Executive Intelligence Review
This article appears in the November 14, 2014 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.

NATO Drives Toward Blow-Up
with Russia over Ukraine

by EIR Staff

[PDF version of this article]

Nov. 10—In an interview with the Nov. 9 Bonn General-Anzeiger, former West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher, who was in that position 25 years ago, when the Berlin Wall came down, exposed the imperialist outlook on which NATO’s currently escalating confrontation course with Russia is based.

“As the Wall came down, I thought the division of Europe had been overcome. In the meantime, I have come to the judgment that many in the West have understood the fall of the Wall differently, namely thus: as though the line of separation had been relocated from the middle of Europe to the western borders of Russia. That is an historical misunderstanding. The western border of Russia is not the beginning of western Asia, but [part of] eastern Europe; the great Russian people is a European people.”

Asked to be concrete, Genscher stated the one-sided EU trade treaty with Ukraine led to Russia seeing a threat. He then made a comment, pointing a finger at President Obama:

“Despite the possibility of creating a new world system, instead some think: The two blocs of the Cold War have been broken; what remains is Washington, and from there the world is ruled. When a U.S. President denigrates Russia as a regional power [President Obama, March 2014], then one shouldn’t be surprised, when she [Russia] shows what a regional power can actually do.”

Genscher has hit the nail on the head, as did former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachov in his recent comments on the anniversary of the fall of the Wall. NATO is the aggressor, not Putin’s Russia, they declared. The genesis of the confrontation between NATO and Russia—emphatically including the aggressive actions of the Nazi Kiev putschists—is the determination of Washington, the EU, and NATO to “denigrate” Russia. And while Genscher fails to mention the architect of this strategy—London—he does point to London’s puppet regime in Washington.

At the Boiling Point

The commitment of NATO to confront, and ultimately crush, Russia lies behind the current actions of the Kiev government. Although there has been no arming of the Poroshenko regime by Washington or NATO, the regime is proceeding with the full political backing of the West to expand the military confrontation with the populations of the southeastern republics of Donetsk (DPR) and Luhansk (LPR).

Despite the ceasefire still nominally in place, there is intense fighting reported in both regions, especially in the area around the Donetsk airport. While Kiev insists that Russia has sent tanks and troops into the region, Moscow denies it, and the local militias have insisted that the sighted convoys belong to them. Other local sources report that Moscow is resupplying the local militias with heavy equipment.

There is every reason for the DPR and LPR forces to augment their defense, especially in light of the ongoing Kiev assault, and especially, the events of Nov. 5.

On that date, a school in Donetsk was shelled, killing two children and wounding several others. Both Kiev and the anti-Kiev militias denied responsibility for the shelling, but an investigation by the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe)’s Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine determined that the fire had come from the northwest, a region controlled by the Kiev forces.

A Russian investigative committee has announced that it would initiate criminal proceedings over the shelling. On Nov. 9, Alexander Zkharchenko, newly elected head of the DPR, declared in an interview with LifeNews that he knows the names of all the Ukrainian military commanders who attacked the school, and intends to bring the names to international authorities for prosecution.

While the Western media has claimed that the increased fighting is the result of Russian intervention, and/or support for the local militias, it should be recalled that Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko had announced an increased troop deployment to the southeast on Nov. 4.

Broader than Ukraine

As Genscher implied, however, the source of the confrontation between NATO and Russia is much broader than the Ukraine conflict. As the Russians have repeatedly stated, at least since the Western-backed assassination of Libya’s Qaddafi in October 2011, they are responding to NATO’s overall aggressive threat to their sovereignty, and to the rule of international law.

In brief remarks on Nov. 5 celebrating National Unity Day, which commemeorates the end of Russia’s Time of Troubles in the 17th Century, President Vladimir Putin again emphasized that Russia will defend its sovereignty. “Over four centuries have passed, but the dramatic events of those times remain a lesson for us, serving as an example for all generations and a rule for us all—a rule that says we should preserve and protect our national interests,” Putin said. “Failure to bear in mind these national interests may lead to disintegration and ruin of the country; its sovereignty is of the same fundamental value as freedom and democracy.”

In the military realm, Russia’s ambassador to NATO, Alexander Grushko, clarified exactly what this means with respect to NATO, in remarks to the Kommersant daily, as reported by RIA Novosti.

“NATO cannot ignore the fact that a stronger configuration of the alliance forces will be taken into account by our military strategists, and Russia will take every necessary step to beef up its defenses against all possible threats,” Grushko said. He warned that the alliance’s decision to strengthen its “eastern flank” and NATO’s returning to its Cold War stance of opposing Russia, which it considers to be “Enemy No. 1,” would have long-lasting political implications, and that a freeze in Russia-NATO cooperation would have a deleterious effect on Euro-Atlantic security.

“We did not refuse to talk. It wasn’t our decision to suspend practical cooperation projects in the framework of the NRC [NATO-Russia Council],” Grushko said, stressing that Russia had partnered with NATO “not for the sake of partnership itself, but for the sake of greater security in the entire Euro-Atlantic region.”

A Nazi Regime Will Not Be Tolerated

From the time of the Nazi putsch against the legally elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych in February, the Russian government has made clear that it will not tolerate a fascist regime on its borders. Its spokesmen have demanded international action to prevent just such a travesty, and called for a special UN investigation on the rise of fascism in Ukraine.

The West has arrogantly denied the fascist nature of the coup it backed, but that has just become more difficult. In the early days of November, the new mayor of Kiev, Vitali Klitschko, appointed Nazi paramilitary leader Vadim Troyan, the deputy commander of the Azov Battalion and reputed active member of the neo-Nazi paramilitary organization Patriot of Ukraine, as chief of police of the capital. The Azov Battalion has gained international notoriety, even within pro-coup publications in the West, such as the Washington Post and The New York Times, for its brutal Nazi tactics, especially in the southeast.

For the Russians, and the Chinese, in particular, the memory of the devastation caused by the Great Patriotic War is a live issue. Putin’s address to the people of Ukraine on the Occasion of Ukraine’s Liberation from Nazi Occupation, Oct. 28, reflects the spirit:

“Our parents and grandparents selflessly and courageously fought side by side for the freedom and independence of our Motherland; they crushed the enemy, bringing closer the long awaited Victory.... It is vitally important to instill lofty patriotic values in the younger generation and to actively resist any attempts at reviving the Nazi ideology, fomenting inter-ethnic strife and falsifying our shared history.”

Subscribe to EIW