10.09.2019 Author: Phil Butler

Europe and the NATO Arms Deal Boot Stamping


Somewhere on the western shores of the Black Sea two NATO commanders look through icy binoculars to the horizon. At Varna in Bulgaria, and at Constanta, in Romania, the armies and navies of the faithful are rearming themselves to defeat an impending Russian invasion. Unbeknownst to Bulgarians and Romanians, it’s an invasion that will never come. The fact is, both countries were taken over decades ago by idiotic ideas that NATO was invented to protect them. Here is the other side of that story.

The Trembling Terrors

The headline at Defense News reads “Romania, Bulgaria boost defense buys amid fear of Russia.” The gist of the defense industry take on Cold War 2 is best summarized in this quote from the article:

“With the largest defense contracts in both countries’ history underway, Bucharest and Sofia face the challenge to boost military expenditure after years of underinvestment.”

And with this set of the stage, defense contractors Raytheon and Lockheed Martin swagger into the scene like Gary Cooper in the western classic High Noon. What the Romanians and Bulgarians need most in their lives today is not export contracts to other EU nations, or new industries to support their poor, but more than €5 billion euros in useless weapons systems.

The High Mobility Artillery Rocket System (HIMARS) and Guided Multiple Launch Rocket Systems (GMLRS) Lockheed Martin will sell to the two NATO nations that go for $1.25 billion. The problem for Romania and Bulgaria is that this weapons system has obsolete and would be rendered useless hours before any fantastical Russian invasion could ever take place. Developed back in the late 1990s, this antiquated battlefield weapon will never engage any enemy, let alone the Russian hordes. It’s a western arms dealer moneymaker, and that is all. Bucharest and Sophia are under a dark cloud of Russophobia for profit. And profit is only the half of it, Romania’s and Bulgaria’s citizens will lose inestimable sums in the tradeoff for perceived peace.

Tinker Toy Weapons

To make matters worse, the US Pentagon has staff officers acting as weapons salesmen. Case in point, look at this document concerning weapons sales to Poland signed by Lieutenant General Charles W. Hooper. The notification of the sale of HIMARS and other weapons systems to the NATO country is addressed to House Speaker Paul Ryan. The weapons being exported must have government approval under US law, but nobody seems to be monitoring the efficacy of these sales, let alone the validity of NATO itself. Before I get into the real role of NATO, let me address the obsoleteness of these weapons. According to the letter from General Hooper to the US Congress, America is sending Poland and other NATO nations worthless military junk. Read how NATO already knows its weapons sales are useless Tinker Toys in an unwinnable fantasy war:

“If a technologically advanced adversary were to obtain knowledge of the hardware and software elements, the information could be used to develop countermeasures or equivalent systems that might reduce system effectiveness or be used in the development of a system with similar or advanced capabilities.”

Since dozens of nations outside the NATO encampment already possess most of these weapons, it’s logical to assume every potential enemy has a countermeasure. And this is particularly true in Russia’s case. The classification section of the notification to Congress tells us HIMARS is already compromised. But let’s pretend Russia really did want to invade, what then?

In a paper authored by the NATO lunatic, Gen. Philip Breedlove readily admits there is no real defense against a Russian incursion. Breedlove and his coo-coo colleague Deputy Secretary-General Alexander Vershbow tell us NATO is doomed to a retreating posture if Russia attacks, no matter what:

“A determined Russian conventional attack, especially if mounted with little warning, could defeat these forward-deployed NATO and U.S. forces in a relatively short period of time before reinforcements could be brought to bear,” the paper said. “Concerns have grown that a quick Russian land grab might present the Alliance with a fait accompli, dividing the Alliance and paralyzing decision-making before reinforcements could arrive.”

A good point here would be to mention that Poland and other NATO pact nations already possessed advanced western weapons before this telling report was authored. I won’t get into systems comparative here, the logic tells us Russia was and is always the winner in these regions in a conventional or nuclear confrontation.

NATO for NATO’s Sake

Before I set fire to General Breedlove’s britches again, it’s crucial to point out the real enemies of Bulgaria and Romania. At the moment these governments intend to waste countless billions more on obsolete or unneeded weaponry, both countries are gripped by poverty. In Romania, half of the children in the country now live a destitute existence compared to their EU cousins to the west. Romania has the highest poverty rate in the EU, even according to the globalist Brookings Institute think tank. And Romania’s neighbor to the south is even poorer. According to this Irish Times story, the average pension for a Bulgarian citizen is a paltry €190 euro per month. Two of the eastern European countries with the most potential, they’re about to squander more billions to help America’s military-industrial complex and private corporate investors. Now to General Breedlove and his ilk.

Let me point out here that it appears Breedlove’s recommendations have been fully adopted by the Trump administration. And this seems onerous considering Breedlove’s Napoleonic predispositions in the Ukraine affair. I am remembering a Spiegel article that dropped a dime on the NATO commander’s role in fueling the new west-east divide. Leaked emails from Breedlove revealed how he sewed discord and “exaggerated Russian activities in eastern Ukraine with the overt goal of delivering weapons to Kyiv.” At the center of this controversy was a think thank known as the Potomac Foundation.

It’s a bitter irony that one of the Potomac Foundation’s most prominent figures, Hungarian immigrant Balint Vazsonyi should be involved with anything Breedlove is connected with.Vazsonyi, a concert pianist turned political philosopher, believed America was under assault from within and from the outside. The kid who lived under the Nazi occupation and Soviet Hungary became the Director of the Center for the American Founding, the primary arm of this Potomac Foundation. Vazsonyi passed away back in 2003, but the foundation he headed was tasked with helping eastern European countries prepare their accession into NATO.

The irony is, Vazsonyi helped re-create the external enemy western democracies always seem to need. But, Dr. Vazsonyi created his own rationale, just like the rest of us. He saw fit to justify Bush II’s WOMD lie and that president’s invasion of Iraq. He also reasoned that the whole purpose of new NATO nations was to serve as logistics bases for American military might (Scripps-Howard News Service 11.26.02).

The Political-Military Circle

God rest his soul, Dr. Vazsonyi is also linked to a firm known as Braddock, Dunn & McDonald, later known as BDM, which is a Cold War dinosaur more or less owned by  Northrop Grumman. Yes, high thinking political philosophy always seems to connect to the money machine in the end. Potomac Foundation’s board is made up of people like Dr. Joseph Braddock, who is the founder of BDM. For insight into what this company really is, follow the Google searches BDM and Ford, BDM and Carlyle Group, BDM and anything to do with investing in weapons sales.

So, why all the useless weapons? Why not rely on the mutually assured destruction (MAD) principle, since it’s the only one that matters? The answer is in the language, fortunately. Here is what General Hooper says NATO is about:

“This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a NATO ally which is an important force for political stability and economic progress in Europe.” 

These “forces” for political and economic stability have less to do with thwarting a Russia invasion than they do in subverting and converting European nations to adopt the global hegemony. NATO is not a police force to stop a fantastical Russian invasion, it’s a security force against contravening political and economic ideologies. I’ve cited the following passage from NATO policy doctrine before, but it bears close scrutiny for this current report:

“The need for NATO to be endowed with a military capability of civil police clearly emerged during the SFOR operation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.”

The site where this NATO doctrine was presented is now gone since my last NEO report, but Stability Policing (SP), as NATO terms interventionism, is still the deterrent and the method of mediating undesirable change in all of Europe.

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”

Please select digest to download: