This was from an editorial on The Moscow times that is intriguing referencing current Russian activities.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinio...re/501783.html
"Without exception, every empire of the past — from the Roman to the Soviet, from the Spanish to the British — collapsed for the same reason: the inability to bear what might be called "the burden of empire." Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia is now moving along its own neo-imperial path, and the rapidly mounting burden of that course carries serious risks for the country's future."
The question arises is in fact the current new generation warfare based on a UW strategy---actually designed to support this "neo-imperial path".
If so then all comments, actions, policy statements made by say Putin and or from the Russian Foreign Ministry is then in "support" of this neo-imperial path Russia is taking.
Part of this neo-imperialism approach is the constant drum beat that NATO is moving closer to the direct borders of Russia and it is that reason that Russia annexed the Crimea. If they view themselves as being on a neo-imperialistic path then the argument of "spheres of influence" makes sense from their perspective thus the next argument NATO is to close makes also sense to them.
This clashes though with the European view that the arguments about boundaries and spheres of influence were "settled" after 1990 and 1994 thus the no further need for a "block mentality" thus the European draw down of military expenditures and a slow down on NATO planning for any major future issues.
In an editorial article today in the Voice of Russia the same theme is mentioned and if one reads down about half way through there is a single sentence that is highly interesting---the reason the militia in the east-south Ukraine are actually fighting is to keep NATO out of the Ukraine and to keep the Ukraine from being turned into a desert from shale gas drilling which from the geo testing seems to be quite large.
No mention of "protecting the ethnic proRussian population" as the reasons for the "separatist militias" anywhere in the article. This view was recently reinforced in an interview with a proRussian separatist commander who claimed he was fighting the US for the Russians.
http://voiceofrussia.com/editorschoice/
Bookmarks