Lo and behold, I was able to attend the NATO Summit in Madrid this week. There’s plenty to discuss on a substantive level about what emerged from the grandiose gathering — for one thing, the contours of what could very well be the next World War were pretty much formalized. Which seems significant. But first, I want to offer a few “meta” observations regarding how the Summit operated on a practical level. Because attending a NATO Summit is not something that most people reading this article will ever do, nor is it something that most people on Earth will ever do. So there are some peculiarities worth noting for the record.
NATO is nearly nothing more than an enormous money-laundering scheme, cycling taxpayer money to the “defense industry” and the politicians they pay off. Should’ve been shut down in the early nineties when it’s purpose for existence had ended. It’s no longer, if it ever was, a defensive alliance. As Michael mentions, it’s done nothing since the 90’s but expand geographically and in its “mandate”. Utopian Atlanticist madmen and madwomen are gonna get us all killed by goading the Bear until it turns around and bites our face off. Putin has spent most of his time in power building a nearly self sufficient industrial base and a rebuilt military. They spend maybe 10 cents on the dollar for weaponry that actually works, as opposed to the fantastically expensive wunderwaffen of the US and its satraps. They have already defeated Ukraine, so the mighty Wurlitzer spends enormous time and energy gaslighting and lying to us. Truthfully most of Asia and the global south are with Russia and China in wanting NATO to go away and let the sane peoples build a just multi-polar world.
Hearing how willingly the press is manipulated is both amusing and depressing at the same time. But then I am reminded that you were actually there, doing the work, reporting on the fakery and showing what journalism can and should be. Kudos.
Love your reporting and your snark.. nice pairing with Max and Aaron too.
Reading Tracey's observations of his 'NATO Meeting' in Europe brought back memories & impressions I had working for a multinational in the 80's, covering Europe just when the euro was being introduced. My company held regular meetings with our European members, one from each country. What I learned from my European meetings:
(1) Scandinavians like fresh air, so they would open the windows (2) The French & Spanish smoke a lot - and they often would shut the windows opened by the Scandinavians (3) Europeans take long lunches - they like to eat and drink (4) European don't like to talk business during dinner they actually get annoyed when conversation was 'serious'; they thought the American President of our company (my boss) was a neanderthal because he wasn't versed in the wonderfulness of Bertrand Russell ('On Education', etc) and others of his ilk. (5) Europeans like to talk a lot, ruminate, etc., but didn't seem to get much work done. (6) Issues went unresolved for months on end or just never got addressed (7) Europeans think Americans are dolts and even have contempt for us, but truly want us to stick around when things get expensive or messy.
That said, I found the beer, mussels & Godiva chocolates in Brussels to be quite yummy : )
Always a great read…entertaining, witty and more importantly, informative as to the depth of the BS that comprises today’s MSM fraudsters…
Keep it up….
Solid piece and very interesting. Maybe you have hit on an interesting topic: the press as stenographers and their abandonment of the truth to power ethos.
Matt Tiabbi explains the appeal of Trump rallies, he says they are rollicking fun, full of off the cuff mocking of the elites bullshit and lies. Trump tattletales on them and their blatant nonsense. Michael, that’s exactly what you just did, you shone a light on the pretend and pretentious twits in media: self aggrandizing little turds
This is more telltale than an interview with the Canadian foreign minister: come on Canada, really nobody cares what Canada thinks, even Canadians.
Amazing waste of time and money. Great idea forcing Russia and China together. Maybe the “BRICS” will have the last laugh!!
Natasha Bertrand has long been identified as CIA operator
The best part of all of this is that the EU is still buying tons of oil from Russia, while they "plan out" the new liberal world order (rules based) for the rest of us. Ukraine is Russia's - happened today, while Natasha at CNN tweets that Russia "claims" Lugansk is liberated today. Just had to put the weasel word 'claims' there because it's news that doesn't fit The Narrative.
You have China, India, and S. Korea on the list of countries buying Russian oil in addition to the EU. Not only have they NOT condemned Russia's invasion of Ukraine, they will continue to buy from Russia. Not on the list (yet) are Indonesia and Brazil. What are the combined populations of all of those countries: 4 billion? Brazil isn't part of the Neo-Liberal clown world. Bolsonaro openly mocks the leadership of Ukraine. Those 4 countries probably represent at least 2/3 of the world's population.
There's the split right there, and the skinsuit "west", "NATO", and the people running it are trying to stay in power while simultaneously burning the thing to the ground.
Sounds like you were the token journalist. I bet you didn’t get invited to the birthday party. One journalist is a lot better than zero but how strange in a war conference that there was not enough courage to answer tough questions? It seems courage, bravery, death and dismemberment are delegated to others.
NATO functionaries get bullied by neocons into waging stupid wars and are scared to face journalists who want to ask tough questions - what chance does NATO have, it appears to be lead by cowards? Condemning others to die in what you know to be an unnecessary war for profit is not courageous it is foolish and cowardly.
Inside NATO propaganda machine. Great reporting
I love reading your stuff! You made me chuckle a few times. I shared this article with The Duran thinking you could help him out with his clown world for several days...
At least now I understand the "Go! Fight! Win!" attitude among all things NATO.
" . . . so-called North Atlantic . . . "
Great piece! I was a US diplomat in the Ankara Embassy during a NATO summit there in 1980. Since I worked for the old USIA (now State Department Press and Culture) I spent all my time with journalists. They were still adults then and you could not have met a nicer group of people.
You are wildly out of your depth here.
1. It is, of course, entirely possible for a defensive alliance to expand its membership. "Defensive" and "expanding" are not opposite in meaning. Why did Finland and Sweden seek NATO membership? Because they wish to take offensive action against Russia, or because they wish to take additional defensive measures to protect themselves against attack by Russia? If you don't see that question as rhetorical, you are fully disconnected from reality.
2. There is an intellectually coherent perspective that sees the Ukraine tragedy as one that Western policy makers needlessly contributed to by encouraging Ukraine to align itself more closely with the West, rather than stay in a more overtly neutral position. I happen to hold that view myself. However, the notion that Russia's seizure of vast chunks of Ukraine's territory by force of arms is somehow justified or does not require the West to support Ukraine in its armed resistance is a toxic combination of historical ignorance and willful blindness.
3. You make the laziest of errors. You point out the obvious defects in the operation of an institution (i.e., NATO) to imply that these defects invalidate its foundational premises. Corruption, in both its minor (e.g., preferred press access) and major manifestations (e.g., commercial self-dealing and conflicts of interests with major arms suppliers) is a worthy target of censure. However, it has nothing to do with the real necessity for a defensive alliance against a world power that has repeatedly demonstrated it does not intend to forego brutal armed aggression as a means of advancing what it perceives to be its interests.