NATO in mortal danger

Is NATO about to fall apart?

No, claim those who believe that by expanding the alliance from today’s membership of 30 countries by two, NATO will become the strongest military group on earth.

Absolutely yes, posit those who see (and hear) Turkey (and several others) telling the world that she would vote against accepting Finland and Sweden into NATO.

Jens Stoltenberg, NATO’s Secretary General, had said that if Turkey, or any other NATO member, would oppose entry of Finland and Sweden into the Alliance, the group would apply special measures to overrule NATO Constitution’s Article 10.

It reads: The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Please note the fifth word. Unanimous. How Jens Stoltenberg plans to dance around this unambiguous statement remains to be seen. Of course, with his background as Norway’s former Prime Minister, representing the country’s Labour Party, he seems to have no issues with breaking solemn promises.

Come to think of it, neither do the organisation he now represents in the political arena (Americans keep tight rein over all things military).

In 1991, the U.S. and NATO made a solemn promise to then Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev, that “NATO will not move an inch eastward from Berlin.”

NATO consisted of 14 members, with two of them in North America (U.S. and Canada).

Expansion started in the late 1990’s. Today’s NATO counts 30 members, 28 in Europe and those two in the Americas. Most of the newcomers joined from east of Berlin.

And now, two countries that had been neutral thus far, recognised and guaranteed as such, have decided to ditch their neutrality.

Or did they?

Looking back

Finland’s direct border with Russia extends for 1,340 km, almost a thousand miles.

The Suomi have had a somewhat eventful history with Russia.

Attacked by Josif Stalin’s Soviet Union three months after the outbreak of the World War II, Finland was a victim of Stalin’s paranoia, his agreement about dividing Europe with Adolf Hitler’s Germany, and her own chequered past of flirting with nationalism bordering on outright fascism.

The Soviets didn’t win on the battlefield but they did gain a few concessions at the negotiating table.

But: when Hitler had his Wehrmacht attack the Soviet Union, Finland allied with Nazi Germany.

Russia hasn’t forgotten, and her guarantees of Finland’s neutrality have come after she received some quid-pro-quo results. And now, Finland goes back on her solemn promise to remain on the Soviet (or Russia’s) good side.

Sweden’s case is even more outrageous: the Tre Kronor share no border with Russia. The Sverige have not been at war with Russia in the last 300 years.

Combined, neither Sweden nor Finland have faced any threats from Russia.

The unanswered question: what gives?

Here’s what complicates the answer: Russia has also established beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise, that her negotiations with Ukraine about settling if not all then most of the outstanding issues between the two countries would be interrupted and broken by the Ukrainian side. All signs always point to Western countries, NATO members all.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s unannounced (and thus perfectly unexpected) lightning visit to Kyiv (Kiev in Russian spelling) that quashed a meeting between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, is a typical example. The combatants were not more than 48 hours away from signing a peace treaty.

This, by the way, is no secret: Roman Romaniuk of the Ukrayinska Pravda (Українська правда), quoting officials from President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s closest circles, reported that the British politician urged his Ukrainian interlocutors not to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

To sum up: proposals for peace talks, made by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, were first accepted, and then rejected quickly afterwards.

Minister Lavrov assumes that President Zelenskyy is following somebody else’s instructions. He’s not his sovereign own man, as Lavrov put it.

Whether he knew more than he was saying, Lavrov would never hint.

The two NATO candidates claim that the military alliance’s popularity in their respective countries jumped up by about 70 per cent since the beginning of the conflict. Whether this is the result of ferocious anti-Russian propaganda, or whether these numbers would withstand independent verification, is academic for the nonce.

What is not academic is the fact that this is the reason put forward by both the two candidates and NATO for making sure that their applications are accepted by this June. Considering that the usual period between NATO receiving an application, and the new candidate being invited to join lasts at least about a year, this is warp speed at its fastest.

Unpleasant facts

Ukraine has been trying to join NATO long before the so-called 2014 Maidan Coup.

Documents now emerging show that the Maidan Coup was supposed to be a tool that would help accelerate Ukraine’s NATO membership.

Russia raised red flags even then. She was referring to the 1991 promise about non-expansion. Besides, after the U.S.-planned and directed Maidan Coup in Kiev, the Minsk Protocol of 2014, negotiated by France and Germany, stipulated that Ukraine was to remain neutral, de-militarised, and out of NATO, with no time limitation put upon the last obligation.

For the record, the Minsk protocols also demanded that Ukraine rid herself of her Nazis and agree to guarantee a special status for the two Donbas Republics, Donetsk and Luhansk (Lugansk in Russian spelling).

The de-Nazification demands refer mainly to the Nazi Azov Battalion(s). These units have been attacking mostly civilians in the two “independent” Donbas Republics, causing some 14,000 deaths during the last eight years, about one third of which were children.

Russia are particularly sensitive to Ukraine’s Nazis. History is on her side: these people used to collaborate with Hitler’s Nazi Germany in WWII, in the war against Russia, when some 27 million Russians were killed.

NATO, under America’s guidance, has been provoking Russia with first sending military “advisors” and now weapons to Ukraine.

Why? To conquer these rich natural resources, as well as the enormous landmass, the globe’s largest country. And, last but not least, to win the power the dominance of large and rich Russia would bestow on today’s sick western personal and corporate oligarchy.

The fake WEF (World Economic Forum) has done its share. It imposed a viral scare, lockdowns, killing the world economy in the process. Common people’s livelihoods, their children’s futures have gone up in smoke. Expressions such as justice have become synonymous with sick jokes. Just look at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. Its judges have not accepted a single claim that goes against the interests of the Cabal, mostly Anglo Saxon-led westerners – plus the insanely wealthy financial corporations, BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street and Fidelity.

A fly in the ointment

As mentioned, Article 10 of the NATO Constitution demands that all 30 members of the Alliance have to agree to a new member.

Turkey, a key NATO member, is dead set against having Finland and Sweden join.

Turkey’s President, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, says that these two countries are “guesthouses for terrorist organizations.”

He’s referring to the separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the so-called Revolutionary People’s Liberation Front (DHKP/C), both outlawed in Turkey.

Whether this was the truth and nothing but, so help him nature, remains to be seen. But: Erdoğan brokered a deal with Putin in 2017 that was reportedly worth $2.5 billion. He bought the Russian S–400 air defence system, described by experts as something far beyond America’s military capabilities. In any case, the U.S. and, by extension, NATO, was scandalised and there was even talk then of Turkey possibly bidding good-bye to the alliance.

NATO proceeded to punish Turkey by removing most of the nuclear war-heads stationed there and placing them elsewhere, mostly in Italy.

Not that this sat too splendidly well with Turkey. She hinted then, and hints today again, that a closer alliance with Russia and China may be better for her. Why suffer all kinds of insults and denigrations from the duplicitous west when the east beckons with all signs of respect?

Erdoğan is not alone: several countries that used to be parts of former Yugoslavia have mentioned that they would use their veto rights against admitting Finland and Sweden into NATO, too. Their reasons differ somewhat from Erdoğan’s: having been bombed out to smithereens by U.S.-led NATO that sidestepped the United Nations, they decided that to be defended from NATO, they should join it.

In addition, their own relatively recent histories of fighting Nazism and everything that comes with it have made them reluctant to support Ukraine where Nazism is alive, well, and part of government policy.

If the post-Yugoslavian countries make noise, it’s one thing. Turkey is much more important and her departure might spell the final bell toiling for NATO.

Should that happen, Erdoğan would deserve a Nobel Peace Prize.

Not that he would get it. It’s reserved for the worst of terrorists such as Yasser Arafat, or for absolute nobodies such as Al Gore or Barack Hussein Obama.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: