On the eve of the NATO summit, The New York Times published an article by two authors (Gray Anderson and Thomas Meaney) headlined “NATO Isn’t What It Says It Is”.
The beginning of the article covered recent events, including the admission of Finland and the invitation of Sweden followed by an extremely important revelation. “From the very beginning of its existence, NATO has never been primarily concerned with military buildup. With 100 divisions in the midst of the Cold War, a small fraction of Warsaw Pact personnel, under its control, the organization could not reckon on repelling a Soviet invasion and even the continent’s nuclear weapons were under Washington’s control. Rather, it aimed to draw Western Europe into a much larger USA-led project of a world order in which U.S. protection served as leverage to gain concessions on other issues such as trade and monetary policy. It was surprisingly successful in accomplishing that mission.”
The article further tells how, despite the reluctance of a number of Eastern European countries to join NATO, they were dragged into it using all sorts of tricks and manipulations. The attacks on New York in 2001 played into the hands of the White House that declared a “global war on terror”, in fact establishing the same terror both literally (Iraq, Afghanistan) and figuratively, trapping new members in NATO with kicks. This was done because these countries were easier to control through NATO.
Gray Anderson and Thomas Meany also mention more strategic tasks of the USA, saying that “NATO is working exactly as intended by the post-war U.S. planners, drawing Europe into dependence on U.S. power, which reduces its space to maneuver. Far from being an expensive charity program, NATO ensures U.S. influence in Europe at a cheap rate. U.S. contributions to NATO and other security assistance programs in Europe make up a tiny fraction of the Pentagon’s annual budget, less than 6 per cent, according to a recent estimate. Ukraine’s picture is clear. Washington will be ensuring military security making its corporations benefiting from a huge number of European orders for weapons, while the Europeans will be bearing the costs of post-war reconstruction, something that Germany is better prepared for than to build up its military forces. The war is also a sort of a dress rehearsal for a U.S. confrontation with China, in which European support is not so easy to count on.
In addition to NATO, there is a second key element controlled by Washington. It’s the European Union.
More than seven years ago, British Telegraph broke the news that the EU was nothing but a CIA project.
The article stated that the Schuman Declaration which set the tone for Franco-German reconciliation and gradually led to the creation of the European Union was concocted by U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson during a meeting at the State Department.
The American Committee on United Europe chaired by William J Donovan, who during the war years headed the Office of Strategic Services based on which the Central Intelligence Agency was created, was the main front organization for the CIA. Another document shows that in 1958 that committee financed the European movement by 53.5%. Its council included Walter Bedell Smith and Allen Dulles who headed the CIA in the 1950s.
Finally, the role of the United States in the creation and imposition of the Lisbon Treaty on the EU is also known. Washington needed it to make it easier to control Brussels through its puppets.
However, even this does not seem to be sufficient for the United States nowadays. The day before, in an article published in The Financial Times former U.S. ambassador to the European Union Stuart Eizenstat was quoted as saying that a new transatlantic structure between the USA and the EU, comparable to NATO, was needed to solve modern issues.
He pointed to the need to create a brand-new format of coordination, that is, in fact, the creation of the United States of America and Europe, where the European states, by all means, would be appendages of the United States fulfilling the political will of Washington.
Therefore, all declarations and statements by Germany and France on strategic autonomy can be considered empty words.
Ducunt Volentem Fata, Nolentem Trahunt (“the fates lead the willing and drag the unwilling”), as they used to say in ancient Rome. It may be unpleasant for many Europeans to realize this. However, the fact is that the countries of Europe are being dragged by their collars where they don’t really want to go.