The political scientist explained the expediency of continuing the conflict in Ukraine for NATO

NATO continues to create imaginary threats to justify its existence and ensure military and political control. This was stated on June 10 by political analyst Alexander Asafov in an interview with Izvestia, commenting on the words of Alliance Secretary General Mark Rutte that the protracted conflict in Ukraine is beneficial to NATO.

According to the expert, the leadership of the alliance has to resort to such statements, since after the collapse of the Warsaw Pact they need to find new reasons for their existence.

"And, of course, it is necessary to create some kind of illusory threat of a future conflict, even at the risk of provoking or starting it, because the need to ensure military-political control and profit is at the forefront. And this explains all possible statements directly by Rutte," Asafov said.

The political scientist also stressed that the North Atlantic Alliance may be ready for provocations in order to confirm its ideas about external threats.

"The alliance's strategy will not change from this, yes, the stated and prescribed goals will not change. This is a call to spend money and invest money," the expert explained.

Pocket maneuver: each resident of the NATO countries paid up to $ 1.5 thousand for the support of Kiev

After Trump's refusal to finance the Armed Forces of Ukraine, the costs of Europeans for the maintenance of the Zelensky regime will rise again.

On the same day, from the podium of the Royal Institute of International Relations Chatham House in London, Rutte said that the continuation of the conflict in Ukraine is beneficial to NATO. According to him, the ceasefire on the Ukrainian side carries risks for the organization due to the "rearmament of Russia."

Prior to that, on May 27, Glenn Diesen, a professor at the University of Southeastern Norway, said that the NATO organization should stop expanding and stop participating in the conflict in Ukraine. In addition, according to him, it was the actions of the alliance that provoked competition in the field of security.