Stoltenberg Assures WWIII, Says Ukraine Will be a Member of NATO

Russia has promised a NATO membership for Ukraine would mean WWIII

Jens Stoltenberg, center, meets with Ukrainian Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen (NATO)

NOTE TO READERS: Please consider subscribing to The Trends Journal weekly magazine for trend forecasts and news analysis you won’t find anywhere else and support independent journalism. TrendsJournal.com.

---

Jens Stoltenberg, the head of NATO, said Tuesday that Ukraine will eventually become a member of the alliance, but should be taken as “a long-term perspective.”

“What is at issue now is that Ukraine can prevail as a sovereign independent nation,” he said during a visit to Helsinki to meet with Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin.

A top Russian security official said in October that a decision by NATO to take Ukraine into the alliance would mean World War III.

ZELENSKY: AMERICAN TROOPS NEXT

Alexander Venediktov, the deputy secretary of Russia’s Security Council, called Ukraine’s membership would guarantee a world war. 

“Kyiv is well aware that such a step would mean a guaranteed escalation to a World War III,” he said. He continued, “We must remember: a nuclear conflict will affect absolutely the whole world, and not only Russia and the collective West, but in general, any country on this planet. Its consequences will be catastrophic for all mankind.”

Last September, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, announced that Kyiv filed a new, expedited application to join NATO in light of Russian President Vladimir Putin annexing four occupied regions in the country.

Zelensky said in a statement at the time that Finland and Sweden benefited from an accelerated accession into the Alliance. (Neither Finland or Sweden are current members, but have received security assurances from Washington.)

Zelensky’s argument at the time was that his country had already proven “interoperability with the Alliance’s standards, they are real for Ukraine — real on the battlefield and in all aspects of our interaction.”

He continued, “Ukraine is applying to make it de jure. Under a procedure consistent with our significance for the protection of our entire community. Under an accelerated procedure.”

TRENDPOST: Despite its bluster, NATO is not interested in taking on Ukraine as a member, and every thinking person knows this, so it is unclear why the Alliance is grandstanding on the matter. France, Germany, and the U.K. do not want to get into a war with Russia over Kyiv, which is tarnished by corruption and a dysfunctional government.

One of the key benefits of NATO membership is the protection under Article 5, which provides that if a NATO Ally is the victim of an armed attack, every other member of the Alliance would consider it as an attack on all members and will take the actions it deems necessary to assist the Ally attacked. Stoltenberg has pointed out in the past that Ukraine is a NATO partner, not an ally.

Putin, in his Victory Parade speech last May, once again blamed the U.S. and NATO for their aggression prior to the invasion.

“We saw how the military infrastructure was unfolding, how hundreds of foreign advisers had begun to work there, with the most modern weapons being regularly delivered from NATO countries,” he said. “The danger was growing every day. Russia offered a pre-emptive rebuff to the aggression—this was a forced, timely move and the only correct decision, one taken by a strong and independent country.” 

He called the invasion a preemptive strike to demilitarize, de-Nazify Ukraine.

Putin said intelligence revealed that preparations were underway for another “punitive operation in the Donbas, an invasion of our historical lands, including Crimea,” and that the U.S., NATO and Zelenskyy ignored Moscow’s concerns and refused to discuss them. 

“NATO countries didn’t want to hear us, which means that, in fact, they harbored completely different plans, and we saw it,” he said. 

Putin also claimed that Kyiv was planning to build a nuclear weapons arsenal. 

He likened the “special military operation” in Ukraine to the fight for Russia’s future “for its future, to make sure that no one forgets the lessons of World War II, so that there would be no place in the world for butchers, punishers, and Nazis.” 

“The country stopped the enemy and went on to defeat it, but this came at a tremendous cost,” Putin said. “The attempt to appease the aggressor ahead of the Great Patriotic War proved to be a mistake which came at a high cost for our people. In the first months after hostilities broke out, we lost vast territories of strategic importance, as well as millions of lives. We will not make this mistake the second time. We have no right to do so.” 

TRENDPOST: Agree or disagree with Vladimir Putin’s statements, in the Western media there is just one side to the Ukraine War: Russia aggression. 

Totally ignored, as we have greatly detailed over the decades, is the United States and NATO actions that were, to Russia, moves of aggression.

Long forgotten was the U.S. and NATO’S pledge not to expand into Eastern Europe following the deal made during the 1990 negotiations between the West and the Soviet Union over German unification.

Therefore, in the view of Russia, it is taking self-defense actions to protect itself from NATO’s eastward march. 

As detailed in The Los Angeles Times back in May of 2016, while the U.S. and NATO deny that no such agreement was struck, “…hundreds of memos, meeting minutes and transcripts from U.S. archives indicate otherwise.” 

The article states: 

“According to transcripts of meetings in Moscow on Feb. 9, then-Secretary of State James Baker suggested that in exchange for cooperation with Germany, the U.S. could make ‘iron-clad guarantees’ that NATO would not expand ‘one inch eastward.’ Less than a week later, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev agreed to begin reunification talks. 

“No formal deal was struck, but from all the evidence, the quid pro quo was clear: Gorbachev acceded to Germany’s western alignment and the U.S. would limit NATO’s expansion.” 

TRENDPOST: In 1997, when President Bill Clinton was expanding NATO’s borders eastward, 50 American foreign policy leaders sent him a letter saying that it would be “a policy error of historic proportions.” We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability,” and “NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement.” 

The letter was as follows:

June 26, 1997

Dear Mr. President, 

We, the undersigned, believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability for the following reasons: 

In Russia, NATO expansion, which continues to be opposed across the entire political spectrum, will strengthen the nondemocratic opposition, undercut those who favor reform and cooperation with the West, bring the Russians to question the entire post-Cold War settlement, and galvanize resistance in the Duma to the START II and III treaties; In Europe, NATO expansion will draw a new line of division between the “ins” and the “outs,” foster instability, and ultimately diminish the sense of security of those countries which are not included; 

In NATO, expansion, which the Alliance has indicated is open-ended, will inevitably degrade NATO’s ability to carry out its primary mission and will involve U.S. security guarantees to countries with serious border and national minority problems, and unevenly developed systems of democratic government.

In the U.S., NATO expansion will trigger an extended debate over its indeterminate, but certainly high, cost and will call into question the U.S. commitment to the Alliance, traditionally and rightly regarded as a centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy. 

Because of these serious objections, and in the absence of any reason for rapid decision, we strongly urge that the NATO expansion process be suspended while alternative actions are pursued. These include:  

opening the economic and political doors of the European Union to Central and Eastern Europe; 

—developing an enhanced Partnership for Peace program; 

—supporting a cooperative NATO-Russian relationship; and 

—continuing the arms reduction and transparency process, particularly with respect to nuclear weapons and materials, the major threat to U.S. security, and with respect to conventional military forces in Europe. 

Russia does not now pose a threat to its western neighbors and the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are not in danger. For this reason, and the others cited above, we believe that NATO expansion is neither necessary nor desirable and that this ill-conceived policy can and should be put on hold. 

Sincerely, 

George Bunn, Townsend Hoopes, Sam Nunn, Robert Bowie, Gordon Humphrey, Herbert S. Okun, Bill Bradley, Fred Ikle, W.K.H. Panofsky, David Calleo, Bennett Johnston, Christian Patte, Richard T. Davies, Carl Kaysen, Richard Pipes, Jonathan Dean, Spurgeon Keeny, Robert E. Pursley, Paul Doty, James Leonard, George Rathjens, Susan Eisenhower, Edward Luttwak, Stanley Resor, David M. Evans, Michael Mandelbaum, John Rhinelander, David Fischer, Jack F. Matlock Jr., John J. Shanahan, Raymond Garthoff, C. William Maynes, Marshall Shulman, Morton H. Halperin, Richard McCormack, John Steinbruner, Owen Harries, David McGiffert, Stansfield Turner, Gary Hart, Robert McNamara, Richard Viets, Arthur Hartman, Jack Mendelsohn, Paul Warnke, Mark Hatfield, Philip Merrill, James D. Watkins,John P. Holdren, Paul H. Nitze 

This letter—signed by top U.S. government officials and politicians—has been totally ignored by the U.S. media and the White House who continually promote NATO expansion while ignoring the consequences as they violate the February 1990 U.S.-Russia agreement that NATO would not expand “one inch.”