“This is a war”: what are the consequences of a complete break between Russia and NATO
The next shift has occurred in relations between our country and the North Atlantic Alliance. In recent years, they have glided smoothly through the marks “cool”, “cold”, “even colder”, and now, it seems, they have stopped at the point of absolute freezing. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs announces the complete cessation of all and all kinds of contacts with NATO, both on military and civilian lines. What does such a situation really mean and does it carry any risks and threats for our country? Let's figure it out.
The moment of the final severance of relations with the largest military bloc in the world today was voiced by Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko. At the same time, he did not fail to mention that the blame for the current state of affairs rests entirely with the representatives of the North Atlantic Alliance, who are not at all eager to conduct a dialogue with Russia, using at least some “positive agenda”. In fact, the “communication” of NATO with our country, starting in 2014, finally came down to reproaches, threats, baseless accusations and impossible requirements.
There is no talk of any constructive dialogue - for example, representatives of the Alliance flatly refused to participate in the VIII Moscow Conference on International Security, which is due to take place this month. This despite the fact that all of them, including the highest military and political The leadership of the block received official invitations to this important event. However, according to the Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia, Alexander Fomin, such a practice, alas, has become common in recent years - the North Atlanticists do not want to join any forums if they are organized by our country. Well, the honor would be offered ...
Perhaps the last straw, which quite naturally overfilled the patience of Russia, was the prohibitively boorish demarche of Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who in one of his recent public speeches equated Stalin with ... Hitler and ISIS! Further, as they say, there was nowhere to go. Mr. Soltenberg and his rhetoric are a separate issue altogether. The NATO Secretary General directly adores demonstrating an oily "peace", arguing that he "does not see the immediate threat emanating from Moscow for any of the NATO countries" and believes that it is necessary to "conduct a dialogue" with our country. And at the same time, he is trying to “hang all the dogs” precisely on Russia, continuing to blame her for “annexing Crimea”, “aggression against Ukraine”, “poisoning the Skripals” and “violating the INF Treaty”. Somehow a lot of “sins” for a full dialogue, do not you find? The solution here, however, is that both Stoltenberg himself and those who in reality dictate to him what to say and do are going to lead him exclusively from a position of strength. In any case, we would very much like to.
It’s not without reason that Alexander Grushko stated that the Alliance has gone too far in the matter of “escalating confrontation with Russia” and noted that the current situation is much worse than even in the days of the most fierce Cold War. Indeed, the current “pause” in attempts to find at least some common language is much longer than all the previous ones, and in its acuteness surpasses the “black bars” that arose in our country's relations with NATO after, say, the bombing of Yugoslavia or the 2008 conflict provoked by Georgia . And this is quite natural - too many fundamental principles and agreements that gave us the opportunity to coexist with this military bloc are violated by him. The Alliance is too active in attacking the interests of Russia and intervening in its affairs.
First of all, we are talking about the steady progress of NATO towards the borders of our country - despite all the oath promises made earlier about "non-expansion to the East." Trying to draw the Balkan countries into the Alliance at any cost with the clear goal of their final “separation” from Russia, the bloc’s strategists are taking a clear course towards the admission of Georgia and Ukraine - states that are not just, to put it mildly, unfriendly to our country, but that have completely specific claims, including territorial ones. As recently noted by the representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Alliance’s increasingly active attempts in the field of "military development" of Transcaucasia cause serious concern. What can such a policy lead to? Only to confrontation, and in the most acute forms - whatever Stoltenberg sang about the "peace" of his company.
Constantly reproaching Russia for certain "aggressive aspirations" and "aggressive plans", the NATO military is not at all embarrassed to work out military operations against it on numerous maneuvers. The most striking example of this is the exercise in March of the US Air Force B-52 strategic bombers, which were deployed for this purpose at the British Fairford air base. The purpose of these was the training of nuclear strikes in the Kaliningrad region! The Pentagon called it, jointly with the European allies, "developing operations to solve a wide range of global tasks." Well, and what normal relations can you talk about after that? These guys, it seems, are going to completely seriously destroy!
How unpleasant consequences can a complete severance of relations with NATO have for Russia? Yes, most likely, one should proceed from the principle: "there is nowhere worse." No, there is, of course, but the next stage is a real war on one scale or another. I would like to believe that at least it will be avoided. On the other hand, as Mr. Grushko rightly remarked, the actions of the Alliance today "are largely derived from US policy." And Washington just does not give a damn about the tragic consequences of a possible military conflict in Europe. Moreover, today there are countries in NATO that are ready to zealously execute all teams coming from across the ocean - Poland, whose generals almost enthusiastically talk about the "limited nuclear strike" that the United States can deliver to Russians, calling it " reasonable option! ”
By the way, in the North Atlantic Alliance, the words of Alexander Grushko were not ignored. The bloc’s spokeswoman Oana Lungescu has already made a response statement in which she emphasized that NATO’s position on Russia “remains unchanged” - at least until “a clear, constructive change in Russia's actions”. It is not difficult to guess exactly what changes the Alliance wants - especially given the current discussions there about "military measures to respond to Russian actions in the Kerch Gulf." Well, "in a good way," as you can see, really will not work. The good news is that the Kremlin finally understood this.
The moment of the final severance of relations with the largest military bloc in the world today was voiced by Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko. At the same time, he did not fail to mention that the blame for the current state of affairs rests entirely with the representatives of the North Atlantic Alliance, who are not at all eager to conduct a dialogue with Russia, using at least some “positive agenda”. In fact, the “communication” of NATO with our country, starting in 2014, finally came down to reproaches, threats, baseless accusations and impossible requirements.
There is no talk of any constructive dialogue - for example, representatives of the Alliance flatly refused to participate in the VIII Moscow Conference on International Security, which is due to take place this month. This despite the fact that all of them, including the highest military and political The leadership of the block received official invitations to this important event. However, according to the Deputy Minister of Defense of Russia, Alexander Fomin, such a practice, alas, has become common in recent years - the North Atlanticists do not want to join any forums if they are organized by our country. Well, the honor would be offered ...
Perhaps the last straw, which quite naturally overfilled the patience of Russia, was the prohibitively boorish demarche of Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, who in one of his recent public speeches equated Stalin with ... Hitler and ISIS! Further, as they say, there was nowhere to go. Mr. Soltenberg and his rhetoric are a separate issue altogether. The NATO Secretary General directly adores demonstrating an oily "peace", arguing that he "does not see the immediate threat emanating from Moscow for any of the NATO countries" and believes that it is necessary to "conduct a dialogue" with our country. And at the same time, he is trying to “hang all the dogs” precisely on Russia, continuing to blame her for “annexing Crimea”, “aggression against Ukraine”, “poisoning the Skripals” and “violating the INF Treaty”. Somehow a lot of “sins” for a full dialogue, do not you find? The solution here, however, is that both Stoltenberg himself and those who in reality dictate to him what to say and do are going to lead him exclusively from a position of strength. In any case, we would very much like to.
It’s not without reason that Alexander Grushko stated that the Alliance has gone too far in the matter of “escalating confrontation with Russia” and noted that the current situation is much worse than even in the days of the most fierce Cold War. Indeed, the current “pause” in attempts to find at least some common language is much longer than all the previous ones, and in its acuteness surpasses the “black bars” that arose in our country's relations with NATO after, say, the bombing of Yugoslavia or the 2008 conflict provoked by Georgia . And this is quite natural - too many fundamental principles and agreements that gave us the opportunity to coexist with this military bloc are violated by him. The Alliance is too active in attacking the interests of Russia and intervening in its affairs.
First of all, we are talking about the steady progress of NATO towards the borders of our country - despite all the oath promises made earlier about "non-expansion to the East." Trying to draw the Balkan countries into the Alliance at any cost with the clear goal of their final “separation” from Russia, the bloc’s strategists are taking a clear course towards the admission of Georgia and Ukraine - states that are not just, to put it mildly, unfriendly to our country, but that have completely specific claims, including territorial ones. As recently noted by the representatives of the Russian Foreign Ministry, the Alliance’s increasingly active attempts in the field of "military development" of Transcaucasia cause serious concern. What can such a policy lead to? Only to confrontation, and in the most acute forms - whatever Stoltenberg sang about the "peace" of his company.
Constantly reproaching Russia for certain "aggressive aspirations" and "aggressive plans", the NATO military is not at all embarrassed to work out military operations against it on numerous maneuvers. The most striking example of this is the exercise in March of the US Air Force B-52 strategic bombers, which were deployed for this purpose at the British Fairford air base. The purpose of these was the training of nuclear strikes in the Kaliningrad region! The Pentagon called it, jointly with the European allies, "developing operations to solve a wide range of global tasks." Well, and what normal relations can you talk about after that? These guys, it seems, are going to completely seriously destroy!
How unpleasant consequences can a complete severance of relations with NATO have for Russia? Yes, most likely, one should proceed from the principle: "there is nowhere worse." No, there is, of course, but the next stage is a real war on one scale or another. I would like to believe that at least it will be avoided. On the other hand, as Mr. Grushko rightly remarked, the actions of the Alliance today "are largely derived from US policy." And Washington just does not give a damn about the tragic consequences of a possible military conflict in Europe. Moreover, today there are countries in NATO that are ready to zealously execute all teams coming from across the ocean - Poland, whose generals almost enthusiastically talk about the "limited nuclear strike" that the United States can deliver to Russians, calling it " reasonable option! ”
By the way, in the North Atlantic Alliance, the words of Alexander Grushko were not ignored. The bloc’s spokeswoman Oana Lungescu has already made a response statement in which she emphasized that NATO’s position on Russia “remains unchanged” - at least until “a clear, constructive change in Russia's actions”. It is not difficult to guess exactly what changes the Alliance wants - especially given the current discussions there about "military measures to respond to Russian actions in the Kerch Gulf." Well, "in a good way," as you can see, really will not work. The good news is that the Kremlin finally understood this.
Information