08:12     10 March 2023    

Baku Tribune presents an interview with irish historian Patrick Walsh.

- Seymour Hersh, an American publicist specializing in investigative journalism, wrote in his article that the decision to conduct the Nord Stream operation was made personally by US President Joe Biden. Why did the US blow up Nord Stream, what is behind this step? Why is it beneficial for the US? - It seems that the US and/or other Western security services decided to destroy the pipelines because they thought Germany was wavering with regard to sanctions on Russian energy. Germany has the most to lose economically, and Washington evidently believed a show of force was necessary to show who was boss. The meek response of Berlin to the attack has vindicated the US action. - What does the Nord Stream explosion mean in terms of US-EU relations? What will be the consequences? - The Ukraine war has essentially ended the brief period of European independence and made Europe a vassal of the US. European independence was based on cheap Russian energy and the ability to make agreements with states outside the hegemony of Washington. That has now ended. Europe is now economically dependent on the US and politically subservient to orders from Washington. - Leaks in the Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2 gas pipelines resulted in the release of approximately 7.5 million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. What environmental threats does this pose? - A devastating blow to the environment that the usually eco-obsessed Europeans have passed no comment on. If Russia or another gas producer had been responsible for such a disaster, there would have been court cases and media fury across the West. Again this shows the servile attitude of Europe which has abandoned environmental principles in the interests of a geopolitical war. - According to Hersh, the aggressive US policy, including the expansion of NATO, the idea that Ukraine will join NATO, caused concern and makes Russia's special military operation in Ukraine justified. Why, despite this, NATO is increasingly involved in the military support of Ukraine? - The Special Military Operation was launched to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO as well as protecting the Russian population of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea from an imminent offensive by Kiev's forces. Putin attempted to minimise the conflict through a quick military show of strength, which failed after Ukrainian resistance and unprecedented support from the West. While Russia has succeeded in putting NATO membership off the agenda and disabling Ukraine as a state, it has had to fight what is effectively a new NATO army on Ukrainian territory. So the demilitarisation objective of the SMO has been only partly successful. Now the demilitarisation of Ukraine will have to involve much more military force than was originally presumed. - How is Russia's special military operation in Ukraine assessed a year later? Why does the EU not negotiate, while the US provokes Kyiv "to the last Ukrainian"? What will be the consequences of this? The SMO has had successes and failures. I think we are now seeing a transition between the minimalist approach, which did not succeed in ending the war on Russian terms and war. The Russians always learn in the fighting of wars. This was true in the wars with both Napoleon and Hitler. Russia has a much greater industrial production capacity in artillery, tanks and missiles than the West and this is starting to tell against Kiev. The West has more destructive weapons, like longer range missiles, to give, but it is afraid that if Kiev gets them the conflict will seriously escalate. The EU cannot negotiate because it has become a vassal of the US. Only the fall of European governments would change this. Only Hungary and Turkey now possess independent policies of Washington. It seems the fight will indeed be to the last Ukrainian, or until their will is broken by massive application of power. It is a tragedy, and sadly not one that ordinary Ukrainians can easily escape from.