.jpg)
Understand that the XXX needs an outright shooting war between NATO ,the USA and Russia under their so called thinking. This has been actively pursued for now a decade at least, even with russia resisting every inch of the way. We the people have zero interest and certainly want no part in this scam.
There are economic interests, there are stupid folks as well with real power, and then there is the Global DEEP STATE attempting to retain power by triggering a real War. Future proves Past suggests that we do win this one. Russia actually needs to properly join NATO and their arms industry needs to integrate as well. the rest belongs to an international border commission.
Bombshell: NATO Says “War Started in 2014”. “Fake Pretext” to Wage War against Russia? To Invoke Article 5 of Atlantic Treaty?
Statements of NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Global Research, August 25, 2023
Region: Latin America & Caribbean
Theme: Global Economy, Law and Justice, Militarization and WMD, US NATO War Agenda
Introduction
This article addresses the implications of a controversial statement by NATO to the effect that the Ukraine War “didn’t start in 2022”, “The war started in 2014”
It’s a Bombshell: NATO’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg confirmed (speaking on behalf of NATO) that the “war didn’t start in 2022”.
In an interview with The Washington Post, Jens Stoltenberg unequivocally confirmed that “the war started in 2014″.
Jens Stoltenberg’s bold statement (which has barely been the object of media coverage) has opened up a Pandora’s Box, or best described “A Can of Worms” on behalf of the Atlantic Alliance.
What he bears out is that the beginning of the Ukraine war coincided with a U.S. sponsored Coup d’état, confirmed by Victoria’s Nuland‘s “F**k the EU telephone conversation with U.S. Ambassador Pyatt in February 2014. (see below)
Part I of this article examines the legal implications of Stoltenberg’s statement on behalf of the Atlantic Alliance.
Of crucial significance: Having stated that “the war started in 2014”, NATO can no longer claim that Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) of February 24, 2022 constitutes, from a legal standpoint, “an invasion”.
Part I also addresses the issue of The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).
Parti II focuses on Stoltenberg’s twisted statement that Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty could be invoked as means to declare war against Russia.
“Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty – its collective defence clause” declaring that an attack on one member state is “to be an attack against all NATO members.” Article 5 is NATO’s doctrine of Collective Self-Defense.
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”.
In regards to the invocation of Article V in relation to Russia, a justification or fake “pretext” was mentioned by Stoltenberg in his interview with the Washington Post.
Were Article V to be invoked, this would inevitably precipitate the World into a WWIII scenario, consisting of a war whereby all 30 member states of the Atlantic Alliance, most of which are members of the European Union would be involved.
.
Part I
Legal Implications
The legal implications of Stoltenberg’s statements are far-reaching. Speaking on behalf of NATO, he has acknowledged that Russia did not declare war on Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
“The war started in 2014“, which intimates that the war was launched in 2014, with US-NATO directly involved from the very outset:
Lee Hockstader, Washington Post Editorial Board: How has the war led NATO to recalibrate its defense posture and doctrine?
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: The war in Ukraine has fundamentally changed NATO, but then you have to remember the war didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014. And since then, NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War.
.
For the first time in our history, we have combat-ready troops in the eastern part of the alliance, the battle groups in Poland, Lithuania, the Baltic countries, actually the whole eight battle groups from the Baltic Sea down to the Black Sea. Higher readiness of our forces. And increased defense spending.
Stoltenberg also confirmed that US-NATO’s intent from the outset in 2014 was to integrate the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime as a full member of NATO.
Lee Hockstader, Washington Post Editorial Board: What does a plausible way forward to Ukraine’s eventual membership in NATO look like?
Stoltenberg: First of all, all NATO allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance. All allies agree that Ukraine has the right to choose its own path, that it is not for Moscow, but for Kyiv, to decide.
1. The Legality of Russia’s “Special Military Operation”
Inasmuch as the war had commenced and has been ongoing since 2014 as confirmed by Stoltenberg, Russia’s Special Military Operation cannot be categorized as an “illegal invasion” (under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter). The latter states that members of the UN shall refrain: “from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state” …
Inasmuch as the war started in 2014, Art 2(4) applies to both the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime and well as US-NATO which was behind the February 2014 illegal Coup D’état.
What this implies is that from a legal standpoint, US-NATO on behalf and in coordination with the US sponsored Neo-Nazi Kiev regime had initiated a de facto undeclared war against Luhansk and Donesk.
From a legal standpoint, this was not “An Act of War against Russia”. Led by US-NATO, this was an “Act of War against Ukraine and the People of Ukraine”.
Putin’s February 24, 2022 Statement
As we recall President Putin had defined a Special Military Operation (SMO) in support of the breakaway republics of Donetsk and Luhansk. The stated objective was to “demilitarise” and “denazify” Ukraine.
Article 51 of the UN Charter which was referred to by President Putin in his February 24, 2022 speech confirms the following:
“Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, …
Russia’s SMO complies with the exercise of self defense. Putin in his speech (February 24, 2022) referred to:
“the fundamental threats which irresponsible Western politicians created for Russia consistently, rudely and unceremoniously from year to year.
I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border.”
.
2. The U.S. Sponsored 2014 EuroMaidan Coup d’état was an Illegal and Criminal Act Supported by US-NATO
What Stoltenberg intimated in his interview with the WP (no doubt unwittingly) is that the Ukraine War was a US-NATO Initiative, carried out in the immediate wake of the illegal US Supported February 2014 EuroMaidan Coup d’Etat which was then conducive to the instatement of a Neo-Nazi regime in Kiev.
The New York Times described the EuroMaidan as “a flowering of democracy, a blow to authoritarianism and kleptocracy in the former Soviet space.” ( After Initial Triumph, Ukraine’s Leaders Face Battle for Credibility, NYTimes.com, March 1, 2014, emphasis added)
The grim realities were otherwise. The forbidden truth was that US-NATO had engineered –through a carefully staged covert operation– the formation of a US-NATO proxy regime integrated by Neo-Nazis, which was conducive to the removal and brutal demise of the elected president Viktor Yanukovych.
The staged EuroMaidan Protest Movement initiated in November 2013 was led by the two Nazi parties, with Dmytro Yarosh, of the Right Sector playing a key role as leader of the Brown Shirt Neo-Nazi paramilitary. He had called for disbanding the Party of the regions and the Communist Party.
Dmytro Yarosh speech at Euromaidan (Centre)
The Neo Nazis also controlled the judicial process with the appointment of Oleh Makhnitsky of the Svoboda party to the position of prosecutor-general of Ukraine. What kind of justice will prevail with a reknown Neo-Nazi in charge of the Prosecutor’s Office of Ukraine?
The shootings of protesters by snipers were coordinated by Yarosh’s Brown Shirts and Andriy Parubiy leader of the Neo-Nazi Svoboda Party.
Of significance there was a leaked telephone conversation (February 2014) between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet and European Union Commissioner Catherine Ashton, which confirmed that “the snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were allegedly hired by Ukrainian opposition leaders”.
Video: Leaked Conversation: Urmas Paet and Catherine Ashton
(Starts at 1′.50″)
Urmas Paet tells Catherine Ashton the following (excerpts):
“There is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovych, but it was somebody from the new coalition.”
“And second, what was quite disturbing, this same Olga [Bogomolets] told as well that all the evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides, among policemen and then people from the streets, that they were the same snipers killing people from both sides.”
“[Dr. Olga Bogomolets] then also showed me some photos she said that as a medical doctor she can say that it is the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new [Neo-Nazi] coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.” (quoted by Mahdi Nazemoroaya, Global Research, March 18, 2014, emphasis added)
Foreign Minister’s Urmas Paet’s statements (above) are corroborated by A Kiev Post (March 13, 2014) report:
Selected excerpts below, click here to access full Kiev Post report (March 13, 2014):
“Former State Security Head of Ukraine Oleksandr Yakimenko blames Ukraine’s current government [Neo-Nazi Kiev regime] for hiring snipers on Feb. 20, when dozens of people were killed and hundreds more wounded. The victims were mainly EuroMaidan Revolution demonstrations, but some police officers were also killed. This was the deadliest day during the EuroMaidan Revolution, a three-month uprising that claimed 100 lives.
Yakimenko also blamed the United States for organizing and financing the revolution by bringing illegal cash in using diplomatic mail.
Yankimenko says that Parubiy [leader of the Svoboda Neo-Nazi Party], as well as a number of other organizers of EuroMaidan, received direct orders from the U.S. government. …
“These are the forces that were doing everything they were told by the leaders and representatives of the United States,” he says. “They, in essence lived in the U.S. embassy. There wasn’t a day when they did not visit the embassy.”…
“From the beginning of Maidan we as a special service noticed a significant increase of diplomatic cargo to various embassies, western embassies located in Ukraine,” says Yakimenko. “It was tens of times greater than usual diplomatic cargo supplies.” He says that right after such shipments crisp, new U.S. dollar bills were spotted on Maidan. (emphasis added)
The Central Role of the Svoboda Neo-Nazi Party
As outlined above, Andriy Parubiy played a key role in the EuroMaidan massacre. Andriy Parubiy (image right) is the co-founder together with Oleh Tyahnybok of the Neo-Nazi Social-National Party of Ukraine (subsequently renamed Svoboda). Parubiy was first appointed Secretary of the National Security and National Defense Committee (RNBOU) by the Kiev regime. (Рада національної безпеки і оборони України), a key position which overseas the Ministry of Defense, the Armed Forces, Law Enforcement, National Security and Intelligence.
He subsequently (2015-2019) became Vice-Chair and Chair of the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine’s Parliament) shifting into the realm of international diplomacy on behalf of the Neo-Nazi regime.
In the course of his career, Parubiy developed numerous contacts in North America and Europe, with members of the European Parliament. He was invited to Washington on several occasions, meeting up (already in 2015) with Sen. John McCain (chair) of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He was also invited to Ottawa, meeting up with Prime Minister Justin on Parliament Hill in 2016.
Victoria Nuland and Andriy Parubiy, 2018
F**k the EU. Nuland-Pyatt Leaked Phone Conversation (Leaked Online on February 4, 2014)
Victoria Nuland, acting on behalf of the US State Department was directly involved in “suggesting” key appointments. While the Neo-Nazi leader Oleh Tyahnybok was not granted a cabinet position, members of the two neo-Nazi parties (namely Svoboda (Freedom Party) and The Right Sector (Pravy Sektor) were granted key positions in the areas of Defense, National Security and Law Enforcement.
The controversial conversations between Victoria Nuland and US Ambassador Pyatt are recorded below. (See video and transcript below, suggest the YouTube version (below).
Transcript of Conversation between Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, on YouTube
source of transcript: BBC
“Warning: This transcript contains swearing”
Voice thought to be Nuland’s: What do you think?
Voice thought to be Pyatt’s: I think we’re in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk], another opposition leader]. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I’m very glad that he said what he said in response.
Nuland: Good. I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea.
Pyatt: Yeah. I guess… in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader] and his guys and I’m sure that’s part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.
Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. He’s the… what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in… he’s going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it’s just not going to work.
image: Tyannybok (leader of Neo-Nazi Svoboda Party (left), Yatseniuk (right)
Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that’s right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?
Nuland: My understanding from that call – but you tell me – was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a… three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?
Pyatt: No. I think… I mean that’s what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that’s been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he’s going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they’ve got and he’s probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn’t like it.
Nuland: OK, good. I’m happy. Why don’t you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.
Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.
Nuland: OK… one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can’t remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?
Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.
Nuland: OK. He’s now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.
Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now,
I’m still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there’s a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I’m sure there’s a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep… we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.
Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president’s national security adviser Jake] Sullivan’s come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden’s willing.
Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.
3. U.S.-NATO Military Aid and Support (2014-2023) to a Full Fledged Neo-Nazi Proxy Regime is an Illegal and Criminal Act.
There is ample evidence of collaboration between the Kiev Neo-Nazi regime and NATO member states, specifically in relation to the continuous flow of military aid as well the training and support provided to the Neo-Nazi Azov Battalion.
Collaborating with a Neo-Nazi regime is criminal under international law. Anti-Nazi laws exist in a number of European countries.
“In the aftermath of World War II, the National Socialist Party (the Nazi party) of Germany was considered a criminal organization and therefore banned.
The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946 likewise ruled that the Nazi Party was a criminal organization.”
In a far-reaching initiative the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the “Glorification of Nazism” Click image too enlarge
Since 2014, Ukraine’s Neo-nazi regime has been generously funded by several NATO member states.
The Kiev regime has been supportive of the Azov battalion which in turn has been responsible for crimes against humanity including the conduct of Summer Nazi training Camps for children and adolescents.
See:
Ukraine’s “Neo-Nazi Summer Camp”. Military Training for Young Children, Para-military Recruits
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 08, 2023
The Nazi Azov Battalion was from the outset integrated into Ukraine’s National Guard which is under the jurisdiction of Ukraine’s Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Azov battalion’s Summer Camps are supported by US military aid channelled to the Ukraine National Guard via the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
The MIA coordinates the “anti-terrorism operation” (ATO) in Donbass.
© vk.com/tabir.azovec
The following image is revealing, from Left to Right: the flag (symbols) of NATO, the Azov Battalion and the Nazi Swastika are displayed, which points to collaboration between NATO and the Neo-Nazi regime.
4. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC)
Inasmuch as “the war started in 2014”, Stoltenberg’s statements confirm that US-NATO were supportive of Ukraine’s artillery and missile bombardments of Donbass which resulted in more than 14,000 deaths of civilians, including children.
Stoltenberg’s admission on behalf of NATO that “the war started in 2014” would have required that from the very outset in February 2014 the warring parties including their allies abide by the Four Basic Principles of The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) which consist in:
“….respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.” [Additional Protocol 1, Article 48]
Civilian population (children) and civilian objects (schools, hospitals, residential areas) were the deliberate object of UAF and Azov Battalion attacks in blatant violation of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC).
In accordance with the LOAC, Moscow took the decision starting in February 2014 to come to the rescue of Donbass civilians including children. Visibly the president of the I.C.C. Piotr Hofmanski in accusing President Putin of “unlawful kidnapping of Ukrainian children” hasn’t the foggiest understanding of Article 48. of the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Is this an issue of incompetence? Or has Piotr Hofmanski been co-opted into endorsing crimes against humanity?
In derogation of The Law of Armed Conflict, US-NATO bears the responsibility for having endorsed the Neo-Nazi Azov battalion, which was involved in the conduct of atrocities against civilians.
Part II
Is NATO Intent upon
Invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty
as a Means to Declaring War on Russia?
There are ambiguous statements by Stoltenberg (in his interview with the Washington Post) which suggest that the invocation of Article 5 is on the US-NATO drawing board.
Click to access the full text on NATO’s website
Article 5 of the Atlantic Treaty constitutes NATO’s doctrine of Collective Self-Defense.
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all…”.
Article V was invoked in March 1999, based on a “fabricated pretext” to bomb and invade Yugoslavia.
It was subsequently invoked on September 12, 2001 by the Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels as a justification to declare war on Afghanistan, on the grounds that an unnamed foreign power had attacked America on September 11, 2001.
In both cases (Yugoslavia and Afghanistan), “fabricated pretexts” were used to justify the invocation of Article V.
Fabricating A Pretext to Wage War on Russia?
While Stoltenberg firmly acknowledges that “Russia is not seeking a full-fledged confrontation with NATO triggering Article 5″, he nonetheless intimates that NATO is prepared to invoke Article 5 against Russia, based on a fabricated pretext (e.g attack on “undersea infrastructure”), thereby potentially leading to a World War III scenario.
Lee Hockstader. WP: Would a Russian attack on critical infrastructure like undersea cables owned by NATO members or companies cause the invocation of NATO’s Article 5?
Stoltenberg: That’s for NATO to decide. We are now looking into how can we do more when it comes to sharing intelligence, including with the private sector, to detect any potential threats. …
We’ve seen over the last years that Russia is not seeking a full-fledged confrontation with NATO, triggering Article 5, but they’re trying to operate below the Article 5 threshold. Meaning with hybrid, cyber, covert actions. And, of course, attacks against undersea infrastructure — it’s easy to deny because it’s hard to monitor. (emphasis added)
What the above statements suggest is that the invocation of Article 5 as well as “the pretext” to wage war on Russia are being discussed behind closed doors.
Stoltenberg claims that NATO is committed to supporting Ukraine (aka the Neo-Nazi Kiev regime) while “preventing escalation” through “increased military presence” as well as confirming that “we are not part of the conflict”:
Stoltenberg: NATO has fundamentally two tasks in the war. One is to support Ukraine, as we do. The other is to prevent escalation. And we prevent escalation by making absolutely clear that we are not party to the conflict, and by increasing military presence in the eastern part of [the] alliance as we have done — with 40,000 troops under NATO command backed by substantial naval and air forces.
Contradictory statement: Is “Preventing Escalation” contemplated by Invoking Article 5?
Among NATO Member States, there are both “Allies” and “Enemies”
It is worth noting that in the course of the last two years, several of America’s European “allies” (NATO member states) whose corrupt politicians are supportive of the Ukraine war, have been the victims of de facto U.S. sponsored acts of economic warfare including the sabotage of Nord Stream.
The EU economy which has relied on cheap energy from Russia is in a shambles, marked by disruptions in the entire fabric of industrial production (manufacturing), transportation and commodity trade..
Specifically this applies to actions against Germany, Italy and France, which have resulted in the destabilization of their national economies and the impoverishment of their population.
See:
NATO/EU Aggression Plunges Germany Into Crisis. “Deindustrialization”
By Rodney Atkinson, August 23, 2023
Video: America is at War with Europe
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, July 16, 2023
…the sabotage of Nord Stream was an U.S. Act of War against both Germany and the European Union.
And Germany’s Chancellor was fully aware that an act of sabotage against Nord Stream had been envisaged by the US, to the detriment of more than 400 million Europeans.
A string of corporate bankruptcies resulting in lay-offs and unemployment is unfolding across the European Union. Small and medium sized enterprises are slated to be wiped off the map: “Rocketing energy costs are savaging German industry”… “Germany’s manufacturing industry — which accounts for more than one fifth of the country’s economic output — is worried some of its companies won’t see the crisis through. ….
“Industry behemoths like Volkswagen (VLKAF) and Siemens (SIEGY) are grappling with supply chain bottlenecks too, but it is Germany’s roughly 200,000 small and medium-sized manufacturers who are less able to withstand the shock [of rising energy prices]
”
“Collective Defense”
In a bitter irony, many of the NATO member states (who are categorized as “allies” under the Atlantic Alliance’s Collective Defense Clause) are the “de facto enemies” of America, victims of U.S. economic warfare.
The practice of so-calle
d Collective Defense under Article 5 constitutes a process of mass recruitment by the 30 NATO member states, largely on behalf of Washington’s hegemonic agenda. It was applied twice in NATO’s history: in March 1999 against Yugoslavia and in October 2001 against Afghanistan.
It constitutes on the part of Washington not only a means to recruit soldiers on a massive scale (but also to ensure that NATO member states contribute financially to America’s hegemonic wars): In other words:
“to do the fighting for us on our behalf” or “They will do the Dirty Work for Us” (Dick Cheney).
What is important is to initiate a coordinated grass-roots movement in all NATO member states to withdraw from the Atlantic Alliance
The substance of this article, specifically with regard to “The War Started in 2014” and the legitimacy of US-NATO including the crimes committed against the people of Ukraine, should be addressed Worldwide at all levels, with a view to promoting an immediate cease fire and meaningful peace negotiations.
Historical Addendum: The War against Russia Started in January 1918.
From a historical standpoint the US and its Allies have been threatening Russia for more than 105 years starting during World War I with the deployment of US and Allied Forces against Soviet Russia on January 12, 1918, (two months following the November 7, 1917 revolution allegedly in support of Russia’s Imperial Army).
The 1918 US-UK Allied invasion of Russia is a landmark in Russian History, often mistakenly portrayed as being part of a Civil War.
It lasted for more than two years involving the deployment of more than 200,000 troops of which 11,000 were from the US, 59,000 from the UK. Japan which was an Ally of Britain and America during World War I dispatched 70,000 troops.
US Occupation Troops in Vladivostok 1918
Annex
Below are relevant excerpts from Stoltenberg’s Interview with the Washington Post: (emphasis added)
We suggest you access the full text of the interview, click image below
Lee Hockstader, Washington Post Editorial Board: How has the war led NATO to recalibrate its defense posture and doctrine?
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg: The war in Ukraine has fundamentally changed NATO, but then you have to remember the war didn’t start in 2022. The war started in 2014. And since then, NATO has implemented the biggest reinforcement of our collective defense since the end of the Cold War.
For the first time in our history, we have combat-ready troops in the eastern part of the alliance, the battle groups in Poland, Lithuania, the Baltic countries, actually the whole eight battle groups from the Baltic Sea down to the Black Sea. Higher readiness of our forces. And increased defense spending.
Until 2014, NATO allies were reducing defense budgets. Since 2014, all allies across Europe and Canada have significantly increased their defense spending. And we have modernized our command structure, we have more exercises, we have established new military domains like cyber.
So in totality, this is a huge transformation of NATO that started in 2014.
…
Hockstader: What does a plausible way forward to Ukraine’s eventual membership in NATO look like?
Stoltenberg: First of all, all NATO allies agree that Ukraine will become a member of the alliance. All allies agree that Ukraine has the right to choose its own path, that it is not for Moscow, but for Kyiv, to decide. And thirdly, all allies agree that NATO’s door remains open. Then the question is when, and I cannot give you a timetable on that.
What I can say is that we are now working with them, to help them transition from Soviet-era equipment, doctrines and standards to NATO doctrines and standards, to make their armed forces interoperable with NATO forces, and to help them to further reform and modernize their defense and security institutions.
The urgent task now is to ensure that Ukraine prevails as a sovereign, independent nation, because if Ukraine doesn’t prevail, then there is no issue to discuss at all.
…
Stoltenberg: NATO has fundamentally two tasks in the war. One is to support Ukraine, as we do. The other is to prevent escalation. And we prevent escalation by making absolutely clear that we are not party to the conflict, and by increasing military presence in the eastern part of [the] alliance as we have done — with 40,000 troops under NATO command backed by substantial naval and air forces.
….
Hockstader: Would a Russian attack on critical infrastructure like undersea cables owned by NATO members or companies cause the invocation of NATO’s Article 5?
Stoltenberg: That’s for NATO to decide. We are now looking into how can we do more when it comes to sharing intelligence, including with the private sector, to detect any potential threats. That’s one thing. The other is presence, military presence, as a way to deter but also to monitor.
We cannot protect every inch of every internet cable, but presence helps to reduce the risks and reduce the possibility for Russian deniability. We’ve seen over the last years that Russia is not seeking a full-fledged confrontation with NATO, triggering Article 5, but they’re trying to operate below the Article 5 threshold. Meaning with hybrid, cyber, covert actions. And, of course, attacks against undersea infrastructure — it’s easy to deny because it’s hard to monitor.
No comments:
Post a Comment