Why It’s
Especially Necessary to End NATO Now
Eric Zuesse, March 13,
2021
In a previous
article I argued “Why It’s Necessary to End NATO”. However,
recent events are making clear that the urgency of this need is increasing,
instead of decreasing.
In 2011, the
U.S. Government started planning a
take-over of Ukraine, which, at that time, was a neutral country that has a
1,625-mile border with Russia. At its nearest point to Moscow, that border is
only 5 minutes flight-time away from Moscow, via the fastest missiles.
Obviously, that’s far too little time for Russia’s Government to be able to
evacuate themselves from Moscow and to launch a retaliation against a U.S.
blitz-attack. The U.S. goal is to get Ukraine into NATO, so that America can
position its missiles there and really achieve “Nuclear
Primacy” (which I discussed in that earlier article as being America’s
meta-strategy since at least 2006 — safely to destroy Russia, even though that won’t actually be possible).
On February
1st of 2021, Ukraine’s President, Volodmyr Zelenskyy, made undeniably clear his
intention to fulfill on Obama’s plan, for Ukraine to become a NATO member.
Whether Joe Biden is going to push for that will be the most important decision
of his Presidency, because it would be a commitment to World War III. It would,
in effect, be a U.S. declaration of war against Russia. Whether the
blitz-invasion would come from the U.S. (presumably assisted by missiles placed
in Ukraine), or instead from Russia (in order to wipe out those and all other
U.S. missiles), would be the only remaining question. Who will try the
blitz-attack first? Either way, the world — at least the biosphere that
sustains human life — would end.
Zelenskyy said:
We are
grateful for everything, but Ukraine is not just saying in words that it wants
to be an equal member of the Alliance, an equal member of NATO, because this is
one of the most important security points - the same security that President
Biden is speaking about. How should we further state the desire to accede
[join], if it is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine - the movement
towards the European Union, European integration, as well as accession to NATO?
Therefore, I have a very simple question - why is Ukraine still not in NATO?
Putting away these phrases that we will all contemplate and communicate, the
first simple question from me would be: "Mr. President, why are we not in
NATO yet"?
If Ukraine
becomes a NATO-member, then Ukraine will have the right to demand that America
join its war to grab back the former Donbass region and also the former region
of Crimea. The U.S. Government would then be put into the position of having to
either fulfill its NATO commitment to the new NATO member (presuming that
restoration of both Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine would be accepted as being a
part of that commitment to what then would be a fellow-NATO-member) or else
become very embarrassed by not doing so. If such a NATO commitment would be
fulfilled, the world as it has always been known would end very fast — less
than an hour.
The way that
WW III would then start is that Ukraine would become more heavily armed by the
U.S. and then would invade both Donbass and Crimea, Russia would then attack
Ukraine for doing that, and the U.S. would then launch a blitz-attack against
Moscow from Ukraine, and, simultaneously launch against all other
command-and-control targets in Russia, so that before those have become hit,
Russia would already have been decapitated.
The United
States Government is fortunately not obliged to allow Ukraine into NATO and has
many ways to prevent it from joining NATO. Some of these ways wouldn’t at all
embarrass the U.S. Government, and the reason for this is that if any one
NATO-member nation refuses to okay Ukraine as becoming a member, then Ukraine
won’t become a member, and the scenario that has been described won’t then
happen. The U.S. Government has enormous clout with each existing NATO
member-nation, because NATO was created by the North Atlantic Treaty (also
called the “Washington Treaty”) in Washington, DC, on 4 April 1949,
at a conference that was chaired by U.S. diplomat Theodore Achiles, who
subsequently retired to become a Director of the Atlantic Council, which also
is in Washington, and which is the PR arm of NATO. The U.S. Government could
easily get at least one NATO-member country to say no to
Ukraine’s joining. However, if U.S. President Biden announces that the U.S.
endorses NATO-membership for Ukraine, then that’s, in itself,
virtually a U.S. declaration of war against Russia, and Russia might not wait
for it to be made official before responding to it — blitz-invading the U.S.
and its allies.
According
to Achilles’s account of the creation
of NATO:
The NATO
spirit was born in that Working Group. Derick Hoyer-Millar, the British
Minister, started it. One day he made a proposal which was obviously nonsense.
Several of us told him so in no uncertain terms, and a much better formulation
emerged from the discussion. Derick said, and I quote, "Those are my
instructions. All right, I'll tell the foreign office I made my pitch, was shot
down and try to get them changed." He did. From then on we all followed
the same system. If our instructions were sound, and agreement could be
reached, fine. If not, we worked out something we all, or most of us,
considered sound, and whoever had the instructions undertook to get them
changed. It always worked, although sometimes it took time. That spirit has
continued to this day, I believe, although the size to which NATO has grown
makes it far less easy. Two years later we began in London to put the
"O" on the NAT by creating the organization. Some of the members of
the delegations had been members of the Working Group, some had not.
Was that the
beginning of the end of the world? Perhaps Biden will decide whether it is, or
not.
However, if
he does decide to do it, then I doubt he’d do the attack prior to getting
Ukraine into NATO — if he can do that. On March 10th, The Saker headlined “Is the Ukraine on the brink of war
(again)?” and speculated whether Biden will provide now the
backing that the Obama-installed stooge-regime
there wants. Though the stooge-regime might re-invade Donbass (and maybe
even attack Crimea), I doubt
that Biden will provide the type of assistance that the U.S.-stooge regime in
Kiev would need in order to retake that land (and certainly not Crimea). I
would expect that Biden is therefore informing Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy
not to try. So, I would expect that, instead, the crucial decision will be
whether or not the regime in Washington will decide that it really does want
Ukraine to become a member of NATO.
On March
10th, Sweden’s Defense Research Agency issued in two different parts, a 300-page
report, “Western Military Capability in Northern Europe 2020,” which concluded
that Russia would likely win WW III in Europe, and which analyzed only conventional
war and virtually totally ignored even the possibility of the
use of nuclear weapons in WW III — the presumption was instead that
the meta-strategy “MAD” still would prevent that, and they ignored the U.S. regime’s actual abandonment
of “MAD” and switch to “Nuclear Primacy”. They also
simply presumed that the U.S. is their ally and non-aggressive and that Russia
is their enemy and is aggressive. In other words: it is fantasyland, at least
in the Swedish Government. Furthermore: the core strategic question, of whether
the loser in a conventional WW III would accept defeat instead of
blitz-nuclear-attack the opponent so as to ‘win’ the war, was simply ignored,
as if there would be a 100% likelihood that the conventional-war loser would
just surrender and not escalate to a blitz nuclear attack against the opposite
side in order to ‘win’ and would leave its enormous nuclear stockpile unused.
They ignored the fact that NATO, after the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991, is the
trip-wire to an all-out nuclear war — the exact opposite of an
asset to its participants’ national security. NATO-participation makes all of
them inevitably a part of the battlefield, and forces Russia to target them.
Sweden’s Defense Research Agency produced there an insanely stupid study, and
one which shows that Europeans, at least in Sweden, are being ‘defended’ by a
government that is either in the pocket of the U.S., or else is simply idiotic.
That study is shockingly stupid; it makes some of the craziest assumptions
imaginable — assumptions that are tragically at variance with established facts
(facts such as that America is, by far, the world’s most aggressive nation, and
perpetrates far more coups, sanctions, and invasions, than does any other
nation). At least regarding foreign relations, Sweden’s Government is
monstrously disserving its public, and yet Swedes aren’t enraged against it.
Are their news-media really that bad, so as for Swedes to
tolerate a military alliance with the world’s most aggressive nation?
The only sane
path forward for the nations that currently are NATO members (or “Partners” as Sweden is) is to
withdraw and to urge other members (and Partners) likewise to withdraw, so that
NATO will end — as it should have
ended when the Soviet Union’s NATO-mirror organization the Warsaw Pact ended in
1991. End the Cold War, finally. NATO — the American military
alliance against Russia — is simply the trip-wire to WW III. End it. Now. Even
30 years after 1991 isn’t, yet, too late to do it. But, maybe, 31 years would
be. That’s why it must be done now, delayed no further. Either NATO will end,
or it will end all of us.
—————
Investigative
historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The
Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and
of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event
that Created Christianity.
/https://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2021/09/25/huawei-executive-meng-wanzhou-receives-warm-welcome-upon-return-to-china/_1_meng_wanzhou_2.jpg)
