By Claudio Resta

A war limited to the defense of a territory does not exist.

A war of defense alone does not exist.

Both do not exist by definition, they are abstractions, rhetorical figures.

The only limitation in a war is objectively the economic side of the war.

The availability and scarcity of resources such as food and weapons are the only factors that can limit a war, lead to a truce, end it and lead to a surrender.

The availability and/or scarcity of food and weapons are interdependent so much so that there is the well-known expression in war less butter and more guns.

When weapon systems, food and other utilities are provided by third parties (the ”protecting powers”) these parties can no longer be defined as third parties but are in fact allies of the protected nation that acts as an intermediary agent in a war whose principals are the so called ”protecting powers”.

So this supposed war of Russia ”attacking” Ukraine or Ukraine ”self-defense” war against Russia’s attack is a war through a proxy nation (Ukraine), in fact a war of the USA and UK with their ”willingful”(ironic) allies against Russia.

I underline the fact that although thanks to a rhetorical device this war is presented as a war of aggression by Russia against Ukraine it is in reality a war of aggression by the USA and UK against Russia.

This is because the USA and NATO have failed to fulfill their commitments signed during the discussions that took place between 1990 and 1991 between the political directors of the Foreign Ministries of the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany on the unification of the two Germanies, after the collapse of the Eastern one.

”we will not move an inch towards Russia…”

Among the documents cited, the one discovered in the British National Archives in London by American political scientist Joshua Shifrinson, who collaborated on the investigation of the German weekly and declared himself “honoured” by it in a tweet, stands out for its importance.

It is a report declassified in 2017, which gives a detailed account of the discussions that took place between 1990 and 1991 between the political directors of the Foreign Ministries of the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany on the unification of the two Germanies, after the collapse of the Eastern one.

The decisive discussion, reports Der Spiegel, took place on 6 March 1991 and focused on the issues of security in Central and Eastern Europe, as well as on relations with Russia, then led by Mikhail Gorbachev.

Faced with the request of some Eastern European countries to join NATO, led by Poland, the representatives of the four Western countries (USA, Great Britain, France and West Germany), engaged with Russia and East Germany in the talks of the “4+2” group, agreed in defining these requests as “unacceptable”.

According to the minutes of the meeting, West German diplomat Juergen Hrobog said: “We made it clear during the 2+4 negotiations that we do not intend to advance the Atlantic Alliance beyond the Oder.

Therefore, we cannot allow Poland or other nations of Central and Eastern Europe to join.”

This position, he specified, had been agreed with German Chancellor Helmuth Kohl and Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher.

At the same meeting, Der Spiegel reveals, the US representative, Raymond Seitz, declared: “We have officially promised the Soviet Union in the 2+4 talks, as well as in other bilateral contacts between Washington and Moscow, that we do not intend to exploit the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Central and Eastern Europe strategically and that NATO should not expand beyond the borders of the new Germany, either formally or informally.”

It is undeniable that this written document confirms some of Gorbachev’s memories of promises he had received, but only verbally, about NATO not expanding to the East.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph (7 May 2008), Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union, said that Helmuth Kohl had assured him that NATO “will not move an inch further east.”

An identical promise, he added on another occasion, had been made to him by former US Secretary of State James Baker, who however denied having ever made it.

Yet, Der Spiegel recalls, Baker was also contradicted by several diplomats, including the former US ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock, who specified that “categorical guarantees” had been given to the Soviet Union regarding the non-expansion of NATO to the east.

The weekly’s investigation adds that promises of the same kind had also been made to Moscow by British and French representatives.

The history of the last 30 years, however, tells a different story:

Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, Der Spiegel recalls, joined NATO in 1999, shortly before the war against Yugoslavia. Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, bordering Russia, did so in 2004. Now Ukraine also wants to do the same.

“Moscow has been cheated and clearly deceived”

Which triggered Putin’s reaction: “NATO should publicly renounce expansion into the former Soviet republics of Georgia and Ukraine, recalling US forces to the borders of the 1997 bloc.”

but Putin is not Gorbachev. He’s a much tougher guy…

Unlike what happened after Yalta until the fall of the Berlin Wall for almost half a century.

Someone would like to support the thesis of the self-determination of the former satellite countries of the soviet union but the truth is that these newborn and therefore minor countries as soon as they achieved independence or rather before were insidiously drawn into the NATO network by a metaphorically pedophilic west.

Do we want to talk about sovereignty?

Also countries like Germany and Italy that would have virtually achieved ”independence” after being occupied by the allies at the end of WWII are really sovereign nations?

Not at all!

Italy is still occupied by a number of US military bases exceeding 150!

Italian politics has never been free since the end of the war but has always been hostage to Atlanticism.

Not only was the Terrorism that troubled Italy from the 60s to the 80s in reality a consequence of a covert domination by the US and NATO.

Both Black and Red Terrorism in Italy in the 70s was a US and NATO puppet…What an Ally!

Something similar also happened in Germany.

Mussolini had eradicated Mafia in Sicily. The Allies replanted it to facilitate the landing in Sicily.

And since then, no one has succeeded in eradicating the Mafia in Italy, but rather I would say no one has really tried to eradicate the Mafia with streght and determination.

Also because it too, through the US Mafia, Italian Mafia has become the occult longa manus  of US imperialism in Italy. For dirty jobs.

But let’s get back to the Ukrainian issue.

It is always forgotten that in 2014 there was a coup d’état (Euromaidan) that subverted the democratic order that emerged from the elections.

But why does the West ultimately want this war against Russia?

Certainly not to return Donbass and/or Crimea to Ukraine. Certainly not. 

West wants to bleed Russia dry to provoke a regime change within it.

With the aim of replacing Putin with a leader who is more accommodating towards the West and more open to compromise. Possibly corruptible.

With the final aim of disintegrating Russia and appropriating its natural resources.

Luckily they did their sums badly and China plus other countries like Iran, North Korea and others understood that game well.

They understood that after having waged a war of robbery against Russia, the West will not stop and their turn will come (to be robbed).

And so they thought it was a good idea not to allow the disintegration of Russia and the appropriation of its natural resources by the West. 

As well it was their precise interest to help Russia not to succumb in this unequal greedy criminal struggle with the West!

We’ll see how it ends in the end.

Someone might say that it would have been better if I had written these things a long time ago since I’ve been brooding over them for a short time after that fateful February, 22nd 2022.

In this case I felt like the Talking Cricket in the tale of Pinocchio and I was afraid of being crushed by the ignorance of those who can’t understand certain things. These things…

Then if you’re asking why all wars are no limits i will explain it.

Let’s suppose that one of the two parties at war sees defeat as a probable and imminent outcome.

What do you think he will do?

Do you think he will give up on a last-ditch attempt to not succumb in order to respect the established rules and limits?

Or rather will he try everything (even the worst!) not to succumb and possibly win?

Claudio Resta

Claudio Resta was born in Genoa, Italy in 1958, he is a citizen of the world (Spinoza), a maverick philosopher, and an interdisciplinary expert, oh, and an artist, too.

https://www.theinteldrop.org/2024/09/01/there-is-no-such-a-thing-as-a-limited-war/

SEE ALSO: https://yourdemocracy.net/drupal/node/43171

AMERICA HAS WANTED TO DESTROY RUSSIA SINCE 1917...................

READ FROM TOP

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.