Interview with retired US colonel Ann Wright: “I believe that the policies of the US government are making the world a more dangerous place.”
[This interview posted on 7/16/2024 is translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.pressenza.com/de/2024/07/interview-mit-us-oberst-a-d-ann-wright-ich-glaube-dass-die-politik-der-us-regierung-die-welt-zu-einem-gefaehrlicheren-ort-macht/.]

After the summit meeting last Saturday, which was also attended by the participants of the 700-mile peace march from Maine, and the central rally on Sunday, the two main events of the NO-NATO-YES-PEACE protests, numerous peace events are still taking place throughout Washington, D.C. And around the world, thousands who were unable to make the long journey are not only thinking of the marchers, but are also joining in with their hearts and minds through the many videos and live broadcasts that are being made available. In the middle of the hustle and bustle of Washington and despite a packed schedule, retired US Colonel Ann Wright, who also worked at NATO Headquarters “Allied Forces Central Europe” (AFCENT) in the Netherlands, took plenty of time to conduct the following interview with me.
Dear Ann, thank you very much for taking the time to do this interview.
Ann, you served in the US Army/Army Reserve for 29 years and retired as a colonel. You also spent 16 years in the US diplomatic corps, serving in US embassies in Nicaragua, Grenada, Somalia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Sierra Leone, Micronesia, Afghanistan and Mongolia. In March 2003, you resigned from the US government in protest against the US war against Iraq. Since then, you have been working for peace. This year marks the 75th anniversary of NATO, which will be celebrated in Washington with high-ranking government and military officials. How do you feel about NATO celebrating its 75-year history?

Thank you, it's a pleasure to be with you. As you mentioned in your introduction, I served in the US military for 29 years, retired as a colonel, and – one of my assignments – I was in NATO's Allied Forces Central Europe sub-command, which is located in the Netherlands. So I have first-hand knowledge of NATO. And as a US diplomat, I served in countries where NATO actions were taking place.

And after my retirement 21 years ago, I have a very, very negative view of NATO and its 75th anniversary, because NATO today seems to be no longer a force for peace, but rather a force for war. And of course NATO will say: “Well, sometimes you have to wage war to get peace. You have to use warheads and kill a lot of people to stop killing.” I find this logic very annoying and repulsive. And that is why I think that we have to look back at NATO's 75th anniversary and see what NATO has done in these 75 years, and see and analyze where peace has really come from. A peace that should have come about through diplomacy and not through military action, as is common with NATO.
Yes, thank you very much! Now this counter-event was planned by a large alliance, including many veterans, military personnel and historians with relevant military and geostrategic experience. How do you explain that these people (including yourself) are currently so vehemently in favor of diplomacy, ceasefires and negotiations, while people with less experience are pushing for armament and thus escalation and threat scenarios worldwide?

Well, that's a good question. And actually, the answer is in the question. Because it's the veterans, the people who have actually participated in wars, who are saying, “We don't want to do it anymore and nobody else should do it.” Because the consequences that we have seen firsthand are so negative. It's terrible that there has to be a better way to solve international crises, that shooting people is not the way to solve crises. And ultimately, it's always negotiations and words, diplomacy, that have been used. Ultimately, the problem was solved. So why don't we go directly from the crisis to solving the problem with non-lethal means and leave the military out of it?
The peace summit with the main events from May 5 to July 7 began much earlier with a peace march from Maine to Washington and there are still many more events to come. Can you give us some impressions and tell us about your experiences? Were there any personal highlights?

Yes! We were so pleased that Veterans for Peace decided to sponsor a march that went from the northern tip of the United States, all the way down the eastern seaboard to Washington, D.C. It was a journey that took 60 days, and during those 60 days, the marchers stopped in a different city every night and local organizers held events in the city on a variety of topics. Certainly NATO was one of the issues, but it was about the increasing militarization of our US society and then the involvement in that context of the whole world. So the group stopped in cities that are heavily involved militarily, and sometimes they are actually active military members, or they may be war associations, so the corporations that make the weapons that kill people all over the world. So all the way down from Maine through Connecticut, Massachusetts, from Maine to New York, down through New Chersea, Maryland, and finally to Delaware. That's President Biden's home. They stopped in Delaware and then continued on to Washington, D.C. They didn't march for about 12 hours a day. It was a symbolic march that usually covered 3 to 5 miles a day, sometimes up to 8 miles a day. But you know, as the weather got colder – or they started in cold weather – and then it got hotter and hotter because a lot of the protesters were older, it was the symbolism of marching and then holding the events in the local communities. That was the most important thing.
Wow, very nice! Unfortunately, our media has not reported on this so far, although the media is full of reports about the NATO summit. The thousands of people of peace are still being categorically ignored. In Germany, media coverage changed significantly and was almost abruptly restricted on February 24, 2022. It largely abandoned serious, i.e. factual, critical (i.e. illuminating all aspects) and fact-based reporting in favor of emotional and one-sided partisan reporting. In doing so, many essential aspects that do not fit into the simplified black-and-white narrative are also excluded. What do you think is the cause of this one-sidedness and how do you assess the media coverage in the leading US media – on your summit and on the wars in Ukraine and Israel in general?

Well, the media in the United States – and actually internationally – is completely biased towards government propaganda. Here in the United States, it was impossible for us to get any national media coverage of our very important counter-summit. We had some independent journalists who came and will eventually report on it, but none of the major TV networks and websites reported on it at all. We were not shocked, because that is not what the US media reports on. It's a media that is tragically bought by the US government and reports what the US government thinks is important, not what the public should know. So we rely heavily on international coverage – you know, on various issues, for example, Aljazeera's coverage of the war and the Israeli genocide in Gaza. We have some independent groups like Mondoweiss or Palestine Eye and the like. But they are very, very small in the media coverage scene. So on the one hand, we sometimes get more international coverage. We actually had more international reporters at our White House rally on Sunday – we had absolutely no coverage in the US media about the White House rally from the United States. But we had two TV stations from Slovakia and one from Finland. So that was the only media coverage we got that day.
So it's the same as in Germany. We met last year at the peace summit in Vienna and I spoke to you about the process of peace negotiations. You referred to the existing UN guidelines for ceasefire agreements, emphasizing that there are two different phases of negotiation: the first – and anything but trivial – for a stable ceasefire as a basis for the second for a lasting peace. Since the first phase is consistently ignored, you explicitly pointed it out in an article and explained the steps in detail.
Now there are current events that suggest that the first phase of negotiations for a ceasefire may have begun: for example, Putin's offer to negotiate a ceasefire, and the day before yesterday Russia's peace plan with the proposal to jointly administer Crimea, Orbán's trip to Kiev and Moscow with the main aim of a ceasefire, Glavchev's offer to propose Bulgaria as a mediator for peace talks at the NATO summit, or Zelensky's rhetorical renunciation of the maximum demand of restoring the borders of 1991. How do you classify these events? Are they a sign that we are entering the first phase, or are they just a flash in the pan again?

Well, we certainly hope that it is an indicator that we are making progress here. But since it is deadlocked and the US is apparently watching Ukraine fight to the last person, I'm not really sure that this very important initiative by the Russian Federation will lead anywhere. Jeffrey Sachs has written an excellent article about how many times the Russian Federation has made proposals for peace talks and negotiations. And every time they were rejected by the United States and then rejected by Ukraine. So, although this is a very detailed proposal that could very easily be put together with all the major players here in Washington, I am not at all sure that the United States will take up this proposal. President Zelensky is here in Washington and there will be side meetings between the United States and him, but I am not at all sure that the United States will move forward with this. Tragically, because it means that more and more people are being killed in Ukraine and in Russia. And it is a terrible indicator of how belligerent the United States continues to be.
Oh, that's so sad. I was hoping you had better news.
The message from the NATO summit in Vilnius was: “NATO first, Ukraine second.” Ukraine should only become a member if it can no longer be an alliance case for NATO – in other words, never.
Selenskyj was visibly annoyed and called it “unprecedented and absurd”. Joining would weaken NATO, so there was a conflict of objectives and NATO decided to strengthen itself. Article 1 of the final declaration states: “This summit marks a milestone in strengthening our alliance.” So that's what it's all about. The crucial question today is: Is it still about Ukraine or only about NATO? What are NATO's (or the US's, which dominates it) primary interests and is there a new geostrategic orientation?

Well, President Zelenski was angry a year ago and he is still angry. The number of NATO countries that continue to transfer weapons to Ukraine is still large. But he can see – and the world can see – that NATO is shifting, from Europe to Asia and the Pacific. I live in Hawaii and right now the Pacific Fleet exercises are taking place there, the largest naval war exercise in the world. And 29 countries are participating, 8 of which are NATO members. So NATO is moving into the Pacific. And their partnerships that they had with Colombia – now they have them with South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand. It shows that NATO is not just a European or North American organization, but definitely what we call: global NATO. And that is a very worrying development for all of us. This military alliance now thinks it is an alliance for every crisis anywhere in the world.
This leads directly to my next question, which you have already answered in a way. But I will read it: Barely noticed in Europe, whose attention is absorbed by the wars in Ukraine and Israel, the situation in East Asia is more tense than ever. A slow geopolitical revolution is taking place – NATO, which was once focused on the Atlantic, is turning to the Pacific. The North Korean news agency KNCA wrote: “NATO's ‘chariot’ is racing towards the Asia-Pacific.” And the spokesperson for the Chinese Foreign Ministry, Wang Wenbin, said: “We have seen what NATO has done in Europe. It should not now try to create chaos here in the Asia-Pacific region or elsewhere in the world.” China's Ministry of Defense accused NATO of warmongering. Wu Qian said: “It is fair to say that NATO is like a walking war machine. Wherever it goes, there will be instability.” On the occasion of NATO's 75th anniversary – what do you think of the move to extend NATO's sphere of influence to the Indo-Pacific? How should the world's continued multipolarity be organized?

Well, as I mentioned earlier, we can say with certainty that NATO is on the direct path to becoming a global military alliance. I would like to add to what I mentioned earlier that we should be very concerned about what the NATO countries are doing in relation to the Israeli genocide in Gaza and the arms supplies of many NATO countries to Israel. It is not only the United States that is supplying weapons to Israel, although we are supplying a large number of them, but Germany is also supplying weapons. And in fact the German government has been sued by the Nicaraguan government for its complicity in the genocide that the Israelis are committing in Gaza. It is very, very disturbing that we have to support NATO countries – whether it is under the name of the alliance or because they are all allied anyway, and especially when the US gives an order. We have to support Ukraine, we have to support Israel, so that suddenly all these countries follow the orders of the United States and use these weapons for further conflicts.

In November, I was appointed as an expert on arms transfers to the UN Security Council. And that is the summary of what I have been talking about: as long as countries under the leadership of the United States continue to transfer weapons to these conflicts, the conflicts will continue. The only way to bring about a definitive end to the conflicts is to stop the transfer of these weapons. And the UN Security Council wanted information on transfers to Ukraine. I took the liberty of talking about the arms transfers from the United States and other countries to Israel, which prolonged and are still prolonging the Israeli genocide in Gaza nine months later.
The primary goal of the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act was to create a relationship of mutual trust in a common security and stability area through confidence-building measures and disarmament. For example, no militarily significant NATO combat troops or other troops were to be stationed permanently in the new alliance states, and nuclear weapons were to be renounced. Today, thousands of German soldiers alone are permanently stationed in Lithuania. And President Andrzej Duda recently stated that Poland was prepared to station NATO nuclear weapons.
I have two questions on this: Under these circumstances, do you see any possibility of breaking out of the escalation spiral and returning to the original, comprehensively defined concept of security? And if so, what would be necessary to do this and what real political steps would have to be taken?

It is terrible what is happening with the expansion of US and NATO forces in Poland and Romania. The largest US military base in Europe is no longer in Germany, where it was for decades, but now in Poland. So the expansion of US militarism in Europe is moving rapidly. And the number of military war exercises, ground exercises, is increasing. The largest defense exercises every two years take place in Europe. The number of US and NATO military personnel who are practicing directly on the border of the Russian Federation is definitely a cause for concern for President Putin, as it should be for all of us. Because if NATO is conducting its war exercises right on that border, the only logical thing the Russian Federation can do is to protect itself from a possible invasion, even if NATO and the United States would say: “Oh, we're not talking about an invasion, we're just practicing.” But who are you listening to? But when the Russian Federation then takes steps to protect itself, it is said: “Oh, the Russians are preparing to invade everyone else.” And this is used by the Baltic states to say: “We are the first to be invaded, and therefore we have to strengthen our military and allow NATO to carry out all kinds of war games in our countries.” This has thrown the whole concept of 40 years ago out of the window. It is no longer a cold war, it is a hot war that is continuing. It is a hot situation that could very easily turn into a full-blown military war due to a miscalculation.
It's terrible! And absurd, because of NATO Article 5.
This large-scale rearmament, the militarization of society and the necessary “change of mentality”, including the recruitment of young people, is based on the recurring claim that Putin has (quote) “clearly stated” that they would attack other European countries after Ukraine. Would demanding definitive proof of this claim be a first step towards de-escalation (we are trying to do this in the Bundestag, but have less hope) or how can we get through with facts in your opinion? I would like to add: There are other unproven allegations or even secrecy, such as the Nord Stream attack. This was an attack on our national security, but our government is turning the tables and saying that information about it will compromise our national security. Meanwhile, NATO members Denmark and Sweden have dropped the investigation. This can only mean that “friendship” in foreign relations or even in NATO is relative, isn't it?

Well, there is certainly a lot of propaganda being spread by each of the countries. And this whole claim that the Russian Federation is ready to invade Europe all the way to the Atlantic Ocean is nonsense. I mean, it is pure propaganda. It is so dangerous for international relations what some governments, including the United States, are spreading. I mean, this terrible incident, the explosion of the Nord Stream pipelines, was not officially investigated and the results of the investigation were not publicly reported. And the written and oral assumptions that governments have that it was not like that – I guess it is said that it was Russia that blew up its own pipelines. How ridiculous is that? And who benefited from the explosion? It was certainly Russia that made money from it. Whoever blew it up wanted to make sure that the Russian Federation did not make money from it. And one of their main means of financial transactions, selling gas and oil to European countries, becomes one of the main sanctions against Russia. And allowing that pipeline to operate was, from the point of view of the US – especially the United States – a violation of the sanctions. Now, as for other countries that benefited from the supply of cheaper natural gas and oil, we would ask ourselves: why would they want to blow up their source of cheaper fuel? So there is no evidence that Russia blew it up – I mean for us as amateur detectives. It doesn't make any sense. But now, as you mentioned, the investigation has been closed, although I would say that they know exactly what happened. They just don't make it public who actually did it.
You have been working for peace for over 20 years now. Can you tell us something about your day-to-day peace work? Do you feel a change since the escalation in Ukraine and perhaps also after the escalation in the Middle East, and what voices reach you, what are their core concerns? And right now, in connection with the peace summit: what is your summary so far and how do you look to the future?

Well, I have been part of the peace movement since my resignation in 2003, so for 21 years. I resigned because of the Iraq war. There was a huge mobilization against the Iraq war and to some extent also against the ongoing war in Afghanistan. And then there was something of a low point. But the Russian Federation's decision to invade parts of Ukraine, declaring that Ukraine had crossed the red line that they had in the negotiations about joining NATO and the treatment of Russian-speaking people in the Donbass region. I mean, all of these are certainly areas of concern, but that does not justify my opinion at all, the Russian decision to wage war on Ukrainian oil. And for us in the United States, there are certainly a large number of US citizens who say, “Of course Ukraine has to defend itself, the United States has to come to Ukraine's aid.” And we try to counter that narrative by saying – I mean, I agree, they have the right to defend themselves against any invasion – but trying to solve the problems of NATO accession, better treatment of the people in Donbass, things like that. Doing this through non-military means is the right way, which is what the Minsk I and Minsk II agreements were actually about. These were largely torpedoed by the US and the UK. So the mobilization in the Ukraine war had some effect, even though it had, I would say, a decisive effect on the peace movement in the United States. Because many people in the peace movement are saying, “Yes, Ukraine must defend itself, and yes, there should be negotiations.” Others are saying, “Let's start negotiations right now.”

And on the issue of the genocide in Gaza: that has probably led to more people working to achieve a ceasefire and a solution to the problems. And despite the large number of people worldwide who have said: “There must be a ceasefire, there must be negotiations,” the US government continues to support the Zionist Israeli war government and its genocide of the people of Gaza.
And since November, we have been in the US Congress every day. We have had hundreds of people in the US Congress. Every day, between 10, 20 and 50 people have been there, going into 15, 20, 30 offices in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, asking the Congressmen to sign a ceasefire and not to vote for more weapons to Israel. And yet we have only 80 congressmen who have called for a ceasefire – out of 535. So Congress is pro-Israel because most of the congressmen receive money from Zionist organizations like AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Community. And they know that they will suffer during the elections because millions of dollars are being put into the campaign to throw them out of Congress. So it is so difficult when you see with your own eyes that genocide is taking place and you cannot get your own government, our US government, to stop funding Israel and to threaten the state of Israel, to say, “If you don't stop this, we're going to distance ourselves, we're going to put sanctions on you, we're going to do everything we can to make you stop killing Palestinians, both in Gaza and in the West Bank. And stop the settlements that continue to grow on Palestinian land.”

So while we are doing the big mobilizations, Joe Biden finally said, “Yes, there has to be a ceasefire and yes, there has to be negotiations.” But it took him seven months to say the word ceasefire. And in that time, over 20,000 Palestinians were killed. And we also know that tens of thousands are still under the rubble that no one can get to.
It's so cruel! And as you said, it's all about money, not lives. – No, it's about money. –
Cruel! Then... – maybe something positive, my last question: You (like all of us) say: NO to NATO, YES to PEACE! If you could dream for a moment: What would a world without NATO look like?

Well, a world without NATO would be one in which all the countries that founded NATO had better healthcare systems, better education systems and better services for their citizens. Because the money that is now spent on military weapons would now be spent on improving the lives of their citizens. I think it would be a very positive world if we could use the money that goes into NATO for things that are really vital to people. That would make the world a much safer and more livable place. And Mother Earth would feel much better about it. Because I think Mother Earth is telling us now, over and over again, that she is not going to tolerate all these wars and all the environmental impacts of wars. And she will take measures against us and the climate change that makes this planet unbearable for us humans – and get rid of us if we are not able to take care of her, Mother Earth.
Yes, exactly, how nice! Thank you very much for the interview and the time you took.

It is a pleasure to be with you, thank you very much.