With less than a month until the next big NATO meeting, scheduled for the first week of December, France’s Macron has jumped into public relations mode to prepare the public for some big changes on the horizon. Indeed, Macron’s major interview with the Economist on November 7th on the question of the US’s alleged wavering commitment to NATO is a stunning sign of the times.
Cutting through a lot of intentionally confusing messaging, is that France and Germany are just fine with any end to NATO because it helps justify the coming European Army – one that they want, and believe they need anyhow. It only happens to be part of the same reality that US hegemony, and its ability to finance NATO in turn, are coming to an end. In sounding more like a radical post-structuralist international relations theorist than a fiscally conservative leader of a capitalist democracy, Macron shocked the world when he stated in no uncertain terms that this period we are in marks the end of ‘Western Hegemony’.
The real facts of motives behind big changes have an odd way of ultimately making themselves known for what they are at the end of the day. Often these are cloaked in the underlying framework of the politics of the time. Revealing these in the case of France and NATO can show some top-level word salad at play: justify independence not on the basis that being controlled isn’t fair, but rather that those doing the controlling aren’t doing it well enough and don’t seem committed to it as much as they ought to be. Macron is doing this very well, and mirrors Trump’s own discursive games.
Occupiers aren’t doing their job – the End of Trilateralism
Imagine if you will a French argument against the Nazi occupation not because it placed Germany in control of France’s fate, but rather on the basis that the Wehrmacht was decreasing its troop presence in France, or conversely appeared to be wavering on the Eastern Front, and as a consequence France was worried about Germany’s commitment to the Reich. This is, in short, what Macron is arguing today regarding the US and NATO.
Imagine likewise, that the Wehrmacht said it was considering abandoning its occupation of France not because it had to move resources to the Eastern Front, but because France wasn’t giving enough to the war effort. This is the crux of Trump’s argument for public consumption.
Under any other prior historical iterations, the US’s moves to reduce its NATO commitments to Western Europe would be hailed by progressives in the Democratic Party in the US as a step in the right direction. Yet now in this exciting time, one in which the US Empire is down-sizing and adjusting itself to its real force potential, progressives in the US are making geopolitical realism into a partisan issue: since the most obvious or observable stage is happening under a nominally conservative, Republican administration, it must therefore be a Democratic Party talking point to oppose this in principle.
The matter is of course deeper than this, and the Democratic Party’s investment in the trilateralism (US + EU + Japan) of Rockefeller and Brzezinski has been at odds with the unilateralism of the neoconservatives. We will recall when President George W Bush attacked Iraq, it came not long after moves by the Iraqi government to do their oil dealings in Euros. The Europe-wide hatred for Bush’s war on Iraq seemed to the politically naïve as an expression of social-democratic pacifism, but in reality was an expression of Europe’s sovereign financial interests versus dollar hegemony. These questions really have not gone away.
When NATO came onto the stage, it was couched in terms of protecting Western Europe from the growth of the Soviet sphere of influence which the latter had won from its victory over Germany in WWII.
The idea that NATO was not a collaborative and mutual effort of freely-acting European states in defense of market freedoms and Western values, but instead more like a US led and sustained military occupation in Western Europe, in the past could be criticized as either Communist or even neo-Nazi propaganda. Against this view the entire media-academic industry was mobilized, assuring the public that all the European countries of NATO were members of their own accord and will: an outgrowth of the democratic mandate from the peoples of the member states, arrived at through fair parliamentary processes.
Macron still needs to make everyone look good
All this places Macron in an odd position. NATO is the military component of economic Atlanticism, but this transatlantic relationship experienced a major breach of trust in the years following the US market crash in 2007. This was because US based banks and government colluded to deceitfully push a significant portion of its liabilities onto the EU all the while claiming these were investments – who in turn placed an undue burden in PIIGS countries, in particular Greece. This all in turn has fueled a marked increase in Eurosceptic and ‘exit’ movements across the beleaguered EU.
Read the entire article
BATR 2020 Election News
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Showing posts with label NATO. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
Wake-Up Call On The Syrian Border: Time To End Washington’s Feckless Regime Change Policy and NATO, Too
Syria has been turned into the most wretched of neighborhoods on the planet by Washington’s neocons and liberal interventionists. From its pre-2011 population of 23 million, more than 6.7 million have fled to countries such as Lebanon (1 million), Jordan (700,000), Turkey (3.6 million), Europe and elsewhere.
At the same time, more than 6.5 million Syrians are internal refugees, driven from their homes and towns by a so-called "civil" war that wouldn’t have lasted more than a few months save for the billions of arms, training and walking around money that Washington and its Persian Gulf allies have supplied to the violent opposition.
Owing to these billions of aid to armed insurrection, however, the Syrian economy has been turned to shambles and its ancient cities and towns have been reduced to steaming piles of rubble. Disease, malnutrition, lack of safe drinking water and medical supplies and treatments stalk the land.
And Washington’s objective was exactly what?
Well, to remove from power the Assad family regime that had ruled Syria since 1978 with reasonable economic stewardship and a mildly authoritarian writ that was slightly better than par for the course by Middle East standards, and not because the Assads posed any threat to America’s homeland security whatsoever.
Read the entire article
At the same time, more than 6.5 million Syrians are internal refugees, driven from their homes and towns by a so-called "civil" war that wouldn’t have lasted more than a few months save for the billions of arms, training and walking around money that Washington and its Persian Gulf allies have supplied to the violent opposition.
Owing to these billions of aid to armed insurrection, however, the Syrian economy has been turned to shambles and its ancient cities and towns have been reduced to steaming piles of rubble. Disease, malnutrition, lack of safe drinking water and medical supplies and treatments stalk the land.
And Washington’s objective was exactly what?
Well, to remove from power the Assad family regime that had ruled Syria since 1978 with reasonable economic stewardship and a mildly authoritarian writ that was slightly better than par for the course by Middle East standards, and not because the Assads posed any threat to America’s homeland security whatsoever.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, July 23, 2019
The Putin Interviews : Vladimir Putin & Oliver Stone Discuss NATO
Vladimir Putin answered questions from American film director, screenwriter and producer Oliver Stone. The interview was recorded on June 19, 2019 in the Kremlin.
Oliver Stone: Continuing that theme of strategy of tension, how is Russia affected by the US-Iranian confrontation?
Vladimir Putin: This worries us because this is happening near our borders. This may destabilize the situation around Iran, affect some countries with which we have very close relations, causing additional refugee flows on a large scale plus substantially damage the world economy as well as the global energy sector. All this is extremely disturbing. Therefore we would welcome any improvement when it comes to relations between the US and Iran. A simple escalation of tension will not be advantageous for anyone. It seems to me that this is also the case with the US. One might think that there are only benefits here, but there will be setbacks as well. The positive and negative factors have to be calculated.
Oliver Stone: Yeah. Scary.
Vladimir Putin: No, this is not scary.
Oliver Stone: You sound very depressed, much more depressed than last time.
Vladimir Putin: Last time the situation concerning Iran was not like this. Last time nobody said anything about getting into our energy and other networks. Last time the developments were more positive.
Read the entire article
Oliver Stone: Continuing that theme of strategy of tension, how is Russia affected by the US-Iranian confrontation?
Vladimir Putin: This worries us because this is happening near our borders. This may destabilize the situation around Iran, affect some countries with which we have very close relations, causing additional refugee flows on a large scale plus substantially damage the world economy as well as the global energy sector. All this is extremely disturbing. Therefore we would welcome any improvement when it comes to relations between the US and Iran. A simple escalation of tension will not be advantageous for anyone. It seems to me that this is also the case with the US. One might think that there are only benefits here, but there will be setbacks as well. The positive and negative factors have to be calculated.
Oliver Stone: Yeah. Scary.
Vladimir Putin: No, this is not scary.
Oliver Stone: You sound very depressed, much more depressed than last time.
Vladimir Putin: Last time the situation concerning Iran was not like this. Last time nobody said anything about getting into our energy and other networks. Last time the developments were more positive.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, April 09, 2019
Why NATO's Official Purpose Makes No Sense, but It Is Likely To Outlive Us All
This year marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of NATO, but the question is, is this a happy birthday for a lively meaningful organization or time for us to pull the plug on a Cold War dreg that has lived well past its purpose?
After WWII it was inevitable that there would be a conflict between the Liberal Capitalist world and the growing Red Communist one. Perhaps if the Soviet Union would have resigned itself to being the only Communist nation rejecting any form of proselytization and rebranding itself as some kind of Democracy B as a mild alternative to the West’s Democracy A then the Cold War could have been avoided.
But this did not happen and was very unlikely to do so. The motto of the Soviet Union on its seal was “Workers of the World Unite!”. That was workers of the “world” not “only Russia”. So it is not surprising that the West took a preemptive move and formed NATO to gang up on the USSR.
However now the Soviet Union is dead and gone. NATO fulfilled its mission a little after turning 40. Sadly rather than phasing out and riding off into the sunset it had a midlife crisis, bought a Camaro and continued to not only exist but expand and bomb. But should it exist? Why is this organization still around at 70 years old posing as if we are still living in some sort of Cold War dynamic where if we don’t bomb Libya back to the stone age somehow Belgium and Greece will fall to evil ideologically different invaders.
NATO relies heavily on the idea that the weakest members benefit from being treated as “equals” in the security organization. Many tiny nations would be militarily helpless otherwise. At first this logic makes sense. Little nations need a boost to help them maintain a stable defense.
Read the entire article
After WWII it was inevitable that there would be a conflict between the Liberal Capitalist world and the growing Red Communist one. Perhaps if the Soviet Union would have resigned itself to being the only Communist nation rejecting any form of proselytization and rebranding itself as some kind of Democracy B as a mild alternative to the West’s Democracy A then the Cold War could have been avoided.
But this did not happen and was very unlikely to do so. The motto of the Soviet Union on its seal was “Workers of the World Unite!”. That was workers of the “world” not “only Russia”. So it is not surprising that the West took a preemptive move and formed NATO to gang up on the USSR.
However now the Soviet Union is dead and gone. NATO fulfilled its mission a little after turning 40. Sadly rather than phasing out and riding off into the sunset it had a midlife crisis, bought a Camaro and continued to not only exist but expand and bomb. But should it exist? Why is this organization still around at 70 years old posing as if we are still living in some sort of Cold War dynamic where if we don’t bomb Libya back to the stone age somehow Belgium and Greece will fall to evil ideologically different invaders.
NATO relies heavily on the idea that the weakest members benefit from being treated as “equals” in the security organization. Many tiny nations would be militarily helpless otherwise. At first this logic makes sense. Little nations need a boost to help them maintain a stable defense.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, November 27, 2018
Another Crimean war looms as NATO provocations enter Russian waters
A new Crimean War would be the last, but few amongst the general public realize that endless baiting of Russia, the cycle of war games, sanctions, and false accusations could well lead to all-out war between NATO and Russia.
“Half a league, half a league, half a league onward, into the Valley of Death rode the six hundred,” - Alfred Lord Tennyson
The last time Britain fought Russia, we were the most powerful empire in the history of the world and our adversary a ramshackle obscurantist autocracy. The British suffered over forty thousand dead and wounded. It was the first modern war – red in tooth and claw – predating the American Civil War, which is often awarded that dubious honor. The terrible suffering of the British (and French) soldiers, virtually none of whom even had the right to vote for the parliament which ruled “their” empire, began to be unpopular at home. Tennyson's braggadocio ballad “The Charge of the Light Brigade” gave rise to the first whispers of doubt amongst British people generally as to whether our soldiers were lions led by donkeys, into one valley of death after another. Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die.
The next Crimean War would be the last war and no poet would be left alive to chronicle it for the remaining cockroaches, the only beings which would likely survive it.
Surprisingly, few amongst the general public had yet to wake up to the fact that the endless baiting of Russia, the cycle of war-games sanctions and false accusations could well lead to all-out war between NATO and the Russian Federation – multiple nuclear-armed superpowers, ramshackle no longer. Events this week in the Russian waters off Crimea and the subsequent war-mobilization of the Ukrainian neo-fascist government may well prove a wake-up call.
Read the entire article
“Half a league, half a league, half a league onward, into the Valley of Death rode the six hundred,” - Alfred Lord Tennyson
The last time Britain fought Russia, we were the most powerful empire in the history of the world and our adversary a ramshackle obscurantist autocracy. The British suffered over forty thousand dead and wounded. It was the first modern war – red in tooth and claw – predating the American Civil War, which is often awarded that dubious honor. The terrible suffering of the British (and French) soldiers, virtually none of whom even had the right to vote for the parliament which ruled “their” empire, began to be unpopular at home. Tennyson's braggadocio ballad “The Charge of the Light Brigade” gave rise to the first whispers of doubt amongst British people generally as to whether our soldiers were lions led by donkeys, into one valley of death after another. Theirs not to reason why, theirs but to do and die.
The next Crimean War would be the last war and no poet would be left alive to chronicle it for the remaining cockroaches, the only beings which would likely survive it.
Surprisingly, few amongst the general public had yet to wake up to the fact that the endless baiting of Russia, the cycle of war-games sanctions and false accusations could well lead to all-out war between NATO and the Russian Federation – multiple nuclear-armed superpowers, ramshackle no longer. Events this week in the Russian waters off Crimea and the subsequent war-mobilization of the Ukrainian neo-fascist government may well prove a wake-up call.
Read the entire article
Friday, July 13, 2018
A Lutheran Pastor Explains - Russia Is a Beacon of Promise for a Christian Future
As an American who has witnessed the metastasizing of 5th stage cancer in the Empire since the 1960s, I must freely admit that the three holidays in this country which produce the most sadness and profound depression for me at this stage of my life are the 4th of July, Veterans' Day, and Memorial Day.
Donald Jeffries covers the bases on many of my feelings today at Lew Rockwell in an essay entitled Our Plastic Patriotism. Suffice it to say that cardboard patriots in Star-Spangled Attire mouthing platitudes about "freedom" not only fail to understand that Washington, Adams, and Jefferson would not even recognize what this country has become internationally or domestically, but proceed to a mindless and terrifying embrace of the notion that utilizing the American military as a Regime Change Janissary force for Israel, the banks, and the multinational oil, gas, and mineral consortiums is a laudable thing.
Starting a war of aggression with Russia utilizing NATO would be just terrific by these folks.
Jefferson knew otherwise. Even a cursory look at his writings reveals his grasp of the truism that a country involved perpetually in foreign wars of aggression has a government also bent on destroying the liberties of its domestic population. And yet the flag waving and mindless chants of USA!USA! on this day fail to grasp the dark truth that the United States is the leading nation on the face of the earth in the exportation of the instruments of death and the accompanying ideology of preemptive wars for the promotion of usury, sodomy, Palestinian land theft, and World Government eventually culminating in the appearance of Antichrist.
Read the entire article
Donald Jeffries covers the bases on many of my feelings today at Lew Rockwell in an essay entitled Our Plastic Patriotism. Suffice it to say that cardboard patriots in Star-Spangled Attire mouthing platitudes about "freedom" not only fail to understand that Washington, Adams, and Jefferson would not even recognize what this country has become internationally or domestically, but proceed to a mindless and terrifying embrace of the notion that utilizing the American military as a Regime Change Janissary force for Israel, the banks, and the multinational oil, gas, and mineral consortiums is a laudable thing.
Starting a war of aggression with Russia utilizing NATO would be just terrific by these folks.
Jefferson knew otherwise. Even a cursory look at his writings reveals his grasp of the truism that a country involved perpetually in foreign wars of aggression has a government also bent on destroying the liberties of its domestic population. And yet the flag waving and mindless chants of USA!USA! on this day fail to grasp the dark truth that the United States is the leading nation on the face of the earth in the exportation of the instruments of death and the accompanying ideology of preemptive wars for the promotion of usury, sodomy, Palestinian land theft, and World Government eventually culminating in the appearance of Antichrist.
Read the entire article
Friday, February 23, 2018
U.S. propaganda cites NATO’s PR agency’s confirmation that “evidence is overwhelming” Russia manipulated U.S. Elections
“There’s no possible way you can say that [Russia’s manipulation of the 2016 U.S. elections] didn’t happen,” says Ben Nimmon, of the Atlantic Council, which was set up by the U.S. Government in 1961 during the Cold War, to encourage increased military spending in U.S.-allied countries. The video, with Nimmon saying this, appears in the U.S. Government’s Voice of America’s February 19th article “Israel, Iran Clash Over Nuclear Threat at Munich Conference”, which opens by saying, “Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has claimed that Iran is just years away from having a nuclear bomb.” This article presents the former U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, on the defensive, against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s extensive statements there, for an invasion soon against Iran. Kerry negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran that U.S. President Donald Trump says the U.S. won’t honor.
On February 22nd, an article was headlined “Israel and Iran: Inching Toward Conflict”, by Peter Korzun, at the website of Strategic Culture Foundation, which favors Russia against NATO, and which article presents considerable evidence that Israel plans soon to invade Iran, and to use the airspace of “Sunni-dominated Arab states” (the U.S. Government’s other allies against Iran) in order to do it, or else to use Iraq’s airspace: Korzun wrote, “Iraq is not focused on monitoring its airspace — it has many other problems to deal with, and Israel could take advantage of that. The route through Iraq looks like it might be the best option.”
Israel, which receives $3.8 billion per year from the U.S. Government to buy U.S.-made weapons, is seeking the U.S. Government’s okay to use them for an invasion of Iran, which America’s fundamentalist-Sunni ally the Saud family also want to destroy. U.S. President Donald Trump, whose biggest financial backer in 2016 was the pro-Israel extremist Sheldon Adelson, who is a billionaire casino-operator, would need first to approve the invasion; and, presumably, President Trump would now be seeking support from the members of Congress, and from the news-media, in order to pave the way for that authorization.
Consequently, in U.S. propaganda, there appears to be a close link between the U.S. Government’s hostile intentions against Russia, and the U.S. Government’s hostile intentions against Iran. Donald Trump, and the U.S. Congress, already seem likely to allow the Israeli Government’s request, and the Voice of America’s article can be seen as being part of the effort to gain the world’s support for such an invasion to occur. Such an invasion would be a boost to the stock-values of American weapons-manufacturers: already, for example, the stock price of Boeing has nearly tripled since 2016, and any invasion by a U.S. ally can only keep the momentum going, for continued growth in the U.S. economy. In this light, the $3.8 billion-per-year donation from America’s taxpayers to Israel’s Government can reasonably be viewed as a U.S. Government investment in continuation of growth in U.S. stock prices, which measures seem to be the main driver behind U.S. international relations.
Read the entire article
On February 22nd, an article was headlined “Israel and Iran: Inching Toward Conflict”, by Peter Korzun, at the website of Strategic Culture Foundation, which favors Russia against NATO, and which article presents considerable evidence that Israel plans soon to invade Iran, and to use the airspace of “Sunni-dominated Arab states” (the U.S. Government’s other allies against Iran) in order to do it, or else to use Iraq’s airspace: Korzun wrote, “Iraq is not focused on monitoring its airspace — it has many other problems to deal with, and Israel could take advantage of that. The route through Iraq looks like it might be the best option.”
Israel, which receives $3.8 billion per year from the U.S. Government to buy U.S.-made weapons, is seeking the U.S. Government’s okay to use them for an invasion of Iran, which America’s fundamentalist-Sunni ally the Saud family also want to destroy. U.S. President Donald Trump, whose biggest financial backer in 2016 was the pro-Israel extremist Sheldon Adelson, who is a billionaire casino-operator, would need first to approve the invasion; and, presumably, President Trump would now be seeking support from the members of Congress, and from the news-media, in order to pave the way for that authorization.
Consequently, in U.S. propaganda, there appears to be a close link between the U.S. Government’s hostile intentions against Russia, and the U.S. Government’s hostile intentions against Iran. Donald Trump, and the U.S. Congress, already seem likely to allow the Israeli Government’s request, and the Voice of America’s article can be seen as being part of the effort to gain the world’s support for such an invasion to occur. Such an invasion would be a boost to the stock-values of American weapons-manufacturers: already, for example, the stock price of Boeing has nearly tripled since 2016, and any invasion by a U.S. ally can only keep the momentum going, for continued growth in the U.S. economy. In this light, the $3.8 billion-per-year donation from America’s taxpayers to Israel’s Government can reasonably be viewed as a U.S. Government investment in continuation of growth in U.S. stock prices, which measures seem to be the main driver behind U.S. international relations.
Read the entire article
Tuesday, October 10, 2017
Catalan Independence: Out of Madrid’s Frying Pan, Into the NATO Fire?
Media on all sides surrounding the recent Catalan referendum for independence from Spain focused on Madrid’s security crackdown on voters. However, what is not being mentioned about Catalonia’s ongoing bid to achieve independence, who is leading it, and what their plans are for the region should they succeed, is just as important.
Catalonia is one of the most prosperous regions of Spain, possessing a population and GDP on par with or slightly above Singapore or Scotland. It has enjoyed various levels of autonomy for decades and – unlike many US-European “independence” projects around the world – could likely emerge as an independent and prosperous sovereign nation.
For this fact alone, many people support and are enthusiastic about Catalan independence.
Real Independence, or Shifting Dependence from Madrid to Brussels?
However, despite attempts by the Western media and the special interests they represent to appear indifferent or even opposed to Catalan independence, policy papers from Western corporate-financier sponsored think tanks indicate an eagerness – particularly by NATO – to integrate what they expect to be a robust military capability into their global wars of aggression.
Read the entire article
Catalonia is one of the most prosperous regions of Spain, possessing a population and GDP on par with or slightly above Singapore or Scotland. It has enjoyed various levels of autonomy for decades and – unlike many US-European “independence” projects around the world – could likely emerge as an independent and prosperous sovereign nation.
For this fact alone, many people support and are enthusiastic about Catalan independence.
Real Independence, or Shifting Dependence from Madrid to Brussels?
However, despite attempts by the Western media and the special interests they represent to appear indifferent or even opposed to Catalan independence, policy papers from Western corporate-financier sponsored think tanks indicate an eagerness – particularly by NATO – to integrate what they expect to be a robust military capability into their global wars of aggression.
Read the entire article
Monday, March 27, 2017
Monday, June 13, 2016
Friday, April 08, 2016
The Revolt Against NATO
A recent report published in Foreign Policy magazine, a bastion of the internationalist Establishment, illustrates quite neatly how the anti-interventionist cause is making big gains – and how to effect real change in American foreign policy. The headline reads: “Senators Slam NATO ‘Free Riders’ in Closed Door Session With Secretary General,” and the story went on to relate how GOP Senators are suddenly complaining about how and why the burden of NATO falls largely on Uncle Sam’s sagging shoulders:
“For under an hour, senators grilled [NATO Secretary General Jens] Stoltenberg, a former prime minister of Norway, about why only five members of the 28-nation club spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense, the official amount NATO recommends each nation to set aside. Some expressed particular dissatisfaction with Germany, the fourth largest economy in the world, which does not meet the 2 percent threshold.”
Although the article claimed that Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) “and other US officials” have “blasted” our feckless allies for years over this imbalance, this is the first time we’ve heard about it. Why is that? Well, it’s because the Republican frontrunner, one Donald J. Trump, is making an issue of it, and even suggesting that NATO, which he says is “obsolete,” is a relic of the cold war that ought to be entirely abandoned.
This has the foreign policy Establishment in a panic, with legions of “experts” rising up to denounce Trump’s heresy as misguided, absurd, and – of course! – “isolationist.” Yet the politicians can’t afford to be so dismissive: after all, they have to listen to their constituents, at least to some extent. And it’s quite telling what Sen. Corker – who has warned the “Never Trump” crowd to back off – had to say to Stoltenberg:
Read the entire article
“For under an hour, senators grilled [NATO Secretary General Jens] Stoltenberg, a former prime minister of Norway, about why only five members of the 28-nation club spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense, the official amount NATO recommends each nation to set aside. Some expressed particular dissatisfaction with Germany, the fourth largest economy in the world, which does not meet the 2 percent threshold.”
Although the article claimed that Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tennessee) “and other US officials” have “blasted” our feckless allies for years over this imbalance, this is the first time we’ve heard about it. Why is that? Well, it’s because the Republican frontrunner, one Donald J. Trump, is making an issue of it, and even suggesting that NATO, which he says is “obsolete,” is a relic of the cold war that ought to be entirely abandoned.
This has the foreign policy Establishment in a panic, with legions of “experts” rising up to denounce Trump’s heresy as misguided, absurd, and – of course! – “isolationist.” Yet the politicians can’t afford to be so dismissive: after all, they have to listen to their constituents, at least to some extent. And it’s quite telling what Sen. Corker – who has warned the “Never Trump” crowd to back off – had to say to Stoltenberg:
Read the entire article
Tuesday, March 29, 2016
Is Trump Right About NATO?
I am “not isolationist, but I am ‘America First,'” Donald Trump told The New York times last weekend. “I like the expression.”
Of NATO, where the U.S. underwrites three-fourths of the cost of defending Europe, Trump calls this arrangement “unfair, economically, to us,” and adds, “We will not be ripped off anymore.”
Beltway media may be transfixed with Twitter wars over wives and alleged infidelities. But the ideas Trump aired should ignite a national debate over U.S. overseas commitments — especially NATO.
For the Donald’s ideas are not lacking for authoritative support.
The first NATO supreme commander, Gen. Eisenhower, said in February 1951 of the alliance: “If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.”
As JFK biographer Richard Reeves relates, President Eisenhower, a decade later, admonished the president-elect on NATO.
Read the entire artcile
Of NATO, where the U.S. underwrites three-fourths of the cost of defending Europe, Trump calls this arrangement “unfair, economically, to us,” and adds, “We will not be ripped off anymore.”
Beltway media may be transfixed with Twitter wars over wives and alleged infidelities. But the ideas Trump aired should ignite a national debate over U.S. overseas commitments — especially NATO.
For the Donald’s ideas are not lacking for authoritative support.
The first NATO supreme commander, Gen. Eisenhower, said in February 1951 of the alliance: “If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.”
As JFK biographer Richard Reeves relates, President Eisenhower, a decade later, admonished the president-elect on NATO.
Read the entire artcile
Monday, February 15, 2016
End NATO Now. “An Insanity that’s Driving the World Inexorably Toward World War III”
The continuation of NATO, after its counterpart the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991, is an insanity that’s driving the world inexorably toward World War III.
The trigger for that war is now being set by NATO member Turkey, which wants to invade neighboring Syria, and which has the support of the Gulf Cooperation Council (including the world’s biggest buyer of US weapons, Saudi Arabia) who are massing troops and weapons on Syria’s northern border, in preparation for an invasion southward into Syria.
Once they invade Syria from Turkish territory, it won’t be enough for the Syrian army and its Russian ally to wage war against them inside Syria, because the invaders will then need to be counter-attacked in order to be defeated, and so there will be an invasion of NATO-member Turkey – a counter-invasion, in defense against Syria’s invaders – a counter-invasion which, however morally necessary it will be, will trigger nuclear war, for this reason:
Read the entire article
The trigger for that war is now being set by NATO member Turkey, which wants to invade neighboring Syria, and which has the support of the Gulf Cooperation Council (including the world’s biggest buyer of US weapons, Saudi Arabia) who are massing troops and weapons on Syria’s northern border, in preparation for an invasion southward into Syria.
Once they invade Syria from Turkish territory, it won’t be enough for the Syrian army and its Russian ally to wage war against them inside Syria, because the invaders will then need to be counter-attacked in order to be defeated, and so there will be an invasion of NATO-member Turkey – a counter-invasion, in defense against Syria’s invaders – a counter-invasion which, however morally necessary it will be, will trigger nuclear war, for this reason:
Read the entire article
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)