Top Left Link Buttons
  • English
  • German

Color Revolutions

Category Archives

World War III or Peace? ~ Support China’s Peace Plan!

by Helga Zepp-LaRouche

No, not sleepwalking, but rather with eyes wide open, and without reason, backbone or conscience, the trans-Atlantic Establishment is pushing us to the edge of the cliff, beyond which a thermonuclear Hell is lurking, that threatens to annihilate all life on this planet. The 12-point program for a diplomatic solution to the strategic crisis between NATO and Russia, released by China on February 24, represents a possible last-minute lifeline to save us from jumping off. Although it was rejected out-of-hand by President Biden and the EU Commission, it has been increasingly supported for good reason by nations of the Global South, and consequently by most of humanity. It definitely needs to become an integral focus of all those forces worldwide that, in this time of existential threat for humanity, are committed to a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. It also represents a concrete option around which to orient the offer of Pope Francis to use the Vatican as a venue for peace negotiations.

The reason why China’s peace plan was immediately rejected by the United States and NATO is that their goal is the restoration of a unipolar world in which China would never be allowed to play the role of a broker for peace. As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg made clear Feb. 28, in his joint press conference with Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin in Helsinki, he sees Ukraine’s future as a part of the EU and as a member of NATO (in the long run). Thus, for NATO, the option of a neutral Ukraine is off the table, although the NATO leadership knows perfectly well that Russia considers that a blatant disregard of its demand for security guarantees. In other words, the U.S., the UK, NATO and the Atlanticists defend the line: “Ukraine has to win on the battlefield,” and “Russia must be ruined.” Conversely, Russia naturally sees this as an existential threat, and will attempt to bring about a decision on the battlefield. 

The Russian government would be in a parallel universe if it did not take seriously the proposals discussed at a joint event of the Jamestown Foundation and the Hudson Institute in December 2022, concerning options for a complete breakup of the Russian Federation. Their “minimalist” goal is for Russia to be turned into “a looser, confederation-type administrative political structure”—de facto disempowering the Russian government, while the “maximalist” goal is the complete breakup and partition of Russia “along ethno-religious lines” and the simultaneous creation of separate states such as Chechnya, Dagestan, and Tatarstan. In that case, they say, demilitarization comparable to the Morgenthau Plan proposal, a “de-Sovietization,” would have to be carried out, and broad sections of society would have to be brought before a war crimes tribunal or re-educated. 

Since the collaborators of these two think tanks are recruited from the inner core of the U.S. intelligence agencies and the military-industrial complex, i.e., the real U.S. power structure, Moscow must assume that these scenarios reflect the intention of the U.S. government. That, in turn, would fulfill the condition that the Russian military doctrine has set for the use of nuclear weapons, i.e., when the territorial existence of Russia is threatened.

According to experts from several nations, a military victory for Ukraine is far away. Ukrainian troops have suffered huge losses, averaging 1,000 men per day over the past three months and around 500 per day since mid-February. Some 10 million refugees—two million of them in Russia—unanimously say they do not want to return to Ukraine. Overall, the Ukrainian population has dropped from 37.5 million to about 20 million at present. Almost half of the urban infrastructure has been destroyed, while all critical industrial capacity is located in Russian-speaking regions.

In such circumstances, a war of attrition lasting many years, as the amount of weapons ordered by NATO would seem to indicate, will be a meat grinder in which the population will be wiped out “to the last Ukrainian.”

While U.S. military officials such as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley are pushing for negotiations based on a realistic assessment of the situation, and even the Rand Corporation has advised against a “long war” in Ukraine for its own reasons, the hawks around the State Department are apparently following the proposal made by one of Britain’s leading think tanks, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), which advocates escalating the war to the point where Russia would have to threaten to use nuclear weapons because of a threat to Crimea and thus to Russian territory. According to this perverse logic, the ensuing “Cuban Missile Crisis on steroids” would “promote” the settlement of the war because Russia could thus be forced to surrender. U.S. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria “Dr. Strangelove” Nuland, notorious for her active role in the 2014 Maidan coup in Kiev, recently reiterated her support for Ukrainian military attacks on Crimea. Thus, the danger of an escalation to a global nuclear war in the short term is knowingly accepted. Obviously, the lives of the Ukrainian population do not count in this scenario; the sole goal is to ensure the defeat of Russia in order to re-establish the status of American hegemony.

The European Council for Foreign Relations, the EU’s own think tank, points out in a recent study that although the U.S. and Europe have drawn closer to one another, the rest of the world is moving further and further away from the West. Those who wish to get an idea of this reality for themselves are advised to watch the video of a dialogue between Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and the head of the Indian think tank ORF (Observer Research Foundation), Sunjoy Joshi, at this year’s Raisina Dialogue. A good representation of the Global South’s elite meets regularly at this prestigious event sponsored by the Indian government. As Lavrov, among others, indicated, the Russia-India-China troika, first initiated by Russian Foreign Minister Primakov, continues to be a centerpiece of strategic cooperation, but has since greatly expanded into the BRICS Plus group, to which two dozen other countries of the Global South have applied for membership. Therefore, Russia is hardly isolated, as this includes an overwhelming majority of humanity.

And this majority supports the Chinese peace proposal, which calls for respecting the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all countries, abandoning a Cold War mentality, ending hostilities, ending sanctions against Russia, and proposes concrete steps on how to overcome the crisis diplomatically. President Zelensky has also stated that he wants to discuss this with President Xi. The near-hysterical reactions of the mainstream media and the Atlanticists to the Chinese proposal prove once again that ideological glasses cause blindness.

The majority of the world’s population supports a diplomatic solution to the crisis. Brazilian President Lula, who has called for a peace club composed of the nations of the Global South, will travel to China later this month to discuss peace initiatives with Xi Jinping. Italian General Fabio Mini, former commander of the KFOR mission in Kosovo, has proposed further useful steps for a settlement of the conflict in Ukraine. Pope Francis’ offer to use the Vatican as a venue for diplomatic negotiations is gaining support from key individuals and institutions around the world, as well as religious leaders of various denominations.

Therefore, it is high time for China’s proposal to become the center of the discussion. The situation today is comparable to that in which the negotiations leading to the Peace of Westphalia ended 150 years of religious war in Europe. At that time, the warring parties came to the conclusion that the war had to come to an end, otherwise there would be no one left to enjoy a victory because everyone would be dead. That is precisely our situation today, with the difference that the existence of nuclear weapons today would guarantee such an outcome.

One of the most important results of the Peace of Westphalia, which laid the foundation for international law, was the realization that peace requires taking into account the interest of the other. From that standpoint, not only is NATO’s repeated eastward expansion a catalyst for war, NATO itself is obsolete and urgently needs to be replaced by a new international security and development architecture that takes into account the interests of all states on the planet.

It is urgently necessary that the newly emerging peace movement, that came onto the scene at the “Rage Against the War Machine” demonstration on Feb. 19 in Washington, on Feb. 25 in Berlin, and in many other rallies in Italy, France, Germany and numerous other countries, take a clear position in favor of ending NATO and supporting the Chinese proposal for a peaceful settlement to the conflict which otherwise threatens to lead to the end of civilization.

zepp-larouche@eir.de 


Another Open Letter Calls for Ukraine Diplomacy Before It’s Too Late

March 4, 2023 (EIRNS)–The Working Group Common House of Europe has published an open letter warning against a situation in which the absence of serious diplomacy would throw Europe back to where it was in World War I—into the trenches, however this time in an environment far more dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis. The letter concludes with:

“War—involving two nuclear powers—has returned to Europe and with it the danger that modern technology will turn the war over Ukraine into a total disaster. It is still true: ‘No security without America,’ but it is also true: ‘No security without Russia.’ And if we get away with it again, then the same will apply: also ‘No security without China.’

“None of the structural reasons that lead to wars has really been overcome. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Carl Friedrich v. Weizsäcker spent a researcher’s life never tiring of reminding us: ‘It is not the elimination of conflicts, but the elimination of a certain way of carrying them out that is the inevitable peace of the technical world.’ “

The Open Letter is signed by Justus Frantz (leading classical music organizer, also signer to the Wagenknecht-Schwarzer Manifesto); General Harald Kujat(ret.); Dr. Bruno Redeker, Chairman Carl Friedrich von Weizsaecker Gesellschaft (a think tank in the tradition of detente policies); Professor Dr. Horst Teltschik, former security advisor to Chancellor Helmut Kohl, former chairman of the Munich Security Conference.


Schiller Rep Tells RIA Novosti: Attack on Russian Fine Arts Is an Attack on Truth Itself

March 4, 2023 (EIRNS)–The renowned Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York has gone to hell and apparently intends to stay there. It has become a soldier in Global NATO’s black propaganda machine. RIA Novosti and other Russian media are reporting the story that the identity of many leading Russian painters of the 19th century—Ivan Aivazovsky, Ilya Repin and Arkhip Kuindzhi—whose excellent paintings hang on the museum walls, have had their Russian nationality erased from their paintings’ name plates. Their identities have been changed to “Ukrainian” or to other nationalities. Notices attacking Russia appear next to some of the paintings.

This Nazi-inspired policy of cultural ethnic cleansing is part and parcel of the West’s current forbidding of its scientists from participating in international conferences in Russia, the canceling of the concerts of Russia’s top Classical musicians and singers, and the false arrests and the destruction of the scientific careers of Chinese researchers working in America’s labs.

Quoted in RIA Novosti news service on March 3, the Schiller Institute’s Richard A. Black responded: “The beauty of mankind lies in the fact that it has developed a variety of different civilizations which differ in their language, their means of communication, and in fundamental ideas. Islamic, Western European, Chinese, Vietnamese—all civilizations have evolved for thousands of years, and have made unique contributions to the understanding of fundamental principles, fundamental truths—which, in essence, is the role of art. So, the imposition of lies by the U.S. authorities on an institution—such as the Metropolitan Museum—about leading examples of Russian civilization—this is a mockery of all culture, of all art and all science.” Black called the museum’s actions an attack on truth, “on an idea, on civilization, on the role that art and science play in civilization. This is an attack on American citizens, in order to continue to keep them uninformed, and to portray Russia as an enemy.” RIA Novosti concluded its article by reporting, “According to President Vladimir Putin, Western Russophobia is nothing but racism.” The article, in Russian, may be found here.

The article was also published by Sputnik Mundo, Sputnik’s Spanish-language site today, in full, changing it only to report that Black had made his statement to Sputnik


Scott Ritter Slams “Chuck Schumer’s War on Free Speech”

 Aug. 3 (EIRNS)–Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter hit New York Sen. Chuck Schumer’s support for the Ukrainian Center for Countering Disinformation extremely hard in a commentary published by Consortium News today. In the process of doing so, Ritter prominently featured LaRouche candidate Diane Sare, Schumer’s opponent in this November’s election in New York and whose name is among those on the Kiev regime’s hit list. Ritter is also named on the Kiev hit list.

 At the outset, Ritter noted Schumer’s attack on Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul’s effort to include a provision for inspector general oversight of the $40 billion that the U.S. Congress voted up for Ukraine in May. Schumer argued that Paul’s actions served to “strengthen [Russian President Vladimir] Putin’s hand.”

 “What Schumer didn’t say,” Ritter noted, “was that an inspector general, mandated to oversee how U.S. taxpayer money authorized under the bill in question (the Additional Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022, which became Public Law 117-128 on May 21), would have exposed the role that U.S. funds played to exact political revenge on the man who tried to inject a modicum of accountability into how monies appropriated by Congress are spent, namely Rand Paul.” Rand Paul, Ritter reports, was labeled an “information terrorist” by acting director of the CCD Andriy Shapovalov, a Ukrainian civil servant whose salary was paid for by U.S. taxpayer monies, on July 14. The occasion of his July 14 remarks was a conference paid for by the U.S. Civil Research and Development Fund (CRDF Global Ukraine), “an ostensible nonprofit organization authorized by U.S. Congress to promote ‘international scientific and technical collaboration,’” Ritter wrote. “It is supported by the U.S. State Department, some of whose officials sat in attendance.”

 “But there is more,” Ritter continued. That “more” is the successful petitioning campaign of Diane Sare–who Ritter correctly identifies as a “LaRouche candidate”–to get on the ballot in New York to challenge Schumer’s re-election. “Diane Sare was singled out by the Schumer-funded, State Department-supported Center for Countering Disinformation as an ‘information terrorist’ who should be prosecuted as a ‘war criminal’ because of her public stance challenging the narrative about the Ukraine conflict,” Ritter noted. “That’s right — Chuck Schumer helped create the organizational structures which have attacked the reputation of a challenger for his Senate seat, threatening her with political violence and more for the `crime’ of challenging Schumer on the issue of Ukraine.”

 “What Chuck Schumer has done in using U.S. taxpayer money to attack his political opponents is un-American. One can only hope that the New York voters see it the same way come November,” Ritter concluded. “It also appears to be illegal. As such, I hope that both Rand Paul and Diane Sare pursue whatever legal recourse is available to them to expose and shut down a Schumer-supported law that allows U.S. taxpayer money to underwrite a campaign targeting U.S. citizens, including serving senators and political challengers, with intimidation and more for the ‘crime’ of exercising their First Amendment right of free speech.”


Kremlin Spokesman: Russia Stands in “Absolute Solidarity” With China

Aug. 3 (EIRNS) – Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated yesterday that Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan was “purely provocative. We see this, it is being recorded by all countries of the world. We stand in absolute solidarity with China here. Its sensitivity to this issue is understandable. It is justified. And instead of respecting this the US is choosing the path of confrontation. It doesn’t bode well,” the Kremlin spokesman said, adding that Washington’s decision is “only regrettable.”

 Asked whether the Pelosi visit could lead to “global war,” Peskov said her visit was a “clear provocation,” but “I would suggest not to throw around words as serious [as ‘global war’]. That said, “underestimating the level of tension sparked by this visit” is not advisable either, he added.

 Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, asked by journalists on Wednesday what was behind the Pelosi trip, stated: “It was the drive to prove to everyone their impunity and to act accordingly. ‘I do whatever I want’, something like that. I can hardly imagine any other reason to create a flashpoint out of thin air, despite knowing what it would mean for China.”


U.S. Freeze of Afghanistan’s Assets Kills Landmine Clearing Effort

July 8, 2022 (EIRNS)—According to a Reuters wire dated July 7, one of the devastating effects of the Western refusal to allow Afghanistan to use its foreign assets and operate a normal banking system, will be a rise in the deaths of farmers and children due to landmines.

“Foreign governments have now frozen development aid to the Afghan government, unwilling to use their taxpayers’ money to prop up the Taliban, an Islamist group that restricts women’s rights and has been at war with much of the West,” writes Reuters.

Hence, “In a previously unreported development, the Afghan government agency that oversees mine clearance told Reuters it had lost its roughly $3 million funding and laid off about 120 staff in April—the majority of the organization—because it couldn’t pay salaries.” All the sanctions have severely affected us,” said Sayed Danish, deputy head of the agency, the Directorate of Mine Action Coordination (DMAC). “We can’t do strategic work, which is our main responsibility.”

The loss of demining funds could have profound consequences for the country of 40 million people which is one of the most heavily mined places on Earth, after four decades of war. Almost 80% of civilian casualties from “explosive remnants of war” are children, partly due to their curiosity as well as their regular role in collecting scrap metal to sell to bolster families’ incomes. In the seven months since last March, about 300 Afghan children were killed or maimed by landmines and other unexploded devices. Landmines are also a big worry for farmers.

Late last month, a temporary deal was reached when DMAC agreed that the UN could set up an office in the country for about six months. But with funding for the stopgap UN regulator only half that of the Afghan agency before the NATO withdrawal and the Taliban takeover, it has only employed about 30 from the original 120 staff, according to Paul Heslop, Chief of the UN Mine Action Program in Afghanistan. He added that for long-term sustainability, the responsibility of coordinating demining should be with a state, and not an outside humanitarian body like the UN agency. “We’re in a situation where we have a government that’s not recognized,” said Heslop, adding that the lack of funding was “very difficult.” “Even if you pay people, they can’t get the money out of the banks, it’s very difficult for the people of Afghanistan at the moment, they are really suffering.”


Retired German General: Nuclear Simulations Show the Danger—Negotiate, Before It Is Too Late to Prevent Nuclear War!

July 5, 2022 (EIRNS)–“We may be closer to a Cuban Missile Crisis-type situation than many think possible,” former Bundeswehr Chief of Staff and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee Gen. Harald Kujat warned in a June 12 assessment for Preussische Allgemeine Zeitung. “The difference being that the epicenter would not be in the Caribbean, but in Europe. So it is essentially in Europe’s interest to prevent a development of the Ukraine war that would expose us to this danger.”

How great is the danger? Kujat points to reports that Russia had simulated attacks using Iskander missiles (which can be armed with both conventional and nuclear warheads) from its Kaliningrad exclave. The practice launch was reported to have been a simulated launch at a military target in response to a nuclear attack.

“The message from the Russian Defense Ministry is apparently intended as another warning that the use of nuclear weapons is a realistic option for the Russian government,” he writes.

He warns that “the carefully safeguarded strategic stability between the two great powers [U.S. and Russia] does not mean that the risk of a nuclear war limited to Europe is eliminated. On the contrary: If the Russian leadership is of the opinion that the use of short-range nuclear missiles will not trigger a nuclear counterattack by the United States, the risk of a nuclear first use for Russia would be calculable. … [T]he former presidential adviser to Yeltsin and Putin, Sergey Karaganov, recently stated: ‘I also know from the history of American nuclear strategy that the United States will probably not defend Europe with nuclear weapons.'”

The potential for the threat is that the Ukraine conflict is not a Ukraine-Russian dispute, but a NATO-Russia conflict. Kujat warns that Western politicians are increasingly emphasizing that the arms deliveries are intended “not only for the defense of Ukraine, but also for Ukrainian victory over Russia.” He quotes U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin from late April saying that the United States “wants to see Russia weakened to the point where it can no longer do the things it did when it invaded Ukraine.”

“This is a significant change in the focus of U.S. strategy in the Ukraine war,” Kujat writes. “The center of gravity is no longer to support Ukraine in its defensive struggle, but to weaken Russia as a geopolitical rival.”

“However, the course of the war so far shows that there will be no military victor in this conflict. The rational consequence, therefore, is not to prolong the war by setting strategic goals further, but to end it through a negotiated peace. The appeal to seek a negotiated peace is also not a call for Ukraine to surrender. It is not even directed at Ukraine.

The main military players in this war are the United States and Russia. “There have been no negotiations between the two great powers since the war began. War has taken the place of diplomacy. It is the task of politics and an imperative of reason to end the suffering of Ukrainians and the destruction of the country and to prevent the war from slipping into a European catastrophe,” Kujat concludes. The full article is here (in German) and here in English machine translation.


Lavrov: US/NATO Already Waging “Total War” Against Russia

Lavrov: US/NATO Already Waging “Total War” Against Russia

March 26 (EIRNS)–Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, during a meeting of the Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund in Moscow, charged that the US/NATO/EU combination is already waging a hybrid war on Russia and that its objectives are no different from those of Hitler in 1941. “Today we have been declared a real hybrid war, a total war,” he said, adding that the latter term “was used by Hitler’s Germany” and “is now voiced by many European politicians when they talk about what they want to do with the Russian Federation.” The goals are not hidden, they declared them publicly – to destroy, break, exterminate, strangle the Russian economy and Russia as a whole, he remarked.

Lavrov lashed out at the “sanctions spree” against Russia pointing out that it is becoming clear that all values that those in the West have been preaching to Russia, like freedom of expression, a market economy, the sanctity of private property and the presumption of innocence, are not worth a red cent.

In this environment, the Kiev regime is being encouraged to continue to behave badly. Lavrov charged that the Kiev regime, in fact, has been getting away with bad behavior for years, with complicity of the Western corporate news media, particularly with respect to its crimes in the Donbas region. “All throughout these years, when the Ukrainian leadership evaded its obligations under the Minsk Accords, nationalists were openly wiping out civilian facilities, schools, hospitals. It was well-known and all facts were regularly reported by our mass media but were swept under the rug by the Western media,” Lavrov said. “It included the slaughter of civilians, and you may all know well that the death toll among the population exceeded 10,000,” he noted. “No one in the West cared at all about the inhumane economic, trade, transportation or food blockade of the self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics.”

The Kiev regime’s bad behavior has extended into the Russia-Ukraine talks as well. Russian presidential aide Vladimir Medinsky, the head of the Russian delegation at the Russia-Ukraine talks, accused the regime of seeking to drag out the talks. “They are in no hurry, obviously thinking that time is on their side, and say it openly that they have many decision-making centers they have to agree on these or those solutions with. This is the reality we are in,” he said, reported TASS. “Regrettably, as far as we understand – they make no secret of it, they are limited in making independent decisions. So, the current state of things inspires little optimism,” he stressed, adding he doesn’t share the Ukrainian delegation’s optimism, when it speaks about “great progress.” Further he said that “So far, there is no progress on matters of principal importance that the Russian side insists on.”


UN General Assembly–South Africa Pushes Back Against Weaponizing Aid for Ukraine

Mar. 24 (EIRNS)–Today was day two of an emergency UN General Assembly session, of a debate on what resolution text to pass on the topic of UN backing of humanitarian aid for Ukraine.
FLASH: The UN General Assembly approved Resolution ES11-2, titled “Humanitarian Consequences of the Aggression Against Ukraine,” by a vote of 140–yes, 5–no (Russia, Syria, Belarus, North Korea and Eritrea) and 38 abstentions, which included China. This vote is nearly the same as that of March 2, which was 141–yes, 5–no, and 35 abstentions, on a resolution to condemn Russia. 

The resolution approved today was put forward by Ukraine titled, “Humanitarian Consequences of the Aggression Against Ukraine.” It condemns Russia for creating the “dire” situation, pushes for humanitarian corridors, and the withdrawal of Russian troops. This resolution claims support of nearly 100 nations. A precursor to Ukraine’s resolution was a text circulated for the last two weeks by Mexico and France.

South Africa has introduced an alternative text, entitled “Humanitarian Situation Emanating Out of the Conflict in Ukraine,” that does not identify Russia for condemnation.

A similar resolution to this one has been available in recent weeks, from Russia, which introduced it last evening in the UN Security Council (joined by Syria, Belarus and the DPRK), where, as was expected, it failed, given that any measure fails if it is vetoed by a member of the P-5, the five permanent members of the UNSC.

However, very notably, China joined Russia in voting for its UNSC humanitarian resolution. The China spokesperson said that China wants to keep the focus on humanitarian aid, and not on other aspects of the situation. As the UN News reported on the text of the Russian resolution, “Under its terms, the Council would have demanded that civilians are fully protected, that all parties ensure respect for, and protection of, all medical personnel and humanitarian personnel exclusively engaged in their medical duties, that they respect international law in connection with objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, and allow safe and unhindered passage to destinations outside of Ukraine, including for foreign nationals, without discrimination.”


Former NATO Commander, General Mini: Replace NATO with a Different Security Architecture

May 9 (EIRNS)—Italian Gen. Fabio Mini (ret.), former commander of the NATO-led KFOR mission in Kosovo (2002-2003), said in a May 7 interview with AmbienteWeb that NATO should be dissolved because it has become a threat to world security, and that we are already on the brink of the third world war, as reported in yesterday’s briefing.

General Mini: “From an operational point of view, and considering the nature and multiplicity of the actions taken against our adversaries, we are in the middle of a global conflict. The alignments between the West and the East speak clearly, and just because we are only given the ‘military’ picture of this conflict, does not mean that the war is merely military. The various wars overlap and include operations in Ukraine such as economic, financial, cyber, demographic, information and propaganda wars—these are not metaphors. They are real wars that produce greater damage than conventional warfare. And they are global. …

“[NATO] Articles 5 and 6 on so-called mutual defense refer to the territories of individual member states threatened by armed attack. Ukraine is not a member state, but we are sending weapons and whatnot. Article 7 states that the treaty does not and shall not be considered in any way detrimental to the rights and obligations under the charter to the parties that are members of the United Nations or the primary responsibility of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security. Russia, like Serbia, is a part of the United Nations and NATO’s policy has harmed its rights, compromising peace and security throughout the world. Finally, I believe that the European NATO countries have renounced that all states are to be treated on an equal footing, not because of the United States, but because of their own choice and convenience. The United States is doing its job and protecting its own interests. These interests never coincided with those of Europe, not even during the Cold War, when a hot war was being prepared that would have taken place in Europe and not in the U.S., where it was clear that the U.S. would not have lifted a finger to save Europe except if the continental United States had been directly attacked. No European state objected to NATO’s call to arms in areas outside its responsibility and for reasons not pertaining to Europe. Nor did anyone object to certain countries being invited to join NATO, that did not meet requirements, but brought with them a heavy burden of insecurity. We were disloyal to the United States by not pulling them up short when they wished to do things that made no sense. You can show your loyalty to friends by moderating them, not by egging them on or passively supporting them. I believe that at the end of the day, a restructured and revised NATO would also benefit the Americans, with or without their participation.” The Ambienteweb article is here.


Page 1 of 4123...Last