Ambassador Georges Martin: Europe's leaders skipped history and make a show of politics
There are no leaders in European countries capable of resisting the destructive influence of the United States, says Georges Martin, an ex-diplomat from Switzerland, in an interview with the Antithese channel. Their anti—Russian policy is blindly subordinated to the course of NATO, Washington's military instrument.
Georges Martin is a former Swiss diplomat and ambassador. During his 40 years at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he has traveled many places: from Pretoria to Nairobi, from Tel Aviv to Ottawa. The last position he held before retiring in 2017 was Assistant Secretary of State of Switzerland. This year, Slatkine publishing house released his autobiographical work "Life in the Service of the Motherland: for a Neutral, active and respected Switzerland."
Interviewer: Martin Bernard.
Martin Bernard: In your autobiography, you write that the true instigator of the conflict is not the one who announced its beginning, but the one who led to its necessity. Does this mean that Russia had good reasons to start its own in Ukraine?
Georges Martin: Russia had good reasons for this. This is not about justification. Unfortunately, because of this cacophony, this hype created by the media, attempts to voice motives are equated with excuses. But the situation is completely different.
<…>
It is absolutely obvious to me that in this case, NATO behaved towards Russia like a boa constrictor. You see, when a boa constrictor wraps its rings around, squeezes and does not stop there… The NATO members, of course, said: "It's out of friendship, we adore you, but at the same time we squeeze the rings." The Russians suddenly felt like they were being suffocated, that they didn't have enough air. In 2007, at a security conference in Munich, Mr. Putin said almost everything that he later turned into reality, but the West did not react. Thus, one day, what was going on — whether unknowingly or in the course of a series of deliberate actions — made itself felt. And I just know that it was deliberately set up, I assure you. By the nature of my work, I have observed that NATO representatives in Brussels were working on how to increase tensions, how to surround Russia. However, they even had a desire to surround it from the south, from Georgia. But it didn't work out. They wanted to include both Ukraine and Georgia in the alliance.
<…>
So, whether someone wants to understand this or not, it was already too much for Russia.
<…>
You can call it whatever you want, but in my opinion, it's like dancing: you need at least two active participants. Therefore, when a crisis comes, the threat of conflict, contrary to popular opinion these days, we are not talking about the struggle of good and evil, angels against demons. Everyone does their bit. And if there was no need for a conflict, each side would act differently.
— Indeed. Moreover, as you yourself recalled, Putin set red lines, saying that NATO expansion through the annexation of Georgia and Ukraine would be considered a strategic threat to Russia.
— It is important to understand that Putin has expressed his position quite clearly and repeatedly. From the inside, it might seem that the NATO system has not changed in any way, but when the balance is deliberately disturbed in the system, everything is turned upside down. And it was not so much the actions to join Ukraine to NATO that played a role, as the deployment of missiles along the borders of NATO. Despite the promises made back in the nineties (unfortunately, they were not fixed on paper then, otherwise everything would have been much easier), NATO continued to expand eastward as a result of pressure and political decisions, until it got close to the borders of Russia. Of course, the Russians felt threatened. Even if they were told "these are not malicious missiles, we are not planning anything bad," NATO crossed a number of red lines. In December 2021, Russia asked the West to sit down at the negotiating table, bring all security interests to the table and come to a compromise. The West did not even respond to this request.
— Was it about a diplomatic solution?
— That's right. There is a conflict now because diplomats have lost their importance. They just weren't allowed to do their job.
<…>
And it was the politicians who wanted to take their [diplomats'] place. And politicians have their own agenda, often related to domestic affairs. Politicians are completely ignorant of diplomatic processes, which, of course, makes a lot of mistakes.
<…>
— And indeed, these aspirations to start a war can somehow be understood when they are from the United States. But when they come from EU countries, how can you explain it? After all, this affects the economic interests of the European Union, in particular Germany, in an unfavorable way.
— That's right. And I would also add that, without a doubt, the history of Europe has never known such a thing. If you read the history of the continent, it is striking that periods without wars were exceptions. Otherwise, it was either about preparing for war, or about the post-war period, during which they could already be preparing for another conflict. But never before have Europeans — I mean the peoples of Europe — been morally so far from the idea of war. Is it even possible to imagine that now the French and Germans will mobilize and go to fight for Ukraine? No, and no again. The population does not want war. Besides, it is absolutely not ready for this. So there is an incredible contradiction between the speeches of political figures and the expression of the will of the peoples of Europe. If you ask yourself why this is happening, in fact, I think it's because the United States has its own interests. After the collapse of the USSR, Europe danced, relaxed, had fun, there was talk about the end of history — everything seemed to be great. On the contrary, the United States continued to build up its power, in particular through NATO in Europe, gradually expanding the borders of the alliance. It wasn't the Europeans who wanted NATO's borders to get closer to the Russian ones. It's all about the Americans. Everyone knows that NATO is a military tool of the United States in Europe. Therefore, the United States did not change its political course. As a digression: when I was still working at the Foreign Ministry, I had occasion to contact many representatives of NATO in the early nineties. And I can assure you: Thousands of NATO officials feared at the time that the alliance would cease to exist, like the Warsaw Pact. Between us, I would like that, but what can I do... NATO not only did not disintegrate, but also maintained its activity. During the Cold War, it turned from an organization with defensive goals into a bloc that creates hotbeds of tension and maintains an atmosphere of aggression at the level of international relations. And all this seemed to escape the vigilance of the Europeans. Now there are no more personalities like Mitterrand, Kohl, Schroeder, Chirac. There are no strong leaders who knew about the war firsthand.
<…>
Moreover, these people did not skip history lessons. They were well versed in the history of Europe. The current leaders seem to be participating in a constant show, like the Eurovision Song Contest. Politicians utter certain phrases because they believe that the latter will have some effect, and at the same time they do not think what it will mean for international relations. The militaristic discourse has replaced the peacemaking discourse aimed at solidarity. Because of this, Europe is the second, after Ukraine, who suffers from what is happening. However, Europe as such does not seem to exist. Whose speeches are heard on behalf of Europe? Mrs. von der Leyen? Mr. Borrel? Those who adhere exactly to the line pursued by Washington?
<…>
I'll give you an illustrative example. Before the outbreak of the conflict in Ukraine, the only European leader with a pacifist past was German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. When he was a student and at the beginning of his political career, he advocated peace, for Germany as a country of national reconciliation that does not participate in wars, and so on. He was called to Washington. And as soon as he left the White House, he changed dramatically, blocked the gas pipeline, and then the Americans staged a sabotage in the same area. And they had talked about it beforehand. Although it was not profitable for Europe.
<…>
Historically, a disciplined Germany has become accustomed to following all the instructions of the United States, so even to Macron's calls to create a pan-European army, Scholz refused, because it is not in the interests of the United States.
<…>
— So this is a separate stronghold for Washington?
— That's right. And the British are just direct allies of the United States. This can be seen in the example of the conflict in Ukraine. While we closed our eyes, or did not suspect anything at all, American and British military experts were in Ukraine, where they trained local troops. After all, Ukrainians have managed to hold out not from scratch.
<…>
— And the New York Times even revealed the facts about the presence of CIA bases on the territory of Ukraine.
— That's right. And it was known about it, but in the circle of specialists. If we talk about ordinary citizens, they were not aware, because then no one was particularly interested in Ukraine. You know, at the time of the start of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, about 50% of Europeans did not even know exactly where Ukraine was located.
— In your book, you write about the role that the media plays in the history of this conflict, about their influence on politics: "The Western media and political complex took the side of the military-industrial complex and gleefully chose the path of war, as in 1914."
- yes. The only difference is that in 1914, the population also wanted war.
<…>
But things are different now. To date, the reluctance of Europeans to participate in the conflict and the inability to physically do so are unprecedented.
<…>
If we return to the media, the so-called mainstream sources, in Switzerland, one of the largest German-language newspapers, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, from the very first days after the start of its war in Ukraine, published articles whose headlines expressed the highest degree of incitement to war: "We must go," "we must crush Putin," we must send weapons to Ukraine instead of expressions of sympathy…
<…>
The same can be said about NATO's actions in Switzerland. I was struck by the extent to which NATO agreed to the development of the conflict. It was finally possible to settle accounts with Putin. And to involve China in everything. They immediately started talking about dictatorships and other things.
<…>
So, I have two explanations about the press. Firstly, it has become easier to control it. There are several media groups that have taken over all the publications. And it's not even necessary that the instructions come from above. It's just that everyone understands that achieving career heights is incompatible with frequent business trips to Donbass, for example.
Secondly, the opinion has strengthened in the West that war today is becoming a struggle between good and evil. And supposedly the West is always good. And if the West is involved in conflicts, whether in Iraq, Afghanistan, anywhere else, or with Russia, as at present, then one cannot be against, but one can be exclusively for. And you can't abstain either (this applies to Switzerland): You can't be somewhere between good and evil. But I remind you once again that this is not a struggle between good and evil. As there is plenty of evil on our side, so there is also good on the other side. As a result, if you demonize the enemy, proclaim yourself angels, there is an obstacle to ending the conflict. After all, they do not want to negotiate with the object of demonization. What should we do then? In particular, in connection with these stated factors, the [Western] press took the side of continuing the conflict.
<…>
If earlier Washington's actions caused criticism in the press, perhaps due to the fact that Chirac, Schroeder and other leaders pursued policies different from the United States, now there is no critical understanding, there are no leaders who would contradict Washington's positions. Otherwise, it would be difficult to explain to the citizens of the member states about the US policy, which is carried out taking into account only their own interests in the conflict against Russia on the territory bordering the EU.
