Iryna VoichukThe Kharkiv Palace Hotel, which the russians label as a “NATO militant base”to justify another missile attack on civilian facilities.
đź“·RFE/RL
đź“·RFE/RL
dan80 🇺🇦
- 9 Followers
- 29 Following
- 212 Posts
This is a secondary account to follow #UkraineWar real-time updates and maps. I also have an account for the war in-dept analysis accounts at @dan80.
Tendar
Jenna 🇨🇦Ukraine has already proposed the only acceptable political solution. All Russian forces leave Ukraine and all prisoners, including the stolen children, are returned.
Then it’s time to start taking reparations.
Putin reaffirming that he wants nothing less than the destruction of the Ukrainian state is as honest as it is self-defeating. You cannot make a more convincing argument that the only way to establish lasting peace is to defeat Russia.
There is zero middle ground.
kravietz 🦇Yesterday’s #NATO #Stoltenberg interview on #Ukraine for German ARD TV, transcribed by whisper, translated by DeepL and edited by me.
Introduction:
More than 20 months after Russia’s major attack, the situation in Ukraine is critical. The attempt to decisively push back the Russian troops at the front has failed. The result is a gruelling war of position, which is likely to play into Russia’s hands. And which consumes large quantities of ammunition. NATO Secretary General Steutenberg criticises European arms policy in this context. We are not in a position to work together as closely as we should, says Steutenberg in an exclusive interview with ARD Studio Brussels. It is crucial to ramp up ammunition production. Here is the entire interview with the NATO Secretary General.
Journalist:
How do you assess the current situation on the front?
Stoltenberg:
I’m always careful to make predictions about the actual situation on the front. Because wars are inherently unpredictable. The only thing we know is that the more we support Ukraine, the sooner this war will be over.
Journalist:
But if you listen to Valerij Salužnii, the military chief of Ukraine, who says there is a pad, there is no major breakthrough to be expected, so wouldn’t it be reasonable for Putin to just wait longer because he thinks he has the longer breath than the best and things might turn in his direction?
Stoltenberg:
It’s up to us to prove Putin wrong. We must realise that it would be a tragedy for Ukraine if President Putin wins. But it would also be dangerous for us. It’s in our own interest to make sure that Ukraine prevails.
Journalist:
Those are strong words, but you’ve been saying that for two years now. But apparently there hasn’t been as much progress as one would expect after two years. If it’s something that really affects our security, if it’s a matter of war and peace for us, Why can’t we manage to supply Ukraine with more ammunition, for example?
Stoltenberg:
We had all hoped for more progress.
Journalist:
Yes, but why isn’t it working?
Stoltenberg:
Wars are hard to plan. We have to see where we were at the beginning. Yes, it’s true, there hasn’t been much movement on the front in the last few months. But the Ukrainians were able to inflict heavy losses on the Russian forces by attacking with cruise missiles deep behind enemy lines, destroying aircraft and helicopters, and they were able to push the Russian Black Sea Fleet back into the eastern part of the Black Sea. That means they’re now able to keep the sea route open with ships transporting grain from Ukraine through the Black Sea. So these are big victories, even if they weren’t able to move the front line.
Journalist:
Do you fear that the situation in Ukraine will be worse, not better, in the future? The EU, for example, wanted to deliver one million shells to Ukraine and is now at 300,000 from old stocks, so hardly anything new.
Stoltenberg:
We also have to be prepared for bad news. Wars move in phases. But we have to stand by Ukraine in good times and bad. This is a war of attrition, a battle for efficiency, a battle for logistics. Ramping up production is crucial. We’re working hard to make sure that happens.
Journalist:
Let’s assume it does. Production is ramping up, but the project is not ramping up. Let’s assume that works. Production is ramped up, but it takes time. What should Ukraine do in the meantime? Stop the offensive, focus more on defence to save equipment and ammunition and save lives?
Stoltenberg:
I will leave it to the Ukrainians and the military leaders to make these difficult operational decisions. I think one of the problems we need to address is the fragmentation of the European defence industry. We are not able to work together as closely as we should.
Journalist:
But who is blocking that? I completely agree with your analysis, but who is still not moving after two years?
Stoltenberg:
I don’t want to point the finger at anyone, but I think we have to realise that this is about the interests of industry, about jobs. We have to see the bigger picture, that it’s in everyone’s interest in NATO to overcome national narrow interests. They are putting us in a dangerous position. We have to prevent the increased demand for ammunition from only driving up prices. We need more supply.
Journalist:
Mr Secretary-General, thank you very much.
Original: https://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/video/video-1279144.html
Yesterday #NATO Stoltenberg gave an interview to #Germany ARD where he allegedly says "we should also be prepared for bad news from Ukraine".
All #Russia and #Ukraine (!) channels are sharing it like crazy in a Russian language paraphrase published by... TASS. The only English language source I found with exactly this wording is also TASS. The news is also published by a ton of Iranian, Brazilian etc news sites, but their origin is obvious.
Stoltenberg doesn't seem to say anything revolutionary, and he said the same thing over and over again (war is hard, we need to support Ukraine regardless of the news we read). I can't believe the official state information agency of Russian Federation suddenly became the most reliable source for Ukrainian channels two years into the war, but it very much seems so.
Ukrainian (!) "War Zone" channel after half hour suddenly found out that the whole article quoting Stoltenberg "isn't as pessimistic as the title suggests", thus only adding to their display of ignorance — not only they make a whole "zrada" (Ukrainian: "betrayal") FUD out of TASS paraphrase of the interview, but they make it exclusively from a clickbait title. 🤦‍♂️
All #Russia and #Ukraine (!) channels are sharing it like crazy in a Russian language paraphrase published by... TASS. The only English language source I found with exactly this wording is also TASS. The news is also published by a ton of Iranian, Brazilian etc news sites, but their origin is obvious.
Stoltenberg doesn't seem to say anything revolutionary, and he said the same thing over and over again (war is hard, we need to support Ukraine regardless of the news we read). I can't believe the official state information agency of Russian Federation suddenly became the most reliable source for Ukrainian channels two years into the war, but it very much seems so.
Ukrainian (!) "War Zone" channel after half hour suddenly found out that the whole article quoting Stoltenberg "isn't as pessimistic as the title suggests", thus only adding to their display of ignorance — not only they make a whole "zrada" (Ukrainian: "betrayal") FUD out of TASS paraphrase of the interview, but they make it exclusively from a clickbait title. 🤦‍♂️
21 months later Russia has been severely weakened but is still capable to wage war. Instead of taking of the gloves and going all-in, certain elements in the West still cling to their failed appeasement tactic which led to this problem in the first place.
NOELREPORTS 🇪🇺 🇺🇦Heavy fighting is ongoing in the forest area south of Krynky, occupied Kherson region. The AFU is trying to advance towards the M-14.
Some thoughts dissecting the Rasmussen's #NATO #Ukraine proposal. The context:
> Those advocating for Ukraine’s Nato membership have been hamstrung by the near-impossibility of a country at war being offered membership, since under Nato’s article 5 clause of collective self-defence, all Nato member states are required to come to the active defence of the country in conflict. Nato membership for all of Ukraine now would in effect be a notice to Russia by Nato that it was about to go to war with Moscow.
The Rasmussen's proposal:
> By excluding from Nato territory held by Russia, the threat of a Russia-Nato conflict would be reduced, Rasmussen argues.
A reasonable question arises, what's exactly "territory held by Russia"? Remember, in 2022 Russia unilaterally declared four regions of Ukraine part of Russian Federation. This includes towns liberated by Ukraine, such as Kherson, and, most absurdly, even those where Russian soldiers never even put they foot, like Zaporizhzhia — or Avdiivka, now besieged by Russia.
I assume Rasmussen doesn't care about these declarations, because otherwise his proposal wouldn't make any sense. But in any case they must be taken into account if the purpose of the Ukraine's membership is deterrence, rather than indirect declaration of war.
So does that mean these regions would be excluded entirely? That, on the first look, that sounds like abandoning them to Russia.
But here's the next passage which clarifies Rasmussen's thinking a bit:
> Rasmussen denied the move would freeze the conflict, ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia. He said: “The absolute credibility of article 5 guarantees would deter Russia from mounting attacks inside the Ukrainian territory inside Nato and so free up Ukrainian forces to go to the frontline."
And that would make a lot of sense, because NATO protection for 80% of Ukraine territory effectively expands the current Ukraine's logistics hub from behind the EU border ~1000 km further east. Not to mention economic and humanitarian factor, where NATO umbrella would make living and making business in Kyiv just as safe as in Warsaw today.
But here's a problem I can't crack: if Ukraine enters NATO, and continues fighting for its territories beyond the "protected" grounds, doesn't that make it — a NATO country — at war with Russia? Rasmussen knows way more than me about NATO and international relations, but this bit it somehow missing from the article...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/...
> Those advocating for Ukraine’s Nato membership have been hamstrung by the near-impossibility of a country at war being offered membership, since under Nato’s article 5 clause of collective self-defence, all Nato member states are required to come to the active defence of the country in conflict. Nato membership for all of Ukraine now would in effect be a notice to Russia by Nato that it was about to go to war with Moscow.
The Rasmussen's proposal:
> By excluding from Nato territory held by Russia, the threat of a Russia-Nato conflict would be reduced, Rasmussen argues.
A reasonable question arises, what's exactly "territory held by Russia"? Remember, in 2022 Russia unilaterally declared four regions of Ukraine part of Russian Federation. This includes towns liberated by Ukraine, such as Kherson, and, most absurdly, even those where Russian soldiers never even put they foot, like Zaporizhzhia — or Avdiivka, now besieged by Russia.
I assume Rasmussen doesn't care about these declarations, because otherwise his proposal wouldn't make any sense. But in any case they must be taken into account if the purpose of the Ukraine's membership is deterrence, rather than indirect declaration of war.
So does that mean these regions would be excluded entirely? That, on the first look, that sounds like abandoning them to Russia.
But here's the next passage which clarifies Rasmussen's thinking a bit:
> Rasmussen denied the move would freeze the conflict, ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia. He said: “The absolute credibility of article 5 guarantees would deter Russia from mounting attacks inside the Ukrainian territory inside Nato and so free up Ukrainian forces to go to the frontline."
And that would make a lot of sense, because NATO protection for 80% of Ukraine territory effectively expands the current Ukraine's logistics hub from behind the EU border ~1000 km further east. Not to mention economic and humanitarian factor, where NATO umbrella would make living and making business in Kyiv just as safe as in Warsaw today.
But here's a problem I can't crack: if Ukraine enters NATO, and continues fighting for its territories beyond the "protected" grounds, doesn't that make it — a NATO country — at war with Russia? Rasmussen knows way more than me about NATO and international relations, but this bit it somehow missing from the article...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/...