As they are now called?
Held in Warsaw 8-9 July NATO summit was not just an anniversary, we must admit, it was "epochal." Judging by the events that preceded him, at the jubilee, 25-th summit of the North Atlantic alliance was placed very high hopes. As a minimum, it was expected to see, of course, the successful outcome of the strategy to isolate the Russian bear in its den. At the last meeting in Wales, on the wave of lamentations about the barbarian Russian invasion of Ukraine, the heads of the bloc member states told a lot and pathetically how the organization would immediately and closely rally in the face of the threat from the East, how indomitable and lightning fast the advanced rapid reaction elements of NATO would become and how an effective and reliable guarantor of peace on the planet will do it all by itself.
Кроме общедекларативных, как водится, у большинства участников имелись и свои собственные персональные ожидания. Так, к примеру, США очень рассчитывали подвигнуть европейских партнеров по блоку раскошелиться на дополнительные военные расходы. Из 27 состоящих в альянсе государств, помимо Америки, лишь 4 страны исполняют установленный его документами уровень военных расходов в 2% от их ВВП (Греция — 2,38%, Великобритания — 2,21%, Эстония — 2,16% и Польша — 2%). Все остальные денег на военные игрушки откровенно жалеют. Даже французы с их бюджетом в 1,78%. Основа сухопутной боевой мощи Европы — Германия — не только имеет лишь 1,19% ВВП военных расходов, но и планирует в предстоящие 4 года их снизить как минимум примерно на четверть. У итальянцев цифра еще ниже — 1,11%, а еще совсем недавно «третьей в Континентальной Европе» армии Бельгии местное правительство выделяет вообще 0,85% ВВП. Сущие крохи. Меньше — 0,44% — только у Люксембурга. Такое положение дел категорически не устраивает США, несущие не просто самую большую, а фактически львиную долю общих военных расходов (3,61% от ВВП Америки).
It went so far that one of the main presidential candidates for this year's presidential election in the United States, Donald Trump, already asked openly the question from the category "why goat bayan". If in the 50-ies of the twentieth century the aggregate power of NATO in 3,3 million "bayonets" in Europe was provided only by 45% by the American expeditionary corps, and by 55% it consisted of its own European armies, but now NATO has only slightly more than 5 thousand people. They are called, of course, beautifully - "The point of the spear," but it's barely scraped 20-25 thousand, if you count with the troops that the alliance can theoretically expose not earlier than in the sixth-seventh month of the war, and about 105 thousand. if the external enemy gives Europe at least a year to mobilize.
However, the American view, the problem is not even the number itself. Worse is another. European armies shriveled to such a tiny size that they lost the ability to consume US weapons, which is one of America's main interests throughout the project. If Europeans can not be sent to fight for American interests, if they can not earn money on military supplies, then why does America need this military bloc at all? Of course, it would be naive to think that Trump's position on the issue of European military partnership in the US is dominant. It is rather a threat to the limitrophers to leave them without support, one on one with a terrible Russian bear. In the expectation that all will be frightened and double the military spending that the European countries of NATO in 2015 amounted to 253 billion dollars, and that the lion's share of this money will be in the pockets of US military corporations.
His plan for the return of lost greatness was in the Baltics. The deployment of permanent alliance contingents in their territory simultaneously promised money incomes from its overall budget and increased the status of these countries in the European corridors. However, in fact, the aspirations of the Balts are part of a large Polish plan to seize the leading role if not all NATO and the EU, then at least in the continental part, especially those that have become relevant in connection with Brexit. Will other countries automatically defend Riga, Vilnius or Warsaw on the basis of some article of the Atlantic Treaty - a big question, but if under the direct fire of Russian howitzers are their soldiers, the public will almost certainly force their governments to take tough military measures. At least so the idea of the Baltic forcemeat looks at the sight of the Polish strategists.
There were other, even less adequate projects, such as Kiev hopes after persuading Brussels to accept Ukraine into the alliance. So, judging from the outcome document, 25-th NATO summit in Warsaw showed that for a bright overwrap in reality nothing. Absolutely. In truth, the political leadership of the military unit is not even any holistically and consistently articulate the current picture of the surrounding world.
The military alliance must exist and grow stronger because Russia has a military threat, and it has been steadily growing in recent years. However, while NATO does not view Russia as an enemy or even an adversary, Europe is ready for the broadest cooperation with Moscow on any political and military lines. France believes that with Russia one should speak only with rigid and clear positions, but in no case for the sake of its intimidation. It is only in such conditions that compromises can be reached that ensure the political and economic rapprochement between Europe and its eastern neighbor, which will strengthen peace and security on the planet. All this is combined with each other in much the same way as Brussels complains about the aggressiveness of Russian military exercises on Russian territory, even in Siberia and the Urals, with assurances of the complete safety of the creation of the US missile defense system in Eastern Europe. And absolutely Moscow should not be considered a threat to the transfer of four battalions of NATO to the Baltic states and Poland. They are there strictly on a rotational basis, and in general they will be brought there with a completely peaceful goal - to increase the security of the eastern borders of the alliance.
Simply put, all these declarations frankly resemble the circus performance of a gutta-percha boy demonstrating incredible miracles of flexibility. Although it is not surprising. The Warsaw summit of NATO actually showed the complete failure of the entire Euro-Atlantic strategy. They are there because they are forced to demonstrate the wonders of mastering the highest yoga dan, that they simply do not have anything else. The idea to turn the bloc into a sort of military instrument of the UN for carrying out projects on "coercion to peace" on the basis of its resolutions failed. To replace the international "blue helmets" did not work. Simulated, even temporarily, close cohesion before the Russian threat did not work either.
About the terrible fangs and claws of the Russian bear ritual phrases are pronounced, but they can not hide the absence of even approximate unity in the perception of threats. This is a Poles with Balts more terrible than Russian tanks with Buryat mounted paratroopers there is no danger. While for Germany, Austria, France and especially Italy with Greece, illegal migrants from the Middle East look much worse than the entire Russian First Guards Tank Army. In fact, the absolute majority of NATO countries, if they want to increase, are not military spending, but the volume of mutual trade with the Russian Federation.
In general, this means that NATO does not have a tangible presence. To fight, especially to fight offensively, they can not and, most importantly, do not want to. But they can not officially admit this fact for a number of reasons, for the time being. Otherwise, there will arise a logical question in the expediency of the existence of the alliance itself, and it is still very much needed at least for Washington, as an instrument of control over Europe. So they are forced to resort to very biting, but very streamlined formulations. To our and yours. That for domestic consumption, they looked impressive and large, but at the same time at any time from any phrase could be scraped off. However, it turns out not always.
In this regard, particularly funny looks demarche of the Russian Foreign Ministry as saying that the Russian Federation "carefully studying the decisions of the summit of the military-political bloc" and expects NATO representatives detailed explanation of the points about the strengthening of the alliance of all the "azimuth". At the upcoming meeting of the Russia - NATO, planned for July 13, Brussels officials to demonstrate the wonders of gutta-percha. Gentlemen, as they say, was caught by the tongue.
In short, if Wales is somehow could consider the creation of a dream, then Warsaw, as in the saying about the mountain brought forth a mouse. Of all the real positive results of the Polish meetings can be considered only three. Poles and Balts by NATO promises them the battalion received. However, only for a time, only removable by a mechanism of rotation, and not before the end of the year 2017. But this is some no, but still a victory. Ukrainians, out, did not get anything at all. Another won the British against the French. More precisely, there Unscrew all.
Of the promised four battalion groups one by one was supposed to be taken from the British with the French, but these guys persuaded the partners to confine themselves to just one Franco-British battalion, so to speak, in the fold. Berlin and Washington also defended their right not to bear the burden "more than the rest". So they will give one battalion each. Extreme appointed Canadians, who will have to send the missing, fourth, battalion. Moreover, these forces constitute one-fifth of all NATO high-alert troops, which the leadership of the bloc presented with such pomp in Wales two years ago. And these squalls still take something to argue about the security of the whole planet!
Hot heads from the Russian side in the interests of the Russian military-industrial complex are trying to increase the scale of the expansion of the West and somewhat frivolously interpret the results of the summit as "serious threats" to Russia. We occupy a different position and we suggest not to be nervous anywhere, not to hurry, but to calmly descend from the mountain. Another two or three such "epoch-making" summits with loud statements about the "Russian threat", and NATO summits will turn into an object for the most lethal ridicule on the part of Western media, which will be the most serious response to the prospects of this rusting military-political machine of the twentieth century .