Mõned tsitaadid India eks-diplomaadi M. K. Bhadrakumari artiklist "Asia Times'is".

Practical cooperation within the alliance may continue in the near term. But it remains to be seen how far Washington will succeed in keeping the European mind trained on the highly contrived thesis of Russia being a revisionist state that has put military mobilization at the center of its strategic thinking.
Brexit poses questions for NATO although the British people have not voted to leave the alliance. In an insightful commentary, the well-known ‘Russia hand’ at the National Interest magazine Nikolas Gvosdev noted that Brexit “validates two developing trend lines in Europe”. Gvosdev explained:

• The first is the hesitation within Western European countries to want to be drawn into conflicts and problems happening on the eastern periphery of the continent or within the post-Soviet space. The second will be to reawaken the lingering regional split within the alliance — with some members arguing that if NATO had paid much more attention to dealing with the cross-Mediterranean threats to European security, rather than on being drawn into playing geopolitical games in Eurasia, the migration crisis might have been avoided or blunted — and thus one of the key drivers of Brexit might have been neutralized.

The bottom line is that the EU and NATO are complementary. And Brexit upholds that national interests prevail over European collective interests. Without doubt, Brexit is also, partly at least, a reflection of the overall weariness in Europe with the continued NATO expansion eastward.

Artikkel tervelt:

http://atimes.com/2016/06/brexit-russias-comfort-level-rises-us-loses-eurasian-plot/

Kas ilmub ka Eesti poliitikasse jõudusid, kes leiavad, et militariseerumine on ohtlik ummiktee ja midagi olulist meie suhtumises Venemaa ohusse ja NATOsse, s.o. Ameerika diktaati tuleks ümber hinnata?