{"id":113424,"date":"2014-04-18T19:15:49","date_gmt":"2014-04-18T19:15:49","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/?p=113424"},"modified":"2014-04-18T19:15:49","modified_gmt":"2014-04-18T19:15:49","slug":"dear-nato-lying-russia-simply-incompetent","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/latest-news\/dear-nato-lying-russia-simply-incompetent\/","title":{"rendered":"Dear NATO: Are You Lying about Russia or Simply Incompetent?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Walter C. Uhler
\n<\/span>RINF Alternative News<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

On 14 April 2014 NATO issued a \u201cfact sheet\u201d titled, \u201cRussia\u2019s Accusations \u2014 setting the record straight.\u201d In the course of setting the record straight, the NATO fact sheet made the following false assertion: \u201cRussian officials claim that US and German officials promised in 1990 that NATO would not expand into Eastern and Central Europe, build military infrastructure near Russia\u2019s borders or permanently deploy troops there.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cNo such pledge was made, and no evidence to back up Russia\u2019s claims has ever been produced<\/em>.\u201d (My emphasis.)<\/p>\n

We know that this assertion by NATO is false, thanks to a 26 November 2009\u00a0article<\/a>\u00a0in\u00a0Der Spiegel<\/em>\u00a0that claimed: \u201cOn Feb. 10, 1990, between 4 and 6:30 p.m., [German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich] Genscher spoke with [Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard] Shevardnadze. And, according to the German record of the conversation, which was only recently declassified, Genscher said: \u2018We are aware that NATO membership for a unified Germany raises complicated questions. For us, however, one thing is certain: NATO will not expand to the east.\u2019 And because the conversation revolved mainly around East Germany, Genscher added explicitly: \u2018As far as the non-expansion of NATO is concerned, this also applies in general.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

Mr. Genscher\u2019s assurance to Shevardnadze was similar to one made earlier to Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev by U.S. Secretary of State James Baker. Mr. Gorbachev knows that such a pledge was made \u2014 and so does the former American ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock.<\/p>\n

Thus, this egregious error in the NATO fact sheet suggests either a lie or incompetent research. A deliberate lie seems more probable, given that the NATO fact sheet immediately thereafter used weasel words to deflect attention from the lie.<\/p>\n

Here are the weasel words: \u201cShould such a promise have been made by NATO as such, it would have to have been as a formal, written decision by all NATO Allies. Furthermore, the consideration of enlarging NATO came years after German reunification. This issue was not yet on the agenda when Russia claims these promises were made.\u201d<\/p>\n

Really?<\/p>\n

First, nobody accused NATO of making such a promise. Second, senior U.S. and German officials would have had every right to make such a promise without ever needing to place it on NATO\u2019s agenda. The U.S. is sufficiently powerful to enforce such a promise unilaterally. Third, such attempts by the author(s) of the fact sheet to insert NATO into this discussion suggest that somebody has forgotten that NATO actually is subordinate to the political leaders of the member states \u2014 especially the President of the United States.<\/p>\n

In addition, the author(s) of the fact sheet were less than scrupulous when presenting facts that supposedly refute Russia\u2019s charge of illegitimate behavior by NATO in its Kosovo war in 1999 and the bombing of Libya in 2011.<\/p>\n

In fact, an independent examination, titled \u201cShort War, Long Shadow: The Political and Military Legacies of the 2011 Libya Campaign<\/a>\u201d (by the Royal United Services Institute), destroys the fact sheet with its sweeping condemnation, not only of the West\u2019s (and NATO\u2019s) conduct in Kosovo and Libya, but also in Bosnia in 1995 and Iraq in 2003.<\/p>\n

In his chapter titled, \u201cThe Responsibility to Protect: A Chance Missed,\u201d Jonathan Eyal concluded that \u201cthose who criticize NATO and Western governments for going beyond their [UN Security Council] mandate [in Libya] do have a point. NATO went to great lengths to minimize civilian casualties and, overall, succeeded admirably in this objective. NATO\u2019s operation also save many lives, but an operation which was justified in purely humanitarian terms was ultimately stretched to achieving an eminently political objective: the removal of a government and its replacement by the rebels.\u201d<\/p>\n

One of America\u2019s most respected Russia scholars, Stephen Cohen, claims that President Obama deceived Russia\u2019s Vladimir Putin about the nature of the intended operation in Libya, which is why Putin refuses to trust him today. Putin admitted as much on 17 April 2014. (Clearly, Obama knows very little about Russia.) But, regardless of the source of the deception, had Russia not been deceived, it certainly would have vetoed UN Security Council Resolution 1973.<\/p>\n

Mr. Eyal adds, \u201cProbably the most evident departure from the spirit of Resolution 1973\u2013was\u00a0the decision of the Western powers to allow the supply of weapons and training to the Libyan rebels<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

But Mr. Eyal makes a more compelling point, one that blows parts of the NATO fact sheet out the water. \u201cAll of the errors [in the Libya campaign] outlined above would not have been major, had they been perpetrated in isolation, or had they been confined to the Libya episode alone. Unfortunately, however, the handling of the legal framework for the Libya operation mirrors Western behavior in previous interventions, from the Bosnia operation in 1995, to the Kosovo war in 1999 and the invasion of Iraq in 2003. In every one of these occasions:<\/p>\n

\u2014A handful of Western governments used a UN Security Council resolution that lacked full backing, supposedly on behalf of the \u2018international community\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2014In every single case, the aim was to persuade Russia to abstain, rather than veto the resolution, on the calculation that, once this was accomplished, China would be too embarrassed to be in a minority of one to torpedo the same resolution<\/p>\n

\u2014At every stage, this was accomplished by fudging the real extent of the operation being contemplated<\/p>\n

\u2014The scope of the operation then grew and was invariably translated into \u2018regime change\u2019<\/p>\n

\u2014Weapons were provided to local combatants, in violation of existing provisions<\/p>\n

\u2014Resolutions were reinterpreted unilaterally, to suit whatever purposes were required<\/p>\n

\u2014And, in every single case, once a resolution passed in the UN, Western governments precluded any further debate over its interpretation and application.\u201d<\/p>\n

In a word, broken promises to Russia by the West and NATO have been compounded repeatedly by insincerity, duplicity and dishonesty. And, yet, the ignoramuses who pollute American politics, the media, and our think tanks heap scorn on Russia, as if none of this has occurred.<\/p>\n

But, notwithstanding all of the above, the most dishonest section of the fact sheet is the part that defends the so-called legitimacy of the provisional government in Kiev. Although the fact sheet contains a few weasel words about a legitimate Ukrainian parliament legitimately electing a new president and government, it remains inexcusably silent about the events leading up to that action.<\/p>\n

The fact sheet doesn\u2019t mention that President Viktor Yanukovych was legally elected to a five-year term in 2010. It doesn\u2019t mention that, on the very day that the famously corrupt Yanukovych decided to scrap plans to sign an Association Agreement with the European Union, Hromadske. TV commenced live broadcasts that featured a pro-American reporter calling for students and youth to gather at Independence Square to protest Yanukovych\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n

The fact sheet doesn\u2019t mention that Hromadske. TV was the brainchild of America\u2019s Ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, and that it \u201cwould prove essential to building the Euromaidan street demonstrations against Yanukovych.\u201d1<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Neither did the fact sheet mention, as did Russia scholar John Quigley, that \u201cVictoria Nuland, who serves as U.S. deputy secretary of state for European affairs, stepped over a line usually observed by foreign powers when she went into the streets of Kiev in December. There, Nuland demonstratively aligned herself with the protesters and in favor of Ukraine\u2019s affiliation with the EU. According to a recently leaked audiotape of a conversation that she had with the U.S. ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, Nuland also evidently has been strategizing on ways to alter the composition of the Ukraine government. Diplomats and foreign officials are accustomed to avoiding involvement in domestic politics. Diplomatic and consular personnel risk being declared persona non grata for such activity.\u201d<\/p>\n

According to Stephen Cohen, neo-con Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt were plotting the overthrow of Yanukovych\u2019s government. And Professor Cohen made another important observation: \u201cOne last point, also something that nobody in this country wants to talk about: The Western authorities, who bear some responsibility for what\u2019s happened, and who therefore also have blood on their hands, are taking no responsibility. They\u2019re uttering utterly banal statements, which, because of their vacuous nature, are encouraging and rationalizing the people in Ukraine who are throwing Molotov cocktails, now have weapons, are shooting at police. We wouldn\u2019t permit that in any Western capital, no matter how righteous the cause, but it\u2019s being condoned by the European Union and Washington as events unfold.\u201d<\/p>\n

The fact sheet says nothing about the violence perpetrated by right wing members of Svoboda and Pravy Sektor. But sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko, a respected expert on civil disturbances in Ukraine, believes that the far right hijacked the protest.<\/p>\n

(Jacob W. Kipp, a world-renowned expert on Russia\u2019s military, recently reminded me that leaders from both organizations fought against Russians in both Chechen Wars.)<\/p>\n

The fact sheet says nothing about the sniper fire on 20 February, which commenced while Yanukovych was meeting with the opposition and EU mediators from France, Germany and Poland. Although many observers initially assumed that the snipers were Yanukovych\u2019s men, witnesses have testified that much of the sniper fire came from Kiev\u2019s Philharmonic Hall and the heavily guarded Hotel Ukraine. Both were under the control of the protesters that day. In fact, protesters had seized an Interior Ministry armory in Lviv the previous evening and transported those weapons to Kiev.<\/p>\n

The fact sheet says nothing about \u201cthe European Union-mediated deal reached on Friday, [21 February 2014] in which opposition leaders Vitaly Klitschko, Arseny Yatsenyuk and Oleh Tyahnybok and President Viktor Yanukovych agreed to refrain from using violence, while anti-government protesters had to unblock roads and squares, hand over illegal weapons and vacate the public buildings they had been occupying for months.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIn return for the protesters backing down, presidential elections were set to be held in December and reforms were to be made restricting Yanukovych\u2019s powers.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThose terms were not enough for some protesters, however, who demanded that Yanukovych step down immediately. By Saturday, law enforcement and government officials had apparently fled and protesters seized not only government buildings, but also Yanukovych\u2019s lavish residence.\u201d2<\/a><\/sup><\/p>\n

Thus, neither the EU mediators nor the opposition leaders had the courage to rein in the fascist and neo-Nazis who rejected the deal and precipitated a coup. And neither the EU mediators nor the opposition leaders had the decency to insist that the agreement reached on February 21st be honored.<\/p>\n

Such is the \u201clegitimate\u201d regime that the NATO fact sheet defends with its incompetent half-truths and lies.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \u201cMeet the Americans Who Put Together the Coup in Kiev<\/a>,\u201d by Steve Weissman, Reader Supported News, 25 March 2014. [\u00e2\u2020\u00a9<\/a>]<\/li>\n
  2. Moscow Times<\/em>, February 24, 2014, \u201cRussia: Don\u2019t Trust Ukraine\u2019s Opposition<\/a>,\u201d by Natalya Krainova. [\u00e2\u2020\u00a9<\/a>]<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Walter C. Uhler<\/strong> is an independent scholar and freelance writer whose work has been published in numerous publications, including\u00a0The Nation, the\u00a0Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, the\u00a0Journal of Military History, theMoscow Times\u00a0and the\u00a0San Francisco Chronicle. He also is President of the Russian-American International Studies Association (RAISA). He can be reached at:\u00a0waltuhler@aol.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Walter C. Uhler RINF Alternative News On 14 April 2014 NATO issued a \u201cfact sheet\u201d titled, \u201cRussia\u2019s Accusations \u2014 setting the record straight.\u201d In the course of setting the record straight, the NATO fact sheet made the following false assertion: \u201cRussian officials claim that US and German officials promised in 1990 that NATO would not […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":107052,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-113424","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-latest-news"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113424","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=113424"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/113424\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/107052"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=113424"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=113424"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/rinf.com\/alt-news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=113424"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}