#NATO countries by attacking Latvia | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

ammg-old2 · 1 year

Text

Imagine that someone—perhaps a man from Florida, or maybe even a governor of Florida—criticized American support for Ukraine. Imagine that this person dismissed the war between Russia and Ukraine as a purely local matter, of no broader significance. Imagine that this person even told a far-right television personality that “while the U.S. has many vital national interests ... becoming further entangled in a territorial dispute between Ukraine and Russia is not one of them.” How would a Ukrainian respond? More to the point, how would the leader of Ukraine respond?

As it happens, an opportunity to ask that hypothetical question recently availed itself. The chair of the board of directors of The Atlantic, Laurene Powell Jobs; The Atlantic’s editor in chief, Jeffrey Goldberg; and I interviewed President Volodymyr Zelensky several days ago in the presidential palace in Kyiv. In the course of an hour-long conversation, Goldberg asked Zelensky what he would say to someone, perhaps a governor of Florida, who wonders why Americans should help Ukraine.

Zelensky, answering in English, told us that he would respond pragmatically. He didn’t want to appeal to the hearts of Americans, in other words, but to their heads. Were Americans to cut off Ukraine from ammunition and weapons, after all, there would be clear consequences in the real world, first for Ukraine’s neighbors but then for others:

If we will not have enough weapons, that means we will be weak. If we will be weak, they will occupy us. If they occupy us, they will be on the borders of Moldova and they will occupy Moldova. When they have occupied Moldova, they will [travel through] Belarus and they will occupy Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. That’s three Baltic countries which are members of NATO. They will occupy them. Of course, [the Balts] are brave people, and they will fight. But they are small. And they don’t have nuclear weapons. So they will be attacked by Russians because that is the policy of Russia, to take back all the countries which have been previously part of the Soviet Union.

And after that, if there were still no further response? Then, he explained, the struggle would continue:

When they will occupy NATO countries, and also be on the borders of Poland and maybe fight with Poland, the question is: Will you send all your soldiers with weapons, all your pilots, all your ships? Will you send tanks and armored vehicles with your young people? Will you do it? Because if you will not do it, you will have no NATO.

At that point, he said, Americans will face a different choice: not politicians deciding whether “to give weapons or not to give weapons” to Ukrainians, but instead, “fathers and mothers” deciding whether to send their children to fight to keep a large part of the planet, filled with America’s allies and most important trading partners, from Russian occupation.

But there would be other consequences too. One of the most horrifying weapons that Russia has used against Ukraine is the Iranian-manufactured Shahed drone, which has no purpose other than to kill civilians. After these drones are used to subdue Ukraine, Zelensky asked, how long would it be before they are used against Israel? If Russia can attack a smaller neighbor with impunity, regimes such as Iran’s are sure to take note. So then the question arises again: “When they will try to occupy Israel, will the United States help Israel? That is the question. Very pragmatic.”

Finally, Zelensky posed a third question. During the war, Ukraine has been attacked by rockets, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles—“not hundreds, but thousands”:

So what will you do when Russia will use rockets to attack your allies, to [attack] civilian people? And what will you do when Russia, after that, if they do not see [opposition] from big countries like the United States? What will you do if they will use rockets on your territory?

And this was his answer: Help us fight them here, help us defeat them here, and you won’t have to fight them anywhere else. Help us preserve some kind of open, normal society, using our soldiers and not your soldiers. That will help you preserve your open, normal society, and that of others too. Help Ukraine fight Russia now so that no one else has to fight Russia later, and so that harder and more painful choices don’t have to be made down the line.

“It’s about nature. It’s about life,” he said. “That’s it.”

#current events #warfare #politics #russian politics #american politics #russo-ukrainian war #2022 russian invasion of ukraine #russia #ukraine #usa #volodymyr zelenskyy #ron desantis #nato

245 notes · View notes

mariacallous · 1 month

Text

The end of Sweden’s drawn-out accession to NATO signifies the completion of the Baltic region’s political transformation and strategic reconfiguration. Both processes were accelerated by Russia’s aggression against Ukraine, which has recently crossed the two-year mark, and in both transitions, Russia loses. The value of Russia’s longstanding economic ties and political influence in the region is lost entirely, and its capacity to project military power there is reduced to an unprecedented minimum. An informal coalition of Northern European and Baltic states committed to countering any and all Russian aggression is in the making, and the Russian army’s offensive capabilities continue to be diminished on the Ukrainian battlefields.

These shifts in European security may appear to make the Northern European political and military leaders’ persistent warnings regarding the need to invest in deterring the Russian threat seem over-cautious and even alarmist. President Vladimir Putin found it opportune to assert that invading Poland or Latvia is “out of the question … because we have no interest in Poland, Latvia or anywhere else.” Putin’s reassurances are anything but convincing, and Western leaders confirmed the urgency of building up defense capabilities at the 2024 Munich Security Conference. Their message is, nevertheless, contradicted by the European public’s diminishing concerns about the Russian threat, and commentators in Moscow are quick to point out this discrepancy. Even deeper disagreements have flared up regarding the possibility of sending combat forces from some NATO states to Ukraine. The question of the real military threat that Russia poses to its neighbors, and its potential timeline, deserves more scrutiny.

Scandinavia’s Zeitenwende: Prudent preparations or undue panicking?

Describing the war in Ukraine as a “stalemate” poorly captures the fast-evolving, high-intensity, multi-domain battles that are occurring, and belies the dire situation the Ukrainian army was facing at the start of 2024, which prompted a stream of strong warnings from Northern Europe’s usually reserved political leaders. Swedish Minister for Civil Defense Carl-Oskar Bohlin first sounded the alarm when he warned at his country’s main annual conference that war could come to Sweden. Swedes and Europeans largely reacted with disbelief and criticism, and Russian propaganda added more scorn, but more official statements and intelligence assessments, including a firm endorsement from NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, lent credence to Bohlin’s comment. The large-scale Nordic Response 2024 exercise, which constitutes a part of NATO’s Steadfast Defender 2024 strategic exercise, demonstrated that Scandinavia is indeed going through its own Zeitenwende moment.

One particular aspect of this debate that invariably attracts concern is the proposition that Russia could attack a NATO country within three to five years, as suggested, inter alia, by Danish Defense Minister Troels Lund Poulsen. This timeframe might appear unnecessarily short given the Russian army’s huge casualties and the deepening degradation of Russia’s defense-industrial complex. However, what underpins this disturbing Nordic estimate is the supposition that Ukraine might be forced to accept a compromise and sign an unfair peace deal with a victorious Russia, an option advocated by quite a few Western experts. Their arguments emphasize Russia’s “victory” at Avdiivka—costly as it was—and exaggerate Ukraine’s war exhaustion, evidenced by the political quarrels over the new legislation on mobilization and President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s decision to reshuffle the military leadership.

The “bad peace” option loomed large in early January when the balance of war was tilted heavily in Moscow’s favor, primarily because Western support for Ukraine was paused while the Russian military-industrial complex was operating at peak performance. Since then, however, three significant developments raised Ukraine from the nadir, and two more are in the making. The first was the organization of an “artillery coalition” on the initiative of French President Emmanuel Macron, who correctly recognized the crucial importance of denying Russian superiority in tube and missile artillery. This focus was strengthened by Czech President Petr Pavel’s announcement of a program for purchasing 800,000 artillery shells for Ukraine. The second shift was the European Council’s unanimous approval of a 50-billion-euro (approximately $54.6 billion) aid package to Ukraine for 2024-2027. The third development started with the agreement between Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania for a joint naval mine-clearing operation securing the maritime corridor to Odesa and continued with a series of Ukrainian hits on the Russian Black Sea Fleet that have effectively denied it access to its bases in Crimea. Ukraine is also set to gain by the end of spring from the combat deployment of several squadrons of F-16 fighters supplied by a coalition of European states led by Denmark and the Netherlands.

Yet important as all these developments are, the major breakthrough would be the U.S. Congress’ long-delayed approval of the $60-billion aid package to Ukraine, which will secure the delivery of urgently needed military hardware, including artillery shells and surface-to-air missiles. This approval cannot be taken for granted, but the effective majority in the House of Representatives remains solid despite the populist recourse with isolationism and so may yet surmount the frustrating technicalities. No amount of European support can compare with this boost to Ukrainian combat capabilities, and no amount of Russian effort at sustaining their offensive after the capture of Avdiivka can prevent U.S. reengagement from turning the tide of the war.

Russia rethinks its Arctic-Baltic geostrategy

Moscow’s decision to maximally concentrate Russia’s military capabilities and economic resources on waging war against Ukraine has left it at a stark disadvantage vis-à-vis the reenergized NATO alliance along the North-Western interface. Moscow used to have superiority of such scale in the Baltic theater that authoritative Western military experts presumed forward positions in Estonia and Latvia to be indefensible and expected a Russian attack across the Suwalki Gap to make a decisive breakthrough. All these forebodings of inevitable defeat have presently become irrelevant, and NATO can confidently plan for defending every inch of Estonian or Lithuanian territory against any offensive grouping that Russia may put together in the immediate future. Expert debates about the effectiveness of the Kaliningrad region’s presumed anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) posture have been resolved by the repeatedly proven inability of the maximum-strength Russian air defenses to protect “Fortress Crimea” from Ukrainian missile and drone strikes.

The Russian high command has recognized that the Baltic theater’s military balance has swung from Russia’s habitual superiority to a deep disadvantage. Already in December 2022, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu announced a plan to build a new army corps in Karelia, the region on the Finnish border between St. Petersburg and Murmansk. More deployments of troops were supposed to be planned, but the execution of Moscow’s announced response to NATO enlargement has been thwarted by the continual necessity to send every minimally combat-capable unit to the Ukrainian front. In December 2023, Putin decreed an increase of the total strength of the Russian Armed Forces to 1,320,000 troops, but his claims of a steady inflow of volunteers are refuted by the fact that Russia is illegally recruiting in such exotic places as Nepal. Intelligence assessments in such exposed countries as Estonia correctly point to the Russian plans for deploying new units in key strategic directions along the border with NATO, but the implementation of these plans has been postponed until a cease-fire with Ukraine is realized.

One change in the Russian Armed Forces’ organizational structure that reveals a profound change in strategic thinking is Putin’s decree on reconstituting the Moscow and Leningrad (notably not St. Petersburg) military districts. The previous strategic design developed in 2014-2021 was to build an Arctic strategic command on the basis of the Northern Fleet, which was elevated to a separate military district. The underlying assessment in the Russian General Staff was that the Arctic, with the key transport corridor of the Northern Sea Route, constituted an interface with NATO that was significantly different from the Baltic theater. The key difference is that while the Northern Fleet comprises a major part of Russia’s strategic arsenal, the grouping of conventional forces that was supposed to dominate the Baltic region had little need for nuclear weapons. That separation between the Arctic and the Baltic theaters was underpinned by the assumption that Helsinki would remain neutral in any possible conflict—and was proven false by Finland’s shockingly swift accession to NATO.

The newly-restored Leningrad military district is intended to integrate the operations of Russia’s Northern and Baltic Fleets and the ground force groupings along the continuous North-Western interface with NATO, but commanding diverse units in the vast area from the Arctic archipelago of Novaya Zemlya to the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad will be highly demanding. No new strength can actually be gained from merging the many weaknesses in Russia’s military posture as even the designated Arctic brigade has been repeatedly decimated by fighting in the Donbas.

Russia used to counter every NATO exercise with a show of force, but it has nothing to respond to the ongoing Steadfast Defender 2024 series of exercises, in which the newest U.K. aircraft carrier HMS Prince of Wales is taking part, while the unlucky Russian carrier Admiral Kuznetsov is stuck with long repairs. The Russian Baltic Fleet is experimenting with redeploying its Karakurt-class missile corvettes to Lake Ladoga, east of St. Petersburg, in order to give them a better chance of survival. It has only one old submarine in its combat order, while the Swedish Navy alone has four and two A26 Blekinge-class submarines are under construction. Russian experts abhor the notion of the Baltic Sea as a “NATO lake,” but the extended sea line of communication between St. Petersburg and Kaliningrad cannot be effectively protected, and Estonia’s deployment of Blue Spear anti-ship missiles increases this vulnerability.

Risks inherent to NATO’s new position of strength in the Baltic theater

Russia is acutely uncomfortable with its political isolation and military weakness in the Baltic theater and is actively seeking asymmetric and “hybrid” measures in order to compensate for its disadvantages. The crude hit on the Balticconnector gas pipeline between Finland and Estonia on October 8, 2023, by the anchor of a Chinese-owned container ship could have been a test run for a strategy of sabotaging underwater infrastructure. Many pipelines and cables in the Baltic and North Seas are hard-to-protect targets, while Russia—ruing the loss of the Nord Stream gas pipeline—does not have similar assets anymore. Unfortunately for Moscow, the European Center of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats (known as Hybrid CoE) is located in Helsinki, and its research is a step ahead of most mischief prepared by the Russian special services.

The main issue with NATO’s present-day position of strength in the Baltics is that it may unravel quickly—and this is what underpins the emphasis added in allied political planning on a looming kinetic war. Three conditions need to converge for this worst-case scenario to become a certainty. The first is a severe curtailing or even complete interruption of U.S. military aid to Ukraine; the second is a negotiated cessation of hostilities consolidating Russian territorial gains in Ukraine; and the third condition is the sustained expansion of Russia’s defense-industrial complex. NATO’s European member states have little influence on the first and the third of these three developments, so they have to prioritize strengthening Ukraine’s resilience.

This imperative prompted Macron to convene a high-level conference in Paris, just two weeks after the Munich gathering, where he heavily hinted at the possibility of deploying allied forces to Ukraine. Macron’s motives are open to interpretation, but his logic is straightforward: In order to prevent Ukraine’s defeat in the absence of U.S. material support, Europeans have to prepare to potentially send combat forces into the war zone. The alternative is to prepare for a Russian large-scale offensive operation in the Baltic region, which even in the “optimistic” German assessment could come within five to eight years. Most European politicians prefer to be “shocked” by Macron’s provocation. It is noteworthy, however, that China has warned not only against sending French troops to Ukraine but also against “ill-considered plans” for preparing to defend against a probable Russian attack in the near future.

Timing works differently in a long war of attrition rather than in fluid maneuver warfare, but it remains crucial. The deadlock in the U.S. Congress has already cost the Ukrainian forces the loss of fortifications around Avdiivka and may make some further retreats inevitable. Providing that the European “artillery coalition” becomes operational and augments the “F-16 coalition,” which is scheduled to deliver in a couple of months, further Russian offensive operations can be checked. It will, however, take another year for the increased European investments in military industries to yield tangible results. After that, the balance of military hardware will be shifting against Russia’s overworked defense-industrial complex, which has been degraded by tightening sanctions.

This prospect demands huge sacrifices from Ukraine, and Kyiv’s determination to stay in the fight might indeed need to be reinforced by a limited deployment of French, British, or combined European forces performing particular air defense and logistical tasks. Ensuring Russia’s defeat is a long-term goal that requires many increases in the quality of European resolve and solidarity, but the war leaves diminishing space for political choices. Fortunately for Europe, investments in upgrading its own capacity for deterring Russian aggression and expanding military support for Ukraine are essentially the same thing.

6 notes · View notes

myrddin-wylt · 1 year

Note

How would Isolationism even work in this day and age?

it wouldn't, not fully, but that's not really the issue.

NATO is built on deterrence. Eastern Europe especially needs NATO to be credible enough that Russia won't even consider invading, because frankly, if deterrence fails, there is absolutely nothing NATO could do to help its members that border Russia except like. maybe liberate them from Russian occupation. I mean, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, et al are small countries; we estimated Ukraine would fall in three days even after accounting for its huge size, so consider how quickly a country as small as Latvia would be overrun. re: Ukraine Putin made a fuckton of blunders that will hopefully cost him the war but Russia's military is still formidable and Ukraine's survival still depends on expedited aid from the US.

also, I don't think Eastern Europe ever really fully believed that the US would actually launch nuclear war on their behalf. though part of that opinion may be due to US vs USSR (and post-USSR states) nuclear doctrine making perception of nuclear war very different; the USSR (and currently Russia's) nuclear doctrine allows for 'strategic' nuclear strikes, whereas the US says 'once someone throws the first nuke, escalation into Mutually Assured Destruction is in reality impossible to avoid, so either don't fucking throw any nukes or throw all of them, an attack on one of us is an attack on all.' so Eastern Europe still worries that Russia could get away with a limited nuclear strike despite MAD.

for Western Europe the issue is a bit different and honestly it makes me so fucking tired but if you really wanna have at it, here ya go.

NATO Seen Favorably Across Member States (February 9, 2020)

NATO is generally seen in a positive light across publics within the alliance, despite lingering tensions between the leaders of individual member countries. A median of 53% across 16 member countries surveyed have a favorable view of the organization, with only 27% expressing a negative view. [...] Despite the organization’s largely favorable ratings among member states, there is widespread reluctance to fulfill the collective defense commitment outlined in Article 5 of NATO’s founding treaty. When asked if their country should defend a fellow NATO ally against a potential attack from Russia, a median of 50% across 16 NATO member states say their country should not defend an ally, compared with 38% who say their country should defend an ally against a Russian attack. Publics are more convinced that the U.S. would use military force to defend a NATO ally from Russia. A median of 60% say the U.S. would defend an ally against Russia, while just 29% say the U.S. would not do so. And in most NATO member countries surveyed, publics are more likely to say the U.S. would defend a NATO ally from a Russian attack than say their own country should do the same.

Confidence in NATO sharply declined in France, Germany, US, says study (Feb 10, 2020)

Why Germany Is Undermining NATO Unity on Russia (Jan 26, 2022) (also important to pay attention to Macron in that article!)

NATO’s new center of gravity (Feb 21, 2023)

if you'd like a very, very, very strongly opinionated piece that I am honestly too tired to vet entirely myself: The Cold War roots of Scholz’s tank trauma (Jan 25, 2023)

anyway. less confidence in NATO + US shifting priorities to Pacific, esp Australia = panic.

#ask #anon #irl current events #if you wanna be really cynical and risk sounding like you support Trump the answer is that Europe might have to spend money on defense #and there's not much popular support in Europe for increased military spending #which is something the US has been bitching about since NATO was established tbh

20 notes · View notes

bearersofthecurse · 17 days

Text

It won't have antisemitism to rely on, but we should be vigilant for the anti-democracy left and right to display elevated demonisation toward Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, The Phillipines, and potentially India. This will be in the next 2-8 years.

They will do this because the CCP in China does not want those countries to have the USA, Australia, and New Zealand as allies.

This will signify a Chinese psy-op campaign to strip the east asian democracies of their most powerful allies, particularly the US. If the war in Ukraine expands, and maybe if it doesn't, we should expect the anti-democracy left and right to display elevated demonisation toward whatever nations Russia wants to attack next. Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Moldova, and Romania would be likely targets. This will be in the next 1-3 years.

They will do this because Vladimir Putin does not want those countries to have the USA, Canada, or the UK as allies. We should look out for this demonisation happening in French, German, Italian, and Swedish spaces as well.

This is because Vladimir Putin does not want the European countries on its border to have the support of the EU, in particular its most competent militaries and economies.

Either of these will signify a Russian psy-op campaign to strip the central and eastern european democracies of their most powerful allies, particularly NATO.

In all cases, China, Russia, Iran (as it is doing with Israel right now), will seek to demonise democracies world wide. They will try to tell us that they are asking us to give up some of OUR comfort (by protesting, raising awareness, "not letting /something/ slide"), which we are often willing to do; but they are not trying to deprive US of our democratic allies. They are trying to deprive our democratic allies of US.

2 notes · View notes

brexiiton · 21 days

Text

After terror attack, Russia sees U.S. role and claims it is at war with NATO

By Robyn Dixon, April 3 2024 at 2:22pm

The Russian flag flies at half-staff on March 28 in memory of the victims of a terrorist attack at the Crocus City Hall in Krasnogorsk, outside Moscow. (Yuri Kochetkov/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock)

RIGA, Latvia — In the aftermath of last month’s terrorist attack on the Crocus City Hall concert venue outside Moscow, Russian officials not only have blamed Ukraine but also have repeatedly accused the West of involvement — even though U.S. officials insist they gave Moscow a specific warning that the Islamic State could attack the venue.

If the U.S. warning was so detailed, it raises further questions about Russia’s failure to prevent the country’s worst terrorist attack in two decades. But rather than publicly confronting questions about their own actions, Russian security officials have disregarded the claims of responsibility by the Islamic State.

Instead, they have insisted that U.S. and British intelligence were involved in helping Ukraine organize the strike.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov declined to comment Wednesday on a report in The Washington Post that U.S intelligence specifically warned Russia that Crocus City Hall could be a target for terrorists. The New York Times published a similar report shortly after The Post.

Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev on Wednesday directly blamed Ukrainian security services for the Crocus City Hall attack, in which at least 114 people were killed. Patrushev also hinted at Western involvement.

A day earlier, he accused Western intelligence of using terrorist groups to attack adversaries.

“They are trying to make us think that the terrorist attack was perpetrated not by the Kyiv regime but by followers of radical Islamic ideology, possibly members of the Afghan branch of [the Islamic State],” Patrushev said at a meeting in Astana, Kazakhstan, of security council secretaries of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization nations. He said it was more important to identify the “masterminds and sponsors,” squarely blaming Ukrainian security services. He added that numerous hoax bomb threats have emanated from Ukrainian territory since the attack.

“It is also indicative that the West began insisting on Ukraine’s noninvolvement in the crime as soon as the terrorist attack on Crocus City Hall was reported,” Patrushev said.

Russia’s blame game comes amid increasingly confrontational anti-NATO rhetoric from top security officials who insist that the U.S.-led alliance is fighting a “war” against Russia. Several of these officials have hinted repeatedly about Russia’s potential use of nuclear weapons.

NATO officials continue to assert the alliance’s right to supply Ukraine the weapons it needs to defend its territory.

Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev in Moscow in 2022. (Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP/Getty Images)

Since the Crocus City Hall attack, Russian officials have subtly framed the violence as part of that “war,” while barely mentioning the Islamic State’s Afghanistan branch, Islamic State-Khorasan, or ISIS-K, which U.S. intelligence officials have said was responsible.

U.S. intelligence also warned last month that terrorists could attack a Moscow synagogue. A day after receiving the warning, on March 7, Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) announced that it had prevented an attack on a Moscow synagogue by an ISIS-K cell.

Asked if the United States warned Russia that Crocus City Hall was a possible target for a terrorist attack and whether a U.S. warning helped the FSB avert the synagogue attack, Peskov on Wednesday declined to confirm the report.

“Okay, I see,” he said. “This is not our competence because such information exchanges are conducted at the level of specialized services, and the information is transmitted directly from service to service.”

The spokeswoman for Russia’s Foreign Ministry, Maria Zakharova, on Wednesday alleged a disinformation campaign by Washington and said the U.S. government should prove that the reports in The Post and the Times were true by disclosing when and to whom the detailed warning was given.

At least two members of the cell that planned the synagogue attack, based in the Kaluga region, were killed by FSB agents when they opened fire during arrest, according to the agency, which reported that the cell was planning to attack the synagogue using firearms. Kazakhstan confirmed that two of its citizens were killed in the raid.

Four days after the Crocus City Hall attack, FSB Director Alexander Bortnikov blamed Ukraine and said Western security services were involved.

“We believe that the action was prepared by radical Islamists, naturally, Western security services contributed to it, and Ukrainian security services bore a direct relation,” Bortnikov told reporters.

Patrushev told the Argumenty i Fakty newspaper in an interview published Tuesday that Washington used NATO as a tool to carry out hybrid wars “to undermine and disorganize the system of state administration of countries that do not agree with the policy of the Anglo-Saxons.”

“At the same time, the alliance does not disdain using terrorist organizations in its interests,” he said. NATO, he said, “has been a source of danger, crises and conflicts for many years.”

Three days before the Crocus City Hall attack, Russian President Vladimir Putin had dismissed the U.S. warnings, calling them “outright blackmail” and attempts to “intimidate and destabilize our society.”

Putin and other Russian officials have made no mention of the U.S. intelligence supplied in relation to the planned synagogue attack.

In an interview with Argumenty i Fakty published on the morning of the Crocus City Hall strike, Peskov said NATO was waging a war against Russia, repeating a linchpin of Kremlin propaganda used to justify Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and to mobilize Russia’s population behind the war.

“We are in a state of war. Yes, it started out as a special military operation, but as soon as that bunch formed there, when the collective West became a participant in this on the side of Ukraine, it has already become a war for us. I am convinced of that. And everyone should understand this, for their internal mobilization,” Peskov said.

Putin alleged a Ukrainian link to the Crocus City Hall terrorists the day after the attack when he told Russians in a speech to the nation that “a window was prepared for them from the Ukraine side to cross the state border.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin appears on a screen onstage in Moscow's Red Square last month. (Reuters)

Top pro-Kremlin propagandists, including Margarita Simonyan, editor in chief of the RT news channel, ramped up attacks blaming Ukraine and the West. In a post on social media, she asserted that Western intelligence clearly played a direct role in the Crocus City Hall attack because it had identified the perpetrators.

“They knew who the perpetrators were. Before the detention. That’s direct involvement,” Simonyan posted, later adding that the source of the attack was “not ISIS,” but Ukraine.

Likewise, Russian lawmaker Alexander Yakubovsky claimed that “the Nazi terrorist regime of Ukraine is behind this terrorist attack, possibly using radical Islamists, but without Western intelligence services it is impossible to pull this off.”

Another hard-line Russian lawmaker, Pyotr Tolstoy, posted on Telegram that the attack could not be seen apart from “the war with the collective West for the peaceful futures of our children.”

The Kremlin’s effort to blame Ukraine and the West for the attack appears to have succeeded in mobilizing Russians around the war effort. Russia’s Defense Ministry announced Wednesday that 1,700 Russians a day were signing contracts to fight in Ukraine, many of them, it added, motivated by the Crocus City Hall attack. In the past 10 days, 16,000 people have signed contracts, it announced.

Shortly after the U.S. warnings were shared with Russia, the authorities did tighten security at Crocus City Hall, according to a 15-year-old coat-check boy, Islam Khalilov. He told Russian media: “We were warned a week ago that there might be attacks. There was training. They told us what to do, where to lead people. I was ready for it in principle. That week there were the toughest checks, with dogs.”

But just days later, on a busy Friday evening, four gunmen rampaged through Crocus City Hall, shooting concertgoers and setting the hall on fire without any resistance, according to video from the scene.

It remains unclear why security was loosened again. Russian officials — and pro-Kremlin news outlets — have steered clear of the question, instead focusing on blaming Ukraine and the West.

Putin, speaking at an Interior Ministry meeting Tuesday, called for increased security at concert venues, shopping centers and other places where crowds gather.

“It’s important above all to bring law, order and security at crowded places, at sports and transport facilities, shopping and recreation centers, schools, hospitals, colleges, theaters and so on up to a new level,” he said.

Russia’s foreign intelligence chief, Sergei Naryshkin, claimed Tuesday that U.S. intelligence on the Crocus City Hall attack was too general to be of help.

“Indeed, the FSB did receive information,” he said. “The information was too general and did not allow the ultimate identification of perpetrators of the horrible crime.”

Shane Harris in Washington and Natalia Abbakumova in Riga contributed to this report.

#terrorwave #terror wave #terror #news #russia #usa #Nikolai Patrushev #Robyn Dixon #NATO #ISIS-K #Maria Zakharova #Sergei Naryshkin #Crocus City Hall #nazi #Islamic State-Khorasan

4 notes · View notes

songsofprotestpeacerevolution · 2 months

Text

youtube

uamee - PUCK FOOTIN' [KREMLIN BOTS]

“I was debating with myself on whether or not to publish this track. Not because I was worried it will somehow impact my career or any of this internet life, it was more of a basic fear from retaliation, fear of attack, fear for safety of people I love. Just for speaking up.

Something the people of my country know too well. It is like a mental stamp on all people who were born in the Soviet Union that we need to carry with ourselves everywhere we go. You step out of line – you get punished.

I’m from a NATO country, Latvia, there is no immediate military threat, there are no goons in the street, there are no black volgas to takes us at night. We are a free country, we have chosen the rule of law, the right of freedom of expression is respected and protected. People who came before me paid with their lives for it. However. That stamp, it remains.

I have nothing but respect for the Ukrainian people, they were also once under the same boot, the same stamp, the same black volgas with the same goons in the street. They have chosen a similar route my country took decades ago and are paying the price.

This war has to be stopped. No one wants this war. Fuck war."

#Youtube

2 notes · View notes

usafphantom2 · 1 year

Text

Russia moved 10 aircraft capable of transporting nuclear weapons to Belarus

Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 25/03/2023 - 19:16 in Military, War Zones

Russia allegedly transferred 10 aircraft to Belarus that are capable of carrying tactical nuclear weapons, after Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an agreement with the country's leader. This is the first time since the mid-1990s that Moscow will base such weapons outside the country.

The measure, reported by the TASS news agency, fueled fears of an escalation in the conflict with Ukraine. Putin made the announcement at a time of growing tensions with the West over the war in Ukraine and while some Russian commentators speculate on possible nuclear attacks.

Putin told state television that Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko had long raised the issue of parking tactical nuclear weapons in his country.

“There is also nothing unusual here: first of all, the United States has been doing this for decades. They have long positioned their tactical nuclear weapons on the territory of their allied countries," he said.

“We agreed with [Belarusian President Alexander] Lukashenko that we would put tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus without violating the non-proliferation regime,” Putin said.

"Tactical" nuclear weapons refer to those used for specific gains on the battlefield, rather than those with the capacity to destroy cities. It is not clear how many of these weapons Russia has, since it is an area still shrouded in Cold War secrecy traditions.

Putin claimed that he would not violate nuclear non-proliferation agreements, since the U.S. already has these weapons stationed in Europe, according to the agency. Belarus borders three NATO members – Poland, Lithuania and Latvia.

On July 1, Russia will complete the construction of a storage facility in the territory of Belarus, the RBU reported.

He added that on April 3 Moscow will begin training teams to operate aircraft converted to use tactical weapons.

In December, Russia moved a Yars strategic missile to the Tver region of Russia, northwest of Moscow. Two more Yars missiles were installed in silos in Kozelsk in the same week.

This change occurred shortly after the despot increased the number of his strategic nuclear bombers stationed at an air base near the Finnish and Norwegian borders.

Su-24 from Belarus.

In August last year, the authoritarian ruler of Belarus, Alyaksandr Lukashenko, said that his country's Su-24 military planes were re-equipped to allow the transport of nuclear weapons.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, nuclear weapons were deployed in the four newly independent states of Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan.

In May 1992, the four states agreed that all weapons should be based in Russia and the transfer of warheads from Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan was completed in 1996.

Tags: Nuclear AttackMilitary AviationBelarus Air ForceWar Zones - Russia/Ukraine

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Dayton Airshow and FIDAE. He has works published in specialized aviation magazines in Brazil and abroad. Uses Canon equipment during his photographic work throughout the world of aviation.

Related news

MILITARY

Ukraine authorizes foreign pilots to fly in their fighters

26/03/2023 - 17:30

MILITARY

South Korean KF-21 fighter will be mass-produced from 2024

03/26/2023 - 13:30

MILITARY

USAF F-16 fighter pilots explain what a dogfight against the MiG-29 Fulcrum is like

26/03/2023 - 12:06

MILITARY

Canada is investing more than $5 billion in infrastructure for F-35 fighters

25/03/2023 - 22:35

MILITARY

French Air Force goodbyes to Alphajet for the training of its fighter pilots

25/03/2023 - 12:00

MILITARY

U.S. carries out air counterattacks on Iran's representative forces in Syria after deadly drone attack

25/03/2023 - 10:00

homeMain PageEditorialsINFORMATIONeventsCooperateSpecialitiesadvertiseabout

Cavok Brazil - Web Creation Tchê Digital

Commercial

Executive

Helicopters

HISTORY

Military

Brazilian Air Force

Space

Specialities

Cavok Brazil - Web Creation Tchê Digital

6 notes · View notes

ukrainian-rhapsody · 1 year

Text

What is really happening in Bakhmut? In this hell of shellshocked plump rats, pouring rain and stagnant mud of this unusually mild winter, Ruscists throw their drugged Wagner convicts forward, often at gun point, to draw fire. They are mowed down, but our positions are revealed, and we pay with a tonnage of artillery shells that reduces Bakhmut even further from city to wasteland of history.

The press, social media and avid onlookers reduce the Bakhmut siege to one word: meatgrinder. But that word is not one that originates in any newspaper's war bureau. It is a policy, the policy, tactic, if any, favoured by Wagner boss Prigozhin, and it is his pride and joy, not any hallmark of Ukrainian gain.

And this meatgrinding deliberately continues. The stakes grow. At times a mere 100 metres separate civilisation from a barbarous horde of convicts.

And all this happens to a backdrop of Europe piggybacking on Anerican support with weaponry, and with a Europe of Germany's Coward-in-Chief Scholz refusing to release Leopard tanks onto the battlefield, lest Putin notice and suddenly attack him.

There are only five countries, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Ireland who have actually decreased aid to the Ruscist Imperium during the months of this war. Europe is financing the meatgrinding, financing the ongoing hell that is Bakhnut and the Ukrainian war. NATO chief Stoltenberg, now a darling of Western média for his tough talk, in fact corals no proper fighting front. He should be down the necks of European countries in business is usual mode, as someone like Kaja Kallas, prime minister of Estonia would, in his position.

So the meatgrinding goes on. But the cheering tweets and comments on social media miss the most pertinent point: this is Prigozhin doctrine, to wear down Ukrainian forces. Severe shell shock and shrapnel wounds are taking a horrendous toll, drones that spot enemy incursions and ammunition that keeps them at bay are in short supply, yet the focus remains on Ruscist casualties, with almost delight.

7 notes · View notes

that-starlit-wanderer · 13 days

Text

Wonder what percentage of the people who oppose any further US support for Ukraine would also oppose the US getting involved in response to a Russian invasion of a NATO country, e.g. Latvia. I often see people couch their anti-Ukraine arguments in a language like "well they're not a member of NATO, so we don't actually have an obligation to aid them, and they're not going to win anyway, so it's better to just come to a peaceful resolution." The implication is that if a NATO member were attacked they would support the US meeting its treaty obligations.

I guess my contention is that I think most people who say things like that are lying or at least being disingenuous, I think most of them would absolutely view doing nothing while the Baltic states are overrun (or at least while Russia attempts to overrun them...) as preferable to going to war with Russia, with the risks of nuclear escalation that that would entail.

In fact I'll maybe go a step further and claim that: if you view nuclear war as an unacceptably bad outcome, and in fact an outcome worse than any other, then you can never in good conscience endorse going to war with a nuclear-armed country unless you have absolute certainty that that country won't under any circumstances use nuclear weapons (and I would argue it's impossible to ever have that kind of certainty).

I think in the specific example of a Russian invasion of the Baltic states, if you would endorse going to war with Russia you have to argue one of three things: (1) that there are in fact worse outcomes than nuclear war (particularly the message it would send to other nuclear-armed countries that they can act with impunity); or (2) that the risk of an escalation to nuclear war is so small that it doesn't outweigh the dangers of not intervening to stop a Russian invasion; or (3) that if there was a nuclear war it would remain limited in scope and wouldn't escalate to the kind of world-ending threat that existed during the Cold War. Or possibly some combination of those.

Or I suppose you could also try to argue that Russia would be unable to fight a nuclear war even if it wanted to due to the allegedly dilapidated state of their military (I've seen a few presumably-not-very-serious statements to that effect over the last couple of years), but that seems like a very risky and foolish gamble.

And I guess the thing is, I would like to try to make one of those three arguments because I think it would be indisputably bad for Russia to be allowed to overrun the Baltic states, and I think the consequences for global peace and stability would be catastrophic (more war, arms races, collapse of alliances and loss of trust, countries around the world kick-starting their own nuke programs overnight, etc.). But I'm not sure how convinced I'd be of my own arguments, or that any of those catastrophic outcomes would be more catastrophic than an escalation to nuclear war.

1 note · View note

mariacallous · 10 months

Text

Twenty-five years ago, as a State Department speechwriter, I worked with Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to secure ratification by the U.S. Senate of NATO’s first enlargement since the 1950s. Like all of us who advised Albright, I felt passionately that bringing Central Europe’s new democracies into NATO was morally right and in America’s interest. But we also believed it was vital to set the highest possible bar for aspiring members. The United States insisted on admitting only Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic to NATO during that round—rejecting calls by some European allies to add more countries.

“NATO is a military alliance, not a social club,” Albright told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. New members had to be ready to contribute to its military missions and committed to its democratic values. They could not bring unresolved internal or border conflicts into NATO—the whole point of the process was to induce them to solve these problems before joining. Back in 1998, for example, we had to be confident that Hungary wouldn’t make territorial claims on neighboring countries with Hungarian minorities.

NATO kept its door open to more members after that first expansion. We expected the biggest test would be bringing in the Baltic States—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania—because that would mean bringing states that had once been Soviet republics into the alliance. That Rubicon was crossed in 2004, without any serious harm to NATO-Russia relations. But I didn’t think Ukraine would ever join them. When NATO declared in 2008 that Ukraine “will become” a member, without offering a pathway for membership, I worried it was making a promise that might prove impossible to keep, even if Ukraine fixed its then-profound problems with corruption and democratic governance.

Russia’s full-scale invasion, and Ukraine’s heroic defense of NATO’s founding values, has changed all that.

At the coming NATO summit this July, NATO should offer Ukraine a Membership Action Plan—the first formal step toward membership. It should make clear that Ukraine’s ultimate accession depends solely on actions within its control, not on what Russia does or on the ultimate resolution of the war.

One reason to be serious about Ukrainian membership is that experience has validated the original argument for bringing new members into NATO. In 1997, Albright predicted NATO enlargement would “expand the area of Europe where wars do not happen,” and that turned out to be true. Since then, Russia has only attacked countries not yet protected by the alliance—Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova.

Experience has also disproved the belief that nations could gain security from Russia by foregoing their aspirations for NATO membership in deference to its concerns. It’s often forgotten that Ukraine adopted a law prohibiting joining military alliances in 2010. Russia invaded anyway in 2014, stealing Ukrainian territory and giving Ukraine’s neighbors reason to fear that their borders were no longer secure, either.

So the old reasons for Ukrainian NATO membership have become stronger; the old fears of provoking Russia have become moot. But there is also a new argument for Ukrainian membership, one that stems naturally from a question that every American and European government is now asking: How do we define Ukrainian victory and Russian defeat?

If the current war were solely about sovereignty—about upholding the principle that borders can’t be erased by tanks—then there could be only one good answer to that question. Ukraine would have to regain all of its territory. And that should remain our common goal.

But Russian President Vladimir Putin’s goal in Ukraine is clearly not just to grab land; nor is land the only thing Ukrainians are defending. U.S. President Joe Biden has said that Ukraine’s “brave resistance is part of a larger fight for democratic principles,” and if that is true—if this war is partly about preserving Ukraine’s freedom to build a democratic society and to align itself with countries that share its values—then Ukraine joining NATO as a strong, pluralistic democracy would also count as victory. It would arguably be as huge a blow to Putin as Ukraine regaining Crimea. It might thus relieve the political pressure Ukraine’s leaders feel to complete that military task more quickly than realities on the ground might allow, and focus them, constructively, on the work required to integrate seamlessly with the Western alliance.

The alternative some have proposed—offering Ukraine security “guarantees” that fall short of NATO membership, as the United States does for Israel, might help until full membership is achieved. But they are no substitute. The United States and Israel don’t have a mutual defense treaty because Israel doesn’t want one—in part because it fears a formal alliance would limit its freedom of action. Ukraine, in contrast, has been asking to assume the responsibilities of joining our alliance. It is a European country suffering exactly the kind of attack NATO was created to prevent, and it’s proving that it is ready and willing to interpose itself between the attacking nation and NATO’s other members—to defend their freedom as well as its own. How can NATO say no to such a country’s aspirations for membership without signaling hesitation to actually guarantee its security, and without validating Putin’s claim that Ukraine is part of a special Russian sphere of influence? There really is only one security guarantee that is taken seriously in Europe, and that is NATO.

That still leaves the question we posed 25 years ago: Can we bring into NATO a country with an unresolved conflict, without obligating the U.S. military to join that conflict? That is a serious and legitimate concern, especially since it is in the nature of an active conflict to expand unpredictably. But the answer cannot be to wait to admit Ukraine until the current war definitively ends. That would give Russia an incentive to never end the war—the very opposite of what NATO’s original enlargement conditions were designed to achieve.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty says that if a member is attacked, each ally must take “such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain” security. That is a serious legal obligation, even if it does not require going to war in response to every small provocation. But we would still get to define its contours in advance of Ukrainian accession.

If, for example, Russian troops were to still occupy some Ukrainian soil when Ukraine is ready for membership, allies could reach an understanding that Article 5 would not oblige them to take direct part in Ukraine’s operations to regain those remaining territories, but that they would take all feasible measures to stop a further Russian invasion. This would guarantee the security of that large part of Ukraine that its troops have protected and liberated, without committing American Marines to storm Crimea.

For those worried that Ukraine might take dangerous escalatory actions, NATO membership also would provide some insurance. Article 4 of the NATO treaty would require Ukraine and its new allies to “consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence, or security of any of the Parties is threatened.” Ukraine would have more security; it would also be more embedded in NATO’s military and political institutions, with less freedom to act independently. It would be far better to bring Ukraine into such a structure than to let it remain an extremely well-armed free agent.

Of course, there is still fighting to be done before Ukraine can fully join the alliance. All of NATO’s members will have to be convinced. And Ukraine will have to ensure it is politically and militarily ready. But that is all the more reason to start the formal process now. A democratic Ukraine joining the West is a big part of how this war ends. And Ukrainians should know what they must do to make it happen.

19 notes · View notes

whereareroo · 2 months

Text

WE MUST REMEMBER AND SUPPORT UKRAINE

WF THOUGHTS (3/2/24).

I know that you don’t want to talk about Ukraine. We have to do it anyway. Two years ago, most of Ukraine was enjoying a peaceful existence. Then, to satisfy Putin’s lust for land and power, she was brutally attacked by Russia. We just started the third year of the war.

I don’t want to hear that you’re tired of hearing about Ukraine. I don’t care about your weariness. The Ukrainians are doing us a massive favor by fighting to control Putin. They’re losing their lives. They’re making huge sacrifices. As a citizen of the world, the least that you can do is pay attention and give a damn.

You might not want to talk about Ukraine because you’re sickened by the bloodshed. I don’t blame you. The battlegrounds are swamped with blood. As we enter the third year of the war, more than 70,000 Ukrainians have been killed. Another 120,000 have been wounded. Prior to the Russian invasion, these were peaceful folks who were minding their own business. The Russian soldiers are pawns in Putin’s quest for land and power. More than 80,000 Russians are dead and another 250,000 have been wounded. If Putin hadn’t attacked Ukraine, these Russians would be alive and healthy. The needless bloodshed is sickening, and it’s tough to talk about. We need to talk about it anyway.

It’s a miracle that Ukraine has successfully defended itself against Russia. The early predictions were that Russia would fully occupy Ukraine within two weeks. After two years, it’s a stalemate. The Ukrainians have shown guts, bravery, and persistence. They are putting their lives on the line to protect their country and their democracy. Putin is furious that his army has been thwarted. He knows that his chances for success improve if he can make the war last longer. He knows that he can win if he can outlast the fortitude of Ukraine and exhaust her resources. Putin is willing to expend all necessary resources, and to sacrifice thousands upon thousands of lives, to extend the war and achieve victory.

The war stands at a crucial point. Ukraine is out of money, and she’s nearly exhausted her military supplies. Without the resources that are necessary to fight Putin, Ukraine will lose the war. It’s that simple. Ukraine hasn’t asked America, or any other country, for troops. Ukraine has merely asked for money and military supplies. American should supply Ukraine with everything that she needs. It’s the least that we can do. I’m sure that you’ve heard that our funding has been blocked by Republicans in the House. That’s shameful.

In the long run, helping Ukraine now will save the lives of thousands and thousands of American troops. In the long run, helping Ukraine now will save America billions and billions of dollars. Think about what will happen if Putin wins and takes control of Ukraine. Will that satisfy his lust for power and land? Of course not. Putin has already announced that he wishes to conquer all of the countries that were formerly members of the Soviet Union. In the general vicinity of Ukraine, there are seven NATO countries (Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania) that Putin would like to conquer. Theoretically, if an attack occurs America is supposed to defend those fellow NATO countries with all necessary troops and all necessary financial resources. If America backs away from supporting Ukraine, Putin will believe that we might back away from defending a NATO country too. In his lust for power and land, he might risk World War III by attacking a NATO country. The onset of WWIII could happen quickly. Putin might get support from countries like China, North Korea, or Iraq. All 30 NATO countries would become involved. More than 400,000 Americans died in WWII. The death toll in WIII could be similar or higher. If WWIII erupts, it will cost America trillions of dollars (we spent more than $2 trillion on Afghanistan). Why would we increase the chances of WWIII by allowing Putin to win in Ukraine? Isn’t it obvious that America benefits enormously if Putin loses in Ukraine? It’s not complicated.

We should fully support Ukraine because it’s our job to support democracy in the world. We should also support Ukraine because that’s what’s best for America. If Putin isn’t defeated in Ukraine, we’ll ultimately have to defeat him elsewhere. Our costs in the next round, measured in blood and financial resources, will be exponentially higher.

Sending money to Ukraine requires Congressional approval. The funding must be approved by both the House and the Senate. All previously approved resources have already been sent to Ukraine. In the Senate, 67 Senators from both parties recently joined together to authorize additional funding for Ukraine. Despite their different political viewpoints, these Senators understand the big picture here. They understand that this isn’t the time for political games. The understand the need to defeat Putin. They understand the need to avoid WWIII.

The Republicans control the House, and they’re refusing to support additional funding for Ukraine. They won’t even put the issue on the calendar for a vote. I’m not going to dignify their motivations with a discussion. Regardless of what they say, it’s clear that the Republicans in the House are playing political games with the issue. The Republicans in the House are playing political games that could lead to the defeat of Ukraine. To achieve political ends on other issues, the Republicans in the House are willing to allow a democracy to be toppled and to increase the risk of WWIII. Their position is totally insane! Their position could end up putting American troops on the battlefield. Their position could force America to fund WWIII. The position of the Republicans in the House is indefensible. It’s crazy. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Because of the House Republicans, for the first time in history America is failing to support a country that has been attacked by Russia. Because of the House Republicans, for the first time in history America is creating a dynamic that could lead to a World War. The political cravenness of the House Republicans is sickening. It’s maddening. It’s un-American. Any member of Congress who doesn’t stand with Ukraine should be thrown out of office.

Watch the news for discussion of a “discharge petition.” A “discharge petition” is an extremely rare parliamentary move that allows for Congress to vote on a matter even if the majority party is blocking the vote. Funding for Ukraine is such an important issue, and the tactics of the House Republicans are so un-American and dangerous, that there is talk of using a discharge petition to get the funding approved by Congress. It’s embarrassing that the Congress of the United States of America might have to use such a rare parliamentary device to save the world from Russia and Putin. How did Congress become so disconnected from reality?

You should also continue to follow this blog. In due course, we’ll have a complete list of the names of the members of Congress who opposed the funding of Ukraine. I’ll tell you where to find the list. All of the scoundrels are up for election in November. I’ll tell you how you can support their opponents. We need a Congress that does the right thing for America and the world.

Thanks for sticking with this. This is one of the biggest issues of our lifetimes. We tend to become indifferent to situations that last a long time. I’m going to keep reminding you about Ukraine. Until you hear from me again on this issue, please consider going online to find a good charity that provides humanitarian aid in Ukraine. The Ukrainian people need our help. They need to know that America is not forgetting about them. Thanks.

0 notes

gurucave · 3 months

Text

Putin Clarifies: No Intentions to Attack NATO

Criticizes Western “Scare Tactics”

In an eye-opening dialogue with journalist Tucker Carlson, Russian President Vladimir Putin made it unequivocally clear that Russia does not entertain any plans to engage in hostilities against NATO member states. Amidst a backdrop of growing anxieties over potential conflict escalations, Putin’s declarations serve as a crucial clarion call for peace and understanding.

Putin firmly stated, “Russia has no intention of attacking NATO member states,” dismantling the pervasive narrative of an imminent Russian threat. He criticized the Western governments for propagating this narrative, suggesting it is a strategy to frighten their citizens. “Western countries are trying to intimidate their own population with an imaginary Russian threat,” Putin remarked, highlighting a disconnect between political rhetoric and reality.

Addressing the possibility of military engagement in countries like Poland, Putin was categorical: “Only in one case: if there will be an attack on Russia from Poland.” This statement underscores Russia’s defensive posture, refuting any claims of aggressive territorial ambitions in Europe. “Why? Because we have no interests in Poland, Latvia, or any other [NATO member],” Putin added, clarifying the conditions under which Russia would consider military action.

Putin also took aim at the use of “scare tactics” by Western governments, accusing them of manipulating public perception for financial gain. “You don’t need to be an analyst to understand that getting involved in a global war goes against common sense,” he asserted, advocating for a rational approach to international relations.

The conversation touched on the sensitive issue of NATO’s expansion and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Putin reiterated Moscow’s stance that NATO’s support for Kyiv and its military expansion eastward are at the heart of current tensions. “Moscow has repeatedly cited NATO’s continuing expansion eastward and its support for Kiev as one of the root causes of the current conflict in Ukraine,” he explained, pointing to the destabilizing effects of military aid to Ukraine.

Throughout the interview, Putin’s message was one of rational diplomacy and the avoidance of catastrophic conflict. “A global war would bring all of humanity to the brink of destruction,” Putin warned, framing his narrative around the preservation of human life and the folly of war.

#global conflict avoidance #military expansion #NATO #peace advocacy #Russia-NATO relations #Tucker Carlson interview #Ukraine Crisis #Vladimir Putin #Western scare tactics

0 notes

vexnatos · 3 months

Text

Letter from u/FlashFlex to the so-called progressive left regarding Israel

Why do you keep accusing Israel of "occupying Palestine" but never accuse China of occupying Tibet?

Why do you keep calling for independence of Palestine but not for independence of Kurdistan?

Why do you so enthusiastically accept the Islamist propaganda that Israel is committing "genocide of Palestinians for 75 years" but immediately dismissed Russian claims of Ukraine committing genocide against ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine for 8 years as propaganda?

Why do you accuse Israel of treating Palestinians as "second-class citizens" but never bring up the fact that, in Latvia and Estonia, ethnic Russians who were already residing in those two countries by the time of the collapse of the USSR were never automatically naturalized and have what is known as "non-citizen" status?

Why are you against Israeli military presence in West Bank but not against the US military presence in Germany, Japan, South Korea, and other countries?

Why do you condemn Israel for conducting military operation in Gaza but don't mind your own countries being part of NATO which conducted military operations in other countries numerous times (including countries that didn't threaten NATO)?

Why are you against Israel annexing Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Golan Heights but are not against Venezuela annexing part of Guyana?

Why do you ignore the plight of Christians in Africa and the Middle East?

Where were you when Yazidis were being slaughtered by ISIS?

Why are you silent on Uyghur concentration camps in China?

Why don't you call for boycotting Saudi Arabia over its bombing campaign against Yemen?

How come you're not calling on the UK to release Scotland, Spain to release Catalonia, and Denmark to release Greenland?

Why were you okay with Qatar hosting the World Cup but Israel merely participating in Eurovision is giving you panic attacks (and would afterwards give you a PTSD because Israel will participate in it)?

Why are you silent on Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict?

Why aren’t you calling for stoping civil wars in Africa?

Why don’t you call for Taliban to be removed from Afghanistan?

What about Pakistan deporting Afghani refugees?

Could these all be because you don't want to stop receiving blood money from the Muslim Brotherhood and the Chinese Communist Party?

#original post by u/FlashFlex on Reddit #israel #palestine #china #qatar #armenia #azerbaijan #ukraine #russia #tibet #saudi arabia #antisemitism #pakistan #afghanistan

0 notes

dertaglichedan · 3 months

Text

Germany preparing for Russia to start World War 3, leaked war plans reveal

Europe is preparing for Russian President Vladimir Putin to expand his country’s war in Ukraine and attack NATO ally countries next year, leaked documents published in German newspaper BILD reveal.

According to the outlet — which obtained the classified military information from the German Ministry of Defense — the country’s armed forces are gearing up for a “hybrid” Russian attack in Eastern Europe.

The newspaper detailed how multiple potential alarming scenarios could unfold in the months ahead.

One such scenario, dubbed “Alliance Defense 2025” would start this February, with Russia mobilizing an additional 200,000 soldiers.

Emboldened by Western financial support for Ukraine drying up, Russia would then launch a massive “spring offensive” against Ukrainian armed forces.

The potential scenario outlines how Russia could start waging war in the Baltics by July using “severe cyberattacks” while stirring up discontent among Russian nationals in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

By September, those clashes, the classified documents show, could then be used by Russia as an impetus to unleash “Zapad 2024,” a large-scale military ‘exercise’ that would amass some 50,000 Russian soldiers in the west of the country and Belarus.

1 note · View note

usafphantom2 · 2 years

Text

'Warthogs' return to Europe for major military exercises

Fernando Valduga By Fernando Valduga 05/08/22 - 16:00 in Military

Ten A-10C Thunderbolt II jets from the Maryland National Air Guard arrived in Iceland on Thursday, the U.S. Air Forces in Europe and the African Air Forces said in a statement on Friday.

Designed to destroy Soviet tanks during the Cold War, the iconic attack plane nicknamed for the guttural sound that its cannon makes must train in various parts of Europe.

They will support the U.S. Army's Swift Response, an exercise involving about 9,000 allied soldiers scheduled to last until May 20.

Training began this week along with other exercises involving the U.S. military and its partners throughout Europe, with large concentrations of forces in the Baltic and Black Sea regions. The exercises are intended to show a rapid mobilization.

Four of the A-10s will go from Iceland to Norway on Friday, while the other six are expected to fly to North Macedonia on Saturday to support exercise operations, USAFE-AFRICA said.

The planes are also scheduled to make stops in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Poland to conduct what the U.S. Air Force calls agile combat employment (ACE). It implies the rapid dispersion and operation of aircraft from advanced locations.

The U.S. Air Force did not say how long the A-10s, assigned to the 104th Fighter Squadron, should remain in Europe.

The squadron is the second fighter unit of the National Air Guard to be sent to Europe this week.

Eight F-35 Lightning II jets from the Vermont National Guard arrived at Spangdahlem Air Base on Monday, along with Green Mountain State Guard personnel to strengthen NATO and support its air policing mission, USAFE-AFRICA announced earlier this week.

The deployments coincide with Russia's ongoing war against Ukraine, which led the U.S. to strengthen NATO countries along the alliance's eastern borders.

A-10s were based in Europe for about 30 years during the Cold War. They had a permanent home in Spangdahlem for almost 20 years before the reduction of defense funding and the change of priorities brought them to the United States.

Warthogs have been subject to budget cuts over the years, but have remained active in the USAF fleet. They can fly lower and slower than other U.S. Air Force combat aircraft, a capacity that allows them to eliminate tanks and other ground targets more easily.

Source: Stripes

Tags: A-10 Thunderbolt IIANG - Air National Guard / U.S. National Air GuardMilitary AviationUSAF - United States Air Force / U.S. Air Force

Fernando Valduga

Aviation photographer and pilot since 1992, he has participated in several events and air operations, such as Cruzex, AirVenture, Dayton Airshow and FIDAE. He has works published in a specialized aviation magazine in Brazil and abroad. He uses Canon equipment during his photographic work in the world of aviation

HOME Main Page Editorials Information Events Collaborate SPECIALS Advertise About

Cavok Brasil - Digital Tchê Web Creation

14 notes · View notes