NATO to Plan U.S. Invasion of China


by Alex Christoforou, The Duran:

On November 27th, Germany’s Spiegel magazine, which is a reliable propaganda organ for America’s NATO military alliance against Russia, headlined (in German but autotranslated here) “Explosive reform proposals for NATO: There is life after ‘brain death’”, and made only passing mention there of NATO’s plan ultimately to ‘defend Europe against China’ (and not only  against Russia); but, on December 1st, Russia’s Tass News Agency headlined more informatively and honestly, “China to become NATO’s second main enemy after Russia in next 10 years, report says”. So: NATO’s coming second coming, or life after ‘brain death’ (which was Macron’s phrase for NATO), will be for it to ratchet-up, from one central target for its aggressions, to two central targets.

As I have extensively documented in analyzing the data to determine “Is the U.S. actually a ‘police state’?”, today’s United States isn’t merely ‘a’ police state, but is the world’s leading  police state, and yet its European allies — which are far less dictatorial — continue, obliviously, to ignore this reality. They refuse to quit their alliance with the world’s leading police state. They claim that they have  to keep their alliance with the world’s leading police state, in order to ‘protect’ themselves against ‘Russian aggression’, but the only example they cite of such ‘aggression’ is Russia’s having resisted the U.S. regime’s plan, which was clearly in effect by no later than June of 2013, to grab Russia’s main naval base, which was, ever since 1783 (and still remains) in Sevastopol in Crimea, which then was in Ukraine (though only from 1954 to 2014, and inside Russia for hundreds of years before 1954), and to turn it into yet another U.S. naval base. Russia’s having taken the necessary self-defensive actions to prevent  that grab by the U.S. regime was ‘Russian aggression’. Europe’s leaders are simply lying to their respective publics. NATO is strictly a military organization to boost military spending in U.S.-allied countries — the U.S. regime’s vassal nations — so that the profits of (mainly U.S.-based) military contractors such as Lockheed Martin and BAE will be boosted, at the expense of the deceived publics of European nations (as well as of America’s own population), which publics pay in their tax dollars for this boondoggle for those huge U.S.-and-allied armaments firms. To put it simply: NATO is an enormous sales-promotion organization for the benefit of owners of U.S.-and-allied armaments contractors — the manufacturers of the weaponries of war.

However, NATO is actually more than that. For example, the lists of top donors to NATO’s main PR arm, The Atlantic Council, such as in 2018 and in 2020, show — either by name, or by a corporation or foundation that is controlled by beneficiaries of the work of this sales-promotion organization for warfare — practically all U.S-and-allied billionaires, but also include some mere centi-millionaires (such as Adrienne Arsht, whose late husband, Myer Feldman, had negotiated U.S. arms-sales to Israel, then founded a major law firm, and — with his key government contacts — became a very successful investor). A large portion of the U.S. economy is controlled by beneficiaries of the firms that sell to U.S.-and-allied governments, and many of them (unlike Feldman, who instead merely worked for billionaires) are heirs of America’s famous aristocratic families. These annual payments (tax-deductible donations) to NATO’s main PR arm are ‘charitable’ but no type of charity that benefits the public or anyone much outside U.S.-and-allied aristocracies. Instead, this is payment for services rendered, just as much as in any non non-profit corporation, such as ExxonMobil or Lockheed Martin (except: these are tax-deductible payments). So, even these payments to a ‘non-profit’ are actually payments for services rendered to themselves. They are sound business investments for these individuals, some of whom are even in NATO’s target-countries (instead of in its member-countries) and might help those billionaires to receive favorable treatment as exceptions if and when their countries become invaded by NATO (those donations might thus be considered as protection-money). An example, in the list of top donors in 2019, “$500,000 – $999,999 Donations,” which has three listees there, is “System Capital Management,” which is the Ukrainian Rinat Akhmetov, $6.4 billion. His coal mines were in the breakaway far-eastern Donbass part of Ukraine, which he didn’t want to lose, and so he was helping to fund those people who were defending themselves against the frequent invasions from the 2014 U.S.-supplied Ukrainian stooge regime, which was trying to conquer them. So, Akhmetov is, though in different ways, helping to fund both sides in that conflict. Also in that “$500,000 – $999,999” category is “Saab North America, Inc.,” which is Kai Johan Jiang, of both Sweden and China. And the third entity there, a Swiss firm (and Switzerland isn’t even a NATO member but instead ‘neutral’), “SICPA, provides more than 85% of the world’s currency inks”, and this product is in people’s wallets as a result of their government’s paying that corporation — so, maintaining favorable relations with U.S-and-allied governments is important, there, as well, even though the ink that is used to prevent counterfeiting isn’t specifically military. But most of the major donors to the Atlantic Council are U.S. billionaires and their organizations, and are specifically military-related.

Funding both sides in a war isn’t unusual for billionaires, because protection money is sometimes a necessary expense in a business — especially in an international one.

All of these people need to stay on the ‘good’ side of NATO, because, if they fail to do that, then they might lose everything, and they know it. Donating to the Atlantic Council buys not only a type of insurance policy, but a tax-write-off, and also prestige.

The newly issued NATO report, “NATO 2030”, opens its “China” section with:

The scale of Chinese power and global reach poses acute challenges to open and democratic societies, particularly because of that country’s trajectory to greater authoritarianism and an expansion of its territorial ambitions. For most Allies, China is both an economic competitor and significant trade partner. China is therefore best understood as a full-spectrum systemic rival, rather than a purely economic player or an only Asia-focused security actor. While China does not pose an immediate military threat to the Euro-Atlantic area on the scale of Russia, it is expanding its military reach into the Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Arctic, deepening defence ties with Russia, and developing long-range missiles and aircraft, aircraft carriers, and nuclear-attack submarines with global reach, extensive space-based capabilities, and a larger nuclear arsenal. NATO Allies feel China’s influence more and more in every domain.

NATO is a treaty-organization, and therefore its decision to invade a country is made by one-or more of its member-nations. Its first invasion was in violation of NATO’s Charter because no member-nation had been attacked, and this was when the U.N. requested NATO into the Bosnian War on 6 February 1994, which the U.N. did because the U.N. wanted to invade but the Truman-shaped U.N. lacks the military forces that FDR had intended it to have — Truman wanted the U.S. Government to be the policeman of the world, not the U.N. to be that. So: this invasion violated not only Truman’s NATO but FDR’s U.N., and it reflected the fundamental lawlessness of the international order in this Truman-made world, despite all of FDR’s plans and intentions.

Read More @