Unclosed skies: on March 4, NATO lost to Russia, and not only to Ukraine


On March 4, the summit of the North Atlantic Alliance took place, the main item on the agenda of which was the issue of responding to the military operation carried out by Russia to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine. It can be summed up in one word: capitulation. Although not complete, far from unconditional (many members of the Alliance still intend to send weapons and mercenaries to the agonizing regime of the "non-independence"), but absolutely unambiguous. In Kyiv, it seems, they really hoped for a positive solution to the issue of introducing a no-fly zone over Ukraine by the “allies”. At least - over its western regions, through which the supply of serious types of weapons as a result could be carried out freely and safely for the same NATO members. Hopes were futile and dissipated like smoke.


It was the question of introducing a no-fly zone that became that unequivocal watershed, after which, in theory, for the "collective West" endless ranting about "unbreakable support" and "ardent solidarity with the "non-flying" should have ended and concrete actions should begin in this area. Nevertheless, they very clearly caught that they stood not just in front of the notorious "red line", but in front of the real Rubicon, which, of course, you can cross. But only once and in one direction. For the way back - to a well-fed and peaceful life will no longer be unambiguous. Russia has more than convincingly proved its readiness and ability to defend its own interests by absolutely any means. And at stake is only Ukraine, which is already an extremely bad asset for the “partners”, which it is time to get rid of. Nevertheless, the West, represented by NATO, lost on that day not only the battle for the "non-destructive", but something much more.

Forsaken thrice


On March 4, events developed, one might say, according to the classical plot. Ukraine, whose “security” and “sovereignty” its Western “partners” vowed to keep like the apple of their eye and protect by all available means, was renounced three times that day. And publicly and loudly. For example, Annalena Burbock, head of the German Foreign Ministry, stated bluntly that "NATO cannot intervene in this war," since such a situation would threaten the whole of Europe with "endless escalation." So in Berlin they prefer to "keep cool". Yes, and the allies in the Alliance, according to Frau Berbock, "are of the same opinion" with her country. There is no doubt about this after a speech by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, which, to be fair, added pragmatic specifics to the general declarations of the German colleague, which was completely similar in meaning (and in form too).

The head of the State Department explained in detail to the journalists gathered at the press conference: an attempt to create a no-fly zone over the “non-flying” zone would mean that the Air Force and Air Defense of the North Atlantic Alliance would attempt to shoot down combat aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces. This, as Blinken rightly noted, "would be the only realistic and viable option." And unambiguously "would lead to the deployment of full-scale military operations on the territory of Europe." For those who are especially slow-witted, Washington's top diplomat clarified: "President Biden expressed his opinion quite unequivocally: we absolutely do not intend to go to war with Russia." That's it, the issue is closed for the United States, and no further discussions on it have any sense and prospects.

It was none other than NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg who drew a line under the no-fly zone discussions. Referring to the “general opinion” of the summit participants, he stated for the umpteenth time since the beginning of the military operation in Ukraine: there will be no Alliance aircraft in the sky of the “unaffected” land, nor ground forces of the “North Atlanticists” on its soil for anything. “We don’t need it,” the General Secretary specified. He is sure that the Alliance faces a much more important task than defending the interests of some natives, whom Brussels, together with Washington, with their own irresponsible rantings and extremely provocative policies just dragged him into a completely hopeless war. “We are responsible for preventing the escalation of this conflict and its “spread” beyond the borders of Ukraine,” Stoltenberg flirted in his usual grandiloquent manner. Further, he almost word for word duplicated Blinken's main message - the no-fly zone means a direct collision of the "North Atlantic Falcons" with Russian pilots. Next - the inevitable Third World War. At least in the European theater. That is, "even more suffering."

The head of the Alliance did not specify that in this case we are not talking about the suffering of some kind of "Eastern barbarians"-Slavs, but about the troubles that will fall on the heads of "real Europeans" and other "white Sahibs" who will respond with their own delicate skins for the war prepared and provoked by them, of course, they should not under any circumstances. It should be noted that in this case, without exception, all NATO members showed downright exemplary unanimity and realism. As an exception, one can only name the fiery appeal of the ex-president of Lithuania, Dalia Grybauskaite. Doubts about the adequacy of this lady arose earlier, but now they have dissipated completely.

"Weak, confused NATO..."


This Baltic “Valkyrie” quite openly called on the North Atlantic Alliance “to declare war on Russia”, since, in her opinion, there is simply no other way out in the current situation. Obviously, the battered ex-president of a tiny country, who thinks she is a great military strategist, asks: “We could intervene in Yugoslavia, Libya, Africa, Afghanistan, Syria. Why not here?" Apparently, she does not see any difference between these countries and Russia in its current state. As well as she is not aware of what will happen specifically to her country in the event of such a scenario. The clinic is complete - and there is nothing more to say here.

Approximately in the same spirit, the speech of the still President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky was sustained, in response to the balanced and reasoned speeches of the “senior comrades”, he burst into a natural, one might say, full-length hysteria. It is difficult to name his confused and inconsistent speech in which he literally threw thunder and lightning at the “allies” who turned out to be so insidious and abandoned him at the most critical moment. The summit, at which the decision was made on NATO's non-intervention in the events in Ukraine, he called "confused", "weak" and betrayed "the struggle for the freedom of Europe." What is the relation to Europe and its freedom has "nezalezhnaya"? Ask the president-clown. With heartbreaking pathos, he announced that from now on “all promises and guarantees of security have died”, as well as some other “values”. The firm (and, I must say, absolutely justified) confidence of the representatives of the Alliance that their direct intervention in the operation to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine would cause a fire in a world (pan-European - at least) war, he easily declared "self-hypnosis" and "narrative, which NATO inspired itself.”

This, obviously, by analogy with those sessions of self-hypnosis (and suggestion from the outside), as a result of which Zelensky himself imagined that Moscow would endure his increasingly provocative and dangerous antics indefinitely. By the way, he did not forget to show traditional ingratitude, reproaching the Alliance with the “diesel fuel, which was purchased at the summit”, saying that it is only suitable for “burning the Budapest memorandum”. Yes, it’s amazing how he didn’t want the “allies” to choke on this very fuel. However, this reprise was only a continuation of a similar tragic farce, which, unwilling to reconcile with the inevitable “head of state,” staged the day before, on March 3. Then it was already clear to any sane person - no one will close the sky.

The Pentagon officially announced the complete absence of such intentions, and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson “washed his hands” almost the very first, a couple of days before that, “Ukraine’s best friend”. As a result, Zelensky began to carry some already perfect nonsense about "torn off legs and heads", which he personally "is ready to go count" - let only the West clarify how many of these are needed "to make the right decision." Well, in the end, he presented the audience with a "sensation" in his best traditions: he said that if NATO does not provide "nezalezhnaya", at worst, at least used combat aircraft, then "the Russians will reach the Berlin Wall." Yes, yes, that's exactly what he did. Not to the walls of Berlin, but to that very symbol of the Cold War that was destroyed to the ground, God forbid, back in 1989. Thus, finally, apparently, losing the last remnants of adequacy, the blood-drinking clown attributed to the Russian Armed Forces the ability to move not only in space, but also in time. Flattering, of course, but painfully reeks of violent insanity.

Currently, Washington is declaring that they allegedly "gave the green light to the supply of fighter jets for Kyiv." That's just the whole point is that, first of all, Poland is supposed to be the supplier. In Warsaw, they made it clear that they categorically do not intend to play with fire, despite the fact that Russophobia has been elevated there to the rank of state policy. The NATO summit, at which, listening to the voice of reason, its members “leaked” Ukraine without the slightest remorse, sent a clear and unambiguous signal to all those who still had crazy ideas to “test the teeth” of the strength and power of Russia or continue to test its patience and peacefulness despite direct warnings and warnings. Yes, Ukraine is not a member of the Alliance, but it is clear to the naked eye that no steps of a military nature will be taken to protect it, not at all for this reason. The thing is that in this case you will have to fight with the Russians. On March 4, the North Atlanticists all over the world signed their fear and impotence before Russia. And they did it extremely convincingly and brightly. Is there any practical sense after this in the existence of NATO as such? The question seems to be rhetorical.
17 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Expert_Analyst_Forecaster 8 March 2022 10: 22
    +1
    I would not be in a hurry to declare victory over NATO. And they didn’t lose the former Ukraine, but they handed it over very profitably. Favorable militarily. Not a single NATO soldier was killed, and there are already many of ours. Moreover, the war with the former Ukraine has not yet ended.
    So Russia just won the fight, maybe the battle. It is very far from victory in the war with NATO.
    1. Just a cat Offline Just a cat
      Just a cat (Bayun) 8 March 2022 11: 03
      +2
      Russia may have to feed the baboons of this non-country. But I wouldn’t want to ... They scored for the sowing season ...
    2. Vladimir Petroff (Vladimir Petroff) 9 March 2022 10: 18
      +2
      Here, the victory of Russia is more important, not even militarily. After the US flight from Afghanistan, we see a second retreat from Ukraine. And this is after so many words of support for Kyiv. Reputational costs have not yet been considered.
  2. Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 8 March 2022 10: 52
    -10
    I think that, unfortunately, you are mistaken.
    The issue of closing the skies is inextricably linked to NATO's readiness for a direct military confrontation with Russia.
    Do not rush - they did not close it, but continue to discuss it.
    As the situation in the world worsens, the remaining "safeties" are weakening, and this issue can be resolved positively.
    He will not interfere with the third world, subordinating everything and everything to its logic
    1. The comment was deleted.
    2. Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 10 March 2022 08: 30
      0
      I am surprised by such a number of "patriotic" minuses.
      I would have put it myself, but - alas.
      Why does anyone really think the enemy won't do it?
      Yes, we want it, we hope for it.
      But.
      What have we done for this?
      We do not yet allow any action against the States and NATO. Despite the flow of weapons and militants to Ukraine.
      For the time being, the enemy has every reason to believe that in this matter, too, it is unacceptable.
      As for his risk, the stakes have long been extremely high - he has a moment of truth with us.
      The enemy believes that we are AFRAID of war with NATO and the States, and will not dare to go for it. He's using it to move East just like before.
    3. Khaertdinov Radik (Radik Khaertdinov) 15 March 2022 14: 26
      0
      I think that the 3rd World War is not in the interests of people, WHOSE INTERESTS are taken into account by the President of the United States!)
      1. Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 15 March 2022 15: 06
        0
        That's right, which is why we shouldn't let fear of her limit our opposition to the States.
  3. Alsur Offline Alsur
    Alsur (Alexey) 8 March 2022 11: 01
    +3
    Quote: Expert_Analyst_Forecaster
    I would not be in a hurry to declare victory over NATO. And they didn’t lose the former Ukraine, but they handed it over very profitably. Favorable militarily. Not a single NATO soldier was killed, and there are already many of ours. Moreover, the war with the former Ukraine has not yet ended.
    So Russia just won the fight, maybe the battle. It is very far from victory in the war with NATO.

    Indeed, our soldiers and officers are dying, but they are winning the war - wars. The victory is in their heads and NATO lost this war.
    1. Alexey Davydov (Alexey) 8 March 2022 11: 10
      +2
      Victory is in their heads and NATO lost this war

      Head for her body to win in reality, it's good to be sober
  4. Alsur Offline Alsur
    Alsur (Alexey) 8 March 2022 11: 51
    +2
    Quote: Alexey Davydov
    Victory is in their heads and NATO lost this war

    Head for her body to win in reality, it's good to be sober

    Who is against it, Russia is one of the least drinking countries according to statistics, so it will not be a matter of sobriety. WWII won our wars, not superiority in technology.
  5. Sergey Zemskov Offline Sergey Zemskov
    Sergey Zemskov (Sergei) 8 March 2022 12: 07
    -11
    The author, and for the war - who will pay???
    The Russians, who were thrown back in terms of living standards below many African states ???
  6. Sergey Pavlenko Offline Sergey Pavlenko
    Sergey Pavlenko (Sergey Pavlenko) 8 March 2022 12: 49
    +8
    And Russia has no other choice: either they are us or we are them, and it doesn’t matter what kind of war it will be - world war, or not quite world war, but we don’t need a world without Russia, and therefore we must go to the end ... . Well, we have enough missiles and bombs of other ammunition with a special filling for a geyrop and, if necessary, for an overseas power .... There is nowhere to retreat!!!
    1. Mish Offline Mish
      Mish (Misha) 9 March 2022 07: 36
      -5
      Quote: Sergey Pavlenko
      And Russia has no other choice: either they are us or we are them, and it doesn’t matter what kind of war it will be - world war, or not quite world war, but we don’t need a world without Russia, and therefore we must go to the end ... . Well, we have enough missiles and bombs of other ammunition with a special filling for a geyrop and, if necessary, for an overseas power .... There is nowhere to retreat!!!

      To what end, excuse me? Until the last Russian? For some reason, Europe can coexist peacefully, China can, but Russia cannot. Maybe it's time to choose other presidents, more adequate?
      1. LLIkunep Offline LLIkunep
        LLIkunep (Alexey) 9 March 2022 10: 36
        +2
        You have no idea what you are talking about, so you gave out another stupidity from the category "you should have surrendered to the Germans in the 41st, now you would live in Europe." Learn materiel or don't star at all.
  7. AND Offline AND
    AND 8 March 2022 15: 05
    +7
    Quote: propaganda-Sergey Zemskov
    The author, and for the war - who will pay???
    The Russians, who were thrown back in terms of living standards below many African states ???

    Euro-American propagandist! Below the African countries will soon be your beloved Europe, without gas and oil from the Russian Federation. Before you get smart.... Russia is the country with the largest territory on earth, which has everything. Below African says. laughing All Africans are now going to their homeland, to Europe.
  8. Sergey Latyshev Offline Sergey Latyshev
    Sergey Latyshev (Serge) 8 March 2022 22: 33
    -2
    Taki Nato can only enter the war for a Natto member. Ukraine is not a member. The logistics were not prepared at all.

    The rest is just desires and opinions of different people.
  9. shinobi Offline shinobi
    shinobi (Yuri) 11 March 2022 19: 02
    0
    Russia knows how to win wars, and this one will not be an exception, but it does not know how to use the fruits of these victories at all