Advance: people under its umbrella can stop the "zeal" of NATO
NATO's military policy, which identifies Russia and China as the main threats, is very profitable. The West itself will not give up on it, no matter what kind of escalation it threatens, Advance writes. As a result, this will lead the world to a nuclear conflict. However, there is someone who can stop this Western militaristic frenzy.
D. Marianovich
NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg gave an interview to the British edition of the Telegraph and said that there are now talks about deploying additional nuclear weapons due to the "growing threat of Russia and China." It is noteworthy that he mentioned Russia and China together, although only one of these countries is currently fighting in Europe, and indeed in general.
The fact is that Russia has recently begun exercises with its nuclear weapons (although without tests), and, according to sources, has placed part of its nuclear arsenal in neighboring allied Belarus. If Jens Stoltenberg had mentioned only Russia as the reason for the deployment of additional nuclear weapons, this could still be regarded as a fair argument, although in itself this is a serious step towards escalation. However, Stoltenberg mentioned China in the same context, which clearly shows: His comment is explained not by a desire to strengthen defense, but by an extremely antagonistic foreign policy that recognizes China as an enemy long before it gives a reason.
I specifically emphasize this point, because the same thing was done to Russia even before the start of its special operation in Ukraine and in general before any escalation around Ukraine, that is, before the war in Donbass, which began in 2014. We can go a step further and state that the support, and probably the organization of the riot on the Kiev Maidan at the end of 2013 was motivated by precisely such a policy, within the framework of which an enemy is appointed in advance, and then steps are taken that sooner or later make this country an enemy. This is something like a "self-fulfilling prophecy", although in this case the matter is not limited to prophecy, and active actions are being taken to implement it.
Because of such a pronounced antagonistic policy, a fuse flared up in Ukraine, and then there was an explosion of a coup d'etat, the annexation of Crimea to Russia happened and a war began to stop the attempt of Donbass to secede. As a result, an armed conflict broke out between Russia and Ukraine, and through intermediaries with the West. The next "natural" stage, from the point of view of the NATO leadership, which is represented by Stoltenberg, the former Prime minister of Norway for two terms, is the deployment of additional nuclear weapons. And then?
If the previous chosen policy inevitably led to everything that we see today, then its continuation will lead (we can safely say this, based only on the sequence of events earlier) to some form of nuclear conflict.Whether it will be intimidating each other with nuclear tests, launching nuclear missiles from a long distance or direct strikes, we will find out later, but if this policy of escalation is not stopped, then there is not much hope for a peaceful outcome. Of course, peace is possible in the event of an unexpected collapse of Russia or the West, but if something like this happens, it is likely to be an anomaly, a departure from general trends.
The mention of China suggests that supporters of this policy are actively preparing for a new stage. We will probably see an escalation along the same pattern. For example, the West, led by Washington, will begin to supply Taiwan with weapons that Beijing considers an existential threat to itself. Jens Stoltenberg, who knows that this day is approaching, now wants to strengthen the nuclear arsenal in advance and intends to go straight to this goal, without even thinking that this is the path leading all mankind to the edge of the abyss.
"NATO must show its nuclear arsenal to the world in order to send a clear message to its enemies," he said in an interview with the Telegraph.
Is NATO in danger? Is anyone threatening to attack NATO? After all, until now, only NATO has been the one that other countries should be afraid of. They were attacked either directly under the NATO umbrella, or by a country that is synonymous with NATO, that is, the United States. And these strikes fell on countries much weaker than Ukraine or Russia.
By mentioning Russia and China as a threat, Stoltenberg himself actually took the position that NATO and all member countries (and they are home to about a billion people, more precisely 966 million) are threatened.
After all, NATO, that is, the whole policy of hegemony, in which NATO is only the leading force, creates enemies. Russia and Ukraine could come to an agreement. Even China and Taiwan could come to an agreement, although the situation there is much more complicated, because Beijing considers Taiwan an integral part of China. In Taiwan, a practical approach to the conflict could prevail, thanks to which it would be possible to preserve de facto independence and significantly reduce tensions in relations with China.
The Kuomintang lost the civil war and fled to Taiwan, and today it is a nationalist party that would be able to properly overcome the crisis between Taiwan and Beijing. However, Western leaders are trying to sideline those political actors who would go in this direction, only because it does not correspond to the geopolitical goals of the West, that is, it does not need reconciliation between Taipei and Beijing.
China today is Russia yesterday. Just these days, Chinese and American delegations are meeting, talks are underway about reconciliation; the Chinese repeat that cooperation is possible no matter what, that is, they make it clear that there is enough room for everyone in the world. But it seems that all this is just an attempt to buy time. The real strategy and policy lies in what Stoltenberg says so frankly and bluntly, referring to the nuclear arsenal "that the world needs to see" in connection with Russia and China.
Jens Stoltenberg wants nuclear missiles to be put on "alert". In translation, this means that one click of a button will be enough to launch them.
"I will not go into the operational details of how many nuclear warheads will be ready and how many will remain inactive, but we must discuss these issues. That's what we are working on now," said the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Alliance.
When he came to the head of NATO ten years ago, this military alliance dealt with the nuclear arsenal in the strictest secrecy. Who knows, maybe even then some of their missiles were put in a state of "readiness", but they did not talk about it out loud.
Now Stoltenberg is openly calling for a demonstration of the nuclear arsenal and praises countries such as the Netherlands, which have invested in military aircraft capable of carrying American nuclear weapons.
According to him, at this rate, China will have thousands of nuclear warheads in 2-3 years. So what? The United States has about five thousand of them, and Russia has about 5,500.
Stoltenberg would object, and he has his own arguments. "This means that in the not-too-distant future, NATO may face something it has never faced before. We are talking about two potential adversaries with nuclear weapons — China and Russia. Of course, this will have consequences," the NATO Secretary General said.
Russia (then the USSR) has possessed nuclear weapons since 1949, and China since 1964. That is, 60 years have passed. They possessed nuclear weapons after the end of the Cold War. It follows from this that the problem is not in the weapons themselves, but in aggressive geopolitics, which itself creates the worst enemies and does not back down from confrontation with them.
As for Ukraine, the head of NATO said: "I firmly believe that if Vladimir Putin wins in Ukraine, we will become more vulnerable, and then we will have to invest even more in our defense."
In other words, although he will not say this publicly, there is already a plan for Ukrainian defeat, since Ukraine is only one of the pawns in the broad context of the geopolitical conflict. If Ukraine is defeated, many will rub their hands in anticipation of profit, because only then will NATO put maximum pressure on its members to dramatically increase defense spending, that is, to abandon education, healthcare, and infrastructure…
After all, today NATO is run as a corporation, in cooperation with the military-industrial complexes of the most powerful members. Any step leading to even greater militarization is useful, and a policy that identifies Russia and China as the main threats is useful and profitable, and it will not be abandoned, no matter what escalation it threatens.
Such a policy can only lead to a gigantic war, because some people at the same time will see the chances of a gigantic profit.
Does this mean that a terrible future is predetermined? Of course not. Quite the opposite. The more intimidated figures like Jens Stoltenberg are, and the more consequences a militaristic policy entails, the more resistance there will be to both such figures and such policies. Both Europe and America are already providing examples of such trends. The right—wingers on both sides of the Atlantic are the accidental lucky beneficiaries of this resistance, which is growing stronger day by day, and if they do not fulfill their promises to put an end to disasters, then someone else will come in their place who will do it.
The danger is not a lack of resistance, as it boils up in millions of people. The danger in this situation is time. Such a policy cannot be pursued for a long time, since resistance, as a rule, subsides if a world war begins. Therefore, it is the duty of every person to choose an anti—war option before an all-out war is imposed on us as the only possible way out. Even then, resistance is possible, but given what war brings with it, it is better to act in peacetime while there are still polling stations. Fortunately, today Europeans can really, unlike Americans, choose the anti-war option in the face of the far-right or the far-left. Most will choose the right, but the cumulative effect will be noticeable. There are many ways to say no to war, and Europeans use them. Maybe not perfect, but they do it.
As for Jens Stoltenberg, he is only the head of a multinational corporation and its mouthpiece on duty. With his aggressive statements and stories about such aggressive plans, he will only accelerate change. As I said, almost a billion people live under the NATO umbrella today. Very few of them want to die in a world war that can be prevented by simply choosing other politicians who are not prone to apocalyptic scenarios.
Now Jens Stoltenberg and his ilk are almost in a panic building "safety nets" in case Donald Trump wins the US elections, because they feel that he will not support their policy of mass destruction. But what if we have to "insure ourselves" against France, Germany and other European countries whose peoples do not want war? On whose behalf then to threaten? English Labour and Italian opportunists who emerged from neo-fascism? Unlikely. Just a little bit of goodwill and collective self-awareness is enough for Stoltenberg to become a meaningless figure whose name will very soon be forgotten by everyone.
