A long series of devilishly clever plans

04. September 2024

Zelen­skyy: Sur­pri­se inva­si­on aimed to res­to­re Ukrai­ne ‘ter­ri­to­ri­al integrity’ 

Ano­t­her one of tho­se deve­lish­ly cle­ver Selen­skyj plans!

Today he [Selen­skyj] said, they are going to hold it inde­fi­ni­te­ly.” [DEFENSIVE OPERATION CONFIRMED!]

Last deve­lish­ly cle­ver Selen­sky plan of cour­se having been:

Jour­na­list: “Mr. Pre­si­dent um I’ve made trips into Ukrai­ne sin­ce the war bro­ke out and it’s qui­te sur­pri­sing to see you here back home in Sin­g­a­po­re so my ques­ti­on is, what you brought what brought you here all the way? Is the­re a cer­tain objec­ti­ve that you came with to ral­ly more on the Asi­an Nations?”

Cle­ver­est pre­si­dent in the world Selen­skyj: “Now thank you for the ques­ti­on, we need the sup­port of Asi­an coun­tries it is much nee­ded. We respect each voice, each ter­ri­to­ry, each of the coun­tries in regi­on, we want Asia to know what is going on in Ukrai­ne, we want Asia to sup­port the end of the war. We want Asi­an lea­ders to attend the peace Sum­mit. We know that many Asi­an coun­tries do not sup­port Ukrai­ne with Wea­pon­ry. We have never pres­su­red them never deman­ded it we always ask for first and fore­mo­st poli­ti­cal sup­port, huma­ni­ta­ri­an sup­port, sup­port of our peop­le, civi­li­ans our child­ren. Today once again Rus­sia unfor­tu­n­a­te­ly, I unders­core it, yet again becau­se for you to under­stand that for us it is very pain­ful and a bit stran­ge unfor­tu­n­a­te­ly, reg­rett­ab­ly Rus­sia using Chi­ne­se influ­ence on the regi­on using Chi­ne­se diplo­mats also does ever­ything to dis­rupt peace Sum­mit reg­rett­ab­ly this is unfor­tu­n­a­te that such big inde­pen­dent power­ful coun­try as Chi­na is an instru­ment for Putin.

[A bit later then in diplo­ma­tic cycles it per­spi­red, that chi­na had told other coun­tries, that in his expec­ta­ti­on, Selen­skyj gre­at peace for­mu­la plan would pro­long and even elon­ga­te this war -- and that was the extent of it. Such Putin pup­pet, Chi­na. Much. Much wow.]

[…]

Jour­na­list: Mr. Pre­si­dent so which coun­tries you were able to con­vin­ce you to join the Peace sum­mit and Ukrai­ne has too litt­le Mili­ta­ry Sup­port to win this war, do you belie­ve in a diplo­ma­tic solu­ti­on and what would have to hap­pen in con­cre­te terms.

Most intel­li­gen­test pre­si­dent in the world Selen­skyj: Thank you for the ques­ti­on, I have not met with all the coun­tries I will still meet with the lea­der of Sin­g­a­po­re, I with Indo­ne­sia with them and I’m sure that the­se coun­tries will be repre­sen­ted on the sum­mit, but I can­not reply on behalf of the­se coun­tries that is my per­so­nal opi­ni­on and then fur­ther it is the choice of every coun­try and I’m always open with this we respect every posi­ti­on. But but but this posi­ti­on has to be clear the­re is no slavery, the­re is no no for­cing to anything we we we are dis­cus­sing the details, we are tel­ling what what what what we have the the los­ses we have and the plan to the end of the war it is pos­si­ble to end the war in diplo­ma­tic way, if the world unites and iso­la­tes Rus­sia, if after our peace Sum­mit Rus­sia makes some con­fe­rence and the­re will be repre­sen­ted a lot of coun­tries, then this would mean that the world is divi­ded and I think that this is a bad ten­den­cy and that is why I said this way about Rus­sia and and about the repre­sen­ta­ti­ves of some other coun­tries, that they are working to dis­rupt the peace Sum­mit, they they should not dis­rupt our peace they should deal with their own country.” 

Prompt­ly fol­lo­wed up by:

Swiss Peace Sum­mit could end up har­ming Ukrai­ne as not­hing is going to plan (www.eurointegration.com.ua)

Prompt­ly fol­lo­wed up by:

Ukrai­ne Peace Sum­mit turns hard on Rus­sia. How lea­ders amen­ded the final decisi­on under criticism

THURSDAY, 13 JUNE 2024 — SERGIY SYDORENKO, EUROPEAN PRAVDA

Har­sh cri­ti­cism of the agreed draft reso­lu­ti­on of the Peace Sum­mit, voi­ced both in Ukrai­ne and by Ukraine’s allies, for­ced the orga­nisers [thats Switz­er­land btw.] to make con­ces­si­ons. Switz­er­land, which is orga­ni­sing the Glo­bal Peace Sum­mit, sent a radi­cal­ly revi­sed docu­ment to all capi­tals of the par­ti­ci­pa­ting coun­tries, cor­rec­ting key issu­es high­ligh­ted by Euro­pean Pravda.

The updated draft is ent­i­re­ly accep­ta­ble for Ukrai­ne. It expli­ci­tly calls the war “Rus­si­an aggres­si­on.” Loo­p­ho­les that could have paved the way for ter­ri­to­ri­al con­ces­si­ons from Ukrai­ne were remo­ved from the text. Several sta­tes that had plan­ned to attend the Peace Sum­mit in Switz­er­land have deci­ded not to go the­re after the draft decisi­on was chan­ged in favour of Ukraine.

Euro­pean Prav­da has lear­ned the details of the nego­tia­ti­ons and the decisi­on that will be adop­ted this weekend.

Behind the sce­nes of the Peace Summit
The time­li­ne of the­se events is cru­cial: it shows how urgent the chan­ges that occur­red over the past week were.

The idea to hold the Peace Sum­mit in Switz­er­land was agreed upon at the begin­ning of the year. On 10 April, Switz­er­land announ­ced the agreed date and loca­ti­on for the sum­mit. Lea­ders of about 160 coun­tries, four inter­na­tio­nal orga­ni­sa­ti­ons (UN, EU, Coun­cil of Euro­pe, OSCE), the Pope and the Ecu­me­ni­cal Patri­arch were invi­ted to the Bür­gen­stock Alpi­ne Spa. It was pre­de­ter­mi­ned that Rus­sia would not be pre­sent at the first Peace Sum­mit, which Ukrai­ne deman­ded in the first place.

Both Kyiv and Bern aimed to adopt a decisi­on fol­lowing the sum­mit. Howe­ver, the wor­d­ing nee­ded to be agreed upon by all participants.

Pre­pa­ra­ti­on for this docu­ment star­ted more than two mon­ths ago. Euro­pean Prav­da has the April draft of the joint com­mu­ni­qué, whe­re the sum­mit dates were still ten­ta­ti­ve. That docu­ment was pre­pa­red in Kyiv and was ent­i­re­ly accep­ta­ble for Ukrai­ne, adhe­ring to the important red lines for Ukrai­ni­an society.

Howe­ver, Switz­er­land per­sua­ded Ukrai­ne to sof­ten it as much as pos­si­ble, con­si­de­ring the wis­hes of all par­ti­ci­pants. On 28 May, a com­pro­mi­se ver­si­on was sent from Bern to all capi­tals, and initi­al­ly, Kyiv had to agree to it.

Ever­ything chan­ged when the public lear­ned that this draft was dan­ge­rous for Ukraine.

The dis­cus­sion began with an arti­cle by Euro­pean Prav­da, publis­hed on 5 June. The next day, on 6 June, Kyiv was for­ced to make public state­ments asser­ting that “Ukrai­ne will not retre­at from the Peace For­mu­la.” This fue­led dis­cus­sions in the capi­tals of Ukraine’s allies, which were also not thril­led with the wor­d­ing of the Swiss docu­ment. At least a few of them con­ta­c­ted Bern with a pro­po­sal to revi­se the joint statement.

On 9 June, Switz­er­land had sent a com­ple­te­ly new draft to all coun­tries. Amen­ding the com­mu­ni­qué took mere days, not mon­ths as before.

What has changed

The summit’s decisi­on remains unch­an­ged in for­mat and struc­tu­re. This is a two-page docu­ment dedi­ca­ted to three issu­es: nuclear secu­ri­ty, food secu­ri­ty and the pri­so­ners of war. Key issu­es that lay out­side the­se points have been addres­sed though.

Rus­si­an Aggression

– Old wor­d­ing: The May draft decisi­on of the Peace Sum­mit did not men­ti­on the word “aggres­si­on,” mea­ning the inter­na­tio­nal crime whe­re Rus­sia is the per­pe­tra­tor and Ukrai­ne the victim.

– New wor­d­ing: This has been amen­ded. The joint com­mu­ni­qué now refers to “the aggres­si­on of the Rus­si­an Fede­ra­ti­on against Ukraine”.

Ter­ri­to­ri­al Inte­gri­ty and the UN Charter
– Old wor­d­ing: the pre­vious sum­mit decisi­on ver­si­on crea­ted a legal win­dow to inclu­de Ukrai­ne aban­do­ning part of its ter­ri­to­ry in the con­di­ti­ons of “sus­tainab­le peace with Rus­sia”, if necessary.

– New wor­d­ing: the new draft decisi­on clear­ly sta­tes that the basis for sus­tainab­le peace will be only “a solu­ti­on based on the princip­le of respect for the ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty and sov­er­eig­n­ty of all sta­tes”. [Cri­mea back to Ukrai­ne, and no neu­tra­li­ty that inclu­des “limi­ta­ti­on on mili­ta­ry forces”]

Alter­na­ti­ve Peace Formulas

– Old wor­d­ing: the pre­vious draft blur­red the mea­ning of the Peace For­mu­la and ope­ned up space for inter­na­tio­nal dis­cus­sion of all alter­na­ti­ve visi­ons of peace, such as the Chinese-Brazilian one, which envi­sa­ges a halt to the streng­t­he­ning of Ukraine’s Armed For­ces and a ces­sa­ti­on of hostilities.

– New wor­d­ing: the new wor­d­ing sta­tes that only peace pro­po­sals that com­ply with inter­na­tio­nal law (i.e. an uncon­di­tio­nal return of the 1991 bor­ders, unless revi­sed by Ukrai­ne its­elf) and the UN Char­ter (in par­ti­cu­lar, Ukraine’s uncon­di­tio­nal [no for­ce limi­ta­ti­on] right to con­ti­nue repel­ling Rus­si­an aggres­si­on and libe­ra­ting the occu­p­ied ter­ri­to­ries) will be taken into account.

Invol­ve­ment of Russia

– Old wor­d­ing: the ear­lier ver­si­on tur­ned Rus­sia from an aggres­sor into a par­ti­ci­pant in peace talks, requi­ring only vague “confidence-building mea­su­res” on nuclear and food security.

– New wor­d­ing: this sec­tion has been rewrit­ten from scratch. The Swiss agreed not to men­ti­on Rus­sia at all in the pro­vi­si­on on peace talks, ins­tead refer­ring to “all par­ties”. The­re is no lon­ger a wea­ke­ned requi­re­ment for “confidence-building mea­su­res”, but ins­tead “spe­ci­fic actions” are requi­red. And most import­ant­ly, the refe­ren­ces to a “second peace sum­mit” that hin­ted at a com­mit­ment to invi­te Rus­sia to par­ti­ci­pa­te have been removed.

Food Secu­ri­ty

– New addi­ti­on: The updated docu­ment inclu­des the state­ment that “attacks on mer­chant ships in ports and along the ent­i­re rou­te, as well as against civi­li­an ports and civi­li­an port infra­st­ruc­tu­re, are unac­cep­ta­ble”. This falls under the glo­bal food secu­ri­ty sec­tion but app­lies to all civi­li­an ves­sels, inclu­ding con­tai­ner ships or tho­se expor­ting Ukrai­ni­an metals. Con­ti­nued attacks would block Russia’s par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in peace initiatives.

The­se signi­fi­cant chan­ges ensu­re that the new draft of the sum­mit decisi­on is more accep­ta­ble to Ukrai­ne, rein­for­cing its ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty, addres­sing Rus­si­an aggres­si­on accu­rate­ly and main­tai­ning strin­gent con­di­ti­ons on peace nego­tia­ti­ons invol­ving Russia.

The docu­ment is accep­ta­ble for Ukraine
The Joint Com­mu­ni­qué on a Peace Frame­work in its new ver­si­on aligns with Ukraine’s inte­rests. Alt­hough the­re are still minor remarks, the main dan­gers have been addres­sed. Cur­r­ent­ly, the draft is not yet final: the­re is still a pos­si­bi­li­ty of point chan­ges on 13-14 June. Howe­ver, Euro­pean Pravda’s sources are incli­ned to belie­ve that the updated con­tent of the decisi­on will remain.

Rea­listic expec­ta­ti­ons are necessa­ry. This sum­mit will not lead to a bre­akthrough or end the war. Ukrai­ne is merely taking one of the first steps on a long path. Howe­ver, it is cru­cial that this step is in the right direc­tion and does not crea­te new problems.

The hig­her ambi­ti­on of the docu­ment came at a cost:

several coun­tries have decli­ned to par­ti­ci­pa­te in the sum­mit. As of 5 June, Switz­er­land offi­cial­ly announ­ced that it had “recei­ved more than 80 con­fir­ma­ti­ons of atten­dance at the level of heads of sta­tes and governments”, and the total num­ber of con­fir­med atten­de­es, as repor­ted by offi­cials, excee­ded 100. Howe­ver, in the fol­lowing days, this phra­se had to be remo­ved from the event’s web­site, and now it reads that “around 90 sta­tes have con­fir­med their par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on in the Sum­mit on Peace in Ukrai­ne, most of them at head of sta­te or government level”.

Sources of Euro­pean Prav­da repor­ted that, in rea­li­ty, about 15 coun­tries have “pau­sed” their atten­dance. In addi­ti­on, the num­ber of tho­se who have signal­led a demo­ti­on from the pre­si­den­ti­al or prime minis­te­ri­al level to the level of minis­ters or even their depu­ties is in the dozens.

Alt­hough it is obvious that due to the recent chan­ges, the sum­mit will be atten­ded by fewer sta­tes than initi­al­ly anti­ci­pa­ted by Ban­ko­va Street [whe­re the Ukrai­ni­an President’s Office is loca­ted] eight days ago, it is bet­ter to have a sum­mit of like-minded peop­le than to make con­ces­si­ons on issu­es that are cri­ti­cal for the state.

Ser­giy Sydorenko

Euro­pean Prav­da, Editor

src: click

Fol­lo­wed by this other deve­lish­ly cle­ver plan:

Mode­ra­tor: “CNN’s Oren Lie­ber­mann is live for us at the Pen­ta­gon. Oren what more do we know about what the­se mee­tings are going to entail?”

Lie­ber­man: “Phil, the push to use U.S. wea­pons to hit tar­gets lon­ger ran­ge, deeper in Rus­sia has been a very public and pri­va­te cam­pai­gn on the part of Ukrai­ne, stret­ching from Ukrai­ni­an Pre­si­dent Volo­dym­yr Zelen­sky and on down. It’ll be And­rey Yer­mak, the head of the office of the Pre­si­dent of Ukrai­ne and the defen­se minis­ter, who will be here for mee­tings tomor­row with Biden admi­nis­tra­ti­on offi­cials to pre­sent a prio­ri­ty list of tar­gets that they want to hit with long ran­ge U.S. wea­pons deeper insi­de of Rus­sia. They need a green light from the white House to be able to do that. And that’s their goal here. So far, the Biden admi­nis­tra­ti­on has­n’t chan­ged its posi­ti­on. In fact, U.S. wea­pons can only be used insi­de of Rus­sia in a very small area north of Ukrai­ne, insi­de of Rus­sia. And they have used tho­se wea­pons to that effect. The Kursk offen­si­ve has been car­ri­ed out effec­tively wit­hin that restric­tion from the U.S., but they say they need to be able to tar­get mili­ta­ry assets and high value tar­gets deeper insi­de of Rus­sia to chan­ge the cour­se of the war. Pre­si­dent Volo­dym­yr Zelen­sky tal­ked about this yesterday:

Selen­skyj: “We con­ti­nue to insist that their deter­mi­na­ti­on now lif­ting the restric­tions on long ran­ge strikes for Ukrai­ne now, will help us to end the war as soon as pos­si­ble and a fair way for Ukrai­ne and the world as a whole.”

Lie­ber­man: Ukrai­ne has used its medi­um ran­ge assets, its medi­um ran­ge wea­pons, to tar­get and car­ry out cross-border attacks. But Rus­sia has sim­ply moved their high value assets far­t­her back, far­t­her away from the front line, and they’­re out of ran­ge of Ukrai­nes cur­rent wea­pon­ry wit­hin the restric­tions pla­ced upon them by the US. That’s why they say it’s so important to get the­se restric­tions eased or out­right lifted. And that’s their goal here.”

Mode­ra­tor: “Oren, you make a gre­at point in the sen­se that this has been a public cam­pai­gn that has been going on for a while from top Ukrai­ni­an offi­cials, inclu­ding Pre­si­dent Zelen­sky. do we have any sen­se right now that becau­se of some rea­son or ano­t­her, the U.S. is actual­ly con­si­de­ring chan­ging the restrictions?”

Lie­ber­man: “So far, the admi­nis­tra­ti­on and the Pen­ta­gon have been clear that the restric­tions remain in place.”

Mode­ra­tor: “But, Phil, you and I have seen this so many times over the cour­se of the war, espe­cial­ly when Ukrai­ne car­ri­es out a very public slap cam­pai­gn that the Biden admi­nis­tra­ti­on will say, no, no, no, no, no. And then sud­den­ly, yes. We saw it with patri­ots. We saw it with ATACAMS. We saw it with Abrams tanks.”

Lie­ber­man: “And that’s what Ukrai­ne is hoping for here, that the public and pri­va­te pres­su­re cam­pai­gn that, that perhaps a com­pre­hen­si­ve list of tar­gets of what they want to hit to make that clear to the white House, that that will build up enough pres­su­re and con­vin­ce admi­nis­tra­ti­on offi­cials that final­ly, they will go from all of tho­se no’s to the yes that Ukrai­ne is hoping for.

Pre­ce­ded of cour­se by Selen­sky­js first deve­lish­ly cle­ver plan, exact­ly one mon­th after the start of the war:

Czech Tele­vi­si­on Mode­ra­tor: “Dear Mr, pre­si­dent, the­se are his­to­ri­cal­ly hard times. But the Ukrai­ne also is uni­fied as never befo­re. Do you see this as a chan­ge only in Ukrai­ne, or may­be also in euro­pe. And what is at the cen­ter of this change?”

Cle­vers­test pre­si­dent in the world Selen­skyj: “The world will chan­ge, it has alrea­dy chan­ged, poli­ti­ci­ans are alrea­dy afraid of their peop­le, they are afraid of social respon­si­bi­li­ty. They see, that peop­le are reac­ting dif­fer­ent­ly. And in many coun­tries, peop­le sup­port us 100%, but their lea­ders, do not sup­port us 100%, for one rea­son or ano­t­her. I’m not say­ing here who is right [?!?!], but it means, that social and public opi­ni­on will be stron­ger than any lea­der in the world. That is to say, we are all see­ing chan­ges and pro­ces­ses. Chan­ges that not only lead to theo­re­ti­cal, but to popu­lar demo­cra­cy, popu­lar demo­cra­cy is not a revo­lu­ti­on - demo­cra­cy is first and fore­mo­st, power of the peop­le. If you want to be the lea­der of your socie­ty, you have to be the lea­der of socie­ty, not to com­mand, but to be a lea­der and live with them in the same spi­rit. The­re­fo­re [?!] it seems to me, that this popu­lar demo­cra­cy is taking place in the world, and that this will lead to cer­tain secu­ri­ty alli­an­ces [?!], I am con­fi­dent, that the­re will be new secu­ri­ty alli­an­ces in the future. This does not mean, that its necessa­ry to lea­ve any uni­on. It does not mean, that it is necessa­ry to des­troy things that work. No it does not mean that. Peop­le just want peace, tran­qui­li­ty, sta­bi­li­ty and most import­ant­ly - con­fi­dence. Here, in all the­se chal­len­ges, con­fi­dence. Be it the new Covid, or god for­bid, war. A per­son who lives, pays taxes, resi­des here, was born or came here, is a citi­zen of the world for peace. And this per­son must know, that they must be pro­tec­ted in this coun­try. And if this per­son lea­ves for ano­t­her coun­try, this per­son will be pro­tec­ted the­re. The per­son will not suf­fer. The world is just facing such a chal­len­ge. It will eit­her accept this model, and come to such alli­an­ces, or the­re will be a chan­ge of many world lea­ders, and their socie­ties will find pro­per peop­le for themselves.”

God, this ukrai­ne real­ly is run, by the most devi­lish­ly cle­ver­est pre­si­dent in the who­le world! 

Good, wes­tern, demo­cra­tic world of course.

Ah, da kann der Krieg ja end­lich wei­ter­ge­hen. Sla­va, as always.

Nobody -- expects the russian opposition!

01. September 2024

For com­ple­ten­es­se­se­se­ses sake.. 😉

(I’m still watching it.)

Mikhail Zygar, of cour­se is not a bought out non­re­si­dent seni­or fel­low at the Atlan­tic Council’s Eura­sia Cen­ter by now, you know to fill his gap years - no he is an artis­tic auteur, ne a colum­nist of ger­man news­pa­per Der Spiegel!

Mikhail Zygar is a non­re­si­dent seni­or fel­low at the Atlan­tic Council’s Eura­sia Center.

src: click

For many mon­ths after the war began, I had men­tal con­ver­sa­ti­ons with Zhenya. Every now and then, as I was wri­ting ano­t­her column for the New York Times or Der Spie­gel, I ima­gi­ned Zhenya and won­de­red what she would say if she had read it. To me, she sym­bo­li­zed all tho­se who stay­ed, who still live in Putin’s Rus­sia, live and pro­test. In my thoughts, Zhenya beca­me the “con­sci­ence” of today’s Russia.

src: click

Also dont miss his coun­ter­in­tui­ti­ve Spie­gel arti­cles like:

Die Inva­si­on von Kursk könn­te den Beginn von Ver­hand­lun­gen bedeuten

or

War­um Ale­xej Nawal­ny wirk­lich ster­ben musste

Fast hat­te Wla­di­mir Putin den Namen sei­nes Erz­fein­des Ale­xej Nawal­ny schon ver­ges­sen. Doch dann gab es Plä­ne für einen Gefan­ge­nen­aus­tausch. Und das durf­te nicht sein.

[…]

Offen­bar hör­te Putin nach einer lan­gen Pau­se erst Anfang Febru­ar die­ses Jah­res zum ers­ten Mal wie­der von Nawal­ny. Damals teil­te Roman Abra­mo­witsch, einst Olig­arch und heu­te der ein­zi­ge stän­dig funk­tio­nie­ren­de Kom­mu­ni­ka­ti­ons­ka­nal zwi­schen Russ­land und dem Wes­ten, Putin mit, dass man sich auf den end­gül­ti­gen Gefan­ge­nen­aus­tausch geei­nigt habe. Der Wes­ten sei bereit, fünf gegen fünf aus­zu­tau­schen: Es han­de­le sich um Spio­ne, poli­ti­sche Gefan­ge­ne, den Mör­der Wadim Kras­s­i­kow, den ame­ri­ka­ni­schen Jour­na­lis­ten Evan Gersh­ko­vich und – für Putin über­ra­schend – Ale­xej Nawalny.

Das konn­te Putin nicht glau­ben: Gab es wirk­lich ein Land, das die Frei­las­sung Nawal­nys for­der­te? Brauch­te ihn wirk­lich jemand? Erin­ner­te man sich noch an ihn?

Die beja­hen­de Ant­wort wur­de zu einem Urteil. Genau­er gesagt zunächst zu einer Erin­ne­rung. In der Tat hat­te Putin lan­ge geglaubt, Nawal­ny sei tot. Er betrach­te­te das Feh­len von Infor­ma­tio­nen über Nawal­ny, die von den Sicher­heits­diens­ten ängst­lich ver­heim­licht wur­den, als Zei­chen dafür, dass Nawal­ny der Ver­gan­gen­heit ange­hör­te. Als er jedoch erfuhr, dass Nawal­ny noch am Leben war, immer noch wich­tig, immer noch ein Fak­tor in der inter­na­tio­na­len Poli­tik, da zöger­te Putin nicht.

Laut Chris­to Gro­zev wuss­te er zu dem Zeit­punkt, als der Mode­ra­tor Tucker Carl­son ihn im Inter­view auf­for­der­te, Evan Gersh­ko­vich frei­zu­las­sen, bereits von dem vor­ge­schla­ge­nen Aus­tausch­pro­gramm. Und er war ein­deu­tig nicht glück­lich dar­über. Putin stimm­te dem Tausch zu – aber nur unter der Bedin­gung, dass Nawal­ny nicht in den Plan ein­be­zo­gen wer­den wür­de. Er woll­te den Mann, der ihn vor dem gan­zen Land, vor der gan­zen Welt gede­mü­tigt hat­te, nicht freilassen.
Des­halb befahl er, Nawal­ny sofort los­zu­wer­den – damit er die Ver­hand­lun­gen über einen Aus­tausch fort­set­zen und nie wie­der an den Mann den­ken muss­te, des­sen Namen er nie aus­ge­spro­chen hatte.

Aber es ist wie mit dem Fluch in Shake­speares Dra­ma »Mac­beth«: Nun wird Putin die­sen Namen nie wie­der ver­ges­sen können.

Anmer­kung der Redak­ti­on: In einer vor­he­ri­gen Ver­si­on die­ses Tex­tes wur­de Chris­to Gro­zev als Mit­ar­bei­ter Nawal­nys bezeich­net. Das ist unzu­tref­fend und war nie der Fall. Wir haben die ent­spre­chen­de Stel­le korrigiert. 

src: click

Die Wahr­heit™ über Nawal­nys Tot, sozusagen.

edit: Also never make the mista­ke to belie­ve Cho­dor­kow­ski, that what the rus­si­an oppo­si­ti­on can deli­ver is a to “form a visi­on of the future”, becau­se thats Timo­thy Sny­ders job of cour­se, tal­king to Zygar here:

See: https://harlekin.me/allgemein/the-future-of-ukraine-war-according-to-us-democrats/

Zygar then repro­du­ces lar­ge junks of the same pro­pa­ga­na in front of an inter­na­tio­nal audi­ence (not tal­king about his book btw, just about his public appearan­ce in this video):

And that bags him his Atlan­tic Coun­cil Fellowship.

Zygar having been addres­sed by US pro­pa­gan­dists in the first place, becau­se he is THE popu­lar public spo­ke­speace INTO the rus­si­an expat com­mu­ni­ty on youtube.

Loo­ks like a you­tuber, beha­ves like a you­tuber, has the creden­ti­als of having been a Co-Founder on TV Rain, now thats someo­ne you should have 

Anne App­le­baum,
Timo­thy Sny­der and
Fio­na Hill

fill with pre­pro­du­ced nar­ra­ti­ves, like the one that Sny­der feeds him in the first video of course.

I mean look at him, the eter­nal you­tuber, and creden­ti­als of having been on the foun­ding team of TV Rain? Never saw a bet­ter can­di­da­te for an Atlan­tic Coun­cil fel­low­ship in my life­time. And how well he repeats the lines initi­al­ly fed to him by Snyder!

Nobo­dy expects the rus­si­an opposition! 

You know, your typi­cal rus­si­ans like: Anne App­le­baum, Timo­thy Sny­der and Fio­na Hill (Broo­kings Insti­tu­ti­on) - tal­king to an impres­sionab­le teen­ager and his you­tube audi­ence, becau­se they find it ful­fil­ling, I guess…

And they give such gre­at tips on how the rus­si­an expat com­mu­ni­ty can “form a visi­on of the future of rus­sia” all along the way!

What a bunch of open­ly hel­pful people!

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das erst­klas­sig Aller­bes­te, und ihre Pun­dits, sind alle so human und so über­aus hilfsbereit!

Oh - if you dont belie­ve me - watch tho­se videos. 🙂

Grü­ße ans US for­eign poli­cy estab­lish­ment, bitte.

Finally! US got their framing down for “encircling russia in the black sea”

01. September 2024

First ques­ti­on. Is rus­sia real­ly the only dan­ger in the black sea?

Ans­wer given by the panel. Yes.

Explana­ti­on: Becau­se it is an encir­cle­ment stra­te­gy. Aka ever­yo­ne in the regi­on against russia.

Explana­ti­on given by the panel: Yes, becau­se Putin is the new Hit­ler, and when I tal­ked to Mer­kel she said to me Putin thought like Ale­xa­ner the Gre­at, no he thinks like Niko­las the Gre­at, lis­ten to his war speech he men­tio­ned him in the­re, and when I was in rus­sia in 2015, ever­yo­ne told me - we are the per­fect slaves, but when I was in Ukrai­ne, they ale­rea­dy told me, we are figh­t­ing for our freedom!

[Btw, if you have a “are they real­ly all that dumb” moment right about now, no. They are dum­ber. Just watch the video.]

Second ques­ti­on: Is the black sea real­ly that important for rus­sia. Warm water port and all that.

Ans­wer given by Ali­na Frolo­va, For­mer Depu­ty Minis­ter of Defence of Ukrai­ne on the panel: Yes, eco­no­mi­c­al­ly and for the pro­jec­tion of mili­ta­ry power the black sea ports are extre­me­ly important for rus­sia. 40% of their exports and a serious per­cen­ta­ge of their imports go through the black sea.

CORRECT! THE CANDIDATE GETS 1000 POINTS AND A FREE WASHING MASHINE! IF SOMEONE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RELAY THAT TO WERNER FASSLABEND OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SO HELPFUL! You know to all the dim­plom­cy stu­dents in Aus­tria, who lear­ned from Herr Fass­labend, that Sevas­to­pol wasnt at all important to Rus­sia, and that they could just as easi­ly run their eco­no­my through Mur­mansk in the nor­dic cir­cle (ok, clo­se to the nor­dic circle).

Spä­te Erkenntnis

They couldnt - which real­ly was kind of the main point Zbi­gniew Brze­ziń­ski made in the Grand Chess­board, but who nee­ded to read Brze­ziń­ski when they were ser­ving in the aus­tri­an for­eign ser­vice, am I right? Right?

So just as a tale of warning, if ever somo­ne in the vicini­ty of the Broo­kings Insti­tu­ti­on and Fio­na Hills posi­ti­on the­re should come to read this litt­le blog ent­ry. This is what you do to socie­ty. Flood it with a bunch of “I know how Putin thinks he thinks like 5 tsars I saw in his office in 2015, when Fio­na for the last time was part of a Val­dai Dis­cus­sion Club mee­ting” crap, implant that thought in peop­le who are too dumb even to relay that cor­rect­ly and then have to pull out their “Hit­ler in the black sea” com­pa­ri­sons when they have public panel appearan­ces. In their first ans­wer on a GLOBSEC panel.

Make sure no one regis­ters, that this is all a “get rus­sia out of the black sea” con­flict at heart (see Her­fried Münk­ler: https://harlekin.me/allgemein/spaete-erkenntnis/ ) - and then have Ali­na Frolo­va, For­mer Depu­ty Minis­ter of Defence of Ukrai­ne blow that all up by actual­ly spel­ling out loud how important its black sea ports his­to­ri­cal­ly have been, and still are for rus­si­as eco­no­my and power projection.

You know, the ones Ukrai­ne insis­ted Rus­sia had to gift them (!!!!!!!! Veni­ce Com­mi­si­on, see below) with all the mili­ta­ry ships docked the­re, and the ones built the­re for free as part of “com­pen­sa­ti­on negotiations”.

Befo­re this “unpro­vo­ked war” bro­ke out. You know - Ukrai­ne, which wan­ted not­hing more than to join NATO with all its heart, so Vic­to­ria Nuland could final­ly ful­fill ame­ri­cas goals in the black sea. (Which the bri­tish repre­sen­ta­ti­ve in the Panel will descri­be to you word for word, just lis­ten to him.)

But dont you worry, the first com­ment in the GLOBSEC panel about “Bols­te­ring Black Sea Secu­ri­ty” (Is rus­sia real­ly the only thre­at in the black sea. Yes! Says the panel.) will be, that Putin is like Hit­ler, and not like the Tsar Mer­kel com­pa­red him to, but the other Tsar, that had empi­ria­listic ambitions!

While Her­fried Münk­ler alrea­dy sta­ted, that rus­sia pro­bab­ly star­ted the war at least part­ly - to be able to secu­re (pro­jec­ting years into the future, when its demo­gra­phic wouldnt allow for mili­ta­ry actions any­mo­re) its influ­ence in the black sea.

Spä­te Erkenntnis

Now -- are all poli­ti­cal pro­pon­ents that are fea­tured, by the fuck­ing pro­pa­gan­distic dipshits that pro­du­ce your media rea­li­ty -- real­ly that dumb?

No, they are dum­ber, watch this video.

This is GLOBSEC.

This is the US secu­ri­ty industry.

God for­bid I once thought the Alp­bach panels whe­re intel­lec­tual­ly lacking and all about put­ting peop­le on sta­ge to have their egos stroked.

This is liter­al­ly the Broo­kings insti­tu­ti­on wri­ting the memes into the minds of sta­te repre­sen­ta­ti­ves which are idi­ots, and think that adding Hit­ler to the mix, in the first respon­se they ever pro­du­ce on an indus­try panel - would make a bet­ter epis­te­me out of it.

Well, he said Hit­ler, so it must be true…!

This is what the Broo­kings Insti­tu­ti­on does to society.

Never­mind that you still need per­so­nal con­nec­tions to get fuck­ing Wer­ner Fass­labend to lie to his public rela­ti­ons stu­dents for one and a half years, becau­se that old fuck­ing fool, could be made to belie­ve that Sevas­to­pol wasnt important for rus­si­as afri­ca missions.

But for all this year long outra­ge­os bull­shit and pro­pa­gan­da -- the US didnt think about brie­fing Ali­na Frolo­va, For­mer Depu­ty Minis­ter of Defence of Ukrai­ne on the offi­cial pro­pa­gan­da posi­ti­on, so now she just enters the “encir­cling rus­sia in the black sea” panel, and anwers truth­ful­ly. Becau­se shes amongst friends.

Cant make this stuff up. Its insa­ni­ty in motion.

First spea­ker gives you the full pro­pa­gan­da load­down with Tsars and Hit­ler. Second spea­ker tells you the full truth, becau­se she was never brie­fed, that she should down­play the impor­t­ance of Sevas­to­pol by US for­eign poli­cy “experts” tar­ge­ting wes­tern media outlets.

FUUUUUUUUUUCK.

Wie kann man die­se Gesell­schaft eigent­lich noch verarschen?

Ach­ja --

Wie kann man die­se Gesell­schaft noch verarschen?

Unpro­vo­ked!

Gut die Schwarz­meer­hä­fen wären bei einem Nato Bei­tritt der Ukrai­ne für Russ­land weg gewe­sen, aber ich mein was sind schon 40% der rus­si­schen Expor­te und ihre gesam­te Power Pro­jec­tion into the Medi­te­re­ni­an and Afri­ca for russia…

Nein, also dass ihnen die Nuland das weg­neh­men woll­te, war ja nie im Leben eine Pro­vo­ka­ti­on! Ich weiss gar­nicht war­um Putin die Krim neh­men musste!

Gut, jetzt sagt die Ali­na Frolo­va, For­mer Depu­ty Minis­ter of Defence of Ukrai­ne sie weiß es, es war, weil Sevas­to­pol so wich­tig für Russ­land war, und der Münk­ler sagts auch -

Spä­te Erkenntnis

aber das müs­sen die deutsch­spra­chi­gen Medi­en ja des­we­gen nicht der Öffent­lich­keit erklären.

Nein, bit­te - der Krieg war unpro­vo­ziert, auch wenn die Ukrai­ne zu beginn mit US Jave­lins die rus­si­schen Sepa­ra­tis­ten aus dem Don­bas weg­ge­schos­sen und damit die mili­tä­ri­sche Lage gedreht hat. Die die Ukrai­ne extra dafür ange­fragt hat die Lage im Don­bas zu dre­hen (Game­ch­an­ger gegen die “Sepa­ra­tis­ten”). Auch wenn die Jave­lins zu dem Zeit­punkt nicht frei­ge­ge­ben waren. Genutzt haben sie sie schon. Was die Was­ser­ver­sor­gung (irre­ga­ti­on) zur Krim gefähr­det hät­te, wenn die Ukrai­ner den Don­bas genom­men hät­ten. Was Russ­land aus der gesam­ten Ukrai­ne gedrängt hät­te (2 Mio. Men­schen ohne Was­ser­ver­sor­gung die zor­nig auf Russ­land sind) (was bis heu­te das Kriegs­ziel der Ukrai­ne ist -- sie­he Ver­hand­lungs­ver­lauf in Bür­gen­stock, sie­he Ali­na Frolo­va, For­mer Depu­ty Minis­ter of Defence of Ukrai­ne in die­sem Panel). Was das poli­ti­sche Ziel von Nuland war. (Ukrai­ne zur NATO in sei­ner tat­säch­li­chen Bedeu­tung). Aber eine Pro­vo­ka­ti­on haben wir ja alle immer noch nir­gend­wo entdeckt.

Also wo denn?

Wer denn?

Die Veni­ce Com­mi­si­on der euro­päi­schen Union?

Wie kann man die­se Gesell­schaft noch verarschen?

Unpro­vo­ked!

edit: Sor­ry - the bri­tish represnta­ti­ve on the Panel had to also pro­vi­de the input, that Putin is also emu­la­ting Sta­lin of cour­se. Plea­se note that down as well.

So thats Hit­ler, not Alex­an­der the Gre­at, but Niko­las the Gre­at and Sta­lin. This will be part of the histo­ry test of your child.

Also Tobi­as Ell­wood, Secu­ri­ty and Defence Con­sul­tant, Ell­wood Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons - the bri­tish repre­sen­ta­ti­ve, also knows, that this is not just about the black sea, this is about Putin “pushing fur­ther”, becau­se: “you all play­ed Risk, and the green part is als­ways hard to defend, so you attack”.

Thank you, no fur­ther pro­of nee­ded, I think!

This also will be on the histo­ry test of your child, belie­ve me.

Battle of the Security Experts

01. September 2024

Ple­na­ry 4: Stra­te­gic Intel­li­gence Challenges

Hos­ted by the Intel­li­gence & Natio­nal Secu­ri­ty Alliance

at 13:30 min in:

David Cohen is the cur­rent Depu­ty Direc­tor CIA

Mode­ra­tor: Ear­lier this year the US government was say­ing you know stale­ma­te con­ti­nuing Rus­sia was not going to be able to gain signi­fi­cant ter­ri­to­ry um do we still think that’s the case? David what do you think?

David Cohen: “Look, I think the um so the attack uh you the night befo­re last uh that the Rus­si­ans moun­ted on the ener­gy infra­st­ruc­tu­re in Ukrai­ne and against civi­li­an tar­gets you know is you know sort of sad­ly more of the same from Putin going after uh civi­li­an tar­gets try­ing to um you know --- cau­se essen­ti­al­ly widespread uh you know pain and suf­fe­ring in Ukrai­ne as the fall is now upon us the win­ter is going to come um and you know he’s going after again going after the the ener­gy infra­st­ruc­tu­re so I think we will con­ti­nue to see tho­se sorts of attacks. The ukrai­ni­ans you know with the help of the United Sta­tes and others are are you know con­stant­ly working to build their air defen­ses to uh to try to uh address the­se the­se attacks from the Rus­si­ans but in terms of the front line like I think the you know the figh­t­ing now uh and it has been for you know a peri­od of of several weeks or lon­ger uh has been focu­sed on this city cal­led Pokrowsk in uh in the Donas um you know the Rus­si­ans are are making some pro­gress the­re - they’­re making pro­gress the­re at extra­or­di­na­ry cost the num­ber of lives that they are was­ting in this in this effort qui­te apart from all of the mili­ta­ry equip­ment and all the rest that they’­re thro­wing at it is real­ly is qui­te extra­or­di­na­ry - for for you know very small incre­men­tal gains over time. ---[NOW FINALLY DECIDING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT WAS PUT TOWARDS HIM, I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT, IT ONLY TOOK A DAY AND A HALF OF SIDETRACKING! ---] They may take Pokrowsk, they may not I think it you know it’s a the ukrai­ni­ans are con­ti­nuing to to defend but like at the end of the day - none of it is game­ch­an­ging in a stra­te­gic sen­se um and I think we are we have asses­sed that throughout you know 2024 the­re would the­re would be you know some some give and take along the front line and I think we’­re going to con­ti­nue to see that.

vs.

GO!

Batt­le it out!

GO!

You can do it.

If you have no Idea whats going on here - I have a few pointers.

- As the say­ing goes, all the intel­li­gence by now is in the pri­va­te secu­ri­ty indus­try, becau­se they pay better.
- As the say­ing goes, the fist thing you learn at CIA is lying
- As the say­ing goes, the second thing you learn at CIA is how to talk yourself out of not having read the brie­fings or your executive-memos, and still call yourself “the hono­r­able” - to the point whe­re others think thats actual­ly your title…
Bildschirmfoto 2024 09 01 um 09 22 37
- Oh and if you are cri­ti­cal min­ded, and have seen that the Ukrai­ni­an defen­se infra­st­ruc­tu­re 15km away from Pokrowsk was crumb­ling in a chao­tic man­ner, becau­se the Ukrai­ne had a few sche­du­ling issu­es, that sur­moun­ted to Rus­sia being able to take a town for free -- well, thats obvious­ly them only being able to advan­ce by a few kms, back and forth, suf­fe­ring TREMENDOUS los­ses. Which coin­ci­dent­ly is not what David Cohen has picked up from media (not how Stra­te­gic Intel­li­gence works), but the Pro­pa­gan­da line wes­tern media has picked up from the US ser­vices industry.

Hor­ray. Ano­t­her idi­ot at work.
Almost makes me long back to the days, whe­re the idi­ots in this pic­tu­re could recruit underage hackers, by instil­ling tro­pes in them with “911 got to save ame­ri­ca fuck yeah” moti­ves sta­cked to the brim…

The rest of the panel is their top level manage­ment tal­king about which advan­ce­ments AI will allow them to reach.

We are deve­lo­ping more of a trust infra­st­ruc­tu­re, so we can acce­le­ra­te fas­ter through AI…”

You what now? (Gene­ra­ti­ve AI is not reli­able, so you build up a trust infra­st­ruc­tu­re (Human in the loop), so you can acce­le­ra­te fas­ter? Ama­zing. Bet­ter not make the AI spit out too many cor­re­la­ti­ons per day!)

Gene­ra­ti­ve AI will help through cor­re­la­ti­ve data ana­ly­sis. You mean Data Sci­ence will help with cor­re­la­ti­ve data ana­ly­sis, and a chat­bot will tell you what to bomb based on tho­se unve­ri­fied cor­re­la­ti­ons? So now you can call it AI?

Our prompt engineers…

Ter­ra­bytes of data from our satellites…

Oh, for fucks sake.

Man weiß immer erst was man an PR-Opfern wie dem Gus­tav Gres­sel hat, wenn man sich mal die Kon­kur­renz in sei­nem Job ange­se­hen hat.

Dass der sich nicht schämt, der Gres­sel - in einem Sek­tor zu arbei­ten wo er der ein­zi­ge Mensch ist der nicht auf Anhieb der ers­ten Logi­cal fall­a­cy die Füs­se küsst, die sei­nen Weg kreuzt…

Hey, nochmal Ostern und Weihnachten zusammen!

31. August 2024

ARTE zeigt ENDLICH mal die Chro­no­lo­gie um das ukrai­ni­sche “If you dont clo­se the sky, mom will cry, if you dont clo­se the sky, he’ll lose home…” Pro­pa­gan­da­vi­deo mit Bil­dern aus Butscha im UN Sicherheitsrat!

Jetzt der blö­de Part, sie haben die gesam­te von der Ukrai­ne drauf­ge­leg­te Musik­un­ter­ma­lung (mit besag­tem Refrain) ent­fernt, und respekt­vol­le klas­si­sche Musik drun­ter gelegt.

Ganz im Gegen­satz zum Ukrai­ni­schen Ori­gi­nal­vi­deo damals.

Erwäh­nen die­se Bear­bei­tung aber mit kei­nem Wort.

Gut - das muss ja unter den His­to­ri­kern wie­der nie­mand wis­sen, dass die Ukrai­ne kei­ne voll­ende­te Woche nach Butscha mit den Gräul­p­ho­tos TIEFSTE PROPAGANDA gefah­ren ist, um ihre Zie­le des Ein­tritts der NATO in den Krieg zu erreichen…

Klar schnei­det denen ARTE das Video um.

Sicher doch.

Und wech­selt die Musikuntermalung.

Darfs sonst noch was sein?

Was für ein Service!

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das abso­lut gro­tesk und abar­tigst Allerletzte.

Mei­ne ein­zi­ge Ori­gi­nal­quel­le dazu wur­de aus dem Netz genom­men, und das Video selbst fin­det sich auf­grund der in der ARTE Doku ange­spro­che­nen “tech­ni­schen Pro­ble­me” an dem Tag in KEINER Auf­zeich­nung der Sicher­heits­rats­de­bat­te die noch auf You­tube zu fin­den ist. Also bin ich erst mal glück­lich -- dass es “für die His­to­ri­ker” über­haupt noch mal jemand on record setzt, dass es das ver­fick­te “If you dont clo­se the sky, mom will cry, if you dont clo­se the sky, he’ll lose home…” Pro­pa­gan­da video der Ukrai­ne im ers­ten Auf­tritt Selen­sky­js nach Butscha im Sicher­heits­rat gege­ben hat.

Bis jetzt war das nicht mal Teil der offi­zi­el­len Geschichtsschreibung.

Jetzt seit ARTE zum Glück schon.

NUR DASS ARTE DAS VIDEO NEU AUFBEREITET, DIE MUSIKUNTERMALUNG ENTFERNT, PASSENDE ANTEILNAHME AUSDRÜCKENDE MUSIK DRUNTERGELEGT HAT - und den Rest ein­fach verschweigt.

Na Gott sei dank leben wir im Wer­te­wes­ten, mir ganz viel Qualitätsjournalismus!

edit: Was ARTE lei­der auch falsch wie­der­gibt, ist dass es behaup­tet, Bud­scha sei der Punkt gewe­sen ab dem die Ukrai­ne kei­ne Frie­dens­ge­sprä­che mehr akzep­tie­ren konnte.

Auch das ist falsch - aber irgend­wie muss man ja die fuck­ing scheiss Pro­pa­gan­da in die Bevöl­ke­rung gedro­schen bekommen.

Sie­he:

Qui­te quick­ly, but cer­tain­ly over the cour­se of the next weeks that fol­lo­wed, Selen­sky­js views evol­ved, part­ly under the influ­ence of his advisors

HAAAHHAHHAHHAHAAAAA.

Selen­sky­js views on the Butscha mas­sa­c­re that is.

Says eye wit­ness to the events, Times cor­re­spon­dent [with access] Simon Shuster.

Qui­te quick­ly, but cer­tain­ly over the cour­se of the next weeks that followed.

BWAAAHHAHHAHHHAHAHA.

Under the influ­ence of his advisors.

HAHAHHAHAHHHAHHAHHA.

Wait, wait - but what was the sen­tence befo­re that - you know for the necessa­ry context!

He also said at the time, days after the Butscha mas­sa­c­re was dis­co­ve­r­ed in ear­ly April of 2022, he sug­gested that Putin might not be ful­ly awa­re of the warcri­mes that his sol­di­ers might be com­mit­ting. And we still need to talk to Putin.”

BWAAAHHAHAHHAHHHAHAHA.

Yeah, but that was befo­re the BBC and the ent­i­re ger­man media eco­sys­tem sys­te­ma­ti­cal­ly didnt report what Reis­ner noted, that the Ukrai­ni­ans kil­led 1000 Rus­si­an sol­di­ers (two batal­li­ons) with Himars in Butscha, and that the remai­ning sol­di­ers “went cra­zy” after that…

Wie man 1000 rus­si­sche Tote aus einer BBC Doku­men­ta­ti­on raushält

HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHHAHHHAH.

Of cour­se you dont report that as ger­man spea­king media.

BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHHAHHHAH.

Ah. Best laugh I had in two years.

Thank you Atlan­tic Council!

He also said at the time, days after the Butscha mas­sa­c­re was dis­co­ve­r­ed in ear­ly April of 2022, he sug­gested that Putin might not be ful­ly awa­re of the warcri­mes that his sol­di­ers are com­mit­ting. And we still need to talk to Putin.
Qui­te quick­ly, but cer­tain­ly over the cour­se of the next weeks that fol­lo­wed, his views, evol­ved part­ly under the influ­ence of his advi­sors. You know this is -- like any admi­nis­tra­ti­on the­re are dif­fe­rent opi­ni­ons, and they were dis­cus­sing what to do, what should be our posi­ti­on in terms of nego­tia­ti­ons and -- the pos­si­bi­li­ty of tal­king to Putin. (IS IT POSSIBLE?!) Is he a mons­ter, is he a sta­tes­men, what is he?! A dic­ta­tor. And their views evol­ved qui­te quick­ly [but cer­tain­ly over the cour­se of the next weeks], to the point whe­re I think by the start of sum­mer cer­tain­ly Selen­skyj had deci­ded, that - NO, it is not pos­si­ble to talk to Putin.”

ALSO THANK YOU TO THE BBC FOR OMITING THE FACT THAT THE UKRAINE KILLED 1000 SOLDIERS IN BUTSCHA, TWO BATALLIONS, WITH HIMARS AND THAT THE REMAINING RUSSIAN SOLDIERS WENT CRAZY AFTER THAT. (Accord­ing to Oberst Mar­kus Reisner.)

ALSO BY THE START OF SUMMER CERTAINLY?

Begin­ning of April, End of April, Begin­ning of May, End of May, Begin­ning of June, 20th of June -- NO, CANT TALK TO PUTIN!

I’M CERTAIN OF IT NOW! Hes a mons­ter! And this is rus­si­as war, not Putins! (Says our hero Selen­skyj. Accord­ing to eye wit­ness to the events, Times repor­ter Simon Shuster.)

Gut, Pro­pa­gan­da hat natür­lich wie­der nie­mand entdeckt…

HAHAHAHHHAHHHAHAHHHAHA

Dan­ke für das ver­fick­te scheiss Fol­low Up, Atlan­tic Council.

Sie­he eben­falls: NYT Chro­no­lo­gie der Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen.

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das abso­lut gro­tesk und abar­tigst Allerletzte.