Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: NATO. Its history and prospects

  1. #1
    Hatchling
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Last Online
    12-06-2017 @ 08:27 AM
    Meta-Ethnicity
    EU
    Ethnicity
    Prachuap Khiri Khan
    Country
    Taiwan
    Gender
    Posts
    1
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 3
    Given: 0

    3 Not allowed!

    Default NATO. Its history and prospects



    The North Atlantic Alliance owes its birth to the myth of the Soviet military threat to the West. The mythical vision of the scaring East is nothing new actually. The echo of the Turkish cannonade during the siege of Vienna had a lasting effect throughout the whole Europe. But, with time passing, the European perception of the past suffered some transformation with communists replacing the bloodthirsty janissary (was it due to communist red banners and sickles?). This social perception metamorphosis may be traced even in the landmark Fulton speech of Winston Churchill. "Except in the British Commonwealth and the United States where Communism is in its infancy, the Communist parties or fifth columns constitute a growing challenge and peril to Christian civilization". It's worth noting that prior to Sir Winston Churchill another European strongman had showed up as a devoted advocate of the "Christian civilization". "The Reich Government regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the ethics and morality of the Volk..." This is a quotation from Hitler's speech to the Reichstag delivered on March 23, 1933. The fears of this defender of Europe were quite predictable as well, "...the Jewish Bolshevik rulers in Moscow have unswervingly undertaken to force their domination upon us and other European nations..."

    Irrational and somewhat subliminal fear of Europeans before some Eastern hordes, the fear so artistically presented in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, has been fully embodied in the creation of the most powerful military structure on the globe. It was Karl Marx who fatefully noted once that "...theory itself becomes a material force when it takes hold of the masses". The myth of the threat from the East has materialized into quite real warplanes, tanks, and ships.....

    This is the favourable moment now for the readers who got raised within the definite rigidly constructed informational matrix, to let their justifiable anger burst out. Indeed, isn't it a true fact that NATO was created amid the existence of the Soviet military threat? Let's turn to elementary historical evidence to answer this question without sliding into pointless debates. The birth date of the Alliance is April of 1949. At that exactly moment the USA was already in the possession of 200 nuclear bombs and 447 carriers (strategic bombers). Why is it so important in the context? While forming NATO, the member-states signed the so called "defensive North Atlantic Pact" containing, in particular, a strategic plan of offensive operations against the USSR with the employment of the USAF and nuclear weapons. The first nuclear weapon test in the USSR itself took place only on August 29, 1949, and that is almost half a year after the launch of the "defensive" Alliance. Russians formed the first squadron having 22 Tu-4 bombers able to carry nuclear weapon only in autumn of 1951. By this time the USA had already gotten as many as 569 nuclear bombs and an equal number of bombers to carry them. Then who presented a real military threat and who was threatened in fact?

    There's no mistaking the facts. Throughout the two-year term after the establishment of the "offensive" Alliance, the West was preserving the ability to eliminate the USSR and stay practically unpunished. Later on, this disparity continued to deepen. The USAF planes could attack the USSR from all the four cardinal directions, so to say. In 1959, soon before the intercontinental ballistic missiles appeared, the lay-out was as follows: there were 1551 carriers and 2496 bombs available with the USA and the USSR had only 108 carriers and 283 bombs. In other words, the combat strength of the two countries differed a lot... The Soviets facing the absolute impossibility of survival in purely defensive war worked out a military doctrine taking into consideration both the USSR huge conventional arms capabilities and western mentality. In case of the NATO war preparations revealed, Moscow was set to conduct a blitzkrieg tank operation to reach the English Channel. The calculation was that Americans wouldn't brave it to use nuclear weapons to attack the occupied territory of Western Europe. Quite predictably, such a plan set the West into a flat spin giving a huge boost to escalation of tension.

    Inner logic of the ideological standoff was to inevitably result in a material conflict. And this is what nearly occurred in 1962 (see The Cuban missile crisis) bringing the mankind to the brink of a real catastrophe. In the USSR they decided that If NATO, an entirely defensive alliance, is placing its ballistic missiles in Turkey, then why the Soviet ballistic missiles can't be placed in Cuba. This is how the USSR leadership saw the things at that moment. The further string of events is well known to everybody. The terrible thing about it was that the world was doomed to witness similar confrontations again and again. The Initial Myth gave birth to Religion and hierophants on service are demanding some regular sacrifices. Let's try to be real to life and call things their true names at last. The whole civilized world could take a sigh of relief only after Michael Gorbachev came to power in the USSR in 1985, putting an end to the Cold War and granting freedom to the nations of Eastern Europe. The defense of the military and bureaucratic Alliance had nothing to do with that sense of relief.

    Now, what was the NATO's reaction? It's really amazing. On one hand, totally ignoring the verbal promises to Gorbachev the Alliance made a colossal expansion to the East, closely approaching the borders of post-Soviet Russia. As of today, many political and military experts in the USA and the EU estimate this expansion drive as an erroneous one. Anyway, it was done and defined the attitude of most Russians and their political elite to the Alliance. Doubts about the true intentions of the West, if any at all, were completely dispersed to be replaced by the Alexander III conception, which Russians pulled out to the broad daylight from the historic dusty storeroom to proclaim once again that Russia has only two allies – its Navy and its Army.

    On the other hand, paradoxically as it may seem, despite this territorial expansion there wasn't any sizeable military strengthening of NATO in the 90s and early 2000s. The formidable foe just vanished into thin air leaving on its fields only piles of corroding tanks that failed to live up to their start forward to the Channel. Thus the "European shield" lost its previous significance. Delving into the dynamics of the military expenditures of the European NATO members would be sufficient to come to this conclusion. The military budgets' cuts were so intensive that, as it was revealed during the recent "friendship aggravation" with Moscow over Ukraine, the German Bundeswehr turned out to be practically unfit for combat action. Now, the prolonged abstinence of European generals been over, we can hear the heel and wineglass ringing from Brussels, while the generals in their headquarters are enjoying the atmosphere of big expectations just in the spirit of Marco Ferreri film La Grande Bouffe.

    What does the future hold for the North Atlantic monster which has gotten kind of second wind? The current situation prompts some geopolitical transformation of the Alliance in the near future and years to come. There are continued steps on geographical expansion. At the second integration stage (Individual Partnership Action Plans) there are now Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, and Moldova. At the third integration stage (Accelerated Dialogue) there is Georgia. And the last lap level (Membership Action Plan) has been achieved by Macedonia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Ukraine. There are some signs of progress with the countries which used to be neutral, Sweden and Finland, being increasingly active lately in the military cooperation development with Brussels.

    And there is a fly in this ointment too. The confrontation NATO vs. Turkey is becoming more strained with each passing day. Kemalist Turkey traditionally controlled by the army top hierarchy used to be a loyal and obedient ally. This Turkey is no more. What we face now is the Turkey under the rule of its ambiguous president Erdoğan who wants for his country the status of a leading regional power able to make independent decisions. In this emancipation drive Turkey has gone too far already. The air defense systems it has acquired with Russia don't fit absolutely the NATO military architecture. Nobody can assert for sure what the future impact of this standoff may turn out to be. It can't be excluded that the Alliance will have to find some substitution for Incirlik Air Base.

    At all accounts, we may now state that the military and bureaucratic monster, owing its birth to some stealthy fears of Europe, long ago cut the navel cord connecting it to the parental Myth, to start generating its own senses and discourses. As we have shown, the NATO membership from the very beginning had nothing to do with the issues of ensuring real security. The USA in possession of the military nuclear arsenal substantially surpassing the Soviet one, was able to guarantee the defense of Western Europe in absence of any organizational structure. On the other hand, currently, some member states (Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia) are not able to be confronting the Russian army for as long as a week with all the military assistance and support they receive. Therefore, you shouldn't look for grounds explaining the emergence and existence of NATO through the prism of European security. NATO is just a status club. It's just in the terms of buying whiskey in a corner shop at a regular price or purchasing the same whiskey in such a club at a premium price, just for sake of boosting your own status in your own eyes. This is exactly this sort of the thing the NATO member-countries are now busy with.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Loki; 12-06-2017 at 07:46 PM.

  2. #2
    Novichok
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    @
    Location
    British Isles
    Meta-Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ethnicity
    Boer
    Ancestry
    Dutch, German, French Huguenot, British
    Country
    Great Britain
    Region
    Essex
    Y-DNA
    E-V13
    mtDNA
    H1b
    Taxonomy
    Norid
    Politics
    Godly
    Hero
    Jesus, the King of Kings
    Religion
    Christian
    Gender
    Posts
    60,942
    Blog Entries
    71
    Thumbs Up
    Received: 44,917
    Given: 44,995

    1 Not allowed!

    Default

    NATO is actually a huge threat to the West. It makes Western Europe a target. NATO should be done away with, but of course I know that's wishful thinking. The people don't have the power currently, a ruling, evil elite has.
    Help support Apricity by making a donation

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Former NATO commander: Macedonia is the next member of NATO
    By Crn Volk in forum Северна Македонија
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10-06-2017, 05:40 PM
  2. Investment Grade Prospects Fading for Turkey?
    By Baluarte in forum Türkiye
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-11-2013, 11:30 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-17-2013, 02:24 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-28-2012, 08:13 PM
  5. U.S. growth prospects deemed bleak in new decade
    By Sol Invictus in forum Economics
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-04-2010, 10:09 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •