(By Viktor Litovkin, TASS military commentator, military expert. Izvestia, April 21, 2016, p. 6. Complete text:) After a two-year hiatus, the NATO-Russia Council resumed work at the ambassadorial level in Brussels. The discussion participants once again exchanged grievances and parted ways after agreeing on further consultations - at some point on some sort of issues. This was more or less repeat of 1999, when Russia broke off relations with NATO over its aggression in Yugoslavia, or in August 2008, after Russian troops routed the Georgian Army that had attacked our peacekeepers and civilians in South Ossetia. ... But why did NATO want to resume the council’s work? There are several reasons. The first and most important was due to the Russian military’s successes in conducting the antiterrorist operation in Syria. Brussels and Washington realized that Russia is serious force that will have to be reckoned with, and will be necessary at least to engage in dialogue with it. Second, the alliance leadership wants to demonstrate its peaceful nature to world public opinion. The alliance’s secretary-general has repeatedly stated that NATO is not interested in confrontation with Russia and it is in all our interests to keep political channels for political dialogue open***when times are difficult as they are now. At the same time, [NATO Secretary-General Jens] Stoltenberg tries to use the absurd formula: a more robust deterrence and engagement with Russia. ... Why did we agree to participate in the council meeting? To me, this is big question. Of course, I understand that NATO is fact of life and therefore we will have to interact with in one way or another. And is better to talk than fight. Moreover, if we are offered dialogue, is not good idea to give extra ammunition to Western propagandists who rebuke us for being reluctant to come to an agreement. However, the question is: What are we agreeing to, and on what terms? And if we do not raise these issues with NATO, how can we get to recognize interests?! ... Nevertheless, is obvious to me, and I believe to other observers, that NATO is not an independent organization - certainly not military-political and defense alliance of 28 sovereign and independent states. The alliance is US vassal. [It is] Washington’s fine-tuned military-political tool used to enslave and control Europe. ... Here is simple example: 75% of the NATO budget is US money. I can only recall couple of mutinies in NATO. One was in 1967, when [Charles] de Gaulle withdrew France from NATO’s military wing and removed the alliance’s headquarters from Paris. The second time was during the second Persian Gulf war in 2003, when French leader Jacques Chirac and [then-] German chancellor Gerhard Schroder refused to send their troops to Iraq. Since then, Washington has been going above and beyond to ensure that such strong personalities as de Gaulle, Chirac or Schroder never occupy leadership positions in European countries. What’s more, to maintain its influence over the Old World, Washington spares no money and does not balk at using other methods. The Russian military threat propaganda scare is evidently one of the most harmless ones. ... So why am I saying all this? Because I firmly believe that while we should have dialogue with NATO, would be extremely naive to hope we can agree on anything, decide anything or receive any guarantees in Brussels. Dialogue needs to be conducted with the party that is calling the shots with its European vassals - i.e., Washington. Maybe [we should] even demand that the US and its European allies reformat the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act [see Current Digest, Vol. 49, No. 21, p. 5] - especially considering that the alliance (primarily the US) violates on regular basis. Among other things, [it does so] by deploying significant military contingents on Russia’s borders. [It’s time to] abandon empty talk at the NATO-Russia Council and establish Russia-US council. We already had 2+2 format with Washington, with the participation of foreign and defense ministers from both sides. I believe it would be worthwhile to resume and expand its activity, and host meetings on regular basis. If this does not happen under [US President Barack] Obama, we must work to establish relations with his successor. Dialogue between Moscow and Washington should be conducted without mediators. As for Stoltenberg & Co., they should go have smoke. They will be called on when necessary.