Military Review

White House: "NATO is a defensive alliance"

Josh Ernest, a spokesman for the US presidential administration, held a briefing the day before, during which journalists asked him to comment on the statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin about NATO's advancement to the East. Recall that at the International Economic Forum in St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin spoke about the aggressive rhetoric of representatives of the North Atlantic military bloc and its continuing expansion, despite the fact that neither the USSR nor the Warsaw Pact Organization has long existed.

RIA News quotes Josh Ernest's statements:
We have repeatedly said that NATO is a defensive alliance. This is the cornerstone of our policy in this area. And our allies in the alliance are working with us not only to strengthen security in Europe, but also to respond to events in the world, including the situation in Afghanistan.

White House: "NATO is a defensive alliance"

Apparently, NATO is the only one in the world and in stories A “defensive alliance” that considers itself entitled to invade certain foreign states with attempts to impose its own rules and reduce the situation in these countries to real chaos. Apparently, it is also the only “defensive alliance” in which the level of spending on the maintenance of the army is strictly prescribed for each of its members, and which after the collapse of the USSR cannot determine from whom it is “defending” from terrorists, Iran, Russia DPRK or Ebola? ..
Photos used:
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Taygerus
    Taygerus 23 June 2016 06: 20
    White House: "NATO is a defensive alliance"

    NATO is a defensive alliance with an offensive doctrine
    1. Alex_Rarog
      Alex_Rarog 23 June 2016 06: 28
      Well, the best defense is a flood! Mattresses do not care at all. There is nothing to be done without profit.
      1. Talgat
        Talgat 23 June 2016 17: 36
        I read children's reasoning in some book

        All countries have ministries of defense - but nowhere is there a ministry of attack.

        Why then do wars happen?

        The essence. that the defense ministries of the west and the us are actually ministries of "attack"
    2. The black
      The black 23 June 2016 06: 34
      White House: "NATO is a defensive alliance"
      If NATO is a defensive alliance, then the wolf is a herbivorous mammal smile
      1. inkass_98
        inkass_98 23 June 2016 06: 48
        The wolf, by the way, although a predator, but almost omnivorous. Like a bear.
        But NATO has a defensive doctrine with preemptive strikes against aggressors who did not suspect that they were, do not you know? This has always been the last 25 years.
        1. 34 region
          34 region 23 June 2016 07: 04
          Collection 98! 06.48. So they deliver preemptive strikes. Either grants from non-governmental foundations, then non-profit organizations, or advocates for rights, or opposition. But in general, they have a harrowing policy. All align under one comb.
        2. Ami du peuple
          Ami du peuple 23 June 2016 07: 58
          Quote: inkass_98
          And NATO has a defensive doctrine with preemptive strikes against aggressors
          And NATO, according to Western politicians, undoubtedly contributes to security in Europe
      2. I am human
        I am human 23 June 2016 12: 35
        And they, apparently, pulled a sheep skin on themselves and now bleat about their harmlessness.
    3. avvg
      avvg 23 June 2016 06: 38
      It is simply American policy or American logic to regard "terrorists as freedom fighters" and "NATO as a defensive alliance."
      1. Lukich
        Lukich 23 June 2016 07: 00
        Quote: avvg
        It is simply American politics or American logic to consider "terrorists as freedom fighters"

        well, or "moderate opposition", which is essentially the same
    4. Sly
      Sly 23 June 2016 08: 30
      And Vaska listens, but eats ...
    5. faridg7
      faridg7 23 June 2016 12: 38
      Quote: Taygerus
      White House: "NATO is a defensive alliance"

      NATO is a defensive alliance with an offensive doctrine

      Tell this Hochma in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya. I’m only afraid to laugh at her
  2. Teberii
    Teberii 23 June 2016 06: 20
    NATO, like a cancerous tumor, is expanding in all directions. The question remains only how long the patient suffices.
  3. Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov 23 June 2016 06: 25
    Well, yes, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya are convinced of this, the "defense" line has approached Russia, well, nothing, God willing, we will rip out your "defense"!
  4. dmi.pris
    dmi.pris 23 June 2016 06: 30
    It is believed that while there will be Russia with its independent politics and potential, there will also be NATO. But I believe that even without us this structure existed, the military and corporations need money and orders, which means they will have a threat .. At least from aliens.
  5. dchegrinec
    dchegrinec 23 June 2016 06: 31
    As there were crafty statements, so they remain. From defense to attack, one step. It's like a missile defense system. The main thing is to move closer, place the contingent, stuff with missiles, and then say: so we are defending!
    1. Lukich
      Lukich 23 June 2016 07: 03
      Quote: dchegrinec
      and then declare: so we defend ourselves!

      and then come up with from whom
  6. Wolka
    Wolka 23 June 2016 06: 37
    nothing new, NATO is self-exclusivity, the replacement of the UN Security Council and, as always, double standards in assessing the global situation ...
  7. Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 23 June 2016 06: 44
    If NATO is a defensive alliance, then this NATO should stay at home and not run along the borders of foreign countries and look for enemies.
    1. Nyrobsky
      Nyrobsky 23 June 2016 14: 03
      Quote: Alexander 3
      If NATO is a defensive alliance, then this NATO should stay at home and not run along the borders of foreign countries and look for enemies.
  8. Aleksander
    Aleksander 23 June 2016 06: 46
    They are funny! lol
    1. Lukich
      Lukich 23 June 2016 07: 08
      Quote: Aleksander
      They are funny!
  9. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 23 June 2016 06: 48
    NATO is a defensive alliance

    Cycling on goals invented by the very same ones, steadfastness and constant search for the enemy are probably worthy of entering psychiatry textbooks.
  10. Lyton
    Lyton 23 June 2016 06: 50
    Yeah, peaceful people, and how many freeloaders are asking for NATU, or they are being pulled there.
  11. Evil 55
    Evil 55 23 June 2016 07: 35
    That's why NATO, so pin..dosam was rich in life ...
  12. Bosk
    Bosk 23 June 2016 07: 41
    Alliance (fr. Alliance) is a union, an association (for example, states, organizations) on the basis of formal or informal contractual obligations ..., right there we see not an alliance based on some kind of agreements, but a real flock of sheep with one shepherd ..., not well, of course, I understand that in life in any union does not awaken equality in its purest form, but in this case the "shepherd" was caught too ambitious ...
  13. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn 23 June 2016 08: 22
    Hypothetically: all countries of the world are part of NATO - they will defend themselves from aliens, the main thing is not to look for the enemy.
  14. fa2998
    fa2998 23 June 2016 08: 34
    Quote: inkass_98
    And NATO has a defensive doctrine with preemptive strikes against aggressors,

    Yes, so Libya, Afghanistan, Yugoslavia and others so "threatened" NATO that they threw "Tamagawks" and bombs. Now terrorists rule in some countries, in others - puppet regimes. am hi
    BARKHAN 23 June 2016 08: 42
    And what’s new? The whole story was like this. They captured, enslaved, robbed in one way or another .... It's just called differently now. Democratization, the fight against terrorism, the eastern threat ...
    Whoever can can eat that.
    Capitalism however.
  16. NEXUS
    NEXUS 23 June 2016 08: 54
    We have repeatedly said that NATO is a defensive alliance.

    And did Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya also be bombed out of defensive motives?
  17. 96423lom
    96423lom 23 June 2016 09: 29
    Of course, defensive, NATO defends Europe from independence, and the whole world is trying. A bomb solely for humanitarian reasons.
  18. t118an
    t118an 23 June 2016 09: 30
    I will say briefly NATO members blatantly lie that they are like cute and fluffy. Their main task is to destroy, dismember the countries of Russia's allies, impose their "values" and take over the whole world while wiping us off the face of the earth.
    CONTROL 23 June 2016 09: 33
    The Pentagon has unveiled the National Military Strategy, which includes, inter alia, counteraction to “revisionist states such as Russia”:
    “In accordance with the strategic document, the US Armed Forces must be ready to oppose“ revisionist states ”, such as Russia, which challenge international standards, as well as extremist organizations such as the“ Islamic State ”*, the Defense Ministry said in a press release U.S. July 1, 2015.
    In addition to Russia, countries such as Iraq, North Korea and China are noted:
    - The Iranian nuclear program is causing concern for US allies in the region and beyond. Iran sponsors terrorist groups in the region and is active in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon, the Pentagon notes.
    - North Korea remains an illegal state that has developed nuclear weapons and is developing missiles capable of reaching the United States.
    “The Pentagon believes that China’s growing power and development strategy are helping this country become a US partner in international security, but“ China’s actions in the South China Sea are worrisome. ”
    True, in order to understand who actually rewrites geopolitical rules, in other words, revises the world order, it is enough to look at how the United States acted for the past 100 years, or rather, how their "formidable" Armed Forces (AF) fought. So, in 1915, the American occupation of Haiti began. Lawyers have called this invasion "an act of state hooliganism."
    In 1825, after a long embargo by the Haitian authorities, which won the struggle for independence, they were forced to sign an agreement with France on compensation in the amount of 150 million francs. The amount of "debt" - the annual budget of France, so interest payments were too heavy.
    And in 1915, after another default of 330 US Marines, by order of President Woodrow Wilson, they seized the Haitian National Bank and transferred the entire gold reserve of this country to New York. Then, an entire squadron of US ships joined the occupation of the republic, including the Connecticut battleship and the Tennessee armored cruiser, as well as two thousand marines. As a result, up to 30 thousand Haitians who disagreed with America’s “police policy” died during the occupation - machine guns were widely used to suppress unrest. In 1922, US lawyers published a report saying: “It is politically immoral for our great nation to act as a bully who attacks someone who is too weak physically to defend their sovereign rights.”
    Then in 1916, the United States twice acted as a “state bully”, attacking the Dominican Republic and Mexico.
    Despite a significant advantage in machine guns and aircraft, the objectives of the operation were not achieved, and the Americans lost in skirmishes with the Mexican army.
    May 13, 1916 with the blackmail of US Rear Admiral William Caperton, who threatened to destroy the capital of Santo Domingo by sea bombing, the occupation of the Dominican Republic began. A few government troops went to the eastern provinces of El Ceibo and San Pedro Macori, where the tactics of “scorched earth” were first used against them. On December 27, 1924, an agreement was signed with the puppet government, according to which the United States gained control over the bowels of the defeated country.
    CONTROL 23 June 2016 09: 41
    US officially entered World War I April 6, 1917, when its outcome was obvious. Meanwhile, the Germans, starting in 1915, took brutal actions against the Americans, including sabotage at military factories directly in the United States. But this did not become the reason for declaring war on Germany. President Wilson, frightened by the nature of the confrontation, sent troops to Europe only after Berlin called on Mexico to jointly attack the United States. Only in October 1917 the first division of the US Army was transferred to the Old World.
    This is explained by the fact that America traded almost the entire World War I, both with the Entente and with their opponents through neutral countries. As a result of this, a large stratum of people called the “military millionaires” appeared. It is these families that form the basis of the elite of the modern American business community.
    Thomas Mitchell’s book, Losses and Medical Statistics of the First Great War, says that for half a year or so, American casualties accounted for 16 percent of those who took part in the war. While Russian troops during the entire world war lost 52% of the mobilized killed and wounded, German troops - 64.9%, French troops - 76.3%, the army of Austria-Hungary - 90%.
    US policy in WWII repeated. Despite the official start of the war with Germany on December 7, 1941, the American front in Europe was opened only on June 6, 1944. By this time, the Third Reich suffered a number of serious defeats from the USSR and lost the victorious army of the 1941 model. This is evidenced by the fact of the German mobilization announced in 1943, which made it possible to make up for the losses of the Wehrmacht at the expense of men aged 45-65 years (80%). In this regard, the German Army General Zimmermann wrote: "Already in 1943, the basis of the German troops of the Western Front were old people."
    Even at the final stage of the war, 80% of the Wehrmacht personnel fought on the eastern dandy - against the Red Army.
    The war of the Americans with the Japanese, went down in history thanks to the monstrous atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima:
    - The atomic bombing of Japan by the United States, as many Russian and foreign authors admit, was not caused by military necessity. It was designed to demonstrate the atomic power of the United States, "- writes the historian Nina Indukaeva. Then, to one degree or another as a result of a nuclear attack, 503 thousand civilians were injured. However, this was not what forced the Japanese to sign the act of surrender. August 9, 1945 Prime Minister of Japan Kantaro Suzuki said at a meeting of the Supreme Military Council of Japan: "The entry of the Soviet Union into the war this morning puts us completely in a desperate situation and makes it impossible to continue the war."
    The Americans never apologized for the act of atomic vandalism. Moreover, the United States annually celebrates September 2 as a public holiday in honor of the signing of the surrender of Japan. It is called Victory over Japan Day.
    CONTROL 23 June 2016 09: 48
    Then there was the war in Korea (1950-1953). On the US side, up to 480 soldiers took part in this confrontation between North and South Korea. In total, under the leadership of the Pentagon, 1100000 people of the pro-Western coalition fought. They were opposed by the allied forces of the DPRK, PRC and the USSR with a strength of 1060000 soldiers, including 26000 Soviet troops, mainly pilots (535), anti-aircraft gunners and instructors. The Americans lost this war because they did not achieve their imperialist goals.
    Next was a fascistly cruel company in Indochina, accompanying the genocide of civilians in northern Vietnam. The formal reason for the invasion is “democratization”. As a result, there was another outbreak of anti-Americanism around the world. The American army was rehabilitated in an operation in tiny Grenada (1983), as well as in Panama (1989).
    The modern history of American invasions has two operations in Iraq and an attack on Afghanistan. The political implications of these companies are monstrous. In fact, Iraq ceased to exist, giving rise to the Islamic State, and Afghanistan turned into a world plantation for the production of heroin. Meanwhile, these wars are not over yet ...
    Of course, the US approach to all wars and operations was still different. However, at one time, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara (in the years 1961-1968 under John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson - “SP”) in a sense reflected the general rather pragmatic and mathematical approach of Americans to warfare, based on the fact that the more ammunition they spend, the more opponents will be killed and the easier it will be to win. But it turned out that relying only on economics and analytics is not enough - in a war, the fighting spirit of a soldier decides a lot, even with an unequal balance of forces, which was higher among the Vietnamese.

    Vietnam, of course, greatly crippled the American war machine. For the first time, the States were faced with a situation where it was necessary to take the initiative on their own, to fight seriously, and not to wait for everyone to decide for you. As a result, 58 thousand people died, 303 thousand were injured, and how many did not survive the “Vietnamese syndrome” is not known. And after the Vietnam War, the Americans did nothing for a long time. So much of this conflict shocked their minds that the next operation “Flash of Fury” was carried out in 1983 - the invasion of Grenada, the removal of the government of Eric Geyry.
    Then there was the US invasion of Panama in 1989, after which the Americans began to realize that the bipolar world was over and any opportunities were open for them, they could do anything. True, after they began to probe the situation in the world for a subject - can they act with impunity? - there was an operation in Somalia in 1993. The states then faced a seemingly weakly armed adversary, but those fighting absolutely fearlessly.
    then, as they say, it started - the war in Yugoslavia by NATO forces, Afghanistan, two Iraqi campaigns, etc. All these wars are the fruits of impunity. True, now that Russia has regained strength, the situation has changed - in the United States they realize that they come across resistance and act with impunity, as before, it has become problematic.
  22. ingener1966
    ingener1966 23 June 2016 09: 56
    In a blatantly Saxon manner, it turns out that diplomacy is just a lie and they are all the time engaged in whatever they ... deceive. angry Even fools can pretend. Will it ever end or not? As much as you can endure, puffed turkeys sit and vparivayut the whole world about how good and correct they are. All the same, Washington must be destroyed !!! negative
  23. Bulrumeb
    Bulrumeb 23 June 2016 09: 57
    We have repeatedly said that NATO is a defensive alliance.
  24. atamankko
    atamankko 23 June 2016 10: 13
    More terrible than gays with NATO there is no beast.
  25. Aleksandr1959
    Aleksandr1959 23 June 2016 12: 26
    From time to time, Europe is forced to attack the aggressor Russia in order to protect itself from Russia's too large size and help it become a little smaller, and democratize and make citizens more loyal, slightly reforge some values ​​and bring the peoples of Russia to the ideals of the civilized world.

    In general, this difficult mission for many centuries lies on the shoulders of the long-suffering and selfless Europe.

    Swedes, Poles, French, Germans. Who just did not try to take on this honorable task. But the Russian savages kept pushing and aggressively dared to defend themselves and their territories. Periodically even taking part of the territories from Europe: this is an unprecedented arrogance.
    Needless to say, ingratitude, savagery, madness. What else to expect from the barbarians ...

    Seventy-five years ago, a very European country, with the support of other European countries, wanted to share its values ​​with the too large Soviet Union. At the same time, reducing the size of the Union and the number of citizens living in it. This is one of the greatest tragedies in the history of our country.

    Today we are again on the verge of such events, the format is changing, but not the essence. Russia is too big, prohibitively large and rich country, and this is its inborn sin in the eyes of our “friends” and “partners”.

    Source: Blog of Dionis Petrov

    They want to assure us that NATO is a defensive alliance. Defensive from whom? From bombed Yugoslavia? From the broken-down Libya? ... Most of the countries that make up this alliance have been aggressors for centuries. And between the Euroreich and NATO ..... the difference is small.
  26. Stariknv
    Stariknv 23 June 2016 18: 43
    NATO is a defensive alliance, only they defend the United States as an evil empire that is hiding behind the backs of European countries. Russia is in the ring of NATO military forces and only the United States decides when to tell its chain dogs to launch military operations while trumpeting the world that protects democracy and the United States from Russian aggression.