NATO Wants a War With Russia
In case you haven’t heard, NATO is contemplating declaring war on Russia. Apparently there are those who think another war would be good for business, and if that means the total havoc of war, who really cares?1
Who gave NATO the power to take the USA and its Northern European allies into war? According to my copy of the Constitution it still says, “Congress shall have the power to declare war.” That is a power it may not delegate to the president, nor may it be delegated by treaty to a coalition of allies. ONLY Congress may declare war on behalf of the USA.
And yet, Secretary of State John Kerry taunts, “Russia needs to understand that our patience is not infinite.”
Is it that NATO fears becoming irrelevant, if they don’t have a military action now and then? Do they need to blow things up in order to justify their existence?
Or is it worse than that? Is there some Invisible Hand pulling the strings and moving NATO and the entire world toward another World War III?
One of the debates seems to be based upon whether NATO would be able to respond in time, if Russia starts this war they believe is coming, or if NATO should be gearing up to a war-footing “just in case.” This is saber-rattling at its finest, but that used to be a sport enjoyed by politicians. Elected politicians. It is totally inappropriate for military leaders to be threatening, blustering and provoking a potential enemy.
While Putin may be aggressive in protecting the interests of his own nation (as he should be), he has no intention of starting a war with Europe, which would quickly escalate into a war with the USA. That would be suicide, and Putin is not suicidal.
Putin holds to a worldview that recalls the glory of days of power of the Orthodox Faith, and that for centuries Russia held the position of Protector of that Faith. So… looking beyond the borders of Russia, he sees it as his duty to help reestablish the Faith within those boundaries it formerly held sway. (The fact that there are certain military and economic benefits to this role, and to the sphere of its influence, always helps, of course.)
Obama and Kerry, however, seem to be committed to aiding and abetting the spread of (a) globalism, this time through NATO, and (b) Islam through a multi-pronged strategy, and they are frustrated that Russia has upset their little game. The problem is that they are playing checkers, and Putin is playing chess. (And, to make it worse, they’re not even very good at checkers!)
If the President establishes that he can take this nation to war, without a congressional declaration of war, then he has usurped the Constitution, and should be impeached. If Congress had a spine, it would never have gotten this far. Can Congress get a spinal implant, this late in our demise? If they do not, then what’s left of this republic is doomed.
Precedent will be cited, going back to Harry Truman, but that just proves the point – the United Nations, and it’s auxiliary organization, NATO, are the instruments designed to subvert our national sovereignty and turn us into the financiers of our own destruction. It appears to be working pretty well.
As a policy, we need to withdraw from NATO. If Europe wants to be defended, Europe can pay for it, and Europe can use NATO as the European Armed Forces, if they so choose. But they must do so without out money, our manpower, our materiel. This will save billions of dollars, and will even make us some money, if they want to purchase airplanes and tanks.
More importantly, it will save American lives. Military personnel would no longer be forced into what is nothing less than mercenary service under NATO and/or the United Nations.
Vice President Al Gore once told parents of a son who was posthumously decorated for his actions on a UN military operation, “You can be proud that your son died in service to the United Nations.” That does not warm the hearts of American patriots.
Can there be a single good reason for American soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen to have to fight, bleed and die for the New World Order? If there is, then the oath of allegiance needs to be changed, because right now they are raising their right hands and taking an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. But then they are being ordered into “international expeditionary adventures” where American interests are sometimes impossible to discern. This is known in the business world as “bait-and-switch”.
SPC4 Michael New was court-martialed in 1996 for refusing to wear a blue beret and deploy under a general from Finland into Macedonia. As he pointed out at the time, “If they can make me serve in Macedonia, [without constitutional authority], then they can make me serve in Texas or New York. Geography is no defense to prosecution. It’s a question of their authority. And where does their authority come from? The Constitution? Or the UN Charter?”
This means that every soldier, airman, sailor or marine deployed under NATO is, de facto, a United Nations mercenary.
How many Americans realize that the UN Charter calls for the establishment of “regional military arrangements” to meet the needs of a given region? And how many realize that the NATO Charter says,
“ARTICLE 1: The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
An excellent article on NATO and it’s original intent and design may be found at http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/07/07/what-is-nato-really.html , where Eric Zuesse argues that the original purpose of NATO was not to oppose Communism, but to oppose and destroy Russia! Our 400 military currently surrounding Russia should be evidence that Russia is not being paranoid in preparing to defend themselves.
Hillary Clinton, if elected, has every intention of seeing that we go to war with Russia. 2 The Clintons and the Bushes have been of one accord on this subject for decades.
1 https://www.thenation.com/article/is-war-with-russia-possible/ Article by Stephen F. Cohen, Is War With Russia Possible? “The US is undermining opportunities for cooperation in Syria and Ukraine, while escalating NATO’s military presence near Russia.”
© Daniel D. New, Permission to copy, with credits, is hereby granted.-
