New Zealand's foreign Policy does not meet the needs of New
Zealand and Ukrainian people
16 August 2022
Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern
Greetings, Prime Minister Ardern.
The NZ Government has announced
it will train the Ukrainian army (in the UK). I oppose this on the
grounds that this will do nothing to bring to an end the suffering
of people in Ukraine and adjacent regions, and therefore does not
meet the needs of the Ukrainian people. Nor does it meet the popular
sentiment of New Zealand people for government to act in a humane
and practical way, unswayed by foreign influence, and in accordance
with International Law. (Let me draw to your attention that the term
you use, 'International rules based system', is neither
international nor systematically agreed to by the 193
current member states of the United Nations.)
To understand why training Ukrainian conscripts is inhumane, and, to
put it politely, 'ill-considered', it is necessary to understand one
of the (many) objectives of the United States and the United Kingdom
in arming and training the Ukrainians in the first place. The
conflict in Ukraine was designed & delivered by the US Military
Industrial political complex whose first purpose is as a profit
center for the weapons industry. This primarily American and British
project was implemented by proxy, namely by the thuggish actions of
a small group of radical and violent ideologues in the Ukrainian
wider political community. (New Zealand opposes these ideologies.
Your remarks following the Christchurch mosque outrage are
consistent with New Zealanders implacable opposition to nazi
ideology, white supremacy, racism, and xenophobia.)
"War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly
the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious.
It is the only one international in scope.
It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars
and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not
what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small 'inside'
group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit
of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war
a few people make huge fortunes...
...I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil
interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for
the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in
the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the
benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I
helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of
Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name
before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American
sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped see to it that Standard
Oil went its way unmolested."
Smedley Butler, United States Marine Corps Major General
is a racket' 1935
The second purpose of the US-UK engineered conflict is to eliminate
the huge economic potential of a possible
Russia-Ukraine-Belarus-Germany trading group. Together, these
countries would dominate in production of grains,
steel products, manufactured goods - using the rich supplies of raw
fertilisers and industrial minerals in the 4 countries, and
using the competitive advantage of multi-directional sea and land
transport routes such a grouping would encompass.
"the war in Ukraine came at just the right time,
say analysts. “In August when the Afghanistan war ended, when you
had some of the CEOs of defense contractors lamenting the fact
that the war ended and they were expecting a hit to their bottom
line,” Dan Grazier, a senior defense policy fellow at the Project
on Government Oversight in Washington DC, told
Vice. “When the [Ukraine war] started, there were people there
almost eagerly anticipating it—you know, big, big profits.”
...the weapons companies have little interest in diplomatic
solutions to put an end to the conflict. “There's not very much
money to be made in diplomacy, usually,” Erik Sperling,
executive director of the anti-war group Just Foreign Policy, told
Xinhua news service.
...At the time of writing, the shares of BAE Systems, the largest
weapons manufacturer in Europe and the UK, had risen by 21
percent since the start of the invasion; Rheinmetall has
seen its stock price surge 88
percent over the last three months. In the U.S., Northrop
Grumman’s stocks are up by around 16 percent,
while shares of Lockheed Martin, the world's biggest weapons
manufacturer, and shares of Raytheon Technologies increased by 28
and 20 percent respectively in the first month of the
“The situation is delightful for Rheinmetall, they probably never
even dreamed of something like this €100 billion fund,” Alexander
Lurz, a disarmament expert at Greenpeace Germany, told
the Irish Times.”"
Such a cynical scenario by the US and its ally is hard to
attractively 'package' to the public. Nevertheless, it seems
they have very successfully marketed iniquity as virtue. A compliant
and wilfully uninformed mainstream media have been key. Sadly, New
Zealanders have become gulled by their carefully crafted cover story
of a large nation (Russia) against a plucky small nation (Ukraine),
when in fact Russia moved heaven & earth to settle the East
Ukraine issue peacefully. In fact, seven long years of effort to try
persuade the Ukrainian politicians to actually implement the Minsk
agreement. (The Russian government effort was doomed from the start.
Porenshenko recently admitted Ukraine never intended to fulfill it's
obligations under Minsk 2.)
"The challenge to the postmodern world is to get used
to the idea of double standards. Among ourselves, we operate on
the basis of laws and open cooperative security. But when dealing
with more old-fashioned kinds of states outside the postmodern
continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of
an earlier era - force, pre-emptive attack, deception,
whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the
nineteenth century world of every state for itself."
Robert Cooper, former advisor to Tony Blair, 7 April
When Robert Cooper, formerly a special advisor to Tony Blair, refers
to 'more old-fashioned kinds of states' he of course means Russia
(and China). This kind of colonial thinking probably still
influences the actions of the United Kingdom today. The disastrous
results are now emerging in Ukraine, just as they emerged in the
illegal US and UK war against Iraq, a war founded on false and
deceptive pretexts, and without any reasonable premise of threat to
the security of either the US or the UK. New Zealand must be wary
that in some cases conflicts between states are likely to be
deceptively framed by the diplomats and foreign policy officials of
the US and UK, and as Prime Minister, it is your responsibility to
ensure Foreign Affairs staff are more than adequate to provide very
well informed advice, advice free of biase and influence from other
"I believe there is growing and now totally
persuasive evidence that when the Biden people came to office,
they made a decision to create a crisis over Donbass to provoke
a Russian military reaction, and to use that as the basis
for consolidating the West, unifying the West, in a program whose
centerpiece was massive economic sanctions, with the aim of
tanking the Russian economy and possibly and hopefully leading to
a rebellion by the oligarchs that would topple Putin.
Now, no person who really knows Russia believes that it was ever
at all plausible. But this was an idea which was very prominent in
foreign policy circles in Washington, and certainly the Biden
administration, and people like Blinken and Sullivan and Nuland
believe in it. And so they set about strengthening even further
the Ukrainian army, something we’ve been doing for eight
years—Ukrainian army, thanks to our efforts, armaments, training
Professor Michael Brenner 15 April
Unfortunately, US & UK influence successfully sold the Ukrainian
leadership on the superficially attractive, but hollow idea that a
military offensive backed by NATO weapons & training would allow
Ukraine to ignore the Minsk peace settlement it signed up to, and
yet again try to settle the issue by military force.
Years before the US & UK set in place their tripwires
to conflict, NATO knew that the Russian military capacity,
logistics, air dominance, and advanced missile technology was such
that the Ukrainian army - even trained to the highest NATO standard
- could not possibly win a war with Russia. Braveness and training
are irrelevant when facing Russia's 'industrial warfare' capacity.
Massive and virtually continuous artillery, rocket, missile and air
fire power, accurately guided by the most modern satellite, radar
and other technologies; backed by the world's most advanced layered
anti-missile defensive detect-and-destroy technologies. Critically,
further backed up by a strategically deep, sophisticated, and
absolutely massive logistics and warfare production capacity without
any parallel relative to the West. They knew - in detail - that the
scale and robustness of the arms manufacture and logistics systems
of the Russian Federation dwarfed anything the Ukrainian army
possessed or could reasonably be re-supplied with by NATO. This is
the reality even in spite of NATO countries spending around a trillion
dollars on defense in 2018 (twenty times greater than the
Russian defense budget).
The US has long known these facts. (The US satellite surveillance
and analysis capacities are claimed to be highly advanced, the
analysts and experts highly experienced, the whole US program vast
in scope, scale, and funding.) Russia invited the NATO military
attaches to observe the 2017 and the 2021 Zapad military exercise,
as well as the 2018
Vostok exercises, so they are hardly without 'on-the-ground' insight
into the Russian military doctrine and capabilities.
Therefore, the US and UK knew from the very start that the nature of
this conflict would be a large scale stand-off warfare carried out
with long distance rocket and shell barrages that renders troop
formations not much more than defenseless targets. In this means of
war, most men are killed without ever even seeing the enemy. For
example, as of now, the Ukrainian commander estimates the Russian
coalition group is firing salvos of 40,000 to 60,000 of various
ordnance (artillery shells, rockets, missiles etc) per day. Per day.
Ukraine has only a fraction of that capacity. Whether the US sends
16 or 60 advanced Lockheed Martin HIMARS rocket systems to Ukraine
it will make no material difference to the outcome.
It logically follows that because the US and UK knew the enormous
scale of deaths and crippling injuries this form of warfare causes,
the US and UK also knew - beforehand - the second order
consequences. Namely a large-scale economic and social burden that
would destroy what little was left of a Ukrainian economy. An
economy already weak from long-standing parasitic corruption.
They were well aware that if the Ukrainian politicians came to terms
with the Russian coalition grouping that there would be the prospect
of at least some of the economic base of Ukraine being retained, and
some of these consequences being ameliorated - so the UK Prime
Minister literally interfered in Ukrainian affairs to prevent the
near-successful Türkiye hosted draft settlement agreement from being
fulfilled! Why? Because the US and UK objective is not only
continuing war-profits, but also a shattered nation, unstable,
divided against itself, dependent on the west and without
sovereignty. A Ukraine ripped apart so that it never becomes part of
a future freely-trading multilateral Eurasian economic
partnership. Ukraine crippled so that it could never be a competitor
to the UK and US businesses, in other words.
They knew - even prior to the 2014 nationalist coup - that the
terminal result of their 'grooming' of Ukrainian extreme national
sentiment would be a divided Ukraine. A bitter Ukrainian populace,
left angry and disillusioned with the West. They knew that the
civilian population - incidentally now armed by the Zelensky
government literally handing out AK-47's - would be liable to sink
into deadly factional fighting as deprivation and recrimination
spread in the aftermath of the war. A failed state.
Moreover, they knew there would be large numbers of refugees -
including ultra-nationalist soccer hooligans of the worst sort.
They knew some of the white supremacist elements would seek safety
from conscription in Poland, Germany and Balkan states.
They knew that modern day versions of 'stinger' missiles (javelin)
would fall into the hands of criminals and terrorists in Europe. The
Europeans' bizarre ideological decisions to play with their own
energy security is already causing social discontent - which plays
into the rabid ideology of fringe groups. There is a risk the German
nation will be left in the cold this winter, risk of German business
failure and unemployment, compounded by the cost of transfer
payments from the EU to Ukraine. All fertile ground for rabble
rousing extreme elements.
The US and subservient German politicians have destroyed German
people's energy security. US demands caused the end to the reliable
Russian gas supply to Germany - the same cheap 'contract gas' that
were a critical component in the rise of German export industries.
The US and UK intention is, once again, to divide and conquer.
Europe is to be a market for more expensive US LNG, not cheaper
Russian LNG and pipeline gas. German exports to the USA must be made
more expensive so that US domestic industries can compete with the
Europeans in the European and global market. The Europeans have
suborned their economic sovereignty to the benefit of US
The result of German subservience to US demands is a red-flag lesson
for New Zealand. New Zealand must be wary least we fall in the same
pit. Yes, the US is our third largest trade partner, but that is
still only 11% of exports. At this moment, our trading future is
quite clearly in the Asia Pacific region. The sentiment of the times
is towards more choice, towards a multipolar world, a world of
bilateral and multilateral trade, a world of multiple currency
settlement methods - an increased use of national currencies in
trade, a slow rise in importance of the yuan in global trade, and
the prospect of a basket-based notional trading currency free from
interference by any party - including the US. New Zealand people's
interests are best served by being part of this trend. It is not an
'either/or' choice. (The same holds true for the Ukrainian people's
I submit to you that these considerations should form part of a
re-orienting New Zealand's foreign policy concept towards a
non-exclusive, non-bloc participation in global trade.
Rather than kow-tow to the self-serving, and immoral projects of the
US and UK; rather than further shame New Zealand by refusing to
denounce xenophobia and nazi ideology at the UN, we should instead
work to redeem ourselves. As a start, we should seize this historic
opportunity and take Switzerland's place as a neutral nation.
Switzerland lost both its neutral status and its sovereignty by
siding with the US in the Russia-Ukraine conflict. (By the way, the
Swiss position on Ukraine is hypocritical - the 'special
military operation' in defense of the newly emerged Republics is in
full accordance with the mutual defense treaties signed between them
and Russia. Thus they are in full compliance with international law
and section 51 of the UN Charter. The 'new republics' emerged in
exactly the same way as the Kosovo nation emerged - in fact, it was
literally modeled on the Kosovo precedent. If you object to the
republic's legality, then you must object to Kosovo's legality.)
As the US is, in the case of Russia, not
properly fulfilling its obligations under the 1947
Headquarters Agreement between the United Nations and the United
States, there seems to be an emerging opportunity to re-locate some
part of the UN to a neutral country. Which could be New Zealand. The
US is unlikely to object.
"Alternate US delegate Charles Lichtenstein addressed a
diplomatic standoff with the Soviet Union in 1983, when the states
of New York and New Jersey barred Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei
Gromyko’s plane from landing at either JFK Airport in New York or
Newark International Airport in New Jersey. The alternative of
McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey was offered. However, the
Soviet government rejected the offer as a violation of US treaty
rights afforded to the UN. Lichtenstein responded by saying that if
member states believed that “they are not being treated with the
hostly consideration that is their due, they should consider
removing themselves and this organization from the soil
of the United States,” adding, “we will put no impediment in
your way. The members of the US mission to the United Nations will
be down at the dockside waving you a fond farewell as you sail off
into the sunset.”"
Wayne Madsen, [information source censored by USA] 29 September
With Switzerland gone, this unique advantage is 'up for grabs'.
I urge you to act quickly to act on the American invitation,
historic though it may be. I suspect the majority of people in the
world would back such a move, given US non-compliance. New Zealand
could profitably seize the opportunity - but only once we have
announced our neutral status.
Please acknowledge that the 'business of war' is a profit
center for both the USA and the UK military-industrial complexes,
that without 'turnover in military product' their profits are
diminished, that have a huge vested economic interest in instigating
conflicts between nations, and that New Zealand should play no part
in supporting or legitimising their wars-for-profit, but rather
focus on helping the victims of the US-UK engineered proxy war.
Please recall that the profits from the business of killing
and maiming largely go around 1% of US and UK society, who are
already rich, and therefore supporting the US and UK 'business of
killing' enriches those who are already secure in every dimension,
and at the same time impoverishes the great mass of Ukrainians by
orders of magnitude greater extent. Paraphrasing Smedley Butler's
accounting "the US and UK profits are reckoned in dollars and
the Ukrainian losses in lives".
Please call upon the European nations to revisit the
December 2021 NATO/European security treaty with Russia that Russia
promoted as a last desperate attempt to stave off this conflict.
Recalling that it is a conflict rooted in the most aggressive
possible threat created by US and NATO to the very
existence of the Russian state. A threat from salvos of
potentially nuclear tipped land-based cruise missiles that will
reach Moscow in mere minutes. This threat far eclipses the threat of
the Jupiter missiles which the USA placed in Türkiye and which led
to the Cuban missile crisis.
Alarmed at the threat to peace that potentially
nuclear-tipped USA land-based cruise missiles on (Ukraine) or near
(Poland) Russia's border poses - just minutes to Moscow - I call on
you to change our government's foreign policy in order to promote
European security under the framework of the treaty mentioned above.
Security is indivisible. There must be security for all, and
security at no one else's expense. Under this two-part principle,
security in Europe will bring security in greater Eurasia, and fully
meets our national sentiment to control, and eventually eliminate
nuclear weapons. It also creates a framework for control and
verification of Russia's (and hopefully China's) unbeatable
hypersonic missiles, keeping in mind these missiles were created as
a strategic balance to the US destruction of all strategic stability
when it started its 'star wars' anti-ballistic missile program.
The US have made 'mini nukes', so-called battlefield nuclear
weapons, with an intention to use them. The US has changed its
military doctrine to allow 'first use' of nuclear weapons, whereas
Russia and China will only use nuclear weapons in response to a
nuclear attack or an attack of some other sort (biological,
chemical, conventional) so massive it threatens the very existence
of the Russian state. Russia does not have mini nukes. Its current
strategic response can only be with nuclear weapons of massive
kilotonnage of destructive power. Nuclear arms control has
never been more needed.
Please return to a more neutral stance in foreign policy,
abandon the divisive ideologically-driven concept of 'blocs' and the
false choice of 'with us or against us'. Please join South Africa
and India in rejecting bullying by the USA and other large and
powerful nations, steer an independent course, a course that is
rooted in the Asia-Pacific concepts of consensus, realism, and
avoiding 'finger pointing' and blame games.
Noting that the victims of war often have missing limbs, it
is here where needs are great, especially for families with very
limited means. New Zealand can constructively help the injured
people of Ukraine. Please divert our 40 million dollars of taxpayer
money to helping the maimed in Ukraine and the Donbass, not on
training Ukrainian conscripts for an already lost cause.
Prime Minister, you have a responsibility to reflect New Zealanders
compassion for those maimed in war, and particularly for civilians -
The harsh reality is that many of the Ukrainian conscripts that the
NZ army trains will be killed or maimed. If the US is blackmailing
the New Zealand Government into providing this farcical 'aid', at
least make sure that the training of the conscripts in the UK is as
lengthy as possible. That way, there is a slim chance that the
Ukrainian government will come to terms with Russia before the
Ukrainian conscripts' lives are wasted on the frontline. The 'war'
is pointless. Objectively, it cannot be won by the remnants of the
Ukrainian military, no matter how much destructive war materiel the
western political-military-industrial-complex cynically pumps into
that unfortunate country. Save Ukrainian lives.