NATO is a tool of US state terrorism

.
(post-scriptum on the footsteps of the telecast on the Moldavian television channel Public TV).

The issues of terrorism over the past 20 years have become a concern for government policies in many countries.
In my opinion in Europe there are two authors who most succinctly answered the question of what terrorism is. These are Professor Dmitry Olshansky (Russia) and Professor Gabriel Dulea (Romania). In their works, they give the reader a clear idea of ​​the classification of terrorism. I, in turn, will add a new definition state terrorism superpowers. So who carries the palm in this kind of terrorism? As you guessed it - the United States and NATO.
And if the number of victims of individual terrorist organizations per year is about 1000 people per year, then the official figures below are terrifying.


"US antiterrorist operation" with 2001, brought to mankind At least 225 thousand people died and cost 3,7 trillion dollars. According to the most cautious estimates, the number of direct victims of these wars was 225 thousands of dead and 365 thousands of wounded, ”the researchers said.
The highest price was paid by the civilian population - 172 thousands of victims (125 thousands of Iraqis, 56 thousands of Pakistanis and 12 thousands of Afghans). The number of dead militants ranges from 20 to 51 thousands. That is, the proportion of civilian casualties is 76%.
The military losses of the United States amounted to six thousand people, their allies - 1,2 thousands, Iraq - 9,9 thousands, Pakistan - 3,5 thousands, Afghan losses - 8,8 thousands. Private security firms have lost thousands of their employees to 2,3.
US wars claimed the lives of 168 journalists and 266 humanitarian workers.
The result of the “war against terrorism” was the emergence of more than 7,8 million refugees.
In total, in the period 1945-2000. The United States, NATO’s main financial donor, has participated in more than 100 military conflicts that claimed the lives of about 20 million people. The most bloody is the Korean War, which brought 3.68 million victims.
Imagine, hypothetically, what the NATO budget is, if over the past two years it has declined by 45 billions of dollars due to the economic crisis. This amount is comparable in size to the German defense budget. The 3,7 trillion dollars figure includes not only military budget expenditures, additional costs of fighting terrorism and protecting the US territory and other expenses.
As we see from these figures, the “counter-terrorist operation” of the United States and NATO has nothing in common with the fight against terrorism and, in fact, is a huge investment of money with the oligarchic capital of the United States camouflaged by this operation.
Before conducting backstage and secret negotiations, Moldovan politicians and the now ruling Alliance for European Integration should look at these figures and decide for themselves the moral and ethical side of this issue. And all sorts of “centers of influence”, leading to fooling the population on this issue, cover it modestly, quietly, without fuss. Leave the Moldovan people alone, because they are this very people much more moral than their corrupt rulers. In confirmation of this, I will cite the following arguments.

Promotion of the interests of NATO in the political field of Moldova.

The first consultations of the Republic of Moldova with the North Atlantic Alliance took place after the adoption of the 20 Declaration of Independence on December 1991 and after 1992 are clearly anti-Russian emphasis on the background of the Transnistrian conflict.
6 January 1994 at the highest level of the North Atlantic Alliance reviewed the American Partnership for Peace initiative, and the President of the Republic of Moldova expressed a personal interest in this. 6 March 1994 in Brussels The President of the Republic of Moldova and the NATO Secretary General signed the Partnership for Peace agreement. In order to coordinate more effective NATO activities 16 December 1997, the NATO mission in the Republic of Moldova was established.
In 1999, the project to create an information network of the Academy of Sciences with NATO was completed with the financial support of the Polytechnic Information Network. Polytechnic University of Moldova received financial support from the Alliance. In June, with the support of NATO, the RENAM Association was established with educational and informational objectives. Thus, the researchers from Moldova not only received scholarships in Italy, Canada and other countries, but also any scientific discoveries became controlled by the United States. The visit of President V. Voronin to NATO Headquarters 28 June 2001 was the next step in the signing of a new Memorandum with NATO in the field of technical support and logistic cooperation. At 2002, at the intergovernmental level, a decision was made on the deployment of the US Center for Military Intelligence (NSA) in the territory of the Ministry of Defense of the Republic of Moldova. From this point on, not only the Armed Forces, but also the country's political leadership falls under technical and doctrinal dependence on the United States. October 3 The 2007 of the year in Chisinau hosted the opening ceremony of the NATO Information and Documentation Center. The Moldova-NATO Partnership Action Plan provides for the reform of the entire security and defense system of the country based on NATO principles and the conversion of the National Army of Moldova before 2010 to the standards of the North Atlantic Alliance. 2010 - Moldova hands over a database of its population to Romania to a NATO member. 2011 - under the guise of a cadastral project in Moldova, a triangulation network of GPS antennas is deployed, which is essentially a correction zone for American Tomahawk missiles - the direction of eastern countries. 2011 - Moldova receives an invitation from the Council of Europe to enter a single European airspace, that is, in essence, an invitation to the anti-missile shield Diviselou (Romania - NATO). Thus, from 1994 to 2011, such centers of influence as the Soros Foundation, the McCain Foundation, the NATO Documentation Center in Chisinau, the Marshal Center, the CE Information Center conducted the first successful stage - consolidating the territory and creating agents of influence in Moldova’s political, economic and scientific field. . The second stage involves the creation of regional (regional centers of influence), which can last 2-4 of the year. The third and final stage, before joining NATO, is a constitutional reform (the abolition of neutrality status) and a referendum. European participation in NATO activities

European
NATO members

Joint defense planning

Number of main headquarters

Level of engagement

Infrastructure support level

Providing forces for nuclear operations weapons

Belgium

involved

1

brigade

normal

involved

Bulgaria

involved

brigade

normal

United Kingdom

involved

3

division

tall

involved

Hungary

involved

brigade

normal

Germany

involved

7

corps

tall

involved

Greece

involved

1

division

normal

involved

Denmark

involved

division

normal

Iceland

no sun

normal

Spain

involved

1

brigade

tall

Italy

involved

4

corps

normal

involved

Latvia

involved

company

normal

Lithuania

involved

company

normal

Luxembourg

involved

1

battalion

normal

Netherlands

involved

1

division

tall

involved

Norway

involved

division

normal

Poland

involved

brigade

normal

Portugal

involved

1

brigade

tall

Slovak Republic

involved

brigade

normal

Romania

involved

brigade

normal

Slovenia

involved

battalion

normal

Turkey

involved

2

division

normal

involved

France

coordinates

1

normal

The Czech Republic

involved

brigade

normal

Estonia

involved

company

normal

What costs do European countries incur in connection with NATO membership?

The costs of NATO member countries are determined by the principle of "fair share" of participation. It is defined as the share of a country's GDP in the total GDP of NATO countries. The proportions are rarely accurate, but any strong deviation from the "nominal" can be a problem for NATO, since the United States has a law according to which annual funds to support the activities of the Alliance are allocated only after the Pentagon submits calculations of compliance of the Allies' contribution to the "fair share" of participation.
Contributions to NATO budgets are calculated according to agreed cost-sharing formulas and represent only a small portion of the defense budgets of NATO countries. The volume of the total budgets of NATO is about $ 1,5 billion per year. There are three of them - the civilian budget, the military budget and the security investment program.
The Citizens Budget covers the current expenses of the NATO Headquarters International Secretariat, civilian programs and activities, construction, operating and maintenance costs of various facilities, such as conference facilities, used for meetings of committees and working groups.
The military budget covers the costs of operation and maintenance of the combined military infrastructure, including the Military Committee, the International Military Headquarters and related agencies, the two main commands, as well as the associated command, management and information systems, agencies dealing with scientific issues research, development, procurement and logistics, AWACS forces.
The Security Investment Program finances the construction and operation of facilities and facilities required by NATO in addition to those built for the purpose of ensuring national security by individual Member States, such as information and communication systems, radar stations, headquarters, airfields, fuel lines, warehouses, ports and navigation facilities.
These budgets are monitored by the Military and Civilian Budget Committees and the Infrastructure Committee. Implementation of the guidelines for joint military funding is under the control of the General Resources Council. Each of the member states is represented in these bodies. All NATO budgets are also under external control.
The mandatory costs of NATO should also include the expenses of countries to conduct joint military operations, although these amounts do not relate to general budgets and are allocated mainly on the principle of “everyone pays for himself”. At the same time, in many cases economically stronger countries, such as the United States and the United Kingdom, provide financial assistance to others for their military operations.

European expenses arising from NATO membership as of 2002.

NATO members

Contribution to NATO budgets, million

Share in total budget,%

Costs of multinational operations, million

Share in total costs,%

Belgium

48,9

3,5%

15,45

1,0%

Bulgaria

0,0%

United Kingdom

200,2

14,3%

127,26

8,1%

Hungary

9,8

0,7%

0,91

0,1%

Germany

268,6

19,1%

186,06

11,9%

Greece

10

0,7%

13,72

0,9%

Denmark

34,8

2,5%

14,00

0,9%

Iceland

0,3

0,0%

0,0%

Spain

51,3

3,7%

78,86

5,0%

Italy

103,6

7,4%

83,64

5,3%

Latvia

0,0%

Lithuania

0,0%

Luxembourg

1,9

0,1%

1,44

0,1%

Netherlands

52,1

3,7%

36,71

2,3%

Norway

27,8

2,0%

12,09

0,8%

Poland

37,4

2,7%

0,0

0,0%

Portugal

7,4

0,5%

21,63

1,4%

Slovak Republic

0,0%

Romania

0,0%

Slovenia

0,0%

Turkey

19,6

1,4%

3,04

0,2%

France

111,8

8,0%

251,56

16,1%

The Czech Republic

13,6

1,0%

1,04

0,1%

Estonia

0,0%

USA

340,9

24,3%

669,51

42,8%

Canada

64,9

4,6%

47,08

3,0%

Total

1404,9

100%

1564,0

100%

What kind of military operations is NATO doing?
Bosnia and Herzegovina. Under the UN mandate after the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords in December 1995, NATO launched a multinational Implementation Force (IFOR) in Bosnia and Herzegovina, which monitored the implementation of the military aspects of the peace agreement. The IFOR mission was to stop the fighting and disunite the conflicting parties, who represented the newly formed administrative-territorial units of a split war country: the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republika Srpska, as well as ensuring the transfer of the occupied territories between them. For one year, the IFOR forces completed their task, and in December 1996 of the year they were replaced by a smaller Stabilization Force (SFOR).
With the improvement of the situation, the international military presence in the region is gradually decreasing. At the beginning of the 2004, the SFOR numbered nearly 7 thousands of soldiers, which is several times smaller than the initial contingent of 60 thousands, and indicates the progress achieved by Bosnia and Herzegovina. Now, by mutual agreement, the reduced SFOR contingent has been transferred to the EU administration.
Kosovo. In 1998, the armed conflict in the Yugoslav province of Kosovo, populated predominantly by ethnic Albanians, turned more than 300 thousands of people into refugees. The Yugoslav leadership ignored numerous international demands to withdraw the Serbian forces and begin negotiations with the Albanian population. In October 1998, NATO warned that if the Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic failed to comply with the demands of the international community, military force would be used against his regime. President Milosevic agreed to perform an ultimatum. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) has deployed observers in Kosovo. For its part, NATO organized aerial surveillance and deployed special forces in Macedonia.
At the beginning of 1999, a new outbreak of violence began. Persistent attempts by international diplomacy to resolve the conflict were defeated, and in March the observer mission was evacuated. Soon, NATO launched an air campaign targeting specific targets in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. After the 78 day of air strikes, the Milosevic regime agreed to comply with international NATO and EU requirements.
As a result of the signing of the Military Technical Agreement between the commanders of NATO and the armed forces of Yugoslavia, and in accordance with the UN mandate, the NATO forces KFOR were deployed in Kosovo. Their task was to prevent the resumption of hostilities, create a safe environment, demilitarize the Kosovo Liberation Army, support international humanitarian activities and the work of the UN mission. Initially, KFOR forces numbered thousands of people up to 43. As a result of the gradual reduction, the contingent has almost halved - to approximately 24 000. KFOR included formations from most of the NATO countries, 15 partner countries, as well as Argentina, Morocco and New Zealand.
South Serbia. At the beginning of 2001, NATO, the European Union and the OSCE developed a strategy for the peaceful settlement of the armed conflict in southern Serbia, which threatened stability in the region. Unrest began at the end of 2000 in the Presevo Valley, where a large ethnic Albanian community was under the direct rule of the Serbs and had limited political and social rights. Ethnic Albanian militants armed with small arms carried out a series of attacks on Serbian security forces in the border security zone - a five-kilometer buffer sector along Kosovo’s internal border with Serbia. This section of the territory, in which the Yugoslav army had no access, was under the control of NATO forces KFOR.

Macedonia. In 2001, NATO launched a mission to resolve the crisis situation in Macedonia at the request of its government. Internal unrest in this country began in the spring of 2001, when ethnic Albanian armed groups came out against the authorities. NATO condemned the rebel attacks and tightened control on the border with Kosovo. At the same time, the Alliance demanded that the government of the country carry out constitutional reforms aimed at solving the problems that caused the discontent of ethnic Albanians. A key role in this process was played by the NATO Secretary General.
NATO agreed to meet the official request of Macedonia to provide military assistance for the demilitarization of the so-called National Liberation Army, which consisted of ethnic Albanians. The condition for providing such assistance was a cease-fire and the signing of a plan for the peaceful settlement of the conflict. After the start of the implementation of the Framework Plan for Reconciliation, NATO sent a contingent of 3,5 thousands to Macedonia to carry out a mission to disarm ethnic Albanian rebels. Since December 2003, thanks to the success achieved in stabilizing the situation, the military mission was terminated and replaced by the EU police mission.
Afghanistan. 11 August 2003 NATO assumed responsibility for the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan to provide assistance to the Transitional Government of this country in providing security in Kabul and surrounding territories.
The International Security Assistance Force has been operating under a UN mandate since the end of 2001. The first mission of ISAF, which was carried out by forces of different countries, mainly NATO members, was led by the United Kingdom. It was replaced by Turkey, then Germany and the Netherlands. In October 2003, in accordance with a UN Security Council resolution, ISAF’s mandate was expanded. NATO agreed to expand its mission in Afghanistan, in particular through the temporary deployment of units outside Kabul and the assumption of military command of the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (GWP). NATO pledged to maintain its presence in the country for as long as necessary.
Other NATO operations, including in Iraq, Sudan, and Operation Active Endeavor in the Mediterranean, are officially “non-military in nature.” ??????????????

It should be clear to the Moldovan people that they are trying to implant a foreign body, such as NATO, by caesarean section.

according to Agence France-Press, citing a study published by Brown University. US military operations.

Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

20 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in