What Is Trump’s Middle East Doctrine and How China, Russia and Iran Are Dealing with It

Quelle: What Is Trump’s Middle East Doctrine and How China, Russia and Iran Are Dealing with It

Federico PIERACCINI | 30.05.2017 | WORLD

What Is Trump’s Middle East Doctrine and How China, Russia and Iran Are Dealing with It

Donald Trump’s first foreign visit has begun to define America’s foreign-policy posture. After almost two years of words and rhetoric, Trump has began to reverse his electoral promises with diametrically opposed actions. The most recent meetings with the King of Jordan and President Erdogan, in addition to the trips to Saudi Arabia and Israel, represent the foundations of a great alliance that seems to be directed towards halting the advance of the Shiite arc in the Middle East that is led by Iran and Syria (as well as Hezbollah) with the assistance of Russian military power and Chinese economic power.

Over the past 30 days, Donald Trump has been able to meet with the most important allies of the United States in Middle East. First of all, King Abdullah of Jordan, and then Erdogan of Turkey, were received at the White House. Then Trump went on a trip numbering several days to Saudi Arabia and Israel. In each of these meetings, major points of friction between parties were discussed in an effort to find a shared outcome in the interest of everyone. (…)

KenFM-Positionen 10: Trump – Chance oder Katastrophe für Europa?

Veröffentlicht am 28.04.2017 Donald Trump!
Das schlichte Erwähnen dieses Namens reicht, um Menschen auf dem gesamten Globus in zwei Lager zu spalten. Entweder man steht Trump wohlwollend gegenüber, wartet ab, was er tun wird oder man verachtet ihn, unabhängig davon, wie er während seiner Amtszeit handelt.Die, die Trump verachten, halten ihn für einen hochgefährlichen, egozentrischen Wirrkopf. Den Dieter Bohlen der USA. Nur, dass Trump nicht als Kopf einer Casting-Show agiert, sondern über die Codes der US-Atombomben verfügt. Trump hat es ins Weiße Haus geschafft. Wie konnte das passieren und was bedeutet sein Wahlsieg speziell für das Schicksal Europas? Anders als die bekennenden Gegner Trumps sind diejenigen, die ihn schlicht als Nachfolger Obamas sehen, nicht automatisch seine Fans. Ihnen fällt nur auf, dass Trump vor allem von den Massenmedien des Westens so dargestellt wird, wie zuvor all jene politischen Führer, die sich nicht bedingungslos den Interessen des amerikanischen Geldadels unterordnen wollen. Trump, das liegt auf der Hand, gehört einer anderen Elite als seine Vorgänger an, was nicht zwingend bedeutet, dass amerikanische Außenpolitik mit ihm besser wird. Entscheidend für die Beobachter ist, die Zeit des politischen Schwarz-Weiß-Denkens ist vorbei, was auch mit dem Aufkommen alternativer Medien und der Dynamik sozialer Netzwerke zu tun hat. Immer mehr Menschen rund um den Globus bilden sich ein eigenes, unabhängiges Weltbild, das deutlich komplexer ist, als von Konzern-Medien bisher vorgegeben. Hier läuft ein Lernprozess, der das, was man politische Analyse nennt, dorthin outsourced, wo es in einer echten Demokratie hingehört: an die Basis. Die Zeit der medialen Bevormundung ist mit dem Netz vorbei und macht die Frage „Trump – Chance oder Katastrophe für Europa?“ erst sinnvoll. Die Antwort darauf muss nämlich komplex sein und darf sich nicht vom Schubladendenken der medialen Gatekeeper manipulieren lassen. In der zehnten Ausgabe von Positionen geht es um weit mehr als Trump. Es geht darum, ob wir, die Bürger, in der Lage sind, uns unserer eigenen Scheuklappen zu entledigen.
Zu all diesen Fragen diskutierten im März diesen Jahres folgende Gäste miteinander:
Hans-Christof von Sponeck – Diplomat der Vereinten Nationen von 1968-2000; tätig u.a. in Pakistan, Ghana, Botswana, Irak
Andreas von Bülow – Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages von 1969-1994 (SPD); Geheimdienstexperte und SachbuchautorFlorian
Ernst Kirner – a.k.a. Prinz Chaos II; politischer Aktivist und Liedermacher
Hannes Hofbauer – Journalist, Historiker und Verleger bei ProMedia
Inhaltsübersicht:
00:26:43 Die Chancen der Präsidentschaft Donald Trumps
00:35:07 Ist die Konfrontation Europa – Russland nur vertragt? Die Beziehungen zwischen dem Trump Lager und Russland
00:54:33 Wie kann sich der Einzelne einbringen um den Zusammenhalt in der Basisbevölkerung zu stärken?
01:09:17 Das Versagen der UNO und der repräsentativen Demokratie
01:21:33 Trump – sein Verhältnis zum Staat und dem Neoliberalismus
01:28:54 Politisches Handeln im Sinne des Miteinanders – Moralische Grundsätze und eine Aussöhnung mit Russland
01:33:15 Populismus und Politik: Wie sich Rückgrat und der Abbau von Feindbildern auswirken
01:50:30 Das neue Online-Magazin Rubikon
02:04:19 „Planetarismus“ – ein neues Verständnis der Welt
02:18:00 Was bedeutet Trump für Russland?
02:24:56 Wo liegt die Chance bzw. Katastrophe mit Trump?
+++
Dir gefällt unser Programm? Informationen zu Unterstützungsmöglichkeiten hier: https://kenfm.de/support/kenfm-unters…

Selected articles: Trump’s Nuclear Obsession, Threat of Nuclear War against North Korea; globalresearch.ca, Apr 28, 2017

Gesendet: Samstag, 29. April 2017 um 04:43 Uhr
Von: „Global Research News“ <newsletter@globalresearch.ca>
Betreff: Trump’s Nuclear Obsession, Threat of Nuclear War against North Korea

Add newsletter to your address book to avoid spam filters View this e-mail in your browser
e915ff95-763d-4b4e-81b4-4f4dc4c44c2a.jpgForward to a friend, spread the word!

Trump’s Nuclear Obsession, Threat of Nuclear War against North Korea

By Global Research News
Global Research, April 28, 2017

Url of this article:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/selected-articles-trumps-nuclear-obsession-threat-of-nuclear-war-against-north-korea/5587470

The greatest threat to humanity is nuclear war.

While public opinion is largely misinformed regarding the impacts of a nuclear war , US “decision-makers” including president Trump are also unaware and misinformed as to the devastating consequences of their actions.

The production of nuclear weapons constitutes a multi-billion dollar bonanza for the Military-Industrial Complex. “Scientific opinion” on contract to the Pentagon “confirm” that the B61-11 and B61-12 tactical nuclear weapons are “peace-making” bombs “harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground”.

Those who decide on the use of nuclear weapons believe their own propaganda.

Global Research will be featuring on a regular basis a number of articles and reports on the dangers of nuclear war focussing on the scientific, policy and military dimensions.

Forward this selection of articles.

The objective is to build a cohesive and Worldwide campaign against nuclear weapons.

See Indepth Report: Global Research Articles on Nuclear War

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, April 28, 2017

* * *

118833-51x46.jpg

The Doomsday Forum”: Senior Military, Nuclear Weapons Officials Convene… America’s “$1 Trillion Nuclear Weapons Plan”. Take out Russia, Iran and North Korea?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 28, 2017

In June 2016 under the Obama administration, top military brass together with the CEOs of the weapons industry debated the deployment of nuclear weapons against Russia, China, Iran and North Korea.

The event was intended to sensitize senior decision makers. The focus was on building a consensus (within the Armed Forces, the science labs, the nuclear industry, etc) in favor of pre-emptive nuclear war.

trump-war-51x46.jpg

Is Trump Suffering from “WMD-Ophobia”? Leading Psychiatrists Express Concern at President’s “Dangerousness”, “Instability” and “Unpredictability”

By Felicity Arbuthnot, April 27, 2017

His threats to Iran and North Korea, the latter even invoking a possible US nuclear attack without, apparently, even being aware of the consequences, are the stuff of nightmares, indeed of the chilling film “The Day After.”

Someone should send the movie-loving President a copy.

nuke2-51x46.jpeg

The Threat of Nuclear War, North Korea or the United States?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 28, 2017

These continuous threats and actions of latent aggression directed against the DPRK should also be understood as part of the broader US military agenda in East Asia, directed against both China and Russia.

Nuclear-Mushroom-51x46.jpg

Washington Plans to Nuke Russia and China

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, April 28, 2017

The US military/security complex has clearly prevailed over Trump’s intention to normalize relations between the US and Russia, and anti-Russian venom continues to pour out of NATO and Washington’s European vassal states. The majority of the American people seem to have accepted the propaganda that Russia is the number one threat to the United States. With propaganda controlling the explanation, Washington’s aggressive actions are explained as defense against a threat and not as a policy that will end life on earth.

South-Koreans-against-THAAD-51x46.jpg

War Against North Korea. THAAD Missile System Aimed at Russia, China, not DPRK

By Sputnik, April 28, 2017

North Korea’s missiles are short-range SCUDs with a range of 500 km (300 miles), medium-range Rodong 1s with a range of 1,300km (780 miles) whereas THAAD is most effect for long range and high altitude missiles.

Korean-War-alert-pic-51x46.jpg

Mainstream Media Massively Hypes North Korean ‘Threat’ To America’s West Coast

By Media Lens, April 28, 2017

As if on cue, the US Navy has just provoked North Korea by deploying a strike force, including a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, in its direction. The Guardian said this was ‘to provide a presence near the Korean peninsula’. Why the US should provide ‘a presence’ is not questioned; it is simply taken for granted that Washington is the world’s policeman.

Kim-Trump-51x46.jpg

Trump’s North Korean Obsession

By Federico Pieraccini, April 27, 2017

The United States and its allies (South Korea and Japan) carried out two enormous exercises between March and April 2017. The first, focusing on land and sea operations and named Foal Eagle, involved tens of thousands of US and South Korean soldiers and naval warships. A few weeks later the Max Thunder 17 exercise kicked in, with dozens of aircraft involved. In both exercises the goal is to focus on the DPRK, with simulations of an attack by the United States and its allies by land, sea and air.

USA-Cor%C3%A9e-Nord-51x46.jpg

Trump Talks Tough on North Korea

By Stephen Lendman, April 26, 2017

Trump’s rage for war heightens concerns. Waging it on the Korean peninsula risks possible nuclear confrontation – what all regional nations want avoided above all else.

See Indepth Report: Global Research Articles on Nuclear War

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article.

open.php?u=2cc48fb30f331d97157a65aa2&id=0de3aa15f7&e=73e89fee8d

Oliver STONE: „So it Goes“ – about Trump, Deep State, War Machine, Mass Media …

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Martin Zeis
Dear all,
yesterday Oliver Stone (born 1946, film producer JFK, Snowden …) posted on Facebook a striking comment „So It Goes“ about the effective education of Donald Trump*, meanwhile hailed by the neocons, war-mongers of all stripes and the mass-media.
End of his fb-post Stone highly recommends his followers reading some articles by Robert Parry, Mike Whitney, Phil Giraldi and Bruce Cumings.
* see: Trump finds simple issues are rarely so simple – Policy reversals reflect steep learning curve, and elicit anger from his base by Peter BAKER; New York Times, Int. Edition, April 15-16  2017, p 1,6.
OLIVER STONE’s  Facebook post  19.04.2017
“So It Goes”
I confess I really had hopes for some conscience from Trump about America’s wars, but I was wrong — fooled again! — as I had been by the early Reagan, and less so by Bush 43. Reagan found his mantra with the “evil empire” rhetoric against Russia, which almost kicked off a nuclear war in 1983 — and Bush found his ‘us against the world’ crusade at 9/11, in which of course we’re still mired.
It seems that Trump really has no ‘there’ there, far less a conscience, as he’s taken off the handcuffs on our war machine and turned it over to his glorified Generals — and he’s being praised for it by our ‘liberal’ media who continue to play at war so recklessly. What a tortured bind we’re in. There are intelligent people in Washington/New York, but they’ve lost their minds as they’ve been stampeded into a Syrian-Russian groupthink, a consensus without asking — ‘Who benefits from this latest gas attack?’ Certainly neither Assad nor Putin. The only benefits go to the terrorists who initiated the action to stave off their military defeat.
It was a desperate gamble, but it worked because the Western media immediately got behind it with crude propagandizing about murdered babies, etc. No real investigation or time for a UN chemical unit to establish what happened, much less find a motive. Why would Assad do something so stupid when he’s clearly winning the civil war?
No, I believe America has decided somewhere, in the crises of the Trump administration, that we will get into this war at any cost, under any circumstances — to, once again, change the secular regime in Syria, which has been, from the Bush era on, one of the top goals — next to Iran — of the neoconservatives. At the very least, we will cut out a chunk of northeastern Syria and call it a State.
Abetted by the Clintonites, they’ve done a wonderful job throwing America into chaos with probes into Russia’s alleged hacking of our election and Trump being their proxy candidate (now clearly disproved by his bombing attack) — and sadly, worst of all in some ways, admitting no memory of the same false flag incident in 2013, for which again Assad was blamed (see Seymour Hersh’s fascinating deconstruction of this US propaganda, ‘London Review of Books’ December 19, 2013, “Whose sarin?”). No memory, no history, no rules — or rather ‘American rules.’
No, this isn’t an accident or a one-off affair. This is the State deliberately misinforming the public through its corporate media and leads us to believe, as Mike Whitney points out in his brilliant analyses, “Will Washington Risk WW3” and “Syria: Where the Rubber Meets the Road,” that something far more sinister waits in the background.
Mike Whitney, Robert Parry, and former intelligence officer Phil Giraldi all comment below. It’s well worth 30 minutes of your time to read. Lastly, below is a link to Bruce Cumings’s “Nation” analysis of North Korea, as he again reminds us of the purposes of studying history.
Mike Whitney, “Will Washington Risk WW3 to Block and Emerging EU-Russia Superstate,” Counterpunch, http://bit.ly/2oJ9Tpn
Mike Whitney, “Where the Rubber Meets the Road,” Counterpunch, http://bit.ly/2p574zT
Phil Giraldi, “A World in Turmoil, Thank You Mr. Trump!” Information Clearing House, http://bit.ly/2oSCGrW
Robert Parry, “Did Al Qaeda Fool the White House Again?”Consortiumnews, http://bit.ly/2nN88c0
Robert Parry, “Neocons Have Trump on His Knees,” Consortiumnews, http://bit.ly/2oZ5GyN
Robert Parry, “Trump’s Wag the Dog Moment,” Consortiumnews, http://bit.ly/2okwZTE
Robert Parry, “Mainstream Media as Arbiters of Truth,” Consortiumnews, http://bit.ly/2oSDo8A
Mike Whitney, “Blood in the Water: the Trump Revolution Ends in a Whimper,” Counterpunch, http://bit.ly/2oSDEo4
Bruce Cumings, “This is What’s Really Behind North Korea’s Nuclear Provocations,” The Nation, http://bit.ly/2nUEroH
Can we wake up before it’s too late? I for one feel like the John Wayne veteran (of war) character in “Fort Apache,” riding with the arrogant Custer-like General (Henry Fonda) to his doom. My country, my country, my heart aches for thee.

Why North Korea Needs Nukes – And How To End Them ‹ Moon of Alabama ‹ Reader — WordPress.com

Quelle: Why North Korea Needs Nukes – And How To End Them ‹ Moon of Alabama ‹ Reader — WordPress.com

April 14, 2017

Why North Korea Needs Nukes – And How To End Them

Media say,
the United States may
or may not
kill a number of North Koreans
for this or that
or no good reason
but call North Korea
‚the volatile and unpredictable regime‘

 

Now consider what the U.S. media don’t tell you about Korea:

BEIJING, March 8 (Xinhua) — China proposed „double suspension“ to defuse the looming crisis on the Korean Peninsula, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said Wednesday.“As a first step, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) may suspend its nuclear and missile activities in exchange for the suspension of large-scale U.S.-Republic of Korea (ROK) military exercises,“ Wang told a press conference on the sidelines of the annual session of the National People’s Congress.

Wang said the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is mainly between the DPRK and the United States, but China, as a next-door neighbor with a lips-and-teeth relationship with the Peninsula, is indispensable to the resolution of the issue.

FM Wang, ‚the lips‘, undoubtedly transmitted an authorized message from North Korea: „The offer is (still) on the table and China supports it.“

North Korea has made the very same offer in January 2015. The Obama administration rejected it. North Korea repeated the offer in April 2016 and the Obama administration rejected it again. This March the Chinese government conveyed and supported the long-standing North Korean offer. The U.S. government, now under the Trump administration, immediately rejected it again. The offer, made and rejected three years in a row, is sensible. Its rejection only led to a bigger nuclear arsenal and to more missiles with longer reach that will eventually be able to reach the United States.

North Korea is understandably nervous each and every time the U.S. and South Korea launch their very large yearly maneuvers and openly train for invading North Korea and for killing its government and people. The maneuvers have large negative impacts on North Korea’s economy.

North Korea justifies its nuclear program as the economically optimal way to respond to these maneuvers. (…)

THE SAKER A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences 20170411

Globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS
Stephan Best

11.04.2017

Dear all,

as following we document a new piece of the well known US military analyst, The Saker, on the US attack on Syria.

-=The full document attached=-

thesaker.is

A multi-level analysis of the US cruise missile attack on Syria and its consequences

The Saker

The latest US cruise missile attack on the Syrian airbase is an extremely important event in so many ways that it is important to examine it in some detail. I will try to do this today with the hope to be able to shed some light on a rather bizarre attack which will nevertheless have profound consequences. But first, let’s begin by looking at what actually happened.

The pretext:

I don’t think that anybody seriously believes that Assad or anybody else in the Syrian government really ordered a chemical weapons attack on anybody. To believe that it would require you to find the following sequence logical: first, Assad pretty much wins the war against Daesh which is in full retreat. Then, the US declares that overthrowing Assad is not a priority anymore (up to here this is all factual and true). Then, Assad decides to use weapons he does not have. He decides to bomb a location with no military value, but with lots of kids and cameras. Then, when the Russians demand a full investigation, the Americans strike as fast as they can before this idea gets any support. And now the Americans are probing a possible Russian role in this so-called attack. Frankly, if you believe any of that, you should immediately stop reading and go back to watching TV. For the rest of us, there are three options:

  1. a classical US-executed false flag
  2. a Syrian strike on a location which happened to be storing some kind of gas, possibly chlorine, but most definitely not sarin. This option requires you to believe in coincidences. I don’t. Unless,
  3. the US fed bad intelligence to the Syrians and got them to bomb a location where the US knew that toxic gas was stored. (…)

I would note that those who say that the Russian air defense systems did not work don’t know what they are talking about. Not only did Russia sign an agreement with the US not to interfere with US flight operations, the Russian air defenses in Syria are NOT tasked with the protection of the Syrian Air Space. That is a task for the Syrian air defenses. The Russians air defenses in Syria are only here to protect Russian personnel and equipment. This is why the Russians never targeted Israeli warplanes. And this is hardly surprising as the Russian task force in Syria never had the mission to shut down the Syrian air space or, even less so, to start a war with the USA or Israel. (…)

Trump did get what he apparently wanted, though: the very same corporate media which he claimed to despise is now praising him. And nobody is calling him a “Putin agent” any more. None of which will prevent the Neocons from impeaching him, by the way. He chose a quickfix solution which will stop acting in just days. How totally stupid of him. He apparently also chose the option of an “attack for show” to begin with, which turned into one of the most pathetic attacks in history, probably courtesy of Russian EW, and now that the USA has wasted something in the range of 100 million dollars, what does Trump have to show? A few flattering articles from the media which he has always hated and which will return to hate him as soon as ordered to do so by its Neocon masters. (…)

Political consequences (external)

Trump has single handedly destroyed any hopes of a US collaboration with Russia of any kind. Worse, he has also destroyed any hopes of being able to defeat Daesh. Why? Because if you really believe that Daesh can be defeated without Russian and Iranian support I want to sell you bridges all over the world. It ain’t happening. What is much, much worse is that now we are again on a pre-war situation, just as we were with Obama and would have been with Clinton. Let me explain.

The following are the measures with Russia has taken following the US attack on Syria:

  1. Denunciation at UN (to be expected, no big deal)
  2. Decision to strengthen the Syrian air defenses (big deal, that will give the Syrians the means to lock their airspace)
  3. Decision to cancel the Memorandum with the USA (now the Russians in Syria will have the right to decide whether to shoot or not)
  4. Decision to shut down the phone hot line with the US military (now the US won’t be able to call the Russians to ask them to do or not do something) (…)

The Russians expressed their total disgust and outrage at this attack and openly began saying that the Americans were “недоговороспособны”. What that word means is literally “not-agreement-capable” or unable to make and then abide by an agreement. While polite, this expression is also extremely strong as it implies not so much a deliberate deception as the lack of the very ability to make a deal and abide by it. For example, the Russians have often said that the Kiev regime is “not-agreement-capable”, and that makes sense considering that the Nazi occupied Ukraine is essentially a failed state. But to say that a nuclear world superpower is “not-agreement-capable” is a terrible and extreme diagnostic. It basically means that the Americans have gone crazy and lost the very ability to make any kind of deal. Again, a government which breaks its promises or tries to deceive but who, at least in theory, remains capable of sticking to an agreement would not be described as “not-agreement-capable”. That expression is only used to describe an entity which does not even have the skillset needed to negotiate and stick to an agreement in its political toolkit. This is an absolutely devastating diagnostic.

This is bad. Really bad. This means that the Russians have basically given up on the notion of having an adult, sober and mentally sane partner to have a dialog with. What this also means is that while remaining very polite and externally poker faced, the Russians have now concluded that they need to simply assume that they need to act either alone or with other partners and basically give up on the United States. (…)

In fact, I don’t think that there was much of a plan at all beyond showing that Trump is “tough” and no friend of Putin. That’s it. I think that the so-called “elites” in charge running the USA are infinitely arrogant, stupid, uneducated, incompetent and irresponsible. I don’t buy the “managed chaos” theory nor do I buy the notion that if before the Anglo-Zionists imposed their order on others now they impose their dis-order. Yes, that is the consequence of their actions, but it’s not part of some diabolical plan, it is a sign of terminal degeneracy of an Empire which is clueless, frightened, angry and arrogant. (…)

Conclusion: what happens next?

Simply reply: I don’t know. But let me explain why I don’t know. In all my years of training and work as a military analyst I have always had to assume that everybody involved was what we called a “rational actor”. The Soviets sure where. As where the Americans. Then, starting with Obama more and more often I had to question that assumption as the US engaged in what appeared to be crazy and self-defeating actions. You tell me – how does deterrence work on a person with no self-preservation instinct (whether as a result of infinite imperial hubris garden variety petty arrogance, crass ignorance or plain stupidity)? I don’t know. To answer that question a what is needed is not a military analyst, but some kind of shrink specializing in delusional and suicidal types. (…)

Ciao Stephan Best

THESAKER US cruise missile attack 20170411.docx

Albrecht MÜLLER: „Trump: Berlin soll NATO-Schulden zahlen“ – Diese dreiste Forderung sollten wir mittelfristig mit dem Austritt aus der NATO beantworten.

Elke Schenk

globalcrisis/globalchange NEWS 22.3.2017

Auszüge aus dem Beitrag von Albrecht Müller, Herausgeber der „Nachdenkseiten“, sind unten einkopiert, der vollständige Text im Anhang und unter der angegebenen url.

Einige Anmerkungen von mir am Schluss der Mail.

http://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=37517

22. März 2017 um 9:20 Uhr | Verantwortlich: Albrecht Müller

„Trump: Berlin soll NATO-Schulden zahlen“ – Diese dreiste Forderung sollten wir mittelfristig mit dem Austritt aus der NATO beantworten.

„Berlin soll NATO-Schulden bezahlen“ – das war die Titelschlagzeile der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Sonntagszeitung vom vergangenen Sonntag. Trump hatte in einem Tweet verlautbart: „Deutschland schuldet der NATO große Summen & die Vereinigten Staaten müssen mehr Geld für die starke und sehr teure Verteidigung erhalten, die sie Deutschland zur Verfügung stellen.“ Das ist eine unglaubliche Einlassung, sie stimmt hinten und vorne nicht. So geht der Chef eines Imperiums mit dem Vasallen um, er fordert Tribut. Ohne Rücksicht auf die wahren Verhältnisse. Albrecht Müller.

Deutschland hat keine Schulden an die NATO. Dass die USA so hohe Militärausgaben haben (2016: 664 Milliarden $, zum Vergleich Deutschland: 41,67 und Russland 2015: 66,4 Milliarden $), ist die Folge dessen, dass sie unentwegt Kriege in der Welt führen. Das ist die eigene Entscheidung der bisherigen Regierungen der USA.

Die NATO war eindeutig als Verteidigungsbündnis gegründet. (1)

Dieser NATO sind wir beigetreten. Mit dem Ende des West-Ost-Konfliktes 1989/1990 war diese Funktion beendet. Zwischen dem Westen und dem größten Nachfolgestaat des Warschauer Paktes, Russland, bestand damals die Absicht, die gegenseitige Aggression zu beenden und gemeinsam für Sicherheit zu sorgen. (2) Die Rüstungsetats hätten dann in allen Staaten Europas einschließ-lich Russlands und der NATO-Staaten USA und Kanada sinken können. […]

Auf Betreiben der USA ist die NATO vom Verteidigungsbündnis an der Grenze nach Osten zu einem weltweit tätigen Militärbündnis umgebaut und auch in den Dienst imperialer Absichten der USA gestellt worden. Das lag und liegt nicht in deutschem Interesse und auch nicht in europäischem Interesse. […]

Deutschland hat sich auf Wunsch und Drängen der USA an den Militäraktionen beteiligt. Die USA und die NATO-Administration haben uns um die sogenannte Friedensdividende gebracht. […]

Unsere Sicherheit kann nicht auf Rüstung und Militär gründen. Wir brauchen dauerhaft die Verständigung mit Russland und wir müssen das nach dem Fall von Mauer und Konfrontation formulierte Projekt verwirklichen: Gemeinsame Sicherheit. […]

Die Konsequenz für unser Land: wir müssen uns aus der Umklammerung durch die USA lösen. Das kann nur mittelfristig gehen. Aber wir müssen heute mit der Planung beginnen. Dabei ist vieles zu bedenken. Aber das Ziel ist nach den Erfahrungen der letzten Jahre und der deutlich erkennbaren Fehlentwicklung der USA ziemlich klar und unumstößlich. […]

NATO-Austritt undenkbar?

Vermutlich halten selbst Leserinnen und Leser der NachDenkSeiten die Empfehlung, den Austritt aus der NATO zu erwägen und zu planen, für zu radikal. Für die große Mehrheit unserer sogenannten Eliten gilt das sowieso. Das ist schon aus einem einfachen Grund sehr eigenartig:

Die Zugehörigkeit zu einem Krieg führenden Militärbündnis ist ja kein Pappenstiel. Zu einem solchen Bündnis, verbunden mit einer Beistandsverpflichtung in absehbar kritischen Situationen zu gehören ist gefährlich und setzt eine bewusste Entscheidung voraus. Wann ist diese Entscheidung in Deutschland demokratisch diskutiert worden? Wann ist sie demokratisch gefällt worden?

Es gab in den fünfziger Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts eine ausführliche Debatte um den NATO Beitritt Deutschlands. Immerhin. […]

Über die Veränderung der NATO hin zu einem militärischen Interventionsbündnis wurde in Deutschland weder ausführlich debattiert noch demokratisch entschieden. […]

Auch im Bundestagswahlkampf für die Wahl im September 1998 kam dieses Thema nach meiner Erinnerung nicht zur Sprache. Die zum Bundeskanzler und zum Vizekanzler nominierten Personen Gerhard Schröder und Joschka Fischer wurden offensichtlich bei einem Besuch in Washington, der im Oktober 1998 nach der Bundestagswahl und vor der Wahl der beiden Personen zum Kanzler und Vizekanzler durch den Deutschen Bundestag stattfand, auf die Veränderung des Charakters der NATO eingeschworen.(3) Im März 1999, also ein halbes Jahr später, beteiligte sich Deutschland an der militärischen Intervention außerhalb des NATO-Bereichs gegen Restjugoslawien, dem sogenannten Kosovokrieg. Dabei spielten erkennbar US-amerikanische Interessen eine besondere Rolle. So haben die USA danach im Kosovo eine ihrer großen Militärbasen außerhalb ihres eigenen Landes aufgebaut. […] (4)

Wenn wir uns jetzt auf den Weg machen würden, die nicht demokratisch zustande gekommene Entscheidung, einem Bündnis anzugehören, das in erster Linie nicht mehr Verteidigungsbündnis, sondern militärisches Interventionsbündnis ist, zu korrigieren, dann ist das keine radikale Tat, sondern eher eine Selbstverständlichkeit.

Anmerkungen Elke Schenk:

(1) Schon an diesem Selbstbild der NATO sind Zweifel berechtigt. Die Nato wurde 4 Jahre nach der UNO mit ihrer friedenspolitischen Grundlagencharta gegründet. Die Gründung steht im Zusammenhang mit dem Kalten Krieg und dem Ziel des „containments“ bzw. „roll-back“ des kommunistischen, d. h. antikapitalistischen Systems. Den Warschauer Pakt gab es erst 1955.

(2) Vgl. die „Charta von Paris“: Das „Zeitalter der Konfrontation und der Teilung Europas (ist) zu Ende gegangen“, so dass in „Europa ein neues Zeitalter der Demokratie, des Friedens und der Einheit“ anbricht.

(3) Müller nimmt die bundesdeutschen Regierungen in Schutz und stellt sie m. E. zu sehr als Opfer des US-Drucks dar. Ich warte auf den Tag, an dem eine deutsche Regierung sich öffentlich hinstellt und, wie de Gaulle, der eigenen Bevölkerung berichtet, welche Methoden die USA anwenden, um Gefolgschaft zu sichern, und die Bevölkerung aufruft, sie zu schützen in ihrem Widerstand gegen illegale Machenschaften der USA / NATO.

(4) Bei der Militärbasis handelt es sich um das Camp Bondsteel. Über diese US-Interessen schreibt Willy Wimmer in einem Offenen Brief an Kanzler Schröder in seinem Bericht über eine Tagung des US-Außenministeriums und des American Enterprise Institutes im Mai 2000: „Der Krieg gegen die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien sei geführt worden, um eine Fehlentscheidung von General Eisenhower aus dem 2. Weltkrieg zu revidieren. Eine Stationierung von US-Soldaten habe aus strategischen Gründen dort nachgeholt werden müssen.“ Die NATO-Osterweiterung sei Teil einer Strategie, Russland aus Europa herauszudrängen und eine westliche Einflusssphäre von St. Petersburg über Ost- und Südost-Europa bis Anatolien sicherzustellen.

MUELLER-Austritt-aus-der-Nato-NDS2017_03_22.pdf