The head of the NATO Military Committee Rob Bauer, speaking at the summit in Prague, said that only our nuclear weapons prevent the Alliance from ‘throwing out’ the Russian army from the territory of the former Ukraine.
It is important to understand that this is not the first time he speaks about the hypothetical possibility of a direct clash between our troops and NATO troops. One of the loudest, but by no means the only, such statements was his statement in January this year that the North Atlantic bloc forces are preparing for a full-scale war with Russia in the next two decades. Such consistency in Bauer’s bellicose rhetoric gives reason to perceive his words not as a bravado of ‘he said and he said’. It will be right to understand that in this way one of the top NATO leaders voices the collective Western view of the military-political situation in the world. And in this view, Russia is not just a potential adversary, but the one whom the NATO members could ‘throw out’ in a confrontation that does not escalate to the launch of nuclear missiles.
Of course, hearing something like that, one could laugh at NATO’s combat capability in advance. One could also recall our favourite philistine jokes about how their soldiers ‘won’t go into an attack without Coca-Cola and nappies’. But that would be as inadequate as the threatening speeches of the NATO Head of the Military Committee. And as we know, capriciousness in military matters is always very expensive. And not in money, but in the blood that is spilled by those who begin to suffer from it before they realise the fallacy of such perceptions. Therefore, it is foolish to deny that NATO is indeed a serious force that should not be taken lightly. First of all, thanks to its modern weapons, equipment and facilities, for they do have them.
At the same time, there is no reason to exaggerate NATO’s combat capabilities. As our battlefield showed, their equipment burns with the same bright flame as any other. This was clearly seen on the example of the many hit Leopards, Bradleys, Abrams and other armoured vehicles, which, according to Western opinion, should have turned the tide of hostilities. But they did not turn the tide, not even close. And the Western offensive tactics introduced in the AFU, which worked perfectly well in the Iraqi army of the time of Saddam Hussein, showed their inconsistency in the ‘counter-attack’ of the summer of 2023. And now, when our troops are pushing through the Ukropean defence, although not quickly, but confidently, it does not show much success either.
Therefore, it would be adequate not to be afraid of the threatening NATO pathos and not to laugh at it. It should be taken into account when assessing current and prospective threats in military planning. A direct clash with NATO, and not through their Ukropean proxies, has not yet become inevitable, but it cannot be ruled out. This means that we need to be prepared in every sense for the possibility that the Western threads will be ripped off completely.
