More setting the narrative stuff

20. März 2022

- [Stance in this video] Ukrai­ne didnt release the actu­al points of the 15 point peace talks dis­cus­sions, becau­se “they were so insa­ne, they dindt bother”.

vs. a rea­li­ty of:
- Selen­sky sta­ted in a public speech that the more aggres­si­ve, and devas­ta­ting the attacks, the bet­ter, becau­se it hel­ps him gather poli­ti­cal sup­port in coun­tries all over the world.

or
- Rus­si­an pun­dit decla­ring, the US will have no inte­rest whatsoever to not let this war esca­la­te into a long term con­flict of attri­ti­on - and Selen­skyj wouldnt sur­vi­ve, stan­ding up against that US posi­ti­on. (Mea­ning, essen­ti­al­ly, no peace talks for qui­te a while.)

Hmmm, let me think. Yeah, I dont belie­ve a sin­gle word of the wes­tern posi­ti­on on that one.


- [Stance in this video] The short ans­wer on why Putin rai­sed stra­te­gic nuclear wea­pons rea­di­ness levels, was distraction.

vs.
- Was a direct threat.

or
- Was the­re to trig­ger a mind­set that pre­vents US and allied Part­ners from cros­sing cer­tain lines.

Hmmm, let me think. Yeah, I dont belie­ve a sin­gle word of the public wes­tern inter­pre­ta­ti­on on that one.


- [In this video] Putin fea­red suc­cess­ful demo­cra­cy suc­cess­ful­ly under­mi­ning his sta­te con­cept (Out­look on eco­no­mic growth in the Ukrai­ne).

vs.
- at the cur­rent demo­gra­phic out­look, Rus­sia without “puf­fer sta­tes” will not be able to be defen­ded mili­ta­ri­ly, as a regio­nal block any­mo­re, and wont have any capa­ci­ty to do anything about it - in about 30 years time.

or
- Putin saw the direct inter­ven­ti­on in poli­ti­cal sys­tems in for­mer block coun­tries and finan­cing of pro wes­tern oppo­si­ti­on par­ties as a direct thre­at to rus­si­as powerstucture.

Hmmm, let me think. Yeah, I dont belie­ve a sin­gle word of the popu­lar wes­tern inter­pre­ta­ti­on on that one.


- [In this video] Cyber­at­tacks and efforts to put Trump into power (which I dont dis­pu­te) was an attempt at reaching Rus­si­as poli­ti­cal goals, at a far lower cost and some­what succeeded.

vs.
- Desta­bi­li­zing Euro­pean poli­tics, via the finan­cing of ultra right wing par­ties, was an attempt at reaching Rus­si­as poli­ti­cal goals, at a far lower cost and almost succeeded.

or
- Low cost desta­bi­liz­a­ti­on opti­ons that can be ups­ca­led to some­thing more use­ful in case they draw trac­tion are a use­ful opti­on in the tool­set of all major for­eign intel­li­gence agen­ci­es, if needed.

Hmmm, let me think. Yeah, I dont necessa­ri­ly belie­ve a sin­gle word of the popu­lar wes­tern inter­pre­ta­ti­on on that one.


- [In this video] United Sta­tes poli­cy of con­tain­ment, which allo­wed for Rus­sia to take action and gain influ­ence in Syria, up until Bela­rus in 2021, becau­se we shared com­mon goals in terms of the wes­tern secu­ri­ty poli­cy out­look, and drew a red line at an exten­ded influ­ence zone in eas­tern euro­pe, is a pro­ble­ma­tic view, becau­se it wouldnt allow for natio­nal self­de­ter­mi­na­ti­on in tho­se buf­fer sta­tes, and alt­hough from gre­at power poli­tics per­spec­ti­ves, you think its ok - if you live in one of the­se coun­tries its a serious problem.

vs.
- The west has now a legi­ti­miz­a­ti­on pro­blem that unites ener­gy pro­du­cing coun­tries, becau­se the con­cept of pro­xy wars didnt care the least about self determination.

or
- They sim­ply star­ted to make the self deter­mi­na­ti­on stuff up, when Ukrai­ne bond­ed with US inte­rests short­ly after moving against ger­man and euro­pean inte­rests (Steinmeier-Formula) in the mon­ths befo­re Minsk 2 failed/stalled.

Hmmm, let me think. Yeah, I dont belie­ve a sin­gle word of the popu­lar wes­tern inter­pre­ta­ti­on on that one.


- [In this video] Con­flict doesnt pay, the­re was no rea­son for rus­sia to stand up, becau­se of very pro­fi­ta­ble eco­no­mic rela­ti­ons with the west.

vs.
- Ener­gy inde­pen­dence was the sta­ted goal of the cur­rent euro­pean com­mis­si­ons “Green new Deal” initia­ti­ve, incre­a­sing Europe’s ener­gy inde­pen­dence from fos­si­le fuels mid to long term.

or
- We decre­a­sed long term ener­gy sup­ply con­tracts with rus­sia, to les­sen ener­gy depen­den­cy, then tried to buy up the mis­sing del­ta on spot mar­kets, and when rus­sia didnt sup­ply the dif­fe­rence, even though pri­ces shot through the roof, we bla­med them for fol­lowing ulte­rior moti­ves. Then fro­ze Nord­stream 2 instant­ly after the first unmar­ked vehi­cles cros­sed over into the Don­bas in the star­ting hours of the cur­rent con­flict, sug­ges­ting a per­ma­nent, or long term free­ze of the pro­ject (depen­ding on the news out­let it was one or the other), while Uvdl still had reser­va­tions to use the word “inva­si­on” on CNN. Of cour­se, that quick­ly clea­red up. Oh, and the pre­text of stop­ping the initia­ti­ve was writ­ten under the Trump admi­nis­tra­ti­on in a bipar­ti­san effort. And Selen­skyj accu­sed the Ger­man par­la­ment of “only thin­king about eco­no­mics”, when they were con­si­de­ring Nord­stream 2, becau­se it would have threa­tened Ukrai­ne secu­ri­ty inte­rests, for Rus­sia to be able to shift even parts of natu­ral gas deli­very to a dif­fe­rent pipe­line, even though the EU and Ger­ma­ny gua­ran­te­ed mini­mum quan­ti­ties, that had to be deli­ve­r­ed through the Ukrai­ne pipe­line, and were the Ukrai­nes main finan­cier for deve­lo­p­ment pro­jects, inclu­ding deve­lo­p­ment pro­jects in the green ener­gy sector.

Hmmm, let me think. Yeah, I dont belie­ve a sin­gle word of the popu­lar wes­tern inter­pre­ta­ti­on on that one either.









Hinterlasse eine Antwort