No. 7July 14, 2023

NATO Summit in Vilnius, Lithuania

Dead End NATO Summit in Vilnius July 11-12

Montreal action July 8, 2023, one of many held in Canada and internationally opposing the NATO Vilnius summit.

NATO’s Vilnius Summit wrapped up on July 12 amidst the declarations that NATO emerged stronger than ever, more united than ever, more determined than ever to escalate the conflict with Russia “for as long as it takes” for the U.S. and NATO to prevail. But the facts show that it was a dead-end Summit — a cul-de-sac from which no exit is possible. As Jean Paul Sartre said in his existentialist one-act play titled Huis Clos (No Exit) written in 1944, where three characters find themselves in a mysterious room and can’t find a way out. The play is said to propose that “hell is other people” rather than a state created by God, both propositions being equally absurd. Nonetheless, it just about sums up the predicament addressed by NATO members at the Vilnius Summit where irrational and unacceptable proposals are put forward as if they are serious and then announcements are made. The theatre of the absurd the world witnessed at Vilnius is a manifestation of the refusal of the U.S. and NATO members, Canada included, to take the measures which the conditions of the times demand. The path they are carving out for Ukraine, Europe and the world is a very dangerous one which the majority of the peoples of the world are sure to vigorously reject.

The NATO Summit communique, and the G7 Statement for that matter, offer only a future of perpetual war and misery in Ukraine, stemming from the NATO forces’ callous disregard for the resulting massive destruction and the horrible death toll for Ukrainians and Russians. They offer only the deceptive justification that this “strategic” plan is necessary to defeat “Russia’s war.”

Throughout their entire rendition of the “practical” measures that they plan to take to counter Russian “aggression,” there is not a single mention of the reality that the Russian intervention is a continuation of the war by the Kiev coup government that has been waged for nine years against the people of the new independent republics, at the cost of thousands of lives. This shows to the world what the NATO forces mean by adherence to a so-called rules-based international order. When their rival violates the territorial integrity of a neighbouring country, they are quick to accuse the invader of contravening the international rule of law. Conversely, when they are involved in the overthrow of a democratically-elected foreign government as well as the arming of the coup government to suppress the resistance of the people to the corrupt coup regime carrying out crimes of untold proportions, they do not find this worthy of mention because the war against the people serves their naked self-interest, which is their only true guiding principle.

It is urgent to unite people in action to oppose the U.S./NATO proxy war and NATO expansion, demand that Canada get out of NATO and that NATO be dismantled and that Canada become a zone for peace.

Vilnius Summit Communique

NATO issued the Summit Communique on July 11, the opening day of the Summit. The leaders declared NATO to be the bulwark of “individual liberty, human rights and democracy and the rule of law” in Europe and beyond. “We, the Heads of State and Government of the North Atlantic Alliance, bound by shared values of individual liberty, human rights, democracy, and the rule of law, have gathered in Vilnius as war continues on the European continent, to reaffirm our enduring transatlantic bond, unity, cohesion, and solidarity at a critical time for our security and international peace and stability.”

One doesn’t need a summit to write such things. They committed to “step up political and practical support to Ukraine” “for as long as it takes,” which means nothing given that it is the practical measures which show the disagreements in NATO and the unsustainability of the U.S./NATO proxy war being fought to the last Ukrainian.

For good measure, the communique stated that NATO will at the same time prepare for war with China – a declaration that the People’s Republic of China (PRC) met with a firm rebuttal. “The People’s Republic of China’s stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values,” the communique stated. Without elaborating what constitutes “coercive policies,” the communique declared: “We are working together responsibly, as Allies, to address the systemic challenges posed by the PRC to Euro-Atlantic security and ensure NATO’s enduring ability to guarantee the defence and security of Allies. We are boosting our shared awareness, enhancing our resilience and preparedness, and protecting against the PRC’s coercive tactics and efforts to divide the Alliance. We will stand up for our shared values and the rules-based international order, including freedom of navigation.”

In other words, the attempts of the majority of countries in the world to renew international relations for trade and the resolution of conflicts without resorting to the use of force, threats and blackmail are called “coercive policies … to divide.” Empty rhetoric which will convince nobody that the NATO summit was not a dead-end Summit.

Biden Press Conference

Presenting the U.S. and NATO as the champions of individual liberties, human rights, democracy and the rule of law were the talking points President Biden made in his keynote remarks to the monopoly media in Vilnius on July 13, following the summit. Biden said “at the most fundamental level, we face a choice – it’s not a hyperbole – we face a choice: a choice between a world defined by coercion and exploitation, where might makes right, or a world where we recognize that our own success is bound to the success of others.”

Hyperbole refers to exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally. When the person who calls himself the “leader of the free world” engages in hyperbole to say it is not hyperbole, the only reasonable conclusion is that he is in trouble.

The world is changing, Biden said, and “we have a chance to change the dynamic. That’s why I’ve been so focused as president on rebuilding and revitalizing the alliances that are the cornerstone of American leadership in the world. […] Through our Quad partnership – it’s a fancy way of saying our partnership with Australia, India, Japan, and the United States – we’re bringing major democracies of the region together to cooperate, keeping the Indo-Pacific free and open, prosperous, and secure. [… D]uring this NATO Summit, […] with Indo-Pacific partners joining us for the second year in a row, we’re working to deepen connections between the Atlantic and Pacific democracies so they can better work together toward the shared values we all seek: strong alliances, versatile partnerships, common purpose, collective action to meet our shared challenges. […] That’s how we build a future to see. But we share and know we share challenges and work together. We have to step up together, building the broadest and deepest coalition to strengthen and defend the basic rules of the road, to preserve all the extraordinary benefits that stem from the international system grounded in the rule of law.”

Media sources declared Biden got what he wanted out of Vilnius. CNN wrote: “Biden, NATO’s most important leader, went into the summit determined to maintain his balancing act” of securing commitments to escalate the proxy war conflict in Ukraine, while keeping American troops out of a direct conflict with Russia. According to CNN, he also needed a show of unity (which does not exist) among NATO member states to support his presidential campaign image as a wartime President in the 2024 presidential election campaign.

G7 Statement

Biden and the U.S. kept the initiative out of the hands of even NATO itself by having the G7 step in as guarantors of support for the proxy war in Ukraine for as long as it takes. The G7 issued a communique announcing that “We, the Leaders of the Group of Seven (G7), reaffirm our unwavering commitment to the strategic objective of a free, independent, democratic, and sovereign Ukraine, within its internationally recognized borders, capable of defending itself and deterring future aggression. […] We will each work with Ukraine on specific, bilateral, long-term security commitments and arrangements towards: Ensuring a sustainable force capable of defending Ukraine now and deterring Russian aggression in the future, through the continued provision of: security assistance and modern military equipment, across land, air, and sea domains – prioritizing air defense, artillery and long-range fires, armored vehicles, and other key capabilities, such as combat air, and by promoting increased interoperability with Euro-Atlantic partners; support to further develop Ukraine’s defense industrial base; training and training exercises for Ukrainian forces; intelligence sharing and cooperation; support for cyber defense, security, and resilience initiatives, including to address hybrid threats. Strengthening Ukraine’s economic stability and resilience, including through reconstruction and recovery efforts, to create the conditions conducive to promoting Ukraine’s economic prosperity, including its energy security. Providing technical and financial support for Ukraine’s immediate needs stemming from Russia’s war as well as to enable Ukraine to continue implementing the effective reform agenda that will support the good governance necessary to advance towards its Euro-Atlantic aspirations.” The G7 also committed to strengthening sanctions and export controls as a form of hybrid warfare intended to defeat Russia not only militarily but economically and financially as well.

The G7 also committed to strengthening sanctions and export controls as a form of hybrid warfare intended to defeat Russia not only militarily but economically and financially as well.

Ukraine’s NATO Membership Bid Went Nowhere

Ukraine’s demand for a firm commitment of NATO membership was shot down in flames by the White House as the first order of business. White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan said “NATO will lay out a path of reforms for Ukraine so that it can eventually join the alliance, but is not providing a timetable.” A “reform path for Ukraine” will be drawn up but “I can’t put a timetable on it,” Sullivan told reporters at the NATO summit in Vilnius.

President Zelensky reacted angrily to the news, saying in a post on social media: “It’s unprecedented and absurd when [a] time frame is not set, neither for the invitation nor for Ukraine’s membership. While at the same time vague wording about ‘conditions’ is added even for inviting Ukraine. It seems there is no readiness neither to invite Ukraine to NATO nor to make it a member of the Alliance.”

Indeed that is what the final communique says: membership of Ukraine in NATO will be considered “when Allies agree and conditions are met.” Exactly what conditions are to be met were not made clear.

Even NATO’s own Atlantic Council think tank said Vilnius came up with nothing in terms of Ukraine’s membership. Various Atlantic Council pundits weighed in saying “An uninspiring result for Ukraine,” “Ambiguous head-scratching and disappointing language about Ukraine’s NATO membership,” “NATO-Ukraine Council is a net positive step, but also the ‘bare minimum,’ ” “Summit statement shows continued disagreement about Ukraine ‘at the highest levels’ of NATO.”

Russian military sources note that “Starting from June 4, the armed forces of Ukraine lost over 26,000 servicemen and more than 3,000 items of military hardware during their so-called counter-offensive.”

This is the fate the U.S. and NATO have bestowed on Ukraine. With no end to this in sight, following the Vilnius Summit, Zelensky declared Ukraine would fight on at NATO’s behest.

Dangerous Escalation of Arms and Training for Ukraine

NATO countries at the Vilnius Summit have dangerously escalated the conflict in Ukraine, by upping their commitments to arm Ukraine and provide it with fighter jets and training to fly them. Former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said of these developments: “World War Three is getting closer.”

French President Emmanuel Macron committed long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine, with the caveat that they could used by Ukraine in a defensive capacity within its own sovereign territory. Such remarks suggest that according to Macron, Crimea, which held a referendum to join the Russian Federation in 2014, yet is claimed by Ukraine, is fair game as a target of these missiles.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said of the French commitment of cruise missiles: “From our point of view, this decision is a mistake with consequences for the Ukrainian side, because this will of course force us to take countermeasures.”

The British government said it would provide a weapons package that includes more than 70 combat and logistic vehicles, thousands of rounds of Challenger 2 tank ammunition, and a new £50 million (U.S.$64.5 million) support package for equipment repair. In addition to the weapons package, Britain will also launch a new medical rehabilitation centre to support the recovery of Ukrainian soldiers injured in combat, which will be funded through NATO’s Comprehensive Assistance Package for Ukraine and supported by specialists from across the alliance.

Germany announced a 700 million (U.S.$770 million) package for Ukraine, including 40 Marder infantry fighting vehicles, 25 Leopard 1 A5 main battle tanks, five recovery vehicles, anti-drone and anti-mine systems, as well as 20,000 rounds of artillery ammunition. It will also send two Patriot air defence system launch units.

Norway announced an additional 2.5 billion kroner (U.S.$240 million) aid package to Ukraine, including 1,000 small reconnaissance drones and components for air defence missile systems.

Eleven countries have committed to training Ukrainian pilots to fly F-16 fighter jets, which NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said could begin as early as this summer. The countries are: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sweden and the UK. In May, the Biden administration said it would allow its allies to re-export their U.S.-made F-16 jets to Ukraine, but this has yet to receive final approval. A joint press release from the Defence Ministers of these countries stated:

“The parties agree that in order to assist Ukraine in the defence of its airspace, they will establish a joint coalition on training of the Ukrainian Air Force in operating and maintaining F-16 fighter aircraft, in accordance with the necessary authorizations and with the possibility to include other types of fighter aircraft at a later stage.

“The parties agree to commence training of relevant Ukrainian pilots, technicians and support staff, which will provide the Ukrainian Air Force with basic capabilities of operating, servicing and maintaining F-16 fighter aircraft. This includes making relevant equipment, trainers and other staff available for such training. All training activities will be conducted outside of Ukraine.

“The coalition’s focus will be on training, but will also in due course be ready to consider other lines of effort related to ensuring Ukraine a fully functional F-16 capability.”

Türkiye’s Approval of Sweden’s NATO Membership Contingent on F-16 Jets and Parliamentary Approval

With the close of NATO’s Vilnius Summit, more details have emerged that the horse-trading required to win Türkiye’s approval of Sweden’s membership was not merely contingent on admitting Türkiye to the European Union, adding to the picture of disunity and self-serving aims that characterize the aggressive alliance.

Demonstration in Sweden, June 4, 2023, opposes joining NATO

Following Türkiye’s preliminary decision to permit Sweden to join NATO, U.S. congressional approval was given to a sale of F-16 fighter jets to Türkiye, which it had requested in October 2021. Sources close to the Turkish government informed that U.S. officials had made clear to Türkiye that Sweden’s stalled NATO application was the primary obstacle to congressional approval of the $20 billion sale of the jets.

Furthermore, speaking to reporters on July 12 in Vilnius, Türkiye’s President Recep Erdogan said that his country’s parliament still has to ratify Sweden’s accession to NATO, adding, “The parliament is not in session for the next two months. But our target is to finalize this matter as swiftly as possible.”

Alper Coskun, a former deputy permanent representative for Türkiye’s NATO mission, told Al-Monitor, “We’re not as close as we thought whenever Erdogan initially made the statement that he will greenlight this.”

“While Erdogan has greenlit this, what he greenlit is sending it to parliament,” said Coskun. “He will be signaling to the U.S. that unless there’s progress on the F-16s, it might be more difficult for parliament” to approve Swedish membership in the alliance.

In the same vein, anti-Islam or pro-Kurdish protests in Sweden between now and October could also jeopardize Türkiye’s parliamentary approval of Sweden’s membership in NATO.

China Responds to NATO Disinformation and Threats Issued at Vilnius Summit

An ongoing concern about NATO is its hostile approach toward China. Modern China has been established on the basis of upholding the interests of the Chinese people and rejecting foreign interference. Thus, because it takes an independent path in the service of its own interests, not that of the U.S., NATO or anyone else, the U.S., Canada and other countries claim that it poses an existential threat to them, even though it has never threatened other countries. In this vein, NATO’s final communiqué from the Vilnius Summit mentions China 15 times and claims that “China’s stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values” and that it poses “systemic challenges” to the alliance.

Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Wang Wenbin, at his regular press conferences on July 12 and 13 fielded several questions pertaining to the threats and disinformation from NATO about China, as well as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea. Those questions and replies are posted below.

TASS (July 12): Yesterday, NATO released the Vilnius Summit Communiqué, which said that “the deepening strategic partnership between China and Russia and their mutually reinforcing attempts to undercut the rules-based international order run counter to our values and interests.” What’s China’s response?

Wang Wenbin: The China-Russia relationship is built on the basis of no-alliance, no-confrontation and no-targeting of any third party. It rises above the model of military and political alliance in the Cold War era and provides a model for major-country relations. This is fundamentally different from the exclusive groupings and bloc confrontation practiced by some NATO countries.

We urge NATO to stop making groundless accusations and provocative rhetoric targeting China, quit the outdated Cold War mentality, ditch the wrongdoing of seeking absolute security. We have seen what NATO has done to Europe, and NATO must not seek to sow chaos here in the Asia-Pacific or elsewhere in the world.

Yonhap News Agency (July 12): This morning, the DPRK fired a ballistic missile. In its recent communiqué, NATO strongly “condemned the DPRK’s weapon of mass destruction (WMD) and ballistic missile programs” and urged the DPRK to realize denuclearization “in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner.” What’s China’s position on this?

Wang Wenbin: The Korean Peninsula issues are political and security issues and require efforts from all parties to follow the dual-track approach of pursuing in parallel the establishment of a peace mechanism and the denuclearization of the Peninsula. NATO is not a party to the Korean Peninsula issues. Its communiqué ignores the crux of the issues and the negative impact of relevant parties’ military deterrence and pressure and double standards on nuclear non-proliferation. This is not conducive to the political settlement of the Korean Peninsula issues.

China has repeatedly stressed that without addressing the absence of a peace mechanism, which is the crux of the issue, the Peninsula can hardly get rid of the security dilemma that generates tension and confrontation. The current situation is not what China wishes to see. We hope parties will be committed to a political settlement, resolve each other’s legitimate concerns in a balanced way through meaningful dialogue and uphold peace and stability on the Peninsula.

Beijing Youth Daily (July 12): According to reports, the NATO Vilnius Summit Communiqué said that China “is rapidly expanding and diversifying its nuclear arsenal with more warheads and a larger number of sophisticated delivery systems” and lacks “transparency.” The communiqué urges China to “engage in strategic risk reduction discussions” and to “promote stability through greater transparency” with regard to nuclear. What’s China’s comment?

Wang Wenbin: NATO, as a military alliance, is known to have the largest and most powerful nuclear arsenal in the world, and yet it irresponsibly accuses China of posing nuclear threats and does so through megaphone diplomacy. This is simply wrong and hypocritical. China is gravely concerned and strongly opposed to this.

China has always been extremely prudent and responsible about nuclear weapon issues. China is committed to a defensive nuclear strategy and keeps our nuclear capabilities at the minimum level required by national security. We never had the intent to engage in nuclear arms race. China follows a policy of “no first use” of nuclear weapons at any time and under any circumstances and has committed unconditionally to not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon states and nuclear-weapon-free zones. China is the only nuclear weapon state to have adopted such a policy. Would any NATO member states make such a commitment?

The international community has more reasons to be concerned over NATO’s nuclear-sharing arrangement, through which NATO maintains the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. Certain member states are accelerating the modernization of their nuclear power, strengthening the so-called “extended deterrence” and heightening the risk of nuclear proliferation and conflict. If NATO members are truly interested in reducing strategic risk and safeguarding strategic stability, they should lower the role of nuclear weapons in national and collective security policies, promote strategic stability with concrete actions and uphold international and regional peace and security.

China News Service (July 12): The ongoing NATO Summit in Vilnius issued a communiqué saying that “China’s ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security and values” and pose “systemic challenges to Euro-Atlantic security.” The communiqué says China strives to subvert the “rules-based international order.” NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg expressed similar views in his article, saying that “what is happening in Europe today could happen in Asia tomorrow.” What’s China’s comment?

Wang Wenbin: What’s said in the NATO communiqué is a complete opposite of the truth and the product of Cold War mentality and ideological bias. China strongly opposes it. More than 30 years after the Cold War ended, its legacy NATO remains trapped in a zero-sum mindset and views the world as opposing blocs. Despite the global community’s call for peace, development, and common progress, NATO continues to act against the prevailing trend and seek to turn back the wheel of history. The world will not welcome this.

NATO claims to be a regional organization. Why then is NATO reaching beyond its geographical scope laid down in its treaty, and making its foray into the Asia Pacific at a faster pace? NATO claims to be a defensive alliance. Why then is NATO encouraging member states to ramp up military budget, keep crossing the line and expanding the mandate, and stoke confrontation in the Asia Pacific? NATO claims to defend a “rules-based international order,” but it has been ignoring international law and basic norms governing international relations and interfering in other countries’ internal affairs. NATO has taken part in various wars and acted as a scaremonger on security issues, as if the world needed any more instability. NATO has been piecing together exclusive blocs and promoting group politics to intensify ideological and bloc confrontation.

China is a force for world peace, a contributor to global development, a defender of the international order, and a source of public good. China is committed to the international system with the UN at its core, the international order underpinned by international law and the basic norms governing international relations that stem from the purposes and principles of the UN Charter. China has the best record on peace and security. We have never invaded any country or engaged in any proxy war. We have never conducted global military operations, threatened other countries with force, exported ideology or interfered in other countries’ internal affairs. We do not set up or participate in military groups and oppose the use of force or threat of force in international relations. How would such a China pose “systemic challenges” to NATO?

The prosperity and stability that the Asia-Pacific has long enjoyed depends on the mutual respect, open cooperation, mutual benefit and the ability to properly resolve differences among regional countries. NATO’s foray into the Asia-Pacific will only stir up tension and lead to bloc confrontation and even a “new Cold War” in this region. Asia-Pacific countries do not welcome it and many NATO states do not approve of it. The Asia-Pacific does not need an “Asia-Pacific version of NATO.”

We urge NATO to immediately stop smearing and lying about China. NATO must abandon the outdated Cold War mentality and zero-sum mindset, renounce its blind faith in military might and misguided practice of seeking absolute security, halt the dangerous attempt to destabilize Europe and the Asia-Pacific and stop finding pretext for its continuous expansion. We urge NATO to play a constructive role for world peace and stability.

China News Service (July 13): The NATO Summit issued a communiqué saying that “China’s malicious cyber operations and its confrontational rhetoric and disinformation harm Alliance security” and “China strives to subvert the rules-based international order, including in the cyber domain.” The communiqué also stated that “a single or cumulative set of malicious cyber activities could reach the level of armed attack and could lead the North Atlantic Council to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty” and NATO needs to “enhance the contribution of cyber defence to our overall deterrence and defence posture.” What’s China’s comment?

Wang Wenbin: As we can see, NATO’s cybersecurity policy is being hijacked by certain member states and is dominated by double standards and self-contradiction.

NATO says “malicious cyber activities could reach the level of armed attack and lead the North Atlantic Council to invoke Article 5.” But when its member publicly launched an “aggressive” cybersecurity strategy, NATO simply chose to ignore it. NATO says it promotes a “peaceful cyberspace.” But when its member launched cyber attacks that risk dragging nuclear powers into geopolitical conflict, NATO selectively overlooked it. NATO says it promotes order in cyberspace. But when its member declared other countries’ critical infrastructure to be “legitimate targets” despite UN consensus, NATO simply chose to remain silent.

We hope that small and medium-sized member states of NATO will be more aware of the need to stay strategically independent on cybersecurity. We call on NATO, especially the big countries inside NATO, to earnestly follow the UN framework of responsible state behavior in cyberspace and work with the international community to responsibly uphold peace and stability in the cyberspace.