With “shock” US President-elect Donald Trump buddying up with Putin, the NATO establishment have begun fearmongering about a war with Russia if the US backs out of the alliance.
During his campaign Trump suggested he might opt out of NATO’s mutual defense pact, which mandates every member state protect each other. Theoretically, should Russia launch an attack in Europe or on a nation NATO has interests in “protecting,” the US would not be obliged to get involved.
Larisa Brown of the Daily Mail went as far as to claim there’s risk of an “unstoppable Russian invasion.” Former Royal Air Force (RAF) chief, Sir Michael Graydon was a little more measured in his quote:
“If the US leaves NATO it would be absolutely disastrous and just what Vladimir Putin would like. If a situation occurs in the Baltic where we need to take a firm stance, the credibility of this would be lacking without the US.”
Obviously Russia is not about to attack Europe in the vein of World War III, and to suggest as such is absurd. Furthermore not being part of the defense pact doesn’t mean the US can’t take a stance where it sees justified. The murky cold war situation in the Ukraine may be one of those that wasn’t justified. After all, when billionaire meddler George Soros admits to funding the ousting of pro-Russia and democratically elected President Viktor Yanukovych, we know this isn’t simply a case of Russia bad, NATO good. But ultimately the conflict is unlikely to develop in to anything broader.
(Soros is also involved in facilitating the violent Anti-Trump protests).
The NATO narrative is that the world would be at risk from mad Russia if the US limited its on-paper agreements, but it’s NATO countries themselves (along with Obama and Hillary Clinton) that have helped cause urepreable damage for the likes of Libya and Syria. “We came, we saw, he died” and Libya crumbled!
It sounds so simple, but isn’t the world actually a safer place if US and Russia relations are strengthened? Aren’t conflicts less likely to become quagmires if the US pulls back the reigns and stops policing the world? This used to be the position of the left when Bush was the one warmongering, but when Obama gave war the face of humanitarianism, the new left got sidetracked by gender pronouns and safe spaces.
On Syria Trump has bucked the regime change mantra and claims to be all about targeting ISIS-only, alongside Russia. Perhaps if NATO had done this in the beginning and heeded Assad’s warnings about Islamic terrorists, ISIS would barely be a blip on the radar.
In an interview with NPR, Bouthaina Shaaban, an adviser to Syrian President Assad, said that he is “ready” to cooperate with Trump, and that “the American people have sent a great, a very important message to the world.”
Part of that message is no more gravy from America. The US contributes more than 70 percent of NATO’s funding! That money has to come from somewhere. “From a UK point of view we have to think about increasing our own defence expenditure,” says General Lord Dannatt, former head of the British Army.
The organisation is clearly scrambling to justify its existence and has resorted to fearmongering about a war with Russia.
Of course we still have to wait and see what Trump does. He’s said a lot of things and flip-flopped on a lot more.