The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
At Age 70, Time to Rethink NATO
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“Treaties are like roses and young girls. They last while they last.”

So said President Charles De Gaulle, who in 1966 ordered NATO to vacate its Paris headquarters and get out of France.

NATO this year celebrates a major birthday. The young girl of 1966 is no longer young. The alliance is 70 years old.

And under this aging NATO today, the U.S. is committed to treat an attack on any one of 28 nations from Estonia to Montenegro to Romania to Albania as an attack on the United States.

The time is ripe for a strategic review of these war guarantees to fight a nuclear-armed Russia in defense of countries across the length of Europe that few could find on a map.

Apparently, President Donald Trump, on trips to Europe, raised questions as to whether these war guarantees comport with vital U.S. interests and whether they could pass a rigorous cost-benefit analysis.

The shock of our establishment that Trump even raised this issue in front of Europeans suggests that the establishment, frozen in the realities of yesterday, ought to be made to justify these sweeping war guarantees.

Celebrated as “the most successful alliance in history,” NATO has had two histories. Some of us can yet recall its beginnings.

In 1948, Soviet troops, occupying eastern Germany all the way to the Elbe and surrounding Berlin, imposed a blockade on the city.

The regime in Prague was overthrown in a Communist coup. Foreign minister Jan Masaryk fell, or was thrown, from a third-story window to his death. In 1949, Stalin exploded an atomic bomb.

As the U.S. Army had gone home after V-E Day, the U.S. formed a new alliance to protect the crucial European powers — West Germany, France, Britain, Italy. Twelve nations agreed that an attack on one would be treated as an attack on them all.

Cross the Elbe and you are at war with us, including the U.S. with its nuclear arsenal, Stalin was, in effect, told. Hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops returned to Europe to send the message that America was serious.

Crucial to the alliance was the Yalta line dividing Europe agreed to by Stalin, FDR and Churchill at the 1945 Crimean summit on the Black Sea.

U.S. presidents, even when monstrous outrages were committed in Soviet-occupied Europe, did not cross this line into the Soviet sphere.

Truman did not send armored units up the highway to Berlin. He launched an airlift to break the Berlin blockade. Ike did not intervene to save the Hungarian rebels in 1956. JFK confined his rage at the building of the Berlin Wall to the rhetorical: “Ich bin ein Berliner.”

LBJ did nothing to help the Czechs when, before the Democratic convention in 1968, Leonid Brezhnev sent Warsaw Pact tank armies to crush the Prague Spring.

When the Solidarity movement of Lech Walesa was crushed in Gdansk, Reagan sent copy and printing machines. At the Berlin Wall in 1988, he called on Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall.”

Reagan never threatened to tear it down himself.

But beginning in 1989, the Wall was torn down, Germany was united, the Red Army went home, the Warsaw Pact dissolved, the USSR broke apart into 15 nations, and Leninism expired in its birthplace.

As the threat that had led to NATO disappeared, many argued that the alliance created to deal with that threat should be allowed to fade away, and a free and prosperous Europe should now provide for its own defense.

It was not to be. The architect of Cold War containment, Dr. George Kennan, warned that moving NATO into Eastern Europe and former Soviet republics would prove a “fateful error.”

This, said Kennan, would “inflame the nationalistic and militaristic tendencies in Russian opinion” and “restore the atmosphere of the cold war in East-West relations.” Kennan was proven right.

America is now burdened with the duty to defend Europe from the Atlantic to the Baltic, even as we face a far greater threat in China, with an economy and population 10 times that of Russia.

And we must do this with a defense budget that is not half the share of the federal budget or the GDP that Eisenhower and Kennedy had.

Trump is president today because the American people concluded that our foreign policy elite, with their endless interventions where no vital U.S. interest was imperiled, had bled and virtually bankrupted us, while kicking away all of the fruits of our Cold War victory.

ORDER IT NOW

Halfway into Trump’s term, the question is whether he is going to just talk about halting Cold War II with Russia, about demanding that Europe pay for its own defense, and about bringing the troops home — or whether he is going to act upon his convictions.

Our foreign policy establishment is determined to prevent Trump from carrying out his mandate. And if he means to carry out his agenda, he had best get on with it.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2019 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, NATO, Russia 
Hide 46 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. JLK says:

    America is now burdened with the duty to defend Europe from the Atlantic to the Baltic,

    From whom? Russia wants to sell Europe gas.

    even as we face a far greater threat in China, with an economy and population 10 times that of Russia.

    The threat of what? Being out-saved and out-produced?

    Whatever happened to the peace dividend? I want my money back.

  2. DCBillS says:

    Where is my peace dividend? Talk is cheaper than bombs. Maybe we should try it sometime.

  3. The original purpose of NATO ceased to exist with the end of the Warsaw Pact and the dissolution of the USSR. If Europeans still believed Russia posed a threat, they were, and remain, free to form their own defensive alliance. Western Europe has a larger population and a substantially greater economy than does Russia, and France and Great Britain are nuclear weapons states. They have no need for the assitance of North America to defend themselves from whatever threat Russia may pose.

    The reason that NATO has continued to exist is to pressure European members to buy American military equipment and weapons, and to threaten Russia if it does not cooperate in the looting of its natural resources in the manner that occurred during the presidency of Boris Yeltsin. Perhaps NATO began its life as a defensive alliance, but it has been transformed into an aggressive collection of an expansionist Imperial Washington pressuring its vassal states to do its bidding.

    • Replies: @WHAT
  4. Boy, get rid of NATO, dump Puerto Rico, get rid of the illegal aliens via e-verify and the Great Wall of Trump, and we could afford to reactivate our long dormant hunger to get to Mars. We’ve waited half-a-century while Blacks were handed billions to satisfy their “gibsmedat,” isn’t time we put America First?

    • Replies: @Hail
  5. Complements:

    Top 10 Reasons Not to Love NATO

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/top-10-reasons-not-to-love-nato/5665733

    The NATO Wall

    by Yvan Blot, France*

    https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/numbers/2018/no-25-12-november-2018/the-nato-wall.html

    Canada, the British colony, in Ukraine

    ON TARGET: Ukraine Re-Writes History by Celebrating Nazi Collaborator

    http://espritdecorps.ca/on-target-4/on-target-ukraine-re-writes-history-by-celebrating-nazi-collaborator

  6. Trump is president today because the American people concluded that our foreign policy elite, with their endless interventions where no vital U.S. interest was imperiled, had bled and virtually bankrupted us, while kicking away all of the fruits of our Cold War victory.

    Not really. Though many would agree upon reading this article, I don’t think most Americans are aware enough to understand this. Donald Trump was elected to take action on the immigration invasion. If you don’t solve that, none of the rest matters.

    That correction was sort of off-topic, and I completely agree with the rest of the article. Of course, it’s not like Ron Paul couldn’t have told you all this 20 years ago.

    • Agree: The Anti-Gnostic
  7. anon1 says:

    “..Even as we face a far greater threat in China”

    How is China a threat to the mainland USA? China is about 8,000 miles from the American west coast. It has no big blue water navy or strategic sealift capacity. It probably could not invade Taiwan, let alone Japan. It may someday be a threat to Washington’s empire in Asia but so what?

  8. anon1 says:

    In 1999 the USA dropped bombs on Serbia for 78 days. This was an act of war with zero justification. That was when NATO ceased to have even the pretense of being a “defensive” alliance.

    • Replies: @Grace Poole
    , @Reg Cæsar
  9. Hail says: • Website
    @Joe Stalin

    How many Moon bases and Mars missions were traded for the various pointless wars in the MidEast?

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  10. anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon1

    When it comes to matters beyond his country, Mr. Buchanan is really more a right-sized imperialist than “Mr. Paleoconservative.” Although not as prevalent in this column, his constant conflation of Americans and their rulers is illustrated in the words you’ve quoted. This keeps people marinated in the sense that, because they live in Nebraska, they are obliged to root for Uncle Sam.

    • Agree: Achmed E. Newman
  11. But if we dissolve NATO, then we’ll have to actually compete on arms sales to our former vassals. Where’s the upside in that?

  12. swamped says:

    Pres. Trump had indeed best get on with it or we’ll find some one else in two years time who will if he doesn’t. From the prophetic George Kennan to the pathetic John Bolton, American grand strategy is in drastic decline. Time to clean house, the conditions are right for it. Bring the troops home and keep them there. NATO can be replaced by a common Euro defense force &Europe can fight its own wars; or better still, not have any. The establishment be damned.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  13. Franz says:

    A libertarian author was way ahead of you on this, Pat.

    How NATO weakens the West by Melvin Krauss was one of Palo Alto Book Services back in 1986 when it first came out. Right up their with resale issues of The Objectivist Newsletter.

    Krauss covered all that was coming, and then some, before most of it happened.

    He saw the chief weakness, which remains, as the argument “NATO is just Club America” although the scholarly Krauss was not crass enought to come right out with it. Europeans would rightly come to suspect it had nothing to do with protection and lots to do with domination.

    He felt the allies would ultimately rip each other to shreds, assure themselves of their partners’ bad and devious intentions… which all came true.

    He also noted that NATO was not a passive institution, and that sooner or later it would start making its own wars. Bingo. Since the early 90s NATOs belligerance has eclipsed Genghis Khan in both rhetoric and hostilities; alsthough, truth be told, the body count hasn’t equalled the great Khan… yet.

    But give it time. NATO was a shit sandwich to begin with and Krauss said so before Cold War I ended. Time to end it before it ends us.

  14. Anonymous[724] • Disclaimer says:

    Although I have never heard this stated officially, my understanding is that the military’s view of NATO, in the event of a land war in Europe, is “get out of the way”. I am not being facetious here, it seems to me that I read a recent article that the German army is practicing the Manual of Arms with sticks, because they have no rifles.

  15. @anon1

    Wesley Clark led that criminal bombing campaign,

    On 23 March 1999 at 21:30 UTC Richard Holbrooke returned to Brussels and announced that peace talks had failed and formally handed the matter to NATO for military action.[134][135] Hours before the announcement, Yugoslavia announced on national television it had declared a state of emergency citing an imminent threat of war and began a huge mobilisation of troops and resources.[134][136]

    On 23 March 1999 at 22:17 UTC the Secretary General of NATO, Javier Solana, announced he had directed the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), US Army General Wesley Clark, to “initiate air operations in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.”[136][137] On 24 March at 19:00 UTC NATO started its bombing campaign against Yugoslavia.[138][139]

    NATO’s bombing campaign lasted from 24 March to 11 June 1999, involving up to 1,000 aircraft operating mainly from bases in Italy and aircraft carriers stationed in the Adriatic. Tomahawk cruise missiles were also extensively used, fired from aircraft, ships, and submarines. With the exception of Greece, all NATO members were involved to some degree. Over the ten weeks of the conflict, NATO aircraft flew over 38,000 combat missions. For the German Air Force (Luftwaffe), it was the second time it had participated in a conflict since World War II after the Bosnian War.

    The proclaimed goal of the NATO operation was summed up by its spokesman as “Serbs out, peacekeepers in, refugees back”. That is, Yugoslav troops would have to leave Kosovo and be replaced by international peacekeepers to ensure that the Albanian refugees could return to their homes. The campaign was initially designed to destroy Yugoslav air defences and high-value military targets.

    —- and to this day many, even on this allegedly Awoke forum slobber over Clark for disclosing to the public that Pentagon had plans to destroy 5 countries in 7 years.

    “I don’t know.”
    HA HA HA!

    … it’s all about the oil (((not any other matter)))

    A general gets behind a microphone and tells the public plans from SecDef office??? You bought that?? You thought he was being a good guy?

    What a hero, that Clark!! A man for the people!!
    Or a booster shot for the process of gulling the sheep.

  16. After 30 years you have come to your wits. I guess it takes all the SPOILS of civilasation to turn a hardcore capitalist bullshit artist such as yourself to the reality of the world!

  17. @Hail

    I don’t care about moon bases or Mars missions. How about rebuilding the infrastructure at home, before it descends into third world status.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    , @seeing-thru
  18. WHAT says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    NATO`s purpose was never the defense of eurovassals, for it could not be done against soviet assault. The purpose was to keep Germany under control.

  19. NATO is now in a quandary over what to do about long time NATO member Turkey. Many think that Mr. Trump abruptly announced he was pulling the troops out of Syria after being cussed out by President Erdogan over US protection of the Kurds. What happens if Erdogan send his troops, as he has threatened, across the Syrian border to wipe out the Kurds? Does Trump start bombing the Turkish troops into submission? Does he cross Turkey’s border to do it? Would that not propel Turkey into the arms of Mr. Putin?

    NATO should have been dissolved when the Berlin Wall fell, but the US wanted no retreat from its ever expanding empire. NATO was much less about defending Western Europe from the non-existent threat posed by communist USSR than it was about projecting America’s military power world wide. Germany, for example, with its industrial might, remains essentially a US colony with ten of thousands of troops still enjoying a vacation there.

  20. WHAT says:
    @anon1

    China is building up her fleet and a whole lot of missiles. At some point they will either develop some analog of 4.5k km Kalibr or just buy it in Russia and voila.

  21. Joe Blow says:

    Right. Article 13. One year and you’re out.

  22. @swamped

    In the dysfunctional US political system, if POTUS doesn’t get things accomplished, or at least moving in the right direction, in his first year, then almost nothing will be done. Hell, we are already into the 2020 presidential cycle.

    Trump is right on the border, but utterly devious and stupid on the timing of the government shutdown he has locked the country into. With a GOP majority in both houses, he had two years to get the border wall under construction, and all we got was a lousy GOP tax cut for the rich, which will make the economy and the deficit worse in the long run. He now claims the shutdown is all the fault of Pelosi/Schumer, while he would have been an idiot not to see the stalemate coming after the D’s took back the House. Polls show that Trump’s approval rating is steadily falling (per Michael Savage), as he digs his heels in in this pissing contest with longtime political pro Pelosi.

    Swamped says: “Time to clean house, the conditions are right for it.”
    I say, with considerable sadness: It’s too late for that.

  23. Celebrated as “the most successful alliance in history,” NATO has had two histories. Some of us can yet recall its beginnings.

    In 1948, Soviet troops, occupying eastern Germany all the way to the Elbe and surrounding Berlin, imposed a blockade on the city.

    That was not the beginning of NATO, the Cold War/anti-USSR hot war was being planned before WW2 ended.

    At the end of WW2 in Europe, the Red Army occupied a large part of Germany. After a few days, it withdrew to the east of the Elbe.
    The so-called “Blockade of Berlin” was a put-up job, caused by the western powers, who were in “negotiations” with the USSR over a currency to replace the Reichsmark. In the middle of the said “Negotiations”, the western powers, without notification to the USSR, introducd the Deutschmark, over which the USSR had no control whatever. Of course, after a few days of angy protests, they blockaded the boundary, how could they have done otherwise? They also offered to supply food to the western sectors of Berlin, but the west prefered to be “blockaded”, it made for better propaganda.

    Of course Pat is right that Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill carved up Europe into spheres of influence. Not only did the west not intervene in Czechoslovakia, Hungary and Poland but the USSR did not help the Greek communists when they were put down by the west with the help of some remnants of the Wehrmacht.

  24. Renoman says:

    What threat is anyone to the USA? seriously, nuclear armed 10 times the money spent on weapons as even the closest competitor? What do they think will happen? NATO is just a giant con job the prop up the Military industrial complex, nothing more. Bunch of Kids playing soldier for free, get rid of it and pave the roads, maybe give your people health care, what a rotten disgrace it is.

  25. RTFT says:

    The thing nobody ever mentions about NATO – it’s a bigger secret than the launch codes – is that NATO is subject to UN Charter Chapter VII in its entirety, including Article 51, meaning that even in collective NATO self-defense, NATO members are required to put their forces at the disposal of the Security Council.

    Why? Because it’s got to be that way by law. The UN Charter governs regional arrangements in Chapter VIII, so the NATO Charter acknowledges them. If it didn’t it would have no legal force.

    So if NATO disintegrates, nothing changes. The UN Charter still prevails. Why then are all these CIA pukes pushing NATO, when they go out of their way to pee on the UN at every turn? Because they try to use NATO to end-run the UNSC by lying to us all about the treaty. But other NATO members keep their agreement in good faith (because pacta sunt servanda is a peremptory norm of international law.) It’s not that little NATO members get out of the way; they won’t break the agreement they signed. NATO is Langley with a duplicitous multilateral fig leaf.

    You paleoconservatives really ought to look into international law. You’ve spent decades making finger-crosses to ward it off, when it gives Americans a much better deal than US so-called law, which has degenerated into red tape for the government to screw you.

    https://ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/UniversalHumanRightsInstruments.aspx

    When the times change, I change my mind. What do you do, Sir?

  26. Cyrano says:

    NATO was never designed to protect anyone else but US. Specifically, it was created to protect the capitalism in the US – to hell with the country – capitalism is more important.

    I know, it’s hard to distinguish between those 2, that’s how US likes it – capitalism and US to be seen as synonyms. And if their elites had to choose between those 2 – they will choose capitalism. That’s what NATO was designed to protect.

    And because US have wrong priorities – protecting the system, rather than the country, the things are spiraling out of control for them. Refugees and immigrants threaten the country, not the system – so it’s OK for the good ole capitalists. Only the deplorables probably love their country more than the system, although I doubt that that they can make the distinction either.

  27. @follyofwar

    Human needs are insatiable. In Chicago, the “El” trains has big money spent to keep them operating, especially salaries. You would think that would result in well maintained infrastructure. Yet I can look at CTA train structures downtown and see stuff rusting away because paint is peeling away.
    How much does paint cost? Cheaper than a few hours of salary for a CTA employee.

    • Agree: Futurethirdworlder
    • Replies: @Hibernian
  28. Z-man says:

    NATO creeped into Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union, something western leaders had promised the Russians would not happen. Then the rabid NEOCONS wanted us to even defend Georgia from Russia. Insanity which was thankfully avoided by some sane people in the Bush administration. Now we are arming Ukraine against Russia which is basically an internal matter between brothers. The insanity is back.
    NATO is obsolete as Trump intuitively deduced and that organization must be dissolved and the Neocon Cabal must be destroyed.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  29. @anon1

    Our $300 billion trade deficit with China is a threat. China has the ability to engage in cyber warfare that could potentially cripple the entire country without landing one Chinese boot on American soil.

    I support gaining control of my country from the cosmopolitan elite who currently run it before worrying about China though.

    • Agree: Endgame Napoleon
  30. @follyofwar

    “I don’t care about moon bases or Mars missions”

    Indeed, indeed. Moon bases or Mars missions are boondoggles as well, albeit at a more elevated level. With due apologies to the believers in the cult of science, progress, growth of human knowledge, etc., etc. the way the human race is progressing we shall soon be returning to dwelling in caves and fighting with sticks and stones. Unless we succeed in colonizing other planets – another boondoggle whose time may also come.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  31. Red Apprentice-in-Chief sits idly by
    While numbnuts nuke-lovers plan the next war.
    Deep state covet the world like apple pie,
    Though they cannot protect their own border.
    Lunatics decide who will live and die,
    Nation gone rogue in the no world order.

  32. @anon1

    In 1999 the USA dropped bombs on Serbia for 78 days.

    Thanks to a sex pervert.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  33. Hibernian says:
    @Joe Stalin

    No one seriously expects the CTA to be anything other than utterly corrupt.

  34. domestics says:

    Well Pat, who exactly should be doing the “re-thinking” of NATO on America’s behalf – is it noted American patriots like Trump or Putin or Netanyahu?

  35. @Reg Cæsar

    I recently watched a YouTube video by “Blackpilled.” He often does insightful movie reviews and this one was about “Wag the Dog” (1997). It was about a president facing reelection who was caught having sex with a young underage girl. An expert fixer (Robert DeNiro), along with a big time Hollywood producer (Dustin Hoffman), were brought in to create a fake film about a war against Albania, so that it would take the focus away from the president’s sexcapades.

    Interestingly it was released one month BEFORE the Lewinsky scandal broke, and two years before the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Very interesting timing to say the least.

  36. @Z-man

    The insanity never left! Shortly after Germany’s surrender, General Patton said we should turn on our war time ally the USSR, while we still had hundreds of thousands of troops in Europe. Stalin had lost 20 million men in doing the bulk of the fighting in defeating Germany, so Patton thought the US could have defeated him handily. This contradicted US policy, so Patton was quickly transferred out of Germany and given a low level assignment in Italy. He was killed (assassinated?) in a car wreck not long after.

    Anyway, given US hostility and threats of war, it was incumbent on Stalin to build a nuclear deterrent ASAP, which was accomplished in 1949. The US, not the Soviets, was the aggressor all along. It started the Cold War, and thus the creation of the ongoing taxpayer fleecing by US-funded NATO. An excellent source is Oliver Stone’s multi-part documentary “The Untold History of the United States,” as well as the book by the same name.

  37. As immigration rates skyrocket in the USA, every two-bit spokesperson, making a career out of advocating for the interests of foreign nations instead of promoting the country s/he adopted, is allotted multiple MSM slots, alternating with the everyday cast of home-grown identity politics opportunists. TV reporters never get around to letting the best guests debate the weightiest issues of the day, like a peace dividend and how that could help the faltering US middle class or whether it’s even beneficial to Eastern Europe to antagonize Russia with an over-extended NATO. If Russia ever revived Stalinesque aggression, America could change direction, providing a deterrent without the expense of a ballooning NATO.

    Why is Pat not debating this issue in the MSM? Every fact-packed paragraph of this article supports Pat’s argument. Like Ann Coulter, Pat doesn’t just state opinions. He amasses a bunch of supporting historical information to reinforce his position. That is the reason why neither of them are regular guests of the liberal MSM. News channels used to feature the most articulate public intellectuals, letting them clarify both sides of the most crucial issues so that voters could make informed choices. The latest race-baiting from BLM leaders is not a make-or-break issue for the republic, unlike the resource-draining issue of empire overkill. Although their overall viewership is low, many likely voterswatch the MSM, meaning that their watered-down content is playing a major role in the empire’s decline.

    • Replies: @Hail
  38. @seeing-thru

    And yet here you are, using advanced communications devices, PCs, networks, using electric lights, using toilets, running water and medicines.

    Products of Western culture.

    Boondoggles? Your full belly belies your true indulgences.

  39. Hail says: • Website
    @Endgame Napoleon

    That is the reason why neither [Pat Buchanan nor Ann Coulter] are regular guests of the liberal MSM.

    Pat was finally banned by the NBC-ABC-CBS-CNN Axis in 2012 for egregiously failing to pay proper respect to our Glorious Multicultacracy in this then-published “Suicide of a Superpower: Will America Survive to 2025?”.

    He can still be seen on the McLaughlin Group, which is still on network TV stations and always streamable free on Youtube (after a brief venture into going behind a “paywall”). That show retains its name/format even after the death of John McLaughlin. Pat has been a regular on the McLaughlin Group since at least the late 1980s.

  40. Anon[809] • Disclaimer says:

    ”as early as 1998, the central intelligence agency assisted by the British Special Armed Services were arming and training Kosovo Liberation Army members in Albania to foment armed rebellion in Kosovo. The KLA terrorists were sent back into Kosovo to assassinate Serbian mayors, ambush Serbian policemen and do everything possible to incite murder and chaos. The hope was that with Kosovo in flames NATO could intervene and in so doing, not only overthrow Slobodan Milosevic the Serbian strong man, but more importantly, provide the aging and increasingly irrelevant military organization with a reason for its continued existence. ”

    {emphasis added}

    From

    WE CREATED A MONSTER

    By:
    James Bissett, Former Canadian Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania

    http://deltax.net/bissett/a-monster.htm

    • Replies: @Rurik
  41. dfordoom says: • Website

    demanding that Europe pay for its own defence

    Against whom do they need defending? They don’t face any conceivable military threat.

    even as we face a far greater threat in China

    Poppycock. The only aggressive imperialistic power in the world today is the United States.

    • Agree: follyofwar
  42. Pat Buchanan is astute to distinguish the present crisis from the Cold War. The Cold War was the peace. The balance of power was maintained. But today things are fundamentally different: we are now in a situation where Deterrence doctrine is obsolete. It can no longer prevent the scenarios where Mutual Assured Destruction will be resorted to. Today the powers cannot control the events that will drag them into war. The world will soon face the scenario where (unlike the Cuban missile crisis or Euro missile crisis) one protagonist will not be able to step back from the brink, blindly stumbling into a situation they cannot de-escalate. All that is left is Deterrence’s fall-back position – annihilation.
    He is also correct that President Trump should not pursue policies that have ‘no vital US interest.’ Identifying and respecting each other’s core interests is essential: because if they clash there will be war – nuclear war. But it seems we have not learned from history.
    https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/

  43. Rurik says:
    @Anon

    with Kosovo in flames NATO could intervene and in so doing, not only overthrow Slobodan Milosevic the Serbian strong man, but more importantly, provide the aging and increasingly irrelevant military organization with a reason for its continued existence. ”

    also, there is NATO’s ((and the west’s)), motivating principle:

    “There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That’s a 19th-century idea and we are trying to transition it into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.”

    (((Gen. Wesley Clark))) – in regards to the Kosovo war.

    • Replies: @Hail
  44. JLK says:

    It appears to me that the US has had Russia checkmated for at least a few decades, probably because of missile defense. That may be changing with Russian development of hypersonic missiles, which aren’t fully deployed yet.

    Our leaders are deciding whether to go to war in this time window. It would be a terrible war, even if we clobber them, which we probably would. Maybe Russia even has a doomsday option that could end humanity.

    It is frightening to think that such a decision is in the hands of the same people that gave us the incompetent, brazen false flag of 9/11, and the group(s) that have probably been blackmailing them to invade and occupy the entire Middle East since 2002. Especially if the latter had something to do with motivating the terrible decision in the first place or other treachery like blocking the WTC stairwells to increase the death tolls and their own leverage.

    What’s really at stake if Russia achieves strategic parity again? It’ll remove the gag from their mouths about 9/11, decades of propaganda overreach and facts about our complex imperial tribute schemes. They’ll take ownership of their key industries back. They’ll speak their minds on climate change.
    They might be tempted to win Germany over by letting the air out of some of the atrocity tales maintained for decades to hold the postwar order in place.

    Mostly things that deserve to get done in the first place.

    We need help from uncompromised parties, agencies and international partners to expose these bacilli to some sunlight, for the good of humanity.

    • Replies: @JLK
  45. Hail says: • Website
    @Rurik

    There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states

    Cf.:

    Israeli law declares the country a ‘nation-state of the Jewish people’
    [Jul 19, 2018]

  46. JLK says:
    @JLK

    incompetent, brazen false flag of 9/11

    I can’t say enough about the child-like idiocy that went into planning this. 911? How trite can you get? The dim bulbs who choreograph this theater are our best bread crumbs, because they leave trite over almost everything they touch, like a reverse King Midas.

    Even the Brits were smart enough to run the WTC collapse report on BBC early to amplify their leverage. Our kids will no doubt be dying for the Iranian gas fields as a result.

    That’s my speak truth (or the best I can do) to power on MLK day tribute.

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 Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?