The conflict could easily have been avoided in the first place as far back as early January this year when Russia provided several proposals to NATO and Washington on how to de-escalate the tensions by offering security guarantees.
Moscow has been calling for Ukraine, its neighbor and former Soviet republic, to be a neutral country, neither pro-Russia nor a NATO member.
From the outside that sounds like a relatively reasonable and simple demand, considering the US promised Russia it would not take measures to offer former Soviet republics, Ukraine in particular, NATO membership, a move that effectively expands the US-led military forces eastward towards Russia’s border.
For decades critics have been warning against this move and against threatening Russia and the consequences that such measures can lead to.
The last US ambassador to the Soviet Union, Jack Matlock, speaks extensively about this. He says there were definitely assurances provided to the Russians about NATO expansion. Assurances and promises that the US has broken, Washington has a culture of cheating.
But the US cheating and lies are not just limited to Russia-Ukraine. They date back to many wars and US invasions, such as Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere.
This crisis could have been so quickly resolved with just a treaty or a declaration of neutrality on the part of Ukraine. That would have allowed Kyiv to have warm ties with the West and the East.
Unfortunately,
the US and other Western military complexes thrive on tension, it’s the only
way they can persuade Congress and parliaments and convince lawmakers to vote
in favor of legislation approving huge military spending.
Money that could be spent instead on rising healthcare problems, poverty, homelessness, damaged infrastructure, rising record inflation levels, and so many others issues in need of urgent attention back home.
NATO has proceeded to pump even more weapons to Ukraine, not giving a damn about the possibility of Ukrainians and Russians being killed. Critics say Ukraine is being used by imperialist powers to create a crisis with its eastern neighbor.
The colonial and imperialistic ideals of the US and its NATO military alliance also played a major role in rejecting Moscow’s proposals. Those proposals were rejected in the first few days of January and continue to be rejected today.
Washington not only placed the US weapons in Ukraine and on Russian borders threatening Moscow’s security, which is itself a violation of the UN charter.
Article-2, paragraph four of the United Nations Charter states, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State.”
What can be more threatening than placing missiles and other weapons on another country’s border?
Even now, the US and NATO can very easily end the conflict by declaring they have no intention of including Ukraine in the Western military alliance and announce an end to NATO’s open-door policy, with which many of the newest members in Eastern Europe joined in violation of NATO owns membership rules on existing territorial disputes.
Does
anyone imagine what the Pentagon’s reaction would be if Russia included Mexico
or Canada as part of a defensive or military alliance, expanding Moscow’s military
presence on the US borders?
Meanwhile, the US has shown no interest in peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv; despite both sides holding a second round of talks on the Belarusian border.
US State Department spokesperson Ned Price has dismissed the peace attempts saying "now we see Moscow suggesting that diplomacy take place at the barrel of a gun”.
Despite Washington's negative attitude, progress has been reported in the talks with Russia and Ukraine agreeing to the need for humanitarian corridors to help civilians escape the conflict.
The Kremlin says ‘substantial progress’ had been made in the negotiations, while the Ukrainian side pointed to an understanding on helping ordinary people.
Ukrainian Presidential adviser Mykhailo Podolyak noted that a temporary halt to fighting in select locations was also possible. "That is, not everywhere, but only in those places where the humanitarian corridors themselves will be located, it will be possible to cease fire for the duration of the evacuation," he said.
Ukraine and Russia have also seen eye-to-eye on the delivery of medical and food supplies to the regions where the heaviest fighting has been taking place.
Delegations from Kyiv and Moscow will meet again next week the Belarusian state news agency Belta cited Podolyak as saying.
The US and its Western allies responded by imposing more sanctions on Russia.
The United Nations has said one million people have now fled, seeking refuge in neighboring countries mostly in Poland and also Russia.
While Ukraine has essentially been left abandoned by Washington (much to the frustration of Kyiv), the US first lady Jill Biden did wear a Covid-19 mask in honor of Ukraine, which will no doubt help towards finding peace to the conflict.
Then comes the British and American officials and their mainstream media’s double standards on the unfortunate conflict in Ukraine.
US
administration officials and their British government counterparts say that
occupied people in Ukraine have the absolute right to take up arms against an
(imaginary) occupier.
While the argument is legally and logically correct; why has it been used only now and only for Ukraine where Washington and London are shedding crocodile tears for the Ukrainians instead of making real attempts at ending the fighting instead of abandoning what NATO describes in public as its ally.
And why is the same not said about the Palestinians who have been resisting the Israeli occupation for decades? Palestinians are instead referred to as “terrorists” for resisting the Israeli regime's occupation of their land.
The reality is Russia is not occupying Ukrainian land and has stated it has no intention of doing so, in addition to the fact that the conflict has not lasted for more than 10 days.
On
the other hand, for 100 years, the Palestinians have been subject to occupation
and they are denied weapons as an occupied people to resist an occupier and
those who try to send weapons to the Palestinian resistance fighting the
occupation are punished.
Essentially the West has shot itself in the foot for making such statements of double standards. It’s one rule for Ukraine because NATO is involved here and another for Palestine.
And what about other people who are under occupation? Do the occupied people in Iraq have the absolute right to take up arms against the US occupation? An occupation that has been classified as such by Iraqi parliament legislation, the country’s Prime Minister, and a million man march in Baghdad.
Anti-US sentiment is so high in Iraq right now after Washington assassinated General Qassem Soleimani, who commanded the Quds Force of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, and Abu Mehdi al-Muhandis, the deputy commander of the anti-terror popular mobilization units and arguably the most respected and decorated military commander in Iraq.
Under the logic of the US administration and the British government, shouldn’t the Iraqis have the absolute right to take up arms against the occupiers; instead of being labeled as terrorists?
What about Syria, where American forces illegally occupy large parts of the country’s east and northeast. The US entered the country from Iraq without an invitation from the government in Damascus and without a UN mandate so the Syrians have the absolute right to resistance against the US forces.
And the same of course can be said for Hezbollah in southern Lebanon who have been liberating their land from Israeli occupation.
But this slip of the tongue will soon be totally forgotten about once NATO gets what it wants from the conflict in Ukraine.
No comments:
Post a Comment