The ‘No!’ to Global NATO’s Military and Economic Warfare Is Louder than You Think

by EIR Staff

[Print version of this article]

The Western narrative of a world united against Russia, willing to sacrifice lives and livelihoods in the military and economic war launched against Russia by the UK-U.S.’ “Global NATO,” is a lie. The potential to turn humanity back from the brink of thermonuclear war and general breakdown and to build a durable peace, does exist, as Helga Zepp-LaRouche’s Schiller Institute insists.

As you will read below, governments representing over half the world’s people have bucked the U.S./UK/EU orders to accept (or else!), the unipolar narrative on how the Ukraine-Russia conflict came to exist, and they reject the murderous measures being unleashed on the pretext of that conflict—even if they don’t all agree on an alternative security and development architecture for the world.

The leading nations of the developing sector that remain neutral, oppose the crushing economic sanctions, and question NATO’s role in provoking this crisis, include the world’s two most populous nations, India and China, with some 1.4 billion people each. Brazil and South Africa have adopted a similar stance, thus uniting the BRICS against NATO’s role—the group of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa—to prove that nations from different civilizations and continents can work together towards common goals of development.

The nations of Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey insist also on maintaining their independence, pressing for other, diplomatic means of restoring peace.

When the UN General Assembly was ordered to vote on behalf of NATO’s anti-Russia policy on March 2, half of the 55 nations of Africa refused to go along, despite enormous diplomatic and economic pressure. In all, the 52 countries from virtually every continent which voted “No,” abstained, or refused to show up for the vote, represent over 25% of the world’s nations, among them such major nations beyond Africa as Iran and Iraq; the Central Asian nations; Bolivia and Venezuela.

Altogether, nations representing some 4.2 billion of the world’s 7.9 billion people have dared to stand up, in some fashion.

Nor is it true, as can be seen below, that there is no significant opposition from within the Western nations, even if the major media almost totally black out these opposing views or denounce those who hold those views as “Russian agents.”

The following are a few of the recent statements and actions from around the world, grouped by continent and certain individual nations.

EUROPE

Former German Chancellor Schröder Met with Putin March 10

Gerhardt Schröder, former Chancellor of Germany, met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Moscow March 10, to discuss peace options for Ukraine. Schröder, though without official government backing, had liaised with Kiev as well. Schröder is Chairman of the Board of Rosneft, is associated with the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, and in June he will join the Board of Gazprom.

Austrian Chancellor Karl Nehammer expressed support for Schröder’s initiative, saying on March 10 that, “I believe that all possibilities must be used to establish channels of talks.” He stated the week of February 24:

Looking to the future, if sanctions are necessary, care must now be taken not to completely cut the remaining political, economic and civil society ties that exist between Europe and Russia. For these are—despite the current dramatic situation—the basis for a hope that we all have: that a dialogue on peace and security on our continent is possible again.

Former Italian Minister Tremonti:
EU Must Learn History, Treat Russia Properly

Giulio Tremonti, former Italian Economics Minister, gave a substantial interview Feb. 24 to Il Giornale, saying that the European Union must learn history, and treat Russia as a member of the European community. He gave a full presentation of history of the recent decades, stressing that the bilateral relationship between the West and Russia involved the West imposing a “punitive peace and exporting democracy.”

Italian Scientist Battaglia: Ukraine Disaster Is the Responsibility of NATO, the USA and EU

Prof. Franco Battaglia, a physical chemist and a leading opponent of climate hysteria in Italy, has dedicated several columns in the daily Il Giornale in March to the British/NATO attack on Russia. This is a remarkable example of how, in crucial historical moments, professionals can go out of their traditional field of competence, to assume larger leadership responsibility for society. In his March 8 column, Battaglia scolds TV journalists who present Russia’s demand for security guarantees as “news,” as if these requests were not known for years:

I am sorry to say things that Joe Biden, Boris Johnson, Ursula von der Leyen and Mario Draghi do not want to hear, but the responsibility for this disaster, I believe, is entirely one of NATO, the U.S.A. and the European Union. It is useless to have deferential journalists saying: ‘for the first time,’ Putin tells us what the price of peace is. This has been known for years.

[To hope that Putin loses the war] is legitimate, but it would occur only after many of us, and them, have died. Instead, if we accept that Putin wins, it is more intelligent to have him win soon. The price of those dead is disproportionate to the value of Putin’s requests.

As for Zelenskyy’s posture, it reminds him of Marcus Furius Camillus, who refused to pay the price in gold demanded by the Gauls who had invaded and occupied Rome, and instead led a fight that resulted in the city being destroyed.

Airport Workers in Pisa, Italy Refused to Load Weapons Cargo Bound for Ukraine

Workers at the Galileo Galilei Airport in Pisa, Italy the week of March 13 refused to load a cargo plane flying to Poland, when they discovered that so-called humanitarian aid was in reality weapons bound for Ukraine. Given the proximity of the Pisa airport to Camp Darby, the U.S. military base, it is possible that the weapons were U.S.-made weapons. The Unione Sindicale di Base (USB), one of Italy’s largest trade unions, planned a demonstration for March 19.

Former German Armed Forces Official: NATO Intervention in Ukraine Would Trigger Nuclear War

Harald Kujat, former chief inspector of the German armed forces, has warned about the deadly implications of the talk about some kind of direct NATO intervention against Russia in Ukraine—increased arms deliveries, no-fly zone, NATO “peacekeepers,” and the like. He spoke to the press agency, Deutsche Presse Agentur (DPA), the week of March 13:

We should all be concerned about this, because there is a risk that a war between NATO and Russia could escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. That’s why I think the call for NATO intervention or no-fly zones is not only negligent but irresponsible. NATO and Russia would be at war with each other, and on the brink of nuclear war. I know that is cynical, but then we could forget the discussion about climate change, because then we would have nuclear winter in Europe for 50 years.

Kujat also pointed to the potential high casualties caused by a protracted war, to argue for the urgency of negotiations, and for ending unfulfillable promises to make an agreement possible: “It is wrong, however, to use promises to raise expectations that cannot be kept.”

ASIA

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan Refuses To Denounce Russia

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan personally responded to the letter sent by 20 European Union ambassadors to Pakistan, protesting Pakistan’s abstention in the UN General Assembly vote on the resolution condemning Russia’s military intervention into Ukraine, saying: Pakistan is “friends with Russia, and we are also friends with America; we are friends with China and with Europe; we are not in any camp.” Pakistan will remain “neutral” and collaborate with those working to end the Ukraine conflict, he told a political event on March 6. He replied bluntly to the EU ambassadors:

What do you think of us? Are we your slaves ... that whatever you say, we will do?

India’s Prime Minister Modi Rejected Condemning Russia in Quad Joint Statement

At the March 3 meeting (by video) of the heads of state of the Quad bloc of four nations—the U.S., Japan, Australia and India, it was expected by the U.S. that the joint statement would have key U.S. points, especially condemnation of Russia. Washington’s hope was that a united front would be expressed in the statement by U.S. President Joe Biden, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan, Prime Minister Scott Morrison of Australia, and Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India.

However, this did not happen. Notably, the readout issued by India’s Ministry of External Affairs underscored Modi’s insistence that the Quad remain focused on its core objective “of promoting peace, stability and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific.” On Ukraine, the readout mentions that Modi emphasized “the need to return to a path of dialogue and diplomacy.” The White House readout of the meeting thus only mentioned that the group discussed the Ukrainian situation, “assessed its broader implications,” and otherwise committed the group to “a free and open Indo-Pacific in which the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all states is respected and countries are free from military, economic and political coercion.”

Indonesia’s President Joko Widodo Called for Dialogue with Russia, Not Sanctions

In an exclusive interview March 8 with Nikkei Asia, Indonesian President Joko Widodo urged that a ceasefire occur in Ukraine and a continued dialogue between Moscow and the West, rather than economic sanctions:

It is important for all countries to push for the tension reduction, de-escalation—intensify negotiation. This is very important. Negotiation, cease-fire, then stop the war. I believe any difficult problem can be solved if we are willing to talk to each other—listen to each other.

The President told Nikkei Editor-in-Chief Tetsuya Iguchi that sovereignty and territorial integrity “must be respected by all parties,” making his first major comments since Russia began its military operation Feb. 24. President Widodo stated his conviction that methods such as the Anglo-American sanctions against Russia and Belarus, “are not the best solution to resolve the problem” as “people and civilians will be the victims.” He also strongly insisted that both “Ukraine and Russia are friends of Indonesia.” Indonesia holds this year’s presidency of the G20, and plans to host this year’s leadership summit on Nov. 15-16 in Bali.

China Ministry of Foreign Affairs: Blame the West’s Eastward Military Expansion

Chinese Foreign Affairs spokesman Zhao Lijian had multiple opportunities to respond to questions about China’s views on the Ukraine situation during the March 17 press conference of China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. When asked to comment on claims attributed to Britain’s intelligence service that only Xi Jinping could cause Russian President Putin to end the war, Zhao responded:

It takes the one who started the issue to resolve it. I want to stress that those who caused the Ukraine crisis should reflect on the roles they have played … instead of shifting the blame to others.

He elaborated in a later response:

International media lately mentioned many times that George Kennan, former U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union, suggested to the U.S. government in the 1990s that expanding NATO up to Russia’s borders would be the most fateful error of American policy…. The U.S. decision on NATO’s eastward expansion is directly linked to the Ukraine crisis now. I read a report the other day that Tulsi Gabbard, former member of the U.S. House of Representatives, said the crisis could have been ended and the war easily avoided if the U.S. had simply promised not to accept Ukraine’s becoming a member of NATO. But they chose not to do so.… The key to solving the Ukraine crisis is in the hands of the U.S. and NATO. [Emphasis added.]

And what has been gained through NATO expansion? Again, Zhao:

The U.S. claimed to defend peace by working on NATO’s five waves of eastward expansion. Is peace achieved? It said this was to prevent war in Europe. It was averted? It advertised commitment to a peaceful settlement of the crisis. But from providing military aid to beefing up military deterrence, did it do anything good for peace?

Zhao stated China’s intention:

We welcome all diplomatic efforts conducive to the political settlement of the Ukraine issue, and support Russia and Ukraine in conducting dialogue and negotiation to seek a political settlement that accommodates both sides’ legitimate concerns and is good for lasting stability and security in Europe. China will continue to play a constructive role in seeking and achieving peace and development.

Turkish Foreign Minister in Moscow for ‘Balanced’ Approach, Justice, Diplomacy

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, in Moscow March 16 for talks with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, stressed to media that Turkey favors a balanced approach to the Ukraine situation that favors laws and justice. As reported by Daily Sabah:

As a country with good relations with both sides [Russia and Ukraine], we continued our role as an honest mediator and facilitator despite all the difficulties. We have had a clear stance since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war. We have done what we can to open room for diplomacy. We are putting efforts into achieving a humanitarian and permanent cease-fire. We will continue to increase our efforts prioritizing diplomacy in this process. Without the trust of Russia and Ukraine, we would not have been able to carry out these efforts adequately.

Turkish President Erdoğan Denounced Demonization of Russian Artists as ‘Fascist Practices’

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan spoke out against the demonizing of Russian art, literature, and performers that he has seen in Europe, the U.S. and elsewhere, during his opening address March 11 to the three-day Antalya Diplomacy Forum in southern Turkey. Anadolu Agency reported that Erdoğan referred to Ukraine’s situation as a “legitimate struggle” against Russia, but he nevertheless condemned the anti-Russia “witch hunt.” He said,

Fascistic actions against people of Russian descent and Russian cultural figures living in the Western world are completely unacceptable. Look at the situation where a philharmonic orchestra director gets fired in Germany as a friend of Putin’s. Isn’t it nonsense? They are banning Dostoevsky’s works. Isn’t it nonsense?

AFRICA

South Africa’s President Ramaphosa:
Blame NATO for War in Ukraine

South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa said March 17 that,

The war [in Ukraine] could have been avoided if NATO had heeded the warnings from amongst its own leaders and officials over the years that its eastward expansion would lead to greater, not less, instability in the region.

He spoke during the question period in the National Assembly, adding that economic sanctions will not bring peace. He explained:

[South Africa does not] condone the use of force or violation of international law, but it is important to understand and articulate the causes of the conflict, and advocate for peace building measures. While there are people within our country and elsewhere that want South Africa to adopt a more adversarial position, our position seeks to contribute to the creation of conditions that make the achievement of a durable resolution of the conflict possible.

Our approach is informed by an analysis of the causes of this conflict. This includes a view shared by many leading scholars, politicians and other people, that the war could have been avoided if NATO had heeded the warnings from among its own leaders and officials over the years that its eastward expansion would lead to greater, not less, instability in the region....

Earlier, in his March 7 newsletter, President Ramaphosa defended South Africa’s abstention from the March 2 UN General Assembly vote on condemning Russia:

[The resolution text did not prioritize] the call for meaningful engagement [to settle the situation]. There have been some who have said that in abstaining from the vote condemning Russia’s military operation in Ukraine, South Africa has placed itself on the wrong side of history. Yet, South Africa is firmly on the side of peace at a time when another war is something the world does not need, nor can it afford.

One Half of Africa’s Nations in UN General Assembly Did Not Vote To Condemn Russia

Africa accounted for 27 of the 52 nations which did not vote for the UN Resolution condemning Russia on March 2, representing half the 55 nations of the African continent. These included: Eritrea, voting against the resolution; Angola, Algeria, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), Equatorial Guinea, Mali, Namibia, South Africa, South Sudan, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zimbabwe abstaining; and Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Eswatini, Ethiopia, Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Morocco, and Togo not showing up to vote.

IBERO-AMERICA

Brazil Sticks to Impartiality

Brazil’s Foreign Minister Carlos Franca—with his Portuguese counterpart, Augusto Santos Silva, standing at his side during a joint press conference after they met in Lisbon March 8—stated that Brazil will not take sides over Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, a stance he described as reflecting “impartiality” rather than “indifference.” When a journalist asked if Brazil condemns the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Franca responded:

Brazil’s position is clear: We are on the side of world peace. We think that that [peace] is reached by finding a way out, not by pointing fingers. Brazil is a consensus builder.

Foreign Minister Franca then protested the “selective nature” of the sanctions being applied against Russia:

They throw the Russian Central Bank out of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), but they maintain a compensation mechanism within the BIS so Europe can pay for Russian energy imports.

He was particularly annoyed that the U.S. is considering importing oil from Venezuela, while “at the same time it blocks the sale of Brazilian fertilizers with countries such as Iran.”

Brazil’s Former President Rousseff Condemned West’s Kiev 2014 Coup, NATO Expansion

In a lively, wide-ranging Feb. 26 interview with Brazil247 TV, former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff, who was herself a victim of a color revolution coup organized by London and Wall Street bankers in August of 2016, gave a historical tour de force explaining the West’s betrayal of Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, leading to the expansion of NATO right to Russia’s borders and the U.S.-orchestrated 2014 Maidan coup in Ukraine.

The interview appeared under the headline, “Coup in Ukraine and NATO Expansion Explain the War.” In it, she documented the promises made to Russia by then Secretary of State James Baker III, among others, that NATO would not move “one inch” to the East, and pointed to the existence of recently declassified documents which confirm the promises that were made and then broken.

At the end of the Cold War, she said, the policy in terms of NATO was, “the Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down.” Particularly significant was her mention of the role of the neo-Nazis in Ukraine, which she said were “backed by the U.S. and the NSA,” and then repeated, “the National Security Agency” (which spied on her when she was President), describing it as an agency “complementary to the CIA to destabilize nations.” It was when Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych made the decision to ally with Russia, and not to join in association with the EU, that he became the victim of what Rousseff called a “hybrid war” leading to the 2014 Maidan coup, responsibility for which, she said, rests with former U.S. President Barack Obama.

Rousseff called for diplomacy:

The solution must be multilateral. War won’t resolve the conflict. Why? Because it’s a political conflict.

What’s good about diplomacy, she emphasized, is that it can create a solution “in which neither side loses.” Rousseff repeated that any solution must be multipolar, “because the unipolar world is finished.” There cannot be an “abstract peace,” however. The criteria used to reach a diplomatic solution must be understood and carefully studied. The real problems must be addressed. She highlighted the special significance of the Feb. 4 agreement signed by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, cementing an alliance of great strategic importance.

Former Bolivian President Morales Called for Mobilization To Dissolve NATO

Evo Morales, the former President of Bolivia (2006-2019), stated to Sputnik’s Spanish site on March 9:

NATO is a danger to world peace, to security, so we are in the task of reaching agreements with social movements, not only in Latin America, but in all continents, to eliminate it. If nothing is done against NATO, it will become a permanent threat to humanity.

Morales charged that NATO’s “expansionist” and “interventionist” policies were the cause of the Russia-Ukraine crisis, for which he holds the U.S. solely responsible.

The U.S. always provokes wars to sell its weapons, interventions, military bases, to take over natural resources…. It is not only looking for Ukraine’s resources, but also to encircle Russia militarily.

Morales said RUNASUR, an organization of various leftwing and indigenist Ibero-American social movements, is leading the effort to “make an international campaign to dissolve NATO.” Morales initiated RUNASUR in April 2021, shortly after returning to Bolivia from his exile in Argentina after the fascist coup against his government organized by the State Department in November 2019.

UNITED STATES

Former Congresswoman Gabbard: Take NATO ‘Off the Table’ for Ukraine

Former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), a former Presidential candidate, said on Fox News’s Tucker Carlson Tonight program Feb. 24, that if President Biden had “taken NATO off the table for Ukraine,” we wouldn’t be in this dangerous situation now. Before that, she made clear that because of people “suffering,” she doesn’t support President Putin going into Ukraine.

But she went on to stress that people “are afraid and angry at the failure of leadership.” Look at what Biden and the NATO leadership are doing, and look at how the people who challenge them are “smeared and caricatured as traitors.”

She said that she is extremely worried of any tit-for-tat reaction between the U.S. and Russia, because these are the two great nuclear powers. Things can escalate. There could be a launch at a moment’s notice. “This is the seriousness of the threat.”

MIT Scientist Ted Postol: Work with Russia To Pull Back from Nuclear Doomsday

Ted Postol, MIT Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology and International Security, participated March 17 in a Zoom panel discussion held by the American Committee for U.S.-Russia Accord (ACURA) on the theme, “Is Ukraine Our Armageddon?” He began with this slide:

Because of the ever-increasing firepower of U.S. nuclear forces, and the severe technical shortfalls in Russian space-based sensing technologies, Russia has been forced into a doomsday posture where under certain conditions its nuclear forces will be launched automatically.

He then gave a briefing on the comparative technical aspects of the U.S. vs. Russian satellite warning systems, and what a dangerous situation we are in. There are gaps in the Russian systems in parts of the globe, which create fragilities in their warning functions.

In Postol’s view, President Biden has done a good job of signaling that he wants to avoid an escalation. But his advisors don’t listen. As for President Putin, rather than making moral judgments about his alleged behavior, we have to look at him coldly and do whatever we can to avoid uncontrolled escalation. We need to work hard at cooperating with Russia to strengthen Russia’s warning system.

Postol clearly indicated his belief that it is in the U.S. interest that Russia have a warning system that works as well as that of the U.S., and that the U.S. should cooperate with Russia to make that happen. That would reduce Russia’s need for the doomsday element in its nuclear decision-making.

Toward the end of his remarks, Postol observed that he had spent 30 years trying to convince people in Washington that Russia would have been very happy to have been part of the West, and had spoken with Russians who had expressed that view, but he couldn’t get anyone in Washington to listen. My grave concern, he said, especially given his in-depth knowledge of the effects of nuclear war that he had outlined at the beginning, is that people are not reflecting on how we got to this point, but instead are pointing fingers at various people. He said that while he is disturbed at the references to nuclear war, we should listen very carefully to what Putin is saying, and not demonize him, and certainly not try to call his bluff.

Los Alamos Study Group:
‘A Proposed Solution to Ukraine War’

The Los Alamos Study Group in Albuquerque, NM—an anti-war group founded in 1989, but claiming a history dating back to the (pre-1960s) Cold War—issued “A Proposed Solution to the Ukraine War” March 7, authored by its founder and Executive Director, Greg Mello. In the introduction, the statement faults the unilateralism of the Wolfowitz Doctrine as the primary cause of the confrontation, naming Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya as victims. After a historical review of Ukraine developments since the 2014 “Washington-engineered coup,” they offer a half-dozen “conclusions,” followed by 13 points of “What the Study Group Wants.”

The third “conclusion” clearly reflects the Westphalian principle. Writes Mello:

An end to the invasion and war in Ukraine can only be guaranteed if Russia’s security is itself guaranteed. Security is largely indivisible. Security for one state requires security for others. This is a core principle of European security which Russia rightly insists upon. The U.S. should honor that. The fundamental cause of the current conflict is the desire of the U.S. to weaken or “break” Russia.

Without naming the Azov Battalion, Mello states that—

Nazi and neo-Nazi formations and ideologies in Ukraine present a clear danger to human rights and human life everywhere.

Of the 13 “requests”—including a stop to weapons shipments and arming of “gangs, criminals, children, and ‘stay-behind,’ guerrilla, or Volkssturm groups”—Number 11 reads,

NATO should disband. The largest military alliance in the world, NATO consumes more resources than all the world’s militaries combined, and has conducted multiple wars of aggression, in violation of the UN Charter and Nuremberg principles.

Code Pink Launched Petition for a Negotiated Settlement in a Neutral Ukraine

Code Pink used the occasion of Ukraine President Zelenskyy’s address March 16 to a Joint Session of the U.S. Congress to launch a petition for United States’ support for a negotiated settlement of that crisis built around a neutral Ukraine.

After citing the broken promises on Eastward expansion of NATO, the offensive nuclear missiles in Romania and Poland, and the arming of Ukraine as factors leading to Russia’s military operation, the petition calls for Russian withdrawal of troops and United States commitment to a neutral Ukraine, an end to NATO’s expansion, an end to the imposed sanctions, and “support for an international security agreement to protect the interests of all people on the European continent to remain free from war and occupation.”

The statement calls for pressure to be put on President Biden and the Congress, to end the weapons build-up, which risks nuclear war. It concludes:

For a ceasefire agreement to be reached, it will be necessary to secure Russian strategic interests. This means confirmation that Ukraine will never be a part of NATO and will be a neutral country.

George Koo Wrote: ‘Lessons from an Unnecessary War’

George Koo, a leading advocate of good Chinese-American relations, wrote a March 14 article in the Asia Times titled, “Lessons from an Unnecessary War,” in which he addresses the insanity of the U.S./NATO refusal to respect Russia’s demand for security guarantees, and ridicules the ugly propaganda against Russia and President Vladimir Putin.

Koo’s intention is to address the unmistakable connection to the Western threats against China, including over Taiwan. Just as the U.S. said it will fight the Russians “down to the last Ukrainian,” he says, so also it would be the same if the U.S. drives Taiwan to declare independence.

Koo writes of the basis for solution to strife: “Chinese President Xi Jinping and Putin issued a long Joint Statement on February 4 declaring long-term economic cooperation and commitment to a multipolar world.”

As for Ukraine,

[Ukraine] is a major hub of China’s Belt and Road Initiative and an important trading partner…. It should be obvious that the U.S. is a declining hegemon that can only offer conflict and economic sanctions, while China has no interest in military intervention and can offer economic cooperation and collaboration to anyone. The contrast couldn’t be more clearly seen than in the Ukraine conflict.