The bigger story is crafted

06. März 2022

Hover Insti­tu­te. You’­ve got to invi­te a his­to­ri­an just smart enough not to under­stand when they are infer­ring, con­struc­ting cor­re­la­ti­ons -- but then the first examp­le that springs into his mind still will be North Korea, when tal­king about an attack on demo­cra­cy, so - who knows, may­be he is just right in all of his refe­ren­ces, all the grand­stan­ding - and some­what sket­chy logic. Or may­be not.

First point. “Alt­hough the ent­i­re poli­ti­cal estab­lish­ment in euro­pe was war­ned, that this (an inva­si­on) could be an action that was on the table, they didnt think it would be. But our [part­ners] intel­li­gence ser­vices did! And then they expec­ted ever­ything cor­rect­ly, and shared all the infor­ma­ti­on - so in very short time [1,5 days in case of ger­ma­ny], they gai­ned their allies trust, and now had been instru­men­tal in “the revi­ta­liz­a­ti­on of Nato””.

Thats the same nar­ra­ti­ve as Biden has saved Nato from all the dama­ge Trump did to it. In essence. This will now be ram­med down my neck for as long as I live.


- The­re isn’t any out­ward ori­en­ta­ted intel­li­gence ser­vice in the world that in a stand­off situa­ti­on like the one that deve­lo­ped with mili­ta­ry units on ano­t­her coun­tries bor­ders will not have an action plan, for a case of war. And warn of a very real pos­si­bi­li­ty of war.

- The­re is liter­al­ly no way ima­gin­ab­le, that a Pre­si­dent Biden would have con­si­de­red not to take the public posi­ti­on of “We dont know, but we think rus­sia will attack”. If he had­n’t and that even­tua­li­ty took place, public opi­ni­on polls would have cras­hed him, and as he did - he still doesnt have do com­mit tro­ops to an extent that it would impact his public repu­ta­ti­on. Its sim­ply a dis­play of strength, pro­bab­ly not based on the intel­li­gence reports at the time. While at the same time you have the euro­peans taking over nego­tia­ti­on duties, so all fronts are cove­r­ed. At least that strikes me as much more likely, than that the US pre­si­dent makes decisi­ons on a war in euro­pe and Nato invol­ve­ment pure­ly based on intel­li­gence infor­ma­ti­on at the time.

- All our intel­li­gence was right. No. Actual­ly almost none of it was. Lets give them, that they war­ned of an inva­si­on - (actual­ly the pos­si­bi­li­ty of an inva­si­on, a fact, that by his own argu­ment Kot­kin depicts as some­thing all euro­pean governments were pri­vy to (just dind­n’t expect to hap­pen).) - even though most public voices at the munich secu­ri­ty con­fe­rence didnt warn of the pos­si­bi­li­ty of the inva­si­on (but accord­ing to Kot­kin intel­li­gence ser­vices did), the second thing they got cor­rect was, that Kyiv was also going to be atta­cked ear­ly on, as part of a “full” invasion.
And they publicly did get that one, after they saw the alte­ring of attack for­ma­ti­ons, befo­re the first bor­der inci­dent. Befo­re that, no one ever did speak of that pos­si­bi­li­ty at least publicly.

- “And then becau­se they expec­ted ever­ything cor­rect­ly” they got the trust of euro­pean governments, and now the reju­ve­na­ti­on of Nato was per­fect. And the sanc­tions whe­re deve­lo­ped and could be imple­men­ted in a coor­di­na­ted fashion. Issue: At least ques­tion­ab­le, when loo­king at actu­al events.

Euro­pes and espe­cial­ly the Ger­man governments posi­ti­on was, that they wan­ted pri­ma­cy over when (and what) sanc­tions would be impo­sed alt­hough that would be coor­di­na­ted with their part­ners. With the offi­cial lan­guage in place being, “we dont want to tele­graph to Putin what we would be doing at what point” - (the points of con­ten­ti­on were prea­noun­ced, and/or ful­ly coor­di­na­ted) then the first bor­der cros­sing by tro­ops without insi­gni­as hap­pen­ed, which were moved into the Don­bas regi­on, and rus­si­an for­ces were moved into attack for­ma­ti­ons out­side the coun­try. As a result of this the famous Nato “con­fe­rence” hap­pen­ed, whe­re Stol­ten­berg went on record with his “It is not yet an Inva­si­on - but it also is an inva­si­on, as rus­sia was sen­ding more tro­ops into regi­ons they had alrea­dy occu­p­ied - but infor­mal­ly so.” state­ment. Now reen­for­cing them more for­mal­ly (but still without rus­si­an insi­gni­as on the tro­ops). With the key phra­se being “It is never too late not to start a war.” Then the­re were direct fol­low up ques­ti­ons, if tho­se move­ments wouldnt con­sti­tu­te an inva­si­on any­how. And the same lines were repeated. Yes, an inva­si­on, but in an area that we had seen this pre­vious­ly, just not in an offi­cial capa­ci­ty. Logic to back that up was vers betum “they had been inva­ding tho­se regi­ons sin­ce 2014, it is an inva­si­on.”. Could have still been diplo­ma­tic lan­guage to stop an attack, but tho­se were the words of Nato (Stol­ten­berg). Then things star­ted to hap­pen very fast, Ger­ma­ny lost its posi­ti­on on Nord­stream 2 and announ­ced that it would “free­ze” it. Which was repor­ted by DW as a “per­ma­nent free­ze”, and by other news out­lets as “fro­zen for good for some time” (the method of choice were still bureau­cra­tic modes of review). Then Uvdl didnt use the word inva­si­on when ques­tio­ned on CNN, and just a short while ear­lier, Rus­sia had the “resis­tance Lea­der” in the Don­bas announ­ce, that they would fight on their own, and that they would no lon­ger ask for rus­si­an sup­port tro­ops.” Which pret­ty much ever­yo­ne saw as a far­ce. Then the Selen­skyj speech in rus­si­an hap­pen­ed (which was a call for public anti-war pro­tests in rus­sia), and then the first rus­si­an rockets star­ted fly­ing - and the (not yet)full inva­si­on for­ce star­ted to cross bor­ders (inclu­ding the for­ces that were hea­ding for Kyiv) - which at first was repor­ted to be around 30.000 tro­ops strong.

Then the full intel­li­gence ser­vices sup­port action went into place - pro­bab­ly being very hel­pful in kee­ping Hos­to­mel Air­port from being taken over, tar­ge­ting sup­port units, and a few days after that the addi­tio­nal sup­port infra­st­ruc­tu­re of Rus­sia also see­med to be fai­ling - with rea­son cur­r­ent­ly in the public dis­cour­se for that being, intel­li­gent attacks on sup­port con­voys hit­ting vehi­cles in the midd­le of it - that were nee­ded up front ear­lier (= very good intel), and com­mand and con­trol brea­king down (part­ly by gene­rals having been kil­led that had to come clo­ser to the battle­field becau­se of a com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on breakdown).

So the pha­se in which becau­se of “cor­rect ases­ments” the intel­li­gence ser­vices gai­ned trust in the Euro­pean governments must/should have been very, very short, and only after the first rocket strikes and the start of the big invasion.

Issue, at the same time, the coor­di­na­te­ly released sanc­tion packa­ges (Japan did lag a litt­le…) came in very fast and swift as well. And the­re are reports, that the posi­ti­on wit­hin SPD decisi­on cir­cles chan­ged wit­hin one and a half days. That was one and a half days befo­re the big ger­man par­lia­ment speech whe­re three poli­cy pil­lars of ger­man poli­tics were publicly rever­sed (12 peop­le knowing the full scope of the speech at the time befo­re it was held in parliament).

Also - in the offi­cial argu­ments on poli­cy rever­sal, in the ger­man speech, inhu­ma­ni­ty and vio­la­ti­ons of inter­na­tio­nal law are men­tio­ned as cau­ses for tho­se poli­cy reversals.

And then four days after the ger­man par­lia­ment speech, Switz­er­land is drop­ping neu­tra­li­ty. See: this

At least in the public duc­tus, this cant be exp­lai­ned, by euro­pean par­lia­ments gai­ning trust in their part­ners intel­li­gence ser­vices. Which then lead to a stron­ger cohe­si­on wit­hin Nato.

So Ste­ven, I had­n’t actual­ly thought of that, of cour­se! - The rea­son to talk to you is becau­se I haven’t thought of any of this -- but that right from the get go, the United Sta­tes appeared [as] some­thing it has­n’t appeared [as] for a long time. Com­pe­tent. Com­pe­tent. Our guys knew what they were doing. -- That turns out to be important for the who­le psy­cho­lo­gy of this, from the very get go - is that right?” “Yes.”

And this is, why Nato ali­gned pr agen­ci­es are now doing media work for europe.

Hinterlasse eine Antwort