NATO From Russia's MFA Perspective

Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko's interview with Rossiya Segodnya, October 8, 2024

After Lavrov’s Newsweek interview, numerous items have appeared speculating on what some see incorrectly as the latest in Russia’s negotiating platform which has actually been known for many weeks as it’s been articulated by both Putin and Lavrov on many occasions. As most know, NATO has a new spokesman, the former Dutch PM Rutte. Rossiya Segodnya sought the thoughts of Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko’s on the new man and old organization. At its conclusion, I offer my thoughts as to the current Ukraine situation in general in relation to the musings by European NATO members on how the war can be halted. But first, the interview:

Question: The new NATO Secretary General Martin Rutte is known for his anti-Russia position. Does this increase the risk that under him the alliance may become a full-fledged participant in the conflict around Ukraine and a military clash with Russia?

Answer: In fact, the presence of an anti-Russian charge was one of the prerequisites for the election of a new NATO Secretary General. I would like to remind you of his role as a functionary who voices the consolidated position of the allies and heads the secretariat of the North Atlantic Alliance in his official position. He does not determine the policy of the bloc, this is done by the NATO Council. On key issues, it is dictated by the United States.

As for the risk of a military clash between Russia and the alliance, it is growing. This is not due to the personality of the new Secretary General, but to the course of NATO as a whole, where the radicals, led by the Anglo-Saxons, consistently promoted a policy of confrontation with Russia. Now the political and military activities of the bloc are aimed precisely at this. NATO has unleashed and is waging a hybrid war against us, in which the main expendable material is the Ukrainians. The countries of the alliance are supplying the Zelensky regime with increasingly long-range weapons, sending their consultants, participating in the planning of operations, and providing intelligence. All this increases the risks of a direct military clash between Russia and NATO.

Question: Earlier, Jens Stoltenberg said that there will be no peace in Ukraine until Kiev becomes a member of NATO. What, in your opinion, are Kiev's chances of joining the alliance today?

Answer: Following the logic of the former NATO Secretary General, peace in Ukraine can come after it joins the alliance. It can be adopted if the country defeats Russia. That is, until it achieves this, all talks about possible entry into the North Atlantic bloc are premature. The incantations of irreversible movement towards NATO membership serve the purpose of preserving Ukraine as a tip in the hybrid war against Russia.

Let me remind you that the prospect of Ukraine's membership in NATO is a purely geopolitical project imposed by the United States on its allies. Many Europeans expressed fears that Ukraine's Euro-Atlantic integration would not only destroy the remnants of the European security architecture, but also bury the alliance itself under its rubble.

The security situation would look different if it were not for the desire of the North Atlantic Alliance to draw as many states as possible into its ranks at any cost. If NATO had stopped at the Oder-Neisse border, as promised to the Soviet leadership, the only zone of contact between Russia and the bloc would have been the border in the area of Kirkenes (Norway) with a length of just over 100 kilometers. But then it would have been impossible to fool people with the mythical threat from the East, which is still used by Washington today to control Europeans and integrate them into the world and European order that is beneficial to the United States, and to maintain American hegemony in the world.

Question: What does Moscow think about the discussions of the alliance member countries on lifting restrictions on Kiev's use of long-range missiles for strikes deep into Russian territory?

Answer: Russia's position on this matter has been exhaustively set out by President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin. After all, it is obvious that the Ukrainians cannot use such weapons themselves. This will change the very nature of the conflict.

Question: Are there open channels of communication between Russia and NATO to reduce tensions?

Answer: There are so-called hotlines and opportunities for emergency contacts. The dialogue at the level of the defense ministers of Russia and the United States is maintained. However, these channels are intended for emergencies rather than for finding ways to reduce tensions. How can we talk about reducing tensions when NATO designates Russia in its strategic documents as "the most significant and direct threat to the security of the member states of the alliance" and is preparing for a clash with our country in its military buildup?

I would like to remind you once again that Russia has repeatedly come up with various proposals for de-escalation since 2016. The alliance was not ready for a serious conversation on any of them. The draft treaty on security guarantees, submitted to Brussels in December 2021, was rejected by NATO. I believe that thinking people in the West today regret this very much.

Question: Is Moscow simulating hypothetical scenarios of a full-scale war with NATO? Is it still possible to avoid it?

Answer: Such tasks are not within the competence of the Russian Foreign Ministry. I will only say that responsible defence planning must take into account all options and must be aimed at demonstrating the futility of speaking to us in the language of force.

I would like to emphasise once again: it is not Russia, but the North Atlantic Alliance that has embarked on the path of confrontation. It was NATO that refused to engage in dialogue with us and jointly search for ways to respond to real, not imaginary, threats and challenges to regional and global security. It was the purposeful policy of the alliance that led to a large-scale crisis of European security and the destruction of the instruments that ensure it.

Moreover, now NATO members have stopped hiding that they are preparing for a potential armed clash with Russia. Regional defense plans have been approved, specific tasks have been formulated for all military commands of the bloc. There is a constant development of possible options for combat operations against Russia. Logistical routes for the transfer of troops and weapons across the Atlantic to the "eastern flank" are being tested. Weapons depots are also located there, contingents of foreign forces are deployed. In the scenario of the largest Steadfast Defender maneuvers since the end of the Cold War, which took place from January 22 to May 31, for the first time, not a fictitious state, but Russia appeared as an adversary. Military budgets are being pumped up, the economy is being militarized.

Question: According to Jens Stoltenberg, NATO is discussing putting nuclear weapons on alert. How do we assess the increasing degree of confrontational rhetoric on the part of NATO member states?

Answer: In addition to confrontational rhetoric, NATO is constantly increasing the degree of tension towards Russia. Declaring us in 2022 the "most significant and direct threat to the security" of member countries, this year the alliance added that Russia is such in all spheres and in the long term. Our country is accused of everything: violations of international agreements, the UN Charter, human rights, aggressive nuclear rhetoric, and the collapse of the arms control architecture. As they say, from a sore head to a healthy one.

As for Jens Stoltenberg's statements made in June on putting nuclear weapons on alert, he himself hastened to deny them. He presented it in such a way that he was misunderstood by journalists. It was, according to him, a long-known topic - the ongoing modernization of nuclear weapons, including American aerial bombs deployed in European countries.

The fact remains: in the conceptual, political, and military-technical senses, the nuclear NATO countries, as well as the bloc itself, which has declared itself nuclear, are following the path of increasing the role of nuclear weapons in the alliance's strategy.

We take into account the entire set of factors affecting strategic stability, our security and defence capability. To this end, we are updating the Fundamentals of State Policy in the Field of Nuclear Deterrence so that our opponents have no illusions about our readiness to ensure the security of the Russian Federation by all available means. [My Emphasis]

IMO, a very well-reasoned set of answers for the publication’s Russian audience; no hyperbole, just the facts of the matter. Perhaps the one important topic that’s missing was a question about when Ukraine will be ready to negotiate where my answer likely differs from the one Grusko would provide. That issue was the primary topic of today’s Moon of Alabama article, “Ukraine - FT Proposes Impossible Peace Deal, Demands More Violence,” FT being Financial Times. What follows can be considered my comment upon the interview and Bernard’s MoA article:

After several attempts to start a proxy war with Russia, in 2014 NATO accepted the Nazis it had been grooming since 1945 into its ranks as the Cold War finally ended with the Ukraine Coup and the launch of the Smoldering War against ethnic Russians within Ukraine. That War became Hot in February 2022 as a result of NATO/Nazi Genocidal policies aimed at ethnic Russians and NATO's war aims were quickly announced as inflicting a "strategic defeat on Russia," while brushing away all Russian attempts at a diplomatic solution in December 2021 and in March 2022. NATO decided on a Hot Proxy War that decidedly ended the Cold War period as all its confessions proved. IMO, there was never any policy aim to allow Russia to recover from its latest Time of Troubles; the goal was very similar to Hitler's Plan Ost.

European NATO however was defeated by its supposed patron the Outlaw US Empire when the self-destructive energy policies were further escalated by the destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines, which has made it very unlikely that European NATO will ever be able to rearm itself, and thus remain dependent on the Outlaw MIC--as planned.

From the Outlaw US Empire's POV, NATO is doing just fine as EU/NATO is now even more geoeconomically dependent than ever before. So, the Empire has no incentive to end the conflict. However, it must be wary now that Russia has removed the Proxy aspect and specifically made the Hot War one between Russia and NATO being fought on Ukrainian land mostly with Ukrainian bodies. Thus, most of the grumbling within NATO is generated by its European members who have no agency by themselves to end the war. Europe, however, does have one alternative: Popular Revolt that fractures NATO as it's clear that the Outlaw US Empire has desired the colonization of Europe for decades and has essentially attained that goal, although it's very tenuous.

The possibility that the Outlaw US Empire will find itself engaged in two-three wars at the same time is very possible and will force it to print further vast amounts of money to appropriate to its arms industry that can't make anything that's really usable against Russia or its other potential opponents--the Levant Resistance in its entirety. The great howler here is that the dummkopf in charge of the US Navy has said it must be ready to wage war against China by 2027 when the truth is the USN will never be ready to wage war against China--it's that broke and broken.

Many are thinking and saying that to get the Outlaw US Empire to cease its hegemonic nature, it must be forced to defend its homeland; it must be made to accept the reality that it will need to take battle damage; that it's not invincible or impregnable. I'm not endorsing such thinking, but I do see its rationality.

How does the current Hot War started by the Outlaw US Empire/NATO end. Or perhaps it should be asked How does the Hot War get ended?

IMO, the Hot War will be ended once the inability of the Outlaw US Empire to both defend itself and attack Russia is proven by vast damage suffered by the Outlaw as like the Zionists it has no ability to protect itself from Russian weapons while Russia can intercept all US missiles and warheads. Old gravity A-bombs won’t be used. However, there’s the possibility that some of the Outlaws understand that very likely outcome and sue for peace before events go that far. But I see that possibility as extremely slim.

So, we’re left to observe events and try to get the Outlaws to backdown. We the public have only two tools—mass solidarity that can be used to wage massive demonstrations and strikes to get the Outlaw US criminal oligarchy to halt its behavior and admit its crimes. Some will comment that’s too idealistic. But what other option is there?

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!