NATO - From Irrelevancy To Two War Missions - Your World At War
Jeffrey C. Borneman | September 7, 2014
NATO's original mission of containing Soviet expansion post WWII has now morphed into challenging Russia and Russian responds by naming NATO as an enemy. Meanwhile, at the NATO Summit, Obama adds ISIS to NATO's plate.
Investors take NOTE: You will not hear on MSM the frantic pace of arms deals and transfers regularly chronicled on this site. It is seemingly beneath most media outlets to report where real DEMAND is heading. A new terminology is now in use, however, that is indicative of the break-neck speed of militariation around the globe: We now have NATO East and NATO West ...
Regarding Russia: Russia is 'revamping' its War Strategy in response to the rapid expansion and aggression it sees from NATO and its member States. Says Deputy Secretary of the Security Council of the Russian Federation Mikhail Popov of NATO:
"In its ambition to expand to the East, NATO acts deliberately and methodically. In a while, army bases of the alliance will appear in Poland. The alliance signed an agreement on special relations with formally independent Nordic countries - Sweden and Finland. This means that army bases of the alliance may appear in those countries as well. NATO has been strengthening its troops in the Baltic countries too. "They have already planned the moves to deploy heavy weapons and military equipment, including tanks and armored personnel carriers on the territory of Estonia - right near Russian borders," said Popov via Pravda.
It is no small thing, to be named an enemy of the Russian Federation. NATO has explicitly been name just that and the reasoning is clear: "In view of the emerging missile defense system that is being built against Russia, rather than Iranian missiles, the enemy will be designated. And this enemy is NATO. We understand that security services are working, aggressive intentions may come from different sides, and countries-provocateurs are likely to be used," said Deputy chairman of the Duma Committee on Defense, Franz Klintsevich (Pravda).
To Russia, NATO activities look very much like a play to fragment and destroy the economy of the motherland. Is it any surprise that Russia has not ruled out the use of tactical nuclear weapons to stop NATO expansion?
What Russia really wants was discussed here recently.
Regarding ISIS: Obama appears to have formulated a 'strategy' in going after ISIS but declared Arab support was needed (to keep any attempt to destroy ISIS from drawing more radicals into its fold). Announced just today, "Arab League foreign ministers meeting in Cairo have agreed to pool their resources and join the fight against Islamic State," reports American Thinker.
At the NATO Summit, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and SoS Kerry referred to the NATO group as "a loose coalition that will be needed to face the insurgent challenge." The United States will lead the coalition comprising the United Kingdom, France, Australia, Germany, Canada, Turkey, Italy, Poland and Denmark. The administration also declared this morning that "dismantling/destroying ISIS" could be a three year mission.
We now have two distinct branches of NATO with two distinct missions: NATO East to deal with the Russian threat and NATO West to deal with the ISIS threat. Not mentioned here is the Far East threat which is being held in abeyance for the time being although the DEMAND for Defense to meet it is not. Cases in point: Vietnam is quietly buying Russian submarines to counter China's territorial claims and Australia is buying an entire navy from Japan to signal China its intentions of remaining free from China's aggression.
The tally to date is 15 NATO countries that will be buying NATO weaponry. The key to maintaining market positions in a time of War is to own what all countries need and will spend treasure to acquire: Metals, Defense, Energy and Food.
If you want to know more about how the MDEF™ Investing strategy is positioned in this, or other geopolitical possibilities, please contact us directly.