NATO leaders enter a tank battle with the ‘Russian regime’ in Estonia

NATO leaders enter a tank battle with the ‘Russian regime’ in Estonia

Vladimir Kornilov

NATO’s aggressive rhetoric against Russia is intensifying every day. During the summit of the alliance’s foreign ministers, gathered this week in Riga, it sometimes seemed that as the level of exaltation increased, they were about to declare war on us on their own. It got to the point that NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, perhaps for the first time, used the term “Russian regime” in relation to state power.
The apotheosis of this paranoid hysteria was the appearance of British Foreign Secretary Liz Trass on a tank in Estonia, quite close to the Russian border. She did not hide the fact that with her belligerent appearance she was trying to convey to Russia a certain message about her readiness to resist our “aggressive intentions.” The fact that she was wearing a bulletproof vest and a helmet was supposed to indicate the seriousness of the “Russian threat”: apparently, the British Foreign Minister was convinced that she was on the front line of the European-Russian front and that bullets could fly over their heads at any moment.
Let’s try for a moment to imagine what would start in the Western media if Sergei Lavrov appeared on a tank in the same warlike attire near the borders of any state. It is really difficult to imagine such a picture: here the word “diplomacy” is still being interpreted in the classical sense. Truss’s behavior is a manifestation of the very phenomenon of Western politics, which not so long ago the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry defined as “freak diplomacy.” It is difficult to find a more precise term for such provocative actions.
In principle, the phenomenon that we observed this week in Riga can be safely called a manifestation of collective “freak diplomacy” – and this will not be an exaggeration. The heads of the foreign affairs agencies of the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance seemed to be competing among themselves in the most aggressive rhetoric against Russia. And, by the way, it is difficult even to remember when the Western media covered the event so actively, which was always considered a routine meeting of Western diplomats and did not attract much press attention.
Indeed, the current NATO summit was preceded by an incredible campaign to stir up panic in connection with the imminent “Russian attack on Ukraine.” And even though Ukraine itself, dumbfounded by such pressure, felt that something was wrong and tried to refute this fake, even accusing Russia of spreading it. Western “partners” of Ukraine had to persistently convince that of the seriousness of the invisible threat. The expression “fear has big eyes” eventually materialized into a message from the German DW about the accumulation of “115 million Russian servicemen” on the borders with Ukraine. It is clear that this is a misprint, but very indicative – the level of anti-Russian hysteria in the West is so significant that you are no longer surprised at anything.
This mythical “accumulation of Russian troops” was mentioned by almost all foreign ministers who spoke in Riga. Stoltenberg personally tried his best. As Lavrov noted, the NATO secretary general has become “now an orator and the main character in the West.” Recalling that Stoltenberg was a perfectly sane politician as Prime Minister of Norway, the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry stated with regret : “Now something has happened to him, or he is being forced to be prohibitively aggressive.”
Stoltenberg ‘s recent statement on the possible deployment of nuclear missiles “east of Germany” is a clear confirmation of this. It should be noted that this thesis, crossing all possible “red lines” and even violating international treaties, sounded somehow very mundane to the main world media. They pretended that they simply “did not notice” this statement from the lips of the NATO Secretary General. In any case, until Russian diplomats drew attention to the unacceptability of such an approach.
But in the West, there was an immediate reaction to the words of the President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko about the possibility of deploying Russian nuclear missiles in his country, which he said in an interview with Dmitry Kiselev. Stoltenberg suddenly immediately “forgot” his own words about the missiles “east of Germany” and, responding to the “threats” from Lukashenka, saidthat NATO, it turns out, already “has no plans to deploy any nuclear weapons outside those countries where such weapons… have been located for many, many years.” Note that only 12 days have passed between directly opposite statements by the same secretary general of the same military bloc about the possibility and impossibility of deploying nuclear weapons “east of Germany”! And not a single Western journalist even paid attention to these alarming signs of a split in the minds of the NATO leader.
But, in an amicable way, the West should also be concerned about these signs. After all, such obvious contradictions in the statements of the head of the most powerful military bloc can lead to irreparable consequences. Yes, the powers of the NATO Secretary General are extremely limited, the position is actually ceremonial. But, in the end, he also has some kind of military infrastructure under his command. And then the ministers on the tanks can go somewhere in the wrong place. In addition, it is necessary to take into account how some “NATO graduate students” look into the eyes of the bloc’s secretary general: just remember how the President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky behaved obsequiouslyat his first meeting with Stoltenberg. After all, they can misunderstand any signal from the secretary general as a command for action and make tragic mistakes like those made by Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili in 2008, who also mistakenly interpreted certain messages from the United States and NATO.
Stoltenberg, even with his amazing “forgetfulness”, still has enough understanding that bringing the situation in Ukraine to the Georgian scenario is fraught with unpleasant consequences for both Kiev and Washington. Therefore, the Secretary General was not too lazy to repeat the same signal three times in five days: NATO has no obligation to Ukraine to defend that from outside attack.
This somewhat laid siege to the militaristic sentiments of Ukrainian politicians raving about a “victorious war against Russia.” At the same time, British Ambassador to Kiev Melinda Simmons denied the fake fake of the British newspaper Mirror about the intention of Londonsend 600 special forces to Ukraine “in the event of a war with Russia.” But in Kiev they savored this “news” so violently and joyfully.
At the same time, Stoltenberg continues to constantly repeat about the possibility of Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO. And again he said that Russia has “no right to veto” decisions in this regard. That is, when NATO countries always demand from us to remove military infrastructure away from their borders – that is their business, but when Moscow puts forward demands not to bring NATO infrastructure closer to Russian borders, it turns out that this does not concern us.
Stoltenberg in Riga said categorically : “Russia has no right to establish its own spheres of influence.” For some reason, when Washington brought out the “Monroe Doctrine”, claiming that all of South America was its “zone of influence,” the North Atlantic Alliance did not mind. Sergei Lavrov recently quoted the words of the head of the European Union’s foreign ministry, Josep Borrell, who argued that Africa was Europe ’s “sphere of influence” on the principle “you are far away, and this is ours.” And no protests from Stoltenberg followed. From which we can conclude: the secretary general of the alliance believes that
Meanwhile, Moscow has repeatedly and consistently stated that Ukraine’s entry into NATO and the approach of the military infrastructure of this bloc to our borders is the “red line” beyond which we will not allow to enter. And the point here is not so much in the relationship between the West and Ukraine as in the security of Russia itself.
This week, Vladimir Putin suggested that the West begin “substantive negotiations” to “work out concrete agreements that would rule out any further NATO moves eastward and the deployment of weapons systems that threaten us in close proximity to Russian territory.” At the same time, oral promises from the alliance no longer suit us: we all remember similar “guarantees” that were once given to Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin. And what kind of guarantees from NATO can we talk about if we see that the Secretary General of the bloc forgets his own words about nuclear missiles after a few days.
Therefore, now Moscow will insist on legally binding treaties, scrupulously drawing “red lines” and, if necessary, resorting to tough symmetrical answers if they are violated. Yes, at the moment it is difficult to imagine that the collective West, in the conditions of the anti-Russian paranoia prevailing among them, is capable of constructive dialogue. Still, one interview with Lukashenka was able to change Stoltenberg’s approach to the idea of deploying nuclear missiles in Poland or the Baltic states.
But Russia can go further if the threat to our national interests becomes even more real. After all, we have allies on other continents as well. And it would be better for NATO not to wait for the same sobering interviews from the presidents of Nicaragua, Venezuela or Cuba.

The post NATO leaders enter a tank battle with the ‘Russian regime’ in Estonia appeared first on The Frontier Post.