TRUTH BOMB! THANKS TRUMP!!!!

[Anler]

So, there are all of these "supposed" threats around the world YET nobody is prepared to deal with them. In fact, nobody (Except the US) has any aversion to doing business with such evil adversaries. This (excellent) write up on the lack of need for NATO can be applied to all of our "alleged" enemies. If they are so dangerous, why isnt the world prepared to deal with them? Because the world knows they arent a threat, they are fictional evil characters to further an agenda that you and I are paying for. 

< Older

NATO Trumped

written by patrick armstrong

tuesday july 24, 2018

Those of us who regard NATO as one of the primary sources of international instability thanks to its wars of destruction in the MENA and provocation of Russia were looking forward with delighted anticipation to Trump's appearance at the NATO summit. We were not disappointed. I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when Trump came late to the meeting where Ukraine and Georgia were banging on about the Russian threat, started ranting about spending and blew up the decorous charade. Ukraine and Georgia were then dismissed and a special meeting was convened. (A side effect of his "creative destruction" was that the Ukrainian President delivered his speech to a practically empty room). He started his assault before the meeting, opening Twitter fire on Germany, returning to the attack in his breakfast meeting with NATO's GenSek:

Germany is totally controlled by Russia because they will be getting from 60% to 70% of their energy from Russia, and a new pipeline, and you tell me if that's appropriate because I think it's not and I think it's a very bad thing for Nato.

Good fun for some of us but a stunner to the Panjandrumocracy: "meltdown", "tantrum", "latest diplomatic blowup", "making bullying great again" and so on.

As ever, Trump's statements were extreme and his numbers might not stand up to examination but most commenters (typically) left out the context. Which was a piece by German Chancellor Merkel herself in which she called for NATO to focus on the threats from Russia: "the alliance has to show determination to protect us”.

This gave Trump the opening to pose these questions (posed in his own way, of course, in a strategy that most people – despite the example of North Korea – have still not grasped).

1. You tell us that NATO ought to concentrate on the Russian threat. If Russia is a threat, why are you buying gas from it?

2. You tell us that Russia is a reliable energy supplier. If Russia is a reliable supplier, why are you telling us it's a threat?

3. I hope you're not saying Russia is a threat and its gas is cheap but the USA will save you.

Good questions to be sure; questions that crystallise the contradiction of NATO. If Russia is such a big military threat to them – as NATO communiqués incessantly say it is – then why aren't the Europeans, presumably first on Moscow's cross hairs, doing more to meet that threat? And, if, as their doing so little about their defence suggests, they don't fear Russia, then why do they say that they do? From the latest NATO communiqué: 

meeting Russia’s aggressive actions, including the threat and use of force to attain political goals, challenge the Alliance and are undermining Euro-Atlantic security and the rules-based international order.

I always like to count words in these cliché-ridden screeds: it gives a metric of importance and saves force-marching my eyeballs through 12,000 words of self-satisfied pap. In the countries where NATO forces are actually deployed, the communiqué mentions Afghanistan twice, Kosovo six times and Iraq 14 times. NATO destroyed Libya but it only gets six references; it's doing its best to repeat the performance in Syria (nine). But Russia leads with 54 mentions, none of them complimentary. Why even NATO's favourite mush words, "values" (16) and "stability" (26), appear fewer times. Ukraine, on the other hand, has 25 appearances, all in what could be called the phantasmagorical verbal mood: "We welcome significant reform progress". So, in NATOland, Russia's back. By contrast, the Riga Summit communiqué in 2006 mentioned Afghanistan 17 times, Iraq eight times and Russia ten times ("values" and "stability" scored 15 each). But NATO was still looking for a purpose then:

It recognizes that for the foreseeable future, the principal threats to the Alliance are terrorism and proliferation, as well as failing states, regional crises, misuse of new technologies and disruption of the flow of vital resources.

The logic of NATO's very existence creates the contradiction. NATO, having lost its raison d'être when the Warsaw Pact and the USSR disappeared, having floundered around in out-of-area operations and the "War on Terror", has returned to "the Russian threat." (But in a bureaucracy nothing ever actually stops: last week's meeting approved a NATO training (!) mission in Iraq Year 15 and more British troops in Kabul Year 16.) Without the "Russian Threat" there would be no reason for NATO to exist, and certainly no big arms contracts, and all the warm butterscotch sauce of "common values" or "projecting stability" could not keep it together. Because, the brutal truth is that military alliances are kept together, not by common values, but by common enemies.

But, no question about it, it's Washington that bears the major responsibility: Washington pushes NATO expansion, adding monomaniacal anti-Russian members; Washington foments colour revolutions; Washington blew up Ukraine and tried to snatch the Sevastopol naval base; Washington "twists arms"; Washington demands European sanctions and Magnitsky Acts; Washington's failed wars in the MENA suck in NATO members; Washington dropped the ABM Treaty inspiring Russia to create its super weapons. The truth is that, whatever might have happened otherwise, Washington drove NATO in the anti-Russia direction.

But Donald Trump is not that Washington: he is the anti-Washington. He tosses bombs into gatherings of complacent apparatchiks: if you believe what you're saying, act on it; if you don't act on it, stop saying it. Then he threw the spending bomb. For years there has been a vague commitment that NATO members should spend two percent of their GDP on defence; the commitment appears to have been formalised in 2014. (14) But the members aren't paying much attention. Few have achieved it and the downward trend, begun at the end of the Cold War, has continued. Regardless of whether "two percent" makes any sense or how it is calculated, Trump was right to remind NATO members that they themselves agreed to it. Again Trump raises the pointed question: why don't you act as if you believe what you're saying?

Indicators of European NATO members' actual readiness and combat capability are stunning; the latest being "Only four of Germany's 128 Eurofighter jets combat ready — report"; "Ground force: Half of France's military planes 'unfit to fly'". "Britain’s ‘withered’ forces not fit to repel all-out attack". "Europe's Readiness Problem". 

Obviously they're not expecting a Russian attack any time soon. 

NATO is, as I have argued here, a paper tiger. It is questionable whether NATO members can conduct any operation without the USA providing satellite navigation and observation, air defence suppression, airborne command and control, inflight tankers, heavy lift and ammunition resupply to name a few deficiencies. So, either the Europeans are not worried; or, as Trump likes to say, they are free riders.

Six months ago I suggested that Trump may be trying to get out of what I called the "Gordian knot of entanglements".

President Trump can avoid new entanglements but he has inherited so many and they are, all of them, growing denser and thicker by the minute. Consider the famous story of the Gordian Knot: rather than trying to untie the fabulously complicated knot, Alexander drew his sword and cut it. How can Trump cut The Gordian Knot of American imperial entanglements? By getting others to untie it.

He stamps out of NATO leaving them quaking: if you say Russia is the enemy, why do you act as if it isn't; and if you act as if it isn't, why do you say it is? And firing, over his shoulder, the threat: two percent by next January.

I believe it is a threat and a very neat one too:

If you don't get up to two percent (or is it four percent?) and quickly too; I warned you. Goodbye.

If you do get your spending up, then you don't need us. Goodbye.

Another strand of the knot gone.

[Zambroski]

Good article.  The UN and NATO.  Pffft.

[Anler]

Just now, Zamjabronie said:

Good article.  The UN and NATO.  Pffft.

Yep. Boogie man bullshit that is costing us trillions. 

Indicators of European NATO members' actual readiness and combat capability are stunning; the latest being "Only four of Germany's 128 Eurofighter jets combat ready — report"; "Ground force: Half of France's military planes 'unfit to fly'". "Britain’s ‘withered’ forces not fit to repel all-out attack". "Europe's Readiness Problem". 

 

[Zambroski]

1 minute ago, Nazipigdog said:

Yep. Boogie man bullshit that is costing us trillions. 

Indicators of European NATO members' actual readiness and combat capability are stunning; the latest being "Only four of Germany's 128 Eurofighter jets combat ready — report"; "Ground force: Half of France's military planes 'unfit to fly'". "Britain’s ‘withered’ forces not fit to repel all-out attack". "Europe's Readiness Problem". 

 

Poor Germany.

[Highmark]

9 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

Yep. Boogie man bullshit that is costing us trillions. 

Indicators of European NATO members' actual readiness and combat capability are stunning; the latest being "Only four of Germany's 128 Eurofighter jets combat ready — report"; "Ground force: Half of France's military planes 'unfit to fly'". "Britain’s ‘withered’ forces not fit to repel all-out attack". "Europe's Readiness Problem". 

 

Yep, the US has spent trillions on protection of allies that hasn't been needed for decades.  I say make them pay us back.   

[Zambroski]

Just now, Highmark said:

Yep, the US has spent trillions on protection of allies that hasn't been needed for decades.  I say make them pay us back.   

A look at our bases around the world can make even the most laymen ask, "Why are we even/still there?"  Answer: the world's countries loves our saber being planted firmly in their scabbards.....and the UN loves to control the "rattling".

 

[Highmark]

8 minutes ago, Zamjabronie said:

A look at our bases around the world can make even the most laymen ask, "Why are we even/still there?"  Answer: the world's countries loves our saber being planted firmly in their scabbards.....and the UN loves to control the "rattling".

 

Yet the world hates us.   Bring them all home and in a decade or two let WWIII destroy Europe for good this time.  We like to say the ME does nothing but war.   Europe was and would be without intervention.   Why?   Because its people too often submit to bondage of the state.   Whether it be fascism or communism.  Look today where there is basically perpetual war.  

[Anler]

1 hour ago, Highmark said:

Yep, the US has spent trillions on protection of allies that hasn't been needed for decades.  I say make them pay us back.   

 

1 hour ago, Zamjabronie said:

A look at our bases around the world can make even the most laymen ask, "Why are we even/still there?"  Answer: the world's countries loves our saber being planted firmly in their scabbards.....and the UN loves to control the "rattling".

 

Wow, you two dopes totally missed the point as usual. This has been fueled by the MIC to sell weapons. The US obviously want the European allies to pay for their own weapons now since we cant afford them anymore. But there is no need for them to buy weapons because there are no threats, Hence Trump having to threaten them to enforce sanctions on Iran and others. So i guess we will have to make some... 

[Zambroski]

Just now, Nazipigdog said:

 

Wow, you two dopes totally missed the point as usual. This has been fueled by the MIC to sell weapons. The US obviously want the European allies to pay for their own weapons now since we cant afford them anymore. But there is no need for them to buy weapons because there are no threats, Hence Trump having to threaten them to enforce sanctions on Iran and others. So i guess we will have to make some... 

Nawwww.....it's just that most of your points are weak and stupid.  Best to make our own and go from there. 

[Anler]

Just now, Zamjabronie said:

Nawwww.....it's just that most of your points are weak and stupid.  Best to make our own and go from there. 

You guys are awesome Americans! See you at $22 trillion next year! 

[Zambroski]

12 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

You guys are awesome Americans! See you at $22 trillion next year! 

Look for me!  I'll be eating a ballpark frank wearing my fucking freedom pants!  

[Anler]

Just now, Zamjabronie said:

Look for me!  I'll be eating a ballpark frank wearing my fucking freedom pants!  

Bring a flag to carry! 

[$poorsledder$]

15 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

 

Wow, you two dopes totally missed the point as usual. This has been fueled by the MIC to sell weapons. The US obviously want the European allies to pay for their own weapons now since we cant afford them anymore. But there is no need for them to buy weapons because there are no threats, Hence Trump having to threaten them to enforce sanctions on Iran and others. So i guess we will have to make some... 

Wish the dummy running the show 8 years prior knew this!  All that free stuff they got!

[Anler]

1 minute ago, $poorsledder$ said:

Wish the dummy running the show 8 years prior knew this!  All that free stuff they got!

You are the dummy. Nothing has changed except your approval of who is doing it. Beat off. 

[1jkw]

34 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

You are the dummy. Nothing has changed except your approval of who is doing it. Beat off. 

For the last four years Romney was right, Russia Is a great threat, after Jan. 2017 they are wonderful.

[Edmo]

8 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

For the last four years Romney was right, Russia Is a great threat, after Jan. 2017 they are wonderful.

I’ll ask again. China, NK and others are doing the same thing. Hacking into our systems. Why is the left not railing about them?

Hmmmmm.....

[Highmark]

1 hour ago, Nazipigdog said:

 

Wow, you two dopes totally missed the point as usual. This has been fueled by the MIC to sell weapons. The US obviously want the European allies to pay for their own weapons now since we cant afford them anymore. But there is no need for them to buy weapons because there are no threats, Hence Trump having to threaten them to enforce sanctions on Iran and others. So i guess we will have to make some... 

   Didn't miss any point.   

[1jkw]

2 minutes ago, Edmo said:

I’ll ask again. China, NK and others are doing the same thing. Hacking into our systems. Why is the left not railing about them?

Hmmmmm.....

 

Maybe because some of the people with the Trump campaign were already known to have ties to Russia?

If as you say they are hacking us, why isn't Trump railing into them?

[Anler]

20 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

For the last four years Romney was right, Russia Is a great threat, after Jan. 2017 they are wonderful.

Europe doesnt think so. 

[Anler]

10 minutes ago, Highmark said:

   Didn't miss any point.   

Uh-huh!

[Zambroski]

2 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

Uh-huh!

 

[Zambroski]

24 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

For the last four years Romney was right, Russia Is a great threat, after Jan. 2017 they are wonderful.

Obama was re-elected by librulz because Romney was FOS about Russia. after Jan. 2017....RUSSIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See how that works? 

 

[Edmo]

7 minutes ago, 1jkw said:

 

Maybe because some of the people with the Trump campaign were already known to have ties to Russia?

If as you say they are hacking us, why isn't Trump railing into them?

Oh yeah, forgot about the collusion hoax.

Because he has a lot more info than you and I. Thing is we do the EXACT same shit to them on a regular basis. Remember a couple years back when all of a sudden none of Iran’s nuclear system computers would function because of  a bug in the system...hmmmm. And their scientists were suddenly coming up dead...hmmmm.

[Highmark]

2 minutes ago, Nazipigdog said:

Uh-huh!

The MIC was fueled and created by the fear of letting the likes of Japan and Germany re-arm and go around thinking they need to rule the world......again.   Add in trying to stop communism and we now have the MIC that we know today.   There was no MIC prior to WW2.      

[1jkw]

4 minutes ago, Edmo said:

Oh yeah, forgot about the collusion hoax.

Because he has a lot more info than you and I. Thing is we do the EXACT same shit to them on a regular basis. Remember a couple years back when all of a sudden none of Iran’s nuclear system computers would function because of  a bug in the system...hmmmm. And their scientists were suddenly coming up dead...hmmmm.

As many changed stories as there were about meetings, who was there what was said, you have to admit it looked strange to the intel. people.

Where does he get that info from? 

We do a lot of things we don't want anyone else to do.