by Jean Bricmont Posted on July 12, 2022    

Given the devastating effects of this war, first in Ukraine but also, through sanctions, on the world economy and the risks of famine that they entail, it seems obvious that the first task of any diplomat and political leader should be to end this war.

The problem is that there are at least two ways of considering how this will end and they are irreconcilable.

The first, which until recently was the view of the U.S. government, which is the view of the Ukrainian government, European Greens, and the majority of our media, is that the Russian invasion is illegitimate, unprovoked, and must simply be repelled: Ukraine must regain all of its territory, including Crimea (which has been attached to Russia since 2014).

The other, supported by individuals as different as Chomsky, the Pope, Lula in Brazil, and Kissinger, is that a negotiated solution is inevitable, which in practice means Ukraine giving up territories such as Crimea and Donbass and presumably other regions, as well as agreeing to the neutrality of that country.

The supporters of the first solution shower those of the second with insults: Putin-lovers, pro-Russians, supporters of appeasement in the face of Russian fascism etc. But we can ask at least two questions about this first solution: is it fair? And is it realistic?

The fundamental problem with the fairness of this solution is that it assumes that there is one Ukraine and one Ukrainian people under attack by Russia. But Ukraine, which became independent in 1991 with the dissolution of the USSR, was not a former nation annexed by Russia in the past. Certainly, there was a historical Ukraine that had been absorbed into the Russian empire, but what became independent in 1991 was the former Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, created in 1922 following the October revolution and which incorporated Russian-speaking populations in the east of the present Ukraine, and to whose opinion was never asked by anybody. It included also territories in the west added to Ukraine in 1939-1945 as well as the Crimea added in 1954.

The disintegration of multi-national states such as the USSR or Yugoslavia or even the former colonial empires opposes the idea of state sovereignty, including the “territorial integrity” of the state, against the idea of the right to self-determination of peoples. At the time of the dissolution of Yugoslavia, the territorial integrity of this state was considered illegitimate in the West in the face of the desire for independence of the Croatian and Slovenian peoples; but the borders of the Croatian republic then became sacrosanct in the name of the right to self-determination of peoples, while a good number of Serbs lived within these borders. They did not accept their new situation and were eventually expelled from Croatia by force. A similar situation occurred in 1999 with Kosovo, which was part of Serbia but whose majority of the population, Albanians, wanted to break away. There, NATO took it upon itself to bomb Serbia for 78 days in order to obtain the de facto independence of Kosovo, with the expulsion of many of the non-Albanian speaking minorities living there.

If the right to self-determination of peoples is sacrosanct in the face of the territorial integrity of states in which they are minorities, then why does the territorial integrity of republics, which were in part administrative entities in dissolving multinational states, suddenly become sacrosanct in the face of the aspirations of minorities living in those republics?

The precedent of the Kosovo war is often recalled by the Russians: if the NATO intervention there was legitimate to support the Kosovars, why is the Russian “military operation” to protect the inhabitants of Donbass not legitimate?

There have been many other conflicts of the same kind, and much bloodier: for example, the partition of the British Empire of India in 1948 between India and Pakistan, which initially included the present Bangladesh (called at the time East Pakistan) that became independent after a fierce war in 1971.

There is no simple solution to this kind of conflict. In principle, there could be one: ask by referendum on a local basis to which state each population wants to belong. But this solution is accepted by almost no one: if a referendum in Crimea is in favor of joining Russia, of which Crimea was a part between 1783 and 1954 (and, at that time, the joining of Crimea to Ukraine was decided in a purely authoritarian way), the West declares it illegitimate. If other referendums are held in the rest of Ukraine, they will also be declared illegitimate.

What we should hope for in order to resolve these local conflicts is that foreign powers do not use them to advance their economic and strategic interests. However, the United States and Britain have done exactly the opposite since 2014 (if not before) in Ukraine, first encouraging a coup that led to the overthrow of the legally elected president, Yanukovych, who had to flee for his life. This president was seen as pro-Russian, and the United States and Britain were not prepared to accept the situation. As the new power in Kiev was not only violently anti-Russian but also hostile to the Russian-speaking part of its population, a fraction of the latter demanded more autonomy within Ukraine, which was refused. Since then, there has been a more or less low-intensity war between part of the Donbass and the Ukrainian army.

Again, in principle, a peaceful solution could have been found through negotiations with the leaders of the rebel provinces, and this is what the Minsk agreements, accepted by the Ukrainian government but never implemented by it, provided.

It is true that there are other minorities in the world who are persecuted or badly treated by their governments, but it was particularly irresponsible for the Kiev government to behave in this way towards its minority in the east of the country, knowing that it could benefit from the protection of the Russian “big brother." And it is unlikely that this conduct would have been adopted without the encouragement and political and military support of the United States and Britain.

This is why it can be considered that it was the American-British policy that pushed Russia to intervene. One can obviously condemn this intervention as contrary to international law, but then one would have to answer the question: what should the Russians have done to protect the populations of eastern Ukraine, assuming that their demands for autonomy are accepted as legitimate (and if not, in the name of what to refuse them)? Wait? Negotiate? But that is what they have been doing for eight years, sending very clear signals at the end of 2021 that their patience had limits.

Moreover, it is difficult for the architects of the wars in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan to pose as great defenders of international law in the face of the Russians. Whatever one thinks of their military intervention in Ukraine, it is less illegitimate than the Western wars mentioned above.

One can obviously react by saying that “Putin has fallen into the trap” set for him by the United States. But, on the one hand, this is admitting that the United States has indeed pushed Russia into war and, to know whether he has really fallen into a trap, we will have to wait until the end of the hostilities. If Russia wins, at least in part, it will be the United States that will lose face and be caught in its own trap.

It is also necessary to point out the incredible hypocrisy of the discourse on the war in Ukraine, and on the accompanying sanctions, on the part of most of our journalists and intellectuals: when did we do anything similar during the US invasion of Iraq? Of course, no economic sanctions were taken at that time, but no symbolic sanctions either, while in the case of Russia everything is sanctioned: political figures, but also sportsmen, artists, scientists. Even the works of the past are “canceled." What does Dostoyevsky have to do with the war in Ukraine?

The only way to justify this double standard is to openly admit that we are on the side of the United States, either because we share their values or because it is in our interests.

As far as values are concerned, we should go beyond facile slogans about democracy, which nobody, and certainly not the Russians or the Chinese, is endangering here, and become aware of the monstrosity of American foreign policy. Even without going back to the war in Iraq (or Vietnam) one can think of Yemen, where Saudi Arabia is waging a war far more brutal than what Russia is doing in Ukraine and which is armed by the United States and its European allies. Or Afghanistan, where the United States has confiscated half of the public treasury while the country is suffering from famine. Or think of the human consequences of the embargoes and sanctions taken by the United States against a multitude of countries: Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, Syria, Iraq (between 1991 and 2003).

In terms of interests, it is clear that the United States is using every weapon at its disposal, including espionage, to favor its businesses at the expense of ours. But more profoundly, their policy is increasingly opposed in the non-Western world: the most surprising aspect of the reactions to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is perhaps the fact that the majority of countries, while condemning the invasion in principle (which was the minimum to do given their adherence to the UN Charter – and large countries such as India and China did not even perform this minimum service), did not apply any sanctions to Russia.

The recent “Summit of the Americas," from which Biden excluded Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, was criticized and even boycotted for this reason by several Latin American countries, including Mexico. The ASEAN countries gathered in Washington refused to condemn Russia; they are probably going there to recover (some) money and investments but certainly not to align themselves with Washington. Relations between China, another country in Washington’s sights, and the rest of Asia are better than they have ever been.

African countries “remember” the support of the USSR during the independence struggles and recently had a very cordial summit with Lavrov in Moscow.

We can shrug our shoulders and say that these countries are driven by anti-American resentment or that they do not weigh much in the world economy, which would be a rather typical “Western” reaction, but totally contrary to our long-term interests. We Europeans have no influence whatsoever on American policy and our “alliance” with this country is purely a matter of following them. But the effect of this following is that we inevitably share the hostility that the United States draws to itself from the rest of the world. And while hostility is expressed toward the masters, it is combined with contempt when it comes to their servants.

As for realism, a distinction must be made between the economic and the military aspects. On the economic issue, i.e. the sanctions, for the moment it is a total failure: the ruble has strengthened instead of collapsing, the Russian economy is surviving and reorienting itself towards Asia. Moreover, the majority of the world’s countries refuse to implement the sanctions imposed by the United States and the European Union, and everything indicates that these sanctions are going to hurt the Western economies, without even considering the effect of possible Russian counter-sanctions.

As for the military issue, it is difficult to make definite predictions, but for the moment the Russians are moving forward, even if much more slowly than at the beginning. No Ukrainian counter-offensive has had a lasting effect. Some hope for a reversal of the situation following the delivery of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine by the United States and its allies, but this remains to be seen, and various voices in Washington itself are considering the need for negotiation as the only solution to the crisis. In any case, it seems unlikely that Ukraine’s war aims of recovering the entire eastern part of the country and Crimea can be achieved. The Russians consider these territories, and especially Crimea, to be part of the “motherland” and they are far from having committed all their forces to this battle. For the Ukrainian war objective to be realized, there would have to be a complete collapse not only of the Russian military but of Russian society as a whole, with a regime change and the installation of a pro-Western leader in Putin’s place. The least we can say is that this perspective is not, for the moment, in the cards: the main criticisms addressed to Putin in the Russian public opinion are that he is too soft in the conduct of the war and too lenient with what he continues to call his Western “partners."

Of course, as always in wars, a reversal of the situation is possible. So, wait and see.

If we were to embark on the path of negotiations, we would first have to see what the Russians are asking for: recognition of the attachment of Crimea to Russia, independence of the Donbass and probably of other regions such as Kherson or Zaporizhzhia, demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine. If the first of these demands are legitimate, or at least if their legitimacy could be verified by means of referenda, the last two are much more questionable: to ask that one’s neighbor be disarmed when one is overarmed oneself is a typical behavior of a great power, and the “denazification” of Ukraine is too vague a demand to be really implemented (at what point does one stop being extreme right-wing to become a Nazi?)

In an ideal world such a demand as the demilitarization of one’s neighbor should not exist. But the context again matters: the original intention of post-2014 Ukraine was to be part of NATO, not just to have an army. This was again an irresponsible policy, since it was obvious that Russia would never accept this membership and that it had the means to prevent it, as history has shown. As for the reproach that Russia is pursuing a gre0at power policy, it should be remembered that the United States did not accept the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba in 1962 and even considered the Sandinista revolution of 1979 in tiny Nicaragua to be a threat to its national security. Great power policies can only be ended if their rejection applies to all.

In the end, it is likely that the only ones who will have defended the true interests of the Ukrainian people (as well as those of Europe) will be those who have advocated from the beginning (i.e., at least since 2014) for a negotiated solution to the conflict.

Jean Bricmont is a retired Belgian theoretical physicist. He is the co-author with Alan Sokal of Fashionable Nonsense Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science (Picador, NY, 1998), of Humanitarian Imperialism; Using human rights to sell war (Monthly Review, NY, 2007), and of Quantum Sense and Nonsense (Springer, 2017).

Source: https://original.antiwar.com/

Sergei V. Lavrov

Russian Foreign Minister since 2004.

As is traditional, the month of May in Russia is marked by the broad celebrations commemorating the anniversary of the Great Victory. The defeat of Nazi Germany – an achievement to which our country made a decisive contribution, with the support from our Allies – paved the way for the post-war international order, with the UN Charter as its legal framework. The United Nations Organisation, an embodiment of true multilateralism, took on a central coordinating role in global politics.

For almost 80 years since its inception, the UN has carried out the most important mission entrusted to it by its founders. The shared understanding among the five permanent members of the Security Council regarding the supremacy of the purposes and principles of the UN Charter has guaranteed global security for decades, thus creating the necessary conditions for truly multilateral cooperation, which are regulated by universally recognised norms of international law.

Now the UN-centric system is undergoing a deep crisis, the root cause of which was brought on by the decision of certain UN members to replace international law and the UN Charter with some “rules-based international order”. These mysterious “rules” have never been the subject of transparent international consultations, nor have they been laid out for everybody’s attention. It is obvious that they are being made up on the move and used to counteract the natural processes of the formation and strengthening of new independent centres of development, which are an actual manifestation of multilateralism.

Moreover, we are seeing attempts to contain the new world centres by means of illegitimate unilateral measures, such as blocking access to modern technologies and financial services, forcing out of supply chains, confiscating property, destroying competitors’ critical infrastructure, and manipulating universally agreed norms and procedures. These actions have led to the fragmentation of global trade and the collapse of market mechanisms. They have paralysed the WTO and finally transformed the IMF, without a hint of disguise, into a tool for achieving the goals of the United States and its allies, including military goals.

In a desperate attempt to assert its dominance by punishing anyone who disobeys, the United States tried to derail globalisation – a process that had been extolled as the highest virtue for humanity, serving the multilateral global economic system for years.

Washington and other Western capitals subordinate to the US are applying their “rules” whenever they need to justify their illegitimate steps against countries that draft their policies in accordance with international law and refuse to service the selfish interests of the “golden billion.” They blacklist any dissenters, deeming whoever is not with them as acting against them.

Our Western colleagues have long since become uncomfortable with holding talks in universal formats, such as the UN. To provide an ideological basis for their policy of undermining multilateralism, the theme of united “democracies” countering “autocracies” has been put into circulation. In addition to “summits for democracy”, the members of which are designated by the self-proclaimed hegemon, other “clubs of the chosen ones” are being created that operate in circumvention of the UN.

Summits for Democracy, the Alliance for Multilateralism, the Global Partnership for Artificial Intelligence, the Global Media Freedom Coalition and the Paris Call for Trust and Security in Cyberspace – these and other non-inclusive projects have been designed to undermine talks held under the auspices of the UN on relevant issues, and to impose non-consensual concepts and decisions that benefit the collective West.  First, they agree on something secretly as a small group and then present their agreements as “the position of the international community.”

Let’s face it: no one entrusted the Western minority to speak on behalf of all humankind. They must behave decently and respect all international community members without exception.

By imposing a “rules-based order,” its masterminds haughtily reject the key principle underlying the UN Charter, which is the sovereign equality of states. The “proud” statement by the head of the EU diplomacy, Josep Borrell, that Europe is a “garden” and the rest of the world is a “jungle” personifies their worldview of being exceptional. I will also quote the NATO-EU Joint Statement of January 10, 2023 which states: “The united West will use all the economic, financial, political, and military tools available to NATO and the EU to ensure the interests of our one billion.”

The collective West has set out to reshape the processes of multilateralism at the regional level to suit its needs. Recently, the United States called for reviving the Monroe Doctrine and wanted Latin American countries to scale back their ties with the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China. However, this faced pushback from the countries of this region, which instead resolved to strengthen their own multilateral structures, primarily the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), while upholding their legitimate right to establish themselves as a pillar of the multipolar world. Russia fully supports just aspirations of this kind.

The United States and its allies have deployed significant forces to undermine multilateralism in the Asia-Pacific Region where an ASEAN-centred, successful, and open economic and security cooperation system has been taking shape for decades. This system helped them develop consensus approaches that suited the 10 ASEAN members and their dialogue partners, including Russia, China, the United States, India, Japan, Australia, and the Republic of Korea, thus ensuring genuine inclusive multilateralism. Washington then advanced its Indo-Pacific Strategy in an effort to break up this established architecture.

At last year’s summit in Madrid, NATO, which never tires of convincing everyone of its “love of peace” and the exclusively defensive nature of its defence programmes, put out a statement about its global responsibility and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic region, as well as in the so-called Indo-Pacific region. This means NATO’s boundaries as a defensive organisation are being moved towards the western coastal regions of the Pacific. This bloc-oriented policy, which is eroding ASEAN-centred multilateralism, manifests itself in the creation of the AUKUS military alliance, with Tokyo, Seoul, and several ASEAN countries being drawn into it. The United States is leading the effort to develop mechanisms to interfere in maritime security in a move to ensure the unilateral interests of the West in the South China Sea region. Josep Borrell, whom I referred to earlier, promised to send EU naval forces to that region. No one is hiding the fact that this Indo-Pacific strategy seeks to contain China and to isolate Russia. This is how our Western colleagues interpret the concept of “effective multilateralism” in the Asia-Pacific Region.

As soon as the Warsaw Treaty Organisation was dissolved and the Soviet Union vanished from the political arena, many entertained the hope that the principle of genuine multilateralism, void of dividing lines across the Euro-Atlantic area, could be brought to life. However, instead of tapping the OSCE’s potential on an equal, collective basis, Western countries not only preserved NATO but, despite their firm pledges to the contrary, also pursued a brazen policy of bringing neighbouring areas under their control, including those that have always been and will be of vital interest to Russia. As then US Secretary of State James Baker said while talking to President George H.W. Bush: the OSCE is the main threat to NATO.

One is left with the impression that today both the UN and the provisions of the UN Charter pose a threat to Washington’s global ambitions.

Russia patiently tried to reach mutually-beneficial multilateral agreements based on the principle of indivisible security, which was solemnly declared at the highest level, that is, in the documents of OSCE summits in 1999 and 2010. They are formulated in the clearest possible terms – openly and unambiguously – that no nation shall strengthen its security at the expense of the security of others and that no country, or group of countries, or organisation shall be vested with the pre-eminent responsibility of maintaining peace in an OSCE region, or treat any part of an OSCE region as its sphere of influence.

NATO cared little about the commitments that were assumed by the presidents and prime ministers of its member countries and started to act precisely in contradiction with its promises by announcing its “right” to behave in any matter it saw fit. The most glaring example of this was the illegitimate bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, including with depleted uranium shells, which later led to a surge of patients with oncological conditions, both among Serbs and NATO service members. Joe Biden was a senator at the time and went on record as saying, with some pride, that he had personally insisted on bombing Belgrade and destroying all bridges across the Drina River. Today, US Ambassador to Serbia Christopher Hill has used mass media to call on the Serbs to turn the page and suppress their pain.

As for “suppressing their pain”, the United States has vast experience under its belt. Japan has long since been ashamedly reticent about who in fact bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  School textbooks make no mention of it. Speaking at a recent G7 meeting, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken demonstratively grieved over the suffering of the victims of those bombings, however, he kept silent about who was behind them.

Such are the “rules”. And nobody is allowed to argue with them.

Since World War II, Washington has pulled off dozens of reckless criminal military operations without even trying to secure multilateral legitimacy. Why bother when your “rules” are unbeknownst to everyone.

The disgraceful invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition in 2003 was carried out in violation of the UN Charter, just like the aggression against Libya in 2011. Both led to the destruction of each country’s statehood, hundreds of thousands of lost lives, and rampant terrorism.

The US’s intervention in the domestic affairs of post-Soviet countries is nothing short of a flagrant violation of the UN Charter. “Colour revolutions” were concocted in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, and a bloody coup was staged in Kiev in February 2014. Attempts to seize power by force in Belarus in 2020 were part and parcel of this approach.

The Anglo-Saxons at the helm of the West not only justify these lawless adventures, but also parade them as a policy for “promoting democracy,” while also doing so according to their own set of rules, such as how they recognised Kosovo’s independence without a referendum, but still refused to recognise Crimea’s independence, even though a referendum there was in fact held.  According to British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly, the Falklands/Malvinas are not an issue because a referendum was held there. That’s amusing.

In order to avoid double standards, we call on everyone to follow the consensus agreements that were reached as part of the 1970 UN Declaration on Principles of International Law, which remains in force today.

It clearly declares the need to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states that conduct “themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples as described above and thus possessed of a government representing the whole people belonging to the territory.” Any unbiased observer can clearly see that the Nazi Kiev regime can in no way be considered a government representing the residents of the territories who refused to accept the results of the bloody February 2014 coup, against whom the putschists unleashed their war. It is just as clear that Pristina cannot claim to represent the interests of the Kosovo Serbs, to whom the EU promised autonomy, in the same manner as Berlin and Paris promised a special status for Donbass. We are well aware of how these promises played out in the end.

In his message to the second Summit for Democracy on March 29, 2023, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the following: “Democracy flows from the United Nations Charter. Its opening invocation of ‘We, the Peoples’ reflects the fundamental source of legitimate authority: the consent of the governed.” I will emphasise the word “consent” once again.

Multilateral efforts were made to stop the outbreak of war in the east of Ukraine as a result of the government coup. These efforts towards peaceful settlement were embodied in UN Security Council Resolution 2202 that unanimously approved the Minsk agreements. Kiev and its Western handlers trampled all over these agreements. They even cynically admitted with a tinge of pride that they had never planned to fulfill them, but rather merely wanted to gain time to flood Ukraine with weapons to use against Russia. In doing so, they publicly announced the violation of a multilateral commitment by UN members as per the UN Charter, which requires all member countries to comply with Security Council resolutions.

Our consistent efforts to prevent this confrontation, including proposals made by President Vladimir Putin in December 2021 to reach agreement on multilateral mutual security guarantees, were haughtily rejected. We were told that nobody can prevent NATO from “embracing” Ukraine.

In the years following the coup, and despite our strong demands, nobody from among Kiev’s Western overseers reined in Petr Poroshenko, Vladimir Zelensky, or Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada when the Russian language, education, media and, in general, Russian cultural and religious traditions were being consistently destroyed by legislation. This was done in direct violation of the Constitution of Ukraine and universal conventions on the rights of ethnic minorities. In parallel, the Kiev regime was introducing the theory and practice of Nazism in everyday life and adopting related laws. The Kiev regime shamelessly staged flashy torchlight processions under the banners of SS divisions in the centre of the capital and other cities. The West kept silent and rubbed its hands with satisfaction. These developments fully fit into the US plans to put to use Kiev’s openly racist regime, which Washington had created in the hope of weakening Russia across the board. It was part of the US’s strategic course towards removing its rivals and undermining any scenario that implied the assertion of fair multilateralism in global affairs.

Everyone is aware of it, even though not everyone is talking about it openly: the real issue is not about Ukraine, but rather about the future of international relations. Will they be forged on a sustainable consensus, one based on the balance of interests? Or will they be reduced to an aggressive and explosive advancement of hegemony?

The Ukraine issue cannot be considered outside its geopolitical context. To reiterate, multilateralism implies respect for the UN Charter and all of its interconnected principles. Russia has clearly elaborated the goals of its special military operation, which are to remove threats to its security that have been instigated by NATO for a number of years and right on Russia’s borders, and to protect the people who were stripped of their rights set forth in multilateral conventions. Russia wants to protect them from Kiev’s public and outright threats to annihilate and banish them from the land where their ancestors had lived for centuries. We have been forthright about what and for whom we are fighting.

Amid the US- and EU-fuelled hysteria, I am tempted to ask them in retort: What did Washington and NATO do in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Libya? Were there any threats to their security, culture, religion, or languages? What multilateral regulations were they guided by when they declared Kosovo’s independence in violation of OCSE principles or when they were destroying stable and economically wealthy Iraq and Libya, countries located 10,000 miles away from US coasts?

Western countries’ brazen attempts to bring the Secretariats of the UN and other international organisations under their control are a threat to the multilateral system. The West has always enjoyed a quantitative advantage in terms of personnel, but until recently the Secretariat tried to remain neutral. Today, this imbalance has become chronic while Secretariat employees increasingly allow themselves politically-driven behaviour that is unbecoming of international office holders. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres must ensure that his staff meets impartiality standards in keeping with Article 100 of the UN Charter. We also call on the Secretariat’s senior officials to be guided by the need to help member countries find ways to reach consensus and a balance of interests, rather than playing into the hands of neoliberal concepts. Otherwise, instead of a multilateral agenda, we will see a widening gap between the “golden billion” countries and the Global Majority.

Speaking of multilateralism, we cannot limit ourselves to the international context. By the same token, we cannot ignore the international context when we speak about democracy. There should be no double standards. Multilateralism and democracy should enjoy respect both within the member countries and in their relations with one another. Everyone is aware that while imposing its understanding of democracy on other nations, the West opposes the democratisation of international relations based on respect for the sovereign equality of states. Today, along with its efforts to promote its “rules” in the international arena, the West is also putting a choke hold on multilateralism and democracy at home as it uses increasingly repressive tools to crack down on dissent, much the same way as the criminal Kiev regime is doing with the support of its teachers – the United States and its allies.

Just like in the Cold War years, humanity has approached a once-dangerous, and perhaps an even more dangerous line in the sand. The situation is further aggravated by loss of faith in multilateralism, all the while the financial and economic aggression of the West is destroying the benefits of globalisation and Washington and its allies drop diplomacy and demand that things be sorted out “on the battlefield”. All of this is taking place within the walls of the UN, a body that was created to prevent the horrors of war. The voices of responsible and sensible forces, and calls to show political wisdom and revive the culture of dialogue, are drowned out by those who set out to undermine the fundamental principles of communication between countries. We must all return to our roots and comply with the UN Charter’s purposes and principles in all their diversity and interconnectedness.

At this juncture, genuine multilateralism requires that the UN adapt to objective developments in the process of forming a multipolar architecture of international relations. It is imperative to expedite Security Council reform by expanding the representation of countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The inordinate over-representation of the West in the UN’s main body undermines the principle of multilateralism.

Venezuela spearheaded the creation of the Group of Friends in Defence of the Charter of the United Nations. We call on all countries that respect the Charter to join. It is also important to use the constructive potential provided by BRICS and the SCO. The EAEU, the CIS, and the CSTO are all willing to contribute. We stand for using the potential of the regional associations of the Global South. The G20 can also be instrumental in maintaining multilateralism if its Western participants stop distracting their colleagues from priority items on its agenda in the hope of downplaying their responsibility for the pile-up of crises in the global economy.

It is our common duty to preserve the United Nations as the hard-won epitome of multilateralism and coordination of international politics. The key to success lies in working together, renouncing claims on exceptionalism and – I reiterate – showing respect for the sovereign equality of states. This is what we all signed up for when we ratified the UN Charter.

In 2021, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested convening a summit of the UN Security Council permanent members. The leaders of China and France supported this initiative, but, unfortunately, it has not been brought to fruition. This issue is directly related to multilateralism – not because the five powers have certain privileges over the rest, but precisely because of their special responsibility under the UN Charter to preserve international peace and security. This is exactly what the imperatives of the UN-centric system, which is crumbling before our eyes as a result of the actions of the West, call for.

Concern about this situation can be increasingly heard in multiple initiatives and ideas from the Global South countries, ranging from East and Southeast Asia, the Arab and the Muslim world in its entirety, all the way to Africa and Latin America. We appreciate their sincere desire to ensure the settlement of current problems through honest collective work aimed at agreeing on a balance of interests based on the sovereign equality of states and indivisible security. We will continue to forge productive cooperation with them in the name of improving the international situation, while advancing communication between countries based on the principles of true multilateralism, international law, truth, and justice.

Source: eng.globalaffairs.ru

From March 24 to June 9, 1999, NATO bombed Serbia for 77 days. It was the first major war on European soil since the Second World War—even this fact is suppressed and denied today in view of the war in Ukraine.

War propaganda was in full swing at the time: NATO was laying waste to Serbian cities in order to defend “human rights” and to stop the “ethnic cleansing” Serbia was accused of carrying out in Kosovo. Greens, liberals and pseudo-left groups, who only a few weeks before had been invoking pacifism, eagerly took up this propaganda and switched to the war camp with flying colours. In Germany, the Greens and Social Democrats organised the first military combat mission involving German armed forces since Hitler’s defeat in 1945.

Now, the man whom Joe Biden embraced in 2009 and called the “George Washington of Kosovo” is facing a special court as a war criminal. On Monday, the trial of Hashim Thaçi, the co-founder and spokesman of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) and later Kosovo’s foreign minister, head of government and president, began in The Hague.

The 70-page indictment accuses Thaçi and three other high-ranking KLA members—Kadri Veseli, Rexhep Selimi and Jakup Krasniqi—of being responsible for more than a hundred murders and numerous other war crimes in 1998 and 1999. All four are accused of having personally participated in threatening or abusing prisoners. The prosecution has handed over 56,000 documents to Thaçi’s defence lawyers that prove these accusations.

The indictment describes in detail the brutality with which the KLA acted against Serbs, Roma and other non-Albanians. Kosovo Albanians who opposed their policies and supported Thaçi’s rival Ibrahim Rugova, who advocated a peaceful solution to the conflict with Serbia, were mercilessly persecuted. The KLA ran numerous detention centres where several hundred inmates were held and, according to witnesses, abused with torture, mock executions and death threats.

Victims were beaten with guns, baseball bats, metal tools and wooden sticks and tortured using electric shocks or feigned drowning. Other prisoners and family members had to watch the torture or were forced to abuse one another. Others were shot by the dozens.

The killings continued even after NATO forced Kosovo to secede from Serbia and stationed its 50,000-strong Kosovo Force (KFOR) there. The KLA took revenge on Serbs, Roma and Rugova supporters, dozens of whom were murdered. Thaçi, whose wartime name was “The Snake,” was considered their strong man.

The Thaçi trial is an object lesson in imperialist war propaganda, which stops at no lie to camouflage its predatory and criminal aims. This applies not only to the war in Yugoslavia at the time but also to today’s war in Ukraine.

Here, too, criminals are celebrated as freedom fighters—who, like the members of the Azov Battalion, wear Nazi insignia and for eight years persecuted all those in eastern Ukraine who spoke Russian or had sympathies for Russia. Here, too, politicians—who hang on the apron strings of oligarchs and Western puppet masters, or like Ukraine’s President Zelensky unscrupulously send tens of thousands of young soldiers to their deaths for NATO’s goals—are glorified as democrats and freedom fighters.

The positive and negative signs are simply reversed. For example, for nine years, not a day has gone by without the media proclaiming that Russia’s annexation of Crimea was a violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, which was unacceptable under international law and historically unprecedented. But the immediate objective of the 1999 NATO war was to force Kosovo’s secession, which was indisputably part of Serbian territory under international law. After the war it was placed under international administration, and in 2008, against Serbia’s declared will, it proclaimed its state independence, which was immediately recognised by the US and most European states.

With the secession of Kosovo, a destitute province with 1.8 million inhabitants, the imperialist powers completed the division of Yugoslavia into seven powerless petty states completely dependent upon them. Above all, Serbia, traditionally politically and culturally linked to Russia, was thus to be isolated and weakened.

Hashim Thaçi played a key role in this criminal enterprise. In 1999, Madeleine Albright and Joschka Fischer, the foreign ministers of the US and Germany, invited the KLA spokesman to the Rambouillet Conference, where he provided NATO with the alibi for bombing Yugoslavia.

It was already known at the time that Thaçi’s KLA was carrying out terrorist attacks against Serbian targets and political opponents and financed itself through criminal enterprises, such as trafficking in drugs, women and human organs. The CIA had even classified the KLA as a terrorist organisation before NATO enlisted its services and reclassified it as a “liberation movement.”

After NATO forced the secession of Kosovo, it relied on Thaçi and the KLA to maintain “peace and order” there. After independence, Thaçi became foreign minister, prime minister and finally president of the new country, establishing a corrupt and criminal oligarchic regime.

While many Serb politicians were arrested and hauled before The Hague War Crimes Tribunal, Thaçi and the KLA leaders were under American and European protection. In Kosovo itself, they spread a climate of fear.

“Almost no one dared to testify against KLA veterans,” the Frankfurter Allgemeine described the situation in Kosovo after the Yugoslav war. “And those who did take the risk fared badly: Inexplicable car accidents with fatal outcomes, ‘suicides’ and sniper attacks could be the result.”

The Chief Prosecutor of The Hague Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Carla Del Ponte, also reported intimidation and terror in her memoirs published in 2009: “Witnesses were so fearful and intimidated that they were afraid to even talk about the presence of the KLA in some areas, let alone actual crimes.”

Those who spoke anyway put their lives in danger and had to be taken to other countries with their families, Del Ponte reports. Even members of the KFOR force and some Hague Tribunal judges were afraid of attacks.

The situation only changed when Swiss lawyer Dick Marty presented a comprehensive report on KLA crimes in 2011. Marty did this on behalf of the Council of Europe, to which 47 states belong and which is independent of the European Union.

The EU then appointed its own special investigator. It chose US lawyer John Clint Williamson, who was considered “credible” because he had co-authored the indictment against Serb leader Slobodan Milošević. After more than two years, Williamson concluded that Marty’s accusations were solidly substantiated.

Now the EU felt compelled to set up a special court in The Hague, formally part of Kosovo’s judicial system but staffed by foreign judges and prosecutors and financed by European funds.

The special court investigated for over five years without any charges being brought. Presumably the whole thing would have fizzled out had it not been for conflicts between the US and the EU.

Richard Grenell, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019 as special envoy for negotiations between Serbia and Kosovo, worked closely with President Thaçi, while the EU leaned on his rival, head of government Albin Kurti. When Thaçi was about to leave for a summit meeting with Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić at the White House in Washington in June 2020, the Special Court published the indictment. Thaçi had to cancel the trip and resign.

The fact that the trial finally opened two and a half years after the indictment was published does not at all mean that Thaçi will eventually be convicted. According to the presiding judge, the trial is expected to last several years. The accused are being defended by top US law firms. And several prominent individuals, including the NATO Supreme Commander in the Yugoslav war Wesley Clark and the former French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner, are expected to testify in support of Thaçi.

But even Thaçi’s lawyers do not deny that the crimes described in the indictment took place. They are pursuing a familiar defence strategy from the Nuremberg trials of the Nazi war criminals: The KLA units had indeed committed crimes, but Thaçi, founding member, commander and official spokesman of the KLA, had known nothing about them!

In any case, the trial of Thaçi has already shattered the lies with which the Yugoslav war was justified. The WSWS had already categorically rejected this “clumsy and cynical propaganda campaign,” pointed out the real reasons for the war and campaigned for the building of an antiwar movement of the international working class based on a socialist programme.

An article posted in the WSWS on May 24, 1999 titled “Why is NATO at war with Yugoslavia? World Power, Oil and Gold” [1], stated: “Once the fraudulent claims of the NATO spokesmen and the falsifications of the media are stripped away from this war, what remains? A naked aggression by imperialist countries against a small federation, in which the official reasons given for the onslaught serve as a smokescreen.”

The article linked the Yugoslav war to US plans to dominate the Eurasian landmass and warned: “The potential for a conflict with Russia, it should now be clear, has actually increased over the past ten years.” This warning has since been dramatically borne out.

——-

[1] David North, A Quarter Century of War: The US Drive for Global Hegemony 1990-2016, Oak Park, MI: Mehring Books, 2016, p. 123

Source: defenddemocracy.press

Živadin Jovanović,
Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Speech at the Round Table “NATO Aggression – 24 years on”,
held on March 23, 2023, held in the House of the Serbian Armed Forces

Ladies and Gentlemen,

There has been almost a quarter of a century since NATO aggression on Serbia and Montenegro (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia). During the aggression, some 4,000 of our fellow citizens were killed and twice as many injured. Three quarters of casualties were civilians, among them sadly a large number of children, from Milica Rakić, a toddler from Batajnica, to Sanja Milenković Serbia’s high school champion in mathematics from Varvarin. It will hardly ever be precisely determined how many more victims succumbed to delayed effects of weapons filled with depleted uranium, toxic chemical agents, or unexploded cluster bombs. It is for all of them why we have gathered as we are getting together, today it is here, as is each and every year throughout the country, across Europe and other continents, wherever there is one of us. We pay tribute and dedicate our thoughts and prayers to them, all the fallen heroes of our defense, all the innocent victims.

Serbia has not recovered yet from the pain and injustice, either spiritually or materially. In the very heart of Belgrade, we are still passing by the destroyed buildings whose gaping ruins make a lasting reminder of the deeds of our partners. As we praise donations they make, we still refrain from filing the announced but forgotten claims for war damages. It is hard to estimate to which extent this reflects our desire to be constructive, realistic, and respected. It might be a good idea to have the ruined structures of the Military General Staff and the Police declared and protected as monuments of culture, not merely because this would require less funds, but rather because it would make more sense that either their reconstruction or erection of brand-new edifices.

It was a crime against peace and humanity, against a country which posed no threat to anyone, the least of all to NATO or its members. Today, we are warning, not just repeating the truth, when we say that NATO aggression was carried out in violation of the fundamental principles of international affairs, the UN Charter, the OSCE Helsinki Final Act, and the Paris Charter; when we say that, five and a half decades since the end of World War Two, NATO reintroduced the war on European soil; that bombs and cruise missiles killed citizens of Serbia but were nonetheless intended for others as well; that, while raining down, they also dismantled the European and global architecture of security and cooperation; that, in its essence, it was a war against Europe waged by Europe itself; that it served as a case precedent for the ensuing wars of conquest and coups within the proclaimed strategy of Eastward expansion and a deceptive democratization; that NATO, by virtue of its aggression against Serbia and Montenegro (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) marked its 50th anniversary by transitioning from a defensive and a regional into an invading alliance with global hegemonistic goals.
What prompts us to reiterate the above now, 24 years on, has in the least to do with habits, rituals or being stuck in the past, since we do it exclusively for the sake of the present and the future. For the sake of peace, security and progress as equal and unalienable values shared by all peoples and countries.

We also do this because the recent messages and views from Brussels, Ohrid, Washington and some other destinations warn us that the aggression against Serbia continues, albeit with other means but nonetheless with the same goal: to disenfranchise and humiliate the entire Serbian people in the Balkans and make them permanently shift away from their traditional friends and their support, and to renounce their statehood rights to the Province of Kosovo and Metohija. The past 24 years and the contemporary developments reconfirm, time and again, that the true goal of the aggression was to carve Kosovo and Metohija out from Serbia, together with overthrowing President Slobodan Milošević and, ultimately, transforming the Balkans into a springboard for warpath against the East.

Having in mind all past experiences and trends that brought about profound changes in global relations, I am convinced that the best path forward for Serbia is to reaffirm an independent, neutral and well-balanced foreign policy, to preserve and strengthen relations with traditional friends and allies, and to remain open for equal-footed relations and cooperation with all countries and integrations that endorse Serbia as an equal partner. Any just and durable solution for the province of Kosovo and Metohija is only possible with the consistent observance of the Constitution of Serbia, the fundamental principles of international law, and UN Security Council Resolution 1244 in its capacity of a permanent and irrevocable legal duty. This is the only solution capable of serving the interests of lasting peace, security, and cooperation. Any other status imposed by force, threats and/or extortion, regardless of the form it assumes, cannot transform into a right or compromise, nor can it evolve into contribution to peace. Quite the contrary.

If I may suggest that we send three pleas from this gathering:
First, to resume the work of the Parliamentary Committee for Establishing Consequences of the Use of Weapons Filled with Depleted Uranium during NATO Aggression, and then related Governmental Interdepartmental Body;
Second, that the work on compiling the list of all civilian victims of the aggression is completed before next March’s 25th anniversary of NATO aggression;
And third, to analyze how has NATO aggression been portrayed and processed in relevant teaching units in textbooks at all levels of education, so to ensure the preservation of truth.
I assume there is no need to further elaborate these suggestion.

Thank you!

Open whole document here: eirdailyalertv10n8720230329wed.pdf

Zhivadin Yovanovitch noted that the agreement between Moscow and Minsk followed the announcement of the UK about plans to supply depleted uranium shells to Kyiv

BELGRADE, March 26. /TASS/. The deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus can be seen as a response to the actions of countries of the collective West, ex-Foreign Minister of former Yugoslavia Zivadin Jovanovic told TASS on Sunday.

"I think that the agreement on the deployment of Russian tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus is a very serious response and a warning to the so-called collective West (the United States, NATO, the European Union). It is a response to the escalation and the direct influence by NATO countries into the conflict in Ukraine, to the reckless actions to add fuel to the fire by means of advanced weapons, intermediate-range missiles, tanks, warplanes and other offensive weapons for targeting Russia’s territory. The agreement between Russia and Belarus followed the statement that the United Kingdom and some other NATO countries plan to supply Kiev with shells with depleted uranium, which can be interpreted as the beginning of the use of nuclear weapons against Russian troops and Russia. NATO’s propaganda is seeking to underplay the danger of such weapons, which, as a matter of fact, are weapons of mass destruction," he said.

He stressed that the use of such shells in 1995 and 1999 had caused the growth of cancer incidence in former Yugoslavia. "Or better, let them ask the families of hundreds of Italian, Spanish and other soldiers who died after returning from the KFOR (NATO-led international security force in Kosovo) mission how "healthy" it is to spend time in places where shells with depleted uranium were used. Finally, if these shells are harmless, as they claim, then why their use has been banned in NATO (EU) member countries?!" Jovanovic noted.

According to the former top Yugoslav diplomat, the collective West has deployed large bases with nuclear weapons in many European countries, namely Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, Turkey, Greece, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Poland and Romania have construed so called missile defense shields capable of launching nuclear warheads. Moreover, some countries, which don’t have nuclear weapons so far, allocate huge sums to buy advanced US bombers capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Why spending huge amounts of money if not because of plans to possess nuclear warheads!"For instance, in addition to its regular [military] budget, Germany has allocated an extra sum of 100 billion euro to purchase American F-16A bombers. Last but not least, the doctrine of the preemptive use of nuclear weapons is related to the collective West," he stressed.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday that at Belarus’ request Russia will deploy its tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, like the United States has long been doing on the territories of its allied countries. Moscow has already transferred to Minsk an Iskander system that can use nuclear weapons. According to the Russian leader, the construction of a depot for tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus is expected to be completed on July 1.

26 March, 2023.

Source: tass.com

More than a decade and a half after the US-led NATO’s war of aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (SRJ) in violation of international law using highly toxic and radioactive uranium shells, the enormity of this war crime is becoming clear.

In Serbia, aggressive cancer among young and old has reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The suffering of the people cries out to heaven. The south of Serbia and Kosovo are particularly affected. According to the Serbian Ministry of Health, a child falls ill with cancer every day. The entire country is contaminated. Due to the damage to the genetic material (DNA), generations upon generations of deformed children will be born. Knowingly and willingly, genocide has been committed.

Until recently, the politicians, with the help of the media, withheld the truth from the unsettled citizens of Serbia under pressure from the perpetrators of the genocide. Courageous and responsible doctors, ex-military, ex-politicians and scientists have now succeeded in breaking through this wall of silence – for the benefit of the Serbian people and the many other peoples of this world who share their fate.
Uranium weapons are weapons of mass destruction

When the USA used the defoliant “Agent Orange” and napalm in Vietnam, the world was horrified. That was no longer war, that was butchery of the civilian population and lasting destruction of nature. Fifty years later, generation after generation is born severely disabled – born to die. But the weapons industry, including the nuclear weapons industry, has rapidly developed its business since Vietnam. All wars are illegal wars of aggression according to the legal standards of the Nuremberg Tribunal, and they are becoming ever more murderous, insidious, widespread, genocidal. This was also the case with the first war of the US-led NATO on European soil against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999.

Here, with the tacit acquiescence of NATO allies – including Germany – the US army used weapons of mass destruction that it had already tested in the 2nd Gulf War in 1991 and in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1994/95: highly toxic and radioactive uranium weapons. NATO itself has admitted that it has fired 30,000 shells with depleted uranium (DU), the Serbian military speaks of 50,000 shells. This is equivalent to 10 to 15 tonnes of uranium.

Since extensive scientific literature and film material (“Deadly Dust”) on this war crime are already available in German, English and Serbian, here are just a few comments:

Because of the long degradation process of radioactivity and its toxicity, waste from the uranium and nuclear industry – mainly DU of the isotope 238 – is stored in secured dumps for a very long period of time. To reduce the high costs associated with this, DU is therefore readily given away free of charge to interested parties such as the military. DU has characteristics that are particularly attractive to the defence industry.

According to Professor Siegwart-Horst Günther, DU projectiles developed according to a German technology have a high penetrating power due to the high density of metallic uranium (1.7 times greater than that of lead) and are especially suitable for breaking steel armour and underground concrete bunkers. DU is also a combustible material that self-ignites when it penetrates armour plate, burning at 3,000 degrees Celsius to form uranium oxide dust and releasing highly toxic and radioactive material (uranium oxide).
Twenty-three Years Ago: Aftermath of the US-NATO War on Yugoslavia. The Unspoken Impacts of Radioactive Depleted Uranium Ammunition

This uranium oxide aerosol with particle sizes in the nanoscale enters the human body via the air we breathe, the water and, in the long term, also via the food chain.

In the lungs, the DU dust particles are also attached to the red and white blood cells and thus enter all organs of the body, including the brain, kidneys and testicles, causing cancer in many organs and irreversible damage to the genetic material (DNA). The strong carcinogenicity of DU is due to the fact that chemotoxicity and radiotoxicity act synergistically.

DU can also reach an unborn child via the placenta and cause severe damage. Possible long-term damage includes genetic defects in infants, childhood leukaemia, cancer and kidney damage. Since the uranium oxide particles have taken on the property of ceramics due to the heat of combustion, they are insoluble in water, are fixed in this form in the body and can develop their radioactive effect (alpha radiation) for years.
War with uranium weapons is genocide brought about knowingly and willingly

For biochemist Albrecht Schott, DU is an example of interventions in creation that endanger it existentially, and thus not a weapon against states, but a weapon against the planet. The well-known German journalist and filmmaker Frieder Wagner calls uranium weapons “weapons of extermination” and the victims of these murderous weapons the “dead of silent death”. Uranium weapons are the “perfect weapon” to kill masses of people, that is, to commit genocide.

Since the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948, genocide has been a criminal offence under international criminal law that is not subject to a statute of limitations. It is characterised by the specific intention to destroy, directly or indirectly, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, in whole or in part. This is why genocide is also called a “unique crime”, a “crime of crimes” or the “worst crime in international criminal law”.

The Australian doctor, nuclear weapons specialist and peace activist Helen Caldicott writes in her book “Nuclear Danger USA”:

“It is clear that the Pentagon knew about the health risks posed by uranium-containing munitions long before Operation Desert Storm [2nd Gulf War 1991; the author]. Numerous military reports acknowledge that uranium-238 can cause kidney damage, lung and bone cancer, (non-malignant) lung disease, skin disease, neurocognitive disorders, chromosomal damage and birth defects.”

For this reason, wars involving the use of highly toxic and radioactive uranium weapons are both war crimes and knowingly and willingly committed genocide – including the war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999. Under the UN Convention against Genocide, the Parties to the Convention undertake to punish genocide or persons committing genocide, whether they are governments, public officials or private individuals.
Aggressive cancers in Serbia reach epidemic proportions

The bombing of Serbia lasted 78 days. In the process, 1,031 soldiers were killed, 5,173 soldiers and police officers were wounded, 2,500 civilians died – including 78 children – and over 6,000 civilians were wounded. In addition to the projectiles with DU, which also contained traces of highly toxic plutonium, other explosive combinations and rocket fuels with certain chemical compounds were used, which have a very toxic effect when exploded and cause cancer. The number of these cancers grew year by year. Also, the number of newborns with deformities and those with aggressive childhood leukaemia increased.

More than a year ago, estimates by the Serbian Association for Cancer Control became known: Studies had shown that the use of uranium weapons had led to 15,000 cases of cancer and 10,000 deaths between 2001 and 2010, according to the head of the association and oncologist Prof. Slobodan Cikaric, MD. In total, there were 330,000 cancer cases in Serbia during this period. The death rate has increased by 2.5 per cent annually since 1999.

Back in 2013, Professor Cikaric said in the Serbian newspaper Blic that 14 years after the DU bombing, Serbia was expecting an explosion of cancers of all kinds. He was to be proved right. What is reported are breakdowns of the immune system with increasing cases of infectious diseases, severe functional disorders of the kidneys and liver, aggressive leukaemias and other cancers (including multiple cancers), disorders of the bone marrow, genetic defects and malformations, as well as miscarriages and premature births in pregnant women as after the Chernobyl disaster.

If you read a Serbian newspaper today or walk through a Serbian cemetery, you will notice the short lifespan of many of the deceased in the page-long obituaries or epitaphs. In each case it should read: “Died as a result of DU poisoning and radiation”.

Many citizens of Serbia are psychologically burdened because of their years of pity for sick relatives and because of the anxious waiting if and when they too might be caught up by one of the terrible and mostly fatal diseases. Even if most of them suspect the cause of the serious illnesses, there is still a great deal of uncertainty that triggers persistent feelings of stress.

Politicians in Serbia as well as in the other DU-contaminated countries in the Near and Middle East and in the NATO countries themselves have deliberately not informed the population. Among other things, they wanted to avoid recourse claims and continue their murderous trade undisturbed. Stress, anxiety and depression additionally weaken the already burdened immune system and lead to a higher susceptibility to infections. This is shown by research results from the interdisciplinary field of psycho-neuro-immunology (PNI).
The people have the right to the truth

In order to be able to organise one’s own life and that of one’s family satisfactorily, to make provisions for the future or, as a married couple, to decide whether or not to have children, every citizen must be able to realistically assess the economic, social and political conditions in his or her country. But they cannot do this if they are deprived of the truth about incidents that can severely affect their lives. Therefore, it is a moral obligation of all those who have dealt with the problem of contamination in the country – doctors, scientists, journalists, military personnel and civilians affected by contamination – to educate and assist their fellow citizens.

In addition, the identity of a nation is based on the citizens’ right to truth and knowledge of their history. Historians and representatives of other sciences have an important contribution to make. However, the debate must not be left to them alone. The search for truth and the enlightenment of the people is also a political task that must be solved by political leaders and must not be prevented by them under any circumstances. Government and parliament have to take a stand. How can citizens trust a government or people’s representation that withholds the truth from them about a problem that affects them existentially?

Note to readers:

Dr. Rudolf Lothar Hänsel is a school rector, educational scientist and graduate psychologist. After his university studies, he became an academic teacher in adult education. As a retiree he worked as a psychotherapist in his own practice. In his books and professional articles, he calls for a conscious ethical-moral education in values as well as an education for public spirit and peace. In 2021, he was awarded the Republic Prize “Captain Misa Anastasijevic” by the Universities of Belgrade and Novi Sad for services to Serbia.

Source: globalresearch.ca

This March 24rth, the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, Generals and Admirals Association of Serbia, Veterans Association SUBNOR of Serbia and some other independent associations and think tanks, will mark 24rth anniversary of the NATO aggression on Serbia and Montenegro (FR of Yugoslavia) honoring fallen heroes of the defense of the country as well as all the victims of this illegal and criminal act.

As it is widely recognized, this aggression was undertaken in violation of the basic principles of International Law, including violation of the UN Charter and without authorization of the UN Security Council. Having regard that Yugoslavia was not a threat to any NATO member country, the NATO leadership thus violated even its own founding act while NATO member countries violated their own constitutions insofar that they acted without authorization of their respective parliaments.

At the NATO high level conference held 28-30 of April 2000. in Bratislava USA representatives have confirmed explicitly to the allies and then candidate allies, three important the motives for the "war against Yugoslavia": first, to take away Kosovo (and Metohija) from Serbia and make it separate, independent state; second, to turn it into the Balkans carrier of US troupes; and, third, to make precedent for military interventions all around the world without seeking UN SC mandate.

While it was falsely presented by natiozied mass media as "humanitarian intervention", in fact it was the war of NATO/US geo-political expansion towards East, towards Russian borders, also setting the precedent for other aggressions which followed - Avganistan, Irak, Libya, Syria... Immediate establishment of the major US military base "Bondstil", near Urosevac, Kosovo and Metohija, was only the first in a long chain of the new US military bases in the central and Eastern Europe - Bulgaria (3), Rumania (3), Poland...

Thus NATO did not only bring the first war on European soil but at the same time gave extraordinary impetus to the process of intensive militarization of the Old Continent. All member countries were obliged to meet 2% of their GDP military spending, to adapt civilian infrastructure to the new military requirements, to limit sale of major companies to only EU and NATO prospective investors ("for security reasons"), not to import new technologies from "unreliable suppliers" (5G), not to buy gas and oil from from those who use them "to undermine security of Europe".

Messiles, including those with depleted uranium bombs, including cluster bombs, had definitely been falling on Serbia and Montenegro, killing their citizens and destroying their economy. Sebia still is recovering from immense economic and social losses. Belgrade and other major cities, even in the very central parts, still continue to live with ruins and debris  of government and other buildings bombed by NATO. But at the same time NATO 1999 aggression on Serbia and Montenegro (FRY) had destroyed the whole security and cooperation architecture of Europe and the world, annulling Teheran, Jalta, Potsdam, Helsinki and other agreements and pillars of the post Second World War Order, thus ushering disorder, insecurity, even, chaos.

NATO aggression ended by the UN SC resolution 1244 (1999) guaranteeing sovereignty and territorial integrity of FRY (Serbia) and large autonomy for the Province of Kosovo and Metohija within Serbia. The aggression, however, has continued ever since by other means. The objective to take out the Autonomous Province from Serbia, got a new framework.While the Province has been under UN mandate and KFOR mostly composed of NATO troops empowered to guarantee equal security for all, about 250.000 Serbs and other non-Albanians have been  purged, their homes burnt, lands usurped. In 2008, former KLA terrorist leadership, proclaimed unilateral secession. NATO&EU countries, with exception of Spain, Romania, Slovakia, Greece and Cyprus, were among first to recognize secession fully aware that it was contrary to the international law, UN SC 1244 resolution, and Serbia`s Constitution.

Lately, Serbia is under unprecedented pressure from the USA/NATO/EU not to oppose Kosovo`s membership in the international organizations, including UN, to establish good neighboring relations based on equality, mutual respect of sovereignty and territorial integrity, to mutually recognize state and national symbols, establish quasi diplomatic relations. Under the guise of "normalization of relations" the West, led by the USA, seeks  in fact to oblige Serbia to de facto recognize a new state of Kosovo resulting from the NATO 1999 aggression. Promises of membership to the EU, investments and donations are being exploited to lure Serbia to recognize secession of the part of own state territory, thus renouncing of all the rights based on the international law, UN Charter, UN SC guaranties as well as on own Constitution. All these demands are contained in the so called "Agreement on the path of normalization of relations between Kosovo and Serbia" presented to Serbia on February 27th, 2023 and confirmed on March 18, 2023, in Ohrid, Northern Macedonia, in the form of an, more or less, open ultimatum. Interestingly, this ultimatum, accompanied with the threats of economic, financial and other measures and restrictions in the case of non compliance, will be confirmed by European Council on March 24rth, 2023, the date when exactly 24 years ago NATO started bombing Belgrade, Pristine and other cities all over Serbia.

What are real reasons for all these? To make Kosovo eligible to join NATO and even unite with Albania; to establish complete NATO-ionization of the Balkans, encompassing Serbia and Bosnia and Herzegovina; to push away Russian and Chinese presence from the Balkans; to remove objection of five EU member states (four NATO) to the recognition of unilateral secession of Kosovo, thus reestablishing unity within alliances.

The NATO aggression on Serbia and Montenegro (FRY) in 1999, was the turning point of the Alliance from defensive to aggressive, of Europe partially autonomous to complete submission to the USA in pursuit of globalization of the interventionism and global confrontation with Russia and China. Although, it did appear the peak of unipollar arrogance and USA/NATO hegemony, it was wake up call to everybody who believe in new democratic world order

Zivadin Jovanovic,
Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals,
March 19th, 2023

Delegation of the Chinese Association for International Understanding (CAFIU) paid visit to the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals. The hosts and the guests exchanged opinions on mutual cooperation, also including the positions on the ongoing happenings in Euro-Asia. It was assessed that the countries of growing economic and political power are making decisive contributions to the development of a new and just world order, one that is based on sovereign equality, non-interference in internal affairs, and democratization. it was further concluded that the vast majority of countries in the world embrace the multipolar world.

A joint evaluation was made that associations, scientific and cultural organizations have a vital role in promoting the understanding and the equal and mutually beneficial cooperation between Serbia and China as comprehensively strategic partners.

Representative of the Belgrade Forum underlined that the Global Security Initiative of Xi Jinping, the President of the People's Republic of China and the 12-point plan for peaceful resolution of the conflict in Ukraine, are examples of the positive, constructive, and responsible role of China at the times of escalating tensions, divisions, and overall danger of uncontrolled developments.

It was affirmed that peace and security are indivisible, and that success in identifying a peaceful solution to any conflict or problem primarily depends on the accurate determination of the root causes and their removal.

Participants expressed mutual interest in expanding and further improving the existing good cooperation.

THE BELGRADE FORUM INFORMATION SERVICE

Dear Mr. Lajcak,

May we advise you not to overload EU boat with seventeen new models for the community of Serbian districts in Kosovo and Metohija . Let as stay with the single model defined  duly sight by the so-called parties and EU in 2013, and elaborated in details in 2015.

And also, let us not be mistaken any community of Serbian districts in Kosovo and Methija, has to be in the framework of UN Resolution 1244, guaranteeing  sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia.

Please stay consistent and predictable, truly yours,

Živadin Jovanović
President of Belgrade forum for a world of equals

The West isn't looking to stop the Ukraine crisis but to protract it to the benefit of its own interest and hegemony, a former Serbian senior diplomat has said.

Source: english.news.cn

In its response to the EU/US pressuring Serbia to accelerate, step-by-step, her recognition of unilateral and illegal secession of Kosovo and Metohija, the Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals hereby recalls the following:
Priština’s unilateral secession is the outcome of NATO aggression carried out 24 years ago. The purpose of this armed aggression was to assert dominance in the Balkans, as a part of NATO’s strategy of expanding eastwards and setting the grounds for confrontation with Russia. The goal of the extended aggression, articulated as the ultimatum for Serbia to recognize Kosovo, remains the same – to formalize the wresting the Province out of Serbia by force, to pit Serbia against both Russia and China, and to get ready for the global face-off.

The armed part of the aggression ended with negotiations, and negotiations ended with the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 that, inter alia, guarantees the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia (the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) whereas for the Province of Kosovo and Metohija is foreseen substantial autonomy within Serbia (the FRY).

UN SC Resolution 1244 is a document of the highest legal authority and force within the existing global legal order, one that binds each of 193 members of the United Nations, without exceptions and without any time constraints. This legal act is still in force and no other than the UN Security Council is entitled to cancel or alter it, nor violate it by imposing any kind of a different solution. Serbia’s vital interest is that this Resolution be duly observed and fully implemented.

From its opening recital to its closing Article 11, the “EU Proposal-Agreement on the path to normalisation between Kosovo and Serbia” published on the European Union website on February 27, 2023, is but a gross violation of UN SC Resolution 1244, the principles of international law, and the Constitution of Serbia. EU’s endeavors vis-à-vis Serbia, as an old European country and a member of the United Nations and other international organizations, employing threats and extortion to compel Serbia to concede to becoming an equal in terms of rights and obligations with her own Autonomous Province, now entrusted to an interim UN mandate, makes a one-of-a-kind episode in recent history that embodies arrogant and arbitrary behaving, violation of sovereignty and territorial integrity, abuse of a UN General Assembly mandate, and setting of a precedent with a hard-to-predict consequences for peace and security in the Balkans and in Europe.
Serbia is requested to reduce own constitutionally established and internationally recognized state territory with which she became member to the United Nations, OSCE, and all other international organizations, by ceding it to a criminally superimposed creation (Articles 2 and 4).

The ‘Proposal-Agreement’ is teeming with contradictory provisions and formal symmetries, each detrimental to Serbia’s vital interests. The authors made sure to leave room for ‘Parties’ to sell victory to their respective public, each in its own way. If the ‘Proposal-Agreement’ were accepted, it is beyond any doubt that disputes would be decided by the EU/US, just as is clear that their ruling, as always before, would be to Serbia’s detriment.

The official narrative is that ‘Proposal-Agreement’ was not signed, without stating whether it was verbally endorsed or not; differing information and interpretations swirling around only cause confusion among the public. In given backdrop, the consent of all participants to negotiate the implementation of this ‘Proposal-Agreement’— one that has not been signed or confirmed as endorsed, that has not been published in any institution or official medium in Serbia — is nothing short of amazing. Such an attitude is incompatible with the fateful significance of the matter at hand.

Serbia and the Serbian people are faced with EU/US attempt of a historic hoax. The solution is not in acceptance of this hoax while citing the preserving of peace and prospects for progress and a better life as an excuse. Any solution that is inherently unjust and imposed under threats and fraud and that serves the global confrontation, can be anything except a contributing factor to peace, development, and a better life. We must diverge from any plans or forecasts still based on theses invoking ‘end of history’ and any inducements to permanently renounce our enduring life interests for the sake of small shiny offers and benefits.

The EU has shown its true colors also back in 2013, by compelling Serbia to withdraw state institutions in the north of the Province, the police and judiciary including, for the promise of an established Community of Serbian Municipalities (the CSM). We all know what followed there, and in particular the outcome of NATO’s broken promise not to allow deployment of anyone’s long-barreled arms to the north: not only did we get long-barreled guns but also erected military camps, land grab, and full militarization in the north! Ten years on, the EU/US once again offer promises of the CSM, only this time as a package – “both implementation of the ‘EU Proposal-Agreement’ and a CSM compliant with the Constitution of the so-called Kosovo”. Suffice to say of respecting the document signed. And we may as well have a déjà vu – implementation of the ‘EU Proposal-Agreement’ only! But – we are soothed – there will be guarantees! Whose?! Of those same ones who have previously been granting but never honoring them?!

The promises of investments and donations should Serbia renounced her state rights to a part of her state territory, at the expense of her dignity and identity, is an example of aggressiveness exerted by the revived neo-colonial and neo-racist mentality and utter hypocrisy, which we have mistakenly believed had been long ago consigned to history.
The time we live in is of historical significance. It requires Serbia to be inspired and invigorated by her greatest feats in the most grueling historical turning points, to get back to self-respecting, and to generally endorsed principles, the Constitution and UN SC Resolution 1244 as the only reliable supports. To not put up with the deviously planted mentality of subservience, dependance and powerlessness. To respect to a greater degree her own human, scientific, cultural, spiritual, economic, geopolitical, and natural potentials. And to not negotiate the issues that restrict her sovereignty and territorial integrity in the same package with the foreign-granted benefits, and especially not for fear of losing someone’s mercy. Whatever the volume of such benefits, it will never come close to the amount of damage sustained by the criminal ‘Merciful Angel’.

In our relationship with the EU, as well, we should be guided by the principle that Serbia needs others as much as they need Serbia, instead of being guided by ‘realism’ into accepting of our own free will to succumb the inferiority complex. It is high time we took more into account and in a more responsible way, all that Serbia and the Serbian people have experienced and survived throughout history and who from, while keeping in mind that neocolonial appetites are insatiable.
In our relations with the EU and the West in general we must embed, once and forever, the feeling of what Serbia gave to Europe while sacrificing millions of human lives, whom no one has yet acknowledged and for whom no one has yet apologized. If they belittle us, if they blackmail us, this is because we belittle ourselves.

We must not rely on promises and guarantees offered by those who most often betrayed us.

BELGRADE FORUM FOR THE WORLD OF EQUALS
Belgrade, March 7, 2023

L'UE afferma di essere neutrale circa il Kosovo, per quanto riguarda il suo status.
O perlomeno  l'UE non ha dichiarato di separarsi dalla situazione di neutralità del suo status. Nel settembre 2019, l'Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite ha accolto con favore "la disponibilità dell'Unione europea a facilitare un processo di dialogo tra le parti", sulla base della dichiarata neutralità dello status dell'UE.

L'ultima"proposta" di Scholz-Macron non è che un ultimatum, che richiede alla Serbia di riconoscere l'indipendenza unilaterale illegale del cosiddetto Kosovo, accompagnata da un elenco di minacce di ciò che accadrà alla Serbia se non si conformerà. Inoltre, in questo ultimatum è dichiarato che è la posizione dell'intera UE. La sua vera natura non è mutata dall'essere presentato al popolo serbo come "un nuovo quadro negoziale dell'UE sostenuto dagli Stati Uniti". Un ultimatum resta un ultimatum, qualunque sia l'involucro.

Dobbiamo dire la verità: in primo luogo, che l'UE ha drasticamente abbandonato la sua neutralità di status e, in secondo luogo, che l'ultimo documento ( da chiunque sia stato scritto, seguito o sostenuto) è la prova che l'Unione europea esce tacitamente oltre il mandato assegnatogli dall'Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite. Non ho alcun dubbio sul fatto che questa questione sia della massima importanza per la Serbia e che sia un'impresa da pazzi cercare di comportarsi come se si trattasse di incombenze usuali. Perché, se di fronte allo scenario in cui la decisione, giuridicamente vincolante, del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite non viene rispettata e gli orientamenti politici dell'Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite sul mandato dell'UE di "facilitare il dialogo tra le parti" vengono ignorati, abbiamo la responsabilità e il dovere di dire ad alta voce che questo non è normale, non è vantaggioso per la fiducia reciproca e non è accettabile per la Serbia.

Anzi, non dovrebbe essere normale o accettabile per qualsiasi stato membro in buona fede delle Nazioni Unite. Se siamo d'accordo che gli eventi in corso riguardano gli interessi vitali e strategici della Serbia, se siamo fiduciosi che le nostre posizioni e punti di vista sono giusti, basati sui principi e ben fondati, cosa di cui siamo certi, e se una delle parti si irrita per questo, ci rammarichiamo, ma ciò nonostante dobbiamo mantenere la nostra posizione e non ritirarci. Non dobbiamo lasciarci trasportare dall'attuale stato di avanzamento del confronto o lasciarci influenzare da interessi a breve termine. Dobbiamo discernere le tendenze strategiche e articolare le nostre posizioni sulla base delle nostre esperienze, lezioni insegnateci dalla storia e le tendenze generali valutate con tutti gli aspetti fondamentali, invece che da ogni singola angolazione. Temo che, come paese e nazione, siamo stati continuamente esposti a un'influenza eccessiva della propaganda, delle opinioni e degli interessi unilaterali dell'Occidente. Questo non può essere un bene per noi, nemmeno se nasce da buone intenzioni; quando diviene un precursore della strategia dell'egemonia e del dominio, può diventare chiaramente disastroso. L'unica vera chiave per la pace, la sicurezza e una vita migliore per tutte le nazioni dei Balcani, compresi i popoli serbo e albanese, risiede nell'osservanza dei principi fondamentali del Diritto internazionale, della Carta delle Nazioni Unite e dell'attuazione coerente della risoluzione del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite 1244. Niente di tutto ciò si trova nel cosiddetto piano Scholz-Macron, presentato al pubblico come una sorta di "nuovo quadro negoziale dell'UE, sostenuto dagli USA" o come "accordo di base" tra la Serbia e il cosiddetto Kosovo . Il piano Scholz-Macron non è un quadro per i negoziati o per qualsiasi soluzione giusta o sostenibile. Questo è un piano per schiacciare la Serbia. Se possibile, con il consenso della Serbia. Se il piano Scholz-Macron è la chiave di tutto, nel contempo non è la chiave per la pace, la stabilità e il progresso di qualsiasi regione, nazione o Europa nel suo insieme. È il piano per il dominio totale della NATO guidata dagli USA sul popolo serbo e sui Balcani, e per impostare i Balcani come palcoscenico strategico nella guerra globale contro Russia e Cina. È la base del titano che continua a schiacciare la Serbia e l'intera nazione serba nei Balcani. Se il loro piano avesse avuto qualche buona intenzione, si sarebbero sforzati di fare almeno riferimento alle garanzie del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'ONU nei confronti della Serbia, date dai loro predecessori il 10 giugno 1999. Se fossero stati di principio, se davvero volevano rispettare principi e diritto internazionale, se hanno perseguito una politica possibile come si aspettano che facciano gli altri, perché dovrebbero tenersi alla larga dalle Nazioni Unite e dalle decisioni prese dal Consiglio di Sicurezza? Dal momento che non lo erano, e non l'hanno fatto, la Serbia dovrebbe rimanere fedele a se stessa, al suo popolo, ai suoi antenati, al suo patrimonio storico e alle conquiste durature appartenenti alla civiltà mondiale. Perché avevano bisogno della Meloni? Per aiutare Macron ad annacquare il suo ruolo poco onorevole nel "duetto" con Scholz? O per rafforzare congiuntamente la dimensione europea del "Piano"? O forse aiutare Roma, come vicina, a rivendicare un pezzo di merito per la concretizzazione connivente della Grande Albania? A parte gli Stati Uniti come mente, al trio manca ancora Rishi Sunak ( il neo premier inglese, ndt)per riprendere il ruolo di Neville Chamberlain, così da fare una replica di "salvare la pace" nel 1938 a Berchtesgaden almeno come convincimento che la prima copia fu 85 anni fa. In base all'"Accordo di Bruxelles" del 2013, la Serbia ha ritirato il proprio ordinamento giuridico e costituzionale e le proprie istituzioni nel nord della provincia del Kosovo. A sua volta, seppur solo sulla carta, la Serbia ha assicurato alla Comunità dei comuni serbi (CCS) poteri esecutivi. Ora, dopo dieci anni passati a 'tendere la corda' fino a spezzarla, sembra che gli avversari della Serbia, la leadership serba giura che questa corda è 'l'unica alternativa', siano decisi a costringere la Serbia a pagare ancora una volta un prezzo per l'istituzione della CCS,  e cioè una CCS vuota, assoggettata alla cosiddetta Costituzione del Kosovo. Per questo magro guadagno, la Serbia dovrebbe accettare che il piano/accordo Scholz-Macron sia una buona base per la ripresa dei negoziati che porteranno alla conclusione di un "accordo completo e giuridicamente vincolante sulla normalizzazione". Quindi, USA, UE, NATO e Priština proclameranno e spiegheranno che "normalizzazione" significa riconoscimento reciproco, creazione di "relazioni di buon vicinato", rispetto della reciprocità, della sovranità e dell'integrità territoriale delle "parti" e della cosiddetta piena adesione del Kosovo nelle organizzazioni internazionali, comprese le Nazioni Unite e simili. Se la Serbia accetta ciò che è stato escogitato da coloro che le preparano sempre la stessa trappola, potrebbe anche articolare il suo consenso in modo diverso, ma questo di per sé non modificherebbe molto lo svolgersi degli eventi a scapito della Serbia.

È molto rischioso affidarsi alle garanzie date da chi ha già dimostrato di non aver mai mantenuto la parola data, invece di insistere sulle garanzie esistenti date dal Consiglio di sicurezza dell'ONU e da chi ha visioni del mondo diverse e sostiene la sovranità e l'integrità territoriale di Serbia. Questi ultimi comprendono quasi i 2/3 del mondo, la cui rilevanza nelle relazioni globali sta aumentando, anziché diminuire. Le pressioni e la gravità della situazione in cui si trova la Serbia non sono e non possono servire da giustificazione per allontanarsi dai diritti, dai principi e dalle garanzie esistenti. Al contrario.

*Ministro degli Esteri della Yugoslavia dal 1998 al 2000 e attuale presidente del Forum Belgrado per un Mondo di Eguali

Traduzione a cura di Enrico Vigna Forum Belgrado Italia

В "Белградском форуме за мир равноправных" подчеркнули, что опубликованное Евросоюзом 27 февраля "Соглашение о пути к нормализации отношений Косова и Сербии" представляет собой грубое нарушение резолюции Совбеза ООН

БЕЛГРАД, 7 марта. /ТАСС/. Одностороннее решение непризнанного Косова об отделении обусловлено желанием Североатлантического альянса господствовать в регионе и подготовиться к конфронтации с Россией. Об этом во вторник сообщили ТАСС в организации влиятельных сербских дипломатов, политологов, военных и медиков "Белградский форум за мир равноправных".

"Одностороннее отделение Приштины стало результатом агрессии НАТО, совершенной 24 года назад. Целью вооруженной агрессии было господство на Балканах в рамках стратегии расширения НАТО на Восток и подготовки к конфронтации с Россией. Целью продолжающейся агрессии, выражающейся в ультиматуме для Сербии признать Косово, является то же самое - формализация захвата края силой, противопоставление Сербии России и Китаю, а также подготовка глобальной расправы", - говорится в заявлении организации.

В документе также подчеркивается, что опубликованное Евросоюзом 27 февраля "Соглашение о пути к нормализации отношений Косова и Сербии" представляет собой "грубое нарушение резолюции Совбеза ООН 1244 (о том, что автономный край Косово и Метохия является частью Сербии - прим. ТАСС), принципов международного права и конституции Сербии" и каждый его пункт "наносит ущерб жизненным интересам Сербии". "От Сербии требуется уменьшить свою конституционно установленную, международно признанную государственную территорию, с которой она стала членом ООН, ОБСЕ и всех других международных организаций, и передать ее в состав преступно навязанного образования", - отметили представители форума.

"Обещание инвестиций и дотаций [со стороны ЕС], если Сербия откажется от своих государственных прав на части своей государственной территории, своего достоинства и идентичности, является примером агрессивности возрожденного неоколониального, неорасистского менталитета и лицемерия, которые, как мы считали, давно остались в истории. <...> Мы не должны полагаться на обещания и гарантии тех, кто чаще всего нас подводит", - заключили эксперты.

Белградский форум за мир равноправных - клуб экспертов, основанный в 2000 году, занимающийся анализом событий в Сербии, на Балканах и во всем мире. Одним из основателей форума и его нынешним председателем является экс-глава МИД Союзной Республики Югославия Живадин Йованович (1998-2000 годы).

Source: tass.ru

This is an excellent article of former minister of foreign affairs of Yugoslavia. It seems that Scholtz- Macron tandem is again going to deceive democracy and justice just as they did with the Minsk accords planned to make peace in Ukraine.
These leaders continue the lies around Serbia and Kosovo. Unfortunately the Finish government is a collaborator here.

There are still two politicians active in Finnish politics who collaborated with the US and German governments to bomb Yugoslavia to surrender to US demands of NATO-occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia. They are president Sauli Niinistö, and minister of foreign affairs Pekka Haavisto . The government of Finland in 1999 hid the results of the forensic Finnish team about the battle between Albanian terrorists and Serbian police in the village of Racak. The Finnish government lied. The OSCE chief William Walker from US collected the bodies into a pitch and showed it to a group of journalists claiming the then were executed. The forensic team led by professor Antti Penttilä diagnosed that all of the victims had died in combat and not a single one had been shot at close distance.

The Finnish government and German government decided to hide the forensic results. This gave president Clinton the way to start the bombing "because of this massacre".
Martti Ahtisaari was the president of Finland. He was a member in the team to negotiate the peace deal after the bombing. Peace deal included a NATO occupation of the Kosovo part of Serbia. The UN decided with resolution 1244 that Kosovo is part of Serbia. However the US started illegally to build a huge military base Bondsteel to Kosovo. It gave power to Albanians living in Kosovo to start terrorizing Serbs in unbelievable ways., which made it almost impossible for a Serb family to continue living there. President Ahtisaari was given a task of leading a committee to plan outplacement of Serb propertty without the consent of the owners. Serbs were not even allowed to enter Kosovo and see what was being done. After eight years work Ahtisaari suggested the declaration of independence of Kosovo - not with elections or negotiations or the permission of the UN who had decided that Kosovo is part of Serbia.

Actually the UN Security Council did not accept, when Ahtisaari asked, any changes in 1244.
However the occupiers US and NATO-EU countries approved the illegal Declaration of Independence, Finland of course among the first ones after US. 5 members of EU have of now not approved the independence.
Now as you can see from the text of Zivadin Jovanovic, the blackmail to the surrender of Serbia is going on. It Serbia does not surrender, the economical punishment will be severe.

As for Finland you can realize that the application of Finland to NATO against all odds at this moment is a surrender to the US. It is against all interests of Finns, who have not been able to say their opinion in a popular vote.
The world is led by "rules based democracy" which includes black mail, economic sanctions, horrors of terror and injustice.

Zivadin Jovanovic

The EU claims to be neutral [Kosovo] status-wise. Or at least, the EU has not declared parting ways with its status neutrality. Back in September 2019, the UN General Assembly welcomed “the readiness of the European Union to facilitate a process of dialogue between the parties”, on the basis of the EU’s declared status-neutrality. Тhis Scholz-Macron “proposal” is but an ultimatum requiring Serbia to recognize the illegal unilateral independence of the so-called Kosovo, accompanied by a list of threats of what will beset Serbia should she fail to abide. In addition, this ultimatum is declared to be the position of the entire EU. Its true nature is not altered by being presented to the Serbian public as “a US-backed, EU’s new negotiating framework”. An ultimatum will be an ultimatum, whatever the packaging.

We need to vocalize the truth: firstly, that the EU has drastically abandoned its status-neutrality and secondly, that the latest paper (whoever by written, joined, or backed) is proof of the European Union silently stepping out and beyond of the mandate given to it by the United Nations General Assembly.

I have no doubts whatsoever that this matter is of utmost importance for Serbia, and that it is a fool’s errand trying to act as if this is business as usual. Because if faced with the scenario where the legally binding decision of the UN Security Council are not observed, and the UN General Assembly political guidance on mandating the EU to “facilitate the dialogue between the parties” are disregarded, we have responsibility and duty to say out loud that this is not normal, not beneficial for mutual trust, and not acceptable for Serbia. Rather, it should not be normal or acceptable for any bona fide state member to the United Nations.

If we agree that the ongoing events concern the vital and long-term interests of Serbia, if we are confident that our positions and views are righteous, principled, and well-based – which we are – and if any party gets angered by this, we regret but nonetheless we have to stand our ground, and not retreat. We must not get carried away by a current state of play, or get swayed by any short-term interests. We must discern strategic trends and articulate our positions based on our own experiences, lessons taught by history, and overall trends as evaluated from all important aspects instead of any single angle.

I am afraid that, as a country and a nation, we have been continuously exposed to an excessive influence of the West’s one-sided propaganda, views, and interests. This cannot be good for us, not even if stemming from good intentions; when creeping in as a precursor to the strategy of hegemony and domination, it can be plainly disastrous.

The one true key to peace, security, and a better life for all nations in the Balkans, including the Serbian and Albanian people, lies in the observance of the fundamental principles of international law, the UN Charter, and the consistent implementation of UNSC Resolution 1244.

None of the above is to be found in the so-called Scholz-Macron plan, presented to the public as a sort of “EU’s new negotiating framework, US-backed” or a “Basic Agreement” between Serbia and the so-called Kosovo.

The Scholz-Macron plan is not a framework for negotiations, or for any just or sustainable solution. This is a plan to crush Serbia. If possible, with the consent of Serbia.

If the Scholz-Macron plan is the key to anything, the least of all is it a key to peace, stability and progress of any region, nation, or Europe as a whole. It is the plan for the total domination of the USA-led NATO over the Serbian people and the Balkans, and for setting the Balkans as the strategic stage in the global war against Russia and China. It is the juggernaut plant to keep crushing Serbia and the entire Serbian nation in the Balkans. If their plan had had any good intentions, they would have made an effort to at least refer to the UN Security Council guarantees vis-à-vis Serbia, given by their predecessors on June 10, 1999. If they were principled, if they really respected principles and international law, if they pursued a predictable politics as they expect others to do, why would they stay clear from the United Nations and the decisions taken by the Security Council! Since they were not, and did not, Serbia should remain true to herself, to her people, ancestors, historical heritage and enduring achievements belonging to the world civilization.

Why did they need Meloni? To help Macron water down his not-so-honorable role in ‘duet’ with Scholz? Or to jointly bolster the EU dimension of the ‘Plan’? Or maybe help Rome, as a neighbor, claim a piece of merit for the connived incarnation of Greater Albania? Apart from the USA as mastermind, the trio still misses Rishi Sunak to reprise the role of Neville Chamberlain, so to make rerun of the 1938 “saving the peace” in Berchtesgaden at least as convincing as its premiere was 85 years ago.

Under the “Brussels Agreement” of 2013, Serbia withdrew her legal and constitutional order and institutions in the north of the Province. In turn, albeit in paper only, Serbia ensured the Community of Serbian Municipalities (the CSM) with executive powers. Now, after ten years of ‘stretching the rope’ to the point of snapping, it looks like Serbia’s adversaries, the same one that Serbian leadership swears are the ‘only alternative’, are set on forcing Serbia to pay once more for the establishment of the CSM, that is, an incapacitated CSM fashioned pursuant to the so-called Kosovo Constitution. For this meagre gain, Serbia is expected to agree that the Scholz-Macron plan/agreement is a good basis for the resumption of negotiations that will lead to, and result in, the conclusion of a “comprehensive and legally binding agreement on normalization”.

Then, the USA, the EU, NATO and Priština will proclaim and explain that ‘normalization’ means mutual recognition, establishment of ‘good neighborly relations’, respecting reciprocity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of ‘parties’ and the so-called Kosovo’s full membership in international organizations including the UN, and the like. If Serbia does accept what was devised by those always brewing a same plot for her, she might as well articulate her consent in a different way, but this in itself would not alter the unfolding of events much to the detriment of Serbia.

It is very dicey to rely on the guarantees given by those already proven to have never kept their word, instead of insisting on the existing guarantees given by the UN Security Council and by those who have differing worldviews and who support the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia. The latter comprise almost 2/3 of the world, whose relevance in global relations is increasing, rather than decreasing. The pressures and gravity of the situation in which Serbia finds herself are not and cannot serve as justification for shifting away from the rights, principles and existing guarantees. Quite the contrary.

Translated by Branislava Mitrovic

Zivadin Jovanovic noted that the Franco-German plan "is not the key to peace, stability and progress of any region, people or Europe as a whole"

BELGRADE, February 27. /TASS/. The French-German plan for talks between Belgrade and Pristina is the ultimatum against Serbia, demanding the recognition of Kosovo’s independence, ex-Foreign Minister of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Zivadin Jovanovic told TASS.

"The proposal of [German Chancellor Olaf] Scholz and [President of France Emmanuel] Macron is the ultimatum against Serbia to recognize the unlawful unilateral independence of unrecognized Kosovo, which is accompanied by a list of threats to follow if Serbia does not accept it. It was said that the ultimatum is the position of the entire EU. It does not change the essence that this ultimatum is named for the Serbian public as ‘new negotiation framework of the EU backed by the US.’ An ultimatum is an ultimatum, irrespective of the wrapping," Jovanovic said.

"We must tell the truth that the EU abruptly abandoned its status neutrality and that the last paper (irrespective of the one writing it, joining or supporting it) is evidence that the EU withdraws from the mandate of the UN General Assembly," the ex-minister noted.

The French-German plan "is not the key to peace, stability and progress of any region, nation or Europe on the whole. This is the plan of total domination of NATO headed by the US over the Serbian people and the Balkans, the plan of preparing the Balkans as the strategic position in the global war against Russia and China," Jovanovic said. The French-German plan of solving the issue of unrecognized Kosovo will only continue "splitting up Serbia and the Serbian nation in the Balkans," he added.

Source: tass.com

Эксклюзивное интервью бывшего министра иностранных дел Югославии (1998-2000 годов) Живадина Йовановича корреспонденту 36ON на Балканах, доктору филологических наук, профессору Владимиру Сапунову.

В. С.: Господин Йованович, что вы думаете, если говорить о нынешней внешней политике Сербии, как вы можете её оценить? Как можете охарактеризовать принцип равноудаленности, который декларируют сербские дипломаты?
 
Ж. Й.: Думаю, что этот принцип объясняется как географическими, так и историческими особенностями Сербии. Наша страна находится в центре Европы и не может обходиться без нормальных отношений с Западом, в частности, с Евросоюзом. Но при этом Россия — это наш исторический друг и партнёр, мы обязаны сохранять и развивать дружеские отношения с ней. А ведь ещё есть Китай, который вкладывает в Сербию существенные инвестиции. В какой-то степени нынешняя внешняя политика Сербии — это продолжение политики неприсоединения Социалистической Федеративной Республики Югославия. Как известно, она была одним из организаторов и лидеров Движения неприсоединения, это было одним из краеугольных камней внешней политики Тито, который балансировал между странами Социалистического блока и Запада. Не входя при этом ни в СЭВ, ни в ОВД, ни в ЕС, ни в НАТО. Просто взаимовыгодное партнёрство.

В. С.: Такой принцип оправдан, когда и партнёры заинтересованы в равноправных отношениях. Однако нынешний Запад совершенно не хочет видеть в Сербии равноправного партнёра. Политика Вашингтона и Брюсселя по отношению к Сербии — это выкручивание рук, шантаж и ультиматумы. Последние примеры с давлением на Белград с требованиями признания Косово и введения санкций против России — хорошие тому иллюстрации. Стоит ли тогда так упорно твердить о «безальтернативности европейского пути для Сербии»? Ведь политика «буриданова осла» уже не проходит, коллективный Запад требует сделать выбор.
 
Ж. Й.: Да, когда предъявляют ультиматумы — это совсем другой разговор. Согласен, когда подавляющее большинство сербов выступает против признания Косово и антироссийских санкций, принимать подобные решения было бы странно. Всё это просто против нашей национальной идентичности и независимости — санкции против нашего стратегического партнёра, который постоянно защищает нас в Совете Безопасности ООН. Да и вообще Сербия должна быть против любых санкций, вспоминая, какой ущерб нам нанесли те, что были введены 30 мая 1992 года. В Европе нет страны, которая бы так пострадала от санкций, как Сербия. Любые санкции наносят ущерб прежде всего народу, а не власти, как о том заявляется. К тому же санкции Запада против России не имеют никакой легитимности, поскольку единственный международный орган, который может вводить законные санкции — это СБ ООН. А нынешние санкции против России — это фактически санкции НАТО, зачем же нам к ним присоединяться.

В. С.: И тем не менее Запад предъявил ультиматум и однозначно не собирается от него отступать.
 
Ж. Й.: Ну, давайте подумаем, что это за ультиматум. И сравним его с ультиматумом июня 1999 года, который содержался в «плане Ахтисаари — Черномырдина». Когда речь шла о принятии этого плана, подписании Кумановского соглашения и резолюции 1244 СБ ООН, мы действительно были в безвыходном положении. НАТО методично разрушало инфраструктуру нашей страны, вбивало нас в каменный век, как они сами говорили об этом. А ельцинская Россия нам ничем не помогла, современного оружия, чтобы защищаться, мы не получили. Тогда действительно ультиматум выглядел очень убедительно, мы бы просто потеряли страну. И так нам те бомбардировки нанесли ущерб в 100 миллиардов долларов. А до этого ведь были ещё вышеупомянутые санкции ООН 1992-95 годов против Югославии, официально, кстати, отменённые только в 2001 году. Они стоили нам ещё 150 миллиардов долларов. Их ведь ельцинская Россия поддержала в ООН.
 
Тогда действительно мы не имели вариантов. И то нам удалось настоять на принятии резолюции 1244, в которой говорится о территориальной целостности Сербии. Удалось договориться о миротворческом контингенте в Косово под эгидой ООН. О том, что сербские военнослужащие смогут участвовать в охране сербских святынь и контролировать ключевые погранзаставы. А потом сербские власти об этом «забыли». По сравнению с тем, в какой мы были тогда ситуации, нынешняя разве безвыходная? Разве какие-то западные инвестиции и санкции — это причина признавать независимость Косово? Тем более никакие западные инвестиции не покрыли и малой доли ущерба, который нам нанёс Запад санкциями и бомбардировками. И не покроют. Такие ультиматумы принимать нельзя.

В. С.: Вы как один из тех, кто работал над резолюцией 1244 СБ ООН от 10.06.1999 по Косово, разумеется, не признаёте принятие «плана Ахтисаари-Черномырдина» и Кумановского соглашения капитуляцией. Тем не менее Югославии пришлось вывести свои войска из Косово, а тот миротворческий контингент, который вошёл под эгидой ООН, фактически представлял собой силы под командованием НАТО. Можно только представить, насколько тяжело далось тогда Слободану Милошевичу то решение — подписать соответствующие документы и вывести войска.
 
Ж. Й.: Тогда всем нам это решение далось тяжело. И да, особенно Милошевичу. Но ни о какой капитуляции речи не шло, мы смогли остановить бомбардировки и на высшем международном уровне прописать территориальную целостность Сербии. И предусмотреть пункт о возможности входа сербских военнослужащих для защиты сербского населения на севере Косово. Причём в тексте резолюции говорится о «сотнях, не тысячах военнослужащих». То есть резолюция даёт возможность направить в Косово до 1999 военных, а не 999, как обычно считается. На тот момент считаю, что нам удалось добиться многого, чтобы прекратить агрессию, перед которой мы были беззащитны.
 
Плюс к тому, нам удалось превратить «план Ахтисаари», который был ультиматумом, в Кумановское соглашение, а это уже международный договор, а потом и в резолюцию ООН. В последних двух документах уже учитывались наши интересы, уже в Кумановском договоре говорилось о суверенитете Сербии над Косовом, и это было результатом серьёзных переговоров делегаций.  И там же было сказано о том, что войска KFOR могут зайти на территорию Косово по приглашению Югославии. А никакое приглашение не может длиться вечно. Потом этом было зафиксировано и в резолюции 1244. И всё это значительно отличалось от того плана, к подписанию которого нас принуждали в Рамбуйе. Вот это действительно была бы капитуляция, поскольку это бы предусматривало бесконтрольное присутствие войск НАТО на территории Югославии.

А вот почему потом, уже после государственного переворота 5 октября 2000 года сербские власти ничего не делали, чтобы противостоять погромам со стороны косовских албанцев, массовому изгнанию сербов из автономного края, разрушению святынь, — это уже вопрос к пришедшим к власти в Белграде прозападным «демократам». Зачем было подписывать Брюссельский договор, который фактически лишил Белград возможности влиять на ситуацию в Косово без контроля ЕС? Из этого же ряда договоры IPAP с НАТО, они дали право НАТО свободно передвигаться по всей территории Сербии, против чего мы выступали в Рамбуйе.
В 1999 году Косово и Метохия не были потеряны, шаги к их потере были сделаны позже. И продолжают делаться.
 
В. С.: Для русского народа агрессия НАТО против Югославии 1999 года — это особая боль. Поскольку вопреки мнению большинства правительство Ельцина не оказало Югославии необходимой помощи — ни политической, ни военной. Был ли в этих условиях шанс избежать агрессии и бомбардировок?
 
Ж. Й.: Ни малейшего. Мы, как могли, оттягивали этот момент. Но давление всё усиливалось и усиливалось. Развал СФРЮ — это была осознанная и очень целенаправленная политика Запада для установления их мирового порядка, транснационального и либерального капитализма. Прежде всего в интересах США. Но в этом, скажем, была заинтересована и Германия, которая таким образом устраняла мощного конкурента в центре Европы. Немецкая внешняя политика при Гельмуте Коле ведь была совсем не как нынешняя, определённая самостоятельность от США была. И в вопросе необходимости развала СФРЮ она не только дополняла, но подчас и опережала американскую.
 
Сейчас об этом мало известно, но ещё в декабре 1991 года тогдашний посол США в Белграде Уоррен Циммерман сказал Милошевичу, что, если Югославия не прекратит военные действия в Хорватии, то будут американские бомбардировки. И в январе 1992 года между ЮНА и загребскими властями было подписано Сараевское перемирие, которое привело к международному признанию Хорватии. Белград был вынужден пойти на уступки — Советский Союз распадался, мы понимали, что помощи уже ждать неоткуда.

В. С.: Разумеется, Запад, не хотел таким образом в принципе закончить военные действия на Балканах, просто добился перемирия там, где ему это было выгодно. Готовилась новая война — в Боснии. Тот же Циммерман в марте 1992 года убедил лидера боснийских мусульман Алию Изетбеговича отозвать свою подпись под планом Каррингтона-Кутиельро, который предполагал более или менее справедливое этническое разделение в рамках Боснии.  В награду США признали независимость Боснии. А дальше была война.
 
Ж. Й.: Совершенно верно. И ту войну нам удалось закончить максимально возможным для нас способом — Дейтонскими соглашениями. Сейчас кто-то говорит: пришлось отдать 20% территории. А что было делать, когда в сентябре 1995 года начались натовские бомбардировки позиций боснийских сербов – с целью, например, отрезать Республику Сербскую от Югославии.
 
В. С.: Вероятно, стоит сказать о том, что Дейтонский договор при подписании и позже тоже сильно отличался, как и текст резолюции 1244 СБ ООН, от нынешних реалий. Ведь Республика Сербская вышла из войны с собственной армией и валютой, которые Дейтон не отменял. Всё это отменили последующие договоры.
 
Ж. Й.: Да. Тем не менее, Дейтон сейчас — это основа стабильности и мира не только в Боснии, но и на Балканах в целом. Поэтому и выполнять его положения необходимо, а те, кто предлагают отказаться от них, действуют безответственно.
 
В. С.: Главными разжигателями таких разговоров являются США и подконтрольные им сараевские власти. Баня-Лука вынуждена реагировать и говорить, что может отказаться от Дейтона и в свою пользу — в сторону независимости Республики Сербской. И нынешний-то статус Республики Сербской, в которой Запад не является хозяином, ему как кость в горле.
 
Ж. Й.: Если она им как кость в горле, то пусть сходят к хирургу. Любые попытки изменить дейтонский статус Республики Сербской как самостоятельного энтитета приведут к новой войне.

В. С.: Возвращаясь к американскому давлению 1990-х на Белград. И хорватская операция «Буря» в августе 1995 с ликвидацией Сербской Краины из этого же ряда.
 
Ж. Й.: Из этого же. Понимаете, сейчас легко рассуждать о том, почему югославские войска тогда остались в казармах. И почему Милошевич принял такое решение. Но мог ли он поступить тогда по-другому. Прямо перед началом «Бури» у него была встреча с глазу на глаз с Ричардом Холбруком (тогдашний заместитель Госсекретаря США — прим. 36ON). Не знаю, раскрывал ли Милошевич кому-то детали этого разговора, но, видимо, ему был тогда предъявлен ультиматум. Такой же, как ультиматум НАТО перед бомбардировками Югославии в 1999 году, о котором известно гораздо больше. То есть, если бы Милошевич тогда решил помочь хорватским сербам, бомбардировки бы начались на 4 года раньше. Сербов в Краине это всё равно бы не спасло, но, возможно, тогда бы не было и Республики Сербской.
 
Но это всё предположения, история сослагательного наклонения не терпит. А если вернуться к реальному разговору, то позиция России в 1990-е на Балканах была не очень позитивной. Ельцинско-козыревская политика заключалась в том, чтобы подсовывать нам невыгодные американские и европейские предложения, играя роль «доброго полицейского». То есть западные «инициативы» под видом российских.
 
В. С.: «План Ахтисаари», который превратился в «план Ахтисаари-Черномырдина», как раз об этом?
 
Ж. Й.: Именно об этом.  Черномырдин прилетел в начале июня в Белград как «независимый переговорщик», даже вроде бы как представитель России должен был быть за нас. Провёл там встречу с Ахтисаари и после этого финский президент уже называл его «мой брат». А мне говорил: «Ты же не будешь спорить со мной и моим братом». То есть они уже вдвоём убеждали нас принять ультиматум НАТО. Это был именно ультиматум НАТО, хотя Ахтисаари и был официально переговорщиком от ЕС.
 
В. С.: Ну, каким был переговорщиком Черномырдин, понятно. А что скажете о Холбруке?
 
Ж. Й.: Холбрук был чрезвычайно жёстким переговорщиком. Он всегда был настроен на достижение своих целей. Не случайно США отправляли его на самые сложные переговоры с Милошевичем, который сам был весьма жёсток и неуступчив. В самые критические моменты. Но, конечно, хорошо быть жёстким переговорщиком, когда за тобой сильнейшая армия мира. Но и Холбрук в разговоре с Милошевичем как-то назвал меня «детерминистом». Когда он как-то, перед началом официальных переговоров, поинтересовался нашим мнением о своей, тогда еще только что напечатанной книге о Дейтоне. Милошевич ответил, что не читал книгу, а Милан Милутинович, бывший президент Сербии, что читал. И что, по его мнению, Холбрук написал хорошую книгу.
 
Когда Холбрук посмотрел на меня и спросил мое мнение, я ответил, что прочитал только первые несколько страниц и бросил, когда наткнулся на ту часть, в которой организация «Млада Босна» и Гаврило Принцип, убивший в 1914 году наследника на престол Австрии — принца Фердинанда Венгерского, были названы террористами, виновными в развязывании Первой мировой войны. Объясняя свой отказ продолжать читать книгу, я сказал Холбруку, что не оспариваю его дипломатических и качеств, и таланта переговорщика, но не уверен, что он такой же хороший историк. Поскольку оценки историков деятельности Гаврилы Принципа, «Молодой Боснии» и реальные Причины Первой мировой войны, по большей части, хорошо известны. Тогда Холбрук рассердился на меня и сказал, что я «обычный детерминист». Тем не менее договариваться он тоже умел, наша сторона говорила, что те или иные условия просто неприемлемы. Удавалось же достигать компромиссов в ходе переговоров в Дейтоне.
 
Как-то Холбрук накричал на меня в присутствии Милошевича. Дело было в 1998 году, когда я нашёл фотографию в журнале Newsweek, где Холбрук был запечатлён вместе с двумя боевиками так называемой Армии освобождения Косово (ОАК), которая признавалась террористической организацией не только в Югославии, но в самих США (до мая 1998 года).  Я показал тот журнал Милошевичу и тогдашнему президенту Сербии Милану Милутиновичу в библиотеке в ночь перед переговорами югославской и американской делегаций. Тогда они оставили фотографию без комментариев, а на следующий день, уже в присутствии Холбрука Милошевич затребовал от меня журнал и спросил американского дипломата: «Ричард, зачем же ты фотографируешься с террористами?». На что Холбрук отреагировал: «Не знаю этих людей, случайно подошли, немедленно сфотографировались и убежали». А потом добавил: «Слободан, ты же знаешь, сколько я делаю для мира на Балканах. А ты обращаешь внимание на какие-то случайные фотографии, которые подсовывают тебе твои сотрудники». На что Милошевич ответил, усмехаясь: «Ну, я тебе, конечно, поверю, а как быть с 3 миллионами читателей Newsweek»?

Ситуация была очень некомфортной, если не сказать напряженной. Тогда Милошевич сказал: «Ну, ты же сам однажды сказал, что Жика — детерминист. У тебя нет причин злиться». Затем Милошевич быстро спросил Холбрука, как дела у его жены Кэти (Нортон, активистка по защите прав человека), которая занималась освобождением журналистов из турецких тюрем. Таким образом Милошевич преодолел неприятную атмосферу, и началась встреча. После Милутинович раскритиковал меня за то, что я «чуть не сорвал переговоры».
 
В. С.: Как же так получилось, что после бомбардировок НАТО в 1999 году 05.10.2000 в Белграде случилась первая в истории «цветная революция»?
 
Ж. Й.: Цветная революция 2000 года была логическим завершением бомбардировок предыдущего года. Тогда у НАТО не получилось свергнуть Милошевича, а теперь получилось. Разрушенная и разорённая страна, людям хотелось чего-то нового. Вот и получили — власть Запада.

Через таможню тогда шли материалы с Запада — агитационные, деньги оружие. Тогда задержали на сербской таможне британский дипломатический груз с деньгами — а мне звонит британский посол и спрашивает: «Как вы смеете задерживать на таможне дипломатический груз Её Величества». Я отвечаю: «Мы не претендуем на груз Её Величества, только пусть он отправится обратно на родину Её Величества».
 
Милошевич был настоящим патриотом Сербии и государственником, его выдача в Гаагу была невиданным предательством и незаконным актом.
 
В. С.: Сегодня главная проблема для Сербии — это Косово. Каковы ваши прогнозы на развитие ситуации?
 
Ж. Й.: Она будет зависеть от хода российской СВО на Украине. Если Россия будет побеждать, то и с Косово всё будет в порядке.
 
Зимний цикл проекта «Балканский вояж» реализуется порталом 36ON при поддержке компании «ПМК-710» (город Иваново).

Source:36on.ru

ACURA VIEWPOINTFebruary 22, 2023

In October 2022, about eight months after the beginning of the war in Ukraine, the University of Cambridge in the UK harmonized surveys that asked the inhabitants of 137 countries about their views of the West, Russia, and China. The findings in the combined study are robust enough to demand our serious attention.

Of the 6.3 billion people who live outside of the West, 66% feel positively towards Russia, and 70% feel positively towards China.

75% of respondents in South Asia, 68% of respondents  in Francophone Africa, and 62% of respondents in Southeast Asia report feeling positively toward Russia.

Public opinion of Russia remains positive in Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, India, Pakistan, and Vietnam.

These findings have caused some surprise and even anger in the West. It’s difficult for Western thought leaders to comprehend that two-thirds of the world’s population is just not lining up with the West in this conflict. However, I believe there are five reasons why the Global South is not taking the West’s side. I discuss these reasons in the short essay below.

1. The Global South does not believe that the West understands or empathizes
with its problems.

India’s foreign minister, S. Jaishankar, summed it up succinctly in a recent interview: “Europe has to grow out of the mindset that Europe’s problems are the world’s problems, but the world’s problems are not Europe’s problems.” Developing countries face many challenges, from the aftermath of the pandemic, the high cost of debt service, and the climate crisis that is ravaging their environments, to the pain of poverty, food shortages, droughts, and high energy prices. Yet the West has barely given lip service to the seriousness of many of these issues, even while insisting that the Global South join it in sanctioning Russia.

The Covid pandemic is a perfect example. Despite the Global South’s repeated pleas to share intellectual property on the vaccines with the goal of saving lives, no Western nation has been willing to do so. Africa remains to this day the most unvaccinated continent in the world. African nations have the manufacturing capability to make the vaccines, but without the necessary intellectual property, they remain dependent on imports.

But help did come from Russia, China, and India. Algeria launched a vaccination program in January 2021 after it received its first batch of Russia’s Sputnik V vaccines. Egypt started vaccinations after receiving China’s Sinopharm vaccine at about the same time, while South Africa procured a million doses of AstraZeneca from the Serum Institute of India. In Argentina, Sputnik became the backbone of the national vaccine program. This all happened while the West was using its financial resources to buy millions of doses in advance, then often destroying them when they expired. The message to the Global South was clear — the pandemic in your countries is your problem, not ours.

2. History matters: who stood where during colonialism and after independence?

Many countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia view the war in Ukraine through a different lens than the West. They see their former colonial powers regrouped as members of the Western alliance. This alliance — for the most part, members of the European Union and NATO or the closest allies of the US in the Asia-Pacific region — makes up the countries that have sanctioned Russia. By contrast, many countries in Asia, and almost all countries in the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America, have tried to remain on good terms with both Russia and the West, shunning sanctions against Russia. Could this be because they remember their history at the receiving end of the West’s colonial policies, a trauma that they still live with but which the West has mostly forgotten?

Nelson Mandela often said that it was the Soviet Union’s support, both moral and material, that helped inspire South Africans to overthrow the Apartheid regime. Because of this, Russia is still viewed in a favorable light by many African countries. And once independence came for these countries, it was the Soviet Union that supported them, despite its own limited resources. Egypt’s Aswan Dam, completed in 1971, was designed by the Moscow-based Hydro Project Institute and financed in large part by the Soviet Union. The Bhilai Steel Plant, one of the first large infrastructure projects in newly independent India, was set up by the USSR in 1959.

Other countries also benefited from the political and economic support provided by the former Soviet Union, including Ghana, Mali, Sudan, Angola, Benin, Ethiopia, Uganda, and Mozambique. On February 18, 2023, at the African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the foreign minister of Uganda, Jeje Odongo, had this to say: “We were colonized and forgave those who colonized us. Now the colonizers are asking us to be enemies of Russia, who never colonized us. Is that fair? Not for us. Their enemies are their enemies. Our friends are our friends.”

Rightly or wrongly, present-day Russia is seen by many countries in the Global South as an ideological successor to the former Soviet Union. Fondly remembering the USSR’s help, they now view Russia in a unique and often favorable light. Given the painful history of colonization, can we blame them?

3. The war in Ukraine is seen by the Global South as mainly about the future of Europe rather than the future of the entire world.

The history of the Cold War has taught developing countries that getting embroiled in great power conflicts carries enormous risks but returns scant, if any, rewards. As a consequence, they view the Ukraine proxy war as one that is more about the future of European security than the future of the entire world. From the Global South’s perspective, the Ukraine war seems to be an expensive distraction from its own most pressing issues. These include higher fuel prices, rising food prices, higher debt service costs, and more inflation, all of which Western sanctions against Russia have greatly aggravated.

A recent survey published by Nature Energy states that up to 140 million people could be pushed into extreme poverty by the soaring energy prices seen over the past year. High energy prices not only directly impact energy bills — they also lead to upward price pressures along supply chains and ultimately on consumer items, including food and other necessities. This across-the-board inflation inevitably hurts developing countries much more than the West.  

The West can sustain the war “as long as it takes.” They have the financial resources and the capital markets to do so, and of course they remain deeply invested in the future of European security. But the Global South does not have the same luxury, and a war for the future of security in Europe has the potential to devastate the security of the entire world. The Global South is alarmed that the West is not pursuing negotiations that could bring this war to an early end, beginning with the missed opportunity in December 2021, when Russia proposed revised security treaties for Europe that could have prevented the war but which were rejected by the West. The peace negotiations of April 2022 in Istanbul were also rejected by the West in part to “weaken” Russia. Now, the entire world — but especially the developing world — is paying the price for an invasion that the Western media like to call “unprovoked” but which likely could have been avoided, and which the Global South has always seen as a local rather than an international conflict.

4. The world economy is no longer dominated by America or led by the West. The Global South now has other options.

Several countries in the Global South increasingly see their futures as tied to countries that are no longer in the Western sphere of influence. Whether this view reflects an accurate perception of the shifting balance of power or wishful thinking is partially an empirical question, so let’s look at some metrics.

The US share of global output declined from 21 percent in 1991 to 15 percent in 2021, while China’s share rose from 4% to 19% during the same period. China is the largest trading partner for most of the world, and its GDP in purchasing power parity already exceeds that of the US. The BRICS (Brazil, Russia, China, India, and South Africa) had a combined GDP in 2021 of $42 trillion, compared with $41 trillion in the US-led G7. Their population of 3.2 billion is more than 4.5 times the combined population of the G7 countries, which stands at 700 million.

The BRICS are not imposing sanctions on Russia nor supplying arms to the opposing side. Russia is one of the biggest suppliers of energy and foodgrains for the Global South, while China’s Belt and Road Initiative remains a major supplier of financing and infrastructure projects. When it comes to financing, food, energy, and infrastructure, the Global South must rely more on China and Russia more than on the West. The Global South also sees the Shanghai Cooperation Organization expanding, more countries wanting to join the BRICS, and some countries now trading in currencies that move them away from the dollar, the Euro, or the West. Meanwhile, some countries in Europe are risking deindustrialization thanks to higher energy costs. This reveals an economic vulnerability in the West that was not so evident before the war. With developing countries having an obligation to put the interests of their own citizens first, is it any wonder that they see their future more and more tied to countries outside the West?

5. The “rules-based international order” is losing credibility and in decline.

The vaunted “rules-based international order” is the bulwark of post–World War II liberalism, but many countries in the Global South see it as having been conceived by the West and imposed unilaterally on other countries. Few if any non-Western countries ever signed on to this order. The South is not opposed to a rules-based order, but rather to the present content of these rules as conceived by the West.

But one must also ask, does the rules-based international order apply even to the West?

For decades now, many in the Global South have seen the West as having its way with the world without much concern for playing by the rules. Several countries were invaded at will, mostly without United Nations Security Council authorization. These include the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria. Under what “rules” were those countries attacked or devastated, and were those wars provoked or unprovoked? Julian Assange is languishing in prison and Ed Snowden remains in exile, both for having the courage (or perhaps the audacity) to expose the truths behind these and similar actions.  

Even today, sanctions imposed on over 40 countries by the West impose considerable hardship and suffering. Under what international law or “rules-based order” did the West use its economic strength to impose these sanctions? Why are the assets of Afghanistan still frozen in Western banks while the country is facing starvation and famine? Why is Venezuelan gold still held hostage in the UK while the people of Venezuela are living at subsistence levels? And if Sy Hersh’s expose is true, under what ‘rules-based order’ did the West destroy the Nord Stream pipelines?

A paradigm shift appears to be taking place. We’re moving from a Western-dominated to a more multipolar world. The war in Ukraine has made more evident the international divergences that are driving this shift. Partly because of its own history, and partly because of emerging economic realities, the Global South sees a multipolar world as a preferable outcome, one in which its voice is more likely to be heard.

President Kennedy ended his American University speech in 1963 with the following words: “We must do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless for its success. Confident and unafraid, we must labor on towards a strategy of peace.” That strategy of peace was the challenge before us in 1963, and it remains a challenge for us today. The voices for peace, including those of the Global South, need to be heard.

Krishen Mehta is a member of the Board of the American Committee for US Russia Accord, and a Senior Global Justice Fellow at Yale University.

Živadin Jovanović, Belgrado 21 gennaio 2023

Anche se il testo dell''Accordo di base' presentato dai “Grandi Cinque” occidentali (Ue, Usa, Germania, Francia, Italia) su Kosovo e Metohija, che circola da tempo sui media albanesi e dal 20 gennaio anche sui social network serbi, è molto vicino a quello autentico, non può essere visto come una sorta di accordo, ma piuttosto come un ultimatum che costringe la Serbia a riconoscere de facto la secessione forzata della sua provincia.

Il documento, originariamente attribuito al presidente francese Macron e al cancelliere tedesco Scholz, leader delle due più grandi democrazie europee, si distingue come un'altra grave violazione della risoluzione 1244 del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite, del principio fondamentale delle relazioni internazionali democratiche, della Carta delle Nazioni Unite, della Carta di Parigi, e l'Atto finale di Helsinki dell'OSCE.

Questo testo sta umiliando la Serbia e la nazione serba, dicendo alla Serbia di osservare l'uguaglianza, la sovranità, l'integrità territoriale e le insegne di stato del cosiddetto Kosovo e, del resto, di tutti gli altri Stati, tranne che mantenere la sua sovranità, l’integrità territoriale e i suoi confini, riconosciuti a livello internazionale e confermati come tali dall'ONU, dall'OSCE, e da altre organizzazioni internazionali e dal Comitato Arbitrale di Badinter.
Il documento Scholz-Macron chiede alla Serbia di non opporsi alla cosiddetta adesione del Kosovo a tutte le organizzazioni internazionali, comprese le Nazioni Unite.
In tal senso, la Serbia dovrebbe cooperare alla distruzione della propria integrità, del proprio ordine costituzionale e della propria posizione internazionale, in modo che il "caso Kosovo" non possa successivamente essere utilizzato da nessuna delle parti come precedente per future secessioni unilaterali.

Gli autori intendono utilizzare la resa della Serbia all'ultimatum come un modo per i non-riconoscitori (Spagna, Romania, Slovacchia, Grecia e Cipro), che coinvolgono cinque membri dell'UE e quattro membri della NATO, per riconoscere il cosiddetto Kosovo e sanare così la diatriba interna, sia all'interno dell'UE che della NATO.
Il loro altro obiettivo è trasferire alla Serbia tutta la responsabilità per le vittime, la devastazione e le conseguenze dell'uso di armi con uranio impoverito durante l'aggressione della NATO nel 1999, anche se la Serbia stessa ne è stata la vittima.
Il loro obiettivo finale è incorporare la Serbia in una cosiddetta "alleanza delle democrazie" istituita per affrontare le presunte "autocrazie" di Russia e Cina.

Questo vergognoso documento resterà in futuro a illustrare come gli obiettivi espansionistici dell'aggressione militare della NATO contro la Serbia (FRY) nel 1999 siano stati per decenni proseguiti con altri mezzi come ultimatum, minacce di coercizione economica e politica.
La cosiddetta proposta di Scholz e Macron, ora trasformata in un'iniziativa dell'UE e sostenuta dagli Stati Uniti, unita alle ultime attività dei "Big Five" a Belgrado, è a dir poco un'usurpazione e pregiudica le prerogative e la decisionalità del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite come unico organo deputato a deliberare su questioni attinenti la pace e la sicurezza; ignora la risoluzione 1244 del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite come atto legale universalmente e fortemente vincolante e cerca di trascinare la Serbia, un paese pacifico e militarmente neutrale, in uno scontro globale.

Questa linea d'azione sconsiderata, unilaterale e arbitraria, oltre ad essere anti-serba, è piena di conseguenze imprevedibili.
Kosovo e Metohija non è un conflitto congelato, come sostenuto dall'Occidente e riecheggiato a Belgrado, né può essere risolto presentando un ultimatum alla Serbia.
Un'ipotetica accettazione dell'ultimatum non salverebbe né la pace né la sicurezza dei serbi nella provincia, aiuterebbe solo l'accumulo del potenziale di conflitto; altri separatismi incoraggiano e umiliano la Serbia e la nazione serba.

La causa principale e l'essenza del problema che riguarda Kosovo e Metohija risiede nella geopolitica determinata dal predominio delle principali potenze occidentali e dalla loro espansione ad est. La NATO fa del suo meglio per trasformare il Kosovo e Metohija, così come l'intera Serbia, in un trampolino di lancio per la sua incursione verso est, per mettere la Serbia contro Russia e Cina.
La questione dello status della Provincia del Kosovo e Metohija, tuttavia, non può essere risolta accettando alcun ultimatum ma insistendo invece sul rispetto della Costituzione, nonché dei confini internazionalmente riconosciuti e della Risoluzione 1244 del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite.

Anche se la Serbia si arrendesse all'ultimatum, i serbi in Kosovo e Metohija rimarrebbero insicuri, le loro proprietà occupate illegalmente non verrebbero recuperate, circa 250.000 serbi espulsi e altri non albanesi rimarrebbero nell'impossibilità di tornare alle loro case liberamente e in sicurezza, le proprietà sociali e statali rimarrebbero usurpate.
Semmai, la Serbia dovrebbe essere consapevole che cedere all'ultimatum potrebbe solo portare all'accelerazione di pericolose tendenze di confronto e di escalation, sia a livello regionale che europeo.

Un eventuale consenso dato dalla Serbia all'adesione del cosiddetto Kosovo alle Nazioni Unite e ad altre organizzazioni internazionali equivarrebbe al riconoscimento della personalità giuridica internazionale di queste ultime, con conseguenze di ogni genere, a partire da un'escalation fino alla creazione della Grande Albania a spese dei territori statali, non solo della Serbia ma anche di altri stati balcanici.

C'è un'anima in Serbia che crede nelle nuove garanzie e promesse date dall'Occidente? Non è stata Angela Merkel che di recente ci ha ammonito a non fidarci delle loro rassicurazioni? Oppure la nostra creduloneria è già entrata nella fase senza limiti?
Le promesse di autogoverno per i serbi, la Comunità dei comuni serbi (seppure istituita 'ai sensi della Costituzione del Kosovo', secondo Chollet), e 'la formalizzazione dello status della Chiesa ortodossa serba', non alterano minimamente il vero carattere dell'ultimatum Scholz-Macron (UE).
Come mai? Perché la sua essenza sta nella richiesta che la Serbia prima tacitamente e poi formalmente e legalmente, riconosca l'indipendenza del cosiddetto Kosovo e accetti la sua adesione alle Nazioni Unite e ad altre organizzazioni internazionali.
Il resto è solo una parte di una cosmetica diplomatica più o meno convincente e delle tattiche per "salvare la faccia" della vittima.

La storia avverte che la pace, la stabilità e una vita migliore non possono essere preservate cedendo all'ultimatum a scapito della sovranità e dell'integrità territoriale.
Ricordiamo che l'accordo di Monaco del 1938 sulla separazione dei Sudeti dalla Cecoslovacchia, un ultimatum formulato alle spalle della Russia, fu anche pubblicizzato pubblicamente dagli allora leader di Germania, Francia, Italia e Regno Unito come l'unica salvezza per la pace in Europa .
È molto pericoloso che i leader contemporanei di quei paesi non siano consapevoli delle lezioni del passato.

La posizione assunta nei confronti della Costituzione, della risoluzione 1244 del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite, dei confini internazionalmente riconosciuti della Serbia e del diritto internazionale, non è una questione che possa essere risolta da ultimatum o con un accordo una tantum, ma piuttosto occorre mettere in risalto l’importanza della sopravvivenza della Serbia come vecchio Stato europeo e della nazione serba come fattore che contribuisce alla pace, alla stabilità e al progresso nei Balcani, in Europa e nel mondo.

Tale status e reputazione della Serbia sono riaffermati dalla maggior parte dei paesi del mondo, da circa due terzi della popolazione del pianeta, che non hanno voluto e non vogliono riconoscere questo costrutto illegale come stato; tra questi c'è un numero non così piccolo di paesi che, su richiesta della Serbia, hanno ritirato i loro precedenti riconoscimenti senza temere pressioni come ultimatum da parte dell'Occidente a non farlo.

*Ministro degli Esteri della Yugoslavia dal 1998 al 2000 e attuale presidente del Forum Belgrado per un Mondo di Eguali

Traduzione a cura di Enrico Vigna Forum Belgrado Italia

By Živadin Jovanović, formerly Yugoslav Minister of Foreign Affairs
January 21, 2023, Belgrade

If the wording of the ‘Basic Agreement’ on Kosovo and Metohija that has been circulating for a while in the Albanian media and as of January 20 in the Serb-used social networks as well, is anywhere close to the authentic one, it cannot be viewed as any sort of an agreement -- short of being styled as one and including the substance grouped in articles -- but rather as an ultimatum compelling Serbia to practically (de facto) recognize the enforced secession of her Province. The document, attributable to French President Macron and German Chancellor Scholz, leaders of two largest European democracies, stands out as another gross violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, the basic principles of democratic international relations, the UN Charter, the Paris Charter, and the OSCE’s Helsinki Final Act. Inspired by their own power and greatness, this text is humiliating Serbia and the Serbian nation by telling Serbia to observe equality, sovereignty, territorial integrity and state insignia of so-called Kosovo and, for that matter, of all other states but her own sovereignty, territorial integrity and her internationally recognized borders confirmed as such by the UN, the OSCE, other international organizations, and the Badinter Arbitration Committee.

The Scholz-Macron paper requests Serbia to not oppose the so-called Kosovo’s membership in all international organizations, including the United Nations. Therein, Serbia is expected to cooperate in deconstruction of her own integrity, own Constitutional order and international standing, so that the ‘Kosovo case’ subsequently could not be utilized by any party as a precedent for future unilateral secessions. The authors intend to use Serbia’s yielding to ultimatum as a way for non-recognizers (Spain, Romania, Slovakia, Greece, and Cyprus), which involve five EU and four NATO members, to recognize the so-called Kosovo and thus heal internal disunity within both the EU and NATO. Their another objective is to transfer all responsibility for casualties, devastation and consequences of using weapons with depleted uranium during NATO’s 1999 aggression onto Serbia, even though Serbia herself was its victim. Their final objective is to incorporate Serbia into a so-called ‘alliance of democracies’ set up as the front against Russia and China.

The alleged proposal of Scholz and Macron now turned into a US-backed EU initiative, coupled with the latest activities of the ‘Big Five’ in Belgrade, are nothing short of usurpation and prejudging the prerogatives of, and decisions made by, the UN Security Council as the only body in charge of issues pertaining to the peace and security; they ignore UN Security Council Resolution 1244 as a universally binding legal act of the highest force and seek to drag Serbia, a peaceful and militarily neutral country, into a global confrontation. This reckless, one-sided and arbitrary course of action, in addition to being anti-Serb, is fraught with unforeseeable consequences.

Kosovo and Metohija is not a frozen conflict, as purported by the West and echoed in Belgrade, nor can it be resolved by presenting an ultimatum to Serbia. A hypothetical acceptance of ultimatum would not save either peace or safety of Serbs in the Province, only help the conflict potential accumulate, other separatisms encourage, and humiliate Serbia and the Serbian nation. The root cause and the essence of the problem concerning Kosovo and Metohija lies in the geopolitics determined by the dominance of the leading Western powers and their expansion to the East. NATO does it utmost to turn Kosovo and the entire Serbia into a springboard for its incursion eastwards, to pit Serbia against Russia. This matter cannot be solved by accepting ultimatum but instead by insisting on the observance of the Constitution, as well as of the internationally recognized borders and UNSC Resolution 1244. Even if Serbia surrendered to ultimatum, the Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija would remain unsafe, their illegally occupied property would not be repossessed, some 250,000 expelled Serbs and other non-Albanians would remain unable to return to their homes freely and safely, Serbian state-owned and socially-owned property would remain usurped. If anything, Serbia should be aware that yielding to ultimatum could only result in speeding up dangerous trends of confrontation and escalation, at the regional and the European level just the same.

A potential consent given by Serbia to the so-called Kosovo joining the United Nations and other international organizations would be tantamount to the recognition of the latter’s international legal personality, entailing all sorts of consequences, beginning with an escalation and going all the way to the creation of Greater Albania at the expense of state territories not only of Serbia but also of few other Balkan states. Is there a soul in Serbia believing in new guarantees and promises given by the West? Was it not Angela Merkel who recently cautioned us to not trust their assurances! Or has our gullibility already entered the stage of no limits!
T
he promises involving self-governance for Serbs, the Community of Serbian Municipalities (albeit one established ‘pursuant to the Kosovo Constitution’, according to Chollet), and ‘formalizing the status of the Serbian Orthodox Church’, do not in the least alter the true character of the Scholz-Macron (EU’s) ultimatum. Why? Because its essence lies in the request that Serbia firstly tacitly and later on formally legally, recognize independence of the so-called Kosovo and accept its membership in the United Nations and other international organizations. The rest is merely a part of a more or less convincing diplomatic cosmetics and the tactics to ‘save the face’ of the victim.
History warns that peace, stability, and better life cannot be preserved by means of conceding to ultimatum at the expense of sovereignty and territorial integrity. Let us recall that the Munich Agreement of 1938 on carving out the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia, an ultimatum made behind Russia’s back, was also publicly touted by the then-leaders of Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom as the one saving peace in Europe. It is very perilous that those countries’ contemporary leaders are unaware of past lessons.

The position taken vis-à-vis the Constitution, UN SC Resolution 1244, internationally recognized borders of Serbia, and international law, is not a matter of an ultimatum or of a one-off deal, but rather the matter of the position taken vis-à-vis the survival of Serbia as an old European state, and of Serbian nation as a factor contributing to peace, stability and progress in the Balkans, Europe, and the world. Such status and reputation of Serbia are reaffirmed by the majority of countries in the world, by some two-thirds of the planet’s population, who did not and wish not to recognize this illegal construct as a state; among those is a not so small number of countries which, at Serbia’s request, withdrew their previous recognitions without fearing ultimatum-fashioned pressures from the West not to do so.

Živadin Jovanović

What we read and listen is that Serbia in the matter of important issues, will position herself in line with her interests. Thus, heeding the criterion of own interests, Serbia will set her stance vis-à-vis the West’s campaigning to make Kosovo a member of various international organizations, vis-à-vis the Western pressures to introduce sanctions against Russia, as well as in terms of the Scholz-Macron plan. No matter how logical this approach seems to be, such a criterion leaves ample room for different interpretations in respect of what, under various circumstances, might be construed as the interest of Serbia. This view draws on the fact that any discussion about the existential state and national matters -- also including the future of Kosovo and Metohija -- is regularly and extensively shadowed by talks of a high degree of Serbia’s economic and financial dependence on the West (i.e., investments, trade, donations, ‘benefits’, shared values, etc.). It is in principle unacceptable that the matter of sovereignty and territorial integrity as the crucial issues in terms of the durable survival of the state and the nation, get to be treated on par with economic, financial or EU membership issues, since all the latter are incomparably less important and also subject to swift changes. No matter how thirsty we may be for investments, a more rapid development and a better life, it is far from recommended to turn greedy and to hastily rely on any or rather anyone’s promises, and in the least on cajoling and sugar coated promises of those who have already and so many times in the past played dirty tricks on us. We must simply bear in mind that those values are not comparable, and let this thought guide us in any given situation.

We must also take into account that, throughout history of Europe, some other imposed solution used to be heralded as ‘peace saving’ while in the real life paving the way for a global disaster. It must not be taken for granted that the present-day seizure of Kosovo and Metohija is any less relevant for peace and security in Europe than it was the case of the German seizure of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia back in 1938, endorsed by France, the UK and Italy. It is worth recalling this was done ‘behind Russia’s back’, just like the current attempt to wrest off Kosovo and Metohija. Is this part of an historical insight of Scholz and Macron or, for that matter, of the USA which supports in earnest the pair’s plan for carving Kosovo and Metohija out from Serbia? Or are those new gamblers, in their arrogance, convinced they are the Messiahs who save those less fortunate ones?

There seems to be missing a consistent invoking of principles, the law, and the Constitution of Serbia, all of which make the foundation for permanent defending of vital national and state interests. For an independent, sovereign and peace loving Serbia, the principles are at the same time her steadfast support, her right and her duty. They are her historical legacy, identity hallmark and the pledge of her reputation in Europe and the world. In a paradoxical twist, while US high representative Derek Chollet during an official visit, in the very heart of Belgrade, claims it necessary to observe the ‘Constitution’ of a criminal and secessionist creation, there is no one in the audience feeling the urge to remind him, at least in protocolary terms, of the principle of observing the Constitution of Serbia! We have anyhow just marked 140 years of diplomatic relations between Serbia and the USA!

From a principled point of view, the ‘red line’ should not consist only of so-called Kosovo’s membership in the UN, but rather its membership in any international organization bringing together sovereign states. We are witnessing the so-called ‘footnote with asterisk’ evolving, under a step-by-step tactic, into a sort of a ‘guiding star’ that opens the door of certain international associations, forums and missions for the separatist leadership in Priština, leaving us numbly indifferent, even complacent in the public domain, finding a small solace in the fact that the ‘star’ is being observed. So short-sighted! Autistic. Since we are fully aware that the Western tactic is to attain a partial international legal subjectivity in a couple of steps, then, whatever being told or promised, we simply must not assume the role of a passive by-stander or spectator. Wherever and whenever occur any behavior or gesture of any actor in the international domain that affect our interests, we must assume an active attitude and a clear and adequate diplomatic response.

As for the West’s lobbying for Kosovo’s membership in the Council of Europe, in addition to our opposing it in no uncertain terms, it would only be logical to submit to each Member State, in a timely manner, our position that Serbia would perceive such a gesture as a grave violation of the basic principles and criteria endorsed by the CoE, as a counterproductive precedent and a provocation! There are plenty of principled arguments to support such position.

When it comes to pressures to introduce sanctions against Russia, the point is made that those sanctions were introduced by the West and not by the UN Security Council, as the sole authorized body in the world for such measures, which make those sanctions one-sided and legally unfounded. Furthermore, as Serbia is painfully aware of from her experience, such sanctions are inhumane. Serbia does not endorse them on the grounds of principle, not for any scheming reasoning. A vast majority of the global community, including Serbia’s strategic partners, rejects Western sanctions against Russia, too. Serbia is not pitted against the world, but against violation of the rule of law and of principles in international affairs. Serbia is sided with the countries holding ¾ of countries in the world and the global population.

Inferring from statements of officials and the majority of domestic analysts, we seem to be satisfied with Chollet’s position that the Community of Serbian Municipalities (the CSM) must be established. Overshadowed by such acceptance is Chollet’s position that such CSM be in line with the ‘Constitution’ of so-called Kosovo. Even though the CSM was endorsed as a compromise 10 years ago, without anyone’s reference to anyone’s constitution, we seem to be now offered a reduced version of the CSM – one without executive powers, and one that is a part of a fresh new compromise embodied in the Scholz-Macron ‘Plan’ and upgraded into a ‘US-backed EU’s Plan’. Does anyone dare to officially question whether this amounts to a blatant usurpation of the UN Security Council mandate, or an unauthorized exercise of someone else’s prerogatives? The ‘facilitating the dialogue between the parties’, this being the EU’s role as set under the UN General Assembly resolution, cannot be used as a cover for any pressures, blackmails, deadlines, ‘deals’ or ‘take-it-or-leave-it’ plans, no matter of their creators. The war in Ukraine, the recognition of Pristina’s illegal secession by the leading Western powers and their satellites in the aftermath of the criminal aggression of NATO in 1999, are not the reasons to relativize the need to incessantly stress Serbia’s principled positions based on the international and Constitutional law.

With regard to the so-called Plan Scholz-Macron+, it is necessary to reaffirm, time and again, the principled position that Serbia is ready for dialogue and negotiations leading to a peaceful, just, and sustainable solution which is in line with the UN Charter, UN Security Council resolution 1244 and the Constitution of Serbia. Everything still pending and non-implemented under UN SCR 1244 and the subsequently reached agreements ought to be implemented prior to any further course of action. It should be stated in no unclear terms that Serbia will not concede to any trade-off or accept any solution imposed on her that are contrary to international law and the Serbian Constitution. At the beginning of any dialogue, all stakeholders should be advised that, for Serbia, UN SCR 1244 is a codified compromise reached by and among the most important global actors in the area of foreign affairs, and a legal document of permanent applicability for so long as it gets fully implemented. Serbia’s expectations from the part of the EU and each of its member states individually, as well as from the countries supporting EU’s role, are no less than full compliance with UN SCR 1244 and the UN General Assembly mandate, given in the form of ‘facilitating the dialogue of parties’. Nothing more and nothing less.

Serbia was right to see the West’s true attempt to isolate the Security Council, and in particular Russia and China as its permanent members and strategic partners of Serbia, from the process of dialogue and resolving the matter of Kosovo and Metohija, for their own geopolitical interests. The neglect of lessons taught by history, especially on the part of France and Germany, is deeply concerning.

Lastly, as we are all aware of Serbia’s substantial economic and financial reliance on the EU and the West in general, I firmly believe it will be useful to reduce this narrative, so that neither Brussels, Berlin, London nor Washington should begin to think that Serbia is an upstart ready to trade Kosovo and Metohija and national identity for their investments and donations. Finally, why not remind them that the material damage alone, inflicted by the 1990s sanctions and illegal aggression of 1999, amounts to some $ 250 billion. What are their subsequent investments and donations when put against the backdrop of this figure!? What about the human casualties!? Or the consequences of the use of weapons with depleted uranium!?

It is certainly high time to recall what is the policy of a balanced distribution of economic interests as an indispensable presumption of a balanced foreign policy and an established international position.

Belgrade, January 16, 2023

Dear Mr. Zivadin Jovanovic ,

Greetings from China Center for Contemporary World Studies, Beijing, China.

We hereby extend to you sincere gratitude again for sending us letter of congratulation back in October on the occasion of convention of 20th CPC National Congress. We appreciate your letter as symbol of our friendship. Please find attached message of appreciation, carrying personal stamp of Mme Yue Yanghua, Director General of China Center for Contemporary World Studies and Secretary General of Secretariat, Silk Road Think Tank Association, International Department of CPC Central Committee.

We look forward to having more frequent and in-depth exchanges with you and cementing our friendship.
With sincere regards and best wishes.

Nie Shengquan writing on behalf of Mme Yue Yanghua, Director General of China Center for Contemporary World Studies and Secretary General of Secretariat, Silk Road Think Tank Association (SRTA)

Secretariat, Silk Road Think Tank Association (SRTA)

China Center for Contemporary World Studies, International Department of Communist Party of China

No.4 Fuxing Road, Haidian District, Beijing,

Zivadin Jovanovic
President
Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Beijing, 1 December 2022
Re: Message of Appreciation

Dear Mr. Zivadin Jovanovic,

On the occasion of the successful concluding of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the election of the new central leadership at the first plenary session of the 20th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, I wish to place on record my appreciation for the message of congratulations you sent on the opening of the congress and the re-election of Comrade Xi Jinping as General Secretary of the 20th CPC Central Committee.

Your insightful comments on the major achievements and significance of the congress have demonstrated the good will of you and the Belgrade forum for a World of Equals to the Communist Party of China.
The successful 20th CPC National Congress demonstrates that China has now embarked on the new journey toward the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation on all fronts through a Chinese path to modernization. It will inject powerful impetus into the leapfrog development of China-Serbia relations. I attach great importance to the friendly relationship with your organization and wish to step up support to civil society organizations such as China NGO Network for International Exchange to strengthen exchanges and practical cooperation with your organization, so as to promote the understanding and affinity between our peoples and bring benefits to our countries and peoples.
With sincere regards and best wishes.

Liu Jianchao (Signed)
Minister
International Department
Central Committee
Communist Party of China

Ситуация в Косово развивается от плохой к худшей. Об этом бывший глава МИД Югославии Живадин Йованович заявил специальному корреспонденту международной редакции ФАН на Балканах.

В Белграде прошли массовые выступления в поддержку соотечественников на севере Косово. Ранее власти непризнанного Косово мобилизовали свои силовые структуры и заблокировали въезд в регион со стороны Сербии. За этим последовали вооруженные столкновения с сербскими жителями края и отдельные аресты.

Президент Сербии Александр Вучич в ответ на косовские провокации заявил, что готов применить армию страны для защиты сербского населения на территории непризнанной республики и призвал ввести на север Косово сербских миротворцев.

Корреспондент ФАН на Балканах выяснила у Живадина Йовановича, каким он видит развитие ситуации в крае.

«Ситуация в Косово и Метохии развивается от плохой ситуации к худшей. Из-за кулис за ниточки дергают правительства ведущих стран НАТО, которые используют незаконного ставленника Курти и свое боевое крыло ROSU [полиция непризнанного Косово. — Прим. ФАН]. Для них это «контролируемая эскалация» как часть механизма для ускорения «диалога», который, по их ожиданиям, должен привести к ускоренному «соглашению о нормализации» [эвфемизм, используемый Приштиной и Западом для «взаимного признания», точнее — признание Белградом независимости Косово — Прим. ФАН]», — заявил бывший глава дипломатического ведомства Югославии.

Живадин Йованович также отметил, что «на Белград оказывается давление и шантаж, с другой — обещания ускорения на «европейском пути», инвестиций, финансовые предложения. Целью является непрямое признание незаконного насильственного творения («Республики Косово»), прощение преступления агрессии 1999-го, излечение отсутствия единства внутри ЕС и НАТО, вовлечение Сербии и Боснии и Герцеговины в НАТО, ликвидации Республики Сербской, унитаризация Боснии и Герцеговины как «исламского государства✱ в центре Европы», завершение военного контроля над Балканами».

Экс-глава МИД с уверенностью утверждает, что «Сербия имеет право на главное слово. Резолюция СБ ООН 1244 предусматривает возвращение контингента армии и полиции в южный сербский край — до 999 силовиков. Очевидно, что правительства ведущих стран НАТО сейчас не готовы на это пойти. Но несмотря на это Сербия, исходя из все более очевидных угроз физической безопасности сербов в Косово и Метохии, должна без промедления направить такое требование в СБ ООН и параллельно проводить интенсивную дипломатическую деятельность для мобилизации международной поддержки своими легитимными требованиями. Белград должен ясно показать, что Сербия не является ничьей разменной монетой в глобальных отношениях».

Йованович также считает, что в случае вооруженных нападений на сербов в Косово:

«У Сербии не будет иного выбора, кроме как встать на их защиту всеми средствами, которыми она располагает. Это граждане Сербии на ее государственной территории. Если силы с мандатом от СБ ООН не в состоянии или не имеют желания предложить защиту жизней мирных граждан — у Сербии не будет иного выбора, кроме как отреагировать», — подытожил экс-министр.

✱ - запрещенная в РФ террористическая организация

Thursday, December 8, 2022

Statements

"We strengthen the Anti-Imperialist Struggle and Solidarity
for a World of Peace and Social Justice"

The XXII Assembly of the World Peace Council (WPC) was held successfully in the capital of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Hanoi, from November 21 to 26, 2022 with the participation of more than 100 representatives from 57 national and international anti-imperialist movements from around the world.
The Assembly took place in an iconic country whose people fought and defeated like only few other peoples, all-powerful adversaries such as the Japanese empire as an invader, the French colonialists who occupied Indochina and the American imperialists who slaughtered the country with over 3 million victims and with consequences to this day .

After the meeting of the outgoing Executive Committee on November 21, which reviewed the work done by the EC in the last years and the preparations for the Assembly to start, all international delegates paid homage to the historical revolutionary leader Ho Chi Minh at the Mausoleum and visited the premises where he lived and worked. On the same day, 22nd November, a briefing session about Vietnam was held in which the President of the Vietnam Union of Friendship Organisations (VUFO) Ambassador Nguyen Phuong Nga, made a presentation of the achievements, progress and challenges Vietnam is facing today, on national and international level. Many questions were answered along with short interventions by guests were made.

The session of the Assembly began on 22nd November with the welcome speech of the Vietnam Peace Committee by its President Uong Chu Luu, former vice-Speaker of the National Assembly of Vietnam, who saluted all participants on behalf of the host organisation, stating the historical importance of the XXII Assembly of the WPC for the first time on Vietnamese soil, wishing success and fruitful outcome to its deliberations. Thus, the VPC President declared the opening of the WPC assembly.

The Assembly continued with the speech of the outgoing President of the WPC, Socorro Gomes who underlined: “It is a great honor to return to this country, where its heroic people uphold a fruitful work in search of economic prosperity and social development, the consolidation of their independence, opening new pages of progress, performing a sovereign role in the world. We reiterate our full solidarity with their constructive efforts and, once more, condemn those who caused the colonialist war that left tragic and indelible consequences. Here, criminally, weapons of mass destruction were used, like Agent Orange, which caused prolonged and damaging consequences for the country. But the Vietnamese people were able to achieve their liberation and rebuild their nation, which demonstrates their revolutionary character. Socorro Gomes stated in her speech furthermore: Humanity lives a troubled time, marked by chronic economic and social crises for which it finds no solutions, surrounded in contradictions and political and military conflicts, militarist escalation, wars that are spreading and intensifying the threat of a nuclear hecatomb. This conjuncture brings complex challenges to the organizations that struggle for world peace, social justice, the peoples’ rights, and equality between the nations”. Socorro Gomes concluded her speech by stating: “Facing this complex and challenging scenario, the World Peace Council is called upon to play a uniting, organizing and mobilizing role to confront the militarist forces causing wars, interventions and coups, and to move forward, in the struggle for peace and the peoples’ emancipation This struggle will require from us ever greater clarity of purpose, spirit of unity, initiative, and militancy, to open a clear path in this historical crossroads where humanity finds itself.”

During the presentation of the Report of the outgoing General Secretary, Thanassis Pafilis, who, thanked the Vietnam Peace Committee on behalf of the WPC and expressed the undivided solidarity of the WPC to the heroic people of Vietnam, he noted: "In the years that have passed since the 21st Assembly of the WPC in Sao Luis, the WPC developed multifaceted action in conditions of tension of imperialist aggression, heightened rivalries between monopolies and states that give rise to wars, in conditions of the intensity of capital's attack against the working class, the peoples, the youth, in conditions of a capitalist crisis that worsens the lives of the people for the profits of the few, of those who steal wealth from the many who produce it". He highlighted the rich actions of the WPC against the imperialist plans of the USA - NATO - EU, the solidarity actions for the people of Palestine, Western Sahara, Cuba, Venezuela, but also for the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya that were the victims of the long-standing imperialist wars of interventions by the US, NATO, the EU and their allies.

Referring to recent developments, after condemning the imperialist war in Ukraine, he noted: "The recent NATO Summit in Madrid in June 2022 reviewed, renewed and accelerated a series of decisions from previous years. This war machine is increasing its aggression even more through the NATO 2030 strategy and the New Strategic Concept that it is preparing for the next year. Old and new pretexts, such as hybrid threats, cyber security and the so-called climate crisis, the energy crisis, etc. are mobilized to pave the way for new interventions. The WPC participated in the mass demonstration of June 26 in Madrid, with its own distinct presence. (....) The NATO 2030 Strategy foresees the strengthening of the military means of the alliance, but also its technological modernization, its planned expansion around the world, its enlargement with new members, but also the development of partnerships with dozens of states, the formation of ready combat units, the integration of Sweden and Finland, the sending of troops to Eastern Europe, around Ukraine. This is what the creation of 30 infantry units, 30 naval units and 30 aviation units aims at, which, being fully equipped, have the ability to intervene within 30 days on any front chosen by NATO. NATO forces are spread across the globe, from Afghanistan and the NATO protectorate of Kosovo to the Baltic, the Caucasus, the Mediterranean, the Black Sea and Africa."

With reference to the role of the European Union, Thanassis Pafilis highlighted its further militarization in order to more effectively serve the needs of European monopolies, through its Global Strategy, but also its "Strategic Concept", so that it can operate both autonomously and in addition to NATO ,a fact recorded, among others, by the establishment of the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO), the European Initiative for Interventions, etc., within the framework of the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP).

Concluding, he noted "Despite the negative correlation of forces and the militarization of international relations, we are optimistic that the anti-imperialist peace movement is gaining strength and our Assembly is such proof that we are holding high the flag of anti-imperialist struggle and solidarity."

The opening ceremony of the XXII assembly of the WPC was also attended by Ambassador Nguyen Phuong Nga, President of the Vietnam Union for Friendship Organisations (VUFO), which contributed decisively to the success of the Assembly. The special chief guest of the opening was Tran Thanh Man Standing Vice-Chairman of the National Assembly (Parliament) of Vietnam and member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Vietnam, who welcomed warmly all delegates to Vietnam and to the Assembly. As per decision of the President of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Nguyễn Xuân Phúc, the Supreme Order of Friendship was awarded to the World Peace Council and separately to Socorro Gomes, Thanassis Pafilis and Iraklis Tsavdaridis, for their contribution to the anti-war, anti-imperialist, peace movement. The order was awarded by Tran Thanh Man in a very emotional fraternal ceremony.

During the rich and diverse program of the 22nd WPC Assembly, the international delegates were received by the President of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, Nguyễn Xuân Phúc, the local authorities of Hanoi, the Chairman of the Central Committee of the Fatherland Front of Vietnam Do Van Chien, as well as by officials of the Vietnam Peace Committee and the Vietnamese Union for the Friendship of Peoples (VUFO), who were the hosts of the events. The international delegates had also the opportunity to visit the Quang Ninh province where one of the most emblematic sites is situated, the Halong Bay whereas all international guests enjoyed the marvelous environment and local hospitality.

During the Assembly and after the presentation of the five regional reports, a rich discussion took part in which more than 50 delegates and guests took part. The greetings speeches of five International Organisations and structures were conveyed by their representatives such as Rafael Cardino, member of the Presidential Council of the World Federation of Trade Union (WFTU), Aritz Rodriguez, President of the World Federation of Democratic Youth (WFDY), Annie Raja, Vice-President of the Women International Democratic Federation (WIDF), Jun Sasamoto, Member of the Bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) and Corazon Valdez from the Asia-Europe Peoples’ Forum (AEPF).

After the organizational and financial reports, the 22nd Assembly of the WPC elected its new Executive Committee (EC) consisting of 40 organizations. At its first meeting, the new Executive Committee elected a 13-member Secretariat, consisting of movements from the following : All India Peace& Solidarity Organisation (India), Greek Committee for International Détente &Peace (Greece), Portuguese Council for Peace & Cooperation (Portugal), U.S. Peace Council (USA), South African Peace Initiative (South Africa), Palestinian Committee for Peace &Solidarity (Palestine), Cuban Institute for the Friendship of the Peoples(Cuba), Cyprus Peace Council (Cyprus), Syrian National Peace Council (Syria), Sudan Peace& Solidarity Council (Sudan), Brazilian center for the solidarity of the peoples and struggle for Peace ( Brazil), Nepal Peace &Solidarity Council (Nepal) and Japan Peace Committee (Japan).

During the first session of the new EC, Pallab Sengupta on behalf of the All India Peace and Solidarity Organization (AIPSO) was elected unanimously as the new President of WPC, while Thanassis Pafilis and Iraklis Tsavdaridis were re-elected unanimously to the posts of General and Executive Secretary respectively, representing the Greek Peace Committee (EEDYE). Words of thanks and appreciation were expressed by Iraklis Tsavdaridis and Thanassis Pafilis about Socorro Gomes for the 14 years of contribution and service to the WPC as its President.

The Executive Committee appointed also five Vice-Presidents from respective number of regions, namely: Elisa Salvador, President of the Angolan League for the Friendship and Solidarity of the Peoples (LAASP), Alfred Marder, President of Honor of the U.S. Peace Council (USPC), Uong Chu Luu, President of the Vietnam Peace Committee (VPC), Milan Krajca, Chairman of the Czech Peace Movement (CMH), Jamshid Ahmadi, Coordinator of the Association for the Defense of Peace, Solidarity and Democracy, Iran (ADPSD).

During the meetings of the Executive Committee of 21st and 24th November the following five (5) new Member Organisations were affiliated to the World Peace Council:
• Tunisian Council for Peace and Solidarity
• Kuwaiti Peace and Solidarity Committee
• Network of Struggle for Peace & International Solidarity, SOLI Puerto Rico
• Western Sahara Peace Council
• Solidarwerkstatt Austria

The Assembly of the WPC discussed and unanimously approved a political declaration.

Attached Appendixes:
Political Declaration of the XXII WPC Assembly, and New Elected Executive Committee, Secretariat with Coordinators and Vice-Presidents:

political_declaration_xxii_assembly_wpc_english1.doc
new_executive_committee_hanoi_2022.docx

Launching of Michel Chossudovsky's Book, Belgrade Forum on October 24, 2022

My sincere thanks for this welcome to the Republic of Serbia. I must say my heart is in the Republic of Serbia today. And my thanks to Zivadin.

I should mention that just about 15 minutes ago he gave me a bottle of Sljivovica. It was delivered to my room at quarter to 11, 15 minutes ago. It‘s a weapon  of mass destruction [Laughter] but it’s also an act of solidarity and sharing. And when I arrived here I had the bottle of Sljivovica in my hands and somebody confiscated it and put it on the table over there. But we will share it, we will share it together at the end of this presentation [Laughter]. Well that bottle is a symbol of division but also solidarity in the Serbian context.

This presentation I think is important inasmuch as the world is at the crossroads of the most serious crisis in modern history.

In many regards the US-NATO war against Yugoslavia which extended incidentally over a period of 20 years or more, because it started in the early 80s was a dressed rehearsal for all US sponsored subsequent wars.

It is important to point out that prominent scholars entitled that war against Yugoslavia as a “Just War”. Now, there’s nothing “Just” about that war, it’s a criminal undertaking. But you have people like Professor Richard A. Falk from Princeton University (currently involved in the anti-war movement in relation to Ukraine), who in 2001 put forth the notion of “The Just War“.

He was referring to Yugoslavia and Afghanistan: Interview with R. Falk

Yugoslavia was a preamble to Afghanistan based on the same premises of criminality against Sovereign countries.

I should mention also that when the war on Yugoslavia broke out, on the 24th of March 1999, progressives in other words leftist movements in both Western Europe as well as North America we’re firmly behind NATO.  And these were anti-war and anti-globalization activists who were either totally ignorant, but I suspect through complicity, they were supportive of the alleged “humanitarian war” to the rescue of the Albanian population of Kosovo.

I should mention that most of my research was done outside Serbia. I have visited Serbia on several occasions but when the war broke out on the 24th of March, I started writing. Many of the texts which are in this book were written more than 20 years ago, some of them were written actually in the mid 1990s.

I had started my research in the early 1990s focusing on the economic and social dimensions which are crucial to an understanding of the military and  strategic dimensions. I’m referring to the fact that in the early 1980s  there was, what we might describe as, an “Economic War Plan” largely with instrumented by the IMF and the World Bank, which essentially consisted in dismantling an entire National economy.

I recall that the war against Yugoslavia as of March 24 1999 was targeting essentially civilian infrastructure: schools, hospitals, the infrastructure of residential areas.

These are amply documented but there was one element which is beyond criminality.

When I was in Belgrade a year later, I visited the Children’s Hospital and the children hospital had been identified as a target, a strategic target by US – NATO.  And when we say US – NATO, it’s really US. NATO is simply an appendage of the Pentagon.

US-NATO stated categorically that their objective was to save lives and because of that they did not bomb the section of the hospital where the babies were residing, but instead they bombed the power generators which provided electricity to the hospital and to the children in incubators. What this meant is that the entire hospital was destroyed because these smart bombs had undermined the basic functioning of the hospital, which then required the subsequent evacuation of the hospital, and many children, of course, died as a result of this.

That’s one example, but it’s one example that I investigated when I returned to Belgrade a year later to attend the commemoration organized under the auspices of the Belgrade Forum.

I would like to look at the issue of chronology and history of this war.

Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, Yugoslavia was a successful economy with a social project. It was entitled “Market Socialism”, it had a cooperative structure of enterprise management and it had the highest growth rate when compared to European countries, in excess of 6 percent and a full-fledged welfare state.

I should mention that this process was in a country which had experienced heavy casualties during World War II, which were commemorated yesterday.

I should mention my first visit to Yugoslavia was in 1967 as a student. In fact, it was a group of students from the Institute of Social studies in The Hague Netherlands and we decided we wanted to go to Yugoslavia, to take cognizance of “Market Socialism”. The Institute arranged for this to take place.

Without personalizing: during this visit I had a minor health problem. I went to a clinic and received treatment from a medical doctor. Then I said “How much do I owe you?” and he said to me “Nothing”. He responded “In the Republic of Serbia we also welcome our foreign visitors and provide them with full health coverage”.

No other country in the world would have that kind of procedure. It was full-fledged health coverage for the citizens of Yugoslavia but also visitors to the country. That experience was something which had an obvious impact on the way I analyzed the history of what happened to this societal project and how it was deliberately destroyed.

In other words, a societal project [Market Socialism and the Welfare State] had been carried out, with inevitable divisions at a political level. But ultimately based on a social consensus, that was what the people of Yugoslavia wanted. And that that is what was destroyed quite deliberately through a series of economic, social and political mechanisms starting in the early 1980s.

In 1984 the Reagan Administration published what was called a National Security Decision Directive. It was an important policy document, entitled “secret and sensitive”. It was intended to undermine market socialism and integrate Yugoslavia into a so-called free market economy.

That was a 3-page document. I think that many people in this room have read this document. There’s nothing secret about it and there’s nothing sensitive about it. It was made public, but there was also another agenda which was not revealed. There was a military intelligence agenda.

I did not have access to those documents. But there was one document to which I had access and it was a World Bank report published in the early 1990s, which revealed the entire logic of how you destabilize and destroy a country.

I have sent that document, it is on file with the Belgrade Forum. I must say that at the time I received that document it was an internal document of the World Bank. I received it from a representative of the government of Yugoslavia at the time. Normally this was something that was not supposed to be released.

What this document describes is essentially a bankruptcy program, which was initiated under the auspices of the World Bank which then led to the outright closing down of the industrial sector, applied to all major sectors of the Yugoslav economy, dictated of course by the creditors  of the Belgrade government.

What this report described were the policies implemented  on behalf of Belgrade’s creditors, which consisted in the phasing out of socially owned Enterprises. In other words, that was the condition and then there were conditions with regard to bankruptcy and privatization.

They sent in an army of advisors and Western lawyers and consultants to implement this crucial operation. There was the Financial Operations Act of 1989, which was passed and played a crucial role in engineering the collapse of of Yugoslavia’s industrial sector.
The History of “Humanitarian Warfare”: NATO’s Reign of Terror in Kosovo, The Destruction of Yugoslavia

The terminology is diabolical in many regards. The bankruptcy process involved what they called an exit mechanism.

Exit mechanism is like killing the economy, killing the industry.

In other words these enterprises were thrown out of the economic landscape. This was under, what was called, The 1989 Financial Operations Act. It was entirely controlled by Western creditors, the IMF and the World Bank.

And already in 1989 there were tens of thousands of workers who were simply removed from their employment and the socially managed enterprises went bankrupt. In the meantime this set the stage for subsequent macroeconomic policies, because it led to the impoverishment of the entire population.

In other words, it didn’t totally kill the welfare state because, I think, there was a commitment to retaining the welfare state, but it certainly killed the whole economic structure of a sovereign country and its social achievements in the wake of World War II.

Without getting into the detail, this project, was in some regards even more deadly than the US-NATO military operations which were waged at a subsequent stage. Already in 1989 they had more than 200 enterprises which were targeted and almost a 100,000 workers lost their work. That was the first stage both prior and in the wake of the 1990 January IMF Shock Treatment.

January 1990 was the Shock Treatment by the IMF, which ultimately broke down the fiscal structure of the Yugoslav Federation.

The fiscal structure of the Yugoslav federation played a central role in the transfer of resources from the central government to the republics. That’s the basis of a federal structure. These transfers of revenues and expenditures from the central government to the member states of the Federation.

When shock treatment was applied, the federal fiscal structure was destroyed and dismantled, paving the way and creating the conditions for secession.

Already in early 1990, 614 000 workers were dismissed out of a Workforce of the order of 2.7 million. In other words, almost the quarter of the labor force with the largest concentrations of bankrupt firms in Serbia, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Macedonia and Kosovo.

The January 1990 IMF Shock Treatment: That was their economic terminology – shock treatment – the idea is that you get shock treatment and then you recover.

Meanwhile the fiscal structure is destroyed, the links between the central government and the republics are undermined and at the same time all the major components of the Yugoslavia economy with regard to large-scale electrical companies, petroleum, refinery, machinery, engineering all of this was precipitated into bankruptcy.

I should mention that this process of economic disintegration was the precondition for the so-called Civil War including military intervention. Social divisions were created. People were impoverished. And this then led to the subsequent stage of military intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

It was also related to Operation Storm in Kraijina and Operation Medak Pocket and the various military actions in Croatia directed against Serbian civilians, from the early 1990s to the mid 1990s.

During the period  1990-1995, the US intelligence strategy was to bring in their terrorists namely Al-Qaeda.

Al Qaeda was integrated into the Bosnian Muslim Army as of an early stage. This is not necessarily known to everybody but Al-Qaeda was a creation of the CIA going back to first War on Afghanistan what was called the the Soviet Afghan War (1979-1989).

It wasn’t the Soviet Afghan War, it was a US sponsored war with so-called “freedom fighters”, namely what was subsequently described as Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda means “The base” and Al-Qaeda was the base in the CIA data bank of the Freedom Fighters who were recruited to wage war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan.

The relationship between  the Bosnia Muslim Army and Al-Qaeda is documented in a congressional document. In other words it’s a document of the US Senate, which was drafted by the Republican party at the time, and they accused the Clinton administration of bringing in Al Qaeda.

It’s all confirmed. They brought in Al-Qaeda in Bosnia and Herzegovina and, of course, they brought in Al-Qaeda into Kosovo at a subsequent stage.

I should also mention that the Kosovo Liberation Army, they were also trained in Afghanistan, courtesy of the US intelligence.

In other words, the KLA as an entity was linked up with Al-Qaeda terrorists at a much earlier stage, training in Afghanistan and then ultimately these Kosovo terrorists were given United Nations status, as you know that’s came subsequently. But the history goes back to Bosnia  and the use of terrorists to create conditions which then led to ultimately, as far as Bosnia is concerned the so-called Dayton Agreement.

In 1995 there was an alleged peace agreement which was signed in a US military base in Ohio [Dayton, Ohio]. It wasn’t in Geneva, it was in a US military base in Ohio and it was monitored by the US government and military with an army of lawyers and consultants. It was at Dayton that they drafted the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Now this goes beyond colonialism. They drafted the Constitution of a so-called sovereign state. It wasn’t a sovereign state at all. And in that Constitution there is a clause that struck me, I went into the appendices, it wasn’t easy to find it at that time. The Constitution said that the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which is a key instrument of monetary and macroeconomic policy, the president of the Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina will not be a citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, or of a neighboring country. He/she she will be appointed by the IMF. That’s what you call democracy.

There is a transition from Bosnia to Kosovo. The United States had private mercenary companies, because they wanted to avoid being directly involved. This was Military Professional Resources Incorporated (MPRI). And MPRI was involved in training terrorists in Croatia and Bosnia and ultimately these acts of training were also conducive to the crimes committed against the Serbian population in Croatia, namely Kraina, the Medak Pocket, if I recall correctly. We then had, of course, a chief of staff whose name was Agim Çeku, which of course everybody knows who he is.

But Agim Çeku was recruited by by Military Professional Resources Incorporated MPRI), mostly composed of former high level officers of the Pentagon.

Agim Çeku, of course, then became Commander in Chief of the Kosovo forces at a subsequent stage.

But in the earlier period he was instrumental in Operation Storm, which was a criminal operation directed against the Serb population in Croatia.

There is another individual which of course everybody knows, it’s General Michael Jackson. It’s not the pop singer. I think I should mention a little bit about the background of Michael Jackson. He was first involved in Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, appointed by the United Nations. He held the highest rank in the British Military. And ultimately became Head of the Joint Chief of Staff.

But there’s something else about Michael Jackson which I don’t think people in Serbia know. I know that because I’m of Irish descent and he was the second officer in command of the Bloody Sunday Massacre in Northern Ireland, that was in the 1970s.

He was a young officer and all his training was based in Northern Ireland, largely directed against civilians. I will make that article available. But it’s important to understand how they appoint criminals to high-ranking positions under  UN auspices.

So that in effect, the methods of killing civilians was something that he had inherited from his role in Derry, Northern Ireland. It was in 1972, when civilians were involved in a protest movement and they were shot, killed on the orders of Michael Jackson.

There is a lot of detail in history, but let me proceed to the subsequent stage of the US-Nato Aggression against Yugoslavia, which is the 1999  Illegal invasion and bombing of Yugoslavia, and the role of the alleged Kosovo Freedom Fighters namely the KLA.

This was portrayed as a humanitarian undertaking and the media conformed throughout the Western world and, as I mentioned earlier, the Kosovo Liberation Army was viewed as a legitimate entity protecting the human rights of the Albanian minority.

This of course is total rubbish, because the Kosovo Liberation Army was linked to organized crime. Hashim Thaçi had a file with Interpol, this was well known and they were, of course subsequently, the Kosovo Liberation Army freedom Fighters were then given UN passport, so to speak. The Freedom Fighters linked to organized crime then became the Kosovo Protection Corps and all of that was, of course, not only illegal but criminal.

In late March 1999, I started writing an article which was called and “Kosovo Freedom Fighters financed by organized crime“.

I was a regular contributor to the Le Monde diplomatique which was a prestigious French monthly, and still is, and I worked with them for a period of 10 years starting in 1989, and that article was never published by the Le Monde diplomatique, and I was under attack by various people on the Left regarding my assessment of the Kosovo Liberation Army.

As I mentioned earlier the Kosovo Liberation Army was protected by the CIA and German intelligence – the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND). It was also trained by these intelligence operatives and, as I mentioned, some of the training took place in Afghanistan and the KLA had links to Al-Qaeda right from the beginning prior to 1999.

The issue was as far as media coverage was concerned: it was absolutely prohibited to mention that Hashim Thaçi was on file with Interpol.

I knew it, I checked it, that information was known but it was never released in the course of the war.

In other words not only is the leader of a terrorist organization links to organized crime, but at the same time the leader of that organization becomes the ideal candidate for position of head of state of the self-proclaimed Kosovo Republic. T

he irony is that Hashim Thaçi became president with a criminal record and it was only more than almost 20 years later that there was a report coming from the Hague Tribunal saying that he had committed crimes against humanity etc.

Very convenient: that came 20 years later, when it was known in the late 90s that he was a criminal.

But I should say one thing, criminals were considered as the ideal candidates for high office (President, Prime Minister). Why because they obey orders! Criminal  appointees, corrupt politicians are not going to question the people who are behind them. So what happened: the Mafia State installed by NATO was by a political entity and a leader who was on the Interpol list, but that doesn’t matter because he’s not going to make any decisions, the decisions are taken by US – NATO and this is a very convenient appointment.

I think I should conclude referring to the utmost relevance of US-NATO wars on Yugoslavia in an understanding of what is now happening in Ukraine and beyond.

Because since Yugoslavia there have been a series of US-NATO-sponsored Wars either directly or indirectly but certainly with regard to Libya NATO was involved. Libya, Syria, of course, Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was officially a NATO project, because Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty was endorsed and within three weeks after the 9/11 attacks allegedly by terrorist, (September 11 2001(, on October 7th 2001 they waged war on Afghanistan, based on fraudulent statement that somehow Afghanistan had attacked America. There were no Afghan jets in the skies of New York that day and meanwhile Osama bin Laden had been admitted for treatment to  Pakistani military hospital in Rawalpindi within walking distance of the US military Mission,

They knew where he was: was he coordinating the 9/11 attacks from his hospital bed with his laptop?

That’s another dimension, but I think what we have undertake, starting in the Republic of Serbia, we have to build a Worldwide movement against US-NATO and also against what is now treason, political treason, within the European Union.

The term Mafia state is not limited to Kosovo. In many regards the European Union has become the Mafia state. I will not dwell upon this but there’s one key appointment in the European Union which is the president of the European Central Bank. Now it just so happens that Christine Lagarde, formerly managing director of the International Monetary Fund, has the criminal record in France. She was condemned to a prison sentence of one year attributable to her role in money laundering  and deviation of public funds. It’s all on record. But she was then released of that decision by  French judges when the IMF governing board, which she chairs, incidentally sent a note to the French government saying that she was a very honest person and they asked for the repeal of the Judgment. But the criminal record is still there and why is that important. Because she is obeying orders from the upper echelons of the financial establishment. There are many elements of Mafia state appointments within the European Union which are now unfolding.

I am going to complete this presentation focusing on the nature of the crisis now affecting the European Union and, of course, Ukraine. It’s interconnected.

There is an act of economic Warfare which in many regards is modeled on the act of economic Warfare against Yugoslavia.

It’s the triggering of bankruptcies, it’s the destabilization of agriculture.

It’s very complex, but it is focusing essentially on two variables:

1. energy and 2. food.

Energy is the input into production, food is survival.

Those two variables and the actions of the United States to block the supply of energy to the European Union are crimes against humanity.

But, on the part of the European, as we say in French La classe politique, it is an act of treason, because they are sleeping with the enemy.

This is a war on Europe, it’s not a war on Russia,

It’s a war in Europe and it has a whole history behind it.

I won’t enter into the details. Specifically North Stream was an act of sabotage by the US government. We have all the information to that effect and Biden said „Yes, I promise we will do it“. We have evidence. In international law, an act of sabotage directed against infrastructure in the territorial waters of sovereign states of the European Union, namely Sweden and Denmark, is an act of War, it’s defined as an act of War.

My thanks to everybody. This is not meant to be a “serious statement” but I think it’s a good idea for the Republic of Serbia not to join the European Union at this particular moment.

Question 1: Thank you very much for coming to Belgrade and for writing this book which I can’t wait to read. I have two questions. One, has there been a promotion of this book in Canada?

The book is available on our website online. Actually, I posted it back today. It has been read quite extensively online and we will continue promoting it.

I think the problem is that print versions are not easy to distribute in this particular context because there is censorship.

My research center is not continuing with print publications. First of all, we don’t have the resources, but we are now moving into what we call ebooks. I’ve just completed a book on the Corona crisis which I think is also relevant to the debate here. But that’s another topic. But yes it is available now.

There are Serbian communities in North America and many cities particularly in Canada and Toronto. I’ve lost contact a little bit because, we were very active in 1999 at various venues in which the late Ramsey Clark was involved. There was a coherent peace movement. I think the problem now is that we don’t have a coherent peace movement.

Question 2: Second, you touched upon a few issues relating to the war in Ukraine and European Union and I’m just wondering if you’re planning to write a book on those topics? It would be very interesting.

I have written extensively on Ukraine in the form of articles and, of course, we’ve also got very numerous contributors and authors which have written on that.

At this stage, all that information is available on Ukraine, in terms of daily coverage.

The books that I’ve written recently or less recently are on nuclear war, the first of which came out in 2011.

Then another book which is entitled “The globalization of War“ came out in 2015 and then my latest book is on the Corona crisis which essentially is almost two years of research,  it’s very detailed.

Let me just mention one dimension, and that’s very important. The economic crisis did not start in February of this year, it started in January of 2020. And what economists do not understand, but that’s also a characteristic of our discipline, is that when you implement a lockdown requiring the confinement of the labor force and you close down the workplace in 193 countries simultaneously, what are the impacts.

it’s the largest economic and social crash in world history which was instrumented on March 11, 2020.

That I’ve tackled very extensively so that all the corona crisis is part of of our understanding of what’s happening in Ukraine and so on and so forth.

Again it’s another topic but that book is available online and I will make sure that it is also available to the Belgrade Forum so that all of you can get a copy of it.

I think in a sense you are very fortunate in Serbia not to have experienced this crisis as in most countries.

Because there was an awareness and I mean, I’m coming from Canada, people are still wearing the mask.

The restrictions, the levels of devastation are beyond description and the logic of this Corona crisis is bankruptcy as well. And it’s the building up of debt and it’s the fiscal crisis of the state. This is outlined in the book there are several chapters on the economic dimensions.

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-nato-war-aggression-against-yugoslavia-michel-chossudovsky/5799983

Download: The-Challenges-of-Global-Security.pdf

Read online:  tzzzs.com/type_rdts/46110.html

Zivadin Jovanovic,  Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals


Excerpts from the speech at the International conference on “Chinese Path to Modernization and New Form for Human Advancement”, hosted by Renmin University, Beijing, November 25-26th, 2022.

Chinese path to modernization and the new form for human advancement, bear specific characteristics. Without ambition to list them all or elaborate in details, here are some to be mentioned.

First, modernization and human advancement is the core of Chinese development philosophy, in general. It is based on the unprecedented achievements of China in all spheres of socio-economic, scientific, technologic and cultural development over the period of building the moderately prosperous society which has been successfully completed. The unique, enormous success of eradication of poverty of the hundreds of millions of the people, not to mention many other great achievements, comprises not only economic and financial resources, but even more, political, cultural, moral and human values, vision and persistence. With such achievements with no comparison in history China is entering the new era of further building and modernizing own society. President Xi Jinping pointed out at the recent 20th Congress of CPC – that “Chinese people of all ethnic groups will realize the second centenary goal of building China into a great modern socialist country in all respects and to advance the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation in all fronts through a Chinese path to modernization”.

Second, Chinese path to modernization stems from the unique socio-economic system of socialism with the Chinese characteristics the core sense of which is satisfying the needs and expectations of the people. Therefore, the Chinese path to modernization is scientifically based as actually, the whole socio-economic system. Its core objective is better life of the people. Therefore the policy of modernization and New Form of Human Advancement is not partial, sectoral, but comprehensive strategy applicable to all fields and all strata of socio-economic, political, governmental and non-governmental, scientific, technologic, educational, cultural and other fields and levels of organizations and entities.

Third, the vision of modernization bears the seal of deep rooted six millennia-long culture of the Chinese nation which has been continuously, enriching humanity with so many innovations, modern solutions and discoveries so that it is hardly possible to find  comparison in the history of civilization, This, of course, is contributing factor  to stability of the process of modernization, essential element of the people’s self-confidence and self-reliance. It is also durable and stable foundation for the successful implementation of the strategy for the New Era including  the new path to modernization and human advancement.

Fourth, Chinese path to modernization presumes firm commitment to deepening of the policy of reform and opening up, but at the same time includes self reliance, further development of the socialist market economy, focusing on domestic economy and interplay between domestic and international economic processes. The new development philosophy adopted at the 20 th Congress of CPC is well based on domestic experiences as well as on good command of the global trends which require built in precaution and adaptability.

Fifth, the new Chinese development philosophy attaches the highest importance to self-reliance in science and technology which are termed “the primary productive forces”, to the advancement of education as “the high priority” and to the innovation as “primary driver of growth”. Such a resolute strategy deserves highest recognition and should serve as inspiration for better understanding of the importance of investing in science, technology, education and culture. This, of course is not left to the automatic solution by market and the private sector but primarily to the government and public sector.

Sixth, the new form of human advancement is based on equality of all nations and all Human beings. It encompasses openness, inclusiveness and human solidarity, excluding any protectionism, privileges or egoism. One of the important directions to strengthen mutual understanding and remove mistrust should be encouraging people-to-people exchange, including exchange and cooperation in the fields of science, education, culture, sports, NGO and think tanks. Chinese concept of building community of the shared future of humanity deserves global promotion and support. Drawing attention of the world community to the coming problem of starvation of about a billion of human beings on our planet and concrete steps to prevent this to happen is the most urgent, top priority of humanity today.

Chinese policy of peace, win win cooperation, support to the democratization of international relations, creation of the new, democratic, multi-polar World Order and adherence to the five principles of peaceful coexistence are also part and parcel of Chinese path to modernization and new form of Human advancement. China has been implementing this policy in many concrete ways, particularly by contributing to the open and inclusive global development, demonstrating impressive solidarity in the global struggle to achieve control of the Covid 19 pandemic, by helping development of the least developed nations and by launching Global Development Initiative Belt and Road decade ago – to mention some. Being comprehensive strategic partner with China, active participant in the process of the Global Belt and Road Initiative (2013) and in China+CEEC cooperation framework (2012), I am convinced that Serbia will continue win win cooperation in the Chinese New Era of modernization and Human Advancement.

Jan Oberg, founder of TFF (Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research), visited the Belgrade Forum for World of Equals on November 25th, 2022, where he met with Zivadin Jovanovic, and talk about potential partnership TFF and Belgrade.

Jan Oberg is a university professor, a researcher of international relations and the author of a number of books, whose main theme is - peace is built exclusively by peaceful means -.

He visited Serbia many times, he was a guest lecturer at the faculties of social sciences, and these days he participated in the Conferences in SANU on the social role of intellectuals.

Download article

Il Forum di Belgrado per un Mondo di Eguali esprime la sua più profonda preoccupazione per l'aggravarsi del confronto globale che è accompagnato da una profonda crisi economica e sociale in Europa e nel mondo. Questa crisi, che sta peggiorando ogni giorno, costituisce una minaccia per la vita, la pace e la sicurezza nel mondo. Questa preoccupazione è di vitale importanza, dato il fatto che nessuna iniziativa significativa e onesta sostiene il passaggio a una scelta vitale del confronto, del dialogo, della diplomazia e della distensione.

Le lezioni della storia non possono essere ignorate. Un tale stato di inerzia e di mancanza di comprensione dei pericoli che si stanno manifestando, incide potenzialmente sulle fondamenta stesse dell'esistenza delle discipline umanistiche. Il conflitto in Ucraina deve essere risolto rivolgendosi alle sue radici. Gli sforzi di pace non devono essere ostacolati, le nuove cortine di ferro devono essere rimosse, le sanzioni unilaterali devono essere escluse dalla prassi internazionale. Partendo dall'esperienza storica della Serbia, comprese quelle del recente passato, le esperienze dell'Europa, il Forum di Belgrado per un Mondo di Eguali  rivolge un appello a tutte le associazioni per la pace, i governi, così come le organizzazioni internazionali, in particolare all'ONU, ad appoggiare il dialogo, la diplomazia e la distensione come unica via possibile per prevenire un conflitto globale che minaccia il futuro dell'umanità. Facciamo appello al dialogo immediato e all'azione diplomatica ai massimi livelli tra Washington, Mosca, Pechino e Bruxelles. Il focus di fondo non può che essere sulla “convivenza pacifica” tra nazioni sovrane determinate a prevenire un ulteriore aggravamento del conflitto che potrebbe portare allo scenario della terza guerra mondiale, senza escludere gli incenerimenti nucleari. Il riconoscimento dell'uguaglianza, dell'interdipendenza e del partenariato nel preservare la pace, la sicurezza e lo sviluppo, come valori di civiltà indivisibili, è l'unico modo per la sopravvivenza e il futuro sicuro dell'umanità.

Belgrado, Serbia 26 ottobre 2022

Traduzione a cura di Enrico Vigna, portavoce del Forum Belgrado Italia

CALL FOR DIALOGUE, DIPLOMACY AND DETENTE

The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals expresses its deepest concern regarding the worsening of the global confrontation which is accompanied by a deep-seated economic and social crisis in Europe as well as worldwide. This crisis which is worsening on a daily basis, constitutes a threat to global life, peace and security.

This concern is of critical significance given the fact that no meaningful and honest initiatives advocate turning from the track of confrontation to essential dialogue, diplomacy and detente.

The lessons of history cannot be ignored. Such a state of inertia and lack of understanding of the unfolding dangers potentially affects the very foundation of humanities existence. The conflict in Ukraine has to be resolved by addressing to its roots. Peace efforts must not be obstructed, new iron curtains must be removed, unilateral sanctions have to be excluded from the international practice.

Starting from the Serbia's historical experience, including those from the recent past, the experiences of Europe, Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals makes an appeal to all peace associations, governments, as well as international organizations, particularly to OUN, to endorse dialogue, diplomacy and detente as the only possible path for preventing a global conflict that threatens the future of humanity.

We appeal for the immediate dialogue and diplomatic action at the highest levels between Washington, Moscow, Beijing and Brussels. The underlying focus can only be on “peaceful coexistence” between sovereign nations determined to prevent further worsening of the conflict which could lead to a World War III scenario, without exclude nuclear incinerations.

Recognition of equality, interdependence and partnership in preserving peace, security and development, as indivisible civilizational values, is the only way for the survival and secure future of humanity.

READ/DOWNLOAD WHOLE ARTICLE

Zivadin Jovanovic,
President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Excerpts from the speech at the International Conference organized by
Mut zur Ethic, Sirnach, Switzerland, September 4th, 2022.

Peace can be preserved by peaceful means, only.
Prevailing narrative today is dominated by attitudes of confrontations, divisions, lining up democracies versus autocracies, escalation, winning the war over Russia by all means.  
Simplified approaches and division on “healthy” and “malign” strategies – sign of weakness.
Illustrative of the global trends are the past June summits – NATO+ (Madrid), G-7 (Elma, Germany), BRIKS+ (Beijing). First two – fueling confrontation, escalation, militarization and sanctions; third – advocating global development, call for partnership.

Global militarization of political decision making, economy, infrastructure, mass media, education – militarization of global thinking.
The pains of birth of the new democratic, inclusive, just World Order.
Pattern of confrontation to be replaced by pattern of detente, peace, partnership, global development.

Openness, adaptation to new realities, vision of common future of mankind.
One New inclusive World Order for the whole mankind, based on sovereign equality of nations and peaceful coexistence - not two, in parallel, confronted.
Vision of common future requires mutual respect.

Global challenges, such as pandemics, climate warming, recession, food and energy production and distribution, need global concerted efforts.

Exclusiveness, domination or hegemonism have to go to history.
Inclusive dialogue based on equality, respect of mutual interests

Dialogue on root causes of problems:

- addressing root causes of escalation, not propaganda
- Consequences of geopolitics of expansion, breach of agreements after the fall of the Berlin Wall
- Real meaning of indivisibility of peace and security, equal security for all – sine qua non
- avoid nuclear catastrophe
- using tactical, “low yield” nuclear armament – dangerous miscalculation
- How to narrow gaps, divisions, mistrust, egoism, protectionism
- Solving present challenges by future oriented, proactive approaches

The role of the Movement of Nonaligned (NAM), making 2/3 of UN membership, in reinstating dialogue and détente.
Role of peace associations, think-thanks, academia and mass-media
The Balkans – long neglected by EU and the West, destabilized and badly damaged by 1999 NATO aggression, now faced with pressures from the same factors to abandon good relations and partnership with Russia and China.

Serbia remains open for win-win cooperation, military neutral, does not wish to join NATO (86% against), nor illegal sanctions against Russia. From the own recent history Serbia is quite aware that sanctions have effects as the armament for massive destruction. EU sanctions against Russia seems to be getting more and more counterproductive.
1999 NATO illegal aggression on the side of separatism in Kosovo and Metohija, violation of UN Charter and Helsinki (1975) Final Document remain tragic precedents. NATO brought back the war to European soil. The problem of the status of Kosovo and Metohija can be resolved on the basis of UN SC resolution 1244, only.
Balkans turning to itself.
The past week Belgrade has been the venue of three days manifestations and Summit of the Open Balkan leaders of Serbia, Albania and N. Macedonia, joined by the leaders of Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Hungary and Turkey. 

Today’s world is in turmoil with obvious risks of further complications and increase of tensions on global level that can lead to the conflict of broader significance and possible tragic consequences. That is an outcome of the extended duration of the system of international relations based, on big part, on inequality between states and nations and of the attempt of some of them to organize the world affairs to fit only their own interests, and the refusal of some states to tolerate that anymore. The inequality is the result of the egoism of the privileged states, that support and practice domination, double standards, injustices, disregard of the international law, oppression, coercion, deception, exploitation, media manipulation and many other bad and negative practices. All them are almost always in favor oft hat privileged group of countries and implemented by them. Consequences of such policies toward other countries are very serious. They consist in restriction of their political independence, devastation and degradation of their economic wealth and the limit of their possibilities to progress and develop.

If the majority of the world’s countries search to change the actual situation and build the world community on a more positive and constructive basis, it have to be conscious of the strength of retrograde forces, of their long experience in troubling world affairs, interfere everywhere and corrupt important institutions and individuals. It should understand that the struggle for freedom and equality in international relations is far to be finished. To succeed It is important to understand that the progressive countries have the imperative to unite for a joint struggle against the oppression that last so long. The difference in position and, consequently, in the approach in relation to this issue by two opposite block of countries is a result of their historical path. Those two groups could be nearly defined as former colonial powers and former colonies or, maybe more precisely, developed and developing ones. Although there are no precise criteria for the definition of “developed” and “developing” countries, it is broadly assessed that the majority of Western countries are in the group of “developed” countries, with the meaning rich and privileged ones, and that the rest of the world is in the group of “developing” ones, in some part former colonies, with the meaning poor and oppressed ones.

By Investopedia team*, countries may be classified as either developed or developing based on the gross domestic product (GDP) or gross national income (GNI) per capita, the level of industrialization, the general standard of living, and the amount of technological infrastructure, among several other potential factors. It is evident that those characteristics depend deeply from the historical development of each country and that the developed ones, 36 countries by Investopedia team, are all located in North America, Europe, or “Developed Asia and Pacific”. On the other side, 126 developing ones (Investopedia team) are all located in Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. And they are frequently experiencing a lack of jobs, food, clean drinking water, education, healthcare, and housing. Consequently, developed countries are practically all colonial ones and developing ones in big part former colonies. That’s explaining the base of the antagonisms and the approaches to the international relations.

But today, the difference in economic wealth, level of development and international influence is not anymore so big as it was. Combining previously enumerated factors, Investopedia team consider that, based on the research updated in April 2022, in 2020 the USA was the richest developed country on Earth with a total GDP of $20.95 trillion and China was the richest developing country on Earth, with a total GDP of $14.73 trillion. We can agree or not, but we can’t deny that China has high incomes, developed industrial base, has access to modern technologies, and succeed to eradicate the poverty, in a most populated country of the world and, consequently, could be treated also as developed country. And not just China.

Nevertheless, that clearly demonstrates that the differences between the diverse groups of the countries exists, in their origins, their actual position and consequently in their political engagement. The roots of their differences are in the fact that the developed countries, colonial ones, got their wealth by exploitation and oppression of the colonized ones. Contrary to that, developing countries, many of them former colonies, were by centuries devastated and robbed by colonial states. They are, by that, natural enemies, in first place because former colonial powers, independently of their rhetoric, still practice the same neocolonial policies and doesn’t want to renounce to their domination in the international relations and easy profits. The former colonies think that they have right to be remunerated for the past exploitation, or at least to be free of further exploitation, what is not easy to achieve. The right question is if developing countries became strong enough to confront colonial ones seriously and get not just formal independence, but substantial one.

We are now precisely in one of those moments in which a number of states achieved certain capacity. That’s mean economic, military and consequently political one, and is trying to challenge that unfavorable system, the countries that are representing it, and the ones that have benefits from such a system. It is clear that such a challenge provokes a violent reaction of the privileged former colonial countries with serious risks for a broader war.

The actual conflict in Ukraine is not only an excellent proof of profound differences between two parts of the world represented this time by RF and USA, but in the some time the obvious evidence that the antagonisms between actual and new superpowers began to be disputed by force. The conflict in Ukraine is certainly a consequence of the strategy of domination, expansion and deterrence which NATO conducts under the leadership of USA. Relatively to that, it should be stressed that the security is indivisible and is equal for everybody, not somebody’s privilege at the expense of others.

There are many views that the conflict in Ukraine is a struggle for the multipolarity that should replace the actual unipolarity, lead by USA. It has to be said that in the globalized world nobody is self-sufficient or exempted. Egoism, protectionism, double standards, domination should be left to the history. Only multipolarity, based on full respect of sovereignty, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs, could be the pillar of peace and stability in the world. How far that conflict can go, we will see. But, the profundity of the antagonisms and their extended duration suggest in fact that they probably can’t be solved easily and without defeat of one of the sides what would have serious impact on tomorrow’s world.

If the conflict in Ukraine is formally run between RF and Ukraine, effectively it is conduct between RF and USA, as representatives of a privileged group of countries and the rest of the world that struggle against inequality. China is not participating actively in it, at least not yet but, in fact, is sharing the position of RF on many aspects and especially on the basic one – a regain of the equality. It has to be said that China and many other countries in the world, didn’t introduce sanctions to RF, in spite of frenetic pressure of the West to do it. Unilateral sanctions are unacceptable. Introducing them doesn’t resolve anything. Contrary, sanctions are an arm for massive destruction and a part of the war policy, sometime its introduction. It is also true that the right question is who those sanctions would hit more- the ones that introduced them or the targeted ones. What is certain is they will cause enormous damage to the global economy that still didn’t overpass the consequences of the Covid 19 pandemic.

Speaking about sanctions, conflict and wars, it is maybe necessary to stress that the world should think about more important global issues, in first place about the big problem of the modern humanity that is the increase of poverty. It could be suppressed if the race in arms became replaced by a race for the extermination of poverty and unjust repartition of the wealth. The world needs investments and help of the developed countries to the countries in development, particularly in Africa, instead of their exploitation. The world needs also the democratization of the inclusive global governance. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and the cooperation format  1 + 17 are giving the biggest contribution to the global development and by that to the peace and stability, and China’s win-win cooperation and solidarity have become symbols of its approach to the international community. Those are the good examples of constructive strength.

The challenge of the unipolar world under USA leadership consist in the legitimate attempt of some countries, in first place Russian Federation (RF), and then China, as the ones that have the real capacities to compete, in any field, with USA, to defend themselves from constant aggressive behavior, military encirclement, real threats, conditioning, oppression, economic pressures, media accusations and many other activities of the Western countries The problem for USA and other Western countries  with RF and China is that they are trying to establish free, fair and transparent international relations, based on relative equality and mutual respect of interest. That means especially in the fields of security, economy, and international relations and to build confidence between states, countries, nations and religions. They would like to bring to an end the domination of developed countries in international affairs, the dependence from them,  their interference in bilateral affairs, and relations with other countries, their pressures and threats about many questions in relation to their internal and international policies. Those goals are precisely the attributes of the world based on constructive strength. But precisely those goals represent a big problem for USA, GB, EU and some others Western countries ( including Australia and New Zealand), because if such rules prevail, they will erode their supremacy in the world affairs. That’s practically means that it would  shrink their political influence on the international organizations and on bilateral level, endanger the repartition of world resources and economic distribution of wealth that is in their favor, reduce their financial privileges and exclusive right to print money without control and cover, especially US Dollar, diminish technologic advantages, weaken their media supremacy that is a serious base of their manipulation in the world affairs and many other proceedings.

For centuries, privileged – Western countries use their supremacy toward other countries to incite and deepen differences between them, to spur and incite conflicts, to introduce very often sanctions to other countries as measure of pressure, to disable any country to rise to the level to challenge them, to harm the interest of other countries, undermine the international organizations, disrespect the international laws trying to build and defend their policy of privileges, exceptionality in the international arena and to destroy everything that can endanger their position, especially to prevent any aspirants of overthrowing them. Without their supremacy they would loose their power and influence, consequently profits and, probably, face internal instabilities. Their economic system is based on exploitation of foreign cheap resources and labor and on the monopoly of selling the final products.

The antagonism between the privileged group of the countries and practically the rest of the world last very long, through few centuries, taking diverse forms in different historical periods, provoking from time to time instability, conflicts, political or economic sanctions, regional and even world wars, changing names and actors, but never settling because the basic difference between privileged and oppressed countries. That’s mean in first place in the inequality in position, rights, possibilities, level of development, influence, and many other aspects, that persist even today. But the conflicts are provoked not just because of the attempt of some countries to challenge the exceptional position of superpowers of the Western countries. The truth is that happen much more as the result of the ambition of former colonial countries to grab every time more then they already have- political power, economic resources, territories, richness and wellness in the world. Also, it is the result of the attempt to try to impose itself as the only and supreme power. The periodical challenges of that ambition are just contributing to he turmoil in the world but the everyday life is during whole history full of regional conflict, sanctions, pressures and similar proceeding through which western superpowers were trying to keep the rest of the world under their domination, supremacy and rules, exploit their wealth and resources and prevent them to develop and possibly challenge them.

The colonial policy was  based on inequality, injustice, slavery, exploitation, including all kind of inhuman proceeding against indigenous populations in Africa, America and Asia. From that time, colonial countries adopted the stand of underestimation of indigenous population, then on much lower civilization level. From the difference in level of development and civilization they concluded that the indigenous population deserve to be treated differently that their own, that means much worse. Such an approach had as consequence the behavior toward the indigenous population without any respect of their rights on life, property, territory, integrity, practicing inequality, injustices, slavery, forced labor, exploitation, pressures, conditioning and in some cases even almost total extermination. The problem is because it seems that former colonial powers still believe in the supremacy of their race, culture and civilization and are continue treating the rest of the world and especially their former colonies as inferior. If we analyze the nowadays behavior and the activities of those former colonial powers we can’t avoid to conclude that they are acting on the same old colonial way as in the past. The source of a wealth of today’s richest countries in the world is precisely that period of a wild exploitation of the colonies, using against the indigenous population every mean to keep it enslaved and obedient, in order to continue the robbery as long as possible. The exploitation of the colonies continued during centuries, changing name to neocolonial. In fact, until nowadays, there ware no big changes.  In recent time, such policy is called globalization but, in essence, that was always the same policy and the same approach.

The basic difference between the former colonial block of countries and the block, if we can speak in those terms, of “constructive” countries, could be more understandable with some example; perhaps Serbia could be a good one. Speaking about the violent break up of Yugoslavia, inspired from outside, in the nineteen’s of the previous century, Serbia was the only one accused and guilty for that without taking in account that it was the only one to defend Yugoslavia, as the only legal country in the moment of the attack on it. Serbia was also accused for the crimes and destructions during the civil war committed everywhere on the former Yugoslav territory, regardless the fact that Serbs were all the time first to be attacked. Serbs were accused to be occupiers of territories they lived for centuries, accused for ethnic cleansing of other nationalities and religions contrary of the evidence that they were the only ones ethnically cleansed from Croatia, Bosnia and Hertzegovine (BiH) and Kosovo and Metohija (KiM). Serbia was the sole republic to be subject of severe sanctions of Western countries, attacked by NATO in 1999. (19 mightiest and richest countries of that time) during 78 days, part of its state territory was usurped and put under UN control under false accusations. After that, without any opposition or protest, it was silently given to be occupied by Albanian terrorist and recognized by colonial countries as independent state in 2008 (although illegally), complete political and military leadership of Serbia and Republika Srpska were broth to the illegal Hague tribunal and sentenced. In the same time, the leaders and dignitaries of other republics were liberated. All that is a very good example of the behavior of the former colonial countries, their devotion to a international laws, justice, and truth.

Another good example could be the candidature of Serbia for the full membership in the EU. Serbia applied for a full membership in December 2009 and, until now, didn’t advanced very much. There is always new preconditions to achieve, temporary goals to reach, requests to fulfill, new exigencies and expectations to be delivered and even when done, there is little progress but new conditions comes. Out of very complex and complicated procedures to fulfill, practically “unique” there is always some new “crucial” conditions to reach as the most important step for the faster membership. It was first to deliver to the Hague tribunal former President of Serbia Slobodan Milosevic. Once done, it was to deliver general Ratko Mladic, then Radovan Karadzic, former President of BiH, then successively many times new requests. Today, in 2022, Serbia is still far away of the membership in EU and there is of course new conditions – to recognize KiM, to stop to support Republika Srpska, to renounce from the cooperation with RF and China, because of their “negative influence on Serbia”. And there are many additional requests.

In the same time, Serbia is cooperating very much with RF and China, on base of equality, under fair and correct agreements and acceptable financial arrangements, friendly, without any precondition of similar proceeds, respecting contracts, dates, quality and with full mutual respect. The cooperation between Serbia and China and RF is constantly progressing, on political, but also economic and all other levels, including military-technical cooperation, cooperation in big infrastructural projects, in energy, in the field of transport and all that without any political conditioning. Even contrary to that, with open support in the UN in the questions that are on the vital interest of Serbia, not just because Serbia and China and RF are friends, but because they support the international law and the legality in international affairs. In short, they cooperate on constructive basis and that could be the model how the countries from over the world should cooperate and cherish their relations and interests.

The actual circumstances in the world offer real possibilities for states such RF and China to change the state of things and abolish, at least to some extent, the negative interference and influence of former colonial countries to other states, international organizations and institutions, and by that dismantle the colonial net existing from centuries. They have the opportunity to bring to an end the inequality, injustice and exploitation, liberate the world from chains and open new era of free and open world. By defending itself and their equality, they will defend the oppressed countries, revitalize international organizations and institutions, inciting the rest of the international community to lean on international law, give possibility for free and fair economic cooperation for everybody and continue to give by their example the confirmation that it is possible. On that way they would help the world to rely on constructive forces, interested for free, fair and just international relations and for the equal opportunities for every state to follow its lucky star and achieve its goals- political, economic and social and every other. In that aim it should be crucial to search to achieve those goals respecting fully the interests of its partners, not to act against them, but also, to prevent former colonial states to continue to manipulate and dominate in international affairs. That is certainly not an easy task, even it is risky, but is worth to fight for.

CNGNN & Associazione per un Mondo senza Guerre

Pangea Wide Angle: INSIDE THE NEWS

on BYOBLU Digital terrestrial channel 262

Yugoslavia - Krajina

The Donbass of thirty years ago

After signing the INF Treaty in 1987 with Mikhail Gorbachev, President Ronald Reagan promised Russia that NATO would never reach its borders, a commitment reiterated by President George Bush Sr. in the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. The Cold War was temporarily hibernated, while the United States, now the only world power, had already planned the dissolution of Yugoslavia and the isolation of the Serbs too close to Russia. In addition, it was urgent to find a new placing for NATO.

Through the World Bank, the US enforced the repayment of loans, financed the Croatian far-right parties, and supported the demands of the Muslims of Bosnia, in order to be able to act with the consent of public opinion, they started a media campaign against the Serbs. To complete the work, CIA agents with a lot of cash persuaded politicians and media representatives to support the established narrative. Then they imposed heavy sanctions. The Serbs were portrayed in the international media as warmongers, accused of wanting a Greater Serbia.

There are many similarities with what happened in Donbas: it can be said that in Yugoslavia a dress rehearsal was staged to test a protocol also applied in Ukraine.

Krajina like Ukraine means border. The Serbian Krajines, inserted in Croatia, would not have formed the Serbian Republic of Krajina if they could remain in a Croatia federated with the other Yugoslav republics. But with independence, the Croatian government promulgated a constitution that excluded the rights of any ethnic group other than the Croatian one.

In 1993 the ethnic cleansing of the Krajines began with the Medak Pocket culminating in the Flash and Storm operations (1995) supported by US mercenaries: half a million Serbs without protection had to leave their territory.

This doc-film presented by Pangea Grandangolo - Dentro la Notizia was shot in September 1993 by a cameraman of Knin TV which no longer exists, like the Krajines.

Video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXoG0c6Xqq0

Wolfgang Effenberger

After EU Council President Charles Michel proposed to make Ukraine and Moldova candidates for EU membership, the draft final declaration of the June 23-24 EU summit in Brussels on June 21, 2022, stated, "The European Council has decided to grant candidate country status to Ukraine and Moldova."(1) (Georgia is to be granted candidate status as well.) It is assumed that the 27 heads of state and government will follow the EU Commission's recommendation.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Selenskyj reiterated that he believes Ukraine already belongs to Europe. The country attacked by Russia proves every day that it is already part of a united European value area, he said.

Since June 21, the self-propelled howitzer 2000 promised by Germany "has finally become part of the 155-millimeter howitzer arsenal of the Ukrainian artillery," Ukrainian Defense Minister Oleksiy Resnikov wrote on Twitter. In doing so, he thanked Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht (SPD) "for all efforts" to support Ukraine.(2)
On the eve of June 22 - on this day in 1941, Nazi Germany invaded the then-Soviet Union (killing over 26 million people) - shells from Western-supplied guns hit Luhansk and Donetsk. In Russia, candles were lit to commemorate the Great Patriotic War.
This June 22 would have been an opportunity to pause once to remember the catastrophe of World War 2 and to look for ways to peace. But the opposite was the case. On that day, the German mainstream media again incited against Russia.

While British Prime Minister Boris Johnson warns the West of a "long war" in Ukraine(3) in the Times, the Chief of the British Army Staff, General Sir Patrick Sanders, tunes soldiers to fight alongside their allies to defeat Russia: "Russia's invasion of Ukraine underlines our core mission to protect the United Kingdom - by being prepared to fight and win wars on the mainland,"(4) Sanders said on Sky News on June 19.

British army chief warns 'must prepare to fight in Europe'(5)

 
On the same day, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg also expressed his concern in an interview with the Bild newspaper that the war could drag on for years; should support for Ukraine weaken, a heavy price would be paid.(6)
The most incredible statement was made on Friday, June 17, 22 by Air Force Chief Ingo Gerhartz (56) at the Kiel International Seapowers Symposium: "For credible deterrence, we need both the means and the political will to implement nuclear deterrence if necessary."(7)

Aimed at the First World War

In view of the ever louder drums of war that can currently be heard, a reference to the parallels of the present situation to that before 1914 seems not only permissible but even necessary. After the imperial wars of 1898 (USA against the great power Spain in Cuba and the Philippines), 1899- 1901 (UK against the Boers in Africa) and 1900 (the "value West" against China), tensions were building up in the world and especially on the part of Great Britain, France and Russia against Germany. From early December 1907 to February 1909, U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt(8) had a large part of his new war fleet steam around the globe in sensational voyages, to the delight of naval strategist Alfred Thayer Mahan.(9) Sixteen modern armored battleships and cruisers demonstrated their superiority in striking power and mobility all around the world.

Today, 11 nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carriers are in service on the world's oceans along with their accompanying fleets.

In 2020, NATO and U.S. military spending totaled $1,102 billion, while that of China and Russia was $314 billion. Of this, Germany and Russia's spending balanced out at about $60 billion.(10)
Such an imbalance(11) was also evident before World War I(12):

Armament budgets 1880-1913 in U.S. Dollars (in thousandths)

Only a few weeks after the assassination in Sarajevo on July 28, 1914, the time had come. On the morning of August 5, 1914, the New York Times ran the headline, "ENGLAND DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY - 17,ooo,ooo MEN ENGAGED IN GREAT WAR OF EIGHT NATIONS."
In the same issue, the NYT published a column by H.G. Wells in which he wrote that "the sword is now drawn for peace" and "never was a war so just as the war now against Germany." Wells was convinced that Germany would be crushed and ripe for revolution in 2 to 3 months.(13)

Even before this issue of the NYT appeared, the British cut the German-American Atlantic cable in the early hours of the morning; thus, news from Berlin no longer reached the U.S. and vice versa.
With the beginning of the war, Russian news portals were blocked and further dissemination of Russian news was made a punishable offense.

 One day after Woodrow Wilson's pledge of neutrality on August 19, 1914, the naval blockade of Germany by Great Britain, which was contrary to international law, began without any major protest from the United States. This blockade was intended to isolate and economically strangle Germany. According to the official historian of the Royal Navy, Sir Julian Corbett, this blockade had been planned from 1908 on by Lord Hankey in the Committee of Imperial Defence (CID) with "an orderly completeness of detail which has no parallel in our history"(14).
In fact, little is known to this day about "how and why a scant dozen leading U.S. investment bankers supported Britain from the beginning through illegal acts of war." With the election of a clueless U.S. president in late 1912 and the creation of the FED in 1913 (unlimited debt), the decision to go to war had been made.(15)

Realignments after World War I

Three times in the 20th century the international order was "reordered"(16)
1) With the Versailles system of peace treaties and the creation of the League of Nations in 1920,
2) With the Potsdam Agreement and the creation of the United Nations in 1945, and
3) After the end of the Cold War in 1990 with the "Charter of Paris" and the creation of the OSCE.

With the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact (and the Soviet Union), the world hoped for a peaceful future. But after the victory of the "West" in 1990, "wars of order" were instigated in many places in the world, such as the war against Iraq orchestrated by Bush Sr. in 1991. Some may still remember the unsavory "incubator lie" that ultimately tipped the scales in favor of the UN's blessing for that war. When, on March 24, 1999, NATO launched the first war of aggression in its history without a UN mandate and thus in violation of international law against a sovereign country, it was immediately followed by a new doctrine permitting future interventions without a UN mandate.
The wars of the so-called "value West" in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria did not reorganize anything, but only led to "failed states", i.e. into never-ending chaos - also a war crime.

NATO's war in Yugoslavia began on March 24, 1999 - 12 days earlier Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary had joined. Was this just another war in the wake of the post-Yugoslav secession wars since the early 1990s? Certainly not, because 4 imperial motives of the USA can be identified(17)
1) A war of NATO Against rest of Yugoslavia in order to insert it into the periphery of the West.
2) A war of the USA, in order to subjugate EU-Europe further to their subjection.
3) "A war whose long-distance effect was also aimed at further chastening Russia"; and
4) A war to demonstrate "NATO or US superiority over China"(18).

After the Yugoslav war, so-called "color revolutions" were concerted in Eastern Europe, most of which then led to regime change and desired EU and NATO accession.  

Former Canadian professor of economics and head of the Globalization Research Centre, Michel Chossudovsky, drew attention in June 2015 to the fact that behind the Ukraine crisis lies a broad military strategy that goes far beyond Ukraine: "NATO - and when we say NATO, we also mean the United States - is engaging in war games on Russia's doorstep ... Now they are threatening Russia with nuclear weapons, and it's obvious that the nuclear option has been discussed in the U.S. Congress."(19)
Then, in the summer of 2015, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law to that effect,(20) stating that deployment of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction on the soil of Ukraine would be legal "until the deployment target is reached." Previously, this was ruled out by law.
From 2015, NATO maneuver frequency (such as DEFENDER 20/21) on Russia's doorstep increased dramatically. In parallel, the military infrastructure road and rail from Antwerp/Bremerhaven/ Hamburg towards Görlitz, Krakow and Kiev was made fit for war.

Turn of the tide?

Three days after the Russian attack on Ukraine - just as illegal under international law as all U.S. wars since the attack on Yugoslavia - Chancellor Olaf Scholz introduced his government statement on Feb. 27 with the words:
"February 24, 2022 marks a turning point in the history of our continent."(21) In a firm voice, Scholz castigated Vladimir Putin's cold-bloodedness and ruthlessness over his war of aggression, which he said could not be justified by anything, and asked:
"May might break right?". The rhetorical answer (with respect to Russia) is clearly no. However, different standards seem to apply to the United States.
Furthermore, Scholz announced ambitious foreign and military policy goals to the applause of the Bundestag majority: Not only to increase the current German military budget to more than 70 billion euros, but in addition to that, to increase the striking power of the Bundeswehr, a so-called "special fund" of 100 billion euros from the current budget. As a reminder: Three days after the start of the war in 1914, Kaiser Wilhelm II convened the Reichstag on August 4 to vote on the war credits. At that time, the term "war loans" was used in all honesty, whereas today the term "special assets" is used to conceal from the public that this is once again a matter of debt.
The fact that Scholz was able to announce within three days "a complete and detailed concept for a no-alternative swing to the foreign policy course of the U.S. and the abrupt transformation of the Federal Republic into a fiscal warfare state suggests that the state apparatus had drafts already at its disposal."(22)
It would be interesting to know who was involved in drafting Scholz's speech and when Scholz first read it.

Two days before the governmental declaration, the SPD newspaper "Vorwärts" stated:
"According to media reports, top U.S. diplomats - and also Foreign Minister Blinken himself - are engaged in these hours in direct talks to bring about the broadest possible condemnation in the General Assembly."(23) In a speech to the United Nations that was celebrated as "emotional," Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock (Alliance 90/The Greens) condemned Russia in a way "that elevates Germany, the old World War II loser, to the role of moral judge and demonstrates what "values-based foreign policy" means."(24)
After three days of debate, 141 nations voted yes on March 2 to the UN General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian invasion, with five votes against (Russia, Belarus, Syria, North Korea, and Eritrea) and 35 abstentions (Including China, India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, which together make up about half of humanity). Twelve nations were absent from the vote. According to Michael von der Schulenburg, a former top diplomat working for the UN and OSCE, the support for the resolution by most of the small and medium-sized countries had the background that they wanted to strengthen the UN Charter and the ban on all military action as a whole for political reasons. So far, three other permanent members of the Security Council, the U.S., Britain and France, had also broken international law and waged illegal wars without consequences.
In Asia, only the usual allies of the West, i.e. Japan, Australia and Singapore, participate in the comprehensive sanctions packages against Russia, while the other states in Asia, Africa and Latin America do not. For the world of the global South, this is again a white man's war in the North, like the first and second world wars of the 20th century and the cold war. The supposed winners of the cold war had expected the loser to cave in, submit to its role as a "regional power" (Obama) and serve as a junior partner to the West. Even today, they are waiting for a coup by a Moscow elite that would rather be the junior partner of the U.S. than that of the Chinese.

With the attack on Ukraine on Feb. 24, the European order that had more or less held since 1950 had come to an end, said the two "European activists and publicists" Vincent-Immanuel Herr and Martin Speer on April 2 in the guest commentary
"After the war of aggression: the birth of geopolitical Europe" in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung. They demand that the EU must now develop into a "value superpower" capable of defense, and in their article they focus on two subjects in particular: "military and security policy issues" and the development of a "European we-feeling."(25)
That this defensible "value superpower" allows whistleblower Julian Assange to languish in a British prison for years and soon even be extradited to the U.S., and refused asylum to Edward Snowden, so that he had to flee to Russia, is more than shameful. A real "value superpower" must be built on a different foundation than that of the military and a questionable "European we-feeling".
This foundation was laid more than 200 years ago by Immanuel Kant in his work "Perpetual Peace", the formulations of which are the basis of our international law today.
At the moment, unfortunately, it looks like the ever-increasing bellicosity of government and media will expand the war and eventually lead NATO into active war participation as outlined in the U.S. long-term strategy TRADOC 525-3-1 "Win in a Complex World 2020-2040" (2014). Meanwhile, the German population is being attuned to blood, sweat and tears. Robert Habeck predicted, "We are all getting poorer"(26). And Christian Lindner declared on the memorable June 22 that he expects "three to five years of shortages"(27). The task now, he said, is to defend "the substance of the German economy in these times of uncertainty."

So we should be prepared for a prolonged war - making a European security order encompassing the EU as well as Russia a very distant prospect.

Comments

1) https://web.de/magazine/politik/russland-krieg-ukraine/ukraine-krieg-news-21-juni-2022-nachlesen-37039708
2) Ebd.
3) https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-british-troops-must-prepare-to-fight-in-europe-once-again-says-new-head-of-army-12636637
4) Ebd.
5) https://www.merkur.de/politik/ukraine-krieg-news-grossbritannien-armee-chef-warnung-kampf-europa-vorbereitung-91618815.html 20. Juni 2022
6) https://www.merkur.de/politik/ukraine-krieg-news-grossbritannien-armee-chef-warnung-kampf-europa-vorbereitung-91618815.html
7) https://www.bild.de/politik/inland/politik-inland/top-general-appelliert-an-nato-muessen-bereit-sein-notfalls-atomwaffen-zu-nutzen-80444834.bild.html
8) Als Imperialist der Mahan-Schule verfolgte Theodore Roosevelt eine offensive Außenpolitik mit zahlreichen Militäreinsätzen zum „Schutz amerikanischer Interessen“, so etwa in Dom.Rep., Honduras, Kolumbien, Kuba, Marokko, Syrien.
9) Vgl. Henry F. Pringle: Theodore Roosevelt, a Biography, New York 1931, S. 409 ff.; XX, pp. 535 ff
10) SIPRI Military Expenditure 2020 (April 2021)
11) Zahlen aus Engelbrecht, Helmut C./Hanighen, F.C.: MERCHANTS OF DEATH A Study of the International Armament Industry, Carter Lane 1934, S. 263
12) Da die Angabe für 1914 fehlte, wurde die von 1910 (348.032.000 )genommen. Die tatsächlichen Ausgaben dürften deutlich darüber gelegen haben.
13) Walter Millis: Road to War, America 1914 -1917, Boston/New York 1935, S. 47
14) Corbett, Julian: Official History. Naval Operations, London 1921,Vol. 1, p.18
15) Helmut Roewer: Unterwegs zur Weltherrschaft Warum England den Ersten Weltkrieg auslöste und Amerika ihn gewann. Zürich 2016, S. 16
16) Zeitschrift Marxistische Erneuerung, Nr. 130, Juni 2022, S. 16
17) Ebd., S. 15
18) Erhard Crome: In tempori belli, in: WeltTrends, Nr. 23, 1999, S. 138
19) Zitiert in Peter Orzechowski: Ist die Gefahr eines Atomkriegs real? KOPP exklusiv 24 /22, S. 7
20)„Gesetz Über die Bedingungen der Streitkräfte anderer Staaten auf dem Territorium der Ukraine“.
21) https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/zeitenwende-im-bundestag,SyfVl4E
22) Zeitschrift Marxistische Erneuerung, Nr. 130, Juni 2022, S. 12
23) Zitat aus der SPD Zeitung "Vorwärts". 25.02.2022
24) https://www.heise.de/tp/features/Was-die-Zeitenwende-von-Bundeskanzler-Scholz-bedeutet-6665130.html?seite-all
25) Zeit-Fragen  14. Juni 2022/ 30. Jahrgang , S. 4
26) https://www.fr.de/meinung/kolumnen/ein-einziger-satz-91456992.html
27) https://www.n-tv.de/mediathek/videos/wirtschaft/Lindner-warnt-vor-drei-bis-fuenf-Jahren-der-Knappheit-article23414488.html

Wolfgang Effenberger, born in 1946, a former officer in the German armed forces, has been a committed peace advocate since his first book, "Pax americana" (2004). In April 2022, he published "Die unterschätzte Macht: Von Geo- bis Biopolitik - Plutokraten transformieren die Welt". Other books by him on the subject:
"Wiederkehr der Hasardeure" (2014, Koautor Willy Wimmer), die Trilogie „Europas Verhängnis 14/18“ (2018/19) sowie "Schwarzbuch EU & NATO" (2020).

Wolfgang Effenberger

On June 7, 2022, Ukrainian President Volodimir Selenskyi told the Financial Times that "victory must be won on the battlefield."(1) Ukraine's short-term goal, he said, was to return to the situation before the Russian invasion on February 24. Selenskyi cited the recapture of all Russian-controlled territory, including Crimea, as a long-term goal.
Selenskyi's statements are consistent with Resolution 758, passed overwhelmingly (410-10) by the U.S. House of Representatives in December 2014: "Resolved, That the House of Representatives .... strongly supports the efforts of President Poroshenko and the Ukrainian people to achieve a lasting peace in their country.
which includes the complete withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory,
the complete control of Ukraine's international borders,
the disarmament of separatist and paramilitary forces in eastern Ukraine, the adoption of measures that limit the Russian Federation's ability to use energy exports and trade barriers as a means of exerting economic and political pressure,
 and ending Russian Federation interference in Ukraine's internal affairs;"(2)

Selenskyi is only a mouthpiece of this resolution, in which the preliminary goal of the U.S. is firmly outlined and on the basis of which Ukraine has been militarily prepared by the U.S. for this war. This also explains why the security guarantees demanded by the Russian president since mid-December 2021 from the U.S. and NATO were never seriously negotiated.
Since 2014, a war unnoticed by Western media has been taking place in the Donbass until February 24, 2022. The first images of Ukrainian military exercises were published in the West in early March 2021, when the Ukrainian population was purposefully tuned into a conflict with Russia. On March 14, the FAZ headlined, "Klitschko trains anti-tank in shooting exercise." The former world boxing champion Klitschko, mayor of Kiev, and in 2014 Merkel's aspirant for the Ukrainian presidency, had moved into the maneuver with his staff and the city district mayors to let himself be rolled over in a hole in the ground by an approaching tank, followed by throwing hand grenades and firing a machine gun in a publicity-grabbing manner. Images showing Klitschko at the Soviet SU-23 anti-aircraft cannon were also impressive. "I am convinced," said the mayor, "that we must be well prepared to defend our city and its residents and our state if necessary."(3)Ten days later, the ORDER OF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE N2117 / 2021 "On the Decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine of March 11, 2021, on the Strategy of De-occupation and Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol" came into force. 

"In accordance with Article 107 of the Constitution of Ukraine, I (President Volodymyr Selenskyi) resolve: 


1. implementation of the Decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine of March 11, 2021 "On the Strategy of De-occupation and Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol" (attached).

2. approval of the strategy of de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (attached).

3. The control over the implementation of the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine issued by this decree shall be vested in the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine."(4)

This decree comes very close to a Ukrainian declaration of war on Russia. On April 6-7, 2021, the Ukrainian President and his Chief of General Staff Khomchak met with the Chairman of the NATO Military Committee, Britain's Stuart Perch, Chief of the Royal Air Force, who subsequently stated, "NATO members are united in condemning Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and its aggressive actions in eastern Ukraine."(5) The U.S. President and Chief of General Staff Khomchak are also on the ground of the U.S. resolution. Thus, with the "forcible annexation" version of Crimea, a senior British officer is also on the ground of the U.S. resolution. According to this version, the West indeed had to take coercive measures - similar to the approach taken in the forcible annexation of Kuwait by Iraq. But the circumstances in Crimea are different. Here, on March 16, 2014, the population living in Crimea overwhelmingly decided in a referendum to break away from Ukraine and return to Russia (Crimea had only been assigned to Ukraine within the Soviet Union in 1954).(6) As commander-in-chief, on April 8, 2021, state leader Selenskyi traveled to Crimea. April 2021, head of state Selenskyi traveled in combat gear to the front lines in the east to motivate Ukrainian soldiers loyal to the government.(7) Nothing remained of his campaign promise to ensure peace in the Donbass first and foremost - or had it been just a lie anyway?

On October 21, 2021, the Süddeutsche Zeitung ran the headline: "NATO gears up for conflict with Moscow"(8). The Russian invasion of Crimea in 2014 had led to a reassessment at NATO of the threats from Moscow. As a result, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, a defense plan was defined to respond to possible attacks from Russia. Twenty years before the Western-orchestrated coup in Ukraine, which violated international law, a long-term strategy "for the development of full-dimensional operations for the strategic army of the early twenty-first century" had gone into effect in the United States in TRACOC 525-5.(9)
This document describes a dynamic era, a world in transition. In the two decades (1990-2010), the transition was to be through the stages of turmoil (turmoil), crisis (crisis), conflict (conflict) ultimately leading to war (Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria).

Instead of fighting communism, the 21st century will have to fight national and religious extremism. If in the 20th century one had permanent allies, in the 21st century they are only temporary allies. The U.S. Army should adapt to this, he said, and pay attention to two premises: rapid technological change and the reordering of geostrategy. Modern war theater relies on more advanced technology such as combat robots and drones, as well as "non-nation forces" - mercenary armies that do not have to abide by any laws and are paid according to measured success.

In Ukraine, the stages of escalation described in 525-5 are readily observable: Turmoil (Maidan), Crisis (Slavyansk), Conflict (Crimea), and, since February 24, 2022, All-out War.

"According to 525-5, the path to the intended war leads via the targeted destabilization of the state, in which one wants to bring about a "regime change" for one's own advantage. An important tool here: operations other than war (OOTW) - meaning operations ranging from financial to cyber warfare, the use of covert special forces to drone warfare, and all facets of shadow warfare." At the lowest level of the dynamic is "democracy promotion" in the style of the National Endowment for Democracy.

In early October 2014 - eight months after the Maidan and two months before Resolution 758 - at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) conference, senior officers and representatives of the U.S. Department of Defense showed the vision of future armed conflicts and presented the document Army Operating Concept (AOC) "Win in an Complex World 2020-2040"(10)-surrounded by lobbyists of the weapons industry, whose companies presented the latest weapons systems.
This event prompted Bill Van Auken and David North to write a scathing article in the mouthpiece of the "International Committee of the Fourth International" (ICVI): "US Army Drafts Blueprint for Third World War."(11) Both authors conclude that the text of the document has extremely threatening implications. Bluntly, it admits that the coming military operations will be about changing the geopolitical landscape due to competition for power and wealth. Any country on the globe that opposes the U.S. hegemon will feel the harsh guiding hand of the United States. To that end, the U.S. Army is to develop appropriate capabilities. Future adversaries are to be made unable to respond effectively to U.S. aggression.
The competing powers China and Russia are cited as harbingers of future conflicts. Russia is accused of acting imperially and expanding its territory. A grotesque accusation in view of NATO's expansion and the color revolutions in the former Soviet republics - but one that is used to justify the necessity of stationing American ground troops in Central Europe. In second place are adversarial "regional powers" - e.g., Iran.
The trigger for the processes pointed out is not least the Wolfowitz Doctrine (1992) - the unofficial name for the original version of the Defense Planning Guidelines for fiscal years 1994-1999, which allowed NATO to be used as an instrument of bloody aggression against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya after the Cold War.
In 2019, the RAND Corporation revised the Wolfowitz Doctrine and outlined ways to "overstretch" and, in Kissinger's words, "break" Russia.

Another U.S. Army strategy paper for 2025 to 2040 projects that enemies will launch increasingly massive attacks in a variety of domains - land, sea, air, space, and online-with the lines between war and peace blurring.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Army is preparing for decades of hybrid wars 2025-2040.(12)

Currently, as part of a new security package, the U.S. is supplying Ukraine with modern multiple rocket launchers to defend against the Russian invasion. In an op-ed for the New York Times, U.S. President Joe Biden wrote that the missile delivery will enable the invaded country to more precisely hit "key targets on the battlefield in Ukraine."(13) Russia must pay a high price for attacking Ukraine, he said, or it could lead to the end of the rules-based international order and catastrophic consequences worldwide. Since the war of aggression against Yugoslavia in 1999, which violated international law, the U.S. has undermined international law and the UN's monopoly on the use of force by introducing the vague term "rules-based international order," which in reality describes an order based on "U.S. rules" so that Washington can continue to pursue its unipolar power goals.

For the tireless critics of the public broadcasters Friedhelm Klinkhammer and Volker Bräutigam, the "rule-based order" is linguistically as wrong as the "white white horse"; any order already represents a set of rules itself, it does not need to be additionally "based" on rules.(14)

For both, the notion of "rules-based world order" serves only to camouflage the political intentions of the U.S. empire to advance its interests in violation of international law.
Russia and China, which oppose the "Western community of values," WWG, are usually accused of disrupting the "rules-based international order."(15)
The WWG ruthlessly targets weaker states with sanctions and often with brutal military force. Iraq, Syria, and Libya are recent examples of the WWG's permanent breach of international law. The United Nations Charter, international law, is the only globally valid civil order. However, it does not prevent the WWG from its modern colonial wars.
Biden's assurance that "we do not want a war between NATO and Russia" should also be interpreted against this background. Ukraine's assurance not to attack targets on Russian territory with the U.S.-made HIMARS artillery system must be interpreted to mean that Crimea is still seen as Ukrainian territory and that an attack on the Russian naval arsenal in Sevastopol cannot be ruled out. This would then be the final step into the Third World War.
Russia's head of state Putin still takes a relaxed view of the arms deliveries to date. However, should Ukraine receive long-range missiles, he warns of a Russian reaction.(16)

For grassroots organizations like "Fridays for Future", "Campact" or "CORREKTIV", the war in Ukraine does not have the same importance as e.g. climate protection, although the military (armament, maneuvers and wars) is the biggest environmental destroyer. The demand for "outlawing war" is nowhere to be heard. Is it perhaps also because this demand would be directed primarily against the interests of U.S. corporations?
"No wonder," writes Willy Wimmer, "that the public has the impression that the war in Ukraine is the first NGO war in history. One only has to look at the media, which have been brought into line anyway, and their rounds of experts. The NGOs, from whose ranks the ladies and gentlemen represent the NGOs, are all trimmed for total war against Russia and its president."(17)

According to Wimmer, the way of thinking and the choice of words of today's experts in the German media reveal not only whose brainchild they are, but also what their clients expect from them. The public statements of the German Foreign Minister about Russia and its president are not inferior to this.(18)

The constant escalations lead the Ukraine war closer and closer to the edge of a pan-European conflict. In its wake, Europe could be destroyed and the world economy and financial market could be thrown into unprecedented turmoil.
US and EU sanctions policies will cause global supply chains to collapse, leading to an international food crisis. In parallel, runaway inflation will make the poor even poorer and the rich even richer. With the destruction of the legal system, disenfranchisement will continue. There will probably be further eruptions along all the fault lines of the First World War.
Each war-prolonging day will make peace and a necessary reconciliation more difficult.
But where is the resistance to the all-out war propaganda? Where are the peace movements?

Comments

1) https://article.wn.com/view/2022/06/07/selenskyj_x201eder_sieg_muss_auf_dem_schlachtfeld_errungen_w/
2) https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/758/text
3) Klitschko trainiert bei Schießübung Panzerabwehr unter https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/bei-bedarf-kiew-verteidigen-klitschko-trainiert-bei-schiessuebung-panzerabwehr-17244659.html vom 14.3.2021
4 https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/1172021-37533
5) https://www.voltairenet.org/article212706.html
6) Laut einer Umfrage des 2015 vom Deutschen Bundestag eingerichteten Zentrums für Osteuropa- und internationale Studien (ZOIS) betrachten sich 80 Prozent der Krimbewohner als russische und nur 3 Prozent als ukrainische Bürger. 13,3 sehen sich nur als Bürger der Krim, darunter viele Tataren, von denen sich rund die Hälfte auch als Russen bezeichnen. Privat sprechen mehr als 80 Prozent nur Russisch, 1 Prozent nur Ukrainisch und 2 Prozent nur Tatarisch
7) https://www.kyivpost.com/multimedia/photo/zelensky-visits-front-line-amid-russian-escalation-in-donbas-photos
8) https://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/allianz-nato-ruestet-sich-fuer-konflikt-mit-moskau-1.5445998
9) https://www.help4you.info/pdf/19940801_TRADOC_Pamphlet_525-5.pdf
10) http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/tp525-3-1.pdf
11) http://www.wsws.org/de/articles/2014/10/15/pers-o15.html
12) https://astutenews.com/2017/10/us-army-is-preparing-for-decades-of-hybrid-wars/
13) https://www.zdf.de/nachrichten/politik/usa-waffen-ukraine-krieg-russland-100.html
14) https://www.cashkurs.com/demokratieplattform/beitrag/regelbasierte-ordnung-faustrecht-geht-vor-voelkerrecht
15) https://verfassungsblog.de/voelkerrechtswidrigkeit-benennen-warum-die-bundesregierung-ihre-verbuendeten-fuer-den-syrien-luftangriff-kritisieren-sollte/
16) https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Warnung-aus-Russland-Putin-will-Lieferung-von-Raketen-mit-hoher-Reichweite-an-Ukraine-verhindern-article23379014.html
17) https://seniora.org/politik-wirtschaft/deutschland/voelker-sehet-die-signale
18) Ebd.

Wolfgang Effenberger

In the last week of May, this year's conference of the World Economic Forum took place under the motto "History at a Turning Point".
For the first time after a two-and-a-half-year pandemic break, the elite from politics, business and society had met not in snowy mountains but in a rain-soaked spring landscape. Whereas in the past more than 3,000 exponents of the international leadership had come, in 2022 there were a third fewer. But the expectations of 84-year-old founder Klaus Schwab were all the higher:
"Under the motto 'History at a Turning Point,' this year's annual meeting will be the most topical and important since the World Economic Forum was founded more than 50 years ago."(1)
With the war in Ukraine in mind, Schwab posited:
"Russia's attack will go down in the history books as the collapse of the post-World War II and Cold War world order."(2) By that definition, it was almost inevitable that at the May 23 Davos kickoff, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Selenskyj would join in on an oversized screen and use his war-and-fight rhetoric to rally attendees for tougher sanctions against Russia. The year before, none other than China's President Xi Jinping had opened the then-virtual WEF event.
In his caricature, Austrian cartoonist Pepsch Gottscheber placed Selenskyi's dominant appearance in a frame showing an oversized and menacing-looking Selenskyi in front of a dwarfed-looking round table(3) representing the WEF.
The cartoon, published in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on May 26, sparked a crossfire of criticism(4) which culminated in accusations of anti-Semitism.(5)
A day later, Süddeutsche Zeitung responded to the massive criticism with a brief statement on twitter.

While guests from Russia were misssing 2022, a large delegation from Ukraine traveled to Davos, including several members of parliament and the mayor of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko.
In Davos, the private British TBD Media Group -- founded in 2014 and now operating globally - also met with the supposed thought leaders preparing decisions for the future. According to its own statements, the TBD Media Group helps companies, organizations and governments communicate their messages and goals in a "human and direct way."(6) To do so, it runs global campaigns "that address key global challenges such as climate change and technology gaps."(7)
Commenting on the importance of Davos, Paolo Zanini, founder and CEO of TBD Media Group, said, "Davos is where decisions are made about our planet's today and tomorrow." He said TBD Media is proud to help make the philosophies and decision-makers accessible in an engaging and insightful way. Understanding the motivations of the people driving change is essential to effecting positive change, he said. "History is truly at a tipping point with the shockwaves of Covid, the conflict in Ukraine and the climate crisis, and we've been talking to the people who have control over the levers of action. We found out what they plan to do, how they plan to do it, and most importantly, why they make the decisions they do. We all want a cleaner, more just, and more peaceful world. To achieve that, we need to know the people who will be involved in making it happen."(8)

The opaque TBD Media Group thus acts as a mouthpiece, amplifier and PR manipulator. It was founded in the same year when on the Maidan the elected Ukrainian government had to flee in a coup orchestrated by the West(9) and in the USA the long-term strategic concept TRADOC 525-3-1 "Win in a Complex World 2020-2040" came into force, which formulates the reduction of the "threat" from Russia and China as the primary goal of the armed forces.
According to independent geopolitical analyst and author of numerous books Pepe Escobar, at Davos and beyond, NATO's optimistic narrative is being played like a broken record "that never changes its tune while Russia wins victories on the ground that could bring down the Atlantic order."(10)
Klaus Schwab had presented Ukrainian President Volodymyr Selenskyj in Davos with a glowing tribute, emphasizing that Selenskyj is supported by "the whole of Europe and the international order." In the process, according to Escobar, "the struggle of the West (12 percent) against the rest (88 percent) continues to come to a head in Ukraine."(11)
In Davos, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (SPD) called Russia's war of aggression on Ukraine a failure and, referring to President Vladimir Putin, said, "He has already failed to achieve all his strategic goals."(12) But how would Scholz know Putin's strategic goals? In comparison with the wars of aggression of the USA together with the coalition of the willing - Yugoslavia 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003...- which were contrary to international law, Putin's war of aggression seems to have failed. The "successes" of the USA were produced in each case after murderous bombardment according to "Shock and Awe" from the air. After that, resistance on the ground was largely broken.
In the event of an imminent Russian defeat, Scholz rightly fears the use of nuclear means, and in the event of a possible victory, he warned of the dramatic consequences: "Putin wants to return to a world order in which the strongest dictate what is right; in which freedom, sovereignty and self-determination are just not for everyone," and he added: "That is imperialism!" It is, he said, an "attempt to bomb us back to a time when war was a common means of politics, when our continent and the world lacked a stable peace order."(13)
This worldview of Olaf Scholz needs no comment in its superficiality and obliviousness to history and gives rise to the worst fears.
If there were already numerous armed interventions by both superpowers during the Cold War, the frequency of such interventions even increased after the dissolution of the Warsaw Treaty Organization (Warsaw Pact) and the Soviet Union: "The U.S. waged wars in Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, Russia in Georgia, Ukraine and (other parts of) Syria. In several cases, one of these powers sought to undermine the other by arming its military adversaries, often on a significant scale."(14)

The war in Ukraine has a long antecedent. On December 11, 2017, the foreign and defense ministers of 25 European member states signed the agreement on "Permanent Structured Cooperation" in the field of security and defense, known as " PESCO".

According to the German Ministry of Defense, the aim is for the EU "to be able to act in a security environment that has become more acute, especially since 2014."(15) The agreement was signed in December 2017.
In addition to regularly increasing the defense budget, the signatories to the PESCO agreement have committed themselves, among other things, to improving the sharing of existing capabilities and further enhancing the interoperability of EU battlegroups. In the EU's broad civil-military toolbox, priority is given to expanding military-use infrastructure to the east. So the modernization of the rail line from Bremerhaven - where U.S. tanks are transferred from ship to rail - across the Neisse River to Wroclaw and into Ukraine to Kiev is by no means accidental.(16)
 

Source: DB Netz AG in Aufgewacht Das Politikmagazin für Sachsen, Erstausgabe 2022, S. 34

To speak of a turning point in history today is more than negligent and will torpedo any readiness for peace. The turning point came after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact and the eastward expansion of NATO, which very early on wanted to integrate Ukraine or Georgia into the alliance.

So far, however, there has been no direct conflict between the forces. But now the conflict is taking place right on Russia's doorstep (memories of the Cuban Missile Crisis may be allowed here). U.S. support of Ukraine through targeted reconnaissance, command support as well as advisors to Ukrainian forces, if not through the covert use of mercenaries, has created a different dimension. Russia now feels existentially threatened. The step toward expanding the war to the point of a possible nuclear war is not far off. For Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Platonovich Patrushev - head of the FSB domestic intelligence agency from Aug. 9, 1999, to May 12, 2008 - "the U.S. and U.K. governments, controlled by big business, are causing an economic crisis in the world and starving millions of people in Africa, Asia and Latin America by restricting their access to grain, fertilizer and energy resources. Through their actions, they are provoking unemployment and a migration catastrophe in Europe. They are not interested in the prosperity of European countries and are doing everything to push them off the pedestal of economically developed countries. And in order to control the region unconditionally, they put Europeans on a two-legged chair called NATO and EU, on which they balance contemptuously."(17) According to Patrushev, it is all about increasing the wealth of a group of tycoons in the City of London and on Wall Street.
A look at current financial flows seems to confirm this. For example, the financial elites in the U.S. and the U.K. seem to have little interest in settling the conflict. Since Putin's attack on Ukraine, the U.S. has achieved almost all of its goals:
- The NATO alliance is stronger than ever and northern expansion is imminent
- U.S. troop buildup in Europe
- Arms spending is fueling the military-industrial complex
- The development of Franco-German fighter planes has been halted
- The Nord Stream project is finished
- Germany's rapprochement with Russia is torpedoed in the long term
- Germany will buy expensive liquefied gas from the USA
- Germany will do without Russian gas, oil and coal
- Russia is weakened by the war and sanctions
- A regime change in Russia becomes possible

In the familiar style of the Anglo-Saxons, Patrushev said, today the U.S. dictates its terms to the world and disregards the sovereign rights of other states. "They disguise their actions with words about the struggle for human rights, freedom and democracy," but in reality they represent the interests of a small moneyed elite.

After Selenskyj's appearance, 98-year-old former U.S. Secretary of State and political scientist Henry Kissinger recalled in Davos that when the Ukraine crisis erupted in an armed coup in Kiev eight years ago, he had advocated that Ukraine become a neutral state and a "bridge between Russia and Europe, not a front line of factions within Europe."(18)
But that was not what the masterminds of the $5 billion coup had in mind. After all, the indispensable goal was the integration of the entire Ukraine into the West.

Kissinger also told the Daily Mail that the West should not contribute to Russia's defeat. He warned against further Western intervention in the Ukraine war and against an escalating confrontation between Beijing and Washington.
The fear of those who notice the writing on the wall that the war will drag on and possibly expand is justified. In parallel, inflation is soaring to previously unseen heights. The specter of impoverishment is again looming.
In the early 1980s, people in Germany recognized the threat posed by the Pershing II buildup. Millions demonstrated in the cities or formed human chains. Although today the threat of war has increased significantly, hardly anyone can be seen on the streets. Is this due to the lack of education by the media? Is the subtle public propaganda so successful or are people just tired?
Oscar Lafontaine, at any rate, is convinced that in the current situation it would be necessary "to take to the streets again in large numbers in the tradition of the peace movement of the 1980s or the demonstrations before the Iraq war."(19)

Notes

1) Kathrin Hondl: Zeitenwende in Davos 22.05.2022
 www.tagesschau.de/ausland/europa/weltwirtschaftsforum-davos-121.html
2) Ebd.
3) Hat sich der Zeichner hier vom Cover „Die unterschätzte Macht“ inspirieren lassen?
4)  meedia.de/2022/05/27/sz-wegen-selenskyj-karikatur-in-der-kritik/
5)  www.t-online.de/nachrichten/deutschland/gesellschaft/id_92263686/sz-karikatur-vorwurf-des-antisemitismus-das-gehoert-nicht-in-eine-zeitung-.html
6)  www.presseportal.de/pm/136020/4834593
7)  www.tbdmediagroup.com
8) Der Welt ein Fenster zu den Diskussionen in Davos öffnen
 www.wallstreet-online.de/nachricht/15516897-welt-fenster-diskussionen-davos-oeffnen
9) Sowohl in der Ukraine als auch in Serbien arbeitete Freedom House eng mit lokalen Gruppen zusammen, die für friedliche demokratische Revolutionen verantwortlich waren Zitiert aus www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=13484 (Original unter www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=249 (abgerufen am 18. Mai 2008) nicht mehr im Netz). Das überparteiliche Freedom House wurde am 10. November 1941 - einen Monat vor Kriegseintritt der USA - von Eleanor Roosevelt, Frau des demokratischen Präsidenten Franklin Roosevelt, und dem republikanischen Kandidaten von 1940, Wendell Willkie, gegründet. Als Ursache gibt Freedom House die zu dieser Zeit hoch im Kurs stehenden isolationistischen Tendenzen an. Zunächst sollte der Nazismus, das totalitäre Böse in Deutschland, abgewehrt werden. Mit Kriegsende wurde der Kampf gegen das totalitäre Böse in der Sowjetunion aufgenommen, wobei Freedom House aggressiv den McCarthyism unterstützte. Auf der anderen Seite setzte sich Freedom House für den Marshall-Plan und die Nato ein. Nach Beendigung des Kalten Krieges bemühte man sich vor allem um die »fragile democracies« im ehemaligen Ostblock. Seit 2001 konnten Büros in der Ukraine, Polen, Ungarn, Bosnien, Serbien, Jordanien, Mexico, und einer Vielzahl von Ländern in Central Asia eröffnet werden
10)NATO gegen Russland: Was passiert als Nächstes?  thecradle.co/Article/columns/10803
11) Ebd.
12)  web.de/magazine/politik/russland-krieg-ukraine/strategischen-ziele-verfehlt-scholz-rechnet-davos-putin-36969696
13) Ebd.
14) Malcolm Chalmers: This War Still Presents Nuclear Risks – Especially in Relation to Crimea  rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/war-still-presents-nuclear-risks-especially-relation-crim
15)  aif.ru/politics/world/pravda_na_nashey_storone_nikolay_patrushev_o_srokah_specoperacii
16)   www.bmvg.de/de/themen/gsvp-sicherheits-verteidigungspolitik-eu/pesco
17)  Ingrid Szagunn: Wieviel Zeit haben wir noch? Das Pentagon hat keine Skrupel, Europa zu opfern, Aufgewacht Das Politikmagazin für Sachsen, Erstausgabe 2022, S. 34
18)  pressefreiheit.rtde.tech/international/139254-ex-us-aussenminister-kissinger-zeit/
19) Ein Gespräch mit Oskar Lafontaine: www.defenddemocracy.press/die-usa-wollen-keinen-frieden/
Wolfgang Effenberger, born in 1946, a former officer in the German armed forces, has been a committed peace advocate since his first book, "Pax americana" (2004). In April 2022, he published "Die unterschätzte Macht: Von Geo- bis Biopolitik - Plutokraten transformieren die Welt". Other books by him on the subject:
"Return of the Hasardeurs" (2014, co-author Willy Wimmer), the trilogy "Europe's Doom 14/18" (2018/19) and "Black Book EU & NATO" (2020).

In this special Pangea's Grandangolo episode Jean Marazzani Visconti interviews Prof.  Michel Chossudovsky - award-winning, author of 11 books, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, and Founder, and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Prof. Chossudovsky discusses current geopolitical events, including the war in Ucraine and the possibility of nuclear escalation. He remarks that the US Military-Industrial Complex and nuclear weapons manufacturers, through a progressive whitewashing operation started in 2003, have gradually convinced government decision-makers to soften the thresholds for using nuclear bombs, even in conventional wars, claiming their limited danger to the population. He also talks about the privatization of war and governments and how this impacts current events.

Traduzione in Italiano (video in Inglese)
In questo episodio speciale di Grandangolo di Pangea Jean Toschi Marazzani Visconti intervista il Prof. Michel Chossudovsky - pluripremiato, autore di 11 libri, Professore (emerito) di Economia all'Università di Ottawa, Fondatore e Direttore del Centro di Ricerca sulla Globalizzazione (CRG).

Il Prof. Chossudovsky discute gli attuali eventi geopolitici, inclusa la guerra in Ucraina e la possibilità di un'escalation nucleare. Osserva che il complesso militare-industriale degli Stati Uniti e i produttori di armi nucleari, attraverso un'operazione di sbiancatura progressiva iniziata nel 2003, hanno gradualmente convinto i responsabili delle decisioni nei governi a ridurre le soglie per l'uso delle bombe nucleari, anche nelle guerre convenzionali, perché limitatamente pericolose per le popolazioni. Parla anche della privatizzazione della guerra e dei governi e di come ciò influisca sull'attualità.

Wolfgang Effenberger

Obviously, in the 21st century, the U.S. is consistently implementing the global strategy of the long-serving and influential Polish-born U.S. security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski with his road-map to "empire."

Rough drafts of a globalist road map were already sketched out by the British geographer Alfred Mackinder with his theory of the three steps to world domination published in 1904:
Via Eastern Europe, the Russian Heartland (eastward of the Urals, south of the Arctic Sea to the Caucasus), and the World Island (Eurasia) to domination of the world. Above all, according to Mackinder, it is a matter of preventing the domination of the world island of Eurasia by powers other than the USA and GB. For he who dominates the world island, dominates the world.

The long-serving and influential Polish-born U.S. national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has done much to further fine-tune this road map to empire and, above all, has had a lasting influence on the Democratic elite - from President Jimmy Carter to Barack Obama. In his 1997 book, The Only World Power: America's Strategy for Domination (English: The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and is geostrategic Imperatives), Brzezinski explains a comprehensive and self-contained "geostrategy" with regard to "winning" Eurasia. The very first page of the introduction states:
''The extent to which the United States can assert its global preeminence depends on how a globally engaged America copes with the complex power relations on the Eurasian continent-and whether it can prevent the emergence of a dominant adversary power there.''(1)
Of central importance to future American foreign policy, he said, is the space from Lisbon to Vladivostok. It is necessary to prevent "the emergence in Eurasia of a power that could challenge U.S. primacy; indeed, not even the refereeing role of the United States may cease."(2) According to Brzezinski, this requires a high degree of tactics and manipulation. Ultimately, the European states are supposed to be the bridgehead for the USA to keep all of Eurasia under control. And not only that: As vassals of the USA, they are to pay for and enforce the domination of the Eurasian continent. In this, France and Germany are given a special position.  They are to be the vanguard in Europe and, together with Poland and Ukraine, are to be given special privileges by the USA.(3)
Moreover, the process of EU enlargement and the expansion of the transatlantic security alliance should proceed in well-considered stages.(4)
Brzezinski takes a visionary view of the coming developments in Europe: the time frame between 2005 and 2015 should be envisaged for a successive integration of Ukraine.(5)
Brzezinski's prevision was probably a bit too euphoric: "After Romania and the Baltic states, Sweden and Finland will be subordinated to the U.S. after 2005 and Ukraine by 2010."(6)
According to Brzezinski, the possible stalling of NATO enlargement means the end of a comprehensive U.S. policy for all of Eurasia. "Such a failure would discredit American leadership; it would destroy the plan for an expanding Europe."(7)
The foreword for the German edition was written by the go-getting German politician Hans-Dietrich Genscher (FDP) - who, among other things, was Germany's foreign minister almost continuously from 1974 to 1992. Right at the beginning, he pointed to the end of bipolarity after the Cold War and the new global challenges that have arisen as a result: "It is a matter of shaping a stable world order in the age of globalization" and taking to heart Brzezinski's plea to view the area from Lisbon to Vladivostok as a single entity.(8)
Given the developments in Eastern Europe and especially in Ukraine, one might think that Brzezinski has provided the script here:

"Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent state contributes to Russia's transformation. Without Ukraine, Russia is no longer a Eurasian empire.... However, if Moscow were to regain dominion over Ukraine, with its 52 million people, significant mineral resources, and access to the Black Sea, Russia would automatically gain the means to become a powerful empire spanning Europe and Asia. If Ukraine lost its independence, this would have immediate consequences for Central Europe and would make Poland a geopolitical pivot on the eastern border of a united Europe."(9)
It is against this backdrop that the U.S./NATO and EU orchestrated influences on Ukraine should be understood: the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Maidan coup in 2014.
On August 7, 2014, NATO Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen pledged in Kiev that the Western alliance stood firmly by Ukraine's side, accusing Russia of destabilizing the country and supporting the pro-Russian separatists.(10)

How could the NATO Secretary General arbitrarily make such far-reaching promises to a country without EU or NATO membership?
A month later, the new U.S. long-term strategy, Win in a Complex World 2020-2040 (TRADOC 525-3-1), went into effect. In it, the Army, Navy and Air Force were attuned to future conflicts: First was the threat from Russia and China, then Iran and North Korea, and only last was the threat from transnational terrorists.
On December 4, 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H. Res. 758, which strongly condemned the actions of the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin: The Russian Federation was pursuing a policy of aggression against neighboring countries aimed at political and economic domination.(11)
The resolution was passed with a speed unusual in the history of the U.S. legislative process. In just 16 days, H.RES.758 was debated in the Foreign Affairs Committee and then referred back to the House of Representatives for debate and passage. Subsequently, the resolution passed by a vote of 411 to 10!
On the very day the resolution was passed, congressional veteran Ron Paul called it "one of the nastiest pieces of legislation" on his website in the article "Reckless Congress 'Declares War' on Russia."(12) He saw this 16-page bill as pure war propaganda that should make even neocons blush with shame.
And Canadian economist Michel Chossudovsky worried about global security. In his view, the House of Representatives had effectively given the U.S. president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces a "green light" to enter into a process of military confrontation with Russia without further congressional approval.(13) "This historic vote," Chossudovsky said, "potentially affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world, was virtually blanketed in the media." To this day, the public hardly knows anything about it! Former Reagan Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary and Wall Street Journal editor Paul Craig Roberts saw the resolution against Russia as a pack of lies(14) at the time, and he asks today, "Will we be destroyed in a war before we lose our freedom to the establishment's orchestrated "covid pandemic"?
On December 18, 2014, U.S. President Obama signed another bill to combat "Russian military intervention in Ukraine" (referring to Russian support for separatists in the Donbass): the "Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014" (H.R. 5859).

In October 2017, another strategic concept went into effect, U.S. Army Is Preparing For Decades Of Hybrid Wars 2025-2040.(15)

Also indicative of clandestine war preparations is the spring 2019 re-establishment of the Committee on the Present Danger: China.(16)This committee existed during the McCarthy era in the 1950s, but now it has been re-established and is directing its activities solely against China. Thus, the Anglo-American financial oligarchy is planning war against Russia and China as a way out of its own misery.
In view of their geopolitical goals, the transatlantic tacticians were able to ensure a suitable EU leadership duo. The EU's most important posts were divided between Germany and France, with Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen inheriting Claude Juncker. She had cleverly placed a commentary in the New York Times(17) on January 18, 2019, throwing her candidacy into the transatlantic ring. In it, she pathetically described NATO as an alliance based on the "common aspirations of its members and determined to protect the freedom, common heritage, and civilization of peoples founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law."(18) She also described NATO as an alliance based on the principles of democracy, individual liberty, and the rule of law.
She cited Russian aggression in Eastern Europe, the Chinese show of force in the South China Sea, and the terror of the Islamic State as counterpoints to this noble worldview.
During her appearances at the Bilderbergers, the Atlantic Bridge and the Munich Security Conference, von der Leyen clearly demonstrated that there is no doubt about her loyalty to the United States. She came up with the slogan of the "military union," the forced advancement of military cooperation all the way to a European army. She stands for the militarization of the entire EU and is a representative of the military-industrial complex.(19)

With Christine Lagarde, a woman without any experience in banking inherited ECB President Mario Draghi. To compensate, she can think strategically, because as a member of the think tank "Center for Strategic and International Studies" (CSIS) she led the USA-EU-Poland Action Committee together with Zbigniew Brzezinski from 1995 to 2002. From 1995 to 2002, she was especially involved in the working group "Arms Industry USA-Poland". In 2003, she was also a member of the "Euro- Atlantic Action Commission" in Washington.(20) When analyzing Poland's military activities today, it must be noted that Ms. Largarde did great groundwork, which was purposefully continued by Ms. von der Leyen.
Since the war against Yugoslavia, which violated international law, NATO has reserved the right to intervene militarily in exceptional cases and on the basis of a consensus decision by the allies, even without a UN mandate. NATO as an offensive alliance! Paul Craig Roberts put it in a nutshell:
"If the majority of humanity does not wake up soon and resolutely oppose this madness, Washington will destroy the world!"
The warning fizzled out unheard, and the war drums beat louder and louder. Just before America's national holiday, July 4, 2019, influential think tanks Bloomberg and Council on Foreign Relations promoted war against the Sino-Russian alliance. The originators of this intention, which is momentous for the world, are not unserious cranks, but renowned men from the academic, military and financial worlds: Professor Hat Brands, an expert on geostrategy at Johns Hopkins University, and James Stavridis, the former admiral and current financial analyst at the Carlyle Group.
The Ukraine conflict has a long lead-in. The Los Alamos Study Group - one of the most respected and well-informed anti-nuclear war groups in the world, according to John Pilger - sees the main cause in the current Ukrainian war as the 1992 Wolfowitz Doctrine, which postulated preventing the reemergence of a new rival to the United States, whether in the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere. Any hostile power must be prevented from dominating a region whose resources would be sufficient to produce a global power.(21)
In 2019, the RAND Corporation - an influential think tank founded in 1948 - outlined ways to overextend and unbalance Russia in its study (Overextending and Unbalancing Russia).(22)
On the benefits of increased arms deliveries to Ukraine, the study states:
"Expanding U.S. aid to Ukraine, including lethal military support, would likely increase the cost of holding the Donbass region for Russia, both in blood and in the national budget. More Russian aid to the separatists and an additional Russian troop presence would lead to higher costs, equipment losses, and Russian casualties. The latter could become quite controversial at home, as it did when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan."(23)

On January 10, 2022, the nuclear engagement paper, "The Nuclear Disposition Review: What It Is and Why It Matters," became public. Putin's February 21, 2022 statement was likely a response to U.S. threats to use nuclear weapons preemptively against Russia.(24)

On February 28, 2022, the U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly (417:10) passed the "Ukrainian Democracy Defense Land-Lease Act," a reauthorization of the January 1941 Land-Lease Act - the same year the U.S. was then in World War 2. The bill had been introduced on January 19, 2022 - one month before the outbreak of war in Ukraine(!). In view of such an overwhelming majority in the U.S. Congress for a war-promoting law, it is not to be expected that peace-promoting impulses will emanate from this Congress, especially since this war will again flush a lot of money into the U.S. arms industry. Thus, it cannot be ruled out that the United States is aiming to "provoke Russian President Vladimir V. Putin into a major war."(25)
On March 27, 2022, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz bluntly admitted on Anne Will's talk show that the elaborate sanctions against Russia had been decided long before the Russian attack on Ukraine.
On May 3, 2022, to the horror of many transatlanticists, Pope Francis stated in an interview with Corriere Della Sera, "it may have been NATO's barking at Russia's gates that prompted Putin to invade Ukraine." He does not know whether his (Putin's) anger was provoked, but he suspects the West's attitude played its part."(26)
Since this war could not only drag on but escalate further, it is worth recalling the cautionary words of important contemporaries:

Ramsey Clark 1991:
"The greatest crime since World War II has been American foreign policy.
I warn Europeans not to believe that the U.S. would have any qualms about intervening militarily in Europe as well, within the framework of the New World Order. The U.S. would not tolerate a European nuclear and economic superpower for long."

And Thomas Mann, in U.S. exile, had recognized the Americans' inclination,
"to treat Europe as an economic colony, a military base, a glacis in the future atomic crusade against Russia, as a piece of the earth which may be antiquarian interesting and worth traveling, but about whose complete ruin one will give a damn when the struggle for world domination is on."(27)

On May 8, the day on which world peace is praised as the highest good worldwide and especially in Germany, and no parliament can do without the dogma of gaining peace for the future from an unpeaceful past, the U.S. continues its unreserved march to expand its global domination, even at the price of world peace.

Notes

1) Zbigniew Brzezinski: „Die einzige Weltmacht: Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft“ 1999 (Englisch: The Grand Chessboard. American Primacy and ist geostrategic Imperatives 1997), S. 15
2) Ebd., S. 283
3) Ebd., S. 128
4) Ebd., S. 126
5) Ebd., S. 128
6) Ebd.
7) Ebd., 129
8) Ebd., S. 10
9) Ebd. 74/75
10) https://rotefahne.eu/2014/08/nato-rasmussen-kiew-wir-stehen-bereit/
11) https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/758/text
12) http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/december/04/reckless-congress-declares-war-on-russia/
13) Michel Chossudovsky: Amerika auf dem »Kriegspfad«: Repräsentantenhaus ebnet Krieg mit Russland den Weg vom 6.112.2014 unter http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/prof-michel-chossudovsky/amerika-auf-demkriegspfad- repraesentantenhaus-ebnet-krieg-mit-russland-den-weg.html
14) Paul Craig Roberts: Russia Has Western Enemies, Not Partners vom 5. Dezember 2014, unter http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/05/russia-western-enemies-partners-paul-craig-roberts/
15) Multi-doman Battle: Evolution of Combined Arms fort he 21st Century
https://admin.govexec.com/media/20171003_-_working_draft_-_
16) https://presentdangerchina.org/
17) Ursula von der Leyen: The World Still Needs NATO, NYT am 18. Januar 2019
18) Ebd.
19)Top oder Flop? Die aussichtsreichsten Kandidaten für die EU-Spitzenpositionen:

htts://de.sputniknews.com/politik/20190703325375732-kandidaten-eu-spitzenposten/
20) Wolfgang Effenberger: NATO und EU teuflische Institutionen – kreiert durch US-Geheimdienste? Mit EU-Triumvirat in den NATO-Krieg gegen Russland und China: http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=26077&css=print
21) seniora.org/wunsch-nach-frieden/der-wunsch-nach-frieden/ein-loesungsvorschlag-fuer-den-ukraine-krieg
22) https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR3063.html
23) Zitiert nach https://linkezeitung.de/2021/05/04/was-die-rand-corporation-2019-in-einer-studie-geschrieben-hat-ist-zwei-jahre-spaeter-alles-eingetreten/
24) https://www.globalresearch.ca/preemptive-nuclear-war-a-third-world-war-spells-the-end-of-humanity-as-we-know-it/5772695
25) United States seeks to provoke Russia into escalation in Ukraine
http://www.defenddemocracy.press/united-states-seeks-to-provoke-russia-into-escalation-in-ukraine/
26) https://www.corriere.it/cronache/22_maggio_03/pope-francis-putin-e713a1de-cad0-11ec-84d1-341c28840c78.shtml
27) Thomas Mann: Deutsche Hörer! Europäische Hörer! Verlag Darmstädter Blätter 1986
Wolfgang Effenberger, born in 1946, a former officer in the German armed forces, has been a committed peace advocate since his first book, "Pax americana" (2004). In April 2022, he published "Die unterschätzte Macht: Von Geo- bis Biopolitik - Plutokraten transformieren die Welt". Other books by him on the subject:
"Wiederkehr der Hasardeure" (2014, Koautor Willy Wimmer), die Trilogie „Europas Verhä

 An indisputable authority on NATO affairs reveals the truth – without knowing he does and without the media
understanding his sensational statements

Jan Oberg

April 8, 2022

Truth will out, as they say, and sometimes it in strange ways. On March 9, 2022, the former Danish Prime Minister and former NATO Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, gave an interview to Danish Television 2. Here a 30 sec excerpt.

In my view, it was deeply shocking for three reasons.

First, what he actually says:

“If we send planes, it’s to protect Ukrainian airspace, and then we have to be ready to shoot down Russian planes. That would undeniably mean war between NATO and Russia.”

That doesn’t worry him. He does not say that the West/NATO should therefore refrain from doing so. See below how he thinks it will go.

“I think if it’s going to deter Putin, we shouldn’t rule anything out. And I’m among those who say we should keep Putin in maximum uncertainty.”

Not ruling out anything in NATO parlance indisputably means that the use of nuclear weapons is also a possibility. And he knows that very well as a former NATO S-G.

Fogh Rasmussen does not mention nuclear weapons. It is better not to. But he does know that NATO is based on nuclear weapons and reserves the right to be the first to use them even against conventional attacks, so that is what he must be interpreted to mean. Precisely with the background he has.

Keeping an adversary in “maximum insecurity” in a dangerous conflict is, from a risk-analytic perperspective, an insane and dangerous philosophy. The conflict is already heavily militarized and both sides have large arsenals of nuclear weapons; moreover, all Western media and commentators are now claiming that Putin has probably gone mad in the psychiatric meaning of mad.

So it is not just a completely irresponsible philosophy. The statement testifies that Fogh Rasmussen, despite his background, is conflict illiterate.

“We cannot exclude that NATO sends fighter aircraft against Russia, says Fogh”

“The Ukrainians have shown an amazing willingness to fight, and we will support them to the end.”

To the end?

In the context of his escalation idea, it is reasonable to assume that he also – by that formulation – includes nuclear bombing of Russia until it stops its military activities in Ukraine.

It also says that in Fogh Rasmussen’s view Ukraine is in effect a NATO member that we should support – even though formally it is not. He does not stress that the West has no obligation to support Ukraine since it is not a NATO member and therefore not covered by NATO’s musketeer oath (Art 5 in the NATO Treaty).

Then TV2 continues: “And should the Russian president end up interpreting the West’s weapons as a declaration of war, the former secretary general has no doubt who would ultimately win?

And listen carefully to Fogh Rasmussen’s answer with no hesitation:

“Putin will be beaten to a pulp by NATO. Once NATO moves, it will be with enormous force. You have to remember that the investments we make in defence are ten times greater than Putin’s,” he says.

So what has not been mentioned in the Danish and Western media so far suddenly comes out here: Russia is a military dwarf compared to NATO’s 30 members. It can beat Putin – Russia – to a pulp (in Danish “Plukfisk” – fish meat torn to pieces).

Says a man who knows NATO from the inside.

In other words, you and I have been deceived – grossly – the last three decades. Tax payers money squeezed out by lying about the immense Russian threat and, thereby, increasing citizens’ fears.

The exact situation right now, I can inform you, is that Russia’s military expenditure is 8% of NATO’s – namely US$ 66 billion and has been decreasing the last few years. There will now be a gigantic further over-armament within NATO – all up to 2% of their GNP, or more.

Germany has shrugged off all restrictions and will henceforth have a military budget of US$ 112 – that alone is almost double Russia’s.

In other words, Fogh Rasmussen speaks as the suddenly militarily superior, victory-proof militarist who in reality does not at all see Russia as a threat but is confident that the formidable alliance can beat Putin – by which he means by definition all of Russia and its people – to a “pulp.”

I wrote “shocking” above.

It is deeply shocking what is actually being said here: nuclear war in Europe is perfectly OK, even if it is not something Fogh Rasmussen wants. But that bastard in Moscow, we can corner even further so he might overreact again – and then we beat the crap out of him.

Russia, which we have heard for decades is a gigantic threat to us, must be crushed with our superior power. We’re not the least bit afraid of Putin Plukfisk!

The second shocking thing is that TV2 does not understand what it is doing – or not doing with these sensational views.

He is allowed to state them unchallenged, without their content being problematised, without others being asked to comment on such extremist positions or point out that Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s statements are completely unacceptable both professionally and ethically.

How long will TV2 – and virtually all other media – continue to cheer on the West’s self-righteous war of revenge? How far will they go? Consciously or because editors and journalists have no relevant expertise on war – let alone peace – but think mainly in terms of ratings.

And then it’s shocking for a third reason. If it had come to light that twenty years ago Fogh Rasmussen had put his hand on a woman’s thigh, the Danish press would be in a frenzy to condemn him in the media court.

So far, he has – only – been partly responsible, as NATO S-G, for the suffering of millions in Iraq and Libya, in total violation of international law and the UN Treaty.

Now he says – only – that we must win over Russia once and for all even if it means major war.

Nuclear war.

And nobody reacts.

In the Danish spirit pond and its media, he is regarded as a great statesman who speaks wise words.

About nuclear war for the sake of good democracies.

Source: https://transnational.live

Wolfgang Effenberger

At the invitation of U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, representatives of 40 countries discussed the Ukraine war at U.S. Air Force Base Ramstein/Rhineland-Palatinate on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, one day after his departure from Kiev. Among them were countries that are not members of NATO. In the run-up, the U.S. Department of Defense had stressed that the meeting was not taking place under the umbrella of the alliance.

Why did the meeting not take place in Washington, why not in Brussels, but at the U.S. base in Ramstein? On a military airfield of the "United States Air Force", which is located on German territory but has immunity similar to an embassy and is thus exempt from German jurisdiction,(1) "Ramstein Air Base" also hosts the headquarters of the "United States Air Forces Europe", the "Air Forces Africa" and the "Allied Air Command Ramstein", a NATO command authority for the command of air forces. Furthermore, the base is home to the "US-603d Air and Space Operations Center"(2) which conducts the control of combat drone missions with targeted killings of terror suspects in Africa (Iraq, Yemen, Pakistan and formerly Afghanistan).(3) Potentially illegal US arms deliveries as well as prisoner transfers running through Ramstein are also off-limits to German law enforcement agencies. Most importantly, the U.S. base, always a hub of U.S. military operations, has been increasingly used for cargo and troop shipments to Rzeszów-Jasionka in southern Poland, near the Ukrainian border, for several months. On March 25, 2022 -U.S. President Joe Biden visited the U.S. garrison there and pointed out the importance of their deployment far beyond Ukraine. Should these U.S. soldiers be wounded, they would be transported to the "Landstuhl Regional Medical Center", the largest U.S. military hospital outside the United States, located just 13 kilometers from Ramstein Air Base.

Largely unnoticed by the public, the not only largest but also most modern American military clinic is now being built within walking distance of Ramstein: nine operating theaters, a total of more than 4,500 rooms (a large part of the costs are borne by the Federal Republic).(4) The best U.S. military surgeons and trauma specialists will be working here as late as 2022. So the U.S. is well prepared for a major war in Europe.

Departing Kiev on 4/25/2022, Austin emphasized that the Ukrainians could win "if they have the right equipment and the right support."(5) As a war goal, Austin stated, "We want Russia weakened to the point where it is no longer capable of something like invading Ukraine."(6) Pushing Russia even below the status of a regional power means, in plain English, conjuring up a nuclear war.

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin spoke of a "historic meeting" at the opening of the Ukraine consultations in Ramstein.
The Ukraine conflict, he said, is about a challenge to all free people around the world.
"We are all here because we admire Ukraine's courage and because we cannot bear to see your people suffer and civilians killed." And addressing the representatives of Ukraine, "Your country was invaded, your hospitals were bombed, your citizens were executed, your children were traumatized."(7) In conclusion, Austin praised the outstanding defense performance and predicted that the courage and capabilities of Ukrainians would go down in military history.
Austin promised Ukraine "our help" even after the war ended. "We're behind you." Yet a look at U.S. war history should sober Ukrainians. The U.S. paid five billion U.S. dollars for the coup it orchestrated in 2013/14 - there's a dividend coming.
With this emotionally charged pro-war welcome, there is unlikely to be room for peacemaking approaches in the "consultations." Thus, suffering is likely to continue on both sides and Ukraine will have to endure unimaginable destruction.
The longer the war lasts, the more difficult the necessary reconciliation will be later on.
And this war does not seem to be just about a proxy war: The U.S. is implementing the goals set out in its 2014 long-term strategy TRADOC 525-3-1: "Win in a Complex World 2020-2040." U.S. forces are primarily to reduce the threat posed by Russia and China: The only way to do that is through one or more wars.
Unfortunately, the geopolitical context of the conflict is largely ignored and the blame is placed solely on Russia, which is accused of pursuing a policy of unilateral conquest. Further motives for Russia's "special military operation" must not be asked.

There is no doubt that the Russian leadership disregarded the prohibition of the use of force under international law by invading Ukraine and united left and right, liberals and conservatives, nationalists and globalists in one front with this operation. In March 1999, at the start of the war against Yugoslavia/Kosovo, the United States permanently enshrined NATO's crisis intervention role with the new NATO Strategy MC 400/2. Since then, the alliance has reserved the right to intervene militarily even without an explicit mandate from the United Nations Security Council. Thus, Serbia was then bombed for 78 days and nights with appropriate enemy propaganda. In 2001, the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan followed. The only offense: The Taliban had not delivered asylum seeker Osama bin Laden fast enough.
Before the war against Iraq, U.S. President G.W. Bush had codified the Pre-Emptive Doctrine in a National Security Directive to legitimize a new type of war. Since an armed attack on the United States or a neighboring state of Iraq, which the U.S. could then have come to the aid of, was not imminent, the "pre-emptive war" was conjured out of the hat.(8) It is intended to nip "possible" dangers in the bud - similar to the murder of the children of Bethlehem after the birth of Christ. This concept also includes the "preventive military strike" (e.g. the strike against Iraqi nuclear research on June 7, 1981). Then, in 2003, the destruction of Iraq took place. Scanty evidence of (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction sufficed as a pretext. In 2011, the Libyan army was destroyed, plunging the country into continuing chaos. And a year later it was Syria's turn (after 9/11, seven Arab countries were put on a destruction list by the Pentagon that same month). Even today, military units of the NATO countries USA and Turkey are on Syrian soil in violation of international law, against the declared will of the internationally recognized government.
Since April 18, 2022, NATO member Turkey has been conducting an air and land military operation beyond its borders in northern Iraq in violation of international law - without any protests from the "Western community of values." Ankara argues that Turkey has the right to this cross-border military action according to the principle of so-called disadvantages.(9) This view is accepted by Washington, and so this war has been simmering on since 1984. Turkey is militarily superior, but cannot defeat the Kurdish Workers' Party, PKK, in northern Iraq.
For the self-proclaimed Western community of values, the law of the fist seems to apply, and not only since 1999.
On October 25, 1983, the superpower USA invaded the mini-Caribbean island of Grenada as part of its Operation Urgent Fury. U.S. President Reagan justified the invasion with a preceding violent coup d'état by "leftist murderers" on the island. It was necessary to "protect our own citizens (on the island) ... and to help rebuild democratic institutions in Grenada"(10). After four days, the unequal battle ended in absolute victory for the U.S.(11)
Most people in the world certainly do not want the law of the strongest to prevail. Rather, the strength of the law should prevail. This is always consensual when the value West wants to assert its interests. For example, Angela Merkel insisted on the primacy of the strength of the law vis-à-vis Russia on the occasion of the Crimea crisis, just as she did vis-à-vis her hosts on a trip to China in 2016. And in January 2022, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz admonished Russia with similar words.
That the United States has now rediscovered international law is more than welcome, if not necessarily credible.
In the run-up to the Ukraine consultation in Ramstein, the largest opposition faction in the Bundestag (CDU/CSU) clearly spoke out in favor of supplying heavy weapons to Ukraine, as did FDP defense politician Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann.(12) The Greens' willingness to do so is unbroken anyway.
And Ramstein will send a clear signal for extensive deliveries of war-critical material.
The U.S. wants to help Ukraine defeat Russia, supply it with armaments and support it with advisors, but prevent the U.S. or NATO from officially becoming a party to the war. This sounds like wash me, but don't get me wet. Such decisions should include input from the opposing belligerent's assessment of the facts. Before the heatedly discussed topic of arms deliveries, serious tones came from Moscow. On April 25, 2022, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said, according to the Interfax news agency, that the Ukraine war could degenerate into a world war: "The danger is serious, it is real, it is not to be underestimated."(13) In this regard, Russia views the NATO arms deliveries as legitimate targets for attack by Russian forces. "When NATO enters into a de facto war with Russia through a proxy and arms that proxy, "Lavrov said, "you do in war what you have to do in war."(14)
The looming catastrophe could have been avoided. Once by consistent application of international law - even externally organized regime change is a crime - and recognition of the rights of others. In the September/October issue of Foreign Affairs, U.S. political scientist at the University of Chicago, John J. Mearsheimer wrote the seminal article "Why the West is to Blame for the Ukraine Crisis." Mearsheimer, who focuses primarily on International Relations, believes it is the height of folly to admit new members to NATO that others are unwilling to defend. Previous NATO expansions, he says, were made on the assumption that, according to the liberal worldview, the alliance would never have to honor its new security guarantees. But the recent Russian power play proved that Russia and the West would be on a collision course if Ukraine became a NATO member.
Continuing current policies would strain the West's relations with Moscow and bring Moscow and Beijing even closer together.
"The U.S. and its European allies face a choice on the Ukraine issue. They can continue their current policies, intensifying hostilities with Russia and wrecking Ukraine - a scenario from which all parties would emerge as losers. Or they can change course and aim for a prosperous but neutral Ukraine that poses no threat to Russia and allows the West to patch up its relations with Moscow. With such an approach, all sides would win."(15)

Mearsheimer can only be agreed with this. However, this honorable approach collides with the Anglo-Saxon competitive ideology of "the winner takes it all". At the time of publication of his article, Mearsheimer could not have known anything about the strategy paper TRADOC 525-3-1 "Win in a Complex World 2020-2040", which was also published in September 2014.
Fatally, the U.S. risks only the destruction of its allies in Europe with its aggressive policy, so one may well ask to what extent American and European interests are still in harmony. According to Klaus von Dohnanyi, former Federal Minister of Education and Science and First Mayor of the Free and Hanseatic City of Hamburg from 1981 to 1988, Germany and Europe today are anything but sovereign in matters of security and foreign policy. "It is the U.S. that sets the direction here in Europe."(16) Against this background, the choice of the U.S. airbase in Ramstein as a "place of consultation" in the Ukraine conflict has more than symbolic character. It is more likely to have been a matter of issuing orders to the dependent allies.

Notes

1)Wissenschaftliche Dienste „Der Bundestag“: https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/531932/f011954610186c3edadc3cf94c6f1e86/wd-2-086-17-pdf-data.pdf
2)https://web.archive.org/web/20101227075807/http://www.3af.usafe.af.mil/units/index.asp
3)https://daserste.ndr.de/panorama/archiv/2013/US-Drohnenkrieg-laeuft-ueber-Deutschland,ramstein109.html
4)https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/nahe-ramstein-im-bau-groesstes-amerikanisches-krankenhaus-100.html
5)https://www.gmx.at/magazine/politik/russland-krieg-ukraine/ukraine-krieg-news-ticker-us-verteidigungsminister-austin-richtigen-militaerausruestung-ukraine-krieg-gewinnen-36757878
6)Ebd.
7)https://www.merkur.de/politik/ukraine-krise-us-verteidigungsminister-40-staaten-gipfel-deutschland-ramstein-news-91501345.html
8)https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2717104
9)https://www.srf.ch/news/international/fruehjahrsoffensive-gegen-pkk-wenn-der-schnee-schmilzt-schlaegt-die-tuerkei-im-nordirak-zu
10)Grenada-Invasion: »Ronald Reagans größte Stunde«
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/grenada-invasion-ronald-reagans-groesste-stunde-a-0563f4c3-0002-0001-0000-000014024311
11)19 Tote auf amerikanischer Seite und 70 tote Soldaten und 24 Zivilisten auf der anderen Seite
12)Bundestag diskutiert über Waffenlieferung
https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/schwere-waffen-fuer-die-ukraine-ein-streitgespraech-im-br24live,T42pojD
13)Lawrow sieht „reale Gefahr“ eines Weltkriegs - und nennt Nato-Waffenlieferungen legitime Angriffsziele
https://www.merkur.de/politik/ukraine-news-lawrow-russland-dritte-weltkrieg-nato-waffen-angriffsziele-usa-verhandlungen-zr-91501592.html
14)Ebd.
15)John J. Mearsheimer: Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault The Liberal Delusions That Provoked Putin unter http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141769/john-j-mearsheimer/why-the-ukraine-cri- sis-is-the-wests-faul
16)Klaus von Dohnany: Nationale Interessen. Orientierung für deutsche und europäische Politik in Zeiten globaler Umbrüche. Siedlerverlag 2022, S. 10

NOW - China: "The US is the master of disinformation."pic.twitter.com/VpJtfp8HSN

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) April 25, 2022

Pirkko Turpeinen-Saari, MD. Chief psychiatrist, former member of Finnish Parliament

The propaganda stream from last week has reminded me strongly of the propaganda surrounding the US-EU-Germany initiated destruction and occupation of Yugoslavia 30 years ago.

The actions of Ruder-Finn marketing firm, economically supported by CIA and US-nazi-diaspora resembled the present ”western” propaganda. Now it is not only one firm but more than 100 firms.

Ruder-Finn had a permanent collaboration with 400 journalists, to whom they fed the  information CIA and US-foreign policy and EU-Germany’s BND wanted them to convey. The journalists needed to visit places of action only briefly in order to get the taste of genuinity and blood to their stories.

Serbs, who supported democracy, international law and the independence of Yugoslavia, not the splitting, had to be demonized. Deeply humane general Ratko Mladic, who because of his intelligence and creativity described the false images conveyed by the ”west” as questionable, had to be proven a ”war criminal”, just like president Putin is described in the present conflict in Ukraine.

The explosions in Markale square and bread-line were false flags and gave the reason to bomb the Serbs by NATO. The collaboration between caliphate building Bosnian muslims, NATO and American generals leading the muslim troops like John Galvin was seamless.

The ”Srebrenica massacre” had been ordered by president Clinton already in 1993. Now it was reinvented in August 1995 by ICTY official visiting Tuzla, 80 km apart from Srebrenica. At the same time, side by side with him was an UN-official interviewing Srebrenica inhabitants, out of whom no one had seen any massacres.

During 25  years scientists have collected enourmous amounts of information about what happened during 1992-93 in Serb-villages around Srebrenica, when muslim villagers attaced and killed Serbs. There is also piles of information, what happened after Bosnian Serb army had arrived in Srebrenica, the Muslim army had fled fighting its way towards Tuzla.

Every bone has been studied. Has the person died of artillery barrage, in the minefields or been executed. The number of executed persons has been around 400.

I have on my desk a massive book: Srebrenica, Reality and Manipulations. Articles have been written by scientists, generals, UN-commanders out of whom general Karremans has explaned how massive the politcal pressure was right after the conflict, to describe what happened according to the western narrative.

In spite of all the information available, the first propaganda narrative is very much alive and is in use again in the information war concerning the Russian military operation in Ukraine.

The governments of Finland in the 1990s  gave their unconditional support to the Ruder-Finn war-narrative. Finland wanted to be a member of EU. That is why it wanted to please the US-led NATO, but especially EU-Germany and Helmut Kohl. That decennium was in a way psychological and physical; military rehearsal to join the unipolar US-led world, where the expansion was performed through bombings and horrendous economic sanctions.

For me it is most painful to tell my grand-children to which extent the Finnish government led by Paavo Lipponen was ready to go to serve the US and Germany.

President Bill Clinton wanted to occupy militarily the whole of Yugoslavia. It had a strong military presence in Europe already  by occupying Germany. He wanted however more. He wanted to rule the whole of Balkans to rule the oil- and drugtrade and human trafficing. Finnish president Ahtisaari was a helping hand in all of this.

Yugoslavia had been threatened with new bombings since the Dayton accords. Nazi-Croats and Osama bin Laden’s jihadists were president Clintons allies. Kosovo Albanians were not for democarcy but for direct action and violence. They did not want to participate in democratic rule for 9 years. In 1998 president Clinton renamed the terrorists as freedom-fighters.

The Serbian government police-force informed the media and society that it was 15.1.1999 going to empty the village of Racak in Kosovo of terrorists and weapons as the Albanians had killed local police-officers. AP-TV cameras recorded the fights from early morning until afternoon about 15.pm. Several journalists, OSCE- inspecors were stationed at the hill tops. The bodies could not be fethced from the hills as there was sporadic shooting at judical officers trying to get the bodies down.

As the judge and policemen came the next day to verify the situation, the US chairman of Kosovo OSCE, William Walker was already at the scene with a large group of journalists. The group convened around a ditch, which was full of dead bodies 45, all together. Walter claimed that the people had been executed in a brutal way. Heads cut, shot at neck as victims had tried to climbe from the ditch.

This false statement was telephoned to all NATO-governments during the week-end, before the journalists had got their articles and films out for the public.

As a result of this provocation all the NATO-countries agreed that there is no space for any negotiations longer. The only alternative is to bomb Yugoslavia.

The Yugoslav government invited a Finnish forensic team to study the Racak bodies and find out if the victims had died of execution or fighting.

The Finnish forensic specialists found that no one had been shot from short distance. None the less there were any decpitations, as Clinton had claimed. There were no minors either.

The government of Finland had chosen a dentist, Helena Ranta, to function as the chairman of the forensic team in spite of the fact that a dentist has nothing to do with finding the cause of death of the victims. She did not explain at all to the media what her collagues had found. Instead of clearly saying the results, she pondered filosophically about matters, which had nothing to do with the team’s task. The term crime against humanity was on her vocabulary, not the facts.

It seems that the chosen chairman was politically suitable for the task.

The government of Finland in collaboration with the German ministry of foreign affairs decided to hide the results of the forensic team, permanently. They could care less, what would be the result of their omission.

The chief specialist of the forensic team, world known professor Antti Penttilä could not accept this end result. He published the results in an international forensic journal – two years after the bombings had already occurred.

Because of the decisions by the Finnish governent, the bombings of Yugoslavia started some days after the media statements by Helena Ranta.

***

In the case of Srebrenica the end results are the following:

The political ICTY-court has sentenced, as a result of the western propaganda, Serb-generals to long prison sentences.

Facts based on scientific research and scientific research as such have been declared criminal.

After Dayon accords in 1995, the highest official in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been the High Comissionen, the first commisioner having been Swedish Carl Bild.

The US has had through NATO- occupation and later a bit lighter EU-military presence a position which resembles a colonial ruler just like US has now in Ukraine.

The last High comissioner Christian Schmidt, German christian democrat, has been member of the German government until 2018. One could say the the country is ruled by US-German tandem.

Christian Schmidt has ruled questioning of the ”Srebrenica western truth” a crime . If a person according to scientific research questions the western narrative, he is threatened by a jail  sentence.

***

Denial of the western narrative about Racak ”execution” and telling the truth about the fight in the village is a crime in Kosovo.

Ivan Todosijevic, a Serb-member of Kosovo parliament spoke the truth about Racak in a speech commemorating the 20 year anniversary of Yugoslav-bombings in 2019. He told that the execution was staged by William Walker.

The ”high court” of Kosovo sentenced him to 2 years in prison. If the government of Finland would like to save mr Todosijevic, they should tell the truth.

William Walker has got a statue in Racak village in a celebration in  2017 in the presence of that time president HashimThaci.

***

The procedures by the government of Finland have distanced themselves further and further from the truthful reality  and humanity which it valued before entering the membership in EU.

Former Finnish prime minister Alexander Stubb visits, these weeks, all around Sweden to encourage the country to join NATO.

Alexander Stubb served the US- and EU- interests remarkably as he as EU-representative claimed in 2008 that Russia had attacked Georgia in 8.8.2008. The truth was that president Saakashvili of Georgia had attacked Russian peace-keepers in South-Ossetia and bombed Tsinvali expecting for support from the US.

As prime minister of Finland Alexander Stubb prepared the steps together with president Sauli Niinistö towards Finland joining the military alliance NATO.

The first task was to educate the Finnish media and prepare them to fit the NATO-narrative. To achieve that he found that by sending 100 Finnish journalists and civil servants to Harvard for special CIA-indoktrination would do the job. (In Jugoslav wars, the CIA had too much work preparing the news by itself, in order to deliver them to journalists. It would be smoother as the journalists themselves would have the right attitude to start with)

The government in power after Alexander Stubb, was Juha Sipilä’s right wing government. They put the Harvard-education  to action. In addition to that education, NATO-hybrid information Center was invited to start its function in Helsinki, Finnish capital. So the collaboration between educated journalists, civil servants and NATO would be smooth.

President Sauli Niinistö let the representative of Finnish army to sign NATO- host country agreement, during the summer vacation of the parliament, in 2014. So the parlament was not bothered by discussing and deciding this strong allignment with NATO. Locating nuclear weapons on Finnish soil were not forbidden in the agreement. President Niinistö made several bilater military collaboration agreements for example with the US, Britain and Germany.

The Swedish parliament worked through the NATO-host agreement and bringing nuclear weapons to Sweden became forbidden.

Finland has a committee for security matters. The highest civil servants of each ministry form the committee, the chief civil-servant of Finlans’s president included.

This security committee, supports economically so called ”Mediapool”, the task of which is to secure the co-ordination of all newspapers, publishing houses and State TV according to the NATO-narrative.

***

Russia started its military operation in Ukraine February 24, 2022. Its goal is to denazify and demilitarize Ukraine and secure Donbass, which has been for 8 years under military threat by the government of Ukraine.

Russia has tried diplomatic approach for 8 years to save the Russian speaking parts of the country from annihilation. EU-countries Germany and France, even though signatories of the Minsk treaties, have done nothing to persuade the government of Ukraine to proceed to fulfilment of the treaty.

14000 killed during the 8 years, 400 children too. Continuous pressure and sleeping nights in cellars have made all children of the area vulnerable according to a study by a Finnish doctor. He compared children from Donbass, to children on middle Ukrainian areas and western parts. The differense in mental stress is enormous.

Finnish NATO-educated media does not reveal that it knows about US led military coup in Ukraine in 2014. It does not reveal that it knows that president Obamas vice president ruled Ukraine as a colonial ruler. Biden’s son Hunter’s role in supporting economically the founding of military laboratories in Ukraine, has not reaced the Finnish media. Neither they know that president Obama threatened to make Russia to become a pariah-state.

The Finnish media does not know about the US and British military advisers in Ukraine nor the NATO exercises there. They do not know that the, in the military coup so essential, nazi- army has been integrated to the Ukrainian army seamlessly. Nor do they know that all opposition parties have been denied their function. Russian language is forbidden to be spoken in public. Education in Russian language is forbidden. A multitude of TV-stations have been closed.

In the UN vote, fall 2021,  conserning support to nazism, only USA and Ukraine did not mind nazism. The EU-countries absteined as they could not revel their positive attitude to Ukrainian nazism. However EU-countries have supported and allied with nazis and jihadists in Libya, Syria, Afganistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Ukraine.

The western media claimed that in Mariupol the maternity hospital had been bombed by Russian forces. Without any further information , president of Finland and prime minister Marin, condemned with a stern voice, the horrific attac to the hospital by Russians.
Only some days later, the information reached audiences, that the hospital had been occupied by Ukrainian Azov battallion, who had emptied the location of its patients before the bombing. It became also known that the Azov-forces had misused the patients and inhibited them from escaping the city, by shooting at them while being evacuated.

The publicly announced principal of the Ukrainian nazis is to systematically kill all Russians, roma and Russian speaking ukrainians or expell them accross the border to Russia.

In the neighbourhood of capital Kiev, in the city of Bucha the Russian army was accused of killing civilians and leaving the bodies laying along the streets. After the initial report, the Finnish president and prime minister again condemd the brutality of Russian soldiers on twitter.

From several sources the story appeared to be different.

After the Russian troops left the city March the 30th, the mayor of Bucha rejoiced the recapture of the city by Ukrainian army and  the Azov nazi-groups arrived the following day. A female city council member in military gear boasted on TV that the Azov had arrived and started clensing the city of collaborators. They killed civilians who had Russian army rations in their hands or had white ribbons on their arms symbolizing to Russian soldiers that these civilians are their friends.

Ilja Kiva, member of Ukraine’s parliament until last month and chairman of socialist party, reported Bucha killings by Russian forces to be a false flag planned and organized by the SBU, Ukrainian intelligence service together with MI6, the British intelligence.

The US/EU-media denies the Ukrainian war from being a civil war, where Ukrainians fight between themselves. The war was initiated after the US-led coup, when the newly formed illegal government had been formed and the illegal chairman of the parliament, Mr Turchinov, declared a war against Eastern Ukrainians, who did not want to obey the illegal coup, the illegal government and the parliament clensed from major parties.

***

Mariupol steel factory in Donbass is now the last bastion of the nazi-Azov-army. One part of the military escaped in two helicopters. Among the passengers were US military advisers, just like in Syria. After the liberation of Aleppo, US- and other NATO- advisers were found in the cement tunnels built by the western forces for the rebel-fighters.

Why do the president and prime minister of Finland support the false flag information case after case even though there is no proof from what has really happened.

Why the government of Finland hides the scientific forensic results of what happened in the village of Racak in winter 1999.

Why the Finnish government and the media have built a horrific and disgusting  atmosphere of hate towards Russia and Russians that they hope all inhabitants of Finland to aquire and identify with.
It was awkward to watch the chairman of the German Green party and German minister of foreign affairs Annalena Baerbok to almost shout in her speech to increase the sanctions against Russia because of the Bucha killings. Even though even the nazi-killings in Bucha have no comparison with German bombings of Yugoslavia or US killing of millions of people in Libya, Afganistan, Irak and Laos.

In the destruction of Yugoslavia, German minister of foreign affairs, Joschka Fisher was most eager to bomb the Serbs. He declaired right after he became minister of foreign affairs that ”Serbs must be put on their knees”. It felt unbelievable that a relative of nazi-occupiers should treat holocaust survivors like that.

Now it is the turn of Russians to be in place of Serbs. Russians have managed to overcome the nazi-invasion in 1940- 45.They will never forget the atrozities of nazis no matter wether in Eastern Europe or Ukraine now. The Russians are on the right side of the history, building a multipolar world together with countries who are tired of US atrocities, military oppression,killings, economic sanctions, injustice, and colonial attitude towards other countries.

Too many countries are still afraid of US power-using and cannot act independantly. Russia is corageous and hopefully soon wins the battle against nazism everywhere where it still excists.

Über das Jahr 1914, Hetzkampagnen gegen Russland und einen klugen Schweizer Exoberst
Von Stefan Siegert

imago/United Archives International
Auf Pferderücken: Munition auf dem Weg zu den Verbündeten (Hamel, Frankreich, 1916)

Man kommt in Gedanken immer wieder darauf zurück. 1914. So ungefähr muss es gewesen sein, die Hetze, der Hass, der – heute durchgeschaltet wertebasierte – Propagandapilz in voller Entfaltung. Mit allerdings dem einen, alles entscheidenden Unterschied: Es gab 1914 noch keine Atomwaffen. Das heißt, alle konnten mit Begeisterung und ohne Angst vor dem Globalsuizid die einzig gerechte Strafe für soviel Greuel und Schlechtigkeit auf seiten des Feindes herbeisehnen – der Feind, das waren damals die Serben, die es frech gewagt hatten, den österreichischen Thronfolger zu ermorden; es war vor allem der Franzos’, er sann ja die ganze Zeit schon auf Rache für »70/71«; und es waren natürlich mal wieder die Russen. Die einzig gerechte Strafe: der Krieg. Jeder Krieg der Neuzeit begann mit einer Hetzkampagne, mit fundamentalen Lügen. Der Feind musste mit allen Mitteln bis hin zu raffinierten Greuelinszenierungen verachtet, gehasst, verdammt sein.

Es waren wenige, die 1914 einen kühlen Kopf behielten. Selbst ein mit Recht als Leuchtturm des bürgerlichen Journalismus bewunderter Autor wie Theodor Wolff brauchte zwei Jahre, bis er sich von seiner Kriegsbegeisterung geheilt hatte. Thomas Mann brauchte länger, immerhin: Er schaffte es auf beeindruckende Weise noch im Exil.

Heute sieht es eher aus, als müssten wir auf die Theodor Wolffs, die Alfred Döblins und Erich Maria Remarques, die Hermann Hesses und Brüder Mann lange warten. Heute schallt es uns von überall dröhnend entgegen: »Stimmt ja alles nicht!« Die freieste Presse, die es je auf deutschem Boden gab, weiß es besser: »Im Unterschied zu 1914«, triumphiert sie, »war es Putin, der, wie 1914 der deutsche Kaiser, den Krieg vom Zaun brach!«

Aber sage niemand etwas gegen die sozialen Medien. Neben allem Schlechten, was sie in Händen schlechter Menschen anrichten, haben sie ihr Gutes in Händen guter Menschen. Ob indes der ehemalige schweizerische Oberst Jacques Baud ein guter oder schlechter Mensch ist, entzieht sich meiner Kenntnis. Er ist ein bürgerlicher Mensch, er hat sich akademisch mit den Ursachen des Krieges beschäftigt und ist als Schweizer Militär für die UNO und für die NATO unterwegs gewesen, unter anderem vier Jahre in der Ukraine. Und er hat sich, über die sozialen Medien verbreitet, von einer Schweizer Zeitung interviewen lassen. Als Bürger eines neutralen Landes, das aus schlechten Gründen auf der russischen Liste »unfreundlicher« Staaten gelandet ist, zeigt er sich geradlinig empört über die westliche Art Berichterstattung. Was er als exzellenter Kenner der Situation und ihrer Vorgeschichte dagegen setzt, dürfte in manchen Punkten selbst linke Durchblicker überraschen. Im Ergebnis kommt er zu dem Schluss: Nein, Putins Krieg ist eine Katastrophe wie jeder Krieg, aber er ist kein Angriffskrieg. Er ist ein Verteidigungskrieg gegen eine aggressive NATO, die Russland seit dem Verschwinden der Sowjetunion Schritt für Schritt systematisch eingekreist hat (kurzelinks.de/baud-ukraine).

Wenn es, neben zahllosen Fakten, eines letzten Beweises dafür bedürfte, wer der Angreifer und wer der Angegriffene ist, dann liegt er in der Antwort auf die Frage: Wo war die große Hetzkampagne vor diesem, dem ukrainischen Krieg? Von seiten Russlands gab es zwar die kriegsüblich extrem einseitige Sicht auf die jeweilige Situation. Aber weder vor dem Krieg noch in seinem Verlauf waren aus Moskau hasserfüllte Töne in Richtung Gegenseite wahrzunehmen. Statt dessen anhaltendes Dringen auf friedliche Lösungen bis zuletzt, ja noch während des Krieges, alles NATO-seitig abgebogen. Der Westen dagegen arbeitet seit mehr als einem Jahrzehnt in einer Weise an der Dämonisierung Putins, die von Anfang an auf einen Krieg hindrängte. Wer ist der Angreifer, wer der Angegriffene?

Wolfgang Effenberger

On Monday, March 28, 2022, the Pentagon submitted a $773 billion budget request for fiscal year 2023, asking Congress for a significant increase in spending to build new weapons "to curb the emerging Chinese military, check Russia's aggression in Europe, and boost pay for troops."(1)

"I am calling for one of the largest investments in our national security in history," U.S. President Biden said of the budget request, "with the funding necessary to ensure that our military remains the best-prepared, best-trained, and best-equipped military in the world"; he noted that the funds were being requested to " forcefully respond to [Russian President Vladimir] Putin's aggression against Ukraine."(2) However, the request was largely completed before Putin ordered his troops into Ukraine on February 24.
For U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Senator Jack Reed, D-(Rhode Island), this budget is only a "starting point." While it would recognize "China and Russia as the most important strategic competitors to our military," he said, it must still take into account the broader needs of the U.S. military. Reed called on Congress to "make thoughtful decisions about how we equip and transform our national instruments of power. Now that President Biden has submitted his budget request, the committee can begin crafting a [National Defense Authorization Act] that meets America's needs now and in the future."(3)
Among the most pressing needs of the United States since the end of World War II has been the dismantling of the Soviet Union. To this end, the DROPSHOT war plan went into effect on December 19, 1949, a few months after NATO was formed. It was to be triggered after the economic reconstruction of Western Europe (Marshall Plan) and the establishment of the Bundeswehr in 1957.

The U.S. responded to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 with dynamic imperial geopolitics that quickly filled the resulting power vacuum - a policy that virtuously uses the connections between geography and space for its strategic visions in foreign policy.

It is not currently about Putin Biden or even Selensky, it is about a gigantic power game that has been set in motion at the latest since the collapse of the Soviet Union: Five days before the bombing of Yugoslavia began, the U.S. House of Representatives had passed the "Silk Road Strategy Act." It stated:
"The five former Soviet republics that make up Central Asia - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan - are eager to establish relations with the United States. Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have large oil and gas reserves around the Caspian Sea that they are desperate to exploit."(4)
The template for this law was Polish-American political scientist and geostrategist Zbigniew Brzeziński's 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard(5). It formed the blueprint for U.S. global policy in recent decades, the goal of which is to bring both China and Russia under its control. Pentagon planners see both a strong Russia and a powerful China as threats.(6) And Ukraine is a pivotal point for U.S. long-term strategists in the struggle for world power. According to Brzeziński, Ukraine's very existence as an independent state contributes to Russia's transformation: "Without Ukraine, Russia is no longer a Eurasian empire."(7)
His prediction as early as 1997 was that "sometime between 2005 and 2010, Ukraine should be ready for serious negotiations with both the EU and NATO, especially if in the meantime it has made significant progress in its domestic reforms and has more clearly identified itself as a Central European state."(8) By integrating Ukraine into the EU and NATO, Brzeziński wanted to put Russia in its place.
Since the Taiwan crisis in 1995/96, the U.S. has (once again) seen China as a potential military adversary and has aligned its strategic plans accordingly. In the South China Sea, the American claim to free access to the world's oceans continues to collide with Chinese efforts to establish a security zone there. "The geopolitical conflict over the South China Sea is also intertwined with the nuclear dimension. China appears to be developing this sea in the sense of a protected bastion for nuclear-armed submarines with which it wants to ensure second-strike capability against the United States."(9)
Already in his first year in office - on November 13, 2009 - U.S. President Barack Obama referred to himself as the "first Pacific president" of the U.S. in a keynote address to his Pacific ally Tokyo, because the "history of America and the Asia-Pacific region have never been more closely connected."(10) At the same time, he announced greater engagement with Asian countries and emphasized U.S. leadership in the world. In early October 2011, then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton underscored her "first Pacific" president's new foreign policy as a "swing to Asia": "The future of policy will be decided in Asia, not Afghanistan or Iraq, and the United States will be at the center of the action."(11) Thus, the shift of the U.S. military's operational focus from the greater Middle East to Asia would be inevitable. And on February 9, 2012, Admiral Samuel Locklear spoke plainly to the U.S. Senate Defense Committee on the occasion of his nomination to head U.S. Pacific Command: "We are a major power in Asia. The Chinese and the other countries in the region need to understand that the United States is prepared to defend their national interests there."(12)

In Ukraine, after the initial successes of the 2010 "Orange Revolution" were challenged with the election of Viktor Yanukovych, Western-directed unrest erupted in late 2013, eventually leading to the president's flight to Russia on February 21, 2014. This brought the coup to a "successful" conclusion. The U.S. sponsored the coup to the tune of $5 billion. In parallel, George Soros also supported the Maidan revolution.(13) In current reporting, however, Putin alone was and is seen as responsible for the Ukrainian tragedy.
One day after the referendum in Crimea - here the Crimean population had voted with an overwhelming majority for annexation to the Russian Federation - the NATO summit began in Wales (March 17-19, 2014). The subsequently published conference report outlining the new strategic concepts(14) states that strategic communications and outreach are critical "if the Alliance is to be properly positioned for the challenges and shocks that the 21st century beyond 2014 will undoubtedly bring."(15) The summit is also a time when the Alliance must be prepared for the challenges and shocks that the 21st century will undoubtedly bring.
In this regard, the Ukraine/Crimea crisis must be seen in a historical context: "This is not the beginning of a new Cold War, unless Putin overreaches and invades all of Ukraine. However, the European security and defense architecture must be strengthened and made fit for the challenges of the 21st century."(16)
The report's authors logically recognized that the Syria and Ukraine crises highlight the danger of "multiple threats merging as great powers compete for influence which prevents solutions to humanitarian tragedies."(17) China's emergence and growing tensions in the Asia-Pacific region would also highlight "the extent to which the Alliance must prepare for challenges across the spectrum of conflict and around the world." The text then definitely states, "NATO is the ultima ratio for safeguarding freedom and security."(18)

In early October 2014, at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) conference, senior officers and representatives of the U.S. Department of Defense revealed the vision of future armed conflicts. Amidst weapons industry lobbyists whose companies presented the latest weapons systems, the new TRADOC document 525-3-1 "Win in an Complex World 2020-2040"(19) was unveiled. The United States Army "Training and Doctrine Command" (TRADOC) is one of three Army-level commands, and thus one of the most important commands in the U.S. Armed Forces.

This event prompted Bill van Auken and David North to write a blistering article on wsws.org, the mouthpiece of the "International Committee of the Fourth International" (ICVI): "U.S. Army Drafts Blueprint for Third World War."(20) Both authors infer extremely ominous implications from the text of the document, as the first priority for the armed forces was to reduce the threat from Russia and China, second was the threat from North Korea and Iran, and only third was terrorism. Successfully, the U.S. military under its first "Pacific" president shifted its capabilities massively toward Asia.

On December 4, 2014, the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly (only 10 votes against) passed H. Res. 758. On the same day, long-time Congressman Ron Paul commented on it on his website with the article "Reckless Congress 'Declares War' on Russia"(21), saying:
"Today in the U.S. House of Representatives, in my opinion, one of the most evil pieces of legislation was passed."
Ron Paul sees this 16-page bill as pure war propaganda that should make even neoconservatives blush with shame. Resolution 758 reminds him of 1998, when he argued vehemently against passage of the Iraq Liberation Act. At that time, he had stated that this law would lead to war. "I voted against the bill at that time" said Paul, "not because I was an admirer of Saddam Hussein. Nor am I an admirer of Vladimir Putin or any other foreign leader. What made me vote against the bill at the time was a personal belief that another U.S. war against Iraq would not solve the underlying problems. Rather, it became apparent even then that such a war would tend to make things worse in the region. We all know today what happened in the aftermath"(22). This is one of the reasons "why I can hardly believe that this development is now repeating itself and that those responsible are ruthlessly imposing their will. And this time it is about much more: namely provoking a war against Russia, which could end in a total destruction of the world we know!"(23)
Former Reagan Administration Deputy Treasury Secretary Paul Craig Roberts saw the resolution against Russia as a pack of lies(24), and Canadian economist Michel Chossudovsky worried about global security. For him, the House of Representatives had effectively given the U.S. president and commander-in-chief of the armed forces a "green light" to enter into a process of military confrontation with Russia without further congressional approval.(25) "This historic vote," Chossudovsky said, "potentially affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world, has been virtually blanketed in the media - and this state of affairs continues."(26)
 
The speed with which the resolution was passed is unusual in the history of the U.S. legislative process. In just 16 days, H. Res.758 had been debated in the Foreign Affairs Committee and then sent back to the House of Representatives for debate and passage.
 
This legislation can be activated at any time by the sitting U.S. President.  
On March 30, the Austrian "Standard" published an interview with Gerard Toal, representative of "Critical Geopolitics" and professor of International Relations at Virginia Tech in the United States. He sees the Russian invasion of Ukraine as a string of hubris, misinformation and misinterpretation. From a military standpoint, this view seems accurate. But Russia's military operation is more likely to be politically motivated. Consequently, Toal recognizes that the Vladimir Putin of today has been honed by interactions with the West over the past 20 years: Putin "is angry, he drew red lines that were neither accepted nor respected. He operates out of a massive distrust of the West. He believes they always want to humiliate and undermine Russia. For Putin, the autocrat, Western ideology is liberal imperialist warfare along with constant expansion of democratic institutions, constant expansion of a kind of capitalist economy and politics. For Putin, this presents itself as a kind of permanent revolution against him and his worldview - the color revolutions, for example, which were supposed to trigger a kind of domino effect. This is his revanchism."(27)
Toal's statement on Putin's operating may contain some kernels of truth, but it is ultimately too superficial and not conducive to finding a peace solution for Europe.
What will happen next?
The fighting in Ukraine could drag on for a long time, while Selensky and parts of the Polish and American elite want NATO to be involved in this war. A cause will be quick to construct (see Tonkin 1964 - Meddox, Iraq 1991- incubators. Iraq 2003 WMD etc).
And that could happen now - even with the threat of nuclear war.
Today's winners are again in the US. Money flows to the drug companies, to the defense companies, to the oil and gas companies. Non-Americans are once again bleeding to death for interests across the Atlantic.
Regardless of the war propaganda, however, the suffering of the people maltreated in this fratricidal war must now urgently be ended and a lasting peace solution set in motion.

Notes

1) https://www.stripes.com/theaters/us/2022-03-28/defense-department-budget-troops-pay-raises-china-russia-5505695.html?utm_source=Stars+and+Stripes+Emails&utm_campaign=a0d39cf547-Newsletter+-+Weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0ab8697a7f-a0d39cf547-296504235
2) Ebd.
3) Ebd.
4) Silk Road Strategy Act of 1999 (H. R. 1152 –106th Congress): "To amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to Target Assistance to Support the Economic and Political Independence of the Countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia. The term "Countries of the South Caucasus and Central Asia" means Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan." Unter Bush im Mai 2006 modifiziert: Silk Road Strategy Act of 2006 (S. 2749 – 109th Congress)
5) Zbigniew Brzeziński: Die einzige Weltmacht: Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft. Rottenbuch 2015
6) Ebd. S. 62-63
7) Ebd. S. 65
8) Ebd. S. 109
9) https://www.swp-berlin.org/publikation/strategische-rivalitaet-zwischen-usa-und-china
10) „Obama umwirbt Asiens Staaten“
https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/us-praesident-in-tokioobama-umwirbt-asiens-staaten-a-661256.html
11) Hillary Clinton: America’s Pacific Century vom 11. Oktober 2011
https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/10/11/americas-pacific-century/
https://www.hintergrund.de/politik/welt/gehen-china-und-usa-auf-konfrontation/
12) NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, SECOND SESSION, 112TH CONGRESS
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-112shrg80073/html/CHRG-112shrg80073.htm
13) https://www.mdr.de/nachrichten/welt/osteuropa/politik/ukraine-soros-kampagne-100.html
14) Conference Report NATO’s post 2014 strategic narrative WP1
15) https://www.wiltonpark.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/WP1319-Report.pdf, S. 1
16) Ebd. S. 2
17) Ebd. S. 4
18) Ebd.
19) http://www.tradoc.army.mil/tpubs/pams/tp525-3-1.pdf
vom 7. Oktober 2014
20) http://www.wsws.org/de/articles/2014/10/15/pers-o15.html
vom 15. Oktober 2014
21) http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/december/04/reckless-congress-declares-war-on-russia/
Ronald Ernest „Ron“ Paul (*1935) ist US-amerikanischer Arzt und Politiker, Mitglied der Republikanischen Partei und war zwischen 1976 und 2013 (mit Unterbrechungen) Abgeordneter im Repräsentantenhaus der Vereinigten Staaten. Er war bei der US-Präsidentschaftswahl 1988 Kandidat der Libertarian Party und Bewerber um die republikanische Kandidatur für die Präsidentschaftswahl 2008 und 2012.
22) Ron Paul: Rücksichtsloser US-Kongress hat Russland gerade den Krieg erklärt, Institute for Peace and Prosperity unter http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/ [08.12.14], als Gastbeitrag in Cashkurs vom 8.12.2014 unter http://www.cashkurs.com/kategorie/wirtschaftsfacts/beitrag/gastbeitrag-dr-ron-paul-ruecksichtsloser-us-kongress-hat-russland-gerade-den-krieg-erklaert/
23) Ebd.
24) Paul Craig Roberts: Russia Has Western Enemies, Not Partners vom 5. Dezember 2014, unter http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/12/05/russia-western-enemies-partners-paul-craig-roberts/
25) Michel Chossudovsky: Amerika auf dem »Kriegspfad«: Repräsentantenhaus ebnet Krieg mit Russland den Weg vom 6.112.2014 unter http://info.kopp-verlag.de/hintergruende/geostrategie/prof-michel-chossudovsky/amerika-auf-demkriegspfad- repraesentantenhaus-ebnet-krieg-mit-russland-den-weg.html
26) Ebd.
27) https://www.derstandard.de/story/2000134372634/geopolitiker-toal-putin-hat-seine-eigene-propaganda-geglaubt

Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
Slavic Studies Panel Addresses “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?”

Washington D.C., December 12, 2017 – U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University (http://nsarchive.gwu.edu).

The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels.

The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates’s criticism of “pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn’t happen.”[1] The key phrase, buttressed by the documents, is “led to believe.”

President George H.W. Bush had assured Gorbachev during the Malta summit in December 1989 that the U.S. would not take advantage (“I have not jumped up and down on the Berlin Wall”) of the revolutions in Eastern Europe to harm Soviet interests; but neither Bush nor Gorbachev at that point (or for that matter, West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl) expected so soon the collapse of East Germany or the speed of German unification.[2]

The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn (see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear “that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process must not lead to an ‘impairment of Soviet security interests.’ Therefore, NATO should rule out an ‘expansion of its territory towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.’” The Bonn cable also noted Genscher’s proposal to leave the East German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO.[3]

This latter idea of special status for the GDR territory was codified in the final German unification treaty signed on September 12, 1990, by the Two-Plus-Four foreign ministers (see Document 25). The former idea about “closer to the Soviet borders” is written down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors (Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures. The two issues were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.

The “Tutzing formula” immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in 1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east. The Soviets would need much more time to work with their domestic opinion (and financial aid from the West Germans) before formally signing the deal in September 1990.

The conversations before Kohl’s assurance involved explicit discussion of NATO expansion, the Central and East European countries, and how to convince the Soviets to accept unification. For example, on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, “The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.” (See Document 2)

Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face with Gorbachev.

Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the “not one inch eastward” formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting. He agreed with Gorbachev’s statement in response to the assurances that “NATO expansion is unacceptable.” Baker assured Gorbachev that “neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understood that “not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” (See Document 6)

Afterwards, Baker wrote to Helmut Kohl who would meet with the Soviet leader on the next day, with much of the very same language. Baker reported: “And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real thought to all such options [….] He then added, ‘Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.’” Baker added in parentheses, for Kohl’s benefit, “By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable.” (See Document 8)

Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity.” (See Document 9) After this meeting, Kohl could hardly contain his excitement at Gorbachev’s agreement in principle for German unification and, as part of the Helsinki formula that states choose their own alliances, so Germany could choose NATO. Kohl described in his memoirs walking all night around Moscow – but still understanding there was a price still to pay.

All the Western foreign ministers were on board with Genscher, Kohl, and Baker. Next came the British foreign minister, Douglas Hurd, on April 11, 1990. At this point, the East Germans had voted overwhelmingly for the deutschmark and for rapid unification, in the March 18 elections in which Kohl had surprised almost all observers with a real victory. Kohl’s analyses (first explained to Bush on December 3, 1989) that the GDR’s collapse would open all possibilities, that he had to run to get to the head of the train, that he needed U.S. backing, that unification could happen faster than anyone thought possible – all turned out to be correct. Monetary union would proceed as early as July and the assurances about security kept coming. Hurd reinforced the Baker-Genscher-Kohl message in his meeting with Gorbachev in Moscow, April 11, 1990, saying that Britain clearly “recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity.” (See Document 15)

The Baker conversation with Shevardnadze on May 4, 1990, as Baker described it in his own report to President Bush, most eloquently described what Western leaders were telling Gorbachev exactly at the moment: “I used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.” (See Document 17)

Baker said it again, directly to Gorbachev on May 18, 1990 in Moscow, giving Gorbachev his “nine points,” which included the transformation of NATO, strengthening European structures, keeping Germany non-nuclear, and taking Soviet security interests into account. Baker started off his remarks, “Before saying a few words about the German issue, I wanted to emphasize that our policies are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building a stable Europe, and doing it together with you.” (See Document 18)

The French leader Francois Mitterrand was not in a mind-meld with the Americans, quite the contrary, as evidenced by his telling Gorbachev in Moscow on May 25, 1990, that he was “personally in favor of gradually dismantling the military blocs”; but Mitterrand continued the cascade of assurances by saying the West must “create security conditions for you, as well as European security as a whole.” (See Document 19) Mitterrand immediately wrote Bush in a “cher George” letter about his conversation with the Soviet leader, that “we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country’s security.” (See Document 20)

At the Washington summit on May 31, 1990, Bush went out of his way to assure Gorbachev that Germany in NATO would never be directed at the USSR: “Believe me, we are not pushing Germany towards unification, and it is not us who determines the pace of this process. And of course, we have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion. That is why we are speaking in favor of German unification in NATO without ignoring the wider context of the CSCE, taking the traditional economic ties between the two German states into consideration. Such a model, in our view, corresponds to the Soviet interests as well.” (See Document 21)

The “Iron Lady” also pitched in, after the Washington summit, in her meeting with Gorbachev in London on June 8, 1990. Thatcher anticipated the moves the Americans (with her support) would take in the early July NATO conference to support Gorbachev with descriptions of the transformation of NATO towards a more political, less militarily threatening, alliance. She said to Gorbachev: “We must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured…. CSCE could be an umbrella for all this, as well as being the forum which brought the Soviet Union fully into discussion about the future of Europe.” (See Document 22)

The NATO London Declaration on July 5, 1990 had quite a positive effect on deliberations in Moscow, according to most accounts, giving Gorbachev significant ammunition to counter his hardliners at the Party Congress which was taking place at that moment. Some versions of this history assert that an advance copy was provided to Shevardnadze’s aides, while others describe just an alert that allowed those aides to take the wire service copy and produce a Soviet positive assessment before the military or hardliners could call it propaganda.

As Kohl said to Gorbachev in Moscow on July 15, 1990, as they worked out the final deal on German unification: “We know what awaits NATO in the future, and I think you are now in the know as well,” referring to the NATO London Declaration. (See Document 23)

In his phone call to Gorbachev on July 17, Bush meant to reinforce the success of the Kohl-Gorbachev talks and the message of the London Declaration. Bush explained: “So what we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others, and we did it in the following ways: by our joint declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO; in our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and our offer on assurances on the future size of the armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded, stronger CSCE with new institutions in which the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe.” (See Document 24)

The documents show that Gorbachev agreed to German unification in NATO as the result of this cascade of assurances, and on the basis of his own analysis that the future of the Soviet Union depended on its integration into Europe, for which Germany would be the decisive actor. He and most of his allies believed that some version of the common European home was still possible and would develop alongside the transformation of NATO to lead to a more inclusive and integrated European space, that the post-Cold War settlement would take account of the Soviet security interests. The alliance with Germany would not only overcome the Cold War but also turn on its head the legacy of the Great Patriotic War.

But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued, a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990 was to leave “the door ajar” for East European membership in NATO. (See Document 27) The view of the State Department was that NATO expansion was not on the agenda, because it was not in the interest of the U.S. to organize “an anti-Soviet coalition” that extended to the Soviet borders, not least because it might reverse the positive trends in the Soviet Union. (See Document 26) The Bush administration took the latter view. And that’s what the Soviets heard.

As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally assured Gorbachev, “We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO.” Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri Yazov asked Major about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, “Nothing of the sort will happen.” (See Document 28)

When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.” According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, “Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view).” (See Document 30)

Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO. Instead, the dissolution of the USSR was brought about by Russians (Boris Yeltsin and his leading advisory Gennady Burbulis) in concert with the former party bosses of the Soviet republics, especially Ukraine, in December 1991. The Cold War was long over by then. The Americans had tried to keep the Soviet Union together (see the Bush “Chicken Kiev” speech on August 1, 1991). NATO’s expansion was years in the future, when these disputes would erupt again, and more assurances would come to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin.

The Archive compiled these declassified documents for a panel discussion on November 10, 2017 at the annual conference of the Association for Slavic, East European and Eurasian Studies (ASEEES) in Chicago under the title “Who Promised What to Whom on NATO Expansion?” The panel included:

* Mark Kramer from the Davis Center at Harvard, editor of the Journal of Cold War Studies, whose 2009 Washington Quarterly article argued that the “no-NATO-enlargement pledge” was a “myth”;[4]

* Joshua R. Itkowitz Shifrinson from the Bush School at Texas A&M, whose 2016 International Security article argued the U.S. was playing a double game in 1990, leading Gorbachev to believe NATO would be subsumed in a new European security structure, while working to ensure hegemony in Europe and the maintenance of NATO;[5]

* James Goldgeier from American University, who wrote the authoritative book on the Clinton decision on NATO expansion, Not Whether But When, and described the misleading U.S. assurances to Russian leader Boris Yeltsin in a 2016 WarOnTheRocks article;[6]

* Svetlana Savranskaya and Tom Blanton from the National Security Archive, whose most recent book, The Last Superpower Summits: Gorbachev, Reagan, and Bush: Conversations That Ended the Cold War (CEU Press, 2016) analyzes and publishes the declassified transcripts and related documents from all of Gorbachev’s summits with U.S. presidents, including dozens of assurances about protecting the USSR’s security interests.[7]

[Today’s posting is the first of two on the subject. The second part will cover the Yeltsin discussions with Western leaders about NATO.]

Read the documents:

Document 01
U.S. Embassy Bonn Confidential Cable to Secretary of State on the speech of the German Foreign Minister: Genscher Outlines His Vision of a New European Architecture.
Feb 1, 1990
Source

U.S. Department of State. FOIA Reading Room. Case F-2015 10829

One of the myths about the January and February 1990 discussions of German unification is that these talks occurred so early in the process, with the Warsaw Pact still very much in existence, that no one was thinking about the possibility that Central and European countries, even then members of the Warsaw Pact, could in the future become members of NATO. On the contrary, the West German foreign minister’s Tutzing formula in his speech of January 31, 1990, widely reported in the media in Europe, Washington, and Moscow, explicitly addressed the possibility of NATO expansion, as well as Central and Eastern European membership in NATO – and denied that possibility, as part of his olive garland towards Moscow. This U.S. Embassy Bonn cable reporting back to Washington details both of Hans-Dietrich Genscher’s proposals – that NATO would not expand to the east, and that the former territory of the GDR in a unified Germany would be treated differently from other NATO territory.

Document 02
Mr. Hurd to Sir C. Mallaby (Bonn). Telegraphic N. 85: Secretary of State’s Call on Herr Genscher: German Unification.
Feb 6, 1990
Source
Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Documents on British Policy Overseas, edited by Patrick Salmon, Keith Hamilton, and Stephen Twigge, Oxford and New York, Routledge 2010). pp. 261-264

The U.S. State Department’s subsequent view of the German unification negotiations, expressed in a 1996 cable sent to all posts, mistakenly asserts that the entire negotiation over the future of Germany limited its discussion of the future of NATO to the specific arrangements over the territory of the former GDR. Perhaps the American diplomats missed out on the early dialogue between the British and the Germans on this issue, even though both shared their views with the U.S. secretary of state. As published in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s official 2010 documentary history of the UK’s input into German unification, this memorandum of British Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd’s conversation with West German Foreign Minister Genscher on February 6, 1990, contains some remarkable specificity on the issue of future NATO membership for the Central Europeans. The British memorandum specifically quotes Genscher as saying “that when he talked about not wanting to extend NATO that applied to other states beside the GDR. The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example, the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next.” Genscher and Hurd were saying the same to their Soviet counterpart Eduard Shevardnadze, and to James Baker.[8]

Document 03
Memorandum from Paul H. Nitze to George H.W. Bush about “Forum for Germany” meeting in Berlin.
Feb 6, 1990
Source

George H. W. Bush Presidential Library

This concise note to President Bush from one of the Cold War’s architects, Paul Nitze (based at his namesake Johns Hopkins University School of International Studies), captures the debate over the future of NATO in early 1990. Nitze relates that Central and Eastern European leaders attending the “Forum for Germany” conference in Berlin were advocating the dissolution of both the superpower blocs, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, until he (and a few western Europeans) turned around that view and instead emphasized the importance of NATO as the basis of stability and U.S. presence in Europe.

Document 04
Memorandum of Conversation between James Baker and Eduard Shevardnadze in Moscow.
Feb 9, 1990
Source

U.S. Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)

Although heavily redacted compared to the Soviet accounts of these conversations, the official State Department version of Secretary Baker’s assurances to Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze just before the formal meeting with Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, contains a series of telling phrases. Baker proposes the Two-Plus-Four formula, with the two being the Germanies and the four the post-war occupying powers; argues against other ways to negotiate unification; and makes the case for anchoring Germany in NATO. Furthermore, Baker tells the Soviet foreign minister, “A neutral Germany would undoubtedly acquire its own independent nuclear capability. However, a Germany that is firmly anchored in a changed NATO, by that I mean a NATO that is far less of [a] military organization, much more of a political one, would have no need for independent capability. There would, of course, have to be iron-clad guarantees that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward. And this would have to be done in a manner that would satisfy Germany’s neighbors to the east.”

Document 05
Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow.
Feb 9, 1990
Source

U.S. Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)

Even with (unjustified) redactions by U.S. classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous U.S. assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: “The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral advantage in this process” of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, “We understand the need for assurances to the countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO’s jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.” Later in the conversation, Baker poses the same position as a question, “would you prefer a united Germany outside of NATO that is independent and has no US forces or would you prefer a united Germany with ties to NATO and assurances that there would be no extension of NATO’s current jurisdiction eastward?” The declassifiers of this memcon actually redacted Gorbachev’s response that indeed such an expansion would be “unacceptable” – but Baker’s letter to Kohl the next day, published in 1998 by the Germans, gives the quote.

Document 06
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts)
Feb 9, 1990
Source

Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1, Opis 1.

This Gorbachev Foundation record of the Soviet leader’s meeting with James Baker on February 9, 1990, has been public and available for researchers at the Foundation since as early as 1996, but it was not published in English until 2010 when the Masterpieces of History volume by the present authors came out from Central European University Press. The document focuses on German unification, but also includes candid discussion by Gorbachev of the economic and political problems in the Soviet Union, and Baker’s “free advice” (“sometimes the finance minister in me wakes up”) on prices, inflation, and even the policy of selling apartments to soak up the rubles cautious Soviet citizens have tucked under their mattresses.

Turning to German unification, Baker assures Gorbachev that “neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place,” and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that “not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.” Baker argues in favor of the Two-Plus-Four talks using the same assurance: “We believe that consultations and discussions within the framework of the ‘two+four’ mechanism should guarantee that Germany’s unification will not lead to NATO’s military organization spreading to the east.” Gorbachev responds by quoting Polish President Wojciech Jaruzelski: “that the presence of American and Soviet troops in Europe is an element of stability.”

The key exchange takes place when Baker asks whether Gorbachev would prefer “a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely independent and without American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that NATO’s jurisdiction or troops will not spread east of the present boundary.” Thus, in this conversation, the U.S. secretary of state three times offers assurances that if Germany were allowed to unify in NATO, preserving the U.S. presence in Europe, then NATO would not expand to the east. Interestingly, not once does he use the term GDR or East Germany or even mention the Soviet troops in East Germany. For a skilled negotiator and careful lawyer, it seems very unlikely Baker would not use specific terminology if in fact he was referring only to East Germany.

The Soviet leader responds that “[w]e will think everything over. We intend to discuss all these questions in depth at the leadership level. It goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable.” Baker affirms: “We agree with that.”

Document 07
Memorandum of conversation between Robert Gates and Vladimir Kryuchkov in Moscow.
Feb 9, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91128, Folder “Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive.”

This conversation is especially important because subsequent researchers have speculated that Secretary Baker may have been speaking beyond his brief in his “not one inch eastward” conversation with Gorbachev. Robert Gates, the former top CIA intelligence analyst and a specialist on the USSR, here tells his kind-of-counterpart, the head of the KGB, in his office at the Lubyanka KGB headquarters, exactly what Baker told Gorbachev that day at the Kremlin: not one inch eastward. At that point, Gates was the top deputy to the president’s national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, so this document speaks to a coordinated approach by the U.S. government to Gorbachev. Kryuchkov, whom Gorbachev appointed to replace Viktor Chebrikov at the KGB in October 1988, comes across here as surprisingly progressive on many issues of domestic reform. He talks openly about the shortcomings and problems of perestroika, the need to abolish the leading role of the CPSU, the central government’s mistaken neglect of ethnic issues, the “atrocious” pricing system, and other domestic topics.

When the discussion moves on to foreign policy, in particular the German question, Gates asks, “What did Kryuchkov think of the Kohl/Genscher proposal under which a united Germany would be associated with NATO, but in which NATO troops would move no further east than they now were? It seems to us to be a sound proposal.” Kryuchkov does not give a direct answer but talks about how sensitive the issue of German unification is for the Soviet public and suggests that the Germans should offer the Soviet Union some guarantees. He says that although Kohl and Genscher’s ideas are interesting, “even those points in their proposals with which we agree would have to have guarantees. We learned from the Americans in arms control negotiations the importance of verification, and we would have to be sure.”

Document 08
Letter from James Baker to Helmut Kohl
Feb 10, 1990
Source
Deutsche Enheit Sonderedition und den Akten des Budeskanzleramtes 1989/90, eds. Hanns Jurgen Kusters and Daniel Hofmann (Munich: R. Odenbourg Verlag, 1998), pp. 793-794

This key document first appeared in Helmut Kohl’s scholarly edition of chancellery documents on German unification, published in 1998. Kohl at that moment was caught up in an election campaign that would end his 16-year tenure as chancellor, and wanted to remind Germans of his instrumental role in the triumph of unification.[9] The large volume (over 1,000 pages) included German texts of Kohl’s meetings with Gorbachev, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher and more – all published with no apparent consultation with those governments, only eight years after the events. A few of the Kohl documents, such as this one, appear in English, representing the American or British originals rather than German notes or translations. Here, Baker debriefs Kohl the day after his February 9 meeting with Gorbachev. (The chancellor is scheduled to have his own session with Gorbachev on February 10 in Moscow.) The American apprises the German on Soviet “concerns” about unification, and summarizes why a “Two Plus Four” negotiation would be the most appropriate venue for talks on the “external aspects of unification” given that the “internal aspects … were strictly a German matter.” Baker especially remarks on Gorbachev’s noncommittal response to the question about a neutral Germany versus a NATO Germany with pledges against eastward expansion, and advises Kohl that Gorbachev “may well be willing to go along with a sensible approach that gives him some cover …” Kohl reinforces this message in his own conversation later that day with the Soviet leader.

Document 09
Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl
Feb 10, 1990
Source
Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006)

This meeting in Moscow was the moment, by Kohl’s account, when he first heard from Gorbachev that the Soviet leader saw German unification as inevitable, that the value of future German friendship in a “common European home” outweighed Cold War rigidities, but that the Soviets would need time (and money) before they could acknowledge the new realities. Prepared by Baker’s letter and his own foreign minister’s Tutzing formula, Kohl early in the conversation assures Gorbachev, “We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people.” Later the two leaders tussle about NATO and the Warsaw Pact, with Gorbachev commenting, “They say what is NATO without the FRG. But we could also ask: what is the WTO without the GDR?” When Kohl disagrees, Gorbachev calls merely for “reasonable solutions that do not poison the atmosphere in our relations” and says this part of the conversation should not be made public.

Gorbachev aide Andrei Grachev later wrote that the Soviet leader early on understood that Germany was the door to European integration, and “[a]ll the attempted bargaining [by Gorbachev] about the final formula for German association with NATO was therefore much more a question of form than serious content; Gorbachev was trying to gain needed time in order to let public opinion at home adjust to the new reality, to the new type of relations that were taking shape in the Soviet Union’s relations with Germany as well as with the West in general. At the same time he was hoping to get at least partial political compensation from his Western partners for what he believed to be his major contribution to the end of the Cold War.”[10]

Document 10-1
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze notes from Conference on Open Skies, Ottawa, Canada.
Feb 12, 1990
Source

Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.

Soviet Foreign Minister Shevardnadze was particularly unhappy with the swift pace of events on German unification, especially when a previously scheduled NATO and Warsaw Pact foreign ministers’ meeting in Ottawa, Canada, on February 10-12, 1990, that was meant to discuss the “Open Skies” treaty, turned into a wide-ranging negotiation over Germany and the installation of the Two-Plus-Four process to work out the details. Shevardnadze’s aide, Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze, wrote notes of the Ottawa meetings in a series of notebooks, and also kept a less-telegraphic diary, which needs to be read along with the notebooks for the most complete account. Now deposited at the Hoover Institution, these excerpts of the Stepanov-Mamaladze notes and diary record Shevardnadze’s disapproval of the speed of the process, but most importantly reinforce the importance of the February 9 and 10 meetings in Moscow, where Western assurances about Soviet security were heard, and Gorbachev’s assent in principle to eventual German unification came as part of the deal.

Notes from the first days of the conference are very brief, but they contain one important line that shows that Baker offered the same assurance formula in Ottawa as he did in Moscow: “And if U[nited] G[ermany] stays in NATO, we should take care about nonexpansion of its jurisdiction to the East.” Shevardnadze is not ready to discuss conditions for German unification; he says that he has to consult with Moscow before any condition is approved. On February 13, according to the notes, Shevardnadze complains, “I am in a stupid situation – we are discussing the Open Skies, but my colleagues are talking about unification of Germany as if it was a fact.” The notes show that Baker was very persistent in trying to get Shevardnadze to define Soviet conditions for German unification in NATO, while Shevardnadze was still uncomfortable with the term “unification,” instead insisting on the more general term “unity.”

Document 10-2
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze diary, February 12, 1990.
Feb 12, 1990
Source

Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.

This diary entry from February 12 contains a very brief description of the February 10 Kohl and Genscher visit to Moscow, about which Stepanov-Mamaladze had not previously written (since he was not present). Sharing the view of his minister, Shevardnadze, Stepanov reflects on the hurried nature of, and insufficient considerations given to, the Moscow discussions: “Before our visit here, Kohl and Genscher paid a hasty visit to Moscow. And just as hastily – in the opinion of E.A. [Shevardnadze] – Gorbachev accepted the right of the Germans to unity and self-determination.” This diary entry is evidence, from a critical perspective, that the United States and West Germany did give Moscow concrete assurances about keeping NATO to its current size and scope. In fact, the diary further indicates that at least in Shevardnadze’s view those assurances amounted to a deal – which Gorbachev accepted, even while he stalled for time.

Document 10-3
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze diary, February 13, 1990.
Feb 13, 1990
Source

Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.

On the second day of the Ottawa conference, Stepanov-Mamaladze describes difficult negotiations about the exact wording on the joint statement on Germany and the Two-Plus-Four process. Shevardnadze and Genscher argued for two hours over the terms “unity” versus “unification” as Shevardnadze tried to slow things down on Germany and get the other ministers to concentrate on Open Skies. The day was quite intense: “During the day, active games were taking place between all of them. E.A. [Shevardnadze] met with Baker five times, twice with Genscher, talked with Fischer [GDR foreign minister], Dumas [French foreign minister], and the ministers of the ATS countries,” and finally, the text of the settlement was settled, using the word “unity.” The final statement also called the agreement on U.S. and Soviet troops in Central Europe the main achievement of the conference. But for the Soviet delegates, “ the ‘Open Sky’ [was] still closed by the storm cloud of Germany.”

Document 11
U.S. State Department, “Two Plus Four: Advantages, Possible Concerns and Rebuttal Points.”
Feb 21, 1990
Source

State Department FOIA release, National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38.

This memo, likely authored by top Baker aide Robert Zoellick at the State Department, contains the candid American view of the Two-Plus-Four process with its advantages of “maintain[ing] American involvement in (and even some control over) the unification debate.” The American fear was that the West Germans would make their own deal with Moscow for rapid unification, giving up some of the bottom lines for the U.S., mainly membership in NATO. Zoellick points out, for example, that Kohl had announced his 10 Points without consulting Washington and after signals from Moscow, and that the U.S. had found out about Kohl going to Moscow from the Soviets, not from Kohl. The memo pre-empts objections about including the Soviets by pointing out they were already in Germany and had to be dealt with. The Two-Plus-Four arrangement includes the Soviets but prevents them from having a veto (which a Four-Power process or a United Nations process might allow), while an effective One-Plus-Three conversation before each meeting would enable West Germany and the U.S., with the British and the French, to work out a common position. Especially telling are the underlining and handwriting by Baker in the margins, especially his exuberant phrase, “you haven’t seen a leveraged buyout until you see this one!”

Document 12-1
Memorandum of conversation between Vaclav Havel and George Bush in Washington.
Feb 20, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)

These conversations might be called “the education of Vaclav Havel,”[10] as the former dissident-turned-president of Czechoslovakia visited Washington only two months after the Velvet Revolution swept him from prison to the Prague Castle. Havel would enjoy standing ovations during a February 21 speech to a joint session of Congress, and hold talks with Bush before and after the congressional appearance. Havel had already been cited by journalists as calling for the dissolution of the Cold War blocs, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact, and the withdrawal of troops, so Bush took the opportunity to lecture the Czech leader about the value of NATO and its essential role as the basis for the U.S. presence in Europe. Still, Havel twice mentioned in his speech to Congress his hope that “American soldiers shouldn’t have to be separated from their mothers” just because Europe couldn’t keep the peace, and appealed for a “future democratic Germany in the process of unifying itself into a new pan-European structure which could decide about its own security system.” But afterwards, talking again to Bush, the former dissident clearly had gotten the message. Havel said he might have been misunderstood, that he certainly saw the value of U.S. engagement in Europe. For his part, Bush raised the possibilities, assuming more Czechoslovak cooperation on this issue, of U.S. investment and aid.

Document 12-2
Memorandum of conversation between Vaclav Havel and George Bush in Washington.
Feb 21, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)

This memcon after Havel’s triumphant speech to Congress contains Bush’s request to Havel to pass the message to Gorbachev that the Americans support him personally, and that “We will not conduct ourselves in the wrong way by saying ‘we win, you lose.’” Emphasizing the point, Bush says, “tell Gorbachev that … I asked you to tell Gorbachev that we will not conduct ourselves regarding Czechoslovakia or any other country in a way that would complicate the problems he has so frankly discussed with me.” The Czechoslovak leader adds his own caution to the Americans about how to proceed with the unification of Germany and address Soviet insecurities. Havel remarks to Bush, “It is a question of prestige. This is the reason why I talked about the new European security system without mentioning NATO. Because, if it grew out of NATO, it would have to be named something else, if only because of the element of prestige. If NATO takes over Germany, it will look like defeat, one superpower conquering another. But if NATO can transform itself – perhaps in conjunction with the Helsinki process – it would look like a peaceful process of change, not defeat.” Bush responded positively: “You raised a good point. Our view is that NATO would continue with a new political role and that we would build on the CSCE process. We will give thought on how we might proceed.”

Document 13
Memorandum of Conversation between Helmut Kohl and George Bush at Camp David.
Feb 24, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)

The Bush administration’s main worry about German unification as the process accelerated in February 1990 was that the West Germans might make their own deal bilaterally with the Soviets (see Document 11) and might be willing to bargain away NATO membership. President Bush later commented that the purpose of the Camp David meeting with Kohl was to “keep Germany on the NATO reservation,” and that drove the agenda for this set of meetings. The German chancellor arrives at Camp David without Genscher because the latter does not entirely share the Bush-Kohl position on full German membership in NATO, and he recently angered both leaders by speaking publicly about the CSCE as the future European security mechanism.[12]

At the beginning of this conversation, Kohl expresses gratitude for Bush and Baker’s support during his discussions with Gorbachev in Moscow in early February, especially for Bush’s letter stating Washington’s strong commitment to German unification in NATO. Both leaders express the need for the closest cooperation between them in order to reach the desired outcome. Bush’s priority is to keep the U.S. presence, especially the nuclear umbrella, in Europe: “if U.S. nuclear forces are withdrawn from Germany, I don’t see how we can persuade any other ally on the continent to retain these weapons.” He refers sarcastically to criticisms coming from Capitol Hill: “We have weird thinking in our Congress today, ideas like this peace dividend. We can’t do that in these uncertain times.” Both leaders are concerned about the position Gorbachev might take and agree on the need to consult with him regularly. Kohl suggests that the Soviets need assistance and the final arrangement on Germany could be a “matter of cash.” Foreshadowing his reluctance to contribute financially, Bush replies, “you have deep pockets.” At one point in the conversation, Bush seems to view his Soviet counterpart not as a partner but as a defeated enemy. Referring to talk in some Soviet quarters against Germany staying in NATO, he says: “To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn’t. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat.”

Document 14
Memorandum of conversation between George Bush and Eduard Shevardnadze in Washington.
Apr 6, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)

Foreign Minister Shevardnadze delivers a letter to Bush from Gorbachev, in which the Soviet president reviews the main issues before the coming summit. Economic issues are at the top of the list for the Soviet Union, specifically Most Favored Nation status and a trade agreement with the United States. Shevardnadze expresses concern about the lack of progress on these issues and the U.S. efforts to prevent the EBRD from extending loans to the USSR. He stresses that they are not asking for help, “we are only looking to be treated as partners.” Addressing the tensions in Lithuania, Bush says that he does not want to create difficulties for Gorbachev on domestic issues, but notes that he must insist on the rights of Lithuanians because their incorporation within the USSR was never recognized by the United States. On arms control, both sides point to some backtracking by the other and express a desire to finalize the START Treaty quickly. Shevardnadze mentions the upcoming CSCE summit and the Soviet expectation that it will discuss the new European security structures. Bush does not contradict this but ties it to the issues of the U.S. presence in Europe and German unification in NATO. He declares that he wants to “contribute to stability and to the creation of a Europe whole and free, or as you call it, a common European home. A[n] idea that is very close to our own.” The Soviets—wrongly—interpret this as a declaration that the U.S. administration shares Gorbachev’s idea.

Document 15
Sir R. Braithwaite (Moscow). Telegraphic N. 667: “Secretary of State’s Meeting with President Gorbachev.”
Apr 11, 1990
Source
Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Documents on British Policy Overseas, edited by Patrick Salmon, Keith Hamilton, and Stephen Twigge, Oxford and New York, Routledge 2010), pp. 373-375

Ambassador Braithwaite’s telegram summarizes the meeting between Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Douglas Hurd and President Gorbachev, noting Gorbachev’s “expansive mood.” Gorbachev asks the secretary to pass his appreciation for Margaret Thatcher’s letter to him after her summit with Kohl, at which, according to Gorbachev, she followed the lines of policy Gorbachev and Thatcher discussed in their recent phone call, on the basis of which the Soviet leader concluded that “the British and Soviet positions were very close indeed.” Hurd cautions Gorbachev that their positions are not 100% in agreement, but that the British “recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity.” Gorbachev, as reflected in Braithwaite’s summary, speaks about the importance of building new security structures as a way of dealing with the issue of two Germanies: “If we are talking about a common dialogue about a new Europe stretching from the Atlantic to the Urals, that was one way of dealing with the German issue.” That would require a transitional period to pick up the pace of the European process and “synchronise it with finding a solution to the problem of the two Germanies.” However, if the process was unilateral – only Germany in NATO and no regard for Soviet security interest – the Supreme Soviet would be very unlikely to approve such a solution and the Soviet Union would question the need to speed up the reduction of its conventional weapons in Europe. In his view, Germany’s joining NATO without progress on European security structures “could upset the balance of security, which would be unacceptable to the Soviet Union.”

Document 16
Valentin Falin Memorandum to Mikhail Gorbachev (Excerpts)
Apr 18, 1990
Source
Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006), pp. 398-408

This memorandum from the Central Committee’s most senior expert on Germany sounds like a wake-up call for Gorbachev. Falin puts it in blunt terms: while Soviet European policy has fallen into inactivity and even “depression” after the March 18 elections in East Germany, and Gorbachev himself has let Kohl speed up the process of unification, his compromises on Germany in NATO can only lead to the slipping away of his main goal for Europe – the common European home. “Summing up the past six months, one has to conclude that the ‘common European home,’ which used to be a concrete task the countries of the continent were starting to implement, is now turning into a mirage.” While the West is sweet-talking Gorbachev into accepting German unification in NATO, Falin notes (correctly) that “the Western states are already violating the consensus principle by making preliminary agreements among themselves” regarding German unification and the future of Europe that do not include a “long phase of constructive development.” He notes the West’s “intensive cultivation of not only NATO but also our Warsaw Pact allies” with the goal to isolate the USSR in the Two-Plus-Four and CSCE framework.

He further comments that reasonable voices are no longer heard: “Genscher from time to time continues to discuss accelerating the movement toward European collective security with the ‘dissolving of NATO and WTO into it.’ … But very few people … hear Genscher.” Falin proposes using the Soviet Four-power rights to achieve a formal legally binding settlement equal to a peace treaty that would guarantee Soviet security interests as “our only chance to dock German unification with the pan-European process.” He also suggests using arms control negotiations in Vienna and Geneva as leverage if the West keeps taking advantage of Soviet flexibility. The memo suggests specific provisions for the final settlement with Germany, the negotiation of which would take a long time and provide a window for building European structures. But the main idea of the memo is to warn Gorbachev not to be naive about the intentions of his American partners: “The West is outplaying us, promising to respect the interests of the USSR, but in practice, step by step, separating us from ‘traditional Europe.’”

Document 17
James A. Baker III, Memorandum for the President, “My meeting with Shevardnadze.”
May 4, 1990
Source

George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91126, Folder “Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive 1989 – June 1990 [3]”

The secretary of state had just spent nearly four hours meeting with the Soviet foreign minister in Bonn on May 4, 1990, covering a range of issues but centering on the crisis in Lithuania and the negotiations over German unification. As in the February talks and throughout the year, Baker took pains to provide assurances to the Soviets about including them in the future of Europe. Baker reports, “I also used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.” Shevardnadze’s response indicates that “our discussion of the new European architecture was compatible with much of their thinking, though their thinking was still being developed.” Baker relates that Shevardnadze “emphasized again the psychological difficulty they have – especially the Soviet public has – of accepting a unified Germany in NATO.” Astutely, Baker predicts that Gorbachev will not “take on this kind of an emotionally charged political issue now” and likely not until after the Party Congress in July.

Document 18
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow.
May 18, 1990
Source

Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1, Opis 1.

This fascinating conversation covers a range of arms control issues in preparation for the Washington summit and includes extensive though inconclusive discussions of German unification and the tensions in the Baltics, particularly the standoff between Moscow and secessionist Lithuania. Gorbachev makes an impassioned attempt to persuade Baker that Germany should reunify outside of the main military blocs, in the context of the all-European process. Baker provides Gorbachev with nine points of assurance to prove that his position is being taken into account. Point eight is the most important for Gorbachev—that the United States is “making an effort in various forums to ultimately transform the CSCE into a permanent institution that would become an important cornerstone of a new Europe.”

This assurance notwithstanding, when Gorbachev mentions the need to build new security structures to replace the blocs, Baker lets slip a personal reaction that reveals much about the real U.S. position on the subject: “It’s nice to talk about pan-European security structures, the role of the CSCE. It is a wonderful dream, but just a dream. In the meantime, NATO exists. …” Gorbachev suggests that if the U.S. side insists on Germany in NATO, then he would “announce publicly that we want to join NATO too.” Shevardnadze goes further, offering a prophetic observation: “if united Germany becomes a member of NATO, it will blow up perestroika. Our people will not forgive us. People will say that we ended up the losers, not the winners.”

Document 19
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Francois Mitterrand (excerpts).
May 25, 1990
Source
Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006), pp. 454-466

Gorbachev felt that of all the Europeans, the French president was his closest ally in the construction of a post-Cold War Europe, because the Soviet leader believed Mitterrand shared his concept of the common European home and the idea of dissolving both military blocs in favor of new European security structures. And Mitterrand did share that view, to an extent. In this conversation, Gorbachev is still hoping to persuade his counterpart to join him in opposing German unification in NATO. Mitterrand is quite direct, telling Gorbachev that it is too late to fight this issue and that he would not give his support, because “if I say ‘no’ to Germany’s membership in NATO, I will become isolated from my Western partners.” However, Mitterrand suggests that Gorbachev demand “appropriate guarantees” from NATO. He speaks about the danger of isolating the Soviet Union in the new Europe and the need to “create security conditions for you, as well as European security as a whole. This was one of my guiding goals, particularly when I proposed my idea of creating a European confederation. It is similar to your concept of a common European home.”

In his recommendations to Gorbachev, Mitterrand is basically repeating the lines of the Falin memo (see Document 16). He says Gorbachev should strive for a formal settlement with Germany using his Four-power rights and use the leverage of conventions arms control negotiations: “You will not abandon such a trump card as disarmament negotiations.” He implies that NATO is not the key issue now and could be drowned out in further negotiations; rather, the important thing is to ensure Soviet participation in new European security system. He repeats that he is “personally in favor of gradually dismantling the military blocs.”

Gorbachev expresses his wariness and suspicion about U.S. effort to “perpetuate NATO,” to “use NATO to create some sort of mechanism, an institution, a kind of directory for managing world affairs.” He tells Mitterrand about his concern that the U.S. is trying to attract East Europeans to NATO: “I told Baker: we are aware of your favorable attitude towards the intention expressed by a number of representatives of Eastern European countries to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact and subsequently join NATO.” What about the USSR joining?

Mitterrand agrees to support Gorbachev in his efforts to encourage pan-European processes and ensure that Soviet security interests are taken into account as long as he does not have to say “no” to the Germans. He says “I always told my NATO partners: make a commitment not to move NATO’s military formations from their current territory in the FRG to East Germany.”

Document 20
Letter from Francois Mitterrand to George Bush
May 25, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, FOIA 2009-0275-S

True to his word, Mitterrand writes a letter to George Bush describing Gorbachev’s predicament on the issue of German unification in NATO, calling it genuine, not “fake or tactical.” He warns the American president against doing it as a fait accompli without Gorbachev’s consent implying that Gorbachev might retaliate on arms control (exactly what Mitterrand himself – and Falin earlier – suggested in his conversation). Mitterrand argues in favor of a formal “peace settlement in International law,” and informs Bush that in his conversation with Gorbachev he “indicated that, on the Western side, we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country’s security.” Mitterrand thinks that “we must try to dispel Mr. Gorbatchev’s worries,” and offers to present “ a number of proposals” about such guarantees when he and Bush meet in person.

Document 21
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush. White House, Washington D.C.
May 31, 1990
Source

Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Moscow, Fond 1, opis 1.[13]

In this famous “two anchor” discussion, the U.S. and Soviet delegations deliberate over the process of German unification and especially the issue of a united Germany joining NATO. Bush tries to persuade his counterpart to reconsider his fears of Germany based on the past, and to encourage him to trust the new democratic Germany. The U.S. president says, “Believe me, we are not pushing Germany towards unification, and it is not us who determines the pace of this process. And of course, we have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion. That is why we are speaking in favor of German unification in NATO without ignoring the wider context of the CSCE, taking the traditional economic ties between the two German states into consideration. Such a model, in our view, corresponds to the Soviet interests as well.” Baker repeats the nine assurances made previously by the administration, including that the United States now agrees to support the pan-European process and transformation of NATO in order to remove the Soviet perception of threat. Gorbachev’s preferred position is Germany with one foot in both NATO and the Warsaw Pact—the “two anchors”—creating a kind of associated membership. Baker intervenes, saying that “the simultaneous obligations of one and the same country toward the WTO and NATO smack of schizophrenia.” After the U.S. president frames the issue in the context of the Helsinki agreement, Gorbachev proposes that the German people have the right to choose their alliance—which he in essence already affirmed to Kohl during their meeting in February 1990. Here, Gorbachev significantly exceeds his brief, and incurs the ire of other members of his delegation, especially the official with the German portfolio, Valentin Falin, and Marshal Sergey Akhromeyev. Gorbachev issues a key warning about the future: “if the Soviet people get an impression that we are disregarded in the German question, then all the positive processes in Europe, including the negotiations in Vienna [over conventional forces], would be in serious danger. This is not just bluffing. It is simply that the people will force us to stop and to look around.” It is a remarkable admission about domestic political pressures from the last Soviet leader.

Document 22
Letter from Mr. Powell (N. 10) to Mr. Wall: Thatcher-Gorbachev memorandum of conversation.
Jun 8, 1990
Source
Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Documents on British Policy Overseas, edited by Patrick Salmon, Keith Hamilton, and Stephen Twigge, Oxford and New York, Routledge 2010), pp 411-417

Margaret Thatcher visits Gorbachev right after he returns home from his summit with George Bush. Among many issues in the conversation, the center of gravity is on German unification and NATO, on which, Powell notes, Gorbachev’s “views were still evolving.” Rather than agreeing on German unification in NATO, Gorbachev talks about the need for NATO and the Warsaw pact to move closer together, from confrontation to cooperation to build a new Europe: “We must mould European structures so that they helped us find the common European home. Neither side must be afraid of unorthodox solutions.”

While Thatcher speaks against Gorbachev’s ideas short of full NATO membership for Germany and emphasizes the importance of a U.S. military presence in Europe, she also sees that “CSCE could provide the umbrella for all this, as well as being the forum which brought the Soviet Union fully into discussion about the future of Europe.” Gorbachev says he wants to “be completely frank with the Prime Minister” that if the processes were to become one-sided, “there could be a very difficult situation [and the] Soviet Union would feel its security in jeopardy.” Thatcher responds firmly that it was in nobody’s interest to put Soviet security in jeopardy: “we must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured.”

Document 23
Record of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl, Moscow (Excerpts).
Jul 15, 1990
Source
Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006), pp. 495-504

This key conversation between Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev sets the final parameters for German unification. Kohl talks repeatedly about the new era of relations between a united Germany and the Soviet Union, and how this relationship would contribute to European stability and security. Gorbachev demands assurances on non-expansion of NATO: “we must talk about the nonproliferation of NATO military structures to the territory of the GDR, and maintaining Soviet troops there for a certain transition period.” The Soviet leader notes earlier in the conversation that NATO has already began transforming itself. For him, the pledge of NATO non-expansion to the territory of the GDR in spirit means that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet willingness to compromise on Germany. He also demands that the status of Soviet troops in the GDR for the transition period be “regulated. It should not hang in the air, it needs a legal basis.” He hands Kohl Soviet considerations for a full-fledged Soviet-German treaty that would include such guarantees. He also wants assistance with relocating the troops and building housing for them. Kohl promises to do so as long as this assistance is not construed as “a program of German assistance to the Soviet Army.”

Talking about the future of Europe, Kohl alludes to NATO transformation: “We know what awaits NATO in the future, and I think you are now in the know as well.” Kohl also emphasizes that President Bush is aware and supportive of Soviet-German agreements and will play a key role in the building of the new Europe. Chernyaev sums up this meeting in his diary for July 15, 1990: “Today – Kohl. They are meeting at the Schechtel mansion on Alexei Tolstoy Street. Gorbachev confirms his agreement to unified Germany’s entry into NATO. Kohl is decisive and assertive. He leads a clean but tough game. And it is not the bait (loans) but the fact that it is pointless to resist here, it would go against the current of events, it would be contrary to the very realities that M.S. likes to refer to so much.”[14]

Document 24
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush
Jul 17, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons ((https://bush41library.tamu.edu/)

President Bush reaches out to Gorbachev immediately after the Kohl-Gorbachev meetings in Moscow and the Caucasus retreat of Arkhyz, which settled German unification, leaving only the financial arrangements for resolution in September. Gorbachev had not only made the deal with Kohl, but he had also survived and triumphed at the 28th Congress of the CPSU in early July, the last in the history of the Soviet Party. Gorbachev describes this time as “perhaps the most difficult and important period in my political life.” The Congress subjected the party leader to scathing criticism from both conservative Communists and the democratic opposition. He managed to defend his program and win reelection as general secretary, but he had very little to show from his engagement with the West, especially after ceding so much ground on German unification.

While Gorbachev fought for his political life as Soviet leader, the Houston summit of the G-7 had debated ways to help perestroika, but because of U.S. opposition to credits or direct economic aid prior to the enactment of serious free-market reforms, no concrete assistance package was approved; the group went no further than to authorize “studies” by the IMF and World Bank. Gorbachev counters that given enough resources the USSR “could move to a market economy,” otherwise, the country “will have to rely more on state-regulated measures.” In this phone call, Bush expands on Kohl’s security assurances and reinforces the message from the London Declaration: “So what we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others, and we did it in the following ways: by our joint declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO; in our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and our offer on assurances on the future size of the armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded, stronger CSCE with new institutions in which the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe.”

Document 25
September 12 Two-Plus-Four Ministerial in Moscow: Detailed account [includes text of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany and Agreed Minute to the Treaty on the special military status of the GDR after unification]
Nov 2, 1990
Source

George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Condoleezza Rice Files, 1989-1990 Subject Files, Folder “Memcons and Telcons – USSR [1]”

Staffers in the European Bureau of the State Department wrote this document, practically a memcon, and addressed it to senior officials such as Robert Zoellick and Condoleezza Rice, based on notes taken by U.S. participants at the final ministerial session on German unification on September 12, 1990. The document features statements by all six ministers in the Two-Plus-Four process – Shevardnadze (the host), Baker, Hurd, Dumas, Genscher, and De Maiziere of the GDR – (much of which would be repeated in their press conferences after the event), along with the agreed text of the final treaty on German unification. The treaty codified what Bush had earlier offered to Gorbachev – “special military status” for the former GDR territory. At the last minute, British and American concerns that the language would restrict emergency NATO troop movements there forced the inclusion of a “minute” that left it up to the newly unified and sovereign Germany what the meaning of the word “deployed” should be. Kohl had committed to Gorbachev that only German NATO troops would be allowed on that territory after the Soviets left, and Germany stuck to that commitment, even though the “minute” was meant to allow other NATO troops to traverse or exercise there at least temporarily. Subsequently, Gorbachev aides such as Pavel Palazhshenko would point to the treaty language to argue that NATO expansion violated the “spirit” of this Final Settlement treaty.

Document 26
U.S. Department of State, European Bureau: Revised NATO Strategy Paper for Discussion at Sub-Ungroup Meeting
Oct 22, 1990
Source

George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Heather Wilson Files, Box CF00293, Folder “NATO – Strategy (5)”

The Bush administration had created the “Ungroup” in 1989 to work around a series of personality conflicts at the assistant secretary level that had stalled the usual interagency process of policy development on arms control and strategic weapons. Members of the Ungroup, chaired by Arnold Kanter of the NSC, had the confidence of their bosses but not necessarily the concomitant formal title or official rank.[15] The Ungroup overlapped with a similarly ad hoc European Security Strategy Group, and this became the venue, soon after German unification was completed, for the discussion inside the Bush administration about the new NATO role in Europe and especially on NATO relations with countries of Eastern Europe. East European countries, still formally in the Warsaw Pact, but led by non-Communist governments, were interested in becoming full members of international community, looking to join the future European Union and potentially NATO.

This document, prepared for a discussion of NATO’s future by a Sub-Ungroup consisting of representatives of the NSC, State Department, Joint Chiefs and other agencies, posits that “[a] potential Soviet threat remains and constitutes one basic justification for the continuance of NATO.” At the same time, in the discussion of potential East European membership in NATO, the review suggests that “In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or of the U.S. that these states be granted full NATO membership and its security guarantees.” The United States does not “wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is the Soviet border” – not least because of the negative impact this might have on reforms in the USSR. NATO liaison offices would do for the present time, the group concluded, but the relationship will develop in the future. In the absence of the Cold War confrontation, NATO “out of area” functions will have to be redefined.

Document 27
James F. Dobbins, State Department European Bureau, Memorandum to National Security Council: NATO Strategy Review Paper for October 29 Discussion.
Oct 25, 1990
Source

George H. W. Bush Presidential Library: NSC Philip Zelikow Files, Box CF01468, Folder “File 148 NATO Strategy Review No. 1 [3]”[16]

This concise memorandum comes from the State Department’s European Bureau as a cover note for briefing papers for a scheduled October 29, 1990 meeting on the issues of NATO expansion and European defense cooperation with NATO. Most important is the document’s summary of the internal debate within the Bush administration, primarily between the Defense Department (specifically the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney) and the State Department. On the issue of NATO expansion, OSD “wishes to leave the door ajar” while State “prefers simply to note that discussion of expanding membership is not on the agenda….” The Bush administration effectively adopts State’s view in its public statements, yet the Defense view would prevail in the next administration.

Document 28
Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite diary, 05 March 1991
Mar 5, 1991
Source

Rodric Braithwaite personal diary (used by permission from the author)

British Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite was present for a number of the assurances given to Soviet leaders in 1990 and 1991 about NATO expansion. Here, Braithwaite in his diary describes a meeting between British Prime Minister John Major and Soviet military officials, led by Minister of Defense Marshal Dmitry Yazov. The meeting took place during Major’s visit to Moscow and right after his one-on-one with President Gorbachev. During the meeting with Major, Gorbachev had raised his concerns about the new NATO dynamics: “Against the background of favorable processes in Europe, I suddenly start receiving information that certain circles intend to go on further strengthening NATO as the main security instrument in Europe. Previously they talked about changing the nature of NATO, about transformation of the existing military-political blocs into pan-European structures and security mechanisms. And now suddenly again [they are talking about] a special peace-keeping role of NATO. They are talking again about NATO as the cornerstone. This does not sound complementary to the common European home that we have started to build.” Major responded: “I believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current situation are the result of misunderstanding. We are not talking about strengthening of NATO. We are talking about the coordination of efforts that is already happening in Europe between NATO and the West European Union, which, as it is envisioned, would allow all members of the European Community to contribute to enhance [our] security.”[17] In the meeting with the military officials that followed, Marshal Yazov expressed his concerns about East European leaders’ interest in NATO membership. In the diary, Braithwaite writes: “Major assures him that nothing of the sort will happen.” Years later, quoting from the record of conversation in the British archives, Braithwaite recounts that Major replied to Yazov that he “did not himself foresee circumstances now or in the future where East European countries would become members of NATO.” Ambassador Braithwaite also quotes Foreign Minister Douglas Hurd as telling Soviet Foreign Minister Alexander Bessmertnykh on March 26, 1991, “there are no plans in NATO to include the countries of Eastern and Central Europe in NATO in one form or another.”[18]

Document 29
Paul Wolfowitz Memoranda of Conversation with Vaclav Havel and Lubos Dobrovsky in Prague.
Apr 27, 1991
Source

U.S. Department of Defense, FOIA release 2016, National Security Archive FOIA 20120941DOD109

These memcons from April 1991 provide the bookends for the “education of Vaclav Havel” on NATO (see Documents 12-1 and 12-2 above). U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz included these memcons in his report to the NSC and the State Department about his attendance at a conference in Prague on “The Future of European Security,” on April 24-27, 1991. During the conference Wolfowitz had separate meetings with Havel and Minister of Defense Dobrovsky. In the conversation with Havel, Wolfowitz thanks him for his statements about the importance of NATO and US troops in Europe. Havel informs him that Soviet Ambassador Kvitsinsky was in Prague negotiating a bilateral agreement, and the Soviets wanted the agreement to include a provision that Czechoslovakia would not join alliances hostile to the USSR. Wolfowitz advises both Havel and Dobrovsky not to enter into such agreements and to remind the Soviets about the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act that postulate freedom to join alliances of their choice. Havel states that for Czechoslovakia in the next 10 years that means NATO and the European Union.

In conversation with Dobrovsky, Wolfowitz remarks that “the very existence of NATO was in doubt a year ago,” but with U.S. leadership, and NATO allied (as well as united German) support, its importance for Europe is now understood, and the statements of East European leaders were important in this respect. Dobrovsky candidly describes the change in the Czechoslovak leadership’s position, “which had revised its views radically. At the beginning, President Havel had urged the dissolution of both the Warsaw Pact and NATO,” but then concluded that NATO should be maintained. “Off the record,” says Dobrovsky, “the CSFR was attracted to NATO because it ensured the U.S. presence in Europe.”

Document 30
Memorandum to Boris Yeltsin from Russian Supreme Soviet delegation to NATO HQs
Jul 1, 1991
Source

State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), Fond 10026, Opis 1

This document is important for describing the clear message in 1991 from the highest levels of NATO – Secretary General Manfred Woerner – that NATO expansion was not happening. The audience was a Russian Supreme Soviet delegation, which in this memo was reporting back to Boris Yeltsin (who in June had been elected president of the Russian republic, largest in the Soviet Union), but no doubt Gorbachev and his aides were hearing the same assurance at that time. The emerging Russian security establishment was already worried about the possibility of NATO expansion, so in June 1991 this delegation visited Brussels to meet NATO’s leadership, hear their views about the future of NATO, and share Russian concerns. Woerner had given a well-regarded speech in Brussels in May 1990 in which he argued: “The principal task of the next decade will be to build a new European security structure, to include the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The Soviet Union will have an important role to play in the construction of such a system. If you consider the current predicament of the Soviet Union, which has practically no allies left, then you can understand its justified wish not to be forced out of Europe.”

Now in mid-1991, Woerner responds to the Russians by stating that he personally and the NATO Council are both against expansion—“13 out of 16 NATO members share this point of view”—and that he will speak against Poland’s and Romania’s membership in NATO to those countries’ leaders as he has already done with leaders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Woerner emphasizes that “We should not allow […] the isolation of the USSR from the European community.” The Russian delegation warned that any strengthening or expanding of NATO could “seriously slow down democratic transformations” in Russia, and called on their NATO interlocutors to gradually decrease the military functions of the alliance. This memo on the Woerner conversation was written by three prominent reformers and close allies of Yeltsin—Sergey Stepashin (chairman of the Duma’s Security Committee and future deputy minister of Security and prime minister), Gen. Konstantin Kobets (future chief military inspector of Russia after he was the highest-ranking Soviet military officer to support Yeltsin during the August 1991 coup) and Gen. Dmitry Volkogonov (Yeltsin’s adviser on defense and security issues, future head of the U.S.-Russian Joint Commission on POW-MIA and prominent military historian).

Photo: Michail Gorbachev discussing German unification with Hans-Dietrich Genscher and Helmut Kohl in Russia, July 15, 1990. Photo: Bundesbildstelle / Presseund Informationsamt der Bundesregierung.

Notes

[1] See Robert Gates, University of Virginia, Miller Center Oral History, George H.W. Bush Presidency, July 24, 2000, p. 101)

[2] See Chapter 6, “The Malta Summit 1989,” in Svetlana Savranskaya and Thomas Blanton, The Last Superpower Summits (CEU Press, 2016), pp. 481-569. The comment about the Wall is on p. 538.

[3] For background, context, and consequences of the Tutzing speech, see Frank Elbe, “The Diplomatic Path to Germany Unity,” Bulletin of the German Historical Institute 46 (Spring 2010), pp. 33-46. Elbe was Genscher’s chief of staff at the time.

[4] See Mark Kramer, “The Myth of a No-NATO-Enlargement Pledge to Russia,” The Washington Quarterly, April 2009, pp. 39-61.

[5] See Joshua R. Itkowitz Shifrinson, “Deal or No Deal? The End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion,” International Security, Spring 2016, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 7-44.

[6] See James Goldgeier, Not Whether But When: The U.S. Decision to Enlarge NATO (Brookings Institution Press, 1999); and James Goldgeier, “Promises Made, Promises Broken? What Yeltsin was told about NATO in 1993 and why it matters,” War On The Rocks, July 12, 2016.

[7] See also Svetlana Savranskaya, Thomas Blanton, and Vladislav Zubok, “Masterpieces of History”: The Peaceful End of the Cold War in Europe, 1989 (CEU Press, 2010), for extended discussion and documents on the early 1990 German unification negotiations.

[8] Genscher told Baker on February 2, 1990, that under his plan, “NATO would not extend its territorial coverage to the area of the GDR nor anywhere else in Eastern Europe.” Secretary of State to US Embassy Bonn, “Baker-Genscher Meeting February 2,” George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Kanter Files, Box CF00775, Folder “Germany-March 1990.” Cited by Joshua R. Itkowitz Shifrinson, “Deal or No Deal? The End of the Cold War and the U.S. Offer to Limit NATO Expansion,” International Security, Spring 2016, Vol. 40, No. 4, pp. 7-44.

[9] The previous version of this text said that Kohl was “caught up in a campaign finance corruption scandal that would end his political career”; however, that scandal did not erupt until 1999, after the September 1998 elections swept Kohl out of office. The authors are grateful to Prof. Dr. H.H. Jansen for the correction and his careful reading of the posting.

[10] See Andrei Grachev, Gorbachev’s Gamble (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 2008), pp. 157-158.

[11] For an insightful account of Bush’s highly effective educational efforts with East European leaders including Havel – as well as allies – see Jeffrey A. Engel, When the World Seemed New: George H.W. Bush and the End of the Cold War (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2017), pp. 353-359.

[12] See George H.W. Bush and Brent Scowcroft, A World Transformed (New York: Knopf, 1998), pp. 236, 243, 250.

[13] Published in English for the first time in Savranskaya and Blanton, The Last Superpower Summits (2016), pp. 664-676.

[14] Anatoly Chernyaev Diary, 1990, translated by Anna Melyakova and edited by Svetlana Savranskaya, pp. 41-42.

[15] See Michael Nelson and Barbara A. Perry, 41: Inside the Presidency of George H.W. Bush (Cornell University Press, 2014), pp. 94-95.

[16] The authors thank Josh Shifrinson for providing his copy of this document.

[17] See Memorandum of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and John Major published in Mikhail Gorbachev, Sobranie Sochinenii, v. 24 (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2014), p. 346

[18] See Rodric Braithwaite, “NATO enlargement: Assurances and misunderstandings,” European Council on Foreign Relations, Commentary, 7 July 2016.

Published at nsarchive.gwu.edu
Source: http://www.defenddemocracy.press/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard/

In keeping with the tradition maintained over all previous years, the Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals is marking March 24, remembering this day back in 1999 when the NATO Alliance’s illegal and criminal aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (the FRY) began, thus paying tribute to the fallen defenders of the motherland and the killed civilians.

This aggression was the first war on European soil waged since the end of World War II. As the bombs and cruise missiles thrown by the most powerful military machinery in the history of civilization were busy destroying a small European country, they also destroyed the European and global security system based on the UN Charter, the OSCE Final Act and the Paris Charter. To this day, Europe and the world still suffer the severe consequences of that destruction. In the process, NATO allied with the so-called KLA, a separatist-terrorist formation, as its infantry wing, thus boosting separatism and terrorism.

On March 23, 2022, at 11:00 a.m., representatives of the Belgrade Forum, together with its partner Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia and other patriotic-oriented organisations, will lay a wreath at the Monument to Serbian children killed during the aggression in the Tašmajdan Park. During the ceremony, Dragutin Brčin, Director of the Belgrade Forum, will address the audience on behalf of the Forum. Next, around the noon, representatives of the Belgrade Forum and the Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia, together with other patriotic organizations, will pay tribute to all victims of NATO aggression at the monument “Eternal Fire”, in Novi Beograd. On the occasion, General Luka Kastratović, ret., President of the Executive Board of the Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia, will address the audience.

The Belgrade Forum invites all patriotic organisations and individuals that cherish the memory of the fallen members of the Serbian military and security forces and all those killed in the aggression, to join these events and thus pay their respect for the fallen defenders and civilians. At present, we are witnessing calls for observance of international law and blaming other countries for violating it, cynically made by the USA, the UK, Germany and NATO as a whole, that is, the exactly same countries and bodies that had themselves illegally attacked the FRY without a UN Security Council decision, the same ones who intentionally used missiles filled with depleted uranium and other banned weapons to deliberately and indiscriminately bomb our country’s infrastructure and the civilian targets, killed children, women, hospital patients and civilians, and who openly conducted smear campaigns against the Serbian people in global media.

The marking of the beginning of the 1999 NATO aggression against our country is another opportunity to recall all their crimes and atrocities and to remind our public, especially the youth, of the horrors and damage the aggression caused, as well as of the consequences of which many are yet to be remedied. The precedent of aggression executed without the UN Security Council approval was reused in the subsequent aggressions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria. NATO’s aggression against the FRY in 1999 was a stepping stone in bringing to life the strategy of military expansion to the East, closer to the Russian borders, which is the root cause of the Ukrainian crisis.

During 79 days of unrelenting attacks on the FRY, from March 24 to June 10, 1999, the mass- scale assaults of NATO aviation sending missile systems and other weapons from air, waterways and land, with collaboration comprising the terrorists Albanian KLA, the regular army of the Republic of Albania, the mercenaries recruited and financed by Western states, and the instructors and special operation units of the leading Western states, has indiscriminately killed members of the Yugoslav Armed Forces and law enforcement agencies of the Republic of Serbia, as well as civilians including children, and destroyed cultural monuments, churches and monasteries, devastated military, economic, strategic and traffic infrastructure, business facilities, civilian facilities and institutions, schools, kindergartens, hospitals, and even the public broadcaster – the Radio Television of Serbia, killing 16 of the RTS employees. Over the course of this aggression, NATO carried out 2,300 airstrikes on 995 facilities throughout the coutnry, and its 1,150 fighter planes launched some 420,000 projectiles with the total mass of 22,000 tons, including depleted uranium weapons.

About 4,000 casualties were estimated, of whom some 3,000 civilians and 1,031 members of the army and the police. 89 children were killed. In total, more than 12,000 people were wounded, of whom about 6,000 civilians including 2,700 children, and 5,173 soldiers and police officers. 25 persons are still listed as missing.

Since the precise list of civilian casualties has not been established yet, the Belgrade Forum reiterates its appeal to the state authorities to finally see to this sad task being completed. In their attacks on the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, NATO forces employed approximately a thousand aircrafts (fighters, fighter-bombers, bombers, spy planes, etc.); the largest share in the air attacks had the forces of the USA, UK and Germany, albeit with significant roles in the aggression also played by other members.

The air assaults destroyed and damaged 25,000 residential buildings, disabled 470 km of roads and 595 km of railways. They also inflicted damage to 14 airports, 19 hospitals, 20 health centers, 18 kindergartens, 69 schools, 176 cultural monuments, and 44 bridges, while leaving additional 38 totally destroyed. Among the latter, of special significance are the destruction of two oil refineries (in Pančevo and Novi Sad), the demolition of the Avala Broadcasting Tower, the building of the Serbian Radio and Television, the Petrochemistry Complex in Pančevo, the bombing of bridges in Novi Sad, the Zastava automobile factory in Kragujevac, the Embassy of the People’s Republic of China, and many other civilian targets. Estimates are that some 38% of targeted facilities were of a civilian purpose.. The war damage was estimated to about USD 100 billion.

During the bombing of the territory of the Republic of Serbia, ammunition banned under the Geneva Convention was routinely used, with in total 15 tons of uranium dumped on Serbia. As a direct consequence of missiles filled with depleted uranium, in 2015 Serbia was announced to be the top-ranking country in Europe in terms of mortality from malignant tumors. In addition, about 1,000 cluster bombs were dropped on 219 locations on an area of 23,000 km2, killing a large number of civilians. As a result of that, from the end of the aggression until 2006, 6 people perished from detonated cluster bombs throughout the territory of Serbia and Montenegro, while additional 12 were wounded.

In all likelihood, all those who fell victims to the delayed effects of missiles with depleted uranium, unexploded cluster bombs and other lethal means, will hardly ever be exactly accounted for. The Belgrade Forum invites the competent state authorities to ensure the continuation of the work of special bodies tasked with determining the consequences of the use of depleted uranium weapons and other means and methods employed during the NATO aggression.

The aggression ended on June 10, 1999, upon the signing of the Military-Technical Agreement in Kumanovo and the subsequent adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1244, which established the truce and temporarily transferred the administering of Kosovo and Metohija to the United Nations. Pursuant to this Agreement, the FRY Army, the Police and the administration of the FRY and the Republic of Serbia, withdrew on an interim basis to the territory of Central Serbia. Along the withdrawal of the army and police, about 250,000 Serbs and other non-Albanians from Kosovo and Metohija fled to central parts of Serbia. This made Serbia the country hosting the largest number of refugees and internally displaced persons in Europe, after this and other wars that marked the violent and forcible breakup of Yugoslavia.

It is cynical to the extreme to take to accusing other countries of crimes that the leading NATO states have continuously committed themselves. It would serve them well if, at least as late as today, as they stand accusing others, they halt for a moment and remember their own misdeeds, repent and remedy all the injustices they have done to our country as well as to others, most notably, to Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya and others. . Never forget. See you on March 24, 2022

Many governments and media figures are rightly condemning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine as an act of aggression and a violation of international law. But in his first speech about the invasion, on February 24, US President Joe Biden also called the invasion “unprovoked.”

It’s a word that has been echoed repeatedly across the media ecosystem. “Putin’s forces entered Ukraine’s second-largest city on the fourth day of the unprovoked invasion,” Axios (2/27/22) reported; “Russia’s unprovoked invasion of Ukraine entered its second week Friday,” said CNBC (3/4/22). Vox (3/1/22) wrote of “Putin’s decision to launch an unprovoked and unnecessary war with the second-largest country in Europe.”

The “unprovoked” descriptor obscures a long history of provocative behavior from the United States in regards to Ukraine. This history is important to understanding how we got here, and what degree of responsibility the US bears for the current attack on Ukraine.
Ignoring expert advice

The story starts at the end of the Cold War, when the US was the only global hegemon. As part of the deal that finalized the reunification of Germany, the US promised Russia that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.”  Despite this, it wasn’t long before talk of expansion began to circulate among policy makers.

In 1997, dozens of foreign policy veterans (including former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and former CIA Director Stansfield Turner) sent a joint letter to then-President Bill Clinton calling “the current US-led effort to expand NATO…a policy error of historic proportions.” They predicted:

In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West [and] bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement.

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (5/2/98) in 1998 asked famed diplomat George Kennan—architect of the US Cold War strategy of containment—about NATO expansion. Kennan’s response:

I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.

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.

Despite these warnings, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were added to NATO in 1999, with Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia following in 2004.

US planners were warned again in 2008 by US Ambassador to Moscow William Burns (now director of the CIA under Joe Biden). WikiLeaks leaked a cable from Burns titled “Nyet Means Nyet: Russia’s NATO Enlargement Redlines” that included another prophetic warning worth quoting in full (emphasis added):

Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region.  Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests.

Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war.  In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

A de facto NATO ally

But the US has pushed Russia to make such a decision. Though European countries are divided about whether or not Ukraine should join, many in the NATO camp have been adamant about maintaining the alliance’s “open door policy.” Even as US planners were warning of a Russian invasion, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reiterated NATO’s 2008 plans to integrate Ukraine into the alliance (New York Times, 12/16/21). The Biden administration has taken a more roundabout approach, supporting in the abstract “Kyiv’s right to choose its own security arrangements and alliances.” But the implication is obvious.

Even without officially being in NATO, Ukraine has become a de facto NATO ally—and Russia has paid close attention to these developments. In a December 2021 speech to his top military officials, Putin expressed his concerns:

Over the past few years, military contingents of NATO countries have been almost constantly present on Ukrainian territory under the pretext of exercises. The Ukrainian troop control system has already been integrated into NATO. This means that NATO headquarters can issue direct commands to the Ukrainian armed forces, even to their separate units and squads….

Kiev has long proclaimed a strategic course on joining NATO. Indeed, each country is entitled to pick its own security system and enter into military alliances. There would be no problem with that, if it were not for one “but.” International documents expressly stipulate the principle of equal and indivisible security, which includes obligations not to strengthen one’s own security at the expense of the security of other states….

In other words, the choice of pathways towards ensuring security should not pose a threat to other states, whereas Ukraine joining NATO is a direct threat to Russia’s security.

In an explainer piece, the New York Times (2/24/22) centered NATO expansion as a root cause of the war. Unfortunately, the Times omitted the critical context of NATO’s pledge not to expand, and the subsequent abandonment of that promise. This is an important context to understand the Russian view of US policies, especially so given the ample warnings from US diplomats and foreign policy experts.

The Maidan Coup of 2014

A major turning point in the US/Ukraine/Russia relationship was the 2014 violent and unconstitutional ouster of President Viktor Yanukovych, elected in 2010 in a vote heavily split between eastern and western Ukraine. His ouster came after months of protests led in part by far-right extremists (FAIR.org, 3/7/14). Weeks before his ouster, an unknown party leaked a phone call between US officials discussing who should and shouldn’t be part of the new government, and finding ways to “seal the deal.” After the ouster, a politician the officials designated as “the guy” even became prime minister.

The US involvement was part of a campaign aimed at exploiting the divisions in Ukrainian society to push the country into the US sphere of influence, pulling it out of the Russian sphere (FAIR.org, 1/28/22). In the aftermath of the overthrow, Russia illegally annexed Crimea from Ukraine, in part to secure a major naval base from the new Ukrainian government.

The New York Times (2/24/22) and Washington Post (2/28/22) both omitted the role the US played in these events. In US media, this critical moment in history is completely cleansed of US influence, erasing a critical step on the road to the current war.
Keeping civil war alive

In another response to the overthrow, an uprising in Ukraine’s Donbas region grew into a rebel movement that declared independence from Ukraine and announced the formation of their own republics. The resulting civil war claimed thousands of lives, but was largely paused  in 2015 with a ceasefire agreement known as the Minsk II accords.

The deal, agreed to by Ukraine, Russia and other European countries, was designed to grant some form of autonomy to the breakaway regions in exchange for reintegrating them into the Ukrainian state. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian government refused to implement the autonomy provision of the accords. Anatol Lieven, a researcher with the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, wrote in The Nation (11/15/21):

The main reason for this refusal, apart from a general commitment to retain centralized power in Kiev, has been the belief that permanent autonomy for the Donbas would prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and the European Union, as the region could use its constitutional position within Ukraine to block membership.

Ukraine opted instead to prolong the Donbas conflict, and there was never significant pressure from the West to alter course. Though there were brief reports of the accords’ revival as recently as late January, Ukrainian security chief Oleksiy Danilov warned the West not to pressure Ukraine to implement the peace deal. “The fulfillment of the Minsk agreement means the country’s destruction,” he said (AP, 1/31/22). Danilov claimed that even when the agreement was signed eight years ago,  “it was already clear for all rational people that it’s impossible to implement.”

Lieven notes that the depth of Russian commitment has yet to be fully tested, but Putin has supported the Minsk accords, refraining from officially recognizing the Donbas republics until last week.

The New York Times (2/8/22) explainer on the Minsk accords blamed their failure on a disagreement between Ukraine and Russia over their implementation. This is inadequate to explain the failure of the agreements, however, given that Russia cannot affect Ukrainian parliamentary procedure. The Times quietly acknowledged that the law meant to define special status in the Donbas had been “shelved” by the Ukranians,  indicating that the country had stopped trying to solve the issue in favor of a stalemate.

There was no mention of the comments from a top Ukrainian official openly denouncing the peace accords. Nor was it acknowledged that the US could have used its influence to push Ukraine to solve the issue, but refrained from doing so.

Ukrainian missile crisis

One under-discussed aspect of this crisis is the role of US missiles stationed in NATO countries. Many media outlets have claimed that Putin is Hitler-like (Washington Post, 2/24/22; Boston Globe, 2/24/22), hellbent on reconquering old Soviet states to “recreat[e] the Russian empire with himself as the Tsar,” as Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbot told Politico (2/25/22).

Pundits try to psychoanalyze Putin, asking “What is motivating him?” and answering by citing his televised speech on February 21 that recounted the history of Ukraine’s relationship with Russia.

This speech has been widely characterized as a call to reestablish the Soviet empire and a challenge to Ukraine’s right to exist as a sovereign nation. Corporate media ignore other public statements Putin has made in recent months. For example, at an expanded meeting of the Defense Ministry Board, Putin elaborated on what he considered to be the main military threat from US/NATO expansion to Ukraine:

It is extremely alarming that elements of the US global defense system are being deployed near Russia. The Mk 41 launchers, which are located in Romania and are to be deployed in Poland, are adapted for launching the Tomahawk strike missiles. If this infrastructure continues to move forward, and if US and NATO missile systems are deployed in Ukraine, their flight time to Moscow will be only 7–10 minutes, or even five minutes for hypersonic systems. This is a huge challenge for us, for our security.

The United States does not possess hypersonic weapons yet, but we know when they will have it…. They will supply hypersonic weapons to Ukraine and then use them as cover…to arm extremists from a neighbouring state and incite them against certain regions of the Russian Federation, such as Crimea, when they think circumstances are favorable.

Do they really think we do not see these threats? Or do they think that we will just stand idly watching threats to Russia emerge? This is the problem: We simply have no room to retreat.

Having these missiles so close to Russia—weapons that Russia (and China) see as part of a plan to give the United States the capacity to launch a nuclear first-strike without retaliation—seriously challenges the cold war deterrent of Mutually Assured Destruction, and more closely resembles a gun pointed at the Russian head for the remainder of the nuclear age. Would this be acceptable to any country?

Media refuse to present this crucial question to their audiences, instead couching Putin’s motives in purely aggressive terms.

Refusal to de-escalate

By December 2021, US intelligence agencies were sounding the alarm that Russia was amassing troops at the Ukrainian border and planning to attack. Yet Putin was very clear about a path to deescalation: He called on the West to halt NATO expansion, negotiate Ukrainian neutrality in the East/West rivalry, remove US nuclear weapons from non proliferating countries, and remove missiles, troops and bases near Russia. These are demands the US would surely have made were it in Russia’s position.

Unfortunately, the US refused to negotiate on Russia’s core concerns. The US offered some serious steps towards a larger arms control arrangement (Antiwar.com, 2/2/22)—something the Russians acknowledged and appreciated—but ignored issues of NATO’s military activity in Ukraine, and the deployment of nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe (Antiwar.com, 2/17/22).

On NATO expansion, the State Department continued to insist that they would not compromise NATO’s open door policy—in other words, it asserted the right to expand NATO and to ignore Russia’s red line.

While the US has signaled that it would approve of an informal agreement to keep Ukraine from joining the alliance for a period of time, this clearly was not going to be enough for Russia, which still remembers the last broken agreement.

Instead of addressing Russian concerns about Ukraine’s NATO relationship, the US instead chose to pour hundreds of millions of dollars of weapons into Ukraine, exacerbating Putin’s expressed concerns. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy didn’t help matters by suggesting that Ukraine might begin a nuclear weapons program at the height of the tensions.

After Putin announced his recognition of the breakaway republics, Secretary of State Antony Blinken canceled talks with Putin, and began the process of implementing sanctions on Russia—all before Russian soldiers had set foot into Ukraine.

Had the US been genuinely interested in avoiding war, it would have taken every opportunity to de-escalate the situation. Instead, it did the opposite nearly every step of the way.

In its explainer piece, the Washington Post (2/28/22) downplayed the significance of the US’s rejection of Russia’s core concerns, writing: “Russia has said that it wants guarantees Ukraine will be barred from joining NATO—a non-starter for the Western alliance, which maintains an open-door policy.” NATO’s open door policy is simply accepted as an immutable policy that Putin just needs to deal with. This very assumption, so key to the Ukraine crisis, goes unchallenged in the US media ecosystem.

‘The strategic case for risking war’

It’s impossible to say for sure why the Biden administration took an approach that increased the likelihood of war, but one Wall Street Journal piece from last month may offer some insight.

The Journal (12/22/21) published an op-ed from John Deni, a researcher at the Atlantic Council, a think tank funded by the US and allied governments that serves as NATO’s de facto brain trust. The piece was provocatively headlined “The Strategic Case for Risking War in Ukraine.” Deni’s argument was that the West should refuse to negotiate with Russia, because either potential outcome would be beneficial to US interests.

If Putin backed down without a deal, it would be a major embarrassment. He would lose face and stature, domestically and on the world stage.

But Putin going to war would also be good for the US, the Journal op-ed argued. Firstly,  it would give NATO more legitimacy by “forg[ing] an even stronger anti-Russian consensus across Europe.” Secondly, a major attack would trigger “another round of more debilitating economic sanctions,” weakening the Russian economy and its ability to compete with the US for global influence. Thirdly, an invasion is “likely to spawn a guerrilla war” that would “sap the strength and morale of Russia’s military while undercutting Mr. Putin’s domestic popularity and reducing Russia’s soft power globally.”

In short, we have part of the NATO brain trust advocating risking Ukrainian civilians as pawns in the US’s quest to strengthen its position around the world.

‘Something even worse than war’

A New York Times op-ed (2/3/22) by Ivan Krastev of Vienna’s Institute of Human Sciences likewise suggested that a Russian invasion of Ukraine wouldn’t be the worst outcome:

A Russian incursion into Ukraine could, in a perverse way, save the current European order. NATO would have no choice but to respond assertively, bringing in stiff sanctions and acting in decisive unity. By hardening the conflict, Mr. Putin could cohere his opponents.

The op-ed was headlined “Europe Thinks Putin Is Planning Something Even Worse Than War”—that something being “a new European security architecture that recognizes Russia’s sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space.”

It is impossible to know for sure whether the Biden administration shared this sense that there would be an upside to a Russian invasion, but the incentives are clear, and much of what these op-eds predicted is coming to pass.

None of this is to say that Putin’s invasion is justified—FAIR resolutely condemns the invasion as illegal and ruinous—but calling it “unprovoked” distracts attention from the US’s own contribution to this disastrous outcome. The US ignored warnings from both Russian and US officials that a major conflagration could erupt if the US continued its path, and it shouldn’t be surprising that one eventually did.

Now, as the world once again inches toward the brink of nuclear omnicide, it is more important than ever for Western audiences to understand and challenge their own government’s role in dragging us all to this point.

Source: fair.org

NATO expansion, the Ukrainian crisis and sanctions against Russia will most likely accelerate the strategic connection between Russia and China, and also accelerate the placement of China to the first place in the world economy. Sanctions are a particularly severe blow to export-oriented economies (EU, Germany, Japan, South Korea).

The strengthening of the synergy of the New Silk Road and The Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC) and the accelerated reduction of the West's participation in world trade and GDP are to be expected.

The Bretton Woods system will face new systemic challenges as the strengthening and creation of new international institutions accelerates. A further reduction of the global role of the dollar is almost certain. This will, among other things, significantly limit the spillover of Western inflation, enormous arms costs and productivity decline to the East and developing countries. The loss of privileges of the former economic and financial system, the deficit of energy and strategic minerals will most likely further encourage egoism within Western integrations and thus their dispersal (EU).

All in all, the constitution of a new multipolar world order has gained momentum.

Zivadin Jovanovic

Statement of the Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals

The root causes and the escalation of the Ukrainian crisis arise from, and rest on, the U.S.- led NATO’s strategy of military expansion to the East and threatening security of Russia, whom the West has defined as the enemy in its doctrines.

The first victims of NATO’s strategy of eastward expansion were Serbian people and Serbia.
Their sanctions, demonization and isolation applied during the 1990s against Serbia and the Serbs are presently re-applied against Russia and the Russian people.

The centers of power which have, back in the day, prevented the implementation of the Peace Plan in Bosnia and Herzegovina, and presently demand revision of the Dayton Accords and UNSC Resolution 1244, are now preventing the implementation of the Minsk Peace Agreement in Ukraine, rejecting negotiations on equal security, and firmly pushing for further expansion and ultimately for military encirclement of Russia.

Serbia and Russia, the Serbian and Russian people are centuries-old friends, allies and strategic partners.
Russia provides invaluable support to Serbia in her preserving own sovereignty and territorial integrity and also in efforts for peacefully resolving the issues related to Kosovo and Metohija, all in line with international law, UN Security Council Resolution 1244, and the Serbian Constitution.

As a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, Russia protected Serbia from groundless accusations for alleged genocide, coming from the West. It goes without saying that Serbia must not accuse, or impose any measures and sanctions against such a friend and partner as Russia is, in relenting to pressures coming from those same subjects who bear the greatest responsibility for the gravest violations of the UN Charter and international law in general, for the criminal aggression of NATO in 1999, and for illegal secession of Priština. The harder, more turbulent and volatile the times are, the greater the moral obligation to respect trusted friends and allies is.

Public speculation on whether Russia might be excluded from the United Nations is not well judged. Pursuant to the UN Charter, any initiative would have beforehand to secure consent of the permanent members of the Security Council. Any such attempt in that body would certainly be vetoed Russia, if not China as well. In other words, the UN Security Council would not be able to refer a valid proposal to the General Assembly. Russia has become a permanent member of the UN Security Council by virtue of the act establishing the world organization, as the country that had contributed the most, and had laid the greatest human sacrifice to the altar of the Allies’ victory in World War II and, accordingly, this is the status she cannot be deprived of.

Any contrary course of actions would only make the UN share the fate of
the League of Nations.
Needless to say, all are aware of what would that pave the way for.

Public speculations on the destiny of UN Security Council Resolution 1244 that go so far as to mention a possibility of the People’s Republic of China withdrawing its support for this universally binding legal document, in succumbing to a hypothetical pressure from the West, does not benefit anyone, least of all Serbia. For Serbia, UN SC Resolution 1244 is and should remain an irreplaceable generally binding legal document of enduring importance, until its consistent and full implementation.

Information service of the
Belgrade Forum for the World of Equals