Published: December 15, 2015
Shooting down Russian Su-24 is the most significant event in relations between Russia and NATO since the end of the "cold war." For the first time, one of the members of the Alliance applied measure that is effective and appropriate to the behavior of the aggressor. This event should lead to a revision of the policy of "free world" with respect to Russia but Russian agents use the leftist correctness to assure that NATO will continue the "peaceful strategy". One, successful action of Turkish army revealed the truth, which Western politicians and military officials refuse to acknowledge - that Russia understands only force and only force can stop Putin's aggressive plans.
The Turkish incident should also lead to serious reflection on Poland’s security system. An honest assessment of Russian response after shooting down Su-24 shows that we are dealing with a weak country, only pretending to be a superpower. Unfortunately, this ability of Russia to pretend and bluff, usually escapes the "free world" analysts.
In my March 2013 article entitled "Russia Empire is a Myth Power" I wrote-"Based on many events played on the international scene, we can see that the nature of Russian (and previously Soviet) disinformation lies in the fact that the Western politicians are naive, unable to perceive Russia in its real political and military dimension. Current mystification is easily accepted due to Western politicians’ error, fear or self-interest, making them to see Putin as the equal partner or a dangerous opponent. The similar attitude of the "free world" to the Soviet Union was present the '80s. Only a few at the time understood that Soviet leaders were most afraid of open armed confrontation, and that its strength derived from misinformation and intense propaganda."
The pathetic helplessness and weakness of Putin was revealed by economic sanctions imposed on Turkey. There is no doubt that facing Ankara’s decisive attitude, Russia will soon be forced to surrender. Erdogan's announcement to consider other than Russian energy suppliers and a potential naval blockade of Russia on the Bosporus carry serious problems for Putin.
It is not difficult to see that this decisive reaction of the Turkish army is an exception to the rule in comparison to the NATO policy. Turks’ military response provoked considerable consternation among European "friends of Moscow", therefore we should analyze Turkish reaction separately from NATO standards.
Since the head of the Atlantic Alliance became the Norwegian politician to whom the KGB has given the codename "Steklov", the Alliance has lost vital military character and became a pacifist discussion club. Calling Stoltenberg as "friendly" politician for Moscow would be just an euphemism. I have the impression that the actual relationships go much deeper and today's situation should be analyzed with help of the reports of the "The Economist" from 2009, when authors pointed out to the exceptional activity of Russian intelligence agents in the NATO structures. They attributed the resignation of NATO and EU to expand to the countries that the Kremlin considered to be within its sphere of influence to activities of Russian agents, and they predicted that "the emergence of a new balance between Europe, Russia and the US" will be significantly influenced by the activities of Russian agents.
Stoltenberg’s- i.e., “Steklov" statements clearly show that he not only understands the needs of the Kremlin players, but quickly adapts his own narration to their needs and according to this standard sets the directions of NATO's activities. The recent declaration by Stoltenberg that "NATO will not be drawn into an arms race with Russia," likely cheered Putin and his generals. If the head of the military structure of the richest countries in the world declares that he does not intend to use military and technological superiority to defeat the aggressor what then can be a better gift to the country with already falling economy?
Stoltenberg's reaction on shooting down Russian aircraft does not deviate from his standards. "I appeal for calm and de-escalation" - stressed the head of NATO, perfectly sensing that both of these "values" are in the Western world synonymous with indifference and amnesia that creates an atmosphere very favorable to the interests of the Russian aggressor.
Although the Turks heard the traditional assurances of "solidarity and support," it's not NATO guarantees that allowed the Erdogan team to take action. The Turkish military quickly understood that the expansion of the Russian army to Syria will not produce any meaningful reactions of the Alliance. Allowing Russians for further provocations and allowing them to play with Kurdish and Iraqi issues was particularly dangerous for the interests of Ankara and threatened the position of Turkey as the regional power in the Middle East. That's why the Turks’ action must be assessed as a separate preventive act. It was a show of force with which Russia (but also passive to Putin NATO) have to be reckoned with.
As aptly noted one analyst of the Centre for Eastern Studies - "Deciding on such an unprecedented step (similar incidents between the troops of NATO countries and Moscow occurred only in the fifties of the twentieth century), Turkey also probably attempts to break initiated by France alliance of the West with Russia regarding the ISIS. At the same time it puts West in a very difficult situation (the need to support unpredictable ally) and shows their own potential for destabilization, which can be used in the future." (Matthew Chudziak -" Turkish playing all out tension after shooting down a Russian bomber.")
It would be highly desirable if the Polish politicians drew hard conclusions from the current situation. Here comes the moment when the previous dogma of Polish security policy (based on guarantees from NATO), should be revised and expanded by two factors - a strict military pact with the United States and the accession to the project of Nuclear Sharing which would allow for the presence of nuclear weapons on our territory.
The current position of NATO towards Russia does not give us any guarantees for safety. NATO is weak first due to the weakness of Western leaders, second due to activities of Russian intelligence, and finally due to consistent policy of Germany and France, seeking to disintegrate the Alliance and remove the US from the European theater. If there was no change of the direction after the Russian aggression against Georgia and Ukraine - do not expect any breakthrough in the near future. While NATO's European interests are dominated by pro-Russian policy of Merkel and dependent on foolish ideas in Paris and Brussels - we should not rely on those paper guarantees.
Polish membership in the military alliance, in which the conditions of use of force is dictated by the actual ally of Putin, so-called geopolitical factors, and the fear not to “angry Russia" are the primary considerations, it only creates the illusion of security. The last NATO summit confirmed this explicitly, and the message addressed to the Poles – take care of yourselves - it is too clear and reminiscent of the parallels with 1939.
Noteworthy is the opinion of one of the closest "friends of Moscow", Zbigniew Brzezinski, who recently was asked about the real guarantees of NATO and replied bluntly: "Poland should urgently arm itself, buy equipment, modernize and increase the army. Count on yourself, to be able to defend yourselves as long as possible. Although there is this Article 5 dealing with solidarity with the attacked ally but at the same time in NATO there is a provision of unanimity.”
Even fanatical "geo-realist" and a supporter of "good neighborly" relations with Germany, would not be able to defend the thesis that in the event of an attack on Poland, our Western neighbors hasten to our rescue. Germany's stance clearly shows that this most important ally of Putin will take advantage of the provisions related to the unanimity rule and refuse to support the guarantee of NATO.
The real national security strategy should therefore include a scenario where Russian and German policy will be treated as a common, although at differentiated level of threat. The historical experience argues that Moscow and Berlin will always be enemies of Poland. Historical desire of these countries was always to establish the Vistula as the Russian-German border and erasing Poland from the map of the world. What we do not formulate today, or any German politician, is already being implemented by Alliance between Merkel and Putin and for the past eight years have been carried out with the participation of the Polish "elites". The difference between the current situation and 1939 is only reversed roles and modifying touches: an armed conflict today is to induce Russia, and Germany provided the role of political and economic support. It would be madness if you pretend that you do not see this picture clearly.
It is worth recalling George Friedman text "Strategy for Poland" in which the author wrote: "Membership in international organizations is a questionable solution because it implies that NATO and the European Union institutions are stable. If Russia becomes aggressive, the ability to provide forces able to stop the Russians will increasingly depend on the Americans and not the Europeans." In another Friedman’s speech from 2009, he said - "Poles must understand that the Union will not survive. Germany will defend their interests, bargaining with Russia against other countries of Europe."
It seems that the Turks properly assessed the principle of "count on each other", and even better assessed the conflicting interests between NATO and its own interests, and took care of a hierarchy of security. A resolute response to the Russian provocation, did not stem from expected help of NATO, but rather from the strength of the Turkish military and its close alliance with the United States, especially with respect to the confirmed presence of American nuclear weapons. No political statements or provisions of NATO article 5, will replace the most important guarantee card.
It is worth noting that the recent statement of Deputy Minister of Defense on "efforts towards ensuring Poland access to nuclear weapons," has already provoked a hysterical reaction of the Russian representative to NATO and hysteria our native "friends of Moscow." This important clue from the enemies of Poland should determine national security concept.
Turkish alliance with the USA and American nuclear guarantees is the model which we should follow. This is the only way to overcome the geopolitical curse and make out of our location in Europe an important bargaining chip.
Such a suggestion has already appeared six years ago in a speech by George Friedman. In an interview for "Polish Times," the head of Stratfor Global Intelligence said: "We are perfectly aware of the role that Poland plays in US-Russian relations. Maybe you do not have at the moment such a military power as Turkey, but in 10-15 years it may change. Obama supported Turkey's entry into the EU, so as to show that Americans are more concerned about the problems of Turks than Germans. Turkey is a powerful country with a strong army. (...) The Turks are not especially friendly to the Germans. Their interests are divergent. Although Turkey and Poland cannot help each other to much but they have similar problems - Germany and Russia. In addition, it is also a problem for Americans. (...)
US can substantially strengthen your position in the region. Poland is currently before a historic choice. Poland is weak and again between Germany, from which it is economically dependent, and Russia. Germany behave as always, defend their own interests…. Poland must therefore take a decision. Either become strong country or become a victim." In 2009, when Friedman formulated his suggestion, the regime of the Third Republic of Poland continued to strengthen its "friendship" with Moscow and Berlin and was not interested in Polish security.
Today, this has to change. This is the last chance to make fundamental decisions and proper choices. To do so, we have to overcome one of the worst myths devastating our mindset about our security – the idea that our security is based on the alliance of European countries and must be developed as a result of geo-realistic consensus between Russia and Germany. This reasoning led the Poles to disasters in the eighteenth century, to the defeat the Second Republic and the imposition of the Soviet occupation thereafter, and to this day hinders any attempt of securing true independence.
Written by Aleksander Ścios
We will not be together, because there is no permission for the betrayal and lies exceeding any human measure. We cannot be together because our anger is now powerless for murdering of so many irreplaceable. We will never be together because we remember - who instigated hatred and wanted to collect its fruits.