In 1 of his fresh entries, billionaire Elon Musk referred to the North Atlantic Alliance. "I always wondered why NATO inactive exists, even though its top enemy and the reason for the uprising, the Warsaw Pact, was dissolved," he wrote on the profile "X". The following analysis by Matthew Piskorski:
For a long time, we have been witnessing a paradoxical deficiency of logic about the intent of the North Atlantic Alliance. In accordance with rational reasoning principles, this organization should go back to past with the departure of the Warsaw Pact. Instead, for the last 4th of the century it has been expanding, covering countries that, according to the arrangements made before the dissolution of the russian Union, were never to be included in it. There is inactive a paradox more modern to us, and thus threatening us with a rather real danger: NATO is armed and expanded in the face of the Russian threat which it has generated itself. He's a firefighter who starts more fires, then convinces of his necessity and irreplaceability.
The problem is that the North Atlantic pyroman is ready to set fire to the homes of his closest neighbours (Ukraine). And a fire this close can easy decision to our home. Of course, the pyroman, the cohorts of his followers and legions of propaganda will convince then – as they do present – that the sinister arsonist comes from the mythical archetype of geopolitical evil – the East. On the another hand, these tiny disputes will already substance in a situation where the foundations of our home will stay ruined and destroyed.
It was essential to make a burning fire now in Ukraine that we proceed to believe in the request of a heroic firefighter/uncle Sam, an older / large brother who lost and confused Europe will supply (as Donald Trump sincerely emphasizes – not for free) firefighting equipment of his own production, reportedly the best, and surely the most costly in the world.
NATO is so a origin of safety problems, not a solution to them. The origin of a real threat, not a protective agent. There may be at least a fewer ways to destruct this war trigger. The first is simply a political change in the power – the nucleus of the full alliance, that is, of course, in the United States. That's what quite a few people are counting on, and that's what they want in the next election. Without losing their hope, let us add to them a spoon of bitter scepticism: the real actions of the possible Donald Trump administration may be rather distant from the program of political Trumpism that enabled and possibly will again let his presidential election. It could be this time.
The second way is to take control of our part of NATO by European, continental structures. This is how any statements of the Weimar Triangle leaders, especially Germany and France, can be treated from the last period. The emancipation of Europe, however, is an highly ambitious goal and possibly more distant, and it is seemingly very small – not giving in to catastrophic and apocalyptic predictions here.
The 3rd way is the simplest, although at first glance the least realistic and most radical. We just gotta say good-bye to the pirate, leaving NATO, and that's against the fashion to join him. It seems impossible today. In this context, however, it is worth recalling the words "let us be realistic, let us request the impossible". Today, speaking in favour of remaining in the ranks of the alliance is not only a voice in favour of reducing the level of our own security, but besides an expression of religion in NATO propaganda and their local resonant boxes of fables of allegedly eternal, terrible and terrifying Russian, Chinese, Iranian, North Korean and another threats. Staying outside NATO, we will feel powerfully safer, even for this simple reason, that we will remove the only possible reason for confronting the enemies of NATO, countries that are not right to feel a continuous and increasing threat: the very presence of military infrastructure commanded by the Anglo-Saxons of an aggressive alliance. Unlike any countries in our region, we have no real disputes with the east atomic power. The message from NATO is so a realistic request for a safety policy that should be discussed and analysed, even by those who are not convinced at the minute of its immediate implementation.
Mateusz Piskorski
photo of wikipedia
Poland, No. 9-10 (28.02-3.03.2024)
