Address by George Samueli, associate of the Center for geostrategic studies from Hungary, to the UN Security Council, 31. October 2024.
Thank you, Madam President, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this reputable body.
If ever a war could be easily avoided, the war in Ukraine is that war. If ever a war is unnecessarily provoked, the war in Ukraine is that war.
The war in Ukraine came about as a result of the unanimous insistence of the Western powers that every country on the European continent be included in NATO and that NATO's borders extend all the way to the borders of the Russian Federation.
The war in Ukraine came because for more than three decades the Western powers continued to reject innumerable pleas from successive Soviet and Russian leaders, including Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin, that there could be no security for anyone on the continent unless the West and Russia agreed on a common framework for peace that guaranteed freedom and security.all of them.
How do we know that? Because former NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg told us that. In September 2023. Stoltenberg appeared before the European Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee and explained in a very concise manner that the war in Ukraine could have been avoided if NATO had not insisted on moving its military infrastructure to Russia's borders. President Putin, he explained, " actually sent a draft of the treaty they wanted NATO to sign, promising that there would be no more NATO enlargement. he wanted us to sign that promise, never to expand NATO.... We refused. So he went to war to prevent NATO from expanding near its borders. He got the exact opposite.”
What Stoltenberg was referring to here were two drafts of the new security architecture proposal for Europe that Russia published on the 17th. December 2021. The proposals-one to NATO, one to the United States – are reminiscent of the framework of the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. in which the mutually antagonistic sides of the Cold War agreed to acknowledge each other's security concerns and pledged not to increase their own security at the expense of their alleged opponents.
The core of the Russian proposals was NATO's commitment to no further expansion, and especially not Ukraine's membership in NATO. there was nothing so unusual about it. In the 1990 declaration of state sovereignty. Ukraine declared " its intention to become a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs."
The idea propagated by NATO spokesmen and Western policymakers that every state has the sovereign right to join any military alliance it wants, to deploy whatever weapons it wants on its territory, and to ignore concerns about the security of its neighbors, is opposed by countless international treaties and conventions, not to mention international practice the state from time immemorial.
International agreements and practice
Helsinki Final Act of 1975 he spoke of the"indivisibility of security". Paris charter for a new Europe 1990 "Security is indivisible and the security of each participating state is inextricably linked to that of all others." 1999 Istanbul document of the OSCE he repeatedly returned to the topic of what he called "the concept of a common, comprehensive and indivisible security and a common security space without dividing lines".
And let's not forget, Of course, that in October 1962. The United States did not accept the argument that the island of Cuba had the sovereign right to station on its territory all the weapons systems it deemed necessary for its security.
However, the security Western powers demand for themselves refuse to give to others, especially the Russian Federation.
The Cold War came to an end in 1991. The Soviet Union dissolved the Warsaw Pact, then dissolved itself, and then abandoned the communist ideology that had once caused so much fear and suspicion in the West.
Russia wanted nothing more than to be left in peace to rebuild its ruined economy. Recall the words of Russian President Boris Yeltsin before the joint session of the US Congress on the 17th. June 1992. year:
"Today, American freedom is supported in Russia. The idol of communism, which has spread social strife, animosity and unprecedented brutality everywhere је has been crushed. He collapsed to never get up again. I am here to assure you, we will not allow it to rise again in our country.”
What happened at that time was unprecedented in human history. The Soviet and Russian leaders gave up territory, renounced their military allies and sacrificed security. Remember, they didn't have to do this. The Soviet Union did not lose a single war. On the contrary, the Soviet Union was still a huge military and political force, which caused fear and respect around the world.
The Soviet and Russian leaders did what they did because they believed it was the right thing to do.
Western leaders declare "victory in the Cold War"
However, Western leaders interpreted the end of the Cold War as a victory for the West and a humiliating defeat for the Soviet Union. According to former President George H. W. Bush, "the Soviet Union did not simply lose the Cold War; Western democracies won it."
And, as alleged winners, the Western powers immediately began to collect their winnings. They continued to contain, encircle and surround Russia, so that Russia would never again be a great power.
The most shocking of all, especially for the Russians, was the speed with which the West did all this. Recall the words of US Secretary of State James Baker to Mikhail Gorbachev in Moscow 9. February 1990. The Berlin Wall had fallen just three months earlier, but the United States had already insisted on reuniting Germany within NATO. to get Gorbachev to agree to this, Baker promised that NATO would not move "one inch to the East".
After that, Western politicians had to claim that Baker meant only the territory of East Germany, not the countries of Eastern Europe. But this is a completely untrue claim. At the time of Baker's meeting with Gorbachev, the Warsaw Pact still existed, since all the Warsaw Pact countries were east of Germany, the words "not an inch to the East" would have to refer to them.
From that moment in February 1990. in 2015, Western leaders had to give Russian leaders successive assurances that there would be no NATO expansion, only to revoke those assurances the moment they secured all the concessions they demanded from Moscow.
Former UK prime minister John Major, for example, stated in March 1991. "it does not foresee the circumstances under which Eastern European countries could be in NATO, now or in the future."
Then there was former NATO Secretary-General Manfred Warner who, after assuring a visiting Russian delegation that neither he nor anyone else in NATO was interested in NATO enlargement, until March 1993. he pressured then-U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher to "begin to consider possible timeframes, candidates, and criteria for membership expansion."
NATO expansion is going fast
When the Western powers moved to expand NATO, things moved at extraordinary speed. All it took was to tell the Russians that what was actually happening was not happening, that it was all a figment of their imagination.
For example, President Bill Clinton, after assuring President Yeltsin that the Partnership for Peace program was an alternative to NATO enlargement-rather than a preliminary step towards it – immediately withdrew his word. In January 1994. in Prague, Clinton stated that, yes, the Partnership for peace is indeed the first step towards NATO membership: "the Partnership for peace," he said, "is not a permanent holding room.
"This changes the whole NATO dialogue, so now it is no longer a question of whether NATO will take over new members, but when and how." Moreover, already at that early point Clinton had already indicated that the ultimate goal was the entry of Ukraine into NATO.
In the July 1995 memorandum. written for President Clinton, then-national security adviser Anthony Lake boasted that the U.S. was intent on dealing with concerns among some Europeans that NATO expansion was going too fast. Lake boasted that " some allies have reacted to Russian criticism of enlargement by suggesting that the Alliance slows down the process. We successfully insisted that NATO adhere to the schedule.
But in public, the leaders of the United States and NATO were saying something different, something that was obviously untrue, namely, that NATO's expansion was reduced to ending divisions and bringing stability to Europe. For example, in 1994. Secretary of State Warren Christopher said:
"NATO expansion will advance America's primary goal — a peaceful, undivided and democratic Europe. NATO enlargement will improve stability, reduce tensions and prevent new dividing lines in Europe.
US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright arrived in February 1997. a year ago:
"NATO has helped us achieve the most elusive dream of this century: an undivided Europe, in peace, in which every nation is free and every free nation is a partner.for those who are not invited to join this year, but who want to join, the doors of NATO must remain open."
Russia proposes membership in NATO
But how can there be stability, How can there be no new lines of division in Europe, if NATO expansion was to be directed towards the exclusion of Russia? Russian leaders have repeatedly expressed interest in NATO membership. In a letter to NATO leaders in December 1991., written shortly after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin proposed to explore a framework for Russia's possible NATO membership. Yeltsin wrote:
"This will contribute to creating a climate of mutual understanding and trust, strengthening stability and cooperation on the European continent. We consider these relations very serious and we want to develop this dialogue in every direction, both politically and militarily. Today we are asking the question of Russia's membership in NATO, but considering it a long-term political goal.
In 1993, in talks with American and European leaders, Yeltsin again pointed to the possibility of Russia joining NATO. Yeltsin told NATO Secretary-General Manfred Wernher that Russia could consider NATO membership if the alliance became a political organization rather than a military one.
President Putin also spoke about Russia's interest in NATO membership. In March 2000. when asked by BBC host Sir David Frost if Russia could join NATO at all, Putin replied: "I don't see why not. I would not rule out such a possibility if and when Russia's views are taken into account as those of an equal partner. Putin and President Clinton discussed possible NATO membership. Clinton reportedly replied, " I have no objection. Clinton later told him, " You know, I talked to my team, no, that's not possible now.
NATO leaders have not shown the slightest interest in exploring these offers of genuine partnership, genuine removal of barriers and genuine frameworks for mutual security.
Kenan's warning
That NATO's expansion to exclude Russia, to contain and encircle Russia would end in disaster, was obvious to experienced observers of international affairs. Renowned diplomat and historian George F. Kennan expressed disgust at this crazy rush towards NATO expansion.
"I think this is the beginning of a new Cold War," he warned in 1998.
"I think that the Russians will gradually react quite negatively and that will affect their policy. I think it's a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this. No one threatened anyone.”
The obvious question arises: what was behind this rush to expand NATO? What was the need for this? No one threatened anyone. On the contrary, relations between Russia and the West were unprecedented in their friendliness.
Yeltsin cooperated with NATO on the issue of Yugoslavia, even against the interests of Russia's traditional ally, the Serbs. This cooperation continued with Putin. Putin was the first foreign leader to call Bush after the 11th terrorist attacks. in September, he declared that Russia would become America's partner in the global war on terrorism. Putin allowed the United States to move troops and weapons across Russian territory en route to Afghanistan.
President Clinton explained the reasons for his effort to expand NATO. Writing in edition The Atlantic, April 2022. Clinton explained that everything related to his fear of Russia's alleged "return to ultranationalism , replacing democracy and cooperation with imperial aspirations, such as Peter The Great and Catherine The Great Ако if Russia decided to return to ultranationalist imperialism – driven by natural resources and characterized by a strong authoritarian government with a powerful military – an expanded NATO and a growing European Union-would strengthen the security of the continent.
So we have that: nothing here about ending divisions in Europe, about extending security across the European continent, and all those other grandiose statements that NATO leaders have honored us with over the last three decades. As the Russian leaders suspected, it was about containing and encircling Russia with a hostile military alliance.
Russian warnings ignored
Over the years, Russian leaders have made their feelings clear, but their protests have been repeatedly rejected and ignored. In a 2008 interview with The Telegraph. former Soviet President Gorbachev said:
"The Americans promised that NATO would not move beyond Germany's borders after the Cold War, but now half of Central and Eastern Europe is in membership, so what happened to their promises?
President Yeltsin has repeatedly expressed his confusion as to why NATO is expanding at a dizzying speed to the East if NATO and Russia are to be partners. In a November 1994 letter to Clinton, Yeltsin warned that the Russian people increasingly saw NATO expansion as "the beginning of new divisions in Europe". In December 1994. Yeltsin asked, " why sow the seeds of distrust? After all, we are no longer the enemy. In May 1995, in a one-on-one conversation in the Kremlin with Clinton, Yeltsin stated: "I see nothing but humiliation for Russia if you continue. What do you think it would look like if one bloc continued to exist while the Warsaw Pact was abolished? It is a new form of encirclement if the only survivors of the Cold War bloc extend to the borders of Russia.“
Moreover, Russian leaders were too aware that NATO had long targeted Ukraine's eventual membership. In March 1997. in Helsinki, Clinton revealed to Yeltsin that the former republics of the USSR would indeed join NATO, and that, of course, this would include Ukraine.
Ukrainian move
From that moment on, things moved quickly. In May 1997. the official NATO information and Documentation Center was opened in Kiev in July 1997. the NATO-Ukraine Charter is signed and the NATO-Ukraine Commission is established; November 2002. the NATO-Ukraine action plan was launched.
In April 2005. President George W. Bush and then-President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko jointly stated:
"The United States supports Ukraine's aspirations for NATO and is ready to help Ukraine achieve its goals.the United States supports the offer of an intensified dialogue on membership issues with Ukraine."
In April 2008. the year, of course, sees the announcement of NATO in Bucharest that Ukraine will be a member of NATO. and then, just to bring things back to this day, we have US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin who in October 2021. he announces that the door to Ukraine's membership in NATO is open.
As for how the Russians probably viewed Ukraine's membership in NATO, there is no better source than current CIA Director William Burns. In his memoirs of 2019. the Back Channel: A Memoir of American Diplomacy and the Case for its Renewal, described how he, as US ambassador to Moscow, in 2008. he wrote an email to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in which he explained:
"Ukraine's entry into NATO is the brightest of all the red lines for the Russian elite.in more than two and a half years of talks with key Russian players, from those caught in the darkness of the Kremlin to Putin's harshest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who sees Ukraine in NATO as something other than a direct challenge to Russia's interests."
Sabotaged negotiations
That the current war in Ukraine has always been about NATO expansion, rather than any seizure of territory, was evident from the round of peace talks that took place shortly after the beginning of the conflict — first in Minsk and then in Istanbul.
In April 2022. in Istanbul, Russia and Ukraine reached and initialled an agreement, the most important part of which was that Ukraine would commit to becoming a "permanently neutral state": it would never join NATO or allow foreign military bases and contingents on its soil. Ukraine could, however, seek membership in the European Union.
Most importantly, however, Ukraine was not asked to renounce its sovereign claims to Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk. These issues were to be resolved in future talks between the presidents of Russia and Ukraine.
However, key NATO leaders did not like this extremely reasonable agreement that would immediately end the war.
Washington was alarmed that Ukraine was preparing to agree to this deal. According to the New York Times, U.S. officials told their Ukrainian counterparts: "you understand that this is unilateral disarmament, right?“
Finally, British prime minister Boris Johnson flew to Kiev and urged Zelensky to abandon the idea. Putin was a" war criminal, " Johnson said. We need to break him, not negotiate with him. Even if Ukraine was ready to sign the deal, Johnson told him, NATO powers were not.
After the collapse of the negotiations, the Turkish foreign minister said that "there are those in NATO member states who want the war to continue... and Russia to become weaker".
NATO policy remains unchanged. Despite all that has happened, despite the experience of the past 30 years, despite the obvious fact that expansion to Russia's borders has caused instability and war, despite all that, what is NATO doing? He continues to insist that Ukraine must and will be a member of NATO.in other words, the war must continue for the sake of the goal – Ukraine's membership in NATO-that guarantees war. NATO leaders are like the Bourbons: they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
Thank you so much for your time and attention.
Source: Address to the U. N. Security Council, Oct. 31, 2024
Translation from English: Center for geostrategic studies
28. December 2024.
