NATO takes in two new members in “deal” with Turkey as alliance continues posturing to launch WWIII

Truth be told, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance should have disbanded in the early 1990s after the Russia-led Warsaw Pact dissolved following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

But it didn’t because it isn’t really a “security” alliance as much as it is a globalist entity hell-bent on spreading Western-style imperialism to every part of the globe.

Russia had become a shell of its former self and was completely incapable of making large-scale war in the decade that followed the USSR’s collapse in 1991. If the objective was to keep NATO alive, true visionaries would have seen that bringing Russia into the fold as a future bulwark against a then-rising China was the right move.

But no. Instead, successive U.S. administrations further alienated the Russians to the point where a nationalist, Vladimir Putin, was elected to reinvigorate his country and once again make it a major player on the world stage. Inevitably, Russia would have to oppose the most power faction aligned against it: NATO.

In the years since, NATO has been angling for a way to bring Russia into a conflict so that it could finally be destroyed and then managed by a victorious NATO. That effort received a substantial boost when Russia invaded Ukraine; that attack was seen as a “reason” to further expand the alliance and finally bring in Sweden and Finland, which happened last week thanks to the U.S. agreeing to provide 40 modern, upgraded F-16 fighters to Turkey after Ankara initially opposed bringing in the two new countries.

Now the stars are completely aligned against Russia, which is bogged down in Ukraine but still possesses a highly lethal and large nuclear arsenal. World War III is now just a trigger event away from happening.

“The accession of Finland and Sweden will make them (the allies) safer, NATO stronger and the Euro-Atlantic area more secure,” an alliance communique said, adding that NATO also agreed a new strategic concept.

The communique went on to characterize Russia as the “most significant and direct threat to the allies’ security,” a reaction to the massively deteriorated relationship with Russia since its invasion in late February.

Reuters, via France24, reported on some of the latest developments: “The alliance pledged further help to Kyiv and agreed [on] a package of support aimed at modernizing the country’s defense sector. At the same time, NATO decided to significantly strengthen its own deterrence and defense.”

“Allies have committed to deploy additional robust in-place combat-ready forces on our eastern flank, to be scaled up from the existing battlegroups to brigade-size units, where and when required underpinned by credible available reinforcements, prepositioned equipment, and enhanced command and control,” the communique added.

Of course, the communique also noted that China is continuing to become an even bigger threat, having substantially increased the size of its navy and moving its military and foreign affairs poster in similar ways to Japan in the 1930s prior to the beginning of World War II.

But clearly, for now, the bigger threat to global peace is NATO’s posturing against Russia.

For one, the U.S.-led alliance is continuing to supply lethal aid to Ukraine, one of the most corrupt governments in all of Europe, at the expense of our own weapons stockpiles.

If that isn’t foolish enough, the alliance is moving troops and equipment into NATO members that border Russia. Imagine if a Ukrainian special ops force launched an attack on any of those forces from inside Russian territory — that would be the trigger for Article 5, the provision in the NATO agreement that requires all members to come to the assistance of another member who falls under “attack.”

We certainly know that our government as well as those who belong to NATO are capable of staging false flag attacks. We saw it in Syria.

The alliance is no longer a “security” arrangement, it appears to be a mechanism to goad Russia into a war that would be highly profitable for the West’s military-industrial complex.

Sources include:

France24.com

WWIII.news