By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Belgian Defence Minister Theo Francken stated that Moscow would be destroyed if Russia attacked a NATO member’s capital, like Brussels. He made this statement in response to a question about a potential Russian missile strike. Francken emphasized that the West should not be intimidated by Putin. While he is less concerned about a direct attack, he expressed worries about “grey zone” scenarios involving covert operations within NATO countries.
Read the original article here
Belgian defence minister: If Putin attacks NATO, Moscow will be wiped off the map. This statement, stemming from a direct question about a potential attack on Brussels, essentially boils down to a clear and concise warning: if Russia targets NATO, the response will be devastating. The Minister’s perspective is rooted in the strategic reality that an attack on the Belgian capital, being the site of NATO headquarters, is tantamount to an attack on the entire alliance. The implication is crystal clear – retaliation would be swift and decisive.
While the specifics of such a retaliation were left unsaid, the implication of the Minister’s words is potent. It suggests that every NATO nation, with its respective military forces, has already mapped out and prepared target systems, ready to respond within minutes of any serious aggression from Russia against NATO. It is a tacit acknowledgment of the speed and precision with which a modern military, particularly that of NATO, can operate.
The key to understanding the statement lies not just in the threat itself, but also in the broader context. The comments don’t necessarily address attacks on NATO troops in other countries. Instead, they highlight the dangers associated with “gray areas,” such as Russian covert operations. It is worth noting that NATO HQ is near Brussels, hence the focus.
The underlying sentiment is one of confidence in NATO’s strength. The comment suggests that Moscow would not be able to withstand a full-scale NATO response. This confidence comes from the conviction that modern military doctrine is vastly superior to the military capabilities of Russia.
It’s natural to consider what such a scenario might entail. The response to a Russian attack on a NATO member would likely be a full-scale military retaliation. This kind of response would involve the targeted destruction of military assets and likely major cities, with Moscow being a prime target.
There is a sense of the potential for a larger war. Yet, the possibility of nuclear weapons being deployed hangs in the balance. The implication is that if Putin were to launch a nuclear attack, then the full wrath of NATO would be unleashed.
The Minister’s statement also has a degree of political calculation behind it. There’s a feeling that Putin uses aggressive rhetoric to instill fear and divide the West, aiming to weaken support for Ukraine. It is important to remember that Belgium recently voted against using frozen Russian assets to fund Ukraine. It’s likely that the minister wanted to appear strong and decisive.
Finally, the comments sparked considerable debate. Some people believe that such a response would be too harsh and would not resolve the problem. However, there is a clear understanding that a military conflict against NATO is a disastrous move. In the case of an attack on a NATO country, the response will be decisive and the consequences for Russia would be severe. The bottom line is that a potential war would be over quickly.