World War III for the Biblical Fall of Babylon and Henoch prophecies was planned before World War II. The idea for NATO was created much earlier on Sirius, when Peter Pry established the Multinational Peacekeeping Troops, 12 million years ago. On Earth, the first plan for Anunnaki's One World globalization emerged in Babylon with the dream of Nebuchadnezzar. Throughout the years, military core groups who inherited the Codex mission improvised accordingly, until the latest New World Order with World Wars on Earth.
After World War II, the UN and the UN Charter were set up with planned and expected Biblical World War III. During World War II, the Nazi (Dark Fleet) decided not to assist Germany's Nazi on the ground. The Nazi moved underground in Antarctica and allowed the Allies to "defeat" them. However, the Nazi only changed their names and migrated to the US, with Paperclip. With their new identities and corporate suits, the neo-Nazi established the UN, EU and NATO.
The UN Charter with Chapter VIII - Regional Arrangements was prepared for World War III and Multinational Peacekeeping Troops, which would start as renewed aggression between Russia and Germany. Dark Fleet made a new ad-hoc arrangement when they invented 5 cards for the National Security State, which included Russians, terrorists, rogue nations, asteroids and aliens.
The new environment led to the creation of NATO in 1949. NATO was established to function as a Regional Arrangement agency for collective defense, replicated from the Multinational Peacekeeping Troops. But, the UN had to improvise the legal framework, due to the earlier selection of permanent members to the Security Council, which would oversee any future peacekeeping activities and missions.
Legally non-binding Article 51 from Chapter VII was open to interpretation, whether countries have a right for collective defense or can exercise the right to form agencies as NATO. With the hindsight of the Biblical World War III, Article 51 is interpreted as an introduction to Chapter VIII which outlines the operational rules of NATO.
World War III is football between the UNSC members and UN war profiteers
1) What is the legal environment of NATO?
Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression
Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.
Chapter VIII: Regional Arrangements
Article 52
Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations.
The Members of the United Nations entering into such arrangements or constituting such agencies shall make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.
The Security Council shall encourage the development of pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies either on the initiative of the states concerned or by reference from the Security Council.
This Article in no way impairs the application of Articles 34 and 35.
Article 53
The Security Council shall, where appropriate, utilize such regional arrangements or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against any enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided for pursuant to Article 107 or in regional arrangements directed against renewal of aggressive policy on the part of any such state, until such time as the Organization may, on request of the Governments concerned, be charged with the responsibility for preventing further aggression by such a state.
The term enemy state as used in paragraph 1 of this Article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the present Charter.
Article 54
The Security Council shall at all times be kept fully informed of activities undertaken or in contemplation under regional arrangements or by regional agencies for the maintenance of international peace and security.
2) What happened after 9/11 with NATO's Article 5?
NATO's Article 5 after 9/11 only led to more surveillance, assistance and security. The North Atlantic Council of member states created activities, such as patrolling, monitoring, detecting and deterring terrorism and trafficking. The UN Security Council had a more important role after 9/11, when NATO sent troops to Afghanistan for 20 years. As a permanent member of UNSC, Russia voted for the collective defense mission.
In comparison to the original Multinational Peacekeeping Troops with a "red button" and collective defense in 24 hours, NATO's Article 5 activities were too bureaucratic and slow.
An act of solidarity
On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5. Then NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance's decision.
The North Atlantic Council – NATO’s principal political decision-making body – agreed that if it determined that the attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it would be regarded as an action covered by Article 5. On 2 October, once the Council had been briefed on the results of investigations into the 9/11 attacks, it determined that they were regarded as an action covered by Article 5.
By invoking Article 5, NATO members showed their solidarity toward the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible way, the terrorist attacks against the United States.
Taking action
After 9/11, there were consultations among the Allies and collective action was decided by the Council. The United States could also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the United Nations Charter.
On 4 October, once it had been determined that the attacks came from abroad, NATO agreed on a package of eight measures to support the United States. On the request of the United States, it launched its first ever anti-terror operation – Eagle Assist – from mid-October 2001 to mid-May 2002. It consisted in seven NATO AWACS radar aircraft that helped patrol the skies over the United States; in total 830 crew members from 13 NATO countries flew over 360 sorties. This was the first time that NATO military assets were deployed in support of an Article 5 operation.
On 26 October, the Alliance launched its second counter-terrorism operation in response to the attacks on the United States, Operation Active Endeavour. Elements of NATO's Standing Naval Forces were sent to patrol the Eastern Mediterranean and monitor shipping to detect and deter terrorist activity, including illegal trafficking. In March 2004, the operation was expanded to include the entire Mediterranean.
The eight measures to support the United States, as agreed by NATO were:
to enhance intelligence-sharing and cooperation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it;
to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, assistance to Allies and other countries which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism;
to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory;
to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism;
to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism;
to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO member countries for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures;
that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve;
that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism.
NATO and Afghanistan
NATO Allies went into Afghanistan in 2001. From August 2003, NATO led the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which aimed to create the conditions whereby the Afghan government could exercise its authority throughout the country and build the capacity of the Afghan national security forces, including in the fight against international terrorism. ISAF was completed in December 2014 when the Afghan National Defence and Security Forces assumed full responsibility for security across their country.
In January 2015, NATO launched the Resolute Support Mission (RSM) to train, advise and assist Afghan security forces and institutions to fight terrorism and secure their country. Following the completion of the withdrawal of all RSM forces in August 2021, the Mission was terminated in early September 2021.
Under the current circumstances, NATO has suspended all support to Afghanistan. Any future Afghan government must adhere to Afghanistan’s international obligations; safeguard the human rights of all Afghans, particularly women, children and minorities; uphold the rule of law; allow unhindered humanitarian access; and ensure that Afghanistan never again serves as a safe haven for terrorists.
In December 2021, NATO Foreign Ministers discussed the lessons learned from the Alliance’s engagement in Afghanistan, reviewing a comprehensive political and military assessment that outlined key conclusions and recommendations.
3) Why Article 5 cannot be used for the proxy war between Russia and the US?
The purpose of NATO during World War III was to invoke Article 5 and involve all member states in a nuclear World War. But, Article 51 only vaguely enables the activation of Article 5, while the collective defense is later decided by the North Atlantic Council and more importantly the UN Security Council. The example of 9/11 clearly showed how Article 5 patrolling and security measures fade in comparison to the collective defense missions agreed by the UNSC.
The "Special Military Operation" in Ukraine planned for World War III is a futile war, where NATO cannot even rely on Article 5 for collective defense, because:
Ukraine is not a NATO member
NATO is bound by the UNSC and future approval or veto of Russia
The bureacracy is too slow for nuclear war
The only scenario when NATO could have used Article 5, would have been a war between Russia and Germany, where Article 53 enables NATO to defend Germany without UNSC supervision.
After World War II, Russia and the US were Allies who received veto power in UNSC, for establishing world peace and prevention of future conflicts, with the exception of renewed aggression between Russia and Germany. The new proxy war between Russia and US is a futile military exercise for money laundering by aero-weapons corporations.
Therefore, during World War III, Russia can attack a NATO member state, such as Poland via Belarus. Even if NATO will invoke Article 5, it will have to report precisely to Russia and later wait for Russia's approval from the UNSC. If a real war between NATO and Russia would hypothetically emerge, it would mean that NATO will report future planned attacks on Russia, to Russia. But, Russia will not laugh last, because similarly to the remaining war profiteers, Russia does not have a war scenario, after the Bible and the Henoch prophecies ended without Second Muhammad.
Furthermore, the origin of God Hitler's hegemony and the foundation of NATO on Sirius, 12 million years ago, were discovered from the Akashic Records and shared with the world. The people who know the truth will have the last laugh at pathetic globalists and illegal clones, waiting for souls to manifest time, so they can go to the red carpet.