This author notes that Russia's deliberate fostering of a reputation for risk-taking--which isn't true--is designed to increase their image of power:
When assessing states’ willingness to take risks, there’s one thing we must take into account: leaders of relatively weak countries often try to exaggerate their capacity for risky, improvised action. They deliberately cultivate a sense of “strategic ambiguity” among adversaries, partly compensating for disparities in the real balance of power. This sometimes requires the misleading impression that a particular leader is ready to go all the way.
This approach by Putin reminds me of Mussolini before World War II when his bluster and aggression against weak powers amplified Italian influence well beyond Italy's actual military and economic power. I've noted this angle, too.
The added risk to Russia is that unlike Italy in World War II, Russia doesn't have a powerful nearby ally to bail him out (for a while). All Russia has as a safety net if their weakness is exposed is their nuclear arsenal--if it works (or if we simply believe it works).
Seriously, Russia's serial boasting is just sad:
Speaking during a meeting Tuesday with senior military officers, Putin said no other countries have hypersonic, laser and other prospective weapons that have been commissioned by the Russian military, adding that "it's not a reason to threaten anyone."
Putin claimed the new weapons systems are designed exclusively to "ensure our security in view of the growing threats" and vowed to pursue arms control efforts.
So Russia's existing forces don't provide Russia with security?
If Russia deploys any of those outside of a Red Square parade I'll be very surprised.
