NATO is an alliance of countries from Europe and North America. It provides a unique link between these two continents, enabling them to consult and cooperate in the field of defence and security, and conduct multinational crisis-management operations together. It is the military alliance of the North American and European elite. It is not under the ultimate control of the Secretary General as many think, but under the Supreme Allied Commander Europe who is installed and controlled by the United States elite. That means that NATO is ultimately a US-led military alliance. As General Hastings Lionel Ismay said, NATO was created to keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.*

Paul-Henri Spaak said that the real father of the Atlantic Alliance was Stalin. It is he who has the right to a monument in each of our countries. One globalist shows admiration for another who also happened to be one of history's greatest mass murderers. The Anglo-American elite made a deal with Stalin even before the end of World War II by which they divided the European continent among themselves and created the Cold War which immediately followed.

Henry Kissinger, a key architect of the Anglo-American Empire, said in 1979 that NATO is not equipped to be an instrument of détente. Despite the collapse of the Soviet Union and the decline of Russian power in the 1990s NATO remained in existence and expanded against agreements made with Russia. For its existence it is in the Anglo-American elite's and NATO's interest to have an enemy. That enemy transformed from the Soviet Union into Russia and China. The Great Game transformed into the New Great Game. The Cold War turned into the New Cold War.

The first post-Cold War expansion of NATO came with German reunification on 3 October 1990, when the former East Germany became part of the Federal Republic of Germany. This had been agreed in the Two Plus Four Treaty earlier in 1990. To secure Soviet approval of a united Germany remaining in NATO, it was agreed that foreign troops and nuclear weapons would not be stationed in the east. Jack Matlock, American ambassador to the Soviet Union during its final years, said that the West gave a "clear commitment" not to expand, and declassified documents indicate that Soviet negotiators were given the impression that NATO membership was off the table for countries such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, or Poland. The George H. W. Bush administration worked hard to convince Soviet leaders that Europe's post-Cold War order would be mutually acceptable, as the Soviet Union would retrench and NATO would remain in place.*

In February 1990 James Baker said to Mikhail Gorbachev...

German unification... The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process. ... We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.*

That same day James Baker told Eduard Shevardnadze...

A neutral Germany would undoubtedly acquire its own independent nuclear capability. However, a Germany that is firmly anchored in a changed NATO, by that I mean a NATO that is far less of [a] military organization, much more of a political one, would have no need for independent capability. There would, of course, have to be iron-clad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward. And this would have to be done in a manner that would satisfy Germany’s neighbors to the east.*

However...

In 1999, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic joined the organization, amid much debate within the organization and Russian opposition. Another expansion came with the accession of seven Central and Eastern European countries: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania.

NATO clearly violated commitments made during the negotiations over German reunification* and expanded militarily towards the Russian border, posing a military threat to Russia. NATO even started flirting with Ukraine where in 2014 the western-backed coup took place. The goal of NATO was to encircle Russia and China...

NATO missiles on the adjacent Ukraine border aimed directly at Russia would make that country extremely vulnerable to Western goals and destabilization efforts while threatening Russia's only water access to its naval fleet in Crimean peninsula, the Balkans, the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East.*

Ukraine is one of the battlefields in this New Cold War.

When I was a little boy, my mother taught me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. And if it's OK for us to have a Monroe Doctrine, if it makes perfect strategic sense for us not to want to have distant great powers on our borders, it should make equally good sense for the Russians to think that way—and, by the way, for the Chinese to think that way. That's the way great powers behave. ... Ukraine is a country that has great geostrategic importance for him [Putin]. And he is going to pay an enormous price to keep NATO and to keep the EU out of that area. He's made that clear since 2008. The Russians have been against NATO expansion from the beginning. They have said that this was going to lead to a strategic disaster.*

The Anglo-American power elite would do everything in their power to prevent others from getting to close to their border. For example the Monroe Doctrine was a US foreign policy regarding Latin American countries in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention. Then it would be no more than reasonable to expect others to behave in the same way.

Russia and China have all right to protect their own borders and interests from aggressive Anglo-American imperialism. But instead Western leaders put up a great show of hypocrisy surrounding for example the events in Ukraine. In March 2014 Barack Obama had harsh words for Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin, who he said is refusing to cooperate to create peace in Ukraine. NATO's Alexander Vershbow said in 2015 that Russia's aggression against Ukraine is not an isolated incident, but a game-changer in European security. It reflects an evolving pattern of behavior that has been emerging for several years, despite our efforts to reach out to Russia and build a cooperative European security system with Russia.*
But nothing could be further from the truth.

The immediate and long-term importance of Russian thinking about NATO expansion eastward has been badly underestimated in the West. Indeed, most Western analysis has striven to provide justification for the West's policy of enlarging the alliance rather than examining its potential drawbacks.

The facts don't lie, but these warmongers do. Peace is never the goal of warmongers in control of a military empire. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union NATO's deceit and imperialism is a threat to peace on the European continent and in the world. NATO did not reach out to Russia but instead expanded far beyond the agreements made with Russia in the early 1990s. Crucial facts like this are completely underreported in the anti-Russian western media while its anti-Russian propaganda machine is working overtime...

The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty was an arms control treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union on the limitation of the anti-ballistic missile systems used in defending areas against ballistic missile-delivered nuclear weapons.

The 9/11 Attacks in 2001 were a pivotal event in world history in many ways. In June 2002 the United States withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. In December 2001 Bush stated...

We seek a formal way to express a new strategic relationship that will last long beyond our individual administrations, providing a foundation for peace for the years to come. ... President Putin and I have also agreed that my decision to withdraw from the treaty will not, in any way, undermine our new relationship or Russian security.*

This was of course one big lie because NATO kept expanding militarily towards the Russian border posing a direct military threat to Russia's security. Eventually Ukraine, right next to Russia, proved to be Russia's red line. If the US is allowed to protect its homeland, as became apparent during for example the Cuban Missile Crisis, then of course Russia has exactly the same right.

The anti-Chinese and anti-Russian propaganda howl is reaching a deafening crescendo... It is because the West is obviously pushing this planet towards the war. Not to see it would require truly great discipline.

The goal of war propaganda is public support for an aggressive war. It seems then that the Anglo-American power elite are trying to lure Russia into war. The likely outcome of such a war would mean the destruction of the European continent (for the third time), the death of countless soldiers of European nations aligned with NATO, a weakened Russia, and ultimately a win-win for the power elite of the Anglo-American Empire in their ivory tower on the other side of the Atlantic. But it seems Russia is not so easily lured into such a war...

source

Russia's leader Putin wipes the floor with this typical useful idiot of the western media controlled by the western power elite. Whatever one thinks of Putin, he is certainly right about NATO's military threat to Russia and that Russia has all right to defend itself against this aggressive military imperialism, and so far Russia solved these attacks diplomatically, showing that it is not a power to be taken lightly.