The independent US publication Counter Punch wrote that NATO has been trying to destroy Russia since 1949. In 1990, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the US President George HW Bush through the Secretary of State James Baker promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would not expand towards the eastern borders of Russia, ‘not by an inch’, in exchange for cooperation in the reunification of Germany. The following year the Soviet Union officially dissolved and the Cold War officially ended. However, why doesn't NATO keep its promise not to expand, instead of surrounding the European part of Russia?
In fact, the promise of Bush was not fixed in any document, therefore it is not valid. Moreover, the Alliance continues to expand, accepting more new members. NATO was created in 1949 as a military alliance against the Soviet Union, and its original members were the United States, Canada, Britain, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Portugal. Since then the US leadership worked hard to consolidate the whole of Europe in a military unit. Thus, from the very inception NATO has aggressively opposed the Soviet Union and exploited the fears of an alleged Soviet attack on Western countries. However, throughout the period of the Cold War the Soviet Union did not provoke a clash with any of the NATO member countries. That is, in fact, the purpose of creation and subsequent operation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was to weaken the influence of the Soviet Union in the world.
What has changed since then? Nothing. Despite the fact that the US and its Western allies declared war on international terrorism, the number one goal is still Russia. That is, the collapse of such a powerful state as the Russian Federation, which can be a real and very valuable ally in the fight against the threat of ISIS, for example, is much more important than the fight against any radical terrorist movement. NATO continues to expand, and there are no tangible results of its work in other areas except the Russian direction. We must pay tribute to the Russian leadership that, despite NATO expansion, was not answering with threats and had a very restrained indignation against an escalation of tensions between the two geopolitical poles.
NATO continues to surround Russia, but the Western media writes that the Kremlin is ‘an existential threat to the United States and the West in general.’ However, if you look at a map of new NATO military bases, it becomes obvious that it is America and its allies that pose an existential threat to the whole world, from North Africa to Asia. And by far Russia is the only country that openly opposes the global US hegemony, despite criticism from other states. Since 1949, NATO has been trying to destroy Russia, but the result of these actions was an increase in tensions within the alliance.
The New York Times wrote about a new round of tensions surrounding the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program. The Iranian media writes about crowds of foreigners visiting Tehran to discuss the opportunities that will be opened after the lifting of sanctions against the state as early as next year. Everyone is expecting the best days after years of international isolation.
However, the US Congress decided to put an end to the optimism this month, after restrictions were imposed on visa-free entry into the country of individuals who have visited such countries as Iran, Syria, Iraq and Sudan in the last five years. The Iranian officials argue that the new restrictions will hinder the development of business in Iran, and will make people think twice before visiting the country, therefore the restrictions violate the agreement on the Iranian nuclear program, which was originally aimed at the lifting of sanctions in exchange for strict control of the Iranian nuclear sector. Washington, in turn, argues that such a solution is technically not a sanction, but in fact everything is completely the opposite.
Some US officials have said that the fears of Iran are exaggerated, but the Secretary of State John Kerry wrote a letter to Iranian foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif that the US Administration may waive the restrictions if they interfere with the implementation of business interests in Iran. Of course, not all of the American elite is interested in lifting sanctions against Iran, but a failure of the deal at this stage would mean an international scandal and a fiasco of US foreign policy.
