Written by Tim Kirby; Originally appeared on strategic-culture.org
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization may be headed south, all the way down to Brazil. The President of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro, who in order to demonstrate his independent stance in the world decided to stop by CIA headquarters in Washington D.C. before having a chat with President Trump. This is very reminiscent of Ukraine’s Petro Poroshenko making sure US forces march on their “independence” day parade or when he has to meet visiting US counterparts on their boat of the coast of “his” country.
????????????????????????????????????
Since the CIA is in many ways the king maker of Latin America this seems like an unwise PR choice unless he is very certain that foreign support is vastly more important than seeming to be an independent nationalist Brazilian figure like he claims to be.
And speaking of Brazil’s independence, to the surprise of nearly everyone in the media, punditry and analysis sphere Trump said rather plainly that he “is seriously looking at NATO membership or some other formal alliance with Brazil”. This could obviously just be Trump’s loose lips and desire to be liked by the person sitting next to him and the latter of the two options could mean pretty much anything. “Formal alliance” is vague at best. The former of the two options, Brazil joining NATO, is much more tangible and thus is a far important undertaking if it were to occur. So what would happen if Brazil joined NATO?
From an ideological/philosophical standpoint Brazil joining the security organization would fundamentally shift its purpose and meaning. NATO was formed at the moment the afterglow from an Allied victory in World War II started to fade as a means of ganging up against a Soviet nation that was so destroyed by the war it was still scrambling to get people fed and into living space after most of European Russia was annihilated by the Nazis. Turn the clock some decades forward and a Non-Communist Russia was never allowed into NATO and never will be. NATO is an anti-Russian alliance. Whether this is good or bad is up to the reader but the fact is that it was born for this purpose and continues to exist primarily for this purpose today. NATO’s largest military exercises since the end of the Cold War had Russia as the bad guys not random gents in the Arab world.
NATO is also the allied armed force of what Russians call “the Golden Billion”. This implies the roughly one billion people who live in the US/Canada + EU, essentially the wealthy West. If we look at a map of Europe, besides the useful-during-the-Cold-War Turks who technically have territory in Europe, this becomes very clear. NATO is the army of “The West”.
So how would Brazilian membership change these two dynamics?
Brazil and Latin America cannot gain anything from NATO in terms of joining up to fight against the Russians because the Russians at present and for the foreseeable future are unable to take back even a marginal percentage of the massive territory that they lost when they choked in the Cold War. Russia is also so vastly far away that preparing for some sort of traditional invasions by Russians in Brazil is insane to say the least. Also, what exactly can Brazil do to help stop a Russian invasion of their former territories from the other side of the world, with no bases in Europe and no means to fight an inter-continental conflict? Can Brazil contribute to fighting Russia? No.
If Brazil and Latin America begin to join NATO this means that the focus will no longer be as an anti-Russian organization, but as something with a much more broader focus. Ironically, if NATO had made a major change of focus in the 90’s, Russia would have voluntarily joined it long ago during that upbeat naive and submissive time period.
Additionally, opening the security organization up beyond the borders of the Golden Billion, if done so honestly, certainly shatters the present image of the force as a method of colonization of the Global South that the SJWs complain about on their misspelled posters. This could put Latin America at the table as equals with Spain, Portugal, France etc. This is a radically different dynamic to say the least.
In conclusion, it needs to be stated that this could also be a move to create Trump’s supposed plan for a “Fortress America” by shifting US influence towards Latin America. If there is any truth to this plan, then shifting NATO south makes perfect sense. From a business standpoint if Trump is really going to force NATO member countries to play for upkeep “+50%” for US bases on their territory, then this could just be “expansion of Trump’s business into new markets”.
If NATO does decide to go south then it will never be able to go back. The organization will fundamentally be changed because Latin America cannot be directly attacked by Russia and no one there remotely cares about it and furthermore the organization made specifically to defend the West, would no longer be exclusively Western anymore.
Trump’s desire to bring Brazil within the NATO orbit stems from the fact that Brazil can provide the Chinese with all the soybeans they need, along with other agricultural products and natural resources at the expense of US because of the tariff war.
Brazil is part of BRICS, and I do not believe Bolsonaro is stupid enough to be fully reliant on US given the events in Venezuela and the emergence of the multipolar world involving Russia, China, India…etc. at US’ expense.
The Brazilian parliament is not very different from US congress and EU parliament. For sale and CIA influenced most of them.
Bolsanaro went first to CIA HQ, didn’t you read the article.
Bolsanaro is paying homage to the men who made him President.
Guaido will do the same, if Venezuela folds.
CHATO
Australia fights in all of US wars against Afghanistan,Iraq,Syria and probably Libya. It is not part of NATO.
To who’s benefit? It most certainly does not benefit indigenous Europeans. It does not benefit already heavily indebted Americans… https://www.quotemaster.org/images/6a/6ae47d6c361388a0d759b84b03cfa692.jpg
In addition to discussions on the formation of an Arab NATO (an anti-Iran coalition) and a Latin American NATO (an anti-Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc. coalition), an Asian NATO (largely functioning as an anti-China coalition) is also being gradually established:
‘Enhanced partnership status of Australia with NATO’ – “Australia is in the process of receiving an upgrade to “enhanced Partnership” status, giving greater diplomatic and military access to NATO operations. Australia is represented by Foreign Minister Julie Bishop and Defence Minister David Johnston, who have Russian president Vladimir Putin firmly in their sights.” (NATO summit: Australia strengthens ties with Atlantic alliance, but strains of global policing starting to show, By Mark Corcoran, [Australian] ABC news, 05/09/2014)
– “there are indications that NATO will be much more active in Australia’s region than in the past. The Alliance will approve a new strategic concept later this year to guide NATO’s objectives, strategy, and force planning, which will clarify the role NATO may play in the Asia Pacific. The new concept will acknowledge that NATO remains, at its core, a transatlantic alliance.” [Dr Stephan Frühling and Dr Benjamin Schreer are Lecturer and Senior Lecturer in the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University] (Australia and NATO: A deeper relationship?, LowyInterpreter, 11 October 2010) Note: The Lowy Institute is an Israel-affiliated strategic policy think tank.
‘Australian hosting of increasing U.S. military forces/assets (including nuclear capable assets)’ – “defense analysts from both countries expect an increased presence in Australia for the U.S. Air Force, Navy and Marines in the form of bombers, nuclear submarines, missiles and troops…. it’s likely the Air Force will begin using runways in the northern part of the country, possibly for the B-52 strategic bomber and B-2 stealth bomber… [missile architecture] cooperation is more likely to speed up….” (Deal likely to bring more US military assets to Australia’, Stripes, June 20, 2014)
-“we have taken ….. one important step forward with a comprehensive strategic partnership [CSP] that [Australian] PM [Tony Abbott] and I have just signed,” Mr Lee told a news conference. I would like to thank Mr Abbott for his very strong support, because without his initiating this and pushing this and bringing it through the CSP may not have materialised.” (Australia-Singapore CSP: Tony Abbott, Lee Hsien Loong sign agreement formalising defence, economic ties, 29/06/2015)
– “From Washington to Brussels to Canberra – the Pentagon, NATO and a rapidly evolving Asian NATO – the strategy like the terminology is identical: Interminable military deployments and combat operations in South and Central Asia as the model for new wars.” (NATO: Afghan War Model For Future 21st Century Operations, by Rick Rozoff, November 19, 2010), etc……
In addition to preparing for a potential allied kinetic stage of warfare against China (as openly stated by various military figures, forms of warfare being active albeit in preliminary stages [economic warfare, proxy warfare, partition/destabilisation/regime change operations, etc.]), the U.S.-NATO-allied bloc is also involved in active forms of warfare against the Russian Federation:
p2. – “I think everybody understands that an undeclared war against us is underway…..” [Russian State Duma’s Budget and Tax Committee Andrey Makarov] said. (“Undeclared war” forces Russia to boost defense spending — minister, Tass, October 27, 2018)
– “if data on Russia-NATO power balance at the Western direction is analyzed, as well as military activity build-up rate at our borders, scale of combat equipment deployment, if the grade of Russia’s demonization is estimated, one can say that preparation to a real war is taking place. [Such] acts are usually undertaken at the forefront of a war [and it is evident] the US is preparing for a [potential] nuclear conflict……” [Colonel General Leonid Ivashov, President of the International Centre of Geopolitical Analysis]
Australia is playing a key role in the establishment of an Asian NATO. NATO membership is not required to allow a process of integration into NATO standards and military architecture (also occurring in the U.S.-NATO regime changed Ukraine). By joining the U.S.-NATO military bloc, nations are not enhancing their security. Quite the opposite as in an event of war, such nations would be identified as hostile and would necessarily be subject to military calculations.
The role nations would play in the event of military conflict will however determine responses in such contexts. It is reasonable to assume the Russian Federation, China and strategically aligned nations would factor changes in capabilities of adversaries in military and strategic calculations.
Related information: ‘Australian considerations of acquiring nuclear ordnance (note: Recent procurements include military assets with nuclear ordnance delivery potential)’: – “Lowy Institute analyst Peter Layton proposed in an article on January 17 that Australia consider “sharing nuclear weapons” rather than developing an independent arsenal. He suggested the placement of US nuclear weapons on Australian soil on the same basis as in Germany, Belgium, Holland, Italy and Turkey, or alternatively, cost-sharing with Britain to build its fleet of Dreadnought-class nuclear submarines, armed with Trident nuclear missiles.” (Report: Renewed push for Australia to build nuclear weapons, By Peter Symonds, WSWS, 30 January 2018)
– “In a recent essay, Dr Stephan Fruhling, the Associate Dean of the College of Asia and the Pacific at the ANU, contemplated the “unthinkable option”, and suggested that a nuclear-armed Australia is more likely than ever before” (Does Australia need a nuclear arsenal? And what would be the cost?, By Joey Watson [Australian] ABC News, 24/10/2018)
In addition to discussions within Australian strategic policy organisations regarding the potential attainment of ‘fast acquisition’ domestic nuclear capabilities (in addition to increasing the presence of U.S. military architecture including nuclear capable military assets in Australia facilitating regional force projection potential), also worth noting are efforts to acquire military assets with nuclear warhead delivery capabilities (F-35s, Mk-41 VLS/Mk-14 launch canisters [tactical cruise missiles], etc.). This is occurring as Australia is increasingly hosting U.S. military forces including nuclear capable U.S. military assets. This of course would be recognised by strategic adversaries of the U.S.-NATO-allied bloc as preparations/moves to covertly develop nuclear ordnance delivery capabilities which in the process violates a non-nuclear status.
As Australia is also integrated into allied military architecture including nuclear warfare contingency planning/operational plans, this would however likely be factored into strategic policy adjustments and military calculations by nations identified as targets/adversaries by the U.S.-NATO-allied bloc.
There is nothing wrong with Brazil joining NATO or seeking to return to the Portuguese empire or the become a slave state of the US Evil Empire. It would be tragic for the FREE World, but not wrong. But let the Brazilian people pass this slavery act with a referendum. I bet this won’t happen. Which country has had a referendum before joining NATO gangsters? Come to think of it, when do people have a vote before joining gangsters? They commit crimes to join and cement their loyalty to their gang. I fully expect this Bolsy puppet to commit crimes against Venezuela to join NATO.