@largeham - most european wars of the 17th century had major naval campaigns too. Even in Russia around the turn of the 19th century, many of Peter the Great's campaigns were won with small navies on lakes and rivers in the St. Petersburg area.
Also, in general, sea power is just as vital, if not moreso, than land power. Had Alexander the Great not constructed a navy, then he would never had taken Tyre and thus wouldn't be able to continue his campaign towards Persepolis. Had the Greeks not beaten the Persians at Salamis, then Persia would have overwhelmed them. Ditto for the English and the Grand Armada. It was the appearance of the French navy at Yorktown which forced Cornwallis to surrender, for he couldn't receive more supplies. U-boats sneaking supplies to Corregidor kept it from falling to the Japanese for months.
So Putin, I think you are drastically underestimating the strength of naval power. Think of the effect a few pirates off of the Horn of Africa have today. Now what if there were submarines out there not capturing, but sinking any vessel they see? The global economy would come to an abrupt halt. Actually, with the merchant marine dwindling in size (but increasing in capacity), the importance of a single cargo ship increases dramatically. So I would propose that today, moreso than ever, navies can determine the outcome of a conflict