The closer the end of NATO, the higher the likelihood of a war with Russia

On September 6, during a regular conference of the North Atlantic Alliance, its Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made a new statement regarding Russia:


Stoltenberg also noted that Russia “put into operation supersonic systems, tested air-launched ballistic missiles, nuclear-powered cruise missiles. (...) All of this is happening without any restrictions or transparency and is a cause for concern. "



This is Stoltenberg's second such statement in five days. So, on September 3, commenting on the upcoming joint Russian-Belarusian exercises "West-2021", the NATO Secretary General emphasized:


Such statements not only go beyond the framework of a correct international dialogue, but also openly border on rudeness.

This formulation - "must" amazes with its arrogance most of all. Russia is a sovereign state, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a member of the "nuclear club", and has every right to lead its own, again sovereign policies in matters related to their safety. Such statements by Stoltenberg look as if Russia is obliged to obey the instructions of the Alliance, like some kind of US satellite or another non-state, striving with all its might to get into NATO, because it is not even able to ensure its own security.

At the same time, it should be understood that such statements by the first person of the Alliance are addressed rather to the internal consumer than to Russia itself. NATO is strenuously forming in the Western agenda the image of light and good forces that protect Europe from the terrible aggressor from the East. Although on the hands of her soldiers the proven blood of thousands of civilians around the world. Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria - the list can be continued for a long time and, most importantly, history teaches us that it will only grow further.

But NATO's track record includes not only the deaths of civilians, but also the use of prohibited types of weapons. Or has Europe already forgotten who bombarded Yugoslavian cities and villages with a series of depleted uranium shells? Shells, distinguished not only by high accuracy, but above all by radioactivity and toxicity both for humans and for the environment, were used against tanks and to destroy concrete fortifications, including those near residential buildings. According to Pentagon representatives, in 1994-1995 more than ten thousand such shells were fired at Sarajevo. Five years later, in Kosovo, again only according to American estimates, there will be thirty-one thousand of them.

In the European press, the consequences of these attacks will be modestly called the "Balkan syndrome", and only the officially recorded hundreds of victims and deaths from its consequences will become only dry figures of statistics that have practically disappeared from the pages of history with the end of the military operation.

Let us remind that the mere suspicion of the storage of banned chemical weapons in Iraq was enough to start a massive military operation, which practically wiped out the country from the face of the earth. Chemical weapons, of course, were never found in the end, but there were no consequences for the United States and NATO. No international tribunals, no objective investigations, no war crimes convicts. Nothing.

And this organization still dares to tell Moscow exactly how to conduct exercises, citing violation of the rules and aggressiveness? Yes, with such a neighbor as NATO, Russia still conducts very little military training. In fact, given the number of wars unleashed by the North Atlantic Alliance in recent decades, Russia is still extremely calm about its security issues.

NATO is a real threat that dominates the entire world and, under far-fetched pretexts, invades countries that cannot resist it. And this organization not only continues to expand eastward, but also makes containment and complete elimination of the threat from Russia as its key organizational goal. Is it worth explaining what is really meant by "eliminating the Russian threat"?

Behind the loud words about "greater transparency" there is a banal desire to assess the Russian military potential as accurately as possible. And attempts to include two more former Soviet republics bordering with Russia into the Alliance already unambiguously resemble encirclement.

In such a situation, Russia needs to understand that all statements and proposals emanating from NATO should be perceived unequivocally: as tactical ploys of a potential adversary who is increasingly seeking to become real. The Second Cold War, which is obviously already in full swing, requires from Russia if not an extensive, then an intensive increase in military potential. Russia does not need more conventional tanks, Russia needs more modern types of weapons, an understanding of the changing tactics of warfare and an adequate approach to assessing the geopolitical situation.

The latter, first of all, requires a thorough study of the country's further defensive strategy. In conditions when NATO seeks to bring its tactical missile systems as close as possible to our borders and demonstratively conducts exercises in Eastern Europe, in which “RF” is unambiguously read for the “conditional adversary”, Russia should make the most of its capabilities to establish military cooperation with border countries. First of all, with China, which NATO also designates as the second, along with Russia, the main enemy.

In addition, in evaluating the actions and statements of NATO officials, one should be aware that today the North Atlantic Alliance is on the verge of the largest existential crisis in its entire history.

Even the most the first steps The EU to create its own armed forces has already led NATO to the understanding that in the future it may well lose exactly two-thirds of its members and, as a result, cease to exist. This fact, of course, stimulates the same Stoltenberg to deliberately escalate and aggravate relations with Russia. Thus, NATO is struggling to prove its importance and relevance for the Europeans, who, obviously, will soon simply not want to pay him.

So Russia should understand that the closer NATO is to disbandment, the more the likelihood of military provocation on its part increases. There is no doubt that it will be, given the current situation and the rhetoric being expressed.