The chief of staff for NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg has angered Kyiv officials for suggesting Ukraine could become a member of NATO if it ceded some of its territory to Russia.

Then the second sentence.

Stian Jenssen, who has held the title of director of the Private Office of the NATO Secretary General since 2017, reportedly made the suggestion while speaking on a recent panel in the Norwegian city of Arendal.

Now we have 3 slightly different versions of the story, but the differences are very important. Which one is the truth? The headline says he gave conditions to Ukraine, the second implies it, and the third clarifies that he was speaking to a Norwegian discussion panel. In Norway, where there may not have even been an Ukrainians present.

WTF, Newsweek?

[–] SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net -5 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Either way, not a good look for him. Yikes

[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

either way?

look, the headline makes it sound like the SG of NATO made ceding land conditional to join NATO, which simply didn’t happen. What seems like did happen is that he merely suggested it as a possibility during a panel discussion, and not even to Ukrainians.

One is an outrageous diplomatic blunder of international proportions, the other is a somewhat insensitive gaffe and nothing more. It’s huge difference, and it’s important not only to note that but how shitty it is of Newsweek to make it sound like the first happened when, in reality, it was the second. as I pointed out, the first 3 sentences is backtracking from the total lie of a headline.

[–] Urist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Stoltenberg is a pretty decent politician and not a good target for someone trying to slam dunk NATO. I believe him being less controversial than the alliance itself was actually one of his qualifications for the job.

[–] bauhaus@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

yeah, I’m going to wait for some official clarification before I make any judgement. I’ve been to plenty of discussion panels where people are throwing around ideas while trying to solve a problem that they might not make as serious proposals in another context.

I’ve attended UN conferences before (when I was in university) and have overheard diplomats bullshitting about things that, if misunderstood or mistaken for anything other than bullshitting by some overeager and under-experienced (or, perhaps, bad-faith) reporter could have caused serious problems.

I certainly expect the SG of NATO to act more responsibly that to make such a conditional proposal and to do so seriously at this conference, and to such an audience. And at such a time.

[–] False@lemmy.world 11 points 1 year ago

It's well known they need to resolve their territorial conflicts before membership is on the table

[–] KingSlareXIV@infosec.pub 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I get that Ukraine won't consider the possibility of ceding any territory, nor should they. They probably don't like their allies even mentioning it.

But, there's the separate issue of not being able to join NATO with ongoing territorial disputes. Without much context to go on, I would almost interpret this as something more along the lines of "Ukraine could join NATO tomorrow if the dispute went away (by whatever method)".

[–] Thorny_Thicket@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Them capturing back all lost territories including Crimea is possible but unlikely and to be frank I have hard time taking seriously someone presenting themselves as some kind of an expert on the subject matter who refuses to admit this. There's an acceptable amount of losses for both sides and negotiations wont start untill either side reaches a line after which the casualties becomes untolerable compared to the gains they're making. Russia can probably keep throwing their poor farmers into the meat grinder for much longer than Ukraine can. This is not especially relevant yet but unless some big break through is in the horizon it might be something people need to seriously start discussing in the somewhat near future.

Also I'm not a military expert either so what do I know. This just seems like the most honest assesment of the situation right now.

[–] autotldr@lemmings.world 7 points 1 year ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Stian Jenssen, who has held the title of director of the Private Office of the NATO Secretary General since 2017, reportedly made the suggestion while speaking on a recent panel in the Norwegian city of Arendal.

Ukrainian territory has been one of the driving forces in the war Russian President Vladimir Putin launched on Ukraine in February 2022.

Mykhailo Podoliak, Zelensky's top adviser to the Head of the Office of the President of Ukraine, denounced Jenssen's suggestion on X, formerly Twitter.

That means deliberately choosing the defeat of democracy, encouraging a global criminal, preserving the Russian regime, destroying international law, and passing the war on to other generations," Podoliak wrote.

A spokesperson for Ukraine's Ministry of Foreign Affairs also publicly rejected the suggestion, calling Jenssen's proposal "absolutely unacceptable" in a statement posted on Facebook.

The conscious or unconscious participation of NATO officials in shaping the narrative regarding the possibility of Ukraine's giving up its territories plays into the hands of Russia," foreign ministry spokesperson Oleh Nikolenko wrote in part.

I'm a bot and I'm open source!