Tweet
Voice of Russia
Jan 17 2014
US puppet Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia to appease NATO - Rick Rozoff
20-20 hindsight is something we all may have in retrospect but
something that at times may be more difficult to attain when there are
concerted efforts at obfuscation and twisting the truth. This was the
case with the invasion by Georgia of the restive enclave of South
Ossetia, an area populated almost entirely by ethnic Russians who held
Russian citizenship. We now know, thanks to the untiring efforts of
individuals such as eminent NATO expert Rick Rozoff, the entire
invasion was a move to evict Russian peacekeepers and settle a
`territorial dispute' so that Georgia could join NATO. Sadly for
tie-eating-Georgian-leader Mihail Sakashvili Russia defended its
citizens and things did not work out as his US instructors had
promised. In a long 2013 end of the year summary with the Voice of
Russia, long time NATO expert and anti-NATO activist Rick Rozoff
details those facts and sheds light on where the alliance is headed in
the coming year and onward.
This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with Rick
Rozoff, the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website and
international mailing list. This is part 4 of an interview in
progress. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at
voiceofrussia.com
0PART 1, PART 2, PART 3
0Rozoff:Were the government of Syria to have been overthrown and
Russia to lose its naval docking facility at least in Tartus, and if
the government of Yanukovich is to be overthrown in one manner or
another either through violence, street uprising, we saw it that the
press has proven to be quite adept at pulling off in countries from
Yugoslavia to Ukraine 9 years ago, or through a rigged or extra
constitutional election that brings about a change of regime in the
country, and the Russian Black Sea fleet were to be ordered out of the
Crimea which is I'm sure what the US is ordering its allies and the
Ukraine to do, or to consider. Then you would have seen the eviction
of Russia, not only from the Mediterranean, but except for a narrow
strip of Russian territory out of the Black Sea.
0And this is pretty heavy duty geopolitics, and I think in that sense
too the two are not unrelated.The Russian Black Sea Fleet vessels that
have come to Syria recently have left their base in the Crimea, for
the most part. By the way, this is a precondition for Ukraine joining
NATO rather.
0Robles: Evicting the Black Sea Fleet is a precondition?
0Rozoff:Well not specifically, but inevitably, and I'll need to
describe how. When NATO re-asserted in 2009, if I'm correct, that
Georgia and Ukraine were going to join NATO, that they have been
invited to join as full members of NATO, it was with the proviso that
two standard NATO conditions be met. And those two conditions are: no
foreign military forces on the soil of the country that joins NATO,
which is to say - no non-NATO military forces on the soil. That would
be the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea exactly in the case of
Ukraine. It would have been at that time Russian - actually it was
2008,it was 2008 because it was several months before the five-day war
that the Saakashvili regime instigated in the South Caucasus.
0The second condition is no unresolved territorial disputes. I read
that immediately at the NATO Summit at the beginning of 2008
0Robles: No unresolved territorial disputes?
0Rozoff:Such as for example Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia but,
arguably, Crimea in Ukraine. You know, at the point where the West
could have portrayed or can now say that a largely ethnic Russian
constituency in Crimea is interfering with the westernization or the
European integration of Ukraine, then were a government like that of
Yushchenko to call in Western support, including military support into
the Crimea, that would not be beyond the realm of possibilities,
that's number one.
0So, what we have here is two things. That I believe the war in the
Caucasus in August of 2008 was the inevitable result of what NATO
offered to Georgia and Ukraine earlier in the year, which was - once
you get rid of foreign military forces, even peace-keepers on your
territory and once you integrate restive areas and put them under your
thumb, then you can join NATO. This was all but an invitation for
Mikhail Saakashvili to invade South Ossetia and following that, had he
been successful, Abkhazia. And it was also an invitation for
Yanukovych to clamp down on political opponents in Eastern Ukraine.
0Robles: That's the first time I've heard that one. Why didn't we talk
about that before? You said it was a condition for them to do that.
So, basically they invaded South Ossetia and killed all the Russian
citizens there to join NATO?
0Rozoff:That is my firm contention of this day, that it was known, it
was explicitly stated at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, Romania in 2008
that Georgia and Ukraine were to join NATO as full members. As a
matter of fact, there were special commissions set up after the war.
After the war in August of 2008 the US set up formal commissions with
Ukraine and Georgia and NATO set up something comparable to that, you
know a special program for both countries for their integration.
0But it is common knowledge, and it was reiterated at the Bucharest
Summit, that the two impediments for a nation joining NATO were
unresolved territorial disputes within their national boundaries and
the presence of non-NATO military forces in the country. Russia in
this case was meant vis-à-vis Georgia and Ukraine. And that's why I'm
stating it.
0In fact, the Commonwealth of Independent States mandated
peace-keeping forces - peace-keeping forces mandated by the CIS!
(ofwhich Georgia was a member at that time, before the war, let's
recall) - and that they were mandated to be in Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. To NATO, itrepresented an impediment to the full
incorporation of Georgia as a full NATO member, Mr. Saakashvili
understood that and he acted accordingly. That's my conviction.
0But this applies equally, I would argue,or almost equally to Ukraine
because the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine would
be the biggest impediment, absolutely an impediment. It would be a
sinequa non of NATO membership to evict the Russian Black Sea Fleet
from the Crimea. Mr. Yushchenko understood that perfectly in 2008 too.
0But now that with the eastern partnership, because this is what the
association agreement with the European Union meant. It is being done
under the auspices of a program created also in 2008, exactly the same
year, we're talking about the Bucharest Summit, on the initiative of
Poland and Sweden to invite all of the non-Russian, all the former
Soviet republics in Europe and the Caucasus, except for Russia
(meaning Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) into
the eastern partnership to integrate them into the European Union.
Which would mean what? That would mean the effective death of the
Commonwealth of Independent States.
0How else can that be interpreted? If you're telling every single
non-Central Asian Soviet Republic except Russia that they could be
incorporated into the European Union, which is basically co-terminus
with NATO. That's something like 21 out of 28 members of the European
Union are members of NATO and the others are partners.
0Robles: I don't think that would ever happen, because all the people
have to do is sit down and look at the numbers, like they did in
Ukraine and we talked about this before. $100billion in income over 7
years if we join the Customs Union and $1billion in income over 7
years if we join the EU. Plus they would have to divert all
theirspending on social programs and everything else into upgrading
their military, and becoming NATO compatible.
0I don't think that would ever happen. But, again, NATO was formed and
founded to fight the Soviet Union and destroy the Soviet Union, OK or
defend against the Soviet Union, however you want to put it. And it
seems to me they have just continued along that same road despite the
fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists. Would you agree with
that?
0Rozoff:On the second score I agree. On the first score I think we
have to be careful. By the way, a mistake earlier - it is 27 members I
believe of the European Union, of which 21 are members in NATO. But
the other 6 are all NATO partners in the Partnership for Peace
program. So, you know, it's almost sleightof hand - NATO is EU, EU is
NATO, or rather the EU is NATO minus the US and Canada.
0Robles: I think people in Serbia know that. I think now people in
Ukraine are beginning to realize that. I think people in Poland know
that. I think most Russians are now waking up and realizing that
but... Go ahead Rick.
0Rozoff: However, as we talked about, if at the Bucharest Summit of
NATO in 2008 it was told the US puppet regime in Kiev - and that's all
the Yushchenko Government was - you know, he was being led by the nose
by his wife Kathy from Chicago. And if anyone doesn't believe that, I
suggest they look into the matter a little more closely. But that all
the Government of Yushchenko or the one that would replace Yanukovych
now, if some kind of a revived Orange Revolution were to occur, would
have to do is to provoke some political crisis in the Crimea.
0We know, for example, there've been demonstrations by Crimeans, local
residents against the US-NATO military exercises - the Sea Breeze
exercises that we talked about a few minutes ago. All they would have
to do is have a some kind of provocation staged, US uses that as an
excuse to protecting Ukraine against Russian proxy subversion or
something of this sort, and then you have a real crisis on your hands.
So, let's not dismiss that possibility.
0On the first part of the question you asked me - is NATO an outdated
organization? That's one argument by opponents of NATO that I don't
fully share. What it tends to suggest is that NATO was a perfectly
legitimate organization at its inception and throughout the Cold War,
but now we don't need it. That is not at all what NATO has been
transformed into in the post-Cold War period.
0The US and its major allies in NATO - and this is not strictly a US
thing - we have to understand that two of the world's largest arms
exporters right now are Germany, which I believe is number three (NATO
has worked very well for German death merchants), another major
international arms exporter is Sweden. Sweden, which has joined the
international NATO response force, has taken good care of its
politicians and certainly of its merchants of death as a result of
affiliation with NATO. So, this is not simply a matter of an outdated
organization to continue on its own momentum with no purpose.
0The cliché that's been used for the last 15 years as `in search of a
mission' or `redefining itself' or something of this sort - no, the US
instead has seen that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
Eastern Bloc as a whole - you know, the Comecon economic union, and
the Warsaw Pact military alliance - as one official stated several
years ago that basically the US moved the Berlin Wall to the Russian
border.
0Notwithstanding the assurances by the George H.W Bush Administration
to the Mikhail Gorbachev Government that NATO would not move one inch
eastward, we can see what is in fact...
0Robles: Well, they made that promise they just refused to put it on paper.
0Rozoff: I don't want to belabor this point. And whatever it was, it
is no longer such after 1991, and actually earlier than that.
0In 1991 the Warsaw Pact, which had already been moribund for years,
formally dissolved itself and then, in the same year, in 1991 the
Soviet Union fragmented into 15 republics or nations.
0So, that the whatever alleged justification that NATO might ever have
had, it disappeared, it dissolved immediately. And at that point, if
NATO was a defensive organization (I don't believe it was, but for
those who claim it was at any point in its history), then it of
necessity had to dissolve itself too at that point. Yes or no?
0Robles: What is NATO then? I mean, it wasn't a defensive organization
to begin with, what exactly was it then?
0Rozoff: At the moment Berlin fell in 1945 the war waged by the US,
France and Britain and the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany became a
conflict between the US, Britain and France against the Soviet Union.
Everybody knows that.
0One war had not ended before the next one - the Cold War - began. And
NATO was necessary to sustain permanent US military presence in
Europe, consolidate friendly (one might argue - compliant) governments
in the major European countries, that would be beholden to the US
military and would in fact be integrated politically and militarily
with the United States.
0However, at that time at least the name of the organization made some
sense and some legitimacy when we speak about the North-Atlantic
Treaty Organization. Of the original 12 members I believe all but
Italy were on or near the Atlantic Ocean. We are now looking at a
North-Atlantic Treaty Organization that from 1999 to 2009, that is in
one decade, expanded from 16 countries to 28. That is a 40% increase.
0Robles: Now North-Atlantic is into eastern Africa, I believe.
0Rozoff: It is all over the world. And the 12 new members are all in
eastern and central Europe, from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, to
the Adriatic Sea. And none of them are anywhere near the Atlantic
Ocean.
0So, if it was a defensive organization to defend democracies and the
euro-Atlantic region, then why is up to 28 members, the majority of
whom now are not on the Atlantic Ocean.
0That's I think a simple refutation of that claim. I mean, the fact
that the three former Soviet republics - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania -
were brought in as full NATO members in 2004 and in the NATO Summit in
Turkey seven new nations were brought in at one time - that is
unprecedented - right? - except for the original inception.
0Robles: I'd like to say one thing. Russia, does that pose a threat to
the West. I'm sorry, people. Russia is not threatening America. Russia
is not and has never threatened Europe. Russia is not threatening
Scandinavia...
0Rozoff: No, it is a bogeyman. I mean, you've talked about the four
phantom enemies. You know, they concoct a man of straw, an imaginary
threat and then they... as it was evidenced perhaps in the last year,
maybe a little longer than that, a major military official, I believe
a Defense Ministry official in Sweden has said: `If Russia invades
Sweden, without NATO support we'd be overrun in days.' Now, come on!
0Robles: Yes, we wouldn't last eight hours I think he said.
0Rozoff: Okay, it is even worse. In what geopolitical and what
psychological universe does one frame scenarios like that? But it is
clear that this is evoking images, you know, the absolute, the most
horrifying images of the Cold War. You know, Russians are coming. And
if: `... we - Sweden - do not join NATO immediately by the time you get
home from work, there are going to be Russian troops in Stockholm.'
0I mean, this is kind of lunacy that goes on. But because the media,
as well as the political establishment in Western countries are so
subservient, first of all, to the US and, second of all, to the
Western elites as a whole... somebody like that should have been drummed
out of his position immediately after making a statement like that.
That is alarmism, that is fear mongering.
0Robles: Who is this serving? It is serving the military industrial
complex, isn't it?
0Rozoff: Including that in Sweden, including Sweden's ability to sell
arms around the world, based on its affiliation with NATO, because of
the interoperability of weaponry.
0There is something else that is significant and only a handful of
people in Sweden, evidently, fully I think taken cognizance of this.
About two or three years ago the Swedish Army revamped itself. It had
been a territorial defense army, a citizen army and it was meant for
one purpose only - in the very-very unlikely, if not impossible, case
of foreign military forces assaulting Sweden, the Swedish Armed Forces
were to defend Sweden, period.
0That was the end of part 4 of an interview with Rick Rozoff - the
owner and manager of the stop NATO website and international mailing
list. You can find the remaining parts of this interview on our
website at voiceofrussia.com
For Parts 1, 2 & 3, go to the website:
http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_01_17/US-puppet-Sakashvili-invaded-South-Ossetia-to-appease-NATO-4441/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Jan 17 2014
US puppet Saakashvili invaded South Ossetia to appease NATO - Rick Rozoff
20-20 hindsight is something we all may have in retrospect but
something that at times may be more difficult to attain when there are
concerted efforts at obfuscation and twisting the truth. This was the
case with the invasion by Georgia of the restive enclave of South
Ossetia, an area populated almost entirely by ethnic Russians who held
Russian citizenship. We now know, thanks to the untiring efforts of
individuals such as eminent NATO expert Rick Rozoff, the entire
invasion was a move to evict Russian peacekeepers and settle a
`territorial dispute' so that Georgia could join NATO. Sadly for
tie-eating-Georgian-leader Mihail Sakashvili Russia defended its
citizens and things did not work out as his US instructors had
promised. In a long 2013 end of the year summary with the Voice of
Russia, long time NATO expert and anti-NATO activist Rick Rozoff
details those facts and sheds light on where the alliance is headed in
the coming year and onward.
This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with Rick
Rozoff, the owner and manager of the Stop NATO website and
international mailing list. This is part 4 of an interview in
progress. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at
voiceofrussia.com
0PART 1, PART 2, PART 3
0Rozoff:Were the government of Syria to have been overthrown and
Russia to lose its naval docking facility at least in Tartus, and if
the government of Yanukovich is to be overthrown in one manner or
another either through violence, street uprising, we saw it that the
press has proven to be quite adept at pulling off in countries from
Yugoslavia to Ukraine 9 years ago, or through a rigged or extra
constitutional election that brings about a change of regime in the
country, and the Russian Black Sea fleet were to be ordered out of the
Crimea which is I'm sure what the US is ordering its allies and the
Ukraine to do, or to consider. Then you would have seen the eviction
of Russia, not only from the Mediterranean, but except for a narrow
strip of Russian territory out of the Black Sea.
0And this is pretty heavy duty geopolitics, and I think in that sense
too the two are not unrelated.The Russian Black Sea Fleet vessels that
have come to Syria recently have left their base in the Crimea, for
the most part. By the way, this is a precondition for Ukraine joining
NATO rather.
0Robles: Evicting the Black Sea Fleet is a precondition?
0Rozoff:Well not specifically, but inevitably, and I'll need to
describe how. When NATO re-asserted in 2009, if I'm correct, that
Georgia and Ukraine were going to join NATO, that they have been
invited to join as full members of NATO, it was with the proviso that
two standard NATO conditions be met. And those two conditions are: no
foreign military forces on the soil of the country that joins NATO,
which is to say - no non-NATO military forces on the soil. That would
be the Russian Black Sea Fleet in the Crimea exactly in the case of
Ukraine. It would have been at that time Russian - actually it was
2008,it was 2008 because it was several months before the five-day war
that the Saakashvili regime instigated in the South Caucasus.
0The second condition is no unresolved territorial disputes. I read
that immediately at the NATO Summit at the beginning of 2008
0Robles: No unresolved territorial disputes?
0Rozoff:Such as for example Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia but,
arguably, Crimea in Ukraine. You know, at the point where the West
could have portrayed or can now say that a largely ethnic Russian
constituency in Crimea is interfering with the westernization or the
European integration of Ukraine, then were a government like that of
Yushchenko to call in Western support, including military support into
the Crimea, that would not be beyond the realm of possibilities,
that's number one.
0So, what we have here is two things. That I believe the war in the
Caucasus in August of 2008 was the inevitable result of what NATO
offered to Georgia and Ukraine earlier in the year, which was - once
you get rid of foreign military forces, even peace-keepers on your
territory and once you integrate restive areas and put them under your
thumb, then you can join NATO. This was all but an invitation for
Mikhail Saakashvili to invade South Ossetia and following that, had he
been successful, Abkhazia. And it was also an invitation for
Yanukovych to clamp down on political opponents in Eastern Ukraine.
0Robles: That's the first time I've heard that one. Why didn't we talk
about that before? You said it was a condition for them to do that.
So, basically they invaded South Ossetia and killed all the Russian
citizens there to join NATO?
0Rozoff:That is my firm contention of this day, that it was known, it
was explicitly stated at the NATO Summit in Bucharest, Romania in 2008
that Georgia and Ukraine were to join NATO as full members. As a
matter of fact, there were special commissions set up after the war.
After the war in August of 2008 the US set up formal commissions with
Ukraine and Georgia and NATO set up something comparable to that, you
know a special program for both countries for their integration.
0But it is common knowledge, and it was reiterated at the Bucharest
Summit, that the two impediments for a nation joining NATO were
unresolved territorial disputes within their national boundaries and
the presence of non-NATO military forces in the country. Russia in
this case was meant vis-à-vis Georgia and Ukraine. And that's why I'm
stating it.
0In fact, the Commonwealth of Independent States mandated
peace-keeping forces - peace-keeping forces mandated by the CIS!
(ofwhich Georgia was a member at that time, before the war, let's
recall) - and that they were mandated to be in Abkhazia and South
Ossetia. To NATO, itrepresented an impediment to the full
incorporation of Georgia as a full NATO member, Mr. Saakashvili
understood that and he acted accordingly. That's my conviction.
0But this applies equally, I would argue,or almost equally to Ukraine
because the presence of the Russian Black Sea Fleet in Ukraine would
be the biggest impediment, absolutely an impediment. It would be a
sinequa non of NATO membership to evict the Russian Black Sea Fleet
from the Crimea. Mr. Yushchenko understood that perfectly in 2008 too.
0But now that with the eastern partnership, because this is what the
association agreement with the European Union meant. It is being done
under the auspices of a program created also in 2008, exactly the same
year, we're talking about the Bucharest Summit, on the initiative of
Poland and Sweden to invite all of the non-Russian, all the former
Soviet republics in Europe and the Caucasus, except for Russia
(meaning Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia) into
the eastern partnership to integrate them into the European Union.
Which would mean what? That would mean the effective death of the
Commonwealth of Independent States.
0How else can that be interpreted? If you're telling every single
non-Central Asian Soviet Republic except Russia that they could be
incorporated into the European Union, which is basically co-terminus
with NATO. That's something like 21 out of 28 members of the European
Union are members of NATO and the others are partners.
0Robles: I don't think that would ever happen, because all the people
have to do is sit down and look at the numbers, like they did in
Ukraine and we talked about this before. $100billion in income over 7
years if we join the Customs Union and $1billion in income over 7
years if we join the EU. Plus they would have to divert all
theirspending on social programs and everything else into upgrading
their military, and becoming NATO compatible.
0I don't think that would ever happen. But, again, NATO was formed and
founded to fight the Soviet Union and destroy the Soviet Union, OK or
defend against the Soviet Union, however you want to put it. And it
seems to me they have just continued along that same road despite the
fact that the Soviet Union no longer exists. Would you agree with
that?
0Rozoff:On the second score I agree. On the first score I think we
have to be careful. By the way, a mistake earlier - it is 27 members I
believe of the European Union, of which 21 are members in NATO. But
the other 6 are all NATO partners in the Partnership for Peace
program. So, you know, it's almost sleightof hand - NATO is EU, EU is
NATO, or rather the EU is NATO minus the US and Canada.
0Robles: I think people in Serbia know that. I think now people in
Ukraine are beginning to realize that. I think people in Poland know
that. I think most Russians are now waking up and realizing that
but... Go ahead Rick.
0Rozoff: However, as we talked about, if at the Bucharest Summit of
NATO in 2008 it was told the US puppet regime in Kiev - and that's all
the Yushchenko Government was - you know, he was being led by the nose
by his wife Kathy from Chicago. And if anyone doesn't believe that, I
suggest they look into the matter a little more closely. But that all
the Government of Yushchenko or the one that would replace Yanukovych
now, if some kind of a revived Orange Revolution were to occur, would
have to do is to provoke some political crisis in the Crimea.
0We know, for example, there've been demonstrations by Crimeans, local
residents against the US-NATO military exercises - the Sea Breeze
exercises that we talked about a few minutes ago. All they would have
to do is have a some kind of provocation staged, US uses that as an
excuse to protecting Ukraine against Russian proxy subversion or
something of this sort, and then you have a real crisis on your hands.
So, let's not dismiss that possibility.
0On the first part of the question you asked me - is NATO an outdated
organization? That's one argument by opponents of NATO that I don't
fully share. What it tends to suggest is that NATO was a perfectly
legitimate organization at its inception and throughout the Cold War,
but now we don't need it. That is not at all what NATO has been
transformed into in the post-Cold War period.
0The US and its major allies in NATO - and this is not strictly a US
thing - we have to understand that two of the world's largest arms
exporters right now are Germany, which I believe is number three (NATO
has worked very well for German death merchants), another major
international arms exporter is Sweden. Sweden, which has joined the
international NATO response force, has taken good care of its
politicians and certainly of its merchants of death as a result of
affiliation with NATO. So, this is not simply a matter of an outdated
organization to continue on its own momentum with no purpose.
0The cliché that's been used for the last 15 years as `in search of a
mission' or `redefining itself' or something of this sort - no, the US
instead has seen that, with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the
Eastern Bloc as a whole - you know, the Comecon economic union, and
the Warsaw Pact military alliance - as one official stated several
years ago that basically the US moved the Berlin Wall to the Russian
border.
0Notwithstanding the assurances by the George H.W Bush Administration
to the Mikhail Gorbachev Government that NATO would not move one inch
eastward, we can see what is in fact...
0Robles: Well, they made that promise they just refused to put it on paper.
0Rozoff: I don't want to belabor this point. And whatever it was, it
is no longer such after 1991, and actually earlier than that.
0In 1991 the Warsaw Pact, which had already been moribund for years,
formally dissolved itself and then, in the same year, in 1991 the
Soviet Union fragmented into 15 republics or nations.
0So, that the whatever alleged justification that NATO might ever have
had, it disappeared, it dissolved immediately. And at that point, if
NATO was a defensive organization (I don't believe it was, but for
those who claim it was at any point in its history), then it of
necessity had to dissolve itself too at that point. Yes or no?
0Robles: What is NATO then? I mean, it wasn't a defensive organization
to begin with, what exactly was it then?
0Rozoff: At the moment Berlin fell in 1945 the war waged by the US,
France and Britain and the Soviet Union against Nazi Germany became a
conflict between the US, Britain and France against the Soviet Union.
Everybody knows that.
0One war had not ended before the next one - the Cold War - began. And
NATO was necessary to sustain permanent US military presence in
Europe, consolidate friendly (one might argue - compliant) governments
in the major European countries, that would be beholden to the US
military and would in fact be integrated politically and militarily
with the United States.
0However, at that time at least the name of the organization made some
sense and some legitimacy when we speak about the North-Atlantic
Treaty Organization. Of the original 12 members I believe all but
Italy were on or near the Atlantic Ocean. We are now looking at a
North-Atlantic Treaty Organization that from 1999 to 2009, that is in
one decade, expanded from 16 countries to 28. That is a 40% increase.
0Robles: Now North-Atlantic is into eastern Africa, I believe.
0Rozoff: It is all over the world. And the 12 new members are all in
eastern and central Europe, from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, to
the Adriatic Sea. And none of them are anywhere near the Atlantic
Ocean.
0So, if it was a defensive organization to defend democracies and the
euro-Atlantic region, then why is up to 28 members, the majority of
whom now are not on the Atlantic Ocean.
0That's I think a simple refutation of that claim. I mean, the fact
that the three former Soviet republics - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania -
were brought in as full NATO members in 2004 and in the NATO Summit in
Turkey seven new nations were brought in at one time - that is
unprecedented - right? - except for the original inception.
0Robles: I'd like to say one thing. Russia, does that pose a threat to
the West. I'm sorry, people. Russia is not threatening America. Russia
is not and has never threatened Europe. Russia is not threatening
Scandinavia...
0Rozoff: No, it is a bogeyman. I mean, you've talked about the four
phantom enemies. You know, they concoct a man of straw, an imaginary
threat and then they... as it was evidenced perhaps in the last year,
maybe a little longer than that, a major military official, I believe
a Defense Ministry official in Sweden has said: `If Russia invades
Sweden, without NATO support we'd be overrun in days.' Now, come on!
0Robles: Yes, we wouldn't last eight hours I think he said.
0Rozoff: Okay, it is even worse. In what geopolitical and what
psychological universe does one frame scenarios like that? But it is
clear that this is evoking images, you know, the absolute, the most
horrifying images of the Cold War. You know, Russians are coming. And
if: `... we - Sweden - do not join NATO immediately by the time you get
home from work, there are going to be Russian troops in Stockholm.'
0I mean, this is kind of lunacy that goes on. But because the media,
as well as the political establishment in Western countries are so
subservient, first of all, to the US and, second of all, to the
Western elites as a whole... somebody like that should have been drummed
out of his position immediately after making a statement like that.
That is alarmism, that is fear mongering.
0Robles: Who is this serving? It is serving the military industrial
complex, isn't it?
0Rozoff: Including that in Sweden, including Sweden's ability to sell
arms around the world, based on its affiliation with NATO, because of
the interoperability of weaponry.
0There is something else that is significant and only a handful of
people in Sweden, evidently, fully I think taken cognizance of this.
About two or three years ago the Swedish Army revamped itself. It had
been a territorial defense army, a citizen army and it was meant for
one purpose only - in the very-very unlikely, if not impossible, case
of foreign military forces assaulting Sweden, the Swedish Armed Forces
were to defend Sweden, period.
0That was the end of part 4 of an interview with Rick Rozoff - the
owner and manager of the stop NATO website and international mailing
list. You can find the remaining parts of this interview on our
website at voiceofrussia.com
For Parts 1, 2 & 3, go to the website:
http://voiceofrussia.com/2014_01_17/US-puppet-Sakashvili-invaded-South-Ossetia-to-appease-NATO-4441/
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress