NATO Nukes in Romania: Rumor Mill Vs. Reality

August 22, 2016 (Ulson Gunnar – NEO) – Unconfirmed reports regarding the US moving nuclear weapons it reportedly maintains at Incirlik Airbase, Turkey to Romania (a NATO member since 2004) made the rounds last week. It is just one of many stories surrounding the apparent fallout between the United States and its stalwart ally and fellow NATO member, Turkey.

Following a failed coup in July, Turkey has accused the US openly of orchestrating the attempted overthrow of the government. Despite this, US forces continue operating from Turkish territory, and according to official reports, American nuclear weapons remain in Turkey.

But what if they were being moved? And if not to Romania as Romanian officials insist, to another NATO members state, what would this mean? And if they are not being moved, who started this rumor and why?

NATO Nuclear Sharing 

The US currently maintains nuclear weapons in a number of NATO countries (Turkey, Belgium, Italy, German and the Netherlands) under a “nuclear sharing” program that dates back to the Cold War. The impact of joining this program is politically and strategically significant. There are risks and responsibilities involved with hosting US nuclear weapons, and those nations that seek to opt out once in the program can struggle for years before these weapons are finally removed from their territory.

A 2009 Der Spiegel article titled, “Yankee Bombs Go Home: Foreign Minister Wants US Nukes out of Germany,” highlights just how difficult this can be, especially considering that as of 2016, US nuclear weapons remain in Germany, and as Deutsche Welle points out, new weapons may even be on their way.

According to a 2010 paper by The Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) titled, “NATO’s Tactical Nuclear Dilemma” (PDF), part of the reasoning of maintaining nuclear weapons in Europe and Turkey is to give the NATO alliance “credibility” as well as discourage nuclear proliferation both within NATO and beyond it.

The paper postulated that the removal of nuclear weapons from Turkey could unbalance the region strategically and spur nuclear proliferation from Iran to Saudi Arabia and perhaps even force Turkey itself to seek its own nuclear weapons. In regards to Turkey, the paper concluded that maintaining US nuclear weapons there was desirable both for Turkey and for NATO.

Possible Reasons for the Rumors

Considering what were perceived to be the consequences of removing nuclear weapons from Turkey in 2010,  the transferring of US nuclear weapons to Romania now would be serious indeed. Thus, floating rumors of the weapons being moved could have been aimed at pressuring Ankara to make concessions regarding any number of current US projects in the region, the most prominent of which would be its ongoing proxy war against Syria, Russia and Iran.

Another possibility may have been to simply add credibility to claims that US and Turkish ties are strained, even unraveling. This might be perceived as necessary considering the lack of actual, quantifiable fallout seen on the ground in Turkey in regards to a continued US presence within its territory, as well as on the ground along the Turkish-Syrian border.

This geopolitical subterfuge might be aimed at Russia and Syria as a means of drawing them in before an inevitable betrayal.

US nuclear weapons stationed in Turkey and throughout Europe have always been somewhat secretive. In the RUSI paper words such as “reportedly” are used in reference to the number and location of US nuclear weapons across the region. This secrecy makes rumors regarding US nuclear weapons and their potential movement from Turkey to Romania particularly attractive in terms of extorting geopolitical concessions and manipulating public perception as they are difficult to confirm or deny.

Rumors Vs. Reality 

However, the perceived implications of the move have already been placed in the minds of many.

But regardless of these rumors, the reality of US-Turkish ties remains to be seen on the ground, in Turkey, at Incirlik Airbase, at America’s sprawling complex in Ankara where a variety of diplomatic, political and military activities are organized from and along the Turkish-Syrian border where US forces and various armed proxies are still operating.

When Ankara begins taking concrete steps toward truly ending the war in Syria, such as cutting off supply lines that have fed US, European, and Persian Gulf-backed militants for years, resulting in the collapse of militant forces particularly in Idlib and around Aleppo, there may be proper impetus to make the prospect of transferring US nuclear weapons out of Turkey more believable.

Likewise, should Turkey begin incrementally removing the large presence of US military and diplomatic personnel from its territory to levels more proportionate to those seen in non-NATO member states, the idea of the US moving its nuclear weapons out of the country will not seem so far fetched.

However, even if Turkey wanted to take all of these steps, it would not be easy to immediately implement them. Much of what constitutes current US-Turkish ties has been in the making for decades, forged during the Cold War and tempered further in its aftermath. And if these decidedly smaller steps are difficult to initiate, larger steps like transferring nuclear weapons and altering the geopolitical and strategic lay of an entire region are even more so.

With this in mind, we should consider these rumors as possibly coercive in nature, and even more so, possibly meant to manipulate public perception into believing the fallout between Turkey and the US is greater than it really is. Regardless, when really put into perspective, the possibility of the US transferring nuclear weapons from Turkey to Romania is still just that, rumors.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Advertisements

Vote for Killary Clinton: Vote for the Military-Industrial Complex and World War

Vote for Hillary Clinton: Vote for the Military-Industrial Complex and World War

Global Research, August 08, 2016
Pravda.ru 4 August 2016

In 2010, this column carried a piece written by the Venezuelan historian and writer Luis Britto Garcia, about the real intentions of Hillary Clinton and NATO, against the Russian Federation. Reading back over her messages released on Wikileaks, we can conclude that a vote for Clinton is a vote for the military-industrial complex and a world war.

The Princess of Darkness

Three years ago, Hillary Clinton was an ex-politician in retirement from the State Department. She didn’t create a lot of interest, she was rarely in the news. Six years ago, Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State of the United States of America, actively engaged in the illegal war against Libya, siding with terrorists on the west’s own lists of proscribed groups, rendering Libya a failed state crawling with terrorists, and today Islamic State. Islamic State, which grew up on Hillary Clinton’s watch. Hillary Clinton, the Princess of Darkness, masterminded the transformation of Libya from the African country with the highest human development index into the poorest on the continent, a prosperous country which descended into total chaos and a collapse of the res publica. Not a bad day’s work for a Secretary of State.

And then there was Syria, another country crawling with terrorists, some of them shipped over from Libya once the job was done. But behind the scenes something else far more sinister was brewing. Remember all the talk these days of the Baltic States and Poland and Romania, and a missile shield which is supposed to protect the USA and its allies from – Pluto was it? – but parked right along Russia’s western flank?

Well, let us re-read Britto Garcia’s work, six years on, and see what sort of person lies behind the character of Hillary Clinton, the candidate of the Democratic Party for President of the United States of America. Going back over history can help us put things into context, and it makes shocking reading, very worrying reading and a very telling warning sign over those who were thinking about voting for Hillary Clinton.

Secret NATO plans to destroy Russia

Among the Wikileaks documents released was a telegram including secret NATO plans for an attack against Russia. This is not speculation, it was printed by Britain’s The Guardian newspaper and included a massive NATO strike against Russia’s western flank dislocating nine military divisions from the United States of America, Poodle-in-Chief the United Kingdom, Germany and Poland. The attack was also to use German and Polish ports for a lightning naval attack to be staged by the USA and the UK.

One of the telegrams, claims Britto Garcia, was dated January 26, 2010, was signed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and states: “The United States believes strongly that this plan should not be discussed in public. They are classified as “the top secret level of NATO”. She adds: “Public discussion of contingency plans would undermine their military value, allowing them to expose NATO’s plans. This weakens all of our allies.”

The Queen of Liars

For those who today insinuate that Hillary Clinton is a serial liar, there is also evidence in the leaked documents that she, as head of the USA’s diplomacy, gave instructions to diplomats to lie in case of any leaks, suggesting evasive answers such as ” NATO does not discuss specific plans” and that “the plans of NATO, are not directed at any country”.

So NATO’s plans for the deployment of nine divisions are directed at what? The center of the Earth? Cloud cuckoo land?

Neither are we speaking about a single leaked telegram, we are speaking about many documents which at the time caused consternation among Russian diplomatic circles, then after the furore, Hillary Clinton disappeared. But the plans did not. The context of the plans was the defense of the Baltic States and the aim “to expand the plan that already exists for the defense of Poland”. And today we see the three Baltic States ratcheting up the anti-Russian hype daily, speak among NATO circles of an invasion of these states by Russia (groundless gossip and nothing more) and then this year a massive military exercise in Poland, coupled with plans to instal the nuclear defense shield in Poland and Romania, virtually controlling Russia’s air options along her western flank. This, after the failed attempt to seize Russia’s Crimean naval assets.

Once again, Britto Garcia’s work  is not empty hearsay. It includes mention of a telegram dated October 2009 in which the United States’ ambassador to NATO, Ivo Daalder, stated that both Hillary Clinton and President Obama expressed support for the development of the military plan against Russia.

“Daalder suggests to not to make it clear that Russia is a potential target, by the adoption of a “generic plan” for moving troops to the Baltic countries while not mentioning against whom these troops would be directed – in case of leak – not to cause or provoke constraints with Moscow”.

Conclusion: Clinton is the war candidate

The only conclusion we can draw is that Hillary Clinton represents the Establishment in the USA, staffed with people on both sides of the political divide, staffed by members of the lobbies which have long set their eyes on total hegemony and dominance of Russia’s huge resources. They have fooled themselves into thinking that Russia would buckle and collapse at the first hint of a serious threat of war from NATO.

This is the sort of pie-in-the-sky, make-it-up-as-you-go-along, incompetent, pig-headed, holier-than-thou approach one might expect from Hillary Clinton, who in so many years of public office, has achieved precisely what? The adoration of Israel and the Zionist Lobby, the destruction of Libya, the destruction of Syria, and when Russia solved the chemical weapons debacle after western-backed Syrian terrorists carried out false flag attacks and blamed them on Assad, Clinton said the Russian approach was, and I quote, “despicable”.

Hillary Clinton was out of her depth as Secretary of State. Imagine her as President and tool of the lobbies whose evil interests supercede any respect for the people of the United States of America and the citizens of the world. Hillary Clinton is a risk. Hillary Clinton is a wild card. Hillary Clinton is dangerous.

As for Russia, she stood against Hitler. She can stand against Hillary. A vote for Hillary is a vote for Hell on Earth.

 

Paul Craig Roberts: Vladimir Putin is the only leader the West has

11.07.2016
Vladimir Putin is the only leader the West has. 58382.jpeg

AP photo

By Paul Craig Roberts

A Reuters news report under the names of presstitutes Robin Emmott and Sabine Siebold shows how devoid the West is of honest, intelligent and responsible journalists and government officials. 

First we will examine the dishonesty or incompetence of the reporters and then that of Western government officials.

Emmott and Siebold describe NATO as a “Western defense alliance.”  Since the Clinton regime NATO has been an alliance for waging offensive war, a war crime under the Nuremberg rules established by the United States.  Under the NATO banner a number of countries have been bombed, invaded, and had their governments overthrown by Washington acting under the cover of NATO. 

These destroyed countries posed no threat whatsoever to the countries of the NATO alliance and undertook no aggressive actions against NATO members.  How is it possible that Reuters’ reporters and editors are not aware of this?  Why do they call an instrument of Washington’s aggression a “defense alliance”?

Emmott and Siebold report that “Russian aggression” is the reason NATO is deploying 3,000 to 4,000 troops in the Baltic states and Poland.  In other words, something that does not exist–Russian aggression toward the Baltics and Poland–is assumed to be a fact that must be countered with military deployments.

The reporters do not question whether this insignificant number of NATO troops constitutes a defense or a provocation.  The number of troops would have to be 100 times greater before the force even begins to approach a defensive force.  What then is the purpose of the 3,000 or 4,000 NATO troops?

Every informed person knows that there is no need of a defense force against Russia in the Baltics and Poland.  Aside from this fact, only an absolute idiot could think that three or four thousand troops constitutes a defense against the Russian Army.  In June 1941 Operation Barbarossa hit Russia with an invasion of four million troops, the majority German component of which were probably the most highly trained and disciplined troops in military history, excepting only the Spartans. By the time that the Americans and British got around to the Normandy invasion, the Russian Army had chewed up the Wehrmacht. There were only a few divisions at 40% strength to resist the Normandy invasion. By the time the Russian Army got to Berlin, the German resistance consisted of armed children.

The Reuters reporters raise no question about President Obama’s statement that 1,000 of this insignificant force will be Americans in order “to enhance our forward presence in central and eastern Europe.”  Why does the United States need a “forward presence” in central and eastern Europe?  What does a US “forward presence” in central and eastern Europe represent except an insane recklessness? One thousand US troops are good for nothing except a provocation.

Emmott and Siebold report with a straight face without laughter or question unverifiable accusations of Russian aggression by White House Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes, Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski, President Obama, and head of NATO’s military committee, Czech General Petr Pavel.

Gen. Pavel “said Russia was attempting to restore its status as a world power, an effort that included using its military.”
Obama said it is necessary to

“keep sanctions on Moscow in place until it fully complies with the ceasefire agreement in Ukraine.”

Waszczykowski said:

“We have to reject any type of wishful thinking with regard to pragmatic cooperation with Russia as long as Russia keeps on invading its neighbors.”

Rhodes threatened Russia with a NATO response to Russia’s “continued aggression.”

These statements are propagandistic.  If those who made the statements actually believe them, they are too imbecilic to be trusted with public offices.

Is it possible that the Czech general does not know that Russia has used its military only to repel a Washington-inspired Georgian invasion of South Ossetia and against ISIS in Syria, which the US, UK, and France also claim to be doing? After repelling the Georgian invasion, Russia withdrew its forces.  After dealing ISIS a setback in Syria, Russia withdrew and was forced to return by Washington’s resupply of ISIS.

Can the Polish Foreign Minister identify the countries that “Russia keeps on invading”?

Does the President of the United States really not know that Russia is not a party to the ceasefire agreement in Ukraine?  This is an agreement between the breakaway republics and the government in Kiev.  Washington has done everything possible to discourage Kiev from keeping the agreement it signed.

Can National Security Adviser Rhodes tell us where “continued aggression by Russia” is occurring?  What countries are being invaded and overrun?

How can there be so much Russian aggression and no evidence of it?  

Recently, President Putin dressed down to their faces the Western media whores who are fanning the flames of World War III by repeating without question Washington’s propagandistic lies.  These lies are reckless.  They endanger all life on planet Earth.

During my lifetime, American presidents worked to reduce tensions between the two major nuclear powers.  JFK worked with Khrushchev to defuse the dangerous situation arising from the placement of US missiles in Turkey and, in response, the placement of Russian missiles in Cuba.

President Nixon brought forth SALT I, the strategic arms limitation treaty, and the ABM Treaty.
President Carter crafted SALT II.

President Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev the end of the Cold War, the most promising achievement of the 20th century.

The Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes have done everything possible to raise the tensions between nuclear powers to heights beyond those of the most dangerous days of the Cold War.

The evil Clinton regime broke the word of the government of the United States, thereby destroying the honor of the US government, by taking NATO to Russia’s borders.

The evil George W. Bush regime pulled the US out of the ABM Treaty and rewrote US war doctrine in order to elevate nuclear weapons from a retaliatory weapon to a first strike weapon. This insane act put the Russians on notice.

The evil Obama regime intends to place nuclear missiles on Russia’s borders in Poland and Romania and engineered a coup in Ukraine with the intent of depriving Russia of its Black Sea naval base in Crimea, Russia’s only warm water port.

Faced with a Russophobic Washington-installed government in Ukraine, the Russian population in Crimea, a Russian province since the 1700s, voted practically unanimously to rejoin Russia, where Crimea had resided until Khrushchev reassigned the Russian province to Ukraine in the mid 20th century.  The Russian government’s acceptance of the wishes of its own people were propagandistically misrepresented by Washington and the presstitutes as “Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea.”  This lie is where the myth of “Russian invasion” came from. Russian military forces were already present in Crimea, because when Russia granted independence to Ukraine, Russia retained a long-term lease on the Russian naval base in Crimea.

The White House Fool said that the vote in Crimea was meaningless because all of Ukraine did not get to vote.  The Fool was too ignorant to know that by this laughable charge he discredited the American Revolution because the British people didn’t get to vote. For the precise same reason that The Fool wants Crimea returned to Kiev, the US must be returned to Britain. I doubt that the British would have us. Who wants a war criminal nation drowning in its own hubris?
The world is now faced with the prospect that insouciant Americans will elect a crazed and incompetent criminal or semi-criminal as their president, a person who has declared the President of Russia to be “the new Hitler.”   The stupid bitch’s statement is a declaration of nuclear war, and this dangerous, reckless, incompetent, careless person has been selected by the Democratic Party as the next POTUS !!!

The ignorance and stupidity of the American people will destroy the world.

Little wonder that Vladimir Putin, the only responsible world leader other than the president of China, is desperate that the Western media understand that their irresponsible negligence to the truth is helping Washington drive the world to nuclear war.

Putin does not want war.  He is doing everything in his power to avoid it.  But Putin is not going to surrender Russia to Washington.  The trip-point of World War III will be the installation of Washington’s missiles in Poland and Romania.  As Putin recently made clear to the imbecilic Western journalists, these missiles can easily and secretly be changed from anti-ballistic missiles to nuclear attack missiles that can strike their Russian targets within 5 or fewer minutes of launch, thus depriving Russia of its retaliatory deterrent.  Once these missiles are in place, Washington can issue orders to Russia.

Whatever the evil men in Washington who are gambling with the life of the planet think, Russia is not going to accept these missiles.

I stick with my prediction that if Hillary becomes president, all life on earth will end before her first term ends.

Paul Craig Roberts

www.paulcraigroberts.org

– See more

Putin: “U.S. anti-missile defence puts Europe in the crosshairs”

Vladimir Putin said that Russia has “no choice” but to target Romania, which has recently opened a NATO missile defense base, and Poland, which plans to do so within two years. (Russia Today Video)

%d bloggers like this: