harlekin.me

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

edit: Future me: Damit konn­te jetzt aber also wirk­lich kei­ner rechnen:

10. Sep­tem­ber 2024, 08.09 Uhr: Bericht - Kei­ne Gesprä­che mit Kiew vor Rück­zug ukrai­ni­scher Streitkräfte
Russ­land wird kei­ne Ver­hand­lun­gen mit der Ukrai­ne füh­ren, bis sich sei­ne Streit­kräf­te aus rus­si­schen Gebie­ten zurück­ge­zo­gen haben. Das bereich­tet die Nach­rich­ten­agen­tur Tass unter Beru­fung auf den rus­si­schen Sekre­tär des Natio­na­len Sicher­heits­ra­tes, Ser­gej Schoigu.

src: click (BR24)

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.

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 diplo­ma­cy 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.

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…

- 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…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLSOqi--G2A

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.

heu­te hat wie­der ein Stan­dard Nut­zer die Pro­pa­gan­da durchschaut.

Und wird dafür natür­lich von der Öffent­lich­keit abgestraft.

Der Gag hier ist es natür­lich, dass der Jour­na­lis­mus dar­auf setzt, das “legi­tim” vom Leser mit “legal” gleich­ge­setzt wird.

src: click

Und natür­lich war und ist der Angriff der Ukrai­ne in Kursk völkerrechtswidrig.

Das macht aber nichts, da wir ja nicht dar­über spre­chen dür­fen (Kül­tur­stät­ten zer­stört und geschän­det, Artil­le­rie in Stadt­zen­tren und aus Stadt­zen­tren her­aus ein­ge­setzt, ohne dass zuvor eva­ku­iert wur­de, kei­ne Pla­nung was mit der Zivil­be­völ­ke­rung pas­sie­ren soll, auch nicht drei Wochen spä­ter, anstatt­des­sen aber gleich mal schön Nach­rich­ten­sper­re ver­hängt -- jeder die­ser drei Punk­te ist völkerrechtswidrig.).

Und wenn ichs aus­spre­che werd ich öffent­lich nie­der­ge­prü­gelt wie ein FUCKING Parriah.

Denn das hier ist ja ein guter völ­ker­rechts­wid­ri­ger Angriffs­krieg. Einer von unseren.

Aber hey, bright eyes - und good news, ein Stan­dard­le­ser hat die PROPAGANDA die öster­rei­chi­sche Bevöl­ke­rung gedro­schen wird, geblickt - und ist dahin­ter gestiegen.

Immer­hin.

Einer.