Essays, Europe, latest, NATO, Russia, USA
Comments 17

What Is NATO — Really?

by Eric Zuesse, via strategic-culture.org

When NATO was founded, that was done in the broader context of the U.S. Marshall Plan, and the entire U.S. operation to unify the developed Atlantic countries of North America and Europe, for a coming Cold War allegedly against communism, but actually against Russia — the core country not only in the U.S.S.R. but also in Eastern Europe (the areas that Stalin’s forces had captured from Hitler’s forces).

NATO was founded with the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington DC on 4 April 1949, and its famous core is:

Article 5: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

However, widely ignored is that the Treaty’s preamble states:

The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty.

Consequently, anything that would clearly be in violation of “the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments,” or of “the rule of law,” would clearly be in violation of the Treaty, no matter what anyone might assert to the contrary.  (As regards “the principles of democracy,” that’s a practical matter which could be determined, in a particular case, by means of polling the public in order to establish what the public in a given country actually wants; and, as regards “individual liberty,” that is often the liberty of one faction against, and diminishing, the liberty of some other faction(s), and so is devoid of real meaning and is propagandistic, not actually substantive. Even the “rule of law” is subject to debate, but at least that debate can be held publicly within the United Nations, and so isn’t nearly as amorphous.

Furthermore, as far as “individual liberty” is concerned, the Soviet Union was a founding member of the UN and of its Security Council with the veto-right which that entails, but was never based upon “individual liberty”; and, so, whatever “rule of law” the UN has ever represented, isn’t and wasn’t including “individual liberty”; therefore, by the preamble’s having subjected the entire document of the NATO Treaty to “the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations,” the phrase “individual liberty” in the NATO Treaty isn’t merely propagandistic — it’s actually vacuous.)

The NATO Treaty, therefore, is, from its inception, a treaty against Russia.

It is not really — and never was — a treaty against communism. The alliance’s ideological excuse doesn’t hold, and never was anything more than propaganda for a military alliance of America and its allies, against Russia and its allies. Consequently, the Warsaw Pact had to be created, on 14 May 1955, as an authentic defensive measure by Russia and its allies.

This had really nothing to do with ideology. Ideology was and is only an excuse for war — in that case, for the Cold War.  For example this stunningly honest documentary managed to be broadcast in 1992 by the BBC, and showed that the U.S. OSS-CIA had begun America’s war against “communism” even at the very moments while WW II was ending in 1945, by recruiting in Europe ‘former’ supporters of Hitler and Mussolini, who organized “false flag” (designed-to-be-blamed-against-the-enemy) terrorist attacks in their countries, which very successfully terrified Europeans against ‘communism’ (i.e., against Russia and its allies).

As one of the testifiers in that video notes (at 6:45),“In 1945 the Second World War ended and the Third World War started.” The ‘former’ fascists took up the cause ostensibly against “communism” but actually against Russia; it wasn’t democracy-versus-communism; it was fascists continuing — but now under the ‘democratic’ banner — their war against Russia.

This operation was, until as late as 1990, entirely unknown to almost all democratically elected government officials. The key mastermind behind it, the brilliant double-agent Allen Dulles, managed to become officially appointed, by U.S. President Eisenhower in 1953, to lead the CIA. Originally, that subversive-against-democracy element within the CIA was only a minority faction. Dulles had no qualms even about infiltrating outright Nazis into his operation, and his operation gradually took over not only the U.S. but its allies.

His key point man on that anti-democracy operation was James Angleton — a rabid hater of Russians, as psychopathic an agent for America’s aristocracy as was Dulles himself. But the CIA was only one of the broader operation’s many tentacles; others soon were formed such as the Bilderberg group. Then, the CIA financed the start of the European Union, which was backed strongly by the Bilderbergers. This was sold as democratic globalism, but it’s actually fascist globalism, which is dictatorial in a much more intelligent way than Hitler and Mussolini had tried to impose merely by armed force. It relies much more on the force of deception — force against the mind, instead of against the body.

Mikhail Gorbachev failed to recognize this fact about NATO (its actual non-ideological, pure conquest, orientation) in 1990, when he agreed and committed to the dismemberment and end of Russia’s established system of alliances, without there being any simultaneous mirror-image termination of America’s system of alliances — including NATO. He wasn’t at all a strategic thinker, but instead tried to respond in a decent way to the short-term demands upon him — such as for immediate democracy. He was a deeply good man, and courageous too, but unfortunately less intelligent than was his actual opponent at that key moment, in 1990, George Herbert Walker Bush, who was as psychopathic as Gorbachev was principled.

>Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

17 Comments

  1. reinertorheit says

    Well, as of this evening. Philip Hammond – the gutless neonazi NATO patsy who has been Britain’s shameful Foreign Minister of late – was fired from his job, and replaced by Brexiteer Bojo Johnson.

    Considering that NATO’s swivel-eyed rostrum-thumping supremo Jens Stupidberg demanded that Britain voted Remain “to prevent invasion by Russia”, it will be interesting to see what happens now that a Brexiter is in charge of Britain’s foreign policy?

    Hopefully we can bid farewell to the spineless Jew-worshipping era of the stinking Milibands – and to Philip Hammond’s automatic rubber-stamping of everything Doltenberg demanded?

    Whatever the result – it cannot be worse than the jackbooted fascist racist Hammond. Good riddance! Don’t come back!

    Like

    • reinertorheit says

      Subsequently to the above, Hammond was announced as the new Chancellor (Finance Minister), so it appears we are not rid of this talentless moron at all. However, in his new position at the Treasury, he can’t do the same harm to British interests as he has done as Foreign Minister.

      Like

  2. Seamus Padraig says

    Gorbachev was an idiot. Other than that, I agree with most of what Eric writes here.

    Like

    • reinertorheit says

      He was not, perhaps, the sharpest knife in the drawer – and his ‘yokel’ accent in Russian did not improve his reputation for acuity. Yet he was not, perhaps, an idiot – although I have no fondness for the man. What he was in truth, was a an idealogue. He attempted to rule the USSR of the 1990s with the rule-book issued in the 1920s. His response to the fall of the Berlin Wall was to pull back the Bloc-stationed Soviet troops to the USSR, to mount a rearguard action to save his beloved Soviet Union. Even though there were not even enough barracks in which to house them on return from E Germany, Poland, and other outposts, nor even enough kasha to feed them.

      Despite being nominally an agronomist, he couldn’t feed the country – his only answer to any problem was a military answer. Not enough spuds? Put guards around the few we have. People want to go to the seaside on holiday? Man the railway stations and airports with armed men.

      It was a beautiful irony that his incompetent twerp was eventually kidnapped (people forget this incident…) by his own military leaders, and taken off to a mystery location… handing the country to Boris Yeltsin on a plate.

      Like

      • Seamus Padraig says

        Disbanding the Warsaw Pact without demanding that NATO be disbanded at the same time was and idiotic move.

        Like

  3. There seems to be some good info here on NATO. Eric sure got Bernie wrong though, predicting he’d take the White House (http://bit.ly/29QJEoZ). I simply think he overlooked the Right’s secret ‘in plain view’ weapon, namely: break rules.

    I’m not going to join the Gorby is good camp yet. My sense that he’s possibly much less pure than the driven snow comes from a mention of him in Maude Barlow’s “Blue Covenant.” She doesn’t explicitly single him out for censure, but as the founder of Green Cross International, an org involved in water issues, we need to be clear what he and his org are about, especially when the chairman of his org, Dr Jan Kulczyk, has proven to be a dog, mouthing fine things about protecting the environment while “he invests in dirty energy all around the world” (Radoslaw Slusarczyk – http://bit.ly/29QKQsk). This is a colleague of Gorbachev.

    If Gorbachev wasn’t a strategic thinker when the US got him to drop his country’s defences (Warsaw Pact) through a ‘gentlemans’ agreement, Has he become one in the meantime?

    Maude discusses the doings of an elite transnational water policy network that includes governments and non governmental organizations, all coordinated and boosted by the pro privatization World Bank, in her (above) book. She notes: “The final sector in this elite network includes several prominent environmental non-governmental organizations that work within the established global institutions, including the World Bank and the World Water Council. These include highly influential, London-based WaterAid founded by the British water companies, which provides water services in Africa and Asia; Freshwater Action Network (FAN), a global network of environmental and community groups now exploring “dialogue” between civil society and the World Bank; the World Wildlife Fund, one of the world’s largest conservation groups; Green Cross International, an environmental and education organization led by Mikhail Gorbachev, which works with the World Water Council to promote a UN convention on the right to water that would endorse private financing for water projects.” -pgs 51,52. Captured governments will never function properly, from the people’s standpoint. They therefore won’t tax fairly. They will, instead, conduct deficit terrorism, which involves punishing the innocent taxpayers for the sabotaging of the important tax collection functions of government that allow for important social (which means civilized) spending. The default position of neoliberal governments is to not properly fund what is in their purview, which creates a pressure that the privatizers, the politicians’ true constituency, take advantage of. Susan George of the Transnational Institute calls this theft of public, taxpayer built, programs and services the greatest theft in humankind’s history.

    Anyway, Eric’s thoughts on NATO are welcome. I’m always open to adding voices to my collection of excerpts of authors exposing NATO for what it is (http://bit.ly/1MWVlnu). I am in enough conversations where that subject comes up, which it is going to do with much more frequency going forward, that I could possible use something from Eric. (I uploaded my collection to the cloud (Box) and keep the short link in a field in the ‘properties’ of the link on my toolbar links.) Perhaps. Perhaps not.

    Like

  4. rtj1211 says

    NATO’s biggest point currently is for Eastern European countries who were subsumed by communism after WW II. Plenty of hatred of Russia in those countries.

    Unfortunately, the price of their entry was agreement to host missile systems targeted at Russia.

    All that has happened is that the Iron Curtain has moved several hundreds of miles east…….

    Liked by 2 people

    • It is not wonder why so called prince charles and his wife were visiting Eastern Europe. British plan is to trick naive, feeling inferior People regarding western life style, is to colonise these countries, rob their resources and enslave its People. Hope, People in Eastern and South Europe will recognise their evil intention and reject evil offers.

      Like

      • reinertorheit says

        The idea that the inbred jug-eared misanthrope and his foul-tempered hatchet-faced wife would be a good advertisement for the blandishments of capitalism is one of the strangest ideas I have ever seen on OffGuardian.

        But thanks for the laugh, anyhow.

        Like

  5. Nato is just a private army for the Rothschilds,Rockfellers and all the corporate elites of western countries. The storm troopers for the new their reich/WASHINGTON CONSENSUS> Living Mussolini’s dream

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Yonatan says

    “For example, a stunningly honest documentary managed to be broadcast in 1992 by the BBC, and showed that the U.S. OSS-CIA had begun America’s war against “communism” even at the very moments while WW II was ending in 1945,”

    Actually Britain and the US started working against the USSR in late 1941/1942 when they stopped sharing tactical intelligence gained from german POWs. The idea was for Germany and the USSR to bleed each other to death. Nothing has changed since then.

    Liked by 1 person

    • brankabrankov says

      Yes. All evils/destruction are planed and created first in the British secret bunkers then in reality. This time they will lose and it will be for ever.

      Like

  7. brankabrankov says

    My mother had, 30 years or so ago, a dream ….Isus Christ came in her dream and told her: “Do not worry, the WINNER of the world war III will be countries from the East.”

    Therefore, the WINNER and protector of the Planet Earth from the evil/satanists, naturally will be as always Russia, then China… I deeply believe in this my mother dream.

    Like

    • reinertorheit says

      I would lay off the diet of magic beans now. Try getting some proper balanced nutrition. You’ll feel much better.

      Like

.....................

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s