As its own name suggests, NATO represents atlanticist military organization. Because of that it serves the aims of the atlantists, both in their defensive aims (during the cold war and the so-called defence of Europe ) and offensive aims (after the victory over the Soviet empire). The principal aim of the United States of America after the end of the Second World War until today wasn�t conflict or victory over its potential enemies, USSR and China, the primary aim of US politics was maintaining the already acquired control over parts of Europe. In order to achieve this aim, the USA was using different methods from the Soviet menace -communism - and the potential danger from terrorism and so-called war against it. Some of these menaces were real, some exaggerated or simply ficticious, but Americans did succeed in their attempts to show them as reasons which are enough for the continuation of American presence on the European shores of the Atlantic Ocean. Because America is a naval, rather than continental power, apart from the Atlantic the whole "defense" structure has been incorporated into the Mediterranean Sea with maritime Mediterranean countries. This move resulted in the creation of clear contours of the North Atlantic alliance which involves both shores of the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean Sea and which can be counted upon in the American strategy of guarding Europe and penetrating to the East through the gulf of the Atlantic. But it is interesting that NATO was a strictly Euro-American alliance. Neither American puppet-states from the western hemisphere, nor Asian countries like Iran or Iraq became NATO members. They created the whole system of alliances from CENTO in Central Asia, SEATO in South East Asia through to the ANZUS pact in the south Pacific. All these alliances are characterized by the geographical, military and specific political elements of their member states. Contrary to unstable social structures of their Asian allies, the Europeans - or more precisely the north Atlantic allies - proved themselves to be successful recipients of the American system of democracy, human rights and the market economy, even surpassing their own transatlantic teachers. If we bear in mind that most of them are commercial and maritime nations this was no big surprise because of the accepted values which were for a long time an indivisible part of Dutch and English history. In fact these maritime, commercial states represent archetypes of the contemporary American maritime atlantist civilization. In the words of the American analyst, Michael Lind, in his text "Toward the global society of the states" and published in August 2002 in "The Wilson Quarterly": "There is no contradiction between this kind of limited and incidental strategic imperialism, which has permitted the United States to take part in global power struggles by using overseas military bases, and the principled hostility of American leaders to attempts by the European powers and Japan to divide most of the Earth�s inhabitants and resources among a small number of autarkic empires. Precedents for America�s oceanic web of ports, canals, coaling stations, and airfields can be found in the maritime empires created by such older commercial republics as Venice and the Netherlands . . ." In fact, Americans couldn't establish strict imperial order because they are not continental civilizations, not because of their moral principles. Here they are following the historical examples of the maritime civilizations from Carthage, right through to the Netherlands and Venice. The Atlantist and Mediterranean countries, members of the EU and NATO, are following the same maritime-commercial archetypes over a much longer period than the USA. Because of that it is not difficult for them to "accept" the so-called western or atlantist values and to involve them in their own social structure. It is a different situation in Central and Eastern Europe, where strong continental traditions are opposed to atlantist values and as a result cause the Americans to have a different approach in this part of the continent.

It is even the same when it comes to promoting "western" values in Turkey, which is more then eight decades (as a result of the reforms of Ataturk) on the way to westernising its society and introducing a capitalist economy like any other western society. The lack of respect for basic human rights is the result of the transformation of a traditional society to a kind of modern, western-type society. There were similar problems in Spain and Portugal, but nobody ever questioned their loyalty to the West. The whole process of their westernization ended with their acceptance as EU members. Due to the fact that in the case of Turkey there are bigger civilizational and cultural differences, it should be expected to be a longer process than it was with Spain and Portugal, but the final aim and the final result would be the same. It just shows that so-called "western" values do not have anything in common with western civilization, but are rather are product of the atlantist civilization which is anti-western and anti-european in all of its main aspects.

The American (atlantist) geopolitician, D. Manning, in his work "Heartland and Rimland in Eurasian history", published in 1956, shows the atlantist point of view towards the geopolitical essence of the different lands and regions of Europe and Eurasia. He writes: ". . . China, Mongolia, North Vietnam, Afghanistan, Eastern Europe (including Prussia), the Baltic lands and Karelia are the regions with an organic orientation toward the heartland. South Korea, Burma, India, Iraq, Syria and Yugoslavia are geopolitically neutral. Western Europe, Greece, Turkey, Iran, Pakistan and Thailand have a predisposition toward the talasocratic bloc . . ." As we can see, Turkey is essentially an atlantist, pro-talasocratic country and this is the main reason for its acceptance in the "western" civilization circle. These intellectual remarks found their realization in the reality of creating talasocratic blocs, involving countries like Greece (NATO), Turkey (NATO and CENTO), Iran (CENTO) and Thailand (SEATO), but also through attempts to attract so-called geopolitically "neutral" countries and atlanticist creations like Yugoslavia (by creating the anti-soviet Balkan pact between Yugoslavia, Greece and Turkey in 1953) or Iraq (with its involvement in CENTO). The final destiny of these two geopolitically "neutral" countries shows the real intentions of the Atlantists among their continental partners. But also the brave resistance of strictly continental North Vietnam can be an example of the positive understanding of the geopolitical essence among continental states. In the partition devised by D. Manning, North Vietnam belongs to the same group as China, Eastern Europe and Prussia - the regions with an organic orientation towards the Eurasian heartland. To this we can add those regions with a traditionalist civilization which is in total opposition to the Anglo-American atlantist bloc. They already have the potential. They just need a kind of mental and intellectual revolution in order to achieve their geopolitical dream.

Americans realised their success from 1945 onwards with the creation of NATO. Their troops were already in Germany, Italy and even Greece. The creation of NATO took, in fact, a political and legislative form, a kind of legalislative approach to the situation which already existed on the ground. However, contrary to the Warsaw pact, NATO didn�t have firm, compact imperial characteristics. Americans established and maintained their control through the whole range of diversions from intelligence to the political and economic. The intervention in Greece is the only clear example of classical military intervention but it was realized before the creation of NATO even began. Also, there were plans for US intervention in Italy but the "solution" was found through CIA sabotage, like in the case of France where Americans were creating successful co-operation with local mafia elements with the main aim of destabilizing society and the efforts and struggle for more independence. Apart from this kind of sabotage, the Americans were also using economic pressures and blackmail. They were using the desperate dependence of the French people upon American food supplies to create a kind of obedience and to destroy the potential existence of more independent elements. Because there wasn�t total control, especially not in those countries which didn�t participate in the Second World War like Spain and Turkey, in the first period of its existence NATO was a kind of alliance of free countries. They were partners, more a co-operation of similar north atlantic regimes united in their efforts to realize particular values and to press out their political opponents. The realization of "western" values and the deployment of US troops to be the guardians of such values, was the main task of NATO and it's partners during this period.

NATO AND EAST EUROPE

This concept is essentially changing due to their victory in the cold war. The Washington strategists need some time to create a new strategy which would support the military and its politics spreading toward the East. Here we should emphasize that the EU played the role of giving logistical support to this advance in the first years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, with its economic penetration and support to many different pro-western mondialist groups establishing the fundamentals for later American military and political penetration which was unthinkable in 1991 with the Russian military power in Europe and still on a more superior level than it is today. Deep in the mainland of the European continent, the north Atlantic pact couldn�t use Eastern Europe in the same way as it used Western Europe. The countries with traditional German influence, strictly continental and without any contact with the sea, like Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, were not favourable at all towards this kind of advance. Because of that a totally new strategy has been created and its essence represents the NATO-sponsored programme of "Partnership for peace", with the main aim being transformation and an accommodation of the Eastern-European countries according to NATO standards. In fact it was the whole system of taking these steps which was essentially the gradual undermining, not only of military forces, but also of the political system and national spirit of the countries of Eastern Europe on a particular level which would be appropriate for their eventual integration with the transatlantic partners. The mighty East-European countries would represent a potentially equal ally for Washington and there would be no opportunity for their subordinance to the American will and its interests. The European economy succeeds because of its territorial position, experience and the powerful continental elements of its own economy beside a global trilateral orientation. Because of these reasons, in a very short time the German economy transformed itself into the absolute master of the Czech and Hungarian economies. It was thanks to the American military and economic power with its maritime base and 50-year experience of co-operation with western Europe, or, in other words, without having the European shores of the Atlantic to ensure victory in the Cold War it wouldn�t have any real chance in the heart of the continent. In fact US options will be similar to the those of France in the 1920s and 30s, when it attempted to create the so-called Little Entante to organize Eastern-European countries under one alliance and stop Germany spreading towards the East and the restoration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. However, this short-lived alliance of France was co-operating with equal partners in the East and attempted to realize its interests mainly through the ruling elite and pro-French orientated intelligentsia. But any similar development of this situation in Eastern-Europe today is not in complying with US interests. In the long term, that will mean the preservation of the strength and potential of Eastern and Central Europe for the future continental powers, possibly for a future Germany emancipated from Washington influence or some new Russia. Because it is contrary to a classical alliance, the USA choose the option of the eradication and extinction of Eastern Europe through many different programmes such as joint training and maneouvers which remind us more of childish games than any serious military cooperation.

EUROPE AS MILITARY POWER

Today it is a very popular opinion that Europe is an economic giant and a political and military dwarf. Because of that it would be the natural task of European politics to transform Europe into a military and political power and to take from Washington her dominant political and military role in the continent and in the world. This kind of observation ignores the fact that contemporary Europe, or rather the European Union, is the result of strategically un-European plans and their realization in the years after the Second World War and Cold War. These two conflicts can be seen as two American campaigns for the conquering of Europe. The political solutions which were implemented after the Second World War and Cold War resulted in a US victory by way of those two anti-European campaigns. The transformation of Europe into an economic giant was the long-standing aim of American strategists. Their aim is also the creation of European military forces and the strengthening of the political and diplomatic role of Europe in international relations. Let�s take a look at the diplomatic role of Europe. The former NATO general secretary, Xavier Solana, is the actual chief of European diplomacy and represents the personification of European diplomatic efforts to intrude upon their own will and their decisions and solutions to the world crisis. From the crisis in the former Yugoslavia and the Israel-Palestinian conflict through to the problem of Iraq and the Northern Korean question, there is no one simple point leading from momentous decisions to long-standing strategy, political ideology and philosophy, where the interests of the EU are different to those of the US. There are some nuances, which are nuances in the process of the realization of the unique will. Also, there are opposite attitudes in the degree of globalization and the protection of national sovereignty, where Europeans are acting with more caution, guided by their own historical experience which is different from the more obvious American brutality. But looking in very general terms, these are the biggest differences between the allies. There were much bigger differences between Roosevelt and Churchill, Hitler and Mussolini, or in the case of Stalin and Mao Tse Tung. But none of these differences brought into question their alliances and their common aims. The only difference is that all these examples relate to the leaders of sovereign countries, whilst here we have parts of one single and carefully created structure over a period of the last few decades. As a result there is less possibility of any conflict, because there are no classical relations between sovereign nations, but only relations between parts of the same system .We should also note here that the main conflicts are arising between Washington and particular European nations like France and Germany which still have their own particular national interests, a kind of relic from a multi-polar and bi-polar past within international relations. But in essence it is another example of the relations between Washington and the EU in general. While France and Germany represent a model from the past, NATO and the EU represent the model for the future as it is seen with the eyes of mondialist strategists and the creators of "the end of history" and similar ideologies.

Is it possible today to say something similar to the words of the French diplomat, Jules Favre, when he was talking in 1871 about relations between Germany and Russia: ". . . We know about the intimacy of the relations between the courts of Berlin and Saint Petersburg. But there is no doubt that the seed of conflict is here . . ." Is it possible that there is a basis for future conflict between Brussels and Washington, besides the whole intimacy between the two mondialist centres?

Even if this is the case, East-European orientation toward one of these two centres wouldn�t be of any benefit to the people of Eastern Europe. It is enough to look at the modern history of these countries in the past two centuries alone and to understand that the alliance of Eastern-European countries with any single great power brought them hostility from other powers, and internal conflict, division and trauma. The contemporary example has its political, economic, military and spiritual aspects, too, manifested in things like the crisis of identity. The result of this support from East-European countries and its small nations helps the great powers in their conflicts.

It has to be mentioned here that today there is no one single remaining element of the system of great powers or the multi-polar world. Thirteen years ago the so called bi-polar world was defeated. The stability of Eastern-European countries, especially the Balkan countries and the countries from the former Soviet Union, depended on the bi-polar structure of international relations. Today, international relations are characterized by the monopoly of power held by the trilateral global economy. Apart from this dark scenario which comes to Eastern-Europe from the West, there are the so-called islands of freedom like China, Russia and Iran, which are characterised by their strength or by their authentic anti-Western ideology and political system like in the case of Iran and North Korea. Any threat to the system, especially the arrival of "western" values, means a disruption to stability and the beginning of the return of the country to an "international community". But in the American realm and under its monopoly of power. Americans are aware of that and it is the essential reason behind their support for Iranian and North Korean reformers whilst hoping that though their efforts they can achieve the disruption of the political system. If their interests succeed in another way, they will immediately turn from supporting the reformists and start negotiating with Iranian mullahs, forgetting the Teheran students and the struggle for human rights. The example of Iraq and Afghanistan, where former brutal murders and criminals like Chalabi and Hikmatyar ware supported by the USA, is clear proof of America's real intentions in the world. If it is difficult to maintain an authentically ideological and political system it is even more difficult to establish and create it, especially in the contemporary situation of hostile geopolitical surroundings. Because of that, Eastern-European countries should seek their future in the creation and development of an authentically social, political, economic and defensive system which will be based upon Eastern-European spiritual and state traditions, not involvement in the Western system of power where they will get into a position similar to that of the Central American countries, or, if they are lucky, a position similar to Turkey with regard to the West. Contrary to that, they should build authentic systems which will transform Eastern-European countries into islands of freedom outside of the Western global prison. Not merely like the examples of Iran and North Korea, but also the example of the heroic resistance of the Bosnian Serbs to the New World Order, the lasting and successful Byelorussian resistance and the resistance of Slovakia in the mid-'nineties lead by Vladimir Mechiyar. all of these represent a fundamentally favourable example for the future development, not only of Eastern-European countries, but of the whole European continent in accordance with its true European values.