It has become quite clear that NATO, particularly two of its
key members, the United States and Britain, has no desire for a peaceful
settlement to the crisis unfolding in Ukraine.
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.