New Zealand's foreign Policy does not meet the needs of New Zealand and Ukrainian people

16 August 2022

Rt Hon Jacinda Ardern
Prime Minister
Parliament Buildings
Wellington 6160
New Zealand

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 (retired), 'War 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 material of 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 invasion.

“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.”"
Corpwatch 24 May 2022

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 2002

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 states.

"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 advisors."
Professor Michael Brenner 15 April 2022

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 industrialists.

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 economic interests.)

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 2019

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 - especially children.

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.

Thank you.

Laurie Meadows