The Reason for the Ukraine War



An American war to prevent Europe's integration with Russia



 Comment by Christopher King
 

Introduction

Our UK, USA and European governments are lying to us about the reasons for Ukraine war, unpopular though it might be to say so.  When I write of the USA here please understand this to mean the USA's Military-Industrial Complex (M-I Complex) that drives American wars and all manner of global interventions as in Ukraine, as well as commercial takeovers and profiteering that military interventions make possible.

In my previous article of 1st June I discussed from a UK viewpoint the USA's Military-Industrial Complex's need for continuous wars, its expansion and initiation of the Iraq and other middle-eastern wars, Covid-19 and the current war in Ukraine.  I also analysed the outcomes for the current destructive strategy in Ukraine and a constructive moral/Christian alternative that might be implemented independently of the USA.

To respond to this war we need to understand from first principles why the USA insists that Ukraine should join NATO when Russia had not been accused of aggression or expansionism until after the USA-backed Kiev coup against it.  

The reason for the Ukraine war is that the European Union (EU) and Russia were planning to integrate their economies and create a joint security (defence) architecture.  The USA could not allow it to happen and devised a war framing Russia as an aggressor to halt this.   The USA’s strategy had two threads:  Firstly, NATO expansion, particularly NATO in Ukraine that would mean nuclear weapons on Russia’s border.  The Russians had said that this was unacceptable.  The USA therefore insisted that it is Ukraine's right as a sovereign nation to join NATO.  This placed Russia under military self-defence pressure.

Secondly, Russia had to be presented as aggressive and expansionist.  This thread of American strategy apparently developed from observation of Russia’s defence of South Ossetia when Georgia attacked the ethnic Russians there and started the August 8 2008 Russian-Georgian war. That was Russia’s external defence of South Ossetia.  If Russia were induced to act militarily within Ukraine in defence of Ukraine's ethnic Russians it could be presented to the world as a violation of Ukraine’s national soverignty.  This is what has been done.  It is why the USA-installed anti-Russian Kiev government attacked the ethnic Russians of the Donbass rather than negotiate with the region about autonomy within a federal Ukraine, which the Donbass wanted.  Russia would come to their defence.

With Kiev's attack on the Donbass and Russia's external assistance to the region the USA had brought Russia into a civil war.  The USA needed an invasion however.  This was devised by having Ukraine's president Zelensky sign an agreement with NATO that made clear his intentions to have Ukraine join.  With that, Russia invaded and the USA had the war that it wanted.  The documentary evidence for all this is in the discussion that follows.

The integration of the EU and Russian economies would have created a powerful competitor to the USA.  The Russians had made clear that the expansion of NATO would place nuclear weapons on their border and was an aggressive, not defensive development by NATO that was unacceptable.  With the threat of NATO expansion, the USA's coup in Kiev and Kiev’s attack on ethnic Russians in the Donbass, the USA provoked Russia into war in Ukraine. 

The current USA, EU and UK assertions that sending weapons to Ukraine helps that country is ridiculous and murderous.  Europe is destroying itself on the basis of lies, manipulation and threats by the USA and European leaders whom it has corrupted, in particular the UK's Boris Johnson by means described in my previous article. 

This approach is typical of the USA's wars and interventions in pursuit of its ambitions for ‘full spectrum global dominance’ which really means the controllers of the M-I Complex ruling the entire world. Please see Appendix 3 below for a list of the USA’s recent wars.  They were all to ‘help’ the countries in which they intervened but created chaos, deaths and destruction - with control and profits to the M-I Complex.

Discussion

On 19 and 20 October 2010 President Medvedev of Russia, President Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Merkle of Germany met at a summit in Deauville, France.  This meeting arose from the May 31st Rostov-on-Don conference of the EU-Russian Partnership For Modernization.  (Some links are at Appendix item 4 below).  The Deauville meeting agreed in principle to create a merged economic and joint security zone.  The statement released following the meeting shows their agreement to develop imminent visa-free travel that had been proposed by the EU and the free movement of people, goods, services and capital.  The full statement is at Appendix 1 below.  This is the key paragraph:

They [the parties] confirm their commitment to enhance the strategic Russia-EU partnership. They expressed their support for the ongoing negotiations of the New EU-Russia Agreement, the implementation of the “Partnership for Modernization” initiative and cooperation in security and foreign policy matters taking into account the offer presented by the EU.  France, Germany and Russia subscribe to the strategic vision of a common space founded on the values of democracy, the rule of law and in which there would be free movement of people, goods, services and capital.

Please note that it was the EU making proposals to Russia rather than the expansionism currently attributed to Russia.  European capital and expertise would be merged with Russia’s huge natural resources and considerable scientific capability, to mutual benefit.  Their plans were also in accord with one of the EU’s fundamental aims - to prevent warfare between states by economic integration.  They would have created a powerful economic group, defended moreover with nuclear weapons and advanced military technology.  The Cold War had ended, communism had collapsed, Russia wanted a market economy and it was a logical means for securing peace, prosperity and security for Europe.

This would naturally have included Ukraine in due course.

The USA wasn’t going to allow such a rival super-power to develop.

The US-backed coup in Kiev occurred three years and three months after the Deauville meeting.  On 22 February 2014 elected president Yanukovych, who came from the Donbass ethnically Russian region, fled for his life to Russia.  A month previously, 27 January 2014, US Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland was recorded giving instructions (video) to the US Ambassador Jeffrey Pyatt to appoint anti-Russian Arseniy Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister.  The original recording is here.  This is the infamous conversation when Nuland is choosing the Prime Minister to suit the USA  "... and fuck the EU!" she says around point 3.0 of the audio recording. 

Nuland was also encouraging the Maidan Square demonstrators in person by distributing food snacks to them.  When you listen to Victoria Nuland choosing Ukraine’s prime minister do bear in mind that this woman is in the act of plotting to overthrow a democratically elected government; she is planning to start a civil war with thousands of deaths as occurred soon afterwards, as well as to provoke Russia into an armed response, that is, to create the international war that we now have. 

Nuland and Pyatt duly appointed Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister on 27 February 2014, five days after the elected president Yanukovych fled.  The following day Yatsenyuk's government banned the Russian language in Ukraine.  With the USA's coup in Kiev and the Russian language banned, Vladimir Putin understood the message, held a fast referendum and took over Crimea where Russia keeps the Black Sea fleet and claims a historic interest.  The Donbass region refused to accept the coup and wanted independence within a federal structure for Ukraine. The Kiev Yatsenyuk government attacked the Donbass using the neo-Nazi AZOV militia.  This voluntary militia was then supported by the Ukrainian army and incorporated into the National Guard.  The USA immediately sent weapons to Kiev, followed by the UK.  Russia helped to defend the ethnically Russian Donbass and the USA’s Military-Industrial complex had achieved a civil war involving Russia. 

Vladimir Putin recognized the trap, showed restraint for seven years and concentrated on negotiations around the Minsk Agreement that was drawn up to de-escalate the conflict.  Over that period, the UK and the rest of Europe did nothing to de-escalate this civil war and one must wonder why that was the case.  I can only speculate that it is stupidity and channelled thinking because currently non-NATO countries Finland and Sweden are now falling over themselves to join NATO.   

In Victoria Nuland’s address to a US press conference on December 13 2013 prior to the coup she makes tear-jerking remarks about Ukraine’s longing and prayers to join ‘Europe’ (ie the EU, which is not Europe) and its sovereign right to do so.  That was precisely what Medvedev, Merkel and Sarkozy had been discussing with Russia for the entire EU three years previously.  Nuland says that the USA had invested $5 billion and five years (political) work in Ukraine.  That was not to bring Ukraine into the EU as publicly presented.  There was no value to the USA in that.  The value to the USA was to keep Russia out of the EU by creating a war in Ukraine.  

The reason Ukrainian president Yanukovych had in 2014, as Nuland correctly says, ‘paused’ his entry to the EU was that Vladimir Putin had offered Ukraine a much better deal than the EU to avoid the NATO confrontation that would follow, with nuclear weapons on Russia’s border.  Putin’s deal would not have prevented Ukraine trading with the EU.  All the former Soviet Union countries were doing that.  Indeed, they and Russia continued trade with Western Europe all through the Cold War.  Russia had reliably sold Western Europe gas through the Cold War with, for example, cameras and Sekonda wrist watches; I used to purchase excellent Bulgarian fruit conserve in the late 1960s.  It was political control and nuclear weapons that were of concern to the Russians and understandably so. 

America was prepared to go to nuclear war over Nikita Kruschev’s installation of nuclear weapons in Cuba.  It was well known in the 1960s that the American Plan was that any confrontation with the Soviet Union, whether Nuclear or conventional would take place in Europe and keep the USA safe.  The phrase 'limited war with Russia' meant a war on German territory as Germany was the border country with the Soviet Union at that time - the same situation that Ukraine currently occupies.  Kruschev’s action by-passed that plan and the Americans were apoplectic.   That 1960s American war Plan complete with tactical (small yield) nuclear weapons is what we now see implemented in the heart of Europe.  I do not need documentation for this.  I am 82 years of age and  subscribed to Time magazine at the time in the naïve belief that the USA was a benign bulwark of democracy.

I remember the 1960s very well. 

As for the NATO thread to creating the Ukraine war,  In February 2010, shortly prior to the October 19/20th EU/Russian Deauville meeting, Germany, Belgium, Norway, the Netherlands and Luxembourg called on the USA to remove its nuclear weapons from Europe.  Slightly earlier, the World Council of Churches also called for the removal of European nuclear weapons. 

The USA’s response on 18 May 2010 was to pass the NATO First Act (2010) and for NATO to state that the removal of nuclear weapons was not a matter for individual European states to request.  That was the point at which Europe lost control of its own destiny.

The NATO First Act assumes extra-territorial powers, that is, although it is a domestic Act it gives the USA powers in foreign countries. The Act derives its powers and legitimacy not from international law but from the USA’s willingness to use military means or sanctions to enforce it.  Section 5 of this Act makes clear that Europe does not have the power to have the USA’s nuclear weapons removed from its territory or reduced in number.  Nor do European countries have any power with regard to NATO bases on their own territory.  The USA can over-rule their wishes.  I would mention that this Act was never mentioned in the media.  When I first accessed the official page only about a dozen others had also done so.  The text of section 5 is at Appendix 2 of this article.

You might wonder ‘What triggered the Russian invasion of Ukraine after seven years of civil war?’

On November 10 2021 while still nominally engaged with Russia in Minsk Agreement negotiations, President Zelensky signed the US-Ukraine Charter On Strategic Partnership that derives from the 2008 Bucharest NATO Summit Declaration that Ukraine would join NATO.  This Charter agreement with the USA government was a device designed to provoke Russia by explicitly bringing Ukraine closer to joining NATO.  At this point the Russians would have realized that Kiev had no intention of implementing the Minsk Agreement and had merely been gaining time to prepare for war in collaboration with NATO.  Recently a Ukraine government minister said that that was exactly what they were doing and clearly thought it very clever.

Three months after Zelansky signed the Charter, on 24 February 2022 the Russians gave up on any prospect of partnership with the USA and Western Europe and invaded Ukraine.  President Zelensky was clearly unable to understand that by signing this agreement he was going to destroy his country. 

In 2015 Professor John Meersheimer a 'realist' political analyst predicted precisely the situation that we now have in Ukraine.  This is an excellent video and briefing on the underlying fault lines in Ukraine that the war is based on, although Meersheimer does not seem to be aware of the 2010 wishes of the Europeans to get rid of NATO and nuclear weapons or the EU/Russian Deaville conference.

In early March 2022 I attended a Zoom Conservative Party webinar about Ukraine with about 60 or more others.  It was chaired by a senior Conservative Party MP.  The general consensus was that Vladimir Putin was deranged, twisted, bloodthirsty, aggressive, expansionist etc.  He needed to be punished, Isolated etc.  I submitted my question which was: “Putin originally wanted EU membership.  Aren’t we arming Ukraine to fight the US’s proxy war to isolate Russia and prevent a rival EU/Russian economic and security zone?”  I added as facts how the current situation developed as above.  The Chair responded: “Chris, you’re wrong on the facts.  You must have been listening to Russia Today.”  That’s all.  I wasn’t allowed to respond and the meeting was closed immediately.  

The response of the webinar’s Chair is instructive because I know the facts.  I know for certain by this response that I’m being lied to and that the British Government is lying to its public (as it also did on Covid-19, the Iraq and other Middle Eastern wars).  You can check the documentation and this sequence of events for yourself.  Russia has been demonized ever since the USA’s Military-Industrial complex realized that the Europeans wanted closer links with Russia following the dissolution of the Soviet Union.  Even Theresa May when Prime Minister said that it was likely that Russia had influenced the Brexit vote and set up an investigating committee.  Russia was blamed by the Americans for everything possible, from having President Trump elected (astonishing nonsense) to shooting down Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine.  The Malaysian Government was not permitted to participate in the Dutch MH17 inquiry and was not given access to its own 'black box' flight recorder. The President does not accept that there is any evidence that Russia downed the aircraft. The pre-judgement and unacceptable secrecy around this inquiry indicates that the aircraft was shot down by Ukraine with or without help from the CIA or US Special Forces.  The propaganda damage to Russia had been achieved however.

The shooting down of flight MH17 reminds me of the sinking by explosion of the South Korean corvette Cheonan during a joint US/South Korean exercise.  I blogged about this at the time.  The Americans instantly blamed North Korea.  South Korea commenced sanctions against North Korea.  At exactly the same time as the explosion the Cheonan's sister ship the Sokcho, which was nearby, was live firing at radar images that were later said to be a flock of birds.  Some corroded junk encrusted with sea growth was found on the seabed that was said to be parts of a North Korean torpedo.  Complete nonsense.   The story and pictures of this junk are on Wikipedia.   The South Koreans sank their own ship, but again, the propaganda had its effect.  The BBC is happy to blame North Korea. 

MH17, the Cheonan sinking and the Gulf of Tonkin incident that was falsified by President Johnson to start the Vietnam war are occasions when in circumstances, such as we now have in Ukraine, escalation can easily occur leading to a nuclear war.  The USA is playing a very dangerous game in Ukraine with the safety of  the whole world at stake, not merely Ukraine.   The human brain is a wonderful instrument; we need to apply it in problematic circumstances.  It can mean survival or otherwise.

Around 2010 The Europeans had asked for NATO’s nuclear weapons to be removed, NATO’s usefulness was under sceptical discussion and negotiations for an EU/Russian economic and security zone were occurring.  The Russians were talking of a ‘free trade area from Lisbon to Vladivostok’.  It was naïve thinking by both the EU and Russia in the optimistic days of relief and peace in Europe, when Russia opened up to visitors and investment.  They had not counted on the nature of the USA and the ambitions of its leaders, openly stated later, for ‘full spectrum dominance’ over the world.

If an individual were to openly threaten, rob and kill others while claiming a special privilege to do so we would call him insane.  That is the behviour of the USA’s Military-Industrial Complex, part of which is NATO in Europe.  We must ask ‘Why do Europe’s politicians cooperate with it when they can see its behaviour?’

The American government’s view of Europe is clear from Victoria Nuland’s private, but recorded, conversation with the US Ambassador Jeffrey Pyatt when she’s telling him who to appoint as the Prime Minister of Ukraine.  She and Pyatt are arranging Ukraine’s government to suit themselves and “...fuck the EU!” she says at point 3:00 in the recording.  She and the Americans have contempt for Europe and the UK as ‘conquered countries’.   They can arrange coups, governments and wars in Europe as they wish and the subservient Europeans have to go along with it. 

As a footnote to the Maidan Square demonstrations that turned violent and forced President Yanukovych to flee, the cause was indiscriminate shooting of both police and demonstrators.  The USA blamed Russia but it was not in Russia's interests to cause trouble for Yanukovych.  At that time he had just accepted Vladimir Putin's economic deal that was much better than the deal offered by the EU.  The peaceful Maidan demonstration was because the Western Ukrainians wanted to join the EU.  It was in the interests of the USA to turn that demonstration violent to create chaos, prevent the Ukraine/Russia deal occurring, have the opportunity to install its own president and start a war.  This BBC video shows eyewitness footage.  What people say about it on camera might not be accurate of course.   The shooting was organized by the USA rather than Russia for obvious reasons.  Victoria Nuland had been recorded planning their coup a month earlier and the USA gained from it; Russia wanted the economic deal with Yanukovych with neutral Ukraine and lost from it.

There can be no doubt that NATO with its current war in the heart of Europe is the USA’s army of occupation in the UK and the EU.  The Russians, French and Germans were planning on an integrated economy and prosperity for the EU.  The USA and NATO have brought us economic destruction, a war and misery.

As I write, the UK Conservative Party is choosing its new leader who will be the UK's Prime Minister.  It is astonishing that some still support Boris Johnson who sold out to the USA's Military-Industrial Complex.  He is responsible for perhaps 150,000 of his own compatriots' deaths with his 'herd immunity' policy as well as boasting that he is leading Europe in this war that is killing thousands, having a severe impact on both our and the world economy and greatly increases the risk of nuclear war.  It is not clear that any of the contenders for his position have the qualities needed to understand, much less manage this situation.  One or two are downright warmongers. One has promised not to sully Boris Johnson's good name and achievements.  That means no investigation into our Covid-19 disaster.  Bill Gates is friendly with another.  I have a vote but will probably not use it.


End of article
Appendix

Appendix item 1.

Click HERE for link to the archived document.

https://archiv.bundesregierung.de/resource/blob/656928/478604/81cb5f72d691edace00d9e33c67c5a27/2010-10-19-erklaerung-gipfeltreffen-deauville-eng-data.pdf

Statement for the France-Germany-Russia Summit in Deauville
(18-19 October 2010)
(final)
The President of the French Republic, the President of the Russian Federation and the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany met in Deauville yesterday and today to conduct in-depth exchanges on a number of international issues of common interest.

Regarding the G20 and the G8, Germany and Russia welcomed the ambition of the next French Presidency to strengthen the role of these key bodies in defining and implementing concrete responses to the global challenges facing the world.

Regarding the Middle East, France, Germany and Russia urge Israel to make efforts to ensure the continuation and success of the peace negotiations, as they urge the Palestinians, in this context, to remain engaged in these negotiations. Our three countries support American efforts in this direction and are prepared to contribute actively to the peace process.

President Sarkozy, President Medvedev and Chancellor Merkel discussed Iran's nuclear programme and the measures taken by the international community. They called on Iran to comply with the requirements of the Security Council and the IAEA Board of Governors and recalled that the door to dialogue will be kept open so as to arrive at a negotiated solution to this issue.

[italics added] They confirm their commitment to enhance the strategic Russia-EU partnership. They expressed their support for the ongoing negotiations of the New EU-Russia Agreement, the implementation of the “Partnership for Modernization” initiative and cooperation in security and foreign policy matters. They looked forward to progress being made on common steps towards a visa-free travel regime at the EU-Russia Summit in December taking into account the offer presented by the EU. France, Germany and Russia subscribe to the strategic vision of a common space founded on the values of democracy, the rule of law and in which there would be free movement of people, goods, services and capital.

Proceeding from the principle that the security of all states in the Euro-Atlantic community is indivisible, President Sarkozy, President Medvedev and Chancellor Merkel reaffirm their commitment to work jointly on security in the Euro-Atlantic and Eurasian area. They stressed that the upcoming meeting of 56 leaders at the OSCE Astana Summit would be a significant opportunity for progressing towards this objective. They called for the strengthening of institutional and operational cooperation between Russia and the EU as well as in the NATO-Russia-Council in order to confront the common threats to our security. They agreed to explore possibilities for closer cooperation in very concrete ways that contribute to mutual confidence and facilitate collective action for crises prevention and management, i.e. in progressing towards a solution of the protracted conflicts such as Transnistria.

(End of document)



Appendix Item 2

The 2010 NATO First Act, Section 5 relating to changes to NATO forces

Click HERE for link to the full document


SEC. 5. Extended deterrence commitment to Europe.
(a) Policy on extended deterrence commitment to Europe.-It is the policy of the United States that-
(1) it maintain its commitment to extended deterrence, specifically the nuclear alliance of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, as an important component of ensuring and linking the national security interests of the United States and the security of its European allies;
(2) forward-deployed nuclear forces of the United States shall remain based in Europe in support of the nuclear policy and posture of NATO; and
(3) the presence of nuclear weapons of the United States in Europe-combined with NATO’s unique nuclear sharing arrangements under which non-nuclear members participate in nuclear planning and possess specially configured aircraft capable of delivering nuclear weapons-contributes to the cohesion of NATO and provides reassurance to allies and partners who feel exposed to regional threats.
(b) Limitation on reductions in nuclear forces based in Europe.-In light of the policy expressed in subsection (a), no action may be taken to effect or implement the reduction of nuclear forces of the United States that are based in Europe unless-
(1) the reduction in such nuclear forces is requested by the government of the host nation in the manner provided in the agreement between the United States and the host nation regarding the forces; or
(2) the President certifies that-
(A) the nuclear policy and nuclear posture of NATO has changed, reducing the need for such nuclear forces to be based in Europe;
(B) NATO member states have considered the reduction in the High Level Group and NATO has decided to support such reduction;
(C) the remaining nuclear forces of the United States that are based in Europe after such reduction provide a commensurate or better level of safety, security, reliability, and credibility as before such reduction;
(D) such reduction is compensated by other measures (such as nuclear modernization, conventional forces, and missile defense) which together provide a commensurate or better deterrence capability and assurance of NATO member states in a manner consistent with the NATO Strategic Concept; and
(E) the Russian Federation has made commensurate reductions to its deployed tactical nuclear weapons.
(c) Report.-Upon any decision to reduce the nuclear forces of the United States that are based in Europe, the President shall submit to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives a report containing-
(1) the certification required by subsection (b)(2);
(2) justification for such reduction; and
(3) an assessment of how NATO member states, in light of such reduction, assess the credibility of the deterrence capability of the United States in support of its commitments undertaken pursuant to article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, signed at Washington, District of Columbia, on April 4, 1949, and entered into force on August 24, 1949 (63 Stat. 2241; TIAS 1964).
(d) Notice and wait requirement.-The President may not commence a reduction in the nuclear forces of the United States that are based in Europe for which the certification required by subsection (b)(2) is made until the expiration of a 180-day period beginning on the date on which the President submits the report under subsection (c) containing the certification.
(e) Authorization of appropriations.-There is authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator for Nuclear Security a total of $300,000,000 for fiscal year 2011 for-
(1) developing the F-35 Lightning II aircraft into a dual-capable aircraft by outfitting it with a nuclear-capable delivery system; and
(2) supporting the life extension program for the B61 gravity bomb.

(End of Section 5 NATO First Act)
Appendix Item 3

The USA’s Recent Wars and Armed Interventions driven by its Military-Industrial Complex, ie the coordinated interests of the US government, military and business.

Korea and China 1950-53
Guatamala 1954
Vietnam 1955-75
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-61
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Laos 1964-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1983/4
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Iran 1987?
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991
Kuwait1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994/5
Sudan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Yemen 2002
Iraq 1991-2003
Afghanistan 2001-2022
Pakistan 2007-2015
Somalia 2007/8, 2011
Yemen 2009/11
Libya 2011, 2015
Syria 2014-2015


Appendix Item 4

Links relating to the EU-Russia Partnership For Modernization

Slide Presentation on Technologial Upgrade of the Russian Economy:
https://slidetodoc.com/eu-russia-programme-partnership-for-modernization-and-its/

Russia-EU Strategic Partnership:  Statement by the Russian Embassy to the UK:
https://rusemb.org.uk/resp/

2020 RIAC:  A Sad Anniversary - Ten Years of the Partnership for Modernization comment by Andrey Kortunov:
https://russiancouncil.ru/en/analytics-and-comments/analytics/a-sad-anniversary-ten-years-of-the-partnership-for-modernization/

June 17 2010 Carnegie Institute’s Insulting commentary on the EU-Russian Partnership discussions showing USA reaction:
https://carnegiemoscow.org/2010/06/17/dialogue-of-deaf-eu-russia-economic-cooperation-pub-41008

2021 Observer Research Foundation review - The End of a Strategic Partnership.  Note, no mention of USA role in 2014 coup: 
https://www.orfonline.org/research/russia-eu-relations-the-end-of-a-strategic-partnership/




(End of article)