Friday, July 8, 2016

Willy Wimmer zum NATO Gipfel in Warschau

Zum Kurzlink
39167233385

Kanzlerin Merkel macht in ihrer Regierungserklärung zum Nato-Gipfel Moskau verantwortlich für die Vertrauenskrise. Willy Wimmer, ehemaliger Staatsminister für Verteidigung und Vizepräsident der OSZE, findet es unerhört, dass im 75. Jahr nach dem Überfall Deutschlands auf die Sowjetunion wieder aggressive Töne gegenüber Russland angeschlagen werden.

Herr Wimmer, was erwarten Sie vom Nato-Gipfel in Warschau?
Das ist ja quasi eine Art Nato-Festveranstaltung aus Anlass des 75. Jahrestages des deutschen Angriffs auf die Sowjetunion.
Das wird vor allem an einem Punkt deutlich: jetzt stehen unsere Panzer wieder an der Stadtgrenze von Leningrad bzw. St. Petersburg. Die ganze Entwicklung, die damals Schrecken, Elend und Not über Europa gebracht hat, ist jetzt durch die Nato wieder herbeigeführt worden. Wenn ich nun die Regierungserklärung der Bundeskanzlerin höre, ist das sowas von geschichtsvergessen, um nicht zu sagen widerlich, was man im Deutschen Bundestag dazu gesagt hat, dass man nur empört sein kann.
Gibt es denn im Moment überhaupt einen Austausch zwischen der Nato und Russland? 
Wir befinden uns ja in dieser verhängnisvollen Situation, weil die Nato seit 25 Jahren, seit 1992 ihre Politik geändert hat. Das, was wir heute sehen, auch die Situation in der Ukraine und die Entwicklung um die Krim, dazu muss man ja ganz nüchtern sagen: der Westen, die Nato und die Europäische Union haben sich verzockt und die Ukraine zahlt den Preis dafür. Das kann man doch nicht Russland anlasten.
Damals vor 75 Jahren ging es um den Lebensraum im Osten. Heute will sich die Nato die russischen Ressourcen unter den Nagel reißen.
Vieles in der Nato passiert auf Druck aus Polen und dem Baltikum. Meinen Sie, dass die Gefahr besteht, dass Russland diese Territorien angreift? 
Das haben wir ja jetzt wieder bei den jüngsten Äußerungen der litauischen Staatspräsidentin hören können. Polen und das Baltikum versuchen, Deutschland und das deutsche Volk in Stellung zu bringen gegen Russland, was von beiden Völkern nicht gewollt wird. Wir wären doch mit dem Klammersack gepudert, wenn wir auf diese Sirenenklänge aus dem Baltikum und Polen hören würden. Das ist der Versuch, in Abstimmung mit der amerikanischen Politik, eine neue Mauer quer durch Europa zu bauen, diesmal von den baltischen Staaten bis zum Schwarzen Meer, um Russland zu isolieren.
Außenminister Steinmeier sprach von Säbelrasseln und wurde dafür heftig kritisiert. Nun wurde bekannt, dass auch große Internetportale wie Spiegel Online oder Faz ihre Kommentarfunktion ausschalten, wenn es um das Thema Nato und Russland geht. Darf man die Nato nicht kritisieren? 
Das ist jedenfalls die Absicht der hier noch Regierenden, alles zu tun, um den Konfrontations-, um nicht zu sagen, Kriegsvorbereitungen gegenüber der Russischen Föderation eine Legitimation zu geben.
Was ist aus den freien Ländern des Westens geworden? Wir haben den Pluralismus in den Medien beseitigt und beseitigen den Pluralismus in der politischen Diskussion. Und in Deutschland wird das in weiten Teilen auch noch goutiert.
Dieser Tage hat eine Kommission in London konstatiert, dass Großbritannien seinerzeit zu voreilig in den Irak-Krieg eingegriffen hat. Manchmal scheint man im Moment im Westen eine ähnliche Stimmungsmache gegen Russland zu spüren, wie damals vorm Irakkrieg. 
Das ist jetzt auch eine gezielte Aktivität, die von den angelsächsischen Medien vor vier Jahren ausging. Die Bilder des russischen Präsidenten, die damals auf den Coverseiten der internationalen und vor allem der amerikanischen Magazine gezeichnet wurden, das war doch das Gleiche an Propaganda, was wir gegen den deutschen Kaiser im Vorfeld des Ersten Weltkrieges aus London erlebt haben. Das ist auch jetzt systematisch vorbereitet worden.
So wie auch der völkerrechtswidrige Krieg gegen Jugoslawien, bei dem damals die Völkerrechtsordnung in Europa zusammengeschossen wurde, auch schon dem Ziel diente, letzten Endes gegen die Russische Föderation vorzugehen.
Wir haben uns doch 1990 eine ganz andere Welt vorgestellt, die die Amerikaner nicht wollten, weil sie unter allen Umständen eine Konfrontationssituation zwischen den Deutschen und den Russen etablieren wollen.
Herr Wimmer, Sie waren Vizepräsident der OSZE. Deutschland hat gerade den OSZE-Vorsitz. Irgendwie bekommt man wenig davon mit. Was erwarten Sie sich von Deutschlands OSZE-Vorsitz? 
Die OSZE hat doch seit dem Jugoslawien-Krieg von den Amerikanern, den Briten und von uns allen das Rückgrat rausoperiert bekommen. Die OSZE ist doch bei Weitem nicht mehr das wie Anfang der Neunzigerjahre. Ich habe ja das damalige politische Konzept über die Stationierung von Bundeswehr in der DDR selbst erarbeitet. Damals war noch klar, wir gehen nicht mit der Nato in diesen Raum, der sich uns am Ende des Kalten Krieges öffnete. Im Frühjahr 1992 wurden dann die Hebel umgelegt und es ging nur noch um die Nato und das amerikanische Konzept, Europa zu spalten.
Also Sie erwarten sich von Deutschlands OSZE-Vorsitz nicht viel?
Gar nichts! Die OSZE ist ein Papiertiger geworden.
Wie sollte sich also Deutschland zur Nato verhalten? 
Unser Land muss durch die Bundesregierung und hoffentlich in Zukunft durch einen verständigen Bundespräsidenten den Weg zurück finden zur Charta von Paris. Da haben sich die Staats- und Regierungschefs Europas, Kanadas und der Vereinigten Staaten in die Hand versprochen, Europa zu einem Territorium des Friedens, des Völkerrechts, der Menschenrechte und der guten Zusammenarbeit
zu machen. Und was ist daraus geworden? Das genaue Gegenteil. Wir stehen wieder vor den Grenzen eines Staates, der vor 75 Jahren 27 Millionen seiner Landsleute verloren hat. Das kann man nicht oft genug betonen. Wir müssen zurück zur Vernunft.
Interview: Armin Siebert 
Zum Thema:
Armutszeugnis für eine westeuropäische Demokratie
„Westliche Wertegemeinschaft" mit Weltgeltungsanspruch
„Raus aus der NATO“ - Sahra Wagenknecht über Kriegstreiber und Widerstand im Bund
Hoher Ex-Militär Kujat: man hätte Präsident Putin zum Nato-Gipfel einladen sollen
Tags:
NATOWilly WimmerSchwarzes MeerGroßbritannienIrakRusslandUkraine

What Is NATO – Really?



ERIC ZUESSE | 07.07.2016 | WORLD

When NATO was founded, that was done in the broader context of the US Marshall Plan, and the entire US operation to unify the developed Atlantic countries of North America and Europe, for a coming Cold War allegedly against communism, but actually against Russia – the core country not only in the USSR but also in Eastern Europe (the areas that Stalin’s forces had captured from Hitler’s forces).


NATO was founded with the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington DC on 4 April 1949, and its famous core is:
«Article 5: The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area».
However, widely ignored is that the Treaty’s preamble states:
«The Parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments. They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. They seek to promote stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area. They are resolved to unite their efforts for collective defence and for the preservation of peace and security. They therefore agree to this North Atlantic Treaty».
Consequently, anything that would clearly be in violation of «the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all governments», or of «the rule of law», would clearly be in violation of the Treaty, no matter what anyone might assert to the contrary. (As regards «the principles of democracy», that’s a practical matter which might be able to be determined, in a particular case, by means of polling the public in order to establish what the public in a given country actually wants; and, as regards «individual liberty», that is often the liberty of one faction against, and diminishing, the liberty of some other faction(s), and so is devoid of real meaning and is propagandistic, not actually substantive. Even the «rule of law» is subject to debate, but at least that debate can be held publicly within the United Nations, and so isn’t nearly as amorphous. Furthermore, as far as «individual liberty» is concerned, the Soviet Union was a founding member of the UN and of its Security Council with the veto-right which that entails, but was never based upon «individual liberty»; and, so, whatever «rule of law» the UN has ever represented, isn’t and wasn’t including «individual liberty»; therefore, by the preamble’s having subjected the entire document of the NATO Treaty to «the principles and purposes of the Charter of the United Nations», the phrase «individual liberty» in the NATO Treaty isn’t merely propagandistic – it’s actually vacuous.)
The NATO Treaty, therefore, is, from its inception, a Treaty against Russia. It is not really – and never was – a treaty against communism. The alliance’s ideological excuse doesn’t hold, and never was anything more than propaganda for a military alliance of America and its allies, against Russia and its allies. Consequently, the Warsaw Pact had to be created, on 14 May 1955, as an authentic defensive measure by Russia and its allies. This had really nothing to do with ideology. Ideology was and is only an excuse for war – in that case, for the Cold War. For example, a stunningly honest documentary managed to be broadcast in 1992 by the BBC, and showed that the US OSS-CIA had begun America’s war against «communism» even at the very moments while WW II was ending in 1945, by recruiting in Europe ‘former’ supporters of Hitler and Mussolini, who organized «false flag» (designed-to-be-blamed-against-the-enemy) terrorist attacks in their countries, which very successfully terrified Europeans against ‘communism’ (i.e., against Russia and its allies). As one of the testifiers in that video noted (at 6:45), «In 1945 the Second World War ended and the Third World War started». The ‘former’ fascists took up the cause against «communism» but actually against Russia; it wasn’t democracy-versus-communism; it was fascists continuing – but now under the ‘democratic’ banner – their war against Russia. This operation was, until as late as 1990, entirely unknown to almost all democratically elected government officials. The key mastermind behind it, the brilliant double-agent Allen Dulles, managed to become officially appointed, by US President Eisenhower in 1953, to lead the CIA. Originally, that subversive-against-democracy element within the CIA had been only a minority faction. Dulles had no qualms even about infiltrating outright Nazis into his operation, and his operation gradually took over not only the US but its allies. His key point man on that anti-democracy operation was James Angleton – a rabid hater of Russians, who was as psychopathic an agent for America’s aristocracy as was Dulles himself. But the CIA was only one of the broader operation’s many tentacles, others soon were formed such as the Bilderberg group. Then, the CIA financed the start of the European Union, which was backed strongly by the Bilderbergers. This was sold as democratic globalism, but it’s actually fascist globalism, which is dictatorial in a much more intelligent way than Hitler and Mussolini had tried to impose merely by armed force. It relies much more on the force of deception – force against the mind, instead of against the body.






Mikhail Gorbachev failed to recognize this fact about NATO (its actual non-ideological, pure conquest, orientation) in 1990, when he agreed and committed to the dismemberment and end of Russia’s established system of alliances, without there being any simultaneous mirror-image termination of America’s system of alliances – including NATO. He wasn’t at all a strategic thinker, but instead tried to respond in a decent way to the short-term demands upon him – such as for immediate democracy. He was a deeply good man, and courageous too, but unfortunately less intelligent than was his actual opponent at that key moment, in 1990, George Herbert Walker Bush, who was as psychopathic as Gorbachev was principled.
Source:http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/07/07/what-is-nato-really.html

US-Geheimdienstveteranen für Vernunft und wider NATO-Kriegskurs

Veteran Intelligence Professionals For Sanity 

Bitte an Frau Merkel um mäßigende Einflussname auf Warschauer NATO-Tagung

In einem neuerlichen Memorandum an die Adresse der Bundeskanzlerin wenden sich ehemals hochrangige Geheimdienstveteranen kurz vor der Warschauer NATO-Konferenz am 8. Juli   erneut an Frau Merkel und bitten darum, sie möge mäßigend Einfluß auf die kriegerische NATO nehmen.
Vor dem Hintergrund  der angeblichen „Russischen Gefahr“ vor der NATO-GeneralsekretärJens Stoltenberg unbegreiflicher und verstörender Weise warnt, richten sie Ihren Appell an die Chefin der deutschen Regierung, die sie als mildernde Stimme einschätzen. Sie nehmen Bezug auf die jüngsten Militärmanöver der NATO an Russlands Grenzen, die die ehemaligen Geheimdienstfachleute als Kenner der Moskauer Außenpolitik geradezu mit Fassungslosigkeit aufgenommen haben. Sie erinnern daran, dass es solche Manöver seit Beginn des Hitler Unternehmens “Barbarossa” vor 75 Jahren nicht mehr gegeben habe, die immerhin  25 Millionen Sowjetbürger das Leben gekostet hätten. Sie nennen es geradezu närrisch davon auszugehen, dass der russische Präsident Putin keine adäquaten ihm geeignet erscheinenden Gegenmaßnahmen treffen werde. Sie sprechen auch davon, dass die Militärmanöver an der russischen Westgrenze insbesondere auch  in der  Ukraine unbegründete Provokationen seien.
Sie applaudieren der Mahnung Frank Walter Steinmeiers, der vor der Schaffung neuer Vorwände für die Neuauflage der alten konfrontativen Politik zu recht gewarnt habe mit der Begründung, dass militärische Drohgebärden gegenüber Russland die regionale Sicherheit nicht förderten.
Die Geheimdienstveteranen gehen noch weiter und sagen, dass es der vom Westen gesponserte Coup d’Etat in der Ukraine vom 23. 02. 2014 gewesen sei, der Russlands „Annexion“ der Krim nach sich gezogen habe. Mit diesem ‘eklatantesten aller je dagewesenen Staatsreiche’ (George Friedmann/Stratfor) sei ein Vorwand für die weitere Eskalation geschaffen worden. Sie zitieren weiter den bis vor kurzem noch Obersten NATO Kommandeur Breedlove, der es auf eine Konfrontation mit Russland entgegen der Präsidentschaft seines Landes abgesehen habe; dafür habe er den Vorwand massiver russischer Waffenlieferungen an die Ostukraine fabriziert.
Die Regierung Merkel wird explizit dafür gelobt, sich nicht am US-geführten (!) Blitzkrieg einiger NATO-Länder gegen Libyen beteiligt zu haben. Frau Merkel wird aufgefordert zu einem erneuten NEIN. Positiv wird ihre nachweisliche Bevorzugung diplomatischer Wege hervorgehoben und ihr maßgeblicher Anteil am Zustandekommen des Minsker Abkommens gewürdigt. Positiv wird erwähnt, dass sie sich in Washington auch öffentlich gegen die Lieferungen schwerer Waffen an Kiew ausgesprochen habe. Es wird die Hoffnung ausgesprochen, dass es eine nüchtern-objektive Überprüfung  darüber geben werde, wer die Verantwortung dafür  trage, dass die von Merkel/Steinmeier/Hollande und Putin ausgearbeitete Vereinbarung von Minsk nicht voll umfänglich umgesetzt würde.
Beunruhigt wird in diesem Zusammenhang darauf hingewiesen, dass der Sprecher des Kiewer Parlaments Parubiy ein offener NEONAZI sei, der zusammen mit Tyahnybok den Februarputsch den Putsch vorbereitet habe, ein Führer der extrem rechten Svoboda Partei. Diese Männer, die mit der verzerrten SS Wolfsangel ihre Symbolik gefunden haben, seien es, die Russland für die Malaise der Ukraine verantwortlich machen und die das Minsk-Abkommen von Anfang an torpediert haben.
Wer immer in Deutschland und Europa  am Frieden mit Russland interessiert ist und wer immer im NATO-Aufmarsch gen Osten eine Gefahr sieht, sollte sich das Dokument der US- Geheimdienstveteranen zu eigenen und gemeinsam mit diesen US-Bürgern Druck auf die Regierung Merkel geltend machen.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen Irene Eckert, Vorstand Arbeitskreis für Friedenspolitik-atomwaffenfreies Europa e.V.
Das  genannte Dokument zeichnen:
For the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Graham E. Fuller, Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps. former United States Senator from Alaska
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service Officer, Political Counselor, Embassy Athens, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
Torin Nelson, Former HUMINT Officer, U.S. Department of the Army
Todd Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former Maj., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat

Offener Brief an Merkel: Hochrangige ehemalige US-Beamte fordern Kursumkehr der NATO

Auch eine Ausstellung gibt es: Kriegsgerät vor dem NATO-Gipfel in Warschau
Auch eine Ausstellung gibt es: Kriegsgerät vor dem NATO-Gipfel in Warschau
Wenn sich Stimmen, die Russland nahestehen, kritisch zum kommenden NATO-Gipfel in Warschau äußern, überrascht das wenig. Spätestens aber, wenn eine Vereinigung US-amerikanischer Geheimdienst-Veteranen einen Appell an die Politiker des Westens richtet, sollte man den Worten Gehör schenken. Der ehemalige Berater des US-Präsidenten Ray McGovern und zahlreiche seiner Kollegen wenden sich in einem offenen Brief an Angela Merkel und warnen vor einer Politik der Eskalation. 
Schon im Jahr 2014 adressierten die Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), eine Vereinigung ehemaliger US-Geheimdienstmitarbeiter, einen offenen Brief an Angela Merkel. Grund war die Ukraine-Krise und das Vorgehen des Westens gegen Russland. Die von den NATO-Staaten angeführten Argumente bezeichneten die VIPS als "fragwürdig und politisch zurechtgebogen".

Auch in dem aktuellen Schreiben an die Kanzlerin steht die Russland-Strategie des Westens im Fokus. Die NATO-Osterweiterung, Truppenaufstockungen und Manöver an den Grenzen zu Russland, können – beabsichtigt oder unbeabsichtigt – schnell zu einer Eskalation führen. Ein Spiel mit dem Feuer, das zu deutlichen Worten führt:
Viele von uns haben Jahrzehnte damit verbracht, Moskaus Außenpolitik zu analysieren. Ungläubig schütteln wir den Kopf, wenn wir westliche Regierungschefs sehen, die scheinbar vergessen haben, was es für Russland bedeutet, Truppenmanöver mitanzusehen, die es seit Hitlers ´Unternehmen Barbarossa´ nicht gab, das vor 75 Jahren 25 Millionen Sowjetbürgern das Leben kostete. Aus unserer Sicht ist es verantwortungslos und dumm, zu glauben, Russlands Präsident Wladimir Putin werde keine Gegenmaßnahmen ergreifen.
Unterschrieben ist der Brief unter anderem von Ex-Präsidenten-Berater Ray McGovern, dem früheren NSA-Beamten William Binney, dem ehemaligen Mitarbeiter im US-Außenministerium Daniel Ellsberg und weiteren bekannten Namen.
Die Veteranen fordern Angela Merkel auf, für vernünftige Skepsis in Warschau zu sorgen. Sollte sich die NATO nicht besinnen, drohe eine militärische Eskalation bis hin zum Atomkrieg. Ausdrücklich gelobt wird Frank-Walter Steinmeiers jüngster Vorstoß, in dem der Außenminister ungewohnt offen Säbelrasseln und Provokationen des Westens gegenüber Russland kritisiert hatte.
Trends: # NATO-Gipfel
https://deutsch.rt.com/europa/39329-offener-brief-an-merkel-hochrangige/


Merkel Urged to Temper NATO’s Belligerence



U.S. intelligence veterans are calling on German Chancellor Merkel to bring a needed dose of realism and restraint to the upcoming NATO conference, which risks escalating the dangerous new Cold War with Russia.
MEMORANDUM FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: NATO Summit in Warsaw
REFERENCE: Our Memorandum to You, August 30, 2014
We longtime U.S. intelligence officers again wish to convey our concerns and cautions directly to you prior to a critically important NATO summit – the meeting that begins on July 8 in Warsaw. We were gratified to learn that our referenced memorandumreached you and your advisers before the NATO summit in Wales, and that others too learned of our initiative via the Sueddeutsche Zeitung, which published a full report on our memorandum on Sept. 4, the day that summit began.
President Barack Obama talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the G7 Summit at Schloss Elmau in Bavaria, Germany, June 8, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
President Barack Obama talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the G7 Summit at Schloss Elmau in Bavaria, Germany, June 8, 2015. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
Wales to Warsaw
The Warsaw summit is likely to be at least as important as the last one in Wales and is likely to have even more far-reaching consequences. We find troubling – if not surprising – NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg’s statement at a pre-summit press event on July 4 that NATO members will agree to “further enhance NATOs military presence in the eastern part of the alliance,” adding that the alliance will see its “biggest reinforcement since the Cold War.”
The likelihood of a military clash in the air or at sea – accidental or intentional – has grown sharply, the more so since, as we explain below, President Obama’s control over top U.S./NATO generals, some of whom like to play cowboy, is tenuous. Accordingly we encourage you, as we did before the last NATO summit, to urge your NATO colleagues to bring a “degree of judicious skepticism” to the table at Warsaw – especially with regard to the perceived threat from Russia.
Many of us have spent decades studying Moscow’s foreign policy. We shake our heads in disbelief when we see Western leaders seemingly oblivious to what it means to the Russians to witness exercises on a scale not seen since Hitler’s armies launched “Unternehmen Barbarossa” 75 years ago, leaving 25 million Soviet citizens dead. In our view, it is irresponsibly foolish to believe that Russian President Vladimir Putin will not take countermeasures – at a time and place of his own choosing.
Putin does not have the option of trying to reassure his generals that what they hear and see from NATO is mere rhetoric and posturing. He is already facing increased pressure to react in an unmistakably forceful way. In sum, Russia is bound to react strongly to what it regards as the unwarranted provocation of large military exercises along its western borders, including in Ukraine.
Before things get still worse, seasoned NATO leaders need to demonstrate a clear preference for statesmanship and give-and-take diplomacy over saber-rattling. Otherwise, some kind of military clash with Russia is likely, with the ever-present danger of escalation to a nuclear exchange.
Extremely worrisome is the fact that many second-generation NATO leaders seem blithely unaware – or even dismissive – of that looming possibility. Demagoguery like that coming from former Polish President Lech Walesa, who brags that he would “shoot” at Russian jets that buzz U.S. destroyers assuredly are not at all helpful. Walesa’s tone, however, does reflect the macho attitude prevailing today in Poland and some other NATO newcomers.
We believe Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier was correct to point out that military posturing on Russia’s borders will bring less regional security. We applaud his admonition that, “We are well advised not to create pretexts to renew an old confrontation.”
A Need For Candor
Speaking of “pretexts to renew an old confrontation,” we believe the time has come to acknowledge that the marked increase in East-West tensions over the past two years originally stemmed from the Western-sponsored coup d’état in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, and Russia’s reaction in annexing Crimea.
Although we have a cumulative total of hundreds of years of experience in intelligence, we had never before seen planning for a coup d’état exposed weeks in advance – and then carried out anyway. Few seem to remember that in early February 2014, YouTube published a recording of an intercepted conversation between U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, during which “Yats” (for Arseniy Yatsenyuk) was identified as Washington’s choice to become the new prime minister of the coup government in Kiev.
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)
Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)
This unique set of circumstances prompted widely respected analyst George Friedman, president of the think tank STRATFOR, to label the Putsch in Kiev on Feb. 22, 2014, “really the most blatant coup in history.”
If one listens only to Western politicians and the corporate media, however, their version of recent history in Eastern Europe begins on Feb. 23, 2014. A particularly blatant example of this came on June 30, when U.S. Ambassador to NATO Douglas Lute spoke at a pre-summit press briefing:
“beginning in 2014 and still to this day, we’re moving into a new period in NATO’s long history. Why do I say that? Here’s the evidence I cite. So the first thing that happened in 2014 that marks this change is a newly aggressive, newly assertive Russia under Vladimir Putin. So in late February, early March of 2014, the seizing, the occupying of Crimea followed quickly by the illegal political annexation of Crimea. … Well, any notion of strategic partnership came to an abrupt halt in the first months of 2014.” (Emphasis added)
In view of the coup d’état and post-coup instability in Ukraine, what Ambassador Lute goes on to say about NATO’s professed desire for stability in Ukraine comes across as disingenuous. Far more important, it puts Russia on notice that – in the U.S. view, at least – meddling on the “periphery” between NATO and Russia will continue.
According to Lute, one of the “key themes” at Warsaw will be: “What do we do about the periphery.” Lute explains: “Here we talk about projecting stability. So we don’t have an obligation to defend states beyond NATO’s territory, but we realize it’s in our interest to make them as stable as possible.”
We suggest that it is past time for Western leaders to admit that there is not one scintilla of evidence of any Russian plan to annex Crimea before the coup in Kiev and the coup leaders began talking about Ukraine joining NATO. If senior NATO leaders continue to be unable or unwilling to distinguish between cause and effect, increasing tension is inevitable with potentially disastrous results – all of them unnecessary and avoidable, in our view.
Ukraine: Still Festering 
In our August 2014 memorandum, we suggested that you be “appropriately suspicious of charges made by the U.S. State Department and NATO officials alleging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.” Actually, the gravity of the situation was considerably worse than we realized at the time.
Former NATO Commander Philip M. Breedlove.
Former NATO Commander Philip M. Breedlove.
We now know that U.S. Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, who was Supreme NATO Commander until two months ago, was pressing hard for confrontation with Russia and the anti-coup separatists in eastern Ukraine. This comes through clearly in Breedlove’s recently disclosed emails, which now confirm what we believed in 2014; namely, that everyone needed to examine closely Breedlove’s exaggerated claims, many of them based on fuzzy photos and other highly dubious “intelligence.”
Lobbying for approval to wage a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine, Breedlove was highly critical of President Barack Obama’s policy, which Breedlove disparaged as simply: “Do not get me into a war.” (As though this were some kind of cowardly order!)
The emails show that behind Obama’s back, Breedlove kept trying to “leverage, cajole, convince or coerce the U.S. to react” to Russia. One of Breedlove’s email correspondents wrote back to him: “Given Obama’s instruction to you not to start a war, this may be a tough sell,” but this did not stop Breedlove from trying.
In 2015, as your own intelligence analysts were able to tell you, Breedlove went beyond hyperbole to outright fabrication with claims that “well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of the most sophisticated air defense weapons, and battalions of artillery” had been sent to eastern Ukraine.
These were the kinds of faux claims Breedlove used in attempts to enlist help from the senior military and Congress in getting Obama to supply weapons to Ukrainian armed forces.
Lest we seem to be singling out Gen. Breedlove, his predecessor as Supreme NATO Commander, Adm. James Stavridis, was hardly provided good example. A year after the U.S. led some NATO countries in a Blitz of aircraft and missile strikes against Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi, Stavridis and former U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder wrote in Foreign Affairs: “NATO’s operation in Libya has rightly been hailed as a model intervention.”
The operation was just the opposite, of course. The chaos now reigning in Libya, with hundreds of refugees drowning in the Mediterranean, offers abundant proof that your government’s decision to keep Germany at arms-length from that “model intervention” was a wise one.
While it is somewhat awkward for us to offer such candid comments on the character and caliber of the most senior U.S. generals and admirals – including those, like Ambassador Lute, who end up getting appointed to senior political positions at NATO – such a critique is unavoidable. The important reality to which we draw your attention pertains not only to their qualifications, but also to their dismissive attitude toward President Obama.
President Barack Obama and President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine talk after statements to the press following their bilateral meeting at the Warsaw Marriott Hotel in Warsaw, Poland, June 4, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
President Barack Obama and President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine talk after statements to the press following their bilateral meeting at the Warsaw Marriott Hotel in Warsaw, Poland, June 4, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
We observed in our Aug. 30, 2014 memorandum that President Obama “has only tenuous control over the policymakers in his administration.” That this includes senior military leaders can be seen in Obama’s failure to remove Gen. Breedlove, who – in addition to his intense maneuvering behind Obama’s back – made little effort to hide his open disdain for the cautious approach of his commander in chief toward the possibility of armed confrontation in volatile places like Ukraine.
An Appropriate “Nein!”
One factor encouraging us to write to you again is your proven record of insistence on tenacious diplomacy rather than saber rattling and provocation. We noted, for example, that at a press conference with President Obama in Washington on Feb. 9, 2015, you personally experienced Breedlove-type pressure for sending lethal weaponry to Ukraine – the kind of pressure still being applied to Obama himself. You stuck to your guns, so to speak, when the first designated questioner noted that the U.S. was considering providing lethal weapons to Ukraine and that your view was “very different.”
“I have given you my opinion on the export of arms,” was your unequivocal answer. Nor did you diverge from your insistent preference for diplomacy over arms, as you replied to a final, plaintive question: “Mrs. Merkel, … diplomacy, as you said yourself, has not brought much progress. Can you understand the impatience of the Americans when they say we ought to now deliver weapons?”
Ukrainian Secretary for National Security Andriy Parubiy.
Right-wing Ukrainian politician Andriy Parubiy.
We believe your resolute “nein” to providing weapons to Ukraine was a key factor in scuttling that ill-conceived idea last year. And, as you know far better than we, your clearly expressed stance helped bring about a ceasefire that, however imperfect, was infinitely better than the escalation of fighting that would have inevitably resulted from sending weapons to Kiev’s government forces.
You stuck to your position, even though it put you in opposition to nearly all political, military, and media voices in the U.S., which were expressing disdain for diplomacy and preference instead for war.
It is inevitable that there will be more proposals to send weapons to the Kiev government, particularly in view of the continued hostilities in eastern Ukraine. We hope that unbiased scrutiny can be given to which parties are responsible for blocking full implementation of the Minsk accords that you, Foreign Minister Steinmeier, and your French and Russian counterparts have worked hard to offer as a plan for peace in Ukraine.
Secretary of State John Kerry is visiting Kiev on July 7, a day before the Warsaw summit opens. He might be asked to share his impressions on the stormy political events in Ukraine over the past few months.
In our view, things have gone from bad to worse there, with Andriy Parubiy now speaker of the Ukrainian parliament. Parubiy is one of the most conspicuous leaders of Ukrainian ultra-nationalist, and outright neo-Nazi, movements. In 1991 he founded the Social-National Party of Ukraine, together with Oleh Tyahnybok, another February 2014 coup plotter, who now leads the extreme right Svoboda party.
The neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol on a banner in Ukraine.
The neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol on a banner in Ukraine.
The name of Parubiy’s Social-National Party was chosen to identify it with Hitler’s National Socialist Party. Its official symbol is the somewhat modified Wolf’s Hook (Wolfsangel), used by the SS. Both parties blame Russia for the ills besetting Ukraine.
Parubiy as Parliament Speaker makes a mockery of NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg’s insistence that NATO has resolved to make sure that a law-abiding Kiev is “committed to democracy.”
On Monday, Parubiy stated on TV, “I have not supported the Minsk agreements from the very start,” adding that Moscow’s “plans on Ukraine may be stopped only by force and international sanctions.”
Also on Monday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters that Ukraine has not made any new effort to facilitate implementation of the Minsk accords that call for a ceasefire, weapons withdrawal, local elections in eastern Ukraine, and constitutional reform.
Doing the Possible in Poland
Instead of muscle flexing and saber rattling, it would likely be more constructive if NATO leaders held a serious discussion regarding Kiev’s recalcitrance on the Minsk accords. An open discussion would mean avoiding the usual knee-jerk, wholesale identification with Ukraine’s long list of real and imagined grievances against Russia.
U.S. Ambassador Lute might be asked if knows anyone with the kind of influence with Kiev that it would take to break the logjam and move events toward implementation of the peace agreements so painstakingly worked out at Minsk.
Another worthwhile endeavor would be to establish a NATO working group to respond to Russia’s suggestion to devise organizational and technical measures to prevent close encounters or clashes of aircraft over the Baltic Sea.
Lastly, it would be highly constructive if NATO would take responsibility for assessing the fundamental factors behind the hideous outbreak of the terrorist acts that took so many lives over recent days in Istanbul, Dhaka, Bangladesh, and Baghdad. In this context, as well as in central Europe, violence begets violence. It should not be beyond the capability of NATO to undertake a fresh, hard look at why terrorism continues to increase, and to attempt to come up with new, more imaginative, less violent ways to address the issues that ultimately fuel the curse of terrorism.
NOTE: As is our custom, we are sending the White House a copy of this memorandum. We would like you to know, however, that we rarely receive any acknowledgement that our memoranda get through to President Obama – or that the he pays them any heed if they do reach his desk. We suspect that the wide generation gap between his relatively young advisers and the longtime collective experience that we in VIPS bring to the table may, in part, account for this. Therefore, if you find our thoughts informative – perhaps even provocative – we suggest that, when you see the President on Friday in Warsaw, you urge the President to obtain and read his copy.
For the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
William Binney, former Technical Director, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
Daniel Ellsberg, former State Department and Defense Department Official (VIPS Associate)
Graham E. Fuller, Vice-Chair, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)
Mike Gravel, former special agent of the Counter Intelligence Corps. former United States Senator from Alaska
Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)
Larry C Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Brady Kiesling, Foreign Service Officer, Political Counselor, Embassy Athens, (ret.) (associate VIPS)
John Kiriakou, Former CIA Counterterrorism Officer
Edward Loomis, NSA Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East, CIA (ret.)
Torin Nelson, Former HUMINT Officer, U.S. Department of the Army
Todd Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (ret.)
Scott Ritter, former Maj., USMC, former UN Weapon Inspector, Iraq
Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret.) (associate VIPS)
Ann Wright, U.S. Army Reserve Colonel (ret) and former U.S. Diplomat
Source: https://consortiumnews.com/2016/07/06/merkel-urged-to-temper-natos-belligerence/