NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

Is @NATO there to keep fear away? Or does it create fear for pay?

Is it seeking peace, or profiting from the fear of war?

Is it a question of myriad paths & high salaries needing a new enemy? Or are they truly noble guardians barring an evil enemy's way?
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

@NATO came into being after the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in 1949. The theory behind @NATO was that the twelve nations within it offered each other collective mutual defense in the event of a threat from an external aggressor.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

The principle potential enemy when NATO was first formed was the Soviet Union even though, whether believed by @NATO members of the time or not the leadership of the then Soviet Union had decided on peaceful relations with all others already in 1922.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

NATO did not see active service during the Cold War. The Warsaw Pact did not expand to more European countries than those that existed within it at the conclusion of WWII. Yet @NATO expanded from that time until this.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

It became clear at the end of the Eighties that the Warsaw Pact as it was then constituted could not stand. While other Warsaw Pact nations began to hemorrhage major number of their populations all eyes were on Germany & reunification between E & W Germany.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

At the time of intense negotiation on E & W Germany reunifying Mikhail Gorbachev, the head of state for the Soviet Union was given multiple verbal assurances that @NATO would not move an inch further east if he presented no barriers to German reunification.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

Recently declassified documents show clearly the degree to which Mikhail Gorbachev was assured concerning @NATO during negotiations on German reunification. Not just once but several times by various persons.

nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/…
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

'Declassified documents show security assurances against @NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner.'

nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/…
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

At the time the idea @NATO would continue after the end of the Cold War seemed highly unlikely. Why would it? It's purpose in existing was disappearing before everyone's eyes. Yet NATO did continue to exist & expanded its operations from 12 to 29 nations.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

The verbal assurances given to Gorbachev concerning @NATO not moving eastwards proved worthless. Former Warsaw Bloc countries joined NATO one after another until the vast majority became NATO members & with NATO began to threaten the Russian Federation.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

Along with the seventeen new nations now joining @NATO, others such as Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, North Macedonia & Ukraine became aspiring members. With NATO, these nations represented an ever- growing existential threat to the Russian Federation.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

At the conclusion of the Cold War the future of NATO was cast into doubt. What was its role now that the Soviet Union & Warsaw Pact no longer assisted? @NATO needed a new reason for its existence & for the vast expenditure needed by it on an annual basis.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

@NATO was by this time a deeply embedded institution in Europe. It's infrastructure was widely spread & staff was pervasive. Careers were at risk along with the generous pay packages that enticed members ever upwards. NATO ceasing to be became unthinkable.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

A new role for @NATO had to be found & ultimately a necessary, new & very vital enemy. After a short hiatus the new role(s) arose just after the last nation emerged from The Warsaw Pact which fell apart nation by nation between 1989 & 1991.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

From 1992 to 1995 NATO conducted the first military missions in its history in Bosnia & was very active again later in Yugoslavia with myriad attacks on Serbia. Between March & June 1999 @NATO bombed multiple buildings & infrastructure targets in Serbia.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

During the period March to June 1999 it is estimated between 489 & 528 Serbian civilians died as a result of @NATO bombings. The Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was hit by a missile & the national television station. A @CNN article reported deaths of children.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

In April of 1999 the national Serbian TV headquarters were attacked with causing at least ten deaths. The response in the West to this blatant attack on a civilian target was extremely muted.

@NATO
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

The official story on the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade was that it was a tragic mistake. However, the following article reveals that this was a lie & that the embassy had been targeted on purpose.

@NATO

theguardian.com/theobserver/19…
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

The true story of the targeting of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade reveals how truth is indeed the first casualty of war & it often dies before it commences as has been seen to be true in the case of Iraq & now Venezuela.

theguardian.com/theobserver/19…
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

In reading the texts below you can perceive echos of every regime change operation the USA undertakes. Propaganda & convenient lies mean that almost nothing it says is filtered through a distorting @CIA lens.

@NATO
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

The @NATO strikes against Serbia marked the beginning of the so-called 'Humanitarian War' policy which was to appear several times in succeeding years, notably in the Libya regime change campaign & the present one in Venezuela.

columbia.edu/itc/sipa/S6800…
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

The use of intense levels of force against Serbia by NATO in 1999 w/out a United Nations Security Council Resolution created a precedent for future "justifications" for military action based upon humanitarian grounds. As in the case of Venezuela currently.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

The air campaign against Serbia by NATO was the most intense seen in the timescales involved save for the 'Shock & Awe' campaign in Iraq of shorter but even more intense duration. Of 37,465 sorties, 16,006 strike missions. 912 aircraft involved, 35 ships.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

In 2011 @NATO effected a no-fly zone over Libya then led a multi-state attack upon the forces of the Libyan government led by Muammar Gaddafi. US, British, French & Canadian forces conducted airstrikes that Libyan gov forces were ineffectual in repelling.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

Italy involved itself in Libya after its request that NATO took overall leadership of the campaign was accepted. Then it shared intel & military bases w/ the others within the coalition.

All in all Libya has never recovered from the onslaught it suffered.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

Libya after @NATO attacks w/ the coalition has become a fractured land where warlords vie w/ each other for power in a conflict where no end is in sight. Libya is now largely a lawless land where security is close to zero & slave trading now takes place.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

Coming closer to present time @NATO was a chief voice of criticism when the people of Crimea voted to reunify with Russia after the riots on Kiev's Maidan & the fall of the president & government they had played a full part instrumental in electing.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

@NATO is a constant critic of Russia on Crimea & events in eastern Ukraine along with essentially the same group of allies with which it attacked both Serbia & Libya. In addition NATO has during this time encroached further & further upon Russia's borders.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

@NATO has consistently lent itself to the fabrications of Ukrainian president Petro (Propaganda) Poroshenko in stoking up unwarranted fears of Russia. Time after time NATO has attempted to demonize Vladimir Putin & create an aura of fear concerning Russia.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

In light of all this is @NATO a force for good & peace in the world? Or is it the military arm of western imperialism led by an consistently imperialistic USA?

Our conclusion is very definitely that it is the latter an obvious force for war & instability.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

Since the attacks of @NATO upon Serbia & through what was clearly an illegal, irresponsible & utterly murderous attack on Libya, it's obvious NATO has sought to invent a purpose, preserve its career paths & its salaries by fomenting war & engendering fear.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

In the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia & Estonia, in Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia & elsewhere @NATO has sought to carve new niches for itself in tandem with these nations generating their own self-interested fearmongering in hope of western aid.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

@NATO seems to care little or nothing about the anxiety & at times undoubtedly near terror that its self-interested statements on Russia generate.

Its own survival, income & power appears to be paramount to its leaders.

Hence, 'NATO : MAKING FEAR PAY'
@NATO NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

Robert Parry @ConsortiumNews was arguably USA's foremost investigative journalist (instrumental in revealing Iran-Contra scandal) related how he was at a Washington event when a senior official admitted to him that they lied about Russia for @NATO's sake.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

NATO is always looking to include more members. They even hoped Serbia would join, but memories of the merciless terrorist attacks NATO made upon them are still fresh in many minds there & NATO has been correctly been refused by them.

#Serbia @NATO
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

Two nations Russia is in dispute with Georgia & Ukraine want to join @NATO & may do so at a future date. This would bring NATO right up to the border of the Russian Federation in an intolerable attempt to encircle the country. Russia is under great threat.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

Trump is advocating that Latin American countries should join @NATO.

What they have to do with the North Atlantic Ocean is far from clear, but what IS clear is that this will not stop their membership if Trump & his Neocons have need of their services.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

@NATO is part of an ever more threatening world gathering in darkness round us. A world of threatening coalitions where MSM entities transmit all the necessary lies to allow 'humanitarian' wars to be fought against those nations targeted for destruction.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

NATO is part of a past that ought to have stayed there not continue w/ us for the most ignoble & dangerously irresponsible of reasons, willing to see millions die in an apocalyptic world war for the sake of @NATO survival is a vile CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY.
@NATO NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

@NATO is making fear pay. It's well-heeled staff are generating fear to keep them in business & enjoying their route along well-mapped career paths. Just as the warwonk analysts know there is no pay in peace & that only threat ensures continued employment.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

While the world descends into the hands of criminals all around us we see the western world incessantly attack one of the few men of integrity who is trying to hold the most solid values of the past in place, Vladimir Putin.

NATO : MAKING FEAR PAY

@NATO
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

Along with Putin we see the constant attempts to denigrate & remove from power all leaders who take an independent stance wishing to enhance their fellow citizens rather than enrich foreign corporate entities. Such men as Hugo Chavez & Nicolas Maduro.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

President Assad of Syria hung on despite sustained US terrorism to bring him & his country to their knees. The leaders of Venezuela, Cuba & Nicaragua are all in the cross-hairs of Trump's goons & will face the might of @NATO in ADDITION to that of the USA.
NATO : NICE OR NASTY?

@NATO ought to be gone. Trump ought not to be in the @WhiteHouse. Our world ought to be working together on Climate Change & Terrorism.

But as long as fear generates income & the lust for income generates war we will continue to have the scourge of NATO.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Russian Platform #HandsOffVenezuela 🇻🇪🇷🇺✌
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!