The red line from Russia to the United States and NATO

“For the record, how many wars has NATO been involved in?”

second part

The United States’ interest in seeing a united Ukraine does not appear to directly affect its security interests, as it did during the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, when it asked the Soviet Union to remove its missile base in Cuba, which is only 90 kilometers from Florida. . In the case of Ukraine, the United States is using NATO as a front to advance its own hegemonic ambition.

The world knows that the Cold War ended in 1989. The decision taken by the last President of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, to dissolve the Warsaw Pact was unfortunately not reciprocated by the United States. Gorbachev took a promise from then US State Department Secretary James Baker that NATO would not move east after the two Germanys were unified.

Russia does not fear war with the West, but historically it was the Soviet Union that bore the brunt of the fight against the Nazis, stopping them in the Battle of St. Petersburg and driving them back to Berlin. It is estimated that 25 million Russians perished in this war.

NATO is based on the proposition that an attack on a member country will be treated as an attack on the alliance. This position immediately revealed that it was not created for defensive purposes but as a springboard to enforce the American interest in Europe. Thus, if Russia invades Ukraine, all 30 members are blindly obliged to defend it. This position is based on the assumption that Russia will attack this country.

Political analysts are astonished that the automatic retaliation clause seals any justification that NATO was created for defensive purposes.

It should be noted that once a war has begun, no one can assume with certainty that a member is defending an assault.

For the record, in how many wars has NATO been involved? NATO fought in Serbia, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan, and it was certainly not for defensive purposes. This underscores why Russia is against the idea of ​​unlimited NATO membership, as most likely some will fight to advance their own interests using the alliance as a shield.

There is a greater possibility that the United States and the United Kingdom will start a war in Ukraine. The question is how long will Russia be able to control this provocation? Could it not be said that the sending of $200 million in military aid to Ukraine, the supply of anti-tank weapons by the United Kingdom and the reinforcement of Norwegian forces near the Ukrainian border do not add tension to an already tense situation? situation? Can the United States and the United Kingdom say that their action is not in anticipation of a Russian invasion?

In fact, before the tension escalated, Russia was pulling the US and UK navies away from Crimea. These movements of the United States and the United Kingdom explain why NATO is deeply divided. The most powerful and influential members like Germany, France and Italy are not in favor of the showdown. First, the three believe that Russia will not invade Ukraine, where nearly 40% of the inhabitants are Russian.

Secondly, Germany will lose a lot in case of conflict. The multi-billion dollar Nord Stream 2 project has already been completed and is just awaiting certification by the German government. If German Chancellor Olaf Scholz allowed his government to be persuaded by NATO, Germany would not only waste billions of dollars, but could create a fuel crisis for the EU. The United States and the United Kingdom both want to stop the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline that crosses the Baltic Sea. The shutdown of the pipeline could force German suppliers to look to the United States for natural gas, but at a much higher price.

The EU’s three economic powers are also against using the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) to financially insulate the Russian economy. They know that SWIFT is no longer working. In addition, Russia is preparing for the dollarization of its currency and China is about to help it financially, as happened when the United States and the EU imposed economic sanctions in 2014 after the annexation of Crimea.

In addition, NATO members suspect that the crisis in Ukraine was deliberately generated by the United States to give Europe a reason to unite against Russia and collaterally give American arms manufacturers the possibility to sell arms on the pretext of deterring invasion. Indeed, the crisis maintains the slogan of NATO as a supposed peacemaker. Furthermore, not all wars in which NATO has been involved have been sanctioned by the UN Security Council or fought in the defense of a member. In other words, NATO has become an instrument for the United States to pursue its hegemonic interests.

On the contrary, NATO is more interested in dividing states than in requiring them to join the alliance. US and NATO involvement in the war includes countries outside the geopolitically demarcated borders of the alliance. But behind Europe’s fragmentation lies the rationale for increased US arms exports. In fact, the United States has long asked its members to increase their GDP by at least 2% in the purchase of weapons. President Trump has complained, not to mention that countries like Germany, Japan and South Korea are already paying for the expenses of staying at US bases in their countries.

It should be remembered that Russia has already put a red line on Kosovo not joining NATO after it was forcibly diverted from Serbia. The United States did not fuss at Russia’s request, fearing it would precipitate a crisis. To this day, no one wants to recall this problem.

NATO’s promise not to advance east is a guarantee that Russia will not invade Ukraine. Perhaps we can say that Gorbachev was gullible to believe that the Americans will honor their promise. Russia was rather liberal in not demanding the dismantling of NATO in return for Gorbachev’s decision to dissolve the Warsaw Pact (WP).

In the eyes of the world, NATO has today become the springboard for the United States to implement its policies by playing the role of unifier of a fragmented continent. From the original 12 members of NATO when it was formed in 1949, it has increased its membership to 30.

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken practically criss-crosses NATO capitals orchestrating support for his out-of-tune drumbeats for war with Russia. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, the man who has spoken loudly about a possible war with Russia, was barred from attending the conference. As usual, the UK played the role of a maverick who, in the words of George Galloway, “turned the former colonizer into a vassal state of the United States”. Lately, Boris Johnson spread the word that Russia was plotting a senseless coup to install a puppet government in Ukraine. It shows how desperate the UK has become to play a significant role in the alliance after it left the EU.

[email protected]

Comments are closed.