Tag: nato

Putin Reveals Biden Offered To Postpone Ukraine’s NATO Entry As Compromise 

Russian President Vladimir Putin fielded questions from journalists Thursday at the conclusion of the Supreme Eurasian Economic Council meeting held outside St. Petersburg. The Russian-led EEU economic bloc includes member states Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan.

Among the more interesting moments was when Putin revealed what President Biden previously offered him in order to avert the Ukraine conflict, regarding the question of Kiev’s NATO membership.

The comments came in the context of a question over Trump’s reported peace plan and the idea of freezing the front lines. Putin described that such a plan is nothing new, and added the following per state media translation:

“I know that the current President Biden spoke about this, it’s no secret, back in 2021. He proposed exactly this to me – to delay Ukraine’s admission into NATO by 10-15 years, because [Kiev] is not ready yet,” Putin said, referring to the midsummer meeting he had with the US leader in Switzerland.

Keep reading

NATO arms Poland more than Ukraine in preparation for potential war with Russia

The massive transfer of NATO military equipment to Poland testifies to the West’s possible preparations for a direct war with Russia. Weapons and equipment arriving in Poland in such quantities, as if we are currently on the eve of a major war, lead to a dangerous escalation.

NATO is massively transferring military equipment from European countries to Poland, arming the country much more heavily than it armed the Ukrainians on the eve of the Russian special military operation. This is part of the Atlantic Alliance’s efforts to pressure and isolate Russia in Eastern Europe.

The grouping of NATO forces on the borders of Russia and Belarus has been a systematic effort for years. With such actions, NATO, in the interim, wants to tie up as many Russian and Belarusian forces as possible on the borders, while in the near future, Poland is intended to be a staging point in case of any hot war with Russia.

The exclave region of Kaliningrad, which has no land border with Russia proper but borders NATO countries Lithuania and Poland and has access to the Baltic Sea, is particularly at risk. Responding to this NATO threat, Russia and Belarus have increased their military group deployed along the borders of Poland and Lithuania.

Russian tactical nuclear weapons have also been deployed in significant quantities in Belarus. The goal of deploying nuclear weapons is to show that Russia and Belarus are capable of causing irreparable damage to NATO, essentially meaning it is for deterrence. Therefore, if NATO is ready to risk a nuclear war, then it will not be Russia’s choice, which will only be left with the choice to respond.

Moscow recently updated its nuclear military doctrine, according to which Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against it using conventional weapons – if this poses a threat to the vital interests of the state. Under the updated doctrine, Moscow also reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of aggression against Russia and Belarus as a member of the Federal State.

Keep reading

Putin And Defense Minister Belousov – Russia Is Preparing For War

For the first time, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Andrei Belousov have publicly stated Russia is likely to go to war with NATO in the next decade.

Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Andrei Belousov delivered their end-of-year report to a giant defense ministry conference on Monday, hailing the state of affairs at the front and in the rear. They talked about the latest successes in the Ukraine invasion, the increase in military spending and Russia’s preparations for conflict with NATO.

2024 was “a landmark year for achieving the goals” of the war in Ukraine, Putin stated, saying the Russian army had captured 189 settlements since January. According to Belousov, Ukrainian forces retain control of under 1% of the territory of the self-styled Luhansk People’s Republic, and 25-30% of the Donetsk People’s Republic, and the Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Regions — all parts of Ukraine that Russia claims to have annexed, reported Russian independent news outlet The Bell.

According to Putin, the breakthrough on the front came thanks to people voluntarily signing up to fight. Some 430,000 soldiers have been recruited so far this year, compared with 300,000 in 2023. Amid massive bonuses and salaries, more than 1,000 people are signing up to join the army every day.

Putin announced that the hypersonic Oreshnik intermediate-range missile system would go into serial production in the near future, despite having said at a meeting with Russia’s allies on Nov. 28 that it was already in full swing. And in the third quarter of 2025, Russia should have its own new specialized drone unit, mirroring a decision made by Ukraine back at the start of the year. 

Both Putin and Belousov also spoke of the prospect of direct conflict with the West. Putin complained that Russia was “being pushed to our red lines” while Belousov said that preparations for a conflict with NATO “in the next decade” were part of the defense ministry’s tasks and blamed NATO statements at its recent July summit for the increased threat. At the summit the military alliance’s final declaration described Russia as “the most significant and direct threat” to its members, which requires the strengthening and modernizing of its nuclear potential.

Keep reading

NATO State Warns Against Western Troops In Ukraine: “Discussion Has Gone Off The Rails”

One of NATO’s two newest members, Finland, is urging caution as some European leaders are considering a negotiated end to the Ukraine war which would involve sending Western peacekeeping forces. The incoming Trump administration is reportedly keen on the idea.

President of Finland Alexander Stubb issued a warning Tuesday before a defense cooperation summit in Tallinn, saying “We should not get ahead of ourselves” on the issue of a future peacekeeping mission, cited in Finnish outlet Yle.

His main criticism focused on the huge numbers of European troops that such a mission would require. “The operation cannot be launched on a shaky foundation,” he continued, explaining that an adequate peacekeeping force would have to have at least 150,000 soldiers on the ground.

“In rotation, that means three times that, or 450,000 peacekeepers per year. So perhaps this discussion has gone off the rails, so to speak,” he emphasized.

Stubb offered that instead of peacekeeping forces, Kiev should have security guarantees, and that should be the central driver of the discussion over future peace negotiations.

The past several months have seen leading NATO countries revive the idea of sending Western troops to Ukraine. Whether in a ‘peacekeeping’ capacity or not, the Kremlin would see this as a massive escalation and has threatened war with the west.

Putin has made it clear that Russia will not tolerate NATO regular forces right on its border. Already this week Putin has said the West is going ‘beyond’ Russia’s stated red lines.

As the Biden administration has scrambled to try and build Kiev’s leverage on the battlefield prior to the Trump administration taking office, it recently greenlighted long-range missile attacks using ATACMS systems on Russia. 

Moscow has frequently said it is open to peace negotiations with Ukraine, but at this point is very unlikely to sign off on any plan which would see a European troop large deployment in any capacity.

Keep reading

European ‘peacekeepers’ in Ukraine? A horrible idea.

President-elect Trump is reportedly advancing the idea that a large and heavily armed peacekeeping force from Europe (but including NATO members) could be introduced into Ukraine as part of a peace settlement there. It is important that this very ill-thought-out idea be shot down before it does serious damage to the prospects for an early peace and causes Ukraine still further human, economic and territorial loss.

According to the Wall Street Journal and Le Monde, this idea first emerged in private talks between French and British officials in November. It was discussed on Thursday by NATO foreign ministers in Brussels. Trump made the suggestion to French President Emmanuel Macron and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at a meeting in Paris on December 7.

Macron then traveled to Warsaw to discuss a plan for 40,000 heavily armed European “peacekeepers” with the Polish government whose officials, however, have so far given it a cool public response. In the words of Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk: “To cut off speculation about the potential presence of this or that country in Ukraine after reaching a ceasefire, … decisions concerning Poland will be made in Warsaw and only in Warsaw. At the moment we’re not planning such activities.”

Friedrich Merz of the German Christian Democrats, almost certain to be chancellor after the elections due in February, has also distanced himself from the idea.

On the face of it, this idea might seem to reconcile several mutually contradictory pressures on the Ukrainian peace process: The Russian demand for a treaty that will permanently bar Ukraine from NATO membership; the Ukrainian demand for Western guarantees against future Russian aggression; Trump’s determination not to put U.S. troops on the ground or make additional and permanent U.S. commitments to Ukraine; and the real need for a substantial international force to patrol an armistice line.

There is just one problem: According to every Russian official and expert with whom my colleagues and I have spoken (most recently on Thursday), the idea of Western troops in Ukraine is just as unacceptable to the Russian government and establishment as NATO membership for Ukraine itself. Indeed, the Russians see no essential difference between the two.

Seen from Moscow, such a Western “peacekeeping force” would be simply a NATO advance guard that would provide cover for the gradual introduction of more and more NATO forces. Indeed, while President Zelensky has said that Ukraine “may consider” the idea of peacekeepers, it would only do so if it is also given a clear timeline for future NATO membership. If this proposal is put forward by General Kellogg, President-elect Trump’s choice as his Ukraine envoy, in negotiations, the Russian side will therefore reject it out of hand; and if it is insisted on, the talks will fail.

Keep reading

The Long Train of Abuses that Culminated in the Ukraine War

“A fox knows many things, but a hedgehog knows one big thing.” Scott Horton is the liberty movement’s foreign policy hedgehog, endeavoring to convince the American public of one essential truth: the folly of war. But within that sphere, Horton is a fox, weaving an encyclopedic knowledge of various conflicts into an elaborate and convincing tapestry that indicts elites, intellectuals, the military-industrial complex, and—with characteristic vitriol—neoconservatives in pushing the US toward unnecessary wars.

Provoked: How Washington Started the New Cold War with Russia and the Catastrophe in Ukraine, fits this mold to a tee—not because Horton contorts facts to a preconceived narrative. Rather, because it is often the same people pushing conflict after conflict who, unsurprisingly, resort to the same, well-worn playbook. Horton’s tome is riveting, from beginning to end. Here, I will focus on the early post-Cold War years, since this part of the story is oft-neglected in contemporary debates about the origins of the Ukraine war.

With the closing of the Cold War, and the USSR dissolving, the U.S. faced a crisis of success: what use is the NATO military alliance without the Soviet enemy to align against? More broadly, what grand strategy should the US adopt now that containing communism was obsolete? For neoconservatives, whose answer post-Cold War was benevolent global hegemony, the solution was to adapt NATO. NATO must gradually absorb more European nations, while leaving Russia out in the cold—contained and encircled, in an even worse position than during the Cold War. NATO must expand its mission to keep European peace and expand Western democracy, or wither on the vine.

From George H.W. Bush to today, the record meticulously compiled by Horton demonstrates that U.S. and other Western leaders communicated to Russia leaders and officials that NATO would not expand east—and could even allow for Russian membership in NATO. Various efforts like the Partnership for Peace and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe were promoted to foster this impression that Russia would be included in European affairs, alliances, and institutions, rather than these structures aligning against them. All the while, these same US and Western leaders took virtually the opposite positions internally, with the result that the US willfully misled the Russians. The exact internal and external postures waxed and waned over the years, but this ultimate pattern held firm. This was even though, all along, Russian officials warned about how they and the Russian people would react to NATO advancing east. What we see is, in terms with which Americans are well-familiar, “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object.”

Keep reading

NATO Head Says “Wartime Mindset” Needed; Redirect “Pensions, Health, Social Security” To Military Spending

Former Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who was this year selected as the Secretary General of NATO, has stated that Europeans need to “shift to a wartime mindset” and that military spending must be increased, likely at the expense of things like health care.

Rutte made the remarks at, ironically, a meeting of The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Brussels, declaring that Russia is trying to “crush our freedom and way of life.”

“Hostile actions against Allied countries are real and accelerating… These attacks are not just isolated incidents. They are the result of a coordinated campaign to destabilise our societies and discourage us from supporting Ukraine,” he added.

Rutte further asserted that Russia is using unconventional “hybrid warfare” attacks against Europe, circumventing NATO’s traditional defence and bringing “the front line to our front doors. Even into our homes”.

“Ukrainians are fighting against Russian swarms of drones. That’s what we need to be prepared for”, Rutte told the conference.

“I know spending more on defence means spending less on other priorities. But it is only a little less,” he continued, adding that “On average, European countries easily spend up to a quarter of their national income on pensions, health and social security systems.”

“We need a small fraction of that money to make our defences much stronger, and to preserve our way of life,” he proclaimed, reasoning that “freedom does not come for free.”

Keep reading

Mystery craft seen swarming over secretive UK airbases feared to have ‘sinister motive’

An expert has described the latest wave of drone activity over NATO‘s nuclear airbases in the UK as “particularly sinister.”

Over the past year, US military airbases have been plagued by several incursions from mysterious unidentified craft. Starting with a swarm of mysterious drone-like objects over Langley Air Force Base in Virginia over Christmas 2023, the spate of bizarre drone intrusions has reached a peak this month, with dozens of sightings over bases both in the US and here in the UK.

The UFO community has been running wild with speculation about extraterrestrial visitors, focusing on the fact that many of the military sites targeted store nuclear weapons. But there’s a much more plausible – and much more worrying – explanation. That’s according to Professor David Dunn, a lecturer in political since and international studies at the University of Birmingham.

He says that the most likely cause of this rash of UAP sightings is drones being flown by operatives of some hostile power who are attempting to demonstrate the vulnerability of NATO bases, as well as to intimidate service personnel working there.

Speaking to science filmmaker Simon Holland about the nightly flights over NATO bases, he said: “It’s disruptive first of all it’s demonstrating and signalling vulnerability and capability and it’s also about preparation and signalling that preparation. In particular, he says, the drones are not only hovering over aircraft on the ground at these bases, they’ve also being seen lurking near servicemen’s married quarters at bases such as Kirkwall.

He added: “This is not just one or two drones like in Gatwick airport a few years ago. This is a coordinated incursion by a whole variety of different drones that are clearly part of a plan by a sophisticated actor.”

Keep reading

Zelensky’s Flip-Flop On Ceasefire Terms Is A Faux Concession

Ukraine will still remain a de facto member of NATO so long as its security guarantees with the bloc’s members remain in effect.

Zelensky recently flip-flopped on ceasefire terms by signaling that he’d accept a cessation of hostilities in exchange for Ukraine being admitted to NATO, though without Article 5 applying to all the territory that he claims as his own while the conflict remains ongoing. The Ukrainian Foreign Ministry then released a statement about how their country won’t accept any alternative to NATO membership. The Kremlin predictably described this demand as unacceptable.

This coincided with NATO Secretary General Rutte clarifying that his bloc’s focus right now is on arming Ukraine, which corroborated reports from Le Monde that several members such as Hungary, Germany, and even the US oppose Ukraine joining at this time. The larger context concerns Putin finally climbing the escalation ladder after authorizing the historic use of the hypersonic medium-range MIRV-capable Oreshnik missile in combat after the US let Ukraine use its ATACMS inside of Russia’s pre-2014 territory.

Nevertheless, what’s lost amidst the latest news about Zelensky’s flip-flop on ceasefire terms is the fact that this is actually just a faux concession since there isn’t any chance that he’ll capture all of his country’s lost territory, plus he’s still demanding NATO membership, which is at the root of this conflict. At the same time, Ukraine is already arguably a de facto member of NATO after clinching a spree of security guarantees with many of its members over the past year, which resemble Article 5 in spirit.

About that, this clause is popularly misportrayed as obligating countries to dispatch troops in support of allies that are under attack, though it only actually obligates them to provide whatever support they deem necessary. The security guarantees that it clinched institutionalize those countries’ existing support for Ukraine in the form of arms, intelligence sharing, and other aid, which is essentially the same as Article 5 but without any implied (key word) pressure to dispatch troops like full membership carries.

Keep reading

Ukraine’s best hope for peace looks a lot like Donald Trump

Last week, people who fear a third world war got more reasons to worry. Ukraine, with permission from the White House, struck Russian territory with long-range missiles supplied by the United States. Russian President Vladimir Putin has long warned that such an attack would mean that NATO and Russia “are at war,” and he has raised the specter of nuclear retaliation. Granted, these threats could be bluffs, but last week Putin gave them some credibility by (a) loosening the conditions for Russia’s use of nuclear weapons, (b) firing a multiple-warhead, nuclear-capable missile at Ukraine for the first time in the war, and (c) declaring, in a speech after the strike, that Russia would be entitled to attack any nations that aid Ukraine’s strikes into Russian territory.

While Putin’s caution during previous crises suggests he’s not about to reach for the nuclear button just yet, his dramatic response has complicated any path to a peace deal. Meanwhile, some liberal voices have predicted that Trump’s looming presidency, far from hastening an end to the conflict as Trump has promised to do, will prolong it. If Trump were to cut off arms to Ukraine, he’d remove an important incentive for Putin to call it quits, according to Ben Rhodes, a former White House official under Barack Obama. Among conservatives who advocate foreign policy restraint, there is worry that Trump’s hawkish cabinet nominees portend a departure from the peace agenda he campaigned on. As for hawkish critics of Trump on both left and right, many believe that he may end the war by just giving away the farm to Putin.

These concerns are valid. But Trump has good reasons to try proving the doubters wrong. He understands that foreign policy debacles can crater a president’s approval ratings, and he has staked his reputation on being able to end a conflict that started and continues to escalate on President Joe Biden’s watch. “I’m the only one who can get the war stopped,” he told Newsweek this September. Brokering a respectable peace would be a boon to his legacy and an embarrassment for his political opponents—and Trump loves splattering egg on the faces of his detractors. So there is room for optimism alongside the worry. Trump may well manage not only to stop the war but also to get Ukraine the best deal it could realistically hope for.

Some say Trump’s Ukraine promises are hollow since he hasn’t outlined a viable peace deal. But Trump maintains, plausibly enough, that he can’t reveal details of a plan without boxing himself in. It would be better, he says, to hammer out a deal with Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky behind closed doors, which means keeping mum on specifics for now. Despite Trump’s reticence, there are signs of the kind of deal he’d push for—and signs that both Putin and Zelensky would go for it.

This fall, J.D. Vance, Trump’s running mate and now vice president-elect, laid out a likely settlement: The current battle lines become a “heavily fortified” demilitarized zone to prevent future Russian aggression; Kyiv retains its sovereign independence; and Russia gets assurances that Ukraine won’t join NATO. Moscow would presumably also get to keep the lands in eastern and southern Ukraine that it now holds.

Keep reading