Legends and myths about NATO

Anti-Western paranoia has long ago acquired the character of a severe collective mental illness in Russia, and the conspiracy based on this paranoia will probably soon become an official science (along with astrology). The organization of absolutely all revolutions and even natural disasters is attributed to the West. The fact that revolutions, not to mention natural disasters, happened in an era when the West simply did not exist in its current understanding, is now not taken into consideration. All-Russian paranoia contributes, in addition to targeted official propaganda, a catastrophic drop in the level of science and education. This allows the fighters with the "intrigues of imperialism" to act within the framework of the installation "if theory contradicts the facts, so much the worse for the facts." This installation is always done.

For example, our point of view is quite popular that the START-3 agreement, signed between Moscow and Washington in 2010, “disarms” Russia. Meanwhile, among all the “disarmament” treaties, START-3 is unique in that it is an agreement on the unilateral voluntary disarmament of the United States, since they are obliged to reduce their nuclear deterrence forces, and we can even increase them. In addition, within its framework, Russia removed the most important restrictions that existed in previous agreements - on the size of the deployment areas of mobile ICBMs, on the number of multiply charged ICBMs, on the possibility of creating railway ICBMs. Russia did not make any concessions. This amazing altruism from the United States is explained very simply: in exchange for START-3, Moscow refused to supply C-300P to Iran.

Nevertheless, our officials, right up to the highest, regularly demonstrate frightening inadequacies, threatening Washington with an exit from START-3. In fact, they may threaten us with such a measure, and not we. By the way, Republicans regularly start talking about the fact that the United States must withdraw from the treaty, since it restricts only the United States.

WHO IS STRONGER

As of 1 June 2011, when the first exchange of information took place within the framework of START-3, Russia had 521 deployed and 344 non-deployed media and 1537 deployed warheads. As of 1 September 2013 of the year (the latest exchange of information at the moment), we have 473 deployed and 421 unwrapped media and 1400 deployed warheads. That is, our strategic nuclear forces continue to decline, and this only underlines the absurdity of talking about the fact that START-3 “disarms” us. We are disarming ourselves, and the treaty today allows us to add 227 (!) Deployed carriers and 150 warheads. Alas, it is unreal. MBR UR-100, P-36М2, RT-2PM, SLBM P-29P are written off much faster than they are produced, and go to the troops RT-2PM2, PC-24 and P-30 unclear). In this case, a significant part of the withdrawn missiles are multiply-charged, and those entering the armament are single-block or “low-charged”, that is, the number of warheads is reduced even faster than the number of missiles. Airplanes generally leave without replacement.

Just for comparison: the US 1 June 2011 of the year had 882 deployed and 242 non-deployed media and 1800 deployed warheads. By 1 September 2013, 809 deployed and 206 non-deployed media and 1688 deployed warheads remained. That is, they still need to shrink, and we can already expand. Just does not work. However, articles about our “disarmament” regularly appear in our media, including specialized ones.

Or another example. In connection with him, I would like to once again remind you that waging a normal war without tanks impossible. This common truth has to be repeated because the tank is regularly "buried", stating that it is "out of date". These statements contain a deep internal contradiction, which for some reason no one notices. From the point of view of the “grave diggers” of the tank, it was “out of date” because it became too vulnerable, no other “charges” were brought against the tank. Indeed, billions of dollars are invested in the development of anti-tank weapons around the world, and there are many of them. The fact, however, is that any other class of ground equipment is one to two orders of magnitude more vulnerable than a tank. If the tank is "out of date" due to vulnerability, then a land war can no longer be fought at all. What can hardly be discussed seriously. Nothing comparable to a tank, in terms of combining firepower, mobility and security, is not and never will be. If we are talking about the classic war "army against the army" with the occupation of enemy territory, then it is impossible to do without tanks. What has shown all the classic wars not only of the twentieth, but also the beginning of the twenty-first century. For example, both Iraqi wars, where the United States did not neglect the Abrams. On the contrary, Abrams on a bridge in the center of Baghdad on April 9, 2003 became a symbol of the collapse of the Hussein regime. In the course of the first Iraq war, the United States deployed nearly 2 Abrams, and during the second, about a thousand.

By the beginning of the 90, the USA had 5,9 thousand tanks in Europe. At the beginning of this year, the last Abrams fell from Europe to the States. Following them, which is no less significant, the main means of fighting tanks, the A-10 attack aircraft, also went from there. Both the Abrams and A-10 left Europe without any replacement. This means that the United States, which now accounts for roughly 75% of NATO’s total combat power, is not going to wage any war in Europe, neither aggressive nor defensive.

The overwhelming majority of our media tried to avoid such an unpleasant event in silence, because these facts are extremely difficult to fit into the traditional theory. Nevertheless, even in this difficult situation there were people who were truly inflexible (“make nails out of these people”). Thus, an article appeared in one of the online publications that the withdrawal of tanks and attack aircraft from Europe to the States confirms that the USA is increasingly surrounding Russia with a ring of its bases and troops. I do not exaggerate, so it was written.

NATO BASES AROUND RUSSIA NO

About the ring of bases and troops, which we are steadily surrounding us, is constantly being written, however, on this occasion neither the names of the bases, nor the composition of the groups placed on them are ever given. This is not surprising, since there has never been any NATO base around Russia, and therefore it is not possible to cite examples. True, in 2012, in this regard, paranoid conspiracy theories almost had real happiness: the NATO base arose right inside Russia!

Even against the general background of paranoia, last year’s hysteria about the “NATO base in Ulyanovsk” was particularly intense. On few occasions the conspiracy rage was so concentrated. We must pay tribute to our leadership - it did not succumb to hysteria and provided a "base". For it is quite reasonable to get money from NATO for the “return transit” from Afghanistan (the Ulyanovsk facility could not be used for anything else by definition). But here the principles of “business in Russian” have already worked, which consist in the fact that prices always rise and never decrease. We'd better go broke, but we won't give a penny to our competitors. As a result, a much longer and more dangerous "southern" route through Pakistan turned out to be more beneficial for NATO than a short and absolutely safe "northern" route through Russia. Moscow has too much price for transit, and is not ready to give a cent, although it does not receive anything at all.

By the way, if NATO members really needed to “cling” to an object in Russia, as we were explained in the framework of last year’s hysteria, they probably wouldn’t have looked at the price. But the trouble is that the damned imperialists needed only transit. And they did not cling to the Kyrgyz Manas, the base will be completely collapsed and moved to Romania.

There is, however, an object on Earth about which anti-scientific delusions were written much more than about the “NATO base in Ulyanovsk”. This is the notorious HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program, high frequency exposure ionosphere research program) in Alaska. From the point of view of paranoid conspiracy theories, it is simultaneously climatic, geophysical and psychotronic weapons, as well as the most important means of missile defense. The fact that all this is absolute absurdity from the point of view of physics (at least because of the insignificant energy possibilities of HAARP) does not bother anyone, because, in fact, why do we need physics? Instead, there is now propaganda and religion, which is quite enough for a citizen of sovereign-democratic Russia. Although, in fact, there may be some truth about psychotronic weapons - HAARP clearly caused severe attacks of paranoia among those who are susceptible to it.

But a terrible thing happened recently: in July, the facility was closed due to the termination of its funding. That is, the most valuable weapon for the United States has run out of money. Of course, domestic media have bypassed this event with absolute silence. Apparently, in the hope that Washington will come to its senses and renew the financing of HAARP, that is, automatically - and paranoids. There is some hope that the DARPA (Agency for Advanced Military Research) will save the miracle weapon, but for some reason it also does not show interest.

WHERE WAS ARAB SPRING

The real American-style policy is oil, gas, and the power of weapons.

Of course, in Russia it is considered an axiom that the “Arab Spring” is completely organized by the West, first of all, of course, the USA. At the same time, after almost three years since its inception, it is completely impossible to understand what practical benefit the "spring" gained (or at least wanted to extract) the West? Unfortunately, there is not even a hint of an answer to this very simple question. There is nothing to argue with. At least, the “controlled chaos theory” is not suitable for discussion, because its supporters clearly do not understand its supporters themselves, judging by what they write on this topic (the number of internal contradictions of this “theory” exceeds all conceivable limits). The only option for a specific answer is the magic word "oil".

It is not customary to object to this word at all, although a question arises here: what is oil?

The fact is that today the only true religion for almost all Russians is money. Therefore, they judge everyone by themselves and everywhere look for an economic background. And since our money is taken almost exclusively from oil and gas, the background is sought for oil and gas.

However, as applied to the “Arab Spring”, it somehow does not add up with oil. Of the five countries affected by the “spring” in four (Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, Syria) there is either no oil at all or it is negligible. Before the 2011, Libyan oil was produced mainly by Western companies and was almost completely exported to the West. Accordingly, “capture” it was somehow strange. By the way, as a result of the war, the situation in this sense deteriorated markedly due to the chaos that began in the country. Dropped volumes and production, and exports. Interestingly, the Western aggressors do nothing to remedy this situation, not sending not only regular troops to Libya, but even PMCs (private military companies) to protect wells and pipelines, although from the point of view of conspiratorologists, this was the main goal of NATO members, and nothing prevents them from reaching that goal now.

In general, “seizing oil”, while carrying huge military expenditures, is pointless simply because the main goal of oil-producing countries is to sell as much of this oil as possible, and it is best of all to the West. On the other hand, for at least 10 years, the United States has been purposefully working to increase its own oil production and, accordingly, to reduce imports. And first of all, imports are declining precisely from the Gulf region, this is the official strategy of Washington. Therefore, the entire oil version of the actions of the West is nothing more than another paranoid delusion. And especially - with reference to the "Arab spring".

In this regard, you can move back to 10 years ago and recall the US invasion of Iraq in the 2003 year. Of course, the Americans also "seized the oil." However, taking into account the cost of a military operation, oil purchased by Americans in Iraq after 2003, cost them at least seven times more expensive than oil purchased from Hussein in 1996 – 2002. Very unusual to get "capture." Even more unusual is that today in Iraq, American oil companies produce less than 20% of local oil.

By the way, paranoid-conspiracy therapists explained to us that the Americans not only captured Iraqi oil, but also installed a puppet regime in Baghdad and would create many military bases in Iraq. Indeed, the US wanted to keep military bases in Iraq after the withdrawal of the main contingent in 4. But the “puppet” of Nuri al-Maliki (Prime Minister of Iraq) categorically refused to grant American military personnel immunity from prosecution under local laws. And the Americans did not remove the "puppet" from power. They wiped themselves off and left Iraq completely, leaving no bases there. And now Iraq serves as a “link” between Iran and Syria. It is through Iraq, with the full consent of his leadership, that Iran’s weapons and the IRGC soldiers are sent to help Assad. Washington is very indignant at this fact, but it doesn’t care at all about the “puppet”. In addition, the "puppet" is now going to buy Russian weapons in much larger quantities than the US.

WEAK AMERICA AND EUROPE

Let's return to the “Arab spring”. If the economic benefit from it is not visible to the West, then there is nothing at all to say about the political side. Serious Western researchers have long recognized that the “Arab Spring” has become a real geopolitical catastrophe for the West. He never received such a crushing blow to his positions in this region of the planet.

Nevertheless, the version of the Western conspiracy is dominant not only in Russia, but also in the Middle East itself. Therefore, for example, the Americans in recent months have revealed such an interesting and sad phenomenon for them: both of the opposing camps in Egypt (both the “Muslim Brotherhood” and the military and the supporting secular population) are absolutely sure that Washington is on the side their opponents. As a result, America in this country is now hated by everyone.

At the same time, America, like Europe, in fact, has long and hopelessly entangled in what is happening and the further, the less they understand what to do. In Western politics (if there is one at all) there is a growing contradiction between ideology and pragmatism. The first demands to support the “insurgent people fighting for democracy”, the second - “executioners and suppressors of freedom”. The more radical freedom fighters among the “fighters for freedom and democracy”, the stronger the contradictions.

However, Europe has almost completely deprived itself of the ability to exert coercive pressure on other countries (due to repeated reductions in the Armed Forces), the EU economy is in a severe crisis. These circumstances make it impossible to engage in real politics. Therefore, Europe easily makes a choice in favor of ideology, that is, it supports “freedom fighters”. The Islamists in Syria can commit absolutely any, the most brutal crimes, the support of Europe is guaranteed to them in any case (though almost exclusively verbal). And in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood can at least be morally consoled - Europe with them (also, however, only verbally).

Washington is harder. He still has the most powerful power tool in the face of the most powerful aircraft in the world. And the US economy, in spite of everything, remains the first in the world. On the other hand, ideological attitudes are very strong here. The youngest of all developed nations, America has absolutized its historical experience, its political and economic system. The Americans are sincerely convinced that their mission is to carry it to all of humanity, because it only awaits this. Some American intellectuals, including the military, who have choked on Iraq and Afghanistan, understand that this ardent missionary work, to put it mildly, is not always justified, but no one wants to listen to them yet. On the other hand, extreme pragmatism is inherent in Americans no less than idealism. And pragmatism makes us constantly remember real politics. Only now it is far from always possible to combine them with missionary work.

As a result, Washington seems to fully support the Syrian rebel thugs, but does not give them weapons. He, as it were, condemns the “disproportionate use of force” by the Egyptian military, but does not want to call their actions a coup (although it is precisely they who carried out the coup). Only as a result of this policy, what has been said above is obtained - everyone is starting to hate America.

AXIS OF EVIL AND GOOD

The recent situation with the "use of chemical weapons in Syria" has become, perhaps, the quintessence of Western policy, which, of course, we have not seen again for another deafening hysteria on the topic "the imperialists are ready to tear apart one more sovereign state" and "the next will be Russia." Meanwhile, the West has surpassed itself. First, the traditional extrajudicial decision was made in the true Stalinist traditions - Assad was found guilty without any evidence at all (even the fact that the use of chemical weapons in the suburbs of Damascus took place in general). The West has long been making such extrajudicial decisions that do not require evidence and are not subject to appeal. Of course, it was announced that Assad had "crossed the red line", that is, he would be attacked. After that, it turned out that the grouping, at least for a purely air operation (there was never even a speech about the ground operation) according to the Yugoslav or Libyan type, had not even begun to be created. Its creation will take a lot of time and money, of which there is no. And how much money will be spent on the operation itself and what consequences can it lead to ...

In general, everyone began, in modern terms, to “jump off”. And the first to do this were the traditional close allies of Washington - London and Ottawa. Only Turkey continued to demand a full-scale, including ground-based, operation, although it itself, having a long border with Syria, for some reason did not start either. France also declared that it would definitely strike in Syria, but only with the United States, since it alone would not have enough strength. The remaining 25 countries of the alliance refused to participate in the operation categorically (although many supported it politically). Obama didn’t thunder and lightning for several days, but he didn’t make any practical preparations for the operation. Not a single wing (or at least a squadron) of the US Air Force arrived in the Middle East, not a single US Navy aircraft carrier appeared in the Mediterranean. It was then that Moscow arrived in time with its initiative regarding the Syrian chemical weapons. So on time that Washington Moscow openly and honestly thanked for saving from the war.

After this tragifarse, only a completely inadequate person can see in NATO a potential threat to Russia. NATO is not ready to fight even with countries that are much weaker. But, as noted above, if a theory contradicts the facts, so much the worse for the facts.

A very interesting article was published in one of the American newspapers a few months ago. It said that the Russians had long outsmarted themselves, or rather, they do it all the time: they are sure that the Americans are very clever and are constantly conspiring against them. And the Russians in no way want to see the obvious: American foreign policy is simply complete incompetence, aggravated by a tough constant struggle between Republicans and Democrats.

Alas, the Russians really do not want to see the obvious facts, even if they lie on the surface. Paranoia and conspiracy are much more interesting.

At the same time, inflating the myth of the tremendous military power and the aggressive nature of NATO brings Russia absolutely concrete harm. The point is not even in fooling one’s own population (this is the goal of any propaganda, it’s not going anywhere), but in the myth that many people believe, including in the post-Soviet space. But they just do not those conclusions. They still believe that NATO can guarantee them something and protect them from someone. And once it brought to war. If it were not for Saakashvili’s sincere faith in the power of NATO, he would not have launched the August 2008 adventure. No lessons from this are drawn anywhere. Instead of fairy tales about how NATO “restored the military power of Georgia” (this is a direct lie), one could show the example of those events: NATO will not lift a finger and not shed a single drop of the blood of its soldiers and officers to protect post-Soviet states. But we ourselves create problems: after all, even the countries of the CSTO are often trying to sit on two chairs, seeing in Brussels and Washington a possible alternative to Moscow. By the way, they damage their own security, hoping for help, which will never happen under any circumstances.

In a broader sense of Russia, it’s time to seriously get away from Western-centric thinking, which affects more than 90% of the population, including almost the entire elite. For most, the West is the Absolute Evil, which must be resisted for the sake of confrontation, regardless of whether it is in opposition to Russia's national interests. For the minority, the West is the Absolute Good, to which Russia must dissolve, and the very notion “national interests of Russia” should be equated with profanity.

Meanwhile, the West is neither Absolute Evil nor Absolute Good. He is just a part of human civilization. And this part actually for a long time dominated the rest of the parts. But right now, it would seem, having achieved its absolute victory (“the end of history”), this dominance is rapidly losing. This phenomenon deserves serious study. But it is much more convenient for Western centrists of both varieties to continue to consider the West an absolute hegemon, although it has long ceased to be such.