![[object Object]](https://protectedsociety.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/This-is-how-Soros-wants-to-twist-NATO-to-suit.jpeg "This is how Soros wants to twist NATO to suit")
In recent times, one of George Soros’ program writings has been put in a new light, indicating that in the early ’90s, after being disappointed with the UN and finding the aims and directions of European integration inadequate, the billionaire designated NATO as an ‘organization of force’ that he wanted to utilize, by bringing it under his influence and radically transforming it, depriving it of its original function, to advance the building of an open society. He did not succeed in this, but it is clear from his paper: the billionaire did not interfere in the Eastern European regime changes to help the peoples of the region regain their sovereignty, but because he believed that after the regime changes, they would immediately dissolve into the “sea of open societies.” His essay is also noteworthy because certain elements of his vision bear an eerie resemblance to how Brussels currently operates.
“We did not confront the Soviet Union because it was a closed society, but because it posed a threat to our existence. This threat has now ceased, and it is difficult to justify any intervention – political, economic, or military – based on national self-interest. (…) Therefore, the only basis for action is collective security,” Soros wrote in one of his 1993 program writings, advocating for the establishment of a “new world order” and waging war against the nationalistic aspirations in Eastern Europe.
Around this time, it probably became clear to the billionaire that the regime changes did not automatically signify the triumph of his extreme liberal ideas, the dogma of the “open society.” The countries in the region wanted to govern themselves with their regained sovereignty.
“The United States, as the remaining superpower, is burdened by domestic difficulties; it cannot be expected to act alone. Can it act jointly with others?” Soros wondered, skeptical of the emerging European Union at the time:
He then warned, “It is impossible to say how far the disintegration process will go, but it can go much further than currently expected unless decisive steps are taken to reverse the process.”
It is evident from Soros’ words that he had hoped earlier for the UN to evolve into a kind of world government, but in this regard, he “failed, as an institution that could be put at the forefront of American troops. So, the NATO remains.”
He believed that within NATO, there was an opportunity for it to serve as the foundation for a new world order, but this could only be achieved if its mission was redefined.
He did this himself, but first, he recalled that the original mission of the alliance was to protect the free world from the Soviet Empire. However, after the collapse of the Soviet Empire, nothing from the Eastern European region directly threatened the NATO countries, thus the alliance became empty in content.
“Therefore, if NATO has any mission at all, it is to project its power and influence into the region, and the mission can best be defined from the perspectives of open and closed societies,” he pointed out, quickly clarifying what he meant by “closed society”: nation-states.
“Closed societies based on nationalist principles pose a threat to security,” he asserted, reiterating that it is incompatible with the original objectives of NATO to confront them. Soros believed that to overcome the threat, the defense alliance should become an organization that sees its new mission as “the establishment of democratic states and open societies, embedding them in a structure that excludes certain forms of behavior.”
Therefore, George Soros’ idea was to use NATO’s capabilities for further regime changes and corrections, and to enforce the acceptance of the “new world order” and maintain the envisioned open society.
In the same article, the New York billionaire expressed regret that the organization did not address this issue at all, as the Partnership for Peace program announced at that time did not set the goal of NATO’s eastward expansion, let alone political indoctrination.
However, he emphasized that the countries of Central Europe, fearing Russia’s resurgence, were calling for “full NATO membership as soon as possible,” which he believed was a huge opportunity. By this, he likely meant that the countries seeking admission would meet any conditions for membership and collective security guarantees.
Soros stated: “The primary need is constructive participation in transitioning to democratic, market-oriented, open societies. This requires an association or alliance that goes far beyond military issues.” “The alliance’s military and economic aspects must also apply to internal political developments within states and intergovernmental relations, as the region’s peace and security depend primarily on the successful transition to an open society,” he proclaimed.
However, he also added: “The mission of this new kind of alliance is so radically different from NATO’s original mission that it cannot be entrusted to NATO itself. If this were to happen, NATO would be changed beyond recognition.” Therefore, he advocated for the creation of a new organization, the Peace Partnership, whose main task would be to assist in the transition to open societies.
For the Peace Partnership to have sufficient influence, it must have structure and budget, and this is what NATO could bring to the table.
“The NATO has a unified command structure that unites the United States and Western Europe. There are great advantages to this strong Western pillar: it leads to a unilateral, solidly Western-rooted structure. This is right, as the goal is for the region to join the open society of the West,” he emphasized.
The budget of the Peace Partnership should come from the NATO budget, but in this matter, political leadership must prevail, he declared.
Then he returned to the starting point, stating that “a clear and present danger threatens our collective security” in the form of Eastern European nationalisms.
In 1993, George Soros thus chose the North Atlantic Alliance as the means to realize his dream. The paper suggests that this would have also reduced NATO’s military power since he would have achieved his political goals at the expense of defense spending. He did not see a risk in this, as he believed that if he could radically transform the states in the post-Soviet region, including Ukraine, into “open societies” with money and political indoctrination, then there would no longer be a need for tanks.
Life is, of course, not a Woodstock hippy musical. Soros’ plan ultimately failed due to Washington’s resistance and Western Europe’s lack of interest at the time. On the other hand, several elements of the paper are reflected in the current structure and policies of the European Union. For example, that the alliance’s “economic aspects should apply to internal political developments within states and intergovernmental relations.” We are now experiencing firsthand what this means when Brussels arbitrarily withholds funds due to Hungary and makes them dependent on political-economic model changes that the EU accession treaty did not prescribe for us, and that have no connection to the goals that the EU budget guaranteed.
💘love
💘love
😡angry
😡angry
