Someone wise once said, “Anyone who has once proclaimed violence as his method must inexorably choose lying as his principle”. The US alone, or via the use of NATO forces, have started all military conflicts with deception, distorting the true reasons of the start of hostilities.

The incident in the Gulf of Tonkin in August 1964 may serve as the beginning of the great American fraud, which unleashed the bloody campaign of Vietnam, which began due to the fact that North Vietnamese speedboats, allegedly, attacked the United States fleet. After 40 years, the U.S. government declassified archival military documents from which it became clear that the cause of the beginning of the Vietnam campaign was shamelessly fabricated (mywebs.su/blog/1310.html). Following the Tonkin incident, the bombing of settlements in Vietnam resulted in thousands of victims among the civilian population.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the Alliance began to feverishly look for a reason for their continued existence. The main one was the so-called “peacekeeping mission” when NATO entered in the resolution of ethnic conflicts, pursuing purely personal goals (especially the extension of their influence). As, for example, in the Balkans, when they invaded the region, and directly participated in the escalation of ethnic wars.

The military action of NATO against the former Republic of Yugoslavia, marking the beginning of the modern operations unit, is an example of flagrant violations of all norms and legislation, including the Organization of the North Atlantic Alliance (beta-press.ru/article/34). First of all, NATO violated its own Charter, the Washington Treaty, the 1st article of which stipulates that members of the Alliance must “settle all international disputes in which they may be involved in by peaceful means in such a way as not to endanger international peace, security and justice, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”. The 6th article of the Treaty was also grossly violated, which states that the competence of NATO is limited to the territory of member countries of the Alliance, and Yugoslavia, Macedonia, Albania and Bosnia were not members of NATO. What can we say about the 7th article of the Washington Treaty, which clearly stipulates that the Alliance recognizes “the responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security” (nato.int/cps/ru/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm).

NATO’s aggression against the former Yugoslavia almost negated all UN peacekeeping missions. The main reason for the invasion of the bloc in the Balkan country became its steadfast refusal to the ultimatum of NATO to concede its territory to the military forces of the Alliance. The condition of the Alliance meant nothing other than hard intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign state and a threat to its territorial integrity. All of these actions violated the 1st article of the UN Resolution of 1974: “Aggression is the use of armed force by a state (group of States) against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another state or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations, as set out in this definition” (politics.ru/articles/database/global/pravoviie_dokumentii/rezoliutsiia_generalnoij_assamblei_oon_%C2%ABopredelen.shtml).

The best thing about the crimes of the U.S. and NATO in Yugoslavia was, the once the best friend of the West, dissident and human rights activist Alexander Solzhenitsyn, comparing the actions of the Alliance with Nazi crimes: “The worst thing that is happening today is not even the bombing of Serbia, while it is difficult to pronounce, – the most terrible thing is that NATO has transferred us into a new era. Just as Hitler once was, playing another adventures, withdrawing Germany from the League of Nations… USA and NATO removed the UN system of collective security, the recognition of the sovereignty of states. They started a new era: who ever is stronger, will crush. It’s scary…” (aif.ru/politics/article/comments/53043).

The U.S invaded Iraq under the pretext of the presence of weapons of mass destruction, namely bacteriological (anthrax) (newsru.com/world/05feb2003/powellun.html). An additional reason was already familiar by that point – the fight for democracy. “Democratization” of Iraq has cost the lives of a million civilians (excluding losses for the military). “The dictator” Hussein was publicly executed, and weapons of mass destruction, which allegedly threatened the world, were never found. Later, in 2004, the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell admitted the published data, which marked the beginning of a bloody war, were, to put it mildly, “inaccurate” or simply falsified. “When I did a report in February 2003, it was based on the best information which was provided by the CIA. Unfortunately, over time, it became clear that the sources were inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. I’m deeply disappointed and I regret it” – Powell told the press (aif.ru/politics/article/comments/53043). He is sorry.

They used Napalm bombs – a weapon that is an incendiary, flamethrower mixture. As gelled gasoline, Napalm literally burnt them alive. Later, in 1980, the UN adopted the Convention on the prohibition of certain types of weapons, the 3rd Protocol would read that the use of incendiary weapons, including Napalm, against civilians is a crime. But during the Vietnam war these bombs had already killed and affected hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese.

In military operations against that country, NATO used weapons that were banned by the Nuremberg Charter and Geneva and Hague conventions. Firstly, in Yugoslavia, shells with a low concentration of uranium were used. This kind of weapon is not only highly accurate, but radioactive and highly toxic, and is dangerous to humans and the environment. Secondly, NATO used so-called cluster bombs – weapons of indirect fire, explosive projectiles, prohibited from the later “Ottawa process minefield” (icbl.org/intro.php). The peculiarity of this weapon is that the explosion occurs only in 50% of cases. Other bombs can lie for years in the ground, activating only in case of accidental contact.

The Iraqi venture was marked by a number of high-profile crimes of the Alliance. Torture and abuse of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison stirred up the whole world…

There was violence against civilians (murder, rape, robbery). And, of course, the use of one of the most dreaded types of incendiary chemical weapons, white phosphorus, (during the battle for Nasiriyah in April 2003, as well as the assaults on Fallujah in April and November 2004). This type of weapon, which burns the body and dissolves the flesh to the bone, was banned by the UN Convention on certain weapons in 1980, but the US never ratified it.

Photos of casualties from the use of white phosphorus we will not publish, because it is indeed a very scary sight.

There is information, which the leadership of NATO stubbornly refuses to acknowledge, that during the conflict in Libya, the military also used cluster bombs and white phosphorus, as was the case during the operations in Yugoslavia and Iraq (oko-planet.su/fail/failvideo/videoweapon/86827-nato-ispolzovalo-klasternye-bomby-v-livii-hotya-otricaet-eto-smotrite-sami.html). Also there is a possibility that NATO dumped uranium dust – a radioactive substance, banned by UN Convention, on Iraqi facilities (voltairenet.org/Voennye-prestupleniya-NATO-uchenye). Finally, many sources claim that in Libya, NATO used mustard gas in combat, a toxic substance “tested” during the years of World wars, and prohibited under various conventions as it is extremely dangerous (newsland.ru/news/detail/id/778279).

One of the main NATO crimes is pulling the world into a new arms race era. NATO is not only placing missile defense systems on the European continent, but also heavily increasing its nuclear capabilities. By the way, the official military doctrine of the Alliance recognizes the right to use nuclear weapons – the kind of weapons banned in 1996 by the world court (beta-press.ru/print.php?id=34), because it can lead to the destruction of humanity. Today, if we add up full military potential of the country-members of the bloc, NATO has 60% of the world’s nuclear arsenal.

The countries of the Alliance from year to year are increasing their military capabilities under the pretext: to “force protection, mobility, and high efficiency” (beta-press.ru/print.php?id=34). They spend huge money on it. For example, the military budget of the EU is about 11%. The spending for defense in the USA and Canada is growing. In the conditions of crisis, this money could go to peaceful humanitarian purposes, who preach to the West for medical services and education, on the development of social policies and environmental protection. But NATO needs a strong army to establish fully and definitively their hegemony in the world.

Americans themselves like to say that they are people of practical storage. They, like anyone else, know how to count money. And like all of history, humanity has fought over resources – be it gold, timber, or oil, and today, Americans aim to establish their influence in all strategically important regions of the planet. Petroleum countries have recently found problems with democracy and their mandatory dictator leader. It is in these countries that NATO tries to dominate, with the help of the world community, or by simply ignoring their opinion. As they say, morality in business is the concept of losing. So was Iraq and so was Libya. And in turn – Damascus.

The Expert Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergey Karaganov, characterizes the current policy of the NATO countries – a priori cannot be a guarantor of stability and security in the world: “For example, Europe has officially announced that one of the main objectives of its policy – the access of European companies to the African market and resources. At any cost! It, above all, affects the interests of China, who, incidentally, are assessing the situation in the Middle East, having serious levers of pressure on Europe, and have not yet said their weighty word. This concerns Russia: in Guinea, the Europeans are already trying to remove RUSAL, “LUKOIL” from Côte d’Ivoire… And in the battle for Africa, the Europeans need to turn the Mediterranean sea into a “NATO Lake”. To solve this problem, Syria could become another Algeria (newsland.ru/news/detail/id/984811/).