NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on Friday shrugged off warnings from Russian President Vladimir Putin against NATO countries allowing Ukraine to strike Russian territory with Western weapons.
“This is nothing new. It has … been the case for a long time that every time NATO allies are providing support to Ukraine, President Putin is trying to threaten us to not do that,” Stoltenberg told reporters during a NATO foreign ministers meeting in Prague. “And an escalation – well, Russia has escalated by invading another country.”
Stoltenberg’s comments came after the US and several other NATO countries gave Ukraine the greenlight to strike Russian territory near Kharkiv. The step marks a significant escalation in the proxy war and could provoke a major response from Russia despite Stoltenberg downplaying the risks.
Putin warned there would be “serious consequences” for any NATO countries that lift the restriction on Ukraine’s use of its weapons. Moscow previously warned the UK that it would respond to Ukraine using British weapons on Russian territory with strikes on UK military sites in Ukraine “and beyond.”
Russia has already significantly escalated its operations in Ukraine in response to Ukrainian attacks on its territory. For example, Russia did not begin major strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure until after the first bombing of the Crimean Bridge in October 2022.
Putin has also said that Russia’s new offensive in Kharkiv is a response to Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s Belgorod Oblast, which borders Kharkiv. He said the purpose of the offensive was to create a “buffer zone” to prevent attacks on Belgorod.
Over the weekend, Russia launched a major barrage of strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure, which could be related to the latest escalations from NATO. Due to the bombing, Ukraine imposed emergency power shutdowns across most of the country on Sunday.
Given that Stoltenberg’s intention is to escalate the conflict, naturally Stoltenberg
shrugs off any possible consequences. Nobody, especially Putin, would dare strike back against the great omnicient omnipitant God(aka the Yankee Empire).
Also Known As "The Globalist American Empire" or GAE.
Ya just can't fix THE STUPID.
Stoltenberg and many Ewww members still believe Putin is bluffing. We can only hope he is bluffing.
And that the nuclear war drill in Russia is a bluff. We have quite a few stupid members of congress who want the donor class money to keep rolling in.
As Scott Ritter likes to say, "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes." Russia can take out NATO HQ in Brussels any second of the day, without nukes. And NATO can't do a damn thing about it.
So why have they not even prevented the flow of western weapons trough the border near Lviv?
In which direction?
The one that matter to the Russians – naturally.
When will they take out AWACS, Starlink, …, blind NATO??
China proved how easily it could be done. Years ago, I can't remember just when, China took out one of the older satellites as a demonstration of their ability.
Russia did as well, demonstrating their satelite killer.
I would suspect the RF and the DPRC, each with a vested interest in space and in low-earth orbital devices, are hesitant to go ahead and destroy a bunch of NATO or US satellites (disable yes, destroy no) for fear of creating a debris cascade that could potentially lock us on our planet for centuries.
Interesting point, thanks. My argument was that since the NATO attack on the 3 Russian anti ICBM radar instalations is an attempt to blind a component critical to her defense against a major nuclear attack she is obliged to reciprocate in order to retrieve defensive parity.
The "down side" risk greatly exceeds any benefit of having Ukraine become NATO. I really do not understand what these people are thinking.
They're not.
Ukraine was not on track to become a NATO member in 2021 – now that Putin have started the SMO their membership suddenly face far fewer member VETO's – before 2021 Germany, France, Hungary and Turkey would VETO them joining.
Now it is likely only Hungary and possibly Turkey would – mind you they can still only join after the conflict with Russia is over.
The Risk of a nuclear war does however rise considerably if Ukraine loses its independence – simply because they would not have faced this invasion if they had kept their nukes.
The lesson for others facing likely Russian or Chinese invasions is clear, if they can manage a nuclear program they do wise to do so.
Hence if the US ends its support for Ukraine nuclear proliferation is just about guaranteed.
No. Wrong processing. Ukraine working on a nuke under current conditions (outside Russian control) would mean the end of Ukraine. Any site working on such a thing would be vaporized.
The Ukrainians would in this scenario already have lost so they would not be developing a nuke.
The nations likely to develop nukes in the case that Ukraine is taken (loses the war) are nations like Poland, Sweden, Kazakhstan, the Philippines, Vietnam,…
Are you sure the Russians will attack such nations because they are developing nukes?
No, Ukraine is special to Russia.
The other countries you mention may or may not feel nukes are necessary. It's up to them.
The point is that this is what they will feel if the US ends its support for Ukraine – it is really quite simple if you read my answer to foodoo above.
If the U.S. supports Ukraine in making peace with Russia and not stopping the process (as we have done twice), things just could be a little bit better.
If the US supports Ukraine they will not make peace – if the US forces Ukraine to make peace e.g. by ending their military support then nuclear proliferation is going to be a fact.
The US just ended its support for all practical purposes for 6+ months the other NATO countries did their best to help the Ukrainians through this period.
But forcing them to make peace will not be seen as 'supporting them making peace' only a restoration of the 2021 (preferably the 2014) borders can end this without countries drawing the conclusion that only nukes can guarantee their safety from powerful neighbors.
Nonsense. The other countries are not at risk. Read Amb Burns's missives to the Clinton Admin back in the 90's to see the difference Russia has always placed on Ukraine (and, yes, Belorussia) compared to anything else ("brightest of red lines …").
Nobody else is at risk. In fact, the very difficulty Russia has had in Ukraine subduing a partially Russian population goes to show that war for conquest is just not doable in Europe of modern times.
Anyone claiming to be at risk therefore, in, say, Sweden, etc. is simple ginning for large "defense" budgets and money for their favorite corporations.
Well they believe they are and they get to make that decision – not you.
Even if I agreed with you (which I do up to a point) that does not change how those other countries see their situation.
Again though this is a good argument the amount these countries have already thrown to added military expenditures shows that this is not assurance enough for them.
That still spells nuclear proliferation – note that I'm not arguing that they would be right or justified only that this is what several of them will do if the US abandons Ukraine.
My guess also because they will keep on supporting Ukraine for as long as they want to fight (even without US support) and they will keep sanctions on the Russians – so the Russians will feel provoked.
Not all of them. Hungary and Slovakia don't feel threatened. As far as the other ones, they feel what we tell them to feel.
Sure some may not feel threatened, that does not change that many do and thus the problem of nuclear proliferation becomes a fact.
Neither the Swedes nor the Finns have been feeling what ‘we’ told them to feel up until 2022, so you need better arguments why countries appear to be willing to spend so much more on defense.
In that case, why haven't Serbia, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and Libya developed nukes?
The Serbians likely because they did not actually fear invasion from their neighbors – there is very little chance that NATO would invade even should the Serbs decide to fight each other.
Iraq has tried but were foiled by the Israelis I believe – Syria likely would have the same problem (plus a financial challenge perhaps), Afghanistan simply does not have the capacity -even if they could develop a nuke they do not have the technology to deliver it.
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace by Charles Beard
Yes well at least in the sense: Si vis pacem, para bellum
They're delusional, in denial, suffer from the illogic of western supremacy or their egos are so artificially inflated they crush ordinary brain function. Pick one or make one up, the fact is these are small-minded, unserious people that deindustrialized America creating a financialized economy and then found out a country without industry can not adequately protect itself from pathogens or psychopaths.
Don't worry. He's bluffing… he's bluffing… he's… …Look what he did!? That was "Unprovoked and Unjustified!"
"Stoltenberg Shrugs Off Putin’s Warnings About NATO Weapons Striking Targets Inside Russia" Should I feel guilty for wishing that I never hear from this fool again?
Poke the Bear and get smacked down.
Russia is no longer afraid of American nukes as they have more and better nukes.
The fact that they could vaporize 3
million before vs 12 million now, should not be complimented.
Not a compliment, just a fact and reality!
With the less than stellar performance of US weapons against Russian targets, no one should put much confidence in any American weapon functioning as planned. They were purchased to enrich the rulling class and keep the citizen poor funding an Defense Force that spends more money than the next five armies combined. The US and NATO are Paper Tigers and it is sad we, in the West, have to depend on Putin's patience with the West's foolishness to keep us out of a hot war.
Both wars are to enrich the donor class. Something like 60% of the money earmarked for Ukraine is recycled to the MIC. The same horse rids in Gaza.
Which US weapons are "less than stellar"? ATACMS, HIMARS, Stingers, Bradleys, Patriots? Pretty stupid take on the effectiveness of US weapons. Abrams? Not any worse than any other first line tanks against FPV drones. F-16s? Yet to be seen.
Or maybe you can offer your choices of the worst US weapons? Then can I compare those to the s**tty Russian weapons?
Patriots weren't as effective as ballistic interceptors as they were made out to be in Gulf War 1 (it was more that SCUDs sucked) tho their performance improved once the military identified and corrected a floating-point error in the control chipset. I'm sure it was both great Gulf War 1 marketing + a popularity bump among the Right-wing with the PATRIOT Act that kept the missile system selling.
The ABM system (likely THAAD ?) is another promise-big-deliver-meh. The 1-outta-3 success rate in Pacific tests, plus the known bias in the test conditions (enemy target rocket position & velocity were known in advance of the tests; and there was an unrealistic absence of ECM, dummy warheads, and other known countermeasures).
Also. The F-35 failures against current-gen '16s and Super Hornets in all practise dogfight conditions (with advantage and disadvantage)
Contractors build shiny stuff that looks and sounds nice; not robust warfighting tools.
Patriots weren't as effective as ballistic interceptors as they were made out to be in Gulf War 1 (it was more that SCUDs sucked) tho their performance improved once the military identified and corrected a floating-point error in the control chipset. I'm sure it was both great Gulf War 1 marketing + a popularity bump among the Right-wing with the PATRIOT Act that kept the missile system selling.
The ABM system (likely THAAD ?) is another promise-big-deliver-meh. The 1-outta-3 success rate in Pacific tests, plus the known bias in the test conditions (enemy target rocket position & velocity were known in advance of the tests; and there was an unrealistic absence of ECM, dummy warheads, and other known countermeasures).
Also. The F-35 failures against current-gen '16s and Super Hornets in all practise dogfight conditions (with advantage and disadvantage)
Contractors build shiny stuff that looks and sounds nice; not robust warfighting tools.
Maybe today Russia will get serious and nuke the West?
If Russia decides it has had enough of NATO and the USA expect China, Iran, NK to go lock step in a matter of hours,,BAM,,WW-3.
Do U thin that that war will not be brought to the main-land USA by at least conventional strikes…?
Naturally the US too will be hit – that at least has been the assumption since 1957 if not longer. But why do you think that the Russians would decide that 'suicide' is better than not getting to rule in Ukraine?
Suicide by oneself is better than being eliminated by foreign attack.
Russia was invaded close to extermination through the Ukraine route twice in 150 years (1812 and 1941) … they will not allow a third.
Sure you could argue this, only you'd have to make some convincing argument that the west were about to attack.
I.e. that the west preferred the risk of suicide over the cost of not getting to waste thousands of soldiers in a vain attempt at invading and controlling Russia.
No the route in both cases were (mainly) through Belarus and Smolensk.
Being a student of history (I assume), you do realize that the Soviet Union Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht. At a loss of 20 million. If things do turn badly, Russia will react. Harshly.
You must also realize that when the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, there was a golden opportunity for a lasting peace. Promises made by the U.S. proved to be worthless. Bill Clinton was the worst in the scenario. We don't have the best record when it comes to making peace. In just 16 years of our history have we not been at war somewhere. We have never had our collective nose bloodied here, on our own turf, by an outside country. G-d help us if it happens. Look at the chaos that happened during the Covid pandemic.
I know, however if their invasion of Ukraine fails you think they will want to commit suicide?
What was the basis for this lasting peace? I only remember that the Russians were very much against the former occupied east European countries joining NATO.
That was ignoring their desire for safety and prosperity.
Clinton made some indications – but no firm promises and the Russians never asked for any documentation of any 'promises'.
This would be relevant if the US was the aggressor – however no US soldiers are involved and the Ukrainians are free to do like the Afghans if they collectively or individually do not want to fight.
Neither the US nor Russia is going to be invaded we have declining populations – in all the countries which are even remotely capable of any such invasion.
M64, you provide measured and logical responses to these tankies and right-wingers. It is completely wasted on them but I appreciate it.
aha – name change, by stankie.
Belarus is Russia currently … or close enough. Eastern Ukraine" is also becoming Russia (again) …
Once a good enough buffer is established, the only worry will be nukes (again).
Not how the neighbors of Russia or China sees it. The sanctions will be kept on for decades and as the Russian economy suffers they will feel increasingly provoked.
The way the western countries sees it there is no way China will not take Taiwan if they allow Russia to take Ukraine without continued sanctions (much harder ones will be needed if they fail Ukraine).
Ukraine was part of the main thrusts by the Germans, but you are correct on Napoleon's invasion route.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/map/invasion-of-the-soviet-union-1941-1942
No I'm also right about WWII – as in the invasion was not through Ukraine, but once the Germans had made it fairly deep into Belarus they diverted south to capture large parts of the Soviet army in Ukraine.
There was therefore also a thrust into Ukraine, but it was not through this that they were making their way to Moscow rather the other way around – the desire to encircle a large soviet force in Ukraine diverted them away from Moscow.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa
https://www.britannica.com/event/Operation-Barbarossa
So no Russia was not being invaded through Ukraine – mainly it was through Belarus and the thrust through Ukraine was slower to develop and stole away from the thrust towards Moscow.
I hope not. I would like to have someplace to go to after I sell my house that does not have radioactive rains.
"“And an escalation – well, Russia has escalated by invading another country.""
I don't know if Stoltenberg's first language is English; or how much a command over its nuances he holds; or if causality is within his realm of conceptualisation.
For the 'leader' of a NATO that seems to claim that everything was Peaceful & Totally Just Fine in Ukraine until the exact instant the RF invaded, one is led to fairly wonder & demand to know against precisely WHAT Jens thinks the Russian Federation was first to "escalate"…??
Stoltenberg's first language is Norwegian but that hardly matters as this would not change what he said – the fact that the Russians (by their own admission) instigated a revolt in the Donbas in 2014 and has fueled it ever since, would not change the idea that the Russians escalated this by the 2022 invasion.
I do not know what command you have of the English language but to me the wording escalated does not imply that there was peace in the before situation – but then I'm a Dane so…
Well we actually have their own admission that they started this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gyZ4aj8Pho
After the US instigated a revolted Kiev in 2014, by their own admission, which is the genesis of the whole problem. Then, Kiev began "killing their own people" in the former eastern UKraine.
No the US has not admitted that they instigated the Maidan and the Ukrainians have not indicated that they did so – the popularity of the Ukrainian government following the ousting of the old administration was initially fairly high, but at each election until 2019 the rightwing extremist lost ground losing their last seat in parliament in 2019.
The revolt in eastern Ukraine was instigated by the Russians (by their own admission – and I do have the links to substantiate this claim) – and the number of fatalities were dwindling year by year being very low by 2021.
No the US has not admitted the CIA ran it's stock regime change op (’53 alpha test deposing Iranian PM Mosaddegh with a briefcase full of cash, some media, hired thugs to create a protest &/or provide the violence) on Ukraine instigating the Maidan protests, followed by violence, deaths, always good to bring some drama to the act, and ultimately the removal of Ukraine's democratically elected president, Yanukovch, because he wanted to keep Ukraine neutral which didn't suit US "interests."
But fortunately we have Nuland and Pyatt's taped phone call planning Prez Yanukovych's replacement some 16 days B4 the 2/21 agreement between between him & opposition leaders for early elections & the formation of an interim unity government.
I suggest the best lens to view Ukraine is through that of a civil war, east vs west, sadly as we do with most interventions is to sow conflict and division, create chaos and enemies of neighbors. As to Igor’s confession, I didn’t hear/read him claim his actions were in service to the RF, which is consistent with what OSCE monitors reported, he would do well on a Hollywood cast call for a slimy Russian mobster however. Retired Swiss Col. Baud (Swiss Intelligence, NATO, UN) was with NATO in 2014 working on arms trafficking, specifically trying to detect Russian arms transfers to the rebels. I’ll let you read his account – go to the 1st find of OSCE, though I highly recommend the entire piece – it touches on escalation and provocation 🙂
https://www.thepostil.com/the-military-situation-in-the-ukraine/
Nuland does not admit that they instigated anything, she only talks about what preferences the US has when it comes to a new Ukrainian government.
If you listen carefully you would also notice that the people they preferred were no longer in power by 2019 – and they were not the government after the 2014 election.
So if this was a US coup it was a most unusual one – where the people who took power made an election and failed to win it twice.
We encouraged the rioters to overthrow the democracy in Kiev. HOw come we weren't for (hark the herald angels sing) democracy?
https://www.cato.org/commentary/americas-ukraine-hypocrisy
That much is true the US did encourage the protesters.
Huh? Russia "instituted a revolt in Donbas"?
Listen to him he is a Russian and he is admitting their role – and he was rewarded by a post in the 'government' of the Donetsk 'peoples republic'.
He's one guy. I'm sure the Russians were arming them, but given the situation on the ground the Donbas revolt seemed pretty organic.
He is not just one guy – he was in charge of much of the operation – not one conscript or volunteer – and no the revolt did not seem pretty organic – that is not to say that it was not enjoying fairly significant local support, but that as Igor Strelkov describes it, it would have blown over as it did in other areas if they (the Russians) had not fueled the fire.
Of course Russia helped ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine after Kiev dictators were "killing his own people". Why would anyone expect anything less?
Everyone would expect something else since even before the Germans used that excuse for intervening in Czechoslovakia in 1938 (actually it has been a principle since 1648). There were very few fatalities until the Russians got involved. Not none, but very few as there were in e.g. Odessa and Kharkiv.
There has to be a long period where we apply pressure to the local government to get their people in order before any intervention – Russia did not wait even just a month.
It does matter what is said.
Words are very precise in their meanings. Except "run", which I believe holds the most definitions in dictionary English.
My English is all right. I recognize it's a terrible language for its "do this, until That One Time you do that instead" rules and bizarre grammatical and spelling oddities.
Now, my Concise OED, ever at my side (I am working on a sci-fi novel and sit at ~220,000 words with 8 chapters yet to write) defines ESCALATE as "1. increase rapidly 2. become or cause to become more intense."
Granted, this definition does fit the situation in reality – that the RF, seeing ongoing attacks by neo-Nazi elements of Kiev against ethnic Russians in the Russia-leaning Ukrainian east, felt a Responsibility 2 Protect and acted.
HOWEVER, it has LONG been the case that the USA (in particular) and its allies/(useful idiots) in Europe, have maintained a propagandistic facade that everything in Ukraine was Perfectly Fine and there Was No Unrest In The East and Nobody Was Dying and Ethnic Russians TOTALLY Aren't Facing Incredible Racism and Cultural Censorship In The Donbas.
Quite laughably have the Emperor's New Clothes borne the look and style of the USA pretending as if the situation in Ukraine literally began the day the RF began its special military operation into the Donbas. Seriously; everything prior to that day is incinerated down the Memory Hole according to the "official" American narrative.
Thus, if Jens et. al. in NATO claim that Russia's invasion "escalated" something, then the Allied West will need to go ahead and admit out loud what the RF allegedly escalated AGAINST.
Or, as I would ask them directly, "Were you lying then, or are you lying now ?"
Do you have any sources for this claim – because I have as indicated sources for the opposite – not least that the west have maintained sanctions on Russia over its ongoing involvement in the insurrection in the donbas.
Their claim is that the Russians escalated the action they were already involved in i.e. the insurrection – in the English language there need not be any against to escalate an action.
So just how do you arrive at this as a necessary conclusion?
"Do you have any sources for this claim…"
The lionshare of my information, absent glances at MSM, has been antiwar.com . I believe it was Michael Moore referencing this site that brought me here in the early 00's.
And since 2014 and ESPECIALLY (most relevantly) since the Russian Federation invaded Ukraine, there have been original essays and republications by this very site, all detailing how the US gov't in general and the MSM in particular (not that there is much daylight between the two) have acted as if the RF invaded 'out of the blue' and SPECIFICALLY gone on to state that there was "no justification" for the Russian invasion.
If you have the time, do go back and view archived antiwar.com daily pages and check the op/ed essays on the right-hand side. All these certainly prove this point. "No justification" has been a USA / NATO (or do I repeat myself ?) trope since Day 1 of this war.
Now, linguistics :
"Escalation" implies something was happening first before the event being described.
It has been US and MSM policy to ignore or seriously downplay events before critical inciting-incidents in order to steer the narrative.
The US ignored or whitewashed evidence of Kiev's assault on "pro-Russian separatists" in the Donbasi'i regions, claiming with flimsy evidence that Moscow was funding it while suggesting the matter was entirely a Ukrainian domestic matter. In short, the US (read : USNATO) claimed "nothing to see here."
That claim was either true, or a lie.
Now, Jens du NATO claims that the Russian Federation was "first to" escalate. This is evidently false as US fingerprints have smudged the Ukrainian lense since 2014, but, addressed by others. If his statement is TRUE, and the RF was first to escalate by invading, it means the RF de-facto claim of Responsibility To Protect (R2P) doctrine WAS among the casus-belli, and the USA was INDEED lying about the magnitude of anti-Russian racism and ethnic warfare pushed by Kiev on its "rogue provinces".
In summary :
1. If the pre-invasion Donbas conflict was purely internal and not ethnicity-motivated (as USA/NATO/Jens-by-proxy) claimed, then the RF had little to no involvement – and thus nothing from which to escalate. This makes Jens' CURRENT claim of escalation FALSE (he is "lying now").
2. If the RF invasion was "an escalation" then the Russophobic assaults by Kiev WERE happening, and this makes the USA/NATO/Jens-by-proxy claims that the RF invasion was "unjustified" definitionally FALSE (he/they were "lying then") as it means the Russian equivalent of R2P -was- justified because ethnic Russians WERE under assault.
Jens / NATO / USA logically cannot have it both ways. They cannot claim that the Russian Federation was the "first to escalate by invading" while simultaneously claiming the RF had "no justification" because the Donbas was a non-issue and there was "no" ethnic violence perpetrated by the Ukrainian state against ethnic Russians in Donbas.
…bearing in mind as well, the Russian Federation kept the Donbasi'i situation well at arms' length well before the invasion. Not wanting the outdated, industrially-neglected territories as "bolt-on" acquisitions to the RF.
Would be exceedingly queer if it proved out that the Russians funded and encouraged a "separatist movement" to split territories off Ukraine that the Russians themselves did not want or intend to acquire.
I would accept the notions from essays that the Donbas was viewed as a potentially useful "neutral zone" between an increasingly EU- and NATO-leaning Western Ukraine and Russian territory proper. And I think the escalating violence AND racial discrimination against ethnic Russian culture in East Ukraine (plus the march of NATO toward Kiev) is what ultimately invoked the Russian R2P doctrinal equivalent.
So your source for claiming that ‘the west’ is claiming that everything was peace and quit (if not harmony) is a source which at best can be described as strongly critical of the west – I have no doubt or reason to doubt your claim that this has been the tune of Antiwar, it is however not what I’ve seen in the western media I have access to.
To make such claims i.e. that the west maintains that everything was hunky-dory before 2022 you really have to provide western sources that did so not just sources critical of the western position.
Now for the linguistics – it is the western position that the Russians escalated i.e. dramatically increased their meddling in Ukrainian affairs by starting the SMO in 2022 – escalating what as I have provided evidence for through the admission of the very pro Donbas independence Russian Igor Strelkos’s admission that he acting as a Russian agent helped start the revolt in the Donbas a revolt that as he stated it would otherwise have petered out like it did in Odessa and Kharkiv.
As can easily be seen from this analysis – there simply is no need for any western escalation or action to claim that the Russians escalated their already existing meddling in internal Ukrainian affairs.
Now you can claim that the west is wrong, but there is no inherent linguistic logical need for the claim that the Russians started the escalation, necessarily means that the west started anything not even that the Ukrainians did.
Fact of the matter is I far greater fear Israel's nuke's than Putin's.
Paraphrasing Oscar Levant: There's a thin line between genius and insanity. Zionism has erased that line.
Lol, of course theres always the exception that proves the rule, the Western Supremacists managed to get to insanity without going through genius.
The NATO and EU big mouths are puffing out their chests and mocking Putin's warnings, but they'll scatter like cockroaches when Putin finally takes off the gloves and calls their bluff.