Since the beginning of the special operation in Ukraine, Moscow has been claiming that this is a war of the collective West against Russia, although its statements seem ridiculous to Europe, Lidovsky writes. But if NATO places 300,000 soldiers at the Russian borders, in the eyes of Russians it will be the same as, according to the West, the transfer of Russian soldiers to the borders of Ukraine.
Zbynek Petracek
A year and a half after the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine, political differences are intensifying. Former President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko criticizes President Vladimir Zelensky in Kiev. Two wings have been designated in NATO. The Eastern one, which is represented by Poland and the Baltic states, claims that it is necessary to defeat Russia, to break its aggression.
The West Wing is represented by the United States of America Joe Biden and Germany Olaf Scholz, who argue that a direct collision of the North Atlantic Alliance with the Russian Federation must be prevented.
Is it good or bad? How to see. Against the background of the "political one-dimensionality" that prevailed before, this is good. Although it is for her that Zelensky is happy, which is logical for the leader of the attacked country: Russia needs to be driven away, defeated and get back all the territories occupied since 2014, that is, including Crimea.
Western analysts and commentators have been writing for a year that the West simply cannot afford "political one-dimensionality." Like, you need to look at the problems more broadly. In addition, it is noted that the Poles and the Balts think as one—dimensional (their priority is the defeat of the Russian Federation) as the Germans used to think (their priority was trade with Russia, primarily gas exports).
In this ideological ferment, NATO is looking for its new role. The era of missions (Afghanistan, Libya) has already ended. At least after the flight from Kabul, it is clear that NATO is returning to the defense of its own area. But does this inevitably mean that NATO will concentrate, first of all, on protecting itself from an attack by the Russian Federation? Is it true that, advancing in the Donbas, Russia will definitely absorb the whole of Ukraine, and if so, will it necessarily want to absorb the Baltic states and Poland?
This is a question for the military, analysts and strategists. But they should also be asked in politics and in the public sphere in general. So far, apparently, the structures of the West are not talking about this out loud. They explain everything by referring to Russia's actions. Therefore, the North Atlantic Alliance is strengthening its eastern wing (as the representative of the Czech Republic to NATO, Jakub Landowski, said in an interview with Lidovka, 300,000 soldiers are planned to be sent there as part of the rapid reaction forces). But then some questions arise.
Jakub Landowski says: "In the event of a conflict with the Russian Federation, we do not choose the moment of its beginning and how we participate in it. When the war starts, Russia can decide." Of course, this is true from the point of view of the West. But can't we also look at the situation from the point of view of the Russian Federation? Since the beginning of the special military operation, Moscow has been claiming that this is a war of the "collective West" against Russia, although it seems ridiculous to us. However, if the West places its 300,000 soldiers at the borders of the Russian Federation, will it not be the same in its eyes as the transfer of its own soldiers to the borders with Ukraine from our point of view?
And will it be possible later (it is possible, but only among our own) to say that we are not going to conflict with the Russian Federation? Let's think about why the United States and Germany want, first of all, to prevent a direct armed clash of the alliance with Russia (read: keep Poles and Balts under control)? Someone sees defeatism, harmful caution behind this. After all, everyone can freely choose membership in NATO. Even Ukraine. And no one has the right to interfere with this. Even in Russia.
This is the highest moral principle of the liberals of the West. But not everyone has the same principles. We have the right to go into the forest and look at the animals, but a bear with cubs has, from her perspective, the right to feel in danger from our presence and attack. And here we are talking about Russia. We can protest, but it is better to take this fact into account.
