Preliminary Remarks
With the disastrous withdrawal of the USA from Afghanistan in August 2021, the “war on terror”, which was a mistake from the start, finally failed. As a phenomenon with psychological roots, terrorism could not be stopped by force of arms alone. Much more far-reaching, the foundering of the superpower also meant the collapse of the international security structure – which has remained outside of public awareness with devastating consequences.
For reasons that have little to do with Russian militarism and all the more with pent-up contradictions within the western system, the danger of a major war looms for many years, more correctly a whole chain of wars and civil wars. The geographical starting point of the fighting was therefore also interchangeable and could just as well have been in the Middle East or in the area of tension between Taiwan and China. As a result, it is by no means enough to analyse the background to the conflict there in order to restore and permanently secure peace in Ukraine - although the mainstream media have not even carried out this manageable task with the due diligence.
The sustainable stopping of the escalation chain that has started requires a sober assessment of the contradictions in the Western system mentioned, which is presented to its own citizens as an authentic community of values that embodies pure goodness, which must be militarily rearmed and defended against evil. For the research required, reports from the mainstream media are only of very limited use as factual sources of information, as their tendency towards simplification and - sometimes unfair - partisanship all too often leads to subtly polarizing emotional appeals, while the actually relevant causes remain lost in a thicket of trivialities and half-truths. However, the citizens cannot expect anything else, since the "Western" media are not designed to depict reality completely or impartially after the organization of their information flows (with a filter in the form of the large news agencies and Internet search engines set up in the oligopoly). This is a matter of fact because the representatives of big money have been heavily involved in this sector for a very long time, "the people who own the society", as the social philosopher Noam Chomsky calls them - see “Das Konzept für Frieden, Freiheit und Fairness” - "The concept of peace, freedom and fairness" on www.frieden-freiheit-fairness.com, Chapter A 12.
From an unbiased point of view which avoids polarization, one doesn´t take a unilateral position against one party in the Ukraine war. Rather, authentic European solidarity requires to stand up for both sides, i.e. for an immediate reconciliation between the two historically linked nations, and to do so with determination. Because the family of European peoples and nations is currently faced with the choice of either finally understanding itself as a community that has grown historically and is connected by a minimum of solidarity, or catapulting it into the graveyard of history in a third disastrous civil war. For this it is necessary to recognize the disintegrating zeitgeist artificially cultivated by politics and the media. To this spirit of the time, among other things, we "owe" two deeply undesirable developments. One has transformed the initially idealistically coherent EU into a soulless, absurdly over-regulated collection of states with backward democratic structures, while the second - far more alarming - is in the process of mutating the sparse beginnings of European solidarity into tribal bullying, in which the post-Soviet Russia (demonstrably systematic) should be excluded from the European family of nations. The completion of this family, which was within reach in 1991, could thus be deflected into an artificial opposition.
The only correct positioning in the current war is against the war - and thus against those who unhesitatingly (and without observing minimal psychological ground rules) fuel the escalation.
1. How the "Western" Nations run into WW3 by their own Fault
Over the past century, over 190 million people have lost their lives in wars and civil wars. Unfortunately, given the current political course, there is a good chance that this number will be exceeded in the 21st century.
According to the basic idea of democracy, it is primarily neither politicians nor journalists who have to take the initiative for the necessary course correction, but the citizens. Because according to their democratic constitutions, the inhabitants of the 30 NATO countries are not passive spectators, but the legitimate rulers in their democratic states, who bear the ultimate responsibility. In particular, it is their responsibility to ensure that the war that has broken out on the eastern flank of their expanding military alliance is successfully de-escalated and mediated. - What happens when nations fail in their self-responsibility was painfully experienced by the Germans in particular as the losers of two world wars.
Choosing firstly an anti-Semitic and secondly a militaristic policy in electing Hitler's Nazi party brought them war and its consequences, including the bombing of their cities, expulsion from their homes, imprisonment and death. Since historical events do not follow the principles of a court of appeal, it is of no use to those affected in retrospect if they denounce the targeted warfare against civilians (e.g. with phosphorus bombs) as inhumane or point out that there was obviously a specific escalation interest on the part of Great Britain, which declared war to Germany, but not to the Soviet Union, which occupied the eastern part of Poland 16 days after the German invasion – and, aditionally but with a tactic time delay, the three Baltic states.
“Western” citizens currently bear the same sole responsibility for their own destiny, namely for the fact that there is still a NATO today. Even if it was the military and politicians who enforced the continued existence and expansion of this largest military alliance of all time over the heads of the citizens, it´s them who must bear the consequences.
However, the tolerant passivity of ordinary people has a long history, in the course of which they have also watched how the structures of their free-democratic system, which were designed more than 200 years ago, have become formalistic and completely antiquated to this day. If the procedures for, among other things, the nomination of candidates, election campaigns, voting, security against election manipulation and rules against the obvious breaking of election promises had been continuously developed with the latest technical possibilities, psychological findings and a responsibility jurisdiction, something like political disinterest and disenchantment with the state would never have arisen. Instead, committed citizens and vigilant journalists (who were also well informed beyond the big news agencies) would have detected and stopped the polarizing forces in politics right from the start.
A historical review, in particular of the obvious political failures before and during the 1st and 2nd World War, gives plenty of reason for a thorough rethinking. Both world wars were essentially fratricidal wars between countries of European culture, something that was diametrically opposed to the idea of European integration and shouldn't have happened at all. The new nations that emerged from European migrants in North and South America, such as Argentina, Brazil, the USA and Canada, have been providing evidence for centuries and to this day that the inhabitants of the various countries of Europe have the adaptability to build up a common nation within a few generations - if only the right political circumstances exist.
However, the creation of such conditions was prevented by polarizing forces, although the Frenchman Victor Hugo had already advocated the creation of the United States of Europe in the 19th century. While the free society of the USA, as the world's largest engine of integration, should have played the role of a model and a committed coach for Europe, increasingly disintegrating cliques of interests have determined the political direction there. The polarizing course first emerged in full force during the presidency of Woodrow Wilson (1914-1921). Contrary to his election promise to keep the USA out of World War I, weapons were delivered and in 1917 the US entered the war.
The measures that Wilson considered appropriate at the time to subsequently create acceptance in the American population for taking part in the war have proven to have serious consequences. There were essentially two pieces of legislation, one of which spawned the Committee on Public Information (CPI). This authority, which became known as the Creel Committee (1917-1919), had the task of manipulating the flow of information on the subject of war in a way that was unilaterally directed against Germany. This defamation and propaganda machine not only contradicted the simplest rules of independent and fair journalism, but also the American constitution.
The same applied to the Espionage Act, a law that still exists today(!), which, among other things, threatens those people who uncover secret actions by security authorities - such as Edward Snowden and Julian Assange - with maximum penalties in closed court proceedings. The military and intelligence agencies routinely justify this unconstitutional crackdown on idealistic whistleblowers and dissenters as “endangering national security.” This justification, which is of course valid for ongoing secret service investigations, has no legal validity in the case of actions that have long since been completed.
On the contrary, the military and secret services have to answer to the democratic constitutional state - more conscientiously than any other authority. Specifically, they owe evidence that their every action was, as alleged, in the interests of national security. The fact that they have been able to "successfully" evade this burden of proof since 1898 is probably the single most serious omission in the context of the stagnation of democratic mechanisms. Because to the extent that the legitimate trust of the citizens cannot be applied unrestrictedly to the military and secret services, an existence-threatening security deficit emerged. (There are indications that the credibility of the relevant forces is not much better on the Russian side.)
At a closer look the case of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange - who has uncovered various machinations carried out by the security apparatuses like no other human being – comes out to be the perfect indicator for the question of whether the nations of the "west" will succeed in immediately putting a stop to the polarizing forces to command and avert the threatening nuclear escalation. Because the nations of European civilization can only be saved from a third and final fratricidal war with the same objective enlightenment and democratic determination that is required to save Julian Assange.
Politicians and citizens alike are therefore called upon to take immediate action on Assange's behalf and to educate themselves using independent sources of information outside the mainstream media, as responsibility requires. Especially with regard to the case of the Wikileaks founder, there is nothing to avoid the findings of the UN special envoy, Prof. Nils Melzer. In his words "..., the case is of symbolic importance and affects every citizen of a democratic country". - ... the case is of emblematic importance, it is important for every citizen in a democratic state. / Nils Melzer in an interview with Daniel Ryser 2020 in Republik.ch, reference https://www.republik.ch/2020/01/31/nils-melzer-about-wikileaks-founder-julian-assange
Melzer, who like no other has gained insight into the worldwide lack of rights of torture victims and into the entanglement of secret services and the military, sees the growing danger of the power of the security organs stubbornly evading any democratic supervision. Among other things, this threatens critical-investigative journalism, i.e. the guarantors of a correctly understood freedom of the press (which is not limited to private disposal of the media), freedom of expression and, above all, actual, controlled security.
There can only be sustainable protection if people at all levels can live in an atmosphere of mutual trust. In order to be able to work towards this ambience, free development opportunities for critical-investigative journalism are a basic requirement so that the legitimacy of public trust in institutions and decision-makers remains verifiable. – Militarism leads away from these conditions, because trust cannot be enforced by force of arms.
2. Russophobia and the Practicable Nuclear War
It is very obvious that there is a remarkably assertive bloc of promoters of an armament policy in the USA. The influence of this security establishment, namely in the Pentagon/Ministry of Defence and in the secret services, is firstly due to the eastward expansion of NATO and secondly to the increase in American armaments expenditure to meanwhile well over 700 billion dollars per year - about 11 times (!) the Russian military budget .
Up until 1991, as long as the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact military alliance still existed, these militarists in Washington could always point to new weapon systems from the enemy in the east when they needed to get the money for the next “rearmament” approved by Congress .
After 1991 there was nothing left to rearm against Russia, which had shrunk to half its population compared to the dissolved Soviet Union, was thrown back economically, got rid of its military alliance and, above all, was no longer communist. On the contrary, the urgent imperative of the relaxed historical moment was to dismantle the existing arsenal of weapons in a mutually agreed and coordinated manner in order to replace anachronistic militarism with non-violent concepts of competition (more details in Chapter B 6. at www.frieden-freiheit-fairness. com).
But against the idea of sincere understanding and against all fairness towards Russia, NATO not only remained in existence, but was expanded eastward to the borders of what was left of Russia. First, member states of the Soviet-Russian military alliance such as Poland and Hungary were incorporated, and later former Soviet republics such as Latvia and Lithuania. The 16 NATO member states have now grown to 30. In line with this expansive course, the officially purely defensive task profile was expanded in practice and now also includes worldwide interventions (e.g. Kosovo War 1999, Iraq War 2003, intervention in Libya 2011), whereby the member states were not and are not formally obliged to participate.
This suggests the assessment that the enlargement and upgrading of NATO have always been primary goals, independent of the objective need for protection of the free-democratic nations, for which it was only a matter of finding the right justifications, i.e. in truth pretexts. - This leads to the further question of who is interested in this militaristic expansion. Superficially, one can assume that the armaments lobby is behind it. However, at second glance one realizes that a focus on the economic side distracts from the actual essence of "modern" weapons - and this consists in their gigantic potential for destruction and their purpose directed against human life.
Militarists tend to ignore any criticism of the dangerous course with reference to the deterrent effect of powerful armament. With nuclear weapons, their ultimate effectiveness has led to the misconception that they would never be used because a slugfest left only losers, not winners. However, the consideration is incomplete, because the real winners are precisely all those states that are not involved in the war at all. Also enjoying a pre-programmed winner status are all individuals and groups who have access to highly secure protection systems - some of which have already grown to the dimensions of small underground cities.
In the context of NATO, this consideration casts an unfavourable light on the intelligence and sense of responsibility of the governments of those European countries that have agreed to the installation of American nuclear weapons systems on their territory. As various sources confirm, these are Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Germany. The deterrent effect against attacks that can undoubtedly be achieved in this way is bought at an exorbitantly high price, namely with the enormous danger that the launching facilities pose in an actual case of war. Because then they become targets of the highest priority, both for pre-emptive strikes and for counterattacks. The fact that the number of US nuclear warheads in Europe has been reduced to a fraction compared to the 1980s only makes the situation supposedly safer. Indeed, this brings the scenario of a limited nuclear war into the realm of the conceivable and feasible.
However, the real dimension of this danger only becomes clear when the parallel eastward enlargement of the EU is taken into account - because it created it´s own military alliance called PESCO in 2017. Formulated even more clearly than in the NATO treaty, Article 42, paragraph 7 of the EU treaty declares a mutual obligation of all member states to provide assistance in the case of an attack. The French “initiative” in the direction of a European defence union, which became loud again during the Ukraine war, is lagging behind the facts that have already been created – and is distracting the citizens from them.
The question of who might have an interest in a major war should be clarified by means of a dragnet. On the one hand, those concerned must be among the predestined winners of a nuclear war, i.e. they must live in countries that are not involved and/or have access to high-security protection systems. A second grid filter asks about the people at whom the accumulated weapons are aimed - who can thus be identified as (supposed) enemies of the people in question.
As the arsenal accumulated with NATO enlargement is increasingly directed against Russia, the sought-after group presents itself as russophobic (after the communist profile no longer exists). Historically, systematic russophobia was politically articulated at the latest with the so-called Crimean War (1853 to 1856), when Great Britain, together with France, massively interfered in a dispute between Russia and the Ottoman Empire, against the idea of European solidarity in favor of the Turks.
For much longer, however, the direction of British policy has been determined by forces that show little inclination to give their nation an integrating role with the people of Europe. For example, the North American colonies would not have had to separate from the British motherland as the USA if this "mother" had not treated her "children" under this polarizing influence as enemies who can be plundered, oppressed and patronized at will (see text of the American Declaration of Independence). These people are the financial establishment that has since moved its headquarters to the United States. This has not changed anything in terms of russophobic activities. Beginning with the Crimean War, a red thread can be traced to the current situation:
1. Savoy (northern Italy) later intervened in the Crimean War of the Turks, British and French against Russia. In England, the accompanying propaganda went so far as to portray the Russian Orthodox Church as a serious threat to the Anglican Church at a time when the Moslem Ottomans controlled large parts of south-eastern Europe.
2. In 1904, American banks financed the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War, which helped them to victory in 1905.
3. In 1917, the Warburg Bank financed Lenin's October Revolution, which, along with the subsequent civil war, cost the lives of 5 to 9 million people in Russia.
4. The Central Bank of the Soviet Union was built by the Rothschild banking house; the Bolshevik regime under Stalin claimed another 20 million lives.
5. The National Socialists were also financed by American banks. Their military ambitions to conquer Russian land were well known from the outset from Hitler's book Mein Kampf.
6. After their use as tools against Germany (with the criminal Stalin as the friendly "Uncle Joe" in American media), "the Russians", their government and their Bolshevik system were again classified as dangerous as early as 1947 in a 180 degree turnaround.
7. The supposedly liberal economic reforms under Gorbachev/Gorbachev at the end of the Soviet period bore clear traits of predatory capitalism, i.e. the system of the financial establishment, in terms of their style and the destructive result. Russia became a victim of plunder (Chapter A 22).
8. Under pretexts, delays and unfounded accusations, the overtures of post-Soviet Russia (reflected in the NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997) towards the “West” have been blocked and deflected into prejudiced opposition to “the Russians”.
9. With the unfair continuation of NATO after the dissolution of the Soviet Union and its expansion to the East, which was unfair to Russia and unprincipled due to the abolition of system opposition, the artificial opposition was continually increased.
10. With the one-sided and inadequate information on the background of Crimea's reconnection with Russia, an example allegedly demonstrating Russia's aggressiveness has been created "that must not be repeated" - more precisely in Chapter A 22.
11. The image conveyed in the media of a groundless Russian war of aggression against an adequately cooperating Ukraine emotionalizes the citizens irresponsibly against Russia and against Russians - instead of rationally criticizing the militarism of both sides, which threatens everyone.
12. This creates acceptance for the escalation with arms deliveries, tough sanctions, troop deployments and eventually with military intervention. In a psychologically devastating way, those who refused to sign the Minsk Agreement of 2015 were strengthened in their stance instead of being warned. - A correct and effective “Western” response would have been to pressure the Ukrainian government to signal a willingness to negotiate on the issues at stake on the very first day of the invasion in order to achieve an immediate ceasefire.
On the contrary, under the artificially created conditions, it became possible for Ukraine to break off negotiations for a peaceful settlement of the conflict on May 17, 2022 and set an unacceptable precondition for a ceasefire – complete Russian withdrawal from “Ukrainian territory”. Since, according to the Ukrainian interpretation, this includes Crimea, it is already becoming apparent that the Crimea question, which has not been resolved under international law, is in danger of developing into a pivot for World War III. After all, a militarily enforced re-annexation of the peninsula to Ukraine in defiance of the 2014 residents' referendum would mean Russia crossing the red line and "seurely” unleashing nuclear war.
3. The True Level of Ideological Debate
The American government is making efforts to elevate the Ukraine war to the level of an ideological dispute and speaks of the struggle between despotism and freedom - as an appeal to the world that it is now a matter of defending freedom in Ukraine.
Such a claim has been articulated many times in the long list of American interventions and arms assistance since World War II. But contrary to lip service, dictatorial governments were remarkably often supported, for example in the Korean War, in the Vietnam War, in the alliance with Chiang Kai-Shek on Taiwan and in numerous cases in Latin America (e.g. Somoza in Nicaragua). - Just as remarkably often, the actual operations in the name of freedom and democracy have led in the opposite direction, namely in people being uprooted, in a turn to radical groups and in political destabilization up to the point of permanent civil war (e.g. in Guatemala, Afghanistan, in the Iraq and Libya).
But the Ukraine war indeed has it´s roots in an ideological dispute - even the decisive one - but on a completely different level than the American government would like to suggest. The front runs right through the middle of the militarily hostile camps and it separates the militarists and their followers from those who undeterred rely on understanding and refuse to regard the people militarily on the other side as their enemies who have to be killed. They accuse the literally endlessly escalating militarists on both sides that they have learned nothing from the past two world wars and are about to unleash a third - this time with a far greater potential for destruction. - To be more precise, it's about self-destruction, because both world wars were basically fratricidal wars between countries of European culture, something that was diametrically opposed to the idea of European integration and actually shouldn't have happened at all.
On this decisive ideological front between the tribalistic will to fight on the one hand and the rational search for understanding, it is about the self-liberation of civilization from a suicide bomber explosive belt, which reaches far beyond Ukraine and which militarists have sold under pretences and false promises as their protective vest (extremely expensive).
However, the liberation that is now necessary for survival can only be permanent if citizens and politicians understand the background of militarism and recognize that this tribalistic anti-concept is historically outdated and unsuitable for the future (more on this in Chapter B 8). It is necessary to go further will:
4. The Unrecognized Falsification of a Peaceful Model for Freedom and Integration
During the Middle Ages and up until the early modern period, the military served as an instrument of power for aristocrats who lacked solidarity and bled their subjects to death in disputes over expanding their personal spheres of influence. With the meteoric rise of the liberal-democratic United States in the 19th century, the historic replacement of militarism was within reach. The predetermined role of the freest nation in the world was that of a model for all other countries, which should have developed into the center of a growing non-violent community of values. This could soon have reached the level required for the position of a globally unchallengeable leading power (see Chapter B 4.). Thanks to its authority, this leading power would have assumed the role of a fair arbitrator and a guarantor of international peace.
However, to the greatest chagrin of mankind, circumstances have intervened that have diverted the United States from this preordained integrative path. Because, after the liberation of the citizens from the egocentric noble lords in the French Revolution, financially strong circles took over their position as a new ruling class without solidarity.
As a political system and disintegrating ideology, the power of big money (actual capitalism), which has meanwhile been established worldwide, entered history as early as December 31, 1600, when the East India Company received the monopoly of use (actually the right of oppression and exploitation) for the Indian subcontinent from Queen Elizabeth I of England (more details in Chapter A 4. at www.frieden-freiheit-fairness.com). Since, collaboration with the state has remained the strategic backbone of the rule of big business to this day, keeping the magic cycle going, which works by achieving more money through more privileges and more privileges (at the expense of smaller market participants) through more money (e.g. invested in lobbying and NGOs).
This actual capitalism - in contrast to the fair market economy (more in Chapter A 2.) - stands as an unofficial power in competition with the democratic power of the citizens and on an international scale with the sovereign states. The age-old and unfortunately still “successful” strategy of domination applies on both levels, to keep all individuals, groups of people and governments in disagreement and to play them off against each other.
History confirms that the policies of the well-known centers of capitalist power, namely Britain, the USA and the UN, have indeed been characterized by polarization and disintegration for a long time. Chinese philosopher and politician Sun Yat-Sen was one who was able to analyse specifically the strategy of the country of origin, Great Britain. “The key policy of England is to attack the strongest enemy with the help of the weaker countries and join the weakened enemy in checking the growth of a 3rd country”. / Matthew Ehret, Sun Yat-sen's Advice to Young Revolutionaries, in Rising Tide Foundation, February 2021, reference https://risingtidefoundation.net/2021/02/17/sun-yat-sens-advice-to-young-revolutionaries/
As Su Yat-Sen has aptly pointed out, British policy was directed against any emerging or already powerful nation. These were above all Spain, which together with Portugal developed the largest cultural continent in the world in Latin America, the great Russia, Germany and France, as long as it was expanding under Napoleon. The insularity of Britain makes this strategy understandable, as only a great power like the Roman Empire was able to successfully invade there. However, since obstacles such as medieval fortress walls and the English Channel are losing their protective effect with technical progress, a strategy such as the British alliance policy can historically only represent a short-lived interlude without sustainability. Rather, the progress of civilization favours processes of concentration which, from many small peoples and countries, lead to the emergence of a few large nations, states and alliances that are solidary within themselves (see Chapter B3.).
The historic interlude of the disintegrating, all-against-all British politics would normally not be mentioned here. But the USA, which in 1776 had specifically renounced the oppression by the non-solidary operators of this British policy (see text of the Declaration of Independence!), was caught up unnoticed by the same forces and since then has been led on the same disintegrating and polarizing course - exactly as it was recognized by Sun Yat-Sen. Namely, the US have been repurposed as the tool of the powerful - as the "weakened enemy" used "to control the growth of a third country." In addition to France, Germany and Russia, such a “third country” was also Japan, as long as it was the leading Asian power. In the meantime, the agitation of the mainstream media against China, which is rapidly expanding economically, shows that it is also already on the red list - see Chapter A 31 towards the end.
However, the function of the USA intended by the financial establishment, namely, as that of a global authoritarian controller, stands in contradiction to the actually given leadership role in the formation of an authentic, free community of values, which, as an indisputable alliance, could long since be a fair arbitration power for lasting peace (more in Chapter B 4.) .
Just a few examples demonstrate the means by which forces without solidarity have diverted American politics away from the integration of peoples, from a fair market economy, from sustainable international understanding and from the peaceful and effective dissemination of free-democratic ideals.
For 333 years, the Philippines had belonged to Spain, which, like in Latin America, had pursued a very strict but also integrative policy. When the USA took over the island country during the Spanish-American War in 1898, there was an excellent opportunity to familiarize the residents with the principles of self-responsibility and liberal democracy. Instead, the takeover began with a gross breach of trust, in which false hopes of state independence were deliberately nurtured on the Philippine side.
In order to be able to easily break the Spanish resistance without casualties, US diplomats persuaded the exiled resistance leader Emilio Aguinaldo to return to the Philippines. He was held in the belief that with the USA, he had found a sincere liberator, at whose side the right time had come to fight for Philippine independence. So motivated, the Filipinos defeated the Spaniards almost entirely by themselves. After that, however, they found themselves under a new foreign rule, and one that was far harsher than the previous one.
Instead of entering into a trusting cooperation with the locals, subordination was demanded from them. Approaches to resistance were met with "consistent" violence, without questioning the causes and psychological motives. The actions included the burning down of entire villages, massacres, torture and placement in concentration camps. Including victims of the epidemic under these conditions, between 1899 and 1903 around 10% of the then 7 million inhabitants of the archipelago died as a result of external influences.
Three characteristic circumstances which accompanied these "pacification measures" provide information about the political tools s by which it was possible to divert the USA from its historically predetermined path as a great model of freedom: Firstly, there was censorship until 1901, which shielded the American public from information from the Philippines, so that the democratic vigilance remained largely off. Second, it was the military that could exercise this censorship themselves. Third, the free press failed in its function as a critical guardian of the rule of law, freedom and fairness even when private soldiers' mail finally shed light on what was happening on the islands in 1901. After initially outraged voices, a “level-headed” type of commentary prevailed in the mainstream press, which propagated understanding for the inhuman treatment of the Filipinos – in total ignorance of the free-democratic value base of the United States. / Cf. e.g. Thomas Spekmann, Amerikasmillenfall, in Der Tagesspiegel 2009, reference https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/geschichte/guerillakrieg-Americas-suendenfall/1467292.html
The systematic shielding of citizens from relevant information by means of military censorship increased significantly during World War I when the so-called Creel Committee was created in 1917, a few days after the USA entered the war. In addition to censoring all military reporting, it´s activities also included targeted propaganda misinformation and polarizing emotionalization. The American participation in the war, shielded from criticism and opposition in this way, was able to prevent the already foreseeable understanding between the - demonstrably - exhausted European war opponents "in time" - which firstly resulted in hundreds of thousands of additional victims and secondly in the peace treaty at Versailles, which was characterized by hatred. This way WW II was pre-programmed - which again brought a censorship and propaganda authority, this time called Office of War Information (1942 to 1945).
In order to be able to ward off the much underestimated potential for escalation of the Ukraine war, the moral claim of the largely non-democratically controlled militarists to to represent free democracy must be rejected and demanded back for themselves by the citizens who have been ignored in this vital question - see Chapter A 27. As a factual justification, it is sufficient to point to their chronic failure in a large number of military interventions that were allegedly necessary to defend free democracy, but which in total have led to the opposite - from Vietnam to Central America to Afghanistan, see Chapter A 20., A 23. and Appendix C 6.
NATO only has a rudimentary relationship with the democratic community of values that the USA should have built up according to its historically given mission as a model of free humanity. Forming this would have required a peaceful integration of the European peoples, following the example of the newly created immigrant nations on the American double continent. As an unofficial instrument of power of a moneyed aristocracy with primarily British roots, NATO is much more in the succession of the military alliance in the Crimean War of 1853, when the efforts of disintegrating circles in Great Britain to exclude Russia from the European family of nations were served. The alliance consisting of 4 partners (Ottoman Empire, Great Britain, France and Savoy) has now grown to 30 NATO members, all of which are positioned against Russia. And as they were then only a tribalistic group of states serving the interests of non-solitary powers while breaking European solidarity in it´s authentic meaning, we find the same situation today. However, this Russia, which has since shrunk and been thrown back economically, has one last trump card, and that is the apocalyptic potential of its nuclear arsenal.
The great danger lies in the fact that this arsenal cannot have a deterrent effect on groups of influential but non-solidary people because they dispose over highly secure protective systems. The unmistakable zeal with which the British government is ahead of everyone else when it comes to delivering arms to the war zone, is exposing the country to a particularly large extent in case of a nuclear escalation. Possibly, for England respectively Great Britain the time has come to complete its own capitalistic circle – after repeatedly having used other countries as tools in their alliance policy and dropped them after completing the task (e.g. Serbia). - However, given that the focus was always on serving the interests of a superrich minority and not those of the British nation (and least serving all European solidarity), the question arises as to whether the British government's current all-too-provocative dash against Russia may be seen as a harbinger for a possible sacrificing of the United Kingdom in a nuclear exchange with Russia (and whether the replacement of Boris Johnson has to do with that).
With the same incomplete logic that has persuaded people for decades that the absurdly accumulated nuclear weapons potential would never be unleashed due to the mutual deterrent effect, an even more threatening psychological connection is overlooked: Once started, conventional war involving nuclear powers like the current one in Ukraine, at a certain point in the escalation will almost certainly end up in a nuclear war. This particular point is identical to what is expressed by "crossing the red line". What is particularly alarming is that the "Western" security establishment has a lot of experience in provoking an adversary beyond that line. The most recent example is Lithuania's hindrance to the movement of goods to the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad since June 18, 2022 (which has already been decided to be gradually increased). – In the same way gradually increasing is the eastward expansion of NATO since 1999, which had reached the red line at the latest with the Ukrainian application for membership, but actually with the country’s systematic rearmament since 2014.
In view of NATO's more than 15 times higher military expenditures than Russia's and thus almost unlimited capacities to deliver weapons to Ukraine, Russia's chances of successfully ending this war after failing to perform a brief, decisive stroke are very poor. On the one hand, this indicates a chaos situation of endless fighting with maximum suffering of the civilian population, as it existed in Afghanistan until 2021 and still exists today in north-eastern Iraq and Syria. On the other hand, within the framework of these combat operations, there is always the danger that the aforementioned red line will be crossed for Russia and the decision to use nuclear weapons will be made.
That will almost certainly be the case at the moment when a Ukrainian re-annexation of Crimea looms. In view of this already foreseeable danger with all its consequences (the Russian nuclear potential is sufficient to depopulate all of Europe and large parts of the rest of the world), it is essential for the survival of the European nations and peoples, in the initial phase of this third great fratricidal war (including the Crimean War of 1853 to 1856 already the fourth) to find immediately their mediator role, which they have alone and in their own interest.
In the heated atmosphere of tribalistic escalation with non-stop new sanctions and arms deliveries, it is important to identify (see Chapter A 14.) and dissolve the enormous psycho-barriers that keep people from taking on this balancing role.
It is important to pay special attention to a perfidious element of psychological warfare (see Chapter B 11. and Appendix C 7.). This element is based on a gradual establishment of a legally incorrect assessment of historical events, pursued with great perseverance and stubbornness. These events also include the reunion of Crimea with Russia in 2014 with its long history, especially the purely administrative transfer of the peninsula from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954 (Chapter A 22.) within the Soviet Union, after belonging to Russia for 171 years.
The notice is extremely important because otherwise citizens would mistakenly consider a violent re-incorporation of Crimea to Ukraine in violation of the residents' right to self-determination, to be justified.
The danger that Russia will be pushed to the brink of using nuclear weapons in a military dispute over Crimea, can only be averted by an urgent warning to the Ukrainian government. According to this, the right to self-determination must be respected in the Crimean question – as part of a negotiated solution while strictly avoiding military conquest.
From time to time American voices have alleged a threat consisting in a possible use of chemical weapons by the Russians.
The advance notice is to be received with particularly critical vigilance. Firstly, Russia destroyed its corresponding arsenals in compliance with the 1990 bilateral chemical weapons treaty as early as 2017, while the American military is behind schedule and is putting off until 2023. Secondly, independent experts from the OPCW in The Hague reviewed the report by the (specially compiled) department "Investigation and Identification Team" (IIT) on alleged use of poison gas by Syrian government troops (with Russia being indirectly suspected), which was presented to the media by the American side. Fundamental errors in the scientific procedure were identified, which cast doubt on the value of the expert opinion. (Among other things, none of the team members was on site in Syria.) / Cf. Karin Leukefeld, Chemical weapons deployment in Syria: Justified reasons for doubt, in NachDenkseiten May 2020, reference https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=60651
Thirdly, if chemical weapons were used by XY in Ukraine, a false narrative would already be available to blame the Russians, although these can´t have any motive to act against Ukrainians with weapons of mass destruction. On the contrary, especially since 2001, every effort has been made to emphasize the close ties and similarities between the Russian and Ukrainian "fraternal people".
The only really reliable protection left to the citizens of the "West" is their judgement-capable mind and their democratic right to vote. In this way, they can turn to such political groups that immediately put a stop to the already automated escalation - and thus prevent the final European self-destruction.
As in World War I with the Creel Committee and in World War II with the Office of War Information, the critical mind is faced with a thicket of propaganda influences now, on the threshold of World War III. Ironically, the news from the war zone is once again subject to censoring and propagandistically manipulating influences. By decree of March 20, 2022, Zelensky “merged” Ukraine’s television channels in order to “have a unified information policy.” At the same time, several opposition groups were banned from continuing their work, accused of being Eurosceptic, pro-Russian and “anti-liberal”. This also affects the second largest party in the country, whose chairman Viktor Medvedshuk was placed under house arrest in February 2021. / Christiana lever, Ukraine bans pro-Russian parties, in Der Siegel, March 20, 2022, reference https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/ukraine-Sicherheitsrat-verbietet-arbeit-prorussian-parties-a-e1591b8e-da89-48fb- 9db4-a9b5aa39d188
In violation of the rules of free journalism, three television stations that advocated normalizing relations with Russia were also shut down at the time.
These anti-freedom and anti-democratic measures stand in grotesque contradiction to the media-wide narrative, according to which the Ukraine war is about defending free democracy against autocratic despotism, when in reality only two imperfectly democratic countries got into a war. It is high time to recognize that an ideological war is being fought in Ukraine on the wrong front, while the correct front line separates the irrational militarists of both sides from those who oppose the disintegration of the European family of nations and reject firmly the Pentagon's insinuation that with Russia disarmed, the world would become a safer place.
Rather, the history of the preceding world wars shows that the results of military measures taken by the "West" were regularly far away from the announced goals. In 1939, Great Britain defended the guaranteed independence of Poland against Germany , but not against the Soviet army that invaded there 16 days later, so that the country was degraded to a communist vassal state as a result of the war and had to cede the entire east of its territory to the Soviet republics of Belarus and Ukraine.
It is foreseeable that a subjugated (rest of) Russia would face a similar career by joining a military alliance against China. This would once again serve the interests of big business, which has been waiting for a long time to incorporate the mineral resources of Siberia, most of which are state-owned.
The group of countries supplying arms to Ukraine corresponds exactly to the target countries for Russian nuclear strikes in the event of an escalation. However, this very real and very imminent danger remains well below the alert threshold, with the attention of “western” citizens engrossed by the alleged threat to liberal democracy.
The US Department of Defence is already a step further - when it announces the real aim of the war, namely "to weaken Russia so that it can no longer wage war". The nuclear collateral damage of such disarmament is predictable. The procedure is about as rational as trying to put out a burning ammunition dump - and provides another example of the highly narcissistic all-times tendency of those in power to sacrifice the life and health of their subordinates for their selfish and unprincipled goals without hesitation (see Chapter A 18. Points 8.1 to 8.11).
It is high time to recognize that the enormous danger of escalation of the Ukraine war can only be averted in a rational dialogue between "Western" politicians and the Russian and definitely also with the Ukrainian government, but never militarily against Russia.
Understanding this is the crucial intelligence test for policy makers. The practical application is already inevitable with the reconquest of Crimea by the Ukraine - which is almost inevitable given the continued unlimited and unconditional delivery of weapons from the West. If the test is not passed, namely by ignoring the residents' right to self-determination, the very severe consequence is the self-conjured nuclear apocalypse. - History shows no mercy to those who do not learn from it.