Fuel on the fire – British civil society for diplomatic response to Ukraine crisis — RT EN

13 Feb 2022 6:33 pm

While some representatives of NATO member states or those who would like to be, almost turned into warnings and threats about an impending escalation in Ukraine and many media representatives are only too happy to repeat or even reinforce this, more circumspect voices hardly get prominent platforms. Even Ukrainian government officials have urged the West to moderate, and recently explainedan invasion is not imminent.

There are people and alliances in many places who are clearly in favor of peace and stability – even in countries whose governments seem to be planning a military confrontation.

something like that in Great Britainwhose not only badly scratched domestically Prime Minister Boris Johnson spoke on Thursday of the “most dangerous moment” and the biggest security crisis for Europe in decades. According to critical observers, however, he heated it up at the same time onby he as well as Washington and other NATO members tons of heavy armor sent in the direction of that front for which that Pentagon already declared war in autumn 2019 practiced.

?? ??⚡Latvia has now started supplying arms to Ukraine. Canada is helping them with this by providing its C-17 transporter. It is currently operating a flight from Riga to Lviv. #Donbasspic.twitter.com/26wiyoypjh

— Dean O’Brien (@DeanoBeano1) February 11, 2022

Because while in the current crisis NATO officials are accusing Russia of planning an invasion of Ukraine and citing military maneuvers on Russian territory as evidence, it has military alliance All sorts of artillery has been brought up from all sorts of directions – and has been for some time, although Moscow is aware of this provocation named.

Accordingly, it is the context, the much-quoted “bigger picture,” the macro-view of the events that moderating commentators are citing, even though they run the risk of being marginalized and defamed. For example, the British anti-war group “Stop the War Coalition”, which has been active for decades, had to be reproached by Labor leader Keir Starmer in his public campaign speech for his unshakeable NATO line, saying that it was by no means a benevolent voice for peace.

In Great Britain, as elsewhere, those who oppose NATO rhetoric are sometimes portrayed as downright traitors to the almost existentially important common value base. They are said to have a general affinity for the villain in the Kremlin, who is evident in this black-and-white tale, or even presumed that they advocated one supposedly upcoming Russian aggression towards Ukraine. Although this is not yet a NATO member, the remaining citizens of Europeand possibly beyond, prepare for an existentially threatening war.

Tell that to the people of Afghanistan or Libya

“At best they are naïve, at worst they actively support authoritarian leaders who directly threaten democracies. It is not progressive to show solidarity with the aggressor when our allies show our solidarity and, crucially, our practical support need,” Starmer claimed in a report published in the Guardian text, which seems like a pure paean to the military alliance. This is therefore purely defensive: “There is no equivalence between a defensive alliance that has never provoked a conflict and those who want to burden others with the appalling costs of a war,” claims Starmer irony free.

Lindsey German, Chair of the Stop the War Coalition answeredMay Starmer say this to the people of Afghanistan and Libya who have suffered so much from NATO’s wars. However, the statement that NATO is a defense alliance does not become any truer simply by asserting it.

“She has moved very far geographically from the North Atlantic, which was her original remit. Her origins date back to the Cold War; she has played an expansive and interventionist role since the end of that war in 1989, and is now actively involved in maneuvers and arms shipments in Eastern Europe. She is increasingly looking to the Indo-Pacific region as another source of conflict,” writes German, also in the Guardian.

A look back at the interventions shows that, despite all the accusations, the coalition has always been right:

“More than 20 years ago we were told that opposing the war in Afghanistan was tantamount to supporting the Taliban; then we were told we would help Saddam Hussein when we demonstrated against the war in Iraq in 2003. When we When we opposed NATO’s bombing of Libya in 2011, we were accused of supporting Muammar Gaddafi.”

However, “Stop the War” has been right about the previous wars, while those who falsely supported it seem to have learned no lessons from the dire consequences of their mistakes, German said.

“A war over Ukraine involving nuclear powers could have far worse consequences.”

Starmer’s task as part of the British opposition is to oppose the current government. Instead, he seems to be positioning himself as the opposition to the peace movement and beating the drums of war even more than they do British government, stressed also Andrew Murray from “Stop the War”.

Starmer’s predecessor, Jeremy Corbyn, effectively left office by members of his own party was sabotagedhas as outspoken opponent of the war Starmer’s allegations in a virtual panel discussion organized by “Stop The War” on Thursday rejected and noted that the coalition was formed in 2001 in response to 9/11 and was already arguing during those years that invading Afghanistan could not be the right solution.

Twenty years later, after thousands of deaths and also with the miserable situation of the people in Afghanistan, it is evident that the approach at that time, the only solution was to send troops and bombs into the country, can only mean for the current situation that you can do a little have to think further.

The military demonstrations of power in the current Ukraine crisis are incredibly dangerous, especially on the part of Washington with the support of Great Britain. Like other speakers before him, including Professor of Russian and European Politics at the University of Kent, Richard Sakwa, Corbyn pointed to diplomatic bases, including the Minsk Accords, being pushed back as an alternative to military means.

Expansionist logic as the basis of aggression

Sakwa also responded to this and also explained that further agreements had to be observed in order to solve the current conflict in Europe. According to Sakwa, the current situation only arose because after the first Cold War, Russia was deliberately denied the option of transformation and a common European home, in particular by George HW Bush. Instead, contrary to what was agreed at the time, the focus was on NATO expansion to the detriment of Russia’s security interests.

While some Western governments today still refer to some of the principles of the post-Cold War world order agreed upon at the time, including the Helsinki Accords, the Charter of Paris and several others, but only half did so. Proponents of NATO often refer to the fact that states have the choice of how they organize their security, i.e. whether they join NATO. However, the other half is left out, namely the agreement “security is indivisible and the security of each participating State is inseparable from that of all others”. Nevertheless, since then it has followed an expansionist logic, without taking Russia’s security interests into account.

Against the background of the current tensions, the security interests presented by Moscow only in December last year were rejected without going into the substantive points therein. They are the same ones that Moscow has long presented as its national security interests. These points of indivisible security had also been put forward by Medvedev in Europe more than ten years ago, but they were ridiculed then as they are today. The British government is only pouring fuel on the fire.

The current task must be to find a position for Ukraine that enables security for all sides through a European security order, which does not currently exist because some actors are against it. According to Sakva, the possibility of good cooperation between Moscow and Kiev has long been deliberately poisoned. Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski had already advised a split between Russia and Ukraine.

It was also Brzeziński who saw the opportunity in 1979 to give the USSR “its Vietnam War”. After the invasion of Afghanistan he rejoiced:

“We did not urge the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the likelihood that they would intervene.”

Against the background of the current tensions over Ukraine, the “Stop the War Coalition” sees Boris Johnson’s threat of war in Ukraine as a maneuver to divert attention from the implosion of his prime ministership, and also warns with regard to former belligerent Labor politicians, many of whom are British today partly as war criminal look at:

“Don’t be fooled again.”

More on the subject – Bipartisan coalition of US officials urges Biden to show more respect for Moscow’s concerns





Source link