By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Copyright NATO
Update and Introductory Note
According to Joe Biden:
“The Russian military has begun a brutal assault on the people of Ukraine without provocation, without justification, without necessity. (Joe Biden’s, Press conference, February 24, 2022).
What is important to underscore is that NATO’s Secretary General in a formal statement to the European Parliament contradicts the official narrative. He unequivocally confirms that the War started in 2014
On September 7, 2023, NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg in a presentation to the European Parliament, formally acknowledged that:
“the war didn’t start in February last year [2022]. It started in 2014.”
That was ten years ago.
This far-reaching declaration confirms his earlier statement in May 2023 in an interview with the Washington Post:
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: The war in Ukraine has fundamentally changed NATO, but then you have to remember the war didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014. And since then, NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War. (Washington Post, May 9, 2023)
Speaking on behalf of NATO, what this statement (European Parliament, WP) unequivocally confirms is that US-NATO was already at war in 2014. It also tacitly acknowledges that Russia did not “initiate the war” on Ukraine in February 2022.
“The purpose of this is to prevent war”
In a twisted irony, in his presentation to the European Parliament, Stoltenberg portrays “the purpose” of the Ukraine war, which has resulted in more than 300,000 casualties as a means “to prevent war”.
Transcript of Stoltenberg Statement to European Parliament
“Therefore, we have already increased our presence in eastern part of the Alliance, to send a very clear message to Moscow. To remove any room for misunderstanding, miscalculation. That NATO is there to defend every inch of NATO territory, one for all for one.
At the NATO summit, we agreed new plans for the defence of the whole Alliance. We also agreed to establish and identify more high readiness troops, 300,000 troops on different levels of high readiness, and also have more air and naval capabilities, ready to quickly reinforce if needed.
The purpose of this is to prevent war. The purpose of this is to ensure that NATO continues to be the most successful Alliance in history because we have prevented any military attack on any NATO Allies. And when there’s a full-fledged war going on in Europe, then it becomes even more important that we have credible deterrence and by strengthening our deterrence and defence, we are preventing war, preserving peace for NATO Allies, because there’s no room for miscalculation.
And the third thing was that NATO Allies have really now demonstrated that they are delivering on the commitment we made in 2014, because the war didn’t start in February last year. It started in 2014. The full-fledged invasion happened last year, but the war, the illegal annexation of Crimea, Russia went into eastern Donbas in 2014. (emphasis added)
What Stoltenberg fails to acknowledge is the US-NATO’s role in triggering the 2014 EuroMaidan massacre which was conducive “in the name of Western democracy” to a “regime change”: namely the instatement of a Neo-Nazi puppet regime in Kiev.
US-NATO is firmly embedded in the Kiev regime’s Neo-Nazi project the objective of which is to destroy Ukraine as well wage war on Russia.
Ironically the head of State of this neo-Nazi government –hand-picked by US intel– is of Russian-Jewish descent, who prior to entering politics did not speak a word of Ukrainian:
Zelensky is Jewish. He supports the Nazi Azov Battalion, the two Nazi parties, which have committed countless atrocities against the Jewish community in Ukraine. And now this Jewish-Russian proxy president wants to “ban everything Russian”, including the Russian language (his mother tongue), …
My thanks to Substack for their unbending commitment to Independent Media
Michel Chossudovsky, Substack, February 11, 2024
Introduction
This article addresses the implications of a controversial statement by NATO to the effect that the Ukraine War “didn’t start in 2022”, “The war started in 2014”
It’s a Bombshell: NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed (speaking on behalf of NATO) that the “war didn’t start in 2022”.
In an interview with The Washington Post (May 9, 2023), Jens Stoltenberg unequivocally confirmed that “the war started in 2014″.
Jens Stoltenberg’s bold statement (which has barely been the object of media coverage) has opened up a Pandora’s Box, or best described “A Can of Worms” on behalf of the Atlantic Alliance.
What he bears out is that the beginning of the Ukraine war coincided with a U.S. sponsored Coup d’état, confirmed by Victoria’s Nuland‘s “F**k the EU telephone conversation with U.S. Ambassador Pyatt in February 2014. (see below)
Part I of this article examines the legal implications of Stoltenberg’s statement on behalf of the Atlantic Alliance.
Of crucial significance: Having stated that “the war started in 2014”, NATO can no longer claim that Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) of February 24, 2022 constitutes, from a legal standpoint, “an invasion”.
Part I also addresses the issue of The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).
Parti II focuses on Stoltenberg’s twisted statement that Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty could be invoked as means to declare war against Russia.
“Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty – its collective defence clause” declaring that an attack on one member state is “to be an attack against all NATO members.” Article 5 is NATO’s doctrine of Collective Self-Defense.
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”.
In regards to the invocation of Article V in relation to Russia, a justification or fake “pretext” was mentioned by Stoltenberg in his interview with the Washington Post.
Were Article V to be invoked, this would inevitably precipitate the World into a WWIII scenario, consisting of a war whereby all 30 member states of the Atlantic Alliance, most of which are members of the European Union would be involved.
Legal Implications
The legal implications of Stoltenberg’s statements are far-reaching. Speaking on behalf of NATO, he has acknowledged that Russia did not declare war on Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
“The war started in 2014“, which intimates that the war was launched in 2014, with US-NATO directly involved from the very outset:
Lee Hockstader, Washington Post Editorial Board: How has the war led NATO to recalibrate its defense posture and doctrine?
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: The war in Ukraine has fundamentally changed NATO, but then you have to remember the war didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014. And since then, NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War.
For the first time in our history, we have combat-ready troops in the eastern part of the alliance, the battle groups in Poland, Lithuania, the Baltic countries, actually the whole eight battle groups from the Baltic Sea down to the Black Sea. Higher readiness of our forces. And increased defense spending.
Stoltenberg also confirmed that US-NATO’s intent from the outset in 2014 was to integrate the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime as a full member of NATO.
Lee Hockstader, Washington Post Editorial Board: What does a plausible way forward to Ukraine’s eventual membership in NATO look like?
Stoltenberg: First of all, all NATO allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance. All allies agree that Ukraine has the right to choose its own path, that it is not for Moscow, but for Kyiv, to decide.
1. The Legality of Russia’s “Special Military Operation”
Inasmuch as the war started in 2014, Art 2(4) applies to both the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime and well as US-NATO which was behind the February 2014 illegal Coup D’état.
What this implies is that from a legal standpoint, US-NATO on behalf and in coordination with the US sponsored Neo-Nazi Kiev regime had initiated a de facto undeclared war against Luhansk and Donesk.
From a legal standpoint, this was not “An Act of War against Russia”. Led by US-NATO, this was an “Act of War against Ukraine and the People of Ukraine”.
Putin’s February 24, 2022 Statement
As we recall President Putin had defined a Special Military Operation (SMO) in support of the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. The stated objective was to “demilitarise” and “denazify” Ukraine.
Article 51 of the UN Charter which was referred to by President Putin in his February 24, 2022 speech confirms the following:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, …
Russia’s SMO complies with the exercise of self defense. Putin in his speech (February 24, 2022) referred to:
“the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year.
I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.”
2. “NeoCons Endorse NeoNazis”: U.S. Sponsored 2014 EuroMaidan Coup d’état. An Illegal and Criminal Act Supported by US-NATO
What Stoltenberg intimated in his interview with the WP (no doubt unwittingly) is that the Ukraine War was a US-NATO Initiative, carried out in the immediate wake of the illegal US Supported February 2014 EuroMaidan Coup d’Etat which was then conducive to the instatement of a Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.
The New York Times described the EuroMaidan as “a flowering of democracy, a blow to authoritarianism and kleptocracy in the former Soviet space.” ( After Initial Triumph, Ukraine’s Leaders Face Battle for Credibility, NYTimes.com, March 1, 2014, emphasis added)
The grim realities were otherwise. The forbidden truth was that US-NATO had engineered –through a carefully staged covert operation– the formation of a US-NATO proxy regime integrated by Neo-Nazis, which was conducive to the removal and brutal demise of the elected president Viktor Yanukovych.
The staged EuroMaidan Protest Movement initiated in November 2013 was led by the two Nazi parties, with Dmytro Yarosh, of the Right Sector (Pravy Sector) playing a key role as leader of the Brown Shirt Neo-Nazi paramilitary. He had called for disbanding the Party of the regions and the Communist Party.
The shootings of protesters by snipers were coordinated by Yarosh’s Brown Shirts and Andriy Parubiy leader of the Neo-Nazi Svoboda Party.
Of significance there was a leaked telephone conversation (February 2014) between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and European Union Commissioner Catherine Ashton, which confirmed that “the snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were hired by Ukrainian opposition leaders [NeoNazis]”.
Video: Leaked Conversation: Urmas Paet and Catherine Ashton
(Starts at 1′.50″)
Estonia Foreign Minister Urmas Paet tells Catherine Ashton the following (excerpts):
“There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition [Parubiy and Yarosh].”
“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides.”
“[Dr. Olga Bogomolets] then also showed me some photos she said that as a medical doctor she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new [Neo-Nazi] coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.” (quoted by Mahdi Nazemoroaya, Global Research, March 18, 2014, emphasis added)
Foreign Minister’s Urmas Paet’s statements (above) are corroborated by A Kiev Post (March 13, 2014) report:
Selected excerpts below, click here to access full Kiev Post report (March 13, 2014):
“Former State Security Head of Ukraine Oleksandr Yakimenko blames Ukraine’s current government [Neo-Nazi Kiev regime] for hiring snipers on Feb. 20, when dozens of people were killed and hundreds more wounded. The victims were mainly EuroMaidan Revolution demonstrations, but some police officers were also killed. This was the deadliest day during the EuroMaidan Revolution, a three-month uprising that claimed 100 lives.
Yakimenko also blamed the United States for organizing and financing the revolution by bringing illegal cash in using diplomatic mail.
Yankimenko says that Parubiy [leader of the Svoboda Neo-Nazi Party], as well as a number of other organizers of EuroMaidan, received direct orders from the U.S. government. …
“These are the forces that were doing everything they were told by the leaders and representatives of the United States,” he says. “They, in essence lived in the U.S. embassy. There wasn’t a day when they did not visit the embassy.”…
“From the beginning of Maidan we as a special service noticed a significant increase of diplomatic cargo to various embassies, western embassies located in Ukraine,” says Yakimenko. “It was tens of times greater than usual diplomatic cargo supplies.” He says that right after such shipments crisp, new U.S. dollar bills were spotted on Maidan. (emphasis added)
On a personal note, I lived through two of the most deadly U.S. military coups in Latin America: as Visiting Professor in Chile in 1973 (Gen. Augusto Pinochet) and then in Argentina in 1976 (Gen. Jorge Videla and “La Guerra Sucia”).
In comparison, the criminal acts and atrocities (Neo-Nazi sniper killings) committed by the US sponsored EuroMaidan are beyond description.
The Central Role of the Svoboda Neo-Nazi Party
As outlined above, Andriy Parubiy played a key role in the EuroMaidan massacre. Andriy Parubiy (image right) is the co-founder together with Oleh Tyahnybok of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda). Parubiy was first appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU) by the Kiev regime. (Рада національної безпеки і оборони України), a key position which overseas the Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, National Security and Intelligence.
He subsequently (2015-2019) became Vice-Chair and Chair of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s Parliament) shifting into the realm of international diplomacy on behalf of the Neo-Nazi regime.
In the course of his career, Parubiy developed numerous contacts in North America and Europe, with members of the European Parliament. He was invited to Washington on several occasions, meeting up (already in 2015) with Sen. John McCain (chair) of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He was also invited to Ottawa, meeting up with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Parliament Hill in 2016.
Victoria Nuland and Andriy Parubiy, 2018
The Role of Victoria Nuland
Victoria Nuland, acting on behalf of the US State Department was directly involved in “suggesting” key appointments.
While the Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok was not granted a cabinet position, members of the two neo-Nazi parties (namely Svoboda (Freedom Party) and The Right Sector (Pravy Sektor) were granted key positions in the areas of Defense, National Security and Law Enforcement.
The Neo Nazis also controlled the judicial process with the appointment of Oleh Makhnitsky of the Svoboda Party (on February 22, 2014) to the position of prosecutor-general. What kind of justice would prevail with a renowned Neo-Nazi in charge of the Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine?
Video: F**k the EU. Nuland-Pyatt Leaked Phone Conversation
The controversial conversations between Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Pyatt are recorded below. (See video and transcript below, YouTube version (below).
(Leaked Online on February 4, 2014, Exact Date of Conversation Unconfirmed, Three weeks prior to the demise of President Yanukovych on February 21-22, 2014)
Transcript of Conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt,
“Warning: This transcript contains swearing”
Voice thought to be Nuland’s: What do you think?
Voice thought to be Pyatt’s: I think we’re in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, who subsequently became Prime Minister], another opposition leader]. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I’m very glad that he said what he said in response.
Nuland: Good. I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess… in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok], the other opposition leader] and his guys and I’m sure that’s part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.
Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.
image: Tyannybok (leader of Neo-Nazi Svoboda Party (left), Yatseniuk (right)
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?
Nuland: My understanding from that call – but you tell me – was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a… three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Pyatt: No. I think… I mean that’s what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that’s been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he’s going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they’ve got and he’s probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn’t like it.
Nuland: OK, good. I’m happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: OK… one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can’t remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: OK. He’s now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.
Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now,
I’m still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there’s a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I’m sure there’s a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep… we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president’s national security adviser Jake] Sullivan’s come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden’s willing. (emphasis added)
Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.
3. U.S.-NATO Military Aid and Support (2014-2023) to a Full Fledged Neo-Nazi Proxy Regime is an Illegal and Criminal Act.
There is ample evidence of collaboration between the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime and NATO member states, specifically in relation to the continuous flow of military aid as well the training and support provided to the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion.
Collaborating with a Neo-Nazi regime is criminal under international law. Anti-Nazi laws exist in a number of European countries.
“In the aftermath of World War II, the National Socialist Party (the Nazi party) of Germany was considered a criminal organization and therefore banned.
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946 likewise ruled that the Nazi Party was a criminal organization.”
In a far-reaching initiative the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the “Glorification of Nazism” Click image too enlarge
The Nazi Azov Battalion was from the outset integrated into Ukraine’s National Guard which is under the jurisdiction of Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The Azov battalion has (2015) been trained by the U.S. Canada and the UK. “
“The US contingent of instructors includes 290 specialists … Britain has dispatched 75 military personnel responsible for training “in command procedures and tactical intelligence”. (Los Angeles Times, April 20, 2015).
The training program was coupled with the influx of military equipment under a program of so-called “non-lethal” military aid.
In turn, the Azov battalion –which is the object of military aid, has also been involved in the conduct of Summer Nazi training Camps for children and adolescents
Recruitment of Child Soldiers
The Summer Camp training program constitutes the first stage of the recruitment of child soldiers in derogation of international law.
Invariably, the recruitment of child soldiers implies a training program which familiarizes young children with the use of light automatic weapons.
The military trainers are part of the Azov paramilitary dispatched to the Summer Camp (see the Nazi SS insignia on his uniform below):© vk.com/tabir.azovec
The Azov battalion’s Summer Camps are supported by US military aid channelled to the Ukraine National Guard via the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The MIA coordinates the “anti-terrorism operation” (ATO) in Donbass.
For further details See: Ukraine’s “Neo-Nazi Summer Camp”. Military Training for Young Children, Para-military Recruits, Michel Chossudovsky, July 08, 2023.
Media Propaganda
The Sunday Times confirms that the children and adolescents are eventually slated to be recruited in the National Guard, which was integrated into the Ukrainian Military in 2016. The Guardian casually dismisses the criminal nature of the Azov Battalion’s Summer Camp for children (which bears the Nazi WolfAngel SS insignia):
“In Ukraine, the far-right Azov militia is fighting on the frontline – and running a summer camp for children. The Guardian visited the camp and followed 16-year-old Anton through his experiences. Is Azov really a modern Hitler Youth organisation, or is it trying to prepare young Ukrainians for the tough reality that awaits them?” (To view the video click here Guardian, emphasis added)
The following image is revealing, from Left to Right: the Blue NATO flag, the Azov Battalion’s Wolfangel SS of the Third Reich and Hitler’s Nazi Swastika (red and white background) are displayed, which points to collaboration between NATO and the Neo-Nazi regime.
4. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)
Inasmuch as “the war started in 2014”, Stoltenberg’s statements confirm that US-NATO were supportive of Ukraine’s artillery and missile bombardments of Donbass which resulted in more than 14,000 deaths of civilians, including children.
Stoltenberg’s admission on behalf of NATO that “the war started in 2014” would have required that from the very outset in February 2014 the warring parties including their allies abide by the Four Basic Principles of The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) which consist in:
“….respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” [Additional Protocol 1, Article 48]
Civilian population (children) and civilian objects (schools, hospitals, residential areas) were the deliberate object of UAF and Azov Battalion attacks in blatant violation of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).
In accordance with the LOAC, Moscow took the decision starting in February 2014 to come to the rescue of Donbass civilians including children. Visibly the president of the I.C.C. Piotr Hofmanski in accusing President Putin of “unlawful kidnapping of Ukrainian children” hasn’t the foggiest understanding of Article 48. of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Is this an issue of incompetence? Or has Piotr Hofmanski been co-opted into endorsing crimes against humanity?
In derogation of The Law of Armed Conflict, US-NATO bears the responsibility for having endorsed the Neo-Nazi Azov battalion, which was involved in the conduct of atrocities against civilians.
To consult Part II of this article (which was published by Global Research, click the link below:
Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research.
12 February 2024
Source: michelchossudovsky.substack.com