UKRAINE, RUSSIA, NATO: Recognizing the facts, the only way to peace (part 3/3)

PART 3/3

After having examined the NATO-Russia relationship, and then the war in Ukraine at the community level, we will now return to the geopolitical dimension, before tackling ways of overcoming the conflicts concerned.

As already mentioned, all the following data are based on the most classical media, where a good part of the significant information is present, but far too little visible. All sources are indicated and easily accessible.

 » Full spectrum dominance  »

The first two parts of the article already allow us to grasp a good part of the geopolitical maneuvers discussed. To clarify things, let’s look at a few lines written by a very influential ideologist in the USA, Zbigniew Brezinski. This advisor, who was very much listened to until his recent death, was notably close to Barack Obama, president at the outbreak of the Ukrainian crisis, in 2014. Brezinski’s influence on Obama is indicated in particular by the Figaro ⁽¹⁾, a newspaper very well known for its international pages («  among the best in the French press  » according to Le Courrier international⁽²⁾). Textually, in the indicated article, we read that Brezinski, in 2014, is  » still very influential with the Obama administration. » Let’s read some lines from his book The great chessboard⁽³⁾:  » Ukraine, essential to the ( …) and whose reinforcement of independence pushes Russia to the extreme east of Europe and condemns it to be, in the future, only a regional power » (p. 19); » Ukraine ( …) geopolitical pivot » (p. 74); » Ukraine is a major ( …) the key issue. The process of expansion of the European Union and NATO is underway. Eventually, Ukraine will have to decide whether it wants to join one or the other of these organizations.  » (p. 160).

A series of precise objectives are indicated by Michel Weber, a philosopher who is very knowledgeable about geopolitics in particular:  » The coup d’état orchestrated in Maïdan by the West was supposed to guarantee many remarkable and immediate results: the destruction of the Ukraine/Russia cooperation, the acquisition of arable land in the North-East at a low price (the famous « black land »), the control of gas pipelines that supply the European market and the taking of very promising territories for hydraulic fracturing (…) [ainsi que l’] expulsion of Russia from its naval base in Sevastopol ( …) and the attempted appropriation of the technopoles of eastern Ukraine and, in particular, the advanced military and aerospace industry.⁽⁴⁾  »

 » Any state strong enough to remain independent must be considered ‘hostile’  »

Further on, the same author summarizes in a few lines the strategy that emerges from our entire approach:  » To simplify, it is twofold. On the one hand, Western « democracies » finance (to the tune of $5 billion, we learned) the proliferation of non-governmental organizations [comme la NED et l’OSF] promoting the propagation of neo-liberal ideas by promoting the standard of living of a middle class that is disappearing in our country. These organizations are usually the fronts for intelligence agencies. On the other hand, the same « democracies » proceed to the systematic military encirclement of all (possibly) emerging powers and militarily occupy the territories required to do so⁽⁵⁾.  »

Michel Weber also summarizes the overall logic behind such policies:  » The Wolfowitz Doctrine, which was revealed in the New York Times of March 8, 1992, simply states that any state strong enough to remain independent, i.e. to ignore Washington’s injunctions, must be considered ‘hostile’ . In the background of this warlike ideology is the work of Zbigniew Brzezinski, who published in 1997 The Grand Chessboard [dont nous avons lu plus haut quelques extraits]with subtitles American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, a monograph in gestation since 1978 and offering, with absolute cynicism, the best description of the American imperial strategy (he goes so far as to plan the division of Russia into three entities)^{. (6)}  »

Very understandable fears

All this shows that it is absurd to reproach Russia with a « besieged citadel complex » — a reproach so frequent in our classic media. Of course, the information presented does not imply that NATO intends to invade this country. (The strategy applied is more often that of  » regime change  »). But tensions and disagreements can always end up leading to direct armed conflict. In this case, NATO’s troops and armaments, ever more numerous and farther east, would be direct threats to Russia. And of course, the greater the military preponderance, the more policies can be imposed.

In this sense, it is also a matter of realizing this fact: if with Russia, Ukraine is facing an adversary much more powerful than it is, the same is true for Russia facing NATO; it certainly possesses nuclear weapons, but we can hope that it will never happen that a leader is blinded enough by hatred to resort to them. And in terms of conventional weapons, the ratio is extremely uneven. The Russian military budget is barely 10% of that of the USA, and even if we add the Chinese defense budget to the former, we do not reach 30% of the NATO budget⁽⁷⁾. Moreover, the closer Western missile launching bases get to Russia, the more Russia’s ability to respond diminishes, as potential enemy missiles can destroy Russia’s defenses ever more quickly.

Concerning Ukraine in particular, it is important to know that if it were integrated into NATO, the limits of the alliance would be extended to a few hundred kilometers from Moscow; and above all, Russia would then have an additional 1,500 kilometers of borders with the alliance in question.

Need for vigilance

Before concluding, let us recall the importance of the vigilance that, during wars even more than usual, it is necessary to have with regard to the media.

An important illustration: the accusation that the Russians sought to commit nuclear terrorism by bombing a power plant. Accusation abundantly relayed by various classic media⁽⁸⁾, even before precise information was available. According to later communications, there was no bombing, but armor fire on an administrative building⁽⁹⁾, located several hundred meters from the nuclear facilities⁽¹⁰⁾. Above all, the total absurdity of the accusation should have struck immediately: why would one provoke a nuclear accident in a country neighboring his own and where our army is rightly deployed? The fact that this accusation could be broadcast and taken seriously shows how much the media discourse has blackened the Russian power.

Another example: a U.S. Undersecretary of State officially admitted before the Senate the presence in Ukraine of  » biological research facilities » containing  » sensitive materials  » that could be used to produce biological weapons⁽¹¹⁾. It seems obvious that these installations are linked to collaborations with the United States, which is well aware of their existence and nature. But instead of questioning the presence of these laboratories and the goals of this collaboration, a series of classic media, relaying the American communication, have turned things into accusations against the Russians: they would spread conspiracy theories on this subject and would be likely to use the products of these laboratories to manufacture formidable weapons…⁽¹²⁾ Let’s remember in passing that, according to Le Monde, in the 1950s the United States had already  » made progress in the development of this form of armament that no other power seems to equal.⁽¹³⁾  »

Another example: Ukrainian media also accuse the Russians of targeting civilians; but at the same time, we learn that Russia agrees with Ukraine on the creation of civilian evacuation corridors, which rather contradicts this idea of targeting⁽¹⁴⁾. And here again, it is not clear why the Russians would voluntarily target civilians, which could only aggravate the barrage of denigration they are subjected to in our mainstream media.

Dialogue, European independence, other modes of governance

To a certain extent, and despite the many revolting facts, one can put oneself in the place of each actor concerned. As explained in the first part of the article, there is a fear on the other side of the Atlantic that close cooperation between Germany and Russia could lead to the development of a force that could dominate the USA⁽¹⁵⁾ European leaders fear U.S. reprisals if they move too far away from Washington’s line; in Russia, there is a fear of coming under NATO domination, of seeing the country’s resources once again exposed to multinationals; in the west and center of Ukraine, there is a fear of Russian domination; in the east of the country, there is a fear of a power that is hostile to Russian-speakers; etc.

But while leading these decentralization efforts, we must also discern the primary responsibilities. In particular, as already mentioned, to avoid unfair and dishonest convictions which can only maintain the vicious circle of hostilities. By dint of being treated as a threat, a dictatorship, an expansionist, aggressive and almost national-socialist power, Russia could end up becoming one. Or, the tensions that are maintained and fanned could end up leading to a nuclear holocaust, even from a simple accident. For this risk is of course much higher in times of intense confrontation, when atomic weapons are in maximum operational mode and the military is under acute tension. How can those responsible for the treatments and accusations mentioned, how can those who relay them without showing any individual thought, how can these people ignore what all this can lead to?

With regard to Ukraine, an essential element of conflict resolution would undoubtedly be the choice of a neutral and federal country, as Edgar Morin recently emphasized⁽¹⁶⁾. Beyond that, we should promote as much as possible the resumption of a multilateral de-escalation in the field of armaments, as well as the development of a European policy that is not directed by the United States; while respecting its interests and cultivating good relations with it, as with any country, but not as vassals.

It would also be high time to question the logic of the State as a central government, which is an easy target for lobbies of all kinds — including those of the arms industry. If power were really transferred to civil societies, it would be much more difficult for industrialists and other power centers to influence decisions. In particular, if citizens could choose for themselves the media that their taxes finance⁽¹⁷⁾.

In the same sense, and as mentioned in the second part of the article, another essential condition for overcoming the conflicts would of course be to grant more autonomy to the minorities of Ukraine, especially in terms of culture and language.

Progress in these different directions would be infinitely better, first and foremost for the Ukrainian people, than fuelling the conflict by supplying weapons and armed brigades, or by relaying anti-Russian propaganda.

Actions within reach of all

The power of action of the simple citizen may seem derisory; but each one, at his level, can try to encourage around him the taking into account of such facts and analyses, as well as their expression to the decision-makers, for example by writing to the elected politicians. One possibility, in this respect (even if I am not close to the party concerned): to send messages of support to the elected members of the PTB, the only ones to have taken coherent and pacifist positions with regard to the war in Ukraine. Knowing that they are supported is probably important for them to persevere. It would of course be excellent to do the same with any elected official who is known to be addressing the crisis in question in a fair manner. Regarding the lamentable positions of the other parties, it would probably be appropriate to express our disapproval, above all, to those who once militated for peace; in particular the « ecologists », who once again betray their founding ideals.

Let’s think of the image of the hummingbird that brings its drop of water to try to help extinguish the fire and, above all, to set an example.

Daniel Zink, former coordinator of the asbl Carrefour des Cultures

With the collaboration of Alain Adriaens, former regional deputy

Positioning of the PTB on the war in Ukraine: https: //www.ptb.be/ukraine

Those of the emails of the elected members of the PTB accessible on the site of the federal parliament:

sofie.merckx@ptb.be;
nadia.moscufo@ptb.be;
marco.vanhees@lachambre.be;
thierry.warmoes@ptb.be;
raoul.hedebouw@lachambre.be