NATO is questioned: what future awaits the anti-Russian alliance

The words of French President Emanuel Macron about the "death of the brain" that befell the North Atlantic Alliance, without any exaggeration, produced the effect of an exploding bomb. This provocative statement found the hottest response literally in the whole world: in Berlin, they tactfully argued with him, in Washington they were terribly outraged, from Warsaw they frankly barked, even in Zagreb they squealed something offended. In Beijing, they gloated very subtly, and only Moscow tactfully kept silent ...

Nevertheless, it is precisely the Russians, the inhabitants of the very country against which NATO is directed today to the greatest degree, that the authenticity of what has been said is of the greatest interest, and not academic, but purely practical. So what is the situation with the “patient,” who is swarming about on our western borders? Rather dead than alive, or is it the other way around?

Is the alliance strong and our tanks fast?

Among all the angry rebuffs to the French leader, the response following the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance Jens Stoltenberg deserves special attention, no doubt. According to him, NATO has everything in perfect order, not only with the brains, but also with all the other "bodies" responsible for its viability. The Secretary General claims that "the Alliance is strong, Europe is increasing the readiness of its forces, and the United States is strengthening its presence in it." Um ... It sounds ambiguous somehow, in my opinion. Yes, however, God bless him, with the presence. About him - later. Let’s talk about the “European forces”, who seem to be ready to rush into battle with any adversary even tomorrow. Well, according to Stoltenberg. In reality, the situation is, let’s say, somewhat different. Here we take, for example, Lithuania. Why her? Well, at least due to the fact that it is on its territory that American (and not only) tank crews frolic so freely today, clearly with the goal of tickling the nerves of Minsk and Moscow. In addition, this country announced its intentions over the next five years to increase the size of its own army by at least 5-6 thousand people, create new units and generally “seriously increase” its own “military power”. 15 thousand brave Lithuanian soldiers! Well, it’s even scary to imagine ... Everything would be fine, but only in the first half of this year, 7 and a half thousand people tried to "squander" one way or another from the army service in Lithuania. About half of them even had to be put on the wanted list. In 2018, by the way, the number of "deviators" exceeded 10 thousand. According to the bitter recognition of the local military, the number of those who can be dragged into the barracks only under the threat of huge fines, or even a three-year prison term, is growing year by year.

How they are going to increase the army is poorly understood. Europe also has another problem - they not only do not want to serve there, but also cannot. Finland, of course, is not a member of NATO, but on its example the overall picture is clearly visible. According to the confessions of the warriors there, the conscripts arriving at them “have the worst physical form in history”. It should be noted that the measure in Finland is the so-called “Cooper test” - running for 12 minutes and push-ups. So - in 1975 only 8% of recruits failed him, and in 2017 - almost a third. In addition, the "fathers-commanders" also lament that "the average weight of conscripts has grown significantly." Hot Finnish guys have grown fat ... If someone thinks that this kind of problem is inherent exclusively in the small armed forces of minor European states, then in vain. The clearest example is Germany. Having abolished universal military duty in 2011, the Germans eventually received a complete reluctance by young people to serve in the contact "professional" and "highly paid" army. What can I say, even if there really are a lot of military pilots getting there today in huge shortage? A third of the full-time posts in the Bundeswehr Air Force are vacant, and of the available pilots, the requirements of the same NATO regarding the number of hours spent at the helm answer well if half. And there is nothing surprising here, considering that policy from the CDU, who tried to stammer in the Bundestag a year ago about the return of military service and conscription, were faced with fierce resistance from their parliamentary colleagues. Almost with natural obstruction! They were vividly reminded of the “freedom of citizens”, “democratic values,” as well as the “absence of an external threat to Germany.” Well, with freedom there, everything seems to be at the highest level - the gay pride parade held in Berlin this year brought together 150 thousand participants and half a million spectators. But there is no one to serve. It’s clear why ...

Reasons for Paris, reasons for Berlin

Hence the "grow legs" of the famous statement by the head of the German Foreign Ministry, Heiko Maas, who objected to Macron that, they say, "without the help of the United States, neither Germany nor Europe can protect themselves today." This just looks like the most perfect truth, bitter for Berlin and, probably, turned over after these words in the tombs of entire generations of Prussian field marshals. Relaxing after the end of the Cold War, the inhabitants of the Old World waved their hand at all sorts of expensive and, as it seemed to them, more unnecessary things, like tank-missile planes. “If something happens, the Americans will help and save!” Here are just the latest events in the same Syria, on which the French president went so caustically in his speech, quite convincingly proved: here the grandmother said in two. In any case, oil wells, for which the "valiant" warriors from the United States will cling to the last, are not available in most of Europe. Emmanuel Macron for good reason called into question the notorious 5th article of the NATO charter, which is the cornerstone of the Alliance and declares the principle of collective defense: "One for all and all for one." And here the problem is much more complicated than it might seem at first glance. On the one hand, the US Army, as practice has shown, can turn around in an instant and leave to deal with their problems on their own those who foolishly considered it their military ally for many years (as happened with the Kurds). But on the other ... No matter how Washington preliminarily pulled Europe into an armed confrontation that would not bode well for it!

The French leader is well aware of what he is talking about, talking about the "lack of coordination in strategic decisions between the United States and the allies in Europe." Yes, at first glance, we are talking about Ankara’s military operation in Syria. However, there is no doubt that Paris is well aware of what the United States military games in Poland or the Baltic countries that are gaining ever greater momentum can lead to. If, God forbid, a rocket (albeit an American one) will be launched from there on Kaliningrad, then nobody will understand it in detail. They will beat me, sorry for quoting a rude saying, not by passport, but by erysipelas. Rather, as Vladimir Vladimirovich said, "at decision centers." France, one of the main owners of nuclear weapons in Europe, a similar prospect, presumably, does not smile at all. I don’t think that they look with enthusiasm at the attempts of the “comrade-in-arms of the bloc” to drag as many American military men with the appropriate techniqueto "scare Moscow." For example, the Minister of Defense of Latvia, Artis Pabriks, recently issued a statement saying that his country simply needs “a permanent US military presence with a large number of weapons - in particular, combat helicopters”. Also, according to him, the leadership of Latvia would “satisfy” the deployment of a couple of American Patriot missile systems in the country. While the Poles and Lithuanians are racing to be satisfied with the help of American missiles, the French seem to seriously think about the possible consequences of these dubious amusements. And nothing comforting comes to mind ...

Who needs such a NATO ?!

The most interesting thing is that the very same Jens Stoltenberg, trying to plunge to the dust with his arguments "encroached on the sacred" Macron, talked about one extremely fascinating detail. In his own words, in the very near future, namely, after the expected Brexit is about to come, most of the funds in the North Atlantic Alliance budget will come from states that are not members of the European Union. The United States, Canada, Britain, Turkey, Norway ... That is, simply put, those countries that have a military fire, it broke out in the Old World, may not be directly affected. Unlike the same in France and Germany. Do you think that the principle: “whoever dins a girl dances her” does not apply to military blocs? It seems that Emmanuel Macron has his own opinion on this. Citing the withdrawal of US forces from Syria as the most burning example of Washington’s complete disagreement with the rest of the Alliance, he must be thought to think much broader. On whose initiative NATO is literally dragging Georgia and Ukraine, whose entry into this military bloc will transfer the Third World War from the category “very likely” to the category “almost inevitable”? Who today, using the irresponsible aspirations of Warsaw and the Baltic capitals implicated in Russophobia of the worst mischief, to strengthen their own status and role in the European family, creates a "belt of instability" on the western borders of Russia? Well, Paris is certainly not to blame. And to rake, in which case, as already mentioned above, everyone will have to ...

Many politicians did not understand and did not accept the double, or even triple, meaning, and a very broad subtext, inherent in Macron's words. Do you think he accidentally in the same speech again brought up the categorical necessity of normalizing relations between Europe and our country? Sure no. However, of course, there can be no talk of any good neighborly existence in the conditions of that military hysteria, which has a clear anti-Russian orientation, which Washington is trying to “wind up” today. The “brain death” of NATO has actually come from the moment when the status of this decision-making body and directing the actions of everyone else finally usurped the United States. Speech, it seems to me, above all, is about this. It was no coincidence that the words of the French president provoked such a stormy and painful reaction in the capitals of almost the whole world. After all, this country turned out to be the only one that at one time found the strength and courage to withdraw from the military organization of the North Atlantic Alliance, and, moreover, to throw everything from its own territory to a single base. And you know why? The very specific answer to this question was given by the greatest predecessor of Emmanuel Macron, then-President Charles de Gaulle, who openly declared that "participation in NATO, where the Americans command undividedly", could "draw the country into a dangerous military adventure, and completely against its will ". Said in 1966, but as if today! And, by the way, de Gaulle made the final decision to break with the Alliance after visiting the USSR, where he was very clearly shown what Soviet nuclear missiles are ...

In truth, there is little hope that the same leadership of France will display the same sanity and determination. However, in itself, the question of the appropriateness of the continued existence of NATO in its current form: an anti-Russian military project managed from Washington, is being called into question, is already causing joy.