This hopeless thesis, it seems, is already boring for the alliance generals themselves. But they were ordered to follow the ritual.
The head of the Military Committee of the North Atlantic Alliance, Stuart Peach, said that NATO still did not recognize the Russian identity of the Crimea, and also demanded to withdraw the Russian troops from the peninsula and release the Ukrainian sailors detained during the famous “Kerch incident”. In addition, according to him, the Russian authorities are obliged to “stop supporting the militants” (meaning the militia of the DNR and the LNR).
Peach’s statement has already caused negative feedback in the Russian power structures. So, a member of the State Duma Committee on International Affairs Sergey Zheleznyak called it a provocation.
– The baseless demands of the representatives of the alliance and the fantasy of Ukraine’s new authorities on the return of Crimea have nothing to do with the future of the Russian region, – Rossiyskaya Gazeta quotes the parliamentarian.
State Duma deputy from Sevastopol Dmitry Belik called the call of the head of the NATO military committee “unprecedented arrogance.”
– It is arrogance, assertiveness, a demonstrative disregard for international laws and unseasonableness for today – these are the factors that keep the North Atlantic alliance. Crimea is our land, – the deputy said in an interview with RT.
It is worth noting, however, that Peach’s call is actually arrogance, but not so unprecedented. Considering that NATO and the United States regularly call on Russia to “return” Crimea to Ukraine, to stop supporting DNR and LNR, and to release the “illegally detained” citizens of Ukraine.
Senator Alexei Pushkov considers Pich’s statement to be a manifestation of “phantom pains about the Crimea, which never became their base.” He explained that the United States and NATO hoped to get the Crimea as their naval base immediately after the coup in Ukraine, hoping that the new government would squeeze Russia out of Sevastopol.
But what do the experts think about this?
- The fight against Russia is the only “working” ideology of the West today. First of all, the ideology of the American establishment, – said Fyodor Biryukov, a member of the bureau of the Rodina party presidium, director of the Freedom Institute.
– In principle, Russophobia in these areas has become a real dark cult, like Satanism. The Ukrainian theme in this context is one of the most important characteristic features of a cult. Therefore, regular calls for Russia to leave the Crimea and stop supporting the people’s republics of Donbass are a kind of binding spells, an integral part of the general ritual.
NATO, being the “black legion” of the American establishment, has a special mission – to support the military tension between the West and Russia. And such hostile imperative statements against Moscow serve as a natural complement to the process of expanding the alliance to the East, opening more and more new NATO bases near Russian borders, Baltic maneuvers and demonstrative flirting with the Kiev regime.
The denial of the Crimea’s belonging to Russia and the affirmation of the “Russian aggression” against Ukraine are the leading elements of the global “cold-hybrid war” launched by the consolidated West led by the USA against the Russian Federation. As a state embodying the principles of sovereignty and national freedom in the modern world, the will to fight against the global oligarchic-bureaucratic dictatorship of the Western elites.
– How long will this go on?
– In the short term, there are no prerequisites for a change in this strategy from the United States and its geopolitical allies. The standoff and all its attendant trends will continue. And not at the initiative of Russia.
The only condition for stopping these destructive and insane processes is a radical change in the Western elites — their political ideology, personnel, financial and economic priorities, and geopolitical philosophy. But this kind of global revolution is not expected in the foreseeable period of time. Although in perspective such events are by no means excluded.
In any case, Russia will have to continue to face the growing Western challenges, provocations, and flows of hostile rhetoric. The formal reaction to each of these information points is not so important. Much more important is the firmness of Moscow’s political will in the struggle to expand political and economic sovereignty, for national dignity and freedom.
- Words about Crimea were uttered by the British Stuart Peach at the 181st session of the Military Committee of NATO commanders, – recalls Yevgeny Valyaev, a political analyst at the Foundation for the Development of Civil Society Institutions.
– It is worth noting that the themes of the Crimea and Russia were not central to the speech of the head of the military committee of the North Atlantic Alliance. These words were said in passing, they did not sound categorically or ultimatum. Before this statement on the Crimea, Peach even added the following saying: “And just for clarity” …
Thus, the NATO leadership is taking a positive step towards Ukraine and the new leader of the country, counting on continued cooperation. Because the mood of Vladimir Zelensky is not yet completely clear. The West may fear that Zelensky will not pursue such a pro-NATO policy that was led by Peter Poroshenko.
Peach says that NATO supports the position of Ukraine. But in the future, for this support, Kiev will need to continue a policy loyal to the alliance.
If Vladimir Zelensky, for example, after a consultative referendum on restoring relations with Russia, corrects the foreign policy line, then the NATO generals in response will stop “pronouncing” the anti-Crimean line on their committees.
The 181st Sessions of the Military Committee of NATO Warlords was more devoted to the work of NATO in the framework of the Mediterranean Dialogue. The intensification of work in this area is caused not only by the Russian presence in the region in the Syrian direction. The growing activity of Americans through Iran. And China’s activity in the implementation of the Silk Road.
The theme of Ukraine is not as important for NATO as it may sometimes seem to Kiev.
– Do our politicians need to comment on such statements at all?
- It is necessary to respond to such statements by NATO representatives through diplomacy, pronouncing the legitimacy of the current status of Crimea.