Tag Archives: NATO

The Crisis in Ukraine Is Not About Ukraine. It’s About Germany, by Mike Whitney

Germany needs the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and Russian natural gas. They will mightily resist any NATO conflict with Ukraine. From Mike Whitney at unz.com:

“The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars– the First, the Second and Cold Wars– has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” George Friedman, STRATFOR CEO at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs

The Ukrainian crisis has nothing to do with Ukraine. It’s about Germany and, in particular, a pipeline that connects Germany to Russia called Nord Stream 2. Washington sees the pipeline as a threat to its primacy in Europe and has tried to sabotage the project at every turn. Even so, Nord Stream has pushed ahead and is now fully-operational and ready-to-go. Once German regulators provide the final certification, the gas deliveries will begin. German homeowners and businesses will have a reliable source of clean and inexpensive energy while Russia will see a significant boost to their gas revenues. It’s a win-win situation for both parties.

The US Foreign Policy establishment is not happy about these developments. They don’t want Germany to become more dependent on Russian gas because commerce builds trust and trust leads to the expansion of trade. As relations grow warmer, more trade barriers are lifted, regulations are eased, travel and tourism increase, and a new security architecture evolves. In a world where Germany and Russia are friends and trading partners, there is no need for US military bases, no need for expensive US-made weapons and missile systems, and no need for NATO. There’s also no need to transact energy deals in US Dollars or to stockpile US Treasuries to balance accounts. Transactions between business partners can be conducted in their own currencies which is bound to precipitate a sharp decline in the value of the dollar and a dramatic shift in economic power. This is why the Biden administration opposes Nord Stream. It’s not just a pipeline, it’s a window into the future; a future in which Europe and Asia are drawn closer together into a massive free trade zone that increases their mutual power and prosperity while leaving the US on the outside looking in. Warmer relations between Germany and Russia signal an end to the “unipolar” world order the US has overseen for the last 75 years. A German-Russo alliance threatens to hasten the decline of the Superpower that is presently inching closer to the abyss. This is why Washington is determined to do everything it can to sabotage Nord Stream and keep Germany within its orbit. It’s a matter of survival.

Continue reading→

A War With Russia Would Be Unlike Anything the US and NATO Have Ever Experienced, by Scott Ritter

Russia would win, decisively, unless the U.S. and NATO took it nuclear. From Scott Ritter at lewrockwell.com:

In a recent press conference held on the occasion of a visit to Moscow by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about continued NATO expansion, and the potential consequences if Ukraine was to join the trans-Atlantic alliance.

“Their [NATO’s] main task is to contain the development of Russia,” Putin said. “Ukraine is simply a tool to achieve this goal. They could draw us into some kind of armed conflict and force their allies in Europe to impose the very tough sanctions that are being talked about in the United States today,” he noted. “Or they could draw Ukraine into NATO, set up strike weapons systems there and encourage some people to resolve the issue of Donbass or Crimea by force, and still draw us into an armed conflict.”

Putin continued, “Let us imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member and is stuffed with weapons and there are state-of-the-art missile systems just like in Poland and Romania. Who will stop it from unleashing operations in Crimea, let alone Donbass? Let us imagine that Ukraine is a NATO member and ventures such a combat operation. Do we have to fight with the NATO bloc? Has anyone thought anything about it? It seems not.”

But these words were dismissed by White House spokesperson Jen Psaki, who likened them to a fox “screaming from the top of the hen house that he’s scared of the chickens,” adding that any Russian expression of fear over Ukraine “should not be reported as a statement of fact.”

Continue reading→

How NATO Empire-Building Set the Stage for Crisis Over Ukraine, by Brian McGlinchey

NATO empire-building is, of course, American empire-building. From Brian McGlinchey at starkrealities.substack.com:

Since the Cold War’s end, “NATO exists to manage the risks created by its existence”

In his farewell address, George Washington said, “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

What an offensive notion to Pentagon generals, weapon industry execs, DC think tankers and State Department bureaucrats, who, rather than avoiding permanent alliances, have been relentless in their quest to pile on new ones.

That impulse is vividly exemplified by the dangerously provocative post-Cold War expansion of NATO, and its consequences are apparent in today’s Ukraine-centered tensions with Russia.


NATO was created to oppose a Soviet empire that no longer exists. Had American presidents followed Washington’s sage counsel, they’d have spearheaded the dismantling of NATO upon the end of the Cold War. Instead, with America’s encouragement, NATO has nearly doubled its membership—from 16 countries when the Berlin Wall fell to 30 today.

With each new member, the U.S. government and American service members are tied to another far-off tripwire: Under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, an attack on any member country compels other treaty members to come to its aid. It’s the epitome of what Thomas Jefferson called an “entangling alliance.”

While the growth in the number of NATO countries and U.S. war commitments is unsettling, it’s the direction that’s been most troublesome: NATO expansion has marched the alliance relentlessly eastward, right up to Russia’s border.

Continue reading→

Panic and chaos is clearly setting in as the West fears peace above all else, by The Saker

What would happen if peace broke out and defense contractors had to find a way to earn an honest dollar? From The Saker at thesaker.is:

Fun headlines for CNN:

What??  Is that really CNN?

It is.

Furthermore, there are reports that Biden and Ze had a stormy telephone conversation which saw a furious Biden telling Ze that the invasion would happen.  Apparently, Ze disagreed.

So what is going on here????

Bernard at Moon of Alabama things that “Washington Will Soon Dump Ukraine’s President Zelensky“.

I concur.  In fact, I think that the US is basically dumping country 404 aka Banderastan, and as I explained here and here in some details, there is only one thing Uncle Shmuel wants from Ze and the Ukraine: for them to force Russia to intervene, either by a suicidal attack on the LDNR or by means of a false flag, or by some kind of atrocity.

A real nightmare for the AngloZionists is taking shape.  Here are its components:

  • In spite of all the external (and even INTERNAL!) pressures, the Kremlin does not want to invade the Ukraine at all.  There are exactly ZERO signs that an attack is imminent or even planned.
  • In case of a Ukie attack on the LDNR there is a very real possibility that Russia will not openly intervene, I explained it all in detail here.
  • The US PSYOP about Putin being weak, indecisive or a puppet of the USA/Israel (I explained the nature, function and purpose of this CIA PSYOP in details here) is falling apart, not only was the ultimatum very much an ultimatum, but the Russians are backing it with things like these.

Continue reading→

UKRAINE CRISIS: German Navy Chief Resigns; Britain Spreads Fears of Russian ‘Coup’ & Wider War, by Joe Lauria

Tell the truth and you’re gone; tell lies and you can probably start a war. From Joe Lauria at consortiumnews.com:

The German admiral’s frank remarks contradict the war hysteria being drummed up by the U.S. and Britain, Joe Lauria reports.

Vice-Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, the head of the German navy, has resigned after saying talk of a Russian invasion of Ukraine was “nonsense” and that Russia was merely seeking “respect” for its security concerns in Europe.

“It is easy to give him the respect he really demands – and probably also deserves,” Schönbach told a meeting of a think tank in New Delhi on Friday.

“My minister asked me what does Russia really want?” the vice-admiral said.

“Is Russia really interested in having a small, tiny strip of Ukrainian soil to integrate into their country? No. This is nonsense. I think Putin is putting pressure on it because he knows he can do it. And he splits the European Union. But what he really wants is respect. He wants on a high-level, respect. And my God, giving someone respect is low cost, even no cost. So if I were asked, it is easy to give him the respect he really demands – and probably also deserves. Russia is an old country. Russia is an important country.”

Schönbach also acknowledged that “the Crimean peninsula is gone. It will never come back. This is a fact.” That contradicted NATO’s official position.

Continue reading→

Americans for War, by Technofog

Are we about to be bullshitted into another war? From Technofog at technofog.substack.com:

Is the Ukraine/Russia conflict a US foreign policy goal?

blue flag on pole during daytime

Dare I say a dangerous truth, but there are politicians and analysts and journalists who want Russia to invade Ukraine.

Not because these folks are “Putin apologists,” to quote a popular insult they use against the anti-war crowd. But because they see Russian actions as a pretext for U.S. intervention and perpetual U.S. presence in Ukraine, if not elsewhere. (Poke the bear and you’re the antagonist. Get attacked by the bear and you’re the victim.)

How can Russian aggression best be used? For some, it is the justification for more troops and more weapons in Eastern Europe. NATO sees the opportunity to “reinforce its troop presence in the Black Sea and the Baltics.”

Here in the States, former Obama Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas advocates “U.S. leaders should be marshalling an international coalition of the willing, readying military forces to deter Putin and, if necessary, prepare for war.” Others argue for an aggressive military response or suggest the option of “U.S. boots on the ground.” Max Boot, a delusional journalist with a large platform, a silly fedora, and an appetite for war, promotes an urgent airlift of U.S. weapons systems to Ukraine. Boot goes so far as to issue a silly warning that Putin is attempting to resurrect the “evil empire.” If Boot believes these words, then he will eventually advocate the most extreme measures to counter Russia. Dangerous rhetoric indeed.

If recent history is any indication, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy certainly sees the current crisis, if you can call it that, as an opportunity. Last June, he tweeted “NATO leaders confirmed that Ukraine” will become a member of the Alliance.” This announcement came days before Biden’s scheduled meeting with President Vladimir Putin. In other words, it was planned. And while Biden’s response last summer was ambivalent on Ukraine joining NATO, more recently he assured Zelenskiy that “Kyiv’s bid to join the NATO military alliance was in its own hands.” This comment came after Putin’s warning that Ukraine’s admission to NATO is a “red line” for Moscow.

Continue reading→

Can Humanity Survive Washington’s Delusional Belief in its Omnipotence? by Paul Craig Roberts

The Biden administration is risking war with Russia over a country that has not one iota of relevance to the security of the U.S., but through which Russia has been invaded several times. That’s not merely delusional, it’s insane. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:

This — https://www.rt.com/russia/546270-us-promises-response-moscow/ — makes it clear that the CIA rules America.

The Russians called a security conference with Washington and NATO. The Russians explained that security is a joint undertaking and that security only exists if every country feels secure. The CIA responded with accusations against Russia handed to the CIA-puppet Biden regime and the CIA-puppet US media. The national security advisor read the script to us peons: Russia intends a false flag attack on its own troops so that it will have an excuse to invade Ukraine.
The national security advisor is so stupid that it does not occur to him that if Russia wants to invade Ukraine Russia will. Russia needs no excuse, and there is no one in Washington or NATO who can do anything about it.

The Russians explained that they do not feel secure. They are constantly demonized, sanctioned on the basis of accusations in the Western press, and their president insulted. Military maneuvers are conducted on their borders, and the US Navy is in the Black Sea where it has no purpose to be. Washington broke its word given to Gorbachev and has not only moved NATO to Russia’s borders but also established missile bases in Poland and Romania. Washington has overthrown the Ukraine government in an attempt to evict Russia from her Black Sea naval base, established a puppet Ukrainian government hostile to Russia and to the Russian population of eastern Ukraine, and is gradually invading Ukraine economically and militarily with Americans on the ground training Ukrainians in the use of the American supplied arms.

On top of all of this, Washington and NATO are talking about making Ukraine, formerly a province of Russia, and another former province of Russia, Georgia, members of NATO which shows indications of ringing Russia with bases in preparation for war.

Continue reading→

Dialogue of the Deaf in Geneva, by Alastair Crooke

We’ll do as we want and you’ll do as we say isn’t much of a negotiating position. From Alastair Crooke at strategic-culture.org:

Western politics today are no more about considered strategy: It is pretty evident that the U.S. team arrived at Geneva strategy-less.

A curious event occurred on Monday in Geneva. It seems that the only substantive outcome from the U.S.–Russia talks is that the U.S. has promised to provide a formal response to the earlier Russian demand for security guarantees within a week. The Russian counterparts outlined their own position unambiguously, and in full detail. This, however, was wholly disdained by the Biden Team, who, according to the Russians, were “diehard/stubborn”. The Russian delegation was told that its key request of ‘no more NATO eastward expansion’ was simply “a non-starter”.

It plainly was not then ‘a negotiation’. The U.S. is discussing only missile deployment issues and mutual limitations on military exercises, but avoiding the crux of Russian demands (the roll-back of NATO from its near abroad, to be achieved either through diplomacy or a by ‘a strategy of tension’, i.e. escalating pain). And the U.S. has neither a negotiating strategy tied to realisable objectives, nor real options, beyond the symbolical assertion of NATO ‘openness’.

NATO’s door must remain ‘open’ is the U.S.’ meme-narrative – yet it is an assertion that lacks substance. Washington has already conceded that neither it, nor NATO, will fight (at least overtly), over Ukraine – whereas Russia has said that it will so do, were Ukraine to be subsumed into NATO.

Continue reading→

Biden Should Declare NATO Membership Closed, by Patrick Buchanan

In other words, Biden should forthrightly state American blood and treasure won’t be sacrificed to protect countries the U.S. government and most of its citizens have never thought worth defending. From Patrick Buchanan at buchanan.org:

In 2014, when Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to a U.S.-backed coup that ousted a pro-Russian regime in Kyiv by occupying Crimea, President Barack Obama did nothing.

When Putin aided secessionists in the Donbass in seizing Luhansk and Donetsk, once again, Obama did nothing.

Why did we not come to the military assistance of Ukraine?

Because Ukraine is not a member of NATO. We had no obligation to come to its aid. And to have intervened militarily on the side of Ukraine would have risked a war with Russia we had no desire to fight.

Last year, when Putin marshaled 100,000 Russian troops on the borders of Ukraine, President Joe Biden declared that any U.S. response to a Russian invasion would be restricted to severe sanctions.

The U.S. would take no military action in support of Ukraine.

Why not? Because, again, Ukraine is not a member of NATO.

Clearly, by its inaction, America is revealing its refusal to risk its own security in a war with Russia over a Ukraine whose sovereignty and territorial integrity are not vital U.S. interests sufficient to justify war with the largest country on earth with its huge arsenal of nuclear weapons.

This is the real world.

And as Ukraine is not a NATO ally, and we are not going to invite it to become a NATO ally, Biden should declare so publicly, urbi et orbi, to remove Putin’s pretext for any invasion.

Continue reading→

Vladimir Putin Is Not the Neville Chamberlain the US/NATO Is Looking For, by Thomas Knapp

Don’t expect Vladimir Putin to back off Russia’s demands concerning NATO membership or where the U.S. and NATO put their weapons. From Thomas Knapp at antiwar.com:

“I think one lesson in recent history,” US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said on January 7, referring to the entry of Russian troops into Kazakhstan to save that country’s allied regime from an uprising of dissatisfied serfs, “is that once Russians are in your house, it’s sometimes very difficult to get them to leave.”

That’s the pot calling the kettle black. More than 30 years after the Warsaw Pact’s dissolution, 77 years after the end of World War Two, the US still keeps 40,000 troops in Germany.

For 45 years, the justification was to defend Germany from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. As Germany moved toward reunification, US Secretary of State James Baker assured Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization wouldn’t expand so much as “one inch eastward” into the former Soviet sphere of influence it was created to contain.

That assurance, codified in various negotiations and subsequently declassified documents, was far from “informal” as supporters of an expanding NATO pretend. It may well have kept eastern Europe’s transition toward independence from devolving into the third general European war in a century.

Continue reading→