Anders Fogh Rasmussen does not believe in the peace-loving nature of Russia's foreign policy.
At the anniversary 50-th security conference in Munich, Russia and the West routinely quarreled on all issues. At the same time, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen made a number of complaints against Russia on military issues. “Russia calls NATO a“ threat ”, locates its aircraft in Belarus, missiles in Kaliningrad and military forces in the Arctic! - he said. - We heard about the fears of the Russian Federation that the missile defense system will undermine the Russian strategic deterrence potential. This is contrary to the facts and laws of physics. "
Rasmussen is right on all points. Antinatov's hysteria in Russia has already passed into collective paranoia, about which NVO wrote in the article “Legends and Myths about NATO” (15.11.13). Russia actually places its aircraft (Su-27 and, possibly, the newest Su-30) in Belarus, the Iskander missiles in the Kaliningrad region. As it has been written in the Western press more than once, quite rightly, Russia says a lot about the militarization of the Arctic, but if anyone is doing this militarization, it is only Russia itself (almost 100% of the armed forces stationed north of the polar circle are Russian).
The reasoning that missile defense in Europe will undermine our strategic potential is really contrary to the facts and laws of physics. Problems for our SNF could create a missile defense system, located in the United States, but not in Europe.
However, it should be noted that the anti-Russian hysteria in the West is practically not inferior either in intensity or in the absurdity of the content of anti-NATO hysteria in Russia.
At the same time, it is completely impossible to establish who first began and who looks sillier. In general, making claims to others, we should not forget to look at this aspect of ourselves.
OUR RESPONSE TO EUROPRO
Claims about Iskander look rather strange. The ground forces of the Russian Armed Forces have 10 rocket brigades. Before 2010, all of them were equipped with “Tochka-U” missiles (flight range - 120 km). These missiles were put into service in the 1989 year and are already physically obsolete and even more morally. Any military equipment, after all, requires replacement. Even 4 a year ago, the Russian Defense Ministry quite officially announced that all rocket brigades would be re-equipped from Point-U to Iskander. This process began in 2010, the following year, the first of the missile brigades, 26-I, stationed in Luga, Leningrad Region, was completed with a new OTRK. Then "Iskander" received the 92-I brigade of the Central IN (deployed in Totskom of the Orenburg region), then - the 107-I Brigade of the Eastern IN (village Semistochny of the Jewish Autonomous Region). The latter probably didn’t like China very much, but he had enough realism to keep silent. Already this year, the 1-I missile brigade of the Southern Military District (Molkino, Krasnodar Territory) re-equipped the Iskander. Thus, the circle was closed, the turn of the Western HE came again. There are three more missile brigades, including the 152-I (Chernyakhovsk, Kaliningrad region). Not now, so in two or three years the turn would have reached her anyway.
Many observers see a connection between the Iskanders in the Baltic and the future American missile defense system in Poland. In fact, when (and if) anti-missile defense facilities appear in Poland, the Iskanders of the 152 Brigade will easily reach them. Actually, Moscow has never concealed that it does not like the ABM and it will take countermeasures. It is clear to any objective expert that European countries, deploying American missile defense facilities on their territory, will not increase their security, but will lower it, and quite significantly. In the end, it is their free choice.
As for the missile defense itself, then yes, our claims contradict the facts and laws of physics. But the missile defense itself is contrary to the laws of common sense. The Iranian and, moreover, the North Korean threats to Europe are so absurd and unrealistic that they simply cannot but arouse suspicion - missile defense is being created against someone and something completely different. But NATO categorically does not want to understand this.
The delight of the letter "I"
And in Russia it is not at all customary to understand that in northeastern Europe (in the Baltic countries, Poland and to a lesser extent in Scandinavia) we are seriously afraid, considering them potential aggressors. Especially this fear increased after the Five-Day War in the Caucasus in August 2008. In these countries, those Caucasian events were unequivocally perceived as the beginning of the “restoration of the Russian empire”. It’s useless to persuade them to do the opposite, such is their perception. stories. The aggressiveness of the rhetoric of Moscow and the rearmament of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation that has begun, and with an emphasis on the Western IN, only reinforces them in this confidence. Yes, this is absurd and paranoia, but no more than the Russian expectation of NATO aggression.
It is absurd to expect NATO aggression even because almost all European NATO armies lost their ability to conduct independent combat operations (even defensive, not to mention offensive) during their infinite disarmament, and in the foreseeable future they would lose the ability to fight already and collectively. The point is the psychological state of European societies, the consequence of which is disarmament.
The famous American military theorist Edward Luttvak, at the end of 80, called the current psychological state of the West “post-heroic epoch”. Over the past period, the situation has worsened many times. Postmodernism and all-conquering tolerance have created a situation where almost any perversion is recognized as the norm (the brightest manifestation of this is the rabid struggle of Western politicians for equalizing all minority sexual rights with normal people), respectively, almost nothing “bad” remains. Now it is just “other” (in particular, instead of the word “fool”, the term “alternatively thinking” is now used in the West). The center of everything is the “I”, and this is what it is, any one that does not need any corrections and improvements. Surrounding must accept this “I” with full enthusiasm.
Reading morality on this subject is completely meaningless, it is a voluntary choice of the West. In addition, we have enough of their own deformities. But the fact is that such psychological attitudes preclude readiness for war (in the sense of readiness to die). This was fully expressed in the total transition of the Western armies from the draft to the hired principle of recruitment under the slogan "The military profession is the same as everyone else." It is difficult to come up with a more brazen lie. The military profession is the only one that implies the obligation to die. And that is why it is categorically not the same as everyone else. You can't die for money, it’s trite, but nonetheless absolutely true. And even more so will not die the very Western "I", which is located in the center of the universe. What should he die for?
TWO QUESTIONS TO RUSSIA
One of the most important causes of anti-Russian hysteria in the West - this is his very psychological state. They are infuriated by the fact that Russia refuses to fit into the current Western ideological paradigm. Rabies is greatly exacerbated by the fact that Russia's military power has once again begun to increase, while Europe is not ready for the same reasons either for economic or psychological reasons. And the United States, which began a significant reduction in the military budget, wants to save primarily on its troops in Europe, which are becoming more and more symbolic. That is, all this hysteria can be reduced to two questions of the West to Russia: why are you not listening to us and why are you scaring us ?!
On the other hand, in Russia they cannot fail to see regular NATO aggression. The causes of these aggressions are interpreted here completely pervertedly, they are constantly looking for an economic (primarily oil and gas) background or a desire to deploy military bases. Both of these versions are never supported by any facts, but “if the theory contradicts the facts, so much the worse for the facts.” The real reason for intervention completely coincides with the declared one - they are “humanitarian”, that is, ideological in nature. From what actually become much more dangerous. In the interventions there is no pragmatism, they only create problems for the West itself (this applies to Kosovo, Libya, and the whole Middle and Near East in general). But the desire to “free the oppressed from tyranny” is more important than reality. And more importantly, the oppressed after “liberation” almost always fall under even worse tyranny or into complete chaos.
It is impossible not to see the fact that "liberating the oppressed" NATO is ready only if it does not threaten NATO itself. This has become more than obvious from a comparison of the events in Libya and Syria. The reasons for "humanitarian intervention" in Syria are an order of magnitude greater than they were in Libya. But only Libya had nothing to respond to the intervention, and Syria really has something to do with it. In this regard, we can recall the events of last autumn, when the aggression against Syria seemed resolved. From 28 of the NATO countries, 25, including even Great Britain and Canada, immediately and categorically refused to participate in it due to the lack of opportunity and desire to fight. And this intervention, which would have turned into enormous expenditures (especially without allies), was not part of the US plans. Therefore, Secretary of State John Kerry stated directly and openly that Moscow must do so that the blow would not take place. It is unlikely that Washington wanted to save Assad. They wanted to save themselves. And they explained to Moscow how Washington should be saved from this war. Moscow saved.
POLICY ON THE VERGE OF PARANOIA
NATO is completely not going to "capture the oil" of Russia. This is not only impossible, but also pointless (given how much of its oil Russia drives to the West, and then no less significant part of the money received from its sale moves there too). But, oddly enough, the idea may be born there of saving Russian sex minorities from “oppression”. True, this thought will die immediately after they see at least a dozen S-400 regiments there. For a similar reason, a much more real idea will die - to “liberate” the Abkhaz and South Ossetians. In the West, the overwhelming majority of people, including politicians, are convinced that these peoples languish under the yoke of "imperial Russia" and in every possible way dream of this yoke freeing themselves and returning to a free democratic Georgia. In the West, they are absolutely sure of this. As sincerely as, for example, we are confident that NATO has surrounded Russia with a ring of its bases and that in connection with current events in Ukraine there is a real threat of NATO tanks in Kharkov and Donetsk.
Unfortunately, there are too many such nonsense in the views of the parties on each other. On the other hand, many Western statements about internal Russian shortcomings have very real grounds. But many Russian statements about Western flaws also have real grounds. However, the parties categorically do not want to hear each other, they are convinced of their absolute rightness, and mutual claims, which are a mixture of truth and delirium, only reinforce mutual paranoia that covers all spheres, including the military. This problem is not military, not economic, or even ideological and political, but almost exclusively psychological. That is why it seems practically insoluble. Neither side is ready to stop, to look at itself and to recognize at least a partial rightness of the opponent. And the author of this article is not ready to call on compatriots: “Let's be the first!” We were already the first. The Russian desire for the West in the first half of the 90-s was not any surrender, as is commonly believed now. There was an absolutely sincere desire to become part of the “civilized world”, with whom the West was identified. But the “civilized world” took it as a surrender. And he behaved accordingly. There is not the slightest sign that this mistake has been realized in the West. Or even worse, there it is simply not considered a mistake.