The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Karel van Wolferen Archive
Ending NATO, a Monstrous Institution
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_638359468
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Their anxiety about the future of NATO, recently on full display again when the American president was in Europe, could not be bettered as a measure of the incapacity of Europe’s top politicians to guide their continent and represent its populations. Through its provocations of Moscow, NATO systematically helps increase the risk of a military confrontation. By thus sabotaging its declared purpose of preserving collective security for the countries on either side of the Atlantic, it erases its fundamental reason for being and right to exist.

Grasping these facts ought be enough to fuel moves aimed at quickly doing away with NATO. But it is terrible for more and easily overlooked reasons.

NATO’s survival prevents the political entity that is the European Union from becoming a significant global presence for reasons other than its economic weight. If you cannot have a defence policy of your own you also deprive yourself of a foreign policy. Without a substantive foreign policy, Europe does not show anything that anyone might consider ‘a face’ to the world. Without such a face to the outside, the inside cannot come to terms about what it stands for, and substitutes meaningless platitudes for answers to the question as to why it should exist in the first place.

shutterstock_119677318 NATO is an example of an institution that has gotten completely out of hand through European complacency, intellectual laziness, and business opportunism. As a security alliance it requires a threat. When the one that was believed to exist during the Cold War disappeared, a new one had to be found. Forged for defence against what was once believed to be an existential threat, it only began actually deploying its military might after that threat had disappeared, for its illegal war against Serbia. Once it had jumped that hurdle, it was encouraged to continue jumping toward imagined global threats. Its history since the demise of its original adversary has been deplorable, as its European member states were made party to war crimes resulting from actions at Washington’s behest for objectives that have made a dead letter of international law. It has turned some European governments into liars when they told their populations that sending troops to Afghanistan was for the purpose of assorted humanitarian purposes like reconstructing that country, rather than fighting a war against Taleban forces intent on reclaiming their country from American occupation.

Afghanistan did not, as was predicted at the time, turn into a graveyard for NATO, next to that of the British Empire, the Soviet Union and – farther back – Alexander the Great. Having survived Afghanistan, NATO continued to play a significant role in the destruction of Gaddafi’s Libya, and in the destruction of parts of Syria through covertly organising, financing, and arming ISIS forces for the purpose of overthrowing the Assad government. And it continues to serve as a cover for the war making elements in Britain and France. America’s coup in the Ukraine in 2014, which resulted in a crisis in relations with Russia, gave NATO a new lease on life as it helped create an entirely uncalled for and hysterical fear of Russia in Poland and the Baltic states.

NATO repudiates things that we are said to hold dear. It is an agent of corruption of thought and action in both the United States and Europe. Through propaganda that distorts the reality of the situation in the areas where it operates, and perennial deceit about its true objectives, NATO has substituted a now widely shared false picture of geopolitical events and developments for one that, even if haphazard, used to be pieced together by independent reporters for mainstream media whose own tradition and editors encouraged discovery of facts. This propaganda relies to a large extent on incessant repetition for its success. It can generally not be traced to NATO as a source of origin because it is being outsourced to a well-funded network of public relations professionals.

The Atlantic Council is NATO’s primary PR organization. It is connected with a web of think tanks and NGO’s spread throughout Europe, and very generous to journalists who must cope with a shrinking and insecure job environment. This entity is well-versed in Orwellian language tricks, and for obvious reasons must mischaracterise NATO itself as an alliance instead of a system of vassalage. Alliance presupposes shared purposes, and it cannot be Europe’s purpose to be controlled by the United States, unless we now accept that a treasonous European financial elite must determine the last word on Europe’s future.

An influential policy deliberation NGO known as the International Crisis Group (ICG), is one of the organizations linked with the Atlantic Council. It operates as a serious and studious outfit, carrying an impressive list of relatively well-known names of associates, and studies areas of the world harbouring conflicts or about-to-be conflicts that could undermine world peace and stability. Sometimes this group does offer information that is germane to a situation, but its purpose has in effect become one of making the mainstream media audience view the situation on the ground in Syria, or the ins and outs of North Korea, or the alleged dictatorship in Venezuela, and so on, through the eyeballs of the consensus creators in American foreign policy.

NATO repudiates political civilisation. It is disastrous for European intellectual life as it condemns European politicians and the thinking segment of the populations in its member states to be locked up in what may be described as political kindergarten, where reality is taught in terms of the Manichean division between bad guys and superheroes. While Europe’s scholars, columnists, TV programmers and sophisticated business commentators rarely pay attention to NATO as an organization, and are generally oblivious to its propaganda function, what it produces condemns them to pay lip service to the silliest geopolitical fantasies.

NATO is not only terrible for Europe, it is very bad for the United States and the world in general, for it has handed to America’s elites important tools aiding its delusional aim of fully dominating the planet. This is because NATO provides the most solid external support for sets of assumptions that allegedly lend a crucial moral dimension to America’s warmaking. NATO does not exist for the sake of indispensable European military prowess, which hardly has not been impressive. It exists as legal justification for Washington to keep nuclear weapons and military bases in Europe. It obviously also exists as support for America’s military-industrial complex.

But its moral support ought to be considered its most significant contribution. Without NATO, the conceptual structure of a ‘West’ with shared principles and aims would collapse. NATO was once the organisation believed to ensure the continued viability of the Western part what used to be known as the ‘free world’. Such connotations linger, and lend themselves to political exploitation. The ‘free world’ has since the demise of the Soviet Union not been much invoked. But ‘the West’ is still going strong, along with the notion of Western values and shared principles, with ‘the good’ in the form of benevolent motives automatically assumed to be on its side. This gives the powers that be in Washington a terrific claim in the realm of widely imagined moral aspects of geopolitical reality. They have inherited the mantle of the leader of the ‘free world’ and ‘the West’, and since there has not been a peep of dissension about this from the other side of the Atlantic, the claim appears true and legitimate in the eyes of the world and the parties concerned.

In the meantime the earlier American claim to speak and act on behalf of the free world was broadened and seemingly depoliticised by a substitute claim of speaking and acting on behalf of the ‘international community’. There is of course no such thing, but that doesn’t bother editors who keep invoking it when some countries or the bad guys running them do things that are not to Washington’s liking. Doing away with NATO would pull the rug from under the ‘international community’. Such a development would then reveal the United States, with its current political system and priorities in international affairs, as a criminal power and the major threat to peace in the world.

I can hear an objection that without this resonance of moral claims the activities serving the ‘full spectrum dominance’ aim would have been carried out anyway. If you think so, and if you can stand reading again what the neocons were producing between 9/11 and the invasion of Iraqi in 2003, subtract all references to moral clarity and the necessity for the United States to serve as moral beacon for the world from that literature, and you will see that preciously little argument remains for American war-making that ensued.

shutterstock_591252749 The spinelessness of the average European politician has added up to huge encouragement of the United States in its post-Cold War military adventurism. With forceful reminders from Europe about what those much vaunted supposedly shared political principles actually stood for, American rhetoric could not have been the same. Strong European condemnation of the shredding of the UN Charter, and the jettisoning of the principles adopted at the Nuremberg trials, would have made it much more difficult for George W Bush, Dick Cheney, and the neocons to go where blind fanaticism and hubris, with imagined economic advantage, took them. Perhaps more importantly, it might have given a relatively weak American protest movement the necessary added energy to rise to the level of effectiveness once attained by the anti-Vietnam activists as they imprinted themselves on the political culture of the 60s and 70s. European dissent might not have halted but could have slowed the transformation of much of the mainstream media into neocon propaganda assets.

As it is, NATO exists today in a realm of discourse in which revered post-World War II liberal conditions and practices are still believed to exist. It is an apolitical and ahistorical realm determined by hubris and misplaced self-confidence, in which powers that have utterly altered these practices and negated its positive aspects are not acknowledged. It is a realm in which America’s pathological condition of requiring an enemy as a source of everlasting profit is not acknowledged. It is a realm in which America’s fatuous designs for complete control over the world is not acknowledged. It is a realm of foreign policy illusions.

NATO is supposed to guard putative Western values that in punditry observations have something to do with what the Enlightenment has bestowed on Western culture. But it deludes staunch NATO supporters, who cannot bring themselves to contemplate the possibility that what they have long trusted to be an agent of protection, has in fact become a major force that destroys those very qualities and principles.

There is a further more tangible political/legal reason why NATO is monstrous. It is steered by nonelected powers in Washington, but is not answerable to identifiable entities within the American military system. It is not answerable to any of the governing institutions of the European Union. Its centre in Brussels exists effectively outside the law. Its relations with ‘intelligence agencies’ and their secret operations remain opaque. Who is doing what and where are all questions to which no clear, legally actionable, information is made available.

NATO has thereby become a tool of intimidation lacking any compatibility with democratic political organisation. An autocrat aspiring to unfettered rule with which to operate anywhere in the world would find in NATO the ideal institutional arrangements. All this should be of our utmost concern. Because all this means that NATO is now one of the world’s most horrible organizations that at the same time has become so politically elusive, apparently, that there is no European agent with enough of a grip on it to make it disappear.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, American Military, EU, NATO 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. anon says: • Disclaimer

    NATO is neither good nor bad . If it dissapeared today the players would realign , be absorbed in other agreements or similar . The outcomes would very likely be similar . a small chance either something catastrophic occurs. an even smaller chance something extremely positive occurs.
    .

    Read More
    • Replies: @animalogic
    This is a very good article. It's central point that NATO is not a neutral, let alone a force for "good" is accurate. Time & again, like the EU itself, it has functioned as a mere instrument of US foreign predation.
    It is not to the point that "If it [NATO] dissapeared today the players would realign , be absorbed in other agreements or similar".
    The point is that the dissolution of NATO would remove the US formally from Europe as a whole. US bilateral alliances with independent European countries would be a whole order of magnitude less powerful than NATO.
    Absent NATO perhaps Europe as a whole might develop an independent foreign policy aligned with Europe's own interests.
    , @jilles dykstra
    Of course NATO is bad, already since the Cuba crisis that Kennedy solved peacefully in dialogue with Chrustjow.
    The NATO permanent blood transfusion is fear of Moscow.
    At all costs therefore this fear must be kept alive, even the cost of the last word war.

    NATO got into serious difficulties since Russia constructed a gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea to Germany.
    This gas is distributed in the Netherlands, one of the greatest gas hubs in the world.
    How can one's gas supplier be a threat ?
    Therefore the former EU chairman, Van Rompuy, was of the opinion that Europe's dependence on Russian gas should end, a good excuse for renewable energy.
    The cost is for the taxpayer, houses that do not need gas are going to cost E 40.000 more.

    The EU's association treaty with Ukraine was great for strenghtening the image of the Russian bear, of course Putin could not allow NATO to get the important Russian navy basis Sebastopol.
    So Putin took back the Crimea.

    Nevertheless, the Dutch people were nof fooled, we voted against the Ukraine treaty.
    This made Rutte, nickname Pinokkio, to defend the Ukraine treaty by referring to Russian vacuum bombs on Aleppo, he could not have done better in explaining that the Ukraine treaty was aimed against Russia.

    Now great bewilderment, Trump telling his European NATO 'friends' to pay for NATO themselves.
    , @Che Guava
    That is a very strange thing to say. It is a relic or zombie fossil,

    Its role in enforcing the breakup of Yugoslavia beyond the separation of Slovenia and Croatia was despicably evil, and accompanied by so many lies.

    Now the place is totally atomized, and we have remnant micro-states becoming NATO members for no reason but to become EU members, when their polities don't seem to understand that the EU only does handouts for the earlier members.

    The bombing campaign to sever Kosovo was pure evil. I watched TV images from it starting, it made me sick.

    I try to work it out, but it is very hard to see any logic but an urge for destruction.

    In recent years, they have seriously considered making, for example, Japan and Australia members, that is a bridge too far from 'North Atlantic', so serious consideration of that (which happened) is down the memory hole.

    Then again, Montenegro? Not North Atlantic.

    It won't happen, but I wish NATO would dissolve.

    The reason it won't, even with Trump as Prex, is the principle of 'interoperability':everything has to be compatible with the US machinery, and that is a huge boost to the US MIC, even those places making their own major platforms, jets, boats, tanks, ships, have to, as NATO members, pay for US-compatible comms tech., sometimes ammunition, etc.
    , @Randal

    NATO is neither good nor bad . If it dissapeared today the players would realign , be absorbed in other agreements or similar .
     
    This seems a bit of a daft thing to claim. NATO is a hugely powerful organisation, and it is inherently unlikely its existence and activities "make no difference" overall.

    In reality, of course, they make a huge difference. As the article above notes, and others by an increasing number of commenters agree, this difference is overwhelmingly negative from pretty much all points of view except that of those who are able to use NATO to manipulate events to suit their own business and foreign policy objectives.

    I was a strong supporter of NATO pre-1990, but with the dramatic change in circumstances that occurred in 1990-91 I correctly recognised immediately that the need was to disband NATO, because its reason for existence had gone, and such a hugely powerful bureaucracy and tool was only likely to do harm if retained after the need for it was gone. The opinion of those who agreed with me was of course ignored, and so it came to pass as predicted that NATO became a powerful force for harm. This was most obvious in the illegal Kosovo war, that was largely enabled by the existence of NATO and enacted by NATO forces. But it has been continually the case since, as NATO has bolstered Washington's (and others') provocations of Russia and emboldened troublemakers and warmongers in various European and UK regimes.

    But the importance of NATO to those who misrule us has been well illustrated by Trump's prompt and complete "re-education" on the topic once in office. The mistake of 1990-1 will not be rectified easily. Too many careers, positions, budgets, sales forecasts, and nefarious warmongering plans depend upon its continued existence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /article/ending-nato-a-monstrous-institution/#comment-1895480
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Andrew Bacevich wrote a provocative essay on reasons to dismantle NATO in 2011. I know, because I used his piece to write a paper in my Philosophy class I was taking at the time.

    Your article, 6 years later, is far more nuanced, revealing even more pressing reasons than either Bacevich or I thought out or could express then for the abolition of NATO.

    And although Paul Craig Roberts makes the ending of NATO one of his oft-mentioned must-do’s his sole reason–the end of America’s ability to act agressiviely in Eastern Europe–again does not encompass the full spectrum of corruption of the rule of law and mysterious motivations you detail here.

    With Trump and then with the hope of Marine Le Pen, there were glimmers of hope that it might be let go. Now? The world is ever more dangerous. This essay makes things ever more clear.

    Read More
  3. Michael\\ says:

    Thank-you for an excellent article by a great international journalist. it should be read by Canadian pols of all parties who are compelled now to give celebratory lip service to an un-evidenced legendary NATO which stands to criminally undo international law, diplomacy and the sovereign democracies of its member states. NATO is the harsh face of the globalized financial empire and the true character of that face is as evil and dystopian as the frightful Radio Free Europe characterizations of godless soviet totalitarianism. The founders of cold war NATO wanted nothing to do with an empire whether it represented American imperial warmongering, revanchist colonialism or the malevolent fiction of an expansive soviet empire. But steeped in serialized fear-mongering propaganda, we are involuntarily immersed in an ideological empire and Russia is an outstanding threat just because it desires independence, dignity and freedom. If we don’t move to end NATO we will become indentured to perpetual war. NATO is a parasitic death wish for what is left of sovereign nations and humane civil society. M\\

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    You are spot on target Michael. 20.05.2017 If NATO Wants Peace and Stability it Should Stay Home

    A curious op-ed appeared in The National Interest, penned by Hans Binnendijk and David Gompert, adjunct senior fellows at the RAND Corporation. Titled, “NATO’s Role in post-Caliphate Stability Operations,” it attempts to make a case for NATO involvement everywhere from Libya to Syria and Iraq in fostering stability in the wake of a yet-to-be defeated Islamic State.

    http://journal-neo.org/2017/05/20/if-nato-wants-peace-and-stability-it-should-stay-home/
  4. @anon
    NATO is neither good nor bad . If it dissapeared today the players would realign , be absorbed in other agreements or similar . The outcomes would very likely be similar . a small chance either something catastrophic occurs. an even smaller chance something extremely positive occurs.
    .

    This is a very good article. It’s central point that NATO is not a neutral, let alone a force for “good” is accurate. Time & again, like the EU itself, it has functioned as a mere instrument of US foreign predation.
    It is not to the point that “If it [NATO] dissapeared today the players would realign , be absorbed in other agreements or similar”.
    The point is that the dissolution of NATO would remove the US formally from Europe as a whole. US bilateral alliances with independent European countries would be a whole order of magnitude less powerful than NATO.
    Absent NATO perhaps Europe as a whole might develop an independent foreign policy aligned with Europe’s own interests.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @zzzz
    Absent NATO perhaps Europe as a whole might develop an independent foreign policy aligned with Germany own interests.
  5. @anon
    NATO is neither good nor bad . If it dissapeared today the players would realign , be absorbed in other agreements or similar . The outcomes would very likely be similar . a small chance either something catastrophic occurs. an even smaller chance something extremely positive occurs.
    .

    Of course NATO is bad, already since the Cuba crisis that Kennedy solved peacefully in dialogue with Chrustjow.
    The NATO permanent blood transfusion is fear of Moscow.
    At all costs therefore this fear must be kept alive, even the cost of the last word war.

    NATO got into serious difficulties since Russia constructed a gas pipeline through the Baltic Sea to Germany.
    This gas is distributed in the Netherlands, one of the greatest gas hubs in the world.
    How can one’s gas supplier be a threat ?
    Therefore the former EU chairman, Van Rompuy, was of the opinion that Europe’s dependence on Russian gas should end, a good excuse for renewable energy.
    The cost is for the taxpayer, houses that do not need gas are going to cost E 40.000 more.

    The EU’s association treaty with Ukraine was great for strenghtening the image of the Russian bear, of course Putin could not allow NATO to get the important Russian navy basis Sebastopol.
    So Putin took back the Crimea.

    Nevertheless, the Dutch people were nof fooled, we voted against the Ukraine treaty.
    This made Rutte, nickname Pinokkio, to defend the Ukraine treaty by referring to Russian vacuum bombs on Aleppo, he could not have done better in explaining that the Ukraine treaty was aimed against Russia.

    Now great bewilderment, Trump telling his European NATO ‘friends’ to pay for NATO themselves.

    Read More
  6. “NATO has thereby become a tool of intimidation lacking any compatibility with democratic political organisation.”

    Well, the EU seems to be a fairly anti-democratic institution, so NATO has a natural home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    The EU is just the finance-sector arm of NATO. Nothing more.
  7. Che Guava says:
    @anon
    NATO is neither good nor bad . If it dissapeared today the players would realign , be absorbed in other agreements or similar . The outcomes would very likely be similar . a small chance either something catastrophic occurs. an even smaller chance something extremely positive occurs.
    .

    That is a very strange thing to say. It is a relic or zombie fossil,

    Its role in enforcing the breakup of Yugoslavia beyond the separation of Slovenia and Croatia was despicably evil, and accompanied by so many lies.

    Now the place is totally atomized, and we have remnant micro-states becoming NATO members for no reason but to become EU members, when their polities don’t seem to understand that the EU only does handouts for the earlier members.

    The bombing campaign to sever Kosovo was pure evil. I watched TV images from it starting, it made me sick.

    I try to work it out, but it is very hard to see any logic but an urge for destruction.

    In recent years, they have seriously considered making, for example, Japan and Australia members, that is a bridge too far from ‘North Atlantic’, so serious consideration of that (which happened) is down the memory hole.

    Then again, Montenegro? Not North Atlantic.

    It won’t happen, but I wish NATO would dissolve.

    The reason it won’t, even with Trump as Prex, is the principle of ‘interoperability’:everything has to be compatible with the US machinery, and that is a huge boost to the US MIC, even those places making their own major platforms, jets, boats, tanks, ships, have to, as NATO members, pay for US-compatible comms tech., sometimes ammunition, etc.

    Read More
  8. Renoman says:

    NATO is a huge steaming pile that has to go and they should take the UN with em. A complete and dangerous waste of money.

    Read More
  9. Che Guava says:

    Britain’s so-called independent deterrent is the ultimate example. Whilst the Manhattan Project had much gratis input from the Brits, and they developed their own bombs, up to H-bomb level (I am not saying that is commendable, but it was on a similar timeline to the USSR and the USA), they had V-bombers, three types, for an admirer of aeroplane shapes, they were pretty good.

    Now, as far as I can see, their submarines only carry US-made missiles and warheads. God only knows how many subsystems in the subs they pay the USA for.

    Independent deterrent? It is a joke.

    Yet very profitable to the USA MIC.

    Read More
  10. conatus says:

    In the early 90s when the Soviet Union had 350,000 troops in Europe and was a potent force, we lied to the Russians and told them we would not expand NATO if they allowed Germany to reunite. They trusted us and said ‘Yes’
    After that we we expanded NATO by 12 more countries right next to the
    Russian bear’s nose. Is it only the US that is allowed a sphere 0f influence and not Russia?

    These paragraphs used to be in the Wikipedia entry under ‘German Reunification’ but it seems to have disappeared down the memory hole(kind of like the former Soviet Union’s doctored photos.) Anyway the point is We in the US were the dishonorable participant and lied to the Russians when they were down and out. Who exactly are our leaders? and why do they think this kind of behavior is acceptable on the world stage?

    from ‘German reunification’ Wikipedia

    “Jack Matlock, US ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final
    years, said that the West gave a “clear commitment” not to expand, and
    declassified documents indicate that Soviet negotiators were given the
    oral impression by diplomats like Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker
    that NATO membership was off the table for countries such as
    Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland.[6] [7]

    In 1996, Gorbachev wrote in his Memoirs, that “during the
    negotiations on the unification of Germany they gave assurances that
    NATO would not extend its zone of operation to the east,”[8] and
    repeated this view in an interview in 2008.[9] According to Robert
    Zoellick, a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four
    negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception, and no formal
    commitment regarding enlargement was made.[10] Other authors, such as
    Mark Kramer, have also highlighted that in 1990 neither side imagined
    that countries still technically in the Warsaw Pact or the Soviet Union
    could one day join NATO.[11]”

    The Policy Elite in the US have chronic Russophobia and create a narrative where Russia, which spends 60 billion on the military, is a threat to the US, which spends 600 billion on the military. This Policy Elite cannot acknowledge the truth where Russia has interests which align with the West in particular against the Muslims. Russia is about 10% Muslim and has experienced terrorism(remember the Chechen?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    The somewhat legalistic explanation I heard about eastward expansion was that the assurances were not in a written form that would have legal effect, therefore NATO was not constrained from eastward expansion.

    Uh, OK. That might hold sway under western legal systems ... wait a minute, it kind of falls apart under common law principles, and the largest parties to NATO operate under common law. Maybe Vlad should have his legal team litigate this in London, which might be a friendlier jurisdiction than Washington.
    , @anon
    They SHOULD have gotten those "assurances" in writing.
    , @Cyrano
    The logic that US uses when not playing by the rules is that they should be allowed to use dirty tricks against the “bad guys”, because if they don’t use dirty tricks, the bad guys will - and they (US) can never win against the “bad guys” if they play strictly by the rules. It kind of makes sense. The only problem I have with this line of reasoning is – who designated US as “the good guys”? They themselves? Well, at least someone thinks of them as the good guys, because no one else does.
  11. Randal says:
    @anon
    NATO is neither good nor bad . If it dissapeared today the players would realign , be absorbed in other agreements or similar . The outcomes would very likely be similar . a small chance either something catastrophic occurs. an even smaller chance something extremely positive occurs.
    .

    NATO is neither good nor bad . If it dissapeared today the players would realign , be absorbed in other agreements or similar .

    This seems a bit of a daft thing to claim. NATO is a hugely powerful organisation, and it is inherently unlikely its existence and activities “make no difference” overall.

    In reality, of course, they make a huge difference. As the article above notes, and others by an increasing number of commenters agree, this difference is overwhelmingly negative from pretty much all points of view except that of those who are able to use NATO to manipulate events to suit their own business and foreign policy objectives.

    I was a strong supporter of NATO pre-1990, but with the dramatic change in circumstances that occurred in 1990-91 I correctly recognised immediately that the need was to disband NATO, because its reason for existence had gone, and such a hugely powerful bureaucracy and tool was only likely to do harm if retained after the need for it was gone. The opinion of those who agreed with me was of course ignored, and so it came to pass as predicted that NATO became a powerful force for harm. This was most obvious in the illegal Kosovo war, that was largely enabled by the existence of NATO and enacted by NATO forces. But it has been continually the case since, as NATO has bolstered Washington’s (and others’) provocations of Russia and emboldened troublemakers and warmongers in various European and UK regimes.

    But the importance of NATO to those who misrule us has been well illustrated by Trump’s prompt and complete “re-education” on the topic once in office. The mistake of 1990-1 will not be rectified easily. Too many careers, positions, budgets, sales forecasts, and nefarious warmongering plans depend upon its continued existence.

    Read More
  12. Sean says:

    why it should exist in the first place.

    Germany spending token 1% of GDP on defence shows why it exists.

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/guest-article-trump-not-trump/

    Since the late 1940s, U.S. allies in Europe and Asia have based their national security on the assumption that the United States will assist them in a crisis. This assumption and the post-Cold War downsizing of Europe’s military forces have rendered Europeans incapable of conducting even relatively small-scale military operations without substantial American support. The situation in the same in Asia: Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan have all based their defense forces and defense spending on the assumption that the U.S. cavalry will come to their rescue if necessary. [...]

    Trump’s aggressive statements and erratic behavior will most likely strengthen America’s web of alliances. Trump’s aggressive communications strategy and his “America First” approach to international negotiations have already frightened allies into doing something his predecessors could not: increase defense spending. The question in allied capitals is no longer whether defense spending should increase, but how much. In Europe allies are now scrambling to produce concrete plans for how they will increase defense spending

    The free ride is over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I hope that an expensive ride is over.
    That we can buy Russian gas, instead of expensive sea wind energy.
    And are spared the most expensive ride: a nuclear war in Europe.
    Personally I aways thought the Cold War a very expensive en dangerous joke.
    Ordinary Russians felt threatened by the west, could not imagine that we felt threarened by them.
    So, the sooner NATO is dissolved, the better.
    The danger alas then exists that Brussels will continue NATO the NATO agression, but with the dissolution o f NATO the EU can follow.
    , @Erebus

    The free ride is over.
     
    Well, imho Martin's missing the same major point you are. The "allies" are in fact vassals, who are in fact paying the US enormous sums for protection. The payment mechanism that cements their vassalage may be different than previous Imperial protection rackets, but is identical in effect to all the ancient forms of tribute.

    All of the allies/vassals exchange valuable real goods for USDs which the US prints at will. They have all agreed to hold USDs in almost any number required, which allows the USG to spend like a drunken sailor not only on their own corrupt domestic programs, but above all on the USM. By itself, that would be too stupid for even allied national govts to contemplate were it not for the fact that they get protection in return. The instant the protection is rescinded is the instant they cease to have use for the US or for its USD.

    There's an illustrative quote I read a long time ago but have been unable to trace. IIRC, it's from some Admiral in the USN and goes like this (from memory):
    "The Asians send us billions in wonderful products, and we send them worthless green pieces of paper in return. The 7th Fleet balances the books." When it can't balance them any more, it won't, and the USD will collapse, and with it American power. With the rise of super/hyper-sonic, precision guided missiles, the day the 7th Fleet can't balance the books is fast approaching.
    (If anybody knows that quote's provenance, I'd be much obliged if they'd post it.)

    The corollary to that is that the largest holder of USD's has no use for the USM's protection. Quite the opposite. It also has enough of those super/hyper-sonic missiles to send most of the 7th Fleet and any ships the USN may send in support to the bottom. That combination changes everything, and puts the US' protection racket at the whim of the Boys in Beijing. The vassals know this, and so are wearing out the carpets in the Kremlin.

    NATO is obsolete because the USD $y$tem is becoming obsolete, and with it the tribute mechanism that held it all together. Trump may be using the "Free Ride" and "Bad Germany" slogans to sell the US' withdrawal to the US public, but that's just marketing.
  13. A necessary companion piece to this one by Karel van Wolferen is Vladmir Putin’s remarks at the Munich Security Conference of 2007.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021200555.html

    Read More
  14. Agent76 says:

    20.05.2017 If NATO Wants Peace and Stability it Should Stay Home

    A curious op-ed appeared in The National Interest, penned by Hans Binnendijk and David Gompert, adjunct senior fellows at the RAND Corporation. Titled, “NATO’s Role in post-Caliphate Stability Operations,” it attempts to make a case for NATO involvement everywhere from Libya to Syria and Iraq in fostering stability in the wake of a yet-to-be defeated Islamic State.

    http://journal-neo.org/2017/05/20/if-nato-wants-peace-and-stability-it-should-stay-home/

    October 29, 2016 Video: US-NATO are Beating the Drums of War. “The US is Threatening Every Country on Planet Earth”

    NATO says it is going ahead with its plans to deploy thousands of troops and military hardware to three Baltic States and Poland that all border Russia. The military alliance claims that the measure is a response to a Russia’s military build-up and increased activity around NATO’s borders.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/video-us-nato-are-beating-the-drums-of-war-the-us-is-threatening-every-country-on-planet-earth-michel-chossudovsky/5553678

    Read More
  15. @The Alarmist

    "NATO has thereby become a tool of intimidation lacking any compatibility with democratic political organisation."
     
    Well, the EU seems to be a fairly anti-democratic institution, so NATO has a natural home.

    The EU is just the finance-sector arm of NATO. Nothing more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    You should read view and share these with others who would want to know this information.

    Sep 19, 2000 Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs

    The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

    Jul 18, 2016 The European Union: Part of America's Imperial Project

    The British people’s decision to leave the European Union shocked the political establishment across Europe and around the globe.

    https://youtu.be/XOTfy8gzC3U
  16. Another ringer from Karel van Wolferen!

    NATO’s survival prevents the political entity that is the European Union from becoming a significant global presence for reasons other than its economic weight.

    Sadly, even at an economic level, the EU is now moribund, thanks to Merkel & Schäuble.

    If you cannot have a defence policy of your own you also deprive yourself of a foreign policy. Without a substantive foreign policy, Europe does not show anything that anyone might consider ‘a face’ to the world. Without such a face to the outside, the inside cannot come to terms about what it stands for, and substitutes meaningless platitudes for answers to the question as to why it should exist in the first place.

    So true. But beware of this new plan for a ‘European army’. Although it’s being marketed as a way to make Europe more independent of the US, it will probably just end up being a back-door way to strengthen NATO by getting the European member states to spend more on defense. Anyone advocating a ‘European army’ who does not also advocate disbanding NATO is full of sh*t.

    Perhaps more importantly, it might have given a relatively weak American protest movement the necessary added energy to rise to the level of effectiveness once attained by the anti-Vietnam activists as they imprinted themselves on the political culture of the 60s and 70s.

    Highly unlikely. What really inspired the protest culture of the sixties was the existence of the draft, not the war itself. In any case, protests are usually pretty easy for the government to ignore. The idea that the Vietnam War was ended by a bunch of hippie protesters trying to levitate the Pentagon or whatever is a huge myth. What has made it an enduring myth, however, is that it historically served the agenda of both sides of the controversy: liberals got to believe that their protests actually mattered (‘We have agency. Hurray!’), while conservatives used the protests as a kind of Dolchstosslegende to explain away America’s humiliating defeat at the hands of the Vietnamese.

    The only thing that will ever stop the wars is the complete overthrow of the Rothschild/Rockefeller cabal that runs the west.

    Read More
  17. Agent76 says:
    @Seamus Padraig
    The EU is just the finance-sector arm of NATO. Nothing more.

    You should read view and share these with others who would want to know this information.

    Sep 19, 2000 Euro-federalists financed by US spy chiefs

    The documents confirm suspicions voiced at the time that America was working aggressively behind the scenes to push Britain into a European state.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/1356047/Euro-federalists-financed-by-US-spy-chiefs.html

    Jul 18, 2016 The European Union: Part of America’s Imperial Project

    The British people’s decision to leave the European Union shocked the political establishment across Europe and around the globe.

    Read More
  18. When empires die they rot at the center and then balkanize, beginning at the periphery.

    Read More
  19. @conatus
    In the early 90s when the Soviet Union had 350,000 troops in Europe and was a potent force, we lied to the Russians and told them we would not expand NATO if they allowed Germany to reunite. They trusted us and said 'Yes'
    After that we we expanded NATO by 12 more countries right next to the
    Russian bear's nose. Is it only the US that is allowed a sphere 0f influence and not Russia?

    These paragraphs used to be in the Wikipedia entry under 'German Reunification' but it seems to have disappeared down the memory hole(kind of like the former Soviet Union's doctored photos.) Anyway the point is We in the US were the dishonorable participant and lied to the Russians when they were down and out. Who exactly are our leaders? and why do they think this kind of behavior is acceptable on the world stage?

    from 'German reunification' Wikipedia

    "Jack Matlock, US ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final
    years, said that the West gave a “clear commitment” not to expand, and
    declassified documents indicate that Soviet negotiators were given the
    oral impression by diplomats like Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker
    that NATO membership was off the table for countries such as
    Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland.[6] [7]

    In 1996, Gorbachev wrote in his Memoirs, that “during the
    negotiations on the unification of Germany they gave assurances that
    NATO would not extend its zone of operation to the east,”[8] and
    repeated this view in an interview in 2008.[9] According to Robert
    Zoellick, a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four
    negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception, and no formal
    commitment regarding enlargement was made.[10] Other authors, such as
    Mark Kramer, have also highlighted that in 1990 neither side imagined
    that countries still technically in the Warsaw Pact or the Soviet Union
    could one day join NATO.[11]"

    The Policy Elite in the US have chronic Russophobia and create a narrative where Russia, which spends 60 billion on the military, is a threat to the US, which spends 600 billion on the military. This Policy Elite cannot acknowledge the truth where Russia has interests which align with the West in particular against the Muslims. Russia is about 10% Muslim and has experienced terrorism(remember the Chechen?).

    The somewhat legalistic explanation I heard about eastward expansion was that the assurances were not in a written form that would have legal effect, therefore NATO was not constrained from eastward expansion.

    Uh, OK. That might hold sway under western legal systems … wait a minute, it kind of falls apart under common law principles, and the largest parties to NATO operate under common law. Maybe Vlad should have his legal team litigate this in London, which might be a friendlier jurisdiction than Washington.

    Read More
  20. @Sean

    why it should exist in the first place.
     
    Germany spending token 1% of GDP on defence shows why it exists.

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/guest-article-trump-not-trump/

    Since the late 1940s, U.S. allies in Europe and Asia have based their national security on the assumption that the United States will assist them in a crisis. This assumption and the post-Cold War downsizing of Europe’s military forces have rendered Europeans incapable of conducting even relatively small-scale military operations without substantial American support. The situation in the same in Asia: Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan have all based their defense forces and defense spending on the assumption that the U.S. cavalry will come to their rescue if necessary. [...]

    Trump’s aggressive statements and erratic behavior will most likely strengthen America’s web of alliances. Trump’s aggressive communications strategy and his “America First” approach to international negotiations have already frightened allies into doing something his predecessors could not: increase defense spending. The question in allied capitals is no longer whether defense spending should increase, but how much. In Europe allies are now scrambling to produce concrete plans for how they will increase defense spending
     
    The free ride is over.

    I hope that an expensive ride is over.
    That we can buy Russian gas, instead of expensive sea wind energy.
    And are spared the most expensive ride: a nuclear war in Europe.
    Personally I aways thought the Cold War a very expensive en dangerous joke.
    Ordinary Russians felt threatened by the west, could not imagine that we felt threarened by them.
    So, the sooner NATO is dissolved, the better.
    The danger alas then exists that Brussels will continue NATO the NATO agression, but with the dissolution o f NATO the EU can follow.

    Read More
  21. Z-man says:

    I know a good way to fuck with the globalists/Neocons. Take it literal so NATO should just be an alliance of nations with shores on the …north Atlantic. Germany would be the last country eastward as Poland does not touch the Atlantic. Bye-bye to Italy too.
    So NATO would be Spain and Portugal, France and Holland, ok throw in that most artificial of nations Belgium too, but without Luxembourg lol, Germany, Denmark and Norway, call them the Germanic tribes lol, and of course The UK of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and 3rd Worldia.
    Would drive the ‘lawyers’ insane, lol!

    Read More
  22. Erebus says:
    @Sean

    why it should exist in the first place.
     
    Germany spending token 1% of GDP on defence shows why it exists.

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/guest-article-trump-not-trump/

    Since the late 1940s, U.S. allies in Europe and Asia have based their national security on the assumption that the United States will assist them in a crisis. This assumption and the post-Cold War downsizing of Europe’s military forces have rendered Europeans incapable of conducting even relatively small-scale military operations without substantial American support. The situation in the same in Asia: Australia, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan have all based their defense forces and defense spending on the assumption that the U.S. cavalry will come to their rescue if necessary. [...]

    Trump’s aggressive statements and erratic behavior will most likely strengthen America’s web of alliances. Trump’s aggressive communications strategy and his “America First” approach to international negotiations have already frightened allies into doing something his predecessors could not: increase defense spending. The question in allied capitals is no longer whether defense spending should increase, but how much. In Europe allies are now scrambling to produce concrete plans for how they will increase defense spending
     
    The free ride is over.

    The free ride is over.

    Well, imho Martin’s missing the same major point you are. The “allies” are in fact vassals, who are in fact paying the US enormous sums for protection. The payment mechanism that cements their vassalage may be different than previous Imperial protection rackets, but is identical in effect to all the ancient forms of tribute.

    All of the allies/vassals exchange valuable real goods for USDs which the US prints at will. They have all agreed to hold USDs in almost any number required, which allows the USG to spend like a drunken sailor not only on their own corrupt domestic programs, but above all on the USM. By itself, that would be too stupid for even allied national govts to contemplate were it not for the fact that they get protection in return. The instant the protection is rescinded is the instant they cease to have use for the US or for its USD.

    There’s an illustrative quote I read a long time ago but have been unable to trace. IIRC, it’s from some Admiral in the USN and goes like this (from memory):
    “The Asians send us billions in wonderful products, and we send them worthless green pieces of paper in return. The 7th Fleet balances the books.” When it can’t balance them any more, it won’t, and the USD will collapse, and with it American power. With the rise of super/hyper-sonic, precision guided missiles, the day the 7th Fleet can’t balance the books is fast approaching.
    (If anybody knows that quote’s provenance, I’d be much obliged if they’d post it.)

    The corollary to that is that the largest holder of USD’s has no use for the USM’s protection. Quite the opposite. It also has enough of those super/hyper-sonic missiles to send most of the 7th Fleet and any ships the USN may send in support to the bottom. That combination changes everything, and puts the US’ protection racket at the whim of the Boys in Beijing. The vassals know this, and so are wearing out the carpets in the Kremlin.

    NATO is obsolete because the USD $y$tem is becoming obsolete, and with it the tribute mechanism that held it all together. Trump may be using the “Free Ride” and “Bad Germany” slogans to sell the US’ withdrawal to the US public, but that’s just marketing.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @WorkingClass

    The “allies” are in fact vassals, who are in fact paying the US enormous sums for protection.
     
    In the unipolar world the vassals pay for protection from Imperial Washington. You are with us or against us.

    The Asians send us billions in wonderful products, and we send them worthless green pieces of paper in return. The 7th Fleet balances the books.” When it can’t balance them any more, it won’t, and the USD will collapse, and with it American power.
     
    I don't know where you found this Erebus but it's the truth. The U.S. has nukes and the ability to deliver them. But so also have China and Russia. The U.S. was once an industrial giant. Now it is a pygmy. The only remaining power of Empire is dollar hegemony. Imperial Washington can blow up the world and perhaps it will. But it cannot rule the world by force of arms which is its intention.
    , @Sean

    Well, imho Martin’s missing the same major point you are. The “allies” are in fact vassals, who are in fact paying the US enormous sums for protection. The payment mechanism that cements their vassalage may be different than previous Imperial protection rackets, but is identical in effect to all the ancient forms of tribute.
     
    Agreed:-

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/guest-article-trump-not-trump/

    The United States has benefitted tremendously from the onshore balancing strategy it adopted after World War II in Asia and Europe to deter Communist aggression. Its permanent military presence, coupled with the allies’ military dependence, enabled Washington to shape developments to align with U.S. interests. Washington repeatedly gave their allies Mafia-style offers they could not refuse. U.S. economic assistance programs provided to allies in the wake of World War II came with conditions that forced the recipients to buy American goods and liberalize their markets in ways that were highly beneficial to American firms. Washington forced Great Britain and France to withdraw their troops from Egypt during the Suez Crisis (1956), coerced Germany to support U.S. monetary policy (1966-1969), and thwarted nuclear weapons ambitions and programs of many allies, including Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Taiwan.

    Military dependence on the United States also induced many allies to support American wars in faraway places that did not affect their national security directly. Since 9/11 allies have sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, closed their eyes to secret detention and extraordinary rendition programs, the use of torture, and the massive surveillance of their own citizens. Allies have given the United States access to bases, facilities, as well as their airspace and territorial waters. Finally, many allies buy American weapon systems to maintain inter-operability and their security guarantees. The F-35 is the latest example of this.<
     
    Germany (most things boil down to Germany, is a vassal state in some senses. Still, it is a puppet that pulls its own strings, because just as the EU is basically an export promotion program for German industry (paid for by the German taxpayer), Nato is a way for American business to get preferential access to markets at the expense of the American taxpayer, but it has been taken so far (witness the virtually token defence spending of Germany) that the long anticipated reaction (that Eisenhower's MLF was designed to forestall) is upon the Western establishment. Trump is a representative of American taxpayers who are fed up paying welfare to US business. However the US has the most powerful economy in the world plus the cheapest energy, and a conventional war fought across the entire planet against the productive capacity of America is one Russia could never hope to win. As for nuclear weapons, read Enoch Powell on them. When both sides have them a Mexican standoff of the nukes and conventional war are the most likely outcomes.

    Russia cannot intimidate Germany, without precipitating a re armed Germany-possibbbply with nuclear weapons, and Russia has nothing anyone in the West wants, the US has cheaper energy (Russia wants US fracking tech). Even more than France, Russia is a joke country, and Trump is the last person the Russian dare provoke.
  23. Agent76 says:
    @Michael\\
    Thank-you for an excellent article by a great international journalist. it should be read by Canadian pols of all parties who are compelled now to give celebratory lip service to an un-evidenced legendary NATO which stands to criminally undo international law, diplomacy and the sovereign democracies of its member states. NATO is the harsh face of the globalized financial empire and the true character of that face is as evil and dystopian as the frightful Radio Free Europe characterizations of godless soviet totalitarianism. The founders of cold war NATO wanted nothing to do with an empire whether it represented American imperial warmongering, revanchist colonialism or the malevolent fiction of an expansive soviet empire. But steeped in serialized fear-mongering propaganda, we are involuntarily immersed in an ideological empire and Russia is an outstanding threat just because it desires independence, dignity and freedom. If we don’t move to end NATO we will become indentured to perpetual war. NATO is a parasitic death wish for what is left of sovereign nations and humane civil society. M\\

    You are spot on target Michael. 20.05.2017 If NATO Wants Peace and Stability it Should Stay Home

    A curious op-ed appeared in The National Interest, penned by Hans Binnendijk and David Gompert, adjunct senior fellows at the RAND Corporation. Titled, “NATO’s Role in post-Caliphate Stability Operations,” it attempts to make a case for NATO involvement everywhere from Libya to Syria and Iraq in fostering stability in the wake of a yet-to-be defeated Islamic State.

    http://journal-neo.org/2017/05/20/if-nato-wants-peace-and-stability-it-should-stay-home/

    Read More
  24. MBlanc46 says:

    Monster or not, it’s a relic of the Cold War and it’s past time to wrap it up.

    Read More
  25. @Erebus

    The free ride is over.
     
    Well, imho Martin's missing the same major point you are. The "allies" are in fact vassals, who are in fact paying the US enormous sums for protection. The payment mechanism that cements their vassalage may be different than previous Imperial protection rackets, but is identical in effect to all the ancient forms of tribute.

    All of the allies/vassals exchange valuable real goods for USDs which the US prints at will. They have all agreed to hold USDs in almost any number required, which allows the USG to spend like a drunken sailor not only on their own corrupt domestic programs, but above all on the USM. By itself, that would be too stupid for even allied national govts to contemplate were it not for the fact that they get protection in return. The instant the protection is rescinded is the instant they cease to have use for the US or for its USD.

    There's an illustrative quote I read a long time ago but have been unable to trace. IIRC, it's from some Admiral in the USN and goes like this (from memory):
    "The Asians send us billions in wonderful products, and we send them worthless green pieces of paper in return. The 7th Fleet balances the books." When it can't balance them any more, it won't, and the USD will collapse, and with it American power. With the rise of super/hyper-sonic, precision guided missiles, the day the 7th Fleet can't balance the books is fast approaching.
    (If anybody knows that quote's provenance, I'd be much obliged if they'd post it.)

    The corollary to that is that the largest holder of USD's has no use for the USM's protection. Quite the opposite. It also has enough of those super/hyper-sonic missiles to send most of the 7th Fleet and any ships the USN may send in support to the bottom. That combination changes everything, and puts the US' protection racket at the whim of the Boys in Beijing. The vassals know this, and so are wearing out the carpets in the Kremlin.

    NATO is obsolete because the USD $y$tem is becoming obsolete, and with it the tribute mechanism that held it all together. Trump may be using the "Free Ride" and "Bad Germany" slogans to sell the US' withdrawal to the US public, but that's just marketing.

    The “allies” are in fact vassals, who are in fact paying the US enormous sums for protection.

    In the unipolar world the vassals pay for protection from Imperial Washington. You are with us or against us.

    The Asians send us billions in wonderful products, and we send them worthless green pieces of paper in return. The 7th Fleet balances the books.” When it can’t balance them any more, it won’t, and the USD will collapse, and with it American power.

    I don’t know where you found this Erebus but it’s the truth. The U.S. has nukes and the ability to deliver them. But so also have China and Russia. The U.S. was once an industrial giant. Now it is a pygmy. The only remaining power of Empire is dollar hegemony. Imperial Washington can blow up the world and perhaps it will. But it cannot rule the world by force of arms which is its intention.

    Read More
  26. Sean says:
    @Erebus

    The free ride is over.
     
    Well, imho Martin's missing the same major point you are. The "allies" are in fact vassals, who are in fact paying the US enormous sums for protection. The payment mechanism that cements their vassalage may be different than previous Imperial protection rackets, but is identical in effect to all the ancient forms of tribute.

    All of the allies/vassals exchange valuable real goods for USDs which the US prints at will. They have all agreed to hold USDs in almost any number required, which allows the USG to spend like a drunken sailor not only on their own corrupt domestic programs, but above all on the USM. By itself, that would be too stupid for even allied national govts to contemplate were it not for the fact that they get protection in return. The instant the protection is rescinded is the instant they cease to have use for the US or for its USD.

    There's an illustrative quote I read a long time ago but have been unable to trace. IIRC, it's from some Admiral in the USN and goes like this (from memory):
    "The Asians send us billions in wonderful products, and we send them worthless green pieces of paper in return. The 7th Fleet balances the books." When it can't balance them any more, it won't, and the USD will collapse, and with it American power. With the rise of super/hyper-sonic, precision guided missiles, the day the 7th Fleet can't balance the books is fast approaching.
    (If anybody knows that quote's provenance, I'd be much obliged if they'd post it.)

    The corollary to that is that the largest holder of USD's has no use for the USM's protection. Quite the opposite. It also has enough of those super/hyper-sonic missiles to send most of the 7th Fleet and any ships the USN may send in support to the bottom. That combination changes everything, and puts the US' protection racket at the whim of the Boys in Beijing. The vassals know this, and so are wearing out the carpets in the Kremlin.

    NATO is obsolete because the USD $y$tem is becoming obsolete, and with it the tribute mechanism that held it all together. Trump may be using the "Free Ride" and "Bad Germany" slogans to sell the US' withdrawal to the US public, but that's just marketing.

    Well, imho Martin’s missing the same major point you are. The “allies” are in fact vassals, who are in fact paying the US enormous sums for protection. The payment mechanism that cements their vassalage may be different than previous Imperial protection rackets, but is identical in effect to all the ancient forms of tribute.

    Agreed:-

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/guest-article-trump-not-trump/

    The United States has benefitted tremendously from the onshore balancing strategy it adopted after World War II in Asia and Europe to deter Communist aggression. Its permanent military presence, coupled with the allies’ military dependence, enabled Washington to shape developments to align with U.S. interests. Washington repeatedly gave their allies Mafia-style offers they could not refuse. U.S. economic assistance programs provided to allies in the wake of World War II came with conditions that forced the recipients to buy American goods and liberalize their markets in ways that were highly beneficial to American firms. Washington forced Great Britain and France to withdraw their troops from Egypt during the Suez Crisis (1956), coerced Germany to support U.S. monetary policy (1966-1969), and thwarted nuclear weapons ambitions and programs of many allies, including Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Taiwan.

    Military dependence on the United States also induced many allies to support American wars in faraway places that did not affect their national security directly. Since 9/11 allies have sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, closed their eyes to secret detention and extraordinary rendition programs, the use of torture, and the massive surveillance of their own citizens. Allies have given the United States access to bases, facilities, as well as their airspace and territorial waters. Finally, many allies buy American weapon systems to maintain inter-operability and their security guarantees. The F-35 is the latest example of this.<

    Germany (most things boil down to Germany, is a vassal state in some senses. Still, it is a puppet that pulls its own strings, because just as the EU is basically an export promotion program for German industry (paid for by the German taxpayer), Nato is a way for American business to get preferential access to markets at the expense of the American taxpayer, but it has been taken so far (witness the virtually token defence spending of Germany) that the long anticipated reaction (that Eisenhower’s MLF was designed to forestall) is upon the Western establishment. Trump is a representative of American taxpayers who are fed up paying welfare to US business. However the US has the most powerful economy in the world plus the cheapest energy, and a conventional war fought across the entire planet against the productive capacity of America is one Russia could never hope to win. As for nuclear weapons, read Enoch Powell on them. When both sides have them a Mexican standoff of the nukes and conventional war are the most likely outcomes.

    Russia cannot intimidate Germany, without precipitating a re armed Germany-possibbbply with nuclear weapons, and Russia has nothing anyone in the West wants, the US has cheaper energy (Russia wants US fracking tech). Even more than France, Russia is a joke country, and Trump is the last person the Russian dare provoke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Van Crefeld, there is someone with nearly the same name, I hope w're talking about the same man, is a military historian living in Israel, jew, of Dutch descent.
    Already several years ago he warned that Israel can nuke all western capitals.
    Indeed, Israel can, they've got the best submarines in the world, made in Germany, one for free, Wiedergutmachung.
    These submarines can fire the Israel home made cruise missiles, with atomic warheads.
  27. Rurik says:

    In the unipolar world the vassals pay for protection from Imperial Washington. You are with us or against us.

    ;)

    it is sort of funny how the ZUSA still has occupation troops in Germany and yet demands to be paid by Germany for “protection”

    NATO/CIA visits Montenegro Defense minister ~

    Read More
  28. Does anyone have an amount in mind as to just how much NATO costs the American taxpayer? The total amount since NATOs inception must be staggering. For years the US has had to make up for what NATO countries failed to pay. For years we have housed military personnel and their families in Germany which must have benefited the German economy to a great degree. It truly is time to not only leave NATO but also bring our troops back to the USA.

    Read More
  29. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @conatus
    In the early 90s when the Soviet Union had 350,000 troops in Europe and was a potent force, we lied to the Russians and told them we would not expand NATO if they allowed Germany to reunite. They trusted us and said 'Yes'
    After that we we expanded NATO by 12 more countries right next to the
    Russian bear's nose. Is it only the US that is allowed a sphere 0f influence and not Russia?

    These paragraphs used to be in the Wikipedia entry under 'German Reunification' but it seems to have disappeared down the memory hole(kind of like the former Soviet Union's doctored photos.) Anyway the point is We in the US were the dishonorable participant and lied to the Russians when they were down and out. Who exactly are our leaders? and why do they think this kind of behavior is acceptable on the world stage?

    from 'German reunification' Wikipedia

    "Jack Matlock, US ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final
    years, said that the West gave a “clear commitment” not to expand, and
    declassified documents indicate that Soviet negotiators were given the
    oral impression by diplomats like Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker
    that NATO membership was off the table for countries such as
    Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland.[6] [7]

    In 1996, Gorbachev wrote in his Memoirs, that “during the
    negotiations on the unification of Germany they gave assurances that
    NATO would not extend its zone of operation to the east,”[8] and
    repeated this view in an interview in 2008.[9] According to Robert
    Zoellick, a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four
    negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception, and no formal
    commitment regarding enlargement was made.[10] Other authors, such as
    Mark Kramer, have also highlighted that in 1990 neither side imagined
    that countries still technically in the Warsaw Pact or the Soviet Union
    could one day join NATO.[11]"

    The Policy Elite in the US have chronic Russophobia and create a narrative where Russia, which spends 60 billion on the military, is a threat to the US, which spends 600 billion on the military. This Policy Elite cannot acknowledge the truth where Russia has interests which align with the West in particular against the Muslims. Russia is about 10% Muslim and has experienced terrorism(remember the Chechen?).

    They SHOULD have gotten those “assurances” in writing.

    Read More
  30. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Don’t forget Israel and its evil brother, the Jewish lobby. Neither want to see America exit the stage of the Eurasian landmass. Without US bases in Europe, and the European Mediterranean “justified” by NATO, it would be far more difficult for Washington to protect Israel or fight wars for her like the illegal 2003 war with Iraq. Note how many neoconservatives are Jews. They want an interventionist American foreign policy to safeguard Israel.

    Read More
  31. anon says: • Disclaimer

    It’s all the unintended consequences.

    NATO countries chronically cheat on their modest military commitments. The result? No European War because NATO countries are disarmed.

    The Russians should pay us for keeping Germany from rearming and becoming a bona fide threat.

    Meanwhile, Japan is without nukes as well as Korea.

    I’m chill with the idea of occupying Germany and Japan for a full century since WW 2.

    NATO, on the other hand, should be confined to the original countries. The mindless expansion showed a remarkable lack of imagination regarding foreign policy. I’ll simply defer to the thoughts of George Kennen on this topic. Of course some former Warsaw Pact and USSR want a free ride on Western military. But we all know we are never going to war for the Baltics.

    But NATO is more about keeping Western Europe without strong national militaries. And is successful in that regard.

    The rest of it is a disaster. Shrink it.

    Or kill it. Nationalism has been defeated by competition to be free riders. Consider the alternative. A multinational treaty defining military cooperation and alliances within Europe. With strict limits on military spending. Sort of like post WW 1.

    NATO. Cheat for peace. Its been remarkably successful.

    And maybe call Russia’s bluff. Threaten to end our German occupation and Germany will immediately build nukes and whatever it takes and costs to ‘defend’ themselves. Compare that to a few thousand permanent NATO/US troops.

    Read More
  32. Tiny Duck says:

    Trump seems to be against NATO which implies it is a good thing (especially to stop the evil dictatorship of Russia)

    I’m sorry but if you are not actively oppsosing Trump you are a traitor and have non business in America

    Read More
  33. If, as the US keeps saying, Iran is the main sponsor of terrorism, how come there are no Iranian terrorists in the US or EU?

    All these terrorists are from nations destroyed by Jewish-controlled US such as Iraq, Libya, or Syria. Also, these terrorists were radicalized by SUNNI Islam — Iran is Shia — and trained with funds from Saudis, a close ally of Israel & US and main sponsor of Sunni terrorism.

    Read More
  34. Cyrano says:
    @conatus
    In the early 90s when the Soviet Union had 350,000 troops in Europe and was a potent force, we lied to the Russians and told them we would not expand NATO if they allowed Germany to reunite. They trusted us and said 'Yes'
    After that we we expanded NATO by 12 more countries right next to the
    Russian bear's nose. Is it only the US that is allowed a sphere 0f influence and not Russia?

    These paragraphs used to be in the Wikipedia entry under 'German Reunification' but it seems to have disappeared down the memory hole(kind of like the former Soviet Union's doctored photos.) Anyway the point is We in the US were the dishonorable participant and lied to the Russians when they were down and out. Who exactly are our leaders? and why do they think this kind of behavior is acceptable on the world stage?

    from 'German reunification' Wikipedia

    "Jack Matlock, US ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final
    years, said that the West gave a “clear commitment” not to expand, and
    declassified documents indicate that Soviet negotiators were given the
    oral impression by diplomats like Hans-Dietrich Genscher and James Baker
    that NATO membership was off the table for countries such as
    Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland.[6] [7]

    In 1996, Gorbachev wrote in his Memoirs, that “during the
    negotiations on the unification of Germany they gave assurances that
    NATO would not extend its zone of operation to the east,”[8] and
    repeated this view in an interview in 2008.[9] According to Robert
    Zoellick, a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four
    negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception, and no formal
    commitment regarding enlargement was made.[10] Other authors, such as
    Mark Kramer, have also highlighted that in 1990 neither side imagined
    that countries still technically in the Warsaw Pact or the Soviet Union
    could one day join NATO.[11]"

    The Policy Elite in the US have chronic Russophobia and create a narrative where Russia, which spends 60 billion on the military, is a threat to the US, which spends 600 billion on the military. This Policy Elite cannot acknowledge the truth where Russia has interests which align with the West in particular against the Muslims. Russia is about 10% Muslim and has experienced terrorism(remember the Chechen?).

    The logic that US uses when not playing by the rules is that they should be allowed to use dirty tricks against the “bad guys”, because if they don’t use dirty tricks, the bad guys will – and they (US) can never win against the “bad guys” if they play strictly by the rules. It kind of makes sense. The only problem I have with this line of reasoning is – who designated US as “the good guys”? They themselves? Well, at least someone thinks of them as the good guys, because no one else does.

    Read More
  35. Erebus says:

    The basic issue is that NATO, having long ago lost its military/security raison d’etre, instead of disbanding morphed into a ideological enterprise. Specifically, it existed to push its members’ neoliberal ideology onto the rest of the planet. That purpose was blocked with the rise of China and Russia, and their cooperation put paid to it.

    In the last week of May, the world changed.
    At NATO, Trump didn’t talk ideology or “common defence”, but money. The clear message is that Trump’s America is abandoning its role as ideological champion, and by implication the ideology itself.
    Trump went on to the G7 summit and blew that up as well. Whatever the scientific merits, Trump’s America doesn’t believe in the ideology behind Global Warming either.

    In the weeks prior to the NATO & G7 summits, Trump met with Xi, Lavrov, the Saudis, and even the Pope. Contrast the substance and (just as important) the mood messages of those meetings with the messages coming out of the G7 and NATO summits, and the hammer falls.
    Where his meetings with “enemies” were upbeat, forward looking, constructive and generally portended greater cooperation and understanding, the meetings with “allies” were the diametric opposite. Acrimonious, even insulting, and backward looking. The message was all about what must stop and not about what can be done going forward.
    .
    That the diplomatic offtake from meetings between the POTUS and the West’s “enemies” were more upbeat than the with “allies” has never, ever happened before. In diplomacy, a tectonic shift occurred, and the “allies” panicked as the implications dawned on them.
    Did Trump’s America just throw its hat in the Multi-polar World’s ring? No idea, there’s too many wheels spinning within wheels. Hopefully we’ll know soon enough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    "In the last week of May, the world changed."

    Indeed, if I understand Trump's intentions well, and he survives, literally and politically, the greatest change in the world since FDR.
  36. @Sean

    Well, imho Martin’s missing the same major point you are. The “allies” are in fact vassals, who are in fact paying the US enormous sums for protection. The payment mechanism that cements their vassalage may be different than previous Imperial protection rackets, but is identical in effect to all the ancient forms of tribute.
     
    Agreed:-

    http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/guest-article-trump-not-trump/

    The United States has benefitted tremendously from the onshore balancing strategy it adopted after World War II in Asia and Europe to deter Communist aggression. Its permanent military presence, coupled with the allies’ military dependence, enabled Washington to shape developments to align with U.S. interests. Washington repeatedly gave their allies Mafia-style offers they could not refuse. U.S. economic assistance programs provided to allies in the wake of World War II came with conditions that forced the recipients to buy American goods and liberalize their markets in ways that were highly beneficial to American firms. Washington forced Great Britain and France to withdraw their troops from Egypt during the Suez Crisis (1956), coerced Germany to support U.S. monetary policy (1966-1969), and thwarted nuclear weapons ambitions and programs of many allies, including Japan, Germany, South Korea, and Taiwan.

    Military dependence on the United States also induced many allies to support American wars in faraway places that did not affect their national security directly. Since 9/11 allies have sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, closed their eyes to secret detention and extraordinary rendition programs, the use of torture, and the massive surveillance of their own citizens. Allies have given the United States access to bases, facilities, as well as their airspace and territorial waters. Finally, many allies buy American weapon systems to maintain inter-operability and their security guarantees. The F-35 is the latest example of this.<
     
    Germany (most things boil down to Germany, is a vassal state in some senses. Still, it is a puppet that pulls its own strings, because just as the EU is basically an export promotion program for German industry (paid for by the German taxpayer), Nato is a way for American business to get preferential access to markets at the expense of the American taxpayer, but it has been taken so far (witness the virtually token defence spending of Germany) that the long anticipated reaction (that Eisenhower's MLF was designed to forestall) is upon the Western establishment. Trump is a representative of American taxpayers who are fed up paying welfare to US business. However the US has the most powerful economy in the world plus the cheapest energy, and a conventional war fought across the entire planet against the productive capacity of America is one Russia could never hope to win. As for nuclear weapons, read Enoch Powell on them. When both sides have them a Mexican standoff of the nukes and conventional war are the most likely outcomes.

    Russia cannot intimidate Germany, without precipitating a re armed Germany-possibbbply with nuclear weapons, and Russia has nothing anyone in the West wants, the US has cheaper energy (Russia wants US fracking tech). Even more than France, Russia is a joke country, and Trump is the last person the Russian dare provoke.

    Van Crefeld, there is someone with nearly the same name, I hope w’re talking about the same man, is a military historian living in Israel, jew, of Dutch descent.
    Already several years ago he warned that Israel can nuke all western capitals.
    Indeed, Israel can, they’ve got the best submarines in the world, made in Germany, one for free, Wiedergutmachung.
    These submarines can fire the Israel home made cruise missiles, with atomic warheads.

    Read More
  37. @Erebus
    The basic issue is that NATO, having long ago lost its military/security raison d'etre, instead of disbanding morphed into a ideological enterprise. Specifically, it existed to push its members' neoliberal ideology onto the rest of the planet. That purpose was blocked with the rise of China and Russia, and their cooperation put paid to it.

    In the last week of May, the world changed.
    At NATO, Trump didn't talk ideology or "common defence", but money. The clear message is that Trump's America is abandoning its role as ideological champion, and by implication the ideology itself.
    Trump went on to the G7 summit and blew that up as well. Whatever the scientific merits, Trump's America doesn't believe in the ideology behind Global Warming either.

    In the weeks prior to the NATO & G7 summits, Trump met with Xi, Lavrov, the Saudis, and even the Pope. Contrast the substance and (just as important) the mood messages of those meetings with the messages coming out of the G7 and NATO summits, and the hammer falls.
    Where his meetings with "enemies" were upbeat, forward looking, constructive and generally portended greater cooperation and understanding, the meetings with "allies" were the diametric opposite. Acrimonious, even insulting, and backward looking. The message was all about what must stop and not about what can be done going forward.
    .
    That the diplomatic offtake from meetings between the POTUS and the West's "enemies" were more upbeat than the with "allies" has never, ever happened before. In diplomacy, a tectonic shift occurred, and the "allies" panicked as the implications dawned on them.
    Did Trump's America just throw its hat in the Multi-polar World's ring? No idea, there's too many wheels spinning within wheels. Hopefully we'll know soon enough.

    “In the last week of May, the world changed.”

    Indeed, if I understand Trump’s intentions well, and he survives, literally and politically, the greatest change in the world since FDR.

    Read More
  38. Z-man says:
    @Tiny Duck
    Trump seems to be against NATO which implies it is a good thing (especially to stop the evil dictatorship of Russia)

    I'm sorry but if you are not actively oppsosing Trump you are a traitor and have non business in America

    Tiny Duck has tiny brain.

    Read More
  39. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    The clear message is that Trump’s America is abandoning its role as ideological champion, and by implication the ideology itself.

    Oh, but did the State department get the memo? Will they all at once downsize the US embassies overseas and their own staff? Are you aware that hundreds of officials at the State Dept. are employed to promote this ideology abroad, via diplomatic outreach and things like “The Human rights report” which is just a soft instrument to bully foreign politicians and bend them to their will? Will the US ambassadors and US embassy staff quit marching in the front rows during Gay Pride parades in Eastern Europe? Will they stop financing and preferencing in their communications feminists and multi-culturalists in other countries? Will they stay neutral and avoid “recommendations” to foreign governments on issues such as minority rights and citizenship? Will the US State Department discontinue its Holocaust outreach? Will it discontinue to label foreign politicians “anti-Semites” at whim? Will they quit stirring up Jewish issues in places where they are extremely sensitive? Will the USG quit meddling in affairs such as the closing of the Central European University in Hungary (they haven’t and Trump is already in power!)?

    Of course, not! Because all of those are subtle instruments of bullying and a means to bend other countries’ to the will of USG. For Trump to make these gestures and for his State Department to still continue the same, is disingenuous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    Oh, but did the State department get the memo?
     
    No, I wouldn't expect that all of the State Dept got the memo. There's 1000s of memos needed, and I doubt but a fraction have yet been written. 1,000s, probably 10,000s of program, policy, procedural and strategic documents will have to be re-written, scrapped, or written anew before the new programs roll out. Personnel will have to be moved around, whole Bureaus closed/merged/ opened, physical assets re-purposed, sold-off, new ones purchased, and, and, and....
    Decades of policy, practice and ingrained culture isn't going to flip upside down in a few weeks. Layers upon layers of bureaucracy totalling some 60,000 employees will have to be brought around to doing things the new way. That is no small matter, and I'm guessing it is what will occupy Tillerson for his entire term SoS.
    Parenthetically, he's about as good a man for that job as any Trump could have picked, but if he's able to take a bow for a job well done, I'd say he pulled off something very close to a miracle.

    Anyway, what Trump did is put the world, and specifically the "allies", on notice that he's writing "the memo", and what'll be in it when it goes out as fair warning to adjust their own policies and positions accordingly. After all, they all too have 1000s of policies, programs, personnel etc, etc, to be re-directed.

    To expect more and faster is to expect the impossible.

    Assuming you're also responsible for:

    will the State Department stop backing the bankers and the IMF in foreign countries.
     
    I expect that's the very last item in the very last memo to go out. It should be obvious from the above why.
  40. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    And most importantly – will the State Department stop backing the bankers and the IMF in foreign countries.

    Read More
  41. Erebus says:
    @Anonymous

    The clear message is that Trump’s America is abandoning its role as ideological champion, and by implication the ideology itself.
     
    Oh, but did the State department get the memo? Will they all at once downsize the US embassies overseas and their own staff? Are you aware that hundreds of officials at the State Dept. are employed to promote this ideology abroad, via diplomatic outreach and things like "The Human rights report" which is just a soft instrument to bully foreign politicians and bend them to their will? Will the US ambassadors and US embassy staff quit marching in the front rows during Gay Pride parades in Eastern Europe? Will they stop financing and preferencing in their communications feminists and multi-culturalists in other countries? Will they stay neutral and avoid "recommendations" to foreign governments on issues such as minority rights and citizenship? Will the US State Department discontinue its Holocaust outreach? Will it discontinue to label foreign politicians "anti-Semites" at whim? Will they quit stirring up Jewish issues in places where they are extremely sensitive? Will the USG quit meddling in affairs such as the closing of the Central European University in Hungary (they haven't and Trump is already in power!)?

    Of course, not! Because all of those are subtle instruments of bullying and a means to bend other countries' to the will of USG. For Trump to make these gestures and for his State Department to still continue the same, is disingenuous.

    Oh, but did the State department get the memo?

    No, I wouldn’t expect that all of the State Dept got the memo. There’s 1000s of memos needed, and I doubt but a fraction have yet been written. 1,000s, probably 10,000s of program, policy, procedural and strategic documents will have to be re-written, scrapped, or written anew before the new programs roll out. Personnel will have to be moved around, whole Bureaus closed/merged/ opened, physical assets re-purposed, sold-off, new ones purchased, and, and, and….
    Decades of policy, practice and ingrained culture isn’t going to flip upside down in a few weeks. Layers upon layers of bureaucracy totalling some 60,000 employees will have to be brought around to doing things the new way. That is no small matter, and I’m guessing it is what will occupy Tillerson for his entire term SoS.
    Parenthetically, he’s about as good a man for that job as any Trump could have picked, but if he’s able to take a bow for a job well done, I’d say he pulled off something very close to a miracle.

    Anyway, what Trump did is put the world, and specifically the “allies”, on notice that he’s writing “the memo”, and what’ll be in it when it goes out as fair warning to adjust their own policies and positions accordingly. After all, they all too have 1000s of policies, programs, personnel etc, etc, to be re-directed.

    To expect more and faster is to expect the impossible.

    Assuming you’re also responsible for:

    will the State Department stop backing the bankers and the IMF in foreign countries.

    I expect that’s the very last item in the very last memo to go out. It should be obvious from the above why.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Thanks, I really liked your comments in general (and I have nothing against Rex Tillerson personally, rather I just wanted to point out the inconsistencies between Trump's expressions and what the State Department still does on the ground overseas). I agree that it will take a long time to rearrange things, but the truth is that if the State dept. really cares about something being done, it can often be done with a single phone call.
  42. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Erebus

    Oh, but did the State department get the memo?
     
    No, I wouldn't expect that all of the State Dept got the memo. There's 1000s of memos needed, and I doubt but a fraction have yet been written. 1,000s, probably 10,000s of program, policy, procedural and strategic documents will have to be re-written, scrapped, or written anew before the new programs roll out. Personnel will have to be moved around, whole Bureaus closed/merged/ opened, physical assets re-purposed, sold-off, new ones purchased, and, and, and....
    Decades of policy, practice and ingrained culture isn't going to flip upside down in a few weeks. Layers upon layers of bureaucracy totalling some 60,000 employees will have to be brought around to doing things the new way. That is no small matter, and I'm guessing it is what will occupy Tillerson for his entire term SoS.
    Parenthetically, he's about as good a man for that job as any Trump could have picked, but if he's able to take a bow for a job well done, I'd say he pulled off something very close to a miracle.

    Anyway, what Trump did is put the world, and specifically the "allies", on notice that he's writing "the memo", and what'll be in it when it goes out as fair warning to adjust their own policies and positions accordingly. After all, they all too have 1000s of policies, programs, personnel etc, etc, to be re-directed.

    To expect more and faster is to expect the impossible.

    Assuming you're also responsible for:

    will the State Department stop backing the bankers and the IMF in foreign countries.
     
    I expect that's the very last item in the very last memo to go out. It should be obvious from the above why.

    Thanks, I really liked your comments in general (and I have nothing against Rex Tillerson personally, rather I just wanted to point out the inconsistencies between Trump’s expressions and what the State Department still does on the ground overseas). I agree that it will take a long time to rearrange things, but the truth is that if the State dept. really cares about something being done, it can often be done with a single phone call.

    Read More
  43. Z-man says:

    The ‘great’ Atlantic Wall, fostered by the evil Neochoens seems to be crumbling.
    ‘Russia sanctions bill riles Germany.’ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-40299760
    Putin/Trump DA!

    Read More
  44. […] By Karel van Wolferen • Unz Review  […]

    Read More
  45. zzzz says:
    @animalogic
    This is a very good article. It's central point that NATO is not a neutral, let alone a force for "good" is accurate. Time & again, like the EU itself, it has functioned as a mere instrument of US foreign predation.
    It is not to the point that "If it [NATO] dissapeared today the players would realign , be absorbed in other agreements or similar".
    The point is that the dissolution of NATO would remove the US formally from Europe as a whole. US bilateral alliances with independent European countries would be a whole order of magnitude less powerful than NATO.
    Absent NATO perhaps Europe as a whole might develop an independent foreign policy aligned with Europe's own interests.

    Absent NATO perhaps Europe as a whole might develop an independent foreign policy aligned with Germany own interests.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.