Joining NATO

[fisheater]

Thank you for your perspective MSU.
My problem with NATO is the globalists that are the primary seat of power. If each country in NATO was concerned about it’s national interests, NATO may be more cumbersome, but a better organization for world good.

[Stephen]

It seems to me that there is so much that goes on behind the scenes that it's hard to have a comprehensive understanding of the dynamics, and be able to project short, medium, and long-term outcomes.

But, one though I have is that we tend to see things from the perspective of the rear view mirror.
The world has changed so much since NATO was formed.
I don't particularly see myself as a Globalist, but I think this is a concept and reality that is slowly unfolding.
We now have the absolute ability to destroy Earth and our ability to live here.
How is that not a global issue?

What I really don't like is to see the most base human tendencies of a few degrade the quality of life for so many people.

Over 60 years ago Eisenhower warned us of the Military Industrial Complex.
I think this is worth the 16 minutes -- it brought tears to my eyes, thinking about what kind of leaders we could have.

[Lhartley]

Who are the "globalists" though and who backs them? Who do they back? Because to me it seems like they're the same people intertwined with the military industrial complex and they quite literally "destroy" the planet. Start at the top and work down and you'll see names like Blackrock throughout, various other corps, world banks etc. I think it's like you say. So much more going on than anyone could even imagine

[Montana St Alum]

I wish I had answers. Between "on the one hand" and "on the other hand" we ran out of hands long ago. It's hard enough to even come up with questions.

[Montana St Alum]

Back to NATO.

Tomorrow, 17 January 2024 is the 33rd anniversary of Desert Storm.

It might be worthwhile to stack up Western (i.e. NATO) forces in comparison to Russia and China. Those two countries are the biggest drivers of overall capabilities requirements.

The Operations Room is a great channel producing analyses of battles. I'll post his videos on the air war day 1 and then the ground war day 1.

Take note of the command and control, logistics capabilities, planning, arming (and loadout of aircraft weapons), timing, etc. These all have to be lined up prior to the first engine start and then has to be analyzed and "tweaked" in response to the fog of war. Noone does this better than the U.S. and the U.S. is the driver of NATO. And our capabilities are almost an order of magnitude greater now than they were then.

Then there is Russia. This may be the last opportunity for the Russian military to carry out these sorts of operations, and they clearly suck at it! They are on the verge of a demographic collapse. They are going to run low on young men to be used as cannon fodder. But, they have LOTS of nukes.

Same with China. There have been headlines lately about their ICBMs having water in them rather than rocket fuel. It's hard to tell if these are accurate, but they ring true. Apparently, the operators took fuel to sell and to use. During the cold war, intel suggested the MiG-25 operators were drinking cooling alcohol for those systems. Again, I have no idea how accurate those assessments were. They are also in a demographic collapse due to their One Child policy. They are lined up against Taiwan. Ukraine had a few years to prepare against Russia. Taiwan has relentlessly been planning against China for 80 years. And they're rich. The Chinese have behaved so badly that even Australia has become alarmed and Japan is ditching its resistance to military preparedness.

Anyway, how much is enough? Lots of these decision makers are like us and skis. If you have N number of skis, you need N+1.

Air war day one.




Ground war day one.



And the Tank Battle of 73 Easting to get a bit more granular and a really good example of stellar training.

[Montana St Alum]

I'm not quite sure what I think of Peter Zeihan's analyses. But here he talks about Russia, its demographics and "why now"?
China is somewhat in the same condition as far as demographics go.

[Capercaillie]

I think people do not know enough about the history of NATO and its leaders. People like Hans Speidel (now conveniently whitewashed as someone who "tried to kill Hitler" by historian-propagandists), Ferdinand von Senger und Etterline, Franz Joseph Schulze, Karl Schnell. Secretary-general Willy Claes was part of the Dutroux ring.

Saying that NATO was run by Nazi pedophiles sounds outrageous, but it is also the truth.

[Lhartley]

I think people do not know enough about the history of NATO and its leaders. People like Hans Speidel (now conveniently whitewashed as someone who "tried to kill Hitler" by historian-propagandists), Ferdinand von Senger und Etterline, Franz Joseph Schulze, Karl Schnell. Secretary-general Willy Claes was part of the Dutroux ring.

Saying that NATO was run by Nazi pedophiles sounds outrageous, but it is also the truth.

Ima deep dive down this rabbit hole over my lunch break, interesting

[mca80]

I think people do not know enough about the history of NATO and its leaders. People like Hans Speidel (now conveniently whitewashed as someone who "tried to kill Hitler" by historian-propagandists), Ferdinand von Senger und Etterline, Franz Joseph Schulze, Karl Schnell. Secretary-general Willy Claes was part of the Dutroux ring.

Saying that NATO was run by Nazi pedophiles sounds outrageous, but it is also the truth.

Was the whole organization "run" by them? Looks like the ex Nazis basically were commanders-in-chief of Allied Forces Central Europe from 67-83, but how much other power did they have? Pretty messed up to begin with, that USA/UK put these people in power.

[Capercaillie]

Was the whole organization "run" by them? Looks like the ex Nazis basically were commanders-in-chief of Allied Forces Central Europe from 67-83, but how much other power did they have? Pretty messed up to begin with, that USA/UK put these people in power.

The choice is perfectly consistent and logical for the US establishment - their rationalization given out then (and now) is "who better than Nazis to fight Communists." But how did the Nazis come to power in the first place, and who helped arm them? Why was Hitler, in the 1930s, giving out medals to James Mooney and Thomas J. Watson, and praising Henry Ford as his favorite author?

The US political elite was not doing anything new by employing Nazis in NATO. They were just bringing them in-house.

What first woke me up to all this was reading Edwin Black's IBM and the Holocaust (well, I got through the first 300 pages at least) a couple of years after it came out. Yes, this was a while ago. Back then Edwin Black would appear in the mainstream media, introduced as one of the world's leading Holocaust scholars. Black's next book was War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race (which I haven't read yet), which, among other things, is about how the Carnegies and Rockefellers exported American eugenics to Germany and how that became one of the foundational doctrines of the Nazi party. By some strange coincidence, Black stopped being featured in the media and invited to give talks after that.

But Willy Claes is not like the others. The Belgian state media might have managed to convince most Belgians in the 1990s and early 2000s that there was no organized blackmail ring, but after Epstein and Wikileaks there is no denying the reality anymore (in 2009 Wikileaks released the Dutroux case documents - it turns out not just several victims, but Dutroux himself all told police investigators there was an organized blackmail ring). Brussels, Belgium is of course the location of both NATO headquarters and most of the proto-European Union institutions (as far back as the 1957 Treaty of Rome).