Military Review

Russia also has its own interests (Česká Pozice, Czech Republic)

52
Russia also has its own interests (Česká Pozice, Czech Republic)



The key to understanding the interests and motives of Russia and its leadership is its история and geography. Understanding Russian policy does not mean its acceptance or approval, but it is necessary for a realistic, and therefore successful, strategy towards Russia.

Disputes about Russia, its president Vladimir Putin and her actions lack realism. After all, most of the opinions are distributed on a scale from naive Russophilism to uncompromising Russophobia. Emotions play a big role. Some idealize Russia or make it a victim of the West, while others would prefer to erase it from the world map and do not recognize the right of the Russian Federation to determine and defend their own interests. But neither side takes into account the motivation of Russian politics. For the former, this would mean the loss of ideals, and for the latter, the desecration of ideological ideas.

Understanding the motivation of Russian policy is not a step towards its adoption or approval, but it is necessary for a realistic, and therefore successful, strategy towards Russia. The West can achieve with it an acceptable level of cooperation, only on the basis of a realistic analysis of Russian interests.
All the same effort

British statesman Winston Churchill (1874 – 1965) spoke about Soviet Russia, despite its communist ideology, that Russian interests are key to it. Thanks to the knowledge of her history, Churchill saw in them repetitive processes and constant goals. In his opinion, Russian interests do not change, and they are more than usual determined by three factors: historical experience, geography and a desire to enter the pleiad of great powers. However, all this is deformed under the influence of fears and fears.

The Russian state has no natural barriers that would protect it. From the time of Tsar Ivan the Terrible (1530 – 1584), Russia is responding to this by creating new buffer zones that allow it to mobilize against the aggressor. Owing to this defense strategy, the largest state in the world arose by attack. However, Russia did not get rid of the feeling of uncertainty, and the vast territory does not provide it with the status of power.

This status is determined by the use of force anywhere in the world, and Russia is hampered by the fact that it does not have an ice-free port. Therefore, since the time of Tsar Peter the Great (1672 – 1725), his successors have been striving to reach Constantinople and the Indian Ocean, and throughout practically the entire XIX century the British had to prevent Russian penetration into India, as well as establishing control over the Bosphorus and Dardanelles. For several hundred years, the same striving has been affecting Russian foreign policy - by expansion to ensure security for ourselves and to get out to warm seas, thereby confirming Russia's status as a power.

Past as a guide

Russian history is permeated by military interventions - not only Russian abroad, but also foreign ones. No matter how paradoxical it may sound, but Russia was often the victim of foreign aggression: after the Mongols almost destroyed the Russian people, there was an intervention by the Poles, the Swedes, the French, the British and the Germans.

In addition, the Russians do not perceive history in a linear fashion, as is customary in the West - for them it is an iterative process. Napoleon and Hitler attacked through Poland, so this attack can be repeated, despite the current events. The fact that today in Europe no one wants to attack Russia is of no importance for the followers of the traditions of Ivan the Terrible.

In the 1930 year, there certainly were no signs that in just 11 years the German army would rush to Moscow. And in 1989, no one expected that in 20 years, most of the members of the Warsaw Pact would be included in the European Union and NATO. The Russian leadership is convinced that the past is a much better guide to the future than it is to the present. The Russian past is full of fears, which is confirmed by former US President Ronald Reagan (1911 – 2004) in his memoirs, when he writes about how surprised Russian fear, who feared the American attack on the USSR, was.

Expansion

If we talk about Russia's desire to be a power - and the collective identity of Russians requires their homeland to be a power and accordingly respected - then the national scale is of great importance for them. Despite Stalin’s cruelty, they glorify him because he made Russia a superpower. And because the Russians support Putin, although his policy brought Western sanctions to Russia and a decline in living standards.

The Russian understanding of the sovereign status includes, first of all, force, especially military as well as geopolitical potential. It is typical for Russia to pursue its national interests without taking into account economic problems, and this trend will continue. In fact, Russians use every opportunity for expansion, but some regions are more important to them than others.

If we are talking about their key interests, the Russians are uncompromising - in other cases they are diplomatically flexible and ready to make concessions, especially if the enemy is unyielding. In Russian history, a similar algorithm confirms, for example, the concession of Czar Alexander I (1777 – 1825) at the Vienna Congress in 1814-1815, the obsession of Stalin with Poland and his indifference to Greece, where he did not support the communist uprising, the Soviet rejection of the Berlin blockade, as well as the Cuban crisis.

Ukraine

The above is confirmed by Russian actions in Ukraine and in Syria. Ukraine is of great geopolitical importance for Russia, because if Ukraine was controlled by a hostile power, it would have kept Russia in its fist. In Crimea, the Russians have a military port, which gives them access to warm seas, even if limited to the Bosphorus.
Russia has always clearly stated that it will not allow Ukraine to become part of Western structures. Western unwillingness to listen to this statement and understand its motivation, thus preparing for the Russian steps, contributed to the aggravation of the Ukrainian crisis to the same extent as the aggressive Russian policy.

Any dispute between the powers can be reduced to the question of whether they are ready to go to war because of it. In the Ukrainian crisis - from the annexation of the Crimea through Russian soldiers in Ukraine right up to the current situation - the rule of its development remains unchanged: Russia cannot do without Ukraine and the Crimea, and the West can. Russia is ready because of Ukraine to wage war, but the West is not.

The West was saved from the fiasco by a structurally weak Russian economy and its dependence on oil and gas exports. Lower commodity prices reduced Russian budget revenues and provoked an economic crisis. However, this should not reassure the West, because Crimea belongs to Russia, and Ukraine will not become a member of Western structures in the foreseeable future.

Syria

During the economic crisis and despite many predictions that the Putin regime would collapse, Russia unexpectedly supported the regime of President Bashar al-Assad in Syria, thereby emerging from international isolation after the annexation of the Crimea. In addition, it was the first military operation of a non-Western power abroad since the end of the Cold War.

But the main thing is that within a few months the Russians prevented the collapse of the Assad army, helped it advance and return many territories, and then left without allowing themselves to be drawn into the conflict, as before in Afghanistan, or as it happened with the Americans in Iraq. The Russian goal was not to strengthen the position of Assad, because for Russia it has no fundamental significance. However, the limited time support suggests that the Russian Federation is interested in recognizing its sovereign status.

Syria is designed to show that Russia is not only capable of conducting operations abroad, but is one without whom the problem of the Syrian civil war cannot be solved. Where and how the Russians will use their support for Assad is not clear yet, but undoubtedly they want to settle relations with the US and Europe and cover up the collision in one crisis with cooperation in another in order to confirm their position in both crises: they will not give up Ukraine, but Syria for anything exchanged.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

By his actions, Russian President Putin continues the foreign policy of the kings and secretaries general of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Putin’s goal is to strengthen the Russian sphere of influence and secure the key interests of his country. Some commentators and politicians shouted hysterically that Putin is the modern Hitler, and the Crimea is the Sudetenland. But if the Russian president really was Hitler, today he would have seized half of Europe.

Putin teetered on the edge, but always so as not to provoke a real confrontation with the West. The president assumed that Crimea would get away with it, because the West would not fight because of the peninsula. Putin did not go to Kiev, although many predicted this, and there was no one to stop the Russian troops. But the president was content with provoking and coordinating unrest in eastern Ukraine — that was enough for Putin’s intentions.

To achieve Russian goals, Putin has always chosen the least aggressive tactics in order to preserve the strategic advantage that the West is not as interested in Ukraine as Russia, but a ground invasion could change this balance. After all, it could push the West to retaliate, which Russia could not withstand for a long time. Russia can tactically defeat the United States where they have no key interests, or where they conduct erroneous policies, but Russia will not endure a long-term clash.

Irrelevant principle

Perhaps Putin wants to restore the Soviet sphere of influence, but his real policy is more prudent. He is not a madman who wants to start the Third World War, but a virtuoso of real politics. He managed to get the Crimea and make sure that Ukraine did not become a member of Western structures, all without real and continuous confrontation with the West. Western sanctions are just an attempt to save face, and they will soon end. Today, Putin is seeking to normalize relations with the West, for which he uses the intervention in Syria, which confirms the agreement on Syria with the United States.

The main thing is that the West should take Russian interests as a fact. Despite the fact that Russia violated international law and acted as an aggressor, for her it was reasonable steps, because they were taken in the most urgent interests - to ensure security. And in this respect, Russia behaves in the same way as some other powers.

The principle of self-determination and non-interference, which the West presented in Ukraine, is commendable and theoretically correct, but Russia's readiness to disregard it for the sake of its interests makes it irrelevant if the West is not ready to defend this principle as its key interest. He can pretend that international relations are not determined solely by states, their interests and power, but in this case, the West will lie.

Historical experience

The West will not succeed with a position based on theoretical and practical rejection of the fact that Russians have interests that the West does not like. However, understanding the recognition that Russia has such interests and that it will defend them does not mean their support. Knowledge of the interests and motivation of the major powers has always been a prerequisite for the functioning of the international system.

No matter what the West chooses - cooperation with Russia, its ousting or something in between - he must recognize Russian interests and their significance for the Russian Federation. Otherwise, Western policy will be irresponsible and ineffective, and the West will not be able to foresee Russian behavior. This would be a roulette game, where safety and reliability are at stake, as happened in Ukraine.

The advantage of the West is that Russian interests are, in fact, transparent and predictable. Therefore, the West can take its every step, based on the alleged Russian reaction, and respond to every Russian action in accordance with how it agrees with Russian interests. From the history it follows that the Russians are uncompromising when it comes to their key interests, as is the case with Ukraine. But in other cases it is possible to negotiate with them, cooperate or persuade to concessions, as it happens in Syria.

Chimera absolute security

It should be assumed that the Russians will want to increase their influence. However, some regions are key for them. Putin will do anything for Russian interests and use any opportunity for this, but from his previous policy it follows that he does not want a prolonged confrontation with the West. In relations with Russia, the West must realistically assess its own interests and make it clear what it will not yield to.

In the case of key Russian interests, the West should carefully consider whether to interfere in them and how it will respond to the Russian reaction. It is also necessary to avoid simplifications, the consequence of which is hysterical hostility towards Russia or arrogant contempt for it. In addition, the West must take into account the attractive, but in fact problematic, concept of absolute security, which emerged after the Cold War.

After all, absolute security in international relations is just a chimera, and the desire for it often entails unintended consequences, which, rather, reduce security. An example is the German Empire before the First World War. While the first German chancellor Otto von Bismarck (1815 – 1898) was engaged in its foreign policy, Germany fought its panic fear of war on two fronts in a diplomatic way.

Bismarck created networks of intersecting diplomatic alliances and agreements that isolated France and Russia, and put Great Britain against them. However, the successors of Bismar decided to strengthen the German position, strengthening the army and refusing diplomacy. In a short time they managed to unite the three former rivals - the UK, France and Russia - into the anti-German coalition.

Not only power

Bismarck knew that in relations with these countries it was impossible to rely only on the number of German divisions and their armament. And although the chancellor understood that the army was important, he was thinking the same about diplomacy. Bismarck considered the army and diplomacy communicating vessels, which, however, can not be combined. Diplomacy in international relations removes the tension that builds up between the powers and their interests. As soon as everything begins to be reduced to military capabilities, and diplomacy becomes a tool for military planning, war soon breaks out. After all, the method of relieving tension is lost.

Bismarck maintained good diplomatic relations with Russia, not because he admired her, but because he was afraid of her. The West and NATO, like Bismarck, should look for a way between strengthening military capabilities in Eastern Europe to repel a possible Russian attack and striving to convey to the Russian Federation that the defense of this part of Europe is taken seriously and, if necessary, the alliance will not hesitate. Of course, the West should not abandon the military solution and limit its military capabilities, because the Russians, better than anyone else, will feel weak and take advantage of it. But relying only on force is not worth it.

In the first case, in Eastern Europe and the Baltic States would have to place hundreds of thousands of NATO soldiers, to which Russia would respond by strengthening its own military forces. In the second case there would be a simultaneous strengthening of military forces with equipment and supplies, as well as an expansion of defense systems, military exercises and diplomacy. The best defense of the Baltic states is the threat of a war with NATO, and not the deployment of such a number of soldiers that could repel a potential Russian strike, which, by the way, is unrealistic.

Baltic

So far, fortunately, NATO is choosing the second path: a few fighters and a hundred military will not stop a possible Russian invasion. This is not about being measured by military forces or showing them - this is a diplomatic signal. The Alliance gives Moscow to understand that it will defend its members, but its military units are not so large as to give the Russian the impression that NATO is preparing for an attack. Against the NATO base in Eastern Europe was the Czech General Peter Pavel, who does not take a naive pro-Russian position, and, according to which, it is best to strengthen the infrastructure and activate NATO exercises.

If Putin thinks pragmatically, he understood that signal. If NATO fell apart, Putin, of course, would try to point out the failure of the alliance and expand the Russian sphere of influence. But NATO does not break up and demonstrates, at least in Eastern Europe, self-confidence and awareness of the Russian threat. And although the Russian invasion of the Baltic cannot be ruled out, this probability is low. Putin knows how to evaluate forces, so he knows that in a few days he will be able to seize the Baltic States, but he will not win the war with NATO.

In connection with the desire for absolute security, it is necessary to understand that even during the Cold War, NATO in Europe did not have as many traditional forces as the Soviet Union, much less had the advantage or the slightest chance to stop the Soviet invasion. And then the threat was much greater. The West relied on intimidation - not only nuclear, but also that the USSR could not be compared with its military capabilities with the United States.

Consequence of weak politics


Despite the fact that during the Cold War the arms race was conducted and the threat of military confrontation constantly existed, intensive diplomatic negotiations were continuously held. Diplomacy was not a reward from the West to friendly states, but a tool for regulating relations with states with dissimilar interests. The diplomatic prerequisite was the ability to determine one’s own interests and foresee them from other countries. This was perceived as a fact, and not as a topic for discussion with the aim of convincing the adversary that his interests were not genuine.

If, despite this, there was a clash, force was used to achieve their own goals. That is, something opposite to the actions of the West in Ukraine took place, where he did not take into account Russian interests, and when a conflict happened, he retreated. Russia can be a rival, an ally, and from time to time a partner. However, all these relationships should be based on a realistic analysis of interests.

There are areas between the West and Russia for both clashes and cooperation. The key to understanding the interests and motivation of Russia and its leadership is its history and geography, from which differentiation of Russian interests and reactions follows. At the same time, Russian statements and actions that rather serve propaganda or domestic political goals should not be taken into account.

In addition, it is necessary to come to terms with reality: Russia will not allow Ukraine to enter into Western structures, and in the West there is no will to achieve this inclusion. However, Ukraine can become a buffer state that economically cooperates with both the West and Russia.

It is necessary to fulfill the obligation to defend all NATO member countries, but to do so in such a way as not to build up weapons. That is, the policy should take precedence over military planning. The union of Russia and China, as a result of a weak, as well as provocative policy of the West, is not in the interests of the latter, because, unlike Ukraine’s rejection of NATO, this alliance can really threaten the Western position. By its hysterical rejection of Russia, the West does not help Ukraine, but supports the alliance between Russia and China.
Author:
Originator:
http://ceskapozice.lidovky.cz/zapad-by-si-mel-realisticky-uvedomit-ze-i-rusko-ma-sve-zajmy-pq2-/tema.aspx?c=A160603_135409_pozice-tema_lube%20
52 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. ALABAY45
    ALABAY45 10 June 2016 09: 15
    +12
    "... At the same time, one should not take into account Russian statements ..."
    Something, I think it's worth it, dear (Andrej Duhan) ...?! Here it is, that very "Czech bleating" ....
    1. Stalker.1977
      Stalker.1977 10 June 2016 10: 14
      +4
      Regular calculations of a liberalist, I don’t understand who he wants to bend over, by the way, his knowledge of history is lame and interpreted in his favor, in short the minus article.
      1. volot-voin
        volot-voin 10 June 2016 10: 40
        0
        Quote: Stalker.1977
        Regular calculations of a liberalist, I don’t understand who he wants to bend over

        Wants to voice his independent point of view. Like "and those are wrong, and these .... we must understand Russia so ....." From his bell tower, he is right, the words of her husband.
        We would have answered "Vaska listens, but eats", undoubtedly Russia has its own interests, and what is important is strong armed forces and economic backlog that guard its interests. And the stronger these factors, the more we sneeze at opinions from overseas, the British Isle, and the European Union.
        "They will not buy, we will turn off the gas" (kf. Brilliant hand, phrase of the house manager)
    2. RUS96
      RUS96 10 June 2016 10: 19
      +4
      "no ice-free ports" -
      The port of Kavkaz is located in the Kerch Strait, on the northwestern coast of the Spit Chushka
      Administratively, the port of Kavkaz is assigned to the port of Temryuk and is in the control zone of the maritime administration of the ports of Temryuk and Kavkaz. In the autumn-winter period, the port practically does not freeze and is accessible for vessels to call.

      Klaipeda port is the northernmost ice-free port on the East coast of the Baltic Sea; it is the most important and largest transport center of the Republic of Lithuania, which combines sea and land roads in the directions of East and West.

      The seaport in Trinity Bay (the former port of Zarubino) is an ice-free port in the south of the Russian Far East.
      The port is located at the junction of the borders of Russia, China, North Korea and the maritime border with Japan, and is a convenient sea gate for goods of foreign trade of Russia, the northeastern provinces of China, as well as Mongolia. The port is of interest as a transit hub for handling goods from the provinces of northeast China and in the opposite direction. These are cargoes to Japan, to the western coast of the USA, Canada, ports of other countries of the Asia-Pacific region.
      The port is open to Russian and foreign ships and has international status.

      The city of Novorossiysk was founded on September 12, 1838, on the shore of the deepest ice-free Tsemess Bay on the Black Sea.

      Murmansk Commercial Sea Port is the largest non-freezing port in Russia. This harsh northern region is rich in natural resources.

      Vladivostok Sea Fishing Port is located on the southern shore of the Golden Horn Bay. The non-freezing Golden Horn Bay is well protected from the winds and has year-round navigation.
      1. volot-voin
        volot-voin 10 June 2016 10: 43
        0
        Quote: RUS96
        Murmansk Commercial Sea Port is the largest non-freezing port in Russia.

        Yes, the Gulfstream flows to Murmansk.
  2. avvg
    avvg 10 June 2016 09: 15
    +2
    Russia has its own interests, but unlike the West, it never attacked anyone.
    1. Lieutenant Izhe
      Lieutenant Izhe 10 June 2016 10: 06
      -6
      Russia has its own interests, but unlike the West, it never attacked anyone.

      belay Didn't it "attack"? crying
      lol and SAME:
      (Ermak Timofeevich) - The Conquest of Siberia ...
      Peter I with his Azov campaigns and the "Windows to Europe" cabin;
      Catherine II - "annexed" Novorossiya;
      Alexander-I - military campaign to Finland (with accession) 1808 \ 11gg.
      he is the annexation of Dagestan in 1820 (General Ermolov)
      he - the annexation of the "Kingdom of Poland" in 1815.
      Nicholas -I - began military campaigns in Central Asia from 1853 ...

      SOVIET RUSSIA - The Soviet-Finnish War of 1940.
      1939-1940 - accession to the USSR of the Baltic states, Western Belarus, Bessarabia
      attack on Japan in Aug.1945
      (Breaking the Neutrality Treaty)
      1979 - the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan

      PS I give you this picture, in quality, a bonus ...

      (although, it will hardly be clear to you .. "Her innermost meaning" wassat
      1. ALABAY45
        ALABAY45 10 June 2016 10: 22
        +7
        "... Didn't you really" attack "? ..."
        True! hi She (Russia) mastered the unclaimed lands .. Proceeding from the list of territories you designated, you propose to return everything ?! And, will we be happy ?! And, a picture, I know: A.L. Kudrin ... "Childhood of a Liberal" (oil on canvas) ...
        1. The comment was deleted.
        2. Lieutenant Izhe
          Lieutenant Izhe 10 June 2016 10: 32
          -6
          She (Russia) mastered unclaimed lands ..

          Yeah, yeah ... verily, SO! : belay
          only in these "wastelands" was there a "non-Russian" state government represented by kings, princes, khans ... wink
          1. ALABAY45
            ALABAY45 10 June 2016 10: 42
            +1
            Well, now, these are not our problems! We will not dispute the results of history ... So, and, to "modern Ukraine" not far! No?! Still, will we return or leave, everything as it is ?!
          2. Stalker.1977
            Stalker.1977 10 June 2016 12: 19
            0
            Forgive anyone.
          3. serezhasoldatow
            serezhasoldatow 10 June 2016 12: 35
            +2
            Mister lieutenant, you are on the way of the Yabloko people. No need to sing other people's songs.
          4. vikmar64
            vikmar64 10 June 2016 13: 33
            +5
            Quote: Lieutenant Izhe
            She (Russia) mastered unclaimed lands ..

            Yeah, yeah ... verily, SO! : belay
            only in these "wastelands" was there a "non-Russian" state government represented by kings, princes, khans ... wink

            For example, in Finland, there was no statehood as such. Finns got the state identity from the hands of Russia. There were also no state entities in Siberia. In fact, Yermak’s campaign is a development of territories, not conquest. If we consider joining in Asia, so all joining was contractual, while maintaining the position of local elites and maintaining local customs. And in many cases the territories were annexed at the direct request of the locals.
            Half of Europe and part of Asia received statehood from the hands of Russia (USSR) http://politikus.ru/articles/70492-polovina-evropy-i-chast-azii-poluchila-gosuda
            rstvennost-iz-ruk-rossii-sssr.html
          5. russkiy redut
            russkiy redut 10 June 2016 20: 04
            +1
            What about the USA and the Indians who were cut and driven into the reservation? smile
        3. Corporal Valera
          Corporal Valera 10 June 2016 11: 15
          +3
          Quote: Lieutenant Izhe
          (Ermak Timofeevich) - The Conquest of Siberia ...

          What, say, state Yermak attacked?
          Quote: Lieutenant Izhe
          Peter I with his Azov campaigns and the "Windows to Europe" cabin;

          Shaw, Russia also unleashed the Northern War? And on the Azov Tatars and Turks behaved themselves decently?
          Quote: Lieutenant Izhe
          Catherine II - "annexed" Novorossiya;

          And Mustafa 3 was an ethnic Russian? Was there a guy from Ryazan?
          Quote: Lieutenant Izhe
          SOVIET RUSSIA - The Soviet-Finnish War of 1940.

          And what about the "peaceful" Finns with Hitler then? If we were smart enough, we would have gone to the exchange of territories or the creation of a Soviet base, otherwise it would not have smiled at us either, that they democratically bombarded Leningrad with cannons. And the blockade was enough.
          Quote: ALABAY45
          1939-1940 - accession to the USSR of the Baltic states, Western Belarus, Bessarabia

          So they returned back to their place. No one else was taken. They honestly bought the Baltic states
          Quote: Lieutenant Izhe
          attack on Japan in Aug.1945
          (Breaking the Neutrality Treaty)

          And why the hell did the neutral Japanese before the age of 43 attack our convoys? And actually, Japan was a state aggressor, no?
          Quote: Lieutenant Izhe
          1979 - the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan

          At the request of the government of this country
          1. Corporal Valera
            Corporal Valera 10 June 2016 11: 50
            +2
            By the way, I forgot to ask, from which state-state did we take away Western Belarus? The Polish government, it seems, was already in full force in London.
        4. Lieutenant Izhe
          Lieutenant Izhe 10 June 2016 13: 32
          0
          And, a picture, I know: A.L. Kudrin ... "Childhood of a Liberal" (oil on canvas) ...

          no..Sovrasov "The Rooks (in the diary) are NEW!" laughing
          1. ALABAY45
            ALABAY45 10 June 2016 13: 45
            0
            Fedor Reshetnikov
            "Deuce again." 1952
            Canvas, oil. 101 × 93 cm
            State Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow
            Are you out of sorts ?! It happens....
      2. realist
        realist 10 June 2016 12: 03
        +1
        to join and be a part is not the same as to conquer! America was conquered, the Indians were exterminated, China was conquered, the Chinese were crushed, the Yermak went to Siberia with 840 Cossacks — do you really think that is enough for a military conquest?
      3. russkiy redut
        russkiy redut 10 June 2016 20: 01
        0
        Understand the causes of these wars. And also who was the first who attacked, who committed raids, stole into slavery. Who then owned the territory of present-day Finland?
      4. Lieutenant Izhe
        Lieutenant Izhe 10 June 2016 22: 53
        0
        the idiotic and worthless level BELOW the secondary education minSYEROF- URYapododreotOFF-MUCHING ... request
        well, read at least something (other than labels), go! crying
      5. Lieutenant Izhe
        Lieutenant Izhe 11 June 2016 01: 05
        0
        morons-patriots ... you, apart from the LABELS, have NOT READ NICKER, bl.d-bastards are IMBIC! angry
  3. vorobey
    vorobey 10 June 2016 09: 16
    +3
    seafarers ... you are gradually drained ... hi
  4. Dam
    Dam 10 June 2016 09: 18
    +2
    Wow, the "depth" of thought is what. Well, if the European man in the street wants a presentation of events in a primitive way, then God is with him. Progress on the face, not a word about bears, vodka, balalaika and vicious aggressors
  5. Wiruz
    Wiruz 10 June 2016 09: 18
    +11
    I would not be surprised if the author of this article, in his homeland, is treated the same as we are to our liberal traitors.

    We, reading his articles, say, "There are still adequate people in Europe"; in the West, reading our Navalny - "Not all Russians support the tyrant-Putin"

    Everyone has their own truth request
  6. Vladimirets
    Vladimirets 10 June 2016 09: 18
    +2
    "This status is determined by the use of force anywhere in the world, and Russia is hampered by the fact that it does not have an ice-free port."

    Or maybe Russia simply does not want to use force "anywhere in the world"? Maybe we, like some, do not have the desire to become a world hegemon? Maybe we just want to be reckoned with, especially in matters of vital importance to us?
  7. Dr. Barmaley
    Dr. Barmaley 10 June 2016 09: 19
    +12
    Russia also has its own interests


    Can not be!!!
  8. A-Sim
    A-Sim 10 June 2016 09: 31
    +2
    What dualism in the head of the author ... One can only envy.

    And fix it stronger ... Orderlies !!!
  9. vdovinab
    vdovinab 10 June 2016 09: 33
    +2
    Delirium sofa!
  10. Ros 56
    Ros 56 10 June 2016 09: 33
    +2
    Almost so, but not so, there are a lot of unaccounted for or even strained, but very important circumstances, and this reduces the value of the article to the usual crackle. They (the West) would like it so much, but reality is more complicated and simpler at the same time.
  11. Andrey Skokovsky
    Andrey Skokovsky 10 June 2016 09: 34
    +1
    the Polish paratrooper was not at a loss and opened a reserve parachute,
    judging by the height and the fact that the parachute partially opened, the situation was very ambiguous, in short the Pole was well done.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=53&v=QhgzqP0SGsI
  12. Lelek
    Lelek 10 June 2016 09: 39
    +4
    Posted by Andrej Duhan

    The article is long, boring and evokes "de ja vu" that all this has already been written and read hundreds of times. I did not mark the author, let it be on his personal scales.
    1. Penzuck
      Penzuck 10 June 2016 10: 22
      0
      They copy each other as a blueprint ... The only difference is in the degree of "Russophobia / Russophilism" of the author and in small insignificant nuances. And the constant clichés: "The annexation of Crimea," "violation of international law," "intervention in Syria," "Bashar al-Assad's regime"!
  13. atamankko
    atamankko 10 June 2016 09: 48
    0
    They want to equate us to dwarf states,
    no need, Russia is a great and mighty power.
    1. Pinkie F.
      Pinkie F. 10 June 2016 10: 00
      0
      Quote: atamankko
      Russia is a great and mighty power.

      Well, yes, but the author is not sure about this:
      However, Russia did not get rid of the feeling of uncertainty, and the vast territory does not provide it with the status of a power.

      that is, in the Czech Republic, we are still in search of sovereignty, therefore. They attribute to us European hamletism and reflective search. Powers, Mlyn, no, but there are interests.
  14. ovod84
    ovod84 10 June 2016 09: 50
    +1
    The normal article explains to the Czechs about Putin’s policies, everything is clear to us, and it’s not yet clear to them.
    1. Pinkie F.
      Pinkie F. 10 June 2016 10: 09
      +2
      Quote: ovod84
      Normal article explains Czechs about Putin’s policies

      she doesn't explain anything. The leitmotif is that Russia always promotes its interests with bayonets. We are aggressive and dangerous. We perceive history not linearly, as "civilized," but spirally-chaotically, accepting their values ​​as challenges to our identity. We act impudently and awkwardly, laying around buffer zones. And so on blah blah blah.
    2. dvornic
      dvornic 10 June 2016 10: 41
      0
      The article is moronic! Hardly mastered less than half. "The Russians live in fear that the Americans will attack." Marasmus! Tell me at least one Soviet or Russian film where the Americans attacked Russia or the USSR? Or is it Russian generals thrown out of the windows shouting: "The Russians are coming."
  15. Banishing liberoids
    Banishing liberoids 10 June 2016 09: 51
    -1
    I didn’t understand the photo-the president that already cananize in vivo? laughing
    1. V.ic
      V.ic 10 June 2016 10: 19
      0
      Quote: Exorcist Liberoids
      I didn’t understand the photo.ananize in vivo?

      ..anАbash and canОthey are different concepts and should not be combined.
  16. olimpiada15
    olimpiada15 10 June 2016 10: 06
    +4
    "Ukraine can become a buffer state that economically cooperates with both Europe and Russia"

    Ukraine was such a state, before the coup, arranged by the west. And she had a lot of nishtyak from this.

    And Russia was touched not by a change of leaders, but by the Nazis coming to power.
    No matter what they say in the west, the coup was carried out using fascists-Bendera trained by the West, and the new leadership of Ukraine were not the people leaders of the coup, but parsley, appointed overseas patrons who relied on fascist permissiveness.
    If not for these circumstances, there would be no resistance from the southeast, no ATO, no devastation, no shed blood, no sacrifices. But the United States and the West will never admit their guilt in the destruction of Ukraine. And the true face of world hegemon and exemplary Western civilization is not to admit that the tragedies of peoples are their fault.
  17. Flinky
    Flinky 10 June 2016 10: 15
    +1
    An article written by a Czech for Czechs ... Nothing new for us.
  18. zulusuluz
    zulusuluz 10 June 2016 10: 19
    0
    The author’s bell tower is low, his horizons are not enough. He writes, it seems true, but at the same time he himself is very, very one-sided. Although maybe this is a consequence of life in the West? As Zadornov talked about dialogue with the Baltic states:
    - You are Russian, very aggressive.
    - Why not?
    - You attacked the Swedes on Lake Peipsi "...
  19. black
    black 10 June 2016 10: 25
    +1
    The proud carriers of European civilization, beautifully for themselves, are trying to explain why it is necessary to cooperate with Russia. European civilization is a civilization of lies. They will always do what is beneficial. There is no, on planet Earth, developed autonomous economies. There are none of them. Sanctions are a double-edged sword. Europeans are weak in history, but strong in economics. Concrete bankers, entrepreneurs, and agricultural producers need Russia. And they do not give a shit to Ukraine, with which there is nothing to take. And this whole article, with a bunch of beautiful and smart words - garbage, husk. Once again, they failed to bend Russia. Now a beautifully furnished retreat.
  20. silver_roman
    silver_roman 10 June 2016 10: 30
    0
    As a result of this attack defense strategy

    Something I don’t remember that we were the first to attack ... there are of course a couple of exceptions like Finland, but again there were different motives.
    The strategy of Russia over the 20th century was to stretch the front, disperse the enemy and take into the ring certain parts of the enemy army. A huge area allowed it.
    after the Mongols nearly destroyed the Russian people, there was an intervention of the Poles, Swedes, French, British and Germans.

    Yeah, Russia was under the occupation of the Mongols for 3 centuries, but suddenly threw off the IGO, not even leaving a gram of culture, everything resulted in one of the largest empires in the history of mankind, which included most of the Tatar world.
    This is me, by the way, that we were under the yoke of the horde. I personally see here a banal census of history, its shameless census in my own way. This is my personal and subjective opinion.
    Despite the cruelty of Stalin

    Stalin was not cruel to a gram; he was a HARD ruler, but the degree of rigidity corresponded to the situation of the country in those difficult times.
    And therefore, the Russians support Putin, although his policy brought Western sanctions to Russia and a decline in living standards.

    I remember the "highest" standard of living in the 90s, when we were so strong friends with the West. I don't even dream in a bad dream. The article says that the author does not understand the essence of what is happening in Russia, but at least he is trying to understand ... probably he is trying.
    In fact, the Russians are using every opportunity for expansion

    To talk about expansion, you need to understand the essence of this term. According to the author, as I understand it, this is an increase in the country's territory at the expense of other countries. And what then to name the network of military bases throughout the planet in an amount of more than 1000?
    Russia has always clearly stated that it will not allow Ukraine to become part of Western structures. The unwillingness of the West to listen to this

    The West listened very clearly and it was precisely in this way that it destroyed Ukraine. If the Russian Federation did not need Ukraine, no one would touch it. Ukraine in itself is not of great value, only on the scale of a bunch of Ukraine - as a springboard for Russia. It is extremely important to know, making conclusions about the history of the Russian Federation.
    The Russian goal was not to strengthen Assad’s position, because for Russia this has no fundamental significance

    This can be called a delusion. Only Assad can ensure the integrity of Syria today. Indeed, it does not matter to Russia who will be at the head, the main thing is that Syria WAS. The point is not to let the Qatari gas go to Europe. This is important to understand!
    but Russia will not survive a prolonged clash.
    Hitler thought so too. Nonsense. It is a pity that I put the article +. Too many mistakes! Although such errors have always been in our hands.
  21. silver_roman
    silver_roman 10 June 2016 10: 30
    0
    However, Ukraine may become a buffer state that economically cooperates with both the West and Russia.

    Already passed. Vitenka Yanukovych is certainly a mediocre president, but nevertheless, there can’t be a compromise on the part of the Russian Federation in Ukraine in principle. I personally think that this is the very red line! You can only pretend that we are ready to consider Ukraine as a neutral country, but all actions should be aimed at its return and the POINT !!!
    I was always scared of Western competent analytics, as it was thanks to her that they destroyed the USSR. The current level of diplomacy in the West reassures me, but I fear the revival of personalities such as Thatcher, Brzezinski, Cheney, etc. These were the true strategists and enemies of Russia!
  22. bad
    bad 10 June 2016 10: 37
    +2
    Russia also has its own interests
    ..you in what basement lived before this discovery ?? fool Yes, you need to give a bonus .. I already thought the spark plugs had ignition later .. fellow
  23. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 10 June 2016 10: 38
    0
    Quote: RUS96
    "no ice-free ports" -

    ........
    Thank you, colleague, I knew only two. But Cech (like our Chukchi from a joke) - however, not a reader, but a writer.
  24. megafair
    megafair 10 June 2016 10: 52
    0
    Quote: Author_Andrey_Dugan
    The fact that nobody wants to attack Russia in Europe today


    Are you - all this in all seriousness?
  25. x.andvlad
    x.andvlad 10 June 2016 11: 10
    +1
    The article quite scrupulously describes the methods and options for interaction between West and Russia. But I really did not like the fact that Russia is traditionally opposed to the West. The meaning is this: Russia has its own interests that need to be known, but it (Europeans) is no match for us and is obviously not part of European civilization.
  26. Aleksandr1959
    Aleksandr1959 10 June 2016 11: 38
    0
    It is necessary to fulfill the obligation to defend all NATO member countries, but to do so in such a way as not to build up weapons. That is, the policy should take precedence over military planning. The union of Russia and China, as a result of a weak, as well as provocative policy of the West, is not in the interests of the latter, because, unlike Ukraine’s rejection of NATO, this alliance can really threaten the Western position. By its hysterical rejection of Russia, the West does not help Ukraine, but supports the alliance between Russia and China.

    The author has a pronounced cognitive dissonance.
    And, in general ... nothing really new. The position is clearly shown - eat the fish and sit down on something.
  27. gozmosZh
    gozmosZh 10 June 2016 11: 41
    0
    Quote: Wiruz

    Everyone has their own truth request


    "The truth is always the same"
    This is Pharaoh said.
    He was very smart
    And for this he was called Tutankhamun. wink
  28. v.yegorov
    v.yegorov 10 June 2016 11: 57
    0
    The article is completely false, in almost all sections. And most importantly, the Czech does not understand that we have nothing to lose, unlike them, well-fed and prosperous,
    therefore, they always lose the war, and we win them.
  29. realist
    realist 10 June 2016 12: 06
    0
    Yes, Russia has its own interests and they are not aimed at conquering, seizing territories. it’s just that even some people don’t want to reckon with these interests, but they are getting into a direct collision!
  30. Volzhanin
    Volzhanin 10 June 2016 12: 14
    0
    I wanted to comment on a couple of points, then it turned out that not a couple ...
    In general, reluctance to spend time in vain.
    The author is not far off, he writes, basically, nonsense.
  31. Sergei64
    Sergei64 10 June 2016 12: 36
    0
    Yes, there are interests and they are peaceful, but the "colonial geyropa" has other interests that have not changed for hundreds of years.
  32. I doubt it
    I doubt it 10 June 2016 12: 44
    0
    "... undoubtedly Russia has .... strong armed forces and an economic reserve ..."

    Amused. And on the first point, and especially on the second.
    But not about us. This USSR could speak with the West on equal terms.

    PS. Yes, we also forgot to list one of our indisputable advantage - the premiere. The best in the world premiere.

    "They will not buy, we will turn off the gas" (kf. Brilliant hand. Phrase of the house manager) [/ quote]
    Chur me, chur me !!! One will see such a thing!
    If we don’t buy our gas, we’ll not only turn it off, but we’ll go to any conditions and give any discounts we want and we will cooperate with the European Commission and guarantee transit through Ukraine.
    1. Winnie76
      Winnie76 10 June 2016 20: 46
      0
      Quote: I doubt it
      I doubt it (1) Today, 12:44
      "... undoubtedly Russia has .... strong armed forces and an economic reserve ..."

      Amused. And on the first point, and especially on the second.

      And what specifically amused you? In fact, the Russian army is the second most powerful on the ball. Economic reserve? Well, we don’t have corporations with supposedly billion-dollar assets like Google or Microsoft, but in fact balloons. And our papers around the world do not accept, maybe for the better ...
  33. Samoyed
    Samoyed 10 June 2016 12: 52
    0
    Still, at the end the result came out: " hysterical rejection The West does not help Russia to Ukraine, but supports the alliance between Russia and China. "This also applies to other spheres. That is why Russia does not want Western and European values. It is so big because it accepts everyone without even understanding. Like in a movie." Circus ":" ... even speckled (about skin color) ... "-
  34. Yuri Y.
    Yuri Y. 10 June 2016 15: 44
    0
    The Russian state has no natural barriers that would protect it. From the time of Tsar Ivan the Terrible (1530 – 1584), Russia is responding to this by creating new buffer zones that allow it to mobilize against the aggressor. Owing to this defense strategy, the largest state in the world arose by attack. However, Russia did not get rid of the feeling of uncertainty, and the vast territory does not provide it with the status of power.

    I liked this paragraph. In the beginning, it is recognized that there is an aggressor for Russia, and then he disappears. There remains a "feeling of uncertainty", why would it arise? You see no status, why would everyone bark?