In an interview that aired on Friday, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte confirmed that NATO membership for Ukraine was removed from the table. The announcement comes as President Donald Trump is engaging with Kiev and Moscow in an effort to bring the war in Ukraine to an end.
According to Interfax-Ukraine, Rutte was asked by Bloomberg TV’s Annemarie Gordern if Trump had removed the issue of Ukraine’s accession to NATO from the negotiating table. Rutte answered “yes.”
Rutte’s predecessor Jens Stoltenberg explained in 2023 that the bloc’s refusal to stop expanding NATO was a paramount reason for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. “President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement,” Stoltenberg said. “That was what he sent us. And [that] was a precondition for not invade [sic] Ukraine. Of course we didn’t sign that.”
He added, “He went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.”
In 2021, before the invasion, and in 2022, after the invasion, Putin was willing to negotiate with Washington, Brussels, and Kiev on Ukrainian neutrality to prevent or end the war. However, his overtures were rebuffed by the Joe Biden administration, which refused to negotiate on the issue of NATO expansion.
While Washington and Brussels elected not to take membership off the table for Kiev, provoking the Russian invasion, NATO countries have not made a serious push to admit Ukraine as a member.
In his interview with Bloomberg TV, Rutte went on to say that Europe could normalize ties with Russia once the war is over. “It’s normal if the war would have stopped for Europe somehow, step by step, and also for the US, step by step, to restore normal relations with Russia,” he explained.
Rutte argued that Trump’s effort to engage with Russian President Vladimir Putin, something the Biden administration refused to do, has broken the gridlock and could provide a path to end the war. “The Trump administration, the president himself, broke the deadlock in this war because he started to engage with the Russians. I think that’s positive for the Ukrainians,” he stated.
Kyle Anzalone is the opinion editor of Antiwar.com and news editor of the Libertarian Institute. He hosts The Kyle Anzalone Show and is co-host of Conflicts of Interest with Connor Freeman.
That is a great move towards world stability, as done by Trump and Putin, no one else.
Great news. But they were already a defacto member. I don't know how "neutral" Russia wants Ukraine to be, but nothing will change if the status quo from before the war is resumed. Other than borders.
The status quo was massive interference by the west in Ukraine, violation of the neutrality agreements, shelling of the eastern regions, a CIA coup, biolabs, and no negotiations. All major aspects have changed.
We know you like to downplay anything Trump does.
Cite for us 1 major aspect of the status quo which remains.
The US biolabs in Ukraine were there through the entirety of Trump’s administration.
Indeed. Trump pretends to have clean hands….. nope.
It's like you didn't even read my comment. There is a war going on. No shit things have changed. I said the status quo that existed BEFORE THE WAR. And I said nothing will change, meaning the tensions that existed before the war, if that status quo is resumed.
You missed the dozen CIA bases on Russia's border used to train infiltration personal to undermine the Russian state…
Nothing provocative there right?
Did we ever find out what the bio-labs were for? I've seen claims of "agricultural research", which seems an odd thing for the Pentagon to fund.
Clear. Europe may not come to its senses on it’s own accord. But developments may force it to use what sense it has.
The EU and EU countries should not let their course be determined by backward nationalism, fantasized russophobia and primitive hatred of Russia. Particularly in Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Albion, some politicians and people with opinions suffer from that and stoke it.
The Eastern European states you mentioned are characterized by historical and political, tragic experiences, traumata with Russia. Poland, for example:
https://www.ispionline.it/en/publication/polish-russian-relations-and-burden-history-neighbours-view-18646
https://carnegieendowment.org/russia-eurasia/politika/2023/07/russia-ukraine-and-poland-the-end-of-a-tragic-triangle?lang=en
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-17754512 Poland profile – Timeline
https://www.britannica.com/event/Partitions-of-Poland
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-labor-and-working-class-history/article/revolution-that-did-not-happen-labor-insurgency-in-late-russian-poland/DD525D194CD453D6608A8E017E0ACB8A
https://www.britannica.com/event/Russo-Polish-War-1919-1920
https://theconversation.com/russias-disastrous-decision-to-invade-poland-in-1920-has-parallels-with-putins-rhetoric-over-ukraine-213016
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_invasion_of_Poland
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poland%E2%80%93Russia_relations
https://polishhistory.pl/russian-politics-of-memory-towards-poland/
https://engelsbergideas.com/essays/why-putin-is-haunted-by-the-spectre-of-polish-power/
Thanx for your reply.
1. I agree that Poles have suffered throughout history.
2. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth reached up to 100 miles from Moscow and polish soldiers occupied Moscow in the war of 1605-1618; then, they were the offensive aggressors.
3. The PLC was split up by the Russian Empire, the Austria-Hungary empire and the Kingdom of Prussia. Is that good reason for Poles to now hate Germans, Austrians and Hungarians?
4. At the time of the Soviet Union Poland suffered under the Soviets. So did Russians. Is that a good reason for Poles to now hate Russia and Russians?
5. Poland suffered under the nazis. Is that a good reason for them to now hate Germans? Or Russians?
6. Ukrainian nazis slaughtered 100,000 Poles. Is that a good reason, etc.?
History may be an explanation. It may also be a pretext (such as the famine of 1932-33 in Ukraine). That does not yet make it a good reason.
Title cut short by the editor: NATO Chief: Membership for Ukraine Is Off the Table "BY ONE INCH AND DISAPPEARING INK."
29-04-2024 Stoltenberg: "Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. Ukraine will become a member of NATO. The work we are undertaking now puts you on an irreversible path towards NATO membership, so that when the time is right, Ukraine can become a NATO member straightaway."
01-10-2024 Rutte: "Ukraine’s rightful place is in Nato. –Bringing Ukraine closer to Nato is one of NATO's key priorities."
03-10-2024 Rutte: "Ukraine is closer to NATO than ever before. And will continue on this path until you become a member of our Alliance. I very much look forward to that day."
17-10-2024 Rutte: "Ukraine will be a member of NATO in the future, at the moment it seems that it will be Ukraine as number 33 but maybe somebody else pops in front of him."
— Something happened —
14-03-2025 Rutte: "Ukraine was never promised NATO membership as part of an eventual peace deal. — Nowhere was such a promise made."
NATO Chiefs are appointed by the Americans and act like puppets. All NATO members must vote in favor of adding Ukraine and it has always been clear that several members oppose this, so the NATO Chiefs were out of line making such comments.
Rutte is just another leftist globalist double talker. If he wanted Ukraine to join NATO, then Trump would remove the USA from NATO.
Rutte is no leftist, he was the leader of a rightist party. But he if a -ist of some kind, he is a careerist. That is what the man consists of. He lies more easily than he breathes. He is slippery as an eel. That is because he is not a real person, there is no man inside the suit.
Rutte and his ilk are classic economic fascists. Increasing they are strongly trending to becoming political fascists also.
Rutte is a right winger, please! Stop calling all those ultra-capitalists "leftists". Left = socialism!
The Sturmabteilung (SA) were made up of socialists. So, they would be leftists?
Not socialists, nazis. Even the left wing of the extreme right is still far in the far far right. Your discourse is actually quite neonazi,mind you. I don’t like nazis nor fascists of any kind.
First they came from the communists,
as I was not one of them, I did nothng.
Then they came for the socialists…
But the SA membership was largely made up of what was called hamburgers. Brown (from Brown shirts) and red on the inside… communists, socialists and social democrats. I didn’t make this up. Look it up. It’s history. After Reichstag fire most communists and socialists joined the Nazi party.
As far as your implication I have any affinity to nazi, neo nazi, fascist or such? Nope. Those are all large government socio- political ideologues. I’m a libertarian minarchist. So, I’m the direct opposite of those ideologies. I’m not going to coming for anyone but I am pretty wary of statists coming after me.
What you didn´t make up and looked up is irrelevant.
It is not about those people! It is about the ideology!
Nazism includes the characteristics of the Führer-prinzip, an ethnically pure population, which may be brought about by violence, racism, territorial expansionism, it is totalitarian, (which means it is not democratic), often a type of mythology (which I cannot describe further because of lack of knowledge), …
Socialism has different characteristics and is a totally different ideology.
On a meta-level, (forms of) socialism can be forcefully reasoned for, while nazism and fascism are nonsense from a reasoning point of view.
The equation is a dirty but weak trick by the right.
If it’s irrelevant it shouldn’t bother you. But it does indeed seem to.
Fascism in general toyed with pseudo-socialism, both because centrist social-democracy was somewhat assimilable, as they did not really question Capitalism and were thus somewhat convergent with conservatives like Bismarck or Napoleon III (who even proclaimed himself “socialist” once, which is hilarious), and because the Russian Revolution had cast a huge shadow over the rest of the world (but very especially Europe). It was at best that kind of “socialism” (social-capitalism) anyhow, the kind that privatizes public assets when profittable, and nationalizes important private companies when they go bankrupt: socialize the losses, privatize the profits, call it “socialism”, ahem.
Even Macron, the French Thatcher is still doing the same…
Modern fascism is “libertarian minarchist” at least in the same way that classical fascism was “socialist”. They are neither but they sometimes promote such mainstream ideological trends in their discourse in order to cater to “the unwashed masses”. As a conservative politician once admitted to: “we have to lie, if we’d be honest, if we said the truth, nobody would vote for us”. A good example is Peter Thiel, who realized that capitalism and democracy are ultimately incompatible (as the vast majority will always be poor and exploited and thus demand socialism). So chose the former, what makes him a fascist (or similar), even if he pretends to be “libertarian” to this very day just because it’s catchy.
The only way to approximate democracy or libertarianism is via communism: a society in which nobody is significantly richer or poorer than anybody else (and thus have the same power baseline).
Hilarious. You should try stand up comedy.
As I said fascism is a large government ideology. It depends on government control. Much like various forms of socialism. Which don’t work. Those replace one type of rulers with another type like the Soviets had. I prefer no rulers.
Socialism attempts either end in abject failure or they turn violent and oppressive. Lots of examples of that with millions of dead people being victims.
You use the example of “first they came for…”. There no chance of me being one who would support such. However, your ideology is based on confiscation and control of property. So, you would be a supporter of ” coming for ” me. Violently.
Feel free to set up a socialist state. If all the subject people were agreed to such, then fine; go for it. But you can’t.
People like you talk about ‘”the workers”, but rarely do those who champion socialism come from the working class. And if they do, they want to be the “organisers”. Mostly they come for from the intellectual class. State mouthpieces that dream of becoming the de facto new rulers. Oppressors.
That’s all I have to say. In a few hours I will begin to work, producing actual things. I do hire a few people paying them almost double the minimum wage. For semi skilled labor that I train them for. Mostly I do the work myself. I’m faster and better than those I can hire.
I have been producing goods and services for 60 years now as of next year. Next year will be the last year I will do so. Doubtless you think I’m a ruthless capitalist. But do you produce goods and/or services? Do you increase the availability of jobs that create goods and or services?
The US has no proper, public healthcare system. The absence of solidarity leads to ruined health and bankruptcy. But, those people are free, not oppressed!
No, that is not what the values of equality and solidarity are based on. Rather, you describe capitalism.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/be7adb3cba8bb6466d8c5b3fa9adc0f5d96918aa7b9ecae59d75897f3e08ffd1.png
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world:
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b0c13e3449d7c846bc0bbe01467cf9dc2e351a2ebb1bceec114d32688e3dae38.jpg
My grandfather and my grandmother were militant fasicsts, my mum is to this very day, and so is my younger sister. I was largely raised as would-be fascist under a fascist regime (which collapsed or was reformed into “liberal democracy” but whose legacy lingers to this very day). I have chewed a lot about that as self-made antifascist and thus I believe I have better knowledge about what is fascism than most. It all comes down to Mussolini ultimately:
1. He was kicked out of the Socialist Party (of which he was a member only because of family tradition) in 1910 for claiming that class war was a misconception and that the working class was not a historical subject, replacing it by “the nation” (wag the flag, ultra-nationalism) and stating that what exists is an endless conflict between nations only, nations organized hierarchically: the rich above, the poor below. That’s about how good it gets in terms of theory.
2. He rose to power as chief of the squadristi or “black shirts”, who mercenariated as terrorist thugs and even death squads for the capitalists to scare the workers into submission during the “bienio rosso” (red biennial, one of the many echoes of the Russian Revolution in Europe). Then he pulled out the “march on Rome” (not even partaking of it, as he thought it would fail) and was suddenly appointed prime minister by a consensus of the capitalist parties and the King without ever getting a single elected seat in parliament even.
3. Afterwards he and his clique of terror organized the state as “corporate” (not in the sense of corporation, which is not how it was used in Romance languages, but of “body” or “embodied”, corpus = body, or “guild” structure, corporazione = guild, organized trade). In this was very important to make the patrons part (and top part) of the unions, the single fascist trade union meant to keep “social peace”.
That’s about it. The state was strong? Maybe but that was a universal trend then: it was the age of Fordism and from the USSR to the USA social concesions were made to appease the workers and a strong-ish state emerged as result. Was it “socialist”? Only in the sense of “socialism for the rich”, i.e. some strategical industries that would not have survived otherwise were nationalized at times, some crumbs were given to workers so they remained under revolt level of discontent (combined with endless class terrorism).
In general we can talk of fascism when we see totalitarianism and capitalism combined, as oppossed to liberal capitalism, which is much more open in terms socio-political. A very clear example of today’s almost classical fascism is China (and that’s a problem for China, because it makes it rigid).
However I find that truly modern fascism is not that Fordist legacy type of regime, but rather neoliberal (or even right wing “libertarian” in discourse), that’s because since c. 1968 we are in the Toyotist phase of Capitalism, which is less disciplinary and more “diffuse”, so the old “New Deal” or “Keynesian” recipes can’t be applied anymore (credit bubble was used instead). It is however similarly inclined to anti-worker terror, imperialism and genocidal frenzy. Wag-the-flag is also in the menu of course, be it against migrants or the Russia/China/Iran peril, or also in the form of outlandish provocations such as claiming Greenland and what-not.
Sorry to hear about your family problems… Rest assured, you aren’t the only one that has had political intrigue and closet demons in a family history. Fortunately for me at least, there aren’t any fascists or nazis poisoning the family tree.
It must be interesting sitting around the holiday dinner table at your place. Assuming you have such.
They didn’t or don’t consider that to be a problem, what is a problem for me, of course, or used to be… because I’m not anymore going to any such family meetings. Better alone than in bad company, I learned so much in life, often the hard way.
Yes, I do. I finance a small chain of small firms where seven people now earn a small income. With emphasis on small and small and small. It’s in Edo in Subsahara Africa, that’s how I can afford to do it.
Does that make me qualified to have an opinion, do you think?
I myself don´t earn any money, profit or other, with it. Actually I give the money away. The people themselves own those small firms. In that sense I’m not a capitalist.
I’m anticapitalist. I favor an Aristotelean approach to the economy. (Aristotle opposed oikonomia and chrèmatistikè).
You jump from one concept to another. Now you jump from socialism to a socialist state.
Socialism basically is the ethical and social philosophy that emphasizes the values of equality and solidarity.
Like liberalism basically is the ethical and social philosophy that emphasizes the value of freedom.
No society can do without those three values.
No, it is not the case that the values of equality and solidarity lead to what you write.
You vainly try to equate the values of equality and solidarity with ‘violence, oppression and millions of dead people'.
That is a dirty fallacy!
Since 1948 the US regime drove between over 17.5 million and over 20 million people in other countries into their deaths, + counting (own calculation, based on 52 sources). Conclusion:
Capitalism = mass murder.
Right?
Is that why communists, socialists, and union organizers were the first occupants of Dachau? They were so beloved by the Nazis that they put them in concentration camps?
I can see why you're a Libertardian, your grasp of history is tenuous at best.
Yes. Some of the first people sent to the nazi camps were political prisoners. Those included communists, socialists and union activists. Correct. Where did I make the claim otherwise.
You left out one group btw: Liberals. Ie. Classical liberals.
Fact is, totalitarian regimes imprison the top leadership of opposition groups. It’s a characteristic of those regimes. For example, Lenin and Stalin imprisoned the top leaders of organized labor in Russia after they took control of the Russian empire.
Hitler arrested some 20,000 members of the communist party in Germany. I don’t know how many ended up in a concentration camp. Not sure what point you’re trying to make. Hitler had the top leaders in the SA arrested too. That didn’t mean the rank and file of the SA and other groups that had their leaders arrested didn’t continue to support Hitler. And it didn’t mean that organizations that had their leadership arrested didn’t ending up joining the Nazis.
If you wish to dispute the historical fact that large numbers of communist party members did join with the SA then do so. But juvenile innuendo like you are doing isn’t very productive and I haven’t a lot of time to waste on this bs.
Oh, one other thing; implying I have neo nazi sympathies because I pointed out an historical fact that remains unchallenged by the other parties in this conversations is pretty lame. Claiming a lack of
historical knowledge on my part with straw man arguments such as claims that I had no idea that the Nazis arrested opposition groups when I never made such a claim is pretty lame too.
I find this conversation unproductive.
Dear sambor71, concerning your second-last paragraph, such an accusation would indeed not help a productive conversation.
Above, you write you're a libertarian. We've hardly exchanged any ideas on libertarianism.
Dear sambor71, concerning your second-last paragraph, such an accusation would indeed not help a productive conversation.
Above, you write you're a libertarian. We've hardly exchanged any ideas on libertarianism.
Well, I mean there has been part of the we-poor-white-men-being-so-oppresssed-all-the-time ultraright who have been trying to disassociate their ideological convictions from their uncomfortable likeness to Nazism by putting Hitler in the leftist camp. It goes something like this: the word socialism appears in national socialism, therefore Hitler was a socialist. Socialism is the same as communism so Hitler was a communist. Stalin was a communist too. Therefore my hate of all people who don't look like me is actually quite heroical.
“White men”? Seriously: you stink of racism. Everyone was “white” in 1930s’ Germany.
I’m extremely disgusted about your extremely low standards, both in terms of racist bias and on ignorance of European history.
You seem to misread Albert. It is not his position.
Maybe.
Yes, I don't really quite understand how you got to that conclusion. But then I'm not quite sure either if I am supposed to take this accusation of me having extremely low standards in racist bias as an insult or a compliment. I mean is high standard racism the preferable standard of racism? And what is the defining difference there?
I probably misread you, sorry.
That "white men" thing maybe makes sense in the colonies (America, South Africa) but in Europe it's seldom a thing, although maybe more nowadays with the recent cheap labor immigration from various global regions (although most immigrants are white or white-ish anyhow, black people of any kind are clearly minoritary even in that).
I replied to sambor71 and that dirty but weak trick by the right.
By the way, my standing up for socialism does not necessarily mean I'm a socialist.
Let's not behave as simpletons.
"Leftist" is just an all-purpose insult that he throws around, like a kindergartner might use "poopy-head".
It’s annoying for true leftists.
Thanks for the hemeroteca record.
Thank you for expanding my vocabulary.
Here's a perfect example. Indeed, a promise of Ukraine joining NATO as part of a peace deal was not made. By adding the qualification "as part of a peace deal", he manages to twist and turn his ass out of it.
"Indeed, a promise of Ukraine joining NATO as part of a peace deal was not made."
Yes, but by the same logic, Rutte's language preserves the possibility of keeping NATO on the long-term future table – ie, continuing the core provocation that ultimately led Russia to invade…which – after much blood and treasure – it's difficult to picture Russia tolerating as 'unfinished business' in any peace treaty.
Former US Ambassador To Russia Claims Washington 'was Lying To Ukraine About NATO Bid'
McFaul’s remarks came as NATO's Stoltenberg claimed that Alliance was “confident that we will come to a quick decision" to welcome Finland, Sweden.
https://www.republicworld.com/world-news/russia/former-us-ambassador-to-russia-claims-washington-was-lying-to-ukraine-about-nato-bid-articleshow
The only reason to lie was to provoke a war and get Ukraine to sacrifice themselves as pawns.
Zelensky: US never wanted Ukraine in NATO
https://www.yahoo.com/news/zelensky-us-never-wanted-ukraine-174832732.html
I guess, however I thought I have become dulled by the continuous exposure to nearly lethal levels of cynicism when following politics critically, and then something like this comes along and just leaves me speechless.
And this is the guy that corporate media holds up as a great statesman, whose opinion we should take seriously. He’s nothing but a grotesque charlatan.
Zelensky already said it in march 2022.
Transcription:
12:45 "I requested them personally to take to say directly that we are going to accept or nato in a year or two or five just say it directly and clearly or just say no. And the response was very clear you are not going to be a nato member but publicly the doors will remain open."
Chandelis Duster / Fareed Zakaria – Interview with Zelensky, CNN 20 march 2022
Good catch. Zelensky knew.
"the response was very clear you are not going to be a nato member but publicly the doors will remain open."
This – hardly months into the war, at the very moment that Ukraine had a good shot at a peace deal whose major plank was Ukrainian neutrality.
Good thinking, the connection of negotiations about neutrality, all the while knowing already Ukraine would not be in NATO.
I've really learned something from that, hadn't observed it.
"the connection of negotiations about neutrality, all the while knowing already Ukraine would not be in NATO."
Guess I imagine there were different factors…and want to imagine it was not a wholly 'overdetermined' choice.
Recall a 'high point' sort of Z statement – maybe on antiwar – re moving toward the agreement, despite war crime allegations, because he thought of the war partly from pov of a parent…
…But…know it's simplistic, but to use a well-worn analogy, it's like he didn't have the strength to act on what he learned and end the bad relationship:
even after the partner outright declared he would never make good on 'the big promise,' Z chose dependency and a false dream of 'victory'…
…& next thing, there's Blinken saying, 'Cool we're both fathers of young children! So much in common! But there's one dif – my kids'll never be drafted, but time for you to send yr 18-year-olds – gotta love their heroism! – to death and dismemberment…least that's what yr gonna do if you want yr monthly missile allowance'…
"The only reason to lie was to provoke a war and get Ukraine to sacrifice themselves as pawns."
1/ Re the "provocation": My thought pre-invasion was 'brinkmanship as win-win' – either installing NATO in Ukraine or triggering a war…with either outcome seen as desirable.
2/ As to the 'sacrifice themselves as pawns' trickery: Shared w/me by someone elsewhere – George Soros 1993 re the then-prospect of NATO expansion under the 'Partnership for Peace':
“Incidentally, the combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO would greatly enhance the military potential of the Partnership because it would reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries, which is the main constraint on their willingness to act."
https://www.georgesoros.com/1993/11/01/toward-a-new-world-order-the-future-of-nato/
Likewise – today's refrain about what a good deal Ukraine is bc no US boots on the ground.
Sick as F-ck.
So motherf***ing Zelensky fought a 3-year war with the end goal of NATO membership, lost 20% of Ukrainian territory, and scarified tens — if not hundreds — of thousands of Ukrainians… and for what? Something he knew all along is a lie?
If that’s not a hanging offense, I don’t know what is.
There are certain categories of people who are professional liars. Those categories of people include: spooks, politicians, and diplomats.
There is another version of that citation:
"Ukraine will be a member of NATO in the future, that is what we decided in Washington. The question is the timeline," he told reporters."
RBC-Ukraine
"That is what we decided in Washington" — remarkable statement. Does NATO rule?
One day Ukrainians will wake up to how they were manipulated and betrayed by the US government.
One day many countries will wake up that all the "help" the US gave them for 'democracy" was no help at all but exploitation. And it makes no never minds which parties did it.
"If there is such a dramatic difference between the two parties why does US policy stay the same no matter who is in charge?" – Caitlin Johnstone
Caitlin Johnstone gets it and percentage wise another small minority. But the majority still think that the 2 party system means "freedom of democracy". Gee we get to chose between 2 puppets the real rulers have already selected long before the circus begins. It's 2025 and everywhere the propaganda media is already busy with 2028.
NATO's primary mission is keeping the Secretary, Military officers, and NATO bureaucrats employed in their cushy jobs. In the process if they can scam America and steal $Billions they will.
NATO will push friction to foster pretend threats to keep themselves in jobs. Just like any organization that lives off of donations NATO or charities the management skims the cash in lavish salaries and perks.
Mark Rutte flies around in his private NATO jet wasting money from America!!!
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L'HOMME
Press release:
State negligence in clashes between Maidan supporters and opponents in Odesa in May 2014
issued by the Registrar of the Court
https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-8180839-11477923&filename=Judgment Vyacheslavova and Others v. Ukraine – State negligence in clashes between Maidan supporters and opponents in Odesa in May 2014.pdf
The Maidan massacre in Ukraine: revelations from trials and investigations
https://mronline.org/2021/12/11/the-maidan-massacre-in-ukraine/
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-67121-0
Here’s a synopsis
@KitKlarenberg
Mar 13 • 15 tweets • 6 min read • Read on X
BREAKING: Absolutely *damning* ECHR ruling finds Kiev bears heavy responsibility for the massacre of scores anti-Maidan activists in Odessa, May 2014. Inevitable Western media blackout on this
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1900198436038742295.html
Press conference by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte following the meetings of NATO Defence Ministers in Brussels. https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_232958.htm
Isn't it a bit strange that almost anyone appearing with Trump in front of cameras, sitting in golden chairs surrounded by golden adornment everywhere, melts into babbling idiocy, shrinks into dwarfism compared to the giant, and is almost ready to kneel and pray before the divine emperor.
Everyone must kiss the ass of King Donald if one doesn’t want to feel the consequences of his wrath.
Even with kissing his ass, his wrath comes back to haunt you…! So it's best not to do it in the first place…!
Remarks by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte and US President Donald J. Trump at the White House in Washington D.C. 13 Mar. 2025
First of all, thank you so much, Mr President, dear Donald again for hosting me and also for taking time in Florida a couple of weeks after you were re-elected. And of course, our phone call a couple of weeks ago.
And I must say, Trump 45 you basically, you originated the fact that in Europe, we’re now spending, when you take it to aggregate 700 billion more on defence than when you came in office in 2016/2017. But that was Trump 45. But then when you look at Trump 47 what happened the last couple of weeks is really staggering. The Europeans committing to a package of 800 billion defence spending. The Germans now potentially up to half a trillion extra in defence spending. And then, of course, you have Keir Starmer here – the British Prime Minister – and others all committing to much higher defence spending. They're not there. We need to do more. But I really want to work together with you in the run up to the Hague Summit to make sure that we will have a NATO which is really reinvigorated under your leadership, and we are getting there.
We’ll also discuss defence production, because we need to produce more weaponry. We are not doing enough, and not in the US, not in Europe, and we are lagging behind when you compare to the Russians and the Chinese, and you have a huge defence industrial base. Europeans buying four times more here than the other way around, which is good, because you have a strong defence industry, but we need to do more there to make sure that we ramp up the production and kill the red tape. So I would love to work with you on that.
And finally, Ukraine. You broke the deadlock, as you said – all the killing, the young people dying, cities getting destroyed. The fact that you did that, that you started the dialogue with the Russians and the successful talks in Saudi Arabia, now with the Ukrainians, I really want to commend you for this. So, well, The Hague is my hometown. I’d love to host you there in the summer and work together to make sure that it will be a splash. A real success – projecting American power on the world stage.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_233821.htm
https://michelchossudovsky.substack.com/p/video-globalisation-war-us-nato-threats
https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-us-aid-going-ukraine
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/ukraine-and-the-promise-and-peril-of-lawfare/
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/better-way-defend-america
https://www.cfr.org/task-force-report/securing-space
https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/trump-s-trade-war-1
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f39d85b5d97f28d70334c0181c74a7e2d7875bd9608f8cf72c68328e27f7b718.png
"NATO Chief: Membership for Ukraine Is Off the Table"?
1/ IMO, it is necessary to parse Rutte's statements skeptically:
As Bakker noted, Stoltenberg/Rutte repeatedly declared future Ukraine membership a priority – statements NATO made good on in multiple ways:
boosting Ukraine's pre-NATO status, including its army in yearly NATO exercises, jamming it w/US NATO weapons, soldiers & spies, establishing a 'special relationship' between the CIA and its Ukraine counterpart for global operations, and training its soldiers.
2/ And now? Rutte's statement does not rule out future NATO membership – only NATO membership as a direct Ukraine war negotiations outcome:
"Rutte was asked…if Trump had removed the issue of Ukraine’s accession to NATO from the negotiating table. Rutte answered 'yes.'"
Note how close this language is to Hegseth's a month back:
"“The United States does not believe that NATO membership for Ukraine is a realistic outcome for a negotiated settlement,” he said."
("Hegseth Says No NATO Membership for Ukraine," Antiwar, 2/12/25)
3/ Upshot: My guess? Like territory loss Ukraine does not accept as 'legitimate,' NATO/US will try for language that does not rescind Uke's application or 'junior partner' status, but keeps it as a 'future aspiration.'
The Editor deleted the rest of the title: "This Message Will Self Destruct In Five Seconds."
Make sure we don't have that in writing.
Rutte today, tomorrow, and the day after: I never said "Membership for Ukraine Is Off the Table."
Rutte has a special phrase for that: "I have no active memory of saying that". He said that at an occasion where it was totally clear that he had lied.
Yes. But he can also claim that his stupid brain doesn’t have that function.
Well it was never on the table – not while any members that could not easily be bribed were against it – so not at any time before 2022 – then for a while it was a very remote possibility (Hungary still being against and most everyone else being against while there was an ongoing conflict).
When the Russians have decided that they no longer want to be poor and have some Ukrainian lands, but prefer trade with Europe and are willing to let the Ukrainian lands they hold return to Ukraine, then Ukraine may join whatever NATO replacement the Europeans (Canadians and Turks) string together.
Roses Have Thorns (Part 6) The Odessa Massacre
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QxcB0PI4ZLg
univerze 25 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/bd0c2fe6d57bbfa1f38bdd227792659eeaa849da96d73827df6cc4d25140539b.png
https://scheerpost.com/2025/03/15/putin-signals-hes-open-to-ceasefire-as-witkoff-arrives-for-talks/
https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2025/mar/15/russia-ukraine-war-peace-plan-ceasefire-keir-starmer-putin-zelenskyy-trump-latest-news-live "Putin response to peace plan ‘not good enough’, says UK"
https://thehill.com/policy/international/5195253-ukraine-russia-peace-talks/ "Waltz: Russia, Ukraine peace deal likely to include Donbas region cession"
According to the Ukrainian constitution, the entire Ukrainian population decides on secession:
https://hcj.gov.ua/sites/default/files/field/file/the_constitution_of_ukraine.pdf Article 73: "Issues of altering the territory of Ukraine shall be resolved exclusively by the All-Ukrainian referendum." (in connection with Article 72 of the constitution)
https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2341-14?lang=en#Text (please scroll far down) The Criminal Code of Ukraine, Article 111. High treason: "High treason, that is an act wilfully committed by a citizen of Ukraine to the detriment of sovereignty, territorial integrity and inviolability, defence capability, and state, economic or information security of Ukraine: joining the enemy under martial law or armed conflict, espionage, assistance in subversive activities against Ukraine provided to a foreign state, a foreign organisation or their representatives"
Off the Table and then On the Table… Juggling like in circus…!
Does trump get paid in shekels, rubles or dollars? All 3?