Global NATO’s ‘Narrative’ Is Cracking, Even Within the West

by Gretchen Small and David Christie

[Print version of this article]

April 23—The battle to crush the Anglo-American attempt to force the entire world under NATO diktat remains hard-fought, and far from resolved.

Chinese President Xi Jinping has proposed a new “Global Security Initiative,” less than two weeks after the Schiller Institute’s April 9 conference launched a worldwide movement for a new international security and development architecture. In his keynote address to the Boao Forum for Asia April 21, President Xi outlined six principles which China considers fundamental for promoting “security for all in the world.”

The NATO bloc continued its fanatical drive to kick Russia out of all global institutions and formats. This week they succeeded in removing Russia from the UN Human Rights Council and the Organization of American States. But in both cases, this was done by the skin of their teeth, and only by using blackmail and threats which create enemies, not friends.

For its part, Indonesia, chair of the Group of 20 this year, refuses to buckle to the Anglo-American clique’s demands that Russia be expelled from the G-20 over Ukraine. Russia will be invited, Indonesia’s Ambassador to Australia Siswo Pramono reiterated April 21, in an interview in the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia). He was blunt:

[The] G20 was developed precisely for economic reasons, to promote global economic stability, to save the world from economic crises and so on. To recover together and stronger, which is our motto, we need cooperation from all the G20 members and that’s why we have invited them all. For developing countries, we don’t have the luxury of playing around with geopolitics because our economics are vulnerable when facing global crises, such as the pandemic, compared with developed countries.

Ending the imminent danger of global war, however, requires breaking the lock-step adherence to the dying unipolar system within Europe and the United States. Thus, the particular importance of the reports below of a number of hardnosed and biting statements of public opposition to NATO policy, coming from three high-ranking retired Italian and German military officers, a leading French military thinktank (whose views have been supported by military figures in other NATO countries, such as Spain), and well-known Swiss and Italian intelligence figures. Several warn that the fools who insist on fanning the “winds of war blowing over Europe” are raising the danger, as Pope Francis also warned in his Easter message, of a nuclear war breaking out which no one can win.

Take note also of two lines of attack being made on the NATO “narrative” which are critical to forcing the urgent broader debate in the West. First, that NATO’s policy of sending more and heavier weapons to Ukraine prolongs the war. The Foreign Minister of Turkey—itself a NATO member—most sharply criticized this policy, charging April 17 that there is a deliberate policy of prolonging the war, not on behalf of Ukraine, but in order to bleed Russia.

The second is the public revelations that there are extensive neo-Nazi networks deeply embedded within the current Ukrainian government and military, which NATO is deliberately arming and protecting. This is not Russian propaganda, but a reality which threatens all civilization, as the head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Israel and the retired Australian diplomat Tony Kevin most dramatically denounced.

United Nations Human Rights Council

Most Nations Opposed Vote to Expel Russia

Not only did 24 countries vote against kicking Russia out of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) April 7, and 58 nations abstain, but it went unreported that another 18 countries simply did not show up for the vote, 11 of which were from Africa (the others mostly Asian). That brings the total number of countries not endorsing the Anglo-American-EU geopolitical gambit to exactly 100, as against 93 voting for Russia’s expulsion. Thus, the measure “passed by a technicality.”

The 24 countries voting against the resolution to expel Russia were Algeria, Belarus, Bolivia, Burundi, Vietnam, Gabon, Zimbabwe, Iran, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, China, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, Mali, Nicaragua, the Republic of Congo, Russia, Syria, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Central African Republic, Eritrea and Ethiopia.

Many of the ambassadors or other diplomats from the nations either opposing the vote or abstaining, made substantial statements explaining their views.

China: ‘Remain Rational’

China’s Ambassador Zhang Jun said:

Any accusations should be based on facts. Before the full picture is clear, all sides should exercise restraint and avoid unfounded accusations….

China always believes that the international community should remain rational, strengthen unity, and do more to facilitate dialogue and negotiation and political settlement. It should not set up obstacles, or add resistance, let alone add fuel to the fire in aggravation of confrontations….

[W]e firmly oppose the politicization or instrumentalization of human rights issues, oppose the selective and confrontational approaches as well as double standards on Human Rights issues, and oppose exerting pressure onto other countries in the name of Human Rights….

The draft resolution before us will deprive a country’s legitimate membership in the Human Rights Council. Such an important matter must be handled with the utmost delicacy, calmly, objectively and rationally, on the basis of facts and truth….

Nevertheless, this draft resolution was not drafted in an open and transparent manner. Nor did it follow the tradition of holding consultations within the whole membership to heed the broadest opinions. Under such circumstances, such a hasty move at the General Assembly, which forces countries to choose sides, will aggravate the division among Member States and intensify the contradictions between the parties concerned. It is like adding fuel to the fire, which is not conducive to the de-escalation of conflicts, and even less so to advancing the peace talks. Dealing with the membership of the Human Rights Council in such a way would set a new and dangerous precedent, further intensify the confrontations in the field of human rights, bring a greater impact on the UN governance system, and produce serious consequences. Therefore, China will have to vote against this draft resolution.

Brazil: Preserve ‘Spaces for Dialogue’

Itamaraty, the Foreign Ministry of Brazil, said in a statement:

Brazil decided to abstain from voting because it understood that the initiative would signify the polarization and politicization of HRC discussions. It could, also, lead to the disengagement of the relevant parties and complicate a dialogue toward peace. For the HRC to fulfill its mission of confronting human rights violations in all countries with the expected universality and impartiality, Brazil considers it important to preserve spaces for dialogue, through responses which favor the engagement of the parties….

India: Respect Due Process

India’s Ambassador, T.S. Tirumurti, said that India abstained on the resolution—

for reasons of both substance and process…. We … support the call for an independent investigation [of Bucha]. The impact of the crisis has also been felt beyond the region with increasing food and energy costs, especially for many developing countries. It is in our collective interest to work constructively, both inside the United Nations and outside, towards seeking an early resolution to the conflict. India has been at the forefront of protecting human rights, right from the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We firmly believe that all decisions should be taken fully respecting due process, as all our democratic polity and structures enjoin us to do….

Indonesia: Allow for Due Diligence

Indonesia’s Ambassador, Arrmanatha Nasir, explained that Indonesia abstained because the HRC should establish an independent international commission of inquiry:

We must allow for due diligence, and not pre-judge the work of the commission. The General Assembly must also be prudent. It is important to have received all the facts before taking action that revokes legitimate rights of its members. Moreover, the General Assembly’s action must not create negative precedent, that can undermine the credibility of this august body. It is for these reasons we abstained on the resolution.

Indonesia remains steadfast, in our commitment to respect and protect human rights for all people. Our priority now, must be to save lives and protect civilians in Ukraine. We reaffirm our call to all parties to stop the hostilities, and spare no efforts to achieve peace through dialogue and diplomacy. This is the only way we can end the suffering and senseless loss of lives in Ukraine. And to prevent the increasing negative impact of the war, far beyond the region. So we must stop the war. I repeat, we must stop the war now. Otherwise we will all suffer.

South Africa: Wars End When Dialogue Begins

South Africa’s Ambassador Xolisa Mabhongo said that,

South Africa stresses once again that dialogue, mediation and diplomacy is the only path to end the current conflict. Wars end when dialogues begin, and wars endure when there is no dialogue. In this regard, we welcome the efforts by Ukraine and Russia to hold talks without preconditions…. The General Assembly must therefore encourage mediation and dialogue and adopt constructive outcomes leading to that end….

South Africa is of the firm belief that the tabling of the resolution that we will consider today is premature and prejudges the outcomes of the [HRC’s] Commission of Enquiry…. It is also imperative that all parties to the conflict must allow the Commission to perform its duties without any hindrance and interference….

Unfortunately, the resolution that we are considering will further divide and polarize the matter and the General Assembly, without following due process. South Africa maintains that in considering the suspension of a member of the Human Rights Council, we must be consistent and not selective as this would undermine the credibility of the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council. For these reasons, South Africa will abstain on the resolution.

Algeria: Let Existing Mechanisms Work

Algeria’s Ambassador, Nadir Larbaoui, said that Algeria voted no, because it believes it imperative to allow the existing UN mechanisms to investigate what happened [in Bucha], far from any interference or prejudice, so as to establish facts. The principles of universality, objectivity and non-selectivity on which the HRC is founded must be respected, in order to preserve it from any political dispute that might affect its mandate or its impartial treatment of human rights issues, and in order to foster constructive cooperation and dialogue, without exclusions.

The Americas

OAS Expulsion of Russia Does Not Signify Consensus

On April 21, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States (OAS), which has 34 member nations, voted up a resolution co-sponsored by NATO members Canada and the U.S. to expel Anatoly Antonov (who is also the Russian Federation’s Ambassador to the U.S.) as a Permanent Observer to the OAS. Russia has held that position for 30 years. The two NATO members pulled a few other allied countries into being co-sponsors and garnered 25 votes in favor of the resolution, which states that Russia will remain expelled until it “ceases its hostilities, withdraws all its military forces and equipment from Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders and returns to a path of dialogue and diplomacy.”

The eight countries that abstained, however, were led by the “Big Three”—Argentina, Brazil and Mexico—politically decisive in the region and representing well over half (386 million) of the region’s 664 million people. The last two have maintained a consistent position of abstaining from most anti-Russia resolutions in international bodies; Argentina has not, and there is a brawl taking place on this issue within the Alberto Fernández government, which is being squeezed by the Biden administration, and by its backers within the Argentine cabinet, to line up with the U.S. Also abstaining from the vote were Bolivia, Honduras, El Salvador and two of the smaller Caribbean islands.

One week earlier, the European delegation to the April 11-14 EuroLat conference in Buenos Aires of European and Ibero-American parliamentarians failed to gain majority Ibero-American support for a final communiqué that condemned “the Russian Federation’s illegal, unprovoked and unjustified military aggression [against] and invasion of Ukraine.” Several of the Ibero-American lawmakers said that the European formulation was “very biased,” and instead presented their own communiqué.

Brazilian Deputy Arlinda Chinaglia said the Ibero-American statement presented—

other reflections.… First, this isn’t the first war that is unfortunately taking place on the planet; second, we can’t ignore the fact that the defense of the international legal order can’t just be for this case, because there’s the invasion of Syria, of Iraq, and the attacks systematically made against Palestinian territories. We can’t choose the war…. We have to discuss all wars. There are large countries that illegally invaded, such as the U.S. invasion of Iraq without United Nations approval. [It would be a mistake to discuss this issue] without considering NATO or the United States.

Uruguayan MP Daniel Caggiani explained that what prevented a final consensus statement is the fact that Europe—

has a very biased view supported by that of NATO and the U.S. It would be good if Europe had a more independent view on these subjects. [Ibero-Americans opt for] dialogue and prioritize LAC (Latin America/Caribbean) and Europe as zones of peace.

He also criticized Europe’s defense of sending weapons to Ukraine rather than “food or shelter.”

Argentina’s conservative establishment daily La Nación reported April 14 that the Europeans, especially members of Spain’s rightwing Popular Party and Italy’s Italia Vive party, were “shocked and indignant” over the lack of a final communiqué, for which they blamed Argentine Vice President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, also President of the Senate, who addressed EuroLat April 13.

In her polemical keynote address, Fernández de Kirchner didn’t mention Russia or Ukraine specifically, but raised relevant issues regarding the “double standard in international law,” attacked the IMF, “the power of international finance” and those who say the state is unnecessary. It’s time, she said, to “rethink our institutional architecture” to address society’s needs, noting that inequality is the result of “political decisions,” not, as propagandists for the free market rationalize, because people “don’t try hard enough” to improve themselves.

One group of European lawmakers howled that Fernández’s “populist” speech was offensive and “detrimental to European institutions” (!) and disrupted the “solemnity” of the occasion. As a consolation, EuroLat’s two co-presidents, Javier López of Spain and Osvaldo Perez Pineda of Colombia, issued their own communiqué condemning Russia’s “illegal, unprovoked, unjustified military aggression against Ukraine in violation of the UN Charter.”

American Arms Expert Ritter Exposes Corruption of U.S. Policy on Russia

During a 21-minute interview on Judge Andrew Napolitano’s “Judging Freedom” YouTube channel April 13, former U.S. Marine Corps intelligence officer and UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter once again exposed the corruption of U.S. policy on Russia by demonstrating that it’s all based on lies. Napolitano set up what was to follow by asking Ritter to comment on his experiences in Iraq in the 1990s. Ritter reported that at one time, Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, did indeed possess weapons of mass destruction, chemical and biological weapons, and may have been within six months of building a nuclear device.

However, after seven years of UN weapons inspections following the 1991 Gulf War, “In 1998 Iraq posed no threat to the international community worthy of war, and that remained true in 2003,” when the U.S., under George W. Bush, launched its illegal war on Iraq. The Bush Administration rejected the truth of the matter, because it wanted regime change. Said Ritter:

The truth was the enemy. The fact is that if we weapons inspectors [had] succeeded in our job of disarming Iraq, the U.S. would not have been able to implement its policy of regime change, and so the truth became the enemy and those who were seeking to tell the truth were also hunted down.

Ritter went on to say that he would advise President Joe Biden to focus on ending the war, because there is no circumstance in which Ukraine could win it:

Russia is going to win this war and win this war decisively. It is better to recognize that now and mitigate the damage that has been done and is being done to the Ukrainian people.

Ritter continued: What must happen is a dialogue between Russia and NATO on what the future security framework for Europe is going to look like and recognize that Russia views NATO as an existential threat and why it does. He also argued that the policy of the U.S. towards Russia, as towards Iraq earlier, has been regime change since 2009, reporting:

Joe Biden traveled to Moscow in March of 2011 and said that to a group of opposition leaders. He said, ‘Vladimir Putin shouldn’t run for reelection because it will turn out bad for him and Russia.’ That is regime change…. It has been the goal of the United States since that time, and is the goal of the United States today. But, I will tell you this, Vladimir Putin has been the President of Russia under five [U.S.] presidents and he will be in charge after Biden.

Ritter boldly predicted that if there is a regime change, it will occur in the United States, not Russia.

Trump: Make a Peace Deal in Ukraine

Former President Donald Trump, in a statement posted on his Telegram account early April 19, wrote,

It doesn’t make sense that Russia and Ukraine aren’t sitting down and working out some kind of an agreement. If they don’t do it soon, there will be nothing left but death, destruction, and carnage. This is a war that never should have happened, but it did. The solution can never be as good as it would have been before the shooting started, but there is a solution, and it should be figured out now—not later—when everyone will be dead!

Canada’s Training of Ukrainian Neo-Nazis Denounced by Wiesenthal Center

The Ottawa Citizen, April 15, posted remarks by Efraim Zuroff, the director of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Israel, denouncing Canada’s government for training neo-Nazi fighters in Ukraine. He asserted that Ottawa has a responsibility to prevent this from happening, telling the Ottawa Citizen, “The Canadian government has not paid due attention.”

Almost every Jewish organization has warned about and condemned Ukraine’s neo-Nazi formations—until falling silent recently.

The Canadian military, not untypically, has adopted the “reckless disregard” premise, that they have no obligation to screen participants in their training program. In 2020, Radio Canada reported that Canadian troops trained members of the Azov Brigade. “This is far from Russian propaganda,” Zuroff told the Ottawa Citizen. “These people are neo-Nazis. There is an element of the ultra-right in Ukraine, and it is absurd to ignore it.” Canada has spent $794 million to train Ukrainian troops since the 2014 coup. It is no secret that at the front of the line have been the Azov, Aidar and Right Sector groups—all worshippers of Hitler’s Ukrainian colleague, Stepan Bandera.

Military Experts Speak Out

Italian General Bertolini Warns of World War

Italian Maj. Gen. Marco Bertolini, former commander of the Interforze operational command and of the 185th Paratroopers Brigade “Folgore,” has been warning of the danger of world war over the Ukrainian conflict. He spoke in an interview with the daily Il Fatto Quotidiano, the week of April 10. Moreover, he said on the Rete4 TV network April 19,

What we are seeing now, we would have lived through in 2016 if Clinton had won [the presidential election]. In 2016 we had already the Arab Spring, which had expanded to Syria. And not by accident, Russia had intervened in 2015 in Syria in order to stop an attack towards its sphere of influence … then, the Maidan question with Russia intervening and taking Crimea back. Crimea, Ukraine and Syria are directly connected and are part, in my view, of a strategy aimed at containing Russian maneuvering room in the Mediterranean.

He said there was a hiatus during the Trump years, but then “everything started again” under Biden.

Bertolini explained to Il Fatto Quotidiano, regarding Russia’s “repositioning” of forces in eastern Ukraine, that this is by no means a retreat, but the logical consequence of the tactical progress achieved in the field by Putin’s army, which can now concentrate its efforts on the real objectives of its “special operation,” that is to say, the Donbas region.

As far as I know, the resistance is exercised by the militias of this Azov Battalion of a nationalist and sometimes Nazi-type, which, however, cannot resist indefinitely. I am quite convinced that the fall of Mariupol could mark the turning point of the negotiation, so that it is finally a serious negotiation.

[Weapons sent by NATO] are used to keep a fire burning, which instead it would be good to extinguish, before witnessing other massacres and before we get to do it with the surrender of one of the two and not with a negotiation “between” the two. Prolonging a war like this does not win for anyone, takes away the dialogue between the parties, and increases the rate of death, violence, and social and economic costs on all fronts.

Gen. Bertolini said he is shocked by the “wind of war” that has blown over Europe since February 24, that goes beyond the Russian invasion of Ukraine and has infested “all that is Russian.” Instead,

Prudence, mediation [are needed, but unfortunately these are] crushed by a sudden and unexpected push towards cohesion and the unity of Europe. But Europe did not have this cohesion and this interventionism until yesterday, when it came to other conflicts, such as that in Libya, or when it came to tackling the migration problem.

Bertolini spoke out again April 19, warning on Rete4 TV that it is his view, that a U.S. drone, deployed from Sigonella, Sicily, could have been involved in the sinking of the Russian warship Moskva in the Black Sea. If confirmed, “this is very serious, it creates a very delicate situation” in which the Russians would react, and “we could have World War III.”

Italian Gen. Tricarico: ‘Biden Does Not Want Peace’

Gen. Leonardo Tricarico, former Chief of Staff of the Italian Air Force, is raising his voice daily against the escalation in Ukraine driven by the EU, NATO, the U.S., and the UK. In an interview with fanpage.it April 21, he stated that the politicians have lost their minds, that the only one who is calling for peace is the Pope, and that the EU should drop its “Strategic Compass” policy and the crazy idea of winning the war in Ukraine.

Tricarico, who is the former deputy commander of the multinational force in the Balkans war (1999) and currently chairman of the think tank Fondazione ICSA (Intelligence Culture and Strategic Analysis), said the Anglo-American-NATO axis is working against peace in Ukraine. He said on La7 national TV April 16:

The word “negotiation” has never been spoken either by U.S. President Biden nor by NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg, nor by Secretary of State Blinken, nor by UK Prime Minister Johnson. This is very serious, because the first efforts to reach an agreement have occurred in a quite improbable way. I know what I am saying: Biden does not want peace.

A serious effort for a major structuring of negotiations has never been made by anyone and especially by the U.S. and the UK. If we review all public and non-public statements by the characters I mentioned, we will never find words such as “negotiation” or “ceasefire.” Evidently, they do not want peace. If Biden does not want peace, nobody else wants it, because Stoltenberg is the direct echo chamber for Biden, and the British are even more aggressive and imperative than the Americans. This is the situation; it is useless to dance around it: Biden wants Putin in the dust.

The situation is extremely delicate, I only hope that—next to the official one—there is a parallel underground diplomacy that is moving to end this senseless war. However, I have no evidence of this, while there is the certainty of a further hardening of positions…. At the moment, the only one who is urging sensible positions is Pope Francis. Too little. Everything points to a lengthening of the conflict.

Europe has relied on the U.S. for its security and now pays the bill, Tricarico said:

Certainly the situation today is also the result of some decisions taken by NATO in past. The problem is that USA and NATO are arming Ukraine to go to the end with the war, and not to be stronger in a negotiation with Moscow. This is unacceptable.

The situation is escalating every day. Nothing can be excluded: an incident can always be provoked or even invoked, even when it has not occurred. In this sense also the information war plays a crucial role. I have waged war; I know what I am talking about.

The first anomaly, the first reminder that I feel I must shout, is that already from the conflict in Syria, and many others around the world led also by the United States, there were signs of a too-nonchalant use of force, arriving to the peaks of these days in Ukraine. In this case, the generals are proving to be firemen instead of incendiaries, as the decision-makers often are….

As far as Italy is concerned, in fact, our political class is affected by a serious lack of culture in defense matters, and very often lacks the cognitive tools to deal with difficult decisions.…

In short, the absence of culture prevents the political class from making informed decisions, leading us to be flattened by the choices of the United States. And this is happening also with the war in Ukraine.

Gen. Erich Vad Opposes Weapons to Ukraine

Brigadier General (ret.) Erich Vad, former military policy adviser to former Chancellor Angela Merkel, has spoken out against Germany delivering heavy weapons to Ukraine.

Such deliveries are potentially a “path to World War III,” Vad told the dpa news agency, as reported by Hessen state radio April 12. Apart from that, be realistic about the proposed weapons systems to be sent to Ukraine, he said. Complex weapons systems such as the Leopard main battle tank or the Marder infantry fighting vehicle could only be operated and used in a system-compatible manner after years of training, Vad said. They are therefore of no military use to the Ukrainians at present and for the foreseeable future.

Vad immediately came under heavy political fire from both Germany’s Christian Democratic Union and the Free Democratic Party, who were particularly concerned to silence his warning that this policy could lead to world war. “The fear that the delivery of heavy weapons will lead to a third world war is, in my view, misleading,” said CDU foreign policy expert Roderich Kiesewetter, who accused Vad of sticking to “the Russian narrative.” Florian Hahn, defense policy spokesman for the CDU/CSU parliamentary group, likewise called discussion about red lines and a “path to World War III … not appropriate.”

The FDP chairwoman of the Defense Committee, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, blathered that “Unfortunately, you can only secure the peace of your own population with weapons.” Therefore, she said, supplies to Ukraine in this situation are more of a necessity to prevent the path to World War III, according to RND news agency.

Former Bundeswehr Chief, Gen. Harald Kujat, however, publicly, and strongly, endorsed Gen. Vad’s view, tweeting April 14:

I agree with Brigadier General Dr. Vad on every single point. The march of the lemmings has started: politics is on a warpath. Why do so many politicians and journalists want to bring the war to our country?

French Military Intel Chief Fired for Not Parroting NATO

Gen. Eric Vidaud, head of DRM, French Military Intelligence, was fired on April 13 and replaced by Gen. Jacques Langlade de Montgros, whom NATO decorated for his role in the murderous wars against Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. As a pretext, DRM was accused of not having been able to foresee the invasion of Ukraine by Russia in February 2022. In reality, the DRM had said at that time, as had the majority of intelligence services, that Russia had the means to invade, but that nothing proved Putin had taken the decision to do so. This “failure” was then used as a pretext to fire the DRM director.

The Centre Français de Recherche sur le Renseignement (CF2R, French Center for Intelligence Research), an exceptional, independent think tank, composed mostly of independent or former French military and intelligence analysts, blasted the decision to replace Vidaud in a press release, putting it in the context of the Atlanticists’ unilateral, partisan narrative of the conflict in Ukraine. The CF2R, which Atlanticists have attacked as “the voice of Putin,” announced that despite media pressure, it will “maintain its independence of analysis respecting the Ukraine conflict.”

Its press release says that CF2R, while regretting that the “vast majority of commentators copy the narrative elaborated by the Ukrainians and the Anglo-Saxons,” itself sticks to honesty, neutrality and objectivity, and refuses to participate “in an enterprise of deformation of the reality orchestrated by the partial actors who didn’t always demonstrate the same pugnacity when the aggressor belonged to their ranks.”

Therefore,

[it] is legitimate to question the motivations of those who want to impose this reading, and prevent any reason-based and independent reflection. We are tempted to call them conspiracy theorists, because, for them, everything is systematically the fault of Russia, and all those who don’t agree with their analysis are agents of influence of Putin.

The firing of the general commanding the DRM—

is inscribed in this logic, since this qualified service didn’t adhere or reproduce the version of the fact the Americans wanted to impose on all members of NATO. The criticism formulated against him is therefore totally unfounded and unjust.

Greek Government Refusing To Send More Weapons to Ukraine

Athens is not planning to send more military equipment to Ukraine, Defense Minister Nikos Panagiotopoulos said April 13, reported the Greek City Times. He said, “The defense equipment we sent to Ukraine came from our stocks. There is no issue of sending more,” he told Greek lawmakers in a parliamentary discussion. The Greek government has already sent to Ukraine two C-130 transport aircraft loaded with military aid, such as Kalashnikov rifles and portable rocket launchers. A recent MEGA TV poll reports that 66% of Greeks disagree with sending military equipment to Ukraine, and 29% agree with the government’s decision.

At the April national congress of the Greek opposition party Syriza, former Greek Foreign Minister George Katrougalos spoke out against Greece being made into an outpost of the West. He said that while the home base for Greece is in the European Union, it nonetheless still seeks to serve as “a bridge between its political home base and other great powers.” He gave a history of “time-honored” Greek leadership in foreign relations with Russia and China. Katrougalos is currently an MP and the foreign policy spokesman for Syriza.

Eurasia

India Not Dancing to Washington’s Tune

India is not bowing to U.S. demands that it condemn Russia as responsible for the Ukraine war and human rights violations, nor is it willing to slow, and then stop energy and defense purchases from Russia, despite multiple threatening visits by senior U.S. officials to New Delhi or the personal intervention by President Biden before the “2+2” meeting of the two countries’ diplomatic and defense ministers April 11 in Washington, D.C.

The final statement from that 2+2 did not mention Russia even once, and Ukraine is mentioned only once, and then only to report that “the Ministers reviewed mutual efforts to respond to the worsening humanitarian crisis in Ukraine” and urged an immediate cessation of hostilities.

The White House had arranged for a call between President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Narendra Modi immediately before the 2+2 was to begin. Publicly, Biden said they would be discussing the effects of “the Russian war”; Modi spoke of his personal efforts to foster direct talks between the Presidents of Russia and Ukraine, and India’s hopes that the ongoing negotiations between those countries would lead to peace. A “senior U.S. administration official” described the talks as “candid,” which is standard diplo-speak for a brawl.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki told reporters that Biden had “conveyed” to Modi that “it is not in India’s interest to accelerate or increase imports of Russian energy and other commodities,” and made “clear what the impact … of our sanctions would be.” She also reported that Biden “made clear that we would be happy to help them in diversifying” their energy imports, to avoid reliance on Russia.

“Diversifying” means giving up fossil fuels, Secretary of State Blinken made clear in the joint press conference after the 2+2. He acknowledged India’s huge power needs (“India is the third largest consumer of energy in the world…. Electricity demand is projected to double by 2030”), but asserted that the way to meet “the needs of the Indian people, the Indian economy,” is by fulfilling India’s COP26 climate goals. He offered to help with work being done at the Energy Bureau of the State Department “on the most economical decarbonization pathways.”

Add to all this, the brazen admission by the unnamed senior Biden administration official giving the background briefing, that the U.S. views India’s border conflict with China as useful to its designs to swing India against Russia:

We know that India has concerns about the links between Russia and China. India, of course, is facing a very tense situation along the Line of Actual Control. And when India sees the tight links between China and Russia, that’s obviously going to impact their thinking.

Renmin Scholar: ‘World Is on Eve of Most Dangerous Moment’

Dr. Wang Wen, Executive Dean of Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies and Deputy Dean of the Silk Road School at Renmin University in China, warns that the world is heading “in the direction of global disaster” and potential nuclear war. Dr. Wang, who spoke at the Feb. 19, 2022 Schiller Institute conference on “100 Seconds to Midnight,” wrote in an article published on the website of Russia’s Valdai Club in mid-April:

More and more scholars estimate that the possibility of the outbreak of World War III is increasing, and have even concluded that this could lead to the outbreak of a nuclear war. [The war in Ukraine is], in essence, a total outbreak of Cold War confrontation thinking in Eastern Europe, and it is also a total counterattack by Russia against the endless strategic expansion and extrusion of the U.S. and NATO. Despite not formally sending troops, the U.S. and NATO have used almost all means of mixed warfare such as financial sanctions, an information blockade, intelligence support, satellite navigation, and air and space technology to comprehensively strangle Russia.

The West has imposed more than 5,300 sanctions on Russia during these 40 days of war, Dr. Wang exposed, putting this into an historical context:

Looking back, tragedies in history often come from five sources: war, famine, economic crisis, pandemic and climate disaster. In spring 2022, people didn’t expect that with the outbreak of the war, the five aspects would be experiencing unprecedented resonance. The world may be on the eve of its most dangerous moment. What should we do? Perhaps it is time to revisit President Franklin Roosevelt’s words: “More than an end to war, we want an end to the beginnings of all wars.”

Çavuşoğlu: Some NATO Allies Want Longer Ukraine War

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu accused certain NATO allies of wanting to prolong the Ukraine war to weaken Russia, telling broadcaster CNN Türk, April 17:

After the talks in Istanbul, we did not think that the war would take this long. There are those who want this war to continue. But, following the NATO foreign ministers’ meeting, it was the impression that … there are those within the NATO member states that want the war to continue, let the war continue and Russia gets weaker. They don’t care much about the situation in Ukraine.

Nonetheless, he expressed commitment to back-channel diplomacy.

Australian Diplomat Tony Kevin: Comprehend the Neo-Nazis in Ukraine

Tony Kevin, who served as Australia’s ambassador to Poland and Cambodia in the 1990s, earlier served in the Embassy in Moscow, and has written books on Russia and the West, published on April 15 a devastating and definitive proof that the Bucha mass slaughter, which serves as a fundamental reference point for the U.S.-NATO drive for war on Russia, did indeed take place, but not at the hands of the Russians. His article appears on The Scrum under the title, “Lies, Truth and Forensics in Ukraine: The Case of Bucha.”

His lengthy analysis includes a powerful account of how on April 1, two days after the Russian troops had withdrawn from Bucha as part of an agreement with the Kyiv government worked out in Turkey, the Deputy Mayor of Bucha Kateryna Ukraintsiva issued an order for all citizens to stay off the street until the city was “cleaned,” or “cleansed.” The next day, the National Guard of Ukraine posted video reporting that “special forces have begun a clearing operation in the city of Bucha.… The city is being cleared of saboteurs and accomplices of Russian forces….”

The Azov Battalion Nazis then went house to house to murder those they considered “Russian collaborators,” dumping their bodies on the streets as a warning to those left alive, Kevin wrote.

Kevin states,

What my naïve compatriots and countless other consumers of Western news reports cannot begin to comprehend is the Nazi mentality. To Ukraine’s extreme nationalists, people who they think collaborated or acquiesced in the Russian invasion of Ukraine even to the slightest degree are no more fellow Ukrainian citizens than German Jews were to Nazi officials under the Third Reich: They are vermin, to be killed without hesitation or compunction if the nation requires it.

Africa

Kenya Declines Zelenskyy’s Request To Address Parliament

A senior official of Kenya’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs April 11 told The Nation—a leading Kenyan newspaper—that the nation had declined a request from Ukrainian President Zelenskyy to address the nation’s parliament. With other diplomatic channels available, “why would they want to address the Kenyan Parliament, for instance?” an official is reported to have asked. The official reported that Kenya, particularly due to its status as an African representative on the UN Security Council, does not want to appear to be taking sides in the conflict, since it hopes “to see an end to the war.” The official explained: “We have made principled decisions which we took from an African position. We are there [at the UN] as Africa representatives.”

The African Union has condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, while opposing the heavy sanctions imposed on Russia. Kenya abstained on the vote last April 7 to suspend Russia’s membership in the UN Human Rights Council.

Europe

Swiss Analyst: Ukraine Is Latest in War Against Russia, Started Years Ago

Jacques Baud, a former Swiss intelligence officer with experience in NATO and in dealing with Ukraine, gave an interview to Aaron Maté’s Pushback podcast April 12 in which he stressed that the U.S. and its NATO allies are exploiting Ukraine in a longstanding campaign to bleed its Russian neighbor.

Baud emphasized that the war did not begin with Russia’s military operation on Feb. 24, 2022, but in 2014, with NATO’s Maidan revolution. Then in March 2021, the Kyiv regime decided that it would “reconquer” Crimea by force, and so it began a buildup of heavy armored forces in southern Ukraine. On Feb. 16-17, 2022, Kyiv launched a massive thirty-fold increase in its shelling of the Donbas region, an increase which was reported by the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission. “So, for the Russians, Vladimir Putin in particular, that was the sign that the operation—the Ukrainian operation—was about to start,” Baud said.

Russia’s main effort from Feb. 24 on was always in the south. The operation early on around Kyiv was a secondary effort which had two functions:

First of all, to put some pressure on the political leadership in Kyiv because the name of the game is to bring the Ukrainians to the negotiations. The second objective of this second effort was to bind or to pin down the rest of the Ukrainian armed forces so that they could not reinforce the main forces which are in the Donbas area. And that worked quite well.

Asked about the diplomatic track, Baud replied:

I think the Russians have totally lost faith in the West. I think that’s the main thing. They don’t trust the West anymore, and that’s why I think now they rely on a total victory on the military side in order to have some benefits in the negotiation…. I would say the Americans and the British didn’t want this peace to occur…. The Russians certainly want to negotiate, but they don’t trust the Western countries—I mean the West at large—to facilitate that negotiation.

This physical war that we witness now is part of a broader war that was started years ago against Russia, and I think, in fact, Ukraine is just … I mean, nobody is interested in Ukraine, I think. The target, the aim, the objective is to weaken Russia, and once it will be done with Russia, they will do the same with China, and you can already see.

The transcript of Baud’s interview was published April 15 by the GrayZone.

Bremen Peace Activists Insist That NATO Is the Problem!

The Bremen Peace Forum, which held a rally in Bremen, Germany, April 16, rejected the call by Green Economics Minister Robert Habeck and others to transform this year’s Easter March into a protest against Russia and Putin. Whereas the Forum denounces Russia’s intervention into Ukraine as the wrong approach, it locates the main culprits in the West and categorically rejects Western weapons deliveries to Ukraine:

NATO, with its devastating wars and its $1 trillion arms budget, is a major factor in preventing global cooperation in the task of making our planet sustainable. Every day that 30,000 people die as a result of hunger, 10% of arms spending could defeat hunger in the world. Disarm instead of rearm! Down with the 2% [annual GDP defense budget] demand of NATO!

The future tasks of mankind will only be solved through international cooperation. Military operations and trade wars make the solution of these questions more difficult or impossible.

A worldwide ceasefire is necessary to enable the affected countries to fight coronavirus. Immediate halt to all arms exports. Sanctions lead to worsening health emergencies in the affected countries. It is cynical to rely on the impoverishment and death of thousands as a means to topple governments. Sanctions must be suspended immediately.

Easter Marches in Germany Called for Diplomacy, Nuclear Disarmament

Over the April 16-17 Easter weekend, some 100 anti-war marches took place in Germany. The one in the city of Bremen denounced nuclear weapons arsenals and called for their abolition, since their existence always implies their use in escalating conflicts between NATO and Russia.

In an interview with the Buten un Binnen online journal, Bremen Peace Forum activist Barbara Heller, referring to the extra defense spending planned by Germany, noted:

So far, the NATO states spend 18 times as much on armaments as Russia. How much more does it have to be, to be considered safe? 20 times as much, 50 times as much? I think the comparison shows very clearly that militarization has not created security. It will not create security even with €100 billion more.

Instead of sending more weapons to Ukraine, the return of serious commitment to solving issues through diplomacy is urgent, Heller said:

There are predecessor processes. There was the CSCE [Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe], and the OSCE [Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe] emerged from it. There were contractual agreements on how to deal with the different interests of the countries. This could be a good starting point!

Of course, one would also have to return to the disarmament treaties that were unilaterally terminated by the U.S. a few years ago: the INF Treaty … and the Open Skies Treaty.

German Lutheran Leader: Support Negotiations, Not Weapons for Ukraine

In a recent radio interview for Germany’s Norddeutscher Rundfunk (NDR), prominent Lutheran theologian Margot Käßmann had the following to say of the Ukraine war:

It’s a frightful war of aggression. My question is, “If yet more weapons, offensive weapons, are supplied, what is the objective?...” I’m convinced that the war can only be ended through negotiation.

Käßmann is not entirely opposed to elements of the British narrative. She supports the sanctions and characterizes Putin as an aggressive egomaniac who dreams of a “Greater Russia.” Nonetheless, the faction she represents offers a ray of hope in the otherwise dismal political landscape in Germany, which has fallen into line with the Anglo-American/NATO military and propaganda onslaught.

Italian Think Tank: ‘Stop the Algorithm of World War III’

The apparently irreversible drift towards World War III in Ukraine is explained by the fact that—

the human mind, in a closed system, tends to decouple from a concrete dialectics and hardly cancels its own choices, once these have turned into a process.

So wrote Ivan Rizzi, chairman of the Italian Institute for High Strategic and Political Studies (IASSP), in ilSussidiario.net, the week of April 18. Rizzi calls it “the Technical-Algorithmic Principle.” He writes:

“We were so technically engaged in organizing 91 [military] divisions, that there was no time for reason,” top Wehrmacht officers argued at the Nuremberg Trial.

The discussion on the possible use of nuclear weapons, initiated by The New York Times, is a terrifying example of how such an algorithm works:

The very fact that such an hypothesis is raised … and national debates and talk shows talk about it, sets in motion the scheme of a self-fulfilling prophecy. In other words, we are developing a hallucinatory dialogue destined to increase schizophrenia and fatalize events.

Once we have entered into the “mortal flow” of language, “sooner or later it is possible that the strategic algorithm makes it actual with facts.” It is a Thucydides trap; it is how World War I started:

We must nevertheless challenge the fatalism of an escalation of the conflict in Europe, in order not to be just helpless spectators. Something must be done to break the algorithm of an apocalyptical epilogue, to have a moderate voice, the voice of tolerance, be heard—as the Good is always only a compromise and Evil is always evil that, when it starts, nobody knows when and how it ends.

Meanwhile, our government is nicely betraying Art. 11 of our Constitution, which says that “Italy repudiates war,” with an executive order; in clear opposition to the will of Italians, most of whom are against supplying Ukraine with weapons and NATO waging war against Russia.