The Saker
November 23, 2022:
Information Clearing House
-- Something quite
amazing has just happened. Following the
terrorist attack in Ankara which killed 34
people and injured another 125, Turkish
authorities first declared that they
will not accept US condolences. Then the
Turks
launched a military operation against “Kurdish
terrorists in northern Syria“. Turkey then
claimed to have
neutralized 184 terrorists.
What is not mentioned in those articles is
that the target of the Turkish strike was the
US-run center for the training and education of
PKK militants in Rojava. There are rumors that
the Turks gave the US enough warning time to
evacuate most of its personnel.
Does that sound familiar?
If it does, it is because it is very similar
to what the Iranians did when they hit US bases
in Iraq following the murder of General Solemani
in a US drone strike.
If the above is true, and rumors are very
much “if” and cannot be considered as proven
fact, then that means that a NATO member state
(Turkey) just attacked a US base and, like Iran,
got away with it: the “The Finest Fighting Force
in the History of the World” just got whacked
hard and humiliated for a second time and could
do absolutely nothing to defend itself or even
save face.
How big a slap in the face did Uncle Shmuel
get this time?
According to the Turkish defense minister,
Hulusi Akar,
Terrorists’ shelters,
bunkers, caves, tunnels, and warehouses
were successfully destroyed,” Akar
said, adding that “the so-called
headquarters of the terrorist
organization were also hit and destroyed.”
Overall, the Defense Ministry claimed
that the strikes hit nearly 90
targets, which it said were
connected to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party
(PKK) and the Kurdish People’s Defense Units
(YPG).
Even allowing for some “patriotic
exaggeration”, it is pretty clear that Ergodan’s
revenge strike was both quite substantial and,
apparently, rather effective.
So, what do we have here?
A NATO
member state all but accused the US of a major
terrorist attack against its capital city, and
then that NATO member state openly attacked a
US-run facility (let’s not call
it a base, that would be inaccurate).
Is Erdogan’s claim even credible?
Absolutely! Not only has the US already
attempted to overthrow and kill Erdogan, who was
saved in extremis by Russian special
forces (same with Ianukovich), but we also know
that the US overthrew General de Gaulle in
1968-1969 and that NATO covert forces were used
to stage false flag attacks against NATO allies
(especially Italy) in the so-called
GLADIO operation.
NATO is not a defensive alliance – it
never was – but it is a tool of US colonial
domination.
This was always true, hence the famous words
spoken in the now faraway 1950s when the first
NATO Secretary General, British General Hasting
Ismay, bluntly admitted that real the
purpose of NATO was to keep the “Russians out,
Americans in, Germans down“. Let’s
take these elements one by one, starting with
the last one:
- “Keep the Germans down”: here the word
“Germans” is a placeholder for any and all
European leaders or countries who want true
sovereignty and agency. Translation:
enslave the Europeans
- “Keep the Americans in”: in order to
crush any European liberation movement.
Translation: place US overlords over all the
EU nations.
- “Keep the Russians out”: make sure that
Russia does not liberate Europe.
Translation: demonize Russia and do anything
and everything to prevent peace on the
European continent. If possible, break-up,
subjugate or otherwise destroy Russia.
Need proof? How about the undeniable
act of war against
Germany (and, I would argue, the
entire EU) when the Anglos blew up NS1/NS2? Is
that not proof enough?
Against that background, we have to ask
yourselves: what does it even mean to be a NATO
member state in 2022?
The truth is that NATO was a pure creation of
the Cold War and that in the real world of 2022
it is a total anachronism. Being a NATO member
state really means very little. Not only are
some “more equal than others” in NATO,
but there are also non-NATO states which are far
more “NATOized” than actual NATO members states
(I think of Israel or, of course, the Nazi
occupied Ukraine). And being a member of NATO
does not protect you from anything, not from
external attacks and not against internal ones
either.
According to Col (Ret) MacGregor, the war in
the Ukraine might well bring about the collapse
of both NATO and the EU. I very much agree with
him. I would say that such a collapse will not
so much be the result of embarrassing defeats as
it will be due to the deep internal
contradictions inside both organizations.
By the way, this is not our topic today, but
I think that the CSTO has much of the same
problems and contradictions as NATO. So is what
we observe a “NATO problem” or a problem of
artificial and generally obsolete alliances? I
would argue for the latter.
But let’s leave a discussion of the CSTO for
another day.
In the case of Turkey this problem is made
even worse by a total incompatibility between
Islam and the Woke ideology now openly promoted
(and enforced) by the US and NATO.
Then there is geography. Turkey has some
pretty powerful regional neighbors, including
not only Greece or Israel, but also Iran, Saudi
Arabia, Egypt, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Syria and,
course, Russia. Can Turkey count on any type of
US/NATO “protection” from such powerful
neighbors?
Ask the Saudis how much the US/NATO helped
them against the Houthis!
Ask the Israelis how much the US/NATO helped
them against Hezbollah?
If anything, the Iranian strikes on CENTCOM
bases have demonstrated that the US does not
have the stomach to take on Iran. In sharp
contrast, the Russian and Iranian intervention
in Syria defeated the US plans for a “New Middle
East” or, shall we say, it did bring about a
“new Middle-East”, but most definitely not the
one the US Neocons were hoping for!
Add to this is major deterioration in the
relationship between the US and MBS’ Saudi
Arabia and we get an amazing picture:
the USA and NATO (which the US dragged into the
region) are gradually becoming irrelevant in the
Middle-East. Instead, new “big actors”
are gradually filling the void, including Russia
and Iran who are now even gradually allowing
Saudi Arabia to participate in a much needed
regional dialog about the future of the region.
The phenomenal weakness of the US/NATO/CENTCOM
is best illustrated by the US reaction to the
Turkish strikes: Uncle Shmuel
endorsed (no kidding!!!) the Turkish strikes
:-)
How absolutely pathetic is that for a wannabe
superpower?
Will this process have an impact on the NATO
war against Russia?
Well, let’s imagine that Russia would really
strike some target inside Poland (which is what
the Ukies claimed, as did the Poles until Uncle
Shmuel told them to cool it). What would happen
next?
Does anybody still remember what happened
when Erdogan flew to Mons to beg for NATO
protection against Russia (following the downing
of a Russian Su-24 over northern Syria by a
joint US-Turkish operation, possibly executed
without Erdogan’s knowledge, at least that was
his claim). What did NATO promise or give the
Turks? Absolutely *nothing* (other than
“consultations”).
Now the Poles might be delusional enough to
think that a US President might order a
retaliatory attack on Russia if Russia strikes
Poland, but those of us who know the USA and its
ruling elites know that this is nonsense. Why?
Simply because a US/NATO counter-strike on
Russian forces would result in an immediate
Russian response.
And then what?
The truth is very stark in its simplicity:
- The US/NATO do not have the manpower or
firepower needed to take on Russia in a
conventional combined arms war.
- Any use of nuclear weapons will result
in an immediate retaliation most likely
resulting into a unwinnable full-scale
nuclear war.
So here is the deal: whether western
politicians understand that or not, military
professionals all know the truth – NATO
can’t defend ANY of its members against a truly
modern military. Why?
Let’s look at what capabilities the US/NATO
truly have:
- The USN has a superb submarine force
(both SSNs and SSBNs) capable for firing
large numbers of relatively obsolete cruise
missiles (and plenty of SLBMs)
- A still very capable, if rather old,
nuclear triad
- A quantitative (only!) conventional
advantage over Russia
- Superb (but very vulnerable!) C4ISR
capabilities
- A printing press allowing for the quasi
infinite printing of dollars
- A comprador elite ruling over
all the NATO/EU countries
- The most formidable propaganda machine
in history
So what does NATO lack to be a credible
military force?
Obviously, “boots on the ground”. And I
don’t mean a few subunits from the 101st or 82AB
or US special forces or even a so-called
“armored brigade” which, in reality, lacks
adequate TO&E to qualify as such. I am talking
about a “land warfare” force capable of fighting
a modern and extremely determined enemy.
[Sidebar: if this is a topic of interest
to you, may I recommend my article “Debunking
popular clichés about modern warfare”
written in 2016 but which is still mostly
relevant]
The USA, Israel and the KSA all fell into the
same trap: the delusion that by spending
billions and billions of dollars on massively
over-priced and massively under-performing
military hardware will allow you to defeat an
enemy assumed to be “less sophisticated”. Hence
the need to use:
- Proxy forces
- PMCs
- PSYOPS
- Corruption
All of the above are a normal part of any
modern war, but in the case of the US/NATO they
are not just part of a bigger plan, they are
central to any US/NATO operation, thereby
dramatically decreasing the true capabilities of
the US/NATO. In sharp contrast, countries like
Russia or Iran can deploy “boots on the ground”,
and very capable ones at that (remember that the
Iranians are those who trained Hezbollah!).
What does all this mean practically?
It means that even if the Russians decided to
strike at a NATO country, the tensions would go
through the roof, but it is highly UN-likely
that any US President would allow any action
which could result in a full-scale nuclear war!
Remember, for Russia, this is an existential
war, no less than WWII, whereas no Anglo leader
would ever dare launch a suicidal attack on
Russian forces which would most likely result in
the full obliteration of the US/UK and any other
country participating (for example by hosting
forward deployed standoff weapons) in such an
attack.
Does that mean that we have to anticipate a
Russian strike on Poland, Romania or the UK?
No, not at all. In fact, it would be
very dangerous for the Russians to only leave a
stark choice to the Hegemony: admit
defeat or commit suicide. And since the
Russians do have escalation dominance
(that is to say that they have balanced
capabilities from the small-arms fire level to a
full intercontinental nuclear war, and with all
the stages in between these two extremes) they,
unlike the US/NATO. are not stuck between the
choice of surrender or suicide.
That being said, it would also be
misguided to assume that Russia “would never
dare strike a NATO member state”. The
Poles might be willing to wager their future and
even existence on such a invalid inference, but
not the folks at the Pentagon or elsewhere in
the decision centers of the Hegemony.
Conclusion:
Douglas MacGregor is right, the NATO war
against Russia might very well result in the
collapse of both NATO and the EU which, in turn,
will place an official “last nail”, into the
coffin of an already long-deceased Hegemony
which currently still exists only because of its
momentum and its propaganda machine.
I would argue that NATO is already falling
apart before our eyes, a process which the
economic, social, political, economic and
spiritual crises which are plaguing the entire
EU will only accelerate. And, of course, the
most amazing thing about this is that this
collapse is not the result of some Machiavellian
plan cooked up by the Russians, the Chinese or
the Iranian, but a direct consequence of decades
of truly suicidal policies: they did it to
themselves!
Now, the Russians, the Chinese and the
Iranians are mostly waiting, watching (probably
smiling) and planning for the Hegemony-free
multi-polar world they want to bring about, with
or without the participation of the USA and
Europe.
Andrei
