My response is to look at where the dollars go. Following Jane, following the other open sources, we see that it's not talk. They have already recommissioned three new nuclear power submarines. Presumably they have been having trouble with the missile, but they seem dedicated to spend the resources. They are building three more as we talk. They are building two new attack submarines.
If you start drilling down to details, it's not rhetoric, it's not talk. They are going through....and it's their strategic balance. Have a look in terms of where they are making the investments.
We also see them making the investment on their air capabilities particularly in terms of cruise missiles. This is why an aircraft that's built in 1958—the Tupolev 95s—people laugh at them, but it's a question of what they are carrying. It's going from the KH55s to the KH101s and KH102s that pose the greatest problem for the NATO forces.
I see the exact opposite. I see difficulties. They are going from having an economy the size of the Netherlands in the 1990s to reasserting themselves as a great power. There are all sorts of challenges. They have had false starts. The dedication they have given from 2007 until 2014 undermines their determination to eventually regain that military capability.