Putin's "red lines" for NATO: what the Russian president has not yet said

2

Putin's recent statement about red lines for Moscow unexpectedly sparked a heated discussion in Ukraine, although it was not intended for a Ukrainian audience. On the eve of the upcoming US-RF summit, all the statements of the top officials of Russia and the US are directed, first of all, to the opposite side in order to create a stronger negotiating position and to strengthen the existing one. The last thing Putin wanted was to stir up public opinion in Ukraine, which he, by and large, cannot influence. Local pro-government media are running the show there (and there are no opposition ones left there anymore!), Brainwashing their unfortunate population.

Regarding the red lines, the topic arose as Putin's reaction to the correspondent's question whether Ukraine's NATO membership is a red line for the Russian Federation, in which the journalist referred to the president's earlier similar statements. And although at first Putin began to refuse that he had never said anything like that, his entire subsequent monologue led to the quite obvious idea that Ukraine's NATO membership is undoubtedly a red line for Moscow. Only Putin's arguments were not entirely convincing. He referred to the fact that no verbal agreements between the first persons of the states have any legal force, which allowed NATO to surround us with its newly admitted members from the countries of the former socialist camp and even the former Soviet republics, spitting on all the promises to Gorbachev not to do this.



You can't take anyone's word for it!


For your reference, I will remind you that the North Atlantic military, created in 1949political the block included at that time 12 states (USA, Canada, Great Britain, France, Italy, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Iceland and three Benelux countries) and was created to protect Europe from Soviet influence. Over the years, it has experienced eight expansions, as a result of which it was transformed into a block of 30 states. And if the 1st, 2nd and 3rd expansion can still be understood somehow, in 1952 Greece and Turkey joined the bloc, in 1955 - Germany, and in 1982 - Spain, then that Hungary was forgotten there, Poland and the Czech Republic, which joined the bloc in 1999 (4th expansion), as well as Bulgaria, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, not to mention the three mighty Baltic tigers that joined NATO in 2004 (5th expansion) , I do not know. But this NATO did not seem enough, and in 2009 Albania and Croatia joined the bloc (6th expansion), in 2017 - Montenegro (7th expansion), and in 2020 - North Macedonia (8th expansion ). At the same time, the Soviet Union, which they all initially opposed, was gone for 30 years. Next in line at a low start is Bosnia and Herzegovina, which received a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP) in 2010, and Georgia and Ukraine, dreaming about it.

On June 12, 2020, Ukraine has already 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).

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.

What Putin didn't say


Therefore, Putin, who says that you cannot trust the “partners”, is absolutely right. He is also right that if the United States decides to add someone else to itself, then Russia will not be able to prevent this, it is enough to grant this country the status of the Main US ally outside the NATO bloc, after which nothing will prevent America from placing its bases there. 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 know, Kyrgyzstan has never been a member of the North Atlantic Alliance (Kyrgyzstan, in addition to everything, is also a member of the CSTO).

Lest you think that all this is a joke, I will give only a list of countries that have already received the status of the Main US ally outside NATO. In 1987, under President Ronald Reagan, Israel (first), Australia, Egypt, Japan and South Korea received this status. In 1996, Bill Clinton made Jordan happy with it, 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, but the decision to grant this status is made, you understand, not in the Kremlin.

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? On September 19, 2014, US President Barack Obama denied Ukraine the status of the Main US ally outside NATO. But Biden may change his mind. What will you do to him? Will you start a war?

Therefore, the correspondent's conversation about the red lines with Putin arose, you understand, not from scratch. Putin is trying to designate the banks for which there is no need to swim. It will be more expensive for yourself! So far, this is all at the level of conversations, but when the balance of the countries conducting these negotiations has nuclear weapons, then transferring the conversation from the verbal to the practical sphere before the exchange of nuclear strikes is fraught with world catastrophe.

That is why Putin started talking about the flight time of American attack missiles from hypothetical potential US military bases near Kharkov or Dnepropetrovsk (naive, now there is no such city in Ukraine!) To Moscow, saying that it is one thing when missiles are launched from Poland or Romania and fly to Moscow in 15 minutes, and it is quite another matter when, starting from near Kharkov, they cover this distance in 7-10 minutes. Proposing as an alternative to compare how the States would react to the option if the Russian Federation transferred its missiles from Cuba with a flight time to Washington of 15 minutes to the northern border of Mexico or to the southern border of Canada, reducing the flight time to 7-10 minutes. This argument of Putin, from my point of view, is not entirely convincing, since the comparison is incorrect. Here, as for me, lies the weak point in his evidence-based logical chain.

To begin with, who, in fact, will give us the opportunity to place our missiles in Mexico, not to mention Canada? They are not even in Cuba! And remember what a commotion happened in America when two of our Tu-160 nuclear strategists landed in the Venezuelan capital Caracas. Maduro was almost overthrown in horror! I don’t want to tease you and remember the American B-52 nuclear strategists flying in the skies over Ukraine. But what have we done to them? Nothing! They just wiped themselves off. Lavrov did not even express concern. It's a pity! Although in these situations, not Lavrov, but Shoigu should express his concern, in the ways that he can. I don’t want to once again remind you of the events of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, but then only from rumors about Soviet missiles in Cuba, more people died in road accidents in America in a week in America than in the two previous years, when half of Florida at once withdrew from their homes and in horror, rushed north, away from the Russian missiles.

Putin recalled to the reporter that missile defense missiles in Romania and Poland can easily be replaced with strike missiles (they have the same launching missiles, and the software changes in 5 minutes), after which a 15-minute flight timing will be activated. To which his critics in Ukraine immediately recalled the US bases in the Baltic states, they say, from there even closer to Moscow. First, no closer. Secondly, there are no American missiles there. Not yet. And thirdly, and this is the most important thing, which Putin did not say, we are not afraid at all of the US strike Patriots, and not of their winged Tomahawks. Our missile defense system will easily intercept them. And as for the Moscow defense perimeter, not a single missile can overcome it. We are afraid, first of all, of our adversary's interceptor missiles. It is they who can nullify our superiority in ground-based nuclear deterrence. Take a compass, stick it into Poland or Romania, and then draw a circle, taking the range of the anti-missile missile as a basis, taking it as the radius. And then do the same by sticking the leg of the compass into the eastern border of Ukraine (not even the northern one, but the northeastern one). This is where the dog is buried!

The fact is that the American interceptor missiles, installed near Kharkov or Dnepropetrovsk, neutralize and make senseless all our strategic land-based nuclear missiles deployed on the European territory of the Russian Federation up to the Urals, since they are capable of destroying them even on take-off trajectories. That completely breaks the existing parity and balance of forces in strategic weapons between America and the Russian Federation. Let me remind you that the advantage of the United States over Russia in sea and air-based nuclear weapons was offset by Russia's superiority in long-range ground-based strategic missiles. It was like this until the last day. But unlike similar mobile systems installed on railway platforms and vehicles, silo-based missiles cannot be taken out from under the NATO missile defense umbrella and sent beyond the Urals, which reduces the fact of their presence to almost zero, which endangers the defense capability of the Russian Federation and allows Washington to talk to Moscow from a position of strength. And it is for this simple reason that the presence of American military bases in Ukraine is unacceptable for us. It's not even a red line, it's a casus belli. After the announcement of the appearance of similar US bases on the territory of Ukraine, Putin will do anything. He will have nowhere to retreat - behind Moscow. The states have already surrounded us with red flags on all sides.

But Biden raises the stakes on the eve of the summit, he didn’t stop at “Putin the killer”. According to the plans of the State Department, which he (in the person of Tony Blinken) does not hide, the Pentagon plans to place not one, but three military bases on the territory of Ukraine - a naval base and two land bases (one of which will be an Air Force base), and then the Russians who are watching politics, all the problems associated with the country of zhovto-blakit benches will seem like flowers. At the same time, Ukrainian airfields will be modernized and will be able to receive military aircraft of 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. So naive idiots from the pro-government offices of the country of evergreen tomatoes think.

I must disappoint them. 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.

So that it doesn't come to this, Biden and Putin meet on June 16 in Geneva. And in advance they outline unacceptable red lines. After the interview with Putin, no one doubts that Ukraine will become the subject of discussion. Whether it will become a bargaining chip, we'll see. But I strongly doubt it. Biden will definitely not let go of such a trump card; he will be able to keep Russia in limbo for a long time, blackmailing with the Ukrainian factor. Why lose such an advantage? Russia does not have a similar counterweight.
Our news channels

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest news and the most important events of the day.

2 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +2
    15 June 2021 18: 59
    Enough ass cutesy
    Before the West wag
    And behave humanely
    And hug at meetings.
    Never to enemies eternal
    Don't go to us as friends.
    And why are we careless
    Hug them and love them?
    And for every try
    Show your character
    Apologize as if under torture
    Dropping his head to the bottom.
    We pretended to be
    White and fluffy
    And they grew by their side
    Ardent fascists.
    They have been threatening us for a long time
    Atomic war.
    How long will we doubt:
    Shake the old days?
    1. +2
      15 June 2021 21: 55
      Be probably seemed
      White, fluffy,
      And they grew by their side
      Ardent fascists.

      And they wanted to spit
      On a two-headed eagle-
      They will beat as they killed
      Old and small