The threat Russia is perceived to be ....

[Drummond]

... certainly to us, on this side of the Pond.

Should @Balu (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=3557) wish to offer his input / opinions, these would be welcome ....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5299741/Putin-clear-present-danger-Britain.html


Vladimir Putin could start hostilities against the West ‘sooner than we expect’, the head of the Army has said.

Warning of Russia’s ‘eye-watering’ military capabilities, Sir Nick Carter laid bare the scale of the threat.

The Chief of the General Staff said the Kremlin was a ‘clear and present danger’ and predicted a conflict would start with something we did not expect.

‘They are not thousands of miles away, they are on Europe’s doorstep,’ he said in a speech at the Royal United Services Institute.

Britain’s ability to pre-empt or respond to the threat ‘will be eroded if we don’t match up to them now,’ he said, adding: ‘Russia could initiate hostilities sooner than we expect.’

Two concerns exist - one, of course, is the obvious military one. The other is a perception of Russia as a belligerent power in cyber-war terms.

[Drummond]

Something for me to add, as evidence of an increasing degree of military belligerence coming from Moscow, aimed at the UK and areas in Western Europe which could be considered of strategic importance ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11609783/Mapped-Just-how-many-incursions-into-Nato-airspace-has-Russian-military-made.html


The number of Russian military flights probing Nato airspace has increased. In this map, the Telegraph maps the latest provocative operations, click on a submarine or plane to find out more information .... [.. see the interactive graphic 'map' offered by the link ..]

... RAF Typhoons were scrambled to intercept two Russian long-range bombers off northern Scotland on Wednesday, in the latest in a series of provocative operations by the country's air force.

As tensions between Nato and Russia have worsened over the Ukraine crisis, Moscow has significantly increased the number of military flights probing Nato airspace - and submarine activity probing its waters.

The number of interceptions over the Baltic States trebled last year and Nato members including Britain have stepped up air policing support in the area.

Russia’s TU-95 Bear bombers - strategic bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons - make probing flights towards UK airspace about once a month.

The Ministry of Defence says the Russian bombers have never violated Britain’s sovereign airspace, which extends 12 nautical miles from the coast, and publicly regards them as more of a routine nuisance than a threat.

But defence officials have expressed mounting concern over the nature of the flights. Michael Fallon, the then-defence secretary, said the appearance of Bear bombers over the Channel in February marked the first time they had been seen in that area “since the height of the Cold War.”

"We had to scramble jets very quickly to see them off,” he said.



If Russia is a 'friendly' power, one we can trust to any useful degree, how is it that any of what's reported is happening ?

[Gunny]

Something for me to add, as evidence of an increasing degree of military belligerence coming from Moscow, aimed at the UK and areas in Western Europe which could be considered of strategic importance ...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11609783/Mapped-Just-how-many-incursions-into-Nato-airspace-has-Russian-military-made.html





If Russia is a 'friendly' power, one we can trust to any useful degree, how is it that any of what's reported is happening ?What is the hard intel to back any of the talk? I mean Russian flights are rather obvious. And of course they are going to push the limits. Europe won't do anything to him for it. What's Putin got to lose?

What is the motive would be my question. Putin is already doing whatever he wants and getting nothing in return but boo's.

Big picture ... Europe is allowing itself to become a haven for Islamic terrorists. That IS a threat to Russia. Remember the last buffer they built for themselves during the Cold War. Russia has a vested interest in that regard.

I don't think they pose any more of a military threat than they ever did.

[Drummond]

What is the hard intel to back any of the talk? I mean Russian flights are rather obvious. And of course they are going to push the limits. Europe won't do anything to him for it. What's Putin got to lose?

What is the motive would be my question. Putin is already doing whatever he wants and getting nothing in return but boo's.

Big picture ... Europe is allowing itself to become a haven for Islamic terrorists. That IS a threat to Russia. Remember the last buffer they built for themselves during the Cold War. Russia has a vested interest in that regard.

I don't think they pose any more of a military threat than they ever did.

I certainly agree with you about how Europe is becoming a haven for Islamic terrorists. Political correctness sees to it that the right attitudes that'd prevent it just do not exist. Be critical of Islam, and it's demonisable in all sorts of ways, not least legally, where countries such as mine will designate public expression of any critical belief or view as 'hatespeech' ... and it'll be claimed to be evidence of bigotry or racism.

Putin is being ever-more belligerent .. and certainly there has to be purpose behind it. We know that the trend of military incursions, with planes 'just happening' to stray into areas they can't have a legitimate reason for being in, all this is increasing. WHY .. unless the intent is hostile, and follows a long-term purpose ?

I've found this ....

https://nationalinterest.org/commentary/russias-military-back-9181


One of the distinguishing characteristics of Vladimir Putin’s presidency has been his commitment to revitalizing Russia’s military. Putin, who has noted that Russia’s perceived weakness makes it vulnerable to external pressure and internal disruption, is pushing for increased funding to transform the Russian armed forces from the debilitated remnants inherited from the old Soviet superpower military machine into a smaller, but more modern, mobile, technologically advanced and capable twenty-first century force.

In 2013, in an address delivered on the day devoted to the “defenders of the Fatherland,” the Russian president proclaimed: “Ensuring Russia has a reliable military force is the priority of our state policy. Unfortunately, the present world is far from being peaceful and safe. Long obsolete conflicts are being joined by new, but no less difficult, ones. Instability is growing in vast regions of the world.”

This is not empty talk. The rhetoric has been matched by a concurrent allocation of resources; Russia is now engaged in its largest military buildup since the collapse of the Soviet Union more than two decades ago, with major increases in defense spending budgeted each year to 2020. 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.

I'll be interested in Balu's 'take' on all this. Will he (as he's done on other matters I've discussed previously) be dismissive, saying it's all only Western propaganda ? Will he take a 'might is right' line, and think Russia has every right to be as belligerent as it chooses, just BECAUSE it chooses to ?

[Gunny]

I certainly agree with you about how Europe is becoming a haven for Islamic terrorists. Political correctness sees to it that the right attitudes that'd prevent it just do not exist. Be critical of Islam, and it's demonisable in all sorts of ways, not least legally, where countries such as mine will designate public expression of any critical belief or view as 'hatespeech' ... and it'll be claimed to be evidence of bigotry or racism.

Putin is being ever-more belligerent .. and certainly there has to be purpose behind it. We know that the trend of military incursions, with planes 'just happening' to stray into areas they can't have a legitimate reason for being in, all this is increasing. WHY .. unless the intent is hostile, and follows a long-term purpose ?

I've found this ....

https://nationalinterest.org/commentary/russias-military-back-9181



I'll be interested in Balu's 'take' on all this. Will he (as he's done on other matters I've discussed previously) be dismissive, saying it's all only Western propaganda ? Will he take a 'might is right' line, and think Russia has every right to be as belligerent as it chooses, just BECAUSE it chooses to ?The thought police? I find it completely absurd that idiots think you can legislate what one think or feel. To me anyone that thinks such a thing is just that ... an idiot.

People used to get on my case when I ran message boards because I was pretty liberal about free speech (not today's use of the word "liberal", the actual meaning of it) but my view was and is always that I would prefer you open your mouth than prove you're an idiot with bad intent than sneak up and blind side me with it.

I'm only half-interested in Balu's take on it because he is the antithesis of my previous paragraph. He has me on ignore because the facts and truth are inconvenient to him. I am but a "lowly sergeant" and he can't tolerate being bested but such a lower form of life. So he pretends I'm not here even though it hasn't stopped a single post and I still respond to his. Everyone else that cares to is reading it so it his loss and to his disadvantage to pretend otherwise. Not very intelligent at all of someone who claims to be military.

I posted another thread on Turkey's aggressiveness towards the Kurds in Syria allegedly with Putin's blessing. Perhaps Putin is trying to enlarge his influence into the Eastern Europe, and the North Med. We already know where his interests lie -- natural resources. He appears to be using a show of force more than anything else to incite fear.
l

[Balu]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11199&stc=1

[Gunny]

Nice map. It answers what, exactly?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11199&stc=1

Each side sees the other as a threat. Sadly , the pro-China American Dem party helps China present Russia as the far greater threat to USA.
The American Dem party and mainstream media help the globalists present Russia as the great threat--when the truth is --China is the far greater threat
Russia does exactly as we do in analyzing future national threats.
Trump is not blind to threat that China poses to us but the dem party and its allies(both domestic and foreign) try their best to stir up problems between USA and Russia while they cover for China, IMHO..
I make no case that Putin is an angel, but he is not the threat they make him out to be--China is!
The Clintons and bastard obama are/were 100% pro-China.
To me that tells me all I want to know and reaffirms my take on this..-Tyr

[Balu]

Each side sees the other as a threat. ..-Tyr
You see, Robert, we do not suffer amnesia and are good in studding lessons. So, the ONLY thing we care now is OUR OWN interests. The rest... we DO NOT care and... count.
We were FORCED to start behaving THIS way. See the dates.
P.S.
I remember October 1962, when our fighters in formation by four hedgehopped over my house so, that the glasses in windows of my flat were broken. (I live near US Embassy.) And it was only 17 years after our Victory. Now the situation is different.

[Gunny]

Each side sees the other as a threat. Sadly , the pro-China American Dem party helps China present Russia as the far greater threat to USA.
The American Dem party and mainstream media help the globalists present Russia as the great threat--when the truth is --China is the far greater threat
Russia does exactly as we do in analyzing future national threats.
Trump is not blind to threat that China poses to us but the dem party and its allies(both domestic and foreign) try their best to stir up problems between USA and Russia while they cover for China, IMHO..:laugh2:
I make no case that Putin is an angel, but he is not the threat they make him out to be--China is!
The Clintons and bastard obama are/were 100% pro-China.
To me that tells me all I want to know and reaffirms my take on this..-TyrBoth Russia and China are problematic for the US because thy won't keep their monkey on a chain in North Korea in check,

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Both Russia and China are problematic for the US because thy won't keep their monkey on a chain in North Korea in check,

THAT FAT NORTH KOREAN MONKEY IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN CHINA'S PUPPET AS WAS HIS WORTHLESS FATHER MY FRIEND.
The ones pulling his strings is China, and I think Russia has little influence on him when compared to his big and mighty neighbor and his OverLord China.

Problem is, China and Russia both see USA as problematic, too.

OUR TASK IS TO DECIDE WHICH IS THE GREATER THREAT, AND THAT IS BEING THWARTED BY THE FFING DEM PARTY, ITS ALLIES AND AMERICAN CORPORATIONS THAT ARE FIRMLY IN CHINA'S POCKETS.
DEM PARTY DECADES AGO SOLD THIS NATION OUT MY FRIEND.
THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL DAMN TRAITORS, SERVING ONLY THEIR ON SELF-INTERESTS, WITH A FUTURE BE DAMNED ATTITUDE. -TYR

[Drummond]

You see, Robert, we do not suffer amnesia and are good in studding lessons. So, the ONLY thing we care now is OUR OWN interests. The rest... we DO NOT care and... count.
We were FORCED to start behaving THIS way. See the dates.
P.S.
I remember October 1962, when our fighters in formation by four hedgehopped over my house so, that the glasses in windows of my flat were broken. (I live near US Embassy.) And it was only 17 years after our Victory. Now the situation is different.

You mention 1962, I see.

Yes, well. I remember (albeit very dimly) the Cuban Missile Crisis. I recall the Soviet Union placing their nuclear weapons IN SECRET on Cuba, threatening - unacceptably - the American mainland.

I recall the USSR's failure to let the US know of the existence of that threat (which, unless an outright threat was intended, makes absolutely no sense at all) ... until the US side tackled them over it.

I recall the tensions - and the standoff - embarked upon.

The USSR's belligerence, back then, was plain for anyone to see. To the best of my knowledge, humanity has never, before or since, been quite so close to annihilation as it was over that issue.

... so, you see, Balu, the West has ample reason for worrying about what emanates from your own borders !!! We in the West would have to be insane not to. If you'll even threaten humanity's very existence, through military recklessness, then we have to be ever-alert, and ever-aware, of present and future signs of militaristic belligerences your side may care to embark upon.

[Drummond]

THAT FAT NORTH KOREAN MONKEY IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN CHINA'S PUPPET AS WAS HIS WORTHLESS FATHER MY FRIEND.
The ones pulling his strings is China, and I think Russia has little influence on him when compared to his big and mighty neighbor and his OverLord China.

Problem is, China and Russia both see USA as problematic, too.

OUR TASK IS TO DECIDE WHICH IS THE GREATER THREAT, AND THAT IS BEING THWARTED BY THE FFING DEM PARTY, ITS ALLIES AND AMERICAN CORPORATIONS THAT ARE FIRMLY IN CHINA'S POCKETS.
DEM PARTY DECADES AGO SOLD THIS NATION OUT MY FRIEND.
THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL DAMN TRAITORS, SERVING ONLY THEIR ON SELF-INTERESTS, WITH A FUTURE BE DAMNED ATTITUDE. -TYR

A problem we have is that China is undemocratic ... and Russia is so authoritarian that it can fairly be said to be merely playing at its own form of democracy. Few accept that it operates a thriving democratic system.

http://www.e-ir.info/2013/12/23/russia-the-democracy-that-never-was/


Vladimir Putin, who personifies the reasons why Russia is neither free nor democratic and will not be in the near future. The combination of Russian culture, Putinism and corruption prove that Russia is currently not open to democracy, a free and open society, and a free market system.

Societies where their leadership don't directly and accountably answer to their own people, will feel empowered to do whatever they like. Theirs will be the psychology of the bully .. 'do as I expect, or else I'll flex my muscles against you'. America, however, IS accountable to its electorate. This is why America isn't the global concern that both China and Russia continue to be.

America is only a 'problem' to China and Russia because it has potential for getting in the way of their expansionist plans.

[Balu]

My Dear friend Robert,
In addition to my previous post you may read and make conclusions yourself.

Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation


Unofficial Translation
APPROVED
President of the Russian Federation
V. Putin

I. General Provisions


1. Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - Military Doctrine) is a system of officially adopted State views on the preparation for armed defence and armed protection of the Russian Federation.
2. The Military Doctrine, based on the analysis of military threats and military threats to the interests of the Russian Federation and its allies formulated the basic provisions of the military policy and military economic support for defence of the state.
3. The legal basis Military doctrine consists of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, generally recognized principles and international law and international treaties the Russian Federation in the field of defence, control arms and disarmament, the Federal Constitutional laws, federal laws and legal acts President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation.
4. The Military Doctrine takes into account the main provisions The concept of long-term socio-economic development The Russian Federation until 2020, Strategy the national security of the Russian Federation until 2020, and the relevant provisions of the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, the Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020, Strategy for the Development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation and National Security for the period up to 2020 and other strategic documents planning.
5. The Military Doctrine reflects the commitment of the Russian Federation to use to protect national interests country and the interests of its allies military action only after exhaustion opportunities applications political, diplomatic, legal, economic, information and other instruments of non-violent nature.
6. The provisions of the Military Doctrine are specified in messages of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and can be adjusted strategic planning in the military (military planning).
7. Implementation of the Military Doctrine is achieved by centralization of public administration in the field of defence and Security and carried out in accordance with the federal legislation, regulatory legal acts of the President the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation and federal executive bodies.
8. The Military Doctrine, the following basic concepts:
a) military security of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - military security) - a state of protection of vital important interests of the individual, society and the state from external and internal military threats associated with the use of military force or threat of violence, characterized by the absence military threat or the ability to resist it;
b) military threat - a state of interstate or domestic relations characterized a set of factors that could, under certain conditions lead to a military threat;
c) military threat - a state of interstate or domestic relations, characterized by real the possibility of a military conflict between the opposing sides, a high degree of readiness any state (group of states), separatist (Terrorist) organizations to use military force (Armed violence);
d) military conflict - shape permission interstate or intrastate conflicts with use of military force (concept covers all types armed confrontation, including large-scale, regional, local wars and armed conflicts);
e) armed conflict - armed conflict limited scale between states (international armed conflict) or the opposing sides in limits territory single State (Internal armed conflict);
f) local war - a war in which prosecuted limited military and political goals, hostilities conducted within the boundaries of the warring states and that mainly affects only the interests of these states (Territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war - a war involving several States of the region, a leading national or coalition armed forces, during which the parties pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war - a war between coalitions States or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties pursue radical military-political purpose. Large-scale war may result escalation armed conflict, local or regional war with involving a significant number of different states regions of the world. This war will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the States Parties;
i) military policy - activities of States in organization and implementation of defence and security of the Russian Federation, as well as the interests of its allies;
j) military organization (hereinafter - military organization) - a set of state and military Control of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops, military formations and bodies established in the military time special units (hereinafter - the Armed Forces, other troops and organs) that constitute its basis and carrying out their activities by military means, and defence industry complex country joint which are aimed at preparing for armed defence and armed protection of the Russian Federation;
k) military planning - determining the order and methods the goals and objectives of the military organization, construction and development of the Armed Forces, other troops and bodies, their applications and comprehensive support;
l) mobilization readiness of the Russian Federation - the ability of the Armed Forces, other troops and organs of the economy State and federal authorities, public authorities of subjects of the Russian Federation, local governments and organizations to implement mobilization plans;
m) system of non-nuclear containment - complex foreign policy, military and military-technical measures aimed at preventing aggression against the Russian Federation of non-nuclear means. ...
... 27. The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to use against it and (or) its allies of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when under threat the very existence of the state. The decision to use nuclear weapons is taken President of the Russian Federation. ...

http://thailand.mid.ru/en/military-doctrine-of-the-russian-federation

[aboutime]

Why else would Putin be so happy to get 20% of the U.S. Uranium from Hillary Clinton, and 8 other Obama officials? Does Putin plan on making Jewelry out of the RADIOACTIVE material?

[Gunny]

THAT FAT NORTH KOREAN MONKEY IS AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN CHINA'S PUPPET AS WAS HIS WORTHLESS FATHER MY FRIEND.
The ones pulling his strings is China, and I think Russia has little influence on him when compared to his big and mighty neighbor and his OverLord China.

Problem is, China and Russia both see USA as problematic, too.

OUR TASK IS TO DECIDE WHICH IS THE GREATER THREAT, AND THAT IS BEING THWARTED BY THE FFING DEM PARTY, ITS ALLIES AND AMERICAN CORPORATIONS THAT ARE FIRMLY IN CHINA'S POCKETS.
DEM PARTY DECADES AGO SOLD THIS NATION OUT MY FRIEND.
THEY ARE PRETTY MUCH ALL DAMN TRAITORS, SERVING ONLY THEIR ON SELF-INTERESTS, WITH A FUTURE BE DAMNED ATTITUDE. -TYRI'm not sure who has the most pull. China is immediately blamed because of location, and because China got conned into providing the bodies during the Korean War.

Lest we forget ... North Korea is the DIRECT result of FDR demanding Stalin open a second front against Japan. When the war in Europe was over and Stalin reluctantly half-assed a show to shut FDR up, his attack on Japanese-held Korea netted communism N Korea. North Korea borders Russia as well as china. Most of China at the time was still a nationalist country. The North Koreans were supplied and armed by Russia, as were the ChiComs.

If you think about it, neither China nor Russia claim to be holding the hot potato, and neither have in my memory. I think we ASSUME we know.

[Drummond]

My Dear friend Robert,
In addition to my previous post you may read and make conclusions yourself.

Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation


Unofficial Translation
APPROVED
President of the Russian Federation
V. Putin

I. General Provisions


1. Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - Military Doctrine) is a system of officially adopted State views on the preparation for armed defence and armed protection of the Russian Federation.
2. The Military Doctrine, based on the analysis of military threats and military threats to the interests of the Russian Federation and its allies formulated the basic provisions of the military policy and military economic support for defence of the state.
3. The legal basis Military doctrine consists of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, generally recognized principles and international law and international treaties the Russian Federation in the field of defence, control arms and disarmament, the Federal Constitutional laws, federal laws and legal acts President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation.
4. The Military Doctrine takes into account the main provisions The concept of long-term socio-economic development The Russian Federation until 2020, Strategy the national security of the Russian Federation until 2020, and the relevant provisions of the Foreign Policy Concept of the Russian Federation, the Maritime Doctrine of the Russian Federation for the period until 2020, Strategy for the Development of the Arctic Zone of the Russian Federation and National Security for the period up to 2020 and other strategic documents planning.
5. The Military Doctrine reflects the commitment of the Russian Federation to use to protect national interests country and the interests of its allies military action only after exhaustion opportunities applications political, diplomatic, legal, economic, information and other instruments of non-violent nature.
6. The provisions of the Military Doctrine are specified in messages of the President of the Russian Federation to the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and can be adjusted strategic planning in the military (military planning).
7. Implementation of the Military Doctrine is achieved by centralization of public administration in the field of defence and Security and carried out in accordance with the federal legislation, regulatory legal acts of the President the Russian Federation, the Government of the Russian Federation and federal executive bodies.
8. The Military Doctrine, the following basic concepts:
a) military security of the Russian Federation (hereinafter - military security) - a state of protection of vital important interests of the individual, society and the state from external and internal military threats associated with the use of military force or threat of violence, characterized by the absence military threat or the ability to resist it;
b) military threat - a state of interstate or domestic relations characterized a set of factors that could, under certain conditions lead to a military threat;
c) military threat - a state of interstate or domestic relations, characterized by real the possibility of a military conflict between the opposing sides, a high degree of readiness any state (group of states), separatist (Terrorist) organizations to use military force (Armed violence);
d) military conflict - shape permission interstate or intrastate conflicts with use of military force (concept covers all types armed confrontation, including large-scale, regional, local wars and armed conflicts);
e) armed conflict - armed conflict limited scale between states (international armed conflict) or the opposing sides in limits territory single State (Internal armed conflict);
f) local war - a war in which prosecuted limited military and political goals, hostilities conducted within the boundaries of the warring states and that mainly affects only the interests of these states (Territorial, economic, political and other);
g) regional war - a war involving several States of the region, a leading national or coalition armed forces, during which the parties pursue important military and political goals;
h) large-scale war - a war between coalitions States or the largest states of the world community, in which the parties pursue radical military-political purpose. Large-scale war may result escalation armed conflict, local or regional war with involving a significant number of different states regions of the world. This war will require the mobilization of all available material resources and spiritual forces of the States Parties;
i) military policy - activities of States in organization and implementation of defence and security of the Russian Federation, as well as the interests of its allies;
j) military organization (hereinafter - military organization) - a set of state and military Control of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops, military formations and bodies established in the military time special units (hereinafter - the Armed Forces, other troops and organs) that constitute its basis and carrying out their activities by military means, and defence industry complex country joint which are aimed at preparing for armed defence and armed protection of the Russian Federation;
k) military planning - determining the order and methods the goals and objectives of the military organization, construction and development of the Armed Forces, other troops and bodies, their applications and comprehensive support;
l) mobilization readiness of the Russian Federation - the ability of the Armed Forces, other troops and organs of the economy State and federal authorities, public authorities of subjects of the Russian Federation, local governments and organizations to implement mobilization plans;
m) system of non-nuclear containment - complex foreign policy, military and military-technical measures aimed at preventing aggression against the Russian Federation of non-nuclear means. ...
... 27. The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to use against it and (or) its allies of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, as well as in the case of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when under threat the very existence of the state. The decision to use nuclear weapons is taken President of the Russian Federation. ...

http://thailand.mid.ru/en/military-doctrine-of-the-russian-federation

Hungary, 1956. Russian tanks enter the country to crush a 'rebellion'.

Czechoslovakia, 1968. Basically ditto ... both the situation, and the Russian reaction to it.

Afghanistan, 1980. An invasion. [Twelve year gaps between each, notice ....]

Russia was intolerant of any dissent from its iron rule at the time. They didn't care to consider anybody else's rights. However .. your translation above shows how very much they care about Russia's OWN interests.

But ... did I read point 27 correctly (.. the one you emphasise !) .. ? You reserve the right to use nukes against ALLIES ? I don't think you can claim it 'merely' addresses the fact of other powers possessing a nuclear and WMD deterrent .. the wording says, & I quote .. 'the right to use nuclear weapons in response to use against it and (or) its allies of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction'.

If Russia is content to provide for a nuclear attack it will launch against either any power that offends it, & / or ALLIES ... then, I ask ... how does any other power on this planet possibly trust you ??? [... and, NO, I don't think for a nanosecond that America is devoid of decency and morality to come to within a light year of such, ahem, 'thinking' itself ..]

Do you, in all honesty, Balu, even care if they do ? Are you so mired in a 'might is right' philosophy that you seriously think the application of power is all that counts, and all that needs to count, in this world ?

If I've misunderstood you (and your countrymen) in this matter ... by all means, Balu, correct me. I absolutely agree that the world SHOULD be able to be on good terms with you, and not think of you as a belligerent power. But I have to ask: do we so much as DARE to do this .. ?

You seem to think that the right to nuke us all to hell is an especially important one for you to retain, and maintain. Wow, that's nice, and 'peaceful'. How 'reassuring' ! So, Balu, have your people learned NOTHING since Cuba, 1962, and the armageddon we all barely avoided in those times ??

[Gunny]

Hungary, 1956. Russian tanks enter the country to crush a 'rebellion'.

Czechoslovakia, 1968. Basically ditto ... both the situation, and the Russian reaction to it.

Afghanistan, 1980. An invasion. [Twelve year gaps between each, notice ....]

Russia was intolerant of any dissent from its iron rule at the time. They didn't care to consider anybody else's rights. However .. your translation above shows how very much they care about Russia's OWN interests.

But ... did I read point 27 correctly (.. the one you emphasise !) .. ? You reserve the right to use nukes against ALLIES ? I don't think you can claim it 'merely' addresses the fact of other powers possessing a nuclear and WMD deterrent .. the wording says, & I quote .. 'the right to use nuclear weapons in response to use against it and (or) its allies of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction'.

If Russia is content to provide for a nuclear attack it will launch against either any power that offends it, & / or ALLIES ... then, I ask ... how does any other power on this planet possibly trust you ??? [... and, NO, I don't think for a nanosecond that America is devoid of decency and morality to come to within a light year of such, ahem, 'thinking' itself ..]

Do you, in all honesty, Balu, even care if they do ? Are you so mired in a 'might is right' philosophy that you seriously think the application of power is all that counts, and all that needs to count, in this world ?

If I've misunderstood you (and your countrymen) in this matter ... by all means, Balu, correct me. I absolutely agree that the world SHOULD be able to be on good terms with you, and not think of you as a belligerent power. But I have to ask: do we so much as DARE to do this .. ?

You seem to think that the right to nuke us all to hell is an especially important one for you to retain, and maintain. Wow, that's nice, and 'peaceful'. How 'reassuring' ! So, Balu, have your people learned NOTHING since Cuba, 1962, and the armageddon we all barely avoided in those times ??A couple of points:

1. What he posted is a general outline. There is no doctrine in it.

2. Your examples are all of USSR aggression, not Russian Federation aggression. He's going to claim they're different now. Watch and see. Too bad he can't read this and get a heads up :)

[Drummond]

You see, Robert, we do not suffer amnesia and are good in studding lessons. So, the ONLY thing we care now is OUR OWN interests. The rest... we DO NOT care and... count.
We were FORCED to start behaving THIS way. See the dates.
P.S.
I remember October 1962, when our fighters in formation by four hedgehopped over my house so, that the glasses in windows of my flat were broken. (I live near US Embassy.) And it was only 17 years after our Victory. Now the situation is different.

Noted. ALL you care about is your OWN interests. Which you'll act on behalf of, obviously, at all times. Your own wording displays the psychology that drives you.

On what possible basis, therefore, does any power ally itself to you, if at the end of the day you consider that others 'don't count' ? Yours is not a psychology willing to defer to, or usefully acknowledge, any form of thinking which has merit within its OWN terms.

It's a psychology, I suggest, which fits a bully. A power, or person(s), who'll only tolerate others if those others directly serve the interests of 'mother' Russia. Allies obviously don't get a look-in if they dare to disagree with you in any major way.

'The Russian way is the ONLY way'. That's the message I get from you.

Yes. The Soviet Union, along with all its associated tyrannies, was run along those lines. Very much so. Do you miss those days, Balu ? Do you wish to see them revisited upon the world ?

[Drummond]

A couple of points:

1. What he posted is a general outline. There is no doctrine in it.

2. Your examples are all of USSR aggression, not Russian Federation aggression. He's going to claim they're different now. Watch and see. Too bad he can't read this and get a heads up :)

I daresay he WILL claim to be different to the old USSR. But I see scant evidence of difference, from what's been posted.

I agree - 'doctrine' doesn't fit what's been posted, at least, not what you or I would recognise as doctrine. Note, though, that Balu does think there's doctrine there. And, I think, it's understandable he believes it. Why ? Because Russia DOES operate on a 'might is right' approach.

Balu and his chums evidently find this narrow mindset sufficiently satisfying to regard it as being all the 'doctrine' they need. Namely ... Russia's interests first, everyone must fit in with them, no exceptions. Power is all. Bend to what we expect of you, 'or else'.

There's patriotism (which can be a very noble and decent thing). Then, there's bully-boy tactics, dressed up to try and attain 'patriotism' status.

Balu's not going to care about these thoughts. His is such a belief in 'mother Russia' that the mere identity of his country is 'automatically' justification for all they choose to do.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Putin is KGB... and always will be. That says it all.