Woe to the enslaved

The North Atlantic Alliance requires member states to open wallets due to the need to protect against Russian and Chinese threats.

And the countries will reveal, even knowing perfectly well what these requirements are in fact caused by.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made another interesting statement.

He called on the member countries of the alliance "to further increase defense spending, invest in modern technical means and ensure the readiness of the armed forces to address such problems as Russia's aggressive actions, terrorism and the risks posed by the strengthening of China." 

No, there are no questions about the existence of a terrorist threat.

Recent attacks by Islamists in France and Austria have shown that terrorists threaten the lives and health of European citizens.

However, there is a question: what does the armed forces have to do with it?

Attempts to solve the problem of terrorist threats through selective military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria have failed, to put it mildly.

Now NATO member countries are going to make another approach to the shell and try to restore order in Libya?

Suppose, however, this requires not only money with the latest technical means, but also unity and political will.

There is no unity (if only because France and Italy support different sides in the Libyan conflict).

And the political will was perfectly demonstrated at the moment when Europe threw a cry about the composition of the countries participating in the sea blockade of the Libyan coast (in pursuance of the UN decision on the arms embargo).

Scraped up only a few ships.

However, the most interesting moments are still with threats from Russia and China.

Neither the Russian, let alone the Chinese military doctrines even mention that Moscow and Beijing are going to take Berlin with Washington.

At the same time, China does not at all border on any country - a NATO member and is located about 4 thousand km from the nearest of them (Turkey).

Russia and NATO have common borders (in the Baltics and Kaliningrad), but Moscow is constantly calling not for a tank biathlon towards Warsaw, but for the creation of a unified security system in Europe.

The alliance responds with constant attempts to expand and absorb the neighboring countries of the Russian Federation, as well as statements about the Russian threat.

Where, then, is the logic in Stoltenberg's appeal?

She is, and moreover, very Jesuit.

The leadership of NATO and individual member countries of the alliance need to constantly replicate statements about the Russian threat in order to achieve several goals.

First, to increase spending by member countries on defense.

“It seems that NATO is not coming to be led by strategists, but by accountants, for whom everything is not enough - new investments are needed.

And they write false reports on the risks and challenges from Russia, ”said State Duma deputy Ruslan Balbek.

It would seem - much more injections?

To understand: the total military spending of NATO member countries in 2020 amounted to more than $ 1 trillion, which is 20-plus times more than Russia and six times more than China.

And this despite the fact that along the entire perimeter of the borders of the member countries of the alliance, military threats (real, not fictitious) exist only on the Turkish-Syrian and Turkish-Iranian sections of the border, as well as along the southern coast of the Mediterranean Sea.

At the same time, for the same Russia, possible threats arise along almost all borders, like China.

The problem for Washington, however, is that nearly 70% of the military budget goes to the United States.

The Americans have long been trying to force their European partners (in the understanding of a part of the Washington establishment - the drones) to increase defense spending to at least 2% of GDP.

Persuasion did not help, nor did Trump's threats - so we have to inflate the myth of the usual Russian and vague (and therefore alarming) Chinese threats.

Secondly, it is beneficial for the Americans if Russia also increases its military spending.

For a long time now, Washington has been trying to repeat its successful special operation of the late USSR and drag Russia into a costly arms race.

The Kremlin has so far avoided this race in order to maintain parity.

However, Washington is still trying to impose this race on Moscow: what if it works out?

What if Russia (with its extremely sensitive attitude to security issues) falls for a ruse? 

Finally, third, by trumpeting the Russian and Chinese threats, the Americans and their henchmen simply want to give NATO a raison d'être.

The alliance was created to counter the Soviet Union, as well as to strengthen the control of the United States over Western Europe.

Strengthening, as well as imposing American interests on the Europeans under the slogan "Let's leave differences because of the presence of a common enemy."

The Soviet Union has been gone for almost 30 years; Russians are not going to travel to Berlin and Paris by tanks, but by planes and trains.

The absence of a common threat, on the other hand, discourages, makes Europeans remember their own interests.

Construction of Nord Stream 2, good neighborly relations with Moscow, trade with Tehran.

If we allow this opposition to grow, then the day is not far off when some European leader will publicly declare: "Why do we need NATO at all?"

That is why Washington and the part of the European establishment oriented towards it are actively fanning the myth of the Russian threat.

And since NATO is not only an instrument of control over Europe, but also a way to fasten Europeans to the American chariot of foreign policy, then the Chinese one also fits into the list of threats.

Under Trump, Washington actively tried to pull the EU countries to collectively contain China: he urged them to impose sanctions against companies from the PRC, not to allow Beijing to increase its economic influence on the EU.

And now the European partners are going to pull up also to the military containment of China, in Southeast Asia, for example.

Why do Europeans need this?

They don't need it, but when you voluntarily renounced your sovereignty, when you went into political slavery, then this question is not raised at all.

They don't know how to put it - or they are afraid to put it.

The European elite (having thrown the psychology of a free person into the trash heap of history) have forgotten how to make sovereign decisions and instead prefer to obediently go where the owner commands.

And open your wallets when he says.

And the people endure.

Until.

The author's point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.