Blog

LECTURE IHA 31-3. THE WAR THAT CHANGES THE WORLD

Lecture by Lieutenant General (ret.) Ioannis Baltzoi at the IHA on 31/3/22. The text of the lecture follows. Basically, the speaker uses only American sources, except for the first evidence of war in Ukraine since 2004 and it is Greek, by Dr. Elias Iliopoulos of the IAA (Institute for Defense Analyses) of the Hellenic National Defense General Staff, under the direction of Professor I. Mazis at the time. All other sources are American. Of particular interest are the questions from Greece, America and Canada, from professors and others. 

Click on the image to view the presentation.

 THE WAR THAT CHANGES THE WORLD 

LECTURE AT IHA ZOOM – 31/3/2022

Antgos Ioannis Ath. Baltzoi

President of ELISME, M.Sc...in Geopolitics.

Ladies and gentlemen,

I thank the president, Captain Rigo, and the members of the IHA Board of Directors, for the honorable invitation to speak before you today, about an invasion, a war, not far from us, in Europe, the war in Ukraine. We are living in historical and tragic times at the same time, with a war in Ukraine, which overshadows and dominates every other issue and event. My effort is to speak to you without sentimentality or mental burden, but with a view to objectivity and the presentation of the truth, as I perceive it, without invoking the infallibility of my analysis.

I'll start with the basics. Russia's condemnation of this invasion of another country is absolutely clear and unanimous, and we should all stand in solidarity with the suffering and mortally wounded Ukrainian people, especially the civilians. In particular, we Greeks should be sensitive, active, and denunciatory about the illegal invasion of a Christian state, Russia, against another independent Christian state, Ukraine, which has been going on for 36 years.^η day. And this is because in Hellenism (Greece and Cyprus) there is still continuously for 48 years, the healing wound of the barbaric invasion of Turkey in Cyprus. And the Greek political and state leadership of the homeland should have seized the unique opportunity and highlighted in every case the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the illegal occupation of 37% of the island, by the cunning, cunning and supposedly neutral, Turkey. An opportunity that unfortunately Greece not only does not exploit, but also "washes away" Turkish aggression and its dangerous revisionism, as well as the daily encroachment on our national sovereignty. A Turkey, which sells weapons to Ukraine, is allied with Russia, even buying weapons, although it is a member of NATO and talks with claims of high importance as an ally with the USA. And Turkey, which has invaded four countries (Cyprus, Iraq, Syria, Libya) and illegally occupied the territories of these countries, is undertaking peace initiatives between the belligerents and organizing meetings, presenting itself as a protector and guardian of peace (sic).

The analyses in Greece about the conflict in Ukraine are currently taking place in conditions of hysteria, propaganda, ideology and lies and not in conditions of realism, knowledge, memory and especially the identification of the causes that caused it. The one-sided presentation of events, consciously or unconsciously attempts to obscure the understanding of the causes that create an event. Hysteria assists the stimulation of the emotional and aims to exclude the functioning of the logical. Thus, we will try to see the events with sobriety, composure and objectivity. The war in Ukraine is the most dangerous international crisis since the Cuban missile crisis in 1962, which may even end in a world war or even a nuclear confrontation, something we hope for. To understand what is happening, I will use words and articles mainly from American intellectuals, politicians, respected professors and writers on international law issues only, so that we can see the situation through their views, as more objective. According to the wise general Sun Tzu, “the first principle of war is deception”, as well as the saying that “in war, the first thing to die is the truth”.

COULD WAR BE AVOIDED?

Η My personal opinion is that it could have been avoided if the geostrategic aspirations of NATO, the USA (the leader of the Naval Forces), Ukraine and Russia had changed, because in this area strong geopolitical interests clash between the land and naval global powers. The geostrategic aspirations of all those involved not only did not change, but were intensified and made concrete on the territory of Ukraine (training of the Ukrainian army by the British and Americans, weapons portable A/A and A/T systems, preparation for a NATO naval base west of Odessa, etc.), so the war seemed imminent and inevitable. It seems that up to a point it was also intended. The Russians knew what the Naval Forces were seeking and the West knew Russia's red lines. The geostrategic aspirations of the West aim at the redistribution of power and influence in the geopolitical space of the post-Soviet major Central Europe “Mitteleuropa” (Poland – Ukraine – Belarus – Baltic countries), the “apple of contention” is Ukraine, regardless of ideological systems. According to the Brzezinski doctrine, as defined in his book “The Grand Chessboard”, which defines his bold and provocative geostrategic vision, for ensuring American supremacy in the 21st century, Russia together with Ukraine according to Brzezinski is an imperial power, without Ukraine it is a major regional power.

THE GREEK ANALYSIS THAT FORESEEED DEVELOPMENTS SINCE 2004.

 According to the "EMERGENCY SERVICE MEMORANDUM, Issue 27, of 6 December 2004", in the analysis of the Geostrategic Analysis on the Ukrainian issueOf Dr. Elias Iliopoulos, at the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), under the direction of Professor I. Mazis, we read about the possible developments in Ukraine, since 2004 we emphasize it, which prove to be chillingly prophetic, because these are happening today:

«For Russia, the potential loss of its special relationship with Ukraine (through the latter's defeat and subsequent accession to NATO) would be a severe defeat., infinitely heavier than the loss of the countries of Western Central Europe (Czech Republic, Hungary) or SE Europe (Bulgaria, Serbia).

•         A possible expansion of NATO towards Ukraine would now mean the definitive (and suffocating) encirclement of Russia by a military coalition of states that is dominated by the World Power, acts in a revisionist manner in the international system and has repeatedly given tangible examples of breaching a specific type of its promises and declarations.".

NATO's expansion to the East seems to be (and this is how Russia perceives it) an "updated" reissue of the classic German Geostrategy for Central Europe, as had already been presented in 1914, before the German Parliament, by the then Chancellor during the reading of the War Objectives against Russia, and which envisaged the division of (then Tsarist) Russia into at least four parts:

a) Ukraine, whose secondment was considered a conditio sine qua non. (necessary condition).

b) Muslim Regions of the Caucasus.

c) Siberia.

d) Remaining Russia.

Thus, for the Russian geostrategic vision, Ukraine is considered the red line, which NO Russian leader would NEVER ignore.

VIEWS OF AMERICAN THINKER ON UKRAINE AND NATO EXPANSION.

The following is mentioned about NATO's expansion to the East.

A. AGREEMENT 2+4 (12-9-1990)

Declassified 30 documents, contained in the Agreement for the reunification of the 2 Germanys (East and West). They are in the Archives of George Washington University. They assure that NATO will not expand eastward. I have read them all. I mention two features.

• Ø Baker, US Secretary of State to Gorbachev "not an inch of NATO's current military jurisdiction will be extended eastward"». (Document 6).
• Ø French leader François Mitterrand was not in agreement with the Americans, as evidenced by his telling Gorbachev in Moscow on May 25, 1990, that "personally he was in favor of the gradual dissolution of the military blocs", and that the West must "to create conditions of security for you, as well as European security as a whole». (Document 20)

B. HENRY KISSINGER (2014)

In 2014, former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger wrote prophetically in the Washington Post: "Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years. Before that, it was under some form of foreign rule, since the 14th century. It is no surprise that its leaders have not learned the art of compromise… Russia could not impose a military solution without isolating itself, at a time when most of its borders are already insecure. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not political, it is an alibi for its absence.". And after analyzing the facts he concludes: "Ukraine should have the right to freely choose its economic and political partners. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I held seven years ago when the issue last arose. Ukraine should be free to form any government that is consistent with the wishes of its people. Then, wise Ukrainian leaders should prefer a policy of reconciliation between the different parts of their country. Internationally, they should seek to adopt a position similar to that of Finland.».

C. JOHN MEARSHEIMER.

          According to international relations professor and author John Mearsheimer, the “father of realist politics,” in a recent article in the “Financial Times,” he explains that “The problem for Ukraine began at the NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008 when the then-George Bush administration pushed the alliance to announce that Ukraine and Georgia would “become members.” Russian leaders immediately responded with anger, calling the decision a threat to Russia’s very existence and vowing to prevent it.According to a reputable Russian journalist, Putin was “furious” and warned that “…If Ukraine joins NATO, it will do so without Crimea and its eastern regions. It will simply collapse.". America ignored Moscow's red line and pushed forward with its plan to make Ukraine its western bulwark on the border with Russia. And the professor continues: "Ultimately, these efforts sparked a series of hostilities in February 2014, following an uprising (which was supported by America), and led to the pro-Russian president of Ukraine, Yanukovych, fleeing the country and the “election” of a pro-Western government.. In response, Russia annexed Crimea and helped start a civil war in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. The next major confrontation came in December 2021 and led directly to the current war. The main cause, the professor writes, “was that Ukraine would become a de facto member of NATO, a process that began in December 2017, when the Trump administration decided to sell “defensive weapons” to Kiev. Ties between Ukraine and America continued to strengthen under the Biden administration, which is reflected in a major document, the “US-Ukraine Charter for Strategic Cooperation.””, which was signed in November 2021…. and also emphasizes that the two countries will follow what resulted from the “Bucharest Summit Declaration, 2008. Russia demanded a written guarantee that Ukraine would never become part of NATO and that the alliance would remove the military assets it had deployed in Eastern Europe since 1997 (missile systems). However, the negotiations that followed failed, as Blinken made it clear that “there is no change and there will be no change”. So on February 24, Russia launched its invasion of Ukraine to eliminate the threat it saw from NATO, precisely implementing the US Monroe Doctrine.

          D. GEORGE KENAN

In a recent article in VIMA (25-1-22) we read what the leading columnist of the "New York Times" Thomas Friedman wrote on 21-1-22, referring to a conversation he had in May 1998, with the then 94-year-old George Kennan, the emblematic figure of American foreign policy, who had laid the foundations of this policy after the war with the "Truman Doctrine" and the "Marshall Plan", with the aim of "containment" of the influence of the Soviet Union and the spread of communism. George Kennan, the initiator of the post-war Cold War, expressed his concern "that the decision to expand NATO eastward, he described as a "tragic mistake", would be "the beginning of a new Cold War" and would lead the Russians to a gradually strong reaction,while Russia at that time had no aggressive disposition towards the West"And that's exactly what's happening today, with Russia's invasion of Ukraine."

E. PATRICK MOOKANAN.

Patrick Buchanan, author and advisor to President Nixon, three-time US presidential candidate, in an article (March 2022) concludes about the war: "If we had assured Putin that NATO would be closed to Kiev, we could have prevented what happened.».

S. BERNIE SANDERS

Senator Bernie Sanders gave a stirring speech in the US parliament, where he referred to the war in Ukraine and told many truths.

«Colleagues, we have learned the hard way that wars have unintended consequences. They rarely have the outcome that the orchestrators and experts of each war promise us they will have," Sanders said initially. "Ask the officials who predicted rosy scenarios for the wars in Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, only to be proven tragically wrong in the end."«Is there anyone who truly believes that the United States would not say anything if, for example, Mexico, Cuba, or any country in Central or Latin America wanted to join the military alliance that is hostile to the United States?"; "Do you think members of Congress would stand up and say, well, Mexico is an independent country, it has the right to do whatever it wants?"?" Bernie Sanders asked meaningfully and added meaningfully "I have many doubts about this.».

THE UKRAINIAN CONSTITUTION.

 It seems that the above was not taken into account by anyone, since the leadership of Ukraine in 2019 was forced, due to pressure, to include two amendments to its Constitution regarding "with the European identity of the Ukrainian people and the irreversibility of Ukraine's European and Euro-Atlantic path", as well as Article 102, where the President of Ukraine is characterized as "The guarantor of the implementation of the country's strategic path towards full integration into the European Union and NATO", exactly as they are written in the Ukrainian Constitution.

UN HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR DONBAS

          Another issue was the war that continued in the "autonomous" region of Donbas from 2014 to the present, despite the Minsk Agreement (2015), signed by Russia, Germany, France and Ukraine to grant autonomy to the region in question. According to the Final Assessment of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the OSCE, from 14/4/2014 to 31/12/2021, the following is reported:

•         Victims on both sides (Ukrainian Army and Forces of Donbas, i.e. Lugansk and Donetsk) from 51.000 to 54.000.

•         Deaths: 14.200 to 14.400Of which at least 3.404 civilians from Donbas, 4.400 from the Ukrainian army and 6.500 from the Donbas military forces.

•         Injured 37.000 to 39.000. Of which 7.000 to 9.000 civilians, 13.800 to 14.200 from the Ukrainian army and 15.800 to 16.200 from the Donbas military forces.

In other words, for 8 years, a continuous war raged in the region in question, with over 14.000 dead, and no one said anything and no one from the international community did anything.

RUSSIAN CLAIMS. WHAT THEY CLAIM ABOUT USA-NATO.

• Ø YOU DECEIVED US. YOU EXPANDED AT THE BENEFIT OF OUR SECURITY.
• Ø NATO IS AN OFFENSIVE ORGANIZATION AND NOT A DEFENSIVE ONE.
• Ø UKRAINE IS THE BUFFER ZONE ESSENTIAL FOR RUSSIA'S VITAL DEFENSE.
• Ø UKRAINE IS NOT IN NATO. OUR SECURITY IS THREATENED.
• Ø IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MINSK AGREEMENT, SIGNED BY UKRAINE (2015)
• Ø DENAZIFICATION. THE RUSSIAN-SPEAKING PEOPLE OF THE DONBAS ARE IN DANGER.
• Ø CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN. A REFERENDUM WAS HELD LIKE IN KOSOVO AND WITH A PERCENTAGE OF MORE THAN 85% THEY DEMANDED UNION WITH RUSSIA

START OF WAR (24-2-2022)

To understand what is happening, we must first look at how the war began. When Russia made the choice to carry out this aggressive major military operation, it claimed that it did so because it believed that there would be a major Ukrainian attack on the “people’s democracies” and that there was a plan to essentially transfer NATO units to Ukrainian territory. This also determined the choice, instead of a military operation to simply secure the newly recognized “sovereignty” of the “people’s democracies,” the Russian leadership planned a military operation that would ensure that Ukraine would not constitute what Russia defines as a threat, that is, it would not have a pro-Western government and would not be a member of NATO.

This set a series of goals from the beginning: to secure the "people's democracies", thus to crush the critical mass of the Ukrainian armed forces that were mainly continuing, with the participation of nationalist and far-right groups, the civil war in the east, to radically limit Ukraine's overall defense infrastructure and to arrange a "regime change" in Ukraine.

THE WAR IN UKRAINE IS CHANGING THE WORLD.

1. A new dividing line in Europe

2. The end of the post-Cold War world order. Challenging American dominance.

3. The strategic alliance between Russia and China is deepening

4. The division of the world into two hostile, competing camps is accelerating.

5. Emphasis on European security will limit the US pivot to Asia.

6. Intensification of the global arms race.

7. Germany may play a more decisive role in Europe's security (DEFENSE SPENDING 100 BILLION EUROS per year)

8. Europe must decide where it will stand in the new world order

9. Existing conflicts in the world will intensify.

10. The strengthening of the Russia-China alliance. A HYPER POWER is then created that will be impossible to contain. If other countries join, such as India (which has declared that it is aligned with Russia), then this superpower will not be able to be countered. The American policy of dual protection will collapse.

EPILOGUE

Ukraine has been experiencing enormous damage to infrastructure and losses in economic development since the start of the Russian invasion on February 24 until today.

According to Ukrainian Finance Minister Yulia Svirydenko, the war has cost her country $564,9 billion (€514 billion) in infrastructure damage, lost economic growth and other factors. In a post on her website, the minister said that the fighting in Ukraine has destroyed 8.000 kilometers of roads and XNUMX million square meters of housing.

Finally, let us briefly refer to the military operations being conducted in eastern Ukraine. On February 24, 2022, Russia, after recognizing the independence of the Luhansk and Donetsk regions (both in the Donbas region), invaded Ukraine on four axes and operations are underway in Kiev, (in which it is currently easing, as the Russians claim) Kharkiv, Donbass, Mykolaiv, etc., where the Ukrainian army occupies the cities and the Russian army blocks and surrounds them.  So far, the Russians have occupied Kherson, Melitopol, and finally the martyred Mariupol, with the estimated aim of uniting Donbass with Tauris (Crimea), turning the Sea of ​​Azov into a Russian lake. In this phase, Russian forces are being stabilized and losses of materials and weapons systems are being replaced.   Units from eastern Russia have already arrived in the region, reinforcing or replacing units that have suffered heavy losses. With the completion of the occupation of Mariupol, forces of 8.000 men will be released for operations against other regions. It is estimated that it is very likely that forces in Donbas will be strengthened to restore the territory of Donbas to the west, to its old administrative borders. There is also the possibility of Russian units moving north from the Mykolaiv region, on both sides of the Dnieper River, as well as from the North (Kharkov and Sumy region), so that in the event of the two axes joining, they will have trapped approximately 70.000 men of the Ukrainian army in the East. Ukraine with all that this entails and is likely to mean the end of the war, which at the moment seems very difficult and operations will continue. It appears that the new phase of operations will be targeted attacks on selected targets in stages.   The war is driven into a bloody stalemate, which could last weeks or months. US President Biden's aggressive rhetoric, with insults against President Putin, is likely to make it difficult for the two countries (the US and Russia) to converge and come into contact to reach a solution. It is difficult for President Putin to back down now, unless he gets at least the bare minimum of his demands and objectives. That is, the entire Donbas region, with its unification with Crimea, which he had set as necessary conditions. That is, an independent Donbas, Crimea to be definitively recognized as belonging to Russia, a change to the Constitution so that Russia will not join NATO, and a neutral status (like Finland) for Ukraine. The maximum of his aspirations, namely complete control of the East. Ukraine, even to create a new "Iron Curtain".  On the other hand, it is difficult for President Zelensky to accept all of this, and that is why he is asking for a referendum from the Ukrainians on what he sees coming, since the substantial assistance that he hoped the West would send him (troops, planes, etc.) cannot be implemented. It is utopian to request a NO FLY ZONE from NATO, since that would mean NATO involvement, hence World War III. Why does it persist? Because it is at a complete impasse in achieving a victorious counterattack, despite the provision by Western countries of portable anti-tank and anti-aircraft systems by the thousands. The Russians will continue their strategic precision missile strikes on the Ukrainian army's ammunition and fuel depots, with the result, as foreign institutes estimate, that in 2-3 weeks they will completely run out of fuel and ammunition, which will lead to its total or partial collapse.      Special mention should be made of the martyred Mariupol, where 120.000 Greek expatriates live in the city and surrounding areas, which has been completely destroyed by the bombings and we do not know their fate. In conclusion, I would like to mention the assessment of the American professor Mearsheimer about Ukraine, which is unfortunately probably confirmed: "What is happening here is that the West is leading Ukraine down a slippery slope that will ultimately lead to the destruction of Ukraine.", without of course reducing the enormous criminal responsibilities of Russia, which was the first to invade the country. Finally, after this war, Ukraine will not be the same, while as many estimate, there will be a continuation in the Balkans (Kosovo, Bosnia, Serbia), while the mother of the battles will be in the China Sea, where the two great strategic defense formations will clash, NATO, with Europe, the USA and Australia and on the other hand the new Superpower (Russia, China, India and Arab countries), which according to many analysts will not be able to cope. The war in Ukraine is the geopolitical explosion that ultimately changes the entire world in the World Island (Eurasia and Africa) and the new multipolar world is finally created, with new hegemonic powers and strategic formations. And confirming Sir Harold Mackinder, the possessor of the Heartland of the World Island (Eurasia, i.e. Russia and China) will dominate the whole world. And it seems that Harvard professor Graham Allison will also be confirmed about the famous Thucydides trap, where it can lead to a global confrontation and a world war.