The proverbial doomsday clock is ticking away in Europe. You can hear it getting louder each day? Just this week the Air Force Secretary Deborah James stated the U.S. considers deploying a squadron of F-22 Raptor fighter jets to Europe, in response to what the “western alliance” perceives as being stepped-up “aggression” by Russia in the region. In her stark and candid view, Russia is the “biggest threat on my mind” (m.military.com)
Geopolitical game of “Chicken Hawk”, could destabilise entire region for decades to come
Not surprisingly the Russians have responded to NATO’s military activity in and round what it considers to be “their own” sphere of influence, (an area comprising Kaliningrad on the Baltic all the way down to the Crimean peninsula on the Black sea) by boosting the country’s nuclear tactical weapons capacity (bbc.com) Predictably NATO sees this as provocative gesture. “This nuclear sabre-rattling of Russia is unjustified, it’s destabilising and it’s dangerous,” said NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg this week in response to Moscow’s move. It’s classic “tit for tat”.
But who are the real aggressors in this stand off? Is it NATO-US, or Russia?
Is anyone in Brussels, Washington or Moscow for that matter asking themselves this question? It seems not. As tensions rise fingers on the nuclear bottom are getting fidgety.
Meanwhile, NATO appears to be hunkering down (stockpiling weaponry and sending infantry divisions, to its most eastern member states). Does this mean it’s digging in for the haul long, or a prolonged period of goading Russia on its doorstep (the Kaliningrad enclave)? In other words, is NATO breathing down the Russian bear’s back for the sake of strengthening an increasingly divided and disparate alliance? In my view that is the real reason for this entire anti-Russian hullabaloo. NATO is, despite the razzmatazz and “all for one for all” rhetoric is internally weak. And it needs an exterior foe to keep it untied.