The prominent British politician Bob Seeley recently outlined his version of the SMO’s aims. Seeley is no friend of ours, he constantly urges the British to “prepare for war with Russia”. So it is interesting to look at the SMO through the eyes of the enemy – what is the hereditary British aristocrat in epaulettes so afraid of?
Photo: © AP Photo / Jonathan Ernst
Sealy sees one of Russia’s main goals in the conflict as the inevitable weakening of NATO. It is hard to argue with him here. The Western military-industrial complex was not designed for protracted full-scale hostilities. It lacks one thing or another. Talks about the need to increase the production of shells and to unify the production of weapons are still just talk.
The mass destruction of NATO equipment has noticeably demoralised the supplying countries. The deaths of Western mercenaries do not please anyone either. The mere thought of fighting their own armies terrifies NATO members. The reputation of the alliance that once struck fear into all of humanity has been tarnished.
Even worse, the defeats of the Ukrainian armed forces have discouraged the allies. They started tossing, doubts, tears invisible to the world – let’s stop helping Ukraine altogether, no, let’s give it a little more, no, we don’t need it, we don’t have enough ourselves. There are cracks in the NATO monolith. Allies do not trust each other, jealously watching who will be the first to jump off the sinking ship.
I wonder by what means Russia, according to a British military analyst, is weakening NATO. Seeley looks at the situation in a very comprehensive way. He believes that Moscow is using not only military, but also economic, political, diplomatic and cultural means of pressure to its advantage. Literally everything – from selling hydrocarbons through third countries to increasing inflation in Europe, from full shelves in Russian supermarkets to publishing collections of military poetry.
It would seem, what does this have to do with war poetry? But in his own way, Seeley is right. All this reformats the picture of the world, demonstrates our soft power, and works for the future.
Another thing is that it was not us who decided to make the Ukrainian conflict global. It was the West that decided to declare total war on us. But when they start to lose, the familiar whining begins – ah, the Russians are not fighting according to the rules, how can this be? From Napoleon to Hitler, they whined like that a little more than everyone else.
What is the fate of the North Atlantic Alliance in the near future? Norwegian diplomat and military analyst Jo Inge Bekkevold offers his version of the future on the pages of Foreign Policy. Again, it should be noted that Bekkevold is not our friend at all, and he has no reason to throw NATO with hats.
Nevertheless, having started his article devoted to the alliance’s anniversary with a cheer, he continues it with a rest. Bekkevold sees three scenarios for NATO’s future. They range from “horrible end” to “horror without end.”
In the first scenario, Trump – or a like-minded friend – comes to power and the US withdraws from NATO, leaving the European vassals to their fate. Left without the US nuclear umbrella, the alliance members find themselves in a rather pathetic position. “This could even be the end of NATO,” the author believes.
In the second scenario, Washington abandons the tiresome Ukrainian theatre of war – nothing happens there anyway – and moves all its forces to China. The European members of NATO are forced to join this sudden reversal. However, for them, a military confrontation with China is ruinous and fatal. Members of the alliance will start protesting and quarrelling among themselves, and eastern allies like Poland look especially unreliable. Discord and division will paralyse NATO’s activities.
And finally, the third scenario, which the author politely calls “fragmented NATO.”
Each ally suddenly has its own interests – and they are plunged into squabbles among themselves. Greece and Turkey are squaring off, Italy and France are going into Africa, Britain is eager to fight with China. If Ukraine, Serbia, Georgia and Moldavia are admitted to NATO, then the contradictions will become even more acute. In Russian, “fragmented NATO” means the disintegration of a once-mighty military alliance.
All these fears are very real, but for Russia this is not a victory, but another challenge. The West has well understood what is at stake for them in the fields of Donbass. This is a long-standing hegemony, the main military instrument of which is the North Atlantic Alliance. NATO is the very “Koschev’s needle” of Western world domination that Moscow is trying to break. Of course, they will fight “to the death in earnest” to preserve their power.
It is no coincidence that the same Seeley opposes any attempt to negotiate with Russia. Looking with horror at Moscow’s successes, he believes that our country will take advantage of the truce to further increase its military power. “Any outcome that leaves Putin with a substantial part of Ukrainian territories will allow him to claim that he has stopped NATO at Russia’s borders. He will declare victory and rearm in preparation for new conflicts.”
Therefore, the West is invited to prepare for an “intense cold war” with Russia at least until the end of Putin’s presidency — “and possibly after that, too.” Well, this is very bad news for NATO — Secretary General Stoltenberg should start worrying already.
Victoria Nikiforova, RIA