On August 6, Alexander Grushko, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation to the North Atlantic Alliance, made an important and rather strong statement, the main thesis of which was the recital phrase "not a single "stabilizing" project NATO had was a success."
"What are the achievements of the alliance? Cut apart Yugoslavia, falling apart Libya, the onslaught of international terrorists in Iraq? The campaign in Afghanistan is close to its end, the objective of stabilizing the situation in that country has not been realized. We can see how the situation aggravates, the attacks from rebels, including international contingents, are more frequenr, number of civilian victims is growing, the Afghan drug threat is expanding," said Alexander Grushko in support of his main thesis.
Of course, the statement came as no surprise for the experts in international politics. But the speech of Grushko opened the eyes of those who admired NATO and criticized Russia's military power over the years.
Essentially, NATO has been working hard for a long time at eliminating those self-invented "external threats". While the West realizes that Russia isn’t a threat for its members and isn’t going to attack anybody, it continues to repeat the "Russian threat" mantra. In this situation, the alliance, of course, is a "shield", which tirelessly demonstrates its high importance simultaneously requiring all member countries to increase financing of the organization "for the common case."
Meanwhile, NATO defense expenses constitute half of the world' total. But it is known that the military industry is one of the most profitable. The USA built its empire largely due to the arms contracts during the Second World War. Hoping for increasing finance, the representatives of the military-industrial complex make vast profits and don’t hide their joy. American politicians also put high hopes on military conflicts - every conflict is a joy for the military-industrial complex, because it promises the profit. And every peacekeeping and "containment" interferes with enriching, maintaining the brand image of the world hegemon and postponing its collapse. The fate of the people in the countries where the bloody boots of NATO entered? No one cares.
One of the most spectacular examples of the aggressive nature of NATO's intervention in the zone of Russian interests was the Nazi coup and the subsequent war in Ukraine. Almost all military operations and the color revolutions supported by NATO followed the same predictable scenario. But in the case of Ukraine, the alliance failed, seriously compromising itself by showing the world that it is rapidly losing its grip. It seems that the staff of NATO is incurring a deficit of qualified specialists. There only thing that the organization copes with is sowing panic in the world, threatening everyone by the "terrible" Russia, which is about to capture everybody.
In modern politics a huge role is played by the impartial analysis of the situation on the international stage and forecasting military and political developments. First of all, NATO is undoubtedly interested in Russia. But seeing that there is no serious Russianists, the alliance is constantly suffering from its low-skilled employees. That's what happened in Ukraine. This was confirmed by Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Mike Rogers, who said that "the head of U.S. National Intelligence didn’t know anything about the plans of Vladimir Putin about the Crimea." Predicting this step of Russia was simple, it was enough to know the background. So God knows what surprises are waiting for the United States in the future, if the qualification of American analysts remains at the same level.
It is clear that the West overestimated itself and underestimated the Russian intelligence - the competence of analysts, diplomats, politicians, economists as well as military potential of the country. Another grave mistake is poor knowledge of society, nation and underestimate of the degree of intra-national consolidation, as manifested, for example, in the Crimean issue.
"But where to get them?" as the hero of the Great Russian classic Nikolai Gogol exclaimed. In the State Department there is the personnel like the favourite of Russians Jennifer Psaki and her "sister in Mind" Marie Harf. Each of their appearance on the screen is a clown tour, the Russians just stick to the TV! It’s scary to imagine what analysts can predict. Today it’s clear that the American decision on the next Maidan in Kiev and the overthrow of the legitimate government was made without knowledge of the situation and the balance of forces, but only on the basis of their own exorbitant ambitions and world perception, remaining from the Cold War. This totally ensured failure.
Why the West is so anxious about the possibility of sending Russian troops in Ukraine? It is not concerned about Ukraine! The West just finally realized what it is up to, estimated possible consequences for themselves and draw a disturbing conclusion. It turned out that the main NATO forces are deployed around the world and are involved in local conflicts. In Europe, however, a little over 40,000 troops are deployed, while the imaginary "potential russian aggressor" has a powerful army and superiority in weapons. Europe suddenly realized that if Russia desired in a few days Ukraine and more would be seized...
Even if someone else does the dirty work in Ukraine, as is done now, the prospect for NATO is more than doubtful. Tampered in the South-East of Ukraine populated by Russians (all the while using Ukrainian troops as the main force) the alliance became embroiled in a very risky adventure - Russians turned out to be made of steel! American troops of private military companies, "tasted" the first collision and quickly left the Donbass.
It’s time for NATO European members to learn how to make their own decisions, make their own forecasts, and not rely on the "comics" coming from the U.S. State Department.
Irrepressible ambitions for world domination have no prospects, and the West already understands this. Even the unipolar model of the world is outlived for a long time. So NATO that used to be one of the symbols of the "Cold War" and the eternal conflict between the United States and Russia today is nothing more than a vestigial organ. The alliance never contributed to world stability and security, but always looked for a pretext for aggression, and then - the argument for its justification. Therefore, the recent saying of Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO General Secretary, who stated that the Alliance was "a source of political legitimacy" is ridiculous.