La NATO nasce a seguito delle guerre mondiali principalmente come alleanza atlantica in grado di contrapporsi alla superpotenza russa nel Vecchio continente. Sebbene sorga come discorso prettamente militare, la questione \u00e8 implicitamente anche ideologica. USA e Russia rappresentano i due modelli macroeconomici antagonisti del tempo (escludiamo per semplificare la Gran Bretagna perch\u00e9 ormai in declino), ognuno con il desiderio di assoggettare pi\u00f9 paesi possibili sotto la propria influenza. Come va a finire lo sappiamo; gli USA che con le guerre mondiali ha avuto un grandissimo boost economico senza subire danni nel proprio territorio, finanziano (con ulteriore boom produttivo), tramite il piano Marshall, la ricostruzione di un’Europa lacerata produttivamente (e mentalmente) dai conflitti.<\/p>\n
Ovviamente, la stessa Russia, inizia un percorso di ricostruzione dopo aver perso 25 milioni di persone per fermare i nazisti. Ha inizio cos\u00ec la Guerra Fredda con le sue due sfere di influenza ed una battaglia ideologica tra capitalismo e socialismo sovietico che finisce con la caduta del muro di Berlino prima, e quella dell\u2019URSS poi. Negli ultimi anni della Guerra fredda, l\u2019equilibrio mondiale viene scosso dai dibattimenti sulla possibile unificazione tedesca, con una scettica Russia che vuole rassicurazioni cercando di ottenere la neutralit\u00e0 della Germania unificata o quanto meno garanzie sul contenimento ed obiettivi della NATO.<\/p>\n
Almeno quest\u2019ultima parte, che diverge dalla consueta propaganda nostrana, merita di essere verificata su documenti ufficiali. Fortunatamente, i ricercatori del National Security Archive ci forniscono in formato digitale i documenti governativi desecretati al seguente link<\/a><\/em> insieme ad una loro analisi scritta. Seguono piccoli estratti per i pi\u00f9 appassionati (li ho colorati per poterli saltare rapidamente). Metto solo delle parti che mi hanno colpito, mentre alcuni documenti andrebbero messi interamente (e.g.<\/em>, Gorbachev-Kohl); ad ogni modo, trovate tutto il resoconto dei ricercatori direttamente qui<\/em><\/a>.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 18 Maggio 1990 – Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. Pag. 5<\/em><\/p>\n Gorbachev: \u201cWhat is my point? Once again I will be frank. If a united Germany enters NATO, it will create a serious shift in the correlation of forces, the entire strategic balance. We will be faced with the question of what our next step should be. You are a logical thinker, so you understand this. Evidently we would have to halt all discussions in the sphere of disarmament; we would have to analyze what changes to make in our doctrine and positions at the Vienna negotiations, to our plans for reduction of military forces. The question arises why we are doing all of this. And it is a very serious question.We would like to count on a serious approach from your side. And when we see signs that you are playing a game, we grow worried. Is it necessary? Can we allow our relationship to turn into a petty intrigue? The Soviet Union is undergoing major changes; we are going through a renewal, which is an inevitably difficult process. We see that sometimes you are tempted to take advantage of the situation. I think doing that would be a very big mistake.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 18 Maggio 1990 – Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. Pag. 20<\/em><\/p>\n Baker: \u201cYou say: if the U.S. trusts Germany, why include it in NATO? My reply: if you trust the Germans, then why not give them an opportunity to make their own choice? We are not forcing them to join NATO. The reason we want unified Germany to be a NATO member is not because we are afraid of the Soviet Union, but because we believe that unless Germany is solidly rooted in European institutions, conditions could arise to repeat the past.You\u2019ve studied history as I have, you remember the League of Nations. It\u2019s nice to talk about pan-European security structures, the role of the CSCE. It is a wonderful dream, but just a dream. In the meantime, NATO already exists and participation in NATO will mean that Germany will continue to rely on this alliance to ensure its security.\u201d Baker: \u201cIf Germany is not firmly rooted in the existing security structure, there will be an entity in the heart of Europe that will be concerned with ensuring its security by other means. It will want nuclear security, whereas now, this security is provided by the U.S. nuclear umbrella. If Germany remains in NATO, it will have a much easier time renouncing its nuclear, biological, or chemical potential.\u201d<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 18 Maggio 1990 – Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. Pag. 25<\/em><\/p>\n Baker: \u201cSo you are talking about a neutral Germany?\u201d Questi ultimi due estratti, ovviamente, esplorano una concezione diversa della NATO; non \u00e8 pi\u00f9 vista come alleanza per opporsi ad attacchi esterni, ma come deterrente per evitare che i singoli paesi Europei si armino, in particolare i Tedeschi. D’altronde, a che serve avere una bomba nucleare ed un esercito se da bravi Europei seguiamo il volere degli USA pagando pure per le spese militari esternalizzate? Quello che sta succedendo in Ucraina (ma che \u00e8 gi\u00e0 successo in Serbia, Libia, Afghanistan, Iraq e Siria), a mio modesto parere, rispecchia proprio questa visione, scopo e forma di controllo della NATO e da sempre riflette gli interessi individuali USA.<\/p>\n Allo stesso tempo, la direzione di Gorbachev diventa molto schietta (e ribadita pure a pag.30): se la NATO non \u00e8 pensata contro la Russia, allora fatela entrare dentro, in modo che l\u2019Europa non sar\u00e0 solo a guida USA, ma sar\u00e0 un punto di confronto tra tutti noi per mantenere stabilit\u00e0 in Europa. Lo stesso Putin ha confessato a febbraio di aver richiesto personalmente l’ingresso nella NATO.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n 25 Maggio 1990 – Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Francois Mitterrand (excerpts). Pag. 3<\/em><\/p>\n Gorbachev: \u201cThe Americans prefer Kohl\u2019s position. They believe it is the way to preserve NATO and their influence in NATO. Previously, the U.S. needed NATO in its military aspect, as a counterweight to Soviet military power. Now it turns out NATO will keep unified Germany in some kind of reliable framework.Quite possibly, this American approach aims to perpetuate NATO.The Americans\u2019 persistence in defending the idea of NATO\u2019s necessity and usefulness makes me wonder: are the Americans thinking to use NATO to create some sort of mechanism, an institution, a kind of directory for managing world affairs? But this would be contrary to the positive tendencies of European development, of which the USSR and France were originators. The problem is how to combine all these things. I would keep on the agenda the question whether the Four<\/em>\u00a0still have some rights.\u201d <\/p>\n 31 Maggio 1990 – Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush. White House, Washington D.C. Pag. 4<\/em><\/p>\n Gorbachev: \u201cI also see your efforts to change NATO functions, to try to invite new members into this organization. If the course aimed at the transformation of the union, at its political diffusion into the all-European process is serious, then, naturally, it is a completely different business. But then the question arises about transforming NATO into a genuinely open organization, the door to which could not be closed to any state whatsoever. Then, probably, we could also think about becoming a member of NATO.\u201d <\/p>\n 31 Maggio 1990 – Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush. White House, Washington D.C. Pag. 7<\/em><\/p>\n Gorbachev: \u201cToday it might sound as a surprise, but we are entering an absolutely new period of European politics. Besides, World War Two had already witnessed the birth of a very unusual coalition united by a common noble goal. Is it that we are more stupid than Stalin and Roosevelt?\u201d Dopo tutta questa mole di documenti, possiamo dire con serenit\u00e0 intellettuale che l\u2019intesa trovata con molta fatica e concessioni di Gorbachev per garantire l\u2019equilibrio in Europa ed una pace duratura fosse quella di contenere la NATO entro i confini tedeschi ed aprirla a possibili accordi con la Russia. Gli stessi report<\/em> NATO spiegano come espandere la NATO a ridosso dei confini sovietici porterebbe solo ad un nuovo inasprimento dei rapporti e rischi per tutti.<\/p>\n Bene, quindi, cosa \u00e8 successo dopo? Controlliamo tramite un comodo tweet<\/em> del governo cinese (facilmente verificabile essendo semplicemente una mappa dei paesi che aderiscono alla NATO):<\/p>\n Serve veramente aggiungere altro sulla questione dell\u2019espansione della NATO e su quanto metta a rischio gli equilibri mondiali avendo portato basi militari sempre pi\u00f9 a EST? Non penso, ma per sicurezza, aggiungiamo carne sul fuoco! Un interessante articolo del “Guardian” <\/a><\/span> entra nel dettaglio (con fonti incluse, cosa rara per i media nostrani) su come in molti avessero previsto gi\u00e0 dal 1994 che l\u2019espansione della NATO avrebbe portato ad una guerra. Uno degli estratti pi\u00f9 interessanti dell\u2019articolo \u00e8 rappresentato dalle dichiarazioni di Robert Gates (allora vice consigliere per la sicurezza nazionale USA, poi diventato direttore della CIA e dopo ancora segretario della difesa nazionale\u2026 insomma, non uno \u201cde passaggio\u201d) che spieg\u00f2 come i Sovietici “siano stati portati a credere” che la NATO non si sarebbe espansa ad EST (suona nuovo?). <\/span><\/p>\n
\nGorbachev: \u201cAnd yet, what is the purpose of NATO? It was created for a different time, what is its purpose now?”<\/p>\n
\nGorbachev: \u201cI don\u2019t know. Maybe non-aligned. Maybe some special status. For example, France has a special status. To conclude this part of the conversation, I would like to suggest: let us thoroughly think about this one more time. We will think, and you should think. Let us continue this conversation in Washington. And if none of my arguments convince you, then I\u2019ll suggest to the President and announce publicly that we want to join NATO too. After all, you say that NATO is not directed against us, that it is just a security structure that is adapting to the new reality. So we will propose to join NATO.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nMitterrand: \u201cKohl, with the support of the United States, intends to complete German unification by the end of this year. This is a real problem.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n\u2026
\nGorbachev: \u201cA natural question arises: if NATO does not plan to fight with us, then with whom? Not with Germany?\u201d
\nBush: \u201cI already said \u2013with instability.\u201d
\nGorbachev: \u201cDo you really think that the more weapons [you have] the more robust stability would be? It seems to me that the past decades should have convinced you that confrontation and arms race puts heavy burden on the shoulders of peoples.\u201d<\/p>\n
\nBush: \u201cWe need to learn from their mistakes too.\u201d
\nGorbachev: \u201cSo let us create a new free coalition, change doctrines and institutes, establish the primacy of politics over military structures.\u201d
\nBaker: \u201cHow do you see the coexistence of the new NATO and the new Warsaw Pact in practical terms?\u201d
\nGorbachev: \u201cFirst of all\u2014a concrete agreement between the blocs, which would give rise to multiple exchanges, creation of joint organs for strengthening trust, preventing crisis situations. These processes would provide a good encouragement for the Vienna agreements as well, serve as political insurance for them.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/appelloalpopolo.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Copia-di-ucraina-img-1-300x254.png\")
<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/appelloalpopolo.it\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/ucraina-img-2-300x292.png\")
<\/p>\n