The responses of the United States and NATO to the Russian proposal for a Treaty guaranteeing freedom of movement, were revealed by the Spanish daily El País, allegedly thanks to a Ukrainian source who feared that his country would be turned into a theater of West-East confrontation.
NATO’s response corresponds in every respect to the presentation made by its Secretary General, Jens Stoltenberg. This is normal, since this text had been submitted to the 30 member states and could not remain secret for very long. On the one hand, the Alliance is proposing measures to reduce the risk of nuclear war, while on the other, it is questioning the right of peoples to self-determination in Transnistria (Moldova), Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Georgia) and finally in Crimea (Ukraine). In other words, the Allies reject international law. That is why they no longer refer to it, but say they are attached to “rules” that they alone set. They intended to remain under the protection of the United States, supported by the United Kingdom, but did not want to risk a World War.
The United States response, on the other hand, was a surprise. It was unknown to everyone, including the Allies and Ukraine. That is why, according to its title, it is a “non-paper” (sic) that does not need to be submitted to them and had to remain secret. It is therefore highly unlikely that it was revealed by a Ukrainian source. It can only be American. This “non-paper” is about “Areas of engagement to improve security”. In it, Washington presents itself as refusing to give up anything, although it is willing to negotiate to freeze the current situation. It would maintain its plans without seeking to gain any more ground.
This document sheds light on the recent public actions of NATO: a propaganda campaign denouncing an imminent Russian invasion, the deployment of soldiers around Ukraine and the transfer of arms to Ukraine itself. But the most important thing is that these troops and weapons are not capable of resisting a Russian invasion if it were to take place. On the other hand, this atmosphere is panicking the European leaders (in the broad sense, not only those of the European Union). Washington and London know that they may not respond in substance to Russia’s demand for compliance with the Treaties and that Moscow will not attack them for that. Their fear is elsewhere: just as Vladimir Putin tried in 2007 in Munich, Moscow may try to topple the allies one by one. But this time, the decline of US power may give them pause. They can see that they have little to gain from their allegiance. That is why the US CIA and the British MI6 reorganize the stay-behind networks with the consent of some European leaders who soon imagine themselves living in countries occupied by Russia.
At the end of World War II and even before the creation of NATO, the United States and the United Kingdom had imagined a way to dominate the Western European continent up to the Oder-Neisse border, which was established by the Potsdam Conference, a few days after the capture of Berlin by the Soviets and the surrender of the Nazis. It was this border that British Prime Minister Winston Churchill described in 1946 as the “iron curtain” separating the European continent into two parts. Then U.S. President Harry Truman organized the Cold War to prevent the Soviets from advancing into the zone of influence that had been assigned to them at Yalta and Potsdam. The Americans and the British had the idea of setting up resistance networks within the Allied administrations and preparing them for action in the event of the “inevitable” Soviet invasion. These networks were commanded by Anglo-Saxons, but their soldiers were anti-Soviet nationals, including many survivors of Nazi armies, recycled for the “good cause”.
When NATO was created in 1949, these Western European networks were incorporated into it. They still obey Washington and London exclusively, with the approval in principle of the allied states, which ignore the details of their actions. Each time they are brought to light, they are promised to be dissolved, yet they continue to exist. The latest “incident” was the discovery in 2020 that all the leaders of European countries were being listened to by Denmark on behalf of Nato.
The CIA and MI6 have also extended these networks to the majority of the planet. It was they who organized the World Anti-Communist League during the Cold War, installing bloody dictatorships from Taiwan to Bolivia, including Iran and the Congo.
The CIA’s activities outside NATO were brought to light by the US Congress (Church Commission) after the resignation of President Richard Nixon. These networks had developed to such an extent that they had succeeded in constituting a state within a state, even going so far as to organize the Watergate scandal to bring down the President of the United States. President Jimmy Carter encouraged the continuation of these revelations and took control of the CIA with Admiral Stansfield Turner.
Hundreds of books have been devoted, first by journalists and now by historians, to the crimes of the CIA and MI6. But these are books and theses on this or that operation. Some have tried to draw up summary catalogs of these events, but none has dared to write the history of this system and its men. For it is the same men who have moved to accomplish them in different places on the planet.
Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. Bush Sr. publicly nurtured these networks in the Warsaw Pact countries, organizing vast economic and military sabotage operations. It was not until the collapse of the USSR that they came to light and were called upon to play a political role. They were very active in the NATO membership of the countries of Central, Balkan, Eastern and Baltic Europe. The support of the Latvian president, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, for Nazi demonstrations or the entry of Nazi leaders into the Ukrainian government are therefore not inexplicable accidents of fate, but public manifestations of the secret networks that sometimes manage to rise to the top of governments.
At the end of the Second World War, it was obvious to all that it had been won by the Soviet Union (22 to 27 million dead) with the very relative help of the Anglo-Saxons (less than one million dead by the United States and the United Kingdom, including the colonies). First Secretary Joseph — who had eliminated the kulaks, then the Mensheviks in the Gulags — forged national reconciliation and Soviet national sentiment around the equality of all in the face of the hierarchical system of races of the Nazis (racism), the United States (segregation) and South Africa (apartheid). The debates on the “totalitarianisms of the twentieth century” and the negationist resolutions of the European Parliament are aimed exclusively at destroying the image that Stalin left behind by amalgamating Nazi and Soviet crimes, which were very different in nature and at different times (the great period of the Gulags did not end in 1953 with the death of the “Little Father of the Peoples”, but in 1941 with the agreement between Joseph Stalin and the Russian Orthodox Church to defend the country. It is therefore not characteristic either of Stalinism or of the USSR.) It makes it possible to hide the recycling of the worst Nazi criminals by the CIA and MI6 in Third World states. It also masks the use of Nazis by the United States and the United Kingdom to extend their domination, with for example the British concentration camps in Kenya during the 1950s.
All these elements attest to the fact that, in order to establish their domination over the world, the United States and the United Kingdom have not hesitated to recycle yesterday’s enemies and ask them to continue their work, under their orders, with the same criminal methods.
With this past in mind, the question arises as to the true role of NATO. The prevailing thought is that this alliance was formed to fight against the Soviets. But, besides the fact that the Soviets had just taken Berlin and defeated the Nazis, NATO never fought them, and today the Soviets no longer exist. On the contrary, NATO has officially fought only two conventional wars, the first in Yugoslavia, the second in Libya. Its whole history has been to interfere in the internal life of its members in order to align them with Anglo-Saxon interests by means of coloured revolutions (May ’68 in France), political assassinations (Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro) and coups d’état (Greece of the colonels).
Under these conditions, one must ask oneself if all this hullabaloo about a possible war in Ukraine does not mask something else: a reinforcement of Washington’s and London’s control over their allies, even though these two powers are losing ground.
One has to wonder why Russia, which on December 17, 2021, demanded that Nato be brought into line with the UN Charter, no longer raises this issue. Washington and London do not want to give up their position as overlords and the Allies their position as vassals. Dissolving NATO would make no sense, because each member still intends to play its role and not to gain independence and individual responsibility. If NATO were to disappear, a structure of identical form would succeed it. The problem is therefore not the Atlantic Alliance, but the way in which the Anglo-Saxon leaders and their allies think.
It is possible that this difference in thinking is not only cultural, but refers to the information revolution. Vertical conceptions, analyses in zones of influence, geopolitical theories belong to the industrial age, while multipolar decisions, individualized analyses and network theories are characteristic of the societies that are being built today. In this case, Moscow and Beijing are simply ahead of the West.
Eventually, at some point, this or that ally will stop kowtowing to Washington and London. The pro-Chinese statements of Polish President Andrzej Duda or the pro-Russian statements of Croatian President Zoran Milanović give a foretaste of what might happen. In 1966, the Allies were surprised when French President Charles de Gaulle denounced the stay-behind networks and expelled Nato forces from his country. Their reaction would be different today if, once again, a NATO member were to leave the integrated command without questioning the North Atlantic Treaty. The European leaders, who often behave like sheep, could follow this new model and leave en bloc.
In any case, Moscow and Beijing are continuing their rapprochement. It is not a question of them uniting to crush anyone, but to defend together their vision of international relations and economic development for all. The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, and the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, issued a new joint statement on February 4. In the process, they criticize the West’s claim to be a “free world” based on democracy. They point out that, far from being perfect, their two countries value their citizens much more than the United States and the United Kingdom do.
The West, listening only to itself, has not picked up on what the Russians and Chinese are saying. If they heard it, they would despise it, wondering how these people can talk like that, but not why they talk like that.
Source: Voltaire Network