NATO Newport

[David Guyatt]

A couple of interesting reports on the NATO summit at Newport last week from VoltaireNet

I found the comments that the US considers it of "fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defence and security as well as the channel for US influence and participation in European security affairs," in order to "prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO" (i.e., undermine the US in Europe). And then downhill for Europe from thereon.

It is very good read, I think, which - for me - sums up the current US foreign relations agenda.

NATO, the curtain of war open on two fronts

by Manlio Dinucci

The NATO summit, which kicked off today in Newport (Wales), provides the opportunity for the Alliance, ie the United States, the United Kingdom and their vassals, to share the commitment to and the cost of current offensives: on one hand, the war that is being prepared against Russia and, on the other hand, the ethnic cleansing taking place in the Arab world with a view to ensuring its continued colonization. Needless to say, a potent propaganda machine will make the aggressors look like philanthropists.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | ROME (ITALY) | 4 SEPTEMBER 2014 FRANÇAIS ITALIANO ESPAÑOL عربي

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen met on 3 September with British Prime Minister David Cameron to discuss the latest preparations for the Wales summit.The Summit of Heads of State and Government of the 28 states of NATO opens today in Newport Wales, where these leaders will take key decisions "to ensure NATO is prepared to address current and future security challenges," they attribute to "military aggression of Russia against Ukraine" and "growth of extremism and sectarian conflict in the Middle East and North Africa." In this "crucial" summit the United States, which retains the undisputed leadership in NATO, and its European allies will mobilize simultaneously on two war fronts. (Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen's press conference)Europe, in little more than six months, has leaped out of the "Détente" stage back to a situation in some ways more dangerous than that during the Cold War. How did this happen? To understand this, we must look back to the time when, in 1991, the demise of the USSR and its bloc of alliances in the European region created an entirely new geopolitical situation. The United States, the only superpower left standing, tried to take full advantage of this situation, launching a new strategy in which Washington declared it "of fundamental importance to preserve NATO as the primary instrument of Western defense and security, as well as the channel for U.S. influence and participation in European security affairs." To this end it was necessary "to prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO." (Defense Planning Guidance)At the same time, while using NATO to maintain U.S. leadership over Western Europe, the United States also used NATO to carry out the conquest of Eastern Europe. Having demolished Yugoslavia with war, NATO extended its reach eastward, including all the countries of the former Warsaw Pact, two from the former Yugoslavia and three from the former Soviet Union. Entering into NATO, the countries of Eastern Europe have come to depend more on Washington than Brussels.But something disrupted Washington's plans for conquest: contrary to what was foreseen, the Russian Federation began to respond to the crisis of the post-Cold War, tightening its growing economic relations with the European Union by providing the bulk of its natural gas and opening up new business opportunities with China and other Asian countries. These steps threatened the strategic interests of the United States.It was at this point that the crisis broke out in Ukraine: After spending years of work to take control of key positions in the armed forces and training neo-Nazi groups, NATO promoted the Kiev coup of Feb. 22. This forced Moscow to move in defense of the ethnic Russians of Ukraine, which exposed Russia to sanctions. The sanctions policy is a double-edged sword: Russia's counter-sanctions harm the European Union and expedite the plan for transatlantic partnership for trade and investment, through which Washington seeks to increase U.S. influence on the EU.At the same time, under U.S. leadership, NATO has extended its strategic reach into North Africa and the Middle East, and beyond the Afghan mountains and into the Asia/Pacific region. The strategic objective remains that set out in the Defense Planning Guidance: "Our first objective is to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would be sufficient to generate global power." Today, especially in Asia, where In the wake of the Russian-Chinese agreements, frustrating the impact of Western sanctions against Russia by opening new outlets in the East there looms the possibility of a Eurasian union to offset the U.S.-EU bloc.The demolition of Libya by war, a similar operation launched in Syria (which has so far failed), the reprisal of the war against Iraq, the double-edged manipulation of Islamic formations (supported to bring down targeted governments, then used elsewhere to justify armed intervention) are all included in the U.S./NATO strategy.Where does this lead? To other wars, to scenarios of increasingly dangerous confrontation between nuclear powers. To an acceleration of the arms race and, consequently, of military spending. One of the items on the agenda of the Summit is that NATO countries should "spend the right amount of money on deployable forces, training and modern equipment."What is likely, therefore, is an increase in military spending: Italy's, according to official data of NATO, amounted to 56 million euro per day, plus the expenditure on military missions abroad and other extra-budgetary funds, which according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute brings current military spending in Italy to almost 70 million euro per day ($100 million)*.

And then the next report is this (same source):

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.

VOLTAIRE NETWORK | DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 8 SEPTEMBER 2014 FRANÇAIS عربي PORTUGUÊS ESPAÑOL ITALIANO فارسى ΕΛΛΗΝΙΚΆ TÜRKÇE DEUTSCH POLSKI

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]

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.

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.

Thierry Meyssan

Translation
Roger Lagassé

] ] &notes=The%20glitzy%20NATO%20summit%20in%20Newport%20has%20not%20publicly%20announced%20major%20decisions%20but%20it%20is%20likely%20that%20they%20were%20taken%20in%20secret.%20To%20prevent%20Russia%20and%20China%20-%20but%20also%20India%20-%20from%20continuing%20their%20development,%20NATO%20can%20count%20on%20Terrorism%20from%20the%20Islamic%20Emirate%20which%20it%20pretends%20to%20condemn%20and%20fight.] ]


[1] "NATO, the curtain of war open on two fronts", by Manlio Dinucci, Translation John Catalinotto, Il Manifesto (Italy), Voltaire Network, 4 September 2014.[2] Read the secret armies of NATO, by Professor Daniele Ganser, available on Réseau Voltaire. episode.[3] On the state in 1958 and 1961 coups, refer to (1) "Quand le stay-behind portait De Gaulle au pouvoir" (When the stay-behind De Gaulle was in power) and (2) « Quand le stay-behind voulait remplacer De Gaulle » (When the stay-behind De Gaulle wanted to replace) by Thierry Meyssan, Réseau Voltaire, 27 August and 10 September 2001.[4] We recall that September 11, 2001, while the world was mesmerized by the attacks in New York and Washington, President George W. Bush was illegally removed from office under the program of "continuity of government." It found that by the end of the day, after his country had radically changed its foreign policy and defense. On this day, all members of Congress and their staff were placed by the military authority under house arrest in complex Greenbrier (West Virginia) and Mount Weather (Virginia).[5] "NATO's Global Offensive", by Manlio Dinucci, Translation John Catalinotto, Il Manifesto (Italy), Voltaire Network, 30 July 2014.[6] « 1 milliard d'euros pour le nouveau siège de l'Otan » (€ 1 billion for the new headquarters of NATO), Réseau Voltaire, 29 janvier 2014.[7] See (1) ""Kurdistan" Israeli Style"; (2) "John McCain, Conductor of the" Arab Spring ", and the Caliph '; (3) "The Grand Saudi Reversal", by Thierry Meyssan, translation Roger Lagassé, Voltaire Network, July 1, August 18 and September 1, 2014[8] "Foley video with Briton was staged, experts say," Deborah Haynes, The Times, 24 August 2014; "Foley murder video 'may have been staged','" Bill Gardner, The Daily Telegraph, 25 August 2014 and the identity of Sotloff, see: «Le journaliste décapité était un Israélien formé dans une antenne du Mossad» (The journalist was beheaded an Israeli formed in a branch of Mossad) by Hicham Hamza, Panamza, 3 September 2014.[9] "The Case of Nicholas Berg", Voltaire Network, 18 May 2004.[10] « Un djihad mondial contre les BRICS ? » (A global jihad against the BRICS?), by Alfredo Jalife-Rahme, Translation Arnaud Bréart, La Jornada (Mexico), Réseau Voltaire, 18 July 2014.[11] « En Ukraine, les menteurs paniquent » (In Ukraine, liars panic), by Giulietto Chiesa, Megachip (Italy), Réseau Voltaire, September 3, 2014.[12] "Nato Wales Summit Declaration", Voltaire Network, 5 September 2014.