Military Review

The project of world domination, which did not take off. For the NATO 67 anniversary

34
Russia is the main threat to the world. 15 of thousands of American soldiers will be transferred to its borders in the coming year. Poland must increase defense spending. Britain calls to fight Russia. It is necessary to restrain Russian aggression. The 2016 is a year off, Europe is being actively blown up by organizations from the countries conquered by the West - and their military-political alliance stubbornly sets as its main goal the opposition of our weak, torn country. Today, when we celebrate the creation of the NATO bloc, it’s worth talking how he got to his present life.




In the spring of 1945, the Second World War ended in Europe. The victorious powers preoccupied themselves with the prevention of such outrages in the future, creating the UN, a collective security system and a means of preserving the post-war world order.

However, almost simultaneously, the creation of another structure started. Having set the same goal (collective security), she initially set out to achieve it by opposing methods - namely, by revising the post-war world order.

Ideologically justified the creation of this alliance of W. Churchill in the Fulton speech (March 5 1946 g). However, it is much more important that, besides those usually commemorated in connection with this speech by the “shadow of Bolshevism” and the “iron curtain”, it contained quite practical instructions:
- The United States and Great Britain should establish a joint use of military and naval bases scattered throughout the British community;
- The alliance should be based on joint air forces capable, if necessary, of bombing any adversary on the planet into the Stone Age for the sake of peace on Earth. Churchill emphasized that he had dreamed of this since the 1920-s;
- the mobility of such air forces should again be based on a system of bases throughout the world, as well as on the widespread use of aircraft carriers;
- the nuclear club should be the main club of this community. weapon

About the UN in a speech specifically stated - as an organization, staying in infancy. And further: "Not a single person in any country began to sleep worse because the information, means and raw materials for creating this (atomic - IZ) bombs are now concentrated mainly in American hands."

Here the British politician, of course, pulled. By the time this speech was made, the Allies had time to develop several plans for the pacification of the USSR using nuclear bombs. It was also supposed to destroy the grouping of Soviet troops in Europe by nuclear bombing. Quiet sleep is not promoted.

Today, it is considered that the UN is coping with peacekeeping tasks more successfully than its predecessor (League of Nations), because the latter managed to postpone another war for only 20 years, whereas since the end of World War II it has already passed around 70. However, it seems that if it were not for the success of the Soviet nuclear project, by the beginning of 50's, the “infant” organization would simply be asked to shut up and not intervene while the older organization establishes peace in the whole world.

Of course, in the USSR they realized this. And even (realizing all the hopelessness of the attempts) offered the holders of a controlling interest in NATO to accept the Soviet Union into the organization.



At the beginning of 1954, a conference of the foreign ministers of the USSR, the USA, France and the UK was held in Berlin. It once again sounded the thesis that NATO is a defensive organization that is not directed against the USSR. Perhaps it was she who actualized Stalin's joke two years ago on the same occasion: “... shouldn't the USSR then join [NATO] in this case?”.

During March, A. Gromyko (at that time - First Deputy Foreign Minister) was preparing a note that was handed over to 31 in March 1954 by the NATO leadership: the USSR raises the question of its membership in the organization. And also about concluding a treaty on collective security in Europe with the participation of the United States, which seems to be fully in line with one of Eisenhower's thesis “A Chance for Peace” (1953 d): “... no country can ensure its own security by remaining in isolation from the rest of the world. " 7 May comes up with a rejection: "The unreal nature of the proposal is not worth discussing."

In fact, the Soviet leadership proposed to return to the architecture of the Vienna system of relations in the updated format. However, it did not take 30 more than 10 years to block the Western powers to abandon this model. Moreover, since the beginning of the presidency of Eisenhower in the United States, at the request of France, the military invasion program in Vietnam was being worked out (A. Dulles, 1953 g: "... you can clear Indochina in eighteen months if you give the French full military assistance").

The consequences of the refusal of the USSR on both initiatives are also well known to us: the turn of the arms race, the confrontation of two military-political blocs (after the refusal of the western bloc to create a common security system of the USSR created its own - the Warsaw Treaty Organization), the Caribbean crisis. After that, as a result, the USSR and the USA still came to the need to sit down at the negotiating table and defuse the international situation. The 10 years after the Caribbean crisis were dedicated to just that.



Since then, of course, much has changed. The USSR ceased to exist, the NATO Bloc has more than doubled, expanding not only by the Warsaw Pact countries, but also by the Baltic states. In Europe, there is still no security system with the participation of Russia.

NATO, we recall, was created to counter the growing influence of the USSR in Europe and the world - Churchill addressed this topic several times in Fulton speech. But at least since the end of 1991, this task is irrelevant - as they say in sports, “due to the non-appearance of an opponent”.
Well, let's say, in the new world there are new threats - the same terrorism. However, it was 1990-e that showed that NATO was not originally a project to maintain security, nor a project to contain world communism.
It was a project of world domination.

The nineties were a time when this project in all seriousness considered himself to be complete and successful. It is in the logic of this domination that it becomes clear why the defeat of the main and terrible enemy in the Cold War caused only a sharp increase in the military bloc opposing it. It is this logic that explains why a long hunt for recalcitrant regimes began, often to the point of complete annihilation, after the spread of NATO to the former Eastern Europe. It is precisely this logic that explains precisely after the victory of a bloc organized for security - the security itself in the world has slipped to the level of about the beginning of the 20th century. The winner of the Soviet Union dealt with the remaining goals.

The project of world domination, which did not take off. For the NATO 67 anniversary



Already zero showed that not everything works in the project of world domination. The idea of ​​simply “replacing bad modes with good ones” turned out to be untenable. It turned out that some states in general can exist only in the form of “bad regimes” —and with other configurations they turn into zones of chaos.

It turned out that keeping control over the conquered territories costs the winners in amounts that offset bonuses even from the captured resources.
It turned out that the created “zones of chaos” on the site of the former recalcitrant countries represent a direct and immediate threat to the metropolises of the “new world order”. That it began to prove itself by planes in New York in 2001 and is now being proved by suicidal attacks on Brussels in 2016. The sharp increase in drug trafficking from liberated Kosovo and Afghanistan 15 years ago - and millions of illegal immigrants to Europe now.



[/ Center]

Finally, already in the very last months, it turned out that in the struggle against this real threat, the surviving remnants of that very uninhabited “Yalta” system of the world order are much more effective. That is, non-modern Syrian secular regime and undemocratic uninhabited Russia with its own videoconferencing.
And today we are actually seeing a split of the Western consciousness. Part of the "NATO" elites - class and departmental interested in continuing in the same spirit - continues to read aloud the mantra about the Threatening Russia, which must be restrained by good old means. That is, pumping up Europe with military and military hysteria, increasing defense budgets and developing “plans B”. Because in fact, it is possible to add Russia, it is necessary to strain a little more, and it will turn out to be good enough. In general, give money. And at the same time, the point of view is voiced not just an alternative, but completely opposite:
NATO? This block was created to counter the Soviet bloc. Now the main threat in the world is terrorism. And against terrorism, NATO does not work. I would get along with Putin.
This is, just in case, the leader of the Republican presidential race in the United States, Donald Trump.

And this clearly demonstrates that the project of world domination, started by 67 years ago, “did not take off” after all.

This does not mean that it is really minimized. Even under the US President Trump, NATO will continue to exist for a long time. Bureaucratic structures generally tend to experience their usefulness, sometimes for decades. For NATO, the prospect of becoming a sort of Holy Roman Empire of times of decline, which exists not so much for solving specific problems, as for the life support of the bureaucratic apparatus, is much more obvious.
And world tasks will be solved, as is proved today by practice, in a completely different way.
Author:
Originator:
http://histrf.ru/biblioteka/book/proiekt-mirovogho-ghospodstva-kotoryi-nie-vzlietiel-k-67-lietiiu-nato
34 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Mavrikiy
    Mavrikiy April 5 2016 10: 37
    +5
    Well, he didn’t take off, he’s not Carlson. It stands in the hangar. Maybe the temperature is normal.
    1. Michael67
      Michael67 April 5 2016 10: 43
      +15
      Who is NATO? This is a 67-year-old patient with drug addiction, gay (pederast or lesbian), drinking the gendarme of Europe, and indeed the whole world. Armed to the teeth, a murderer brazenly lying to the whole world that he is a peacemaker.
      1. Pravdarm
        Pravdarm April 5 2016 11: 13
        0
        Quote: Michael67
        Who is NATO?

        World domination project that didn’t take off
        PS: in the photo: At the helm - Jens Stoltenberg, receiving this "Miracle" -project ". In the background - the front (st) Anders Fogh Rasmussen with his boyfriend. October 1, 2014 (change of Gen (OMO) sec) laughing
    2. MIKHAN
      MIKHAN April 5 2016 10: 44
      +10
      Russians, as always, confuse all the cards ..... Yes, here we are! We don’t like your Coca-Cola ..)))) In the 90s we tried, disgusting .. Yes, you went with your democracy and Coke ... We have our own way!
      1. evgenm55
        evgenm55 April 5 2016 11: 09
        +3
        Zhanna Bichevskaya already sang everything: the Russians are coming, the Russians do not give a damn about the power of America and Europe ...
        1. Bacha
          Bacha April 5 2016 12: 01
          +6
          15 troops will be thrown to the borders ... Our division. As the practice of the Great Patriotic War showed, a division can cease to exist in a matter of days, and then they are going to mobilize whom? Gays to remove from parades? So in the us army are some latinos, but niggas. Himself saw their warrior in Adazi in Latvia. And they serve for citizenship, and not to die in the snows of Russia.
    3. Blondy
      Blondy April 5 2016 11: 10
      +1
      Maybe somehow come to an agreement with the Cubans about protecting Cuba from the US threat? There are a couple of brigades with appropriate weapons and military equipment in the VKO area. Obama, with the help of Raoul, seems to have portrayed some kind of pro.
      1. _Vladislav_
        _Vladislav_ April 5 2016 13: 52
        +1
        Quote: Blondy
        Maybe somehow come to an agreement with the Cubans about protecting Cuba from the US threat? There are a couple of brigades with appropriate weapons and military equipment in the VKO area. Obama, with the help of Raoul, seems to have portrayed some kind of pro.


        Well, what will it give? The United States will understand that you are planning to really destroy them. In such a situation, the same Trump will dramatically change his rhetoric regarding Putin. He is, after all, a citizen of his country, which you secretly or directly conceived at least to attack.

        States in these conditions are also able to put you on a betrayal, and then give them a reason.
        The US military machine will work to its fullest, concluding military contracts around the world selling its weapons to its allies, the US economy will trample up, only because Russia (for something) decided to settle in Cuba. The United States will have an iron base for placing something like this in the Kharkiv region (and Petro Poroshenko will only be glad, finally remembered about him).

        I summarize:
        That is, all those successes in demonizing Russia (and the real peacemaker) on the world stage, you propose to lower to the toilet.
  2. Dmitry Potapov
    Dmitry Potapov April 5 2016 10: 38
    +1
    In 67 years, will you be made up of gays and lesbians?
  3. The comment was deleted.
  4. aszzz888
    aszzz888 April 5 2016 10: 44
    +3
    NATO is the rot of meritikosii and geyropov. A bunch of alcoholics, drug addicts, fagots, gays, etc. mischief! laughing
  5. Dr. Barmaley
    Dr. Barmaley April 5 2016 10: 49
    +9
    The NATO bloc, recall, was created to counter the growing influence of the USSR in Europe and the world.

    Caricature of Kukryniksy:
  6. shinobi
    shinobi April 5 2016 10: 50
    +1
    As long as the Yankees are in NATO, the alliance will exist. Someone will possibly leave.
  7. Cananecat
    Cananecat April 5 2016 10: 53
    +3
    Yes, NATO is a gathering ... there are many who and what, but it is also a structure to be reckoned with. Do not underestimate them.
  8. Metoclopramide
    Metoclopramide April 5 2016 11: 01
    +2
    USA is an evil empire!
  9. biserino
    biserino April 5 2016 11: 01
    +2
    In its current form, NATO does not make sense. A confrontation with Russia, if only to maintain its work, leads to reckless huge budget expenditures, but terrorism is just around the corner.
  10. rotmistr60
    rotmistr60 April 5 2016 11: 02
    +3
    And world tasks will be solved, as is proved today by practice, in a completely different way.

    Frank and invented lies. Attempts to everywhere and constantly discredit Russia, etc. actions. The gentlemen of the Anglo-Saxons will not work. Soon you will put the World on the brink of survival, but only you will not survive in the chaos that you are trying to bring to the world.
  11. karakuin
    karakuin April 5 2016 11: 04
    0
    But after all, there were no such plaintive grunts from the crooks for a long time. Afraid already spinning. But Europe is no longer up to it. Scha bomb in London, then in Berlin and have to spend the Jews on the internal troops and the police. So NATO is quiet and rotten. So, 250 ABRAMs and 20 s will hang around in the Baltic. Until ISIS arrives there and with pendals the Negroes will not take everything away. But a year ago, everything was so cool.
  12. x.andvlad
    x.andvlad April 5 2016 11: 12
    +2
    For NATO, the prospect of turning into something like the Holy Roman Empire of the times of decline, which exists not so much to solve specific problems, but to support the bureaucratic apparatus, is much more obvious.
    Rather, for the life support of the American military-industrial complex, as well as their printing press.
  13. Altona
    Altona April 5 2016 11: 14
    +3
    NATO has not fulfilled a single task, only on the contrary, it has increased instability, instead of security. And in general, as a military structure is an element of intimidation. To fight with a serious opponent, these warriors are too cowardly.
  14. MIKHAN
    MIKHAN April 5 2016 11: 15
    +6
    We are ready for any provocations of the West ...! Excitement has even appeared, gentlemen ... Come here bastards!
  15. atamankko
    atamankko April 5 2016 11: 25
    +2
    Unnecessary, but monetary organization.
  16. Corsair5912
    Corsair5912 April 5 2016 11: 31
    +8
    Every 100 years, Geyropa begins to become insignificant and tries to solve his problems by invading Russia:
    13 century - hungry rabble from all over Europe, knight dogs, Teutons, Livonians and others.
    14 century - the same defendants + even more starving people and beggars,
    15 century - the same hungry greedy dogs
    16 century - the same wimps + Poles and Swedes
    17 century - Poles and Swedes
    18 century - the same Poles and Swedes
    19 century - Napoleon, then (1856 g) arrogant Saxons, frogs, pasta and all the Europeans
    20 century - Chukhonians (1918), ANTANTA, Wilhelm, Hitler and all the rogues of Europe.
    Each time, the Russians gave the mind to all this impoverished greedy non-humans and forgave, naively expecting gratitude for kindness, but the creatures accumulated anger, hatred and again came to us to avenge, rob, rape and kill.
    NATO was created for that. The hyena will recover when it dies.
  17. neo1200
    neo1200 April 5 2016 11: 33
    +3
    It is necessary to create a military base in Belarus from one battalion and four fighters. Let the West be afraid, let Poland increase defense spending, let the Americans bring these 15 thousand personnel to Poland. May there be hysteria and fear in Eastern Europe. It must be intensified to escalate, up to the panic of the local population. There will be another zone of instability, which will turn against its masters.
  18. slavik_gross
    slavik_gross April 5 2016 11: 41
    0
    And fuck us on your NATO ...
  19. Pvi1206
    Pvi1206 April 5 2016 11: 42
    +3
    In some NATO countries, the posts of defense ministers are given to women, which indicates the complete degradation of this organization ...
    1. MIKHAN
      MIKHAN April 5 2016 11: 57
      -1
      Quote: Pvi1206
      In some NATO countries, the posts of defense ministers are given to women, which indicates the complete degradation of this organization ...

      These women remember the Russians (real soldiers, grandmothers and great-grandmothers told them in confidence.) ... I think these women again have something in mind (against the Russians))))) Here are BONDS! bully
  20. Charon
    Charon April 5 2016 11: 53
    +2
    It would be better if he died, this NATO.
  21. avg-mgn
    avg-mgn April 5 2016 12: 31
    0
    In my understanding, NATO was created in the interests of the Military Lobby of the USA and England, first of all it is a military business and geopolitical interests are laid under it. So while the dollar is alive, there will be NATO.
  22. Lanista
    Lanista April 5 2016 12: 40
    0
    NATO - it, of course, is a terrible beast.
    The most combat-ready parts of this creepy organization are the Americans and the Bundeswehr.
    Amerians in Europe have an 1 corps (5), all other forces are either separate battalions or command structures (which is typical, American command structures located in Europe are never of a corps level, but much higher). The Germans as of now have as many as three land divisions, of which 2 are cropped.
    The Angles and Psheks are slightly less combat-ready. The Angles have as many FOUR land divisions, of which, as I recall, 2 is located directly in Europe. It seems that the Psheks themselves do not know how many Psheks have divisions, but recently their Deputy Minister of Defense was crying in an interview that, they say, the entire Great Polish Army could not stand even a day of war with the Russian Federation.
    France takes part in any NATO exercises with pleasure and with a little less pleasure - in operations such as "chase the naked-bearded men across the desert", but it is already somehow creepy to drive an aircraft carrier to the shores of Syria and bombard ISIS a bit for the frogs.
    Italy is openly pro-Russian, so much so that the Americans, just in case, keep one of the BAPs in Italy.
    And who is left? Innumerable hordes of Liechtenstein and San Marines? The invincible and legendary army of Monaco? Leaked a series of terrorist attacks in the own capital of Belgium? Ceremonial-masquerade (and even Euro-skeptic-minded) Holland? Militant Bulgarians and Romanians?
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 5 2016 14: 39
      0
      Now compare the economic potentials (GDP)
      and mobilization resources (population).

      NATO's GDP is about 30 trillion; population is 700 million.
      Russia has 1 trillion and 140 million.
      1. Lanista
        Lanista April 5 2016 17: 27
        0
        You are right, but, as in the joke, "there is a nuance." Even a few.
        The nuance of the number of times is called "who exactly we count." The United States is a member of NATO, and its population is twice our size. Without the US, NATO somehow looks paler and paler. Turkey is also a NATO member.
        Nuance number two is called "the timing of the mobilization deployment." While the Americans are mobilized, while at least something combat-ready is thrown onto the European theater of operations ... Lisbon and London will already host the parades of the winners.
        Nuance number three is called "material and technical base". You will still laugh, but even the only division of the Bundeswehr, which is in constant readiness, has a shortage of certain types of weapons. In the event of a mass mobilization of everything and everyone, the majority of NATO soldiers will be armed either badly or very badly - until the moment when their military industry is shaken (and he may not have time to do it).
        1. Cartalon
          Cartalon April 5 2016 17: 36
          0
          Um, I certainly wildly apologize, but how many divisions can we throw on this march to London?
  23. Ildar74
    Ildar74 April 5 2016 12: 47
    0
    Quote: rotmistr60
    And world tasks will be solved, as is proved today by practice, in a completely different way.

    Frank and invented lies. Attempts to everywhere and constantly discredit Russia, etc. actions. The gentlemen of the Anglo-Saxons will not work. Soon you will put the World on the brink of survival, but only you will not survive in the chaos that you are trying to bring to the world.

    Probably, it meant the way that we are implementing in Syria: specifically, openly, purposefully and most importantly - effectively.
  24. Aristide
    Aristide April 5 2016 14: 17
    +1
    It seems to me that NATO is the US harem. At the same time, the US Sultan is constantly increasing his harem at the expense of new beloved wives. So after the collapse of the socialist camp, the sultan benefited this camp by his introduction into the "warm" camp of new wives. Cooling down to some, the Sultan took others, increasing the harem. But he must be kept and fed. Some of them, like, for example, the Baltic wives, were so "starved" in the USSR that they are ready to eat and have the budget of the USA, excuse me, the Sultan. Well, others are also not averse. Only one thing the Sultan does not want to understand or is not available to him, since the "head" is occupied with love. He's getting old. Well, seriously, the United States has not changed its attachments, including in world politics, for a long period. All their actions and directions are already outdated. Failures occur more and more often, and the world order proposed by the United States, where they are a "good" suzerain and the rest are vassals, no longer suits modern states with their own sovereignty.
    1. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh April 5 2016 15: 27
      +1
      I liked your allegory about the Sultan fellow .

      Well, so far the "wives" are not rebelling. On the contrary, they ask
      caress them even more. What should the sultan do: "... if
      the woman asks ... ". Leave? - somehow not like a man love .

      And those "modern states with their own sovereignty" -
      and so they walk on their own, not in NATO.

      So what's new? Europe remains at NATO at its own request, Sultan
      aging, but trying as best he can. And the rest is on their own.
  25. thinker
    thinker April 5 2016 14: 24
    +2
    Today, when we celebrate the 67th anniversary of the creation of the NATO bloc ...

    There are dates and more important! good
  26. demiurg
    demiurg April 5 2016 15: 21
    +3
    Quote: voyaka uh
    Now compare the economic potentials (GDP)
    and mobilization resources (population).

    NATO's GDP is about 30 trillion; population is 700 million.
    Russia has 1 trillion and 140 million.

    How many of the 700 million will be able to sit another month in the trenches without the Internet and three hot meals a day? They have no motivation to fight for the promised land. Always those who started the war planned to finish it in 2-3-4 months, and then take a stroll through the enemy’s capital. But not everyone did it.
    With all its advantages, NATO does not even plan a parade in Moscow now, but hopes to defend Germany and France.
  27. silver_roman
    silver_roman April 6 2016 12: 33
    0
    Okay, let's say there are new threats in the new world - the same terrorism

    Terrorism is a threat to many, but a tool for the hegemon. So there is no need to elevate terrorism to global evil. If there was a need for the whole world, terrorism would disappear in a week at most.

    NATO will not disappear as long as capitalism rules the world, led by the Saxons and the CO. NATO is not just an organization, it is a way of thinking and a means to an end. Maybe NATO will disappear, but some SHMATO, BATO, BATO, HRENATO, etc. will appear.
    I once tried to justify the actions of the Saxons, but she could not see their true purpose. As for me, the goal should be the same: the improvement of man, his harmony with nature, the development of science and security systems, in short, evolution is needed. And what do the powers that be offer us today? I don’t understand this. There is no agenda for the development of humanity. And indeed, at this stage, I more see a person as a parasite, a very vile, vile and disgusting creature who does not deserve life.
    If God probably existed, he would have fried us with some "Apophis" long ago (although who knows) and no Bruce would have come out to help!