Gut, damit haben wir im gesamten deutschsprachigen Raum ja noch ein wesentliches Medium das Journalismus betreibt.
Was machen die anderen 35?
Die Munition geht aus!
Und um fair zu bleiben, bei der Artilleriemunition ist es eine shortage bei den Propellent charges, dh den Chemikalien um die Dinger in die Luft zu bekommen. Schwer was am freien Markt zu kaufen, was am freien Markt nicht mehr existiert, weil wir damit seit zwei Jahren lustige Feuerwerksshow, mit 700.000 Toten und Verletzten spielen.
take their “something, something of dignity” away, take their lies away that Minsk 2 was “illegal, because brokered under force”, take their US sponsors away egging on the crowd, (holler if you are a US senator on a ukraine trip) - and they’ve got nothing.
But in the court of public opinion and media manipulation, those are the only things that count.
What nice blond hair. What perfect makeup. What honorable people, protesting for dignity. What totally fair polls in current day Ukraine - that always go out in their favor, because the east of the country simply isn’t counted anymore…
Makes me sick for a week.
Maybe bad debaters, but to have two of those fucking idiots think, that they can coast in on loaded propaganda terms, and their fucking streaked blond hair.
Makes me sick.
Worked like a treat on german television though.
FUCKING
PROFESSIONAL
(sponsored)
LIARS.
edit: Hey, youtube comments for once got it right:
I included a 10 days margin before the actual attack on the 24th of february, because by then apparently everyone important in the US security scene already knew the attack was underway -
So, it turns out, that the results are STARKLY different.
Which is a good indicator, that Victoria Nuland probably meant the grievance narrative, that russia came up with - after the attack. Or the collective west, thats not so clear.
Someone ask a web based ngram dataset for web news.
Also, it turns out this article on February the 18h 2022 actually warned everyone in the collective West not to be duped by Putin’s Grievences against Nato:
Don’t be Duped by Putin’s Grievances against NATO FSI Stanford
Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies FSI Stanford
Someone check if thats the same person, I didnt. Age bracket fits.
Now, lets look at the actual argument in the article, right?!
The idea that the West is goading Russia into a war with Ukraine is not only popular in Russia, where 50% of the population believes the West is responsible for rising tensions, but also here in the United States. The New York Times ran a front-page story with the headline “Is Biden’s Strategy with Putin Working, or Goading Moscow to War?” Harvard professor Stephen Walt blamed the military buildup at the Ukrainian border on the “hubris, wishful thinking, and liberalism” of the U.S. and its European allies. Meanwhile, Republicans dropped their historic hard line on Russia and accused President Joe Biden of fomenting the crisis; Senator Josh Hawley even called for abandoning America’s longstanding commitment to Ukrainian membership in NATO. Taking the argument several steps further, Fox News host Tucker Carlson described the brewing conflict as a “manufactured crisis” devised by “restless, power-hungry neocons in Washington” and mused, “Why is it disloyal to side with Russia but loyal to side with Ukraine?”
It is deeply concerning that influential voices in the West are faulting the U.S. for the escalation of tensions in Ukraine. These commentators ignore Russia’s agency in fomenting the crisis and lend credence to Putin’s justification for war. Putin — it is worth remembering — annexed Crimea in 2014 and backed a violent rebellion in the Donbas region that has led to over 13,000 deaths. Putin (not Biden) has amassed over 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border and drawn up elaborate plans to fabricate a Ukrainian attack on Russia. These are inconvenient truths for Kremlin leaders who prefer to perpetuate the myth of Russian innocence.
The grievance narrative is a trap and not to be used in the west, like western scholars regularly did before February the 18th 2022, because -
- It would lend credence to Putin’s justification for war
- it is worth remembering — [Russia] annexed Crimea in 2014 and backed a violent rebellion in the Donbas region that has led to over 13,000 deaths.
- Putin (not Biden) has amassed over 100,000 troops on the Ukrainian border and drawn up elaborate plans to fabricate a Ukrainian attack on Russia.
So naturally, western scholars should not use that argument anymore.
So - this cant be used as an argument anymore, because it would help Putin, because the retaking of Crimea wasnt an act of grievance [WHAT?], and because it was Putin not Biden, who amassed 100.000 troops at the border - and drew up elaborated plans of the Ukraine having attacked Russia - which both arent directly related to russias grievance narrative against the collective west.
Any more obvious reasons we shouldnt use the narrative anymore? You know like western scholors did even a week before this article was published?
Sure:
The idea that the West is goading Russia into a war with Ukraine is not only popular in Russia, where 50% of the population believes the West is responsible for rising tensions, but also here in the United States.
Attention, this is also popular in Russia! Could be used as a war narrative, better call it fake from now on. (Feb 18, 2022)
Ok, so first - I’ve found the chief editor of the austrian newspaper “Der Standard”. Its Victoria Nuland. Took a while, but there is total congruency in all relevant positions.
Except for one.
Moderator: “There is often being concerned, by the Ukrainians and others that russia would want to negotiate over Ukraines head with the United States, I guess I’d ask you if you or the US government had gotten any indications of the Russians trying to engage with the United States in backchannel negotiations over Ukraine.”
Nuland: “Thats always the russian way, you know. Everything about Ukraine without Ukraine. You know I faced the same, when I was in UR [?] negotiating with Putins guys in 15 and 16, you know, they think that this is about a much larger chess board, and this is the narrative of greavance, that Putin has woven to try to justify, what he has done, that this is about european security, that this is about NATO, which after all is a defensive alliance, and never intended to come anywhere near russia unless it was attacked, you know… He will always try that. But we are resolute, and Ukrainians are resolute, that they lead in any discussions of this, and nothing about Ukraine, without Ukraine.”
Yeah… So first thank you for the confirmation that Putin is not a crazed history buff making impromptu snap decisions based on historical ideas and his mood. Its almost like thats just a propaganda narrative no one relevant really believes in -
See also:
Hanno Pevkur (Minister of Defence of the Republic of Estonia), 31. 05.2023, Globsec Conference:
“What Russia wants to achieve, the political goals, let’s be honest - and they, these political goals of Russia have never changed, they want to have a grey-zone between Russia and NATO, they want to have a control over this grey-zone and this is what they want to achieve. And they want to have some “security guarantees” for themselves, sorry this is not the Free World and this is what Ukraine is fighting for at the moment, that they are fighting for - the Free World and rule-based world and this is why we support Ukraine so this is obvious and then this is why we can never accept this approach of Russia, looking at international law.”
- so thats ahm… good to know… Thank you for confirming that, first and foremost.
About that “greavance” narrative Putin was building up to “rectify all of this”, what timeframe are we talking here? Because when the Russians engaged the US with their “european security infrastructure concernes” and wanted to hold talks (December 2021) - there was no grievance narrative in play yet - everyone was quite polite and all around elated that the meeting could finally take place, and when Russia brought forward similar concerns in writing with NATO afterwards (and Stoltenberg even repeated that statement months later) - there still was this public aura of tentative hope that there wouldnt be any war, which actually most of the analysts at the time agreed on, as the majority of them believed this maybe would escalate to a more active conflict in the Donbas, but nothing beyond that - and this was just both sides rattling the chains, and then the US flat out ignored any and all of russias security concernes (because they were “far too excessive” (the initial demands were, not the red lines, according to Thomas Graham of the CFR), or so the public narrative goes) - so at which point did the “greavance” narrative “Putin expertly weaved” kick in Miss Nuland if you dont mind me asking?
About that grievance narrative the russians used to rectify that war internally, Miss Nuland… When exactly did you notice it becoming a greavance narrative?
Might be important for european history and the historical public record in terms of the actual sequence of events.
After you closed down all efforts and blocked all negotiations “over the heads of the Ukraine”? Or before?
Oh and by the way, thank you for confirming, that Russia actually tried to negotiate with the US on a regional peace, but that the US denied all efforts that would have gone over Ukraines head… And that that may actually be the source of the “the Ukraine has to decide for itself” rhetorical figure in the western narrative.
I havent heard that talked about/represented even in english speaking media before…
Huh…
Lets just end with: Nuland should give more interviews.
That self assured “I’m not that smart, but want to show great initiative and poise” flair and bravado that comes across in all answers, actually is very helpful in coaxing out more of the actual information on what took place, than you might think. Actually - this time around you were exceptionally helpful, Miss Nuland.
Now lets work on a way to also make this the public stance of Der Standard, to have that pleasant total congruency in all relevant positions with austrian news media again. 🙂
Listen up Standard, you’ve heard it from Victoria here - Russia tried to negotiate a regional peace, more than once, with the US directly - but the US didnt want to betray Ukraine so… They stopped their military aid packages.
Got that? Good, so now repeat after me: The russians actually tried to get a regional peace settlement with the US several times, using backchannels.
Now you alone, german speaking news media, its actually fun.
Repeat after Victoria Nuland.
edit: Oh, the buzzword of this months conference was “Ukraine venturing into more asymetric warfare”, in a sense at least.
Die Ukraine kann im nächsten Jahr wenig tun als zu verteidigen, rekrutieren, auszubilden und ihre Verluste gering halten. Wobei Verteidigen etwas schwieriger sein dürfte als auf der russischen Seite im Herbst, da die neuralgischen Punkte für einen Durchbruch der Frontlinien antizipierbar waren.
Also - was ist an der Stelle das deutsche Messaging?
- Taurus könnte das russische System ins Wanken bringen. Nein. Mit Taurus gezielt Ziele zu vernichten macht ökonomisch nur Sinn, wenn wir von hochpräzisen Radaranlagen, Hauptversorgungsrouten und Kommandoeinrichtungen sprechen. Alles in der Defensive jetzt nicht wirklich bedeutend. Um Versorgungsknoten zu zerstören hat die Ukraine in der Vergangenheit Präzisionsartillerie genutzt, als das noch funktioniert hat (Russland hat dann ein breiteres Netz gezogen). Und selbst das war in späteren Kriegsphasen nicht sehr ökonomisch. Taurus würde für high value Targets Sinn machen, die in der verteidigenden Position - meinem Kenntnisstand nach nicht wirklich offensichtlich sind. (Munitionslager auf der Krim, Umschlagplätze für Rüstung auf der Krim, Militärflughäfen in Russland…) Vorteil Taurus: Sehr schwer dagegen verteidigbar.
- die Ukraine muss entscheiden, was sie tun möchte. Ok. Drohnen noch und nöcher. Den Vormarsch der Russen stoppen. Wird schwieriger als anders rum. Verbraucht aber uu. weniger Soldaten, da den Stellenwert von Drohnen und Minen jetzt alle erkannt haben. Kann die Zeit für Aufrüstung und Ausbildung nutzen. Will aber nicht so viele Leute rekrutieren, zumindest nicht am Anfang, da schlechte PR Resonanz, hat die Militärführung auf “macht jetzt alles was der Einsatzplaner vorgibt” gewechselt, möchte aber im Westen des Landes bereits wieder “Wideraufbau und Normalität” simulieren. Irgendwie geht ihr trotzdem die Bevölkerung aus, aber in sechs Jahren kommen sicher noch alle geflohenen Mütter mit Kindern zurück? Wenig wahrscheinlich, also Sieg 2026 als Hauptperspektive.
Bedeutet wiederrum, aktuell gibts ein Jahr nichts zu tun als Durchhalte Parolen zu streuen, also was macht das deutsche Expertenwesen?
Mit Russland gehts bald zu Ende, Taurus könnten ein Gamchanger sein, die Ukraine jagt jetzt Kollaborateure, Ukraine und ihre Nato Beitrittsoption nach dem Krieg, Selenskyj sitzt fest im Sattel, wann greift Putin den Westen an? Zündet Putin die Weltallatombombe? Wie die Russen des Krieges überdrüssig werden. (Aktuell drei Erfolgsmeldungen, und Präsidentenwahlen in weniger als vier Wochen, Nawalnyj tot, Opposition im Land nicht mehr vorhanden, …) Aber gleichzeitig auch: Nur der Sieg der Ukraine kann Putin jetzt noch von der Regierungsspitze verdrängen!
Also wenn das der Start des Jahres ist in dem die Ukraine meist in der verteidigenden Rolle ist, wird der Rest von 2024 recht heiter…
As in - nicht eines der aktuellen Narrative passt dazu…
Aber solange man Putin sagen und damit Gespräche beenden kann - weil Putin…
Läuft.
Gut, dass niemand darauf geachtet hat, dass der Krieg mit den selben Parolen bereits ins dritte Jahr geht. Wir glauben immer noch an das selbe, oder? Die Ukraine entscheidet alles selbst. Das muss so sein, über andere Lösungen nachzudenken ist Hochverrat, … (Siehe Gisi im Spiegelinterview)
edit: Es gibt aber natürlich auch wieder gute Nachrichten:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaZmKCTYYl8 (Gut das ist jetzt zwei Wochen alt… Ich hab mir gedacht es passt.. )
Diese Webseite verwendet Cookies um die Nutzungserfahrung für seine Besucher zu verbessern. Bitte informiere dich bei Gelegenheit darüber wie sich Cookies auf deine Privatsphäre im Web auswirken.
