0 $
2,500 $
5,000 $
50 $

Russian Foreign Ministry Slams NATO Summit’s Declaration


Russian Foreign Ministry Slams NATO Summit's Declaration

The Russian Foreign Ministry has released comment on a declaration accepted during the summit of NATO states in Brussels.

Comment by the Information and Press Department on the NATO summit in Brussels (source):

Naturally, Moscow is following the NATO summit in Brussels. The decisions there will be thoroughly analysed in terms of the consequences for European security. The published statements suggest the conclusion that, as before, NATO is not interested in the true reasons behind the degradation of security in the Euro-Atlantic region and prefers looking at the world through the prism of Cold War stereotypes.

In accusing Russia of escalating tensions in this region, the military bloc is using this as a pretext for building up its military activities even in the once calm areas of the Baltic and northern Europe. Noting the instability in the Middle East and North Africa, and the threats emanating from this region, and expressing concern over the growth of international terrorism, NATO pretends not to understand that they are a direct result of its own military ventures.

Attempts to distort all of this and accuse Russia of everything are simply inept. The desire to justify one’s own actions is clear and obvious. NATO positions itself as a defensive alliance while it purchases offensive arms. Statements on the importance of preventing the risks of undeliberate incidents are accompanied by a significant increase in military exercises near Russia’s borders, while appeals to maintain the dialogue within the Russia-NATO Council are followed by the expulsion of Russian diplomats and the refusal to conduct a dialogue between our militaries. Reporting increases in defence spending based on the modernisation of the Russian armed forces, NATO allies prefer to gloss over the fact that their aggregate spending on arms exceeds Russia’s many times over and is more than half of the world’s military spending. Finally, the endless repetition of unfounded accusations and the fabrication of new accusations does not change the reality that NATO, not Russia, is bringing its military infrastructure closer to our borders.

There are numerous statements about NATO’s adaptation and willingness to defend the population of its countries across the board, but in practice the alliance is recreating an atmosphere of bloc confrontation in which it seems to feel more comfortable than it would in a multi-polar world arrangement. A return to the policy of military and political deterrence of Russia under unsubstantiated pretexts has become an inalienable element of this course. This approach results in a NATO expansion policy that will not enhance anyone’s security but rather deepens the divide and escalates tensions in Europe. Macedonia’s coerced involvement in NATO only confirms that an open door policy has become an aim in itself and a tool for conquering geopolitical space.

In reality, there is only one goal – military superiority. Attempts to fence oneself off are doomed to fail in the modern world because neither individual states nor even alliances are able to counter cross-border threats single-handedly. We hope that the growing awareness of the uselessness of the attempts to isolate Russia and urgent security requirements will eventually allow NATO to realise the need to pool efforts with Russia on the firm foundation of international law to effectively counter common challenges. We also hope that NATO would understand that the principle of indivisible security should be respected for all nations, not just allied nations.

In this context, we note in the summit’s statement the commitment of the NATO member states to abide by the UN Charter and to strive to observe their international obligations, including the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act. We hope that these assurances will be backed by concrete actions.



Do you like this content? Consider helping us!

  • The Farney Fontenoy

    While NATO has the edge in terms of quantities of weaponry and would certainly hurt Russia in the opening stage of a conflict, NATO’s ground forces are utterly hopeless & thus would not be able to secure their borders with Russia, this is a dilemma that may NATO generals are fully aware of & understand they would win the opening battles, but ultimately lose the war, but then they are up against short-sighted warhawks who think just dropping loads of bombs will win any war.

    • Nosferatu

      Excelent. Plus there is strong possibility that some NATO countries would rather withdraw from NATO than going to fight Russians and almost certainly lose most (or all) of their tiny armies, such as Czech republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria and perhaps some more.

    • Jesus

      How much actual weaponry can NATO bring close to the Russian border to win initial battles? Is 30 battalions, 30 squadrons, 30 warships in 30 days a sufficient force to defeat or inflict pain to the Kaliningrad A2AD and First Tank Army deployed in Western Europe?
      Iskander, Kalibr, Khinzhal missiles along with a very deadly layered air defense network would inflict unacceptable damage to NATO air, naval and ground assets.

      • Terra Cotta Woolpuller

        Nuts Assholes Toreadors Oligarchs that is exactly what NATO means today it long ago forgot what it was about as the US continually changed it’s original parameters.

        Well what would actually happen is a total wipe out of NATO forces as it would not be able to mount that type of attack as it lacks the actual capabilities to maintain and sustain a war under the circumstances. NATO has not been able to solve the air defense system yet so attack can come 15 to 20 years from now, simply put the warhawks ignore all real analysis.

  • Merijn


  • TiredOfBsToo

    I wonder how many EU countries realize that by continuing in and/or paying out more into the offensive NATO alliance. they are working on a self-fulfilling prophecy of their own extinction.

  • goingbrokes

    North Atlantic Zionist Organisation is certifiably mad. Contemplating a war with Russia in an aggressive stance is pure insanity.