Tuesday, 30 December 2014 11:13

Putin, What Doctrine?

Written by

December 27, 2014 - Russia has adopted an updated version of its military doctrine, which reflects the emergence of new threats against its national security. NATO military buildup and American Prompt Global Strike concept are listed among them.

The new doctrine was approved on Friday by President Vladimir Putin. Its core remains unchanged from the previous version.

The Russian military remains a defensive tool which the country pledges to use only as a last resort. Also unchanged are the principles of the use of nuclear weapons which Russia adheres to. Their primary goal is to deter potential enemies from attacking Russia, but it would use them to protect itself from a military attack – either nuclear or conventional – threatening its existence.

The new sections of the doctrine outline the threat Russia sees in NATO’s expansion and military buildup and the fact that the alliance is taking upon itself “global functions realized with violation of international law.”

The doctrine lists among major foreign military threats “the creation and deployment of global strategic antiballistic missile systems that undermines the established global stability and balance of power in nuclear missile capabilities, the implementation of the ‘prompt strike’ concept, intent to deploy weapons in space and deployment of strategic conventional precision weapons.”

It’s a report from the Russian point of view.

But, how many times do we have to emphasize that practicing politics always comes along with ignorant and selfish selections they call “reality”. What makes this so worse is that people even start believing such reality. That’s what they did in Crimea and that what they still do in Donetsk and Luhansk all in Ukraine.

Of course “We’ve always feel Russians” or “We’re always have been part of Russia”. But they sounds so familiar and even in other regions across the world. “We’ve always ….” That’s from the past, not the present. And, if you refuse to accept the present then you don’t can blame others for what you are refusing.

The way the present is or has been refused goes in the same way we see how the Israelis are doing. They grab the movie and start searching for frames or even entire scenes they don’t like to remove them all. They even cut the entire beginning of the movie so that the new start of this movie will become their “real” beginning.

But the scissors which are needed to cut the movie are members of Putin’s former KGB, now FSB and Russian nationals like the man above.

And so must all those in Russia, in East Ukraine and in Crimea see what they have really done.

But it all have to start somewhere, somehow.

On October 16, 2013 this article was published: “Russia's Putin battles for his Eurasian dream”. There is a picture added to the article showing soldiers in old Soviet military uniform marching over Moscow’s  Red Square. Interesting is this part of the article:

However, Europe's second-largest country by area (Ukraine) has already expressed its desire (before February 6, 2011) to join the European Union as an associate member instead, and is expected to sign an association agreement with the EU during a summit in Vilnius in November, within its Eastern Partnership program.

Now, why didn’t Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk raise their voices at that time? Because they all have had the same desire as the government in Kiev. Have had ….because these people either ignored what they have or just simply pretend their desires as never have been existed.

People are easily to influence when they lack of background knowledge about a particular issue. People are also known for easily forgetting things when other issues in life are more important to them such as better life, better income, better housing, better whatever.

The danger is when you mix these concerns with politics from another country that is brought into your country. It can be brought in many ways but in Ukraine it is by instigation as a revenge after having lost a battle on the political stage.

What battle you might ask?

We have to go back into time and exactly at the time when the Soviet Union did collapse.

On May 1, 2004 Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia where added to the EU community after all these countries decided to turn their backs from Moscow. They all decided and choose by themselves, not pressed and forced by  Brussels.

On January 1, 2007 Bulgaria and Romania joined the EU, and on July 1, 2013 the second former Yugoslavia country became member of the EU: Croatia.

All former Soviet states decided and choose voluntarily and based on their sovereignty. That is what Putin is not telling to his people nor in Crimea, in Donetsk and now even in Transnistria.

Now the eastern border of the European Union became almost at Putin’s doorstep.

But, all these member states were not only seeking for EU subsidies and other financial support many of the former Soviet states fraudulent use for “personal purposes”. They also sought protection for becoming a new Russian state again. They want to a NATO member. And again, they decided and chose by themselves. That is what he didn’t like. So he sought for an answer.

In 2013, Putin was prime minister as he could not seek for a third term. In October of that year he said that he is working to bring former Soviet states in a “Eurasia Union”.  We raised our eye brows. Why?

In that same year he was filmed at an arms factory in the town of Tula south of Moscow to be introduced of Russia’s new army concept we considered as based on the American concept that is used in Afghanistan and Iraq. It is an army concept full with high tech and advanced weaponry.

Is the exposure by the media in the year of announcing the “Eurasia Union” a coincidence or are these military developments part of  a strategy?

When looking back at the Russia-Georgia war in 2008, Georgia was seen by Putin as a threat from the south because Tbilisi did express its desire to become part of NATO and the EU. That is why he instigated a nationalist revolt in South Ossetia that have led into Putin’s war with Georgia.

What the people of the EAU member states do not know is that they lost the same as what the EU member states already facing: a great part of each own sovereignty.

And, there are differences between the EU and EAU:

Putin takes all control of defense and foreign affairs while the EU have appointed commissioners who are not heads of state or a ruling leader.

The EU is founded by intermediation between several states while founding of the EAU is a one-man’s action in response on moves made between 2004 and 2007 by former Soviet states.

The EU has a parliament who can thumb down any decision taken at the top. That won’t happen with the EAU because all participating leaders are dictators.

A video that was spread over the internet do not mention any form of democracy such as seated in Strasbourg, Luxembourg.

The EAU is about trade only between member states and China while the EU market is open for everyone.

Now back to Ukraine.

The roots of Crimea invasion and the instigated war in East Ukraine is not precisely the desire of EU-membership by the majority of the Ukrainians but a two decades long sought for closer ties by the EU with Ukraine which Putin in 2013 suddenly saw as a threat because of his union dream.

The Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement is a treaty between the European Union (EU) and Ukraine that establishes a political and economic association between the two parties.

The parties committed to co-operate and converge economic policy, legislation, and regulation across a broad range of areas, including equal rights for workers, steps towards visa-free movement of people, the exchange of information and staff in the area of justice, the modernization of Ukraine's energy infrastructure, and access to the European Investment Bank.

The parties committed to regular summit meetings, and meetings among ministers, other officials, and experts.

The agreement commits Ukraine to economic, judicial and financial reforms to converge its policies and legislation to those of the European Union. Ukraine committed to gradually conform to EU technical and consumer standards.

The EU agreed to provide Ukraine with political and financial support, access to research and knowledge, and preferential access to EU markets. The agreement commits both parties to promote a gradual convergence toward the EU's Common Security and Defense Policy and European Defense Agency policies.

On October 25, 2013 there was a gathering in Minsk for the first time attended by dictators of the former CIS countries. It was Putin’s last attempt to convinced Yanukovych that joining the Customs Union is a better idea than integrating with Europe.

On November 21, 2013 Yanukovych had abruptly ditch his plans to sign a historic pact with the European Union aimed at shifting the country out of the Putin's orbit. The decision handed victory to the Russian expansionist in the increasingly vicious tug of war between Russia and the west for Ukraine's future, and looked like turning a special EU summit next week focused on Ukraine into a debacle. He confirmed five days later.

But on December 10, 2013 it did look that Yanukovych lost his orientation as he announced that he will send government officials to Brussels to resume talks with the EU.

A week later Putin made another attempt to drag Ukraine into his union dream by promising billions of dollars and cheaper gas. The price of gas supplies to Ukraine will then be cut by about one-third to $268.5 per 1,000 cubic meters, from about $400. It was the second time we saw Putin using gas as a political tool this time to pressure Yanukovych.

Sounds like cat-and-mouse-game while Kiev streets was filled with hundreds of thousands of protesters rallying against Yanukovych decision which we consider as equal for not listening to the people.

In January 2014 we monitored the first military deployment inside Russia to the borders of Ukraine. A video was downloaded showing a convoy of Kamaz truck towing low loaders all carrying the 2S19-Msta-S self propelled gun. It was taken in the district of Rostov Oblast.

On February 27, 2014 a local resident of Novorossiysk reported latterly

“Armoured vehicles go to the port of Novorossiysk to be send in Crimea . Roads are fully packed with tanks, armoured carrier vehicles and heavy military trucks. Everything moves to the port to be loaded to the ships. Every day there's a column coming. Former Heoport is fully packed with military technique and is also close to score. And in Novorossiysk there is 7th Airborne Division, plus many parts of coast Artillery, Air Defense, Jarhead, Sea and Land Borders (with their headquarters at the Coast”

Let us forget terms like “pro-Russia” and “pro-Russians”.

First because not all Russians are hailing Putin and consort. Moreover, those who express or show their dislike will face his mindset “Either you’re with me or you’re with the others”.

It will not leave by words. In deeds It means retaliation by a mask gang send from “top” or openly arrested and thrown into jail.

Second. Not all those in Russia likes foreigners who also hail Putin. These Russians experience that their nationality is abused for political purposes which already have damaged the reputation of Russia as country thanks to Putin himself.

And, what about Putin’s doctrine?

We recap:

“the creation and deployment of global strategic antiballistic missile systems that undermines the established global stability and balance of power in nuclear missile capabilities, the implementation of the ‘prompt strike’ concept, intent to deploy weapons in space and deployment of strategic conventional precision weapons.”

Well, that what have happened in Crimea is actually the implementation of a prompt strike concept introduced to Putin during his visit at the Tula arms factory. Each presented soldier was equipped with a small computer, night vision gear, knee and elbow protection, NATO (!) helmet, eye protection, the newest AK rifle with mounted sniper vision and grenade launcher and camouflage uniform made from high tech textile. 

The whole outlook of the fatigue? A straight copy from the American concept and ..doesn’t look for defense! It did look like a fashion trend after the Americans first showed up this way in Saddam Hussein’s sand box during the presidency of George H. Bush (sr). Now you can see such military fatigue extremely more since the same Americans boosted their war on terror inside their own country.

So, what doctrine?

There is no doctrine. There is only a infant and baseless excuse to find any justification to boost the cold war arms race but openly and to “interfere” in any country were pro-Putins claim they are threatened.

Now, who was saying that NATO expansion is a threat?

----------------

source: Ruud Wedding

Last modified on Friday, 29 January 2021 10:55
Ruud Wedding

Ruud Wedding is a regular contributor with interest in human research and international politics. He contributes for more than 10 years.

Leave a comment

Make sure you enter all the required information, indicated by an asterisk (*). HTML code is not allowed.