NATO glorifies its decline by Thierry Meyssan  http://www.voltairenet.org/NATO-glorifies-its-decline
The 25th NATO summit ignored the nagging question which has haunted the Organization since the collapse of the Soviet Union: what is its real utility to the ensemble of its members, outside the United Kingdom and the U.S. Any questions concerning the massacre of 160,000 Libyans or a cessation of the attack on Syria having been disallowed, the heads of state were simply commanded to finance the military industrial complex of the U.S.

President Barack Obama receiving those invited to the opening of the summit (here in conversation with the High Commissioner of the European Commnunity, Baroness Ashton).

The NATO summit draws together not only the heads of state of its 28 member states but also the delegates of 32 other countries, revealing the global dimensions of the Organization.


Officially, it was to consider three main issues:

How to exert control over Central Asia?

How to deal with [impose?] more efficiently [with] the budget restraints imposed by the financial crisis?

How to deploy an offensive weapon system against Russia and China?
The choice of Chicago for the NATO summit is obvious given President Obama’s political origins and that it is today governed by Mayor Rahm Emanuel, former Obama chief of staff, hawk and Israeli army officer.
A host committee was composed by the Bilderberg Group [1] centered around Madeleine Albright, Chairman of the NDI/NED [2] and John H. Bryan, who sits on the Board of Directors of Goldman Sachs.
Outside the conference hall, there was no lack of opposition groups demonstrating against the NATO Alliance [3]. The unrest challenged the city’s ability to maintain order and tarnished the image of the summit. Notwithstanding, NATO used the disturbance to keep the press occupied; while the journalists were focused on police excesses going on outside the conference [4], the heads of state could discuss their arrangements in secret.

The Summit of the CSTO, the Collective Security Treaty Organization, meeting on May 15, 2012. It may be less grandiose than NATO but it is capable of mounting resistance to it.

Controlling Central Asia

The allied intervention in Afghanistan was planned by the Anglo-Saxons even before the September 11th attacks although these were used to justify it and bring its Allies on board. [5] It was tailored to respond to the specific interests of the Coalition—as a pincer maneuver against Iran once Iraq was invaded; as a way of limiting the Russian zone of influence in the Muslim states formerly in the U.S.S.R.; as a means of opening a pathway for the exploitation of Caspian petroleum; as a way of controlling the world market of drugs derived from poppies; and lastly, to obtain access to huge reserves of precious minerals.Ten years later, the attack on Iran remains postponed while the relations of the U.S. with Russia and China become ever more strained. Just before the summit, Washington concluded an emergency strategic pact with Kabul. The recent troop withdrawal cannot conceal the Pentagon’s long-term plans to remain in-country. Ironically, the Western countries need to maintain troops in Afghanistan to threaten Russian interests in Central Asia but need to pass through Russian territory in order to provision those same troops.In recent years, Moscow created a military pact with its old Soviet partners, the Collective Treaty Security Organization, the CTSO. Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan joined, though without Azerbajan. Moscow and Bejing then established the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Its initial goal was narrowly conceived to prevent Anglo-Saxon interference in Central Asia but it is evolving into a military pact. The SCO came to include, either as observers or partners, Mongolia and the states of the Indian sub-continent, still without Azerbajan.The principal question of the Chicago summit was not to establish if Allied troops are necessary for the stabilization of Afghanistan or whether their mission is finished [6] but whether the Allies are prepared to carry forward an encroachment on Russian territory (and Chinese while they’re at it). Since then, the decision of President Francois Hollande to pull French troops out as soon as possible should be understood for what it is, not simply to bring an end to an aberrant colonial expedition but above all to refuse to participate in Anglo-Saxon imperial strategy arrayed against Russia and China in Central Asia.

Russia’s response to the Anglo-Saxon plan was made clear in the agenda of its president.
May 7—President Putin is inaugurated.May 8—Dmitry Medvedev is nominated Prime Minister May 9—Commemoration of victory over Nazi Germany May 10—Visit of the Russian military-industrial establishment May 11—Reception for the President of May 12—Reception for the President of South Ossetia May 14-15—Informal meeting with heads of state of the CTSO

Things couldn’t be clearer. The new mandate of Vladimir Putin will be directed towards protecting Russian markets and defending its Allies.In a gesture of appeasement, NATO invited to the Chicago Summit the presidents of the member-states of the CTSO, who all made the trip, with the exception of Vladimir Putin.

Signing ceremony of the aerial ground surveillance program, the AGS. Those who will pay its costs are here nailed to the pillory by photographers: “Smile, you’re going to pay. And cut expenses.”

Slashing expenditures

While the Pentagon itself has been calling to cut expenditures, the ex-Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, demanded that the Allies make a significant effort to expand their military budget to compensate for reductions by the United States [7]. The Pentagon was later obliged to witness the sight of its Allies in their turn succumb to the U.S. financial crisis. Since then, the thinking has turned to the possibilities of spending reductions (what the spokespeople refer to as “intelligent defense”) it being construed that up to this point they were stupidly just throwing more money out the window

 [8].

In terms of armament, spending less implies buying weapons manufactured in in very large series. In practice this means that the Allies should abandon producing their own weapons and must instead buy from the largest manufacturer, that is to say the USA. The problem is that for the Allies this involves a loss of sovereignty, loss of jobs, and the obligation to continue supporting the dollar and thus the U.S. deficit. In summary, to be defended, the Allies have to sacrifice their defense industry - if they still have one - and offer their currencies to the Big U.S. Brother.


President Obama was awaiting his guests, sales catalogue in hand. This year, drones were at a premium. The summit approved a purchase program of aerial surveillance that has been under discussion for a decade [9]. The idea of combining drones with the purchase of cargo planes built by Euro-American consortiums was abandoned exclusively in favor of drones made in USA. This is a long-expected catastrophe for the firms EADS (Germany), Thales (France), Indra (Spain), Galileo Avionica (Italy), Dutch Space (Netherlands) and General Dynamics (Canada). The great victors of the summit were the U.S. firms, Northrup Grumman and Raytheon, which received 3 billion Euros in orders. The total cost is to be divided by NATO’s thirteen member states. France and Britain succeeded in escaping this hornet’s nest and will contribute their own materiel to the program.


Additionally, the Pentagon succeeded in imposing rule modifications governing the internal functioning of the Alliance to ensure the possibility of using NATO effectively “a la carte”. Historically, the organization was established to mobilize as an ensemble if one of its members was attacked. Today, Washington determines its colonial objectives and then creates a coalition ad hoc. For example, an alliance centered on France and the United Kingdom was formed to destroy Libya. The Germans did not participate. Yet they did assemble the fleet of AWACS surveillance planes. A moment of disorganization occurred before the coalition was able to utilize the materiel. Consequently, the Pentagon demanded the right to requisition materiel from their Allies should they refuse to take part in a coalition. From this perspective, “intelligent defense” basically means treating the Allies like idiots.Threatening Russia and China

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO Secretary General (shown here in conversation with Thomas Vecchiolla, sales director at Raytheon) inaugurating an exhibition that will explain the benefits of the “anti-missile shield” to Alliance members.

To eliminate the Russian and Chinese nuclear deterrent, the United States envisions protecting itself from enemy missiles to be able to launch theirs without fear of reprisals. This is the underlying principle of the “missile shield.” At the moment, interceptor missiles capable of destroying the ultra-sophisticated Russian and Chinese anti-ballistic missiles in flight do not exist. Under the phony rubric of “missile shield”, the Pentagon plans to deploy a radar system capable of surveilling global airspace and installing as closely as possible a ring of threatening missiles aimed at Russia and China.The U.S. Defense Department has already negotiated with a great number of countries agreements to install the missile shield. It also promotes military pacts among those states that enter into them. For example, the U.S. invited Jordan and Morocco to join the Cooperation Council of the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC), making it into a sort of refurbished Bagdad Pact [10]. In short, it employs a soothing discourse to mask its real intentions. Directed at people what haven’t looked at a globe lately, it explains with a straight face that installations positioned in Central Europe are not aimed at Russia but instead are there to intercept Iranian missiles launched at the U.S taking the long way around.

The Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sergei Lavrov, expressed the support of Russia for the Syrian President Bashar el-Assad. (Damascus, February 12, 2007) More than 100,000 Russian nationals reside in Syria. They deploy notably the S300 antimissile system capable of holding NATO at bay.

No accountability

The Chicago Summit is important for the subjects it broached, and as important for the issues it dodged: the destruction of Libya and the pull-back from Syria. In every organization, the leaders are obliged to present an annual report on their activities. Not NATO. That is probably a good thing giving that their recent record is not flattering.Since the last summit was held, the Alliance has won a war against an enemy that did not fight a battle. Muammar Kadhafi, believing he could negotiate until the end, forbade his army to counterattack the fleet and forces of the Alliance. The war, the real one, was limited to the siege of Tripoli. Everyone knew that the population was armed and that entering the city would result in a bloodbath. Knowing that the Allies were opposed to such a course, NATO Supreme Commander Admiral James Stavridis therefore did not bring the subject up before the Atlantic Council. Instead, he organized a secret meeting in Naples where only states already fully aligned were present. According to our sources, France was represented by Alain Juppé [11] The decision therefore was taken unbeknownst to certain Allies. In the aftermath, NATO conquered Tripoli within a week, the military commander of the capital, General Albarrani Shkal, having demobilized his men and offered the city to the invading force for several million dollars. Drones and combat helicopters easily massacred tens of thousands of inhabitants who thought they could defend their country with Kalachnikovs. NATO, supposedly intervening to protect civilians, killed in total 160,000 people, officially without suffering any losses In Chicago, the heads of state might discuss the logistical challenges of the war on Libya but not the Supreme Commander’s coup de force nor the political outcome that followed the annihilation of the Libyan state and the installation in power of the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda. The same limits on discussion were placed at the summit with respect to Syria. The spokesmen who had employed the same pretext to target Damascus that they had for Tripoli—the so-called “Arab spring—had a ready-made explanation for backing down: any international military intervention on their part might unleash a civil war. It is obviously more convenient to say this than to acknowledge a pull-back due to a shift in the balance of power. Russia has deployed in Syria one of the world’s best system of anti-aircraft defenses. It may not prevent the bombing of the country but is capable of inflicting severe losses on NATO air forces. The game’s not worth the candle, as can be seen in the final declaration of the Summit which in its substance did not justify a reunion of sixty heads of state: “We are following the evolution of the Syrian crisis with growing concern and firmly support the current efforts of the U.N. and the Arab League and the full implementation of the Annan 6-point plan.” [12]