Scholz hat mal was richtig gemacht

01. März 2024

via fefe:

[l] Scholz hat erklärt, wie­so er kei­ne Tau­rus an die Ukrai­ne lie­fern will.
Dann müss­te man auch Per­so­nal mit­schi­cken, wel­ches das Teil bedient [Anm: Pro­gram­mie­rung], und dann wäre man Kombattant.

Er hat sich dann noch ein klit­ze­klei­nes biss­chen ver­plap­pert, als er mein­te, dass die Bri­ten und Fran­zo­sen das so machen.

Die Bri­ten sind jetzt recht unge­hal­ten, dass Scholz das rumer­zählt, dass sie ihren Sta­tus zu Kom­bat­tan­ten geup­gradet haben.

Da war wohl der Zen­sor pinkeln!

src: click

Hey, macht doch nichts fefe, ZDF heu­te hat es heu­te (nach der Mel­dung) immer noch hin­be­kom­men all die fal­schen Fra­gen zu stellen.

(Wird viel­leicht nicht gelie­fert, weil sie die nicht unter ihre Flug­zeu­ge schnal­len können?!)

Komm, wem muss das schon auf­fal­len, so unter uns Journalisten.

Also den Jour­na­lis­ten am allerwenigsten.

Was macht man eigentlich.…

29. Februar 2024

…wenn man aktu­ell auf­grund der Nawal­ny Geschich­te Assan­ge nicht “in sei­nen mehr oder min­der gesi­cher­ten Tot in einer geschlos­se­nen Anstalt” in den US aus­lie­fern kann.

Nun, man ver­schiebt den Schieds­spruch der Anhö­rung beim letz­ten mög­li­chen Ter­min vor der Aus­lie­fe­rung Assanges.

Dann sind dann nicht mehr so vie­le Leu­te vorm Gericht, und auch nicht mehr so vie­le EU Abge­ord­ne­te, und viel­leicht auch nicht mehr die UN-Sonderberichterstatterin für Folter, …

Ach­ja, und im Gericht­saal neben­an in dem die Ver­hand­lung vor Jour­na­lis­ten live über­tra­gen wer­den soll­te, fällt dann natür­lich die Mikro­phon­über­tra­gung aus, da kann man lei­der nichts machen.

Ich mei­ne - wer kennt das nicht…

Ein Datum für die Ver­kün­di­gung der Ent­schei­dung ob die Beru­fung zuge­las­sen wird, wur­de nicht genannt.”

Naja, man hat ja noch Jah­re Zeit fürs in der Schwe­be halten…

edit: Es gibt aber natür­lich auch wie­der gute Nachrichten:

G20-Treffen geschei­tert – Kei­ne Eini­gung auf gemein­sa­me Abschlusserklärung

Die Finanz­mi­nis­ter und Noten­bank­chefs konn­ten sich nicht auf gemein­sa­me Zie­le eini­gen. Statt­des­sen soll­te es nur eine Zusam­men­fas­sung der Gesprä­che geben

src: click

What is US war propaganda - part 2 (UK edition)

28. Februar 2024

Part 1: click

The good thing about Piers Mor­gan is, he is ent­i­re­ly void of any cri­ti­cal thought, so he always ends up acting as a spon­ge for any pro­pa­gan­da nar­ra­ti­ve that ever crept up out the­re - so this is a show­pie­ce on how to beco­me a star jour­na­list - by working ent­i­re­ly off of US pro­pa­gan­da scripting.

Here are all the ques­ti­ons Mor­gan asks during his recent Mear­s­hei­mer interview:

Exp­lain to me the sta­te of the world right now, how worried should we be?”

Ans­wer: I think pret­ty worried. [Gre­at way to start an inter­view on you­tube, holds the view­ers atten­ti­on and everything!]

I want to ask you about two of your posi­ti­ons, and cor­rect me if they’­re not your posi­ti­ons, but I think I’m right in say­ing that you draw a dis­tinc­tion bet­ween the merits of Russia’s inva­si­on of Ukrai­ne and as oppo­sed to China’s poten­ti­al Inva­si­on and take­over of Tai­wan. In the case of one you think ame­ri­ca should inter­vene, but in the case of Ukrai­ne you don’t think Ame­ri­ca should be get­tin invol­ved, what is the ideo­lo­gi­cal dif­fe­rence here, for tho­se who are watching from the sidelines.” 

Ans­wer: The­re is no ideo­lo­gi­cal dif­fe­rence, it is a dif­fe­rence in rela­ti­ve impor­t­ance to chal­len­ging the US role as the worlds hege­mon. Chi­na is a gre­at power riva­ling the US, Rus­sia not so much.

If you take your inter­pre­ta­ti­on of Putins moti­va­ti­on [Nato enlar­ge­ment], I mean I would take issue with that, becau­se I think Is a for­mer KGB guy who never thought the Soviet Uni­on should be bro­ken up, he would love to res­to­re it as much as he could, he sees hims­elf as a Kind of modern day Zar, I think he has an extra­or­di­na­ry dis­re­gard for human life, I think he’s beco­me a sort of mafia boss, run­ning a gangs­ter coun­try, and I think he just took his oppor­tu­ni­ty to ille­gal­ly inva­de a sov­er­eign demo­cra­tic coun­try whe­ther he likes it or not, that’s what Ukrai­ne is, and if the West allows him to get away with this, I would not be remo­te­ly con­fi­dent that he would not want to then stomp his way through into other coun­tries, so why are you con­fi­dent he wouldnt want to that.”

Ans­wer: The­re has been no fac­tu­al pro­of for your opi­ni­on whatsoever. Neit­her in what he said, nor in what he wro­te. Ever. He never said that. He never indi­ca­ted that. He never play­ed with that image.

With all respect pro­fes­sor, why would you belie­ve Vla­di­mir Putin if he told you what the wea­ther was, I mean the guy is a seri­al liar [he is not, in the past, all war pre­texts exclu­ded, rus­sia was always excep­tio­nal­ly trans­pa­rent in their for­eign poli­cy direc­ti­ves - inclu­ding why they went to war this time around, that they would go to war about this, just not “when”], I judge peop­le by their actions. All I’m see­ing is a rus­si­an dic­ta­tor, ille­gal­ly inva­ding a sov­er­eign demo­cra­tic coun­try and sei­z­ing lar­ge junks of it, causing abso­lu­te may­ham and I see to my sur­pri­se a lot of ame­ri­can com­men­ta­tors, par­ti­cu­lar on the con­ser­va­ti­ve side, who seem fair­ly rela­xed about let­ting Putin keep the land he’s sto­len, and that would never have hap­pen­ed in con­ser­va­ti­ve cir­cles 30 year ago, I’m kind of mys­ti­fied, why you would allow Putin to win.”

Ans­wer: The­re is no evi­dence to sup­port your view, that Putin is out on an impe­ria­listic endeavor.

[The actu­al ans­wer here being, that Mr. Mor­gan might find it hard to deal with the fact, that 30 years ago Bri­tain was an impe­ria­listic power, rec­ti­fy­ing its wars with bull­shit like “public image” and honor, but in rea­li­ty this is not why wars are fought. Becau­se all of that is pro­pa­gan­da. Don’t tell Mr. Mor­gan though.]

But he inva­ded Geor­gia [after Geor­gia atta­cked rus­sia being egged on by the Us, that they would sup­port them, which in the end they didnt, so sad, see: Geor­gia star­ted war with Rus­sia, EU backed report (Reu­ters)] he sei­zed Cri­mea [after Ukrai­ne had offi­cial­ly decla­red, and set into law, that they wan­ted all the rus­si­an war­s­hips in Sevas­to­pol for free] and he now inva­ded Ukrai­ne, how many more things does he have to do befo­re the blin­kers come off a bit, if you mind me being so impertinent.”

Ans­wer: No Piers, the ques­ti­on is why did he inva­de Geor­gia and why is he at war with Ukrai­ne? It all goes back to the 2008 Nato sum­mit, whe­re Nato mem­bers­hip was set as the tar­get for tho­se two countries.

Well, you are put­ting a lot of good faith into Putin, taking him at his word [becau­se, yes thats most­ly how for­eign rela­ti­ons work, coun­tries usual­ly dont lie for 16 years to then do exact­ly what they had war­ned their advers­a­ries all tho­se 16 years about to “beco­me zars”], I would argue that what Putin has done in the last few years, illus­tra­tes exact­ly why it was the cor­rect decisi­on to try to move coun­tries like Ukrai­ne into Nato, becau­se they were always going to get atta­cked and inva­ded by Putin, if he thought he could get away with it [this is not how and why wars are star­ted (becau­se someo­ne per­so­nal­ly thought they’d get away with it)] and what con­cerns me no is that I think he is going to get away with it, becau­se I can see the ame­ri­can sup­port so abso­lute­ly cru­cial to hold rus­sia off, or even for them to pre­vail is disap­pearing, becau­se of the con­ser­va­ti­ve right is put­ting huge pres­su­re to stop any fun­ding going to ukrai­ne which I again think is a real sea chan­ge in the con­ser­va­ti­ve rights view of peop­le like Vla­di­mir Putin.”

Ans­wer: Ukrai­ne is losing and even the 60 bil­li­on would not make a dif­fe­rence in that. [Becau­se its man­power, Artil­le­ry shells, and air supe­rio­ri­ty they are lacking and never get­ting back in a war of attri­ti­on, whe­re tho­se three ele­ments are key].

But the truth is, if Ukrai­ne would have kept their nuclear wea­pons, I dont think Putin would have done this, and second­ly if Ukrai­ne had been fast-tracked into Nato I dont think Putin would have done this. He would not have atta­cked ano­t­her Nato coun­try, knowing that the­re is THAT AGREEMENT, THAT IF YOU ATTACK ONE OF THEM THEY ALL WILL ATTACK YOU BACK, so in a way you could say it is a chi­cken and the egg problem.”

Ans­wer: Yes I agree with you that Putin wouldnt have atta­cked, but this isnt how it tur­ned out is it?

[Actu­al ans­wer: This is hard­ly a chi­cken and the egg pro­blem, if both sides open­ly told each other and the public what would hap­pen, and Nato cho­se to expand any­how, against Macrons and Mer­kels wis­hes, becau­se we abso­lute­ly need a war in euro­pe, and its so very fuck­ing con­ve­ni­ent to bla­me that on “princi­ples of open door poli­ci­es that need to be uphold” WHEN YOU ARE EXPANDING NATO FOR THE FIFTH (edit: sor­ry, I fact­che­cked mys­elf, turns out - tenth) TIME. Also that Putin was worried becau­se of rapid eco­no­mic deve­lo­pent in Ukrai­ne, becau­se of the EU mem­bers­hip is some­thing you cant even try to pro­ve in any fuck­ing way. Its made up con­jec­tu­re, not backed up by any eco­no­mi­c­al figu­res befo­re­hand - so unless you know that for sure, becau­se you have an insight into what cau­sed that decisi­on to be made intern­al­ly its fuck­ing Pro­pa­gan­da. But stu­pid public likes nar­ra­ti­ve! Also the­re is the tight inte­gra­ti­on of the EU into Nato, that also comes into play, when joi­ning the EU is on the table, becau­se the­re are bila­te­ral defen­se agree­ments that trig­ger, that always inclu­de Nato for­ces, which then - for “rea­di­ness” start to deploy tro­ops in your coun­try -- you know the stuff, that never gets picked up in public deba­te for a reason…]

Ann App­le­baum cal­led you a use­full idi­ot though!”

Ans­wer: Her pre­dic­tions never come true, mine do. She has to attack ad hominem.

I wat­ched Putin’s inter­view with Tucker Carl­son the other day and he tal­ked about this [the Ukrai­ne having rejec­ted a peace offer at the pre war lines of con­ta­ct with neu­tra­li­ty as the only demand from the rus­si­an side (as well as an agree­ment about the num­ber of arms that can be sta­tio­ned in the Ukrai­ne)] and bla­med Boris John­son for sqan­de­ring the peace deal tel­ling Selen­skyj not to do any deal with Putin, but I wat­ched Putin and I saw some­bo­dy who’s for for examp­le - his half hour ramb­ling ans­wer to to Carson’s first ques­ti­on giving his ver­si­on of the histo­ry uh was so com­ple­te­ly ske­wed to one way of thin­king, to Russia’s way of thin­king and the rest of his his gene­ral deme­a­nor in that inter­view sug­gested to me a nar­cis­sist a qui­te delu­sio­nal guy uh a pret­ty nas­ty pie­ce of work cer­tain­ly not some­bo­dy that I would instinc­tively want to trust, did you watch the inter­view and did you feel com­for­ta­ble about abso­lute­ly trus­ting what Putin says”

Ans­wer: Are you an idi­ot, Mor­gan? Are you asking me what I feel? Well not real­ly - but I the blog­ger, am ending this here, sim­ply becau­se of con­cerns about my blood pressure.

Later on Mear­s­hei­mer exp­lains that Stol­ten­berg now has publicly decla­red for the third time, this week, that he (who will be gone (repla­ced) in about half a year) thinks rus­sia atta­cked, becau­se it wan­ted to pre­vent Ukrai­ne beco­m­ing a mem­ber of Nato. But Piers still wants to ask if you feel that you’d trust Putin, trust Putin.

Which coin­ci­dent­ly was the ukrai­ni­an pro­pa­gan­da line on March 20th, when the Selen­skyj government had to signal to the US, that they were not beco­m­ing a neu­tral country:

Keep your jour­na­lists dumb 5

But you’d never know, from watching Bum­ble­fuck Idio­t­faces vide­os. I mean its just Piers Mor­gan, but when you get shown how FUCKING IDIOTIC the wes­tern “why we need this war” nar­ra­ti­ve is con­den­sed in a one hour time peri­od, it just under­li­nes how the Pro­pa­gan­da works so well.

Putin is just ano­t­her Hit­ler hell­bent on get­ting his Poland as “Lebens­raum” for his shrin­king popu­la­ti­on, in a coun­try with an even fas­ter shrin­king popu­la­ti­on, and it was such a pit­ty, that we didnt expand Nato fas­ter, becau­se he would always have done that, and we could have pre­ven­ted it.

Then why did­n’t Putin annex the Don­bas, when the lea­ders of the sepa­ra­ti­on move­ment asked for it and ins­tead went with Minsk 2 first, which he belie­ved in as a com­pro­mi­se, pre­ven­ting a war?

Well --- you know, he vio­la­ted Minsk 2 you know…

The same Misk 2 ukrai­ni­an pro­pa­gan­dists on Al Jaze­e­ra will now tell you was “null and void, becau­se it was for­ced upon the peop­le of Ukrai­ne by its ousi­de partners!”

Take their make up away

Lies, god damn lies and “jour­na­lism”.

Why cant we deindus­tria­li­ze Euro­pe for lon­ger says the inde­pen­dent con­ser­va­ti­ve com­men­ta­tor from the UK, brin­ging one “pax bri­tan­nia” argu­ment, well “pax ame­ri­ca­na” argu­ment after the other. 30 years ago, we would have shown him, this would never have been even a ques­ti­on! Becau­se how dare Putin, and we have a face to keep!

Ok. War ends in 6 years as plan­ned by Was­ley Clark?

So first off fuck you, second off fuck you and third, fuck you

Of a war of attri­ti­on mind you, which cur­r­ent­ly the Ukrai­ne is losing.

The best argu­ments the­se days always end with Pu’in.

Other more ratio­nal ones are nowhe­re to be found in eng­lish or ger­man spea­king news media.

Won­der­ful to live during wartime.

edit: In rela­ted news:

Are you kid­ding me? When was the first one? Last year, after Ukrai­ne was attacked?


26. Februar 2024

In the Heri­ta­ge Foun­da­ti­on Eco­no­mic Free­dom pos­ting, I allu­ded to the pro­mi­se of hig­her pen­si­ons in Cri­mea under the rus­si­an occup­a­ti­on, which was part­ly why Ukrai­nes eas­tern demo­gra­phic (which is also older) voted for uphol­ding eco­no­mic ties with russia.

Turns out, in rea­li­ty the­re are huge caveats with this “view”:

Socio-economic deve­lo­p­ment

Befo­re the annex­a­ti­on, Rus­sia has pro­mi­sed Cri­me­ans an incre­a­se in wages and pen­si­ons. In 2015, the average wage in Cri­mea incre­a­sed by 68 euros (up to 330 euros) com­pa­red to pre­vious Ukrai­ni­an wages. Over the next peri­od, the average ear­nings of Cri­me­ans incre­a­sed to 452 euros, but they have decli­ned to 423 euros sin­ce 2020. The modal wage (recei­ved by the vast majo­ri­ty of the working popu­la­ti­on) is about 300 euros. Almost 18% of Cri­me­ans recei­ve a wage of less than 172 euros.

The situa­ti­on with pen­si­ons is simi­lar: the average pen­si­on was slow­ly gro­wing during the occup­a­ti­on peri­od and reached 166 euros in 2021. Howe­ver, this figu­re does not cor­re­spond to the real situa­ti­on due to the signi­fi­cant num­ber of reti­red mili­ta­ry who have actively sett­led on the pen­in­su­la after the annex­a­ti­on and have a signi­fi­cant­ly hig­her pen­si­on. So, the real pen­si­on coverage for most Cri­me­an pen­sio­ners is not more than 130 euros.

Along with the tran­si­ti­on to Rus­si­an wages and pen­si­ons, Cri­mea app­lies Rus­si­an pri­ces for goods and ser­vices that are signi­fi­cant­ly hig­her than the Ukrai­ni­an ones. Accord­in­gly, pri­ces incre­a­sed by 43% (for pro­ducts – by 53%) in 2014, and by ano­t­her 28% (by 23% for pro­ducts) in 2015. In the fol­lowing years, infla­ti­on rates slo­wed to 5-7% per year, but in 2021, food infla­ti­on was 11% in the Auto­no­mous Repu­blic of Cri­mea and 14% in Sevastopol.

Rus­sia has inves­ted signi­fi­cant funds in Cri­mea (more than 17 bil­li­on euros during the occup­a­ti­on peri­od), but most of this money was spent on large-scale infra­st­ruc­tu­re pro­jects (“Cri­me­an Bridge”, Tau­ri­da high­way bet­ween Kerch and Sevas­to­pol) and the mili­ta­ry industry.

src: click (Uni­ver­si­ty of Tur­ku, Fin­land (2022))

see also:

From Rus­sia with love

While the Cri­me­an eco­no­my has done well on a sur­face level sin­ce its annex­a­ti­on, the regi­on has recei­ved more than a litt­le bit of help. Huge sub­si­dies from Moscow have been a main­stay sin­ce 2014, fluc­tua­ting bet­ween $1bn and $2.7bn per annum (see Fig 1). The­se figu­res are not necessa­ri­ly put­ting a signi­fi­cant strain on Russia’s eco­no­my, which is the world’s 12th-largest by nomi­nal GDP, but they do appe­ar to be con­tri­bu­ting to a slow­down (see Fig 2).

Just a few mon­ths after Cri­mea for­mal­ly rejoi­ned the Rus­si­an Fede­ra­ti­on, Moscow laun­ched a pro­gram­me cal­led the Socio­eco­no­mic Deve­lo­p­ment in the Repu­blic of Cri­mea and the City of Sevas­to­pol. The initia­ti­ve has a bud­get of RUB 669.6bn ($10.06bn), 95.9 per­cent of which comes direct­ly from Russia’s federal budget.

src: click

Zwei bis fünf mal weniger Tote auf allen Seiten!

25. Februar 2024

Tol­le Nachrichten!

Nach­dem Media­zo­na eine Recher­che basie­rend auf den Todes­an­zei­gen in rus­si­schen Zei­tun­gen ver­öf­fent­licht und die Zahl bis­her ver­stor­be­ner Rus­sen im Ukrai­ne Krieg auf 75.000 geschätzt hat, hat Selen­skyj soeben nach­ge­zo­gen und erst­ma­lig die offi­zi­el­le Zahl mili­tä­ri­scher Opfer in der Ukrai­ne ver­öf­fent­licht: 31.000!

Gut, vor zwei Tagen wur­de auf allen Sei­ten noch von fünf mal mehr Toten gespro­chen, aber jetzt wo Media­zo­na plötz­lich rus­si­sche Tote um den Fak­tor 5 nied­ri­ger ein­schätzt als US Sena­to­ren, sind die ukrai­ni­schen Toten laut Selen­skyj um den Fak­tor 2.3 auf 31.000 gesunken.

Was enorm erstaun­lich ist, denn ein unab­hän­gi­ges ukrai­ni­sches Pro­jekt hat in der Ver­gan­gen­heit bereits 47.000 getö­te­te ukrai­ni­sche Sol­da­ten gelis­tet, deren Vali­di­tät durch Media­zo­na in Zufalls­stich­pro­ben veri­fi­ziert wer­den konnte.

src: click (NTV)

Mer­ke: Als ukrai­ni­scher Prä­si­dent, sprich bereits vor einem Jahr von 99.000 getö­te­ten Rus­sen.

Dann lass vom ukrai­ni­schen Gene­ral­stab im Sep­tem­ber 2023 knapp 120.000 getö­te­te Rus­sen ver­mel­den (bei die­ser Ratio).

Dann stel­le im Febru­ar 2024 fest, dass du 60% drü­ber bist, und kor­ri­gier dann dei­ne EIGNEN Opfer­zah­len auf dem Papier um 34% nach unten - also gegen­über dem was bereits durch open Source Quel­len bestä­tigt wur­de, DIE NICHT MAL HOCHRECHNEN!

(Media­zo­na hat eine Hoch­rech­nung ver­öf­fent­licht. Dh. 50.000 gezählt, und 75.000 hochgerechnet.)

Set­zen wir den Fak­tor (+50%) bei den gezähl­ten getö­te­ten ukrai­ni­schen Sol­da­ten des unab­hän­gi­gen ukrai­ni­schen Por­tals an, kom­men wir auf 70.500 getö­te­te Ukrai­ner (Hoch­rech­nung) von denen Selenk­syj heu­te 31.000 gemel­det hat. Nice.

Sau­ber rech­nen mit dem ukrai­ni­schen Staatsoberhaupt.