History of NATO

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(left) Chief of the General Staff of the German Wehrmacht Gen. Adolf Heusinger (1944), Gen Friedrich von Paulus (captured by the Soviets at the Battle of Stalingrad), Adolf Hitler; (right) Adolf Heusinger as Chairman of the NATO Military Committee (1961-1964).

NATO was created at the behest of the United Kingdom to bypass deeply rooted American anti-interventionist sentiment to enter war without an Act of Congress, under the guise of "an attack against one is an attack against all." The UK had to wait 3 years during World War I and two years during World War II for the United States to bail the British Empire out of its war with Germany.

Specifically, NATO was created in 1947 allegedly to contain the expansion of single party leftwing Soviet Communism. But since the collapse of communism in Russia, NATO is globalization without a valid purpose.[1] Unlike Germany which gained entrance two years after its founding, increasingly conservative Russia has been systematically denied membership in all European collective security arrangements.

Origins and mission creep

Furthest Nazi expansion.jpg NATO 32 Members.png

(left, brown) Furthest expansion of the Third Reich, 1942;[2] (right, blue and purple) furthest expansion of NATO, 2024.

NATO originally was not part of President Franklin Roosevelt's 'Grand Design' for the post-World War II era, which included the United Nations and the International Monetary Fund. Roosevelt's original intention was to institutionalize the military alliance of the Big Three - the United States, the British Empire, and Russia - to keep the peace after the defeat of the Axis Powers. The failure of Soviet-communist occupied countries to adhere to the right of self-determination and hold elections caused the Angelo-American alliance to dust off the 1941 Atlantic Charter and formalize it into a treaty organization. By 1950, the United Nations was at war with itself,f,[3] where the UN Security Council voted to send "UN troops" to combat the Soviet-backed North Korean regime, a Resolution the Soviet Union could have easily vetoed. However, at the time the USSR was boycotting the UN to protest the recognition of Taiwan as the legitimate ruler of China.[4] where the UN Security Council voted to send "UN troops" to combat the Soviet-backed North Korean regime, a Resolution the Soviet Union could have easily vetoed.

The NATO alliance is in no way a military adjunct arm of the UN Security Council, which progressives in government and fake news media attempted to create the illusion during the Obama administration's Libyan War. NATO was created to defend Europe, not to wage offensive war in Africa.

‘Value for Money’: How to kill 625,000 people for just $0.29 cost per death.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization was established after the failure of the United Nations Organization to bring about democratic elections and "self determination of peoples" in Eastern Europe shortly after World War II in 1949. The original members consisted of ten European countries, the United States, and Canada. These countries formed the alliance to further the goal of security in the North Atlantic region, and they did this by ingraining the principal that an attack against one member would be considered an attack against all. Therefore, all would respond with support to the attacked nation. The first secretary-general of NATO, Lord Ismay, once quipped, NATO's purpose in Europe was “to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."

NATO was created to short-circuit the delays the United States endured from domestic non-interventionists in entering two world wars on behalf of Great Britain. Should Britain perceive an attack again in the future, either from Germany or the Soviet Union, America would immediately be involved without any Congressional debate, lengthy extensive propaganda war, and public opinion polling. This is where the concept of "an attack against one is an attack against all" originated. The American people's elected representatives, the United States Congress, which hitherto had sole responsibility to declare war, could effectively be cut out. If a minor ally staged a false flag attack on itself and blamed others, the United States was committed to wage offensive war in defense of its ally. Some critics quipped it effectively made Great Britain the 51st state.

In 1952 NATO began its first round of enlargement of the early alliance's history, letting in Greece and Turkey. By 1968, those two members were at war with each other.

In 1982 the Falklands War presented a special problem for NATO. When the United Kingdom perceived an attack against the Falkland Islands, it did not invoke Article 5. The Falkland Islands fell under the rubric of the Monroe Doctrine and other defensive alliances the United States has through the Organization of American States. Argentina claimed the Falklands as their own, and the United Kingdom sent an invasion fleet to "liberate" the English-speaking colony.

In 2006, Ivo H. Daalder, the current President of the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and previously the U.S. Permanent Representative on the Council of NATO (2009-2013), published with co-author James Goldgeier a proposal for a "Global NATO" in the globalist magazine Foreign Affairs.

Early personnel

Adolf Heusinger served as perations Chief within the general staff of the High Command of the German Army in the Wehrmacht from 1940-1944. Heusinger helped plan the invasions of Poland, Norway, Denmark, and France. He was promoted to colonel on August 1, 1940 and became chief of the Operationsabteilung in October 1940, making him number three in the Army planning hierarchy. Heusinger was accused of involvement in Operation Valkyrie, the July 20, 1944 plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, but his loyalties were found beyond reproach and he was cleared by the Nazi People's Court. After the war he was allowed to take over the newly established West German army, the “Bundeswehr”. In 1961, Heusinger was made the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee (essentially he was NATO’s chief of staff). He served in that capacity until 1964.

General Hans Speidel was Erwin Rommel’s chief of staff during WWII. After the war he served in the West German army and became the Supreme Commander of NATO’s ground forces in Central Europe from 1957-1963.

Johannes Steinhoff, Luftwaffe fighter pilot during WWII and recipient of the Knights Cross of the Iron across, was Chairman of the NATO Military Committee 1971–1974 (among other NATO positions beforehand).

Johann von Kielmansegg, General Staff officer to the High Command of the Wehrmacht 1942-1944, was NATO’s Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Central Europe 1967-1968.

Ernst Ferber, a Major in the Wehrmacht and group leader of the organizational department of the Supreme Command of the Army (Wehrmacht) from 1943-1945 and recipient of the Iron Cross 1st Class, was NATO’s Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Central Europe from 1973-1975.

Karl Schnell, battery chief in the Western campaign in 1940/later First General Staff Officer of the LXXVI Panzer Corps in 1944 and recipient of the Iron Cross 2nd Class, was NATO’s Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Central Europe from 1975-1977.

Franz Joseph Schulze, a Lieutenant in the reserve and Chief of the 3rd Battery of the Flak Storm Regiment 241 and recipient of the Knight’s Cross of the Iron Cross in 1944, was NATO’s Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Central Europe from 1977-1979.

Ferdinand von Senger und Etterlin; Lieutenant of 24th Panzer Division in the German 6th Army, participant in the Battle of Stalingrad, adjutant to Army High Command, and recipient of the German Cross in gold, was NATO’s Commander in Chief of Allied Forces Central Europe 1979-1983.

Soviet reaction

The Angelo-American alliance acceptance of continental European countries led Soviet Russia in 1955 to set up a counter organization, The Warsaw Treaty Organization (or Warsaw Pact). Common defense, the ongoing MAD strategy, and economic crisis led the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact to its demise. NATO's transatlantic relations were key to the end of the Cold War I. The interlinking of United States and the European Union, a CIA project begun after World War II, remains to this day.[5]

Post-Cold war expansion and aggression

The crowning achievements of Presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev was the signing of the long sought-after Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF Treaty) in 1988. The treaty banned placement of nuclear missiles with a range of 1,000 to 5,000 kilometers near each other's borders or the capital cities of allies. This agreement paved the way for the end of the Cold War.

When the Cold War ended, NATO or ‘the collective West’, began promoting an aggressive ideology of organized violence, a politically- economically- and militarily-enforced doctrine known as ‘globalism’. After the Kosovo bombing in 1998,[7] the use of NATO to wage aggressive war called into question the very reason for the organization's existence.[8] Some called for the abolishment of the organization, stating that it had lost it original purpose.

With the collapse of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, despite assurances from the collective West to the Russian Federation that it would not move eastward, NATO violated those agreements anyway and absorbed former Warsaw Pact countries in Central European countries. These included Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, buttressing up against the borders of the Russian Federation where intermediate nuclear missiles (1,000 to 5,000 km range) could be placed in violation of the 1988 INF Treaty. Slovakia, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania also joined the alliance, resulting in an organization of 26 nations. This spark of expansion was seen as an offensive move by Russia and caused a rift in the NATO and Russian relations. The Russian lower house released to the press a statement, "At present we are debating the draft statement of the State Duma which we are planning to adopt in connection with NATO's expansion in Europe. Our opinion is equivocal that this act is erroneous. I think that this is a big historical mistake on the part of western states."

After dangling the bait of NATO membership before Ukraine for fourteen years, NATO was compelled to confess that it would not be able to come to the defense of Ukraine in case of any Russian military invasion because Article 5 only allowed collective defense to be invoked for NATO members, which Ukraine is not. Any sanction package that targets Russian energy and/or access to banking institutions would hurt Europe far more than Russia. There is no viable alternative for Europe to Russian energy supplies. The U.S. cannot compete with Russia in terms of price and volume when it comes to home heating oil and natural gas deliveries.

Serbia - wag the dog

See also: Clinton administration
Joe Biden war crimes in Serbia.[9]

In 1998, President Bill Clinton attempted to justify NATO's continued existence as a distraction from the impeachment movement against him.[10] Under Clinton, the United States led its NATO allies on a bombing campaign to stop Yugoslav President Slobodan Milošević's alleged ethnic cleansing of the Albanians inside of Kosovo. The mission in Kosovo did not go as well as planned. After the air strikes, havoc reigned over Kosovo, abuses continued and human rights organizations listed abuses committed by the Alliance members during the campaign. In an attempt to solve the violence, NATO countries and the United Nations took on a mission to stabilize and reconstruct the country. The NATO intervention was illegal, destructive, and based on fraudulent claims.[11]

James Bissett, a former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, wrote: "the Central Intelligence Agency assisted by the British Special Air Service were training KLA members in Albania and in the summer of 1998 sending them back into Kosovo to assassinate Serbian mayors, ambush Serbian policemen and intimidate hesitant Kosovo Albanians. The aim was to destabilize Kosovo and overthrow Serbian strongman Slobodan Milosevic... The hope was that with Kosovo in flames NATO could intervene ..." [12]

NATO deliberately bombed the People's Republic of China (PRC) embassy in Belgrade,[13] which provoked a militarization of the PRC in subsequent decades.[14]

According to the US Department of Defense's Law of War Manual which points out that “attacks that are otherwise lawful are “not rendered unlawful if they happen to result in diminished civilian morale.” It then cites with approval a 2002 commentary about NATO's war on Serbia from a former DoD General Counsel regarding the strikes on Serbian electrical infrastructure: “I will readily admit that, aside from directly damaging the military electrical power infrastructure, NATO wanted the civilian population to experience discomfort, so that the population would pressure Milosevic and the Serbian leadership."[15]

NATO Spokesman James Shea justifying NATO's systemic attacks on Serbian electrical and water infrastructure: “Yes, I'm afraid electricity also drives command and control systems. If President Milosevic really wants all of his population to have water and electricity all he has to do is accept NATO's five conditions and we will stop this campaign. But as long as he doesn't do so we will continue to attack those targets which provide the electricity for his armed forces. If that has civilian consequences, it's for him to deal with…”[16]

NATO war crimes

Apartment building burns in Belgrade in 1999. The building caught fire as residents were cooking with firewood during a power blackout after NATO air raids on power grid in Serbia.

On May 25, 1999 The Washington Post reported, NATO Warplanes Jolt Yugoslav Power Grid.[17] According to Professor Robert Hayden from the University of Pittsburgh:

"NATO's attacks have been aimed against civilian targets since literally the first night of the bombing, when a tractor factory in the Belgrade suburb of Rakovica was destroyed by cruise missiles. Since then NATO targets have included roads, railroad tracks and bridges hundreds of miles from Kosovo, power plants, factories of many kinds, food processing and sugar processing plants, water pumping stations, cigarette factories, central heating plants for civilian apartment blocks, television studios, post offices, non-military government administrative buildings, ski resorts, government official residences, oil refineries, civilian airports, gas stations, and chemical plants. NATO's strategy is not to attack Yugoslavia's army directly, but rather to destroy Yugoslavia itself, in order to weaken the army. With this strategy it is military losses that are "collateral damage," because most of the attacks are aimed at civilian targets."

The level of damage done to clearly non-military infrastructural targets in Serbia would seem to render NATO military commanders and at least some NATO political leaders liable to the same charge that was made against Ratko Mladi and Radovan Karadi by the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), "extensive destruction of property:" that they individually and in concert with others planned, instigated, ordered or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of the extensive, wanton and unlawful destruction of ... property, not justified by military necessity or knew or had reason to know that subordinates were about to destroy or permit others to destroy ... property or had done so and failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent this destruction or to punish the perpetrators thereof."

The war supposedly in defense of human rights has produced war crimes by NATO, and a civilian casualty rate that is at least three time higher than the casualty rate of the "intolerable" violations of human rights that NATO was supposedly acting to correct.[18]

NATO used depleted uranium, or nuclear waste, during its aggression.

NATO expansion: Russia reaction

NATO expansion since the Clinton era represents a betrayal of the international agreements that ended the Cold War, caused the Fall of the Wall, and collapse of Soviet communism. Western oligarchs and neo-fascist global interests have profited immeasurably from ending the Cold War and betraying security agreements made with the Russian Federation in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

Gorbachev and Yeltsin agreed to collapsing the Soviet Union in exchange for a non-NATO expansion pledge. In 2021 NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg denied such agreements ever existed or discussions even took place.[19]

To assent to the reunification of Germany, Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev ultimately agreed to a proposal from then U.S. Secretary of State James Baker (DOS) that a reunited Germany would be part of NATO but the military alliance would not move “one inch” to the east, that is, absorb any of the former Warsaw Pact nations into NATO.[20][21]

On Feb. 9, 1990, Baker said: “We consider that the consultations and discussions in the framework of the 2+4 mechanism should give a guarantee that the reunification of Germany will not lead to the enlargement of NATO’s military organization to the East.” On the next day, then German Chancellor Helmut Kohl said: “We consider that NATO should not enlarge its sphere of activity.”[22] Gorbachev's mistake was not to get it in writing as a legally-binding agreement.[23]

“U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous ‘not one inch eastward’ assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents …

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels. … The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of ‘pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.’ …

President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (‘I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests.’”[24]

The minutes of a March 6, 1991 meeting in Bonn, West Germany between political directors of the foreign ministries of the US, UK, France, and Germany contain multiple references to “2+4” talks on German unification in which Western officials made it “clear” to the Soviet Union that NATO would not push into territory east of Germany. “We made it clear to the Soviet Union – in the 2+4 talks, as well as in other negotiations – that we do not intend to benefit from the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe,” the document in British foreign ministry archives quotes US Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Canada Raymond Seitz. “NATO should not expand to the east, either officially or unofficially,” Seitz added. A British representative also mentions the existence of a “general agreement” that membership of NATO for eastern European countries is “unacceptable.”[25]

In May 1995 President Bill Clinton was invited to Moscow for the 50th anniversary celebrations of the victory over Hitler. In Moscow, Russian President Boris Yeltsin berated Clinton about NATO expansion, seeing “nothing but humiliation” for Russia: “For me to agree to the borders of NATO expanding towards those of Russia – that would constitute a betrayal on my part of the Russian people.”[26]

After the Soviet Union collapsed depriving NATO of its original reason for existence, skeptics of the alliance included liberals as much as conservatives. In 1998, 10 Democratic Senators joined nine Republicans in opposing the first, fateful round of NATO enlargement with Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Poland added, extending the alliance to Russia's border. Among the dissenters was Senator Paul Wellstone of Minnesota. In between voting against the first Iraq war in 1991 and the second after Sept. 11, Sen. Wellstone warned that expanding NATO would jeopardize Europe's hard-won gains. “There is peace between states in Europe, between nations in Europe, for the first time in centuries,” he said. “We do not have a divided Europe, and I worry about a NATO expansion which could redivide Europe and again poison relations with Russia.”[27]

Putin era

Vladimir Putin assumed office as the president of Russia on the last day of 1999. In an interview with David Frost broadcast on the BBC on March 13, 2000, Putin expressed his desire to see Russia join NATO:[28]

Frost: Tell me about your views on NATO, if you would. Do you see NATO as a potential partner, or rival, or an enemy?

Putin: Russia is a part of European culture. I simply cannot see my country isolated from Europe, from what we often describe as the civilized world. That is why it is hard for me to regard NATO as an enemy. I think that such a perception has nothing good in store for Russia and the rest of the world. ...

We strive for equal cooperation, partnership, we believe that it is possible to speak even about higher levels of integration with NATO. But only, I repeat, if Russia is an equal partner. As you know, we constantly express our negative attitude to NATO's expansion to the East. ...

Frost: Is it possible that Russia will ever join NATO?

Putin: Why not? I do not rule out such a possibility. I repeat, on condition that Russia's interests are going to be taken into account, if Russia becomes a full-fledged partner. I want to specially emphasize this. ...

When we say that we object to NATO's expansion to the East, we are not expressing any special ambitions of our own, ambitions in respect of some regions of the world. ... By the way, we have never declared any part of the world a zone of our national interests. Personally, I prefer to speak about strategic partnership. The zone of strategic interests of any particular region means first of all the interests of the people who live in that region. ...

In 2004 the Baltic states - Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia joined NATO, setting up another common border between the Russian Federation and a NATO state. Three years later, at the Munich Security Conference, Putin declared, “We have the right to ask: against whom is this [NATO] expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them.”[29] In 2008 NATO said Ukraine and Georgia would become members. Four other Eastern European states joined NATO in 2009.

At the February 2007 Munich Security Conference President Putin said,

"I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: Against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? No one even remembers them."[30]

Article 5 invoked first time - Afghanistan

Reuters from 2010. NATO withdrew from Afghanistan after the country was destroyed without delivering freedom or democracy.[31]
See also: Afghan war and Rape of Afghanistan

Within hours after the September 11, 2001 attacks, Vladimir Putin was the first foreign leader to call President George W. Bush and offer sympathy and support for what became the first invocation of NATO Article V, "an attack against one is an attack against all."[32] Putin announced a five-point plan to support the war on terror, pledging that the Russian government would (1) share intelligence with their American counterparts, (2) open Russian airspace for flights providing humanitarian assistance (3) cooperate with Russia's Central Asian allies in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan to provide similar kinds of airspace access to American flights, (4) participate in international search and rescue efforts, and (5) increase direct assistance -humanitarian as well as military assistance—to the Afghan Northern Alliance. The intelligence Putin shared, including data that helped American forces find their way around Kabul and logistical information about Afghanistan's topography and caves, contributed to the success of operation and rout of the Taliban. Two weeks after the attacks, Putin was invited to make a speech to a Special Session of the Bundestag, the first ever by a Russian head of state to the German parliament.[33] Among the numerous subjects Putin addressed in fluent German was peace and stability in the common European home:

"But what are we lacking today for cooperation to be efficient?

In spite of all the positive achievements of the past decades, we have not yet developed an efficient mechanism for working together.

The coordinating agencies set up so far do not offer Russia real opportunities for taking part in drafting and taking decision. Today decisions are often taken, in principle, without our participation, and we are only urged afterwards to support such decisions. After that they talk again about loyalty to NATO. They even say that such decisions cannot be implemented without Russia. Let us ask ourselves: is this normal? Is this true partnership?

Yes, the assertion of democratic principles in international relations, the ability to find a correct decision and readiness for compromise are a difficult thing. But then, it was the Europeans who were the first to understand how important it is to look for consensus over and above national egoism. We agree with that! All these are good ideas. However, the quality of decisions that are taken, their efficiency and, ultimately, European and international security in general depend on the extent to which we succeed today in translating these obvious principles into practical politics.

It seemed just recently that a truly common home would shortly rise on the continent, a home in which the Europeans would not be divided into eastern or western, northern or southern. However, these divides will remain, primarily because we have never fully shed many of the Cold War stereotypes and cliches.

Today we must say once and for all: the Cold War is done with! We have entered a new stage of development. We understand that without a modern, sound and sustainable security architecture we will never be able to create an atmosphere of trust on the continent, and without that atmosphere of trust there can be no united Greater Europe! Today we must say that we renounce our stereotypes and ambitions and from now on will jointly work for the security of the people of Europe and the world as a whole.

NATO began to look for its new goal in the 21 century. After the attacks on the World Trade Centers and Pentagon on September 11, 2001, NATO countries quickly responded by aiding the United States, as they had promised in Article Five of their founding treaty. AWACS airplanes were sent on surveillance, and NATO began its first and only article five mission to this day, Operation Active Endeavor, which was a Maritime mission to protect the Mediterranean from terrorist operations and drug and WMD trafficking.

After the end of the Cold War, European defense spending had weakened and its military lacked technology and modernization. In 2002, NATO met for its annual summit, which was held in Prague. The 19 country alliance made a list of improvements that its members needed to make in order to effectively fight the war on terror, these improvements called for, among other thing, a NATO Military Concept for Defense against Terrorism. NATO members also took steps to modernize there forces, all 19 countries agreed to spend at least 2% of their GDP on defense. NATO also agreed on its new focus, terrorism.

NATO took command and co-ordination of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in August 2003. When NATO and some non-member states joined (such as Australia and Japan), the initial mission was limited to Kabul, but soon expanded. In 2006, when NATO took over full command over the Afghanistan operation, the Taliban began a major campaign. Commanders complained that their forces were being restricted by national restrictions, and that they needed more troops. In November 2006, at another NATO summit in Riga, NATO countries removed 15% of restrictions placed on troops. NATO called on member governments to provide more troops to their mission in Afghanistan, but several countries had their resources stretched thin in Kosovo, as well as their mission in Iraq of training the new Iraqi government's security force.

The Financial Times wrote:[34]

"After the fall of Kabul, EU defence and security officials have been strikingly critical of the US decision to send home its troops, arguing it has weakened Nato and raised questions about Europe’s security dependence on Washington."

Lord Peter Ricketts, the UK’s former national security adviser, said. “It looks like Nato has been completely overtaken by American unilateral decisions...The Afghanistan operation was always going to end some time, it was never going to go on forever, but the manner in which it’s been done has been humiliating and damaging to Nato.”

Missile defense

The multi-billion dollar missile defense system was started by Reagan, dubbed by opponents 'Star Wars', a futuristic fantasy.[35] Bill Clinton cut the program and wouldn't deploy the initial prototype. Baby Bush revived it, and in 2007 the Iron Dome system was deployed to Israel. Russia had been supportive of America's War on Terror, but as the Russo-Georgian War heated up, NATO allies in Europe, particularly those involved in the Partners for Peace program (former Warsaw Pact members), expressed a desire to have missile defense systems based on their territory. Talk was of a reignited Cold War, for which Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama blamed George W. Bush.[36]

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama opposed deployment of the missile defense system and condemned the anti-Putin stance of Secretary of State Condolezza Rice who was regarded as a feminist Uncle Tom. In office, Obama promptly cancelled the missile defense program and Hillary hit the Reset button on deteriorating US-Russian relations - at least until the Rosatom-Uranium One deal was completed. Then reality set in. Obama started sounding like George W. Bush and Hillary like Condi Rice, the two people they heaped scorn on a few years earlier. In 2016 the two redirected their scorn at Donald Trump, as Trump's rhetoric about Putin and criticism of incumbents sounded like a mimeographed speech of either Hillary or Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries.

Putin warned that the Russians do not view the missile defense system as a defensive system - at all.[37] The system has the capability of a first strike launch to destroy the entire Russian land based nuclear arsenal when it's based on Russia's borders. Deployment would be provocative. President Obama, after decades of trashing Ronald Reagan as a reckless nuclear war hawk for his Star Wars fantasy and Baby Bush for reigniting the Cold War, ignored Putin's warning and deployed the missile defense system in Romania.[38] This was done, the administration said, to guard against Iranian nukes, despite the fact Obama said it would be at least 13 years before Iran had a nuke in the recently completed Iran nuke deal. Putin responded by stationing Iskander missiles (SS-26s in NATO nomenclature) in Kaliningrad. Flight time of this nuclear tipped warhead is two minutes to Warsaw, leaving NATO functionally with no warning.[39]

Obama/Clinton Russian Reset

See also: Uranium One bribery scandal and Clinton Foundation conflicts of interest

President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cozied up to Putin, charging the Bush administration was intent on reigniting the Cold War. Michael McFaul was the architect of the Obama/Clinton “Russian Reset”, that eventually led McFaul to becoming the Ambassador to Russia.[40] The Rosatom-Uranium One deal allowed the Clinton Foundation to pocket millions of dollars from Putin cronies in donations and speaking fees.

In "Resetting" relations with Russia, Secretary Clinton gave approval to a deal that allowed a Russian government enterprise to control one-fifth of all uranium producing capacity in the United States.[41] Rosatom, the Russian company, acquired Uranium One, a Utah uranium mining company owned by a Canadian firm run by Frank Giustra (pron. Ju-stra). Giustra is a Friend of Bill (FOB) and member of the Clinton Foundation Board. The transaction required Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's approval.Giustra then donated over $130 million to the Clinton family non-profit foundation.[42][43]

Some of the details of the Uranium One deal and "the future of the energy industry" were worked out in a private meeting between Bill Clinton. Frank Giustra, and Kazatomprom President Moukhtar Dzhakishev in Chappaqua, New York on February 27, 2007. The 'Russian Reset' was necessary to complete the deal.

Rosatom, the world's leading builder of nuclear power plants, built Iran’s nuclear reactor in Bushehr. With the purchase of Uranium One, Rosatom also bought the uranium exploration rights in Arizona, Colorado, and Utah.[44]

Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in May 2010 discussed with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev the possibility of Rosatom building nuclear power plants in Syria.[45]

According to the New York Times,

Canadian records show, a flow of cash made its way to the Clinton Foundation. Uranium One’s chairman used his family foundation to make four donations totaling $2.35 million. Those contributions were not publicly disclosed by the Clintons, despite an agreement Mrs. Clinton had struck with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors. Other people with ties to the company made donations as well.

And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.[46]

Transformational change: leftist rebranding

Growth of Western fascism.
See also: Liberal World Order

Former Uk diplomat Alastair Crooke described NATO's leftist rebranding after the collapse of leftism in the Soviet Union:

"The old NATO, which Leftists once had hated as a reactionary carbuncle, the Left had now come to see as having new evangelical meaning; no longer reactionary, but now revolutionary. Its new ‘revolutionary’ objective being to hasten the advent of a social revolution whose cultural sub-strata is the promulgation of the Woke tenets: Diversity, Pride, Trans rights, and the redress of historic discrimination and wrongs.

The new NATO, inclusive and politically correct, is seen by European Leftists as the tool by which to sweep aside obstacles to the EU agenda, as well. These ‘switched shirts’ hold that the struggle for this ‘Cultural Order’ is incessant, totalising, and all-encompassing."[47]

NATO aggression - Libya

See also: Libyan war and Obama war crimes
Architects of the humanitarian catastrophe in Libya - Samantha Power (top) Susan Rice (left) and Hillary Clinton (right). President Obama initially billed US intervention "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe," however after Gaddafi's murder the Black-African slave trade re-emerged in open slave markets in Libya.[48] NATO was used to give cover for the Obama administration's direct involvement.

In 2011 NATO lent its name to Western globalists to wage a war of aggression in Libya totally outside NATO's purview and mission.[49] As a direct consequence of NATO's illegal intervention, the black African slave trade was reborn in Africa.[50]

UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011 followed on the heels of Gaddafi's public threat on March 2, 2011, to throw western oil companies out of Libya, and his invitation on March 14 to Chinese, Russian, and Indian firms to produce Libyan oil in their place.[51] China, Russia, India and Brazil all abstained on UNSC Resolution 1973.

Resolution 1973 authorized strict limitations, according to international law, on NATO as the organization with responsibility for the implementation of the resolution. Particularly, it provided only for a naval blockade enforcing the arms embargo, and enforcement of a no-fly zone. On March 29, 2011, Russian envoy Dmitry Rogozin commented after a meeting with NATO officials in Brussels, Belgium, that Russia expressed deep concern over the interpretation of the Security Council's resolution, as some countries have effectively turned it into an approval for ground operations.

Moscow has many questions about how the UN Security Council’s resolution is being carried out...First of all, there are reports that civilians have been killed in the air strikes. This is odd if you consider the message of the resolution, which says that the foreign forces’ actions should protect civilians. So it’s hard to comprehend how you can protect civilians by killing them....we demanded that the UN Security Council be fully informed about the actions of the alliance in Libya at all times... We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the UN Security Council resolution.[52]

The French and the British described plans for a wargames exercise for an attack on Libya in November 2010, in the end they used those military assets that had been mobilized for the real thing 3 months ago. NATO doesn't just go and bomb a country over night, these things are planned far in advance, and in this case there is conclusive evidence that there have been plans for this for many many years.[53]

Despite France taking the lead role in the intervention, the Congressional Research Service reports, "Only the United States and NATO possess the command and control capabilities necessary for coalition operations enforcing the no-fly zone over Libya." France only recently rejoined the NATO alliance, in 2008, after a 40-year absence. The Congressional Research Service, which analyzes information and prepares reports for members of Congress, also states,

In spite of statements underscoring NATO unity on steps announced to date, the initial planning and operational phases were also marked by significant levels of discord within Europe and NATO on the aims and future direction of the mission. A key point of contention was reportedly the amount of flexibility that NATO forces would be granted to protect civilians and civilian areas, as called for in paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1973. Reports indicate that French officials insisted on maintaining the ability to strike ground forces that threatened civilian areas, while their Turkish counterparts vocally opposed any targeting of ground forces. Adding to the strain within NATO, NATO ally Germany abstained from UNSCR 1973 and, opposed to any potential combat operation, on March 23, withdrew its naval assets in the Mediterranean from NATO command. Throughout the first week of operations, other European allies contributing to the mission, including Italy and Norway, expressed increasing frustration with the lack of agreement within NATO, with Norway refusing to deploy its fighter jets unless under they were under NATO command and control.[54]
NATO air strike on Tripoli, Libya.

Of Nato's 28 members, 14 are said to be "actively participating," but only 6 have provided military support. Of the 22-country Arab League, whose appeal prompted the United Nations to vote on intervention, only Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are involved. Of the 192 members of the UN General Assembly, who all have a legal "responsibility to protect" civilians attacked by their own governments, only Sweden has responded.[55]

NATO planes and ships began striking cities and military installations in Libya in mid-March, 2011. Allied military officials have spoke of the need for escalation to help protect Libyan civilians and called for Gaddafi to step down. Libyan officials said that NATO is picked sides in a civil war and complained that strikes on Gaddafi's Tripoli compound were attempts to assassinate the leader of a sovereign country. NATO launched its largest airstrike against Moammar Gaddafi's regime on May 24, 2011, with at least 15 massive explosions rocking the Libyan capital. [3]

On May 15, two months into the NATO bombing campaign against loyal Gaddafi's forces, Britain's top military commander said that the Libyan leader could remain “clinging to power” unless NATO broadened its bombing targets to include the country's infrastructure.[56]

On Jun 18, 2011 Prime minister of Libya Al-Baghdadi al-Mahmoudi accused NATO of a "new level of aggression" over the past 72 hours in which he said the military alliance intentionally targeted civilian buildings, including a hotel and a university. "It has become clear to us that NATO has moved on to deliberately hitting civilian buildings. ... This is a crime against humanity," he told reporters in the capital. Libya's Health Ministry released new casualty figures that put the number of civilians killed in NATO air strikes through to June 7 at 856.[57]

EU Member of Parliament Clare Daly reminded her fellow lawmakers:

“The NATO intervention in Libya, carried out in the name of protecting freedom, democracy and human rights, is one we’d do well to remember as NATO plays out its proxy war in Ukraine in the name of, you’ve guessed it, freedom, democracy and human rights...What happens after NATO intervenes in your country on this basis?...Terror, death, lawlessness, rape, poverty, starvation…Libya is a country riven by conflict, its economy shattered, its population – formerly the wealthiest in Africa – ridden and mired in poverty...Migrants are bought and sold in slave markets...It’s a country of mass graves, of crimes against humanity...This is NATO’s legacy”.[58]

Obama/Biden aggression

Biden Libya.jpg

In 2010 and 2011 the Hillary Clinton State Department, working with NATO allies (particularly France), triggered a crisis in Libya during the Obama administration's intentional effort to remove Muammar Gaddafi from power. This was a key element to the Arab Spring (Islamist Spring or Color Revolution) that flowed from the Cairo, Egypt, speech of President Obama a year prior.

Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice and Samantha Power (R2P) were the architects of the destabilization plan. After the country was destabilized and thrown into severe violent crisis by the U.S. support for radical Islamists in eastern Libya (Benghazi region), President Obama then signed (Feb, 2011) a national emergency declaration in regard to the destabilized Libya his administration created.

Five years later, in April 2016, President Obama expanded the Libya emergency declaration to extend the 2011 declaration and envelop a larger portion of North Africa, under the auspices of expanded threats from AQIM (al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb). This extension allowed the state dept to frame actions in neighboring Egypt, and block any effort to counteract Obama's mid-east policy which was established to support the Muslim Brotherhood. In April 2016 it was presumed Hillary Clinton would win the election and continue the policy.

A full twelve years after Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton destabilized Libya throwing it into a tribal civil war, Joe Biden signed an executive order continuing the extension of the U.S. National Emergency with regard to Libya:[59]

[…] “The situation in Libya continues to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, and measures are needed to protect against the diversion of assets or other abuses by members of Qadhafi’s family, their associates, and other persons hindering Libyan national reconciliation.
For this reason, the national emergency declared on February 25, 2011, and expanded on April 19, 2016, must continue in effect beyond February 25, 2023. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing for 1 year the national emergency declared in Executive Order 13566.
This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

The US empire

The United States spends about 7 to 8 times the military budgets of the 7 biggest militaries of the world combined[60]

On Dec. 5, 2019, the pro-NATO and pro-Ukraine New York Times published in an opinion piece:

With the conclusion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s 70th anniversary summit in London, it’s fair to say that Donald Trump thinks that most alliance members, starting with France and Canada, are a bunch of ungrateful and unhelpful freeloaders...

In 2011, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates warned of a “dim if not dismal future” for the alliance if states such as Germany continued to underspend on defense. Nearly eight years later, a German parliamentary report found that fewer than half of the country’s fighter jets, and not one of its six submarines, were combat worthy. The German defense minister recently announced that she does plan to meet NATO targets on military spending, but not until 2031.

Most other NATO members are no better. Canada, for instance, spends just 1.27 percent of its gross domestic product on defense (the NATO target is 2 percent) and cannot meet its obligations to defend North America’s airspace. When Justin Trudeau was overheard at the summit belittling Trump for taking too long with his press conference, the Canadian prime minister sounded to many Americans like a child whining that a working parent had kept him waiting for supper.

All of this means that when Macron and other European leaders muse about creating an autonomous European defense force, they are, as one seasoned Parisian observer put it to me, “playing with cards they don’t have.” Even sizable increases in defense spending wouldn’t fill the gap that an American departure from Europe would leave: Roughly half of European defense spending goes to salaries and pensions, not warfighting capacity.[61]

The UK's House of Parliament, House of Commons Library published a resource on August 11, 2022, which states:

NATO was formed in 1949 with the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington. Its purpose was to ensure the collective security of its member states and to counter the perceived security threat from the then Soviet Union.

At the heart of the North Atlantic Treaty is Article 5, which states that an attack against one member state shall be considered as an attack against them all.

Article 5 does not necessarily commit an ally to military action in the event of an attack. Instead, it requires members to assist the party or parties attacked with “such action it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

Given Article 5’s obligation, member states are advised to maintain adequate defence spending levels, so they have the capacity to act if necessary. This sentiment is formally reflected in the target for NATO members to spend at least 2% of their country’s GDP on defence, set at the 2006 Riga Summit...

Despite all NATO members agreeing to the 2% guideline, few countries have adhered to it.

Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014 drew attention to the declining defence budgets of most NATO members. At the NATO Summit in Wales that year, member states agreed to reverse the trend and aim to spend 2% of GDP on defence by 2024.

Between 2014 and 2022, defence expenditure by NATO members is expected to rise by $140 billion (15%). However, while the number of countries meeting the 2% target has increased over this period, most are still falling short.

...only nine out of 30 member states are expected to meet the 2% spending target in 2022, up from three members in 2014...

Prior to Russia’s invasion, the UK was already meeting the 2% spending target. In 2022 it is expected to spend 2.1% of GDP on defence. This is down from 2.3% in 2020.[62]

Finland and Sweden

Map of the proposed location of US military bases in Finland.[63] Designations in Finnish. via Veska Vee.

Nations aren't given a choice to join. They either join or the US removes the government and installs one that will. Neither Sweden nor Finland face any threat from any nations, let alone Russia. The Finns, however, remember the unprovoked Soviet invasion of 1939. The Russians by contrast, recall the Finns along with their Nazi allies encirclement in the Siege of Leningrad wherein 1.2 million civilians starved to death.[64]

The supposed “threat” is that Russia has invaded Ukraine “without provocation” and could invade anyone else next - the same “WMD” lie to advance American foreign policy objectives. NATO has waged a proxy war of aggression against the ethnic Russians of Donbas since 2014.[65] Neither the Swedish or Finnish government would allow a democratic referendum for the citizens of both countries to decide if they wanted to join the militaristic alliance,[66][67] although even politicians opposed to joining NATO have changed their minds because of pressure from the electorate, according to the globalist BBC propaganda rag.[68] With Sweden and Finland joining NATO, both countries will be less secure and give up their foreign policy sovereignty to the delusional megalomaniacs of Washington, D.C.. NATO expansion is a factor of US hegemony - an unwillingness to accept multipolarism and its attempt to continue imposing unipolar primacy.

Russia warned of a "military-technical" response if Finland joined NATO[69] - the same language Russia used to warn Ukraine against joining NATO two months before the Russian incursion into Ukraine.[70] Turkish President Recep Erdoğan warned that "Scandinavian countries are 'guesthouses' for terrorist organizations."[71] Critics warned that after many years of discussion about the "Finlandization of Ukraine... we are now much closer to the Ukraine-ization of Finland."[72]

According to a leaked U.S. State Department memo Finland and Sweden were being targeted for classification as human rights abusers in accordance with Biden's Executive Order 14075 from June 2022 that instructs agencies of the federal government to do what they can to stop “conversion therapy” for “LGBTQI+” people.[73]

President Putin remarked, "They took Finland and dragged it into NATO. Did we have any disputes with Finland? We had the kindest and most cordial relationship. Yes, there were problems in the forestry sector, but they were related to the need for processing within the country. But now that there will be problems, we will create the Leningrad military district and concentrate certain military units there. Putin emphasized that NATO countries are artificially creating problems in relations with Russia because they don't want to have such a competitor. "Let us remember that Finland's accession to Nato was announced several months ago. Soon after this information appeared about, Helsinki's preparations for the deployment of American troops on its territory." Infrastructure improvements such as roads and railway lines to American military bases will occur on the American taxpayer's dime, and not the Finns, which is likely the motivation for Finland's accession to NATO.

In December 2023 Finish defense minister Antti Häkkänen said in Washington, “Russia has the capability and the ability to go on with this war for years, many are overestimating that the West is winning this, that Ukraine is winning.”[74]

Members as of 2022

NATO spending in 2018.

Austria is a European country that never joined NATO.[75] Under the Austrian State Treaty (May 15, 1955), the Soviet Union withdrew its troops under the promise that Austria would declare its neutrality and remain a buffer between Western Europe and Eastern Europe.[76] This was the only treaty signed by both the Soviet Union and United States in the entire decade following the 1947 Paris Peace Treaties.

Nearly all of the remainder of Western Europe has joined NATO, with the additional exceptions (among large countries) of Switzerland, Ireland, Sweden, and Finland, though, following the Russian Federation's Special Operation in Ukraine, the latter two are reconsidering. Ireland belongs to the EU Battle group and has participated with some NATO led missions under a UN mandate. Support for joining Nato has increased recently in the Republic of Ireland

‘Value for Money’: How to kill 625,000 people for just $0.29 cost per death.
NATO Member NATO Summit Expansion Year
Belgium Founder Original Member, 1949
Canada Founder Original Member, 1949
Denmark Founder Original Member, 1949
France Founder Original Member, 1949
Iceland Founder Original Member, 1949
Italy Founder Original Member, 1949
Luxembourg Founder Original Member, 1949
Netherlands Founder Original Member, 1949
Norway Founder Original Member, 1949
Portugal Founder Original Member, 1949
United Kingdom Founder Original Member, 1949
United States Founder Original Member, 1949
Greece First Round, 1952
Turkey First Round, 1952
Germany Second Round, 1955
Spain Third Round, 1982
Czech Republic Washington, D.C. Fourth Round, 1999
Hungary Washington, D.C. Fourth Round, 1999
Poland Washington, D.C. Fourth Round, 1999
Bulgaria Washington, D.C. Fifth Round, 2004
Estonia Istanbul, Turkey Fifth Round, 2004
Latvia Istanbul, Turkey Fifth Round, 2004
Lithuania Istanbul, Turkey Fifth Round, 2004
Romania Istanbul, Turkey Fifth Round, 2004
Slovakia Istanbul, Turkey Fifth Round, 2004
Slovenia Istanbul, Turkey Fifth Round, 2004
Albania Bucharest, Romania Sixth Round, 2008
Croatia Bucharest, Romania Sixth Round, 2008
Montenegro Seventh Round, 2017


  1. NATO’S GLOBALIZATION AND THE GLOBAL SCHISM, Gordon Hahn, October 23, 2023.
  2. https://www.britannica.com/place/Third-Reich/The-Nazi-empire
  3. Why did the USSR not stop the United Nations from intervening in Korea? www.archivemore.com/
  4. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/soviets-boycott-united-nations-security-council
  5. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/27/the-european-union-always-was-a-cia-project-as-brexiteers-discov/
  6. Kosovo Indictment Proves Bill Clinton’s Serbian War Atrocities, by Jim Bovard, Jun 25, 2020. The Libertarian Institute.
  7. https://www.aim.org/media-monitor/kosovo-wag-the-dog/
  8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4489267
  9. https://youtu.be/927i2HAgxms
  10. https://mises.org/wire/new-kosovo-indictment-reminder-bill-clintons-serbian-war-atrocities
  11. The U.S.-NATO Military Intervention in Kosovo.
  12. The United Nations:Chief Instrument of Russia's Errors by Cornelia R. Ferreira. CATHOLIC APOLOGETICS.
  13. https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/oct/17/balkans
  14. https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202103/1219579.shtml
  15. https://sites.duke.edu/lawfire/2022/10/27/is-attacking-the-electricity-infrastructure-used-by-civilians-always-a-war-crime/
  16. https://www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990525b.htm
  17. NATO Warplanes Jolt Yugoslav Power Grid, By Philip Bennett and Steve Coll, Washington Post, May 25, 1999.
  18. Humanitarian Hypocrisy. University of Pittsburgh.
  19. https://www.rt.com/russia/544257-nato-boss-expansion-proposals/
  20. [1] Unclassified doc
  21. [2] Unclassified doc
  22. https://consortiumnews.com/2022/01/28/the-tangled-tale-of-nato-expansion-at-the-heart-of-ukraine-crisis/
  23. For years it was believed there was no written record of the Baker-Gorbachev exchange at all, until the National Security Archive at George Washington University in December 2017 published a series of memos and cables about these assurances against NATO expansion eastward.
  24. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
  25. https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund-stuetzt-russische-version-a-1613d467-bd72-4f02-8e16-2cd6d3285295
  26. https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2021-11-24/nato-expansion-budapest-blow-1994
  27. https://quincyinst.org/2021/06/14/sorry-liberals-but-you-really-shouldnt-love-nato/
  28. https://www.gazeta.ru/2001/02/28/putin_i_bbc.shtml
  29. https://aldeilis.net/english/putins-historical-speech-munich-conference-security-policy-2007/
  30. https://scheerpost.com/2023/02/19/patrick-lawrence-munich-as-propaganda-fest
  31. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-afghanistan/uk-to-stay-in-afghanistan-as-long-as-it-takes-idUSTRE6A71TI20101108
  32. https://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/europe/09/10/ar911.russia.putin/index.html
  33. http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/40168
  34. Nato allies urge rethink on alliance after Biden’s ‘unilateral’ Afghanistan exit, Financial Times, Helen Warrell in London, Guy Chazan in Berlin and Richard Milne in Stockholm AUGUST 17 2021.
  35. In a bit of shadenfreude Mondale himself rarely used the term 'Star Wars'. At a time religious believers were coming under increasing attack for their political views, Mondale preferred to campaign against "war in the heavens." https://youtu.be/tu1r_rlUtXg
  36. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-03-26-2325570908_x.htm
  37. https://youtu.be/kqD8lIdIMRo
  38. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/218188
  39. http://observer.com/2016/10/obama-blows-off-putin-encouraging-kremlin-aggression-against-nato/
  40. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/29/world/europe/29envoy.html
  41. Charity watchdog: Clinton Foundation a ‘slush fund’, Isabel Vincent, New York Post, 26 April 2015
  42. Board of Directors | Clinton Foundation, www.clintonfoundation.org
  43. http://libertyblitzkrieg.com/2015/04/23/more-clinton-foundation-cronyism-the-deal-to-sell-uranium-interests-to-russia-while-hillary-was-secretary-of-state/
  44. http://www.defenddemocracy.org/media-hit/moscows-american-uranium/
  45. https://www.reuters.com/article/russia-syria-medvedev-idUSLDE64A14S20100511
  46. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0
  47. Sustained Peace With Russia? Is It Possible?, ALASTAIR CROOKE, 9 OCT 23.
  48. https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/14/africa/libya-migrant-auctions/index.html
  49. https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/really-know-libyan-slave-trade/
  50. https://fair.org/home/media-nato-regime-change-war-libya-slave-markets/
  51. Gaddafi offers Libyan oil production to India, Russia, China, Agence France-Presse, March 14, 2011.
  52. http://rt.com/news/coalition-libya-nato-russian-envoy/
  53. Letter from Libya to a close friend June 4, 2011.
  54. Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress, Congressional Research Service, March 30, 2011, p. 20 pdf.
  55. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team
  56. http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/libya/index.html
  57. Gaddafi rages at NATO after bombing.
  58. https://twitter.com/ClareDalyMEP/status/1597954104889778176
  59. https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2023/02/17/it-never-ends-joe-biden-extends-2011-national-security-emergency-over-libya-through-2023/
  60. Why America’s Defense Budget Is Bigger Than You Think
  61. NATO Is Full of Freeloaders. But It’s How We Defend the Free World., New York Times, Dec. 5, 2019
  62. Defence spending pledges by NATO members since Russia invaded Ukraine, Published Thursday, 11 August 2022
  63. https://askeptic.substack.com/p/war-reports-2023-12-16
  64. Kirschenbaum, Lisa A. (2006). The Legacy of the Siege of Leningrad, 1941–1995: Myth, Memories, and Monuments. Cambridge University Press, 44. ISBN 9781139460651. “The blockade began two days later when German and Finnish troops severed all land routes in and out of Leningrad.” 
  65. https://mronline.org/2022/04/09/the-u-s-proxy-war-in-ukraine/
  66. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/swedish-pm-rejects-referendum-possible-nato-membership-2022-04-28/
  67. https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/finland-nato-ally-russia/2022/04/03/id/1064096/
  68. "Are Sweden and Finland going from neutral to Nato?" Phelan Chatterjee BBC News
  69. https://tass.com/politics/1450057
  70. https://www.iiss.org/blogs/analysis/2022/02/russias-military-technical-solution-for-ukraine
  71. https://zeenews.india.com/world/scandinavian-countries-are-guesthouses-for-terrorist-organisations-erdogan-says-turkey-not-supportive-of-finland-sweden-joining-nato-2463392.html
  72. https://thesaker.is/from-the-finlandization-of-ukraine-to-the-ukraine-ization-of-finland/
  73. https://www.city-journal.org/state-dept-launches-international-gender-pressure-campaign
  74. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/12/21/european-leaders-on-ukraine-russia-progress-00132726
  75. https://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/ukraine-2022-fatima-austrias-neutrality-prayer-and-fasting/
  76. https://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/ho/time/lw/107185.htm