NATO Head Admits The Alliance Is A 'Platform For The United States To Project Power On The World Stage'.

NATO's Head Mark Rutte Says The Quiet Part Out Loud.

NATO is often portrayed as a “defensive” military alliance, but for a long time, critics such as myself have argued that it is, in reality, a tool to advance U.S. imperialism in places like the former Yugoslavia, Libya, and Ukraine.

This criticism was outright admitted by NATO’s Secretary General, Mark Rutte, who, in an interview with Newsmax, admitted that NATO was “a platform for the United States to project power on the world stage”.

Indeed, Mark Rutte outright admitted what critics of NATO have been saying for years.

While NATO’s interventions in the former Yugoslavia and Libya were billed as “humanitarian interventions”, they were, in reality, U.S.-driven, neoconservative interventions to overthrow and destroy countries getting in the way of U.S. hegemony.

As Noam Chomsky has documented top U.S. officials from the Clinton administration have admitted that the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia had nothing to do with the official justification of “concern for Kosovar Albanians” and in reality, was done because, “Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs”.

Chomsky noted in 2006:

Actually, we have for the first time a very authoratative comment on that from the highest level of Clinton administration, which is something that one could have surmised before, but now it is asserted. This is from Strobe Talbott who was in charge of the…he ran the Pentagon/State Department intelligence Joint Committee on the diplomacy during the whole affair including the bombing, so that’s very top of Clinton administration; he just wrote the forward to a book by his Director of Communications, John Norris, and in the forward he says if you really want to understand what the thinking was of the top of Clinton administration this is the book you should read and take a look on John Norris’s book and what he says is that the real purpose of the war had nothing to do with concern for Kosovar Albanians. It was because Serbia was not carrying out the required social and economic reforms, meaning it was the last corner of Europe which had not subordinated itself to the US-run neoliberal programs, so therefore it had to be eliminated. That’s from the highest level.

The same was true for NATO’s supposed “humanitarian” intervention in Libya, which overthrew Muammar Gaddafi in the name of protecting civilians from a massacre he was about to carry out.

But a 2015 UK parliament report after the overthrow of Gaddafi admitted this was a lie, wiring, “the proposition that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the massacre of civilians in Benghazi was not supported by the available evidence, the Gaddafi regime had retaken towns from the rebels without attacking civilians in early February 2011, the disparity between male and female casualties suggested that Gaddafi regime forces targeted male combatants in a civil war and did not indiscriminately attack civilians”.

The real motive for overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi and destroying Libya was not “humanitarian” but because Libya was one of the seven countries on the hit list that Zionist Neo-conservatives came up with after 9/11 as part of the broader “clean break” strategy to “reshape the Middle East” to pave the way for American/Israeli dominance.

Post-Gaddafi Libya was even used as a launchpad by the CIA for the next regime change war on the list in Syria.

Journalist Seymour Hersh reported that following the NATO operation , the CIA, “authorised a rat line” which was, “used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition”.

The same is true of the NATO proxy war in Ukraine, the product of a longtime plan by U.S. Neo-conservatives to draw Russia into Ukraine in an attempt to weaken it.

U.S. officials for years warned that NATO expansion would lead to a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

In 2008, when NATO -at the behest of the U.S.- welcomed NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia , then U.S. ambassador to Russia, William Burns wanted :

Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

Despite this, the U.S. continued to push for NATO membership for Ukraine, despite the fact that taking it off the table would have prevented the war in Ukraine.

This was outright admitted by the Biden administration official , Amanda Sloat, who said:

We had some conversation even before the war started, about what if Ukraine comes out and just says to Russia, ‘fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO if that stops the war, if that stops the invasion,’ which at that point it may well have done

I guess if you want to do an alternative version of history, one option would have just been for Ukraine to say in January of 2022, ‘fine, you know, we won’t go into NATO, we will stay neutral.’ Ukraine could have made a deal around March/April of 2022 around the Istanbul talks.

There is certainly a question, almost three years on now, would that have been better to do before the war started, would that have been better to do in Istanbul talks, it certainly would have prevented the destruction and the loss of life.

But the U.S., using NATO, chose not prevent the “destruction and the loss of life” in Ukraine in order to use it to weaken Russia.

As the Ukrainian outlet Strauna put it, “Biden and his key advisers, Nuland and Blinken, apparently imagined themselves to be great ‘geopolitical combinators’ and decided to play a ‘cunning game’, actually pushing Putin to invade, hoping that it would lead to his collapse. Therefore, on the one hand, they did not make any compromises with the Russian Federation regarding the neutral status of Ukraine. And on the other hand, almost daily they repeated like a mantra that ‘the United States will not enter the war’”.

While all of these NATO actions were clearly directed by the U.S. to further American Neo-con imperialist projects, Mark Rutte now outright admits that the so-called “defensive alliance”, is “a platform for the United States to project power on the world stage”.

---

Note to readers: The Dissident is a reader-supported outlet. If you liked this article, consider becoming a paid subscriber.