Who is being attacked by NATO: Russia or the USA?
At the end of the first day of the NATO summit in Brussels, a statement was adopted. Strangely enough, a significant part of it is devoted not to the NATO problems proper, but to Russia and its actions, interpreted one way or another.
Reading this document, you do not immediately understand why, in fact, it was written. The people who signed it, sincerely think that Russia will take "under the visor" and instantly rush to fulfill all the points of this statement? It is unlikely: there are fools in NATO, but most of them are not different either by clinical stupidity or by special naivety. Then why are there, for example, such passages:
And in order not to get up two times, they added to this the demand for Russia to refuse to recognize the sovereignty of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
That is, calling things by their proper names, Russia should lay a carpet for Georgia on which it will join NATO? Wonderful. But does anyone believe in it?
Another important point of the statement was a call to Russia, consider, “to recognize responsibility for the crash of a Malaysian Malaysia Airlines aircraft over the Donbas.” And also, attention:
What?! Blame yourself for the unproved guilt - and welcome to The Hague? Wonderful. But really, it can not be that they themselves believe it?
However, this is not all. Russia was called upon to abandon the support of armed groups on the territory of Ukraine, as well as to fully implement the Minsk agreements.
Also, the North Atlantic Alliance expresses solidarity with England in the case of Skripale. And on what basis? Yes, all the same "highly Likely", or "most likely." Here is how it sounds in the performance of the faithful allies of Great Britain:
Great, right? Come with such "arguments" to the court, and you have every chance of getting a sentence for libel. But the largest military-political bloc, on the basis of such judgments, accepts important statements, and he is not worried about either his own reputation or Russia's reputation, on which, by calling a spade a spade, erected an unsubstantiated slander.
For the sake of fairness, we note that there were several points in the statement that, at first glance, seem quite conciliatory. In particular, the forum participants see the benefit in sharing information between the alliance and Russia, and also note that NATO does not seek confrontation and does not pose a threat to Russia. But it all comes to naught with just one sentence:
As you can see, Russia has been allocated a whole day of the fleeting summit. And we can think as many times as possible that in this way NATO indirectly recognizes the importance of relations with our country. That's the way it is, and yet the use of the wording and informational reasons that actually drive Russia into a corner does not leave us a chance to think that the purpose of this document is an attempt to somehow establish relations with Moscow.
So what is it for then? Probably, to answer this question, we need to recall the main event on the international political agenda - the expected meeting of Trump and Putin.
Everything falls into place if we try to take this document not as an appeal to Moscow and Putin, but as an appeal to Trump. Using the presence of the American president at the summit and his apparent reluctance to thwart the event, which already cracks under the weight of American initiatives, European hawks ... But no, this word does not fit here. Better like this: European fighting roosters are trying to force Trump on the agenda of a meeting with Putin!
And for this, it is really possible to raise from the cellar the badly tainted accusations of attacking a peaceful Boeing, and recall the “support for the armed groups in Donbas”, and demand strict compliance with the Minsk agreements (although Russia is not a party to the conflict) - in general everything suits. And the fact that under all these points is the signature of the United States, still can affect the information background of the upcoming meeting in Helsinki.
And still we hope that Trump can keep even more serious blows. He was fairly tempered as a policy of confrontation with opponents within the United States, and now there is every reason to think that the whining of European "partners" will not cause him anything but irritation.
Reading this document, you do not immediately understand why, in fact, it was written. The people who signed it, sincerely think that Russia will take "under the visor" and instantly rush to fulfill all the points of this statement? It is unlikely: there are fools in NATO, but most of them are not different either by clinical stupidity or by special naivety. Then why are there, for example, such passages:
We reaffirm our support for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, Georgia and the Republic of Moldova within their internationally recognized borders. We call on Russia to withdraw the forces that it has deployed in these three countries.
And in order not to get up two times, they added to this the demand for Russia to refuse to recognize the sovereignty of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
That is, calling things by their proper names, Russia should lay a carpet for Georgia on which it will join NATO? Wonderful. But does anyone believe in it?
Another important point of the statement was a call to Russia, consider, “to recognize responsibility for the crash of a Malaysian Malaysia Airlines aircraft over the Donbas.” And also, attention:
We urge the Russian Federation to recognize responsibility and fully cooperate in all efforts to establish the truth, justice and responsibility.
What?! Blame yourself for the unproved guilt - and welcome to The Hague? Wonderful. But really, it can not be that they themselves believe it?
However, this is not all. Russia was called upon to abandon the support of armed groups on the territory of Ukraine, as well as to fully implement the Minsk agreements.
Also, the North Atlantic Alliance expresses solidarity with England in the case of Skripale. And on what basis? Yes, all the same "highly Likely", or "most likely." Here is how it sounds in the performance of the faithful allies of Great Britain:
The United Kingdom considers it highly probable that the Russian Federation is responsible for the attacks and that there is no plausible alternative explanation. We express solidarity with the United Kingdom in its assessment.
Great, right? Come with such "arguments" to the court, and you have every chance of getting a sentence for libel. But the largest military-political bloc, on the basis of such judgments, accepts important statements, and he is not worried about either his own reputation or Russia's reputation, on which, by calling a spade a spade, erected an unsubstantiated slander.
For the sake of fairness, we note that there were several points in the statement that, at first glance, seem quite conciliatory. In particular, the forum participants see the benefit in sharing information between the alliance and Russia, and also note that NATO does not seek confrontation and does not pose a threat to Russia. But it all comes to naught with just one sentence:
Due to the current circumstances, we regret that, despite appeals by the allies and the international community to Russia to change course, there are no conditions for such relations.
As you can see, Russia has been allocated a whole day of the fleeting summit. And we can think as many times as possible that in this way NATO indirectly recognizes the importance of relations with our country. That's the way it is, and yet the use of the wording and informational reasons that actually drive Russia into a corner does not leave us a chance to think that the purpose of this document is an attempt to somehow establish relations with Moscow.
So what is it for then? Probably, to answer this question, we need to recall the main event on the international political agenda - the expected meeting of Trump and Putin.
Everything falls into place if we try to take this document not as an appeal to Moscow and Putin, but as an appeal to Trump. Using the presence of the American president at the summit and his apparent reluctance to thwart the event, which already cracks under the weight of American initiatives, European hawks ... But no, this word does not fit here. Better like this: European fighting roosters are trying to force Trump on the agenda of a meeting with Putin!
And for this, it is really possible to raise from the cellar the badly tainted accusations of attacking a peaceful Boeing, and recall the “support for the armed groups in Donbas”, and demand strict compliance with the Minsk agreements (although Russia is not a party to the conflict) - in general everything suits. And the fact that under all these points is the signature of the United States, still can affect the information background of the upcoming meeting in Helsinki.
And still we hope that Trump can keep even more serious blows. He was fairly tempered as a policy of confrontation with opponents within the United States, and now there is every reason to think that the whining of European "partners" will not cause him anything but irritation.
Information