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

Wolfgang Effenberger

The early morning news on February 24, 2022, about Russian attacks on Ukraine were shocking. War in Europe! Pictures of fierce air attacks, of destroyed houses, bridges and infrastructure were last seen 23 years ago, when the USA and NATO bombed the rest of Yugoslavia for days and nights on end without a UN mandate, following the escalation strategy of General John A. Warden. This doctrine, still in effect today, pursues the strategic goal of breaking an adversary's will to resist as quickly as possible. Priority attacks on vital infrastructure and population serve this purpose. This turns current international law, which prohibits attacking non-combatants and destroying power plants, refineries, bridges and hospitals, on its head. NATO's inhumane use of 30 tons of uranium munitions at the time permanently poisoned the living environment. And the attack on the Chinese embassy in Belgrade gave Beijing the message to stay away from Europe.
While NATO bombed the broadcasting facilities of Serbian television and the industrial center of Nis, the representatives of the member states met in Washington on April 23 on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the founding of NATO.
After three former Eastern bloc countries were admitted with media attention,(1) U.S. President Clinton presented the new NATO strategy: In it, the crisis intervention role is permanently anchored, if necessary without a UN mandate.(2)
On March 23, 1999 - just hours before the order to attack Yugoslavia - U.S. President Bill Clinton made the background to this war clear to union representatives: "If we're going to have strong economic relationships that include our ability to sell around the world, Europe has to be a key. And if we want people to share our burdens of leadership, with all the problems that are bound to come up, Europe has to be our partner. Now, that's the importance of this Kosovo story."(3)
Unambiguously, former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt stated at the end of the first week of the war: " Bullied by the U.S., we have disregarded international law and the United Nations Charter."(4) Then he looked into the future: "the mostly domestically motivated ruthlessness with which Washington enforces its current interests ... will increasingly get on the nerves of many Europeans."(5)

Only after the signing of UN Resolution 1244, which established Kosovo's affiliation with Serbia, did the bombing cease. Despite this resolution, Kosovo was unilaterally declared independent by the U.S. - where it immediately established Camp Bondsteel, the largest U.S. base in the world after 1945. The importance of this base, located in the center of Europe, is obvious. In the summer of 2001, during a visit to soldiers stationed at Camp Bondsteel, U.S. President Bush spoke clearly about U.S. imperial goals disguised as a mission of values: "We seek a world of tolerance and freedom. From Kosovo to Kashmir, from the Middle East to Northern Ireland, freedom and tolerance is the defined goal for our world. And your service sets an example of this for the entire world."(6)

At that time, however, the rest of Yugoslavia posed no threat to NATO and certainly not to the United States. Socialist Serbia, which had ties to China, was merely standing in the way of NATO's planned eastward expansion. For this geopolitical goal, the "value West" accepted a destroyed environment and nearly 2,500 deaths.
No sanctions were imposed against the USA and its allies after the war of aggression against the rest of Yugoslavia, which was illegal under international law. The now blatantly unilateral interpretation of law, treaties and here above all international law by the "values-West" is recognized, rejected and also opposed by the majority of the world's population. It makes sad that the peace commandment is trampled underfoot in order to implement imperial goals.

The coup in Ukraine orchestrated by the West in February 2014 was followed by the referendum in Crimea, in which the vast majority of the inhabitants voted for annexation to the Russian Federation. This was denied to the breakaway republics in the Donbass, Luhansk and Donetsk. A fierce civil war immediately broke out there between Ukrainian government troops and the "rebel republics." A civil war of which the Western media provided no images, and if they did, then only propaganda images from Kiev. In late February 2021, Ukrainian President Selensky, with Western blessing, drafted the decree to "de-occupy Crimea."  The number of civilians killed in the Ukrainian civil war since 2014 is estimated at 9,000 by Darya Morozova, the human rights representative of the Donetsk People's Republic, some of whom she counted as civilians included members of the People's Militia. The UN's official estimate of civil war casualties is 13,000, including 5,000 civilians.(7)

At the end of January 2022, the SPD party leadership recognized that every conversation must now be held "to seek a diplomatic way out of the crisis and to prevent war."(8)
What ways out were being sought to avert war in the middle of Europe? With the concluding statement "The line of the SPD is very clear - the escalation is coming from Russia"(9) no peace signal was sent, on the contrary. At the same time, the USA and NATO forced the deployment in Eastern Europe.
When did the escalation really start? Here we would have to go back to the U.S. war plan DROPSHOT of December 19, 1949, which envisioned the destruction of the Soviet Union in 1957. The current beginning may well be in the failure of the U.S. and NATO to honor their pledge not to expand NATO eastward and the U.S. push since 2008 to admit Ukraine into NATO. Russia's claim that NATO's eastward enlargement violates Western commitments made after the fall of the Berlin Wall is now bolstered by a remarkable file discovery from the British National Archives.(10) A March 6, 1991, meeting in Bonn of the political directors of the foreign ministries of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany addressed the security issues of Eastern European states.
Bonn's representative, Jürgen Chrobog, stated at the time, according to the memo, "We made it clear in the Two Plus Four negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe. We therefore cannot offer NATO membership to Poland and the others."
The British, French and Americans also rejected NATO membership for the Eastern Europeans. U.S. Representative Raymond Seitz said, "We have made it clear to the Soviet Union - at Two Plus Four as well as other talks - that we will not take advantage of Soviet troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe."(11) However, under Prague-born U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, NATO policy change was successfully initiated beginning in 1997. To date, 14 primarily Eastern European countries have joined NATO.(12)
The fact that Barack Obama referred to Russia as a "regional power" in 2009 can be seen as a veritable (and presumably deliberate) slight. Starting in 2013, Ukraine was then removed from Russia's economic zone with U.S. and EU support. When Ukrainian President Yanukovych refused to be the first to sign the political-military part of the EU Association Agreement, the Western-orchestrated coup occurred. While Yanukovych's Western-oriented successor, the oligarch Poroshenko, brought Ukraine closer to the EU, the eastern Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Lugansk wanted to keep their ties to Russia and detached their territories from Ukraine. From 2014 to the present, more than 20 unsuccessful cease-fire agreements have been reached between the Ukrainian central government and separatists. With the Minsk Agreement of 12 Feb 2015 ( Minsk II ), RU, UKR, France and Germany concluded an agreement on de-escalation, also a law on the special status of Donetsk and Lugansk was to be adopted. In January 2018, when Kyiv issued a reintegration law for Lugansk and Donetsk, the then-president of the self-proclaimed and internationally unrecognized Donetsk People's Republic, Alexander Zakharchenko, declared it irrelevant. Since then, the West has done nothing to find a mutually acceptable solution. Given the history of developments since 1990, this should have been possible: in 1990 and thereafter, the Soviet Union withdrew its troops from all non-Soviet states, and in 1999, during the Kosovo war, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic became the first former Eastern bloc countries to join NATO. In 2001 and thereafter, Putin made three speeches suggesting a free trade area between the EU and Russia and greater economic ties between Germany and Russia:
"In 2001 in a Reichstag speech delivered in German in Berlin. In 2007 at the Munich Security Conference and in 2010 at an economic forum in Berlin. In 2007, Putin declared at the Munich Security Conference that further NATO expansion eastward into the former territory of the Soviet Union would mean "crossing a red line."(13) After the coup in Kiev, the Kremlin had to reckon not only with an economic but also with a strong U.S. military component in Ukraine that was perceived as threatening to Russia.
In view of the sanctions now threatened and introduced by Germany, the EU and the U.S., Russia will further expand its strategic partnership with China. The U.S. wants to secure its hegemonic power and bind Europe more closely to it. It is only against this background that the economic war over the Nord Stream II gas pipeline, the U.S. economic infiltration in Ukraine and the attempts to integrate Georgia and Ukraine since 2008 are to be understood.
In the process, the U.S. uses its economic levers - boycotts, embargoes, punitive tariffs, foreign asset freezes - to coerce NATO members into allegiance when necessary.(14)
At the end of the third day of the war, actionable and verifiable information is scant. Things are relatively quiet, which does not necessarily bode well.
Russia's troop strength on the border with Ukraine, as determined by the West before the war began, was less than 200,000, a size not necessarily suitable for occupying Europe's second largest territorial country. Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin will make good on what he announced in an address to the Russian people as a "special operation" in the Donbass aimed at "protecting the people who have been mistreated and oppressed by the Kiev government for eight years." To achieve this, Putin says Russia will seek to "demilitarize and denazify" Ukraine. To achieve this goal by means of "punitive action," it is not necessary to occupy all of Ukraine.(15)

Having invested five billion U.S. dollars in Ukraine regime change in 2014, the U.S. now wants to see dividends. Should Putin make good on his plan in Ukraine, and should the U.S. for its part continue to pursue its unipolar policy, an almost unimaginable catastrophe could be in the offing. To exacerbate the situation at such a heated stage - Russia's suspension from the Council of Europe, exclusion from the SWIFT agreement - could push the conflict to the brink of a major war. The situation in February 2022 is quite similar to that in August/September 1939, when Poland was encouraged by Britain to torpedo negotiations with Germany. In the war that immediately followed, GB declared war on Germany but did nothing. Before the war in Ukraine, the U.S. and Britain gave Ukraine a free hand in acting against the breakaway republics. Now the war is here, and both countries let Ukraine fight alone.
The EU is now financing arms deliveries to Ukraine with half a billion euros, and Germany is also sending heavy weapons to the crisis area - so the NATO alliance case does not seem far away.

The developments before World War I and World War II were quite similar. Local conflicts were enough to ignite a major conflagration.  

Such strategies were already known to Macchiavelli (1469-1527), who warned: " Not he who first takes up arms is the instigator of disaster, but he who compels it."

In order to have a future worth living at all, however, we need today more than ever a policy aimed at eliminating the causes of conflict worldwide.(16) The prerequisite for this is a multipolar peace order in which slights, intrigues and secret agreements have no place. This then also includes a media landscape in which freedom of opinion and freedom of the press are respected and restricted only by the criminal code.

Notes

1) "Man rechnete in Washington für die nächsten 15 Jahre mit gewaltigen militärischen Investitionen der drei neuen Nato-Mitgliedsstaaten: 60 bis über 100 Milliarden US-Dollar." - Helmut SCHMIDT in der ZEIT v. 22.4.99
2) In einer feierlicher Sitzung zum 50. Jahrestag der Gründung der NATO unterzeichneten am 28. April 1999 die Staats- und Regierungschefs der NATO-Länder das »Neue Strategische Konzept« der NATO.
3) President Bill Clinton vor der US-Gewerkschaft “American Federation of State, County and Municipal Em-
ployees” (AFSCME): Remarks to AFSCME Biennial Convention, Washington, D.C., 23 March 1999;
http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/New/html/19990323-1110.html
4) Altbundeskanzler Helmut SCHMIDT in der Frankfurter Rundschau vom 3./4. April 1999
5) Altbundeskanzler Helmut SCHMIDT in der ZEIT v. 22.4.99
6) US-Präsident George am 24. Juli 2001 im Camp Bondsteel, unter http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010724-1.html vom 23. Juli 2008
7) https://de.rt.com/europa/129217-krieg-im-donbass-donezker-und-lugansker-volksrepubliken-melden-fast-hundert-tote-jahr-2021/
8) https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article236579961/Klingbeil-zur-Ukraine-Krise-Die-Eskalation-geht-von-Russland-aus.html
9) https://www.welt.de/politik/deutschland/article236579961/Klingbeil-zur-Ukraine-Krise-Die-Eskalation-geht-von-Russland-aus.html
10) https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund-stuetzt-russische-version-a-1613d467-bd72-4f02-8e16-2cd6d3285295
11) https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article236986765/Nato-Osterweiterung-Archivfund-bestaetigt-Sicht-der-Russen.html?source=puerto-reco-2_ABC-V1.B_click_prob_only
12) 1999 wurden Polen, Tschechien und Ungarn aufgenommen, 2004 Bulgarien, Estland, Lettland, Litauen, Rumänien, Slowakei und Slowenien. Albanien und Kroatien kamen 2009 hinzu, 2017 Montenegro und 2020 schließlich Nordmazedonien
13) Aufzeichnung von General a.D. Schulze-Rhonhof vom 14.Februar 2022 (privat)
14) Ebd.
15) https://bachheimer.com/6af1bsimonb1ac-p-2780698
16) Siehe auch Wolfgang Effenberger: Rede anlässlich des Friedensfestivals am 25. Juli 2009 vor dem Brandenburger Tor „Neue Kriege um Rohstoffe“
http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/media/14075/Berlin-Rede-Effenberger-23-07-09.pdf

Wolfgang Effenberger

After the recognition of the breakaway territories in the Donbass by the Russian president,
print media such as the Süddeutsche Zeitung and the Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung immediately
announced on their front pages: "Putin is sending troops to Ukraine.
This had to and should probably be perceived as fact, although Putin's decree has yet to be
ratified by the Duma. In the ZDF "Morgenmagazin" on February 23, the chairwoman of the
defense committee in the Bundestag, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP), clearly
rejected a resumption of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline project, which had been put on hold, on
behalf of her party and definitely ruled out entering into an economic deal with Russian
President Vladimir Putin; she referred to the Russian army, "which has now surrounded
Ukraine with 190,000 troops "1).

A look at the map shows that this statement is more than foolish. Russian troops are still on
Russian territory in eastern Ukraine.
Objective perception seems to have been increasingly lost on German governments in recent
decades. In all illegal wars of the USA in the 21st century, Germany has always been a
warring party, and alternately: sometimes on the side of the rebels, as in Syria or Kosovo,
sometimes on the side of the government, as now in Ukraine - but always in the wake of the
USA. International law and the peace imperative no longer even played a subordinate role. At
the end of February 2018, then German Chancellor Angela Merkel called for an end to the
"massacre" in Syria, saying Assad was killing children and destroying hospitals. Since 2014,
Ukrainian government forces have been firing heavy artillery into breakaway territories (non-
government-controlled areas - NGCA), killing children and hitting schools and hospitals as
well. But there any condemnation remained absent until today. And the media report every
death of a Ukrainian government soldier, but do not address the losses on the other side. This
one-sided view is the sure path to a larger conflict. The daily reports of the Special
Monitoring Mission (OSCE) could contribute to a more balanced assessment of the situation
in eastern Ukraine.2) Artillery duels between the two sides are accurately recorded - for
example, on February 18, an unprovoked fire by Ukrainian forces' artillery. At the same time,
radio traffic interference and deployment of troops were noted on both sides, with Kiev in
particular reinforcing troops. It is still assumed that the frontline troops of the rebels will be
able to withstand any Ukrainian attack. Thus, Russia is also not faced with the need to
intervene immediately.

A greater danger could come from current U.S./NATO activities. The shuttle traffic between
the U.S. base in Ramstein and the Polish Rzeszow near the Ukrainian border is not
decreasing. But the current troop reinforcements and arms deliveries are not an issue for the
media here.
In these emotionally charged days, the New York Times on Feb. 21 carried Thomas L.
Friedman's nuanced commentary, "This is Putin's War. But America and NATO Are Not
Innocent Bystanders," which was intended to help de-escalate the situation.
Friedman described there how on May 2, 1998, immediately after the U.S. Senate ratified
NATO expansion, he called George Kennan - the architect of the U.S.'s successful
containment of the Soviet Union. Kennan had joined the State Department in 1926 and served
as U.S. ambassador to Moscow beginning in 1952. The top Russia expert, then 94 years old,
spoke in a weak voice and was perceived by Friedman as having the presence of mind when
he asked him for his opinion on NATO expansion. In his commentary, Friedman reproduces
Kennan's answer:
“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. This expansion
would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves.
“We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have
neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO
expansion] was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in
foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate
debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying
to attack Western Europe.
“Don’t people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet
Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who
mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime.
And Russia’s democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries
we’ve just signed up to defend from Russia. 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.”(3)

U.S. economist and publicist Paul Craig Roberts has been following Putin's address to the
Russian people. For him, Putin expressed in it his sadness "that negotiations with the West
have taught him complete distrust of Washington"; he, Putin, had tried for eight years "to
pacify the situation in Ukraine in such a way that the breakaway republics remain part of
Ukraine, but had been frustrated by Washington. Therefore, he now has no choice but to
announce Russia's recognition of the two republics. "4)
It is unfortunate that the media did not address Putin's speech. For Paul Craig Roberts, Russia
has created a new world with the recognition. Now that the hegemon (USA) is dead, he says,
Russia and China should begin to disengage from the West. However, they should be careful
that the U.S. is still able to strike with "nuclear weapons while it is in its death throes."
According to Paul Craig Roberts, there is nothing left in the West that is really worth
anything. "Countries have already given away their most important industries to the Chinese
and surrendered the civil liberties of their citizens. As the Covid mandates prove, the West
itself no longer believes in the values it proclaims. People who exercise or attempt to exercise
their constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association are branded as "domestic
terrorists." Their voices are suppressed, they are fired from their jobs, their medical licenses
are revoked, they are arrested and imprisoned. The Western world has turned into a hellhole
of tyranny."(5)

Former U.S. President Donald Trump caused a stir with unusual praise for Russian leader
Vladimir Putin's actions. He described Putin as ingenious, smart and savvy. Moreover, Trump
said that such an escalation of the Ukraine crisis would never have occurred under his
presidency.(6)
Now it is important to initiate de-escalation as soon as possible. However, this will only be
possible if history, or at least developments since 1990, are finally reviewed without
prejudice.

To this end, Max Karl Ernst Ludwig Planck (1858-1947), founder of quantum physics, gives
us some advice: "The greatest danger today are the people who do not want to admit that the
age now dawning is fundamentally different from the past. With the traditional concepts we
will not be able to cope with this situation now. The bankruptcy of the traditional concept of
war, attack and defense is obvious. Without rethinking, there is no way out of the danger."(7)

Notes

1) https://www.br.de/nachrichten/deutschland-welt/russland-ukraine-konflikt-im-live-news-
ticker,SxWdozS
2) https://www.osce.org/files/2022-02-18%20Daily%20Report_ENG.pdf?itok=23379
3) https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/putin-ukraine-nato.html
4) https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/02/21/breaking-news-feb-21-4pm-us-central-time/
5) https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/02/22/russia-and-china-should-go-their-own-way/
6) https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article237085281/Ukraine-Konflikt-Trump-lobt-Putin-
als-genial-smart-ausgebufft.html
7) Eberhard Punsch: Das neue Zitatenbuchhandbuch, Augsburg 1997, S. 826

Wolfgang Effenberger

After the G7 meeting organized on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference, German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock made an urgent appeal to Russia, warning Putin not to attack Ukraine.
"A renewed violation of Ukraine's sovereignty would very quickly have massive repercussions for Russia - economically, financially and politically - strategically and also individually for all those who bear personal responsibility for this crisis."(1)
Baerbock received flanking support from EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen: "If Vladimir Putin starts a war, we will respond with the most powerful lever we have: Economic and financial sanctions, because the economy is Russia's weak point." That could mean Russia's exclusion from the international banking communications network (Swift). This would effectively cut Russia off from international financial markets.(2) The conflict being played out on Ukraine's back is primarily about Russia's economic destruction. The elimination of Nordstream 2 is only a partial goal.
Russian demands for security guarantees from the U.S. and NATO have been on the table since mid-December 2021. Since then, the talks, which have been held at all levels and have been unsuccessful for Russia, have not ceased. Putin is being stalled on the issue and at the same time subjected to further verbal attacks and defamation.
Paul Craig Roberts, American economist and publicist and former high-ranking U.S. politician, wonders if Putin and Lavrov will ever realize "that there is no way at all to successfully negotiate with Washington on Russia's security concerns."(3) According to Roberts the reasons are obvious. For one, the U.S. military and security complex, which has an annual budget of $1,000 billion, needs an enemy to justify that expenditure.

The second reason Roberts sees in the influence of U.S. foreign policy under Zionist neoconservatives who hate Russia for historical reasons. When Putin announced the end of the U.S. "unipolar world" at the 2007 Munich Security Conference, he had finally made himself an enemy of the neoconservatives. Under defense policy expert Paul Wolfowitz, they had drafted a doctrine named after him that advocated preemptive military action to safeguard U.S. unilateralism, to suppress in advance any future potential threat to U.S. hegemony.(4) The overthrow of Ukraine's democratically elected government and the installation of a neo-Nazi regime subordinate to Washington can also be attributed to the neoconservatives. But the attempt to take over the Russian naval base in the Black Sea in Crimea failed when the population there voted overwhelmingly to join Russia. The Russians in the Donbass would have liked to follow suit, but Putin would not allow it. Thus, since 2014, the Donbass region has been a trouble spot, with people living there dying and suffering. The Western media have concealed from the public that the Kiev government has massed close to 125000 troops on the Grnez Line to the breakaway regions.
A diplomatic solution to the conflict envisaged in the Minsk Agreement of 2015 has always been undermined by Kiev.
Why didn't the West itself raise the possibility of genocidal recognition in the face of Ukraine's destructive behavior?

The blueprint is Kosovo, where the then German Chancellor Kohl was the second to recognize sovereignty under international law, thus making the US Bondsteel camp in Kosovo possible in the long term.
For the arsonists, however, such a trouble spot is ideally suited to further fuel the conflict.

On 21.2.2022 at 20:38 the breaking news ran on the Tagesschau that Putin in a TV address announced the recognition of the independence of the separatist republics in eastern Ukraine by his country and signed a decree to that effect. He said he would ask the Russian parliament to approve it.(5)
This could put an end to years of suffering for the people in the breakaway Donbass territories, as Ukrainian government forces will then no longer be able to attack them as they have in the past without risking a major war and thus the destruction of Ukraine.
Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Li expressed a few hours after Putin's surprise coup that the continuing escalation of tensions was related to the failure of the Ukrainian government to implement the Minsk agreements.
Baerbock arrogantly made clear that there were red lines in talks with Russia: "The basis of our coexistence, international law, our European treaties, they are not negotiable."(6)

Who has been breaking international law here in Europe for years? The coup orchestrated by the West in Kiev was a violation of international law, and the war of aggression against the rest of Yugoslavia in violation of international law was a war crime. Who today remembers how the "Western community of values" lied this war into existence? On March 15, 1999, in Rambouillet, the Serbs did not refuse to sign the draft treaty prepared by the Balkan Contact Group. They merely refused to sign a quickly added and non-negotiable annex, Part B, Article 8 of which ultimatively demanded: "NATO personnel, together with their vehicles, aircraft, and equipment, should be able to move freely and unimpeded, and without access restrictions, throughout the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including its airspace and territorial waters." On top of that, NATO should enjoy immunity in all legal proceedings, whether civil, administrative, or criminal." 


The annex was concealed from the cabinet and parliament (and thus from the public) by German Foreign Minister Fischer. The then Finance Minister Lafontaine only learned about it much later from the press(7), as did the defense policy spokeswoman of the Greens, Angelika Beer, who then expressed: "If I had known, I would not have agreed to the war effort." Unfortunately, to this day the Greens are neither willing nor able to come to terms with their active support at the time for this war of aggression that violated international law.

Rudolf Augstein judged at that time: "The USA had set military conditions in Rambouillet that no Serb with a school education could have signed."(8)
In similarly war-hectic days as now witnessed during the Munich Security Conference, the U.S. Congress passed the "Silk Road Strategy Act" on March 19, 1999, in which America underlines its interests from the Mediterranean to Central Asia.
Former German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher wrote in the preface to Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard": "If America wants to retain its position of world power in the future, it must turn all its attention to this area ["Eurasia"]. This is where 74 percent of the world's population lives, where most of the world's natural resources, including energy reserves, are located, and where 60 percent of the world's gross national product is generated. It is therefore in the area from Lisbon to Vladivostok that America's future destiny will be decided."(9)

Five days later, NATO opened the war against "Remnant Yugoslavia" with its air strikes. Preparations for this had been in full swing since the summer of 1998, although at that time the situation there was still stable. 

Notwithstanding the daily air strikes in Remnant Yugoslavia, NATO members met in Washington on April 23 to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Western "defense alliance." For the NATO to be expanded and the coming tasks in the 21st century, U.S. President Clinton presented the new strategic concept: Away from the pure defense alliance and toward crisis management in the Euro-Atlantic area, whereby NATO could act in the future "in a limited framework" without a UN mandate. Unambiguously, former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt stated at the end of the first week of the war: " Bullied by the U.S., we have disregarded international law and the United Nations Charter."(10) And U.S. political scientist and war researcher Professor Daniel Kolko wrote in the Berlin Tagesspiegel after the war in Yugoslavia: "For the U.S., it was about demonstrating military power and expanding its supremacy in NATO."(11) The war, forced with a lie, replaced international law with the "right of the powerful". Former NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander General (ret.) Gerd Schmückle summed up NATO's new intervention goals: "Ultimately, U.S. interests decide where to intervene. Everything revolves around economics. Where is there oil, where are the future sources of oil?"(12)

UN Resolution 1244 of June 10, 1999, provided the basis in international law for the establishment of the Interim Administration Mission. This established Kosovo's territorial affiliation with Serbia. Notwithstanding this, the West pressed ahead with Kosovo's independence and made its case before the International Court of Justice in The Hague on April 17, 2009. Even before the fifteen judges in The Hague could consider the independence request, U.S. Vice President Biden underscored the country's independence as irreversible during a visit to Kosovo in May 2009. It is hard to imagine a clearer disregard for a supreme court.(13)

Behind the usual platitudes of freedom and democracy were once again tangible economic and geopolitical interests. These were bluntly explained at the end of April 2000 at a U.S. State Department conference on the Balkans and NATO enlargement to the East in Bratislava. In his function as Vice-President of the OSCE Assembly, the CDU Member of the Bundestag Willy Wimmer was also invited, who was so alarmed that immediately after the conference he informed the acting SPD Chancellor Gerhard Schröder in a letter(14) about the true background of the Yugoslav war and the future geostrategic intentions of the U.S. - an extremely unusual event. Under pt. 7 and pt. 8 is stated there about the strategic intentions of the USA conveyed at a high-level conference: 

"In the forthcoming NATO enlargement, the spatial situation between the Baltic Sea and Anatolia must be restored as it was in the heyday of Roman expansion. To this end, Poland must be surrounded to the north and south by democratic states as neighbors, Romania and Bulgaria must ensure the land connection to Turkey, Serbia (probably for the purpose of ensuring a U.S. military presence) must be permanently excluded from European development."(15)

This plan has been consistently implemented ever since. For example, the July 21, 2021 U.S.-Germany Joint Statement in Support of Ukraine strongly expresses support for the Three Seas Initiative (Baltic Sea-Black Sea-Adriatic Sea) and its efforts to strengthen infrastructure connectivity and energy security in Central and Eastern Europe.(16)
According to Christopher Clark, NATO put much more pressure on the Serbs in the spring of 1999 than Austria-Hungary did in July 1914. He asks, "Was this mainly because Russia was out of the picture as a major power?"(17) The wars and civil wars of the present (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Egypt, etc.) show that the trail of blood left by the strategists of the First World War extends to the present day and will not dry up until the driving forces that led Europe into the First World War are uncovered and the conflicts that have still not been resolved lead to a sustainable peace solution.

In the SPD's parliamentary group meeting at the end of January 2022, SPD co-leader Lars Klingbeil made a very clear statement to the Tagesschau about the Ukraine conflict: "The escalation is coming from Russia."(18) This statement applies not only to the SPD, but to the entire government. How can Annalena Baerbock call on Putin to engage in serious negotiations under these circumstances?(19) The leadership of the German republic seems to have dangerous deficits in historical knowledge or is not even aware of these deficits. Is it just stupidity and arrogance or do the ignorant politicians simply succumb to the siren songs of their transatlantic whisperers?

Notes

1) https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-02/russland-wladimir-putin-annalena-baerbock-ostukraine?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com
2) https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/vonderleyen-russland-sanktionen-101.html
3) https://uncutnews.ch/die-nato-ist-kein-verteidigungsbuendnis-mehr-sondern-ein-instrument-der-aggression/
4) Die Wolfowitz-Doktrin ist ein inoffizieller Name für die ursprüngliche Version der Defence Planning Guidance für die Geschäftsjahre 1994–99
5) https://www.tagesschau.de/eilmeldung/eilmeldung-6231.html
6) https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-02/russland-wladimir-putin-annalena-baerbock-ostukraine?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com
7) Lafontaine, Oskar: Das Herz schlägt links, München 1999, S. 243
8) Ebd.
9) Brzezinski, Zbigniew: Die einzige Weltmacht Amerikas Strategie der Vorherrschaft, Frankfurt a.M. 2001, S. 10f.
10) Schmidt, Helmut, Frankfurter Rundschau, 3./4. April 1999
11) Kolko, Daniel: Tagesspiegel, 8. Mai 1999
12) Die Woche vom 1.4.1999
13) Wolfgang Effenberger: Schwarzbuch EU & NATO Warum die Welt keinen Frieden findet, Höhr-Grenzhausen 2020, S. 308
14) Präsident Bill Clinton vor der US-Gewerkschaft American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employes (AFSCME): “Remarks to AFSCME Biennial Conventions, Washington, D.C. 23. März 1999.
15) Abdruck in Effenberger, Wolfgang/Wimmer, Willy: Wiederkehr der Hasardeure – Schattenstrategen, Kriegstreiber, stille Profiteure 1914 und heute, Höhr-Grenzhausen 2014, S. 547; siehe auch Willy Wimmer: Die Akte Moskau, Höhr-Grenzhausen 2016.
16) https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/newsroom/gemeinsame-erklaerung-usa-und-deutschland/2472074
17) Kilb, Andreas: „Alle diese Staaten waren Bösewichte“, 29. September 2013, Kilb im Gespräch mit Christopher Clark in „Aktuell Feulleton“ der FAZ.
18) https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/spd-klingbeil-russland-103.html
19) https://www.zeit.de/politik/ausland/2022-02/russland-wladimir-putin-annalena-baerbock-ostukraine?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com

Manlio Dinucci

" NATO enlargement in recent decades has been a great success and has also paved the way for a further enlargement of the EU": NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg reiterated this last Saturday at the Munich Security Conference. To fully understand his words, it is necessary to reconstruct this story of "great success" in essential terms.

It began in the same year - 1999 - in which NATO demolished Yugoslavia with the war and, at the Washington summit, announced its intention to "conduct crisis response operations not provided for in Article 5 outside the territory of 'Alliance". Forgetting that it had pledged with Russia not to "expand even an inch to the East", NATO began its expansion to the East. It incorporated the first three countries of the former Warsaw Pact: Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary. Then, in 2004 it extended to other seven nations: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania (formerly part of the USSR); Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia (formerly part of the Warsaw Pact); Slovenia (formerly part of the Yugoslav Federation). In 2009, NATO incorporated Albania (once a member of the Warsaw Pact) and Croatia (formerly part of the Yugoslav Federation); in 2017, Montenegro (formerly part of Yugoslavia); in 2020 North Macedonia (formerly part of Yugoslavia) In twenty years, NATO has expanded from 16 to 30 countries.

In this way, Washington achieves a threefold result. It extends close to Russia, right into the territory of the former USSR, the military Alliance of which it maintains the command levers: the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe is by tradition, always a US general appointed by the President of the United States and the other key commands also belong to the USA. At the same time, Washington binds the Eastern countries not so much to the Alliance, but directly to the United States. Romania and Bulgaria, as soon as it enters, immediately make the important military bases of Constanta and Burgas on the Black Sea available to the United States. The third result obtained by Washington with the expansion of NATO to the East is the strengthening of its influence in Europe. Central-Eastern European countries that joined NATO between 1999 and 2004, seven out of ten joined the European Union between 2004 and 2007: the EU expands to the East and the United States overlapped NATO that expands to the East over Europe. Today 21 of the 27 countries of the European Union belong to NATO under US command. According to NATO rules the North Atlantic Council, the Alliance political body, decides not by the majority but always "unanimously and by mutual agreement", which is in agreement with what was decided in Washington. The participation of the major European powers in these decisions (excluding Italy, which obeys in silence) generally takes place through secret negotiations with Washington on giving and take. This entails a further weakening of the European parliaments, in particular the Italian one, already deprived of real decision-making powers on foreign and military policy.

In this context, Europe today finds itself in an even more dangerous situation than that of the Cold War. Three other countries - Bosnia and Herzegovina (formerly part of Yugoslavia), Georgia, and Ukraine (formerly part of the USSR) - are candidates to join NATO. Jens Stoltenberg, spokesman for the US before NATO, declares that "we keep the door open and, if the Kremlin's goal is to have less NATO on the borders of Russia, it will only get more NATO". In the US-NATO escalation, clearly aimed at detonating a full-scale war in the heart of Europe, nuclear weapons come into the game. In three months, the serial production of the new B61-12 nuclear bombs will begin in the US, which will be deployed under US command in Italy and other European countries, probably also in the East even closer to Russia. In addition to these weapons, the US has in Europe two land bases in Romania and Poland and four warships equipped with Aegis missile systems, capable of launching not only anti-missile missiles but also nuclear-warhead cruise missiles. They are also preparing intermediate-range nuclear missiles to be deployed in Europe against Russia, the invented enemy that can however respond destructively if they attack.

To all this, the economic and social impact of growing military spending is added. At the meeting of Defense Ministers, Stoltenberg triumphantly announced that "this is the seventh consecutive year of increasing European Allied defense spending, which has increased by $ 270 billion since 2014". More public money is stolen from social spending and productive investment, while European countries have yet to recover from the 2020-21 economic lockdown. Italian military spending has exceeded 70 million euros per day, but it is not enough. Prime Minister Mario Draghi has already announced "We must equip ourselves with a more significant defense: it is very clear that we will have to spend much more than we have done so far". Very clear: let's tighten our belts so that NATO can expand.

(il manifesto, February 22, 2022)

Wolfgang Effenberger

The 58th Munich Security Conference (MSC, described by the German Ministry of Defense as the most important informal security policy meeting in the world) will be held from Feb. 18 to 20 at the Bayerischer Hof Hotel on Promenadenplatz in Munich's Old Town, and will be attended primarily by representatives of Western political celebrities. The MSC is not an official government event. It is hosted by the Munich Security Conference Foundation, a non-profit limited liability company. A large police force has to ensure the safety of the guests and cordons off the area between Marienplatz, Frauenkirche and Odeonsplatz. Demonstrations are inevitable, especially when one considers that only a few kilometers away from Munich, the Air Force Officers' School, located on the barracks grounds in Fürstenfeld, could accommodate, supervise and secure the participants in the best possible way. The costs for the event could be considerably reduced in this way, too.
No, for the rendezvous of political celebrities - U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris, U.S. Secretary of State Blinken, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, Ukraine President Volodymyr Selenskyj and representatives of the German government Scholz, Baerbock and Lambrecht - in the Isar metropolis, neither costs nor efforts are spared.
As early as the night of February 17-18, Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht presented her perspective on the topic of "Innovation at Frontlines" at this year's pre-event, Innovation Night, which was introduced in 2018. As today's military conflicts also take place in the digital space, in the future, digital innovation capabilities would determine victory and defeat on the still analog battlefields, she said.(1)
The focus these days is admittedly on the Ukraine crisis and NATO's tensions with Russia. Volodymyr Selenskyj has announced himself for Saturday (Feb. 19) to talk about "Ukraine and the European Security Architecture."(2)
The European Security Architecture was already strapped into a firm framework in Brussels on Feb. 16, 2022. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg's conversation with U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin before the start of the NATO Atlantic Council meeting at the organization's headquarters in Brussels on February 16, 2022, prompted the U.S. military magazine Stars and Stripes to write: "U.S. and NATO see Russia as a persistent threat to Europe and will deploy more combat forces in response."
Plans are said to be underway, for example, to form allied battle groups in central and southeastern Europe to respond to the "new normal" of a persistent Russian threat to the continent. Stoltenberg did not see de-escalation, in part because Russian forces would be increased around Ukraine. In a joint statement, Stoltenberg and Austin pointed out that Russia's actions posed a "serious threat to Euro-Atlantic security." And Stoltenberg made clear, "Russia does not decide who becomes a member of NATO."(3)

The Munich Security Conference has been held annually in Munich since 1963. Between 1963-1992 as the Internationale Wehrkundebegegnung / Münchner Wehrkundetagung, then renamed the Munich Conference on Security Policy, and since 2009 it has operated as the Munich Security Conference.
At the conference from January 31 to February 2, 2014 – during the regime change in Ukraine orchestrated by the West - the then German President Joachim Gauck, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen spoke out in quick succession in favor of Germany becoming involved in the world "earlier, more decisively and more substantially. They had chosen the Munich Security Conference as a forum to send a signal to the international community: The Federal Republic is ready for more responsibility.(4) Starting on February 18, 2014, events in Ukraine escalated, claiming more than 80 lives.(5) After the agreed settlement of the conflict through the efforts of the foreign ministers of France, Poland and Germany - here Steinmeier "shone" with his diplomatic coup(6) - the elected president Yanukovych fled precipitously the same night.

Many see the MSC as a forum supporting the transatlantic agenda for a unipolar world. This, of course, brings opponents of any policy that appears imperial to the streets. In 2017, for example, Eugen Drewermann and Lisa Fitz, in stirring appeals for peace, called for policies that serve peace and opposed the intentions of a conference whose diplomacy is based on mutual threats and war.
Opponents of SIKO see it as a propaganda forum to justify NATO, its billions in arms spending, and its war operations in violation of international law, built on lies and sold to the population as "humanitarian interventions." The demands in 2017 were: An end to the war in Syria, an end to military mobilization against Russia, and an end to wars and regime change operations for more power and supremacy. Western values - freedom, democracy and human rights - are only the cover to achieve more control over raw materials and to secure markets for themselves. Against this background, the demonstrators demand a different, a more peaceful world. Their appeal: we want to be social, sustainable and peaceful. FOR THAT let us stand up! (7)Thus, the call for protest against the Munich "Security Conference" 2022 bears the headline: Stop the war course of the NATO countries(8)

A similar view is held by Scott Ritter, a former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer "who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of weapons of mass destruction."
In his seminal February 11, 2020 article, "The Ultimate End of NATO,"(9) he writes that Russia's goal is not to destroy Ukraine. Rather, he says, the goal is to expose NATO's impotence. He also says that the U.S. position has less to do with European security than with the U.S. attempt to capture the European market for itself.
Ritter predicts that in the coming months NATO will be confronted with the reality "that Russia is not attacking anyone and that the current muscle play is not only unnecessary but, worse, unsustainable." In contrast to the unilateral rules that serve only the interests of the United States and small blocs of allied nations, Russia and China seek a "rights-based international order" based on the United Nations Charter."(10)
This Charter is worth recalling here. In Chapter I, "Purposes and Principles," Article 1 sets forth the purposes of the United Nations,(11)

1. to maintain international peace and security and, to this end, to take effective collective measures to prevent and eliminate threats to the peace, to suppress acts of aggression and other breaches of the peace, and to clean up or settle international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace by peaceful means in accordance with the principles of justice and international law;
2. to develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures for the consolidation of international peace;
3. to bring about international cooperation to solve international problems of an economic, social, cultural and humanitarian character and to promote and consolidate respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;
4. to be a focal point in which the efforts of nations are coordinated to achieve these common goals.

This seminal Article 1 of the Charter seems to have been nothing more than moot for decades now, when the illegal wars since the dissolution of the Soviet Union are remembered. "If the same "defensive" alliance that bombed its ally Belgrade and participated in the overthrow of the Libyan leader," writes Scott Ritter, "seeks the admission of Ukraine and Georgia as members, such actions, from the Russian perspective, can only be viewed as aggressive, offensive-minded measures that are part of a broader anti-Russia campaign."(12)
Russia's claim that NATO's eastward expansion violates Western commitments made after the fall of the Berlin Wall is now supported by a remarkable file discovery from the British National Archives. (13) A meeting of the political directors of the foreign ministries of the United States, Britain, France, and Germany in Bonn on March 6, 1991, addressed the security issues of East European states.
Bonn's representative, Jürgen Chrobog, stated at that time, according to the memo, "We made it clear in the Two Plus Four negotiations that we would not extend NATO beyond the Elbe. We therefore cannot offer NATO membership to Poland and the others."
The British, French and Americans also rejected NATO membership for the Eastern Europeans. U.S. Representative Raymond Seitz said, "We have made it clear to the Soviet Union - at Two Plus Four as well as other talks - that we will take no advantage of Soviet troop withdrawals from Eastern Europe."(14)
However, soon after, the Americans corrected their policy.
 
This Western policy helped to alienate Putin and Germans. On September 25, 2001, Russian President Vladimir Putin had extended his hand in the Bundestag and won the hearts of Germans with his brilliant speech. Today, the relationship is on ice. Why did the West turn down the offered friendship back then and squander the opportunity for peaceful coexistence? Was it the transatlantic agenda that preferred to drive and still wants to drive a wedge between Western Europe and Russia?(15)
If the world does not come to its senses, an almost unimaginable scenario could come true for Europe. The famous German writer Thomas Mann had recognized in his American exile the tendency of the USA "to treat Europe as an economic colony, a military base, a glacis in the future nuclear crusade against Russia, as a piece of the earth which may be antiquarian interesting and worth touring, but about whose complete ruin one will give a damn when the struggle for world domination is on."(16)

Notes

1)https://www.bmvg.de/de/muenchner-sicherheitskonferenz-2022
2)https://www.merkur.de/politik/siko-muenchen-scholz-baerbock-kamala-harris-blinken-ukraine-wolodymyr-selenskyj-91356285.html
3)https://www.stripes.com/theaters/europe/2022-02-16/nato-russia-stoltenberg-europe-ukraine-5042504.html?utm_source=Stars+and+Stripes+Emails&utm_campaign=36e1da19ac-Newsletter+-+Weekly&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0ab8697a7f-36e1da19ac-296504235
4)https://www.bmvg.de/de/themen/informelles-sicherheitspolitisches-treffen-seit-1963-21472
5)Basler Zeitung vom 23. Februar 2014
6)https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article125094196/Der-diplomatische-Coup-des-Frank-Walter-Steinmeier.html
7)Immer wieder anhörenswert:
Eugen Drewermann: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esSPb0FeITM
Lisa Fitz:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esSPb0FeITMhttps://sicherheitskonferenz.de/Lisa-Fitz-SIKO-18.2.2017-Stachus
8)https://www.attac-netzwerk.de/ag-globalisierung-und-krieg/aufrufe/siko
9)https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/11/the-ultimate-end-of-nato/
10)Ebd.
11)https://unric.org/de/charta/
12)https://consortiumnews.com/2022/02/11/the-ultimate-end-of-nato/
13) https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/nato-osterweiterung-aktenfund-stuetzt-russische-version-a-1613d467-bd72-4f02-8e16-2cd6d3285295
14) https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article236986765/Nato-Osterweiterung-Archivfund-bestaetigt-Sicht-der-Russen.html?source=puerto-reco-2_ABC-V1.B_click_prob_only
15) https://www.mdr.de/geschichte/putin-und-die-deutschen-100.
16) htmlThomas Mann: Deutsche Hörer! Europäische Hörer! Darmstadt 1980, Rückse

Wolfgang Effenberger

The 58th Munich Security Conference, which was dominated by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, came to a close on Sunday, Feb. 20, 2022. At the conclusion of the three-day deliberations, outgoing leader Wolfgang Ischinger noted, "I have the impression that this weekend sends a message of transatlantic unity and resolve."(1) He then expressed regret that Europe should fear a new war. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson warned the BBC at the conference of a war on the scale of World War II, saying "it could really be the biggest war in Europe since 1945."(2)
Just in time for the start of the Munich Security Conference, the escalation screw in Ukraine was turned up. The theory that the escalation on the contact line is a mere information operation on the part of Russia and the rebel republics is not at all supported by the OSCE report.(3)
With the war-fueling headline "Putin's henchmen shell Ukrainian kindergarten"(4) the BILD newspaper pours oil on the fire.

Since every war so far has been started with a lie, the media should ask themselves where such reports come from, who verified them, and who benefits from them. In 1990, the media adopted without verification the report that Iraqi soldiers, during the invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, the beginning of the Second Gulf War, had torn Kuwaiti premature babies from their incubators and thrown them onto the cold stone floor, where they died. This gave U.S. President George H. Bush the UN authorization to wage war against Iraq.
Only after the US-led military intervention to liberate Kuwait did the story turn out to be an invention of the American PR agency Hill & Knowlton. They had been paid by the exiled Kuwaiti government to support a reconquest of Kuwait by means of public relations.
Since mid-January 2022, according to the U.S. government, there have been warnings of a so-called false flag attack ("false flag operation") on the part of Putin. Russia, they said, wanted to create a pretext for an invasion of Ukraine: "We have information indicating that Russia has already established a group of operatives to carry out a false-flag operation in eastern Ukraine ... that could start between mid-January and mid-February."(5)
So far, however, the U.S. has shown itself to be a true master at using "false flag" operations and lies.
The 1964 Vietnam War, for instance, was justified by the "Tonkin Incident" off the coast of North Vietnam, an ostensible North Vietnamese torpedo attack on the U.S. destroyer Meddox on August 4, 1964. It has long been proven that there was no torpedo attack at that time.(6)
The Vietnam War claimed up to 6 million lives (of which about 60,000 were U.S.).

The 2003 Iraq War was justified by the U.S. government on the grounds of "Iraqi weapons of mass destruction" and an "Iraqi connection to Al Qaeda terrorists." On February 5, 2003, U.S. Secretary of State Powell presented alleged evidence of Iraq's NBC weapons to the UN Security Council, all of which turned out to be fabricated by mid-2004. And the July 2004 report of the 9/11 Commission refuted the alleged link to al Qaeda.  And the list of contrived reasons for war is not exhaustive.(7)
On February 20, 2022, BILD ran the headline: "Buy when the guns are thundering!"(8) High time for war profiteers.

On April 2, 1917, U.S. Senator George W. Norris, in his rebuttal speech, rejected Wilson's reasons for entering the war against Germany and - quoting from a customer letter of the "New York Stock Exchange" - pointed out the interests of Wall Street: "Canada and Japan are at war and prospering more than ever. On the outbreak of immediate hostilities, stocks would react swiftly, clearly and heatedly with a gratifying look. The old-fashioned bull market would enjoy it as it did at the outbreak of war with Spain in 1898. By contrast, the onset of peace would adjust commodity prices downward and most likely inhibit enterprise."(9)
Reflecting on Wilson's declaration of war on April 6, 1917, the "Allgemeine Zeitung des Judentums" made a decisive reference to the duplicity Wilson had engaged in, when "from the beginning of the war he permitted, approved, perhaps even encouraged, the American factories to supply our enemies with ammunition, arms, and all manner of war equipment. This was done by no truly neutral state except America. Already by this support of our enemies the United States ... has shown itself for nearly three years, in spite of its alleged neutrality, to be an opposing power. Not we, then, but they are the authors of this war."(10)

In 1934, when fears of a new war were running rampant in the U.S. and the development of the "Rainbow War Plans" was underway, a committee of inquiry ("The Special Committee on Investigation of the Munitions Industry") under the chairmanship of Senator Gerald P. Nye began work in the U.S. Congress on the reasons for the entry into the war in 1917.

After a careful two-year investigation, the so-called Nye Committee was able to show convincingly that bankers and munitions industrialists, in addition to price-fixing, had exerted strong influence on U.S. foreign policy before and during the war, thus "tricking" the country into war.(11)

The net profits of some arms manufacturers showed exorbitant increases:

Net profits in comparison in %: 1911/1914 to 1915/1918

At Du Pont, net profits increased by almost 1000 percent during the war! Incidentally, in the 2008 U.S. election campaign, Morgan's name appeared among Obama's biggest donors - just behind Goldman Sachs and ahead of Citigroup.(12)

In 1935, the American artist Mabel Dwight created a monument to the profiteers of war and crises with her lithograph "The Merchants of Death".

"The merchants of death are tough and long-lived ... their sole interest is self-interest, their sole god is profit. ... As politicians, their interest is directed toward a strong ruling class and the pooling of privileges ... What they rarely realize, however, is that Death is their leader. He loves them because he knows that sooner or later they will line his pockets. He knows that they hatch wars and revolutions ... their stubbornness and their time-honored stupidity exceed any understandable measure. We are talking here about beings who are decidedly perceptive, yet incurably short-sighted. In this country, they hate the ideal of democracy, but they are happy with the loose reins and the freedom it gives them."(13)

Following the regime change orchestrated by the West in Kiev in February 2014, the demons of 1914 resurfaced in the fall of 2014: The strategy paper "TRADOC 525-3-1" Win in a Complex World 2020-2040" assigned the armed forces the task of eliminating the threat posed by Russia and China. It does not focus on direct conquest of individual states, but on a targeted dual strategy of destabilization and influence via nongovernmental organizations and intelligence agencies. In other words, first the creation of chaos, then the establishment of the desired structures. The four escalation stages of the destabilization script were already described in detail in the predecessor paper "525-5" of 1994 and can be illustrated by the example of Ukraine: Turmoil - Crisis - Conflict - War.
On December 4, the U.S. Congress passed H. Res. 758 by an overwhelming majority (only 10 votes against). On the same day, Congressional legend Ron Paul commented on it on his homepage with the article "Reckless Congress 'Declares War' on Russia."(14) He wrote:
"Today in the U.S. House of Representatives, in my opinion, one of the most evil pieces of legislation was passed. This resolution "strongly condemns the actions of the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin as a policy of aggression against neighboring states aimed at political and economic dominance."(15) At the end of the long series of mostly unproven or questionable accusations come 22 demands designed to force Congress and the President to act. Among other things, the president is supposed to
- U.S. allies and partners in Europe and the other states of the  
  world to impose targeted sanctions against the Russian Federation
  and its leadership, as well as to demand the withdrawal of Russian troops and their
  equipment from Ukrainian territory,
- in coordination with Congress, assess the status
  and readiness of U.S. forces and the forces of the other NATO
  countries, as well as take seriously the kollektive defense obligation
  that arises from the mutual assistance clause (Article 5).

As was the case a hundred years ago, the main danger in the United States is seen in possible cooperation between Germany and Russia, a point made surprisingly clearly by George Friedman, founder and chairman of the leading private U.S. think tank STRATFOR, on February 4, 2015. The U.S. has no "relationship" with Europe, he said; there are only bilateral relations with individual states. "The main interest of U.S. foreign policy during the last century, during World War I, World War II, and the Cold War, has been the relationship between Germany and Russia.... For a century, the main goal for the United States has been to prevent the unique combination between German capital, German technology and Russian raw material resources, Russian labor."(16)

In 2017, participants at the Munich Security Conference (MSC) called for the accelerated transformation of the EU into a wartime alliance. According to a recent study by the MSC, management consultants McKinsey, and the elite Hertie School of Governance the European confederation should be able to carry out a "mission" comparable to the 2011 military operation against Libya at any time. It calls for drastic increases in the defense budgets of EU member states and investment in modern war equipment. The goal is to unify European defense standards and further expand government research funding. In June 2017, the U.S. Army War College stated in its one-year study that the world had entered a completely new phase of transformation in which U.S. power was waning, the world order was decaying and the authority of governments everywhere was crumbling. This now needed to be countered.
In early November 2017, NATO called for greater EU involvement in efforts to strengthen deterrence against Russia. Demands included better roads for tank transports. On December 11, 2017, the foreign and defense ministers of 25 European member states signed the
EU Defense Initiative for Permanent Structured Cooperation. An important component is the improvement of infrastructure for the redeployment of U.S. and NATO forces from Paris, Rotterdam, Bremerhaven and Hamburg toward Kiev. To prepare for a possible emergency, the EU then called for better roads, more stable bridges and more sustainable rail links at the end of March 2018.(17) As of February 2022, these infrastructure measures are now well underway.

The current reports give rise to fears that a war-like situation is already prevailing. Why war? Is it, as in all previous wars, about hard economic interests? Is Russia to be eliminated as an important energy supplier so that Germany then has to buy the dirty gas from the USA? Who would profit from a war in Europe? A few will increase wealth and power and millions will lose everything. Have we forgotten that stable relations between Germany and Russia also provided stability in Europe? Otto von Bismarck had internalized that. But today's transatlanticists in the German government seem to be primarily stooges of the U.S. financial lobby, approvingly accepting the widespread destruction of Europe.

Notes

1) https://www.br.de/nachrichten/bayern/br24live-9-25-uhr-muenchner-sicherheitskonferenz-geht-zu-ende,SxuxbQr
2) https://www.gmx.net/magazine/politik/boris-johnson-fuerchtet-groessten-krieg-europa-1945-36622268
3) Daily Report 38/22 vom 18. Februar 2022: die Mikrophone und Kameras der „Special Monitoring Mission“ SMM haben den Einschlag der Geschosse im Kindergarten nicht registriert.
4) https://www.bild.de/video/clip/video/angriff-in-der-ost-ukraine-kindergarten-beschossen-79187400.bild.html
5) https://rp-online.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-usa-unterstellen-russland-false-flag-sabotage-plaene_aid-65324579
6) Die Pentagon-Papiere von 1971 und die Memoiren des damaligen US-Verteidigungsministers McNamara zeigen, dass die US-Regierung die Tonkin-Vorfälle bewusst falsch darstellte, um ihren seit 1963 geplanten direkten Kriegseintritt durchzusetzen. US-Staatssekretär George Ball gab später zu, dass die US-Schiffe im Golf von Tonkin einen Kriegsgrund provozieren sollten und dass die sofortigen „Vergeltungsschläge” seit Monaten vorbereitet waren.
7) https://dei-lenk.lu/2019/06/17/jeder-krieg-beginnt-mit-einer-luge/
8) https://www.bild.de/bild-plus/geld/mein-geld/politik-inland/stimmt-diese-boersen-regel-kaufen-wenn-die-kanonen-donnern-79208822,view=conversionToLogin.bild.html
9) Senator Norris Opposes U.S. Entry into the War. In: Congressional Record, 65th Cong., 1st Sess., Vol. LV, pt. I, pp. 212-13
10) AZJ Nr. 15 vom 13. April 1917, S. 171
11) Report of the Special Committee on Investigation of the Munitions Industry (The Nye Report), U.S. Congress, Senate, 74th Congress, 2nd session, February 24, 1936,3-13.
12) https://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
13) Mabel Dwight: A Catalogue Raisonné of the Lithograhs, Smithosonians Institution Press, 1997
14) 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.
15) https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/758/titles
16) Wolfgang Effenberger: Auszug aus Aus "Europas Verhängnis – Die Herren des Geldes greifen zur Weltmacht" unter http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=25000&css=print
17) https://www.idowa.de/inhalt.vorbereitung-fuer-moeglichen-ernstfall-eu-fordert-strassen-fuer-panzer-und-truppen.5d2e61d3-89f8-4873-b7be-ad065cd5c4b7.html

Willy Wimmer told RT he personally witnessed the West vowing that NATO
would not expand to the east

Despite their denials, Western leaders did make a promise to the USSR that NATO would not expand to Central and Eastern Europe when Moscow agreed to Germany’s reunification, Willy Wimmer, a former vice president of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), has claimed in an interview with RT on Saturday.

The veteran politician, who served as parliamentary secretary to Germany’s defense minister between 1985 and 1992, said that he personally witnessed this promise when he “sent Chancellor Helmut Kohl the statement on the Bundeswehr in NATO and NATO in Europe, which was completely incorporated into the treaties on reunification.”

Berlin’s decision at that time “not to station NATO troops on the territory of the former East Germany and to stop NATO near the Oder” was part of this promise, Wimmer added.

The bloc has long denied such a promise had ever been made, insisting it has always had an 'open door policy.' However, a document recently published by Germany’s Der Spiegel weekly purportedly shows that the pledge was made, supporting Moscow's claims the commitments were later broken.

The minutes of a March 6, 1991 meeting in Bonn between the political directors of the foreign ministries of the US, UK, France, and Germany on German reunification appear to show that the Western nations made it “clear” to the still-existing Soviet Union that NATO would not expand further to the east.

Wimmer believes that the promises made by the Western leaders in the early 1990s were eventually dashed by the US ambitions formulated in the infamous 1992 ‘Wolfowitz Doctrine’.

The ‘doctrine’ was in fact a Defense Planning Guidance for the 1994–1999 fiscal years that was leaked to the New York Times at that time and sparked a wave of criticism even in the US itself. The document outlined the policy of unilateralism and pre-emptive military actions designed to suppress potential threats and prevent any supposedly authoritarian states from becoming superpowers. The official text of the guidance was then changed following the uproar but many tenets of the ‘doctrine’ still found their way into the former US President George W. Bush’s foreign policy.

Since that time, the US and its allies have been on the “wrong track” as they have been virtually doing everything to create a fairly “justified” impression in Moscow that the Western nations seek to “kick Russia out of Europe, to build a new wall between the Baltic and the Black Sea” and eventually to “destroy” Russia instead of cooperating with it, Wimmer pointed out.

The root of all the current security problems in Europe lies within America’s policy of continuously antagonizing Russia, according to Wimmer. “All the misery we are dealing with started with the United States conducting the policy aimed at kicking Russia out of Europe for the last 20 or almost 30 years,” he said.

As long as the US continues to “do everything to achieve this goal” both through NATO and bilateral agreements, Europe’s security problems can hardly be resolved, Wimmer warned, adding that it was Washington that should fundamentally change its ways.

The former OSCE vice president also echoed Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, describing the present state of relations between Russia and the West as a conversation between “a mute” and a “deaf.” Moscow's top diplomat made similar remarks earlier in February following talks with British Foreign Secretary Liz Truss.

The US and its partners in Europe have been “certainly deaf” for decades since they “drew no conclusions” from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s landmark speech at the Munich Security Conference back in 2007, when he showed quite clearly “where the problems lie on the Euro-Asian continent,” Wimmer said.

At that time, the Russian leader warned that US unilateral hegemonism and “uncontained” use of force in international relations erode the global security system and weaken international law. It was also one of the first times he mentioned NATO’s promise to Russia not to expand to the east.

Source: www.rt.com

Wolfgang Effenberger

After his election as Federal President, Frank-Walter Steinmeier had nothing else to do than to assign the responsibility for the escalation in the Ukraine conflict to Russian President Vladimir Putin in clear words and even let himself be carried away to an appeal to Putin to "Loosen the noose around Ukraine's neck"(1). To great applause from the Federal Assembly, he advised Putin not to make the mistake of underestimating the strength of democracy - clarity, deterrence and determination.
With his Teutonic demeanor in his first speech as re-elected president, Steinmeier irresponsibly fueled the U.S.-Russian conflict.
The German Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung (NOZ) headlined on February 14 "The right president at the right time" and Ralf Schuler went even further in his BILD commentary "This announcement had a kick!" with his demand "This speech must be followed by action!"(2).
From a former SPD politician dyed in the transatlantic wool, such deeds are well within the realm of possibility.
Steinmeier was State Secretary in the Federal Chancellery and Commissioner for the Intelligence Services in 1998/1999. From 1999 to 2005, he was head of the Chancellor's Office under Schröder and foreign minister from 2005 to 2009 (Merkel Cabinet I). After losing as the SPD's candidate for chancellor in the 2009 election, he served as chairman of the SPD's parliamentary group in the Bundestag until 2013 and thus also became leader of the opposition. His second term as foreign minister lasted from 2013 to 2017 (Merkel Cabinet III), followed by election as German president at Merkel's suggestion. Steinmeier, in an exposed position, has supported all U.S. wars in violation of international law without contradiction and unfortunately seems to have forgotten that the reunification in 1990 was mainly due to Russia. In the so-called 2+4 Treaty of September 12, 1990, the Federal Republic then solemnly pledged "that only peace will emanate from German soil" and that "Germany will never use any of its weapons except in accordance with its Constitution and the Charter of the United Nations."

This promise has been broken three times so far – with each time Steinmeier being involved:
- 1999 in the air war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which violated international law,
- 2001, in the course of the attack on Afghanistan 27 days after 9/11, which was contrary to international law, and
- in 2003, when the Bundeswehr supported the "crime under international law" of the U.S. and its allies against Iraq and its people "with all its efforts" on the instructions of the then-acting Minister of Defense, Dr. Peter Struck (SPD)(3).

And in February 2014, we witnessed the orchestrated coup in Ukraine, which cost the U.S. five billion U.S. dollars. German Foreign Minister Steinmeier was also involved in the EU and NATO support of the US at that time. It was he who "persuaded" ousted President Yanukovych to "peacefully hand over power. The U.S. had "pre-planned everything that today has bone of contention potential in and around Ukraine." In March 2014, during his repeated visits to Kiev, Steinmeier again called the referendum a breach of international law.(4) Yet the Crimean residents, in accordance with international law, had only exercised their right to self-determination.

Ex-president Yanukovych became an enemy of the West when he refused to sign the association agreement with the EU. This, too, is only partly true. This treaty consists of two parts, the economic and the political-military part. Yanukovych was initially supposed to sign only the second part (close cooperation in foreign policy). With the Association Agreement, the EU is trying to bind neighboring states more closely to itself without opening up EU membership to them.(5) His successor, the oligarch Poroshenko, who is more favorable to the West, signed the political part in March 2014 and the economic part on June 27, 2014.
Since then, tensions have not abated and the West has done nothing to alleviate the situation of the suffering people of the two separatist republics of Lugansk and Donetsk. They are subjected to constant attacks by Ukrainian government forces, Blackwater mercenaries, and the right-wing Azov battalion(6), and their only hope rests with Russia. How long will Moscow be able to stand by and watch? Could a false-flag operation blamed on Russia trigger the strangulating sanctions here?
Meanwhile, a military escalation of the Ukraine conflict looms.
On October 13, 2021, U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland met in Moscow with Putin's foreign policy advisor Yuri Ushakov and Dmitry Kozak, in charge of the Ukraine crisis and other CIS affairs.(7) What was the purpose of Nuland's visit to Moscow? She was Deputy Foreign Minister for European and Eurasian Affairs from 2013 to 2017, and thus in charge of the Ukraine crisis, and is considered a sworn enemy of Russia. The precipitous flight of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in August 2021 and the Kremlin's victory in the Duma elections in September 2021 may have reinforced the Biden administration's aggressive tendencies.

For Willy Wimmer, "Ukraine is only the vehicle for the implementation of purely American interests against Russia." Along with Ukraine, the EU is paying the price (Nuland "F... EU(8)). Victoria Nuland is said to have offered the Kremlin in October 2021: "Russia swings to the American line in return for billions of dollars in investment."(9) This does not seem to have gone down well, however, because just a few days later the CIA chief flew to meet with President Putin.
Since then, a threatened Russian invasion of Ukraine has been staged, leading to the highest tensions between Washington and Moscow since the Cold War. Under this pretext, the U.S. and NATO are sending more war materiel to Russia's border, while the government in Kiev is fighting the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics instead of seeking a peaceful solution - after all, they are the former countrymen.

On February 4, the opening day of the Winter Olympics, the U.S. military flew its reinforcements from Ramstein via Görlitz to Rzeszow-Jasionka in Poland, close to the Ukrainian border.  
At the same time, NATO's Neptune Strike 22 maneuver, involving more than 140 ships and 10,000 troops, was taking place in the Mediterranean.
U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin subsequently decided to leave the aircraft carrier "USS Harry Truman" in the Mediterranean to "reassure" Europeans in light of the conflict with Russia.
Above all, reconnaissance drones will be allowed to monitor the crisis area from the aircraft carrier. In addition, the ship could also move quickly into the Black Sea.
Any connection to the Ukraine crisis is denied, but interestingly, Neptune Strike 22 is not on a list of military exercises planned for 2022 published by NATO in December 2021.

On February 9, 2021, in a tumultuous parliamentary session, Slovak deputies voted in favor of a military agreement with the U.S.: Among other things, Slovakia will place the two military airports in Sliac and Kuchyna fully under the control of U.S. forces for the next ten years. In the end, 79 out of 140 parliamentarians present voted in favor of the so-called "Defence Cooperation Agreement" (DCA), while two-thirds of the population is against it, fearing the loss of sovereignty, the stationing of nuclear weapons on its own territory and the danger of being drawn into a possible armed conflict between neighboring Ukraine and Russia.(10)
For months, but especially since February 9, 2022, the frequency of Germany's rearward war hub has also increased.
On February 11, U.S. transport planes were spotted in the Görlitz area coming out of the U.S. Ramstein base and heading for Rzeszow in southeastern Poland, according to the flightradar24 website. A few days earlier, the U.S. had moved F-16 fighter jets to Łask, Poland.(11)
In Saxony, the population was informed that US Army military convoys were moving 500 vehicles towards Eastern Europe mainly at night for the "Saber Strike 2022" exercise. The military convoys are expected to return in the second half of March.(12)
Is anything major planned for early March? We don't know.
In this context, the sudden cancellation of the Inspector General of the German Armed Forces, General Eberhard Zorn, who had already agreed to be a speaker and guest of honor at this year's Salvator evening of the Oldenburg Traditionsgemeinschaft Jagdbombergeschwader 43 in early March, seems strange. The Salvatorabend, which has been taking place since 1965, is a permanent fixture in the interaction between the military and civil society in Oldenburg.
At the end of September 2020, Zorn had pointed out in an article in the FAZ that
Germany is the hub for all troop transports across the continent: "We participate significantly in the central deterrent instrument, the NATO spearhead, which we will lead again in 2023. Our Army brigades lead multinational formations in support of Lithuania. And our navy is active in all NATO task forces in the Mediterranean, North Sea and Baltic Sea. ... Our location in the middle of the European NATO area makes us a hub for allied troop movements and a rear area of operations, but also a potential target for attack. We are still within range of conventional and nuclear weapons."(13) After Zorn's cancellation, the entire leadership of the 1st Armored Division also withdrew its participation in the Salvator evening. As a result, the organizers canceled the evening. The Northwest newspaper then reported that the Corona pandemic would not permit such an event.(14)

On February 10, U.S. President Joe Biden called on American citizens in Ukraine to leave the country as soon as possible after invoking the threat of "world war" and warning that "things between the U.S. and Russia could quickly go crazy" and quickly get out of hand. (15)
Ron Paul, longtime congressman and former presidential candidate, warned as early as January 18, 2022, in his stirring article that Washington's bipartisan "Russia bashers" are determined to start a war. (16)

Today's "Russia bashers" are likely to emerge from the intellectual background of those who waged the war of mobile capital (North) against immobile capital (South) in the U.S. Civil War. At the very beginning of the Civil War, Lieutenant General Winfried Scott proposed a strategic approach involving blockade and devastation of the South to end the Civil War. This operation went down in history as the Anaconda Plan.
In 2016, Poland conducted a maneuver with the participation of the USA and NATO to defend against an attack from Russia. This maneuver was named Anaconda and aroused associations in Moscow.

Western howls of war are hung on the claim that Putin intends to invade Ukraine. Why should he do so? Former U.S. foreign intelligence officer and member of an association of former U.S. intelligence and intelligence exploitation professionals (VIP), Raymond Mcgovern, considers a Russian invasion of Ukraine about as likely as the much-heralded arrival of the ominous "Godot" in Beckett's play Waiting for Godot.(17)The former intelligence man thinks Putin is not so unwise as to provide(18) the U.S. with the pretext for sanctions and war.

Even Ukrainian President Volodymyr Selenskyj expressed irritation at the alarming statements from Washington. " If you or anyone else have additional information about a 100 percent invasion on the 16th (of February), please give it to us,"(19) he said smugly.

Undoubtedly, there are forces in the US and UK that see war as the solution to their problems. These circles will not be opposed by the top of German politics - President Steinmeier, Chancellor Olaf Scholz and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock. On the contrary! They are beating the war drum in an irresponsible manner: a fatal situation for Germany and for peace in Europe.

 

BILD on Sunday, 13.2.2022, the day of the election of the Federal President

The war against Russia, which the USA has been striving for since 1945(20), is none of Germany's business, just as the wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria have been. It is always only about geopolitical interests and access to raw materials for US corporations. Everything else serves only the obfuscation!

A falling world empire is unpredictable. Today we are dealing with even more powerful interest groups than at the beginning of the 20th century, when the Rhodes-Milner group - respectively a small conspiratorial circle of British politicians - intrigued behind the backs of cabinet and parliament and took the unsuspecting members by surprise with destructive world conquest strategies.
In 1953, Thomas Mann addressed the Europeans with his fears: in American exile, he had recognized the inclination of the U.S. administration "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 that may be antiquarian and worth traveling to, but whose complete ruin will be the devil's care when the struggle for world domination is on."(21)
The unpredictable policies of the Biden administration are now forcing Russia and China to strengthen their alliance.
In the joint statement at the start of the 2022 Winter Olympics, Presidents Xi Jin-ping and Vladimir Putin emphasized that "Russia and China oppose attempts by external forces to undermine security and stability in their bordering regions" and "the further expansion of NATO."(22)

Finally, it is worth recalling Willy Brandt, who in 1976 emphasized:
"Only an offensive for assured peace can guarantee the future of mankind."(23)
And for this, one would only need to invoke the Preamble of the United Nations:
"We, the peoples of the United Nations - are determined,
to save future generations from the scourge of war, which has twice in our lifetime brought untold suffering to mankind,
to reaffirm our faith in the fundamental rights of man, in the dignity and worth of the human person,
and for these purposes
to exercise forbearance and to live together in peace as good neighbors,
to join our forces to preserve international peace and security."(24)

Notes

1) https://web.de/magazine/politik/ukraine-krise/steinmeier-appelliert-putin-loesen-schlinge-hals-ukraine-36601742
2)file:///Users/wolfgang/Documents/Kommentar%20zur%20Steinmeier-Rede:%20Jetzt%20müssen%20Taten%20folgen!%20-%20Politik%20-%20Bild.de.webarchive
3)Merkel, Reinhard: Krieg. Was Amerika aufs Spiel setzt. Ein Präventivkrieg mag der Logik imperialer Macht entsprechen. Aber er untergräbt das Rechtsbewusstsein der Menschheit, in: Ambos, Kai/Arnold, Jörg (Hrsg.): Der Irak-Krieg und das Völkerrecht, Berlin 2004, S. 28
4)https://www.dw.com/de/steinmeier-stärkt-kiew-den-rücken/a-17514449
5)https://www.lpb-bw.de/ukraine-eu-nato
6)https://www.voltairenet.org/article215490.html
7) A war and peace visti to Moscow
https://euromaidanpress.com/2021/10/19/a-war-and-peace-visit-to-moscow/
8)https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article124612220/Fuck-the-EU-bringt-US-Diplomatin-in-Erklaerungsnot.html
9)https://parstoday.com/de/news/world-i65550-der_ukrainische_kreidekreis
10)https://kurier.at/politik/ausland/slowakei-stimmte-trotz-tumulte-in-parlament-fuer-militaerabkommen-mit-usa/401900296
11)https://www.saechsische.de/amis-ueber-goerlitz-5623145.html
12)https://www.saechsische.de/us-militaer-faehrt-durch-sachsen-5625281.html
13)https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/generalinspekteur-zorn-fuer-praesente-bundeswehr-im-alltag-16977307.html
14)https://www.nwzonline.de/plus-oldenburg-stadt/oldenburg-salvatorabend-erneut-abgesagt_a_51,6,36337546.html#
15) https://uncutnews.ch/biden-warnt-vor-weltkrieg-waehrend-truss-sagt-rostow-und-woronesch-seien-nicht-russisch/
16)https://original.antiwar.com/paul/2022/01/17/washingtons-bi-partisan-russia-bashers-are-determined-to-start-a-war/
17)https://original.antiwar.com/mcgovern/2022/01/21/godot-likely-to-arrive-before-russia-invades-ukraine/
18)https://twitter.com/raymcgovern/status/1466444326062497795
19)https://web.de/magazine/politik/ukraine-krise/krisengespraeche-ukraine-telefonate-putin-durchbruch-36600694
20)Oktober 1945 Plan TOTALITY (Atombomben auf 20 sowjetische Industriestädte), Dezember 1949 Kriegsplan DROPSHOT für das Jahr 1957 (vereitelt durch SPUTNIK), etc.
21)Thomas Mann: Deutsche Hörer! Europäische Hörer! Darmstadt 1986, Klappentext rück
22)“Russia & China Joint Statement on the International Relations Entering a New Era and the Global Sustainable Development”, Voltaire Network, 4 February 2022.
23) Antrittsrede als Präsident der sozialistischen Internationale 1976
24) https://unric.org/de/charta/

The World Peace Council (WPC) expresses its deepest concerns about the escalating tensions in Eastern Europe and particularly around the Ukraine, caused primarily by the growing aggressive expansion of NATO towards Eastern Europe, its massive deployment of troops from the Baltic Sea to Bulgaria, and creating a belt aiming at the encirclement of the Russian Federation.

Since the coup d’état of 2014 in Kiev and the takeover of the government by reactionary and pro-NAZI forces sponsored by the USA, NATO and the European Union, NATO has been planning and implementing its further expansion aiming at the integration of the Ukraine into the biggest war machine which has committed wars, crimes and coups throughout its history.

NATO is openly advocating, and not hiding, its aggressive goals. It even declared in its Warsaw summit in 2016 that it was ready for a nuclear strike against its opponents. The huge military exercises like the recent “Defender Europe 2021,” and its new strategy of NATO 2030, endorsed by all NATO members, is ferociously escalating the tensions and opening a real danger of a regional war which could lead to a war of global dimensions.

The WPC is aware that conflicts and wars are taking place for the sake of the control of raw materials, energy resources and roads, for the profits and markets and for the control of spheres of influence of powerful states. The more than 1,7 trillion USD global military spending annually (40% of which only by the USA) on the one hand, and the 820 million people suffering from hunger in the world on the other, show clearly the injustice of the world today, dominated by the imperialist system. In times of the global health pandemic, it becomes even more offensive to observe how the access of the peoples in many countries —especially in Africa— to vaccination and medicine is being handled by the multinational pharmaceutical corporations and the respective governments.

The ongoing tensions and war rhetoric in Eastern Europe and the military build-up along the borders of the Ukraine also have heavy consequences on the daily life of peoples in Europe and the world, including the multiplication of the fuel and natural gas prices, from which the competing energy giants are making huge profits.

The war games are also accompanied by an ideological campaign to re-write the history, in which the European Union plays a leading role by equating reactionary fascist, Nazi theories and actions with the ones that stood up and defeated these forces seven decades ago.

In the current situation, the peace-loving people and forces in the world should denounce and condemn the imperialist war rhetoric and plans, demand the withdrawal of the NATO troops from the region around the Ukraine, and the de-escalation of the situation from all sides. The WPC from its founding days has been fighting against NATO, has called for its dissolution, and has supported the struggle of the peoples and their movements in the NATO states for the withdrawal from this alliance.

The WPC is committed to the struggle against NATO and will actively participate with our partners at the anti-NATO actions in Madrid on29 – 30 June 2022 with its distinct presence and, as in previous occasions, will organize its own events under the banner of “Yes to Peace – No to NATO.”

 The World Peace Council, as the historical anti-imperialist international organization of peace movements, is in principle against imperialist wars and defends the rights of the peoples and their just causes, and struggles for a world free from imperialist wars and exploitation, for a world of peace and social justice.

The WPC Secretariat 10th February 2022

February 4, 2022

At the invitation of President of the People’s Republic of China Xi Jinping, President of the Russian Federation Vladimir V. Putin visited China on 4 February 2022. The Heads of State held talks in Beijing and took part in the opening ceremony of the XXIV Olympic Winter Games.

The Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, hereinafter referred to as the sides, state as follows.

Today, the world is going through momentous changes, and humanity is entering a new era of rapid development and profound transformation. It sees the development of such processes and phenomena as multipolarity, economic globalization, the advent of information society, cultural diversity, transformation of the global governance architecture and world order; there is increasing interrelation and interdependence between the States; a trend has emerged towards redistribution of power in the world; and the international community is showing a growing demand for the leadership aiming at peaceful and gradual development. At the same time, as the pandemic of the new coronavirus infection continues, the international and regional security situation is complicating and the number of global challenges and threats is growing from day to day. Some actors representing but the minority on the international scale continue to advocate unilateral approaches to addressing international issues and resort to force; they interfere in the internal affairs of other states, infringing their legitimate rights and interests, and incite contradictions, differences and confrontation, thus hampering the development and progress of mankind, against the opposition from the international community.

The sides call on all States to pursue well-being for all and, with these ends, to build dialogue and mutual trust, strengthen mutual understanding, champion such universal human values as peace, development, equality, justice, democracy and freedom, respect the rights of peoples to independently determine the development paths of their countries and the sovereignty and the security and development interests of States, to protect the United Nations-driven international architecture and the international law-based world order, seek genuine multipolarity with the United Nations and its Security Council playing a central and coordinating role, promote more democratic international relations, and ensure peace, stability and sustainable development across the world.

I

The sides share the understanding that democracy is a universal human value, rather than a privilege of a limited number of States, and that its promotion and protection is a common responsibility of the entire world community.

The sides believe that democracy is a means of citizens' participation in the government of their country with the view to improving the well-being of population and implementing the principle of popular government. Democracy is exercised in all spheres of public life as part of a nation-wide process and reflects the interests of all the people, its will, guarantees its rights, meets its needs and protects its interests. There is no one-size-fits-all template to guide countries in establishing democracy. A nation can choose such forms and methods of implementing democracy that would best suit its particular state, based on its social and political system, its historical background, traditions and unique cultural characteristics. It is only up to the people of the country to decide whether their State is a democratic one.

The sides note that Russia and China as world powers with rich cultural and historical heritage have long-standing traditions of democracy, which rely on thousand-years of experience of development, broad popular support and consideration of the needs and interests of citizens. Russia and China guarantee their people the right to take part through various means and in various forms in the administration of the State and public life in accordance with the law. The people of both countries are certain of the way they have chosen and respect the democratic systems and traditions of other States.

The sides note that democratic principles are implemented at the global level, as well as in administration of State. Certain States' attempts to impose their own ”democratic standards“ on other countries, to monopolize the right to assess the level of compliance with democratic criteria, to draw dividing lines based on the grounds of ideology, including by establishing exclusive blocs and alliances of convenience, prove to be nothing but flouting of democracy and go against the spirit and true values of democracy. Such attempts at hegemony pose serious threats to global and regional peace and stability and undermine the stability of the world order.

The sides believe that the advocacy of democracy and human rights must not be used to put pressure on other countries. They oppose the abuse of democratic values and interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states under the pretext of protecting democracy and human rights, and any attempts to incite divisions and confrontation in the world. The sides call on the international community to respect cultural and civilizational diversity and the rights of peoples of different countries to self-determination. They stand ready to work together with all the interested partners to promote genuine democracy.

The sides note that the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights set noble goals in the area of universal human rights, set forth fundamental principles, which all the States must comply with and observe in deeds. At the same time, as every nation has its own unique national features, history, culture, social system and level of social and economic development, universal nature of human rights should be seen through the prism of the real situation in every particular country, and human rights should be protected in accordance with the specific situation in each country and the needs of its population. Promotion and protection of human rights is a shared responsibility of the international community. The states should equally prioritize all categories of human rights and promote them in a systemic manner. The international human rights cooperation should be carried out as a dialogue between the equals involving all countries. All States must have equal access to the right to development. Interaction and cooperation on human rights matters should be based on the principle of equality of all countries and mutual respect for the sake of strengthening the international human rights architecture.

II

The sides believe that peace, development and cooperation lie at the core of the modern international system. Development is a key driver in ensuring the prosperity of the nations. The ongoing pandemic of the new coronavirus infection poses a serious challenge to the fulfilment of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It is vital to enhance partnership relations for the sake of global development and make sure that the new stage of global development is defined by balance, harmony and inclusiveness.

The sides are seeking to advance their work to link the development plans for the Eurasian Economic Union and the Belt and Road Initiative with a view to intensifying practical cooperation between the EAEU and China in various areas and promoting greater interconnectedness between the Asia Pacific and Eurasian regions. The sides reaffirm their focus on building the Greater Eurasian Partnership in parallel and in coordination with the Belt and Road construction to foster the development of regional associations as well as bilateral and multilateral integration processes for the benefit of the peoples on the Eurasian continent.

The sides agreed to continue consistently intensifying practical cooperation for the sustainable development of the Arctic.

The sides will strengthen cooperation within multilateral mechanisms, including the United Nations, and encourage the international community to prioritize development issues in the global macro-policy coordination. They call on the developed countries to implement in good faith their formal commitments on development assistance, provide more resources to developing countries, address the uneven development of States, work to offset such imbalances within States, and advance global and international development cooperation. The Russian side confirms its readiness to continue working on the China-proposed Global Development Initiative, including participation in the activities of the Group of Friends of the Global Development Initiative under the UN auspices. In order to accelerate the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the sides call on the international community to take practical steps in key areas of cooperation such as poverty reduction, food security, vaccines and epidemics control, financing for development, climate change, sustainable development, including green development, industrialization, digital economy, and infrastructure connectivity.

The sides call on the international community to create open, equal, fair and non-discriminatory conditions for scientific and technological development, to step up practical implementation of scientific and technological advances in order to identify new drivers of economic growth.

The sides call upon all countries to strengthen cooperation in sustainable transport, actively build contacts and share knowledge in the construction of transport facilities, including smart transport and sustainable transport, development and use of Arctic routes, as well as to develop other areas to support global post-epidemic recovery.

The sides are taking serious action and making an important contribution to the fight against climate change. Jointly celebrating the 30th anniversary of the adoption of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, they reaffirm their commitment to this Convention as well as to the goals, principles and provisions of the Paris Agreement, including the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities. The sides work together to ensure the full and effective implementation of the Paris Agreement, remain committed to fulfilling the obligations they have undertaken and expect that developed countries will actually ensure the annual provision of $100 billion of climate finance to developing states. The sides oppose setting up new barriers in international trade under the pretext of fighting climate change.

The sides strongly support the development of international cooperation and exchanges in the field of biological diversity, actively participating in the relevant global governance process, and intend to jointly promote the harmonious development of humankind and nature as well as green transformation to ensure sustainable global development.

The Heads of State positively assess the effective interaction between Russia and China in the bilateral and multilateral formats focusing on the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, protection of life and health of the population of the two countries and the peoples of the world. They will further increase cooperation in the development and manufacture of vaccines against the new coronavirus infection, as well as medical drugs for its treatment, and enhance collaboration in public health and modern medicine. The sides plan to strengthen coordination on epidemiological measures to ensure strong protection of health, safety and order in contacts between citizens of the two countries. The sides have commended the work of the competent authorities and regions of the two countries on implementing quarantine measures in the border areas and ensuring the stable operation of the border crossing points, and intend to consider establishing a joint mechanism for epidemic control and prevention in the border areas to jointly plan anti-epidemic measures to be taken at the border checkpoints, share information, build infrastructure and improve the efficiency of customs clearance of goods.

The sides emphasize that ascertaining the origin of the new coronavirus infection is a matter of science. Research on this topic must be based on global knowledge, and that requires cooperation among scientists from all over the world. The sides oppose politicization of this issue. The Russian side welcomes the work carried out jointly by China and WHO to identify the source of the new coronavirus infection and supports the China – WHO joint report on the matter. The sides call on the global community to jointly promote a serious scientific approach to the study of the coronavirus origin.

The Russian side supports a successful hosting by the Chinese side of the Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games in Beijing in 2022.

The sides highly appreciate the level of bilateral cooperation in sports and the Olympic movement and express their readiness to contribute to its further progressive development.

III

The sides are gravely concerned about serious international security challenges and believe that the fates of all nations are interconnected. No State can or should ensure its own security separately from the security of the rest of the world and at the expense of the security of other States. The international community should actively engage in global governance to ensure universal, comprehensive, indivisible and lasting security.

The sides reaffirm their strong mutual support for the protection of their core interests, state sovereignty and territorial integrity, and oppose interference by external forces in their internal affairs.

The Russian side reaffirms its support for the One-China principle, confirms that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, and opposes any forms of independence of Taiwan.

Russia and China stand against attempts by external forces to undermine security and stability in their common adjacent regions, intend to counter interference by outside forces in the internal affairs of sovereign countries under any pretext, oppose colour revolutions, and will increase cooperation in the aforementioned areas.

The sides condemn terrorism in all its manifestations, promote the idea of creating a single global anti-terrorism front, with the United Nations playing a central role, advocate stronger political coordination and constructive engagement in multilateral counterterrorism efforts. The sides oppose politicization of the issues of combating terrorism and their use as instruments of policy of double standards, condemn the practice of interference in the internal affairs of other States for geopolitical purposes through the use of terrorist and extremist groups as well as under the guise of combating international terrorism and extremism.

The sides believe that certain States, military and political alliances and coalitions seek to obtain, directly or indirectly, unilateral military advantages to the detriment of the security of others, including by employing unfair competition practices, intensify geopolitical rivalry, fuel antagonism and confrontation, and seriously undermine the international security order and global strategic stability. The sides oppose further enlargement of NATO and call on the North Atlantic Alliance to abandon its ideologized cold war approaches, to respect the sovereignty, security and interests of other countries, the diversity of their civilizational, cultural and historical backgrounds, and to exercise a fair and objective attitude towards the peaceful development of other States. The sides stand against the formation of closed bloc structures and opposing camps in the Asia-Pacific region and remain highly vigilant about the negative impact of the United States' Indo-Pacific strategy on peace and stability in the region. Russia and China have made consistent efforts to build an equitable, open and inclusive security system in the Asia-Pacific Region (APR) that is not directed against third countries and that promotes peace, stability and prosperity.

The sides welcome the Joint Statement of the Leaders of the Five Nuclear-Weapons States on Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races and believe that all nuclear-weapons States should abandon the cold war mentality and zero-sum games, reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their national security policies, withdraw nuclear weapons deployed abroad, eliminate the unrestricted development of global anti-ballistic missile defense (ABM) system, and take effective steps to reduce the risks of nuclear wars and any armed conflicts between countries with military nuclear capabilities.

The sides reaffirm that the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons is the cornerstone of the international disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation system, an important part of the post-war international security system, and plays an indispensable role in world peace and development. The international community should promote the balanced implementation of the three pillars of the Treaty and work together to protect the credibility, effectiveness and the universal nature of the instrument.

The sides are seriously concerned about the trilateral security partnership between Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom (AUKUS), which provides for deeper cooperation between its members in areas involving strategic stability, in particular their decision to initiate cooperation in the field of nuclear-powered submarines. Russia and China believe that such actions are contrary to the objectives of security and sustainable development of the Asia-Pacific region, increase the danger of an arms race in the region, and pose serious risks of nuclear proliferation. The sides strongly condemn such moves and call on AUKUS participants to fulfil their nuclear and missile non-proliferation commitments in good faith and to work together to safeguard peace, stability, and development in the region.

Japan's plans to release nuclear contaminated water from the destroyed Fukushima nuclear plant into the ocean and the potential environmental impact of such actions are of deep concern to the sides. The sides emphasize that the disposal of nuclear contaminated water should be handled with responsibility and carried out in a proper manner based on arrangements between the Japanese side and neighbouring States, other interested parties, and relevant international agencies while ensuring transparency, scientific reasoning, and in accordance with international law.

The sides believe that the U.S. withdrawal from the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles, the acceleration of research and the development of intermediate-range and shorter-range ground-based missiles and the desire to deploy them in the Asia-Pacific and European regions, as well as their transfer to the allies, entail an increase in tension and distrust, increase risks to international and regional security, lead to the weakening of international non-proliferation and arms control system, undermining global strategic stability. The sided call on the United States to respond positively to the Russian initiative and abandon its plans to deploy intermediate-range and shorter-range ground-based missiles in the Asia-Pacific region and Europe. The sides will continue to maintain contacts and strengthen coordination on this issue.

The Chinese side is sympathetic to and supports the proposals put forward by the Russian Federation to create long-term legally binding security guarantees in Europe.

The sides note that the denunciation by the United States of a number of important international arms control agreements has an extremely negative impact on international and regional security and stability. The sides express concern over the advancement of U.S. plans to develop global missile defence and deploy its elements in various regions of the world, combined with capacity building of high-precision non-nuclear weapons for disarming strikes and other strategic objectives. The sides stress the importance of the peaceful uses of outer space, strongly support the central role of the UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in promoting international cooperation, maintaining and developing international space law and regulation in the field of space activities. Russia and China will continue to increase cooperation on such matters of mutual interest as the long-term sustainability of space activities and the development and use of space resources. The sides oppose attempts by some States to turn outer space into an arena of armed confrontation and reiterate their intention to make all necessary efforts to prevent the weaponization of space and an arms race in outer space. They will counteract activities aimed at achieving military superiority in space and using it for combat operations. The sides affirm the need for the early launch of negotiations to conclude a legally binding multilateral instrument based on the Russian-Chinese draft treaty on the prevention of placement of weapons in outer space and the use or threat of force against space objects that would provide fundamental and reliable guarantees against an arms race and the weaponization of outer space.

Russia and China emphasize that appropriate transparency and confidence-building measures, including an international initiative/political commitment not to be the first to place weapons in space, can also contribute to the goal of preventing an arms race in outer space, but such measures should complement and not substitute the effective legally binding regime governing space activities.

The sides reaffirm their belief that the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (BWC) is an essential pillar of international peace and security. Russia and China underscore their determination to preserve the credibility and effectiveness of the Convention.

The sides affirm the need to fully respect and further strengthen the BWC, including by institutionalizing it, strengthening its mechanisms, and adopting a legally binding Protocol to the Convention with an effective verification mechanism, as well as through regular consultation and cooperation in addressing any issues related to the implementation of the Convention.

The sides emphasize that domestic and foreign bioweapons activities by the United States and its allies raise serious concerns and questions for the international community regarding their compliance with the BWC. The sides share the view that such activities pose a serious threat to the national security of the Russian Federation and China and are detrimental to the security of the respective regions. The sides call on the U.S. and its allies to act in an open, transparent, and responsible manner by properly reporting on their military biological activities conducted overseas and on their national territory, and by supporting the resumption of negotiations on a legally binding BWC Protocol with an effective verification mechanism.

The sides, reaffirming their commitment to the goal of a world free of chemical weapons, call upon all parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention to work together to uphold its credibility and effectiveness. Russia and China are deeply concerned about the politicization of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and call on all of its members to strengthen solidarity and cooperation and protect the tradition of consensual decision-making. Russia and China insist that the United States, as the sole State Party to the Convention that has not yet completed the process of eliminating chemical weapons, accelerate the elimination of its stockpiles of chemical weapons. The sides emphasize the importance of balancing the non-proliferation obligations of states with the interests of legitimate international cooperation in the use of advanced technology and related materials and equipment for peaceful purposes. The sides note the resolution entitled ”Promoting international Cooperation on Peaceful Uses in the Context of International Security“ adopted at the 76th session of the UN General Assembly on the initiative of China and co‑sponsored by Russia, and look forward to its consistent implementation in accordance with the goals set forth therein.

The sides attach great importance to the issues of governance in the field of artificial intelligence. The sides are ready to strengthen dialogue and contacts on artificial intelligence.

The sides reiterate their readiness to deepen cooperation in the field of international information security and to contribute to building an open, secure, sustainable and accessible ICT environment. The sides emphasize that the principles of the non-use of force, respect for national sovereignty and fundamental human rights and freedoms, and non-interference in the internal affairs of other States, as enshrined in the UN Charter, are applicable to the information space. Russia and China reaffirm the key role of the UN in responding to threats to international information security and express their support for the Organization in developing new norms of conduct of states in this area.

The sides welcome the implementation of the global negotiation process on international information security within a single mechanism and support in this context the work of the UN Open-ended Working Group on security of and in the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) 2021–2025 (OEWG) and express their willingness to speak with one voice within it. The sides consider it necessary to consolidate the efforts of the international community to develop new norms of responsible behaviour of States, including legal ones, as well as a universal international legal instrument regulating the activities of States in the field of ICT. The sides believe that the Global Initiative on Data Security, proposed by the Chinese side and supported, in principle, by the Russian side, provides a basis for the Working Group to discuss and elaborate responses to data security threats and other threats to international information security.

The sides reiterate their support of United Nations General Assembly resolutions 74/247 and 75/282, support the work of the relevant Ad Hoc Committee of Governmental Experts, facilitate the negotiations within the United Nations for the elaboration of an international convention on countering the use of ICTs for criminal purposes. The sides encourage constructive participation of all sides in the negotiations in order to agree as soon as possible on a credible, universal, and comprehensive convention and provide it to the United Nations General Assembly at its 78th session in strict compliance with resolution 75/282. For these purposes, Russia and China have presented a joint draft convention as a basis for negotiations.

The sides support the internationalization of Internet governance, advocate equal rights to its governance, believe that any attempts to limit their sovereign right to regulate national segments of the Internet and ensure their security are unacceptable, are interested in greater participation of the International Telecommunication Union in addressing these issues.

The sides intend to deepen bilateral cooperation in international information security on the basis of the relevant 2015 intergovernmental agreement. To this end, the sides have agreed to adopt in the near future a plan for cooperation between Russia and China in this area.

IV

The sides underline that Russia and China, as world powers and permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, intend to firmly adhere to moral principles and accept their responsibility, strongly advocate the international system with the central coordinating role of the United Nations in international affairs, defend the world order based on international law, including the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, advance multipolarity and promote the democratization of international relations, together create an even more prospering, stable, and just world, jointly build international relations of a new type.

The Russian side notes the significance of the concept of constructing a ”community of common destiny for mankind“ proposed by the Chinese side to ensure greater solidarity of the international community and consolidation of efforts in responding to common challenges. The Chinese side notes the significance of the efforts taken by the Russian side to establish a just multipolar system of international relations.

The sides intend to strongly uphold the outcomes of the Second World War and the existing post-war world order, defend the authority of the United Nations and justice in international relations, resist attempts to deny, distort, and falsify the history of the Second World War.

In order to prevent the recurrence of the tragedy of the world war, the sides will strongly condemn actions aimed at denying the responsibility for atrocities of Nazi aggressors, militarist invaders, and their accomplices, besmirch and tarnish the honour of the victorious countries.

The sides call for the establishment of a new kind of relationships between world powers on the basis of mutual respect, peaceful coexistence and mutually beneficial cooperation. They reaffirm that the new inter-State relations between Russia and China are superior to political and military alliances of the Cold War era. Friendship between the two States has no limits, there are no ”forbidden“ areas of cooperation, strengthening of bilateral strategic cooperation is neither aimed against third countries nor affected by the changing international environment and circumstantial changes in third countries.

The sides reiterate the need for consolidation, not division of the international community, the need for cooperation, not confrontation. The sides oppose the return of international relations to the state of confrontation between major powers, when the weak fall prey to the strong. The sides intend to resist attempts to substitute universally recognized formats and mechanisms that are consistent with international law for rules elaborated in private by certain nations or blocs of nations, and are against addressing international problems indirectly and without consensus, oppose power politics, bullying, unilateral sanctions, and extraterritorial application of jurisdiction, as well as the abuse of export control policies, and support trade facilitation in line with the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

The sides reaffirmed their intention to strengthen foreign policy coordination, pursue true multilateralism, strengthen cooperation on multilateral platforms, defend common interests, support the international and regional balance of power, and improve global governance.

The sides support and defend the multilateral trade system based on the central role of the World Trade Organization (WTO), take an active part in the WTO reform, opposing unilateral approaches and protectionism. The sides are ready to strengthen dialogue between partners and coordinate positions on trade and economic issues of common concern, contribute to ensuring the sustainable and stable operation of global and regional value chains, promote a more open, inclusive, transparent, non-discriminatory system of international trade and economic rules.

The sides support the G20 format as an important forum for discussing international economic cooperation issues and anti-crisis response measures, jointly promote the invigorated spirit of solidarity and cooperation within the G20, support the leading role of the association in such areas as the international fight against epidemics, world economic recovery, inclusive sustainable development, improving the global economic governance system in a fair and rational manner to collectively address global challenges.

The sides support the deepened strategic partnership within BRICS, promote the expanded cooperation in three main areas: politics and security, economy and finance, and humanitarian exchanges. In particular, Russia and China intend to encourage interaction in the fields of public health, digital economy, science, innovation and technology, including artificial intelligence technologies, as well as the increased coordination between BRICS countries on international platforms. The sides strive to further strengthen the BRICS Plus/Outreach format as an effective mechanism of dialogue with regional integration associations and organizations of developing countries and States with emerging markets.

The Russian side will fully support the Chinese side chairing the association in 2022, and assist in the fruitful holding of the XIV BRICS summit.

Russia and China aim to comprehensively strengthen the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) and further enhance its role in shaping a polycentric world order based on the universally recognized principles of international law, multilateralism, equal, joint, indivisible, comprehensive and sustainable security.

They consider it important to consistently implement the agreements on improved mechanisms to counter challenges and threats to the security of SCO member states and, in the context of addressing this task, advocate expanded functionality of the SCO Regional Anti-Terrorist Structure.

The sides will contribute to imparting a new quality and dynamics to the economic interaction between the SCO member States in the fields of trade, manufacturing, transport, energy, finance, investment, agriculture, customs, telecommunications, innovation and other areas of mutual interest, including through the use of advanced, resource-saving, energy efficient and ”green“ technologies.

The sides note the fruitful interaction within the SCO under the 2009 Agreement between the Governments of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization member States on cooperation in the field of international information security, as well as within the specialized Group of Experts. In this context, they welcome the adoption of the SCO Joint Action Plan on Ensuring International Information Security for 2022–2023 by the Council of Heads of State of SCO Member States on September 17, 2021 in Dushanbe.

Russia and China proceed from the ever-increasing importance of cultural and humanitarian cooperation for the progressive development of the SCO. In order to strengthen mutual understanding between the people of the SCO member States, they will continue to effectively foster interaction in such areas as cultural ties, education, science and technology, healthcare, environmental protection, tourism, people-to-people contacts, sports.

Russia and China will continue to work to strengthen the role of APEC as the leading platform for multilateral dialogue on economic issues in the Asia-Pacific region. The sides intend to step up coordinated action to successfully implement the ”Putrajaya guidelines for the development of APEC until 2040“ with a focus on creating a free, open, fair, non-discriminatory, transparent and predictable trade and investment environment in the region. Particular emphasis will be placed on the fight against the novel coronavirus infection pandemic and economic recovery, digitalization of a wide range of different spheres of life, economic growth in remote territories and the establishment of interaction between APEC and other regional multilateral associations with a similar agenda.

The sides intend to develop cooperation within the ”Russia-India-China“ format, as well as to strengthen interaction on such venues as the East Asia Summit, ASEAN Regional Forum on Security, Meeting of Defense Ministers of the ASEAN Member States and Dialogue Partners. Russia and China support ASEAN's central role in developing cooperation in East Asia, continue to increase coordination on deepened cooperation with ASEAN, and jointly promote cooperation in the areas of public health, sustainable development, combating terrorism and countering transnational crime. The sides intend to continue to work in the interest of a strengthened role of ASEAN as a key element of the regional architecture.

Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/supplement/5770

Wolfgang Effenberger

In the current crisis, Hungary's head of government Viktor Orban was able to exchange views with Russian leader Vladimir Putin in a nearly five-hour meeting on February 1, 2022. Putin reiterated his calls for security guarantees for Russia and warned of a threat of war in Europe in case Ukraine becomes a member of NATO. In his view, Ukraine wants to take back the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea at all costs and by force if necessary.
Putin's fears are not unfounded. After all, on March 11, 2021, the Ukrainian REGULATION OF THE PRESIDENT OF UKRAINE N2117 / 2021 "On De-occupation and Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol" entered into force.(1) The population in Crimea voted in a clear vote on March 16, 2014, for annexation to the Russian Federation. Should these majority pro-Russian Crimean residents be added to the anti-Russia forces in Kiev against their will? That would then mean another civil war. So they don't seem to care much of the people in Ukraine, in Russia or around the world. There are exclusively tangible economic and geopolitical interests on the Western side - as formulated by the British geographer Halford Mackinder in 1904 in his Heartland Theory. The "heartland" is located in the center of Eurasia and in the Russian sphere of influence (from the Volga to the Yangtze River - from the Himalayas to the Arctic).(2) According to Mackinder's materialistic view of mankind, people compete with each other for territory and resources within the framework of their needs for security and prosperity.
In early 1909, Lord Kitchener - the "Hero of Khartoum"(3) - had spoken to the Bavarian Captain in the General Staff, Karl Haushofer, quite unabashedly of the inevitability of a great war, "which would probably have to cost England as well as Germany their mastery of the Pacific ...and would be fought for the Americans and the Japanese."(4)
Indeed, the world was then drifting inexorably toward an inferno.
On May 29, 1914, the American presidential advisor Colonel House wrote to Wilson from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin during his visit to Europe: "[...] This will come to a catastrophe some day, [...] there is too much hatred, too much jealousy. As soon as England agrees, France and Russia will take Germany and Austria in their heels."(5) He was right.
Less than a month later, a few days before the outbreak of war, Cardinal John Murphy Farley, Archbishop of New York, warned at the World Eucharistic Congress at Lourdes (July 22-26, 1914), "The war that is in preparation will be a struggle between international capital and the ruling dynasties. Capital desires to have no one over it, knows no God or Lord, and wishes to have all states governed as a great banking business. Its profit shall become the sole guide of the rulers. [...] Business [...] sole and only."(6)

And on July 31, 1914, just hours before the war began and shortly before he was assassinated, French historian and socialist Jean Jaurès warned, "[...] Here in France we are working with all violent means for a war that must be fought to satisfy disgusting desires and because the Paris and London stock exchanges have speculated in Petersburg [...]; one seeks the war that one has been fomenting for a long time."(7) Should the war break out, it will spread like a plague and lead to the most terrible genocide since the Thirty Years' War."(8)
While Orban was putting out his peace feelers in Moscow, in Kiev British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki were demonstratively backing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Selenskyj. And while the U.S. has already put 8,500 troops on NATO's eastern flank on heightened alert and the U.K. has already moved ahead with its arms delivery to Ukraine, Poland now also wants to deliver weapons to Ukraine, including tens of thousands of grenades and artillery ammunition, air defense systems and reconnaissance drones....
To Johnson, Selenskyj made a full-throated promise: "The Ukrainians will defend themselves to the last." He said the Russians must understand that war would end in tragedy. "Therefore, I openly say that will not be a war between Ukraine and Russia. It's going to be a full-scale war in Europe."(9) Unhesitatingly, the German Greens cleared the way for combat drones and new nuclear bombers at their federal delegate conference the last weekend in January.(10) On Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2022, Johnson planned to talk to Putin by phone to keep diplomatic efforts to ease tensions from dying off altogether. But into this intention burst the reports of "Wall Street Journal" and "Washington Post" that 2000 soldiers from the USA will be transferred to Germany and Poland. 1000 US soldiers already stationed in Germany are to be transferred to Romania(11) - détente really looks different. The well-known US journalist and former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (PCR) sees an explanation for the destructive US policy in the muddle between the CV19 policy and the policy towards Russia: The data suggest that "America is very unstable."(12)
Again, this allows a comparison to 1914: between 1903 and 1914, Britain led Europe in strikes, lockouts, and lost workdays. Add to that banking and stock market crises and civil war-like tensions with Ireland. Before World War I, Britain had reached a state of internal discord and disorder comparable to Russia.(13)
Hungary's head of government, Orban, was the first representative of a NATO and EU state to meet Putin in Moscow; he referred to the peacemaking purpose of his trip and expressed the hope that a solution is possible: the positions were far apart, but the problems could be overcome. Let us hope that Orban is not alone in his initiative.

Comments

1)https://lostineu.eu/ukraine-waechst-die-kriegsgefahr/
2)Mackinder, Halford: The geographical pivot of history. The Geographical Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4, 1904, S. 421–437  – dt. Übersetzung: Der geographische Drehpunkt der Geschichte. In: Lettre International, Ausgabe 120, 2018, S. 124–129.
3)Kitchener befehligte die britischen Truppen bei der Niederschlagung des Mahdi-Aufstandes in Sudan und im Burenkrieg
4)Karl Haushofer: Erdkunde, Geopolitik und Wehrwissenschaft, München 1934, S. 8
5)The intimate papers of Colonel House, Cambrigde 1925, S. 249
6) Michael von Taube: Der großen Katastrophe entgegen, Leipzig 1937, S.379
7)Hans F. Helmholdt: Ein Vierteljahrhundert der Weltgeschichte 1894-1919, Paderborn 2011, S. 90
8)https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/vor-100-jahren-warum-haben-sie-jaures-getoetet-100.html
9)https://www.t-online.de/nachrichten/ausland/krisen/id_91589126/ukraine-konflikt-wladimir-putin-warnt-vor-krieg-in-europa.html
10) https://www.friedenskooperative.de/aktuelles/gruene-machen-weg-frei-fuer-kampfdrohnen-und-neue-atombomber
11) https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/russland-ukraine-konflikt-spd-experte-roth-russland-muesste-hohen-preis-fuer-invasion-in-ukraine-zahlen_id_39783740.html
12)https://usawatchdog.com/america-is-very-unstable-dr-paul-craig-roberts/
13) Christian Wipperfürth: Von der Souveränität zur Angst: Britische Außenpolitik und Sozialökonomie im Zeitalter des Imperialismus, Wiesbaden 2004, S. 270

Er war für die Bombardierung Serbiens, den NATO-Krieg gegen Libyen und auch für eine Intervention in Syrien – nun zündelt er wieder: Der französische Autor Bernard-Henri Lévy sprach sich auf "Fox News" für eine Intervention der USA im Ukrainekonflikt aus.

Der französische Publizist Bernard-Henri Lévy während einer Konferenz über Afghanistan an der Schweizer Universität UMEF in Genf am 7. September 2021.

Der französische Autor und Publizist Bernard-Henri Lévy sprach sich am 27. Januar in einem Interview mit dem US-amerikanischen Sender Fox News für eine militärische Intervention der USA im Ukrainekonflikt aus. Laut Lévy habe der Westen, insbesondere die USA, "keine Wahl" und müsste auf das reagieren, was er für eine "Kriegserklärung Wladimir Putins in der Ukraine" hält.

"Sie werden kämpfen": Mit diesen Worten umschrieb Lévy die aktuellen Spannungen in der Ukraine. Er ergänzte:

"Wenn Putin beschließt, einzumarschieren, wird es ein wirklich blutiger und schmutziger Krieg werden."

Und weiter:

"Die Ukrainer sind heute in der Lage zu kämpfen, sie sind in der Lage, sich zu verteidigen. Ich habe ihre Schützengräben gesehen, ich habe ihre Waffen gesehen. Sie haben nicht die Mittel, um zu siegen, aber sie haben die Mittel, um sich selbst zu verteidigen."

Auf die Frage, ob die jüngsten bewaffneten Konflikte, insbesondere Afghanistan für die USA, die Öffentlichkeit ermüdet hätten, sagte Lévy:

"Wir haben keine Wahl, wir leben nicht in einer Welt der Engel."

Lévy zufolge könne es gar Auswirkungen auf die Situation in Taiwan haben, wenn die USA ihre Präsenz in der Ukraine nicht bekräftigen würden. Mehr noch, der Publizist glaubt, dass eine passive Haltung der Amerikaner die Weltordnung auf den Kopf stellen könnte:

"Wir werden in einer anderen Welt leben, die von den Chinesen beherrscht wird, die von den Russen beherrscht wird. [...] Wenn wir Frieden wollen, müssen wir den Kalten Krieg akzeptieren."

Bernard-Henri Lévy, der in den 1970er Jahren zu den Initiatoren der Bewegung der "Neuen Philosophen" gehörte, ruft nicht zum ersten Mal zu einem bewaffneten Konflikt auf. Bereits 1999 unterstützte er die NATO-Bombenkampagne in Jugoslawien, die sich gegen serbische Ziele richtete. Im Jahr 2011 forderte er Frankreich auf, Libyen den Krieg zu erklären, eine Intervention, die er aufgrund angeblicher Bombardierungen der Zivilbevölkerung durch die libysche Luftwaffe als "humanitär" bezeichnet.

Ließ sich Lévy kaufen?

Die Konflikte hatten mehrere zehntausend Todesopfer gefordert, auch unter der Zivilbevölkerung. Zehn Jahre später veröffentlichte das von dem investigativen Journalisten Denis Robert gegründete Medienunternehmen Blast ein Dokument, das eine "Zahlungsanweisung" in Höhe von 9,1 Millionen Euro an den Publizisten dokumentieren soll und im Oktober 2011 von Yousef Hussain Kamal Al-Emadi, dem damaligen Wirtschafts- und Finanzminister des Emirats und Präsidenten der Qatar National Bank (QNB), an den Leiter des Finanzministeriums von Katar gerichtet worden sein soll.

Lévy prangerte indes eine "grobe Fälschung" an und verklagte Robert wegen Verleumdung. Am Mittwoch, dem 22. September, wies die 17. Kammer des Pariser Strafgerichts die Klage des Publizisten ab. Der Fall geht heute in die Berufung. Zu Lévys weiteren "Verdiensten" zählen seine Ansprachen an die Menge auf dem Maidan-Platz in Kiew am 2. März 2014, in denen er den Staatsstreich unterstützte, der wenige Tage zuvor den ehemaligen Präsidenten Wiktor Janukowitsch gestürzt hatte.

Oder sein Treffen mit der weißrussischen Oppositionspolitikerin Swetlana Tichanowskaja im August 2020, auf dem Höhepunkt der Protestbewegung nach der Wiederwahl von Alexander Lukaschenko zum Präsidenten. Seine Stellungnahmen und seine gern kriegerischen Neigungen haben ihm jedoch nicht nur Freunde eingebracht. Insbesondere die Zeitung Le Monde diplomatique widmete ihm ein umfangreiches Dossier, das nun frei zugänglich ist, um seine "Hochstapelei" anzuprangern.

Source: de.rt.com

Dr. Mirjana Andjelković Lukić. Ingenieurin für Technologie

Das Mineral Jadarit ist ein neu entdecktes Mineral, ein Silikat aus Natrium, Bor und Li- thium mit der Formel LiNaSiB3O7 (OH). Das Mineral Jadarit ist ein neu entdecktes Mineral und einige Geologen glauben, dass es nicht so „epochal“ lithiumreich ist. Es enthält 0,5  bis 2 Prozent pro Tonne Erz.
Das Erz befindet sich in einer Tiefe von etwa 400 Metern und über der Fundstelle, 25 Meter unter dem Boden, befindet sich Salzwasser aus dem Miozän, offenbar der Rest des Pannonischen Meeres. Die Salzkonzentration liegt bei 30 %, wie bei Meerwasser. Es han- delt sich um verschiedene Salze, nicht nur um Natriumchlorid. Aufgrund des Salzwasser- abbaus wird es zu einer Bodenabsenkung kommen, von der nicht bekannt ist, wie stark sie sein wird, was im Falle einer Überschwemmung große Folgen haben kann.Da Jadar ein Hochwasser führender Fluss ist und es zu mehr starkem Abfluss aus diesem Gebiet kommen kann, kann das Wasser in den Senken zurückgehalten werden.

Das Salzwasser aus der Grube wird in einer Menge von 942.000 m3/Jahr. oder 2.812 m3/ Tag verwendet werden. Das Wasser aus den unterirdischen Salzquellen wird in ausgeho- benen Tanks gespeichert, die mit einer undurchlässigen PVC-Folie ausgekleidet sind, und ein Tank wird bis zu 400.000 Kubikmeter Wasser enthalten!

Rio Tinto ist sehr an der Erzgewinnung interessiert und hat keinerlei Interesse an den Menschen, die in diesen Regionen leben. Das Unternehmen ist für seine arrogante Hal- tung gegenüber der Natur bekannt und zerstört alles, was sich dort befindet, nur um Profit zu machen. Zu ihrem Pech kam Rio Tinto auf die kleine Pazifikinsel Bougainville. Als Rio Tinto die Gold- und Kupfermine nach 45 Jahren Ausbeutung verließ, ließen sie den Horror zurück! Zerstörte, mit Rückständen bedeckte Erde, von der aus verschiedene Gifte

Mineral Jadarit ist ein neu entdecktes Mineral.
Silikat aus Natrium, Bor und Lithium mit der Formel LiNaSiB3O7 (OH).
Bild: Jadarite-CSL187271-01_Loranth Minerals

den Fluss und das Wasser verschmutzen. Papua, Neuguinea, hat Rio Tinto wegen Um- weltverschmutzung verklagt und verlangt, dass das Land auf der Insel von verschiedenen chemischen Giften befreit und repariert wird.

Glaubt irgendjemand in Serbien, wenn er gute Absichten hat und sich um Serbien sorgt, wirklich, dass Rio Tinto sich in unserem Land anders verhalten wird? Das einzige, was für das Unternehmen zählt, ist der Profit und sie sind blind und taub für die lebenswichtigen Bedürfnisse der Bevölkerung.
Sie handeln kompromisslos und wild, korrumpieren, wenn es sein muss, und schaffen es, ihre Pläne umzusetzen.

Serbien wird ein unglückliches Land sein, wenn dieses seelenlose und heimatlose Unter- nehmen in das fruchtbare Land von Macva und Radjevina eindringt, 20 Dörfer vertreibt, die Menschen aus ihren jahrhundertealten Heimen vertreibt, Obstgärten und Weinberge abholzt, Bienenstöcke zerstört und fast ein Drittel von Westserbien verschmutzt .
Neben den chinesischen Großverschmutzern in Smederevo und Bor wird dieser Großver- schmutzer ganz Zentralserbien von Ost nach West ökologisch verschmutzen. Rio Tinto wird die serbische Natur skrupellos behandeln, ebenso wie das chinesische Unternehmen ZiĐin, das Kupfersulfatabwässer aus dem Bergwerk Čukaru Peka einleitet und direkt den Fluss Brestovacka verschmutzt, der durch das Zentrum des Dorfes Metovnica bei Bor fließt und weiter in Crna mündet. Die Brunnen und die Fauna des Flusses wurden zerstört.

Lassen wir uns nicht davon täuschen, dass Rio Tinto sich anders verhalten wird. Am Anfang, so die Zeitungen, sind diese Unternehmen immer sanftmütig, sie „werden sich immer um die Umwelt kümmern“, und wenn sie sich fest installiert haben, sieht man, wie rücksichtslos sie sind. Wie Rio Tinto denkt, dass es sich um die Umwelt kümmern wird, wenn es einen enormen Wasserverbrauch voraussieht, nutzt die Straßen für seine
schweren Lastwagen, die die Rückstände zu den riesigen Rückständen verteilen werden. Obstgärten, Wiesen und Wälder werden verschwinden, der Fluss Jadar wird von ihren Abwässern voller Salze aus Produktionsabfällen verschmutzt werden, er wird die Drina verschmutzen, dann die Sava und er wird Belgrad erreichen.

Die Verarbeitung des Erzes zu Natriumsulfat, Borsäure und Lithiumcarbonat ist kompliziert, aber Rio Tinto möchte nicht, dass der Prozess vollständig offengelegt wird.

Als Rohstoffe für die Erzverarbeitung werden unter anderem konzentrierte rauchige Schwefelsäure mit einer Konzentration von 94% bis 98%, ebenfalls konzentrierte Salzsäure und ein starkes Alkali, Natriumhydroxid, verwendet.
Salzwasser aus den Bergwerken wird ebenfalls verwendet, 942.000 t/Jahr, d. h. 2.800 t/Tag, Süßwasser aus den Brunnen am Ufer der Drina verarbeiten, 6.000 m3 pro Tag oder pro Jahr: 2.160.000 m3 Wasser!
Branntkalk 158 t pro Tag bzw. 53 000 t pro Jahr, um die bei der Produktion anfallen- de Säurelösung zu neutralisieren.

Täglich werden 20 bis 30 Kesselwagen mit einem Volumen von 50 Tonnen Schwefelsäu- re transportiert. Jeden Tag, 300 Tage im Jahr, wird ein Zug mit 20 Eisenbahntanks mit 50 Tonnen konzentrierter Säure durch Serbien fahren. (Von Bor oder Pirdop aus Bulgarien) und wird Serbien von Ost nach West durchschneiden, mit dem großen Risiko, dass er umkippt oder vom Waggon mit Säure von den Schienen springt! Die Wahrscheinlichkeit eines Unfalls beim Transport oder bei der Freisetzung von Schwefelsäure ist hoch, was ein langfristiges Risiko für Serbien darstellt.
Es besteht eine hohe Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass die Waggons von den Schienen springen und die rauchende Säure in die Umwelt gelangt. Dies würde zu unvorhersehbaren Folgen für die Umwelt führen, da Schwefelsäure stark ätzend ist und alles angreift.

Der Transport der Rückstände in einer Entfernung von 14 Kilometern zur Deponie Stavin- ci erfolgt ebenfalls mit schweren Lastwagen, etwa 30 Lastwagen pro Tag über Loznica- Valjevo, das sehr bald ruiniert sein wird. Die Industriemülldeponie hat die Form von vier Pyramiden, die 2 Kilometer lang und einen halben Kilometer breit sind und eine Höhe von 40 Metern haben. Das Gefälle beträgt 15%. Dies kann bei starken Regenfällen Erdrutsche geben. Das Volumen einer Pyramide beträgt 18,78 Millionen m3, für 12 Jahre Betrieb der Mine. Während der Produktion fallen riesige Mengen an Rückständen an, die sich auf ins- gesamt 2.687.500 Tonnen / Jahr oder 7.646 t / Tag belaufen.

Im Prozess der Erzaufbereitung wird Schwefelsäure in einer täglichen Menge von 851 t konzentrierter Schwefelsäure pro Tag verwendet! Der jährliche Verbrauch an konzentrier- ter Rauchsäure (94-98 %) beträgt 299.700 Tonnen. Aus dem Schwefelsäureprozess wird Schwefelwasserstoff (H2S) freigesetzt, ein giftiges und äußerst unangenehm riechendes Gas, dessen Abbau nicht vorgesehen ist ;

Es wird erwartet, dass die Mine mit Betriebsgebäuden auf 1.235 Hektar des frucht- barsten Bodens von Radjevina und Macva liegen wird.

Rio Tinto soll etwa 700 bis 1.000 Arbeiter beschäftigen, die für extrem gefährliche Arbei- ten in der Mine in großer Tiefe und bei der Erzaufbereitung mit konzentrierter und ätzen- der Säure eingestellt und erbärmlich bezahlt werden, was nichts ist im Vergleich zu der Anzahl der Einwohner, die vertrieben werden sollen.

Die von dieser Gesellschaft gesponserten Fakultäten und ihre Professoren haben sich  auch in die Arbeit gestürzt, Rio Tinto nach Macva zu bringen, um einen günstigen Bericht über die zukünftige Produktion zu erstellen, aber sie haben Serbien großes Elend bereitet. Es sind unmoralische Menschen, die zwar wissen, was die Eröffnung der Mine für Serbien aus Einkommensgründen bedeuten wird, aber ihre Prinzipien mit Füßen getreten und die Ankunft des berüchtigtsten Erzverarbeitungsunternehmens Serbiens ermöglicht.
Das Ausmaß des Schadens, den die Mine anrichten würde, ist staatlichen Beamten und Experten klar, aber es könnte sich auch um Korruption handeln, denn Rio Tinto spon- sert nach den vorliegenden Informationen die Fakultät für Bergbau und Geologie mit 100 Millionen Dinar, die Fakultät für Maschinenbau erhielt 10 Millionen Dinar, die Fakultät für Bauingenieurwesen und das Institut für öffentliche Gesundheit jeweils 12 Millionen Dinar. Einer der Professoren der Fakultät für Maschinenbau, der Vorsitzender des Interdeparte- mentalen Koordinierungsgremiums für die Untersuchung der serbischen Umweltver- schmutzung durch Bombenangriffe war, ein erklärter „Umweltschützer“, begann Do- kumente zu verfassen, um den weltgrößten Umweltverschmutzer Rio Tinto ins Boot zu holen. Und das in mein Land, nach Serbien!
Das Ministerium für Umweltschutz wurde vom Jadar-Projekt ausgeschlossen, da dieses Ministerium gegen den Bau dieses Bergbaukomplexes sein würde, der anscheinend einen sehr schlechten Einfluss auf die Ökologie von Macva und Radjevina haben wird, das fruchtbarste Land in Westserbien ruiniert und das Wasser sowohl ober- als auch unter- irdisch verschmutzt. Das Ministerium für Bergbau und Energie und das Ministerium für Bauwesen, Verkehr und Infrastruktur sind in das Projekt einbezogen.

Der Vorsitzende des Vereins „Schützen wir Jadar und Radjevina“, Momcilo Alimpić, er- klärte, dass Rio Tinto „eine Mülldeponie biblischen Ausmaßes in der Nähe von Gornji Brezovici bei Krupanj bauen will und dass das Bergbaubecken bei Loznica 36 bis 40 Quadratkilometer umfassen würde.“ Alle Städte in der Nähe der Mine würden ökologisch verseucht, weder Loznica noch Krupanj würden verschont bleiben, und auch Sabac wäre stark gefährdet. Die Deponie bei Krupanj soll 450 Meter über dem Meeresspiegel liegen, so dass der Wind den Abfall bis nach Valjevo verteilen wird.

Die Personen, die darüber entscheiden, ob Rio Tinto nach Serbien kommt, mögen Ser- bien nicht und arbeiten gegen seine Interessen und die Interessen seiner Bürger. Einige Mitglieder der serbischen Regierung haben jeweils zwei Pässe, sie fühlen Serbien nicht als ihr Land und sie können Serbien verlassen, wenn sie mit der Verwüstung fertig sind, wie es ihre Vorgänger (Djelic und Co.!) getan haben, um Serbien von einer Müllhalde und verwüsteten Welt in ein Land zu verwandeln, in dem das Leben wirklich unmöglich wer- den wird.

Die Bürger Serbiens, insbesondere die Bewohner der Region Loznica, sind entschlossen, ihre jahrhundertealten heimatlichen Feuerstellen mit ihrem Leben zu verteidigen und nicht zuzulassen, dass ein ausbeuterisches, skrupelloses und ökologisch absolut unverantwort- liches Unternehmen auf ihre fruchtbaren Felder kommt. Die Prüfung der Durchführbarkeit des zukünftigen Jadar-Projekts kam zu dem Schluss, dass das Projekt aus technischer und ökologischer Sicht nicht durchführbar ist und weder für die Bewohner von Radje- vina noch für die Republik Serbien ökologisch vertretbar ist. Rio Tintos prognostizierte Gesamteinnahmen aus dem Jadar-Projekt belaufen sich auf etwa 551 Millionen Euro pro Jahr. Die Höhe der Entschädigung Serbiens für die Nutzung der mineralischen Ressour

cen würde etwa 7,6 Millionen Euro pro Jahr betragen, wenn das Unternehmen ein tat- sächliches Nettoeinkommen ausweisen würde (und die Annahme ist, dass dies nicht der Fall sein wird!) Und wenn der Staat es einnehmen würde. In den ersten zehn Arbeitsjahren wird das Unternehmen rund 4 Milliarden Euro aus Serbien herausholen, es ist also klar, welches Interesse an der Umsetzung des Jadar-Projekts besteht.
Sie können das Projekt verlassen, wann immer sie wollen, ohne die Verpflichtung, die ver- wüsteten Gebiete zu sanieren.

Nach den Erfahrungen der Länder, in denen Rio Tinto tätig war, haben sie die ver- wüsteten Gebiete nie rehabilitiert

Die mögliche Realisierung des Jadar-Projekts wird RS nur sehr geringe sozioökonomische Vorteile bringen und großen sozioökonomischen Schaden anrichten, nicht nur aufgrund der versteckten Produktionsparameter für die Produktion, sondern auch aufgrund der Tat- sache, dass die sozioökonomische Analyse des Projekts die schädlichen Auswirkungen   der Investition nicht berücksichtigt hat, der Gesundheit der Bevölkerung, der Arbeitsfä- higkeit und der Umwelt, da Agrarland in Bauland umgewandelt wird, wie es die weltweite Praxis der Rio Tinto Corporation ist, rücksichtslos mit der Umwelt und den Arbeitskräften umzugehen. Das verwüstete Land mit Millionen Tonnen von Rückständen, Abfällen wird  für die nächsten Jahrhunderte bleiben, selbst wenn Rio Tinto die Mine verlässt.
WIR DENKEN DARÜBER NACH!

In diesen Tagen hat unsere Regierung alle Genehmigungen widerrufen, die Rio Tinto er- teilt wurden.
Das bedeutet, dass Rio Tinto Serbien verlässt.
Umweltschützer glauben nicht an die Entscheidung der Regierung.
Sie befürchten, dass ein anderes Unternehmen nach Rio Tinto kommen wird, um die Na- tur ebenfalls zu zerstören.
Daher fordern sie ein Moratorium für den Abbau von Lithium, und zwar in ganz Serbien.

24.01.2022
Belgrad

Wolfgang Effenberger

In early November 2021, in Minsk, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu told senior military officials of allied Russia and Belarus: "On the western borders of our union of states, the U.S. and other NATO members are actively building up their offensive potential." He said the U.S. is not relenting in imposing its will on other countries politically, economically and militarily: "These actions undermine strategic stability in the region and force Russia to take countermeasures to defend itself, including on its western flank."(1) This is Moscow's motive for stationing nearly 100,000 troops on Russia's western border.

Missing from this NATO map are references to U.S. war materiel landed in Ukraine up to now and U.S. military advisors operating in Ukraine.

Ignoring this threatening development for Russia, the Western war concert sounds louder and faster every day.
When the head of the German Navy, Vice Admiral Kay-Achim Schönbach, expressed sympathy for Putin in India, he was immediately forced to resign. Although this was welcomed by the Ukrainian ambassador in Berlin, Andrij Melnyk, he did not consider it sufficient. He said that the Navy chief's remarks spoke of "German arrogance and megalomania, with which one of the highest-ranking heads of the Bundeswehr dreams of a holy alliance with war criminal Putin and a German-Russian modern crusade against China."(2) The fact that the Ukrainian ambassador to Germany is allowed to call Putin a war criminal without contradiction is more than strange. Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock should have intervened immediately. The ambassador even went further and demanded from Germany "urgently 100,000 helmets and protective vests for the volunteers who are just signing up for the Landwehr to defend their homeland together with the armed forces."(3)Thereupon, EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen announced a new "emergency aid package" of 1.2 billion euros for Ukraine. Since the regime change in 2014, the EU has already transferred 17 billion euros in cash gifts and loans to Ukraine.(4)

Is Putin responsible for the escalation?

To answer this question in a sustainable way, a look at Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev's speech, which he gave on the occasion of the Franz Josef Strauss Award ceremony in Munich on December 10, 2011, may help:
"...We are already caught up again in an arms race. In fact, we are talking about a new arms race. In this we are dealing not only with the militarization of the economy, but also with that of consciousness. We are sick, we all need to be treated and cured. ... Relying on a military solution to problems is a mistake. I have the impression that we have certainly not yet worked our way out of the old crisis, and there are already signs of a new crisis on the horizon. ... It is good that there is no longer a Berlin Wall. But unfortunately, new lines of division are emerging again.... Initially, I thought that our politicians in Russia were to harsh on European missile defense and its planned deployment in Europe. Now I keep asking myself today about the sense of the whole project. Because it seems that the missile defense system of the USA was thought as a defense shield against Russia. Any other interpretation seems to be nothing but gibberish and smoke screen to cover the truth. After all, the Russian government has stated, "We are also deploying appropriate defense and defensive assets, and we are ready to use weapons that will ensure our security." So what does that mean, bottom line? It means that the possibility of a new war cannot be ruled out. If Russia and the U.S. are hostile to each other, the whole thing will inevitably grow beyond the scope of a local conflict."
Evocatively, Gorbachev reminded politicians throughout Europe, including in Central and Eastern Europe, of their duty "not to allow a new confrontation under any circumstances."
Just two years after Gorbachev's admonishing words, the U.S. faked the bloody regime change in Ukraine and installed a pro-American government whose President Zelensky, on February 26, 2021, issued a decree to "de-occupy" Ukraine, thus giving another jolt to the escalation screw.(5)

Following the collapse of security talks last week, not only are fears of a Russian invasion of Ukraine being stoked and the withdrawal of embassy staff from Kiev announced, but Russia is additionally accused of seeking to install a pro-Russian leader in Ukraine. This was reiterated by U.S. Secretary of State Blinken. He also referred to the warning from London that Russia is allegedly exerting massive political influence in Ukraine and wants to establish a pro-Russian leadership in Kiev. "Such actions, he said, are part of a Russian "toolbox."(6)
This, of course, is exactly what Washington did in 2014. Washington overthrew the elected government as part of the staged Maidan coup and installed a Washington puppet that established a hostile government on Russia's border. (7)At this point, it is worth recalling the various punitive U.S. expeditions against Mexico. The U.S. itself would certainly not tolerate hostile governments in its North and South.

Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Treaty Organization in 1991, the U.S. has permanently used wars and regime changes in violation of international law to realize its fantasies of world domination. As a result, chaos, suffering and destruction spread, millions of people were uprooted and forced to flee. Furthermore, the USA maintains about 800 military bases in 80 countries. These include the U.S. base in Ramstein - the linchpin for all warlike activities in North Africa and the Near and Middle East - Camp Bondsteel in Kosovo, the U.S. bases in South Korea and Japan, in Cuba, the Philippines and in the Pacific (Guam), as well as a large number in South America. They serve primarily regional hegemony and control including resource security.
Compared to those of the United States, Russia's foreign military bases seem dwarfed: six in the countries of the former Soviet Union, two in Syria, and one in Vietnam. And China so far has only one base in Djibouti.(8)

Former UN expert on promoting a democratic and just international order, Alfred de Zaya, shook up the public in his article "From Vietnam to Afghanistan: the U.S. leaves deserts behind and calls it peace" and took a sharp swipe at U.S. strategists. For him, the U.S. should never have invaded Afghanistan - as well as Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Grenada, Nicaragua, Libya or Syria. In his opinion, "the U.S. has thoroughly destabilized Afghanistan, and it is not impossible that the conflict will now degenerate into civil war - a continuing tragedy for the long-suffering Afghan people"(9). The U.S. has never really been interested in "nation building", but only in geopolitics. They want to control the region and only want client governments, not independent nations. For de Zaya, the U.S. needs permanent war "to feed the insatiable military machine that requires trillion-dollar budgets. It would be better to spend our tax dollars on conflict prevention, health care, education, etc."(10) De Zaya wants the International Criminal Court to conduct an honest investigation of U.S. and NATO crimes.
For U.S. President Joe Biden, a Russian invasion of Ukraine would be "the largest invasion since World War II."(11) Well, in the US-led war against Iraq in 2003, about 300,000 soldiers of the "coalition of the willing" were deployed.
When asked, Biden added that it remains unclear whether Putin is actually planning an attack. "I'll be completely honest with you: it's a little bit like reading coffee grounds."(12)
Well, you don't have to read coffee grounds to see the intent of U.S. strategists. In order to effectively strangle Russia economically - as so often successfully practiced (Tonkin incident in Vietnam, alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq...) - a reason must be constructed. There again, the U.S. need only look at one of its many scripts. The population of the two separatist People's Republics in Donetsk and Luhansk has had to endure artillery raids by Ukrainian government forces for 8 years now. And the West looks on, refusing international recognition of their independence. After Kosovo's unilateral declaration of independence in 2008 - the Serbian province had been separated against Serbia's protests after NATO's war of aggression in violation of international law - Kosovo immediately received recognition from the U.S., France and Germany. To date, EU member states Bulgaria, Romania, Cyprus, Greece, Slovakia, and Spain do not recognize an independent Kosovo, convinced that recognizing the unilateral declaration of independence would violate principles of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and the United Nations.(13)

The number of civilians killed in the civil war since 2014 is estimated at 9,000 by Darya Morozova, Human Rights Commissioner of the Donetsk People's Republic; she partly included members of the People's Militia among the civilians. The official UN estimate of the number of victims of the civil war is 13,000, including 5,000 civilians.(14)

How can the "Western community of values" allow the population in Donetsk and Luhansk to suffer like this? And why is the pro-Russian majority in Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk denied the right to self-determination?

Comments:

1) https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article159210844/Russland-will-an-der-Westgrenze-aufruesten.html
2) https://web.de/magazine/politik/ukraine-haelt-ruecktritt-deutschen-marine-chefs-unzureichend-36538206
3) https://rp-online.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-bittet-deutschland-um-100000-helme-und-schutzwesten_aid-65550963
4) https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article236443571/Ukraine-Krise-Die-Drohkulisse-ist-leider-sehr-real.html
5) https://de.topwar.ru/180355-zelenskij-podpisal-ukaz-o-deokkupacii-kryma-i-prizval-krymchan-vozvraschatsja-domoj.html
6) https://web.de/magazine/politik/ukraine-krise/ukraine-krise-usa-reduzieren-botschaftspraesenz-kiew-eu-aussenminister-beraten-36539672
7) https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2022/01/24/wild-accusations-against-russia-are-proof-security-talks-failed/
8) https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=79984
9) Zitiert aus Zeit-Fragen vom 24. August 2021 Nr. 19/20, Seite 1
10) Ebd.
11) https://www.msn.com/de-at/nachrichten/ausland/biden-ukraine-angriff-wäre-größte-invasion-seit-weltkrieg/ar-AAT7mQg#:~:text=Ein%20russischer%20Einmarsch%20in%20die%20Ukraine%20könnte%20angesichts,würde%20%22die%20Welt%20verändern%22%2C%20warnte%20Biden%20am%20Dienstag.
12) https://observatorial.com/news/world/40182/biden-threatens-sanctions-aimed-directly-at-putin/
13) https://de.wikinews.org/wiki/Sechs_EU-Staaten_erkennen_unabhängiges_Kosovo_nicht_an#:~:text=Priština%20%28Kosovo%29%20%2F%20Serbien%2C%2022.02.2008%20–%20Die%20sechs,Europa%20%28OSZE%29%20und%20der%20Vereinten%20Nationen%20verstoßen%20wird.
14) https://de.rt.com/europa/129217-krieg-im-donbass-donezker-und-lugansker-volksrepubliken-melden-fast-hundert-tote-jahr-2021/

By David Swanson

The word “Munich” — for me it calls up images of surfing in a giant park with nude sunbathers and nearby beer halls. But in U.S. news media it means the unconscionable failure to launch a war more quickly.

According to the new Munich movie on Netflix — the latest in the relentless avalanche of WWII propaganda — the decision made at Munich not to launch WWII just yet was not the horrendous moral failure we’ve all come to know and love, but actually a shrewd part of the battleplan aimed at allowing time for Britain to build up its military, thereby winning the utterly inevitable war.

Oh boy. Where to start? Britain and the United States played minor roles in WWII, which was principally won by the Soviet Union. The war was not decided by the state of the British military. WWII was not a moral good, but the worst thing ever done in any short space of time. If we want to travel back in time and prevent the war, we’ll do better to go back and prevent part one, otherwise known as the Great War. We’ll also do well to stop U.S. and British companies funding and arming the Nazis, to undo decades of U.S. and British prioritization of keeping leftists down in Germany, and to persuade England and France to accept the Soviet proposal to join in opposition to German war rather than seeking a militarized Germany and hoping to direct its assaults toward Russia.

Whether the famous original sin of “appeasement” created the war or actually won it, it’s still part of a cultural saturation effort to make war appear inevitable, even in a radically different world. Once you fantasize that war is inevitable in some new spot, like Ukraine, you’re best off preparing for it, even starting it, or at least provoking it. This is what’s called a self-fulfilling belief.

But what if the great appeasement fear is missing the mark completely? What if “Munich” is not in Ukraine. What if it’s in Washington, D.C.? When President Biden says it’s his sacred duty to go on arming Eastern Europe, how much of that is “standing up to” Russia, and how much of it is bowing down before the weapons dealers, the war mongers, the NATO bureaucrats, the bloodthirsty media, and the Pentagon? What if Munich is actually not in Europe at all?

If we insist on finding Munich in Ukraine, we had better get clear on who is playing the role of the Nazis. I know it’s forbidden to compare anyone to Nazis, unless it’s the Russians or the Syrians or the Serbians or the Iraqis or Iranians or Chinese or North Koreans or Venezuelans or doctors advocating vaccinations or rioters at the U.S. Capitol or, really, just about anyone other than, perhaps, the self-identified neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian government and military. But it’s mostly forbidden because of the Nazis’ sadistic and genocidal domestic policies, majorly inspired by the United States, and openly tolerated by the U.S., UK, and other nations that publicly refused for years to help refugees — and did so for openly antisemitic reasons. So, again, let’s be clear who’s expanding an empire and who’s afraid of losing territory.

When Germany recently refused to allow Estonia to send weapons to Ukraine, was it perhaps nationally playing the role of those who courageously stood up against Nazism? When the President of France recently urged Europe to decide its own approach toward Russia and make it a less hostile one, what can he have had in mind? When Russia sees all the weapons and troops amassing and practicing near its borders, shouldn’t the Pentagon Entertainment Office — an office that promotes the Munich/Appeasement story through film and television — want the very last thought in the minds of Russian officials to be “We must not appease”?

Source: https://davidswanson.org

Wolfgang Effenberger

After eight grueling hours of negotiations on January 10, 2022, between Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Alexeyevich Ryabkov and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, Ned Price of the U.S. State Department spoke up: Washington will not consider Russian proposals for NATO expansion and has no intention of even discussing the idea.(1)
Two days later, NATO rejected Moscow's demands for extensive security guarantees. "We will not compromise on our basic principles," NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said. For example, Stoltenberg added, Russia "has no veto power on the question of whether Ukraine can become a NATO member." And U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman tweeted after the negotiations, "Each country has the sovereign right to choose its own path."(2)
On January 14, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov summarized the results of the negotiations before his traditional major press conference:
"The situation is not improving, the potential for conflict is increasing. Our Western colleagues are making a decisive contribution to such a negative development of events. They have embarked on a course to undermine the architecture of international relations based on the UN Charter and are pursuing a line of replacing international law with their own rules."(3)

In the midst of this highly explosive mix-up, Russia is alleged to have carried out a cyber-attack on Ukraine government Internet sites. Now Ukraine shall even be given access to a NATO malware platform. Meanwhile, Lavrov is demanding a written NATO and U.S. response to Moscow's demands for binding security guarantees by next week.(4)

The West's constant attempts to brand Russia as an aggressor necessitate a flashback to the end of World War II:

- As of July 1, 1945, the war plan "Operation Unthinkable," commissioned by Winston Churchill, was intended to roll back the then-Soviet Union and restore an independent Poland.(5)
- In early September 1945, U.S. President Harry S. Truman tasked General Eisenhower with "Operation TOTALITY." Using 20 to 30 atomic bombs, 20 Soviet industrial cities were to be destroyed in one fell swoop. Such plans were constantly refined.
- In 1946, as part of Operation Sunrise, some 5,000 anti-Communist Eastern European and Russian personnel were trained for operational missions at a camp in Oberammergau under the command of General Gardener Sikes and SS General Kurt Burckhardt. These and similar initiatives supported uprisings in areas such as Ukraine, which were not fully suppressed by the Soviets until 1956.(6)
- On May 15, 1947, Truman announced his doctrine to contain further expansion of the Soviet Union.
- This was followed by the Marshall Plan on June 6, 1947. Its goal was to strengthen Western Europe against the Eastern Bloc and to open markets for the American economy, which was still overheated by the war. By accepting the aid, the countries had to cede their financial sovereignty to Washington - this was the beginning of the economic colonization of Europe, which did not cost much at all (between 1948 and 1952, only about $15 billion flowed).
- On July 26, 1947, the National Security Act was passed for military penetration of the world, one of the most important laws in U.S. postwar history. Up to now, it remains the basis of worldwide American military power. The goal was to make Europe fit for war against the Soviet Union.
- On April 4, 1949, NATO was officially founded as a defensive alliance against the Soviet Union. NATO's first Secretary General and chief planner of Unthinkable, Lord Ismay, casually stated NATO's mission: to "keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down."(7) The Alliance treaty stated that economic reconstruction and economic stability were important elements of security - hence the Marshall Plan.
On December 19, 1949, the U.S. adopted the "Dropshot" war plan to attack the Soviet Union in 1957. The "Basic Assumption" literally stated, "On or about January 1, 1957, war has been forced upon the United States by an act of aggression by the USSR and/or its satellites." As a result, 300 atomic bombs and 29,000 high explosive bombs were to be dropped on 200 targets in one hundred cities to destroy 85 percent of the Soviet Union's industrial capacity in a single strike. The timing was undoubtedly coordinated with the originally planned completion date of the remilitarization of West Germany. However, when the beeping Sputnik made its circles around the earth in 1957, war planning had to be revised, and the date for Dropshot was postponed. In Moscow, however, the plan is unforgotten.

- The National Security Decision Directive 54 (NSDD-54) of September 2, 1982, created an instrument with which the entire Soviet bloc could be subversively undermined. State after state was induced to break away from the Soviet Union with the promise of American support. In addition to destructive operations ("undermining the military capabilities of the Warsaw Pact"), economic incentives were provided, most notably the prospect of loans and cultural-scientific exchanges.(8)
- The long-term strategy papers TRADOC 525-5 of 1994 and 525-3-1 ("Win in a Complex World 2020-2040") of 2014 serve as further developments and supplements.
Russia and China were purposefully built up as threatening enemies in order to establish the U.S. as a protective military power through NATO and through various Asian defense alliances.(9) As early as 1945, U.S. philosopher James Burnham orated that the U.S. was called to "achieve world power in confrontation with the other superpowers."(10)
What will happen next? Probably further provocations and attacks blamed on Russia. In the area of possible sanctions against Russia, Washington certainly has some surprises in store. Willy Wimmer titled his January 13 article "War at the start of the Olympics on February 4, 2022?" and reminds the reader of the start of the Summer Olympics in Beijing when, just in time for the lighting of the Olympic flame on August 8, 2008, the Georgian army fired at Ossetian positions with all the firepower it had, certain to provoke an immediate reaction from the Russian army.(11)
How can such a policy that disregards international law be stopped?
The UN is apparently unable to do so. So the international community

-The League of Nations in 1919 and the UN in 1945 were born out of the thinking of war - must finally find its way to an international organisation born in the spirit of peace.(12) This organisation must be able to sanction any policy that is hostile to peace.

Notes

1)https://thesaker.is/this-is-how-the-u-s-does-dialogue/
2)https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article236199920/Stoltenberg-Erhebliche-Meinungsverschiedenheiten-mit-Russland.html
3) https://de.rt.com/russland/129933-sergei-lawrow-erortert-schlusselthemen-russischen/
4)https://web.de/magazine/politik/drohgebaerden-gegenseitiges-misstrauen-russland-geraet-cyber-attacke-verdacht-36514502
5)  Antony Beevor: Der Zweite Weltkrieg. 1. Auflage. München 2014,  S. 866 f.
6)https://irp.fas.org/world/germany/intro/gehlen.htm
7)https://internationalepolitik.de/de/nordatlantische-allianz
8)https://irp.fas.org/offdocs/nsdd/nsdd-54.pdf
9)Bereits im Herbst 1945 sah der Plan mit Namen TOTALITY (JIC 329/1) einen Atomangriff auf die Sowjetunion mit 20 bis 30 Atombomben vor. Details in Kaku/ Axelrod 1987, S. 30–31.
10) Zitiert wie www.dradio.de/dkultur/sendungen/kalenderblatt/439652/
11)https://apolut.net/krieg-zum-beginn-der-olympiade-am-4-februar-2022/
12)Wolfgang Effenberger: Reformvorschlag der G4-Staaten (Brasilien, Deutschland, Indien und Japan) in Bezug auf eine Erweiterung des Sicherheitsrats vor dem Hintergrund der geopolitischen Interessen der USA

Wolfgang Effenberger

On December 30, 2021, Presidents Biden and Putin held a telephone conversation that focused on the implementation of the agreement to begin negotiations on the draft bilateral treaty with Washington on granting legally binding security guarantees to Russia that Putin published on December 17, 2021. This treaty provides for guarantees of peace.
On December 17, 2021, Moscow had published a draft bilateral treaty with Washington, which provides for guarantees for peace, as well as a draft agreement on its implementation.(1) Russia's overall intentions are aimed at getting the United States to comply with the United Nations Charter.
In their late December talks, both leaders agreed to engage in a serious and substantive dialogue on these issues. Negotiations are scheduled to take place in Geneva on Jan. 10 and then at the Russia-NATO Council in Brussels on Jan. 12 - followed by negotiations with the OSCE on Jan. 13.

Three days after the hopeful talk between Biden and Putin, protests erupted in western Kazakhstan on January 2, 2022, after the government refused to continue to keep liquefied natural gas fuel prices low through subsidies.(2) The doubling of the price (from 60 tenge/0.12euro to 120 tenge/0.24 EUR per liter of liquefied natural gas) reportedly brought citizens into the streets. Although Kazakh President Qassym-Shomart Toqaev capped gas prices, the country did not calm down. As a result, demonstrators invaded the offices of the ruling party Nur Otan, took control of numerous public buildings in Kazakhstan, partially setting them on fire, such as the mayor's office in Almaty, stormed national television stations, destroyed military vehicles and disarmed soldiers.
On the afternoon of January 5, Reuters news agency and the independent Telegram channel Orda reported that protesters had occupied the airport of the important economic city of Almaty in the south of the country.(3)
On the evening of the same day, Kazakhstan's president asked the Russian-led "Collective Security Treaty Organization" (CSTO) for assistance against a terrorist threat. The security alliance - Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Belarus, and Tajikistan - sent army personnel to the former Soviet republic to protect the government. The very next day, 2,500 troops from the alliance arrived at the now liberated Almaty airfield. Given the volatile situation in Ukraine, this rapid response is hardly surprising. While China supported Kazakh President Qassym Shomart Toqaev and declared that color revolutions inspired by external forces were unacceptable, the West, as expected, expressed concern about the deployment of CSTO troops.
By the night hours of January 7, the city center and all administrative buildings in Almaty, except one of the hospitals were already completely under the control of state security forces.
In all, there were dozens of deaths on both sides, about 1,000 injured, and about 4,000 arrests.(4)
On suspicion of treason, the former head of Kazakhstan's domestic intelligence service, Karim Massimov, was arrested after being fired earlier in the violent protests.(5)
Wolfgang Effenberger

On December 30, 2021, Presidents Biden and Putin held a telephone conversation that focused on the implementation of the agreement to begin negotiations on the draft bilateral treaty with Washington on granting legally binding security guarantees to Russia that Putin published on December 17, 2021. This treaty provides for guarantees of peace.
On December 17, 2021, Moscow had published a draft bilateral treaty with Washington, which provides for guarantees for peace, as well as a draft agreement on its implementation.(1) Russia's overall intentions are aimed at getting the United States to comply with the United Nations Charter.
In their late December talks, both leaders agreed to engage in a serious and substantive dialogue on these issues. Negotiations are scheduled to take place in Geneva on Jan. 10 and then at the Russia-NATO Council in Brussels on Jan. 12 - followed by negotiations with the OSCE on Jan. 13.

Three days after the hopeful talk between Biden and Putin, protests erupted in western Kazakhstan on January 2, 2022, after the government refused to continue to keep liquefied natural gas fuel prices low through subsidies.(2) The doubling of the price (from 60 tenge/0.12euro to 120 tenge/0.24 EUR per liter of liquefied natural gas) reportedly brought citizens into the streets. Although Kazakh President Qassym-Shomart Toqaev capped gas prices, the country did not calm down. As a result, demonstrators invaded the offices of the ruling party Nur Otan, took control of numerous public buildings in Kazakhstan, partially setting them on fire, such as the mayor's office in Almaty, stormed national television stations, destroyed military vehicles and disarmed soldiers.
On the afternoon of January 5, Reuters news agency and the independent Telegram channel Orda reported that protesters had occupied the airport of the important economic city of Almaty in the south of the country.(3)
On the evening of the same day, Kazakhstan's president asked the Russian-led "Collective Security Treaty Organization" (CSTO) for assistance against a terrorist threat. The security alliance - Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia, Belarus, and Tajikistan - sent army personnel to the former Soviet republic to protect the government. The very next day, 2,500 troops from the alliance arrived at the now liberated Almaty airfield. Given the volatile situation in Ukraine, this rapid response is hardly surprising. While China supported Kazakh President Qassym Shomart Toqaev and declared that color revolutions inspired by external forces were unacceptable, the West, as expected, expressed concern about the deployment of CSTO troops.
By the night hours of January 7, the city center and all administrative buildings in Almaty, except one of the hospitals were already completely under the control of state security forces.
In all, there were dozens of deaths on both sides, about 1,000 injured, and about 4,000 arrests.(4)
On suspicion of treason, the former head of Kazakhstan's domestic intelligence service, Karim Massimov, was arrested after being fired earlier in the violent protests.(5)

A picture of Joe Biden being flanked by Massimov and his son Hunter can be found on the web.

On January 7, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken commented on the tense situation in Kazakhstan. In doing so, he questioned the role of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and warned Kazakhstan's leaders against assistance from Russia:
"One lesson of recent history is that once the Russians are in your house, they are sometimes very difficult to get rid of."(6)
A few hours later, the Russian Foreign Ministry called this statement by Blinken "boorish" and "poisonous," defending the CSTO mission in Kazakhstan and calling it entirely legitimate. At the same time, Russian diplomats pointed out to the U.S. Secretary of State their lessons of history:
"When U.S. people show up at your house, sometimes it's hard to stay alive without being robbed and raped." (7)
That, he said, is the lesson of the U.S.'s 300-year history. The original inhabitants of the North American continent, the Koreans, the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Panamanians, the Yugoslavs, the Libyans, the Syrians, and many other unfortunates in whose homes this uninvited guest has found himself, have had this experience.(8)
On January 9, the Kazakh Interior Ministry announced that more than 5,000 people had been arrested during the severe riots countrywide.  Among other things, they are accused of destroying more than 100 shopping malls or bank buildings, Acting Interior Minister Erlan Turgumbayev told TV station Chabar 24.(9) During the riots, some 400 vehicles were destroyed, most of them police cars, he said. President Kasym-Shomart Tokayev ordered a day of national mourning for Monday, January 10, 2022. The nationwide state of emergency is to last until January 19.
China's early assessment that the violent protests were an attempt at a "color revolution" seems to be an understatement. The targeted attack on the state and the willingness to use brute force at a very early stage suggests a managed coup attempt. As in Ukraine, nationalist groups were at work, carrying out the actions well prepared. It cannot be ruled out that they were supported by former Afghanistan fighters.
Who would have an interest in overthrowing Kazakhstan? Kazakhstan's northern border with Russia is over 7,000 kilometers long, and its southeastern border with China is just under 1,600 kilometers long. Thus, the situation in Kazakhstan is critical to both the internal and external security of Russia and China. For a war against Russia and China, on the other hand, Kazakhstan is a strategically important "aircraft carrier."
The U.S. long-term strategy document TRADOC 525-3-1, Win in a Complex World 2020-2040 (2014), identifies the threat posed by Russia and China first - a threat that must be dismantled. What the dismantling of a threat to armed forces means probably needs no further explanation.  
After the dissolution of the Warsaw Treaty Organization and the Soviet Union, the United States produced TRADOC Paper 525-5, "A Concept for the Evolution of Full-Dominance Operations for the Strategic Army of the Early Twenty-First Century," in August 1994.
(A Concept for the Evolution of Full-Dominance Operations for the Strategic Army of the Early Twenty-First Century).(10)
According to this script, the transition from the 20th to the 21st century was to occur over two decades (from 1990 to 2010) using the steps of Turmoil, Crisis, Conflict, and finally War. This procedure could be observed from Iraq to Ukraine. Instruments for the provoked overthrows are the dynamic forces (Dynamics Forces at Work) with the goal of geostrategic alignment. For this policy, the Operations Other Than War tool was created (Figure 1-2- Operating Enviroment and Missiosn of U.S. Forces):

With the alternative operations (upper circle OOTW), it can then go to the regional conflicts (left circle) and even to a major war (right circle). And all three circles have a common intersection! Operations preceding a war include:

Civil Support (Civil Support)
Disaster Relief
Peace Operations
Counterinsurgency
Arms Control
Counterterrorism
Environmental Operations
Noncombatant Evacuation.

The war entry options listed in OOTW are quite serious. Figure 2-3 (Scope of Future Operations) shows this spectrum for future operations:

These range from relief operations in Somalia/Bosnia/Northern Ireland to combat (against infantry) in Afghanistan up to combat between complex adaptive forces and armored mech forces as in Iraq (Operation Desert Storm).

For 30 years, the U.S. has tried by all means to implement its unipolar world concept. After the 2014 upheaval in Ukraine, Russia refused to be provoked and instead, in an unusual move in mid-December 2021, conveyed its wishes to the U.S. and NATO in two treaties ready to be signed.
John Herbst, who was U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during the 2004 Orange Revolution, makes clear, "Moscow's demands are simply unacceptable."(11)
On January 10, 2022, talks between U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Wendy Sherman and her Russian counterpart Sergei Ryabkov will begin in Geneva, Brussels, and Vienna. Ahead of the Russian-U.S. talks, John Herbst has called for faster arms deliveries to Ukraine. The former U.S. ambassador to Kiev believes the crisis in Kazakhstan could save Ukraine.(12)
Now, however, the coup appears to have been put down; thus, Putin may even enter the negotiations stronger.
Let us hope that the talks will serve peace.
 

Notes

1)“Draft Treaty betweeen the USA and Russia on Security Guarantees“ Voltaire Network vom 17 December 2021https://www.voltairenet.org/article215162.html
2)https://de.rt.com/international/129474-wie-proteste-in-kasachstan-gewalttaetig-wurden/
3)https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/kasachstan-demonstranten-besetzen-flughafen-in-almaty-a-b6812d2e-3d0a-4450-aaf5-6cfed6e9fb36
4)https://de.rt.com/asien/129430-live-ticker-zur-krise-in-kasachstan-ausnahmezustand-ganzen-land/
5)https://www.n-tv.de/der_tag/Kasachstan-Ex-Sicherheitschef-wegen-Landesverrats-festgenommen-article23044603.html;
https://azertag.az/de/xeber/Kasachstan_nimmt_ehemaligen_nationalen_Sicherheitschef_wegen_des_Verdachts_des_Hochverrats_fest-1970488
6)https://de.rt.com/asien/129628-russland-weist-us-kritik-an/
7)https://de.rt.com/asien/129628-russland-weist-us-kritik-an/
8)Vgl. ebd.
9)https://www.nzz.ch/international/putin-laesst-in-den-ukraine-gespraechen-mit-biden-kaum-spielraum-ld.1663573
10)https://www.help4you.info/pdf/19940801_TRADOC_Pamphlet_525-5.pdf
11)https://www.nzz.ch/international/putin-laesst-in-den-ukraine-gespraechen-mit-biden-kaum-spielraum-ld.1663573
12)https://www.nzz.ch/international/putin-laesst-in-den-ukraine-gespraechen-mit-biden-kaum-spielraum-ld.1663573

Wolfgang Effenberger
 
At the end of the year, on Dec. 30, 2021, Paul Craig Roberts, U.S. economist, publicist and former deputy Treasury secretary during the Reagan administration, addressed the world with the cautionary article
"The old year has departed and war awaits us in the new year".
On the same day, Presidents Biden and Putin held a telephone conversation that centered on the implementation of the agreement to begin negotiations on the granting of legally binding security guarantees to Russia sought by Putin on Dec. 15, 2021.

The subsequent announcements made by the Kremlin and the White House are revealing. Here, you should reach your own conclusions:

The Kremlin:

"Vladimir Putin explained the basic approaches underlying the Russian drafts of the treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America and the agreement between the Russian Federation and the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. He stressed that the negotiations must lead to solid legally binding guarantees that rule out NATO's eastward expansion and the deployment of weapons that threaten Russia in the immediate vicinity of its borders. Vladimir Putin also stressed that a nation's security can be guaranteed only if the principle of indivisible security is strictly observed.
Both leaders expressed readiness to engage in serious and substantive dialogue on these issues. It was confirmed that the negotiations will be held first in Geneva on January 9 and 10 and then in the framework of the Russia-NATO Council in Brussels on January 12. On January 13, the negotiations are also to be held at the OSCE. The presidents agreed to personally monitor these negotiations, especially the bilateral ones, in order to achieve results quickly.
In this context, Joseph Biden stressed that Russia and the U.S. share a special responsibility for ensuring stability in Europe and around the world, and that Washington has no intention of using offensive weapons in Ukraine.
 Vladimir Putin responded at length to the possibility, mentioned again by Joseph Biden, of imposing "large-scale" sanctions in the event of an escalation of the situation around Ukraine. He pointed out that this would be a grave mistake that would risk a de facto complete breakdown of relations between Russia and the United States."(1)

The White House:

"President Biden called on Russia to de-escalate tensions with Ukraine. He made clear that the United States and its allies and partners will respond decisively if Russia further penetrates Ukraine.
President Biden also advocated for diplomacy, beginning early next year with the bilateral Strategic Stability Dialogue, at NATO through the NATO-Russia Council, and at the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. President Biden reiterated that substantive progress in these dialogues is only possible in an environment of de-escalation, not escalation."(2)
 
Ten days earlier, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg delivered in Brussels his Christmas/New Year's address:

"I would also like to take this opportunity to thank our veterans. Especially those who have served in Afghanistan. There have been no terrorist attacks on our countries organized from Afghanistan for over twenty years. We have to thank you for that. And I pay tribute to all those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom."
Remember: On Oct. 7, 2001 - 25 days after 9/11 - the U.S., along with the U.K., attacked Afghanistan - although to this day there is no evidence of Afghanistan's complicity. And at the end of October 2001, warlord Rashid Dostum had 3,000 captured Taliban locked in 10 containers and than left to die in agony in the desert. Up to this day, no one has been held accountable for this.

Back to Stoltenberg:

"As we look to the new year and our summit in Madrid, we are adapting our alliance to meet a more dangerous and competitive world.
We stand ready to meet any threat and any challenge.
On land, at sea, in the air, in space, and in cyberspace."(3)
 Two weeks earlier, Stoltenberg welcomed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Brussels.
 "Dear Volodymyr, it is good to see you again. Welcome to NATO. Ukraine is a highly valued partner of our Alliance...We have talked about Russia's considerable military buildup in and around Ukraine. ...There is no justification for this buildup. It is a provocation. It is destabilizing. And it undermines security in Europe."
 At this point, it is worth recalling NATO's major maneuver Defender 21: a multinational, multiphase NATO military exercise that began in March 2021 and ended with the exercise in Georgia in August. It covered more than 30 areas in Estonia, Bulgaria, Romania, Kosovo and other countries. The focus was around or in the Black Sea.

Back to Stoltenberg Dec. 16, 2021:

"We call on Russia to return to diplomacy. To de-escalation. And to respect Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Any further aggression against Ukraine will have serious consequences. ... Since Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, we have carried out the largest strengthening of our collective defense in a generation."
Against this background, Willy Wimmer stated on Jan. 3, 2022: "I want to draw explicit attention to the fact that any negotiated solution is still possible. However, the order of negotiations, first Rus/US, then

Rus/NATO, then OSCE is not designed for a solution, as the chicken pile per se cannot serve that." According to W. Wimmer, the key questions are:

Will they succeed in strangulating Russia?
Will the U.S. continue to be prevented from a hostile takeover of Russia?
In U.S. President Biden's statements, Wimmer recognizes the intention: "Action by Ukraine on its territory against separatists, defense of Russian compatriots by Russian forces on Ukrainian territory, advance of Russian forces to Lviv. No NATO tanks would roll into Kiev, but the NATO embargo war against Russia would go "nuclear."(4)
The operational tools for war in Europe have been on the table since the fall of 2014. Following the Western-orchestrated coup in Kiev in late February 2014, U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) pamphlet 525-3-1 "Win in a Complex World: 2020-2040" was adopted in October 2014. It identifies Russia and China as the primary threat.
 
On December 4, 2014, Resolution H. Res. 758 passed overwhelmingly (only 10 votes against) the U.S. Congress.

On the same day, Congressional legend Ron Paul commented on it on his homepage with the article "Reckless Congress 'Declares War' on Russia"(5):

"Today in the U.S. House of Representatives, in my opinion, one of the most evil pieces of legislation was passed".
 With H. Res. 758, a resolution was introduced that, literally, "strongly condemns the actions of the Russian Federation under President Vladimir Putin as a policy of aggression against neighboring states aimed at political and economic dominance."(6)
And since the fall of 2014, among other measures, the infrastructure for a military confrontation in Eastern Europe has been expanded (this includes the Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO) in the military and infrastructural fields, launched by the EU in 2017). Rail links alone from Rotterdam/Bremerhaven/Hamburg to Kiev via Görlitz have been expanded far beyond normal transport needs.(7)
 Paul Craig Roberts, as the title of his article indicates, sees an imminent threat of war. For him, NATO officials have given Putin's concern for Russia's security a long nose. He no longer makes out intelligence in the Western world as everyone vies to show how tough they are on Russia. Roberts interprets Putin's statement to mean that Russia no longer has a fallback position, that Russia has reached the extent of its ability to avoid war. "We simply have no room to retreat" means that Russia has done everything it can to avoid war and that Americans must now get off Russia's doorstep. According to Roberts, Putin is relying on Biden to show awareness and responsibility and to work for peace by acknowledging Russia's legitimate security concerns. "But what if," Roberts says, "Biden is just a figurehead and the military and security complex is calling the shots, intent on profit despite the risk that Putin will not relent?"(8)
 What if Washington's interest is limited to destabilizing Russia in the interest of U.S. hegemony, and if Russia's security is precisely what Washington intends to undermine and not respect?
"2022 could be the year Washington's power is broken, Russia takes Ukraine in an act of self-defense, and China takes Taiwan as a demonstration of who is in charge in Asia.
2022 could also be the year the Western world goes down in a nuclear war."(9)
 
 
Notes:
 
1) http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67487
2) https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/12/30/statement-by-press-secretary-jen-psaki-on-president-bidens-phone-call-with-president-vladimir-putin-of-russia/
3) https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_190293.htm
4) Willy Wimmer: Ticken die Uhren nach Genf anders?  Vom 3.Janaur 202
5) http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/december/04/reckless-congress-declares-war-on-russia/
6) https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/758/titles
Ronald Ernest "Ron" Paul (born 1935) is an American physician and politician, a member of the Republican Party and was a member of the United States House of Representatives between 1976 and 2013 (with interruptions). He was a Libertarian Party candidate in the 1988 U.S. presidential election and a contender for the Republican nomination in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections.
7) https://www.lr-online.de/lausitz/weisswasser/neue-verkehrsader-an-neuer-bahntrasse-wird-weitergebaut-38162246.html
8)Paul Craig Roberts: AS THE OLD YEAR CLOSES, WAR AWAITS US IN THE NEW YEARhttps://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2021/12/30/as-the-old-year-closes-war-awaits-us-in-the-new-year/
9) Ebda.

DOWNLOAD ARTICLE

Enrico Vigna,  14 dicembre 2021
 

Il 13 dicembre si è spento Falco Accame, ex deputato socialista e ammiraglio. Aveva 96 anni.

Con profonda commozione, a nome del Civg (Centro Iniziative per Verità e Giustizia) di cui è stato e rimarrà, con nostro grande onore, Presidente onorario, e del Forum Belgrado Italia di cui era parte, intendo salutare con queste righe, la scomparsa di un grande uomo, socialista e sinceramente democratico, eticamente integerrimo e instancabile combattente di mille battaglie per la verità e la giustizia. Un uomo semplice ma culturalmente profondo, che fino all’ultimo ha continuato ad essere “partigiano”, schierato cioè nelle battaglie, anche se impossibilitato a muoversi.
Ho avuto l’onore di essergli stato al fianco in questi ultimi trent’anni, in tantissime battaglie per i popoli aggrediti o calpestati, dalle protervie o arroganze imperiali e imperialiste. Falco aveva un profondo senso dello Stato, un profondo senso dei valori etici e della giustizia sociale, fermo difensore della nostra Costituzione nata dalla Resistenza, sempre al di là di logiche delimitanti, continuamente rivolto verso gli interessi dei ceti popolari, degli umili, degli ultimi.
Un socialista, non di partito, un socialista di valori sociali.
Dalle coraggiose scelte di continuare le battaglie con la Fondazione del generale Nino Pasti, suo grande amico e compagno, contro la NATO e tutte le guerre, alle migliaia di interpellanze, con cui investiva le commissioni difesa di qualsiasi tendenza e colore, sia quando era un parlamentare, ma anche dopo dall’esterno, nella battaglia per svelare il criminale uso delle armi all’uranio impoverito, che ha distrutto paesi, popoli ma anche militari italiani.
Sempre in prima linea in qualsiasi lotta contro le guerre. Nel 1999 fu uno dei pilastri del Tribunale Internazionale Ramsey Clark per i crimini di guerra NATO contro la Jugoslavia e fu sempre a disposizione per qualsiasi iniziativa di denuncia, lotta e solidarietà contro la NATO e la fianco di popoli aggrediti o oppressi, senza MAI un tentennamento o calcolo di utilità o opportunità.
Questa suo essere integerrimo e non disponibile a compromessi o accomodamenti, oltre ad essere emarginato dal suo Partito, aveva anche accumulato un forte rancore ed ostilità dagli apparati politici e dei Servizi di intelligence vari. Alla fine degli anni ’90, fu trascinato nello scandalo Mitrokhin, con l’accusa ai 261 indagati, di essere presunte spie italiane al servizio dell'intelligence russa. Una vera e propria resa dei conti verso coloro che non si allineavano a verità precostituite o funzionali alle politiche nazionali verso i paesi dell’allora campo socialista internazionale. Accame riteneva questa accusa talmente ridicola e irreale, che spesso al telefono rispondeva ironicamente con «…Pronto, sono la spia venuta dall’Est…».
Quando nove anni fa gli proponemmo di aiutarci nella costruzione del CIVG, non ebbe un attimo di dubbio a dare il suo nome e contribuire con articoli, materiali, consigli, sollecitazioni anche di spinta a fare, e spesso in dibattiti pubblici o televisivi si presentava coma Presidente del CIVG.  Per noi questo era e resta un grande onore.

Il figlio Carlo in una nota, lo ricorda come autore di numerosi libri e Dossier sull’uranio impoverito, sul caso Moro, sulle questioni militari e della NATO, anche Presidente onorario del Centro di iniziative per la verità e la giustizia (Civg) e vice-presidente del Comitato Seagull per la sicurezza in mare…Durante la sua vita ha sempre amato capire la molteplicità di elementi che generano la “realtà”, approfondire, analizzare partecipando attivamente alla vita pubblica del paese con articoli, proposte di legge, dibattiti, manifestazioni. A 96 anni forse era venuto il tempo di lasciarci perché sentiva di non essere più in grado di combattere contro le ingiustizie» ha scritto.
Riporto la lettera inviata all’incontro costitutivo del CIVG tenuto il 22 settembre 2012:
Ai presenti ed aderenti all’incontro di costituzione del Centro Iniziative per la Verità e Giustizia, mando un saluto ed un plauso per questo tentativo di costruire un percorso collettivo sulla base di un programma serio e concreto, che vada al di là dei limiti e delle grettezze del tempo in cui viviamo e che ci circonda: guerre, corruzione, sfascio sociale, morale e politico.
Dall’alto della lunga esperienza di battaglie e lotte democratiche e civili, senza mai accettare accomodamenti o patteggiamenti di “opportunità personali”, avendo letto, condiviso e anche contributo con alcuni suggerimenti e indicazioni nel merito, circa le tematiche di lavoro proposte,
Auguro un buon lavoro nell’impostazione concreta per il raggiungimento degli obiettivi prefissati, che condivido e approvo, dando una mia disponibilità, per quanto mi è possibile, a sostenervi e collaborare sulle tematiche che hanno contraddistinto e contrassegnato la mia esistenza politica e civile, dalle questioni della pace e militari, a quelle dell’uso dell’uranio impoverito, su cui sono tuttora impegnato.  
Fraterni saluti.  Deputato, Ammiraglio Falco Accame - Roma, 20 Settembre 2012
Da   www.civg.it :     Deputato Ammiraglio Falco Accame
Presidente Onorario del Centro Iniziative per la Verità e Giustizia

Falco Accame è stato ufficiale superiore di marina e ha rappresentato l'Italia all'Unesco, al Congresso mondiale sulla percezione della minaccia del 1973 e si è distinto per le molte battaglie di denuncia dei retroscena affaristici e antidemocratici dell'organizzazione militare.
Nel luglio 1975 Accame si è dimesso dal comando della nave Indomito per protestare contro la gestione autoritaria del potere nelle Forze Armate.
Eletto alla Camera dei deputati nel 1976, nelle liste del Partito Socialista, è stato presidente e vicepresidente della Commissione Difesa nonché membro della commissione parlamentare di inchiesta sulle commesse militari.
Eletto anche come consigliere alla Regione Liguria e al Comune di Roma, è stato consigliere nazionale di Lega Ambiente.
Come Presidente della Fondazione Internazionale per la Pace Nino Pasti, ha rappresentato in Italia il Tribunale R. Clark per i crimini di guerra della NATO nella ex Jugoslavia.
Presidente dell'Associazione nazionale familiari delle vittime delle Forze Armate (Anavafaf).
Vice presidente del comitato Seagull per la sicurezza in mare e membro del comitato per la difesa e il rilancio della Costituzione.
Autore di numerosi saggi e articoli, è particolarmente attivo nella denuncia del ruolo poco chiaro esercitato in Italia dai servizi segreti alla dipendenza degli Stati Uniti e dei cambiamenti in atto nell'istituto militare, per renderlo più adatto a un ruolo aggressivo dell'Italia in ambito Nato sulla scena internazionale.
Compagno di Nino Pasti in molte battaglie di denuncia dei retroscena affaristici e delle finalità antidemocratiche dell’organizzazione militare, Accame è stato ufficiale superiore di marina e in questa veste ha diretto il gruppo di Ricerca Operativa Interforze e ha rappresentato l’Italia all’Unesco al Congresso Mondiale sulla percezione della minaccia del 1973. Nel luglio 1975 Accame si è dimesso dal comando della nave «Indomito» per protestare contro la gestione autoritaria del potere nelle forze armate.
Nell'ottobre 1999 viene reso pubblico il dossier dell'ex agente del Kgb Vasili Mitrokhin. Tra i politici presuntamente contattati dai servizi sovietici c'è anche Accame. Nel 1977 il Kgb lo avrebbe spinto a presentare un'interrogazione contro la presenza di sottomarini statunitensi in Sardegna. Quando è scoppiato lo scandalo Mitrokhin, Accame ha ostentato sicurezza ed ironia, definendo ridicola l'intera situazione. Alle telefonate dei giornalisti rispondeva: "Pronto, sono la spia venuta dall'Est".
Nella vicenda dell'uranio impoverito ha preso immediatamente posizione, facendone una battaglia che dura tuttora, chiedendo verità e giustizia. Non ha mai nascosto le sue critiche al lavoro della Commissione d'inchiesta guidata da Franco Mandelli.
Dotato di grande cultura e con un patrimonio acquisito di conoscenza documentale, Accame è stato un parlamentare molto attivo e incline alla polemica, sia nei confronti dei vertici militari che dei suoi stessi compagni di partito. Negli ultimi anni si è dedicato soprattutto allo studio delle nuove strategie di difesa non violenta e nella lotta per la pace. Un modo per coniugare la sua antica vocazione militare con la sua passione per i diritti civili.

Ci ha lasciati un grande combattente, un uomo tutto di un pezzo, un uomo che non solo scriveva, parlava, disquisiva, ma ogni giorno della sua intensa vita, ha fatto la sua parte,  si è schierato e si è battuto, e come diceva Ramsey Clak, ex Procuratore degli Stati Uniti e presidente dell’omonimo Tribunale contro la Nato, divenuto poi suo amico e compagno di battaglie: “….“ La misura della vostra qualità come persone pubbliche, come cittadini, sta nella differenza tra ciò che fate e ciò che dite”.             
Il mio ricordo è racchiuso in una sola parola: GRAZIE per ciò che ho ricevuto, come insegnamenti ed esempio etico, sociale e politico.   
CIAO Falco, vola alto come nella tua vita. Enrico Vigna e tutto il CIVG                    

Enrico Vigna,  14 december 2021
 

Falco Accame, a former socialist deputy and admiral, passed away on 13 December. He was 96 years old.
With deep emotion, on behalf of the Civg (Initiatives Center for Truth and Justice) of which he was and will remain, to our great honor, Honorary President, and active member of the Belgrade Forum  Italy of which he was a part, I intend to greet with these lines the disappearance of a great man, socialist and sincerely democratic, ethically upright and tireless fighter of a thousand battles for truth and justice. A simple but culturally profound man, who continued to be a "partisan" up to the last, that is, deployed in battles, even if unable to move.

I had the honor of having been at his side in the last thirty years, in many battles for the peoples attacked or trampled on, by imperial and imperialist arrogance. Falco had a profound sense of the State, a profound sense of ethical values and social justice, a firm defender of our Constitution born from the Resistance, always beyond bounding logics, continually aimed at the interests of the working class, the humble, the least. A socialist, not from a party, but a socialist of social values. From the courageous choices to continue the battles with the Foundation of General Nino Pasti, his great friend and comrade, against NATO and all wars, to the thousands of interpellations, with which he invested the defense commissions of trend and color, both when he was a parliamentarian, but also later from the outside, in the battle to unveil the criminal use of depleted uranium weapons, which destroyed countries, peoples but also Italian military personnel. Always at the forefront of any fight against wars. In 1999 he was one of the pillars of the Ramsey Clark International Tribunal for NATO War Crimes against Yugoslavia and was always present for any initiative of denunciation, struggle and solidarity against NATO and the side of attacked or oppressed peoples, without NEVER hesitation or calculation of utility or opportunity. This of him being upright and not willing to compromise or accommodation, as well as being marginalized by his Party, had also accumulated a strong resentment and hostility from the political apparatuses and various intelligence services. In the late 1990s, he was dragged into the Mitrokhin scandal, accusing the 261 suspects of being alleged Italian spies in the service of Russian intelligence. A real reckoning towards those who did not align themselves with pre-established truths or functional to national policies towards the countries of the international socialist movements. Accame he considered this accusation so ridiculous and unreal that he often answered ironically on the phone with «... Hello, I am the spy from the East ...».

When nine years ago we proposed to him to help us in the construction of the CIVG, he did not have a moment of doubt to give his name and contribute articles, materials, and often in public or televised debates he presented himself as President of the CIVG. For us this was and remains a great honor.

In a note, his son Carlo remembers him as the author of numerous books and dossiers on depleted uranium, on the Moro case, on military and NATO issues, also honorary president of the Center for Truth and Justice Initiatives (Civg) and deputy -president of the Seagull Committee for safety at sea ... During his life he has always loved to understand the multiplicity of elements that generate "reality", to deepen, analyze by actively participating in the public life of the country with articles, bills, debates, demonstrations . At 96, perhaps the time had come to leave us because he felt he was no longer able to fight against injustices ", he wrote.

I report the letter sent to the constitutive meeting of the CIVG held on 22 September 2012:
To those present and adhering to the meeting for the establishment of the Initiatives Center for Truth and Justice, I send greetings and applause for this attempt to build a collective path on the basis of a serious and concrete program, which goes beyond the limits and narrow-mindedness of the time in which we live and that surrounds us: wars, corruption, social, moral and political ruin. From the top of the long experience of democratic and civil battles and struggles, without ever accepting settlements or settlements of "personal opportunities", having read, shared and even contributed with some suggestions and indications on the merits, regarding the proposed work issues, I wish you a good job in the concrete setting for the achievement of the set objectives, which I share and approve, giving my willingness, as far as possible, to support you and collaborate on the issues that have distinguished and marked my political and civil existence, from issues of peace and military, to those of the use of depleted uranium, on which I am still engaged.

Falco Accame was senior naval officer and represented Italy at Unesco, at the 1973 World Congress on Threat Perception and distinguished himself for the many battles to denounce the business and anti-democratic background of the military organization. In July 1975 Accame resigned from command of the Indomito ship to protest the authoritarian management of power in the Armed Forces. Elected to the Chamber of Deputies in 1976, on the Socialist Party list, he was president and vice-president of the Defense Commission as well as a member of the parliamentary commission of inquiry into military orders. He was also elected as a councilor to the Liguria Region and the Municipality of Rome, and was the national councilor of the Lega Ambiente. As President of the Nino Pasti International Peace Foundation, he represented the R. Clark Tribunal for NATO War Crimes in the former Yugoslavia in Italy. President of the National Association of Families of the Victims of the Armed Forces (Anavafaf). Deputy chairman of the Seagull committee for safety at sea and member of the committee for the defense and revitalization of the Constitution. Author of numerous essays and articles, he is particularly active in denouncing the unclear role exercised in Italy by the secret services to the dependence of the United States and the changes taking place in the military institution, to make it more suitable for Italy's aggressive role in the field born on the international scene. Companion of Nino Pasti in many battles to denounce the business background and the undemocratic purposes of the military organization, Accame was a senior naval officer and in this capacity he directed the Joint Forces Operations Research group and represented Italy at Unesco at 1973 World Threat Perception Congress. In July 1975, Accame resigned from command of the ship "Indomito" to protest against the authoritarian management of power in the armed forces. In October 1999, the dossier of former KGB agent Vasili Mitrokhin was made public. Among the politicians allegedly contacted by the Soviet services is Accame. In 1977 the KGB would have pushed him to present a question against the presence of US submarines in Sardinia. When the Mitrokhin scandal broke out, Accame flaunted confidence and irony, calling the whole situation ridiculous. To phone calls from journalists he replied: "Hello, I am the spy from the East". In the case of depleted uranium he immediately took a stand, making it a battle that continues to this day, demanding truth and justice. He never hid his criticisms of the work of the Commission of Inquiry led by Franco Mandelli. Endowed with great culture and with an acquired patrimony of documentary knowledge, Accame was a very active parliamentarian and prone to controversy, both towards the military leaders and his party comrades. In recent years he has mainly devoted himself to the study of new non-violent defense strategies and the struggle for peace. A way to combine his ancient military vocation with his passion for civil rights.

He left us a great fighter, a man of one piece, a man who not only wrote, talked, debated, but every day of his intense life, did his part, took sides and fought, and as he said Ramsey Clak, former United States Attorney and president of the homonymous Tribunal against NATO, who later became his friend and companion in battles: "...." The measure of your quality as a public person, as a citizen, lies in the difference between what you do and what you say ".
My memory is contained in a single word: THANK YOU for what I have received, as teachings and ethical, social and political example.

"For a Europe truly acting for Peace, climate, nuclear disarmament,
social justice, human rights and a dignified welcome for migrants".

On 12, 13 and 14 January 2022 the 27 defence ministers and 27 foreign ministers of the European Union (EU) will hold a summit in Brest (France) on defence and security issues.  This summit is also likely to address the military aspects of the Ocean Summit to be held in February 2022 in Brest.

This meeting is therefore of crucial importance for the definition of the EU's strategic orientations in these areas and thus for peace we need.

According to initial public information, the following issues are likely to be discussed at the summit :

- The European "Strategic Compass" project discussed at the last
Council of Ministers of the European Union
- The creation of an EU rapid reaction force/external projection force
- The increase of national military budgets as requested by NATO
- Increase of the European Defence Fund
- The establishment of a maritime military presence in the Indo-Pacific region
- The implementation of a new SCAF air system for a minimum of 80 billion euros.
- The development and strengthening of Frontex

All these orientations will be defined, in compliance with the European treaties, and therefore in compliance with the strategic orientations of NATO as provided for in Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty.

It is therefore the moment to act and to put forward proposals for Peace

Against the preparations for war that will undoubtedly be on the agenda of the European summit of 12, 13 and 14 January 2022 in Brest, let us contribute to the success of the demonstration of 9 January 2022 in Brest in the early afternoon.

To face the logic of war and militarisation let us demand:

- A Europe of Peace and stop  the militarisation of the EU
- Means to fight against global warming and to protect life on the planet.
- The reduction of military expenditure and the satisfaction of social needs (education, hospitals, climate, public transport, wages, etc.)
- The elimination of nuclear weapons through the respect of article 6 of the NPT and the implementation of the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty (NWT) which entered into force on 22 January 2021.
- The withdrawal of US atomic weapons from European soil (Germany, Italy, Belgium).
- The end of the EU's subordination to Nato (23 EU states are members of Nato).

The National Council of the french Peace Movement supports all the initiatives already planned by its committees and local collectives, particularly in the west of France.
It calls on all its committees to do their utmost to participate in the public demonstration in the streets of Brest on 9 January in the early afternoon or to organise actions in their town for committees that are too far away.

The National Council of the Peace Movement calls on partner or friendly organisations and movements in each country i Europen to contribute to the success of the two days of 8 and 9 January 2022 by being present in Brest on 8 and 9 January and/or by setting up public actions to give a
"European dimension to our common demand for a "Europe that really acts for Peace, climate, nuclear disarmament, social justice, human rights and a dignified welcome for migrants".

Le Conseil National du Mouvement de la Paix le 13 décembre 2021
www.mvtpaix.org/wordpress/nous-rejoindre/
Sign: https://www.mvtpaix.org/wordpress/petition-pour-un-traite-dinterdiction-des-armes-nucleaires/
Contacts :
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it  

Democracy represents an important achievement of humanity in the advancement of political civilisation, and development an eternal pursuit throughout human history. People of different countries and regions, through their unremitting explorations, have brought about distinctively varied forms of democracy and development paths, presenting a magnificent spectacle of flourishing human civilisations.

Political parties, as they are in a position to build, preserve and develop democracy, have been charged with the important mission to realise democracy and promote development. In view of the above, we, the 351 political parties, social organisations and think tanks from 140 countries and regions, issue a joint statement to the whole world as follows:

I. We are of the view that the world we live in is a diverse and colorful one. Diversity is what defines the fascinating feature of human civilisations, and indeed the source of vitality and dynamism for the development of the world. The ways and means of realising democracy are varied. Since different countries and regions may not necessarily share the same history, culture, social system and development stage, there does not exist any system of democracy or pattern of development that is applicable to all countries. The practice of judging the rich variety of political systems around the world by a single yardstick, or observing the colorful political civilisations of the humanity from a monochromatic sight, is in itself undemocratic. Nor is it conducive to development.

II. We are of the view that the best way to evaluate whether the political system of a country is democratic and efficient is to observe whether the succession of its leading body is orderly and in line with the law, whether all people can manage state affairs and social, economic and cultural affairs in conformity with legal provisions, whether the public can express their requirements without hindrance, whether all sectors can efficiently participate in the country’s political affairs, whether national decisions can be made in a rational, democratic way, whether professionals in all fields can be part of the team of national leadership and administrative systems through fair competition, whether the ruling party can serve as a leader in state affairs in accordance with the Constitution and laws, and whether the exercise of power can be kept under effective restraint and supervision.

III. We are of the view that the judgement on whether a country is democratic hinges on whether the people can become the real masters of the country. While it is necessary to observe whether the people can enjoy the right to vote, it is even more important to observe whether their right of extensive participation is guaranteed. While it is necessary to observe what verbal promises the people get during election campaigns, it is even more important to observe how many of the promises are fulfilled after elections. While it is necessary to observe what political procedures and rules are stipulated in regulations and laws, it is even more important to observe whether these regulations and laws are rigorously enforced. While it is necessary to observe whether the exercise of power follows democratic rules and procedures, it is even more important to observe whether the exercise of power is truly subject to the supervision and restraint by the people.

IV. We are of the view that democracy is the right of all peoples, rather than an exclusive privilege of the few. The judgement on whether a country is democratic or not should be made by their people. We stand opposed to acts that interfere in the internal affairs of others in the name of democracy.

V. We are of the view that the point of departure as well as the goal of the development of human society should be to improve people’s wellbeing and to achieve well-rounded human development. The promotion of democracy should focus on the continuous realisation of people’s aspiration for a better life and the upliftment of their sense of fulfillment, happiness and security. Currently, countries need to especially strengthen cooperation in the fields of poverty alleviation, food security, COVID-19 response and vaccines, development financing, climate change and green development, industrialisation, digital economy and connectivity, and to accelerate the implementation of the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, so that concentrated efforts are devoted to solve problems of the greatest, most immediate and most practical concern to the people. All countries and all peoples of the world deserve the opportunity and right to development. Efforts need to be made to promote inclusive development and ensure that no country is left behind.

VI. We are of the view that to make international relations more democratic is the trend of the times and the only way to realise this lies in putting true multilateralism into practice. As mankind is faced with various challenges and global issues, the effective response thereto can only be found in more inclusive global governance, more effective multilateral mechanism and more proactive regional cooperation. Better performance in the practice of multilateralism can always lead to better answers to the common problems facing humanity.

VII. We are of the view that efforts to build a human community with a shared future point the right direction to the development and progress of civilisation. The shared human values of peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy and freedom must serve as guidance in the endeavour to build such a community with a strong sense of responsibility for the future of humankind, so that countries with different social systems, ideologies, histories, cultures and levels of development can share interests, rights and responsibilities in international affairs and work together to build a better world.

Deeply aware of the joint mission placed on our shoulders to promote democracy and improve people’s livelihood, we undertake to work hand in hand to rise above all kinds of differences, promote exchanges and mutual learning, enhance mutual understanding and build broad consensus, so that we continue to make our due contribution to the people’s wellbeing, national development, world peace and human progress.

Scritto da Zivadin Jovanovic
09 novembre 2021

È indiscutibile che gli Stati Uniti, il Regno Unito e la Germania abbiano interessi geopolitici strategici nei Balcani e soprattutto nei confronti della Serbia, che, come dimostra la storia recente, sono contrari agli interessi vitali della Serbia e del popolo serbo (sovranità e integrità territoriale, diritti della RS, politica esterna e interna indipendente).

Nell'attuare la loro strategia, la cui essenza è il dominio, applicano vari metodi e mezzi, dall'adulazione e "incoraggiamento" al ricatto, alla divisione, alle sanzioni e alla forza militare. Incorporare il "popolo serbo” utilizzando personale compiacente nelle strutture governative, da un lato, e prevenire il posizionamento degli avversari, dall'altro, è parte integrante della tecnologia del dominio. L'interferenza più diretta nell’organico  della struttura serba inserendone dei filo –occidentali, è avvenuta durante il colpo di stato del 2000,  quando gli americani  e gli ambasciatori dei “cinque” inserirono nella struttura del governo elementi filo-occidentali riempiendo alcuni dipartimenti statali; (ricordiamo i famosi incontri nel "Businessmen's Club", a Dedinje). È noto anche il “contributo” del generale Nato, consigliere del ministero della Difesa per la riforma dell'Esercito serbo. Il “contributo del generale NATO” ebbe l’effetto di far ritirare tutti i generali e gli ammiragli, che parteciparono alla difesa del paese contro l'aggressione della NATO nel 1999, così facendo assicurarono che posizioni importanti nell'esercito fossero occupate da persone che erano loro fedeli. Così, l'esercito serbo, fu rovinato, disarmato e umiliato, l'intero sistema di difesa fu distrutto e il paese fu privato dei migliori capi militari. Questa scelta, che costituì un cambio totale del personale sia civile che militare, fu sperimentato in quasi tutti i compartimenti dello stato serbo, compresi gli affari esteri, la sicurezza dello stato e l'economia. Sebbene siamo un paese militare neutrale e indipendente, i consiglieri dei paesi della NATO sono stati portati in molte istituzioni. I ministri degli esteri, apertamente filo-occidentali e filo-NATO, hanno letteralmente espulso i diplomatici più professionali, abolito il servizio di intelligence straniero (SID) e le comunicazioni criptata con il DCM, spiegando che non ci sono segreti in uno stato "democratico" (leggi - filo-occidentale)! Un tale grado di umiliazione e adulazione collaborativa non è mai stato registrato nella storia secolare dello stato serbo. WikiLeaks è piena di testimonianze sul comportamento ambiguo e falso dei nuovi quadri, ormai apertamente filoamericani, che ebbero atteggiamenti e pratiche orientate al più bieco servilismo nei confronti degli invasori Tutto era camuffato da “difesa reale della Serbia”, da "democratizzazione", "europeizzazione", "vita migliore", "prevedibilità", "politica responsabile" e altre frasi ipocrite.
È stato più volte affermato che grandi potenze, come USA, Regno Unito e Germania, non cambiano strategia e geopolitica  pur se cambiano i loro governi); il loro apparente cambiamento è solo un espediente tattico e temporaneo e mutano subito quando incontrano ostacoli più seri. Potremmo dire, con qualche semplificazione, che i loro obiettivi geopolitici e strategici sono sempre gli stessi: ieri e oggi.
In una parola: "Restraint", cioè l'indebolimento del fattore serbo nei Balcani perseguendo  l’obbiettivo di  approfondire e consolidare le divisioni esistenti tra il popolo serbo e la Serbia come Stato ed intensificare i preparativi per una nuova frammentazione dei popoli e dei territori cercando di  cambiare la coscienza del popolo serbo e portandolo ad abbandonar i valori nazionali, culturali, morali e spirituali, operando una revisione della storia a danno dei serbi ed in più di ottenere una revisione o, possibilmente, una  abrogazione della risoluzione 1244 del Consiglio di sicurezza dell'ONU e dell'accordo di Dayton-Parigi, con conseguente  riconoscimento dell'indipendenza del Kosovo e Metohija e creazione di una BiH unitaria abolendo i diritti acquisiti del popolo serbo e attuando il predominio del fattore musulmano. Il progetto è poi quello di cacciare Russia e Cina dalla Serbia e dai Balcani e portare la Serbia ad aderire alla NATO.  

Gli Stati Uniti, il Regno Unito e la Germania, con la loro pratica decennale, dimostrano di non accettare la Serbia come Paese europeo sovrano, indipendente ed egualitario. Resta inteso che negheranno pubblicamente tali valutazioni, e metteranno in risalto le amichevoli intenzioni, i "valori comuni", le potenzialità della Serbia, il valore delle donazioni e degli investimenti, il volume degli scambi commerciali e molto altro. Tuttavia, in pratica, per loro, la Serbia è un paese a sovranità limitata, senza confini riconosciuti, in cui è diventata membro dell'ONU, dell'OSCE e di altre organizzazioni internazionali. A loro avviso, alla Serbia non deve essere consentito di perseguire una politica estera indipendente e un partenariato strategico con Russia e Cina. Invece di scusarsi per l'aggressione illegale nel 1999 per le vittime umane e per compensare i danni di guerra, quei paesi stanno facendo pressioni sulla Serbia perché riconosca che, è solo sua la responsabilità per tutto ciò che è successo!

Per imporre questa geopolitica del dominio e perseguire, i loro interessi e i loro obiettivi, cercheranno, in futuro e in vari modi, esecutori e personale per inserirlo in tutte le importanti istituzioni e domini nella gestione dello stato serbo. Non credo che le liste dei quadri idonei a ciò, siano poco numerosa, in quanto i responsabili a questo scopo delle nazioni occidentali, hanno una ricca esperienza e un elaborato sistema di preparazione, selezione e schieramento di vassalli capaci.
Con la politica del "ritorno nei Balcani" e dell'"espansione verso est", "il personale" in Serbia sta senza dubbio diventando una grande sfida per i servizi occidentali. Il problema nasce dal fatto che l'attuale livello di interferenza è stato difficile da sopportare e che è stato esposto in modo significativo in pubblico. Ricordiamo la vicenda "con elementi di estraneità", poi, le dichiarazioni pubbliche di rappresentanti del governo che ci sono agenti stranieri nel governo, che funzionari di alcuni servizi hanno fatto cose inammissibili "in collusione con servizi occidentali" e simili.

Un altro problema è che le potenze occidentali non accettano nuove realtà nel fissare i propri obiettivi, sfere di influenza, mezzi e modi per raggiungerli. Riguardano, in primo luogo, i mutati equilibri di potere sulla scena mondiale ed europea con la comparsa di nuovi, inevitabili fattori globali, e poi, almeno in parte, il mutato programma della politica estera e degli interessi economici esteri della Serbia oggi; considerando il fatto che esiste una tendenza, in alcuni quadri dirigenti serbi a schierarsi, quasi completamente, con gli interessi e la strategia dell'Occidente (NATO, UE). La Serbia vuole certamente buone e migliori relazioni con l'Occidente, ma non a costo di indebolire il partenariato strategico con Russia, Cina, India o con altri paesi di crescente potenza. Il potenziale di ricatto su cui l'Occidente ha fatto affidamento a lungo nella sua politica nei confronti della Serbia e del popolo serbo non è oggi lo stesso di 20 anni fa. Anzi, il tempo e le relazioni odierne indicherebbero piuttosto che l'Occidente riconosce più apertamente le proprie carenze e gravi errori in relazione alla Serbia e al popolo serbo, piuttosto che rilanciare metodi anacronistici della Guerra Fredda e dell'ordine unipolare. Accettare la Serbia e il popolo serbo come un partner importante e indipendente nei Balcani, riconoscerne gli interessi vitali e, soprattutto, la sovranità e l'integrità territoriale, correggere gli errori del passato, è l'unico modo giusto per stabilire una fiducia reciproca e una cooperazione globale.

Le forze e i servizi stranieri possono ancora provare a "incorporare" i "loro favoriti" nelle strutture delle istituzioni serbe in conformità con i loro obiettivi e interessi, anche se ciò sarà sempre più difficile. Tuttavia, ancora più importante è la questione di quale sarà la politica del personale serbo. Deve essere guidato da conoscenze e competenze e non da lealtà di partito o personali. Le barriere più efficaci contro l'interferenza e l'influenza straniera sono: in primo luogo, una strategia coerente di indipendenza, sovranità, integrità territoriale e processo decisionale autonomo; secondo, risolvere le questioni aperte attraverso il dialogo, pacificamente, sulla base del diritto internazionale, degli accordi validi e delle decisioni del Consiglio di sicurezza dell'ONU; terzo, buon vicinato e apertura alla cooperazione con tutti i paesi e integrazioni sulla base dell'uguaglianza e degli interessi reciproci; e, quarto, la selezione dei più capaci, il personale più professionale e  fedele alla Serbia per raggiungere gli obiettivi dichiarati. Per ora la tendenza attuale è ancora quella di eleggere individui in posizioni di responsabilità nello Stato legati a interessi vari e lobby, ciò è estraneo, controproducente e incompatibile con il principio di indipendenza. Dobbiamo lavorare affinché il personale abbia competenza, professionalità e sicurezza.

Belgrado, 8 novembre 2021

da Politika

Traduzione a cura del Forum Belgrado Italia/CIVG

Source: www.civg.it

Wolfgang Effenberger

On Friday 3thrd December 2021, the seventh round of the mentioned talks over the ongoing talks between Iran and the group 4+1 (Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China) in Vienna has ended after five days of continued negotiations including two days for "sanctions removal working group" and "nuclear working group".
Based on reports, Iran has delivered two documents to the group 4+1 containing Tehran's conditions to pave the ground for further cooperation to settle both sides' concerns. In response, representatives of the group 4+1 nations have preferred to go back to their capitals for more consultations.
On July 14, 2015, after years of persistent negotiations, the E3 (Germany, France, UK) +3 (US, Russia, China) and Iran were able to resolve the dangerous conflict over Iran's nuclear program through negotiations with the Vienna Nuclear Agreement (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, JCPoA) - apparently a stellar moment for diplomacy (German foreign ministry ).
But only 9 month ago, in October 2014, the demons of 1914 had reared their ugly head again: The U.S. long-term strategy paper "TRADOC 525-3-1 Win in a Complex World 2020-2040" highlighted emerging threats:

„While the United States must assess new and emerging threats, many current operational challenges will exist into the future. Harbingers of future conflict include competing powers (e.g., China and Russia), regional powers (e.g., Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK)), transnational terrorist networks (e.g., al Qaida, its affiliates, and transnational criminals), and cyber threats. The following are examples only and illustrate a limited number of threats for which future Army forces must prepare.

China

China’s goal over time is to expand its influence to establish stability along its periphery.While China prefers to avoid direct confrontation with the U.S., it uses civilian assets to challenge actions such as U.S. surveillance flights. Moreover, China’s behavior has created friction with regional neighbors including U.S. allies and partners

Russia

Russian annexation of the Crimean Peninsula and use of conventional and unconventional land forces in Ukraine suggest that Russia is determined to expand its territory and assert its power on the Eurasian landmass. Russia deployed and integrated a range of diplomatic, information, military, and economic means to conduct what some analysts have described as “non-linear” operations. Russia conducted operations to pursue its war aims below the threshold that would elicit a concerted North Atlantic Treaty Organization response. In addition, Russia used cyberspace capabilities and social media to influence perceptions at home and abroad and provide cover for large-scale military operations. While the long-term results of the incursion into Ukraine are not yet certain, Russia demonstrated the centrality of land forces in its effort to assert power and advance its interests in former Soviet states. Without a viable land force capable of opposing the Russian army and its irregular proxies, such adventurism is likely to continue undeterred.

Iran

Iran's management of its nuclear aspirations will shape its role as a rising power in the Middle East. Iran, empowered by expanding sectarian conflicts in the greater Middle East, poses a hybrid threat to U.S. interests and allies in the region. As it continues to apply pressure on the region to erode and supplant U.S. power, Iran uses combinations of economic and diplomatic overtures with irregular forces to advance its interests. Iran develops partnerships with disenfranchised populations, religious factions, and criminal elements to create disorder focused on subverting the influence of the U.S. and partner nations. Iran avoids direct military confrontations while developing advanced capabilities and pursuing comprehensive military modernization. Iran’s modernization efforts include the use of automated systems on land, sea, and air; ballistic missiles; and the development of nuclear capability.“  
In the meantime, the dangers arising from the rearmament and the confrontation between the "West" (USA, NATO, EU) and Russia and China, which is becoming more and more evident, are becoming more and more apparent.

On November 8, 2021, for the first time since the end of the Cold War, the 56th U.S. Artillery Command was reactivated - a major United States Army unit based in the Mainz-Kastel district of the city of Wiesbaden, reporting to a two-star general. The commander, Major General Stephen Maranian, stated on November 3, 2021, "The reactivation of the 56th Artillery Command will provide U.S. forces in Europe and Africa with significant capabilities for multidomain operations...It will also enable synchronization of joint and multinational fires and effects, as well as the employment of future ground-to-ground long-range fires."
On November 10, 2021, under the headline "Dark Eagle has landed," the British newspaper The Sun reported on a U.S. nuclear force reactivated with hypersonic long-range Dark Eagle missiles in Germany for the first time since the Cold War.

The U.S. activates a nuclear unit in Germany. (Screenshot via The Sun)

According to the U.S. Army, Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) are intended to ensure that joint forces [Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Space Force] can "meet and defeat a near-equal adversary capable of attacking the United States in all domains [air, land, sea, space, and cyberspace], both competitively and in armed conflict."  The concept also describes how U.S. ground forces will be able to meet and defeat adversaries in the future. The concept goes on to describe how U.S. ground forces, as part of the joint and multinational team, can deter and defeat highly capable, peer adversaries in the 2025-2050 timeframe. To that end, multi-domain operations are intended to provide commanders with numerous options "for conducting simultaneous and sequential operations using surprise effects and the rapid and continuous integration of capabilities across domains to plunge the adversary into multiple dilemmas to gain physical and psychological advantage as well as influence and control over the operational environment."

The Sun reportet on 4. August 2021:  

Today, we are witnessing a throwback to one of the most dangerous periods of the Cold War, when in the early 1980s the rearmament resolution was rushed through and the obsolete Pershing I missiles were replaced by the Pershing II. The increase in range from 800 to 1200 kilometers was not dramatic for the layman, but it was for the experts in the Kremlin. Because now the bunkered command posts around Moscow could be taken out in just a few minutes. Reagan's dream of a decapitation strike had become reality. In Washington, the vision "Victory is possible" haunted the halls of the Capitol.
The reactivation of the 56th U.S. Artillery Command is logical and the threat to Russia posed by Germany is compelling. The consequences of a Third World War for Germany and Russia will far exceed all the suffering and misery of the 20th century.

It is time to finally form a community of nations born of the will for peace.
This will only be possible, When people stop being frightened, when they start questioning the harmless mask of „defense“policy and say goodbye to a one-sided culture of remembrance, which in reality is the cloak of forgetting and a hotbed of appeasement.(10) At this point I would like to remind you of Joseph Fischer, who justified the war of aggression against Serbia, which was contrary to international law, with "Never again Ausschwitz".

Without truthfulness towards history there can be no sustainable peace.  For a peaceful coexistence of the European states in the Council of Europe, the imperial plans of a small plutocratic US/UK elite must be stopped.

https://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/de/aussenpolitik/laender/iran-node/wiener-nuklearvereinbarung-atomprogramm-iran/202458
(https://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/publications/Army%20Operating%20Concept%202014%20%28TP525-3-1%29.pdf, p. 10-12)
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/us-army-reactivates-56th-artillery-command-in-europe
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/16695568/us-nuclear-germany-eagle-hypersonic-missiles-moscow/
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF11409.pdf
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/natsec/IF11409.pdf
Chris Bradford: Biggest US Navy war games in 40 years to prepare for WW3 across 17 times zones amid tensions with Russia, China and Iran 4 Aug 2021 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/15777064/biggest-us-navy-drills-40-years-world-war-three/

FORUM IN BEIJING
Strengthening People-to-People Exchanges and Cooperation,
Promoting Solidarity and Development December
9th 2021
Beijing Time: 15:30-17:00
Belgrade Time: 8:30-10:00

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

Honorable Mr. Speaker,
Dear Friends,
First of all, I would like to express sincere thanks to our host, the Secretariat of Silk Road NGO Cooperation Network (SIRONET) for the kind invitation. It is, indeed, great honor for me to be able to participate and to convey the best wishes of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals and of the Silk Road Connectivity Research Center (COREC), for successful work of this important Forum.
I take this opportunity to once again congratulate historic Jubilee of 100 years of the foundation and tremendous achievements of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Under the leadership of CPC, China has fulfilled the First Century Goal of building moderately prosperous society glorious in all aspects. We are convinced that China will be equally successful on a new journey toward the Second Century goal to build a modern socialist country.
Steady people centered CPC strategy made it possible to eliminate poverty, uplift living standard of people and, at the same time, build Chinese economy second largest in the world. It is globally recognized that the policy of opening up and reform has been of crucial importance for all magnificent achievements. Building scientifically system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, pursuing unique overall social, economic, scientific, technological and cultural development and maintaining stability, in parallel, has become well of inspiration for many developing countries faced with challenges similar to those of China in the past century.  
Today China is the global leader of peace, inclusive global development and the New Multi-polar World Order based sovereign equality and noninterference in internal affairs.  
Dear Friends,
The theme of our today’s forum - Strengthening People-to-People Exchange and Cooperation, Promoting Solidarity and Development, generally speaking, has always been important. In this era of historic global changes, growing interdependence, challenges and serious crises, however, the need for people-to-people connectivity has become one of the essential preconditions for achieving sustainable common wellbeing and prosperity of the whole humanity. China’s understanding of solidarity and global development is reflected in many fields and aspects. China has been the only country in the world providing global assistance to other countries and nations all. While some of the richest countries have shown inward and even egoistic approach, China acted openly sending doctors, vaccines and equipment to every corner of the world while successfully continuing fight for prevention and control of pandemic at home. The best illustration of China’s attitude toward global development is the global BRI initiative supported by 120 countries and 40 international organizations, 16+1 format of cooperation and greatest contribution to the UN 2030 Development agenda.    

Dear Friends,
 Olympics have always been symbol of peace, togetherness, mutual understanding and friendship. Some Western countries, however, are trying to abuse the forthcoming Winter Olympics in Beijing for narrow political purposes and meddling in internal affairs of China, thus trying to sew misunderstanding discord and divisions. Our answer is – such attitude is unacceptable, counterproductive. The Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics will be the great global contribution to People to people exchange.

There is particular a reason today, to say that the contemporary world is not in need of divisions, new alignments exclusive clubs, power politics. The world and humanity are in need of understanding, partnership and solidarity in solving common challenges, such as, Covid 19 pandemic, climate changes, looming socio-economic crisis, massive migration and terrorism. Everybody should understand that every country has the right to freely choose own socio-economic system, internal and foreign policy. Nobody has the right to prescribe what is democracy and what is not. Democracy is not export commodity. It cannot be imposed by force or blackmail. More than ever, we need intensification of direct exchange and contacts in the fields of health, culture, education, science, sports, publishing. Geographic distances remain relevant for transport, logistics and physical connectivity, in general. Otherwise, as human beings, as inhabitants of the “global village”, we all are each other’s neighbor. Thus, in order to facilitate mutual understanding, to rid ourselves of any possible prejudices, to live and work in harmony, to free the space for interaction, creativity and synergy - we need to know each other much better.  Therefore, there exist the vast field for activity and the need for appropriate contributions of different associations, think-tanks, scholars and research organizations. Our host CIRONET has already achieved remarkable results in initiating, uniting and coordinating the NGO activities not only within China but also on international level. This role has been all the more important in the period of Covid 19 pandemic which has appeared and continues to be, quite unexpected and unusual challenge. We fully support strengthening of such role of CIRONET and adaptation to the future realities.
The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals and COREC have been cooperating with many other associations and think tank organizations in Serbia, Europe, Asia, America and China interested in strengthening People to people Exchanges and cooperation, promoting solidarity and Development, especially those from the countries along the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and within 1+16 cooperation format. Belgrade Forum is also one of founding members of SRTA (Silk Road Think Tank Association) established in 2016 in Shenzhen. Pandemic Covid 19 has adversely affected intensity of contacts but has not changed the substance and continuity of cooperation. Our positive approach to this cooperation has been reflected in our participation to various national and international conferences and forums (Tianjin, Heinan, Boa, China; Lichtenstein; Frankfurth, Germany; Belgrade, Serbia; Torino, Italy), in continuity we presented in national, Chinese and international mass media, in serving as a focal point and reference source to researchers of BRI. In addition, we have been publishing the works facilitating spread of knowledge, understanding and cooperation with China. COREC has already published the book titled “Connecting in Chinese Way”, authored by Ambassador Aleksandar Jankovic. Another two books - first titled “About Socialist System with Chinese Characteristics”, authored by Chinese scholar He Jiting, and second, titled “Strategic Partners: Serbia and China”, by Belgrade Forum, are in preparations.
We believe that we will be able to continue and further strengthen our cooperation in the field of people to people exchange. Two cultural centers, Serbian in Beijing and Chinese in Belgrade, will certainly encourage this process while no visa system established between our two countries a couple of years ago, has already removed one administrative braking device.

Dear Friends,
In closing, please allow me to say a few words on Serbia – China relations.
Serbia and China are guided by the same principles and objectives in international relations: peace, win-win cooperation, noninterference, inclusive development and multipolar World Order based on sovereign equality. The two countries have been traditional friends, developing mutually beneficial cooperation in many fields. During the historic official visit of the President Xi Jinping in June 2016 the two countries signed the document on Comprehensive Strategic Partnership which has been the basis for enlargement and further strengthening of bilateral and multilateral cooperation. Up to now China has committed over 6 billion of USD in modernization of Serbia’s infrastructure, industry, water purification, food production, health protection, security and defense. Two Chinese companies have become two largest exporters from Serbia – Steel factory “Hesteel”, Smederevo and “Zijin”, Bor. Serbia remains very active partner in the global Belt and Road Initiative and in CEEC+China cooperation format, since their inception. Two countries support each other in the UN and other international forums. Serbia. It is of strategic importance that China as the permanent member of UN SC is one of the steadiest supporters of Serbia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and solution of the status of the Province of Kosovo and Metohija in accordance with international law, especially, on the basis of UN SC resolution No. 1244, and that Serbia is firm in supporting One China Policy. Serbia is grateful to China for the large and unselfish assistance in preventing and controlling the Covid 19 pandemic, in terms of sending doctors, providing laboratories, vaccines, equipment and even medical factories. This was proof in practice as to how China views solidarity.

Thank you.

By David Swanson, World BEYOND War, December 2, 2021

The exclusion of certain countries from the U.S. “democracy summit” is not a side issue. It is the very purpose of the summit. And excluded countries have not been excluded for failing to meet the standards of behavior of those that were invited or the one doing the inviting. Invitees didn’t even have to be countries, as even a U.S. backed failed coup leader from Venezuela has been invited. So have representatives of Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, DRC, Zambia, Angola, Malaysia, Kenya, and — critically — pawns in the game: Taiwan and Ukraine.

What game? The weapons sales game. Which is the whole point. Look at the U.S. State Department website on the Democracy Summit. Right at the top: “‘Democracy doesn’t happen by accident. We have to defend it, fight for it, strengthen it, renew it.’ –President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.”

Not only do you have to “defend” and “fight,” but you have to do so against certain threats, and get a big gang in on the fighting to “tackle the greatest threats faced by democracies today through collective action.” The representatives of democracy at this amazing summit are such experts at democracy that they can “defend democracy and human rights at home and abroad.” It’s the abroad part that may make you scratch your head if you’re thinking of democracy as having anything to do with, you know, democracy. How do you do it for some other country? But keep reading, and the Russiagate themes become clear:

“[A]uthoritarian leaders are reaching across borders to undermine democracies — from targeting journalists and human rights defenders to meddling in elections.”

You see, the problem is not that the United States has long been, in reality, an oligarchy. The problem is not the U.S. status as top holdout on basic human rights treaties, top opponent of international law, top abuser of the veto at the United Nations, top incarcerator, top environmental destroyer, top weapons dealer, top funder of dictatorships, top war launcher, and top coup sponsor. The problem is not that, rather than democratizing the United Nations, the U.S. government is attempting to create a new forum in which it is, uniquely and even more than before, more equal than everybody else. The problem is certainly not the rigged primary election that Russiagate was concocted to distract from. And in no way whatsoever is the problem the 85 foreign elections, counting just those we know of and can list, that the U.S. government has interfered in. The problem is Russia. And nothing sells weapons like Russia — though China is catching up.

The oddest thing about the democracy summit is that there will not be a democracy in sight. I mean not even in pretense or formality. The U.S. public votes on nothing, not even on whether to hold democracy summits. Back in the 1930s the Ludlow Amendment almost gave us the right to vote on whether any war could be started, but the State Department shut that effort down decisively, and it’s never returned.

The U.S. government is not just a system of elected representation rather than a democracy, and a highly corrupted one that fundamentally fails to represent, but it’s also driven by an anti-democratic culture in which politicians routinely brag to the public about ignoring public opinion polls and are applauded for it. When sheriffs or judges misbehave, the main criticism is usually that they were elected. A more popular reform than clean money or fair media is the anti-democratic imposition of term limits. Politics is such a dirty word in the United States that I received an email today from an activist group accusing one of the two U.S. political parties of “politicizing elections.” (It turned out that they had in mind various voter-suppression behavior, all too common in the world’s beacon of democracy, where the winner of every election is “none of the above” and the most popular party is “neither.”)

Not only will there be no national democracy in sight. There will also be nothing democratic happening at the summit. The handpicked gang of officials will not vote or achieve consensus on anything. The participation in governance that you could find even at an Occupy Movement event will be nowhere to be seen. And neither will there be any corporate journalists shrieking at them all “WHAT IS YOUR ONE SINGLE DEMAND? WHAT IS YOUR ONE SINGLE DEMAND?” They already have several completely vague and hypocritical goals on the website — produced, of course, without a shred of democracy being employed or a single tyrant being harmed in the process.

Not wishing to impose thousands of pages on you, let me select at random just one of the invitees to the Democracy Summit as identified by the U.S. State Department: the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Here’s is just a bit of how the State Department describes the DRC in the last year:

“Significant human rights issues included: unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings; forced disappearances; torture and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment; harsh and life-threatening prison conditions; arbitrary detention; political prisoners or detainees; serious problems with the independence of the judiciary; arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy; serious abuses in an internal conflict, including killing of civilians, enforced disappearances or abductions, and torture and physical abuses or punishment, unlawful recruitment or use of child soldiers by illegal armed groups, and other conflict-related abuses; serious restrictions on free expression and the press, including violence, threats of violence, or unjustified arrests of journalists, censorship, and criminal libel; interference with the rights of peaceful assembly and freedom of association; serious acts of official corruption; lack of investigation and accountability for violence against women; trafficking in persons; crimes involving violence or threats of violence targeting persons with disabilities, members of national, racial, and ethnic minority groups, and indigenous people; crimes involving violence or threat of violence targeting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex persons; and existence of the worst forms of child labor.”

So, maybe it’s not the “democracy” or the human rights. What could it be that gets you invited to these things? It’s not anything. Of 30 NATO countries, only 28 plus various countries targeted for addition, made the cut (Hungary and Turkey may have offended someone or failed to buy the right weapons). The point is simply to not invite Russia or China. That’s it. And both have already taken offense. So success is already achieved.

Source: https://worldbeyondwar.org/why-we-should-oppose-the-democracy-summit/

Jochen Scholz ¹ was a professional officer in the German Air Force until 2000. During his career he worked for many years in NATO committees, multinational NATO staffs and in the German Ministry of Defense. Later, Scholz was active in the peace movement and since then has also repeatedly spoken out critically on current developments. Now Jochen Scholz has written a letter to a member of a regional german parliament, which contains an immense number of interesting facts about the build-up to the East-West conflict. We are pleased to be able to publish this piece of writing for our readers.

The reason for my mail to a member of a regional parliament was, on the one hand, his letter to the editor of the FAZ ² , which shows that he has adopted the propaganda in the German mainstream press about aggressive Russia and is obviously completely clueless as to why relations between Germany and the Russian Federation are so desolate. Second, to clarify what to make of the NATO Secretary General's claim of a military threat to Ukraine from Russian troops, as recently voiced by retired Lieutenant General Brauß ³.
Brauß was NATO's Assistant Secretary General for Defense Policy and Force Planning from 2013 to July 2018. Today, he is a "Senior Associate Fellow at DGAP (German Council on Foreign Relations), working in the fields of European security and defense, NATO development, and NATO-EU cooperation." ⁴

Some notes and clarifications have been added to the original mail for better understanding

Dear Mr..
Looking at your professional and political background, I am somewhat surprised at the vehemence with which you obviously hold Russia responsible for the security situation in Eastern Europe. That is courageous. However, one should never forget to ask what is action and what is reaction and, above all, not to confuse the two.
Let me give you a few pointers on this.

1. the telephone conversation between President Bush and Chancellor Kohl in May 1990 ⁵

2. the promised implementation (transformarion of NATO into a consultative body) at the following NATO summit in London ⁶

3. the Charter of Paris in the same year ⁷

4. And what happened next? With the Wolfowitz Doctrine, also known as the "No-Rivals-Plan", all agreements were turned into their opposite ⁸

All further strategy documents since that time have gone in the direction taken at that time.

NATO's eastward expansion today sees the alliance on the Russian border. Former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock, who participated in all the reunification negotiations in Moscow, commented, quote:

"I'm sure if Bush had been reelected and Gorbachev had remained president of the USSR, there would have been no NATO expansion during their tenure. There was no way to commit successors, and when Gorbachev was deposed and the USSR broke apart, their arrangements became moot." ⁹

The essence of NATO's eastward expansion was and still is evident from Willy Wimmmer's letter to then-Chancellor Schröder. He discusses the contents of the Bratislava conference in 2000, which was held on behalf of the State Department by the American Enterprise Institute, whose working group "Project for the New American Century " ¹⁰ published the strategy paper "Rebuilding America's Defenses" ¹¹ a few months later, to which only neocons contributed. Ten individuals from the working group served in the George W. Bush administration beginning in 2001, including Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz. The implementation of the Bratislava intentions occurred in 2002, and NATO was expanded to include the three Baltic states, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, and Slovakia.  

Willy Wimmer's letter can be found here ¹²  on pages 7 and 8.

Fifteen years after Bratislava, George Friedman, then head of the private intelligence agency STRATFOR, gives a talk at a Chicago think tank, puts on this slide in the subsequent press conference and declares as a constant goal of American foreign policy to prevent a prosperous German-Russian coexistence. ¹³

(Note: this excerpt from the subsequent press conference was edited by the authors for clarity with the yellow statements, the graphic appears from minute 11:10).

A year earlier, Friedman had already used the graphic in this STRATFOR article ¹⁴ under the title "THE NEW CONTAINMENT," thus reactivating the name for the strategy of containing the Soviet Union, the "Truman Doctrine" ¹⁵  which marked the beginning of the Cold War in 1947.
In this respect, one can imagine that after President Putin's 2001 speech in the German Bundestag ¹⁶ all alarm bells went off on the other side of the Atlantic.

Friedman's remarks could be called Continuity of History and Strategy, in reference to another term (Continuity of Government)

You are complaining about the development of Russian hypersonic missiles. Well, who unilaterally terminated the ABM Treaty in 2001 and at the same time started to deploy the AEGIS missile defense system in Eastern Europe and on ships? Should Russia have stood by, exposed itself to the U.S. blackmail calculus? A calculus that U.S. political scientists Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press describe as follows on page 22 of the analysis below  ¹⁷, which also appeared in the leading U.S. foreign policy journal Foreign Affairs:

"Although both criticisms are cogent, even a limited missile shield
could be a powerful complement to the offensive capabilities of U.S. nuclear
forces. Russia has approximately 3,500 strategic nuclear warheads today, but if
the United States struck before Russian forces were alerted, Russia would be
lucky if a half-dozen warheads survived. A functioning missile defense system
could conceivably destroy six warheads. Furthermore, the problem of differen-
tiating warheads from decoys becomes less important if only a handful of sur-
viving enemy warheads and decoys are left to intercept. Facing a small
number of incoming warheads and decoys, U.S. interceptors could simply tar-
get them all."

To the point: Neutralizing Russia's second-strike capability through the missile defense system.
When the two authors presented their 2006 study at the Einstein Forum in Potsdam in 2007, not a single journalist from our major national newspapers was present.

A leap into the year 2021, as far as Russian troops on Ukraine's eastern border are concerned.
Do you know this decree of the National Security Council of Ukraine from March 2021? ¹⁸

"On the strategy of evacuation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territories of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.
In accordance with the provisions of Article 4 of the Law of Ukraine "On the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine", the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine, having considered the draft Strategy of de-occupation and reintegration of the Timorese occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol, has decided:
1. recommendation of the draft strategy for de-occupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.
2. requesting the President of Ukraine to approve the Strategy for Deconcentration and Reintegration of the Temporarily Occupied Territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol.
3. the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine to develop and approve within three months a plan of measures for the implementation of the strategy for the evacuation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied territories of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.
Secretary of the Ukrainian National Security and Defense Council O. Danilov".

Russia should not be allowed to react to this, especially since you can be sure that such decisions are not made in Ukraine without Washington's and London's approval or acquiescence?

I could go on citing a plethora of documents that refute your claims of Russia's aggression. However, I do have a few recommendations, however. First, reading Horst Teltschik's book "Russian Roulette" and reading Brzezinski's book "The Grand Chessboard"; then it will become clear why things have turned out the way Teltschik laments.
Secondly, you could drop by Jüchen and ask Willy Wimmer for a private lecture. Finally, in future you should not read FAZ comments and articles by journalists Kohler, Frankenberger, Veser, Busse, Friedrich Schmidt, Ross, Sturm, if they deal with Russia. In other major daily newspapers, too, you will be served exclusively transatlantic one-size-fits-all sauce. The times when Karl Feldmeyer ¹⁹ could still write editorials, like the one attached, are long gone.
The fact that I read this newspaper has other reasons than to inform myself about foreign policy. Namely, the breadth of the offerings in "State and Law," "Events and Figures," "The Order of the Economy," "Educational Worlds," to name a few, and now and then illuminating things in the feuilleton, as these two examples show

Reinhard Merkel ²⁰ and Hans-Christof Kraus, the only German scholar who understood the basis of any U.S. strategy regarding the Eurasian continent ²¹

With kind regards

Jochen Scholz

In the light of current events, let us take another look at the situation in Ukraine. If it has not been possible - so far at least - to admit it to NATO, one cannot help thinking that the unresolved conflict over Donetsk and Luhansk should also remain unresolved from the point of view of some Western countries. For then a means is always at hand with which the Russian Federation can be accused of an aggressive policy. The most recent example is the failure to hold a meeting in the so-called Normandy format ²² , which was planned for November 11 and for which the German and French foreign ministers blamed Russia in a joint statement ²³ , without citing its reasons.

If the matter were not so serious, it could be dismissed as a farce. Foreign Minister Lavrov's collar has probably burst. Because after prior announcement to his partners, he made the diplomatic note exchange available to the international public ²⁴.

It is clear from it that the German and French sides had no intention to influence Ukraine to finally comply with its obligations under the Mink II Agreement ²⁵ of 2015 (!), which is applicable international law ²⁶ . This primarily concerns points 9, 11 and 12.
In this respect, Russia does not consider a meeting to be purposeful and thus obsolete. In Lavrov's words, "One gets the impression that this is also an attempt to create conditions for a radical revision of the Package of Measures in order to please Kiev, which has been refusing to comply with it in an official and public manner."

Final remark with regard to the German generalship, for which Lieutenant General Brauß quoted above stands pars pro toto. Since the war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, which was contrary to international law, it has been clear that the Generals have surrendered their obligations under the German Soldiers' Act in Washingtonington and      sin against Stauffenberg ²⁷ every year on July 20 in the Bendlerblock ²⁸ with unctuous words. The prospect of being retired with a decent pension is more unbearable for this group of people than the prospect of being shot was for the officer who tried to kill Hitler in 1944.
When will these functional elites, when will our politicians and scientists in the "think tanks" understand that German and European interests must be directed toward peaceful, orderly conditions on our Eurasian continent, instead of subordinating themselves to Anglo-American interests, which want to prevent just that?

¹ https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=78459
² https://www.britannica.com/topic/Frankfurter-Allgemeine-Zeitung
³ https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article235313842/Nato-Generalsekretaer-Jens-Stoltenberg-Koennen-nicht-annehmen-dass-dies-nur-ein-Bluff-ist.html
⁴ https://internationalepolitik.de/de/user/24884/heinrich-brauss
5 https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/6935350/National-Security-Archive-Doc-18-Memorandum-of.pdf
Quote President Bush: "He [Gorbachev] was also very interested in how NATO might change its doctrine, and I read him Article 2 of the NATO Charter, which Brian Mulroney had brought to my attention, just to show him the political nature of NATO. I think it will be crucial that we take steps at the NATO summit to convince him [Gorbachev] that NATO is changing in a way that does not threaten Soviet security."

⁶ https://www.nato.int/docu/comm/49-95/c900706a.htm

⁷ https://www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/189558/21543d1184c1f627412a3426e86a97cd/charta-data.pdf
https://www.osce.org/files/f/documents/0/6/39516.pdf

⁸ http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/us-strategy-plan-calls-for-insuring-no-rivals-develop.html
⁹ http://jackmatlock.com/2014/04/nato-expansion-was-there-a-promise/
¹⁰ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century
¹¹ https://archive.org/details/RebuildingAmericasDefenses/mode/2up

¹² http://www.nato-tribunal.de/blaetter_wimmer.pdf
Quote from Willy Wimmer's letter to the then Chancellor Schröder on the most important statements of the speakers:
„The European legal order is an obstacle to the implementation of NATO considerations.
hindering. The U.S. legal system is more suitable for this purpose, even when applied in Europe.

The war against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had been waged in order to revise General Eisenhower's wrong decision in the Second World War.
A stationing of US soldiers there had to be made up for strategic reasons.
The European allies had taken part in the war against Yugoslavia in order to be able to overcome the de facto dilemma arising from the Alliance's "New Strategic Concept" adopted in April 1999 and the Europeans' inclination towards a prior mandate from the UN or OSCE.

Notwithstanding the subsequent legalistic interpretation of the Europeans, according to which the war against Yugoslavia was an exceptional case of NATO's extended field of activity beyond the treaty area, it was of course a precedent that anyone could and would invoke at any time.
In the forthcoming NATO expansion, the spatial situation between the Baltic Sea and Anatolia must be restored to the way it was in the heyday of Roman expansion.

To this end, Poland must be surrounded to the north and south with democratic
neighbors, Romania and Bulgaria would have to ensure the land connection with
Turkey, Serbia (presumably for the purpose of securing a U.S. military presence) must be
be permanently excluded from European development.
North of Poland, the goal is to maintain complete control over access from St. Petersburg to the Baltic Sea.

In any process, the right of self-determination must be given precedence over all other rules orprovisions or rules of international law......................might shall prevail over right.
Where international law stands in the way, it is to be eliminated….When a similar development hit the League of Nations, the Second World War was no longer far away.
A way of thinking that sees its own interests so absolutely can only be called totalitarian. „

¹³ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ablI1v9PXpI
¹⁴ https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/estonia-azerbaijan-american-strategy-after-ukraine
¹⁵ https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truman-Doktrin

¹⁶ https://www.bundestag.de/parlament/geschichte/gastredner/putin/putin_wort-244966
English:
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/21340

¹⁷ https://www.belfercenter.org/sites/default/files/files/publication/is3004_pp007-044_lieberpress.pdf

¹⁸ https://www.president.gov.ua/documents/1172021-37533
It was announced on 26 February by President Zelinskyy
https://www.president.gov.ua/en/news/zvernennya-prezidenta-ukrayini-z-nagodi-dnya-sprotivu-okupac-66821
 
19 Karl Feldmeyer, FAZ v. 23. 11. 202, Seite 1 „Das Ende der alten NATO“, Zitat:
„Was immer sonst noch zum Verhalten der Bundesregierung zur Irak-Frage zu sagen ist, das Verhalten der deutschen Bevölkerung zu diesem Thema hat auch deutlich gemacht, daß die Öffnung der Nato für eine Politik der militärischen Intervention für Deutschland spezifische Probleme schaffen kann. Sie gründen nicht nur in der Feststellung des Grundgesetzes, daß die Bundesrepublik Streitkräfte "zum Zwecke der Verteidigung" unterhält, sondern in der Prägung durch die nationale Geschichte. Zwei Weltkriege haben dazu beigetragen, den Begriff "Verteidigung" ganz eng auszulegen. Was andernorts als "präemptive Intervention" bewertet werden mag, kann sich in den Augen der Deutschen als Angriff ausnehmen - und den verbieten UN-Charta und Grundgesetz. Schon Bismarck verweigerte das "praevenire". Für diese Haltung brauchen sich die Deutschen nicht zu entschuldigen, schon gar nicht bei ihren Verbündeten, die einst Opfer deutscher Angriffe waren.“

Karl Feldmeyer, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung v. 23. 11. 202, page 1 "The end of the old NATO“, quote:
"Whatever else may be said about the behavior of the German government on the Iraq issue, the behavior of the German people on this issue has also made it clear that the opening of NATO to a policy of military intervention can create specific problems for Germany. They are based not only on the Basic Law's statement that the Federal Republic maintains armed forces "for the purpose of defense," but on the imprint of national history. Two world wars have contributed to a very narrow interpretation of the term "defense." What may be considered "preemptive intervention" elsewhere may turn out to be an attack in the eyes of the Germans - and that is forbidden by the UN Charter and the Basic Law. Even Bismarck refused to "praevenire". The Germans do not need to apologize for this attitude, certainly not to their allies who were once victims of German attacks."

²⁰ http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/debatten/die-krim-und-das-voelkerrecht-kuehle-ironie-der-geschichte-12884464.html?printPagedArticle=true#pageIndex_2
Quote Reinhard Merkel, Professor of Criminal Law and Philosophy of Law University of Hamburg:
„Did Russia annex Crimea? No. Were the referendum in Crimea and its secession from Ukraine illegal under international law? No. Were they therefore legal? No; they violated the Ukrainian constitution (but that is not a question of international law). But shouldn't Russia have refused Crimea's accession because of this unconstitutionality? No; the Ukrainian constitution does not bind Russia. So were its actions in accordance with international law? No; in any case, its military presence in Crimea outside its leased territories there was contrary to international law. Does it not follow from this that the secession of Crimea, which was made possible by this military presence in the first place, was null and void and thus that its subsequent accession to Russia was nothing other than a masked annexation? No.“

²¹ http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/syrien-und-ihr-denkt-es-geht-um-einen-diktator-11830492.html
Hans-Christof Kraus, Professor of Modern and Contemporary History University of Passau, addresses the Syrian war and places it in the Anglo-American geopolitical strategies that are still valid today, based on Halford Mackinder's Heartland Theory, the title of the article is "And you think it's about a dictator.")
Heartland Theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History

²² https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normandy_Format
²³ https://kiew.diplo.de/ua-de/aktuelles/-/2496302
²⁴ https://bit.ly/3I7XTVk

²⁵ https://www.bpb.de/201881/dokumentation-das-minsker-abkommen-vom-12-februar-2015
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2020/05/minsk-conundrum-western-policy-and- russias-war-eastern-ukraine-0/minsk-2-agreement

²⁶ https://www.un.org/depts/german/sr/sr_14-15/sr2202.pdf
https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_res_2202.pdf

²⁷ https://www.britannica.com/biography/Claus-Graf-Schenk-von-Stauffenberg
²⁸ http://www.slowtravelberlin.com/widerstand-berlins-german-resistance-memorial/

 
Zivadin Jovanovic, The Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals
November, 2021
                                                       
1.    First of all I would like to congratulate friendly people and the leadership of the Peoples Republic of China, historic jubilee of the 50th anniversary of the restoration of all its rights as the sole representative to the United Nations and all other international organizations. It is greatest achievement of the Peoples Republic of China in favor of peace, stability, universality of the UN  and democratization of the world relations. Overwhelming support to the General Assembly’s Resolution 2758 reflected global recognition of reality and the truth that PR of China commands immense potentials for peace, equitable development, and maintenance of the law based world order and peaceful coexistence. These premises, in fact, represent basic UN principles and objectives. Thus, the world community adopted and ever since supported the policy of one China and refused any unilateral separatism as the threat to peace and stability. It was the most important step toward achieving universality of the UN since its foundation in 1945.
Today, 50 years after, the world needs again understanding of the new realities as it did in 1971. Cold war perceptions and prejudices are counter-productive.

2.    Chinese people have experienced through history horrors of foreign aggressions, occupations and imposed foreign domination. This is why China has been investing tremendous efforts in safeguarding peace and stability in the world. Being the largest contributor to the UN peace keeping operations among the permanent members of UN SC and the second largest funding contributor to the UN and UN peacekeeping operations, China demonstrates in practice her continuous devotion to peace and solution of all international problems by peaceful means. As the permanent member of UN SC China has always advanced principled, constructive and conducive positions for peaceful, just and sustainable solutions of all disputes. We recall that in May 1992 China’s representative had not voted in favor of UN SC inhumane sanctions against FRF of Yugoslavia. Peace and global development are unthinkable objectives without equitable economic cooperation and inclusive development. In this regard, BRICS, Shanghai Organization for Cooperation, New Development Bank and a number of other new international institutions initiated, founded or cofounded by China, clearly illustrate China’s comprehensive approach to safeguarding peace and stability through cooperation and development. Peace through development and win win cooperation without any political, ideological or other preconditions, have become main features of China’s international policy.

3.    NATO 1999 aggression against Serbia (FRY) was the peak of moral bankruptcy of the USA led Western Alliance. It was illegal act based on untruths. Illegal, because it was launched without authorization of the UN Security Council, in violation of the UN Charter, OSCE Final Document (1975) and International Law, in general. Based on untruths, because there was nothing of alleged “massive violation of human rights” of Albanian national minority in the autonomous region of Kosovo and Metohija, there was no alleged “massacre of civilians” in Rachak, there was no alleged “horseshoe plan” and so called “Rambouillet talks” were only cover up, alibi, to justify premeditated military aggression against one independent, sovereign, peace loving European country. In fact, NATO aggression was notorious abuse of alleged human rights for geopolitical expansion of NATO to the East. Thousands people (including three Chinese journalists in the premises of Chinese Embassy in Belgrade) had been killed, our economy, infrastructure, schools, hospitals, all destroyed,  depleted uranium sewed to poise the soil, waters and air for billions of years. But, they also inflicted irreparable damage to the European and global UN security order established after the end of the Second WW. The time has come for the western powers to recognize historic mistake committed toward Serbia and Serbian people, to apologize for the crimes and pay the war damage estimated at over 100 billion USD.

It is of paramount importance for the UN to reinforce full respect of the international law, particularly UN Charter, to reaffirm the role of the Security Council as the highest authority for peace and security, to upgrade efficiency of preventive measures and, particularly, to stop any abuse of human rights for interfering in internal affairs of other countries.

Humanity of the 21 century is fed up of the policy of force, cold war alignments and perceptions, “theories” of limited sovereignty and exceptionality of any country or nation, reminiscent of not too glorious strategies of “higher races”. Multi polar, equitable and inclusive new world order is irreversible reality providing the ground for democratic, inclusive New World Order.

4.    China’s success in eradicating poverty 10 years ahead of the target set up by the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is unique achievement of global importance for humanity. In the period of growing socio economic gaps and poverty, China’s success continues to attract worldwide attention and to inspire new approaches and strategies to future development. No doubt, that the system of socialism of Chinese characteristics placing people’s needs in the very center of development strategy have played primary role. Consequently, eliminating of poverty is historic contribution to human rights, be they of socio economic, political, or cultural. China’s multi millennium culture, deep rooted sense of humanity, justice and solidarity as well as Chinese people’s devotion their glorious identity, creativity and progress, have also contributed to this unprecedented achievement of eliminating poverty of millions of people.

5.    Success of China in eradicating poverty is shining example of responsible approach to the internationally accepted objectives as well as encouragement to other governments and nations to reinforce their resources and energy in the same direction. China has proved that poverty is not human destiny but the challenge which can be resolved by appropriate strategy, including international coordination and solidarity. Eliminating poverty globally require active, coordinated and comprehensive approach. This includes openness of reach countries to reexamine their relative policies in practice, including redistribution and the level of budget funds for the elimination of global poverty. Generally, there is need for broader understanding that the poverty is often the source of instability, extremism, massive migrations, national and international conflicts. It is disturbing to see such level misunderstanding among political elites of some rich countries who believe that new walls, barb wired and militarized borders, destroyer fleet patrols and alike, are appropriate defense against  massive migrations of desperate, hungry people from the war thorn countries and regions, primarily from Africa and Euro-Assia .

6.    China is the leader in contributing to the global GDP growth, her contribution being higher than contribution of EU, USA and Japan together. The global Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) launched by the President Xi Jinping in 2013, supported by 140 countries and 32 international organizations, has further reinforced global role of China in recovering the world economy, reforming the global economic system to be based on equality, openness and inclusiveness.

Serbia and China being comprehensive strategic partners have been developing closest cooperation bilaterally and in international forums supporting one another. Serbia plays important role in the process of realization of BRI and cooperation format CEEC+China, under BRI, since its inception. The results are impressive. First Chinese bridges on European soil has been constructed in Serbia, first high speed railway Belgrade – Budapest (in progress by Chinese, Russian and Serbian companies), first steel factory (Smederevo), first thermo electric factory (Kostolac B), first Scientific - Industrial Park (Belgrade). First water purification factory, first Covid 19 laboratories. Hundreds of kilometers of modern highways in Serbia have been constructed by Chinese companies. In addition, Serbia is the first European country to have signed agreement with China on abolishment of entry visa system.
The newest statistics show that the two Chinese companies operating in Serbia, have become the largest exporters from Serbia – Zijin, Bor Copper and Gold Mining with 805,9 million euro- and HIBIS, Smederevo Steel Factory, with 619,6 million euro, in the period of January-October 2021. The both employ over 10.000 employees.
Thus, Serbia, actively cooperating with China, particularly taking part in the global BRI, as well as in CEEC+China format of cooperation, has intensified reindustrialization, modernization of infrastructure and economic growth, expansion of employment and trade. On the other hand, China has reinforced connectivity with European market, expanded trade and investments, as well as people to people exchange.

7.    In the globalized world multilateralism has become the only viable framework for resolving the most important challenges of contemporary humanity. Peace, sustainable development, elimination of socioeconomic gap North-South, poverty, inevitable reforms of global governance and many other challenges are unthinkable without multilateral framework. United Nations have played vital role strengthening multilateralism; therefore it is of ultimate importance to 3further reinforce the UN role.

China has been and continues to be the strong and trusted supporter of multilateralism, strengthening of the role of UN, respect of UN Charter and basic principles of International law. Many strategically important initiatives of China, particularly in the fields of global, open and inclusive development, presented at the UN conferences have been adopted. China played exceptionally important role in overcoming severe consequences of financial and economic crises 2008-2012. In addition, China has been co-founder of a number of multilateral forums such as G-20, BRICS, NDB, AIIB and other regional or universal organizations clearly showing constructive position and full understanding of relevance and the role of multilateralism in the era of globalized world.
Any unilateralism, protectionism or exceptionalism are signs of misreading of new reality and future development needs. As the struggle to contain pandemic Covid 19 has proved, today and in the future, no one should believe to be self-sufficient and omnipotent. The need for openness, partnership and solidarity have become the order of the day.

8.    Having regard to multiple crises, fundamental changes in the global relations, accumulation of global challenges and crises, in my opinion, the first and foremost step should be to normalize and intensify the dialogue among the leaders of the most responsible countries, meaning, among the leaders of of the countries - permanent members of UN Security Council.  The aim would be to consider and prioritize global challenges with the view of their impact on the security and stability in the world, to find common denominator for the ways to stop further aggravation of the situation.

Some challenges and problems have been already considered at the multiple conferences under the UN auspices such as sustainable development, climate change, Covid 19 pandemic. Common positions have been taken, the documents adopted, but their implementation lags behind of what has been agreed, or is hindered because os some narrow interests. Only dialogue could help removing whatever obstacles and reaffirming common, coordinated action. The fact that only few percent of all anticovid 19 vaccines went to the less developed world must  have long ago ignited red light, especially especially in the offices of the leaders western wealthiest countries. The burden of resolving problem of climate change can’t be carried by developing and pore countries but primarily by the most industrialized ones.

The President Xi Jinping’s proposal to build community of the shared future of mankind is visionary one comprising positive and constructive approach to the future, to building the new open and inclusive World Order free of any narrowness, national egoism or double standards. The proposal is based on the profound understanding of contemporary trends and proven experiences that nobody is self-sufficient. As Covid 19 pandemic has shown, nobody, rich or pore, big or small, militarily strong or weak on the planet can claim to be protected, isolated or exempted from calamities. To put it simply, all human beings and all nations are sovereign and equal , regardless of races, religions, or regional origins. Globalized reality calls for connectivity, solidarity understanding of interdependence; inward minded policies have become anachronism. This is why the President Xi Jinping’s conception of community of shared future, does have future.

9. China deserves highest recognition for extraordinary efficiency in putting under control Covid 19 pandemic. Having regard that China I the most populated country on the planet, this success was, at the same time important contribution in the global efforts to control the spread of pandemic to other regions of the world. It is already historic fact that China has been the first country in the world to globally provide direct assistance to other countries of the world in terms of medical personnel, disinfection materials diagnostic equipment, vaccines, masks… The scopes and quality of Chinese assistance, efficiency and perfection of distribution have set new world standards to be proud of.
China was the first country to help Serbia in this struggle which continues without certain terms of ending. First and foremost, we received teams of Chinese doctors and medical personnel for weeks working hand in hand with Serbian doctors and personnel.  Providing masks at the beginning was soon replaced by sending machines for mask production. China has helped establishing the two diagnostic centers (Belgrade and Nis) known as “Fire Eyes” with the total capacity of 20.000 diagnoses a day. Finally, delivering of millions of vaccines from China is being replaced now by factory producing Chinese vaccines in Belgrade as the joint venture of China, Serbia and Arab Emirates.

Serbia and China are lasting steel friends.

Manlio Dinucci

The art of war

NATO Secretary-General Stoltenberg met President Draghi on November 17 in Rome to address "the current security challenges" arising from "Russia's military build-up in and around Ukraine". Stoltenberg thanked Italy because it "contributes to our presence in the Baltic Region with the air policing and troops". The Italian Air Force - specifies the Ministry of Defense - has deployed at Ämari airport in Estonia F-35A fighters from the 32nd Wing of Amendola and Eurofighter Typhoon fighters from the 4th Wing of Grosseto, 36th Wing of Gioia del Colle, 37th Wing of Trapani, and 51st Wing of Istrana (Treviso). When Russian planes fly into the international airspace over the Baltic, usually heading for the Russian exclave of Kaliningrad, the Italian fighters receive an immediate take-off order from the NATO command on alert and within minutes they intercept them. The official purpose of this operation is "to preserve allied airspace". The real purpose is to make Russia appear as a threatening power preparing to attack Europe. This is fuelling a growing climate of tension: the F-35A and Eurofighter Typhoon fighters deployed within minutes of Russian territory are dual-capable fighters with conventional and nuclear capabilities. What would happen if similar Russian fighter jets were deployed on the border with the United States?

The "air policing" on Russia's borders is part of the frenzied U.S.-NATO military escalation in Europe against an invented enemy, Russia, in an increasingly dangerous grand strategic game. It was initiated in 2014 with the US/NATO-directed coup in Ukraine, supported by the EU, in order to provoke a new cold war in Europe to isolate Russia and strengthen US influence and presence in Europe. Russia has been accused of forcibly annexing Crimea, ignoring that it was the Crimean Russians who decided in a referendum to secede from Ukraine and rejoin Russia to avoid being attacked, like the Russians in Donbas, by neo-Nazi battalions in Kyiv. Those used in 2014 as a strike force in the Maidan Square putsch, triggered by Georgian snipers who fired on demonstrators and policemen, and in subsequent actions: villages put to fire and sword, activists burned alive in the Odesa Chamber of Labor, unarmed civilians massacred in Mariupol, bombed with white phosphorus in Donetsk and Lugansk.

Stoltenberg and Draghi also addressed the issue of the "crisis on the border of Belarus with Poland, Latvia, and Lithuania". NATO accuses Belarus of using, with Russia's support, "vulnerable migrants as tools of hybrid tactics against other countries, putting their lives at risk." Defending the migrants, expressing fear for their lives, are the same US and NATO leaders, including the Italian rulers, who in the last thirty years have led the first war against Iraq, the war against Yugoslavia, the war in Afghanistan, the second war against Iraq, the war against Libya, the war against Syria.  Wars that have demolished entire states and broken up entire societies, causing millions of victims, forcing millions of people to forced emigration.

The day after the meeting with Draghi, Stoltenberg attended the 70th anniversary of the NATO Defense College, to which about 15,000 military and civilian personnel from 80 member and partner countries of the Alliance have graduated in Rome since 1951. After being educated in every aspect of "international security," they went on to "hold the highest civilian and military positions," that is, positions of responsibility in the governments and armed forces of NATO member and partner countries. In this university of war, where the most sophisticated strategies are taught, the most important sector is dedicated to Russia. It will now be joined by another. In his celebratory speech, the NATO Secretary-General in fact stressed, " Russia and China are leading an authoritarian push-back against the rules-based international order." Stoltenberg has however forgotten to specify that “the international order must be based on our rules".

(the manifesto, November 23, 2021)

Manlio Dinucci

L’Arte della guerra

Il segretario generale della Nato Stoltenberg ha incontrato il presidente Draghi, il 17 novembre a Roma, per affrontare «le attuali sfide alla sicurezza», provenienti dal «rafforzamento militare della Russia in Ucraina e attorno ad essa». Stoltenberg ha ringraziato l’Italia perché «contribuisce alla nostra presenza nella Regione Baltica con il pattugliamento aereo e sue truppe». L’Aeronautica militare italiana – specifica il Ministero della Difesa – ha schierato nell’aeroporto di Ämari in Lettonia caccia F-35A del 32° Stormo di Amendola e caccia Eurofighter Typhoon del 4° Stormo di Grosseto, 36° Stormo di Gioia del Colle, 37° Stormo di Trapani e 51° Stormo di Istrana (Treviso). Quando aerei russi volano nello spazio aereo internazionale sul Baltico, in genere diretti all’exclave russa di Kaliningrad, i caccia italiani ricevono dal comando Nato l’ordine di decollo immediato su allarme e in pochi minuti li intercettano. Scopo ufficiale di tale operazione è «preservare lo spazio aereo alleato». Scopo reale è far apparire la Russia come una potenza minacciosa che si prepara ad attaccare l’Europa. Si alimenta così un crescente clima di tensione: gli F-35A e gli Eurofighter Typhoon, schierati a pochi minuti di volo dal territorio russo, sono caccia a duplice capacità convenzionale e nucleare. Che cosa avverrebbe se analoghi caccia russi fossero schierati ai confini con gli Stati uniti?

Il «pattugliamento aereo» ai confini con la Russia rientra nella frenetica escalation militare Usa-Nato in Europa contro un nemico inventato, la Russia, in un grande gioco strategico sempre più pericoloso. Esso è stato avviato nel 2014 con il colpo di stato in Ucraina sotto regia Usa/Nato, sostenuto dalla Ue, al fine di provocare in Europa una nuova guerra fredda per isolare la Russia e rafforzare l’influenza e presenza degli Stati uniti in Europa. La Russia è stata accusata di aver annesso con la forza la Crimea, ignorando che sono stati i russi di Crimea a decidere con un referendum di staccarsi dall’Ucraina e rientrare nella Russia per evitare di essere attaccati, come i russi del Donbass, dai battaglioni neonazisti di Kiev. Quelli usati nel 2014 quale forza d’assalto nel putsch di piazza Maidan, innescato da cecchini georgiani che sparavano sui dimostranti e sui poliziotti, e nelle azioni successive: villaggi messi a ferro e fuoco, attivisti bruciati vivi nella Camera del Lavoro di Odessa, inermi civili massacrati a Mariupol, bombardati col fosforo bianco a Donetsk e Lugansk.

Stoltenberg e Draghi hanno affrontato anche il tema della «crisi al confine della Bielorussia con Polonia, Lettonia e Lituania». La Nato accusa la Bielorussia di usare, con il sostegno della Russia, «migranti vulnerabili come strumenti di tattica ibrida contro altri paesi, mettendo a rischio la loro vita». A difendere i migranti, a esprimere timore per la loro vita, sono gli stessi responsabili Usa e Nato, compresi i governanti italiani, che negli ultimi trent’anni hanno condotto la prima guerra contro l’Iraq, la guerra contro la Jugoslavia, la guerra in Afghanistan, la seconda guerra contro l’Iraq, la guerra contro la Libia, la guerra contro la Siria.  Guerre che hanno demolito interi Stati e disgregato intere società, provocando milioni di vittime, costringendo milioni di persone all’emigrazione forzata.

Il giorno dopo l’incontro con Draghi, Stoltenberg ha presenziato al 70° anniversario del Nato Defense College, al quale si sono laureati a Roma dal 1951 circa 15.000 militari e civili di 80 paesi membri e partner dell’Alleanza. Dopo essere stati istruiti su ogni aspetto della «sicurezza internazionale», essi sono andati a «ricoprire le più alte cariche civili e militari», ossia posti di responsabilità nei governi e nelle forze armate dei paesi membri e partner della Nato. In questa università della guerra, in cui si insegnano le strategie più sofisticate, il più importante settore è dedicato alla Russia. Ora sarà affiancato da un altro. Nel discorso celebrativo, il Segretario generale della Nato ha infatti sottolineato: «La Russia e la Cina stanno guidando una spinta autoritaria contro l'ordine internazionale basato sulle regole». Stoltenberg ha però dimenticato di precisare «sulle nostre regole».

(il manifesto, 23 Novembre 2021)

Armin-Paul Hamper, head of the foreign policy committee of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in the Bundestag, has for several years been a voice different from Berlin's official position when it comes to Kosovo.

Former canadian ambassador to Belgrade James Bissett said: the only party responsible for the war in Bosnia is the USA

The World Peace Council expresses its deep concern about the recent developments in Afghanistan. Twenty years after the US and NATO imperialist aggression and invasion of Afghanistan, the suffering of its people has no ending.

When the US launched their supposed “War on Terror” in 2001, the anti-imperialist peace-loving forces were well aware of the hypocrisy and real goals of the aggression in Afghanistan. The Mujahedin, Taliban and other extremist religious forces, who were created,
funded and directed for more than a decade by the US and its European allies for the purpose of overthrowing the first popular government in the late 1980s, took control of the country for more than 10 years. The internationalist support of the USSR which had brought huge progress in all social fields was twisted and falsified for ideological reasons. In 2001, after having served the imperialist plans, the Taliban then became the “target” of their previous masters.

The adjustment of the foreign policy of the United States and NATO in central Asia had in mind confrontation with Russia and China. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives,
millions were displaced and became refugees. More than two trillion US dollars were spent all these years by the imperialists for military operations of and establishment and funding of willing puppet regimes in Kabul. The lucrative opium business mushroomed and multiplied for the last twenty years.

These days the Biden administration started the withdrawal of US forces from the country after long negotiations (which started by the Trump administration) with the Taliban forces. The country is being handed over to the “previous enemy” with imminent danger for institutional obscurantism and fundamentalism. The USA is not leaving Afghanistan for the sake of cutting expenses. Their priorities in the Pacific Ocean require such readjustment and redeployment of their military.

Amongst many other issues, the new situation will add new social problems for the people of Afghanistan, particularly for the women of the country. The danger exists for the stronger emergence of religious fundamentalism in the region, heavily armed with the military equipment the US is leaving behind, while concerns for a new wave of refugees are growing.

The WPC expresses its solidarity with the people of Afghanistan, who, for the last 30 years, has never had the freedom to decide upon its future and fortunes. The US/NATO military occupation and the rule of the Taliban are the two sides of the same coin.
 
 
World Peace Council Secretariat Athens, 16th August 2021

Dear friends of CNIE,

It is our honor to extend our heartfelt congratulations to you on accession of marking 100 anniversary of foundation of the Communist Party of China. We join you, and the friendly people of China in all your festivities and celebrations of this great jubilee.

Since its foundation the CPC has led the great Chinese nation to liberate and preserve freedom, to defend sovereignty, territorial integrity and dignity, to freely choose and implement socialism of Chinese characteristics, to open up and reform along the way bringing China today to the level of powerhouse of modern economic, social and cultural development of Asia and the world. CPC’s people centered policy made China successful in eliminating poverty in own society and actively engagening in helping other nations to efficiently address this grave problem. This is right approach to human rights based on 1948 UN Universal Declaration and therefore must not be abused for meddling in internal affairs.

Chinese people today stand proud of the fact that China is the first global trading power, the first contributor to the rise of global GDP, the second strongest economy in the world and globally recognized partner in win win cooperation. The shining example of visionary constructive and peaceful international role of China is the global Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) launched by the Secretary General of CPC and president of China Xi Jinping. Coupled with 17+1 format of cooperation BRI is connecting not only economies but continents, civilizations and peoples thus promoting peace, understanding and values for the whole humanity.

In the present situation of Covid 19 pandemic China has shown the capacity and highest solidarity in practice providing doctors, medical equipment and vaccines to all countries in need, respecting only human merits, without any political, ideological or other shortsighted calculations. This has further reinforced world-wide trust in China as true and steady partner in any difficulties. The CPC’s people-centered internal policy, paired with peace-centered international policy based on the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs, is broadly recognized and highly respected in the world. China is seen as one of the pillars of the multi-polar world order based on equitable, inclusive and democratic governance without any privileges, dominance or exceptionality.

We are convinced that CPC will continue to lead China and the great Chinese nation in the future on the road of peace and progress, in the interest of China, peace in the world and community of shared future of mankind. In this framework, we will continue to support further strengthening of traditional friendly relations and ever deeper cooperation between Serbia and China being comprehensive strategic partners.

We will be honored to continue good cooperation with CNIE.

With the best wishes,

Zivadin Jovanovic, president Belgrade forum for a World of Equals, Silk Road Connectivity Research Center (COREC)

The World Peace Council (WPC) expresses its serious concern about the recent well orchestrated and paid imperialist plan to create chaos and disorder in Cuba, using as pretext the severe shortages of imported goods and other products of primary necessity, as well as electricity cuts, facts that have to the great extend their root causes in the almost sixty (60) years criminal blockade imposed by the USA on Cuba. Particularly during the last period and in conditions of the global health pandemic, Cuba is being prevented through new and additional measures and sanctions to purchase and import medicine and raw material for medicine as well as technical hospital supplies.

While acknowledging the suffering of the Cuban people the WPC underlines in the strongest way its rejection to any actions of interference and subversive actions which are aiming in the “regime change” by paid elements and mercenaries as we have observed it in other parts of the world with “Color Revolutions”. The Cuban people know too well that the imperialists have never stopped the war against their country, regardless the rotating methods or the changing residents of the White House. These criminal and inhuman policies are being helped by its imperialist allies of the European Union and their agents inside Cuba and in Florida who demanded today even an open intervention under humanitarian pretext as it has been witnessed also in other cases of countries before.

We denounce the cynical interest of those forces that cause the suffering by political and economical sanctions and blockade first and their hypocrisy then for the “poor Cuban people” who have to be taught “democracy and human rights”. Cuba particularly has given lessons of solidarity and dignity many times from the triumph of the Revolution in 1959 on, but this last period during the Covid-19 pandemic, the island of the Revolution has championed one more time with its selfless internationalist aid to peoples in need while it is developing in extremely difficult conditions its own vaccines very rapidly with the commitment to help poor and oppressed peoples of the world as well.

We express our indignation to the imperialist plans to create social discontent and direct it against the sovereign Cuban government. The achievements of the Socialist Cuba constitute an example and source of inspiration for the peoples of Latin America and the world.  

The WPC stands in Solidarity with the heroic people of Cuba and its Revolution!

We demand the immediate lifting of the blockade and of all sanctions against Cuba!

End to the imperialist provocations!

Hands off Cuba!

The WPC Secretariat
Athens, 12th July 2021

--
World Peace Council
10,Othonos St.
10557 Athens/Greece
Tel.:+302103316326
Fax.:+302103251576
E-mail: This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Web: www.wpc-in.org

DECLARATION OF THE HUNGARIAN PEACE COMMUNITY
 
NATO and the European Union have launched a coordinated political attack on Hungary to end our cooperation with China and Russia. They want Hungary to terminate the agreement with Russia on the expansion of the Paks nuclear power plant, and with China on the construction of the Belgrade-Budapest railway line and the establishment of Fudan University in Hungary. The Western system of alliance, of which our country is a member, requires us to cut the threads to the East and fully submit ourselves to the will of NATO. Their attack is hidden under the guise of defending democracy. They claim that they are worried about the fate of liberties and human rights in Hungary. No doubt there are problems with these back home! Not a little! But there can hardly be any doubt that the cause of the problems is not to be found in the building with East of relations and cooperation based on mutual benefits. The West fears that the Hungarian example may become catchy, and it turns out that opening up to the East will bring enormous benefits, including the protection of lives. See curbing the epidemic with oriental vaccines! They complain that the power does not tune the people against the Russians and the Chinese, as do the Poles, Czechs, Romanians and Baltics. They complain that we are ready to restore diplomatic relations with Syria. Most importantly, they complain that we are vetoing Ukraine's integration into NATO. While they fear democracy in Hungary, they pact with Nazis in Ukraine.
 
No criticism has been made of the law passed on 1 July, which subdivides Ukraine into subordinate and superior ethnic groups and serves as a legal basis for the deprivation of the rights of peoples, nations and national minorities declared not to be indigenous. According to the law, the Hungarian, Ruthenian, Russian, Polish, Romanian and many other minorities that make up Ukraine are no longer considered native. If NATO's real goal was to protect freedoms and human rights, it would not support an Ukraine that crushes them! But since this is not the goal, but the use and exploitation of Ukraine against Russia, it turns its back on its own declared values, and it also unites with Ukrainian extremists in the spirit of the policy of goal sanctifies the tool. Not only does it expose our Hungarians living in Ukraine to atrocities, but it also endangers the peace and security of Hungary with the rearmament of Ukraine, its joint military exercises, and its series of provocations around Crimea. According to the creed of the Hungarian Peace Community, Hungary must live in peace and in good relations with both East and West. We consider a doubtful ally to be one who does not support but hinders us in this matter of destiny for the survival of our nation. The Hungarian Peace Community proclaims the friendship and peaceful coexistence of peoples. We want equal, mutually respectful, mutually beneficial cooperation with the East, not a Western Iron Curtain with the East!

The World Peace Council expresses its vehement condemnation of the brutal oppression of Palestinians in the occupied Jerusalem by Israeli security forces and armed settlers. We denounce in particular the attack on Palestinian civilians around the Al Aqsa Mosque and the violent efforts for evictions of Palestinian families in the neighborhood of Sheikh Jarrah of Jerusalem.

The above actions are not only violating basic human rights of the Palestinians of Jerusalem, they constitute also a clear violation of the international Status of Jerusalem as described in the relevant UN resolutions. It is the continuation of the efforts of the Israeli occupation regime to proceed with the Judaization of the city of Jerusalem which is being fully endorsed by the US administrations and tolerated by the European Union.

These actions are aiming at the “ethnic cleansing” of Jerusalem and land robbing which are only comparable with an “Apartheid-style” policy against the Palestinian people.

The WPC expresses its full-hearted solidarity and support to the just cause of the Palestinian people for the end of the occupation of all Palestinian territories, including East Jerusalem, the dismantling of the settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem. We demand the release of all Palestinian political prisoners from Israeli jails, the right to return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and we reiterate our demand for the establishment of an independent viable Palestinian State within the borders of pre-4th June 1967, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

End the Occupation Now! Free Palestine!

10th May 2021 The WPC Secretariat

Belgrado, 27 abr (Prensa Latina) El presidente del Foro de Belgrado por un Mundo de Igualdad, Zivadin Jovanovic, ratificó hoy su adhesión al clamor mundial por el fin del bloqueo de Estados Unidos contra Cuba.

En una alocución mediante video desde la sede de esa institución, quien fuera ministro de Asuntos Exteriores de la República Federal de Yugoslavia (1998-2000) expresó plena solidaridad, amistad y admiración hacia ese pueblo que calificó de fraternal.

Denunció que quienes pretenden ser excepcionales portadores de la democracia, el estado de derecho, la libertad y los derechos humanos desde hace seis décadas mantienen sanciones ilegales y brutales mediante un cerco a ese pequeño país.

Eso ocurre, exclusivamente, dijo, porque 'el pueblo cubano quiere vivir con libertad, independencia y dignidad, porque lucha por la paz, igualdad de derechos y solidaridad y rechaza con decisión todo intento de injerencia externa, arrogancia y dominación desde posiciones fe fuerza', sentenció.

Afirmó Jovanovic que, pese a las incivilizadas sanciones del bloqueo y una propaganda imperialista sin precedentes, el pueblo cubano desarrolló exitosamente su sociedad basada en una política de principios que tiene como centro al hombre y sus necesidades en la economía, educación, salud, ciencia y cultura.

Aseveró que eso es posible gracias a grandes logros en el desarrollo interno, así como a una política de paz, solidaridad y cooperación en igualdad de derechos y el no alineamiento en el plano internacional. 'Cuba se transformó en un faro de libertad, independencia y dignidad para muchos países y pueblos en el mundo', opinó.

El exdiplomático ratificó su adhesión a la demanda de la inmensa mayoría de la humanidad para que se ponga fin sin dilaciones a las ilegales, unilaterales e inhumanas sanciones del bloqueo de Estados Unidos de América contra Cuba.

Jovanovic hizo llegar a Prensa Latina una foto del encuentro que sostuvo con el presidente cubano Fidel Castro, en una ocasión de su manda, to como jefe de la diplomacia de Yugoslavia.

Source: www.prensa-latina.cu

The World Peace Council (WPC) expresses its grief for the passing of the beloved and respected comrade Roland Weyl, a committed Communist French Lawyer, who dedicated his long life to the just causes of the peoples and their rights. In his 102 years of life Roland Weyl championed with modesty in defending hundreds of political activists and social fighters in various countries, the struggles of the people of Algeria, Palestine, Cuba among many others were always in his heart. Roland Weyl was a genuine internationalist who understood like only few others, the moral and professional duty as a people’s lawyer to defend people under oppression and exploitation.

Roland Weyl was known and involved with the WPC for many decades. As a comrade who had the privilege to be present in the foundation of the WPC in April 1949 in Paris he was always a source of precious information and inspiration. He attended many WPC meetings and events and served always as the “liaison” between the WPC and the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) of which was co-founder and served for many years as first Vice-President.

The WPC comrades who had the pleasure to meet and know him, remember his expertise and firm stand against NATO in its aggression against Yugoslavia and all other crimes of NATO. He stood clearly against the militarization of the European Union and its arbitrary positions towards the just causes of the peoples.

Roland Weyl, with his humor and intelligence was enlightening and enriching our meetings, he had always a clear class criterion and never abandoned his principles. Our comrade Roland lived a life full of struggles and sacrifices, in the court rooms and in the streets, in clandestine and in legality, always side by side with the poor and the oppressed. His legacy will be remembered and his spirit will prevail in the current and future struggles.

We express our full-hearted condolences to his family and daughter France Weyl, to his fellow fighters for peace and social justice in the “Droit et Solidarité” of France and the IADL.

The WPC Secretariat

22 April 2021

THE BELGRADE FORUM FOR A WORLD OF EQUALS,
CONECTIVITY RESEARCH CENTER

April 2nd, 2021.

Dear friends of CNIE,

It is our honor to extend our heartfelt congratulations to you on accession of marking 100 anniversary of foundation of the Communist Party of China. We join you, and the friendly people of China in all your festivities and celebrations of this great jubilee.

Since its foundation the CPC has led the great Chinese nation to liberate and preserve freedom, to defend sovereignty, territorial integrity and dignity, to freely choose and implement socialism of Chinese characteristics, to open up and reform along the way bringing China today to the level of powerhouse of modern economic, social and cultural development of Asia and the world. CPC’s people centered policy made China successful in eliminating poverty in own society and actively engagening in helping other nations to efficiently address this grave problem. This is right approach to human rights based on 1948 UN Universal Declaration and therefore must not be abused for meddling in internal affairs.

Chinese people today stand proud of the fact that China is the first global trading power, the first contributor to the rise of global GDP, the second strongest economy in the world and globally recognized partner in win win cooperation. The shining example of visionary constructive and peaceful international role of China is the global Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) launched by the Secretary General of CPC and president of China Xi Jinping. Coupled with 17+1 format of cooperation BRI is connecting not only economies but continents, civilizations and peoples thus promoting peace, understanding and values for the whole humanity.

In the present situation of Covid 19 pandemic China has shown the capacity and highest solidarity in practice providing doctors, medical equipment and vaccines to all countries in need, respecting only human merits, without any political, ideological or other shortsighted calculations. This has further reinforced world-wide trust in China as a true and steady partner in any difficulties. The CPC’s people-centered internal policy, paired with peace-centered international policy based on the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity and non-interference in internal affairs, is broadly recognized and highly respected in the world. China is seen as one of the pillars of the multi-polar world order based on equitable, inclusive and democratic governance without any privileges, dominance or exceptionality.

We are convinced that CPC will continue to lead China and the great Chinese nation in the future on the road of peace and progress, in the interest of China, peace in the world and community of shared future of mankind. In this framework, we will continue to support further strengthening of traditional friendly relations and ever deeper cooperation between Serbia and China being comprehensive strategic partners.

We will be honored to continue good cooperation with CNIE.

With the best wishes,

Zivadin Jovanovic, president Belgrade forum for a World of Equals, Silk Road Connectivity Research Center (COREC)

Military activity is increasing on the borders of Russia

Since the start of the new administration, the White House has continued and even intensified its course aimed at increasing the military presence of the US and NATO armed forces in the states bordering Russia under the pretext of "containing Russia" and "protecting Europe from the Russian military threat."
There is an intensification of military exercises in the Baltic States, Eastern Europe and Ukraine. Russia's response exercises are presented as a pretext for building up military contingents on its borders under the pretext of "containing the Russian threat."
Since 2017, there has been an increase in the number of US and NATO contingents near the western and southwestern borders of the Russian Federation. In addition to the parts transferred on a rotational basis, one can observe an increase in the transfer of heavy equipment (tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, MLRS, self-propelled guns). Strategic bombers, including those capable of carrying nuclear weapons, began to appear quite often at the borders of the Russian Federation in 2020-2021, including for practicing a nuclear strike on Kaliningrad.
The armies of the eastern limitrophes are being integrated into the military structures subordinate to the United States under the auspices of NATO. As part of the growth of the US military budget, since 2017, spending on increasing funding for the armies of Eastern Europe, including Ukraine, has been steadily growing.
The supply of lethal weapons to Ukraine from NATO countries has long been not unusual. From quite fresh - deliveries of shock UAVs "Bayraktar TB-2" from Turkey.