What's new

US scares Europe with ‘mythical’ Russian threat to justify military costs – Russian envoy to NATO

General General

FULL MEMBER
Joined
Sep 6, 2010
Messages
293
Reaction score
0
Country
United Kingdom
Location
United Kingdom
Published time: 7 Apr, 2016 00:18Edited time: 7 Apr, 2016 00:28

5705a674c36188e5798b459b.jpg



The US is using “mythical” Russian aggression as a European boogeyman to justify increasing defense spending while also hoping to revive NATO’s failing mission amid growing global security threat, Russia’s envoy to the alliance exclusively told RT.

“The United States and its representatives have repeatedly said that Russia poses a threat to the United States. Many said it was almost an existential threat, but the underlying reason, in my opinion, is obvious,” Russia’s permanent envoy to NATO Aleksandr Grushko, said.

In just one year, the Pentagon’s defense budget request has grown by $2.4 billion. The department is currently hoping for Congressional approval of $582.7 billion. On top of regular expenditures, the sum also includes nearly $60 billion in the overseas contingency operations fund.

To justify the spending boost, the Pentagon officials have resorted to blaming “Russia’s aggression, terrorism by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and others” as challenges that affected its “planning and budgeting.”

A “strategic threat” from Russia is one of the reasons why Secretary of Defense Ash Carter is urging "practical updates” to the Pentagon’s organizational framework.

Last week, the Pentagon announced a plan to increase its troop presence in “the European theater” of up to three fully-manned Army brigades by the end of 2017, citing “an aggressive Russia in Eastern Europe and elsewhere.”

However, according to Grushko, Washington is pursuing its internal interests and other goals than protecting its NATO allies, when it cries a “Russian threat.”

“The main reason is, above all, the desire to strengthen US leadership in Europe, to strengthen the US position, and unfortunately, apparently, the United States chose the tools to strengthen these positions bloating myths about the Russian threat,” the Russian envoy to NATO said.

He added that the US was also looking to further strengthen its hegemony in European affairs and at the same time to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia.”

On the other hand, the US is trying to “breathe new life into NATO” as the alliance is failing to respond to the modern security environment and “combat threats such as terrorism, migration and many others,” Grushko stated.

Yet, the Russian envoy thinks that “serious people” in NATO do not buy the existence of the US-promoted “Russian military threat.”

Many countries, primarily located on the southern periphery, of course, are more concerned not about some imaginary Russian threat, but about problems that we see in real life. They are under a wave of migration, they are experiencing terrorist pressure,” Grushko suggested. Unfortunately, history teaches that NATO cannot exist without the big enemy.”

He believes that to revive “NATO’s Cold War instincts, the West used Ukrainian crisis, which came to a head two years ago and triggered a major reshuffle in the alliance forces in the region.

The Russian envoy to NATO went on to state that “sooner or later” there should be an understanding that unity rather than “investing money and resources in the fight against a mythical” menace was key to tackling what Grushko called “mutual threats” for the US, Europe and Russia.

However, should the US military continue its expansion into Europe, Moscow would “effectively” use its sources to provide security.

“This response will be formulated in full compliance with international law,” Grushko said.

Last week, he told Russia-24 TV channel, that Moscow’s actions would correspond to its “understanding of the extent of the military threat, would not be extremely expensive, but also highly effective.”

“Certainly, we’ll respond totally asymmetrically,” he said, while not elaborating on his statement.

US scares Europe with ‘mythical’ Russian threat to justify military costs – Russian envoy to NATO — RT News

Is a new battle field arising?



Originally posted by Akheilos.
 
. . . .
Ukraine isn´t really Europe...maybe thats just my italian attitude but i dont see russia as a threat. It would never endanger us in any way.
 
.
Ukraine isn´t really Europe...maybe thats just my italian attitude but i dont see russia as a threat. It would never endanger us in any way.

In fact,most of people [and politicians] in western Europe don't see Russia as a threat.
People [and politicians ] in baltic and eastern Europe countries do.

Don't worry Ukraine, you were only "mythically" invaded. :rolleyes:

140828200658-exp-erin-panel-ukraine-crisis-conflict-areas-00002001-horizontal-gallery.jpg

More like "Visit Russia before Russia visits you!". :P
 
.
Well,if people in Western Europe don't see Russia as a threat they could always ask the US to leave.I'm sure that in Poland or Romania we'd gladly accomodate a Rammstein type facility.
 
.
Well,if people in Western Europe don't see Russia as a threat they could always ask the US to leave.I'm sure that in Poland or Romania we'd gladly accomodate a Rammstein type facility.


You must see it historically. Italy never had beef with russia. Its laughable to believe that russia would attack italy or any other western nation
 
.
You must see it historically. Italy never had beef with russia. Its laughable to believe that russia would attack italy or any other western nation
You're forgetting Trieste.
 
. .
Its laughable to believe that russia would attack italy or any other western nation

I don't think it is laughable but I do think for the time being, it is unlikely. But we can't base our defensive posture on what the situation is at this moment. No one really thought Putin would invade the Ukraine either...but he did. No one thinks Russia is serious about questioning the Baltic states' independence, but they increasingly are. The problem is not now, but what happens if once Putin is gone, an even more aggressive, nationalistic leader takes his place. Any hope Russia had in eventually developing democratic institutions is now long gone. Putin's legacy is to have built a one man dictatorship, supported by mountains of corruption, kept popular by appealing to the most dangerous xenophobic, paranoid, anti-Western sentiments, all while in command of a huge, nuclear armed military. That has potential for real disaster and once it happens, it will be too late to then build up defences to counter it. All it will take is one nationalist Russian president or rouge general with his tanks, crossing the boarder with Lithuania or Latvia, and the world will come undone.
 
.
I don't think it is laughable but I do think for the time being, it is unlikely. But we can't base our defensive posture on what the situation is at this moment. No one really thought Putin would invade the Ukraine either...but he did. No one thinks Russia is serious about questioning the Baltic states' independence, but they increasingly are. The problem is not now, but what happens if once Putin is gone, an even more aggressive, nationalistic leader takes his place. Any hope Russia had in eventually developing democratic institutions is now long gone. Putin's legacy is to have built a one man dictatorship, supported by mountains of corruption, kept popular by appealing to the most dangerous xenophobic, paranoid, anti-Western sentiments, all while in command of a huge, nuclear armed military. That has potential for real disaster and once it happens, it will be too late to then build up defences to counter it. All it will take is one nationalist Russian president or rouge general with his tanks, crossing the boarder with Lithuania or Latvia, and the world will come undone.


With all due respect. We think in spheres of influence. Libya is our sphere for example. And i think Ukraine rightfully is russias game. Why should italy bother about Ukraine? One hand washs the other. We help Putin there. he helps us with our interests.
 
.
In fact,most of people [and politicians] in western Europe don't see Russia as a threat.
People [and politicians ] in baltic and eastern Europe countries do.



More like "Visit Russia before Russia visits you!". :P


If any country in Europe, Eastern or Western, does not see Russia as a threat, they should leave NATO, as they have no realistic threats to need to be in that alliance in the first place, and likely are just trying to leech off us so they dont have to take care of their own defence.
 
.
5 years ago France and Russia (and the UK) were conducting naval exercises:

passeks_2012_9.jpg


P6242127R.jpg


5 years ago Norway and Russia were conducting naval exercises:

Photo-122.jpg


_MG_5120.jpg


_MG_5308.jpg


5 years ago the Slavic Commonwealth of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus were conducting exercises:

slavsod2012_10.jpg


slavsod2012_12.jpg


5 years later the Russians are helping us keep our skill sharp in a different way. But we've never stopped making each other better.

2015-05-13%20(U)%20NOR%20DET%20BAP%20Il-76%20CANDID_02.jpg


Funny how times change isn't it? The fallacy of future predictions is never more clear.
 
Last edited:
.
If any country in Europe, Eastern or Western, does not see Russia as a threat, they should leave NATO, as they have no realistic threats to need to be in that alliance in the first place, and likely are just trying to leech off us so they dont have to take care of their own defence.

What's your stance on operations like Operation Ocean Shield off the coast of Somalia? Or Operation Active Endeavor in the Med?

Ocean Shield is counter piracy:

tkfnanR6190.jpg


DSC_0042.jpg


mjk4.jpg


mjk6.jpg


Active Endeavor is counterterrorism, but neither is Russia-centric. NATO's evolved beyond just a hedge against Russia.

20101116_101116-mediterranean-sea_rdax_775x514.jpg


arkiv_fms2003_2356_document.jpg


Let's assume Markus is right and Italy doesn't see Russia as a threat - no matter the validity of that - removing Italy from NATO would limit its participation in global operations like these, what's your view on this?

And yes, I know they could still opt in, as China and South Korea have in Ocean Shield, but lets focus on the NATO SNMG aspect for naval cohesion. Having Italy leave NATO would effect its level of cooperation and integration with NATO operations like these.

Even without helping much against Russia, NATO members still provide the alliance with critical logistics, basing and international support including man and equipment power, diplomatic and economic support and critical cultural skills such as France's in North Africa.
 
Last edited:
.

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom