NATO leaders are expected to call out China for its support of Russia’s war machine at their summit in Washington. However, they are divided over their approach to the Indo-Pacific region.
At their summit in the US capital, NATO leaders are not only set to approve a new military aid package for Ukraine, but also to talk tough on China.
In an interview with US media ahead of the summit, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg described China as “the main enabler of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.”
Antony Blinken, the US Secretary of State, told DW at a foreign ministers’ meeting in Prague in May that China’s support was “a huge difference-maker right now on the battlefield.” He added that for China to purport to seek better relations with countries in Europe while at the same time fueling the biggest threat to Europe’s security “does not add up.”
…
According to the US assessment, China is the top supplier of machine tools, microelectronics, and nitrocellulose — critical to making munitions and rocket propellers — and other dual-use items that Moscow uses to ramp up its defense industrial base.
Now do India
Not that tough
-NATO
Getting tough = issue a sternly worded statement of disapproval
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In an interview with US media ahead of the summit, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg described China as “the main enabler of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.”
According to the US assessment, China is the top supplier of machine tools, microelectronics, and nitrocellulose — critical to making munitions and rocket propellers — and other dual-use items that Moscow uses to ramp up its defense industrial base.
In June, South Korean National Security Advisor Chang Ho-jin told reporters Seoul will review the possibility of supplying weapons to Ukraine, after the leaders of North Korea and Russia signed a pact pledging mutual defense in the event of war.
NATO has collaborated with partners in the Indo-Pacific since the early 2000s, but Russia’s war against Ukraine and security challenges posed by China have led to a deeper engagement.
Ahead of the meeting, NATO chief Stoltenberg said the alliance and its Indo-Pacific partners “will build on our practical cooperation with flagship projects on Ukraine, cyber, and new technologies.”
Last year, France blocked a NATO plan to open a liaison office in Japan, insisting the alliance is geographically confined to the North Atlantic.
The original article contains 860 words, the summary contains 187 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg described China as “the main enabler of Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine.”
What a perfectly normal way to describe a war.
It’s like when Confederates talk of the War of Northern Aggression.
“War of aggression” just means a war that’s not in self-defence. “Aggression” specifically is also a term used in laws like the Rome Statute. This language is actually very well established in contexts that are not people trying to play cover for the Confederacy
Also a crime in the Criminal Code of Russian Federation, §353, ‘Planning, preparation, starting and prolonging the war of agression’: https://ukodeksrf.ru/ch-2/rzd-12/gl-34/st-353-uk-rf
Yeah, I know what it means.
So what’s your issue with it? Just that some pro-Confederacy dickheads use the same words?
No one talks that way normally. It’s the kind of talking that people use when they want to reinforce a narrative.
When I hear things like that from our officials, I don’t feel like I’m being informed. I feel like I’m being trained to think a certain way.
You think it’s weird that someone speaking in their second language in a position of great international power is using language that you wouldn’t use day to day?
There’s no trick here. It’s not a term he made up, it’s one rooted in relevant international law. Stoltenberg said exactly what he meant: Russia’s war is unjust. If you think that that’s an odd position for the secretary general of NATO to express then I really don’t know what to tell you
Lol, get over yourself, champ.
Except in this case it’s accurate? It’s calling out Russia’s lack of appropriate casus belli.
it’s accurate
And so normal!
