NATO’s Warsaw Communiqué: Planning the Crime of Aggression

by Christopher Black, via New Eastern Outlook

I have been a defence lawyer most of my working life and am not used to gathering evidence for a prosecution, but circumstances impelled me to open a file for the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, or perhaps some future citizen’s tribunal, in which is contained the evidence that the NATO leaders are guilty of the gravest crime against mankind, the crime of aggression. I would like to share with you some brief notes of interest from that file, for your consideration.
Article 8bis of the Rome Statute, the governing statue of the International Criminal Court states:

For the purpose of this Statute, “crime of aggression” means the planning, preparation, initiation or execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the political or military action of a State, of an act of aggression which by its character, gravity and scale, constitutes a manifest violation of the Charter on the United Nations.

The NATO communiqué issued from Warsaw on July 9th is direct evidence of such planning and preparation and therefore of a conspiracy by the NATO leaders to commit acts of aggression against Russia, and would be the subject of an indictment of the International Criminal Court against the leaders of the NATO military alliance, if the prosecutor of the ICC was in fact independent, which she is not, and of course, if the articles relating to crimes of aggression were in effect — which will not take place until January 1, 2017, if at all, under the articles of the Rome Statute.
Nevertheless, the technical issue of jurisdiction that prevents the issuance of an indictment against the NATO leaders at this time does not legitimate the planning and preparation of acts of aggression as are contained in the NATO communiqué nor reduce the moral weight of the crime of aggression set out in the Statute and the Nuremberg Principles, for the crime of aggression is the supreme crime of war.
On their own words, set out in black and white, in their communiqué of July 9th, the NATO leaders, each and every one, and the entire general staffs of the armed forces of each and every NATO country, are guilty of the crime of aggression. The fact that there is no effective body to which they can be brought for trial is irrelevant to the fact of the crime being committed. They are the enemies of mankind and charged or not, tried or not, they are international outlaws who must be identified as such and called to account by their own peoples.
The evidence of their crimes of course predates this communiqué and consists in years of actions by the NATO powers, since the Soviet Union dissolved itself and the Warsaw Pact, under the agreement with NATO, the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, that NATO would not expand into any of the countries formally members of the Warsaw Pact or the USSR, nor place nuclear weapons there. NATO has broken that agreement continuously since and has, as an organisation, or through groups of its member states, committed acts of aggression against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Russia (during the Georgian attack on South Ossetia and through support of Chechen terrorist groups inside Russia itself), Ukraine and Syria with each act of aggression supported by massive propaganda campaigns to attempt to justify these crimes as legitimate. The western mass media are all complicit in these crimes by distributing this propaganda to the people they are meant to inform.
The same powers have committed and are committing further acts of aggression against the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Iran and China and continuously increasing their planning and preparation for aggression against those nations. These plans are also set out in the NATO communiqué but the gravest threat to mankind is the immediate existential threat against Russia, to which the principal part of the communiqué is directed.
The NATO communiqué is in fact a declaration of war against Russia. There is no other way to interpret it.
Many months ago I stated that we can regard the NATO build-up of forces in Eastern Europe, the NATO coup that overthrew the Yanukovich government in Ukraine, the attempt to grab the Russian naval base at Sevastopol, the immediate attacks on Ukrainian civilians in the eastern provinces that refused to accept the NATO coup, the constant propaganda against Russia as “aggressor” and the economic warfare conducted against Russia under the guise of “sanctions,” to be tantamount to a second Operation Barbarossa, the Third Reich’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. I was hesitant to so describe it but the facts were there and now others have recognised that the analogy is the correct one. And just as the leaders of the Third Reich were finally held responsible for their crimes at Nuremberg, so should be the leaders of the new Reich that the Americans and their vassal states are planning to impose on the rest of us.
At Paragraph 5 of the communiqué and following, they commit the first part of their crime by setting out supposed “aggressive actions” of Russia, in which, in every instance, they are the real aggressors.
At paragraph 15 they state, after some drivel about “partnership between NATO and Russia,” that,

We regret that despite repeated calls by Allies and the international community since 2014 for Russia to change course, the conditions for that relationship do not currently exist.  The nature of the Alliance’s relations with Russia and aspirations for partnership will be contingent on a clear, constructive change in Russia’s actions that demonstrates compliance with international law and its international obligations and responsibilities.  Until then, we cannot return to “business as usual.”

What they mean by Russia “changing course” is, of course, doing what they order, and “compliance with international law” means nothing less than complying with NATO diktats. The world saw what happened to Yugoslavia, when President Milosevic had the guts to tell them to go to hell when Madelaine Albright issued her long list of demands, to him, including the occupation of Yugoslavia by NATO forces and the dismantling of socialism, followed by the choice, comply or be bombed. The Yugoslav government had the right and the courage and so defied them, and so NATO leaders activated the leg-breakers, the enforcers, and the murderers who serve in their armed forces and began the vast destruction of a founding member of the Non-Aligned Movement.
We saw it again with Afghanistan, invaded on a legal pretext of harbouring an alleged criminal, Bin Laden, who has never been charged with a crime and who was working under US Army command in Kosovo in 1998-9, fighting against the Yugoslav government.
We saw it with Iraq, ordered to surrender weapons it never had, and then attacked with “shock and awe” a display of military power meant not just for Iraq, but for the whole world; this I what we will do to you if you don’t play ball.
We saw it with President Aristide in Haiti in 2004 when American and Canadian soldiers arrested him at gunpoint and exiled him in chains to Africa, while the world looked away. We saw it in 2010 when President Laurent Gbagbo was arrested by the French and thrown into the morass of the International Criminal Court. We saw it in 2011 when NATO destroyed socialist Libya and we see it now as they try the same against Syria and Iraq, Iran, North Korea, China and most importantly, Russia.
Paragraph 15 is nothing less than a diktat, “obey us or we cannot return to business as usual,” meaning, ultimately, war.
There then follows a long series of paragraphs of lies and distortions about events with everything blamed on Russia. They know these are lies and distortions of course but the point is that these communiqués are generated in Washington as propaganda devices to be quoted over and over again in the western media and referred to by their diplomats and politicians in every speech.
At paragraph 35 and following they refer to their plans for their new Operation Barbarossa, the build-up of NATO forces in Eastern Europe. They call it the Readiness Action Plan. In other words, all those paragraphs set out their plans for preparing the logistical and strategic capacity to attack Russia. That they intend to do so is now clear with the placement of anti-missile systems in Poland and Romania and soon on Russia’s southeast flank in Korea, that are intended to ensure the success of a nuclear first strike on Russia by NATO nuclear forces. The anti-missile systems are meant to intercept any retaliatory missiles launched by survivors in Russia. But, as President Putin pointed out, they can also be used directly in an offensive capacity.
They then emphasize that nuclear weapons are an important part of their strategy and in paragraph 53 state,

NATO’s nuclear deterrence posture also relies, in part, on United States’ nuclear weapons forward-deployed in Europe and on capabilities and infrastructure provided by Allies concerned.”

The fear is that with recent exercises in Poland and in the Arctic in which the use of air strikes to launch nuclear weapons such as nuclear tipped cruise missiles against Russia played a prominent part, the United States and its NATO allies are planning for and preparing for a nuclear attack on Russia. This is the only conclusion possible since it is clear that Russia has no intention of attacking any country in Eastern Europe nor anywhere else and so the excuse given that the presence of nuclear weapons in Europe is a deterrent against Russian “aggression” is established as a lie and therefore their presence can have only one purpose-to be used in attack.
The evidence is before us, the dossier complete. It sits on a desk, gathering dust, of no use to anyone, except the court of public opinion, and what is that worth these days? But perhaps some one out there will take it, develop it and give it to a tribunal, perhaps one of the people, for the people, set up by the people, to try those who plan to destroy the people, that can act quickly, before the final crime of aggression is committed against Russia; against us all.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto.  He is a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada and he is known for a number of high-profile cases involving human rights and war crimes.


If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.

For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

oldest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Norman Pilon
Norman Pilon
Jul 26, 2016 3:29 PM

Reblogged this on Taking Sides.

Jul 26, 2016 11:49 AM

For anyone still naive enough to believe that NATO’s warmongering is on a purely theoretical or threatening basis:
The document arises from the NATO convention in Warsaw.
Note the recommendations made on p12
Poland should announce that it reserves the right
to deploy offensive cyber operations (and not
necessarily in response just to cyber attacks).
The authorities could also suggest potential
targets, which could include the Moscow metro,
the St. Petersburg power network, and Russian
state-run media outlets such as RT.

The publication of intended acts of terror by a so-called EU country should result in Poland being thrown out of the European Union.

Jul 25, 2016 10:46 PM

The US/NATO is not going to commit what would amount to nuclear suicide over the fate of Estonia, no more than Russia can, or even wants to, invade Europe. The brute fact of the matter is that nuclear weapons have levelled the playing field and any full scale conventional war would soon turn into a nuclear exchange. Additionally a US/NATO first strike option is based upon the rather dubious notion that this would wipe out most of Russia’s land-based ICBMs and any remaining ones would be dealt with by the anti-ballistic missile system the US has placed on Russia’s borders. Easy peasy right? This seems all too reminiscent of the plans for the battle of the Somme 100 years ago. An Anglo-French sustained artillery barrage was going to smash the German front line and our troops would simply walk in unopposed. In the event, British casualties on the first day were almost 60,000 with 20,000 dead. This battle dragged on decisively for months with no clear winner and total British, French and German casualties in excess of one million. Such is the way with those usual hare-brained military theories which tend to come to grief in the fog of battle.
The first-strike theory also makes no mention of submarine launched ballistic nuclear missiles which provide second strike capabilities. Both the Russians and Chinese have these nuclear armed submersibles. Secondly those land based missiles may well be mobile carried by train or truck, or based in super-hardened silos ready for a retaliatory launch. As of July 2009, Russia’s strategic arsenal reportedly shrunk to 2,723 warheads, including: 367 ICBMs with 1,248 warheads, 13 SSBNs with 591 warheads and 76 bombers with 884 warheads. Doing some arithmetic let us suppose, for the sake of argument, US air defences destroy 95% of Russian warheads; this would still leave 28 nuclear warheads hitting the US, with probably most of the big cities on the east and west coasts wiped out. The devastation in Russia would probably be even greater, but then of course there would be the rather unprepossessing prospect of a nuclear winter which would descend like a bibilical nemesis on friend and foe alike. War could of course still happen by accident, but it is not a strategic option.
Moreover the much-vaunted and feared US-NATO conventional military juggernaut has only succeeded when it takes on weak states which cannot or will not put up a fight. When the opposition fights back as in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan the performance of the west’s unbeatable military machine has been less than impressive. The strategic error which US theorists make is that they think their enemy is going to fight on American terms in a symmetrical conflict. However, the US’s adversaries have not fallen into this trap, and they fight asymmetrical wars on their own terms.
Whilst The 11 carrier groups of the US Navy look impressive on paper, aircraft carriers and other ships have in recent times been extremely vulnerable to rocket attacks as the British discovered during the Falklands war. Prior to the Second World War Battleships were considered to be the capital ships in any navy. This view was comprehensively demolished at Pearl Harbour when the USS battleships Arizona and Oklahoma were sunk and a further 5 damaged. As if to rub in the point three days after Pearl Harbour two British battleships HMS Prince of Wales, and battlecruiser HMS Repulse were sunk by land-based bombers and torpedo bombers of the Imperial Japanese Navy off the East Coast of Malaya.
Military/Naval men seem to be habituated to preparing for future wars on the basis of past wars, with disastrous results.
All of which can be summed up in Von Moltke’s famous axiom: No battle plan ever survives contact with the enemy. The theory is untested and there is reason to suspect that it won’t work in the fog of war.

Jul 26, 2016 2:50 AM
Reply to  Frank

Frank. It sounds like you have acknowledged that the US and the EU have not learned from previous mistakes yet you purport that they will hang back regardless? If I have misunderstood your well informed comment with regard previous wars and errors of judgement then I apologise unreservedly. For people like myself, who apparently do not assimilate diction efficiently, could you please clarify the message you were trying to convey. I’m interested and intrigued.

Jul 26, 2016 6:17 PM
Reply to  mohandeer

In the words of the famous Scottish poet Robbie Burns: ”The best laid plans of mice and men oft gang (go) aglay (awry). Similarly those meticulously turned out military plans and theories more often than not come unstuck in actual war/battle conditions. In addition to the examples I gave you add a couple more. First the famous and reputedly invincible ‘Maginot Line’ of the French military command which was supposed to stop a German invasion. In 1940 the German army simply went around it and mopped up afterwards. Then the British defence of Singapore with all the heavy shore batteries pointing out to sea. Unfortunately the UK guns were pointed the wrong way and the Japanese just came down the Malay peninsular over the causeway and the British garrison surrendered the – 60,000 of them – the worse day for the British Army since the Somme. (see above)
Theories are one thing, the situation in the real world is quite another.

Jul 27, 2016 5:50 AM
Reply to  Frank

Frank. Once again you have demonstrated a superior knowledge of tactical blunders as in the case of the Maginot Line which I researched during History class – a lot of years ago. What I was hoping you could advise was whether or not my analysis of the US activities using NATO to surround Russia and now the US “policing” of seas it has no right to be interfering in, are a precursor to a planned attack against Russia or whether my ramblings have no merit and I am reading the situation completely wrong.
In other words, do you believe that the plans of mice and men are afoot but will likely be re-evaluated and the plans abandoned in favour of a more reasoned approach to Russia’s successful forays into economic and diplomatic “spheres of interest” which the US does not tolerate, or will the US “the game’s afoot” thinking continue to escalate the prospect of war against Russia throwing the baby out with the bath water?
If you think my interpretation of events is wrong minded, then by all means, such an assurance would be welcomed rather than dismissed. I am not a military strategist and the US did not back Sakashvilli when he declared war on Russia in South Ossetia as he fully expected they would, which suggests the US was not, at that point in time, willing to enter into a confrontation with Russia. Was that the US version of restraint or was it merely procrastinating till the US was in a better position to go forward with an invasion?
Will the US comit NATO to an all out assault, or do you believe that they will hang fire and find other means to restrict Russia?
Do you believe that sane minds will prevail rather than the duplicitous connivance many people feel will win out?
Robbie Burns also said “Oh for the gift that God did gee(give) us, to see ourselves as others see us”, because it always seems that the US is unable to perform such self awareness or reproach.

Aug 6, 2016 11:36 PM
Reply to  mohandeer

because it always seems that the US is unable to perform such self awareness or reproach.

Because they don’t give a damn how others see them, regrettably.

Name (required)
Name (required)
Jul 25, 2016 3:58 PM

If I were you, I would stay away from New Eastern Outlook, James Corbett and Sibel Edmonds.

Jul 25, 2016 5:54 PM

Thanks – but why?

Jul 25, 2016 7:32 PM

Rumours have it which me thinks that ur r implying that they r gate keepers. NEO has many articles written by Andre Vlatchic known anti anglo-zionist and also from Gordon Butler and Gordon Duff all which r known anti anglo-zionist writers or as I like to call them Khazarian Mafia and also has articles from Paul Craig Roberts and My favourite of them all Pepe Escobar and also carries articles of known anti-imperialist Eric Draistler.

Jul 25, 2016 3:31 PM

Nato =SS=IDF=Fascism

Jul 25, 2016 10:38 AM

As an average reader I am aware of many points raised by Mr Black. It appears conclusive that NATO’s stance is aggressive. The question that doesn’t go away is “what do you think you know?” Nearly every countries government is self serving, self serving to the detriment of it’s and other’s general population. It seems more plausible that ones own population are the enemy, not as we are told, nation/organisation antagonism. It follows that state aggression or defence is merely deceit in order to maintain control. I don’t claim to have any knowledge, but I realise that everything has more than two sides and that what I am told, or think I have worked out, usually has more sides than I ever imagined.

Jul 25, 2016 7:49 AM

Point 10 of the NATO Warsaw communique includes the following:
‘Russia’s destabilising actions and policies include: the ongoing illegal and illegitimate annexation of Crimea, which we do not and will not recognise and which we call on Russia to reverse; the violation of sovereign borders by force; the deliberate destabilisation of eastern Ukraine…’
Russia will never betray the will of the people of Crimea to be Russian.
Russia will never allow the US (NATO) to grab the naval base in Crimea.
Russia and anyone with eyes to see and read beyond the propaganda know that the deliberate destabilisation in Ukraine was by the US and the cookie monster Nuland plus US ambassador Pyatt.
Therefore, NATO has effectively stated that they will never be at peace with Russia. Time for Europe to grow a pair and kick the US(NATO) out and from a Eurasian alliance in peace.

Jul 25, 2016 1:14 AM

Reblogged this on Worldtruth and commented:
Unless sane minds prevail, the US and it’s aggressive NATO war machine will undoubtedly unleash an Armageddon from which there will be no return. It will illegally make war on Russia which will see millions of innocent Russian men, women and children dead. Then will come the retaliation in defence of it’s people in which, because of US connivance, will see those countries it has convinced to place themselves in harm’s way, reduced to ash and ruin while the US remains untouched. Once the arsenal of nuclear weapons deployed in Europe have been exhausted and much of Russia’s nuclear arsenal depleted, the US and Israel will then send a barrage of nuclear war heads to lay waste to whatever remains of Russia. This is not a fantasy since Obama, having shelled illegally seven countries in six years and the psychotic Clinton war monger advocating pre-emptive strikes against Russia are a reality no-one can argue. There are very few sane minds in power left in the US, so do not imagine that common sense or concern for consequences will prevail. The only question remaining is whether China will weigh in on the side of Russia – THAT is the singular factor in determining whether or not this scenario is put into play. For us in the west, our only hope is that China will step up to the plate. For those of you who wish to bury your heads in the sand – keep your asses covered!

Jul 25, 2016 6:30 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

This is all scaremongering aimed at extortions from Europe.
You should know better to pander to this nonsense……..
If this is truly the case, then the world should unite around one simple slogan: ‘promote world peace: kill an American today!’
You’ll note that I don’t think that it is the case, but Americans overseas should be the 21st century Jews, if we are going to follow the WW II analogies………the final solution should be rained down upon them in every single country of the world outside the USA.
I don’t want that to happen, but it’s acceptable collateral damage to stop WW III if this nuclear armageddon scaremongering doesn’t stop.

Jul 25, 2016 9:43 AM
Reply to  rtj1211

You are a grinning NWO idiot.
It’s not scaremongering. It is a concrete and very real intention to attack Russia. When that attack comes, they will not want to leave Russia able to strike back – so it will be an all-out assault on Russia’s major cities and military installations.
Thank you to Christopher Black for the important work he is doing on this matter. No thanks to simpering EU goons like you.

Richard Le Sarcophage
Richard Le Sarcophage
Jul 25, 2016 10:30 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

The Russians have made quite plain that a nuclear attack on Russia will lead to massive nuclear retaliation against the USA. There is NO way the US can stop that retaliation, so a nuclear first-strike (US strategic policy but abjured by Russia and China) will be Armageddon. The ruling psychopaths ion Thanatopolis DC are easily Evil enough to do it, too.

Jul 25, 2016 11:54 AM
Reply to  mohandeer

If NATO touches any territory of Russia the US will be obliterated. The idea that Americans can sit comfortably and watch it all on TV is absurd.

Jul 25, 2016 1:05 PM
Reply to  nexusxyz

Nexusxyz – Do you really believe that the majority of US citizens are capable of comprehending the consequences of the whack jobs decisions running the country?
All the pomp and solemn “grief” extolled by the merchants of death in the US is just so much “theatre”.
Germany alone just took delivery of a “FURTHER” 200 NUCLEAR WARHEADS. Russia will have to destroy the NATO countries aligned against and surrounding Russia’s borders first and the US is counting on the fact that Europe can do enough damage to enable the US to swat away any nukes Russia might send against US military bases within the US. If you learn how many US bases capable of launching nukes at Russia from all over the world, you can understand the myopic view of the Washington elites. The US Strangeloves truly believe they are invincible, untouchable and “exceptional” despite all evidence to the contrary. It’s the reason Washington is testing China to see if the Russian partnership will hold, it will also make an excellent excuse to wage war if Russia confronts the US fleet building in the South China seas. What do you think is going on? Without a Russia/China military axis, the US undoubtedly will only suffer a few million civilian casualties -“collateral damage” the elites in the Pentagon can live with, as surely as they dismiss (with crocodile tears) the deaths of their military personnel.
If Barack Obama can bomb seven countries in six years and be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, what accolades do you think the psychotic Hillary believes she will be owed by launching ever more murderous attacks against her perceived enemies, or those she just has utter contempt for?
The US and EU NATO countries have absolute contempt for International Law as has been demonstrated often enough and the American people have been brainwashed into accepting this aggression as “democratisation” and the pursuit of the fight against terrorism and “aggressive” regimes without realising that it is the US which is aggressive.
Oh yes, the US citizens will believe that they can sit comfortably and watch it all on TV. They do so every day as the inexorable march towards Armageddon unfolds.

Jul 25, 2016 9:19 PM
Reply to  nexusxyz

That’s what they said would happen if the USA attacked Russia’s loyal ally, Serbia. But what happened in fact? Russia did not nuke the Land Of The Free as forecast.
Some would say, however, that tempers have grown shorter on Znamenka these days.

Jul 25, 2016 10:32 PM
Reply to  reinertorheit

Nobody expected Yeltsin to react to NATO’s bombing of Serbia.
Attacking the Motherland itself would be a different matter altogether, especially now that Russia’s no longer “led” by a lush.

Jul 24, 2016 11:24 PM

Reblogged this on TheFlippinTruth.