After Libya, NATO Looks To Montenegro

NATO’s desperate search for a purpose after the fall of the Soviet Union has left a swath of destruction through places like Libya, which it “liberated” nearly six years ago. Now NATO wants to take in tiny Montenegro, a corrupt, poor, Balkan statelet with a total of 2,000 troops. The reason? To further provoke Russia and to open the door to more NATO expansion perhaps to Georgia, Moldova, and even Ukraine. This week the US Senate will vote on Montenegro’s NATO membership. Will president-elect Trump ask them to hold off on this ill-advised move? We discuss in today’s Ron Paul Liberty Report:

Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

7 thoughts on “After Libya, NATO Looks To Montenegro”

    1. 100% right. It was split from Serbia by all kinds of pressure being applied to Serbia, and using the crime lord of Montenegro to advance the cause of “democracy”. All consequences of decades of Clintonite liberal globalism, where the truth is what they say — no matter what you see with your eyes. And if another Clinton came to power, another nation building would have taken place — Vojvodina. It was something planned already during Clinton’s administration, but put on back-burner due to more pressing problems in the Middle East and then financial crisis. Nonetheless, in Brussels, EU is having an office for Vojvodina, as if it is already a semi-autonomous region. All the details are planned, down to the management of sewer. But — alas — Trump won. And their nation building budgets may be in jeopardy.

      1. is it really because of decades of clintonite liberal globalism? when the republicans voted right along with the dems , for a foreign policy that has been ruling america since 1898. so long before the clintons were ever born.

        1. That’s where they got the name The Empire State. Teddy Roosevelt and friends had no qualms or shame at the label Empire.

  1. The world needs to bomb America, dismantle the military, then split it up into 5 smaller countries.

    1. Actually, Steve, I’ve been wondering if the U.S. should consolidate its fifty states into a dozen to fifteen or so. Making the individual states substantially larger than they are now would make them substantially more powerful vis a vis the federal government. And the smaller number would make it easier to assemble the requisite two-thirds for calling a constitutional convention, thus putting pressure on the federal government to scale back on some of its imperial (and other) stunts.

      At heart, I’m a Madisonian. I don’t trust ANY concentration of power, and the more competing power centers we have, the less any one is able to dominate. Talking “states rights” doesn’t really do anything. You need fairly large and powerful states to actually assert those rights at the expense of federal power.

      1. Yes, I like what you propose for America. You would also have to break up the corporate power, especially the media, which has no trouble brainwashing the American public. It might be easier to just knock off Soros, Albright, Clintons, Bush, Rockefellers and Rothschilds.

Comments are closed.