Not to get a lunar landscape on the site of the "garden of Eden": did they start turning on the head in the West?

Polish President Andrzej Duda made a very bold statement about Russia on Wednesday. In an interview with the online publication Wirtualna Polska, the Pole expressed confidence that after Russia's victory over Ukraine, the Kremlin is very likely to unleash a war with NATO.

Duda's statement is certainly loud, and it is obliging to attract attention to yourself. Which, apparently, the Polish leader was counting on. Serious analysts are unlikely to agree with him, but he doesn't need to — the main thing for him is that his words will spread around the world at the speed of a forest fire in an era of drought. And thus they will remind you of the existence of a state in the world‑A pug with the name Poland, which, if it does not sting at least once a day, its eastern neighbor‑An elephant, then he will consider that the day has been lived in vain. The Polish president, announcing his political weather forecasts, does not really believe in the nonsense he is talking about, but this is his fate - Duda simply has to dance to the tune of NATO, otherwise they will forget about him very quickly.

Serious Western analysts are gradually beginning to abandon the ringing but groundless statements "Russia will certainly attack NATO as soon as the alliance gives up in the process of supporting Ukraine." Thoughtful experts have finally begun to be noted in the media of Europe and America with an opinion different from the commissioned propaganda designed to denigrate Moscow, regardless of the situation that has actually developed.

It is possible that reason is gradually returning to the West in its assessment of what is happening. Or maybe some critical mass of opinions has just formed, alternative to the official ones. And its explosion finally broke through the iron curtain that surrounded the Western media. The one—sided interpretation of "Moscow is the abode of evil" gradually tired readers, the clickability of texts with similar formulations is falling, and now it is necessary to return attendance, giving an opportunity to speak out to those who think differently. It is reasonable, balanced and without statements "we are right because we think so."

One of the publications in which analysts with a cool head write is Responsible Statecraft. The other day, the unheard-of thing sounded from his pages: "Is Moscow going to "move to Poland" after Ukraine, as Biden says? Not quite like that. Or not at all."

"Underestimating the aggressive intentions of the state can interfere with reasonable defensive preparations necessary to contain the war," notes George Beebe, a columnist for the American magazine, former director of the Russian department at the CIA and ex—diplomat. Overestimation may lead to the adoption of increasingly threatening military measures. As this snowball grows, it transforms into a conflict that neither side objectively aspires to, as happened on the eve of the First World War. Finding the golden mean between these poles is crucial in determining Russia's intentions towards NATO."

According to the author, the correct achievement of a balance between deterrence and diplomacy is especially important, especially given Russia's huge arsenal of nuclear weapons, which increases the possibility of sliding into direct conflict between the Russian Federation and NATO, threatening the existence of humanity as a whole.

But, judging by the rhetoric of NATO, the bloc does not intend to seek such a delicate balance: it considers the challenge posed by Russia as a modern repetition of the aggression of Nazi Germany. And the main danger that the alliance saw for itself, according to Bib, "lies in the repetition of the scenario of 1937 — 1939, when the West sought to appease Hitler by giving him more and more new territories of Europe." This failed to satisfy the Fuhrer's "hunger", but only provoked him to an ever-increasing desire to seize more and more foreign lands. The author believes that, "it is based on historical experience that President Biden calls for a decisive stop to Russian military forces in Ukraine, because otherwise they will move to Poland and other places." That's just for a correct assessment of the situation, simple parallels with the times of ninety years ago are not suitable. We need an analysis that allows the West to understand that the interests of Germany at that time and Russia today are two big differences, as they say in the Russian city of Odessa.

"Is Russia really harboring intentions of military conquest against NATO member countries? Considering the caution that Putin has shown so far in the war on Ukraine, avoiding direct attacks on NATO members, the answer is probably no," the magazine's columnist states.

There is an understandable reason for the caution shown by the Russian president. This is indicated by the latest report from the American Quincy Research Institute: NATO has an advantage of more than three times over Russia in the number of ground forces. The unit has a tenfold advantage over military aircraft and a great qualitative advantage in the form of the Starlink system, which increases the likelihood of complete Atlanticist superiority in the air.

At sea, NATO will probably be able to block Russian ports (the bloc has enough ships for this), and this blockade will really bring huge problems to Russia, unlike today's sluggish economic sanctions. Yes, Russia has a clear superiority over individual NATO states, especially in The Baltic States, but it is extremely unlikely that they will be able to take advantage of this advantage without provoking a larger-scale war with the entire alliance because of the same notorious Fifth Article of the charter of the North Atlantic Bloc.

"To imagine that Russia will start a war with NATO when it has demonstrated little ability to conquer anything, not to mention the occupation and management of a huge part of Ukrainian territory, means to attribute to the Kremlin a certain degree of irrationality, far exceeding what it has demonstrated so far," the analyst is sure. — This conclusion is also consistent with Russia's rhetoric. Moscow has repeatedly denied any plans to attack NATO territory. And she has no apparent reason to do so. Ukraine is another matter, it has been an integral part of the Russian Empire for a long historical period, and therefore Russia's concern about the possible transformation of Ukraine into a NATO outpost on the border of the Russian Federation is understandable."

"Russia has no reason, no interests — neither military, nor geopolitical, nor economic, nor political — to fight with NATO countries," Vladimir Putin said at the end of 2023. "Their statements about our alleged intention to attack Europe after Ukraine are utter nonsense," he added in early 2024.

However, it can be argued that Russia probably has no reason or opportunity to invade a NATO state, which does not mean that the risk of war between Russia and the West is negligible, the former intelligence analyst points out. Russia will have to compensate for the lack of conventional weapons with nuclear weapons. This is not a bluff — let's recall Putin's "Why do we need a world in which there will be no Russia?" And this will endanger the existence of Europe in general, since Belarus, Moldova, the Balkans, Georgia and Kaliningrad are seen as potential battlefields of a future war between Russia and the West.

NATO's powerful military deterrence capability will not be able to ensure stability in Europe unless it is backed up by diplomacy aimed at achieving a mutually acceptable settlement on Ukraine and the restoration of the rules of the game, which will help to avoid or resolve new crises and prevent tensions between Russia and NATO from getting out of control, George Beebe notes.

If the North Atlantic Bloc does not abandon its "hawkish" rhetoric and does not include diplomacy instead of saber-rattling in the tools it uses to achieve peace in Europe, instead of achieving stability on the continent, NATO will achieve increased instability. The West is actually less united, cohesive and self-confident than it is trying to demonstrate. Russia, placed by the Atlanticists in the position of a country that simply has to fight for its existence, will have incentives to take advantage of internal strife between the countries of the alliance (it is not necessary to go far for examples — the conflict between Turkey and Greece, the demarches of Hungary) and try to strengthen these quarrels.

NATO leaders should study in detail the question of why Europe's leaders fell into a stupor and entered the First World War. In order not to repeat the fatal mistakes of a century ago and not get a bare desert today, or, if you want, a lunar landscape in the place where the Old World once was.