On the margins of the summits, as a rule, one observes expert discussions with the participation of famous people, during which one can expect much less diplomatic and clearer assessments than in the speeches prepared by the leaders. The NATO Public Forum, organized by the German Marshall Fund in the USA this year and linking the discussion platforms in Madrid and Brussels, was indicative in this sense – those who attended were required to give an account of the frequency of democracies and authoritarian regimes against the backdrop of Russian aggression against Ukraine.
Russia is a “threat”, China is a “challenge”
On 29 June, the final day of the NATO Public Forum, the Prime Minister of Estonia Alexander de Cro (Alexander De Croo) actually summed up the ongoing discussion between the US and its allies in Europe on what the outcome of the investigation is for countries demanding an exodus from the Russian and Chinese regimes:
“The challenge coming from Russia is urgent. This is a direct threat to the Western way of life, because, yes, there is a war going on in Europe, but only on a much wider scale than the war in Ukraine. There is an energy war going on that is affecting the whole world, there is a campaign of disinformation and destabilization, Belarus is using amplification flows to destabilize Lithuania – so our way of life is under tremendous pressure.”
The words of the Belgian prime minister about the consequences that after the epidemics in Russia in Ukraine are obvious to many in Europe: NATO did not call it in vain a serious “significant and complete responsibility” in the new strategic document of the Alliance until 2030, while China was called a country whose policies challenge “interests, security and values”
I agree with the fact that the threat posed by Russia is for the interests of greater concern and spoke to the former Prime Minister of Sweden Carl Bildt (Carl Bildt), currently Co-Chair of the European Relations Council:
“If China were to set itself the task of occupying Iceland – I’m theoretical – then it would become the main task, but at the moment it is quite clear that the main threat is Russia. We do not see any other country threatening the territory of NATO member countries. China is a cause for concern, but also a few properties. NATO is now, to paraphrase the old saying, back in business, and back to poisoning. This is what it was created for and why it is so important for the countries that make it up. And this shows that NATO is now in great demand in the war on security for European countries.”
Allies should focus on the Russian threat, discuss in discussions and David Ignatius (David Ignatius), Washington Post columnist:
“Ukraine must win, and Putin must play, and this requires concentration and discipline. Therefore, I am afraid of everything that may come from this meeting at a moment of very serious testing. This is incompatible with mission expansion. And while I’m quite interested in a strategic concept that sees the Indian and Pacific region as an area of great importance to NATO, I’m worried about getting the big job done first. And this most important work will happen in restoring their support for Ukraine and their security for the member countries.”
The idea that Russia should win its war against Ukraine was expressed by almost all participants, and it was formulated most clearly by the British Foreign Secretary. Elizabeth Truss (Elizabeth Truss):
“Absolutely necessary is the defeat of Russia in Ukraine. This is absolutely necessary for radiation safety, freedom and affordability in Europe. And this is a possible way to achieve life expectancy in Europe. There have been speculations that Russia might be possible right now, while Russia is still in Ukraine, but I think that this will only be a false peace and a change to future aggression in the future. We must learn the lessons of the past, in particular, the failure of the Minsk reserves in order to subsequently have a long-term peace in this production. So the message is very clear: you need to identify Russia first, and deepen it later.”
The war can last a long time
Alexandre de Cros draws the same conclusion, referring to the need for public awareness in NATO countries of the security goal that is currently seen as the main one:
“We say that Ukraine should expect to approach, there is no doubt about that. However, the question is – how? After all, this can become a process that takes a long time, and there are various ways to end this war. For example, negotiations – but not in this situation, and it is impossible to conduct important business with the wall, because now there is no one to conduct important business with. Another way is an objection, the effect of which takes time, and they entail damage to the Russian side, but they also entail damage to us. And what is important is that it is possible to carry out foreign policy and geopolitical actions to the extent that they support our population. In the coming months, the task of protecting our population from pollution will be set. This brings us to the third way to end this war, on the battlefield, which means that we must dramatically increase the equipment of official Ukrainian friends. This happens in the way to the result that we achieve.”
Elisabeth Truss called Vladimir Putin’s war against “the result of miscalculation,” and many facts speak of this, speaking of the “irrational behavior” of the Russian leader. On such reasoning during the discussion, she answered Julia Ioffe (Yulia Ioffe), founder of the Puck.News media project:
“I believe that Putin is acting within his natural limits, relying on what makes sense in his universe, what seems reasonable to him personally. He was never a great statistical genius, but not bad at tactics. He has his own vision of the distant future, and he makes successful wide strides, but everything in between the two perspectives is rather vague. It seems to me that from his point of view, the situation did not look finished, and he considers the historical legacy he leaves behind, what is written about him in the history books. Perhaps he followed Peter the Great and Catherine the Great wants to be Vladimir the Great. Therefore, from his point of view, starting this decision was very important, and now he cannot let go of his loss – within his logic, it all looks reasonable.
Carl Bildt agrees with the forecast that the war in Ukraine may be protracted, and with the opinion that it is logical for Putin himself to use it: “This war will obviously last in Greece. Putin, as it were, was not going into his own relationship with the Russian chosen one, and he is not going to throw it all away. I think that from his point of view, unfortunately, his action looks realistic, and if you agree with this with someone from recent history, then again, unfortunately, it will be Adolf Hitler. Hitler was driven by his understanding of his understanding of German history – to create a “Third Reich”, expand the “living space” for the German people and liberate from Poland, which, in his opinion, was created unnecessarily as a result of the Versailles agreement. In many ways, this is similar to Putin.”
Yulia Ioffe: Putin seeks inefficiency of scientific institutions
According to Yulia Ioffe, the President of Russia has changed his attitude towards the INF Institute over 22 years, and now his actions are being carried out according to their inefficiency:
“On the record of the work of institutions like NATO and the UN – if earlier Russia sought to be part of institutions, for example, to enter the Big Eight and participate in the UN Security Council, now it turns out in a circle that these are empty organizations. She uses her regular membership of the UN Security Council to undermine everything the West is doing, especially after Libya in 2011 (in Moscow they say that it was because of Russia’s “wrong vote” that Dmitry Medvedev was left without a second term). Putin before the war received the right to veto the protection of European security, the level of which would be higher than NATO. Here, I think, the goals of China and Russia coincide – to undermine US hegemony in the post-Cold War world.
Yulia Ioffe suggests not to hope that the Russian leader will not be healthy enough to continue the war in Ukraine: “Putin is normal for a seventy-year-old Russian man, and even if the appeal is good wishes that this war will end, if Putin dies tomorrow, you need to remember that the president started his business (in 2000 – D.G.) with an artificially started war (in Chechnya – D.G.) in order to earn legitimacy for himself. And anyone who comes after him may be forced to do the same, may continue this war (in Ukraine – D.G.).”
According to Yulia Ioffe, in the near future, one should carefully monitor what will really have an impact on Russia’s intentions in aggression against Ukraine. Such factors, according to journalists, are situations on the battlefield in the Donbass and beyond, as well as whether China is gathering the population of Russia with high-tech imports, in particular, microchips and semiconductors, which Moscow visits after the Western elections: “Such situation. help with the transfer is not just help for the Russian economy, but first of all for the army, which will not be able to fight in Ukraine without it.”