NATO’s Unconventional War Against Russia
NATO Suspends Cooperation with Russia over Ukraine and Crimea. The New NATO Doctrine: Conventional Strategic Pressure as Cover for Unconventional War.
Christof Lehmann (nsnbc) : NATO foreign ministers on Tuesday, agreed to suspend coöperation between Russia and NATO, and agreed on their commitment to enhance the Alliance’s collective defense. NATO denounced as illegal, Crimea’s accession into the Russian Federation and denounced Russia for an “illegal military intervention in Ukraine”. Measures NATO is taking also include enhanced cooperation with Sweden, Georgia, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf countries. Russia maintains that the accession of Crimea into the Russian Federation was consistent with international law and denounces NATO for an aggressive military expansion that poses a direct threat against Russia.
On Tuesday, April 1, 2013, NATO’s foreign ministers reaffirmed their commitment to the Alliance’s collective defense and agreed to further support Ukraine while suspending NATO’s cooperation with Russia. NATO Secretary General warned Russia “not to make a mistake”, saying:
“NATO’s greatest responsibility is to protect and defend our territory and our people. And make no mistake about it, that is what we will do”.
Rasmussen stressed that the ministers had directed Allied military authorities to develop additional measures to strengthen collective defense and deterrence against any threat of aggression against the alliance, and added:
“We will make sure we have updated military plans, enhanced exercises and appropriate deployments”.
NATO has already upgraded its presence in Poland, Romania and the Baltic States, including extra surveillance patrols over Poland and Romania and increased number of fighter aircraft allocated to NATO air policing in the Baltic States. It is noteworthy that one of the stipulations of the agreement for the reunification of Germany was that NATO would not deploy any troops to any of the former Soviet Republics and Warshaw Pact member states.
The NATO foreign ministers issued a joint press release, denouncing Russia for an alleged, “illegal military intervention in Ukraine” and for the “violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity”. The NATO foreign ministers stressed that NATO does not recognize Crimea’s accession into the Russian Federation and denounced Russia for “Russia’s illegal and illegitimate attempt to annex Crimea”, adding that NATO urges Russia to “take immediate steps, to return to compliance with international law and its international obligations and responsibilities”.
Russia for its part, maintains that both the referendum in Crimea, the declaration of independence of Crimea, and the accession of Crimea into the Russian Federation are in full accordance with international law. The Russian expert in international law and governance, Alexander Mezyaev explained the Russian position and the comparison with Kosovo:
The United Nations International Court of Justice handed down an advisory opinion in 2010 saying unambiguously that the unilateral declaration of independence is in accordance with the international law.A referendum based decision is not a «unilateral declaration of independence». The Court’s ruling was related to the unilateral declaration of independence by the illegitimate government of Kosovo and Metohija. In the case of Crimea the government is democratically elected and legitimate. There are no international norms to be violated; such norms simply do not exist.
With regards to NATO’s claims that the referendum and the accession of Crimea into the Russian Federation violated the territorial integrity of Ukraine, Mezyaev stressed that the claim sounds solid at first glance, but that the claim has no legal basis.
To define what is meant with “the principle of territorial integrity” stated Mezyaev, one should refer to the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations adopted by the resolution 2625 (XXV) of the United Nations General Assembly on October 24 1970. Mezyaev also elaborates on the principle of non-inteference into internal affairs as well as on the principle of self-determination. About the latter Mezyaev concludes:
Finally, the very same Declaration contains the principle of self-determination of peoples. It reads,
«By virtue of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, all peoples have the right freely to determine, without external interference, their political status and to pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and every State has the duty to respect this right in accordance with the provisions of the Charter».
Russian Measures to Deescalate Tensions. Russia maintains that the coup d’État by the new Kiev government was a criminal act and that the post-coup government therefore is an illegal government. Russia’s President, Vladmimir Putin has in that regard repeatedly stressed that Russia wants to have good relations with Ukraine, but that he, as a president, currently does not have a counterpart in Kiev.
Russia has, however, taken steps to de-escalate the situation by authorizing military overflights over the Russian – Ukrainian border with Ukrainian surveillance planes, to defuse false claims about a Russian military buildup along the Ukrainian border. While Kiev has not made use of that trust-building measure, both Kiev’s and NATO member State’s state and corporate controlled mainstream media and governments continued a hard-line denunciation policy backed by false claims about a Russian military escalation. Although Russia maintains its position about the illegality of the government in Kiev, Moscow has offered Kiev talks about all matters and concerns which could contribute to a de-escalation and to trust-building between Kiev and Moscow.
Legality versus Legitimacy. NATO and its constituent governments, for their part, carefully avoid the use of the terms legal and legality when it comes to the situation in Ukraine and the post-coup government in Kiev. Rather than constructing arguments which are based in international law, stressed Mezyaev, NATO member States attempt to divert attention from international law by using vague, and legally invalid terms like legitimate, illegitimate or legitimacy which are purely theoretical legal terms. Mezyaev stressed:
It is defined by law scholars and has no commonly accepted or even legally binding criterion. Now why is everybody keeping on, talking over and over again, about the «legitimacy» of power, while fully ignoring the term «legality»? These are the words by the US State Department spokesman:
«We are in the same place we have been in, which is that we don’t – we believe that Yanukovych has lost his legitimacy as he abdicated his responsibilities. As you know, he left Ukraine – or left Kyiv, and he has left a vacuum of leadership. So we continue to believe that he’s lost legitimacy and our focus remains on the path forward».
Claims about a Russian Aggression. In the press release, the NATO foreign ministers denounce Russia’s military aggression against Ukraine. The first to introduce allegations about a Russian aggression was Ukraine, on February 28 and the UN Security Council Sessions on March 1 and 3. Mezyaev wrote about the allegations:
On March 3 the United Nations Security Council’s deliberations were focused on two aspects of international law.
First, the Ukraine reported that Russia rejected its request to launch immediate consultations in accordance with article 7 of the 1997 a bilateral Treaty on Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership.
Second, it affirmed that «The Russian Federation has brutally violated the basic principles of the Charter of the United Nations, obliging all Member States, inter alia, to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State».
Both of the arguments put forward by the so-called representative of the Ukraine have weak points. The matter is, that from a legal point of view, there has been no request made, asking Russia to hold any consultations. This affirmation is obvious because there is no legal entity in existence to do so.
Maintaining the illegality of the post-coup government, Mezyaev stressed that the ousted President, Victor Yanukovich, who had to flee the country after being fired at, had authorized Russia to assure the security of Ukraine, and that NATO’s claims about any Russian aggression therefore are baseless and have no hold in international law or Ukrainian law. Mezyaev wrote:
On March 3 the Russian Permanent Representative showed to the UN Security Council members a letter signed by President Yanukovych asking for military involvement. It said,
«As the legitimately elected President of Ukraine, I wish to inform you that events in my country and capital have placed Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Chaos and anarchy reign throughout the country. The lives, security and rights of the people, particularly in the south-east and in Crimea, are under threat. Open acts of terror and violence are being committed under the influence of Western countries. People are being persecuted on the basis of their language and political beliefs. I therefore call on President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin of Russia to use the armed forces of the Russian Federation to establish legitimacy, peace, law and order and stability in defence of the people of Ukraine».
NATO: Don’t bother US with the Facts. Don’t bother US with Law. Russian Complaints rejected saying “It’s none of your Business”. Regardless of NATO’s failure to base its arguments and condemnation of Russia in international or in Ukrainian law, the NATO foreign ministers imply that Russia had challenged peace, political independence and the territorial integrity of the Euro-Atlantic region as a whole.
Neglecting the post coup-Kiev government’s threats to abolish Russian as a second official language, pogroms against the Jewish community, and wide-spread violence by ultra-nationalists, overtly neo-Nazi parties and fascist organizations, the NATO foreign ministers press release claims that NATO advocates an independent, sovereign and stable Ukraine firmly committed to democracy and respect for human rights, minorities, and the rule of law as a key to Euro-Atlantic security. To demonstrate NATO’s commitment to Ukraine, wrote the foreign ministers:
“we will intensify our cooperation in the framework of our Distinctive Partnership. Today, NATO and Ukraine have agreed, as set out in the statement by the NATO-Ukraine Commission, to implement immediate and longer-term measures in order to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to provide for its own security. … We have also today agreed a package of measures aimed at deepening our cooperation with other NATO partners in Eastern Europe, in consultation with them and within our existing bilateral programmes.
The NATO foreign ministers added, that NATO, over the past twenty years has consistently worked for closer cooperation and trust with Russia, adding:
“However, Russia has violated international law and has acted in contradiction with the principles and commitments in the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council Basic Document, the NATO-Russia Founding Act, and the Rome Declaration. It has gravely breached the trust upon which our cooperation must be based”.
The press release continues, stressing that NATO has decided to suspend all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia. Political dialog, in the NATO – Russia Council, however, could continue as necessary, at the Ambassadorial level and above, to allow us to exchange views, first and foremost on this crisis. The suspension would be reviewed in June.
The announcement is a stark reminder about the fact that NATO grossly overstepped the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 (2011) on Libya which authorized the implementation of a no-fly-zone. NATO abused the resolution to bring about regime change with the aid of the bombardment of the country’s military as well as the destruction of the country’s infrastructure, and with the support of al-Qaeda and Muslim Brotherhood brigades which were armed and funded by GCC and core NATO member states.
The statement is also a stark reminder of NATO’s illegal war on Yugoslavia, the illegal war on Afghanistan, the illegal war on Iraq, and the state-sponsorship of internationally banned terrorist organizations in Syria, which, currently, are are involved in the ethnic cleansing of Christian Armenian Syrians in Syria’s Lattakia province.
Russia’s President Vladimir Putin stressed NATO’s illegality and disregard for international law when he delivered the speech for the accession of Crimea into the Russian Federation on March 18. Putin denounced NATO and its members for breaching all and every agreement with Russia, adding that when Russia complains, it is condescendingly told, that
“It’s none of your business”. He added, “can you imagine greeting NATO soldiers in the streets of Sevastopol? I mean, not on a visit, but stationed there?”
NATO’s response to Russian concerns, however, it not a mere “It’s none of your business”. Without saying it explicitly, what NATO’s foreign ministers stressed, is that the Alliance’s push toward the East and the strategic encirclement of Russia would be boosted in response to the Russian position with regard to Ukraine and Crimea.
The immediate “initiatives” from NATO’s side include increased cooperation with Gulf-Arab nations, increased military cooperation with Georgia, and increased cooperation with the Swedish Air Force. All of the above measures were announced within 24 hours after NATO suspended its cooperation with Russia.
NATO Upgrades Cooperation with Gulf-Arab Nations. NATO Foreign Ministers met with their counterparts from the Istanbul Cooperation Imitative (ICI): Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates. NATO announced that this was the first meeting at the level of Foreign Ministers with the ICI countries, since the official launch of this initiative at the NATO Summit in Istanbul in June 2004. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said about the initiative:
“The launch of our initiative 10 years ago was a clear signal. That the security and stability of the Gulf region is of strategic interest to NATO. Just as the security and stability of the Euro-Atlantic area matters to the Gulf region. … We need to protect our sea lanes, energy supply routes, and cyber-networks. We face complex and interconnected security challenges, such as terrorism, piracy and proliferation. They are challenges that we need to tackle together”.
Rasmussen failed to mention the Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, alongside core NATO members USA, UK, and France, are the main sponsors of terrorism in Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, as well as in the Russian Republic of Chechnya and Russia’s other Caucasian Republics. Rasmussen did, however, indicate the nature of the more covert part of “the initiative” when he said:
“Over the past decade, our dialogue and cooperation have steadily intensified. From Bosnia to Kosovo, and from Afghanistan to Libya, our Gulf partners have made valuable contributions to NATO-led operations. … As we look to the Wales Summit this September, we will work on ways to deepen our political dialogue and practical cooperation. And we will discuss how we can tailor our cooperation so that it fits our Gulf partners’ specific security needs”.
It is worth mentioning that core NATO-member USA was the de-facto creator of Al-Qaeda, and that NATO-backed Al-Qaeda fighters committed some of the worst atrocities and massacres against Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo. In 2012, the then NATO commander James G.Stavridis described the NATO operation in Libya as a “teachable moment and a model for future interventions”.
More “Security” at NATO’s North-Eastern Flank. NATO – Sweden increase Cooperation. On Tuesday, two US fighter jets under NATO command were scrambled from the Siauliai air base in Lithuania Tuesday, reports NATO. The US jets under NATO command were scrambled to exercise with two Swedish Gripen fighter aircraft over the Baltic Sea, in a training event designed to improve coordination and emergency procedures.
The Baltic Regional Training event is conducted several times a year. The exercises bring fighter jets from NATO countries together with the air forces of Sweden and Finland, which are longstanding partners of the Alliance. What NATO again, fails to report is that the agreement on the reunification of Germany prohibited the deployment of NATO troops to Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. Again, both NATO’s military and its PR doctrine appear to be based on the principle:
“Don’t bother us with facts. Don’t bother us with law. It’s none of your business, Russia”.
NATO reports that Search & Rescue and air combat training are included in the two-day event. The training aims at enhancing effective cooperation between NATO and its parter Sweden. Addressing the situation in Ukraine and tensions between Russia and NATO, the alliance stressed that:
NATO normally has four to six fighter jets deployed for the air-policing rotations. In light of the current crisis in Ukraine, the United States has reinforced the air-policing mission with additional aircraft. Many European Allies have also offered additional planes to the mission.
NATO increases ”Support” of Georgia. NATO Foreign Ministers also met with their Georgian counterpart Dr. Maia Panjikidze in the NATO-Georgia Commission on Wednesday, reports NATO.
The Alliance states that the meeting took place for “an exchange of views on Georgia’s progress in implementing reforms and on developments in Georgia and in the region”. NATO Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen spoke about NATO’s cooperation with Georgia, saying:
“As a country aspiring to join our Alliance, Georgia is a special partner for NATO. And we very much value our political dialogue and practical cooperation. … At this time, it is more important than ever to stress that the breach of territorial integrity and sovereignty is unacceptable. That nations have the right to make their own free choices. And that those choices should be respected by all”.
NATO’s foreign ministers reportedly also expressed their recognition for Georgia’s outstanding contribution to NATO operations and to Euro-Atlantic security. Fogh Rasmussen said in that regard:
“You are the largest non-NATO troop contributor to our mission in Afghanistan. You have committed to contribute to our planned Resolute Support Mission. And we welcome your decision to take part in the NATO Response Force. … You have made remarkable progress with ambitious democratic and defence reforms. Further progress will require continued constructive cooperation between the government and the opposition. Following the presidential elections last year, the upcoming local elections in June will be another important milestone for Georgia’s
It is noteworthy that the Ukrainian ultra-nationalist liberation army UNA-UNSO, which cooperated with German SS and military troops during the second world war, has played a not insignificant role in Georgia’s war against Russia.
UNA-UNSO is known for having close ties to NATO’s Gladio network. Moreover, even though both Ukrainian European and US-American politicians denounce the Ukraine’s Pravy Sector as responsible for the sniper killings of 90 and the injuring of more than 500 in Kiev, the day before the armed coup, most analysts who who are read into NATO’s Gladio network agree that it is overwhelmingly probable that it was not Pravy Sector but UNA-UNSO snipers who were hired to carry out the mass murder.
Unconventional Warfare the New NATO Doctrine – Also against Russia. NATO’s new military doctrine is based on unconventional warfare. As former NATO Admiral James G. Stavridis stressed during a 2013 Forestal Lecture, the developments in military technology have made a war of walls, which ended with the end of the cold war impossible. New warfare, stressed Stavridis, is based on asymmetric warfare.
Moreover, a classified training circular for US Special Forces, titled “Special Forces Unconventional Warfare”, TC 18-01, stresses that the United States, for the foreseeable future, will be predominantly involved in unconventional warfare. The training circular was published in nsnbc international and can be accessed HERE. James G. Stavridis also stressed, as already mentioned, that NATO considers its regime change in Libya as a teachable moment and model for future interventions.
Knowing that NATO planners are aware that a conventional, full-scale military confrontation with Russia, let alone a nuclear confrontation would not only be counter-productive but non-survivable; aware of the fact that the strategic balance would not afford either side the possible to emerge as a victor of a full scale confrontation; there is a pressing need to answer the question what function NATO’s continued encirclement of Russia and posturing could have.
NATO advances one step at the time, maintaining and increasing the military pressure against Russia, knowing that Russia is as unlikely to mount a large scale military campaign as NATO. The purpose is to maintain pressure on Russia, economically, strategically, and to deny Russia an effective military counter-move while stressing its geopolitic sphere of interest, and increasingly also Russian republics with unconventional war.
Saudi Arabia’s support of Chechen and Caucasian terrorist organizations in Chechnya and the Caucasus play an important role in NATO’s war on Russia. Saudi, Qatari, Turkish, US, UK and French-backed mercenaries in Syria are playing an important role in NATO’s war against Russia. The UNA-UNSO has been playing an important role in the Ukraine and in Georgia’s war on Russia.
The order of the day for NATO is plausible deniablity as “the Alliance” while core NATO member states are directly or indirectly involved in that unconventional, fourth-generation war on Russia. One example for NATO denial of involvement is the answer the author received after asking NATO’s press office about the use of a NATO member’s military bases in Turkey which are used by Turkish and US troops as well as “rebels” who participate in the war on Syria. A NATO official replied, stressing that:
“There are no NATO bases in Turkey from where incursions into Syria are launched. In fact, NATO is not engaged in any military actions in or against Syria. … NATO’s only military activity in the region is our defensive Patriot deployment which protects Turkey against the threat of Syrian ballistic missiles. These Patriots batteries have been based in Turkey since early 2013. With regard to the conflict in Syria, the Secretary General has made very clear that negotiations towards a political solution are the best chance for peace. There is no military solution to the conflict and NATO fully support the efforts of the international community to find a peaceful solution”.
March 21, 2014, NATO member Turkey provided artillery, tank and missile fire support, targeting Syrian army positions, while thousands of “rebels” fighting under the banners of Jabhat al-Nusrah crossed the Turkish – Syrian border and launched a large-scale campaign in Syria’s Lattakia province.
The complete ethnic cleansing of Christian Armenian Syrians from the city of Kessab was one of the first objectives that was reached.
The United States provides advances anti-aircraft missiles and anti-tank missiles for the insurgents. Meanwhile, NATO suspends Russia’s “partnership for peace” and claims that NATO is not involved in Syria – at all – with the exception of “defensive” Patriot missile systems.
It is this fourth-generation warfare that is being waged against Russia. It is a warfare that is as relentless as rust. It never sleeps.
It will be wide awake and eye its next objectives when the time has come that NATO finds it more useful to let the dust of Ukraine and Crimea settle and to offer Russia to become a “partner for peace” – again.
Ch/L – nsnbc 02.04.2014