Eric Zuesse – Why It’s Especially Necessary to End NATO Now

14 maart 2021Businessplan, Home, Locatie, Media, Ridderboek, Zuesse0

Who s afraid of WWIII (foto `Medium)

Dr Strangelove (foto Colorado Arts ans Sciences Magazine)

Dr Strangelove | This is how you drop da bomb (fptp Whifflegif)

Why It’s Especially Necessary to End NATO Now

In a previous article I argued “Why It’s Necessary to End NATO”. However, recent events are making clear that the urgency of this need is increasing, instead of decreasing.

In 2011, the US Government started planning a take over of Ukraine, which, at that time, was a neutral country that has a 1,625 mile border with Russia. At its nearest point to Moscow, that border is only five minutes flight time away from Moscow, via the fastest missiles. Obviously, that’s far too little time for Russia’s Government to be able to evacuate themselves from Moscow and to launch a retaliation against a US blitz attack. The US goal is to get Ukraine into NATO, so that America can position its missiles there and really achieve “Nuclear Primacy” (which I discussed in that earlier article as being America’s meta strategy since at least 2006 – safely to destroy Russia, even though that won’t actually be possible).

On February 1st of 2021, Ukraine’s President, Volodymyr Zelensky, made undeniably clear his intention to fulfill on Obama’s plan, for Ukraine to become a NATO member. Whether Joseph Biden is going to push for that will be the most important decision of his Presidency, because it would be a commitment to World War III. It would, in effect, be a US declaration of war against Russia. Whether the blitz invasion would come from the US (presumably assisted by missiles placed in Ukraine), or instead from Russia (in order to wipe out those and all other US.missiles), would be the only remaining question. Who will try the blitz attack first? Either way, the world – at least the biosphere that sustains human life – would end.

Zelensky said

We are grateful for everything, but Ukraine is not just saying in words that it wants to be an equal member of the Alliance, an equal member of NATO, because this is one of the most important security points – the same security that President Biden is speaking about. How should we further state the desire to accede [join], if it is enshrined in the Constitution of Ukraine – the movement towards the European Union, European integration, as well as accession to NATO? Therefore, I have a very simple question – why is Ukraine still not in NATO? Putting away these phrases that we will all contemplate and communicate, the first simple question from me would be: “Mr President, why are we not in NATO yet“?

If Ukraine becomes a NATO member, then Ukraine will have the right to demand that America join its war to grab back the former Donbass region and also the former region of Crimea. The US Government would then be put into the position of having to either fulfill its NATO commitment to the new NATO member (presuming that restoration of both Crimea and Donbass to Ukraine would be accepted as being a part of that commitment to what then would be a fellow NATO member) or else become very embarrassed by not doing so. If such a NATO commitment would be fulfilled, the world as it has always been known would end very fast – less than an hour.

The way that WW III would then start is that Ukraine would become more heavily armed by the US and then would invade both Donbass and Crimea, Russia would then attack Ukraine for doing that, and the US would then launch a blitz attack against Moscow from Ukraine, and, simultaneously launch against all other command and control targets in Russia, so that before those have become hit, Russia would already have been decapitated.

The United States Government is fortunately not obliged to allow Ukraine into NATO and has many ways to prevent it from joining NATO. Some of these ways wouldn’t at all embarrass the US Government, and the reason for this is that if any one NATO member nation refuses to okay Ukraine as becoming a member, then Ukraine won’t become a member, and the scenario that has been described won’t then happen. The US Government has enormous clout with each existing NATO member nation, because NATO was created by the North Atlantic Treaty (also called the “Washington Treaty”) in Washington, DC, on 4 April 1949, at a conference that was chaired by US diplomat Theodore Achiles, who subsequently retired to become a Director of the Atlantic Council, which also is in Washington, and which is the Public Relations arm of NATO. The US Government could easily get at least one NATO member country to say no to Ukraine’s joining. However, if US President Biden announces that the US endorses NATO membership for Ukraine, then that’s, in itself, virtually a US declaration of war against Russia, and Russia might not wait for it to be made official before responding to it – blitz invading the US and its allies.

According to Achilles’s account of the creation of NATO

The NATO spirit was born in that Working Group. Derick Hoyer Millar, the British Minister, started it. One day he made a proposal which was obviously nonsense. Several of us told him so in no uncertain terms, and a much better formulation emerged from the discussion. Derick said, and I quote, “Those are my instructions. All right, I’ll tell the foreign office I made my pitch, was shot down and try to get them changed.” He did. From then on we all followed the same system. If our instructions were sound, and agreement could be reached, fine. If not, we worked out something we all, or most of us, considered sound, and whoever had the instructions undertook to get them changed. It always worked, although sometimes it took time. That spirit has continued to this day, I believe, although the size to which NATO has grown makes it far less easy. Two years later we began in London to put the “O” on the NAT by creating the Organization. Some of the members of the delegations had been members of the Working Group, some had not.

Was that the beginning of the end of the world? Perhaps Biden will decide whether it is, or not.

However, if he does decide to do it, then I doubt he’d do the attack prior to getting Ukraine into NATO – if he can do that. On March 10th, The Saker headlined “Is the Ukraine on the brink of war (again)?” and speculated whether Biden will provide now the backing that the Obama installed stooge regime there wants. Though the stooge regime might re invade Donbass (and maybe even attack Crimea. I doubt that Biden will provide the type of assistance that the US stooge regime in Kiev would need in order to retake that land (and certainly not Crimea). I would expect that Biden is therefore informing Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy not to try. So, I would expect that, instead, the crucial decision will be whether or not the regime in Washington will decide that it really does want Ukraine to become a member of NATO.

On March 10th, Sweden’s Defense Research Agency issued in two different parts, a 300 page report, “Western Military Capability in Northern Europe 2020,” which concluded that Russia would likely win WW III in Europe, and which analyzed only conventional war and virtually totally ignored even the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons in WW III – the presumption was instead that the meta strategy “MAD” still would prevent that, and they ignored the US regime’s actual abandonment of “MAD” and switch to “Nuclear Primacy”. They also simply presumed that the US is their ally and non aggressive and that Russia is their enemy and is aggressive. In other words: it is fantasyland, at least in the Swedish Government. Furthermore: the core strategic question, of whether the loser in a conventional WW III would accept defeat instead of blitz nuclear attack the opponent so as to ‘win’ the war, was simply ignored, as if there would be a 100% likelihood that the conventional war loser would just surrender and not escalate to a blitz nuclear attack against the opposite side in order to ‘win’ and would leave its enormous nuclear stockpile unused. They ignored the fact that NATO, after the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991, is the trip wire to an all out nuclear war – the exact opposite of an asset to its participants’ National Security. NATO participation makes all of them inevitably a part of the battlefield, and forces Russia to target them. Sweden’s Defense Research Agency produced there an insanely stupid study, and one which shows that Europeans, at least in Sweden, are being ‘defended’ by a Government that is either in the pocket of the US, or else is simply idiotic. That study is shockingly stupid; it makes some of the craziest assumptions imaginable – assumptions that are tragically at variance with established facts (facts such as that America is, by far, the world’s most aggressive nation, and perpetrates far more coups, sanctions, and invasions, than does any other nation). At least regarding foreign relations, Sweden’s Government is monstrously disserving its public, and yet Swedes aren’t enraged against it. Are their news media really that bad, so as for Swedes to tolerate a military alliance with the world’s most aggressive nation?

The only sane path forward for the nations that currently are NATO members (or “Partners” as Sweden is) is to withdraw and to urge other members (and Partners) likewise to withdraw, so that NATO will end – as it should have ended when the Soviet Union’s NATO mirror organization the Warsaw Pact ended in 1991. End the Cold War, finally. NATO – the American Military Alliance against Russia – is simply the trip wire to WW III. End it. Now. Even 30 years after 1991 isn’t, yet, too late to do it. But, maybe, 31 years would be. That’s why it must be done now, delayed no further. Either NATO will end, or it will end all of us.