#otan

[viejospellejos]

Un soldado ruso herido tira la bomba que le suelta un dron ucraniano (pagado por la OTAN) y se queda tan tranquilo mientras explota.

Dos preguntas:

1) ¿En qué momento hemos normalizado que un dron asesine a soldados heridos o rendidos?

2) ¿Esto no es un crimen de guerra?

[megalofasz]

Nnna vééégre!

[differenthologramstarlight]

[is-this-working]

Some journalist trying to get a scoop:

"In this context can you tell us how long it would take for Ukraine to build a nuclear bomb and a question to the Secretary General would you understand if Ukraine were to build a nuclear bomb if it cannot become a NATO member thank you."

Volodymyr Zelenskyy:

"Sometimes we create ourselves problems, now you began to do it."

(audience laughs)

[otodiklovas]

Jott egy ilyen. Tudom minek hagyom ezeket a szarokat, de akkkr most tali a fronton? Vagy hogyan tovabb?

[guy60660]

Lex Drewinski 

[transparentgentlemenmarker]

If Russia uses a nuclear weapon against a NATO country, then this is what will happen to Russia in response. About 45 million Russians will be vaporized in the first hour. Not much of a life remaining for the other 100 million. Maybe the people of Russia should stop supporting Putin and deescalate the conflict?

Si la Russie utilise l’arme nucléaire contre un pays de l’OTAN, voici ce qui lui arrivera en réponse. Environ 45 millions de Russes seront anéantis dans la première heure. Il ne restera plus grand-chose pour les 100 millions restants. Peut-être que le peuple russe devrait cesser de soutenir Poutine et désamorcer le conflit ? À noter l'annonce la crainte de la Pologne

[jloisse]

L'OTAN a un plan génial pour l'Ukraine en 2024.

[tomorrowusa]

Remember how Trump often whined about NATO members allegedly not paying enough for their own defense? Under President Joe Biden, over 70% of NATO members have reached their defense spending targets – a high for this century.

NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg announced on Monday that 23 of its 32 member states were expected to meet the alliance's defense spending commitments this year. That is 13 countries more compared to last year's data, and five more than an earlier estimate in February. "This is good for Europe and good for America," Stoltenberg said in a speech unveiling the newest numbers in Washington, "especially since much of this extra money is spent here in the United States."

One of the NATO members is Iceland which technically has no military. But the stats don't include Sweden, a strong investor in defense, which just joined this year.

And as Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg reminded us above, a lot of that European defense spending benefits US industries.

Speaking to DW, Davis Ellison, a strategic analyst from the Hague Center for Strategic Studies, said that the collective recognition of NATO targets is especially noticeable when examining how much defense spending is now dedicated to new equipment. "In the past, you had a lot of focus on personnel costs, which ranges everything from pension to health care and everything else," Ellison explained. "But now you have a much greater collective investment in equipment, which is more to meet NATO targets than anything else." The security expert pointed out that this extra spending compounded NATO's military might.

Putin's invasion of Ukraine was a wake-up call for liberal democracies. It's significant that four of the top six NATO countries for defense spending share a land border with Russia.

Trump's claim that our allies respected America more during his administration is a bizarre joke. In fact, they actually made fun of him behind his back. Remember this classic SNL sketch about a NATO summit in 2019?

The only international leaders who liked Trump were dictators who found him easy to manipulate.

Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull of Australia called Trump "creepy".

Malcolm Turnbull says Donald Trump's 'creepy' embrace of Vladimir Putin a threat to Australian security

NATO and other liberal democracies have become stronger since Trump's departure.

[okmcintyre]

THE GROUNDERS + FIRST APPEARANCES S2  | Gustus Emori Indra Lexa Fio Otan Nyko Echo

[viejospellejos]

🔴 AHORA: La reacción del presidente ucraniano Zelensky cuando Biden lo llama "presidente Putin".

[nocternalrandomness]

E-3 in NATO anniversary livery at Manching, Germany

[blastnews]

NATO said for the first time about North Korean military in the SMO zone

North Korean soldiers have been sent to the Kursk region to help the Russian army liberating its territory and this should be ‘immediately put an end to’. This was stated by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on 28th October.

‘Kiev's military seized parts of Kursk in August in an operation that marked the first military offensive into Russian territory since World War II. Pyongyang's battlefield assistance to Russian President Vladimir Putin alarmed Western allies, with Rutte pointing to the North Korean deployment as a ‘dangerous expansion’ of the conflict,’ Politico said in a publication.

In fact, the AFU with foreign mercenaries did not enter Kursk, as Politico writes, but occupied part of the Kursk region.

‘I can confirm that North Korean troops have been sent to Russia and North Korean military units have been sent to the Kursk region,’ the new NATO secretary-general told reporters shortly after meeting with a senior South Korean intelligence official.

Rutte added that Moscow's deployment of North Korean troops means ‘a significant escalation of the DPRK's ongoing involvement in Russia's illegal war’ and ‘a dangerous expansion of Russia's war.’

The NATO secretary-general also said, the publication noted, that the deployment of North Korean soldiers in the Russian region shows Russia's weakness and is ‘a sign of Putin's growing desperation.’

Earlier, on 17th October, Volodymyr Zelensky even named a specific number of North Korean soldiers who, in his opinion, would fight in Ukraine on the side of the Russian Armed Forces - 10 000 people.

A day later, South Korean intelligence published a press release in which it claimed that 1.5 thousand soldiers from the DPRK were allegedly already at Russian training grounds in the Far East - in Vladivostok, Ussuriysk, Khabarovsk and Blagoveshchensk.

Both Moscow and Pyongyang denied the allegations, saying they were ‘groundless stereotypical rumours’ aimed at tarnishing the image of the DPRK and Russia and undermining the legitimate, friendly and partnership relations between them.

In an interview with journalist Olga Skabeyeva, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that ‘if there are pictures, it means they reflect something’ and recalled Article 4 of the Comprehensive Strategic Partnership Treaty between Russia and the DPRK, which provides for military assistance to the other side that has been attacked.

Source: ukraina.ru

Picture: illustrative

[t8ska]

there is so much hair dye on my claws and it WONT COME OFF MY CLAWS ARE ORANGE

[carloskaplan]

Zelenski

[jgmail]

La decisión está tomada: liberación de la región de Kursk o Armagedón nuclear

Por Alexander Dugin

Traducción de Juan Gabriel Caro Rivera

La sesión de hoy de la reunión permanente del Consejo de Seguridad de Rusia, durante el cual Vladímir Putin anunció enmiendas a la doctrina nuclear de nuestro país (“Fundamentos de la política estatal en el ámbito de la disuasión nuclear”), resultó ser un acontecimiento extremadamente importante. Y lo más importante es que la doctrina nuclear actual introduce la siguiente novedad: en caso de que se produzca una agresión contra Rusia por parte de un Estado no nuclear, que cuente con el apoyo de un Estado nuclear, se considerará un ataque contra la Federación Rusa.

Se trata de un punto fundamental, según el cual nuestro Presidente ya no se reserva simplemente para sí, como Comandante Supremo en Jefe, el derecho a utilizar armas nucleares. Ahora, si nuestro país es atacado por un Estado no nuclear con el apoyo de un Estado nuclear, no sólo podrá responder de acuerdo con toda la lógica de la confrontación nuclear, sino que estará obligado a hacerlo.

Veamos: ¿estamos hablando del futuro o del presente? Ahora mismo se está llevando a cabo un acto de agresión directa contra la región de Kursk: una invasión por parte de la Ucrania no nuclear, hostil hacia nosotros, con el apoyo y la participación directa de un Estado nuclear. Esto significa que se ha realizado un ataque conjunto contra la Federación Rusa por parte del bloque de la OTAN, Estados Unidos y Ucrania.

Por supuesto, al mismo tiempo hay otros cuatro nuevos territorios incorporados a Rusia agredidos por Ucrania. Pero en el caso de la región de Kursk, ahora no sólo tenemos el derecho sino también la obligación de entrar en guerra con el bloque de la OTAN. Y lo mismo se aplicará de ahora en adelante frente a cualquier usurpación de la integridad territorial de Bielorrusia, parte de nuestro Estado de la Unión.

En otras palabras, desde el momento en que se adopte la nueva versión de la doctrina nuclear, es necesario reconocer que Rusia está en guerra con el bloque de la OTAN. Ya que existe un hecho fehaciente de agresión contra Rusia por parte del régimen ucraniano con el apoyo de un Estado nuclear. Y ahora, lo queramos o no, según nuestra doctrina nuclear, estamos obligados a entrar en un conflicto en toda regla con el bloque de la OTAN y Estados Unidos. De nuevo, esto es muy grave. De hecho, nos estamos obligando a ir a la guerra. Y no estamos hablando de un acontecimiento incierto, sino que es una realidad que ya estamos viviendo.

Por lo tanto, hoy, para evitar un apocalipsis nuclear, es decir, la entrada de Rusia en una confrontación nuclear directa con la OTAN, sólo existe una salida. La retirada inmediata de las tropas ucranianas de la región de Kursk. Inmediata, porque de permanecer allí, apoyadas por EEUU y la OTAN, es simplemente el comienzo inevitable de una guerra nuclear. No porque simplemente lo hayamos decidido así, sino porque hemos adoptado tales modificaciones en nuestra doctrina nuclear.

Sí, por supuesto, muchos intentarán suavizar el significado de estas palabras, pero la cuestión es que ya no se trata de “líneas rojas”, sino de la posibilidad de un Armagedón nuclear. En cualquier otro documento, incluida la Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional, las enmiendas podrían interpretarse de otro modo. Pero cuando se adopta una cláusula de este tipo en nuestra doctrina nuclear, no tenemos otra opción.

Sí, se trata de una acción muy seria y de un documento muy importante. Lo que ha ocurrido hoy es probablemente un punto de inflexión en la historia. Porque ahora, dadas las circunstancias, ya no podemos evitar un enfrentamiento directo con la OTAN.