by GEORGE PARRY , spectator.org
July 23, 2023
In 1946, George Kennan, the U.S. Charge D’Affaires in Moscow, sent an 8,000 word telegram to the State Department warning of Joseph Stalin’s aggressive foreign policy.
The following year, writing under the pseudonym “Mister X,” he reiterated his warning in an article published by Foreign Affairs. His conclusion was that “the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”
He called for countering “Soviet pressure against the free institutions of the Western world” through the “adroit and vigilant application of counter-force at a series of constantly shifting geographical and political points, corresponding to the shifts and maneuvers of Soviet policy.” Such a policy, Kennan accurately predicted, would “promote tendencies which must eventually find their outlet in either the break-up or the gradual mellowing of Soviet power.” (READ MORE: The Many Faces of George F. Kennan)
Kennan’s containment policy was followed by every presidential administration from 1947 until the Soviet Union imploded in 1991.
In furtherance of containment, Kennan had participated in crafting the Marshall Plan which helped rebuild the ruined economy of war torn Europe as well as the formation of NATO, a coalition of the United States and allied nations, to militarily oppose Soviet aggression.
In short, Kennan was a visionary and key architect of the American policy which brought about the collapse of the Soviet Union. (RELATED: Our Strategists Today Invoke Kennan, When They Should Be Turning to Burnham)
Given the end of the threat formerly posed by the defunct Soviet Union, it appeared that NATO’s collective security mission had come to an end. It was time for NATO to declare victory and close up shop, right?
Wrong.
Enter George Soros, the billionaire leader of the Open Society Foundation which, according to its webpage, supports “individuals and organizations across the globe fighting for freedom of expression, accountable government, and societies that promote justice and equality.”
As we know all too well, this mission also includes promoting America’s societal decay and disorder by installing progressive district attorneys to sabotage criminal justice in our cities.
In 1993, the Open Society Foundation published Soros’ article titled “Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO,” in which he laid out his vision for a new military strategy and mission that eerily resembles the blueprint for the war now underway in Ukraine.
Soros predicted that the demise of the Soviet Union would result in “world disorder” that must be countered by NATO. He proposed containing post Soviet Russia to bring about his vision of a “new world order.”
“The United States would not be called upon to act as the policeman of the world,” he wrote. “When it acts, it would act in conjunction with others. Incidentally, the combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO would greatly enhance the military potential of the Partnership because it would reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries, which is the main constraint on their willingness to act. This is a viable alternative to the looming world disorder.”
Got that? Under Soros’ plan, the United States and its NATO allies would supply the weapons, and Eastern Europeans — such as Ukrainians — would provide the bodies to do the bleeding and dying.
To that end, Soros urged NATO to grant “full membership” to countries in Eastern and Central Europe despite the objections and security concerns of Russia to bringing the alliance’s forces closer to its borders.
When billionaires speak, our politicians listen. So it was that, in 1993, the Clinton administration proposed inviting the former Warsaw Pact countries of Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary to join NATO. In 1998, the U.S. Senate approved these additions.
There followed a May 1998 New York Times interview with George Kennan in which he warned against this expansion of NATO. I think it is the beginning of a new cold war,” he stated.
I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves. We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way.(Emphasis added)
Similarly, Clinton’s Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, noted in her 2003 memoir, that Russian President Boris Yeltsin and his countrymen “were strongly opposed to [NATO] enlargement, seeing it as a strategy for exploiting their vulnerability and moving Europe’s dividing line to the east, leaving them isolated.”
In 2007, Vladimir Putin reiterated these concerns in his address to the Munich security conference. “It turns out that NATO has put its frontline forces on our borders” he declared.
I think it is obvious that NATO expansion does not have any relation with the modernization of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have the right to ask: against whom is this expansion intended? And what happened to the assurances our Western partners made after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are those declarations today? No one even remembers them. But I will allow myself to remind this audience what was said. I would like to quote the speech of NATO General Secretary Mr. Werner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time that: ‘the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee.’ Where are those guarantees?” (Emphasis added)
In January 2008, Ukraine requested that it be granted a “membership action plan” for joining NATO. But, after Russia strongly objected, France and Germany opposed the move.
In April 2008, NATO compromised by pledging that Ukraine would, at an unspecified future date, become a member of the alliance.
So, with Soros’ plan for a new world order informing our foreign policy, the stage was set for the events that ultimately led up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
An analysis of those events — including the building of a Ukrainian army on Russia’s border — will be set forth in articles to come. That analysis will attempt to answer fundamental questions such as the following:
Who benefits financially from the war in Ukraine? George Soros? BlackRock? The military-industrial complex and its congressional subsidiary? The thoroughly corrupt oligarchs who run Ukraine? The Biden crime family that has received untold wealth from nefarious Ukrainian interests? (READ MORE: Biden Replicating Wilson Will Incite a Great War in Europe)
Did the Bidens’ corrupt dealings in Ukraine have anything to do with the first impeachment of Donald Trump? To what extent have those under the table payments to the Bidens influenced the massive transfer of our national treasure to Ukraine? How many of those billions and how much of the supplied military equipment have gone missing? Is there a connection with that missing military equipment and the sophisticated weaponry that has turned up in the hands of the Mexican drug cartels who effectively control our undefended and wide open southern border?
And has the war in Ukraine exposed the United States’ inability to fight a large scale conventional war against a technologically advanced military power such as Russia? And does it threaten the collapse of NATO?
So stay tuned. There’s more to come.
George Parry is a former federal and state prosecutor. He blogs at knowledgeisgood.net.