Stoltenberg's Gaffe

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_218172.htm

This is from a speech given by NATO secretary-general Jens Stoltenberg. Read this excerpt carefully.

Then lastly on Sweden. First of all, it is historic that now Finland is member of the Alliance. And we have to remember the background. The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition for not invade Ukraine. Of course we didn't sign that.

The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second class membership. We rejected that. 

So he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.

Stoltenberg just publically admitted at a NATO forum that the war was not due to the naked and unprovoked aggression that has been the constant narrative since the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. Putin went to war because of NATO expansion and the war could have been prevented had there been negotiation. Rejected by NATO, Putin saw no alternative. Had more of us known of this transaction, then the build-up in early 2022 would have made more sense. Those who have made the NATO argument – the same argument being made here by Stoltenberg have been called Russian stooges.

It must be remembered that Stoltenberg is a consummate liar and creature of the Atlantic Establishment and he's one to always argue that NATO is solely defensive and therefore Russia's fears are unjustified. He's made a fatal admission but he would reject the conclusion because NATO is (according to him) not aggressive.

And yet substantive if not strong arguments can be made to demonstrate that NATO is not merely defensive. In fact its very origin (in 1949) was perceived as aggressive and yet the USSR was restrained in its response. It was only when West Germany was allowed to militarize and join NATO in 1955 that the USSR responded with the creation of The Warsaw Pact. Only ten years after the fall of Hitler, Moscow did not view these developments with Germany as defensive but threatening.

NATO was in crisis with the fall of the USSR in 1991 and yet over the course of the 1990's it was re-cast as a 'policeman' as it helped the West secure control of the Balkans.

Some may view the 2001-2021 Afghan War as justified but it brought NATO – the 'North Atlantic' Treaty Organisation into the heart of Asia and as a spearhead for US interests and ambitions in the region.

And within that twenty year conflict NATO transformed into a tool of aggression – overthrowing Gaddafi in Libya and trying to oust Assad in Syria. Russia's fears of NATO expansion were not unjustified – all the more given its rapid eastward expansion in the early 2000's – in violation of promises made by the United States. Had Moscow known what the US would do, it would have never agreed to German reunification in 1990.

One would hope that media outlets would pick up on the speech given by this otherwise feckless leader. It should be a major news story and in reality Stoltenberg is to be congratulated as it represents a remarkably rare instance of truth-telling. And yet I'm sure that somehow in his twisted thinking he is able to reconcile his words with the unprovoked naked aggression narrative.

I was also thinking of this today when hearing Western reporters condemn the Putin-Kim Jong-un summit in which (it is assumed) North Korea will sell weapons to Moscow in exchange for goods and technological exchange which will violate Western sanctions. The reporters decried such a weapons infusion as it will prolong the war in Ukraine.

Take that in for a moment and then consider the tens of billions of dollars worth of weapons Washington has given to Kyiv – let alone what the Europeans have given. If prolonging the war in itself is an evil as Western media suggests, then how is it that Western powers giving weapons (which prolong the war) are reckoned a good while Russia being supplied with weapons (which supposedly will prolong the war) is bad?

Or perhaps something else is happening. It's admittedly entertaining to watch these individuals and institutions muddle their messages but it's not funny given the human cost. Russia certainly is to blame but Stoltenberg also condemned himself and the organisation he heads. In his speech he admits that if NATO hadn't expanded, then the war would not have happened. That's an admission of guilt – at least in part.