Statement: Ending the War in Ukraine and Constructing a Lasting Peace

On 24 February, the Russian Federation launched a military intervention into Ukraine, marking a serious escalation of this conflict. No Cold War opposes the unilateral use of force against any sovereign state in contravention of the United Nations Charter and international law. At the same time, we recognise that the current crisis is the outcome of a decades-long policy of eastward expansion of the NATO military alliance, the consequences of which were rightly warned against in advance by leading figures of the US foreign policy establishment such as George Kennan, original architect of Washington’s strategy during the Cold War. 

Today, we are witnessing how war breeds fear, hatred, and jingoism, with the flames often being fanned by our politicians and media institutions. This conflict has the potential to spiral out of control and bring the United States and Russia – the world’s two largest nuclear powers, who together account for 90 percent of all nuclear warheads – into direct conflict. 

We urgently call on all parties to immediately pursue a diplomatic resolution of this conflict. Now more than ever, the priority is peace. 

In order to end this war and minimise the suffering and death of the Ukrainian and Russian peoples, it is urgently necessary that we understand how we arrived at this moment – only then can we navigate our way out.

NATO’s eastward expansion

In 1990, the United States and Western governments made repeated assurances to the Soviet Union that, in the words of then US Secretary of State James Baker, NATO would not expand ‘one inch eastward’ from Germany. However, since that time NATO has added 14 countries to its membership, primarily in eastern Europe. 

Major figures within the US foreign policy establishment have repeatedly warned that the expansion of NATO would provoke Russia and inevitably lead to war. In 1997, George Kennan put it plainly: “expanding NATO would be the most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

“I think it is the beginning of a new Cold War,” Kennan stated. ”I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else.”

Over the years, similar assessments of how Russia would react to NATO expansion were made by numerous figures in the US establishment, including by the last Ambassador to the Soviet Union Jack F Matlock, former Secretary of Defense Robert M Gates, and current CIA Director William J Burns, who in 2008 called it a “redline” issue. 

Successive US administrations ignored these warnings about Russia’s security concerns, continuing NATO’s reckless, dangerous march to the East.

The 2014 coup 

In 2014, the United States openly backed a coup against Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Why? In 2020, US House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff spelled out Washington’s aims: “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.” In other words, US policy has sought to use Ukraine and its people as a proxy and cannon fodder to combat Russia.

The coup empowered Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and neo-Nazis, who have a substantial influence within the country and have shattered its social fabric. State policies and neo-Nazi militias have threatened Russian-speaking and other ethnic minority groups within Ukraine, which has prompted them to seek protection from Russia. 

Since 2014, serious armed conflict has taken place in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of eastern Ukraine, known collectively as the Donbass, which is home to a substantial Russian-speaking ethnic minority population. According to the United Nations, this war has produced over 14,000 deaths and over 50,000 casualties between 2014 and 2021.

Ending the war and establishing peace

These policies have produced a deep tragedy for the Ukrainian people. Thus far, the United States and allied governments have eschewed diplomacy in favour of further escalation and intensification of the war. In recent weeks, these governments have pledged billions of dollars worth of additional weapons to Ukraine, encouraged their citizens to join the fighting as foreign mercenaries, and implemented further unilateral sanctions against Russia which will principally harm the country’s people.

All parties should immediately act to bring an end to the war and establish a lasting peace. This requires a diplomatic solution which addresses the following issues:

  1. Adherence to the Minsk Agreements (2014–15), a set of de-escalation measures including ceasefire and the withdrawal of weapons, which all parties agreed to in an effort to mitigate ethnic cleansing and end the war in the Donbass region.
  1. Security guarantees for Russia and Ukraine, including that Ukraine never become a member of NATO and that nuclear weapons never be deployed in Ukraine
  1. Reversal of Ukraine’s ultra-nationalist laws and protection of the rights of ethnic minorities.

Event: Racism, Witch-hunts and the New Cold War

Join No Cold War’s next international webinar.

Register for ‘Racism, Witch-hunts and the New Cold War: taking on the new McCarthyism’ here.


9:00 New York Time / 14:00 London / 00:00 Sydney (13 March)

This event is organised by No Cold War, Qiao Collective, No Cold War Britain and the Chinese Community Council of Australia. 


  • Dr Gerald Horne, Chair of History and African American Studies, University of Houston (United States)
  • Sheila Xiao, Co-founder of Pivot to Peace (United States)
  • Vijay Prashad, Director of the Tricontinental Institute for Social Research (India)
  • Amanda Yee, Podcaster on politics, culture and media criticism (United States)
  • Kevin Li, Qiao Collective (United States)
  • Anna Chen, Writer, poet and broadcaster (Britain)
  • Nick Estes, Red Nation (United States)
  • Dr Ping Hua, Co-founder of the Chinese Association of Southampton and No Cold War Britain (Britain)
  • Dr Anthony Pun, Chair of the Chinese Community Council of Australia (Australia)
  • Dolores Chew, Fellow of the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute (Canada)

The first casualty in war, hot or cold, is the truth.

As the New Cold War against China escalates, the United States political establishment and its allies are intensifying their efforts to restrict discussion on the international political situation, invoking anti-Chinese racist rhetoric and targeted smear campaigns.

This dangerous agenda seeks to justify an aggressive foreign policy towards China and is having a chilling effect on the political climate within the United States and allied countries such as Britain, Australia, and Canada.

Politicians and the mainstream media demonise China in an attempt to justify the New Cold War. McCarthyite witch-hunts are being launched against individuals for merely questioning or criticizing their government’s foreign policy. Especially concerning is the sharp increase of hate crimes and attacks against people of Chinese and East and Southeast Asian heritage in the West. It is clear that the propaganda war against China is directly fuelling this rise in racism and creating a climate in which Asian diaspora communities are being increasingly treated as “enemies within.”

This repressive environment is not merely a threat to democracy, it also increases the likelihood of dangerous and destructive foreign policy choices by shutting down debate. During the 20th century, McCarthyism prevented robust and objective discussions from taking place in the US about its Cold War foreign policy. This confining approach contributed to disastrous and criminal US policy decisions such as the Vietnam War. A similar atmosphere of fear and racism helped pave the way for the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Instead of adopting these Cold War, ideologically-charged, and alarmist approaches, we must create an open environment which fosters fact-based discussion and dialogue. Racism, witch-hunts, and censorious attacks on free speech are not only reprehensible, but also an obstacle to the global cooperation necessary to resolve the serious problems that the world faces.

On Saturday 12 March, join No Cold War for an international webinar featuring a range of scholars, experts and members of the international Chinese diaspora who will discuss why it is vital to oppose the rise in racism and witch-hunts and build the broadest opposition to the New Cold War.


La expansión de la OTAN hacia el Este es la causa de la crisis en torno a Ucrania

Las tensiones entre Rusia y la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte (OTAN), liderada por Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea, han aumentado, con un grave riesgo de guerra en Ucrania. 

El conflicto en Ucrania no es nuevo, es el resultado de un proceso de expansión contínua de la OTAN. A principios de los años 90, la administración estadounidense de George H.W. Bush aseguró repetidamente que, tras el colapso de la Unión Soviética, Washington no buscaría extender la OTAN a Europa del Este, Asia Central o el Cáucaso.

“Entendemos que no solo para la Unión Soviética sino también para otros países europeos es importante tener garantías”, dijo el entonces secretario de Estado estadounidense James Baker a Mikhail Gorbachev en 1990. “Si Estados Unidos mantiene su presencia en Alemania dentro del marco de la OTAN, ni una pulgada de la actual jurisdicción militar de la OTAN se extenderá en dirección este”.

Sin embargo, desde ese momento, 14 países se han agregado a la lista de miembros de la OTAN, la mayoría de ellos en Europa del Este. Esta política ha sido claramente provocativa, reconocida como tal incluso dentro de los círculos “dominantes” de política exterior estadounidense. Como señaló George Kennan, el arquitecto original de la política exterior de EE. UU. en la Guerra Fría: “expandir la OTAN sería el error más fatídico de la política estadounidense en toda la era posterior a la Guerra Fría”.

Ucrania tiene una importancia geoestratégica particular, dado que comparte una frontera de 2.000 kilómetros con Rusia. En los últimos años, la agresión e interferencia de EE. UU. han servido para convertir a Ucrania en un importante punto álgido de la nueva Guerra Fría. En 2019, EE. UU. se retiró unilateralmente del Tratado de Fuerzas Nucleares de Alcance Intermedio de 1987, lo que aumentó la probabilidad de una carrera armamentista.

El conflicto en Ucrania también tiene un componente económico. Además de las sanciones económicas de EE. UU. y la UE contra Rusia, EE. UU. amenaza con expulsar a las instituciones financieras rusas de la plataforma de pago internacional SWIFT y bloquear la operación del gasoducto Nord Stream 2 ya construido que va desde Rusia a Alemania.

Además de estas tensiones entre estados, dentro de Ucrania, organizaciones armadas explícitamente fascistas han recibido apoyo y reconocimiento oficial dentro del territorio controlado por la administración de Kyiv, representando una amenaza directa a la población de habla rusa que vive en el este del país.

La entrada de Ucrania a la OTAN significaría el establecimiento de misiles, potencialmente con armas nucleares, a solo unos minutos de vuelo de Moscú. Es importante recordar que fue precisamente este tipo de trato el que Estados Unidos no aceptaría, y que de hecho estuvo dispuesto a arriesgarse a una guerra mundial durante la Crisis de los Misiles en Cuba.

El gobierno ruso ha hecho dos propuestas claras para resolver la crisis: primero, que Ucrania nunca se convierta en miembro de la OTAN; segundo, que nunca se desplieguen armas nucleares ni armas convencionales avanzadas en ese país. Al día de hoy, Estados Unidos ha rechazado esas propuestas afirmando que el tema en juego es el derecho soberano de Ucrania a decidir libremente sus propias alianzas militares. Una vez más, esto es hipocresía pura, ya que Estados Unidos se negó a aceptar este argumento durante la Crisis de los Misiles en Cuba. ¿Hay alguna duda sobre cómo reaccionaría Estados Unidos si un país que limita con sus fronteras se uniera a una alianza militar que incluyera a Rusia y China?

La causa de la crisis en torno a Ucrania no es Rusia sino la política de Estados Unidos. Es evidente que Estados Unidos ha estado presionando a varios miembros europeos de la OTAN para unirse a estas acciones peligrosas.

La única solución a esta peligrosa situación es que todas las partes adopten una posición clara de que Ucrania no se convierta en miembro de la OTAN. Esto puede convertirse en un punto de partida de futuras discusiones para aliviar la situación en la región. Si Estados Unidos y la OTAN no cesan en sus acciones agresivas, el mundo continuaría enfrentando una grave amenaza a la paz.

Firme la petición de No a la Guerra Fría y defienda la paz y la cooperación.


Statement: NATO’s Eastward Expansion is the Cause of the Crisis Around Ukraine

Tensions between the United States-led North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the European Union, and Russia have been increasing with a serious risk of war in Ukraine. ​​

The conflict in Ukraine is not new. It is the outcome of an ongoing, decades-long process of NATO expansion. In the early 1990s, the US administration of George HW Bush made repeated assurances that, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Washington would not seek to extend NATO into Eastern Europe, Central Asia, or the Caucasus. 

“We understand that not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have guarantees,” then-US Secretary of State James Baker told Mikhail Gorbachev in 1990. “If the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO’s present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.”

However, since that time, 14 countries have been added to NATO’s membership list, most of them in Eastern Europe. This policy has clearly been provocative, being recognized as such even within “mainstream” US foreign policy circles. As George Kennan, the original architect of US foreign policy in the Cold War, noted: “expanding NATO would be the most fateful error in American policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

Ukraine holds a particular geostrategic importance, given that it shares a 2,000 kilometre border with Russia. In recent years, US aggression and interference have served to turn Ukraine into a major flashpoint of the new Cold War. In 2019, the US unilaterally withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty of 1987, increasing the likelihood of an arms race.

The conflict in Ukraine also has an economic component. In addition to the US and EU economic sanctions against Russia, the US is threatening to expel Russian financial institutions from the international payment platform SWIFT and to block the operation of the already constructed Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline running from Russia to Germany.

In addition to these state-to-state tensions, within Ukraine, well-armed, explicitly fascist organisations have received official endorsement and recognition within the territory controlled by the Kyiv administration – posing a direct threat to the Russian-speaking population living in the east of the country. 

Ukraine’s entry into NATO would mean the stationing of missiles, potentially with nuclear arms, only a few minutes flight time from Moscow. It is important to remember, that it was precisely this type of threat that the US would not accept and was prepared to risk world war for during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The Russian government has made two clear proposals to resolve the crisis: first, that Ukraine never become a member of NATO; and second, that nuclear or advanced conventional weapons never be deployed in Ukraine. To date, the US has rejected these proposals, claiming that the issue at stake is Ukraine’s sovereign right to freely decide its own military alliances. Again, this is pure hypocrisy, as the US refused to accept this argument during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Is there any doubt about how the US would react if a country on its borders joined a military alliance which included Russia or China?

The cause of the crisis around Ukraine is not Russia but the policy of the US. It is evident the US has been putting pressure on a number of European members of NATO to join in these dangerous actions.

The only solution to this dangerous situation is for all sides to adopt a clear position that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO. This can become a starting point for further discussions to de-escalate the situation in the region. If the US and NATO do not cease their aggressive actions, the world will continue to face a very serious threat to peace.

Sign the No Cold War pledge and stand up for peace and cooperation.


No Cold War condemns MI5 witch hunt against Britain’s Chinese heritage community

The recent MI5 warning about Christine Lee “interfering” in British parliamentary politics on behalf of China, given widespread coverage in the British media, in reality represents an escalation of the witch-hunt against members of the Chinese diaspora in the UK and an attempt to intimidate those seeking to promote good relations between Britain and China. 

No evidence has been presented to support the claim that Ms Lee has engaged in illegal activity, no charges have been brought, nor has evidence been presented that she engaged in activity any different than those who attempt to promote good relations between Britain and countries other than China. The facts show that she is being targeted simply for aiming to improve relations between the UK and China. The singling out of Ms Lee is racist and discriminatory, introducing a different standard for people of Chinese heritage compared to those with other backgrounds.

Would a security alert be raised if Ms Lee worked for a pro-US organisation and was promoting positive US-UK relations? Or if she worked for a pro-French organisation and was promoting positive France-UK relations? Or if she worked for a pro-Israeli organisation and was promoting positive Israel-UK relations? The very idea is absurd. Numerous individuals and organisations of different heritages attempt to promote good relations between Britain and other countries. There is no suggestion that Ms Lee was engaged in spying or any similar activity – indeed any such charge is absurd as her efforts to promote good relations between China and Britain was publicly known and officially recognised, as evidenced by her meetings with well-known British political figures. This is exactly the opposite of the activity that would be undertaken by a spy or person engaged in espionage.

The true aim of this “security alert” has two components. First, to try to establish a double standard which deems it okay to promote good relations between Britain and some countries (e.g., the US, France, Israel) but impermissible to promote good relations between Britain and other countries such as China. Second, to whip up apprehension, discriminatory attitudes, and racism against the “yellow peril” of China.

The esteemed US historian Gerald Horne rightly wrote that the Red Scare of the 1950s was the “handmaiden of the Cold War.” Today, this reds-under-the-beds narrative has been updated to target the Chinese community in Britain, the US, Australia, and elsewhere. This fear-mongering is used to justify the West’s New Cold War against China and repress those who oppose this reckless, hostile policy. This is a very dangerous and undemocratic road to travel.





如果李女士為親美組織工作並促進積極的美英關係,或者如果她為一個親法組織工作 並促進積極的法英關係,再或者如果她為一個親以色列的組織工作並且正在促進積極 的以色列-英國關係,軍情五處是否會發出安全警報?整個事件的想法很荒謬。許多不 同種族的個人和組織試圖促進其所屬國和英國之間的良好關係。沒有跡象表明李女士 從事間諜活動或任何類似活動——事實上,任何此類對李女士的指控都是荒謬的。因 為她為促進中英友好關係所做的努力已廣為人知並得到官方認可,她與英國著名政治 人物的會面也證明了這一點。這與間諜或從事間諜活動的人所從事的活動完全相反。這個所謂“安全警報”的真正目的有兩個組成部分。一是試圖建立雙重標準,認為促 進英國與一些國家(如美國、法國、以色列)的良好關係是可以的,但不允許促進英 國與中國等其他國家的良好關係。二是煽動對中國“黃禍”的恐懼、歧視和種族主 義。

受人尊敬的美國著名歷史學家杰拉爾德·霍恩(Gerald Horne)正確寫道,五十年代 的紅色恐慌是“冷戰的侍女”。如今,針對英國、美國和澳大利亞和其他地方華人社 區的以所謂床下藏著赤色分子的新版言論,正在發揮同樣的作用,這種散佈恐懼的行 為被用來為西方對中國的新冷戰辯護,並鎮壓那些反對這種毫無底線、敵對政策的 人。這是一條非常危險和不民主之路。

(華萍 翻譯 2022年1月20日)


“拒绝新冷战”(No Cold War)谴责英国军情五处对英国华人社区的政治迫害

英国媒体最近广泛报道了军情五处关于对华裔律师李贞驹(Christine Lee)所谓代表中国“干涉”英国议会政治的警告,这实际上代表了英国政府迫害在英华人华侨的升级——企图以此恐吓那些寻求促进中英良好关系的人士。



这个所谓“安全警告” 的真正目的有两个组成部分。一是试图建立双重标准,认为促进英国与一些国家(如美国、法国、以色列)的良好关系是可以的,但不允许促进英国与中国等其他国家的良好关系;二是煽动对中国“黄祸”的恐惧、歧视和种族主义。

受人尊敬的美国著名历史学家杰拉尔德·霍恩(Gerald Horne)正确写道,20世纪50年代的红色恐慌是“冷战的侍女”。如今,针对英国、美国和澳大利亚和其他地方华人社区的以所谓床下藏着赤色分子的新版言论,正在发挥同样的作用,这种散布恐惧的行为被用来为西方对中国的新冷战辩护,并镇压那些反对这种毫无底线、敌对政策的人。这种反民主的行为非常危险!

(华萍 翻译于2022年1月20日)


Rosa Luxemburg Conference: Hands Off Russia and China!

Rosa Luxemburg Conference 2022
War and corpses – the last hope of the rich

Saturday 8th January
10.30am – 8.00pm Central European Time

The Rosa Luxemburg Conference is organised by the German daily newspaper ‘Junge Welt’ and supported by trade unions, left media and organisations.

No Cold War is proud to support the Conference.

The Conference will be streamed live in German, Spanish and English.

For further details click here.

You can read the programme for the Conference here.

Speakers include:

Rosario del Pilar Pentón Díaz, A Deputy of the National Assembly of Popular Power (the parliament of the Republic of Cuba)

Juan Ramón Quintana, Minister of the Presidency in the three governments of Bolivia’s former President Evo Morales.

Dmitri G. Novikov, Vice Chairman of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation

Jeremy Corbyn, Member of the British Parliament and former leader of the Labour Party

Rania Khalek, Lebanese-US journalist and political activist based in the Middle East


No Cold War Britain statement on Biden’s Summit for Democracy

Read below the latest statement from No Cold War Britain condemning Britain’s participation in US President Joe Biden’s so-called ‘Summit for Democracy’ taking place 9-10th December 2021.

The facts show the so-called Summit for Democracy called by the Biden administration on December 9-10 is in reality just the latest cold war initiative of the US administration. This summit, which aims to get other countries across the world to join in with Washington’s attack on China in the name of promoting “respect for human rights,” will be attended by Britain.

The facts show that US administrations, far from upholding democracy internationally, have a record of systematic violations of it. No other country approaches the US in a record of invading other states, support for anti-democratic coups and other forms of aggression against countries including unilateral economic sanctions.

It is sufficient to mention only the invasion of Iraq, the bombing of Libya, the coup against Allende, the decades-long economic embargo against Cuba in defiance of almost unanimous votes in the United Nations, to see that the claim by the US that its policies are motivated by “democracy” is false.

US foreign policy demands that countries subordinate themselves to the US. The US will support any country which subordinates itself to Washington, including those that have no form of democracy whatever such as Saudi Arabia.

It is particularly ludicrous and hypocritical for Britain to join a summit aiming to lecture China about “human rights” and “democracy” when Britain ruled as a colonial power in Hong Kong for more than 150 years.

From 1840, Britain waged two “opium wars” against China, forcing heroin onto millions of Chinese people at gunpoint over several decades. During the First Opium War, Britain occupied and colonised Hong Kong, which remained under British rule from 1841 to 1997. During the more than 150 years of British rule Britain never allowed an election of the Governor General of Hong Kong in any form.

During the Second Opium War, 3,500 British troops destroyed China’s Old Summer Palace in Beijing, burning the palace to the ground and stealing much of its contents. Many artworks from the palace, including sculptures, porcelain, jade and gold objects, are today kept in the British Museum in London.

Such foreign policy crimes have unfortunately continued into the 21st century. Over the past 20 years Britain has participated in the US’s War on Terror which has resulted in millions of people being killed, injured and displaced in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria.

The real focus of British foreign policy today, following the defeat of the US and its allies in Afghanistan, is to follow the US in its new cold war against China. This has included the sending of Britain’s largest ever aircraft carrier to the South China Sea and joining the new AUKUS military pact alongside the US and Australia aimed against China.

Britain is in no position to lecture China about “human rights” or “democracy.” The truth is that, in joining in with the US’s cold war attacks on China, Britain is pursuing a dangerous course that threatens world peace, stability and prosperity.

Instead of these attempts to create false divisions internationally as the US is aiming to achieve with its Summit for Democracy, the real struggle to advance human rights requires global co-operation to tackle shared threats facing humanity, including climate change, the pandemic, the economic crisis and averting nuclear-weapon proliferation.

The new cold war on China is a dangerous development, carrying the present and clear threat that this confrontation could lead to hot wars or even nuclear war, which therefore poses a great threat to human rights.


Say No To AUKUS: International Day of Action

No AUKUS Pact! No New Cold War!
International Day of Action – Saturday 11 December 2021

Peace movements in Britain, Australia and the US are organising an International Day of Action to draw public attention to the new AUKUS military pact between Britain, the US and Australia.

The deal will give Australia nuclear-powered submarines – the first non-nuclear state to get them. This is a dangerous escalation in the West’s on-going confrontation with China that risks nuclear proliferation and breaches the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

The organisers of the International Day of Action are encouraging local actions to raise awareness about this new threat to world peace and would like to see activists across the globe condemn the anti-China military pact on social media using the hashtags #NoToAKUS and #StopAUKUS.

No Cold War is supporting the International Day of Action against AUKUS. For further details contact CND