NATO’s Pointless Existence & China’s Team up with Russia on $55 Billion Fuel Pipeline — United States’ Fault?

Fox News senior strategic analyst and retired four-star General Jack Keane discusses international headlines, including China and Russia working together, the NATO summit and this week’s London attack.

General Jack Keane underscored the combined threat of Russia’s military and China’s “economic engine,” but he neglected to explain how it was the United States that helped China develop its formidable economy. He also failed to mention how it was the United States that ultimately forced Russia into China’s hands. Truth is, Russia and China are what they are today because of the United States.

When the United States first implemented its decades-long flawed interventionist foreign policy on repressing the then-Soviet Union, it strived to help China

  • by subsidizing China’s development with below-market interest loans that outcompeted ones given to American businesses;
  • by ignoring China’s persecution of millions whose religious and political viewpoints conflict with the authoritarian regime’s long-term interests (e.g., Tibet, Xinjiang, Taiwan, Falun Gong); and
  • by arming China with nuclear technology to fend off possible (but unlikely) Soviet invasion.

Why did the U.S. federal government bestow these benefits to an economically powerless communist China? Because the United States — in lieu of constitutional principles that advocate non-entangling alliances based on peace, commerce, and honest friendship with other nations — made “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” a cornerstone of its foreign policy. The U.S. federal government believed that despite the inherent differences of two opposing countries like China and the United States, they should nonetheless work together against a common enemy, namely the Soviet Union. Thus initiated the United States’ decades long mission to transform China into a formidable democratic trading partner that could effectively deter the Soviets.

However, instead of producing the intended effects of democratizing China and subduing the Soviet Union, the United States’ foreign policy of militarism and interventionism yielded only unintended consequences for U.S. global dominance and national security. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 — which, by the way, ceased to exist not because of a coalition between China and the United States, but because of its own totalitarian state control of free markets and human liberty — Russia emerged from the ashes. Since then, the U.S. federal government has continued to sabotage Russia’s attempts to strengthen its economic relationship with Europe.

Unsurprisingly, in 2019, the United States’ arrogant post-Cold War foreign policy culminated in Russia’s falling into the hands of China, a former U.S. ally now turned enemy; or, in the somewhat misleading words of General Jack Keane, China and Russia have — by no fault of the United States — mutually agreed to “[get] closer economically and militarily.”

NATO also played its part in inadvertently driving together these non-traditional allies. Coupled with the United States’ flawed foreign policy of militarism and interventionism, NATO has and will continue to result in more unintended consequences.

Most have forgotten that NATO was created to deter the Soviets, but when NATO became obsolete after the fall of the Soviet Union, U.S. corporate interests and the U.S. military industrial complex devised ways to preserve the existence and relevancy of NATO. They periodically use the U.S. federal government to revive NATO by assigning it newer missions that unconstitutionally engage U.S. troops in unnecessary foreign conflicts, like arbitrarily fighting the Serbs or exercising lethal force in Bosnia.

Such unconstitutional meddling further explains why the U.S. federal government unilaterally subverts the sovereignty of European countries that want to establish peace, commerce, and honest friendship with Russia. The closer Europe and Russia become, the less the world needs an intergovernmental military alliance among twenty-nine North American and European countries.

Several European countries, for example, have already given Germany and Russia permission to build a gas pipeline within their exclusive economic zones. However, on account of bipartisan support in the United States, the U.S. federal government is pressuring Germany and Russia to terminate their multilateral project. If Germany and Russia continue to ignore the United States’ opposition to Nord Stream, then U.S. Democrats and Republicans will impose sanctions on any foreign company that builds it. Hence why Russia was essentially forced by the United States to enter into a $55 billion partnership with China. Another gas pipeline is expected to travel from eastern Siberia to China’s northeastern city of Heihe.

As previously mentioned, NATO was formed to deter the Soviets, and after the Soviet Union fell, NATO became obsolete. But U.S. corporate interests and the U.S. military industrial complex still want to preserve the existence and relevancy of NATO. As such, European nations seeking to boost their economic ties with Russia are considered existential threats to NATO because they invariably prove that NATO no longer needs to be kept alive.

From the U.S. federal government’s point of view, this outcome would substantially weaken the influence of U.S. corporate interests and the U.S. military industrial complex in Europe. In reality, though, it’s the United States’ unconstitutionally flawed foreign policy of militarism and interventionism that has been weakening its influence over the last half century. If the U.S. had simply implemented a peaceful foreign policy of non-intervention, then yesterday’s allies wouldn’t be today’s enemies and yesterday’s enemies would be today’s allies.

Perhaps when U.S. taxpayers realize they’re allowing their own federal government to squander trillions of dollars on an international organization that never successfully deterred Soviet imperialistic aggression nor significantly enhanced America’s national security, they will demand the United States’ formal withdrawal from NATO.

Indeed. Why should U.S. soldiers risk their lives to defend nations that evidently no longer perceive Russia as a threat? Why should U.S. citizens overlook their federal government’s unconstitutional ability to go to war with nations that don’t attack the United States directly but attack one of NATO’s twenty-nine members?

For the sake of our constitutionally limited republic, it’s time for the United States to adopt a sound foreign policy of non-entangling alliances with other nations based solely on peace, commerce, and honest friendship–before it’s too late.

Leave a Reply