By Christopher Black
In a report published in the American journal, National Security News, on May 9th, the day of the celebration of the victory of Soviet and allied forces over the fascist forces in1945, it was stated that, “in terms of the eastern threat-which is a reference to Russia-EUCOM (the American Forces European Command) will be moving from a training to a war fighting stance.”
The article continues, “this does not mean that the U.S. is planning a war with Russia, merely that it will shift its force structure in a manner aimed at deterring Moscow and defending NATO and European partners should Russian President Vladimir Putin attempt what he has done in Ukraine.”
Of course, the authors do not state what Russia “attempted in Ukraine,” because that phrase is a cover for the American arranged putsch that put in power the US puppet government in Kiev. That regime then attacked the peoples of the eastern Ukraine because they refused to accept the American backed coup against their democratically elected president and the crushing of their culture. And when Americans say that they “are not planning a war”, we know that is exactly what they are planning. What are the wars in Ukraine, in Syria, the destruction of Yugoslavia and Libya, but a part of the war against Russia?
The article then refers to the “deteriorating relations between the U.S. and Russia, and Moscow’s continuing “aggressive, belligerent actions against U.S. warships and aircraft in international spaces.” This, again, is code meaning that “Russia will not let us walk all over them in the Baltic, Ukraine, Syria or anywhere else.”
It confirms that preparations for war continue steadily, as I have related in previous articles, comparing the NATO build up of forces in the east of Europe to the build of German forces prior to the launching of Operation Barbarossa, the Nazis’ surprise attack on the Soviet Union, on June 21, 1941. The similarities mount with each passing month. The Russian government, well aware of what is happening, has responded with close surveillance of American combat ships entering the Baltic which threaten Kaliningrad, St. Petersburg and Russian access to the Atlantic. It has also created three new army divisions; two of which are to be placed on the western front facing NATO forces in Eastern Europe and one on the southern flank.
Just recently, the Americans transferred their top general in Korea, General Scaparotti to the command of American forces in Europe, replacing the bellicose General Breedlove. The change is more than routine or cosmetic since Breedlove was an air force officer. Scaparotti, even more bellicose than Breedlove, is an army combat general with experience in several US attacks on sovereign nations
His replacement in Korea, General Brooks.is also an army combat general who was deputy head of army operations in the attack on Iraq, and also has a record of being involved in American aggression against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and the “war on terror” in the middle east, meaning the war on Iraq and Syria. Both these men are fighting generals, not office chair warmers. Their appointments suggest increased aggressive actions by the Americans on the Korean peninsular and on Russia’s borders. In fact on May 4th, the day he assumed command of the NATO forces in Europe, General Scaparotti stated that, “NATO needs to stay agile and ready to fight tonight.” Alarming words.
In an attempt to counter the continued American pressure, President Putin, on Monday, May 9th called for the creation of a non-aligned system of international security to counter “global terror.” What he meant by that is unclear, non-aligned in what sense? What would a non-aligned system look like?
We must not forget that a Non-Aligned Movement still exists. Formed in 1961 in Beograd by India’s Prime Minister Nehru, Indonesia’s President Sukarno, Egypt’s President Nasser, Ghana’s President Nkrumah and Yugoslav President Tito, it advocated a road between the opposing forces in the so called Cold War. Fidel Castro said in a speech in 1979, that the Non-Aligned Movement wants to ensure “the national independence, sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of non-aligned countries in their struggle against imperialism, colonialism, ne-colonialism and all forms of foreign aggression, occupation, domination, interference ort hegemony as well as against great power and bloc politics.” These objectives were, it should be noted, completely in line with Soviet policy but totally opposed to everything American imperialism was trying to achieve, domination of the world.
The Russian government has repeatedly stated it supports the objectives expressed in Castro’s speech. The United States has repeatedly stated and proved that it will not tolerate them. Therefore, it would seem that reviving the Non-Aligned Movement, which lost its direction with the end of the Cold War, could be an important step in creating what President Putin has in mind, a non-aligned movement with military power. The Non-Aligned Movement has currently 120 nations. Are they prepared to join Russia to build a common security architecture? Is that what President Putin has in mind? Interesting questions, interesting possibilities. But do the leaders of those nations or any of them, have the desire, the will and the courage to do something before a catastrophe occurs?
Whether President Putin is talking about establishing a common security initiative with those countries, or just the BRIC nations, without a common ideology it is difficult to see how those countries can come together. But then, perhaps, today a common ideology is not necessary, only a common fear. We shall see. President Putin is highly intelligent and perhaps has some concrete ideas in mind to push this forward. We can but hope. For he also knows, as we all know, that when he says in his May 9th speech that “terrorism has become a global threat” he is really stating that the United States has become a global threat.
It is clear that the “terrorists” the world is facing are U.S. proxy forces attempting to destabilise the word for American interests. The battle against “terrorists” in Aleppo is really a battle against U.S. forces in Syria. No one is any longer fooled by the vague term “terrorists.” This has been made abundantly clear by the invasion of Syria by U.S. forces in the past few weeks, setting up advance bases for something bigger. President Putin actually said it in his speech when he said, “double standards and short-sighted indulgence to those who are nurturing new criminal plans, are unacceptable.” The reference could only be to the NATO alliance and the Unites States in particular.
The call for the creation of a “non-aligned security system” can also be interpreted as recognising the total irrelevance of the United Nation’s and its role in international law of securing world peace. Its irrelevance has increased year by year along, with that of international law; the United States and its allies treat both with contempt.
We can expect only worse after the American elections. The two likely contenders for the American presidency are equally intent on “making America great again,” of dominating the world. Since they, on behalf of the ruling elite, offer no rational solutions to the American people for the increasing economic decline and social breakdown that is occurring in the United States, war is their only way out.
It’s time for a new Bandung Conference, the conference that was the precursor to the Non-Aligned Movement, held in 1955 in Bandung, Indonesia, a conference of African and Asian states, hosted by President Sukarno. The member nations adopted a “declaration on promotion of world peace and cooperation which included Nehru’s five principles: mutual respect to each other’s territorial integrity and sovereignty, mutual non-aggression, mutual non-interference in domestic affairs, equality and mutual benefit, peaceful co-existence. These principles need to be renewed and in light of the reality, made concrete by a common system of international security as President Putin suggests.
For as Harold Pinter, the Nobel Laureate for Literature in his acceptance speech of the Nobel Prize said, “The United States quite simply doesn’t give a damn about the United Nations, international law or critical dissent, which it regards as impotent and irrelevant.” “How to make them “give a damn,” he once asked me, “before they kill us all?” How indeed? That is the question.
Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto, he is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and he is known for a number of high-profile cases involving human rights and war crimes, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.