23.05.2016 Author: Phil Butler

When Will the World Be Free of the NATO Beast?

22309494942NATO is fighting for its Paleolithic life. A dying dinosaur from a place God and time may one day forget, the military equivalent of a mafia protection racket now swishes its tail one last time in the hopes a full scale war will rescue it. With militarism as a purpose, and bending European societies in the back of its fossil mind, this listless beast of war is more dangerous than ever. Here is a look at a rusty tool of American hegemony, one the world never really needed at all.

Reading NATO’s latest misinformation bit, “NATO-Russian relations: the facts”, I recall the last half century of my own brainwashing. Like the “Captain Dan” figure, played by actor Gary Sinise in the Tom Hanks film Forest Gump, I think back on the generations of Butlers who fought in America’s wars. There is a scene in the film where Captain Dan’s forefathers bite the dust on successive historic battlefields, from Vietnam to Bunker Hill. Caaaa-plop! Each successive forefather falls backwards into the snow or mud, the look of finality on his face, as the end of war registers in the mind’s last gleaming.

Thinking about NATO, the bureaucrats and butt kissers that now play top soldiers there, I cannot help but reflect on how stupid we all were to believe. Snatching myself back to the moment, as a veteran, I feel ashamed at having backed the play of money grubbing war mongers like those that use a supposed alliance, like Al Capone used the rackets back in gangland Chicago. America, our allies, have been made repeated “offers they could not refuse”. To steal the line from another film, the Godfather with the late great Marlon Brando in the lead Mafioso role, is ideally suited to what NATO is doing today.

In the article I cite, no author is listed. Perhaps the “myths” and “facts” the military organization wishes to present are too ridiculous for anybody to attach a name, rank, and serial number to. Meant to satisfy the clinically stupid, or absurdity brainwashed killer among us, the piece makes a travesty of the truth. I speak in such a bombastic voice, because my colleagues and friends in the ranks are sick unto death of this utter bullshit. If you will allow me to deconstruct NATO’s truth, perhaps someone at the top will just order the nincompoops to stop.

NATO Fact One: On the Russia claim that NATO is trying to encircle Russia, the liars in the NATO ranks try and pull the wool over geographically challenged onlookers. NATO is trying to isolate and encircle Russa, but here is how to “rocket scientists” who work at NATO headquarters make their counterclaim:

“This claim ignores the facts of geography. Russia’s land border is just over 20,000 kilometres long. Of that, 1,215 kilometres, or less than one-sixteenth, face current NATO members.”

For those of you who loved geography as a kid, or for those among you who study history, you realize the leadership of NATO takes you for utter fools. In order to expose a ridiculousness in any such dialogue, all one need do it expose the chief lie amidst the propaganda. NATO’s content specialist who helped construct this nonsense goes on to remind us how Russia shares land borders with only 14 countries, only 5 of which are NATO members. But while Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, North Korea, are not all NATO cohorts yet, the strategy to include more is unarguable. Only those people trapped inside mine shafts, or lost in the wilderness can even consider what NATO is asserting as cognizant.

3453454Using the interactive map NATO provides here, readers can easily construct a real truth, however. Clicking on the map to include; troop contributing countries, Mediterranean dialog partners, Istanbul Cooperation Initiative partners, NATO Command & Control, NATO missions, and partners around the globe, and the picture of a surrounded Russia becomes clearer. And if there is a real geographer out there among you, the situation from satellite, looking at this encirclement from the global perspective looks even worse. The United States and Canada, almost all of Europe and most of the Middle East represent the NATO team. China and some of Southeast Asia, Iran and India are pretty much outside NATO’s clutches. Yes, I said clutches. Russia, for all Washington’s and London’s bellyaching, only extends past its home ground where conflict threatens her borders. Russia has attacked no one. Russia is on the defensive like always. NATO is in the business of war, not defense. Let me show you.

On the NATO history pages you will find the not-so subtle bragging the military organization unashamedly spits at the civilian world. Since its birth in 1949, NATO’s Article 5 has been the spear to the heart of European peace. While the site reflects on the Marshall Plan from whence NATO arose as a sort of stabilizing commandments, the economic and military goals set forth were only biblical for the trouble festering beneath. What we see now in chaos across Europe and the Middle East, is the fruits of a catastrophic strategy. NATO’s plans, and those of leading members, are nothing short of perpetual war. NATO fights to remain relevant, and the only way to accomplish this is through fear. The Korean War should have shown us, the common enemy would always be the “great motivator”. That war also should have shown us, NATO would never really allow for winning any war totally.

Also, a strategy known as the “Massive Retaliation” doctrine sucked European nations into the NATO web via the charade of diverting military spending to economic growth. Ostensibly, the US and other big NATO partners would “nuke” Russia is she attacked NATO nations. So, the United States became the world’s police force, and smaller nations got to save trillions on military spending. In something akin to a “big fix”, those that lead NATO would soon blackmail lesser members with the “great boogey man”, the Soviet Union. I needn’t go further here than to point out the language these NATO psychopaths use. In depicting France’s kicking NATO out of their country in 1967, the NATO narrative shows the underlying reality of militaristic organizations. France told NATO to get out, and here is how NATO describes its partners today:

“Flexibility was always key to NATO’s success, and the French withdrawal from NATO’s integrated military command structure demonstrated that NATO, unlike the Warsaw Pact, could tolerate differing viewpoints between its members.”

The underlying attitude is not really subtle, but the use of the word “tolerate” is significant. How magnanimous NATO leadership was, to not launch an immediate attack on Paris once the French told the alliance to bug off. The insanity stretches even further. NATO writers go on to describe how “Europe”, by its definition, was only even viable before NATO once again started to expand Eastward. Bear with me here, for the dogma is critical. NATO “endured” after the fall of the Soviet Union, in order to help “democratize” Eastern Europe. Yes, you read that correctly, NATO was used as a force of democracy to spread Europe eastward. NATO was being used as an occupying force, to “deter the rise of militant nationalism and to provide the foundation of collective security that would encourage democratization and political integration in Europe.” Those are not my words; NATO crafted its own history pages using its own “definitions” for expansion.

“The definition of “Europe” had merely expanded eastward. Before the consolidation of peace and security could begin, however, one spectre haunting European politics remained to be exorcised. Since the Franco-Prussian War, Europe had struggled to come to terms with a united

Germany at its heart. The incorporation of a re-unified Germany into the Alliance put this most ancient and destructive of dilemmas to rest.”

So the people and their politics had less to do with the formation of NATO or even the EU, and a whole lot more to do with iron militarism and the threats dictated by NATO’s elite, the men and women behind the alliance. Russia, and China, anyone outside the “club”, they are the threats dangled in front of Europe’s people. Yugoslavia, Georgia and the Caucasus, all the NATO interventions are used for drumming up the idea the treaty organization is about peacekeeping. When my team and I discovered NATO was behind the Ukraine “Peacemaker” kill lists targeting Russian sympathizers in the East of Urkaine, it was at that moment I began to understand who the real good guys were. Listing private information on people who support separatists in the Donbass, Peacemaker was not only tied to NATO via its servers, but to the British Embassy and various NGOs. NATO backs Nazis. NATO is about making war, not preventing it. And NATO does in fact have one primary enemy, Russia. Here are the irrefutable facts about NATO’s part in world chaos.

The 1950s and 60s: Diabolical Fanaticisms

NATO was always about militarism. Even before the Cold War got started in earnest, the Pentagon and its allied think tanks abroad were at play fighting the “Reds” to the death. Then a top secret initiative was set in motion. The National Security Council Paper NSC-68 (entitled “United States Objectives and Programs for National Security” and frequently referred to as NSC-68) helped launch an arms race that dwarfed any other human endeavor in history. That arms race continues, but the sewn seeds were planted just before 1950, and NATO was a major part of this plan. Citing the “hostile design” of the Soviet Union, the framers of this strategy were akin to paranoid schizophrenics, men who believed the Soviet doctrine was some kind of “fanatical faith”. Reading the declassified documents now, I wonder how in hell we ever avoid mutually assured destruction (MAD), these people were crazy and diabolical.

It was America’s and NATO’s own fanaticism that carried us through the Korean War. Besides being one of the most bitter and useless conflicts in history, the Korean War were a turning point for the construct of NATO. Because the Soviets had armed the North Koreans, American President Truman and the western Cold War strategists misread Korea as an indicator of wider Soviet intentions to invade Western Europe. NATO was sent into overdrive, and Truman’s term “police force” set the tone for continual chaos we’ve seen these last decades. NATO claims Russia is not being encircled, but encirclement was always the goal. In 1950s, the outbreak of the Korean War led Australia and New Zealand to commit troops through the United Nations and alongside the NATO allies, demonstrating both their concern over the threat of communism and their commitment to doing their part to help contain it in the region. The “Truman Doctrine” that gesticulated future militarism, metastasized into and even larger military alliance via the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the Central Treaty Organization (Cento), and the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). So NATO stood cheering on the sidelines, as Vietnam further indemnified its existence.

The 70s & 80s & Indentured Servitude

Throughout the 1970s, NATO’s dogma remained constant, “defending Europe”, but of course that only meant “Europe” by western definitions. Or was it “free Europe”, as in Radio Free Europe, the propaganda channel we know now as Radio Liberty. Ronald Reagan and the 80s echo the assimilation of all those Europe nations; this Foreign Policy piece reminds us how Europe owes America its NATO debt. Servitude, this is the end result of all protection rackets, and the deployment of long range nuclear missiles in Europe, against the will of Europe’s people, cemented NATO’s occupation of the continent. Yes, you read me correctly; NATO has been an occupational force, more so than a defender. Reagan, like Truman decades before, elevated the arms race to unheard of heights. The “Evil Empire” was used, to pour trillions upon trillions of dollars into further hopelessness. Insanity, on a runaway train, threatened to take us to the brink of an Apocolypse, as the Soviets were pushed to the brink. They collapsed, rather than launching a preemptive strike on their attackers. And this tells us much.

Bosnia: And the Rest is History

I have lamented Yugoslavia before. Sputnik International picked up my commentary, the depth of the lost potential being so deep. NATO emerged from its role as faithful defenders of democracy, and became a hegemonic tool for sure in 1992. The Yugoslav wars were the moment Western warmongers were waiting for, so that Hollywood operational names could be created for regime changes. Inherent Resolve and other corny movie-like military actions more recently were born of Operation Sharp Vigilance, the UN/NATO embargo of the Adriatic Sea and Yugoslavia. The Bush, and later Clinton White Houses oversaw the utter destruction of a mediating state, in between the West, and the Soviets. This was NATO’s first “assignment” in an expansive war on Russia. Though some will argue, subsequent NATO and EU expansionist efforts betray any argument NATO enthusiasts can bring. Yugoslavia’s demise was the signal for all subsequent political wars and regime changes. NATO airstrikes sealed the fate of Yugoslavia.

Moving along, NATO being asked to help in Afghanistan before US and coalition around the time of 9/11, and before the invasion, is suspicious at the least. 2001 seemed a bit early for the Afghans to be requesting a NATO led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Then on another request of the United States, the Alliance launched its first-ever counter-terrorism operation – Operation Eagle Assist – from mid-October 2001 to mid-May 2002. Then NATO took up policing the Athens Olympics in 2004, the Riga Summit in 2006, and training Iraqi security forces from 2004 until 2011. Operation Allied Provider in 2008 saw NATO extend into fighting Somalia pirates, and in 2011 NATO essentially overthrew Muammar Gaddafi, at the onset of Arab Spring. NATO continues to expand is sphere of operations today. With operations still ongoing in Afghanistan, still fighting piracy around Cape Horn, and flying what it terms “air policing missions”, NATO forces today are even more menacing than they were during the first Cold War.

Most of what I have presented here comes from the official pages of NATO’s own “fact” files, its history, and the professions of the organization’s stalwartness. If the reader will investigate, the reality of NATO as an archaic institution of war becomes so transparent. It was so from the beginning. With the Allies versus the Axis over with, an industry bent on creating ongoing strife, and disguised as the hero of the free world, assimilated many nations into the lie. Russia and the Soviet Union before certainly had similar strategies afoot. But compared to the devastation Western nations have wrought on emerging countries for decades, Moscow is Mt. Zion. US and NATO bases worldwide approach 1,000 in number, and stretch across 156 countries. Meanwhile, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported this month that NATO is concerned about a Russian base near neighboring Ukraine. Ukraine is on the border of Russia, but the United States is thousands of miles distant. There is a lack of logic and truth in this, that no one can escape. At the other end of the spectrum, RT reports the US will spend tens of millions on Estonian bases bordering Russia. And to cap off my report, it is only too appropriate to tell of the latest Hollywood naming convention, something called the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), through NATO’s support program of eastern countries. I leave you with the expanded role of NATO today, a cognizant remedy against the organization’s idiotic propaganda. The essence of this will galvanize for you, how the leadership in the West’s leaders view NATO’s role.

“The definition of “security” has radically expanded to include the individual’s freedom from the violent extremism bred by instability and nation-state failure. For instance, much of the world’s attention in 2011 was focused on the crisis in Libya where NATO played a crucial role in helping to protect civilians under attack from their own government.”

Radically expanded, from a police force, established as a defense alliance, and proud to have thrust Libya into turmoil and chaos? I think we can with righteous indignation, call NATO and its leadership, liars of the first magnitude.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.