NATO Faces Capitulation in Europe

Various sources define capitulation as “an agreement in time of war for the surrender to a hostile armed force of a particular body of troops, a town or a territory.” NATO in this instance stands for the Outlaw US Empire in Europe as it’s an organization that it founded in 1949 to further the clandestine war it had waged against the USSR since 1945 when it rescued the Ukrainian Nazis known as the OUP and OUN and Nazism itself. Thus, the use of Ukraine as an “Anti-Russia” began in 1945, all of which is well documented in archives that are now public and formed the basis for several books and magazine essays that began to be published in the 1990s. What the Post-war West intended to do was to reinvigorate Hitler’s Plan Ost for the subjugation of Eastern Europe and Russia most particularly. Many grand plans to use atomic weapons to advance that main plan were initiated beginning even before VJ-Day in September with Churchill’s Operation Unthinkable but were shelved for one reason or another. Thus, the Cold War actually began as soon as WW2 ended with the Western-backed OUN and other Nazis sent into Eastern Europe to promote a campaign of terrorism to destabilize the USSR’s attempts to deal with all the Pro-Nazi nations it now occupied.

At the time, all these terrorist methods and the resurrection of Nazism by the Outlaw US Empire were top-secret as the Western public would’ve condemned such action against the primary allied nation that defeated the Nazis. So, the Anti-Communist Crusade that was to be waged as a continuation of the Western involvement in the Russian Civil War to destroy the Soviet state began as an undeclared war as were all subsequent conflicts between the two sides—including those after the USSR’s demise and defeat of the Cold War’s stated rationale—to defeat Communism. The important outcome is that the Cold War never escalated into a Hot War. We should also recall that NATO’s opposite, what became known as the Warsaw Pact, didn’t come into being until 1955 and that the Soviets tested their A-bomb in 1949 creating a deterrent to NATO.

In 1991, the USSR perished, but the Cold War continued despite many promises that it would end. Given its publicly stated rationale, NATO should have been disbanded—Communism in Europe was dead; the West appeared to have triumphed. But NATO was kept alive and against further promises oral and written continued to expand towards Russia. NATO then fought a hot war against one of Russia’s few European allies—Yugoslavia—which was a clear signal of its attitude to Russia, which was reinforced with the follow-on war against Serbia. NATO was also deeply involved in the Chechen Wars and other attempts to further fragment Russia and the newly formed Commonwealth of Independent States, where in 1994 the first major attempt to capture Ukraine was made but failed. In its attempt to try and stop NATO’s continuing encroachment, Russia became involved in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and along with CIS members of the OSCE signed the three different yet very similar treaties on the Indivisibility of Security for its signatories. NATO’s continuing expansion and its proof that it wasn’t a defensive organization caused all NATO OSCE members to violate those three treaties.

The 2014 Ukraine Coup and immediate war waged on those who opposed it along with the return of Crimea to Russia marked the onset of what would evolve into today’s Hot war between Russia and NATO, although the latter denies its directly at war with Russia despite a mountain of facts that prove otherwise. Then there’re also the Outlaw US Empire’s doctrinal documents related to Russia and its ongoing status as #1 enemy. We then had the further deceit and violation of a UNSC Resolution, the Minsk Accords, and institution of genocidal laws enacted by NATO governed Ukraine aimed at the ‘Russian speakers who were publicly declared sub-humans just as the Nazis did during WW2. In a meeting of the government in November 2021, irrefutable evidence was presented of the ongoing genocide in the Donbass/Novorossiya region of Ukraine that couldn’t be spun as anything else anymore. Putin then agreed that what was happening there was genocide and Russia needed to do something about it as its constitution demanded. And thus, a series of legalities was initiated in anticipation of Russia becoming directly involved in the defense and liberation of the regions Russian speakers.

While those legal aspects were being worked on by the Duma and Federal Council, Russian diplomacy made one last effort with the December 2021 security proposals. All during this time, I was writing articles at my VK page that documented the above and other happenings. My major article on 20 December 2021 contained the texts of the proposals and much other documentation. Since VK is hard for many to access, I’m providing the first half of that article that ended with the listing of Russia’s proposals:

Three days ago on 17 December 2021, Russia made public the draft treaty proposals it provided to the Outlaw US Empire and its NATO consort. These emerged as a result of the deafness portrayed by the Outlaw US Empire and EU officials regarding Russia's very longstanding complaints about the duplicity and outright lies performed by them repeatedly voiced by Russia ever more so since Putin's speech at the 2007 Munich Security Conference when he warned those in charge at the time that it they didn't listen to Russia then they'd be forced to listen to Russia later. That later is now. After an entire year of build-up presented by both Putin and Lavrov at various public venues where their presentations were videoed and published--capped by the Putin-Biden Video Summit on 7 December--some of which I covered in previous articles, Russia's Foreign Ministry (FM) published a statement on 10 December warning what was to come:

We note US President Joseph Biden’s readiness expressed at the December 7, 2021 talks with President Vladimir Putin to establish a serious dialogue on issues related to ensuring the security of the Russian Federation. Such a dialogue is urgently needed today when the relations between Russia and the collective West continue to decay and have approached a critical line. At the same time, numerous loose interpretations of our position have emerged in recent days….

Let us recall, however, that NATO countries, apart from the Washington Treaty, have obligations regarding the indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic and the entire OSCE space. This principle was initially proclaimed in the Helsinki Final Act and was later reaffirmed in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe of 1990, which states: “Security is indivisible and the security of every participating State is inseparably linked to that of all the others”, whereas in 1999, The Charter for European Security was adopted at the OSCE Istanbul summit, which stressed that the participating States “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”

All these documents were signed by the leaders of the OSCE member-states, including all NATO countries. However, in violation of the principle of indivisible security – as well as in violation of the promises given to the Soviet leaders – NATO has been persistently moving eastwards all these years while neglecting Moscow’s concerns. Furthermore, each new member added to NATO’s frenzied anti-Russia charge.

We have been saying for a long time that such developments are inadmissible. Over the past decades we have offered a number of times to render the principle of comprehensive and indivisible security in the Euro-Atlantic a legally binding status since the West is obviously inclined to disregard its political obligations. However, we were invariably refused.

In this connection, as President Vladimir Putin stressed, we insist that serious long-term legal guarantees are provided, which would exclude NATO’s further advancement to the east and deployment of weapons on Russia’s western borders which are a threat to Russia. This must be done within a specific timeframe and on the basis of the principle of comprehensive and indivisible security.

The notice closed with some of the specifics to be forwarded. Several days later it became clear that Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov would be the FM's point man in these negotiations when he met on 15 December with the Outlaw US Empire's Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Karen Donfried and presented her with the package of treaty proposals. On the 16th, Alexander Lukashevich, Russia's permanent OSCE representative, gave a statement to the OSCE Permanent Council “on the deteriorating situation in Ukraine and the continued failure of the Ukrainian authorities to implement the Minsk agreements” that can be summarized by his two opening paragraphs, the first of which reminded all present that what's to be done was ordered/authorized by a UNSC Resolution:

Progress on practical settlement issues has come to a dangerous standstill. The reason is the unwillingness of the Ukrainian authorities to fulfill the agreements reached with Donbass on de-escalation and a ceasefire, providing adequate security guarantees for solving humanitarian problems, as well as socio-economic issues. There is no progress in the political aspects of the settlement in accordance with the provisions of the Minsk Package of Measures of February 12, 2015, approved by UN Security Council Resolution 2202.

Against this background, Kiev breeds countless calls for new international contacts for the sake of the actual fact of the meeting in conditions when it is impossible to state the implementation of previous agreements. For example, in the same "Normandy" format. And in general, the Ukrainian authorities do not hide that they use discussions on Ukraine in multilateral formats in order to replace the need for an intra-Ukrainian dialogue and rewrite the Minsk agreements.

On the 17th, the FM issued a press release acknowledging the passing of treaty drafts to both the Outlaw US Empire and its NATO surrogate which was later followed by a video briefing by Ryabkov that is only in Russian and has no transcript. Little occurred over the weekend as the treaty proposals were mulled over, although there were a few knee jerk reactions made by several reactionaries--Sullivan and Stoltenberg. But we need to know what they're reacting to.

This portion begs repeating as many have forgotten all about it:

We note US President Joseph Biden’s readiness expressed at the December 7, 2021 talks with President Vladimir Putin to establish a serious dialogue on issues related to ensuring the security of the Russian Federation. Such a dialogue is urgently needed today when the relations between Russia and the collective West continue to decay and have approached a critical line. [My Emphasis]

Those talks were never held, although a lot of yapping went on. From 27 January 2022:

"Question: Do we link the threats of more sanctions coming our way that we heard from the United States and the EU yesterday to the talks on security guarantees?

"Sergey Lavrov: What we see is that all our Western colleagues, without exception, are caught up in a 'military' frenzy of sorts. “We will punish you,' 'you will attack,' 'we will punish you and save Ukraine,' 'you’ll get more than you bargained for' and so on, is all you hear from them. You read the dramatic language that the West uses to state its positions. We are ready for all scenarios. We didn't attack anyone. We have always been attacked in the past. Those who did so invariably got what they deserved. So, I will not speculate about what our Western partners may pull next. Clearly, they are befuddled and not really sure how to get out of the corner they have painted themselves into. We are prepared to reliably defend the interests and security of our country, as well as the security of our citizens [Most Donbass residents are Russian citizens]. [My Emphasis]

On 14 February 2022, Lavrov submitted the report he was tasked with related to the proposals and replies. Here’re the important parts:

[B]ut above all, this approach is about the legal settlement of issues that generally threaten the Euro-Atlantic Region. I am referring to where we started with in our initiatives, when you repeatedly emphasised, including during your recent telephone conversations and news conferences – we need to ensure indivisible security, including with regard to NATO’s non-expansion, non-deployment of strike weapons and returning to its 1997 configuration.

To which Putin asks the key question:

Vladimir Putin: Do you think we still have a chance of coming to terms with our partners on the key problems of our concern or is this simply an attempt to drag us into an endless negotiating process with no logical conclusion?

Sergey Lavrov: You, along with us and other representatives of the Russian Federation, have said that we are warning that an endless discussion on the issues that must be resolved today is unacceptable. That said, as the head of the Foreign Ministry, I must say that there is always a chance. I am referring to your recent meetings with the US and French leaders; the Federal Chancellor of Germany is coming tomorrow; our colleagues are addressing me: the Polish Foreign Minister will be here tomorrow; the Italian Foreign Minister will come here in two days, and other meetings are being planned. We have consistently conducted explanatory work; we are committed to explaining why we are right, and that we are ready to listen to serious counter arguments. That said, I think our opportunities are far from exhausted. Of course, they should not be endless, but I think we should still continue to pursue and build on them at this point. [My Emphasis]

Lavrov had the ten-page long draft reply at hand. Putin met with Scholz the next day. It was decided to finalize and publish the response. My report on it was made on the 17th and follows in full:

The Valentine's Day Draft Gets Published: Outlaw US Empire/NATO Accused of Multiple Treaty Violations

My Valentine's Day article closes with Putin and Lavrov preparing to discuss his draft ten-page response to what was submitted by the Outlaw US Empire and NATO. That draft was then polished and today published. It included a few additions I wanted to see, like overtly stating Treaties were violated. What follows is a parsing I did of RT's parsing of the document:

One, Minsk Rules all, and Kiev is the actor that must perform, not Russia.

Two, "Moscow says Crimea case ‘closed’

"Russia did not 'occupy' Ukrainian territory in 2014, the MFA insisted, arguing that 'the loss of territorial integrity by the Ukrainian government is the result of internal processes in that country,' and, specifically, pointing to the coup d’etat backed by the US and its allies, 'whose perpetrators embarked on building a nationalist state infringing on the rights of ethnic Russians and Russian-speaking people, as well as other nationalities.'"

The grounds for the current Genocidal conditions within Donbass it refrains from disclosing.

Third, By "expand[ing] their military infrastructure eastward," the Outlaw US Empire and NATO have and are "violating both the 1990 Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe (CFE) and the 1997 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between Russia and NATO." The direct result is that Moscow demands the withdrawal “of all US armed forces and weapons deployed in Central and Eastern Europe, Southeastern Europe, and the Baltics” since those are what violate the treaties.

Fourth, NATO's Open Door policy "violates the commitments NATO made in June 1991, to not endanger legitimate interests of other states or create new lines of division in Europe." It also violates "the principle of indivisibility of security which the US committed to under the treaties that established the Organization for European Security Cooperation."

Fifth, "Moscow wants indivisible security for all, not just NATO."

Sixth, "Russia wants NATO to stop putting nukes in Europe ... in violation of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty."

Seventh, The longstanding gross violation of the relevant OSCE and NPT treaties and advancement of NATO to Russia's borders cross all Russia's Red Lines and risk war. And since the Outlaw US Empire "is not prepared to discuss firm and legally binding guarantees of Russian security, Moscow will be forced to respond, including 'through the implementation of measures of a military-technical nature.'" Thus, the situation is alarming and must be resolved as soon as possible. [All Emphasis Mine]

All the threats aimed at Russia are provocative and attempt to cover up the real source of the crisis, which is based on Outlaw US Empire policy and its history since its inception of treaty violations, lies, deceptions, and criminal actions, including those ongoing in Syria and elsewhere. Lavrov didn't mention the Outlaw US Empire's sponsorship and deployment of its Terrorist Foreign Legion. But at least the Outlaw US Empire/NATO is justly accused of numerous treaty violations. Also, the point raised that NATO as an organization isn't a signatory to the OSCE Treaties and thus responses by individual signatory nations to Russia's requests for clarification are still required and expected as soon as possible.

I'm sure 130 or so nations are applauding from the sidelines at Russia's initiative to contain the Outlaw US Empire's illegal activities. However, the warning Escobar included in his essay is quite valid. The Outlaws are serial as in addicted to having their own way like any Mafia or Town Boss and as such are very dangerous. I hope they sense the walls closing in on their criminality, cease their doubling-down and prepare their bolt-holes for long term habitation. The world has had quite enough of them and wants to turn a new page in human advancement that the Outlaws impede. [All emphasis mine]

Several pro-Russian publications at the time posited that events since the USSR’s fall qualify as “aggression by NATO” against Russia. Aggression is agreed upon by most to mean war. And most certainly the illegal sanctions regime that was emplaced on Russia in 2014 constitutes Economic War. So, IMO and those of many others, a state of hostilities has existed between NATO and Russia since then, if not earlier given the repetitiveness of the broken OSCE treaties. My longer historical analysis tells me that the Outlaw US Empire has waged war against USSR/Russia since 1918 when it intervened in the Russian Civil War with an interlude from 1942 to 1945 when Nazi Germany’s and Japan’s defeats were deemed more important. Thus, the term capitulation is appropriate in describing what must be done by NATO.

When looking at Russia’s December 2021 proposals, it seems very clear that they demanded the capitulation of the Outlaw US Empire’s anti-Russian project, and that to solve the Ukraine conflict capitulation must be foremost in the outcome as now the conflict is all about Russia’s future security which it’s currently attempting to construct with its Eurasian partners. With capitulation and new security measures, there’s no room or need for NATO as is now being argued globally. What capitulation formally addresses is the Outlaw US Empire’s loss of its post-WW2 Primacy it held due to the destruction of its global competitors’ industries and demographic assets. The peace it imposed was a form of Colonialism via the Breton Woods institutions, although the UN Charter actually contradicted their rationale and made the Empire’s unilateralism illegal. One other major development that happened during the build-up to the hot war between NATO and Russia is the 4 February Joint Declaration of Russia and China and the manifesto for global freedom from hegemony it contains that many at the time chose to ignore. Strategic Culture Foundation On 25 February 2022, published an editorial I used a portion of as evidence I presented in my essay, “Drawing The Only Plausible Conclusion: The Outlaw US Empire is Fascist,” which stated what is still an apt observation that can serve to close this article:

“The U.S. has to come to terms with a multipolar world order in which its unilateral diktat is no longer tenable, legally, politically, or morally. That is the ultimate challenge for international peace and security."

It must capitulate in Europe and cease its aggressive global policies. Team Biden clearly won’t do any such thing, and thus it’s up to Trump to end the Outlaw US Empire’s 80-year reign of global colonialism and terror.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!