Claims that US President Donald Trump is undermining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) by criticizing some of its members and having a cordial meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin have sent establishment media into a frenzy to sanctify NATO as a force for peace and democracy.
A Guardian editorial (7/10/18) asserted:
The NATO alliance has helped mold the modern world and ushered in a democratic, liberal world order characterized by open trade and open societies, which after the collapse of the Soviet Union needed only to be lightly defended. This in turn contributed greatly to American peace and prosperity.
Note that “American peace” is a phrase used to describe a state that is currently bombing one country or another every 12 minutes, while US “prosperity” takes the form of spending $716 billion on the war machine annually while 40 million Americans live in poverty, giving the country a child poverty rate of 21 percent as well as the worst child mortality rate among rich nations.
A New York Times editorial (7/8/18) said that since World War II, the alliance has been “the anchor of an American-led and American-financed peace that fostered Western prosperity and prevented new world wars.” According to the paper, NATO has
linked America and Europe not just in a mutual defense pledge but in advancing democratic governance, the rule of law, civil and human rights, and an increasingly open international economy.
The Times argued that, while the alliance’s original purpose was allegedly to respond to a hypothetical Soviet attack, NATO “found a new purpose” after the fall of the USSR, “defending Muslims in the Balkans, and after 9/11, helping the United States fight terrorists in Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa and elsewhere.”
The New York Times (7/8/18) credits NATO with “advancing democratic governance, the rule of law, [and] civil and human rights.”
What the Times called “defending Muslims in the Balkans” was actually NATO’s invasion of Yugoslavia, an important tool in the dismantling of that country, which only under the most curious of definitions could be described as an act of “peace” or an exemplar of “the rule of law,” since the attack was illegal. Likewise, in “fight[ing] terrorists in Afghanistan,” NATO has hardly shown itself to be an agent of “peace” in a war that’s gone on for almost 17 years, during which NATO members have demonstrated their regard for “civil and human rights” by killing thousands of Afghan civilians and supporting torturers.
While NATO’s occupation has yet to usher in an “open societ[y]” or democracy in Afghanistan, the alliance’s presence has coincided with the birth of ISIS in the country. Rather than embodying “peace” or “human rights,” the 2003 invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, which NATO took part in by way of a “training mission,” entailed torture, the killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, the use of chemical weapons, and rates of infant mortality, cancer and leukemia higher than those reported in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Then in the Iraqi theatre of the war ostensibly aimed at ISIS, NATO demonstrated these values and helped “fight terrorists” as part of a coalition that killed thousands of civilians.
The Times’ vague reference to “fight[ing] terrorists in…Africa” notwithstanding, none of the articles discussed above or below mentioned Libya, the site of NATO’s most recent full-scale war. Yet it’s fair to say that the seemingly endless war and social collapse in Libya that have followed NATO’s attack, as well as the “hell” of beheadings, rape, and slave markets that resulted from it, aren’t features of “open societies” characterized by “peace,” “democratic” politics and “the rule of law, civil and human rights.” One struggles, in fact, to come up with a single example where such things were the goal of a NATO intervention, let alone its outcome.
Advocating Aggression
Canonizing NATO involves not only erasing its innumerable crimes but also advocating the bolstering of the organization, which would both increase the threat of war and divert resources from socially necessary goods like healthcare, housing, education, ameliorating poverty and inequality, and addressing the climate crisis.
The Washington Post (7/7/18) applauds “the biggest buildup by US allies in 25 years”–despite the fact that NATO is already responsible for more than half the world’s spending on war.
A Washington Post editorial (7/7/18) said:
There is considerable good news to celebrate: [NATO] has substantially beefed up defenses of its eastern flank, facing Russia; it is recommitting to vital missions in Afghanistan and Iraq; and every one of its members is increasing defense spending—the biggest buildup by US allies in 25 years. The summit is due to adopt an ambitious new plan that would allow NATO to deploy 30 battalions, 30 squadrons of planes and 30 ships within 30 days—a resource that could considerably bolster the ability of the United States to respond to crises.
The Times editorial claimed that, “faced with” an unspecified “Russian threat”—the existence of which the editorial offers no evidence for, but refers to twice—“a firm and convincing commitment to a strong NATO” is important. Thus the paper implicitly endorsed NATO’s
establishing two new military commands, expanding cyberwarfare and counterterrorism efforts, and approving a new plan to speed the reinforcement of troops and equipment to Poland and the Baltic States to deter Russian aggression.
None of this coverage addressed NATO’s threats to Russia and how these shape Russian actions. Though NATO leaders promised Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990 that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward” toward Russia, the alliance has since grown quite a few inches eastward by adding to its ranks Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Albania, Croatia and Montenegro.
As Benjamin Schwarz pointed out in The Nation (7/11/18), the US has “interfered in the pre- and post-coup political machinations in Ukraine,” and “NATO has signaled that its expansion into Ukraine is a question of when, not if.” He went on to note:
And now that NATO has created an enemy [in Russia], it justifies its [own] intensifying provocative actions—the massive annual military exercises since 2010 in Poland, Lithuania, and, on Russia’s very doorstep, in Latvia and Estonia; the creation of a permanent US Army headquarters in Poland; a new Pentagon-devised plan for a prolonged war with Russia; the US ambassador to NATO’s explicit identification of “Russia and the malign activities of Russia” as NATO’s “major” target—by declaring that they are nothing more than a necessary reaction to Russian hostility and the need, as the New York Times editorial board declared this week, to “contain” the Russian “threat.” And what, according to the Pentagon’s 2018 National Defense Strategy, makes the Russians a threat? Nothing less than that their aim—which is as unproven as it would be understandable—is “to shatter” NATO, the military pact arrayed against them.
Since 2016, NATO has had 4,000 troops in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.
Thus, when the Post said NATO’s military buildup “could considerably bolster the ability of the United States to respond to crises,” it should have added that NATO is a driving force in creating these crises in the first place. These media accounts suggest, however, that NATO has an unlimited right to build up its forces near Russian territory, while any Russian response to that is entirely illegitimate.
Therein lies the meta level of the absurdity of this panic about Trump being anti-NATO. By insisting that US allies in the organization pay in more heavily, he’s actually calling for NATO to be built up. In February, the Trump administration released its Nuclear Posture Review, which authorized developing and deploying so-called “low-yield” nuclear weapons to “deter” Russia in case it’s not already deterred by America’s massive nuclear arsenal.
The problem isn’t, as the media suggests, that Trump is weakening NATO; the problem is that he’s strengthening it.
Once upon a time, I believed that FAIR held the media accountable, but no more. I thought your foolish article on NATO was simply the ravings of a millennial with no sense of history until I discovered that Mr. Shupak is also an RT contributor. Where in his bio do you state that? Anyone with a shred of historical perspective and the slightest understanding of what it is like to live in a totalitarian state can put together why democracies need to hold together against Russia and its ilk. Pouring forth the sad failings of our current and past Administrations as justification for dismantling NATO does not detract from that premise. Article 5 of NATO protects my home country of Denmark and other democracies — flawed as they may be — from the totalitarian behemoth to the East and may it ever be so. Shame on you, FAIR for publishing such Russia-friendly propaganda. If this type of nonsense continues I will join with others in vehemently exposing your lack of credibility as an accurate arbiter of the media.
Is that you Nikki Haley? Senator McCarthy?
You claim to be a Dane. I think you should identify yourself so that we can all understand what vested interests you might have in expanding NATO and its encroachment TOWARD Russia’s borders. At the very least you should provide specific examples which might support your vague fear-mongering about Russian intentions for your country or any other.
Shame on you for publishing an anonymous war-mongering comment without providing any backing evidence for your false and exaggerated claims.
“Anyone with a shred of historical perspective and the slightest understanding of what it is like to live in a totalitarian state can put together why democracies need to hold together against Russia and its ilk.”
Maybe you could tell us about it – from your own experience? Could you also maybe provide some evidence that members of the Russian Federation are totalitarian and some pointers on how they might more closely approximate a liberal western democracy like Saudi Arabia or a peaceful law-abiding nation like Israel or the United States?
Could it be that you have a personal financial interest in the Scandinavian facet to the western imperialist war machine? https://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/Scandinavias-Covert-Role-in-Western-Imperialism-20170320-0022.html
Many writers “contribute” to RT, but I can’t find a single example of Mr. Shupak being one of them. So kindly provide proof of your accusation or admit that you’re simply telling another lie.
Or are you referring to a single interview he was asked to give based on his Middle East and Syrian expertise?
The more I think about it, the bigger scumbag you seem to be.
As an American and a Trump-hater, I completely agree with BJADANE. Further, while I may agree that the US has to do more spending on our”social safety net,” of which I am an ardent believer, it seems to me that NATO took away the threat of a Soviet invasion and allowed nations like Denmark to prosper since their defenses were coordinated. It was then their prosperity that permitted them the social safety net.
Furthermore, I too have of late noticed this online publication to completely ridicule the idea of the Russians interfering in the US 2016 election and now attempting the same tactics in 2018 for which special prosecutor Robert Muller has already indicted several Russian nationals, including a woman actually in the US. I too have been a long time reader of FAIR when they were a paper publication but I am losing faith in this type of shabby reporting. This kind of reporting reminds me more of the American Communist Party’s DAILY WORKER in its time–always kissing up to Stalin. Now, of course, it is Putin.
N othing so much
A s a
T ip to
O rwell
N othing so much
A s a
T ip to
O rwell
I ) Great Acrostic Doug Latimer.: )
and to
II) writer bjadane
wow, lets’see Russia is helping Syria because Syria asked them to, although USA, Israel, France and UK are attacking Syria who hasn’t attacked them. And then , of course USA has been bombing Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen……who have never attacked USA and this all beginning back 17 years ago——so I am confused as to why Russia is the enemy to you. Well ,I hope no one in NATO brings cholera to Denmark—because they ruined Haiti, and that nation’s water and killed and sickened many people —and even worse —— NATO refused to be responsible for any of that. Since you come from Hamlet land, ( Denmark) I will leave you with his thought”….”thus conscience does make cowards of us all…” in that world of America’s never ending wars. : (
After the NYTimes and Washington Post sold the Iraq invasion of 2003, a pack of lies they’ve never really admitted to (Michael Gordon a chief liar at the Times worked there until the fall of 2017 as a “reporter”): Why would anyone treat what these two papers claim to be facts as such?
I generally do not engage in the on-line tit-for-tat, particularly when the trolls are out to get you. But I wonder, since when has FAIR become a mouthpiece for the “let’s denigrate everything democracy” crowd and the “let’s bash the mainstream media” crowd? I thought its mission was to stick to the facts and hold the media accountable when it went astray. Alas, strident political bias has crept in and where is the fairness and accuracy now? There was a time when FAIR was to following this dictum from Hamlet, at least trying:
“This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.”
But probably too corny for you youngsters who, sadly, will have to learn the hard way because by heaping disdain on the mainstream media you are giving great aid and comfort to those who would like to see it disappear to the great benefit of the RTs of the world.
You have lost my confidence.
You must have a very large barn full of tons of straw. I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone build and knock down so many empty straw men, all in one place.
Of course you could always provide specifics – examples of Russian aggression or counterpoints to those made about NATO in this article or the others to which it links.
But no. All you have to go with your amorphous fear-mongering is name-calling, straw man arguments and projection, which is what calling anyone who might have anything to say that contradicts you a “troll” is – as clearly you’re the troll here. In case you aren’t taught about this in Denmark, projection is a psychological coping mechanism, and not a valid form of argument.
Something is truly rotten in Denmark. From the article linked above:
“The Danish-British firm, G4S is the world’s largest security company and is known for its long list of controversies. They have supplied services to Israeli prisons and checkpoints, they have been accused of mistreatment of immigrants in detention centers, they have also played a huge role in protecting Western imperialist interests such as oil refineries and the territory around the Dakota Access pipeline. However, since the U.K. is known as the most aggressive of the two nations, the Danish component is frequently swept under the rug despite the fact that they were the founders and developers of the company.”
Also, maybe you’re going to explain to us the role that the Danish air force played in the illegal bombing of Yugoslavia?
Finally, I beseech you again, please tell us all what NATO means to you, personally and financially, before you begin to provide specific evidence for your claims about the “totalitarian behemoth” to your east.
Thanks TC for taking the time to deal with the crazy troll ‘bjadane’ —- though he’s a reminder that all the ignorant war-hawks aren’t JUST in our good old USA, though I’m far from convinced that he’s actually from Denmark… he’s just as likely a hasbara or some other domestic right-winger posing as a Dane.
Since NATO (or more accurately, the US) subsidizes the other nations’ welfare states, I suspect “bjadane” is just another freeloader who knows the gravy train gets permanently derailed when his country has to fully pay for its defense. (The only alternative would be tax increases that would collapse the economy.) Then he would have to move out of his parents’ basement and find a job, like that 30-year-old in the US a month or two ago.
Dear bjadane…..
Thank you as I love that HAMLET quote from the play, but LOL I think Polonius said it. And he was hiding behind a curtain , a sneaky guy who said good things but was really not very nice. Anyway, Hamlet offed him as poor ol’ Po hid so sneakily behind that curtain . I thought that was a great Hamlet lesson, because it taught me that words can be wonderful—–but not if you just say them and really don’t live them.
As for FAIR, they do Hamlet’s work and very well,”To be or not to be, that is the question..” FAIR helps me figure out what the REAL To BE, is. YOU should keep on reading FAIR though because when ideas annoy you——-that’s when you have to dig in to see why, and sometimes you can find a really good and illuminating answer, : )
Oh, that poor Tom Collins — ranting and raving. I normally wouldn’t respond to such an obvious troll. But for the record, here is the link to an RT interview conducted with Mr. Gregory Shupak: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYjNYih0Jus
FAIR please take note of who you have writing on your site.
How many “Communists” are in the State Department again, Joe?
I was interviewed by CBC three years ago and that doesn’t make me a CBC contributor. Only simple-minded people or obvious trolls would make that kind of stupid assumption.
By the way, what’s your problem with RT?
Russia is playing dangerous games while underestimating other nations resolve.
Nobody is underestimating “other nations resolve” – because NATO has proven to be very dangerous and expert at destroying countries. Specifically Russians are taking NATO very seriously, that is why they took Crimea.
Portraying NATO as peaceful , dedicated to the defense of the Western Europe is not only false; it is absolutely proven, brazen lie ( interventions in Iraq, Serbia, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria , for now…Iran maybe coming?) . You know guys, even Hitler was better than you; at least he openly proclaimed what Germany will do, and why (race theory). Today´s descendants of him even that can´t match, but are lying that big, that big, that reasonable person has to ask himself : how it is possible to lie so much? Don´t you ever use reason?
I’d say that it’s USAmerica and NATO that is apparently playing a very dangerous (and unnecessary) game of chicken with the other 2 major military powers on the Planet…
Search “Here’s The Real Reason The US Must Talk To Russia” for an excellent article at Popular Resistance detailing USAmerica’s hubris…
I haven’t read all the source articles to this, but would suspect that how geopolitics should work is oddly missing. Maybe that is a good thing, as they might do it in the form of fearmongering, instead of talking about measures that de-escalate instead of escalate.
Anyway, kindah think that geopolitics in kindah missing from this article aswel.
I haven’t read all the source articles to this, but would suspect that how geopolitics should work is oddly missing. Maybe that is a good thing, as they might do it in the form of fearmongering, instead of talking about measures that de-escalate instead of escalate.
Anyway, kindah think that geopolitics in kindah missing from this article aswel.