Putin should not be given the opportunity to use military force

But what has changed is her ability with the help of military levers to translate ambitions into reality?

Source: STMED.net

Do not fall asleep again. With these words, Gudrun Persson, an expert on Russia from the Institute of Total Defense, completed a seminar on Wednesday that presented the report “Russian military potential in a ten-year perspective”.

Subscribe to Defenseweek channels in Google News or Flipboard. Available for App Store and Google Play!

Her appeal is highly intelligent.

The report of the Institute of Total Defense states that Russia’s ambitions in the field of security policy have remained unchanged for some time: it wants to be a great power that forms its sphere of interests and dictates conditions to other countries in the territories around it.

But what has changed is her ability with the help of military levers to translate ambitions into reality?

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the Russian economy in the 1990s, Russia’s potential fell sharply. Ever since Vladimir Putin came to power at the turn of the century, one of his main goals has been the creation of armed forces consistent with the country’s ambitions in the field of security policy.

The war against Georgia in 2008 was a lesson for the Kremlin. Of course, Russia won, but not at all because of the skill of its military, but simply because of the size of the country. Since then, Putin has invested large sums in the modernization of the armed forces: soldiers improved their qualifications, improved their ammunition, carried out exercises more often and made them larger.

Both the illegal annexation of Crimea and the intervention in Syria to save the executioner Assad, showed that now the Russian military is able to carry out operations necessary to achieve their goals in neighboring regions.

Researchers at the Institute of Total Defense believe that in the next ten years, Russia will still strengthen its new military potential. Her ability to take action, especially along the western borders, will continue to grow.

They also argue that Moscow’s actions are often unpredictable. This is partly due to the fact that due to the closed authoritarian regime, its behavior is difficult to interpret. But also, the growing military force does not mean omnipotence. The fact is that with the United States and NATO, the Russian armed forces still can not stand any comparison.

Therefore, Putin often acts opportunistically: where and when he strikes depends on the opportunities that have arisen at one time or another. In both Syria and Ukraine, Russia saw a chance to fill the vacuum left after Western countries.

On the one hand, this means that when it comes to Putin, you should never lose your vigilance. On the other hand, that it can be kept at a distance if you take good care of defense.

The war in Georgia made Moscow think and led to a significant modernization of the Russian armed forces. Stockholm should have learned a lesson from it. Nevertheless, only the annexation of Crimea in 2014 forced Swedish politicians to truly wake up and start belatedly arming their military. We also began to fill in the voids that were once left in our defense and which were best symbolized by defenseless Gotland.

Despite the fact that there are still disputes in the defense committee, the Social Democrats and the Alliance parties have finally reached a fairly stable agreement that we need more soldiers, warships and fighters. Everyone also supports the idea that, for our safety, we must cooperate with the United States, despite the unpredictability of the current American president.

But what Swedish politicians – especially the Social Democrats – do not want to realize in any way, is that it is better to do all this as a member of NATO. [end]

Comments are closed.