{"id":1526499,"date":"2024-02-29T16:30:36","date_gmt":"2024-02-29T16:30:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dissidentvoice.org\/?p=148472"},"modified":"2024-02-29T16:30:36","modified_gmt":"2024-02-29T16:30:36","slug":"imperialism-and-anti-imperialism-collide-in-ukraine-part-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/radiofree.asia\/2024\/02\/29\/imperialism-and-anti-imperialism-collide-in-ukraine-part-5\/","title":{"rendered":"Imperialism and Anti-imperialism Collide in Ukraine (Part 5)"},"content":{"rendered":"

If a direct war would erupt between the United States and Russia, it is not going to be conventional and would surely involve NATO via article 5<\/a>, and maybe China, Japan, Australia, North Korea, South Korea, Iran, and Israel. Arguments attributing to Russia the responsibility for the evolving mess because it intervened in Ukraine do not hold up. Background, facts, and conflict timeline irrefutably point to the United States. If war comes, it is going to be another American war<\/em>\u2014no more and no less.<\/p>\n

On the specific issue of the U.S. domination of NATO and its war decisions, consider the following arguments. Currently, NATO has 31 members including the United States. If we remove the United States from the count, could NATO\u2019s remaining 30 members opt for war with Russia to resolve the Ukrainian Question? The answer is no.<\/p>\n

First, it is assumed that a war involving any NATO member would automatically trigger Article 5 above. Most importantly, even if NATO-minus-USA has the means to wage war, it cannot do that\u2014technically, as much as politically. NATO\u2019s inability to act independently from the United States is not due to lack of military capabilities or willpower (e.g., Britain and France are nuclear powers with hardened animosity toward Russia). The reason, therefore, lies elsewhere\u2014the United States holds all political, military, and financial cards, as well as decision- making processes.<\/p>\n

Alternatively, could the United States go to war without the backing of NATO-minus-USA? Yes, it can. But the premise is false. First, the United States will not take high risks without minor actors doing the legwork. Second, it needs other participants for cover-up and sharing of consequences. This explains why the United States chained up NATO members to the Collective Defense Obligation<\/em> tool.<\/p>\n

Now, because Russia has not attacked the United States, and because Ukraine is not a NATO state, could an alliance member refuse joining U.S. war projects? Technically, the answer should be yes because Article 5 does not apply to the situation. In reality though, the United States, experienced at creating pretexts and rationales, could invent favorable conditions to ease involvement by reluctant states, or simply enforce Article 5 without appeal.<\/p>\n

For the record, discussing statute and obligations by NATO members is Byzantine. Based on NATO\u2019s history, the treaty was written with one thing in mind: upholding the interests and views of the largest powers\u2013especially the United States. What matters at the end are two interchangeable facts: (1) the U.S. has the power to impose its will on NATO, and (2) NATO is subservient to the United States. Proving this assertion is the U.S.-NATO\u2019s bombing of Serbia, Libya, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq\u2014especially knowing that none of these countries had attacked the United States or any other NATO member. Did these facts stop the U.S. and NATO from invoking Article 5 as an alibi for all subsequent U.S. imperialist wars?<\/p>\n

Is the assertion that NATO is an appendage to and a foot soldier for U.S. global agendas and military objectives verifiable? Yes. The United States is the boss of the group\u2014politically, diplomatically, and militarily.<\/p>\n

With over 22% \u00a0(as per the British-imperialist BBC<\/a>) and 70% (as per the hyper-imperialist SCIS of Anthony Cordesman<\/a>) of \u00a0the organization\u2019s costs paid for by the United States, and with about 85,000 U.S. troops stationed on European soil, the United States is, de facto, the occupying power of Europe and decision maker inside NATO. (Also read, “Number of active-duty United States military personnel in Europe in 2022, by country<\/a>\u201d. For the record, Cordesman\u2019s talk about percentages and billions spent is meant to confound the issues of the U.S. super role within NATO. He justified it under the rubric that the United States must spend all that money to keep its status as a superpower)<\/p>\n

Confirming the assertion that NATO is a U.S. tool to control Europe is uncomplicated. A 42-word passage in the Department of Defense\u2019s Military Construction Program (fiscal year 2023)<\/a> provides an authoritative clue. Under the heading: United States (U.S.) Interests in NATO<\/em>, the authors of the program put it this way:<\/p>\n

The United States has an abiding national security interest in a stable, integrated European region. The political and military presence of the U.S. and of NATO fosters the conditions necessary to ensure that democratic and market-based institutions can flourish across the region.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Reading between the Lines<\/strong><\/p>\n