There is power - no mind

There are different strengths. Moral strength, for example. Or physical strength. There is a pressure force and a resistance force. Strength in truth happens. And sometimes there is power in money.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg invented a new force. The power of the block. The strength of the bloc is this: the countries participating in the bloc agree that there is a certain radish. And after they agreed on this, the one who started to negotiate leaves the contract with someone.

How do you say? Rave? Nonsense? Well, no, these are the words of the Secretary General himself: “The collapse of the INF Treaty is bad, but it demonstrated the strength of NATO, because as a result of intensive consultations we were able to agree that Russia violated it and coordinate our further steps.”

Do you understand? As a result of intensive consultations, the NATO countries AGREED that Russia is violating the treaty. After which the United States withdrew from this treaty.

Yes, I don’t even want to write here that when the United States started talking about a “violation” of the treaty (supposedly some of our missiles can fly at DIFFERENT distances), Russia invited NATO generals to come and look at these missiles. And that the NATO generals, of course, did not come. And in response to perplexed questions on our part they were silent. Now, in general, it’s clear why. Because the fact of violation of the contract on our part was established as a result of consultations between NATO countries. And the agreement between them that yes, we are breaking. Very reminiscent of the doping story. And indeed, frankly, it reminds any other Western history.

Reminds a story with witches in Salem. Reminds me of the story with #MeeToo, when there are many accusations and everyone agrees that someone is a rapist. And then suddenly it turns out that this is not so, because there are no more charges.

Well, or here the Turkish history reminds actual. Which is very simple: the Turkish army invaded Syria and is advancing there. The Syrian army replies that they killed several Turkish soldiers. In response to this, Turkey declares aggression, the need to harshly respond and all that. Although when a Russian plane allegedly crossed the Turkish border for one second, it was instantly shot down. What is the difference? But the difference is in that very NATO. NATO, which is in the head. Absolutely meaningless military bloc, which simply has no one to resist. Just because no one is opposing him. And in a situation where you need to confront, and there is no one to confront, you begin to invent yourself who needs to confront. Otherwise, there will be no financing.

And all these Jens Stoltenbergs will go to where they really have a place - to lead the amusing troops of their microscopic countries.

But as long as there is NATO and its members can agree among themselves on who is to blame, they, of course, will agree. And to "demonstrate strength" by terminating the agreements that protected precisely those who agreed. And this, and not the commonplace about the American elections and the image of the enemy in this whole story is the most important thing.

The main thing is that Russian missiles of a shorter and medium range US do not threaten in any way. America is far away. But Europe now, after the termination of the treaty on the limitation of such missiles, they are just threatening. But European countries that are members of NATO obediently vote for the United States (which Russian missiles are not threatening) to terminate the agreement with Russia (whose missiles will then be threatened by European countries). Don't you think that there is some kind of contradiction here?

And this not only seems to you. The American research institute Pew Research Center claims that over the past ten years, confidence in NATO in Europe has fallen by an average of 20%. Today, only 57% of German citizens and 49% of French citizens have a positive attitude towards NATO. Everyone else understands that they are being deceived somewhere. Moreover, only 41% of the French and 34% of Germans answered in the affirmative to the question of whether their countries should help a NATO member, whom Russia would suddenly attack (to simple American researchers their feverish imagination). Of course, France and Germany, like no one else, know that it is not Russia that attacks, but rather that they attack Russia. And who, if not them, knows what happens when they attack Russia.

But this poll is about NATO. Which was created and controlled by a country that has no idea what it is to fight against Russia. And most of whose members (that is, NATO) are meaningless tiny entities that sell their sovereignty for dollars. Surely it was with them that "intensive consultations" were held, during which they managed to "agree" that the contract was violated by Russia. Just because there is no sense in the existence of all these tiny "states", except how to resist the "Russian aggression".

Further, of course, the question arises: how can this all end? The answer here is very simple: no matter how it ends, it cannot end in a war between Russia and NATO. Well, just because of the fatal consequences of such a war for the universe itself. And this means that the original message of all this "confrontation" invented by the conditional stoltenbergs is false.

However, if someone in the course of this languid madness raise their salaries, then okay.

Let them buy gifts for the children.

The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.