06.12.2019 12:17
President Emmanuel Macron
has called NATO "brain dead", claiming it should focus on real
threats and reinvent itself. To what point is this the case?
From the outset, NATO was a
fallacy. It claimed to be a defensive organization serving to protect Western
Europe and the United States of America against any attack by the Soviet Union,
although the structure of the USSR's forces after the Second World War was
defensive and NATO's, as we have seen, is and has always been offensive.
In the 1980s and 1990s NATO
gave repeated promises to the Warsaw Pact that if the Pact dissolved, NATO
would not encroach eastwards. It lied. Now looking at the map we see NATO on
Russia's borders in two arenas, namely the frontier with Norway and in the
Baltic, while in the south, the flank is occupied by Turkey, a stone's throw
away from Russia's southern border and in the center, we have the case of
Ukraine, which tomorrow will be a spear in the heart of Moscow.
We only have to look at the
history of encroachment and provocation and insolence to see where the heart
and mind of NATO lies. The move eastwards is an obvious attempt to station NATO
forward bases on Russia's borders, otherwise why would it have lied and moved
thousands of kilometers to the east, staged constant acts of provocation and
followed these up with insolence and lies in its media??
The constant acts of
provocation, and the ensuing lies in the media about Russian aggression. Let us
see: First was Georgia which murdered Russian peace-keeping forces in
South Ossetia and was aiming to do the same thing in Abkhazia before Russia
intervened with a limited operation to normalize the situation and push the invading
forces back. But Russia was branded as the aggressor complete with lies on
western media outlets about Russian missile salvoes flying from north to south
when the missiles they were showing were Georgian ones traveling northwards.
This was after Kosovo when
NATO carved out a narco-state in the heart of the Balkans where today
terrorists train for operations in Syria and elsewhere, this after NATO sided
with terrorists and organ traffickers (the KLA, or UÇK) and attacked Serbia,
and before NATO kidnapped Serbia's President in an act which was illegal by
Serbian national, Yugoslav Federal and International Law, and detained him
illegally occasioning his premature death under detention in The Hague.
Next came Ukraine, a
criminal act of interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign State, in
which the democratically elected President was ousted in an illegal coup
orchestrated by Washington, before lo and behlod, the Biden family became
involved in Ukraine's shale gas project.
Then a military build-up in
the Baltic, more lies about "Russian aggression" and more insolence.
Russia did not attack Iraq, illegally, based on lies and outside the auspices
of the UN Security Council. Russia did not attack Libya, interfering in the
internal affairs of a sovereign nation, breaching UNSC Resolutions 1970 and
1973 (2011), strafing Gaddafy's grandchildren with bombs, murdering them and
then saying the place they were staying at was a legitimate target in a classic
NATO demonstration of a callous disregard for human life and private property,
just like any other terrorist organization.
Speaking of which, suppose
NATO concentrated on defeating terrorists rather than allying with them as was
the case in Libya, the African country with the highest Human Development Index
before being touched by the hand of Satan, turning it into a country
which is today crawling with terrorists and has open slave markets? Suppose NATO
concentrated on defeating ISIS in Syria rather than stealing the oil from
Syria's oil fields and using it to finance other terrorist organizations?
While NATO bickers about
spending 2 per cent of GDP on the collective military budget, we must remember
that the collective military budget of the NATO member states is already one
point two trillion USA (or one point two thousand billion USD, or
1,200,000,000,000 USD) and we may ask how much some of them commit to
development projects. A paltry zero point seven per cent of their GDP, so they
prefer to spend three times more on weapons systems to murder people than on development
projects which would eradicate poverty for good, creating conditions which
would counter the appearance of desperation, marginalization and endemic
exclusion and poverty, the breeding ground for terrorism.
So suppose NATO teamed up
with Russia instead of insulting it and making puerile attempts at provocation,
suppose NATO asked China to come on board rather than describing it as
"dangerous" and suppose collectively, we all concentrated on
development and education projects, making the world less polluted, safer, more
agreeable and more propitious for us all to enjoy together, sharing our stories
and cultures and beliefs and gastronomy and customs?
It will not happen any time
soon because NATO is stuck in the past for one reason and one reason alone: it
is an old boy's club, the cutting edge of the military-industrial complex and
with one point two trillion USD of collective interests each and every year, a
lot of powerful people are making a lot of money out of it in some way, shape
or form.
To perpetuate itself, NATO
needs to invent non-existing threats (Russia) or not to eradicate existing ones
(terrorist organizations) because if the public perceived that NATO was a
useless anachronism they would stand up and say hey suppose you spent that one
point two trillion USD each and every year on us and why hasn't anyone told me
that my country is wasting countless billions on arms contracts when there are
school books to be bought and hospital beds to be made available?
For those of you whose Prime
Ministers have their bedmaster in Washington, go figure.
Photo: Public Domain,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=20836839
Читайте больше на https://www.pravdareport.com/opinion/144126-nato_anachronism/?utm_referrer=readers_top
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.