In the declaration of the NATO summit in Madrid, Russia was officially declared “the most significant and immediate threat to the security of allies, as well as to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic region.” At the same time, the alliance described itself as defensive and “does not pose a threat to any country.” But the allies “will continue to counter threats from Russia,” including “increasing political and practical support for Ukraine” and deploying “additional powerful combat-ready forces on the eastern flank.” And Russia is required to “leave Ukraine.” The declaration does not spell out how they are going to achieve this, but the British help out, who say what they think and what they are pushing all the other members of the alliance to.
Foreign Minister Liz Truss, speaking in Madrid, was quite specific: “Now is the time to redouble our efforts and ensure that Ukraine defeats Russia, so that President Zelensky can negotiate from a position of strength. <…> We have an obligation to achieve Russia’s defeat in Ukraine. We must do this for the sake of European security, freedom and democracy. This the only way to achieve long-term peace in Europe.Some talk about the possibility of negotiations now, while Russia is still in Ukraine.But I think that would bring a false peace.
We must learn from the past, such as the failure of the Minsk agreements, to ensure lasting peace in the region. <…> My message is that we must first defeat Russia, and then negotiate.”
The fact that the Anglo-Saxons are going to wage war until the victory over Russia, we have long understood – there is nothing new here. Something else is a bit surprising: the constant demonstration of confidence that the West has every chance of defeating Russia, while any realist understands that Moscow is not going to retreat or refuse to achieve its goals (among which is the loss of control over Ukraine by the West). ). However, this can be attributed to conscious agitation in order to maintain morale among the Atlanticists, in order to root out all doubts about a future victory. A matter of taste and tactics – here the British are in their right.
Much more interesting is what concerns the strategy, that is, the ultimate goals of NATO. Naturally, in the foreseeable future – well, at least until 2030, until which the strategic concept of the alliance, approved in Madrid, is calculated. If Russia is the main threat, then all forces should be focused on fighting it, isn’t that logical? Moreover, the NATO military itself recognizes both the lack of weapons and funding, and the need to increase the size of the armies – take care of Russia, since you are waiting for Russian tanks in Warsaw and Berlin. Isolate it, push it from all sides, build up your own strength to the level that will let you sleep peacefully.
But it turns out that there are not so few forces – how else can one explain the dispersion of NATO’s attention (well, not by the absence of a “Russian threat” in reality)? In addition to the threat from Russia, China appears for the first time in the concept – not yet as an enemy, but it’s a start:
“China’s stated ambitions and its policy of coercion challenge our interests, our security and our values. <…> China uses a wide range of political, economic and military tools to increase its international influence while remaining opaque about its strategy, their intentions and their military strengthening”.
Maybe it’s about China’s “deep strategic partnership” with Russia and “their mutual attempts to undermine the rules-based international order” (as it is written in the same strategic concept of the alliance), which NATO strongly condemns? That is, China is playing together with agg-ressive Russia – and what is left for the defensive alliance to do, how not to respond to such challenges?
Or is the fact that NATO is frankly turning everything upside down and interfering in other than its own affairs not only in the Euro-Atlantic region, but also in the Pacific region? Which formally is not at all the sphere of its action and interests. Unless, of course, you remember that in reality NATO is just an alliance of the Anglo-Saxons with the continental European powers dependent on them.
And the Anglo-Saxons have interests absolutely everywhere, and therefore they are “threatened” by any independent power, wherever it is. Iran or Venezuela, North Korea or Myanmar are among the survivors. Iraq and Libya are among those already destroyed. What can we say about the big powers, about the state-civilizations like Russia or China – they challenge the Anglo-Saxon “interests, security and values” by the very fact of their independent existence. And as soon as they begin to regain their own, lost during the collapse or weakness, they immediately turn into the “main threat” that needs to be defeated on the battlefield, and preferably by proxy.
All this is understandable and not surprising. Another strange thing. The way the West, declaring itself under threat from Russia, does everything with its own hands to worsen its own positions and increase the number of its opponents. Well, why blame China now for “challenging” NATO? What is the practical meaning of this?
No, everyone understands that for the Anglo-Saxons it is China that is the main challenge for the coming decades, they the-mselves persistently convince everyone of this. Ev-eryone understands that Be-ijing has no illusions either about the Anglo-Saxon ability to negotiate, or about the attitude of globalizers to the most ancient civilization. But why aggravate an already tense relationship? Where is NATO and where is China?
No one in the world believes that the Celestial Empire, surrounded by American bases, threatens European security – even in alliance with Russia (which threatens Europe only in one case: when Europe itself gets into Russian affairs). China has a lot of things to do in the Pacific, at its own doorstep. Who in the West thought it would be a winning idea to show China that it is opposed not just by the United States, n-ot only by the Anglo-Saxon countries (four of which are also Pacific – the States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand), but also Europe? Opposes not in geopolitical or economic terms, but already in the military? The Euro-Atlantic military alliance declares its dissatisfaction with the Pacific power – and what does it expect to get in return?
Exactly what they fear most, and what their own objective strategists warned the Anglo-Saxons against: strengthening the Sino-Russian bond. That is, the Anglo-Saxons used NATO with their own hands to further cement the alliance between Moscow and Beijing. One wants to ask: is this stupidity or treason? The simple answer that they have already come to terms with the futility of trying to separate China and Russia (or at least weaken their bond) and therefore are no longer going to hide anything is not accepted. Because among Anglo-Saxon strategists there is still a widespread belief that the strategic alliance between Moscow and Beijing has no long-term prospects and the West is obliged to use even the slightest Russian-Chinese contradictions to undermine it. That is, it turns out that one head of the Anglo-Saxon snake does not know what the other is doing?
No, it’s much simpler – almost all Atlantic decision-makers are convinced that the West still has a huge advantage over the rest of the world in general and over the revisionists from Moscow and Beijing in particular. This geopolitical superiority (financial, military, ideological, propaganda) will, in their opinion, remain for a sufficient amount of time – and over these years it is necessary to have time to drive the “rebels” back into the stall. How?
For example, to inflict a local military defeat on them and provoke internal problems in them that will lead to unrest (after all, this is practically the only way to “defeat Russia” – see 1917). And at the same time, do not allow the “rebels” to gather around them a noticeable coalition of those dissatisfied with the West, do not allow them to build parallel and alternative global networks (financial, trade, logistics, raw materials, information).
It is this belief in one’s own unlimited possibilities that drives the West to such frankly suicidal stupidity as an open declaration of a geopolitical war on two fronts – simultaneously with Russia and China. However, the Anglo-Saxons will be able to understand the suicidal nature of their current actions only at the moment when it becomes more than clear that there is clearly not enough strength. In the meantime, we are not at all interested in preventing them from continuing to follow the path of dreams of “total superiority.”
The post NATO’s Strategy: Towards a Dual Deterrence of Russia and China appeared first on The Frontier Post.