Three years ago, the US withdrew its combat units from Europe. Now America is sending them back to prevent a Russian attack. As Brigadier General Timothy Daugherty explained, "preparing for war is cheaper than waging war." It really is. But then why is Europe not preparing for war?
During the Cold War, there were approximately 300,000 American troops in Europe. A few years ago, their number dropped to 65,000. But there was a lot of that too: it was high time for Europe to abandon US defense assistance. However, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization expanded almost to the very borders of Russia and threatened to take in Georgia and Ukraine, which were formerly part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. From Moscow's point of view, NATO continued to play containment of Russia, moving closer to its very borders.
Context
Russian arrow in the eastern wing of NATO
Javan 12/05/2017NATO, the Minister of Defense and Patriot complexes
Gazeta Polska 01.12.2017NATO gives in to the S-400
Haber7 11/30/2017 Along the way, Washington and Brussels put pressure on Serbia, paying no attention to Russia's historical interests in the Balkans. The US continued to build relationships and gain access to military bases, even in Central Asia. America's policy began to take on the features of the opposite of the well-known "Brezhnev doctrine": what is mine is mine, and what is yours - we will discuss it later.While the consensus in Washington has long been about treating the US Department of Defense as the bedrock of international prosperity and a tool to protect wealthy allies, candidate Donald Trump has hinted at a possible change by saying Europeans are misusing US aid. Since taking office, he has already credited himself for some of the increase in European military spending, but he has continued to sacrifice American interests for the interests of European governments that prefer not to take responsibility for their own defense.
Many in Europe are convinced that there is no serious threat to their security. Few Europeans can imagine Russian troops marching across Europe to the Atlantic. And European governments are convinced that Washington will come to their defense in any case. So why burden European taxpayers when a check can be sent to the US?
Why are politicians in Washington and President Donald Trump so willing to force Americans to take on this burden? Vladimir Putin is a very unpleasant person. This has long ceased to be news. But the world is full of nasty autocrats. And that doesn't make them a threat to America at all.
Despite the agitated rhetoric that has filled Washington, Moscow poses no significant threat to the US. Interfering in the 2016 presidential election is certainly an offensive, but Washington has done the same thing more than once, far more often than Russia, and in many more countries. Washington should insist that Russia refrain from doing this again and promise America that it will not make the same mistake again.
The Russian Federation is the only nation with a nuclear arsenal comparable to that of the United States, but if it resorts to it, it will suffer a devastating blow in response. Although Russia managed to rebuild its conventional forces after the collapse of the USSR, it still remains a strong regional, but not a global power. There is no evidence that Putin has even the slightest interest in confronting America.
Moreover, there are no significant differences between the United States and Russia that could concern their most important interests. Instead, these governments have clashed over minor issues such as Syria (with which Moscow has a long history of cooperation and little value to America) and Georgia/Ukraine (which have nothing to do with US national security). However, both America and Russia fear Islamic terrorism, oppose nuclear Iran and North Korea, and face a potentially aggressive China.
However, Washington is returning its troops to Europe. As U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said, “We in the U.S. Army believe that additional forces are probably needed” to contain Russia. The commander of US forces in Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges (Ben Hodges) said: "We will do this as long as it is necessary."
What are the Europeans doing about Russia? Well, they seem to be really busy. Or at least they think they are putting in enough effort.
Europe currently spends twice as much on its military as Russia. If these funds are being spent irrationally, then the Europeans need to correct this situation, and not hope that Washington again comes to their aid. And they could do much more if they felt in danger. General Hodges praised Lithuania for spending 2.07% of its GDP on defense, but if the Lithuanian government is anxious about the arrival of Russian armored divisions, it should double or even triple its spending. The point is not to crush the Russian forces, but to make any attack too costly and therefore pointless.
The same applies to Estonia, Latvia and Poland. They all seem to be looking forward to the US military. However, in reality, they should wait for the military from their neighboring European countries.
But, if we digress from the border states, we see that much of Europe is too busy with its own affairs to pay attention to these military issues. In 2016, Germany spent 1.18% of GDP on defense needs, in 2017 - 1.22% of GDP, but already in 2018, military spending is expected to decrease there.
It is fair to say that no one in Germany expects the country's armed forces to be able to protect it. The Germans joke that the role of their soldiers is to delay the Russians until the real armed forces arrive. The likelihood of the Germans moving east to defend the Baltics or Poland is minimal at best.
But in this case, who can say with certainty that the Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian, Danish, Montenegrin, Luxembourgish, Slovenian, Slovak and Czech military will be able to form a powerful expeditionary force capable of repelling the attack of Putin's forces? Again, the probability is minimal at best.
The problem is not a lack of resources. If we consider all European countries, then they have more people than America, and their combined economy is commensurate with the US economy.
Perhaps their military potential is inferior to the American one, but they are not helpless. On the strength index, France and the United Kingdom are next, followed by Turkey. Then Germany and Italy. All of them could do much more if they wanted to.
And the Europeans have vast military manpower at their disposal. The number of the Turkish army alone reaches 400,000 servicemen. Of course, today Ankara no longer looks like a reliable and loyal ally, but if it has ceased to be such, why is it still in NATO? In any case, Italy has 250,000 troops, France 200,000, Germany about 180,000, Greece 160,000 and the United Kingdom over 150,000. Spain has 124,000 troops. And all of them could well increase the size of their armies if they considered that there were good reasons for this. Not the United States, but these European countries should form additional combat units and make more efforts to contain Russia.
More than 70 years after the end of World War II, Western Europeans have managed to rebuild their economies, overthrow alien communist regimes, and draw the countries of Central and Eastern Europe into the common European project. Together they are in many ways superior to what is left of the former Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.
Moscow can take on a weak neighbor like Georgia, but it can't easily swallow Ukraine, much less conquer Europe. And if the latter is in any doubt, in the next few years, the Europeans could easily overtake militarily a weakening power that is facing economic decline, demographic decline and political crisis.
The US is effectively bankrupt. They face trillions of dollars in deficits in the coming years. However, Congress refuses to take tough action, preferring to cut revenues rather than deal with spending. When the problems of federal debt, social spending and obligations to other countries converge at one point, the crisis is likely to force action. In this case, the disorderly interventionist foreign policy of the United States is likely to suffer. It is unlikely that any of the American leaders will want to sacrifice health care or social security programs so that the Europeans will continue to be able to spend money on their domestic needs. Washington should cut spending deliberately and systematically, not feverishly and in a crisis.
Europeans will never stop asking for more US commitments, but US officials should stop paying for Europeans. Washington should retain NATO and other alliances only if they help advance America's security interests. Protecting those countries that are quite capable of defending themselves has nothing to do with US interests.
The materials of InoSMI contain only assessments of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the editors of InoSMI.
On June 7-8, NATO defense ministers discussed in Brussels the possibility of increasing the bloc's response force by 30,000 people.
Alliance Secretary General J. Stoltenberg informed that as part of the “NATO Readiness Initiative”, the Allies plan to keep 30 mechanized battalions, 30 aviation squadrons, 30 warships ready for use in 30 days from 2020. These forces and assets should be allocated from the national forces of NATO member countries that are not part of the rapid reaction forces or deployed as part of the enhanced forward presence (Enhanced Forward Presence) on the eastern flank of the alliance.
Recall that the Alliance has focused on increasing the response force and the initiative to strengthen the forward presence after the “annexation” of Crimea by Russia in 2014. Then the number of NATO SDRs was increased to 40,000 troops. In their structure, an emergency response formation was created - a brigade of up to 5 thousand people, including 3-5 battalions with support and support units. The formation is on duty on a rotational basis and reaches readiness in stages. Thus, the brigade has been in readiness for deployment in the area of a probable conflict for three years: the first year - within 45 days, the second - within 5-7 days, the third year - within 30 days. It should be understood that three brigades are at the same time in varying degrees of readiness for 5-7, 30 and 45 days.
Also, since 2017, 4.6 thousand NATO troops have been deployed in Poland and the Baltic countries in close proximity to the borders of Belarus and Russia - these are four combat battalion groups of the union, ready for immediate use.
An American armored brigade and an army aviation brigade are stationed here on a rotational basis.
In general, this is a land contingent of about a division, which can be ready for combat operations within 45 days.
In addition, there are still US NEs in Europe stationed on a permanent basis. According to Washington, this is not enough to repel a likely Russian strike.
It is interesting that on the eve of the June meeting of the heads of the Defense Ministry and the NATO summit scheduled for July 11-12 this year in Brussels, the authoritative American newspaper The Wall Street Journal informed that at present the Alliance is not sufficiently prepared to repel aggression and is really ready to send only about 11,000 servicemen entered the conflict area. The largest number of combat-ready battalions, according to the RAND Corporation analytical center, is in Italy, which this year is leading the formation of emergency response forces. So, for participation in a possible conflict, Rome is able to allocate five battalions within 30 days, Great Britain, France, Germany - three each, and the rest of the countries - Spain, Norway, Poland, Holland, Denmark - none.
In turn, a number of military analysts note that the RAND information is not entirely true. For example, NATO's long-term rotation schedule for First Engagement Forces (SPZ) indicates that Poland and Denmark this year should have at least one battalion ready to be deployed to the conflict area within 30 days, because the countries in 2017 already allocated them to composition of the emergency response team.
By the way, in autumn Poland will host a large-scale Anaconda-18 exercise, the first stage of which will be the final check of the headquarters of the German-Danish-Polish corps from Szczecin, which is responsible specifically for the deployment and management of the SPZ in Eastern Europe. Everything suggests that the practical training of the command of the priority engagement forces is underway to make decisions on their use in the Eastern European theater of operations, and an increase in their numbers is only a matter of the near future.
Currently, Poland and the Baltic States continue to be an important part of the security system in Europe. The emergence of this kind of "pool" of forces of the Union will be a change in the Alliance's response system in the event of a high-intensity conflict and will significantly change the balance of power near the borders of Belarus and Russia.
While Russia is debating when World War III will start, the people of the Baltics, Scandinavia and Eastern Europe are hastily militarizing amid talk ofRussia's "aggression" and are seriously preparing for war. In Lithuania, compulsory military service is returning, in Finland, more people are speaking out in favor of increased spending on defense, and in Poland, they are already enrolling in military courses. Medialeaks watched how our neighbors in the West are preparing for war with Russia.
“Neighbors have become unpredictable”
After the annexation of Crimea and the war in the Donbass, Russia became a real aggressor in the eyes of the Western layman. Western media have reported that Vladimir Putin will or will try to move into the Baltics, or that if NATO troops are concentrated near the borders with Russia, the Kremlin will agree to a military (and even using nuclear weapons) operation. Putin's statements that he was ready to use nuclear weapons against the West if they tried to return Crimea to Ukraine did not add to the calmness.
“We were ready to do it [put the nuclear forces on alert]. I talked with [Western] colleagues and told them that this [Crimea] is our historical territory, Russian people live there, they are in danger, we cannot leave them, ”the VGTRK website quotes Putin.
It is not clear what exactly caused the fear of a new war. For many months, there have been statements from Moscow about the readiness of a military response, reports of Russian fighter jets and submarines penetrating Europe - all this was superimposed on old fears of the Soviet military machine. But now what could only be joked about a year ago has become a reality: the West is seriously preparing for a war with Russia.
“The threat is real for the entire region, the Baltic countries. Our neighbors have become unpredictable, I mean Russia,” Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite said in early March, once again recalling the increase in Russian military aircraft near the borders of the Baltic countries.
The Latvian Foreign Minister Rinkevich also speaks about the predatory moods of the Russian authorities. He compared the policy of the Kremlin with the Third Reich.
The more I follow modern RU, the more I come to the conclusion that she will end up like German Reich after both WWI & WWII & it'll be to late
"The more I watch modern Russia, the more I come to the conclusion that it will end up as the German Reich after the First and Second World Wars, and it will be too late."
Against this background, the headlines of many American media began to increasingly contain the phrases "Russian aggression", "in the face of the threat to Russia", etc.
"Eastern European civilians will receive military training in the face of the Russian threat"
« 
"Polish general: Russia is trying to start a hybrid war in our country"
"Lithuania supports Russia's 'tough response'"
"Military preparation in case of invasion"
The authorities of European countries are not only "denouncing" Russia's plans, but have already begun to act.
AT Latvia are also preparing with might and main for the prospect of an invasion or simply a threat to the security of the region. Next year, the authorities plan to send students to military exercises, as one of the opportunities to improve the country's defensive capabilities.
“There is a feeling of threat in society,” Aija Yakubovskaya, a spokesman for the Latvian Defense Ministry, was quoted as saying.
However, the Baltic countries are preparing not only for an open military conflict, but also for other possible security breaches, including cyberspace. In the event of a cyber attack by Russia, the President believes Estonia Toomas Hendrik Ilves, the countries of the alliance must respond with force to such interference.
“If you fry the power plants, what is the difference between that and a missile attack? Shutting down an entire country through a cyberattack would be difficult, but not impossible. In that case, why shouldn't this be a reason for Article 5 to operate? (an article about NATO's allied actions in the event of an attack on one of the countries of the alliance - approx. Medialeaks) ”The Times quotes Ilves.
And although Finland usually not included in the number of countries against which "Russian aggression" could be directed, the Ministry of Defense said that their country would not stand aside if Russia "showed aggression" against the Baltics.
“If in theory a conflict arises, it is difficult for me to imagine that Russia would respect the military neutrality of Finland so much that it would not set foot on its territory. It’s hard to believe that they would respect Finland in this situation… It’s naive to think that we could stay out of a big European conflict if there were a clash between Russia and NATO,” Finnish Defense Minister Karl Haglund announced.
Now Finland is not a member of NATO. But if the country joins the alliance, NATO will be able to deploy its military in Finland in close proximity to the borders with Russia. The majority of Finns (59%) at the same time partially or fully support an increase in defense spending over the next four years, writes Helsinki Times.
“So as not to climb into the Baltic States”
After the conflict in Ukraine, NATO decided to more than double the size of the Response Force: from 13 to 30 thousand people, and there will be 5 thousand people in the high readiness group.
Military exercises involving NATO allies have intensified in recent months. From March 19 to April 17, joint exercises of the Estonian Air Force and the United States are taking place. From 1 to 10 April, NATO Allies are holding the first joint high-readiness exercise, codenamed Noble Jump. This unit was created specifically "in response to new security challenges on NATO's southern and eastern borders." The second part of the exercise is scheduled for June in Poland. Also on April 7, two-day military exercises between Lithuania and the United States began.
On a large scale, a training march took place at the end of March, when US military equipment proceeded from the Baltic states to Germany through five European countries. Local residents in the Baltic countries happily greeted the US military and took pictures with them.
Since autumn, the United States began to promise its allies in Europe military support in case of aggression. On September 3, US President Barack Obama made a special trip to Tallinn to speak with what the White House staff had previously called a direct warning to Putin not to "meddle in the Baltics." And in early March, as part of the Atlantic Resolve mission, more than 120 units of American equipment, including tanks and armored vehicles, were sent to Latvia. The purpose of the mission was called the support of the Baltic states, again against the backdrop of "Russian aggression."
The mayor of Riga, Nil Ushakov, even took a selfie against the background of American equipment that arrived in the port of the capital of Latvia.
Netradicionāls nēdeļas sākums 🙂 Selfijs ar amerikāņu tanku Rīgas ostā. pic.twitter.com/uYR3iIvMFn
What causes the foreign ministers of vulnerable US allies to wake up terrified at night? The idea that Russian President Vladimir Putin will do to their countries what he has already done to Ukraine and Georgia: start a hybrid war. A war denied by the head of state, reinforced by cyberattacks and sabotage, in which planes, tanks and unmarked soldiers march into foreign territory. A war that doesn't cross the line for a full-scale invasion.
Radosław Sikorski, former Foreign Minister and ex-Chairman of the Sejm of Poland, writes about this on the pages of the Washington Post, who recalls that he himself was the chief diplomat of such a “vulnerable country”.
“We would call for help, but the situation could be too ambiguous to justify international intervention. We would like our allies, especially the United States, not to make diplomatic demarches or send fact-checking missions, but to send their planes, tanks and soldiers, ”writes Sikorsky.
In his opinion, this is not even the worst scenario imaginable. In fact, over the past few years, Russia has been preparing something even more sinister. The Russian military exercises "West" worked out a hypothetical scenario for the start of a hybrid war against the Baltic countries with the use of nuclear weapons. This is part of the Russian military doctrine, which analysts formulate as "escalation for de-escalation." However, this approach is clearly not peaceful. It means that Moscow is going to stun the other leaders so hard that they immediately give up. Given that planning for a nuclear war has become unacceptable in today's postmodern world, Russia is counting on other countries to be slow to retaliate if faced with a real nuclear threat. Silence even for 60 hours will already bring victory to the aggressor.
The essence of NATO is precisely to prevent this. Only the President of the United States has the power to respond to Russian threats and actions at every stage of the escalation. Only America can compare with Russia even in Central Europe in terms of the number of aircraft, cruise missiles, nuclear warheads. The security of Europe on the northern flank depends on the readiness of the United States to use force here.
But over the past week, it has become clear that the American president considers the Europeans his "enemy" and that the Europeans supposedly owe NATO money, although this is not true. Sikorsky considers it clear that Trump is trying to destabilize the democratically elected leaders of Germany and Britain, which will play in favor of their radical opponents. He launched a trade war with Europe because it allegedly threatens US national security. And in the scandalous case of Russian meddling in US politics, he trusts Russia's murderous dictator more than the American intelligence services.
The contrast between the US president's hostility towards allies and his softness towards Putin is already enough to sow doubt among Europeans, he said.
“At this critical moment in the crisis we fear, we want Trump to roar into the phone, Anu, take your thugs back to Russia, Vladimir, or there will be repercussions!” But will he really do it? adds the Polish politician, recalling that Trump questions the usefulness of alliances.
“I would like to tell him that Poland did not send brigades to the weakly justified war in Iraq because of the fear of the weapons of mass destruction of that country. That we didn't send another brigade to Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks because we were afraid that the Taliban would come to Warsaw and enslave our girls. That I didn't sign an agreement to place an American missile defense system on Polish territory because I was afraid of a possible attack by Iran. And that we didn't buy F-16s from Lockheed Martin, or airliners from Boeing, or missiles from Raytheon, because they're necessarily better than their European equivalents. We are doing all this because consistent Polish leaders have invested in US security guarantees,” Sikorski said.
He adds that after last week, Poland and Europeans have to deal with a reality in which no one - not the State Department, not the Pentagon, not the National Security Council - knows what Trump will do in the event of a crisis due to Russian aggression. Perhaps he himself does not know.
This does not mean that NATO is over. The alliance must continue to exist, and European countries must certainly spend more on defense, hoping that there will never be any crisis.
But it also means that the European Union needs an autonomous ability to defend itself. It is needed on the southern flank, where hundreds of thousands of refugees flock, on the eastern flank, where Russia broke the taboo of forcefully changing borders after World War II, and it is needed because the US president is unreliable.
“As foreign minister, I advocated the creation of a European Defense Union. If there were no Brexit, the UK could now lead the process. But now the initiative has fallen on the shoulders of France, Germany and the EU leaders themselves. Trump challenges us with an unpleasant choice: either we become his personal vassals, or we hang helplessly in the air. We should not choose any of these options,” said the ex-Foreign Minister of Poland.
Viktor Goryunov, Belgorod
Lugansk locksmith
You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!
You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!
You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!
You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!
Vyacheslav
You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!
crush the scum
You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!
Crimean
39 Bad Presidents for Ukraine
Temporary victory for Zbigniew Brzezinski
Temporary victory for Zbigniew Brzezinski
AntiBzhiz
Europe, which has lost its mind, is preparing for war with Russia?
Again, just like more than 70 years ago, when Hitler attacked the USSR, Ukraine is chosen as the battlefield. European politicians, perhaps having lost the last vestiges of sanity, rushed headlong to actively support the Ukrainian oligarchs, who are striving with all their might to "push through" the association agreement with the European Union. Russia maintains Olympic calm, but no one knows how long it will demonstrate it .
My Czech colleague Vaclav Danda recently published an article in the PROTIPROUD newspaper under the loud title “Coup in Ukraine – preparation for war with Russia?”. This fact suggests that despite the insanely aggressive information campaign in our media in favor of signing an association agreement with the EU by Ukraine, you can still find politicians and journalists in Europe who think otherwise.
Warsaw should also think about this. First of all, I want to ask a simple question: is Poland ready to pay its price for such a step by Ukraine, which has no money at all? We now have more than 2 million unemployed, and the economy is going through, if not a crisis, then deep stagnation.
And each EU member state will have to pay its share for the maintenance of 45 million impoverished Ukrainians. Supporters of Ukraine's European integration in Poland, which include both the president and the prime minister, are trying in vain to prove that Ukraine's accession to the EU will allow loading the Polish economy.
This sounds simply ridiculous, since it is absolutely impossible to believe that poor Ukrainians, who receive a pension of less than 80 euros and wages of 200-300 euros, specially hid the money somewhere, so that later, after signing an agreement with the EU, they could pull it out and rush to the shops to buy Polish goods.
Thus, it is quite obvious that the reason for the unprecedented pressure on Ukraine from the European Union and the United States is not the economy, but politics. And even a little she, how much unfounded ambitions of European politicians.
Vaclav Danda rightly notes: “... President Vladimir Putin called what is now happening in Ukraine a “pogrom” and called on Ukrainians to remain calm. This, of course, was the last thing the directors of this dangerous theater needed. Their goal, on the contrary, was to cause a civil war and to bring to power a minority that lost the elections. It is also necessary to provoke armed conflicts between the so-called "demonstrators" and units of law enforcement agencies. Such a scenario was used by the special services in Syria. We are seeing the consequences every day.”
I want to express my sincere gratitude to my Czech colleague for these truthful words:
Some may decide that the Czech Euroskeptics should be for the revolutionaries and wish them good luck in their attempts to drag Ukraine into the EU, as this may mean a weakening of centralized tendencies, a "dilution" of Brussels' power and a gradual disintegration of the EU. However, not all so simple. An attempt to include Ukraine in the EU, perhaps its division, is, first of all, a strategic blow to Russia. Russia is the “last bastion” in the fight against the strengthening of the power of the New World Order. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the events in Ukraine in a broader context.
What was the main reason why the well-known and experienced Soros agencies specializing in organizing coup d'état launched "Operation Ukraine"?
President Viktor Yanukovych has refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union that would destroy Ukraine economically and politically. The comrades in Brussels turned white with anger. From the point of view of Barroso and his undercover brothers, the situation is clear: either Ukraine will be ours or fall; we will not allow it to maintain the current level of cooperation with Russia.
And this is the main reason why the “civil war” operation in Ukraine is unfolding like a reality show.
This is nothing less than the psychological and strategic preparation of EU citizens for a war against Russia. At least - to the "cold".
The instability on the Russian borders and the influx of armed "paramilitary" groups heading for Ukraine from all over Europe serve several purposes. Including - to transfer the "revolutionary chaos" across the borders to Russia. More important, however, is the attempt to divide Ukraine and build a new “pro-European state” on Russian borders.
On the streets of Kyiv, - writes Vaclav Danda, - "hired tourists" from all over Europe are also fighting, who, together with the criminal underground, form the core of the so-called "pro-European rallies". This internationalization of the demonstrations of the agency was tested back in Syria, where foreign mercenaries are fighting today, replacing the first protesters on the streets of Damascus.
It is no coincidence that all of our Czech - approx. Author) the main Babishov-Bakalovsky newspapers squeal with delight because of the “revolution in Kyiv”. Particularly noteworthy are the articles by Luboš Palata, who, just in case, in order to "keep the line", supplies his articles to two newspapers of the Babishov flock at once - MF DNES and Lidové noviny. Worthy of attention is the innovation of the new Babishov manual of both editions. But, of course, even without Babis (Babiš) in the same vein, in primitive live broadcasts, the "bakalov" Czech television and Radiožurnál "make news".
We will see the consequences of the exceptionally dangerous crisis in Ukraine in the coming days. But, of course, one cannot think that professional revolutionaries from the European Union will give up their "rights" to another colony of Brussels, and that peace will reign in Ukraine again. All this, apparently, is only an overture and a test of strength.
However, the transfer of the "big chaos" closer to our borders this time should not leave us indifferent. The war is thus - so far symbolically - transferred to Europe. Troubled times await us." (End quote).
I would like to add a little to my esteemed colleague. I think that we Poles have a short memory. When Hitler attacked Poland on September 1, 1939, the rest of Europe, represented by England and France, betrayed us. Many European countries, such as Romania, Hungary, Croatia and others, voluntarily rushed along with Hitler to Russia and participated in his atrocities there. And the Polish Army covered its banners with unfading glory, fighting against fascism. Our pilots defended the skies of England.
Poland, unlike almost all European countries, did not submit to Hitler. There were no Polish units as part of the SS troops, but there were Ukrainian, Croatian, Norwegian, Belgian, and French ones. The Poles did not disgrace themselves by such a phenomenon.
Of course, many Poles remember the Warsaw uprising of 1861 and the earlier suppression of Polish riots by Alexander Suvorov. Russians love to talk about the expulsion of Sigismund's troops from the Kremlin in 1612 and their national hero Ivan Susanin.
But why dwell on these well-known facts of ancient history, when there are still many people living in Poland who remember well how the Red Army liberated us from fascism? And is it worthy for the Poles to participate in anti-Russian actions like the current Ukrainian coup?
Now, in the minds of Polish politicians, the maniacal idea of creating “Wielka Polska” is wandering, in which the territories of Ukraine act as eastern lands. The Baltic states, also actively involved in organizing and supporting the Ukrainian coup d'etat, also hope to get their share of the pie from this process.
Against the background of all these phenomena, the Russian factor is somehow not taken into account. And Moscow's deliberate restraint is probably regarded by some narrow-minded statesmen as a sign of almost weakness. But it would be a big mistake to think that this is really so.
And there is nothing more unforgivable for a politician than his own stupidity.
Dmitry Simes, president of the Washington-based Center for the National Interest and publisher of The National Interest magazine, speaks very well about this.
The experience of the past 20 years shows that words of support from US and EU politicians are unlikely to turn into concrete actions, at least at the level that the Ukrainian economy would need in the absence of Russian subsidies.
Moreover, the Ukrainian opposition should listen very carefully to what US and EU officials are saying. In the case of the United States, the signal is clear: Washington is disappointed with President Viktor Yanukovych, but does not support his violent overthrow. US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, according to media reports, expressed this idea at a meeting with opposition leaders.
Anyone familiar with Mrs. Nuland's track record, which includes serving as the US Permanent Representative to NATO, National Security Adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, Spokesman for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and, incidentally, the wife of the neoconservative publicist Robert Kagan, knows that this warning is not dictated by a lack of sympathy for the Ukrainian protesters.
The American policy towards Ukraine, supported by both political parties, favors its gradual integration into the European Union and eventually into NATO.
But the United States has never intended to provide it with multibillion-dollar bailouts, preferring instead to rely on IMF loans, which are usually given under very strict conditions. This is the area where Washington could help create more favorable conditions for Kyiv, if he wants to move towards an agreement with the European Union. Yet neither the Obama administration nor the American people have any desire to confront Russia over Ukraine.
Today, the Obama administration is interested in cooperation with the Russian Federation on urgent international issues, such as Iran and Syria. The growing tension between the United States and Beijing also does not contribute to the desire to conflict with Moscow as well.
The European Union is genuinely more interested in taking Ukraine under its wing.
Some EU member states, namely Lithuania and Poland, believe that security considerations require Ukraine to be taken away from Russia. This policy is also part of a centuries-old rivalry with Russia for dominance in Eastern and Central Europe. For many others in the EU, security considerations may be less important, but the encouragement of Ukraine's move towards the West seems to be a symbolic manifestation of the inherent virtue and wisdom of the European project, at a time when Eurosceptics are gaining more electoral support.
If you do not take into account the successful territorial expansion, in most matters the EU has little to boast of. The economic situation in the EU is very difficult, especially in the Mediterranean countries. The EU has not been able to effectively deal with the problems of mass migration and has not found a way to absorb large flows of new arrivals. Moreover, European interventions during the Arab Spring can hardly be called a success.
Enthusiasm in London and Paris for the invasion of Syria besieged the turn, first of the British Parliament, and then of the Obama administration, to an agreement with Russia, which persuaded to move to the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal.
In such a situation, the entry of post-Soviet countries, and above all Ukraine, into the orbit of the European Union could give European politicians the right to claim that they are still “on the right side of history.”
Despite this, both the European Union and Mr. Yanukovych have learned from their own difficult experience that the EU is not ready to support its rhetoric with money. In the absence of strong support from the United States, the European Union, with its weak military resources, is not ready to take responsibility for ensuring stability in Ukraine, especially in the event of a new “orange revolution”.
Given the fact that it may be easier to remove a weakening Ukrainian president than to replace him with an effective and legitimate successor, Ukrainian opposition leaders should think twice before trying to overthrow a free and fair election or further destabilize a country that It turned out to be difficult to manage even under the most favorable circumstances.
Do not be deceived, there are no daring visionaries like Churchill or De Gaulle among European leaders today. There are not even politicians of the level of Thatcher or Kohl among them.
The current European presidents and prime ministers are, at best, pragmatic, down-to-earth politicians who go with the flow. It is absolutely natural for them to demand non-interference in Ukrainian affairs from Russia and at the same time push Ukraine with all their might to sign a treaty with the European Union. Who will pay for bringing Ukraine closer to Europe, and in particular who will ensure the country's security, are completely different questions.
Experience shows that the smiles of the leaders of Poland and Lithuania during official photo sessions with Saakashvili in August 2008 mean little, and symbolic hugs are not real support. The leaders of the Ukrainian opposition should think about this. (End quote).
Poland has already made a big mistake by agreeing to the deployment of American anti-missiles on its territory. In return, we received Russian Iskander systems in Kaliningrad, which made the people of Poland even more hostage to decisions made not in Warsaw, but in Washington and Moscow.
A further escalation of the Ukrainian conflict threatens to turn all of Eastern Europe into a realm of chaos and fear as tens of millions of Ukrainians flock there in search of a better fate.
It is clear that the goal of the EU is not to ensure their decent existence in conditions when in the EU countries themselves from 25 to 40 percent of the population live below the poverty line, and the unemployment rate has reached a critical level.
At the same time, huge financial resources of the European Union are being spent on inciting the Ukrainian conflict, fooling and duping the Ukrainian society. And none of the politicians answers the question: wouldn't it be better to spend this money on solving our countries' own economic problems. And why should Europeans pay for the fantasies of their officials and the ambitions of Ukrainian oligarchs?
By the way, while recently in Kyiv, I heard this anecdote:
A western journalist asks a lousy, filthy and dirty “Maidanite”, who with apparent pleasure consumes a huge piece of bread with sausage:
Are you for association with the EU?
Are you against Yanukovych?
Are you in favor of Ukraine joining the Customs Union?
Why are you standing here then?
And where will I find such a paradise, even every day?, - follows a completely logical answer for this type of Ukrainians.
It is high time for our politicians dealing with Ukraine to understand that every day of Euromaidan for European money bleeds our economy. And the Ukrainian crisis is quite capable of going beyond the borders of Ukraine itself.
They should not think that Russia will simply hand over Ukraine to the sphere of influence of the European Union. This is the height of either naivety or stupidity.
European politicians do not even allow the idea that Russia can take any action within the framework of the possible to keep Ukraine.
It seems that the EU and the US have forgotten the old truth from Otto von Bismarck - "politics is the art of the possible." However, the “iron chancellor” in relation to Russia seemed to be warning his future followers from the US EU with his less well-known quote: “Even the most favorable outcome of the war will never lead to the decomposition of the main strength of Russia, which is based on millions of Russians themselves ... dismembered by international treatises, they are just as quickly reunited with each other, like particles of a cut piece of mercury. ."
In a war of nerves on the verge of a foul, Putin has the advantage. His actions and the statements of Russian diplomats do not have such a pronounced hysterical naive-infantile tone, which is stubbornly demonstrated by representatives of the EU and the USA at the highest level.
And it is absolutely impossible to imagine such a stupid situation when one of the Russian politicians comes to Ukraine to distribute cookies on Anti-Maidan. It seems that Russia has some kind of trump card, which it is not yet ready to put on the table.
