One more step in Russia’s NATO encirclement

A fence, of course, that fits the doctrine of Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor long before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and aimed to prevent Russia from rebuilding its empire.

In a way, it represents a historical continuum: the opposition to Bolshevism that followed the Russian revolution was followed by an opposition to Putin, fully justified by the anti-communism of the Cold War and now the illegal war against the neighboring country. is not exempt from a particular Russian phobia.

The goal of weakening the Russian bear is therefore nothing new: Imperial Germany and other European powers tried in their day until Adolf Hitler’s German fascism turned it into a war program with disastrous consequences for Europe and the world as we know it.

Finland’s entry into the Atlantic Alliance, decided by the Helsinki Government and having the support of the majority of the population, as we read, means adding another 1,340 kilometers of border with Russia to Russia’s western fence.

To be honest, he does not fully understand why this accession would increase the security of this Scandinavian country and increase the security of its neighbor Sweden if it followed the same steps, and on the contrary believes that tensions are rising. It will grow with the danger of nuclear escalation in Europe.

First of all, after the US abandonment of the agreement on the elimination of medium and short-range nuclear missiles, signed by Washington and Moscow in 1987, a real milestone of the Cold War.

After the difficulties faced by the Russian Army to occupy it militarily, does it make any sense that Moscow would have the slightest desire to attack a neutral Finland, even if it was only part of Ukrainian territory?

Doesn’t it seem more plausible that Russia should feel directly threatened by the possible deployment in another neighboring country of NATO missiles equipped with atomic warheads, as the US plans to deploy in Romania or Poland under the absurd pretext of the Iranian threat?

The invasion of Ukraine served to arouse fears that Russia would invade foreign lands in the future, and to mobilize public opinion against a Russia that had long since gone from communist to an autocratic capitalist kleptocracy and seems nostalgic for its former empire.

It seems no longer interesting to remember that if Putin made the decision to invade Ukraine, it was primarily because of US commitment to the Western bloc, and Moscow’s insistence on opening the doors of the Atlantic Alliance to a country that Moscow saw as right. or, incorrectly, a threat, directly existential to the Russian nation.

Russia had already had to accept the entry into NATO of countries that were formerly part of the Warsaw bloc and are now potential enemies, contrary to the verbal commitments made by the Washington Government to Moscow after the German reunification. Get an inch closer to the Russian borders.

However, the eventual entry of Ukraine or Georgia, the two republics that were part of the USSR itself, into the Atlantic Alliance was a big pill to swallow, and Russia reported it to the West before making the fatal decision to attack Ukraine. clear violation of international law.

Prominent American diplomats with no doubts of sympathy for Russia, including George Kennan and current CIA director Joseph Burns, have already warned that NATO expansion would be a tragic mistake that could spell “the beginning of a new cold war”. They were not wrong.