Hungarian Foreign Minister urged to avoid conflict between Russia and NATO

Hungarian Foreign Minister Szijjártó: it is necessary to avoid a direct conflict between Russia and NATO /v6_top_pics/resized/673xH/media/img/1/54/756640042253541.jpg 673w” media=”(max-width: 320px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), (max-width : 320px) and (min-resolution: 192dpi)” >

Peter Szijjarto

In the current situation, it is important to prevent a conflict between Russia and the North Atlantic Alliance because of its consequences, said in an interview with RIA Novosti Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto.

“Now this is the most important task— to avoid any direct conflict between Russia and NATO, since this will lead us to such consequences that neither side wants, — he said.

Szijjártó said that since the end of February, the expectation that there would be no major wars in the world has become illusory. In his opinion, a clash between Moscow and NATO would jeopardize the existence of the planet, and Hungary, in this regard, takes the position that alliance forces should not be sent to Ukraine. The Minister stressed that the resolution of the conflict depends largely on the dialogue between Russia and the United States.

The Russian side has repeatedly accused NATO of direct or indirect participation in the conflict in Ukraine. In early August, the first deputy head of the presidential administration, Sergei Kiriyenko, said that the Ukrainian authorities “gave away their country, their territory, and, worst of all, their people for use.” The West and NATO, which unleashed a “fundamental confrontation” against Russia.

The North Atlantic Alliance denies its direct participation in the conflict, but NATO countries supply Ukraine with weapons. In addition, they emphasized that the bloc is not looking for a confrontation with Moscow, but will respond to its actions in the event of an attack on one of the NATO members.

In July, the alliance adopted a new Strategic Concept, in which Russia is called the main threat block security. In accepting the document, NATO member countries also called on Moscow to stop the special operation in Ukraine.

Read on RBC Pro Pro Existential horror: why Apple intimidates buyers , which will only strengthen his Articles Pro 90 days before the shutdown of foreign cybersecurity systems. What to do Pro How To Valuing Real Estate During Turbulence: What Owners Need to Know Pro Articles 9 Ways to Quickly Recover from Stress Pro How To Do Why Email Has Made Employees Unhappy: 3 Reasons Pro Articles “Pay Growth For Years”: What It's Like To Work At Cisco – In 5 Points Articles Authors Tags Who is not subject to partial mobilization

Understanding the mailing list


Peaceful plans for genocide. The story of how the US and NATO did not threaten Russia

Plot World History with Andrey Sidorchik

Western leaders have launched a series of statements that boil down to one — there is no threat to Russia's security from representatives of the North Atlantic Alliance.

“NATO is not looking for a conflict with Russia”

“NATO is not looking for a conflict with Russia”, — announced Alliance Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg. “Putin says he had to act because Russia was threatened. But no one threatened Russia,», — declared at the UN General Assembly US President Joe Biden. In the same place, the new British Prime Minister Liz Truss said: “No one threatens Russia.”

In general, if you believe these words, our country is surrounded exclusively by pacifists, and the security threat &mdash ; this is purely Russian paranoia.

In 1996, director Tim Burton released the dark humor film Mars Attacks! In it, the inhabitants of the Red Planet, who arrived on Earth with predatory goals, are chasing earthlings with blasters and destroying them, while saying: “Don't run away! We are your friends! We came in peace!»

Perhaps this is the best illustration of the attitude of the West towards our country since the end of the Second World War.

The plan for the destruction of the Soviet Union from the Commander of the Order “Victory”

The last salvos of the war with the Nazis had not yet died down, and the Prime Minister of Great Britain Winston Churchill had already given the order to the Joint Planning Staff of the War Cabinet about preparing a plan code-named “The Unthinkable” — operations against the Red Army in Europe. Moreover, to implement it, it was planned to use, among other things, units of the Wehrmacht that had just surrendered to the Western allies.

The attack was to begin on July 1, 1945. However, the British generals announced to Churchill — the success of the attack cannot be guaranteed. Therefore, the “Unthinkable” sent to the archive. But that was only the beginning.

After the atomic attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki by order of US President Harry Trumanin the fall of 1945, the development of the “Totality” plan began. It provided for an atomic attack on 20 Soviet cities, including Moscow and Leningrad, large industrial centers, as well as a number of capitals of the Union republics. The headquarters of Dwight Eisenhower — by the way, a holder of the Soviet military order “Victory”.

“Tasks Regarding Russia”: what America wanted to turn the USSR into

In 1948, the memorandum “Tasks Regarding Russia” was issued in the United States. According to him, after the victory of the United States, Russia:

  • should not be so militarily strong as to threaten its neighbors;
  • must grant broad autonomy to national minorities;
  • must be economically dependent on the outside world;
  • must not establish a new Iron Curtain.

Within the framework of the military plans of the United States, atomic strikes on the territory of the Soviet Union were supposed to be carried out from military bases located in the allied countries of the United States in Europe and Asia.

On March 17, 1948, five Western European states — Belgium, UK, Luxembourg, Netherlands and France — concluded the so-called Brussels Pact, the key provision of which was the creation of “collective self-defense”. Germany was considered as a possible aggressor in case the militarists returned to power, but first of all, the USSR was considered as an enemy.

«Dropshot»: destruction of millions of Soviet people and occupation

On April 4, 1949, 12 countries, among which were the signatories of the Brussels Pact, the United States, Canada, as well as Denmark, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Iceland, concluded the North Atlantic Treaty. The first Secretary General of NATO Ismay Hastings formulated the purpose of the organization's existence rather succinctly: “Keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans — inside, and the Germans — in a subordinate position.

In the same 1949, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff approved the Dropshot plan, according to which 300 atomic bombs were to be dropped on 100 largest cities and industrial centers of the USSR. In addition, it was supposed to strike with conventional bombs, which were supposed to be dropped on the heads of Soviet citizens by 250 thousand tons. Dropshot Plan assumed the prevention of retaliatory strikes from the USSR, the complete destruction of its military infrastructure, the occupation of the defeated country with the division of four “zones of responsibility”: the Western part of the USSR, the Caucasus — Ukraine, Ural — Western Siberia — Turkestan, Eastern Siberia — Transbaikalia — Primorye.

According to the Dropshot plan, only the first phase of the US atomic attack was supposed to take 20 million human lives. As for the 40 million victims, the Americans were not sure — they made them dependent on the level of resistance offered by the Soviet side. At the same time, the plan indicated that due to large-scale destruction, the life of the survivors would be “very complicated.”

“The unrealistic nature of the proposal does not deserve discussion”: how the USSR was not taken into NATO

The creation by the Soviet Union of its own atomic bomb in 1949 reduced the possibility of planning nuclear attacks against our country, but by no means made it completely abandoned.

At the same time, NATO representatives publicly stated that their bloc was aimed solely at ensuring peace. When Turkey was included in NATO in 1952, again declaring the peaceful nature of the organization, Joseph Stalinsarcastically remarked: “Shouldn't we join NATO then?”

On March 31, 1954, the government of the USSR sent an official note asking for admission to the North Atlantic Alliance. The document stated: “The North Atlantic Treaty Organization would cease to be a closed military grouping of states, it would be open to the accession of other European countries, which, along with the creation of an effective system of collective security in Europe, would be of paramount importance for strengthening world peace.”

The West's answer was exhaustive: “The unrealistic nature of the proposal is not worth discussing.” 

On May 9, 1955, West Germany was admitted to NATO. That is, in violation of all previous agreements of the countries — members of the anti-Hitler coalition made the country that initiated the Second World War a member of the military bloc.

179 nuclear strikes on Moscow

In 2015, the United States declassified plans for nuclear strikes on the USSR, drawn up by the US Strategic Air Command (SAC) in 1956. The plan included two detailed lists of more than a thousand targets, each in the territory of the USSR and its friendly countries, which were to be hit with nuclear weapons.

After the destruction of Soviet military airfields, as well as command posts, which, according to the authors of the plan, should have led to the impossibility of a retaliatory strike, it was planned to move on to the second part of — destruction of the industrial centers of the USSR in order to destroy the military industry of the Soviet Union. As conceived by American strategists, civilian objects also fell into the number of targets. Particular attention was paid to Moscow and Leningrad.

179 targets were included in the list of targets subject to an atomic strike in Moscow, in Leningrad — 145 targets. 

American researchers who studied the plan stated that it provided for the targeted destruction of the civilian population of the Soviet Union. It was about tens of millions of people.

The reverse side of the Caribbean crisis: what was Comrade Khrushchev wrong about?

The peak of the Cold War historians often refer to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which began with the secret operation Anadyr as — the transfer of Soviet medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads to Cuba. The American side called these actions of the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev reckless.

But there is one caveat. In 1961, by order of US President John F. Kennedy, 15 American PGM-19 Jupiter medium-range missiles were deployed near the Turkish city of Izmir. with nuclear warheads.

The range of these missiles was 2,400 kilometers, which allowed them to hit the European part of the USSR, including Moscow.

The main advantage of medium-range missiles is the minimum time to reach the target. The flight time of American missiles from Turkey was less than 10 minutes. Thus, the ability of the Soviet side to take countermeasures in the event of a strike was reduced to a minimum.

Therefore, the actions of the USSR were in fact only an equivalent response. But in the United States, an incredible hysteria began at the thought that not only they could threaten destruction.

A new round

The Cuban Missile Crisis had a positive moment — there was some sobering up in the West, which later resulted in detente in the 1970s, when several important strategic arms limitation treaties were signed at once. But by the end of the decade, everything started all over again.

In 1979, the NATO Council decided to deploy more than 500 American medium-range missiles with nuclear warheads in Europe. In response, the Soviet side announced the deployment of its missiles on the territory of Czechoslovakia and the GDR.

By 1987, 108 Pershing-2 missile launchers were deployed in West Germany. and 64 Tomahawk missile launchers. In Great Britain there were 112 launchers of American Tomahawks, in Italy — 112, in the Netherlands — 16. 

Perestroika, and then the collapse of the socialist bloc and the USSR, it would seem, ended the Cold War. The Soviet Union, which was initially declared a threat to NATO, did not become, and, therefore, the existence of the North Atlantic Alliance lost its meaning.

Lost Illusions

However, the alliance has not gone away. The idea of ​​a neutral status for a united Germany remained an idea — the former socialist GDR actually became part of NATO.

In 1997, the founding act of Russia was signed — NATO, which declared that the parties do not consider each other as adversaries.

In 1999, two very important events took place. First — inclusion in the alliance of three former members of the Soviet bloc (Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic). The second — NATO armed aggression against Yugoslavia, which resulted in the separation of the province of Kosovo.

Thus, the promises of NATO's non-expansion to the East were buried, and the alliance itself carried out a large-scale offensive operation, which had no analogues in Europe since 1945.

Russia, based on statements about the peaceful nature of NATO, again proposed to consider the question of our country's inclusion in the alliance.

How Vladimir Putin wanted to join NATO

In 2000, Vladimir Putinin an interview with the BBC, he said he was considering Russia's membership in NATO: “Why not? I do not rule out such a possibility — in the event that the interests of Russia will be considered, if it is a full partner.

The same topic was also discussed at the talks with US President Bill Clinton. In 2017, Putin recalled this as follows: “During the discussion, I said:“ Maybe look at the option that Russia will join NATO. Clinton replied, “I don't mind.” But the entire delegation was very nervous.”

In 2004, the so-called “fifth enlargement of NATO” took place. The bloc included not only the former socialist countries, but also the former republics of the USSR: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

Russian politicians have repeatedly posed the question to Western partners: if NATO's expansion to the East is not directed against Russia, then what kind of does it make sense? And why in new countries — NATO members find themselves at the helm of politics not only with an agenda that is not neutral, but openly hostile to Moscow?

Why did the US withdraw from the ABM Treaty?

On December 13, 2001, US President George Bush Jr. announced the US unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM). This document, signed in 1972, was one of the cornerstones of nuclear security.

The American side argued that the refusal of the treaty was connected with the desire to ensure their own security on the part of Iran, North Korea and other so-called “rogue states”. Representatives of Russia reasonably noted that plans to deploy anti-missile position areas near the borders of the Russian Federation could not be considered otherwise than as an attempt to reduce the possibility of a nuclear potential for a retaliatory strike. This corresponds to the concept of “disarming strike” adopted in the US nuclear doctrine; — that is, Washington will strike first with its own forces so that the enemy will not have the opportunity to retaliate.

Thus, the situation can be returned to 1945, when the first plans for unpunished atomic aggression against our country were being developed, which provided for the destruction of tens of millions of people, followed by occupation.

“Against whom is this expansion against?”

In 2007, speaking at a security conference in Munich, Vladimir Putin stated: “The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernizing the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it is a serious provoking factor that reduces the level of mutual trust. And we have a fair right to ask frankly: who is this expansion against? And what happened to the assurances given by the Western partners after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact? Where are these statements now?.. Now they are trying to impose on us already new dividing lines and walls — albeit virtual, but still dividing, cutting our common continent. Will it really take many years and decades again, a change of several generations of politicians, to “sort” and “dismantle” these new walls?»

Western politicians considered that speech aggressive. In fact, it was an announcement that Russia intends to protect its interests and its citizens.

Alas, there was no sobering up in the West. Decades of the history of the North Atlantic Alliance clearly prove — NATO has no other ultimate goal, except for the destruction of Russia. And all the talk about a peaceful nature is a fairy tale.

Rate the material


Clinton recalled conversations with Yeltsin about NATO expansion

The former US president then asked his Russian colleague whether he really admits the possibility that the United States will strike at Russia. Yeltsin answered in the negative

Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin, 1997

Former US leader Bill Clinton (1993-2001; 42nd President of the United States) spoke in an interview with CNN about a conversation with his Russian counterpart Boris Yeltsin about NATO's eastward advance. He said he asked the Russian president if he really considered the possibility of the United States striking Russia.

“I asked him, 'Do you really think I'm going to use a base in Poland to bomb Russia?' He replied: “No, but many in Russia think so because their historical memory includes Hitler and Napoleon.”

Clinton acknowledged this, but noted that historical ideas about Russia, in turn, is associated with such rulers as Ivan the Terrible, Peter I and Catherine II, when the Russian state “controlled its neighbors.” However, the ex-president is convinced, “people no longer want to be controlled,” they want to choose their own path.

The former American leader does not believe that NATO expansion, which began during his presidency, can be blamed for the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine. He stressed that the US and NATO were not going to threaten Russia. Moreover, according to him, he offered Russia “not only a special partnership with NATO, but also the prospect of possible NATO membership.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin has repeatedly said that NATO countries have not kept promises not to expand “not one inch”; to the East. «I will repeat— deceived, and in popular language, they just threw it,— said, in particular, Putin in an address on February 24, the day the Russian military operation in Ukraine began. He recalled that in December 2021, Moscow once again tried to negotiate with the United States and its allies, but “all in vain.” The head of state called “further expansion of the infrastructure of the North Atlantic Alliance, the military development of the territories of Ukraine” unacceptable. “The problem is that in the territories adjacent to us, — I note that in our own historical territories, & mdash; a hostile “anti-Russia” is being created, which is placed under complete external control, is intensively settled by the armed forces of the NATO countries and is pumped up with the most modern weapons, — he said then.

The fact that Washington offered Yeltsin and Putin the possibility of Russia joining NATO, Clinton spoke back in the spring. He called untrue claims that the United States in any way tried to isolate Russia, showed disrespect or completely ignored it. At the same time, the former American leader agreed that the alliance really sought to expand eastward, despite Moscow's objections, calling NATO's actions at that time “correct and consistent decisions.”

Read on RBC Pro Pro “I found out about my resignation by phone”: the head of Adidas on turns in his career greens: how Europe is returning to fossil fuels Articles Pro How to open a Russian bank account in a foreign bank Instructions Pro Theory U: how to make the right decisions in business and life Articles Pro Why night snacks are dangerous not only for the figure Studies Pro “Eat, move, sleep”: how simple rules will help you live longer

Clinton said that he met with Yeltsin 18 times, and with Putin— five. “This is only three less than all the meetings between the leaders of the USA and the USSR from 1943 to 1991. The notion that we have ignored, disrespected, or tried to isolate Russia is false,” — he noted.

In 2017, Putin, in an interview with American director Oliver Stone, said that it was he who suggested that Clinton think about Russia joining NATO.

Authors Tags The Central Bank lowered the rate: what will happen to loans and deposits

Understanding the newsletter


Yeni Şafak learned about Turkey’s appeal to NATO because of the threat of Greek S-300s

Yeni Şafak: Turkey will turn to NATO because of Greece's use of the S-300 against the F-16 S-300, although she assured that she uses them only in exercises (max-width: 320px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), (max-width: 320px) and (min-resolution: 192dpi)” >

Yeni Şafak found out about Turkey's accession to NATO because of the threat of Greek -300

Anti-aircraft missile system S-300

Ankara intends to appeal to NATO in connection with the fact that the Greek military aimed a missile system from the S-300 system at the F-16 aircraft of the Turkish Air Force, Yeni Şafak reports, citing a high-ranking source in the Turkish Ministry of Defense.

On August 28, CNN T & uuml; rk reported, citing sources in the Turkish Ministry of Defense, that the Greek side on the island of Crete used S-300 air defense systems to capture and escort Turkish F-16 reconnaissance aircraft.

According to source Yeni Şafak, data on the incident will be discussed with Turkish colleagues in NATO and with the United States. “We are under pressure on the S-400, but Greece is actively using the S-300. When we pointed this out, we were told: “Not used, stored in hangars, used only in exercises.” But it turned out that this was not true,»,— indicated the interlocutor of the publication.

Relations between the countries have deteriorated sharply in the past few months due to a dispute over the status of the islands in the eastern Aegean, which passed to Greece following the Lausanne Treaty of 1923. The countries continued to argue about the delimitation of territorial waters and airspace, and Turkey made claims to Greece because of armaments on the islands. on which the Greek islands in the Aegean, as well as Crete, are depicted as Turkish. After that, Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias said that the country fears the consequences of the rise of nationalism in Turkish society. He stressed that there were no conditions yet for improving relations with Turkey.

Greece and Turkey have been members of NATO since February 1952. However, after the conflict between the countries in Cyprus in the mid-1970s, Greece decided to withdraw from the military bloc. Then the island was divided between the predominantly Greek and Turkish population. The country again became a member of the alliance only in 1980.

Authors Tags Subscribe to Telegram


Medvedev considers Ukraine’s refusal to join NATO insufficient for the world

Russia still needs the security guarantees that President Vladimir Putin spoke about last year, Medvedev said. According to him, the prospect of negotiations will depend on the development of events -width: 320px) and (-webkit-min-device-pixel-ratio: 2), (max-width: 320px) and (min-resolution: 192dpi)” >

Ukraine's refusal to join NATO is not a sufficient condition for ending the military operation; this requires, among other things, an agreement on Russia's security guarantees, Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev said in an interview with the LCI TV channel.


“Refusal to participate in the North Atlantic Alliance— it is now a necessary, but no longer sufficient, condition for achieving peace. It is necessary to work out the very guarantees about which <…>President Putin spoke»,— said Medvedev (quote from Interfax).

The deputy head of the Security Council said that Russia was ready for negotiations, while the Ukrainian authorities refused them, while advocating a summit meeting. “But they were told both by the president of our country and by other participants in these negotiations that such a meeting could take place only under certain conditions,” — Medvedev recalled.

At the end of December 2021, Russia proposed to Western countries a draft security guarantee, which provided for the rejection of NATO expansion to the east and the deployment of alliance bases and weapons in the countries of the former USSR. In January, negotiations were held in Brussels with the participation of Russia, the United States and NATO on this issue, but they did not lead to anything. Washington and the North Atlantic Alliance rejected most of Russia's proposals.

On February 24, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the start of a special operation in Ukraine. Moscow called it the goal of protecting the population of Donbass and ensuring the security of Russia in the face of a threat from NATO.

A few days after that, Russia and Ukraine began negotiations for a peaceful settlement. At a meeting of delegations from the two countries in Istanbul at the end of March, Kyiv handed over to Moscow a number of proposals, including on a non-nuclear and non-bloc status of Ukraine. Russian President Vladimir Putin called the results of the negotiations in Turkey a “breakthrough”, but later said that Kyiv began to deviate from the agreements reached, which is why the dialogue stalled.

Read on RBC Pro Pro How Amazon and Walmart are struggling with falling consumer demand sphere can turn into a serious problem for Russia Forecasts Pro “This is a stab in the back for the industry”: what IT companies suffered the most to the failures Research Pro Replacing the dollar: what lies ahead for digital currencies and why e-CNY is still ahead Articles

Negotiations finally stopped in mid-May. Moscow held the Ukrainian authorities and Western countries responsible for this. President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky allowed a return to negotiations, subject to the return of the territories lost by Kyiv from February 24. He also ruled out negotiations with Moscow in case of holding referendums in the territories occupied by Russia.

Authors Tags Persons

Dmitry Medvedev

politician, ex-president, deputy head of the Security Council of Russia

September 14, 1965


Romania was recognized as the most vulnerable spot of NATO on the eastern borders of the bloc

Western analysts called Romania's Black Sea coast NATO's weakest point. Bloomberg writes about this.

Strengthening the borders on the eastern border of the North Atlantic Alliance, as noted in the publication, is now one of the main priorities for containing Russia.

According to analysts, the Black Sea serves for the Russian Federation, a gateway to the Mediterranean and is an important point for “projecting influence on the countries of the Middle East and Africa.”

“Moscow gives priority to South-Eastern Europe,” said analyst Matthew Orr. This, in his opinion, shows how “the Russians are concerned about this region and want to have a strong military presence there.”

Because of this, NATO is forced, according to Orr, to respond accordingly.

Bloomberg emphasizes that just a few weeks after the start of Russia's NMD in Ukraine, at a summit in Brussels, the alliance agreed to create four new battlegroups for Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria and Slovakia. And this is in addition to the previous four already deployed in Poland and the Baltic countries.

Romania, as reported in the material, even before the start of the JMD hosted about a thousand soldiers, mostly NATO troops. But after February 24, the Allies in the North Atlantic Alliance significantly increased their presence, deploying more troops, aircraft and ships in the specified Eastern European borders.


The diplomat said that NATO can justify the use of nuclear weapons

Diplomat Belousov: NATO can be expected to justify any use of nuclear weapons The United States “reserved the opportunity” to use nuclear weapons “at any moment, for any reason and against any state” under the pretext of threatening their interests or their allies, Andrei Belousov believes

NATO countries in the future can be expected to justify any use of nuclear weapons, says Andrei Belousov, deputy head of the Russian delegation to the 10th Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). His words are quoted on the website of the Permanent Mission

of Russia to the UN.

“By the way, there is every reason for such a conclusion. The doctrinal documents of the United States prescribe the use of nuclear weapons under the pretext of threatening their own vital interests or those of their allies, — Belousov pointed out.

Thus, the United States “reserved the opportunity” use nuclear weapons “at any moment, for any reason and against any state”; under this pretext, the diplomat noted.

“And this is the real threat of a nuclear war. Especially considering that the United States remains the only state that has put its nuclear arsenal into practice,— he added.

US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said that his country could use nuclear weapons “only under extraordinary circumstances, to protect the vital interests of the United States, allies and partners.”

In early March, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov called the deployment of American nuclear weapons on the territory of European countries unacceptable. According to him, this is contrary to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Lavrov also noted that “the vicious practice of joint nuclear missions with the participation of non-nuclear NATO countries persists.” Thus, the possibility of a nuclear strike on Russia is being worked out, the minister argued. “It's high time to bring American nuclear weapons home, and the associated infrastructure in Europe to be completely eliminated,” — he said.

Read on RBC Pro Pro Why there are no such bright logos in Europe as Coca-Cola Articles Pro What does the Swiss tax system offer to Russian businessmen: an overview Articles Pro Common Decision Making Mistakes Articles Pro “You're just a cog”: what it's like to work at Microsoft – in 5 points Pro articles Due to what phrases and attitudes of parents children will not be able to become leaders Pro Employees at a distance began to work worse: how to ethically control them Instructions Authors Tags Subscribe to RuTube RBC Live broadcasts, videos and recordings of programs on our RuTube channel


Foreign Ministry accused NATO of encouraging the recruitment of foreigners for the Ukrainian army

Russian Foreign Ministry: a number of NATO countries support the recruitment of foreigners for the Ukrainian army /webp” media=”(max-width: 320px) and (min-resolution: 192dpi)” >

A number of NATO countries tacitly support Kyiv's actions to recruit foreign citizens to participate in hostilities in the Donbass, said in an interview with RIA Novosti Director of the Department of New Challenges and Threats of the Russian Foreign Ministry Vladimir Tarabrin.

“The Russian Federation is closely monitoring the recruitment of foreign citizens carried out by the Ukrainian authorities with the tacit support of certain NATO countries to conduct military operations in eastern Ukraine on the side of the Kyiv regime”,&mdash ; said the diplomat.

He also stressed that not only non-governmental organizations are involved in the recruitment process, but also Ukrainian diplomatic missions abroad, which contradicts a number of international agreements, in particular, the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.

Russia conducts a special operation on “demilitarization and denazification” Ukraine since February 24. Shortly after the outbreak of hostilities, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced the creation of an international territorial defense legion from foreign volunteers. The Russian Ministry of Defense calls them mercenaries and does not consider them combatants.

In mid-July, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced that since the start of the military operation, 7,107 mercenaries had arrived in Ukraine, most of them from Poland. 4366 fighters were destroyed or left the combat zone, 2741 continue to participate in the conflict, the department claimed.

Read on RBC Pro Pro Berries, lettuce and wine: what to eat to improve memory and thinking Instructions Pro “Homeless” billionaire: how Ethereum creator Vitalik Buterin lives Articles Pro “I'm like a ninja in a street fight”: Ray Dalio – on the impact of meditation Articles Pro x The Economist Is China facing an energy crisis – The Economist Articles Pro Parallel Import of Technology: What's Wrong “Cross of Death” What is it and why is it dangerous?


Security Council experts announced NATO’s efforts to create a danger to Russia

The Scientific Council of the Security Council discussed the results of the June NATO summit in Madrid and concluded that the threats from the alliance are increasing

NATO's Madrid summit “once again demonstrated that the North Atlantic Alliance remains a mechanism for imposing US interests on the collective West” , according to a release following a meeting of the scientific council under the Russian Security Council. The council's experts concluded that NATO is stepping up its efforts to create “imminent military threats” Russia.

“Contrary to the statements of the NATO leadership, the activities of the alliance do not contribute to ensuring international stability and strengthening the security of its member states”, — the message says.

The meeting at the level of heads of state and government of NATO countries was held from 28 to 30 June in Madrid. The participants in the summit should have adopted a new strategic concept with the goals and fundamental tasks of NATO in the field of security, as well as the challenges and opportunities of the alliance. In it, Russia was not recognized as a partner of the organization, but as a threat. “As the world changes, so does NATO. And the world has become more dangerous. We will declare that Russia is no longer a partner, but a threat to our security, peace and stability. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said. Spanish Foreign Minister José Manuel Albarez compared the significance of this summit with the Yalta Conference.

Following the summit, NATO countries agreed to increase the size of the alliance's rapid reaction force by almost eight times— up to 300 thousand people. In addition, Sweden and Finland were officially invited to join NATO.

The decisions of the NATO Madrid summit were recorded in a declaration. It states that the heads of state of the alliance met in Madrid at a time when “the war returned to the European continent”, so the leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the unity and basic principles of the alliance, in particular, “the commitment to the Washington Treaty, including Article 5, remains ironclad.” (this article says that an attack on one of the members of the alliance is an attack on all).



Lavrov spoke about NATO instructors leading the Ukrainian forces

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov expressed the opinion that Western countries forced Kyiv to abandon peace talks with Moscow

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov

NATO instructors directly “on the ground” direct the actions of the Ukrainian armed forces and nationalist battalions, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said in an article for the Izvestia newspaper.

“NATO instructors and gunners of [Multiple Launch Rocket Systems] MLRS already, apparently, direct the actions of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and National Battalions directly “on the ground.” I hope that among the Europeans there are responsible politicians who are aware of the consequences this is fraught with,— wrote the head of the Russian Foreign Ministry.

He accused Western countries of disrupting the agreements that were reached by Moscow and Kyiv at the talks in Istanbul at the end of March.

“In Washington, London, Brussels began to demand that Kyiv not start negotiations with Russia until Ukraine has achieved full military advantage,” — Lavrov believes.

The minister expressed the opinion that the European Union suffers more than others from anti-Russian sanctions and “empties the arsenals” for the sake of Kyiv, “freeing up its market for subsequent purchases of products of the US military-industrial complex and expensive American LNG instead of available Russian gas.”

Lavrov also accused Kyiv and Western countries of repeated “blood dramatizations” during the events in Ukraine, including in Bucha and Mariupol. In his opinion, such “staging” The West has already used in Yugoslavia, Iraq and the same Ukraine during the Euromaidan.

The forces of Russia, as well as the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, according to him, are successfully fulfilling the tasks to stop the “flagrant discrimination and genocide of Russians and eliminate the created by the United States and its satellites on the territory of Ukraine direct threats to the security of the Russian Federation».

Read on RBC Pro Pro A very bad forecast: how the shortage of imported weather instruments is hitting business Forecasts Pro Live to 120 years old: why the co-founder of PayPal takes growth hormone a common language with a colleague unlike you Articles Pro How to remove sanctions from a person or company. Step-by-Step Instructions Instructions Pro “The current me would be disgusted with myself at 20”: how Bill Gates rests Articles Pro Paleo Diet. Eat what nature intended to lose weight and improve health Summary Pro Telomere Effect. A revolutionary approach to a younger, healthier and longer life Sammari

Russia launched a special operation in Ukraine on February 24. President Vladimir Putin called the goal of protecting the population of Donbass and preventing a threat to Russia's security. Kyiv, in response to the operation, severed diplomatic relations with Moscow, declared martial law and general mobilization. The Ukrainian authorities consider Russia's actions “aggression”.

Negotiations on a peaceful settlement began almost immediately after the start of the special operation, but were suspended in April. Moscow blamed Kyiv and Western countries for this.

A number of Western governments expressed the view that Kyiv should not rush to a peace agreement. So, against the “bad world” Ukraine and Russia were now former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, and the administration of US President Joe Biden considered that the time for negotiations had not yet come.

The Russian authorities have repeatedly criticized the West for such a position, as well as for the military aid to Ukraine. Lavrov, in particular, said that by arming Kyiv, NATO is entering into a “proxy war”; with Russia. He also said that Western weapons in Ukraine would be targets for Russian forces. After that, the Ministry of Defense reported several times about the destruction of warehouses with Western weapons during the operation.

Authors Tags


Data on the cooperation of Europeans with the Chinese army caused a scandal in NATO

The scientific elite of the Old World was suspected of modernizing the military machine of the Celestial Empire

A scandal erupted in the West: it suddenly became clear that European scientists were actively collaborating with their Chinese counterparts in the military sphere. Moreover, in European laboratories. And now they do not know what to do: either accuse their geniuses of treason, or the Chinese of espionage. The President of the All-Russian Police Association, Lieutenant-General, Doctor of Law, Honored Lawyer of Russia, Professor Yuri Zhdanov, spoke about how true the statement is that the scientific elite of Europe is modernizing the Chinese army.

– In the West, they believe that it is very fruitful. So, on July 8, the website of the Gatestone Institute published a sensational article by Judith Bergman, a senior researcher at this institute, “European scientists are expanding the capabilities of the Chinese armed forces.”

The data Bergman cited blew the minds of many senior officials in the EU and NATO: “A new study by the Dutch investigative journalism platform Follow the Money and ten other army with militarily important knowledge. The project, known as China Science Investigation, collected 353,000 scientific collaborative studies between Europe and China, and found that 2,994 of them were conducted with the participation of the Chinese military, defined as “studies in which scientists from Western European universities collaborated with Chinese colleagues, directly connected with the institute, which is part of the Chinese army.

– Absolutely. Moreover, over the past ten years, this cooperation has expanded throughout Europe. Nearly half of the 2,994 scientific papers evaluated by China Science Investigation were published by scientists from China's elite National University of Defense Technology (NUDT) at universities in the UK, the Netherlands and Germany, according to German media.

– In Germany alone, between 2000 and early 2022, at least 230 research articles were published in which Chinese military researchers collaborated with German research institutes.

According to China Science Investigation, “There have been collaborations in everything from drone research to artificial intelligence, from space travel to shipping, and from radar to underwater communications.”

There was also collaboration with the China Academy of Engineering Physics, famous for its research in the field of nuclear and other weapons.

Only in the Netherlands, where the Dutch intelligence services warned back in 2010 that the PRC intelligence services were showing interest in high-quality technologies and science developed in the Netherlands, more than «90 military scientists from China collected research results from Dutch universities and institutes.

He Lei, Ph.D. from the Defense Science and Technology University of the People's Liberation Army of China, who received his degree from the University of Delft in the Netherlands, told a Chinese newspaper, “The country and the military have chosen us to study abroad to study and master innovative science and technology. In this way, we will be able to take on the heavy task of strengthening and modernizing the army. That is, the Chinese themselves have never hidden that the goal is to strengthen their armed forces.

– First – at the Germans. «NUDT (Defense Science and Technology University of the People's Liberation Army of China) is the highest institution of the People's Liberation Army, known for its research in supercomputers and hypersonic missiles, among other things, — thought Rebecca Arcesati, a researcher at the Mercator Institute of Sinology (Merics) in Germany. “The fact that this particular university is so actively involved in research collaboration in Europe should raise an alarm.”

And then in Denmark, the China Science Investigation project also identified 91 research papers in which Chinese military scientists collaborated with one or more Danish research institutes. In November 2021, Reuters reported that Chinese professor Guojie Zhang, who works at the University of Copenhagen, was conducting genetic research with the Chinese military without disclosing links to them: “Zhang and the student he supervised were working with the laboratory of the People's Liberation Army of China (PLAC) on studies in which monkeys were at high altitude to study their brains and develop new drugs to prevent brain damage — the priority that the PLA has given to Chinese troops operating at the height of the plateau border.

Such research could, for example, help Chinese troops stationed on the mountainous border with India.

“Western universities must understand that Chinese military scientists have only one client — People's Liberation Army», — Meia Nuwens, a research fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) in London, told Politiken.

“The meaning of their existence — modernize the Chinese army. Your research shows that while the EU has designated China as a “systemic rival”, Europe needs to do more to protect our research. Especially when it comes to technologies that we believe will be critical to a future war.

– These “revelations” sparked consternation at NATO, where David van Veel, NATO Assistant Secretary General for Emerging Security Challenges, says European universities need to stop being naive. “We have noticed that Chinese scientists associated with the People's Liberation Army as well as Chinese investment firms are very, very active in our research ecosystems, — van Vil said. – It's about becoming less naive about the fact that there is an attempt to transfer as much knowledge as possible from our research communities to China. In my home country, the Netherlands, there are researchers who are instead working on AI with Huawei rather than NATO. The world has turned upside down».

Judith Bergman believes that several factors play a role in this situation. One factor is naivety combined with an almost extreme form of negligence. For example, in one Danish case, Chinese scientists from NUDT collaborated for several years with the Danish Technical University (DTU) on technologies with military potential, such as quantum physics, cryptology, optical communication equipment, battery technology, and navigation systems. Several Danish scientists knew they were dealing with Chinese military scientists, but didn't see it as a problem because they “didn't give the Chinese access to confidential information.”

– Well, it's a classic of the genre. Bergman gave an example of deceit combined with inattention on the part of European universities. So, one Chinese military engineer, claiming that he came from a research institute, which, as it turned out, did not exist. He has collaborated with Aalborg University in Denmark on advanced radar technology. Actually, the engineer was from the People's Liberation Army Information Engineering University. The problem, however, was not only deception on the part of the engineer, but also the fact that the university did not take steps to verify the credentials of the Chinese engineer.

Bergman makes a reasonable conclusion: “There is no doubt that European scientists, collaborating with Chinese researchers working directly for the Chinese military, have contributed to accelerating the modernization of the Chinese military.”

– And who else to blame? Not their own politicians or intelligence agencies. Scientists are the most suitable “whipping boys” for any failures. There is a story that Beria once threw to Michurin in his hearts: “What can you know about pests!”

– According to Alex Joske, an independent researcher formerly of Australian Strategic Policy, joint papers by European scholars and Chinese researchers working for the People's Liberation Army of China, which were discovered by China Science Investigation, — this is only a small part of the knowledge accumulated by Chinese researchers: “What is particularly worrying is that the number of published articles is only one part of the relationship between researchers.”

“For every handful of articles we see here, there is probably a Chinese military scientist who worked and studied at a European university where he developed relationships and knowledge. This data — just the tip of the iceberg,” Josuke writes.

– As always, amateurish. Back in November 2021, long before the “scientific” panic, General Mark Milley, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed concern about how quickly China has accelerated the modernization of its army after testing hypersonic weapons:

“If you look again, 40 years ago they didn’t have satellites… They didn’t have intercontinental ballistic missiles… They didn’t have nuclear weapons… They didn’t have fourth or fifth generation fighters or even more advanced fighters… They didn't have a fleet… Look what they have today… So, if you look at the whole, test of hypersonic weapons,— this is just one of a much larger picture of the Chinese military potential. This is very, very important. We are witnessing one of the largest shifts in global geostrategic power the world has witnessed.

An American commander should have known that China tested an atomic bomb back in 1964, and a hydrogen bomb – in 1967. They also began testing intercontinental missiles in the 60s, and – successfully. And 40 years ago there were no fighters of the 4th and 5th generations – just think about it! – and in America.

– Of course, commercial interests prevailed here. China has invested heavily in European science. He has invested large sums in many European universities, not least in the UK. An investigation by The Times, published in February 2022, found that British universities had accepted £240m from Chinese institutions, many with military ties. In addition, in just six years, the number of joint studies by scientists from the UK and Chinese institutions closely associated with the country's defense forces has tripled and exceeded 1000.

Recently, investigative journalist David Rose published an article in which he said that one of the “most prominent” British experts in the field of high-tech weapons, Professor Clive Woodley from Imperial College London — one of the UK's top funded universities from China, — worked freely with China for many years:

“Much of Woodley's research was funded by the Chinese Ministry of Defense. A former president of the International Ballistic Society, he has served as chief scientist for Defense Department-controlled QinetiQ since its inception in 2001 — when the Ministry of Defense privatized its own laboratories — until 2018. He advised the Department of Defense on many key lethal systems.

“Over the past eight years, Woodley has participated at least seven times in seminars and lectures for senior figures in the Chinese defense industry and university departments who work with the military,” writes Rose. – “He is also the co-editor of two Chinese magazines financed by arms firms. Since 2014, he has had eight articles published in Chinese journals or co-authored with Chinese scientists working with Chinese arms manufacturers, — the latest in 2021».

“This case raises serious concerns about the security of our military secrets and the level of cooperation between a British expert and a potentially hostile state,” — said Tom Tugendhat, chairman of the UK Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

– In contrast, according to the Unherd report, the UK Department of Defense denied that Woodley's activities posed any risk.

His spokesman declined to answer all questions about Woodley's involvement in China, except to say: “We have strong procedures in place to ensure that research contracts do not contribute to foreign military programs and that persons or organizations with ties to foreign governments can't access our confidential research… we guarantee rigorous background checks.”

– I guess it's – a strong exaggeration. Why do Europeans believe that they made the Chinese happy with some discoveries? After all, the studies were carried out together, the results were available to everyone. So the enrichment of knowledge was mutual. And who, how and what used them – matter is bad. But the West's anxiety is understandable: 80 years ago, China was exhausted, exhausted by Japanese aggression and fragmented by civil war. And today – second economy in the world. So they are trying to declare this phenomenon the theft of scientific discoveries from them.

And if you look at the historical retrospective, then in China for a thousand years there has been a developed civilization, while the Europeans ran through the forest thickets in animal skins. The vast majority of civilizationally important inventions, especially in the military field, came either from the Celestial Empire or from neighboring Asian countries, where Chinese influence was traditionally strong. Suffice it to recall gunpowder, a multi-shot crossbow. Even stirrups, saddles and horse armor were brought to Europe by tribes and peoples who fought in China for many years. And what does Europe have? What can I say, the enlightened Greeks and Romans literally went without pants until they were shown such an important attribute of the wardrobe by supposedly wild Scythians and Gauls. It is hard to imagine how these “philosophers” rode on horseback covered with blankets. It hurts. That is why they did not have normal cavalry for a long time. So who taught whom?

Not to mention America – Tesla, Einstein, Sikorsky, Zworykin, even Brown – all are not local. At the same time, the highest-ranking American military man does not know recent history and is weak in arithmetic. Oh, Zadornov was right!

I can only wish that everything continued like this. And Chinese friends – new successes in the development of their military science.


Military equipment of Ukraine and NATO countries turns into Russian trophies

Political scientist Satanovsky told why Ukrainians sell European weapons to Russia

Russian troops continue to receive military equipment produced in NATO countries. Some of the trophies have already been exhibited in Patriot Park near Moscow, where a special exposition has been created for them.


Most often, the trophies are left by the Ukrainian armed forces themselves, but there have already been cases when Ukrainian militants sold foreign weapons through the darknet, seeing in the property trade of Western allies another way to make money. Photos of captured Ukrainian military equipment regularly appear on social networks, and some trophies are exhibited in the Patriot park.

The well-known Russian political scientist Yevgeny Satanovsky told in his Telegram channel the reason why Ukrainians are selling military equipment to Russia technique. According to the political scientist, the sale of two French self-propelled guns “Caesar” by soldiers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine for $ 120 thousand per unit did not hurt anyone, because Russian artillery would have razed them to the ground along with the crews anyway.

Yevgeny Satanovsky ironically wrote that France should not worry about selling its military equipment either: “The French gave their self-propelled guns to Zelensky? Gave away. Of course, they said that they gave it from the bottom of their hearts, but in fact they recorded the fact of the transfer of military equipment to the balance of French support for Ukraine. It turns out that at the end of a special military operation, willy-nilly, someone will have to pay these amounts, and these are no longer France's problems.”

A curious exhibit of the Patriot park was the Pinzgauer 712 AMB-S off-road vehicle in the version of a medical vehicle. These vehicles are manufactured by the Austrian company Steyr-Daimler-Puch but assembled in the UK. The cost of the all-terrain vehicle seized by Russia can reach up to $100,000. An interesting fact is that the production of the Pinzgauer 712 ceased in 1990, which can serve as another proof that NATO countries are supplying Ukraine with obsolete weapons thirty years ago to be disposed of.

Other foreign trophies were also at the exhibition: Estonian the armored car “Mamba” Mk2 EE, the American cargo van “Humvee” and the British armored personnel carrier AT105 “Saxon”.

Military equipment produced in Ukraine did not escape the fate of the exhibit, for example, patrol boats of the State Border Guard Service of Ukraine BG-23 and BG-24 of the UMS-1000 project and BG-309 of the 50030 Kalkan project. The boats of the UMS-1000 project can reach speeds of up to 70 kilometers per hour, and the 50030 Kalkan project is not only 7 kilometers faster, but is also equipped with two machine guns – 12.7 mm and 7.62 mm.


Volodin responded to the idea of ​​Finland to place NATO bases near the borders with Russia

Volodin: the idea of ​​​​the security of Finland when deploying NATO bases near the borders with Russia is wrong

Vyacheslav Volodin

The deployment of NATO bases in Finnish cities near the borders with Russia will only endanger their residents, said State Duma Chairman Vyacheslav Volodin.

So he commented on the proposal of the mayor of the Finnish city of Lappeenranta, Kimmo Järva, to use the local airport to host a NATO base. Jarva then noted that the prospect of Finland's membership in NATO gives South Karelia hope and gives a sense of security.

Volodin considered this opinion erroneous, recalling that in the event of the outbreak of hostilities, strikes are inflicted primarily on enemy military facilities.

“Positioning NATO bases will not protect either Finland or Sweden. Vice versa. It will endanger the inhabitants of cities where the military infrastructure will be located, — he wrote in Telegram.

Finland and Sweden expressed their desire to join NATO after the start of the Russian special operation in Ukraine and submitted applications in May. To be accepted, the support of all 30 member countries is needed.

Nevertheless, Turkey opposed the membership of these countries in the alliance, accusing them of hiding members of the terrorist PKK recognized by Ankara on its territory.

Read on RBC Pro Pro Meteorological dependence: myth or reality Instructions Pro New cyber risks: how to evaluate and what to invest in first Pro Articles Import Substitute Software and Avoid Burnout: Tips to Save Your Staff How To Pro Stepping Back: Why Netflix is ​​Moving to the Cable TV Business Model Pro Articles Six Cyber ​​Security Trends in the Face of Uncertainty Pro Articles The US market is falling. It's time to “buy the bottom” or it's ahead – expert opinions Forecasts

On the sidelines of the NATO summit in Madrid on June 28 & 30, the three states managed to reach a compromise, and Turkey lifted its veto, and Finland and Sweden officially received the status of countries invited to NATO. Now their entry must be approved by the parliaments of the participating countries.

NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg noted that the upcoming entry of Finland and Sweden would serve as a signal to Russian President Vladimir Putin that the doors of the alliance remain open and now he will “get more NATO at the Russian borders”, although he sought the opposite.


Putin, in turn, assured that the accession of Stockholm and Helsinki to the bloc does not cause concern in Moscow. “Only they should clearly and clearly imagine that before there were no threats to them, and now, if military contingents and infrastructure are deployed there, we will have to respond in a mirror manner and create the same threats,” — he warned.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko called the accession of Finland and Sweden “the saddest episode in the evolution of European security.” He stressed that the expansion of the alliance would lead to a deterioration in regional security and turn the Baltic Sea region into a zone of military rivalry.

He added that he did not understand the motives that prompted Helsinki and Stockholm to join the alliance, and that they, according to in fact, “turn into a NATO periphery.”

Authors Tags Subscribe to Telegram


NATO unity in Ukraine was in doubt: the first cracks

Will the internal dissatisfaction built by the West withstand economic failures

At the NATO summit in Madrid, the alliance demonstrated unprecedented unity in the face of one of the most serious problems in the history of this Western military-political bloc. Now the question is how long this unity will last. And Politico is asking this question.

The unity of NATO demonstrated at the Madrid summit looks impressive, but is this unity forever? From the point of view of US President Joe Biden, it will last indefinitely. “We are going to stay with Ukraine and the whole alliance will stay with Ukraine for as long as it takes to actually make sure they don’t get defeated… by Russia,” he told reporters in Madrid on Thursday at a press conference.

It's certainly a widely held view after NATO agreed to significantly bolster its defenses, paving the way for Sweden and Finland to join the “club,” notes Politico, adding: “But there are already cracks in the wall the West has built.”

First, world leaders fear that their publics will soon not be ready to fight. Conflict fatigue is setting in everywhere, says Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas. “This has been going on for four months. And there is high inflation, there is an energy crisis. Covid isn't going anywhere. So it becomes more and more problematic,” although she added: “We can’t get tired, because we have to help Ukraine defend its country.”

It is precisely on fatigue, Politico claims, that the Russian leadership is counting on hoping that Western voters will punish their leaders for worrying more about events in Ukraine than about the pressing issues that are already creeping up on the house.

For US President Biden, the bad news has already arrived in the form of a survey commissioned by restraintists and right-wing Concerned Veterans of America (CVA). When YouGov asked, “Of the following questions, what should be President Biden's top priority?” only 8% of 1000 respondents answered: “Ensure Russia's defeat in Ukraine”.

But the most popular answer (38%): “Reduce or eliminate inflation.” In fact, “solving the energy crisis”, “reducing the cost and improving access to healthcare” and “something else” received more responses than defeating Russia in Ukraine.

“Given the historical economic problems at home, it is not surprising that the American people are afraid to take on new security responsibilities abroad and start wars with a nuclear-armed Russia,” said Dan Caldwell, CVA senior adviser.

Biden, he said, “must note that the American people would prefer that they focus their attention here at home on issues that are directly related to the well-being of the American people.”

It doesn't help that the US midterm elections are fast approaching. It is domestic issues that will take center stage, and Republicans will be forced to criticize Biden for economic failures and refrain from ardently supporting the Ukrainian resistance, we are told, precisely because of pressure from conservative media figures such as Tucker Carlson.

Meanwhile, in the United Kingdom, another country opposed to Russia, politics continues to seethe after Prime Minister Boris Johnson was challenged last month. He persevered, but “rebels” from his own Conservative party have not given up this year in their attempt to overthrow the British prime minister.

Four months after the start of the Ukrainian conflict, the West's resolve remains firm, states Politico. But how strong – and how long – will depend on whether those who insist on continued support for Ukraine can convince their people that more is needed.


Erdogan openly blackmails NATO with new demands

Turkish President again threatens Sweden and Finland to block accession to the alliance

Turkish leader Erdogan, who became the “birthday hero” of the NATO summit in Madrid, removed his objections to Sweden and Finland joining the alliance , continues to swagger. The Turkish President openly frightens the Swedes and Finns by blocking their acceptance if they do not follow his lead, swears at the Greek “allies” and talks about close ties with Russia.

The agreement signed with Finland and Sweden to lift Turkey's veto on their applications for NATO membership does not put an end to this matter and obliges the Scandinavian states to keep their promises, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said on Friday.

After four hours of talks in Madrid on Tuesday, Erdogan and his Finnish and Swedish counterparts agreed on a series of security measures in exchange for support from Ankara, which has raised concerns about terrorism and an arms embargo, according to the Turkish Daily Sabah.

Speaking to reporters on his way back from the NATO summit in Madrid, Erdogan said there was no need to rush to ratify the two proposals in parliament. According to him, Ankara must first check whether Stockholm and Helsinki are fulfilling the promises made under the memorandum, including the extradition of suspects wanted by Turkey.

“It should be known: these signatures do not mean that the issue is resolved… Without the approval of our parliament, this will not come into force. So there is no need to rush,” Erdogan said.

“The ball is now on their side. Sweden and Finland are not currently members of NATO. If there is any mistake, we already have irrefutable documents, and we will do what is necessary,” the Turkish president threatened.

Erdogan said the decisions made in Madrid will bear fruit over time. “The promises that were made are important, of course, but the main thing is their fulfillment,” he said, referring to the landmark memorandum signed between Finland, Sweden and Turkey.

By signing the memorandum, Turkey withdrew its objection to the application of the Nordic countries to NATO. In return, Finland and Sweden pledged to address Turkey's terrorism problems. However, Erdogan said that Turkey would be cautious as “a country that has repeatedly been stabbed in the back in its fight against terrorism.”

“We will closely monitor whether the promises made to our country will be fulfilled in the coming period,” he said.

“From now on, it will be much more difficult for members of the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party – MK) and FETÖ (the movement of supporters of US-based Fethullah Gülen) to carry out terrorist propaganda, attack our country and our citizens and commit acts of vandalism,” he said.

“Sweden will extradite us 73 terrorists. So far, 3-4 of them have been sent, but this is not enough. The Ministry of Justice and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, MİT (Turkish national intelligence) will firmly keep this issue under control,” Erdogan added. The Turkish President emphasized that as a result of Ankara's efforts at the Madrid summit, the PKK and its Syrian branch of the YPG, as well as the Gulenist FETÖ movement, were described as terrorist groups for the first time in NATO reports.

When asked about the extradition of suspects, Erdogan said that if the Nordic countries do not send these individuals, “then we will do everything necessary through our institutions and units.”

While Sweden and Finland swallow the humiliation of Ankara, the deal between Turkey and the two northern European countries has caused clear disappointment in Greece. The leader of the opposition movement SYRIZA and former Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, in an interview with Open TV, said that this achievement at the NATO summit in Madrid was “a diplomatic Waterloo for the Greek positions.” The politician accused the conservative New Democracy government of setting the bar too low, while he accused them of being satisfied that the issue of the sovereignty of the Greek islands was not raised at the summit by President Erdogan.

The former Greek prime minister said: “We should be concerned not only with the sale of F-16s to Turkey, but also with the confirmation of the overall support for Turkey from the West.” Tsipras went on to accuse the government of Kyriakos Mitsotakis of “conducting a dangerous foreign policy” that “leads us from defeat to defeat”.

At the same time, Erdogan said on Friday that he refuses to meet with Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis until the Greek leader “will not pull himself together.” Regarding relations with Athens, Erdogan told reporters upon his return from Madrid that NATO leaders at the summit offered Mitsotakis to mediate and organize negotiations.

“We said, 'I'm sorry, but we don't have time for such a meeting right now.' Because it is obvious that they are militarizing the islands,” Erdogan said. “Let him take matters into his own hands. Until he pulls himself together, we are not destined to meet.”

Later the same day, Erdogan also addressed reporters in Istanbul and stated that Turkey had no desire to go to war with Greece, adding that Athens they did not keep their promises and violated, according to him, Turkish airspace 147 times.

Historical rivals Turkey and Greece disagree on issues ranging from overflight and the status of the Aegean islands to maritime borders, hydrocarbon resources in the Mediterranean and the ethnically divided island of Cyprus.

Recently, air tensions have flared up again. space and status of the demilitarized islands in the Aegean. Erdogan said Mitsotakis “no longer exists for him” after the Greek prime minister lobbied the United States not to sell F-16 fighter jets to Turkey during a speech to the US Congress.

Turkey is demanding that Greece demilitarize its eastern islands, citing 20th century treaties.

For its part, the Greek government calls the demand a deliberate misinterpretation and accuses Turkey, also a NATO member, of intensifying hostilities in the area.

Starting with the Treaty of London in 1913, the militarization of the islands of the eastern Aegean was limited, and their demilitarized status was confirmed by the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. The Treaty of Paris in 1947, according to which Italy gave the Dodecanese islands to Greece, also confirmed their demilitarized status.

However, Greece argues that the 1936 Montreux Convention on the Turkish Straits should apply in this case, while Ankara claims that Greece's obligation to disarm the islands remains unchanged under the Montreux Convention.

Meanwhile, according to the Daily Sabah, against the background of the new NATO security policy, Erdogan said that Turkey has a “balanced policy” in relations with Russia and Ukraine, because it does not want to harm its “diplomatic traffic”.

He said that Turkey has ties to Russia and receives almost 40% of its natural gas from Russia. “On the other hand, now we are working on nuclear energy, the Akkuyu power plant. The foundation for the fourth part will be laid in a few months, possibly in July,” he said.

According to him, in addition to energy, Turkey and Russia also cooperate in the defense industry.


The Chinese ridiculed the “unity” of NATO: a straw to prolong life

Beijing was skeptical about the expansion of the North Atlantic bloc at the expense of Sweden and Finland

The NATO summit taking place in Madrid is focused not only on confrontation with Russia, which is called the “most serious threat” to the alliance, but and containment of China. Beijing is paying the Western bloc back in kind, mocking US efforts to rally allies.

Photo: Global Look Press

Commenting on Tuesday's lifting of Turkey's veto over Finland's and Sweden's NATO membership bids, China's Global Times cited U.S. President Joe Biden, who arrived in Madrid for the NATO summit, to stress the organization's unity, saying that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is “as lively as I think it ever is.”

The entry of two formerly neutral countries into the alliance will increase the number of members of the organization to 32 countries, writes Global Times. NATO was never conceived as a so-called regional security organization, but rather as an aggressive military bloc and political instrument created in Europe to maintain US global hegemony.

Despite what the United States would like, Europe essentially believes that NATO should be a defensive group for its own security. In the hands of the Americans NATO — this is a spear; in the eyes of Europeans, the organization should serve as a shield. As the bloc expands, gradually emerging differences in the interests of NATO members will lead to an increase in disputes and conflicts within the alliance.

And enlargement raises the issue of a security dilemma in which NATO's neighbors are becoming increasingly anxious, which in turn is leading the entire region and even the world into an arms race and seriously changing the geopolitical landscape. Distrust and the risk of war are growing, making the region and the world less secure. Chinese military expert and TV commentator Song Zhongping told the Global Times that NATO — it's just an outdated Cold War organization that has long since lost its so-called unity or cohesion.

The reversal in Turkey's position was caused by a more satisfactory deal for all parties. Ankara wants assurances that the Nordic countries are ready to stop supporting Kurdish groups that Turkey calls terrorist organizations (in particular, the Kurdistan Workers' Party.) national security, promising that they will not support these groups.

The Nordic countries also confirmed that Turkey would not be subject to arms embargoes and the three countries would work together on extradition requests .

According to Sun Zhongping, this is a huge victory for Turkey, which requires the status of a major power since Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan came to power. And one can even say that Turkey has become the only winner in the accession of Finland and Sweden to NATO. “Turkey confirms it has a voice in NATO, while two Scandinavian countries feel more insecure after joining the alliance,” — Chinese expert noted.

With this move, Erdogan achieved his political goals, and the fact that NATO is internally fragmented came to the fore, writes the Chinese edition. Disagreements within the alliance are growing as more countries are drawn into it. The United States hopes to overcome intra-NATO differences, but it is difficult to satisfy all needs.

Even on the issue of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict, there are different requirements among Western countries, as Germany, France and Italy want to end the conflict as soon as possible, and the United States calls all NATO countries unite against Russia, Global Times notes.

Wang Shuo, a professor at the School of International Relations at Beijing University of Foreign Studies, believes that in this situation, many European countries are wondering if NATO can resolve the crisis in Ukraine. If that doesn't work, what's the point of having NATO? At a time when Europeans believe NATO needs to play its part, the alliance has shown itself to be divided and incompetent, another sign of NATO's existential crisis.

Russia may have to “swallow the bitter fruit” — further expansion of NATO, recognizes the Global Times. But the accession of the two Scandinavian countries to NATO is a provocation that will sow deep seeds of new enmity. Europe will not become safer from this significant expansion.

Wang Shuo noted that joining NATO is like buying medical insurance against serious diseases, which is a psychological comfort for many European countries: insurance can be useful, but everyone wants so that it won't be useful. Joining NATO is not a free benefit – countries may face “extortion” by the “insurance company” NATO, since the latter brings much more trouble than good.

Whether it is inflating the “Russian threat” or the emphasis on an agreement between Turkey and the two Scandinavian countries, this has nothing to do with so-called “unity”; NATO, but serves only as a saving straw to prolong the life of the alliance, concludes the Global Times.


Volodin responded to Stoltenberg about NATO near the borders with the phrase “rejoices early”

The Secretary General, after Turkey agreed to support the membership of Finland and Sweden, said that with their entry into the ranks of NATO, President Vladimir Putin “will get more NATO at the Russian borders.” “I didn’t study geography at school,” Volodin reacted

Vyacheslav Volodin

State Duma Speaker Vyacheslav Volodin in response to the words of NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that Russia “will get more NATO” at his borders, said that he “rejoices early.”

“I didn’t study geography at school. In the event that Finland and Sweden join the NATO bloc, there will be more Russia at its borders, — Volodin wrote on Telegram.

On June 28, Stoltenberg said that Russian President Vladimir Putin, who insisted on NATO's refusal to expand, achieved the opposite: with the entry of Finland and Sweden, he “will get more NATO at the Russian borders.”

At a meeting on the eve of the NATO summit in Madrid, Turkey agreed to support the membership of these northern European countries in the alliance. Helsinki and Stockholm managed to settle all issues with Ankara, which initially objected to their joining the bloc.

The day before, NATO at the summit officially invited Finland and Sweden to join the ranks of the bloc, which “will make them more secure, NATO— stronger, and the Euro-Atlantic region— safer". Now, the accession of countries will have to be approved by the parliaments of 30 states that are members of the alliance.

If Finland and Sweden “feel better and calmer” by becoming NATO members, “to your health,” said Deputy Chairman of the Russian Security Council Dmitry Medvedev. At the same time, Moscow will be ready for retaliatory actions and will strengthen its borders, since the length of NATO’s land borders with Russia will more than double, Medvedev noted.

Read on RBC Pro Pro “I’ll write to the president”: where to complain if your labor rights have been violated Instructions Pro Miserly billionaire: how Gates, Buffett and Brin spend money in everyday life Pro articles “I’m like a ninja in a street fight”: Ray Dalio – on the impact of meditation economists declare the end of the era of globalization Is it worth buying them on a drawdown Forecasts Pro How to become your new leader: four rules and ten taboos Instructions Authors Tags Subscribe to VK RBC


NATO to boost reaction force, Ukraine support

class=”MuiTypography-root-229 MuiTypography-h1-234″>NATO to boost reaction force, Ukraine supportAssociated PressJune 27, 2022 · 8:30 AM EDT

A general view of a G7 leaders meeting with outreach guests as part of the working session of the G7 leaders summit, Kruen, Germany, June 27, 2022.

Lukas Barth/Pool Photo via AP

NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg says the military alliance wants to increase the number of its rapid reaction forces from the current 40,000 troops to 300,000.

Speaking at a press conference on Monday ahead of a NATO summit later this week in Madrid, Stoltenberg said Meanwhile, 

Stoltenberg said NATO members will agree on a “strengthened assistance package” including secure communication and anti-drone systems.

Over the long term, Stoltenberg said allies aim to help Ukraine transition from Soviet-era armaments to modern NATO equipment.

Key developments

G-7 leaders say they're commited to assisting Ukraine, and the US plans to send an anti-air system.

The Group of Seven leaders have pledged to continue supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes.”

In a joint statement on Monday after a video link session with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, the leaders underlined their “unwavering commitment to support the government and people of Ukraine in their courageous defence of their country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

They said that “it is up to Ukraine to decide on a future peace settlement, free from external pressure or influence.”

The leaders of the world’s leading democratic industrial powers pledged that “we will continue to provide financial, humanitarian, military and diplomatic support and stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes.”

They would continue exploring “new ways to isolate Russia from participating in the global market” and are “determined to reduce Russia’s revenues, including from gold.”

The leaders added that Russia must abide by international commitments including bans on the use of chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, and voiced “serious concern” about Russia’s announcement that it would send a nuclear-capable missile system to close ally Belarus.

A top French diplomat says Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy told the Group of Seven leaders that this isn't the time for negotiations with Russia because he needs to be in stronger position first.

The diplomat said Zelenskiy, who spoke by video link to a G-7 session, told the group that “he will negotiate when he will be in a position to do so.” He was speaking on condition of anonymity in line with the French presidency’s customary practices.

“His goal is to end the war as quickly as possible and to get out of it in the best possible position, so that he can negotiate from a position of strength,” the diplomat said, adding that Zelenskiy told the G-7 he needs economic, financial and military support.

French President Emmanuel Macron said that “nothing regarding Ukraine will be decided without Ukraine” and it’s up to Zelenskiy to decide when he wants to engage in negotiations with Russia, according to the diplomat.

Meanwhile, the German government insists its plans to tap new sources of natural gas don’t undermine the country’s ambitious climate goals.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is promoting the idea of a ‘climate club’ at a meeting Monday with fellow leaders from the Group of Seven major economies and key developing nations such as Indonesia, South Africa and Argentina.

Speaking ahead of the talks, Scholz told German public broadcaster ZDF that the club would bring together those countries “that are willing to become CO2-neutral very quickly by mid-century.”

The idea, which is still being fleshed out, would see members set common standards for curbing greenhouse gas emissions and agree not to impose climate-related tariffs on each others’ imports.

Scholz described his own country’s target of reducing emissions to net zero by 2045 – the earliest of any major industrial nation – as “very ambitious.” But his government has been criticized by climate campaigners for seeking new suppliers of natural gas to replace the shortfall from Russia.

Government spokesman Wolfgang Buechner said new energy agreements being forged with Senegal, which including developing a natural gas field, were “in accordance” with Germany’s emissions targets and the 2015 Paris climate accord. But Buechner declined to comment on reports that Germany was pressing other nations to soften existing agreements on reducing fossil fuel investments, saying talks at the G-7 summit in the Alpine resort of Elmau were ongoing.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has welcomed the leaders of five top emerging democratic economies and of major international organizations to the Group of Seven summit.

G-7 leaders plan to discuss a range of key issues with their guests, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, and Presidents Macky Sall of Senegal, Joko Widodo of Indonesia, Cyril Ramaphosa of South Africa, and Alberto Fernández of Argentina. Those issues include climate change, energy, health and the COVID-19 pandemic, food security and gender equality.

They’re being joined Monday by the heads of the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization and others.

Indonesia this year holds the presidency of the larger Group of 20 of major economies, which also includes Russia and China. That group faces a potentially awkward summit in Bali in November, in light of the possibility that Russian President Vladimir Putin could attend.

Finnish President Sauli Niinisto says that he and the Swedish prime minister will meet with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and the NATO secretary-general on the sidelines of this week’s NATO summit in the Spanish capital.

Finland and Sweden have applied to join the 30-member alliance in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. But NATO member Turkey has so far blocked their applications, citing what it considers to be the two countries’ soft approach on organizations Ankara considers as terrorist, such as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK.

Turkey is demanding that Sweden and Finland grant extradition requests for individuals it claims are PKK members or are linked to a failed 2016 coup. Ankara also wants assurances that restrictions on arms sales that both countries imposed over its 2019 military incursion into northern Syria will be lifted.

Turkey’s presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin told broadcaster Haberturk TV that “our attendance at this summit does not mean we will take a step back from our position.”

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has joined the Group of Seven leaders by video link at their summit in the Bavarian Alps.

Zelenskiy could be seen on a television screen next to the round table where the leaders sat Monday at the secluded Schloss Elmau luxury hotel. His address wasn’t being shown to the public.

The G-7 leaders are committing themselves to supporting Ukraine for the long haul at their summit, with both immediate help and long-term rebuilding on the agenda.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz says ahead of a session with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that the G-7 countries’ policies on Ukraine are “very much aligned,” and that they see the need to be both tough and cautions.

Scholz said after meeting Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Monday that “we are taking tough decisions, that we are also cautious, that we will help … Ukraine as much as possible but that we also avoid that there will be a big conflict between Russia and NATO.”

He added that “this is what is of essence — to be tough and thinking about the necessities of the time we are living in.”

The G-7 leaders are to confer by video link Monday morning with Zelenskiy.

The Group of Seven economic powers are set to announce an agreement to pursue a price cap on Russian oil, aiming to curb Moscow’s energy revenues, a US official said Monday. The move is part of a joint effort of support for Ukraine that includes raising tariffs on Russian goods and imposing new sanctions on hundreds of Russian officials and entities supporting the four month long war.

Leaders were finalizing the deal to seek a price cap during their three-day summit in the German Alps. The details of how a price cap would work, as well as its impact on the Russian economy, were to be resolved by the G-7 finance ministers in the coming weeks and months. The largest democratic economies will also commit to raising tariffs on Russian imports to their countries, with the US announcing new tariffs on 570 categories of goods, as well as use of sanctions to target Russia’s defense supply chains that support its effort to rearm during the war.

The senior administration official spoke on the condition of anonymity to preview the announcements from the G-7 leaders’ summit, where they are set to confer by video link with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz says the West has no intention to “torpedo” the Group of 20 — the group of major economies that also includes Russia.

This year’s G-20 summit is due to take place in Indonesia in November. There are questions over whether Western leaders will sit down with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Scholz, who is hosting this week’s summit of the smaller Group of Seven industrial powers, on Monday also is hosting leaders from five major emerging democratic economies — India, Indonesia, Senegal, South Africa and Argentina.

So far, they don’t all see eye-to-eye with the G-7 nations on the war in Ukraine or sanctions. Scholz told Germany’s ZDF television that “it’s all the more important that we discuss (the matter) with each other.”

Scholz told Germany’s ZDF television: “We must not walk into the trap Putin sets of asserting that the world is divided into the global West — the G-7 and its friends in the north — and all the rest. That’s not true. There are democracies all over the world and they have very similar perspectives.”

Scholz didn’t give an explicit commitment to turn up to the G-20 summit regardless of whether Putin attends, but stressed the group’s importance.

He said: “There is a common conviction … that we don’t want to torpedo the G-20.”

President Joe Biden is set to announce that the US is providing an advanced surface-to-air missile system to Ukraine, as well as additional artillery support, according to a person familiar with the matter, in the latest assistance meant to help the country defend against Russia’s four-month invasion.

The US is purchasing NASAMS, a Norwegian-developed anti-aircraft system, to provide medium- to long-range defense, according to the person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. NASAMS is the same system used by the US to protect the sensitive airspace around the White House and US Capitol in Washington.

Additional aid includes more ammunition for Ukrainian artillery, as well as counter-battery radars, to support its efforts against the Russian assault in the Donbas, the person said.

The announcement comes as Biden is huddling with allies this week on supporting Ukraine in meetings at the Group of Seven advanced economies summit in Germany and NATO leaders’ annual gathering in Madrid.

One year ago, Joe Biden strode into his first Group of Seven summit as president and confidently told the closest US allies that “America is Back.”

Now, there are worries that America is backsliding. As Biden meets this week with the heads of G-7 leading democratic economies in the Bavarian Alps, he brings with him the baggage of domestic turmoil.

The US is grappling with political unrest, shocking mass shootings and the US Supreme Court’s decision to end constitutional protections for abortion.

Biden says other world leaders at the summit haven’t been asking him about the abortion ruling. But the domestic unrest is no doubt troubling to his European allies.

Contributions by AP reporters: Sylvie Corbet in Paris and Zeke Miller in Elmau, Germany.

Biden announced Putin’s unfulfilled hopes for a split in the G7 and NATO

The US President, at a meeting with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, assured that the G7 and the North Atlantic Alliance would continue to maintain unity. The leaders of the G7 countries on June 26-28 will discuss pressure on Russia and assistance to Ukraine in Germany

Russian President Vladimir Putin, starting a military operation in Ukraine, counted on a split in NATO and the G7, but was mistaken, US President Joe Biden told German Chancellor Olaf Scholz , according to Reuters. The leaders held bilateral talks before the G7 summit, which will be held from June 26 to 28 in Germany.

“Putin from the very beginning expected that somehow NATO and the G7 would be split, but this did not happen and will not happen,— Biden assured. He thanked Scholz for “intensifying [aid to Ukraine] after he became Chancellor.”

After the outbreak of hostilities in Ukraine, the Group of Seven expressed support for Kyiv and condemned the Russian special operation. Countries of the “Seven” promised to provide Ukraine with military assistance “for as long as necessary” and declared their intention to prevent a Russian victory. Both Berlin and Washington handed over to Kyiv several shipments of weapons and military equipment, including heavy weapons.

On the eve of the first G7 summit since the beginning of the conflict, Reuters, citing a senior US official, said that the US would present specific proposals at the meeting to increase pressure on Russia and support Ukraine. After that, Biden said that the countries of the “Group of Seven” (United States, Great Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy and Japan), in particular, will announce a ban on the import of Russian gold. This information was confirmed by the British government. They clarified that the restrictions will apply to new production, but will not affect previously exported gold of Russian origin.

The government of the kingdom reported that Prime Minister Boris Johnson at the summit will urge colleagues not to weaken support for Ukraine. US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken said that the summit in Germany will discuss, among other things, the possibility of a diplomatic solution to the conflict.

In turn, NATO at the summit, which will be held June 28-30 in Madrid, will make new statements about the alignment of forces. In addition, the alliance will present a new strategic concept. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg reported that Russia will be mentioned in this document as a non-partner block, a threat to its security.

Read on RBC Pro Pro The world predicts the stagnation of the IT industry. What awaits her in Russia — two trends Forecasts Pro Inflation around the world is getting out of control. Where it will lead Articles Pro Tax disputes: what to pay attention to right now Case studies Pro In depth: what freediver skills are useful in everyday life Articles Pro Is it true that under the air conditioner you can catch a cold Articles Pro x The Economist day modern executives


Named the area of ​​​​probable direct collision between Russia and NATO

Photo: AP.

Western media again started talking about a possible clash between NATO and Russia. This time, analysts see the possibility of such a conflict in the confrontation between Moscow and Vilnius after the decision of Lita to ban the transit of goods subject to sanctions to the Kaliningrad region. In Russia, this was regarded as a blockade of Kaliningrad. Some politicians called for resolving this issue with the help of the army.

As the American publication Politico notes in its new material, the Suwalki corridor is a likely zone of direct military clash between the alliance and the Russian army. This is a hypothetical land corridor with a length of about 100 km, which can connect Belarus with the Kaliningrad region of Russia. Currently, Poland's border with Lithuania passes through this territory.

The Lithuanian military says they do not see any dangers yet. However, they call the Suwalki corridor the “Achilles heel of Lithuania”.

As the military explains, if Russia conducts an operation in this corridor, it will be able to simultaneously attack from the east (from Belarus) and from the west (from the Kaliningrad region ). This will enable the Russian military to quickly cut off the Baltic countries from NATO allies in the south.

The publication also notes that Russia has formed a powerful military presence in Kaliningrad: nuclear weapons, the Baltic Fleet and tens of thousands of soldiers. 

Lithuania sees the only way out in building up the NATO contingent in this area. She herself is not ready for confrontation, the publication notes.


Finland admits it won’t join NATO until September because of Turkey

Ankara demands from Helsinki to extradite to it supporters of the PKK, whom it considers terrorists, blocking Finland's attempts to join NATO

Finland may not be able to join NATO before September because of position of Turkey, President Sauli Niinistö said after a trilateral meeting with Turkey and Sweden at NATO headquarters. negotiations have begun»,— said the President during a press conference with the head of the European Parliament Roberta Metsola, expressing the hope that the countries will eventually come to an agreement.

Niinistö was also asked if it was possible for Finland to join NATO before September. “I didn’t want to name specific dates. It's possible, but it's also possible that it won't be done until September,” — he replied.

According to Niinistö, negotiations will continue.

His foreign and security adviser Petri Hakkarainen, who led the Finnish delegation in Brussels, reported that the parties have made “obvious progress” on some issues, but understanding on others will take time.

The representative of the Turkish president, Ibrahim Kalin, in turn, stated that the negotiations were held in an “open and sincere” manner. atmosphere. Any progress on Finland's and Sweden's NATO bids will depend on “the direction and speed with which these countries take the next steps,” he stressed.

Read on RBC Pro Pro How a programmer became the youngest self-made billionaire with AI positioning strategy Instructions Pro Where to send children to study abroad now: version-2022 Instructions Pro Bankrupt Ceylon: how Sri Lanka went from prosperity to default Turkey bypassing sanctions Articles

“When we see these steps, we will all be able to assess the direction of this process,” — Kalyn added.

Finland and Sweden applied to join NATO in mid-May. According to the procedure, their approval is required from all members of the alliance, but Turkey opposed it. It demands that countries hand over to Ankara members of the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which it considers a terrorist organization, close all organizations associated with structures that Turkey considers terrorist, and also provide Ankara with guarantees.

Representatives of Finland, Sweden and Turkey have already held talks, but Ankara after them said that they were not satisfied with the results.

The Finnish agency STT reported that Finland refused to extradite people suspected of terrorism to Turkey. So, by the beginning of June, Helsinki had ruled on seven out of ten requests sent by Turkey since 2019. Two Turks were extradited, but they were not suspected of terrorism in their homeland.

Authors Tags Subscribe to VK RBC Get news faster than anyone else


Poland’s prime minister says NATO has not done enough to protect Ukraine

Polish Prime Minister Morawiecki: NATO countries have not done enough to protect Ukraine According to Morawiecki, NATO countries need to increase arms supplies to Ukraine, as well as support Kyiv's ambitions on the path to joining the EU

NATO countries have not done enough to protect Ukraine so far . This was stated by Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki after a meeting of the leaders of the EU countries that are members of the military bloc, Wprost reports.

“We [NATO countries] have not done enough to protect Ukraine. I call for further arms shipments to this country, — said the politician.

According to him, European leaders “cannot imagine a scenario in which Ukraine loses.” He noted that this option would be a “catastrophe of Western values” and called on everyone to unite against “Russian imperialism”. Ukraine on the way to joining the EU. “We support their desire to get candidate status as soon as possible, because the Ukrainian people need hope,” — he said.

Since the beginning of the Russian military operation in Ukraine, many Western countries have already introduced several packages of sanctions against Moscow. Poland, in particular, broke the agreement with Russia on gas supplies, blocked the accounts of the Russian embassy and expelled dozens of Russian diplomats.

Read on RBC Pro Pro Why import substitution can bring Russia to the top of the cloudiest countries Forecasts Pro Does music really help you relax and focus Articles Pro Russia is facing galloping inflation. Why is it dangerous for business Articles Pro Banks in Russia are urgently changing software due to sanctions. What awaits the financial market Forecasts Pro The price of PhosAgro products is at a historical peak. What to expect from the giant's shares Articles Pro How to repay the debt during the moratorium on bankruptcy Instructions Pro The fuel market in the new realities: what to expect from gasoline prices Articles Pro I sleep a lot, but still feel overwhelmed. What's Wrong Articles

In addition, since the beginning of the conflict, Warsaw has gradually increased the supply of weapons to Kyiv, and also called for similar actions by other EU countries. In early June, Polish Deputy Prime Minister Jacek Sasin announced the allocation of a record $470 million over the past 30 years for the supply of weapons to Ukraine. Sasin did not specify what kind of weapons would be supplied under the contract, but noted that the European Union would partially cover the financing of the supplies.

The Russian authorities have repeatedly criticized the decision of Western countries to supply weapons to Ukraine. According to presidential press secretary Dmitry Peskov, despite the fact that Kyiv continues to be “stuffed with the most modern weapons,” the goals of the special operation “will be achieved in any case.” “[These deliveries] will simply cause more suffering to Ukraine, which is just a tool in the hands of those countries that supply [weapons] there,” — he noted.

Authors Tags Subscribe to RuTube RBC Live broadcasts, videos and recordings of programs on our RuTube channel


Deputy Fedorov told how Russia can exclude the Baltic countries from NATO


State Duma deputy Yevgeny Fedorov said in an interview with Sputnik Latvia that if Russia decides to withdraw recognition of Latvia's independence, Lithuania and Estonia, then NATO is likely to expel these countries from the North Atlantic alliance.

According to him, Russia's decision to withdraw recognition of independence will create conditions that will force NATO to return to the 1997 borders.

“According to the sixth paragraph of the NATO Charter, disputed territories cannot enter the alliance. Therefore, as soon as the territories of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are recognized as disputed, this will become the basis for their exclusion from NATO,” Fedorov added.

Earlier, Fedorov said that in the future Russia may withdraw recognition of the independence of Ukraine, Latvia and Estonia. He submitted a draft law to the State Duma, which states that the decision “On Recognizing the Independence of the Republic of Lithuania” is illegal. It was adopted in violation of the requirements of several articles of the Constitution of the USSR and by an unconstitutional body.


NATO is afraid of getting Western military technology to the Russian Armed Forces


Defense news, citing its own sources, reported that the countries that transfer weapons to Ukraine are concerned the fact that secret technologies for its production may get to Russia.

Therefore, representatives of European and Western countries carefully assess the possible risks before sending.

According to the publication, the West fears that Moscow can get data on how a given weapon works, and how to properly defend against it. In particular, this applies to weapons that use data encryption algorithms and homing systems.

According to a source in the British Embassy, ​​after Ukraine began to ask for more and more advanced weapons, the West began to take into account all the risks when making deliveries.


NATO exercises with 45 ships to take place in the Baltic Sea

Exercise Baltops 2022 will be held from 5 to 17 June, and will be attended by 14 NATO countries and partner countries Sweden and Finland, which applied to join the alliance in May

In the Baltic Sea from 5 to 17 June will be the annual NATO military exercises Baltops 2022, according to the website of the alliance. They are dedicated to the 500th anniversary of the Swedish Navy.

14 NATO countries and partner states Sweden and Finland, as well as more than 7 thousand military personnel, 75 aircraft and 45 ships, including including the American aircraft carrier USS Kearsarge.

The coordination of actions will be carried out by the aviation operations control center in Uedem (Germany). The exercises will begin in Stockholm and end in German Kiel.

The NATO countries, as well as Sweden and Finland, will work out joint actions in the air, on land and at sea. These include amphibious operations, navigation operations, interception, anti-submarine warfare, mine protection, medical evacuation at sea.

The Commanders of the Air Forces of Finland and Sweden, Major General Juha-Pekka Keränen and Major General Carl Johan Edström, discussed closer integration of their Air Forces with NATO partners. In particular, they discussed the applications of Helsinki and Stockholm to join NATO, as well as the potential integration of the airspace of Finland and Sweden into the mechanisms of patrolling NATO airspace.

Before the start of the exercise, the head of the US Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, said in Stockholm that the accession of Finland and Sweden to the alliance would put Russia in a “difficult military situation,” Reuters quoted him as saying. If they enter, the coastline of the Baltic Sea, with the exception of short strips around Kaliningrad and St. Petersburg, will be surrounded by NATO countries. “Therefore, this will be very problematic for them from a military point of view and will be very beneficial for NATO,” Millie said.

Read on RBC Pro Pro Why meditation is useful and what techniques will help you start practicing it Instructions Pro How to enter the UAE market – a case of financial services Cases Pro x The Economist Why the tightening of the policy of the European Central Bank threatens the Italian economy Articles Pro Sleep 8 hours a day and be lazy: healthy habits of Jeff Bezos How It Happened Articles Pro Irresistible Selling: 3 Presentation Elements That Will Make You Buy Articles

In mid-May, Finland and Sweden applied to join NATO. Turkey does not agree with this.

President Vladimir Putin at the CSTO summit said that Russia “has no problems with these states”, so their membership in the alliance does not pose an immediate threat to Russia. However, Moscow will react “appropriately” in the event of the expansion of NATO's military infrastructure on the territory of these countries, he warned.

The Russian Foreign Ministry, in turn, noted that Moscow was not going to put up with the advance of the alliance to the north of Europe. “They should not have any illusions that we will simply put up with this, as well as in Brussels, Washington and other NATO capitals. That is, the general level of military tension will increase, and there will be less predictability in this area, — said Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov.

Authors Tags Subscribe to RuTube RBC Live broadcasts, videos and recordings of programs on our RuTube channel


Turkey urged Sweden and Finland not to waste time negotiating with NATO

Now Turkey, Sweden and Finland have nothing to talk about, first they must satisfy the expectations of the Turkish authorities, the presidential adviser said. Turkey seeks both countries to extradite PKK members to it =”Turkey urged Sweden and Finland not to waste time negotiating with NATO” />

Sweden and Finland should not waste time negotiating with NATO about membership in the alliance, since Turkey's requirements on this matter have not changed and there is nothing to talk about. This opinion was expressed in an interview with the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter by the adviser to the Turkish president, Fahrettin Altun.

“Turkey's demands for Finnish and Swedish membership in NATO remain unchanged, and there is nothing to negotiate. It is wrong for Finland and Sweden to waste NATO's time at these critical moments, — he said.

Instead of negotiating with an alliance, Sweden should make sure things are in line with “reasonable expectations” Turkish government, Altun believes.

“Under the current circumstances, it is impossible to explain to the Turkish people how and why Turkey should be in a military alliance with a country that offers asylum to the PKK (Kurdistan Workers' Party.— RBC)»,— explained the EA.

Turkey refuses to support the applications of Sweden and Finland to join NATO and demands that these countries extradite members of the PKK to Ankara, close all organizations associated with structures that Turkey considers terrorist, and provide the Turkish side with appropriate guarantees. Turkish authorities consider the PKK a terrorist organization.

On May 25, Turkish, Finnish and Swedish representatives held talks in Ankara. After that, sources told Reuters that the meeting was not easy, and its participants made “little progress”; and did not achieve clear results. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said he was not satisfied with the outcome of the talks. The day before, the head of state spoke on the phone with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and noted that Sweden and Finland should demonstrate “allied solidarity” before joining. Erdogan demanded that Helsinki and Stockholm prove that they do not support terrorism and are ready to lift sanctions against Turkey.

Read on RBC Pro Pro Music, dance, tongue twisters: what will help improve brain function Articles Pro Being a vegan is useful. Is it true? Articles Pro When the global crisis will begin – versions of the Financial Times and The Economist get it again Instructions Pro The “defect” of the eurodollar: how the commodity crisis will change the position of the world currency Articles Pro What to do if the employer forces you to quit Articles w":599,"h":153,"abs_x":632,"abs_y":1757}”>Sweden and Finland applied to join NATO on 18 May. They explained that they took this step after the start of the Russian military operation in Ukraine against the background of changes in the security sphere. At the same time, the authorities of both countries stressed that the decision was not directed against Moscow. In order for states to become NATO members, their applications must be considered and approved by all 30 active members of the bloc.

Russian President Vladimir Putin noted that the intention of Sweden and Finland to join NATO could aggravate “an already difficult situation in the field of international security.” NATO expansion at the expense of these countries will not create an “immediate threat”; for Russia, but Moscow will respond if additional military infrastructure appears on their territories, Putin emphasized.

Authors Tags Subscribe to VK RBC Get news faster than anyone


Biden supported the rapid entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO

Joe Biden, at a meeting with Jens Stoltenberg, expressed support for his efforts for the rapid entry of Sweden and Finland into NATO, taking into account the security interests of all allies. Turkey opposes their membership, negotiations are underway rapid accession of Sweden and Finland to NATO” />

At a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, US President Joe Biden expressed support for his efforts aimed at the rapid entry of Sweden and Finland into the alliance, taking into account the security interests of all allies, the White House press service reports.

The US President and the NATO Secretary General welcomed the applications of Sweden and Finland to join the North Atlantic Alliance. The conversation discussed the implications of the Russian military operation in Ukraine for transatlantic security and the importance of strengthening NATO's deterrence and defense, in addition to ensuring that the alliance is properly resourced to address a wide range of issues, from cyber security to climate change.

The meeting was also attended US Vice President Kamala Harris, and US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan met with Stoltenberg separately.

Biden and Stoltenberg met to prepare for the NATO summit, which will be held June 29 & 30 in Madrid. Sweden and Finland will not be able to participate in this event as — candidates for membership in the alliance, said Stoltenberg, if they did not reach an agreement with Turkey, which blocked the approval of their applications because of “support for terrorists”; from the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK). Despite support for the entry of Sweden and Finland, Stoltenberg urged to take into account Turkey's concerns and solve “any problems related to security.”

According to Sabah, Ankara is demanding that Stockholm and Helsinki designate the PKK and its offshoots as terrorists, refuse to admit PKK members to parliaments, and expedite the process of extradition of “terrorists”. In addition, Turkey demanded the “immediate withdrawal” of sanctions against its military-industrial complex.

The Turkish newspaper Milliyet wrote that Biden was trying to mediate negotiations with Turkey on Finland and Sweden's NATO membership.

At the end of May, negotiations were held between the parties, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was dissatisfied with their results. “The meeting of the delegations was not at the level we expected,” — he said, calling the representatives of Sweden and Finland “dishonest and insincere”.

Read on RBC Pro Pro Bloodsucker Boss: What Annoys Russians Most About Their Leaders Articles Pro Parallel imports are not what they seem. What they actually allowed Pro Predictions Four useful practices to help cope with stress Instructions Pro Serendipity: how to make a coincidence not accidental Instructions Pro Urban farms and soil efficiency: what agricultural start-ups from Russia are doing Pro articles Does eye gymnastics improve eyesight Pro articles What in the near future will be with unemployment in Russia Forecasts Pro Boring, and even difficult: 6 myths about cycling Articles

Sweden and Finland applied to join NATO on May 18th. Both countries want to join the bloc on the condition that military bases and nuclear weapons are not placed on their territory. In addition to Turkey, Hungary and Croatia oppose the membership of these states.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the intention of the northern European states could aggravate “an already difficult international security environment.” According to him, the expansion of NATO at the expense of Sweden and Finland will not create an “immediate threat”; for Russia, but she will respond if the military infrastructure is expanded in these territories.

The United States assured that they were not going to increase the contingent in Finland and Sweden.

Authors Tags Subscribe to RuTube RBC Live broadcasts, videos and recordings of programs on our RuTube channel


Turkey called NATO expansion impossible without fulfilling its requirements

The process of Sweden and Finland joining NATO will not move forward until Turkey's concerns are satisfied, Kalın said. Earlier, Ankara demanded that the two countries conclude a written agreement Turkey called it impossible to expand NATO without fulfilling its requirements” />

Turkish and Finnish delegations during the talks

Without satisfying Turkey's fears, there can be no talk of any progress in the process of Finland and Sweden's accession to NATO, said Turkish presidential spokesman Ibrahim Kalin, Yeni Şafak reports.

Earlier, negotiations were held in Ankara between Turkish, Swedish and Finnish delegation.

“We have made it clear that the process [of Sweden and Finland joining NATO] will not move forward unless Turkey's concerns are resolved through concrete action and within a certain time frame,”— said Kalyn.

Sweden and Finland applied to join NATO on 18 May. First they will be considered by the main political body of the bloc — The Council of the North Atlantic Alliance, and then the agreement must be ratified by all 30 states — NATO members.

Turkey opposed the admission of Sweden and Finland to NATO. According to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, these countries gave asylum to members of organizations recognized as terrorist by Ankara, in particular the Kurdistan Workers' Party. (PKK), and also imposed sanctions against the republic.

Turkey wants Sweden and Finland to “stop supporting terrorists” and wants to conclude a written agreement with these countries. It will include the recognition of the PKK and its offshoots as terrorist, the refusal to admit its members to the parliaments of the two countries, as well as the acceleration of the procedure for the extradition of “terrorists”; at the request of Ankara, Sabah wrote. According to Kalin, Ankara has already conveyed its demands.

Read on RBC Pro Pro Not everything can be replaced: without these IT services, it will be especially difficult for a business Pro instructions Castness, startups, caution – what you need to know about business in India to regain calmness and faith in the future for yourself and your employees — 5 steps Instructions Pro Is it worth it to adopt the strange healthy lifestyle habits of Silicon Valley Articles Pro Which ruble is beneficial for the state — strong or weak? Pro Articles The risk of an eternal bear market is real. In what stocks to sit out the fall Forecasts Pro The profession of the seller is still not prestigious: what awaits it in the future Instructions

Finland has previously announced its readiness to guarantee Ankara that ties with the PKK will be more closely monitored in the country, but ruled out the extradition of members of the PKK or those associated with it people without justice. In Sweden, in turn, they recalled that the government of the country included the PKK in the list of terrorist organizations back in 1984.

Contributions to the article Authors Tags Subscribe to RuTube RBC Live broadcasts, videos and recordings of programs on our RuTube channel


Biden made Colombia one of the main US allies outside NATO

The status gives the recipient the opportunity to acquire various types of weapons and participate in joint defense activities and gives other privileges. However, he does not oblige the United States to provide security guarantees to an ally.

Joe Biden

U.S. President Joe Biden signed a resolution granting Colombia the status of a major ally of a state outside of NATO, the White House press service reports.

“Within his powers as president<…> I include Colombia among the main allies of the United States outside of NATO, — said in the resolution.

Biden announced plans to make Colombia one of the main allies of the United States outside of NATO in mid-March. At the time, he said the move would strengthen the “unique and close relationship” between the countries.

The status of a major ally outside the alliance “gives [the United States] foreign partners certain advantages in the field of defense trade and security cooperation, but does not oblige Washington to provide them with security guarantees, as is the case with states & mdash; members of NATO, according to the State Department website. In particular, they get the opportunity to acquire various types of weapons and participate in joint defense activities.

Washington established the status of the main US ally outside NATO in 1989. Now it has been assigned to 17 countries, including Afghanistan, Argentina, Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Egypt, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand and others. Taiwan is also considered the main US allies outside NATO, although the country has not been officially assigned the status.

Article content Authors Tags Subscribe to VK RBC Get news faster than anyone