The current and rapidly escalating tensions between the US and Russia over Ukraine have dominated international headlines and moved stock markets in recent weeks. In reality, they have their roots in a series of NATO actions and omissions following the demise of the Soviet Union in 1989/91. On the Russian side, there is a widespread perception that Moscow was misled by both Washington and NATO, a pervasive malaise about a breach of trust, and a violation of a 'gentleman's agreement' on fundamental issues of national security.
While the US protests that it never gave assurances to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastwards, declassified documents prove otherwise. But even in the absence of declassified documents and contemporary statements by political leaders in 1989/91, including Secretary of State James Baker and German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher (which can be confirmed on YouTube), it is all too obvious that there is a festering wound caused by NATO's eastward expansion over the past 30 years, which has undoubtedly negatively impacted Russia's sense of security. No country likes to be encircled, and common sense should tell us that maybe we should not be provoking another nuclear power. At the very least, NATO's provocations are unwise; at worst, they could spell apocalypse.
We in the West play innocent, and retreat into 'positivism', asserting that there was no signed treaty commitment, that the assurances were not written in stone. Yet realpolitik tells us that if one side breaks its word or is perceived as having double-crossed the other, if it acts in a manner contrary to the spirit of an agreement and to the overriding principle of good faith (bona fide), there will be political consequences.
It seems, however, that we in the West have become so used to what I would call a 'culture of cheating', that we react in a surprised fashion when another country does not simply accept that we cheated them in the past, and that, notwithstanding this breach of trust, they should accept the 'new normal' and resume 'business as usual' as if nothing had happened. Our leaders in the US, UK and EU contend that they have a clean conscience and refuse to consider the fact that the other side does feel uncomfortable about having been taken for a ride. A rational person, a fortiori a statesman, would pause and try to defuse the 'misunderstanding'. Yet the US culture of cheating has become so second nature to us that we do not even realise when we are cheating someone else, and we seem incapable of understanding that denying our actions and reneging on our words adds insult to injury.
The culture of cheating is in the family of the doctrine of 'exceptionalism'. We self-righteously claim the right to cheat others, but do not accept that others can cheat us. Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi (that which Jupiter can do is not permitted for the bovines). This constitutes a kind of predator behaviour that neither religion nor civilisation has succeeded in eradicating. We mount false-flag operations and accuse the other side of the same. The CIA and M15 have been caught red-handed on so many occasions, yet no one seems to be asking whether, in the long run, such conduct is counter-productive, whether our credibility is shot.
Perhaps one explanation for this kind of behaviour is that we have elevated the culture of cheating to a kind of secular virtue - equivalent to cunning, daring and boldness. It is seen as a positive attribute when a leader is 'craftier' and 'sneakier' than his/her rival. The name of the game is to score points in an atmosphere of perpetual competition where there are no rules. Our geopolitical competitors are just that - rivals - and there is no interest whatsoever in fraternising with adversaries. Co-operation is somehow perceived as 'weak', as 'un-American'. 'Dirty tricks' are not seen as dishonest but as clever, even patriotic, because they are intended to advance the economic and political interests of our country. In a way, 'dirty tricks' are perceived in a positive light, as artful, ingenious, adventurous, even visionary. This curious approach to reality is facilitated by a compliant and complicit corporate media that does not call our bluff and, instead, disseminates 'fake news' and suppresses dissenting views. Unless an individual has the presence of mind to do his/her own research and to access other sources of information, he/she is caught in the propaganda web.
The US government has practised this culture of cheating in its international relations for over 200 years, particularly in its dealings with the First Nations of the continent, who were lied to over and over, and whose lands and resources were shamelessly stolen. As Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in 'Why We Can't Wait', "Our nation was born in genocide". How many 'Indian' treaties were broken, again and again? And when the Sioux, Cree and Navajo protested, we massacred them. See the studies of the United Nations' Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. This 'culture of cheating' is documented countless times in connection with the Monroe Doctrine and US relations with Mexico, Latin America, Hawaii, the Philippines and so on.
One of the elements that is totally missing from the Ukraine debate is the right of self-determination of peoples. Undoubtedly the Russians in Ukraine are not just a minority, but constitute a 'people', and, as such, the Russians in Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea possess the right of self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter and in Article 1 common to the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Until the deliberately anti-Russian coup d'รฉtat of February 2014, the Ukrainians and Russian-Ukrainians had lived side by side in relative harmony. The Maidan brought with it Russophobic elements that have since been exacerbated by systematic war propaganda and incitement to hatred, both of which are prohibited by Article 20 of the ICCPR. Thus, it is not certain whether the Russians in the Donbass feel safe enough to want to continue living with Ukrainians who have been and are being incited to hate them. Back in March and June 1994, I monitored the parliamentary and presidential elections in Ukraine as a representative of the UN Secretary-General. I travelled around the country. There was no doubt that the Russian speakers had a profound sense of Russian identity.
There would be no conflict in Ukraine today - although both Kiev and Moscow deny an invasion is imminent - if Barack Obama, Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland and several European leaders had not destabilised the democratically elected government of Viktor Yanukovich and organised a vulgar coup to install Western puppets.
Bottom line: Western interference in the internal affairs of other states can backfire, and the culture of cheating and deceit that we continue to practise renders it impossible to reach sustainable solutions. The UN Charter, the only mandate underpinning the existing 'rules-based international order', has the necessary mechanisms to resolve our differences on the basis of the principles of sovereign equality of states and the self-determination of peoples.
About the Author:
Professor Alfred de Zayas, an international law expert at the Geneva School of Diplomacy who served as a UN Independent Expert on International Order from 2012-18.
Reader Comments
so go we we we all the way home professor, and speak for yourself and the zionist bastards who use deception to win; don't speak for the west as a whole.
โIt is written in the doctrinal documents of Ukraine itself that they are about to return Crimea, even by military means. Not what they say to the public, but it is written in their documents. He imagines that Ukraine becomes a NATO member, full of weapons, that there are modern attack systems in the same way as Poland and Romania - who will interfere? And the operations in Crimea begin, now I'm not even talking about the Donbass โ , RIA Novosti quotes the words of the president.
Putin noted that Crimea is a sovereign Russian territory, the question of which is closed.
โLet's imagine that Ukraine is a NATO country and you start these military operations. Should we fight the NATO bloc? So, has anyone thought about it? It seems not, โ Putin added.
Putin said that Ukraine is a tool for achieving the goals of the United States, which is not so concerned with its own security, but with the containment of Russia.
โWe are told that yes, each country has the right to choose its own security system. We agree with this. But it seems to me that the United States itself is not so worried about the security of Ukraine, even if it might think about it, but it is overshadowing it somewhere. But their main task is to contain the development of Russia โ, underlined the president.
"That is the question. In this sense, Ukraine itself is only a tool to achieve this goal. This can be done in several ways. They drag us into a kind of armed conflict. And to force, among other things, their allies in Europe to impose against us the very harsh sanctions they are talking about today in the United States, โadded Putin.
"Attract Ukraine to NATO, train attack weapon systems there and encourage some people from the Bandera group to resolve the Donbass or Crimea issue by armed means, thus dragging us into an armed conflict again" , he is quoted by TASS.
Attempts by NATO to strengthen its presence near Russian borders and to exert military pressure on Russia will not lead to the desired results and could lead to NATO's defeat. Such conclusions were reached by specialists from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), noting that the weapons located in the Crimea will be sufficient to successfully defeat the European forces of NATO as far as Spain.
[Link] ; [Link]
As is clear from the information from the analytical center, the fact that the main forces of NATO are concentrated in central Europe does not at all mean that Russia will not be able to do something. As shown by the published media, the capabilities of the Russian-caliber cruise missiles will be sufficient to launch a precise and powerful attack against any target in Europe, up to the western borders of Germany (with the announced range of missiles up to 2 thousand kilometers - ed. .).
The capabilities of the Tu-22M3 long-range tactical bombers are wider - even taking into account the fact that the latter will use their weapons from the airspace over Crimea, all European countries up to central France are under attack. However, as is apparent from the published materials, Russia also has non-lethal weapons capable of completely suppressing NATO forces without firing a shot: Murmansk-BN long-range electronic warfare systems.
Their capabilities will be more than enough to cover territory as far as central Spain, not to mention the fact that most US military air bases in the Middle East are guaranteed to be hit by the Murmansk-BN complex.
At the same time, the Chinese representative referred to statements by Russia and Ukraine that an attack was not expected. In a meeting called on January 31 at the initiative of the United States, a Chinese diplomat accused Washington of "megaphone diplomacy" and called for "quiet dialogue".
The People's Republic of China said Americans need the Security Council to "inflate this crisis". And the only way to solve it is to implement the Minsk agreements.
โNATO is a product of the Cold War. The security of one country cannot be guaranteed at the expense of the security of another country โ, the Chinese representative supported the conditions of Russia.
Furthermore, Beijing called the concerns of the Russian Federation "legitimate".
China expressed support for the Russian Federation, many other Security Council members remained neutral. We hope that at its February 18 meeting Russia will receive sufficient support to set the right accents and show Ukraine the futility of trying to review the Minsk agreements and circumvent their implementation.
Confidential information on NATO's official response to providing security guarantees to Russia was available to the media.
Previously Washington had asked Russia not to publish this answer in order not to create tensions, however the official answer was available to the Spanish newspaper El Pais.
[Link]
According to published data, NATO and the United States officially refuse to comply with Russia's demands and provide their own recommendations.
The United States is ready to initiate a dialogue with Russia on the issues of arms control in the field of medium and short range missiles;
The United States is ready to start discussions with Russia on mutual obligations to limit the deployment of weapons and offensive missile forces in Ukraine;
The US and NATO told the Russian Federation they would take steps to refrain from deploying nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe;
The United States is ready to consider further measures to prevent accidents with the Russian side at sea and in the air;
The United States is ready to discuss with Russia a mechanism to confirm the non-deployment of Tomahawk cruise missiles in Romania and Poland.
The conditions set by the US and NATO do not meet Russian demands, as stated earlier, however, experts have drawn attention to the fact that the US and the Alliance are ready to consider reducing tensions in relations with Russia.
This indicates that previously published statements that Russia will come under pressure are just a bluff.
It is not known exactly how the confidential data ended up available to the El Pais edition, but sources have already confirmed the authenticity of this information.
[Link]
The response of the United States and NATO to the Russian side's initiatives in the field of security may not be suitable for Russia, it is striking in its arrogance and irresponsibility, Vladimir Dzhabarov, first deputy head of the international committee of the Federation Council, told the RIA on Wednesday Novosti. .
Earlier, the full text of the US and NATO responses to Russia's proposed security guarantees appeared in the Western press.
The documents note that the United States is ready to discuss mutual obligations with Russia to limit the deployment of offensive missile systems and forces in Ukraine. At the same time, Washington is ready to initiate an arms control dialogue in exchange for the withdrawal of peacekeepers from Crimea, Transnistria, South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
"The United States had previously asked Russia not to publish its responses to the security guarantees proposed by the Russian Federation, now they appear in the press. What kind of observance of diplomatic ethics by the United States and NATO can be talked about ? " Jabarov said.
According to the politician, "obviously such an answer does not suit us, it is striking for its arrogance and irresponsibility". According to the legislator, the United States has not fully taken into account the proposals of the Russian side, and their "willingness" to discuss the issue of arms control raises doubts, since "the United States does not respect the agreements reached previously."
Furthermore, the point about the willingness to initiate an arms control dialogue in exchange for "the withdrawal of troops and peacekeepers from Crimea" is disconcerting, added the parliamentarian. He stressed that Crimea is Russian territory.
"We propose to the United States to withdraw troops from Texas, which they captured from Mexico, " he cited an example.
Dzhabarov also pointed out that South Ossetia and Abkhazia were independent where there are no Russian troops, but citizens of the Russian Federation live. The parliamentarian also recalled that it was the Russian peacekeepers who were able to stop the conflict in Transnistria."If they do not want peace, then they will get a further aggravation of the situation", the legislator believes. He recalled that Britain has come out with aggressive rhetoric against Russia, even though London has no real opportunity for this "neither in the economy nor in the defense sphere"
[Link]