NATO Failure Illustrated by Growing Turkish-Syrian Tensions

June 18, 2022 (Brian Berletic - New Eastern Outlook) - Military activity on all sides has been increasing in northern Syria. Turkish forces are increasing their presence and the pace of operations against Kurdish held territory north of Aleppo and to the east along the Turkish-Syrian border in what may lead up to a major military operation.

The Daily Sabah in an article titled, “Turkey urges Russia to fulfill deals to clear N. Syria of terrorists,” would speak from Turkey’s point of view regarding what Ankara saw as a terrorist threat to Turkish territory, and its expectations of its Russian counterparts in dealing with the situation or, apparently, Turkey will deal with it itself.

The article claims:

Turkey expects Russia to fulfill commitments made in Syria against terrorist organizations and abide by agreements signed in 2019, Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said Wednesday, reiterating Ankara’s call for northern Syria near the Turkish borders to be cleared of terrorist groups threatening security and stability in the region.

Holding a joint press conference with his Russian counterpart Sergey Lavrov in the capital Ankara, Çavuşoğlu said terrorist groups threatening Syria have also upped the ante against Turkey and stressed the need to eliminate them.

Russian military forces as well as their Syrian allies have also increased their activity in northern Syria. The Syrian Arab Army may potentially move into Kurdish-held territory to both act as a deterrent against any possible Turkish offensive, and possibly as a stabilizing factor defusing tensions between Turkey and Kurish fighters.

AP in its article, “US-backed Syrian Kurds to turn to Damascus if Turkey attacks,” would note:

The US-backed and Kurdish-led forces in northern Syria said Tuesday that they will turn to the government in Damascus for support should Turkey go ahead with its threat to launch a new incursion into the war-torn country.

The article also noted:

Erdogan has repeatedly said over the past weeks that he’s planning a major military operation to create a 30-kilometer (19 mile) deep buffer zone inside Syria along Turkey’s border, through a cross-border incursion against US-allied Syrian Kurdish fighters — an attempt that failed in 2019.

Analysts have said Erdogan is taking advantage of the war in Ukraine to push his own goals in Syria — even using Turkey’s ability as a NATO member to veto alliance membership by Finland and Sweden as potential leverage.

The current standoff in northern Syria is one of several crises stemming from the 2011-onward US-led proxy war against Syria. The US and its allies poured billions of dollars in weapons, equipment, and training into opposition forces in an unsuccessful bid to overthrow the government of Syria.

Russia intervened in 2015 at the request of the Syrian government, quickly leveraging its superior airpower and other military capabilities to cut the supply lines of militant groups emanating from both Turkey and Jordan, before assisting Syrian, Iranian, and Lebanese forces in retarking most of Syria’s population centers west of the Euphrates River.

Because of an enduring US military occupation in eastern Syria, Syria’s oil and agricultural land remain in the hands of US-backed forces including Kurdish groups long labelled as terrorists by Turkey.

Turkish Concerns Reflect NATO Dysfunction

The complex contradictions among NATO members like Turkey and the US illustrate a systemic dysfunction within the alliance, rooted first and foremost in how the alliance can serve US interests even (and perhaps especially) at the cost of other NATO members.

This dysfunction has been amplified amid the ongoing conflict in Ukraine where the US is leading Europe in economic self-destruction to advance Washington’s agenda versus Moscow.

It is also illustrated through peripheral geopolitical moves including Finland and Sweden’s attempted ascension into NATO potentially being blocked by Turkey in a bid to resolve various US-engineered pressure points against Ankara including Kurdish militancy and the Gülen opposition movement harbored and perpetrated by the US and its European allies.

The fact that Turkey must use opportunities like the expansion of NATO and its veto power over this process to resolve serious points of contention involving national security between itself and NATO member the United States seriously undermines claims that NATO is a “defensive” alliance.

The US Uses and Abuses Syria’s Kurds Too 

Turkey is not the only victim of US double dealings. The US simultaneously supports Kurdish militant groups in holding eastern Syria, denying the Syrian government of essential food and energy, but regularly abandons Kurdish fighters when under attack by Turkish offensives big and small.

A Reuters article from June titled, “Syrian Kurdish authorities to stop wheat going to govt territory,” noted:

Kurdish-led authorities holding Syria’s breadbasket region will ban wheat from entering government territory in a bid to boost reserves, a Kurdish official told Reuters.

The region across north and east Syria is a key source of wheat for Damascus, which imports much of its demand, adding to its troubles in navigating tough Western sanctions.

The US has pushed Kurdish groups under its protection in eastern Syria to pressure the government in Damascus using both food and fuel to do so.

Three years ago when Turkey previously launched a major military offensive against Kurds in northern Syria, the US failed to intervene. Reuters in their article, “US military says not abandoning Kurds, condemns Turkish offensive,” admitted:

US President Trump’s decision to pull back troops from Syria’s border with Turkey has been widely criticized in Washington as a tacit “green light” for a Turkish offensive that intensified on Friday, with Turkish air and artillery strikes on Kurdish militia.

“Nobody green-lighted this operation by Turkey, just the opposite. We pushed back very hard at all levels for the Turks not to commence this operation,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper told a news briefing. 

Turkey, according to the article, knew the location of US troops while carrying out their attacks, carefully avoiding them while decimating their Kurdiah allies. This helps illustrate the one-sided nature of Washington’s relationship with its “partners” in eastern and northern Syria, an arrangement that is detrimental to both the Kurds and America’s Turkish “allies.”

It is an irony then that the same Kurds who have helped deny Syria wheat and fuel for years in collaboration with occupying US forces, fully understand that on the eve of another possible Turkish offensive, it is Syria and its Russian allies – not the US – who stand the best chance of protecting them and defusing tensions on both sides of the border.

Brian Berletic is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

NATO's Slow-Motion Blitzkrieg Eastward

September 20, 2020 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - When the US announced it would be reducing the number of its troops stationed in Germany many hoped in vain it would be the beginning of an overall reduction of US forces in Europe and a deescalation of tensions between the US, NATO and the Russian Federation.

Many others, however, easily predicted these forces would simply be moved elsewhere in Europe and most likely eastward even closer to Russia's borders and, as a result, increasing tensions.

AP reported in its article, "Pompeo inks deal for US troop move from Germany to Poland," that:

Some 4,500 U.S. troops are currently based in Poland, but about 1,000 more are to be added, under a bilateral decision announced last year. Last month, in line with President Donald Trump’s demand to reduce troop numbers in Germany, the Pentagon announced that some 12,000 troops would be withdrawn from Germany with about 5,600 moving to other countries in Europe, including Poland.

The article would add, in an attempt to explain the presence of US troops in Europe and their creep ever eastward, that:

Pompeo has used his Europe trip to warn the region’s young democracies about threats posed by Russia and China and has received a warm welcome.

What threats would those be?

NATO's creation and use as a balance of power during the Cold War could be argued, but since the collapse and eventual dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, NATO has not only continued to expand in membership including nations sitting directly on Russia's borders, it has expanded in scope, participating in wars of aggression stretching from Africa to Asia.

If it were ever a tool to maintain a balance of power between East and West, it has since transformed into a bludgeon to fully exploit a perceived absence of it in its favor.

From Libya to Iraq to Syria to Afghanistan, NATO members have destroyed one nation after another from the turn of the century and continue doing so to this day.

A 2011 article in The Atlantic titled, "The Arab Spring: 'A Virus That Will Attack Moscow and Beijing'," quoted US Senator John McCain as saying:

"A year ago, Ben-Ali and Gaddafi were not in power. Assad won't be in power this time next year. This Arab Spring is a virus that will attack Moscow and Beijing."

The article's author would then note:

Senator McCain's framing reflects a triumphalism bouncing around at this conference.  It sees the Arab Spring as a product of Western design -- and potentially as a tool to take on other non-democratic governments. 

At an earlier session, Senator Udall said that those who believed that the Arab Spring was an organic revolution from within these countries were wrong -- and that the West and NATO in particular had been primary drivers of results in Libya -- and that the West had helped animate and move affairs in Egypt.  Udall provocatively added Syria to that list as well.

Without a doubt, and even according to US newspapers like the New York Times, the Arab Spring was most certainly "a product of Western design" and in hindsight it cannot be disputed that the US and NATO in particular had been "primary drivers of results in Libya" with the alliance having used direct military force to topple the Libyan government.

In hindsight we can also see the swath of absolute devastation left in the wake of this "product of Western design," with turmoil consuming North Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia.

After threatening Russia (and China) that this "product of Western design" was ultimately aimed at them, McCain would eventually tour the pile of rubble that once was Libya as well as visit the fringes of Syria's still active battlefields. 

Can anyone honestly decouple threats like those of McCain against Moscow and Beijing and the visible destruction created as a result of Western military aggression all along Russia's and China's peripheries?

History Repeating Itself 

At the beginning of World War II Nazi Germany used an offensive form of warfare against Russia known as blitzkrieg. It first amassed troops along the border with Russia and then attempted to deliver a swift, focused blow aimed at Moscow to overwhelm Russian forces before they could mobilize and react.

Like many other invasions of Russia throughout history, Germany's invasion failed and blitzkrieg, while successful against France, Belgium and Poland and even initially successful against Russia, was found to be ill-suited for the depth and distances required to conquer Russia's sheer geographical size.

Is it hyperbole to claim history is repeating itself with the US amassing forces along Russia's borders today while it burns the planet down along Russia's borders and threatens Moscow that it is next in line?

It doesn't seem like hyperbole at all.

It seems like a slow-motion version of Nazi Germany's blitzkrieg, but instead of attempting to plow over Russia before winter comes as the Nazis attempted in June of 1941, it is instead methodically dissecting Russia's allies abroad, smothering it along its borders, undermining and attempting to isolate it economically while attempting to foment the same sort of political subversion that kicked-off the Arab Spring in 2011 within Russia's borders.

Policy circles in Washington and Brussels like to refer to its rivalry with Russia and China as a "Great Power Game." Considering what the West has done to lesser pawns in this game, nations like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen, to those in Moscow or Beijing it doesn't feel like a game.

It feels existential.

Russia now faces an increase of US troops sitting on its borders. The transfer of 1,000 more US troops to Poland means 1,000 more US troops hovering over Russia's Kaliningrad Oblast which sits on the northern Polish border.

It remains to be seen where other troops leaving Germany will be stationed but it is almost a certainty they will not be going back to the United States, and instead, will be heading further east.

The US and NATO attempt to portray Russia as the villain of this story for bolstering troops along its western borders in response. But these are Russian troops, inside of Russia and Russian troops facing off against the growing presence of US troops just on the other side.

The US has crossed an ocean and a continent to find itself on Russia's doorstep. These are also US troops that have laid waste to several nations including and especially former Soviet allies and until their destruction, allies of the Russian Federation.

How else should Russia interpret all of this? How else should the rest of the world interpret this?

AP and others in the Western media refuse to state the obvious, but NATO's existence since the fall of the Soviet Union has been a multi-decade, multi-trillion dollar slow-motion blitzkrieg that has already destroyed entire nations, is destroying many more now and poses as the most pressing threat to global peace and stability today.

When US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claims Russia and China pose "threats" to the world, there remains the inescapable fact that the US and NATO are the only nations in the 21st century invading and destroying other nations, creating conflict consuming entire regions of the planet and building up troops along the borders of the few nations left outside Western domination.

Until Russia and China do likewise, it is clear the only threat the US and NATO really face is reaching the limits of their abuses, or eventually even having to pay for them.

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

Navalny Poisoning - The Real Target is Russian-German Nord Stream 2 Pipeline

US-NATO continue building "momentum" behind Navalny incident - hope to end Nord Stream 2 pipeline before facts emerge, the pipeline is completed, and as all other options have so-far failed.  

September 6, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Alexei Navalny is the ideal opposition figure for any incumbent government - he is ineffective, unpopular, and transparently compromised by malign foreign interests.

According to a poll carried out by the Lavada Center - a polling organization funded by the US government itself  via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) - a mere 9% of all Russians look favorably on him and his work, with most Russians unaware of who he even is.

Germany was the one place the US and NATO needed Navalny to be the most - and in a condition of poor health the US and NATO needed him to be in. 

His continued existence and his monopoly over Russia's equally unpopular opposition ensures that an effective opposition never takes root in grounds choked by his presence.

For Moscow - Navalny's continued existence is not only not a threat, he occupies space where a real threat might otherwise emerge.

For the United States and its NATO partners who have dumped millions of dollars and political capital into Navalny's dead-end opposition in Russia - Navalny's continued existence is an underperforming investment at best.

"Coincidentally" just as the German-Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline nears completion - a pipeline project that will expand Russia's hydrocarbon exports, increase revenue, and provide cheap energy to Europe in a business deal that would also help draw Europe and Russia closer diplomatically - Navalny was "poisoned."

He wasn't just "poisoned." He was allegedly poisoned with nerve agents called "Novichoks" alleged to be available only in Russia. Navalny was rushed by a shadowy NGO with opaque funding called "Cinema for Peace" to Germany - of all places.

Delivered right to the heart of what is surely one of Russia's most important economic and diplomatic projects at the moment - it is the perfect excuse for the US and NATO to pressure Germany to abandon Nord Stream 2 - an objective Washington has struggled and failed to achieve for years.

The US and NATO wasted no time accusing Russia even with no evidence presented that Russia was responsible - not to mention lacking any conceivable motive for the alleged "assassination" attempt of such an unpopular opposition figure at such a crucial time for Russia, its economy, and its ties with Western Europe and Germany in particular.


German state media, Deutsche Welle (DW), in an article titled, "Navalny, Novichok and Nord Stream 2 — Germany stuck between a rock and a pipeline," indirectly lays out not only the real motive behind Navalny's alleged poisoning, but the most likely culprit as well.

The article admits just how close to completion Nord Stream 2 is, noting (emphasis added):

Many are looking to Germany, whose Nord Stream 2 pipeline is a prominent example of selective cooperation with Russia despite concerns about the country's approach to human rights both domestically and internationally.

The Nord Stream 2 project, which is more than 90% complete, aims to double Russia's supply of direct natural gas to Germany. Running under the Baltic Sea, the pipeline bypasses Eastern European states, sending gas from Russia's Narva Bay to Lubmin, a coastal town adjacent to Merkel's constituency in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania.

It's noted that the pipeline bypasses Eastern Europe where the US has repeatedly toppled governments and installed client regimes hostile to Russia - complicating Russia's delivery of hydrocarbons to Western Europe - Ukraine being a recent example.

The DW article then admits:

Critics do not view Nord Stream 2 as purely a business affair, instead calling it a major win for Russia's image and standing at the international level. The Navalny poisoning, which draws strong parallels to the 2018 Novichok attack on a former Russian double agent that the United Kingdom has accused the Kremlin of orchestrating, further complicates Germany's efforts to keep politics out of Nord Stream 2.

"After the poisoning of Navalny we need a strong European answer, which Putin understands: The EU should jointly decide to stop Nord Stream 2," tweeted Norbert Röttgen, an outspoken Russia critic in Merkel's conservative party.  

His voice carries particular weight, as Röttgen chairs the Bundestag's Foreign Affairs Committee and he is currently running for the party's leadership.

It doesn't take an expert in geopolitics to have understood that an attempt on Navalny's life would have provided a mountain of political ammunition for the US and NATO in its ongoing attempts to sabotage Nord Stream 2 and prevent "a win for Russia's image and standing at the international level."

This is the most compelling reason why the Kremlin would not have ordered it - especially so close to completing Nord Stream 2.

It must also be remembered that Navalny was flown directly to Germany after the alleged attack.

Germany was the one place the US and NATO needed Navalny to be the most - and in a condition of poor health the US and NATO needed him to be in. With Nord Stream 2 over 90% complete - there is little time left to threaten, coerce, and pressure Germany to otherwise abandon the project.

The alleged presence of "Novichok" nerve agents - had the attack been the work of the Kremlin - would have been a smoking gun and a virtual calling card left - all but guaranteeing immense pressure from across the West and in particular - pressure placed on Germany to cancel the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.

The DW article covers what the US has already done to pressure Germany, noting (emphasis added):

 The Trump administration wants to sell Germany its own gas, which critics say is more expensive than gas from Russia. Sanctions have bipartisan support in Washington, and the US has already imposed them against companies laying pipe in the Baltic Sea, prompting the Swiss-Dutch company Allseas to pull out of the project in 2019. More sanctions are awaiting the US president's signature.

Then DW quoted Sarah Pagung - a specialist on German-Russian relations for the German Council on Foreign Relations. The article would note her saying (emphasis added):

"We can't rule [the canceling of Nord Stream 2] out as an option, but it's unlikely," Pagung told DW, although she said Germany could use the Navalny poisoning as an "opportunity" to shift its position on the pipeline without appearing to be caving to US pressure. 

DW all but spells out the true motive of Navalny's alleged poisoning and his "serendipitous" delivery to Germany for treatment - to serve as a catalyst for the cancellation of Nord Stream 2.

Since Moscow has absolutely nothing to gain from this - it is the least likely suspect.

Since it not only fits into the US and NATO's openly declared agenda of coercing Germany into cancelling the Nord Stream 2 project, it also fits a pattern of staged attacks and fabricated claims used by the US and NATO to advance their collective foreign policy - they are the most likely suspects.

Consider the much worse and absolutely verified crimes against humanity the US and NATO are guilty of - with the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2011-onward military interventions in Libya and Syria as just two examples. Poisoning Navalny - a failed investment as a living, breathing opposition figure and turning him into a martyr - is a relatively small act of false-flag violence to create a difficult impasse for the German government regarding Nord Stream 2.

The fact that the US and NATO are rushing to conclusions without evidence - as they've done many times before when pushing now verified lies - only further incriminates both as the most likey suspects in Navalny's poisoning.

For Navalny himself - his fate - if he was actually poisoned - is tragic. The very people he worked for and whose agenda he served seem to find him more useful dying than healthy in terms of advancing Western foreign policy against Russia.

There are too many "coincidences" surrounding this incident:

• The attack itself at such a sensitive time for Russia, its economy, and its ties with Germany in particular;
• The fact that Navalny was flown by a shadowy NGO to Germany itself;
• The fact that the US has been openly trying to sabotage the German-Russian Nord Stream 2 pipeline all along and;
• The fact that the "attack" was allegedly carried out in such a clumsy, ineffective, and incriminating way specifically to implicate Russia.

For a US and NATO who have sold the world entire wars based on "evidence" and "accusations" of everything from nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq to lies about viagra-fuelled rape squads in Libya - one more lie about an unpopular Russian opposition figure poisoned in Russia, picked up by a dubious NGO, and placed down right in the middle of German-Russian relations and the Nord Stream 2 pipeline the US and NATO are desperate to stop - fits a disturbing but all-too-predictable pattern.  

The question is why are people still falling for it? Will Germany fall for it, or at the very least, cave - costing itself economic opportunities in exchange for a deeper and more costly role in US-NATO aggression against Russia? Only time will tell. 

Why is the US-NATO Eager for Regime Change in Belarus?

Regime change in Belarus would help extend NATO's presence on Russia's border by over 700 miles.  

August 27, 2020 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Belarus borders Russia and despite differences it has had with Russia over the years, the current government represents a much better alternative than a client regime installed by Washington and NATO.

US and EU-backed regime change in Belarus would extend NATO's presence along Russia's borders by over 700 miles in addition to the over 590 mile-long presence NATO-members like Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, and Latvia already make up (this includes borders shared with the Russian oblast of Kaliningrad).

It would also bring NATO troops within almost 240 miles of Moscow, just within cruising range of US-built M1A2 main battle tanks.

Watching NATO's enlargement following the dissolution of the Soviet Union from the 1990's onward makes it a no-brainer as to what motivates US and NATO meddling in Belarusian politics. It is all aimed toward regime change and the shaping of Belarus into an extension of ongoing efforts to smother Russia.

It is the natural continuation of what could be best described as a slow-motion blitzkrieg, where US and NATO methodically dissect Russia's allies abroad, smother its borders, strangle its economy, and foment unrest within Russia itself.

Belarus depends on Russia economically with a significant amount of its imports and exports coming from and going to Russia. Regime change there, made to look like an immense effort to "save" the people of Belarus, would mean the cutting of these economic ties and would leave a vacuum that would take years to fill. Just like in Ukraine following US-NATO led regime change there, economic collapse would be a guarantee.

For Russia, Belarus is among its top 10 trading partners and while Russia could probably find ways of compensating for the loss of trade with Belarus should a Western-backed client regime take power, it would be yet another cut among many inflicted by the West on its besieged economy.

US Meddling in Belarus is Real, Admitted and Ongoing for Decades 

Why would the opposition in Belarus choose economic collapse, the use of their territory to extend NATO's looming presence on Russia's borders and transform the nation into a potential battleground like neighboring Ukraine?

The fact that the opposition is funded by the US and thus making decisions best suited to Washington's interests rather than Belarus' helps explain why.

The US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), an organization well-known for its involvement in fostering regime change around the globe, funds a total of 35 (admitted) programs in Belarus. The specific individuals and organizations in Belarus the NED is funding are not disclosed on the NED's website. 

US funding Belarus' opposition is nothing new.


As early as 2001 articles in Western newspapers like the CS Monitor's "US spends millions to bolster Belarus opposition," would reveal:

Whatever the outcome, the election is revealing a remarkably high level of US and Western involvement on the side of pro-democracy activists, which has embroiled the American ambassador and senior Western officials in a political firestorm.

The 2001 article also notes:

Washington spent $24 million in Belarus last year, and US officials say the figure is slightly higher this year. That amounts to a small fortune in this impoverished nation wedged between NATO's eastern flank and Russia.

The article then attempts to defend the US' verified role in manipulating Belarus' elections. This includes a defense mounted by then US ambassador to Belarus, Michael Kozak himself.

Some might even say the arguments made sound reasonable until we recall Washington's own reaction to the mere accusations of Russian involvement in US elections in 2016.

If unfounded claims of Russian interference in US elections illicited sanctions leveled against Russia, why would the US believe carrying out a verified campaign of political interference in Belarus is somehow "ok?"

CS Monitor's 2001 article could just as likely have been written yesterday, except for the fact that the US has since raised the issue of election interference in 2016, exposing what is supreme hypocrisy that would be much more difficult to defend.

Of course election interference is never ok, no matter who does it. True democracy is rooted in the notion of self-determination which becomes increasingly impossible the greater outside interference becomes.

The US' attempts to have it both ways, to use allegations of interference in its own political processes as an excuse to level yet more sanctions against Russia, while defending its own interference in Belarus' elections - and the political processes of many other nations around the globe - only further undermines the credibility of its so-called "rules based international order" and those attempting to still defend it.

Not only is the US' interference in Belarus wrong for all of these reasons, if successful in effecting regime change, it will only further ratchet up tensions with Russia and further endanger global peace and stability as a result.

Whatever narratives and excuses being made by the Western media to justify US-NATO interference in Belarus and whatever "dangers" they claim the current government there poses, we have seen throughout the 21st century irrefutable evidence, from Afghanistan and Iraq to Libya, Syria, and Ukraine, that the greatest danger and the very worst calamities follow rather than precede US-led interventions. 

Belarus ‘Opposition’ Document Reveals Agenda to Pull Country Into NATO and EU

Recent events in Belarus appear to have been designed to moved NATO’s ever-expanding eastern front even closer towards Moscow.

August 21, 2020 (21st Century Wire) - EU bureaucrats, along with Washington’s change agent in the region, the notorious German Marshall Fund, are attempting to push the situation in Belarus deeper into the familiar ‘Color Revolution’ impasse, towards street violence and eventual ‘regime change,’ with the ultimate aim of installing a pro-US and pro-EU leader.

Following its recent Presidential elections, western leaders have called on Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko to step down and make way for the US-backed candidate who lost the recent election, Svetlana Tsikhanovskaya, claiming that the election was ‘unfair’ and that Belarussian authorities must ‘stop the repression against the Belarus people’ and ‘open a dialogue with civil society.’

Tsikhanovskaya is already forming her own western-backed ‘government in exile’ which will eventually be recognized by Washington and its allies as the “legitimate leader and government” of Belarus. This follows the familiar ‘humanitarian intervention’ template which the US has laid out for targeted countries like Libya, Syria, Ukraine, and most recently for Venezuela.

SEE ASO: Uncovering Faces Of Belarusian Opposition

While this western-driven campaign to remove what Washington believes is a “pro-Russian” leader in Lukashenko, the reality of the subterfuge is much deeper and more profound in terms of its geopolitical significance. No, this is much more than your typical western-backed color revolution. Upon closer examination of Tsikhanovskaya’s own manifesto, it’s clear that this latest regime change effort is not merely to pull Belarus away from close and friendly relations with its neighbor Russian – but rather it’s about forcing the country towards binding partnerships with both NATO and the EU.

Continue reading at the 21st Century Wire... 

US "Boots" Turkey from F-35 Program

July 19, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - Turkey has been officially "booted" from the F-35 multirole combat aircraft program. 

The F-35 multirole combat aircraft, produced by US-based arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin, is part of a massive weapons program exceeding $1 trillion. A single aircraft can cost over $100 million, or over twice the cost of Russia's new Su-57 and many times more expensive than other Russian, Chinese and European-made aircraft already in operation. 

The record-breaking costs however don't translate into record-breaking performance. The F-35 has already seen its fair share of development hiccups and even when they are all ironed out, nothing the F-35 is even advertised as being able to do justifies its growing price tag.

It is amazing then that anyone has lined up to buy it at all let alone the large number of nations that have lined up.

Reuters in an older article titled, "The 11 countries expected to buy F-35 fighter jet," would report:

Lockheed is developing three models of the plane for the U.S. military and eight partner countries that helped fund the plane’s development - Britain, Australia, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Canada. 

South Korea, Japan and Israel have also placed orders for the jet.

Since then, however, there has been public backlash in nations like Canada which are shouldering development costs even if they end up buying no F-35s at all, CBC would explain.

Despite headlines like the BBC's, "US removes Turkey from F-35 fighter jet programme," Turkey itself has probably benefited most from being "removed." Other headlines across the corporate media have been using the term "booted," "kicked out," or "expelled," but a more apt term would be "dodged."

What would nations like Britain, Australia, Italy, Turkey, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Canada, South Korea, Japan and Israel do with F-35s anyway?

Israel already reportedly has the new aircraft. They've even reportedly used them in their attacks on neighboring Syria. However Israel has used the aircraft for mostly standoff attacks, fearing Syrian air defenses despite the F-35s supposedly stealthy profile.

While Britain is likewise prone to acts of illegal military aggression like its Israeli friends, the remaining nations hardly have any role for the F-35 their existing aircraft, or newer, cheaper aircraft could not easily fulfill.

So why did any of these nations line up to buy the F-35 in the first place? Is there any historical precedent that can help explain why Lockheed Martin's extraordinary expensive, but less-than-extraordinary performing combat aircraft has been so financially successful?

Yes, there is.

Lockheed's F-104 Starfighter: Flying on a Wing and a Bribe 

This historical precedent is exceptionally relevant. Not only is it about an astronomically expensive, underperforming and essentially unnecessary combat aircraft, it was also made by Lockheed and pushed on America's allies at the time, just like the F-35 is now.

It turns out that policymakers who chose the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter despite its many shortcomings were simply bought off, literally with crate fulls of money as was the case in Japan.


A very old 1976 article by the New York Times titled, "Japan's Watergate: Made in U.S.A.," illustrated Lockheed's business practice of simply buying off policymakers to chose their aircraft over competitors even after official decisions were made. While Lockheed's commercial airliners were mentioned in the article, the F-104 Starfighter was also involved in what was later exposed as a massive multinational multi-million dollar (billions in today's dollars) bribery racket.

Bribery might explain why Canada has tried to back off from the F-35 today but still has stubborn holdouts demanding the aircraft be given a chance.

The Daily Kos in a more recent article would report on Lockheed's massive bribery racket during the F-104's days, that:

Lockheed executives admitted paying millions in bribes over more than a decade to the Dutch, to key Japanese and West German politicians, to Italian officials and generals, and to other highly placed figures from Hong Kong to Saudi Arabia, in order to get them to buy our airplanes. Kelly Johnson was so sickened by these revelations that he had almost quit, even though the top Lockheed management implicated in the scandal resigned in disgrace.

Despite the obvious reasons not to buy the Lockheed Starfighter, nations ended up with them in abundance. All in all, over 2,500 were built. Over the course of their operational history, they succeeded in shooting down 3 aircraft and allegedly forcing another to land. Conversely, hundreds crashed with West Germany alone losing 116 pilots between 1962 and 1984.

If US arms manufacturers like Lockheed could get away with bribing officials to buy hundreds of what were essentially "flying coffins" to allied nations back in the 1950s and 60s, killing far more allied pilots than the enemy ever did, how hard would it be to sell something slightly less deadly, semi-functional but simply overpriced?

Pretty easy apparently.

Between collective public amnesia regarding Lockheed's past abuses, a corporate media that works for arms manufacturers and policymakers receiving millions in bribes, the collective defense of the West never stood a chance of getting affordable and effective defense capabilities.

Turkey Wasn't "Booted From" the F-35 Program, It Dodged It

Turkey has undoubtedly played accomplice to Western machinations over the past half century. It has been a member of NATO since 1952 and has played a role in destabilizing the Middle East and even parts of Eurasia for decades on behalf of Anglo-American interests.

More recently it served as a springboard into neighboring Syria for tens of thousands of terrorists backed by a US-led coalition aimed at overthrowing the government in Damascus. Much of the current violence in China's Xinjiang region is owed to Turkish meddling alongside US efforts to divide and destabilize the political order in Beijing.

Turkish forces have even partially invaded Syria, finding themselves mired in fighting with terrorists they themselves at one point supported and of course Kurdish militants, many of whom are supported by their own Western allies.

Ankara has also watched as US, European and even Israeli combat aircraft including F-35s have tip-toed around Syrian and Russian air defenses.

There is clearly much more going on behind the scenes as Western influence around the globe fades and Eurasian powers like Russia and China emerge upon the global stage. Turkish interests in the long-term will likely tip toward greater cooperation with the East rather than the West.

But the inability of Western forces to establish uncontested air superiority over Syria as they have done in virtually every other war in the past century including World War 2 surely isn't being lost on anyone seriously interested in national defense, bribed or not.

Ankara knew by buying Russian S-400 air defense systems they would likely be "booted from" the F-35 program, so in reality, Ankara itself made the decision to leave it. It will acquire a premier air defense system that it itself has watched complicate US military intervention in Syria next-door.

Turkey has freed itself from a complicated and costly weapons program that would leave its coffers lighter and its borders no more or less safe than they are at the moment. Deepening its military relationship with the West removes rather than enhances any leverage Ankara has when dealing with Washington, London or Brussels.

Other analysts have made convincing arguments that Russian-made systems transferred to Turkey and used by Turkish forces gives Ankara more autonomy from the US and NATO who insist US-made weapons systems be manned by US troops and ultimately directed by US and NATO commanders. The US, for example, has refused to transfer technology associated with their S-400 alternative, the Patriot missile system. Russia, as part of its deal with Turkey, will transfer technology.

While some may be overstating the significance of Turkey's latest decision, this is undoubtedly one of many steps Ankara is taking to move from West to East. The US, in "booting" Turkey from a program Turkey would not benefit from, is merely attempting to conceal the full extent of its waning influence.

Turkey will continue to be a nation straddling both East and West. But it is hard to recall another point in recent history where Turkey's balance between the two has been more equitable.

We can recall several extremely risky moments during the Syrian conflict, including the downing and ambush of Russian pilots and rescuers and calls from many in the public for swift retaliation from Moscow. Moscow didn't. Instead, it has patiently bided its time, and for doing so it has avoided what would likely have been a costly confrontation and instead reaped this recent success.

How significant or minor this success actually is, only time will tell. A major NATO partner buying Russian air defense systems while spurring an unprecedented US arms program certainly seems significant.

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.   

NATO at 70: Retirement or Renaissance?

April 23, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - US Vice President Mike Pence has recently referred to NATO as, "the most successful military alliance in the history of the world." Of course, "success" needs to be defined, especially when casual observers note the trail of death and destruction left in NATO's wake from Eastern Europe to North Africa to the Middle East to Central Asia over the last several decades.

For the casual observer, the NATO-linked Atlantic Council would attempt to offer a (very) short list of "NATO's accomplishments in recent years." The article was published in 2013, and time has not been kind to this list. 

NATO's Failures in Recent Years 

The list's author, James Stavridis,  was then NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe. He is now operating executive of the dubious private equity firm, The Carlyle Group which holds large investments in the defense sector. 

His list included Afghanistan where (at the time) he claimed, "Afghan Security Forces are nearly fully in the lead - 90% of Afghans are now protected by their own security forces as opposed to virtually none four years ago." 

Fast forward to today, there are still entire regions of Afghanistan not controlled by the NATO-backed government in Kabul, with NATO troop withdrawals repeatedly postponed specifically because nothing about Stravridis' claims were true. 

And, the very Taliban NATO claimed it was fighting for control over Afghanistan for are now sitting at the negotiation table across from Western representatives virtually dragged there kicking and screaming after years of vowing no negotiations, ever.

Next on Stravridis' list is  Libya. 

He boasts of NATO's operation in Libya being "the fasted deployment in the history of NATO." He characterized the systematic destruction of a now utterly failed, warring state, as "incredible teamwork in the service of the people of Libya at the specific request of the United Nations Security Council. Evidence of the positive and powerful reach of NATO." 

Today, Libya's capital of Tripoli is surrounded by the military forces of Khalifa Haftar who seek to wrest control of the city and assume control over a (slightly more) united Libya. The Western media is currently publishing articles such as the Guardian's, "Fighting in Libya will create huge number of refugees, PM warns," or, in other words, admitting to the failed, destroyed state NATO's "incredible teamwork" left the North African nation in. 

Those refugees have only one place to go... Europe. 

The very region NATO could conceivably claim it is defending, Europe, now faces yet more refugees fleeing from the handiwork of "the most successful military alliance in the history of the world." The social and economic fallout from the ongoing consequences of NATO's intervention in Libya continue to contribute to Europe's collective security challenges, not guard against them. 

Stravridis also cites NATO's intervention in the Balkans and Kosovo, a region devastated by fighting and terrorism, before, during and after NATO's intervention. According to Stravridis, no price was too high to pay in human life and destruction for a handful of fractured rump states to "join" the European Union. 

Finally, Stravridis grants NATO credit for curbing piracy off the coast of Africa despite nations from around the globe, including nations opposed to and targeted by NATO, contributing to these efforts. 

If NATO's list of "accomplishments" in 2013 was an exercise in stretching the truth, revisiting them today snaps the truth in half. NATO would since find itself in the middle of overthrowing the elected government of Ukraine in 2014, backing and even arming Neo-Nazi militias that have been warring with Ukrainians in the east near the border with Russia ever since, and NATO itself provocatively edging itself ever closer to Russia's borders. 

NATO's intervention in Ukraine led to Crimea requesting Russian protection and its eventual rejoining with Russia through a referendum. For a military alliance pledged to protect members and allies from "Russia" and other supposed threats, nothing but categorical failure could describe NATO's intervention resulting in territory shifting (justifiably) in favor of Russia. 

NATO's Successes 

Clearly, NATO's "successes" are in fact a list of dismal failures, but only if peace, prosperity, security and the protection of human life were among any of NATO's genuine goals.

For those boasting that NATO is "the most successful military alliance in the history of the world," despite its long list of abject serial failures, some other definition of "success" must be held in mind.   
A 2018 CNBC article titled, "America has spent $5.9 trillion on wars in the Middle East and Asia since 2001, a new study says," reported that:   

The U.S. wars and military action in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Pakistan have cost American taxpayers $5.9 trillion since they began in 2001, according to a new study.

For the multitude of defense contractors, weapons manufacturers and other moneyed special interests receiving that $5.9 trillion, NATO is a huge success.

When we understand that people like Vice President Mike Pence and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe James Stavridis serve those moneyed interests (in Stravridis' case, he literally serves them now as operating executive at Carlyle) the amount of money wrung from the death, destruction and otherwise abject failure of NATO's wars stretching halfway around the world would seem like "success."

The scale of money and power wrung from these serial wars are certainly unrivaled "in the history of the world," but for all the wrong reasons.    

Retirement or Renaissance? 

At 70 years, is NATO's deception still sustainable? Surely a criminal racket extracting trillions of dollars from taxpayers from across NATO's many member states is too lucrative and tempting for those involved to voluntarily "retire" this "alliance." But a forced retirement may not be as unlikely.

The media monopoly NATO has enjoyed for decades has come to an end. Its ability to trample nations around the globe with impunity granted to them by complicit Western corporate media outfits has been put in check by a growing alternative media comprised of opposing state and individual interests, many of whom are either past, current or potential future victims of NATO's global crime spree. 

The military monopoly NATO has for decades enjoyed is also coming to an end. The technological edge NATO nations enjoyed over targeted nations has been blunted. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Syria where Western aggressors have had their proxy forces eliminated and their own military forces cornered in Syria's eastern deserts, rendered impotent and removed from the conclusion of the conflict they themselves engineered and precipitated. 

With nations like Russia and China on the rise and even developing nations around the globe finally catching up to and competing with Western economic and military might, the notion of NATO acting around the globe with a continued free hand is unlikely.

It is clear that for NATO and the many economic, political and media circles who promote and benefit from it are intent on keeping this aging alliance on life support, there will be no renaissance. 

In a global order predicated on "might makes right," NATO's leading members find themselves no longer mightiest. Just as they swept aside entire nations over past decades, they themselves now face being swept aside by a growing tide of opposition to what NATO really stands for and the measures of "success" it truly uses to justify its continued existence. 

Gunnar Ulson, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

Battlefield Libya: Fruits of US-NATO Regime Change

April 10, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Libya is back in the news, as fighting escalates around the capital, Tripoli.

Forces under the control of Khalifa Haftar - a former Libyan general under the government of Muammar Qaddafi - turned opposition during the 2011 US-led NATO intervention - turned "opposition" again against the UN-backed "Government of National Accord" (GNA) seated in Tripoli - have most recently reached Tripoli's airport.

The confusing chaos that has continually engulfed Libya since 2011 should come as no surprise. It is the predictable outcome that follows any US-led political or military intervention. Other examples showcasing US-led regime change "success" include Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine.

And just like in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Ukraine - the Western corporate media has regularly omitted mention of Libya from headlines specifically to mask the very predictable consequences of US-led regime change as additional interventions against nations like Venezuela, Syria, and Iran are engineered and pursued.

Battlefield Libya 

In 2011, the North African nation of Libya was transformed from a prosperous, developing nation, into a divided, perpetual battlefield where local warlords backed by a milieu of opposing foreign sponsors and interests have vied for power since.

Libya's current status as a failed, warring state is owed entirely to the US-led NATO intervention in 2011.

Predicated on lies promoted by Western-funded "human rights" organizations and fought under the pretext of R2P (responsibility to protect) - the US and its NATO allies dismembered Libya leading to predictable and perpetual chaos that has affected not only Libya itself, but North Africa, Southern Europe, and even the Middle East.

The war immediately triggered not only a wave of refugees fleeing the war itself, but the redirection of refugees from across Africa seeking shelter and work in Libya, across the Mediterranean and into Europe instead.

Militants fighting as proxies for the US-led war in 2011 would be armed and redeployed to Turkey where they entered Syria and played a key role in taking the cities of Idlib and Aleppo during the early stages of that US-led proxy war.

Currently, Libya is divided between the UN-backed government based in Tripoli, eastern-based forces loyal to Haftar, and a mix of other forces operating across the country, holding various degrees of control over Libya's other major cities, and equally varying degrees of loyalty to the UN-backed government, Haftar's forces, or other factions.

Fighting around Tripoli has even allegedly prompted US military forces stationed in Libya to temporarily evacuate. CNBC in its article, "US pulls forces from Libya as fighting approaches capital," would report:

The United States has temporarily withdrawn some of its forces from Libya due to “security conditions on the ground,” a top military official said Sunday as a Libyan commander’s forces advanced toward the capital of Tripoli and clashed with rival militias. 

A small contingent of American troops has been in Libya in recent years, helping local forces combat Islamic State and al-Qaida militants, as well as protecting diplomatic facilities.

The presence of US forces in Libya might be news to some - and was certainly only a dream within the Pentagon until after the 2011 US-led NATO intervention finally toppled the Libyan government.

America's foreign policy of arsonist-fireman has endowed it with a large and still growing military footprint in Africa - one it uses to project power and affect geopolitics well beyond the continent.

America's Growing Footprint in Africa 

The ongoing Libyan conflict - flush with weapons pouring in from foreign sponsors - has also fuelled regional terrorism impacting neighboring Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, and Chad, as far west as Mali and Nigeria, and southeast as far as Kenya. The war has been a boon for US Africa Command (AFRICOM) which has used the resulting chaos as a pretext to expand Washington's military footprint on the continent.

In a 2018 Intercept article titled, "U.S. Military Says it has a "Light Footprint" in Africa. These Documents Show a Vast Network of Bases," it was reported that:

According to a 2018 briefing by AFRICOM science adviser Peter E. Teil, the military’s constellation of bases includes 34 sites scattered across the continent, with high concentrations in the north and west as well as the Horn of Africa. These regions, not surprisingly, have also seen numerous U.S. drone attacks and low-profile commando raids in recent years.

The article notes that much of AFRICOM's expansion in Africa has occurred over the past decade.

While the pretext for US military expansion in Africa has been "counter-terrorism," it is clear US military forces are there to protect US interests and project US power with "terrorism" a manufactured pretext to justify Washington's militarization of the continent.


Much of the terrorism the US claims it is fighting was only possible in the first place through the flood of weapons, equipment, and support provided to militants by the US and its partners amid regime change operations targeting nations like Libya.

The US-led NATO war in Libya is a perfect example of the US deliberately arming terrorist organizations - including those listed as foreign terrorist organizations by the US State Department itself - overthrowing a nation, predictably destabilizing the entire region, and using the resulting instability as a pretext to massively expand America's military footprint there.

The wider agenda at play is Washington's desire to displace current Russian and Chinese interests on the continent, granting the US free reign.

Fruits of US-NATO Regime Change 

As NATO celebrates its 70th anniversary, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg would claim:

Over seven decades, NATO has stepped up time and again to keep our people safe, and we will continue to stand together to prevent conflict and preserve peace.

This "peace" includes 8 years of heavy fighting in Libya following NATO's intervention there.

NATO's Secretary General proclaims NATO's mission as one to "prevent conflict and preserve peace," yet it paradoxically and very intentionally engineered the war in Libya, overthrew the government in Tripoli, and triggered regional chaos that not only plagues North Africa to this day - but also inundated Europe with refugees fleeing the conflict.

Europe is one of the few places NATO could conceivably claim any mandate to protect or operate in - yet its own wars of aggression abroad directly compromised European safety and security. 

The media blackout that has shrouded the true impact of NATO's intervention in Libya for the past 8 years helps enable the US and its NATO partners to perpetrate additional proxy wars and political interventions elsewhere.

As the US openly pursues aggressive regime change in Venezuela and meddles in the internal politics of nations across Southeast Asia, the "fruits" of US intervention in places like Libya should always be kept in mind.

What is most alarming of all is considering that the US-led intervention in Libya may not necessarily be a failure. It is only a failure if one believed the US truly sought a better future for the nation. However, if the fruits of perpetual chaos and an equally perpetual pretext for the US militarization of Africa were intentionally set out for from the beginning - then in many ways - Libya was a resounding success.

Depending on how the current fighting around Tripoli unfolds, whether or not a unified Libya emerges, and whose foreign military presence and economic interests are allowed to persist on Libyan soil thereafter - will help determine just how successful Washington's true agenda in Libya - and in Africa - has been.

 Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”. 

Ukraine's Neo-Nazis "Suddenly" a Problem as Power Grows

March 9, 2019 (Gunnar Ulson - NEO) - The central role right-wing extremists and literal Neo-Nazis played in Ukraine's "Euromaidan" protests was obvious from the beginning. The square in Kiev the protests unfolded in were filled with the flags of ultra-right party, Svoboda as well as the red and black banners of the Neo-Nazi Right Sector movement.

The Western media never scrutinized who these political parties and militias were leading the protests and often times the violence that eventually overthrew the elected Ukrainian government in 2014. This was a deliberate attempt to portray the protests as spontaneous and popular rather than the efforts of fringe extremists merely portrayed as spontaneous and popular.

Since the NATO-organized coup in 2014, right-wing extremists and Neo-Nazis have played a growing role in the Ukrainian government. From holding public positions to filling up the rank and file of regular and irregular military units with their members, so bad has it gotten that many involved in initially covering up their role in the 2014 Euromaidan protests are now speaking up.

Ian Bond of the Centre for European Reform (CER), a think-tank funded by some of the largest Transatlantic corporate interests, would recently post on social media that:

Ukraine needs to get these people out of Interior Ministry, police & other official structures. They will do more to help Russia, by reinforcing its propaganda about Nazi influence in Kyiv, than Ukraine - regardless of any good that Azov did on frontlines. 

Even as part of Bond's admission, he still attempts to salvage "Azov" (Azov Battalion), a heavily armed Neo-Nazi militia now formally incorporated into Ukraine's National Guard.

While attempting to deny the presence of Neo-Nazis throughout the present day Ukrainian government and military, even official US policy regarding Ukraine reflects their presence and the obvious dangers (or at least, political inconvenience) they pose.

Articles like, "National Guard Decides Not To Give U.S. Arms To Azov Regiment On Request Of United States," clearly illustrate awareness in Washington of the dangers/political inconvenience of yet another one of its client regimes around the globe being cobbled together with some of the most unsavory elements in that nation's society.

As Ian Bond of the CER noted, the Azov Battalion has performed well on "frontlines." Just as designated terrorist organizations in Syria, including Al Nusra and the self-proclaimed "Islamic State" (IS) proved the most capable forces in the US proxy war against Damascus, Neo-Nazis are proving themselves the most loyal and dedicated proxies in Washington's continued confrontation with Russia.

It is clear that despite "official" US policy being not to arm or train Neo-Nazi militias in Ukraine, the fact that the Ukrainian government whom the US does arm and train, in turn arms and trains militias like the Azov Battalion, makes such US policy mere window dressing than anything else.

Again, the US arming and supporting the governments of Saudi Arabia and Qatar, who in turn admittedly are arming and funding US designated terrorist organizations, is in actuality Washington's enthusiastic support for such militant groups simply "laundered" through its Gulf ally intermediaries.

The Real Problem 

The real problem isn't that Ukraine's Neo-Nazi political and armed organizations are growing in power, it is the political nightmare of Washington being seen as openly associating with and even supporting them.

Just as the US has played a sort of geopolitical dance in Syria, circling around IS and Al Nusra, while at other times outright shielding them from destruction, attempting to pose as fighting them while clearly preserving their fighting capacity, the US is preparing to perform a similar dance in Ukraine.


Comments like Ian Bond's of the CER and other NATO-initiated propaganda campaigns aimed at noting and condemning the Neo-Nazi scourge growing inside Ukraine will lead to no discernible change in actual US or NATO policy. Behind the scenes however, attempts will be made to further obfuscate Washington-fed pipelines funneling groups like the Azov Battalion and Right Sector weapons, training and funds.

The real problem is that Washington lacks any credible partners in its "Ukraine project." Those like Azov and its backers in Kiev were always going to inevitably rise to the top in an atmosphere corruption, foreign-backed subversion and counterproductive policies determined in Washington and aimed at hurting Russia regardless of the cost accrued by Ukraine itself.

Hiding the growing power of these extremists, including outright Neo-Nazis is Washington's (and its European partners') real problem, not actually dealing with the growing threat of Nazism in Ukraine in any meaningful manner.

Just as Washington's policy of supporting terrorists in Syria while posing as fighting against them was entirely unsustainable, so too is its current policies regarding Ukraine. Unlike the threat of terrorism through organizations like Al Qaeda and its many affiliates, Nazism is a more universally reviled and well-recognized scourge that will further taint whatever remains of America's reputation within the international community, a community it poses as the unilateral leader of, yet demonstrates none of the qualities associated with actual global leadership.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.  

US Withdrawal from NATO Would Benefit Americans Most of All

January 20, 2019 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Alleged discussions between US President Donald Trump and his aides about a US withdrawal from NATO have been making headlines recently.

The New York Times in an article titled, "Trump Discussed Pulling U.S. From NATO, Aides Say Amid New Concerns Over Russia," would claim:

There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years. 

Last year, President Trump suggested a move tantamount to destroying NATO: the withdrawal of the United States.

And while the division or dissolving of NATO most certainly would benefit Russia - removing a malignant and aggressive rogue institution from its borders and the toxic atmosphere of perpetual confrontation it creates - it would also most certainly benefit each and every NATO member many times more.

Despite the many myths surrounding NATO's role in "protecting" its individual members, nothing has undermined the security of NATO member states more than NATO itself.

The Myth of NATO's Purpose 

The reality-show that is American politics has increasingly depended on institutionalized reverse psychology - where a notion that fundamentally appeals to Americans of all political persuasions is passed through "Trump" to create automatic and irrational aversion in at least some segments of the public.

A US withdrawal from an expensive, antiquated, and repeatedly abused military alliance allegedly created to keep in check a Soviet Union that no longer exists is one such universal notion. To polarize debate around the otherwise clear-cut benefits of reducing or dissolving America's role in NATO, "Trump's" alleged desire to withdraw from the alliance has been emphasized, and specifically within the context of "Trump" being an alleged agent of "Russian" influence.

But the truth of NATO's actual purpose and the very real threats it poses to global peace and stability is independent of one's like or dislike of US President Donald Trump.

Far from confronting a Soviet - or now "Russian" threat - NATO instead is used to leverage and abuse Europe's collective political and military power to augment US wars of aggression far beyond the North Atlantic where NATO was supposedly created to protect.

According to NATO's own website, NATO exists to:

...guarantee the freedom and security of its members through political and military means.

Considering this stated purpose, one must wonder what the now 17 year-long US-led NATO occupation of Afghanistan has to do with the freedom and security of  NATO's American and European members - who must cross oceans and seas just to reach Afghanistan - a nation that poses no threat to any of NATO's members nor possesses the means even if it sought to.

The ongoing occupation of Afghanistan has seen the rise of terrorist organizations previously unheard of in Afghanistan, including the emergence of the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS) who use the nation as a springboard to spread across Central Asia. The conflict has bled NATO members of billions in funds and has claimed the lives of NATO member soldiers.

NATO atrocities including the bombing of civilians with manned aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), torture, and other abuses have further tarnished NATO's reputation as well as consumed the political legitimacy of many individual NATO members involved.

The fact that the numerous goals NATO supposedly seeks to achieve in Afghanistan have gone unmet for now nearly two decades also undermines the legitimacy and credibility of NATO and its member states.

Another recent NATO action was in Libya in 2011. The destruction of Libya triggered a refugee tidal wave that swept Europe, compromising socioeconomic stability and domestic security within the very heart of NATO's supposed area of responsibility.

Libya itself has been reduced to a failed state where terrorism now runs rampant, threatening security across North Africa and serving as a springboard for militancy and terror both regionally and globally.

Foreign Policy in a 2015 article titled, "The New Pirates of Libya: Why the rise of the radical Islamists in North Africa threatens America directly -- and how to stop it," would admit (emphasis added):

Over the last four years, Libya has become a key node in the expansion of Islamic radicalism across North Africa, West Africa, and the Sahel, and into Europe. Arms and fighters have crossed Libya’s porous borders, feeding radical organizations from al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb to Boko Haram and reinforcing radical trends in the heart of the Middle East. If events in Libya continue on their current path, they will likely haunt the United States and its Western allies for a decade or more. 

The current situation in Libya is the product of a series of significant mistakes, erroneous assumptions, and myths that date back to NATO intervention in 2011.  

NATO is revealed as a geopolitical wrecking ball - knocking down - not upholding regional or global security. The resulting chaos is then used as a pretext to further expand its mandate. Its actions have repeatedly compromised its many member states in ways even the most tenacious outside threat could not.


The beneficiaries of NATO's actions are few. Taxpayers across NATO member states have contributed trillions of dollars to the Afghan occupation alone - $5.9 trillion according to a Brown University study. This money has not simply disappeared into a fiscal blackhole. It ended up in the hands of arms manufacturers and military contractors. This is money that regardless of political persuasions - the public of NATO member states would likely want either spent elsewhere - especially domestic social programs, or not drawn from the public through taxes in the first place.

The handful of corporate-financier interests benefiting from NATO's continued existence have leveraged the massive gains they've received from the many unending wars and security threats the alliance has created around the globe to manipulate public perception - just as it's doing now in regards to the "Trump-NATO withdrawal" narrative through compromised newspapers like the New York Times.

Ironically, those along the left-hand side of America's political spectrum - generally inclined to seek public funds shifted from foreign wars toward domestic social programs, have been recruited in this latest and crude propaganda ploy to actually defend NATO and the immense waste and abuse it represents.

NATO Seeks to Destroy Russia - Not Defend Against it 

The basic premise behind NATO is sound - a collective military alliance that creates a credible deterrence against foreign aggression. Were NATO to actually put this premise into action - it would create a balance of power within which better ties could be cultivated with nations like Russia.

The notion that Russia is a looming threat seeking to swallow up Europe is at face value an absurdity. Russia heavily depends on trade with Europe - according to the European Commission itself. Moscow has eagerly sought to improve ties with European nations collectively and individually to further expand its own economic prospects.

A credible military deterrence coupled with attempts to cultivate economic cooperation rather than military confrontation would benefit the economies of both Russia and the European Union - but not American corporate-financier interests - including big-oil struggling to compete with Russian gas exports to Western Europe - and especially not America's massive military industrial complex. Such Russo-European cooperation would also obstruct the hegemonic designs of US policymakers who have for decades sought to carve up and conquer Russia militarily and economically.

It is an irony among ironies that while NATO rhetoric points at Russia as a foreign aggressor seeking Europe's conquest - it is American forces finding themselves on the soil of a growing list of European nations - up to Russia's borders - in order to "protect" NATO's interests - interests increasingly revealed to be Wall Street and Washington's rather than Europe's.

The New York Times links "Trump's" alleged desire to withdraw from NATO to allegations that US President Donald Trump is somehow an agent of Russian influence. The article repeatedly iterated that a US withdrawal from the alliance would be a "gift for Putin." 

Despite such rhetoric - the end of NATO's many wars of aggression, ending its role in destabilizing nations and demonstrably compromising global peace and stability as well as undermining European security itself, and ending its pilfering of trillions in public funds from individual member states falls well within the best interests of Americans and Europeans - left and right of the political spectrum.

Only trough crude propaganda ploys citing "Trump" and "Russian meddling" could people be convinced otherwise.

NATO seeks to aggressively encircle, contain, and eventually overthrow the political order in Moscow - not because Moscow poses a threat to the security of NATO or any of its individual member states - but because it constitutes competition for the actual corporate-financier interests driving NATO's agenda. Far from speculation - this is precisely what the US and UK attempted to do in the wake of the Soviet Union's collapse - a process of pilfering and commandeering Russia's sovereign institutions only brought to an end by the rise of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

If NATO's division or dissolution benefits Russia - it also benefits the nations Russia will be able to deepen constructive and sustainable diplomatic and economic ties with outside the atmosphere of confrontation NATO seeks to perpetuate.

It is a win-win for all - all save for corporate-financier interests attempting to not only assert themselves over Russian economic competition - but also over European economic competition.

The New York Times - a tool of American corporate-financier interests and central to selling the American public the many fruitless - and criminal wars - fought under the auspices of NATO - could not be expected to approach NATO's proposed division or dissolution with anything other than hysteria. For the New York Times and the interests its represents - it truly is a matter of self-preservation. But for vast majority of people and businesses in NATO member states - a serious reevaluation of NATO's necessity and the need to eliminate this antiquated alliance is also a matter of self-preservation.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.