Russian Tu-95 bombers (Reuters/Shamil Zhumatov)
What is Vladimir Putin Up To Sending Russian Bombers Close To The US? -- Howard Lafranchi, CSM
Experts play down concerns about a return to Cold War days. But Russian long-range bombers coming close to the US, plus other seemingly provocative acts, indicate a retrenched power attempting to assert its global presence again.
WASHINGTON — Russia’s announcement Wednesday that it plans to send long-range bombers to patrol the skies of America’s backyard over the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico may have sounded to many Americans like the stuff of the Cold War.
Anyone remember the 1960s comedy movie, “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming”?
The Pentagon sought to play down any provocative intentions behind the flights, and some Western officials chalked up Russia’s increasingly far-flung military activity to a retrenched power attempting to assert its global presence again.
Read more ....
My Comment: Ukraine, sanctions, placing missile defenses in eastern Europe, etc. .... the Russians had to respond ... and for the moment this is the best that they could do .... sending old bombers near the U.S. coast. And while the focus is justifiably on all of these Russian aircraft flights .... the question that I would like to have answered is .... why did the Russians take so long to respond?
5 comments:
placing missile defenses in eastern Europe, etc. .... the Russians had to respond
(1) Why would Russian have to respond to missile defenses in eastern Europe?
The missile defenses are ostensibly for protection against Iran.
(2) Is that a bad thing to do?
(3) If those same missile defenses could double for protection against Russian missiles, is that bad?
Moscow has missile defenses.
(4) So Moscow can have missile defenses and Europe cannot?
I just do not see Clinton, Obama or GWB running to be elected president or waking up one day and saying "I want to invade Russia."
If you were going to invade you have to take into account the nukes. So from a paranoid Russian perspective, the Eastern missile defenses give America the ability to invade (& fend off Russian ICBM). This is just plain stupid and also disingenuous.
So we have to lay down due to Russian paranoia, but if we fear Russian aggression we just have to take it.
(5) That is stupid
If NATO were to invade the ballistic missile defenses would not last long. Spetznatz or cruise missile would take them. So those puny missile defenses which will protect against Iranian blackmail for a while are not much of a threat. I certainly would not count on them protecting NATO against ICBM if NATO aggressed against Russia.
(6) Only a fool would.
Between decoys, problems with interception without decoys, tomahawks special operations, there are just too many variables to figure on using missile defenses in Easter Europe as a credible shield against the Russians.
(7) Taking out the ballistic missile defenses in Eastern Europe does not make Russia safer. It does shape and grow a political movement in the U.S.
Just because a pollster does not ask or that particular topic is not in the forefront of persons's mind every day or on the tip of their tongue does not mean that it is not part of the calculus of their mind in deciding who they will vote for.
It maybe subconscious and partially inchoate but it is there.
It was recently brought up again by the SU24 buzzing the American DDG. In the right political hands that is every bit as damaging as ISIS, Ben Ghazi, or amnesty.
If Putin wants to help Obama elect 10 Republican Senators, then he can keep on keeping on.
WNU,
It takes a while to train up crews, service up aircraft, and money. Russia has not done combat and long range patrols for decades, so, it takes a while.
Sending out an unserviced Bear with a crew that has few flight hours, tops, only to have it fall out of the sky, or get lost, sends the wrong message.
Jay .... I was referring to the political decision to do this .... which was recent. That is why I do not expect any large scale Russian flights near the U.S. coast for a long time.
WNU Editor,
The political decision, was probably made over three years ago, to ramp up long range Russian aviation assets. It has probably taken that long to get aircraft and crews up to the current point.
One of the "findings" of the RMA Studies of the Georgian Ossettian War, was that due to lack of money, aircraft and training, the Russian Air Force and Naval Aviation, was not up to the task of reconnisance, strike and patrol missions.
I know that the military buildup has been going on for a long time with a view of handling future threats. And long range aviation assets .... or lack of .... was a big concern even back then. But I do not think that within the Kremlin itself there was a conscious realization that relations would be as bad as they are now ... and in there own way they were in denial that these military policies and operations would be implemented even though they were allocating resources and monies to have such a long-range aircraft capability available.
More details on this change of policy will be released in the coming weeks when their long awaited military doctrine .... where they label the U.S. and the West as threats .... gets publicized.
http://warnewsupdates.blogspot.ca/2014/11/russias-new-military-doctrine-will.html
Post a Comment