harlekin.me

the bub­blies of mind rea­ding Putin for­tu­ne tel­lers. “Becau­se he’s a KGB ope­ra­ti­ve, he knows you have to have con­tin­gen­cy planning.”

(edit: Video wur­de mitt­ler­wei­le off­line genom­men, hier (im ein­ge­bet­te­ten Video) ist noch ein Teil zu sehen: click)
(edit: Das Video wur­de in einer ande­ren Fas­sung wie­der in vol­ler Län­ge online gestellt. Video­link im Bei­trag wur­de von mir ersetzt. Das hier war der alte.)

Might be a bit unfair, becau­se it is Fio­na Hill (the BEST of the mind rea­ding Putin for­tu­ne tel­lers), but nevertheless… (Her four stone sta­tu­es theo­ry of how Putin real­ly thinks at the end of the talk is priceless…)

Nar­ra­ti­ve goes as fol­lows: Becau­se it was the ide­al moment to attack from the rus­si­an per­spec­ti­ve, and Putin was unab­le to fathom a dif­fe­rent out­co­me, becau­se he defi­nes natio­na­li­ty eth­ni­cal­ly and not ideo­lo­gi­cal­ly, he inva­ded, and was cer­tain, this would be a repeat of the annex­a­ti­on of cri­mea, which is also why he sent in poli­ce for­ces -- but then wait for it, he doesnt think that its gone hor­ri­b­ly wrong, becau­se as a KGB ope­ra­ti­ve, he knows you have to have con­tin­gen­cy plan­ning, and - this is also, why he doesnt want to end the war, becau­se if he ends the war now, it would be a hor­ri­ble dis­as­ter, and, yet he belie­ves he can still win it becau­se of his cra­zy­ness and all the con­tin­gen­cy plan­ning. Got it?

With his goal still being to des­troy the nati­on­hood of Ukrai­ne, one way, or another.

Also of note, becau­se of his iso­la­ti­on rid­den mind, and him being kept out of the loop in terms of actu­al mili­ta­ry strength, pro­bab­ly stu­dy­ing for­mer maps of the soviet uni­on, under cand­le light, during the covid cri­sis -- that gave Putin this grand con­cept of what should be, which is obvious­ly cra­zy (I agree) - and he saw all the indi­ca­tors that poin­ted at euro­pe and the west being in a weak sta­te, and right­ful­ly so (by Hills admission/understanding), he then came up with an attack plan, that then also con­tai­ned con­tin­gen­ci­es, and becau­se he thought, that his mili­ta­ry was so over the top effi­ci­ent, and as he was obvious­ly cra­zy - he sent in poli­ce for­ces, not his mili­ta­ry, as part of the first attack on Kiew.

Nevertheless - the last mili­ta­ry inter­ven­ti­ons of Rus­sia, were aimed at res­to­ring buf­fer ter­ri­to­ry to safe­guard against poten­ti­al inva­si­ons (in geo­stra­te­gic logic - see Zei­han, or others), more so than empi­re buil­ding - as rus­sia is in a demo­gra­phic decli­ne (mea­ning, no peop­le for empi­re buil­ding, which by other experts accounts is also why rus­sia is so unin­te­res­ted in lea­ving any infra­st­ruc­tu­re inta­ct in Ukrai­ne cur­r­ent­ly, becau­se they can’t mobi­li­ze enough poten­ti­al sett­lers in the after­math any­how - but I dig­ress) -- obvious­ly, when the US (nego­tia­ting for Euro­pe) in Decem­ber wasnt wil­ling to budge on Ukrai­ne and Geor­gi­as Nato mem­bers­hip per­spec­ti­ves, which was the key rus­si­an demand at that time, exten­ding his for­mer mode of ope­ra­ti­on, was an insa­ne, cra­zy, covid iso­la­ti­on dri­ven mis­cal­cu­la­ti­on, that no one could have seen com­ing, except the ame­ri­can intel­li­gence ser­vices for mon­ths, from someo­ne who couldnt fathom the con­cept of ideo­lo­gic natio­na­lism, but then he doesnt think he has lost the war yet, becau­se he always had con­tin­gen­ci­es and…

Sor­ry, whe­re do you get you infor­ma­ti­on from again?

… also, its Putin who cant live with a thri­ving demo­cra­cy next to crumb­ling rus­sia (demo­gra­phic and eco­no­mic decli­ne), becau­se - if we go by poli­ti­cal talk show logic, that was the real rea­so­ning behind Putins, now all of a sud­den pret­ty cal­cu­la­ting mind.

Oh, and that Putin publicly shun­ned the lea­der of his for­eign intel­li­gence ser­vice, and then went with the exper­ti­se of the natio­nal intel­li­gence ser­vice ins­tead (posi­ti­on Fio­na Hill holds in this video), first was a dis­play of his utter insa­ni­ty (becau­se he publicly humi­lia­ted the guy), but then also a signal - accord­ing to Julia Iof­fe (state­ment given in the same week). But then, in the past, when he took over cri­mea, parts of the ukrai­ni­an mili­ta­ry in the regi­on tur­ned, becau­se of brib­ing cam­pai­gns spear­hea­ded by the for­eign intel­li­gence office, as he couldnt ima­gi­ne how ideo­lo­gi­cal natio­na­lism works -- but then after he publicly shun­ned the head of the for­eign intel­li­gence office (SVR), becau­se he didnt belie­ve in his reports any­mo­re, and had con­tin­gen­cy plans for what would hap­pen if the SVR fai­led in their brib­ing cam­pai­gns, well - that then was obvious­ly the iso­la­ti­on rid­den, covid fea­ring mind of a mad­man, who couldnt fathom, what would hap­pen, when the ukrai­ni­ans, and much less the euro­peans would stick tog­e­ther, except for that he had con­tin­gen­ci­es, and cur­r­ent­ly is on a PR tour in nordafrica.

Let me end this the fol­lowing way. 

Putin is mocked (thats fair, by the way) for having to switch nar­ra­ti­ves, from “all Ukrai­ni­ans are nazis” to “the Nato would have atta­cked us in the future any­how, so we had to take this step as a pre­ven­ta­ti­ve mea­su­re” (public nar­ra­ti­ve). Which is obvious­ly very pain­ful for rus­sia, becau­se Putin real­ly belie­ved in his own pro­pa­gan­da nar­ra­ti­ve first of all (the one you actively set up, so rus­si­an sol­di­ers have an enemy image (out­group) in their mind, and can be made to shoot at their “bro­ther­ly neigh­bors, spea­king their own lan­guage”), as you start belie­ving your own pro­pa­gan­da after a while, and will now have huge issu­es con­vin­cing the rus­si­an public, that this was all about Nato, now that con­tin­gen­cy plans are in play. So very dif­fi­cult to switch nar­ra­ti­ves, mid war.

Not as if cra­zy Putin, now more and more would beco­me that cal­cu­la­ting Putin with con­tin­gen­cy plan­ning, signa­ling that he suspec­ted the SVR heads brib­ing ope­ra­ti­ons to have fai­led all along.

I mean, you are an expert right? So cra­zy and belie­ving your own his­to­ri­cal pro­pa­gan­da in the moment you deci­de to enga­ge in war, in a small group of eli­tes, so not on your own, but cal­cu­la­ting and cru­de from that point for­ward. So cal­cu­la­ting in fact, that we know, that you know, that we know, that he wouldnt esca­la­te to the use of tac­ti­cal nuclear wea­pons, until rus­sia per­cei­ves its­elf being under risk of being struc­tu­ral­ly defea­ted, and resorts to this as a last response.

Even though three quar­ters of ger­mans a mon­th ago fea­red a nuclear con­fron­ta­ti­on - but that had not­hing to do with the insa­ne mad­man nar­ra­ti­ve that was spread, at the moment Ukrai­ne nee­ded more hea­vy wea­pon­ry (Mul­ti­ple rocket laun­chers, anyo­ne? Sure, tho­se would be grand!), which was set in moti­on by the Atlan­tic coun­cil befo­re Butscha - but then on the talk show cir­cuit was becau­se Selen­skyj beca­me con­vin­ced, that this would be the way for­ward, after Butscha.

Got it? Great.

edit: Uh, uh, (at 10:20 in) Fio­na Hill picked up on the fact, that he actively used the term Novorus­sia in his encra­zed speech, decla­ring the war - but in her explana­ti­on, this is still the cra­zy covid angst rid­den Putin mind fol­lowing his own encra­zed logic, not the his­to­ri­cal con­cept taught in rus­si­an schools for the past fif­ty years or so, that gets the rus­si­an public in line with the “get­ting ukrai­ne back to the mother­land” nar­ra­ti­ve! And thats so obvious, becau­se when Putin then had the cra­zy lea­der of the rus­si­an ortho­dox church expand that into the RUS nar­ra­ti­ve, they were sprea­ding, it was obvious­ly (other experts btw, for­got­ten who exact­ly), the patri­arch of the rus­si­an ortho­dox church hol­ding a spell over Putins cra­zy covid angst rid­den mind, that also had come up with con­tin­gen­cy plan­ning, wit­hin a small group of eli­tes. Except that Fio­na Hill belie­ves the oppo­si­te. So Novorus­sia nar­ra­ti­ve is still cra­zy Putin, but RUS nar­ra­ti­ve is alrea­dy cal­cu­la­ting con­tin­gen­ci­es crafting.

Got it? Gre­at. Just make sure to keep the sto­ries strai­ght, of what was still cra­zy Putin, and what was obvious­ly cal­cu­la­ting KGB Putin with con­tin­gen­cy plan­ning in place, other­wi­se you could be con­si­de­red to have been wrong in the past.

Thank you Fareed Zaka­ria for thanking “I have a dream” guy, thats coor­di­na­ting Ukrai­ni­an rebuil­ding efforts, for intro­du­cing Timo­thy Sny­der, who will be sit­ting next to Kule­ba, next to Zan­ny Min­ton Bed­does. At a Bre­ak­fast Mee­ting of a pri­va­te poli­ti­cal foun­da­ti­on at the WEF in Davos.

With bonus Selen­skyj speech! Hoping for regime chan­ge! (So natu­ral­ly, thats not­hing you report on in wes­tern media. Zaka­ria is so unfa­ced by that, that he asks a “do you belie­ve that its pos­si­ble to nego­tia­te with Putin” ques­ti­on as a direct fol­low up! Soft­ball inco­m­ing! To which the ans­wer given then is “Ukrai­ne will not con­ce­de any ter­ri­to­ry”, becau­se non sequi­turs are so very fun.)

*wiping tears from my eyes..*

The grea­test speech is the one liner from the “open source manage­ment repre­sen­ta­ti­ve” who got con­nec­ted to Elon though. Told as an inspi­ring story.

Becau­se he tea­ches young folks the value of deve­lo­ping “open source soft­ware” (becau­se - you know, social respon­si­bi­li­ty is very popu­lar with the youth), and then get­ting instant­ly con­nec­ted to Elon Musk being pre­sen­ted as a valu­able anec­do­te at a bre­ak­fast mee­ting orga­ni­zed by a pri­va­te fund at the WEF in Davos. You know, doing some­thing good for socie­ty with open source soft­ware, exch­an­ging cell num­bers with Elon at Davos, name­dro­ping that, then having a CNN anchor to intro­du­ce Sny­der to be sit­ting next to Kule­ba at this pri­va­te gathe­ring, next to Min­ton Bed­does, asking soft­ball ques­ti­ons as fol­low ups to the sto­ry of the day (Selen­skyj hopes for regi­me­chan­ge and would pre­fer not to have to nego­tia­te with Putin, which you then dont publish) - is such a boon, but only if you can end that with the speech of a busi­ness donor, fin­ding it impos­si­ble to dif­fe­ren­tia­te the start of WW2 from a world, whe­re rus­sia suf­fers from popu­la­ti­on decli­ne (demo­gra­phi­cal­ly) and has nuclear weapons.

But the grea­test aspect of all, in all of this is, that they were able to buck the you­tube trend, and get three comments in the­re, on you­tube, of young peop­le fin­ding all of this very inspi­ring - and thought pro­vo­king. And not sta­ged at all, even though every per­son was just put on sta­ge long enough to say one sen­tence, and then had to lea­ve for the next “panel” --

Its like the best socie­ty has to offer inte­gri­ty wise, and inspi­ra­tio­nal­ly - combined!

[Switch to german.]

Eine Fra­ge hab ich noch, wie­so war der Rau­scher vom Stan­dard eigent­lich nicht mit dabei, der der öster­rei­chi­schen Regie­rung und der Oppo­si­ti­on (SPÖ), nach sei­nem Besuch beim IWM­Vi­en­na wochen­lang Sny­der emp­foh­len hat, der im Gegen­satz zur deut­schen Bun­des­re­gie­rung und der deut­schen Oppo­si­ti­on (CDU/CSU), die von Revan­chis­mus als Kriegs­grund aus­ge­hen, eine Neo­ko­lo­nia­lis­mus The­se ver­tritt? Dass sich der Rau­scher das bie­ten lässt…

edit: Falls wer den direk­ten Beleg braucht, dass Man­gott im ZIB2 inter­view die Posi­ti­on Selen­sky­js falsch wie­der­gibt - das ist das Video das das ohne jeden ver­blei­ben­den Zwei­fel belegt. Zaka­ria stellt die Fra­ge direkt und unver­klau­su­liert und bekommt eine direk­te Ant­wort. Man ist ja unter Freunden.

Emo­tio­nal auf­la­den, in Gut und Böse tren­nen, dann böse Mei­nun­gen abqualifizieren.

“Frau Baer­bock, wenn sie dass so ein­dring­lich schil­dern, wie ein 16 jäh­ri­ger auf einem Bild das sie bekom­men haben per Brust­schuss erschos­sen wur­de, wie fühlt man sich da so, wenn man jeman­dem gegen­über sitzt, wie dem Law­row, und der erzählt einem dann von der Nato, und der Angst vor der Nato, und die Nato bedroht uns. Es ist ja nicht die Angst vor der Nato die einen dazu bringt einen 16 Jäh­ri­gen zu erschie­ßen. Oder jeman­den vom Fahr­rad zu schie­ßen. Was sagen sie dem dann? Sagen sie dem dann sie lügen mich an?” Dar­auf Baer­bock: “Ja.”
src: click

Und so lernt der gelern­te Staats­bür­ger, der sich im Fern­se­hen infor­miert zu dif­fe­ren­zie­ren. Da kann Kis­sin­ger kom­men und Fehl­leis­tun­gen in die­sem Zusam­men­hang anpran­gern, da kann Jef­frey Sachs sagen, dass er es nicht akzep­tiert dass das in der öffent­li­chen Argu­men­ta­ti­on aus­ge­spart wird, da kann der Russ­land­ex­per­te im CFR (Grün­dungs­mit­glied des East Euro­pean and Eura­si­an stu­dies pro­gram in Yale) im aka­de­mi­schen Umfeld ankom­men und ver­laut­ba­ren, dass auf die Schlüs­sel­for­de­run­gen der Rus­sen im Dezem­ber in den Ver­hand­lun­gen nicht ein­ge­gan­gen wur­de. Jef­frey Sachs es noch­mal bestä­ti­gen, dass er den begrün­de­ten Ein­druck hat die Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen sei­en bereits weit fort­ge­schrit­ten gewe­sen und wur­den dann eher ein­sei­tig abge­bro­chen - nichts davon darf öffent­lich eine Rol­le spie­len, denn ein 16 Jäh­ri­ger wur­de mit einem Herz­schuss getö­tet, und Baer­bock hat ein Bild gesehen.

So urtei­len Men­schen. Auf der Basis von emo­tio­na­len Gewissheiten.

Vol­le Dosis tiefs­te Propaganda-Arbeit im deut­schen Haupt­abend. Das ist kein Jour­na­lis­mus. (Gut, wenn ich das rich­tig ver­stan­den habe wur­de Lanz nie jour­na­lis­tisch aus­ge­bil­det, son­dern sei­ner­zeit als “Kom­mu­ni­ka­ti­ons­wirt” - da ist es nur recht, wenn der die mitt­ler­wei­le wich­tigs­te poli­ti­sche Ori­en­tie­rungs­sen­dung in Deutsch­land bekommt. Mit Gäs­ten wie der Außenministerin.)

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das abgrund­tief allerletzte.

Wenn wir Argu­men­te nicht mehr in den Mund neh­men dür­fen, weil die ande­re Sei­te, uns dann auf­grund des­sen was Lanz macht mit Law­row gleich­setzt - freut sich die­se Gesellschaft.

Kom­ple­xi­täts­re­duk­ti­on tut gut.

Klaus von Dohn­anyi wur­de zuvor bereits als “seni­ler 90jähriger” (Habi­tus, Blick in die Kame­ra, Outro, dass das nicht die gän­gi­ge Mei­nung in dem Umfeld sei) aus der Öffent­lich­keit ver­ab­schie­det. In der Woche dar­auf dann Schäub­le, der Hel­mut Schmidt Sager zur Nato “als nicht sei­ne bes­te Stun­de” kon­tex­tua­li­sie­ren durfte.

Es geht nur um die Zwi­schen­tö­ne. Und da wirds eben auch mal wich­tig, noch einen Hel­mut Schmidt post­hum auf den “rich­ti­gen Platz” zu stel­len (meint: senil), weil der in den Köp­fen vie­ler Leu­te eben als Ver­trau­ens­per­son ver­an­kert ist.

Mit Jour­na­lis­mus hat das nichts zu tun. Es sei denn man inter­es­siert sich aus dem aktu­el­len Anlass selek­tiv für die Mei­nung ver­stor­be­ner Altkanzler.

Wobei der 16 Jäh­ri­ge der mit Herz­schuss erschos­sen wur­de ist da so und so viel wirkungsmächtiger.

Das Sche­ma Lanz.