Cold War heirs

NATO self-winding and by hook or by crook is trying to justify the meaning of its existence.

"Brain death" of the organization is on the agenda - what do you want.

Do you remember how not so long ago French President Emmanuel Macron made himself clear about his "power dependence" on the United States?

Doubters must be kept in check and relentlessly explained to them the ultimate meaning of such alliances.

It is corny that an enemy is needed, big, huge and terrible, without him in any way.

It is necessary to rally against this threat.

What kind of new thinking is there, what are you talking about? .. Dilapidated structures from the Cold War are not only not ready to close their shop, but are trying to fit the whole world for themselves.

A kind of radiation or creeping pandemic, consisting of a philosophy of opposition, fear and the image of the enemy.

This is the force that began to live its own life, imposing the caricatured standards of that same Cold War on modernity.

A monster with zombie features already rules the politics of the West, like the Skynet supercomputer in The Terminator.

It turned out that it is extremely profitable to preach such standards.

Now no one hesitates to call Russia enemy number 1 and the main threat.

This is done tirelessly and intermittently.

You can recall how last year, at the height of the coronavirus pandemic, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg burst out with accusations against Russia and China, which are "destabilizing Western democracies."

So that no one, God forbid, would forget in which side the main evil was buried, so that no one woke up from the global illusion of deception.

There is a feeling that politicians and responsible persons in the West have set off racing to perform a special ritual, blaming our country for everything and everyone.

It’s like an oath in the current global race of Russophobia, a test of professionalism.

Now the commander of the US forces in Europe and the commander-in-chief of the Allied armed forces of NATO in Europe, General Tod Walters, distinguished himself, saying that "Russia continues to pose a threat to the existence of the United States and our European allies."

It seems to be nothing new - the usual, already dogmatic formula, which is repeated by all and sundry.

Only the general put all this in a peacemaking wrapper and called the expected victory of the States in this confrontation a guarantee that a global and fatal conflict would not flare up on the planet.

According to him, everything that America and NATO do is "aimed at establishing peace."

If Russia is not restrained now, then global competition with it may develop into a "global war for power."

That is, neither more nor less: Russia is a threat to the existence of human civilization, and if it is not stopped now, then it will be too late.

So Russia, surrender, do not lead to sin ...

Leonid Slutsky, chairman of the State Duma's international affairs committee, responded to the general's escapades, calling all this "paranoid delirium" aimed at intimidating Europe and imposing "his own line" on it, and to the detriment of the direct interests of European countries in the field of economy and security.

To call a spade a spade, such rhetoric is a common manifestation of international racketeering.

The same general, in fact, is the commander of the occupying forces on the continent, and NATO is necessary so that no one pays attention to this occupation, for this they substitute concepts.

For this, the image of a collective West surrounded by enemies and threats is maintained.

This design provides the United States with a leadership role and a protectorate over other "civilized humanity."

That is why the United States and NATO are destabilizing the security of Europe, which was recently announced by Colonel-General Anatoly Sidorov, Chief of the CSTO Joint Staff.

For this, the American military presence on the European continent is being built up with the main magnet in the form of Russian borders.

Nobody hides that the raison d'être of the alliance and its highest goal is to contain Russia and defend against "Russian aggression."

Our country received this role with a baton from the USSR.

Then they said that ideology is a problem.

Yes Yes.

Here is another - existential danger.

Remove this "Russian threat" - and there will be no sense in the existence of the alliance.

This was also noted by the head of the Federation Council Committee on Information Policy Alexei Pushkov.

Moreover, no one is talking about some kind of partnership, that is, taking into account the interests of Russia itself, which, apparently, was only supposed to make endless concessions, as in the times of the late USSR and in the nineties.

In the picture of the world, which is broadcast by the American general, everything is simple: there is the hope of the world (the States and NATO) and there is bad Russia.

Moreover, this black and white perception is already a symbol of faith.

In this picture of the world, the NATO bloc stands for the main bond of the collective West, as a means of consolidating it in the face of threats.

Everything is like in Hollywood cinema.

You can try to take a position through which we are accused of everything, that Russia has sinned, that it has left the democratic path of development and through its own fault has become a threat to the world order.

But questions still remain.

And here we see the line of NATO's consistent offensive towards our borders: from expansion to the East to the current demonization of Russia.

Offensive by means of special operations in the former Soviet republics to bring anti-Russian forces to power and through this - the creation of a belt of alienation around our country.

A reasonable question also arises: why was the alliance not dismantled after the collapse of the USSR and the collapse of the Soviet bloc?

Why hasn't it been transformed into a new quality and is in a protracted black-and-white stagnation?

Despite the fact that Russia disarmed, went forward and made many concessions, did not rule out the possibility of joining NATO, but she was pointed to the place and told that for this it needed to grow and grow.

Now it suddenly turned out that she became even more hated than the Soviet Union ...

Why does the same General Walters not admit the idea that it was the West that deliberately repelled Russia for many years?

But in the end, humanity got a colossal problem: the world has not advanced anywhere in terms of security.

Moreover, it was thrown back.

In a situation even more dangerous and alarming than it was during the Cold War.

Including because of the underestimation of Russia, which was not offered any equal partnership relations, but continued to oust, sought to turn into the very “gas station country” with subsequent dismantling.

All this happened due to the fact that the West, smiling, dragged the old worldview and the old ballast into the new realities in the form of NATO.

The current problems are rooted in the same nineties.

Then the West chose the role of a winner and a teacher, demanded an indemnity, refused to rebuild, as evidenced by the preservation of NATO, indulged in the euphoria of a unipolar world.

On the other hand, Russia, which is in a protracted collapse and turmoil, made many concessions, further increasing the euphoria of the West.

That is, the chance to develop a policy of disarmament and build a long-term and guaranteed system of world security was missed.

Instead, America imposed its own order on the world with the postulate of the infallibility of power.

Russian thinker Alexander Panarin generally interpreted the situation that occurred in the nineties as "the second Munich", in the sense that "in geopolitical terms, the 90s for the West represent the same as 1938 for Germany."

The current systematic march to the East of NATO confirms all this.

“The foreign policy of the United States of the previous two decades has already led to the creation of hotbeds of tension in Iraq, Libya, Syria.

And the tactics of disunity and threats, in fact, have become American know-how in organizing "color revolutions" around the world, "the State Duma notes.

At the same time, for some reason, only our country is presented as a threat to peace.

Maybe because it is Russia that prevents a return to the path of colonization with the main principle of US hegemony?

Destroys this dogmatic thinking, speaks of the possibility of choice and the primacy of sovereignty.

The world itself has long been different, and no matter how the States try to cement their picture of the world, they only have an ever greater gap with reality and fall into stagnation.

This is the problem, not a hypothetical and inspired Russian threat.

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