۱۴ مهر ۱۴۰۱ |۱۰ ربیع‌الاول ۱۴۴۴ | Oct 6, 2022
News Code: 364169
3 March 2022 - 10:43
Ukraine

NATO's expansion comes at the expense of peace everywhere. Atilio A. Boron, Sociologist, political scientist, and journalist, talks about this issues.

Hawzah News Agency – The first article of the United Nations Charter asserts that the purpose of this organization is “to maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace.” Yet, experience shows that the Atlantic Alliance (the United States plus the 29 European countries that make up the bloc) has permanently violated the provisions of the said article. The case of the former Yugoslavia, bombed by NATO without the authorization of the Security Council, is one of the most flagrant crimes perpetrated during Bill Clinton’s Administration. The final product of this (and also of the previous events) military campaign was the disintegration of Yugoslavia, giving birth to seven new countries: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Slovenia, North Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo, all of which were quickly recognized by Western “democracies” following the order issued by the White House. None of the governments that are now tearing their hair out over Vladimir Putin's recognition of Donetsk and Lugansk - two republics that decided to secede from Ukraine by popular referendum – voiced any criticism in the face of NATO's butchery in the Balkans; nor did they do so when that same organization bombed Muammar Gaddafi's Libya for months, then overthrew his government and allowed a mob mobilized by CIA agents infiltrated in the crowd to lynch the Libyan leader with unprecedented cruelty. That was just the God-blessed “regime change” in action!

Previously, in 2003 the same criminal organization had collaborated with the United States in the invasion and destruction of Iraq, looting its priceless and irreplaceable resources and cultural treasures. Sometime later, it took on Syria, seeking again to produce a "regime change" in that country. An arduous task for Obama, eager to show another “international success” comparable to that achieved in Libya. Desperate to “bring democracy” to Syria, he sought the collaboration of the Islamic State and its bunch of criminals -fond of beheading infidels or mere adversaries- who operated with money, media and political protection from the leaders of the "free world." The plan ended in a catastrophic failure because, as Hillary Clinton recognized in her memoirs, "in Syria we chose the wrong friends." The chaotic situation was fixed when Putin sent Russian troops to put those fanatical "contractors" of Washington on the run. In the meantime, and always with the support of the "European democracies", the United States escalated its sanctions against Iran and deepened the criminal blockade against Cuba and Venezuela, continued with its ill-fated adventure in Afghanistan, whose greatest success was to ensure that 85% of the world opium production originated in that country, under the watchful eye of the US occupation forces.

In 2013-2014, Obama openly promoted a "soft coup" in Ukraine, removing, just a year before the already called presidential elections, the Russophile government of Viktor Yanukovych, imposing in his place the businessman Petró Poroshenko and, later the comedian and humorist Volodymyr Zelensky, still in office. Everything was done with the outstanding role played by his Undersecretary of State for Eurasian Affairs, Victoria Nuland, who was in person in Maidan Square in Kiev encouraging the neo-Nazi hordes and delivering cookies and little bottles of water to them. She took her leading role to insurmountable limits when the United States ambassador, faced with the doubts that had about Nuland’s shameless activism, asked her if it would not be appropriate to check her moves with the governments of the European Union. Her answer paints with vivid colors the relationship between Washington and its European pawns when she replied “F**k the European Union!” This outburst deserved only a lukewarm protest from the pitiful governments of Europe.

During all this time, the tension between the Atlantic Alliance and Russia revolved around the construction of a legal order that would guarantee the security of all members of the international community and not just the United States. This required the withdrawal of NATO forces to the countries where they were located before the collapse of the USSR. Despite formal and written promises that NATO "would not advance an inch" towards the Russian border, they rushed until they had almost completely surrounded that country, from the Baltic to Turkey. Only Belarus and Ukraine did not have NATO troops inside their territory. But if the former is a close ally of Moscow, the latter remained in the hands of Russophobic governments intertwined with nationalist and neo-Nazi groups, officially integrated into the Ukrainian armed forces (the sinister Azov Battalion) who longed to operate under the umbrella and protection of NATO. If this organization were to establish itself in Ukraine, its missiles would have the ability to send devastating attacks, able to reach cities like Moscow or Saint Petersburg in 5 or 7 minutes, depending on the missile. Of course, Putin found such a threat to Russian national security unacceptable and asked how Washington would react in the event that Russia established military bases on the US border with Mexico or Canada. There was no response from the White House, only a new round of sanctions and, by Biden, insults published nothing less than in Foreign Affairs, the widely read journal of the US diplomatic and academic establishment. This blunder can only be attributed to the devastating effects of Biden’s senile dementia and the phenomenal ineptitude of his advisers. All this despite the fact that, in 1997 and following directions issued by Bill Clinton, NATO and Russia (then under Boris Yeltsin presidency) signed an "Agreement on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security", and that in 2002 a "Russia-NATO Council" was created with the purpose of stimulating cooperation between both parties. With the American-fostered Ukrainian coup in 2014, this laborious construction collapsed like a house of cards. Let us remember that as the New York Times has repeatedly said, the "nerve and muscle of NATO is the Pentagon".

In the Atlantic alliance, Europeans play a subordinate and humiliating role as henchmen of the American emperor. To make things worse, the Pentagon does not know the meaning of the word "diplomacy." They raged in a dangerous "bullying" with Moscow and the results are now visible. A tragedy that could have been avoided and in the face of which there is no possible neutrality because there is an aggressor: the bloc formed by the United States and NATO, against a country that has been relentlessly attacked, Russia. There can be no confusion in this matter.

Comment

You are replying to: .
4 + 2 =