NATO Pays The Price Of Russia’s Encirclement Madness, Disappears – OpEd
The peau de chagrin, by Honoré de Balzac (the magic skin) is an apt metaphor for NATO, that is, for its policy of recent years. NATO’s senseless attack on Russia’s security is making European security pay a bill that is difficult to pay in the short term. And who wonders if, in the future.
For the moment, financial resources, disruption of gas flows and of oil from the east, the peau seemed to satisfy everything. It seemed logical, feasible, and even to some extent joyful, to bring the pawns of the potential nuclear attack closer and closer, from country to country, to the holy mother Russia.
Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, and some I forgot it. It seemed clear that the encirclement – because it was an encirclement – could be increased at will more and more, and without objection, so Mark Rutte imagined that one day or another, between one message and another to Trump, complacent about the military spending to be increased, he could call Putiìn and ask him, sorry we have a couple of missiles leftovers by Jens Stoltenberg, a good guy but who is satisfied with little, nothing against if we put them in the suburbs of Moscow? We take care of the maintenance, you just have to give us the OK for the installation. No? And why not? I just don’t understand you.
The ridiculous progressive encirclement of Russia, which has cost hundreds of thousands of victims on both fronts, has led to a barbarization of Europe-Russia social relations – an unjustified break in cultural, sporting and artistic relations that the European populations have suffered but not shared – but what is more difficult to recompose has generated a shattering of common objectives with the USA that have been taken for granted for too long. For NATO, the anti-Russian party of the Cold War, the encirclement that began with the unification of the two Germanys did not foresee any stops. First the countries just mentioned. Ukraine immediately aafter, and then? For NATO, given the unlimited (apparent) scope of the checkering skin, which allowed the satisfaction of all desires, there was only one thing to decide: Moldova and why not Geogia? For Europe, the questions to be asked were apparently identical, but with very different implications. Ukraine immediately, – ok, sanctions, disruption of trade flows, money for Ukrainian weapons, virulent media attacks on those who thought differently – but then what?
Then came Trump and the peau de chagrin to every desire, it had shrunk more and more.
Trump, or those with him, wonder: American history tells us that we need an enemy to grow. This is a sure fact. Samuelson says it and his epigones do not deny it, but are we really sure that Russia is the best possible enemy? What if we reorient ourselves on the Pacfic where Xi is growing more and more out of proportion? Couldn’t it be a better time?
Many agree. Russia, as we know, does not pose problems of growth on the economic ground. Only if it sells gas and oil its GDP increase, but China instead grows, grows with everything. Recently with colossal investments in knowledge. Formalized by the great Chief even in the great military assemblies. Knowledge is going to be their great battlefield.
Correct. Therefore let’s move to the Pacific, and say goodbye NATO. Rutte, please buy a few missiles, tanks, and carbines. Buy and make people buy. You’re there for that, aren’t you? A few more military sprinkles are good, but bye bye to the encirclement of Russia. At least for the moment. The Europeans? Let them hurry up among themselves.
The peau de chagrin has shrunk completely. Soon it will disappear. Rodolphe, he had deluded himself that it would last forever.
Like what you read?
Please consider supporting Eurasia Review. Thank you for your consideration!
