.
.
.
NATO was set up to counter the 'red menace' of the Soviet Union specifically, and the Warsaw Pact.
At Yalta, and Potsdam the USA, UK and the Soviet Union agreed on spheres of influence in dividing Europe after the common enemy Hitler was defeated, BUT when the reality of Soviet Power set in, even after this agreed division through spheres of influence, this upset the British in particular.......and Churchill drew up plans for an out right illegal attack and war of aggression (as termed by the Nuremberg laws) against the Soviet Union some time in 1946/1947.......but he was not elected as PM in post war elections in the UK in 1945 (rather like Brexit wholly unexpected.....ie the margin of popular opinion is so great that even the spooks could not fix it for the TPTB......and they are out of touch with popular opinion).....when this happens, we get revolutions in countries...in the case of the UK usually peaceful revolutions of the Clement Attlee type of government, run by men who had served in the empire, were proud of the British empire, BUT also realized the reality of post war Britain, and the need to follow a Socialist path that benefited the common man and women through government planning and expenditure (Mixed economy).
They would not sacrifice the aspirations of the common man in pursuit of high end state policies.
So the de-selection of the debauched, buggering, paedophile, Jew,.......and Rothschild puppet of WWII prevented another war, just after the last.
This is how the Rothschilds of London think.
The American Marshal plan further raised the tensions with the Soviet Union, because it was seen by the Soviet Union as a tool to buy American influence in otherwise Soviet spheres of influence agreed upon at Yalta and Potsdam, and also the Marshal Plan was instituted to prevent Communist Parties gaining ascendancy in Western Europe (France....with a coup bankrolled by the CIA, Italy and of course Germany)
Then the CIA sets up the Treaty of Rome in 1957, the forerunner of the EU to further bolster the anti-Communist bloc.(Yet another American instituted organisation that is becoming UNWORKABLE......for countries who are too small, and different from the German economic model, and therefore obsolete. Once a backward European country reaches $30,000 per capita income, the EU run by Germany ceases to be of any use to that country.....but rather it becomes a mere servant in a club that benefits GERMANY, primarily as a the largest economic powerhouse in the EU. Economic law of nature. )
In the security front you have Gladio terrorism in Europe run by the CIA, and Red terror groups managed by the Intelligence Community such as the Red Brigade and the Baader-Meinhoff Group. In the UK, terrorism is special and different from CIA managed Europe ......it is introduced by the IRA, an organisation run by British Intelligence and the CIA.....who are Socialists but not universal Communists, nevertheless.
The Soviet Union detonating their first atomic bomb in 1949, with the aid of Jewish scientists from the USA, further increased the 'Red Scare' scenario and the need for NATO.
Churchill speeches in the right circles, after losing his premiership bid....and talk of the 'Iron Curtain,' further increased the 'Red Scare' scenario and the need for NATO. Though he had no elected official power in the UK, in American circles, the half-American was still the most important voice from the UK.
The Berlin airlift of 1948-1949 further increased the 'Red Scare' scenario and the need for NATO. Ironically by 1945 the USA/UK wanted to permanently erase Berlin as the capital of Germany, and convert the area into a nice German forest, that you get throughout the country. Ironically still.....because of what the Germans had done in the Soviet Union 1941-1945, it was the Soviets who were/are the cities savior...and put a stop to the plan to erase the city from the pages of history.
Then there they were, the USA coming to the rescue of Berlin 3 years later........and eventually West Berlin looking more prosperous and rich visa a vi East Berlin.
The Korean war 1950-1953, further reinforced the hostility with the Soviet Union, and the perceived need for NATO.
BUT now the passage of history has changed, the 'Soviet Red menace' is no more. The charter setting up and justifying NATO no longer exists.
'The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO /ˈneɪtoʊ/; French: Organisation du Traité de l'Atlantique Nord; OTAN), also called the North Atlantic Alliance, is an intergovernmental military alliance based on the North Atlantic Treaty which was signed on 4 April 1949. The organization constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party'. ...wikipedia.
In NATO now there is no collect defense
In NATO now there is only uni-polar offense....under the direction and leadership of the Neocon USA.
The Project for a New American century (2000): 'Full Spectrum Dominance"......there is no room for 'Collective Defense' here.
CIA Afghan heroin profits for the participating boys in Afghanistan, can't forever justify NATO. Though much harm to NATO members and the further criminalisation of their security forces.
Sabre rattling against Russia with improbable lies can't forever justify NATO.
False Flag CIA terrorism of the Gladio variety in France, Germany and Belgium recently, can't forever justify NATO
The fear mongering of the ascendancy and rise of Eurasian states, from their post-colonial stupor, can't forever justify NATO.
The promotion of fake Islamic terrorism by the CIA, around the world, can't forever justify NATO
Article 1
The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
Article 2
The Parties will contribute toward the further development of peaceful and friendly international relations by strengthening their free institutions, by bringing about a better understanding of the principles upon which these institutions are founded, and by promoting conditions of stability and well-being. They will seek to eliminate conflict in their international economic policies and will encourage economic collaboration between any or all of them.
Article 3
In order more effectively to achieve the objectives of this Treaty, the Parties, separately and jointly, by means of continuous and effective self-help and mutual aid, will maintain and develop their individual and collective capacity to resist armed attack......Wikipedia.
NATO actions in the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq and Libya, ESPECIALLY.......and the Ukraine, and in Poland....and the posturing against Russia go against the fundamental tenets of NATO as it was originally constituted, though of course any good Jewish international lawyer could find any new interpretations of the 14 articles of NATO....which suits Neocon USA.
__________________________________________________
Gen. Mercier Says NATO Too Focused on Deploying Troops Abroad
by Jason Ditz, at antiwar.com
With most of the political leadership in other NATO member nations lash US President-elect Donald Trump for calling the alliance “obsolete,” he doesn’t appear to be alone, with top NATO commander Gen. Denis Mercier saying he agrees that there are parts of NATO which are absolutely obsolete.
Gen. Mercier is France’s Air Force Chief of Staff as well as NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Transformation, and says he believes NATO is far too focused on deploying troops abroad, and sending expeditionary forces into various countries, singling out Afghanistan in particular.
Mercier argued that NATO should revamp its anti-terror efforts to focus on helping countries develop their own long-term plans for counter-terrorism operations instead of just deploying NATO troops around the world.
The Supreme Allied Command Transformation (ACT) is meant to focus on future threats, and its express purpose is to modernize parts of NATO that are approaching obsolescence. It is not wholly surprising, then, that the commander would see significant parts of NATO that are obsolete, though the fact that he was willing to public affirm as much right now reflects a major break with the political leadership, which is desperate to present NATO as both relevant and irreplaceable.
.
