NATO's Real Target: Russia 
 April 21, 1999

 By Samuel L. Blumenfeld
  1999 WorldNetDaily.com 

 You don't have to be a paranoid Russian
 nationalist to understand NATO's geopolitical
 strategy. All you have to do is read the "NATO
 Review" of Spring 1999 which I found sitting
 on a magazine shelf in my local public library.
 In it are the communiques released by NATO
 regarding its new Strategic Concept, mandated
 by the Heads of State and Government at their
 summit meeting in Madrid in July 1997. The
 Review states that the Alliance is now "ready
 and with a full range of capabilities to enhance
 security and stability for countries in the
 Euro-Atlantic area in the 21st century,
 including through cooperation and
 partnership." 

 While NATO has been expanded to include
 Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic,
 nations close to the Russian border, the key
 concept in NATO's expanded mandate is that
 of "partnerships" which offer military and
 political cooperation with nations far beyond
 the North Atlantic treaty area. Indeed, NATO is
 busy solidifying its partnerships with Ukraine,
 which borders Russia, and the nations of the
 Southern Caucasus, Armenia, Georgia, and
 Azerbaijan, once part of the Soviet Union. We
 read in the Review: "Increased regional
 cooperation is gaining momentum, and we
 fully support the Alliance's work with Partners
 to develop a political-military framework for
 NATO-led Partnership for Peace operations,
 which is intended to be finalised, in tandem
 with the Strategic Concept, in time for the
 Washington Summit." 

 Anyone who plays chess -- and the Russians
 are masters at the game -- can see what NATO
 is doing creating military-political partnerships
 around a weakened and unstable Russia.
 NATO has to prove to its partners that it has
 the muscle and the will to impose its
 hegemony over a possible adversary, such as a
 Russia taken over by rabid nationalists or
 communists or spinning into chaos. Russia still
 has an arsenal of nuclear missiles, making it
 potentially a very dangerous country. That is
 why victory over Yugoslavia is absolutely
 essential if NATO is to represent the strength
 and resolve of the western powers. Russia will
 be a much tougher nut to crack than
 Yugoslavia, and if NATO cannot crush small,
 defenseless Yugoslavia, what chance will it
 have of crushing Russia? 

 Russia is the target because it is the world's
 largest country with the world's largest
 untapped natural resources. Its present
 weakness presents the west with a rare
 opportunity to impose its control over that vast
 country, which will have to be broken up into
 smaller more manageable states. All of this
 may take World War III to accomplish, but
 that's what world wars are supposed to do:
 remake the map of the world. 

 NATO is the military arm of the Council on
 Foreign Relations internationalists. It does not
 represent the will of the American people or
 even the United Nations. That is why it
 circumvented both Congress and the United
 Nations Security Council. Russia and China sit
 on the Security Council, and they would have
 vetoed the assault on Yugoslavia. Congress, of
 course, is no great problem. It has long
 abdicated its role as the body that declares war.
 In fact, Congress has not declared war since
 1941 when it declared war on Japan after the
 attack on Pearl Harbor. And the Senate has not
 even confirmed the new treaty obligations
 inherent in NATO's Strategic Concept. 

 What we actually have now is arbitrary, illegal,
 unconstitutional rule by the CFR elite and their
 minions in the Clinton administration. They
 will lead us into World War III because it is
 only in the extreme conditions of an all-out war
 that vast and permanent political changes can
 be made nationally and internationally.
 Bombing Belgrade was the first salvo in this
 new world war which in the end may lead to
 the dismemberment of the world's largest
 nation. And NATO expects to do it with the
 help of the Moslems within the Russian
 federation, which is another reason why it
 backs the Moslem Albanians over the Christian
 Serbs. 

 The NATO Review tells us: "Stability in the
 Southern Caucasus is of great interest to
 Alliance member countries and to NATO as a
 whole, as demonstrated by Secretary General
 Javier Solana's visits to the region in 1997 and
 again last autumn. ... Azerbaijan has intensified
 its cooperation with NATO over the last few
 years and developed a Partnership course at
 the Military Academy in Baku. The country
 will also host a meeting of the Atlantic Policy
 Advisory Group with partner countries in May
 1999." 

 No wonder the Russians are worried. But
 NATO has been clever enough to create a
 NATO-Russia permanent Joint Council (PJC) to
 encourage cooperation in such fields as civil
 emergency planning and defense-related
 environmental projects. This agreement
 reminds us of the Hitler-Stalin pact, which was
 meant to lull Russia into believing that Hitler
 had no ill intentions against the Soviet Union. It
 also reminds us that Napoleon tried to conquer
 Russia and failed, and Hitler tried and failed. 

 As Malachi Martin observed in his book, The
 Keys of This Blood, the
 Transnational-Internationalists are in an all-out,
 no holds barred struggle for world hegemony,
 and that once that hegemony is achieved, "our
 way of life as individuals and as citizens of
 nations; our families and jobs; our trade and
 commerce and money; our educational
 systems and our religions and our cultures;
 even the badges of our national identity, which
 most of us have always taken for granted -- all
 will have been powerfully and radically
 altered forever." 

 For those who think that the civilized
 gentlemen and ladies of the CFR and the State
 Department, who ordered bombs to be
 dropped on Yugoslavia, are incapable of
 getting us involved in a world conflagration, I
 can only draw attention to the civilized trustees
 of the Carnegie Endowment for Peace who, in
 1908, discussed what it would take to change
 the thinking and attitudes of a nation, and they
 decided that it was war. What followed were
 two world wars, Korea, Vietnam, and a host of
 smaller wars. Yesterday's peaceniks have
 become today's rabid warmongers. Go figure. 



 Samuel L. Blumenfeld is author of "Is Public
 Education Necessary?" and seven other books on
 education. His books are available on Amazon.com. 
        



Back to texts' page
Back to index page


This page has been visited times.