Posted on 09/16/2014 7:20:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
But it's not quite the projection of strength that it seems...
Last week, two aircraft took off from an air base in western Russia, just east of the Russian city of Saratov. The aircraft, Tu-95 strategic bombers code-named Bear by NATO, flew northwest, skirting Iceland, Greenland, and Canada.
Once beyond Canada, the two lumbering, propeller-driven bombers settled on a heading straight toward the United States. Their goal was a "launch box" off the coast of the U.S. from which, during wartime, they would fire nuclear-tipped cruise missiles towards American cities and military bases.
The provocative flights were timed to a NATO summit, attended by President Obama, then taking place in Wales. On the agenda in Wales: what to do about Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Welcome to diplomacy, Putin-style, in the 21st century.
Relations between Russia and the West have taken a dark turn since Russian President Vladimir Putin returned to power in 2012. Russia's invasion of Ukraine and general unpleasantness to its pro-Western neighbors has the world wondering if it could be headed into a second Cold War.
An out-and-out Cold War, with the world carved into opposing power blocs, is unlikely at this point. Russia is now inextricably part of the global economic system, and despite its differences with NATO and the democratic West, Russia needs to participate in the system — and maintain ties with the West — to keep its economy running.
Russia has a vast array of actions it can take before it can trigger official repercussions. Provocative acts, adequately spaced, can leave an impression without generating a response. Russia is a master of this. A provocation here and there, separated in space and time, can leave an impression on policymakers without rousing their constituents into calls for action.
The Tu-95 Bear bomber, a gigantic 1950s-technology airplane with four sets of propeller engines, is not Russia's newest bomber. It is, however, the most reliable and capable of making long distance flights to whichever countries Russia wants to intimidate. Think of the Bear as Russia's ill-will ambassador to the world.
Russia sends Bear bombers to countries around the world whenever it needs to make a point. NATO has intercepted Bear bombers near Western Europe at least twice in the past three years, in August 2011 and April 2014. In June, two Bear bombers flew within 50 miles of the California coastline before turning back to Russia.
From bases in Russia's Far East, Bears periodically circumnavigate Japan, flying simulated attack runs against Japanese radar stations. Such flights are mainly done when Japan becomes especially vocal about the return of the so-called Northern Territories, four Japanese islands seized by the Soviet Union at the end of World War II. The message to Japan, which was twice attacked with nuclear weapons from bombers, is pretty unambiguous.
Sending Russian bombers to the borders of another country every day for a week frightens people — doing it once or twice a year merely baffles them. The government, on the other hand, gets the message. The Sept. 4 flight by two Russian bombers was a pointed message to the United States and NATO that Russia was not unaware of the meeting and that a consequence of NATO action in Ukraine could be nuclear war.
That's not the only reason for Russia's aggressive, in-your-face demonstrations of military power. By forcing the world to concentrate its attention on Russia's bombers, it diverts attention from the sorry state of the Russian nuclear arsenal.
Russia's nuclear armament is seen as the ultimate guarantor of the security of the state. In the 1990s, when Russia was undergoing a massive socioeconomic shift from state socialism to a market economy, Russia's military fell into more than a decade of poverty and disarray. Russia's nuclear arsenal, however, remained at a relatively high rate of readiness.
Weapons eventually wear out, and Russia's nuclear forces, the bulk of which date to the mid-1980s, are on an aggressive retirement schedule. Three out of four models of Russia's land-based nuclear missiles will be retired by 2020, with the fourth type, the SS-27 Sickle, set to gradually replace the others.
Russia's fleet of 12 nuclear missile submarines, designed to protect the country from a first strike by hiding nukes deep underwater, is old and worn out. Russia has only recently started building the new Borei-class missile submarines to replace them. On top of that, the new missiles destined to arm Russia's new submarines are experiencing a high failure rate. Out of 20 launches of the new Bulava long-range nuclear missile, at least eight failed.
The result is a Russia highly insecure about its ability to protect its borders. But instead of sitting back and looking weak, Russia is lashing out to give the impression of strength. It's a sleight-of-hand trick that downplays Russia's nuclear weaknesses to concentrate attention on its apparent strengths. Viewed holistically, Russia's nuclear firepower is a lot less intimidating than it looks.
The couldn’t hit the side of a wH much less a mosque...
You’ll bet your life, and all of ours, on that?
And we have the pansy-ass Obama as our CIC.
Yea, but we have CONTRACEPTION covered in our new healthcare plan. Try to beat that with a couple of bombers that are only able to level HUGE American cities (with bombs that likely work).
AMAZING that some people on THIS SITE think we should ignore them, or even worse, START A WAR against them in Ukraine.
They probably could hit the side of the White House. Either way, it is a moot point, they could land 5 miles away and the damage would be the same, complete destruction.
They think Ike and McArthur are still on active duty, there are 13 million men under arms and there are still 6,768 ships in the US Navy.
Stoopit article.
It’s real premise will be the follow up articles, linked sites and stealth sister sites.
The goal is the elimination of Newk yoo Lar weapons.
It is, after all, a M.A.D., M.A.D. world...
Should we make a “red line?” I wonder where we will lock our heels into the ground. I do not think the Ukraine is a good place, but it is scary to think about where we should. Western Ukraine, Lithuania, ..... Poland?
What? Our guys don’t do the same with training missions? Russia has enough problems to worry about than destroying America and western Europe. Neither side will be able to claim Victory. Ever think, maybe he is taunting us into another arms race where we will spend billions and trillions and fall apart like the USSR did?
The only reason the Russians are being so bold.
Reagan proved they were nothing but bluff and we need someone like him to stem the tide of Russian aggression.
Putin’s calculus must revolve around whether or not a first strike would be answered or if the target would go into survival mode. I have no confidence that our current “leaders” would not cave in with several tens of millions killed in a Russian first strike. If Putin spares Washington D.C. his odds are pretty good.
I don’t think there’s much danger of that with the current crop of candidates (Hillary, Fauxcohantas, Jeb, Milt, Krispy, etc.) do you?
“The couldn’t hit the side of a wH much less a mosque...”
They don’t have to - they only have to come “close”.
I'd say there's an even chance of touching off such a conflict in Syria. The Russians have always been dead serious about backing that regime. If Obama intends to use the current situation to embroil Assad's government in some contrived incident, we will be lucky to just lose a few F-18s.
As far as the general alarmist tone of the article, though, all I can do is yawn in response. I'm old enough to remember when those turboprop Tupelovs came calling regularly and our fighters would help the Bears find their way back home. I'm sure that people who began paying attention to the world around them in, say, the mid-1990s or later probably think this is horribly provocative, but to an old Cold Warrior like me, it's just the same old cat and mouse game. Perversely, there's almost something comforting about it. Like a long-delayed return to normalcy, or something.
During much of Bush 43's presidency, Russia went running to the UN for help when it felt the need to oppose us. Now, with the weakest American chief executive the world has ever beheld, the Russians are suddenly in-our-face? Gee, who could've predicted that?
I doubt that Putin really wants to fight us, but he can't stop himself from kicking sand in the 90-lb. weakling's face. He enjoys it and it plays well at home for him.
Yes, I remember in my crazy teenage years the dulcet tone and DF spikes of the MUSHROOM radars on those critters. They were a pain because you could pick them up 500 miles out which meant you had to track them for the next two hours instead of looking for Snoop Pairs. You also had to keep the JOOD from going to GQ.
I don’t think there’s much danger of that with the current crop of candidates (Hillary, Fauxcohantas, Jeb, Milt, Krispy, etc.) do you?............................. I’ll just wait and see who the Biased Media decides to back as the Republican Party Candidate. Who knows maybe they’ll pick a winner this time??? First of all, we have our first black American President, so now the country is ready for our first woman president. Don’t worry about the small stuff, either woman will see to it that Putin is put in his place. If either of the women win, listen to the roar coming over the north pole from Russia, it won’t be bombers, it will be laughter from the Kremlin.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.