Go to home page

This article appears in the April 8, 2022 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

The ‘No!’ to Global NATO War Drive Shifts from Defense to Offense

[Print version of this article]

April 3—In the last week of March, three highly qualified Americans with military backgrounds issued bone-chilling warnings that U.S.-UK NATO policy has now brought the world to the brink of a nuclear war which “will turn us to less than ash,” as MIT’s Ted Postol soberly put it. Postol’s warning was delivered to experts in a seminar. Former Hawaii congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard’s gut-wrenching video reminding Americans that they have no place to hide from nuclear war, was seen by over 46,000 people within 72 hours of its posting. Former weapons inspector Scott Ritter’s stark warning of the nuclear threat has tens of thousands of views following his highly active presence on social media.

As recognition of the war danger grows, chaos has begun to knock on the doors of nations around the planet. Governments are becoming unable to secure affordable food, energy, and other key economic necessities for their people; markets are collapsing under the combined assault of financier speculation and sanctions. Suddenly it is dawning on policymakers that the “rules” of free-trade monetarism no longer function, and any nation’s gold, dollar, or euro holdings can be seized at the whim of the self-proclaimed U.S.-UK “rule-makers.”

Simple resistance is being replaced by discussions over how to build a new security and economic architecture to bring a durable peace and development. We publish here a few reports on some of those public discussions, but more are happening in private, often turning for guidance to the fifty-year track record of American economist and statesman Lyndon LaRouche on precisely this question.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was correct when he pointed out March 28 that Russia is not the “isolated” pariah the U.S. State Department and British Foreign Office paint it to be. It is those who are “mentally and ideologically resigned to the inevitability of the dictatorship of the West on the world stage” who are isolated, Lavrov explained.

We call particular attention to the battle taking place in Pakistan, where the imperial forces in the Biden Administration have been caught red-handed attempting to oust Prime Minister Imran Khan, because he has insisted that his nation should not choose sides, but instead play an active role in seeking to bring together the warring parties of West and East, most recently proposing that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation and China work together to help end the conflict between Ukraine and Russia. Khan is fighting back by exposing the attempted regime-change operation; his fight should encourage other leaders being subjected to similar threats to do likewise.


Imran Khan Exposes U.S. Attempts To Oust Him, Calls New Elections

View full size
Official photo
Imran Khan

Pakistan’s Prime Minister Imran Khan has been steering a diplomatic course for peace-through-development, working with Russia, China, and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, in particular on regional connectivity in Central and South Asia, and is directly now a target for ouster by the U.S. and the Global NATO bloc. On April 1, Khan announced that his government had just “given a démarche to the American embassy,” protesting its blatant interference in the country’s affairs. The protest note responded to official evidence that in early March, a senior U.S. government official had demanded Imran Khan’s ouster in a no-confidence vote, or else.

That no-confidence vote was scheduled for April 3, called by opposition parties. However, Khan’s government dissolved the parliament on April 3, on the grounds that a foreign conspiracy was behind the scheduled vote, and he called early elections, to be held within 90 days. In the course of this, Khan has been rallying Pakistanis to defend their right to choose their own government, and maintain an independent foreign policy.

On March 27 in Islamabad, Khan addressed a gargantuan rally of supporters, revealing that his government had a letter in hand which proved that the no-confidence vote was the product of a “foreign conspiracy” against the sovereignty of Pakistan. He told the crowd:

Attempts are being made through foreign money to change the government in Pakistan…. We know from what places attempts are being [made] to pressure us. We have been threatened in writing, but we will not compromise on national interest…. We have been aware of this conspiracy for months. We also know about those who have assembled these people [the opposition parties], but the time has changed. This is not the era of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. This is the era of social media. Nothing can be hidden. We will not accept anyone’s dictation.

On April 2, Khan again cited Bhutto, reminding Pakistanis in an April 2 national Q&A session broadcast on national radio, TV, and digital media, that the only time Pakistan had an independent foreign policy was when Bhutto was Prime Minister (1973-1977), and Bhutto had been killed for that policy.

Raising the Bhutto case has international significance. Bhutto was the first constitutionally elected civilian leader in Pakistan, renowned throughout the developing sector for his fight to develop his nation. He was overthrown July 5, 1977, framed on murder charges, jailed and tortured for nearly two years, and finally hanged on April 4, 1979.

At the time, nationalist leaders worldwide knew that his murder had been ordered by the British oligarchy’s Malthusian apparatus within the U.S. government, as part of a wave of coups and assassinations unleashed against developing nations, because Bhutto had smuggled out of his jail cell in late 1978, a devastating document known as “The Pakistan Papers: White Papers or White Lies,” in which he recounted how his overthrow and subsequent torture followed the threat, delivered to him personally by Henry Kissinger, that if Bhutto did not end Pakistan’s nuclear reprocessing plans, he “would make a terrible example of Pakistan.” EIR News Service published excerpts of his revelations at the time when other Western agencies refused to publish them.

The current document revealing U.S. intervention in Pakistan is confidential, but its nature is now widely known: Pakistan’s Ambassador to Washington had filed a report with the Foreign Ministry on “the formal communication by a senior official … in a formal meeting” with the ambassador March 7, that if Imran Khan were not removed from office, Pakistan would face “difficulties,” even, according to Planning and Development Minister Asad Umar, “horrific consequences.” The ouster of the Prime Minister, however, would be “a good result,” the ambassador is reported to have been told. Moreover, the senior U.S. official making the threats spoke specifically about ousting Khan by a no-confidence vote, even though no motion for such a vote had yet been made in Pakistan’s parliament.

The only reason given by the senior U.S. official for the threats against Pakistan was that “Imran Khan decided to go to Russia on his own.” Khan himself said in a national address March 31, that he is under criticism from the opposition, because he has told the United States “Absolutely not!” to reported U.S. demands to set up military bases in Pakistan. Khan stated,

I only said that “we are with you in peace but not in war” because our foreign policy is independent. I don’t talk against anyone. I only say that my biggest responsibility is the 220 million Pakistanis.

Turkey Will Not Join Western Sanctions Against Russia

View full size
DoS/Ron Przysucha
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in remarks to reporters on the return flight to Ankara after the March 24 NATO summit, reiterated that Turkey will evaluate some sanctions adopted against Russia, but it will not abandon its ties with Russia while taking such steps. Notably, those ties include not only Russian gas but also nuclear power. He said,

[W]e are building our Akkuyu nuclear power plant with Russia. We can’t ignore that. When I told this to [French President Emmanuel] Macron, even he said that I am right. We have to protect this sensitivity. Firstly, I cannot leave my people to freeze in the winter, and secondly, I cannot completely reboot this industry of ours.

While acknowledging that Turkey remains a committed member of the NATO alliance, Erdoğan said that Turkey has made great efforts to end the war. He said that his Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu has been active in this with his counterparts and that Ankara continued to be in “intense contact” with both Ukraine and Russia to end the war “as soon as possible.”

On March 29, in-person talks between the delegations from Russia and Ukraine took place in Istanbul, with Erdoğan personally in attendance.

China and Russia Will ‘Speak with a Unified Voice in Global Affairs’

View full size
Sergey Lavrov

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and his Chinese counterpart Wang Yi held talks March 30 in the city of Tunxi, in the eastern Chinese province of Anhui, where they agreed that Russia and China “speak with a unified voice in global affairs,” and issued a joint statement. They met on the sidelines of the third Meeting of Foreign Ministers of Afghanistan’s Neighboring Countries Plus Afghanistan, March 30-31.

Lavrov briefed Wang Yi on the state of negotiations with Ukraine and underlined that Russia was committed to de-escalating tensions and would pursue peace talks and maintain communications with the international community.

Wang Yi reiterated China’s position on encouraging a multipolar world and adhering to the principles of the UN Charter. He declared that the Ukraine crisis had a complex history and that it was only the outbreak of the long-term accumulation of security conflicts in Europe that led to the crisis, as well as the Cold War mentality:

Under the current situation, we support Russia and Ukraine to continue the peace talks despite difficulties, support the positive results achieved so far in the negotiations, support the cooling of the situation on the ground as soon as possible, and support the efforts made by Russia and other parties to prevent a large-scale humanitarian crisis. In the long run, we should learn the lessons of the Ukraine crisis….

India Welcomes Lavrov for Discussions on Sovereignty, Ukraine and Ruble-Rupee Trade

View full size
Narendra Modi

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov met April 1 in New Delhi with India’s External Affairs Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, and was also provided a session with Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Modi’s office stated that in their meeting—

The Prime Minister reiterated his call for early cessation of violence and conveyed India’s readiness to contribute in any way to the peace efforts. The Russian Foreign Minister also updated the Prime Minister on the progress of decisions taken during the India-Russia bilateral Summit held in December 2021.

Lavrov had joined President Vladimir Putin as part of the Russian delegation to India on Dec. 6, 2021.

Earlier, Jaishankar and Lavrov headed delegations at a lengthy closed-door meeting in New Delhi. The Ministry of External Affairs’ readout was that Jaishankar—

underlined that as a developing economy, global volatility in different domains is of particular concern to India. It is important for both countries that their economic, technological and people-to-people contacts remain stable and predictable.

India Today said that “the two ministers discussed the developments pertaining to Ukraine and the situation in Afghanistan, in addition to … the Iran nuclear deal.” Lavrov briefed Jaishankar on China’s just-concluded conference on Afghanistan.

At their joint press conference, Lavrov offered:

I believe that Indian foreign policies are characterized by independence and the concentration on real national legitimate interests. The same policy is based in the Russian Federation and this makes us, as big countries, good friends and loyal partners.

When asked about the anti-Russia pressure on India from the UK and U.S., he responded:

I have no doubt no pressure will affect our partnership…. They are forcing others to follow their politics…. I cannot imagine that India is taking some stand because India is under some kind of pressure. We respect India’s stand, its concentration on basic principles, namely that Indian foreign policy is based on its national interest.

Questioned on India and Russia arranging a ruble-rupee system for trade, Lavrov replied:

We have to find ways to bypass impediments. Efforts to move away from the dollar to the national currency will intensify. We will be ready to supply India with any goods which India wants to buy. A way out is to bypass artificial impediments that illegal, unilateral sanctions by the West create. This also relates to the area of military and technical cooperation. We have no doubt that a solution will be found, and the respective ministries are working on it.

China’s Foreign Ministry:
‘NATO Should Have Become History’ in 1991

View full size
Zhao Lijian

China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian, during an April 1 media briefing, addressed the history of the Ukraine crisis:

As a product of the Cold War, NATO should have been disbanded after the collapse of the former Soviet Union. In the early 1990s, former U.S. Secretary of State James Baker made his “not one inch eastward” assurance regarding NATO expansion to then President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. As the culprit and the leading instigator of the Ukraine crisis, the U.S. has led NATO in pursuing five rounds of eastward expansion in the two decades or so since 1999. NATO’s membership has increased from 16 to 30 countries and the organization moved over 1,000 km eastward to somewhere near Russia’s borders, pushing the latter to the wall.

Neither the world nor Europe needs a new Cold War. The Ukraine crisis has dragged on for more than one month, and the overwhelming majority of the international community hope to promote peace talks and stop hostilities as soon as possible. NATO should reflect on what role it played in the European security issue and the Ukraine crisis.

It Is Not Russia that Is ‘Isolated,’ Lavrov Says, but the Western Nations Stuck in the Old Order

Foreign Minister Lavrov, in an interview March 28 with Serbian media, posted to the Foreign Ministry website, refuted the Western line that Russia is “isolated” as a result of its special military operation in Ukraine. Rather, he said, it’s those who are “mentally and ideologically resigned to the inevitability of the dictatorship of the West on the world stage,” who are isolated. The world has changed. After centuries of Western domination of the world, a new era has begun, and those countries that are “the centers of world economic development, pursuing a nationally-oriented policy, have risen; they don’t want to accept impersonal neoliberal values imposed by the West on the whole world. They want to be guided by their history, their traditions and their values.”

In fact, Lavrov elaborated, Russia has a very large number of partners in the Asia-Pacific region, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and maintains close working relations with many regional organizations, such as the African Union, ASEAN, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). And, he stressed, “that in the most important, the most strategically developing region—Eurasia—organizations with the participation of the Russian Federation have been created and are successfully functioning.” Naming several of those organizations—the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), and the Eurasian Economic Union, among others—Lavrov explained that, in cooperation with ASEAN, these structures are actively “promoting work among themselves, developing a network of cooperative projects in conjunction, including the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.”

Thus, he concluded, “we are creating the Greater Eurasian Partnership.”


Serbia Again Reminds the West of Its Sovereignty

View full size
Aleksandar Vučić

Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić stated in an interview March 27 with Serbian broadcaster TV Prva, as reported by Sputnik, that Western demands for Serbia to support sanctions against Russia are unfair, since the country is a sovereign state, is not a member of the European Union, and has itself survived foreign aggression by NATO forces in 1999. Vučić emphasized that Belgrade will continue to act in its own sovereign interests, even if that runs counter to other nations’ desires:

You [the West] have not imposed sanctions on gas and oil against Russia. Don’t you like it, don’t you want to impose sanctions on it? This is logical and reasonable, yes, but you want to decide for a sovereign state, which was not accepted into the EU and with which even Article 31 of the negotiation platform wasn’t opened, what sanctions it will support.

Of course, we are getting in someone’s way, someone will always regard us as “little Russians,” they lie, because we are just Serbs. They call us “Trojan horses,” but those who see a mote in someone else’s eye, don’t see a beam in their own.

Vučić continued, referring to the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999:

Serbia has an experience that many have not had since 1999. And I am asking liars from the [British daily] Guardian and the European Greens to tell me whether it was an aggression or not, when Serbia was attacked? When you attack a sovereign country, Serbia has no lies and deception. We equally regard the attack on Serbia and ... [events] in Ukraine in the formal legal sense, because Serbia adheres to the principles of international law.

In 1999, the NATO air strikes, from March 24 to June 10, 1999 claimed the lives of over 2,500 people, including 87 children, and 3 staffers in China’s Belgrade embassy.

French Diplomat Gourdault-Montagne Asks, ‘Are We Not, As in 1914, Sleepwalking Into War?’

Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, former Secretary-General of the French Foreign Ministry, was interviewed March 24 on Europe 1, France national radio. A career diplomat, he was the former advisor to Jacques Chirac 2002-2007, who is promoting a diplomatic solution of the conflict.

Going through the flurry of summits, sanctions, and weapons support for Ukraine, Gourdault-Montagne asked,

What’s it good for? Are we not, as in 1914, sleepwalking into war? The fear we can have today is that we are going into war and that there is no way out of it. The question is whether voices will rise and ask if there is a diplomatic plan, in the strict sense, that could be proposed to Ukraine.

He reviewed the background:

We didn’t take Russia’s demands seriously: I think that we have not taken what the Russians are saying seriously enough. The Russian President for years has said that an expansion of NATO is a provocation. He said it in 2007. But in 2008, there was nevertheless a decision taken by a NATO summit in Bucharest to admit Ukraine and Georgia as full members. France and Germany had then raised their hands to say let’s not go so fast and proposed instead an action plan for these two countries.

Then the EU had signed an association treaty with Ukraine, and the Russians again, in 2014, said, beware, this is a prelude to a full entry of Ukraine in NATO….

Gourdault-Montagne stressed that dealing with Russia is a reality:

Are we ready to deal with people who are our neighbors and who will remain there, who, in any case, we do not intend to destroy? Russia is not Nazi Germany.

Gourdault-Montagne expanded on Chirac’s vision, in 2006, of dealings with Russia. Plans were under discussion of neutrality for Ukraine:

[Why not] imagine a cross-protection of Ukraine, by Russia on one side and by NATO on the other? Which would have been managed by the NATO-Russia Council that was created at the beginning in the 2000s. And it was a way to neutralize Russia, while protecting its territorial integrity and its sovereignty. President Chirac had looked at it, he considered that there were already six neutral countries in the EU—we know them, Austria, Finland, Ireland, Malta, Cyprus, Sweden—so the position of neutrality, in Europe, is not an aberrant position, quite the contrary.

There were several ins and outs, but Gourdault-Montagne described a total rebuff when he went to Washington to discuss the neutrality option. He quotes Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State at the time, who said,

“We’ve had enough with you Frenchmen. You blocked for some time the accession of the first wave of Central European countries to NATO; you will not block the second wave” It’s then that we realized that the intention of the Americans was indeed to have Ukraine join NATO. And in 2008 there was the Bucharest summit.

Georgia Does Not Join the Front Against Russia

View full size
Parliament of Georgia
Mikheil Sarjveladze

The Georgian government in Tbilisi has taken a negative stance on an appeal from Ukraine Security Council Secretary Oleksiy Danilov calling on Georgia and Moldova to open a “second front” against Russia, as reported March 28 by Interfax. Georgia has also rejected sanctions against Russia, as well as the supplying of weapons to Ukraine, and has banned the recruitment of Georgian volunteers to fight on the Ukrainian side in this war.

Member of Parliament Mikheil Sarjveladze, a member of the Georgian Dream ruling party and chairman of the parliament’s committee on human rights, said March 27:

The call for Georgia to start war against Russia does not match the interests of the Georgian people. [Such statements] are wrong and are not justified.

Representative of the Reforms Group opposition faction MP Teona Akubardia also told reporters that calls for Georgia and Moldova to open a second front against Russia are—

[an] unreasonable and morally unjustified statement…. Georgia has international obligations to return territories exclusively by peaceful methods. We sympathize with Ukraine and support its sovereignty, while a deterioration of Georgian-Ukrainian relations today will suit only Russia.

Romanian Senator Calls for Talks Among Great Powers, for Peace

View full size
Government of Romania
Diana Iovanovici-Șoșoacă

Romanian Senator Diana Iovanovici-Șoșoacă, who is mobilizing for Romanian neutrality in the present crisis, gave an interview March 23, in which she said that the technical-military cooperation agreement Romania signed with Ukraine has put Romania in a very dangerous role. This treaty established the purchase of military equipment for common projects and the common production and repair of military equipment. She calls for creating a counterpole of pressure on the great powers to talk to each other and resolve the crisis, even though this is difficult. She explained the initiative she took with three other MPs March 10, to jointly sign a memo sent to embassies and the Romanian government, demanding Romania’s neutrality in the Ukraine conflict, and to conclude the Peace of Bucharest.

The interview was given to Alexandra Bellea-Noury of the Schiller Institute France, on her blog.

Bavarian Economics Minister: ‘Thank God, Gas Is Still Coming from Russia’

View full size
CC/Michael Lucan
Hubert Aiwanger

Bavarian State Economics Minister Hubert Aiwanger, speaking to the media the week of March 21, voiced deep concern about the negative effects of the Russia sanctions on Bavaria’s economy. He roundly rejected the proposals for Germany to end Russian gas imports, which are being defended as a way to pressure President Putin. Aiwanger said,

Gas is still coming from Russia, and I say quite officially and emphatically: Thank God gas is still coming from Russia. [Around 220,000 jobs in Bavaria] depend relatively directly on Russian gas imports.

In the construction sector, 30% of all steel used has come from Russia.

EAEU Roundtable Condemns Sanctions,
Calls for New International Monetary System

View full size
Sergei Glazyev

The Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) convened a round-table discussion March 31, ostensibly on the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDG), but quickly proceeded to review the world’s chaotic economic situation—including the flouting of international law with warfare by sanctions, and then proceeding to what can be done. Figuring in the discussion were leaders of other major multi-national associations, for example Ahmad Zafarullah, Director of the ASEAN Integration Monitoring Department. Deputy Secretary General of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Muratbek Azymbakiyev said that the SCO is becoming a key factor in economic collaboration.

The EAEU’s Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC) Minister for Integration and Macroeconomics Sergei Glazyev put it,

Commodity distribution chains are being destroyed, commodity and exchange commodity prices, including food, are rising. Under these circumstances, it will be difficult to achieve the SDGs, especially those related to zero hunger (SDG 2) and health and well-being (SDG 3). In many countries, we see a trend toward chaotic food markets. We need to think about how to stabilize them.

He countered:

The resources and technologies available in the world make it possible to produce food for 20 billion people, which is twice as many as live on the planet. [The need is for] the development of equal international economic relations [and to deal with] price increases due to the policy of quantitative easing of countries issuing reserve currencies.

Hence, a serious reform of international trade and economic relations is required:

We set the task of developing the Eurasian exchange space; we are thinking about how to develop a new international monetary and financial system that would be immune to sanctions.

Glazyev gave an extensive interview March 27 to Business Online, in which he detailed his proposal for a new international financial architecture.

Speaking of experts in countries such as Russia, India, and China, and stressing productive activity, not monetarism, he stated:

We are currently working on a draft international agreement on the introduction of a new world settlement currency, pegged to the national currencies of the participating countries and to exchange-traded goods that determine real values....

Glazyev reviewed the geopolitical context in which the demise of the Western, dollar-based system has occurred. He emphasized the role of Zbigniew Brzezinski,

[whose] famous theorem says that in order to defeat Russia as a superpower, you need to tear Ukraine away from it. All this political dogma, which, it would seem, has long gone down in history, is nevertheless reproduced today in the thinking of the American political elite.... They used Ukraine as an outpost, or rather, as a tool for undermining Russia, weakening it, and in the future for destroying it as a sovereign state, in accordance with Brzezinski’s proposal.

Russia, China and India Are Shaping a New Order, Says Medvedev

View full size
Dmitry Medvedev

Dmitry Medvedev, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council and former Russian President and Prime Minister, has pointed to the formation of a new era of international relations, involving China, India, and Russia, as the approach collapses of “the Anglo-Saxons,” referring to the Anglo-American establishment. He spoke in a March 24 interview with RT and Sputnik:

Clearly the U.S. believes it is a nation outside international law, above everyone else. Following the collapse of the U.S.S.R. and an end to the bipolar world order ... the U.S. saw itself as the winner and the sole beneficiary of the Soviet Union’s demise…. Exactly for that reason the U.S.’ actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and Vietnam a few decades ago, have never come under any legal scrutiny by the international community…. [But] Life does not stand still. It means new centers of gravity in international relations are being shaped. Take the People’s Republic of China, India, and the Russian Federation.... The unipolar world is over. The U.S. is no longer the master of planet Earth.

Before the interview, Medvedev wrote in the social media platform Telegram March 23, under the title, “American Strategists,” that the U.S., which once had good strategists at the time when the American Revolution defeated the British, has had only fools as strategists since World War II:

[The U.S.] constantly waged senseless wars, and usually far from its territory. Without rules and without looking back at the world community. With the right to abandon everything and everyone, to leave the game as soon as this game is close to losing. And leave behind blood, ruins, political and economic devastation. This has already happened in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and other countries. During the years of the Vietnam War alone, the Americans killed more than a million inhabitants of this country. True, who remembers this in America?


Congressional Mexico-Russia Friendship Group Formed in March

The official creation of a Mexico-Russia Friendship Group in Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies was announced March 23. It is made up of deputies from President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s Morena Party and the Workers’ Party (PT), with one member from the Revolutionary Institutional Party (PRI).

Russian Ambassador Viktor Koronelli, who attended the founding session, expressed his gratitude to the Mexican President and Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard for saying that the government will never impose sanctions on Russia or send weapons to Ukraine, describing Mexico as “one of our oldest and most important partners in the Latin American region.” He described the years of war waged against the Donbas region, the barbaric killings of 15,000 people there, and the Ukrainians’ fascist tactics today of using civilians as human shields. Russia didn’t start the war, he said, “but it is now ending it,” El Sol del Centro quoted him as saying.

The creation of the Mexico-Russia Friendship Group has received the expected, immediate response from the U.S. and cohorts. On March 24, another group of deputies, including some from the Morena Party, officially created the Mexico-U.S. Friendship Group, inviting U.S. Ambassador Ken Salazar to attend. As quoted by the Mexico City News, he intoned,

We have to be in solidarity with Ukraine and against Russia. I believe that the Ambassador of Russia [Koronelli], who was here yesterday making noise, [said] that Mexico and Russia were very close. Sorry, that can never happen, it can never happen.

Venezuela’s Maduro Lauds Creation of a New Financial System by BRICS Countries

View full size
Russian Federation Press Service
Nicolas Maduro

Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, speaking to a group of foreign diplomats in Caracas at the end of March, pointed to the creation of a new financial system for the world, led through the efforts of the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. The new system would not be used as a geopolitical tool in the way the dollar has been used, he explained. As reported by RIA Novosti, he emphasized:

Five developing countries that have begun to build the architecture of financial, economic, commercial and political cooperation are striving to become one of the main actors in the emerging world. The Venezuelan state is prohibited from using the dollar. International exchange currency cannot be used in geopolitical or political blackmail! It must be a stable currency that can withstand any circumstances of world conflict, whatever they may be, and be respected. To which all countries of the world have equal access. This should be a new unified system.

Former Brazilian President Rousseff:
Follow China’s Stance on Ukraine and Russia

View full size
UN/Mark Garten
Dilma Rousseff

Former Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff gave the keynote address at a March 19 seminar on China and Latin America, sponsored by the Friends of Socialist China. She identified the fight between finance capital’s neoliberalism and the “shared development” paradigm championed by China as the choice before the world. While mostly speaking of economic matters, she did zero in on the Ukraine crisis.

Rousseff contrasted China’s neutral policy regarding the Ukraine crisis, defending peace and sovereignty, to that of NATO. She criticized NATO for contributing to the conflict, and criticized the “warmongering” position of the U.S. and the “submissive” condition of Europeans. She drew out the point that the policy of containment of China intensifies conflict, harms everyone, and is absurd. “Decoupling” will cut America itself off from the world economic web in which around 100 countries trade more with China than with the United States. Meanwhile, the dollar will soon no longer be “irreplaceable,” after its deployment as “a weapon of retaliation” through sanctions. Rousseff said that Ibero-America’s future “is not with the United States,” but with the Belt and Road Initiative.


South Africa: Give Humanitarian Response to Ukraine, No ‘Geopolitical Objectives’

South Africa’s Department of International Relations and Cooperation (DIRCO) put out a lengthy statement of its international perspective at the time of the March 23-24 UN General Assembly debate on humanitarian aid for Ukraine, in which it stated its opposition to “geopolitical objectives” being involved in aid. The DIRCO statement was in line with South Africa’s proposed resolution supporting aid for Ukraine, but without condemnation of Russia. In a preliminary vote, the South African resolution did not obtain enough votes to be considered, although in that poll it received 50 votes for, and 36 abstentions, against 67 votes against. Instead a resolution was passed which included blame for Russia for aggression.

Among the points in DIRCO’s statement after the preliminary vote:

South Africa called for a UN outcome that will first and foremost focus on calling for the cessation of hostilities as the first step towards ameliorating the humanitarian situation. It is also important for all parties to abide by international humanitarian law as well as all protocols of the Geneva Conventions. It remains pivotal that aside from addressing the humanitarian needs of the people it must also lay the foundation for the parties to engage in constructive and meaningful dialogue.

DIRCO then issued a second statement following the General Assembly vote, stating why it had felt that a neutral resolution was needed. It said that—

instead of placing the humanitarian crisis and our response at the center of our deliberations, the political divisions in this Assembly suggest that perhaps in the minds of some delegations the humanitarian response is secondary to geo-political objectives.

Without naming any perpetrators, DIRCO’s lengthy statement directly raised the Iraq War, in which it noted that—

2.4 million are reported to have died since 2003. Many more civilians across the world have died and been displaced.

It is underscoring the point that many countries and their peoples suffer the consequences of wars that are not of their own doing. They have had no role to play in starting or ending those wars. In fact, we must make the point that in most cases, the vast majority of countries in this Assembly have never invaded or colonized other countries yet have suffered their consequences. There are [a] few powerful countries that have been party to most of these conflicts often in the form of proxy wars in other countries or regions. Africa has experienced its fair share of these proxy wars and their destructive outcomes.

United States

Ted Postol: NATO-Russia Crisis Is ‘Far More Dangerous than the Cuban Missile Crisis’

View full size
Ted Postol

Ted Postol, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology and International Security, sounded the alarm in an interview with Robert Scheer, on the March 25 podcast of “Scheer Intelligence,” that the danger in today’s strategic crisis between NATO and Russia is far more dangerous than the Cuban missile crisis.

Prior to his work at MIT, Postol worked at Argonne National Laboratory, the Pentagon, and Stanford University. He has had extensive experience regarding missile deployments in the military. Postol stressed that America now has more nuclear warheads than there are targets in Russia, and that Russia’s “early warning system” is much less capable than that of the U.S.

Given this dynamic, he explained

[The] only thing the Russians can do—not that they’re crazy, or not that they’re trying to be, you know, suicidal or homicidal—the only thing they can do to stave off American enthusiasm about attacking them, is to make preparations for an automated response. A doomsday kind of weapon, although that’s not, I doubt, exactly the way they think of it. But a doomsday kind of response, which basically occurs if the leadership is killed in the early phase of an American nuclear attack….

Basically the American modernization, and Russia’s unfortunate inability to improve their early-warning system, has resulted in a situation where everything is potentially a lot more dangerous, because an accident could much more easily occur. And this is both a social, political and technical problem.

Postol deplored the lack of diplomacy going on. On the approach to Ukraine, he said:

Instead of talking about a neutral power and working to bring the standards of living in the Ukraine up, and help it develop a modern democracy, we put these people in harm’s way. And [NATO Secretary General Jens] Stoltenberg, he’s going to root for Ukraine until the last Ukrainian is murdered by these Russian forces…. When he starts talking, you just want to hold your head and cry.

Nuclear war would be horrific:

We’re talking about a wall of fire that encompasses everything around us at the temperature of the center of the Sun. That will literally turn us to less than ash, if this thing gets going. I can’t emphasize how powerful these weapons are. When they detonate, they’re actually four or five times hotter than the center of the Sun, which is 20 million degrees Kelvin. They’re 100 million degrees Kelvin at the center of these weapons.

Postol blamed the lack of education and maturity of those in positions of influence:

We have a bunch of punks, you know, 30-year-old punks, who come from privileged backgrounds, claiming they’re experts in policy when they actually do not have the basic knowledge. And they’re advising Presidents.

Gabbard Posts Dramatic Video: ‘Warmongers Have Set Us on a Path for Nuclear War’

View full size
CC/Gage Skidmore
Tulsi Gabbard

Former U.S. Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI), a former Presidential candidate, posted a dramatic one-minute video message March 30, warning about the danger of nuclear war. She begins:

The warmongers have set us on a path for nuclear war with Russia. And when the nukes start flying, you’ll get an alert like the people in Hawaii got on our phones 4 years ago.

The video then cuts to a recording of the Hawaii incident:

Seek immediate shelter.... A missile may impact on land or sea within minutes. This is not a drill.

Gabbard then returns to say that the message told us there was only 20 minutes to find shelter—but there were no shelters.

Parents lowered their children into manholes.... When the Russian nukes are incoming, and our leaders tell you to seek shelter immediately, you will realize how our leaders have failed and betrayed you and your loved ones.... We must stand together and stand up against these warmongers before it is too late.

Gabbard has 390,000 subscribers to her YouTube channel.

Scott Ritter Blasts U.S. Nuclear Policy, Biden ‘a Madman’

View full size
CC/Justin Holmes
Scott Ritter

Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector and retired Marine Corps intelligence officer, tweeted March 26:

Our President calls for regime-change in Russia the same week he promulgates a policy that embraces preemptive nuclear strikes in non-nuclear situations. His administration is planning on deploying Dark Eagle hypersonic missiles in Europe later this year. A madman rules America.

Ambassador Chas Freeman: Making Zelenskyy a ‘Hero’ Obstructs Any Resolution

View full size
EIRNS/Juliene Lemaitre
Chas Freeman

Ambassador Chas Freeman, a retired diplomat, gave a video interview March 22 to The Grayzone’s Aaron Maté, in which he reviewed the consequences of NATO’s refusal to work with Russia on a new security architecture after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the continued expansion of NATO to Russia’s borders. He said that, “Russia had warned for 28 years that it would eventually snap” as has now happened. Freeman expressed his view that the military move into Ukraine was a mistake, explaining that “to understand it is not to condone it.” But he denounced the “triumphalists” who imagined the West had “won the Cold War,” when in fact it was a “default” by the Russians.

Among Freeman’s main points is the fact that there are deliberate moves to prevent a settlement of the Ukraine situation. Ukraine President Zelenskyy has been deployed on a series of speeches to Western legislatures for the purpose of preventing him from making any deal with Russia to stop the war. Then there is the declaration by U.S. President Joe Biden that Putin is a “war criminal,” and UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s declaration that the sanctions must stay even if the war ends, in order to punish Russia. These are also aimed at preventing a resolution to the war.

Back to top    Go to home page