NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg concluded his visit to New York, where he participated in the 79th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) and called for sustained international support for Ukraine amid ongoing conflict with Russia.
During his remarks, Mr. Stoltenberg highlighted the crucial role NATO is playing in the conflict and stressed that a stable Ukraine is essential for a peaceful Europe.
Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, Stoltenberg responded to Russia’s revised nuclear doctrine, labelling Moscow’s rhetoric as “dangerous and reckless.” He firmly stated that Russia “cannot coerce us from supporting Ukraine” and underlined NATO’s ongoing commitment to providing military aid.
He reiterated the Alliance’s position that peace in Europe depends on Ukraine’s stability, adding, “If you want a peaceful Europe, you need a stable Ukraine.” Stoltenberg also highlighted the importance of NATO’s Article 5 as the most credible security guarantee.
During his visit, the Secretary General reflected on NATO’s bolstered defences since Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, which include increased battlegroups and high-readiness troops on the eastern flank.
He also mentioned the need to strengthen partnerships globally to address challenges such as terrorism, cyber-attacks, and rising competition with China, noting the importance of working with like-minded nations, particularly in the Indo-Pacific.
In addition to attending the UNGA, Stoltenberg met with several key leaders, including UN Secretary-General António Guterres, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida. He also marked the 20th anniversary of the NATO-Istanbul Cooperation Initiative and received the Concordia Leadership Award at their Annual Summit.
The USA supports, assists Israel when attacked, taking out drones & missiles launched at Israel, but stops UKR from defending herself against relentless Russian bombardment by counter striking where those attacks come from with American or American components in their weapon systems. I’d rather see us take Putin “at his word” & accept his wild accusation that attacks by UKR using weapons we’ve supplied as attacks by us & call his bluff. If we’re accused of attacking his forces, why not get this stupid war over with by helping far more directly defeat Russian forces in UKR & hitting their… Read more »
Nail on head👌
The US does what it perceives to be in its own best interests as does the UK. Nothing is stopping the UK from separating itself from the US, acting in its own perceived best interests, providing any weapons it wants to Ukraine, and giving Ukraine permission to use them as it wants. Except for one thing, the US is the leader of NATO and the West and the UK isn’t and the UK can’t afford to disassociate itself from the US and NATO.
The UK telling Ukraine to let loose with Stormshadow would be absolutely fine. The issue is for Ukraine, not us. If they go to town with our weapons, whatever we might say, the US would cut them off.
Absolutely fine for whom? You do realise that these weapons are supported by UK personnel who do everything from planning the strike to supervising the loading of weapons. This isn’t the same as supply shells or rifles. In effect the UK is firing these weapons. Do you not understand that? Or do you know it but choose to ignore it or don’t you simply understand the ramifications?
Hi Stephanie Serving soldier here. Pretty sure I understand the use of weapons better than you do. Maybe if some day you choose to reply to any of my responses we can have a conversation. As it stands: there are no UK personnel in Ukraine, so you’re wrong with the “loading of weapons” which is done by Ukrainian personnel on Ukrainian Airfields onto Ukrainian SU-24’s in the case of Storm shadow (the only weapon that realistically we supply that could strike deep into Russia). We also don’t plan strikes for Ukraine, we sometimes supply intelligence on Russian movements collected by… Read more »
If you are going to spout bollocks at least give us your sources! RT perhaps?
Believe that American policy in UKR is principally, if not completely, circumscribed and even dictated by the consideration that Russia is the most heavily armed nuclear weapons state. Uncertain whether American policy re Israel would vary substantially from policies US pursues in UKR, during a conflict incolving involving those two states. Implausible? Perhaps, but it is patently obvious at this point that the Israelis and the Iranians are on a collision course. If the Iranians appeal for assistance from Mad Vlad and the Orcs, and the Israelis, in turn, appeal to Uncle Sugar for assistance; it could become a very… Read more »