Putin knows all too well that whatever he does, he will be criticised by the Western Media. Moving nuclear capable missiles to Kaliningrad is a signal to NATO. Though his move represents a reasoned response to NATO's recent actions, he will inevitably be portrayed as the aggressor.
NATO is moving against Russia on all fronts. Hillary Clinton continues to push for a 'no-fly zone' in Syria. This is tantamount to declaring war on Russia. The situation is growing very dangerous.
The Western Media continues to allow NATO militarism to hide behind the lie that its anti-missile bases in Romania (and soon in Poland) are merely defensive. This has been demonstrated as false when considered from various points.
When it comes to the media and public perception in the West, Putin has nothing to lose. He's already been demonised and knows that the West will continue to move against him. He also knows the West is flooding money, weapons and fighters to his borders and within the Russian Federation itself. These events are not new, but the volume and tempo have increased in recent years. Putin undoubtedly fears that NATO will attempt to stir a revolt within Russia and provoke bloodshed. This may even be accomplished by a False Flag operation once the 'revolution' is under way. At that point a Western military intervention can be conducted... out of 'humanitarian' concerns of course. It's hardly a new plan.
Nevertheless the moving of missiles to Kaliningrad was an unfortunate move, escalating the danger and bringing the world closer to war.
By moving missiles to Kaliningrad he is sending a signal to NATO, a warning that he is serious about defending Russia's interests. The ongoing NATO campaign represents an existential threat to the Russian state. NATO wants to dismantle the Russian political order and re-draw the map of Eurasia.
I'm sure he is completely frustrated. He cannot win. No matter what he does, the move is portrayed as aggression. They are painting him into a corner. The greater the stress and tension the harder his rule will become. This will stir the pot domestically and possibly lead to unrest. He's being forced into a trap which is why his counter moves are sometimes perceived to be radical.
The article cites Russian violations of the INF treaty of 1987. Russia more or less pulled out of the treaty about 10 years ago but left open the possibility of it functioning. In reality GW Bush's unilateral withdrawal from the ABM treaty in 2001 more or less gutted the anti-proliferation framework developed during the Cold War. GW Bush stepped up NATO expansion and pushed Russia almost to the breaking point. Obama has increased the pressure and Hillary Clinton if elected has made her intentions clear.
When it comes to geopolitics and especially security issues the BBC speaks in concert for NATO and the British Establishment. This article is no exception. The reporter should be rebuked for his bias and irresponsibility in failing to mention the US breaking of the ABM treaty. It also fails to take into account the shifts in US nuclear doctrine and the proposed spending increases on the part of the United States.
An additional point regarding NATO troop levels on Russia's borders... the official numbers may seem relatively small. No indeed, NATO is not planning a Barbarossa-style blitzkrieg across the Russian steppe. That's not how a modern war would be fought. The point of the troop deployments is the establishment of strategic (and tactical) infrastructure. The numbers are fluid. Official numbers often fail to reflect reality. Thousands of additional troops and large quantities of equipment and materiel can also be assigned to these locales and yet not be 'stationed' there. It's a semantics game.