WORLD WAR III IN PHASES?

Who would be controlling NATO operations and from where?

 

By Sidney Hey

To say that the world is currently in a dangerous crisis that could lead to a global conflagration is a truism that fails to explain who has an interest in such a thing happening. Thus the war in Ukraine, the instability in the Horn of Africa, Israel's escalation over Lebanon and NATO's very quiet but very active presence in the Indo-Pacific put us in the context that all of this may be driven by a single stakeholder.

First of all, let us be clear that NATO is not a global ‘democratic’ security forum or anything like it. Its sole objective is to take control of the entire globe and today its main obstacles to this are the Russian Federation and China.

It is clear that the main stakeholder in the unleashing of a war of proportions is the USA, or rather, the political sect of the neo-conservatives and their close revisionist Zionist allies who, from activism in congressional lobbies and through apparently charitable civilian organisations, are the representation of the deep state and have made war and perpetual crisis the way to realise their geopolitical plans.

Thus we can understand how the events in Ukraine are not disconnected from the fronts in the Middle East and the movements of the US Navy and its NATO partners around the waters of the South Sea and adjacent areas. The entire Eurasian continent is now a great chessboard, a great theatre of operations for NATO and for which it has its command and control centres.

Just as Israel is Washington's pawn in the Middle East, in the Indo-Pacific Singapore is a new and timely strategic player in its plans against China, even more important in some respects than Australia. While both are considered global cooperators with NATO (although Australia is a stable member), there are certain areas in which Washington is much better served by Singapore than by its Australian cousins. On the latter point, and because of that cooperation in Afghanistan, we still do not know when the Big Island's image will be cleaned up after the war crimes and abuses committed there by our troops cooperating with the Americans and the British.

One of the main reasons why Washington has entrusted Singapore with certain strategic tasks in the Indo-Pacific is precisely its geographical proximity but also its ethno-cultural relationship with China and other riverine states and with dissident sectors within each of them.

That is why the subversive unrest that broke out in Bangladesh a month ago and forced its prime minister Sheikh Hasina to flee to India was not assisted on the ground by CIA agents or Aussies masquerading as Bangladeshis. Malaysian or even local elements were able to operate very quietly there, but coordinated and directed remotely (through coded communications) from a particular point on the map of the region.

If so, the Singapore government need not necessarily be aware of what the Atlanticist organisation is doing. As a mere cooperator, it is relegated from the privileges of a full partner, so it could be said that ‘you lend us your house for the party but you are not invited to it’.

Of course, there are other actors in the region who are highly suspicious of cooperating with NATO, such as the Taiwanese, or the MI6 cells in Hong Kong, or possibly even the involvement of a branch of Indian intelligence such as the RAW or NIA. Politics turns the knobs of everyone's interests including Modi's like a radio dial.

As Atlanticist strategists themselves have said at some point, security threats are not geographically defined and that is why it has developed and implemented programmes that form part of a global network through which (according to their arguments) it is intended to combat actual or potential threats to NATO. We already know that this translates to Washington's benefit, which is why we know that this threat is China, and who better to manage it in this area than a strategically located partner like Singapore. 

So we could also ask from where are the military actions that are already being carried out in Eurasia and those that are being implemented in the Middle East being coordinated? Brussels is NATO's physical and representative headquarters, but I don't think it is where the strategic plans and tactical decisions are being made. 

Singapore meets all the requirements to be the point from which to coordinate several or perhaps all of NATO's current operations, both directly in its tactical-strategic involvement in Ukraine and in technical assistance to Israel in the Middle East. The latter, and while it is no secret that the US is also involved in the explosive beeper affair in Lebanon, NATO's electronic warfare infrastructure and resources would provide the anonymity and stealth with which the operation was executed.

However, whether or not Singapore is the current focal point for coordinating and directing NATO's global operations on all these fronts, it undoubtedly serves, ultimately, the expectations of the next presidency in the White House, but it is also pushing the world towards a third world war.