[E-rundbrief] Info 1533 - J. Gerson: Imperial NATO: Before and After Brexit

[Matthias Reichl]

E-Rundbrief - Info 1533 - Joseph Gerson (USA): Imperial NATO: Before 
and After Brexit. Our interests and survival depend on Common Security 
diplomacy rather than the repeated and deadly failures of militarism.

Bad Ischl, 6.7.2016

Begegnungszentrum für aktive Gewaltlosigkeit

www.begegnungszentrum.at

================================================

Imperial NATO: Before and After Brexit

Our interests and survival depend on Common Security diplomacy rather 
than the repeated and deadly failures of militarism

Joseph Gerson

Tuesday, July 05, 2016

Common Dreams

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/07/05/imperial-nato-and-after-brexit


"In the face of what may be the slow motion breakup of the European 
Union under pressure from Euro skeptics, look for U.S. and allied 
European elites to increase their commitments to the sixty-seven year 
NATO alliance." (Photo: suviih/flickr/cc)

In his first public response to the Brexit vote that has shaken Europe 
and much of the world, President Obama sought to reassure Americans 
and others. He urged us not to give into hysteria and stressed that 
NATO did not disappear with Brexit. The Trans-Atlantic alliance, he 
reminded the world, endures.1 In the face of what may be the slow 
motion breakup of the European Union under pressure from Euro 
skeptics, look for U.S. and allied European elites to increase their 
commitments to the sixty-seven year NATO alliance. The hysteria that 
was manufactured in the wake of Russia’s seizure of Crimea and 
intervention in eastern Ukraine and fears of the fallout from the 
continuing wars and catastrophes in the Middle East will serve as 
NATO’s selling points.

As we face the future, either/or thinking and NATO need to be left behind.

But, as we face the future, either/or thinking and NATO need to be 
left behind. As even President Carter’s National Security Advisor 
Zbigniew Brzezinski taught, since its inception NATO has been an 
imperial project.2 Rather than creating a new, full-blown and 
extremely dangerous Cold War, our interests and survival depend on 
Common Security diplomacy3 rather than the repeated and deadly 
failures of militarism.

This does not mean turning blind eyes to Putin’s assault on free 
speech and democracy, or to Moscow’s nuclear saber rattling and 
cyberattacks.4  But it does mean that we should be mindful that Common 
Security diplomacy ended the Cold War,  that repressive and brutal 
though Putin may be, he arrested Russia’s calamitous Yeltsin-era 
freefall, and he played critical roles in the elimination of Syria’s 
chemical weapons and the P-5+1 nuclear deal with Iran.  We also need 
to acknowledge that with two million people in U.S. prisons, including 
Guantanamo, the embrace of the Poland’s autocratic government and 
Saudi monarchy, and the militarized “Pivot to Asia” the U.S. leads a 
not-so-free world.

Zero-sum thinking is not in anyone’s interest. There are Common 
Security alternatives to today’s increasing and dangerous military 
tensions.

We oppose NATO because of its neo-colonial domination of most of 
Europe, its roles in imperial wars and domination, the existential 
nuclear threat it poses to human survival, and because it diverts 
funds from essential social services, truncating lives in the U.S. and 
other nations.

William Faulkner wrote that “the past isn’t dead, that it isn’t even 
past,” a truth that reverberates with the Brexit vote. Our approach to 
the present and to the future must thus be informed by the tragedies 
of history. Central and Eastern European nations including Poland have 
been conquered, ruled and oppressed by Lithuanians, Swedes, Germans, 
Tatars, Ottomans and Russians –as well as by home grown despots. And 
Poland was once the imperial power in Ukraine.

Given this history and other considerations, it’s madness to risk 
nuclear annihilation to enforce the borders at any given moment. And 
as we learned from the Common Security resolution of the Cold War, our 
survival depends on challenging traditional security thinking. 
Spiraling tensions that come with military alliances, arms races, 
military-industrial complexes and chauvinistic nationalism can be 
overcome with commitments to mutual respect.

1913?

This is an era with similarities to the years preceding the First 
World War.  The world is marked by rising and declining powers anxious 
to retain or expand their privilege and power. We have arms races with 
new technologies; resurgent nationalism, territorial disputes, 
resource competition, complex alliance arrangements, economic 
integration and competition, and wild card actors including a U.S. 
Secretary of Defense who prepares for the NATO summit by imitating 
gangster movies by saying “You try anything, you’re going to be 
sorry”,5  as well as right-wing forces across the U.S. and Europe, and 
murderous religious fanatics.

Remembering the consequences of the bullets fired by an assassin’s gun 
in Sarajevo a century ago, we have reason to worry about what might 
happen if a frightened or overly aggressive U.S., Russian or Polish 
soldier, pushed beyond their limits, in anger or by accident, fires 
the anti-aircraft missile that brings down a U.S., NATO or another 
Russian warplane.

Competing NATO and Russian military exercises are ratcheting up 
military tensions to the point that former U.S. Secretary of Defense 
Perry warns that nuclear war is now more likely than during the cold 
war.6  Carl Conetta was right when he wrote “NATO’s militaristic 
response” to Russia in Ukraine “is a perfect example of reflective 
action-reaction cycles.” Moscow, he explains, lacks “the will to 
suicide…it has no intention of attacking NATO.”7  Last month’s 
Anaconda-2016, involving 31,000 NATO troops – 14,000 of them here in 
Poland - and troops from 24 countries was the largest war game in 
Eastern Europe since the Cold War.8  Imagine Washington’s response if 
Russia or China conducted similar war games on the Mexican border.

Given NATO’s expansions to its borders; its new tactical headquarters 
in Poland and Romania; its increased military deployments and 
provocative military exercises across Eastern Europe, the Baltic 
states, Scandinavia and the Black Sea, as well as by the U.S. 
quadrupling its military spending for Europe, we shouldn’t be 
surprised that Russia is attempting to “counterbalance” NATO’s 
buildup.  And, with Washington’s first-strike related missile defenses 
in Romania and Poland and its superiority in conventional, high-tech 
and space weapons, we should be alarmed but not surprised by Moscow’s 
increased reliance on nuclear weapons.

Remembering the consequences of the bullets fired by an assassin’s gun 
in Sarajevo a century ago, we have reason to worry about what might 
happen if a frightened or overly aggressive U.S., Russian or Polish 
soldier, pushed beyond their limits, in anger or by accident, fires 
the anti-aircraft missile that brings down a U.S., NATO or another 
Russian warplane. As the trilateral European-Russian-U.S. Deep Cuts 
Commission concluded “In the atmosphere of deep mutual mistrust, the 
increased intensity of potentially hostile military activities in 
close proximity - and particularly air force and naval activities in 
the Baltic and the Black Sea areas – may result in further dangerous 
military incidents which…. may lead to miscalculation and/or accidents 
and spin off in unintended ways.”9 People are human. Accidents happen. 
Systems are built to respond – sometimes automatically.

An Imperial Alliance

NATO is an imperial alliance. Beyond the ostensible goal of containing 
the USSR, NATO has made it possible to integrate European governments, 
economies, militaries, technologies and societies into U.S. dominated 
systems. NATO has ensured U.S. access to military bases for 
interventions across the Greater Middle East and Africa. And, as 
Michael T. Glennon wrote, with the 1999 war against Serbia, the U.S. 
and NATO "with little discussion and less fanfare ... effectively 
abandoned the old U.N. Charter rules that strictly limit international 
intervention in local conflicts…in favor of a vague new system that is 
much more tolerant of military intervention but has few hard and fast 
rules." It is thus understandable that Putin adopted the slogan “New 
rules or no rules, with his commitment to the former.10

Sometimes the U.S. “national security” elite tell the truth.

Since the war on Serbia, contrary to the U.N. Charter, the U.S. and 
NATO invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, destroyed Libya, and eight NATO 
nations are now at war in Syria. But we have the irony of NATO 
Secretary General Stoltenberg saying that there can be no business as 
usual until Russia respects international law.11

Recall that NATO’s first secretary general, Lord Ismay explained that 
the alliance was designed “to keep the Germans down, the Russians out 
and the Americans in”, which is not the way to build a common European 
home.  It was created before the Warsaw Pact, when Russia was still 
reeling from the Nazi devastation. Unfair though it was, the Yalta 
agreement which divided Europe into U.S. and Soviet spheres, was seen 
by U.S. policy makers as the price to be paid for Moscow having driven 
Hitler’s forces across eastern and central Europe. With the history of 
Napoleon, the Kaiser and Hitler, the U.S. establishment understood 
that Stalin had reason to fear future invasions from the West. The 
U.S. was thus complicit in Moscow’s repressive colonization of Eastern 
European and Baltic nations.

Sometimes the U.S. “national security” elite tell the truth.  Zbigniew 
Brzezinski, formerly President Carter’s National Security Advisor, 
published a primer describing how what he termed the U.S. "imperial 
project"12 works. Geostrategically, he explained, dominance over the 
Eurasian heartland is essential to being the world’s dominant power. 
To project coercive power into the Eurasian heartland, as an "island 
power" not located in Eurasia, the U.S. requires toeholds on Eurasia’s 
western, southern and eastern peripheries. What Brzezinski termed 
“vassal state” NATO allies, make possible ‘entrench[ment of] American 
political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland." In 
the wake of the Brexit vote, U.S. and European elites will rely even 
more heavily on NATO in their effort to hold Europe together and to 
reinforce U.S. influence.

There is more than integrating European territory, resources and 
technologies into the U.S. dominated systems.  As former Secretary of 
War Rumsfeld put it, in the tradition of divide and conquer, by 
playing New (Eastern and Central) Europe against Old Europe in the 
West, Washington won French, German and the Dutch support for the war 
to depose Saddam Hussein.

And with what even the New York Times describes as “right-wing, 
nationalist assault on the country’s media and judiciary” and the 
“retreat from the fundamental values of liberal democracy” by the 
Kacynski government, the U.S. has had no hesitation in making Poland 
the eastern hub of NATO.13  Washington’s rhetoric about its 
commitments to democracy is belied by its long history of supporting 
dictators and repressive regimes in Europe, monarchies like the 
Saudis, as well as by its wars of conquest from the Philippines and 
Vietnam to Iraq and Libya.

Washington’s European toehold has also reinforced its hold on Southern 
Eurasia’s resource rich periphery. NATO’s wars in Afghanistan and the 
Middle East follow in the tradition of European colonialism. Before 
the Ukraine crisis, the Pentagon’s strategic guidance14 tasked NATO 
with ensuring control of mineral resources and trade while reinforcing 
the encirclement of China as well as Russia.15  Thus NATO adopted its 
"out of area operations" doctrine, making what Secretary Kerry termed 
“expedition missions” in Africa, the Middle East, and beyond the 
alliance’s primary purpose.16

Essential to “out of area” operations has been U.S. drone warfare 
including the Obama kill lists and U.S. and NATO extra-judicial drone 
assassinations, many of which have claimed civilian lives. This, in 
turn, has metastasized rather than eliminated extremist resistance and 
terrorism. Fifteen NATO nations participate in the Alliance Ground 
Surveillance (AGS) drone system operated from a NATO base in Italy, 
with NATO’s Global Hawk killer drones operated from the Ramstein Air 
Base in Germany.17

Ukraine and NATO's Expansion

An increasing number of U.S. strategic analysts, including former 
Commander in Chief of the U.S. Strategic Command General Lee Butler 
have said that U.S. post-Cold War “triumphalism,” treating Russia like 
a “dismissed serf,” and NATO’s expansion to Russia’s boarders despite 
the Bush I-Gorbachev agreement precipitated today’s spiraling military 
tensions with Russia.18 Russia did not precipitate the Ukraine crisis. 
NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders, Ukraine’s designation as a NATO 
“aspirant” country, and the Kosovo and Iraq War precedents each played 
their roles.

What have the coup and civil war brought us?  One set of corrupt 
oligarchs replacing another. Death and suffering. Fascist forces once 
allied with Hitler now part of Ukraine’s ruling elite, and hardliners 
in Washington, Moscow, and across Europe reinforced.

This is not to say that Putin is innocent as he revitalizes his 
corrupt neo-Tsarist state and campaigns to reassert Russian political 
influence in its “near abroad” and Europe itself, and as he hitches 
Russia’s economy and military to China. But, on our side, we have 
Secretary Kerry’s Orwellian doublespeak. He decried Moscow’s 
“incredible act of aggression” in Ukraine, saying “you just don’t in 
the 21st century behave in 19th century fashion by invading another 
country on [a] completely trumped up pretext.”19  Afghanistan, Iraq, 
Syria, and Libya disappeared down his memory hole!

Great powers have long intervened in Ukraine, and this was the case 
with the Maidan coup. Leading up to the coup, Washington and the E.U. 
poured billions of dollars into developing and nurturing Ukrainian 
allies to turn the former Soviet republic away from Moscow and toward 
the West. Many forget the E. U.’s ultimatum to the corrupt Yanukovych 
government: Ukraine could take the next steps toward E.U. membership 
only by burning its bridges to Moscow, to which eastern Ukraine had 
been economically tied for decades.  As tensions built in Kiev, CIA 
Director Brennan, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland –famous 
for her “fuck the E.U.” disrespect of Washington’s vassals – and 
Senator McCain journeyed to Maidan to encourage revolution. And, once 
the shooting began, the U.S. and the E.U. failed to hold their 
Ukrainian allies to the April Geneva power sharing agreement.

The truth is that both the Western political interventions and 
Russia’s annexation of Crimea violated the Budapest Memorandum of 
1994, which committed the powers to “respect the independence, 
sovereignty and existing borders of Ukraine,”20 and to “refrain from 
the threat of use of force against the territorial integrity or 
political independence of Ukraine." What was it that Hitler said about 
treaties being just scraps of paper?

What have the coup and civil war brought us?  One set of corrupt 
oligarchs replacing another.21 Death and suffering. Fascist forces 
once allied with Hitler now part of Ukraine’s ruling elite, and 
hardliners in Washington, Moscow, and across Europe reinforced.

   From early on, the realistic alternative was creation of a neutral 
Ukraine, tied economically to both the E.U. and Russia.

NATO: A Nuclear Alliance

In addition to the Ukraine crisis, we now have Washington’s and NATO’s 
campaign to topple the Assad dictatorship and Russia’s military 
intervention in Syria to reinforce its Middle East military and 
political toehold. Russia won’t abandon Assad, and enforcing the 
“no-fly” zone that Hillary Clinton advocates would require destruction 
of Russian anti-aircraft missile, risking military escalation.

Friends, we are told that U.S. nuclear weapons are deployed only to 
deter possible nuclear attacks. But, as Bush the Lesser’s Pentagon 
informed the world, their primary purpose is to prevent other nations 
from taking actions that are inimical to U.S. interests.

Ukraine and Syria remind us that NATO is a nuclear alliance, and that 
the dangers of a catastrophic nuclear exchange did not disappear with 
the end of the Cold War. Once again we hear the madness that “NATO 
will not be able to leave things at conventional armament” and that a 
“Credible deterrent will involve nuclear weapons…”22

How serious is the nuclear danger? Putin tells us that he considered 
the possible use of nuclear weapons to reinforce Russian control of 
Crimea. And, Daniel Ellsberg reported that U.S. and Russian nuclear 
forces were on high alert in the early stages of the Ukraine crisis.23

Friends, we are told that U.S. nuclear weapons are deployed only to 
deter possible nuclear attacks. But, as Bush the Lesser’s Pentagon 
informed the world, their primary purpose is to prevent other nations 
from taking actions that are inimical to U.S. interests.24 Since they 
were first deployed, these weapons have been used for more than 
classical deterrence.

Former Secretary of War Harold Brown testified that they serve another 
purpose. With nuclear weapons, he testified, U.S. conventional forces 
became "meaningful instruments of military and political power." Noam 
Chomsky explains that this means "we have succeeded in sufficiently 
intimidating anyone who might help protect people who we are 
determined to attack."25

Beginning with the Iran crisis of 1946 – before the Soviet Union was a 
nuclear power – through the Bush-Obama “all options are on the table” 
threats against Iran, nuclear weapons in Europe have served as the 
ultimate enforcers of US Middle East hegemony. U.S. nuclear weapons in 
Europe were placed on alert during Nixon’s “madman” nuclear 
mobilization to intimidate Vietnam, Russia and China, and they were 
likely placed on alert during other Asian wars and crises.26

NATO’s nuclear weapons serve yet another purpose: preventing the 
"decoupling" from the United States. During the 2010 Lisbon Summit, in 
order to limit NATO member states’ options, “widely shared 
responsibility for deployment and operational support” for nuclear war 
preparations was reaffirmed.  More, it was proclaimed that “Any change 
in this policy, including the geographic distribution of NATO nuclear 
deployments in Europe, should be made … by the Alliance as a 
whole…Broad participation of the non-nuclear Allies is an essential 
sign of transatlantic solidarity and risk sharing."27  And now, on the 
eve of the NATO summit and the deployment of new B-61-12 nuclear 
warheads in Europe, General Breedlove, until recently NATO’s Supreme 
Commander, has insisted that the U.S. must enhance its nuclear 
exercises with its NATO allies to demonstrate their “resolve and 
capability.”28

Common Security Alternative to NATO

Friends, history is moved and governmental policies are changed by 
popular force from below. That’s how we won greater civil rights in 
the U.S., led Congress to cut off funding for the Vietnam war, and 
together we forced Reagan to begin the disarmament negotiations with 
Gorbachev. It’s how the Berlin Wall was breached and Soviet 
colonialism was relegated to history’s dustbin.

The challenge we face is to respond to NATO’s imperialism and to the 
increasing dangers of great power war with the imagination and urgency 
required by our times.

The challenge we face is to respond to NATO’s imperialism and to the 
increasing dangers of great power war with the imagination and urgency 
required by our times. Neither Poland and Russia nor Washington and 
Moscow will be living in harmony any time soon, but Common Security 
provides a path to such a future.

Common Security embraces the ancient truth that a person or a nation 
cannot be secure if their actions lead their neighbor or rival to be 
more fearful and insecure.  At the height of the Cold War, when the 
30,000 nuclear weapons threatened apocalypse, Swedish Prime Minister 
Palme brought together leading U.S., European and Soviet figures to 
explore ways to step back from the brink.29 Common Security was their 
answer. It led to the negotiation of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces 
Treaty, which functionally ended the Cold War in 1987.

In essence, each side names what the other is doing that causes it 
fear and insecurity. The second party does the same. Then, in 
difficult negotiations diplomats discern actions each side can take 
steps to reduce the other’s fear without undermining their country’s 
security. As Reiner Braun explained, it requires that “the interests 
of others are seen as legitimate and have to be taken into account in 
[one’s] decision making process…Common security means negotiation, 
dialogue and cooperation; it implies peaceful resolution of conflicts. 
Security can be achieved only by a joint effort or not at all.”30

What might a Common Security order look like?  Negotiations to create 
a neutral Ukraine with regional autonomy for its provinces and 
economic ties to both Russia and the West would end that war and 
create a more secure foundation for improved relations between Europe 
and Russia and between the great powers.  The Deep Cuts Commission 
recommends that enhancing the role of the OSCE is “the single 
multilateral platform on which dialogue on relevant security concerns 
can and should be resumed without delay.”31  In time it should replace 
NATO.  Other Deep Cuts Commission recommendations include:

       Giving priority to U.S.-Russian negotiations to restrain and 
address the intense military buildup and military tensions in the 
Baltic area.

       “[P]revent[ing] dangerous military incidents by establishing 
specific rules of conduct…and revive dialogue on nuclear risk 
reduction measures.”

       U.S. and Russia committing to resolve their differences of 
compliance with the INF Treaty and eliminating the growing dangers of 
nuclear-armed cruise missile development and deployments.

       Addressing the growing danger of hyper-sonic strategic weapons.

And, while the Commission calls for restraint in nuclear weapons 
modernization, clearly our goal should be an end to the development 
and deployment of these omnicidal weapons.

With reduced military spending, Common Security also means greater 
economic security, with more money for essential social services, to 
contain and reverse the devastations of climate change, and investment 
in 21st century infrastructures.

Another world is, indeed possible. No to NATO. No to War!  Our 
thousand-mile journey begins with our single steps.

____________________________

1. 
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/28/483768326/obama-cautions-against-hysteria-over-brexit-vote

2. Zbigniew Brzezinski. The Grand Chessboard, Basic Books, New York: 1997.

3. The Independent Commission on Disarmament and Security Issues. 
Common Security: A Blueprint for Survival. New York: Simon & Schuster, 
1982. The Commission, initiated by Prime Minister Palme of Sweden, 
brought together leading figures from the Soviet Union, Europe and the 
United States at the height of the Cold War. Their Common Security 
alternative provided the paradigm which led to the negotiation of the 
Intermediate Nuclear Forces Agreement which functionally ended the 
Cold War in 1987, before the collapse of the Berlin Wall and implosion 
of the Soviet Union.

4. David Sanger. “As Russian Hackers Attack, NATO Lacks a Clear 
Cyberwar Strategy”, New York Times, June 17, 2016

5. 
http://www.defense.gov/News/News-Transcripts/Transcript-View/Article/788073/remarks-by-secretary-carter-at-a-troop-event-at-fort-huachuca-arizona

6. William J. Perry. My Journey at the Nuclear Brink, Stanford: 
Stanford University Press, 2015.
7. Carl Connetta. Blog, “RAMPING IT UP”
8. Alex Dubal Smith. “Nato countries begin largest war game in eastern 
Europe since cold war.” The Guardian, June 7, 2016
9. “Back from the Brink: Toward Restraint and Dialogue between Russia 
and the West”, Brookings Institution: Washington, D.C., June, 2016, 
http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2016/06/russia-west-nato-restraint-dialogue
10. Michael J. Glennon. “The Search for a Just International Law” 
Foreign Affairs, May/June, 1999, 
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/1999-05-01/new-interventionism-search-just-international-law 
; 
https://marknesop.wordpress.com/2014/12/07/new-rules-or-no-rules-putin-defies-the-newworld-order/

11. Carter on NATO vs. Russia: 'You Try Anything, You're Going to Be 
Sorry', PJ Media, June 1, 2016, 
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2016/06/01/carter-on-nato-vs-russia-you-try-anything-youre-going-to-be-sorry/

12. Zbigniew Brzezinski. Op Cit.

13. “Poland Deviates from Democracy” Lead editorial, New York Times, 
January 13, 2016/

14. John Pilger. A World War is Beckoning”, Counterpunch, 
http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/05/14/a-world-war-is-beckoning

15. Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century 
Defense, January, 2012. 
http://www.defense.gov/news/Defense_Strategic_Guidance.pdf

16. John Kerry. “Remarks at the Atlantic council’s ‘Toward a Europe 
Whole and Free’ Conference”, April 29, 2014, 
http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/04/225380.htm

17. Nigel Chamberlain, “NATO Drones: the ‘game changers” NATO Watch, 
Sept. 26, 2013.

18. 
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/05/27/19731/former-senior-us-general-again-calls-abolishing-nuclear-forces-he-once-commanded’ 
Neil MacFarquhar. “Reviled, Revered, and Still Challenging Russia to 
Evolve”, International New York times, June 2. 18 
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/policy-budget/policy/2016/04/11/business-usual-russia-unlikely-nato-leader-says/82902184/

19. John Kerry.    Kerry on Russia: “You just don’t” invade another 
country “on a completely trumped up pretext”, Salon.com, 
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/02/kerry_on_russia_you_just_dont_invade_another_country_on_a_completely_trumped_up_pretext/

20. Jeffrey. “Ukraine and the 1994 Budapest Memorandum”, 
http://armscontrolwonk.com, 29 April, 2014.

21. Andrew E. Karmer. “Elected as Reformists, Ukraine’s Leaders 
Struggle with Legacy of Corruption.” New York Times, June 7, 2016

22. Bern Riegert. Op Cit.

23. Daniel Ellsberg, talk in Cambridge, Massachusetts, May 13, 2014. 
Ellsberg was a senior U.S. nuclear war planner in the Kennedy, Johnson 
and Nixon administrations before making the Pentagon’s secret history 
of Vietnam War decision making public

24. Department of Defense. Doctrine for Joint Nuclear operations, 
Joint Publication 3-12, 15 March, 2015

25. Joseph Gerson, Op Cit. p. 31

26. Ibid. pp. 37-38

27. “NATO 2020: assured security; dynamic engagement”, May 17, 2010, 
http://www.nato.int/strategic-concept/strategic-concept-report.html

28. Philip M. Breedlove. “NATO’s Next Act: how to Handle Russia and 
Other Threats”, Foreign Affairs, July/August, 2016

29. 
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2016/06/21-back-brink-dialogue-restraint-russia-west-nato-pifer/deep-cuts-commission-third-report-june-2016.pdf

30. Reiner Braun. International Meeting, 2014 World Conference against 
Atomic & Hydrogen Bombs, Hiroshima, August 2, 2014.

31. “Back from the Brink” op. cit.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 
3.0 License

Dr. Joseph Gerson is Director of Programs of the American Friends 
Service Committee in New England. His most recent book is Empire and 
the Bomb: How the US Uses Nuclear Weapons to Dominate the World. His 
previous books include The Sun Never Sets and With Hiroshima Eyes.

-- 

Matthias Reichl, Pressesprecher/ press speaker,
Begegnungszentrum fuer aktive Gewaltlosigkeit
Center for Encounter and active Non-Violence
Wolfgangerstr. 26, A-4820 Bad Ischl, Austria,
fon: +43 6132 24590, Informationen/ informations,
Impressum in: http://www.begegnungszentrum.at
Spenden-Konto Nr. 0600-970305 (Blz. 20314) Sparkasse Salzkammergut,
Geschäftsstelle Pfandl
IBAN: AT922031400600970305 BIC: SKBIAT21XXX

--

Ausgezeichnet mit dem (österr.) "Journalismus-Preis von unten 2010"

Honoured by the (Austrian) "Journalism-Award from below 2010"