On November 8 and 9, NATO ministers will be meeting in Brussels to discuss the alliance’s command structure, and how to better prepare for a war with Russia and eventually conflict with China.
In a post entitled, “NATO Ministerial Meeting: Preparing for War on Russia?” by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org), “Russia and China represent the final frontier of resistance against US sought global dominance. Eventual conflict against both nations is ominously possible, maybe likely or certain, a grim prospect if happens”…
America controls NATO policymaking. The alliance serves as its global imperial arm – warmaking its mission, not fostering world peace and stability.
Nor does it have anything to do with defense at a time the only threats alliance members face are invented ones. Real ones don’t exist.
World peace and stability notions are contrary to US objectives, wanting unchallenged dominance over world nations, their resources and populations.
America’s diabolical agenda involves endless wars of aggression, wanting all sovereign independent nations replaced by US vassal states, creating ruler/serf societies globally, an open-air prison for ordinary people disposed of if resist – a world unsafe and unfit to live in.
On November 8 and 9, NATO ministers are meeting in Brussels. Like his predecessors, Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg was appointed to serve US interests, taking orders from Washington.
Issues to be discussed Wednesday and Thursday include revising NATO’s command structure, including “a new command to help protect sea lines of communication between North America and Europe, and another command to improve the movement of troops and equipment within Europe,” said Stoltenberg – stressing “our ability to move forces,” he added.
Against what, he didn’t explain – preparing for war on Russia the unstated objective, whether or not waged. It’s more likely than not ahead – a modern-day Operation Barbarossa with nukes if launched.
Russia and China represent the final frontier of resistance against US sought global dominance. Eventual conflict against both nations is ominously possible, maybe likely or certain, a grim prospect if happens.
High on the ministerial agenda is improving infrastructure for warmaking, including upgraded roads and bridges, facilitating movement of troops, weapons and equipment.
So-called “deterrence for collective defense” is code language for possible offensive operations. The private sector in NATO countries have an “important role to play,” said Stoltenberg.
In late October, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu explained his nation must deal with serious threats on its western borders.
During a Defense Ministry Board meeting, he said “(t)he military and political situation at our western borders remains tense and shows a tendency to escalation.”
US-led NATO forces are deployed menacingly close to Russia’s borders, their hostile presence a cause for great concern.
If Russian troops were positioned along America’s north and/or southern borders, or offshore near its east, west, or Gulf coasts, Washington would consider their presence an act of war. Conflict could follow.
America’s provocative Eastern European presence has Moscow justifiably concerned, Shoigu explaining:
“The intensity and scale of the operational and combat training of the bloc member-countries’ military forces near our borders are growing.”
“Only in the past three months there have been over 30 drills in East European and Baltic states” – heightening tensions, Shoigu adding:
“We’re implementing a set of measures to neutralize the emerging challenges and threats,” including modernized hardware positioned by yearend and upgraded infrastructure.
Former head of Russian airborne troops/current lower house State Duma Defense Committee chairman Vladimir Shamanov warned about hostile NATO saber-rattling, “bring(ing) nothing positive,” he said.
Given America’s rage for endless wars and global dominance, the threat of catastrophic nuclear war is ominously real.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.