harlekin.me

using @VladVexler as an “impar­ti­al expert” in their “Truth and pro­pa­gan­da” seri­es (see video above).

@VladVexler of cour­se being wide­ly known for his gre­at impar­ti­al pod­casts with @AnnafromUkraine (thats Anna from com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons) and @JakeBore [United Sta­tes Air For­ce vete­ran who ser­ved as a Nuclear and Mis­si­le Ope­ra­ti­ons Offi­cer (13N)], as well as that guy from Sili­con Curtain.

See: [Gre­at and impar­ti­al] Friends of Ukrai­ne Round­ta­ble #2

Vlad Vex­ler of cour­se also wide­ly known for publi­ca­ly ridi­cu­ling Chomsky -

[Only legit, with gre­at and impar­ti­al blue ski­es over yel­low sun­flower­field background.]

Becau­se Chom­sky sta­ted that Selen­skyj was open to peace nego­tia­ti­ons, which obvious­ly wasnt true becau­se accord­ing to Vlad Vex­ler Selen­skyj was figh­t­ing for the mere sur­vi­val of Ukrai­ne. Except that it was. (See NYT as of June 15th 2024).

With Vlad Vex­ler you then get pre­sen­ted this in this way:

Putin’s actions are des­troy­ing Russia’s future and incre­a­singly odds that Rus­sia may not exist at all and the­re isn’t even a more striking Omis­si­on in that argu­ment and that is - Ukrai­ni­an agen­cy sin­ce 2014! Ukrai­ne has come tog­e­ther in a Civic Bond powe­red by anti-colonial sen­ti­ment and it’s only an ungroun­ded news­pa­per clip­ping approach to poli­ti­cal under­stan­ding that could lead Norm Chom­sky to say that Ukrai­ne wants peace more than weapons.

For refe­rence, the Inter­view Vlad Vex­ler quo­tes Chom­sky from (and under­lies with sinis­ter music) was held in May 2022 - when accord­ing to Simon Shus­ter - you know - that Simon Shuster:

Simon Shus­ter is a seni­or cor­re­spon­dent at TIME. He covers inter­na­tio­nal affairs, with a focus on Rus­sia and Ukraine. 

src: click

[But also accord­ing to the NYT as of June 15th 2024 of course.]

Selen­ky­js view still was that the Ukrai­ne nee­ded to talk to Putin - to pre­vent a wider war.

“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 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. (and thats 81 days after Butscha, which beca­me known on April the 1st 2022.)”

src: click (Simon Shus­ter at the Atlan­tic Council)

Arte of cour­se being the demo­cra­tic wes­tern out­let that not only brings you a Selen­skyj Attract Image Docu­men­ta­ry fea­turing Marie­lui­se Beck from the Zen­trum Libe­ra­le Moder­ne - you know, this Zen­trum Libe­ra­le Moderne:

but also the offi­cial war nar­ra­ti­ve of the Wer­te­wes­ten in the form of “we tal­ked to the peop­le in the room” documentaries.

(Ori­gi­nal source: click)

Whe­re at 3min20 in the­re exists this won­der­ful passage:

Spre­cher: “Seit der Beset­zung der Krim 2014 bit­tet die Ukrai­ne die USA ihr Jave­lin Panzer-Abwehrraketen zu lie­fern. Prä­si­dent Oba­ma lehnt zuerst ab, weil er eine Eska­la­ti­on der Span­nun­gen mit Russ­land befürch­tet. Nun [20.06.2017] legt Poro­sche­nen­ko Trump sei­nen Wunsch vor.”

[Con­text: This was the aformen­tio­ned “wish” in Novem­ber of 2019, six mon­ths after the Poro­schen­ko pre­si­den­cy, in the ear­ly sta­ges of the Selen­skyj presidency:

24.11.2019

The aid, inclu­ding counter-artillery bat­te­ry radar, night-vision gear and patrol boats, has sin­ce [in the later parts of the Trump admi­nis­tra­ti­on] been unf­ro­zen and is making a real dif­fe­rence to Ukrai­ni­an for­ces figh­t­ing Russian-backed sepa­ra­tists in eas­tern districts.

But it is the Jave­lin which appears to be a game-changer, Ukraine’s defence minis­ter told CBC News.

“In cer­tain are­as, they can make a cri­ti­cal dif­fe­rence,” said Andriy Zagorodnyuk.

src: click (CBC) End of Context]

Fio­na Hill: “Poro­schen­ko schwitz­te buch­stäb­lich und wirk­te sehr ner­vös. ich erin­ne­re mich genau an sei­nen Gesichts­aus­druck als er her­ein­kam - er war sehr beklom­men denn für ihn stand viel auf dem Spiel.”

Poro­schen­ko: “Damals gab es bereits die rus­si­sche Besat­zung. Die Krim war besetzt und der Don­bas war besetzt.”

H. R. McMas­ter (Natio­nal Secu­ri­ty Advi­sor, Trump): “Der Prä­si­dent nahm Poro­schen­ko sehr freund­lich auf. Er war ein erfolg­rei­cher Geschäfts­mann genau wie Trump und auf der Ebe­ne ver­stan­den sie sich.”

Poro­schen­ko: “Ich sag­te: Mr Pre­si­dent wir brau­chen töd­li­che Waf­fen. Jave­lin ist eine sehr wirk­sa­me Panzerabwehrrakete.”

H. R. McMas­ter: “Prä­si­dent Poro­schen­ko gelang es Trump die Aus­wir­kun­gen der rus­si­schen Besat­zung auf die Ukrai­ne dar­zu­le­gen. Prä­si­dent Trump erkann­te die Bedro­hung und die Not­wen­dig­keit der Abschreckung”

Poro­schen­ko: “Als ich das Oval Office ver­ließ, war ich wie beflü­gelt, denn Prä­si­dent Trump hat­te mir das Jave­lin Sys­tem zuge­sagt. Das war ein groß­ar­ti­ger Tag.”

Spre­cher: “Doch die Rea­li­tät sieht anders aus. Als er zwei Wochen spä­ter zum G20 Gip­fel anreist, hat Trump den Ver­trag noch immer nicht unter­zeich­net hier soll er Putin erst­mals per­sön­lich begegnen.”

Fio­na Hill: “Wir erhiel­ten Hin­wei­se von der rus­si­schen Dele­ga­ti­on, dass Prä­si­dent Putin Waf­fen­lie­fe­run­gen an die Ukrai­ne, vor allem Jave­lin Rake­ten sehr kri­tisch sehen würde.”

John Kel­ly (Secreta­ry of Home­land Secu­ri­ty, Trump): “Der Prä­si­dent war sich der Tat­sa­che bewusst dass eine Unter­stüt­zung der Ukrai­ne Russ­land ver­är­gern wür­de und er woll­te wohl oder übel gute Bezie­hun­gen zu Putin aufbauen.”

John Kel­ly: “Trump heg­te die trü­ge­ri­sche Hoff­nung gute per­sön­li­che Bezie­hun­gen zu Putin sei­ne Hal­tung mäßi­gen würden.”

Spre­cher: “Das natio­na­le Sicher­heits­team ver­sucht Trump zu über­zeu­gen sein Ver­spre­chen an Poro­schen­ko zu halten.” 

John Kel­ly: “Ich mach­te klar, solan­ge es kei­nen Angriff gegen die Sou­ve­rä­ni­tät der Ukrai­ne gab, wer­de kein rus­si­scher Pan­zer von Jave­lin Rake­ten getrof­fen und auch kein rus­si­scher Sol­dat von Muni­ti­on aus den USA.”

H. R. McMas­ter: “Mein Argu­ment war dass Schwä­che Russ­land pro­vo­ziert ich glau­be Russ­land hat die Ukrai­ne 2014 ange­grif­fen weil Putin glaub­te die Ame­ri­ka­ner wür­den ohne­hin nicht reagie­ren, des­we­gen war es wich­tig die Ver­tei­di­gungs­fä­hig­keit der Ukrai­ne die Abschre­ckung zu stär­ken. Trump stimm­te zu.”

Spre­cher: “Ende 2017 gibt Trump den Befehl zur Lie­fe­rung töd­li­cher Waf­fen [Jave­lins, the Game­ch­an­ger in the Don­bas] an die Ukraine.”

Andrej Kelin (for­mer Amba­sa­dor of the Rus­si­an Fede­ra­ti­on to the UK): “Aus unse­rer Sicht hat­te Trump mit die­ser Ent­schei­dung eine rote Linie über­schrit­ten, er wur­de dazu über­re­det Jave­lin Rake­ten zu lie­fern und das war nur der Anfang der Auf­rüs­tung der Ukrai­ne. Der Anfang eines sehr gefähr­li­chen Wegs.”

John Bol­ton (Natio­nal Secu­ri­ty Advi­sor): “Putin betrach­te­ten die Lie­fe­rung schwe­rer Waf­fen an die Ukrai­ne als Bedro­hung. Er hielt die Ukrai­ne für ein ille­ga­les Staats­ge­bil­de das der Sowjet­uni­on dass Russ­land zu Unrecht ent­ris­sen wor­den war. Der Zer­fall der Sowjet­uni­on war für Putin die größ­te geo­po­li­ti­sche Kata­stro­phe des 20 Jahrhunderts.”

Chom­sky of cour­se being the intel­lec­tu­al that then prompt­ly finds out through litera­ry ana­ly­sis - and prompt­ly also makes public - that this concession -

John Kel­ly: “Ich mach­te klar, solan­ge es kei­nen Angriff gegen die Sou­ve­rä­ni­tät der Ukrai­ne gab, wer­de kein rus­si­scher Pan­zer von jeve­lin Rake­ten getrof­fen und auch kein rus­si­scher Sol­dat von Muni­ti­on aus den USA.”

- was vio­la­ted by Ukrai­ne in Novem­ber of 2021 (or slight­ly ear­lier), try­ing to free the Don­bas - refe­ren­cing this article:

Ukrai­ni­an Tro­ops Have Been Firing American-Made Jave­lin Mis­si­les At Russian-Backed Forces

The dis­clo­sure that Ukrai­ni­an tro­ops have been employ­ing Jave­lin mis­si­les in com­bat comes as fears grow that Rus­si­an could launch a new invasion.

JOSEPH TREVITHICK

POSTED ON NOV 22, 2021 6:18 PM EST

The head of Ukraine’s top mili­ta­ry intel­li­gence agen­cy has con­fir­med, for what appears to be the first time, that Ukrai­ni­an tro­ops in the country’s eas­tern Don­bass regi­on have fired American-made Jave­lin anti-tank mis­si­les at Rus­si­an or Russian-supported for­ces. The­se mis­si­les, along with other advan­ced wea­pons that the Ukrai­ni­an mili­ta­ry has acqui­red in recent years, such as Tur­kish Bay­raktar TB2 armed dro­nes, would be important fac­tors in the out­co­me of any future major mili­ta­ry con­fron­ta­ti­on with Rus­sia. Fears are gro­wing that the Krem­lin could at least be pre­pa­red to launch a new, large-scale inva­si­on of eas­tern Ukrai­ne as ear­ly as January.

Ukrai­ni­an Bri­ga­dier Gene­ral Kyry­lo Buda­nov tal­ked about the ope­ra­tio­nal use of Jave­lins as part of a recent inter­view with Mili­ta­ry Times, which he con­duc­ted through an inter­pre­ter. Buda­nov, who runs the Chief Direc­to­ra­te of Intel­li­gence of the Minis­try of Defence of Ukrai­ne, also known by its Ukrai­ni­an acro­nym GUR MOU, used the oppor­tu­ni­ty to call for more help from the U.S. government as he sound­ed like the alarm about the Kremlin’s unusu­al deploy­ments of lar­ge num­bers of mili­ta­ry units to are­as oppo­si­te Russia’s bor­ders with Ukrai­ne in recent weeks.

src: click

Second source: Peter Zei­han here at 17min in.

The second big deploy­ment of rus­si­an army units on the ukrai­ni­an bor­der hap­pens from Okto­ber to mid Novem­ber 2021. US deli­ve­r­ed Jave­lins were likely used in Don­bas, by the Ukrai­ne, star­ting from Octo­ber 2021.

The US then prompt­ly covers this up and two mon­ths later allows the Ukrai­ne to dis­tri­bu­te Jave­lins throughout Ukrai­ne more free­ly - and use them - even without an offi­cial Rus­si­an inva­si­on being under­way (but that was a chan­ge from their pre­vious posi­ti­on, that was only imple­men­ted in decem­ber of 2021):

04. 12. 2021 (Poli­ti­co) - Can Ukrai­ne deploy U.S.-made wea­pons against the Russians?

The­re are no geo­gra­phic restric­tions on the deploy­ment of the mis­si­les, which means Ukrai­ni­an for­ces can trans­port, dis­tri­bu­te and use them any time.

As Rus­sia amas­ses the hig­hest num­ber of tro­ops on Ukraine’s bor­der sin­ce 2014, the ques­ti­on for Kyiv now beco­mes: Is it time to start put­ting U.S.-made wea­pons in the field?

Ukrai­ne purcha­sed 210 Jave­lin anti-tank mis­si­les and 37 laun­chers from the U.S. in 2018 for appro­xi­mate­ly $47 mil­li­on, and the Sta­te Depart­ment appro­ved the sale of a second batch of 150 mis­si­les and 10 launch units in late 2019. But with them came a varie­ty of restric­tions on their usa­ge, inclu­ding that they be stored in wes­tern Ukrai­ne, far from the front lines.

The Jave­lin is a shoulder-fired mis­si­le that uses infra­red gui­d­ance to tar­get and des­troy an enemy tank from up to 3 miles away. For­mer Pre­si­dent Donald Trump first appro­ved the sale of the wea­pon to Ukrai­ne after his pre­de­ces­sor, for­mer Pre­si­dent Barack Oba­ma, refu­sed the request, due to fears that pro­vi­ding let­hal aid to Kyiv would pro­vo­ke Moscow.

Wess Mit­chell, who ser­ved as the Trump administration’s top Sta­te Depart­ment offi­cial over­see­ing Euro­pean and Eura­si­an affairs, noted that the Jave­lins and other let­hal wea­pons are desi­gned not for first use but to deter Moscow from encroa­ching on Ukrai­ni­an territory.

But while Washing­ton urges Kyiv to use the Jave­lins only for defen­si­ve pur­po­ses and requi­res that the wea­pons be stored in a secu­re faci­li­ty away from the con­flict, the­re are no geo­gra­phic restric­tions on the actu­al deploy­ment of the mis­si­les, U.S. offi­cials said, which means that Ukrai­ni­an for­ces can trans­port, dis­tri­bu­te and use them at any time.

“Jave­lins are defen­si­ve wea­pons and the United Sta­tes expects Ukrai­ne to deploy them respon­si­b­ly and stra­te­gi­cal­ly when nee­ded for defen­si­ve pur­po­ses,” said Pen­ta­gon spo­kes­per­son Mike Howard.

If the Jave­lins were to be moved, it doesn’t necessa­ri­ly mean they’d be used — in Kyiv’s esti­ma­ti­on, the thres­hold for actual­ly firing the wea­pons has not yet been met, accord­ing to two Ukrai­ni­ans fami­li­ar with the dis­cus­sions. The red line, they said, would be if Rus­si­an tanks cros­sed over into Ukrai­ni­an territory.

The cur­rent Rus­si­an move­ment in Eas­tern Euro­pe is exact­ly the kind of sce­n­a­rio the Jave­lin sale was desi­gned to coun­ter, said two for­mer seni­or U.S. defen­se offi­cials fami­li­ar with the agreement.

src: click (Poli­ti­co)

Not only that: 

But while Washing­ton urges Kyiv to use the Jave­lins only for defen­si­ve pur­po­ses and requi­res that the wea­pons be stored in a secu­re faci­li­ty away from the conflict

- but also this was in play at that time:

John Kel­ly: “Ich mach­te klar, solan­ge es kei­nen Angriff gegen die Sou­ve­rä­ni­tät der Ukrai­ne gab, wer­de kein rus­si­scher Pan­zer von jeve­lin Rake­ten getrof­fen und auch kein rus­si­scher Sol­dat von Muni­ti­on aus den USA.”

So ARTE of cour­se doesnt catch this. But Chom­sky does.

So then he gets publicly cha­rac­ter assas­si­na­ted by Vlad Vex­ler, whom ARTE then also prompt­ly fea­tures in their “Truth and Pro­pa­gan­da” Documentary.

After which Vlad Vex­ler shows up in the Friends of Ukrai­ne Round­ta­ble #2 fea­turing Anna from com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons, which ARTE of cour­se doesnt rea­li­ze, as they are too busy green­ligh­t­ing a Selen­skyj Attract Image Docu­men­ta­ry fea­turing Marie­lui­se Beck from the Zen­trum Libe­ra­le Moder­ne.

As that doesnt work, Chom­sky now real­ly gets on the US Pro­pa­gan­da shit­list, get­ting essen­ti­al­ly the shou­ting down by an idi­ot tre­at­ment - by a Radio Free Europe/Radio liber­ty employee:

You know - Radio Free Europe/Radio Liber­ty, the only us ame­ri­can broad­cas­ter that is publicly fun­ded by the US government and stran­ge­ly enough is only broad­cas­ting abroad - but in the past mon­ths, also stran­ge­ly enough final­ly had secu­red enough fun­ding to also expand to romania:

22th of June 2024 here at 24 min in:

Jamie Fly (For­mer Radio Free Euro­pe / Radio Liber­ty CEO):

“I think it’s important uh con­text, his­to­ri­cal con­text for the US Roma­ni­an rela­ti­ons­hip, when I was pre­si­dent of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liber­ty, we retur­ned uh to Roma­nia, relaun­ched our Roma­ni­an lan­guage ser­vice - I had many occa­si­ons whe­re I was able to visit uh Bucha­rest and the thing I think Ame­ri­cans need to under­stand is Roma­ni­ans LOVE Free­dom uh and it’s uh now in their uh DNA uh and that was an important bond given the work of Radio Free Euro­pe uh during the Com­mu­nist era, and it was - I had this expe­ri­ence in many coun­tries I ope­ra­ted in, but Roma­nia was perhaps the most fer­vent. When I went to Roma­nia as pre­si­dent of Radio Free Euro­pe, peop­le would descri­be to me with tears in their eyes the role that Ame­ri­can Broad­cas­ting play­ed during a very dark uh peri­od and uh were always asking us to do more the­re and I was exci­ted that we were able to to return during my ten­u­re um so and I think that rela­tes to why Roma­nia [!] now has sta­ked out such a clear lea­ders­hip role uh in the regi­on, advan­cing uh the values that uh us pro­gramming cer­tain­ly repre­sen­ted during that time so it’s it’s gre­at to be uh with you, so may­be I’ll start broad­ly just with the sta­te of the US Roma­nia uh rela­ti­ons­hip which you kind of touched on at the end but I was struck by your note that US enga­ge­ment needs to be basi­cal­ly reli­able, pre­dic­ta­ble and not to get par­ti­san or - not to say make you say anything too undi­plo­ma­tic but um the US is always dis­trac­ted uh and even though the US is very enga­ged uh in sup­port of Ukrai­ne right now, Chi­na is uh a gro­wing chal­len­ge drawing attention.”

So then Chom­sky and I get a stroke.

Chom­sky for real, and recovering:

Noam Chom­sky Lea­ves Hos­pi­tal After Suf­fe­ring Stroke

The world-renowned lin­gu­ist and dis­si­dent Noam Chom­sky was dischar­ged from a São Pau­lo hos­pi­tal in Bra­zil on Tues­day as he con­ti­nues to reco­ver from a stro­ke last year that impac­ted his abi­li­ty to speak. His wife Vale­ria recent­ly told a news­pa­per in Bra­zil that the 95-year-old Chom­sky still fol­lows the news and rai­ses his left arm in anger when he sees images of Israel’s war on Gaza. Fal­se reports that Chom­sky had died went viral online on Tuesday.

src: click

Me only figu­ra­tively for the sake of com­ing to the end of this posting.

But at least, we can all still watch impar­ti­al ARTE.

Veröffentlicht by me am Montag, 24. Juni 2024 unter Allgemein, Media.