Russia is a major military. Obviously a bunch of rebels are not going to be able to compete with the hardware of the second-most powerful military in the world.Surely, sounds not that bad for Russia. Furthermore, in fact, it sounds like Mr. President talks about a kind of counterweight to the first-most powerful military that helps the world to balance on a thin edge of peace (I mean the absence of a world war; unfortunately, all we know there are many local hot and bloody spots in the world).
But just 23 months ago we heard him describing Russia using quite a different wording, the US News and World Report reminded in the same publication. He said then Russia was "a regional power that is threatening some of its immediate neighbors, not out of strength but out of weakness".
However, Russia is simply tooooo huge to be able to change itself in the course of just two years. There were no revolutions in Moscow; the Western world conducted just the very same, old as mammoth shit, politics of trying to squeeze Russia out of her spheres of interests. Russia has been remaining just the same, and in more or less the same geopolitical circumstances that some powers always try to make unfavourable.
Thus, a question rises.
There are lots of campaigns for responsible doing this or that: responsible driving, responsible caring of pets and bringing up children, responsible using natural resources, etc, etc.
And all that responsibility stuff is very important for human beings dwelling on our little Earth, indeed. But there are things that are even more important. Do people care of a responsible presidency in the most powerful military? Do people prefer responsible cooperation to confrontation?
And if they do, why it seems they do not?