Organizing Notes

Bruce Gagnon is coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. He offers his own reflections on organizing and the state of America's declining empire....

My Photo
Location: Brunswick, ME, United States

The collapsing US military & economic empire is making Washington & NATO even more dangerous. US could not beat the Taliban but thinks it can take on China-Russia-Iran...a sign of psychopathology for sure. We must all do more to help stop this western corporate arrogance that puts the future generations lives in despair. @BruceKGagnon

Wednesday, February 02, 2022

Washington trying to replace the U.N. with NATO


Biden saying, 'Let me guess. Ukraine loves us. Everyone in NATO loves us. The whole world loves the USA!'

The seemingly unbridgeable gap between the major powers was on full display at the Security Council as they sparred over Ukraine and Russia’s security concerns, reports Joe Lauria at Consortium News.


Tensions in U.S.-Russia relations soared yet higher on Monday as the two powers voiced polar opposite positions on events surrounding Ukraine and European security at the U.N. Security Council.

The U.S. and its allies on the council painted a stark picture of an outlaw Russia threatening to invade Ukraine, while Russia sought to zoom out to the larger picture of Western threats to Russia’s security.

Russian Ambassador Nebenzia Vassily Alekseevich pointed out that even Ukraine’s president had asked the U.S. not to stir up panic. “Ukraine talked of the lack of a threat from Russia,” Alekseevich said. “We should not use the rostrum of the Security Council to push forward the propaganda of our colleague,” meaning the American ambassador.

U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield answered Alekseevich by saying the meeting was “not about antics and not about rhetoric,” and also “not about the U.S. and Russia, but peace and security about one of our member states.” She said the U.S. had spent $5 billion since 2014 so that Ukraine would be “prepared” for a Russian invasion.

Thomas-Greenfield told the council that “Russia’s actions strike at the very heart of the U.N. Charter. This is as clear and consequential a threat to peace and security as anyone can imagine.”  She said, “Russia’s aggression today not only threatens Ukraine. It also threatens Europe. It threatens the international order.”   

The U.S. ambassador said if the Security Council “stands for anything, [it] stands for the principle that one country cannot simply redraw another country’s borders by force, or make another country’s people live under a government they did not choose.”

U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield claimed 'Russia threatens the international order.'     


 As any student of recent history or any astute newspaper reader understands, the United States, with its long history of coups, including by military invasions and occupations, has made many “country’s people live under a government they did not choose.”

Thomas-Greenfield portrayed Russia’s proposed treaties with the U.S. and NATO to create a new “security architecture” for Europe as being “extensive new demands and aggressive rhetoric” paired with “Russia’s military buildup.”

Thomas-Greenfield then accused Russia of shunning diplomacy, when it was Russia who asked for diplomatic meetings with the U.S. in Geneva and NATO in Brussels. “Russia could, of course, choose a different path: the path of diplomacy,” she said. “In recent weeks, the United States, along with our European allies and partners, and other nations around the globe concerned by Russia’s threat to Ukraine, have continued to do everything we can to resolve this crisis peacefully,” as Washington and its loyal media beat the drums of war.  

The Russian Response 

Alekseevich responded by saying that Russia is witness to a “very unusual situation” even in “these crazy times.” 

“Relocation of troops within our own national territory, which happened many times before on a larger or smaller scale and was never regarded hysterically,” he said, “as well as the relocation of military personnel … stationed in their garrisons rather than at the Ukrainian-Russian border, is considered by our American and Western colleagues as a confirmation of [an] allegedly planned military campaign … of Russia against Ukraine that is about to start in the next couple of weeks if not days.”

Alekseevich added: “At the same time, they provide no proof to back such grave allegations.” The U.S. has released satellite photographs of Russian military installations on Russian soil, with no indication of how close to Ukraine they are.  Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told the press on Friday that Ukrainian intelligence interpreted the satellite images differently than the U.S. and saw no readiness for invasion. 

Alekseevich said: “Our Western colleagues say that de-escalation is needed, but they are the first to build up tension, enhance rhetoric and escalate the situation. Talks about an imminent war are provocative per se. It might seem you call for it, want it and wait for it to come, as if you wanted your allegations to come true.” 

He refuted Thomas-Greenfield’s assertion that Russia has threatened an invasion. “No Russian politician or public figure has uttered any threat about a planned invasion of Ukraine,” Alekseevich said.

He said Russia’s “Western colleagues” didn’t care about Ukrainians but only to divide Ukraine from Russia in order to weaken Russia. The U.S. had falsely linked cries about a Russian invasion to Russia’s treaty proposals to the U.S. and NATO, he said.

“As for our security-related demands, they are much broader,” Alekseevich went on. “Ukraine’s non-accession to NATO and non-deployment of foreign troops at Ukraine’s territory constitute only a small portion of much-needed arrangements that could considerably improve the military and political situation in Europe, and in the whole world.” 

Turning the tables on the U.S., the Russian ambassador asked the council which country was the real threat to international peace and security:

    “The maneuvers that the United States undertook to convene this meeting look especially inadequate and hypocritical against the fact that it is Americans who have record rates of military presence outside their national territory. American military officers, advisers, and weapons (including nuclear) are often located thousands of kilometers away from Washington. To say nothing of the fact that American military [ad]ventures claimed dozens and hundreds [of thousands] of  lives of people in the countries to which they were bringing peace and democracy.


Russian Ambassador Nebenzia Vassily Alekseevich

The United States repeatedly (i.a. in the recent years) used force against other states without Security Council consent. Their toolkit includes unilateral sanctions and coercive measures, as well as threats that they regard as a verdict of some sort of Supreme Court and try to make everyone deliver on them.

As reported by American experts, 84 out of 193 UN member states have been subjected to US occupation or aggression to some degree. In the course of 20th and 21st centuries, American troops have been deployed in one way or another in 191 states.

In a right of reply, Thomas-Greenfield said she was “disappointed” by Alekseevich’s “false equivalency” — the stock line from the Cold War, which says it is false to equate U.S. behavior with the aggression of others. “There are no plans to weaken Russia,” she said. “Welcome Russia as a responsible member of the international community,” which means, of course, following the Washington Consensus.

Alekseevich then replied that he had not heard one word from Thomas-Greenfield about the Minsk agreements “and that is very indicative.”


My take: US-NATO wants to expand into a global military alliance & replace United Nations

The US strategy is increasingly to divide the United Nations as a way to reject the UN. The US is tired of the Security Council. The US, and its war-mongering fascist allies, don't want to have to go to Security Council anymore to request approval for another regime change operation or war. 

They can't get Chinese or Russian approval anyway, thus they have hit the road and are out scooping up the most reactionary governments to join this 'Global NATO'.  The latest being Qatar. 

NATO signs these nations up as NATO 'partners' and then begins transforming their military (by forcing them to buy US manufactured expensive high-tech weapons systems) but always the Pentagon controls the tip of the spear.

With this armed apparatus Mr. Big hopes to keep cracking the whip over the backs of China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela and many more.

The first job of this 'enhanced NATO' is to take down Russia and China - while they think they still can pull it off. 

But after 77 years of the US ruling the roost, the debacle in Afghanistan has caused many to doubt that the western empire has the moral clarity, sanity, peaceful intentions, wisdom and sense of justice to be handed the right to rule over Mother Earth.

Those days are vanishing by the second.


NATO HQ meeting of their endless war council in Brussels     


~ Parts reprinted from Consortium News


Blogger Regis said...

Another good one, Bruce. Personally, I couldn't bring myself to watch the lies and abject hypocrisy of the US and western vassals. It was a disgusting display of arrogance, hubris, and self-deceit.

And, the real fight is ideological one where the U.S. is doing all it can to maintain its hegemony in an outdated unipolar world, while Russia, China and a growing number of other sovereign states are actively building a multi-polar world where all are equal, sovereign, and enjoy the same rights. This is the real battle. The winner is clear as the world changes, but the frightening question is, will the hegemon, realizing it has lost this epic battle for control and domination, blow the whole world up with it in a nuclear Armageddon?

2/2/22, 9:52 AM  
Blogger Bruce K. Gagnon said...

Excellent comment...I agree with every bit. The neo-cons have displayed over the years their complete lack of conscience as they wage never ending war. If the global public does not rise up to reject US-UK-NATO 'exceptionalism' and war-mongering then it is likely to turn out badly for all of us.

2/2/22, 10:07 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home