
NATO countries do not have a consensus whether Russian military aircraft should be shot down that violate the air borders of the alliance countries. This issue was discussed on Tuesday at an emergency meeting of the North Atlantic Council, convened at the initiative of Estonia, writes CNN.
The sources of the TV channel said that some countries, in particular, Poland and Estonia, wanted the joint statement to be clearly indicated in the meeting that any further disturbances in the airspace by the Russian Federation would entail a power response. At the same time, Germany and the countries of Southern Europe insisted that such a wording could lead to undesirable escalation.
As a result, a compromise was adopted. The official text of the statement states that NATO and their allies in accordance with international law will use "all the necessary military and non -enlarged means for self -defense and reflecting any threats from any directions." “We will continue to respond in the way, in that time and in the way that we will choose ourselves,” the document says.
This episode is noted by the sources of the TV channel, shows how difficult it is for the Alliance to achieve consensus in the issue of reaction to Russia's actions.
In the last few weeks, a series of incidents have occurred with violation of the airspace of NATO countries by Russian drones and aircraft. On the night of September 10, more than 20 drones flew into Poland, Polish and allied fighters were raised to intercept them, several drones were shot down. On September 13, the Russian drone flew into the territory of Romania, fighters were raised, but the drone left the country's airspace after a few minutes.
On September 19, Estonia said that three Russian fighters violated its airspace and remained in the Estonian sky for 12 minutes. On the same day, Poland stated that two Russian fighters flew at low altitude above the drilling platform in the Baltic Sea.
The CNN source in NATO believes that Russia in this way studies weaknesses in the defense of the alliance, and also checks what the organization can do to protect its members.
President of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky in an interview with the American publication Axios said that he was ready not to run for a second term if the war with Russia can be completed.
“If we end the war with the Russians, I am ready not to go [to the polls], because the elections are not a goal for me. In this very difficult period I really wanted to be with my country, to help it. My goal is to end the war, ”said the President of Ukraine.
Zelensky has been in power since May 2019. His first (out of two possible) presidential term was supposed to end in May 2024, however, in martial law, the legislation of Ukraine prohibits the holding of new elections, so Zelensky was automatically extended. This gave rise to the Russian authorities to declare the "illegitimacy" of the Ukrainian president.
At the same time, in Ukraine itself, even among the political opponents of Zelensky, there is a consensus that he should remain president until martial law is canceled.
Zelensky himself has repeatedly spoke about the importance of holding the presidential elections after the end of the war and the abolition of martial law. In an interview with Axios, he stated that he would achieve an early election even in the event of a long truce with Russia, and not the final end of the war.
New polls show that Vladimir Zelensky in the event of elections would receive the greatest support for voters. According to the August Study of the Rating sociological center, 35.2% of Ukrainians are ready to vote for it, and 25.3% for its main potential enemy Valery. At the same time, in terms of the general level of trust, Zelensky lags behind the plug.
Readers "Medusa" live in different countries and treat war differently. We publish your letters to see this event with your eyes. Our editors try to present all points of view, even if they do not coincide with the position of the editorial office. However, in accordance with the Medusa Code, we do not publish messages that contain the “language of hatred”, the murder of civilians is justified, and direct support for an aggressive war is expressed.
Andrey (USA). The main consequence of the war for me was the realization that the whole history of Russian culture was zeroled: its samples showed their non -vain and only lead to a dead end. The population who took the war or preferred to prefer that nothing is happening, causes me not anger, but rather a pity - and the feeling that the country was in a hopeless position. My connection with this people is weaker: the gap between our values can no longer be filled.
When I say abroad that I am Russian, I do not feel shame, but I feel a slight awkwardness - as if I wear someone else's label that makes me dubious in the eyes of others.
The lack of empathy, the reluctance to accept the difference between the peoples and at the same time a misunderstanding of a simple principle that God is with all people, and not only with “us”, they plunge me into despondency when I think about their compatriots. This is not love. Unscrupulous lie, shifting responsibility, chauvinism, denial of freedom and familiar humility only enhance this feeling.
Millions of Russians who have left the country in recent years - active, talented, free - will become citizens of other countries. And the talents characteristic of Russian people - the ability to adapt, ingenuity, ability to science, literature, art - will now serve the benefit of their new homeland. Russia loses the energy of the future, and with it the future itself.
"Jellyfish"