The Secretary General bids up NATO

The NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen made a short-term visit to the capital of Ukraine, Kiev. He met with the head of state and leading politicians and promised them to accept the program of joint actions on medium-term prospect and to discuss the help to armed forces of Ukraine in carrying out reform so necessary for them within the summit of North Atlantic alliance coming in September in Wales. That is to be done in order for the Ukrainian army "to be more combat-ready, mobile, modern, conformed to the NATO standards and in closer cooperation with the alliance".

At the same time Rasmussen once again showed absolute support by the Alliance for the so-called "anti-terrorist", whilst actually, punitive operation against the population of E. Ukraine, which Kiev has been performing in the east of the country for a few months already. And, probably, in order to coax the local management and mass media supporting it somehow, Rasmussen declared that "The North Atlantic alliance stops cooperation with the Russian Federation, strengthens collective defense for protection of all members of NATO and made the decision to increase the level of support and cooperation with Ukraine".

The secretary general modestly held back that the termination of cooperation of Brussels with Moscow is cold news. Especially, as knowing people remember, he declared it on April 1 this year and said that the freezing of the relations will last till fall. Rasmussen's date of approach of this season remained unclear. Maybe it is the end of the summit in Wales, maybe the day of delivery of the powers to the new Secretary General of the alliance ? the former prime minister of Norway Jens Stoltenberg.

However, anyway it is clear that the relations between Russia and NATO won't be adjusted neither after the Welsh summit, nor after the Jens Stoltenberg' taking office. To tell more, they don't depend even on the situation in Ukraine. The opposition of Brussels and Moscow ? is not a whim of the secretary general of the Alliance and not a spontaneous reaction of NATO to the actions of the Russian government and armed forces of Russia, and a patrimonial spot of the North Atlantic block.

The NATO organization was created in 1949 to control the Soviet Union. The alliance continued its policy after the disappearance of the USSR from the world map and an uprise of the new Russia. No matter how hard the secretary generals of the alliance tried to cam up, replacing each other, what kind of speeches delivered about the commitment to equal and mutually beneficial cooperation with Moscow, their egoistical interests were always at first place ? not to allow Russia to revive as the world superpower and the Russian army to become a force, capable to resist NATO's pressure and aggression.

It is enough to list a number of simple examples to be convinced of the fact. The fundamental Russia-NATO act signed in 1997 claimed the parties "will build in common the strong and comprehensive peace in the Euro-Atlantic region on the principles of democracy and safety based on cooperation", that "Russia and NATO don't consider each other as opponents", and their common goal is "overcoming of the remains of former confrontation and rivalry and strengthening of mutual trust...".

But literally in just two years the North Atlantic alliance, contrary to the resolution of the UN Security Council, neglecting the principles of cooperation and Russia's opinion, made the aggression against Serbia, tore off Kosovo region and Metokhiya from it, created the conditions for the emergence of the new Islamic state in Europe. Over and over again, NATO integrated into the fold countries military infrastructure' in Eastern Europe, approaching the Russian border.

Thus Brussels claimed that Moscow has nothing to worry about ? its safety won't suffer. 200 American atomic bombs at the NATO military bases in Europe are a guarantee of protection against terrorists (how it is possible to be protected by atomic weapons from bandits, nobody ever is going to explain). Four fighters F-16 (a dozen now) capable to carry these atomic bombs, and an air strike force which is on a combat duty at Zoknyay airbase which is under Lithuanian Shiauliai, doesn't pose any threat of Russia too. It is just to calm down the Baltic States, which have no warplanes ? justified the NATO headquarters.

They say the same about the deployment of American missile defense system in Poland. According to NATO officials, it's a protection against the rogue states. Why don't they place the system near the borders of those "rogue states"? There was no distinct and reasoned answer again.

The fact that the aggression of Georgia against the Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia in August, 2008, NATO preferred to see as an attack by Moscow on Tbilisi, doesn't surprise any longer. As well as that fact that conclusions of the commission of the European Union, which unambiguously called the aggressor an aggressor, the Brussels didn't become true in last resort. Today there, for example, without waiting for the end of the investigation of causes of the tragedy with Malaysian "Boeing", a priori blamed Russia for everything. And the NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen ? the leader in this obscene and false accusation.

What can we say? Which comments to make? Concerning a rupture of the relations with NATO can we remember that statement: "if a love is without pleasure ? a separation is without grief"? it already was so. Moreover, after war in Yugoslavia, after the defeat of Tbilisi in war against Tskhinvali. Now the same occurs concerning the deepest military-political crisis provoked and warmed by NATO in Ukraine.

It is necessary to understand one simple truth ? the North Atlantic alliance never will change its nature, it always will be the opponent of Russia, occasionally masking its nature when the support and help of Russia is extremely necessary. Including a real fight against terrorism.

But we, apparently, have to carry out the consecutive and principled stand concerning NATO. Approximately the way we respond to the Western sanctions against Russia. Accurately, quietly and smartly. Maybe, even defiantly polite. Brussels wants confrontation ? they will get it. No matter how much their secretary general bids up NATO, ? we know its real power and opportunities. No matter how much it threatens to our country with a complete severance of the relations and other penalties, we have everything to protect our national interests. It, apparently, enrages such figures, as Anders Fogh Rasmussen and others.