The Biggest Threat to World Peace Is NATO

Eric Zuesse

On November 8th, Britain’s Daily Mail bannered “NATO tells Europe to prepare for ‘rapid deployment’:” and sub-headed “Defence chiefs say roads, bridges and rail links must be improved in case tanks and heavy vehicles need to be quickly mobilised” (to invade Russia, but the newspaper’s slant was instead that this must be done purely defensively: “In October, NATO accused Russia of misleading them, saying that Moscow had deliberately violated international rules of military drills”).

The article continued:

Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg called for the infrastructure update across Europe as NATO is set to overhaul its command structure for the first time since the Cold War

During a press conference in Brussels, Stoltenberg said NATO needs a command structure to ensure ‘we have the right forces, in the right place, with the right equipment at the right time.’

He then added: ‘This is not only about commands. We also need to ensure that roads and bridges are strong enough to take our largest vehicles, and that rail networks are equipped for the rapid deployment of tanks and heavy equipment.

‘NATO has military requirements for civilian infrastructure and we need to update these to ensure that current military needs are taken into account.’

The NATO military alliance against Russia has been continuing the Cold War, and is now intensifying it, after the voluntary end of the Cold War in 1991, by the Soviet Union, and by its mirrored military alliance, which was the Warsaw Pact.

With that end of communism, and end of the communist military alliance, all of the constructive reason for NATO likewise ceased, and so NATO should have ended simultaneously when the Soviet Union and its military alliance did; but, instead, certain corporate interests in Western nations have prevailed; and, so, the Cold War is now ratcheting up even further on the U.S.-NATO side. This escalation, which is being done under false pretext (on the basis of lies), is forcing Russia to similarly increase its military budget and military exercises (such as the drills that are the pretext for NATO’s latest aggressive move here) — and Russia’s responses are being called by NATO ‘Russian aggression’, as if NATO hasn’t actually forced Russia to increase its military defenses (including those “drills”).

The need that the NATO-supplying corporations, such as Lockheed Martin and BAE, have — companies whose enormous profits depend heavily upon intensifying the Cold War instead of ending it (such as ought to have happened in 1991) — has become the mass-murdering and land-destroying corporate tail, which is actually wagging the governmental dogs, of Western nations’ (especially of America’s) foreign policies, so as to increase global expenditures into the mass-killing industries (most of which are U.S.-based), in order to keep their war-profits high. Wall Street is heavily involved in this, and most of America’s billionaires have these types of investments.

Economic theory considers all purchases and sales to constitute ‘economic growth’; and, so, expenditures and purchases for mass-killing and bombing, and for defenses against same, are considered just as much ‘economic growth’ as if those expenditures had gone into building things, instead of into destroying things — and neoliberals are therefore just as supportive of the military-industrial complex as are neoconservatives — neoliberals merely view the matter from the perspective of internal domestic policies (‘growth’), instead of from the perspective of external foreign policies (conquest). Both perspectives serve the aristocracy, the billionaires. This neoliberal-neoconservative consensus, in the West, keeps the profits going for the owners of all sorts of corporations — it’s “the Washington Consensus” that’s sold to vassal nations by promising that this path will allow them to join in the imperial nations’ ‘growth’. The leadership of the Soviet Union was sold a neoliberal bill of goods by the the Harvard economics department in around 1990, and the World Bank and Harvard’s people took the Russians for all they could, which was able to be done because Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev was naive and accepted neoliberalism — he didn’t know about its neoconservative side, the aristocracy’s pursuit of conquest. He had rejected Marxist economics, and thought that the only alternative would be capitalist economics.

Back in 1991, when Gorbachev ended the Soviet Union and its military alliances, NATO had 16 member-nations. Later in the decade, in 1999, NATO under U.S. President Bill Clinton, started expanding — taking on as new members, nations that had previously been allied with Russia.

The Soviet Union had consisted of: Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Moldova, Latvia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, and Estonia (the last of which was forcibly joined with it in 1940 so as to assist Russia’s fight against the Nazis). NATO has since absorbed, into its anti-Russia ranks: Lithuania (2004), Latvia (2004), and Estonia (2004), and is seeking the additional admissions of Ukraine, and of Moldova.

The Warsaw Pact, of Soviet-allied nations, had included: U.S.S.R., Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Eastern Germany, Hungary, Poland, and Romania. All of those except the Russian portion of the U.S.S.R. have since been absorbed into the anti-Russian military alliance, NATO. In the brainwashed U.S.-allied countries, this growth of the anti-Russia alliance isn’t considered “aggression,” even though it’s being done by NATO’s adding former Russia-allied nations, and though Russia’s former military alliance against NATO, the Warsaw Pact, ended in 1991. Aggression by “the West” is not acknowledged by “the West.” Even the U.S. group’s blatant aggressions that destroyed Russia-friendly nations such as Iraq, Libya and Syria aren’t. The fact that the U.S. is considered overwhelmingly throughout the world to be “the biggest threat to peace” is likewise ignored by the Empire’s ‘news’media.

Thus: 10 formerly Russia-allied nations have now been switched into the anti-Russia military alliance. And NATO accuses Russia of ‘aggression’. Nobody talks about how the U.S. would react if Russia had a military alliance which included both Mexico and Canada, and called upon them to strengthen their bridges so as to be able to carry today’s Russian battle-tanks. But, the people who are doing this, know very well what they are doing, and why, and to whom. They play dumb but they aren’t.

In addition, Yugoslavia was non-alligned, but now most of its parts have joined NATO: Slovenia, Croatia, and Montenegro. (Montenegro was brought into NATO on 5 June 2017, by U.S. President Donald Trump, who is being investigated by the rabidly anti-Russia U.S. Government, for allegedly being insufficiently hostile against Russia. His response to the accusations has been to try to out-do his domestic opponents’ hostility against Russia — to up their anti-Russia ante, instead of to wage political war against America’s military-industrial complex and its owners.)

And, the other parts of the former Yugoslavia continue to be courted. On November 15th, Radio Free Europe headlined “Serbia Hosts Joint Military Drills With U.S. As Bosnia Hosts NATO Delegation”. They reported: “NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg, speaking at a joint news conference with visiting Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic in Brussels on November 15, said ‘there is no doubt whatsoever that we absolutely respect the decision by Serbia to remain a military neutral country.’” Were Hitler’s troops being allowed to hold military exercises in neutral Switzerland? Of course not. Obviously, this isn’t any ‘military neutrality’. Instead, it’s those small countries trying to avoid becoming targets of U.S. missiles and bombs.

Most of the 13 new admittees to NATO after the 1991 end of the Cold War (on Russia’s side, but not on America’s), are located to the east of West Germany (closer to Russia than even East Germany was). In the negotiations to end the Cold War, the understanding that George Herbert Walker Bush’s people communicated to Mikhail Gorbachev’s people was that if the Cold War ends and East Germany becomes absorbed into West Germany to become again simply “Germany” and thenceforth a capitalist country (such as all did happen), then NATO would not move “one inch to the east.” That’s the basis upon which Gorbachev ended the Cold War. George Herbert Walker Bush lied — via his agents. Gorbachev was incredibly naive, and he didn’t specify that NATO would need to end if the Warsaw Pact would end. He believed in the goodwill, and honesty, of Bush and of his agents. He accepted merely the vague verbal promise that NATO would’t be expanded even “one inch to the east.” He didn’t know that he was dealing with people who were negotiating on behalf of, and who were following the instructions of, a super-scoundrel — U.S. President Bush. Bush’s dream, of encircling Russia with U.S. bombers, missiles. and tanks is now coming true. Would the U.S. tolerate Russia placing its invasion-forces on and near our borders, in Canada and in Mexico?

If this isn’t the time to end NATO, then when will be? And how much time to do it remains, before there is a WW III? Anyone who is supportive of the formation of a non-profit “End NATO Now” is hereby invited to indicate so, in a reader-comment to this article, at Washingtonsblog; and, if enough people indicate there that they would be willing to donate time or money to such an organization, then I shall establish it. Because: if we don’t end NATO now, then maybe NATO will end us all, surprisingly soon.

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Guido
    • Jessica


      Google is paying 97$ per hour,with weekly payouts.You can also avail this.
      On tuesday I got a great New Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $11752 this last four weeks..with-out any doubt it’s the most-comfortable job I have ever done .. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !da134d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleNewNetJobsMobileOpportunities/earn/hourly ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫:::::!da134luuuuu

      • cettel

        Go to hell, spammer!

  • Mike

    I’m supportive of the concept of ending NATO Now.
    $US100 is hereby pledged.
    Is there a petition to Congress supporting the ‘End NATO Now’ effort in circulation at present?
    [please link]
    Thank you for your excellent data processing work and informative essays Eric.

    • cettel

      Thank you Mike!!

      About a year ago, I sought Paul Craig Roberts’s endorsement for this, but he said he wasn’t interested. However, now there are two who are (you and me) — no longer just one. So, I shall proceed to look further, to see if maybe “End NATO Now!” will be able to get off the ground.

      • Mike

        Why not utilize one of the on-line petition services?[change.org ,credo petitions,etc.]
        Put a feeler out to test the electorate!

        • cettel

          Thanks for the idea! I’ll do that!!

  • davecad

    the biggest threat to world peace is not NATO it is the bankers who own the federal reserve bank , these are the people that control world events and need to be stopped

    • Current and Relevant

      zerohedge.com

      NATO: A Dangerous Paper Tiger

      9-12 minutes

      Authored by Patrick Armstrong via The Strategic Culture Foundation,

      The Chinese have a genius for pithy expressions and few are more
      packed with meaning, while immediately understandable, than “paper
      tiger”. NATO is one, but paper tigers that overestimate their powers can be dangerous.

      Some Russians are concerned that there are today more hostile troops at the Russian border than at any time since 1941. While
      this is true, it is not, at the moment, very significant. The Germans
      invaded the USSR with nearly 150 divisions in 1941. Which, as it turned
      out, were not enough.

      Today NATO has – or claims to have – a battle group in each of the three Baltic countries and one in Poland: pompously titled Enhanced Forward Presence.
      The USA has a brigade and talks of another. A certain amount of heavy
      weaponry has been moved to Europe. These constitute the bulk of the land
      forces at the border. They amount to, at the most optimistic
      assessment, assuming everything is there and ready to go, one division.
      Or, actually, one division equivalent (a very different thing) from 16
      (!) countries with different languages, military practices and equipment
      sets and their soldiers ever rotating through. And, in a war, the three
      in the Baltics would be bypassed and become either a new Dunkirk or a
      new Cannae. All for the purpose, we are solemnly told, of sending “a clear message that an attack on one Ally would be met by troops from across the Alliance”. But who’s the “message” for? Moscow already has a copy of the NATO treaty and knows what Article V says.

      In addition to the EFP are the national forces. But they are in a low state: “depleted armies” they’ve been called: under equipped and under manned; seldom exercised. The German parliamentary ombudsman charged with overseeing the Bundeswehr says “There are too many things missing”. In 2008 the French Army was described as “falling apart”. The British Army “can’t find enough soldiers”. The Italian army is ageing. Poland, one of the cheerleaders for the “Russian threat” meme, finds its army riven over accusations of politicisation.
      On paper, these five armies claim to have thirteen divisions and
      thirteen independent brigades. Call it, optimistically, a dozen
      divisions in all. The US Army (which has its own recruiting difficulties)
      adds another eleven or so to the list (although much of it is overseas
      entangled in the metastasising “war on terror”). Let’s pretend all the
      other NATO countries can bring another five divisions to the fight.

      So, altogether, bringing everything home from the wars
      NATO is fighting around the world, under the most optimistic
      assumptions, assuming that everything is there and working (fewer than half of France’s tanks were operational, German painted broomsticks, British recruiting shortfalls),
      crossing your fingers and hoping, NATO could possibly cobble together
      two and a half dozen divisions: or one-fifth of the number Germany
      thought it would need. But, in truth, that number is fantasy:
      undermanned, under equipped, seldom exercised, no logistics tail, no
      munitions production backup, no time for a long logistics build up.
      NATO’s armies aren’t capable of a major war against a first class enemy.
      And no better is the principal member: “only five of the US Army’s 15 armoured brigade combat teams are maintained at full readiness levels”. A paper tiger.

      This reality was on display – for those who could see – in the “Dragoon Ride” of 2015. Intended “to assure those allies that live closest to the Bear that we are here”, it was a parade of light armoured vehicles armed with heavy machine guns. Although breathlessly covered in the US media (“Show the world some of the firepower the United States and its NATO partners have in Eastern Europe”),
      it is unlikely that any watcher who had served in a Warsaw Pact army
      was impressed by what was in effect a couple of dozen BTR-50s. And
      neither was the US Army when it thought about it: a rush program was put
      into effect to give the vehicles a bigger weapon. The first one was
      delivered a year later. So now the US Army has a few lightly armoured
      vehicles with cannons. Something like the Soviet BTR-80 of the 1980s. Meanwhile, the Russians have the Bumerang-BM turret. Years of kicking in doors and patrolling roads hoping there are no IEDs are poor preparation for a real war.

      No wonder NATO prefers to bomb defenceless targets from
      15,000 feet. But there too, the record is unimpressive. Consider NATO’s
      last “successful” performance against Libya in 2011. No air defence, no
      opposition, complete freedom of movement and choice of action; and it
      took 226 days! Kosovo, a similar air action against a weak opponent,
      took 79 days. Meanwhile the years roll by in Afghanistan and Iraq.

      Not, in short, a very efficient military alliance even when it is turned on against more-or-less helpless victims.

      But there is one obvious question: does NATO take all its Russian threat rhetoric seriously, or is it just an advertising campaign? A campaign to bring in £240 million from the Baltics, an extra eighty billion for the US military-industrial complex, US$28 billion for Poland, Patriot missiles for Sweden, billions for F-35s for Norway (but no hangars for them), spending increases in the UK, Germany, France, Canada, Czech Republic and
      so on. A Russian threat is good for business: there’s poor money in a
      threat made of IEDs, bomb vests and small arms. Big profits require big
      threats. As I have written elsewhere,
      Russia was thought to be the right size of threat – big enough, but not
      too big. And they thought it was a safe target too – remember Obama in
      2015 and his confidence that Russia didn’t amount to much?

      Or so they thought then. What is amusing is that NATO is starting to worry about what it has awoken: “aerial denial zones”, British army wiped out in an afternoon, NATO loses quickly in the Baltics, unstoppable carrier-killer missile, “eye-watering” EW capabilities, “black hole” submarines, generational lead in tanks, “devastating” air defence system, “totally outmatched”. Russian
      actions, both diplomatic and military, in Syria gave NATO a taste: the
      Russian military is far more capable than they imagined. And far
      better wielded. The phantom conjured up to justify arms sales and NATO
      expansion now frightens its creators. A particularly striking example
      comes from General Breedlove, former NATO Supreme Commander who did much
      to poke Russia: he now fears that a war “would leave Europe helpless, cut off from reinforcements, and at the mercy of the Russian Federation.” Not as negligible as they thought.

      To what should we compare this weak, incompetent but endlessly
      boastful and belligerent alliance? In the past I have suggested that NATO is a drunk that
      drinks to cure the effects of its last bender. Is it a child in an
      endless tantrum, frightening itself with the stories it tells itself?
      Like the Warsaw Pact it is frightened of contradicting information or
      opinion and insists they be blocked. Certainly it is an exemplar of
      complacent self delusion: “Projecting Stability Beyond Our Borders” boasts about the Balkans, Iraq and Afghanistan. The unicorns roam free in NATOland.

      There is no reason to bother to read anything that comes out of NATO Headquarters: it’s only wind. There
      is one response. And that is Libya. When they say stability, respond
      Libya. When they say terrorism, respond Libya. When they say peace,
      respond Libya. When they say dialogue, respond Libya. When they say
      values, respond Libya. NATO is dangerous in the way that the stupid and
      deluded can be. But, when its principal member starts demanding its
      members “pay their share”, and the people of five members see Washington a greater threat than Moscow, maybe its final days are upon us.

      But incessant repetition becomes reality and that’s where the danger lies. Hysteria has reached absurd proportions: 2014’s “gas station masquerading as a country”
      decides who sits in the White House; directs referendums in Europe;
      rules men’s minds through RT and Sputnik; dominates social media; every
      Russian exercise brings panic. This would all be
      amusing enough except for the fact that Moscow doesn’t get the joke.
      While the NATO forces on their border may be insignificant at the
      moment, they can grow and all armies must prepare for the worst. The
      First Guards Tank Army is being re-created. I discuss the significance
      of that here.
      When it is ready – and Moscow moves much faster than NATO – it will be
      more than a match, offensively or defensively, for NATO’s paper armies.
      And, if Moscow thinks it needs more, more will come. And there will be
      no cost-free bombing operations at 15,000 feet against Russia. NATO’s
      naval strength, which is still real, is pretty irrelevant to operations
      against Russia. And still the paper tiger bares its paper teeth.

      In other words – and I never tire of quoting him on this – “We
      have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we
      have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious
      way”. NATO has been kiting cheques for years. And rather than
      soberly examine its bank account, it writes another, listening to the
      applause in the echo chamber of its mind.

      “Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty
      spirit before a fall.” We can only hope that NATO’s coming destruction
      does not destroy us too.

      More Stories You May Like

  • Black Swan

    ” We need to arrest the Bankers and seize their assets before they destroy the World. We can use the money they stole from us to liquidate all the un-payable debts they created through fraud. The alternative is we let the Bankers starve a few billion people to death and issue a cashless digital currency that would give them the divine right of Kings to rule over us. The fundamental fact of your existence as a modern man or women is that the Bankers of New York and London want to reduce you to debt slavery. Accept that fact and move on to the solution. That is their plan for you. What is your plan for them? Rob Kirby

  • goingnowherefast

    One of the things we can do is divest from the war machine. Don’t do business or invest with companies, investment houses or banks that have assets in military spending. Research the list of companies that are military contractors and then let your financial planner, bank and companies that make consumer products know that you will not do business with companies that finance war. If we all did this, it would have an impact.

    • cettel

      If you’re a billionaire, then your ‘divestment’ will at least be enough to be noticed. Otherwise, not.

      End NATO Now! That’s the only realistic solution, to which people who aren’t billionaires can meaningfully contribute. And, as for the billionaires, none of them is against the military-industrial complex. They are all too heavily invested in it. They and their agents are the enemies. They are the war-profiteers, for whom NATO is their main marketing-organization.

      End NATO Now!

  • Michele Baillie

    NATO might be the soldiers the Cabal uses….though; I think the Satanists and those who believe 99% of the people are “useless eaters” and are trying very hard to kill us all off; fast kill, slow kill are the real enemy- human and extraterrestrial’s both who are doing this; and no; it is only some that are “bad” by our standards.

    Please; take a look at “The Day After Roswell” by Col. Philip Corso; it describes how the Deep State was created (well meaning at the time) and how it grew into the monster that enslaved the American People.

    It was done through Taxing-to-Fund (really Indentured Servitude) and SSP (Secret space Program) Non- Disclosure Agreements which maintain the Terror (stay silent or be killed) that enslaves those trapped within the Secret Space Programs (Air Force and Navy) and the Interplanetary Corporate Conglomerate.

    When costs spiraled up…way UP; crime syndicates were formed to fund the Space Programs.
    America….enslaved….by the same type of power and greed that gave rise to the 1776 Revolution in the first place. It breaks my heart to see what has been done.

  • Michael

    I support End NATO Now and would be willing to donate $100 to the cause.

    • cettel

      Thanks so much, Michael! Are you the same person as “Mike” who earlier endorsed the idea?

  • mark

    they use the innocence of gullible frontmen filled with catchcries === almost like a trojan horse into the innocence of the masses,…it works again and again….eventually some awaken..

  • Sparticus

    Want to end War?

    Then , put 1-million protesters on Wall Street and Close the NYSE, and keep it closed, until the governments of the world promise: “NO MORE WAR.” Simple. There are over 6-million people living in abject poverty in NYC, alone, so perhaps, make a universal healthcare and basic income dictate too. Government will have no choice, but to OBEY, or it goes bankrupt when Rates FLY.

    Now, Government will either obey the people, ( Your Choice) or they wll spend the same ammount of money -in trillions- shooting holes in the Sand: Again, Your Choice. Oh, and this Kills two birds with one stone. Eliminating the Military allows for FULL Universal Healtcare, Education and basic Income without any tax raises, whatsoever!

    Brilliant!

  • Clive

    Eric, I entirely agree with everything that you have written in this article. If you do set up ‘End NATO Now’, with a proper membership list, that I can join, and publicise it on Washington’s Blog, or Global Research, I will join it, and do whatever I can to support it.

    • cettel

      THANK YOU, CLIVE!!

  • Gary Wells

    i think that an organization to “End NATO Now” is an excellent idea. if you make this happen, i certainly will support it. Enough people have been murdered by these self-righteous bastards.

    • cettel

      Thanks!

  • rwburden

    The United States should exit NATO and join the BRICS! Trump has already complained that other NATO members aren’t paying enough of NATO’s expenses. Why not just admit that NATO is a suicide cult, whose inductees agree to support British imperialism at the cost of war with Russia? The Schiller Institute campaigned in several European countries for each NATO member to exit NATO during the run-up to the Warsaw Summit in July 2016. Here is a page about that campaign on our U.S. website: http://www.schillerinstitute.org/highlite/2016/0705-exit-nato-campaign/warsaw_summit/ In that page you will find a link to sign the petition, still active. Or here: https://action.larouchepac.com/petition_to_leave_nato?recruiter_id=27573

    • Rollo10

      Yes, I also believe what Stoltenburg is after is a paperwork free movement. Recently [2016] they applied to Moldova to take ‘x’ number of vehicles in and so many soldiers, but were stopped at the border because they exceeded the number. They only had a ‘coup’ in mind, but were thwarted. > http://thesaker.is/failed-nato-invasion-of-moldova-sitrep-by-scott/

  • Rollo10

    We all need to bring our Governments into line, we need them to sack the Rothschild banks and bring in Sovereign money, backed by Infrastructure Bonds. The building work this creates would pay decent wages that would be spent into the economy, not borrowed into it as is now! Roads, Power, Schools, Hospitals all built without paying the same companies to build all. New national companies could be formed, giving competition to these ‘Corporate’ controlled that appear to take all Government contracts.

  • Red Robbo

    War is endemic to capitalism. ‘ Russia’s president knows exactly what he wants, and it’s not eastern Ukraine. His interests are all about oil and gas and supply routes. The rest is smoke and mirrors,’ one article stated back in March 2015. States compete over natural resources, trade routes and areas of domination and seeking to end NATO will not end war.

  • madrino

    BRICS and NATO are owned by the same group of people. The central banking organizations own both if you bother to read the origins of the Soviet Union (created out of America under supervision and investment of Schiff, Warburg, Baruch, Harriman, et. al. under the umbrella of the Wilson Administration. US also created Maoist China under the supervision and investment of Rockefeller and the Skull and Bones faction). They call themselves freemasons of which Rothschild is the king of them all and owner of Israel ™ as his monuments perfectly show. It’s been a dog and pony show for centuries with liars from all sides of leadership that report to one group from which transactions of money and credit flow who owns them all.

  • Black Swan

    The Nazi American Terror Organization has basically fulfilled it’s mission with the destruction of Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Syria.
    ” Two Nations support each others killing machines. The U.S. and Israel in lockstep against Peace, Stability, Equity and Justice. Run by Communist, Fascist Psychopathic Lunatics, Waging War on Humanity, a Murder Cult, Profiting from Racist Hate and Human Misery, Monsters vital to stop.” Stephen Lendman

  • james chen

    I have been talking about dissolution of NATO for more than two decades. I am happy that other people share the same idea with me.

  • rosemerry

    NATO is managing to ensure there is no peace among nations. Its foray into Yugoslavia in 1999, and the consequent destruction of a successful country into fragmented and belligerent new members which joined the obsolete NATO which pretends to be needed. It makes new enemies and , led by the USA, keeps encircling Russia and China as if there could be no chance for the peace everyone hoped for in the 1990s. What possible benefit to real humans and the environment, except for weapons makers does this belligerent and overblown “organisation” provide?