rick rozoff

Belarus must be prepared to fight from house to house if invaded: president
Rick Rozoff, AntiBellum, Jun 16 2021

President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko hosted a meeting on national defense today as his nation more and more appears to be targeted by the US and NATO for not only economic but actual warfare. The recently-concluded NATO summit issued a document which used the following hostile language toward the nation (Section 54):

The policies and actions of Belarus have implications for regional stability and have violated the principles which underpin our partnership.

In accusing the small nation of engaging in behavior that could destabilize northeastern Europe (Belarus borders Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Russia and Ukraine) and of violating the principles of a thirty-nation military bloc which has waged war several times before, NATO is using language which resembles that employed before their air wars against Yugoslavia and Libya in 1999 and 2011, respectively. If in Yugoslavia the West began with a 78-day war in 1999 and ended with a color revolution (the prototype of the model) in 2000, with Belarus the order has been reversed. An attempted color revolution scenario (with the standard techniques, funding sources in the US and Europe, Otpor/CANVAS-style youth “swarming” and so forth) was launched after the presidential election last year and the threat of a military final act looms now.

The Yugoslav parallel is striking in several regards. The NATO summit communique of Jun 14 as noted above accuses Belarus of endangering stability in an important part of Europe and of threatening NATO’s alleged core principles (ordinarily referred to by the catchphrase rules-based international order). NATO has never needed more than such charges to threaten a nation with the use of military force. But the bloc’s document also demands Belarus “abide by international law, respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, and immediately and unconditionally release all political prisoners, including those belonging to the Union of Poles in Belarus.” NATO is not Amnesty International and has no right to determine who is a political prisoner in Belarus or any other nation. Though it has been conspicuously mute on the travesty that has been visited on Julian Assange, for example.

The mention of the Union of Poles is particularly ominous as Belarus has been warning since last summer of NATO intervening militarily (from Poland and Lithuania) in the Grodno region of western Belarus where the bulk of the nation’s ethnic Poles reside. Exactly a century ago this year the Treaty of Riga ceded part of western Belarus to Poland. This writer’s paternal grandfather was born near Brest Litovsk in what is now Belarus. I have in my possession letters from family members of his sent (in Cyrillic script) from his hometown in the mid-1930s. The postage stamps on the envelopes are Polish. The prospect of exploiting the alleged mistreatment of ethnic Poles in Belarus could serve the same purpose as similar accusations in regard to ethnic Albanians did in the Serbian province of Kosovo in 1999: the pretext for a so-called humanitarian intervention by NATO.

The Belarusian president today is cited by the Belarusian Telegraph Agency as stating only nationwide defense can counter an invading force and drive them out of the country. In regard to the situation since last August’s election and aborted color revolution, and especially since the government’s landing of a Ryanair plane last month resulted in sanctions by the West, Lukashenko said:

Throughout last year, we experienced first-hand how destructive information, economic and political pressure from the West influenced the worldview of our people and pushed some of them to actually betray their own people. It is always necessary to produce such a response that will be remembered by the enemy for many years. And only nationwide defense is capable of such a response. In other words, we all need to rise up if we want to defend our land.

He reminded his interlocutors that earlier this week he inspected small arms and ammunition plants, adding that munitions factories are needed to “improve the material and technical infrastructure of territorial defense forces.” If the preceding two paragraphs referenced present dynamics, the following statement by the president is a warning about the future, and possibly a not-too-distant one:

In the event of a conflict, each neighborhood, each house, each head of the household, at least, should be able to defend their families, themselves and, of course, the land, the territory where they live. This will be nationwide defense.

In another account of his comments a degree of urgency is apparent that suggests a nation on the eve of war. Six days from now will be the 80th anniversary of Nazi Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union. Belarus bore the brunt of the invasion and suffered per capita the worst casualties of any region in WW2 not only in the Soviet Union but in all of Europe. Estimates range from one-quarter to one-third of all Belarusians died in the war. Like most of his compatriots, that fact can never be far from Lukashenko’s thoughts. The state news media quotes these additional statements of his at the same meeting of the Shklov District Executive Committee:

Local government bodies, the chairmen of district executive committees and oblast executive committees need to learn to be at war. You need to know which facilities you will need to protect. You should know where people are and mobilize them not within five or six months but within 24 hours. … In short, at any moment you must be able to raise the alarm and mobilize people within three days to guard those objects that need to be protected. Everyone in the country should be preparing for this after today’s meeting. One of the goals of the meeting is to give a signal to each zone (we have seven of them), each district to be ready to mobilize during the period designated by the president.

The tone of the above comments doesn’t have the ring of idle words. Or of bluster. But of the most serious concern.

NATO’s post-summit mission: build global alliance against China, Russia
Rick Rozoff, AntiBellum, Jun 16 2021

After the one-day NATO summit in Brussels concluded on Monday, the bloc’s general secretary, Jens Stoltenberg, gave an address before members of the Western press corps, answering several questions. His comments consisted of a summary of the results of the summit, which was a mere formality (“All leaders agreed that … Europe and North America must stand strong together in NATO”), an abbreviated recapitulation of the summit’s lengthy communiqué. He began by reiterating, in all fairness in a manner which was not only rote but practically incantatory, shibboleths like NATO needing to “defend our values and our interests” at a time when ”authoritarian regimes like Russia and China challenge the rules-based order.” If the latter theme didn’t completely dominate the communiqué it did his press conference. The transcript is arranged, as has lately been the case with his presentations, in single-sentence bullet points. These two are back-to-back:

Our relationship with Russia is at its lowest point since the Cold War. And Moscow’s aggressive actions are a threat to our security.

And in relation to two of Russia’s neighbors, whom NATO accuses Russia of waging war against and of forcibly seizing territory from, he offered this couplet:

We stand in solidarity with our valued partners Ukraine and Georgia. And we will continue to support their reforms, bringing them closer to NATO.

He then abruptly pivoted to the other global villain identified above:

At the Summit today, we also addressed China.

NATO can envision working with China on issues like arms control and climate change. He didn’t explain why a military bloc whose communiqué frequently used the word warfighting in reference to its purpose and mission has appropriated to itself the responsibility to address climate change, an endeavor more suitable to the UN. But in the next sentence he warned that “China’s growing influence and international policies” offered challenges to NATO’s security. (The identical line occurs in the communiqué.) He then, while repeating verbatim excerpts from the summit communiqué, went into a lengthy description of China’s alleged infractions and threats, giving China a far higher proportion of his time than the above-cited document does. China is charged with:

  • coercive policies which conflict with NATO’s core values
  • expanding its nuclear arsenal
  • developing more advanced delivery systems for nuclear weapons
  • opacity regarding its military modernization
  • cooperating militarily with Russia, including in exercises in the Euro-Atlantic area

There’s nothing new in those accusations. What is novel is the emphasis he placed on China in his comments and the corresponding preoccupation with that nation during the question and answer session with North American and European reporters. Having branded Russia and China international pariahs from the rules-based international order, according to NATO and the US guilty of most every problem in the world except climate change (for the time being), Stoltenberg moved to the second central theme of NATO in 2021: strengthening and expanding global military partnerships. The logic is clearly that if Russia and China (and its cohorts Iran and North Korea and now Belarus) are the threat to the much-touted (indeed, pseudo-sacrosanct) rules-based international order, then NATO nations must rally the rest of the world to confront and combat them. In addition to thirty members, the NATO website lists forty military partners; members and partners are on all continents except Antarctica. The communiqué also discusses consolidating ties with the African Union, which has 55 members, 50 of those not yet formal NATO partners. (Algeria, Egypt, Mauritania, Morocco and Tunisia are members of NATO’s Mediterranean Dialogue program. All but Algeria also have an Individual Partnership Cooperation Programme.) NATO maintains a liaison office led by a Senior Military Liaison Officer at the African Union’s headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The bloc’s page on cooperation with the African Union (AU) says this:

NATO Allies are committed to expanding cooperation with the AU to make it an integral part of NATO’s efforts to work more closely with partners in tackling security challenges emanating from the south.

Adding AU members not already NATO partners to the bloc’s 30 members and 40 partners would mean 120 nations affiliated with a US-dominated military alliance. (Not including nations in Latin America. See below.) That partnership is aimed against China and Russia in Africa. Stoltenberg listed nations and areas where NATO will build and expand military partnerships. He began with Australia, Japan, New Zealand and South Korea in the Asia-Pacific region, all founding members of NATO’s Partners Across the Globe. (The other initial members are also in Asia: Afghanistan, Iraq, Mongolia and Pakistan. Colombia is the newest.) In what may be an unprecedented geographical sweep even for NATO, he added:

We seek new relationships with countries across Latin America, Africa and Asia.

Having achieved that grand objective there would appear very little of the planet not within NATO’s orbit. Little except Russia and China, that is. He also pledged to “substantially step up training and capacity-building for partners,” specifying Ukraine, Georgia, Iraq and Jordan. Except for Iraq, the nations he mentioned are new Enhanced Opportunities Partners. Stoltenberg also pledged yet further cooperation with the European Union, which is rapidly becoming more militarily integrated with NATO. And he reported record-high increases in NATO member states’ spending in the past seven years ($260b) as well as a pledge to fight in space in addition to in the air, on the land and sea, and in cyberspace. Having ended his speech, he fielded questions from journalists from agencies, newspapers and broadcast media selected to insure he wouldn’t be asked uncomfortable questions (Reuters, DPA, ZDF, Interfax-Ukraine, CBC, Politico, Der Spiegel, WaPo etc). Early on he was asked about China and made these revealing disclosures:

I think what you have to realise is that NATO has come a long way. The first time we mentioned China in a communiqué and a document in a decision from NATO leaders was 18 months ago, at the Summit in London. Before that we didn’t have any language at all. In the current strategic concept, China’s not mentioned with a single word. Now we can read the communiqué, and you see that we have seen the convergence of views among Allies.

He accused China of “coming closer to us” in cyberspace (the way Russia is coming closer to NATO’s Eastern Flank the further east the latter moves), and in the manner of a person with an acute persecution complex, he added:

We see them in Africa, we see them in the Arctic, we see them trying to control our infrastructure, we had the discussion about 5G.

A person could easily read attic for Arctic in that sentence. Michael Birnbaum of the WaPo asked a question that he knew wouldn’t be answered, because it wasn’t a question at all, rather a tawdry display of political grandstanding:

Can I just ask, can you compare your experience at this Summit with the US delegation to your experience with, at Summits with President Trump? And was President Biden able to tell you anything that convinced you that Trump or another Trump-like figure won’t be back in the White House in a few years and swing the US back to a more confrontational approach to NATO?

The inevitable corollary of which is, evidently, that any leader not enthusiastically embracing NATO is “Putin’s puppet.” David Herszenhorn of Politico posed a question that elicited more information than he may have been fishing for. Herszenhorn said:

Secretary General, could we go back to China for just a second and I wonder, have you addressed with the leaders a concern we hear maybe from some Allies that one of the reasons China hasn’t appeared in communiqués all that often is that the Alliance has not yet given itself the legal authority, under the Washington Treaty, to operate outside the North Atlantic space? And do you envision the necessity for treaty change? And should this be a notice, that in fact, NATO is prepared now to operate anywhere in the world, outside the North Atlantic space, if it perceives a threat?

Stoltenberg replied:

So first of all, we operate outside NATO territory. We have done that since the end of the Cold War. And this was a discussion back in the early 90s, that’s correct. Someone said that either NATO has to go out of business or out of area. And then we helped, and then we actually went out of area, we went into Bosnia and Herzegovina … And a few years after we went into, also we helped … in Kosovo. And then, after the 9/11 attacks. Since then … we have had a big military operation in Afghanistan on the borders of China. So this idea that this is something completely new, that NATO is going out of area, is very strange, because we’ve been out area for decades.

He ended that response with stating (again) that as “China is coming closer to us” and NATO’s self-defined mandate is already global:

There is no need for any change in the NATO Treaty to respond to that.

NATO has made it abundantly obvious that it is now waging a global campaign against Russia and China, and has acknowledged for the first time that the campaign is directed toward China as well as Russia.

Erdoğan in the Caucasus: Iran, Russia, Armenia ignore threat at their own peril
Rick Rozoff, AntiBellum, Jun 16 2021

I still feel most suspicious of the Talaat Pashas, the Kemals and the Envers who are apparently dreaming of setting up a Moslem state to include the Trans-Caspian region, Transcaucasia with Daghestan, Asia Minor and, it seems, Egypt. One feels this is so, and it stands to reason that Armenia and Georgia, a little country I know and dearly love, will inevitably be the first to suffer from this venture. Nor do I think Russia would gain anything from this pan-Turkish game. Of course, I’m no politician, but it sometimes seems to me that I have a healthy intuition, and that my organic disgust at the misfortunes of mankind, at human sufferings, makes me a good prophet or, more correctly, a prophet of evil.
– Maxim Gorky to HG Wells, 1920

The Declaration reflects the words of the great leaders of our peoples, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Heydar Aliyev. At the beginning of the 20th century, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk said, “Azerbaijan’s joy is our joy and its sorrow is ours too.” At the end of the 20th century, Heydar Aliyev said, “Turkey and Azerbaijan are one nation, two states.” These historic words are the key factor for us, for our activities.”
– Ilham Aliyev with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan in conquered Nagorno-Karabakh, 2021

The joint visit of Erdoğan and Aliyev to the city of Shusha (in Turkic) or Shushi (in Armenian) in Nagorno-Karabakh on Jun 15 was a landmark event. It signals the indisputable and qualitatively advanced expansion of the 21st century neo-Ottoman project. An attempted revival of the empire almost a century after its demise. The quote from Aliyev cited above is not fortuitous. It is quite intentional and is equally apt. What Aliyev, Erdoğan, the members of the Turkic Council (Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Turkey) and Turkic-speaking activists and separatists in Russia, Afghanistan, Central Asia, the Southeast Europe, China, Tajikistan, Iraq, Syria and elsewhere envision is a renewed pan-Turkic domain that stretches from the Balkans to China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. It is a phenomenon described as early as 1996 by the late American scholar Sean Gervasi in his inimitable paper “Why is NATO in Yugoslavia?” Among a plethora of insightful and farseeing observations, he pointed this out a quarter of a century ago, when the world was just beginning to see a pattern to developments in a post-bipolar world:

The US is now seeking to consolidate a new European – Middle Eastern bloc of nations. It is presenting itself as the leader of an informal grouping of Muslim countries stretching from the Persian Gulf into the Balkans. This grouping includes Turkey, which is of pivotal importance in the emerging new bloc. Turkey is not just a part of the southern Balkans and an Aegean power. It also borders on Iraq, Iran and Syria. It thus connects southern Europe to the Middle East, where the US considers that it has vital interests. The US hopes to expand this informal alliance with Muslim states in the Middle East and southern Europe to include some of the new nations on the southern rim of the former Soviet Union.

Among other American objectives, and not the least important of them, he mentioned access to Caspian Sea oil and natural gas. He quoted from a NATO statement of May 22 1992 on a matter just as pertinent thirty years later as it was then:

Any action against Azerbaijan’s or any other state’s territorial integrity or to achieve political goals by force would represent a flagrant and unacceptable violation of the principles of international law. In particular we could not accept that the recognized status of Nagorno-Karabakh or Nakhichevan can be changed unilaterally by force.

NATO had identified an active interest in Nagorno-Karabakh within mere months of the dissolution of the Soviet Union. The three former Soviet republics in the South Caucasus (Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia) were recruited into NATO’s Partnership for Peace which was established on the initiative of the Bill Clinton administration in 1994. The same year the Azerbaijani government of President Heydar Aliyev (the current president’s father) announced the Contract of the Century (formally the Production Sharing Agreement on the Joint Development of the Deep Water Reserves of Azeri, Chirag and Guneshli), which opened up Caspian Sea Basin oil and gas fields to outside firms for the first time: AMOCO, BP, McDermott, UNOCAL, LUKOIL, Statoil, Exxon, Turkish Petrol, Pennzoil, Itochu, Remco and Delta. Gervasi’s contention, above, was that the two above events, NATO partnerships in the Caucasus and the West moving into the Caspian Sea, were not unrelated. Regarding the visit of the Turkish and Azerbaijani heads of state to the city of Shusha/Shushi in Nagorno-Karabakh, captured in the Turkish-assisted Azeri military assault of last year, much may be said. The leaders chose just that spot to announce a comprehensive bilateral agreement that has a strong military component. And the Turkish president made an inspection of recently conquered territory the day after he participated in the NATO summit in Belgium. An Armenian scholar, Vardan Voskanyan of the Department of Iranian Studies at Armenia’s Yerevan State University, whose opinion is not disinterested, said of the visit that it marked the first time a sultan had trod on the soil of Shushi. The word he chose to describe the Turkish leader can be viewed as insulting, as figurative or as politically if not historically accurate. In regard to his statement, below, it’s to be recalled that since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 there has been a close alliance in the Caucasus-Caspian region between Armenia, Iran and Russia. Though Armenia is a member of the Partnership for Peace (one suspects because it dared not not join), it is also a member of the CSTO, the only Caucasus nation other than Russia which is. The Armenian scholar said of that relationship in terms of Erdoğan’s appearance in Nagorno-Karabakh:

This is a challenge, a message sent not only to us but also to Russia and Iran. This is an impudent message about the heart of Artsakh being trampled by Turks, and Armenia, Russia and Iran reconciling themselves with this nightmare.

He is right about the collective threat; he is correct about the disturbing lack of response by the three allies. A sultan surely the Turkish president is or aspires to be. Like Aliyev, he is a dedicated Kemalist. But what could not be foreseen even by an analyst as prescient as Sean Gervasi is that the leader who would lead Turkey to becoming not only a regional but in many ways an global power would be both a Kemalist and a Sunni Islamist as Erdoğan is. That dual role has permitted him to pose as defender of the interests of Turkic people in Crimea, Cyprus, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and Central Asia, but also of non-Turkic Muslims in Palestine, Libya, the Balkans and elsewhere. Nagorno-Karabakh is not the last “war of liberation” planned. In terms of the pan-Turkic and Islamist component, here are excerpts from today’s Azerbaijani press:

Speaking of the pact signed with Turkey, President Aliyev said: “This unity is underpinned by many factors that bind us together. First of all, history, culture, common ethnic roots, our language, religion, national values and interests, and the brotherhood of our peoples.”

This is from Azerbaijani Colonel Abd’ullah Gurbani, identified as a hero of the Great Patriotic War (not of WW2 as the words are used in other parts of the FSU, but of last year’s onslaught against Nagorno-Karabakh), direct or paraphrased:

The fact that the President of our country welcomed the great Azerbaijani lover Recep Tayyip Erdoğan with great love as the President of a victorious state, the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of Muzaffar, made every soldier of the Motherland feel proud. Azerbaijani soldier stood guard over our independence and security today. After all, not only Azerbaijan, but a powerful state like Turkey, a fighting people like the Turkish people, a strong army like the Turkish Army are with us. Today, as at the beginning of the last century, we feel the full support of brotherly Turkey. We are the brothers of a difficult day. Thanks to Mr Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and our Supreme Commander-in-Chief, Mr Ilham Aliyev, our friendship and brotherhood are further strengthened, unshakable and eternal. Great victory in the war launched by Operation Iron Fist to restore the territorial integrity of our republic and liberate our historical lands in response to Armenian provocations was a testament to the unity, solidarity, economic strength of our state, the strength of the Azerbaijani Army and the political will of the President of Azerbaijan. It is the victory of the determination, the iron fist of our Supreme Commander-in-Chief and, of course, the brotherly President of Turkey, Mr Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, as well as the fact that every Turkish citizen supports us at all times.

He also shared a poem he had written “on the occasion of the unforgettable and historically blessed visit of Mr Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to Shusha,” which can be read here.

Creating enemies: China reacts to NATO targeting it
Rick Rozoff, AntiBellum, Jun 16 2021

After months of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg mercilessly, tediously, denouncing Russia and China ahead of yesterday’s summit, the communiqué issued after it finally raised China’s ire. Two of the document’s 79 points addressed China. The second was conciliatory; the first was confrontational. It was the first time the 30-nation military bloc so overtly directed harsh language of that nature at China in an official publication. The opening sentence of section 55 contends:

China’s stated ambitions and assertive behaviour present systemic challenges to the rules-based international order and to areas relevant to Alliance security.

A threat to an individual member of NATO can result in the activation of its Article 5 war clause. China was accused of endangering the security of the entire alliance. Specifically, China was charged with:

  • “coercive policies” that are the antithesis of “the fundamental values enshrined in the Washington Treaty” (NATO’s founding document)
  • expanding its stock of nuclear weapons and more sophisticated delivery systems “to establish a nuclear triad” [such as the US and Russia have]
  • being “opaque” in modernizing its military
  • being equally opaque in relation to what is called its military-civil fusion strategy
  • lack of transparency
  • use of disinformation
  • engaging in military cooperation with Russia

The last point is worth examining. Although the communiqué specifies concern about that cooperation including “exercises in the Euro-Atlantic area,” in general no distinction is made between a military exercise in, say, the Pacific Ocean and the so-called Euro-Atlantic area. To lecture a nation in regard to who it can engage in military cooperation with is overt diktat; is an insult to its sovereignty. The US and its NATO allies regularly conduct military exercises in nations bordering China, the Khaan Quest exercise in Mongolia and the Steppe Eagle exercise in Kazakhstan, and in nearby Cambodia (Angkor Sentinel), as well as naval exercises with several neighboring nations off China’s coast. China has not threatened local nations for participating in those. The NATO summit communiqué mentioned, for example, strengthening military ties with its Partners Across the Globe members Japan, South Korea and Australia: while attacking China for engaging in military exercises with its neighbor Russia. Neither has it threatened other Asia-Pacific nations for joining NATO military partnership programs, several of which nations border China: Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Mongolia, Pakistan and Tajikistan. China responded accordingly, and quickly, to the above writ of indictment. The spokesman of the nation’s mission to the European Union (China doesn’t have a mission to NATO as many of its Asia-Pacific neighbors do) denied that China presents “systemic challenges” to other nations, much less to all of Europe and North America.

NATO was accused of slander and of misjudging the current international political climate; in fact of mixing Cold War thinking and bloc mentality with normal state-to-state relations. The statement also ascribed the motivation for the attack to the Biden administration. China already has a blood debt to settle with NATO, one it has never forgotten, for the military bloc’s killing of three journalists and the wounding of 27 other Chinese in Belgrade in 1999. And it has come in for an unrelenting barrage of insult and vilification from NATO in the months leading up to the summit: see here and here and here and here and here. In response to the above charges against China, the Global Times said this:

This NATO summit can be seen as a key point in the US and Europe’s attitude toward China in the security arena. Washington has raised the curtain for a political mobilization campaign to use the NATO bloc to carry out strategic competition with China. China’s defense budget for this year is $209b (1.35t yuan), which is 1.3% of the Chinese GDP, less even than the 2% demanded of NATO member states. In contrast, the 30-member NATO alliance has a total military spending as high as $1.17t, making up over half of the global sum and 5.6 times that of China.

The statement also mentioned that the world who knows which country’s “military bases stretch all over the world, and whose aircraft carriers are wandering around to flex their military muscle.” It also recalled that the US alone has almost 20 times as many nuclear weapons as China, and invited NATO to match China’s commitment to the no-first-use of nuclear weapons and “unconditionally not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or zones.” One knows what the answer to that offer will be. The Chinese official said:

I would like to ask whether NATO and its member states, which are striving for ‘peace, security and stability,’ can make the same commitment as China?

One knows what the answer to that question would be. The response to NATO also contained words particularly worth heeding:

China has been committed to peaceful development, but will never forget the tragedy of the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Yugoslavia, nor the sacrifices of our compatriots’ homes and lives. We will unswervingly defend our sovereignty and development interests, and keep a close eye on NATO’s strategic adjustments and policies toward China.

Not content to have dragooned almost the entire European continent into its ranks, to have waged wars of aggression against countries in three continents (none of them remotely near the “Euro-Atlantic” area) and recruited forty partners to add to its thirty members, NATO is now challenging and confronting China. An opinion piece in China Daily entitled “No enemy? NATO will create one” had this to say about NATO’s throwing down the gauntlet to China, of moving from one adversary to another, from the Soviet Union to Yugoslavia to Libya to China:

By imposing their role of imaginary enemy upon China, NATO is hurting the interests of the whole world, its own members included. And the only side that benefits is NATO itself, because it finds an excuse to continue existing and spending the $2.5b collected from Western taxpayers’ pockets.

The loss in treasure is great; the loss of blood may be far greater.

One Comment

  1. Paul
    Posted June 17, 2021 at 2:14 am | Permalink

    Haven’t all the big wars of the last century originated, or at least partially been driven in some way or other through trade suppression issues?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: