Guest Post: The Absurdity Of NATO

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by John Aziz of Azizonomics

The Absurdity Of NATO

The whole world knows the name Gavrilo Princip, and that of he man he assassinated, Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Princip’s shot triggered the Austro-Hungarian invasion of Serbia that set in motion the chain of events leading to the Great War of 1914.

After Serbia appealed to Russia for help, Russia began moving towards mobilization of its army, believing that Germany was using the crisis as an excuse to launch war in the Balkans. Upon hearing news of Russia’s general mobilization, Germany declared war on Russia. The German army then launched its attack on Russia’s ally, France, through Belgium, violating Belgian neutrality and bringing Great Britain into the war as well.

Is it possible that a similar chain of events may have already begun unfurling with the Syrian downing of a Turkish F-4 fighter jet? Turkey have already invoked a full meeting of NATO,  claimed that Syria have fired on a second Turkish plane, and vowed that Syria’s actions “won’t go unpunished”.

The vast and sprawling system of national alliances that existed prior to the events 1914 were considered by policy makers of the time to be a counterbalance against excessive tension and the threat of war. The great powers created alliances ostensibly for the purpose of deterring war. The dominant view was that the potential for dragging in allies reduced the chances of an attack. In reality, it just meant that one spark could set the entire world aflame.

This is functionally the same as the interconnecting mesh of derivatives and shadow intermediation that foreshadowed the crash of 2008. As financial parties sold each other more and more “hedges“, the consensus of the time was that this made the system safer, as it allowed risk to be dissipated around the system. The theory was — and there were plenty of inaccurate mathematical models to back this up — that spreading risk around the system made the financial system safer. As it turned out, it didn’t. In the wake of MF Global and the London Whale, we know that the financial system has not learned the lessons of 2008. But it seems even more absurd that the diplomatic system has not really learned the lessons of 1914. 

The NATO system — set up to oppose the Warsaw Pact system, which no longer exists — functions the same way — rather than dissipating risk, it allows for the magnification of international tensions into full-on regional and global wars. In the late 20th century the threat of nuclear war proved a highly-effective deterrent which limited the potential for all-out-war between the great powers, offsetting much of the risk of the hyper-fragile treaty system. Yet the potential for magnifying small regional problems into bigger wars will continue to exist for as long as NATO and similar organisations prevail.

We do not know exactly what arrangements Syria has with Russia and China — there is no formal defensive pact in place (although there is one between Syria and Iran) though it is fair to assume that Russia will be keen to maintain its Syrian naval assets, a view which is supported by the fact Russia heavily subsidises the Syrian military, and has blocked all the UN-led efforts toward intervention in Syria.

After the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact was allowed to disintegrate. Until NATO is similarly allowed to disintegrate, the threat of magnification will remain large. Could a border skirmish between Syria and Turkey trigger a regional or even global war? Under the status quo, anything is possible.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Skateboarder's picture

Not too long from now, Syria will be owned by another country, Al-Assad will be put out of power, and the state will be left leaderless, you know... kind of like the other countries in the region that this has happened to in the past decade.

cossack55's picture

Not to mention the US, which has been leaderless for at least 50 years.

Fukushima Sam's picture

NATO: "Not Another Terrorist Organization!"

Spirit Of Truth's picture

If you want to know the truth, then read this article:

 

The Cold War’s Arab SpringStolen Kremlin records show how the Soviets, including Gorbachev, created many of today’s Middle East conflicts

 

Why do you think Syria's military has been arming the 'opposition'?!

Inside Syria: You will never guess who arms the rebels -

PBS: Who are Syria's Rebel Forces? - Why is the Syrian military arming opposition forces? (more)

Why is the Syrian military arming opposition forces??!! 

Why does this world fail to heed me??!!!

Manthong's picture

We haven't learned the lessons of 1913, either.

Jay Gould Esq.'s picture

Behold the Creature from Jekyll Island.

+1

gold-is-not-dead's picture

Yup, it's so scary how those two things happend at the same time, Creature from Jekyll Island and Gavrilo's action.

Retail silver bullion currently in Serbia is 200$ per toz due to heavy premiums... strange?

Do we need thicker tin foils or what?

LeisureSmith's picture

Your name and posts are as contradictory as The Patriot Act and The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

jmc8888's picture

Don't you know Gorbachev was a British asset?

Who is arming the foreign rebels to commit terrorism and insurrection? Why Britain and the kingdom they created the house of Saud, otherwise known as Arabia the (Saudi) part is like calling here the Obama states of America or the Bush states of America. 

Of course our country is helping (on the record that is) with the non-arms funding.  You can bet the clandestine agencies of the west are having a field day in Syria. 

At some point like Libya and all the other planned imperial flashpoints, if not already, the war crime companies, known as private army brownshirts such as Xe will be there.  Xe fascist war criminals, yah yah.

The entire 'opposition' is west sanctioned, created, funded, and armed.  It's manufactured, like the media reports.

Don't forget all the 'witnesses' are of the 'opposition', their kids, etc.  The entire situation is a farce and once again the media is complicit with the crimes.

Glass-Steagall

kito's picture

one could argue that we need a leader that can act almost leaderless-ly.....weve had too many "leaders"..."leading"..........

Marginal Call's picture

I'd argue that Aziz doesn't put much thought into these posts.  He just craps them out one after another, if one actually took the time to deconstruct one-he'd have three more published before you could have a propper rebuttal.

 

What he lacks in insight and facts, he makes up for in volume. 

Aziz's picture

You bring me some "rebuttals" and I'll read them.

I'm waiting. 

Marginal Call's picture

Your last article was destroyed in the comments, why don't you start there. 

Aziz's picture

I hadn't read yesterday's thread 'til now, but it's quite amusing.

Saying that the LtG projections are on track is like me saying "The world is going to end on Saturday" and chalking up my great success when the world doesn't end on Wednesday or Thursday or Friday. The projections aren't Malthusian until the supposed crunch hits. It can only be judged by that moment, not by the preceding years. 

Marginal Call's picture

"This is functionally the same as the interconnecting mesh of derivatives and shadow intermediation that foreshadowed the crash of 2008"

 

This sentence that you use to tie the whole piece together is:  1. completely unsupported, and 2. a gigantic leap of faith.  You offer no evidence.  Just make a claim and move on. 

 

"The NATO system — set up to oppose the Warsaw Pact system, which no longer exists — functions the same way — rather than dissipating risk, it allows for the magnification of international tensions into full-on regional and global wars. In the late 20th century the threat of nuclear war proved a highly-effective deterrent which limited the potential for all-out-war between the great powers, offsetting much of the risk of the hyper-fragile treaty system. Yet the potential for magnifying small regional problems into bigger wars will continue to exist for as long as NATO and similar organisations prevail."

 

This paragraph show you have very little understanding of why Nato exist and what it is used for.   It exists as a body to provide political cover to the United States and other members 

(France/UK) to carry out "missions" of their choosing, when it benefits them.  It is not a functioning force or even a reliable defense pact (the US base network is the only defense needed).  It may be absurd, but it is as usefull and serves the same purpose as FOX news. 

 

"We do not know exactly what arrangements Syria has with Russia and China — there is no formal defensive pact in place (although there is one between Syria and Iran) though it is fair to assume that Russia will be keen to maintain its Syrian naval assets, a view which is supported by the fact Russia heavily subsidises the Syrian military, and has blocked all the UN-led efforts toward intervention in Syria."

 

This is a throw away paragraph:  Russia may do this, or it may not.  Well no shit.  That's why what's happening is happening--Russia is being probed for a response, testing their commitment.  You could maybe expand on this to make a point, but don't.  

I'll do it for you-Assad is toast.  Nato (read USA) is trying to find out if Russia is interested in defending the whole country or just their port.  Russia may have blocked UN procedings, but everybody knows it's game on for covert ops in Syria.

 

"After the Cold War, the Warsaw Pact was allowed to disintegrate. Until NATO is similarly allowed to disintegrate, the threat of magnification will remain large. Could a border skirmish between Syria and Turkey trigger a regional or even global war? Under the status quo, anything is possible."

 

Quite the money shot you shut it down with here.  Except that NATO has nothing to do with it.  This shit would be going down right now whether NATO existed or didn't.  Judging from your other articles you are a cornicopian who doesn't grasp the resource depletion wars because you wilfully deny such a situation exists.  You offer up lipstick analysis instead. 

Aziz's picture

1/ I'm talking about systemic complexity and how systems deal with strain. The similarity between the financial system and the treaty system is an analogy, but it does illustrate the same principle: in complex nonlinear systems interconnectivity doesn't dissipate risk, it magnifies it. There are a myriad of examples beyond WW1 and 2008 — read Taleb's Antifragile.

2/ Of course NATO exists as a cover for the US (etc). And of course they have been looking for an excuse to get involved in Syria for a long time. 

3/ I don't know what Russia's commitment level is. I actually think it's quite likely that the Eurasian states may be looking for a proxy war to divert attention away from problems at home, which is one possibility I floated in my last article on this subject.

4/ I can't address the "if NATO didn't exist" argument; seems nonsequitur. The point is that the "attack" on the NATO-member Turkey is a great excuse for intervention, and the treaty system exists as a pseudo-legal justification. 

5/ No I am not a Malthusian. Malthusians have never made any correct projections about anything, ever. Look at the results of Ehrlich-Simon. I am not exactly a cornucopian (I think there is a lot of potential for manmade problems) but we do not know what the limits to growth are, and every time someone prominent comes up with a testable projection reality proves it wrong. There is nothing "lipstick" about going against the foolish consensus that we are headed inexorably to a future of Malthusian resource wars and environmental cataclysm. Look at the facts instead of mathematical models.

Marginal Call's picture

You throw Malthusian around like it means something to me.  You label people with it often, and dismiss them out of hand.  That's weak sauce. 

 

We may, or may not get tech advancements to "save" society.  But even then it's still more complex because you're dealing with power structure that are willing to kill every other man on the planet to maintain the caste.  We'll get an oil replacement when:  they have it under their control, and it's no longer profitable to sell us oil.  Or as I've heard put sarcastically but more to the point:  we'll get functioning solar power when they figure out how to put a meter between earth and the sun. 

 

And by that time, we'll have to be hoping that they've got some handy tech on the shelf that we can retool the world for overnight.  We won't be mining asteroids-Unless of course those UFOs are real, but to even propose such ideas as solutions require massive leaps of faith and reliance on extrapolating mathmatical models of advancement while ignoring facts on the ground.  You've got a narrow view of history I noticed on your last piece.  Its very, very recent.  The modern world is an anomoly, a blip on the screen.  It is a complex system with achilles' heels everywhere you turn.  It can, and most likely will end faster than it began. 

 

And btw:  I know it is fashionable to dismiss any kind of environmental science out of hand on ZH, but nobody in the real world will ever take you serious if you can't acknowledge basic understood and accepted science.  It helps to understand that it is not a hoax, and they never let a crisis go to waste.  There is no need for the most elaborate hoax of all time, these people have no qualms in creating a genuine crisis if the need arises.

Aziz's picture

1/ I throw the term Malthusian around a lot because there are a lot of people in the modern world who meet its criteria, namely belief that we are hitting the limits to growth, belief that the world is overpopulated, and at a more extreme level belief that humanity is a cancer or plague on the earth, and that the only way for humanity to survive is a population reduction regime. I can dismiss them because all of their key premises are — based on the known facts — wrong or unproven. That's not to say that they don't bring anything to the conversation, or that they haven't introduced some interesting ideas. In fact I think Malthus did the world a favour for interesting the concept of a Malthusian catastrophe, because it has given us more of a chance to deal with problems. 

2/ For every super-elite who believes the stuff written on the Georgia Guidestones, there is another (possibly more) who doesn't. Exterminating the race to save the caste is a very, very poor economic decision, because a larger population is (by force of numbers) more productive, inventive, etc. I can't rule it out (though I think it is far less likely than many seem to) but if it does happen those who carry it out are ultimatey harming their own interests.

3/ I agree the modern world is something of an anomaly. I don't think we can really say whether or when it will end, precisely because we don't have any empirical examples to compare to. But my interpretation of the raw data is that the picture (resources, population, technology, atmosphere etc) is a lot rosier than most think it is. Of course there are lots of variables none of us have a handle on at all. I think that if we experience a real civilisational breakdown it will either be manmade, or the result of something that is not very widely feared. I fear gamma ray bursts, supervolcanoes, massive solar flares and rogue asteroids far more than I fear global warming and overpopulation, and a big reason for that is that for the latter issues we are aware of more of the variables and can take steps to mitigate.

4/ I don't dismiss environmental science out of hand. The raw data is very useful to have. Mathematical modelling on the other hand, especially of complex nonlinear multi-dimensional systems — which is where the cataclysmic projections come from — is junk science, because we don't know all (or even 10%) of the key variables. Every unknown variable hurts, but when you have hundreds or thousands and you don't even fully understand how different variables affect each other modelling becomes totally sophomoric and useless. 

Marginal Call's picture

A couple more things.

 

We know damn well what the limits to growth are at an extreme level, and I'm not talking the sun going supernova, I'm talking much closer in time.   From Do The Math:  

 

thermodynamic limits impose a cap to energy growth lest we cook ourselves. I’m not talking about global warming, CO2 build-up, etc. I’m talking about radiating the spent energy into space.......... Alright, the Earth has only one mechanism for releasing heat to space, and that’s via (infrared) radiation. We understand the phenomenon perfectly well, and can predict the surface temperature of the planet as a function of how much energy the human race produces. The upshot is that at a 2.3% growth rate (conveniently chosen to represent a 10× increase every century), we would reach boiling temperature in about 400 years. [Pained expression from economist.] And this statement is independent of technology. Even if we don’t have a name for the energy source yet, as long as it obeys thermodynamics, we cook ourselves with perpetual energy increase.

In fact, the whole article is a hoot, you should read it and his blog.  

 http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/

 

Economics is really just an another psuedo science like sociology.  Or psychology.  Junk. 

Aziz's picture

Why is perpetual energy-output growth even necessary? The thermodynamic constraints argument is worried about hitting a limit 400 years from now assuming that energy output doubles every 23 years?

We have a reasonable standard of living today. I can see us doubling once or doubling twice energy output, or maybe even three or four times. But 17 times? Why — unless we leave the planet and colonise other ones — would we even need to do that? Population growth drastically slows once industrialisation hits. Even if the population of the planet hits 10 billion, and they all achieve an energy usage double that of Americans today, we'd only be at maybe 8 or maybe 16 (four doublings) times current output levels.

I think what he's trying to calculate is rather disconnected from the reality of what growth actually is — which is improvement in technology and efficiencies, not greater energy output. 

All Risk No Reward's picture

Ooooh, noooo.  That's a baaaad assumption.

America has a leader, it just isn't who they tell you it is.

My name for them is Big Finance Capital.  Probably more accurat eis Biggest Finance Capital.

Others have used the term "money changers," "den of vipers," "money power," "NWO," "globalists," etc...

Make no mistake, they are leading...  us all to a point where we are under their authoritarian control.

“It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning. The one aim of these financiers is world control by the creation of inextinguishable debt.”
~Henry Ford

Their propaganda is good though - because you aren't supposed to know they are leading you into the age old pit of tyranny...  and that's if they don't decide to, well, cull you from the "herd."

Better start organizing resistance or begin boot licking practice.

reader2010's picture

It's been a Turkey shoot. Go press the button now.

noses's picture

Did someone tell the Rednecks it is Turkey season already?

CommunityStandard's picture

Syria and Turkey play chicken; everyone else needs to duck and cover.

Marginal Call's picture

As god as my witness.....I thought Turkey's F4 could fly.

http://youtu.be/lf3mgmEdfwg

 

 

cossack55's picture

NATO should be renamed NATT (Need Another Three Trillion)

john39's picture

ZATO= zionist armies of total occupation. 

robertocarlos's picture

NATF Need another tree fitty. Damn you Lock Ness monster!

Abner Doon's picture
What are the chances that two blog posts concerning Warren Buffett, Wells Fargo, Bank of America, the Federal Reserve and Insider Trading be completly ignored by all for profit press since 8:37pm, June 23, 2012?

 

http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2012/06/what-are-chances-that-two-blog-posts.html

El's picture

Well...I care. Who am I? Just one of the taxpayers footing the bill...otherwise known as nobody.

sangell's picture

Turkey invaded Cyprus and though Greece didn't much care for it ( and there were British military bases on the island too it was resolved sort of an inter Nato war. Argentina invaded the British Falkland Islands territory and NATO didn't respond I think because NATO does not cover areas outside Europe and if so then what Turkey does with Syria is not going to involve NATO either.

knightowl77's picture

I do not disagree, but how does Lybia affect NATO? Though NATO dropped Peace & FReedom all over the place there

XitSam's picture

NATO is in Afghanistan. As far as I know, Britain never asked NATO for help in the Falklands.

TheGardener's picture

Some French rocket was said to have helped...

jmc8888's picture

Who knew Britain was in the southern hemisphere.  I thought it was in the North Atlantic.

Tuco Benedicto Pacifico Juan Maria Ramirez's picture

The big question has been and continues to be:"If Turkey attacks Syria from the rear will Greece help!?"

Tuco

gmrpeabody's picture

Tuco, Tuco, Tuco......

I guess it was only a matter of time before before someone asked. In answer to your question, IF Greece gets involved, I imagine that it would benefit Syria the most.

Joseph Jones's picture

I still remember this ad from the Bar Guardian in the 70s: "Man wanted to do excavation work in the rear of my property.  Age and size of equipment unimportant.  As needed, will supply fluid lubrication for erection of machinery."

mjk0259's picture

It's supposed to be that an attack on any member is considered an attack on all. That's how we dragged them into Afghanistan. The Turkey-Greece thing was a puzzler. In retrospect we should have took Turkey's side and helped them occupy all of Greece.

 

noses's picture

So the moronically inclined Turks send out a pre-historic aircraft they found in some scrap yard (come on - a Phantom, could it get more ridiculous?), send it into the territory of another (not too friendly) state where it certainly had as much business to be as US drones in Pakistan killing civilians, get shot down by a lead-throwing device (we're not talking about rocket science here) and now they are starting to demand all-out war?

Seriously brain dead. They got what they deserved.

JohnG's picture

 

 

The F4 was in service in all 4 branches of the US military until 1996.  The arcraft is definitly not pre-historic.

The Navy still uses unmanned, remote controlled F4 "drones" for target practice.

sushi's picture

Any idea why one of those remote controlled Navy drone F4s was shipped to Turkey two months ago? I believe it was delivered by USS Maddox. Or was it the Turner Joy? So many details so little time.

JohnG's picture

My thoughts exactly.

OhOh's picture

More importantly was the drone driver in Turkey or Kansas?

JohnG's picture

Now you're getting it.