Nobel Prize winner Obama contributed to increasing the role of the army and the war in US foreign policy and putting diplomacy on the side. He contributed to creating tensions between the US and the forces that promote multi-polar world regulation. The most intense is the escalation of tensions in relations with China and Russia. In particular, the confrontation with Russia has contributed to desperate attempts to block the multi-polarization of the world order - not least by successfully subordinating Europe to American interests and more or less eliminating it as an independent factor in international relations. As if all this would not be enough, under Obama's rule, the militarization of the American society was increased, democrats and liberals became a military party, and studies show that now the majority of the population supports the use of a military force abroad.

This year's Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). It is a shame that the recent award has been devalued, because these people deserve recognition and support, and the selection of the award committee could be affirmed this time. But the exact opposite thing happened. Scandinavian politicians and NATO publicly voiced their oppression over the selection of the award winner and disqualified them. The gentlemen of this military organization are ready to accept the Nobel Peace Prize (when it is awarded to the supreme commander of the dominating army in this union), and it is not only wrong for it when the prize is in the hands of someone who truly strives for peace, but it seems to them that they must publicly declare it.

The Norwegian Foreign Minister took the floor. (In addition to the Americans and the British, Norwegian military instructors are in that black hole in the east of Syria, where, alongside the US military base, it is also evidently the last important base of terrorists in the Islamic state, which are attacking government forces and their allies there.)

The minister stated: "If Norway, as a NATO member, would vote for a ban (atomic weapons) would mean that Norway should say that NATO must abolish its atomic strategy, while we see that other countries have atomic weapons. As long as other countries have nuclear weapons, NATO must also have it. "

Secretary-General of NATO, Stoltenberg has also been quoted, saying that he supports the agreement on the prohibition of the proliferation of atomic weapons, but against a possible atomic-ban treaty. As long as atomic weapons exist, he announced that NATO will be an atomic military alliance.

The logic of these statements is exceptional and the message is clear:

NATO will have atomic weapons until other countries have it. Other countries will have atomic weapons because NATO has it. Other countries know that otherwise they will be subordinated or destroyed by "Atlantic forces".

Stoltenberg is more concise. NATO will have atomic weapons as long as atomic weapons exist. He discovered a formula that makes it logically impossible for NATO to renounce atomic weapons.

As long as NATO has it, there is and will be nuclear weapon in existence and they can not give up on it. Therefore, nuclear weapons will exist as long as NATO exists. And as long as atomic weapons exist, it can be used. NATO is a threat to peace and survival.

---

image sources:
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN)
Nobel Prize
NATO Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence in Tallinn, Estonia

text source: nato-kot-groznja-miru-in-prezivetju
Slovenian-English translation by WorldFinances

---