NATO - BZDURA I ZWYKLA ILUZJA BEZPIECZENSTWA

[moscicki]

Jak czytamy w Gazecie: NATO sie zmienia i rozszerza. Ma byc "wielkim forum
dyskusji". Co za bzdura wymyslona przez eurodyskutantow i europolitykow. Jak
tak dalej pojdzie to w Nato za piec lat bedzie Rosja, Chiny i Wietnam. Z
konkretnej organizacji o charakterze obronnym NATO zmienia w jeszcze jedna
niewydolna europejska (ba wszechswiatowa) organizacje "nie wiadomo po co".
Niech sie nikt w Polsce nie ludzi, ze w razie potrzeby ktokolwiek przyjdzie nam
z pomoca. Bo niby przed kim? Przed jej wlasnymi czlonkami? Nie zebym odmawial
jakiemukolwiek krajowi (np. Rumunii, Bulgarii) prawa do bezpieczenstwa. Ale
rozszerzaniu NATO powinno towarzyszyc takie zmienianie jego statutu, aby
GWARANCJE BEZPIECZENSTWA nie ulegly rozmyciu i nie zmienily sie w akt "dobrej
woli" pozostalych czlonkow. Przeciez Lige Narodow i jej wspanialy sukces w
postaci drugiej wojny swiatowej juz znamy.... W imieniu wlasnym z gory dziekuje
za powtorke....

Ktokolwiek ma inna opinie?

[Gość: jj]

....tak....poprostu mam to w dupie na samym dnie

[Gość: jojo]

Gość portalu: jj napisał(a):

> ....tak....poprostu mam to w dupie na samym dnie

Sluchaj przyjacielu! W jednym kraju zyjemy! Nie podszywaj sie wiecej pod nick-a
mojego,a moze szanowac sie bedziemy,OK?

[Gość: jj]

przeciesz jj to nie jojo...no nie?

To nie Europa rozszerza NATO

[Gość: Bert]

Prosze nie zartowac.

February 1, 2000

The Fatuous Mind of
Condolezza Rice

Few elections in US history have been as of little significance as this year's contest. Whoever is
sworn in next January, we can be pretty sure that the same countries will continue to be bombed; the
same countries "contained"; the same countries "deterred"; the same countries starved and frozen
into submission; the same countries lectured about their shortcomings. The IMF and the World Bank
will continue as ubiquitous adjuncts to US foreign policy. USAID and the NED will continue promoting
their hapless clients. For evidence one need look no further than the January/February issue of
Foreign Affairs. It contains an article by Condolezza Rice grandly entitled "Promoting the National
Interest." Condolezza Rice is, of course, one of George W. Bush's chief advisers and widely touted as
the next Secretary of State.
...As Rice drones on, she sounds indistinguishable from Strobe Talbott, Lawrence Summers,
Richard Holbrooke and the rest of the Clinton crowd. She is wholeheartedly in favor of further NATO
expansion: "The door to NATO for the remaining states of eastern and central Europe should remain
open." She is concerned about the European Security and Defense Identity, because it might - horror!
- undermine US leadership: "The United States has an interest in shaping the European defense
identity -welcoming a greater European military capability as long as it is within the context of NATO."


June 15, 2000

The summer issue of the National Interest contains the second installment, entitled
"Living with a New Europe," of a trilogy of essays on the current global condition.
The article is typical of Brzezinski's work in that it rarely rarely rises above the
simple-minded "We're number 1!" posturing of the Wall Street Journal editorial
page. Brzezinski wants NATO expansion; US global dominance; Russian
subordination; and NATO operating "out of area," particularly in the region he calls
"the Eurasian Balkans" - the area that extends from the Eastern shore of the Black
Sea to China, and includes the Caspian Sea with its oil and gas resources. Currently,
he is a consultant to BP Amoco, which has extensive oil interests in the Caspian.
...
In the National Interest, he informs us with delight that Europe is a "de facto
military protectorate of the United States." He admits that "this situation
necessarily generates tensions and resentments," but, hell, the Europeans will just
have to lump it because "the existing asymmetry in power�is likely to widen even
further in America's favor�.And that in turn means that America in all likelihood
will also remain the dominant partner in the transatlantic alliance for the first
quarter of the twenty-first century." Brzezinski can barely disguise his contempt for
Europe�

�So NATO is here to stay. But what exactly is it supposed to do? Brzezinski mumbles
vaguely about alleged threats to Europe: "The European polity, situated on the
western edge of Eurasia and in the immediate proximity of Africa, is more exposed
to the risks inherent in rising global tumult than the politically more cohesive,
militarily more powerful and geographically more isolated America." He tries
flogging the dead horse of a threat from the East. "The Europeans will be more
immediately at risk if a chauvinistic imperialism should again motivate Russian
foreign policy." But his heart is not really in it. He has something else in mind.
Brzezinski has said many times before that the goal of US policy should be "to
perpetuate America's own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably
longer still." Hence the need for NATO expansion. Testifying before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee in 1997, Brzezinski explained that NATO's
enlargement was not about security at all. It was "about America's role in Europe -
whether America will remain a European power and whether a larger democratic
Europe will remain organically linked to America." It was also about Russia's
relationship to Europe, "whether NATO's enlargement helps a democratizing Russia
by foreclosing the revival of any self-destructive imperial temptations regarding
Central Europe." And it was also about bringing "into NATO counsels new, solidly
democratic and very pro-American nations." Zbig makes no bones about it - NATO
enlargement is about the expansion of the American empire. Proof that Russian
democracy is viable will come when it lies down abjectly before NATO. If it refuses
to do so, that will be proof for the necessity of NATO. As for the new members of
NATO, they will be so grateful to the Americans that they will counter the malign
anti-American influence of the French.

The Europeans are not stupid and can see clearly what Brzezinski's America is up to.
Germany is lukewarm, to say the least, about further NATO expansion, particularly
into the Baltic - an issue close to Brzezinski's heart. Last week Chancellor Gerhard
Schroeder visited Estonia. At his first press conference on Schroeder did not
mention NATO once, talking instead about the need to support democratic reforms
in Russia. When he finally did get around to talking about NATO expansion, he told
his hosts that he did not want to "set any schedules." "Every country should have a
right to be invited to join NATO," he explained, "but we did not want to set exact
terms, trying to avoid the postponement of these terms if some countries would not
be prepared for membership." France, too, objects to further NATO expansion. The
candidates for membership are suspected of being in cahoots with Washington.
According to a recent article in the New York Times President Jacques Chirac of
France asked Poland's Foreign Minister Geremek whether he wanted Poland "to be
part of Europe or be 'the 51st state'." One Polish official complains: "The French fear
that if they enlarge NATO they'll get more American Trojan horses." France has
insisted that the new European defense corps should comprise forces from current
European Union members only. Since Poland is not expected to belong to the EU for
at least another five years and probably more, it is resolutely being kept out of the
picture. Moreover, the Russian proposal to create a joint European and Russian
theater antimissile defense system - whether feasible or not - is looked on much
more favorably in Europe than the US idea to build a strategic shield to defend the
United States�

What is bizarre about Brzezinski is that although he grasps that the sole purpose of
NATO today is the extension of US dominance over Europe, he still refuses to
believe that the Europeans will do anything serious to upset his house of cards.