{"id":206643,"date":"2022-03-14T12:01:10","date_gmt":"2022-03-14T12:01:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/?p=206643"},"modified":"2022-03-09T05:57:40","modified_gmt":"2022-03-09T05:57:40","slug":"a-proposed-solution-to-the-ukraine-war","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.transcend.org\/tms\/2022\/03\/a-proposed-solution-to-the-ukraine-war\/","title":{"rendered":"A Proposed Solution to the Ukraine War"},"content":{"rendered":"

An end to the invasion and war in Ukraine can only be guaranteed if Russia\u2019s security is itself guaranteed. Security is largely indivisible. Security for one state requires security for others, says the Los Alamos Study Group.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

One of the most respected and best informed anti-nuclear war groups in the world is the Los Alamos Study Group. Founded at the end of the Cold War in Los Alamos, New Mexico, where the first nuclear bombs were designed and built, the LASG\u2019s aim of taking nuclear weapons out of foreign policy. It has won landmark environmental, civil rights and freedom of information lawsuits in the U.S., provided hundreds of top-level briefings, and played a crucial role in preventing the production of the core elements of plutonium warheads. As nuclear war threatens over Ukraine, the LASG has released this remarkable and urgent analysis of the risks and the solutions. \u2014 <\/em>John Pilger<\/p>\n

***************************<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>By Greg Mello<\/strong>
\nLos Alamos Study Group<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

7 Mar 2022 –<\/em> Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine began, what was a regional conflict has become a global hybrid war with ever-greater stakes, not least the risk of nuclear war.<\/p>\n

Perhaps the greatest danger lies in the difference of motives between parties, which is also the fundamental cause of this war: Russia seeks security, while the U.S. and its NATO allies have been using Ukraine to deny that security \u2014 to \u201cbreak Russia<\/a>,\u201d in Henry Kissinger\u2019s 2015 phrase. The U.S. does not want peace, unless it be the peace of a conquered Russia. That is why there is no obvious end to the escalations and counter-escalations. The U.S. and NATO see opportunity in the war they have been trying so hard to provoke.<\/p>\n

The tragedy is that few people seem to understand that at the root of the Ukraine crisis is a specific strategy known as the Wolfowitz Doctrine, named after Paul Wolfowitz who, as under secretary of defense in the administration of George H. W. Bush, was one of the authors of a 1992 document that laid out a neo-conservative manifesto aimed at ensuring American dominance of world affairs following the collapse of the Soviet Union.<\/p>\n

\u201cOur first objective,\u201d stated the document, \u201cis to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival [to the United States], either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere. \u2026 This is a dominant consideration underlying [a] regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Wolfowitz Doctrine triggered the post-Cold War use of NATO as an instrument of bloody aggression against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. It declared, in effect, that diplomacy was dead and that American power ruled by violence if necessary. A resurgent Russia led by Vladimir Putin was next, and on the horizon, a risen China.<\/p>\n

The 2014 Washington-engineered coup in Ukraine that removed an elected leader who sought to reinforce his country\u2019s relationship with neighboring Russia, was a product of the 1992 Doctrine and the extremism it represented. Victoria Nuland, a neo-conservative ideologue and President Barack Obama\u2019s \u201cpoint person\u201d in Ukraine, has played the same role in President Joe Biden\u2019s State Department.<\/p>\n

The 1992 Doctrine is elaborated in an infamous RAND\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0on how to overextend and, in Kissinger\u2019s words, \u201cbreak Russia.\u201d This is U.S. foreign policy today: a fact well understood by the Russian leadership who regard their country as effectively under siege by the United States.<\/p>\n

The potential of American missiles pointed at Moscow from former Soviet satellite countries, together with NATO troop deployments, is the reality they see. A militarized and virulently anti-Russian Ukraine being used as a tool by the U.S., with an expressed wish for nuclear weapons, on the brink of invading Russian-sympathizing provinces on the Russian border \u2014 all that was too much for Russia. What, do you suppose, the U.S. would do if such a situation arose in Mexico or Canada?<\/p>\n

Since 2014, the Las Alamos Study Group has made it part of our business to understand the conflict in Ukraine and its significance for the world. In that year we held public meetings and teach-ins discussing it and since then have tried to examine developments as we could. In the Obama Administration, we took our concerns to the offices of the National Security Council \u2014 and were appalled by the lack of knowledge and understanding we found there.<\/p>\n

Many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have taken positions on this conflict. In our view, most (not all) of their statements are superficial, and\/or omit the causes of the invasion as Russia understands them, or are in lock-step with U.S. and NATO propaganda.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

(Fogener Haus\/Wikimedia Commons)<\/p><\/div>\n

The Study Group\u2019s Basic Conclusions<\/h3>\n