Putin reiterates NATO is obsolete!
-Dr. Abdul Ruff
NATO, an acronym for North Atlantic Treaty Organization, is the most dangerous state terror alliance of 28 countries bordering the North Atlantic Ocean. It includes the United States, Canada, Turkey and most members of the European Union. (NATO’s 28 members are: Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom and the United States)
Each member designates an ambassador to NATO. They supply officials to serve on NATO committees. They send the appropriate official to discuss NATO business. That includes a country’s president, prime minister, foreign affairs minister or head of the department of defense.
NATO participates in three alliances. That expands its influence beyond its 28 member countries. The Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council helps partners become NATO members. It includes 23 non-NATO countries that support NATO’s purpose. It began in 1991.
The Mediterranean Dialogue seeks to stabilize the Middle East. Its non-NATO members include Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia. It began in 1994. The Istanbul Cooperation Initiative works for peace throughout the larger Middle East region. It includes four members of the Gulf Cooperation Council. They are Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. It began in 2004. NATO cooperates with eight other countries in joint security issues. There are five in Asia. They are Australia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Mongolia and New Zealand. There are two in the Middle East: Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The founding members of NATO signed the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949. NATO’s primary purpose was to defend member nations against troops in pro-communist countries. The United States also wanted to maintain a presence in Europe. It sought to prevent a resurgence of aggressive nationalism and foster political union. In this way, NATO made the European Union possible.
During the Cold War, NATO’s mission expanded to prevent nuclear war. After West Germany joined NATO, the communist countries formed the Warsaw Pact alliance. That included the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany. In response, NATO adopted the “Massive Retaliation” policy. It promised to use nuclear weapons if the Pact attacked. NATO’s deterrence policy allowed Europe to focus on economic development. It didn’t have to build large conventional armies.
The Soviet Union continued to build its military presence. By the end of the Cold War, it was spending three times what the United States was with only one-third the economic power. When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, it was due to economic as well as ideological reasons. After the USSR dissolved in the late 1980s, NATO’s relationship with Russia thawed. In 1997, they signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act to build bilateral cooperation. In 2002, they formed the NATO-Russia Council to partner on shared security issues.
The collapse of the USSR led to unrest in its former satellite states. NATO got involved when Yugoslavia’s civil war became genocide. NATO’s initial support of a United Nations naval embargo led to the enforcement of a no-fly zone. Violations then led to a few airstrikes until September 1999. That’s when NATO conducted a nine-day air campaign that ended the war. By December of that year, NATO deployed a peace-keeping force of 60,000 soldiers. That ended in 2004 when NATO transferred this function to the European Union.
With Russian President Vladimir Putin warning on June 19 Western countries against meddling in Moscow’s affairs and that no one should speak to Russia through ultimatums, fears of a new nuclear arms race are being rekindled by the actions of arch rivals USA and Russia.
There are reasons to believe that Russia is angry with NATO’s attempt to contain Russia, the leader of former Soviet Union. In facing the containment policy of USA by using former Soviet republics, Vladimir Putin said on June 16 that Russia would add more than 40 new intercontinental ballistic missiles to its nuclear arsenal this year.
Putin made his announcement a day after Russian officials denounced a US plan to station tanks and heavy weapons in NATO states on Russia’s border as the most aggressive act by Washington since the Cold War. Intercontinental ballistic missiles have a minimum range of more than 5,500 km (3,400 miles). Putin gave no more details of which missiles were being added to the nuclear arsenal. He has said several times that Russia must maintain its nuclear deterrence to counter what he sees as growing security threats, and Moscow reserves the right to deploy nuclear weapons in Crimea. Following annexation of Crimea, the West, led by the European Union and United States, has imposed punitive economic sanctions on Russia.
The Kremlin portrays spending on the Russian arms sector as a driver of economic growth, but Putin’s critics say it is excessive and comes at the expense of social needs.
Russian officials warned that Moscow would retaliate if the United States carried out its plan to store heavy military equipment in Eastern Europe, including in the Baltic States that were once in the Soviet Union. “The feeling is that our colleagues from NATO countries are pushing us into an arms race,” RIA news agency quoted Deputy Defence Minister Anatoly Antonov as saying during “Army 2015”, a fair at which arms and other military equipment are on show.
This Russian action would likely to increase alarm in the West. Tension has resurged between Russia and Western powers over Moscow’s role in the Ukraine crisis, in which pro-Russian separatist forces have seized a large part of the country’s eastern provinces after Russia annexed Crimea from Ukraine in early 2014.
Putin has however added Moscow will not be drawn into a new arms race although Russia is modernizing its armed forces. Putin said in his speech that 70 percent of the military equipment in use would by 2020 be the most up-to-date and top-quality. But lavish military spending is weighing heavily on Russia’s national budget at a time when the economy is sliding towards recession, hit by low oil prices and Western sanctions.
And sure enough Russia, which it says is merely responding to NATO escalation, was promptly accused of escalating even more by the same NATO that keeps parking its own forces ever since the US-orchestrated Ukraine presidential coup was meant to convert Kiev into a potential NATO country and military base. Nato and Western leaders accused Russia of sending soldiers and heavy weapons, including tanks and missiles, to the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Russia has repeatedly denied this, insisting that any Russians fighting there are “volunteers”.
US military actions in support of Ukraine and several Baltic countries, some of whom fear Russian President Putin — either directly or indirectly — will come after them next. USA and European leaders are already considering an additional round of sanctions they would impose on Moscow if it makes any further military moves in Ukraine.
Russia has slammed as an aggressive expansion of military presence in NATO states in Eastern Europe, which would provoke Russia to respond by stationing its army on its western borders. Stationing of heavy US military equipment in the Baltic States and Eastern Europe would amount to the most aggressive step by the Pentagon and NATO since the Cold War. Interfax news agency quoted a Russian Defense Ministry official General Yuri Yakubov as saying:”Russia would be left with no other option but to boost its troops and forces on the western flank.”
NATO’s mission is to protect the freedom and security of its members. But it focuses on terrorism which was initially unleashed by USA and oil rich Islamic nations. For example, on July 8, 2016, NATO announced it would send up to 4,000 troops to the Baltic States and eastern Poland. It will increase air and sea patrols to shore up its eastern front after Russia’s attack on Ukraine.
Possessing huge arsenals of nuclear and conventional terror goods in their joint command, the NATO’s targets include weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and cyber attacks. On November 16, 2015, NATO responded to the terrorist attacks in Paris. It called for a unified approach with the European Union, France and NATO. That’s because France did not invoke NATO’s Article 5. That would be a formal declaration of war upon the Islamic state group. France preferred to launch air strikes on its own. Article 5 states, “an armed attack upon one shall be considered an attack upon them all.”
Generally NATO operates for USA in advancing its global interests. . After their defeat in Vietnam, US led NATO invoked Article 5 after the hoax known as Sept 9/11. It responded to American requests for the War in Afghanistan to end Islamic regime in Kabul and destabilize it after looting its important resources. Their media protects US interests and defends all the crimes committed by USA and its ally Israel. It took the lead from August 2003 to December 2014. At its peak, it deployed 130,000 troops. In 2015, it ended its combat role and began supporting Afghan troops.
On July 15, 2016, the Turkish military announced it had seized control of the government in a coup by anti-Turkey andante-Islamic forces led by the West. Turkish President Recep Erdogan announced early on July 16 that the coup had failed. As a NATO member, Turkey would receive its allies’ support in the case of an attack, but not a coup.
Crimea was a part of Russia and hence it annexation of that region is justified as a rebuff to Ukrainian regime’s support for US imperialism.
Although Ukraine is not a member, it had worked with NATO over the years as USA wants to help anyone that wants to work against Russia. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine threatened nearby NATO members. NATO said other former USSR satellite countries would be next.. As a result, NATO’s September 2014 summit focused on Russia’ aggression. President Putin vowed to create a “New Russia” out of Ukraine’s eastern region. President Obama pledged to defend countries such as Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.
The United States contributes three-fourths of NATO’s budget. During the 2016 Presidential campaign, Donald Trump said other NATO members should contribute more. Trump also accused it of being obsolete. He argued that it focuses on defending Europe against Russia instead of combating terrorism. In 2017, President Trump reversed his position. He confessed to “not knowing much about NATO” during the campaign.
Expansionism or Zionism
Military expansionism could also be called Zionism as Israel exists only on expansionist and criminal operations inside Palestine.
NATO is strengthening alliances throughout the world. In the age of globalization, transatlantic peace has become a worldwide effort. It extends beyond military might alone. On December 1, 2015, NATO announced its first expansion since 2009. It offered membership to Montenegro. Russia responded by calling the move a strategic threat to its national security. It’s worries by the number of Balkan countries along its border that have joined NATO.
Unilateral America controls global resources through NATO, World bank/IMF, global intelligences led by CIA, military bases, sale of terror goods, global militaries and polices led by Pentagon and Interpol.
When the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, symbolizing the end of cold war officially, NATO was an Alliance of 16 members and no partners. Today, the notorious NATO has 26 members – with 2 new invitees, prospective membership for others (Greece, Bosnia, Georgia and Montenegro) and over 20 partners in Europe and Eurasia, seven in the Mediterranean, four in the Persian Gulf, and others from around the world.
Triclomacy helped the USA in furthering its cause of resource hunt. The transformation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), a military bloc created by the United States during the genesis of the Cold War in 1949, into one that has grown to encompass almost entire world.
A US-dominated armed bloc NATO which includes three nuclear powers and accounts for an estimated 70 percent of global military spending has expanded deployments, operations and partnerships around the planet.
The war in Afghanistan, the longest in the nation’s history as well as in that of the U.S., has supplied NATO with an almost 12-year opportunity to consolidate an international military network and to develop the operational and command integration of the armed forces of almost 60 nations. NATO has air and other military bases in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Those three nations have also been used by NATO as part of the Northern Distribution Network and other transit routes that include as well Azerbaijan, Belarus, Estonia, Georgia, Iraq, Latvia, Lithuania, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Oman, Romania, Russia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, the United Arab Emirates, etc.
UN has been rendered meaningless. Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir, continue to suffer foreign terror yokes.
NATO membership grew by 75 percent from 16 to 28. Today, the NATO members and partners number at least 70 nations, well over a third of those in the world. NATO expansion to the east has provided the Pentagon and its Western allies with air bases and other military facilities in Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland and Romania for wars to the east and south.
NATO’s regional initiatives brought many nations into its trap The Partners Across the Globe and longer-standing military partnerships are slated to grow in all parts of the world. There are more than 50 nations that have provided NATO with troop contingents for the war in destabilized Afghanistan in South Asia.
The so-called Arab spring saw to it that Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are already in NATO trap.
India readily promotes NATO terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The western military formation NATO is indeed irrelevant and obsolete. Russian President Vladimir Purim calls for the dismantling of vestiges of Cold war NATO for good. US president Trump also thinks NATO should be wound up though he gives another reason: Europe’s reluctance to pay for NATO security.
Russia has always asked USA to dismantle the western military organization NATO but the latter always refused saying that only NATO alone can face the new challenges of the world. For the USA which depends on joint NATO state terrorism to bully weak nations and remove any threat to the US led western military superiority and domination in world affairs following their collective “victory” in the World war Two, with the historic bombing of Japan, killing and disabling thousands of Japanese.
USA calls all this a part of modern democracy.
Apparently, the last Soviet president Michael Gorbachev and his American counterpart Reagan agreed to dismantle both the two most important world threats from US led NATO and Warsaw treaty of Russia led Eastern nations and while Soviet Union readily dismantled the Warsaw treaty USA did not dismantled the Nato, creating a clear disparity in military affairs in favor of USA. Gorbachev dismantled even the Soviet union into 15 independent states as well as release eastern European nations from the control of Kremlin.
All this Soviet actions only made the USA stronger in all aspects than new Russia that came into existence in 1990 without 14 republics and Eastern Europe to support and work with it.
Gorbachev insisted that NATO should be dismantled since there was not more Soviet or communist threat as the West used to claim to slam Russia and reduce its world importance. Washington continues to say NATO would stay forever as there could be other threats to world peace. Terrorism was promoted as “deadly threat” to justify the US claims of “threats” and terrorism is going to be permanent fixture of US imperialism.
As Russia could do nothing to end NATO terrorism, it has also now joined it in Syria. USA and Russia are now allies in state terror operations abroad. Yet, President Vladimir Putin keeps pushing the USA to remove the NATO as being the obstacle to world peace. Vladimir Putin has recently cut NATO to pieces again by saying that the entire organization is no longer needed. It just can’t get any better, as you know that Putin doesn’t usually mince words: “There is no longer an Eastern Bloc, no more Soviet Union. Therefore, why does NATO keep existing? My impression is that in order to justify its existence, NATO has a need of an external foe, there is a constant search for the foe, or some acts of provocation to name someone as an adversary.”
None would seriously disagree with that statement.
NATO has been forging monsters to kill in order to define, refine or redefine its existence since the beginning of time. For example, under the code name “Operation Allied Force,” NATO did the unthinkable in Kosovo: “For 78 days in 1999, NATO forces led by the United States bombed Yugoslavia, killing hundreds of its civilians and devastating its infrastructure. NATO spokesmen justified the bombardment as “humanitarian intervention” aimed at halting President Slobodan Milosevic’s` `ethnic cleansing’ of non-Serbs in Yugoslavia.”
As it was reported later, “NATO demonstrated in 1999 that it can do whatever it wants under the guise of ‘humanitarian intervention,’ ‘war on terror,’ or ‘preventive war’ – something that everyone has witnessed in subsequent years in different parts of the globe.”
The intervention in Kosovo was a complete mess: “Over 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children, and thousands more were injured. Over 200,000 ethnic Serbs were forced to leave their homeland in Kosovo In what the alliance described as ‘collateral damage,’ its airstrikes destroyed more than 300 schools, libraries, and over 20 hospitals. “At least 40,000 homes were either completely eliminated or damaged and about 90 historic and architectural monuments were ruined. That is not to mention the long-term harm caused to the region’s ecology and, therefore, people’s health, as well as the billion-dollar economic damage.”
NATO, as you can recall, said virtually nothing about the debacle in Iraq. Sure, there were tensions among NATO member countries before the debacle, but eventually no one could resist the “good war.” But what were some of the results? By the spring of 2012, suicide rates among Air Force personnel were up by 40 percent, a figure which caused concern.
Similarly, suicide rates in the Army rose by 80 percent since the war in Iraq. In addition, more than 110,000 active-duty Army troops were prescribed antidepressants in 2011. A number of lawyers have declared that a large part of the chaos that is going on in the military is caused by the drugs the soldiers are taking. Bart Bilings, a former military psychologist, declared, “We have never medicated our troops to the extent we are doing now…And I don’t believe the current increase in suicides and homicides in the military is a coincidence.” Noted psychiatrist Peter Breggin writes, “Prior to the Iraq war, soldiers could not go into combat on psychiatric drugs, period. Not very long ago, going back maybe 10 or 12 years, you couldn’t even go into the armed services if you used any of these drugs, in particular stimulants. “But they’ve changed that…I’m getting a new kind of call right now, and that’s people saying the psychiatrist won’t approve their deployment unless they take psychiatric drugs.”
On top of that, the Pentagon told the American people in 2005 that the USA lost track of at least $9 billion that was supposed to go to Iraq. After years of “investigation,” the U.S. still “didn’t know” where all that money went. They supposedly shipped the $9 billion in cash to Iraq and now it is lost. Moreover, hundreds of millions of dollars have been invested in countries like Pakistan for programs which supposedly teach children that America is not the great Satan they thought it was, but those millions have been wasted.
As Scott Baldauf pointed out, you cannot broadcast programs like that when you are dropping drones in civilian populated areas and expect people to believe you. The U.S. military feared reprisals, for good reason of course, after all of these killings, particularly the massacre in Kandahar. After pouring some $2.6 million in Pakistan, there is little evidence that anti-Americanism has decreased in the region.
In May 2012, many Iraq War veterans decided to return the medals they had received. In a statement, they declared with one voice, “We, Afghanistan and Iraq veterans from around the country, will converge in Chicago on May 20 to ceremoniously return our medals to NATO generals. We were awarded these medals for serving in the Global War on Terror, a war based on lies and failed policies. This endless war has killed hundreds of thousands, stripped the humanity of all involved, and drained our communities of trillions of dollars, diverting funds from schools, clinics, libraries, and other public goods.”
One veteran in particular felt that it was his way to apologize to the Afghan and Iraqi people for what the U.S. has done to them. As an organization, NATO should help other political bodies to put an end to perpetual wars, but they are marshalling their armies virtually all over the world. So, should they be obsolete? Well, you be the judge.
Continued existence and terror attacks on weak nations of NATO, a living terror symbol of old Cold War, would continue create cold fear in the world It needs to be dismantled fro the better. In case of new threats, let UN and UNSC take care of them effectively. An international terror organization like NATO cannot bring peace to the world.
NATO has literally replaced the UN. Post-Cold War NATO has repeatedly and without disguise identified its purview and its area of operations to be international in scope, and over the past 22 years its efforts to achieve that objective have steadily accelerated to the point where the military alliance is well poised to supplant the United Nations as the main, indeed the exclusive, arbiter of conflicts not only between but within nations throughout the world.
President Donald Trump has been critical of NATO but the Pentagon bosses say from a military standpoint there’s been no change in guidance and “this exercise underscores our commitment to NATO and our allies.”
Since the NATO has crossed its mandate and limits, it could now be renamed as global treaty organization. Former ideological super power rivals USA and Russia with huge piles of arms arsenals do not seem to enforce nuclear disarmament globally. The US vested interests in maintaining upper hand in arms arsenals, especially WMD has emboldened Russia to ignore global nuclear disarmament and go slow in the hopeless arms reduction talks.
With the USA and Russia in a state of renewed cold war for over a year now, it was inevitable that the nuclear arms race, far more important attribute of the first Cold War, would soon return with more force.