NATO SUMMIT and what it means for WORLD PEACE! A Brief History
NATO was formed after World War Two, and represented essentially the alliance of Allies that won the war, but which included West Germany as it was divided between East and West and the Soviet Union moved quickly from biggest one of the most important allies in the war to being seen as the Evil Empire, as Ronald Reagan so famously said.
Essentially since then, the role of the Soviet Union and now Russia as being the most important threat to “democracy and freedom” has been the rationale for NATO’s existence and to perpetuate the myth of NATO being a “defensive alliance” against the malignant threat of an ever expansionist Soviet Union/Russia. However, even when opportunities for this relationship to change occurred, e.g. after Stalin’s death, or after the fall of the Soviet Union, when President Yeltsin offered a new alliance, NATO, aka the U.S. have always refused to change the nature of the alliance.
After the war, European empires saw their influence wane as former colonies sought and achieved independence. They no longer had the military and economic might to sustain and into the gap stepped the U.S.A. It saw the opportunity to expand its influence and economic potential of the new alliance by allowing it to put U.S. military forces into Europe, as a stepping stone to other areas, including the Middle East, Central and Southern Asia, Eastern Europe and Russia and also Africa.
While this initially served both waning European empires and the U.S.A. tensions soon arose around the role of European countries and the U.S. domestic opinion in the U.S. is that the Europeans were weak and not pulling their weight and also as the 1950s and 1960s came around, showing increasing reluctance to buy into the Cold War mythology. The Warsaw Pact of Eastern Europe only happened after 1955, two years after Stalin’s death, as the Soviet Union also felt threatened by the role of the U.S. in NATO who seemed to not want any further rapprochement. For the U.S. having the Soviet Union as the intractable enemy was essential to justify its central role in NATO and the financial commitments that entailed. For a good summary of the history of NATO, check out this Youtube.
The constant tensions between Europe and the U.S. surfaced when certain European leaders, including President de Gaulle of France, Willy Brandt and Helmut Schmidt of Germany and even the Labour Party of the U.K. questioned the alliance and wanted to explore greater political and economic arrangements with the Soviet Union. This continued into the 1980s, and also when the large anti-nuclear campaigns in Europe led to the Green Party in Germany and growing alliances of Green/Left movements that sought the removal of U.S. nuclear bases and American military in general. They saw that it was important that Europe become more independent and even militarily self sufficient for their security needs. The Americans would have none of this and ensured that the right wing parties in Europe continued their obedience to American militarism. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, when first of all Gorbachev offered a whole new economic and political alliance, from Portugal to Vladivostok and then Yelstin offered a new relationship, the American response was NIET.
Since Putin restored Russian economic and political autonomy after the ravages of Western/IMF intervention after the Soviet Union collapsed, NATO has taken the role of being the face of the American empire as it has expanded ever further eastward, even when it said it wouldn’t. Of course Eastern Europe was brought in and also the Baltic states, but NATO wanted to go further and set its sights on Georgia and Ukraine, two countries historically part of Russian influence. This campaign started in the early 2000’s and culminated with the coup in Ukraine in 2014, when Western intelligence (CIA, MI6) supported the coup of President Yanukovych. Since then, essentially, the West (NATO) has been at war with Russia. Any talk of Europe becoming more autonomous militarily, WITHOUT U.S. nuclear and military presence in Europe has fallen by the wayside until now. We shouldn’t forget the illegal and utterly cynical NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1995 and 1999 and then NATO countries taking out Libya in 2011.
Trump’s position and contradictions:
The U.S. is saying that Europe has to pay more for its own defences and the recent NATO meeting only reaffirmed this. Europe has been free loading and its time to pay up. New NATO chief, Mark Rutte, former P.M of Holland, and a real weirdo, started the NATO meeting saying that NATO is bigger than the Roman Empire was and is the longest lasting and most important military alliance ever. This can be debated.
Then he played all nice with Trump, laughing weirdly and calling him daddy. The obsequiousness was horrendous. Then he got all NATO members to promise to increase their military spending to 5% of GDP, to be fully implemented by 2035, by which time all these leaders will be long gone and the impending world war may have come and ideally gone. The facts are clear. Hardly any of the European NATO members will be spending 5% of their GDP. The money isn’t there and if they try, the people in Europe will be on the streets as they are already being squeezed a lot economically and they won’t tolerate it, unless European countries declare martial law, which is a possibility. It seems Chancellor Merz would love to do this. Spain’s Prime Minister Sanchez complained publicly as he knows that Spain’s 1.3% is about all they can give and a Spanish minister also said Spain should leave NATO. It ain’t going to happen.
But the contradiction and hypocrisy is this: the U.S is saying that Europe is dependent on the U.S. for defense but it is the U.S. that is dependent on Europe for its offense - against Russia, Middle East, Africa etc. If Trump and the U.S. are truly serious about being America First, then they really would get the hell out of Europe and let Europe take care of itself. Then these asinine European leaders just might consider that talking to Putin and Lavrov just might be a better idea than planning to expand the war and take on the largest nuclear and conventional military force in the world. Trump is right. Europe is nothing without the U.S. so it should recognize that Russia doesn’t want to come to Berlin again. Why would they and the fact is, they can’t unless they nuke it and that doesn’t achieve anything. So Trump wants it his way. He doesn’t want to pay for European defense but he still can’t extricate himself from Europe because of his fealty to Israel and the larger American agenda, which is still maintaining its empire. The crux is going to be, which way will he go. He wants to be liked and rumour has it has wants the Nobel Peace Prize but then he has Zionist Zealots, Neo-con Nutjobs and Big Military to deal with.
The Cracks and Contradictions in Trump’s and the U.S.’s foreign policy
Trump in this regard reflects the contradiction and the division within America foreign policy and the idea of America itself. Can it be America First and still be an empire? Let’s see, but the evidence is that now that he has bombed Iran once, he will be severely pressured to bomb again as Israel and the neo cons will say that in fact, Iran’s nuclear capacity was not taken out - as they are now saying daily, already. Trump insists it was as he doesn’t want to go back in again and be dragged into a longer war, but Israel is determined to take Iran down and the neo cons in the USA as well as Britain, want the U.S. to go back in and sooner rather than later. Why? Because as we speak, Russia and China are talking with Iran about rebuilding and improving Iran’s air defence and also its offensive ballistic missile capacity. Israel cannot accept this and so the pressure on Trump will continue, again dividing America. It is likely to lead to more war.
Britain’s role in all this: war is good for business!
There are many supporters of Trumps’ America First policy that recognize that Britain’s “special relationship” with the U.S. is to get America to do the dirty work for Britain’s own foreign, imperial interests. Sometimes it is called Britain’s “never-ending” empire. Some historians and writers, including Canadian Matthew Ehret, discuss how at the turn of the 20th century, figures like Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Millner set up a special small but influential group of intellectuals, thinkers and those close to British Royalty and the wheels of power, their “secret society” whose work was to maintain the global British empire, which included creating serious financial and political connections to the growing American empire, and in this they essentially have succeeded. The links between The City of London and Wall St can be seen from the mid 1800’s when J.P. Morgan bank was set up with the influence of the British banking Rothchild’s money and this connection has only grown since. The financial umbilical link between British and American financiers is rather seemless, even if political differences do surface, as we see now with Trump and Starmer. It has been interesting to see that as Trump tries to pull the U.S. out of Ukraine, Britain, with its MI6 operatives working in Ukraine, planned and helped implement the recent attacks on Russian nuclear defenses, as well as other terror operations on Russian bridges. at the same time as Trump is trying to bring Russia to peace talks.
Therefore, for Britain, having the U.S. use their troops and money to maintain what can be called the Anglo-Saxon Empire has been good for business and this is just as true today. U.K. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has been the most supportive leader of Ukraine and Zelensky, both verbally and financially. He signed a 100 year deal with Ukraine last year and Britain is backing up a lot of Ukraine’s debt which Ukraine is simply unable to pay. Zelensky appeared at the NATO summit and put his grubby hand out for another 120 billion $, a few hundred patriot missiles and also hinted that if he doesn’t get it, he will try and get a nuclear bomb! It was apparent from the U.S. point of view that game Ukraine is over and the few words given to Ukraine were very different to the flowing, gushing, love fests of before. Zelensky is the ex-boyfriend who just won’t go away and still comes to the same parties. Also, Russia’s Medvedev has also gone one step further and recently said on Telegram that Russia will no longer agree for Ukraine to join the E.U. as the E.U. has shown itself to be simply an extension of NATO. Until recently, Russia said it didn’t care. So now things are even worse for Zelensky. He has nothing going for him and even when he goes home he still has the fascist Azov battalions to deal with. It is possibly getting very messy there with various fascist factions splitting between them. One never knows what may go down now. It always been a threat that radicals in the Azov battalion may try and take Zelenksy out if he doesn’t bring home the bacon from Europe. They have threatened this before and they could do this and blame it on Russia, a convenient false flag for the West. Who knows. Even MI6 may be thinking the same thing. Who knows?
But Britain will not be deterred. They brought Zelensky to London, and wearing a smart black jacket, as apposed to those cool combat fatigues, went to see King Charles, which I think is the 3rd time this year, an unknown number of visits from a minor leader of a country, and a gross political symbol of Britain’s support to Ukraine, and putting the Royal Family into the center of global politics, compromising their supposed role which is to be beyond politics.
Even more significantly, Zelensky went to CHATHAM HOUSE, the epicentre of British foreign policy planning, to talk up Ukraine’s defense and reconstruction and as this was just before the NATO summit, to talk up Ukraine’s needs - money, weapons and more money. Ukraine is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, where money and hardware disappear into the hands of crooks, gangsters, mafia and neo Nazis, readying for WW3 in Europe, but no problem for the ghosts at Chatham House.
As the head of Chatham House’s Ukraine Forum said: “We were honoured to host the president today to better understand the evolution of the war and think together how Europe and Ukraine can join forces in defending against the Russian threat.”
Chatham House, officially known as the Royal Institute of International Affairs was founded in 1920 and is known for its “Chatham House” rules, which allows for open discussion while ensuring participant anonymity, in other words, naughty secrets and dirty deals can be done without any inconvenient public transparency. It is one of the epicentres of British deep state policy, and represents the unchanging agendas supporting Britain’s economic, financial and political interests throughout the world, irrespective of which party is in power and whether Britain is in the E.U. or not. This is about Empire Ladies and Gentlemen so let’s get down to business.