NATO summit in Wales: no will to learn lessons
The latest history of military policy knows examples of unlearnt lessons risking: NATO, U.S. operations in Libya, Iraq, Yugoslavia, military support to terrorist group in Syria (to go on). Those interventions in interior affairs, by force, accompanied by numerous violations of international law lead to lasting opposition of polycentric world.
Тhe topic rough geopolitical project is certainly Ukraine which was planned to be a Trojan horse for Russia: deploying of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) elements, disrupting of united mental, cultural, economic Slavic space, creating a permanent chaos and instability in a hostile state. All the steps are aimed at Russia's deterrence. That is clear enough: Russia is the strongest rival for the U.S. elite with enormous military, economic, scientific, human potentials and natural resources at its disposal. In the long run a permanent enemy is constantly necessary to justify spending on military industry corporations and special services.
The decisions made at NATO leaders' summit held in Wales September, 4-5 under pretense of opposing Russia's incursion in Ukraine and "imperial ambitions" are strictly eloquent.
NATO heads of state and government agreed Friday on a Readiness Action Plan. "This is a demonstration of our solidarity and resolve," underlined NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
The bloc's leaders came to an agreement on forming a "spearhead" force (4,000 up to 20,000) to respond within 48 hours to any "future Russian invasion". Moreover, NATO will make changes in command and control, pre-position equipment, supplies and planners. NATO will upgrade intelligence sharing, defence plans and hold more short-notice exercises. The alliance's military support to Ukraine had been discussed as well.
The United States acknowledged at the summit that action against terrorist groups in Iraq would have implications in Syria. The U.S. president Barack Obama and the State Department spokesperson Jennifer Psaki told of it recently. Even more, Obama said that he would authorize surveillance flights over Syria that could finally lead to airstrikes against key points of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the U.S. would not be able to root out ISIS without striking the group in Syria. The task is to change the regime in the country a strategic ally of Russia. So, the deterrence line is clear.
The Russian reaction is sure to be appropriate as the stake is its military security. That is why Moscow plans to work out a new military doctrine, design new weapons and upgrade its armed forces structure. It certainly will lead to arms race, international tension and deeper world economic crisis.
The question is: who are the winners? The answer is obvious: U.S. military industry corporations mainly. Businessmen are already loosing both in Europe and in U.S due to sanctions imposed on Russia. Ordinary people? All the political turbulences won't really matter for them if they can't earn a living.
Finally, despite of all the negative factors it will contribute to setting up a new polycentric world but not in the West - in Asia, Latin America and Africa with full Russian partnership. The U.S. is certain to desperately oppose it but the White House global influence is decreasing. So, the Big Game goes on and the winner is likely to be whoever is able to learn lessons.