NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said that in response to Russia's deployment of Iskander complexes equipped with Western-classification 9M729 or SSC-8 missiles, NATO will intensify efforts on anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems, conventional weapons, on increasing the combat alert status and speeding up the warning time. At the same time, the official stressed, the Alliance does not intend to place new ground-based nuclear missiles in Europe.

There are at once two shameless forgeries in these words. The first is that it is not NATO that will respond the deployment of the Russian Iskander missile complexes with stepped up anti-aircraft and anti-missile efforts. It is Russia that has deployed its operational missile complexes Iskander-M with the mentioned 9М729 in the European part of the country, namely in the Kaliningrad region and the Krasnodar Territory, in response to the deployment in Romania and Poland of American Aegis Ashore missile defense systems able not only to intercept ballistic missiles, but also to strike ground targets with their Tomahawk cruise missiles.

When being the President of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev warned about this kind of Russian response to the US and NATO plans to deploy Aegis Ashore missile defense systems in Europe more than 10 years ago. He also indicated locations of our Iskander-M complexes. The Pentagon completed the deployment of a missile defense system in the Romanian Deveselu in 2015 and a year later began creating a similar system in the Polish Polish Redzikovo, while it was only in 2017 that our Iskanders appeared near Kaliningrad and Krasnodar. The question is who, if not Russia, took a retaliatory step to the US move approved by the NATO Headquarters? And why is the Alliance's Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg, lying so shamelessly that it is NATO that responds to Russia's actions? Why is he turning the Iskander deployment situation upside down, deliberately swapping the cause for the consequence in his propaganda speeches targeted at the European public unable to think and analyze the facts?

The answer is obvious. A person who is fully maintained and controlled by the US administration cannot tell the truth. His task is to bend over backwards to justify and support the aggressive policy of the overseas overlord in his speeches, by any means, by twisting and distorting the facts, while staying imperturbable and stone-faced like a Scandinavian Professor. However, this is not up to him alone, but also to the entire NATO team.

When US President Donald Trump justified his country's withdrawal from the US-Russian Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia's introduction of the incompliant 9M729 missile, our country's Defense Ministry staged a demonstration of this missile for representatives of the military diplomatic establishment accredited in Moscow, having also invited representatives of the NATO member-states. But none of them came to the Moscow region's Kubinka to get acquainted with the missile. What for? Everything was already clear to them. As Trump's say goes. Moreover, a particular view or doubt of a general or colonel from a Western country, even two or three generals or colonels, that it is not cut and dried with the 9M729 missile as claimed by Washington, is not going to change anything after all. Besides, an order came from Brussels to ignore the Russian demonstration. No one dared to disobey the NATO chiefs.

As it has been said more than once, it is certainly not about the notorious 9M729 missile - it's just Donald Trump's wish to be re-elected for the next term. He promised new military contracts to the American engineers and military-industrial complex workers, as well as its owners and managers, and he is acting up to his election pledge. Once the INF prevented this, so much the worse for this agreement. No international obligations can stop Trump here. And NATO's better support its overlord. After all, he has forced many Europeans to pay two or more percent of their Gross Domestic Product to the aggregate NATO treasury - and he will force them to accept and comply with other requirements coming from Washington. Including the deployment of US medium-range missiles in Europe.

And here we need to go back to another recent promise and another deception by Jens Stoltenberg about the Alliance's unwillingness to place new ground-based nuclear missiles in Europe. A little more than six months ago, he mentioned that NATO is not going to deploy medium-range missiles in Europe at all. Now he is talking about nuclear missiles alone. In other words, the Secretary General implies that missiles with conventional warheads, particularly explosive, high-explosive, cluster or whatever, will appear in the Old World at the end of the day. And presumably it will once again happen "in response to the Russian Iskanders and the 9M729 missile."

The logic is obvious here. The Americans will develop new medium-range missiles or upgrade their Tomahawk cruise missiles that can be fired from the launching sites of Aegis Ashore missile defense systems, including air bases in Romania and Poland. Last summer, the Pentagon demonstrated the way this is done, even though top US officials have been rejecting this possibility in the strongest terms for decades. The question arises as to where to place such missiles? The answer is obvious – in Europe. Because only from there are they able to fulfill their main purpose served by NATO as Washington's loyal vassal – to restrain Russia or, in other words, to threaten it. Stoltenberg will have to somehow justify these actions of his overlord and superiors.

OK, three guesses how he will do it! Of course, by repeating the old stock phrases that NATO and Washington were forced to take such a step in response to Russia's aggressive actions. There is a good chance that if he does not come up with something new, he will recall the Iskander-M complexes and the 9M729 missile again. He will now point to its capability to carry a nuclear warhead to the target (it does not matter whether this is true or not) and that the Alliance is forced to respond. As his previous statements go, it's all about efforts on anti-aircraft and anti-missile systems, conventional weapons, on increasing the combat alert status and speeding up the warning time. As well as regular exercises, rallying the Alliance's forces and their unity in the face of the growing Russian threat, etc.

A set of these primitive propaganda cliches that have nothing to do with the real situation but that people in Europe believe for some reason, is known by every person able to read, think and having a retentive memory.

But the thing is as follows: how are these people going to behave when they finally realize their having been deceived again, like it was in the cold war years, and having been made hostage to the American aggressive foreign policy aimed to confront Russia and derive an ultimate profit from this confrontation for the Pentagon generals and the American military-industrial complex. For Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, Northrop, and others. It is one thing to hear that your country has to pay two percent of the country's GDP to NATO's "shared fund" – quite a lot, but the Alliance secures your defense, so that you don't need to spend more while protecting yourself from "malicious neighbors". And it is a totally different thing when you know that in response to the deployment of new American missiles in your country, all the more so with nuclear warheads, Russia will home its missiles in on them, so that your home turns into a target. How is the European citizen going to react to this?!

I am sure that NATO headquarters is also concerned about this. For this reason Jens Stoltenberg is tying himself into knots, inventing new propaganda invectives along with his referent advisers in order to put the European public right with the American administration's next moves to impose and place deadly weapons in the Alliance's member countries. There are countries like Poland or Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia that will gladly accept new overseas missiles and tanks, while Germany and France won't obviously like it. Moreover, the populations of the same France and Germany, their leaders, won't like it either. Emmanuel Macron has already pointed to the "brain death of NATO". What if other reputable European leaders will support him soon?!