Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
If without NATO, then it’s possible: Europeans are being prepared for war with Russia, by Petr Akopov for RiaNovosti. 04.25.2024.
The American propaganda aimed at Europe is dominated by a key thesis: the fight with Russia for Ukraine is of vital importance for the entire West - and the United States, together with Europe in the NATO format, must do everything for Kyiv’s victory in order to stop Putin, otherwise after Ukraine he will will attack Europe. This idea is repeated in Washington by politicians and the military, and when Europe begins to get nervous about a possible change in American strategy if Donald Trump returns to the White House, it is reassured by the fact that even in this case no catastrophe will happen: the inertia of American foreign policy is too great, Yes, no one will allow the new president to suddenly change course.
Europe doesn’t really believe in this, but for now it remains in the ranks of Atlantic solidarity - and what is even more interesting is what some American analysts are already beginning to offer it:
"Too many politicians and commentators in the US and Europe are repeating Putin's own talking points, warning that any outside intervention in Ukraine would lead to a third world war. In reality, sending European troops would be the normal response to a conflict of this kind."
"Russia's conflict has upset the regional balance of power, and Europe has a vital interest in seeing that imbalance corrected. The obvious way to do this is to provide a lifeline to the Ukrainian military, which could once again be abandoned to its fate by the United States, and the best lifeline would be European soldiers."
"European leaders do not need to follow the dictates of an increasingly unreliable United States on how to fight in Ukraine; they can and should decide for themselves how best to ensure the freedom and security of the continent."
This is a quote from a huge text, “Europe, but not NATO, should send troops to Ukraine,” published this week in The Foreign Affairs. Three of its authors are not senior US officials, but are influential in the expert community, working in various think tanks dealing with strategic issues: retired Colonel Alex Crowther, active-duty US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jahara Matysek and Phillips O'Brien of the University of St. Andrews. What they are proposing cannot but be called a direct provocation: they are trying in every possible way to convince Europe that it needs, without looking back at the United States, to take part in the hostilities in Ukraine.
Yes, forget about NATO and the USA (“European leaders cannot allow American political dysfunction to dictate European security”), act on your own, send troops to Ukraine as soon as possible and don’t be afraid of anything - Putin is just bluffing!
"European troops could take part in both non-combat and combat operations to relieve pressure on Ukraine. A non-combat mission would be the easiest to sell in most European capitals. European troops could relieve the burden on the Ukrainians by performing logistical functions such as maintenance and repairs combat vehicles."
But a “non-combat mission” is only the beginning, something that is actually “easier to sell” to Europeans (although this is a lie: even now polls show a negative attitude towards it in most EU countries ) - it will be followed by a full-fledged involvement in the war:
"One such mission could involve strengthening Ukraine's air defense capabilities in the region by deploying personnel, providing equipment, or even taking over command and control of the Ukrainian air defense system."
"Sending European troops would be a normal response to a conflict of this kind. Another combat role, which, like the air defense mission, would most likely not involve Russian forces, is to patrol those sections of the Ukrainian border where Russian troops are not stationed, such as Black Sea coast , borders with Belarus and Transnistria."
"One potential Russian target is Odessa , Ukraine's main port through which most of the country's exports are processed. If Russian troops approach the city, European forces nearby would have the right to defend themselves by opening fire on the advancing soldiers."
Of course, to justify this, you need to scare the Europeans as much as possible - and the article contains many statements about the Russian threat to Europe:
“There is no reason to expect Putin to stop at Ukraine; he has already said that all former Soviet republics should be returned to Russia. The Baltic states could be next , followed by Finland and Poland , which were principalities within the pre-Soviet Russian Empire.”
There is no need to clarify that all this is an outright lie, but The Foreign Affairs is not a yellow press, but one of the most influential American publications, the authors teach at American military universities and advise the authorities in Washington. Yes, in this case, their goal is to convince European leaders of the need for Europe’s direct participation in the war with Russia, but there is no doubt that they themselves believe in what they say, that is, we are dealing with a completely inadequate perception of reality. The globalist, Atlantic part of the American elite believes that Russia and Putin are going to conquer part of Europe, take it away from America , and since the United States itself is entering a period of internal political turbulence, they are calling on Europe to take responsibility and fight Putin on the territory of Ukraine. Because “Ukraine is Europe”:
"Russia's hopes for victory are entirely due to the fact that Europe views Ukraine as separate from the rest of the continent. So far, its hopes have been justified. European leaders are tolerating a conflict in Ukraine that would provoke a unified European response if it happened in any country NATO or the EU. This attitude allowed Russia to start a military conflict in Ukraine, since it is confident that the rest of Europe will keep its distance."
"The arrival of European troops in Ukraine will change this calculus. Moscow will have to come to terms with the fact that European escalation could make the military confrontation unwinnable for Russia."
That is, Europe should enter into a direct military conflict with Russia for the sake of control over Ukraine and at the same time ignore the threat of the war escalating into a nuclear one? Well, of course! But what about the fact that this thesis contradicts the previous one, that is, Russia’s plans to seize part of Europe? But there’s no way - when necessary, we scare Russia, and when it’s convenient, we call its bluff:
"The real question is whether Russia would actually use nuclear weapons if European troops entered Ukraine. This is perhaps a moot point, given that Western special operations forces are currently operating in Ukraine."
“Moscow regularly engages in aggressive rhetoric against NATO members, but so far it has been all bark and no bite, avoiding contact with NATO forces and focusing on neighboring countries outside the alliance, such as Georgia and Ukraine, which it can safely kick.”
“Putin threatened to attack Poland, Romania and the Baltic states as early as 2014, and over the next few years he threatened to invade Finland and Sweden for joining NATO, Norway for hosting more US troops, Poland and Romania for deployment of missile defense facilities and in “any European countries” that will allow the deployment of American missiles on their territory.”
"Over the past decade and a half, the Kremlin has threatened or conducted war games simulating the use of nuclear weapons against Denmark , Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom , the Baltic states, the European Union as a whole, and, of course, NATO and the United States."
"At a certain point, European leaders must ignore Putin's saber rattling, which is just propaganda based on the baseless notion that NATO wants to attack or invade Russia."
That is, the advice is simple: Europe needs to ignore Putin’s warnings, because he has long threatened to attack NATO countries (it doesn’t matter that we made it all up), but never decided to do so. So go ahead, send troops to Ukraine (which is not Russia, but Europe, don’t forget about it) - there will be no nuclear war!
All this analytical madness is decorated with this delightful thesis:
“Moreover, a European-led response would undermine Russian propaganda that NATO intervention in Ukraine is merely an American ploy to undermine Russia.”
"The claim that NATO is the aggressor is popular in many parts of the world. And since European forces will be operating outside NATO and on NATO territory, any casualties will not trigger an Article 5 response and will not attract the US. Russia's adversary will not be NATO, but a coalition of European countries seeking to balance naked Russian imperialism."
Well, of course, if not NATO, but the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, are officially participating in the war, this is not a war between Russia and NATO, but a war with individual countries of the European Union! There’s no need to comment on anything here, except perhaps to remind you that in another, yet another fictitious reality, Europeans are frightened by the fact that NATO could collapse if it does not respond to the challenge thrown at it by Moscow in Ukraine (after all, we must not forget that then Moscow will attack Baltic states !).
All these intricacies of an excited mind would be funny if they were not playing with real fire and a real war that is going on on the territory of the Russian world and with the lives of its inhabitants in Ukraine. However, European leaders, having read the advice of The Foreign Affairs, will see in them not a guide to action, but a confirmation of their worst fears: the overseas Atlanticists have finally reached a dead end and want to force a way out of it with the heads of their junior European partners.
https://ria.ru/20240425/voyna-1942130761.html
The American propaganda aimed at Europe is dominated by a key thesis: the fight with Russia for Ukraine is of vital importance for the entire West - and the United States, together with Europe in the NATO format, must do everything for Kyiv’s victory in order to stop Putin, otherwise after Ukraine he will will attack Europe. This idea is repeated in Washington by politicians and the military, and when Europe begins to get nervous about a possible change in American strategy if Donald Trump returns to the White House, it is reassured by the fact that even in this case no catastrophe will happen: the inertia of American foreign policy is too great, Yes, no one will allow the new president to suddenly change course.
Europe doesn’t really believe in this, but for now it remains in the ranks of Atlantic solidarity - and what is even more interesting is what some American analysts are already beginning to offer it:
"Too many politicians and commentators in the US and Europe are repeating Putin's own talking points, warning that any outside intervention in Ukraine would lead to a third world war. In reality, sending European troops would be the normal response to a conflict of this kind."
"Russia's conflict has upset the regional balance of power, and Europe has a vital interest in seeing that imbalance corrected. The obvious way to do this is to provide a lifeline to the Ukrainian military, which could once again be abandoned to its fate by the United States, and the best lifeline would be European soldiers."
"European leaders do not need to follow the dictates of an increasingly unreliable United States on how to fight in Ukraine; they can and should decide for themselves how best to ensure the freedom and security of the continent."
This is a quote from a huge text, “Europe, but not NATO, should send troops to Ukraine,” published this week in The Foreign Affairs. Three of its authors are not senior US officials, but are influential in the expert community, working in various think tanks dealing with strategic issues: retired Colonel Alex Crowther, active-duty US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jahara Matysek and Phillips O'Brien of the University of St. Andrews. What they are proposing cannot but be called a direct provocation: they are trying in every possible way to convince Europe that it needs, without looking back at the United States, to take part in the hostilities in Ukraine.
Yes, forget about NATO and the USA (“European leaders cannot allow American political dysfunction to dictate European security”), act on your own, send troops to Ukraine as soon as possible and don’t be afraid of anything - Putin is just bluffing!
"European troops could take part in both non-combat and combat operations to relieve pressure on Ukraine. A non-combat mission would be the easiest to sell in most European capitals. European troops could relieve the burden on the Ukrainians by performing logistical functions such as maintenance and repairs combat vehicles."
But a “non-combat mission” is only the beginning, something that is actually “easier to sell” to Europeans (although this is a lie: even now polls show a negative attitude towards it in most EU countries ) - it will be followed by a full-fledged involvement in the war:
"One such mission could involve strengthening Ukraine's air defense capabilities in the region by deploying personnel, providing equipment, or even taking over command and control of the Ukrainian air defense system."
"Sending European troops would be a normal response to a conflict of this kind. Another combat role, which, like the air defense mission, would most likely not involve Russian forces, is to patrol those sections of the Ukrainian border where Russian troops are not stationed, such as Black Sea coast , borders with Belarus and Transnistria."
"One potential Russian target is Odessa , Ukraine's main port through which most of the country's exports are processed. If Russian troops approach the city, European forces nearby would have the right to defend themselves by opening fire on the advancing soldiers."
Of course, to justify this, you need to scare the Europeans as much as possible - and the article contains many statements about the Russian threat to Europe:
“There is no reason to expect Putin to stop at Ukraine; he has already said that all former Soviet republics should be returned to Russia. The Baltic states could be next , followed by Finland and Poland , which were principalities within the pre-Soviet Russian Empire.”
There is no need to clarify that all this is an outright lie, but The Foreign Affairs is not a yellow press, but one of the most influential American publications, the authors teach at American military universities and advise the authorities in Washington. Yes, in this case, their goal is to convince European leaders of the need for Europe’s direct participation in the war with Russia, but there is no doubt that they themselves believe in what they say, that is, we are dealing with a completely inadequate perception of reality. The globalist, Atlantic part of the American elite believes that Russia and Putin are going to conquer part of Europe, take it away from America , and since the United States itself is entering a period of internal political turbulence, they are calling on Europe to take responsibility and fight Putin on the territory of Ukraine. Because “Ukraine is Europe”:
"Russia's hopes for victory are entirely due to the fact that Europe views Ukraine as separate from the rest of the continent. So far, its hopes have been justified. European leaders are tolerating a conflict in Ukraine that would provoke a unified European response if it happened in any country NATO or the EU. This attitude allowed Russia to start a military conflict in Ukraine, since it is confident that the rest of Europe will keep its distance."
"The arrival of European troops in Ukraine will change this calculus. Moscow will have to come to terms with the fact that European escalation could make the military confrontation unwinnable for Russia."
That is, Europe should enter into a direct military conflict with Russia for the sake of control over Ukraine and at the same time ignore the threat of the war escalating into a nuclear one? Well, of course! But what about the fact that this thesis contradicts the previous one, that is, Russia’s plans to seize part of Europe? But there’s no way - when necessary, we scare Russia, and when it’s convenient, we call its bluff:
"The real question is whether Russia would actually use nuclear weapons if European troops entered Ukraine. This is perhaps a moot point, given that Western special operations forces are currently operating in Ukraine."
“Moscow regularly engages in aggressive rhetoric against NATO members, but so far it has been all bark and no bite, avoiding contact with NATO forces and focusing on neighboring countries outside the alliance, such as Georgia and Ukraine, which it can safely kick.”
“Putin threatened to attack Poland, Romania and the Baltic states as early as 2014, and over the next few years he threatened to invade Finland and Sweden for joining NATO, Norway for hosting more US troops, Poland and Romania for deployment of missile defense facilities and in “any European countries” that will allow the deployment of American missiles on their territory.”
"Over the past decade and a half, the Kremlin has threatened or conducted war games simulating the use of nuclear weapons against Denmark , Poland, Sweden, Ukraine, the United Kingdom , the Baltic states, the European Union as a whole, and, of course, NATO and the United States."
"At a certain point, European leaders must ignore Putin's saber rattling, which is just propaganda based on the baseless notion that NATO wants to attack or invade Russia."
That is, the advice is simple: Europe needs to ignore Putin’s warnings, because he has long threatened to attack NATO countries (it doesn’t matter that we made it all up), but never decided to do so. So go ahead, send troops to Ukraine (which is not Russia, but Europe, don’t forget about it) - there will be no nuclear war!
All this analytical madness is decorated with this delightful thesis:
“Moreover, a European-led response would undermine Russian propaganda that NATO intervention in Ukraine is merely an American ploy to undermine Russia.”
"The claim that NATO is the aggressor is popular in many parts of the world. And since European forces will be operating outside NATO and on NATO territory, any casualties will not trigger an Article 5 response and will not attract the US. Russia's adversary will not be NATO, but a coalition of European countries seeking to balance naked Russian imperialism."
Well, of course, if not NATO, but the countries of the North Atlantic Alliance, are officially participating in the war, this is not a war between Russia and NATO, but a war with individual countries of the European Union! There’s no need to comment on anything here, except perhaps to remind you that in another, yet another fictitious reality, Europeans are frightened by the fact that NATO could collapse if it does not respond to the challenge thrown at it by Moscow in Ukraine (after all, we must not forget that then Moscow will attack Baltic states !).
All these intricacies of an excited mind would be funny if they were not playing with real fire and a real war that is going on on the territory of the Russian world and with the lives of its inhabitants in Ukraine. However, European leaders, having read the advice of The Foreign Affairs, will see in them not a guide to action, but a confirmation of their worst fears: the overseas Atlanticists have finally reached a dead end and want to force a way out of it with the heads of their junior European partners.
https://ria.ru/20240425/voyna-1942130761.html
ucmvulcan
