This article is from the source 'independent' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-nuking-florida-video-putin-spokesman-denies-nuclear-weapons-us-a8236506.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Putin's spokesman denies missile video shows Russia nuking Florida Russia rows back Putin's cold war-era rhetoric as Kremlin denies 'nuking Florida' in video mock-up
(about 3 hours later)
Vladimir Putin’s state of the union address on Thursday was, on the face of it, the most confrontational geopolitical speech in a decade. He presented what he claimed was a new class of invincible nuclear weapons. He left little doubt as to who Russia’s prime enemy was. Some have already interpreted it as an official declaration of a renewed Cold War.  Vladimir Putin’s state of the union address on Thursday was, on the face of it, the most confrontational speech by any world leader in a decade. He presented what he claimed was a new class of unpredictable, “invincible” nuclear weapons. He left little doubt about his country’s rediscovered strategic rivalry with the US. And for many, he went so far as to make a declaration of renewed Cold War. 
The video animations showing off the president’s new weapons left little to the imagination. In one, an intercontinental ballistic missile,  launched from Russia, makes its way West. It manoeuvres around what look like American anti-missile shields, before landing in an unnamed country the other side of the ocean.  But many experts doubt the feasibility of the programme, and on Friday, much of the most threatening rhetoric was being walked back. 
In one shot, the contours of a state looking like Florida are visible. Some suggested the target was even more exact: Donald Trump’s resort in Mar-a-Lago.  The video animations that accompanied the president’s presentation of his new weapons certainly left little to the imagination. In one, an intercontinental ballistic missile, launched from Russia, makes its way West. It manoeuvres around what look like American anti-missile shields, before landing in an unnamed country the other side of the ocean. The target - the contours of a state looking like Florida comes into view. 
Regardless, the audience in the hall — federal lawmakers and other leading officials — had the idea immediately. They sniggered before the animated missile even had a chance to land.  The audience in the hall — federal lawmakers and other leading officials — seemed to get the idea. They sniggered before the animated missile even had a chance to land. 
But in his daily briefing on Friday, Presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov insisted the most obvious interpretation was, in fact, plain wrong. The maps had “no relation to specific countries,” he said. There was no “Florida” map or "any map of any state in the US"  But in his daily briefing to press on Friday, presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov insisted the most obvious interpretation of animations was, in fact, mistaken. The maps had “no relation to specific countries,” he said. There was no “Florida” map “nor any map of any state in the US”.
The international outcry that followed Mr Putin’s speech had also, apparently, missed the point. This was not a “confrontational” speech, said Mr Peskov, but a demonstration of Russia’s potential for technological advance. Mr Putin’s new weapons pitch did not amount to a militaristic speech, he claimed.  The international reaction to Thursday’s speech was swift. There were statements of concern from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and American President Donald Trump. The US State Department briefed journalists that Russia had been committed to “destabilising” weapon systems "for well over a decade."
International reaction to Thursday’s speech was swift. It included statements of concern from German Chancellor Angela Merkel and American President Donald Trump. The U.S. State Department briefed journalists that Russia had been developing “destabilising” weapon system "for over a decade." According to Mr Peskov, the international outcry “missed the point.” Mr Putin’s address was not a “confrontational” speech, he said, but a demonstration of Russia’s potential for technological advance. A new weapons pitch did not amount to a “militaristic” speech, he said. 
This claim was also rejected by Mr Peskov. He repeated the main argument of Vladimir Putin’s speech: whatever Russia did, it had been provoked. In particular, the new weapons followed the United States decision to leave the 1972 anti-ballistic missile treaty in 2002. Russia's new weapons were, he said, the "logical response" to ensuring parity between the world’s two nuclear superpowers.  Instead, Russia's new weapons were a "logical response" to ensuring “parity” between the world’s two nuclear superpowers: “We are not developing weapons that would neutralise the enemy’s own strategic arsenal, and we are defenceless against some of their weapons.” 
“We are not developing weapons that would neutralise the enemy’s own strategic nuclear weapons,” he said. Igor Sutyagin, a military expert at the RUSI Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in London, told The Independent the Russian arguments were misleading. US anti-ballistic missile shields were never designed to defend against “sophisticated” Soviet intercontinental missiles, he said. Meanwhile, most of the weapons presented were “aspirational” or had their roots in Soviet development programmes. 
Igor Sutyagin, a military expert at the RUSI Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in London, told The Independent that US anti-ballistic missile shields were never designed to defend against “sophisticated” Soviet intercontinental missiles. “All nuclear programmes have to be updated, but this was clearly overkill,” said Mark Galeotti, senior researcher at the Institute of International Relations in Prague. “Whatever will happen will happen much slower then they are saying and is unlikely to become operational while Putin is still in power.” 
In his view, the Russian leadership was engaged in creating an artificial threat both for foreign governments and for a domestic audience not yet sufficiently enthused to vote in forthcoming elections.  Former Kremlin advisor and security expert Vladimir Frolov described the announcement as “bluff.” There were doubts such “exotic weapons” would ever see the light of day, he said. Even if they were, they would make little difference to the strategic balance. “The US won’t be forced into a new generation of nuclear underwater drones, or nuclear powered cruise missiles because these are frankly nuts,” he told The Independent. 
Whatever the reality of the new weapons programme, few would disagree that Mr Putin’s Thursday’s speech took anti-American rhetoric to a new level. But the president had arguably  retreated to familiar territory. 
“The most important line of the speech was about weakness — no-one listened, but maybe now they will,” says Mr Galeotti. “Fundamentally, the Russians understand that they are weak, and that is a long-running insecurity. Their strong rhetoric speaks to a paucity of options rather than a signal of real intention.”