Time to go #NATO

I can’t think of a better time in history to be reminded of what De Gaulle used to say about NATO and American hegemony over Europe.

This is all extracted from the book “C’était de Gaulle” which gathers his words as compiled by his confidant Alain Peyrefitte.

A small

Arnaud Bertrand@RnaudBertrand

@RnaudBertrand

erabiltzaileari erantzuten

He says: “France’s objective is to build Europe […]

The whole point is that Europe should want to exist as its own self, independently from the U.S.

[NATO is] quite simply putting Europe’s defense, nuclear and conventional, in the hands of the U.S.

Europe is useless…

…if it doesn’t control its own defense and therefore its own policy.”

Here below : “NATO is a subterfuge. It’s a machine to disguise the stranglehold of America over Europe.

Thanks to NATO, Europe is placed under the dependence of the U.S. without seeming to be.”

He explains the “subterfuge” further:

“Becoming used to submitting ourselves to a so-called integrated military command structure, which is itself submitted to the president of the U.S. alone, it is giving up the state and the country, it is losing our soul! …

[…] Because our generals and colonels [would get] used to a command structure that’s denationalized, they would themselves denationalize.

They would lose the sense of the state and the nation, the respect of national hierarchy, without which there is no more…

Arnaud Bertrand@RnaudBertrand

… army, no more state, no more nation.

And what goes for the military leadership also goes for governments. If the government doesn’t assume the defense of the country, if it relinquishes this responsibility to the Americans, it…

… loses its legitimacy and thus its authority.

It doesn’t have the right to decide because it has renounced its duty to lead.”

Arnaud Bertrand@RnaudBertrand

On calling out American hypocrisy over NATO: “If [the Americans] do not want to allow us a say in their strategy, which is likely, well we won’t allow them a say in ours. They know that and that’s what annoys them.

Their reproach when it comes to our nuclear force is that it...

… forces them to admit a breach in their monopoly. We expose their desire to be hegemonic, hypocritically disguised as ‘integration’.

[My memorandum of 1958] was a way to pressure them diplomatically. I was looking for a way to exit NATO and be free again. […] So I asked…

…for the moon. I was sure they wouldn’t indulge me. The Anglo-Americans wanted the ability to use force as they pleased, and they don’t want us for this reason.

What they want is to dominate us.”

Arnaud Bertrand@RnaudBertrand

To the question “Do you really believe we can leave NATO without getting shot down by the Americans?” he replies:

“Of course we can! That’s what we’re doing bit by bit. We’re detaching ourselves from the Americans whilst remaining good friends. […]

Arnaud Bertrand@RnaudBertrand

…The Americans know well, or at least should know, that one doesn’t rely on what’s soft. One should rely on what’s solid.

[…] In truth they’re always tempted to rely on what’s soft rather than what’s solid. In all under-developped countries they’re tempted to...

Arnaud Bertrand@RnaudBertrand

…rely on rotten elements who are favorable to them – all the more favorable that they’re the ones who made them rotten in the first place -, rather than rely on solid regimes backed up by a true popular will; because they fear those types of regimes….

… During the war they relied on Pétain or Darlan or Giraud against De Gaulle even though I incarnated the nation’s will.[…]

The Americans can’t prevent themselves from boosting as much as they can the career of a Jean Monnet [A/N: who is known as “The Father of Europe”]…

… because they recognize he is their man and to oppose De Gaulle, because he resists them.

However they should recognize that the U.S.’s best ally isn’t the one who bows down to them, it’s the one who can say no to them.”

Interestingly, he saw very much the same dynamic apply with American multinational corporations as with NATO:

“The market has some good sides. It forces people to stretch themselves, it selects the best, it encourages you to be better than others and to improve yourself…

Arnaud Bertrand@RnaudBertrand

...But at the same time it creates unfairness, installs monopolies and favors cheaters. So don’t be blind when it comes to the market. One shouldn’t imagine that it’ll solve all the problems on its own. The market isn’t above the nation or the state. It is the nation, it is…

Arnaud Bertrand@RnaudBertrand

…the state that must be above the market.

If the market reigned supreme, it would be the Americans who would reign supreme over it via the multinational corporations which are no more multinational than NATO. All of this is simply a camouflage for American hegemony….

Arnaud Bertrand@RnaudBertrand

...If we follow the market with our eyes closed, we would be colonized by the Americans. We wouldn’t exist anymore, us Europeans.”

Arnaud Bertrand@RnaudBertrand

In a way, it’s extremely sad to read all this from today’s vantage because he proved right on so many points.

But it also highlights how incredibly prescient a man he was and how well he understood the dynamics at play.

May we one day have another EU leader like him…

Everything goes back to the breach of word by the US and NATO, the US and EU interventions in Maidan 2014 and the vulgar coup d’état against the democratically elected president.

NATO countries must abandon Cold War mindset and strive for a balanced and sustainable European security mechanism through dialogue and negotiation, an architecture that protects the security of all, including Russians.

Foreign Minister Lavrov has a point when he reminds us that the U.S. and NATO reneged on commitments, kept expanding eastward, refused to implement the Minsk agreement and violated UN Security Council Res. 2202 (2015).

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

It is a tragedy for both Russians and Ukrainians that it has come to this. Had NATO given assurances that it would not continue threatening Russia, this situation would not have emerged.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

As the US would not tolerate Mexico joining a Chinese military-alliance, Russia will not tolerate Ukraine or Georgia joining NATO. This is common sense. Everything else is political “narrative” and/or propaganda for war.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

The United Nations should be more proactive in mediating between NATO and Russia.  After all, the UN has primary responsibility for international peace and security.  This is not NATO’s domain.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

The ICC should investigate war crimes in Afghanistan – but not only the crimes of the Taliban.  It appears that the new chief prosecutor at the ICC has discontinued investigation into the crimes committed by NATO forces.  That deprives the ICC of authority and credibility.

George F. Kennan, Henry Kissinger, Jack Matlock, John Mearsheimer, Noam Chomsky all warned against the destabilizing impact of NATO eastern expansion.  Why did no one listen?

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

More sanctions against Russia will not stop the war. Only negotiations in good faith, and that means readiness to compromise, which seems totally absent in NATO countries.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

NATO unilaterally declared Russia to be the “enemy”. Why? Because only thus could NATO continue pretending to be a “defensive alliance”

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

If Zelinsky were a patriot, he would have kept his people out of harm’s way and would have told NATO to lay off. It was in Ukraine’s interest to be neutral and have good relations with East and West.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

Alas, my country, the United States of America and the NATO countries are determined to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.

The Pentagon techno-military industrial complex’s need to offset loss of funding from the end of the Cold War converted NATO from a defensive to an offensive military organization.

The result of NATO’s morphing into an offensive alliance also transformed the EU into a potential military-economic force.  The EU should have been careful not to be complicit in the 2014 coup or in encouraging post-2014 Ukraine to violate the terms of the 2015 Minsk agreements.

The tragic and monstrous balance of NATO’s switch from defense to offense were already becoming obvious in 2014, and even more so now with the 20-year war and defeat in Afghanistan.

No doubt Russia’s aggression violated article 2(4) of the UN Charter. But NATO also violated it by its hostile eastern expansion.  The threat of the use of force contravenes 2(4), and NATO’s body language has been a continuous threat.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

As the Warsaw Pact was dissolved in 1991, NATO should have followed suit. Had NATO not expanded east and continued threatening Russia — we would not be experiencing this tragedy.

Soon we will realize the enormous damage that NATO’s constant threatening has brought to the world. But NATO is playing innocent — reminds me of the spanish saying “tira la piedra y esconde la mano”.

Where is the world outcry against the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by NATO countries in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya? Where the outrage against Ilham Aliyev’s aggression against Nagorno Karabakh — barely a year and a half ago.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

It is profoundly sad that the peaceful world we all wanted and that appeared possible in 1989, a world free of East/West hostility, was sacrificed on the altar of NATO expansion and the greed of the military-industrial-financial complex.

There is no democracy when the only two options — Republican or Democrat — are both for war, both for exceptionalism, both for NATO, both for Wall Street over Main Street.

For decades NATO has been a “cash cow” to enrich the Pentagon’s weapon contractors, a cash cow at the expense of taxpayers, who have paid trillions of dollars (and euros) to enable a permanent war machine.

NATO learned nothing from the 20-year defeat in Afghanistan.  Its eastern expansion and continuing provocations have meant that we taxpayers are now expected to foot the bill for Ukraine’s folly to let itself be used as a pawn.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

Why can’t we understand that NATO is not there to protect us, or values, or our democracy.  Its actions actually augment the danger to all of us — including the spectre of nuclear warfare.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

As an American citizen I do not want NATO to take funding away from healthcare, education, infrastructure, and other necessities of life.

NATO’s militarism and proxy wars inflicted and continue to inflict huge costs not only on the target states — but also in our own countries, where democracy and human rights are being eroded every day.

Hard-nosed policies based on power-politics do not make friends. In a globalized world one would have hoped that the economic inter-dependence that the US and NATO countries are destroying, would benefit everyone on the planet.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

There is no reason for this tragic war to continue – the rational solution is crafting a sustainable security architecture for everybody in Europe.  But NATO does not want this — it wants hegemony.

The United States and NATO are determined to continue the proxy war against Russia — to the last Ukrainian.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine must be condemned, but so took the deliberate failure of the US and NATO to negotiate in good faith as required by Art. 2(3) of the UN Charter.

Evidently neither the US and NATO want peace in Ukraine, they want to have their proxy war against Russia — even if it destroys Ukraine and its people.

There is no justification to the immoral sacrifice of the Ukrainian people on the altar of NATO full spectrum dominance

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

The intransigence of the US and NATO lies at the root of the war, which could have been averted without loss of life simply by stopping menacing Russia and declaring Ukraine neutral.

The danger of nuclear war in Ukraine is real. A miscalculation by NATO will impact not only Russia — but all of humanity. Noam Chomsky and Richard Falk are holding a webinar on 29 April, 9 p.m. CET.  I will watch it.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

Our US Secretary of State lives in his own world of solipsism, as if only the US and NATO mattered and the national security interests of the Russians and Chinese could be simply ignored.

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky was absolutely right in saying that the US should not have backed Ukraine’s NATO ambitions and referring to the arguments articulated by Putin since 2007 — not just since 2024.

One of the Greatest American diplomats, George Kennan, already warned about the dangers of NATO expansion in 1997. Jack Matlock, the last US Ambassador to the Soviet Union, has also warned us and said more than Rand Paul.

Putin’s “special military operation” is a war without a declaration. But NATO’s massive arming of Ukraine before and during the “special military operation” was no less of a war — without a formal declaration.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

Putin has been proposing solutions compatible with the UN Charter since 2014, especially considering the “threat” of the use of force by NATO. The rejection of Russia’s December 2021 proposals was a major strategic error by the US and NATO.

It is too obvious that Russia cannot be defeated by Ukraine. But if NATO countries fantasize about regime change in Russia and continue escalating, there is an acute danger that nuclear weapons will be used. And then good bye.

Anyone who understands foreign languages & can access news & academic works in Spanish, French, German, Russian, Chinese, Arabic will realize that among the purveyors of disinformation are the US State Department & its proxies, Radio Free Europe, the European Commission, NATO

Pope Francis‘ interview to the Corriere on 3 May is important, particularly because he says what many are thinking and the mainstream press is suppressing — that NATO provoked this tragedy.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

The involvement of NATO countries in providing military intelligence to Ukraine makes them belligerents and complicit in the tragedy.

Zelinsky was committed to implementing the Minsk II agreement, which entailed giving the Russian-speaking and the ethnic Russian population in the easternmost part of Ukraine a measure of autonomy. Alas, the far-right in Ukraine did not let him do it, and NATO took over.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

I met Leonid Kravchuk (may he rest in peace) in 1994 when I monitored the Ukrainian elections for the UN. He would not have armed Ukraine against Russia or aspired to NATO membership. He sought peace, not confrontation.

At his 9 May address Putin reminded us that: “NATO countries had preparations underway for an attack on Crimea,” and “began military development of the territories adjacent to Russia.” NATO overt and covert involvement since 2014 built up the Ukrainian military.

Sweden and Finland’s bid to join NATO won’t bring peace to Ukraine. Wonder whether they realize that NATO’s record of war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria qualifies it for “criminal organization” status under article 9 of the statute of the Nuremberg Tribunal.

It seems like the “elites” in Sweden and Finland have decided to join NATO instead of promoting diplomacy and world peace. This augurs badly for future generations.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

If Sweden and Finland were true democracies, they would put the question of joining NATO to a referendum.

Many peace activists worldwide oppose NATO, but they have little or no access to the media. Any idiot in the military would immediately be interviewed by CNN if he agrees to say the right things.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

Do Sweden and Finland realize that NATO could very well be considered a “criminal organization” for purposes of art.9 of the statute of the Nuremberg Tribunal? NATO’s aggressive wars and crimes easily justify it.

It is not Russia who wanted to be an enemy of NATO.  It is NATO that needed an enemy for its raison d’être and unilaterally assigned this role to Russia.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

Provocation is contrary to article 2(4) of the UN Charter.  NATO has done nothing but threaten and provoke since 1991.  The Ukrainian tragedy is a direct consequence of our own behaviour as predicted by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Cohen.

A European and world security architecture must bring the security concerns of Russia and China on board.  NATO countries are not alone in the world. The Russians and Chinese are not threatening us, nor do they want to. But we continually provoke them?

The betrayal of humanistic values by the EU and NATO are hallmarks of our time.  The brave new world of fake narratives, fake history, fake law, fake freedom.

EU countries could be firefighters, but their NATO identities  turn them into arsonists.

We are told that we are all brothers and sisters. But not everyone behaves accordingly. NATO and the EU certainly do not.

NATO is ultimately a pyromaniac organization that can only exist if it can start or join fires in Iraq, Libya, Syria and now Ukraine.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

What if NATO had negotiated in good faith when the 2 treaties proposed by Russia in December 2021 were on the table? They were genuinely moderate. But, what if?

NATO and the EU ensure the longevity of colonialism.  But even their days are numbered, because China and India will remind us of their existence and of their different world views.

Alfred de Zayas@Alfreddezayas

When will the US and NATO abandon their make-believe world and accept that Russia and China exist, that they have certain legitimate security concerns, and that they do not want to pick a fight with us. Why do we unilaterally make them into our enemies?

“Sweden put up or shut up” – Scott Ritter