Now Reading
New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

New York Times hit piece on Trump and NATO exposes alliance as outdated and obsolete (Video)

RT CrossTalk host Peter Lavelle and The Duran’s Alex Christoforou take a quick look at the New York Times hit piece citing anonymous sources, with information that the U.S. President dared to question NATO’s viability.

Propaganda rag, the NYT, launched its latest presidential smear aimed at discrediting Trump and provoking the establishment, warmonger left into more impeachment – Twenty-fifth Amendment talking points.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Via The American Conservative


The New York Times scored a serious scoop when it revealed on Monday that President Trump had questioned in governmental conversations—on more than one occasion, apparently—America’s membership in NATO. Unfortunately the paper then slipped into its typical mode of nostrum journalism. My Webster’s New World Dictionary defines “nostrum” as “quack medicine” entailing “exaggerated claims.” Here we had quack journalism executed in behalf of quack diplomacy.

The central exaggerated claim is contained in the first sentence, in which it is averred that NATO had “deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” This is wrong, as can be seen through just a spare amount of history.

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism. But it did so not over 70 years but over 40 years—from 1949 to 1989. That’s when the Soviet Union had 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops poised on Western Europe’s doorstep, positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.

How was this possible? It was possible because Joseph Stalin had pushed his armies farther and farther into the West as the German Wehrmacht collapsed at the end of World War II. In doing so, and in the process capturing nearly all of Eastern Europe, he ensured that the Soviets had no Western enemies within a thousand miles of Leningrad or within 1,200 miles of Moscow. This vast territory represented not only security for the Russian motherland (which enjoys no natural geographical barriers to deter invasion from the West) but also a potent staging area for an invasion of Western Europe.

The first deterrent against such an invasion, which Stalin would have promulgated had he thought he could get away with it, was America’s nuclear monopoly. By the time that was lost, NATO had emerged as a powerful and very necessary deterrent. The Soviets, concluding that the cost of an invasion was too high, defaulted to a strategy of undermining Western interests anywhere around the world where that was possible. The result was global tensions stirred up at various global trouble spots, most notably Korea and Vietnam.

But Europe was saved, and NATO was the key. It deserves our respect and even reverence for its profound success as a military alliance during a time of serious threat to the West.

But then the threat went away. Gone were the 1.3 million Soviet and client-state troops. Gone was Soviet domination of Eastern Europe. Indeed, gone, by 1991, was the Soviet Union itself, an artificial regime of brutal ideology superimposed upon the cultural entity of Mother Russia. It was a time for celebration.

But it was also a time to contemplate the precise nature of the change that had washed over the world and to ponder what that might mean for old institutions—including NATO, a defensive military alliance created to deter aggression from a menacing enemy to the east. Here’s where Western thinking went awry. Rather than accepting as a great benefit the favorable developments enhancing Western security—the Soviet military retreat, the territorial reversal, the Soviet demise—the West turned NATO into a territorial aggressor of its own, absorbing nations that had been part of the Soviet sphere of control and pushing right up to the Russian border. Now Leningrad (renamed St. Petersburg after the obliteration of the menace of Soviet communism) resides within a hundred miles of NATO military forces, while Moscow is merely 200 miles from Western troops.

Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has absorbed 13 nations, some on the Russian border, others bordering lands that had been part of Russia’s sphere of interest for centuries. This constitutes a policy of encirclement, which no nation can accept without protest or pushback. And if NATO were to absorb those lands of traditional Russian influence—particularly Ukraine and Georgia—that would constitute a major threat to Russian security, as Russian President Vladimir Putin has sought to emphasize to Western leaders for years.

See Also

So, no, NATO has not deterred Russian aggression for 70 years. It did so for 40 and has maintained a destabilizing posture toward Russia ever since. The problem here is the West’s inability to perceive how changed geopolitical circumstances might require a changed geopolitical strategy. The encirclement strategy has had plenty of critics—George Kennan before he died; academics John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt, and Robert David English; former diplomat Jack Matlock; the editors of The Nation. But their voices have tended to get drowned out by the nostrum diplomacy and the nostrum journalism that supports it at every turn.

You can’t drown out Donald Trump because he’s president of the United States. And so he has to be traduced, ridiculed, dismissed, and marginalized. That’s what the Times story, by Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper, sought to do. Consider the lead, designed to emphasize just how outlandish Trump’s musings are before the reader even has a chance to absorb what he may have been thinking: “There are few things that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia desires more than the weakening of NATO, the military alliance among the United States, Europe and Canada that has deterred Soviet and Russian aggression for 70 years.” Translation: “Take that, Mr. President! You’re an idiot.”

Henry Kissinger had something interesting to say about Trump in a recent interview with the Financial Times. “I think Trump may be one of those figures in history,” said the former secretary of state, “who appears from time to time to mark the end of an era and to force it to give up its old pretenses.” One Western pretense about Russia, so ardently enforced by the likes of Julian Barnes and Helene Cooper (who, it may be safe to say, know less about world affairs and their history than Henry Kissinger), is that nothing really changed with the Soviet collapse and NATO had to turn aggressive in order to keep that menacing nation in its place.

Trump clearly doesn’t buy that pretense. He said during the campaign that NATO was obsolete. Then he backtracked, saying he only wanted other NATO members to pay their fair share of the cost of deterrence. He even confessed, after Hillary Clinton identified NATO as “the strongest military alliance in the history of the world,” that he only said NATO was obsolete because he didn’t know much about it. But he was learning—enough, it appears, to support as president Montenegro’s entry into NATO in 2017. Is Montenegro, with 5,332 square miles and some 620,000 citizens, really a crucial element in Europe’s desperate project to protect itself against Putin’s Russia?

We all know that Trump is a crude figure—not just in his disgusting discourse but in his fumbling efforts to execute political decisions. As a politician, he often seems like a doctor attempting to perform open-heart surgery while wearing mittens. His idle musings about leaving NATO are a case in point—an example of a politician who lacks the skill and finesse to nudge the country in necessary new directions.

But Kissinger has a point about the man. America and the world have changed, while the old ways of thinking have not kept pace. The pretenses of the old have blinded the status quo defenders into thinking nothing has changed. Trump, almost alone among contemporary American politicians, is asking questions to which the world needs new answers. NATO, in its current configuration and outlook, is a danger to peace, not a guarantor of it.


Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington journalist and publishing executive, is the author most recently of President McKinley: Architect of the American Century

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

10
Leave a Reply

avatar
7 Comment threads
3 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
6 Comment authors
Olivia KrothfredRegulaPlatonShaun Ramewe Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Olivia Kroth
Guest

The NORTH ATLANTIC TERROR ORGANIZATION (NATO) will hopefully disbanded soon.

Olivia Kroth
Guest

When will we hear about RUSSIA again in the DURAN episodes on youtube? In the last ten episodes, the DURAN talked four times about the USA, three times about Great Britain, twice about RUSSIA, once about Canada.

I would appreciate to hear more about Russian topics, diverse themes. Thank you.

Normski
Member
Normski

I have to say: I love Cross Talk and all the guests that appear on there even if I don’t agree with some of them. It’s a fantastic program and I wish more Brits would find it and learn something!.

Shaun Ramewe
Guest
Shaun Ramewe

Sneaky Zio-liar war-criminal false-flagging Swamp-Chump has no intention of leaving the rip-off fear-mongering arms-dealing NATerrorO at all. It’s just another of his deceitful Deep-State double bluffs.

Platon
Guest
Platon

A finely nuanced article by Merry which allows one to see the loathsomeness of Trump the person and the wisdom of Trump the President, at the same time.
The loathsomeness of the CIA-orchestrated kakistocracy-owned presstitutes, (Barnes et al.) receives just the amount of attention they deserve, a sentence or two of throwaway scorn.
NATOOTAN (a talmudo-satanist palindrome) with its various, horizontally-promoted incompetents and sexual deviants at its head, deserves to be “… shrunk down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub” as Grover Norquist, the Neo-Bolshevik, once said of Democratic government.

Platon
Guest
Platon

A finely nuanced article by Merry which allows one to see the loathsomeness of Trump the person and the wisdom of Trump the President, at the same time. The loathsomeness of the CIA-orchestrated kakistocracy-owned presstitutes, (Barnes et al.) receives just the amount of attention they deserve, a sentence or two of throwaway scorn. NATOOTAN (a talmudo-satanist palindrome) with its various, horizontally-promoted incompetents and sexual deviants at its head, deserves to be “… shrunk down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub” as Grover Norquist, the Neo-Bolshevik, once said of Democratic government. I must add though and… Read more »

Olivia Kroth
Guest

Doubling your comment does not make it better. Stop spamming the board with multiple repetitions of the same stuff, thank you.

Regula
Guest
Regula

People judge Trump by his rough surface, rather than by his vision of a world at peace fit for world trade. Unlike the media, Trump understands that Nato will not agree to make up the US foot soldiers at will. Any action against Russia will devastate Europe and that is where NATO’s red line is. Consequently, NATO is of limited usefulness if the goal is war on Russia. Since furthermore Trump wants to end the useless regime change wars with which the US has all but maneuvered itself out of influence in the ME, there really isn’t any use in… Read more »

fred
Guest
fred

True, NATO saved Europe from the menace of Russian Bolshevism
no it did not
positioned for an invasion of Europe through the lowlands of Germany’s Fulda Gap.
more bulshit

Olivia Kroth
Guest

It was the Soviet Army that saved Europe from Hitler’s fascism. US Americans tend to forget that, bragging about their landing in Normandy to “liberate Europe”. Well, at that time the Soviets had already won the war and were moving towards Berlin. They should have remained right there. Then Berlin would be “Berliningrad” today, the western outpost of the Russian Federation, reminding the world who won WORLD WAR II and who didn’t. US governments tend to ornate their headgear with other nations’ feathers ….

Copyright DRN Media PLC 2019. RSS: http://theduran.com/feed