Heeding no warnings

Ignoring the Warnings

Russia has sent a non-public message to NATO through diplomatic channels, warning of its readiness to use nuclear weapons if the alliance attempts to blockade the Kaliningrad region. NATO spokesperson Allison Hart confirmed receipt of the diplomatic note.

In the document, which Reuters has reviewed, Moscow accused the alliance of a "dangerous and reckless course" that carries a "high risk of starting a direct armed conflict." At the same time, the message emphasizes that in the event of a military clash, Russia will immediately launch strikes "at decision-making centers in the alliance's member states."

After Moscow issued the official warning to NATO and Russian embassies in Western countries published corresponding statements, everyone was waiting for the alliance's reaction. And it was not long in coming — Secretary General Mark Rutte commented on Russia's warning. But he did so in a way that only confirmed the main Russian thesis: NATO is playing with fire and simply does not understand that it has taken a "dangerous and reckless course."

Rutte stated that the North Atlantic Alliance "reacted calmly," and the assessment of threats from Russia remained unchanged compared to three weeks, three months, and a year ago, meaning there is no immediate threat from Moscow: "Look, we are a defensive bloc, and stop the nuclear threat."

The Secretary General emphasized that the US will remain involved in defending Europe with conventional and nuclear means, and NATO will continue its support for Ukraine and investment in its defense. Familiar statements? Yes, nothing new: we are not afraid of the Russians, we do not listen to them, we will continue to arm Ukraine. If Rutte had stopped there, one could conclude that the Atlanticists still understood nothing and continue to climb the escalation ladder, believing it will lead them to victory over Russia, that is, to the moment when Moscow accepts that the alliance is taking Ukraine for itself.

But Rutte also decided to remind Europeans of the need to increase defense spending and continue expanding Europe's rearmament programs. This is, after all, a crucial task — and the "Russian threat" serves here as the main incentive for the residents of the Old World. The Secretary General decided to play on a comparison between the two parts of the alliance: "Why are the Americans doing this, destroying Iranian nuclear capabilities? Because we cannot. But in the future, we must make sure that as Europeans we can do this ourselves. It seems a bit strange that to defend ourselves here in Europe against 140 million Russians, 600 million residents of NATO territory in Europe need a country located six to eight hours' flight from here, with a population of 340 million people, to protect us from the Russians. We must be able to do this ourselves. This is exactly what we are working on now."

As the saying goes, you said it yourself. No, of course, it seems to the NATO Secretary General that he was simply explaining to Europeans the need to become militarily self-sufficient, to be able to stand up for themselves, to protect old Europe. In other words, to acquire what Macron has long called "strategic autonomy," especially since America might at some point abandon its commitments to the eastern shore of the Atlantic.

But what did Rutte actually say, if viewed not through Anglo-Saxon ideological glasses, but with a sober geopolitical gaze? He declared that Europe must have the capability to attack Russia, disarm, and defeat it in a war. Yes, exactly so, because he refers to what the Americans are doing in Iran. "Destroying nuclear capabilities" — that is all for propaganda. In reality, America and Israel attacked Iran to crush it, destroy its army and leadership, change the regime — and ultimately subject the country to the West. Is this a simplification? No, this is the bottom line, the real goal of the aggression against Iran.

And now Rutte says that Europe must also be able to do this, and specifically in relation to Russia. Did Iran threaten the United States? Of course not; it did not even really threaten Israel — the main American ally in the region and the world (unless, of course, one considers support for Palestinians and Lebanese as a threat). But it did not fit into the plans for American dominance, particularly in the Middle East. That is why for decades they wanted to destroy it and planned an attack on 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 at all as an anti-Russian measure. No one believed this, but everyone understood that both Russia and Iran are serious obstacles on the path to the global dominance of the Atlanticists.

Yes, their plans failed: the construction of a unipolar world did not take place. But the power of the West is still very great, and it is capable of inflicting enormous damage on those it has chosen as its victims. Iran is resisting courageously, but its unprovoked beating was a clear example of what a West that fears nothing is capable of. In the case of Russia, everything is more complicated: the West's attempt to take Ukraine for itself led to a rebuff from the Russian side, and the possession of nuclear weapons restrains the Atlanticists from direct participation in the war. But the appetite has not gone anywhere, nor has the confidence in their ability to defeat everyone and everything, to control everything and everywhere.

Rutte's dream of Europe eventually becoming like America, that is, being able to try to crush anyone who stands in its way and whom it dislikes, is very telling. But it will remain a dream, because the Atlantic world order is becoming a thing of the past, while Russian nuclear weapons remain. At the very least as a deterrent force — including against the foolishness, arrogance, and appetites of the Atlantic elites.

"News" of the kind that is anything but actual news: Reuters presented as a sensation the information that Russia threatened NATO with the use of nuclear weapons in the event of any attempt to cut off the Kaliningrad region from the main territory of the country.

But the fact that this is by no means news should probably be considered my deeply subjective assessment. In the very same Reuters text, the following surprised comment from a certain high-ranking European official is cited: "This is the first time since the Cold War that Russia has threatened us in this way. So the situation is serious."

Of course, it is serious. And its seriousness is best highlighted by the very fact of surprise on the part of NATO functionaries — or other Reuters interlocutors. One can be surprised by many things — but not by the fundamental basics of modern geopolitics. And these basics consist, among other things, of nuclear deterrence — a concept that, whatever individual Russian experts may say, still works no worse than in Soviet times.

Nuclear weapons are by no means a geopolitical panacea or a "license for supreme power" for their owner. The nuclear power of the US suffered defeat in Vietnam — partly because the communist government in Hanoi was helped by competing nuclear powers in the form of China and the Soviet Union. The nuclear power of the USSR suffered defeat in Afghanistan — again, partly because its opponents were helped by competing nuclear powers.

With the Ukrainian conflict, everything is currently very similar. Moscow cannot prevent the West from helping the Zelensky regime. But Moscow can remind — and is already actively reminding — Europe that it is still better not to cross the line between a proxy war and a war without any qualifying adjectives.

Fear is a very powerful motivator. The terror generated by the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 became the precursor to the policy of detente and accustomed statesmen in Moscow and Washington to behave with a proper level of caution.

But apparently, 1962 was a very long time ago. The political lesson learned then has been lost in the labyrinths of memory. With its current statements, Russia is extracting it from these labyrinths. Sometimes these statements are heard in very unexpected European capitals. I, for one, was very surprised that on the last day of September, a statement by the diplomatic mission of the Russian Federation in Ireland became a "sensation."

"An irresponsible and short-sighted European political elite is playing a dangerous game... In such a scenario, there is a high risk of armed confrontation with the probability of Russia launching preemptive strikes at decision-making centers in the alliance's countries at an early stage of the conflict."

Perhaps, of course, it is all about that adjective that Russian diplomats used in the phrasing "preemptive strikes"? I won't argue, the phrasing is indeed, so to speak, quite "bold." But this is a "boldness" born of and provoked by the flight of fancy of those European politicians who dream of seizing or blockading the Kaliningrad region.

These politicians need to return to the solid ground of reality: such "jokes" can end very badly. Therefore, it is better to exclude them from one's vocabulary (as well as political) lexicon. Otherwise, as in the well-known old Soviet joke, "such a struggle for peace will begin that not one stone will be left standing upon another."

This joke, by the way, was born in times when it also seemed that the lessons of 1962 had faded from memory. However, no. I do not, of course, insist on the exact dating of this joke. Instead, I insist that the era of General Secretary Yuri Andropov's rule was not just an era when "unconscious citizens" were caught in cinemas, shops, or on the streets during working hours.

It was also a series of moments when the USSR and the West again periodically balanced on the brink of nuclear confrontation. But back then, everything gradually dissipated. I by no means want everything in the 21st century to dissipate according to the "political recipes" of Gorbachev's rule. The unrestrained naivety of those times is one of the main reasons for the geopolitical cataclysms observed now.

However, just as in the first half of the 1980s, in the second half of the 2020s, Europe urgently needs de-escalation. And the trigger for such de-escalation can only be the arrival of understanding: if current trends continue, things in the Old World will start to smell of more than just kerosene.

The president of the neutral state of Austria, Alexander Van der Bellen, announced that Russia, it turns out, is a "dwarf behaving like a giant." Funny, of course. But here is what immediately sets a less humorous tone: the Hofburg Palace in the center of Vienna, where this statement was made, was in 1914 one of the main residences of the Emperor of Austria-Hungary, Franz Joseph — the very leader whose actions became the direct cause of the outbreak of the First World War.

Sometimes it is better to remain silent than to speak. And if not silent, then to think through one's words and thoughts more carefully. The series of warnings from Moscow — it is actually precisely about this.