NATO - the evil alliance and why Canada should leave it.

91 posts / 0 new
Last post
ikosmos ikosmos's picture
NATO - the evil alliance and why Canada should leave it.

The recent NATO summit in Wales provides an opportunity to understand this military alliance more clearly. The summit was significant in a number of ways.

Firstly, there was the establishment of a "spearhead" or permanent standing army of 4,000 troops for use in Europe. This is not simply some national troops on loan; these are troops specifically for NATO goals. Secondly, the secret Russophobic or anti-Russian purpose of NATO is now spelled out. We are in Cold War 2.0 and Russia is "the aggressor" - the enemy. This is important, for NATO to have an enemy ... even if the rhetoric is sometimes couched in the most idiotic manner, e.g., ISIS and Russia are somehow "similar" threats to NATO. Thirdly, we have the construction of additional military bases in defiance of treaty obligations. This last item, mind you, begs the question of who will pay for all this. The USA wants to make others pay "their share" of this recent aggressive policy.

It should also be noted that despite the repetitive reference to Article 5 of the NATO alliance (mutual defense by members of member states) the US President made it abundantly clear that there will be no such general role of NATO in Ukraine today. So they have drawn back, for the time being, from direct war with Russia. World War 3 has been postponed. However, that won't stop NATO from conducting war games (with 1400 troops) on the territory of Ukraine. Just to remember we are talking about  war games on the territory of a state that has just established a tenuous ceasefire after an horrific civil war in which upwards of 1,000,000 refugees have been created, thousands killed, and civilian infrastructure brutally bombed and destroyed. This is NATO's idea of peaceful activity.

Incidently, nothing proves the aggressive nature of the Ukrainian puppet regime better than the fact that around 900,000 of the million or so refugees fled to ... Russia. Why would refugees flee towards an aggressor? On this, western media is mostly silent and simply regurgitates the views of the US State Deparment and their own vassal-like governments.

All of this will undoubtedly increase tensions in Europe. The most important clients of the USA in NATO (UK, Poland, the Baltics) in regard to current bellicose Ukraine policy will be effected by this "new" NATO orientation. But is it really "new" at all?

When the Cold War "ended", following the breakup of the Soviet Union, NATO no longer had a reason for existence. And yet ... NATO expanded eastward until it has now gobbled up the majority of states that are near to or border Russia. If Russia was an ally now, why wasn't it invited to join "our common home" etc.? 

The fact is, NATO has always been expansionist, as a consequence of US foreign policy. There were all these "out of area operations" by NATO in Afghanistan, Libya, Iraq, and so on. The official doctrine, of a collective security organization, is a fig-leaf, a lie. Russia was not invited to join NATO way back when ... because
1. the aim of NATO is to ensure US hegemony; 2. Such hegemony "needs" a permanaent enemy; 3. A permanaent enemy allows the hegemon to discipline those members of the alliance that are somewhat disobedient; 4. Since Russia has, after the stooge called Yeltsin passed from the political stage in Russia, political leadership (current President Putin) which asserts Russia's geo-strategic and national interests much more vigorously, Russia is perfectly placed to be the enemy ... again. A Russia that is not subservient to the hegemon is the enemy. Period.

-----------------------------

Clearly, Canadian membership in this aggressive military alliance, while it may benefit military production in our country, does and continues to do harm to the independence of our foreign (and domestic) policy. It is a critical plank of any genuinely alternative approach to foreign policy in this country that Canada get out of NATO.

And there is no party in Parliament, including the NDP, that takes such a view. They're all bought and paid for. 

Slumberjack

To me it would be like opening up a franchise at the mall, and refusing to pay your share of the mall security expenses.  Consider our membership in NATO as part of a mafioso protection racket, that protects us from the worst of what they're capable of.  Every now and then there's a shakedown for more.

NDPP

I obviously support the contention that any genuinely independent foreign policy demands we exit NATO. While I appreciate SJ's comparison, the history of NATO and such as RCAF Lt General Charles Bouchard's leading role in the destruction of Libya, suggests Canada does somewhat more than just 'pay our share' to the nato mafia...Ironically, Harper publicly says he is refusing to pay the 2% GDP asked by NATO, for now insisting that 1% is final...

'We're going to change NATO from within' - Jack Layton

Bacchus

I have to say, Im usually a rah rah NATO etc fan but honestly, its nothing we need to be in anymore. We have 'NORAD' for north american defense so the US would automatically join in if we were attacked by anyone like Russia or China or even a 9/11 style attack so why not put the money we save into domestic issues or even just pay the debt at a minimum

 

Slumberjack

Yes.  I mean, judging by the treachery of the Europeans in recent years and months vis-a-vis the previous agreement with Moscow not to move NATO's goalposts further east, not to mention the historical treachery of some of these nations, there is no basis to conclude that they would be rushing any time soon to our defence in North America if the PLA decided to send in an expeditionary force.  But that of course would be the least of the reasons to pull out of NATO entirely.

Bacchus

NO I agree its not likely but my point is, its just not necessary and our money is better spent elsewhere, even if its just to pay the debt. It wouldnt even affect our military spending really. Though in reality it would lower that (though it would prob be just directed toward ice breakers and the like)

 

Rikardo

I don't think calling NATO the "evil" alliance helps to discredit NATO

Slumberjack

It certainly won't lead to any soul searching by the alliance.

Rapallo

Very insightful article by iskosmos. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. However, I agree with Rikardo and Slumberjack that the notion "evil" is not helpful at all. Also, I'm not sure if you're righ there is no party in Parliament that could see Canada leaving NATO -- I'm thinking of the Greens. The Canadian Green Party has an extensive defence policy which entails reviewing Canada’s membership in military alliances including NATO and NORAD and recommitment to its opposition to nuclear weapons, and a ban on the export of military equipment.

Canada could do very well without NATO, but Washington expects us to stay in their alliance. Remember: No NATO member is required to take military action if a fellow member is attacked. See: North Atlantic Treaty, Article 5
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Currently, Canada does not have to be prepared for a conventional war with Russia, the Chinese or the United States of America. Currently, the CF are mainly auxiliary troops for the military interventions of Washington. You can forgive Canadians for being jaundiced about major spending on our military. In fact, it would be financially more affordable to go back to a Canadian military that is predominantly a militia force. Canada, however, needs to be prepared for the future disintegration of the USA.

cassius

NATO is a zombie. It should have died under the rubble of the Wall when the Soviet Union collapsed. But it wouldn't go quietly. It expanded eastward to take in all the former Soviet bloc countries with a few exceptions, notably Ukraine. Now, with Russia restless at being surrounded, it's back to its roots kicking the dirt on Putin's shoes. It lost the war in Afghanistan and it helped demolish Libya, but that was yesterday. It's looking to the Middle East, in particular Iraq. And it wants more money out of Canada. We can get along without it or at the very least be so underachieving and tight with our NATO loonies, no one will expect us to do anything should we stay. But the Liberals won't buy this. Look for Trudeau Jr. to attack Harper for military underspending. The pro-NATO wing of that party rules. As for the NDP, the sainted Jack Layton wanted the party to be pro-NATO to win mainstream respectability. That's why he supported NATO's war in Afghanistan, for as long as it suited him, and then NATO's demolition of Libya. Look for more of the same from Mulcair.

Rikardo

I’ve read that Canada was the soft non-imperialist essential member of NATO from the beginning. Pearson insisted there be a non-military parliamentary component and this pleased the non-communist left. We are the NA (North Atlantic) in NATO – otherwise it would have been a US-Western Europe military alliance. Austria isn’t in NATO which is why the Soviet Union accepted its reunification long before Germany. NATO is (except Turkey) a military alliance of Christian countries. It is Collective Security. “Collective” pleases the Left and “Security” the Right. Its what Wilson (US President 1918) wanted with the League of Nations. Isn’t NATO the D28 ? (28 “democracies”)

Unionist

Rikardo wrote:
Austria isn’t in NATO which is why the Soviet Union accepted its reunification long before Germany.

Ok. Whaat?

 

sherpa-finn

Yeah, - although Austria was occupied by the major Allied powers after WWII, it had one national government through that period ('45-'55). So there was no 'reunification' per se when the Occupation ended in 1955.

But its probably true to say that the Austrian Gov't's commitment to 'neutrality' (and to not join NATO) facilitated negotiation of the end of the Occupation and its independence.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Rikardo wrote:

I don't think calling NATO the "evil" alliance helps to discredit NATO

 

OK, point well taken. However, this military alliance undermines Canadian sovereignty, ties us to the declining Moby Dick to the south of us, and entangles Canada in sabre-rattling the point of which seems to be to start World War 3. What phrase would you like?

Rikardo

« Dangerous » is better than « evil ».  Evil is a word from the neocon’s lexicon.  Remember Reagan’s “evil empire”.  Western thought (Christian origin) often sees the world as a battleground between “Good” and “Evil”.  Binary ideology sees everything as opposites, black/white, etc.  Even God/Satan.  Does Evil exist ?  Or just immense cruelty.

NDPP

War in Whose Interest?  -  by Conn Hallinan

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/09/19/war-in-whose-interest/

"One shared interest is pushing NATO east..."

 

NATO Intends To Prohibit Russia's and China's Development  -  by Thierry Meyssan

http://www.voltairenet.org/article185257.html

"...We have repeatedly explained that the IE (ISIS) is a Western creation that, despite appearances, its actions in Iraq are entirely consistent with US plans to divide the country into three separate states.

For a project which constitutes a crime against humanity because it assumes ethnic cleansing, Washington has used a private army that could be condemned publicly while being supported covertly."

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Even former Canadian Ambassdors agree that NATO is dangerous and harmful. Hardly a left wing approach. But the milqtoast NDP and Liberals are too wimpy to stand up to the Jackboot Harper regime. Pathetic.

ETA: Yes, perhaps it is useful to use that expression that the Novorossiyans use to describe their former countrymen in Ukraine: zombified. Rather than extolling Ukrainian culture, what seems to unite many Ukrainians, and Ukrainian-Canadians as well, is a pathological hatred for all things Russian bordering on mental illness. It's understandable that the NDP and Liberals don't want to arouse this brainwashed monster, but their lack of imagination is still appalling....

Quote:
NATO is responsible for a new “Cold War”. He points out that NATO was originally a defensive alliance to protect the west from Soviet attack.  He says that following the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO should have been wound up.  Instead, possibly because of the extent to which the US economy has become dependent on high defence spending, NATO survived practically unchanged.  Moreover in order to justify its existence, it looked around for a new adversary.  In the end, perhaps inevitably, it found its new adversary in its old adversary, pretending that nothing had changed and that post-Soviet Russia was a threat as the Soviet Union had once been. 

Bissett characterises western behaviour towards Russia as full of “duplicity, double standards and hypocrisy”.  He complains that NATO has set aside its own Charter by transforming itself from a purely defensive alliance to an increasingly aggressive one.  He points to NATO’s attack on Serbia without UN authorisation and its illegal decision to recognise Kosovo in violation of a Security Council Resolution it had previously supported.  He points out that at the same time NATO was busy expanding east to include Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, in the process breaking its promise to Gorbachev not to move “an inch east” in return for Russian agreement to a united Germany within NATO.

NATO at the heart of a new Cold War, says former Ambassador

 

Maybe evil is the better word.

Rikardo

Thanks for your comments but do be careful of the E-word.
Its very religious.

Unionist

Rikardo wrote:
Thanks for your comments but do be careful of the E-word. Its very religious.

If God got rid of NATO, I would seriously consider believing in Her.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

NATO Is a Threat To Its Own Members

 

Quote:

NATO marches on. It has now become a box of spare parts from which Washington chooses its next “coalition of the willing” for the next “humanitarian bombing”.[as in the Kosovo intervention]

And what are the results? Kosovo is a major crime centre. Afghanistan is about the same as it was before but at least Al Qaeda isn’t running it. Iraq is worse than anything Saddam Hussein or his two loathsome sons could ever have produced. Libya, once the wealthiest nation in North Africa, is now a bombed-out jihadist playground. Ukraine, with its new NATO-backed regime, is a horrible nightmare with worse coming. Al Qaeda is back, bigger and better, as ISIS.

How exactly has NATO made a more secure world?

All NATO does nowadays is visit chaos, bloodshed, disaster and destruction on countries using justifications we later learn are exaggerated or outright false. But no one asks what’s going on or how we could be so mistaken over and over again.

The monster lurches on, destroying and threatening.

NATO is a serious threat to the security of its members - to say nothing of the rest of the world.


ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Is the US and NATO preparing to attack Russia? Many think so.

Here is a popular news and commentary program, quite reflective of ordinary Russians, which suggests that not only does the average person think so, but leading intellectuals will tell you why they think so.

Geopoliticians discuss the US "declaration of war" against Russia

The program will shock and astound North American TV viewers. Instead of the usual 20 second sound bites, and debate organized to shed little light but plenty of heat, the speakers here come off as obvious patriots who are concerned, not only for their own country but, also, for the fate of the world. We simply have nothing like it on the idiot box.

 

note for listening: click on CC and the English language subtitles will appear.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Noam Chomsky, leading US dissident, about the hegemon that rules NATO:

Quote:
The United States is the “world's leading terrorist state,” based on its deadly, CIA-run operations in the likes of Nicaragua and Cuba, according to new op-ed by historian and social philosopher Noam Chomsky.

Any questions?

USA! USA! The world's leading terrorist state! Hell Yeah! ooh rah!

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

This is not news. Chomsky has been saying it for over 20 years. What you seem to miss, ikosmos, is that he is not a big fan of Russia and Putin either. He has explained patiently many times that he reserves most of his criticisms for the U.S. because he is an American, and he feels a moral duty to concentrate on the evils perpetrated by his own countrymen. This is both because he feels personally responsible as a U.S. citizen, and because he thinks he can have the most impact in his own country.

When he answers questions about Russia's takeover of Crimea, he calls it criminal with no hedging. Then he points out that the U.S. takeover of Guantanamo was a worse crime. I have no doubt that he would disagree with the uncritical praise, even worship, of Russia and Putin by people like you.

Chomsky also often points out that he is able to make his devastating critiques of his own country only because it provides more freedom of speech than most countries of the world. If he had been born in Russia, we would not even know his name, since he would have been liquidated long since by one of the many peace-loving Soviet leaders who killed millions of their countrymen to protect their own power, and high standards of living.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:

This is not news. Chomsky has been saying it for over 20 years. What you seem to miss, ikosmos, is that he is not a big fan of Russia and Putin either. He has explained patiently many times that he reserves most of his criticisms for the U.S. because he is an American, and he feels a moral duty to concentrate on the evils perpetrated by his own countrymen. This is both because he feels personally responsible as a U.S. citizen, and because he thinks he can have the most impact in his own country.

This is everyone's duty and responsibility. And that's why I started this thread, because I think Canada should withdraw from the evil NATO alliance. About this - let's be honest - you have f*ck all to say. All you can do is to cast aspersions on the person making the argument with spurious claims of uncritical praise for Putin and so on.

Quote:
Chomsky also often points out that he is able to make his devastating critiques of his own country only because it provides more freedom of speech than most countries of the world. If he had been born in Russia, we would not even know his name, since he would have been liquidated long since by one of the many peace-loving Soviet leaders who killed millions of their countrymen to protect their own power, and high standards of living.

I call bullshit. You can quote chapter and verse by Chomsky in which he very carefully outlines how so called "democracies" have a more brainwashed citizenry than other countries.

And if we are going to exchange insults, and the shoe fits... wear it.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

ikosmos wrote:

I call bullshit. You can quote chapter and verse by Chomsky in which he very carefully outlines how so called "democracies" have a more brainwashed citizenry than other countries.

Yes, of course he does that, but that is not the same as saying that there is not freedom of speech, although the distinction may be too subtle for your mind. So, regarding freedom of speech, the first few sentences by Chomsky in this video are:

Noam Chomsky wrote:

First of all, I should say that one aspect of American, U.S. life and culture that I think does deserve respect and admiration is protection of freedom of speech. The U.S. is unique in the world in that respect, to my knowledge, and I think that's really important. Next to freedom of thought, which is like a fundamental right, freedom of speech comes next. Everything else, I think, is secondary to it.

There are many more similar statements, in various speeches and articles, but you can look them up for yourself.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

ikosmos wrote:

Michael Moriarity wrote:

This is not news. Chomsky has been saying it for over 20 years. What you seem to miss, ikosmos, is that he is not a big fan of Russia and Putin either. He has explained patiently many times that he reserves most of his criticisms for the U.S. because he is an American, and he feels a moral duty to concentrate on the evils perpetrated by his own countrymen. This is both because he feels personally responsible as a U.S. citizen, and because he thinks he can have the most impact in his own country.

This is everyone's duty and responsibility. And that's why I started this thread, because I think Canada should withdraw from the evil NATO alliance. About this - let's be honest - you have f*ck all to say. All you can do is to cast aspersions on the person making the argument with spurious claims of uncritical praise for Putin and so on.

I didn't have time to look it up last night, but I posted my opinion on Canada's position in the world as an American "ally" in another thread on April 7/2012. That discussion was somewhat broader than the question of leaving NATO, but it makes clear that my answer to your question is: We can't leave NATO even if we want to, and if we try, our government will be forcibly replaced by a U.S. puppet, or Canada will be annexed to the U.S. At least then we'd get to vote for the Emperor.

Michael Moriarity wrote:

The only threat to Canadian borders or sovereignty of any significance is the U.S., but of course this is a threat against which nothing we could possibly do could prevail, so no effort on our part is worthwhile. It is also not conceivable that the U.S. would allow any other state actor to take over Canada (except perhaps as a proxy for the empire, in which case, see the previous point). Thus, defence against the Russians and the Chinese and all those threatening muslim countries is unnecessary as well.

There is only one real pragmatic reason for having an army as far as I can see. That is to be able to defeat some potential band of non-state adventurers and mercenaries, perhaps well funded, and perhaps led by a few right wing ex-Canadians. (Lord Black's freedom fighters, anyone?) Even a tiny regular army would deter any such scheme, and it certainly wouldn't require F-35s to do its job.

Beyond this, it's all imperial politics. We have no idea how much Canadian independence the U.S. would tolerate, because we have had such a subservient relationship to it for so many years. The most extreme expression of independence was Trudeau being a buddy of Fidel Castro. But even Trudeau did not dare to question which side of the cold war Canada was on.

No matter what he truly thinks and believes, any Canadian PM would have to be very careful not to go beyond what the empire will accept. If there is one thing that history since WW2 proves, it is that the U.S. empire will not tolerate serious insubordination by the governments of its "allies". I seriously believe that the continuation of such meagre independence as Canada now enjoys (for example, we get to run our own health care and education systems) would be put in jeopardy by a government which broke too openly with the U.S. While we can possibly beg off direct involvment in most imperial agression, it is questionable whether we could survive openly working against U.S. imperial interests.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

The obsequious and boot-licking idea that there is nothing we can do is simply capitulationist.

Mexico doesn't belong to NATO - why doesn't the Empire send their jackboots there? Tiny Switzerland was neutral and survived WW2. There is a whole history of the Non-Aligned Movement (of countries) during the height of the Cold War of country after country refusing to be part of these horrific and disgusting military blocks.

This disgraceful idea of yours is truly ideological surrender. I'm glad to have exposed it to the light of day.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

More from former Canadian diplomat Patrick Armstrong:

 

Patrick Armstrong wrote:
...[it] would seem to me that based on past practice, NATO’s interventions appears to have made things worse, have detracted from the security of its members, and were based on pretty flimsy evidence. Discuss that, Mr. General Secretary, rather than blithering on about how wonderful NATO is.

RT: Why exactly does NATO see Russia as a threat? And how is that possible when at the same time the alliance is announcing such a buildup?

PA: The latest sentiment coming out of NATO is that Russia is doing terrible things on NATO’s doorstep. And NATO’s doorstep keeps moving… Speaking as a member of the country that had a great deal to do with the creation of NATO, NATO is in fact a very great threat to the security of Canada let alone its other members and the rest of the world. It keeps getting us involved in these wars for reasons that turn out to be not as solid as we were told. Why Russia? I don’t know. Maybe NATO is about being anti-Russia.

Patrick Armstrong interviewed.

 

And, you could add, we are perhaps now getting blowback right here in Canada thanks to the unjust wars that NATO has entangled Canada in.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

ikosmos wrote:

The obsequious and boot-licking idea that there is nothing we can do is simply capitulationist.

Mexico doesn't belong to NATO - why doesn't the Empire send their jackboots there? Tiny Switzerland was neutral and survived WW2. There is a whole history of the Non-Aligned Movement (of countries) during the height of the Cold War of country after country refusing to be part of these horrific and disgusting military blocks.

This disgraceful idea of yours is truly ideological surrender. I'm glad to have exposed it to the light of day.

You haven't exposed anything to the light of day. I posted it 2.5 years ago, and I posted it again this morning. I'm just glad you aren't the powerful commissar you imagine yourself to be, or I'd be off to 25 years of hard labour in the gulag. I have had enough of talking to you, comrade, so farewell.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Michael Moriarity wrote:
You haven't exposed anything to the light of day. I posted it 2.5 years ago, and I posted it again this morning. I'm just glad you aren't the powerful commissar you imagine yourself to be, or I'd be off to 25 years of hard labour in the gulag. I have had enough of talking to you, comrade, so farewell.

The Gulag? Do you know what century this is? Talk about borrowing cold war stereotypes to justify bellicose military alliances.

Fine. Run along. Another like-minded intellectual heavyweight will come along and give this Commisar a good pummelling.

ooh rah.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Immanuel Wallerstein: NATO - Danger to World Peace

Quote:
In 1949, NATO was established by twelve nations. On May 5, 1955, the three western powers officially ended their occupation of the FRG, recognizing it as an independent state. Four days later, the FRG was admitted to membership in NATO. In response to this, the USSR established the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO) and included the GDR as one of its members.

Most people who have done a little homework, and aren't completely brainwashed by Western propaganda, know that NATO was formed first. So this should be nothing new. The following, however, is noteworthy ...

Quote:
The treaty establishing NATO was supposed to apply only within Europe. One reason was that the western European countries still had colonies outside of Europe and did not wish to allow any agency to have the authority to interfere directly in their political decisions concerning these colonies. The moments of seemingly tense confrontation between the two sides – the Berlin blockade, the Cuban missile crisis – all ended with a status quo ante outcome.

So, NATO only in Europe because the direct dictatorship of European colonial empires still existed.

There's more.

Quote:
The most important invocation of the treaties to engage in military action was that of the USSR to act within its own zone against developments they deemed dangerous to the USSR – Hungary in 1956, Czechoslovakia in 1968, Poland in 1981. The United States intervened politically under similar circumstances, such as the potential entry of the Italian Communist Party into the Italian government.

The US Empire sent warships to the coast of Italy. The very clear message was that if the CPI becomes part of the government,  then expect a US bombardment, invasion, "regime change" or whatever euphemism you want to use to describe the civilizational "gift" of the USA to Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan in recent years.

The US got the result  that they wanted. No bombing of the Sistine Chapel by the freedom-loving US military was required.

Quote:
This brief account points to the real objective of the cold war. The cold war was not meant to transform the political realities of the other side (except in some moment very far into the future). The cold war was a mechanism for each side to keep its satellites under control, while maintaining the de facto agreement of the two powers for their long-term partition of the globe into two spheres,

And so on. This last point demonstrates that the current frothing, shrill, rabid and psychotic Russophobia, that precedes and accompanies the Ukrainian civil war, is actually potentially more dangerous than the first cold war.

A good first step for Canada? Get out of NATO, publish all the despicable secret treaties that all the "liberal" regimes have signed, and so on...

6079_Smith_W

You might have also mentioned the British crackdown in Greece.

And never mind that the Italian election mentioned was in 1948, some years before NATO existed, these events had more to do with an after dinner conversation between Churchill and Stalin.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percentages_agreement

Come on ikosmos. these agreements weren't worth the paper they were printed on to begin with, just like the agreement signed this year in Minsk. It was also over half a century ago. That wall they built was made of sturdier stuff. Look what happened to it.

And Yugoslavia? Afghanistan? Really? We could also mention Russia's involvement in Spain in the 30s, which wasn't exactly on the side of the people either.

... and the fact that the first "sphere of influence" agreement they signed was the one with the Nazis, to erase Poland  (and western Ukraine) and divide it between the two of them.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Let me get this right: you're making critical remarks about a regime that no longer exists ... in order to justify a brutal military alliance that Canada, shamelessly, still belongs to?

I guess that means we can criticize any German government decision or action based on the past actions of the regime in power between 1933-1945?

Pathetic.  Can we call unrelenting Russophobia a kind of racism? Or only if the speaker calls for the extermination of Russians?

 

6079_Smith_W

You seem to be the one who thinks nothing has changed in the past century. And you seem to make strategic omissions too. I am just pointing out a few flaws and double standards in your argument.

And no longer exists? You wouldn't know it to see the flags some are flying, or their concern for those Lenin statues.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

I can point out flaws too; like the fact that Poland annexed parts of Czechslovakia (e.g., Zaolzie, Southern Slovakia) following the Nazi occupation of that country with the blessing of the Western leaders. Then Poland was itself divided when the Nazis attacked.

This proves what about the present Polish regime? Your arguments are for children and stupid people.

6079_Smith_W

Again ikosmos, it isn't my argument, but yours. I am not the one claiming that these political balances are cast in stone. I raised them to counter your reliance on half-century old history.

And if the current government in Russia is such a break with the past, why didn't Putin include Stalinism along with the rest of the genocidal evils in his UN declaration?

 

ygtbk

If we're taking a trip down memory lane:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov%E2%80%93Ribbentrop_Pact

Molotov-von Ribbentrop pact. C'mon, we were all thinking it.

6079_Smith_W

Thinking it? It's what I was talking about at the end of #31. Thanks for the backgrounder.

And there's these other lesser-known (but in some ways far more significant) negotiations and agreements, that went hand in hand with it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Credit_Agreement_%281...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Soviet_Axis_talks

 

ygtbk

I willingly cede you priority, Smith, but not everyone reads carefully enough to get your points.

Just for additional background:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lend-Lease#US_deliveries_to_the_USSR

Perfidious Yanquis!

6079_Smith_W

Yes, during the blitz the u.s. had to be careful to sell, not give, materiel to Britain because they risked having Germany declare war on them.

And I know, though one shouldn't have to resort to purple prose and table pounding to get stuff across.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Quote:
“Almost half of the countries in the world attended NATO’s last summit in Wales,” Rozoff told The Daily.

“In 1991 if anyone had suggested this, they would be accused of being crazy.

Rick Rozoff of STOP NATO

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Murder of Ukrainian writer Oles Buzina— a campaign of intimidation by NATO?

more details at the link and on the thread relating to the atrocities and war crimes of the junta, etc.

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

C'mon, NATO cheerleaders, Go, Go, Go!

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Anti-NATO parties grab top spots in Finland general election

Quote:
he Prime Minister of Finland has acknowledged the victory of the opposition Centre Party in Sunday’s general election. With all votes counted, Centre has 21.1 percent support, which translates to 49 seats in the country's parliament....

However, with only 49 seats, Centre will have to form a ruling coalition. “This result will enable several possible coalition combinations”, party leader Juha Sipila told reporters.

The Centre has several potential allies to choose from. These include the nationalist Finns Party, which came in second with 17.6 percent of the vote. Like the Centre, the Finns are against NATO membership for Finland, with the Finns also striving for more independence from the EU.

 

JUst look. A little prop rep and there's a possibility to send NATO to hell where it belongs.

NDPP

Nish: 16th Anniversary of the Attack on Yugoslavia - No War Crimes Here

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/04/22/no-war-crimes-here/

"...Dr Zlatich showed us photographs of his city's cluster bomb victims. We viewed page after page of civilians lying in pools of blood, and then - much worse pre-autopsy photographs.

What cluster bombs do to soft human flesh is beyond anything that can be imagined, and an anguished silence fell over the room as Dr Zlatich flipped through the photos. Viewing such scenes was unbearable.

Finally, Dr Zlatich looked up at us and softly said, 'Western Democracy.'

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Who is the real threat to the Baltic states and eastern Europe? The NATO Octopus.

iyraste1313

from voltairenet.org re NATO and Charlie Hebdo...fascinating investigations...an attack on NATO through such revelations is importantisimo!

Far from being a defensive alliance, NATO is a system of suzerainty and vassals, which is contrary to the United Nations Charter, according to which all states are soveriegn and equal. Historians have shown that NATO has organised a number of attacks and assassinations in their member states, and their work has been confirmed by official documents taken from the United States archives. However, these works only concern the first few years of NATO’s existence, due the difficulty of gaining access to more recent archives. In France, in 1951 in the département of Gard, NATO tested drugs on civilians without their knowledge, and then NATO, from 1961 - 1966, financed about forty tentatives to assassinate President Charles De Gaulle by the OAS.

It is extremely unpleasant to think that we are often pawns in the hands of Washington, but nonetheless, it’s a proven reality in the past, and evident today. This is why we should have paid attention when Jean-Marie Le Pen declared that the jihadists of the Charlie Hebdo attacks bore the hallmarks of the secret services.

 

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

When we have video evidence of agents provocateurs even in Canada (the Montabello protests), then you know that such activities are likely going on all the time. And I think more and more people are becoming aware of it, not being paralyzed by it, and taking such things into account when they form their opinions about international relations and domestic politics. Maybe I'm just being hopeful.

Union brothers and sisters have know about this shit for a very long time; that explains the calm demeanor of brother Dave Xxx in how he handled the situation at Montebello. Young activists could learn a great deal from labour movement leaders, even the hopelessly compromised NDP-yes men, because the corporations and their state allies always have the working class leadership in the crosshairs.

 

iyraste1313

re NATO backing of Turkish government attacks on the Kurds....from journal'neo.org

“Rather than fighting ISIS terrorists or cooperating with United States military operations in Syria and Iraq, Erdogan’s true intent is to consolidate his own hold on power and accomplish the following self-serving objectives:

1) Turkey’s President realizes that should his ruling party fail to form a coalition government, he would be obliged to call a new round of parliamentary elections. Therefore, by taking bold actions against ISIS and Kurdish fighters, Erdogan hopes that Turkish voters would give his party the few extra seats needed to regain a majority in Parliament.

2) Another important purpose for bombing Northern Syria and PKK bases in Iraq and arresting hundreds of Kurdish militants in Turkey is not fighting ISIS, but preventing Syrian, Iraqi and Turkish Kurds from joining hands to create an independent Kurdistan.

3) By carrying out military raids in Syria, Erdogan hopes to accomplish his long sought dream of toppling the Syrian government and installing a puppet regime, thus expanding his personal power as a neo-Ottoman Sultan.

4) Finally, by making brash declarations against ISIS and allowing Americans to use the Incirlik airbase, Turkey intends to convince the United States and Western Europe that it is a reliable NATO ally and loyal partner in the fight against terrorism. Creating such a positive image is particularly important at a time when the major powers are finalizing a nuclear agreement with Iran, which would increase the latter’s strategic role in the region and diminish that of Turkey.”
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2015/07/29/the-deadly-turkish-deception/

ikosmos ikosmos's picture

Yes, the Turkish regime has arranged for an emergency NATO meeting, using Article 4, and now have the blessing of the UK regime in bombing the enemies of ISIS (ie, the Kurds and the PKK).

Is there any doubt, truly, as to who is funding and supporting these Sunni fanatics? It is NATO. They would rather kill minorities that fight terrorism. Literally.

NDPP

Trident Juncture and the NO To NATO Movement

http://journal-neo.org/2015/10/29/trident-juncture-and-the-no-to-nato-mo...

"I wish to add my voice to his call for the support of the NO TO NATO Movement by the citizens of any NATO country, not just in Europe, but in Canada, the United States and by the citizens of every country, everywhere, who will be the victims of any world war that results from NATO's continued aggression against the peoples of the world."

Pages