And after Christophe's thread: >>> Kiev, towards a civil war in Ukraine?
Alas the threat becomes clearer.
The United States, fortified by one of its rare docile allies during the Gulf Wars, seems to want to put that right and harden the tone.
After the former Yugoslavia and the war it is waging under cover in Syria, does it want to plunge Europe into war again?
I said without suspecting that things would go so quickly:
Obamot about BREXIT wrote:Some observations in passing on the NEW position of political England:[...]
k) in the event of a military conflict between the EU and Russia, England could say that it would not be concerned and could not de facto be the target of Russian missiles (although it could send a few contingents, but according to the benefit / risk principle, I would see them doing this badly ...)
[...]
Basically, I have the impression that we witnessed a pretty sleight of hand and everyone seems fooled [...]
Taking advantage of the summer break, things are unfortunately accelerating ... Terrifying prospects and this on the back of the civilian populations who they have no say in. What democracy in Europe?
Why is NATO being belligerent against Russia?
And this, while there is absolutely no threat hanging over us.
Artwork: TSR
FRANCE 24 with AFP, on 08/07/2016 wrote:NATO summit: the United States will deploy 1 soldiers in Poland
Barack Obama announced Friday before the opening of the NATO summit that 1 American soldiers will be deployed to Poland. He will accompany that of other NATO soldiers in the Baltic countries.
This is an announcement that does not risk improving relations between Washington and Moscow. President Barack Obama announced on Friday July 8 the deployment of 1 American soldiers to Poland as part of the strengthening of NATO's eastern flank against Russia.
These soldiers "will serve side by side with Polish soldiers", he declared after a meeting with Polish President Andrzej Duda in Warsaw, shortly before the opening of a NATO summit, specifying that they will take turns in rotation in this battalion. , just like those of the Alliance who will be based in the Baltic States.
It is one of the main announcements of the NATO summit, which takes place on Friday and Saturday, in response to questions raised by Russian ambitions since the Ukrainian crisis.
The Polish hosts at the summit, like their Baltic neighbors, are afraid of paying the price for Russian power after the Ukrainian precedent. NATO thus hopes to dissuade any Russian temptation to push its pawns further towards its former sphere of influence. With these battalions, "attack on ally will encounter forces from across the Alliance"noted Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
Of course, the four battalions would not weigh heavily against the Russian divisions if they crossed the border. But the large Western countries would be physically involved and therefore encouraged to fight back, in the very logic of NATO's collective security.
The United Kingdom, Canada, Germany and the United States will assume the command of these battalions and will provide a good part of the troops. Like other NATO countries, France will participate by providing the equivalent of a company (150 men).
"For France, Russia is not an adversary, is not a threat"
Russian President Vladimir Poutine, who takes a dim view of any NATO presence at the borders of his country, accuses the Alliance of wanting to drag Moscow into a "frantic" arms race.
"NATO soldiers are at our borders, NATO planes are flying at our borders, we are not the ones approaching the borders of NATO", his spokesperson Dmitry Peskov noted before the summit.
"NATO has no vocation whatsoever to influence the relations that Europe must have with Russia; and for France, Russia is not an adversary, is not a threat", however declared François Hollande, Friday, in front of the press, on his arrival at the NATO summit. For the French president, "Russia should be seen as "a partner".
The NATO secretary general also wanted to stress that "NATO remains open to dialogue with Russia ", also notes the special envoy of France 24, Gulliver Cragg. "There is perhaps a feeling that with this summit which is being held in Warsaw, NATO has gone too far in anti-Russian rhetoric. Some officials are therefore now trying to put some water in their wine."
The main announcements expected in Warsaw, including the launch of a NATO missile shield, are in any case likely to once again cringe in Moscow.
Russia is particularly concerned that this shield will undermine its nuclear deterrent. Like China, it has also strongly criticized the installation of an American anti-missile shield in South Korea, believing that it will "undermine the balance of the region ".
Source: http://www.france24.com/fr/20160708-pol ... ts-poutine
Note that the American decision is to be considered unilateral (at best bilateral) as long as it took place BEFORE the holding of this summit, and not after its conclusion after consultation.
And that this comes after a situation of relaxation between the Turkish President Erdogan and Putin.
Does Europe only have to follow the Yankee dictate go to war without reacting?
Seen by the Russians on Sputnik News (which also relates to Brexit):
Source: https://fr.sputniknews.com/international/201607081026515471-otan-brexit-instrument-controle-usa-europe/On 20:04 p.m. 08.07.2016/XNUMX/XNUMX Sputnik News wrote:NATO as the main instrument of US control over Europe
If Brexit takes place and the United Kingdom effectively withdraws from the EU, American control over Europe will revert to NATO, said a former Yugoslav diplomat.
It is not certain that Brexit will finally take place, given the current attempts to organize a new referendum, which is obviously in the interest of the United States and NATO, supposed in an interview with Sputnik Vladislav Jovanovic, formerly Ambassador of Yugoslavia to Turkey.
«But if the United Kingdom withdraws all the same from the European Union, NATO will take over the role with which this bloc was entrusted when it was founded 50 years ago, namely to keep Germany in Europe and Soviet Union, now Russia, as far as possible from Europe and permanently ensuring the United States its status as the most powerful military force in the old world, "said the agency's interlocutor.»
And to add that in addition to its military function, "NATO should assume control over the level of American influence within the European Union".
«Previously, the Americans exercised their authority over Europe through NATO and the United Kingdom, but with the departure of the British, the Alliance will have to be strengthened ", the diplomat concluded.».
I think the additional questions are:
- Are we threatened by Russia?
- Do we need a war in Europe?
- When?