June 21, 2016 –
Albert Naryshkin, PolitRussia –
Translated by J. Arnoldski
Continuing its propaganda attack and in order to aid its military maneuvers towards our borders and advance its military infrastructure, NATO has released a new “manual”, a document entitled “Russia’s top five myths about NATO.” The document is not very well prepared, but there are reasons for this: based on its contents, it is immediately evident that it is intended for “internal” use. In other words, the answers from this “manual” are aimed at paying lip service for ordinary Europeans and not Russians who already see through NATO’s many tricks and gimmicks in the information war. And so, let us look go point by point through these five so-called “myths.”
“Myth #1: Nato is trying to encircle Russia”
A characteristic feature of this part, as well as the document as a whole, is that its writers come up with questions which are convenient for them rather than responding to the real concerns that Russia has expressed. Moscow has never accused NATO of attempting to “encircle” it – this is quite foolish from the point of view of geography and politics. It is the US which is trying to encircle us or, more precisely, has long since encircled us with its bases and nuclear weapons on all sides of our borders.
However, NATO is indeed making such efforts with fairly obvious results:
Thus, the first “exposure” is, so to say, a distortion of the purest water. American military doctrine prefers to position their bases at key points on the planet and not jointly under the auspices of NATO bases. NATO, thus, is not trying to “encircle”, but there is one more correction: no-one is accusing NATO of this, and thus this “main myth” doesn’t even stick. NATO is our main threat on the Western continent and in the Atlantic, as the name of the alliance suggests.
“Myth #2: NATO has tried to isolate or marginalize Russia”
Unfortunately, we once again have to scold the compilers of the “manual” for lying. No one has said that NATO is trying to isolate Russia. Isolation is a political task, while NATO is a military structure. The Alliance can play a role in isolation, but it can’t do it on its own.
Isolation is achieved by means of creating a ring of hostile governments in countries around a state as well as by breaking the most important political, economic, ad military ties with the isolated country. Obviously, this is not a task for NATO. This is a task for the State Department which has consistently and systematically taken steps in this direction to which we have accordingly been compelled to systematically answer by pursuing policies preventing our isolation. This has meant maintaining individual contacts and economic ties which are too big for the Americans to have the pleasure of giving up. This means military cooperation and political relations which many countries are not at all ready to sever because they desire to have a counterbalance and alternative to American influence in the form of Russia.
For all these reasons, the paragraphs about NATO’s activities and Russia- NATO Council and its founding Act are, of course, quite nice and informative, but they have no relation whatsoever to the question of attempts to isolate Russia. In essence, NATO is simply writing a “freestyle essay” and then stating that this allegedly exposes myths and debunks our concerns. But in fact, they are solving a completely different task, that of forming in the minds of Europeans the image of a positive and constructive organization which pursues policies of peace and is ready to work with any partner “for everything good and against everything bad.” This is quite crude propaganda, but it should be borne in mind that this is aimed at Western laymen, the majority of which are in fact citizens of NATO member-countries and, of course, are very flattered by such nonsense. They want to believe in such so that all the fears and accusations of Russia fall on a deaf ear and innocent heart.
“Myth #3: NATO missile defense targets Russia and the Iran agreement proves it”
It is difficult to judge just how much they consider the peoples of Europe to be idiots and it is even more difficult to judge just how just this is, but the fact remains: they are once again “feeding” us with the American missile systems under the guise of NATO ones. The Euro Anti-Missile Defense System, as is well known, is a project of the United States and is the product of bilateral agreements with the countries agreeing to host such bases. However, this is not the only nor the biggest lie.
The main point which is hidden in the document is that the American missile defense system is not protective, as has long been explained by our military experts…Igor Korotchenko and Viktor Baranets have already repeatedly explained the essence and purpose of this missile defense system.
Firstly, it is being structurally linked to the Global Lighting Strike system which is now considered to be one of the most promising doctrines of the US. The role of the missile defense system in this doctrine boils down to the following: it is not designed to resist attacks (the first attack can’t even be deflected), but is designed to prevent a counter-attack. That is, we are talking about a simple, understandable, and quite characteristically American scenario:
The US will launch preemptive strikes in accordance with its Global Lighting Strike. The goal of this strike are objects located near our border (within 500-800 km). These objects are destroyed, which provokes “nuclear aggression” on Russia’s part, which is then to be intercepted by these defense systems. After the destruction of these targets in peripheral areas, the subsequent strike finishes off centers located in the heart of Russia deeply beyond “defensive” boundaries.
Added to this is the missile defense system Aegis which is know being built in Europe by the Americans, allowing them not only to accommodate rocket-interceptors with a range of 500-600 km, but also Tomahawk cruise missiles with nuclear warheads, the radius for which is 2-2.5 thousand km. This means that, with a slight readjusting of the software and replacing the rocket’s warhead (which takes about 40 minutes), nuclear warheads can be launched straight from Europe and hit Russia up to the Volga, i.e., reach the furthest point that Hitler’s troops reached after 3 years.
“Myth #4: NATO exercises are a provocation which threatens Russia”
Surprisingly enough, here their “exposure of a myth” is based on a very interesting logic: “We have the right to conduct exercises on our own territory!” – that’s the whole response. Doesn’t matter what is threatening Russia. Our right is do what we want, such as massive exercises with the use of heavy military equipment and aircraft right at Russia’s borders.
The authors of this manual themselves resent the fact that Russia, in response, is holding its own exercises on its own territory. “Say, this disturbs and alarms us!” Thus, there is a double-standard. NATO can hold exercises and neglect Russia’s concerns, but Russia must take into account the concerns of NATO countries.
It is worth recalling who exactly did everything in order to bury the CFE Treaty which a few decades ago, for precisely these concerns, was established and served as a guarantor of peace and transparency. Unfortunately, the so-called “open door policy” of NATO and almost all of Eastern Europe’s joining of the Alliance has made the treaty meaningless insofar as, according to the CRE Treaty, Eastern Europe was to look like still part of the Warsaw Pact, and not NATO, and no such changes were considered. The West systematically refused to amend the treaty given newly existing realities, and forced Russia to withdraw from the agreement. After all, Russia no longer received any guarantees from it which had their place when the treaty was signed. Under new circumstances, compliance with this agreement directly hurt our military security interests.
“Myth #5: NATO’s Open Door policy creates new dividing lines in Europe and deepens existing ones”
The same manipulation in points 1 and 2 is employed here. The diving lines in Europe have not been created by the accession of countries to NATO, because these lines arise within NATO itself, but rather thanks to the US policies of interference in the affairs of the European Union. The diplomacy and policies of Poland, the “Baltic tigers,” and other countries of the Russophobic minority of the EU have split Old and New Europe. The key issue of this split is relations with Russia, and not NATO membership. We have successfully worked with many NATO members, such as Italy and France, since the days of the Soviet Union, and we continue to do so today. The “dividing lines” in Europe are being drawn not by NATO in Brussels, but by the US State Department in Washington.