OMNI
RUSSIA NEWSLETTER #6, September 1, 2016
Compiled by Dick
Bennett for a Culture of Peace, Justice, and Ecology.
(#1 March 21, 2014; #2
April 10, 2014; #3 May 16, 2014; #4 July 22, 2014; #5 March 16, 2014)
What’s at stake: The crisis of US
ENCIRCLEMENT OF CHINA AND RUSSIA challenges peacemakers to construct a compelling alternative
to the New Cold War, as much of the world slides towards a new Dark Age of violence,
wars, class struggle, climate crisis, and religious fundamentalism. See OMNI’s newsletters/blogs on US
Imperialism Westward Pacific/E. Asia, on Iran, and related subjects.
Contents:
Russia Newsletter #5 at end
Contents: Russia
Newsletter #6, September 1, 2016
“Russia Wants
War” Graphic
NATO’s Eastward
Expansion a Broken Promise (2009)
Democracy Now, Stephen Cohen on the New Cold War (2014)
2016
Russian Vows
Response to NATO Buildup 6-30
Putin Warns
Finland Not to Join NATO 7-2
Ann Wright, Views of Russian Citizens 7-5
US Mayors
Criticize Obama Admin. for Risking War 7-6
Klare, West
Preparing for War against Russia 7-7
Russians Have
Right to Be Alarmed at US ABM 7-13
REPORTS
IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
11/26/2009
01:50 PM
NATO's Eastward
Expansion:
Did the West Break Its
Promise to Moscow?
Russian
President Dmitry Medvedev has accused the West of breaking promises made after
the fall of the Iron Curtain, saying that NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe
violated commitments made during the negotiations over German reunification.
Newly discovered documents from Western archives support the Russian position.
No one in Russia can vent his anger over NATO's eastward expansion
quite as vehemently as Viktor Baranez. The popular columnist with the tabloid Komsomolskaya
Pravda ("Komsomol
Truth"), which has a readership of millions, is fond of railing against
the "insidious and reckless" Western military alliance. Russia,
Baranez writes, must finally stop treating NATO as a partner.
Baranez, a retired colonel who was the Defense Ministry's
spokesman under former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, asks why Russia should
even consider joint maneuvers after being deceived by the West. NATO, he
writes, "has pushed its way right up to our national borders with its
guns." He also argues that, in doing so, NATO has broken all the promises
it made during the process of German reunification.
There is widespread agreement among all political parties in
Moscow, from the Patriots of Russia to the Communists to Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin's United Russia party, that the West broke its word and
short-changed Russia when it was weak.
In an interview with SPIEGEL at his residence outside Moscow in early November,
President Dmitry Medvedev complained that when the Berlin Wall came down, it
had "not been possible to redefine Russia's place in Europe." What
did Russia get? "None of the things that we were assured, namely that NATO
would not expand endlessly eastwards and our interests would be continuously
taken into consideration," Medvedev said.
Different Versions
The question of what Moscow was in fact promised in 1990 has
sparked a historical dispute with far-reaching consequences for Russia's future
relationship with the West. But what exactly is the truth?
The various players involved have different versions of events. Of
course there was a promise not to expand NATO "as much as a thumb's width further
to the East," Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet president at the time, says in
Moscow today. However, Gorbachev's former foreign minister, Eduard
Shevardnadze, speaking in the Georgian capital Tbilisi, says that there were no
such assurances from the West. Even the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, the
Eastern military alliance, "was beyond our imagination," he says.
For years former US Secretary of State James Baker, Shevardnadze's
American counterpart in 1990, has denied that there was any agreement between
the two sides. But Jack Matlock, the US ambassador in Moscow at the time, has
said in the past that Moscow was given a "clear commitment."
Hans-Dietrich Genscher, the German foreign minister in 1990, says this was
precisely not the case.
After speaking with many of those involved and examining
previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has
concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give
the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for
countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.
On Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., Genscher spoke with
Shevardnadze. According to the German record of the conversation, which was
only recently declassified, Genscher said: "We are aware that NATO
membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however,
one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east." And because the
conversion revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: "As
far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in
general."
Shevardnadze replied that he believed "everything the
minister (Genscher) said."
Not a Word
The year 1990 was one of major negotiations. Washington, Moscow,
London, Bonn, Paris, Warsaw, East Berlin and many others were at odds over
German unity, comprehensive European disarmament and a new charter of the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Soviets insisted that
everything be documented in writing, even when all that was at issue was the
fate of Soviet military cemeteries in East Germany. However, the numerous
agreements and treaties of the day contained not a single word about NATO
expansion in Eastern Europe.
For this reason, the West argues, Moscow has no cause for complaint
today. After all, the West did not sign anything regarding NATO expansion to
the east. But is that tough stance fair?
At the beginning of 1990, the Soviet Union was still a world power
with troops stationed at the Elbe River, and Hans Modrow, the former Dresden
district chairman of the East German Communist Party, the SED, was in charge in
East Berlin. But the collapse of the East German state was foreseeable.
Bonn's allies in Paris, London and Washington were concerned about
the question of whether a unified Germany could be a member of NATO or, as had
already happened in the past, would pursue a seesaw policy between east and
west.
Genscher wanted to put an end to this uncertainty, and he said as
much in a major speech to the West on Jan. 31, 1990 in Tutzing, a town in
Bavaria. This was the reason, he said, why a unified Germany should be a member
of NATO.
Moving with Caution
But how could the Soviet leadership be persuaded to support this
solution? "I wanted to help them over the hurdle," Genscher told
SPIEGEL. To that end, the German foreign minister promised, in his speech in
Tutzing, that there would not be "an expansion of NATO territory to the
east, in other words, closer to the borders of the Soviet Union." East
Germany was not to be brought into the military structures of NATO, and the
door into the alliance was to remain closed to the countries of Eastern Europe.
Genscher remembered what had happened during the 1956 Hungarian
revolution. Some of the insurgents had announced their intention to join the
Western alliance, giving Moscow the excuse to intervene militarily. In 1990,
Genscher was trying to send a signal to Gorbachev that he need not fear such a
development in the Soviet bloc. The West, Genscher indicated, intended to
cooperate with the Soviet Union in bringing about change, not act as its
adversary.
The plan that was proclaimed in Tutzing had not been coordinated
with the chancellor or West German allies, and Genscher spent the next few days
vying for their support.
As Genscher's chief of staff Frank Elbe later wrote, the German
foreign minister had "moved with the caution of a giant insect that uses
its many feelers to investigate its surroundings, prepared to recoil when it
encounters resistance."
US Secretary of State James Baker, a pragmatic Texan, apparently
"warmed to the proposal immediately," says Elbe today. On Feb. 2, the
two diplomats sat down in front of the fireplace in Baker's study in
Washington, took off their jackets, put their feet up and discussed world events.
They quickly agreed that there was to be no NATO expansion to the East.
"It was completely clear," Elbe comments.
Calming Russian Fears
A short time later, then-British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd
joined the German-American consensus. As a previously unknown document from the
German Foreign Ministry shows, Genscher was uncharacteristically open with his
relatively pro-German British counterpart when they met in Bonn on Feb. 6,
1990. Hungary was about to hold its first free elections, and Genscher declared
that the Soviet Union needed "the certainty that Hungary will not become
part of the Western alliance if there is a change of government." The
Kremlin, Genscher said, would have to be given assurances to that effect. Hurd
agreed.
But were such assurances intended to be valid indefinitely?
Apparently not. When the two colleagues discussed Poland, Genscher said,
according to the British records, that if Poland ever left the Warsaw Pact,
Moscow would need the certainty that Warsaw would "not join NATO the next
day." However, Genscher did not seem to rule out accession at a later
date.
It stood to reason that Genscher would present his ideas in Moscow
next. He was the longest-serving Western foreign minister, his relationship
with Gorbachev and Shevardnadze was unusually strong, and it was his
initiative. But Baker wanted to address the issue himself during his next trip
to Moscow.
'One Cannot Depend on American Politicians'
What
the US secretary of state said on Feb. 9, 1990 in the magnificent St.
Catherine's Hall at the Kremlin is beyond dispute. There would be, in Baker's
words, "no extension of NATO's jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to
the east," provided the Soviets agreed to the NATO membership of a unified
Germany. Moscow would think about it, Gorbachev said, but added: "any
extension of the zone of NATO is unacceptable." MORE• http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/nato-s-eastward-expansion-did-the-west-break-its-promise-to-moscow-a-663315.html
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
A New Cold War? Ukraine Violence Escalates, Leaked Tape
Suggests U.S. Was Plotting Coup. Democracy Now. 2-20-14.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be
in its final form.
[For
the introductory comments by Goodman and Gonzales about violence in Ukraine go
to http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence
]
To talk more about the latest in Ukraine,
we’re joined by Stephen Cohen, professor emeritus of Russian studies and
politics at New York University and Princeton University. His most recent book, Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives: From
Stalinism to the New Cold War, is now out in paperback. His latest piece in The Nation is called "Distorting Russia: How
the American Media Misrepresent Putin, Sochi and Ukraine."
So, talk about the latest, Professor Cohen.
STEPHEN COHEN: Where do you want me to
begin? I mean, we are watching history being made, but history of the worst kind.
That’s what I’m telling my grandchildren: Watch this. What’s happening there,
let’s take the big picture, then we can go to the small picture. The big
picture is, people are dying in the streets every day. The number 50 is
certainly too few. They’re still finding bodies. Ukraine is splitting apart
down the middle, because Ukraine is not one country, contrary to what the
American media, which speaks about the Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. Historically,
ethnically, religiously, culturally, politically, economically, it’s two
countries. One half wants to stay close to Russia; the other wants to go West.
We now have reliable reports that the anti-government forces in the streets—and
there are some very nasty people among them—are seizing weapons in western
Ukrainian military bases. So we have clearly the possibility of a civil war.
And the longer-term outcome may be—and I want
to emphasize this, because nobody in the United States seems to want to pay
attention to it—the outcome may be the
construction, the emergence of a new Cold War divide between West and East, not
this time, as it was for our generation, in faraway Berlin, but right on the
borders of Russia, right through the heart of Slavic civilization. And if that
happens, if that’s the new Cold War divide, it’s permanent instability and
permanent potential for real war for decades to come. That’s what’s at stake.
One last point, also something that nobody in
this country wants to talk about: The Western authorities, who bear some
responsibility for what’s happened, and who therefore also have blood on their
hands, are taking no responsibility. They’re uttering utterly banal statements,
which, because of their vacuous nature, are encouraging and rationalizing the
people in Ukraine who are throwing Molotov cocktails, now have weapons, are
shooting at police. We wouldn’t permit that in any Western capital, no matter
how righteous the cause, but it’s being condoned by the European Union and
Washington as events unfold.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And when you say the
Western countries who bear some responsibility, in what sense do they bear
responsibility? I mean, clearly, there’s been an effort by the United States
and Europe ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union to pull the former
Soviet states into their economic sphere, but is that what you’re talking
about?
STEPHEN COHEN: I mean that. I mean that
Moscow— began with the expansion of NATO in the 1990s under Clinton. Bush then
further expanded NATO all the
way to Russia’s borders. Then came the funding of what are euphemistically
called NGOs, but they are political action groups, funded by the West,
operating inside Russia. Then came the decision to build missile defense
installations along Russia’s borders, allegedly against Iran, a country which
has neither nuclear weapons nor any missiles to deliver them with. Then comes
American military outpost in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, which led
to the war of 2008, and now the West is at the gates of Ukraine. So, that’s the
picture as Moscow sees it. And it’s rational. It’s reasonable. It’s hard to
deny.
But as for the immediate crisis, let’s ask
ourselves this: Who precipitated this crisis? The American media says it was
Putin and the very bad, though democratically elected, president of Ukraine,
Yanukovych. But it was the European Union, backed by Washington, that said in
November to the democratically elected president of a profoundly divided
country, Ukraine, "You must choose between Europe and Russia." That
was an ultimatum to Yanukovych. Remember—wasn’t reported here—at that moment,
what did the much-despised Putin say? He said, "Why? Why does Ukraine have
to choose? We are prepared to help Ukraine avoid economic collapse, along with
you, the West. Let’s make it a tripartite package to Ukraine." And it was
rejected in Washington and in Brussels. That precipitated the protests in the
streets. MORE
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence
Russian Vows Response to NATO Buildup. NADG (June
30, 2016). Russia’s
defense minister, Sergei Shoigu, said
its military “will respond in kind to NATO’s buildup near Russian borders.” On land “2,000 new weapons units this year”
and Russia’s Baltic Fleet “has received new ships and other weapons.”
“Putin Warns Finland Not to Join NATO.” NADG (July
2, 2016). ”If Finland
enters NATO…they become part of the military infrastructure of NATO, which will
in an instant find itself on the borders of Russia.”
Misunderstanding Russia and Russians by Ann Wright
July 5, 2016.
Western
media has demonized Russia and President Putin with unrelenting propaganda that has dazed and
confused many Russians, a condition that retired U.S. Col. Ann Wright
encountered on a recent visit.
I’ve just ended two weeks visiting cities in four regions of
Russia. The questions that were asked over and over were: “Why does
America hate us? Why do you demonize us?” Most would add a caveat — “I like
American people and I think YOU like us individually but why does the American
government hate our government?”
This article
is a composite of the comments made and questions asked to our 20-person
delegation and to me as an individual. I do not attempt to defend the views but offer them as an
insight into the thinking of many of the persons with whom we came into contact
in meetings and on the streets.
None of the questions, comments or views tell the full story,
but I hope they give a feel for the desire of the ordinary Russian that his or
her country and its citizens are respected as a sovereign nation with a long
history and that it is not demonized as an outlaw state or an “evil”
nation. Russia has its flaws and room for improvement in many areas, just
as every nation does, including for sure, the United States.
New Russia Looks Like You [Comments about the US by Russian citizens
recorded by Wright during her travels there.
–D]
The United States worked hard to make the Soviet Union collapse,
and it did. You wanted to remake Russia like the United States – a
democratic, capitalist country in which your companies could make money – and
you have done that.
After 25 years, we are a new nation much different from the
Soviet Union. The Russian Federation has created laws that have allowed a
large private business class to emerge. Our cities now look like your
cities. We have Burger King, McDonalds, Subway, Starbucks and malls filled
with a huge number of totally Russian business ventures for the middle class.
We have chain stores with merchandise and food, similar to
Wal-Mart and Target. We have exclusive stores with top-of-the-line clothing and
cosmetics for the richer. We drive new (and older) cars now just like you
do. We have massive rush hour traffic jams in our cities, just like you
do. We have extensive, safe, inexpensive metros in all of our major cities,
just like you have. When you fly across our country, it looks just like yours,
with forests, farm fields, rivers and lakes — only bigger, many time zones
bigger.
Most people on buses and in the metro are looking at our mobile
phones with internet, just like you do. We have a smart youth population that
is computer literate and most of whom speak several languages.
You sent your experts on privatization, international banking,
stock exchanges. You urged us to sell off our huge state industries to the
private sector at ridiculously low prices, creating the multi-billionaire
oligarchs that in many ways mirror the oligarchs of the United States. And you
made money in Russia from this privatization. Some of the oligarchs are in
prison for violating our laws.
You sent us experts on elections. For over 25 years we have held
elections. And we have elected some politicians you don’t like and some
that we as individuals may not like. We have political dynasties, just
like you do. We don’t have a perfect government, nor perfect government
officials — which is also what we observe in the U.S. government and its
officials. We have graft and corruption in and outside of government, just as
you do. Some of our politicians are in jail for violating our laws, just
like some of your politicians are in jail for violating your laws.
And we have the poor just like you do. We have villages,
towns and small cities that are struggling with migration to the big cities
with people moving in hopes of finding jobs, just like you do.
Our middle class travels throughout the world, just like you
do. In fact, as a Pacific nation just like the U.S., we bring so much
tourism money with us on our trips that your Pacific island territories of Guam
and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas have negotiated with the U.S.
Federal government to allow Russian tourists to enter both of those U.S. territories for 45 days without the
time-consuming and expensive U.S. visa.
We have a strong science and space program and are a key partner
in the International Space Station. We sent the first satellite into space
and the first humans into space. Our rockets still take astronauts to the space
station while your NASA program has been curtailed.
Dangerous NATO Military Exercises
You have your allies and we have our allies. You told us during
the dissolution of the Soviet Union that you would not enlist countries from
the Eastern block into NATO, yet you have done that. Now you are placing
missile batteries along our border and you are conducting major military
exercises with strange names such as Anaconda, the strangling snake, along our
borders.
You say that Russia could possibly invade neighboring countries
and you have big dangerous military exercises in countries on our borders with
these countries. We did not build up our Russian military forces along
those borders until you continued to have ever increasingly large military
“exercises” there. You install missile “defenses” in countries on our borders,
initially saying they are to protect against Iranian missiles and now you say
Russia is the aggressor and your missiles are aimed at us.
For our own national security, we must respond, yet you vilify
us for a response that you would have if Russia would have military maneuvers
along the Alaskan coast or the Hawaii islands or with Mexico on your southern
border or with Canada on your northern border.
Syrian Conflict
We have allies in the Middle East including Syria. For
decades, we have had military ties to Syria and the only Soviet/Russian port in
the Mediterranean is in Syria. Why is it unexpected that we help defend our
ally, when the stated policy of your country is for “regime change” of our ally
— and you have spent hundreds of millions of dollars for Syrian regime change?
With this said, we Russia saved the U.S. from an enormous
political and military blunder in 2013 when the U.S. was determined to attack
the Syrian government for “crossing the red line” when a horrific chemical
attack that tragically killed hundreds was erroneously blamed on the Assad
government. We provided you documentation that the chemical attack did not
come from the Assad government and we brokered a deal with the Syrian
government in which they turned over their chemical weapons arsenal to the
international community for destruction.
Ultimately, Russia arranged for the chemicals to be destroyed
and you provided an especially designed U.S. ship that carried out the
destruction. Without Russian intervention, a direct U.S. attack on the
Syrian government for the mistaken allegation of use of chemical weapons would
have resulted in even greater chaos, destruction and destabilization in Syria.
Russia has offered to host talks with the Assad government about
power sharing with opposition elements. We, like you, do not want to see
the takeover of Syria by a radical group such as ISIS that will use the land of
Syria to continue its mission to destabilize the region. Your policies and
financing of regime change in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Libya and Syria have
created instability and chaos that is reaching all over the world.
Coup in Ukraine
You say that Crimea was annexed by Russia and we say Crimea
“reunited” with Russia. We believe that the U.S. sponsored a coup of the
elected Ukrainian government that had chosen to accept a loan from Russia
rather than from the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.
We believe that coup and the resulting government was illegally
brought to power through your multi-million dollar “regime change” program. We
know that your Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria
Nuland described in a
phone call, which our intelligence
services recorded, that “Yats is the guy,” referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk, who
became prime minister after the pro-West/NATO coup.
In response to that U.S.-sponsored violent government take-over
of the elected government of the Ukraine – rather than allow a new presidential
election within a year – ethnic Russians in the Ukraine, particularly those in
the eastern provinces and in Crimea were very afraid of the anti-Russian
violence that had been unleashed by neo-fascist forces that were in the militia
arm of the takeover.
With the takeover of the Ukrainian government, the people of
Crimea – many of them ethnic Russians – voted by 96 percent with more than 80
percent of voters casting ballots to unite with the Russian Federation instead
of staying with Ukraine. Of course, some citizens of Crimea disagreed and
left to live in Ukraine.
We wonder whether citizens of the United States realize that the
Southern Fleet of the Russian military was located in the Black Sea ports in
the Crimea and in light of the violent take over of Ukraine that our government
felt it was vital to ensure access to those ports.
On the basis of Russian national security, the Russian Duma
(Parliament) voted to accept the results of the referendum and annexed Crimea
as a republic of the Russian Federation and gave federal city status to the
important seaport of Sevastopol.
Sanctions and Double Standards
While the U.S. and European governments accepted and cheered for
the violent overthrow of the elected government of the Ukraine, both the U.S.
and European nations were very vengeful against the non-violent referendum of
people of Crimea and have slammed Crimea with all sorts of sanctions that have
reduced international tourism, the main industry of the Crimea, to almost
nothing.
In the past in Crimea, we received over 260 cruise ships filled
with international passengers from Turkey, Greece, Italy, France, Spain and
other parts of Europe. Now, because of the sanctions we have virtually no
European tourists. You are the first group of Americans we have seen in
over a year. Now, our business is with other citizens from Russia.
The U.S. and the European Union have put sanctions on Russia
again. The Russian ruble has been devalued almost 50 percent, some from
the downturn of worldwide price of oil, but some from the sanctions the
international community has placed on Russia from the Crimea “reunification.”
We believe you want the sanctions to hurt us so we will
overthrow our elected government, just like you put sanctions on Iraq for the
Iraqis to overthrow Saddam Hussein or on North Korea or on Iran for the people
of those countries to overthrow their governments.
Sanctions have the opposite effect than what you
want. While we know sanctions do hurt the ordinary person and if left on a
population for a long time can kill through malnutrition and lack of medicines,
sanctions have made us stronger.
Now, we may not get your cheeses and wines, but we are
developing or redeveloping our own industries and have become more
self-reliant. We now see how the globalization trade mantra of the United
States can and will be used against countries that decide not to go along with
the U.S. on its worldwide political and military agenda. If a country decides
not to go along with the United States, its people will be cut off from the
global markets that the trade agreements have made you dependent upon.
We wonder why the double standard? Why haven’t the member states
of the United Nations put sanctions on the U.S. since you have invaded and
occupied countries and killed hundreds of thousands in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Libya, Yemen and Syria.
Why is the U.S. not held accountable for kidnapping,
extraordinary rendition, torture and imprisonment of almost 800 persons that
have been held in the gulag called Guantanamo?
Elimination of Nuclear Weapons
We want the elimination of nuclear weapons. Unlike you, we have
never used a nuclear weapon on people. Even though we consider nuclear weapons
as a defensive weapon, they should be eliminated because one political or
military mistake will have devastating consequences for the entire planet.
We know the terrible costs of war. Our great-grandparents remind
us of the 27 million Soviet citizens killed during World War II, our
grandparents tell us of the Soviet war in Afghanistan in the 1980s and the
difficulties arising from the Cold War.
We don’t understand why the West continues to vilify and
demonize us when we are so much like you. We too are concerned about threats to
our national security and our government responds in many ways like yours. We
do not want another Cold War, a war in which everyone gets frost bitten, or
worse, a war that will kill hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people.
We want a peaceful future. We Russians are proud of our lengthy
history and heritage. We want a bright future for ourselves and our families…
and for yours. We want to live in a peaceful world. We want to live
in peace.
Ann Wright served 29 years in the US
Army/Army Reserves and retired as a Colonel. She also served 16 years as
a US diplomat in US Embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan,
Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. She
resigned from the U.S. government in March 2003 in opposition to President
Bush’s war on Iraq. She is the co-author of Dissent: Voices of Conscience.
1,400 US Mayors Just
Slammed the White House for Risking Nuclear War With Russia. Get
active or get radioactive! Russia
Insider. Wed, Jul
6, 2016. http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/1400-us-mayors-just-slammed-white-house-risking-nuclear-war-russia/ri15436
Originally appeared at Anti
Media
War games and nuclear
policy perpetuated by the Obama administration are “fueling growing
tensions” with Russia and putting the world at risk of a nuclear war,
according to an official nonpartisan organization consisting of 1,407 mayors and other leaders of
cities with 30,000 or more inhabitants.
In a unanimous decision at
their 84th annual conference, the United States Conference of Mayors (USCM)
passed a resolution condemning
President Barack Obama’s decision to set the U.S. on track to spend $1 trillion over the next 30 years to “maintain
and modernize its nuclear bombs and warheads, production facilities, delivery
systems, and command and control.”
“The Obama administration has […] reduced the US nuclear
stockpile less than any post-Cold War presidency,” the resolution,
passed in Indianapolis on June 27, reads.
The resolution is
supportive of the 1970 international nuclear agreement known as the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), but the USCM chastised the Obama administration’s drift from NPT
principles by contrasting it with another international agreement to which the
administration has held steadfast.
Referencing the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) joint-military exercise in Eastern
Europe, known as Anaconda 2016, the USCM said:
“The largest NATO war
games in decades, involving 14,000 US troops, and activation of US missile
defenses in Eastern Europe are fueling growing tensions between nuclear-armed
giants.”
Noting 94 percent of the
more than 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world are held by the U.S. or Russia —
and that most of those are “orders of magnitude more powerful than the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs” — the USCM pushed for a nuclear weapons
spending reduction “to the minimum necessary,” arguing in favor of more
financial focus on “deteriorating” and“crumbling” infrastructure
within the U.S., instead.
“[F]ederal funds are
desperately needed in our communities to build affordable housing, create jobs
with livable wages, improve public transit, and develop sustainable energy
sources,” the
resolution said.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki
were repeatedly mentioned in the USCM document, including in the opening
clause, which stated asserted the 1945 atomic bombings “indiscriminately
incinerated tens of thousands of ordinary people, and by the end of 1945 more
than 210,000 people – mainly civilians, were dead, and the surviving hibakusha,
their children and grandchildren continue to suffer from physical,
psychological and sociological effects.”
Though the resolution
offered praise to President Obama for his May visit to Hiroshima, as well as
congratulations on the success of international negotiations with Iran over its
civilian nuclear program, the UCSM resolved to demand more multilateral talks
and an end to nuclear weapons manufacturing.
However, the organization
does not expect change to come until at least January 20, 2017, when a new
president replaces Obama. Their resolution, titled, Calling on the Next
U.S. President to Pursue Diplomacy with Other Nuclear-Armed States; Participate
in Negotiations for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons; Cut Nuclear Weapons
Spending and Redirection Funds to Meet the Needs of Cities, issued a more
urgent call for more U.S. cities to join the long-standing Mayors for Peace
campaign, another movement against nuclear weapons.
Mayors for Peace is
an international organization founded by the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
in 1991. They currently have 5,500 member cities, and their goal is to reach
10,000 by 2020. The organization “calls upon cities to stand together for nuclear
abolition and world peace.”
Below are the USCM’s
resolution’s 23 sponsors and co-sponsors, all mayors, from 23 cities in 14
states, as well as the District of Columbia, according to the Western States Legal
Foundation:
Little Rock, Arkansas — Mark
Stodola et al.
.
The
United States and NATO Are Preparing for a Major War With Russia By Michael T. Klare. JULY 7, 2016.
Massive military exercises and a troop buildup
on NATO’s eastern flank reflect a dangerous new strategy.
For
the first time in a quarter-century, the prospect of war—real war, war between
the major powers—will be on the agenda of Western leaders when they meet at the
NATO Summit in Warsaw, Poland, on July 8 and 9. Dominating the agenda in Warsaw (aside,
of course, from the “Brexit” vote in the UK) will be discussion of plans to
reinforce NATO’s “eastern flank”—the arc of former Soviet partners stretching
from the Baltic states to the Black Sea that are now allied with the West but
fear military assault by Moscow. Until recently, the prospect of such an attack
was given little credence in strategic circles, but now many in NATO believe a
major war is possible and that robust defensive measures are required.
In
what is likely to be its most significant move, the Warsaw summit is expected
to give formal approval to a plan to deploy
four multinational battalions along the eastern flank—one each in Poland,
Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia. Although not deemed sufficient to stop a
determined Russian assault, the four battalions would act as a “tripwire,”
thrusting soldiers from numerous NATO countries into the line of fire and so
ensuring a full-scale, alliance-wide response. This, it is claimed, will deter
Russia from undertaking such a move in the first place or ensure its defeat
should it be foolhardy enough to start a war.
The United States, of course, is deeply involved in these
initiatives. Not only will it supply many of the troops for the four
multinational battalions, but it is also taking many steps of its own to
bolster NATO’s eastern flank. Spending
on the Pentagon’s “European Reassurance Initiative” will quadruple,
climbing from $789 million in 2016 to $3.4 billion in 2017. Much of this
additional funding will go to the deployment, on a rotating basis, of an
additional armored-brigade combat team in northern Europe.
As a further indication of US and NATO
determination to prepare for a possible war with Russia, the alliance recently
conducted the largest war games in
Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War. Known as Anakonda 2016, the exercise involved some 31,000 troops
(about half of them Americans) and thousands of combat vehicles from 24 nations
in simulated battle maneuvers across the breadth of Poland. A parallel
naval exercise, BALTOPS 16, simulated “high-end maritime warfighting”
in the Baltic Sea, including in waters near Kaliningrad, a heavily defended
Russian enclave wedged between Poland and Lithuania.
All of this—the aggressive exercises,
the NATO buildup, the added US troop deployments—reflects a new and dangerous
strategic outlook in Washington. Whereas
previously the strategic focus had been on terrorism and counterinsurgency, it
has now shifted to conventional warfare among the major powers. “Today’s
security environment is dramatically different than the one we’ve been engaged
in for the last 25 years,” observed Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter on
February 2, when unveiling the Pentagon’s $583 billion budget for fiscal year
2017. Until recently, he explained, American forces had largely been primed to
defeat insurgent and irregular forces, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan. Now,
however, the Pentagon was being readied for “a return to great-power
competition,” including the possibility of all-out combat with “high-end
enemies” like Russia and China.
By preparing for war, Washington and NATO are setting in motion forces that could achieve precisely that outcome.
The budgetary and force-deployment implications of this are enormous in their own right, but so is this embrace of “great-power competition” as a guiding star for US strategy. During the Cold War, it was widely assumed that the principal task of the US military was to prepare for all-out combat with the Soviet Union, and that such preparation must envision the likelihood of nuclear escalation. Since then, American forces have seen much horrible fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan, but none of that has involved combat with another major power, and none entailed the risk of nuclear escalation—for which we should all be thankful. Now, however, Secretary Carter and his aides are seriously thinking about—and planning for—conflicts that would involve another major power and could escalate to the nuclear realm. MORE https://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-and-nato-are-preparing-for-a-major-war-with-russia/
By preparing for war, Washington and NATO are setting in motion forces that could achieve precisely that outcome.
The budgetary and force-deployment implications of this are enormous in their own right, but so is this embrace of “great-power competition” as a guiding star for US strategy. During the Cold War, it was widely assumed that the principal task of the US military was to prepare for all-out combat with the Soviet Union, and that such preparation must envision the likelihood of nuclear escalation. Since then, American forces have seen much horrible fighting in the Middle East and Afghanistan, but none of that has involved combat with another major power, and none entailed the risk of nuclear escalation—for which we should all be thankful. Now, however, Secretary Carter and his aides are seriously thinking about—and planning for—conflicts that would involve another major power and could escalate to the nuclear realm. MORE https://www.thenation.com/article/the-united-states-and-nato-are-preparing-for-a-major-war-with-russia/
Putin predicts nuclear war [more accurate title: Russians have a right to be
alarmed at U.S. anti-ballistic-missile capability.]
|
|
1:00 PM (3 hours ago)
 |
|
||
|
||||
from RUSSIA INSIDER (bad
headline on article)
July 13, 2016
|
2:38 PM (2 hours ago)
|
|
||
|
||||
Hi Coralie and Dick -
It certainly is a misleading headline; Putin didn’t “lose it,”
and in fact spoke vigorously but rationally about the threat that faces him.
The most important part of this article is the video news clip of Putin’s
lecture to journalists. I agree with Putin: The Russians have a
right to be alarmed at U.S. anti-ballistic-missile capability. I haven’t
kept up with this ABM issue recently, but here are two related articles of mine
from 2008, the first about our general relations with Russia since the Soviet
Union collapsed in 1991, and the second about how our ABM capability threatens
Russia.
Of course, “Russia Insider” comes from Moscow, but it offers an
important view into Russia, one that Americans need to understand.
Thanks Coralie. If you find more info about this question,
please send it to me. I am very concerned that Hillary (who I will vote
for) will get us into war with Russia. If she begins to move in this
direction, I’ll be looking for an anti-war demonstration to join.
Peace – Art
Contents
of Russia/Ukraine Newsletter #5
Threats Up and Down, Hawks’ Incitements
to War 2014-2015
(In
chronological order)
President Obama
To Travel to Estonia 8-16-14
NATO to Send
Troops to E. Ukraine 9-2-14
Borowitz, Putin
Doesn’t Answer Obama’s Calls 9-2-14
Al Jazeera,
Pro-Russian Rebels Lower Demands 9-2-14
Cohen, Silence
of US Hawks Over Atrocities in Kiev 2015
NATO Commander
U.S. General Breedlove vs. Chancellor Merkel
2015
Steven Hurst,
Cold War Never Ended, NATO Expansion the Problem 2015
Identifying the
Belligerents 2015
Geopolitical Zones of Influence
Interview of Sergey Marcedonov
Interview of Sergey Marcedonov
Hayden, Roots
of the New Cold War
MH17, KAL007,
IA655: KNOWING
THE PRESENT AND FUTURE BY UNDERSTANDING THE PAST
Trauger,
MH17 No Re-run of KAL007 But Resembles US Downing Iran Air 655.
PEACEFUL
ALTERNATIVES TO WAR
The Nation, Cold War Resuming? Choose Diplomacy.
Bloomberg News, Ask for United Nations Peacekeeping
Forces
END RUSSIA NEWSLETTER #6, SEPTEMBER 1, 2016
No comments:
Post a Comment