23th December 2022

We must measure the seriousness of what we are facing. It is not a question of being for or against Russia, of deciding on the nature of its response to NATO, on who Putin is compared to Biden, or Macron, but of seeing clearly that the refusal to negotiate, war at any price is a path that cannot be followed. The real stake is there and it requires, as does this article, to clearly understand the responsibilities and to denounce the war propaganda which leads us towards the worst by pretending to imagine that we will stop the war by fueling it and by strengthening those whose sole objective it is everywhere and always. Now voices are being heard to propose a real movement in favor of peace, it is indeed essential but to gain momentum to convince widely it must take the responsibility to put an end to ambiguities, the dismissal back back, it must be said who is at the origin not only of the conflict in Ukraine, but of the accumulation everywhere of infernos ready to ignite. 

Danielle Bleitrach

September 14, 2022

by Alfred de Zayas

It is hard to understand why Western politicians and the mainstream media fail to see the existential danger they have imposed on Russia and recklessly on the rest of us. NATO's insistence on its so-called “open door” policy is solipsistic and blithely ignores Russia's legitimate security interests. No country would tolerate this kind of expansion. Certainly not the United States if, by comparison, Mexico was tempted to join a Chinese-led alliance.

NATO showed what I would call culpable intransigence and its refusal to negotiate a European or even global security agreement was a form of provocation, directly triggering the current war in Ukraine. Moreover, it is easy to understand that this war could very easily escalate into mutual nuclear annihilation.

This is not the first time that humanity has faced a grave crisis that could have been avoided by fulfilling the promises made to the late Mikhail Gorbachev by former US Secretary of State James Baker.1 and by other US officials. NATO's eastward expansion since 1997 has been seen by Russian leaders as a serious violation of a crucial security agreement with existential overtones. It was seen as an ever-increasing threat, a "threat of the use of force" for the purposes of Article 4(2) of the UN Charter. This carries a serious risk of nuclear confrontation, because Russia has a huge nuclear arsenal and the means to launch the warheads.

The important question that is not being asked by the mainstream media is: why are we provoking a nuclear power? Have we lost the sense of proportion? Are we playing a kind of “Russian roulette” with the fate of future generations of humans on the planet?

This is not only a political question, but also a social, philosophical and moral question. Our leaders certainly have no right to endanger the lives of all Americans. This is highly undemocratic behavior that should be condemned by the American people. Alas, the mainstream media has been spreading anti-Russian propaganda for decades. Why does NATO play this very risky game of “go bank”? Can we also endanger the lives of all Europeans, Asians, Africans and Latin Americans? Just because we are “exceptionalists” and want to be intransigent on our “right” to expand NATO?

Let's take a deep breath and remember how close the world was to the Apocalypse at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis in October 1962. Thank goodness there were cool-headed people in the White House and John F. Kennedy opted for direct negotiation with the Soviets, because the fate of mankind was in his hands. I was a high school student in Chicago and remember watching the debates between Adlai Stevenson III and Valentin Zorin (whom I met many years later when I was a senior human rights official in Geneva).

In 1962, the UN saved the world by providing the forum where disputes could be settled peacefully. It is tragic that the current Secretary General, Antonio Guterres, has not addressed the danger posed by NATO expansion in a timely manner. It could have, but failed to facilitate negotiations between Russia and NATO countries before February 2022. It is shameful that the OSCE failed to persuade the Ukrainian government that it should put implement the Minsk agreements – pacta sunt servanda.

It is deplorable that neutral countries like Switzerland did not speak on behalf of humanity while it was still possible to stop the outbreak of war. Even now, it is imperative to stop the war. Anyone who prolongs the war commits a crime against peace and a crime against humanity. The killings must stop today and all of humanity should stand up and demand peace NOW2.

I remember John F. Kennedy's commencement address at American University in Washington DC on June 10, 19633. I think all politicians should read this remarkably wise statement and see how relevant it is to resolving the current war in Ukraine. Professor Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University in New York has written an insightful book about it4.

In praising the graduating class, Kennedy recalled Masefield's description of a university as " a place where those who hate ignorance can strive to know, where those who perceive the truth can strive to make others see ».

Kennedy chose to discuss " of the most important subject on earth: world peace. What kind of peace am I talking about? What kind of peace are we looking for? Not a Pax Americana imposed on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the safety of the slave. I am talking about real peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, that which allows men and nations to grow, to hope and to build a better life for their children – not just peace. for Americans, but peace for all men and women – not just peace in our time, but peace forever ».

Kennedy had good advisers who reminded him that " total war makes no sense… in an age when a single nuclear weapon packs nearly ten times the explosive force delivered by all Allied air forces in World War II. It makes no sense at a time when the deadly poisons produced by nuclear exchange would be carried by wind, water, soil and seed to every corner of the globe and to unborn generations. ».

Kennedy and his predecessor Eisenhower repeatedly condemned the spending of billions of dollars each year on weapons, because such spending is not an effective means of securing peace, which is the necessary rational end of rational men.

Unlike Kennedy's successors in the White House, JFK had a sense of reality and a capacity for self-criticism: " Some say it is useless to talk about world peace, world law or world disarmament – ​​and that it will be useless until the leaders of the Soviet Union adopt a more enlightened attitude. I hope they will. I believe we can help them do that. But I also believe we need to re-examine our own attitude – as individuals and as a nation – because our attitude is as essential as theirs.»5.

Accordingly, he proposed to examine the attitude of the United States towards peace itself. " Too many of us think it's impossible. Too many people think it's unreal. But this is a dangerous and defeatist belief. This leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable - that humanity is doomed - that we are gripped by forces we cannot control. ". He refused to accept this view. As he told American University graduates, " Our problems are man-made – therefore they can be man-made. And the man can be as big as he wants. No issue of human destiny is beyond human beings. Reason and the mind of man have often solved what seemed unsolvable – and we believe they can do it again ».

He encouraged his audience to focus on a more practical, more achievable peace, based not on a sudden revolution in human nature, but on a gradual evolution of human institutions – on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements. which are in the interest of all parties concerned: There is no single, simple key to this peace – no grand or magic formula for one or two powers to adopt. True peace must be the product of many nations, the sum of many acts. It must be dynamic, not static, changing to meet the challenge of each new generation. 'Cause peace is a process, a way to solve problems. 

Personally, I am saddened that Kennedy's words are so far removed from the rhetoric we hear today from Biden and Blinken, whose narrative is one of self-righteous condemnation - a black-and-white caricature white – no hint of JFK's humanistic and pragmatic approach to international relations.

I am encouraged to rediscover JFK's vision: World peace, like communal peace, does not require each man to love his neighbour, it only requires that they live together in mutual tolerance, submitting their differences to just and peaceful settlement. And history teaches us that enmities between nations, as between individuals, do not last forever. ».

JFK insisted that we must persevere and take a less categorical view of our own goodness and the evil of our adversaries. He reminded his audience that peace need not be impractical, and war need not be inevitable. " By defining our goal more clearly, making it more manageable and less distant, we can help all people see it, draw hope from it, and move irresistibly towards it.. 

His conclusion was a tour de force: We must therefore persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the communist bloc can bring within reach solutions that today seem outdated to us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the interests of the Communists to agree to a real peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avoid confrontations that lead an adversary to choose between humiliating retreat or nuclear war. Adopting this kind of course in the nuclear age would only be proof of the bankruptcy of our politics – or of a collective death wish for the world. »6.

American University graduates applauded Kennedy enthusiastically in 1963. I wish every college student, every high school student, every congressman, every journalist would read that speech and consider its implications for the world TODAY. I would like them to read the New York Times by George F. Kennan7 1997 essay condemning NATO expansion, Jack Matlock's perspective8, the last US Ambassador to the USSR, the warnings of American scholars Stephen Cohen9 and Professor John Mearsheimer10.

I fear that in today's world of fake news and manipulated narratives, in today's indoctrinated society, Kennedy will be accused of being an appeaser of Russia, even a traitor to American values. And yet, the fate of all humanity now hangs in the balance. And what we really need is another JFK in the White House.

source: History and Society

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

This is a bad taste video, yet it portrays what's awaiting "Ukraine" (the Galician western part) should Zelensky continues to refuse signing a deal with Putin.

Merry “Anti-Russian” Christmas

MEANWHILE PUTIN OUTLINES THE CAPER:

PETROPAVLOVSK-KAMCHATSKY, Russia (Sputnik) - Russia is open to a dialogue with all stakeholders on peaceful conflict settlement in Ukraine, but they have so far refused to negotiate, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Sunday.

"The policies of our geopolitical opponents, aimed at splitting up Russia, are at the roots of Ukrainian conflict', the Russian president stated.

Putin also added that Russia is ready to negotiations with all stakeholder in geopolitical crisis.

"We are ready to negotiate with all participants to this process [the conflict in Ukraine] on some acceptable resolutions, but it is their business. It is them and not us who refuse to negotiate," Putin stated.

The Russian leader also said that the nation is doing the right thing in Ukraine.

"I think we are acting in the right direction: we protect our national interests, interests of our citizens, our people. And we just have no choice but to protect our citizens," Putin noted.

Russia launched its special military operation on February 24, in order to defend the people of Lugansk and Donetsk, who had been suffering from Ukrainian attacks. The Western countries started rolling out sanction packages against Russia and provided Kiev with humanitarian, military and financial aid. Moscow criticized the flow of weapons into Ukraine from Western nations, claiming that it only reinforces the conflict.

At the same time, Kiev launched a series of terrorist attacks on Russian territory, including a fatal explosion on the Crimean bridge, to which Moscow responded with precision strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure targets. As a result, over the past months, air raid sirens have been regularly sounding across Ukraine, with Kiev saying that up to 50% of the country's energy grid was damaged.

READ MORE:

https://sputniknews.com/20221225/putin-our-geopolitical-opponents-triggered-conflict-in-ukraine--1105782164.html

READ FROM TOP.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....