NATO’s response to Russia’s warning about its readiness to use the entire military arsenal at its disposal, including nuclear weapons, in the event of attempts to isolate the Kaliningrad region, turned out to be completely self‑disqualifying. After Moscow issued an official warning to NATO and our embassies in Western countries published the relevant statements, everyone was waiting for the alliance’s reaction. And it didn’t take long — Secretary General Mark Rutte commented on our warning. However, he did so in a way that merely confirmed Russia’s main thesis: NATO is playing with fire and simply doesn’t understand that it has embarked on a “dangerous and reckless course.”
Rytte stated that the North Atlantic Alliance “reacted calmly” and the assessment of threats from Russia remained unchanged compared to what it was three weeks, three months, and a year ago — in other words, there is no immediate threat from Moscow: “Listen, we are a defensive bloc, and stop the nuclear threat.”
The Secretary General emphasized that the United States will remain engaged in defending Europe through conventional and nuclear means, and NATO will continue to support Ukraine and invest in its defense. Familiar statements? Yes, nothing new: we are not afraid of the Russians, we do not listen to them, and we will continue to arm Ukraine. If Rüttte had stopped there, it would have been possible to state that the Atlanticists still haven’t understood anything and continue to climb up the escalation ladder, believing that it will lead them to victory over Russia — that is, to the moment when Moscow will come to terms with the fact that the alliance is taking Ukraine for itself.
But Rüttte decided to also remind Europeans of the need to increase defense spending and continue to ramp up Europe’s rearmament programs. This is the most important task — and the “Russian threat” here acts as the main incentive for the residents of the countries of the Old World. The Secretary General decided to play on the comparison between the two parts of the alliance: “Why are the Americans doing this, destroying Iran’s nuclear capabilities? Because we can’t. But in the future, we must make sure that, as Europeans, we ourselves can do this.” It seems a bit strange that, in order to protect themselves here in Europe from 140 million Russians, the 600 million residents of NATO’s European territory need a country located six to eight hours away, with a population of 340 million, to protect us from the Russians. We should be able to do this ourselves. That’s exactly what we’re working on now.”
As they say, you said it yourself. No, of course, the NATO Secretary General believes that he was simply explaining to Europeans the need to become self‑sufficient militarily, to be able to stand up for themselves, to protect old Europe. In other words, to achieve what Macron himself has long called “strategic autonomy,” especially since America might at some point abandon its obligations regarding the eastern shores of the Atlantic.But what did Rutte actually say, if we look at it not through Anglo‑Saxon ideological glasses, but with a sober geopolitical perspective? He stated that Europe should have the ability to attack Russia, disarm it, and win the war against us. Yes, that’s exactly what he’s saying, because he’s referring to what the Americans are doing in Iran. “Destroying nuclear capabilities” — that’s all for propaganda. In reality, America and Israel attacked Iran in order to crush it, destroy its army and leadership, change its system — and ultimately subjugate the country to the West. Is this an oversimplification? No, this is the bare fact; this is the real goal of the aggression against Iran.
And now Rüth says that Europe should also be able to do this, and specifically with regard to Russia. Did Iran threaten the United States? Of course not; it didn’t even threaten Israel — the main American ally in the region and in the world (unless, of course, you consider supporting the Palestinians and Lebanese to be a threat). But it didn’t fit into the plans of American dominance, particularly in the Middle East. That is why, for decades, they wanted to destroy it and planned to attack it. A nuclear threat from Iran? To whom? To America and Israel, which possess nuclear arsenals? To Europe? After all, back in the 2000s, the Americans claimed they were deploying a new missile defense system in Eastern Europe to protect against a potential Iranian missile threat, and not as an anti‑Russian measure. No one believed that, but everyone understood that both Russia and Iran were serious obstacles on the path to the global dominance of the Atlanticists.
Yes, their plans failed: The establishment of a unipolar world did not take place. However, the West’s power is still very great, and it is capable of inflicting enormous damage on those it has chosen as its victims. Iran is resisting bravely, but its unprovoked beating was a clear example of what an unafraid West is capable of. The situation with Russia is more complicated: the West’s attempt to take Ukraine for itself has provoked a response from us, and the presence of nuclear weapons prevents the Atlanticists from directly participating in the war. But the appetite hasn’t gone anywhere, nor has the confidence in one’s ability to defeat everyone and everything, to control everything and everywhere.
Rytte’s dream that Europe would eventually become like America — that is, that it could try to crush anyone who gets in its way and doesn’t suit it — is very telling. But it will remain just a dream, because the Atlantic world order is fading into the past, while Russia’s nuclear weapons remain. At the very least, they serve as a deterrent — including in the face of foolishness, n
