Ahead of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization foreign ministers meeting later this week, which will include U.S. Secretary of State Tony Blinken, the military alliance’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg pontificated on the need to “be bold and ambitious to build a stronger Alliance for the future,” because “we live in a more dangerous and competitive world, where challenges know no borders.”
In other words, NATO will continue to intrude itself into conflicts around the world. As one of Stoltenberg’s predecessors, fellow Scandinavian Anders Fogh Rasmussen, put it over a decade ago, NATO’s remit extends at least as far as the Hindu Kush mountain range.
He identified six key international threats that NATO will now confront, necessitating the elaboration and activation of the bloc’s first new Strategic Concept in eleven years when then Russian President Dmitry Medvedev attended the NATO summit in Lisbon, Portugal and all seemed right in the world. They are, in his sequence and presumably in what NATO views as their order of significance (in Stoltenberg’s exact words):
Russia’s destabilising activities
The threat of terrorism
Sophisticated cyber attacks
The rise of China
One might as well assign the third and fourth casus belli to Russia as well; NATO surely does in fact.
In language that increasingly resembles the esoteric incantations of a global doomsday cult, the secretary general obligatorily included, in reference to NATO’s current initiative, NATO 2030 (the name echoing the United Nation’s 2030 Agenda), that it and the impending updated Strategic Concept are “about protecting the rules-based order, which is being challenged by authoritarian powers like China and Russia.” Those precise words are employed by him, other NATO officials, the Atlantic Council U.S.A. and dozens of sister organizations established since the end of the Cold War and the greater global NATOsphere on a routine and progressively more frequent basis. They indisputably draw a stark line between “freedom-loving” paladins of the rules-based international order (as opposed to international law and the comity of nations) on one side – that is, NATO and its partners – and “authoritarian” threats to the rules-based international order, Russia and China and any other nation not a NATO member or partner or willing to be so on the other.
In fact Norway’s Stoltenberg also emphasized, “Together with our partners Finland and Sweden, as well as the EU High Representative, we will…address our relations with Russia.” In a combination of new convert fervor and hybrid vigor, the latter two Scandinavian nations are proving to be greater NATO loyalists than most members of the bloc itself.
What formerly neutral Finland and Sweden and the European Union must ally themselves with, must subordinate themselves to is confronting Russia for the following offenses and violations of the RULES-BASED INTERNATIONAL ORDER (mystic emblem to follow):
Russia continues to suppress peaceful dissidents at home
It display a pattern of aggressive behaviour abroad
Including with cyber attacks, and attempts to interfere in our elections and undermine our democracies.
These are enough casus belli in this one brief list to justify the activation of NATO’s Article 5 war clause several times over.
To demonstrate NATO’s role as the world’s first international military bloc, in a world “where challenges know no borders,” Stoltenberg ended his press conference today with a pledge to extend NATO’s presence in the Middle East and North Africa, solidifying military contacts and operations with partners like Iraq, Jordan and Tunisia. To fight international terrorism, he claimed. In Jordan and Tunisia? NATO will soon boost its troop levels in Iraq from 500 to 5,000, thereby having twice the amount of troops stationed there as the U.S.