NICK Cole’s letter extolling the virtues of Nato (Jun 23) is a classic example of the inversion of reality that can be achieved with a comprehensive campaign which aligns long-term geopolitical objectives and a carefully crafted policy narrative with a compliant Western media.
This describes Russia as “expansionist” when in fact it is the US –with its estimated 700-plus military bases in over 80 countries – that is the world’s hegemon, a fact of which its foreign policy elite are extremely but quietly proud.
The first point to make is that Nato as a “collective” defence organisation is a complete fiction, one that the US is happy to perpetuate. Nato is in fact simply a pliant tool of US foreign policy.
READ MORE: Mike Russell: SNP's plan for independence is 'not complicated'
If you have not grasped that, you might want to ask yourself some fairly basic questions. Here’s one. If the war in Ukraine triggers a major nuclear exchange in any form, which continent will suffer the horrendous consequences? Answer: Europe. And which continent will not? Answer: North America.
Europe needs to wake up to the fact that the long-term US goal is to maintain its economic and military global supremacy at all costs and these costs, whether financial or otherwise (eg dead people), should ideally be borne by others. Continued US hegemony demands that a re-awakened Russia and a rising China must be undermined and that the rest of the world dances to the American tune. This is the natural order. It’s Ukraine today but it will be Taiwan next, so better hunker down for the never-ending roadshow that is Pax Americana … all in the name of peace and democracy, you understand.
Name and address supplied
I WELCOME Nick Cole’s Friday reply to my concern over an Alyn Smith article warmly anticipating independent Scotland’s application to join Nato.
Nick’s charge that I tried “to compare apples with pears” surprised me, for the language and theme of my letter was expressly to argue against such a comparison, as the sub-editor’s heading precisely nailed it: “Nato and the EU are vastly different institutions”.
READ MORE: Oppression faced by Kurds happens on our own shores
As Alyn did, Nick makes persuasive points in favour of Nato membership. However his assertion that “it is only Nato membership that has prevented Putin from assimilating the Baltic states” is conjecture. He is on surer ground reminding us that Sweden and Finland have now applied for Nato membership, a fact that I (humbly) confess disappointed me. I had hoped Scotland would one day join these worthy, peaceful countries in neutrality, putting us beyond the reach of Westminster’s more aggressive strategies and closer to a Robert Burns ideal of the brotherhood of man the world over.
The point Nick makes that, apart from Kosovo, it is member states rather than the body Nato that have engaged in recent conflicts is of dubious value to his case.
Take the assault of the US, the UK and France on little Libya with hundreds of cruise missiles. The targets were military but we were not at war with Libya and the short campaign brought civil strife and chaos the country is still struggling with. Who’s calling the shots? How far was Nato complicit in this assault? Were other member states consulted on it? It’s hard to believe they all agreed to morally support a “security” measure of this character.
READ MORE: UK bid to prevent talks with foreign officials may come back to the UN
Ironically, as it seems to me, it is the power and dynamism of the US that might, with a change of heart, defer the global extinction of humankind.
Nick is for realpolitik and pragmatism rather than idealism, but why not put these three apples in the same basket? Most of humankind’s progress depends on the former two, but ideals give blind progress sight. Oor Rab’s global brotherhood is an ideal which might be realised by the presence of a bloc of neutral states along with a bloc under a new EU policy of non-aggressive security, for together these might at least slow the perilous drift of the West, under a US/Nato bloc, toward confrontation with a China/Russia bloc.
The planet’s newly independent country must be born free, its choices uncompromised, regardless of the mindset of the midwife and any threats or conditions put forward by a grudgingly reluctant supporting staff.
John Melrose
Peebles
DURING the Prime Minister’s verbal-diarrhoea responses to Laura Kuenssberg’s questions on Sunday he claimed that his resignation from Johnson’s government when he was Chancellor “demonstrated his integrity”. Everyone knows that the reason he resigned was because he saw his opportunity to become PM.
READ MORE: Rishi Sunak signals he may ignore advice on public sector pay rises
Eventually, after 40 days of the Truss disaster and his promise of Home Secretary to Ms Braverman, he achieved his goal. Cunning does not translate into integrity.
Mr Sunak’s repetition of his five targets for making the UK great again fools no-one, least of all those on low incomes and those waiting for treatment by the NHS. When he was Chancellor he didn’t have the integrity to tell people on low and medium incomes that they would be repaying all the massive cost of the pandemic, much of which went to Tory donors.
Mike Underwood
Linlithgow
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here