NATO is not a defense organization.

Eric Zuesse (blogs at https://theduran.com/author/eric-zuesse/)

Anyone who is seriously interested in international affairs knows that ‘the news’ (such as about ‘Saddam’s WMD’ in 2002, and about Israel-versus-Palestine ever since 1948) is full of lies — that’s outright lies, not merely errors. And everyone knows that the public on both sides of international-affairs issues believe the lies that come from ‘our’ side (which might instead be actually only the side of one’s rulers, who shouldn’t be trusted). What, then, about NATO, which is one of the most important topics in ‘the news’ regarding international affairs? For example: what is NATO, and why does it exist?

One of the most reliably truthful and deeply insightful public commentators upon international-affairs issues is the anonymous author of the “Moon of Alabama” blog. That person is a rare combination of genius and honesty, and, as such, has (so far as I have been able to determine, after a decade of regularly reading that blog) a stunning 100% accuracy in the predictions there. (I evaluate commentators on the basis of tracking their predictions: the only commentators that I have found to be 100% accurate are that blog, plus Alexander Mercouris, plus Brian Berletic, plus “Simplicius the Thinker.”)

On December 8th, that blog headlined “Biden Administration Fearmongers Over Article 5 Event”. The article closed by saying that:

——

it is a myth that Article 5 of the Washington Treaty (which founded NATO) will guarantee that others would come to a member’s defense with their own armies.

Article 5 does not say anything like that. Here is its essence:

The Parties agree … that .. each of them … will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith … such action as it deems necessary …

“Such action as it deems necessary …” may include a lot of potential measures (including none) which differ from sending one’s army.

Would the U.S. really go to war with another nuclear superpower over some tussle between Estonia (1.4 million inhabitants of which a third are ethnic Russian) and the Russian Federation?

I for one find this very unlikely.

——

What the author did there is to recognize the core statement in the NATO Treaty, to present it directly to the reader, and to point out what the core statement in the NATO Treaty does and does not mean.

If the core statement had been, for example, something like the following, then NATO would be a real commitment to enter a war on the side of a fellow-member that has been invaded:

“If any NATO member-nation becomes invaded by a nation that is not a member-nation, it will within 24 hours declare war against the invader(s) and place its own military command and assets at the service of the invaded member-nation of NATO.”

That would be a real mutual-defense alliance — but NATO explicitly is NOT that. Why?

NATO is the main marketing-organization for U.S.-and-allied weapons-manufacturers — the firms whose primary or (usually) only market is their own Government and the Governments that are its colonies (‘allies’). These are not normal corporations, which sell to consumers. They operate very differently. After the Soviet Union disbanded in 1991 and America had no real adversary in the world and no justification whatsoever to continue the unConstitutional “standing” (or permanent-war-for permanent-‘peace’) army that America’s Founders loathed and tried to prohibit but President Truman, the creator of the Cold War, nonetheless created anyway in 1947, so as for the U.S. to take over the entire world; America’s richest 1% of its richest 1% poured their investments into ‘defense’ stocks and those stocks, starting in 1991 when the Soviet Union ended, soared in value enormously faster and more than did either the general stock market or even than industrial stocks did and have. It’s not that America’s super-rich were more intelligent than the rest of the citizenry were, but instead that they selected and hired (invested in the careers of) virtually all of the successful politicians — they chose America’s rulers — and so the U.S. Government represents them and NOT the American public. Consequently: the ‘defense’ manufacturers control their markets by controlling their Government, because their Government IS their market, and the politicians are merely their hired hands. And, of course, in order for them to do this, they ALSO need to and do control all of the major ‘news’-media.

So, it really is the case that NATO represents those armaments companies instead of any public anywhere. This is not to say that the public in a NATO country know this — they do not — but that this is the reality; and, so, consequently, America (the creator of NATO) would definitely NOT be required to go to war to defend a NATO-member nation if that other nation were to be invaded by a non-member.

Furthermore: notice that nothing in the NATO Treaty prohibits the U.S. Government from invading another NATO-member nation. NATO is entirely an invention by the U.S.-UK alliance (including — but only as secondary partners — Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, in accord with the 1877 plan of the British super-imperialist Cecil Rhodes), to exploit the entire world including America’s ‘allies’. That’s what’s happening right now, as European nations that have obeyed America’s demands to put up a second Iron Curtain separating West from East sink into depression while America’s billionaires keep on booming (at the expense of Europeans and of all other of its ‘allies’ or colonies).

Did America invade Iraq in 2003 really in order to protect ANYONE? What about Libya in 2011? What about Syria starting at around the same time? And what about when America took over Ukraine in 2014? But Ukraine has been a boon to the owners of firms such as Lockheed-Martin.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse’s new book, AMERICA’S EMPIRE OF EVIL: Hitler’s Posthumous Victory, and Why the Social Sciences Need to Change, is about how America took over the world after World War II in order to enslave it to U.S.-and-allied billionaires. Their cartels extract the world’s wealth by control of not only their ‘news’ media but the social ‘sciences’ — duping the public.