If a direct war would erupt between the United States and Russia, it is not going to be conventional and would surely involve NATO via article 5, and maybe China, Japan, Australia, North Korea, South Korea, Iran, and Israel. Arguments attributing to Russia the responsibility for the evolving mess because it intervened in Ukraine do not hold up. Background, facts, and conflict timeline irrefutably point to the United States. If war comes, it is going to be another American war—no more and no less.
On the specific issue of the U.S. domination of NATO and its war decisions, consider the following arguments. Currently, NATO has 31 members including the United States. If we remove the United States from the count, could NATO’s remaining 30 members opt for war with Russia to resolve the Ukrainian Question? The answer is no.
First, it is assumed that a war involving any NATO member would automatically trigger Article 5 above. Most importantly, even if NATO-minus-USA has the means to wage war, it cannot do that—technically, as much as politically. NATO’s inability to act independently from the United States is not due to lack of military capabilities or willpower (e.g., Britain and France are nuclear powers with hardened animosity toward Russia). The reason, therefore, lies elsewhere—the United States holds all political, military, and financial cards, as well as decision- making processes.
Alternatively, could the United States go to war without the backing of NATO-minus-USA? Yes, it can. But the premise is false. First, the United States will not take high risks without minor actors doing the legwork. Second, it needs other participants for cover-up and sharing of consequences. This explains why the United States chained up NATO members to the Collective Defense Obligation tool.
Now, because Russia has not attacked the United States, and because Ukraine is not a NATO state, could an alliance member refuse joining U.S. war projects? Technically, the answer should be yes because Article 5 does not apply to the situation. In reality though, the United States, experienced at creating pretexts and rationales, could invent favorable conditions to ease involvement by reluctant states, or simply enforce Article 5 without appeal.
For the record, discussing statute and obligations by NATO members is Byzantine. Based on NATO’s history, the treaty was written with one thing in mind: upholding the interests and views of the largest powers–especially the United States. What matters at the end are two interchangeable facts: (1) the U.S. has the power to impose its will on NATO, and (2) NATO is subservient to the United States. Proving this assertion is the U.S.-NATO’s bombing of Serbia, Libya, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq—especially knowing that none of these countries had attacked the United States or any other NATO member. Did these facts stop the U.S. and NATO from invoking Article 5 as an alibi for all subsequent U.S. imperialist wars?
Is the assertion that NATO is an appendage to and a foot soldier for U.S. global agendas and military objectives verifiable? Yes. The United States is the boss of the group—politically, diplomatically, and militarily.
With over 22% (as per the British-imperialist BBC) and 70% (as per the hyper-imperialist SCIS of Anthony Cordesman) of the organization’s costs paid for by the United States, and with about 85,000 U.S. troops stationed on European soil, the United States is, de facto, the occupying power of Europe and decision maker inside NATO. (Also read, “Number of active-duty United States military personnel in Europe in 2022, by country”. For the record, Cordesman’s talk about percentages and billions spent is meant to confound the issues of the U.S. super role within NATO. He justified it under the rubric that the United States must spend all that money to keep its status as a superpower)
Confirming the assertion that NATO is a U.S. tool to control Europe is uncomplicated. A 42-word passage in the Department of Defense’s Military Construction Program (fiscal year 2023) provides an authoritative clue. Under the heading: United States (U.S.) Interests in NATO, the authors of the program put it this way:
The United States has an abiding national security interest in a stable, integrated European region. The political and military presence of the U.S. and of NATO fosters the conditions necessary to ensure that democratic and market-based institutions can flourish across the region.
Reading between the Lines
- The sentence, “Abiding national security interest” is a self-centered claim that the U.S. looks at Europe as a useful accessory to ensure its own “security” schemes—abiding is the keyword. Accordingly, NATO is a U.S. pawn.
- The sentence, “In a stable, integrated European region” is code for the U.S. implying that Europe is no more than an unstable area thus NATO is going to be the means by which the United States would put it under its control and command. Besides, recalling the breakup of the Soviet Union and the Balkan wars, hegemonic U.S.A. is the direct cause for Europe’s instability. Meaning, U.S. rulers create conditions of instability, and thereafter use them as a pretext for expanded management and control.
- The sentence, “Necessary to ensure that democratic and market-based institutions can flourish across the region”, is a code for implementing subaltern economic systems to ensure their lasting submission to the U.S. financial interests and control. As for the diction “democratic based-institution”, this is rubish. Europe has been always a theater for great social changes and differing forms of government. For the record, U.S. ruling circles have gutted the word “democracy” from any intelligent meaning while keeping the veneer—voting—visible.
Special Comment on NATO’s NSIP (NATO Security Investment Programme): the statement that “NSIP programming and authorization decisions are based on consensus decision-making among the 30 Allied nations” is a brazen lie. Does anyone really think that Albania, Montenegro, or Romania have the audacity to dissent from whatever the U.S. wants?
Pay attention to how the U.S. is using the so-called defensive alliance to further its imperialistic objectives. Article (a) of “The most essential NSIP CPP [Cultural Property Protection] Categories” spells out U.S. basic plans with the following deceptive wording:
“Alliance Operations and Missions: Infrastructure to support ongoing military operations and missions, including Iraq and Kosovo.”
REMARK: after 25 years of the United States and vassals occupying Kosovo, and after 21 years of continuing occupation of Iraq with NATO’s participation under the guise of “coalition of the willing”, the United States is imposing or involving NATO states to continue with the occupation of both regions. By itself, this shows NATO’s collective will to impose U.S. imperialist order on the world. As a curiosity, what missions are these? Who ordered them and under which rulings and authority? What is their scope? Do they have expiration date?
Through the U.S. conceived structure of NATO, the United States not only declared its military occupation of Europe as a vital matter for its “national security”, but also established its paramount leading role within the organization. A Wall Street Journal article (“The U.S. Controls NATO”) confirms my arguments and conclusion on NATO right from the opening paragraph:
“Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has been primarily concerned with serving American political and military interests. That has been its problem. It has been the Greek gift that just keeps on giving, enabling America to maintain bases and a large contingent of military manpower in Europe.”
When They Talk about War with Russia
For decades, a war with Russia has been a fixture on the minds of U.S. ruling circles. Still, thinking of war is something, preparing for it is something else. In the latter case, it is a tangible process whereby rationales and program act as one entity. In concrete terms, it means building all required political, cultural, and military structures, and then coalesce them by ideology to implement that goal. Oddly, the dismantlement of the USSR did not end U.S. preparation process—it only accelerated it. Explanation: U.S. fanaticized project to subjugate Russia and rule it by proxy remained unchanged.
Now, given that a direct military confrontation is possible, it is extraordinary that something so important is consistently missing from the conversations about war. I am alluding to the loss of life on both sides. With regard to potential civilian loss, have a look at the following figures from WWII and compare it to what might happen today—while keeping in mind that advancement in modern military technology make any comparison with the old data incongruous.
For instance, the United States—protected by two oceans—had lost only six civilians due to a Japanese balloon attack. During the same war, the Soviet Union lost 19 million civilians, Italy: over 150,000 civilians, Japan: 337,000 civilian by firebombing plus 165,000 by Truman’s nuclear holocaust, Germany: 410,000 civilians were killed by British and American bombing. (For further reading: Casualties of World War II)
Discussion: when countless Americans clamor for war with any country that opposes the dictatorial unipolarism of the Zionist “exceptional nation”, the scenario of what would happen if equally powerful opponents hit back is rarely mentioned in the daily conversations. Regardless, where is the logic that the mostly uninformed American society is blasé to the consequences of war with Russia?
On top of all that, we have to deal with warmongering morons dispensing sermons on how to confront Russia and win. Is that hot air or pathetic figures of speech? Further, because elliptical thinking, deceptive speaking patterns, and convoluted semantics are dominant, untangling what we hear and read is a challenge. Recalling that the linguistics of imperialism is not something to be taken too lightly— it hides ideology, political determinism, and plan for action—, can we, for once, decode what western politicians are saying when they talk about Russia?
The Cloaked Languages of War
Asserting that Western politicians are practitioners of doublespeak, circular thinking, and elliptical verbiage is easy to demonstrate. Consider the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. On June 30, 2023, he stated, “We are not a party to what is happening in Russia, our goal is not a regime change in Russia. Instead, Berlin seeks to continue to help Ukraine in its fight against Moscow”.
Scholz introduces his goal for a protracted war with Russia via Ukraine with a lie. He stated that Germany is “Not a party to what is happening in Russia”. He was referring to the Wagner Group’s rebellion episode, which, of course, is an internal Russian affair. Face value, this appears to be correct—we have no knowledge of occurred collusion between the group and external forces fighting Russia by proxy. However, the fact that Germany has been attacking Russia tenaciously through Ukraine for the past two years makes Germany a party to the conflict.
This is how the reasoning goes. Dialectically, within the context of war between Russia and Ukraine, any event that could alter the course of war in either country is necessarily going to affect the sponsors of Ukraine including Germany. Meaning, radical changes in the internal affairs of Russia or Ukraine would have direct consequences not only on both countries, but also on the sponsors of Ukraine. To back up the assertion that Germany is a real party to what might happen in Russia can be argued along the following lines.
When Germany applies across-the-board sanctions on Russia, when it declares it wants to freeze or takeover Russian assets in Germany, and when it declares that it wants Ukraine to win (defeat Russia), then the manifest purpose is evident. With their military supplies, training, political support, logistic, and financial contribution to the war against Russia, German politicians are counting on the theory that all such combined measures would provoke widespread domestic troubles inside Russia thus possibly leading to social and military unrest culminating in a revolt against the legitimate government of Vladimir Putin. By all tools of analysis, Scholz was indeed plotting for a regime change in Russia.
(For the record, the United States has been applying this strategy to Iraq, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, and Iran with the hope that coercion, sanctions, blockades, and selective military measures could induce national unrest in the targeted countries thus leading to “regime change”.)
Second, who are “we” in the statement: Germany, the U.S., or collective NATO? Here is a clue: if the U.S. were to change course in Ukraine, Germany would, for sure, fold its bellicose tail and gag its mouth. Third, with billions of dollars in aid and advanced weapons to Ukraine, Germany is certainly a big party to the conflict. Fourth, with his allusion to regime change, Scholz insinuated that if Germany (the West] wants, it has the means to destabilize Russia. If so, he is deluding himself. Excluding the circumstances when Gorbachev and Yeltsin caved in to the United States, Russia’s traditional political structures are not prone to coups.
Now, since neither Germany nor U.S.-led NATO has the ability to overthrow the president of a superpower [Russia] unless by a total direct war that ends with the defeat of Russia, why did Scholz bother to insinuate he could? Overall, what did Scholz say exactly?
Aside from rhetorical boasting to hide failure, Scholz’ oblique meaning is transparent: Germany and NATO have the means and are capable to keep the fight in Ukraine going—and could even extend it to Russia proper, which they did. Is that what he meant with the phrase, “To help Ukraine in its fight against Moscow”? Deduction: Scholz, following in the footsteps of the U.S., is treating Russia’s military action in Donbass as aggression and trespass—that is why “he wants to punish it”. If so, are we to assume that he is upholding some sort of lofty Teutonic principles against interventions and aggressions?
Let us now consider another German politician, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the European Commission. In a conference with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Von Der Leyen told Zelensky, “But what we can tell you is that you’ll have your European friends by your side as long as it takes”. She said that in February 2022 right after the intervention. Now, because what has started as a limited Russian operation has transformed into a protracted proxy war, the implication is apparent: Germany, U.S., and all other leaders of the European Union are taken over by the delusion that they can defeat Russia. (To inspect Von Der Leyen’s imperialist mindset on Russia, read the statement she made on behalf of the Commission in February 27, 2022.)
As with Scholz, was Von Der Leyen trying to uphold “lofty” German principles? The wider question: has Germany ever applied those principles in other arenas? First, Germany was a party—in active support positions—to U.S.-led interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and elsewhere. Second, I never heard or read that post-WWII Germany supplied any sort of military aid to the Palestinians so they could fight the genocidal settler state of Israel that has been occupying their ancestral lands officially since 1948? What is reason for which Scholz and Von Der Leyen are so determined to help the Ukrainians but not the Palestinians?
Conclusion: “noble” principles are not the motive for Scholz and Der Leyen’s declared enmity toward Russia. Fact: Germany is not a free country as it wishes to depict itself. Germany has lost its independent status since it lost WWII. With never-ending U.S. soft occupation (over 35,000 U.S. military personnel) even after its re-unification, Germany is technically a militarily occupied country.
Further, Germany’s political and military servitude to the United States is not only about a great power that succumbed to the U.S. order, but also about the United States castrating it for good. Now, if mighty Germany has been reduced to a vassal status, then it would be easy to explain why weak NATO countries (including self-important France and Britain) have become vassals— and supporters for U.S. war against Russia.
Based on how things work amidst U.S. system of center and periphery, there can be only one answer. Decisions taken by a single big power belonging to a club whose members share similar ideologies are more than what they appear. On the surface, those decisions give the idea to have been taken independently. In reality, they are (a) transnational by fact of membership and charters, and (b) they are always directed by the higher power that set the club’s policies.
From ideology to practice, and from language of war to possible America-Russia war, how the U.S. enmity to Russia is debated, institutionalized, and adopted?
Next: Part 6