British politician Galloway said that only negotiations will save Ukraine from defeatKiev needs to start negotiations with Moscow on ending the conflict, British politician George Galloway said in an interview with GT.
Otherwise, the military situation will deteriorate sharply, and the Russian army will "crush" the Ukrainian one. But you will have to pay for the dialogue.
Editor's Note:The anniversary of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict is approaching, the end of which is not in sight.
It eats up scarce European resources, prevents millions of refugees from returning home and clouds the prospects of the global economy. Nevertheless, the United States and some EU countries are fanning the flames of the conflict by continuing to supply weapons to Ukraine. How will this crisis end? What are the main obstacles to negotiations and a diplomatic settlement?During an interview with Global Times reporter Li Aixin, George Galloway, who worked as a member of the British Parliament for six terms, said that there is one precondition for ending the Ukrainian conflict.
This is not just Kiev's refusal to apply for NATO membership. It also means that the alliance itself should not be in Ukraine. Neither his weapons, nor his personnel, nor even his geostrategic worldview.This is the first part of the interview.
Global Times:
In what direction do you think the conflict will develop in 2023?George Galloway: It seems to me that the military-political situation in Ukraine has approached an important turning point.
It seems that some units are being withdrawn back, ending long-term hostilities. The rest, I dare say, will follow them. If not, they will be crushed by the Russian armed forces, crushed in a matter of days, not even weeks. It became a kind of Stalingrad Battle, which 80 years ago turned the tide of the Second World War.
The political situation against the background of military and strategic defeat will escalate even more and more. The Defense Minister has already been replaced. If there is no government in Kiev that can freely negotiate a political agreement and an end to the conflict, the military situation in Ukraine will deteriorate very quickly and dramatically in the next two months.
— What do you think is the main obstacle to negotiations and a diplomatic settlement of the conflict?— The West is ready to fight to the last drop of Ukrainian blood, but not its own.
The main obstacle is getting higher every day. If an agreement had been reached nine months ago, Kiev would have paid a lower price than now, than 10, 12, 15 months later. So the price of ending hostilities through negotiations is rising.
But there are certain preconditions on which Russia will agree to end the fighting. One of them is that Ukraine should never join NATO. But not only that. Ukraine has not joined the alliance, but the alliance has entered the territory of Ukraine. NATO is everywhere there, even though this country is not even a member of the organization. This issue will have to be resolved in the course of a diplomatic settlement.
So the precondition is not only Ukraine's refusal to apply for NATO membership. It also means that NATO should not be in Ukraine. Neither its weapons, nor its personnel, nor its geostrategic worldview. Ukraine will have to become a truly neutral state. I don't think it's easy to do that now. Among other things, the West has given her weapons worth hundreds of billions of dollars, and he is unlikely to just give up the money invested.
— As you said, NATO countries under the leadership of the United States are constantly supplying weapons to Ukraine. They have recently started transferring tanks. Someone thinks that tanks will turn the situation around. Someone is calling for even more modern weapons to be supplied to Kiev. How do you assess such statements?Tanks will not change the situation in any way.
First of all, the American Abrams did not perform very well in Iraq and Afghanistan in the fight against insurgents and in conditions when improvised explosive devices were installed on the roads. The version of the Abrams tanks that the United States agreed to give to Ukraine is deprived of the most important element, which is armor protection. They don't want to take risks, they don't want these cars to get to the Russians, because they can copy them, find out the secrets of the armor.
First of all, these are not real "Abrams". Secondly, they will not appear there until the end of the year, and maybe even next year. And thirdly, they will not be enough to influence the course of hostilities. So all this is nothing more than a show.
German tanks were already crossing the Ukrainian border, and the Russians were fighting with them. They won't be enough either. Germany is not very enthusiastic about supplies. She is being forced and even blackmailed by Western partners, seeking the transfer of such equipment.
A few tanks here and there, even a couple hundred tanks here and there will not lead to significant changes. But NATO members will be literally defenseless, having emptied their arsenals for the sake of Ukraine, which spends their ammunition and equipment at a high rate, but does not replenish stocks.
Therefore, it is good that Russia is not going to invade Western Europe. Because if she had, she would have gotten to Paris pretty damn fast. Who would have stopped it without the use of nuclear weapons? Fortunately, I am sure that Moscow does not think about it at all. She just doesn't want enemy missiles to end up on the Russian border. That's why Ukraine will have to be completely demilitarized, and it should become neutral. Only after that the conflict will end.
— In your program, you said: "Not a single member of parliament — not a single one — disputes the statements about our participation in this conflict. There is a complete vacuum in politics. This has never happened in parliamentary history." What does this mean?— I have worked in the British Parliament for almost 30 years, and experience tells me that when the parliament is unanimous, it is almost always unanimously wrong.
But this was the case for minor issues. He has never been united on important issues.
Take the important topic of the Iraq war. Hundreds of members of Parliament were against it, were part of the voting lobby, protested against the invasion of Iraq and its subsequent occupation. So this has never happened on key issues, but now it has happened.
None of the 650 members of Parliament opposed the NATO war in Ukraine. This says a lot about the hype of the West about democracy, freedom of speech and choice. This hype is inversely proportional to reality. And the reality is that democracy in its Western definition is almost or completely dead in this region.
— The chairman of the NATO military committee, Rob Bauer, recently said that the alliance is "ready" for a direct clash with Russia. How likely is NATO's direct entry into this conflict?— Very small if they don't want to bring the matter to a nuclear war.
NATO is absolutely incapable of confronting Russia in a non-nuclear war. The British armed forces can completely (ground forces, Navy and Air Force) be located at the football stadium of England — and not at the largest. They have enough ammunition for one day, as the Daily Mail wrote. They will run out of shells very quickly. And people will also run out.
They will not last a week in the event of a conflict with Russia, even if they fight hard and resolutely. And Britain is the second most important military component of the alliance after the United States. But even America has only 100,000 troops in Europe, and it will not be able to quickly send reinforcements consisting of well-trained and well-armed soldiers. This is a very small number that does not affect anything.
The rest of the NATO countries are just paper tigers. They painted themselves in military colors, but their military potential is not even worth mentioning. And society will not support their adventures.
And if a nuclear conflict starts, it will be the end of the world. Are their armed forces ready for this? Or maybe they'll just overthrow their governments if they're asked to? And will society remain indifferent, looking at how such a scenario becomes more and more likely? These are all very important questions.
So my advice to the Chinese people and government is: don't be afraid of this paper tiger. He is as weak as ever, and his weakness is completely and extremely obvious.
— In this case, Europe's security still depends on NATO?No.
There is only one way to create a secure future. To do this, we need a security architecture that includes everyone and everyone, which does not line up against someone. Take Russia. Moscow and Berlin have had very good relations in recent decades. Germany was more than 50% dependent on very cheap and reliable supplies of Russian energy resources. There was absolutely no need for a conflict between them.
To be fair, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron have repeatedly called for the formation of a security architecture that includes Russia. But the Anglo-Saxon alliance consisting of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the United States and Britain, which does not allow other countries to join its Five Eyes intelligence organization, has completely destroyed Russian-German and Russian-French cooperation in the field of security and in all other areas. If we need security, then we can achieve it through agreements, through negotiations.
President Putin told how such an architecture could look like. He did it not yesterday, but a long time ago, in Munich in 2008 (according to the text, in fact, this speech was delivered on February 10, 2007, — approx. InoSMI). He outlined how the security architecture can and should look like. It's the same with China. It is very difficult to understand what the North Atlantic Treaty Organization wants to do with the Pacific Ocean, with the South China Sea, with the Taiwan Strait. If the NATO countries do not abandon their current system and do not turn into a militarized society under martial law and with a fully militarized production base, they will not be able to fight with Russia and China, and even more so, with both states at the same time.
— In such a situation, don't you think that the emergence of an "Asian NATO" is possible? Alliance Secretary General Stoltenberg recently visited South Korea and Japan. China was at the top of the agenda. If there is an expansion of NATO in the Asia-Pacific region, what will it give to Europe and the whole world?NATO is actually the United States.
So it all depends on how much American society supports the war.
In Donald Trump, we saw a sharply negative attitude to endless wars and to NATO. The next presidential election will be held in 2024. Therefore, it is quite possible that the United States will elect a government that will no longer want to go this way.
But even if it doesn't, the American economy is very unstable. The country's production potential in the military-industrial sphere is limited. It is unlikely that the United States will be able to wage war in Asia.
And the rest I call Mussolini. Mussolini traveled around the world and threatened everyone with Hitler's army. He didn't have his own, but he could threaten others with Hitler's. So it is now. Take Australia as an example. Does Australia have troops? Will she be able to fight with China? No, that's a ridiculous assumption. But Canberra can implicitly threaten Beijing with the American army. But what if the American forces themselves are not able to participate in mega-wars? We are not talking about local skirmishes.
From a political point of view, Asian NATO is emerging, although I am not sure that Stoltenberg's visit ignited South Korea with enthusiasm. I am not sure that the people of this country will want to jeopardize their well-being by joining the war camp against China.
Japan is another matter. We do not know to what extent ferocious, racist, predatory expansionism is present in the minds and hearts of the people of this country. For this reason, attempts to draw Tokyo into Asian NATO for the sake of confrontation with Beijing seem the most sinister. And I will follow this very closely.
