BREAKING: NATO's Stoltenberg says that supporting Ukraine is more important than meeting NATO capability targets

"If allies face a choice between meeting NATO capability targets and providing more aid to Ukraine, my message is clear: Send more to Ukraine." This "export disarmament" will weaken NATO.

•

Jan Oberg

I find this rather significant, if not shocking: Jens Stoltenberg here states very clearly that if NATO members feel a dilemma, they shall prioritize fighting Russia in Ukraine - a non-NATO member - over living up to the alliance’s capability targets - i.e. their own collective defence. The SG states this about 2:35 into this press video:

•

To put it crudely: NATO is now weakening or disarming itself - making its members more vulnerable - to fight for a non-member.

The new thing for these three PMs is to support the Ukrainian air defence. Denmark’s Mette Frederiksen states that she believes it is more important that Ukraine gets the systems European allies already have than that these systems remain operative in the member states.

With this, NATO is now putting all its eggs in one basket: Ukraine. Where resources are not unlimited - that means everywhere in the shrinking European economies - this means weakening the capabilities of the members’ national and their collective defence.

•

There are already lots of military and civilian reports documenting that NATO’s ammunition, weapons and spare parts arsenals are running very low: They’ve been depleted because so much has been donated to Ukraine (which is still losing on the battlefield).

Imagine that those of us who are for disarmament had argued a couple of years ago that NATO countries could easily do with a fraction of the weapons, ammunition, etc., they have - i.e. that they are over-armed. Most likely, we would have been told that we were grossly irresponsible and ‘unrealistic’ and that every single system was needed to provide the members’ security against the enemy (you know who).

Now, Stoltenberg and Company actually argue for such disarmament by exporting overwhelming capacities to a non-NATO country and, by their own standards and principles (not mine), undermine NATO’s defence capacities.

NATO is now disarmament - doing export disarmament.

Please mind the fact that NATO’s Treaty of 1949 contains absolutely no provision for the alliance to intervene in non-member states. NATO has nothing to do with Ukraine, neither in peace nor in war. It is now de facto at war with Russia in Ukraine - where its Treaty stipulates that conflicts shall be handed over to the United Nations. NATO shall only fight if one or more members are attacked.

The Treaty is so very clear. And it is defensive.

NATO’s prioritising of Ukraine also militates in every way against the mantra that Russia is a formidable threat and that when it has taken Ukraine, it will move on and occupy other states, including, for instance, the Baltic NATO members and then southern Sweden.

If that had even a 1% probability, Russia should set in motion its attack now on NATO, which is rapidly weakening itself in an extraordinarily ill-conceived attempt to weaken Russia by its proxy war in Ukraine, letting the Ukrainians bleed for NATO.

Like all other US/NATO-led wars since Vietnam, they will lose this one too. The battle for Ukraine in NATO is already lost. It’s just that their rampant self-righteousness, hubris and groupthink prevent them from seeing it.

PS If you want to understand just how desperate some people in NATO’s circle are today, take a look at Boris Johnson’s column in The Daily Mail and the video - to see what he says about the consequences of Ukraine being defeated. For once, he seems to be truthful - whether he intended to be or not.