Did Obama Turn Russia into ‘Military Superpower’?

Donate

US President Barack Obama has called Russia a “military superpower,” noting that his stance on Russia has been constant since the first day of his presidency, despite the fact that in 2014, he described Russia as no more than a “regional power.”

Did Obama Turn Russia into ‘Military Superpower’?

President Barack Obama wipes away tears from his eyes as he speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Jan. 5, 2016 (Photo: AP / Carolyn Kaster)

On Thursday, during his speech in Berlin, US President Barack Obama called Russia a “military superpower” and noted that his stance on Russia has been constant since the first day of his presidency. However, in March 2014, Obama described Russia as no more than a “regional power,” whose actions in Ukraine are an expression of weakness rather than strength. Apparently, such a discrepancy of the Obama’s words just mirrors the essence of the failed US policy in the context of ‘restrictions’ on Russia in the period of his presidency.

“With respect to Russia, my principal approach to Russia has been constant since I first came into office.  Russia is an important country.  It is a military superpower.  It has influence in the region and it has influence around the world.  And in order for us to solve many big problems around the world, it is in our interest to work with Russia and obtain their cooperation,” Obama said, speaking at a joint press conference with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Berlin.

He also noted that “we should all hope for a Russia that is successful, where its people are employed and the economy is growing, and they are having good relationships with their neighbors.”

Despite such statements, two years ago, Obama talked completely opposite things about Russia.

“Russia is a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness,” he said during a press conference with Prime Minister of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte in March, 2014. “The fact that Russia felt it had to go in militarily and lay bare these violations of international law indicates less influence, not more,” Obama added.

“Russian actions are a problem. They do not pose the number one security threat to the United States. I remain much more concerned about the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan,” he concluded.

In 2008, when Obama had just come into the office, the US was an undisputed leader and Russia was considered as a ‘second-class’ country, including in military terms. In 2014, when a ‘flywheel’ of a new Cold War had started to spin, the US President bluntly called Russia a “regional power.”

However, in 2016, when Obama is leaving the presidency, it became clear that Russia has strengthened its military capabilities, and the Obama’s strategy in Ukraine has not led to stated goals: Donbass and Crimea have not been returned to Kiev, Russian economy have not been ruined, and destabilization of the political regime in Russia has not been reached. The US strategy in Syria has also failed – an issue on overthrow of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad by military means is not already topical. Meanwhile, Russia has raised the level of its influence on the process in the region, demonstrating that it is able to achieve both military and political goals.

As a result, in 2014-2016, when the conflict escalated into a new wave of the Cold War, neither diplomatic, nor economic, nor subversive, and nor military means helped the US, as the world’s hegemon, to defeat Russia.

In recent years, Obama himself repeatedly skeptically spoke of Russia’s foreign policy and the country’s possibilities. However, ultimately, before leaving the presidency, he decided to play a role of the ‘Captain Obvious’, admitting that despite a significant reduction of the Russian military power after the collapse of the Soviet Union, even a part of the restored military potential is quite enough to allow Russia to retain its status of a “military superpower.”

Donate

SouthFront

Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • MikeH

    Also, the US regime is under attack by the uprising of the nationalists led by Trump.

    So Barry’s legacy is one of utter failure.

  • john mason

    Very sneaky of Obama calling Russia a military superpower. He is actually suggesting that Russia is aggressive, building up its’ military and that the EU needs to enhance NATO to ‘protect’ Europe from Russian threats. That bloke is a typical sleaze.

    • paul

      Yes that was my reaction also. It also implies that in other respects it
      is not a super power. Is is talking up while at the same time talking
      down.

      • Vincen

        I thought so.too!

  • Indian Voice

    Russia is a rotting power. It can’t become a superpower.

    • John Whitehot

      omg

    • ruca

      Surely that was the entire voice of India. Time for a new Name IV.

      • Indian Voice

        Yes because on one hand it is claiming to fight terrorists in Syria and on the other hand it is doing war exercises with terrorist state Pakistan. It is unable to do anything when China blocked India’s attempt to declare Masood Azhar, who is plotting terror attacks in India as a terrorist in UN. Russia has poor industry except defence and its economy is not strong enough to fight war in Syria against financial power of US and West. It is selling all its technology to China to fund this war. Soon China will be in control of Russia and Russians will be working as labors in Chinese toy making factories. Russia will get no benefit by fighting war for Muslim countries and allowing back stabbing China to grab all its technology.

        • Jesus

          Russia spent less than a billion dollars for their air campaign, while US spent many times over for their feeble attempts. Financial power becomes moot in view of idiotic strategy and policy. Russia is not selling their military technology to China, China needs Russia, their energy supplies coming from Russia will not be interdicted by the US navy trying to yoke China in the South China Sea.

  • paul

    It has always bothered me that a nation of some 300 million should sit
    in domination of a world twenty times the size. There might be many
    reasons for this but I would suggest the coming out on the winning
    side in two world wars is amongst them. Coming out on the winning
    side with very little damage while the rest of the world was in
    ruins gave great advantages. Through this the usa was able to set
    dominion over World institutions and trade. This dominion is
    something they are determined to keep. Hence their doctrine of
    opposing the rise of any competitive counterbalancing power.

    There is nothing intrinsically special about americans. But that is not the
    way they see themselves.

    • Jens Holm

      Well, they didnt ask for it. They didnt start WW1 & 2 as well.

      In 1938 US had 400.000 troops and actual they only had 125.000 because the rest was the national guard, which only were allowed to use inland.

      Those 125.000 had only old equiotment, they were very bad in condition and training. A lot of weapons they had none of. They didnt have their own transportation and used busses as train.

      Even if those soldiers would be fit for fight, they couldnt transport them fx to UK, because they had no transport for them and their equipment. But if they have had it, they had no system to feed them and give them ammo. They either could land in North Africa as well as Normandie in France.

      So why where the big winners of WW 2 not Iran, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Saudis & Palestine.

      You also forget thats a lot of their production gave no money by leand and lease and were kept and never paid back for. Sovjet declares Japan war in …1945… You also forget the Marshall plan helping many up by billions and bilions of dollars.

      I see very much, that many countries has chosen not to devellop themselves and as here at these sights sight I see many populations were poor before US had any influance at all and insist in being poor. But dont blame US for making Islam – Or hinduism – or budism. Same thing around Communism.

      US didnt invent Islam. You could say US took over some Colony roles. but many got rid of that in 1948 and afterwards. Thats 58 years ago. But those countries didnt change at all, when they finally were free and still are.

      So the domination made by Westerns are not keeping others down. You insist in using old systems, which are not meant for the world of today.

      To not choose is to choose too. Many parts of the world are doing so. yesterday a turkish guy didnt like us being close to Turkey, but they are in others countries themselves. Hypocrasy.

      He mentioned Emperialism. But do we have that. We – who will – are an active part of the world economy. Fx EU has a bigger BNP then USA and Russia as like Spain, Canada or Brazil.

      Every thing goes round the world in prodyúction and trade. Its not about figs in Turkey are better then the Iraqian ones. Its like the PC, where You can write to all in the world and get answers right away – free and no mailman, boks or stamp. You can see them in China, USA, Soutamerica live and see if they laugh at Your jokes.

      And my PC is made in a country. No its not. Its probatly made by Japan, china, Taiwan, Malaysia, India, USA and several countries in EU.

      Its a bad habit to blame US. 67 countries are incolved in the wars in Syria and Iraq. We are as very small too with F16, radarssystem and trainees to the Iraqian army. But we are the big deavel IS, to many blaming for being alone about it. They are not.

      And You undevelloped as usual blame us and have no responsibility for all the bad things in Your own countries. Erdogan is a nice Guy, Mursi & Is Sissy & Assads are nice guys. Unfortunaltly the nice guys as Gadaffi and Saddam are dead too. Arafat was a nice guy didnt take the defeat compromise to Israel and is the true winner in Palestina ???

      • ruca

        You need to look at who funded pretty much all the wars since Napoleon.

        • Jesus

          Regardless of who funded the wars (Rothchild family) US’ entry into both world wars were strategic moves for their own benefit, they could see they would be on the winning side and take the spoil of the war that was partially fought. US did not enter WW 1 until 1917, after it was apparent the opposing sides were in a stalemate and exhausted. US did not enter WW 2 until 1943 when it was apparent the Germans had lost control of the eastern front.

          • Daniel

            The US bankers actually aided Germany in WW1 in order for them to last longer in the war so they could join as well. Of course US bankers financed all sides of both wars to start with.

          • Jens Holm

            What a joke. US was neútral and as any other neutral country they also traded with germans.

            US went into the war because they lost so many lives and ships by german subs.

            Poor and pure shit from You. Which member of the 57 tribe flags of the French Protectorat are You.

          • Jens Holm

            Thats rubbish. The politics at the beginning of WW1 & WW2 are very well described. Its even in the memoires of Dwight D. Eisenhower, which I have in my bookshell.

            Pathetic to put in Rothchild into anything. I anything it rather Should be Henry Ford, which systematicly industrialized all he could, so its wasnt done by hands.

            Seemes You dont know a shit about lend and lease from US to GB, Sovjet and many others. It started already in 1941 where they both paid what they had in mainly gold but after they had no more got it for free and NEVER PAID BACK to any of Your Rotchilds.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease

            You seemes very indoctrinated writing as You do.

            As I remember russians got 7.000 tanks, 12.000 aeroplanes, 250.000 Bedford vand filled of with fuel. 88.000 jeeps. Many WW1 riffels and canons, a complete trainsystem to Murmansk down to the nails, much clothe, not so much food because britts needed it more and many shiploads of nikkel, mangan & crome.

            Britts got for 31 billion dollars and russians 11. dolars was much more.

            That also included free transportation and not only crossing atlantic ocean but also via Abadan in Iran as well as Vladivostock.

            And when did Sovjet declare war to Japan – 1945. Who defeated Japan. Mainly USA but also chinese and britts.

            After that US gave Marshall help to anybody, which wanted it.

          • Jesus

            I am fully aware of the politics of the 19th and 20th century, you want to see Rothchilds hand in controlling the Bank of England in early 1800’s and being the paymaster for Wellington’s army…..go read it, it is well documented.
            US got involved in the 1st world war after having mobilized its industrial base, having supported England, US was always interested in getting involved in a decisive way by tipping the balance and taking the lions’s share of the spoils. There is no free lunch, whatever US provided England for free or reduced price was a down payment for a greater return, as England’s role diminished and US’ role increased.

            Same thing with WW2, the Land Lease was a program to supply US allies with necessary products and raw materials, pulling out US of the economic stagnation of the 30’s and placing it in high gear. Again, no free lunch, there were motives behind the Land Lease program, of course, US did not want to see Europe being fully conquered by the Germans, however, the ultimate goal was to make the US the leading power in the world.

          • Jesus

            In reality, wars are fought for economic and political gains.

          • Jesus

            Maybe you need to know that Nathan Rothchild around early 1800’s had control of the Bank of England, while his brothers were bankers in Naples, Vienna, and Paris.
            If this family was involved in the Banking business throughout Europe in the early 1800’s, what do you think their position would have been in the early 1900’s?
            This is very well documented and provides a glimpse of financial control and power in Europe in the early 1900’s.

          • Jens Holm

            Well, again. I dont need to know, because I already know and it include perspectives of all important kinds.

          • Jesus

            Maybe you need to know that the love of money is the root to all evil.

          • Jesus

            You need to get a better understanding of the Lend Lease program, here are some details:

            The Lend-Lease policy, formally titled “An Act to Promote the Defense of the United States”, (Pub.L. 77–11, H.R. 1776, 55 Stat. 31, enacted March 11, 1941)[1] was a program under which the United States supplied Free France, the United Kingdom, the Republic of China, and later the USSR and other Allied nations with food, oil, and materiel between 1941 and August 1945. This included warships and warplanes, along with other weaponry. It was signed into law on March 11, 1941 and ended in September 1945. In general the aid was free, although some hardware (such as ships) were returned after the war. In return, the U.S. was given leases on army and naval bases in Allied territory during the war. Canada operated a similar smaller program under a different name.

            IN GENERAL THE AID WAS FREE! IN RETURN THE US WAS GIVEN LEASES ON ARMY AND NAVY BASES IN ALLIED TERITORY DURING THE WAR and thereafter.
            The land lease was paid by deficit spending in anticipation of US becoming involved in the 2nd world war.

          • Jens Holm

            I havnt said or denied that at all.

            I write US had no army of any use. You write US entered 1944. But Pearl Harbour was attacked in 1941 and they had. So they were not in war trying to defend Hawai, Phillipines, their parts of the pacific Islands as well as helping Chang Cai Sheck against japanese as well as communists.

            And the help to Sovjets started by russians bying for gold before they were attacked.

            The reason for the relative delay to the russian part also were they were friends with Hitler and therefor didnt need much more than buying tecknologi.

            Britts took all their gold to canada and bought before Leand and lease for food, fuel and wepons. But USA didnt produce many weapons, because they were not designed to be industrialized.

            Leand and Lease was a result of, they had no more móney.

            Mixing in Rotchilds in it make the constructivism as visible as having an elefant as normal player at a football team.

            Everything about it is well described and I know it by reading about it for many Years. I have even made scenaries, which could improve the nazi entrence to Sovjet very much.

          • Jesus

            I said US invaded Europe via Normandy in 1944, sorry your view of events before and after the Lend – Lease are a little different than mine. After the British defeat at Dunkirk in 1940, England realized they were unprepared for the war, and even before that they started to buy weapons and supplies from USA. England was totally dependent for raw materials, from abroad, the German submarine threat was very viable so they exchanged 50 US destroyers in exchange for British facilities. I do not agree with you that England was out of gold before the Luftwaffe started to attack them….so that US had to give them freebies through the Lend-Lease;
            The reason for the Lend-Lease was a calculated attempt by the US to decide who they were to fight, reinforcing potential allies and at the same time gaining footholds for bases in various parts of the world.
            In March 1941 Russia was still (officially) in good grace with Germany, even though the German army was marching closer to Russian borders, I do not have any input of Russia buying supplies from the US for gold.
            My assessment is, US before being attacked determined whose side they would fight on, they got their industrial base primed up for war productions and started to squeeze Japan in Asia forcing the Japanese to launch a preemptive attack at Pearl Harbor.

            Where do the Rothchilds fit in the scheme of things? Most wars in mid 19th and early 20th century were financed by warring countries, deficit spending was not even dreamed about since gold was the backbone of many paper currencies. Bankers lent money to warring countries to earn interest and to control the course of the war for their benefit. It is like having a spigot of water, you turn the valve open all the way, you have a lot of water gushing, if it is half way, you get less water. The industrialists in Germany in 1917 early 1918 refused to fuse the German economy for all out war production, subsequently Germany could not even settle for a stalemate. It was humiliated with heavy war reparations, that enabled Hitler to come to power and settled some accounts with those he considered betrayers of Germany.

            Rothchild interests in Europe lobbied hard with Woodrow Wilson and on Dec 23 1913 they had the Federal Reseve established in the US; they saw the demise of the English empire and the ascendancy of US of world superpower.
            Since the removal of gold standard in 1973, the Fed started a irresponsible fiscal policy that became aggravated during the last 15 years, whereby the Fed creates money out of the thin air, they create a trillion dollars in less than 5 seconds with the help of a keyboard and computer

          • Jens Holm

            Well, whatever. I meant britts payed before lend and lease and with gold as long as they had aneything left.

            I can not implement Your Rotchild version. They were big, but other players were too. For the attackers it could be I.G. FARBEN/KRUPP. I could also take France plundering the reduced Germany and Schact making air to jobs for germany.

            To me You pin point too much ignoring the rest of it.

          • Jesus

            The British had plenty of gold left after WW2, their currency bowed out to the dollar.
            As far as not implementing the Rothschild scenario, this family has been in the banking business since the late 1700’s, in 1820-30 they controlled the financial markets throughout Europe……and what do you think happened to them? They disappeared? Who do you think was behind the creation of the Fed in US in 1913?
            Yes, I pinpoint the revelant points, without obscuring myself with secondary or tertiary details. History can be interpreted with bias, or from a realistic perspective.

        • Jens Holm

          Well it wasnt USA. Only after WW2 besides a little in the middle east.

          Think You should look at a map. It was, what I have mentioned above. UK, France, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, Nederland & japan.

      • Robert Ferrin

        Of course our policy has always been one of keeping other countries down for AMERICAN INTEREST which of course was the business sector and Lord knows we have killed thousands upon thousand in the process,and of course you know or should know that WE controlled the oil in the Mid-East during the second world war while thousands deprived of the revenue died of starvation.
        I sagest you read “The Untold History of The United States” but then again lol maybe you shouldn’t bust that bubble you live in.!!!

        • Jens Holm

          Well, Im not living in any bubble. I just tell, that US wasnt any emperialist until it was forced into WW2.

          But its true others were. Brits, french, italians, japanese, dutch, belgians, italiens. You might add Russia/Sovjet as well as Ottomans.

          US had its own backyard by the Monroedoctrine and had gret influence to us. They also had their own oil and still has.

          We wasnt only americans during ww2. First the owners so to speak were mainly brittish and frech. And secondly: Where did the oil go to from Middle east.

          Have you heard about Sovjets. Well US Bedfords 250.000 mainly for fuelcars to russian T34 came in via Ababadan by train and road and came by Quom in Abadan to Sovjets after finishing there. They also got 88.000 jeeps as well as 13.000 very good aeroplanes.

          And who else did. Britts taking back from the nazis as well as fighting back the japanese trying to keep their empire.

          At that time You were only qualified to use oil for lamps and heating. You had no qualifications to take it up and no distributions system as well.

          And dont get angry to me and most people here. We were not even born in 1939, when the Nazis attacked. I dont blame Turks for killing 1,5 mio kurds. Im blaming many turks for not admitting it happend. They didnt die by starvation. After that I remember mainly kurds killed 400.000 assyrians as well as 100.000 jews and other christians. I dont blame them either, but they have to admit it happend as well as try to not do that again.

          They didnt die by starvation. Thats true for many of them.

          There are many versions of diing of starvation all over the world all over the world and thats wrong, but if populations just get 10 times as many in 100 Years by helping them by food and medical care – what do those people really want.

          But of course I agree about US has many bad sides, but they are not alone about it. We were in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and were are in Iraq and Syria as well. Im against it.

          And You might not remember, we came to Afghanstan because of a tuff civil war, where the only left organized were communists and they got help from Sovjet by Al kind of military warfare.

          Its no defence. Its no bubble. I just try to tell, that Your way of thinking also in many matters are totally wrong. There were also nopeace in the world before US came at the sceen and also not before there was anything named as colony.

          • Robert Ferrin

            Of course it was first it was Cuba excuse the Maine attacked as they said by Spain years latter or a few generations later we found that the Maine blew up due to a coal dust explosion, and then the parasites came the companies and corporation who claimed most of its land AND CUBA BECAME A COLONY, South America became OUR playground as good old Teddy said as we installed one dictator after another which would follow American interest the companies corporations and the bankers,then it was the Philippines we invaded in 1901 killing some 200,000 (first case of water boarding that I came upon) then it became OUR colony then it was on to WW1 which we entered because Wilsons war Sec. said we must “we are the great arbitrator of the world”” and of course our intervention our bankers who financed it set up WW2 ,after WW2 came of course Korea (some excuse there perhaps) then it was on to Nam not that Nam had any natural resources because they didn’t but Malaysia did, tin mines rubber plantations etc which were owned by American interest and Lordy if Nam fell they would too, so we slaughtered a few million more and set up Pol Pot in Cambodia to slaughter another million or more all for American interest, the American companies,corporations and bankers and our slaughter still goes on Afghanistan Iraq Libya Syria and every place in between as the world feels the velvet touch of the empire,we came we saw he died with its 900+ bases around the world,you may not call it an empire most would.!!!.@!!

          • Daniel

            US “forced” into WW2?

          • Jens Holm

            Have You heard about Pearl Harbour after Years og japanese expansion in China after many years of negosiations.

            In Your world US prabatly attacked Norway, Denmark, Begium, netherland, Luxembourg, France, Yougoslavia, Greece, Tjekkoslovakia and Poland. Afterwards US attacked Sovjet as well as North Africa and US probatly started the Emperialism by attacking GB putting speed in Churchill cigars.

            The ships in the atllantic at the trade routes also sunk themselves, because crews and passengers comitted suicide.

          • Daniel

            US triggered Pearl Harbour actually.

    • Catfish

      The powers at the top were in control both before and after the second world war. They are the same people who own the us federal reserve as well as many other western central banks as well as control the world reserve currency and “loan” it into existence. The article “all wars are bankers wars” will give insight to what I mean. As a resident of the us I do confirm that many delusional people here consider themselves “exceptional” but many of us don’t including myself. The us government is exceptional only in its ruthlessness and utter lack of respect for humanity and cultural values including those they claim to represent.

  • Daniel

    It’s a bit of joke considering that after the US completely destroyed Russia with its bolsheviks they build up the country to what it is today in order to have a big “threat” to the western world.

    • Jens Holm

      Far out again. US was hardly near anything russian in 1917 and at their civile wars as well. Which madhouse are You in !!!!!

      You could say Britts, You could say French – But no way americans.

      Today the russian is a poor ballon with a BNP as Spain.

      Any country could be great like that using so many as slaves only needing food, close and spendable.

      • Daniel

        Jens it would be nice to show you some information regarding this , but I’m not sure you are ready for it or would be open for it. We can start with a piece of low level information, just for your sake, look at Polar Bear Expedition.