A call for renewed diplomacy grounded in mutual respect for the global common good and adherence to international law.
A call for renewed diplomacy grounded in mutual respect for the global common good and adherence to international law.
By Elshad Mirbashiroglu * and Nilufar N. Mammadova **
The imminence of nuclear apocalypse on planet Earth has never been so close since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. Humanity is clearly experiencing an extremely dangerous time yet again. Despite the alarming rise in global usage of the term “nuclear war” against the backdrop of recent developments in global geopolitics, we see constant escalation instead of de-escalation in major conflict areas involving nuclear powers. These include the proxy war in Ukraine, the extermination of Palestinian civilians in Gaza[1] since October 7, 2023, which has a high likelihood of leading to an all-out regional war in the Middle East, and a potential US-China war over Taiwan.[2] Before proceeding with the analysis, it is important to point out that this article does not aim to project a moral imperative onto the warring parties engaged in either direct or indirect military confrontation in this complex geopolitical age, given that moral imperatives typically take a backseat in the realist view of world politics. Instead, it urges renewed diplomacy grounded in mutual respect for the global common good and adherence to international law, which we, as members of the global community, need more urgently than ever before.
Now the key question is how we got so recklessly close to this edge of the precipice?
Often, causes are hidden while the effects are visible. Not in this situation, however, which contradicts the prevailing mainstream narrative that is relentlessly promoted in the West. In a critical analysis of global geopolitics since the end of the Cold War, it becomes evident that the current crisis did not emerge solely after the Russia-Ukraine war, similar to the situation in Gaza, which did not start on October 7th. Nevertheless, the possibility of a nuclear war looms larger at this particular point in time since the start of the proxy war in Ukraine against Russia, after the U.S. and its Western allies have authorized the use of weapons[3] they provided to Ukraine to attack Russian territory. In response to this, Russia has warned of “serious consequences” if Western weapons hit Russia,[4] reminding the West of Russia’s nuclear doctrine.[5] The threat itself is alarming, let alone the potential use of nuclear weapons. What is equally concerning is that the situation is taken lightly in Western foreign policy establishment. This is neither a bluff nor empty nuclear rhetoric, contrary to the mainstream perception in the West. Instead of rigorously overhauling its adversarial escalation policy and understanding why Russia reminds the West that it could use nuclear weapons, NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg announced that NATO is discussing the possibility of readying nuclear weapons.[6] To complicate already tense geopolitics even further, in addition to the escalation in Ukraine, another conflict is brewing, namely between Israel and Hezbollah, which could potentially drag Iran and Russia into it.
When we look at another key center of political decision-making in global politics, Brussels, it is evident that there is currently a majority in favor of war. The current dominant mood in Europe is one of conflict with wartime mentality influencing political decisions. This mentality is rooted in the fact that Europe’s security is tied to the U.S. through NATO, which results in Europe not having an independent foreign policy.[7] It is like playing with fire, this time with far greater implications for humanity, which seems utterly nonsensical given what Europe has been through in the past century.
While all current confrontations escalate with global repercussions for humanity, the U.S. remains a primary driving factor. The Ukraine crisis specifically, along with other crises currently unfolding around the globe, fundamentally stem from a lack of diplomacy in the West, particularly within the Biden Administration, which zealously seeks to maintain American imperialism[8] within a flawed politico-economic paradigm driven by arrogance and greed.[9] Consequently, there is no doubt by now that this paradigm has been detrimental and continues to be so to (i) the universal principles endorsed by the U.S.-led West and (ii) the economies of both the U.S.[10] and particularly Europe,[11] giving rise to anti-establishment sentiment in the latter’s politics, which manifested itself clearly in the latest EU Parliament elections. Besides having negative impact on the livelihood of average citizens in the U.S. and Europe, the West’s geopolitical struggle for global dominance has led to a significant undermining of Ukraine as a sovereign state.[12] Undoubtedly, this is the most poignant result of the dead-end policies adopted by the U.S.-led West towards Ukraine.
All of these intertwined events occur at an inflection point where the influence of the collective West, led by the U.S., is diminishing, and we are witnessing the acceleration of a new multipolar world.
Another crucial question in the analysis is why engage in this kind of venturesome brinkmanship with Russia?
Primarily, there are two reasons. The Western bloc led by the U.S. has realized that they are facing losses both militarily and economically. Their war against Russia using Ukraine has been a failure. Apart from acknowledging the failure of the entire war endeavor in Ukraine, the West mistakenly believes that it has only one alternative: escalation. To put it differently, the more the West struggles in Ukraine, the more they attempt to escalate the situation. It is also crucial to ask why the recognition of defeat is so emphatically off the table? While there may be several reasons for not accepting the failure of this war project in Ukraine, two reasons stand out as the primary raison d’être for its escalation. The first revolves around the upcoming presidential elections in the U.S., where admitting defeat could likely lead to a loss for the Democratic Party. The second reason concerns NATO’s reputation, which is once again in a precarious position with potentially significant consequences for the Alliance.
The role of the manipulative media in this escalation attempt must also be pointed out, as it has been significant and continues to be provocative, thus counterproductive. For instance, an article with a pro-war stance,[13] titled “If Putin wins, expect the worst genocide since the Holocaust,” does neither reflect reality, nor speak to conscience, moral standards and values. Regrettably, such articles completely detached from reality are plenty these days pushing for more involvement in confrontations, conflicts and wars. Another article,[14] written in a similar fashion, bears the title: “China will prosper if it helps stand against Russia: Marles,” amidst the Western perception of China as yet another threat.
Looking at the broader picture, one finds that the confrontational ideology imbued with double standards extends beyond sleazy journalism. This stream of consciousness engulfs in people from different walks of life. For instance, Robin Brooks, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and an economist, writes on his X profile: “… Only way to stop this is regime change in Moscow. Once Putin is gone, Germany can start buying Russian gas again.”[15] Another example is from the U.S. Ambassador to the UK, Jane Hartley, who, speaking in one of her interviews,[16] stated, “Putin will not stop at Ukraine,” which is a profoundly baseless argument. President Putin has never expressed interest in the conquest of the entirety of Ukraine, let alone conquering Eastern or Western Europe.[17] Despite lacking any factual basis, numerous examples of such disinformation are abundant in the West. Another statement of a similar nature comes from Robert D. Blackwill, a senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and former American diplomat. In his recent article,[18] he voices the following statements: “A Russian dictator seeks to overthrow the European security system that brought peace and prosperity to the continent for many decades. The war in Gaza demonstrates the failure of successive American administrations to contend effectively with the hegemonic ambitions of Iran.” Such statements invite scrutiny of the logic on several grounds, primarily leading to the question among many others: Does this refer to the same European security system under which NATO bombed Yugoslavia?
Perhaps one should not be astonished by such effusions when the United States’s National Security Strategy (NSS)[19] dated October 12, 2022, conjectures that “over the past century, the Russian government has chosen to pursue an imperialist foreign policy with the goal of overturning key elements of the international order,” whereas, even when considering just military interventions and the number of military bases across the globe, it has been the United States that has arrogated itself and continues to follow the “imperial grand strategy,” as termed by G. John Ikenberry.[20] This imperial grand strategy is not new and as John Lewis Gaddis, a historian of U.S. foreign policy, put it[21] has functioned under the “expansion is the path to security” dictum, which over the past two centuries has been the abiding theme of U.S. grand strategy.
By now it is clear that the entire world is subsumed under information war project, not just military one. This campaign of vilification is against anyone or anything presenting an alternative to the U.S. global domination. Unsurprisingly, the Annual Threat Assessment Report[22] by the U.S. Intelligence Community, released on February 5, 2024, identifies China and Iran, in addition to Russia, as the primary antagonists for purportedly defying the established norms of the international system—in other words, the U.S.-led unipolarity. According to the U.S.’s 2022 National Security Strategy (NSS), these countries pose “the most pressing strategic challenge” because they “layer authoritarian governance with a revisionist foreign policy,”[23] allegedly challenging international peace and stability, which apparently goes against the very world order where the American Empire has held unquestioned power since the post-Cold War era. When comparing this security strategy to the one released 20 years earlier in 2002 by the Bush administration, which delineates the main elements of the Bush Doctrine, the overarching point in the strategy is clearly maintaining American global hegemony at the expense of the rest of the world. In fact, it is a recurring theme and another epitome of the so-called containment and deterrence strategy, which has been at the core of the U.S. imperial grand strategy over the decades. It is also crucial to point out that although the Bush Doctrine continued the Clinton Doctrine,[24] it represented a whole new level in the containment strategy by asserting the right to preventive wars[25] even without a clear threat.[26] It remains as outrageous now as it was when conceived during the Bush administration. We also have to point out that this imperialist mindset traces back as far as the Seminole Wars, where Andrew Jackson’s invasion of Florida may serve as the genesis for the American grand strategy, specifically starting from the post-Cold War era to the present.
With regard to unipolarity, it is already evident that the global politico-economic order is fast transitioning from a US-centered unipolar structure to a multipolar and multilateral world order. Indeed, it is believed that the era of United States’ supremacy following the end of the Cold War is already over. This inflection point in global order is fundamental, and it essentially underpins the second reason for the incessant warmongering in the West, led by the U.S. Consequently, the world finds itself embroiled in ever-growing and ever-present confrontations, propelled by a dangerously weakened Western empire determined to make a final stand to preserve its global supremacy and dominance. This drive is primarily exemplified by the escalating tensions in Ukraine[27] enmeshed in political psychosis driven by perennial inducement of power and greed, indicative of the lengths to which the U.S.-led West will go to maintain its influence and assert its interests. As such, we even hear from Boris Johnson, former PM of the UK, explicitly saying “Because if Ukraine falls, it will be a disaster for the West! This will put an end to the hegemony of the West. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves.”[28]
This inflection point in the global politico-economic order also directly involves NATO in the equation of our analysis, as alliances and military cooperation become increasingly significant factors in navigating the evolving geopolitical landscape.
NATO: Peace, security and freedom?
A relic of the Cold War era founded in 1949, NATO celebrated its 75th anniversary on April 4th this year. Originally established by only twelve states, led by the U.S., it has since pursued an expansionist policy accompanied by rampant militarism over the years, now boasting an alliance of 32 member states. It is also worth noting that NATO has added 16 member states since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, despite U.S. Secretary of State James Baker assuring Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev in a meeting on February 9, 1990, that NATO would not extend “one inch eastward,” as disclosed in documents[29] released by the National Security Archive at George Washington University. Intention to bring Georgia and Ukraine into NATO as part of its eastward expansion strategy was the last straw in the already tense relations between the U.S. and Russia, which serves as the origin of the crisis that eventually led to the Russia-Ukraine war. As such, the war was indeed provoked, over the years, contrary to the mainstream narrative in the West.[30] What is grimmer is that after causing all the damage and destruction in Ukraine, aspirations to join NATO have not yielded any results so far and are unlikely to do so in the future. The primary reason for this conclusion is provided in one of the statements: “Ukraine must first win the war against Russia to join NATO.” This statement has been made not only by NATO chief Jens Stoltenberg[31] and White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby,[32] but also by Zelenskyy himself.[33]
Despite claiming to work for peace, security, and freedom for 75 years, NATO’s actions are at odds with this assertion. NATO’s expansionism and aggression have resulted in breaches of international law, unlawful wars, and war crimes, making various parts of the world much less stable and secure, thereby hindering their socioeconomic progress.
A bombing campaign of Yugoslavia by NATO that lasted mercilessly for 78 days in 1999 was the first instance of aggression towards a sovereign European state since World War II. Tragically, this is not the only case; there are more than one instance in its track record. According to research conducted by Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs’ Costs of War project, US-led NATO wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Libya, Yemen, and Somalia have resulted in “an estimated 3.6-3.8 million people dying indirectly, bringing the total death toll to at least 4.5-4.7 million and counting.”[34] Other corollaries of a perpetual war state include loss of livelihoods, insecurity, political instability, involuntary displacement, and terrorist hideouts. A grievous list indeed. Furthermore, “the human and economic costs of these wars will continue for decades,” according to the findings of the Cost of War project. Manifestly, these military aggressions do not corroborate the claim that the NATO is a “defensive military alliance.”
Back in 1955, the former PM of India Jawaharlal Nehru in his speech in the closed session of the Asian-African Conference, Bandung, stated that “the NATO today is one of the most powerful protectors of colonialism.”[35] For its role in the overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, Fidel Castro famously characterized NATO as “a brutal military alliance that has become the most perfidious instrument of repression in the history of humanity.”[36]
Today, as in 1949, NATO continues to function as a tool of the dominant global power, the United States, used to assert, protect, and advance its strategic and security objectives, essentially maintaining the U.S.-led unipolar world.
While the NATO Summit in Washington D.C. in July, a major celebration of its 75th anniversary, can be characterized as a further escalation, tensions between the Alliance and Russia have escalated to a new level, raising concerns about the potential for a nuclear war after authorizing Ukraine to strike Russia with Western-supplied weapons. This authorization also implies a significant escalation, potentially transforming the conflict in Ukraine from a proxy war to a direct confrontation between US-led NATO and Russia.
Urgent appeal for renewed diplomacy
A specter is haunting the world as we witness history being made yet again. The magnitude of the threat is paramount as the Western-centric world, driven by the US post-Cold War predominance, is being replaced in the global politico-economic order. Naturally, the process of change is painful and chaotic, which is reminiscent of Antonio Gramsci’s quote that reads, “The old world is dying. The new one is slow to appear. And in this mix of light and darkness, monsters are born.” In the critical and impartial analysis of current global geopolitics, it is easy to see that those monsters are eager to inch us close to a point of no return, another world war. Unlike certain groups, the average inhabitants of this planet do not need another world war, which could instantaneously escalate into a nuclear conflict. In actuality, we are already on the brink of a nuclear Armageddon. At this very point in history, the global political chessboard has never been more intractable.
The overriding question facing us now is how we can establish peace[37] and common security in the world for the collective well-being and interests of the global community, essential prerequisites for socioeconomic progress. While this question may elicit diverse responses, one crucial point to consider is the significant decline of diplomacy over an extended period. As such, there is an urgent need for renewed diplomacy to intelligently address the ongoing global struggle.
To reach this end, we should seriously contemplate how to prevent further amorality in international politics, often justified under the guise of the so-called “rules-based international order,” which corresponds to Thucydidean perspective. Another practice that we must leave behind is cognitive warfare promulgated via propaganda, enabling dramatic swings in public opinion.
It is also time to dissolve any military alliance and grouping that perpetuates the need for an enemy, constantly provoking confrontations and escalations around the globe. We have already been through enough Black Swan events – unpredictable and highly impactful occurrences – events induced by adventurism of various natures. There must be a concerted and genuine effort to address this growing challenge through skillful diplomacy, provided that all sides act in the collective interest, not just in the interest of a few. It is urgent, and it is achievable.
* Elshad Mirbashiroglu is a Doctor of Political Science and Professor at the Department of Political Science and Political Management in the Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan.
** Nilufar N. Mammadova is a Policy Analyst and Researcher. She holds Master in Public Policy degree from the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, National University of Singapore (NUS).
[1] Link to the latest report by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, presented at the 56th session of the UN Human Rights Council: https://www.ohchr.org/en/news/2024/06/commission-inquiry-occupied-palestinian-territory-concludes-israeli-authorities-and
[2] In recent years, the U.S. has carried out provocative actions in Taiwan against the perceived “China threat” by expanding its military presence on China’s doorstep. This military presence has grown almost tenfold from 2021 to 2023. Not content with this, in February 2024, news surfaced that US special forces troops would be stationed in Taiwan on a permanent basis, departing from previous temporary or rotational arrangements.
[3] Ukraine can now use Western arms to strike inside Russia — is it too late? (2024, June 2). https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/6/2/ukraine-can-now-use-western-arms-to-strike-inside-russia
[4] Putin warns of “serious consequences” if Western weapons strike Russia. (n.d.). TRT World. Retrieved June 7, 2024, from https://www.trtworld.com/europe/putin-warns-of-serious-consequences-if-western-weapons-strike-russia-18167269
[5] Putin says Russia could deploy missiles in striking distance of the West. (n.d.). Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-says-west-is-wrong-assume-russia-would-never-use-nuclear-weapons-2024-06-05/#:~:text=Russia’s%20published%202020%20nuclear%20doctrine,of%20the%20state%20is%20put
[6] Nato in talks to deploy more nuclear weapons. (2024, June 16). The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/06/16/nato-jens-stoltenberg-nuclear-weapons-deployt-russia-china/
[7] This, in turn, undermines its economy. One of the notable examples of this policy is that the US has become the largest supplier of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to Europe since the start of the Ukraine war, with Europe now paying significantly more than it did for Russian gas.
[8] One of the recent manifestations of this neocolonial policy and practice is the following remark by President Biden on February 1, 2024 at the National Prayer Breakfast: “We are the beacon to the world. The entire world looks to us. That’s not hyperbole.” (Link to source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/02/01/remarks-by-president-biden-at-the-national-prayer-breakfast-3/)
[9] In one of his recent interviews, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham explained to the whole world one of the ulterior motives behind why the U.S. has been so invested in Ukraine, explicitly stating the following: “They are sitting on 10 to 12 trillion dollars’ worth of critical minerals in Ukraine. They could be the richest country in all of Europe. I do not want to give that money and those assets to Putin to share with China. If we help Ukraine now, they can become the best business partner we have ever dreamt of.” Link to source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS1s8GN77h0 Obviously, it is not just a strategic interest.
[10] According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, interest payments on U.S. federal debt currently surpass the spending allocated for defense. Link to graph: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1pcUg
[11] It is now obvious that the economic consequences of the extreme sanctions designed to cripple the Russian economy have failed in their ultimate object resulting in a boomerang effect. They have harmed Europe more than Russia, leading to slower growth rates, inflation, rising government debt, and further deindustrialization. According to the International Monetary Fund (link to source: https://www.imf.org/en/Countries/RUS), Russia’s economy is expected to grow 3.2% in 2024, outpacing both the United States and Europe.
[12] The developments eventuated in the misery and plight of Ukrainian citizens. One of the indictments of the crisis is evident in the lack of men willing to go to the frontline, resulting in the ruthless methods adopted by the authorities. For some time, Ukrainian authorities dismissed such news as Russian propaganda, but a recent report by the BBC sheds light on the growing problem. Link to the BBC report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjlJoLT1Df0
[13] Hird, K. (2024). If Putin wins, expect the worst genocide since the Holocaust. The Telegraph. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/31/europe-see-the-worst-genocide-since-holocaust/
[14] China will prosper if it helps stand against Russia: Marles. (2024, May 31). Financial Review. https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/china-will-prosper-if-it-helps-stand-against-russia-marles-20240531-p5ji6d
[15] Link to source: https://x.com/robin_j_brooks/status/1721949931160715761
[16] “Putin will not stop at Ukraine,” warns US ambassador to the UK. (2024). [Video]. YouTube. Retrieved June 8, 2024, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopc8Obq6Jk
[17] Besides, it is also of historical significance to point out that the late 1980s and early 1990s witnessed the end of the military and ideological rivalry between two great powers, which presented a golden opportunity in history to turn the page and build mutually beneficial relations and cooperation in international relations by adhering to international law. It is not mere pathos. The factual basis for this claim is on public record. Back in 1988, the address to the United Nations General Assembly by Soviet General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev bore testimony to Russia’s efforts to redefine international relations, emphasizing a commitment to “mutually advantageous and equitable cooperation” and adopting concrete policy measures such as reducing its armed forces, albeit on a unilateral basis, aimed at “the demilitarization of international relations.” He also rightly contended that “The formula of development “at another’s expense” is becoming outdated.” Link to source: https://sites.temple.edu/immerman/gorbachevs-speech-to-the-u-n-december-7-1988/
[18] D. Blackwill, R. (2024, June 13). World order is in a downward spiral. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved June 15, 2024, from https://www.cfr.org/article/world-order-downward-spiral
[19] The United States’ National Security Strategy. (2022, October 12). The White House. Retrieved June 15, 2024, from https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Biden-Harris-Administrations-National-Security-Strategy-10.2022.pdf
[20] Ikenberry, G. J. (2002). America’s Imperial Ambition. Retrieved June 15, 2024, from https://web.archive.org/web/20050714004831id_/http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/Ikenberry.pdf
[21] Gaddis, J. L. (2004). Surprise, Security, and the American Experience. Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv1ns7mpg
[22] ANNUAL THREAT ASSESSMENT OF THE U.S. INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. (2024, February 5). Retrieved June 1, 2024, from https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ATA-2024-Unclassified-Report.pdf
[23] In general, this kind of pigeonholing that puts countries into categories like “democracy” or “autocracy” is an unsophisticated approach to dealing with ever-complex global politics that serves to widen already existent rifts.
[24] Dumbrell, J. (2002). Was There a Clinton Doctrine? President Clinton’s Foreign Policy Reconsidered. Diplomacy & Statecraft, 13(2), 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1080/714000309
[25] We have to note that the original term used in both the 2002 and 2006 editions of the U.S. National Security Strategy is “preemptive war.” While, according to international law, preemptive war is significantly distinct from preventive war, which is considered an act of aggression, the U.S. invasion of Iraq clearly exemplifies a preventive war rather than a preemptive one. Interestingly, John Lewis Gaddis, in his 2004 interview with the Council on Foreign Relations (Link to the interview: https://www.cfr.org/interview/gaddis-bush-pre-emption-doctrine-most-dramatic-policy-shift-cold-war), stated that “It’s deeply rooted in American foreign policy, going all the way back to the aftermath of the War of 1812. There were no clear distinctions made between preemption and prevention in the thinking of that period.”
[26] Preemptive War. (2016). Retrieved June 15, 2024, from https://academic.oup.com/book/25497/chapter-abstract/192729020?redirectedFrom=fulltext
[27] The Ukraine case will go down in history as one of the most unfortunate cases of exploitation without redress by an imperialist power.
[28] Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson declared that when Russia succeeds in achieving its goals in its special military operation the “hegemony of the West” will end. (2024, April 17). X. Retrieved June 10, 2024, from https://x.com/SputnikInt/status/1780686904364532004
[29] Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner. (2017). Retrieved June 8, 2024, from https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017-12-12/nato-expansion-what-gorbachev-heard-western-leaders-early
[30] There are a few outliers, however. For instance, we hear from the party leader of Reform UK, Nigel Farage, saying, “The West provoked the Ukraine war.” Link to source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cldd44zv3kpo?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_ptr_name=twitter&at_medium=social&at_format=link&at_campaign_type=owned&at_link_id=1E2065DC-2FF0-11EF-9B42-99539EE11649&at_link_type=web_link&at_bbc_team=editorial&at_link_origin=BBCPolitics&at_campaign=Social_Flow
[31] Allies agree that Ukraine will be NATO member, but it must win first – Stoltenberg. (2023). Retrieved June 20, 2024, from https://www.lrt.lt/en/news-in-english/19/2031274/allies-agree-that-ukraine-will-be-nato-member-but-it-must-win-first-stoltenberg
[32] ‘First They Gotta Win This War’ – Kirby Sets Condition for Ukraine to Join NATO. (2024, June 18). Retrieved June 20, 2024, from https://www.kyivpost.com/post/34468
[33] Zelenskyy says Ukraine will join NATO only after winning war against Russia. (2024, April 30). Retrieved June 20, 2024, from https://www.aa.com.tr/en/russia-ukraine-war/zelenskyy-says-ukraine-will-join-nato-only-after-winning-war-against-russia/3206410
[34] Some of the Costs of War Project’s main findings include: (n.d.). Retrieved June 8, 2024, from https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/papers/summary
[35] Jawaharlal Nehru: World Peace and Cooperation (1955). (n.d.). Retrieved June 8, 2024, from https://pdcrodas.webs.ull.es/anglo/NehruWorldPeaceAndCooperation.pdf
[36] Fidel Castro calls NATO “brutal” for Libya role. (2011). Retrieved June 8, 2024, from https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/natosource/fidel-castro-calls-nato-brutal-for-libya-role/
[37] One of the recent attempts to chart a path for peace was the Summit on Peace in Ukraine held on June 15 and 16, 2024, in Switzerland. However, this so-called peace summit lacked real significance for two main reasons: (i) Russia, a key party to the conflict, was not invited, which was unusual, and (ii) the Summit appeared to have predetermined conclusions. As a result, the Summit did not demonstrate a genuine commitment to achieving peace.
Besides, certain statements made during the Summit were not constructive either. For instance, the statement by the President of Poland, Andrzej Duda, was not a call for peace at all. President Duda’s statement reads as follows: “In the part of the world, which I represent, Russia is often called the “prison of nations” – and for good reason. Because it is home to almost 200 ethnic groups – most of which became residents of Russia as a result of the methods used in Ukraine today. Russia remains the largest colonial empire in the world, which, unlike European powers, has never undergone the process of decolonization and has never been able to deal with the demons of its past. As members of the international community, we have to finally say: there is no more space for colonialism in the modern world!” Link to source:
Indeed, the case for the break-up of the Russian Federation is not new in the West. Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as national security advisor to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, famously suggested “a loosely confederated Russia.” Link to source: https://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709brzezinski.html