Results of the Warsaw NATO summit: Main threats to Russia
A two-day summit of NATO member countries, described by Secretary General Stoltenberg as “a turning point,” ended in Warsaw. The event was clearly anti-Russian in nature.
NATO has confirmed the deployment of four battalions of 1000 men each to the Baltic countries and Poland. In French military terms, a battalion of one thousand bayonets is a demi-brigade. Thus, we are talking about the deployment of a new reinforced brigade, “spread out” over a large area.
Militarily, it does not pose a threat to Russia, but in addition to the military threat, there are other dangers (we’ll talk about them a little later).
The cunning decision taken on the “rotational” status of the battalions is a circumvention of the fundamental Russia-NATO treaty, according to which the alliance committed itself not to station significant military forces on the territory of new members.
Thus, the deployment of multinational battalions under the command of the United States, Germany, Great Britain and Canada on the territory of the Baltic countries and Poland means that the Russia-NATO treaty has gone to hell without any revision.
At the summit, Eastern European and Baltic empty-headed people had the opportunity to bark at Russia to their heart's content under the favorable glances of Uncle Sam.
The performances of the European heavyweights of the alliance were much more peaceful, but one should not be deceived.
German Foreign Minister Steinmeier called on NATO to “stop saber-rattling in Eastern Europe,” and French President Hollande outlined the position “Russia is not an enemy and is not a threat to France. Russia is our partner." However, the reasonable call of the Social Democrat Steinmeier was subjected to a barrage of criticism in Germany from the ruling CDU party.
But there is no need to be surprised here. Over the past 25 years, a number of revanchists, intoxicated by the surrender of the GDR by Gorbachev and the dissolution of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, have grown and strengthened in Germany.
Among the ruling elites of Germany, a new edition of the White Paper has matured - a doctrine defining the priorities of Germany’s military strategy, in which Russia is no longer listed as a “partner”, but as a “rival”. It follows from this that Germany, with the blessing of Washington, should once again become the main battering ram aimed at Russia. In fact, the United States is trying to make Germany its main overseer and conductor of American policy in Europe, since the influence of Great Britain is clearly not enough for it, not to mention Poland, Romania and the Baltic states.
A good indicator of the transition from confrontational rhetoric to a real confrontation with Russia will be an increase in contributions from alliance members to the NATO budget. Today, a contribution of 2% of GDP for the maintenance of the military bloc is officially established. To fully “contain Russia,” according to Washington’s plans, this money is not enough, and the lion’s share of NATO funding comes from the United States. But Washington is not going to put up with the current state of affairs and is constantly putting pressure on its European partners to fork out money. Germany has the first economy in Europe - therefore, Germany should contribute more to NATO.
And now Germany bears all the costs and plays an important role - it is the German reinforced battalion-semi-brigade that is sent to Lithuania, and not anywhere else. Lithuania borders the heavily armed Russian exclave of the Kaliningrad region. It is assumed that the backbone of the battalion - 500 people - will be made up of Bundeswehr soldiers.
But all these half-brigade battalions are the tip of the iceberg compared to what NATO strategists are ready to do if they move from words and allegories to real actions to intimidate Russia.
In 2015, the United States announced plans to modernize the currently in service aerial bombs with the B61 tactical nuclear charge. Modernization plans include upgrading the bombs to high-precision bombs under code B61-12. And everything would be fine, but senior US and Pentagon officials are seriously considering the possibility of using modernized nuclear weapons to hit well-fortified targets during possible local conflicts. A significant portion of B61 bombs are stored on the territory of the United States' European allies in NATO. These are Germany, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey). European Air Force pilots are trained to use them, even from countries with non-nuclear status.
German pilots are involved in training to operate tactical nuclear weapons, and the appropriate equipment is installed on their aircraft.
Such a practice is in clear contradiction with the spirit and letter of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, according to which nuclear powers undertake not to directly or indirectly transfer nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states, and the latter undertake not to accept nuclear weapons in any way.
It goes without saying that all this jazz does not at all increase the level of security and trust in Europe and requires adequate response measures from Russia.
In addition, increasing the accuracy of aerial bombs with tactical nuclear warheads fits well with the long-standing ideal of American politicians and military personnel - to transform nuclear weapons from a weapon of strategic deterrence into a weapon of the battlefield.
Washington has long been itching to create a situation near Russia’s borders in order to force our country to use nuclear weapons locally in Europe. And President Reagan, obsessed with “hawkish” ambitions, was once so upset that he quite seriously proposed that the USSR exchange nuclear strikes in Europe, not to mention a provocation that could have had far-reaching consequences, when Reagan subtly joked from TV “only that I gave the order to launch a nuclear strike on the USSR.”
Here, by the way, a mine is being laid with new mixed battalions on the territory of the Baltic countries. For these semi-fascist regimes, the presence of NATO contingents from the first round may create a temptation to solve the “problem” of the Russian
and the Russian-speaking population of the Baltic states according to Bandera’s recipes. Considering the inferiority and general insanity of the Baltic “elites”, who are ready to bark as much as they want, rattle second-hand weapons and do not in any way solve the “alien” problem they themselves created, they are smart enough to create a crisis between Russia and NATO.
Poland, the Baltic states and Romania were not chosen by chance to strengthen NATO. In the American geopolitical concept, the space from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea is united in a conditional “intermarium”, which strongly echoes the ambitions of the pre-war Polish dictator Pilsudski “Rzech Pospolita from Mozh to Mozh”. Hence the obvious choice of new NATO strongholds.
What can Russia do? In May, at the level of the State Duma, the issue of our country’s withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty was raised. At one time, the American attempt to deploy the Pershing 2 operational-tactical missile systems caused a serious political crisis in the mass anti-war movement in European countries, where citizens did not want to become hostages to the adventurous and irresponsible US policies aimed at planetary domination. The matter ended with détente in 1987 and the signing of the INF Treaty. Less than 30 years have passed and a new round has begun.
Ahead is a meeting of the Russia-NATO Council. There is hope for the sanity of the active part of the Europeans, who at one time did not allow the United States to make them targets for a retaliatory missile salvo.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.