Viktor Goryunov, Belgorod

Lugansk locksmith

You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!

You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!

You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!

You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!

Vyacheslav

You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!

crush the scum

You give Novorossiya without the Galitsians! Down with Bandera Ukraine!

Crimean

39 Bad Presidents for Ukraine

Temporary victory for Zbigniew Brzezinski

Temporary victory for Zbigniew Brzezinski

AntiBzhiz

Europe, which has lost its mind, is preparing for war with Russia?

Again, just like more than 70 years ago, when Hitler attacked the USSR, Ukraine is chosen as the battlefield. European politicians, perhaps having lost the last vestiges of sanity, rushed headlong to actively support the Ukrainian oligarchs, who are striving with all their might to "push through" the association agreement with the E. S. Russia maintains Olympic calm, but no one knows how long it will demonstrate it .

My Czech colleague Vaclav Danda recently published an article in the PROTIPROUD newspaper under the loud title “Coup in Ukraine – preparation for war with Russia?” . This fact says that despite the insanely aggressive information campaign in our media in favor of signing an association agreement with the EU by Ukraine, you can still find politicians and journalists in Europe who think differently.

Warsaw should also think about this. First of all, I want to ask a simple question: is Poland ready to pay its price for such a step by Ukraine, which has no money at all? We now have more than 2 million unemployed, and the economy is going through, if not a crisis, then deep stagnation.

And each EU member state will have to pay its share for the maintenance of 45 million impoverished Ukrainians. Supporters of Ukraine's European integration in Poland, which include both the president and the prime minister, are trying in vain to prove that Ukraine's accession to the EU will allow loading the Polish economy.

This sounds simply ridiculous, since it is absolutely impossible to believe that poor Ukrainians who receive a pension of less than 80 euros and wages in 200-300 euros, they specially hid the money somewhere, so that later, after signing an agreement with the EU, they could pull it out and rush to the shops to buy Polish goods.

Thus, it is quite obvious that the reason for the unprecedented pressure on Ukraine from the European Union and the United States is not the economy, but politics. And even a little she, how much unfounded ambitions of European politicians.

Vaclav Danda rightly notes: “... President Vladimir Putin called what is now happening in Ukraine a “pogrom” and called on Ukrainians to remain calm. This, of course, was the last thing the directors of this dangerous theater needed. Their goal, on the contrary, was to cause a civil war and to bring to power a minority that lost the elections. It is also necessary to provoke armed conflicts between the so-called "demonstrators" and units of law enforcement agencies. Such a scenario was used by the special services in Syria. We are seeing the consequences every day.”

I want to express my sincere gratitude to my Czech colleague for these truthful words:

Some may decide that the Czech Euroskeptics should be for the revolutionaries and wish them good luck in their attempts to drag Ukraine into the EU, as this may mean a weakening of centralized tendencies, a "dilution" of Brussels' power and a gradual disintegration of the EU. However, not all so simple. An attempt to include Ukraine in the EU, perhaps its division, is, first of all, a strategic blow to Russia. Russia is the “last bastion” in the fight against the strengthening of the power of the New World Order. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the events in Ukraine in a broader context.

What was the main reason why the well-known and experienced Soros agencies specializing in organizing coup d'état launched "Operation Ukraine"?

President Viktor Yanukovych has refused to sign an association agreement with the European Union that would destroy Ukraine economically and politically. The comrades in Brussels turned white with anger. From the point of view of Barroso and his undercover brothers, the situation is clear: either Ukraine will be ours or fall; we will not allow it to maintain the current level of cooperation with Russia.

And therein lies main reason that the operation civil war” in Ukraine unfolds like a reality show.

It's about- neither more nor less - about the psychological and strategic preparation of EU citizens for a war against Russia. At least - to the "cold".

The instability on the Russian borders and the influx of armed "paramilitary" groups heading for Ukraine from all over Europe serve several purposes. Including - to transfer the "revolutionary chaos" across the borders to Russia. More important, however, is the attempt to divide Ukraine and build a new “pro-European state” on Russian borders.

On the streets of Kyiv, - writes Vaclav Danda, - "hired tourists" from all over Europe are also fighting, who, together with the criminal underground, form the core of the so-called "pro-European rallies." This internationalization of the demonstrations of the agency was tested back in Syria, where foreign mercenaries are fighting today, replacing the first protesters on the streets of Damascus.

It is no coincidence that all of our Czech - approx. Author) the main Babishov-Bakalovsky newspapers squeal with delight because of the “revolution in Kyiv”. Particularly noteworthy are the articles by Luboš Palata, who, just in case, in order to "preserve the line", supplies his articles to two newspapers of the Babišov's flock at once - MF DNES and Lidové noviny. Worthy of attention is the innovation of the new Babishov manual of both editions. But, of course, even without Babis (Babiš) in the same vein, in primitive live broadcasts, the "bakalov" Czech television and Radiožurnál "make news".

We will see the consequences of the exceptionally dangerous crisis in Ukraine in the coming days. But, of course, one cannot think that professional revolutionaries from the European Union will give up their "rights" to another colony of Brussels, and that peace will reign in Ukraine again. All this, apparently, is only an overture and a test of strength.

However, the transfer of the "big chaos" closer to our borders this time should not leave us indifferent. The war is thus - so far symbolically - transferred to Europe. Troubled times await us." (End quote).

I would like to add a little to my esteemed colleague. I think that we, the Poles, short memory. When Hitler attacked Poland on September 1, 1939, the rest of Europe, represented by England and France, betrayed us. Many European countries, such as Romania, Hungary, Croatia and others, voluntarily rushed with Hitler to Russia and participated in his atrocities there. And the Polish Army covered its banners with unfading glory, fighting against fascism. Our pilots defended the skies of England.

Poland, unlike almost all European countries, did not submit to Hitler. There were no Polish units as part of the SS troops, but there were Ukrainian, Croatian, Norwegian, Belgian, and French units. The Poles did not disgrace themselves by such a phenomenon.

Of course, many Poles remember the Warsaw Uprising of 1861 and the earlier suppression of Polish riots by Alexander Suvorov. Russians love to talk about the expulsion of Sigismund's troops from the Kremlin in 1612 and their national hero Ivan Susanin.

But why dwell on these well-known facts of ancient history, when there are still many people living in Poland who remember well how the Red Army liberated us from fascism? And is it worthy for the Poles to participate in anti-Russian actions like the current Ukrainian coup?

Now, in the minds of Polish politicians, the maniacal idea of ​​​​creating “Wielka Polska” is wandering, in which the territories of Ukraine act as eastern lands. The Baltic states, which are also actively involved in the organization and support of the Ukrainian coup d'état, also hope to get their share of the pie from this process.

Against the background of all these phenomena, somehow it is not taken into account Russian factor. And the deliberate restraint of Moscow, probably by some narrow-minded statesmen seen as a sign of weakness. But it would be a big mistake to think that this is really so.

And there is nothing more unforgivable for a politician than his own stupidity.

Dmitry Simes, president of the Washington-based Center for the National Interest and publisher of The National Interest magazine, speaks very well about this.

The experience of the past 20 years shows that words of support from US and EU politicians are unlikely to turn into concrete actions, at least at the level that the Ukrainian economy would need in the absence of Russian subsidies.

Moreover, the Ukrainian opposition should listen very carefully to what US and EU officials are saying. In the case of the United States, the signal is clear: Washington is disappointed with President Viktor Yanukovych, but does not support his violent overthrow. US Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, according to media reports, expressed this idea at a meeting with opposition leaders.

Anyone familiar with achievement list Ms. Nuland, which includes serving as the US Permanent Representative to NATO, Advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney on national security, the speaker of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and, by the way, the wife of the neoconservative publicist Robert Kagan, knows that this warning is not dictated by a lack of sympathy for the Ukrainian protesters.

American politics towards Ukraine, supported by both political parties favors its gradual integration into the European Union and eventually into NATO.

But the United States was never going to give her a multi-billion dollar financial assistance preferring instead to rely on IMF loans, which are usually issued under very strict conditions. This is the area where Washington could help create more favorable conditions for Kyiv, if he wants to move towards an agreement with the European Union. Yet neither the Obama administration nor the American people have any desire to confront Russia over Ukraine.

Today, the Obama administration is interested in cooperating with the Russian Federation on urgent international affairs such as Iran and Syria. The growing tension between the United States and Beijing also does not contribute to the desire to conflict with Moscow as well.

The European Union is genuinely more interested in taking Ukraine under its wing.

Some EU member states, namely Lithuania and Poland, believe that security considerations require Ukraine to be taken away from Russia. Such a policy is also part of a centuries-old rivalry with Russia for dominance in Eastern and Central Europe. For many others in the EU, security considerations may be less important, but the encouragement of Ukraine's move towards the West seems to be a symbolic manifestation of the inherent virtue and wisdom of the European project, at a time when Eurosceptics are gaining more electoral support.

If you do not take into account the successful territorial expansion, in most matters the EU has little to boast of. The economic situation in the EU is very difficult, especially in the Mediterranean countries. The EU has not been able to effectively deal with the problems of mass migration and has not found a way to absorb large flows of new arrivals. Moreover, European interventions during the Arab Spring can hardly be called a success.

Enthusiasm in London and Paris over the invasion of Syria besieged the turn first British Parliament, and then the Obama administration, to an agreement with Russia, which persuaded them to move to the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal.

In such a situation, the entry of post-Soviet countries, and above all Ukraine, into the orbit of the European Union could give European politicians the right to claim that they are still “on right side stories".

Despite this, both the European Union and Mr. Yanukovych have learned from their own difficult experience that the EU is not ready to support its rhetoric with money. In the absence of strong support from the United States, the European Union, with its weak military resources, is not ready to take responsibility for ensuring stability in Ukraine, especially in the event of a new “orange revolution”.

Given the fact that it may be easier to remove a weakening Ukrainian president than to replace him with an effective and legitimate successor, Ukrainian opposition leaders should think twice before trying to overthrow a free and fair election or further destabilize a country that It turned out to be difficult to manage even under the most favorable circumstances.

Do not be deceived, there are no daring visionaries like Churchill or De Gaulle among European leaders today. There are not even politicians of the level of Thatcher or Kohl among them.

The current European presidents and prime ministers are, at best, pragmatic, down-to-earth politicians who go with the flow. It is absolutely natural for them to demand non-interference in Ukrainian affairs from Russia and at the same time push Ukraine with all their might to sign a treaty with the European Union. Who will pay for bringing Ukraine closer to Europe, and in particular who will ensure the country's security, are completely different questions.

Experience shows that the smiles of the leaders of Poland and Lithuania during official photo sessions with Saakashvili in August 2008 mean little, and symbolic hugs are not real support. The leaders of the Ukrainian opposition should think about this. (End quote).

Poland has already made a big mistake by agreeing to the deployment of American anti-missiles on its territory. In response we received Russian complexes"Iskander" in Kaliningrad, which made the people of Poland even more hostage to decisions made not in Warsaw, but in Washington and Moscow.

A further escalation of the Ukrainian conflict threatens to turn all of Eastern Europe into a realm of chaos and fear as tens of millions of Ukrainians flock there in search of a better fate.

It is clear that the goal of the EU is not to ensure their decent existence in conditions when in the EU countries themselves from 25 to 40 percent of the population live below the poverty line, and the unemployment rate has reached a critical level.

At the same time huge financial resources The European Union is spent on inciting the Ukrainian conflict, fooling and fooling the Ukrainian society. And none of the politicians answers the question: would it not be better to spend this money on solving their own problems? economic problems our countries. And why should Europeans pay for the fantasies of their officials and the ambitions of Ukrainian oligarchs?

By the way, while recently in Kyiv, I heard this anecdote:

A western journalist asks a lousy, filthy and dirty “Maidanite”, who with apparent pleasure swallows a huge piece of bread with sausage:

Are you for association with the EU?

Are you against Yanukovych?

Are you in favor of Ukraine joining the Customs Union?

Why are you standing here then?

And where will I find such a paradise, even every day?, - follows a completely logical answer for this type of Ukrainians.

It is high time for our politicians dealing with Ukraine to understand that every day of Euromaidan for European money bleeds our economy. And the Ukrainian crisis is quite capable of going beyond the borders of Ukraine itself.

They should not think that Russia will simply hand over Ukraine to the sphere of influence of the European Union. This is the height of either naivety or stupidity.

European politicians do not even allow the idea that Russia can take any action within the framework of the possible to keep Ukraine.

It seems that the EU and the US have forgotten the old truth from Otto von Bismarck - "politics is the art of the possible." However, the “iron chancellor” in relation to Russia seemed to be warning his future followers from the US EU with his less well-known quote: “Even the most favorable outcome of the war will never lead to the decomposition of the main strength of Russia, which is based on millions of Russians themselves ... dismembered by international treatises, they are just as quickly reunited with each other, like particles of a cut piece of mercury. ."

In a war of nerves on the verge of a foul, Putin has the advantage. His actions and the statements of Russian diplomats do not have such a pronounced hysterical naive-infantile tone, which is stubbornly demonstrated by representatives of the EU and the USA at the highest level.

And it is absolutely impossible to imagine such a stupid situation when one of the Russian politicians comes to Ukraine to distribute cookies on Anti-Maidan. It seems that Russia has some kind of trump card, which it is not yet ready to put on the table.

The National Interest

• Translator: nessie264

Original publication: Why Isn "t Europe Preparing for a War with Russia?

Three years ago, the United States withdrew its combat formations from Europe. Now they are sending them back, with regular rotation, to deter the Russian attack. As Brigadier General Timothy Dougherty explained, "Preparing for war is much cheaper than waging it."

Correctly. But why is Europe not preparing for it?

During the Cold War, the United States kept about 300,000 soldiers in Europe. This number dropped to 65,000 a couple of years ago. Even so, there were too many of them: this continent should have been out of American philanthropic defense tutelage long ago. In addition, the North Atlantic Alliance expanded to the borders with Russia and threatened to annex Georgia and Ukraine, former territories that were part of Russian Empire and the Soviet Union. From Moscow's point of view, NATO continued the game of deterrence, only now near the borders of Russia and in its former ancestral territories.

Along the way, Washington and Brussels dismembered Serbia, not at all considering Russia's historical interests in the Balkans. The United States established relationships and gained bases, even in Central Asia. American politics seemed to be the opposite of the infamous "Brzezinski Doctrine": what's mine is mine, and what's yours can be discussed.

Although there was long-standing consensus in Washington regarding the Department of Defense as the key to international well-being protecting prosperous and populous allies, candidate Donald Trump suggested a possible change when he criticized American military subsidies for Europeans. When he took office, he paid tribute to a slight increase in military spending in European countries, but continued to sacrifice the interests of the Americans for the sake of European governments, which prefer to shift the responsibility for their own protection onto the shoulders of others.

Many on the continent see no serious threat to their security: few, if any, Europeans imagine Russian hordes rolling across Europe to the Atlantic. And European governments, whether they're worried or not, are counting on Washington to protect them. So why burden European taxpayers when the bill can be sent to America?

Why are politicians in Washington, and especially President Trump, so willing to make Americans bear this burden? Vladimir Putin has a difficult character. Everyone knows this. But the world is full of unpleasant authoritarian rulers. This does not make them a threat to America.

Despite the overwhelmed rhetoric that overwhelms Washington, Moscow does not pose a significant threat to the United States. The fuss over the 2016 elections was offensive, but Washington did the same thing, only much more often and in many more countries. The Trump administration should push for Russia to drop this while promising that America won't make the same mistakes again in the future.

the Russian Federation- the only country with a comparable nuclear potential, but to use it means to guarantee a devastating retaliation strike. While Russia rebuilt its conventional military after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow is a serious regional power, not a global one. Nothing indicates that Putin has the slightest interest in a confrontation with America.

Moreover, the United States and Russia do not have any significant conflicts over important interests. Instead, the two governments clash over peripheral issues such as Syria (which Moscow has long allied with and means little to America) and Georgia and Ukraine (which are not important to US security). On the contrary, both America and Russia fear Islamic terrorism and oppose nuclear programs Iran and North Korea and confront a potentially aggressive China.

Yet America is returning troops to Europe. U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said: "We in the U.S. Army believe this additional capability is probably needed" to contain Russia. The commander of US forces in Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, stated that "We will do this as long as necessary." He added that "we will not deviate from this course in the future."

And what are the Europeans doing in connection with Russia? They are, shall we say, "busy". Or perhaps they feel that they have already done everything they could.

Europe now spends twice as much on the armed forces as Russia. If European governments are not spending efficiently, they need to fix it, rather than wait for Washington to intervene again. And, if they felt threatened, they would do much more. General Hodges praised Lithuania for carving out 2.07% of GDP for the army, but if this government is tremblingly awaiting the appearance of the Russians tank divisions, then these expenses should be doubled or tripled. The point is not to crush the hordes of Moscow, but to ensure that any attack would be too costly and not worth the expense.

The same is true for Estonia, Latvia and Poland. All of them, apparently, passionately desire to receive American garrisons. But what they should get is the military contingents of their European neighbors.

But moving further away from the border states, most Europeans are too busy to worry too much about defense issues. German spending rose from 1.18% in 2016 to 1.22% this year, but is expected to come down in 2018.

It is fair to assume that no one in Germany, at least, expects the Bundeswehr to be involved in hostilities. Even the Germans joke that their soldiers' role is to delay the Russians until the real military forces arrive. The likelihood of the Germans heading east to save the Baltics or Poland or anyone else is minimal at best.

But then who would believe that Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Belgian, Danish, Montenegrin, Luxembourgish, Slovene, Slovak and Czech troops would create a great expeditionary army to repel Putinists in tarpaulin boots? As it was once said about Auckland, "there is not even anything there," if we talk about the armies of European countries.

The problem is not insufficient resources. European countries in terms of total population exceed America, and have an economy equal to it. Their military strength may lag behind America's, but they are not helpless. In terms of potential, the United States is followed by France and the United Kingdom, followed by Turkey. Then come Germany and Italy. All of them could do much more if they wanted to.

And the Europeans have many suitable military service human resources. Only Turkey has about four hundred thousand people under arms. Admittedly, Ankara doesn't look like a staunch ally right now, but if so, why is it still in NATO? Anyway, Italy has about 250,000 citizens in the army. France has about 200,000 men, Germany has about 180,000, Greece has about 160,000 and the United Kingdom has over 150,000 personnel. In Spain, 124,000 people. And these countries could increase the number of their armed forces, if it were thought that this was justified by security considerations. Not the United States, but these countries should have offered to increase the number of armies, and much more, to contain Russia.

More than seventy years after the end of World War II, the inhabitants Western Europe completed economic reconstruction, overthrew hostile communist regimes and included the states of Central and Eastern Europe in the pan-European project. Collectively, they are far ahead of what is left of the once formidable Russian Empire and the Soviet Union.

Moscow can beat smaller neighbors like Georgia, but it won't be easy for it to swallow Ukraine, and it certainly won't conquer Europe. And, if there is any doubt about the latter, the Europeans can accelerate the retreat of their military capabilities, which are already on the decline, facing economic stagnation, demographic decline and political crisis in the coming years.

Uncle Sam is practically bankrupt. It will face a trillion-dollar deficit in the coming years. And yet Congress refuses to make hard choices, preferring to cut revenue rather than solve the spending problem. As federal debt, social spending, and international commitments clash with each other, it is likely that a crisis will force action. Likely to suffer indiscriminately interventionist foreign policy. Few American seniors will willingly donate old-age health insurance or social security programs to give Europeans a secure existence in a lavish welfare state. Washington would do better with carefully considered and systematic spending cuts rather than rushing headlong into the crisis.

Europeans will never stop calling for increased US military commitments, but the United States authorities may stop offering to pay for it. Washington should stay in NATO and other alliances only as long as they advance American security interests. Protecting countries that can defend themselves does nothing to advance these interests.

Subscribe to us

MOSCOW, October 25 - RIA Novosti, Andrey Stanavov. Airfields, ports, railway stations and roads - NATO is gradually turning Europe into a huge springboard for the instantaneous transfer of large military contingents and heavy weapons. The transport mechanism, rather rusty after the Cold War, is rocked and lubricated, carefully restoring the lost gears. No one hides the motive anymore - the "Russian threat".

On Wednesday it became known that the alliance intends to approve the creation of two new military commands in case of a potential conflict with Russia. One of them will deal with logistics, the second one will "secure" sea routes in the Atlantic and Northern Arctic Ocean from Russian submarines. About what these actions really mean and how they can threaten Russia - in the material of RIA Novosti.

block thinking

Trench snakes, roadblocks, sandbags and tanks dug into the ground - it is possible that this is exactly how NATO strategists see Europe in the future. According to The Wall Street Journal newspaper, citing officials from allied countries, a separate command could be created to speed up the movement of people and logistics in NATO. This issue will be finally decided in November at the quarterly meeting of the defense ministers of the countries of the bloc.

© AP Photo / Mindaugas Kulbis

© AP Photo / Mindaugas Kulbis

All the military know that the combat effectiveness of any army directly depends on well-organized logistics. Operational folding and deployment of groupings, rotation, transfer, redeployment, pulling up the rear, landing operations- for all this you need a debugged like a Swiss watch transport infrastructure. In war, everything is used - iron and highways, civil airfields, seaports and hubs. Now NATO, together with the United States, is actively putting this economy in order.

"They need to organize the movement of troops not so much in Europe as from North America to Europe, notes Alexander Khramchikhin, deputy director of the Institute for Political and Military Analysis. - We are talking about the transfer of heavy connections, because with what the United States now has in Europe, it is absolutely impossible to resist Russia. However, they are unlikely to actually transfer something, because, firstly, it is expensive, and secondly, because of this, the United States itself will already be exposed.

© Ruptly

The West makes no secret of the fact that the issue of increasing the mobility of troops in the course of reforming the command structure of the alliance is being addressed among the first. As NATO spokesman Oana Lungescu told RIA Novosti, the allies are even adapting national legislation so that military equipment can move across the border faster.

“In military terms, this is not really logistics, but rather the preparation of conditions for the regrouping of troops and equipment from the continental United States to Europe,” says Chief Editor magazine "Aerospace Frontier", military expert Mikhail Khodarenok. "Reliable communications will shorten the time it takes for units and formations to be relocated to what they consider to be threatened areas."

Few roads

The Americans have repeatedly complained about problems with the transportation of military cargo and manpower across the EU. According to the commander of the US Armed Forces in Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, linking Germany and Poland railway tracks in the event of hostilities will not be enough, in addition, many European bridges will not support the weight of tanks.

"The strengthening of bridges is the first symptom of preparations for the transfer of heavy armored vehicles. For example, when heavy armor began to arrive in our Western Military District military equipment, the first intelligence sign for the Western intelligence services was just the work to strengthen the bridges," Khodarenok told RIA Novosti.

In fact, Hodges advocates the creation of a "military Schengen" to quickly deliver troops to Lithuania through transit countries. He is sure that the provision of any military operations in the east of Europe will pass through Poland.

A large logistics hub of the alliance is already being created at the Polish Air Force base near the village of Powidz. It is planned to invest $200 million in the military airfield and turn it into a powerful hub to support NATO forces in all the Baltic countries and northern Europe, as well as in Bulgaria and Romania.
Khodarenok noted that it is too early to talk about a real build-up of the bloc's forces. But, in his opinion, all the measures taken will contribute to the fact that units and formations of the armed forces of the United States and NATO countries will be transferred to the western borders of Russia much faster than before, which will increase tension between the alliance and Moscow.

"We won't give up the Arctic"

It is interesting that, according to the newspaper, in addition to the logistics command, NATO plans to form another one - responsible for protecting sea routes to Europe in the areas of the Atlantic and Arctic oceans - in particular, from threats from submarines. Obviously, Russian submarines are meant, since the Chinese rarely drop in there.

“Russia is definitely not preparing for such actions, especially in the Atlantic,” notes a member of the naval board under the Russian government, ex-commander Northern Fleet Admiral Vyacheslav Popov. “Our defense strategy is to protect our own frontiers. It was during the Second World War that German submarines operated there against convoys from the United States to Europe and England. We have no such intentions for the foreseeable future."

Speaking about the Arctic Ocean, the admiral emphasized that his Arctic zone and the Northern sea ​​route Russia will not give it to anyone and will continue to build up potential there.

Many military experts see the creation of a new NATO command as part of a plan to cover sea lanes for the future transfer of troops and heavy weapons from the United States along them.

The main European military hub of the United States today remains the American airbase Ramstein in Germany. As a key logistics hub, it also serves as the headquarters of the US Air Force in Europe and command center joint air defense of NATO countries. The base houses 16 squadrons of military transport aircraft of the 86th air wing and about 40,000 people. personnel. In addition to Ramstein, the Pentagon maintains another 350 smaller bases in Europe, 40 of which it owns.

According to experts, now much indicates that the United States is consistently preparing infrastructure in the countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltics to accommodate a group of troops numbering up to 150,000 people there.

What causes the foreign ministers of vulnerable US allies to wake up terrified at night? The idea that Russian President Vladimir Putin will do to their countries what he has already done to Ukraine and Georgia: start a hybrid war. A war denied by the head of state, reinforced by cyberattacks and sabotage, in which planes, tanks and unmarked soldiers march into foreign territory. A war that doesn't cross the line for a full-scale invasion.

About this on the pages of the Washington Post writes former minister Foreign Affairs and ex-Chairman of the Sejm of Poland Radoslav Sikorski, who recalls that he himself was the chief diplomat of such a "vulnerable country".

“We would call for help, but the situation could be too ambiguous to justify international intervention. We would like our allies, especially the United States, not to make diplomatic demarches or send fact-checking missions, but to send their planes, tanks and soldiers, ”writes Sikorsky.

In his opinion, this is not even the worst scenario imaginable. In fact, over the past few years, Russia has been preparing something even more sinister. The Russian military exercises "West" worked out a hypothetical scenario for the start of a hybrid war against the Baltic countries using nuclear weapons. This is part of the Russian military doctrine, which analysts formulate as "escalation for de-escalation." However, this approach is clearly not peaceful. It means that Moscow is going to stun the other leaders so hard that they immediately give up. Given that planning nuclear war has become unacceptable in today's postmodern world, Russia expects other countries to be slow to retaliate if faced with a real nuclear threat. Silence even for 60 hours will already bring victory to the aggressor.

The essence of NATO is precisely to prevent this. Only the President of the United States has the power to respond to Russian threats and actions at each stage of the escalation. Only America can compare with Russia even in Central Europe in terms of the number of aircraft, cruise missiles, nuclear warheads. The security of Europe on the northern flank depends on the readiness of the United States to use force here.

But over the past week, it has become clear that the American president considers the Europeans his "enemy" and that the Europeans supposedly owe NATO money, although this is not true. Sikorsky considers it clear that Trump is trying to destabilize the democratically elected leaders of Germany and Britain, which will play in favor of their radical opponents. He launched a trade war with Europe because it allegedly threatens US national security. And in the scandalous case of Russian meddling in US politics, he trusts Russia's murderous dictator more than the American intelligence services.

According to him, the contrast between hostility the US president to allies and soft to Putin is already enough to sow doubt among Europeans.

“At this critical moment in the crisis we fear, we want Trump to roar into the phone, Anu, take your thugs back to Russia, Vladimir, or there will be repercussions!” But will he really do it? adds the Polish politician, recalling that Trump questions the usefulness of alliances.

“I would like to tell him that Poland did not send brigades to the weakly justified war in Iraq because of the fear of the weapons of mass destruction of that country. That we didn't send another brigade to Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks because we were afraid that the Taliban would come to Warsaw and enslave our girls. That I didn't sign the hosting agreement American system ABM on Polish territory, because it was afraid of a possible attack by Iran. And that we didn't buy F-16s from Lockheed Martin, or airliners from Boeing, or missiles from Raytheon, because they're necessarily better than their European equivalents. We are doing all this because consistent Polish leaders have invested in US security guarantees,” Sikorski said.

He adds that after last week Poland and the Europeans have to deal with a reality in which no one - not the State Department, not the Pentagon, not the National Security Council - knows what Trump will do in the event of a crisis due to Russian aggression. Perhaps he himself does not know.

This does not mean that NATO is over. The alliance must continue to exist, and European countries must certainly spend more on defense, hoping that there will never be any crisis.

But it also means that the European Union needs an autonomous ability to defend itself. It is needed on the southern flank, where hundreds of thousands of refugees flock, on the eastern flank, where Russia broke the taboo of forcefully changing borders after World War II, and it is needed because the US president is unreliable.

“As foreign minister, I advocated the creation of a European Defense Union. If there were no Brexit, the UK could now lead the process. But now the initiative has fallen on the shoulders of France, Germany and the EU leaders themselves. Trump challenges us with an unpleasant choice: either we become his personal vassals, or we hang helplessly in the air. We should not choose any of these options,” said the ex-Foreign Minister of Poland.

On June 7-8, NATO defense ministers discussed in Brussels the possibility of increasing the bloc's response force by 30,000 people.

Alliance Secretary General J. Stoltenberg informed that as part of the “NATO Readiness Initiative”, the Allies plan to keep 30 mechanized battalions, 30 aviation squadrons, 30 warships ready for use in 30 days from 2020. These forces and assets should be allocated from the national forces of NATO member countries that are not part of the rapid reaction forces or deployed as part of the enhanced forward presence (Enhanced Forward Presence) on the eastern flank of the alliance.

Recall that the Alliance has focused on increasing the response force and the initiative to strengthen the forward presence after the “annexation” of Crimea by Russia in 2014. Then the number of NATO SDRs was increased to 40,000 troops. In their structure, an emergency response formation was created - a brigade of up to 5 thousand people, including 3-5 battalions with support and support units. The formation is on duty on a rotational basis and reaches readiness in stages. Thus, the brigade has been in readiness for deployment in the area of ​​a probable conflict for three years: the first year - within 45 days, the second - within - 5-7 days, the third year - within 30 days. It should be understood that three brigades are at the same time in varying degrees of readiness for 5-7, 30 and 45 days.

Also, since 2017, 4.6 thousand NATO troops have been deployed in Poland and the Baltic countries in close proximity to the borders of Belarus and Russia - these are four combat battalion groups of the union, ready for immediate use.

An American armored brigade and an army aviation brigade are stationed here on a rotational basis.

In general, this is a land contingent of about a division, which can be ready for combat operations within 45 days.

In addition, there are still US NEs in Europe stationed on a permanent basis. According to Washington, this is not enough to repel a likely Russian strike.

It is interesting that on the eve of the June meeting of the heads of the Defense Ministry and the NATO summit scheduled for July 11-12 this year in Brussels, the authoritative American newspaper The Wall Street Journal informed that at present the Alliance is not sufficiently prepared to repel aggression and is really ready to send only about 11,000 servicemen entered the conflict area. The largest number of combat-ready battalions, according to analytical center"RAND Corporation" has Italy, which this year is leading the formation of an emergency response force. So, for participation in a possible conflict, Rome is able to allocate five battalions within 30 days, Great Britain, France, Germany - three each, and the rest of the countries - Spain, Norway, Poland, Holland, Denmark - none.

In turn, a number of military analysts note that the RAND information is not entirely true. For example, the long-term rotation schedule for NATO's First Engagement Force (STF) shows that Poland and Denmark are in this year must have at least one battalion ready to be deployed to the conflict area within 30 days, because countries in 2017 already allocated them to the emergency response formation.

By the way, in autumn Poland will host a large-scale Anaconda-18 exercise, the first stage of which will be the final check of the headquarters of the German-Danish-Polish corps from Szczecin, which is responsible specifically for the deployment and management of the SPZ in Eastern Europe. Everything suggests that the practical training of the command of the priority engagement forces is underway to make decisions on their use in the Eastern European theater of operations, and an increase in their numbers is only a matter of the near future.

Currently, Poland and the Baltic States continue to be an important part of the security system in Europe. The emergence of this kind of "pool" of forces of the Union will be a change in the Alliance's response system in the event of a high-intensity conflict and will significantly change the balance of power near the borders of Belarus and Russia.