Go to ...

The Newspapers

Gathering and spreading news from various Russian Newspapers

The Newspapers on Google+The Newspapers on LinkedInRSS Feed

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

“The exposure of Russian myths about NATO in fact turns out to be demagoguery


NATO has tried to refute “Russian myths” about its own policy towards Russia. In particular, the Alliance deny the desire to isolate and encircle the Eastern neighbor and talking about the absence of threats to Russia from the created European missile defense system. In addition, NATO has denied the holding of dividing lines in Europe. The argument “whistleblowers myths”, according to experts, is not tenable.

The Alliance attempted to refute five Russian myths about NATO – relevant material was posted on his official website. The first number in the publication is considered a “myth” that NATO is trying to surround Russia. He is refuted by the fact that the length of the common border of Russia with the countries of the block is 1215 km, while the entire length of the land borders of the state exceeds 20 thousand km.

“Since 1949, NATO has not carried out any defensive military operation”

“The most powerful military in the world group”

However, the chief editor of the magazine “Arsenal Fatherland” Victor murakhovski called such statement an absolute demagoguery, Recalling that the contour of the Soviet-German front during the great Patriotic war was comparable 1200-1500 miles depending on dates.

“The Soviet Union for such a front, which is negligible compared to the entire border of the Union, suffered the greatest loss of territory, people, infrastructure, etc. So it’s “pulling owls on the globe, not the argument from NATO. It is on our Western borders with NATO countries is concentrated the most powerful in the world military group,” – said murakhovski the newspaper VIEW.

Note that in the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it only borders with three NATO member States: Norway (219 km), Turkey (600 km) and the USA (water border in the Bering Strait, less than 50 km).

Now, it is easy to notice looking at the map, the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance in a continuous array adjacent to the CIS countries, and given the possible accession to the Alliance of Finland the length of the common border will increase markedly. The distance from the border is a member of NATO Estonia to St. Petersburg – about 135 km. as for the Kaliningrad region, it is again possible to notice when looking at the map, is a Russian exclave surrounded by two NATO countries – Lithuania and Poland (which soon will host the next summit of the Alliance, designed to bury the Founding act Russia – NATO).

“NATO needs this confrontation”

Another “myth” in the NATO publication called the desire of the Alliance to isolate Russia. The decision to suspend practical cooperation explain the “Russian aggression in Ukraine.”

However, assistant Professor of political theory at MGIMO Kirill Koktysh recalled that NATO was created solely to counter the Soviet Union, therefore, institutionally, is a regional organization focused and tailored to the confrontation with the Soviet Union and now Russia.

The correlation of the military potentials of Russia and NATO In this respect it is no coincidence that during the period after the USSR collapse there were a lot of questions about why NATO should even exist. He fulfilled their tasks, and the need is not there. Nevertheless, the Alliance was maintained. Since the reunification of the Crimea with Russia, NATO saw the opportunity for their survival. NATO need this confrontation in order to justify their own existence,” said Koktysh of the newspaper LOOK.

In addition Koktysh urged not to forget that NATO is still an economic project, that is, sales by the United States security guarantees, for which the Alliance member is worth 2% of GDP.

Note also that the Alliance is putting pressure on countries outside NATO but within the sphere of influence of this military unit, led by the US. For example, shortly before the may meeting of Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe to the Russian foreign Ministry said that the dialogue between Moscow and Tokyo were aborted under pressure from the United States, a key NATO member.

“It’s done in a few minutes”

“Myth” NATO refers to the statements of Moscow that the European missile defense system threatens Russia, which once again proved the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program. NATO claim that the missile defense system in Romania and Poland are not technically capable of intercepting Russian missiles, and the Iranian agreement does not affect the production of ballistic missiles, the threat of which supposedly need ABOUT.

Victor murakhovski recalled that on this issue Russia has repeatedly expressed its concerns and claims. The first of these is not a problem counter Russian Intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the fact that we actually violated the Treaty on the intermediate-range nuclear forces between Russia (as the successor to the USSR) and the United States.

“Launchers are placed in the ground echelon of the missile defense system Aegis Ashore, are absolutely identical with the starting ship units that can use cruise missiles and anti-aircraft missiles. That is, we have no control over these facilities. At the request of their owners they can be installed as missile Standard Missile (SM), and cruise missiles “Tomahawk”, including nuclear weapons. That is, the technical obstacles to this no no. This is done in just a few minutes,” – said murakhovski.

The second claim is that at the present stage SM is not capable of intercepting Intercontinental ballistic missiles, and the maximum of medium-range missiles. “But SM continues. And at a certain stage, there will be a switch to the variant will be capable of intercepting Intercontinental ballistic missiles. Again, no agreements and restrictions on this issue. The US unilaterally withdrew from the anti-ballistic missile Treaty and the development of these systems there is no limit, except for the financial “the list” of the U.S. Congress,” explained murakhovski.

As for Iran, here NATO pulls the owl on the globe”. According to Murakhovsky, the threat of ballistic missiles from Iran would be a real for Europe only if they had nuclear warheads. “But since this topic is closed, then conventional warheads on ballistic missiles do not pose a threat to Europe. Moreover, the cost of the missile defence system absolutely does not justify its deployment against ballistic missiles!” – said the expert.

We will remind, Putin for many years stated that the European missile defence system the United States is a direct threat to Russia. The experts have repeatedly pointed out that the giant structure could be necessary only if the US attack on the country with the largest arsenals of such weapons (Russia or China), for the assured destruction of the launch on warning oncoming barrage of hundreds of ICBMs.

“They learn theater, preparing the infrastructure,”

The fourth “myth” – that the NATO exercises near Russian borders create tensions in the region, the Alliance justifies the right of sovereign States to carry out maneuvers in accordance with international agreements. At the same time in the same document denounces the military exercises of Russia.

Murakhovsky, however, stresses that it is not necessary to cover the exercise and “all this chatter in the media about the teachings of the” real actions of NATO. According to him, the main concern of Russia from a military point of view is the permanent deployment of contingents near Russian borders that are formally not subject to the mutual agreement, as they are on a rotational basis.

“Today there’s a Polish fighter, tomorrow Danish, the German and the day after. Formally, nothing seems to be broken, but from the point of view of the opponent, that is Russia, there is a constant grouping on the bases of NATO in the Baltic States. Today there were 16 planes and 16 tomorrow, and the day after too 16! What they’re the national color and are rotated how often – this from a military point of view absolutely irrelevant”, – said Viktor murakhovski.

According to him, similar can be said about the placement of “immaterial forces”, i.e. headquarters, of the control points. They are deployed on an ongoing basis and formally irrelevant. The third point is the preparation of airfields, ports, communications, warehouses to deploy substantial groups in the Baltics in Poland and Romania – the so-called Eastern flank of NATO.

“In military language is called operational equipment and preparing the theater of military operations (TVD). The point is that the force seems to be insignificant, the staffs are small, but on a permanent basis. They learn theater, prepare infrastructure and, if necessary, in a relatively short time can make for yourself and deploy a substantial force,” – said murakhovski.

He recalled that during the cold war such exercises were conducted with regular involvement of real troops. “NATO was created in 1949. But during all this time NATO has not carried out any defensive military operation. Or against supposedly aggressive Soviet Union or against the allegedly aggressive Russia today. The citizens of NATO countries from the actions of the Russian armed forces did not die. And when we view what operations NATO has conducted, sometimes near its borders, in Yugoslavia, and sometimes very far – in Afghanistan. So there are questions about the defensive orientation of the Alliance. You can talk a lot, but there are real facts and actions,” – said murakhovski.

“US somehow recognize them only one”

Finally, viewed in the material, and the claim that “open-door policy of NATO is creating new dividing lines in Europe and deepens the existing”. In response to this, the authors of the document declare that “NATO enlargement has contributed to the spread of democracy, security and stability throughout Europe”.

Starry-eyed words are refuted by the statement of the leader of one of the States, continually demonstrating their loyalty to the Euro-Atlantic course. “Now more than ever it is important to keep the course on strengthening of the EU and NATO. I expect the future government to be the separation between East and West,” – said on 10 June President of Lithuania Dalia Grybauskaite, speaking from the rostrum of the Saeima.

The President stressed that sounding sometimes calls to cooperate with the countries in the East is dangerous because “Lithuania is not friendly and is not going to be friends with the aggressors.” Without naming Russia, the head of the Lithuanian state nevertheless indicated who we are – about the “aggressor fighting in Syria and Ukraine,” Grybauskaite was quoted by the Agency BNS.

In General, the policy of Western leaders is not indicative of the desire to “open the doors” and smoothing of contradictions between East and West. In particular, long before the euromaidan, in April 2011, the then European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said Viktor Yanukovych – the President of Ukraine: the country cannot simultaneously join the Customs Union with Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan and create a free trade zone with the EU.

After independence, in October 2014, the same Barroso, responding to compromise proposals of Vladimir Putin, said the agreement on evroassotsiatsii Ukraine (fixing one of the notorious “lines of separation”) is not subject to revision.

According to Kirill Koktysh, the statement that “NATO enlargement has contributed to the spread of democracy, security and stability throughout Europe,” also raises questions. “In science there are more than a dozen different democracies. US somehow recognize only one of them, namely procedural democracy, and try everywhere to promote it, ” says the analyst. – And it opens wide enough space to influence the internal politics of the state. It is no secret that elections always require a major commitment of resources and, accordingly, the guarantee of these resources allows – it stood on that postwar system is to concentrate the right amount of resources from the relevant politicians. In this respect, the controllability and the degree of influence in these countries has increased. There is a more or less manual control. It is reasonable to call it a democracy – a very controversial issue”.

Related posts:
The court suddenly decided to consider the claim Navalny to Kiselyov and RTR
Federal TV channels are tricked Yashin at the premiere of the film about Magnitsky
"Even the vodka drink" Lukashenka told about diet Medvedev
The program of Ukrainian schools included books accomplice of Hitler

Recommended

More Stories From Politics