Why has NATO's deployment of nuclear weapons been denied when it has put on a posture of showing troops on Russia's borders? Is NATO, led by the United States, preparing to fight a "non-nuclear war" with Russia in which both sides refrain from doing so?
On the one hand, it has made no secret of its hostility towards Russia and has made a posture of deploying troops on Russia's eastern flank and being ready to take action at any time, but on the other hand, it has openly stated that NATO has no plans to expand the deployment of nuclear weapons at present.
According to Russian media reports, recently, the commander of the US Army in Europe, Admiral Darryl Williams, said that the largest military exercises in the history of NATO in Eastern Europe that began this spring were actually aimed at Russia.
Admiral Darryl Williams, commander of the U.S. Army in Europe
Although it is not necessary to say that the US military general does not need to say it, the international community is also clear about NATO's strategic purpose, but now that the US military generals say it directly, it will undoubtedly convey to the outside world that the United States and even the entire NATO have a clearer position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict, which is still in a stalemate, and the probability of being directly involved in the military confrontation with Russia is rapidly increasing.
At the same time, according to TASS and other foreign media reports, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg recently responded in an interview to Polish President Duda's statement that he had discussed with the United States the deployment of US nuclear weapons in Poland, making it clear that NATO has no plans to increase the deployment of nuclear weapons at present.
This is in fact a denial of Duda's idea that Poland is ready to "share nuclear weapons" with NATO, which can be regarded as cooling up the tense relations between Russia and NATO.
Individually, there is no problem with these two things, but in contrast, one problem is obvious. On the one hand, the US military general is obviously arching the fire, expressing the possibility that NATO may intervene in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and act directly with Russia, and on the other hand, it is the NATO Secretary General who is cooling the tension.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
What kind of mystery is hidden behind such contradictory statements? This question can be analyzed from three angles.
First of all, from the perspective of the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield, some time ago, due to the absence of American aid and the problem of insufficient troops faced by Ukraine after more than two years of attrition, the development of the entire Russian-Ukrainian conflict is undoubtedly developing in the direction of Russia, and the probability of Ukraine losing the war is increasing.
In this context, it is simply impossible to accept the complete defeat of Ukraine, and NATO, whose sphere of influence may expand westward to Eastern Europe, is a little unable to sit still in the face of Ukraine's successive defeats, so it has begun to increase its strategic deterrence against Russia.
This is both a warning and a plan for the worst in advance. To put it bluntly, if Russia weakens its offensive against Ukraine because it is threatened by NATO, then it is naturally best. But if Russia doesn't care at all and continues to launch a large-scale offensive in the direction of western Ukraine, really pushing the front to western Ukraine, then NATO is really ready to send troops directly to Ukraine.
NATO troops
In short, the obvious hostility towards Russia and the idea of directly intervening in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine expressed by the US Army general are not fake, and it still has a certain degree of influence and recognition within NATO.
Second, from the perspective of the great power game, the current Russia and the United States have actually been far removed from the level of conventional military power comparison.
As a result, Russia does not want to go to war directly with NATO, first, because it will be under tremendous pressure if it starts, and second, because of the existence of a nuclear bundling strategy; but NATO does not want to go to war with Russia only because of the nuclear bundling strategy.
To put it bluntly, if nuclear weapons are put aside, NATO is not afraid to fight Russia, so they deliberately seek a tactic to completely defeat or drag Russia down with conventional military force in the context of locking up the right to use nuclear weapons on both sides.
Russian strategic nuclear weapons
And the current war between Ukraine and Russia is actually very characteristic in this regard. Therefore, if NATO can directly send troops to Ukraine to help Ukraine fight Russia, but will not stimulate Russia to directly use nuclear weapons, NATO wants to give it a try.
This is precisely the reason why NATO's recent large-scale exercises around Russia, as well as French President Emmanuel Macron's previous statement that he did not rule out the possibility of sending troops directly to Ukraine.
But the problem is that Russia is not unaware of NATO's intentions. Whenever NATO shows that it wants to be deeply involved in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine and is ready to directly send troops to fight Ukraine, Russia will make a counter-threat, mentioning the direct engagement between Russia and NATO, and seemingly unintentionally mentioning the role of nuclear deterrence.
In other words, NATO is looking for an opportunity to use conventional arms attrition and drag Russia down. But Russia did not give them this opportunity at all, and almost explicitly told NATO that if you dare to intervene directly, we will use nuclear bombs to "kill each other's fun".
U.S. President Joe Biden
NATO, on the other hand, does not dare to compete with Russia on the nuclear issue, so of course it has to come out and deny the plan to deploy nuclear weapons in Poland. And another very important point is that the people of Europe and the United States are unwilling to get involved in a nuclear war with Russia for the sake of Ukraine, so NATO politicians also need to come out and give an account to their people.
Third, from the perspective of NATO, the contradictory statements of the US Army generals and NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg fully reflect the split within NATO.
Specifically, whether it is the United States, which has a clear bargaining chip aimed at Russia and seems to be ready to make a move with Russia at any time, or Poland, which suffers from deep "Russophobia" and hopes that NATO and Russia will not stop confronting each other and then countering Russia's expansion in its own direction, they are undoubtedly hard-line fighters.
The United States and Eastern Europe are the core driving forces that now support Ukraine in fighting to the end.
President Duda of Poland
But on the other hand, the Western European economies led by Germany may not want to see the conflict between Russia and Ukraine drag on for a long time, so they are not confident in supporting Ukraine to fight Russia to the end.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, although he is the leader of NATO and listens more to the United States, it is impossible for him to completely ignore the voices and interests of other NATO countries.
It is precisely because there are different views within NATO on whether to support Ukraine, how to support Ukraine, and to what extent they support it, that there is a strange situation in which the US generals arch the fire and the NATO secretary general cools down.
Ukraine and NATO
The superposition of the above three reasons actually reveals that NATO wants to use conventional forces to fight a war with Russia, but is afraid of Russia's military power and does not dare to do so, and this state of affairs will most likely continue until Russia and Ukraine decide the winner.