NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that trust between the West and Russia has been “destroyed” and that relations couldn’t return to normal even after the fighting ended in Ukraine, CNBC reported on Monday.
“Even if the fighting ends, we will not return to some kind of normal, friendly, relationship with Russia. Trust has been destroyed,” Stoltenberg said. “I think the war has had long-lasting consequences for the relationship with Russia.”
Stoltenberg claimed that NATO tried to build good relations with Russia after the Cold War, but the alliance ratcheted up tensions with Moscow by expanding up to Russia’s border. When NATO expansion began in the 1990s, George Kennan, the late American diplomat credited with crafting the containment strategy during the Cold War, said there was no reason “whatsoever” for bringing the alliance closer to Russia.
German Chancellor Olaf Scholz on Monday expressed a different view than Stoltenberg, saying economic cooperation with Russia could be possible after the war. “At the moment, the relations we have are being reduced, reduced, reduced,” Scholz said, according to Reuters. He added that “a Russia that ends the war” should be given a chance to resume economic ties.
Germany’s options for resuming trade with Russia have been limited by the sabotage of the Nord Stream natural gas pipelines, although Russia says one line of Nord Stream 2 wasn’t damaged. In the years prior to Russia invading Ukraine this past February, Germany was under heavy pressure from the US to scrap Nord Stream 2, which has never delivered gas to Germany.
Construction of Nord Stream 2 was completed despite US sanctions, but Scholz paused the pipeline around the time Russia launched its invasion. Russia stopped delivering gas through Nord Stream 1 in September due to Western sanctions.
137 thoughts on “NATO Chief Says Russia Relations Can’t Be Repaired Even After Fighting”
No kidding. It will take a long time for relationships to return to normal between the West and Russia. Europe will never be dumb enough to ever rely on Russian energy supplies in the future.
Because the US might once again demand that Europe buy American energy at 4x+ the cost. Capitulation to US imperialism certainly does disrupt one’s future.
Europe is still buying Russian oil. Russia first sells it to Saudi Arabia and Saudi Arabia then sells it to the EU with a small profit to subsidize their peace-loving bastion of EU friendly democratic values.
Given that Ural oil is selling at the official price of about 54 USD i.e. far below the price cap – there is no problem with this.
In principal it would mean that the EU countries in question would violate their commitment to not buy Russian oil, but since the purpose was not remove Russian oil from the market, there really is no problem with the Saudi’s opting to ship Russian oil further in lieu of their own.
India also is dealing with Russian oil.
Given the current price on Russian oil any nation and any transport or insurance company (outside EU) are free to buy ship or insure Russian oil without violating sanctions.
Explain to me how Russia was to blame for the disruption in energy supplies. Russia kept to its contracts. So i am really confused how you can make this statement.
I think they should never be dumb enough to slavishly follow the US diktats. They are now relying on US energy supplies at 4 times the price.
Frau Merkel in an interview with Zeit newspaper confessed that Minsk1 and Minsk2 were lies to buy time for Ukraine to rebuild its forces to attack Russia. Frau Merkel revealed NATO’s supreme international crime (the crime of aggression). All Western leaders must go before the Hague.
Do I really have to explain it to you how I can make this statement? You don’t let your enemies control the flow of natural gas to your country. Not a hard concept to understand.
Russia did not keep to their contracts Gazprom (Putin) suspended deliveries already in early September so no they did not keep to their contract obligations:
They cut deliveries by 75% already in June:
“”Gazprom (Putin) suspended deliveries already in early September so no they did not keep to their contract obligations:””
what, should russia have kept to their contract even while being sanctioned by their customers? and after the nordstream 2 was sabotaged, should they have also kept to their contract? how far should contract “obligations” extend?
The claim was that they did – I merely pointed out that they did not. They had stopped supplies before the Nord Stream was blown up – so that action was possibly only to free them from living up to their contract obligations.
suggesting that russia blew up their own nordstream 2 pipe?
Well they are the only ones that stand to gain from blowing up a pipeline that was not in use and not going to be in use. As pointed out they could claim this prevented them from performing true to contracts.
The Russians also would gain from the uncertainty created in the gas market and the uncertainty about all pipelines. And the Russians risked nearly nothing by blowing up their ‘own’ pipeline save the loss of face.
While any western nation stood to gain: the closure of a pipeline already in disuse while risking the split of the coalition resisting the Russians (loss of face too) and the uncertainty about all pipelines plus higher energy prices because of the uncertainty.
Anyone looking at this from the cost benefit analysis point of view has to see that there is indeed more for the Russians to gain than to lose while it is the reverse for the west, with the possible exception of Ukraine, but then they do not seem like a likely candidate.
No one with an IQ above 70 believes that the Russians blew up the Nordstream pipeline.
If you notice what I write I do not say that I believe that they did it, I merely conclude that a normal cost benefit analysis shows that they had the most to gain and the least to lose from doing it. If your preconceptions prevents you from thinking clear then you will believe whatever you like – as fairly clearly demonstrated when a lot of people believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD’s – this is not an IQ question but a group think one.
You appear to be in the group which believes that the Russians could not have done it – others believe that only the Russians could have done it, I belong in neither group, but I do not that the analysis does show that only a very incompetent western government would have done it – but some of them are that sometimes so I draw no conclusion.
Let’s see you put up some analysis that says that the Russians did not blow up their own pipeline, just to prove that you are open minded to all viewpoints.
See that is the problem with people who have a set mind, i.e. they think all others have the same – I do not analyze with a set goal in mind that would not be analyzing – if you have written your conclusion before doing the analysis it is not analyzing.
Or to put in different words, you are asking me to prove being open minded by closing my eyes to what is there – I guess you can do that better than me.
I am keeping an open mind, Michael. Give me the analysis that says that Russia blew up its own pipeline.
I cannot give you an analysis that says the Russians did it either – what I can and did give you were an ultra short version of the cost benefits analysis on which party stands to gain the most while risking the lowest costs – it can be added to if you or any others have strong evidence that one of the parties stood to gain some not covered benefit or had some risks of costs that I have not included.
The analysis does not say that it was the Russians, it just makes the point that they stood to gain considerable while risking very little – whereas the west stood to gain very little (a higher costs for the Germans to recommence gas flow from Russia at some point in the future) while risking a hell of a lot – the disintegration of the coalition standing against Putin and the split of NATO/EU, open hostilities between their populations and huge legal costs – just to mention some.
Yep, the Russians spent billions building the pipeline and had half a billion dollars worth of gas in the pipeline and lost all hope of selling gas to Germany and Europe to help their failing economy when all they had to do was turn off the spigot at the Russian end of the pipeline if they wanted to deprive Europe of their gas and give the business to the USA. Makes perfect sense.
So the costs to the Russians were the cost of building the pipeline and the cost of the gas in it, the cost of building it was however at that point sunk costs i.e. costs which were unavoidable – unless the Germans were to change their mind on being dependent on their enemy for their energy (so until sanctions were lifted 8-10 years plus at least).
They had turned of the spigot – that had done the damage it could do as I point out blowing up the pipeline had other benefits to them:
1) Price spike caused by uncertainty of piping gas (and tele communications as it happened)
2) Potential for a split of the coalition standing against them
3) Freeing them from their contract obligations
Now I’m not saying that it makes economic sense, but given that the pipeline was no longer in use and that the Germans by investing in regassification were clearly showing that they were willing to pay more for LNG and thus that the chances of reopening for Russian gas was not likely as long as Putin occupied parts of Ukraine – the costs you mention were from Putin’s perspective already a fact.
So the benefits I mention stands, to the cost side you have argued that we should add the cost of the gas in the pipelines – gas price in Russia is however very low – as in they have been burning off about those amounts of gas to show us that they had no problem not selling it to us (while they turned of the spigot) – so not really sure that counts for much, but happy to include it.
So at the end while your points are well made they do not change the analysis significantly as I see it – i.e. Putin still had the most to gain (potentially) and the least at risk.
You choose to use as a source the people who told us Saddam Hussein had WMD’s and threw babies out of incubators really? OK the shutdown was due to maintenance of gas valves that the EU had sanctioned, kind of an own goal.
There are multiple sources for Gazprom cutting deliveries so I do not think it matters I gave you two and you get all worked up about that a source got caught up in the very pervasive lie that Saddam Hussein had WMD!?
This is not as if there was deliveries of gas and BBC and the Guardian just lied that there were not.
The problem with that is that it only affected 10 days:
So again no the Russians were not keeping to their contract obligations.
You can argue that they were understandably applying sanctions, but not that they were keeping to their contract obligations.
Yes absolutely true it is just facts not speculation.
Merkel acted as the agent of American imperialism, the same as Zelensky. Maybe she got less money as the reward for her services, but her job was less dangerous. So, in a way, it is fair enough.
The Hague type tribunals are for the losers. I don’t see how American oligarchs can be losers in this game. The only two possible bad outcomes for them: 1 – big nuclear war, 2 – a socialist party take the power in US and deprive them of their wealth. Both scenarios look unlikely to happen.
“All Western leaders must go before the Hague.”
That’s Thee material point: how does the Empire de-nazify. Putin is dealing effectively with the Kievan nazis; how do we deal with ours, the neocon blob suffusing all the strategic macro-institutions of the West? and, who, undeterred even by losing Ukraine, will just move on to Iran, N. Korea, Venezuela, Hong Kong/Taiwan ….
how do we deal with ours, the neocon blob
Throw them to the mob.
There might be an antidote?….
There wont be any kind of relation between our civilization and your shitty empire. Your invasion and occupation of Kiev cannot be forgiven. Russians have finally learned their lesson. Never trust cowardly anglosaxon rats.
If the relations between NATO and Russia can’t be repaired, either NATO or Russia must stop to exist. The disappearance of NATO is easier and cheaper for the humankind. So NATO must be dissolved.
It would take convincing far more people to dissolve NATO than it would to dissolve the Russian Federation – so why do you think it would be easier to dissolve NATO?
At least for now, discontented nations don’t have to formally dissolve NATO. All they have to do is withhold their support.
A very salient point, and the reason the the US, UK and France have been able to ‘use’ NAT far more seldom than would otherwise be the case.
NATO is the tool of American militaristic oligarchy. Once the tool doesn’t serve it’s purpose good enough, they can decided to put it in the rubbish basket. Actually, Trump talked about leaving NATO.
Even if this was true the US cannot dissolve NATO it can only leave it – if Trump is elected in 2024 we might get there.
It is likely this threat in addition to Putin’s invasion of Ukraine that has led to European NATO countries dramatically increasing their defense spending.
NATO w/o the US isn’t worth a plug nickel …
True right now, in two years time likely much less true, and as Ukraine has shown the Russian war machine is also somewhat less impressive than we thought. But surly the point here is that Russia poses no threat to NATO at least according to very many here, so NATO also needs not be nearly as muscular to deter an invasion!?
During the early days of the Russian invasion, a number of European regimes seemed inclined to dramatically increase their military budgets, much to the delight of western arms contractors. Based on Russian military performance so far, they may consider dramatic cuts instead.
I would agree but I see no sign of it yet – but then it may not make for very clickworthy news so… What has made the news is that e.g. the Baltics have decided to increase military spending to 3% of GDP – very small nations mind you, but the direction is still here late in 2022 towards increased spending.
Seen from a strictly military perspective this is not necessary, as in the NATO countries are already outspending the Russians, what they would benefit from was more integration and common procurement (EU has initiated a program, but that is on slow progress last I checked PESCO).
Hence the West contribution and assistance to Ukraine, while costly, will save them significantly in long term military spending and can focus more on real economic issues.
With China, Iran, North Korea Africa, the Artic, Space and our nuke upgrade, how much do you think that savings will be spent? And that’s only if your fantasy that Russia will just vanish into thin air comes true.
I just answered that question dum dum
And my reply was telling you that it was bunk. “Real economic issues” are way down the list of what those savings you were fantasizing about will be used for. Plus, your scenario requires Russia to go away and that isn’t going to happen without a big war.
Russia doesn’t need to go away because it cannot go away but the Mighty Red Army is gone. What’s left is the Nukes. Preparing for a potential war with Nukes will no longer include the conventional part of it which is a high money figure.
Trump talked about leaving NATO and then bragged about saving NATO.
“I hope everyone is able to remember that it was me, as President of the United States, that got delinquent NATO members to start paying their dues, which amounted to hundreds of billions of dollars. There would be no NATO if I didn’t act strongly and swiftly.”
Very true arguably Trump used the threat of leaving NATO to strengthen it.
It didn’t take Scholz long to recognize that being dependent on other providers, including the US and Stoltenberg’s Norway, for natural gas is far more costly than being dependent on Russia for natural gas. Germany’s major manufacturers may not survive competition with companies in other nations that can produce steel, automobiles, and other energy intensive products at a lower price. But if they do survive, there will likely be a major rethink about who Germany’s friends are…. and aren’t.
Some of German major manufacturers moved their business to US, some of them moved to China. The high qualified German labor can also move to US. Probably the labor migration from EU to US already started. It is the free market.
That is beyond stupid. NATO and the USSR existed for years without a major war in Europe.
That was during cordial relations … not when one side was butting right up to the other and asking for trouble.
Russia is not going anywhere … NATO must.
US, and The West in general, got in a deep crisis. The other reason for the reckless American militarism is that the new generation of politicians. They don’t understand what the big war may look like, so they think it is okay to play with the fire.
Right, beyond stupid, that is the reason why you don’t understand this.
“General Jens Stoltenberg said that trust between the West and Russia has been “destroyed” and that relations couldn’t return to normal even after the fighting ended in Ukraine, CNBC reported on Monday.”
What the fu*k was normal? Treating them like red headed stepsisters? Back to just “normal” sanctions? War games on their borders? Surrounding them with more lethal weapons? Orchestrating coups on their neighbor for the purpose of installing a government that is hostile towards them? Or should we go back the full 30+ years of NATO encroachment that followed the cold war and created the present situation? The relationship has indeed been “destroyed” but that was the result of the West’s continuous provocations. The invasion was just the inevitable culmination of those provocations.
“Orchestrating coups on their neighbor for the purpose of installing a government that is hostile towards them?”
Do you know the reason why Ukrainians tossed Yanukovych out? I’m sure you know but choose to flip that script.
If it was a coup, it was because the people of Ukraine decided to do so to get away from the Russian malign and destructive sphere of influence that woud’ve rendered their country into another Belarus.
And you are still stuck with the 30+ year NATO encroachment. You don’t want to admit that Russia was bullying and threatening their neighbors during those same 30+ years hence NATO’s security posture. This was unfortunately validated by NATO when Russia invaded Georgia and Ukraine and not necessarily because of NATO ‘expansion.’
Heck, had Russia been successful in Ukraine, they would’ve moved to Kazakhstan as they were already brewing that action. Belarus was only saved by having a puppet and even that one is under consideration for annexation.
So you are completely onboard with the actors of January 6, because if some segment of the population is unhappy, they should try to take government by force.
Democratically elected presidents don’t matter if some hard right battalions cheered on by the US overthrow the government, right? Ukraine actually has or had an impeachment process. And the guy was up for election in a year. Instead, a civil war ensued with Nazis killing Russian speaking corners of Ukraine. You are always stuck on US propaganda.
Here are some photos of McCain and Murphy just hanging out with a notorious Nazi, Oleh Tyahnybok.
You use the word propaganda while embracing propaganda. Keep it up.
How is an actual photo propaganda?
Here’s a trivia question, which country has more Neo Nazis, Ukraine or Russia?
Numbers don’t matter, it is who controls power. There are a lot less a-hole billionaires who buy government here in the US than there are poor, working or middle class people.
The two pieces I presented for you show that the person McCain and Murphy cheered on as representatives of the US is a far right Nazi and the street protestors were Svoboda, his followers.
The reason my first comment is probably in moderation is because it contains things that Tyahnybok said which are despicable.
Per capata, percentages or individuals who self identify as NeoNazis or as Nazis..??
Here is one for you, which country of the two engaged in the Ukraine war, had its government overthrown by the Fuuk Europe woman..?
The question was simple; what part you didn’t get?
Ukrainian people overthrew Yanukovych after he sold his country to Putin.
Oleh Yaroslavovych Tyahnybok (Ukrainian: Оле́г Яросла́вович Тягнибо́к, born 7 November 1968) is a Ukrainian politician and far-right activist who is a former member of the Verkhovna Rada and the leader of the Ukrainian nationalist Svoboda political party. Previously, he was elected councilman of the Lviv Oblast Council for the second session.
On 20 July 2004 Tyahnybok was expelled from the Our Ukraine parliamentary faction after he made a speech in the Carpathian Mountains at the gravesite of a commander of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army. In the speech, which was aired on television in the summer of 2004, he made comments such as: “[You are the ones] that the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine fears most” and “They were not afraid and we should not be afraid. They took their automatic guns on their necks and went into the woods, and fought against the Muscovites, Germans, Jews and other scum who wanted to take away our Ukrainian state.: 226 ”
In April 2005, Tyahnybok co-signed an open letter to President Yushchenko calling for a parliamentary investigation into the “criminal activities of organized Jewry in Ukraine.”
During the 2010 Ukrainian local elections Tyahnybok’s party won between twenty and thirty percent of the votes in Eastern Galicia where it became one of the main forces in local government.
During the 2012 Ukrainian parliamentary election Tyahnybok was re-elected (he was top candidate on his party list) to the Ukrainian parliament when his party won 38 seats. Tyahnybok was elected leader of the party’s parliamentary faction.
In June 2013, Tyahnybok and another Svoboda Party leader were barred from entering the U.S. for their open anti-Semitism, according to the Kyiv-based newspaper Sedodnya. In December 2013 US Senator John McCain visited Kyiv where he met with and shared a platform with Tyahnybok.
More Info: From Dec 2013
Svoboda, meaning freedom, has been enjoying a boom in success in recent years winning their first parliamentary seats in 2010, takingjust over 10 per cent of the vote to become Ukraine’s fourth biggest party with 36 seats out of 450.
The ultra-nationalist group is aligned with other European far-right parties including the BNP, but their radical stance has made them a central force in the ongoing street protests.
The party was registered in 1995, initially called the Social National Party of Ukraine and using a swastika style logo.
one comment in moderation for no reason
“You use the word propaganda while embracing propaganda. Kee-”
Oh, my! An adroit twist on the classic ‘That’s-what-you-are-but-what-am-I’ stratagem…
…be on guard with this one!
Oh yeah it’s rather obvious. This snake was Don Bacon, before his posts gathered such a mass of negative responses to his twisted posts and attacks on other posters that he suddenly emerged as Don Julio and soon after, Lemonie Alpaca or some such. His crowning imbecilities were his accusations & innuendos saying Bianca should stop posting while drunk!!!!!!! It is unimaginable that this Don character could say such things about Bianca without one garbled or semiliterate example of such inebriation in her three thousand Discus comment record. I suspect it is him who has the buzz/. What else could possibly influence such sophmoronic spew.. How can anyone believe anything he is apt to say….. WTF………….!!!!!!!
What’s rather obvious is that, as is so often the case, you don’t have the slightest idea what you’re talking about.
“was Don Bacon, before…”
…before he realized a greasy slab of pig fat wasn’t a good handle?
“And you are still stuck with the 30+ year NATO encroachment. You don’t want to admit that Russia was bullying and threatening their neighbors during those same 30+ years hence NATO’s security posture. This was unfortunately validated by NATO when Russia invaded Georgia and Ukraine and not necessarily because of NATO ‘expansion’.”
Once more Don. This is your quote:
“I used to respect Putin and side with him a while ago, that stopped in 2014.”
So, you sided with Putin up until 2014. Tell me if any of the things you mention happened before 2014? Didn’t Georgia happen in ’08? And yet there you were in 2014 respecting that very man that did all those nasty things.
I never said when I started showing respect for the guy. But since you are stuck with that, I’ll tell you, it was in 2012 when I started visiting Russia as part of my Russian Politics/Foreign Affairs studies and language. I focused my thesis on breaking the Diplomatic hold between the two countries. I was not aware of Putin’s hidden agenda and gave the guy the benefit of the doubt multiple times. Before 2012 I was too busy fighting our wars.
So you can use that little background on me and spin it all you want, if anything, I think I’m in a position now to know that guy is full of it.
Me liking the guy for some time doesn’t mean I supported his actions but it does show I was wrong about my perception of his character and I was disinformed about his policies. Perhaps the root cause was spending too much time drinking the Russian propaganda kool aid. Russia violating the Budapest Memorandum ended that.
I’ll flat out say that you are full of sh*t. So, it was a just a mere two years that you liked and respected Putin? Did he take two years off from being “Hitler” as you have called him? No nefarious actions from 2012-2014? And any time before that is just a blank? Nice try comrade.
Sorry you din’t get your “gotcha” moment but keep on spinning it, it’ll make you feel better.
Spin what? You said what you said.
What does me respecting Putin before and not anymore have to do with anything? I evolved, perhaps you should make the effort as well and get out of your anti US bubble.
What it has to do with is the fact that you CONSTANTLY call others “Putin lovers”. And now you do the same by calling me anti US. Tell me Don, have you ever bitched about any of our policies? Of course you have. So maybe you should stop being such a f*cking hypocrite.
“You don’t want to admit that Russia was bullying and threatening their neighbors during those same 30+ years hence NATO’s [expansionist] security posture.”
Lie. Advance thanks for supporting otherwise worthless claims: 1/ evidence of Russian “bullying…threatening…neighbors” in the first post-Soviet NATO expansion period; and 2/ that NATO expansion was driven by such supposed Russian actions.
As an ex-CIA analyst writes below, the US/NATO’s expansionist “security posture” was driven by US domestic politics: against the advisement of State Department officials and other advisors, Clinton expanded NATO to get Central European-origin votes, thereby outflanking the Cold-War-never-ended Republican NATO expansion platform.
Note this expansion purpose violated the NATO charter to make admissions based on whether enlargement would support existing member security. (Like, e.g., nuclear weapons treaties, which enlargement predictably f’d up.)
Those crying ‘expansion’ at time – e.g., Strobe Talbott, Clinton – justified ‘security’ expansion on grounds of hypothetical Russian actions – not actual Russian “bullying and threatening” of “neighbors.”
As the article makes clear, Clinton’s domestic-driven expansion also marked a turning point, strengthening Russian nationalist forces against NATO expansion, and giving Russia and the world Putin.
“NATO Expansion: ‘A Policy Error of Historic Importance’ [available as free JSTOR guest]
It makes me happy that Russia got an7d has Putin. Would you prefere they had a stooge like Yeltsin or some U.S. deep state mole neutering their deterrence
independence & clought? We don’t have any real issues with them except ones invented, created or concocted to breed enmity. I’d ask why you don’t wish them well, but I think that the snoop dog gots it, as all about the Benjamins!!!
PARIS (Reuters) – Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili had long planned a military strike to seize back the breakaway region of South Ossetia but executed it poorly, making it easy for Russia to retaliate, Saakashvili’s former defence minister said.
South Ossetian residents walk through the debris of their destroyed house in Tskhinvali, August 30, 2008. REUTERS/Sergei Karpukhin
Irakly Okruashvili, Georgia’s leading political exile, said in a weekend interview in Paris that the United States was partly to blame for the war, having failed to check the ambitions of what he called a man with democratic failings.
Saakashvili’s days as president were now numbered, he said.
The former defence minister’s remarks are significant because Saakashvili has always maintained Russia started the war by invading his country. The Georgian president said he handed EU leaders last week “very strong proof” that Moscow was to blame, though he did not give details.
But Okruashvili, a close Saakashvili ally who served as defence minister from 2004 to 2006, said he and the president worked together on military plans to invade South Ossetia and a second breakaway region on the Black Sea coast, Abkhazia.
It’s still a coup by a “nationalist” movement whose views aren’t shared by a large segment of its own population. The West is propping up a government that was dysfunctional to begin with (likely considered a good thing for some Western business interests). Russia invading being right or wrong, there isn’t likely a time in history a country wouldn’t have done what they have. Heck large segments of the U.S. get bent out of shape when a band of migrants enters southern Mexico heading north.
Coup or whatever, When your country is sold by your President to Russia against the will of the people, the people have the right to get him out and that’s what they did. Ask any Ukrainian and they will say they supported that change.
Biden asking like Goebbels did:
“Wollt Ihr den totalen Krieg? ”
You would jump up on your feet applauding and yelling yes, yes, and yes again.
Looks like we are on our way to get the total war, nuclear bombs included. Biden is doing all he can to get his way. But he is a coward and will not ask the people.
Maybe ignorance is an excuse for the nonsense you posted.
(Sarcasm Alert) “Normal” means Russians would agree to give up their own sovereignty, become slaves, and sell their natural resources for cheap. If they fight back, their actions are “unprovoked and unjustified.” CIA talking pointers will be cheering Jens on all day (once on the clock). Look below.
What a WHOPPING LOAD OF BULL CRAP that Dolt Doltenburg said they would not negotiate with Russia, he left Russia no sane way forward to protect its people against the placement of first strike weapons only minutes flying time from Moscow. After losing 20 plus million of their citizens to these same Nazis in WWII that are driving events today, No responsible leader would allow it to happen. Russia has called their bluffs. Now is not the time to up the rhetoric or do something stupid to have Russia take off the gloves. Once this war goes nuclear, should it happen, there will be no real constraint to keep numbers of them limited meaningfully. Russia can take them back to pre electric & aviation times. In any case it wont be easy to stop them, closer to impossible.
What exactly do you think I said?
Standing ovation to you, well said.
$- Is the only reason.
So Stoltenberg Emperor of NATO Ice Cream Empire decrees Russia is an outcast henceforth, post war, post anything. Everything is all Russia’s fault. NATO is the victim here.
Ukraine is the victim here.
The Ukrainian people are certainly the victims.
That’s true. Ukraine is a victim of North American Terrorist Occupation like all of Left European states.
Stoltenberg is not a victim. He will retire in comfort unless something extraordinary happens. He knows that and doing what his sponsors want him to do.
I was being ironic. NATO is the victimizer.
Many nations are involved in NATO. Majority of the people are the losers. Maybe one can call them the victims, but if we believe NATO countries are democratic, then we should agree that the people are not so innocent. Victims are supposed to be innocent.
I am not arguing with you; just an observation.
Who says NATO or Herr Stoltenberg are going to be around after the war?
Excellent point and question…
Anyone with half brain.
Good Morning Kenneth, do you have to be so abrasive? Smile. it’s good for everyones disposition!
And there you go again. You are always first to complain about me being “abrasive” and I have yet to see you say the same about any of the many Anti-American commenters on this website. So Donna, let me be blunt or as you like say abrasive and call you a phony.
I think your recollection is faulty here. She’s noticed that I’m abrasive too, and I’m certainly anti-American for several definitions of the term.
That could be. I certainly don’t think you are abrasive, nor do I think you are anti-American.
We all love the majority of the American people and America; it’s just the warmongers in charge we don’t like.
There is a difference between being against a US policy and being against America. I have no problem with being against a specific US policy. I was totally against the Vietnam war and the second Iraq war. However, there are some people on the board that are clearly Anti-American.
Yep. And I’m one of them.
LOL Tom I like your sense of humor.
You can hate our warmongers in DC but when you go and blindly side and support all of Putin’s actions only cause you want US to fail just so you can prove your point, I think you are straight up not antiwar but anti US.
Well said. And what I don’t understand, why they don’t admit it?
And only a half a brain… What’s your excuse, lobotomy gone wrong?
“Stoltenberg claimed that NATO tried to build good relations with Russia after the Cold War — (but the alliance ratcheted up tensions with Moscow by expanding up to Russia’s border).”
Subtle change here by Dave DeCamp. I watched the entire interview and Stoltenberg never said this (but the alliance ratcheted…). Way to put words in people’s mouths.
We have, thus far, survived two world wars… If we can manage to avert a Third World War, anything is possible…
These prople are very good at lying., Fantastic! They must have courses in that. If I recall correctly it was Rusdia that tried and tried. But the exceptionalism is so powerflul in the Wesr, that the reality is a mere fact of definition.
Russia tried so hard that it invaded. Lol.
Russia clearly didn’t try hard enough and that was by choice. They believed the anticipated / expected outcome was far better and more rewarding than the status quo.
Pardon my redundancy but, Mr. Stoltenberg, in a World where carpenters can be resurrected, EVERYTHING is possible. 🙂
I agree that trust has been destroyed. I wouldn’t trust NATO either after these latest shenanigans
Which populations voted that warmonger into his current position?
That would have to be the Russian population 🙂
But on the odd chance that you meant Stoltenberg, I’d have to say that the UN general secretary also is not voted upon by populations but by member states – the secretary General of NATO is picked in much the same way.
Come to think of it I cannot remember the ‘head’ of a single inter governmental organization being elected by a or several populations to the post, I may not remember correctly if so I’d love to have it pointed out.
Yes that is a fact. NATO the Ape is no longer a friend.
He does not know history. When the Soviet Union dissolved, the state of Russia wanted to be a member of the Western Alliance, you know, be a part of the gang. The West (U.S./UK) said no. Then Clinton began talking out both sides of his mouth, and began signing up countries to join NATO, to put weapons on the borders of those countries, pointed at Russia. George W. withdrew us from the ABM treaty. Open Skies flew away. Obama sanctioned Russia for alleged cyber hacking. Obama bankrolled the coup in 2014, with Biden that “Czar” of Ukraine, barking out orders. Nuland voiced the administration favoritism toward “Yats” to take over. Obama began taking assets from Ukraine citizens (which goes against the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protection for “persons”. Trump withdrew from the INF treaty. Biden (here he is again) ignored negotiation offers by Russia, added to the provocation. It could have been different. Our hubris, seeking hegemony, is the cause of this mess.
They would have had to as NATO cannot protect one member from being attacked by an other member – so a defensive alliance protecting members from Russian aggression would not work if Russian had a veto as a member.
To join NATO a country has to have no border conflicts, be democratic and apply, only then will the other members vote on whether they want the new country to join the alliance each of them having a veto – so Clinton could not do this all by his lonesome.
Some of them are seeking the hegemony; the others, though, may be, they don’t believe that it is achievable, but still happy to participate in the warmongering because that’s how they are making money.
NATO Chief Says NATO is a Terrorist Organization
Who in a right mind would want to have “normal” relations with North American Terrorist Occupation?
Trust? What about the agreement that NATO would not move “one inch East”? What about NATO refusing to allow the former Soviet Union, now Russia, become a member of the Western Alliance? Trust? What about refusing to negotiate with Russia last December, or in April this year (when Boris told Z not to negotiate)? Trust??
Neither NATO nor the US signed any agreement to disallow eastern European countries from applying for NATO membership, NATO is a defensive alliance protecting its members form primarily Soviet now Russian aggression – as NATO cannot protect one member form the attacks of an other Russia could not join.
‘We’ did negotiate Putin’s demands were just rejected as too extreme so negotiations broke down.
That said I am also wondering what amount of trust Stoltenberg thinks it is that is lost – I can’t see that we trusted Putin much before and I cannot see us trusting him afterwards. But perhaps he is talking about the economic relations i.e. non NATO matters (but then what would be his authority to speak?).
“What about the agreement that NATO would not move “one inch East” There is no such agreement. Please show me real proof if you have any.
Peaceful and intertwined relations between EU and with Russia was always the existential threat to NATO and its two major lackeys: the US and UK.
Furthermore, Russia would be the land-bridge to the Far East.
Pipelines, like all trade mechanisms were a good thing.
NATO’s purpose in Europe was long ago aptly described as to
Keep Russia out
Keep Germany down
Keep the US in
““Even if the fighting ends, we will not return to some kind of normal, friendly, relationship with Russia. Trust has been destroyed,” Stoltenberg said.
‘Gone the fond reminiscences of nuclear war games, gone the playful nocturnal advance of nuclear-tipped missiles, gone the romantic tiffs over – but weren’t we sillies! – trifling materiel advances east,’ murmured the visibly moved Secretary-General.
Sounds like you have excellent skills in writing romantic fantasies. I must add, you brilliantly pulled the plug on the underlying theme “…that NATO tried to build good relations with Russia after the Cold War…” Jens and the MSM were trying to elicit. Well done!
was either that or puke
Well, the Russians have learned not to trust the west – again. Being both a European and Asian nation, Russia will be well served by turning to the East and South. As for Europe, there’s no need for Russia to have warm relations, only satisfactory business and cultural relations where possible.
Time will tell just how viable the European Union will be if and when Biden calls off his proxy war.
In my opinion dark clouds are gathering at the horizon. People have not come to terms yet with the sudden steep rise in expenditures on energy and all the downstream impact of that on small businesses, translating into rising prises of everything, utilities, commodities, foodstuff, services, transport, insurances, being permanent. Governments resorting to all kinds of compensatory measures to soften the impact, for their own narrow party-political reasons, coming slowly to the realisation that this money is going to come from somewhere. Unsustainable spending wasn’t a sustainable policy, who could have guessed? So now people are going to be prepared with some media campaign for rising taxes on top of all the rising costs, evaporating life-savings, evaporating pensions to keep the charade going just while longer. They didn’t at first but now they truly might need that external enemy.
The US Cuckoo In European Nest. Authored by Alastair Crooke.
Good reference. Thanks.
Oh gee, if we cant put nuclear missiles on your border, that we arent sure who controls said missiles, or if Whomever controls them would nuke US with them or not…??? Does that really mean that you can’t trust US…??? OR THAT we really trust you…?????
Comments are closed.