One of the recent political absurdities in Europe was a stage-managed photo sequence of Britain’s foreign minister Liz Truss posing boldly but comfortably with her head and shoulders poking out of the turret of a British army tank. The pathetic charade took place in Estonia, close to Russia, when she visited British troops deployed there as part of the U.S.-Nato buildup along Russia’s western frontier. She was on her way to attend a meeting of foreign ministers of the U.S.-Nato military alliance held on November 30 in Riga, the capital of Latvia, some 300 kilometres from Russia.

According to Nato, this is where it “has enhanced its forward presence in the eastern part of the Alliance, with four multinational battalion-size battlegroups in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, on a rotational basis.” The meeting of foreign ministers was chaired by publicity-hungry Secretary General of the Nato alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, who issued the usual challenge to Russia that “we stand together to defend and protect all Allies” — meaning, specifically, Ukraine, concerning which the U.S.-Nato military alliance will “maintain our political and practical support for our partner.” This includes confrontation in the air, under Nato orders whereby “allies take turns deploying to air bases at Šiauliai, Lithuania and Ämari, Estonia, on a four-month rotational basis, ready to be launched by NATO’s Combined Air Operations Centre Uedem, Germany if required.”

It is obvious to most people who desire peace that Russia has no intention of invading Ukraine, for a myriad of reasons, some of which are noted below. But if the western military grouping does manage to achieve its objective of confronting Russia to the point that Moscow has to take military action, then there’s one thing absolutely certain, and that is that Ms Liz Truss and Mr Jens Stoltenberg and the rest of the warmongers will be nowhere near a tank or any other piece of military equipment. In the event of conflict they will all be safe, sound and snug in their bomb-proof bunkers while soldiers and sailors and aircrew hazard their lives in the war that the U.S.-Nato military alliance eventually managed to provoke.

The tank antics of Ms Truss were intended to increase her domestic popularity, because she has significant political ambition and would stoop to any depths (and rise to any tank turret) if she imagined it might improve her standing. Her Tweet about the fandango read “Proud meeting [GB] NATO troops in Estonia at the frontier of freedom. Britain stands with our @NATO allies to defend liberty and democracy and counter malign threats.”

She then issued a malign threat against Russia.

Most English newspapers were supportive of Ms Truss, with the Daily Telegraph headlining that “Liz Truss shows Vladimir Putin she’s got the mettle of the Iron Lady”, giving prominence to comparing the foreign secretary with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who performed a similar public relations stunt in a tank turret in 1986. The paper announced that the recent silly frolic “was a photo opportunity designed to send the message to Vladimir Putin that Britain is serious about protecting Ukraine from aggression on its eastern border.”

The Daily Telegraph used to be a well-regarded commentator on international affairs — “the good old DT” — but if its editors believe that a photograph of foreign minister Truss in a British army tank turret will convince the President of Russia that Britain is prepared to go to war, then it must be agreed with regret that the DT, like the British government, has lost the plot.

Secretary General Stoltenberg is sending signals that he too is primed to increase tension to the point of bringing war with Russia alarmingly closer. On November 19 he gave a speech in Berlin which was aimed at convincing the new German government that it should continue the stationing of U.S. nuclear weapons in Germany. As it happened he was successful, and on November 24 Reuters reported that “Germany will remain part of NATO’s nuclear sharing agreement under its new government, according to a coalition deal agreed on Wednesday, a move that will prevent a rift in the Western military alliance at a time of rising tensions with Russia. Germany does not possess nuclear weapons, but hosts U.S. nuclear bombs that German Tornado fighter jets are meant to carry to target during a conflict.”

It had been hoped that some members of Germany’s coalition government would stick by their moral principles and not their political principals regarding nuclear weapons, but the tank disease struck them and they accepted the direction of Stoltenberg’s Berlin speech in which he declared that “So, of course, Germany can, of course, decide whether there will be nuclear weapons in your country, but the alternative is that we easily end up with nuclear weapons in other countries in Europe, also to the east of Germany.”

The leader of the anti-Russia military alliance is prepared for redeployment of U.S. nuclear weapons further east, and thus closer to Russia’s borders. He does not say how “easily” this will be effected when the orders are given, but the fact that he was confident enough to state in public that U.S.-Nato is prepared to position nuclear weapons “to the east of Germany” means that there has been planning for such relocation. So far as can be determined there has been no reaction from European Nato countries, and comment from the White House has been confined to complaining on December 3 about such things as “our serious concerns about the bellicose rhetoric, about the military buildup that we’re seeing on the border of Ukraine.”

The reprimand about “bellicose rhetoric” coincided with the public statement by U.S. defence secretary Lloyd Austin (on the Board of military industrialist Raytheon Technologies until last year) to the Polish minister of defence that they must examine more “ways to enhance deterrence along NATO’s Eastern Flank.”

Reaction in Moscow was firm, with Associated Press reporting that Mr Putin looked forward to dialogue with Mr Biden in which he would seek “reliable and long-term security guarantees,” stating that “in a dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on working out specific agreements that would exclude any further NATO moves eastward and the deployment of weapons systems that threaten us in close vicinity to Russian territory.”

But it is unlikely that Washington will agree to any action that would reduce tension, because confrontation is the name of its game. The western military alliance is convinced — or says it is convinced — that Russia is going to invade Ukraine, and takes no account of reality, because it would, to put it bluntly, be economic suicide for Russia to do anything of the sort.

Make no mistake : if Russia wanted to invade Ukraine it could do so in a heartbeat and, as determined by several analyses conducted in western military academies, but never made public, in 2014 it could have occupied the country in about four weeks. But there is no point in Russia doing anything of the sort, because it would create an enormous internal security problem for absolutely no reason. Further, if it takes military action it would mean the end of the multi-billion dollar Nord Stream 2 pipeline on which so much depends in Europe and Russia. (It is not a coincidence that this is one of the main aims of Washington’s legislators, in order to make it necessary for Europe to purchase natural gas from the U.S.)

As recorded by the European Commission, “The EU is Russia’s biggest trade partner, accounting for 37.3% of the country’s total trade in goods with the world in 2020. 36.5% of Russia’s imports came from the EU and 37.9% of its exports went to the EU . . . The EU is the largest investor in Russia. In 2019, the EU’s outward foreign direct investment (FDI) stock in Russia amounted to €311.4 billion, Russia’s FDI stock in the EU was estimated at €136 billion.”

If Russia went to war against Ukraine, this mutually beneficial state of affairs would dissolve. Do these people in Washington, London and Brussels really believe that Russia wants to inflict such damage on its own economy?

But the pressure, the rhetoric, the Nato “forward presence” are being ramped up by such officials as Britain’s foreign minister whose silly pantomime in a tank turret characterised the U.S.-Nato approach to international affairs. We can but hope that President Biden will ignore the war fanatics and agree that negotiation is preferable to confrontation. If he appears in a tank, we’ll get the message.

As the U.S-led DefenderEurope 2021 war games continue in twelve European nations into June, NATO has recently concluded both naval and ground war exercises in the Baltic states.

The DefenderEurope 2021 exercises include estimates of as many as 37,000 troops from at least 27 NATO member and partner states and appear to be based entirely in Eastern Europe, from the Baltic Sea to the Balkans and the Black Sea. Comprehensive figures are not verifiable, but there is every reason to believe this is the largest U.S.-NATO military exercise since the Cod War; and moreover one occurring as Russia and Ukraine, steadfastly backed by the U.S. and NATO, are at loggerheads over renewed fighting in the Donbass region of what was formerly Eastern Ukraine.

NATO’s Allied Command Operations website reports today that the military alliance completed the eight-day Crystal Arrow 2021 exercise which was run by U.S. Army forces in conjunction with two NATO enhanced Forward Presence Battle Groups, from Latvia and Lithuania. (The other two NATO Battle Groups are in Estonia and Poland.)

The following paragraph is a condensed case study in NATO war plans:

“NATO Allies and partners from across the globe came together to support and participate with NATO enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) Battle Group Latvia to increase cooperation, compatibility and interoperability in the event of a real-world fight against any foreign aggressors who would threaten Latvia’s boarders.”

The use of the plural in the word aggressors is disingenuous. NATO and the U.S. are training “allies and partners across the globe” for a “real-world fight” against only one alleged aggressor, Latvia’s neighbor Russia. The same country that the massive DefenderEurope war games are aimed at. (Though in both series of exercises Belarus will also be targeted as a “frontline state.”)

As regards the launching of the Crystal Arrow exercise on March 23, the NATO report waxed lively: “U.S. Abrams tanks joined German Leopard tanks to race across the open field marking the start of an eight-day exercise at the Ādaži military training area, Latvia….”

It would have to have been the very archetype of Cold War nightmare themes among Russians in the Soviet Union to see American and German tanks on their border. Now they’re right there. And not alone.

Overlapping with the ground exercise, NATO also held three-day naval drills off the coasts of Latvia and Estonia with half of NATO’s Standing Naval Forces, Standing NATO Maritime Group One (SNMG1) and Standing NATO Mine Countermeasures Group One (SNMCMG1). NATO Standing Naval Forces are described by the bloc as “the core of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (Maritime)” which “provide constant high-readiness maritime capabilities that can quickly and effectively respond across the full spectrum of operations in support of any NATO operations.” The SNMG1 was led by the Canadian frigate HMCS Halifax.

By way of reminder, in the past twenty-two years NATO operations have included air and ground wars in Europe, Asia and Africa.

The SNMG1 and SNMCMG1 are permanently assigned to Northern and Western European waters, including the Baltic Sea, North Sea, Norwegian Sea “and their maritime approaches.” Russia borders the Norwegian Sea and the Baltic Sea with its Kaliningrad exclave where Russia has its Baltic Fleet.

The U.S. and NATO would desire nothing as much as detaching Kaliningrad (former German Königsberg) from Russia and evicting the Baltic Fleet – as it is supporting Ukraine’s claim to Crimea so as to evict Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. That dual objective accomplished, Russia is cut off from the West by water approaches to the North and Mediterranean Seas.

Through the incorporation of fourteen new Eastern European nations as members, and forty nations around the world as partners, in the last thirty years, NATO has transformed the Baltic and Black Seas into its military outposts. What separates the two seas is Ukraine, the final link in the military cordon the U.S. and NATO have solidified along Russia’s western border. What in former eras would have been known as a siege. With a naval blockade into the bargain.

ANTI-BELLUM

The US Defense Department's 2019 fiscal budget became law on Aug. 13. It allocates $6.5 billion for the European Defense Initiative (EDI), $2 billion more than the previous fiscal budget, and nearly double the $3.4 billion the military received in fiscal 2017. The increase is evidence of the focus on building up a robust military force to threaten Russia. Infrastructure improvements in the Baltic states and Poland are a high priority.

According to the Lithuanian Defense Ministry, the updates to the Lithuanian armed forces’ Kazlų Rūda training ground, in the district of Marijampolė, to get it up to NATO standards, are almost complete. The facility will be used to train air crews and controllers. This is a joint project with the United States, funded through the European Reassurance Initiative. American B-52 strategic bombers have already dropped dummy munitions there. The firing range was part of the NATO Saber Strike exercise that was held in June. US National Guard soldiers are there to prepare Kazlų Rūda for another exercise.

The training ground is less than 60 km. from the Russian border. This is a risky move. On Aug. 7, a Spanish warplane accidentally fired an air-to-air missile over Estonia in the Pangodi area of Estonia’s Tartu county, less than 50 miles from that country’s eastern border with Russia. Suppose it had been an air-to-surface missile that went astray and landed on Russian territory? Why should NATO’s training events be conducted so dangerously close, making the alliance responsible for such perilous possibilities?

In July, the Lithuanian Defense Ministry signed a contract with the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) in regard to infrastructure development projects that will significantly improve the training conditions. Thirteen facilities are to be completed for the Lithuanian armed forces by 2021. According to Vice Minister of National Defense Giedrimas Jeglinskas, the scale of the NATO deployments necessitates a larger military infrastructure to accommodate those forces. Once the upgrade is completed, Kazlų Rūda will be the only military facility in the country able to host and provide logistics for a brigade-size force including hardware. The modernization program also applies to the Gen Silvestras Žukauskas training ground — a joint project funded through Lithuania’s military budget, the NATO Security Investment Program, and the US European Reassurance Initiative. The NATO Security Investment Program (NSIP) is also financing the construction of facilities to accommodate the NATO Air Policing Mission, Host Nation Support, military training grounds, and, in part, the NATO Force Integration Unit. 

Estonia’s Amari air force base near Russia’s border is another facility that is being updated to support American A-10, F-15, F-16, F-22, and F-35 aircraft, which will include refueling infrastructure as well as special ops forces.

The Baltic states signed Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs), allowing the presence of American forces within their borders as far back as early 2017.

In May, the foreign ministers of the Baltic states paid a group visit to Washington to ask for a larger US military presence in their countries. Back then, they said the current build-up would only be the starting point for a larger effort. So far NATO has deployed four battalion-sized battle groups (roughly 4,500 troops) to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. In June, all three Baltic states came out in support of the idea of building a permanent US military base in Poland.

Added to this is the ongoing militarization of the Scandinavian peninsula that goes largely unnoticed. And the rearming of Poland. And NATO’s build-up of logistics infrastructure in Eastern and Northern Europe. And the formation of a military alliance between the US and two northern European states: Sweden and Finland. And the US Air Force presence that has expanded in Eastern Europe. Don’t forget the tensions in the Black Sea near Russia’s shores. Russia is being confronted by 29 NATO member states.

Given all this, can anyone claim that Moscow’s concerns are unjustified? NATO talking about how Russia is threatening the Baltic states (or whoever) is like the pot calling the kettle black. The media should be paying more attention to the alliance’s war preparations so that readers could form a rational opinion about who is really threatening who and whose behavior is provocative. 

The Northern Dimension boosted cooperation between Russia and the Northern European states in such areas as transport and logistics, the environment, culture, health and social welfare. Maintaining and consolidating the zone of peace and stability meets the fundamental interests of all countries of the region. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe has traditionally provided a forum to address the issues related to regional security. According to Finnish Foreign Minister Timo Soini, «For Finland, it is important that security in Europe is strengthened and rests on the principles of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe».

Today the stability is undermined by the recent increase in NATO presence in the Baltic States and Poland – a destabilizing factor to directly affect Finland due to its geographic position.

Russia has expressed concern over the situation and offered to take steps aimed at easing the existing tensions.

On March 21, US Defense Secretary James Mattis and Finnish Defense Minister Jussi Niinistö met at the conference of anti-Islamic State coalition to discuss alleged «Russian aggression» and Helsinki’s ties with NATO. The US Defense Department’s report about the meeting does not make clear if the term «Russian aggression’ was used by the Pentagon’s press-service or the defense chiefs themselves during the talks. «The two leaders discussed Russian aggression, Finland's relationship with NATO as an enhanced opportunities partner, and the bilateral security cooperation… between the US and Finland», it states.

During the meeting, Mr. Niinistö said, «I reiterated the Finland’s position that the deployment of new American forces in the Baltic States and Poland is a stabilizing factor for the Baltic region» («Toistin Suomen kannan, että uusien [amerikkalaisjoukkojen] sijoittaminen Baltiaan ja Puolaan on Itämeren alueen kannalta vakauttava tekijä»).

It’s not the first time, the Finland’s defense chief welcomes the US-led NATO deployments and ensuing tensions such a move entails. Last October, Finland and the United States signed a bilateral defense cooperation pact, pledging closer military collaboration. The declaration signed by Defense Minister Jussi Niinistö stated that "the US presence in and around the Baltic Sea undergirds stability in the region, and creates opportunities to increase defense cooperation between our countries."

But does his stance dovetail with what President Sauli Niinistö says? The president believes that «It is not in Finland’s interests to stir up confrontation.  A wise person asks whether there are means of alleviating confrontation. This is called dialogue, or diplomacy. It is also Finland’s long-term foreign and security policy. It is also my policy». According to Sauli Niinistö, «Finland is a force for stability in the region, based on its own foreign and security policy which includes a credible national defence, cooperation with the EU, NATO and the Nordic countries, and dialogue with Russia». The president does not include stationing of NATO forces into the list of factors providing regional security.

The deployment of troops in the proximity of Russia is a violation of the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which states that NATO would engage in no «additional permanent stationing of substantial ground combat forces». The document also contains a pledge «to strengthen stability by further developing measures to prevent any potentially threatening build-up of conventional forces in agreed regions of Europe, to include Central and Eastern Europe». Looks like the Finnish Defense Minister is happy about the major international security treaty being torn up to whip up tensions in the region his country belongs to! Does he express his own views or is it the stance of the president and the government? This issue requires clarification. Perhaps the two Russian-Finnish summits expected in the course of the year will provide such a chance. There are just a few days left till President Sauli Niinistö arrives in Arkhangelsk, Russia,  to attend the International Arctic Forum on 30 March 2017.  

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and holds a secondary appointment in the Department of Religion

In his book 2017: War with Russia published a few months ago, former deputy commander of NATO Sir Alexander Richard Shirreff predicts that to prevent NATO expansion Russia will annex eastern Ukraine and invade the Baltic state of Latvia in May 2017. Most dismiss the book as sensationalist fantasy, but it draws attention to the fact that NATO is in fact aggressively expanding, and holding large-scale war games in Romania, Lithuania, and Poland, and Russia is truly concerned.

Why Latvia? Shirreff is not alone in trying to depict Latvia and the other Baltic states (Estonia and Lithuania) as immanently threatened by Russia. The stoking of Baltic fears of such are a principle justification for NATO expansion.

The argument begins with the assertion that Vladimir Putin (conflated with Russia itself, as though he were an absolute leader, a second Stalin) wants to revive the Soviet Union. His occasional comment that the collapse of the USSR was a “catastrophe” is repeatedly cited, totally out of context, as proof of this expansionist impulse. It continues with the observation that there has been tension between Russia and the Baltic states since their independence in 1991. And while Russia has never threatened the Baltic states with invasion or re-incorporation, the fear mongers like to conjure up Sir Richard’s World War III scenario.

So it’s not difficult to understand why NATO, in its largest war games since the end of the Cold War, would choose Poland, which borders both Russia (the Kaliningrad enclave) and Lithuania, as their setting. Dubbed Anaconda-2016, the ten-day exercise involves 31,000 troops from 24 countries including non-NATO members Kosovo, Macedonia and Finland. Germany, whose foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has actually criticized the exercise as “saber-rattling and warmongering,” has sent 400 military engineers but no combat troops.

This follows the June announcement that NATO would deploy four multinational battalions (about 4000 troops) in the Baltic states and Poland to “bolster their defenses against Russia.” The idea is that Russian actions in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine since 2014 show that Russia poses a grave threat to European security.

It doesn’t actually. Its military budget is one-twelfth of NATO’s.  It has no motive. Russia has responded to the unrelenting expansion of NATO to encompass it with stern words and defensive military measures but calm and ongoing appeals for cooperation with nations it (despite everything) continues to refer to as “our partners.”

But since the Baltics have become the focus of (supposed) NATO-Russian contestation, let’s look at what the problem is all about.

The three states, with just six million people today, were part of the Russian Empire under the tsars from the 18th century up to the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. While most of the component parts of that empire soon became Soviet Socialist Republics (such as George, Armenia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan etc.), others, including Poland, Finland and the Baltic states gained their independence at that time.

But in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, there remained large ethnic Russian, and Russian-speaking minorities, as there are today. In 1940 the Soviet army invaded these countries and incorporated them into the USSR. This was part of a strategy to avoid German invasion through the signing of the “Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact” that also meant the temporary division of Poland. (We can criticize this, as I surely do, but that’s the history.) A year later the Nazis invaded the Baltic republics and the Soviet Union as a whole. But the Soviets won the war, and the Baltics remained Soviet up to 1991.

The Baltic states, never truly happy campers in the Soviet Union, initiated the breakup of the country when, from June 1987, protests in Latvia and Estonia led to demands for secession, which the USSR recognized in September 1991.  These demands for independence were generally supported by ethnic Russians in the republics. They no doubt expected that they would retain their longstanding linguistic rights.

(This issue of language rights is a huge problem in the former Soviet republics, including especially Ukraine. But it is little understood nor appreciated by U.S.opinion-makers, especially U.S. State Department officials and their media echo chamber.)

Today the Baltic republics have a population of a little over six million, including about one million ethnic Russians. The Russian figure has declined by about one-third since 1991. It is currently lowest in Lithuania (6 to 14%), and 24-30% in the other states.

The restoration of independence produced a wave of nationalist sentiment that included an attack on existing rights of ethnic Russians, distinguished from the others less by looks than by language. As recently as May 2016 a survey co-conducted by the Estonian and Latvian governments found that 89% of ethnic Latvians and 84% of ethnic Estonians are unhappy with this presence and want the Russians to “move back to Russia,” although many are from families who have lived in these countries for centuries.

In Latvia, the State Language Law (passed in 2000) requires submission of documents to local and national government to be submitted in Latvian only, submitting documents to government (local included) and state public enterprises is allowed in Latvian only, as the sole national language. (Earlier they could be submitted in Russia, or even English or German.) Aside from being perceived by the minority as an attack on their own culture and identity, it is a hardship especially for older citizens who have never mastered the “national” language. A similar situation pertains in Estonia. Protests not only by Russia but by other countries have resulted in rulings against Latvia by the European Court of Human Rights and the UN Human Rights Committee.

Moscow sees itself as the protector of ethnic Russians from Ukraine to the Baltics. This should not be so hard to understand. But that does not mean that Moscow—however annoyed it is by NATO expansion to its borders—has plans to invade its neighbors and spark a general conflagration. NATO in 2013 had 3,370,000 service members in 2013, to Russia’s 766,000 troops. NATO expenditures in 2015 were $892 billion on defense in 2015, compared to Russia’s $70 billion.

The idea that Russia poses a threat to any NATO nation is as plausible as the notion that Saddam Hussein threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction. Or that Libya’s Gadhafy was preparing a genocidal campaign against his own people. Or that Iran plans to use nukes to wipe Israel off the map. These are all examples of the Big Lie.

Wait, some will ask, what about Georgia? Didn’t Russia invade and divide that country? Yes, it did, in defense of South Ossetia, which had resisted inclusion in the Republic of Georgia formed in 1991, fearing its ultranationalist leadership. South Ossetia, inhabited by an Iranian people, had been included as an autonomous oblast in the Georgian Soviet Republic but as the Soviet Union dissolve sought unity with Russia. So did Abkhazia. These two “breakaway republics” had been involved in a “frozen conflict” with Georgia until real war broke out in August 2008, producing a Russian invasion of Georgia and Russia’s recognition of South Ossetia as well as Abkhazia as independent states.

One can see this as tit-for-tat for the U.S. dismemberment of Serbia in 1999 and subsequent recognition of Kosovo as an independent state in February 2008. This act in plain violation of international law, condemned by U.S. allies such as Greece, Romania and Spain, was explained by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as a sui generiscase. Well then, that 1999 NATO war on Serbia has led to more sui generis cases, hasn’t it?

And what about Ukraine? The limited moves Russia has taken there have been in direct response of the U.S.-led effort to incorporate Ukraine into NATO, most notably in backing the pro-NATO (and neo-fascist) forces who pulled off the coup of February 22, 2014.  Any support Russia has offered to ethnic Russians in the Donbass opposed to the ultranationalist (and dysfunctional) new regime in Kiev hardly constitute an “invasion.”

It’s all about NATO. Unfortunately, the U.S. masses don’t even know what NATO is, or how it’s expanding. It is rarely mentioned in the mainstream press; its existence is never problematized, or discussed in U.S. political debates (except when Trump says the U.S.’s NATO allies are getting a “free ride”); the fact that its dissolution is not subject to questioning is all very depressing.

But wait, I must correct myself. Stephen Kinzer, a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University, got an op-ed published in the Boston Globe a few days ago, entitled “Is NATO Necessary?” Without calling for its outright abolition, he declares, “We need less NATO, not more.”

But the next day the newspaper website included (as if by way of apology) an op-ed by Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs in the George W. Bush administration and now professor of the practice of diplomacy and international politics at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government. It’s entitled, “Why NATO is vital for American interests.”

Burns adduces four reasons for NATO’s continuing necessity.

“The first is Vladimir Putin’s aggression — his division of Georgia and Ukraine, his annexation of Crimea, his threats to the Baltic states, and his military’s harassment of US forces in international airspace and international waters.” (In other words, Russia’s restrained response to NATO’s provocations is reasons for NATO to continue, as a provocateur. And what “threats” of Putin can Burns cite? There have been none.)

“The second challenge is a dramatically weakening and potentially fractured European Union, now exacerbated by the possible departure of the United Kingdom.” (In other words, as the contradictions within European capitalism intensify, the U.S. must keep its camp together as—if nothing else—an anti-Russian alliance. What logic is this, other than fascist logic?)

“The third is the tsunami of violence spreading from the Levant and North Africa into Europe itself.” (In other words, when NATO actions result in so much pain in Libya and Afghanistan, and U.S.-led wars to so much chaos in Iraq and Syria that a million people flood into Europe, destabilizing European unity on the question of migration policy, the U.S. needs to be there somehow using the military alliance to hold it all together.)

“The fourth is uncertain and sometimes seemingly unconfident European and American leadership in the face of these combined challenges.”

(In other words, the U.S. needs to instill confidence by taking such actions as the invasion of Iraq that Burns supported as a State Department official, and the Libya slaughter he supported as a Boston Globe op-ed writer.)

Strength. Power. Confidence.

Burns and Gen. Jim Jones (former National Security Advisor for Pres. Obama) “believe NATO should station military forces “on a permanent basis in Poland, the Baltic states, the Black Sea region, and the Arctic,” and that the “US should extend lethal military assistance to Ukraine so that it can defend itself.” As though it has been attacked.

His final point is “that our most complex challenge may come from within the NATO countries themselves. Our strongest link is that we are all democracies. But, many of us, including the United States, are confronting a wave of isolationist sentiment and ugly extremism in our domestic political debates. NATO will need strong, unflinching American leadership to cope with these challenges.”

This conclusion is of course a reference to Donald Trump and his “extremism” in daring to—-among his many inchoate and clueless pronouncements—opine that the U.S. is protecting Europe for NATO, but spending too much money on it, and Germany should do more for Ukraine. It seems a statement in favor of that Iron Lady Hillary, who was so unflinching in her support of the Iraq War, and the Libya regime change, and who is hot to trot to bomb government buildings in Damascus.

During the years that the former Soviet republics have been independent, these servants of the Baltic Themis were coached in how to make absurd demands of Russia. In 1940 all three republics voted in favor of joining the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, although this fact is at odds with their political doctrine, according to which the elections of 1940 were conducted «with a gun to our heads», and the period from 1940 to 1991 is seen as a time of Soviet occupation. «…It is precisely the legal continuity of the Baltic countries’ existence that makes it possible to present this demand. Under international law, one may demand legal redress for an occupation, both through compensation for material damage, as well as in the form of a formal apology», stated the participants in the Riga meeting.

This «memorandum of cooperation» did not appear out of nowhere. In Latvia, the commission responsible for tallying the «damage» has been working for many years. They have agreed for now on the sum of 300 billion euros, but that is not a final figure and there are constant attempts to increase it. Lithuania is also making similar calculations, which currently amount to about $830 billion.

Estonia has been slightly more restrained. Realizing that instead of money they might only be offered «dead donkey's ears» (in the words of Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin, quoting a line from a famous Russian novel in response to the Baltic ministers’ absurd claims), Estonian politicians are willing to be satisfied with an apology from Moscow. And the Prime Minister of Estonia, Taavi Rõivas, has gone so far as to criticize the ministers of justice for raising such a hue and cry for no purpose. He has stated that he cannot understand what his country can realistically gain from this memorandum. 

Nevertheless, this collective paranoia is clearly focused on forcing Russia to make amends. However, the «victims» acknowledge that they are having difficulty calculating the amount that they would like to receive. The ministers have agreed that their first practical step should be to standardize their methodologies for estimating the «damages». Then they will get together to jointly formulate a demand for compensation for these «damages» in accordance with international law and to prepare legal steps to submit this claim. The Estonian Minister of Justice, Urmas Reinsalu, says that in addition to the states’ demands, potential collective claims against Russia from private individuals are also possible, both against the «legal successor to the occupying state» as well as «against the companies that used slave labor». 

That idea seems so ridiculous that the only response could be to laugh, as did Dmitry Rogozin. But let’s pause for a moment. The potential plaintiffs hope that these lawsuits being dreamed up against Russia will make it possible to take the doctrine of «Soviet occupation» and muscle that idea into international law. Once that has been accomplished, the ethnocratic regimes that exist in the Baltics count on being able to resolve a long list of pressing issues.

Their top priority is to evade their historical culpability for collaborating with the Nazis during WWII and to assert their «right» to include those collaborators among the fighters for «national independence». Should that occur, the government would have a free hand to tear down monuments honoring the Red Army, retaliate against (and criminally prosecute) former Soviet soldiers, and ban Soviet symbols. And, as recent days have shown, they could even cut off cultural ties with Russia, as we have seen in the much-talked-about ban on concerts by the Russian Army’s Academic Song and Dance Ensemble in a number of cities in Lithuania and Latvia, under the pretext that those concerts could become «a well-paid tool of Moscow» attempting to «divide Lithuanian society» (this was the opinion expressed by the Minister of Culture, Šarūnas Birutis).

The existence of a doctrine of «Soviet occupation» is also a prerequisite for preserving the shameful institution of widespread statelessness in Latvia and Estonia (in Estonia they are officially called «persons of unspecified citizenship»). There, the local ethnic Russians are labeled as «occupiers» or «the descendants of occupiers». The laws adopted by the Latvian and Estonian governments in the early 1990s serve as the legal justification for such discrimination. In accordance with that legislation, citizenship in those countries is granted only to residents who can prove that their ancestors were living there prior to 1940.

«If we renounce the concept of the occupation, we will endanger our policy on citizenship, non-citizens and their rights, and other key issues. It is obvious that we cannot take such a step». These were the very frank, almost cynical words spoken back in 2005 by Vaira Paegle, the Chair of the Latvian Saeima’s European Affairs Committee. In the ten years since, the situation has only gotten worse: there are about 300,000 «Negroes» (the local slang for non-citizens, primarily Russians) in Latvia today. In other words, about 15% of the population is completely excluded from participation in politics: they have no voice in parliamentary elections and are subject to more than 80 other restrictions on their political, economic, and social rights. Estonia has about 90,000 residents who hold special non-citizen passports and are deprived of rights. The ethnocratic regimes are also trying to settle old scores against them.

Now the Baltics are ready to take decisive steps to completely rid themselves of the legacy of the «Soviet occupation». However, it should be kept in mind that this could prove a double-edged sword. One thorny issue might be the territorial gains that were won thanks to that «occupation regime».

Today’s city of Klaipėda, for example, used to be the German town of Memel. But in 1923 it was handed over to Lithuania by the League of Nations, which is when it acquired its current name. On March 22, 1939, Germany dispatched its soldiers to the town. A Nazi occupation of all of Lithuania would have been unavoidable had the Soviet Union – which was entering into a nonaggression pact with Germany – not insisted that the Baltic states be included within its zone of geopolitical interest. What is now the Lithuanian city of Klaipėda exists only thanks to the efforts of the Soviet Union.

And what about the formerly Polish city of Vilnius, which became Lithuanian in October 1939? That occurred precisely as a result of the political and military actions of the USSR, specifically the Red Army’s campaign into the eastern regions of a Poland that had been devastated by the Wehrmacht. Should Berlin bring up the subject of Memel, or Warsaw mention Wilno, who would be considered the aggressor? Not the long gone Soviet Union, for sure. Therefore, before any «compensation» can come from Russia, the prized fruits of «Stalinist expansionism» must first be relinquished, at the very least.

And here’s a word to the wise for those who would enjoy making a profit by speculating on all the blather about the «occupation». On June 30, 2015, the Russian general prosecutor’s office announced that they were launching a review into the legality of the decision from the early 1990s to recognize the independence of the Baltic republics – on the grounds that the decision «was made by an unconstitutional body». Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaitė and Foreign Minister Linas Linkevičius rushed to label the work of the Russian prosecutor’s office a provocation.  That was futile. The Russian general prosecutor’s office is simply reexamining the situation from a legal standpoint – in which all the arguments that the arrival of the Red Army in 1940, and then in 1944, brought the Baltics not liberation, but «occupation» – are not only ludicrous, but also legally null and void.

And now the policies of sanctions, plus Russia’s countermeasures, are adding to the economic woes in the Baltics. For example, the Baltic News Service reports that between January and July of 2015, Lithuania exported 54.7% fewer goods to Russia than during the same period in 2014. Lithuanian exports of milk and dairy products fell by 94.2%, and no meat or meat products have been exported to Russia this year at all. The Lithuanian Ministry of Finance stated that they had failed to find an alternative to the Russian market. And we might add: they will continue to fail.

Rising unemployment has resulted in a massive exodus, especially among younger generation. Latvia and Lithuania have lost about 20% of their populations. The Estonian population has decreased by 5.5%.

Up to a certain point, the citizens of these Baltic nations – which (with the exception of Lithuania) had never before enjoyed true sovereignty – were still able to mentally justify all these sacrifices by clinging to the comforting idea that they were now bona fide members of the “great family of European nations.” It seemed that in the EU they were “equal among equals.” They were heartened by their Americanized consciousness of their new, historic mission – to stand on the front lines of the battle between the “civilized world” and “aggressive and barbaric Russia.” At the same time they were inspired by their crusade against their “internal enemy” – the Russian “non-citizens” who thought of nothing but how to again restore Moscow’s colonial yoke over the freedom-loving Baltic people.

But once the Western part of the continent was engulfed by a wave of refugees, the attitudes of these inhabitants of the outskirts of Europe reached a tipping point. The refugee problem in the Baltics emerged when those nations were assigned migrant quotas. Here they come – wanted or not.

At first the numbers seemed modest enough. In July, officials in Riga indicated their willingness to accept 250 migrants, Tallinn – between 84-156, and Vilnius was to take only a few – between 50 and 60.

But September arrived and the mood of the European Commission shifted. In July the EC had agreed to admit 40,000 refugees into the EU, divvying them up among 28 different countries, but now Jean-Claude Juncker is insisting that that figure be quadrupled. The quotas for the “young Europeans” of the Baltics were also revised. Now Latvia must accept 776 refugees, Lithuania – 1,105, and Estonia – 523. Brussels had already brandished its iron fist in warning: Juncker announced that the quotas for the EU member states were mandatory and that any country refusing to accept the migrants would be subjected to financial sanctions.

And that’s when it began…

Kristiina Ojuland, an MEP and the former foreign minister of Estonia, criticized the “politically correct drivel” coming from the European Union and proclaimed a “threat to the white race.” Latvian society launched into a debate about who is worse – Africans or Russians. Latvia’s former minister of defense, Artis Pabriks, who is also an MEP, explained that Latvia cannot accept Africans, as his country suffered so cruelly when it was violently colonized by the Russians.

The Baltics have been beset with nationalist protests. Refugees arriving at a reception site in the Estonian village of Vao were met by a demonstration of protesting local residents, a motorcycle rally consisting of hundreds of bikers, and proud Estonians wearing T-shirts emblazoned with the image of the Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik. The refugee reception center itself was set on fire by some of the villagers.

Juncker’s quotas are merely the first step on a long staircase that goes nowhere but down. These “young Europeans” from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania will also have to answer for their part in America’s military adventures, for “Atlantic solidarity,” and for the devastation of the Middle East.

They thought Russia was an Asian interloper in Europe. But now they’ll get a real taste of Asia, in addition to Africa, right where they live.

Dunford’s presence in the Senate was necessary for him to be approved as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of America’s armed forces, which he is certain to become, given his belligerent attitude to Russia which, he declared to be «a bigger threat to the United States than the Islamic State» — these savage terrorists whose murderous acts around the world have created fear and misery in countless countries. His comparison was not only insultingly antagonistic to Russia but a bizarre distortion of fact. (Intriguingly, it was reported on 15 July that «NATO and its allies will hold their biggest military exercise in more than a decade from October, deploying 36,000 personnel across the Mediterranean to counter the threat of Islamic State on the alliance’s southern flank».)

From his pronouncements it is apparent that one of the greatest threats to peace in the world is the incoming Chairman of the US Chiefs of Staff Committee, the most important military advisor to the US President. His observations and attempts at intimidation were intemperate and vulgarly abusive as well as verging on the grotesque.

It is ridiculous to claim that Russia is a threat to the United States, other than economically and politically. Russia has no intention whatever of presenting a military threat to America and has not done so. There is not one instance in which Russia has moved military forces to threaten the US. There are, however, countless instances of substantial US land, sea and air forces moving towards Russia’s borders.

The current shambles in Ukraine, caused by the US-supported coup against its government in 2014, is being used by the US-urged west as justification to attempt economic punishment of Russia — and for North Atlantic Treaty countries to menace the Russian homeland. NATO is desperately attempting to justify its existence — and its luxurious new billion dollar headquarters — and the Ukraine debacle is serving its purpose.

Russia has not made a single threat against any NATO country. Surrounded as it is by members of that military grouping, Moscow has tried to maintain trading links with all of them. It is eminently sensible to do so, but it is Russia’s closest neighbours who are suffering most from the US-EU (read NATO) sanctions on economic growth.

In February Bloomberg Business, which is far from being a supporter of Russia, had to record that «exporters in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — the euro area's newest members — can expect their sales to Russia to fall by around a fifth this year. The latest official figures show that Russia accounts for 21 percent of Lithuania's exports, 12 percent of Latvia's and 9.8 percent of Estonia's. The value of goods and services headed to Russia, which is currently facing recession and a weaker rouble, will shrink by between 18 percent and 25 percent for the three countries, according to a recent report published by Danske Bank, Denmark's biggest bank. This will cost their economies 690 million euros collectively this year, or approximately $780 million». Given the combination of the Greek crisis and NATO sanctions damaging the economies of Russia’s trading partners all over Europe there is little wonder the Euro is staggering.

What have Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania (which were encouraged to join NATO in 2004) done to deserve US-EU attacks on their economies? Nothing, of course, other than being willing and mutually gainful trading partners of Russia.

Why on earth would Russia threaten the Baltic nations? If Moscow wanted to be nasty to these countries it could do so quite simply, by stopping their gas supplies. The thought of Russia exerting military pressure on them is ludicrous, and not even the paranoid Dunford could quote an example of this taking place. The Baltic states are valuable to Russia because of their trading importance, just as are so many European countries. It would be insane of Russia to even contemplate invading these countries, or any others for that matter.

But the United States has «delivered more than 100 pieces of military equipment to vulnerable NATO-allied Baltic states in a move designed to provide them with the ability to deter potential Russian threats. The deliveries are intended to «demonstrate resolve to President Putin and Russia that collectively we can come together» declared yet another US general, who added that the tanks would stay «for as long as required to deter Russian aggression».

The man’s a fool, of course, because if Russia decided to invade and occupy the Baltic states it could do so within a few days, and 100 US tanks wouldn’t make the slightest difference. Nor does the fact that in June it was reported that «NATO flexes its muscles: More than 6,000 troops from 13 NATO countries are participating in the Sabre Strike 2015 drills in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland, all EU and NATO members». These confrontational antics were meant to frighten Russia, but all they did was conjure up a few laughs.

Similarly, if Russia had wanted to invade Ukraine — which has got nothing to do with NATO and has no ties whatever with the United States — it could have done so in a walkover from border to border within three weeks. And NATO couldn’t have done a single thing in retaliation.

The West refuses to accept that there is no Russian military threat to any other nation. There is certainly Russian support of Russian majority citizens in regions of Ukraine who are threatened by the Kiev regime. And although that support doesn’t go nearly as far as that of NATO for the citizens of Kosovo, which resulted in 38,000 NATO airstrikes on Yugoslavia in March-June 1999, it is based on the hopes that there should be justice and political choice for the ethnically Russian people in eastern Ukraine, as well as increasing bilaterally lucrative trade with adjoining countries.

Such aspirations present no military threat to America or any other nation. The dispute between Russia and Ukraine is an entirely bilateral matter. And Russia’s relations with its trading partners, which it wishes for obvious reason to be equable and mutually beneficial, are nothing to do with the United States, either.

For General Dunford to claim that there is «an existential threat» to the United States from Russia is absurd. His allegation that Russia’s «behaviour, it’s nothing short of alarming» is unfounded and self-serving. He presents himself as a threat to peace.

He is certain to be appointed head of all US military forces.

The expectations were dashed with controversies remaining and ironic comments coming from Russia. State Duma Speaker Sergey Naryshkin says Washington politicians who claim Russia's isolation are «pathetic clowns». «Russia’s isolation is just impossible and those high-ranking politicians in Washington who claim that they allegedly isolated Russia look like pathetic clowns», Naryshkin told a lower house session on July 3. «This initiative of the EU contradicts European values, including the freedom of speech. It also limits the right of people to get information from different sources. In fact, this initiative isolates Europe», the Speaker added. 

At present, this opinion could be corroborated only by excerpts from the text of the «strategic communication plan» offered by EU-friendly publications. Many media outlets dance to the tune of EU leaders who ordered the plan to be prepared. The publication of the final text is continuously postponed to mirror differences of opinion inside the European Union. No wonder! The EU «counterpropaganda» outlets conduct a smear campaign against Russian world broadcasters (RT and Sputnik), as well as «Putin-friendly» European reporters. They see as Putin-friendly low-key style interviews with Russian officials, or the publication of materials containing no anti-Russia derogatory remarks. According to them, such publications contribute into Russia’s propaganda efforts abroad.

Italy’s Corriere della Sera has recently come under harsh criticism for publishing an interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin without confronting him. It was blamed for providing a podium for «Russia’s propaganda» dissemination. It did an interview with Paul Bremer, a US diplomat, on Putin’s comments the next day. It also did an interview on Putin with the Italian foreign minister to reject the argument that the newspaper gave a platform to Russian propaganda. No matter that, the accusations continued unabated.

It’s worth to have a cursory look at the way the events unfolded recently. The need for a plan to counter the «Russian propaganda» has been an issue on the agenda since last December when the then EU Commissioner for European Neighborhood Policy, Johannes Hahn, said the EU had «some ideas» on the way to fight Russia’s presumably increased «communication effort».

The first draft of this new counterpropaganda strategy of the EU was submitted on January 9, 2015, by Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania and the United Kingdom. The blueprint avoided mentioning direct censorship or blacklisting. Instead it emphasized the need for instruments to counter the Russia’s «propaganda efforts» meaning EU-friendly broadcasters who would offer views alternative to what Russia’s newsmakers had to say (including reports in Russian language). However, the draft also called on EU media regulators to hold Russian broadcasters accountable if they «manipulate, deceive, incite hatred, or propagate war». While lambasting Russia, the EU did not send any warning messages to the Ukrainian regime and its broadcasters. 

The EU pretended to ignore the fact that Ukrainian media’s fake reports about Russian troops invading Ukraine from Crimea (offered as a scoop by Western newspapers, such as the New York Timeswhich reported the news last summer) proved to be absolutely false. «Obviously, the EU pretended that these lies did not reflect the desire to manipulate, deceive and incite Ukrainians, as well as Americans and Europeans too», ironizes Jon Hellevig, a Moscow-based expert in business and media education and the founding partner of Moscow-based Awara Group.

On February 6, 2015, the EU’s new rotating chairman, Latvia, came up with a more radical draft. The European Council, the body that defines the EU's overall political direction and priorities setting the EU's policy agenda, addressed the issue at the March summit. EU leaders, meeting on March 19-20, gave High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Federica Mogherini, three months – until their next summit this June – to work out how to support media freedom and European values in Russia. It welcomed the establishment of a communication team as a first step in this regard.

Soon East StratComTeam was formed. It has not been made clear what exactly functions this team will carry out, but it is already spending money. It was only natural to expect financial abuses. The European Endowment for Democracy (EED) received a 500 000 euros grant to be spent on a «feasibility study» of «opportunities for pluralism» in the Russian media. Alastair Rabagliati, the EED’s director of operations, told EUobserver, «We’ve launched an initiative, with the support of a Dutch government grant, which will develop a feasibility study with clear recommendations on the way forward for the development of independent Russian language media initiatives».

Before the EU’s Eastern Partnership summit in Riga (Latvia), the feasibility study on Russian Language Media Initiatives in the Eastern Partnership and Beyond was presented on 19 May in Riga, It used such terms as «pan-regional news hub», a «content factory» and, of course, «coordination mechanisms». The EU threw away half a million euros of taxpayers’ money on this «research work».

While accusing the Russian media of lies, the EU officials and the friendly media were regularly caught red handed offering misleading information to public since a long time ago. The aforementioned «EUobserver», for example, has recently reported that the Russian news agency RIA Novosti «tried to hire a Brussels PR firm to improve the image of Stalin» in 2009.

This is a blatant lie circulated by Andrew Rettman of EU observer with impunity. «To say that we glorify Stalin is certainly a calumny», Svetlana Mironyuk, then editor-in-chief of RIA Novosti, said in 2009, adding that rumors about this were circulated with the aim of discrediting the agency. On many occasions RIA denied trying to whitewash Joseph Stalin, not to speak about hiring foreign companies for that purpose. In fact, Stalin has been viewed in Russia as a controversial and predominantly negative figure since 1956 (when Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, the Stalin’s successor, denounced his activities as he addressed the Twentieth Congress of the Soviet Communist Party). But the EU’s media is deliberately creating myths about «Russian nationalism going wild under Putin» and «Russian trolls getting millions of dollars from the state budget» driven by evidently political motivation.

The latest «counterpropaganda» plan of EU, seen by reporters in June, includes accusations of «fabrications» and «hate speech» against RT and Sputnik. If propaganda is a threat, then the EU is the one who poses it when it attacks Russia, Hungary, and Greece. The EU does not shy away from fakes (take, for instance, the reports about Saddam Hussein possessing the weapons of mass destruction – the biggest, but by no means only hog-wash offered to public by European media). The EU’s media has no «prejudice» against hate speech neither (for instance, the demonization of Russian speakers in the east of Ukraine calling them «Sovietized alcoholics» in the Polish newspapers was one of the factors that provoked the civil war in Ukraine).

History will hand down its verdict on the EU’s liars. But people should not wait for explanations offered by historians. The EU’s major disinformation campaign launched against Russia, as well as Greece, Hungary, Macedonia, negatively affects the whole Europe in general. It should be stopped now before it is too late.

The train was carrying at least 38 vehicles and several semitrailers, including eight Bradley Fighting Vehicles, nine M113 Armored Personnel Carriers (APCs), four petrol tankers, Heavy Expanded Mobility Tactical Trucks (HEMTTs), High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicles (HMMWVs), an M88 Hercules Armory recovery vehicle, a couple of trucks, some tactical engineering and medical vehicles, at least four containers and a pair of railcars with ammunition.

Latvian authorities have confirmed to Delfi news portal that the train spotted on December 7 was loaded with the vehicles of the 1st Cavalry Division of the US and the train was heading to Lithuania.

American armored vehicles have been sent to the Baltic States and Poland for military drills and are set to remain for the constant training of local troops and rotation of US forces.

More fighting vehicles will be pre-positioned at US military bases in Germany. Deployment of additional hardware to Baltic States and Poland goes on within the framework of the US ‘Operation Atlantic Resolve’ effort, established to reassure American allies in Eastern Europe anxious about a“resurgent Russia.”

RT