ggf. prüfen -
Der TP Text bezieht sich auf THE TELEGRAPH wie folgt:
"(...)Angesichts zunehmender geopolitischer Spannungen erwägt nun auch die Nato, ihre nukleare Abschreckungsfähigkeit zu erhöhen. Das bestätigte Generalsekretär Jens Stoltenberg in einem Interview mit der britischen Zeitung The Telegraph.
Stoltenberg sprach von laufenden Diskussionen innerhalb des Militärbündnisses über die Möglichkeit, mehr Atomwaffen aus den Silos einsatzbereit zu machen.
Grund dafür seien die wachsenden Bedrohungen durch China und Russland. Stoltenberg äußerte sich zwar nicht zu konkreten Zahlen oder Details der einsatzbereiten Atomsprengköpfe, betonte aber die Notwendigkeit, diese Fragen zu diskutieren.
(...)"
Auf TWITTER schreibt Matthew Harries, bis März 2024 "Director of Proliferation and Nuclear Policy" bei RUSI:
https://x.com/harries_matthew/status/1802787978252587472
Harries: Telegraph habe Stoltenberg irreführend wiedergegeben:
"(...)
Here is a transcript of what Stoltenberg actually said. As suspected, I think there has been too much parsing of his words.
The “operational” vs storage thing was introduced by the interviewer. And “transparency” was in the context of openness about exercises.
(...)"
Auschnitt aus dem Interview:
https://x.com/harries_matthew/status/1802787978252587472/photo/1
Ich habs abgetippt:
"(...)
Telegraph:
Do you think European allies should follow the lead of the United States by putting more warhead on standby rather than having them in storage?
Stoltenberg:
I will be careful going into the operational details. What we have seen is that we are now modernising our nuclear deterrent. The US is modernising their gravity bombs, the nuclear warheads they have in Europe, and the European allies are modernising the planes which are dedicated to NATO´s nuclear mission. Then of course you have the United Kingdom which is in a special position because the United Kingdom has its own nuclear weapons. I will not go into the operational details about exactly how much of the warheads should be operational and which should be stored, but we need to consult close on these issues, and that´s exactly what we do in NATO, and we have for instance meetings in the NATO Nuclear Planning Group as we had during the defence ministerial meeting this week.
(...)".
Er spricht über ÜBERLEGUNGEN.
Der Hinweis stammt von Moon of Alabama. Der hat heute einen Post über falsches und richtiges Zitieren und wie das u.U. für Zwecke der verschiedenen Medien und Interessengruppen missbraucht werden und welche gefährlichen Konsequenzen das haben kann.
"(...)
The interviewers question to Stoltenberg is answered by him with generalizations and a hint to the ever 'ongoing consulting' on the issue.
(...)
The misleading question and mealy mouth answer provide for great irritation but don't really mean anything. And certainly not anything new.
(((James Acton))) @james_acton32 - 21:48 UTC · Jun 17, 2024
Based on this transcript, the @Telegraph article by @Barnes_Joe is journalist malpractice. It is a wholly misleading account of Stoltenberg's comments, which were boilerplate.
In times of heightened tensions media are taking a lot of liberty in 'interpreting' things officials say. This does have consequences and those could become lethal:
Kremlin views NATO’s rhetoric on putting nukes on alert as escalation
MOSCOW, June 17. /TASS/. The recent remark by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that the bloc’s allied members are discussing putting their nuclear arsenals on alert is another bout of tensions, Kremlin Spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.
"This is nothing else but an escalation," Peskov said.
But in fact, Stoltenberg did not say anything to that effect.
(...)"
siehe:
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/06/couldnt-such-fake-news-start-wars.html#more