Beautiful day for a parade

Russia brought out its tanks for a parade to celebrate their victory over the Nazis in World War II. They also brought out posters with the sickle and hammer insignia of the old communist regime. Are they returning to their old pre-cold war ways? It was a time when Russia felt more in control of their destiny even though it was, and still is, a failed idealism.

Should we view Russia as a threat to the U.S.? As a potential threat, yes. Maybe not in direct military conflict but Russia sells military equipment to Syria, Iran, China and Venezuela. It supports the development of Iranian nuclear technology and blocks Kosovo independence. It has cut off gas to Ukraine, imposed economic sanctions on Georgia and launched a cyber war against a NATO ally, Estonia.

Even though Russia rolled out tanks based on equipment designed decades ago, and their current military force is nowhere near communist era levels they have been busy formulating plans to replace nearly half of its hardware by 2015 with newer more sophisticated equipment such as a new generation of intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear submarines and possibly a fleet of aircraft carriers. Every nation has the right to modernize its military for defense purposes, as newly elected president Dmitry Medvedev said in the celebratory parade’s opening speech "the true purpose of weapons and military equipment is to give reliable defense of the homeland."

The danger of having a large military for the purpose of “defense” is that military leaders get tired of playing war ‘games’. They want their military prowess to be tested under ‘live conditions’ and in the wrong hands that military can be used for offensive purposes. Just look at how George W. Bush used our “defense” military against Iraq.

The fact that Russia is returning to the tradition of showing off their military in a communist era show of military might raises concerns that Russia has aggressive ambitions.

Putin cemented his central authority over regional leaders by undermining their authority, independent media, both houses of parliament, independent political parties and civil society. At the same time, he increased the role of the Federal Security Service, the successor to the KGB, in governing Russia and has arbitrarily politicized such state institutions as the courts, tax collectors and the police. Putin's regime also made it increasingly difficult for U.S. business and nongovernmental organizations to operate in Russia. As Russia's retreat from democratic values increasingly becomes a source of tension between it and the West, Moscow, in turn, sees less value in trying to cooperate with NATO, the European Union and the U.S.

Putin’s shift away from Russia’s new found democracy is placing the United States as Russia’s No. 1 enemy. Russian state-controlled television is showing how the U.S. is surrounding Russia with military bases, fomenting pro-American revolutions in countries neighboring Russia and seizing Russian natural resources.

In April, Putin warned, "There is a growing influx of foreign cash used directly to meddle in our domestic affairs. . . . Not everyone likes the stable, gradual rise of our country." In May, Putin said that threats to Russia from the West "are not diminishing. They are only transforming, changing their appearance. In these new threats, as during the time of the Third Reich, are the same contempt for human life and the same claims of exceptionality and diktat in the world."

Today, The U.S. is bogged down in unwinnable wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and morally discredited in the eyes of the international community as a unilateral, interventionist power and violator of human rights. Thanks to George W. Bush’s mishandling of foreign policy Russia believes that only hard power, not values, matter in international politics.

We go into countries with a holier than thou attitude and preach to them about human relations when right here in America New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are still in a shambles, our economic system is failing us, our government is spying on us, there is a disproportionate number of blacks in prison, we are making a huge deal out of possibly electing the first woman or first black as president in our 230 year history and we back our foreign policy with military strength.

Is it any wonder Russia views us with suspicion? Should we be surprised that Russia wants to do some saber rattling of its own as a warning to the U.S.?

Relations between the two countries has been strained due in part to Bush’s insistence that a new missile defense system, purportedly to defend against long range missiles from Iran and North Korea, be installed within range of Russia. Putin believes the real target of the missile shield is clearly Russia and its vast nuclear arsenal.

In 2002, Mr. Putin and George Bush signed a treaty obliging both sides to cut strategic nuclear weapons by about two-thirds by 2012. Installing a new European missile defense system sends the message that we don’t trust Russia to keep up their end of the bargain. Russian-U.S. ties have since worsened steadily over other disagreements on Iraq and other global crises, and U.S. concerns about an authoritarian streak in Russia's domestic policy.

Recent expulsions of military attaches to the Russian Embassy in the U.S. led to Russia’s response of expelling two U.S. military attaches from Russia. Neither side will comment on reasons behind the expulsions but one can’t help but wonder if cold-war era spy games are returning.

Putin’s adoption of a new military doctrine that names the USA and NATO as potential enemies indicates a step up in the preparation for conflict. Much like what Bush is doing towards Iran.

A Russian Tupolev 95 bomber recently flew directly over an American aircraft carrier twice in the western Pacific at an altitude of about 2,000 feet while another one circled about 58 miles out. Such Russian bomber flights were common during the Cold War, but have been rare since. This is further indication of Russia’s growing animosity towards the U.S.

But really, what has Russia to fear from the U.S.? They do have all of that oil and the U.S. has shown it is not above invading a sovereign nation to ensure continued access to oil.

The bottom line is that we have done this to ourselves. And we have George W. Bush and his paranoid cronies to thank for it.