/ world today news/ NATO Chief of Staff Stian Jensen said that “Ukraine can get NATO membership in exchange for the transfer of part of the Ukrainian territory to Russia and that this can be part of the end of the war in Ukraine.” What is this? NATO is probing the soil, is Russia ready to end the war if it is given part of Ukraine? Not quite so.
Speak or “leak”?
It should be emphasized that this is the first time a NATO representative has openly said that NATO is discussing the possibility of seizing part of the territory of today’s Ukraine for Russia in exchange for us ending the war.
What will remain in the West after the de facto partition of Ukraine will supposedly be attached to NATO. In this case, it is important to understand that this is not a traditional “leak” of information in the hope of seeing Moscow’s reaction.
A senior NATO official simply dropped it, bringing to the surface internal NATO discussions that were previously not meant for the public. And to claim that it was exactly so, one must understand where and under what circumstances it was said.
The Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang published a short report from a “panel discussion” on the future of Ukraine held in the small Norwegian town of Arendal with the participation of the aforementioned NATO bureaucrat Stian Jensen (Norwegian by nationality), political scientists from the University of Oslo, the “independent” Norwegian Institute for international relations (NUPI) and the Norwegian Atlantic Committee (DNAK), which “works to inform and deepen the understanding of Norwegian foreign policy, defense and security”.
It was, so to speak, a small-town event in which Norwegian political scientists competed with each other in better understanding and knowledge of the Ukrainian issue.
It was in such and such an environment that Stian Jensen showed his knowledge gleaned from the inner workings of NATO. And, of course, he, the Brussels official, was best against the background of the local “village”.
Local journalists were also present at the discussion. No one expected them to bring the internal disputes of the local “smart people” to the general public.
What was said?
Stian Jensen actually dropped what NATO members are waiting for and what they intend to get from Ukraine, namely an agreement to cede some of their territory to Russia in exchange for Ukraine’s NATO membership to end the war .
Asked whether NATO believed Ukraine should cede land in order to achieve peace with Russia and future NATO membership, Jensen noted that “discussion about a possible status after the war is already underway and that others (NATO members) have raised questions about the transfer of territory to Russia”.
The newspaper drew attention to the fact that “the Secretary General of NATO has consistently stated that Ukraine should decide for itself when and under what conditions to conduct negotiations with Russia to end the occupation”.
“Now Stoltenberg’s closest ally in NATO says it needs to consider what the security situation in Ukraine should be after the war is over,” says Verdens Gang.
However, all the talk that “Ukraine must decide for itself” is a complete bluff. The alliance does not want Kiev’s opinion, since Ukraine has no subjectivity. This is evidenced by Kiev’s reaction to the statements in Norway, which were a surprise for it.
The advisor to the head of Zelensky’s cabinet, Mikhail Podolyak, went public with an angry statement. He categorically rejected the proposal: “Exchanging territory for a NATO umbrella? Strange”.
What’s weird? Do they not know in Kiev that they are vassals without rights, and the overlord lives in Washington?
What are the conclusions?
From Jensen’s statements, it can be understood that the issue of territorial concessions in favor of Russia was raised at the last NATO summit in July in Vilnius, where Zelensky insisted on the quick acceptance of Ukraine into the alliance.
It is also clear that no decisions have been made on this matter. And, apparently, it was postponed for further closed discussion by NATO members.
The partition of Ukraine between Russia and NATO is certainly not the plan proposed by Washington and NATO from the beginning. The calculation was that with Western weapons and with the active and direct participation of NATO advisers in the planning of military operations, the armed forces of Ukraine would be able to push the Russians to the 1991 borders.
The sensational counteroffensive of the armed forces of Ukraine was calculated on this. It also bet on the internal split of Russian society and, as a result, the displacement of the Russian leadership and the coming to power of the liberal pro-Western opposition. All these plans fell through.
Now the Western press is already talking about the fact that by the autumn, after the final failure of the Ukrainian counter-offensive, it should expect the Russians to move further west, to the border with Poland.
It was implied that Russia would take the entire Black Sea coast of present-day Ukraine and at the very least unite with Transnistria.
Under these conditions – when the collapse of the Kiev regime is predetermined not only by the will of Russia, but also by the actual situation on the battlefield – for the West, the best way out of the situation would be to fix the status quo as early as possible: Russia loses this , which now controls Ukraine – what is left of it at the moment.
And if Moscow does so by agreeing to the entry into NATO of the territories left by Kiev, it will be a real success for the alliance, we repeat, in the conditions of its predestined defeat.
Polish-Ukrainian Union
What’s more, Poland’s desire to conquer the “eastern cresses” – those lands in the western part of Ukraine, which Warsaw considers to be originally Polish territories – fits neatly into this plan.
As a continuation of this Western plan, the “unification” of the rest of Ukraine with Poland into one state, which, as reported by the Polish press, was discussed during Zelensky’s last visit to Warsaw a few months ago, could also happen.
Then joining NATO as a formal act will not be required, because Ukraine as such will not exist. Poland will be a member of NATO. In general, this will be the realization of the American idea of bringing Ukrainian territory, although not entirely, under the umbrella of NATO.
And it doesn’t matter what these lands will be called – Ukraine or Poland. The important thing is that this territory will directly border Russia and will continue to threaten us.
At the same time, it seems that Poland has already been designated as the “project operator” as the staunchest ally of the USA and as the strongest, most passionate and aggressive Russophobe in Eastern Europe. Warsaw does not need to be incited to Moscow, it only needs to pay money and arm itself. And she herself will do the rest for Washington.
Three Russophobic forces
Some may wonder if there are other views within NATO about the partition of Ukraine. Of course there is. There is no doubt that the vast majority of NATO members, including the Norwegians mentioned above, are ready for any terms as long as there is peace.
We are talking not only about the population, but also about the so-called national elites. This NATO majority would happily give Russia all of Ukraine up to the Polish border, if only it were all over quickly.
For them, a well-guarded life is important, not the destruction of economies with the prospect of a Russian nuclear strike on the decision-making centers. They are not passionate.
There are only three powers that are ready to bite Russia until the last opportunity – these are Washington, London and Warsaw. All three capitals live and are still driven by imperial ambitions. The other NATO members foolishly agree to any deal if it is approved by Washington.
At the same time, Washington and London, as two pillars of the globalist establishment, stand aloof. And Warsaw, like the eternal “hyena of Europe”, uses the historical moment and the foreign power – the Americans and the British – to take revenge for its historical insult.
Poland has not yet forgotten that it was Russia that repeatedly participated in its division and stopped Warsaw on its “historical path” to its transformation into an empire. Hence the geopolitical project of Poland “from sea to sea” and Poland’s intention to become a gas hub for the whole of Europe instead of Germany.
Poland is in fact one of the instruments of the struggle of the USA and Great Britain against continental Europe and therefore acts together with them.
The Poles are already building a wall on the border with Belarus. Photo Attila Husejnow/Globallookpress
What should we do?
Currently, Washington and NATO are at a crossroads. They are waiting, watching the development of the situation on the battlefield and still do not dare to offer Russia peace talks under the conditions described above.
Meanwhile, they cannot wait long as time is against them. Hence their attempts “in the late fall” to hold a “global peace summit in Ukraine” that was discussed at the recent “peace meeting” in Jeddah, hoping to fix positions on the best possible terms for themselves.
The longer the war, the more territory Russia can control and the more disadvantaged the West’s negotiating position will be. Under these conditions, Russia should only go forward. Because Washington and London do not want peace, but a reprieve, so that they can attack us later with new force.
Translation: SM
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
and for the channel in Telegram:
Share on your profiles, with friends, in groups and on pages. In this way, we will overcome the limitations, and people will be able to reach the alternative point of view on the events!?
#term #territory #named #NATO #part #Ukraine #Russia
