5.9.

2014

Ukraine and NATO's existential crisis Print version. English pravda.ru

Font Size

Ukraine and NATO's existential crisis

31.08.2014 15:16
Like an aging drag queen w ho can no longer make a living from dressing up in skirts and
parading onstage in disguise, today, no amount of make-up can hide w hat NATO is, and
has alw ays been: a w olf in sheep's clothing, living a pack mentality, eternally looking for a
new lamb to slaughter. Ukraine is its raison d'tre, the chance for survival in an existential
crisis.
For many years, NATO has been looking for something to do, like an odd-job man living in
a deserted ghost tow n, like a skilled factory w orker in a robotized plant, like an aging and
unemployable drag queen w ho has gone to seed and w hose pot belly turns her into the
subject of ridicule w hen she tries to stuff it into a skirt, these days playing to baw ling
audiences of drunks.
Shoot w hen you see the w hites of their
eyes, eh w hat?

When the Warsaw Pact voluntarily dissolved in 1991, NATO gave assurances that it
w ould not encroach eastw ards.

And here w as its quandary: w hile the Soviet Armed Forces w ere essentially defensive, NATO's have alw ays been offensive. So
unless it broke its promise, lied and moved eastw ards, w here w as NATO's future, and how to guarantee the livelihoods of the
thousands of administrative staff in its ranks, making a comfy living as the cutting edge of the arms lobby, controlled by the Pentagon?
Lies and hypocrisy: the modus operandi of NATO
Barack Obama and David Cameron, the pack leader and chief poodle of NATO (my apologies to real Poodles), have said that it is
unacceptable that Russian troops are operating in Ukraine. Firstly, in their positions they should either stop lying through their teeth or
else get their facts straight: there are no Russian troops operating in an official capacity in Ukraine, there may be volunteers w ho
spend their leave fighting the pro-Fascist, anti-Russian forces from Kiev, out of a sense of duty. There are also volunteers from
France, for example. Oh, la la! So w hy not impose sanctions on Paris? Secondly, w hat do they say about US and British troops on the
ground in Iraq, and Libya, and covertly, in Syria? So if it is unacceptable that Russian troops operate in Ukraine (defending Russian
speakers), w hich they are not, how is it acceptable that American and British troops w ere operating in Iraq, (w hich they w ere) outside
any auspices from any legal entity? So it is not about freedom and democracy, it is about lies and hypocrisy.
The campaigns in Iraq, Libya and Syria by NATO or NATO member States spell hypocrisy at its highest level. But then again, w hat to
expect from a military organization w hose current existence is based upon a lie (it promised not to go East and broke its w ord) and
w hich w ithout a substantial external threat cannot begin to justify its budget?
Ladies and gentlemen, NATO's budget is a staggering one point tw o trillion USD per year, every year. That is one point tw o thousand
billion USD, or one point tw o million million USD. In figures, it is 1,200,000,000,000 United States Dollars, each and every year. With that
amount of money in play, it makes no sense for them to shrug, ask w hy they still exist and disband. So they have to find a pow erful
Nemesis.
Existential crisis and self-justification
Unable to proceed w ith their w ar in Syria, blocked by President Putin's Russia w ho found a w ay round the Weapons of Mass
Destruction question w ithout firing a shot (and thus NATO w as unable to seize Russia's Mediterranean naval base), NATO w as forced
to look elsew here. Ukraine presented a perfect opportunity for NATO to beat the w ar drum, goad an obedient and subservient mass
media into making an ogre of Russia (as it had done during the Cold War), and save the military organization from its existential crisis.
Yet again the Russia message finds ready acceptance among a gullible public w hich is misinformed, in essence uneducated and
eternally hooked on regular fixes of the manipulation of fear. Not only does Ukraine provide NATO w ith a get-out-of-jail-free card and
perpetuate its existence, it also provides the energy lobby w ith massive and easily accessible quantities of shale gas. Enter the Biden
family, w ith its close connections to the energy lobby inside the new regime in Kiev. It is Biden's son, not Putin's daughter, w ith the
connections in Kiev.
Conclusion
The fact of the matter is that w ithout Ukraine, people w ould soon be asking questions about NATO's continuation as a military alliance
w ithout a foe and those w ho make a living out of it, together w ith the hundreds of thousands of jobs they create, w ould find
themselves w ithout a Patron. How ever, Ukraine is an ephemeral flash in the pan. Nobody in Russia itself considers Ukraine as a
http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/31-08-2014/128411-ukraine_existential_crisis-0/?mode=print

1/2

5.9.2014

Ukraine and NATO's existential crisis Print version. English pravda.ru

mainstay on the geo-political list of priorities for Moscow (Latin America and BRICS are far higher up the list), many are those w ho
w onder w hat is going on there in any case, and w hy, and few are those w ho think Russia needs to get involved.
Let us be honest, if Moscow w as involved, the fight today w ould be w est of Kiev. The separatist fighters do not need Russia, and if
Russia w as involved, w hy w ould they have asked for help at critical times and then complained that Russia w as not providing
support?
What NATO says does not make any sense. A dodgy satellite photo does not a case make. Remember the "w onderful foreign
intelligence" w hich proved Saddam Hussein had WMD? Satellite pics of milk factories.
Perhaps in Brussels NATO can ask itself a few questions.
1.
If it is such a pow erful alliance, how come it tried and failed to get Russia's Mediterranean base and then tried and failed to get
Russia's Crimea base?
2.
Given that NATO is a supra-national organization w ith executive pow er over the internal budgets and foreign policies of Member
States, then does this not run against the Constitutions of the same States?
3.
Why do the citizens of the Member States have to support a budget of 1.2 trillion USD a year w ithout being consulted? Is this
democracy or dictatorship by a lobby? How many of the citizens w ould vote for the continuation of this club for arms dealers, those
w ho make a living out of creating the tools of death and destruction of civilian structures?
4.
The last time NATO forces got involved w ith Russia w as in Georgia in 2008. The result w as that they ran screaming. So w hen
the going gets tough, all NATO ever does is to act like a schoolyard bully, bomb a defenseless victim from 30,000 feet and open the
gates for the other lobbies w hich dictate policy in the West to feather their nests and foster their interests.
NATO is as useless as it is illegal as a supra-national entity, it is based upon lies and criminal and murderous acts of intervention, its
leaders are w ar criminals. The only w ay it can perpetuate its useless and unw anted existence is by stirring up trouble, dividing families
and destroying societies.
Let us be sure of one thing: While NATO exists, after Ukraine, there w ill be more "Ukraines". Perhaps NATO should act democratically,
for once, and ask its citizens w hether it is w anted. Personally, I believe most of those living in its Member States can think of many
better w ays to spend one point tw o trillion USD every year.
Maybe in Brussels they can put that in their pipe and smoke it.
Tim othy Bancroft-Hinchey
Pravda.Ru
(timothy.hinchey@gmail.com)

Tim othy Bancroft-Hinchey

Copyright 1999-2014, PRAVDA.Ru. When reproducing our materials in w hole or in part, hyperlink to PRAVDA.Ru
should be made. The opinions and view s of the authors do not alw ays coincide w ith the point of view of
PRAVDA.Ru's editors.

http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/31-08-2014/128411-ukraine_existential_crisis-0/?mode=print

2/2