With Sir Keir Starmer apparently seeking US authorization for Ukraine to fire deep-strike weapons into Russia, see the embedded video giving the views of former US intelligence operatives on the development. If you feel strongly that the UK is seeking direct NATO-Russia armed conflict, feel free to use the attached Letter, amending it as you see appropriate so that it shares your views with the UK Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and head of the Secret Intelligence Service.
https://www.youtube.com/live/rzXyWudA8c0?si=qv3OyZf5ERs6m-0q
Letter:
Sir Kier Starmer
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AB
By email
keir.starmer.mp@parliament.uk
CC: Mr David Lammy
CC: Sir Richard Moore KCMG
david.lammy.mp@parliament.uk
fcdo.correspondence@fcdo.gov.uk
[Name]
[Address]
Date:
14 September 2024
Mobile:
E-mail:
[Your mobile number]
[Your email]
Dear Sir Kier Starmer, Mr David Lammy and Sir Richard Moore KCMG
I write regarding (1) Sir Richard Moore's interview with the Financial Times, and (2) Sir Keir Starmer and Mr David Lammy's trip to Washington on 13 September 2024, widely reported as made to seek authorisation for Ukraine to use Western supplied ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles for deep strikes into Russia.
I am writing because your actions seek to bring NATO into direct conflict with Russia, a country with the World's biggest nuclear weapons stockpiles, which (due to the UK's lack of missile defences), could obliterate this country in hours. Although I respect your positions as heads of the UK's foreign intelligence gathering, and foreign policy, I do not believe that the UK's electorate would countenance your actions if they were made aware that your actions would result in Russia formally declaring that Russia and NATO are at war.
You will have heard Vladimir Putin's comments made on 12 September in Saint Petersburg, where he said that should the West authorise the use of deep-strike weapons into Russia, Russia would be at a state of war with NATO. You will also know that what he says regarding the guidance of such weapons to their targets depend on NATO personnel and the West's/NATO's satellites is true. Therefore, I am certain that you know about the gravity of what you are seeking.
I just write to ask you to take a step back from the brink, and look objectively at the situation. I ask you to look objectively at things from a Russian perspective in order to understand Russia, a state that is rapidly (due to the West's actions in Ukraine) becoming an enemy of the UK. I ask you to think objectively about the reasons why Russia invaded Ukraine, and not just back to 24 February 2022, as does the head of the Secret Intelligence Service, Sir Richard. Not looking further back does nobody any favours, because it does not allow one to understand Russia. I am sure that Sir Richard, who I regard as an intelligent and talented diplomat and intelligence officer, is perfectly aware of the deep history of the conflict. However he chooses to spin a narrative which is magnified by the mainstream media, that the whole conflict is Russia's exclusive fault, and that the West is therefore right to seek Russia's defeat, (i.e. that for the UK it is a "just war").
I would ask you to consider that Russia should not be viewed as a malign power. It is not Nazi Germany. It is not the Soviet Union, a Communist state bent on world domination. It is a country which prior to the current conflict was a partner of the West, one who even sought NATO entry, and one which the West should have been seeking stronger relations with in order to limit the influence of China. Unfortunately from a NATO perspective, Russia has now been battle trained against NATO weapons and techniques, and is in a much stronger military adversary than it was pre-February 2022. This is also a consequence of NATO's ill-judged expansion into Ukraine.
Furthermore, a cynic would say that the reason for the West's involvement in Ukraine is to line the pockets of weapons suppliers, and has nothing to do with the Ukrainian people. Indeed, the West is through its actions, ensuring the destruction of Ukraine.
Anyone who knows Russia will know that it is impossible to defeat them on the battlefield (except, possibly by a pre-emptive nuclear strike). Against a NATO conventional attack, Russia has the advantage of fighting on its own territory, and defence in depth. NATO would have huge logistical problems with an attack on mother Russia. Regarding a nuclear strike, bear in mind that since the end of the arms treaties limiting intermediate missiles, Russia has developed a comprehensive anti-ballistic missile defence, which at least stands between Russian populations and an incoming nuclear strike by NATO, something the UK does not have. Let us not forget that Russia has hypersonic missiles, which the West cannot counter. It is therefore not a given that even in a nuclear exchange, NATO would prevail. Against this, what you, the heads of the UK Government Foreign Intelligence and Foreign Policy establishment are saying is that with Western help, Ukraine can (and will) defeat Russia. This is simply untrue, and what is happening on the battle lines in the Donbas and Kursk bear out that even with NATO's assistance (its weapons, training, and Intelligence), Ukraine is being defeated by Russia. You are acting akin to leaders following Custer's last stand or the US pull-out from Saigon, saying something like "Well done. We really did well." I find your statements about how well Ukraine is doing, and that "Ukraine can and will win" at odds with reality, and deeply unhelpful:
· You are advocating direct war between NATO and Russia;
· You ignore that the US has, since the Clinton administration in 1994, expanded NATO eastwards against the agreement reached in February 1990 (following discussions at the Malta Summit between U.S. President George H.W. Bush and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in December 1989);
· You ignore the memo sent by Ambassador William J. Burns to the U.S. Secretary of State on February 1, 2008 (NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA'S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES) that expanding NATO into Ukraine was the brightest of Russia's red lines, and that Russia would wreck Ukraine before allowing it to happen;
· No matter how you spin the narrative, the West disregarded Russia's legitimate security interests since 1994, (particularly prior to the NATO Bucharest summit in 2008) and when the Russo-Ukrainian war began in 2014, instead of backing off, the West doubled down;
· Citing the Westphalian System of International Relations when dealing with Ukraine and Russia, and Russia's security interests in the face of the West's attempts to use Ukraine as a bulwark on Russia's border to expand the liberal-democratic world order into Russia, will cause the world endless problems. International Law is unhelpful when dealing with Great Powers and the actions of smaller countries on their borders; We need to understand Realism, and take into consideration Russia's interests; and
· When a country like Ukraine pokes a country like Russia in the eye, might makes right, and not understanding the logic of Thucydides (History of the Peloponnesian War) is unhelpful.
As a prelude to a detailed overview of the reasons for the war (below), reconsider things that I am sure you already know, namely that prior to 24 February 2022:
1. In February 2014, the US instigated a coup in Ukraine which illegally deposed the democratically elected president of Ukraine, Victor Yanukovych, and installed an ultra-nationalist government which then began shelling the Russian speaking peoples of the Donbas (because they dared to try to conserve their Russian culture and identity);
2. In response, and following Western actions making Ukraine a de-facto NATO country, Russia was compelled to move on Crimea to safeguard its Sevastopol naval base;
3. Russia steadfastly supported the Minsk 2 agreement for the Donbas to remain inside Ukraine. Angela Merkel has stated that Minsk 2 had been an instrument to allow Ukraine time to rearm, in effect admitting that Russia had been deceived. Ukraine rearmed and its armed forces were trained by the West between 2015 and 2022, becoming a de-facto NATO state;
Consider too that since 24 February 2022:
(a) Almost immediately, the Russians and the Ukrainians entered into negotiations to end the conflict;
(b) In late March 2022, in performance of an agreement for negotiations (started in Belarus) to continue in Istanbul, Russia moved its forces away from Kiev;
(c) The Istanbul negotiations almost concluded in early April 2022, with each page initialled prior to the signing. Prior to signing, (as recently confirmed by Victoria Nuland) the US and UK governments told Ukraine (on Ukraine seeking advice), that the annexes to the agreement required Ukraine to be "neutered" – unable to station offensive weapons on its territory. The US and UK governments (and Boris Johnson in particular) in effect told Ukraine to walk away from the deal. The context here is that the US and UK appeared to believe that with Western assistance (and coupled with economic sanctions against Russia), Ukraine could win a war with Russia.
(d) US Secretary of Defense, Lloyd Austin, has stated publically that the aim of the US in the war is to "weaken" Russia (Austin's comments made on 24 April 2022, reported by Natasha Bertrand, on April 26, 2022 on CNN). Therefore, there can be no doubt that for the US, current NATO enlargement into Ukraine is offensive, not defensive;
(e) Jen Stoltenberg has told the Washington Post that, "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." (The Editorial Board, Washington Post, May 9. 2023).
Therefore, anyone who wants to know the truth about whether Vladimir Putin has imperial ambitions in Ukraine already has the answer: In late March – early April 2022, Russia retreated from Kiev in order to negotiate a return to neutrality for Ukraine (which was written into its 1991 Constitution).
Context of the invasion – NATO enlargement
When one looks objectively at the causes of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, it is clear that Russia was, indeed, provoked by the West, and the provocation was mainly, though not exclusively, connected to the expansion of NATO eastwards.
When Germany was reunified in October 1990, there was an unofficial agreement that in exchange for the Warsaw Pact giving up East Germany (with that territory becoming part of NATO), NATO would not move "one inch" to the east. However, as you will know, NATO has since expanded eastwards during five subsequent waves of expansion.
Russia voiced their opposition to these in the starkest of terms from the get-go. For instance, Gorbachev said that the expansion of NATO past East Germany was a "violation of the spirit of the statements and assurances made to us in 1990." Nevertheless, Russia was initially too weak to resist, and as you will know, up until 2008 and the proposal to invite Georgia and Ukraine to become candidate members, had to stomach the various waves of NATO enlargement.
The 2008 Bucharest Summit
Then, prior to the 2008 Bucharest Summit, Russia made it clear to the US that they would not stand idly by regarding expansion of NATO into Georgia and Ukraine. An email from the US ambassador to Russia, William Burns (now CIA director), made it clear to Condolezza Rice, US Secretary of State, that Ukrainian entry into NATO would be, to the Moscow elites the "brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin)," - see enclosed email.
Russia made it abundantly clear that it considered NATO enlargement into Ukraine was an existential issue, and that it would wreck Ukraine before allowing that to happen. The reason why Ukraine is an existential issue (as opposed to Finland and Sweden), is due to the predominantly ethnically Russian composition of Eastern Ukraine.
Despite this, and instead of taking into account Russia's red lines, the US doubled down, and declared its decision to expand NATO into Ukraine. Accordingly, the communique issued at the 2008 NATO Bucharest Summit stated that "Georgia and Ukraine will become NATO members."
The Maidan Coup and the Ukrainian Civil War – 2014 to 2022
Then, 18 - 23 February 2014, (start of the current Ukrainian-Russo War) the democratically elected president of Ukraine was deposed in a US orchestrated coup in Kiev. The coup was a blatant US regime change operation orchestrated by the Ukraine desk at the US State Department, and then vice-president Joe Biden, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, Deputy National Security Adviser Anthony Blinken and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Victoria Nuland, Victor Yanukovych still had two years to run, and yet the coup installed far right ethnically Ukrainian leadership whose policies were to actively discriminate against the Russian speaking populations in the Donbas region of Ukraine.
Accordingly, the immediate cause of the train wreck affecting Ukraine was US action as follows:
1. The US decision to double down and signal to Russia that NATO would expand into Ukraine; and
2. The US decision to ferment the February 2014 coup, undemocratically bringing to power a government in Ukraine intent on subjecting the Russian speakers of the Donbas to campaigns designed to "make" them Ukrainian.
Russian annexation of Crimea - 2014
Unable to stand on the side-lines and allow an undemocratically elected and openly far right and anti-Russia government take control of Russia's Sevastopol naval base, Russia had no choice but to take control of Crimea. Effectively, the US's and Ukraine's actions had impacted on Russia's security, trying to peel Ukraine from Russia's sphere of influence and turning Ukraine into a bulwark of the liberal-democratic world order on Russia's border. When Great Powers such as Russia experience threatening foreign and destabilising influences close to their borders, they will always act to maximise their security. In such situations, the Realist school of International Relations informs that concerns of breaches of International Law take a back seat. The US acted in a similar way in 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis when faced with a build-up of Soviet weaponry on their border.
Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk – 2014 to February 2024
Following the Maidan Revolution and Russian annexation of Crimea, Ukraine began to shell the city of Donetsk from Avdiivka, and the War in the Donbas began, (and in effect the current war) started in earnest. The reason for the shelling was to bring the ethnically Russian population of the Donbas back under the control of the far-right unelected government, intent on destroying their culture. Obviously, the peoples of the Donbas rose up against such egregious acts.
The Minsk Agreements
Even then, despite the separatist Donbas oblasts begging Russia to annex them, Russia would not allow this to happen. Russia preferred the Donbas to remain part of Ukraine. Accordingly, Russia was happy to sign up to the Minsk agreements providing for autonomy for these two oblasts within Ukraine, and the preservation of linguistic and cultural connections with Russia.
Making Ukraine a de-facto NATO member – the CIA's actions in Ukraine 2014 -present
Following recent statements from the former leaders of France (Sarkhozy), Germany (Merkel) and Ukraine (Poroshenko) we now know that both Ukraine and these guarantors of the Minsk 2 agreement had no intention of fulfilling their commitments, and that their only consideration was to give Ukraine time to arm, which the US and the West orchestrated. Accordingly, between 2014 and 2022, Ukraine was turned into a de-facto NATO member, with an army armed and trained by the West.
But where can evidence of this be found? We have the article published on February 25, 2024 by the New York Times, a well-known CIA mouthpiece, that for a decade, the US established 12 secret CIA bases in Ukraine – see enlosed. On this basis alone, Russia was provoked, and saw no option but to act in the face of the US turning Ukraine into a Western bulwark on its borders.
It is important not to underestimate the effect this had on Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has since said (most recently in the Tucker Carlson interview) that from that point onwards he did not trust the West. He has said that he should have intervened then in Ukraine, but believed that the West was being honest, and gave peace a chance. He says he regrets that decision, as if he had followed what his advisers were telling him, defeating the Ukrainian Army would have then been easy.
Does Putin have imperial ambitions in Ukraine?
It is important to emphasize that (despite what mainstream media says on a daily basis) there is zero evidence that Putin has any imperial aspirations, and zero evidence that Russia has any ambitions to conquer the whole of Ukraine. It is abundantly clear that the reason for the Special Military Operation in Ukraine was to prevent NATO from expanding. Further, it is important to note that Russia is not at war with Ukraine. It is a "Special Military Operation" aimed at having limited effect on the Ukrainian civilian population. Many do not understand that point, but if Russia were at war with Ukraine, the country would face a devastating onslaught. What is going on is limited conflict for Russia, aimed at a specific objective – preventing Ukraine becoming a NATO member and removing the far right undemocratically elected government in Kiev.
This is underlined by the fact that Russia invaded with a 200,000 strong army. Such a force could never hope to take and occupy the whole of Ukraine, the largest country entirely within Europe, with 40 million inhabitants. It is understandable, therefore, that the Special Military Operation had a different objective in mind. Putin hoped that the invasion would force the Ukrainians to negotiate an end to the situation. And this is indeed what happened. In late March, early April 2022, negotiations to end the conflict took place first in Belorussia, and then in Istanbul. Russia and Ukraine concluded a draft agreement to end the war, which was initialled by both parties. During the negotiations, Zelensky publically stated that he could consider neutral status for Ukraine in exchange for an end to the conflict. It is a tragedy that the negotiations were not concluded, because if they had, the hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians and Russian soldiers, the flower of these peoples, would still be alive today, and Ukraine would have escaped the destruction mainly intact.
But the West had other plans. There is evidence in the public domain that the US and UK governments (mainly in the person of UK prime minister Boris Johnson) swooped into Kiev in late March, early April 2020, and told Ukraine that they would not have Ukraine's back should Ukraine sign the agreement. Under pressure from the US and UK governments, they told Ukraine that if they did not sign the draft agreement, they would receive support for "as long as it takes." Ukraine then pulled out of the deal.
Conclusion
On the basis of the facts and documents set out above and enclosed, there can be no doubt that Russia felt it had no choice but to act in the face of the West's continued destabilising actions in Ukraine. Russia made abundantly clear since 2008 that it would wreck Ukraine before allowing Ukraine to become a NATO member. Instead of accommodating Russia, the West pushed NATO enlargement down Russia's throat, doubling down on its project of peeling Ukraine away from Russia. With the eastern half of Ukraine populated by ethnic Russians, Moscow was never going to let that happen. The West needs to understand the damage it has done to Ukraine in pursuing their strategy of expanding the liberal-democratic order into Russia's sphere of influence.
We are not at war with Russia. It is a country with which we have diplomatic relations. However, by stating that Russia provoked the war, you are advancing an anti-Russia argument which is not grounded in fact, and serves to advance the anti-Russia narrative disseminated by Western political elites and the mainstream media. The danger is that people are highly susceptible to propaganda. Russia is not the Soviet Union. There is no damaging ideological issue at stake here. Russia is a multi-ethnic predominantly Christian state, and is one with whom the United Kingdom ought to be doing business with for the advancement of our shared interests.
Yours faithfully