Speaking at the Amari air base during his visit to Estonia Thursday NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said: "There is no contradiction between being in favor of a… firm policy from NATO and at the same time aspiring for a more constructive relationship with Russia. … We urge them [Russia and the separatists] to be part of a peaceful solution," he said.
Yet, the big question is whether NATO is really seeking a peaceful solution in Ukraine, to say nothing of a “more constructive relationship with Russia”.
Says Lindsey German, Convenor of the Stop the War Coalition:
Many people are worried that there is an escalation of tensions between Russia and the West which could lead to another Cold War, of the sort that we saw for decades from the 1950’es. But I'm afraid the actions of NATO speak a very-very different language, because what they are really doing is – they have, on the one hand, expanded NATO membership, they included very-very many countries in the eastern Europe, including a number of countries which border onto Russia; they have also conducted maneuvers in Poland, in the Baltic states and elsewhere using different forms of armed forces which are clearly aimed at escalating the situation there.
And I think that we should all be very-very worried about what is happening, particularly in Ukraine. But we should see this as something which doesn’t justify further military activity, it should be a situation where people sit down and talk about what the possible outcomes of the situation in Ukraine can be, because otherwise we can see, not this year, maybe not next year, but we are moving towards a greater danger of military confrontation in the region and I think NATO has to take a lot of responsibility for that.
But as far as I understand NATO honestly believes that it is Russia who is the aggressor.
Lindsey German: This is the view that NATO puts. But to be honest, the expansion of NATO is in itself an aggressive act. Now, this isn’t to support everything that Russia does or indeed anything that Russia does in this respect. That’s not my concern here. My concern is…because, I mean, a country which is a NATO member has to make it very-very clear. I think that NATO is acting in an aggressive way and it is trying to include other countries…they have talked about Georgia or about Ukraine itself being part of NATO. And Russia will automatically see this as a very threatening move.
And we also have to look at NATO’s record over the past years, since the end of the Cold War, which was a situation where were told that NATO didn’t really need to exist. Actually, the opposite has happened – NATO has expanded. It has been involved in all sorts of operations very-very far from its original supposed territory, including in the Balkans, including in Afghanistan, including in Libya. And I think that, if you look at NATO’s record in the recent years, it is a record of warmongering and being increasingly militaristic.
And now Mr. Stoltenberg is saying that it is up to Sweden and Finland to make up their minds. How real do you think are the chances that those two countries become NATO members?
Lindsey German: I doubt that they will. But what is happening here is that NATO is putting more and more pressure on them and on other countries, to say – you are with us or against us. When this kind of pressure is put on, it can be very-very dangerous indeed. And it seems to me that there should be a de-escalation of what is going on, not an increase in the tensions in the region.
Absolutely! But if we get back to Ukraine, if we try not to pay attention to words, if we look at what NATO has been doing there, what could be their real goals?
Lindsey German: I think we have to see the whole situation. If you look at NATO enlargement, it is very-very much connected to the enlargement of the EU. This of course has a lot of void connected to Ukraine and whether the conflict has been over whether Ukraine should have closer ties with Russia, or closer ties with the EU. And its new Government has decided recently to have closer ties with the EU. And this is about extending political and economic system, and the military systems, because the military system is tied up very closely with it, further and further east and into other parts of the world. And this is what is going on there.
But that implies that, perhaps, NATO is planning to absorb more and more new members. But does it have the necessary resources for further enlargement? Let’s look at the EU, the example you’ve just mentioned. It seems that indefinite enlargement has actually played a rather bad joke on that union, on the whole of the project. Now it seems that it’s become unsustainable.
Lindsey German: The whole question of the EU is a different question. I mean, obviously, it is a very-very big question in itself. What the idea was, was to pull in a whole number of the poorer countries in the Eastern Europe into the EU, to give them military support. But of course, there hasn’t been the same kind of economic support and social support forthcoming for those countries to end some of the problems of poverty and low wages, and unemployment, and the other things.
So, this has created all sorts of tensions. And when you have these tensions, you then have the answer being increasingly put in military terms. And another war in Europe… and we've had the wars in the Balkans, which have been disastrous enough and haven't really solved any of the problems of what remains one of the poorest regions in Europe. To have another war over Ukraine or over some other part of the Eastern Europe would be a complete disaster.
Or perhaps it could be a way out. I mean, like you were saying, there were so many controversies in the past, but a war and a common enemy might actually bring NATO members closer.
Lindsey German: Well, that of course is the aim of some of the people in NATO. They want to make it something which member states feel is more vital for them to have. But of course, this is a very dangerous game, and we are commemorating the 100th anniversary of the start of the WW I this year. And if we are not very careful, of course, a war in the short term can deal with the other economic, social and political problems. But in the long term it brings incredible misery to very large numbers of people. And in the longer term it doesn’t solve those economic and social problems either.
So, tell me, what is your feeling, has the decision of ultimately attacking Russia already been taken?
Lindsey German: No, I don’t think that’s true. I think there are many-many different considerations here. But there’s definitely been an increase in the profile of NATO, there’s definitely been an expansion in NATO influence and in the countries signing up to NATO. And therefore, this is something that can happen in the future. I don’t believe that at the moment anybody has taken that deliberate decision to wage a war with Russia, but wars can happen over a period of time, if there are further sanctions, if the relations break down even further, as clearly they did at the summit in Brisbane last week.
And that can lead to it, as well as that we already have a very-very serious wars going on in Syria and in Iraq at the moment. And of course, that can have a knock on effect both in terms of the involvement particularly of Turkey, which is very centrally involved in this war and which is the NATO member; but also, in terms of the different alliances in the region and all of these things, it gives a very-very great cause for concern over the next few years.
Says Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos, Publisher and Editor of Politics First magazine:
Well, first of all, there is no Russian aggression in the Baltic, there is no Russian aggression in Europe and there is no Russian aggression in the world. When the West alleges that, it is simply a pure fabrication. And it is also ironical, because the only country or a set of countries in the world that are responsible for violence and aggression is actually the West and its military arm – NATO. And we see that from the Balkans to North Africa, to the ME. So, these accusations against Russia are completely unfounded.
Russia is an independent sovereign country and it has absolutely every right to pursue its foreign policy objectives on the international arena. And what the new NATO secretary Jens Stoltenberg is alleging is, as I say, unfounded. But it is also a way of trying to justify NATO’s increased presence in the Eastern Europe and the Baltic and on the Russia’s borders, because in order to secure the defense budget politicians and generals in the West need to have an enemy, they need to have an adversary.
So, Russia is being portrayed as having territorial designs in the Eastern Europe and in the Baltics, which is nonsense, and Russia is accused of acting aggressively in the Eastern Europe and in the Baltics, which, once again, is an absolute nonsense. So, NATO is determined to try and increase its presence on the Russia’s borders, simply to try and weaken the Russian Federation at its western borders. And by weakening Russia on its western borders, by encircling Russia on its western borders, Russia will become a weakened state in Europe and thereby in the world in general.
So, that’s what we are seeing. And while the new NATO secretary talks about wanting to maintain cordial relations with Moscow, that’s simply empty talk, because, on the one hand, he is saying that, but, on the other hand, he is accusing Russia of a possible aggression. And he is actively trying to increase NATO’s military presence on the Russia’s western borders. That’s not conducive to have good relations between Russia and NATO.
Absolutely! But on the other hand, I also see there is a certain contradiction in what NATO is doing, because, like you are saying, they need to secure their budgets, at least at the same level. And on the other hand, they are planning expansion. They are taking on the cost of the military operation in Ukraine and they are promising to supply weapons and other kinds of military aid to Ukraine. How does that go together?
Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos: Well, the West has an unofficial policy, and I'm emphasizing – unofficial policy of wanting to maintain its global dominance: its global political dominance, its global economic dominance and its global military dominance. So, wherever there is an opportunity for the West to do that, they would take advantage of the situation. So, they actually are opportunists. Where they see an opportunity, they go for it. And, of course, Ukraine has been on the West’s radar ever since it gained independence in 1991.
So, what we are seeing in Ukraine is the West supporting a government which came to power through a coup against a democratically elected leader. And we are hearing now that NATO may start assisting militarily the Ukrainian armed forces, though it’s probably already given assistance to the Ukrainian armed forces and the Ukrainian paramilitary groups which are in the east of the country. They probably give them logistical help, satellite information. Probably, some forms of equipment have already passed there.
But given the political support to Ukraine, given the military assistance to Ukraine, it is all about trying to cement the West’s position in Ukraine, because what happened this February was a turning point. For the first time the West has engineered a coup in Ukraine whereby a pro-Western regime came to power. Now, the West doesn’t want to lose that position.
So, it makes absolutely sense for the West to try and give as much support – military and also economic – to Ukraine, in order to bring Ukraine into the West’s orbit. Yes, it is going to cost a lot of money for America and the EU, because Ukraine is bankrupt. But they will find that money, because what Washington and Brussels believe in the long term is that if we pay for Ukraine today, in the future it will help maintain the West’s global dominance against a resurgent Russia.
So, their policy in Ukraine makes absolute sense when you consider that what they’ve been doing since the early 1990’es is attempting to maintain its global dominance in the world, and also increase that global dominance. And, of course, that is at the expense of Russia.
And how far are they prepared to go in their confrontation with Russia?
Dr. Marcus Papadopoulos: Well, I don’t believe there is going to be a military conflict between Russia and America, Russia and NATO. Accidentally, of course, the wars can break out. But I don’t think anyone in Washington or in Brussels actually want a military conflict with Russia, because if there was a conflict between Russia and America, then there is very little chance that the world would survive, because there would be nuclear weapons involved.
That said, however, NATO or the West will persist in trying to bring Ukraine into the EU and, eventually, into NATO, because if you take a modern day map of Europe and look at Eastern Europe, look at Russia’s western borders, you will see that from the Baltic to the Black Sea the Russia’s western borders are littered with the EU and most importantly NATO member states, with the exception of Ukraine. So, if Ukraine were to join the EU in the future, if Ukraine were to join NATO in the future, then the jigsaw would be completed. Russia would be completely encircled and isolated on its western borders.
So, I believe that the West will pursue its policy in Europe. It might cost them a lot of money. It might cost them their relationship with Russia. But that is in the short term and they always think long term. And for them the long term it means preserving the West’s dominance in the world.
