Russia is being painted as Enemy No. 1 by Hillary Clinton, despite her predecessor’s mocking of the same notion four years ago, when Republican Mitt Romney said it.
Of course, Mrs. Clinton is just using Russia as a distraction from her conspiracies and crimes and inadequacies as revealed by WikiLeaks.
What’s more worrying is Russia’s military adventuring, surely.
Before we wander into the morass that is foreign policy, maybe we should consider the Russian military itself . . . and its supporting economy.
Last year, TASS confidently informed us that the military budget was going up 0.8 percent in 2016, with $750 million slated for nuclear weaponry. I still hear talk of the latter fact; not much of the former factoid, that shockingly modest increase.
Even last year it was commonly noted that Russia’s military budget was getting “squeezed” . . . by hard times. Lack of revenue.
Now the hammer has fallen on the sickle: “Russian defence budget set to drop by 12%” in yesterday’s IHS Jane’s 360 article by Craig Caffrey.
First, don’t be alarmed: “defence” is how Brits misspell “defense.”
Second, take heart: Russia simply cannot do all it may want even in its darkest hearts.
Third, take caution: a weaker Russia is still dangerous, in some ways more so. We might see increased (and relatively cheap) cyber-warfare, of which Mrs. Clinton is so particularly mindful.
Finally, let’s acknowledge that American politicians have never focused rationally on the Russian threat, often hyping it gratuitously to enhance their own power, or, for that same reason, ignoring the threat entirely, as when smirking at Romney’s wise concerns.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Is Russia a threat?
Why are Democrats obsessed with Russia?
Why is Russia reducing its military budget?
Ask The Next Question:
What kind of defense should a free people insist upon?