© Fox News/KJNUS President Joe Biden • Russian President Vladimir Putin • Ukraine
Where one side sees itself committed to supporting Ukraine's independent right to join NATO in order to help empower the trans Atlantic rules based order, the other side sees an encroaching military encirclement of its vast territory under a military doctrine dubbed "full spectrum dominance". This latter doctrine, born in the bowels of Brzezinski's "Flexible Response" doctrine of 1980, assumes that it is possible to deliver a nuclear first strike on Russia (and China) with only minor "acceptable" rates of collateral damage suffered as a consequence.
Former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul correctly identified President Putin's fears of NATO's ongoing encroachment in a December 21 tweet, but was McFaul correct to dismiss these concerns as the crazy ravings of a paranoid Russian dictator with no bearing in reality? Or is there something to Putin's fears?
Considering the rapid growth of NATO from 16 to 29 nations in 24 years, and the obsessive drive which post-Maidan Kiev governments have made to enter into the military pact, Putin's fears shouldn't be dismissed too quickly.
When you also consider 1) the vast array of military games that have taken place on the Black Sea in recent years, 2) the expansion of the anti-ballistic missile shield which weapons experts have proven can be turned into offensive systems with relative ease, 3) America's abrogation of several trust building treaties since 2002, 4) the vast increase of arms sales to Ukraine over the past year, and 5) the promotion of first-use nuclear bombs by leading western officials in the last few weeks of 2021, it is clear that Russia's fears are not unfounded as McFaul or other hawks encircling Biden would have it seem.
Considering McFaul is a renowned "color revolution expert" who was caught trying to arrange a failed "white revolution" in Russia in 2011, it must be assumed that his perspective is more than a little polluted.
Even China has felt the burn of full spectrum dominance and western regime change operations in recent years, with a massive armada of military bases, troop buildup, war games and anti-ballistic missiles like THAAD deployed in South Korea where 20 thousand American troops are stationed and ready for battle. These troops are joined by 50 thousand soldiers in Japan, while talks of creating a Pacific NATO (aka: QUAD) has occupied the conversations of military officials in Washington, Japan, India and Australia since 2020.
Ukraine and Taiwan: Spark Plugs for WW3?
As much as Biden, McFaul, Carter or Nuland might scream and shout that "Crimea will always belong to Ukraine", the fact is that a democratic plebiscite did occur in 2014 which resulted in a majority vote to return the peninsula to Russia. Whether you like it or not, that happened.
As much as war hawks might also scream that the island of Taiwan is an independent nation deserving of US military support, according to the United Nations, and Taiwan's own constitution, the island is still legally a part of China. That's just a basic fact of life that no amount of media spin can change.
Should we treat the words of leading NATOcrats like Jens Stoltenberg seriously when he threatens to move US nukes in Germany closer to Russia's border? Should we dismiss the claims made by former Defense Secretary Ash Carter that the USA should support a color revolution in Russia? Should we ignore the words of Senator Roger Wicker when he called for a nuclear first strike on Russia on December 8?
Whether or not American citizens take such words seriously, the fact is that Vladimir Putin and his military advisors certainly do.
USA Should Agree to Putin's Demands
Taking the above facts into consideration, Putin's demands for written agreements on freezing the growth of NATO's eastward expansion should strike any American patriot as eminently reasonable.
After all, who does NATO's growth actually benefit? Does it benefit the Ukrainian people if US missiles are installed in Kiev, which would only see the nation suffer the risk of a Russian retaliatory attack? And who on earth will gain if the world is pushed to nuclear war?
So why not make the oral promises of 1990 between James Baker, Bush Sr. and Gorbachev (that NATO would not expand one inch eastward) legally binding now once and for all?
If Putin requests that war games halt on Russia's border (which he will reciprocate in turn) and requests that no short or medium range missiles be placed on Ukrainian soil (which he will reciprocate in turn) while re-empowering the Russia-NATO council, then what harm does this do to the USA's interests? Moscow is, after all, only 300 miles away from Ukraine's border, so this sort of security guarantee is perfectly rational.
Just to put it into perspective, I doubt a single American would feel secure if either Russia or China carried out military war games in the Gulf of Mexico while placing Russian-controlled missiles in Ottawa. And how secure would Americans feel if Moscow's intelligence agencies were openly supporting rabidly anti-American Mexicans who wished to become a part of a Shanghai Cooperation Organization of the Americas?
So rather than risk lighting the world on nuclear fire in a bid for global hegemony, why not simply agree to Putin's red lines, while also toning down the sabre-rattling in the Pacific while we're at it?
Doing these simple things will involve returning to the tried-and-true methods of diplomatic engagement and acting like the UN Charter actually matters in international affairs. It will also involve treating other nations like partners with common interests, instead of assuming that everyone not under our hegemony are enemies vying for dominance in a world of diminishing returns.
It may be a lot to ask the NATOcrats running rampant in Washington, but I guarantee you that the majority of Americans from all sides of the political aisle will be overjoyed to avoid a nuclear holocaust.
About the Author:
Matthew Ehret is the Editor-in-Chief of the Canadian Patriot Review , and Senior Fellow at the American University in Moscow. He is author of the 'Untold History of Canada' book series and Clash of the Two Americas (which you can purchase by clicking those links or the book covers below). In 2019 he co-founded the Montreal-based Rising Tide Foundation .
Reader Comments
What does Ermerica stand to gain by allowing usury and letting a wandering tribe control its money supply, gov't, and indeed all media/information ?
While the unwashed cannot even have the thought "why is this thing news while other things are not"?
But it is quite possible that some poor idiots will be at the wrong place at the right time in the Black Sea.
The way I see it, Russia couldn't care less if that's going to be an Ukrainian or NATO vessel.
When that happens, things can develop in two ways. Either USA/NATO will pull back with tail between the legs, which would instantly defuse the global crisis, or they would not, in which case God help us all.
Russians had enough and however think that can poke the bear and survive is sorely mistaken.
And I vividly remember what Russia did in Georgia back in 2008, in six days using only one army division.
R.C.
It's like watching a bully trying to start a fight and you just know that the kid he's picking on is about to stand up and quickly kick the bully's ass. Let's just pray it doesn't get nuclear.
I don't think it will go there, because I believe that the deep state bureaucracy still has a few (very few) competent people who are aware of who would win (not Team FUKUSraHell) and who love their children, etc. Russia tends to win wars more than the US has recently, and that's because they've had real ones on their territory and haven't forgotten it. Meanwhile, our 'woke' military is NOT the military that helped the USSR with WWII.
I think that if it gets hot, any US ships in the Black Sea might find themselves becoming one way submarines rather quickly. Also remember that Russia has some fighter jet system that can shut down all electronics on a ship. They'd probably do that first because they've not forgotten their humanity.
RC
Nikolai. Thanks for the fish. [Link] Otter water. [Link]
RC
Psstoffgoy I realize that there's no way I'll ever figure out the set up. I am disappointed with him for not cracking on the last name in Team FUKUSraHell.
RC
[Link]
Well Putin has the same problem.
It's pointless talking to a psychopath because they will cry crocodile tears then laugh behind your back.
By virtue you still have your home and haven't been vaporised yet by an Atomic bomb blast, is all down to Putins patience, seems that the psychopathic old fossil that runs America is working on that.
TO SLEEP ???????????
Just imagine.....................................
In May, within four months, the new nuclear bomb B61-12 large-scale production will begin in the United States: this announcement was made by the National Nuclear Security Administration of the United States Department of Energy (NNSA is part of the US Department of Energy). As they leave the factory, the new nuclear bombs will be delivered to the US Air Force, which will install them in US bases in Italy and other European countries replacing the B61s.
The B61-12 is a new nuclear weapon replacing three of the current B61 variants (3, 4, and 7). It has a nuclear warhead with four selectable power options according to the target to destroy. It does not drop vertically like the B61, but at distance from the target to which it is directed, and guided by a satellite system. It can penetrate underground, exploding deep to destroy command center bunkers to “behead” the enemy nation in a nuclear first strike. For this attack the US Air Force also has the fourth variant of the B61 bomb, the penetrating B61-11 was modernized in 2001. The B61-12, NNSA confirmed, can be launched from both B-2A stealth bomber and future B-21 aircraft, both conventional and nuclear dual-capable fighters. These aircrafts include the US F-16C / Ds deployed in Aviano and the Italian PA-200 Tornadoes deployed in Ghedi. The F-35A fighters, already operational in the Italian Air Force, are even more suitable for a nuclear attack with the B61-12.NNSA announced that “all the needed production of B61-12s” will be completed in the fiscal year 2026. The program foresees the construction of 500 bombs at a cost of about 10 billion dollars (each bomb costing twice as much if it were built entirely of gold). Their actual number, however, remains secret as their geographical location is largely secret. It is the determining factor in the offensive capacity of the B61-12 nuclear bombs. If they were all located in US territory, ready to be transported with strategic bombers, this would not constitute a substantial modification of the current strategic assets.
The B61-12 will instead be located in other countries, especially close to Russia, ready to be transported and launched with F-35s and other fighters.Aviano and Ghedi bases have been restructured to accommodate the F-35A fighters armed with the new nuclear bombs. Thirty Italian F-35A fighters can be deployed in Ghedi, ready to attack under US command with 60 B61-12 nuclear bombs. It is not excluded that they will also be located in other bases on the Italian territory. In addition to being located in Germany, Belgium, and Holland, they could be also deployed in Poland, whose air forces have been participating for years in NATO nuclear warfare exercises. It is not excluded that they could be located in other Eastern countries. The NATO fighters located in the Baltic republics, close to Russia, can also be armed with the B61-12s. It is not excluded that the new nuclear bombs can also be deployed in Asia and the Middle East against China and Iran.
Despite being classified as “non-strategic nuclear weapons”, close to target the B61-12 bombs have offensive capabilities similar to those of strategic weapons (such as the nuclear warheads of intercontinental ballistic missiles). They are therefore destabilizing weapons, which will cause a chain reaction and accelerate the nuclear arms ra.
The 5 nuclear powers permanent members of the United Nations Security Council – the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom – affirmed in a joint declaration (January 3, 2022), that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought ”and that “we remain committed to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of to nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament”.The US should therefore commit not to deploy the new B61-12 nuclear bombs in other countries, even better not to produce them at all.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and other Cabinet members Biden love to proclaim "the rules-based international order" (RBIO) or "the rules-based order" whenever they get the chance: at press conferences, interviews, in articles, in international forums, for breakfast, lunch, dinner and cocktails. Together with the terms "human rights" and "democracy", the RBIO is routinely used to claim moral high ground against countries that accuse of not following this RBIO and used as a club to attack, criticize, accuse and delegitimize countries in their sights as "rogue countries" that do not conform to an international order.
This club is now more commonly used against China and Russia. Oddly, whenever the US claims this "rules-based order" that China (and other "revisionist powers" / enemy states) are violating, the US never seems to clarify which "rules" are being violated, it simply releases. a miasma of generic accusations, leaving the stench of racism and xenophobia to do the rest.
The RBIO is not "rules-based", it is not "international" and it confuses any sense of "order", not to mention justice. It is, after all, the naked exercise of the power and imperial supremacy of the United States, disguised with the invisible ornaments of an embroidered fiction. The RBIO is a fraudulent imitation of international law and justice.
There are many layers to this misnomer, to be taken apart piece by piece.'RBIO' in conflict with 'international law'.First, the RBIO is not "international" in any sense.
In reality there is a rules-based consensual international order, a compendium of agreed rules and treaties that the international community has negotiated, agreed and signed. It is simply called "international law". This refers to the body of decisions, precedents, agreements and multilateral treaties held together under the umbrella of the United Nations Charter and the multiple institutions, policies and protocols associated with it. Although imperfect, incomplete, in evolution, it still constitutes the legal basis of the body of the international order and of the ordered laws that support it: this is what constitutes international law. The basic foundation of the United Nations Charter is national sovereignty: states have the right to exist and are equal in relations. This is not what the United States is referring to.
When the United States uses the term RBIO, rather than the existing term "international law", they do so because they want to embody international law by deviating towards a unilateral, invented and fictitious order that only they create and decide, often with the complicity of other states imperial, western and transatlantic. It also does this because, quite simply, the United States does not want to be bound by international law and in many cases it is actually an international mockery.
For example, the United States refuses to sign or ratify fundamental international laws and treaties that the vast majority of countries in the world have signed, such as the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of All forms of discrimination against women), ICESCR (International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), CRC (Convention on the Rights of the Child), ICRMW (International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families ), UNCLOS (the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea), PAROS (the prevention of an arms race in outer space), the Ottawa Treaty (the Convention on Anti-personnel Mines) and most of the labor conventions of the ILO (International Labor Organization).Indeed, the United States hosts exploitative factories, legalizes child labor (for example, in migrant agricultural work), and engages in slave labor (in prisons and immigration detention centers). The US State Department's 2021 Trafficking in Persons Report also recognizes the serious problems in the United States of trafficking and forced labor in the agriculture, catering, manufacturing, domestic services, sex work and hospitality, with US military and government officials involved in human trafficking at home and abroad. Ironically, the United States tries to hold other countries accountable for laws that they themselves refuse to ratify. For example, the United States tries to establish UNCLOS in the South China Sea by refusing, for decades, to ratify it and ignoring its rules, precedents and conclusions in its own territorial waters.
There are also a slew of international treaties that the United States has signed but simply violates anyway: examples include the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention, the United Nations treaties that prohibit torture, surrender and kidnapping, and , of course, the war of aggression, considered "the supreme international crime," a crime in which the United States regularly engages at least once every decade, not to mention routine drone strikes, which violate international law. More recently, the AUKUS agreement signed between the United States and Australia violates the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by exploiting a blind spot of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
There are also a multitude of treaties that the United States signed but arbitrarily withdrew from. These include the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran, the agreed framework and six-party talks with North Korea, the Geneva Conventions, the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty and many others.
There are also some 368 treaties signed between indigenous nations and the US government; each has been hacked or ignored.
There are also one-sided fictions that the United States has created, such as "Freedom of Navigation Operations" (FONOP): this is gunboat diplomacy, a display of military strength, disguised as alleged servitude. FONOPs are a baseless concept in international law - "innocent passage" is the law accepted under UNCLOS - and it is the United States and its allies who are violating international law when exercising these FONOPs. Likewise, air defense identification zones (ADIZs) are notions that have no recognition in international law - the accepted concept is "sovereign airspace" - but the US regularly asserts that China is violating the ADIZ or space. Taiwan plane - covering three provinces of mainland China. These are some examples of the absurd fictions the United States makes up to claim that enemy states like China are violating the RBIO. This is armed fiction.
The United States is also committed to undermining international structures and institutions; for example, not appreciating the decisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO), it disabled the WTO Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism; undermined and threatened the ICC (by passing the American Servicemembers Protection Act [ASPA], also known as the Hague Invasion Act) and, more recently, sanctioned the ICC prosecutor and his family; the US makes fun of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and its decisions, and generally opposes any international institution that limits its unilateral and unrestrained exercise of power. Former United States Ambassador to the UN John Bolton has bluntly said that "there is no such thing as the United Nations", but this unbridled ideology silently manifests itself in the daily actions of the United States during successive US administrations.
This mentality of exceptionalism and impunity is not anecdotal, but manifests itself on a general and structural scale in the numerous US Unilateral Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) in countries where the US has troops stationed. These give general immunity similar to diplomatic immunity: the violating US soldier or contractor cannot be arrested and handed over to national courts unless the US chooses to waive immunity; The US extraterritorial exemption / immunity can be applied despite cases of murder, chaos, violence, torture, rape, theft, sex trafficking and a host of other sins.
This type of exceptionality also applies to national health policies and international health regulations. For example, multiple COVID-19 outbreaks have been traced to U.S. violations of national public health measures (screening, testing, contract tracking, and isolation) in many territories or countries (especially island regions) where the U.S. has bases. military. For example, several major COVID outbreaks in Okinawa have been traced to US troops who entered the island without following local health protocols.
The US takes the cake out of hypocrisy, however, when, in several COVID lawsuits, it accused China, without evidence, of violating UN / World Health Organization (WHO) international health regulations by failing to notify states United and the rest of the world in a timely manner on the COVID-19 outbreak. This is completely denied by the facts and by the well-established deadlines: no other country has worked so diligently and quickly in investigating, ascertaining and then notifying the world of the initial outbreak, as well as sharing the information necessary to control it. The United States, however, has carved out a pandemic-sized exemption from reporting any infectious diseases to WHO if it deems it necessary for its national security interests. Ironically, this exemption is provided for the one institution most likely to issue it, the US military: "Any notification that would undermine the ability of the US military to operate effectively in the pursuit of US national security interests would not considered practical. "
When the United States falsely uses the term RBIO, or rules-based international order, it could play with international law, but once its applications are unpacked and defused, it becomes clear that it is an armed fiction that the United States they use to attack its enemies and competitors.
If "hypocrisy is a tribute that vice pays to virtue", the RBIO is the first vicious tribute that the United States sends to its law-abiding opponents to undermine the international order, no less dangerous for its falsehood.