After some searching, I found the TASS interview with Ryabkov that RT provided snippets of in the report I tagged at the end of Lavrov’s talk yesterday.
I think his comment on "red lines" and "strategic ambiguity" were important. We often read that NATO/Ukraine has crossed these "red lines" but Ryabkov explicitly states there are none, and each situation will be decided in light of circumstances, not a pre-arranged formula of threat and consequences. The only clear red line that I have seen is that if a nation's military steps foot in Ukraine and/or in some way enters the war, that nation can be expected to be attacked anywhere in the world. And whilst we all know that those "advisors" and "volunteers" are there in numbers (and being specifically targeted), they are not yet present in an official capacity. A grey interpretation which avoids too much escalation - at this point.
"if a nation refuses to abide completely with the UN Charter, then they lose their membership. One needs to ask these serious questions: What value do Outlaw Nations bring to the UN; why should any nation be allowed to destabilize the UN?"
IMHO the Jewish state should be expelled. Or put on probation or something. After all, it was they that shredded the UN Charter. Nor is it clear to me how a state justifying its actions on its own religious principles fits into a diplomatic space. They want to slaughter a few red heifers and then rebuild the Temple. Where is the space for negotiation?
Oh those “fashionistas” and “gopniks” — such a great description! 😎 First time I saw the term gopnik, I had no idea what it stood for…now I see it cropping out a lot. Thank you, Karl!
I think his comment on "red lines" and "strategic ambiguity" were important. We often read that NATO/Ukraine has crossed these "red lines" but Ryabkov explicitly states there are none, and each situation will be decided in light of circumstances, not a pre-arranged formula of threat and consequences. The only clear red line that I have seen is that if a nation's military steps foot in Ukraine and/or in some way enters the war, that nation can be expected to be attacked anywhere in the world. And whilst we all know that those "advisors" and "volunteers" are there in numbers (and being specifically targeted), they are not yet present in an official capacity. A grey interpretation which avoids too much escalation - at this point.
"if a nation refuses to abide completely with the UN Charter, then they lose their membership. One needs to ask these serious questions: What value do Outlaw Nations bring to the UN; why should any nation be allowed to destabilize the UN?"
IMHO the Jewish state should be expelled. Or put on probation or something. After all, it was they that shredded the UN Charter. Nor is it clear to me how a state justifying its actions on its own religious principles fits into a diplomatic space. They want to slaughter a few red heifers and then rebuild the Temple. Where is the space for negotiation?
IMO, the Zionist entity shouldn't even be in the UN, but the #1 Outlaw fixed that. I suggest reading this new item, https://sputnikglobe.com/20240519/israeli-crisis-may-lead-to-military-coup-and-palestinian-state-creation---expert-1118531527.html
Oh those “fashionistas” and “gopniks” — such a great description! 😎 First time I saw the term gopnik, I had no idea what it stood for…now I see it cropping out a lot. Thank you, Karl!
Great interview. There is no need to wonder what the meaning behind each response was.
But was anyone reading on the other end besides us?
thanks karl.. he puts the usa-russia relations fairly starkly... i am sure it is quite accurate...