12.05.2016 Author: Christopher Black
Column: Politics
Region: Russia in the World
What are the wars in Ukraine, in Syria, the destruction of Yugoslavia and Libya, but a part of the war against Russia?
In a report
published in the American journal, National Security News, on May 9th, the day
of the celebration of the victory of Soviet and allied forces over the fascist
forces in1945, it was stated that, “in terms of the eastern threat-which is a
reference to Russia-EUCOM (the American Forces European Command) will be moving
from a training to a war fighting stance.”
The article
continues, “this does not mean that the U.S. is planning a war with Russia,
merely that it will shift its force structure in a manner aimed at deterring
Moscow and defending NATO and European partners should Russian President
Vladimir Putin attempt what he has done in Ukraine.”
Of course, the authors do not state what Russia “attempted in Ukraine,”
because that phrase is a cover for the American arranged putsch that put in
power the US puppet government in Kiev. That regime then attacked the peoples
of the eastern Ukraine because they refused to accept the American backed coup
against their democratically elected president and the crushing of their
culture. And when Americans say that they “are not planning a war”, we know
that is exactly what they are planning. What are the wars in Ukraine, in Syria,
the destruction of Yugoslavia and Libya, but a part of the war against Russia?
The article
then refers to the “deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Russia, and
Moscow’s continuing “aggressive, belligerent actions against U.S. warships and
aircraft in international spaces.” This, again, is code meaning that “Russia
will not let us walk all over them in the Baltic, Ukraine, Syria or anywhere
else.”
It confirms
that preparations for war continue steadily, as I have related in previous
articles, comparing the NATO build up of forces in the east of Europe to the
build of German forces prior to the launching of Operation Barbarossa, the
Nazis’ surprise attack on the Soviet Union, on June 21, 1941. The similarities
mount with each passing month. The Russian government, well aware of what is
happening, has responded with close surveillance of American combat ships
entering the Baltic which threaten Kaliningrad, St. Petersburg and Russian
access to the Atlantic. It has also created three new army divisions; two of
which are to be placed on the western front facing NATO forces in Eastern
Europe and one on the southern flank.
Just
recently, the Americans transferred their top general in Korea, General
Scaparotti to the command of American forces in Europe, replacing the bellicose
General Breedlove. The change is more than routine or cosmetic since Breedlove
was an air force officer. Scaparotti, even more bellicose than Breedlove, is an
army combat general with experience in several US attacks on sovereign nations.
His
replacement in Korea, General Brooks.is also an army combat general who was
deputy head of army operations in the attack on Iraq, and also has a record of being
involved in American aggression against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and the “war on
terror” in the middle east, meaning the war on Iraq and Syria. Both these men
are fighting generals, not office chair warmers. Their appointments suggest
increased aggressive actions by the Americans on the Korean peninsular and on
Russia’s borders. In fact on May 4th, the day he assumed command of the NATO
forces in Europe, General Scaparotti stated that, “NATO needs to stay agile and
ready to fight tonight.” Alarming words.
In an
attempt to counter the continued American pressure, President Putin, on Monday,
May 9th called for the creation of a non-aligned system of international
security to counter “global terror.” What he meant by that is unclear,
non-aligned in what sense? What would a non-aligned system look like?
We must not
forget that a Non-Aligned Movement still exists. Formed in 1961 in Beograd by
India’s Prime Minister Nehru, Indonesia’s President Sukarno, Egypt’s President
Nasser, Ghana’s President Nkrumah and Yugoslav President Tito, it advocated a
road between the opposing forces in the so called Cold War. Fidel Castro said
in a speech in 1979, that the Non-Aligned Movement wants to ensure “the
national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of
non-aligned countries in their struggle against imperialism, colonialism,
ne-colonialism and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination,
interference ort hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.”
These objectives were, it should be noted, completely in line with Soviet
policy but totally opposed to everything American imperialism was trying to
achieve, domination of the world.
The Russian
government has repeatedly stated it supports the objectives expressed in
Castro’s speech. The United States has repeatedly stated and proved that it
will not tolerate them. Therefore, it would seem that reviving the Non-Aligned
Movement, which lost its direction with the end of the Cold War, could be an
important step in creating what President Putin has in mind, a non-aligned
movement with military power. The Non-Aligned Movement has currently 120
nations. Are they prepared to join Russia to build a common security
architecture? Is that what President Putin has in mind? Interesting questions,
interesting possibilities. But do the leaders of those nations or any of them,
have the desire, the will and the courage to do something before a catastrophe
occurs?
Whether
President Putin is talking about establishing a common security initiative with
those countries, or just the BRIC nations, without a common ideology it is
difficult to see how those countries can come together. But then, perhaps,
today a common ideology is not necessary, only a common fear. We shall see.
President Putin is highly intelligent and perhaps has some concrete ideas in
mind to push this forward. We can but hope. For he also knows, as we all know,
that when he says in his May 9th speech that “terrorism has become a global
threat” he is really stating that the United States has become a global threat.
It is clear
that the “terrorists” the world is facing are U.S. proxy forces attempting to
destabilise the word for American interests. The battle against “terrorists” in
Aleppo is really a battle against U.S. forces in Syria. No one is any longer
fooled by the vague term “terrorists.” This has been made abundantly clear by
the invasion of Syria by U.S. forces in the past few weeks, setting up advance
bases for something bigger. President Putin actually said it in his speech when
he said, “double standards and short-sighted indulgence to those who are
nurturing new criminal plans, are unacceptable.” The reference could only be to
the NATO alliance and the Unites States in particular.
The call
for the creation of a “non-aligned security system” can also be interpreted as
recognising the total irrelevance of the United Nation’s and its role in
international law of securing world peace. Its irrelevance has increased year
by year along, with that of international law; the United States and its allies
treat both with contempt.
We can
expect only worse after the American elections. The two likely contenders for
the American presidency are equally intent on “making America great again,” of
dominating the world. Since they, on behalf of the ruling elite, offer no
rational solutions to the American people for the increasing economic decline
and social breakdown that is occurring in the United States, war is their only
way out.
It’s time
for a new Bandung Conference, the conference that was the precursor to the
Non-Aligned Movement, held in 1955 in Bandung, Indonesia, a conference of
African and Asian states, hosted by President Sukarno. The member nations
adopted a “declaration on promotion of world peace and cooperation which
included Nehru’s five principles: mutual respect to each other’s territorial
integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in
domestic affairs, equality and mutual benefit, peaceful co-existence. These
principles need to be renewed and in light of the reality, made concrete by a
common system of international security as President Putin suggests.
For as
Harold Pinter, the Nobel Laureate for Literature in his acceptance speech of
the Nobel Prize said, “The United States quite simply doesn’t give a damn about
the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as
impotent and irrelevant.” “How to make them “give a damn,” he once asked me,
“before they kill us all?” How indeed?
That is the question.
Christopher
Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto, he is a member of
the Law Society of Upper Canada and he is known for a number of high-profile
cases involving human rights and war crimes, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
No comments:
Post a Comment