NATO Was Never About American Security

The evidence from the Soviet archives shows that Stalin’s policy during the 1947 pivot to Cold War was largely defensive and reactive. But even that departure from the cooperative modus operandi of the wartime alliance arose from what might well be described as an unforced error in Washington.

We are referring to the latter’s badly misplaced fears that deteriorating economic conditions in Western Europe could lead to communists coming to power in France, Italy and elsewhere. The truth of the matter, however, is that even the worst case – a communist France (or Italy or Belgium) – was not a serious military threat to America’s homeland security.

As we pointed out in Part 2, the post-war Soviet economy was a shambles. Its military had been bled and exhausted by its death struggle with the Wehrmacht and its Navy, which embodied but a tiny fraction of the US Navy’s fire-power, had no ability whatsoever to successfully transport an invasionary force across the Atlantic. Even had it allied with a “communist” France, for example, the military threat to the American homeland just wasn’t there.

To be sure, communist governments in Western Europe would have been a misfortune for electorates who might have stupidly put them in power. But that would have been their domestic governance problem, not a mortal threat to liberty and security on America’s side of the Atlantic moat.

Keep reading

NATO, Sweden, Latvia On High Alert After Baltic Undersea Data Cable “Damaged”

The third severing of an undersea cable in just three months occurred on Sunday, this time between Latvia and Sweden in the Baltic Sea. The incident has prompted a criminal investigation and heightened concerns of potential sabotage by Russia or China.

Latvia’s State Radio and Television Center, a data transmission provider, released this statement about the damaged cable connecting Ventspils in Latvia and Sweden’s Gotland island:

In the early morning of January 26, the submarine fiber optic cable of the Latvian State Radio and Television Centre (hereinafter – LVRTC) in the Baltic Sea was damaged. The LVRTC Data Transmission Monitoring System recorded disruptions in data transmission services on the Ventspils – Gotland (Fårösund) section. LVRTC continues to provide services using other data transmission routes. Currently, there is a possible delay in data transmission speed, but it does not affect end users in Latvia for the most part.

Prime Minister Evika Silina commented about the incident on X:

Early morning today we received information that the data cable from Latvia to Sweden was damaged in the Baltic Sea, in the section that is located in the Exclusive economic zone of Sweden. We are working together with our Swedish Allies and NATO on investigating the incident, including to patrolling the area, as well as inspecting the vessels that were in the area. Authorities have intensified information exchange and started criminal investigation.

Keep reading

Strava Security Breach Scandal: NATO Soldiers in Poland Expose Sensitive Data by Negligent Usage of Fitness App

The worldwide scandal involving security breaches connected to the popular fitness app Strava continues to gain global headlines.

Initially reported by the French paper Le Monde, investigations over the usage of this app revealed glaring security failures involving security personnel for leaders like Macron, Biden and Trump.

A second report also showed how French nuclear submarine crews were giving away sensitive information by using the app.

Now, it’s revealed that NATO soldiers stationed in Poland are also suspected of the same security breaches.

News portal Służby i Obywatel, reports soldiers at Polish bases unknowingly shared information about their travel routes by their Strava usage.

Keep reading

Zelensky is desperately trying to provoke a Pearl Harbour moment

There has been much reporting of Ukraine’s aerial attack on Russia over recent days that struck as far as Tatarstan. Western media has been quick to point out the use of western ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles in these attacks and six of each appear to have been used.

What does this all mean?

As talk increases of a possible meeting between Presidents Trump and Putin to discuss ending the war, Volodymyr Zelensky is grasping for a Pearl Harbour moment. Specifically, he wants to provoke Russia into a retaliatory strike against NATO that would be so strategically damaging that NATO would be drawn into Ukraine’s war with Russia.

In that regard, Zelensky is trying to position himself as a modern-day Winston Churchill.

Churchill famously said in a radio broadcast on 9 February 1941 addressing President Roosevelt, ‘Give us the tools, and we will finish the job.’

In April 2024, Zelensky said, ‘We will have a chance for victory if Ukraine really gets the weapon system which we need.’ He has used a different form of the same Churchillian entreaty several times.

In truth, Churchill knew that Britain could only defeat Nazi Germany in western Europe with the industrial might of the United States. So too, Zelensky has always wanted a more direct NATO role in the war, because it has always been clear that Ukraine cannot defeat Russia on its own.

History will record that the outcome of World War II was sealed by events far from Europe, but rather in the Pacific, namely the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, on 7 December 1941. That so enraged the United States that they had no choice but to enter the war.

By attacking targets deep inside of Russia using western supplied weapons, Zelensky’s gamble is that Russia will retaliate by striking a significant NATO target inside of Europe.

Keep reading

Switzerland violates its historical neutrality as it promptly approaches NATO

Switzerland, a country historically neutral regarding Europe’s geopolitical disputes, is quickly becoming yet another “devoted” ally of the West, in violation of its own diplomatic tradition. Instead of reaffirming its neutrality and attempting to act as a peacemaker amid the current tensions, Switzerland appears to be giving in to ongoing Western pressure, which could have negative consequences for the country in the near future.

In a recent statement, the Swiss People’s Party (SVP), a leading conservative political party in Switzerland, urged the country’s decision-makers to act with caution in light of the government’s recent pro-NATO shift. The party warned that the current Swiss government is failing to uphold neutrality, a fundamental principle of Swiss foreign policy, by taking a pro-NATO and pro-Ukraine position in its international relations.

The statement harshly criticized Viola Amherd, former president of the Swiss Confederation and current head of the defense department. According to the SVP,  Amherd has proven herself unable of ensuring Swiss security, as the violation of neutrality has allegedly created substantial problems for national defense.

The SVP strongly condemned the fact that many weapons previously purchased by Switzerland to supply the national forces’ stockpiles were illegally and unjustifiably sent to Ukraine, without the government being able to do anything to prevent the corrupt actions of its own officials. Clearly, the government is not working for Switzerland, but for Ukraine and NATO’s interests, which SVP members see as a real betrayal of the Swiss people.

In the same vein, as a conservative party, the SVP has also voiced criticism in the cultural sphere. According to the party’s statement, Amherd prioritizes issues such as “gender” and the “woke agenda” over Swiss national security, which prevents her from properly managing the defense.

Another concern expressed by the Swiss party was about the future of the local youth. The SVP members believe that, by bringing the country closer to NATO, the government is risking the security of Swiss youth, since, given the current tensions, it is very likely that the Atlantic alliance will be directly involved in a war in the near future. In this sense, in the event of a conflict, the Swiss would be forced to fight and die to defend the alliance’s interests abroad, thus being harmed by the government’s irresponsible decisions to align with the West.

“Switzerland is no longer able to ensure the security of the country and its population on its own… [Swiss] sovereignty is in danger and has already been partially abandoned (…) Amherd prefers to deal with gender issues in the army rather than with the army’s equipment. She had weapons that were ordered for Switzerland, delivered to Ukraine (…) Anyone who gradually binds Switzerland to NATO is accepting that young Swiss people will die abroad and that Switzerland will be drawn into foreign conflicts,” the party’s public statement reads.

Keep reading

The United States Always Knew NATO Expansion Would Lead to War

The present severed from the past is easily misunderstood. In discussions of the Russia-Ukraine war, not enough is made of the historical fact that, at the end of the Cold War, the newly independent Ukraine promised not to join NATO, and NATO promised not to expand to Ukraine.

Not enough is made of the fact that Article IX of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, “External and Internal Security,” says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs…” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance; that included NATO.

Nor is enough made of the fact that in 1990 and 1991, the George H.W. Bush administration gave assurances to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev—assurances that arguably reached the level of a deal—that NATO would not expand east of Germany, including to Ukraine.

But even less is made of what the Bill Clinton administration later promised Russian President Boris Yeltsin, nor what the United States already knew at the time of where plans of NATO expansion to Ukraine would lead.

Recently declassified documents clearly show that, between 1993 and 2000, the U.S. already knew that a cornered Boris Yeltsin was distraught about NATO expansion and about the West’s broken promise, that expansion to Ukraine was a red line, and that if Russia ever enforced that red line, the U.S. would respond forcefully.

Though the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland were invited to begin accession talks in 1997 and joined NATO in 1999, a secret October 1994 policy paper, written by National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and entitled “Moving Toward NATO Expansion,” makes it clear that the decision to expand NATO had already been made by that time. The paper explicitly keeps “the membership door open for Ukraine.”

Interestingly, though Russia is always publicly painted as a predatorial nation with imperial ambitions, a confidential 1993 cable states that most Eastern European states seek NATO membership “not [because they] feel militarily threatened by Russia” but because they believe “that NATO membership can help stave off the return of authoritarian forces” in their own countries. Though the cable makes the exception that Ukraine and the Baltic states may feel threatened by Russia.

By September 1994, Clinton had explicitly told Yeltsin that NATO would expand. While visiting Yeltsin in the hospital on December 16, 1994, Vice President Al Gore clarifies that “What Clinton told you in September was that eventually NATO will expand.”

But Gore promised Yeltsin that “the process will be gradual and open and we will consult carefully with you.” He added, “The process will be conducted in parallel with a deepening of the U.S.-Russia partnership and your partnership with NATO.”

Though less than a week later, a secret NSC memorandum clarifies that Russia will not be given “a veto or right of prior consultation over NATO decisions,” this promise of a deepening “institutionalized relationship between NATO and Russia—possibly in the form of a Treaty (“alliance with the Alliance”) or Charter” that will be established in parallel with NATO expansion is repeatedly mentioned. A secret memorandum written by Anthony Lake to Clinton on July 17, 1995 identifies “plans to develop a formalized NATO-Russia relationship in parallel with enlargement.” The spirit of this promise would be broken.

Importantly, it is evident that the Clinton administration was very aware of Russia’s opposition to NATO expansion and of their feeling of betrayal. Knowing that expansion is an impossible sell in Russia, Gore promised Yeltsin that expansion wouldn’t occur before 1996 because “[w]e understand you have parliamentary elections in mid-1995 and it would be hard for you if we moved forward then.”

Keep reading

Zelensky Calls for NATO Troops in Ukraine at Last Ramstein Rally Before Trump Return

The Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which is essentially ‘NATO and Friends,’ convened at Ramstein Air Base on Thursday for its final meeting before Trump returns to the White House.

Zelensky used his speech to call for NATO to deploy troops to Ukraine, claiming it would “force Russia to peace,” when he and everyone else knows it would only serve to bring us to World War 3.

Glenn Diesen, a geopolitical analyst and professor at the University of South-Eastern Norway, noted that while Trump’s talk of wanting to pursue peace in Ukraine is a step forward, he’s in for a wake-up call if he expects Russia to accept a deal that doesn’t address Putin’s long list of security concerns for the region.

Keep reading

US Always Knew NATO Expansion Led to War

The present severed from the past is easily misunderstood. In discussions of the Russia-Ukraine war, not enough is made of the historical facts that, at the end of the Cold War, the newly independent Ukraine promised not to join NATO, and NATO promised not to expand to Ukraine.

Not enough is made of the fact that Article IX  of the 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine, “External and Internal Security,” says that Ukraine “solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs….” That promise was later enshrined in Ukraine’s constitution, which committed Ukraine to neutrality and prohibited it from joining any military alliance: that included NATO.

Nor is enough made of the fact that in 1990 and 1991, the Bush administration gave assurances to Gorbachev – assurances that arguably reached the level of a deal – that NATO would not expand east of Germany, including to Ukraine.

But even less is made of what the Clinton administration later promised Yeltsin nor of what the U.S. already knew at the time of where plans of NATO expansion to Ukraine would lead.

Recently declassified documents clearly show that, between 1993 and 2000, the U.S. already knew that a cornered Boris Yeltsin was distraught about NATO expansion and about the West’s broken promise, that expansion to Ukraine was a red line, and that if Russia ever enforced that red line, the U.S. would respond forcefully.

Though Czechia, Hungary and Poland were invited to begin accession talks in 1997 and joined NATO in 1999, a secret October 1994 policy paper, written by National Security Advisor Anthony Lake and entitled “Moving Toward NATO Expansion,” makes it clear that the decision to expand NATO had already been made by that time. The paper explicitly keeps “the membership door open for Ukraine.”

Interestingly, though Russia is always publicly painted as a predatorial nation with imperial ambitions, a confidential 1993 cable states that most Eastern European states seek NATO membership “not [because they] feel militarily threatened by Russia” but because they believe “that NATO membership can help stave off the return of authoritarian forces” in their own countries. Though the cable makes the exception that Ukraine and the Baltic states may feel threatened by Russia.

Keep reading

NATO State Seeking More Cemetery Space for Potential Future War Casualties

Funeral associations in Sweden are looking to secure enough land to bury thousands of people in the event of a war, the Associated Press has reported. The Nordic country joined NATO earlier this year, amid the US-led military bloc’s growing involvement in the Ukraine conflict.

The burial association in Sweden’s second-largest city, Gothenburg, is trying to acquire additional land to ensure casket sites for some 30,000 dead, on top of what is needed for graveyards for regular use, AP wrote on Saturday.

Swedish media outlets reported earlier this month that the authorities were bracing for up to half a million potential fatalities if the country were to enter a full-scale war.

In big cities… land resources are scarce to begin with and not always sufficient to meet burial ground needs even in times of calm and peace,” AP quoted Katarina Evenseth, senior advisor at the Goteborg Burial Association, as saying.

In October, the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency (MSB) released updated civil preparedness guides with instructions on how to survive during an armed conflict. The brochure, dubbed “In case of crisis or war,” contains advice on evacuation, how to stop bleeding, and other recommendations.

“The national security situation has changed drastically, and we all need to strengthen our resilience to various crises and, ultimately, war,” MSB Director General Mikael Frisell said in a statement last month.

Stockholm dropped decades of military non-alliance and joined NATO in March, amid the conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The US-led bloc has been supporting Kiev by providing military aid, and in November, Washington authorized strikes using its missiles deep inside Russian territory. France has also suggested that Ukraine should be allowed to fire its missiles into Russia in self-defense, and Moscow has claimed that British-supplied Storm Shadows have already been used in such strikes.

Moscow has reiterated that the move makes NATO a direct party to the conflict.

According to critics of Stockholm’s accession to NATO, Sweden has become a potential target in the event of a war.

Keep reading

THE CABAL MOVES: Secretive Bilderberg Group Taps Former NATO Chief Jens Stoltenberg as New Chair of the ‘Steering Committee’

The secretive Bilderberg Group has a new co-chair of its ‘Steering Committee’, in the figure of the former Norwegian Prime Minister and former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.

The Bilderberg is one of the most mysterious, and therefore most mythologized elite groups on the Planet.

The Conspiracy Theories involving the group are numerous: to begin with, it is said that it works towards establishing a ‘New World Order’, representing a danger to national sovereignty and democracy.

It is also said that the group is a ‘global kingmaker.’

It is indeed a historical fact that one of its founders, Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands, was directly linked to the Nazi party, which would explain the group’s inclination towards authoritarian control.

There are also assertions that the Bilderberg instigated major global events, from wars to economic crises, all to serve their agenda.

And the list would not be complete without the lore popularized by David Icke, claiming that the Bilderberg members are of a reptilian race that interbred with humans to control planetary events.

Keep reading