July 13, 2016 –
Ruslan Ostashko, PolitRussia –
Translated by J. Arnoldski
Continued from Part 1
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.