Aaaaaah, who doesn't love NATO? Everyone's favourite peace bringing organisation. Just look at how they indiscriminately bombed Yugoslavia, their magnificent work in making Iraq a kleptocracy, their twenty years long peaceful stay in Afghanistan, the successful Libya campaign, which enhanced both weapons and slave trade (business is booming in Libya!) and last but not least, we love them for how they're keeping up with the fantastic European tradition of starting world wars, as they're now rehearsing old time plans for the invasion of the Soviet Union. Who wouldn't feel protected by NATO? (perhaps those poor civilians in the Middle East caught up in NATO's badly managed wars but hei, do we really care about them?).

But especially, we all feel safer in Europe because NATO stands strongly on the side of putting more and more American controlled nukes on European soil. It is good for Europeans; as the US is the only country on earth to have actually dropped couple of nuclear bombs, so of course, given this track record, Europeans should definitely feel safer with American nukes under our bottoms (and the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't needed to win the war; as Japan was already capitulating, those bombs were thrown to show to the USSR who had the biggest dick, ehm, I mean, bomb). On the 10th of November, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg displayed some exceptional rhetorical prowess while he claimed that NATO stands strongly for nuclear disarmament... of others. NATO Secretary Stoltenberg declared that "we've reduced the number of nuclear warheads in Europe" (shady statement) but that "now it is not the time to sign a UN treaty banning nuclear weapons, because that would undermine the NPT treaty" (fun fact: these are the exact same words Donald Trump used when as Head of State of the US, he refused to sign the UN treaty).

Last time we talked about NATO I gave an overview over the history of NATO and I tried to outline the general overview of why NATO is not only outdated; but it is also a tool for America to retain full control over European security architecture. Today we'll examine NATO's activities (for what we can, because NATO is a completely non-transparent, shady organisation, and gives to the European population just enough information as to portray themselves as a "good, peaceful military alliance", especially when some populations start complaining publicly about exercise like OperationBarbarossa-20, uups I meant DEFENDER-20); we'll discuss how the American pinch for flouting all arms-control treaties is very dangerous for Europe (and we'll make the example of the INF treaty, and we'll see how the US broke that treaty in order to be able to place nuclear armed Tomahawk missiles in Eastern Europe), and in the end we'll re-discuss a bit more in depth why it is imperative for Europe to take control over the European security architecture, as American nukes do not make us safer, and as the current strategy of NATO seems to be pointing to a WWII-reboot (because this is the sad reality - we're not going towards WWIII, we're giving WWII another go).

Before we start, one note about NATO's (and US's) terminology: if you check their documents, or their articles and what not, you'll find that all of the nuclear bombs, nuclear carriers (B52s or B61 / B61-12) and nuclear drop-off exercises are defined as a "deterrent". Now, there is no such thing as a deterrent nuclear bomb or nuclear carrier (an exception could be made for the MAD strategy of the Cold War, but this is not the 60's anymore). A bomb is a bomb - a bomb is neither "good" or "bad", its "goodness" or "badness" is in relation to the strategy employed and implemented around the bomb. Of course anti-war people will disagree; but that is because they attach to the "bomb" the ethical judgment that "all bombs are bad"; but I'm not making an anti-war argument here (even though I am an anti-interventionist myself) I'm making an appraisal of NATO's military strategy. And to be making my argument as neutral as possible, I have to analyse NATO's actions in the military context, without starting with the (unfortunately still practically unrealistic) preconception that we should just dismantle the whole military worldwide. And this is why, instead of repeating and parroting NATO's words, or on the opposite, instead of blindly claiming that all military is bad, we need to analyse what they are actually doing from a military standpoint, to see if their endless, relentless mantra of the Good Deterring Nukes and the defensive posture of the Alliance is at all effects true. Let's go!

When Emmanuel Macron famously declared "NATO is braindead" he was answered straight away by Angela Merkel, who declared that NATO is great; and this simple exchange hides beneath more than it is immediately visible to the eye. Angela Merkel, the bullish, unofficial, unelected leader of the European Union, decided for all of us that we need to support and stand by American wars and American strategy for Europe (come on, Angela, the last time you were starting a war was at least for the glory of your own nation, what happened there?) while quite obviously, Emmanuel Macron didn't stand for it (we all know the French don't like to be told what to do by anyone). Macron in fact, has been the leader the most vocal about creating an independent European defence; and in fact, what he probably meant by announcing NATO's brain death was rather that there was no meaning for an American controlled European defence than a hint to just dismantle everything. These are the two main oppositional stances; on one side we have Merkel, who believes Europe needs to be a subordinate of the United States, and on the other side we have Macron, who believes that Europe can (and should) very well cope by herself. The first question we need to ask ourselves, is; is NATO really braindead and how do we define the brain death?

Is NATO really braindead? Short answer: yes. I already mentioned how their adversary, the Soviet Union, has not been existing anymore for like three decades; how even American analysts openly say that NATO is an instrument for American control over Europe; but this time I'll go further, and we'll see how NATO's current activities are actually endangering Europe, and are using a lot of monetary and military resources to create an enemy (Russia) which is more of an enemy of United States (because of their systematic opposition to American unilateral aggression over third countries) than an enemy of Europe. And I'd like to stress this point: Russia is not our enemy.

But let's analyse NATO's activities and exercises to see, if the money we're putting into it (almost a trillion!) is worth it. The problem with analysing NATO's activities is that they're entrenched with American activities (additional proof that NATO has got nothing to do with making Europe safer). Since 2010, the United States has started to refurbish their nuclear equipment; and since 2009 they launched their "global missile defence" program, and obviously, because the Americans don't want to get their cities ravaged by war, they made Europe the centrepiece of this global military dominance strategy.

While NATO keeps on claiming that they have reduced nuclear weapons in Europe, that's not exactly the truth. Yes, they have reduced the number; but at the same time they have placed better bombs (B61s vs B61-12s, see also this, and this) and have (in full contravention of the NPT treaty) trained non-nuclear states to use those bombs (but only under American command, of course). And here we see Stoltenberg's first lie: because he claims that a UN treaty banning nuclear weapons cannot be signed when it undermines the NPT treaty, yet they're themselves undermining the whole process by both non-signing the UN treaty and breaching the NPT treaty. Let's see why: in articles 1 and 2 of the NPT we find

Article I
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

How is the United States (and by proxy, NATO because the United States' behaviour in this sense is related to NATO's own strategy) breaching the NPT treaty here? Because they are, at all effects, training and exercising in order to have the five non-nuclear powers part of the NATO sharing-agreement (the countries which have American nukes under their soil, namely Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Italy and Turkey) being able and ready to independently deploy nuclear weapons under American command. This sounds complicated but you can have a look at this summary from the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) website:

Easy, visually explanative slide from FAS.

So in easy wording: NATO says that because they were already implementing the nuclear sharing program before the NPT treaty entered into force, then they are not obliged to follow the NPT itself. This is rhetorical gymnastics. Isn't the point of agreements in this sense to stop certain behaviours? I mean "ok, we'll sign this treaty which prohibits these set of behaviours, but because we were behaving like that already before the treaty entered into force, we'll keep on behaving like that"? What?

And in regard to the NPT we need to mention how exercise Steadfast Noon took place as recently as October 2020; and while Stoltenberg tells how it is a "defensive" exercise which "is not directed at any country" without giving out any real information about the nature of the exercise, NATOWatch website specifies that the exercise:

The annual nuclear exercise, known as "Steadfast Noon" (although NATO does not specify its name), brings together more than 50 aircraft from several allied air forces and is hosted by a different NATO country each year. It practices NATO’s nuclear strike mission with dual-capable aircraft (DCA) and the B61 tactical nuclear bombs the US deploys in Europe. There are currently an estimated 150 B61 bombs deployed at six bases in five European countries ((Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey).
This year, training flights are taking place over parts of Western Europe and the North Sea. "Aircraft involved do not carry live bombs", NATO stressed.
Non-nuclear aircraft also participate in the exercise under NATO’s so-called SNOWCAT (Support of Nuclear Operations with Conventional Air Tactics) programme, which is used to enable military assets from non-nuclear countries to support the nuclear strike mission without being formally part of it.

So Stoltenberg, can you please explain to me how this blatant and obvious breach of the NPT should keep Europe safer? And especially, why aren't you a bit more open and transparent about your activities? Don't you think European citizens have the right to know in full and in detail about NATO's activities? I want the same clarity you use to point the finger at Russia for NATO's own activities - I expect infographics, with the whole plan for each exercise; information on every piece of equipment you use during any exercise, and especially, the scenario you're using for each exercise. Isn't this what transparency should be about? You should take example from Russia: they seem not to be ashamed to publicly showcase their military activities in full. Why there is even the need for a non-profit like NATOwatch to operate, if Stoltenberg keeps on claiming that NATO is fully transparent and a peaceful organisation? What are you so afraid of Stoltenberg? Are you afraid of European citizens realising what a danger for the whole of humanity your organisation really is?

OperationBarbarossa-20: German-American tryouts for the invasion of Russia, the largest deployment of American forces in Europe in 25 years - somehow I don't feel safe at all, why is that? (note: Russia, not visible on the map, is located directly next to these countries, on the right side of the map).

And while NATO Secretary General claims that Russia is being paranoid, and that NATO is not at all threatening towards Russia, I shall point out how besides rehearsing Operation Barbarossa, this year NATO has also carried off Dynamic Mongoose-20, an exercise in the high-north; in August the US sent a bunch of B52 (nuclear capable aircrafts) to be integrated with European security infrastructure (the objective of this was apparently to prepare for joint operations in the Euro-African theatre, more WWII rehearsing, plus some training with Norway); in September the same B52s were sighted exercising nuclear drop-offs over the Russian region of Crimea; in October we had Steadfast Noon, with general nuclear war rehearsing in the North of Europe and we're not even done yet, because NATO still has a couple of exercises left for 2020, and after that we restart the whole gig in 2021. Note how all exercises refer to an article five situation (article 5 is the NATO clause which obliges all allies to intervene if one ally is attacked by a non-ally). Yet. Who's spontaneously going to attack NATO? With their trillion in budget and their systematic threat of using the nuclear bomb? There's currently no one on the planet who's shown as much resolve as NATO to destroy the world. There's currently no nation in the world who has started more useless wars than NATO and her member states.

And more than this; NATO keeps on claiming that their exercises are "defensive"in nature; yet Russia has not carried on any big exercise in the North of Europe, not this year, not last year, not the year before last. We know how this year they responded to a "defensive" exercise held in Estonia by conducting some drills in the Bering Sea (Alaska). Russia is exercising more on her southern border (which is logical, given that the United States has been showcasing a will to start a war with Iran for a while now, and they can't do that through NATO because it's the Italians who are placed next to Iran on all NATO missions (Iraq, Afghanistan, and they also managed the peacekeeping operations in Lebanon), and they have no intentions to manufacture a casus belli to start a war against Iran, am I correct, Mr. Guerini?), with perhaps the exception of the occasional smaller scale exercise in Kaliningrad (Russian exclave circled by NATO and US bases). And they suggested that both NATO and Russia would stop all exercises during the pandemic, but Defender-20 went ahead anyway (albeit with 11 allied members rather than 12, as Italy declined to participate). Yes, the occasional SU-27 is seen flying around European airspace, but let's face it, what's few SU-27s fighter jets flying around Europe when the US is rehearsing nuclear WWII-reboot with B52s strategic bombers flying all over the European airspace? And more than this; as far as we know, Russia isn't flying nuclear capable aircrafts over Europe, as they reserve those for Alaska.

So NATO claims that Russia is aggressive and they're just carrying on "defensive" exercises; yet they're the only ones carrying on exercises on the Russo-EU borders. If you're the only one carrying on exercises, then you're not defending anything are you?

So as for the first point we wanted to discuss, yes, NATO is fully braindead because they're preparing for a nuclear war in Europe, yet they're the only ones doing so. But it is even worse than that; they are trying to provoke a nuclear war, because take these exercises in the context where they backed a neo-nazi coup in Ukraine, a context where they're now trying to organise another coup in Belarus (the West's chosen candidate, a complete foreign policy novice, is being advised by the Atlantic Council itself, hurray!), a context where NATO member states spent millions in order to keep the war going in Syria, a context where the nation which has control of NATO is flouting all arms control treaties.... which brings us to the INF treaty.

The INF treaty whole ordeal is once again, all about the United States and her megalomaniac obsession with global domination. It all actually started with the year 2009, when the US decided that they were about to start a "global missile defence program" (and I will explain why I don't personally believe that the "defence" part of it is true at all). In September 2009, Barack Obama decided that he would launch the "Phased Adaptive Approach" to missile defence in Europe, and he'd start the construction of two Aegis Ashore systems, one in Romania and one in Poland. The grand strategy behind this move, however, seems to be that the whole world should be eventually included into the US's system (things which would feed the ever-growing American military industrial complex). So it is in this greater context that we need to consider the INF Treaty ordeal.

The INF treaty was a treaty signed in 1987 by the Soviet Union and the US. It banned intermediate and short range land and cruise ballistic missiles. In early 2019, the US announced that they would not renew the treaty (to which Moscow responded by withdrawing themselves), which expired on the 2nd of August. The 19th of August the US tested a first previously prohibited missile.

However, the US has been blaming Moscow since 2014 to have breached the treaty, and quoted Moscow’s non-compliance as a reason for withdrawing from the treaty (officially they gave Moscow a 60 days ultimatum, which according to Bolton's memoir, was requested by German Chancellor Merkel, which Moscow refused, as their position was that they were not breaching the treaty).

Now, I have been examining the situation, and while it is somehow a bit shady, there is no actual and tangible proof offered by NATO that Moscow actually broke the treaty. The 28th of July 2014 (what an interesting month was July 2014) Obama notified Moscow of the fact that they knew, that Moscow had violated the treaty. They said the missile R-500 (also known with the name 9M728) was violating the treaty. Moscow replied that the missile was short-range (490km), so <500 km (treaty covered 500 - 5500 km); and indeed, no misdemeanour was proven in relation to the 9M728. In 2017, the US accused Russia of breaking the treaty again; they said that this time the controversy revolved around 9M729 missile, an upgrade to 9M728. According to the Russian Defence Ministry, however, contextually to the these new accusations, the US had started stepping up the production of said missiles. And they seem to be correct; as by 2017, there was already talk of starting to redeploy Tomahawks (which were retired in 2013) on naval forces.

Now, according to Russia, 9M729 is slightly heavier/longer than 9M728, which is why it flies a shorter distance, (480km) and thus does not violate the treaty. The US says it is longer because of a bigger tank (which would make it fly further away). Russia says that that’s not the case. The defence ministry of Russia held a press conference about the 9M729, where they showed the canisters (which couldn’t be open because they’re sealed at manufacturing, for all missiles) offered the full set of specifications, and invited the US and its NATO allies to come and inspect the missiles themselves, but they didn’t take up the offer. So here we see the usual behaviour from the West and NATO; "we say you broke the treaty, we have literally zero proof, but our word is law". And why wouldn't we believe NATO? After all they just started couple of expansionistic wars, they just plunged a few countries into civil wars, and they are still in Afghanistan, doing what, it is not understood by anyone, not even the soldiers who are there anymore.

In fact, NATO states:

Allies remained open to dialogue and engaged Russia on its violation, including at a NATO-Russia Council meeting on 25 January 2019. Russia continued to deny its INF Treaty violation, refused to provide any credible response, and took no demonstrable steps toward returning to full and verifiable compliance.

Yet, on the 23rd of January, during the press-conference hosted by Russia, this happened:

The participants of the event were shown the missile for the first time (the 9M729 cruise missile of the Iskander-M operational-tactical missile system), and were also informed on the design of the sample and its performance characteristics.
In particular, at the observation deck one could see the self-propelled launcher in the starting position, the transport and launch container of the 9M729 product and the transport and launch container of the 9M728 cruise missile.
Some 250 reporters including over 100 representatives of foreign media outlets covered the briefing.

So, Stoltenberg, why exactly didn't you show up in Moscow to have a look at the system yourself? I mean they did try to give you the credible response you wanted, but you didn't listen - because you didn't want to. After all, the US had already stepped up production of Tomahawks GBCM, and the ground based VLS MK-41 was already in production at Lockeed-Martin as well, isn't it. So what they seem to be claiming is that because the Russian press conference was held on the 23rd of January, it is not valid, because they wanted it organised after the 25th of January? I don't get it.

And more than this: on the 7th of February 2020, the Russian Ministry of Defence stated:

Despite that the Russian Defence Ministry is fully open to substantive dialogue concerning fulfillment of obligations by the sides under the INF Treaty, the American side has failed to provide any evidence to support the stated position.
At the same time, the USA has not taken necessary measures to eliminate their violation of the obligations under the Treaty.

As for what concerns the proof, it is of course true; we seem to have to take Stoltenberg's word as gospel. Well I don't, Mister. I mean you're rehearsing the WWII invasion of the Soviet Union and you say that "it has got nothing to do with Russia" - I'm sorry, you fully lost your credibility. That, and the fact that it is your organisation which started all of the latest wars, while you claim NATO has brought a lot of stability abroad. But here we also see that Russia also had grievances about the United States (and thus NATO) compliance with the INF Treaty. And contrarily to NATO accusations, which are without proof, Russia's accusations are fully substantiated by the United States herself.

Moscow highlighted the fact that US activities in the Aegis Ashore facility in Romania (built in 2016 as a “defence against Iran”) and Poland (soon to be ready, perhaps 2020 or 2021 it would seem) revolving around the Mk-41 vertical launching system which were placed there, were a breach of the INF Treaty, given that this Mk-41 launcher can be used, (since its upgrade in 2019), to deploy tomahawk missiles, so previously forbidden intermediate-range cruise missiles; its tech specs define it as both a defence and an attack device, which can be modified easily with changing needs.

MK41 brochure, Lockheed-Martin, 2019 (note that the 2013 brochure was presenting a significantly different product).

Screenshot of an image of the launch. Uh-oh, is this a previously banned ground-based cruise missile being launched by a land based MK41 vertical launch system, the same piece of equipment fitted in the Aegis Ashore in Europe? (It is).

And for sure, these Aegis Ashore facilities (one built in Romania in 2016, one yet to be completed in Poland) are suspicious to me, too. They were paid by the US under NATO umbrella (so they’re de facto US bases, I’m sure no European can operate them without US supervision); and with the INF scrapped, it means that from those facilities they could shoot missiles directly to Moscow, and everywhere in Europe, really (there are three mk-41 VLS in Romania, it is not known how many there will be in Poland). Moreover, the “official” version is that they are defence bases “against the Iranian threat”; which is a bit of a shady reason, considering that in 2016 (when the Romanian Aegis was completed) the JCPOA was just signed, and we recall how the JCPOA was hailed as a new era for Iran-Western relations (plus, according to the IAEA, Iran is still largely compliant with the JCPOA, and they started scaling back to some commitments, as specified in the JCPOA itself, after more of one year of American unilateral withdrawal and European non-compliance). And let's stress this as well: Iran is not our enemy. And not only that; the Iranian threat is disproportionally blown-up in the context of the United States; and it is borderline ridiculous in the context of Europe. Not only there is no proof that Iran would even want to attack Europe; if they would have wanted to start a war, they would have retaliated more forcefully in January 2020, when the United States murdered Iranian General Qassem Suleimani. And more than this - Iran is close to Russia, in terms of friendship; and there's no way Russia approves of starting a war in Europe, because that puts her right in the line of fire, and Russia is not the one trying to start a world war, that's (yet again) Germany and the US. On the other hand, in lie with their already delineated aggressive strategy, the United States has all of the interests of starting a war with Europe at its centre, because they don't care if the whole of Europe and Eurasia get devastated and demolished by a conflict (their country is still going to be safe on the other side of the world).

The whole concept of the US who's first withdrawing from the INF Treaty and subsequently upgrading all of her weapon systems to be able to launch the forbidden missiles is undeniably very very suspicious. And while I don't know a lot about weapons' production cycle, I believe that if they tested a first missile the 19th of August, when the treaty expired the 2nd of August, that would mean that they had been openly planning to forgo the treaty as part of an aggressive grand-strategy which would make Europe the main war-launching spot for a while. EH.

And then Stoltenberg can keep on repeating how much as he wants that the Aegis Ashore systems are defensive, but I'm sorry, I have my doubts. I think you're lying again, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg. I don't believe that more American nuclear weapons under my land, under my Europe, are making the situation any safer. In this sense the point here it is not anymore to establish the aim of these facilities, the point is to be able to know wether the United States is deploying the Tomahawks which can be deployed by the newly upgraded MK-41 in Romania (and soon Poland).

Now we have seen how the US, under NATO's aegis, exacerbates and creates the condition for a new conflict in Europe, we need to talk about how German-controlled EU has collaborated to make this possible. As correctly stated by the Russian Ministry of Defence,

“We are interested in the reaction of Europe to this US decision to withdraw from the INF Treaty. And I would like Europe to know and understand the consequences that would be in the case of deploying medium-range missiles in Europe,” - said Sergey Shoigu.
“As for medium and short-range missiles, it seems to us, not everyone in Europe understands that this decision will have serious consequences for Europe as well, and more precisely, for Europe first of all. And we think it would be very appropriate to have a wider discussion of this decision within the framework of NATO and the EU,” - the Russian Defence Minister emphasized.

And this is funny, because they didn't convince me of anything; I got to the same conclusion myself. And what is even more funny is that some Americans actually were claiming the same thing. In a 2018 news and analysis paper compiled by the Air Force, an article entitled: "Will Europe Try to Save the INF Treaty?" from Brookings Institute is presented to the reader. Now in this article they state:

In a recent discussion about the INF Treaty’s potential demise, a former U.S. government official even asked whether Europeans cared. They should. While global in scope, the INF Treaty focused on enhancing European security. It resulted in the banning and elimination of U.S. and Soviet ground-launched missiles of intermediate range (500–5,500 kilometers), missiles that were deployed in large numbers between the Atlantic and the Ural Mountains in the 1980s.

So the Russians and (some) Americans actually agree on something. But what about the Europeans? The Europeans don't care, they're led by Germany, and Germany seems to be resolved to try to get a revanche on Russia. The Brookings article, while shifting all of the blame on Moscow (which is a warped and distorted representation of reality, as we've seen before) actually did provide some decent hints on how the European leaders could have behaved. That is, if we nitpick on little details rather than taking their proposal as a whole, because as we mentioned their whole rhetorical starting point is flawed.

In primis, they mention that to solve the situation it would have not been necessary to expect Russia to admit to the violation (which wasn't there, but which was NATO's prerequisite for any talk). The other thing they mention, is that if European leaders were really concerned about the INF, they would have been ready to address Moscow's reservation over the MK-41s in the Aegis facilities. Now, from these two ideas we can get out a realistic proposal to solve the issue - we go to Russia, and we tell them that we feel threatened by the 9M729, but we also understand, that they feel threatened by the Tomahawks which could (will probably) be deployed in Romania and Poland. Can we find a common understanding here? I am 90% sure that an understanding, in between European leaders and Russia in this regard would have been found (the 10% of uncertainty is given by the possibility that Europe would request completely unreasonable conditions).

And as a proof of that, I'd like to point out that the 26th of October 2020, the Kremlin let everyone know, that they are ready to concede transparency on missiles stored in Kaliningrad in exchange for transparency on missiles stored in the two Aegis Ashore facilities. They declare to be willing to avoid deploying the disputed 9M729 in the European regions of Russia in exchange for the same commitment being undertaken by NATO (so NATO would commit not to deploy previously banned Tomahawks in Europe). Now, given that I showcased already my very concrete reservations over the US's (shady and secretive) activities in Europe, I'd like to ask why exactly is Vladimir Putin, rather than the bunch of unelected technocrats we have in Europe, who's doing my interests as a European of living in peace in my own continent. Why? And there is of course, the usual layer of ridiculousness here; because we're supposed to believe that they're the aggressive ones, yet they're the only ones who systematically talk about "de-escalation". How aggressive are they, they're trying to stop a war from happening! I mean compare their rhetoric with NATO rhetoric and it is frankly impossible, to mistake who's the aggressive one and who's not the aggressive one. NATO is all about nukes, more nukes, more exercises for nuclear drop-offs, more "deterring" actions, more weapons, more money into the budget and Russia is like let's just stop military exercises for the pandemic, let's not have all of the arms control system fall on our heads, let's find an agreement for security and stability in Europe... EH.

As I mentioned already, Angela Merkel sold Europe to the United States and Europe wasn't her to sell off. There is no possibility for freedom in Europe until we're under German-American dictatorship. Because this is what it is. We are 500 million people and I doubt that the majority of us wants to start more wars because of German-American megalomaniac domination aspirations. But we're never asked anything. We're told that American nukes are good, that American wars are democratic and bring joy, we're told that we're Americans... and if we disagree, and criticise this fully undemocratic institution we're told that we must be swayed by the Russians. And of course now Merkel was all happy and cheerful because Biden (seems to have) won. Finally, Merkel, war will be respectable again! The little anti-war backlash created by the Trump presidency is going to get to waste. No seriously think of it; Obama de facto started the Yemen war (the worst humanitarian crisis of the decade), and we clapped our hands and gave him a Nobel for Peace. Trump continued the Yemen war, and he got some kind of backlash. But now, with Biden, finally order will be restored, Merkel, isn't it? What little drive for a more strategically independent Europe there was, the Biden presidency will take back. What little pro-Russia sentiment there was, we will quash. This is the Fourth Reich, bitches. Get ready, it's going to be one hell of a ride, if we don't stop them before it's too late. But how do we do that?

In between Macron's version of Europe and Merkel's version of Europe I would take Macron's... BUT, there is a but there, and what a big BUT it is. In primis; I'm seriously wondering if France has capitulated already, because Macron went on and on with the "we should reach out to Russia" but now they're part of the Holy Puppet's "special technical commission"(whatever that really is). Ohlala, Macron, ça ne marche pas. So, are you being honest or what?

The second issue is that while France might be pushing for an independent defence force, they're not reinforcing and differentiating their proposal from the German one substantially in terms of internal European reforms. I mean at the end of the day, Merkel as well is offering a common "defence" - under the American umbrella. But France seems not to be getting there probably because the ones who have been toying with the idea of a fully strategically independent Europe for the past sixty years at least are the Italians, not the French (listen Prodi, I really want to know, they accused you of being a KGB agent because when you were hanging around the European institutions you were saying these very same things, isn't it). What Macron is offering to the people, it is just the same technocratic, apolitical leading mechanism they've already rejected but with a strategically independent defence force. But you see very well, that people are going to reject a common defence policy as well, if the overarching (a)political mechanism still presents a lot of structural damage and no other substantial change is offered? In this sense Macron, while correct, is presenting the issue as a power-struggle in between the nation-states of France and Germany, rather that something which will benefit the whole of the European population (you cannot blame him too much, when everyone is talking in terms of their national state rather than in European terms). And this is a bit the problem, like famously D'Azeglio said for Italy "L'Italia e' fatta, ora bisogna fare gli Italiani" we made the European Union, but now we need to make the Europeans.

Of course there are many other elements which go into that; a defence force makes no sense without a common foreign policy and there are clearly some absurd policies being brought on with the excuse that we need to cater to the interests of some nations rather than others (especially against Russia, but also against Iran, and to some degree China). And of course, it goes with that, that until the leadership is held politically accountable for the policies they propose, rather than being some unelected technocrats sitting on top of the false-democratic pedestal, then it is going to be really difficult to go anywhere, isn't it. Then Macron, this is your unique value proposition, if you have enough guts to do it: offer the European population more than a defence force; give them a vision of what we can become, and then, follow up with that. No one is saying that everything should be happening tomorrow, or at the same time, but until the European Union policies are the result of internal, shady and secretive deals in between head of states, we're always going to have the Germans (Americans) running the show, and thus we need to envision a complete overhaul before we can garner approval even for the smallest change. We need to visualise what the European Union can really be, and then we need to transmit that passion, and that vision to the population. The people are the main and most central asset of every nation; and the Europeans are purposely kept out of the European Union's processes, and what a loss it is for the Union herself.

Until we understand that, and we're brave enough to take the leap, it's going to be a German dominated, undemocratic EU. And the Germans are ready for war, do you see how crucial it is to prevent Europe from going down that path again? It is, of course, someone will say, a gamble. Who says that the European population would rather want peace rather than war? I've got enough hope in us all to believe that we'd choose peace, rather than war, if given the choice, and I wish to live long enough to see this choice being put in front of Europeans rather than being imposed by the United States and her allies.


In the short term, it is a no brainer, we should start by putting NATO under European strategic control. As Macron stated in his Economist interview:

Mr Macron’s underlying message is that Europe needs to start thinking and acting not only as an economic grouping, whose chief project is market expansion, but as a strategic power. That should start with regaining “military sovereignty”, and re-opening a dialogue with Russia despite suspicion from Poland and other countries that were once under Soviet domination. Failing to do so, Mr Macron says, would be a “huge mistake”.

Like seriously, this is a no-brainer, I mean we're putting the whole of Europe's security on the line because of couple of countries' historical beef being supported by an external player, this is mad. Get over the Soviet Union for heaven's sake, it hasn't been existing for 30 years already, and let's face it, that part of Europe is not anymore the area where global strategic competition happens (that'd be the Mediterranean to some degree, the Persian Gulf/Middle East and the Asia-Pacific region, wake up, you're not the centre of the world anymore, come on!). And together with getting NATO under European control, we also make it more transparent, shall we? This is the very basic first step to ensure that Europe's security interests are not subordinated to some third country interests.