Question for EU – Is it time to leave NATO?

 

While NATO officials are preparing for a July summit in Warsaw, European social activists and prominent politicians have launched a new anti-NATO campaign, protesting against the bloc’s nuclear buildup and anti-Russia provocations, French journalist Karel Vereycken told Sputnik

 

“NATO and the EU are complementary, and we already work more closely together than ever before,” Stoltenberg told Poland.pl, adding that the two blocs conduct a coordinated policy to counter the Russian “threat.”

“The EU delivered economic sanctions, and NATO delivered the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War,” he emphasized.

However, it would be an exaggeration to say that the Europeans are unanimously welcoming the summit and its controversial and provocative agenda.


Let’s face it – as it is EU is serving more and more as some sort of the political wing of NATO and less and less as the factor of European cooperation on economical, political and social levels. Continuing with current trends will certainly bring both EU and NATO to a point of self-destruction – the only way for EU to reinvent itself and regain trust and support of people is to distance itself from NATO which is completely controlled by USA and their main henchman in Europe – UK. 
In my opinion the best solution would be – UK out of EU and EU out of NATO. And it seems that similar opinion is shared by a growing number of citizens of EU. 

Following the event announcement, European social activists and prominent politicians have drawn up a petition entitled “The Warsaw Summit Prepares for War, It’s Time to Leave NATO Now!”

“The upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw on July 8-9 is expected to be yet another provocation against Russia. By this call, we, the undersigned, want to say ‘stop’ to this nuclear escalation before the irreparable occurs!” the petition translated in German, Italian and French languages reads.

“We the undersigned see that NATO is carrying out a provocative policy of ‘encirclement’,” the authors of the petition continue, referring to the Alliance’s continuous expansion towards the Russian borders; the deployment of the Aegis anti-missile defense system in Romania, Poland, Turkey and Spain; NATO’s military buildup in the Baltic States, Poland and Romania; and the creation of a “Nordic Front” against Russia, comprised of Denmark, Iceland and Norway as well as of NATO partner states Sweden and Finland.

The petition has called attention to the fact that the modernization of nuclear weapons by the US and stationing new B61-12 guided nuclear bombs in Europe, poses a grave threat to the EU’s security, evoking disturbing memories of the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.

It urges European leaders to adopt a policy of the “empty chair” at the Warsaw NATO Summit of 2016 and to leave the Alliance, which no longer has any ‘raison d’être’ in order to put an end to this threat.

Europeans know that Russia does not pose any danger to the EU. Bruce Konviser of Deutsche Welle reported Thursday that ahead of the summit NATO “is struggling to assemble four battalions to safeguard its eastern flank from a possible Russian attack.”

“The US, Britain, and a reluctant Germany have each agreed to lead one multinational battalion. But so far NATO’s other major players, France and Italy are balking at leading the fourth battalion,” Konviser writes, adding that at the same time many Alliance’s member states are “falling short of their economic commitments” to NATO.

The Alliance has outlived itself, having lost its ‘raison d’être’ back in the 1990s, when its adversaries — the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact — ceased to exist.

Source: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20160602/1040675105/leave-nato-europeans-petition.html


Apart from UK, the most aggressive supporters of increased NATO presence close to the Russian borders happen to be the most loyal allies of Nazi Germany in World War II. Coincidence? I don’t think so! Playing with the fires of war might get them and their masters from the other side of Atlantic Ocean to where Nazi Germany found itself in 1945. 

The Europeans have let themselves become drawn into an ‘insane march on Russia’ so that the US can satisfy its global interests, but this might lead to very catastrophic consequences.

True Motive for Libya Intervention

 

What are true motives for Libya intervention – Hillary Clinton emails revelations

 

by

 

Newly disclosed emails show that Libya’s plan to create a gold-backed currency to compete with the euro and dollar was a motive for NATO’s intervention.

 

The New Year’s Eve release of over 3,000 new Hillary Clinton emails from the State Department has CNN abuzz over gossipy text messages, the “who gets to ride with Hillary” selection process set up by her staff, and how a “cute” Hillary photo fared on Facebook.

But historians of the 2011 NATO war in Libya will be sure to notice a few of the truly explosive confirmations contained in the new emails: admissions of rebel war crimes, special ops trainers inside Libya from nearly the start of protests, Al Qaeda embedded in the U.S. backed opposition, Western nations jockeying for access to Libyan oil, the nefarious origins of the absurd Viagra mass rape claim, and concern over Qaddafi’s gold and silver reserves threatening European currency.

Hillary’s Death Squads

A March 27, 2011, intelligence brief [archived here] on Libya, sent by long time close adviser to the Clintons and Hillary’s unofficial intelligence gatherer, Sidney Blumenthal, contains clear evidence of war crimes on the  part of NATO-backed rebels. Citing a rebel commander source “speaking in strict confidence” Blumenthal reports to Hillary [emphasis mine]:

Under attack from allied Air and Naval forces, the Libyan Army troops have begun to desert to the rebel side in increasing numbers. The rebels are making an effort to greet these troops as fellow Libyans, in an effort to encourage additional defections.

(Source Comment: Speaking in strict confidence, one rebel commander stated that his troopscontinue to summarily execute all foreign mercenaries captured in the fighting…).

While the illegality of extra-judicial killings is easy to recognize (groups engaged in such are conventionally termed “death squads”), the sinister reality behind the “foreign mercenaries” reference might not be as immediately evident to most.

While over the decades Gaddafi was known to make use of European and other international security and infrastructural contractors, there is no evidence to suggest that these were targeted by the Libyan rebels.

There is, however, ample documentation by journalists, academics, and human rights groups demonstrating that black Libyan civilians and sub-Saharan contract workers, a population favored by Gaddafi in his pro-African Union policies, were targets of “racial cleansing” by rebels who saw black Libyans as tied closely with the regime.[1]

Black Libyans were commonly branded as “foreign mercenaries” by the rebel opposition for their perceived general loyalty to Gaddafi as a community and subjected to torture, executions, and their towns “liberated” by ethnic cleansing. This is demonstrated in the most well-documented example of Tawergha, an entire town of 30,000 black and “dark-skinned” Libyans which vanished by August 2011 after its takeover by NATO-backed NTC Misratan brigades.

These attacks were well-known as late as 2012 and often filmed, as this report from The Telegraphconfirms:

After Muammar Gaddafi was killed, hundreds of migrant workers from neighboring states were imprisoned by fighters allied to the new interim authorities. They accuse the black Africans of having been mercenaries for the late ruler. Thousands of sub-Saharan Africans have been rounded up since Gaddafi fell in August.

t appears that Clinton was getting personally briefed on the battlefield crimes of her beloved anti-Gaddafi fighters long before some of the worst of these genocidal crimes took place.

Al-Qaeda and Western Special Forces Inside Libya

The same intelligence email from Sydney Blumenthal also confirms what has become a well-known theme of Western supported insurgencies in the Middle East: the contradiction of special forces training militias that are simultaneously suspected of links to Al Qaeda.

Blumenthal relates that “an extremely sensitive source” confirmed that British, French, and Egyptian special operations units were training Libyan militants along the Egyptian-Libyan border, as well as in Benghazi suburbs.

While analysts have long speculated as to the “when and where” of Western ground troop presence in the Libyan War, this email serves as definitive proof that special forces were on the ground only within a month of the earliest protests which broke out in the middle to end of February 2011 in Benghazi.

By March 27 of what was commonly assumed a simple “popular uprising” external special operatives were already “overseeing the transfer of weapons and supplies to the rebels” including “a seemingly endless supply of AK47 assault rifles and ammunition.”

Yet only a few paragraphs after this admission, caution is voiced about the very militias these Western special forces were training because of concern that, “radical/terrorist groups such as the Libyan Fighting Groups and Al Qa’ida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) are infiltrating the NLC and its military command.”

The Threat of Libya’s Oil and Gold to French Interests

Though the French-proposed U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973 claimed the no-fly zone implemented over Libya was to protect civilians, an April 2011 email [archived here] sent to Hillary with the subject line “France’s client and Qaddafi’s gold” tells of less noble ambitions.

The email identifies French President Nicholas Sarkozy as leading the attack on Libya with five specific purposes in mind: to obtain Libyan oil, ensure French influence in the region, increase Sarkozy’s reputation domestically, assert French military power, and to prevent Gaddafi’s influence in what is considered “Francophone Africa.”

Most astounding is the lengthy section delineating the huge threat that Gaddafi’s gold and silver reserves, estimated at “143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver,” posed to the French franc (CFA) circulating as a prime African currency. In place of the noble sounding “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine fed to the public, there is this “confidential” explanation of what was really driving the war [emphasis mine]:

This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar. This plan was designed to provide the Francophone African Countries with an alternative to the French franc (CFA).

(Source Comment: According to knowledgeable individuals this quantity of gold and silver is valued at more than $7 billion. French intelligence officers discovered this plan shortly after the current rebellion began, and this was one of the factors that influenced President Nicolas Sarkozy’s decision to commit France to the attack on Libya.)

Though this internal email aims to summarize the motivating factors driving France’s (and by implication NATO’s) intervention in Libya, it is interesting to note that saving civilian lives is conspicuously absent from the briefing.

Instead, the great fear reported is that Libya might lead North Africa into a high degree of economic independence with a new pan-African currency.

French intelligence “discovered” a Libyan initiative to freely compete with European currency through a local alternative, and this had to be subverted through military aggression.

Please follow the LINK to finish reading of the original article


 

Sources:

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/01/06/new-hillary-emails-reveal-true-motive-for-libya-intervention/

Slouching Towards Sirte

New Hillary Emails Reveal Propaganda, Executions, Coveting Libyan Oil and Gold