An offer from a solely defensive alliance
Colonel Cassad, Jun 26 2016
The Minister of Defence of Germany Ursula von der Leyen in an interview with Bild am Sonntag:
It would be wise if NATO and Russia openly reported in the framework of the OSCE about the movements and numbers of its troops. From NATO, which is exclusively a defensive alliance, the proposal was made long ago. The West needs to improve relations with Russia, but Moscow needs to abide by international rules. Dialogue needs at least two.
Earlier on Jun 22, the Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel stressed the need for expansion of the Eastern bloc NATO. She made this statement a few days after German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier have warned the government that “sabre-rattling” may lead to escalation of tension in relations with Russia. Merkel said that Germany will continue the dialogue with Russia, but at the same time, she sees new threats aimed at Europe. Therefore, according to the Chancellor, the increase in military spending and strengthening the Alliance is a necessity. After a meeting with officials of Poland, the Chancellor announced that the government of Germany, as a whole, in accordance with the NATO decision on the necessity to allocate 2% of GDP on defense spending. About “defensive Alliance” can only shrug: forces of this “defensive alliance” did in Libya, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan? Weed collecting? And what they are doing at the borders of the Russian Federation? Defense? Why is that in the 25 years since the collapse of the USSR, this “defensive alliance” really crept close to the borders of the Russian Federation issued in spite of promises to Gorbachev that Germany then NATO is not going to go. War is peace. Freedom is slavery. NATO is a defensive alliance.
Regarding data transfer and greater confidence, then perhaps this had to start before the beginning of the Russophobic hysteria in Eastern Europe and pumping up her troops, missile and painful mantras about the fact that Russia allegedly wants to take over the Baltic States. Because if not for military activity Pindostan and NATO in Eastern Europe, Russia would not have to deploy new army and division in the Western direction and therefore the question of moving troops would not have stood in a practical way. All that more account is trying to shift the responsibility for running military escalation with Pindostan and NATO to Russia, they say we are pumped to Eastern Europe troops and missile defense systems, because “Russia is aggressive and breaks the trust relationship with NATO.” Although who does not like Pindostan and the EU made the mess in the Ukraine with the objective of overthrowing Yanukovych, which led to certain consequences? All subsequent cooling was in fact a derivative of breaking the system of relations between the West and Russia. And now they say let’s tell us about the movements of his troops. They then forgot to add something in the style of “You tell us, and we will think about the lifting of sanctions.” It is worth to mention one important point, not so long ago, Pindostan complained that Europe is ill-spent on defense and the Pindostanis are forced to bear unnecessary financial costs. Pindostan cut participation in NATO in Europe in connection with discontent with the policies of the European countries that do not want to increase defense spending, reports the WSJ, citing sources in the Pentagon and NATO. In the end, the Pentagon has sent to the Baltic States and Poland one battalion (1,000 soldiers) instead of two planned. Earlier, Obama urged the European colleagues to increase spending on NATO forces on the continent and accused NATO allies that they want to promote their interests at the expense of others. Some time later the Chancellor said about increasing the defense budget of Germany. A hit? I don’t think.