U.S. President Donald Trump during and after his U.S. presidential campaign, which factually has never stopped since he announced his running for the presidency in 2015, criticized again and again decisions made by European countries on their internal and external affairs stating multiple times on countless occasions that,
Donald Trump: “NATO members must finally contribute their fair share and meet their financial obligations, but 23 of the 28 member nations are still not paying what they should be paying and what they are supposed to be paying for the defense. This is not fair to the people and taxpayers of the United States.”
Let’s quickly rephrase this to make it objectively factual and representative of what’s happening: “Our disloyal vassals in NATO must finally pay up, however, 23 of these U.S. occupied territories are unwilling to do so and that must change. This has become a great burden on the people and taxpayers of the United States because we are spending more on our military than ever before. Our military-industrial complex dictates to our politicians that we must order new weapons even before the previous ones are out of the factory door.”
The scholarly position of many historians that national sovereignty consists of a flag, a government, a geographical territory and group of people is objectively wrong. If we would take that definition as valid, then all countries even those who are not in control of their destiny (vassals, military marches and political puppets) should be considered – by definition – to be fully sovereign.
A country’s definition of sovereignty should also include:
- Political sovereignty – a country which dictates its internal policies and external relations by itself
- Economic sovereignty – a country which has a strong, stable economy which can withstand hostile currency manipulation, financial wars, illegal sanctions and embargoes
- Financial sovereignty – a country which issues its own currency, controls its own banking and financial system
- Military sovereignty – a country which has its own military capability to defend itself from threats and some ability to protect its strategic and geopolitical interests
- Cultural sovereignty – a country has its own unique culture which is its main culture, it invents traditions and fashion instead of copying other cultures or having a general preference of a foreign culture over its very own
If we go by this definition of sovereignty we quickly find out that there are maybe two countries which can actually be considered as sovereign, the United States and the United Kingdom.
Let’s quickly look at some historical facts why European nations do not owe a single dime to the United States in exchange for ‘defending them’ of itself. Factually, there was no peace treaty between National- Socialist Germany and the United States on May 8, 1945, instead, modern Germany is still a de facto and de jure occupied country with 21 official U.S. military bases and WW2 has not officially ended to this day. Other countries like the United Kingdom, France, Poland are in the very same situation. Japan is especially in a bad state following the ‘Pivot to Asia’ strategy of the Obama administration heightening the military presence of the United States in the Pacific region to protect its unilateral dominance. Just on the Japanese island of Okinawa, there are more than 20 active U.S. military bases with more being planned. If this weren’t scary enough, U.S. military bases are considered to be a direct extension of the U.S. in terms of not just legislation but also foreign affairs and strategic interests. U.S. military bases and “black sites” are being utilized to gain a stranglehold of the country and the region where the military base is located at by utilizing military pressure and also conducting military operations solely on the behalf of the interests of the United States.
The passive psychological pressure on the countries’ government is obvious and can be easily witnessed by the actions of the national assemblies of those countries when U.S. troops come under the attacks of locals. U.S. troops are not there as guests, because U.S. bases are not under local legislation, instead they are under the legislation of the United States. These bases are direct extensions of the U.S. Empire.
The attempted coup d’état against Turkish President Erdogan which took place in 2016 is a really good example. During that dark summer night allegedly four F-16 U.S. fighters took of from the U.S. Incirlik Air Base downing multiple Turkish military helos trasporting Turkish servicemen. This wasn’t confirmed by Turkish authorities, at the same time Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was very quick following the coup attempt to encircle the U.S. military base with the help of the Turkish police in Ankara. Turkish lawyers are demanding the arrests of U.S. military personnel and there is a big public outrage in Turkey against the U.S. base.
Trump should pay for it
Why would anybody pay to be threatened by a foreign power and to be forced to deviate from their national and strategic interests at gunpoint? That’s beyond any reason. This “European defense” from the standpoint of European countries is nonsensical and an unnecessary waste of funds.
There are more than 21 military bases in Germany, many in France, in Belgium, and the more than 100 bases in Italy among many others. The United States is the sole beneficiary of these U.S. military installations, therefore, Trump should pay for it, for this kind of ‘defense’.
NATO, quite clearly, became obsolete after the fall of the Soviet Union, the “great experiment” of the
The United States is clearly not looking for equal partners, it tries to enforce its own unilateral dominance at any cost necessary. Tariffs against Turkey, sanctions against Russia, trade war with China and a great spat with its European allies define the foreign policy of the Trump administration thus far. More and more people are realizing that the U.S. is openly considering itself the world’s policeman, its judge and jury totally violating all the main principles of all the judicial systems.
The proposal of a European army, or rather an army under the banner of the European Union, is nothing new. This is how the “European Experiment” intends to slowly but surely break “proud Europe” and deepen the ‘European integration’ in terms of politics and foreign policy. French President Emmanuel Macron is the loudest supporter of such an initiative, a man who was highly supported by great European banking houses and previously had worked in the Rothschild& Cie Banque as a ‘financial supervisor’ in Paris. Macron is by definition was selected by the financial and corporate elite of Europe to lead France and implement their progressive policies at all cost including the ‘European army’ initiative. A new unified army under the thumb of the European Union not only would deepen the integration of the EU but would also ensure that there will be no sovereign nation left in the EU effectively disallowing dissent against its agenda and its policies. Hungary, for instance, was publicly denounced, threatened and punished by the European Union with the seizing of Hungarian funds and assets under the pretext of enforcing ‘democracy’ after Viktor Oban resented against mass African migration into his own country.
If the member states of the European Union want a bigger and more capable military, they should do so individually instead of buying in the lie of the same progressive multinationalist elite.
At the end of the day, factually speaking, War is the biggest racket of all. Major General Smedley Butler, the most distinguished U.S. military person at the time, wrote a notable book with the title “War Is a Racket” where he explained why war is the most profitable business of all and why it is so sought after by corporations and the financial elite. Butler at the end of his short book has also successfully predicted the advent of World War 2 pointing well-known evidence at the time which was, unfortunately, ignored by the people of the day.
If a new World War should break out, rest assured that the biggest profiteers of such a military engagement are going to be the corporations and the bank houses while the future of the nation, the young generation of the people are pointlessly bleeding on the battlefields.