In the Cold War, there was no problem explaining the NATO in the West. Soviet Military Power, edited by the Pentagon and equipped with impressive images and insights, provided important justification. At least that was the case for the alliance partners in Western Europe. But in retrospect, when we look at the behaviour of Northern European NATO partners, both now and in those times, we have to realise that something may not have been right. At the time, there was no statement on the part of the Alliance, to which the Danes and the Norwegians did not contribute their very own ideas. The Warsaw Pact threat identified by the Alliance was generally perceived differently and as less grave in Copenhagen and/or Oslo. Nevertheless, the tank armies were indeed facing each other. Since the time of the Dane Rasmussen and the Norwegian Stoltenberg there is a complete change of heart to be found in Central Europe, as they have mutated into the supreme warmongers on behalf of NATO. How is this to be explained, especially against the backdrop of the past?
This is something to think about as in 2017, in the week of St. Nicholas, the contract for Mr Stoltenberg as whipper-in was extended by the NATO for another two years. And that is not all. As late as 1988, the US government still declared that even the massive presence of the Warsaw Pact, and especially the Red Army, in Central Europe was purely defensive. It was about the “Protection of Mother Russia” as a consequence of her experiences with Napoleon and Hitler. In everything that had been called the “Bible of NATO” in the decades before, the pals in Washington denied any aggressive intent of the Moscow-dominated Warsaw Pact.
And what about today? Washington’s archives now make it clear how mercilessly the West, which is currently forcibly united in NATO, has broken all promises of non-expansion of NATO. Things are even worse, as the rearmament in Central and Eastern Europe pursued by the US – and backed by us all – shows. It is the declared policy of the United States to split Europe again, by means of a dividing wall extending from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. If Russia cannot be eliminated, then it must in any case be excluded from all good neighbourliness. And there are two more elements added. In states like Ukraine, the demons of the Nazi past are being revitalised with NATO and EU means. The cry is not only “eyes right!”, but “eyes east!”. In Ukraine and according to Spiegel online this is the case also in Hungary with its connections to other camps. Mind you, these are connections that you do not want to believe and will not be able to believe in.
Even if – to our great astonishment – the United States government had attested a purely defensive character to the Warsaw Pact in the Cold War, this attitude can certainly not be discerned in respect of NATO near the western frontier of Russia. The Western lust for war has been too marked since its war of aggression against Yugoslavia. The exceptional nature of the United States since the end of the Cold War has been demonstrated by the fact that one has kept well away from peace and rapprochement. According to Washington, the world was only the framework for its own defense industry, as is shown impressively by the refusal of peace in Europe and Northeast Asia.
And what about Western Europe under the yoke of a European Union which has mutated into a machine of state-destruction? Accession to this EU no longer means sustaining any of those values that should be protected. It may well be that one cannot cope alone with the task of protecting one’s own state territory, one’s own state authority and one’s own people. To guarantee this, certain states have agreed to their integration into today’s European Union and even welcomed it joyfully.
However, today we have to realise that this compliance is being utilised for the creation of something different. Anyone who refers to the elements of the constitution of this European Union is mercilessly cornered by the rulers and their press storm troopers and at best denounced as a rightist or Nazi. Borders are left undefended and defenseless, and those who remind the German Bundestag of this situation are insulted and treated with disrespect. The power of the state can be observed when old people in Dusseldorf are fined for sitting down on a bus stop bench. Or when a former flagship industrial nation is unable to finish an airport, or when the Deutsche Bahn fails to put functioning trains on its rails. At the German borders, however, everyone can do what they want. Turkish citizens demonstrate how they can push the fight against their former homeland to extremes by having the German citizenship simply thrown at them. The constitutive people, once commemorated with golden letters on the wall of the Reichs-tag, are now reduced to watching how their country is converted into a multiethnic state.
And then we were supposed to make a contribution to peace in the world last week, by launching the military union which is nothing more than another European miscarriage? In former times, the old Western European Union actually gave a profound example of how to act. There was a clear commitment to defense as the sole legitimacy, according to the United Nations Charter. Defense was legitimate, and not a global projection of power, to make possible the transformation of Europe into a war alliance, in time for the next American war in the world?
Obviously, our choice is to be able to choose between Anglo-Saxon and French interests for which our soldiers are to be sent to the slaughter – the Near and Middle East for the Anglo-Saxons, and Africa for the shooting star who will soon be honoured in Aachen? At any rate, a clear commitment to defense in EU-Europe would require one thing: we would have to pay continual attention to our current situation and to also state clearly what we want the world to look like. Our contribution to a common defense would have to be measured according to this assessment. But this is not what the leaders of state and government in this aggressive EU want. They prefer a global power projection that augments the defense budget. As citizens we may then not even choose whether our money will go to the victims of the self-instigated wars or to the wars themselves. It will be lost in any case, and so our governments urge us to instead build capital for our own private retirement funds. Even the question of whether a war breaks out or does not is no longer decided by the sovereign. The EU creates military commanders who bypass the parliaments and create tension and war zones or let the tanks go back and forth according to Anglo-Saxon or French discretion without taking into account any state borders.
They did exist, those outstanding German ministry officials. An example was the ministerial director Hans Ambos, as system representative for the combat aircraft “Tornado”. We owe to him the awareness of the fact that a final increase of 5% in combat value might mean an increase of 100% in funding for the procurement costs, and thus the breakdown of the federal budget. With an EU-Europe that no longer recognises – and no longer wants – the citizen to be the sovereign and guarantor of peace, the burst of the bubble is inevitable. •
(Translation Current Concerns)
If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.