Growing NATO Buildup Echoes Cold War

Growing NATO Buildup Echoes Cold War | Russia slams ‘anti-Russia hysteria’

All efforts to make this weekend’s Warsaw summit about the Brexit appear to have failed, and the US has shifted NATO’s focus back to increasing military buildups in Eastern Europe, all the while harping on about Russian “aggression” and the threat of a Russian invasion of the Baltic states.

NATO-Russia relations seem worse than at any time since the Cold War, with many fearing that the continued NATO escalation on the Russian frontier portends another protracted, and costly period of massive tensions with the Russians.

Russian officials, for their part, dismissed the buildup as part of NATO’s “anti-Russia hysteria,” saying the NATO leadership was “absolutely short-sighted” for continuing the moves. Spokesman Dmitry Peskov mocked NATO claims of Russian “aggression,” noting that “we aren’t the ones getting closer to NATO’s borders.”

US officials linked with NATO have been eagerly talking up the new acrimony, primarily seeing it as an excuse for increased military deployments and another chance to push NATO members in Europe into increasing their military spending, likely including buying costly US-made arms.

On the other hand, NATO’s military leader Gen. Petr Pavel dismissed the idea that Russia was about to invade, insisting no one in the alliance had any intelligence to suggest that as even a remote possibility, and adding that the buildups are a “political” decision, not a military one.

Ultimately, the biggest obstacle to making this another Cold War may be a financial one, as the “threat” of Russia is plainly illusory, with the Russian government spending less on their military than multiple NATO members by most measures. Sinking more money into militarizing NATO just doesn’t make sense, and many members are unlikely to go along with it.

Last 5 posts by Jason Ditz

Author: Jason Ditz

Jason Ditz is news editor of

  • George

    Nuthin’ they love more than spending our money.

    • MvGuy

      Actually George, there is something they like better, stealing our money. But spending makes it all possible..

      • Don G.

        Mvguy and George, this is where I’m presuming that antiwar is our main agenda and not money as in what motivates libertarians. Can you both maybe show that a bit from time to time?

  • vietvet1968

    US war mongers are on the march…they could care less about the cost…they are psychopaths intent on creating wars and more wars to make the US the sole dominant world power.

    • Don

      The deaths of innocent people in foreign lands that are caused by the US led wars are of much more importance than your money. If Americans would at least acknowledge the slaughter that is going on, it would go a long way to showing that the agenda is something more than libertarian bullshit pie in the sky, that is motivated by the idea that *you don’t have to pay any taxes.
      *you meaning Americans

      luv from Canada.

      • If you would at least acknowledge that’s agenda is the antiwar agenda, not the libertarian agenda, people would stop looking at your bullshit pie in the sky posts and saying to themselves “sigh … troll.”

        • Don

          O.k. Thomas, I’ll give it a try. I’ll look at each comment and try to determine if it is indicative of showing any compassion for the victims, in comparison to just forwarding the libertarian agenda.

          Thomas, If your priorities are what you say the are then we’re together on this. You, as opposed to comrade hermit, can rise about the criticism of your country. And you’re far from being stupid enough to muzzle yourself with a promise to ignore me.

          I’m looking for you to be proactive Thomas. Excuses of only moderating don’t fly because there are lots of incidents where you have done a lot more than that.

          luv from Canada

          • I keep hearing from you what you are looking for from me, or what you expect from me. You should probably get over that. There are no “excuses” because there’s nothing I owe you except fair moderation.

          • Don

            I’m looking for the same that you are appealing to me for above in your post. I want to hear the compassion that the antiwar agenda is, or should be, most concerned about. Not the cost to your libertarian wallet.

          • Maybe I should be a little more clear: I don’t give a damn what you want to hear.

          • Don G.

            That’s good. then don’t keep telling me you do.

            Thomas quote: “If you would at least acknowledge that’s agenda is the antiwar agenda, not the libertarian agenda, people would stop looking at your bullshit pie in the sky posts and saying to themselves “sigh … troll.”

            I still want to be on the same side as you here because I do care and I know it’s in you. The problem is that there’s something else getting in the way. And fwiw Thomas, I’m your best customer when it comes to antiwar.

    • Pequod777

      The same people are also ultimately interested in dissolving the United States. Whatever post-national global oligarchical tyranny that emerges out of the EU Superstate and the North American Union, ruled out of the UN, will be under their control. America is just another instrument.

  • Pequod777

    Reckon what will happen is either a Gulf of Tonkin either in Ukraine or Syria, or perhaps they are getting their toys in place and will incite civil unrest in Russia and then use that as a pretext for invasion– or perhaps both.

  • ton

    Did we saw war in Warsaw?

  • curmudgeonvt

    “…[Czech] Gen. Petr Pavel…the buildups are a
    “political” decision, not a military one.”

    Well, I’m guessing his tenure as Chairman of the NATO Military Committee will be rather short.

    • Don G.

      . I would suggest that Nato is very aware that it can’t have any loose cannons. But it’s encouraging to think that they have lost control of the lower decks in that they can’t keep all the cannons tied down. Or at least we can be optimistic about that being true?