The last days were marked by a number of very tough and uncompromising statements made both by high officials of our country (up to its president) and by the "top officials" of NATO, as well as the leading countries of this bloc. Practically, all of them dealt with an extremely painful for Russia and fundamentally important issue in the eyes of the North Atlantic Alliance: the prospects for its expansion to the East. First of all - at the expense of the countries of the "post-Soviet space". At the same time, if the rhetoric of the "North Atlanticists" was, in general, traditional - both in essence and in terms of the level of anti-Russian "intensity", then fundamentally new notes sounded in Moscow's speeches.
The demand for an official NATO refusal from further expansion towards our borders has never been presented by the Russian leadership. Now it was voiced by Vladimir Putin himself, who made it clear that these are not “routine” phrases, but a fundamental moment in which the Kremlin does not intend to retreat a single step. At the same time, the negotiability of our Western opponents on this issue initially raises extremely serious doubts. There are very specific reasons to believe that for them this is the same fundamental line in relations with Russia, which they do not intend to surrender. Let's try to figure it out - is there even a hypothetical chance that a mutually acceptable compromise will be reached on this issue? And also to understand what specific circumstances could contribute to it.
"Better later ..." or is it too late?
How far the saying that “later” is still better than “never” is applicable to the current situation is a very controversial question. By and large, a barrier for NATO's advancement to the East, to the Russian borders, should have been erected back in the time of Mikhail Gorbachev, in the process of the orgy of the triumph of "new thinking" arranged by him, whether it was three times wrong. Speaking about the "reunification" of Germany and other similar things, the secretary general was simply obliged to raise this topic. His pitiful assurances that his "partners" from Washington and London promised him something and even "guaranteed" should not be taken into account, since history does not know even the most miserable piece of paper with records of the corresponding content. And in general - could the one who made the surrender of the interests of the USSR and its physical destruction as the goal of his life, in principle, care about such moments as the depth of the subsequent advancement of the North Atlantic Alliance in the territory where there is absolutely nothing to do? Gorbachev was simply not worried about anything like that.
The next step that gave NATO confidence that it was free to do absolutely whatever it wanted “from the taiga to the British seas” was the aggression against Yugoslavia, which the Russian leadership was already powerlessly and wordlessly staring at. After that, it became somehow inappropriate to try to "roll out" any "present" to the North Atlanticists. Moreover, given the then state of our army. While we enthusiastically “disarmed” and carried out “conversion”, NATO was marching victoriously to the East, absorbing first the member states of the Internal Affairs Directorate, and then the Baltic republics of the USSR.
We admit the obvious - to put any “barriers” before the North Atlantic Alliance, who was too presumptuous and believed in its indisputable military superiority over the “country-gas station with rusty missiles”, was completely useless until very recently. We would simply, excuse me, be sent away - and in the most rude and offensive form. To change the Alliance's level of perception of what was said in Moscow, they needed "Vanguards", "Zircons", "Prometheus" and everything else - according to the list. And also a number of essential points that are worth mentioning separately. Reunification with Crimea, a successful campaign in Syria, disruption of the "color revolution" in Belarus, the armed conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh stopped at Moscow's will - all this makes our "sworn friends" look at Russia in a completely different way and, albeit forcefully, reckon with her. One should not forget one more factor - the potential possibility of concluding a military alliance between Moscow and Beijing, which is the most terrible nightmare for the entire "collective West", and, above all, for the United States. However, as we can see, even this was not enough.
What was said in response to the words of Vladimir Putin and Sergei Lavrov that Moscow will not ask, namely demand from the North Atlantic Alliance "written guarantees of the security of its borders, including in the form of legal obligations to stop expanding to the East"? Jens Stoltenberg's impudent speech that "it is not for Russia to decide the issues of Ukraine's joining NATO, it is not for her to establish spheres of influence and control its neighbors." And also the absurd words of the head of the US State Department, Anthony Blinken, who, it seems, did not hear the head of our Foreign Ministry at all and who began to demand from him "the withdrawal of troops from the Ukrainian border" and "the implementation of the" Minsk agreements ". "Dialogue" between the deaf and the mute in all its glory ...
Is the "Belarusian crisis" in the style of the "Caribbean" inevitable?
There is nothing surprising in what is happening. Blinken, Biden, Stoltenberg, Johnson and all other Western "men" act on the basis of the postulate, which is absolutely indisputable and determines all thoughts, words and deeds: "We won the Cold War!" And if this is so, then Russia, which is (according to its own statements) the legal successor of the USSR, should humbly accept the realities arising from this fact, and not try to change anything. In order for the "collective West" to retreat from this delusion, mere words about "red lines" and warnings, even the most formidable ones, are not enough. To our great regret, there is a feeling that the matter will not be complete without a large-scale, if not a global clash, testing the strength of the forces and determination of the opposing sides. In the past, the most striking example of this should, perhaps, be considered the "Cuban missile crisis". It was called, as we remember, just by the US attempt to get close with its Pershing to our very borders.
For all my personal dislike for Khrushchev, I must admit that the subsequent "symmetrical" response from the USSR, as a result of which our nuclear missiles soon ended up in Cuba, was most likely the only possible option for an adequate response to these actions. This excursion into the past is presented in order to make an assumption - in the current conditions, you will probably have to act in exactly the same way. Vladimir Vladimirovich, it seems, has recently announced "a number of military-technical measures of a protective nature" that should be taken in connection with the "approach of NATO's military infrastructure to our borders"? And Alexander Lukashenko, if his memory serves right, also made it clear recently that he does not object at all to the return of our nuclear weapons to the territory of Belarus, for which he has “all the sheds preserved”?
Well - here is a ready answer to the question: "What to do if NATO atomic bombs appear even in Ukraine, but at least in Poland?" Immediately take advantage of the kind invitation of Alexander Grigorievich, while certainly explaining in detail which capitals of Europe these warheads will be aimed at. Potential Caribbean-style crisis? And in another way it will not work in any way. All peace-loving appeals from the Kremlin will continue to be lost in vain, without being backed up not just by force, but by a real demonstration of readiness to use it. With Ukraine - generally a separate conversation. It has been said many times that delaying a cardinal solution to this issue will not lead to anything good.
And here you are - the head of state is forced to “broadcast” almost every day the idea that the “military development” of this territory by the West should be stopped immediately, and the “anti-Russia” project implemented on it, if not curtailed, then at least put to pause. And the point here, by and large, is not at all about the formal membership of Kiev in NATO. He will never receive it - and this is perfectly clear to everyone. Here it is somewhat different - not only the Alliance, but also the "collective West" as such, must clearly and distinctly make it clear to Ukraine that it has no prospects in this direction. And it never will. In fact, to renounce the "nezalezhnoy", created by him in 2014, in its current eerie and ugly form, leaving it to his own fate. It seems to me that this is what Putin, by and large, is trying to achieve, and not just guarantees of non-deployment of missiles "near Kharkov". All this applies to Georgia to the same extent. The situation there is not so tense yet, but precisely that “for now”.
The current conflict over "NATO's eastward movement" actually has a much deeper meaning than it seems at first glance. The military-strategic aspect is only one of its sides. In fact, we are talking about a global rethinking of the structure of the world and the establishment in it of completely new spheres of influence - in no way repeating the Cold War times, but not those that were established by the United States and its allies during the period of their “unipolar” hegemony. Based on this, we have to admit that neither a simple, nor, moreover, a quick resolution of this conflict can be expected. Stop the North Atlantic bloc and moderate its unhealthy ambitions to an absolute minimum either by military force (and this is fraught with a global nuclear war, that is, the end of the world), or by a whole range of actions, during which, alas, our country will have to balance on the brink of military confrontation or international isolation (at least - attempts of such). However, there are simply no other options for Russia. Vladimir Putin is unequivocally right that all the "red lines" of her national interests are openly ignored by the West and further developments in this vein will not lead us to anything good.
To ensure its own stable and secure future, Russia will have to force both the North Atlantic Alliance and the entire "collective West" not only to peace, first of all, to the recognition of our country's new place and role in it. The task is, in principle, realizable - only strength and determination would be enough.