keskiviikko 1. kesäkuuta 2016

On NATO, the United States and Europe

Here’s an interesting article on the possibility of Germany’s exit from NATO:
Although the claim might seem outlandish, there is factual evidence to back the existence of a rift within NATO and between the United States and European countries such as Germany and France:

  • During the anti-government protests that erupted in Ukraine in 2014, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State, Victoria Nuland, made in a leaked telephone conversation known her disapproval of Germany’s stance regarding the protests, and her sentiment towards the European Union in general, by stating “Fuck the EU” to the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel described the remarks as “totally unacceptable”. [1]
  • Minsk II, the agreement drafted to end hostilities in the Donbass region of Ukraine was signed between the leaders of Belarus, Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine in February 2015. [2] Absent from the group was the U.S, which was pushing for sending armaments to the Ukrainian government. Germany’s Chancellor Angela Merkel was in opposition to such plans and the French president Francois Hollande called for extensive autonomy for the eastern Ukrainian regions to ease the conflict. [3]
  • After the signing of the Minsk II agreement, the top U.S. NATO commander in Europe, General Philip Breedlove, proclaimed that Russia had increased the number of troops and vehicles in Donbass. The comments alarmed Germany’s foreign intelligence agency and the government, whose sources could not confirm the information. Spiegel reported a source within the German Chancellors office calling Breedlove’s comments: “dangerous propaganda”. It further wrote: “False claims and exaggerated accounts, warned a top German official during a recent meeting on Ukraine, have put NATO -- and by extension, the entire West -- in danger of losing its credibility.” [4]
  • During a time when the U.S. was attempting to prevent Russia’s involvement in Syria and the western press was pushing a narrative that Russia was serving purely its own interest by assisting President al-Assad’s regime, both Germany and France commended Russia’s entry into Syria and its fight against the ISIS. [5]
  • In April this year France’s lower parliament voted in favor of not extending EU sanctions against Russia, which were put into place after Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014. [6] The Foreign Minister of Germany echoed this sentiments last month by advocated the lifting of the economic sanctions on Russia. [7] This is in contrast to the wishes of the U.S. government, which would like to see to sanctions continued. [8] 
As mentioned in the linked article, a drastic move such as Germany’s departure from NATO would not go without repercussions. A Major General who served in West-Germany’s military and military intelligence, Gerd-Helmut Komosso, published a book in 2007 in which he revealed the existence of a secret agreement signed in 1949 between the U.S. and Germany, which restricted Germany’s state sovereignty until the year 2099. [9] The agreement contains sections on the control of Germany’s mass media, political parties and gold reserves. In the light of such an agreement, the 36 000 U.S. troops still stationed in the country can be viewed as an occupying force, which could be utilized, if needed, to maintain the status quo.

The situation is further complicated by the fact that the majority of the media in Europe (as well as in most other countries to a degree) is directly or indirectly controlled by the global banking establishment. [10] It does not matter whether the leaders of these countries are knowledgeable about the underlying issues or whether they would like to change them, what the public knows or doesn’t know and how it views the global events is controlled by the press. The banking cabal has the ability to spin and counter practically any situation, including the possible move by the political leaders to exist NATO.

The circumstances regarding the media are especially difficult in countries with small populations and thus easily controllable small local presses, of which Finland is one example. A journalist that most probably got a taste of this was Pekka Ervasti, who recently left his position at the Finnish state broadcasting company Yleisradio. The abrupt departure of this long-term journalist who was one of the few vocal media opponents of the current U.S. and NATO hubris in the Finnish media and political arenas and one central in breaking the story that the U.S. had invited itself to carry out military exercises in Finland of which many relevant politicians were unaware of [11, 12, 13], was probably due to his unwanted views. His emphasis of “not resigning” on his Twitter appeared to give credence to this theory. [14]

Another Yleisradio journalist, Jessikka Aro, who received the Finnish “Great Journalist Award of 2015” for her reporting on the claimed Russian trolls operating in Finland, has also recently received attention especially in the social media for being revealed to having a close relationship with a notable U.S. information war expert Joel Harding, who among many other things has drafted Ukraine’s information strategy. [15] Harding seems to have taken on a vendetta against those who have taken an interest on him, lashing out against them on several platforms. [16, 17]

There appears to be a widening rift within NATO and between the United States and Europe in general. On the other front the European Union faces its toughest challenge to date when the Britons head to the polls later this month to vote on the country’s possible exit from the union. As with all revolutions, both the elite and their mouthpieces will claim that all is calm, or alternatively an opposition distraction, until the dominoes start falling. 


Ei kommentteja:

Lähetä kommentti

Follow by Email