lee Vladimir cleef
JF-Expert Member
- Feb 5, 2013
- 9,571
- 35,472
Haya ni majigambo ya Urusi ya sasa. Hawa watu wanajivunia technolojia yao mpya ya silaha ambayo wanadhani wengine hawajaipata.
============
Throughout the 20th century, military analysts have considered military bases abroad to be an indicator of a state's power and influence, demonstrating whether or not a country has the right to call itself a great power. Recently, with advances in military technology, Russian politicians and the military have begun questioning this logic.
In its own analysis on the issue, Russian news and analysis website Zvezda.ru ponders whether today's Russia has a need for military bases in the 'near abroad' (i.e. the former Soviet Union) and elsewhere around the world.
"Recently," Zvezda recalled, "President Vladimir Putin expressed his position on this issue." Speaking at the traditional year-end press conference on December 17, 2015, Putin "questioned the need for the permanent deployment of Russian troops in Syria. According to the Russian leader, thanks to modern weapons, our country can 'reach' anyone, anywhere."
Specifically, Putin referred to the capabilities of the 1,500 km-range Kalibr-class sea-based cruise missile and the 4,500 km-range air-dropped Kh-101 cruise missile, which had recently been demonstrated targeting jihadi terrorists in Syria. "Why should we need a base there [in Syria]? Should we need to reach somebody, we can do so without a base," the president said, responding to a question about whether Russia would be deploying troops in the Middle Eastern country permanently.
"Why then, is the United States, which has in its arsenal weapons that are just as advanced, in no hurry to reduce its military presence in the world?" Zvezda asks. The answer, the news site suggests, is that most of the US's 730 military bases worldwide are tasked not with defense, but with serving as "a unique form of colonization via the projection of power and military might on foreign territory."
US Bases
"According to Pentagon data (which, according to experts, greatly underestimates the real figures), the United States in recent years has owned or rented bases in 130 countries worldwide. At these bases there are 253,288 soldiers alone, plus an equal number of people including their families and civilians employed by the military. These bases have a total of 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals and other buildings, and another 4,844 buildings are leased."
The military, Zvezda recalls, "does not skimp on these bases." For example, according to a Washington Post piece written shortly after the invasion of Iraq, officers of the 82nd Airborne Division were served their dinners by waiters in white shirts, black pants, and black bow ties. "Some of these bases are so gigantic they require as many as nine internal bus routes for soldiers and civilian contractors to get around," Zvezda noted, citing a 2004 article by American political scientist Chalmers Johnson.
"The US military," Zvezda added, citing the Johnson piece, "has come up with a metaphorical definition for their bases abroad – 'our footprint on the world.'' Drawing such "clear, confident 'footprints' on the world map has become one of the ways for the US to advance and assert itself on new territories."
The territories the US marked for its 21st century 'family of bases' have included the 'new European' countries including Romania, Poland and Bulgaria, Pakistan, India, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines and even possibly Vietnam in Asia, Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria in North Africa, and Senegal, Ghana, Mali and Sierra Leone in West Africa.
"The models for all these new installations," the Johnson piece recalled, "are the string of bases we have built around the Persian Gulf in the last [three] decades in such anti-democratic autocracies as Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates."
Russian Missiles' Global Reach: Does Moscow Need Military Bases Abroad?
============
Throughout the 20th century, military analysts have considered military bases abroad to be an indicator of a state's power and influence, demonstrating whether or not a country has the right to call itself a great power. Recently, with advances in military technology, Russian politicians and the military have begun questioning this logic.
In its own analysis on the issue, Russian news and analysis website Zvezda.ru ponders whether today's Russia has a need for military bases in the 'near abroad' (i.e. the former Soviet Union) and elsewhere around the world.
"Recently," Zvezda recalled, "President Vladimir Putin expressed his position on this issue." Speaking at the traditional year-end press conference on December 17, 2015, Putin "questioned the need for the permanent deployment of Russian troops in Syria. According to the Russian leader, thanks to modern weapons, our country can 'reach' anyone, anywhere."
Specifically, Putin referred to the capabilities of the 1,500 km-range Kalibr-class sea-based cruise missile and the 4,500 km-range air-dropped Kh-101 cruise missile, which had recently been demonstrated targeting jihadi terrorists in Syria. "Why should we need a base there [in Syria]? Should we need to reach somebody, we can do so without a base," the president said, responding to a question about whether Russia would be deploying troops in the Middle Eastern country permanently.
"Why then, is the United States, which has in its arsenal weapons that are just as advanced, in no hurry to reduce its military presence in the world?" Zvezda asks. The answer, the news site suggests, is that most of the US's 730 military bases worldwide are tasked not with defense, but with serving as "a unique form of colonization via the projection of power and military might on foreign territory."
US Bases
"According to Pentagon data (which, according to experts, greatly underestimates the real figures), the United States in recent years has owned or rented bases in 130 countries worldwide. At these bases there are 253,288 soldiers alone, plus an equal number of people including their families and civilians employed by the military. These bases have a total of 44,870 barracks, hangars, hospitals and other buildings, and another 4,844 buildings are leased."
The military, Zvezda recalls, "does not skimp on these bases." For example, according to a Washington Post piece written shortly after the invasion of Iraq, officers of the 82nd Airborne Division were served their dinners by waiters in white shirts, black pants, and black bow ties. "Some of these bases are so gigantic they require as many as nine internal bus routes for soldiers and civilian contractors to get around," Zvezda noted, citing a 2004 article by American political scientist Chalmers Johnson.
"The US military," Zvezda added, citing the Johnson piece, "has come up with a metaphorical definition for their bases abroad – 'our footprint on the world.'' Drawing such "clear, confident 'footprints' on the world map has become one of the ways for the US to advance and assert itself on new territories."
The territories the US marked for its 21st century 'family of bases' have included the 'new European' countries including Romania, Poland and Bulgaria, Pakistan, India, Australia, Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines and even possibly Vietnam in Asia, Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria in North Africa, and Senegal, Ghana, Mali and Sierra Leone in West Africa.
"The models for all these new installations," the Johnson piece recalled, "are the string of bases we have built around the Persian Gulf in the last [three] decades in such anti-democratic autocracies as Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates."
Russian Missiles' Global Reach: Does Moscow Need Military Bases Abroad?
