I’ve now seen everything.

19. März 2022

In the cra­zy speech appar­ent­ly Putins first, and main argu­ment was Natos east­ward expan­si­on. Accord­ing to DW.

While other pun­dits found, that he also didnt speak about Nato almost at all (ins­tead he deli­ve­r­ed a cra­zy rant, mind you -) and ins­tead made his encra­zed speech about Sta­lin, natio­na­lism and his own per­so­nal his­to­ric inter­pre­ta­ti­on (which later tur­ned out to be an old, shared histo­ry con­cept com­mon­place in most of rus­sia, by vir­tue of their edu­ca­ti­on sys­tem, but which in the short term was also decla­red appease­ment to the intel­lec­tu­al class by wes­tern com­men­ta­tors for the first two weeks), that shows that he is drea­ming of a revi­ta­liz­a­ti­on of the soviet empi­re, which he hates. Becau­se he put down Sta­lin in that speech “for no rea­son”. He’s that crazy.

Dont remem­ber the exact speech whe­re that assess­ment was made, but I’m cer­tain I’ve lin­ked the video in here befo­re. Actual­ly, pro­bab­ly qui­te a few, whe­re that assess­ment was made.

What the DW video mis­sed: click

I’m sure that was just a harm­less mista­ke tough - they asked a for­mer US ambassa­dor to Ukrai­ne what he unders­tood tho­se com­mit­ments would have been, and thats clear­ly enough infor­ma­ti­on for most com­mon peop­le, DW is tar­ge­ting an explana­ti­on video at. And then arri­ved at:

The impact of NATO expan­si­on can bet­ter be unders­tood by not focu­sing on NATO expan­si­on at all.”

Thank you DW!

Oh, and thats btw. the nar­ra­ti­ve that was first crea­ted by the Hoo­ver insti­tu­te on March the 6th. To side­li­ne Mear­s­hei­mers view, which was sta­ted as the first sen­tence of the Panel crea­ted to dis­credit him, but later at least Mear­s­hei­mer was allo­wed to publish an arti­cle in the eco­no­mist sta­ting his long held views.

Thats more than pro­pa­gan­da, thats an attempt at rewri­ting the majo­ri­ty com­mon narrative.

And for DW - you do that with an exp­lai­ner video, with frea­king “child­rens pro­gramming (TV show)” tona­li­ty, and catchy BGM, come on - learn it, its so easy, bang your head to the beat? You’ll get it, its so easy!

Oh - and when you get to the nar­ra­ti­ve, that at least one of the con­cepts that threa­tened Putin in terms of Nato expan­si­on had been the “suc­cess fac­tor of demo­cra­cy”, then plea­se also dont for­get, that Ukrai­ne wasnt exact­ly a pro­spe­ring nati­on (IMF report) befo­re­hand, and then dont stop the­re, but at least go into Orwells inter­pre­ta­ti­on that wars in for­eign coun­tries are only fought if “money­ed clas­ses” think they are going to pro­fit from them, in terms of mone­ta­ry gain, sys­temic sta­bi­liz­a­ti­on, demo­gra­phic concerns, …

In which case “fear of demo­cra­cy” also has not­hing to do with it, neit­her would have Nato - and while we are at it, Nor­way, Fin­land, Esto­nia, Lat­via, Lit­hua­nia or Poland are not well func­tio­n­ing demo­cra­ci­es? (edit: And - to a les­ser extent, Arme­nia.) The fear of tho­se coun­tries must have been so stark, it liter­al­ly beca­me one of the main explana­ti­ons for an ent­i­re DW pie­ce on the rea­sons for war in the Ukraine.

The first explana­ti­on are geo­po­li­ti­cal con­cerns - you know like NATO, or shit, my access to the black sea will be gone in just a few years. Or shit, long ran­ge mis­si­les, that can be armed with nuclear payloads will be sta­tio­ned the­re. Or shit, the­re are ener­gy resour­ces the­re we might need.

The third explana­ti­on is “Putins per­so­nal reasons”.

Fuck off.

You know a dead beat easy way to iden­ti­fy pro­pa­gan­da? When a news chan­nel tells you some­thing is the case, becau­se of a bad per­sons fear of a hig­her con­cept that you love, and a cra­zy per­sons per­so­nal interests.

Boy, did the Hoo­ver Insti­tu­te FUCKING deli­ver this time around.

Hinterlasse eine Antwort