BUT FIRST LET'S INVESTIGATE THE MAIDAN "REVOLUTION" (ARTICLE FROM FEBRUARY 2024)

"Court in Kiev has confirmed: Maidan snipers fired from the Hotel Ukraina"

Ten years ago, a sniper massacre of police officers and Maidan activists created a highly explosive atmosphere on the Maidan in Kiev and triggered the coup against the Ukrainian government that followed two days later. In an interview with Multipolar, political scientist Ivan Katchanovski from the University of Ottawa explains the course of events, the available evidence, the questionable role of the german broadcaster ARD and the findings of a recent Kiev court ruling on the mass murder. The judges found that right-wing extremist Maidan fighters fired from the Hotel Ukraina, and other places, and are responsible for the deaths of at least ten people.

STEFAN KORINTH, 23. Februar 2024, 0 Kommentare,

 

Note: This interview ist also available in German.

Multipolar: Mr. Katchanovski, these February days mark the anniversary of the massacre on the Maidan on 20 February 2014, the violent, pro-Western change of power in Kiev two days later and the Russian invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. To what extent does a political line lead from the events of February 2014 to the war eight years later?

Katchanovski: As I wrote in my recently published open-access article in a peer-reviewed journal, the Maidan massacre led to the overthrow of the pro-Russian government of Viktor Yanukovych and gave the start of a civil war in Donbas, Russia’s military intervention in Crimea and Donbas, the Russian annexation of Crimea, and an interstate conflict between the West and Russia and between Ukraine and Russia that Russia drastically escalated by launching its illegal invasion of Ukraine on 24 February 2022. Not only Putin in his interview to Tucker Carlson but also Ursula von der Leyen, the EU Commission President, stated that the Maidan massacre played a key role in the origins of the Russia-Ukraine war,

Multipolar: Please briefly summarize how the mass murder in Kiev on 20 February unfolded. Who were the victims? Who were the perpetrators? What reliable figures and information are available? What are the findings of your research?

Katchanovski: The massacre started with snipers from the far-right-linked Maidan group breaking a ceasefire agreement and killings 3 and wounding of 39 Berkut policemen and Internal Troops servicemen on the Maidan in the morning of February 20. Both my studies and the verdict of the Maidan massacre trial show that as result of this deadly attack, the unarmed Berkut police and Internal troops members rapidly retreated from the Maidan and the Maidan activists chased them, and one policeman was killed and two wounded by a Maidan activist. An armed special Berkut company briefly advanced to Maidan to secure a retreat of the Internal Troops. During the same time, the Maidan activists were massacred.

The trial verdict stated that:

“On February 20, 2014, 113 law enforcement officers were injured of various degrees of severity (beatings, concussions, fractures, poisoning, burns), 4 of whom died from gunshot wounds, and a total of 63 law enforcement officers received gunshot wounds. 233 activists were also injured of various degrees of severity, 49 of whom perished, 48 of them as a result of gunshot wounds, and a total of 172 activists received gunshot wounds.”

My recently published peer-reviewed journal article, entitled “The “snipers’ massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine,” summarizes the findings of my studies as follows:

“Synchronized videos, testimonies by several hundred witnesses, confessions by 14 self-admitted members of Maidan sniper groups, and bullet hole locations show that both the police and protesters were massacred by Maidan snipers located in Maidan-controlled buildings and areas. Content analysis of synchronized videos revealed that the specific time and direction of shooting by special Berkut police company, who were charged with the massacre, did not coincide with the killing of specific protesters. Testimonies by the absolute majority of wounded protesters and some 100 witnesses and forensic examinations by ballistic and medical experts for the Maidan massacre trial and investigation in Ukraine corroborate this. The article shows that the false-flag massacre was rationally organized and carried out with the involvement of oligarchic and far-right elements of the Maidan opposition to overthrow the incumbent government in Ukraine.”

The overwhelming evidence that shows this beyond any reasonable doubt is presented in this and two other open access peer-reviewed journal articles, entitled “The Maidan Massacre Trial and Investigation Revelations: Implications for the Ukraine-Russia War and Relations” and “The far right, the Euromaidan, and the Maidan massacre in Ukraine,” their video appendixes, and in my two books that would be published this year by major Western academic presses.

The bloodbath in the city center led to the withdrawal of the police

Multipolar: What impact did the massacre have on the unconstitutional removal of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych two days later?

Katchanovski: The Maidan opposition, the Western governments, and the Western and Ukrainian media immediately blamed Yanukovych, the government snipers, and the Berkut for the massacre of the Maidan protesters. The massacre led the parliament vote on February 20 to withdraw government forces from downtown Kyiv and subsequently to the vote to dismiss then President Yanukovych and his government. The vote to dismiss him was violated the Ukrainian Constitution and lacked the votes in spite of the vote results manipulation by using cards of absent deputies to vote and despite the far-right-linked group of the Maidan snipers forcing many deputies to vote.

Multipolar: A court ruling was recently handed down in Kiev regarding the massacre of February 20, 2014. Please explain: What was the charge?

Katchanovski: The Prosecutor General Office of Ukraine (GPU) charged 5 members of the special Berkut police company with killing of 48 protesters and attempted killing of 80 wounded protesters on 20 February 2014 and with doing this by means of a terrorist attack. These were the principal charges.

Multipolar: What specifically did the court investigate?

Katchanovski: The court examined only the charges against 5 members of the special Berkut police company for the massacre of the Maidan activists. It did not investigate and examine the massacre of the police and did not investigate and examine the massacre by the Maidan snipers.

Multipolar: What were the key points of the verdict?

Katchanovski: The verdict confirmed that many Maidan activists and BBC and ARD TVjournalists were shot not by members of Ukraine’s Berkut special police force or other law enforcement personnel but by snipers in the far-right Svoboda controlled Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled locations. It specifically stated that the Hotel Ukraina was controlled by Maidan activists and that an armed, the far-right-linked Maidan group was in the hotel and shot from it. The verdict made “a categorical conclusion that on the morning of February 20, 2014, persons with weapons, from which the shots were fired, were in the premises of the Hotel Ukraina.”

The trial decision specified that there is a lack of evidence of the involvement of the Berkut police and other “law enforcement officers” in the killing of 9 and wounding of 23 Maidan activists and that their shooting by “unknown persons” “cannot be excluded.” The verdict found that at least six specific protesters were killed and many others wounded from the “activists-controlled” Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled locations. It concluded that the Euromaidan was at the time of this massacre not a peaceful protest but “a rebellion” that involved the massacre of the Berkut police and the attack by Maidan activists.

No firing order by Yanukovych, no Russian involvement

The verdict also confirmed my studies’ findings that were no massacre orders by Yanukovych or his ministers and that there was no Russian involvement in the massacre. It specifically stated that “the “Russian trace” was not confirmed after examining the relevant documents, in particular, all cases of crossing the border zone by FSB officers into Ukraine, their movement around Kyiv and the region, the time and place of their stay, as well as the dates and ways they left the territory of Ukraine,” that “this group of persons was constantly monitored” and “accordingly, they did not have any participation” in the massacre.

Two Berkut officers were acquitted of murder charges. Three Berkut policemen, who were exchanged on Zelensky’s orders to Donbas separatists, were convicted in absentia for the murders of 36 out of 49 protesters and wounding of 52 out of 172 Maidan activists. This conviction was based on a single, fabricated forensic examination and collective responsibility. On the same basis, a Berkut commander was also convicted of the manslaughter of four protesters and the wounding of another eight, for supposedly having ordered his officers to fire indiscriminately during the evacuation of Internal Troops by the Berkut company, and its subsequent retreat after one Berkut officer was killed and another wounded.

"All the evidence shows: Berkut could not have shot the protesters"

This single forensic examination of bullets, undertaken five years after the massacre, reversed the results of some 40 earlier forensic bullet examinations, including a computer-based examination which showed that bullets taken from the bodies of killed Maidan protesters did not match the Berkut Kalashnikov assault rifles. The fabricated forensic bullet examination also contradicts synchronized videos which clearly show that Berkut officers had not been shooting at the specific times when almost all of the Maidan activists were killed.

It also contradicts on-site investigations by government ballistics experts, pointing to bullet trajectories originating from Maidan-controlled areas; as well as the results of forensic medical examinations which determined bullet trajectories based on the victims’ wounds from the top, back, and side directions; and the testimonies of the absolute majority of the wounded Maidan protesters, and of several hundred prosecution and defense witnesses and other witnesses, concerning snipers in the Hotel Ukraina and other Maidan-controlled locations. All this evidence demonstrates clearly that the Berkut policemen could not physically have shot these protesters, while in a small minority of other cases there is lack of evidence or contradictory evidence.

Verdict is official admission of facts that the government continues to deny

The verdict by the Ukrainian court along with the Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Office investigation findings means the de facto official admissions even by the justice system, which lacks independence, that at least 10 out of 49 killed and 115 out of 172 wounded Maidan activists were shot on February 20, 2014, not by Berkut or other law enforcement agencies but by Maidan snipers from the Maidan-controlled locations. Even the Ukrainian government investigation admitted that one dead protester and half of wounded Maidan activists were not shot from Berkut-controlled sectors, and therefore did not charge anyone for those crimes, while publicly denying that there were any snipers in the Maidan-controlled locations.

The strange role of the broadcaster ARD

Multipolar: For the leading German media, the massacre on the Maidan was always only a marginal topic - even though Maidan fighters even occupied a room of the German TV station "ZDF" in the Hotel Ukraina on February 20, 2014 and fired from the window in the direction of the death zone on Institutska Street. When the German media did discuss the massacre, with one exception ("Monitor"), the thesis was regularly spread that Yanukovych and Berkut were the perpetrators, as if Your investigations and findings on the crime did not exist. What is the situation in the leading English-language media? Has the view of the massacre changed there over the past ten years?

Katchanovski: A long video by the German ARD TV was introduced first as an anonymous video at the trial by the Maidan victims’ lawyers, and only a few years ago the court stated that this was the ARD video. A Ukrainian journalist, writing on social media, said that he had filmed this video for ARD but that the ARD refused to release this video to the Maidan massacre trial in Ukraine, and that the video shown at the trial had been cut and with sound missing.

The video content and his statements indicate that the video was filmed from the same Hotel Ukraina room rented by German television channel ZDF, and in which snipers from the far-right-linked Maidan company were filmed shooting at the Maidan protesters. Since this video simultaneously captured the killing and wounding of the large numbers of the protesters and the position of the Berkut police, had the missing audio of the gunshots been available, it could have demonstrated that the specific times of the shooting of specific protesters coincided with loud sound of gunshots from this Maidan-controlled hotel and not with more distant sound of Berkut gunshots from their barricade.

The verdict stated that two rooms in the Hotel Ukraina were shot at from the Music Conservatory and the neighboring Main Post Office and that this was the territory occupied by Maidan activists. But it omitted that these rooms were youtube.com/watch by German ARD TV journalists and that the Main Post Office was then the headquarters of the Right Sector.

"Western media spreading a false narrative about the massacre"

With a few notable exceptions, there is still blackout in the leading English-language media of my academic studies, revelations about the Maidan snipers by the Maidan massacre trial and investigation in Ukraine, and the verdict confirmations of the Maidan snipers. The New York Times and other leading Western media propagated the fake narrative about the Maidan massacre.

Two BBC reports which showed Maidan snipers in the Hotel Ukraina shooting at the BBC TV crew and Maidan protesters were notable exceptions. But BBC like all other major Western media did not report the Ukrainian government investigation admission that this room was occupied by one of the leaders of the far-right Svoboda party and that the Maidan massacre trial verdict stated that the BBC video of this shooting represented “documented data from the activist-controlled building of the Ukraina Hotel in Kyiv about the targeted use by the activists of objects that, by their external features, are clearly similar to firearms, weapons of the type of hunting weapons.” 

This deliberate blackout of my the Maidan massacre trial revelations, the verdict, and my academic studies is done in spite of the nearly 1,000,000-word Maidan massacre trial verdict and automatic English translation of the relevant excerpts are publicly available, in spite of over 1,000,000 views and downloads of my academic studies of the Maidan massacre and video appendixes with videos of Maidan snipers, testimonies of the absolute majority of wounded activists and over 150 witnesses concerning such snipers, and in spite of my viral tweets about this.

Moreover, in her opinion piece in a partisan neoconservative site Bulwark, Cathy Youngmisrepresented the verdict, falsely claimed that it found the Berkut police responsible for killings 40 out of 48 protesters, and denied and openly whitewashed existence of Maidan snipers and the far-right involvement in the Maidan massacre as a “conspiracy theory.” She branded Maidan snipers in the Hotel Ukraina “a conspiracy theory,” falsely claimed that the verdict does not state that Maidan protesters were shot from this hotel and other Maidan-controlled locations, and that the verdict did not disprove involvement of Russian snipers.

She falsely claimed that the Hotel Ukraina was not controlled by the Maidan activists and propagated an actual conspiracy theory that the police in the hotel could have shot the protesters despite clear and overwhelming evidence to the contrary in the verdict, the trial and investigation, and in my academic studies. 

Multipolar: Vladimir Putin recently said in an interview with Tucker Carlson that the CIA was responsible for the coup in Kiev in 2014. What evidence and proof do you see for this thesis?

Katchanovski: My studies did not find any publicly available evidence of the CIA involvement in the Maidan massacre or the violent overthrow of the Ukrainian government, and Putin did not present any such evidence. He falsely claimed that this was “a fascist coup” and that a “neo-Nazi regime” was installed in Ukraine.

However, there is various evidence that this government overthrow represented the US policy of regime change. Two leaders of the far-right Svoboda party stated in their separate interviews that a Western government representative told them and other Maidan leaders a few weeks before the massacre that Western governments would turn on the Yanukovych government after casualties among protesters would reach 100. The protesters killed were called Heavenly Hundred immediately after the massacre. Protesters and people who were not even on the Maidan and died from illnesses or other causes were included to bring the number of victims to 100.

The US and other Western governments almost immediately after the Maidan massacre blamed the Yanukovych government and his forces for this mass killing and recognized the new Maidan government. Biden in his memoir described making a call to Yanukovych “when his snipers were assassinating Ukrainian citizens by the dozens” to tell him to “call off his gunmen and walk away” and that “the disgraced president fled Ukraine the next day.” Yanukovych signed a deal with the Maidan opposition leaders and representatives of France, Germany, and Poland on 21 February. But then US President Barack Obama statedin his CNN interview that “we had brokered a deal to transition power in Ukraine.

Multipolar: You have been living and working in Canada for more than 20 years. There is a large Ukrainian exile community there. In September 2023, the Canadian parliament cheered the Ukrainian SS veteran Yaroslav Hunko, who had been invited by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the then Speaker of Parliament Anthony Rota. Rota praised Hunko as a "Canadian-Ukrainian hero" who fought against "the Russians" in the Second World War. Shortly afterwards, he resigned over the scandal and described the invitation and tribute to the former SS man as a "mistake". How do you explain the occurrence of such a "mistake"?

Katchanovski: My research-based viral tweets identifying this World War Two veteran as a veteran of the SS Galicia division and my interviews to leading Canadian media about this had major role in this story becoming public. I do not see any evidence that the Canadian parliament speaker, the prime minister of Canada, and other Canadian officials knew that they were inviting and giving standing ovation to the Ukrainian veteran of the SS Galicia Division. But the propaganda during the Russia-Ukraine war and whitewashing of neo-Nazis and Nazi collaborators in Ukraine contributed to this epic debacle.

"Zelensky is a political opportunist"

Multipolar: Ukrainian President Zelensky was also present that day in the Canadian parliament and applauded Hunko. How can it be explained that a Ukrainian with Jewish roots honors a former SS man?

Katchanovski: There is no evidence that Zelensky knew that he was giving standing ovation to the Ukrainian veteran of the SS Galicia Division. But the introduction of this veteran by the speaker of the Canadian parliament as fighting “Russians” during World War Two was sufficient enough to anyone from Ukraine, including Zelensky, to realized that this war veteran could only be a Nazi collaborator.

Zelensky still did not publicly condemn or comment about this debacle even after Putin presented it as evidence to support his false claims that Ukraine is a Nazi or neo-Nazi state and to justify the illegal Russian invasion of Ukraine. Zelensky is obviously not Nazi or neo-Nazi but he is a political opportunist and tries to placate and integrate the far-right, including open neo-Nazis, who regard the SS Galicia and other Nazi collaborators as Ukrainian heroes and have power to overthrow Zelensky.

https://multipolar-magazin.de/artikel/katchanovski-maidan-snipers

 

AS WE HAVE CLEARLY SHOWN IN MANY ARTICLES ON THIS SITE, THE INFLUENCE OF THE NEO-NAZIS IN KIEV IS FAR MORE THAN ANECDOTAL, BUT GO BACK TO WW2 AND AFTER WHEN THE USA USED THEM AGAINST THE COMMUNISTS... THE MAIDAN "REVOLUTION" WAS A CONTINUATION OF THE USA INVOLVEMENT IN SUCH SUPPORT FOR THE UKRAINIAN NAZIS.

 

SO LET'S POLISH A FEW TURDS WITH JENS IN DER SPIEGEL ( ARTICLE FROM 15 OCTOBER 2024) :

 

"Lack of Military Support Made It Easier for Russia to Invade"

Jens Stoltenberg served as NATO secretary general for 10 years. In an interview, he speaks about military aid for Ukraine, his relationship with Donald Trump and his new job as head of the Munich Security Conference.

 

Interview Conducted by Sebastian Fischer und Matthias Gebauer

 

DER SPIEGEL: Mr. Stoltenberg, you served as secretary general of NATO for almost 10 years, a period that was among the most turbulent in the alliance’s history. Do you miss your daily NATO morning briefings with all the bad news about war and conflict?

Jens Stoltenberg: It was a great privilege to serve NATO, but it was also the right time to step down and hand over responsibilities to Mark Rutte. He will be an excellent secretary general. I will always miss the intensity and the importance of being at the helm of NATO. But now it’s time to start another chapter as chairman of the Munich Security Conference, which I am very much looking forward to.

DER SPIEGEL: What do you read with your morning coffee now in place of intelligence reports and military briefings?

Stoltenberg: Actually, I am not reading, I am writing. I am using my time to work on a book about my 10 years in office, which I hope will be published next fall. These years were such a pivotal time for our security. We’ve seen so many dramatic events: the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine, the fight against Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, and of course the very difficult withdrawal from Afghanistan. It was such an intensive time, working with different U.S. presidents and other leaders, including from Germany.

DER SPIEGEL: What was the most difficult moment during your time as NATO general secretary?

Stoltenberg: Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. The attack wasn't a surprise. We knew in advance that the Russians were going to invade, and we monitored the preparations. But it was, of course, shocking to see the full-scale military invasion, to see all that suffering and the damage in Ukraine. It was a painful moment for all of us and one I’ll never forget.

DER SPIEGEL: Are we currently living in the most dangerous times since World War II?

Stoltenberg: We are living in a more unpredictable and unstable world. During the Cold War, we had a confrontation with the Soviet Union; we had troops ready at the borders and nuclear weapons deployed on both sides of the Iron Curtain. But there was some level of predictability, because neither side wanted to risk a hot war. Now, we have so many challenges at the same time. We are experiencing a full-scale war in Europe and facing increased global rivalry, for example with China – a country which is scaling up its military forces at an unprecedented speed. We are living with the constant threat of cyber terrorist attacks. This is an uncertain world.

DER SPIEGEL: You haven’t mentioned the war in the Middle East, where Israel is fighting against the terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Stoltenberg: NATO has never been directly involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but that doesn’t mean that we’re not concerned about the escalation there. NATO is the answer to many problems around the world, but not to all problems.

"The main problem here is a long-standing one: The Palestinians do not have a state."

DER SPIEGEL: Yet the conflict is taking place on the alliance’s southern flank. It must be a NATO concern as well.

Stoltenberg: The current escalation is a real threat, because there is always a risk of a wider regional war. I fully support the attempts of some NATO members like the U.S. or Germany to de-escalate and try to find a political solution. We need such a solution. The main problem here is a long-standing one: The Palestinians do not have a state. I understand all the difficulties involved in establishing a two-state solution, but I think what has happened since the horrific terrorist attack on October 7 against Israel has underscored the need for the two-state solution.

DER SPIEGEL: You mentioned the shock after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Did NATO and its member-states underestimate Moscow and Russian President Vladimir Putin?

Stoltenberg: All of us have seen the changes in Russia over the years. Putin became more and more aggressive. After the illegal annexation of Crimea in 2014, we started the biggest reinforcement of our collective defenses, we ramped up defense investments and we implemented the spending goal of 2 percent of GDP for all members. For the first time since the Cold War, we stationed combat troops at the alliance’s eastern border. We did not close our eyes.

DER SPIEGEL: You took office in October 2014, not long after the Russian annexation of Crimea that spring. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, in particular, wanted you to build bridges with Russia. When did you realize that Merkel's strategy was misguided?

"We do not invest in our military strength to wage war, but to prevent war."

Stoltenberg: I still believe this strategy was the right approach. It was the right thing to try to build a better relationship with Russia after the end of the Cold War. And even after the Russian annexation of Crimea and the start of the war in the Donbas region, the meetings of the NATO-Russia Council continued. And we met as late as January 2022. Not because we had any illusions about Russia, but because we had to manage what has become a very difficult relationship with our neighbor. Today, we at least need to prevent any miscalculation or misunderstanding in Moscow.

DER SPIEGEL: You said in a recent interview with the Financial Times that it was a mistake not to have begun arming Ukraine earlier, and that doing so could maybe even have prevented the invasion. There was concern at the time of provoking Russia.

Stoltenberg: It’s easy to say in hindsight what we should have done. Today, I believe that the lack of military support for Ukraine made it easier for Russia to invade. This must be a lesson for the future, for all NATO allies. We do not invest in our military strength to wage war, but to prevent war. This is not to provoke Russia, but to deter it. Otherwise, no one, not only Russia, will take us seriously.

DER SPIEGEL: At the time, even just providing arms to Ukraine was considered to be a red line. What were the reasons for that?

Stoltenberg: A few allies did provide some military support, but in hindsight, it was not enough. We should all acknowledge that today. We thought that a, so to speak, more moderate approach was better. There was a lack of understanding of how urgent it was to provide military support and money to build a powerful Ukrainian army in order to prevent the Russian invasion. That was a mistake.

DER SPIEGEL: Today there is another red line: The Ukrainians are not allowed to attack targets deep inside Russia with weapons provided by Western allies.

Stoltenberg: These are difficult considerations, and I think it is appropriate that we have consultations and discussions among our allies. But we need to remember that this is a brutal war, a blatant violation of international law, an attempt to seize control of Ukraine. Therefore, Ukraine has the right to self-defense. This includes the right to strike legitimate military targets within Russian territory. We should not be fooled by the threats of Russia. Remember, Moscow said from the beginning that it would be unacceptable if Western countries provided weapons. But we did provide weapons. We must not stop our support because of Russian threats.

"I don’t believe that we can change Putin's mind. But we can change his calculus by supporting Ukraine."

DER SPIEGEL: Even as you called for the strengthening of NATO’s military power, you consistently said you would be willing to talk to Putin. Would now be an appropriate moment for such talks?

Stoltenberg: Only Ukraine can decide when the moment for meaningful talks or even peace negotiations has come and what might constitute acceptable conditions. We all want this war to end. But an end to the war will not necessarily bring peace. Occupation is not peace. The challenge is to end the war in a way in which Ukraine survives as a sovereign and independent nation. The only way to reach such a deal is to convince Putin that he will not achieve his goals on the battlefield. And to get there, we need to boost our support for Ukraine. I have no illusions; I don’t believe that we can change Putin's mind. But we can change his calculus by supporting Ukraine.

DER SPIEGEL: Over the last 10 years, Germany has been criticized harshly for not spending enough on defense. How do you see it?

Stoltenberg: Germany is an important ally. One must see things a bit more realistically. NATO agreed in 2014 that all allies would spend an amount equivalent to 2 percent of their GDPs on defense. Germany has now reached that goal. Berlin has really stepped up and that makes a huge difference. A good example is the fully equipped brigade which will be stationed in Lithuania. This is a proof of strong commitment and a great example of leadership.

DER SPIEGEL: Starting in spring 2025, you will be the chairman of the Munich Security Conference. What draws you to this role after your long political career?

Stoltenberg: The Munich Security Conference is one of the most important gatherings worldwide, a unique forum for decision makers to meet and debate issues of international security. As secretary general, I have attended every single conference for the past 10 years. There are the public debates on stage, but perhaps even more important is the opportunity for discrete background talks. When the opportunity presented itself to lead this forum, I did not hesitate. It is a great honor. As chairman, I would like to contribute to the MSC's mission of "peace through dialogue.”

DER SPIEGEL: The conference has also always been an opportunity for secret dialogue with adversaries like Russia or Iran. Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, though, Munich has increasingly seemed like a gathering of like-minded countries. Do you intend to change that?

Stoltenberg: I will assume the chairmanship of the Munich Security Conference in February 2025, so I am not yet able to make any specific comments on exactly who should be invited or not. I believe, however, that the conference is important because it is a platform which reaches out to many different countries, even if some of them see each other as adversaries or enemies. While the Munich Security Conference has trans-Atlantic roots, we also need to understand that we live in a global world and that we need a global perspective. That is why the Munich Security Conference will remain a platform for diverse voices, and I will continue to reach out to the countries of the so-called Global South.

 

DER SPIEGEL: During your time at NATO, you were one of the rare leaders who got along quite well with U.S. President Donald Trump. Can you reveal your secret?

Stoltenberg: I always tried to focus on my job as secretary general. That job is to take seriously the concerns of all allies. President Trump was the elected leader of NATO’s largest member state. Like other presidents before him, he raised his concerns that burden-sharing in the alliance was not fairly distributed. The tone might have been surprisingly harsh at times, but the point was legitimate. My job was to remain calm. The good news is that this process has really changed us. All allies have stepped up their investments and their commitment, which is good for all of us. 

 https://www.spiegel.de/international/world/ex-nato-secretary-general-stoltenberg-lack-of-military-support-made-it-easier-for-russia-to-invade-a-35f9ffff-3002-4ff6-8bae-e43c66dcb50b

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

JENS STOLTENBERG IS MEMORY DEFFICIENT......

 

“It’s hard to do cartoons without spikes…”

         Gus Leonisky