NATO is an instrument of US foreign policy and poses a threat to Russia

Summary

NATO is simply an instrument of US foreign policy. No one has any doubts about it. This is what is being talked about in Europe.

The stationing of NATO weapons very close to the Russian borders is a “destructive activity” and poses a threat to Russia. Another problem is that NATO countries are hardly allowed to say anything against the Alliance stationing certain types of equipment on their territory. For example, parts of the missile defence system that would be deployed in Romania and soon also in Poland.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative on NATO as a geopolitical project of the US and NATO as having a belligerent agenda against Russia.

NATO is not an instrument of US foreign policy. NATO was founded in 1949 by twelve sovereign nations: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the United Kingdom and the United States. It has since grown to 29 Allies who each took an individual and sovereign decision to join this Alliance.

All decisions in NATO are taken by consensus, which means that a decision can only be taken if every single member accepts it. No member of the Alliance can order the deployment of armed forces of other member states.

Moreover, NATO poses no threat to Russia. All Allies reaffirmed at the Brussels Summit that "the Alliance does not seek confrontation and poses no threat to Russia.”

Also, in direct response to Russia's use of military force against its neighbours, NATO has deployed four multinational battle-groups to the Baltic States and Poland. These forces are rotational, defensive and proportionate. They cannot compare to the three divisions Russia has established in its Western Military and Southern Military Districts. Before Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea, there were no plans to deploy Allied troops to the eastern part of the Alliance.

For more disinformation cases on NATO see here, here and here.

publication/media

  • Reported in: Issue 169
  • DATE OF PUBLICATION: 13/10/2019
  • Language/target audience: German
  • Country: US, Poland, Romania, EU
  • Keywords: security threat, Encircling Russia, NATO, The West
  • Outlet: Sputnik Deutschland
see more

New developments in the Skripal case reveal it for the sham it always was

As more information became available, the United Kingdom government’s version became less and less plausible. In fact, many of the allegations made by the United Kingdom government were downright absurd. It is sufficient to note here that the alleged agent used to protect the Skripals was a highly toxic substance where only minute quantities are required to cause an almost instant death.

The Skripals were said to be infected at Sergei’s home. There has never been a satisfactory explanation of how the pair were infected, yet managed to survive several hours, during which time they travelled, fed ducks in the park, ate a meal, and walked through the city centre. The official version was beyond absurd.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative about the Skripal poisoning claiming that the United Kingdom was never able to prove a “Russian trace” and did not provide detailed evidence of Russia’s involvement.

British police and investigations from the intelligence services have produced hard forensic evidence which was sufficient to charge two Russian nationals, identified as officers of the Russian Military Intelligence, GRU, for the attack on the Skripals.

Norway refused to deploy NATO missile defence elements since Russia is not a threat

In Norway, they ceased to notice the Russian threat. Norway refused to deploy NATO missile defence elements on its territory. It turns out that Russia is not a threat.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative, portraying NATO as a threat to peace and NATO threatening Russia. It also claimed that Norway has changed its view on the military situation in the region.

Norwegian defence chief Haakon Bruun-Hanssen believes that Russia would want to blockade Norway in the event of a conflict, meaning Norway must be able to defend itself and keep access open for NATO reinforcements.

Ukraine’s attempt to get rid of Communist symbols is an attempt to cover up unrestricted Russophobia

Above all Ukrainians are Russophobes. They are trying to employ a campaign on decommunisation to cover up (frankly speaking, it works bad) unrestricted Russophobia in everything. It seems very profitable for Ukraine to neglect its past in exchange for no future.

Disproof

Recurring pro-Kremlin disinformation narrative claiming that Ukraine is a Russophobic country and that decommunisation is directed against Russia.

There is no evidence of this. In fact, Ukraine is not a Russophobic country as is often claimed by the Kremlin media. Ukraine had to react to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the act of aggression by the Russian armed forces in Donbas. It did not ban the Russian language, as is often claimed by the Kremlin, nor did it ban contact between Ukrainians and Russians.