Warnings of Nuclear War Danger from the United States and Italy
Many voices have emerged in NATO countries calling on their respective governments to take into account Russia’s legitimate demands for security guarantees, which have been cavalierly rejected up to now.
* From the United States, Tulsi Gabbard, a former Congresswoman from Hawaii and former Democratic Party presidential candidate who served in Iraq, has come under severe fire for her outspoken criticism of the military-industrial-financial complex and its war policies. In an intervention on Fox News on Feb. 24 with Tucker Carlson, she stated that if President Biden had “taken NATO off the table for Ukraine,” we wouldn’t be in this dangerous situation now. Although she does not support the Russian military intervention in Ukraine, she is extremely worried that any “tit for tat reaction” between the U.S. and Russia – the two major nuclear powers – could escalate “at a moment’s notice”.
In a tweet on Feb. 13, Tulsi Gabbard asked why NATO will not give Russia the assurances it demands. “Is it because the warmongers actually WANT Russia to invade? So that we can levy draconian sanctions on Russia and firmly establish a new Cold War which will reap the Military Industrial Complex endless profit for decades to come?”
Two other guests on the show, journalist Glenn Greenwald, and retired Lt. Col. Danny Davis, also called on NATO to refuse membership to Ukraine.
* Alfred-Maurice de Zayas is a professor of international law and former high-level independent UN expert on human rights. In an interview to the Feb. 26 Sputnik News, he notes that while the West is blasting Russia’s “special operation” in Ukraine, NATO itself has breached the UN Charter many times.“In fact, NATO is not a ‘defensive’ organization but on the contrary, an organization for offensive actions. NATO countries have committed the crime of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Not only does NATO lack moral authority, it also lacks credibility, since it has disseminated ‘fake news’ and false narratives in preparation for all its wars of aggression.” As for the United States, it “understands international law as a geopolitical tool, which is to be used and abused as necessary”.
De Zayas further points out that at the Munich Security Conference on Feb. 19-20, “NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that ‘If Russia wants less NATO at its borders, they get the opposite, they get more NATO’. This, according to was a needless provocation, throwing down the gauntlet at Putin.” At the same time, they increased the delivery of tons of weapons to Ukraine, which “was a very clear threat against Russia and contrary to the UN Charter”.
* From Italy, the former director of the UN Office on Drug Control Pino Arlacchi has called for a solution on the Ukrainian crisis which includes sovereignty for Ukraine and security for Russia. He recalls, on his blog, that Russian leaders had been given ample assurances in 1990-91 that NATO would not expand eastward, but those promises were later broken (cf. SAS 8/22). “America’s leading experts on Russia, from the legendary George Kennan to Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock to Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Perry, were unanimous in their belief that the Russian… demand for security guarantees was legitimate. The enlargement of NATO towards the East, therefore, was for them an unnecessary, reckless and provocative idea.”
What is the solution today, asks Pino Arlacchi. “the only way forward is an agreement that provides Russia with the security guarantees it has been unsuccessfully demanding for thirty years, in exchange for the cessation of the attack and a long-term commitment to respect the sovereignty of Ukraine. This can be done by an European initiative, can include the resumption of the Minsk agreements, and also the creation of a neutral status for Ukraine.”And Europe should stop playing with fire just to please its trans-Atlantic master.”