MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘NATO’

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »

NATO —Strategic Asset or Liability? – LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Posted by M. C. on February 1, 2022

Perhaps, instead of adding new nations on whose behalf we will go to war with a great power like Russia, we consider reducing the roster of NATO and restricting the number of nations for whom we must fight to those nations that are vital to our security and bring added strength to the alliance.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/02/patrick-j-buchanan/nato-strategic-asset-or-liability/

By Patrick J. Buchanan

Is the territorial integrity of Ukraine a cause worth America’s fighting a war with Russia?

No, it is not. And this is why President Joe Biden has declared that the U.S. will not become militarily involved should Russia invade Ukraine.

Biden is saying that, no matter our sentiments, our vital interests dictate staying out of a Russia-Ukraine war.

But why then does Secretary of State Antony Blinken continue to insist there is an “open door” for Ukraine to NATO membership — when that would require us to do what U.S. vital interests dictate we not do: fight a war with Russia for Ukraine?

NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10, which declares that NATO members, “may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State … to accede to this Treaty.”

Moreover, membership is open to “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.”

Note that NATO admission requires “unanimous” consent of all 30 present members.

Blinken has often stated this as U.S. policy: “From our prospective, NATO’s door is open and remains open, and that is our commitment.”

What Blinken is saying is this: While America will not fight for Ukraine today, America remains open to Ukraine’s accession to NATO, in which event we would have to fight for Ukraine tomorrow, were it attacked by Russia.

What the U.S. needs to do is to say with clarity that while Ukraine is free to apply to NATO, NATO is free to veto that application, and the enlargement of NATO beyond its present eastern frontiers is over, done.

In this crisis, we need to recall how and why NATO was created.

In 1949, the year China fell to Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin exploded an atom bomb, we formed NATO as a defensive alliance to prevent a Russian drive west, from the Elbe to the Rhine to the Channel.

Of the original 12 members of NATO, the U.S. and Canada were on the western side of the Atlantic. Iceland and the U.K. were islands in the Atlantic. France and Portugal were on the Atlantic’s eastern shore.

Denmark, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg were astride the avenue of attack the Red Army would have to take to reach the Channel.

Norway was the lone original NATO nation that shared a border with the USSR itself. Italy was the 12th member.

Clearly, this was a defensive alliance to prevent a Soviet invasion of Western Europe such as Hitler had executed in the spring of 1940, when Nazi Germany overran Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Holland, Luxembourg and France, and threw the British off the continent at Dunkirk.

Nations that joined NATO during the Cold War were Greece and Turkey in 1952, Germany in 1955, and Spain in 1982.

But, with the end of the Cold War, the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the overthrow of Soviet Communism, and the breakup of the USSR into 15 nations by 1991, NATO, its goal — the defense of Central and Western Europe — achieved, its job done, did not go out of business.

Instead, NATO added 14 new members and moved almost 1,000 miles east, into Russia’s front yard and then onto Russia’s front porch.

The Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined in 1999. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia became NATO nations in 2004. Albania and Croatia joined in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020.

Understandably, Russian President Vladimir Putin asked himself: To what end, and for what beneficent purpose, was this doubling in size of an alliance that was formed to contain us, and, if necessary, fight a war against Mother Russia?

Alliances, which involve war guarantees, commitments to fight in defense of the allied nations, invariably carry costs and risks as well as rewards and benefits in terms of strengthened security.

But when we brought Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into NATO, what benefits in added strength did we receive to justify the provocation this would be to Russia, and the risk it might entail if Moscow objected and, one fine day, walked back into these Baltic states?

If we will not fight for the independence and territorial integrity of Ukraine, the second largest nation in Europe with a population of over 40 million people, why would we go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia over Estonia, a tiny and almost indefensible nation with a population of 1.3 million?

Besides Ukraine, two nations have been considering membership in NATO: Finland and Georgia. Accession of either would put NATO on yet another border of Russia, with the usual U.S. bases and forces.

While this would enrage Russia, how would it make us stronger?

Perhaps, instead of adding new nations on whose behalf we will go to war with a great power like Russia, we consider reducing the roster of NATO and restricting the number of nations for whom we must fight to those nations that are vital to our security and bring added strength to the alliance.

Patrick J. Buchanan is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of Where the Right Went Wrong, and Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. His latest book is Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever See his website.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Cold War Racket Never Ended for the U.S. – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on January 29, 2022

Too bad President Biden is unable to do that. What Biden should do is declare an end to the Cold War and abolish NATO immediately. Unlike Kennedy, however, Biden is deferring to the power of the Pentagon and the CIA and, in the process, letting them continue their dangerous and destructive Cold War racket.

https://www.fff.org/2022/01/27/the-cold-war-racket-never-ended-for-the-u-s/

by Jacob G. Hornberger

There is something important to recognize about the Cold War: It was not ended by the U.S. government. Instead, it was ended by the Soviet Union. If it had been up to the U.S. national-security establishment, the Cold War would have gone on forever because it is the best racket in U.S. history, one that continually expanded the tax-funded largess, power, and influence of the Pentagon, the CIA, and the NSA.

In a sense, the U.S. national-security establishment considered the Soviet Union’s unilateral decision to end the Cold War a betrayal. The Soviets weren’t supposed to do that. The supposed international communist conspiracy to conquer the United States that was supposedly based in Moscow was serving as a fantastic boogeyman that was used to frighten the American people into supporting the continuation of the Cold War racket. 

There is something else to recognize about the Cold War: For the U.S. government, it really never ended. They weren’t about to let the Reds dictate the end of their racket. They were bound and determined to figure out some way to keep the racket going.

That’s what keeping NATO around was all about, along with the gradual absorption of former Warsaw Pact countries (without the express approval of Congress), which enabled NATO forces to get closer and closer to Russia’s borders. 

We should keep in mind that the reason that NATO, which is controlled by U.S. officials, was called into existence after World War II was to protect Western Europe from a Soviet attack. Never mind that the possibility of such an attack was virtually non-existent. Let’s not forget the massive death and destruction suffered by the Soviet Union at the hands of the Nazi army. The Soviets had lost more than 20 million people. That’s 20 million! Moreover, the German invasion of the Soviet Union had left the entire country in ruins. By the end of the war, Russia’s industrial capacity was decimated. 

Stalingrad 1942

Thus, why in the world would the Soviet Union want to start another war, especially knowing that it would be fighting the United States, its World War II partner and ally, whose officials had nuclear weapons and were more than willing to use them against populated cities? 

What about the continued Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe? It wasn’t justifiable but it certainly was understandable. The Soviets had just been invaded by the Nazi army, which had come very close to conquering the Soviet Union. Once they pushed the German army back and then defeated it, the last thing the Soviets were going to do was give up their Eastern European buffer against future German invasions. Moreover, we mustn’t forget something important: At the Yalta Conference, U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt agreed that the Soviets could have Eastern Europe. 

When the Soviets unilaterally dismantled their empire and exited Eastern Europe in 1989, the United States had an excellent opportunity to do its part to restore a peaceful and harmonious world. It should have dismantled NATO immediately. NATO’s ostensible mission of protecting Western Europe from the Soviet Union was over. If NATO had been abolished, there wouldn’t be a crisis in Ukraine today. It’s because the Pentagon and the CIA kept NATO in existence and, even worse, began absorbing former Warsaw Pact countries that there is a crisis in Ukraine today. 

Just as U.S. officials go ballistic at the thought of Russia installing missiles in Cuba, Russian officials go ballistic over the thought of NATO installing missiles in Ukraine, which is on Russia’s border. U.S. interventionists claim that Russia is being paranoid. They say that the U.S. government is a peace-loving nation that would never attack Russia. 

Really? I wonder if the Iraqi people and the Afghan people would agree about that peace-loving bit. But there is something else to consider: It’s not just the U.S. that is in NATO. So is Germany — the nation that invaded the Soviet Union in World War II and wreaked massive death and destruction there. Why would it surprise anyone that Russia might be reticent about having German troops and missiles on Russia’s borders?

Germany seems to get this, which would explain its refusal to send weaponry to Ukraine. Other NATO members are chiding Germany for being “weak” in the face of Russian “aggression.” In actuality, Germany is showing that it understands Russia’s position.

Yesterday, I wrote about how President Kennedy would do his best to step into the shoes of an adversary in order to try to understand why his opponent was taking certain actions. In that way, JFK was able to fashion a solution to a crisis that would take into consideration his opponent’s concerns. That’s how Kennedy was able to resolve the Cuban Missile Crisis without going to nuclear war with the Soviets, much to the anger and even rage of his enemies within the Pentagon and the CIA.

Too bad President Biden is unable to do that. What Biden should do is declare an end to the Cold War and abolish NATO immediately. Unlike Kennedy, however, Biden is deferring to the power of the Pentagon and the CIA and, in the process, letting them continue their dangerous and destructive Cold War racket.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Stop the Neocon From Starting a War – LewRockwell LewRockwell.com

Posted by M. C. on January 26, 2022

Beaten in Vietnam, Iraq and now Afghanistan, the US is seeking a cheap victory in Ukraine.  But the northern rim of the Black Sea is not known for its low-hanging geopolitical fruit.  And Russia always surprises. 

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2022/01/eric-margolis/sto-the-neocon-from-starting-a-war/

By Eric S. Margolis

Amid surging tensions over Ukraine, the head of Germany’s navy had the courage to voice Europe’s fears over this totally unnecessary, contrived crisis.

In a speech to an Indian think tank, Vice-admiral Kay-Achim Schonbach proposed the Western powers ‘respect’ Russian leader Vladimir Putin and accept that Crimea would remain in Moscow’s hands.

The German admiral’s remarks produced a major uproar in Washington and tut tuts in Europe where hatred of Russia has become a state fetish.  Most aggrieved were the British and Americans who deeply fear an alliance or at least entente between Germany and Russia that might undermine US domination of the continent.

Germany, Europe’s leading military force and mainstay of NATO, has hollowed out its military power.  Thanks to unqualified female defense ministers, Germany’s armed forces have degenerated into parade troops.  Armor and aircraft, once hallmarks of German military power, have become feeble toys, lacking in munitions, spare parts and capable crews.

Polls show Germans have very little interest in confronting Russia.  Memories of World War II are still raw.  Today’s Germans live in a nation that was 50% destroyed by US and British bombing.  Millions of Germans come from families driven out of eastern Europe. 

There is not a lot of sympathy for Ukraine’s current government that was installed by a US-financed and stage-managed coup in 2013-2014.  Germany’s US-dominated media and government support Washington’s hard line on Ukraine but many ordinary Germans and French don’t agree. 

America’s media and politicians strongly support the military confrontation with Russia, a low-cost way of being loudly patriotic without actually doing anything serious. 

Only Poland, the Baltic states and American neocons really hunger for war – provided it is waged by the US.  US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, a rising star among the pro-war neocons, is pushing the confrontation with Russia – yet another bureaucrat with no military experience.

Military men quickly understand the logistic and climactic problems of fighting in the Black Sea region, but not Washington’s desk warriors and their European satraps.  The US has been unwise to provoke a confrontation with Russia in its backyard.  Though Russia has lost much of its Soviet-era military power, it would be a mistake to underestimate its combat capabilities and overestimate those of NATO. 

Remember, Napoleon (who was seriously defeated in Russia) prayed ‘oh Lord, if I must go to war, please make it against a coalition.’

Washington’s sofa samurais are playing with fire. 

See the rest here

Eric S. Margolis [send him mail] is the author of War at the Top of the World and the new book, American Raj: Liberation or Domination?: Resolving the Conflict Between the West and the Muslim World. See his website.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

‘Washington’s Bi-Partisan Russia-Bashers Are Determined to Start a War’ – Ron Paul’s 17 Jan Column

Posted by M. C. on January 18, 2022

How embarrassing it was to hear Blinken ridiculing Russia for coming to the aid of ally Kazakhstan as a color revolution (with likely US backing) was brewing. “I think one lesson in recent history is that once Russians are in your house, it’s sometimes very difficult to get them to leave,” Blinken told reporters. He said this with a straight face even as the US continues to illegally occupy a large part of Syria,

https://mailchi.mp/ronpaulinstitute/liberty2022-115825?e=ff526b933a

an 17 – Russia-bashing is a bi-partisan activity in Washington. Both parties think it makes them look “tough” and “pro-America.” But while Republican and Democrat politicians continue to one-up each other on “risk-free” threats to Russia, they are increasingly risking a devastating nuclear war.

It’s all fun and games until the missiles start flying. And in this case we are risking total destruction over who governs eastern Ukraine! Has so much ever been risked for so little?

The problem with all this tough talk is that politicians start to believe their own rhetoric and propaganda. As a result they don’t make sound decisions based on objective facts, but instead make rash decisions based on faulty misinformation.

When US politicians talk about Russia massing troops on the Ukrainian border, for example, they leave out the fact that these troops are actually inside Russia. With US troops in some 150 countries overseas, you’d think Washington might pause before criticizing the “aggression” of troops inside a country’s own borders.

They also leave out the reasons why Russia might be concerned over its neighbor Ukraine. CNN reported recently that the Biden Administration approved another $200 million in military aid to Ukraine last month, making nearly half a billion dollars in weapons over the past year.

Imagine if China was sending half a billion dollars in weapons to Mexico to strengthen and embolden a hyper-aggressive anti-US regime. Would the US not be “massing troops near the Mexican border”?

Also there is that issue about the US-backed overthrow of the democratically-elected Ukrainian government in 2014, which is the starting point of all these recent problems. And this week Yahoo News reported that the CIA is training Ukrainian paramilitaries on US soil!

Recent talks between the US and Russia failed before they even began, with the US side refusing to even consider ending useless and provocative NATO expansion eastward. NATO is a Cold War relic that should have been disbanded along with the Warsaw Pact. It serves no purpose and its constant saber-rattling puts us at risk in conflicts that have nothing to do with US national security.

How embarrassing it was to hear Blinken ridiculing Russia for coming to the aid of ally Kazakhstan as a color revolution (with likely US backing) was brewing. “I think one lesson in recent history is that once Russians are in your house, it’s sometimes very difficult to get them to leave,” Blinken told reporters. He said this with a straight face even as the US continues to illegally occupy a large part of Syria, continues to occupy part of Iraq against the will of that country’s parliament, and occupied a good part of Afghanistan for 20 years!

Incidentally, as soon as the regime change attempt was put down in Kazakhstan, Russian and allied troops began leaving the country. But, of course, the reflexively pro-war US media doesn’t report anything outside the narrative.

What to do about Russia? Stop backing regime change along Russia’s borders, including Belarus, Kazakhstan, and elsewhere. Stop meddling in foreign elections. Look at how we wasted four years on false claims that the Russians meddled in ours. End weapons shipments and all aid to Ukraine. End sanctions. Re-imagine the US defense budget as a budget to actually defend the US. It’s really not that complicated: stop trying to rule the world.

—

Read more great articles on the Ron Paul Institute website.
Subscribe to free updates from the Ron Paul Institute. Copyright © 2021 by Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : The Failure Of This Week’s US-NATO-Russia Meetings Make War More Likely

Posted by M. C. on January 16, 2022

The first is the US desire for universal hegemony, including the right to dictate other countries’ political systems and what influence they will be allowed to possess beyond their own borders.

The second is the European elites’ belief in the European Union of as a kind of moral superpower, expanding to embrace the whole of Europe (without Russia of course), and setting a liberal internationalist example to the world; but a militarily impotent superpower that relies for security on the United States, via NATO.

These projects have now manifestly failed.

http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2022/january/15/the-failure-of-this-weeks-us-nato-russia-meetings-make-war-more-likely/

Written by Moon of Alabama

undefined

In the late 1990s the US military-industrial-media complex lobbied the Clinton administration to extend NATO. The sole purpose was to win more customers for US weapons. Russia protested. It had offered to integrate itself into a new European security architecture but on equal terms with the US The US rejected that. It wanted Russia to subordinate itself to US whims.

Since then NATO has been extended five times and moved closer and closer to Russia’s border. Leaving Russia, a large country with many resources, outside of Europe’s security structure guaranteed that Russia would try to come back from the miserable 1990s and regain its former power.

In 2014 the US sponsored a coup against the democratically elected government of the Ukraine, Russia’s neighbor and relative, and installed its proxies. To prevent an eventual integration of the Ukraine into NATO Russia arranged for an uprising against the coup in the eastern Ukraine. As long as the Ukraine has an internal conflict it can not join NATO.

In 2018 the Trump administration withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Force Treaty which had been created under the Presidents Gorbachev and Reagan to eliminate nuclear missiles in Europe. Now the US made plans to station new nuclear missiles in Europe which would threaten Russia. These required a Russian response.

Meanwhile the US and other NATO states have deployed significant ‘training’ units to the Ukraine and continue to send weapons to it. This is a sneaking integration of the Ukraine into NATO structures without the formal guarantees.

In late 2021 the US started to make noise about alleged Russian military concentrations at its western border. There were groundless allegations that Russia was threatening to invade the Ukraine which was begging to enter NATO. The purpose was to justify a further extension of NATO and more NATO deployments near Russia.

Russia has had enough of such nonsense. It moved to press the US for a new security architecture in Europe that would not threaten Russia. The rumors about Russian action in the Ukraine helped to press President Joe Biden into agreeing to talks.

After Russia had detailed its security demands towards the US and NATO a series of talks were held.

I had warned that these would likely not be successful as the US had shown no signs to move on core Russian demands. As expected the talks with the US on Monday failed. The US made some remarks that it would like to negotiate some side issues but not on the core of Russia’s request to end the extension of NATO and to stop new missile deployments.

Wednesday’s talks with NATO had similar results as had today’s talks with the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

As Russia had previously announced it will not consider further talks as there is nothing to expect from them:

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said he saw ‘no grounds’ to continue the talks, in a blow to the efforts to ease tensions. His comments came as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe met in Vienna in the latest attempt to avert a major European crisis as Russia masses troops on Ukraine’s border.

Speaking on Russian television, Ryabkov said the United States and its allies have rejected Russia’s key demands — including its call for an end to NATO’s open-door policy for new members — offering to negotiate only on topics of secondary interest to Moscow.

‘There is, to a certain extent, a dead end or a difference in approaches,’ he said. Without some sign of flexibility from the United States, ‘I do not see reasons to sit down in the coming days, to gather again and start these same discussions.’

Other Russian government officials made similar points:

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who described the Western position as ‘arrogant, unyielding and uncompromising,’ said that President Vladimir Putin would decide on further action after receiving written responses to Moscow’s demands next week.
…
In addition to calling the talks unsuccessful, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov on Thursday highlighted a bill announced the day before by US Democratic senators for tough new sanctions against Russians, including Putin, if there is military action against Ukraine.

Peskov called it ‘extremely negative, especially against the background of the ongoing series of negotiations, albeit unsuccessful, but negotiations.’ Sanctioning a head of state ‘is an outrageous measure that is comparable to breaking off relations,’ he said.

Peskov also accused the United States and NATO of escalating the conflict with efforts to ‘entice’ new countries to join NATO.

Peskov’s last remarks relate to recent noise from Finland and Sweden that they may consider to join NATO.

The US had promised to send a written response to Russia’s demands by next week. NATO has likewise said that it would dispatch a letter within a week’s time frame. If those letters do not include substantial concessions to Russia it will have to act.

The Washington Post piece quoted above is headlined Russia ratchets up pressure on Europe, says ‘no grounds’ for further talks on security amid heightened tensions. The Post tries to frame the issues as an European and NATO problem.

However, Russia does not even talk with Europe as it is no longer relevant. The security demands are made towards the US and the issues can only be solved by the White House.

Russia has spoken of “military-technical measures” it would have to take should all talks fail.

It has now started to hint at some of the possibilities:

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Russia-U.S. Negotiations Continue on Shaky Grounds | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on January 15, 2022

Russia wants the US and NATO to rescind a promise that was first made in 2008 that Ukraine would eventually become a member of NATO. When Viktor Yanukovych was president of Ukraine from 2010 to 2014, Kyiv joining NATO was not a concern. But Yanukovych was ousted in a US-backed coup in 2014, and ever since, NATO has significantly increased its cooperation with Ukraine.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/russia-u-s-negotiations-continue-on-shaky-grounds/

by Dave DeCamp

No progress was made during a meeting between NATO and Russia in Brussels on Wednesday as the US and NATO are rejecting a key Russian demand to halt the military alliance’s eastward expansion. But according to NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, both sides are open to further talks.

Stoltenberg said during the meeting, NATO members and Russia “expressed the need to resume dialogue and to explore a schedule of future meetings.”

The NATO chief said there are “significant differences” between the military alliance concerning Ukraine. “Our differences will not be easy to bridge, but it is a positive sign that all NATO allies and Russia sat down around the same table and engaged on substantive topics,” he said.

Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman represented the US at the meeting and echoed Stoltenberg’s comments. She said some of Russia’s security proposals were “non-starters” but maintained that there are still issues the two sides can negotiate on, including arms control.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko, who led the Russian delegation in Brussels, had some positive things to say about the talks despite the US and NATO’s stance.

“I think that [this meeting] was absolutely essential. Firstly, it was some sort of a shake-up. If the meeting had not taken place, it would have been impossible to bring up these issues in full action,” Grushko said, according to Russia’s Tass news agency.

Russia wants the US and NATO to rescind a promise that was first made in 2008 that Ukraine would eventually become a member of NATO. When Viktor Yanukovych was president of Ukraine from 2010 to 2014, Kyiv joining NATO was not a concern. But Yanukovych was ousted in a US-backed coup in 2014, and ever since, NATO has significantly increased its cooperation with Ukraine.

On Thursday, the diplomacy between Russia and the West will continue at a meeting of the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. While no breakthroughs have been made, the flurry of diplomacy and willingness to continue dialogue is a sign that the tensions around Ukraine and elsewhere in the region likely won’t lead to further conflict.

This article was originally featured at Antiwar.com

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

No Reassurance for Russia Is Dangerous – PaulCraigRoberts.org

Posted by M. C. on January 13, 2022

The Biden regime has blown the future

https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/01/12/no-reassurance-for-russia-is-dangerous/

Paul Craig Roberts

The situation on the Russian front is far more dangerous than is realized. The reason is that the US-Russian conflict resurrected in the 21st century by the neoconservatives and the US military/security complex is far more dangerous than the 20th century Cold War.

I was a part of the Cold War as a member of the Committee on the Present Danger. The present danger was the Soviet Union, and the committee members were concerned that the situation did not get out of hand. There were two aspects to the situation. One was that the Soviets must not acquire military supremacy. The other was that tensions between the nuclear powers had to be kept from boiling over.

In Cold War days there was debate in the foreign policy community. There were knowledgable people, such as Stephen Cohen, to remind us of the Soviet point of view, which served the purpose of corralling a one-sided patriotic view that, if it got loose, could set off nukes. Even in our committee, which was anti-Soviet, there were people who saw both sides of the issue and kept at bay extreme positions such as the neoconservative one.

Today there is no debate. Indeed, there is no foreign policy community. There is only a collection of Russophobes, who see nothing but evil intent in the Kremlin and nothing but good in Washington’s hegemony. Stephen Cohen and the others who helped to keep things in balance are dead.

Consequently, Washington is unable to comprehend Russian concerns. As Scott Ritter recently wrote, “It is as if both Biden and Blinken are deaf, dumb, and blind when it comes to reading Russia.”

You can see how deaf, dumb, and blind Washington is by looking at who Biden’s national security advisor turned to for advice on how to approach the current meetings with Russia over her security concerns. Remember, the talks are happening because Russia feels threatened by a growing ring of US bases on her borders that are potentially sites for US nuclear missiles. It is Russia that feels insecure, not the US. So what did Biden’s advisor do? He turned to Michael McFaul, Obama’s Russophobic ambassador to Russia who has specialized in worsening the tensions with Russia. McFaul’s advice was to up the ante by rushing more weapons to Ukraine. In other words, make the Kremlin feel more threatened.

None of us would be here if this had been President John F. Kennedy’s response to the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Kremlin has been trying for years to get Washington to listen. The current talks, I believe, are the Kremlin’s last effort. Personally, I do not believe that the Kremlin gives the talks any chance of success, and is just testing the conclusion that Washington will not even acknowledge, must less accommodate, Russia’s security concerns.

In other words, when one side does not listen, the other side has no one to talk with. This frustration has been building for years within the Kremlin. All the Kremlin ever hears from Washington is “you are wrong, we are right.”

In the United States the situation is so bad that anyone who explains the Russian point of view is dismissed as a “Russian agent.” President Trump was investigated as a Russian agent for wanting to normalize relations with Russia. By the time of Trump’s presidency all of the arms control agreements reached over previous decades had been discarded by Washington, and it was no longer possible for an American president to work to reduce tensions with Russia. To want good relations with Russia was a betrayal of America. The CIA director actually called President Trump a traitor to America, and the FBI director investigated him as if he were.

It is a tribute to the patience and hopefulness of the Russians that they continued to work for a peaceful coexistence despite the evidence that it could not happen.

As I explained yesterday, the crux of the matter is that Washington does not want Russia to be secure: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/01/11/washington-gives-cold-shoulder-to-russias-security-concerns/
This leaves Russia with two choices. She can accept American hegemony, or she can roll back NATO from her borders with force and intimidation.

The situation is dangerous, because the Kremlin has concluded that the chance of nuclear war is higher from allowing US nuclear missiles on Russia’s borders than from action to roll back NATO to the pre-1997 membership.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

My Corner by Boyd Cathey-Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Ukraine and the Neoconservatives

Posted by M. C. on January 12, 2022

http://boydcatheyreviewofbooks.blogspot.com/

Friends,

In all the hysteria over the latest strain of the Coronavirus virus, the frenzied ideological (and essentially authoritarian and anti-constitutional) activities of the House January 6 “Investigatory” Committee, and the frenetic lead up to this recent Christmas, one significant anniversary was missed, or rather ignored, by our media, including the so-called “conservative” media: the birth on December 11, 1918 of arguably the 20th century’s greatest novelist and social/cultural critic, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

Solzhenitsyn, let it be said, will long be remembered when the names of moronic fanatics like Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and others of that ilk, have become filthy curse words symbolizing the political and cultural nadir of our once great republic.

Yet, with all the ejaculatory exclamations and dire warnings, and subsequent demands for “American” and “NATO” action to thwart the supposed “threat” by the Russians, under that evil genius Vladimir Putin, to use bloodthirsty Cossack troops to invade and conquer poor, little democratic Ukraine, Solzhenitsyn’s comments shortly before he died on August 3, 2008, demand consideration.

No one can accuse the great Russian writer of being an advocate of violence, aggression or war. His experiences, so brutally and so vividly recounted in his various semi-autobiographical novels dissuade any dispassionate reader from that conclusion. He had seen the open jaws of bitter Hell, and that Hell attempted not only to swallow him but destroy him and his soul totally. That the Soviet Hell—the Gulag—did not succeed, and that he emerged stronger for it, a man of resilient and unquestioned Faith, is a remarkable example of how true religious conviction and Hope can indeed overcome even the worst trials, both physical and spiritual.

When Solzhenitsyn came to the United States and gave his famous address at Harvard, June 8, 1978, it was met first by shock, then by a studied if respectful silence by many in the media. For in that speech he had taken target at some of America’s showiest and most prized attributes:

He attacked moral cowardice and the selfishness and complacency he sees in the West. Materialism, sharp legal maneuvering, a press that invades privacy, “TV stupor” and “intolerable music,” all contribute to making the western way of life less and less a model for the world, he said. “A decline in courage,” Solzhenitsyn said, is the most striking feature of what he called “spiritual exhaustion” of the West. “The forces of evil have begun their decisive offensive, you can feel their pressure, and yet your screens and publications are full of prescribed smiles and raised glasses. What is the joy about?” “To defend oneself, one must also be ready to die; there is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being….”

And that was in 1978.

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Porcupine Peace Plan: How An Independent New Hampshire Could Increase U.S. Security | The Libertarian Institute

Posted by M. C. on January 12, 2022

This seemingly magical ability…is the power of armed, individual self-defense…weapons freedom for the private citizen. And it is a power that the government of Taiwan has systematically denied to its people, at grave risk to a nervous world.

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/a-porcupine-peace-plan-how-an-independent-new-hampshire-could-increase-u-s-security/

by Dave Ridley

To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.”– Sun Tzu

On March 12, 2006 five U.S. soldiers violated, then murdered, 14-year-old Abeer Hamza in her home at Yusufiyah, Iraq. Then they covered up the killing by wiping out most of her family at taxpayer expense.1

Fifteen years and four days later, several dozen U.S. policy enforcement officers stormed a quiet neighborhood in America’s Pleasantville: Keene, New Hampshire. After using a battering ram connected to an armored vehicle, they flew a drone through the window of a home studio housing the state’s top radio discussion show, Free Talk Live. Washington claimed that some of its libertarian hosts had been selling significant amounts of Bitcoin without government permission and filed charges of “unlicensed money transmission.” The imperial capitol is seeking life imprisonment for at least one of the arrestees, with no credible claim that he even victimized anyone.2

Though different in a hundred ways, each of these federal excesses exemplified the numberless grievances which have sparked a growing pushback against D.C. in the “Live Free or Die” state. Local activists and legislators reacted with the New Hampshire Independence Amendment, also known as CACR 32. This constitutional revision would allow all NH residents to vote in a 2022 referendum on whether the state will continue being governed by Washington.

New Hampshire already has a long history of example-setting. But by striving for independence—and a more humane world security protocol—its citizens may be able to do something better. With your help, and the careful placement of a new idea on the geopolitical board, maybe our tiny new nation could even stop a world war.

NH independence proponents make a simple case. The FedGov, they say, has bloated beyond the point where normal individuals can meaningfully oppose its atrocities with conventional civics. They point to the successes of Estonian and British independence movements as well as the global trend toward “smaller nations.” In 1900 there were roughly 60 countries in the world. Now there are about 200. Meanwhile, thanks to these and other national divorces, the harm-inflicting capacity of various empires is less than it would be if they were still full-sized. Successful independence drives in America, too, should have a limiting effect on U.S. warmongering in faraway places.

But what of, say, Chinese government warmongering outside its​ borders? Whatever cruelties the U.S. government may have imposed, the nations bordering China do seem to generally prefer alliance with Washington over alliance with Beijing; some rely on D.C. for their security more than they should.

One of the main criticisms of NH independence is that it could undermine U.S. defense capability or, more accurately, American capacity for carrying out the existing commitments to NATO and Taiwan. The latter is of special significance, and we’ll use it as the focus of this discussion. But the arguments here apply to every U.S. ally.

See the rest here

This article was originally featured at the Shire Forum

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

Abolish NATO – The Future of Freedom Foundation

Posted by M. C. on January 11, 2022

The final straw was to be Ukraine. After U.S. officials helped to orchestrate the regime-change operation that ousted a pro-Russia regime and installed a pro-U.S. regime in Ukraine, the next step was to invite Ukraine to join NATO. That would mean U.S. bases, missiles, and troops on Russia’s border. It would would mean the eviction of Russia from its longtime military base in Crimea and its replacement by a U.S. military base. 

Predictably, all this makes Russia the “aggressor” against the peace-loving officials within NATO and within the U.S. government (which controls NATO).

https://www.fff.org/2022/01/10/abolish-nato/

by Jacob G. Hornberger

The New York Times published an article yesterday that denied that U.S. officials promised Russia at the end of the Cold War that NATO would not expand membership to Warsaw Pact countries. 

Unfortunately, the article misses the point. The point is that NATO should have been abolished when the Cold War ended, which would, needless to say, have meant that it would not have absorbed those former Warsaw Pact countries and would not have moved U.S. bases, missiles, and troops inexorably closer to Russia’s borders. 

The ostensible purpose of NATO was to protect Western Europe from an invasion by the Soviet Union, which, ironically, had been America’s partner and ally in World War II. At the end of the Cold War, the threat of such an invasion was non-existent. Therefore, NATO’s ostensible mission was over. NATO should have been disbanded immediately.

But like so many other Cold War programs and bureaucratic agencies, NATO bureaucrats were not about to let their bureaucratic agency go quietly into the night. Too many officials had become accustomed to and dependent on the taxpayer-funded largess that came with NATO. 

Moreover, the NATO bureaucrats and the Cold War officials within the U.S. national-security establishment were not ready to let go of their Cold War racket, which they had milked for some 45 years. They had to figure out a way to keep their racket going.

That’s why NATO began absorbing Warsaw Pact countries instead of simply going out of business. They knew that as they brought U.S. bases, missiles, and troops closer to Russia’s borders, Russia would have to finally respond. And when that would happen, U.S. and NATO officials and their Operation Mockingbird acolytes in the mainstream press could exclaim, “The Russians have committed aggression! They are the aggressors!” 

The final straw was to be Ukraine. After U.S. officials helped to orchestrate the regime-change operation that ousted a pro-Russia regime and installed a pro-U.S. regime in Ukraine, the next step was to invite Ukraine to join NATO. That would mean U.S. bases, missiles, and troops on Russia’s border. It would would mean the eviction of Russia from its longtime military base in Crimea and its replacement by a U.S. military base. 

The result was predictable. Russia invaded Crimea and took it over. Russia has also made it clear that it fiercely opposed NATO’s absorption of Ukraine and the U.S. military bases, missiles, and troops on Russia’s border that would come with it.

Predictably, all this makes Russia the “aggressor” against the peace-loving officials within NATO and within the U.S. government (which controls NATO). It’s all Russia’s fault for opposing U.S. peace-loving plans to establish and install military bases, missiles, and troops along Russia’s borders. 

When will the American people wake up and come to the realization of what the conversion of their federal government to a national-security state has done to our nation? The sooner that day comes, the better off everyone will be. We will be able both to abolish NATO and restore a limited-government republic to our land. That would not only finally put a stop to the old Cold War racket but also set America on the road to liberty, peace, prosperity, and harmony with the people of the world. 

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »