VINCE ON QUORA:
Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Alexander Grushko gave a lengthy interview to the news site RIA Novosti yesterday April 5, 2019. In this interview he described in detail the founding of NATO as a counterweight to the Soviet Union and the way its original raison d'être was grotesquely distorted in a desperate quest for a pretext to exist after that bloc collapsed.
He reminds that as a result of this search for a pretext, NATO has slid into complete lawlessness and has created monstrosities such as the failed Afghanistan mission that has lasted 2 decades and has only plunged that country into increasing hopelessness, where 40% of the country is controlled by the Taliban and opium is now at a record production level.
He reminds how NATO, by killing Ghadaffi, plunged the then-prosperous Libya into a state of lawlessness and poverty that continues today.
His words reflect what I had written previously at another venue:
“NATO’s immoral and illegal war on Serbia in 1998-1999 killed 13,500 Europeans while the Russian Federation never dropped a single bomb on Europe.
It was GW Bush who, in 2002, unilaterally abandoned the ABM (Anti-Ballistic Missile) Treaty, which had been in effect since it was signed in 1972. Russia did not express any desire to abandon the treaty.
And yet the NATO alliance – the only organization to attack Europe militarily – cynically claims it is there to protect Europe from Russia! Amazingly, most Europeans swallow this line of blatant propaganda.”
It is in response to this question by the RIA Novosti interviewer that Grushko tells us how NATO went too far (my translation):
“- What are the prospects for Russian-NATO relations? NATO says that "business as usual" is no longer possible.”
“- In this, our points of view coincide with NATO. “Business as usual”, as we know it from 2002-2008 and 2010-2014, is no longer possible. NATO has gone too far in forging confrontation with Russia, and it is not yet clear when and where sanity will prevail. Paradoxically, today's NATO-Russia relations are just the most reminiscent of the “usual” state of affairs under which NATO was created - in the cold war. The Harmel doctrine of dialogue and deterrence. Only in this formula there is now a lot of deterrence and little dialogue.”
Actually, I would disagree with Grushko on this point. Dialogue has been stifled by the actions of irresponsible US politicians and their zeal to dig up evidence that Trump is colluding with Russia.
Pierre Harmel was a Belgian statesman who advocated for European disarmament. The NYT (https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/18/world/europe/18harmel.html) describes the Harmel doctrine as follows:
On one hand it reaffirmed the original purpose of the alliance, that of a strong mutual defence; on the other, it advocated disarmament and active diplomatic engagement with the Soviet bloc nations.