September 27, 2023

 

 

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

 

Armageddon or Separation? 

Chronicles Magazine Offers a Symposium on the Future of America

Friends,

Increasingly it has become evident that the American nation, founded with such high hopes and aspirations in 1787, is expiring, dying a prolonged, painful but also virulently infectious death.

Those words are very difficult to write, especially for someone whose American ancestry goes back to Virginia in 1646, and whose ancestors helped settle other Southern states, who served honorably in both state and local elected offices, and who fought in every major war in which my state North Carolina and this country have been involved, including for the Confederacy in 1861-1865. Indeed, I think it quite conceivable that had the Confederacy been victorious in its efforts at peaceful separation in 1861, much of the later calamities and putrefaction which afflict this country might have been avoided.

Admittedly, such a statement is counterfactual. I recall at the beginning of the “Civil War Centennial” in 1960 that author MacKinlay Kantor authored a serialized work, “If the South Had Won the Civil War,” chronicling a “what if” history of America after a Southern victory in that war for Southern independence. Kantor’s scenario first appeared in instalments in Look Magazine, and then in book form in 1961. And there have been others since then.

But it has been largely in the past decade that such alternative histories seem no longer in the realm of fantasy, but actual precursors of events that could very well occur here in the USA.

Over the past five years I have written seven essays suggesting some form of national separation of the American states, perhaps even within states, that might well be the most peaceful, least violent way to alleviate the increasingly unbridgeable, implacable, and vicious divisions tearing this nation apart. Just a cursory read of the “establishment” Leftist press (e.g. The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Washington Post, Salon, etc.) should convince anyone of this—anyone, that is, whose mind has not been thoroughly possessed by the demonic “woke” infection that can only be described as satanic.

The great Russian novelist, Feodor Dostoevsky, 250 years ago (in The Possessed, 1872), understood clairvoyantly both the foul and evil character of such poison, as well as the truly theological nature of such spiritual inversion. In a very real sense, he foresaw the coming not just of the Russian Revolution but also of the successive waves of what is essentially a continuing revolt against God and His Creation. (See my essay, “The Devils in the Demonstrators,” in the November 2022 issue of Chronicles magazine.)

My little essays include: “Is Secession the Answer?” at the Abbeville Institute; “Is It Time for America to Break Apart,” at The Unz Review, the Abbeville Institute, and The American Freedom Union; “Is Political Separation in Our Future?” at the Abbeville Institute; “The Future of the American Republic—How Do We Survive?” at LewRockwell.com; “The End of America? Hope Amidst the Ruins,” at The Unz Review and Reckonin.com; “National Unity is A Mirage,” at the Abbeville Institute and The Unz Review; and “The Oncoming Second American Civil War,” at LewRockwell.com and The Unz Review.

Now, in a major contribution to this much-needed discussion, Chronicles Magazine, the paramount journalistic voice for traditional conservatism in America, certainly in print form, offers a critical symposium in its October 2023 issue, titled, “The Future of the American Union.”

Featured authors include: Michael Rectenwald (“The Two Nations”), William Lind (“When the Center Does Not Hold”), and  David Azerrad (“Against the Black Pill”)—and most notably, Editor-in-Chief Paul Gottfried, whose detailed contribution, “The Future of the American Resistance,” frames the October issue.

I have written about Chronicles in the past, essentially praising its critical role in any future restoration (or recreation) of the old American republic, or, perhaps better, American republics, plural. Like any national publication with a variety of writers, there will occasionally be a piece with which I disagree; but overwhelmingly the magazine offers critical essays, reviews, and columns which should be required reading for anyone concerned by the Leftist venom which now seems destined to finally murder the Framers’ dream, imprison dissenters, destroy the nuclear family, pervert our children, and engage us in never-ending global war for unobtainable peace to establish some dystopian world “reset” worse than anything George Orwell envisaged in his classic novel, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949).

What is our future? What would happen if, indeed, somehow Donald Trump would manage to get past all the voter manipulation and outright dishonesty and win the 2024 election? Would there not be extreme violence, even rebellion in Blue States and in major cities? Would not states like California push harder for secession or separation?

Or, let’s suppose that the hysterical Leftist manipulators, the Deep State and their loathsome conservative/GOP collaborators, manage once again to pervert election laws and voter totals, and insure the re-election of the brain-dead puppet Joe Biden. Would those who witnessed this remain idle and simply let it happen—again?

Paul Gottfried’s essay (along with the other contributions), while diagnosing the pressing problem, also provides a potential solution. Certainly, it raises serious questions as well. But it should—it really must—be our point of departure as we sink deeper into the cesspool, the “slough of Despond,” from which there is no escape, only spiritual slavery to the powers of Darkness.

Here are Professor Gottfried’s final paragraphs which bring his essay to a close and suggest what concerned, “normal” Americans” should be considering:

The best solution, given the circumstances, is peaceful separation, a solution that can be undertaken in stages even if it cannot be achieved all at once. If Americans committed to opposing the tyrannical left can be induced to settle in common areas and if they can control local and regional administrations, then their living situation should be far from hopeless. The regime’s opponents will be in an optimal position to respond to unwelcome directives from the central state. They can simply avoid enforcing them. If this practice spreads to enough places, it will be hard for the administrative state to impose its unitary will without facing multiple challenges.

It may also be necessary for the survival of enclaves of resistance that the decision of those who choose to live under the regime be treated as irreversible, providing their decision has been reached without provable coercion. It would be foolish for those who opt for freedom to share their hard-won autonomy with those who have opted for the opposite side but who then decided to change their place of residence. Even more suicidal would be to extend full citizenship rights to those who took this step. There is no guarantee that those would-be neighbors would not be carrying with them the views and values of the place they left.

One should not confuse these hypothetical asylum seekers with former Communists who eventually fled Communist rule. Most of those refugees were staunch anti-Communists by the time they defected. Blue State residents who decide to move into Red States, by contrast, usually carry their leftist politics with them. There is no reason to think leftists will behave differently if they move into more conservative regions in the future. Regulating who settles in woke-free areas will be necessary to protect these outposts of freedom from infiltration. Therefore, any attempt by the central administration to tamper with this situation (probably by invoking the Fourteenth Amendment) must be doggedly opposed. (p.11)

Search out the October issue; better yet subscribe to Chronicles.

September 9, 2023

 

MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey

 

Backstory Account of the Ukraine Conflict and the Nefarious Role of the American Foreign Policy Elites

Friends,  

I append a longish article by Professor Michel Chossudovsky, approximately 4,500 words in length, which is one of the most detailed "backstory" accounts of why and how the Ukraine conflict came about--detailing the nefarious actions and outrageous provocations of the Neoconservative-dominated US State Department, truly a "state-within-a-state," operating seemingly without any limits, constitutional or otherwise, with the object of imposing, either by force or by guile, American global hegemony on recalcitrant nations of the world.

Along with studies by Professor Richard Sakwa (Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands, 2015), Ben Abelow (How the West Brought War to Ukraine, 2022), a recent full issue of Harper’s (“Why Are We in Ukraine?” by Benjamin Schwartz and Christopher Layne, June 2023), and other investigative works by Professor John Mearsheimer and Scott Ritter, Chossudovsky’s essay should be required reading for members of the US Congress and anyone seriously concerned about the increasingly perilous conflict in eastern Europe.

As with earlier situations, e.g., the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia, etc., this history is one of continual (and largely disastrous) hegemonic efforts of the Neocon foreign policy elites who have guided our foreign policy for decades, to continue to advance their vision of a leftist democratic world, replete with every moral and political barbarism now afflicting the USA and much Western Europe. Thus, the US's intense pressure on the pliant Ukrainian regime to institute transgenderism and full "homosexual equity," both on and off the battlefield.

In all seriousness, we should ask: Is not such infectiously evil activity forced on countries around the world a kind outright subservience to a form of Satanism?

Of particular interest is a transcript of the full February 2014 conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. That supposedly secret conversation was picked up accidentally by Estonian sources and then made public.  IT HAS NEVER BEEN DENIED or refuted in any way...and it is revelatory in illustrating the imperious globalist vision regnant along the Potomac and in Bruxelles.

The article was apparently translated, but I have made some discrete edits so to make it more readable and fluent for English-speaking audiences.  But I urge you to read it...and to reflect and consider the consequences of what I call "unending war for unobtainable peace," and in the process the destruction of billions of dollars of infrastructure, the cultural obliteration of entire countries, and the deaths of many thousands of civilians...indirectly traceable to the demonic policies of our Neocon elites.

Read on.

 

Bombshell: NATO Says “War Started in 2014”. “Fake Pretext” to Wage War against Russia? To Invoke Article 5 of Atlantic Treaty?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky  Global Research, August 29, 2023

Introduction

 This article addresses the implications of a controversial statement by NATO to the effect that the Ukraine War “didn’t start in 2022”, “The war started in 2014.” It’s a Bombshell: NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed (speaking on behalf of NATO) that the “war didn’t start in 2022”. 

In an interview with The Washington Post, Jens Stoltenberg unequivocally confirmed that “the war started in 2014″.  Jens Stoltenberg’s bold statement (which has barely been the object of media coverage) has opened up a Pandora’s Box, or best described “A Can of Worms” on behalf of the Atlantic Alliance. What he bears out is that the beginning of the Ukraine coincided with a U.S.-sponsored coup d’état, confirmed by Victoria’s Nuland‘s “F**k the EU” telephone conversation with U.S. Ambassador Pyatt  in February 2014. (see below)  

Part I of this article examines the legal implications of Stoltenberg’s statement on behalf of the Atlantic Alliance. Of crucial significance: Having stated that “the war started in 2014”, NATO can no longer claim that Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) of February 24, 2022 constitutes, from a legal standpoint, “an invasion”.  Part I also addresses the issue of The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). 

Parti II focuses on Stoltenberg’s twisted statement that Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty could be invoked as means to declare war against Russia. “Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty – its collective defence clause,” declares that an attack on one member state is “to be an attack against all NATO members.” Article 5 is NATO’s doctrine of Collective Self-Defense. “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”.  

In regard to the invocation of Article V in relation to Russia, a justification or fake “pretext” was mentioned by Stoltenberg in his interview with the Washington Post.  

Were Article V to be invoked, this would inevitably precipitate the World into a WWIII scenario, consisting of a war whereby all 30 member states of the Atlantic Alliance, most of which are members of the European Union would be involved.  

                          Part I 

Legal Implications

 The legal implications of Stoltenberg’s statements are far-reaching. Speaking on behalf of NATO, he has acknowledged that Russia did not declare war on Ukraine on February 24, 2022. “The war started in 2014“, which intimates that the war was launched in 2014, with US-NATO directly involved from the very outset:  

Lee Hockstader, Washington Post Editorial Board: 

        “How has the war led NATO to recalibrate its defense posture and doctrine?”

 NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: 

“The war in Ukraine has fundamentally changed NATO, but then you have to remember the war didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014. And since then, NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War.  For the first time in our history, we have combat-ready troops in the eastern part of the alliance, the battle groups in Poland, Lithuania, the Baltic countries, actually the whole eight battle groups from the Baltic Sea down to the Black Sea. Higher readiness of our forces. And increased defense spending.”

Stoltenberg also confirmed that US-NATO’s intent from the outset in 2014 was to integrate the Kiev regime as a full member of NATO. 

 Lee Hockstader, Washington Post Editorial Board: 

        “What does a plausible way forward to Ukraine’s eventual membership in                NATO look like?

 Stoltenberg: 

         “First of all, all NATO allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of the           alliance. All allies agree that Ukraine has the right to choose its own path,                that it is not for Moscow, but for Kyiv, to decide.”

 

1. The Legality of Russia’s “Special Military Operation”

Inasmuch as the war had commenced and has been ongoing since 2014 as confirmed by Stoltenberg, Russia’s Special Military Operation cannot be categorized as an “illegal invasion” (under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter). The latter states that  members of the UN shall refrain:  “from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.…”   

Inasmuch as the war started in 2014, Art 2(4) applies to both the Kiev regime and well as US-NATO which was behind the February 2014 illegal coup d’état.  

What this implies is that from a legal standpoint, US-NATO on behalf and in coordination with the Kiev regime had initiated a de facto undeclared war against Luhansk and Donesk. From a legal standpoint, this was not “An Act of War against Russia”. Led by US-NATO, this was an “Act of War against Ukraine and the People of Ukraine”.   

Putin’s February 24, 2022 Statement:

As we recall President Putin had defined the Special Military Operation (SMO) in support of the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. The stated objective was  to “demilitarise” and “denazify” Ukraine. Article 51 of the UN Charter which was referred to by President Putin in his February 24, 2022 speech confirms the following:  

“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations.…”  

Russia’s SMO complies with the exercise of self-defense. Putin in his speech (February 24, 2022) referred to:

“…the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year. I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.”  

2. “NeoCons Endorse NeoNazis”: U.S. Sponsored 2014 EuroMaidan Coup d’état. An Illegal and Criminal Act Supported by US-NATO

What Stoltenberg intimated in his interview with the WP (no doubt unwittingly) is that the Ukraine War was a US-NATO initiative, carried out in the immediate wake of the illegal US supported February 2014 EuroMaidan coup d’etat which was then conducive to the instatement of the regime in Kiev.  

The New York Times described the EuroMaidan as “a  flowering of democracy, a blow to authoritarianism and kleptocracy in the former Soviet space.” ( After Initial Triumph, Ukraine’s Leaders Face Battle for Credibility,  NYTimes.com, March 1, 2014, emphasis added)  

The grim realities were otherwise. The forbidden truth was that US-NATO had engineered –through a carefully staged covert operation– the formation of a US-NATO proxy regime, which was conducive to the removal and brutal demise of the elected president Viktor Yanukovych.  

The staged EuroMaidan Protest Movement initiated in November 2013 was led by the two Ukrainian Nazi parties, with Dmytro Yarosh, of the Right Sector (Pravy Sector) playing a key role as leader of the Brown Shirt Neo-Nazi paramilitary. He had called for disbanding the Party of the Regions and the Communist Party. The shootings of protesters by snipers were coordinated by Yarosh’s Brown Shirts and Andriy Parubiy leader of the Neo-Nazi Svoboda Party.  

Of significance there was a  leaked telephone conversation (February 2014) between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and European Union Commissioner Catherine Ashton, which confirmed that “the snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were  hired by Ukrainian opposition leaders [NeoNazis]”.  

Leaked Conversation: Urmas Paet and Catherine Ashton:

Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet tells Catherine Ashton the following (excerpts):

“There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition [Parubiy  and Yarosh].

“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides.

“[Dr. Olga Bogomolets] then also showed me some photos she said that as a medical doctor she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new [Neo-Nazi] coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.” (quoted by Mahdi Nazemoroaya, Global Research, March 18, 2014, emphasis added)

 

Foreign Minister’s Urmas Paet’s statements (above) are corroborated by a Kiev Post (March 13, 2014) report (Selected excerpts below, click here to access full Kiev Post report (March 13, 2014):  

“Former State Security Head of Ukraine Oleksandr Yakimenko blames Ukraine’s current government [the Kiev regime] for hiring snipers on Feb. 20, when dozens of people were killed and hundreds more wounded. The victims were mainly EuroMaidan Revolution demonstrations, but some police officers were also killed. This was the deadliest day during the EuroMaidan Revolution, a three-month uprising that claimed 100 lives.

“Yakimenko also blamed the United States for organizing and financing the revolution by bringing illegal cash in using diplomatic mail.

“Yakimenko says that Parubiy [leader of the Svoboda Neo-Nazi Party], as well as a number of other organizers of EuroMaidan, received direct orders from the U.S. government.… 

“These are the forces that were doing everything they were told by the leaders and representatives of the United States,” he says. “They, in essence lived in the U.S. embassy. There wasn’t a day when they did not visit the embassy… From the beginning of Maidan we as a special service noticed a significant increase of diplomatic cargo to various embassies, western embassies located in Ukraine,” says Yakimenko. “It was tens of times greater than usual diplomatic cargo supplies.” He says that right after such shipments crisp, new U.S. dollar bills were spotted on Maidan. (emphasis added)

 The Central Role of the Svoboda Neo-Nazi Party 

 As outlined above, Andriy Parubiy played a key role in the EuroMaidan massacre. Andriy Parubiy is the co-founder together with Oleh Tyahnybok of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda). Parubiy was first appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU) by the Kiev regime. (Рада національної безпеки і оборони України), a key position which overseas the Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, National Security and Intelligence.  He subsequently (2015-2019) became Vice-Chair and Chair of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s Parliament) shifting into the realm of international diplomacy on behalf of the regime.  

In the course of his career, Parubiy developed numerous contacts in North America and Europe, and with members of the European Parliament. He was invited to Washington on several occasions, meeting up (already in 2015) with Sen. John McCain (chair) of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He was also invited to Ottawa, meeting up with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Parliament Hill in 2016.   

The Role of Victoria Nuland

Victoria Nuland, acting on behalf of the US State Department was directly involved in “suggesting” key appointments. While the Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok was not granted a cabinet position, members of the two neo-Nazi parties (namely Svoboda [Freedom Party] and The Right Sector [Pravy Sektor]) were granted key positions in the areas of Defense, National Security and Law Enforcement.

The Neo-Nazis also controlled the judicial process with the appointment of  Oleh Makhnitsky of the Svoboda Party (on February 22, 2014) to the position of prosecutor-general. What kind of justice would prevail with a renowned Neo-Nazi in charge of the Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine?  

 Nuland-Pyatt Leaked Phone Conversation

The controversial conversations between Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Pyatt are recorded below. (See audio and transcript below, YouTube version  (below). (Leaked Online on February 4, 2014, Exact Date of Conversation Unconfirmed, Three weeks prior to the demise of President Yanukovych on February 21-22, 2014)   

Transcript of Conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, on YouTube. Source of transcript: BBC  

“Warning: This transcript contains swearing”  

Voice of Nuland: What do you think?  

Voice of Pyatt: I think we’re in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated election here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, who subsequently became Prime Minister, another opposition leader]. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I’m very glad that he said what he said in response.

Nuland: Good. I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.

 

Pyatt: Yeah. I guess… in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok], the other opposition leader and his guys and I’m sure that’s part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.

 

Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.

 

Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?

 

Nuland: My understanding from that call – but you tell me – was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a… three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?

 

Pyatt: No. I think… I mean that’s what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that’s been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he’s going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they’ve got and he’s probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn’t like it.

 

Nuland: OK, good. I’m happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.  

Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.

 

Nuland: OK… one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can’t remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?   

Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.

 

Nuland: OK. He’s now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.

 

Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now. I’m still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there’s a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I’m sure there’s a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep… we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.

 

Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president’s national security adviser Jake] Sullivan’s come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden’s willing.  

Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.

 

3. U.S.-NATO Military Aid and Support (2014-2023) to a Full Fledged Neo-Nazi Proxy Regime is an Illegal and Criminal Act.

There is ample evidence of collaboration between the Kiev regime and NATO member states, specifically in relation to the continuous flow of military aid as well the training and support provided to the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion.  

NOTE: “In the aftermath of World War II, the National Socialist Party (the Nazi party) of Germany was considered a criminal organization and therefore banned. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946 likewise ruled that the Nazi Party was a criminal organization.”  

Since 2014, Ukraine’s regime has been generously funded by several NATO member states. The Nazi Azov Battalion was from the outset integrated into Ukraine’s National Guard which is under the jurisdiction of Ukraine’s Ministry of  Internal Affairs. The Azov battalion has (2015) been trained by the U.S. Canada and the UK. “The US contingent of instructors includes 290 specialists.…” Britain has dispatched 75 military personnel responsible for training “in command procedures and tactical intelligence”. (Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2015). The training program was coupled with the influx of military equipment under a program of so-called “non-lethal” military aid. In turn, the Azov battalion –which is the object of military aid, has also been involved in the conduct of Summer Nazi training Camps for children and adolescents.

[See: Ukraine’s “Neo-Nazi Summer Camp”. Military Training for Young Children, Para-military Recruits  By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 08, 2023]  

The Azov battalion’s Summer Camps are supported by US military aid channelled to the Ukraine National Guard via the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The MIA coordinates the “anti-terrorism operation” (ATO) in Donbass.

 

Media Propaganda 

The Sunday Times confirms that the children and adolescents are eventually slated to be recruited in the National Guard, which was integrated into the Ukrainian Military in 2016. The Guardian casually dismisses the criminal nature of the Azov Battalion’s Summer Camp for children (which bears the Nazi WolfAngel SS insignia):

 

“In Ukraine, the far-right Azov militia is fighting on the frontline – and running a summer camp for children. The Guardian visited the camp and followed 16-year-old Anton through his experiences. Is Azov really a modern Hitler Youth organisation, or is it trying to prepare young Ukrainians for the tough reality that awaits them?” (To view the video click here Guardian, emphasis added)  

4. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)

Inasmuch as “the war started in 2014”, Stoltenberg’s statements confirm that US-NATO were supportive of Ukraine’s  artillery and missile bombardments of Donbass which resulted in more than 14,000 deaths of civilians, including children. Stoltenberg’s admission on behalf of NATO that “the war started in 2014” would have required that from the very outset in February  2014 the warring parties including their allies abide by the Four Basic Principles of  The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) which consist in:

 

“….respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” [Additional Protocol 1, Article 48]

 

Civilian population (children) and civilian objects (schools, hospitals, residential areas) were the deliberate object of UAF and Azov Battalion attacks in blatant violation of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). In accordance with the LOAC, Moscow took the decision starting in February 2014 to come to the rescue of Donbass civilians including children. Visibly the president of the I.C.C. Piotr Hofmanski in accusing President Putin of “unlawful kidnapping of Ukrainian children” hasn’t the foggiest understanding of Article 48. of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Is this an issue of incompetence? Or has Piotr Hofmanski been co-opted into endorsing crimes against humanity?  

In derogation of The Law of Armed Conflict, US-NATO bears the responsibility for having endorsed the Neo-Nazi Azov battalion, which was involved in the conduct of atrocities against civilians.

 

Part II

Is NATO Intent upon

Invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty

as a Means to Declaring War on Russia?

 

Dangerous Crossroads

There are ambiguous statements by Stoltenberg (in his interview with the Washington Post) which suggest that the invocation of Article 5 is on the US-NATO drawing board.

 Click to access the full text on NATO’s website

Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty constitutes NATO’s doctrine of Collective Self-Defense: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.…”

Article V was invoked in March 1999, based on a “fabricated pretext” to bomb and invade Yugoslavia. It was subsequently invoked on September 12, 2001 by the Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels as a justification to declare war on Afghanistan, on the grounds that an unnamed foreign power had attacked America on September 11, 2001. In both cases (Yugoslavia and Afghanistan), “fabricated pretexts” were used to justify the invocation of Article V.  

Fabricating A Pretext to Wage War on Russia?

While Stoltenberg firmly acknowledges that “Russia is not seeking a full-fledged confrontation with NATO triggering Article 5″, he nonetheless intimates that NATO is prepared to invoke Article 5 against Russia, based on a fabricated pretext (e.g attack on “undersea infrastructure”), thereby potentially leading to a World War III scenario.  

Lee Hockstader, WP: 

“Would a Russian attack on critical infrastructure like undersea cables owned by NATO members or companies cause the invocation of NATO’s Article 5?”

 

Stoltenberg: 

“That’s for NATO to decide. We are now looking into how can we do more when it comes to sharing intelligence, including with the private sector, to detect any potential threats.…

“We’ve seen over the last years that Russia is not seeking a full-fledged confrontation with NATO, triggering Article 5, but they’re trying to operate below the Article 5 threshold. Meaning with hybrid, cyber, covert actions. And, of course, attacks against undersea infrastructure — it’s easy to deny because it’s hard to monitor.”  (emphasis added)  

Stoltenberg’s reference to “undersea infrastructure” intimates that Russia was behind the sabotage of Nord Stream in September 2022, which had been ordered by President Biden with the acceptance of Germany’s Chancellor Olaf Scholz.  

What the above statements suggest is that the invocation of Article 5 as well as the use of “a pretext” to wage war on Russia are being discussed behind closed doors.  

Stoltenberg claims that NATO is committed to supporting Ukraine while “preventing escalation” through “increased military presence” as well as confirming that “we are not part of the conflict”:  

Stoltenberg: 

“NATO has fundamentally two tasks in the war. One is to support Ukraine, as we do. The other is to prevent escalation. And we prevent escalation by making absolutely clear that we are not party to the conflict, and by increasing military presence in the eastern part of [the] alliance as we have done — with 40,000 troops under NATO command backed by substantial naval and air forces.”

 

Contradictory statement: Is “Preventing Escalation” contemplated by Invoking Article 5?

 Among NATO Member States, there are both “Allies” and “Enemies” 

It is worth noting that in the course of the last two years, several of America’s European “allies” (NATO member states) whose corrupt politicians are supportive of the Ukraine war, have been the victims of de facto U.S. sponsored acts of economic warfare including the sabotage of Nord Stream.  

The EU economy which has relied on cheap energy from Russia is in a shambles, marked by disruptions in the entire fabric of industrial production (manufacturing), transportation and commodity trade. Specifically this applies to actions against Germany, Italy and France, which have resulted in the destabilization of their national economies and the impoverishment of their population.  The sabotage of Nord Stream was an U.S. Act of War against both Germany and the European Union. And Germany’s chancellor was fully aware that an act of sabotage against Nord Stream had been envisaged by the US, to the detriment of more than 400 million Europeans.  

A string of corporate bankruptcies resulting in lay-offs and unemployment is unfolding across the European Union. Small and medium sized enterprises are slated to be wiped off the map:   

“Rocketing energy costs are savaging German industry”… “Germany’s manufacturing industry — which accounts for more than one fifth of the country’s economic output — is worried some of its companies won’t see the crisis through. “Industry behemoths like Volkswagen (VLKAF) and Siemens (SIEGY) are grappling with supply chain bottlenecks too, but it is Germany’s roughly 200,000 small and medium-sized manufacturers who are less able to withstand the shock [of rising energy prices]”  

“Collective Defense”  

In a bitter irony, many of the NATO member states (who are categorized as “allies” under the Atlantic Alliance’s Collective Defense Clause) are the “de facto enemies” of America, victims of U.S. economic warfare. The practice of so-called Collective Defense under Article 5 constitutes a process of mass recruitment by the 30 NATO member states, largely on behalf of Washington’s hegemonic agenda. It was applied twice in NATO’s history: in March 1999 against Yugoslavia and in October 2001 against Afghanistan.  

It constitutes on the part of Washington not only a means to recruit soldiers on a massive scale, but also to ensure that NATO member states contribute financially to America’s hegemonic wars: In other words: “to do the fighting for us on our behalf” or “They will do the dirty work for us” (Dick Cheney).  

This article has addressed the Unspoken Truth, which we have known all along, from the very outset: “The War Started in 2014”. This statement –which is now acknowledged by NATO– was the basis of my detailed analysis. 

My conclusions are as follows:  

The Atlantic Alliance has no legitimacy. It is a criminal entity which must be repealed.  

US-NATO is responsible for extensive crimes committed against the People of Ukraine. What is required is a Worldwide campaign at all levels of society, with a view to eventually dismantling the Atlantic Alliance, while promoting an immediate cease fire and meaningful peace negotiations in solidarity with the people of Ukraine.   

Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 27, 2023