Eric Zuesse
rinf.com
The issues that were discussed at this year’s NATO Summit were mainly preparations for a possible war against Russia.
The two-day Summit in Warsaw Poland ended on Saturday July 9th, with a 139-part “Warsaw Summit Communiqué” which
used the word “terrorism” 17 times, “jihad” and “jihadist” and
“jihadism” 0 (zero) times, and “Russia” 58 times — never favorably, and
often with overt hostility.
It also referred to “Ukraine” 34 times, and “Syria” 10 times. Ukraine, during a February 2014 coup (it has been referred to as having been a “coup” both by the leader of the private CIA firm Stratfor, and by the Establishment writer on international relations John Mearsheimer, among others) switched, immediately after the coup, from having been neutral between NATO and Russia, to being suddenly and consistently intensely hostile to Russia, and immediately applied to join NATO; Syria still remains strongly allied with Russia.
The Ukrainian government was referred to 100% favorably, and the Syrian government was referred to 100% unfavorably.
In other words: the Communiqué is 100%
hostile toward Russia and its ally Syria, and is far more concerned
about Russia than it is about terrorism — and not at all concerned about
jihadism and jihadists.
The Communiqué is clear about “the crisis
in and around Ukraine being, in current circumstances, the first topic
on our agenda.” All of its references to that matter are based upon the
assumption that this problem is due entirely to Russian “aggression” and
that all violations of the Minsk agreements on the Ukrainian conflict
are by the pro-Russian separatists, none of the violations are on the
Ukrainian government side. The presumption is that the Ukrainian
government side never commits aggression, and that the separatist side
is never defending itself against Ukrainian aggression. The Communiqué
says, regarding the Special Monitoring Mission that is overseeing
implementation of the Minsk agreements: “Impediments to the SMM’s work,
which continue to occur overwhelmingly in areas under the control of the
Russian-backed militants, represent a violation of the Minsk Agreements
and seriously hamper the monitoring function of the SMM.” The SMM
operates in, and issues daily reports from,
the separatist region (Donbass, consisting of two parts: Luhansk and
Donetsk), and therefore it’s natural that almost all of those reports
concern that region, not Ukraine. However, for example, the report dated 7 July 2016 does
note that, “Civilians expressed their anger at continued shelling while
other civilians expressed their frustration over water cuts. The SMM
facilitated and monitored adherence to the ceasefire to enable repairs
to essential infrastructure.” Though this report was, indeed, as NATO
phrases the matter, “in areas under the control of the Russian-backed
militants” (i.e., of people who live in the region that rejects the
coup-imposed Ukrainian government), the “violation of the Minsk
agreements” there consisted actually of shelling that was fired from the
Ukrainian government forces, into “areas under the control of the
Russian-backed militants.”
Similarly, the Communiqué blames the war
in Syria upon the Russian-allied side, which in that case happens to be
the Syrian government. For example, it says: “We call on the Syrian
regime to fully comply with the provisions of all relevant United
Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs), and to immediately take
steps for a genuine political transition in accordance with
UNSCR 2254 and the 30 June 2012 Geneva Communiqué.” That conflict is
between jihadists who are trying to overthrow the Syrian government, and
the Syrian government. NATO blames the conflict entirely upon the
Syrian government.
The Communiqué describes at some length
the sharp increase in soldiers and weapons that NATO is pouring onto and
near Russia’s borders, especially in Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, and
Romania. The reason that’s given for this surrounding Russia with
hostile forces is:
the ongoing illegal and illegitimate
annexation of Crimea, which we do not and will not recognise and which
we call on Russia to reverse; the violation of sovereign borders by
force; the deliberate destabilisation of eastern Ukraine; large-scale
snap exercises contrary to the spirit of the Vienna Document, and
provocative military activities near NATO borders, including in the
Baltic and Black Sea regions and the Eastern Mediterranean; its
irresponsible and aggressive nuclear rhetoric, military concept and
underlying posture; and its repeated violations of NATO Allied airspace.
In addition, Russia’s military intervention, significant military
presence and support for the regime in Syria, and its use of its
military presence in the Black Sea to project power into the Eastern
Mediterranean have posed further risks and challenges for the security
of Allies and others.
No mention is made in the Communiqué of the event that sparked all of this, which was Washington’s Ukrainian coup, which Washington had been preparing starting no later than 1 March 2013 in its Ukrainian Embassy to overthrow the democratically elected President of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych.
When NATO demands, regarding Crimea’s
return to Russia shortly after the coup, “we do not and will not
recognise and … we call on Russia to reverse”; when NATO demands Russia
to abandon the 90+% of Crimeans who wanted to rejoin as being part of
Russia — when NATO demands Russia to consign these people to the now
failed state of Ukraine (which hates them and wants them dead)
— NATO is placing itself in the position of a continuing escalation
toward nuclear war against Russia, unless NATO itself disbands or else
cancels its demand. NATO is now in a position where they will either
cancel their demand, or else continue their escalation and
surrounding-of-Russia to the point where Russia will have no alternative
but to unleash (without warning) all-out nuclear war against NATO
countries, and against all nations, such as Ukraine, that hate Russians
so much that they are trying to join NATO — the anti-Russia club of
nations.
Russia is not going to do what NATO
demands. The question now is: which side will start the nuclear war —
attack first. In any case, the war (assuming that NATO neither retracts
its demand nor disbands, and so war results) will probably be over
within less than an hour. There won’t be any winners, but the side that
strikes first will be destroyed less than will the side that merely
retaliates. And, in that sense, there will be a ‘winner’, even to
an all-out nuclear war. Regardless, though, Vladimir Putin’s
responsibility is only to the Russian people, no matter how unacceptable
the two choices are that NATO has offered him. He has tried many times
to discuss the matter with Barack Obama, who always refuses to discuss it with him. Obama’s refusal speaks clearer than any mere words, either from him or from (his agent) NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander, possibly could.
—————
Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.