The lies, the lies, the lies…

19. Februar 2022

So - first lets put it on record that the posi­ti­on of “we, the allies of the west” now swit­ched from “Rus­sia is going to inva­de”, to “Rus­sia is not so dumb to inva­de, they are going to play this as a con­flict of attri­ti­on” - which is pro­bab­ly cor­rect from my point of view - at this very moment - as well - btw.

But the lies are still so effing outra­gious. So Ian Brem­mer is cur­r­ent­ly buil­ding a new nar­ra­ti­ve, whe­re Putin (always the devil hims­elf) has been allo­wed to walk over red lines in the past, without con­se­quen­ces - most­ly in terms of “cyber­at­tacks” (unat­tri­bu­t­ed cyber­at­tacks most­ly, btw - but who needs pro­of the­se days…) - and now is high on his short term suc­cess, lashing out like a bul­ly at a UN ral­ly (Why does the US come to mind, while for­mu­la­ting that men­tal image?). But now that has chan­ged, and NATO stan­ding in abso­lu­te unity will act as a detrac­tor (so gre­at, always the things you coi­ned as a rea­li­ty two days ear­lier, turn out to have been the most important all along…), and show Putin that he cant con­ti­nue his pro­vo­ca­ti­ons, and divi­de Nato mem­bers, etc, etc.

Slight issue with that. Putin hims­elf was on a pro­mo­ti­on tour for bila­te­ral diplo­ma­tic dis­cus­sions with the US, eight mon­ths ago, sta­ting several times, that they are open to dis­cuss a bila­te­ral posi­ti­on against cyber­at­tacks, but the US has refu­sed to hear them under Oba­ma, under Trump, and always rejec­ted direct talks on the matter.

See: click

Sure, its a poli­ti­cal gam­bit, but Putin “having been encou­ra­ged by how devas­ta­tin­g­ly effec­ti­ve his cyber attacks were, and now belie­ving he can use them again and again becau­se the west was too timid to react” - is the oppo­si­te of what was part of the public diplo­ma­tic sta­ging as the pre­cur­sor of the conflict.

But who needs to fact­check, when they have a jour­na­lism that never shows any pro­fes­sio­nal cour­te­sy? And ins­tead is exch­an­ging smi­les with for­mer public repre­sen­ta­ti­ves on how far wes­tern infor­ma­ti­on war­fa­re is allo­wed to go… (Last blog ent­ry. Read it.)

Sh*t - its almost like some peop­le belie­ve that the public cant fact­check state­ments or poli­ti­cal back­ground affiliations.

Brem­mer has held rese­arch and facul­ty posi­ti­ons[which?]at New York Uni­ver­si­ty, Colum­bia Uni­ver­si­ty, the East­West Insti­tu­te, the World Poli­cy Insti­tu­te, Law­rence Liver­mo­re Natio­nal Labo­ra­to­ry, and the Asia Socie­ty Poli­cy Insti­tu­te, whe­re he has ser­ved as the first Harold J. New­man Dis­tin­guis­hed Fel­low in Geo­po­li­tics sin­ce 2015.[cita­ti­on nee­ded]

In 2013, he was named Glo­bal Rese­arch Pro­fes­sor at New York Uni­ver­si­ty.[11] and in 2019, Colum­bia University’s School of Inter­na­tio­nal and Public Affairs announ­ced that Brem­mer would teach an App­lied Geo­po­li­tics cour­se at the school.[12]

Brem­mer ser­ves on the President’s Coun­cil of the Near East Foun­da­ti­on, the Lea­ders­hip Coun­cil for the Con­cordia Sum­mit, and the board of trus­tees of Intel­li­gence Squa­red. In 2007, he was named as a “Young Glo­bal Lea­der” of the World Eco­no­mic Forum, and in 2010, foun­ded and was appoin­ted Chair of the Forum’s Glo­bal Agen­da Coun­cil for Geo­po­li­ti­cal Risk. In Decem­ber 2015, Brem­mer was knigh­ted by the government of Ita­ly.[13]

Coun­cil mem­ber of the Near East Foun­da­ti­on, Leders­hip coun­cil of the Con­cordia Sum­mit, Board of trus­tees of Intel­li­gence Squa­red (seems like an out­lier, and judge on ame­ri­can idol?) - but doesnt read tran­scripts of public inter­views Putin gave eight mon­ths ago to NBC

Named “Young Glo­bal Lea­der” by the WEF, Chair of the Glo­bal Agen­da Coun­cil for Geo­po­li­ti­cal Risk at the WEF, but doesnt read tran­scripts of inter­views Putin gave eight mon­ths ago.

Also sh*t its Alp­bach all over again! (Man­da­to­ry cur­se, becau­se look, we’­ve found us ano­t­her “Young Glo­bal Lea­der” here. (And all the best peop­le have taught at Colum­bia once more…))

Oh, and on the point of coor­di­na­ting public nar­ra­ti­ves. You get payed for repea­ting what was sta­ted in the brie­fing room of the white house two days ear­lier, of cour­se. Then a jour­na­list asks you what the new nar­ra­ti­ve is. Then you repeat that. As an inde­pen­dent poli­ti­cal sci­en­tist. At the Munich Secu­ri­ty Conference.

Thats job security.

And if Rus­sia attacks the United Sta­tes or our Allies through asym­metric means, like dis­rup­ti­ve cyber­at­tacks against our com­pa­nies or cri­ti­cal infra­st­ruc­tu­re, we are pre­pa­red to respond. 

We’re moving in lock­step with our NATO allies and part­ners to deepen our collec­ti­ve defen­se against thre­ats in cyberspace.

Two paths are still open. For the sake of the his­to­ric respon­si­bi­li­ty Rus­sia and the United Sta­tes share for glo­bal sta­bi­li­ty, for the sake of our com­mon future — to choo­se diplomacy.

src: click

Thats how pro­pa­gan­da works in the west.

edit: Oh second out­right lie in one state­ment “I think ger­ma­ny being cut off from rus­si­an gas moves euro­pe in the direc­tion of rene­wa­bles fas­ter.” Bullsh*t. The pro­mi­se of a social­ly just ener­gy tran­si­ti­on reli­es on fos­si­le fuels beco­m­ing more expen­si­ve, but in terms of the sta­te being able to skim off the dif­fe­rence in taxes, so it can redis­tri­bu­te it in com­pen­sa­ti­on pay­ments for the not so aff­lu­ent, and use the inco­me to sub­si­di­ze indus­tries that are working towards sus­taina­bi­li­ty but that arent eco­no­mi­c­al­ly via­ble yet. While fos­si­le fuels pro­du­ced will get used by non allied part­ners, at lower pri­ces, becau­se rus­sia still needs tra­ding part­ners and to aqui­re for­eign cur­ren­cy. The last part is ack­now­led­ged in the interview.

The ent­i­re pro­spect of a car­bon tax on impor­ted goods into the EU is based on that princip­le as well. Pri­ma­ri­ly so.

But what does a f*cking payed cro­ney care. Or Habeck for that mat­ter, who in public inter­views pret­ty ear­ly on into the esca­la­ti­on of the Ukrai­ne con­flict (pro­bab­ly without having been ful­ly brie­fed) also couldnt con­cep­tua­li­ze the dif­fe­rence. And by dif­fe­rence I mean money lan­ding in US’ cor­po­ra­te hands (fos­si­le fuel com­pa­nies and freight ship­ping, mind you) that should have acce­le­ra­ted Ger­ma­nys green tran­si­ti­on. But whos bit­ing the hand thats fee­ding their polit­cal care­ers, right?

If the jour­na­list in front of them does a *blink blink* with their eyes, and not much else.

Third faux pas - is the mat­ter of fact way, the expert sta­tes how ger­ma­ny was whip­ped into posi­ti­on, while fran­ce wasnt. You have to hear it to belie­ve it. Watch the video.

Hinterlasse eine Antwort