Terminating NATO is essential for the future of the world
On July 24th, the Times of London did not headline as this news-report is headlined, but instead headlined much more obscurely, “Russia fears prompt Nato to look east for HQ.” Of course, people in the West tend not to care a lot about what “Russia fears.” They also don’t care much about whether “Nato,” or actually NATO [it’s an acronym and so is supposed to be all-caps], would “look east for HQ.” So, this news-report did not garner much attention — as it was, indeed, not intended to.
Online (where the critical, analytical, readers increasingly are), it received even less, because that newspaper isn’t online, except for its subscribers — people who are willing to pay for such poor journalism as the Times; i.e, pay to read corporations’ PR presented in the form of ‘news reports.’
The lengthiest excerpt from the article that’s online is at NATO’s own site, the PR delivered straight from the horses’ mouth, which posting there is certainly validation that the article represents NATO’s position accurately, even if it does so in ‘appropriately’ vague terms. (Of course, that’s not “appropriate” for readers, but for NATO, which is the weapons-manufacturers’ trade-organization, that’s being served in this ‘news’ story.)
It reports that “a military base in eastern Europe” will be “placing supplies — weapons, ammunition and ration packs — at the headquarters [what ‘headquarters’? It’s the first usage of this term there, and yet doesn’t say] to enable a sudden influx of thousands of Nato troops to be ready for action in the event of a crisis.” Furthermore, “the leading contender [for the ‘headquarters,’ though the vaguely written article doesn’t explicitly say so] is Multinational Corps Northeast, in Szczecin, Poland. … It would be a 24/7 fully functioning headquarters that forces [what ‘forces,’ whose ‘forces’?] could quickly fall in on to respond rapidly when needed.”
This is a vague way of saying that the prepositioned weapons there would be for “forces” who are rushing in to grab their weapons and invade Russia at a moment’s notice. The vague assumption embodied here is that this would be a defensive invasion against an offensive Russia. The news-report is written for people who have that assumption about NATO’s being ‘defensive’, and who do not worry that they might have been fooled into believing it, but the report builds upon that unquestioning assumption on the reader’s part. By this implicit instead of explicit means, the article is saying that to call NATO a purely ‘defensive’ organization isn’t a lie — which it actually is — but is instead a perfectly reasonable assumption for intelligent people to hold (despite all historical evidence to the contrary); and that, consequently the idea of NATO’s increasingly surrounding Russia with its missiles is purely a ‘defensive’ measure, nothing for Russians to find terrifying.
“The shift in posture is being proposed by General Philip Breedlove, Nato’s top commander in Europe.” In other words, to decode this corporate PR yet further, the American General, Breedlove, who is the organization’s top commander regarding a war against Russia, has proposed this forward quick-strike (or, as Hitler called it “blitzkrieg”) base, and all of the weapons-manufacturing and sales that would be servicing the base, which the article says would be for “pre-positioned supplies, pre-positioned capabilities and a basing area ready to rapidly accept follow-on forces,” to invade Russia (since, after all, that would require the biggest-possible military sales, which is what NATO is for).
In order to provide the article’s readers with ‘authoritative’ support for its unmentioned and unquestioned assumption that NATO isn’t aggressive, the article quotes an unnamed “Nato official” as asserting: “The Russians have decided that they are willing to use force to achieve their aims . . . and that breaks with 25 years of building a security structure in Europe built around certain fundamentals.” That unquestioned assertion is, in turn, based upon a gross falsification of the history of what has happened in Ukraine this year, including of the populist-backed return of Crimea to Russia, because Russia had donated Crimea to Ukraine in 1954 and the residents there had not been consulted about the matter and still consider themselves to be Russians, and now are officially Russians, which they overwhelmingly want to be.
So, NATO is surrounding Russia with hostile forces (largely on the basis of lies about ‘Russia’s aggression against Crimea’), which are dedicated to hostility toward Russia, and yet it’s presumed (certainly by the gullible readership of the Times and of Rupert Murdoch’s other rags) to be defensive, not offensive in nature, against Russia.
Written by: ERIC ZUESSE – continue at INFOWARS