NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is supposed to know better than this. The diplomatic and political heads of the NATO countries are supposed to know better than this. Regardless of how much credulity one must have to accept Putin’s stated reasons for invading Ukraine, the lack of a plausible
Why would these 4 bullets be propaganda? They seem all four true, whether we agree with them or not. NATO was created because Russia/USSR was an adversary. And it still is. Now Puttin has shown the world its military is much weaker than we feared, it is tactically a good moment to kick them while they are down. There is no real risk in escalation, as Puttin already escalated when they invaded. Let's weaken Russia as much as possible! If it were not for the cost of lives, strategically actually a very sound strategy.
When you talk to people in Eastern European countries, they looked at Russia completely different than Western Europeans and the US did. Many truly feared Russia. As Poland now stated a few months ago - they are no longer afraid. Russia's non-nuclear capabilities are so much weaker than expected that would probably even lose from the Europeans alone if invading despite them neglecting their military for years. Their airforce, training and logistics are mostly to blame here.
But if we takle the human cost out of it, it is good if Russia gets a good beating. It will calm Russia's rhetoric towards the Baltic states and other members on the border. It will possibly also reduce Putin's ambitions in its former USSR vassal states. But even if that latter doesn't happen, the war today already diminished Russia's role in the world as super power. China will have taken note for instance. Also in Africa and Lattin America, Russia as an ally will be less valuable. It is now truly a two-man race (US/China).
Russia overplayed its hands, by overestimating its own capabilities. The best for them is to try and offer a deal. The problem what deal exists the Ukrainians will accept, that would not be an utter defeat for Puttin? I see no deal that would be acceptable. Ukraine because they feel they can win this and want the territories back. But Russia cannot accept that, because not getting the Eastern areas would mean a loss.
Of course, this also means more people will have unfortunately to die. But unless you want Ukraine to surrender, what other option is there? If NATO lowers their rhetoric, that will not make much difference. You can argue rhetoric helps Puttin's hawks. But it will also cause pushback as others there will realize too that a fight with NATO is an inevitable losing battle. It could tip either way. Vietnam also ended with people rather accepting a loss than continuing receiving young men in body bags back.
You think Jens is irresponsible? Wait until Chrystia Freeland, who is apparently being considered, gets in there as secretary.
A Ukrainian nationalist whose family collaborated with Nazis, Freeland is the architect - one of them anyway - of putting into legislation the power to freeze bank accounts without a court order in Canada. Which, by the way, they showed no remorse for during the public hearings.
She'd bumble the world into a war in seconds flat with her penchant for emotional drivel and remedial musings on international affairs. She's a Democrat-lite war monger.
Just a side bar to this story. Sorry.