Beyond the Drama: What REALLY Happened at the NATO Summit

3개월 전

by James Corbett
corbettreport.com
December 7, 2019

Unlike a lot of other North Atlantic Treaty Organization summits, you might actually have seen some mainstream news coverage of the group's 70th anniversary meeting that just wrapped up in London this week. But if you did see such coverage, it was probably limited to discussing the theatrics and fireworks surrounding the event rather than the meat and potatoes of the discussion itself and what it pretends for the future of global geopolitics.

It's not hard to understand why this happens. The tabloid fodder of leaders insulting other leaders (both on and off mic) is both easier to understand and more entertaining than serious discussion of weighty geopolitical matters. But, as I recently pointed out on #PropagandaWatch, the most important information is often hidden under a cloak of bureaucracy and legalese.

So today let's explore what really happened at this week's NATO summit, and what it can tell us about the elitists' plans for their long-coveted New World Order.

Hot mics on hot heads

OK, first things first: the drama.

In case you missed it, the fireworks started started when French President told The (Rothschild) Economist that "What we are currently experiencing is the brain death of NATO" because Trump. His point seemed to be something about the need for Europe to start providing for its own security (like in some sort of EU Army, perhaps), but evidently that idea didn't translate well into Turkish.

Last Friday, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan lashed out at Macron, saying that his comments about NATO were "sick and shallow" and advising the French leader to "check whether you are brain dead."

And keep in mind all this came before the meeting—a meeting intended to showcase the strength of the alliance on the occasion of its 70th anniversary—even began. Things only got worse from there.

As you probably heard by now, French President Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson were caught on a hot mic appearing to discuss Trump's behavior in unflattering terms. Trump shot back by calling Trudeau "two-faced" (an apparent reference to the recently reelected Canadian PM's recent scandal) and canceling his appearance at the summit's concluding news conference. Then Trump himself was caught on a hot mic calling his own "two-faced" line funny.

Did I miss anything? Oh yeah, Polish politician Donald Tusk tweeted a photo of himself making what could be a gun sign pointed at Trump's back.

I think that about covers it for Days of Our Lives: NATO Edition. So here's what you missed while the media was busy gossiping about the schoolyard drama.

NATO Names Their Enemies

While everyone was distracted by the pyrotechnics of the political puppets, the fact that the (mis)leaders were merely rubber stamping the agreements that had been hammered out by there underlings at last month's ministerial summit was conveniently excluded from the picture. So the real question is: What happened at last month's meeting?

Quite a lot, it turns out. In fact, as M. K. Bhadrakumar notes in his article on the subject, "the trend at the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting at Brussels on November 19-20, in the run-up to the London summit, showed that despite growing differences within the alliance, member states closed ranks around three priority items in the US global agenda — escalation of the aggressive policy toward Russia, militarisation of space and countering China’s rise."

More on space in a moment.

First, let's examine the policy shift on NATO's two main enemies: Russia and China. Now, you and me and the rest of the world know that NATO has been engaging in a process of encircling China and especially Russia with bases, forces and missile "defense" systems. But NATO has managed to at least pretend that it hasn't been targeting Moscow or Beijing . . . until now.

At last month's meeting, the foreign ministers of the various member states explicitly discussed adopting a new policy toward China and Russia. Serial liar, regime change cheerleader and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, for one, was jubilant. "Thirty years [after the fall of the Berlin Wall], we again face threats from authoritarian regimes, and again we must face them together," he said at a press conference after the meeting, specifically pointing to "Russia, China and Iran" as the authoritarian regimes that the alliance would be tasked with confronting.

And those agreements were realized when the gaggle of globalist gophers descended on London this week to engage in their shenanigans for the cameras and put their John Hancock's on the "London Declaration," the summit's official communique, which singles out "Russia's aggressive actions" as a "distinct threat" to the alliance and obliges the treaty's signatories to commit themselves to addressing "China’s growing influence and international policies."

Don't think for a minute that Xi and Putin are unaware of these avowed threats, either. As I pointed out in this week's edition of New World Next Week, the recently inaugurated Power of Siberia pipeline is just the latest testament to the Sino-Russian partnership and the latest sign that they will be playing the role of bogeymen in Cold War 2.0. And, in an address to the Russian Federation Security Council just last month, Putin explicitly acknowledged NATO's new posture of official aggression against Russia. "We are also seriously concerned about the NATO infrastructure approaching our borders, as well as the attempts to militarise outer space," he told the council in a wide-ranging speech on the future of Russian military development.

And speaking of the militarization of space . . .

The "North Atlantic" Now Includes Outer Space

The name of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—formally established in 1949 to "promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area"—has been a joke for some time now. An organization whose "global partners" and "partners for peace" now includes states from every inhabited continent can hardly call itself a "North Atlantic" body in any meaningful sense.

But as silly as it has been to talk of NATO's "partnership" with South Korea or Iraq or Australia or Colombia, things are about to get a whole lot sillier.

As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg informed the world last month, the "North Atlantic" Treaty Organization now recognize outer space as one of the alliance's "operational domains."

“This can allow NATO planners to make requests for Allies to provide capabilities and services, such as hours of satellite communications,” Stoltenberg said at a press conference following a meeting of Foreign Ministers in Brussels in November.

If you're worried about the implications this decision has for the weaponization of space, though, you can relax. Stoltenberg was quick to add that NATO has "no intention" of putting weapons in space, and its approach to space will be "fully in line with international law."

Phew. Well, that's a load off.

But in many ways, that particular moment of wackiness is a kind of comedic footnote to the slow-motion nightmare that is NATO's plan to wage and win a war of containment against Russia and China . . . a war that could kick into a full-blown WWIII scenario at the drop of a hat.

Here's what you need to know about the recent NATO Summit in London and what it means for the future of global geopolitics.

The (North) Macedonia Saga

In other news, NATO was all set to welcome newly-christened "North" Macedonia as its 30th member state at this week's festivities in London . . . but the official celebration will have to be postponed. It seems Spain is a bit tardy in their ratification of the new members' accession to the alliance, so the North Macedonians will have to settle for a measly one-line mention in the summit's closing declaration: "North Macedonia is here with us today and will soon be our newest Ally."

Once the bureaucratic wrinkles are ironed out, North Macedonia will sign its deal with the devil and the NATO alliance will expand once again. And, wouldn't you know it, it just happens to be expanding into Russia's sphere of influence. Yet again. Funny, that.

For those who are generally curious, North Macedonia is the fourth of the six successor states of Yugoslavia to join NATO (the others being Slovenia, Croatia and Montenegro). And, as Paul Antonopoulos points out over at InfoBrics, "With Bosnia effectively a NATO satellite, this leaves Serbia as the bulwark of anti-NATO and pro-Russia sentiment in the region, especially as the other fellow Balkan countries, Greece, Bulgaria and Romania, are also NATO members."

Yes, North Macedonia was not courted for membership in the increasingly anachronistic military alliance because NATO values its mighty military contribution. Rather, as a largely Slavic and Orthodox country in an important (and historically volatile) region, the country could easily have fallen into Russia's orbit. Scooping up another shard of the former Yugoslavia is another geopolitical win for the NATO crowd and another step further into Russia's traditional sphere of influence.

The Future of the Alliance

The dramatic fireworks at this year's NATO summit have led to all sorts of mainstream talking heads and inside-the-beltway think tank pundits fretting about the future of the alliance.

"NATO Is Struggling Under Trans-Atlantic Tensions" worries Carnegie Endowment mouthpiece Foreign Policy.

"With Internal Squabbling on Vivid Display, What’s Next for NATO?" wonders The New York Times.

Still, some outlets seem to have accidentally revealed a bit of truth with their post-summit wrap-up. Euractiv seems to get it about right: "With new focus on China, NATO patches up stormy summit."

Indeed, all the sound and fury surrounding the hot mics and fiery tempers of the leaders doesn't change a thing. No one is pulling out of NATO; in fact, quite the opposite. Members are vowing to contribute more toward defense spending than ever.

No, the alliance will do just fine, thank you very much. And now that they're formally and openly aiming their crosshairs at their avowed enemies, Russia and China, the organization has a new lease on life. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, NATO has been floundering for a way to justify its existence in the eyes of the public. The wars in the Balkans? The war on terror? Afghanistan?

Luckily, the rise of (stage-managed) Cold War 2.0 has come along to give NATO a reason for being. With Russophobia and Sinophobia spreading throughout the NATO member states, the military-industrial-corporate-media-globalist enforcement arm is more energized than ever, and is increasingly flush with cash to arm whatever harebrained schemes its power-mad leaders dream up next.

And although this game is not meant to be won, if NATO ever are able to subdue the Russian and Chinese bogeymen and assert full control over the globe, they have their next objective already lined up: outer space.

No, don't believe the headlines you've read in recent days. NATO will survive these little spats between political puppets just fine. Humanity, on the other hand . . .

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
STEEMKR.COM IS SPONSORED BY
ADVERTISEMENT
Sort Order:  trending

Thanks for posting here on the Steem blockchain, James.

And listening to Crowder, he agrees that NATO is good and has to exist to counter the threat from the outside. What's a crazy proposition is that? What is the raison d'être for NATO to be existing? And what objective it want to achieve today, it's still North Atlantic? doesn't that mean to let NATO reborn is to renew again and again without any effort to reevaluate until it shifts from 'real threat' to 'perceived threat' while also still sacrificing young armies for corporate interest?