Categories
Buitenlands beleid VS Conflicten Conflicten Europa Defensiebeleid Nederland Defensievisie EU Eigen kernwaarden EUropees veiligheidsbeleid Europese Unie Koude Oorlog Oorlog Politiek Propaganda en desinformatie Radicalisering War on Terror Wereld

Dus denk je echt dat als…

(In English)

In deze dagen van…opnieuw…”Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists…”de zo hard benodigde Disclaimer


Dus denk je echt dat als tienduizenden doden en gewonden aanvaardbaar werden geacht (“Het spijt ons zo voor uw verlies”) bij hun “projecten” in Afghanistan en Irak vanaf 2001 en 2003 vanuit hun nationalistische egocentrische doctrines…

Project 2 uuhh 1 – Na de zeer pijnlijke 9/11 verrassing. De net aangetreden regering Bush was al met Irak bezig en verwaarloosde de duidelijke waarschuwingen. Terwijl veel experts bombardementen voorstelden werd het project 1 van de Bushdoctrine..forced regime change en bezetting om democratie American Style te brengen. Zouden de Afghanen net als de Duitsers en Japanners met open armen ontvangen en verwelkomen.

De Taliban waren primitieve barbaren, leefden nog in het stenen tijdperk en even duivels als hun makkers van Al Qaeda en hun leider Osama Bin Laden!! 20 jaar van Amerikaanse en westerse militaire macht, onder ook de NAVO, kon net als tijdens de Russische bezetting eerder het Afghaanse verzet niet breken. Ook omdat veel meer Afghanen hen steunden dan werd beweerd..en echt niet allemaal onder dwang..maar omdat zij geen democratie en progressieve frivole vrijheden wilden (nog). Althans niet opgedrongen door..(meest christelijke)..buitenlanders..weer. De Taliban is na een debacle van een aftocht weer aan de macht..en er wordt inmiddels met “die barbaren” gesproken en onderhandeld..

Project 1 uuhh 2 – Na de ogenschijnlijke makkelijke en succesvol verlopen start bij project 2..uuhh 1.. in Afghanistan.. dat zou helemaal goed komen!!..de critici hadden het allemaal fout!!.. ging de regering Bush alsnog snel weer aan de slag met de planning voor hun oorspronkelijke hoofdproject van hun Bushdoctrine.. forced regime change en bezetting Irak. De premier van het Verenigd Koninkrijk, Tony Blair, anti-EU-sceptisch(!!), inmiddels enthousiast geworden door Afghanistan en (nationalistisch) doordrongen van de grootsheid van ook zijn land Groot-Brittannië en ook zijn belangrijke, god gegeven, rol in de strijd van het christelijke goede tegen het kwade..de islam uuhh terrorisme!!.. deed nu graag mee.

Want die duivelse psychopaat Saddam Hoessein, van bondgenoot, naar (misleid) een in 1990/1991 kwaadaardige bezetting van bondgenoot Koeweit!! Dat al zwaar was afgestraft toen.. maar niet afgemaakt door vader Bush (de domoor!! want daarna bijna vermoord in opdracht van Hoessein..zei men). Die de Amerikanen en hun macht en bondgenoten in de Golf tartende dwarsligger en wreedaard moest nu echt geëlimineerd worden. En de Iraakse bevolking, net als Duitsland en Japan in WO2, zou vol dankbaarheid bevrijd worden zo en voortgestuwd in de ontwikkeling der volkeren, net als de Afghanen, onder inspirerend Amerikaans-Brits leiderschap. Mogelijk volgende projecten daarna de even kwaadaardige regimes in Syrie en Iran ook aan de beurt..democratie in de regio, vrede…en bondgenoot Israël blij. Kon die de Palestijnen wat meer vrijheid en rechten geven…of niet…ook goed…Jordanië immers al de Palestijnse staat. President Bush, inmiddels wat minder onervaren, zag na uiteindelijke dramatische ontwikkeling in Irak en tegenvallende in Afghanistan toch in maar af te zien van die nieuwe projecten. Zijn regering en beleid werd in tweede periode dan ook veranderd.

De kritiek en protesten tegen dit nieuw-oude project 1 uuhh 2 in Irak waren echter ongekend fel, groots, breed gedeeld.. zelfs grote groepen oud militairen en politici schreven protestbrieven. Men waarschuwde dat de doos van Pandora zo werd geopend in de regio. Maar men luisterde niet in Washington en Londen en bevriende hoofdsteden. Er was immers nu ook nog eens voldongen bewijs dat Saddam Hoessein massavernietingswapens had en volgens Blair zou hij elk moment en binnen kort tijd vele raketten kunnen afvuren op Europa!! Dat dit allemaal zelf gefabriceerde bewijzen waren en leugens begrepen vele al maar hoorde het merendeel pas later tijdens de onderzoeken na dit debacle.

Het groene licht werd dus gegeven. Gesteund door menig westerse en Europese regering (waaronder actief door de Poolse..en politiek gesteund door de Nederlandse). De wederom enorme militaire opbouw in de nog steeds bevriende Golfstaten. Welke aanwezigheid van zoveel Amerikaanse/westerse/christelijke militairen in het kernland van de islam Saudi-Arabië tijdens de Golfoorlog in 1991 Osama Bin Laden deed radicaliseren en zijn Al Qaeda deed oprichten..u weet wel van 9/11 aanslag en aanleiding voor project 2 uuhh 1. De militaire operaties en invasie en bezetting van Irak verliep weer snel en voorspoedig. Duizenden Iraakse militairen werden letterlijk in hun loopgraven begraven of in hun tanks geroosterd.

De Iraakse bevolking kwam echter niet massaal de straat op. Dat was al een verontrustend voorteken en daar was ook al voor gewaarschuwd vooraf. De massavernietigingswapens werden niet gevonden..ondanks alles dubbel om te keren. Wel werd zo Saddam Hoessein uiteindelijk als een wezel in een hol gevonden..zijn zoons al eerder in gevecht gedood. Strijdend ten onder toch niet zo zijn ding als ‘groots Arabisch heerser’, maar hij dan wel weer schreeuwend en vloekend ten onder aan de galg. Zouden Bush en Blair dat ook hebben gedaan in zo’n geval?! of in hun broek hebben gepiest?! Wat een succes leek werd al snel een groots tragisch drama. De doos van Pandora was inderdaad geopend in Irak en in de regio, zelf in nabije continenten en in de wereld…met ook de gevolgen in Europese straten, cafe’s en theater.

Dus denk je echt dat als tienduizenden doden en gewonden aanvaardbaar werden geacht (“Het spijt ons zo voor uw verlies”) bij hun “projecten” in Afghanistan en Irak vanaf 2001 en 2003 vanuit hun nationalistische egocentrische doctrines…het werden het honderdduizenden doden en gewonden…

…en miljoenen vluchtelingen..ook richting EU, burgeroorlogen in Syrië en Libië, failed states, de bloedige onderdrukking van de Arabische democratische lente in Egypte, de opkomst van IS, genocide Yazidi’s en vele bloedige terreuraanslagen in de wereld…ook de EU, nog meer big-brother-achtige maatregelen hier om die te voorkomen , het uitschakelen van de IS in bloedige strijd, oplaaiende kernwapen-problematiek in Iran en Noord-Korea (die zich door de forced regime changes en bezettingen in Afghanistan en Irak nog veel meer bedreigd voelden en dus de ‘weapon of last resort’ wilden), economische ellende, nog meer verlies van geloofwaardigheid in ons democratisch systeem en daardoor ook groei religieus radicalisme elders en extremisme en complotdenken hier, nog meer assertieve stappen van landen als China, Turkije en Rusland, en ga zo maar door… en dan ben ik waarschijnlijk ook veel dingen vergeten…

Dus denk je echt dat als tienduizenden doden en gewonden aanvaardbaar werden geacht (“Het spijt ons zo voor uw verlies”) bij hun “projecten” in Afghanistan en Irak vanaf 2001 en 2003 vanuit hun nationalistische egocentrische doctrines…het werden dus honderdduizenden doden en gewonden en tientallen miljoenen ontheemden en vluchtelingen…dat die paar duizend dode en gewonde Oekraïners en Russen en honderdduizenden…nu al miljoenen…ontheemde en vluchtende Oekraïners de nog steeds nationalistische Amerikaanse en Britse regeringen Biden en Johnson en hun aanhangers in NAVO en hier Europa deze keer zouden stoppen en echt zoveel zou kunnen schelen?! Binnen dit nog steeds primaire lopende VS-VK “project” (dat al eind jaren ’90 begon en vanaf 2001 versneld werd door de Amerikaanse Bush en Britse Blair regeringen) van hun nog steeds egocentrische nationalistische doctrines en projecten (zoals recent AUKUS).

Wie toen en nu een wel bredere objectieve blik hield…begreep wat er toen gebeurde en wat de hoofdoorzaak was en nu nog steeds is…trok wel lering uit Europa’s eigen oorlog rijke geschiedenis en ook uit die recente projecten, zou onze EU leiders beslissing nooit zo goedgelovig ondersteunen en volgen in een nieuwe (proxy)oorlog zoals nu gebeurde…weer…



Categories
Defence vision EU European Union NATO Propaganda & Disinformation Propaganda en desinformatie Security policy EUrope US foreign policy War on Terror

Disinformation by NATO & EU vs Disinfo – Myths vs Facts Threat and defensive NATO?

NATO and EU vs Disinfo like to brag about their ability to distinguish between ❌MYTH and ✅FACT and thus to be able to unmask a lot of disinformation, especially from Russia, their obsession. But they regularly make mistakes themselves, with probably their own deliberate propaganda and disinformation. Two examples.

NATO is not encircling and trying to contain Russia

and..

NATO is a defensive organisation


NATO is not encircling and trying to contain Russia

People who have no knowledge and understanding of this aspect will say…right!!! And yes, in factual it is correct.. in terms of only boundaries on land. But anyone who has knowledge and understanding of this aspect and war fighting and does not allow themselves to be tricked or consciously participate in this form of NATO’s and EU’s own propaganda and disinformation knows that the overall proposition of NATO and EU vs Disinfo is nonsense. And the Russians are simply right in this matter.

First the map shown. Probably deliberately in 2D. Not in 3D and as a globe!! Which already makes the image quite different!! Especially if you know that modern warfare is of course much more than just only over land. Also by sea, air, digital and also space.

Already a different picture!! But it still leaves much of the Russian claim of NATO “encirclement” open. Therefore it is important to look at the capacities and bases of the NATO member states themselves. Because in the event of a conflict or even war, operations will, of course, not only be carried out from the European part of NATO territory. Especially the capacities of the still undisputed and dominant NATO leader USA come into the picture. It is not for nothing that Russia focuses on America in its accusations in this matter.

And that also changes the “innocent” picture painted by NATO and EU vs Disinfo. The US has bases all over the world. Including large bases with strategic bombers. In the Middle East and the Indian Ocean and also in Asia… so on the Asian side of Russia. Before the withdrawal and collapse of the Afghanistan mission, the US was also able to position and deploy air forces there. Also think of the multiple operational carrier strike groups (10 total) with entire air forces on board. Which can operate from any position at sea around Russia. And the Marines units and air assets on several operational large amphibious ready groups (10 total). Also large US Marines bases and very mobile units and their huge amphibious ships in Japan and South Korea. Besides very capable and well supported Airborne divisions with huge air transport capabilities. Russia also has not forgotten the use of American troops and landings in Siberia, among other places, during the Russian revolution, in support of the White Army’s.

So we can now conclude that what the Russians claim looks more like a ✅FACT and what NATO and EU vs Disinfo claim is the ❌MYTH

But very adept at also using propaganda and disinformation…even if looks like a belief almost…one really seems to believe it oneself…both will argue that NATO is a defensive organisation and therefore no danger to Russia!!


The next ❌MYTH vs ✅FACT..part 2..

NATO is a defensive organisation…

Yes, fundamentally and according to its treaty text and mission, NATO is a defensive organisation. But we already saw another side of NATO in the Kosovo War as well as the intervention in the civil wars in Bosnia and Libya. An obviously offensive side..

And another aspect is less obvious but very relevant in this case. In 2001 and 2003, the US and its allies UK, Australia and in 2003 also Poland, decided to proceed with, in the first instance, illegal forced regime changes and invasion and occupation of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003). This choice came from the newly introduced neocons nationalist Bush Doctrine in 2000 when President GW Bush took office.

The horrific attack on 9/11 did prompt action against Afghanistan and Al Qaeda bases there, but a forced regime change and occupation was only an option, not a foregone conclusion!! So criticism of these steps was widespread and sharp, especially case of the attack on Iraq in 2003. What the Bush administration was already so almost obsessed about in 2001 that they did not take the serious warnings of a major terror attack in America seriously and mostly ignored them. An important reason why they covered up their part in the investigations into 9/11 afterwards..which in turn fuelled the conspiracy theories.

Back to the NATO role. What happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq was that after the invasion, forced regime change and occupation, NATO took over some of the main tasks and operations of the multinational military occupation forces. An in itself defensive organisation (already weakened by Bosnia, Kosovo and Libya) thus became an extension and justifier of the flawed offensive operations by its leader US and member state UK and other NATO Member States.

This was followed by .. both Bush Doctrine projects and missions turned out to have disastrous consequences for both countries Afghanistan and Iraq, their populations (massive death, wounded, destruction, refugees flows), the region (incl. huge refugee flows, civil wars Libya and Syria, rise of IS, nuclear weapons program Iran) and other parts of the world (refugees flows, migration stress, terror attacks, lose of own credibility by support and things like Guantanamo bay, huge and expensive but highly disputed security programs, etc. ).. NATO still actively participating in the fight against the emerged Islamic State.

So it is clear that there are some critical comments to be made about NATO’s defensive nature. And that the statement of NATO and EU vs disinfo that NATO is a defensive organisation so not threat to Russia is much more ❌MYTH than ✅FACT.

But why, besides Iran and North Korea and other countries that fear the wrath of the US, is Russia so concerned about it, about NATO’s as threat? Because there is another important, but often forgotten, project of the Bush Doctrine. Containing and weakening the power competitors of the US as the world leader and only real superpower, of its Pax Americana. A sentiment widely shared in both the Democratic and Republican Party. Where the normally already strong patriotism with the challenges in America itself, society..poverty..radicalism..poor infrastructure..and also effect 9/11..and in the world after the end of the Cold War is increasingly turning into nationalism. Already during the Clinton administration after an internal clash of doctrines (with negative effects on the Bosnian War!!), certainly under that of neocons GW Bush and “America First” Trump, but also that of “Made in America” Obama and now Biden. Who speak grand, together and unctuous, but think more nationalistically and in power politics then most think here in EUrope.

So part of that other Bush Doctrine project was to further contain and weaken former (but still seen by many in Washington as) enemy Russia. Already started during the Clinton administration towards Russian interests in the Balkans (Serbia, Kosovo war). Which was for President Yeltsin and his later Prime Minister Putin already cause for anger and growing mistrust towards US and allies. With the GW Bush administration focus on the important passage for Russia to the Near and Middle East. In Eastern Europe (large NATO expansion and active influencing politics and developments in Ukraine). And towards (highly) strategic interests and bases of Russia in other parts of the world (Libya, Syria, Africa, Asia, South America). Consciously looking for and crossing red lines of then Putin’s Russia.

Another component was to cost Russia through a restarted arms race and thus be able to spend less on domestic needs and projects. And consciously helping to stir up any unrest among the peoples and population in the Russian states and provinces. In the hope that they would also secede from Russia and thus Russia itself would further disintegrate and weaken… as a competitor of the US. Then pro-Western new countries of former Russia, which recognise the US as leader, can become part of Pax Americana and the EU. Putin or no Putin, democracy or no democracy in today’s united Russia therefore makes no difference at all to the conflict now!!

This within a broader strategy that was..and still is(!!)..also aimed at an ally, but also an important power and economic competitor of the US, the EU. Where the US still had and has direct control via NATO over EU’s security and military structures and policies, and thus its possibilities in its foreign economic policy. To offer security guarantees to its allies or to protect and enforce the EU’s possessions and strategic interests in other parts of the world, like in the Indo-Pacific. Almost unthinkable in today’s geopolitical times. An economic superpower like the EU that cannot protect its own interests but leaves that to an important competitor!! As if Apple has its buildings guarded by Samsung, although they often work together. This dominance of the US over EU had to be maintained…something that both Republicans and Democrats agreed and agree on, yes, even Trump…

And that was threatened by the rapidly expanding EU-Russia relationship and trade in the 1990s. With both Russian President Putin and his EU colleagues already and even later on projecting visions of even more close cooperation and integration between EU and Russia. Putin’s proposed and by Merkel later also offered free trade area from Lisbon to Vladivostok. Probably developing into a even larger EU one day. This would make the EU increasingly autonomous of the US, also militarily…and…in a sense let Russia win the Cold War in the end…politicians and military thought in Washington.

So..not to elaborate too much..to sum up. NATO is certainly, through its leader USA, circling Russia and the US and allies threatening and have a goal to weakening Russia. From their strategic reasons or naive credulity. And keep Russia in the camp of dictatorial superpower China..create a simple good vs bad bipolair world order. While Russia is in reality fearing China and the threat China is to her sparsely populated but rich in land and resources Siberia. Especially now that, due to climate change, unusable land is quickly becoming usable. In absence of enough of this, the Chinese regime is looking for “lebensraum” for its huge population, who demands more welfare and welbeing. Where do we recognise that term as Europeans?! That is why Putin is appeasing the revanchist communist/maoist one party Chinese regime but also still so eager to belong to the West and rejoin the EU…and even NATO.

Something that also plays a role today in the conflict with Russia over Ukraine, for the reasons I described earlier, deliberately stirred up by the US, UK, NATO and their allies..but in fact is about much more..

And in that context NATO is not a defensive organization either. Although there are important member states that are more defensive than others. And dampen overly offensive NATO operations, something the US and UK would like to see happen and encourage. Merkel was particularly strong in this. But it just left. So it’s no surprise that her successor Scholz was immediately put to the test by the US and UK around Russia and Ukraine.

In conclusion, and in view of current events, my appeal to Europeans to go above all for an inclusive, undivided EUrope towards 2045. When we celebrate and commemorate that the horrific Second World War ended. Unfortunately, many politicians, soldiers, journalists and think-tanks have apparently already forgotten the lessons from that war.

And…to return to the focus op this topic, a reformed, refocused, enlarged and slightly renamed NATO. Ready for the threats and challenges of tomorrow and the day after tomorrow!!

The EU and the USA, Pax EUropaea and Pax Americana Stronger Together!!