NATO: An Entity Set on Disaster: Edition 2: Expanded and Reworked

By Hans Myrebro

Ever since its creation in 1949, when the United States was already a significant nuclear power, the organization has constantly worked to create conflicts that have been able to enrich its own arms industry. As Johan Galtung put it: "The conflict could have been resolved with a little patience and creativity, but NATO does not want solutions. It uses conflict as raw material it can process into interventions to tell the world that it is the strongest in military terms.”

The period after 1992 is therefore cluttered with 251 examples of military interventions in various states, from NATO as a whole or from individual member states, with democracy as a pretext. This according to the USA's Congressional Research Service, March 2022. But NATO has never tried to resolve any conflicts – peaceful solutions do not bring any profits to a military power.

The latest example of this is the war in Ukraine. From the beginning, there was no conflict between Russia and Ukraine. It must be created by the US with the help of the EU. It was created by these powers, politicized and militarized by various NATO states, and now we are seeing the results. It is important, not least for school youth, students that they get a different version than the mainstream gives of what is happening geopolitically. A version that is not agenda-based but where the ambition is an accurate description of a conflict-filled world. The book: "NATO - an Entity set on Disaster," contributes strongly to providing a fact-based, comprehensive and sustainable picture of what is happening.

• Language: English
• Publisher: AuthorHouse UK
• Release date: Jul 9, 2023
• ISBN: 9798823083508

Hans Myrebro

Hans Myrebro, is a good pseudonym when you as a writer write critically about a war organization that demands general submission. I am a Swedish retired teacher with an academic background. At the age of 73 I started writing books in the field of geo-politics. So far there have been six books that you can find on my website; www.Historiskt Korrekt.se . I have also managed to write and have published approximately sixty articles on political topics. Articles have then been published on Swedish and international political sites.

Book preview

© 2023 Hans Myrebro. All rights reserved.

No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or

transmitted by any means without the written permission of the author.

Published by AuthorHouse   07/06/2023

ISBN: 979-8-8230-8349-2 (sc)

ISBN: 979-8-8230-8350-8 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2023912342

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Getty Images are models,

and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Getty Images.

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or

links contained in this book may have changed since publication and

may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those

of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher,

and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Contents

Introduction

NATO: An Entity Set on Disaster

A Successful Destabilization of the Balkans

Kosovo

The Destruction of Iraq

The Dirty War Against Syria

The Revolution

Israel’s Involvement in Middle East Chaos

The Ukrainian Crisis

Crimea, and the Illegal Annexation in 1954

A Neoconservative Agenda

NATO: An Organization Without Credibility

A Globalized and Colonialist NATO

With Russophobia as the Cornerstone

Danse Macabre

NATO as a Terrorist Organization

Vladimir Putin Has the Floor

We Are Forced to Think of the Unthinkable

Summary

Appendix

Notes, Literature

Introduction

T he Bilderberg Group has rightly been singled out as a hidden world government which is vigorously drawing up guidelines over the heads of heads of state in the Western world, and which has drawn up goals for a global future for certain organizations. This group has recently strengthened its influence and identified NATO as a future world army in development, in practice led by and fully controlled by the United States. ¹

There is thus every reason to examine NATO, which describes itself as a defense organization and which has been active for more than sixty years. One can begin by asking whether in our time it justifies the term defense organization and what it is intended to defend.

In recent years, NATO has hardly been threatened by any foreign power and no defense war has ever been fought. No, on closer inspection, one gets a completely different view and it turns out that destabilization and destruction have been the result of their actions in a number of civilized and relatively developed countries.

How then is NATO governed? Officially through its highest body with a secretary general and through the governments of the various member states, but it is interesting to note that behind the formal decisions there is an Israeli-American phalanx that dictates the information with an iron fist. We are talking about the neoconservatives of the United States, whose influence in Washington seems to be totalitarian.

Around 1990, NATO completely changed its character, which was necessary because of the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc and the Warsaw Pact. Now NATO needed to come up with new enemies, whether fictitious or real. This book will show how well NATO has succeeded in creating reasons for their interventions, and what catastrophic impacts have been left behind in the social structures of the countries concerned, especially in the Middle East.

But the disasters they created did not frighten or phase NATO; and today, June 2020, they are looking for new adventures. Ashton Carter, the US Secretary of Defense, announced at a rally in Singapore in 2016 that the United States will remain the most powerful and main military guarantor of security in the Asian region for decades, and there should be no doubt about that.

The clear message is that the country that is arming itself a little too much will be punished — and then it may be good to have NATO countries intervene to restrain their development.² How can you even imagine NATO as a defense organization? The organization’s completely dominant member, the United States, during the period after 1945 and until now has started forty wars against various states under the pretext of protecting civilians. If you consider other parts of the organization gathered in Europe, this hardly gives any security.

The task of a defense organization must be to defend the Member States and, of course, the best way to do this is to establish good relations with the neighbors. But NATO, this global monster, has completely different ambitions than to create peace — and has treated their great neighbor to the east, who has often extended his hand in cooperation and reconciliation, with ferocity. The world-famous peace researcher Johan Galtung describes the US-NATO strategy as follows:

"Yes, US-led NATO is globalizing, like the US-led finance economy. No doubt also for it to protect the latter, ‘the free market.’ It is a classic case of overstretching to help save the crumbling US Empire and Western influence in general, by countries most of whom are bankrupt by their own economic mismanagement. All their interventions today share two characteristics.

The conflict could have been resolved with a little patience and creativity, but NATO does not want solutions. It uses conflict as raw material it can process into interventions to tell the world that it is the strongest in military terms. And with the help of the mainstream media, it sees Hitler everywhere, Milošević, bin Laden, Hussein, Gaddafi, and in Assad, insensitive to the enormous differences between all these cases." ³

Former UN Secretary-General Dennis Halliday gives NATO a similar rating when he says that today’s NATO is more aggressive than before and that it is constantly looking for non-existent enemies with whom it rejects dialogue and instead prioritizes war. According to him, there is nothing adult and civilized in NATO and its leadership.⁴

Hans Myrebro

NATO: An Entity

Set on Disaster

W estern leaders must stand up to the United States — leave NATO to avoid nuclear war. — Paul Craig Roberts , former Deputy Editor-in-Chief of the Wall Street Journal and former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury in the United States, as well as a writer.

Do not squat when he presents his heavy and well-thought-out message. What he is saying is that we are on the brink of a precipice — where blind leaders have taken us. And Paul Craig Roberts is not alone in his warning as he continues with intellectual acumen.⁵

"NATO is the most dangerous force on earth for every European country and for the whole world."

NATO has proven this on its own by breaking up a number of states in recent years and wiping out hundreds of thousands of people. So let’s take this from the beginning and examine how it all began and what satanic forces are pushing us forward towards the precipice.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO, was founded in 1949. The idea and intention was that a number of European countries with the United States as the self-appointed leader would form a defense alliance where each country would stand in solidarity with the others in the event that any country was threatened. The alliance’s first secretary general, Lord Ismay, described the organization’s goal as "keeping the Russians out, the Americans in and the Germans down." The cape was of course directed towards the Soviet Union and in 1955 the Warsaw Pact was created. The motivation was defense against what was perceived as an aggressive enemy — offensive warfare was then out of the question.

image1.jpg

NATO’s extension with old and new states.

The treaty has not fundamentally changed over the years, but the ambition is now completely different than in the 1950s. Among other things, a concept has been added which means that NATO can intervene militarily without any of the member states being subjected to an attack. On the other hand, NATO member states have never had to fight a real defense war. Until the early 1980s, however, NATO played an important security role against an aggressive and heavily armed and determined Soviet. At the same time, over the years, they have accumulated a lot of weapons that they would like to use and the result has been that the defense alliance has changed shape and now engages in war efforts that can almost be described as giant terrorist wars.

image2.jpeg

The fall of the Berlin Wall appears to be an

important symbol of the fall of the Soviet Union.

The big turning point came when the Berlin Wall fell in 1989, and the collapse of the Soviet Union, closely followed by German reunification in 1991. Following these political, military, and not least socially important events President Bush the Elder could promise Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev that NATO would no longer expand a single inch towards the east — something that was a lie from the beginning. And even though no sensible task could be found for NATO, the organization was unfortunately not closed down.

Russian President Gorbachev had put forward a serious proposal to create a Greater Europe, including Russia. But this proposal put an end to the United States. For it in practice meant that the United States had lost its grip on Europe.

The United States’ promise not to expand to the east was broken only in the late 1990s when Boris Yeltsin was ousted and Vladimir Putin had begun to take an iron grip on power, which, however, did not formally take place until January 2000.

But the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 had made the Americans overjoyed, and plans soon began for how the situation could be exploited.

A very strong political force in the United States was a newly formed group of neoconservatives. Their ideology was, among other things, that the form of democracy over which they had power in the United States should be applied by force as a last resort. Dictatorships with large commodity resources were of most interest. The Soviets had opposed the United States’ unilateral efforts. When this resistance was gone along with the fall of the Soviet Union, the neoconservatives in the United States wanted to realize their agenda of global hegemony. These neoconservatives are a very strong political force in the United States. Many of its followers are Jews, and those who are not are Christians — completely devoted to Israel. According to former Wall Street editor-in-chief Max Boot, "This is a founding principle of neoconservatism." ⁶

image3.jpeg

The map shows some of the NATO bases

that surrounded Russia and China. No, it

is not these countries that want war, but

the "defense organization NATO."

The American neoconservative journalist Charles Krauthammer summed up in 1992 in the Washington Post:

"We are an overwhelming global power. We are history’s designated custodians of the international system. When the Soviet Union fell, something new was born, something utterly new - a unipolar world dominated by a