In the past few months, Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla, has shown a strong backbone. In November last year, Musk publicly stated that China had failed to complete the great cause of reunification, and the root of the problem was in the United States, and China would inevitably achieve reunification in the next few years. Since the outbreak of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Musk has made a series of sympathetic remarks against Palestine under the siege of Jewish interest groupsHe posed a soul torture question to the whole world: Why was NATO not disbanded in 1991?
Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla, seems that this is Musk's whim, and asks casually, but in fact, the question is not simple. Should the current NATO, as a military alliance, disintegrate in situ? With the weakening of the Western powers and the strong rise of the emerging powers, it has gradually become an issue that must be put on the table for serious discussion by some forces within the Western camp. This force we can call a political entity that transcends the state, such as Musk, Wall Street, and the leading bosses of various industries represented by Nvidia.
From the end of World War II to the end of the last century, including the first decade of this century, most countries in the Third World were weak. NATO at this time is tantamount to a stepping stone for Western capital. For decades, Western countries have relied on NATO's military coercion to ensure low-cost energy and raw materials**, and at the same time, they have constantly looked for new dumping grounds for the goods they produce. Whenever any country dares to resist or wants to develop independently, NATO will come forward at the first time and use aircraft bombing to solve the problem.
The B-52 bombers of the US military are dropping bombs, but now, the situation is completely different. On the one hand, the martial arts of the Americans are shrinking because of the hollowing out of the industry, and everyone can see what the Russian-Ukrainian conflict will look like, not to mention that on the Red Sea, a Houthi armed group can make European and American countries anxious. On the other hand, the transfer of the global industrial chain has deprived the United States of its ability to produce goods. As a result, the economic coercion of emerging countries by the United States and the West and the sanctions bills introduced by the United States and the West often kill 800 enemies and lose 1,000 themselves. Let's not talk about anything else, back then, if Musk hadn't come to Shanghai to build a factory, Tesla would have been dragged down by the low production capacity in the United States, and it is no wonder that now, Musk will speak to China when he sees the opportunity.
We have to realize that capital has no nationality and will actively look for profits. Although the United States can introduce various protection strategies to try to bring manufacturing back, after so many years of neoliberalism, at least for a generation or two, the country has lost the ability to return to a manufacturing power. Therefore, the first meaning of Musk's words is that the dissolution of NATO can weaken the atmosphere of confrontation on a global scale and return to economic globalization, which is conducive to the rejuvenation of Western capital.
Geopolitical conflicts in many parts of the world are provoked by the US-led NATO, but let's talk at two ends, Musk can only represent a part of American capital, and because NATO benefits, there is another part of capitalists: military giants and energy giants. If the United States does not dissolve NATO, it is in order to provoke conflicts and create contradictions around the world, and as long as war breaks out, no matter who fights whom, whether the United States and the West are righteous or not, the military-industrial complex can make huge profits from it. In the past two years of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, American arms dealers have made a lot of money, and they may not know that Ukraine will never be able to defeat Russia militarily, but the profits from every shell sold are real and in front of them.
At the same time, the money earned by this capital will feed back to the politicians and senior Pentagon generals who made the decision to go to war. The alliance of interests formed by these people is what we often hear about, the military-industrial complex. As early as the 60s of the last century, Eisenhower, the former leader of the United States, clearly warned in his resignation speech that we should be careful of the "bloodthirsty monster" of the military-industrial complex, which may one day destroy the United States in the future. Now that day has not come, we still need to continue to observe, but the interests of the military-industrial complex are precisely the raison d'être of NATO.
We all know that at the beginning of NATO's creation, its main role was to defend against the Warsaw Pact, which is why NATO claimed to be a regional defense organization, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, there were rumors of the dissolution of NATO in the West. But soon, NATO created a new enemy, first the global war on terror, then Russia, in short, relying on its refusal to dissolve. The irony is that when Putin first came to power, he also applied to join NATO with the United States, naively thinking that Russia could integrate into the "Western civilized world", and he did not expect at that time that NATO's ultimate goal was to dismember Russia like the Soviet Union.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, he extended the hatred of the Soviet Union to Russia, and Brzezinski believed that Russia has a vast territory and abundant resources, and if this behemoth cannot be eliminated, the United States will inevitably be counterattacked in the future. What is the backlash? Of course, Russia and Europe are getting closer and closer, which will eventually lead Europe to break away from the control of the United States, and based on this, NATO cannot be dissolved, and it will continue to expand eastward, provoking contradictions between European countries and Russia.
NATO continues to add fuel to the fire of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, to a certain extent, the reason why the Russian-Ukrainian conflict broke out is because in previous years, there was too much cooperation between Russia and Europe, Merkel, Macron and others, and they dared to argue with the United States. We should not forget that at the beginning of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, the slogan shouted by the United States was to overthrow the Putin regime, destroy the Russian economy, and turn the ruble into waste paperThen-British Prime Minister Truss also privately declared that after overthrowing Russia, we could divide Russia's natural resources.
All these facts prove that NATO is an aggressive military organization that has always aimed at Russia, and in the past two years, they have also included China in the ranks of hostile targets. However, it is a pity that the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has allowed the United States to harvest Europe, but it has not dragged Russia down, but it has proved the gradual decline of NATO.
**10,000 Fans Incentive Plan