Ex-General: NATO is not even close to a direct military conflict with RussiaNATO is not ready for the worst–case scenario of the conflict - a war with Russia, British General Richard Shirreff said in an interview with Newsweek.
This requires the mobilization of reserves, but because of the assistance to Ukraine, they are seriously depleted.
The former NATO general warned that the alliance is not ready to enter into a military conflict with Russia, even if the development of its special operation in Ukraine goes according to the "worst-case scenario."General Sir Richard Shirreff, who served as Deputy Supreme Commander of the North Atlantic Alliance forces in Europe from 2011 to 2014, said that the success of the Ukrainian counteroffensive was "proof" of the effectiveness of military support for Kiev, especially from the United States and Great Britain.
He said it could "send a powerful signal to the wavering countries" in the alliance about Kiev's support, "especially to the Germans, who are behaving extremely pathetically."
But in his appeal to NATO members to "take off the gloves" and "increase" arms supplies to Kiev, Shirreff fears that the alliance is not ready to act if military actions go beyond Ukraine.
"We would be able to cope with the risks of escalation of the conflict if NATO was ready for the worst—case scenario, and we still don't see this," he told Newsweek. "When I talk about the worst—case scenario, I mean a direct military clash between NATO and Russia."
Since the beginning of the Russian special operation on February 24, the United States and its allies in the North Atlantic Alliance have been trying to balance on the fine line of providing military assistance to Kiev without escalating the conflict.
<...>
NATO's direct participation can occur only if one of its member states is attacked, which will trigger the principle of collective defense, that is, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty. According to Shirreff, the alliance is not yet ready for such a complex development of events.
"To be prepared for the worst-case scenario means to mobilize reserves. This means restoring the lost combat capabilities lost over the years of cuts in the military sphere."
"This means equipping the industry with everything necessary for the production of artillery shells, anti—tank weapons, anti-aircraft missiles," he said. "Not only to replace the arsenals transferred to the Ukrainians, but also to start building up our own military stocks, because they are empty."
"Tick those NATO countries that provide weapons," he said, referring to the assistance provided to Kiev. "Note the statement made by Stoltenberg after the NATO summit about our commitment to Ukraine and the goal of defeating Russia."
"But we absolutely failed with what needs to be done to prepare for war," said Shirreff, who is now executive vice president of Sigma7 Global Risk Outcomes (a transnational system that provides a platform for calculating risks in modern business structures and management bodies. — Approx. InoSMI.).In July, Stoltenberg announced that the number of high-readiness troops in the NATO Response Force (NRF) will be increased seven times.
However, in August, he also called on Western countries to provide more weapons faster to help Ukraine, especially on the eve of winter.
The alliance's annual report, published in March this year, stated that only eight of the 30 countries that make up it comply with the requirements that at least 2% of the gross domestic product (GDP) of a NATO member country is spent on defense.
Rose Gottemoeller, Deputy Secretary General of NATO from 2016 to 2019, told Newsweek that Ukraine's counteroffensive was "an example of how effectively it worked together with NATO allies and with NATO itself to increase the combat capability of its armed forces."
Shirreff's criticism of Germany followed Ukraine's accusations against Berlin that the Germans were ignoring Kiev's calls to provide heavy weapons such as tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, although they promised further military assistance.
Author: Brendan ColeReaders' comments
CowTown689Prepare NATO for a military conflict with Russia?
What for?
Russia is already busy up to its neck with Ukraine. Moscow has no opportunity to expand the Ukrainian military conflict further to the West.
David MorrisMost of NATO, with the exception of the United States, Great Britain and France, is useless.
Poland and the Baltic states still have some fighting spirit, and, as we have seen with the example of Ukraine, this helps and, of course, can make a difference in the conflict.
But most of NATO at the moment is just a kids' club, especially countries like Germany, Spain and Italy.
Over the past couple of decades, many members of the alliance have completely calmed down.
Michael EverymanNothing, America will do everything for NATO!
peace"NATO is not ready for a military conflict with Russia."
So after all, Ukraine was not ready, and remains unprepared even now.
But NATO has quietly driven it into a military conflict.
Maybe they expect that Russia will weaken in Ukraine?
LCThe more failures the American Democrats have, and the higher the corruption in their ranks, the more they try to divert the attention of the American population to the unknown Ukraine!
James Daniel CarrollNATO is a gang that can't really think or fight!
Bapa akuKharkiv was organized by America just in time — General "Frost" is not far off, the public is already tired of the Ukrainian issue.
Our propaganda machine needed a boost to lubricate the multibillion-dollar flows of American dollars arming the "rat line".
Nevertheless, Kharkiv may have forced Moscow to strengthen the pain threshold for Ukraine. This happened due to the fact that several gentlemen of the "Daggers" left the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea to present their business cards to the largest Ukrainian thermal power plants and plants in the northeast and center of Ukraine.
Half of Ukraine suddenly lost light and water. The trains stopped. If Moscow decides to disable all the major substations of Ukraine at once, then only a few missiles are needed for this. They will be enough to completely destroy the energy system of Ukraine.
According to expert analysis, "if the 110-330 kV transformers are damaged, it will almost never be possible to put them back into operation (...) And if this happens to at least 5 substations at the same time, then that's it, kaput. The Stone Age is forever.
Now a real "military conflict" will begin in Ukraine.
