Putin: “Publish a World Map and Mark All the U.S. Military Bases on It; You Will See the Difference Between Russia and the U.S.”
Vladimir Putin:
Russia
does not speak with anyone in a contentious tone, and in such matters,
to quote a political figure from the past, Otto von Bismarck, it is not
discussions but the potential that counts.
What does the actual potential show?
US military spending is higher than that of all countries in the world taken together. The aggregate military spending of NATO countries is 10
times, note – 10 times higher than that of the Russian Federation.
Russia has virtually no bases abroad. We have the remnants of our armed
forces (since Soviet times) in Tajikistan, on the border with
Afghanistan, which is an area where the terrorist threat is particularly
high. The same role is played by our airbase in Kyrgyzstan; it is also
aimed at addressing the terrorist threat and was set up at the request
of the Kyrgyz authorities after a terrorist attack perpetrated by
terrorists from Afghanistan on Kyrgyzstan.
We have kept since Soviet times a military
unit at a base in Armenia. It plays a certain stabilising role in the
region, but it is not targeted against anyone. We have dismantled our
bases in various regions of the world, including Cuba, Vietnam, and so
on. This means that our policy in this respect is not global, offensive
or aggressive.
I invite you to publish the world map in
your newspaper and to mark all the US military bases on it. You will see
the difference.
Sometimes I am asked about our airplanes
flying somewhere far, over the Atlantic Ocean. Patrolling by strategic
airplanes in remote regions was carried out only by the Soviet Union and
the United States during the Cold War. In the early 1990s, we, the new,
modern Russia, stopped these flights, but our American friends
continued to fly along our borders. Why? Some years ago, we resumed
these flights. And you want to say that we have been aggressive?
American submarines are on permanent alert
off the Norwegian coast; they are equipped with missiles that can reach
Moscow in 17 minutes. But we dismantled all of our bases in Cuba a long
time ago, even the non-strategic ones. And you would call us aggressive?
You yourself have mentioned NATO’s
expansion to the east. As for us, we are not expanding anywhere; it is
NATO infrastructure, including military infrastructure, that is moving
towards our borders. Is this a manifestation of our aggression?
Finally, the United States unilaterally
withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was to a large
extent the cornerstone of the entire international security system.
Anti-missile systems, bases and radars are located in the European
territory or in the sea, e.g. in the Mediterranean Sea, and in Alaska.
We have said many times that this undermines international security. Do
you think this is a display of our aggression as well?
Everything we do is just a response to the
threats emerging against us. Besides, what we do is limited in scope and
scale, which are, however, sufficient to ensure Russia’s security. Or
did someone expect Russia to disarm unilaterally?
I have proposed to our American partners
not to withdraw from the treaty unilaterally, but to create an ABM
system together, the three of us: Russia, the United States and Europe.
But this proposal was declined. We said at the time: “Well, this is an
expensive system, its efficiency is not proven, but to ensure the
strategic balance we will develop our strategic offensive potential, we
will develop systems of overpowering anti-ballistic defence. And I have
to say that we have made significant strides in this area.
As for some countries’ concerns about
Russia’s possible aggressive actions, I think that only an insane person
and only in a dream can imagine that Russia would suddenly attack NATO.
I think some countries are simply taking advantage of people’s fears
with regard to Russia. They just want to play the role of front-line
countries that should receive some supplementary military, economic,
financial or some other aid. Therefore, it is pointless to support this
idea; it is absolutely groundless. But some may be interested in
fostering such fears. I can only make a conjecture.
For example, the Americans do not want
Russia’s rapprochement with Europe. I am not asserting this, it is just a
hypothesis. Let’s suppose that the United States would like to maintain
its leadership in the Atlantic community. It needs an external threat,
an external enemy to ensure this leadership. Iran is clearly not enough –
this threat is not very scary or big enough. Who can be frightening?
And then suddenly this crisis unfolds in Ukraine. Russia is forced to
respond. Perhaps, it was engineered on purpose, I don’t know. But it was
not our doing.
Let me tell you something – there is no
need to fear Russia. The world has changed so drastically that people
with some common sense cannot even imagine such a large-scale military
conflict today. We have other things to think about, I assure you.
No comments:
Post a Comment