NATO is a military alliance that was established in 1949 to guard Western Europe against a Soviet invasion.
Along with the U.S. and Canada, most European countries are members – the exceptions being Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, Serbia, Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Finland and Sweden. Shortly after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the latter two countries applied for membership, and are currently awaiting Turkey’s permission to join.
Most commentators, including myself, would argue that NATO played a vital role in deterring Soviet aggression during the Cold War. (For those who are interested, I wrote a short paper on this.) Today, however, the organisation’s purpose is less clear, and some people say it should have been disbanded after the fall of communism.
Indeed, NATO has been the subject of intense debate since the outbreak of the war in the Donbas in 2014, and even more so since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Some commentators, such as the political scientist John Mearsheimer, argue that NATO’s policy vis-a-vis Ukraine was a key factor behind Russia’s invasion. Others, such as Mearsheimer’s long-time debate opponent Michael McFaul, dispute this – claiming Putin would have invaded regardless of what NATO did.
Among the evidence that NATO policy was a key factor behind Russia’s invasion is the fact that Putin repeatedly mentioned the alliance in his pre-invasion speeches. (Of course, this evidence is by no means dispositive, and we shouldn’t take what Putin says at face value – as with any world leader.)
In response, NATO released a bizarre video that purports to debunk “false myths” and to “set the record straight”. The video deals with two “myths” in particular.
The first is that “NATO is aggressive towards Russia and is trying to encircle it”. As evidence for the falsity of this “myth”, the video claims that “NATO is a defensive alliance” and that “NATO does not seek confrontation”.
What should we make of this? The claim that “NATO is aggressive towards Russia” is too vague to evaluate properly. NATO has certainly never attacked Russia. On the other hand, would the US consider it “aggressive” if Russia or China carried out military exercises in its vicinity? Almost certainly: the US threatened nuclear war when the Soviet Union stationed missiles in Cuba.
What we can evaluate are the claims that “NATO is a defensive alliance” and that “NATO does not seek confrontation”, which are false. Since 1992, NATO has carried out several offensive operations, such as the bombing campaigns in Yugoslavia, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the bombing campaign in Libya. Now, you can argue those operations were justified, but you can’t argue they were defensive.
Amusingly, the video goes on to say that “every sovereign nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements”. Why “amusingly”? Because in response to the recent security agreement between China and the Solomon Islands, the U.S. issued a statement saying, “If steps are taken to establish a de facto permanent military presence … the United States would then have significant concerns and respond accordingly.”
So the U.S. clearly doesn’t accept that “every sovereign nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements”, since it believes the Solomon Islands doesn’t have the right to host a Chinese military base.
Overall, my verdict on NATO’s first myth-debunking is mostly false.
The second “myth” debunked in the video is that “NATO promised Russia it would not expand after the Cold War”. As evidence, the video claims that “no such agreement was ever concluded” and that “no treaty signed by the United States, Europe and Russia includes provisions regarding NATO membership”.
What should we make of this? It’s true there is no formal agreement stipulating that NATO would not expand after the Cold War. However, serious scholars have argued that “informal non-expansion assurances” were granted to Russia. And such assurances arguably qualify as a “promise” not to expand.
Hence my verdict on NATO’s second myth-debunking is highly debateable.
Unsurprisingly, NATO’s bizarre video was not met with universal acclaim on Twitter: it has over 3,000 comments – the vast majority critical. And you can understand why: evidence of NATO’s offensive operations and “informal non-expansion assurances” is easy to track down online. So when people see a video like this, they feel like they’re being lied to.
‘But Noah, Russian propaganda is just as bad as this.’ I don’t disagree. My point is that Western countries ought to have higher standards than Russia. We’re not supposed to be propagandized by our own governments.
It’s possible to have a genuinely productive debate about the war without resorting to demonstrable falsehoods like “NATO does not seek confrontation”.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
just a random comment about
“every sovereign nation has the right to choose its own security arrangements”
the biggest misconception is to think that absolutely everyone in Ukraine wanted their country to join NATO prior to Russian invasion. Some genuinely wanted, some categorically didn’t want. US and the corrupt media made it look like absolute majority strived for the membership to be protected from hostile Russia. And here is the second misconception: absolutely everyone in Ukraine considered Russia a hostile nation and didn’t want anything to do with it.
…exactly, the people in Ukraine have been stripped of any way of voicing any opposition to what is happening, since both media and opposition parties have been erased by Elensky’s Government…
A poll from WSJ-NORC showed that while the majority favour the expulsion of Russia from Ukraine, and generally back the Government, when they were asked who bore a great deal/some responsibility for the conflict the answers were surprising in that although 85% blamed Russia, 70% blamed the Ukrainian Government, 58% blamed the USA and 55% blamed NATO. It seems at least they are more politically aware than the vast majority of propagandised Europeans…
Similarly the local newspapers in Taiwan held polls during Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan..two-thirds of those who responded said the visit was de-stabilising..
After leaving Taiwan she went on to South Korea, where the President, sensibly, declined to meet her at the airport…he was ‘on holiday’ apparently!
It’s at least questionable how impartial WSJ-NORC poll was. I doubt they were asking people from the east of the country. At least it’s another indication that this conflict is not viewed as black and white by everyone, including Ukrainians themselves.
And even if you put 100% blame on Russia doesn’t mean that you want a long and bloody proxy war with death and destruction in your country as the only possible course of action. it’s also a myth that every single Ukrainian wants to fight and that’s why the west should sell them weapons.
I agree polls are rarely unbiased but I think it shows that many Ukrainians can see that the conflict isn’t a clear cut as the UK paper’s would have you think….similarly, the Taiwanese have always overwhelmingly voted against independence ..they are much happier with the status quo….something Pelosi, and the US didn’t think worth considering ….
Shows once again that it’s difficult to name a truly democratic country with the freedom of speech and all the rest as the past 2.5 years have showed us.
The NATO intervention in Afghanistan was authorised by the UN Security Council and in any case legitimate under Article 51 which authorises the use of armed force in joint self-defence (the US, a NATO member, had come under attack on 9/11 from forces mainly based in Afghanistan).
The bombing of Serbia by the Alliance (and effective creation of the Republic of Kosovo) was indeed outwith both international law and NATO’s strictly defensive manifesto. On the other hand it was a relatively limited operation and bears no relationship to Russia’s recent history of aggressive imperial expansionism.
In any case the Putin regime’s approach to NATO is not simply (and with gigantic hypocrisy) to scold it for any past breaches of international law, but to claim that it represents an existential danger to Russia itself;
Leaving aside the fact that NATO has never even hinted at unilaterally attacking the largest country in the world in possession of over 6000 nuclear weapons (the whole idea is preposterous) President Putin has shown conclusively that this claim was a propagandist lie by invading Ukraine, a UN member state and closely aligned with NATO;
Thus giving NATO or any other military alliance / individual country the full legal right (indeed near obligation) to intervene on Ukraine’s behalf under Article 51 of the UN Charter.
Russia is not fearful of NATO.
In terms of an alleged commitment not to expand NATO after the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation is well aware that any such informal and non-ratified discussion points from the now distant past carry no weight whatsoever.
This propagandist obsession with the ongoing force of an alleged historical ‘gentleman’s agreement’ is particularly ironic given the Putin regime’s obvious contempt for actual fully binding written treaties –
As shown by the complete shredding of its commitment to respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and full territorial integrity under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum.
Good to see that you’ve referenced Article 51 & the importance of this legal process. Truth however is required as to who filed an Article 51 & when.
An Article 51 which was filed at the UN the day before Russia entered the Donbass territory by Russia to prevent further loss of life at the request of the elected representatives of the Autonomous Regions of Ukraine.
Elected representatives asked for help. Russia responded to that request.
No Article 51 has been filed by NATO. Ukraine is not in NATO.
The Ukraine & NATO are the ones engaged in unlawful armed conflict. Not Russia.
“Good to see that you’ve referenced Article 51 & the importance of this legal process”
I pointed to Article 51 and UN Security Council endorsement to emphasise that fact that NATO’s intervention in Afghanistan was near universally accepted as a defensive rather than offensive one (as Mr Carl wrongly alleged in his article).
I personally believe in morality rather than legality, and that ultimately all violence is wrong.
At the same time we have to deal with the world as we find it and where necessary take ideological sides in armed conflicts.
And in this now worldwide hot and cold war I fully support the liberal democratic tradition over the neo-fascist totalitarian one represented by Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba etc.
“Truth however is required as to who filed an Article 51 & when.
An Article 51 which was filed at the UN the day before Russia entered the Donbass territory by Russia to prevent further loss of life at the request of the elected representatives of the Autonomous Regions of Ukraine.
Elected representatives asked for help. Russia responded to that request.”
Article 51 refers purely to the right of joint self-defence of UN Member states (ie fully recognised nations), not imaginary states carved out of a genuine Member (Ukraine) at the stroke of a pen in the Kremlin which immediately followed up this paper-based dismemberment with a full invasion of the same genuine Member.
The UN reacted to this blackly comedic attempt by the Russian Federation to turn Article 51 inside out by simply ignoring it.
As you say, it was ‘filed’.
“No Article 51 has been filed by NATO. Ukraine is not in NATO.
The Ukraine & NATO are the ones engaged in unlawful armed conflict. Not Russia”
Article 51 is not a filing system but rather grants an automatic right to any UN Member (or group of Members) to go to the assistance of any other (genuine) Member under attack.
From your reply, whilst saying that you don’t agree with war & violence, your stance is that Russia should have stood back whilst a genocide was committed.
Preventing deaths is moral. Bombing one’s own citizens is not.
“From your reply, whilst saying that you don’t agree with war & violence, your stance is that Russia should have stood back whilst a genocide was committed.”
The ‘genocide’ committed by Ukraine in the separatist eastern provinces involved a total of c 14000 casualties on both sides between 2014 and 2022, of which c 3300 were civilians (again on both sides).
The majority of these deaths took place in the earlier phase of the civil war (c 2014-2016).
By 2021 – the year that President Putin began amassing his invasion force on Ukraine’s borders using these same false clams of mass slaughter as one of his excuses – civilian casualties in Donbas had declined to a grand total of 7 (again on both sides) from direct military action
Some genocide.
Preventing deaths is moral.
We cannot prevent other people from carrying out killing (or rape, theft, deception etc), only ourselves.
Bombing one’s own citizens is not.
Bombing or otherwise harming others is never moral no matter where in the world it is carried out (though I fully accept the huge courage and frequent good intentions involved in warfare).
And the nationalistic idea of ‘our own citizens’ (as opposed to ‘foreigners’ etc) is one of the many sectarian illusions that lead people to overlook the demands of conscience on these areas.
Regardless of these basic ethical matters as I said before we have to live in the world as it currently exists, and rather than simply turning away from conflicts or giving a blanket ‘all violence is wrong’ response it is necessary to examine the motives, political systems etc behind the various protagonists, and where appropriate come to firm positions.
And in the current outbreak of worldwide tension and conflict I fully support the multi-party liberal democratic ideology and tradition over expansionist fascist tyrannies such as Russia and China menacing them (re eg Ukraine and Taiwan).
You seem to be attacking a strawman. The purpose of my article was to criticise the video posted by NATO. To take one example, you write, “The NATO intervention in Afghanistan was authorised by the UN Security Council and in any case legitimate under Article 51″. But I explicitly said, “you can argue those operations were justified”.
“You seem to be attacking a strawman. The purpose of my article was to criticise the video posted by NATO.”
I’m not sure what straw man you are pointing to, I directly addressed your criticisms of the NATO video.
“To take one example, you write, “The NATO intervention in Afghanistan was authorised by the UN Security Council and in any case legitimate under Article 51″. But I explicitly said, “you can argue those operations were justified””.
You also stated that it was an offensive operation (thus overriding NATO’s avowed defensive nature) –
“Since 1992, NATO has carried out several offensive operations, such as the bombing campaigns in Yugoslavia, the invasion of Afghanistan, and the bombing campaign in Libya. Now, you can argue those operations were justified, but you can’t argue they were defensive.”
and I refuted this argument (whilst accepting that there was some validity in it over Serbia, I don’t know enough about the Libyan situation to comment).
In addressing these specifics the main point of my comment was to point out that Russia’s primary propagandist use of NATO in its excuses for the Ukrainian invasion – that NATO is formally committed to non-expansion in eastern Europe and represents a direct military threat to the Russian Federation – are completely false.
From 1970 to 1999, the United Kingdom was attacked regularly – bombs exploded in towns and cities, on the rail network, civilians, police, army personnel murdered by forces based largely in, financed from, directed from, arms caches stored in, refuge and given political support from the Republic of Ireland.
UK was a NATO member, RoI not, so by your reckoning NATO could have attacked Republic of Ireland in self-defence of one of its members.
I wasn’t supporting NATO’s intervention in Afghanistan (or by implication hypothetically in Ireland), merely pointing out that it is generally recognised as being militarily defensive (therefore within its normal remit) rather than aggressive as Mr Carl was alleging.
A PS to my above, I have just found out that NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 was authorised by UN Security Council Resolution 1973 using defence of civilians as its pretext.
‘… (the US, a NATO member, had come under attack on 9/11 from forces mainly based in Afghanistan).’
Forces?
Al Qaida was also based in North West Pakistan.
And NATO attack on Libya and Syria?
Some of the 9/11 terrorists came from Germany. Should the US have attacked Germany too?
Donald Rumsfeld?
“And NATO attack on Libya and Syria?”
The United Nations called for NATO intervention in Libya to protect civilians under Security Council Resolution 1973.
As far as I am aware there is no institutional NATO involvement in Syria, though some member states such as the US are certainly active there (alongside, of course, Russia itself).
It’s impossible to take seriously someone who believes the official explanation of 9/11.
I agree with you. Anyone who has paid real attention to 9/11 will have come to the realisation that there are too many inconsistencies, too much glaring evidence to believe the official line.
And I’m fed up hearing the official line that NATO did nothing wrong, despite knowing that its actions would pressure and provoke Russia and that Russia just decided to invade Ukraine for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Now we have this Ukraine cult, with flags flying everywhere, and families are being paid to take in Ukrainian refugees – not Syrian, Iraqi, Afghan, Libyan, Somalian, Sudanese, Palestinian refugees but Ukrainian ones. I have nothing against the Ukrainian people at all. Their country is being destroyed in a war that should be over by now. Where is the peace process? Why are we continuing to arm them and not urging a diplomatic solution? Why are their refugees being prioritised so that the British people themselves can’t find anywhere to rent? The Ukraine government is completely and utterly corrupt, their army is shelling its own citizens for crying out loud.
Anyone attempting to report any news that goes against the official narrative is demonised and persecuted, as has happened to Graham Phillips, without being charged with any crime. Access to RT and other news sites that might show an alternative story are censored and forbidden. To simply believe that it’s all Russia’s fault is naive and ignorant. We are watching some sort of globalist’s wet dream unfold because almost anything can be blamed on the conflict, the western powers can say they are not involved and bear no responsibility for the consequences, food shortages will no doubt appear in the autumn along with energy shortages, and a whole stack of dominos will fall one after another giving our cowardly and treasonous governments more excuses to ruin our lives and usher in this nonsense of the Great Reset.
Getting involved in long, pointless arguments about the minutiae of who is to blame and why without looking at the bigger, more important horrorshow of the destruction of western society just doesn’t help. And I certainly don’t agree with Sontol saying we have to deal with the world as we find it and where necessary take ideological sides in armed conflicts. What sort of nonsense is that? Take ideological sides? Why? Why take any sides at all – isn’t that what gets us into problems in the first place, bloody ideologies and people thinking they have a right to create the boilerplate upon which our society will be moulded? Surely the last two and half years have taught us that we need a new approach and it doesn’t involve grey haired men (mostly) dictating their visions and their rules for the rest of us.
Let’s licence politicians as a first step. They have access to too much power and yet don’t even have to pass the sort of test that a dentist or doctor has to. Are they even fit to be in such positions? And let’s remove all the effin’ lobbyists and get money out of politics altogether. Get some real morality involved, some real ethical behaviour because unless we do, unless we root out all the corruption, we will be lost, continually blaming everyone but ourselves for not actually doing anything. Sorry for the rant…just had to get some things off my chest…
“And I certainly don’t agree with Sontol saying we have to deal with the world as we find it and where necessary take ideological sides in armed conflicts. What sort of nonsense is that? Take ideological sides? Why? Why take any sides at all – isn’t that what gets us into problems in the first place, bloody ideologies and people thinking they have a right to create the boilerplate upon which our society will be moulded?”
We are all part of one common humanity and morally required to speak up on behalf of oppressed and abused people across the world (in the same way as we should seek to stand up for people being harmed or threatened within our own families, communities etc).
In terms of ideologies multi-party liberal democracy is vastly more enlightened and progressive than any form of political tyranny (eg that maintained in Russia and China) and represents a stepping stone towards the fully peaceful, free and prosperous world we all presumably wish to see.
Totalitarianism points in exactly the opposite ‘jackboots endlessly stomping on your face’ direction.
And the very last time that we should keep quiet in this vital ethical and ideological struggle is when fascist tyrannies are on the all-conquering warlike march.
Such as today (or indeed 1939).
As well as the very real and present military danger vast amounts of propagandist effort are being put in by eg Russia and China to destroy morale and undermine democracies from within.
Simply ignoring all this won’t make it go away.
‘And the very last time that we should keep quiet in this vital ethical and ideological struggle is when fascist tyrannies are on the all-conquering warlike march.’
You have to wonder who fits the bill for tyranny these days and, also, which ones might be on an ‘all-conquering march’ then look at a map of the world and look back over the past 70 years. I think you’ll find the answer there. Tyranny doesn’t always appear in jackboots.
..anyone who has taken notice in the last two and a half years would argue that we don’t live in any sort of free democracy. From our own Government’s war on free speech, the right to protest, the right to bodily integrity…the closing of and sanctions on civilian bank accounts….the list is endless…we are tyrannised by green agenda’s, the trans agenda the woke agenda…bla bla bla…they WANT us controlled in every way….
We live in a world where one country puts itself above all others, regardless of anything…..and making up the rules as it goes along…
we live in an oligarchy, where the top 1% take from the other 99%…which is why the ‘rest of the world’ laughs at the self-aggrandising, bloated nonsense that the West purport to call Democracy.
As I have noted before, when talking about other civilisation the West’s ignorance and hubris are the problem…
…fascist tyrannies on the all conquering warlike march? LOL!
Have you been on the Sanatogen? If this were a border spat in Africa, it wouldn’t even get on the news….
China and Russia, two of the largest and (at least in the former case) economically most powerful countries on the world with vast numbers of nuclear weapons and gigantic conventional armies have formed an ever closer strategic alliance (alongside other members of BRICS).
As well as the direct military expansionism and threats we are seeing in eg Ukraine and Taiwan they are openly calling for a so-called ‘New Eurasian World Order’ to take over world leadership and consign what they consider to be the failed and decadent liberal democratic model to the dustbin of history.
This is as much an existential threat to worldwide stability, peace and freedom as that represented by Nazi Germany and the USSR.
The USA have forced that alliance through their bellicose attitude and nature….a fairer multi-polar world, with no country in the ascendancy over the others is what they believe in…how exactly are they wrong?
Show me the country that the US/NATO has attacked that has benefitted and become a wonderful Democracy afterwards….
I agree that there have recently been huge levels of self-inflicted (though externally encouraged) reductions in individual freedoms and concomitant increases in state oppression in the democratic West.
The main cause has been the widespread adoption of the inherently totalitarian Green religion and its Climate Change / Net Zero weapon of mass destruction.
A subset of environmentalism has always been ultra-health (re organic food, herbalism etc) which in turn led to the vast majority of western populations eagerly holding out their wrists for the unprecedentedly tyrannical lockdowns and other COVID-19 measures.
However the situation with regards to freedom of speech and general ideological and political liberties has still remained vastly superior to that in full-blown totalitarian systems such as China and (increasingly) Russia.
So far from accepting the sort of complete and permanent extinguishing of multi-party liberal democratic rights these systems represent as any sort of solution we should be holding tight to what we still have, reclaiming all the lost ground, assisting in the (non-violent) liberation of oppressed populations in single-party tyrannies (again eg China, Russia, Iran etc), then moving forward to a world entirely free from governmental oppression.
‘On the other hand it was a relatively limited operation and bears no relationship to Russia’s recent history of aggressive imperial expansionism.’
Where next, Berlin?
I read some where recently that Russia, after the break up of the USSR, had requested to join NATO and that the request had been dismissed out of hand. From much that I have read and heard it has become clear to me that the US Powers That Be want the Russian threat to its hegemony gone and hence such expressions as: ‘bleeding it dry’ and ‘Putin must go!’. This is a proxy war, not a war to defend a democratic sovereign state, whatever that may be in this current world. This proxy war is what the US PTB has always wanted and, now that they have got it, they will fight it to the bitter and bloody end of Ukraine.
A similar scenario appears to be developing over Taiwan and China.
“I read some where recently that Russia, after the break up of the USSR, had requested to join NATO and that the request had been dismissed out of hand.”
Early on in office President Putin tentatively suggested that Russia might like to join NATO but made no attempt to actually apply.
So the whole ‘we were rejected by NATO’ meme is just another piece of false Russian propaganda.
“From much that I have read and heard it has become clear to me that the US Powers That Be want the Russian threat to its hegemony gone and hence such expressions as: ‘bleeding it dry’ and ‘Putin must go!’. This is a proxy war, not a war to defend a democratic sovereign state, whatever that may be in this current world. This proxy war is what the US PTB has always wanted and, now that they have got it, they will fight it to the bitter and bloody end of Ukraine.”
No amount of distraction techniques can disguise the fact that Russia invaded Ukraine. I also think that President Putin might be rather annoyed at the suggestion that he was duped into doing so by the United States.
“A similar scenario appears to be developing over Taiwan and China.”
No amount of distraction techniques can disguise the fact that a massive neo-fascist super-power (China) is bullying and threatening its relatively tiny democratic neighbour (Taiwan).
For ‘Legitimate’ read USA Foreign policy summed up in seven words….
IT’S ONLY OK WHEN WE DO IT.
I don’t support any violence.
“that any such informal and non-ratified discussion points from the now distant past carry no weight whatsoever”
It is so depressing to read this emphatic assertion by you. The increasing prevalence of those who would agree with this statement provides yet another example of the cause of the moral decline in our society and the concomitant insidious damage to the quality of our lives. ‘Integrity’ has become a dirty word in my lifetime.
“that any such informal and non-ratified discussion points from the now distant past carry no weight whatsoever”
It is so depressing to read this emphatic assertion by you. The increasing prevalence of those who would agree with this statement provides yet another example of the cause of the moral decline in our society and the concomitant insidious damage to the quality of our lives.
The only moral issue involved here is Russia’s deceitful claim (based on off the cuff and tentative remarks made by politicians which carried no executive or contractual authority whatsoever) that NATO made any sort of commitment to non-expansion into eastern Europe (which would have meant tearing up its own constitution offering free and open access to any nations that wish to apply to join).
Also the fact that the whole ‘fear of NATO encroachment’ excuse for the invasion of Ukraine is itself just another piece of propagandist deception:
In carrying out this invasion of a closely aligned NATO ally the Russian Federation has revealed that it has no genuine fear of NATO whatsoever (NATO or any other alliance / individual country could use UN Article 51 as a justification for intervening and resisting the Russian military action).
‘Integrity’ has become a dirty word in my lifetime.
So you must be absolutely appalled by the lack of integrity that Russia has shown over the following fully binding and written terms (ie the sort of thing which it is falsely claiming about a NATO commitment to non-expansion) of the Budapest Memorandum which it signed in 1994 and committed it to:
“Respect Belarusian, Kazakh and Ukrainian independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.
Refrain from the threat or the use of force against Belarus, Kazakhstan or Ukraine.”
…If there is no hint of attacking Russia, and Russia hasn’t hinted at attacking Greater Europe or the USA, what exactly is NATO defending?
Anyone, who isn’t so biased they can’t see or think straight, who looks at a map of NATO expansion and US bases in Europe can see that it does appear to be a direct threat to Russia..what else are they there for?
Anyone, who isn’t so biased they can’t see or think straight, who looks at a map of NATO expansion and US bases in Europe can see that it does appear to be a direct threat to Russia..what else are they there for?
Defence against a neo-fascist expansionist imperial power. The Russian Federation.
…sorry what’s sauce for the goose…if we NATO because Russia is a threat, even though they haven’t threatened NATO…then Russia can feel threatened and defend itself for the same reasons …
(Typo) If we have NATO….because Russia is a threat…
This information, posted on Robin Monotti’s Telegram channel, is a tad damning of the NATO, Ukraine & US narrative of Russia bad.
[Forwarded from MoD Russia]
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/26a1.svgRussian Defence Ministry has recorded and is taking into account for the future an official admission by General Skibitsky, deputy head of the Chief Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, that Washington directly coordinates each target for Kiev before strikes from US-made HIMARS MLRS.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/25ab.svgSpeaking to The Telegraph’s British journalists, Skibitsky admitted that “before rocket launches, there are consultations between intelligence officials from both countries, which allow Washington to stop any potential attacks if they were unhappy with the intended target”.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/25ab.svgAll this undeniably proves that Washington, contrary to White House and Pentagon claims, is directly involved in the conflict in Ukraine.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/25ab.svgIt is Biden administration that is directly responsible for all Kiev-approved rocket attacks on residential areas and civilian infrastructure in populated areas of Donbas and other regions, which have resulted in mass deaths of civilians.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/1f4a5.svgNo one else in Ukraine or in the world should have any doubts that HIMARS strikes on Novaya Kakhovka on July 12, on Stakhanov on July 17, on Krasniy Luch on July 24, dozens of strikes on Donetsk and, of course, the July 29 strike on the detention facility in Elenovka, which killed 50 and injured 73 Ukrainian POWs, were planned by Zelensky regime and approved by Washington.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/2757.svgPolitical, criminal and moral responsibility for the Elenovka massacre and other war crimes in Ukraine, along with Zelensky, lies directly with Biden administration.
@mod_russia_en
I found this article on the Telegraph website but can’t read it.
Can anyone corroborate what it says please?
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/08/02/us-directly-involved-ukraine-war-russia-claims/
Let’s try again!
Can anyone corroborate what is being alleged here?
I’ve found a link to the Telegraph article which is mentioned but I can’t read it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/08/01/britain-helps-ukraine-hunt-russian-spies-eyeing-western-military/
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/26a1.svgRussian Defence Ministry has recorded and is taking into account for the future an official admission by General Skibitsky, deputy head of the Chief Directorate of Intelligence of the Ministry of Defence of Ukraine, that Washington directly coordinates each target for Kiev before strikes from US-made HIMARS MLRS.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/25ab.svgSpeaking to The Telegraph’s British journalists, Skibitsky admitted that “before rocket launches, there are consultations between intelligence officials from both countries, which allow Washington to stop any potential attacks if they were unhappy with the intended target”.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/25ab.svgAll this undeniably proves that Washington, contrary to White House and Pentagon claims, is directly involved in the conflict in Ukraine.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/25ab.svgIt is Biden administration that is directly responsible for all Kiev-approved rocket attacks on residential areas and civilian infrastructure in populated areas of Donbas and other regions, which have resulted in mass deaths of civilians.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/1f4a5.svgNo one else in Ukraine or in the world should have any doubts that HIMARS strikes on Novaya Kakhovka on July 12, on Stakhanov on July 17, on Krasniy Luch on July 24, dozens of strikes on Donetsk and, of course, the July 29 strike on the detention facility in Elenovka, which killed 50 and injured 73 Ukrainian POWs, were planned by Zelensky regime and approved by Washington.
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/14.0.0/svg/2757.svgPolitical, criminal and moral responsibility for the Elenovka massacre and other war crimes in Ukraine, along with Zelensky, lies directly with Biden administration.
BB if you can’t read a Telegraph article because it’s behind a paywall you can use the Archive service – here’s that article on it https://archive.ph/5lLqp
Thank you Trabant!
I’ve twice tried to copy & paste the Telegram post but been removed on both occasions along with a link to a Telegraph article referenced in the Telegram post to see if the allegation can be corroborated.
We have to be able to have an open, free & questioning debate about what is happening in the Ukraine because a heck of a lot of our money paid via taxation is being spent arming, training & promoting the Ukraine army & nation.
Speaking to The Telegraph’s British journalists, Skibitsky admitted that “before rocket launches, there are consultations between intelligence officials from both countries, which allow Washington to stop any potential attacks if they were unhappy with the intended target”.
If the above quote is true, it is incredibly damning.
https://t.me/robinmg/22045
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/08/01/britain-helps-ukraine-hunt-russian-spies-eyeing-western-military/
Nato should have been abolished in 1991. All it does now is swagger around the planet starting up trouble then offering to fix it. I hope Alexander ‘Boris’ Johnson does get made Secretary General: he’ll likely reduce it to a laughing stock so people will finally wake up and get rid of it.
Arms are not going to sell themselves. NATO is MIC’s marketing department, and is quite good at it.
Expansion in scope, scale and budget is the sole aim and purpose of all bureaucracy. Serving the interests of those who fund it is only to be considered as long as it serves the self-interests of the organisation.
Amnesty International have published this article documenting war crimes against civilians perpetrated by the supposedly ‘good guys’.
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/08/ukraine-ukrainian-fighting-tactics-endanger-civilians/
There are no good guys in wars, just opposing parties.
Apart from that, the short version of this text is Ukrainian soldiers are defending cities under attack from Russian troops and Ukrainain soldiers are housed in barracks close to or part of garrison towns (the Russians thus also attack).
—- wat hebb wii lacht —
[low German for rounds of laugther]
‘Ukrainian soldiers are defending cities under attack from Russian troops and Ukrainain soldiers are housed in barracks close to or part of garrison towns’
how does that necessitates making schools and hospitals as firing positions? Is it normal to hide military equipment in residential areas and fire from buildings thus attracting Russian response? A solder who has his relatives in one of those building would do that, really?
As a minor correction: The NATO originated out of a western European defensive alliance against a future German attack. By 1949, Stalin was pretty much still every western democrat’s best friend.
Never do your enemy’s propaganda for him.
Prior to the video most people probably weren’t aware (or cared) of the ‘myths’, but now many more are, and people will wonder why if there is not some basis to them, does NATO feel it needs to go to the trouble to debunk them. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Shades of the Streisand effect too, people will start looking more closely at NATO’s involvement in Ukraine and relationship with Russia.
I detect the crack-hand of the EU apparatchiks, although the Bidenistas are not the sharpest knives out of the drawer.
UK policy on Ukraine must change before the public suffer any more
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/uk-policy-on-ukraine-must-change-before-the-public-suffer-any-more/
Anthony Webber
*****
Yellow Boards By The Road BUILD BACK FREEDOM
**
Monday 8th August 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Junction A329 London Road &
Fernbank Rd, Winkfield Row
Ascot SL5 8ED
**
Tuesday 9th August 11am to 12pm
Yellow Boards
Molly Millars Lane,
Between Fishponds Rd & Eastheath Ave
Wokingham RG41 2PT
**
Stand in the Park Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am – make friends & keep sane
**
Wokingham
Howard Palmer Gardens Sturges Rd RG40 2HD
Bracknell
South Hill Park, Rear Lawn, RG12 7PA
Telegram http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
“In the West, we’re not meant to be propagandised by our governments.” After 93% of Britons jabbed?