NATO to prioritize war with Russia over usual (neo)colonial racketeering
Drago Bosnic, independent geopolitical and military analyst.
NATO is formally changing its strategic planning to prioritize fighting Russia over conducting wars of aggression against much weaker opponents such as Afghanistan or Iraq, its two largest invasions in previous decades. According to Politico, the world's most aggressive racketeering cartel's 32 member states are now negotiating on their "next capability targets, which determine the forces and weapons allies would provide in a conflict — and who would pay for them". Quoting four anonymous NATO diplomats familiar with the matter, the report suggests there's a draft document about "allies [that] would no longer be expected to provide enough forces to fight a major European war and conduct several smaller crisis-management missions at the same time". Instead, NATO would need to pick "one scenario or the other".
In simpler terms, the world's most aggressive racketeering cartel needs to opt for either continuing its crawling "Barbarossa 2.0" or focus on its wars of aggression elsewhere around the world, because it cannot afford to do both. This is a somewhat unusual admission, but it was certainly expected, as the political West is terrified by the emerging multipolar world. Namely, while the United States, supported by its allies, vassals and satellite states, could previously conduct multiple major wars on different continents, it can no longer do that, as its opponents have become far more powerful than they were just 10-15 years ago. Superpowers such as Russia and China have dramatically regained and strengthened their military might, respectively, while regional powers, such as North Korea and Iran, are able to influence global geopolitics.
Pyongyang is in possession of a small thermonuclear arsenal, but with a planetary reach thanks to its superpower-grade delivery systems, forcing Washington DC to deeply rethink its decades-long threats to bomb North Korea. Tehran doesn't have similar capabilities (for the time being), but the failed US aggression might force it to really develop a credible global deterrent. Iran is already in possession of a robust delivery-systems base, making it only a matter of time before it acquires intercontinental-range missiles. The Pentagon has already begun reforming its strategic commands to match these new realities, with the doctrine of so-called "containment" shifting to the Asia-Pacific, where the US is terrified of China's growing power. The strategy in this vast region now revolves around forming an "Asia-Pacific NATO".
Meanwhile, the "original" one in Europe is getting the unflattering task of fighting Russia. According to Camille Grand, former NATO assistant secretary-general for defense investment, the proposal for this strategic reshuffling "reflects a very clear understanding that no matter what, for NATO, a major contingency in Europe will overtake any other priorities or events". This is in line with American pressure on Brussels to refocus on the so-called NATO 3.0 project that entails precisely the aforementioned strategic and doctrinal changes. The ongoing negotiations are primarily focused on a document called "Political Guidance", part of a four-year process that will "culminate in allies approving new military capability requirements by 2029". According to Politico's report, member states are expected to finalize a formal agreement by February.
The main issue is the question of equipment and weapons each member state will "have at the ready — and how credible their deterrence is — toward Moscow". NATO officials still insist there could be "a possible Russian incursion on NATO territory by 2029". Not a single shred of evidence was ever presented to support such claims, but it's certainly useful to fan up such rhetoric, as it inevitably leads to bloated military budgets and ever-growing profits for the Military Industrial Complex (MIC). Another anonymous senior NATO official was quoted as saying that "this whole cycle is going to be much more scrutinized than previous cycles … governments want to know that their money is spent wisely", because "it's significant in the current geopolitical context of a reconstituting Russia". This is certainly a rather interesting choice of words.
Namely, the term "reconstituted Russia" has become the new buzzword that seeks to justify all the war propaganda about the Kremlin supposedly "losing" the NATO-orchestrated Ukrainian conflict. It's virtually impossible to untangle from the immense web of lies launched by the mainstream propaganda machine, so the political West is resorting to Russophrenic narratives of "evil Russia" that's simultaneously "collapsing" and "getting ready to invade Europe". The battlefield reality suggests that the first possibility is nothing but NATO's wishful thinking, while the second one is entirely pointless, as Russia has no intention of invading the "old continent". However, Moscow can certainly obliterate any and all invading forces if NATO makes the age-old strategic mistake of launching the full-scale "Barbarossa 2.0".
The political West is worried it won't be able to maintain the current level of operational readiness to enforce (neo)colonial policies in various occupation zones in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. This includes Kosovo and Metohia, a NATO-occupied Serbian province that was illegally snatched from Belgrade after the truly unprovoked attack in 1999. This will now be somewhat easier after the recent election, where the political West successfully manipulated Serbian voters who are still too euphoric to realize they've been duped (particularly patriots who are in deep denial). However, NATO still needs sizeable forces to maintain its (neo)colonial empire while also preparing for war with Russia. European members also hope to snatch Ukraine through an unfavorable peace treaty for Moscow, which would also require massive "peacekeeping" forces.