20 October 2017. V V Putin on Russian Statehood

________________________

Both material and spiritual factors determine the viability of a state. What does that tell us about “conservatives” and their ideology? I’d say that their ideology isn’t only effectually godless; it’s not even well-grounded in materialism. It’s all greed… ME… ME… ME. “Winning is the only thing”… that’s the “conservative” mantra. I find that disgusting and beyond the pale… I’m not alone in thinking that…

V V Putin isn’t an American-style “conservative”… despite what idiots like Damick and Dreher may post. Students at university still receive stipends (and don’t pay tuition), the state-run public multiclinics still operate, and the government keeps business on a short leash (for “biznessmen” are deceitful and grasping greedsters). Most of all, VVP doesn’t allow American multinationals to rape his country… the real reason why the USA demonises him and his government. He won’t kiss the ass of the Anglo toddlers… that angers them beyond all measure. Vladimir Vladimirovich trusts in God and the RVSN in equal measure. May God preserve him and any of his possible successors (it won’t be the CIA-backed whore Mariya Vladimirovna or the rest of the layabout Romanov slugs).

BMD

Advertisement

Peace Through Strength: How Russian Weapons Help Shift the Global Balance of Power

******

Aleksandr III Aleksandrovich is “The Peacemaker”… as he kept the peace during his reign, by keeping the Russian Army and Navy strong.  V V Putin is doing the same thing… to deter the toddler Anglo aggressors and their peevish and arrogant “power projection”.

________________________

In 2012, before the Ukraine crisis and before Russia began its counterterrorism mission in Syria, French-language news website AgoraVox lamented:

After the collapse of the USSR, the world could’ve entered into an era of peace and cooperation.  However, one country felt that victory belongs only to it and that it wasn’t necessary to listen to the others.

This was a very accurate diagnosis.  The USA’s “endless operations in the Middle East, the cowboy dismantlement of Yugoslavia, the expansion of NATO, the global offensive by international terrorism, all this dispelled any illusions about a coming “world without wars”.  Therefore, under pressure from abroad, Russia had to begin restoring its defence capabilities.  It began with a few rearmament programs, but it only made notable progress after the operation to force Georgia to make peace [with South Ossetia and Abkhazia] in 2008.  In South Ossetia, Russian troops first encountered NATO weapons, equipment, and communications equipment in battle.  Our technological weakness became apparent.  Procrastination was leading to gradual loss of state sovereignty.

In 2010, the government launched a 20 trillion Rouble (2.38 trillion Renminbi.  22.16 trillion INR.  344.48 billion USD.  470.29 billion CAD.  464.44 billion AUD. 313.23 billion Euros.  265.32 billion UK Pounds) rearmament programme envisioning a comprehensive modernisation to update 70 percent of Russia’s total military assets by 2020.  Russia is now successfully carrying out this programme.  Earlier this year, in a very detailed ‘primer’ on Russian military power for the new Trump administration, National Interest contributor Michael Kofman wrote:

Following reforms launched in October 2008, and a modernisation programme in 2011 valued at 670 billion USD (38.9 trillion Roubles.  4.63 trillion Renminbi.  43.1 trillion INR.  914.72 billion CAD.  903.33 billion AUD.  609.23 billion Euros.  516.06 billion UK Pounds), the armed forces have become one of Russia’s most reliable instruments of national power.

Indeed, the figures speak for themselves.  For example, in 2016 the army received over 5,500 pieces of military equipment and weapons systems, including scores of aircraft (such as Su-35 4++ generation fighters, Tu-160 and Tu-95 bombers, Mi-28, Ka-52, Mi-35, and Mi-26 helicopters), hundreds of new and modernised tanks, new anti-aircraft missile systems, and nearly two dozen RS-24 Yars ICBM systems.  The latter’s missiles are capable of penetrating any existing or future enemy missile defences.  So far, in 2017, the Aerospace Defence Forces received over a dozen Su-34 fighter-bombers and are set to receive over two-dozen more Su-30 multirole fighters.  In 2016, for the first time in nearly a quarter-century, Russia created a new tank army, and today two fully equipped combined arms armies defend the country’s western flank.  The Navy also saw significant upgrades.  Following its return to Russia in 2014, the Crimea soon turned into an impregnable fortress.  The Black Sea Fleet alone received several new surface ships [including two Admiral Grigorovich-class frigates] as well as Project 636 attack subs, armed with long-range Kalibr missiles.  Furthermore, Russia’s Navy returned to the world’s oceans, with its mere passage through international waters near the US or European coasts causing hysteria among Western officials and media.  Russian strategic aviation’s return to the skies is causing a similar stir.

Russia is developing its army and naval infrastructure in the Arctic and the Far East too, with the military recently deploying S-400s, and Bal and Bastion coastal defence systems in Kamchatka and the Kuril Islands, as the Navy builds up its fleet of icebreakers.  Working to modernise its nuclear forces, Russia continues development of its RS-28 Sarmat super-heavy thermonuclear-armed ICBM… expected to come online as soon as next year, along with the 3M22 Zircon hypersonic missile (mass production expected to start later this year).  Since 2015, the armed forces have demonstrated the effectiveness of modernisation efforts in combat, with the Russian operation in Syria striking a blow to global terrorism and helping to defend Syrian sovereignty against a number of very powerful regional and global actors who sought to dismantle the Syrian state.  Meanwhile, the combat experience Russian forces received is allowing the military to improve its force structure, weapons, and the tactics of their use.  The USA is indignant.  Look at a recent article in the Russian-language service of Voice of America with the headline “Why Does Russia Need a Million-Strong Army?”  Pointing to what it calls a growing “Russian threat”, the Pentagon rewrote its own strategies.  Last month, in commenting on the images of US cruise missiles launched by from ships in the Mediterranean to strike a Syrian airbase, MSNBC anchor Brian Williams excitedly recalled the words of singer Leonard Cohen and his line:

I’m guided by the beauty of our weapons.

Russia also has the right to see their weapons as “beautiful”, not due to their sleekness or destructive power, but because at the moment, they’re the main force in the world stopping the imposition of a unipolar world order based on financial manipulations and the threat of US carrier strike groups and Tomahawk cruise missiles.  Twenty-five years after the collapse of the USSR, our country is stronger than any potential aggressor is.  The “iron stream” of Russian weapons serves to strengthen peace in the world.

6 May 2017

Aleksandr Khrolenko

Sputnik International

https://sputniknews.com/military/201705061053341800-russian-armed-forces-25th-anniversary/

28 March 2017. Russian Land-Based Nuclear-Capable Missiles

____________________________________

Putin Sez US Military Won’t Let Obama Get Flexible on Missile Shield

______________________________

President Vladimir Putin said US President Barack Obama is willing to revive deadlocked talks on a planned American missile shield in Europe, but that the military lobby in Congress and a “conservative” State Department are holding him back. Putin told the RT international news channel in an interview, “Is it possible to find a solution to the problem, if President Obama’s re-elected for a second term? In principle, yes, it is. Nevertheless, this isn’t just about President Obama. My feeling is that he’s a sincere man and that he sincerely wants to implement positive change. However, can he do it; will they let him do it? There’s the military lobby, and the Department of State, which is quite conservative”. Putin also emphasised the need for dialogue on the controversial shield, but said he was “not sure” that Washington was “ready for this kind of cooperation”.

Negotiations between Russia and the USA on the missile defence project stalled over Washington’s reluctance to give Moscow legally-binding guarantees that it won’t use the shield against Russia. Washington and NATO say they need the shield to defend Europe against a possible missile attack from Iran. Russia says the project could pose a threat to its national security and threatened a host of countermeasures. In May, the Russian General Staff said it didn’t rule out a pre-emptive strike against the American shield in the event of an “aggravation of the situation”.

Earlier this week, the US Democratic Party said in its 2012 national platform that if re-elected, President Obama would “move forward” with the missile shield programme, regardless of Moscow’s stance. However, Putin told RT that a unilateral move would “not enhance global stability”. He added that Russia would “have to think of how we can defend ourselves” if the United States proceeded with the shield, saying, “You also have to think about its strategic character, even if it’s built not for a year or even a decade”. He also said chances that a figure like Obama’s Republican challenger Mitt Romney… who famously described Russia as the United States’ “number one geopolitical foe”… could come to power in the USA were “quite high”, asking, “So, what are we supposed to do to ensure our security?”

In 2010, Obama scrapped the previous Bush administration‘s plans to deploy an anti-ballistic missile defence system in Czechia and Poland, in a move welcomed by Moscow. However, later, Washington announced it’d replace it with a reconfigured system that they’d eventually deploy in the Mediterranean, Poland, Romania, and Turkey.

6 September 2012

RIA-Novosti

http://en.ria.ru/world/20120906/175798904.html

Editor’s Note:

There are no planned ABM sites in CONUS. NONE. That means that the rhetoric that ABM forces are “defensive” is lies. Iran is no threat to Europe or the USA in the near or middle future. Indeed, it’s hard to see it being a threat in the far future (a generation from now). In short, it’s all a gigantic lie… it’s actually an attempt to try to decapitate the Russian strategic offensive forces.

The USA, unfortunately for it, believes its own propaganda. No ABM system can destroy all outgoing missiles. Under current plans, there are no ABM sites in CONUS to protect American cities from re-entry vehicles of ICBMs that evade the (rather leaky) ABM net. In short, it’s a massive boondoggle… a cornucopia of corruption and boodle for defence contractors and their One Percent investors. You see, the Eurasian ABM deployments would be reachable by Russian SRBMs… and their flight-time is so short that the ABM interceptors would be useless against them.

That is, the USA is playing with hand grenades with the pins pulled out. If the last twenty years have taught us anything, it’s that the USA is a reckless rouge state, especially under Republican rule. The USA didn’t learn a lesson when the Russians handily defeated their Georgian clients in ’08… they remain juvenile bullies. The only good thing is that so-called ABM defence is unfeasible technically and unaffordable financially (the Bush wars and tax cuts saw to that).

God save the world from the USA.

BMD