Does NATO have brakes?

At one time, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in a conversation with Bill Clinton during his visit to Moscow in 2000, expressed the interest of the Russian Federation in joining NATO. Despite the fact that the bombing of Yugoslavia greatly disturbed the spirits in Russia, in that country the North Atlantic Alliance was still seen as a potential partner in ensuring peace, stability, and security in Europe and the wider Eurasian and Middle Eastern region. In one of his interviews to Oliver Stone many years later, President Putin recalled how Clinton readily accepted such a possibility, but the rest of the American delegation became visibly upset by the proposal. Clinton soon left the White House, and the United States ignored Putin's proposal, which was a clear signal to Russia that NATO continues to view it exclusively from Cold War positions - as the remnant of the USSR, a great ideological enemy, which must be destroyed at all costs. Russia delenda est (Russia must be destroyed), has become an unspoken motto of NATO from the day of the collapse of the USSR until today.

Long before this conversation between President Putin and Clinton, in February 1990, Mikhail Gorbachev, then General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, received oral assurances from then-US Secretary of State James Baker, during his visit to Moscow together with the German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, that NATO will not expand its jurisdiction or troops to the East. Earlier, German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher suggested to his British counterpart Douglas Hurd exactly the same view - NATO should deffinitely not expand to the East. Mary Ellis Sarot, a professor of history at the University of Southern California, reveals in her article for Foreign Affairs that James Baker promised Gorbachev that if the Soviet Union accepted the idea of German unification, NATO would not extend its jurisdiction even to a territory of the German Democratic Republic. Thus, Baker accepted Gorbachev's previous insistence that any expansion of NATO to the East was completely unacceptable for the Soviet Union. Gorbachev was and remains a man of traditionalist diplomatic views and ethics, and for him, the oral promise of the American Secretary of State had a weight equal to that of written documents.

It is often forgotten that Gorbachev was not the only one who was impudently deceived by the Americans. Another US Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, arrived in Moscow in October 1993 to convince Russian President Yeltsin that NATO did not intend to accept new members at its January 1994 summit, but rather to develop the Partnership for Peace program, which was about to include all states that were members of the former Warsaw Pact. Yeltsin accepted such promises with approval and relief. Only a year later, Yeltsin realized that he had been deceived and that NATO's expansion would continue. In recent months, more precisely, since Russia issued clear warnings regarding the accumulation of NATO troops on its borders, the leaders of the North Atlantic Alliance reiterate together, that Gorbachev was not only never promised anything in the form of a written agreement, but that there were no even verbal promises that NATO would not expand to Russia's borders. This turned out to be very untrue. Just these days, a document from March 1991 was discovered, which shows that the official representatives of the USA, Great Britain, France, and Germany had serious discussions about the promise to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand towards the borders of the USSR. The document, recently published by Der Spiegel, is in fact the minutes of the meeting that took place on March 6, 1991, in Bonn, and which was attended by representatives of the Ministries of Foreign Affairs of the USA, Great Britain, France, and Germany. This document unequivocally confirms that the Soviet Union was given firm guarantees that NATO would not expand and that the membership of Eastern European countries in that alliance was therefore unacceptable. The minutes of that meeting were archived under the label "secret", and when it became available to researchers, it was discovered by Joshua Shifrinson, a professor of political science at Boston University in the USA.

This brings us to the key question: what led to the decision to abandon these promises and what prompted NATO leaders to embark on a quiet and long but decisive campaign of expansion towards Russia?

It should be quite clear to every person of average IQ, who at least superficially follows world events, that the United States, which has over 5,000 military bases around the world, and which has intervened militarily in over twenty countries since 1945, some of which have attacked more than once, that Americans and their allies make a mockery of the truth when they talk about the necessity of ”restraining Russia”. Those who have preserved their ability to reason objectively by staying out of the zone of strong American psychological and every other influence, will gladly agree that it is necessary to restrain someone else. The self-proclaimed world policeman imposes its need for global domination with a technique that is a combination of psychological, political, economic and military pressures. America seduces, bribes, blackmails, and unfortunately, kills. American influence on the individuals it intends to put pressure on is frightening. Of course, America is not wasting time on small fish, but purposefully targeting key players, or intentionally making them from the previously unimportant people. Therefore, there can be no doubt that NATO is just a visible blade of the interests of the American deep state and that its control over this organization is complete. NATO is the one that is slowly, but decisively and regardless of the possible consequences, pushing a knife under Russia's throat. Russia is not actually threatening any of its neighbors, that is nonsense. Russia is also not expanding towards the American borders and the borders of American allies but remains focused exclusively on protecting its own borders. On the other hand, NATO is trying to surround Russia from as many sides as possible and to ”stifle” it slowly squeezing, or to force it to surrender before it uses anything from its dangerous arsenal. That is why NATO wants to get as close to Moscow as possible. Protecting countries like the Baltic states, Poland, Romania, or Bulgaria is just an unconvincing pretext. In that sense, the expansion of NATO towards Russia's borders is an act of obvious, and factual aggression - an undeclared war against Russia! Does the rest of the world really need that war?

The so-called anti-missile bases in Poland and Romania, as Russian President Putin has repeatedly emphasized, above all, do not serve to defend against imaginary attacks from Iran, and do not have to have a defensive character at all. The same missile launchers that could be used to launch defensive missiles can be used to launch hypersonic missiles with nuclear warheads, which is a real danger for Russia that is at least, ten times greater than the one posed by the installation of Soviet missile systems in Cuba in 1962. Kennedy, who can hardly be said to have been a hawk, was ready to enter a total and ruthless war with the USSR because of those missile systems. This means that Russia also has a full moral right and military justification to react sharply and energetically in order to eliminate the direct and immediate danger. It is these missile systems and their offensive potential that are the greatest threat to world peace because fatal misunderstandings that would initiate the unexpected and full exchange of nuclear strikes are more than possible. The devastating fact that is becoming clear to everyone these days is that NATO does not seem to have any security brakes, just as it does not have sound mechanisms that take into account feedback on the real geopolitical situation. There are only strict, preconceived, and unchangeable plans for endless expansion by which the American version of the ”Drang nach Osten” doctrine must be implemented at all costs. Slowing down, regrouping, reconsidering plans, or withdrawing, by all accounts, are out of the question for NATO, which is marching along a straight path that certainly leads to a total war with Russia.

NATO wanted to survive the end of the Cold War at all costs, despite the fact that with the collapse of the USSR, there were no more reasons for its existence. Why is it so? First of all, the nature of NATO is more similar to the character of a multinational company than to a defense alliance. That should come as no surprise. NATO is an offshoot of the much-mentioned American military-industrial complex, which is an alliance of the American deep state, its not at all transparent interests and the military industry. In his farewell speech on January 17, 1961, outgoing President Eisenhower warned that the military-industrial complex posed a real threat to democracy and civil rights in the United States. Only in the last decades, the prophetic depth of the words of the great American has become clear and understandable to the whole world. NATO is a trillion-dollar business that didn't want to shut itself down just like that. In order to survive, NATO sought to secure a new purpose for itself by finding long-term enemies. The cunning and underground financing and control of numerous Islamist terrorist groups, through agents of influence, and even the creation of such groups, provided the Americans and the British above all, and to a lesser extent other American allies, the questionable right to intervene politically and militarily in oil-rich countries of Maghreb and Middle East, at their own discretion. But, this is primarily an American game, as it is, after all, keeping an eye on China. NATO exists almost exclusively because of Russia. In that sense, NATO's expansion to the East had the task of ensuring the organization's survival by deliberately provoking Russia, which, whether it wanted to or not, had to modernize its army and join an unwanted arms race to preserve its own security. In fact, Russia would rather direct financial resources to other industries in order to strengthen the country's entire economy and achieve financial stability, but NATO does not allow it, which in fact, puts strong economic pressure on Russia, later intensified by economic and other sanctions that are continuously intensifying till this day. NATO leaders then used the obvious military strengthening of Russia, for which they themselves were responsible, according to a preconceived plan, as a pretext for their further expansion and increase in the military budgets of their members.

What NATO did not expect and could not predict was the success with which Russia modernized its army.

It should have a sobering effect on NATO leaders, but that is not happening because this organization is not run by military experts, but by bankers and bureaucrats like Stoltenberg, the current Secretary General of NATO. That is why we should not be surprised by the recent resignation of German Vice Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, Commander of the German Navy (German: Inspekteur der Marine). Undoubtedly, Schönbach was forced to retire after, as an educated high-ranking officer, an expert that is, he publicly presented his rather realistic analysis of the current relationship between NATO and Russia. Namely, Schönbach emphasized the necessity of full respect for Russia as an old, important, and Christian state, as well as for President Putin himself, and stated that Crimea will never return to Ukraine. Indeed, Crimea was stolen from Russia in 1954 by a bad decision of one man, Nikita Khrushchev, who handed it over to his home republic for allegedly economic reasons. Formally, the decision on the transfer was made by the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, but there is no doubt that it was a personal political decision of Khrushchev. In contrast, the 2014 referendum determined the fate of Crimea in a direct and democratic way. What is more legitimate then? Is it really worth going to the global conflict and nuclear war because of Nikita Khrushchev, so many years after his irresponsible decision? Schönbach also claimed that the idea of the Russians planning to take over Ukraine was nonsense. And again, he is right, why would Russia attack and bomb the Slavic and Orthodox Christian country where 8 million Russians live? There seems to be no place in NATO for honorable people like Schönbach and he was forced to leave his high-ranking position in this organization like many reasonable people before him because only blindness and political obedience ensure a successful career in it. There is very little time left to prevent a full military conflict between NATO and Russia, after which this world would be inherited by cockroaches and scorpions. The only hope is to restore full political control of NATO member countries over its management and command and to remove bankers, bureaucrats, and demagogues in favor of military and political experts. Let us just assume that true democracy in all these countries is not dead and that their nations want a normal life in peace and security. Audacious European sovereignists like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, or realists like Croatian President Zoran Milanovic, would play the most important role in this process which should not take too long, however, because the time to achieve lasting peace is getting shorter every day.

The Americans themselves say that where there is a will, there is a way. There are solutions that could satisfy all parties to a sufficient extent. For example, the establishment of a buffer zone between Russia and NATO could provide the desired peace. The Baltic states, Poland, Romania, and Bulgaria could even remain members of NATO in order to preserve the integrity (and dignity) of that organization, but each of the mentioned countries would sign special bilateral agreements on mutual non-aggression and cooperation with Russia, which would ensure stability in these regions. Strong economic and cultural exchange as a way to build mutual trust should be part of these agreements too. The removal of the mentioned missile bases from Poland and Romania and the withdrawal of American, British, and other non-domicile troops from those countries must be part of those agreements. The Black Sea would be under the exclusive military jurisdiction of those states that are on that sea, and the agreements would imply the withdrawal of all other navies from that region. Similar agreements with Russia could be signed by other interested countries, such as Hungary, Slovakia, and the Czech Republic. NATO would not have to withdraw in this case, but its further expansion would be put to an end, while bilateral agreements between Russia and above mentioned NATO members would ensure lasting peace. Russia, for its part, by signing those agreements, would clearly confirm what is in fact clear to everyone, and that is that it has no aggressive intentions towards its neighbors whatsoever. As for Ukraine, it could sign agreements with Russia that would make it the most privileged nation in economic exchange with it, provided that it never joins NATO, which this organization would also commit to. About 2 million Ukrainians live in Russia, just as over 8 million Russians live in Ukraine. The two nations that jointly built the once largest empire on the planet, the Russian Empire, have a common historical heritage that is indivisible, as are children from numerous mixed Russian-Ukrainian families.

The moment the United States and Great Britain give up the idea of ​​sacrificing Ukraine as a pawn in their chess game against Russia, relations between Ukraine and Russia, on bilateral grounds and without unwanted interference from other side, will not only return to normal quickly but will also rise. Everything else, especially the way in which NATO intends to aggressively and provocatively impose its views by force and threats, leads directly to the world war with unforeseeable consequences. The keys to peace and war are in the hands of NATO alone. If NATO wants a war, there will be a war, however, like all wars of previous epochs, that war would also have an extremely unpredictable course, last much longer, and have far more terrible consequences than those predicted by instigators of war who intend to spend the war in bunkers such as the one at the Cheyenne Mountain Complex. The price of their arrogance and cold-blooded calculations would be paid by millions or even billions of innocent people because no one realized in time that NATO does not serve anyone other than the American deep state and powerful people from the shadows for whom no one ever voted.