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
