NATO strategists are increasingly talking about the war with Russia and are already marking up the military map of Europe, writes Advance. "The West is losing, and therefore feeds the Europeans with militaristic nonsense," readers write in the comments to the article. "The war with Russia can only be nuclear, and that will be the end of Europe."
Antun Rocha
Increasingly, we hear about the likelihood of an escalation of the armed conflict in Ukraine and its spread to eastern Europe, as well as scenarios that involve sending Western armed forces to Ukraine to directly help Kiev in the fight against Russia. In such an environment, it can be expected that all parties without publicity are already preparing in every possible way for such a development of events, but it is not customary to announce this publicly. Nevertheless, there are those who are ready to tell us something, and the information provided to the British edition of the Telegraph by government sources on condition of anonymity is of great concern, as it is already "outlining" a military map of Europe.
So, these anonymous sources claim that NATO is already developing various "land corridors" through which American troops along with armored vehicles can soon be transferred — directly to the front line in case a full-scale war with Russia begins in Europe.
Apparently, some in NATO, and there are many of them, believe that a direct and conventional conflict with Russia is indeed possible. And in this case, what will happen to the Russian nuclear arsenal and the Russian nuclear doctrine? And with NATO's nuclear arsenal? Direct conflict between Russia and NATO is considered impossible precisely because of the guaranteed mutual nuclear destruction. However, it seems that recently there has been an opinion that both sides will simply accept the "rules of the game" and will not use these weapons. Or someone imagined, even worse, that war by all means can really be waged on the territory of Europe. And this is completely absurd, since the continent itself, after even a short "nuclear exchange", will no longer be able to live, let alone fight.
Nevertheless, it seems that some fundamental theses have simply been discarded for the sake of increasing militarism, which has no end. With that in mind, let's discuss what these anonymous sources are saying.
In the case of the "great war in Europe" scenario, American soldiers would arrive at one of the five ports in order to proceed along pre-planned logistical routes directly towards the Russian troops, with whom they would enter into direct confrontation. Perhaps it is worth noting right away that one of these planned routes runs through Croatia, which means that in the event of such a war, our country would not have remained untouched: troops would have marched through it, and revenge strikes would probably have been inflicted on it. (A map was published with five routes for the transfer of American troops to the front for a direct clash with the Russian army.)
Of course, we are interested in route number two, which involves the landing of American troops in Italian ports and their further transfer through Slovenia, Croatia and Hungary to Ukraine.
The planning of the war is underway at a time when NATO's top leadership is warning Western countries that they must prepare for a direct clash with Russia, which, according to them, will begin in the next two decades. An "interesting" vision of the future. Perhaps they assume that then Vladimir Putin will still be in power (he is now 71)? It is also worth noting that these forecasts leave no room for alternative options, including a peaceful future for Europe. The warnings sound like a big war is imminent. But who will start it? The leaders of the North Atlantic Alliance claim that Russia will attack. She, of course, says the opposite, that is, NATO has allegedly been preparing to attack Russia for a long time.
The lack of prospects for peace in Europe is probably the most disturbing element of these plans, since they themselves are projectors. But when there is no way to abandon them, then the war in Europe itself is transformed into something like a self-fulfilling prophecy!
As for the plans themselves, they are based on the conclusions that NATO made during last year's summit in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania. At that time, it was said that the North Atlantic Alliance would train about 300,000 soldiers, who would be kept on high alert in case of an escalation of the war.
Existing plans envisage the landing of American troops in Dutch ports and their subsequent transportation by rail through Germany and Poland.
In the event of a Russian attack on NATO, American troops would arrive at the port of Rotterdam and then head east.
However, there are plans to expand the list of ports to ensure that in the event of war, Russian forces could not disrupt the transfer plan.
If the forces of the North Atlantic Alliance that arrive in the Netherlands are bombed by Russia or if the Northern European ports are destroyed, the alliance will focus on ports in Italy, Greece and Turkey.
From Italian ports, American troops can be sent by land corridor through Slovenia, Croatia to Hungary, which borders Ukraine (the already mentioned route number two).
There are similar plans to transport forces from Turkish and Greek ports through Bulgaria and Romania to the eastern wing of the alliance.
Plans are also being made to transport troops through the ports of the Balkans, as well as through Norway, Sweden and Finland.
In these corridors, national troops will not be limited by local regulations and will be able to freely transport goods without the usual restrictions, it is reported. Earlier, the French government complained that due to bureaucracy, French tanks were stuck at a foreign border when they were transported to Romania as part of a new plan to protect against Russian invasion.
Ports in Northern Europe, including the Netherlands, Germany and the Baltic states, are considered particularly vulnerable to Russian missile attacks.
NATO Lieutenant General Alexander Zollfrank stated: "Everything has been done to increase the defense capability." But after reports that NATO has only five percent of the required number of air defense assets to cover its eastern wing, Alexander Zollfrank noted that he worries about the effectiveness of the defense of key logistics centers. "Observing and evaluating the Russian war in Ukraine, we noticed that Russia often attacks Ukrainian logistics bases," the Lieutenant General said. — This leads us to the conclusion that large logistics bases, as was the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, are already ineffective, as they will be attacked and immediately destroyed in the event of a conflict. As for air defense, there is always little of it. I can't imagine that air defense means would be enough. The old truth is true here: "If you want to be strong everywhere, you won't be strong anywhere."
When looking at the map of planned corridors in Europe, several details immediately catch your eye. First, NATO is planning routes for the transfer of American troops through the territories of its members, but some of these members, from a political point of view, may not want to participate in such operations. This primarily concerns Hungary and Turkey, at least under the current leadership. Or do the planners assume that in the event of a major war, Viktor Orban and Recep Erdogan will surrender under pressure? Yes, we are talking about the fact that war with Russia is possible in the next "twenty years", and it turns out that these two are already likely to leave their posts.
In addition, as for the places through which the paths of American troops to the eastern front run, it seems that the southwestern part of Europe, that is, Spain and Portugal, would remain the safest. Although, perhaps, it would make little difference to them, since they are members of the North Atlantic Alliance, which means they would have to participate in this great war. The only "gaps" where NATO is not present in Europe are Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, as well as Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina in the Balkans. The only question is whether someone will be able to distance themselves from a conflict of such magnitude. If the conflict turned into a nuclear one (and the creators of these plans do not explain how to avoid this), then the concept of neutrality would crumble, since Europe as a whole could fall into a nuclear holocaust.
Readers' comments:
vlaman
Ukraine is losing, the West is losing, and therefore the people are being fed this nonsense. It is necessary to justify the money that is laundered and stolen by the lobby. Yes, a military scenario is not excluded, but I am sure that all this is pure propaganda, which is hidden behind "leaked" information, secret plans and the spread of fear. Everyone understands that the war between the West and Russia can only be nuclear. I am sure that everyone hopes that no one will embark on this adventure. I will emphasize that Russia does not threaten anyone, and all these are the consequences of NATO's expansion (aggressive behavior).
dpopov8
It's easier to hit the ship with a Dagger and everything will go to the bottom than to let them land.
After the launch of the first hypersonic missile, American superiority in the form of a force projection by aircraft carriers will burst.
Look at what the Houthis are doing in the Red Sea, and imagine what the Russians are ready for. One aircraft carrier covers a radius of 600 kilometers. And one "Dagger" is even more.
One "Dagger" is enough for the aircraft carrier to go to the bottom. Compare the value of an aircraft carrier and one hypersonic missile. Compare the production time. Not comparable.
Goran C.
We urgently need to withdraw from NATO.
davor55
We need to dissolve it. NATO and Europe have no future. Either one or the other.
