'NATO, an American-made mechanism for geopolitical control of Europe'

NATO exists for the same reasons it did when it was first founded: make sure the Americans stay in Europe, keep the Russians out, and keep the Germans down, Jim Jatras, government relations, former US diplomat, and GOP Senate policy adviser told RT.

Donald Trump has arrived to meet NATO leaders in Brussels for what are described as informal talks. The US President's visit has prompted a 6,000 strong protest in the Belgian capital, as activists from various campaign groups march through the city.

RT:  What do you think NATO is aiming at, holding a huge reception for Trump in its new billion-dollar headquarters? Why are they trying to impress Trump?

Jim Jatras: Let’s be clear about something that NATO means the US; that these other countries are not really allies – they are satellites. Without a US commitment to NATO, there is no NATO. Trump was very clear during the campaign that he thought NATO was obsolete, that it did not really contribute to American security. Of course, that is the honest truth. Look what happened in Manchester a couple of days ago – that is the real threat to Europe. How is NATO dealing with that? I think what they are doing is celebrating in effect the reversal of the position he took during the campaign. Instead of being a critic of NATO, or considering NATO at best obsolete and probably dangerous to American security, instead he seems to have been sucked into the establishment position on NATO, and I am sure they are very, very happy about that.

RT:  Trump's views on NATO efficiency has been changing. Earlier he labeled NATO as "obsolete." What's your view on NATO's role in the world and do you agree that it doesn't perform any important function now?

JJ: I don’t think it performs any important positive functions; it certainly performs some negative functions in my opinion. NATO should have gone out of business and been disestablished in 1991 when the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact went out of business. We had no need for NATO after that. That is why we heard that this slogan: ‘NATO must go out of the area, or out of business.’ Instead of out of business, unfortunately, it went out of area particularly in Yugoslavia - intervening in Bosnia and Kosovo - and made things only worse. It did, even more, damage when you look at NATO’s role in overthrowing [Muammar] Gaddafi in Libya in 2011 and which is why we’re having more terrorism throughout the region now. In fact again, back to Manchester that we have this young man, Salman Abedi, who was evidently trained and received his assistance in this terrible bombing, because of the terrorist playground that NATO has created in Libya. Tell me how that is in the American or European security interest.

RT:  There are a number of anti-NATO protesters in Brussels as Trump comes for his visit. Do they have a reason to be angry?

JJ: They have reason to be angry. I don’t know anything about the groups that are demonstrating. Maybe there are some groups that I would agree with, others I might not agree with. But the fact of the matter is that there is such a strong consensus of the centrist parties in Europe – the same establishment parties that opposed Brexit, that opposed the election of Marine Le Pen, frankly, opposed Trump when he was a candidate that control all the levers of power in the European countries that are only too happy to hand over their sovereignty to the deep state in Washington and let America, or rather the people who run the establishment in America – not really ordinary Americans – decide their security questions even though it is not in their national interest to do so.

They have no agenda on fighting terrorism. NATO exists for the same reasons it did when it was first founded, which is to make sure the Americans stay in Europe, keep the Russians out, and keep the Germans down… NATO is a mechanism for geopolitical and security control of the continent, and it has only one raison d’etre and that is confronting Russia. Russia is the enemy. And again, how is that in America’s security interests?