Click to see the full-size image
Written by Lucas Leiroz, member of the BRICS Journalists Associations, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, military expert
Apparently, NATO is developing a new approach to its relations with the Russian Federation. According to a recent statement by a high-ranking American official, it was revealed that the Atlantic alliance is about to establish a new strategy to confront Moscow, which is expected to be as bellicose as the previous one, if not worse.
US Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs James O’Brien said on July 30 during a hearing of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Washington is working with its partners to review NATO’s strategy for Russia. The aim of the change is to adapt the alliance’s approach to current circumstances, while maintaining the central objective of making Ukraine “win” the current proxy war.
O’Brien said some changes are needed for the alliance to revitalize support for Kiev. He assured that NATO will remain supportive of the Ukrainian regime as long as hostilities continue, emphasizing the importance of aid provided by the EU and encouraging the US to take more significant steps in support programs.
The official made some positive comments about Ukraine’s possible accession to the EU. He believes that this will be an important step towards renewing NATO’s support, as it will allow a series of democratic reforms in Ukraine, making it more integrated with the Western world and allowing the creation of new assistance projects.
O’Brien also highlighted the importance of the G7 countries giving to Ukraine all frozen Russian sovereign assets as quickly as possible, which would immediately create a package of up to 50 billion dollars to be given to Kiev later this year. Apparently, one of the main concerns in this supposed “new strategy” is precisely the financial viability of supporting Kiev, which O’Brien hopes will be partially solved through the stealing of Russian assets.
Finally, the last step to be taken by the West in this “new strategy” would be the definitive entry of Ukraine into NATO. He believes that, with the reforms planned for the alliance to enter the EU, as well as the supposed military progress that Kiev would be able to make upon receiving a new aid package, it would be possible to advance the necessary changes for the country to comply with NATO requirements.
O’Brien seems genuinely optimistic in his assessment, as NATO officials have repeatedly assured that Ukraine could enter the alliance only after an eventual “victory against Russia.” The Assistant believes that this victory is still possible, although there is no prediction from military analysts about Kiev “changing the game” on the battlefield.
In fact, it is not clear from O’Brien’s statement what NATO’s “new strategy” will actually be. He just announced some small changes in the tactical-operational plan for supporting Ukraine. Apart from this, the objectives of the alliance regarding Russia were preserved. NATO continues trying to “encircle”, “suffocate” and “wear down” Russia through Ukraine. By establishing Kiev’s entry into NATO as part of the plan, O’Brien also made it clear that there will be no possibility of peace in the long term, as Moscow will obviously not accept this, given the high risks that this access would bring to Russia.
In some parts of his speech, O’Brien also mentioned China, which continues to be described as the supposed “enabler” of the Russian special military operation. He believes that by establishing this strategy to confront Russia it will also be possible to deter China, theoretically achieving the great American objective of “neutralizing” Moscow and Beijing at the same time. O’Brien claims that the “new strategy’s” measures will create a better security “platform” for the West, which seems to mean a scenario in which Russia and China would not have enough strength to challenge the American unilateral order.
In fact, a NATO “new strategy” for Russia will only be effective when it revises its objectives. As long as the alliance continues to aim to preserve the decadent unipolar global order, there will be no peace. If the West continues trying to “encircle” and “wear down” Russia, there will continue to be wars because Moscow cannot allow enemy countries to threaten the lives of its citizens on its own borders.
Furthermore, it is important to emphasize how this supposed “new strategy” seems useless from all points of view. Ukraine will not be able to reverse the military scenario of the conflict under any circumstances, simply because the country’s armed forces are already on the verge of collapse, with new military aid packages being ineffective. The country’s entry into NATO would only be possible if Kiev won the conflict, which will not happen. In the same sense, Ukrainian entry into the EU itself also seems far from becoming a reality, as the most corrupt state in Europe will never adapt to European standards of liberal democracy.
In the end, once again, instead of seeking a real change of approach and an efficient path to peace, NATO only worsens its war plans.
MORE ON THE TOPIC:
sick. with all this money and willpower, there would be a solution to cancer, als and memory disorders.
yeah, they could have even kept biden babbling for another few years.
btw: when’s junior’s tax evasion and money laundering trial? i’ll bet the old coot wants to stay in office ’til jan just to pardon him.
i can just see the headlines now. “parmesan pete pardoned by daddy cornpop” lol
to be honest, everything what is happening now was preplanned 30 years ago. neocons never changed their approach towards russia, only putin’s super weak foreign policy and giving nato one former eastern bloc country after another for free a bit delayed inevitable conflict natoxrussia. we can speculate why russia betrayed all of their citizens abroad except of crimea. some people claim it was super clever 3d chess from putin. i think he has ugly deals with global elites.
oh, i nearly forgot, putin was able to protect abkhazia and south ossetia in rare exception that proves the rule.
a lot of this preplanning for a nato aggression towards russia happened before putin came to power. the attack against serbia and the building of the largest us base in europe, camp bondsteel had a little to do with protecting the kla narco terrorists and a whole lot more to do with a future conflict, whether proxy or direct, against russia.
rammstein – we all live in america, it’s wunderbar !
ramming it up germany’s behind for 80 years and counting.
indeed. yugoslavia’s violent dismemberment was always in their cards as a prelude to georgia and ukraine. remember warren zimmerman’s visit to izetbegovic? couldn’t be peaceful dissolution for the us. had to be a violent one.
the bushtard giving russia a heads up in 2008 about georgia and ukraine in nato kind of sealed the deal.
some neocontard whispered in the bushtard’s ear “oh boy, we can control all of the black sea with those two in nato.”
do you think it was honestly a betrayal or was it russia’s lack of ability to reasonably provide them safety.
nato and the west plays dirty, they play dirty with their own citizens, i feel like putin’s attitude would be “if they want to be protected they should be here in russia”.
the talk of the retarded soviet who misses the years of hunger and misery that was the u. soviet. russia is just a distance away, no one misses the russian corruption, its already clear that the scum did inhungary poland chernobyl etc etc
it was not about soviets. russia transformed economy, tried to please western partners just to see all of the former eastern bloc country joining nato. bombing yugoslavia was one big fuck off from the west to show everybody in the eastern bloc how it will end when not obeying western rules. what eastern bloc really needed was western technology and russian resources. what we got was embargo on russian resources and own industry decimated by global cartels
are you talking about the yeltsen era, when russia ended up bankrupt. earning 20 cents, to every $us on their energy? they even had to pay the us contract fees to mine their own natural resources. why did president putin tell the oligarchs to be good russian citizens, pay their taxes and keep out of politics or go and live in exile?
2) why did president putin, who became acting president of russia on 31 december 2000, take back control of the the vast wealth of natural resources, from the oligarchs and their western masters? was it not to benefit russia? yes or no? russia went from a bankrupt nation, back in the 90s, to now having over $600 billion in currency and gold reserves. the people pay a flatrate tax, well under what western citizens pay.
3) they have free healthcare and also free education, including university level. they are back in control of their vast wealth of natural resources. a nation not reliant on genetically modified agricultural products and self dependent, with minimal debt. plus the most powerful military in the world. what more do you want from president putin? or would you prefer a zelinsky type of leader, controlling russia?
so now in ukraine the neoconnivers and their ukroscammer buddies are pulling the same shares for loans scam at 5 cents on the dollar that they pulled on yeltsin until putin mopped it up.
history rhymes a lot. sometimes i think the entirety of us foreign policy should be prosecuted under the rico statues.
obviously not under yeltsin, there was complete and utter stagnation, everyone knows that, it was under putin/medvedev that a lot of major changes for the better occurred in russia.
remember the bolsheviks overthrew the russian empire, back in 1917. when poland was divided by prussia, austrian-hungarian empire and russia. how small was the territory of ukraine back then? didn’t they do well, when the bolsheviks were running the soviet union. remember, the soviet union, made up of 15 members. what happened when it fell?
2) how many claimed ‘professional victim status’ and took their begging bowls, as they rushed to the bolshevik led eu, blaming russia for everything? ignoring the fact that the soviet union was led by the bolsheviks, that were a creation of the city of london, vatican and washington dc. how many bolshevik leaders were actually russian? how many were ukrainian? how many were georgian, etc, etc, etc?
go back to the beginning of the 20th century. who was behind the bolsheviks overthrowing the russian empire? who was behind the creation of the national socialist party, specifically the one that adolf led? with regards going back 30 years, remind me what state was russia in, prior to president putin taking charge? who bankrupted russia, back then? now russia is back to being a nuclear triad super-power and ukraine borders are returning to pre-bolshevik days.
a new plan is an admission of the failure of the old plan. the new plan is more likely to be worse than the old plan. how is it possible that a satanic zionist deep state dictatorship that is dying from within will conquer russia and china as well as the mid-east and the rest of the world
back in the 90s, many belgium politicians had to resign, owing to their links to mark dutroux and interests in children. where did they go? nato hq is based in brussels, belgium, together with the eu. where did those belgium politicians go? the think tanks feeding nato, always look at the polemic argument, which only looks at one answer to the problem. hence they never learn. they also promote the least credible person, with the lowest iq, but largest ego, for management positions.
‘european standards of liberal democracy’
ha ha, there are none! eu is fascist. unless rf wakes up to this it is going to be further chipped away.
ukr will not join nato (yet) simply because it would be inconvenient for usa, which owns all ukr land/politicians. rf draws red-lines and yanks/nato break them, as this struggle is as much existential for the ‘kingdom of yankee debt’ (and it’s acolytes) as for poor rf.
ukraine tried joining nato, back in 1997. they could not, owing to the fact that they have not ratified their borders, with russia and belarus, in accordance with international law. as confirmed by the un, back in 2014. the same argument applies, so they can neither join nato or the eu, in accordance with international law, until the problem is sorted.
ukraine tried to throw the russian fleet out of crimea back in 2008 or so under american puppet yushchenko too, by his vow to not renew its lease in 2017 but yushchenko was too incompetent even for a ukrainian candidate and failed a re-election that even the us couldn’t fudge. maidan was just nato’s second grab at crimea’s brass ring.
didn’t yukoshenko renew the lease on the base, to allow russia to lease it until 2034, just before the maidan? the comical factor being that nato were already measuring up the carpets and curtains, believing they would kick russia out. then you had the uss donald cook, back in march 2014, leading a nato fleet, to kick russia out. only it got seen off by bastion and a whicker basket. first time the russians had seen a us destoyer manage a figure of 8, over in the black sea.
eu is already falling apart, lads in the uk are rampaging and beating on foreigners and police alike out of frustration, it is only going to get worse.
imagine trying to force lads who behave like that into conscription, it won’t work it will cause the uk to further fall apart.
same is somewhat happening to the united states, however trump being elected is basically the end of ukraine’s hope of being in nato.
looks like the eurotard nazis will be the cannonfodder for this “new russia strategy”. i hope the krauts, frogs, blimey limeys and mussolinis are aware that we americans will use them up just as we do with the ukrainian nazis.
just as we did with the german nazis.
but i am almost 100% sure the eurotards will continiue to live in their make-believe world of everything nice and sugar and spice.
guillable clowns!
isn’t it the aim of zelinsky and his masters that they have to completely erase the population of ukraine? who wants to go back, but, without ukrainian citizens getting in the way? complete genocide and ethnic cleansing of ukraine, courtesy zelinsky and his masters and nothing less.
they, nato, have been trying for 50 years. maybe they must sun tzu’s the art of war.
au mancat o fasole au flatulenta la creieri. nue omoara oameni acum. isi omoara si infometeaza proprii oameni. nue ne saraceste. era, era o clasa de valori ca la școală. cu valori. acum iti impube sa cumperi stiloul doar de unde vrea ea. nue are o politica de mediu ce ingroapa competiția. nue e lagar acum. nici un american oficial nu va muri luptand cu ursoaica. europenii vor muri toti pe front. sunt ca italienii in wwll care visau sa fiarba paste iarna in rusia.
they have been starting, since the foundations of nato were laid. remember the cia was launched in the same year that a certain nation was created in the middle east. back in 1947. the first exercise of the cia, under the leadership of one of the dulles brothers was ‘operation paperclip’. the safe passage of the nazi and bolshevik elite.
2) the un was founded in 1945, based on the talks that originated from yalta, crimea, russia, between stalin, churchill and roosevelt. the un charter, based on self determination/will of the people, was originally formed in yalta, crimea, russia, yet the west demand that the opinions of ‘will of the people’ of crimea are ignored. north atlantic treaty organisation (nato) was formed in 1949, run by those given free passage by the cia
bolshevik elite? you mean the former trotskiites who founded the neoconservative movement?
didn’t the grandsons of trotsky’s right hand man, end up serving under the scottish labour mps/prime ministers, blair and brown? bolsheviks were created by rockerfellers, ‘left’ and ‘right’ media barons northcliffe and rothermere, (the maxwell and murdoch of their day).
2) so many politicians and corporate elite have come out of the ‘operation paperclip’ exercise. the milibands were refugees to the uk, from brussels. adolf miliband, son of samuel (trotskys mate) known as ralph, was a polish-j*w, born in brussels and ended up as a refugee living in england.
i’ll repeat myself again as an american talking about the mc/host of the un… when does russia stop seeing the logic of remaining in a “club” (literally) that gives them no incentives to remain and bring it’s foreign service home from the west while expelling foreign service from the west inside russia?… especially after the prisoner exchange earlier this week???
someone needs to tell the russian federation they are at war with the west going on 11 years, and it’s getting worse for them to remain in that western compact not better!
they have been at war a lot longer than that? how long have the bankers been after the natural resources of russia, with an aim of turning it into tiny little states? napoleon, assassination of the tzars, bolshevik overthrow of the russian empire, adolf etc, etc, etc. i do believe the russians are fully upto speed with their history and need to protect their nation. can any westerner state the same?
to your point. remembering the agreements about nato eastward expansion being “not possible”… the kursk… and belsan massacre… and no i do not see where there is any diplomacy left or “smoother” with a veto vote that is neutered and has been before maidan…
many times worse… the betrayal of vasily nebenzya to the un charter when he said last month regarding the “equality for all un members” when he spoke to the charges against his country attacking a school in ukraine that he laid out was done by someone else!…. after all thats been done to his country how could even utter that incredible lie?…
“bretrayal” being his argument that the un charter gave equality to all it’s members over the 80 years it’s been in existence….
keep repeating. russia acts in accordance with international law and diplomacy. we only hear about the americans that were released under the agreement, not the russians who were also released. we also have no reason to be informed of what occurs under the terms of ‘diplomacy’? do we see the bigger picture, where trading is required, in order to make it smoother to define?
weird, how nato think tanks keep coming up with intelligence based on one side of an argument, believing them to be powerful and russia to be where they were in the 90s. how many ‘kiddie sniffers’ can be found amongst nato elite and their think tank crowd? russia has the most powerful military in the world, at a cost of around $75 billion. how much does defence cost nato member nations? a lot more than $75 billion and is there anything left in their toybox?
new russia strategy’s a good idea since the old one of marching on moscow was a monumental flop
maybe throwing nuland into a hawaiian volcano to appease the gods might help.
hold me back hold me back……… says the demented obese transgender mutant idiot golem from pentacon kill industries inc. this time i’m gonnna…gonnna…..yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn. down the sewer with the anglozionazi empire of turd.