. Improving relations with Cuba at the same time that the Castro brothers have re-established military ties with Moscow defies common sense.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Recognizing Danger

Over the past six years, While America substantially cut military spending, reduced key oversea commitments, withdrew its tanks from Europe, weakened ties with some allies and conceded to Moscow’s wishes regarding missile defense, Russia dramatically strengthened its armed forces, returned to cold war bases, sold nuclear technology to Iran, moved nuclear weapons to its European border, enhanced military ties with Latin America, invaded the Ukraine, engaged in joint war games and shared military technology with China.

The Obama Administration’s pacifist tendencies have been apparent for some time. Indeed, for over six years, the Obama/Clinton “Reset” policy with Russia has been based on little more than wishful thinking.

But why have so many journalists not recognized the growing danger?
Stress has a major role for the cause of impotence. deeprootsmag.org cheap cialis Improper buy viagra online blood flow to the penile organ fails to receive an adequate amount of blood for an erection. Infertility is the most important factor that men have been too eager to discuss, even with their doctor. viagra india prices The best thing about this pills is that they are often associated with side effects as they are composed of the same chemical component as the brand name counterpart. cialis tabs
Paul Goble, writing for the Jamestown Foundation notes that “The Russian Federation uses extensive propaganda, outright lies, and—most importantly—disinformation as part of the hybrid warfare it is waging against Ukraine and the West… Moscow’s message is given undue exposure and lack of questioning due to some Western journalists’ misunderstanding between balance and true objectivity, as well as the existence of a large constituency whose jobs rely on the West maintaining strong relations with Russia. In order to limit the spread and impact of disinformation, Western governments will need to recognize the difference between simple lies and actual disinformation, acquire expertise to identify disinformation and parse the truths and falsehoods within it, as well as develop methods to answer and counteract such disinformation both at home and abroad. The policy changes necessary to achieve this will require political will and some costs, but the costs of doing nothing may be even greater.”