The rift between the US and NATO
Mar 30, 2015
All is not well between the US and NATO.
Last week it was reported that President Obama deliberately snubbed Jens Stoltenberg, who took over last October as the Secretary General of NATO. Stoltenberg had come to America for a three-day visit to attend a yearly “brainstorming session that brings together NATO’s leadership with experts and top officials from the host country.”
Kurt Volker, who served as the U.S. permanent representative to NATO under both President George W. Bush and Obama, said the president broke a long tradition. “The Bush administration held a firm line that if the NATO secretary general came to town, he would be seen by the president ... so as not to diminish his stature or authority,” he told me.
President Obama had more pressing things to do. He was scheduled to give a short speech about the Affordable Health Care Act and perhaps to do some urgent light reading from Dr. Seuss.
Two Possible reasons for the snub:
- He wants to show his displeasure at Stoltenberg’s desire for peace with Russia.
- He wants to “diminish his stature or authority” and thus weaken NATO in order to help Russia’s position in Ukraine.
I think both are credible, although if the second is true, then the result is an unintended consequence, or at least an acceptable consequence.
The President probably feels angry and humiliated by Europe as a whole, after so many nations joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in the past two weeks. But if this is his reason for not seeing Mr. Stoltenberg, it seems that he is just shooting himself in the foot.
Whatever the case, it is clear that NATO’s relationship with the US is fraying at the seams. US hegemony has been torpedoed, and the US is finding itself increasingly isolated in the economic world. This breakup of the American Empire is comparable to the breakup of the Soviet Union 25 years ago. Only this time, there will be no “sole superpower.” US power is being replaced by an Asian coalition of China and Russia, allied with virtually everyone except the US, Israel, and possibly Japan.
The US needs to stop pouting over its loss of empire and begin to build solid and respectful relationships with the rest of the world.
Here is an interesting interview with Dr. Paul Craig Roberts:
Paul Craig Roberts: NATO was a US creation allegedly to protect Europe from a Soviet invasion. Its purpose expired in 1991. Today NATO provides cover for US aggression and provides mercenary forces for the American Empire. Britain, Canada, Australia, are simply US vassal states just as are Germany, France, Italy, Japan and the rest. There are no partners; just vassals. It is Washington’s empire, no one else’s….
The Saker: If the USA is really deliberately going down the path towards war with Russia – what should Russia do? Should Russia back down and accept to be subjugated as a preferable option to a thermonuclear war, or should Russia resist and thereby accept the possibility of a thermonuclear war? Do you believe that a very deliberate and strong show of strength on the part of Russia could deter a US attack?
Paul Craig Roberts: I have often wondered about this. I can’t say that I know. I think Putin is humane enough to surrender rather than to be part of the destruction of the world, but Putin has to answer to others inside Russia and I doubt the nationalists would stand for surrender.
In my opinion, I think Putin should focus on Europe and make Europe aware that Russia expects an American attack and will have no choice except to wipe out Europe in response. Putin should encourage Europe to break off from NATO in order to prevent World War 3.
Putin should also make sure China understands that China represents the same perceived threat to the US as Russia and that the two countries need to stand together. Perhaps if Russia and China were to maintain their forces on a nuclear alert, not the top one, but an elevated one that conveyed recognition of the American threat and conveyed this threat to the world, the US could be isolated.
Perhaps if the Indian press, the Japanese Press, the French and German press, the UK press, the Chinese and Russian press began reporting that Russia and China wonder if they will receive a pre-emptive nuclear attack from Washington the result would be to prevent the attack.
As far as I can tell from my many media interviews with the Russian media, there is no Russian awareness of the Wolfowitz Doctrine. Russians think that there is some kind of misunderstanding about Russian intentions. The Russian media does not understand that Russia is unacceptable, because Russia is not a US vassal. Russians believe all the Western bullshit about “freedom and democracy” and believe that they are short on both but making progress. In other words, Russians have no idea that they are targeted for destruction.
The Saker: What are, in your opinion, the roots of the hatred of so many members of the US elites for Russia? Is that just a leftover from the Cold War, or is there another reason for the almost universal russophobia amongst US elites? Even during the Cold War, it was unclear whether the US was anti-Communist or anti-Russian? Is there something in the Russian culture, nation or civilization which triggers that hostility and, if yes, what is it?
Paul Craig Roberts: The hostility toward Russia goes back to the Wolfowttz Doctrine:
“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”
While the US was focused on its MidEast wars, Putin restored Russia and blocked Washington’s planned invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran. The “first objective” of the neocon doctrine was breached. Russia had to be brought into line. That is the origin of Washington’s attack on Russia. The dependent and captive US and European media simply repeats “the Russian Threat” to the public, which is insouciant and otherwise uninformed.
The offense of Russian culture is also there–Christian morals, respect for law and humanity, diplomacy in place of coercion, traditional social mores–but these are in the background. Russia is hated because Russia (and China) is a check on Washington’s unilateral uni-power. This check is what will lead to war.
If the Russians and Chinese do not expect a pre-emptive nuclear attack from Washington, they will be destroyed.
COMMENT: Fortunately, the prophetic pattern is for Babylon to fall intact, rather than seeing all of its infrastructure destroyed. So I believe that the wide-scale war that Dr. Roberts seems to expect will, in fact, be averted. However, I believe that there will be a Mideast war at some point, which will see Jerusalem destroyed, perhaps along with other major population centers in the region.
Dr. Stephen Jones