Pulitzer prize winning American journalist, Presbyterian minister and senior lecturer Christopher Lynn Hedge's insights on NATO... Chris Hedges - Wikiquote
Once NATO expanded into Eastern Europe, the Clinton administration promised Moscow that NATO combat troops would not be stationed in Eastern Europe, the defining issue of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act on Mutual Relations. This promise again turned out to be a lie. Wondering just how many NATO combat troops are stationed in Eastern Europe ? Is the level of combat troops and military assets stationed in Eastern Europe strong enough to ignite a threat to a reasonable state actor? Or, is the positioning of a tripwire level force just an excuse for a war of aggression?
The only formal agreement signed between NATO countries and the USSR, before its breakup in December 1991, was the Treaty of Final Settlement with Respect to Germany . The promises made specifically relate to Germany, and the territory of the former GDR, which were on the deployment of non-German NATO forces into eastern Germany and the deployment of nuclear weapons – and these promises have been kept.
There is an army of 40000 Nato troops in eastern europe.They are now going to be further augmented as per reports. It is expensive to train, equip and provide the healthcare and overall logistics of a single soldier, all paid by the western taxpayer groaning under the weight of inflation and rising expenses related to healthcare, education and housing. The question also arises why did the U.S.-Nato renege on their promises and vows not to move an inch eastward ? Endless money forms the sinews of war, stated Cicero, and one can clearly see that Russia in its poverty stricken state, barely holding itself in threads to cover its nakedness, was not in a position to launch invasions. Many russians have immigrated to other countries due to poor conditions at home, and there has been a substantial brain drain. Under Putin, there has been some economic recovery, and they have risen in prosperity to some extent. Putin seemed interested in his country's economic recovery from poverty, upgrading the ageing infrastructure ,and ensuring inner stability due to the Chechen crisis, and was not at all interested in any invasions whatsoever. Much of the troops were not paid salaries for many months due to the economic situation, and I recall reading an article years back of a russian soldier saying that a soldier in russia is seen as a loser due to his economic impoverishment. Security issues related to the encroaching U.S.-Nato alliance is what compelled Putin to invade neighbors Georgia and Ukraine when they stated inclination to join NATO. NATO membership to Ukraine will increase the level of military threats to Russia dramatically, considering that American strategic planning documents allow preemptive strike at enemy missile systems. Putin had said, 'Ballistic missiles from Kharkov will take seven to eight minutes; and hypersonic assault weapons, four to five minutes. It is like a knife to the throat.' Seeing all its promises by western leaders reneged, and U.S.-Nato forces almost in the borders of Russia prompted Putin to go forward with the invasion. But what he did is incorrect. He had an excellent case in his hand of U.S.- Nato leaders reneging on their promises to Gorbachev and Russia, and with a good enough diplomatic corps, could have convinced the UN and everyone else of this fact in the beginning itself. However, he went on with a brutal invasion instead. This is the reason why I stated earlier that he was a mediocre statesman and lacking the competence for pre-emptive diplomatic work which would have clinically accomplished the job instead.
Yes, you can find all the answers in the link itself.... Chris Hedges - Wikiquote Christopher Hedge's sayings actually gave me a lot of insights on the state of western democracies and gave answers to the many questions I had, namely the rising disparity in wealth between the upper and lower classes in the west, and why the lower classes accept their condition passively. These insights can be valuable for other democracies as well, including India, and can ensure that democracy elsewhere will not degenerate into plutocracy instead. I envy America for its intellectuals like Hedge and Chomsky, for their critical analyses and objective assessments, and wonder why the American public, groaning under the weight of rising expenses related to healthcare, education and housing, are not aware of them. India had a mixed economy blending the features of socialism and capitalism, and this will help us a lot in avoiding the pitfalls of western democracies. Socialism is ingrained in our constitution and has done a good job of empowering the lower classes. Imo, the western masses should not allow themselves to be manipulated by power games of the military-industrial complex and should chart their own course forward, and bring about the necessary redistribution of wealth from a few hands to the impoverished many. Democracy being 'of the people, by the people, for the people' is essentially socialistic in character with the empowerment of the masses being the obvious priority.
