Stanislav Shipitsyn/Why NATO does not threaten Russia and its citizens

Why NATO doesn’t threaten Russia and its citizens?

by Stanislav Shipitsyn, editor-in-chief of the Libertarian Party of Russia, Vyatka

One of the main myths that people in Russia can often hear is the “threat of NATO” and the almost existential desire of the West and some post-Soviet powers to conquer Russia (in one sense or another - ideological/political/economic/cultural, etc.) In this note, we will try to briefly break down the main theses of both outright propaganda and ordinary “patriotic” publicists.

To begin with, it is worth recalling the reasons for the creation of the NATO bloc as such. After the victory over the Third Reich, it became clear that the Soviet Union received a lot of all kinds of resources to continue the struggle to establish socialist puppets around the world. Even before the Second World War, the Soviet Union financed many communist parties in Europe (for example, the French or German) and even called for armed seizures of power in the early days of the Comintern. Given the “features” of building socialism in Russia (the repression of all other political forces and the construction of a one-party dictatorship of the Bolsheviks under the guise of “power of the proletariat”, Western states saw a direct threat in the activities of communist pro-Soviet movements. The situation became even worse after the Spanish Civil War (where, at the end of its existence, the “republicans” actually turned from various kinds of anti-Franco forces into a Soviet puppet) and the “liberation” of Eastern Europe, after which the pre-war regimes of varying degrees of democracy were replaced by “people’s democracies”, which, according to their essence did not differ from the USSR itself - all non-communist parties were banned, and power actually ended up in the hands of the Kremlin, which not only determined the foreign policy of the occupied countries (which can be partly blamed on the United States in relation to the countries of Western Europe), but also the internal one up to carrying out industrialization and collectivization on the Soviet model.

The creation of NATO was an expected and logical response to the attempts of Soviet expansion and quite possibly helped to avoid the third bloody war in Europe, since the Soviet Union lost the opportunity to attack the Western countries one by one, as it was before the Second World War. However, NATO and the West clearly preferred a defensive strategy even at that time - there was no mass material support for the anti-communist opposition either in occupied Eastern Europe or in Russia itself, and the deployment of radio propaganda with the help of Radio Liberty was unlikely to have a serious effect on the Soviet population, and thus more on state elites. In addition, the “West” actively traded with the Soviet Union, in fact supporting the budget of Moscow and its regime. This is where the essence of most Western politicians lies - all the little help that they provide to the civil society of dictatorships is often more than “compensated” by trade in various energy resources with the political elites of those countries that use this money to suppress the opposition.

“Why wasn’t NATO dissolved after the collapse of the USSR?” many critics of this organization ask. Firstly, although NATO aimed to repel Soviet aggression, it was also just an effective system of collective security that prevented new intra-European wars that shook the world until the second half of the 20th century, and there was no point for NATO member countries to abandon these treaties and put yourself at risk of a “Fourth Reich” or something like that. In addition, let’s be honest, Yeltsin’s Russia seemed to many to be a very unstable state, where revanchists could come to power at any moment and restore the previous order: until 1993, there was a parliament in the country formed back in the Soviet Union, and after that, various populists from the Communist Party and the Liberal Democratic Party. In addition, some communist regimes outlived the Soviet Union and/or slightly transformed and continued to pose a certain threat (the regime of Milosevic in Yugoslavia, Lukashenko in Europe, China/DPRK, etc. in Asia, Cuba, etc.). In addition, Russia supported Abkhazia, Transnistria and South Ossetia and got involved in bloody conflicts in the post-Soviet space. And most importantly, the founders of NATO never claimed that after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the elimination of the “red threat” this alliance would be disbanded.

The next “argument” often used by opponents of the West is the expansion of NATO, which contradicted some promises made by George W. Bush to Mikhail Gorbachev, according to which NATO promised not to expand to the East after the reunification of Germany. It is worth noting here that these promises were only verbal and were not legally enforceable. Not surprisingly, other American presidents (especially Bill Clinton, who was in a different party altogether) may not have been aware of these promises at all, much less obliged to keep them. There is no need to look for any conspiracies in the very expansion of NATO to the east - after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new states sought to achieve maximum rapprochement with the United States, which rightly had the image of the hegemon and winners of the Cold War and, moreover, profitable trading partners. American “tanks” entered Prague, Bucharest, Vilnius and Warsaw without a fight, in contrast to the Soviet, and in the future Russian experience. Political forces that oppose NATO in Europe exist quite calmly in Europe and participate in democratic elections without any restrictions (for example, Le Pen in France, the Kotleba party in Slovakia, various radical communist movements in almost all countries, etc.) . However, polls show that ordinary citizens of Europe do not oppose NATO membership, which is why these parties rarely win elections. Almost immediately after the supporters of capitalism came to power, the Eastern European countries began to grow rich, and the standard of living and life expectancy grew rapidly. The NATO alliance itself does not burden its members with participation in some kind of bloody wars (usually participation in military operations by “US allies” remains purely symbolic).

Soon, these trends were not long in coming in many countries of the post-Soviet space, where the “orange revolutions” took place. They were certainly supported by the West, but primarily diplomatically, while financial assistance, and even more so military assistance, was minimal. Moreover, Russia interfered in the elections in these countries no less, and often more. So, before the famous Ukrainian elections in 2004, Vladimir Putin personally came to Kiev and spoke with Yanukovych at rallies, and Ukraine itself received various kinds of large monetary preferences when “pro-Russian forces” were in power. The Ukrainians themselves, the Balts, the Moldovans or the Georgians did not have any claims to the Russian territories and, moreover, did not want to “enslave” Russia in any way.

Of course, it is foolish to deny their desire to build a so-called “national state” within their borders, which implies some kind of imposition of a state culture on national minorities, among which the Russian turned out to be the largest. Political differences were layered on the ethnic conflict - Russian-speakers usually had a sharply negative attitude towards European integration, and even more so towards rapprochement with NATO - Soviet myths about American imperialists still lived in the minds of the population. Nevertheless, in Western countries, Russians did not fall victim to some terrible repression - they were not sent to re-educational concentration camps, the Russian language was not banned in everyday life, and the books of Pushkin or Dostoevsky were not recognized as “extremist”. In addition, the Russian-speaking population was often “offended” because of very harmless, and sometimes even correct things, such as the demolition of monuments to communist leaders, who were rightly considered occupiers and tyrants in the former republics. Yes, and Russia itself has never been consistent in protecting the rights of the Russian-speaking population - the eyes were turned a blind eye to the monstrous violations of the rights of Russians in Central Asia, and the leaders of local regimes even received awards from the hands of the President of the Russian Federation. So, in Tajikistan, the owner of the Order of Alexander Nevsky, Emomali Rahmon, banned the registration of Russian surnames and renamed absolutely all settlements in the Tajik / Persian manner, and in Turkmenistan, according to fragmentary information, Russian classes in schools are closed. This suggests that “Russophobia” is only an excuse for the foreign policy adventures of the current government.

The main problem of the supporters of the “cult of the destruction and enslavement of Russia by the West” is a misunderstanding of the essence of economics and politics as such. Now, almost all politicians in developed countries have understood that the war and the subsequent occupation of territories with a resisting population (especially a long and bloody one) is not beneficial for both sides. Trade and the free market are much more efficient than the ephemeral “resource grab”. It is much easier to pay money to the Russian Federation for conditional oil or gas than to carry out some complex operations to overthrow regimes that are not entirely pleasing. The West naturally cares first of all about its welfare and security, which is proved by the huge trade turnover between Russia and the European Union, especially before the events of 2022, which was largely beneficial to the Putin regime. The first sanctions against Russia were introduced only at the beginning of the 2010s and, on the whole, were only symbolic (after all, the impact was on individuals, not entire sectors of the economy), and only after the start of the “NVO” did the economic “war” begin really seriously.

If we talk about the various organizations associated with the “promoting democracy”, then they are unlikely to pose any existential threat to Russia and, moreover, are not dangerous for citizens. If Russia is waiting for the fate of Poland or even Lithuania (with NATO bases somewhere near Moscow), then it is unlikely that the Russians will be poorer or will walk in chains to an American plant. In addition, all these “democratic spreading” projects, fortunately or unfortunately, often turn out to be just another cut of money, and even more so (as I mentioned earlier) do not interfere with various kinds of dictators to the same extent that the West helps them with the help of trade.