Macgregor On Where NATO Is Headed

I want to start the day by recommending an hour long video interview. It’s actually mostly Doug Macgregor speaking, with occasional prompts from Glenn Diesen, who is a professor in Norway:

the University of South-Eastern Norway, and Editor at Russia in Global Affairs. Research: Geoeconomics of Greater Eurasia and Russian conservatism

This interview, while it does include some of Macgregor’s usual topics, features Macgregor speaking on broader strategic issues. That’s why I think many readers will find it interesting.

Glenn Diesen @Glenn_Diesen

Discussion with Colonel Douglas Macgregor about NATO crossing new red lines in the Ukrainian war, and the possibility of a direct war between NATO and Russia:

youtube.comNATO crossing more red lines: From proxy war to a direct NATO-Russia war?Discussion with Colonel Douglas Macgregor on 24.01.2023

Among other topics that Macgregor touches on is the virulent hatred of the collective West’s ruling elite for Russia and, most specifically, for Christianity. In that regard he cites an article by George Soros dating from 1993. This article has been discussed at various places over the last few days because in it Soros advocates for the use of Eastern European manpower against Russia, in order to avoid too many body bags coming back to NATO countries. It’s encouraging to see that Macgregor follows more than simply strictly military affairs, even getting into what could be termed political philosophy.

Here’s the article by Soros:

Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO

The title makes it immediately clear that lurking behind the utopian language is Soros’ grand scheme is to replace the bi-polar US-Soviet standoff with a new One World Order—an World Order ruled, not from Washington DC, nor by the United Nations, but by NATO. Call it incipient globalism in a practical sense, in the sense that globalists saw the collapse of the Soviet Union as the great opportunity for aggressively advancing their dreams of global government in a new and concrete way. To begin this process, Soros urges redefining NATO’s mission, in expansive ways:

The United Nations might have become an effective organization if it were under the leadership of two superpowers cooperating with each other. As it is, the United Nations has already failed as an institution which could be put in charge of U.S. troops. This leaves NATO as the only institution of collective security that has not failed, because it has not been tried. NATO has the potential of serving as the basis of a new world order in that part of the world which is most in need of order and stability. But it can do so only if its mission is redefined. There is an urgent need for some profound new thinking with regard to NATO.

The Future of NATO 

The original mission was to defend the free world against the Soviet empire. That mission is obsolete; but the collapse of the Soviet empire has left a security vacuum which has the potential of turning into a “black hole.” This presents a different kind of threat than the Soviet empire did. There is no direct threat from the region to the NATO countries; the danger is within the region, and it concerns conditions within states as much as relationships between states. Therefore, if NATO has any mission at all, it is to project its power and influence into the region, and the mission is best defined in terms of open and closed societies.

There you have it in a nutshell. The mission of NATO, in globalist eyes, is as a military arm for regime change—to change all “closed societies” into Classical Liberal “open societies”. Thus, any society in which religious institutions play an authoritative role must undergo regime change. We see this, too, in the West, with its aggressive program of transgenderism and transhumanism, to break down even the concept of a permanent human nature. Note in this next paragraph the redefinition of the concept of “threats to security”—that should ring bells, for those who follow public discourse here in the US. It’s all in the definition. Aggressive, regime changing, expansionist “open” closed orders are not a threat to security. Only countries that wish to preserve their national and religious cultures are a threat to security. This is the language of all aggressively expansionist empires throughout history—first they redefine the language. Putin has seen this clearly and expressed his opposition:

Closed societies based on nationalist principles constitute a threat to security because they need an enemy, either outside or within. But the threat is very different in character from the one NATO was constructed to confront, and a very different approach is required to combat this threat. It involves the building of democratic states and open societies and embedding them in a structure which precludes certain kinds of behavior. Only in case of failure does the prospect of military intervention arise. …

The problem that Soros sees is that Western nations are loath to intervene militarily “in case of failure”—meaning, if the program of regime changing encounters real opposition that can’t be overcome by undermining national cultures through political pressure (the role of the EU). At the point in time at which Soros was writing, the US was not fully on board with this project, which Soros saw as including eastward expansion of NATO into the former Warsaw Pact area:

Partnership For Peace-As Proposed 

Unfortunately, the American proposal for the forthcoming NATO summit, the so-called Partnership For Peace, does not deal with this issue at all. It is a very narrow, technical proposal for holding common exercises and otherwise preparing for possible future cooperation with member countries of the former Warsaw Pact. The scope of possible future cooperation is described as peace-keeping, crisis management, search-and-rescue missions, and disaster relief. While useful as far as it goes, it fails to address the conflicting security needs of the countries concerned.

Now, please note this next carefully. As far back as 1993 Soros clearly saw—and expressed—the truth that Russia had “no designs on its former empire.” Or, its former security zone, if you prefer. That lack of a threat from Russia—in the traditional sense—was not the point. Russia’s existence as a nation state which was re-embracing its Orthodox past was the real threat to security—because any opposition at all to Classical Liberal ideals of an “open society” are by definition a threat to security.

The countries of Central Europe are clamoring for full membership of NATO as soon as possible, preferably before Russia recovers. Russia objects, not because it harbors any designs on its former empire but because it sees no advantage in consenting. Its national pride has been hurt and it is sick and tired of making concessions without corresponding benefits.

The Partnership For Peace, far from being the product of profound new thinking, is a rather superficial attempt to paper over the differences by making an overture to all the former members of the Warsaw Pact indiscriminately, while leaving the prospect of some countries joining NATO deliberately vague. It may end up engendering more conflicts than it resolves.

This is a great pity because the conflicts could be easily avoided if the real needs of the region were addressed. The primary need is for constructive engagement in the transition to democratic, market-oriented, open societies. This requires an association or alliance which goes far beyond military matters and contains a significant element of economic assistance. Both the military and the economic aspects of the alliance have to relate to internal political developments within states as much as to relationships between states, because peace and security in the region depend first and foremost on a successful transition to open society.

Implicit, just beneath the surface, is the clear principle that resistance to the open society agenda must be met with military force. That’s coming up:

A Real Partnership for Peace 

The mission of this new kind of alliance is so radically different from the original mission of NATO that it cannot be entrusted to NATO itself. If it were, it would change NATO out of all recognition. A different kind of organization is needed, and the proposed Partnership For Peace could be that organization.

The Partnership for Peace would not contain any of the automatic guarantees which have given NATO its clout. In the current unstable conditions, that would be unthinkable. Its main task would be to help with the process of transformation into open societies. For that purpose it must lay the emphasis on the political and economic aspects of the transformation.

In order to have any clout at all, the Partnership for Peace must have a structure and a budget. That is what NATO could bring to the table.

NATO has a unified command structure which brings together the United States and Western Europe. There are great advantages in having such a strong Western pillar: it leads to a lopsided structure firmly rooted in the West. This is as it should be since the goal is to reinforce and gratify the desire of the region for joining the open society of the West.

It would be an express condition of membership in the Partnership for Peace that NATO is free to invite any member country to join NATO. This would avoid any conflict that could arise either from the enlargement of NATO against the wishes of Russia or from giving Russia veto over NATO membership. The specter of the past looms large: one must avoid the suspicion of either a new “cordon sanitaire” or a new Yalta. A Partnership for Peace along the lines outlined here would avoid both suspicions. It must be attractive enough to induce Russia to subscribe. It if does, there is nothing to prevent countries like Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary from being admitted to some form of membership in NATO, the character of which would depend on their internal development.

And here we see the problem, immediately. Russia saw through this subterfuge. And the NATO war on Serbia confirmed all of Russia’s worst fears of a warlike West eventually coming for Russia. Soros’ claims, further down, that “military intervention is not a viable option” didn’t fool Putin, because Soros goes on to define the US as the military enforcement arm of his projected new world order—the open society. Open society is the “organizing principle” of the new world order, the US military provides the muscle. You have to laugh at Soros’ claim that the US wouldn’t be the World Cop because it would be acting in concert with other members of the Open Society. Uh, that hasn’t fooled anyone over the succeeding years—least of all the Neocons running US policy:

The budget of the Partnership for Peace must come out of the NATO budget. There may be some elements in the military-industrial complex that may object to such a reallocation of resources, and they have a strong argument in their favor: if nothing is done on the economic and political front, defense budgets will soon have to be increased rather than reduced; but if the Partnership for Peace is successful, a more than proportional reduction in defense budgets could be sustained. It is on this issue that political leadership must be brought to bear.

There is a clear and present danger to our collective security. The Yugoslav experience has shown that military intervention is not a viable option. Therefore the only way to deal with it is by constructive engagement, including economic aid. But economic aid does cost money and the money can only be found in the defense budgets. It should still produce a net reduction in defense expenditures.

The countries of Europe must bear a larger share of the cost and have a correspondingly larger say in NATO. Economic aid to Eastern Europe would provide a much needed stimulus to the depressed European economies. The fact that the present command structure of NATO is too lopsided in favor of the United States is well recognized by all parties; making NATO the pillar of the Partnership for Peace would hasten the process of adjustment. Specifically, it should induce France to reenter as a full member. That would serve as the test of the success of its internal reorganization.

There is only one deficiency in this design: it leaves Japan out of account. Japan should be asked to join NATO. Then we would have the beginnings of an architecture for a new world order. It is based on the United States as the remaining superpower and on open society as the organizing principle. It consists of a series of alliances, the most important of which is NATO and, through NATO, the Partnership for Peace which girds the Northern Hemisphere. The United States would not be called upon to act as the policeman of the world. When it acts, it would act in conjunction with others. Incidentally, the combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO would greatly enhance the military potential of the Partnership because it would reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries, which is the main constraint on their willingness to act. This is a viable alternative to the looming world disorder.

Anna Baerbock says it point blank:

AZ 🛰🌏🌍🌎 @AZgeopolitics

🇩🇪🇺🇦🇷🇺German Foreign Minster Annalena Baerbock:"We are fighting a war against Russia"

Putin seems to be responding to all the above. Note especially the second video:

UkraineMaps @MapsUkraine

Vladimir Putin in a new interview: "We would never have thought of canceling Beethoven or Bach or O. Henry. And there they thought of canceling Tchaikovsky. Well, let them live without Tchaikovsky and Dostoevsky, but we will not live without world classics."

The Eurasianist ☦️ @Russ_Warrior

❗"The time will come - sovereignty will be returned to Europe" - President Putin.

“Sovereignty” is anathema to the New World Order. Putin knows that.