The article seems to be trying to suggest that it was the distraction of islamic terrorism that saved Russia from further collapse and isolation, and that the admitted process of encirclement to "protect the world from Russia" only failed because the US was distracted.
The coloured revolutions failed because they were all promise and no substance. Turn away from Moscow and join us and everything will be OK, you will suddenly become a rich western country!!!
It is pretty clear that turning to the west did little to solve the problems in the Ukraine, and the militarisation of Georgia against Russia has done little to improve things there either.
The sad reality for the US is that their promises were empty and they could really do little to help either country in return for them turning their backs on Russia.
Russia on the other hand could offer direct trade and energy and cooperation, which are not instant fixes either, but in the long term will allow both countries to grow and become better places to live.
The US didn't drop the ball, the Russians woke up and started realising that the promises made by the west are empty.
Give up communism and be welcomed into the international community... yeah right!
Starting with Putin Russia has realised that it needs to sort its own problems out and there are no easy instant fixes. A lot of work needs to be done and Putin laid down most of the ground work for that.
The article goes on to claim that Russia is upset about the ABM system because it means US bases in eastern europe, with concrete US support for those countries meaning a limit on Russian influence in those places.
In other words Russia wants to expand its influence and recreate the Warsaw Pact, but US bases will prevent that...
What a load of rubbish.
As stated in the new Start treaty ABM systems are STRATEGIC systems and therefore have an effect on the strategic balance. America building a global ABM system means the new Start agreement limiting strategic nuclear weapons limits for each side suddenly become unbalanced, and the threat of nuclear war is increased rather than decreased (which should be everyones goal, but clearly isn't a goal for the US).
Russia is in the middle of a conventional armed forces reform... a bit like Soviet forces in 1941... Except the Russians currently have a nuclear capability to deter aggression. An ABM system around the borders of Russia with no limits or restrictions might lead to some irrational moves that could lead to war and therefore make the world less safe rather than more safe.
Russia opposes a European ABM system because it doesn't want to have to use its nuclear weapons, not so it can.
The rest of the article is about US interference in Russian elections... which I think the FSB should actively track down all groups accepting foreign funds for political activities and put them in jail, and about Russia trying to disengage from the reset.
Very simply the Russians don't care about the reset, that is US BS, what they want is the ABM system being built on their border to stop, and if it isn't stopped then they will take action to minimise the effects of the system... likely including withdrawing from certain treaties and repositioning certain forces.
The article says:
Moreover, Russia does not want Afghanistan to spin out of control, since unrest in the country most likely would spill over into Central Asia.
Which is bollocks. There will be an internal conflict when the US etc leave unless Karzai can negotiate something before they leave. I rather suspect that even with US assistance that the US puppet government will not govern long and the Taleban will reclaim the country and will likely look inwards. It will likely get rid of the poppy fields and televisions and all evidence of western presence and then it will get on with things. It wont start invading neighbours like it didn't in the 1990s. It wont be a problem for anyone but the Afghan people.
Russia also cannot compete with the United States when it comes to a military buildup.
In terms of carrier groups... quite true. In terms of production of nuclear weapons... not true.
They are developing new types of breeder reactors of a safer design that will create more fuel than it burns and will make the production of large amounts of weapons grade nuclear material fast and easy and relatively cheap.
If that is what the US wants then I am sure they will feel much safer behind their ABM shield with the new Start treaty torn up and the INF treaty torn up...