NATO itself, it is a pathetic fighting force… This is rarely said openly, but everybody in the military knows that… And that is not a problem at all, because NATO's *true* role is to maintain the US grip on the European continent… There is nothing new here, as early as in 1949 the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay, admitted that NATO's true role was "to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down"… Now this has changed to only "the Americans in, and everybody else down". Hardly a sign of progress. NATO also has a secondary role, to be used by European bureaucrats to foster their career and their power. So really the core purpose of NATO is to be NATO. And if that means inventing a non-existing threat such as Iranian missiles or "massed Russian forces at the Ukrainian border" - then so be it….
Time to directly address the issue of today's Europe role in world affairs. I have often voiced very harsh criticisms of both "old Europe" and "new Europe" - to use Rumsfeld's classification…
Let me begin by a little disclaimer and say that I spent most of my last few years in Europe, and I have become especially close to what I call my "2nd homeland" - the northern Mediterranean from Spain to Greece (which I consider as one coherent - if diverse - cultural zone). So for all my criticisms of Europe, part of me is most definitely European. Furthermore, I have spent a good part of my life in an absolute opposition to the Soviet regime and then the AngloZionist colonial regime of Eltsin which followed it… So I am hardly an automatic supporter of everything "Russian". In fact, I repeatedly have to pinch myself to check if I am dreaming every time I say something positive about the Kremlin or Vlad Putin (who is, after all, an ex-KGB officer). I am so used to be disgusted, outraged and even ashamed by everything which comes out of the Kremlin that, if anything, I have to struggle with my kneejerk suspicion, if not hostility, towards anything "Kremlin". And yet, here I am, in 2010-14, a longtime Cold War participant (on many levels - private, corporate and even professional) catching myself in the undeniable fact that I am becoming a "Vlad Putin groupie". I can hardly convey how weird this still feels…
Europeans disgusted with this ?:
First, for all its rights and wrongs, and even though Europe has been more or less a US colony since 1945, I still believe that Western Europe was the "good guy" during the Cold War. Yes, I know, Churchill and the rest of the Anglosphere created that Cold War much more than the Soviets and, yes, the Soviets were not nearly as bad as our propaganda said, nor were we nearly as good as we fancied ourselves to be. And yet, Europe, Western Europe was a continent, a society, which was free, especially compared to Eastern Europe. Anyone doubting this today should watch the beautiful German movie "Das Leben der Anderen" ("The lives of the others") of director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck (preferable in the original German language - with subtitles if needed). Here are a few links to this remarkable movie:
I feel that I want to mention this because I then felt - and still do today - that in those years one could be if not proud, then maybe at least grateful to live in a society which was comparatively wealthy and comparatively free….
This being said, anybody with a little bit of political maturity understood that if Eastern Europe was occupied and controlled by the Soviets, Western Europe was occupied and controlled by the USA. So most of us, at least as I recall, were dreaming for the day when the Cold War would finally be over (it was not pleasant at all to live with a bull’s-eye painted on your head) and when both the USSR and the USA would pack and finally go home. For simple and basic reasons of geography, we all understood that we could build a "fortress Europe" which would be basically immune from any outside military attack, probably for the first time in European history. If NATO and the WTO (yes, it was called the "Warsaw Treaty Organization" and not the Warsaw "Pact" - that is a US propaganda term) would dissolve and the USA and the USSR would leave a united Europe would be simply unconquerable from the outside. As for notion of another internal European war - my generation found it utterly ridiculous and basically unthinkable: would the Netherlands invade Belgium? Or France invade Spain? As for the East Europeans, we simply assumed (mistakenly as it turned out) that after decades of rather heavy Soviet occupation they would yearn for peace and freedom as much as we did.
And yet the East Europeans were so terrified of Russia that they decided to replace one occupation by another. Forgive me if I have no respect whatsoever for that kind of paranoia, ignorance of history or simply crass Russophobia…
So now we have the worst of "old Europe" mixed with the worst of "new Europe" and all of that ruled by the Anglosphere which, itself, has now been largely taken over by Zionists interests. I don't know about you, but to me this so-called "united Europe" inspires only disgust and contempt. Especially that this was far from inevitable.
If Europe had taken the example of its own great leaders, people like De Gaulle, it would never have accepted the subservient role it now has in the AngloZionist Empire. One does not need to be wealthy or powerful to keep his dignity and self-esteem. So I categorically reject the argument that under the AngloZionist Empire the Europeans "could do nothing about it".
Excuse me, but if Berlin could rise up in 1953, Hungary could rise up in 1956, Czechoslovakia could rise up in 1968 and Poland could rise up in 1980, I don't see how you can make the case that today this is impossible. Even inside the Soviet Union there were numerous uprisings (Temirtau 1959, Murom 1961, Aleksandrov 1961, Krasnodar 1961, Novocherkassk 1962 - heck there were even uprisings inside the GULag, as in Ekibastuz in 1952). I would even argue that the real length of the Civil War which followed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution was from 1917 until 1946, when the country was finally and truly pacified by the Communist leaders. So there was plenty of resistance to the Soviet regime.
I do see some signs of a growing revolt: George Galloway and Nigel Farage in the UK or Laurent Louis in Belgium are clearly beginning to show signs of doing more than opposing this or that policy - they are opposing the system itself. In France, Marine Le Pen unfortunately clearly turned out to be a "dud", but Florian Philippot (currently in charge of strategy and communications) shows some potential. The big problem with these, shall we say, "sovereignist" parties is that they are still mostly stuck in a "conservative" or even outright reactionary position (though not Galloway!). What Europe completely lacks is a solid "sovereignist Left" ….
When France had the Trente Glorieuses (30 glorious years of happiness) it was because De Gaulle knew how to balance both economic progress and social welfare, rather than subjugate the entire country to Big Banks (which Pompidou did as soon as he came to power)…. Even the UK had a semblance of social solidarity inherited from the difficult war years.
I will say that the only part of the Russian society which has had a deep attraction for western Europe has always been either the reactionary nobility or the liberal elites. For the vast majority of Russian people, even today, the people of the Caucasus or Central Asia are far closer culturally than western Europeans and their central European friends. The only exception to this are the Serbian people who have always been close to Russians (the Russian Tsar Alexander III once said to the Montenegrin Prince Nicholas he was "the only true, faithful and sincere ally Russia had in Europe". Little has changed since). But for the rest of Europe? Forget it…