By Ramesh Thakur

 

In September 2014, in the aftermath of the Maidan coup that saw yet another in the distressingly long list of US-engineered regime change coups in foreign lands where the government proved insufficiently deferential to the ruling Washington foreign policy elite, I argued that NATO’s mission creep had become a threat to European and world peace. The article was published in The Japan Times on 9 September 2014 and reprinted in Pearls and Irritations on 29 October 2016.

I began by asking: ‘Have NATO leaders created a crisis to justify NATO’s continuation after its original purpose expired’?

An alliance forged against the existential Soviet threat successfully deterred the enemy without firing a shot. But then it waged war on Serbia which had not attacked any member state, contemptuous of a defeated, diminished and impotent Russia. Kosovo’s forcible detachment from Serbia in 1999 was the prelude to taking on a more diffuse peace-maintenance role that saw NATO’s geographical reach expand to Eastern Europe, Afghanistan and Libya, taking on decidedly imperialist hues but without demonstrating much by way of lasting achievements.

If Western publics back their governments in the continued slide into confrontation with Russia, I cautioned, we may rush headlong into a catastrophic war with the risk of nuclear escalation. This was so because Russia’s justifications for its actions in Ukraine ranged from principled and strategic to relative to what the US and NATO themselves had done.

Leaders and countries yet to be held to domestic or international criminal account for the illegal war of aggression against Iraq in 2003 including, unfortunately, Australia, had no moral authority to demand punishment of Russia and Putin. The West could bankroll and support destabilisation of an elected pro-Russian government in Kiev (as it then was), but Russia was not permitted to destabilise a pro-Western government installed by coup on its doorstep.

NATO bombed Serbia into submission on Kosovo’s secession in 1999, yet continues to back Ukraine’s demand for the return of Crimea. Part of Russia since the 18th century, Crimea was ‘gifted’ to Ukraine by Nikita Khrushchev in 1954 without consulting its people. The Russians annexed it in 2014.

The divine right of Europe’s kings to rule has not morphed into the divine right of Westerners to determine the world’s territorial borders. Those who used military force to dismember Serbia have no moral authority to insist Crimea must be returned to Ukraine regardless of its people’s wishes. Sevastopol in Crimea is the headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, whose loss would cut off naval access to the Mediterranean and squeeze Russia out of the Caucasus.

In 1962, Cuba was a sovereign state that entered into an agreement with the then Soviet Union for stationing missiles on its territory. This was interpreted, correctly, as a hostile act directed at the US mainland. The resulting crisis, which risked a nuclear war, was resolved with the withdrawal of Soviet missiles. But the Eastern European countries as sovereign states must be conceded the right to enter into a defence alliance with the US and to station NATO troops and missiles on their territory? And if Russia regards this as a threat to its core national security, well, tough shitsky?

Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, has been the geographical gateway for some horrific invasions of Russia, including by Napoleon and Hitler. After the Cold War, NATO crept steadily closer to Russia’s borders in violation of the understandings on which post-Soviet Russia had agreed to the peaceful reunification of Germany and to united Germany’s membership of NATO. Undertaken in a fit of absent-mindedness without strategic hindsight or foresight, NATO’s numerical, territorial and mission creep progressively alienated Russia, encouraged recklessness by some East European states and put NATO credibility on the line – without making it stronger.

After the US Senate ratified the decision to enlarge NATO in May 1998, George Kennan, the architect of the Cold War containment doctrine, said: ‘I think it is the beginning of a new cold war … Of course, there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are – but this is just wrong’.

In the 1999–2020 period, 14 countries from central and eastern Europe, seeking security against future Russian threats, joined NATO, taking the alliance ever closer to Russia’s own borders and heightening their paranoia. As Kennan foreshadowed, they reacted in Ukraine in 2014 and again last year. And, as Kennan predicted, pro-NATO enlargement enthusiasts describe Russia’s actions as ex post facto proof of the correctness of the decision to expand NATO. This is known as a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Sweden and Finland joining NATO – not a cause but a direct consequence of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine – will only intensify Russian perceptions of growing strategic encirclement by a hostile military alliance. How will Putin react? Doing nothing is not an option. The best proof of this is the fact that he did react to the prospect of Ukraine joining NATO. Another clue comes from his observation in 2016: ‘When we look across the border now, we see a Finn on the other side. If Finland joins NATO, we will see an enemy’ (Finland’s President Sauli Niinistö in an interview with Der Spiegel, 14 February 2022).

Finland’s membership of NATO doubles the alliance’s direct land border with Russia from 1,200 to 2,500km. It tightens the strategic encirclement with a ring of steel around the Baltic Sea, complicating access to the Kaliningrad and imposing fresh restrictions on the Russian Navy. It intensifies the threat to St Petersburg, Russia’s second city after Moscow. It exposes the strategically important Kola Peninsula which hosts Russia’s Northern Fleet, including nuclear submarines armed with intercontinental ballistic missiles (SSBNs) that are critical to a survivable second-strike retaliatory capability. Any NATO operational-tactical missile complexes located in Finland would represent threats to the military-industrial complex in the Arkhangelsk region and transportation infrastructure.

This is why Russia cannot and will not sit idly by, as well explained by Nicholas Lokker and Heli Hautala (a Finnish career diplomat) last month. New Russian force postures and deployments are almost certain, including beefed up surveillance and patrolling operations. Most concerningly, it might lead to an increased role of Russian nuclear weapons, including stationing tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus. In turn this will set off a fresh round of NATO countermeasures. Where will it all end?

For Ukraine, for reasons of geography, history, language, economics and ethnicity, a choice between Russia and Europe is painfully impossible. That’s why realists – Henry Kissinger, John Mearsheimer, Stephen Walt – have long recommended an acknowledgment of and respect for Russia’s core strategic interests with a united but neutral Ukraine as a buffer, a federal system with regional autonomy and guaranteed rights for all groups. After all, Switzerland chose armed neutrality in order to immunise itself against the great power conflicts in Europe between France, Germany and Italy, all of which language groups make up substantial chunks of the Swiss population.

An African proverb holds that ‘Until the lions have their own historians, the history of the hunt will always glorify the hunter’. Substitute the Russian bear for the lion, NATO for the hunter, and the mainstream media dominated by Western commentators as the first drafters of history, and the proverb is remarkably applicable to the current geopolitical tensions in Europe.

 

READ MORE:

https://johnmenadue.com/natos-mission-creep-remains-a-threat-to-european-and-world-peace/

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

 

The war, the separation of the world, or the end of an Empire?

 

by Thierry Meyssan

 

Many are those who predict a World War. Indeed, some groups are preparing for it. But the States are reasonable and, in fact, consider rather an amicable separation, a division of the world into two different worlds, one unipolar and the other multipolar. Perhaps we are actually witnessing a third scenario: the "American Empire" is not struggling in the trap of Thucydides; it is collapsing like its former Soviet rival died.

 

The American "Straussians," the Ukrainian "integral nationalists," the Israeli "revisionist Zionists" and the Japanese "militarists" are calling for a generalized war. They are alone and they are not mass movements. No state has yet committed itself to this course.

Germany with 100 billion euros and Poland with much less money are rearming massively. But neither of them seems eager to take on Russia.

Australia and Japan are also investing in armaments, but neither of them has an autonomous army.

The United States is no longer able to replenish its military and is no longer able to create new weapons. They are content to reproduce the weapons of the 1980s in an assembly line fashion. However, they maintain their nuclear weapons.

Russia has already modernized its armies and is organizing itself to renew the ammunition it uses in Ukraine and to mass produce its new weapons, which no one can compete with. China, for its part, is rearming to control the Far East and, in the long term, to protect its trade routes. India thinks of itself as a maritime power.

It is therefore difficult to see who would and could start a World War.

Contrary to their speeches, French leaders are not at all preparing for a high-intensity war [1]. The military programming law, established for ten years, plans to build a nuclear aircraft carrier, but reduces the size of the army. It is a question of giving ourselves the means of projection, but not of defending our territory. Paris continues to reason as a colonial power while the world is becoming multipolar. It is a classic: the generals prepare for the previous war and ignore the reality of tomorrow.

The European Union is implementing its "Strategic Compass". The Commission coordinates the military investments of its member states. In practice, they all play the game, but pursue different goals. The Commission, on the other hand, is trying to take control of decisions on the financing of armies, which until now have depended on their national parliaments. This would make it possible to build an empire, but not to declare a generalized war.
Clearly everyone is playing a game, but apart from Russia and China, none is preparing for a high-intensity war. Rather, we are witnessing a redistribution of the cards. This month, Washington is sending Liz Rosenberg and Brian Nelson, two specialists in unilateral coercive measures [2], to Europe with the mission of forcing the Allies to comply. In the words of former President George Bush Jr. during the war "against terrorism": "Whoever is not with us is against us".

Liz Rosenberg is efficient and unscrupulous. She is the one who brought the Syrian economy to its knees, condemning millions of people to poverty because they dared to resist and defeat the Empire’s surrogates.

The Hollywood western discourse a la George Bush Jr. of good guys and bad guys has failed with Türkiye, which has already experienced the 2016 coup attempt and the 2023 earthquake. Ankara knows that it has nothing good to expect from Washington and is already looking to the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. Yet the same discourse should succeed with the Europeans, who remain fascinated by the power of the United States. Of course this power is in decline, but so are the Europeans. No one has learned any lessons from the sabotage of the Russian-German-French-Dutch gas pipelines, North Stream. Not only did the victims take the blame without saying anything, but they are about to receive further punishment for crimes they did not commit.

The world should therefore be divided into two blocs, on the one hand the US hyperpower and its vassals, on the other the multipolar world. In terms of the number of states, this should be half and half, but in terms of population, only 13% for the Western bloc against 87% for the multipolar world.

The international institutions can no longer function. They should either fall into lethargy or be dissolved. The first examples that come to mind are the effective exit of Russia from the Council of Europe and the empty seats of Western Europeans in the Arctic Council during the year of the Russian presidency. Other institutions are no longer relevant, such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which was supposed to organize East-West dialogue. Only the attachment of Russia and China to the United Nations should preserve them in the short term, as the United States is already thinking of transforming the Organization into a structure reserved exclusively for the Allied Nations.

The Western bloc should also reorganize itself. Until now, the European continent was dominated economically by Germany. In order to be certain that Germany would never get closer to Russia, the United States wanted Berlin to be content with the western part of the continent and leave the center in the hands of Warsaw. So Germany and Poland armed themselves to impose themselves in their respective zones of influence, but when the American star faded, they would fight against each other.

When the Soviet Empire fell, it abandoned its allies and vassals. Having seen its inability to solve the problems, the USSR first stopped supporting Cuba economically, then dropped its vassals of the Warsaw Pact, and finally collapsed on itself. The same process is beginning today.
The first U.S. Gulf War, the 9/11 attacks and their host of wars in the broader Middle East, the expansion of Nato and the Ukrainian conflict will have offered only three decades of survival to the American Empire. It was backed by its former Soviet rival. It has lost its raison d’être with its dissolution. It is time for it to disappear too.

 

Thierry Meyssan

 

Translation 

Roger Lagassé

 

READ MORE:

https://www.voltairenet.org/article219130.html

 

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

 

THE BBC HAS A MASSIVELY MISLEADING ARTICLE UNDER A FIRM HEADING:

"Ukraine war: The Russian ships accused of North Sea sabotage"

 

HELLO? I HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANY SABOTAGE IN THE NORD SEA APART FROM THE AMERICANS AND THE NORWEGIANS BLOWING UP A PIPELINE OR TWO!!!!!

SO WHAT IS THIS ABOUT?

 

By Gordon CoreraSecurity correspondent, BBC News 

Russia has a programme to sabotage wind farms and communication cables in the North Sea, according to new allegations.

The details come from a joint investigation by public broadcasters in Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland. 

It says Russia has a fleet of vessels disguised as fishing trawlers and research vessels in the North Sea. 

They carry underwater surveillance equipment and are mapping key sites for possible sabotage.

 

The BBC understands that UK officials are aware of Russian vessels moving around UK waters as part of the programme.

The first of a series of reports is due to be broadcast on Wednesday by DR in Denmark, NRK in Norway, SVT in Sweden and Yle in Finland. 

  HELLO? HAVE ACTS OF SABOTAGE HAPPENED? NO.... IT'S ALL CIRCUMSTANTIAL "POSSIBLE" SABOTAGE, BUT THE HEADING IS FOR A FIRM ACT: "Ukraine war: The Russian ships accused of North Sea sabotage" BUT REALLY? ASK YOURSELF THE QUESTION: WOULD THE RUSSIANS BOTHER MAP SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DESTROYED IN A JIFFY WITH A COUPLE OF HYPERSONIC MISSILES?WOULD THE RUSSIANS MAP SOMETHING FOR WHICH THE MAPS WOULD BE ALREADY AVAILABLE SOMEWHERE ON YOUTUBE OR IN AN ENGINEER'S DRAWER? WOULD THE RUSSIANS MAP SOMETHING THAT COULD BE TAKEN OUT AT THE ONSHORE POINTS THAT WOULD DISRUPT THE ENTIRE GRID SUPPLY?WOULD THEY DO THIS WHEN THEY KNOW THEY WOULD BE SPOTTED AS RUSSIAN "SABOTEURS"....? DO WE LIVE IN THE ERA OF DISINFORMATION CRAP? DO WE LIVE IN THE ERA OF BBC GOONS GONE SERIOUSLY MAD? NOT TO MENTION THE PUBLIC BROACASTERS OF Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Finland NOW WORKING FOR THE CIA PORKIES DIVISION....  

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

   

Did the Pentagon just FOOL everyone with this fake document leak story? | Redacted News

Something is very fishy with this whole Pentagon document leak story. All of the leaks give cover for the DoD to leave Ukraine while at the same time ramping up against China. Was this a purposeful leak on the part of the Pentagon to distract all of us? Clayton lays out some theories as to why this is the case.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bq2aEZKetk

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....