© Polit Russia
I couldn't help but laugh when I read in this article that one of the key topics of discussion at the summit will be the deployment of four (F-O-U-R!) battalions in the Baltic states and Poland in order to scare Putin and convince him that it is impossible to invade the Baltic countries. I don't even know what's funnier: Western analysts' assurance that 4 battalions of NATO are something terribly strong, or the fact that Russians are supposed to be dreaming in their sleep of capturing Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. This leaves the impression that our neighbors have some kind of very advanced case of megalomania. Well, judge for yourselves, should we take the Baltic countries? Instead of their ports, we have our own ultra modern Ust-Luga port. Our neighbors have no industry left. Nor agriculture. What's left? Tuna and Laima Vaikule? No thanks. In fact, Russians have long since switched to fish from Kaliningrad so, even from a gastronomic point of view, the Baltic countries are of no interest.
I must admit that the idea of four NATO battalions defending the Baltic countries from the Russian army seems to me to be a brilliant joke. It'll turn out like in the famous joke about the lunatic who drives crocodiles away by clapping so he won't have any crocodiles in his bathroom. It works great. But we'll see how it will work out for the Baltic states. Western media will write that Putin hasn't taken Vilnius because he's afraid of four NATO battalions. This reminds me of the triumphant bragging of Yatsenyuk, who told Ukrainians about how effective his anti-tank ditch would be against the Russian army. Apparently, NATO officials are actively adopting Ukraine's experience in conjuring virtual victories over imaginary threats.
But if we look at things seriously, then we see that NATO is faced with several problems which could very likely send the alliance into the dustbin of history, and these have been indirectly acknowledged even by NATO's propagandists working in British media. Great Britain's exit from the EU opens the way for a Franco-German project of establishing a European army which will not submit to Washington, and after its emergence united Europe will have the chance to reject American security services. This means that geopolitical racketeering under the guise of NATO might come to an end.
There is yet another problem. The influence of isolationists, such as Donald Trump represents, is growing among the American elite. In the case of a Trump victory in elections, NATO would be left stiff since Trump has openly called for radical cuts to NATO's budget and capabilities. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany is already saying that NATO should stop saber-rattling at Russia's border, and British journalists are writing with horror about what could happen to NATO if Eurosceptic isolationists will win in elections in France or Germany.
It can be said that the NATO summit in Warsaw will be a collective session of psychotherapy for America's nervous allies, while the Americans want to show themselves and others that everything is alright with them and that NATO is very much alive. From the outside, this looks funny, but as they say, "what would the kid play with" if already satisfied with provocations at Russia's borders. The most likely outcome of the summit will be another instance of saber-rattling in joint exercises and loud statements that Europe needs the alliance to deter Putin. But NATO just doesn't have enough force and courage for any kind of real, radical operations and this is the main good news of the forthcoming summit.
Part 2
I must admit that I do not really understand the hysteria with which many Russian media and public opinion leaders on social networks have reacted to the results of the NATO summit. There were even those who drew the conclusion that a hot war with NATO is just around the corner as American armored wedges are already on the outskirts of St. Petersburg. Hysteria is easy to spread, but difficult to argue with because hysteria completely disables the brain. What's more, hysteria is even easier for PR than, frankly speaking, what politicians, journalists, and bloggers deal with. I will try to go against the flow and say that nothing new, scary, or unusual at the summit happened, and that the summit itself was made not for threatening Russia, but in order to hold a collective therapy session with the leaders of Poland and the Baltic countries who are now experiencing a real panic.
I often suggest taking a look at a particular situation through the eyes of Western media. This is always interesting and gives the opportunity to more objectively look at things. For example, the influential French newspaper Le Figaro writes that Russia was never directly named a "threat" in the summit's documents despite the fact that Poland and the Baltic countries put forth the harshest rhetoric towards our country. Reunification with Crimea was not even talked about as a threat, but rather as an action which "affects the order established by European rules." Based on the materials of French journalists, it's difficult to see any kind of sign in the NATO summit's results of an imminent hot war in Europe.
While speaking in Warsaw, Francois Hollande said the following about our country: "Russia is not a threat and not an enemy, but a parter which sometimes might use force." These words caused very strong irritation among the Polish delegation, but they had to put up with it. After all, in the modern EU, Poles are second-class Europeans while the French are first-rate.
Overall, what I said about the summit earlier has come true. The meeting in Warsaw became a session for collective psychotherapy for the Eastern European hysterics without any far-reaching consequences. Sure, NATO is a danger to us and our actions in Europe and Syria are perceived by NATO as a security risk for the alliance, but this is nothing new. But the fact that not even a trace of the former anti-Russian solidarity in NATO can be found is something relatively new and quite pleasant for us.
I've noticed that an escalation of conflict with NATO was expected by both radical patriots and radical pro-Western liberals. One of them has been wanting to fight for several years now, while the other wants Navalny to enter the Kremlin on an American tank. Those and others will probably be disappointed by the words of NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg, who stated that there is no partnership with Russia, but that there is also no Cold War state. Apparently, Stoltenberg and other NATO officials are just happy with the opportunity to "milk" additional budgets for the military expenses that have appeared thanks to the propaganda of a Russian threat. But there is no desire to fight with Russia, and this is logical. In the context of a global "nuclear winter," everything would be turned into dust. NATO officials are also people who want to eat well, live well, and live long, which means not playing nuclear Russian roulette.
There is without a doubt a sufficient number of insane fanatics in the alliance who are ready for a direct confrontation with us, but so far they haven't achieved anything. If this trend of recent times continues, then the chances that the Washington hawks will be able to assemble a united front of European states against Russia will become all the less. Russia might even finally contribute to what will finally break Western unity. To this end, we need to help our friendly European politicians and increase our nuclear potential. Nuclear missiles plus the memory of 1945 are a great means by which to convince many Europeans of the futility of any military confrontation with Russia.
Via PolitRussia- Translated by J. Arnoldski
We're not talking about normal people here, but psychopaths.