by James O’Neill*
On 1 March 2018 President Vladimir Putin dressed a joint sitting of the Russian Parliament in what amounted to a State of the Union address. The speech by Putin was typically calm and comprehensive. In the speech he’s announced a wide range of social and economic measures. These included proposals to tackle poverty, labour reforms, demographic issues, infrastructure development, upgrading transport links as part of the hugely important belt and road initiative being propelled by China, development of state of the art of scientific centres, and improving health care to all citizens and particularly those in rural areas.
Putin also drew attention to the record high levels of agricultural production. Russia’s decision to be entirely GMO free will undoubtedly lead to further demand for Russian agricultural products. That decision was naturally very unwelcome to Monsanto and like companies. The deleterious consequences of GMO products are increasingly recognised in communities around the world. Being GMO free will be a competitive advantage.
A relatively small portion of Putin’s speech was devoted to military matters, but it is this component that has been seized upon by the western media. That coverage has ranged from the near hysterical to the outright skeptical. Almost none of the media coverage reflected an understanding of the Russian announcements and in particular few recognised the implications of the announcements made by Mr Putin for the geopolitical balance of power in the world.
Even fewer put Mr Putin’s announcement into its proper historical context, preferring instead to use inaccurate and pejorative epithets such as “boasts” or “threats” by the Russians toward United States and Europe. Typically there was a complete misrepresentation of Mr Putin’s character. As authoritative commentators such as Stephen Cohen and Gilbert Doctorow have repeatedly pointed out, Mr Putin is essentially a cautious man and rarely if ever makes statements without a solid factual basis.
Western commentators for the most part ignored Mr Putin’s speech to the Munich Security Conference in 2007, which would rank as one of the most important geopolitical speeches in the 21st century to date. For those few who did pay attention, the March 2018 speech would be seeing as a logical continuation of the earlier themes that Mr Putin had developed.
The specific military developments noted by Mr Putin included the following key items. It should be noted that the level of technical expertise achieved by the Russians was done with a total military budget that is less then the increase in the United States defence budget for the coming fiscal year over the current year.
– the development of a new heavy ICBM known as the RS-28 Sarmat. It has a range that encompasses the entire planet, has multiple independently targetable warheads, and it is impervious to all known Western missile defence systems.-
– a hypersonic missile weapon system with a 2000 km range. Launched from an aircraft it reaches a maximum speed of Mach 10. It can be fitted with a nuclear warhead. Code-named Kinzhal it renders all existing naval fleets obsolete.
This is of particular importance to the US Navy, which relies heavily on its aircraft carrier based fleets for power projection. They are no longer anything more than expensive floating ducks.
– a hypersonic gliding warhead that can outmanoeuvre existing missile defence systems. It has a maximum speed of Mach 20. It is code named Avangard.
These developments are on top of Russia’s existing S-400 anti-missile defence system, itself vastly superior to anything in the western defensive armoury. It has recently been provided to Turkey (a NATO member) and China and is being actively considered by a number of other countries who have traditionally bought their weaponry from the United States.
A measure of American sensitivity on this point as evidenced by their threatening Iraq with sanctions should that country proceed with its proposed purchases of the S-400 system. The rich irony of the American position escaped the local media.
The net effect of these developments is that the entirety of Russian territory is less vulnerable to attack than any other country, and that it’s retaliatory capabilities have the capacity to devastate any other nation foolish enough to attack Russia.
As noted above the response of the western media was entirely predictable. The Russian announcement has been variously described as “another example of Russian aggression”, “a threat to the security of the west,” and a “threat to start a new arms race” and so on.
This is manifestly not the case. It is more accurately described as a Russian response to more than 20 years of aggressive moves by the United States against Russia. As long ago as 2002 the United States unilaterally abandoned the antiballistic missile treaty, and has essentially disregarded the concerns of multiple countries over its aggressive foreign policy initiatives including, but not limited to, the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, and causing the destruction either directly or through its proxies of Libya and Yemen.
The United States has constantly declared that Russia and China are not merely geopolitical rivals but constitute a strategic threat to the United States. Throughout the 21st century Russia has consistently warned against the consequences of American foreign policy. At the 2007 Munich conference, Putin made an important speech, the message in which has been consistently ignored by the west.
In that speech he warned against the United States’ desire for a unipolar world, which Putin described as “pernicious not only for those within this system, but also for the sovereign itself, because it destroys itself from within.”
The historical context for this speech had two important components. George H W Bush and Mikhail Gorbachev had reached an agreement about the peaceful reunification of Germany. It included a promise by Bush that NATO would “not advance east by one inch”.
Germany was reunited, the Soviet Union split into separate sovereign states, and the Warsaw pact was disbanded. President Clinton did not honour Bush’s promise. NATO has progressively expended eastward ever since. United States military bases are now on Russia’s borders. In 2014 an American organized coup in Ukraine installed an anti-Russian puppet government. A major objective of that coup was for the Americans to take over the Russian naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea.
The people of Crimea thwarted that objective themselves by overwhelmingly voting for reunification with Russia (from whom it had been separated in 1954 by the unilateral action of the then Soviet president Khrushchev). The Crimean’s democratic expression of their preference to be reunited with Russia was entirely consistent with the United Nations Charter. Nonetheless it has been falsely vilified as an example of “Russian aggression” and consistently described as an “annexation” by the western media ever since.
In 2002 as noted above the United States unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 anti ballistic missile treaty. That treaty had been an important guarantee of relative stability between the nuclear-armed powers under the rubric of mutually assured destruction (MAD). No nation had nuclear superiority and could not start a war without themselves being annihilated.
The whole thrust of US policy since then has been to try and reach nuclear superiority, thereby making a first strike policy a nominally viable option. To describe such a policy as rational would be a massive overstatement.
The United States has shown a similar indifference to other existing nuclear weapons treaties. There are two of note, the intermediate range nuclear forces treaty (INF), and the START treaty that expires in 2019 and 2021 respectively. There is no announced intention by the United States to negotiate either an extension of these treaties or to negotiate new ones in their place.
Rather, and this was prior to Putin’s speech on 1 March, the United States had announced a $1 trillion program to upgrade its existing nuclear weapons resources. The nuclear posture review, published a little over a week ago (again before Putin’s speech) envisages the use of nuclear weapons in frontline areas, and their first use in a battlefield situation.
In his speech to the Russian Parliament Putin, in marked contrast to the belligerent tone of statements by the American president, reiterated Russia’s willingness to
” come to the negotiating table to give thought to an updated, future system of international security and the civilisation’s sustainable development.”
This was completely ignored by the western media.
It should also be noted that’s the Chinese Dong Feng (East Wind) missile systems in their various formats are equal to many of the Russian weapons. There are no equivalent systems in the western armoury. Australia has no defence against the missile systems of either Russia or China, other than the ethereal assumption that the US would come to our aid if we were attacked.
As a result of the Russian and Chinese developments, Western strategic thinking about warfare with either or both of these adversaries (as they have been designated by Pentagon position papers) is now obsolete.
Rather than engaging in hysterical denunciations of Russia’s alleged aggressiveness, a more rational response would suggest the following:
(a) the west, including Australia, needs to rethink the premises underlying it’s whole post-World War II strategic posture; and
(b) accept Putin’s invitation to sit down and negotiate fresh arrangements to try and avoid the nuclear Armageddon that existing policies inevitably foreshadow.
Unfortunately, our history is such that rather than adopt a rational response, the Russian revelations will be seen by United States military industrial complex as a perfect argument for more resources to be poured into an ultimately futile endeavour to recapture United States hegemony.
The tragedy is that not only will that futile quest divert resources from rejuvenating the collapsing US infrastructure, it’s may eventually lead to a war that will destroy us all.
*Barrister at Law and geopolitical analyst. He may be contacted at joneill@qldbar.asn.au
This is what the ABC published:
“Vladimir Putin’s nuclear comments spark fears of Cold War-scale arms race… Vladimir Putin’s boast that Russia now possesses unstoppable nuclear weapons capable of causing widespread destruction anywhere on Earth has spooked Australia and close allies, while also sparking fears of a fresh global arms race.”
Another ABC article:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-02/is-vladimir-putin-bluffing-on-nuclear-weapons/9502240
“Is Vladimir Putin bluffing or should we be worried about his new ‘miracle weapons’? [Wow]
“The source of Putin’s confidence was some major and potentially disturbing announcements about Russia’s military power. Like the US President’s State of the Union addresses, these speeches are usually intended for domestic consumption: to list the achievements of the government, to bolster morale, and to encourage the citizenry to rally behind the flag.
“A leader in need of good news — However Putin does need good news stories for a Russian public concerned about corruption, the economy, government services and standards of living.
This headline from the Independent (UK)
“Putin’s speech wasn’t aggressive – it was a plea to the US to start talking again”
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/russia-putin-trump-us-speech-weapons-wasnt-aggressive-plea-to-start-talking-a8235356.html
I’m sure a few heads turned when the target at the end of the video was FLORIDA.
As far as the Russians sitting down and talking with the Americans, I am reminded of what ‘The Saker’ wrote in one of his essays –
The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were “недоговороспособны”. What that word means is literally “not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it. For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev regime is “not-agreement-capable”, and that makes sense considering that the Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state. But to say that a nuclear world superpower is “not-agreement-capable” is a terrible and extreme diagnostic. It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and lost the very ability to make any kind of deal. Again, a government which breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as “not-agreement-capable”. That expression is only used to describe an entity which does not even have the skillset needed to negotiate and stick to an agreement in its political toolkit. This is an absolutely devastating diagnostic.
Since the Russians have come to this conclusion, then their only rational option is to prepare for war. However, the U.S. is coming apart internally, hopefully it will soon implode upon itself and save the rest of us from its insanity.
Terry, in approximately what year was the Saker article written?
Mary, unless Im wrong….
September 23, 2016
https://thesaker.is/why-the-recent-developments-in-syria-show-that-the-obama-administration-is-in-a-state-of-confused-agony/
Well the Brit empire was “coming apart internally” well before WW1 but that evidently didn’t serve to rein in the nobs
Unfortunately the public of the West have been fed that much pap over the last seventy years that they think the US is invincible. However, the US is good at starting wars, but its success rate is extremely poor. Most still believe that the US won World War II and saved Australia. That is a lie of history written by the victors. USSR won that war for the Allies. If the US hadn’t create the situation for war against Germany and Japan, Australia would not have been threatened.
Another thing that is not known by many Australians, is that when it was thought that the Japanese Forces were about to land on Western Australian soil, the first ships to evacuate Fremantle, were all of the US Navy. There are records of the Port of Fremantle, that survived, that were supposed to be destroyed, that prove this statement. Read the book “The Truth is so Precious” by Malcolm Barker.
Mal, the Russians won the war in Europe, at the cost of 28 million dead. More Russians died at the Battle of Stalingrad than all other allied losses combined for the entire war. Similarly, the Chinese did most of the fighting against Japan at a cost of 22-24 million dead.
Not according to Hollywood. Have to love Audie Murphy, John Wayne et.al.
sensor freaks continue
General Smedley Butler.
Search above with ‘ war is a racket’.
Censor limits me to about3words.
“A leader in need of good news — However Putin does need good news stories for a Russian public concerned about corruption, the economy, government services and standards of living.
Could the names of leaders (?) of the US and Australia, not be placed in this statement instead of Putin, and still be a realistic statement?
https://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Everything’s a racket.
3 words
Up yours: censoringkillers,
and the warbill stillnotpaid!
MSM got the picture now?
Sellthe ABC
Send warmongerpollies tothefrontline.
The truth about “Russian aggression” as it pertains to the Ukraine “annexation”, as told b the Russians…you won’t see this on Western media.
Have you noticed the ads on bus stops , buses , telly and the net .
Picture of a young lady barely out of her teens in camouflage combat gear with a smile .
Looks like they don’t want men anymore ! What on earth is going on ?
Ever since Gallipoli our men and now women have been fighting in overseas wars invading sovereign countries defending “our way of life” .
Are we so naive , half the population in 3 or 4 major cities . We are sitting ducks if push came to shove . If only our politicians were like Gough and actually brought our kids back home !
But instead they encourage women to be mercenaries instead of mothers .
Governments are useless and expensive and are working against us .
Think how happy we would be without unnecessary taxes and usury to finance overseas wars .
I’m taking a poll. Does anybody disapprove of the grandiosity of the stage setting at which Mr P is speaking?
Call me a spoilsport but I think it manipulates the audience.
As opposed to this one which is perfectly all right, of course.
.
Its definitely deliberate. I think its a clear message to the West too, to say ‘wake up’ and ‘don’t mess with us’.
Here’s a ‘TheRealNews’ interview entitled “The Empire Files: ‘This Ship is Sinking’ Says Former Bush Official” – one of my youtube favs ‘telling it like it is’. Here’s the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgig1QVU2lY
The Russians do not want war, they want to trade, to co-operate, and most of all, “If you don’t like us, OK, just leave us alone”.
Based on what I have been watching over the past 10 years on the web regarding Russian & Chinese weapons technology, I do hope that the lobotomized ones in the swamp both in Washington, and Canberra are listening carefully to Putin.
If they aren’t ….????
The message is very clear – DO NOT ANNOY THE RUSSIAN BEAR!
There is much overlap between China and Russia in many of the weapons systems, and the West does not match favorably on way too many counts – aircraft fighters & fighter bombers,, missiles both offensive and defensive, and weapons systems disabling technology (see https://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/11/13/aegis-fail-in-black-sea-ruskies-burn-down-uss-donald-duck/ ).
Take for instance, this turkey that we were conned into spending WAY too many tax dollars on – the F35 is still a flying disaster area and far from ready for combat duty. When you match that with the SU35 and SU50 for instance – “one Australian military analyst-turned-politician claimed would be “clubbed like baby seals” in combat “, and that was said long before either of the SU planes were off the drawing board.
So please Dear Leaders of whatever ilk, DO NOT ANNOY THE RUSSIAN BEAR!
Many of us like the planet just the way it is, so Dear Leaders, no need to change it into a nuclear slag heap.