Trump, Obama, Hillary and NATO
By Julio Severo
Recent major headlines show the contrast between Donald Trump and Barack Obama in their stances on NATO:
Washington Times: “Donald Trump: U.S. wouldn’t necessarily defend NATO countries attacked by Russia.”
CNN: “Obama huddles with NATO leader as Trump derides alliance.”
The New York Times: “Obama Tells NATO That ‘Europe Can Count On’ the U.S.”
Associated Press: “President Obama slams Trump saying that The Donald’s comments about NATO show a ‘lack of preparedness’ when it comes to foreign policy.”
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said that the U.S. wouldn’t necessarily defend other NATO countries if they were attacked by Russia and that NATO defense of its member countries was not unconditional.
Europe was left “terrorized”!
Obama and top NATO military commanders were fast to accuse Trump of undermining the most important U.S. military alliance.
James Stavridis, retired four-star Navy admiral who served as the 16th supreme allied commander of NATO, tweeted: “Trump on NATO: deeply dangerous, will dismay our closest Allies.”
Democrats also piled on, saying, “Ronald Reagan would be ashamed. Harry Truman would be ashamed. Republicans, Democrats and independents who helped build NATO into the most successful military alliance in history would all come to the same conclusion: Donald Trump is temperamentally unfit and fundamentally ill-prepared to be our commander in chief.”
In contrast, Obama has said that Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton is supremely capable of making NATO stronger.
He has pledged unwavering commitment to defending Europe, even saying that “in good times and in bad, Europe can count on the United States.”
In 2014, under Obama insistence NATO created a rapid-reaction force of 4,000 troops to “counter a resurgent Russia.”
This insignificant number of NATO troops constitutes much more a provocation than a defense. If Russia were actually a threat, the number of troops would have to be 100 times greater before the force even begins to approach a defensive force. What then is the purpose of such insignificant NATO troops stationed in the EU border against Russia? Just Obama and neocons using EU and NATO for unnecessary provocations, while the real enemy, the Islamic immigration, has a free reign to invade Europe.
Yet, European elites are “terrorized” not by the Islamic hordes already invading Europe, but by Russia.
Equally “terrorized” are U.S. neocons, who want a U.S. president to make NATO stronger against Russia. But the current Republican hope for president has dashed their dreams of military expansion.
Hillary is the only neocon hope for NATO expansion.
“The neocons… thrive on military conflict. When the world is at war, the neocons and the defense contractors who work with them make enormous amounts of money. The neocons don’t care which side you’re on, as long as they can work with you to create a political situation that they can grow into a war from which they will profit.”
Savage points that Obama and his neocons, not conservatives, created a revolution in Ukraine to draw it away from Russia and put it, eventually, into NATO’s orbit.
Obama and his neocons want Ukraine in NATO and are willing to go to war over it. In contrast, Trump has shown, so far, no willingness to follow neocon passions for war in Ukraine against Russia.
Last week, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko invited Trump for a meeting, but, according to DailyMail, “the Ukrainian government says the Republican candidate blew them off.”
Yet, Hillary Clinton met Poroshenko and promised him that she would stand with Ukraine against “Russian aggression.”
She added that if elected, she looks forward to deepening and intensifying cooperation with Ukraine.
Other major supporter of Ukraine is left-wing billionaire George Soros, who has heavily invested in the Ukraine crisis. The Ukrainian revolution was more than a people’s revolution. It was Soros’s revolution, and his special trophy. It is his revolutionary crown.
Michael Savage also said,
“Washington’s original purpose for staging a coup in Ukraine was to move Ukraine away from Russia and bring Ukraine into the European Union. In other words, the neocons and the bought-and-paid-for ‘moderates’ in the Obama administration wanted to wrest control of Ukraine from Putin’s hands and gain economic and energy control over the country.”
NATO’s original purpose had never been to gain economic and energy control over nations. But now, under the brutish force of neocons, including Obama and Hillary, NATO is a puppet making nations neocon interests’ puppets. NATO has become a powerful tool for the neocons’ greed.
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is a U.S. military alliance created to protect Europe from the Soviet Union and its communism. But Soviet Union has been extinct since 1991, and a new powerful threat is engulfing Europe right under NATO’s nose: Islamic invasion.
There is an abundant evidence that the Islamic threat is real: terror attacks are increasingly commonplace in European nations that saw only peace in recent decades. Islam and its adherents have dramatically changed the peaceful European landscape.
Besides, there is abundant evidence that the influx of Islamic immigration is increasing anti-Semitism and violence against the Jews. Anti-Semitism in Europe is historically linked to major violence against the Jews, including the Inquisition and Nazism. The Islamic invasion is preparing the way for bringing a reenacting of both anti-Jewish killing machines.
There is a movement of Jews leaving Europe because of anti-Semitic violence directly linked to the increasing population of Islamic immigrants.
NATO has done nothing to protect Europe from Islam. NATO has done nothing to protect European Jews from the prevalent anti-Semitism of Islamic invaders. In fact, the only Islamic NATO member, Turkey, has had a crafty alliance with ISIS and has been the main door for the Islamic invasion in the European Union. Turkey has flooded Europe with Islamists.
A friend in Turkey told me last year that Turkey provides Islamists with false papers and passports to enter Europe. With Islamic Turkey and with a NATO mysteriously unwilling to fight the Islamic threat, it is very suspicious that the only focus of NATO and neocons is Russia.
If today NATO were honest in its purposes and necessary and helpful in its objectives, it would focus on:
· Islamic threat.
· Drawing Russia for a NATO membership.
Probably, this will never happen because Obama wants a strong NATO against Russia, not against the Islamic threat.
I disagree with Trump on pro-family issues. He has a very weak history in these issues. But his decision of deriding NATO is correct, because NATO has been useless against the Islamic invasion. Trump seems to be very strong and resolute against this threat.
While Obama receives global praise for his NATO advocacy, Trump has publicly welcomed praise from Russian President Vladimir Putin.
A former CIA director has labeled Trump a “Russian agent”and he said that he intends to vote for Hillary. Even former president George H. W. Bush said that he is going to vote for her.
Human Rights Commission chairman Garry Kasparov compared Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin, in a Washington Post essay. He is the author of a new book, “Winter is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped,” and played a pivotal role in the establishment of The Other Russian Party, which is one of the opposition’s to Putin’s United Russia Party.
Kasparov said, “I’ve seen too much of Putin in 16 years and too much of Trump in one.”
For him, both Putin and Trump represent destruction. Would Obama and Hillary be the only hope?
Who is right? Obama and Clinton, who want a stronger NATO? Or Trump, who does not want what Obama and Hillary want?
If NATO had followed its original intents, would it exist today?
The first NATO supreme commander, Gen. Eisenhower, said in February 1951 of the alliance: “If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.”
Today, the only NATO’s mission seems to be military expansion against Russia. And among those who warned against moving NATO onto Russia’s front porch was America’s greatest geostrategist, George Kennan, who said: “Expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the post-Cold War era. Such a decision may be expected to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking.”
Kennan was proven right. By refusing to treat Russia as the U.S. treated other nations that repudiated Leninism, the Obama, Clinton and neocons are creating the Russia they say that they fear, a rearming nation bristling with resentment.
Doug Bandow, a senior fellow with the Cato Institute, said, “The Cold War’s premier military alliance led by the U.S. should have disappeared after the Soviet Union dissolved… The Soviet Union no longer exists and there is no evidence that Moscow plans to stage a blitzkrieg through… the Atlantic Ocean. Russia’s brutal treatment of Georgia and Ukraine is essentially defensive against an expanding NATO, not offensive in attempting to recreate the Soviet empire.”
Trump understands this reality and he is challenging the mindset of a foreign policy elite whose thinking is frozen in a world that disappeared around 1991.
What is not frozen is the Islamic threat, which has been increasingly active around the world, especially in Europe. In the perspective of this mounting cultural and civilizational threat, NATO has been useless, and a Trump presidency could help the U.S. to pursue a realistic policy, not the visionary plans of Obama, Hillary and other neocons.
With information from WorldNetDaily, DailyMail, Associated Press, FoxNews, Washington Times, CNN, New York Times, Charisma News and George Soros.
Portuguese version of this article: Trump, Obama, Hillary e OTAN
Source: Last Days Watchman
Recommended Reading: