Swimming pool in NATO’s new $1.23 billion hq, 2017 via Assar architects.
NATO was created in 1949 to “stop” the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union ceased to exist on 1/31/1991, the Warsaw Pact was abandoned in mid-1991, as NATO should’ve been, but instead the US has continually expanded it. For what possible reason could such massive military might and a new $1.2 billion fortress be necessary? Answer: The need to permanently subdue and enslave US taxpayers. Our mere existence horrifies US elites. We had to be permanently bound and gagged. The “bipartisan” US political class sold us to the Endless Unwinnable War Industry which includes NATO’s brand new $1.23 billion headquarters. Few enslaved US taxpayers will ever get to swim in the pool they paid for in NATO’s obscene new $1.23 billion HQ, 2017.
Image of massive, new NATO hq, frontnews.eu, 2017
“New NATO HQ,” nato.int
“The decision to replace the existing HQ was taken at the Washington Summit in 1999. NATO decided to build a new headquarters because the current building is at the end of its economic lifespan and no longer meets NATO’s needs. NATO has been based in the current building since 1967. Since then, the number of NATO members has almost doubled from 15 to 28 countries; a large number of Partners have also opened their diplomatic representations at NATO. The new HQ will provide the space for:
“New NATO HQ,” nato.int
“The decision to replace the existing HQ was taken at the Washington Summit in 1999. NATO decided to build a new headquarters because the current building is at the end of its economic lifespan and no longer meets NATO’s needs. NATO has been based in the current building since 1967. Since then, the number of NATO members has almost doubled from 15 to 28 countries; a large number of Partners have also opened their diplomatic representations at NATO. The new HQ will provide the space for:
• 1500 personnel from 28 national delegations,
• 800 staff from NATO agencies.
• Currently an average of 500 visitors per day
The new headquarters will provide over 254,000 m2 of space and the design of the building will allow for further expansion if needed. The move will make space available for the growing number of Partners’ offices, who will be located in a separate building on the NATO campus.Original contracts and costs Awarded contract costs:
• Demolition – De Meuter/Interbuild/CEI/DeMeyer, 10 M€
• Architecture, Design, Quality Mgmt – SOM-ASSAR, ACG, SOCOTEC, SNC- LAVALIN, 115 M€
• Construction – BAM Alliance 458 M€
• Electronic Security – Siemens / Putman 17 M€
• Audio Visual Installations – Televic, 26 M€
• Active Network – Lockheed Martin (now Leidos), 62 M€
• Other contracts, including additional IT, and furniture – approx. 60M€
*Additional costs for: NATO Governance and Transition, Annual Revision, Contingencies, Construction security and Claim settlements Total project costs: 1.1 B€ [Euros]
February 2017© SOM + Assar architects
A green building for the future: The new headquarters
has been built with the future in mind. The design includes flexible
space that can accommodate changing requirements and has incorporated
modern information and communications technology. The environment and sustainability
have played a major role in the design process. The new building’s
energy consumption has been optimized through the use of geothermal and
solar energy and advanced lighting systems. Thermal insulation,
thermal inertia and solar protection have been incorporated in the
design to reduce heating. Rainwater will be used for non-potable water
use and the buildings short wings will have green roofs.
Timeline of the new NATO Headquarters decision and contracts
Timeline of the new NATO Headquarters decision and contracts
• 1999 At the Washington Summit the decision was taken to replace the current HQ.
• 2001 Dean of the NAC chaired an Architectural Design Competition for the NNHQ.
• 2003 SOM+ASSAR won the Architectural Design Competition.
• 2004 North Atlantic Council asked Belgium to manage the project on NATO’s behalf.
• 2004 Belgium accepted to take on Host Nation responsibilities.
• 2004 Architectural Design / Engineering Contract was awarded to SOM+ASSAR.
• 2007 Belgium launched an Information Notification for the construction contract.
• 2008 Belgium received expressions of interest from potential bidders
.• 2009 Belgium issued the invitation for bids to selected firms.
• 2010 BAM Alliance was selected and awarded the construction contract.
• 2010 BAM Alliance started the construction works.
• 2013 Siemens / Putman was awarded the contract for Electronic Security Services.
• 2013 Televic was awarded the contract for Audio Visual Installations.
• 2013 Lockheed Martin (now Leidos) was awarded the contract for Active Network Infrastructure.
• 2016 Construction works start reaching their final stages. IT infrastructure is being deployed progressively
.• 2017 (expected) Handover of the new building to NATO by Host Nation Belgium.
The facilities and systems start to be commissioned and tested, the
building becomes operational progressively. NATO’s main move to the new
headquarters is due to be completed later in 2017.”
…………
Added: It’s entirely possible that Trump is powerless, and/or that all US presidents are subservient to unelected elites. For the record, NATO’s US taxpayer funded irrational exuberance can and should be limited:
Added: It’s entirely possible that Trump is powerless, and/or that all US presidents are subservient to unelected elites. For the record, NATO’s US taxpayer funded irrational exuberance can and should be limited:
4/2/19, “Trump Should Close NATO Membership Rolls,” Patrick J. Buchanan
“When Donald Trump meets with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg today, the president should give him a direct message:
The roster of NATO membership is closed. For good. The United States will not hand out any more war guarantees to fight Russia to secure borders deep in Eastern Europe, when our own southern border is bleeding profusely.
And no one needs to hear this message more than Stoltenberg.
In Tblisi, Georgia, on March 25 [2019], Stoltenberg declared to the world: “The 29 allies have clearly stated that Georgia will become a member of NATO.”
As for Moscow’s objection to Georgia joining NATO, Stoltenberg gave Vladimir Putin the wet mitten across the face:
“We are not accepting that Russia, or any other power, can decide what (NATO) members can do.” [No war=no free US taxpayer cash]
Yet what would it mean for Georgia to be brought into NATO?
The U.S. would immediately be ensnared in a conflict with Russia that calls to mind the 1938 and 1939 clashes over the Sudetenland and Danzig that led straight to World War II. In 2008, thinking it had U.S. backing, Georgia rashly ordered its army into South Ossetia, a tiny province that had broken away years before.
In that Georgian invasion, Russian peacekeepers were killed and Putin responded by sending the Russian army into South Ossetia to throw the Georgians out. Then he invaded Georgia itself.
“We are all Georgians now!” roared uber-interventionist [mass murderer] John McCain. But George W. Bush, by now a wiser man, did nothing.
[Image: 1/11/2010, “President Mikheil Saakashvili (left) greets Senator McCain in Batumi.” John McCain awarded with the Order of the National Hero of Georgia.] Had Georgia been a NATO nation in 2008, the U.S. could have been on the brink of war with Russia over the disputed and minuscule enclave of South Ossetia, which few Americans had ever heard of.
Why would we bring Georgia into NATO now, when Tblisi still claims the breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, both of which Moscow controls and defends?
Are we not in enough quarrels already that could lead to new wars – with Iran in the Gulf, China in the South China Sea, North Korea, Russia in the Baltic and Black Sea, Venezuela in our own hemisphere – in addition to Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and Somalia where we are already fighting? [Not unless your real goal is to gradually destroy US taxpayers].
Among neocon and GOP interventionists, there has also long been a vocal constituency for bringing Ukraine into NATO. Indeed, changes in the GOP platform in Cleveland on U.S. policy toward Ukraine, it was said, were evidence of Trumpian collusion with the Kremlin.
But bringing Ukraine into NATO would be an even greater manifestation of madness than bringing in Georgia. Russia has annexed Crimea. She has supported pro-Russian rebels in the Donbass who seceded when the elected president they backed was ousted in the [US engineered] Kiev coup five years ago [2014].
Kiev’s recent attempt to enter the Sea of Azov by sailing without formal notification under the Putin-built Kerch Strait Bridge between Russia and Crimea, proved a debacle. Ukrainian sailors are still being held.
No matter how supportive we are of Ukraine, we cannot commit this country to go to war with Russia over [nothing but] its territorial integrity. No Cold War president from Truman to George H. W. Bush would have dreamed of doing such a thing. Bush I thought Ukraine should remain tied to Russia and the Ukrainian independence movement was born of “suicidal nationalism.”
Trump has rightly demanded that Europeans start paying their fair share of the cost of NATO. But a graver question than the money involved are the risks involved.
Since the end of the Cold War, NATO has added 13 nations:the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, the Baltic states of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia, and six Balkan countries – Bulgaria, Rumania, Slovenia, Croatia, Albania and Montenegro.
Also attending the NATO gathering in Tblisi a week ago were Sweden, Finland and Azerbaijan. Are these three also candidates for U.S. [taxpayer] war guarantees?
The larger NATO becomes, the further east it moves, the greater the probability of a military clash that could lead to World War III.
Yet none of the nations admitted to NATO in two decades was ever regarded as worth a war with Russia by any Cold War U.S. president.
When did insuring the sovereignty and borders of these nations suddenly become vital interests of the United States [at a time when US insists US borders remain wide open to accept the entire homeless, non-English speaking population of Central America]?
And if they are not vital interests, why are we committed to go to war with a nuclear-armed Russia over them, when avoidance of such a war was the highest priority of our eight Cold War presidents?
Putin’s Russia, once hopeful about a new relationship under Trump, appears to be giving up on the Americans and shifting toward China.
Last week, 100 Russian troops arrived in Caracas. Whereupon, The Wall Street Journal lost it: Get them out of our “backyard.” The Monroe Doctrine demands it.
Yet, who has been moving into Russia’s front yard for 20 years?
As the Scotsman wrote, the greatest gift the gods can give us is to see ourselves as others see us.”
“Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2017 CREATORS.COM”
…………………………………….
Added: 1/11/2010, “President Mikheil Saakashvili (left) greets Senator McCain in Batumi.” John McCain awarded with the Order of the National Hero of Georgia.
John McCain for decades funneled US tax dollars to the purchase of weapons for defending borders thousands of miles away. Ignoring the pleas of desperate Americans, never did he funnel US tax dollars into the purchase of tanks to defend the 2000 mile wide open US southern border.
1/11/2010, “Georgian President Decorates U.S. Senator McCain,” Radio Free Europe
“Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has decorated visiting U.S. Senator and former presidential candidate John McCain with the Order of the National Hero of Georgia.
At a ceremony in Georgia’s Black Sea city of Batumi, Saakashvili praised McCain for his strong support of Georgia during the August 2008 [5 day] Russian-Georgian war. McCain, who at the time was the Republican candidate for the U.S. presidency, repeatedly backed Georgia in the conflict.
He (McCain) told journalists in Batumi today that Russia should pull out of the Georgian territory it currently occupies, RFE/RL’s Georgian Service reports. [Map from BBC, 2012] McCain and two other Republican senators arrived on January 10 in Batumi, where they met separately with Saakashvili and with several Georgian opposition party leaders.
From Batumi, McCain travelled to Zugdidi, where he met today with Hans-Joerg Haber, the head of the European Union Monitoring Mission, and with Georgian refugees from the breakaway region of Abkhazia.
Large numbers of Russian forces have moved into Abkhazia and Georgia’s other breakaway region of South Ossetia since a five-day conflict with Georgian forces in August 2008, after which the regions declared their independence.
Moscow recognized them as independent states and has set up military bases in the regions, where it also patrols their administrative boundaries with Georgia proper.”
——————
Added: 1/2/2017, McCain's devotion to borders other than those of the US finds him warmongering in Ukraine:
Added: 1/2/2017, McCain's devotion to borders other than those of the US finds him warmongering in Ukraine:
 |
| Jan. 2017, Sen. McCain with Ukraine Pres. and military |
In Ukraine, video published Jan. 2, 2017, “President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, amerikanskimi senators,” google translation
President-elect Trump hadn’t yet been inaugurated, but Neocon Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain were on the ground in Ukraine in Jan. 2017 with Ukraine President Poroshenko and members of the Ukraine military encouraging “regime change” war with Russia with funding from US taxpayers.
2/2/17, “Interfering in Ukraine – A Breach of U.S. Law?”
viableopposition.blogspot.ca
“Recent news that John McCain and Lindsey Graham made a trip to Ukraine in early January 2017 was rather surprising. What is even more surprising is this commentary from Lindsey Graham and John McCain, made in the presence of Ukraine’s President Poroshenko on the front lines of the Ukraine civil war, comments which seems to fly directly in the face of Donald Trump’s approach to Russia:
Urging a restart of the stalled Ukrainian civil war, here’s what Lindsey Graham had to say:
[At 1:20 in video, following remarks by a Ukraine official, possibly Pres. Poroshenko, dressed in military garb]:
“Your fight is our fight, 2017 will be the year of offense. All of us will go back to Washington and we will push the case against Russia. Enough of a Russian aggression. It is time for them to pay a heavier price.
Our fight is not with the Russian people but with Putin. Our promise to you is to take your cause to Washington, inform the American people of your bravery and make the case against Putin to the world.” [In the video, Lindsey Graham rubs his hands together as he speaks]
John McCain had this to say:
“I believe you will win. I am convinced you will win and we will do everything we can to provide you with what you need to win. We have succeeded not because of equipment but because of your courage.
So I thank you and the world is watching because we cannot allow Vladimir Putin to succeed here because if he succeeds here, he will succeed in other countries.”…
The comments by both Graham and McCain seem particularly malevolent since they obviously are not making any kind of personal sacrifice in restarting this conflict.
What is even more interesting is a little-known federal law called the Logan Act, dating back to 1799, which reads as follows:
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
In addition, a very influential Supreme Court decision from December 1936, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation looked at the sale of unauthorized/illegal munitions of war and the delicate balance between the powers wielded by the Executive Branch when it acts without congressional authorization in foreign affairs.
Here are the key paragraphs in the decision:
“Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, ‘The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations…
The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee considers this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to diminish that responsibility and thereby to impair the best security for the national safety. The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch.” (my bold)
With Donald Trump still being President-elect while the warmongering John McCain and Lindsey Graham were pontificating in Ukraine, it certainly appears that they were not representing the future president and it is highly unlikely that they were representing the last days of the outgoing Obama Administration given that they are both Republicans.
At the very least, it looks like both men were meddling with Trump’s moves to soften America’s approach to Russia and their interference certainly has the appearance of breaching U.S. laws."
12/31/16 image above from KSTP, “Minnesota Sen. Klobuchar Spends New Year’s Eve in Ukraine. “Remaining Images above are screen shots from video in Ukraine over Dec. 2016-Jan. 2017 New Year.
President-elect Trump hadn’t yet been inaugurated, but Neocon Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain were on the ground in Ukraine in Jan. 2017 with Ukraine President Poroshenko and members of the Ukraine military encouraging “regime change” war with Russia with funding from US taxpayers.
 |
| Sens. McCain and Graham with Ukraine Pres and military |
|
| Sen. McCain and Ukraine Pres. Poroshenko |
 |
| Sens. McCain and Graham with Ukraine Pres. and soldiers |
viableopposition.blogspot.ca
“Recent news that John McCain and Lindsey Graham made a trip to Ukraine in early January 2017 was rather surprising. What is even more surprising is this commentary from Lindsey Graham and John McCain, made in the presence of Ukraine’s President Poroshenko on the front lines of the Ukraine civil war, comments which seems to fly directly in the face of Donald Trump’s approach to Russia:
Urging a restart of the stalled Ukrainian civil war, here’s what Lindsey Graham had to say:
[At 1:20 in video, following remarks by a Ukraine official, possibly Pres. Poroshenko, dressed in military garb]:
“Your fight is our fight, 2017 will be the year of offense. All of us will go back to Washington and we will push the case against Russia. Enough of a Russian aggression. It is time for them to pay a heavier price.
Our fight is not with the Russian people but with Putin. Our promise to you is to take your cause to Washington, inform the American people of your bravery and make the case against Putin to the world.” [In the video, Lindsey Graham rubs his hands together as he speaks]
John McCain had this to say:
“I believe you will win. I am convinced you will win and we will do everything we can to provide you with what you need to win. We have succeeded not because of equipment but because of your courage.
So I thank you and the world is watching because we cannot allow Vladimir Putin to succeed here because if he succeeds here, he will succeed in other countries.”…
The comments by both Graham and McCain seem particularly malevolent since they obviously are not making any kind of personal sacrifice in restarting this conflict.
What is even more interesting is a little-known federal law called the Logan Act, dating back to 1799, which reads as follows:
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
In addition, a very influential Supreme Court decision from December 1936, United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corporation looked at the sale of unauthorized/illegal munitions of war and the delicate balance between the powers wielded by the Executive Branch when it acts without congressional authorization in foreign affairs.
Here are the key paragraphs in the decision:
“Not only, as we have shown, is the federal power over external affairs in origin and essential character different from that over internal affairs, but participation in the exercise of the power is significantly limited. In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude; and Congress itself is powerless to invade it. As Marshall said in his great argument of March 7, 1800, in the House of Representatives, ‘The President is the sole organ of the nation in its external relations, and its sole representative with foreign nations…
The President is the constitutional representative of the United States with regard to foreign nations. He manages our concerns with foreign nations and must necessarily be most competent to determine when, how, and upon what subjects negotiation may be urged with the greatest prospect of success. For his conduct he is responsible to the Constitution. The committee considers this responsibility the surest pledge for the faithful discharge of his duty. They think the interference of the Senate in the direction of foreign negotiations calculated to diminish that responsibility and thereby to impair the best security for the national safety. The nature of transactions with foreign nations, moreover, requires caution and unity of design, and their success frequently depends on secrecy and dispatch.” (my bold)
With Donald Trump still being President-elect while the warmongering John McCain and Lindsey Graham were pontificating in Ukraine, it certainly appears that they were not representing the future president and it is highly unlikely that they were representing the last days of the outgoing Obama Administration given that they are both Republicans.
At the very least, it looks like both men were meddling with Trump’s moves to soften America’s approach to Russia and their interference certainly has the appearance of breaching U.S. laws."
 |
| 12/31/2016, KSTP image |
........
No comments:
Post a Comment