Biden's "strong card" - US military bases in Ukraine


We continue to analyze the myths and legends associated with the American project called "Ukraine". Last time we analyzed the mythologeme associated with the “fateful” meaning of Nord Stream 2 for Russia in the context of its bright future, which is rooted in the minds of most Russians. We found out that this value is clearly exaggerated in terms of the cost of its construction and its irreplaceability in terms of the supply of our hydrocarbons to Europe. The project is rather political character. Germany and Ukraine are more interested in it (the first in its successful launch, the second in the exact opposite).


For us, this is a matter of honor and political prestige, although the establishment of closer economic ties with the FRG are also in our plans, as is the exclusion of Ukraine from this chain, as an element of pressure on it, but we can fulfill our contractual obligations to the EU to provide it with our blue fuel without SP-2. For our sworn overseas "partners", this project has become an element of bargaining and pressure on us. How it all ends, we will see in the near future (I will not retell the article anymore, those who wish can go through link and read it yourself).

Today we will debunk another mythology that has developed around Ukraine. Let's discuss its possible membership in NATO, which has been scaring us since 2004. Let's find out how possible this is and whether this is such a terrible devil, as they are trying to portray it to us, and what we really need to be afraid of.

No NATO shines for Ukraine


I hope everyone here has enough imagination to understand that no NATO in the next 120 years threatens Ukraine with a 120% probability. And not at all because this pseudo-state has an unresolved territorial conflict with the Russian Federation (and I'm not talking about Donbass now, but about Crimea, which will never be Ukrainian again, I hope, at least no one has any doubts about that? ), but because not a single NATO member, including the United States, is smiling to get involved in an armed conflict with such a nuclear power as the Russian Federation (and it will be inevitable if NATO crosses this red line indicated by the Kremlin). Therefore, this issue can be closed, once and for all. NATO is a fairy tale about a "white bull" or, if you like, a carrot for a donkey, which is fed to the local population by its close local government. By the way, not all the local population is willing to do this, and even less wants it. Only a third of the population of Nezalezhnaya sleeps and sees themselves in NATO, the same number of people see themselves in a military alliance with the Russian Federation, and about the same number of people advocate a non-bloc status of Ukraine, following the example of Finland. It would seem that the question could be closed and forgotten about it forever? But if only it were that simple.

Not so long ago (April 16), President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky paid a visit to France, where he met with his French counterpart and peer Emmanuel Macron. We talked about this and that. Everything ended, as usual, with nothing. Why do you ask me? Because, despite the fact that both presidents are 43 years old, one of them turned out to be Loch, and the other Not Loch. Which one of them is who, decide for yourself, but the one who is French does not respond to the nickname Loch, and the one who is Ukrainian has this very plate on the walls of his Office (the local "shanuvalniks" tried their best).

On the eve of the planned visit, Zelenskiy said in an interview with the Telegraph newspaper that “only Ukraine's accession to NATO can guarantee security and peace in the long term” and that Ukraine, in his opinion, has long “deserved” the right to leave the EU and NATO “waiting room”. As the French L'Opinion writes at the meeting, Emmanuel Macron "left this topic unattended", delicately avoiding the discussion of this issue. The administration of the head of the 5th republic specified that such a "delicate issue" should be discussed not behind the scenes, but collectively at the summit of the North Atlantic Alliance (the next one is expected in June). Prior to that, the same was voiced by the press secretary of the White House Jen Psaki, who said that the decision on this is taken by all members of the North Atlantic Alliance, and not just Washington. Ulrike Demmer, a spokesman for the German government, was even more definite: “Ukraine has the right to freely choose its political paths. However, no further steps towards [Ukraine's NATO] membership are currently planned. ”

Well, the funeral of the project "Ukraine" was finished by the ex-deputy commander of NATO in Europe, British General Richard Shirreff, the author of the sensational book "2017: War with Russia", who just recently stated the following:

I am opposed to anything that can make Ukraine think about the real possibility of NATO membership. I believe that the promise to admit Ukraine to NATO in 2008 at the Bucharest summit was a strategic mistake. NATO membership is a guarantee of collective security. Ukraine has already been the victim of a Russian-backed separatist attack. NATO membership would mean the alliance's participation in the confrontation with them. In addition, if NATO is serious about collective security, it would mean deploying troops in Ukraine and a willingness to defend it in the event of a Russian attack. I don't think it is politically possible to deploy NATO troops in Ukraine. Not least because Russia has every opportunity to attack from a short distance, this would be different for NATO. I do not think that NATO solidarity would outlast Ukraine's membership and collective security demands.

At the same time, it is very difficult to suspect a British general in sympathy for the Russian Federation and its president, he just really looks at things. That does not prevent him from demanding to clearly mark the red lines for Putin and to keep him on a leash, demonstrating unbreakable determination in response to the demonstrative build-up of Russian troops on the border with Ukraine:

Putin wants to show that he has a big club and is ready to use it. The West definitely needs to take note of this. I have heard a lot of empty talk about Ukraine's membership in NATO and I strongly advise against it. I believe that this would make a war between Russia and NATO inevitable. But this does not exclude a demonstration of support for Ukraine and solidarity at the bilateral level, assistance in building up its own capabilities. It must be remembered that Russia respects strength. This is what Churchill said when he dealt with Stalin during World War II: "He despises weakness." Putin also despises weakness. For example, the (announced by the Pentagon) plan to send American frigates to the Black Sea and then withdraw them - this can be interpreted as weakness. Biden blinked first, and Putin will take that into account.

Putin has already taken this into account, but Zelensky, it seems, has not. Apparently, his experience had not taught him anything. This problem has a long history. "If you see a light in the window, then this is not a reason to break into closed doors!" (from). This is how the former French President Nicolas Sarkozy answered in response to the intrusive requests of the then President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko for the admission of Independent to NATO. Since then, little has changed. Until now, no one is waiting for Ukraine in NATO. But this does not prevent Zelensky from telling everyone that Ukraine's goal is to join NATO. So who is he after that? Decide for yourself.

Major non-aligned US ally


However, if we look at the world around us, we will see that Israel, for example, is not a NATO member, which does not prevent it from cooperating with the Pentagon on military issues and being a US outpost in the Middle East. Turkey and Greece, having an unresolved territorial conflict, at one time easily became members of the Alliance. At least this did not become a big obstacle for them. I’ll tell you more, in order to place military bases on the territory of Ukraine, the United States does not need its membership in NATO at all, a bilateral treaty is enough (the retired British general spoke about this, the quote of which I quoted above). The United States has more than a thousand military bases in 32 countries of the world, 20 of which are not NATO members. Even in Kyrgyzstan there was a US Air Force base, while, you yourself understand, Kyrgyzstan has never been a member of the North Atlantic Alliance (Kyrgyzstan, in addition to everything, is also a member of the CSTO).

However, since June 12, 2020, Ukraine has received the status of NATO's Enhanced Opportunities Partner (EOP), becoming the sixth such partner of the Alliance, along with Sweden, Finland, Georgia, Australia and Jordan. This does not give Ukraine anything, much less guarantee NATO membership, but it helps the North Atlantic bloc to involve it in its operations (in Kosovo and Afghanistan, for example). The press service of the organization confirmed:

EOP status will allow Ukraine to take advantage of specially designed opportunities to maintain the effectiveness of such participation. This includes increased access to interoperability enhancement programs and exercises, as well as increased information sharing.

Ukraine's next goal is the NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP). And she is systematically moving towards this. Even the presence of an unresolved territorial conflict on its territory cannot prevent this. How this factor can be overcome is shown by the example of Georgia, a fifth of which, as the Georgian authorities assure, is occupied by Russia (we are talking about Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Somewhere since 2017, there has been a debate on how to get around Article 5 of the NATO Charter, which provides for the collective defense of NATO member countries in the event of an attack on one of them. So far, the working option is to amend that when accepting countries with unresolved territorial problems, the guarantees of Article 5 will not apply to these territories, but will apply to the rest of Georgia. Moreover, this does not mean in any way that, for example, Georgia is giving up its sovereignty over these territories. It is just that Georgia will not receive the right to demand military assistance to solve precisely these problems. But in the event of further military expansion, it will enjoy the same guarantees as NATO members. The same tracing paper can be applied to Ukraine.

But why bother with all these difficulties, when all of Ukraine's problems can be solved in one elegant move - its admission to the main US allies outside NATO. After that, the surprised Russian man in the street will be able to find at their closest approaches as many American military bases that have appeared there on the basis of a bilateral Treaty between Ukraine and the United States. And who, in fact, can forbid them this? According to the plans of the State Department, which he (in the person of Tony Blinken) does not hide, on the territory of Ukraine the Pentagon plans to place not one, but three military bases at once - a naval and two land (one of which will be an air force base), and then you will have all the problems, associated with the country of zhovto-blakite benches will seem like flowers. At the same time, Ukrainian airfields will be modernized and will be able to receive military aircraft from the North Atlantic Alliance. After the implementation of these measures, according to Kiev and its overseas "friends", the Armed Forces of Ukraine will be able to calmly, and without fear of Moscow's actions, begin to "clean up" the eastern regions of Ukraine. Knowing about the presence of NATO troops, the Kremlin will not overstep the boundaries of what is permitted.

But this is unlikely! It is unlikely that it will even come to that. The Kremlin will overstep the bounds of what is permissible even before the first American soldier sets foot on Ukrainian territory. True, the territory after that runs the risk of losing its Ukrainian identity.

Lest you think that all these are jokes, scarecrows of the Pentagon strategists who have lost their shores, I will give only a list of countries that have already received this status. In 1987, under President Ronald Reagan, Israel (first), Australia, Egypt, Japan and South Korea received the status of the United States' Major Ally outside NATO. In 1996, Bill Clinton made Jordan happy with this status, New Zealand a year later and Argentina a year later. Under George W. Bush, this list was supplemented by Bahrain (2002), the Philippines and Thailand (2003), as well as Kuwait, Morocco and Pakistan (2004). Barack Obama also brought in Afghanistan (2012) and Tunisia (2015), and our beloved Donald Ibrahimovic added Brazil to them in 2019. Now our old acquaintances Moldova (since 1992), Kosovo (since 1998), Georgia (since 2008) and Ukraine (since 2014) are listed as candidates for this honorary title. So far, this is an element of bargaining and pressure on the Russian Federation. Allies in this status were initially (since 1987) approved by the order of the US Secretary of Defense (subject to the consent of the Secretary of State). Since 1996, this prerogative has been transferred to the President of the United States (with mandatory notification to Congress within 30 days). Let me remind you that American nuclear strategists B-52 with nuclear weapons on board are based at the Kadena Air Force Base (Okinawa Island) in Japan. If the President of the United States wishes, in 30 days, the same can appear in Ukraine. And who will forbid him? Aren't you scared yourself? On September 19, 2014, US President Barack Obama denied Ukraine the status of the Main US ally outside NATO. But the new US president may change his mind. What will you do to him? Will you start a war? So he is just waiting for this.
10 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Eskimo Offline Eskimo
    Eskimo (Gera) 11 May 2021 09: 33
    +1
    "What will you do to him? Will you start a war? So he is just waiting for this." Correct. But, that's why the sooner the matter of Ukraine is solved by Russia the better for Russia, for Ukraine, for the World suffices to let Galicia and Volynia out of consideration. After all, I was watching a tv poll yesterday in Ukraine on whether 9 May is den peremogi or den pobeda, and 36% was in favor of den pobeda.

    “What are you going to do with him? Will you start a war? So he's just waiting for it. " Right. But therefore, the sooner Russia decides the question of Ukraine, the better for Russia, for Ukraine, for the World it is enough not to think about Galicia and Volhynia. In the end, yesterday I watched a telecast in Ukraine, whether May 9 will be “Victory Day” or “Victory Day”, and 36% voted for “Victory Day”.
  2. gorenina91 Offline gorenina91
    gorenina91 (Irina) 11 May 2021 09: 46
    -5
    No NATO shines for Ukraine

    - And how "it shines" ... - And moreover ... - to become not some kind of "non-aligned US ally" ... - but a real, "legal" and legitimate NATO member ...
    - So ... - And the admission of Ukraine to NATO ... - it will be a very strong move for the United States ... - Because. immediately a situation is created in which Belarus itself will fall into NATO, like a ripe fruit ... - For this, the United States in Belarus will not even have to arrange expensive and bloody coups ... - a simple elementary Maidan is enough and ... and ... and Belarus is already in NATO ... - Yes, Lukashenko himself will defect to the side of the Americans, as soon as Ukraine is in NATO ... - He will simply take it and run ... - He will simply ask the United States for "political asylum for the whole country" ... - and The United States will not even have to spend extra money on everything on this ... - Everything will instantly pay off just at times ... - With this, the United States simply kills all birds with one stone and very much destroys the political foundation under the "Russian basis" ...; which can lead to the beginning of the disintegration of Russia ... as a state ... - These are the space stakes in this current political "world game" ... - One should not expect anything else in this situation ...
    - So ... - everyone predicted the disintegration of Ukraine; but in a certain situation, everything can happen exactly "the other way around." ..- Alas ...
    - By the way ... - NATO itself today does not represent a very "close-knit bloc"; in which the decay process can also begin ...
    - But it is absolutely NOT important; since its "fatal shot" to destroy Russia (for its disintegration) ... NATO still has time to do ... - And what's next ... for Americans it will be - "Though the grass does not grow" ... -USA will have time to occupy everything winning world positions ... - and the United States won't have to share with China too much ... so ... - they will throw a "bone" to China ... - some part of Russian territory ... - that's all ...
    - And the United States can easily cope with China ... - and cowardly China (with its huge ridiculous army); who wanted to sit on all the chairs at once ... - and have billionaires and so that the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China would rule over them (even the "Golden Fish" could not fulfill such a desire ... - Hahah) ... - will just return to his own the main function ... is to supply the whole world with Chinese consumer goods ... - Otherwise, the Americans in China will arrange a Maidan (which is quite realistic today) and divide China into "several territories" ...
  3. Bakht Online Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 May 2021 10: 16
    -1
    The project is more of a political nature. Germany and Ukraine are more interested in it (the first in its successful launch, the second in the exact opposite).

    This is a purely economic project and the political component is minimal here. You yourself noted this in the same sentence.
    If the FRG is interested in him, it is clearly not for political purposes. And Ukraine resists, because it will lose $ 3 billion a year. No politics. Clean business.
    1. Volkonsky Offline Volkonsky
      Volkonsky (Wolf) 11 May 2021 16: 43
      0
      this is a political project for the Russian Federation, and without it it can supply its hydrocarbons to the West
      1. Bakht Online Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 May 2021 18: 30
        +1
        Maybe at the moment. But gas consumption in Europe is growing. This is the first thing. Second, pumping through transit countries is much more expensive. Moreover, there are constant lawsuits. Direct deliveries are much more profitable. First of all, Germany. So from all points of view, both for Germany and for Russia, this is primarily an economic project.
        Look at the supporters and opponents of the project in Europe. Supporters include Germany, France, Austria, Slovakia, and even Norway. The opponents are all the new members of the EU. These are the Baltics, Poland, Ukraine and, of course, the States. The goal is to hang the content of Ukraine around the neck of Russia. That is, there are also economic reasons. Moreover, if the supporters of the project are the donors of Europe, then the opponents are the recipients of aid from the same Europe.
      2. Bakht Online Bakht
        Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 May 2021 18: 57
        +1
        For the first time, the idea of ​​the second gas pipeline was announced in 2011. Practical implementation (negotiations and planning) started after 2014. And now just two digits. At the suit of Naftogaz, Gazprom paid Ukraine about $ 3 billion. And Ukraine is not going to stop there. More lawsuits are being prepared. Gasprom spent $ 2 billion on the construction of JV-5. Are the numbers comparable?
        What is better - to remain a hostage of Ukraine or get rid of all kinds of lawsuits in the future?
        Any project has some kind of political component. But it's just money. I have always said that by winning the Stockholm arbitration, Ukraine will lose much more. The termination of transit through Ukraine will leave it without $ 2 billion (according to Yatsenyuk) or $ 3 billion a year (according to modern estimates).
        What is the political component? Yes, she is present. But not the main one. What is the meaning of sanctions against Russia? Using economic methods to displease the population and force Russia to change its political course. As you can see, economics and politics are linked. Russia is simply obliged to answer with the same card. To worsen the economic situation of Ukraine, to cause discontent among the population and force it to change its political course. Again, economics and politics are linked. In this context, I can agree on the political goals of SP-2. But the main thing is an economically more profitable and safer route for the delivery of hydrocarbons to Europe. And protect yourself from lawsuits from an unreliable transit country. And Ukraine ... will lose money for transit (this is not a lot) and (most importantly) will lose its "virtual reverse". We will have to buy gas in Europe at spot prices. At the moment it is more than $ 300 per thousand cubic meters.
  4. Teacher Offline Teacher
    Teacher (Wise) 11 May 2021 10: 17
    +1
    Ukraine's admission to NATO will be a very strong move for the United States

    Written very well. Ukraine in NATO - a control shot.
    There is little time left to prevent it, a year at most, maybe less. The complete blocking of this fatal decision for Russia is Novorossiya.
    In the meantime, we are selling gasoline, TVELs, investing in Ukrainian banks, inviting "partners" to Moscow for talks. I am not even talking about the Russians thrown to be devoured by the nationalists in Ukraine.
  5. Bakht Online Bakht
    Bakht (Bakhtiyar) 11 May 2021 10: 21
    -1
    It is necessary to broadly interpret the 5th article of the Alliance. "An attack by one country of the Alliance on Russia means a war with all countries of the Alliance."
    After that, you can safely admit Ukraine to NATO. This would mean an automatic state of war between NATO and Russia. The Germans have already said their word:

    We have fought Russia twice over the past 100 years. Next time somehow without us
  6. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
    Bulanov (Vladimir) 11 May 2021 10: 25
    0
    But the new US president may change his mind. What will you do to him? Will you start a war? So he is just waiting for this.

    He may be waiting, but are other Americans waiting for this, who still want to live? 3 World War is the death of human civilization and if Biden does not care about it, then others do not!
  7. andrew42 Offline andrew42
    andrew42 (Andrei) 11 May 2021 14: 19
    -1
    If the Russian oligarchy had seriously intended to resolve the crisis in Novorossiya, he would have done it long ago. First, having established an oil and gas blockade of Banderia, which would have shaken Kiev managers on an American salary. Then it would be banal to outbid the hesitant and plant his own agents of influence in Kiev. This is a matter of 2-3 years. The fact that this has been dragging on since 2014, the suspended shelling of Donbass, suggests that the financial "elite" of Russia does not want to resolve this issue. Getmans Square always "bought" and will buy, because it is SOLD! This is even under the feudal system, and even under the bourgeois power there are no other moves at all. Is that the Soviet power on both sides of the border, but this is a completely different reality, unrealizable under the conditions of the triumph of Ideology ("patriotism" -? - of course not) Dough.