NATO intends to prohibit Russia’s and China’s Development

by Thierry Meyssan

The glitzy NATO summit in Newport has not publicly announced major decisions but it is likely that they were taken in secret. To prevent Russia and China – but also India – from continuing their development, NATO can count on Terrorism from the Islamic Emirate which it pretends to condemn and fight.

JPEG - 19.4 kb

The Newport (Wales) Summit is NATO’s largest since the 2002 Prague edition. At the time, it meant to include new central and eastern European states within the Alliance. This time it’s about planning a long-term strategy to contain the development of Russia and China so as to prevent their competing with the United States [1].

Anything related to NATO is a matter of debate. Indeed, it has continued, since its inception in 1949, to manipulate the facts to present itself as a defensive alliance against Soviet expansionism, whereas it is the Warsaw Pact, created six years later in 1955, which aimed to defend the socialist states in the face of Anglo-Saxon (and not vice versa) imperialism.

Moreover, contrary to its name, NATO is not an alliance of equals, but a subjugation of partner armies by the United States and the United Kingdom. Indeed, all member armies of this supposed “alliance” are under the command of a single US officer who is also commander of American forces in Europe-while the secret service of NATO, the “Gladio”, under the joint authority of Washington and London, ensures that the anti-imperialists never come to power in the other Member States [2]. To do this, NATO has not skimped on political killings, nor even coups (in France [3], Italy, Greece, Cyprus and Turkey).

This subservience contravenes the principles of the UN Charter, as Member States lose their independence of foreign policy and defense. It was called into question by the Soviet Union and then by President Charles De Gaulle, who, after facing forty NATO funded assassination attempts by the OAS, gave it the boot, announcing the immediate withdrawal of France from integrated command and the expulsion of 64,000 NATO soldiers and administrative staff from French territory.

This page of French independence ceased with the election of Jacques Chirac under whom, a few months after his arrival at the Elysee, France rejoined the Council of Ministers and the Military Committee of the Alliance. This finally ended with the return of the French army under US command as decided by Nicolas Sarkozy in 2009.

Finally, the subjugation of Member States continued with the creation of many civil institutions, the main and most effective of which is the European Union. Contrary to popular belief, the present Union has not much to do with the ideal of European unity, but to bind the NATO members out of Soviet influence and Russian aims, in accordance with the secret clauses of the Marshall Plan. The idea is therefore to divide Europe into two blocs. It is no coincidence that the offices of NATO and those of the EU executive in Brussels are primarily situated in Brussels and secondarily in Luxembourg. It is to allow control of the Union by the Anglo-Saxons that it has acquired a strange Commission whose main activity is to introduce economic or political “proposals”, all predefined by NATO. It is often ignored that the Alliance is not just a military pact, but it intervenes in the economy. First NATO is the #1 customer of the defense industry in Europe and determines standards for its bidding, that is to say, for all that concerns the daily lives of its soldiers. It is these standards that are proposed by the Commission and adopted by the European Parliament.

Actually three quarters of the budget of NATO is funded by the United States alone.

The future of the Anglo-American imperialist project

Since the coup of 2001 [4], the United States is planning a confrontation with China. With this in mind, President Barack Obama announced the repositioning of US forces in the Far East. However, this agenda has been disrupted by economic, political and military recovery in Russia, which has been able in 2008 to defend South Ossetia under attack by Georgia and, in 2014, Crimea threatened by the Kiev coup.

Furthermore, the project of “missile defense” has been dropped. Presented as a system of protection against Iranian missiles, this “shield” was actually an offensive system deployed around Russia to paralyze it. A simple glance at a global map shows that Iranian missiles, if they were to be launched at the United States, would not pass over central Europe, but via the shortest path: the north pole. After over a decade undermining relations between Washington and Moscow, the project has been abandoned because it is technically impossible to destroy the latest generation of Russian intercontinental missiles while in flight. So it’s the very principle of “nuclear deterrence” that is abandoned concerning Russia, although it remains relevant for other states.

While performing its “pivot to Asia”, Washington has exacerbated tensions between China and its neighbors, especially Japan. NATO, which historically vassallizes Europe to North America, has thereby opened itself to Asian and Oceanian partners, notably Australia and Japan, through association contracts. It has, in passing, broadened its field of action to the whole world. [5]

In this time of budgetary restrictions, the Alliance, which is not experiencing the crisis, is building a new headquarters in Brussels for the staggering sum of € 1 billion. It should be ready in early 2017. [6]

JPEG - 22.9 kb

The issue of the Islamic Emirate

This summer, to the preoccupation with preventing China and Russia from controlling enough raw materials to develop the ability to compete with the United States was added the issue of the Islamic Emirate.

An intense media campaign has demonized the jihadist organization whose crimes are not new, but who just attacked the Iraqi people. We have repeatedly explained that the IE is a Western creation and that, despite appearances, its action in Iraq is entirely consistent with US plans to divide the country into three separate states. [7] For a project which constitutes a crime against humanity because it assumes ethnic cleansing, Washington has used a private army that could be condemned publicly while being supported covertly.

The United States would have taken the measure of the Islamist threat after the IE murdered two of their nationals, journalists James Foley and Steven Sotloff. However, a careful examination of the videos [8] suggests that they are not authentic. The problem had already arisen with the IE when it was supposed to have murdered Nick Berg in 2004 [9].

We have also often stressed that the IE was different from previous jihadist groups both by its communication services and its civilian administrators able to manage the conquered territories. So this is a group which is meant to last. As Alfredo Jalife-Rahme showed, the Caliphate, even if it is currently active mainly in Syria and Iraq, was designed to bear arms against Russia, India and China in the long-term [10] .

The issue of the Islamic Emirate did not therefore have to be added to the anti-Russian and anti-Chinese agenda. It was already part of it. Moreover, not wanting to risk that a Member State might express doubts about this masquerade, Washington shifted the debate to the sidelines of the summit. President Obama met eight other states plus Australia (which is not a NATO member, but only an associate) to develop its war plan. It was later decided to add Jordan to this device.

JPEG - 28 kb

Summit conclusions

The summit held a hurried morning session to expedite the question of its long presence in Afghanistan. Certainly, NATO will withdraw its combat troops as planned by year’s end, but it will retain control of the Afghan army and national security. The summit even allowed itself the luxury of calling on the two candidates for the Afghan presidency to commit to signing without delay the criminal immunity requirements of the United States, while this election is organized and the ballots counted by American forces. Therefore, the candidate who does not agree should not be surprised if he is not considered elected.

As one waves a red cape to excite a bull, the summit decided to extend NATO control over the eastern part of Europe (including Ukraine), just to see what would be the Russian reaction. But it has not gone further. The NATO-Russia Founding Act has not been revoked and Ukraine has not been incorporated into the Alliance. Everyone preferred to discuss a possible cease-fire between Kiev and Donbass.

In addition, the summit equipped the Alliance with two new tools: a cyber warfare service to counter Chinese military hackers, and a rapid response force of 4000 men from 7 countries placed under British command. Finally, the summit paved the accession process of Montenegro and, of course, requires member states to develop their military spending.

Some remarks

Despite accusations from the Ukrainian government – according to which Russia would have invaded the country … but with only 1,000 men that no one has seen, as noted by Giulietto Chiesa [11] -, the summit did not decide to go to war against Moscow and merely posed a symbolic gesture. We do not understand therefore why such ostentation was put on display in Newport.

Unless the important things have been decided behind closed doors at the meeting of the Heads of State Friday, Sept. 5, it does not seem that secret wars were discussed at the summit, but only on the sidelines of the summit with certain allies only. Already in 2011, NATO had violated its own rules by not assembling the Atlantic Council before bombing Tripoli. It seemed effectively impossible that all would agree to such a slaughter. The United States and the United Kingdom therefore met secretly with France, Italy and Turkey in Naples to plan an attack that caused at least 40,000 civilian deaths in one week.

The final release is a rare hypocrisy [12]: the Ukrainian crisis is treated as a Russian aggression, without ever mentioning the coup of Maidan Square, or the installation of a government including Nazis. The Syrian crisis is presented as a conflict between “ a moderate opposition which protects minorities” and at the same time the “tyranny of the regime of Bashar al-Assad”, and “extremist groups”, without ever mentioning that the Syrian regime is a republic while the moderate opposition is paid by the dictatorships of the Gulf, nor that the crisis was triggered by a secret Franco-British war in accordance with the Annexes to the Treaty of Lancaster House, nor that President Assad has just been re-elected by 63% of the electorate, and that the Syrian Arab Republic is the only one to have protected not only minorities, but all its citizens, including the Sunni majority. Cynically, the statement claims that the Alliance has protected the Libyan people, in accordance with resolutions 1970 and 1973, when in fact it used these resolutions to change the regime in Lybia by killing 160,000 Libyans and plunging the country into chaos.

However, ultimately, in recent years NATO has achieved its goals in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and North East Syria, that is to say, solely and exclusively in countries or regions organized into tribal societies. It does not seem able to come into direct conflict with Russia and China.

TLB recommends you visit Voltaire Network for more great articles and pertinent information.

See original article here

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.