Time for another hate post

08. Februar 2022

US vows to stop Nord Stream 2 if Rus­sia inva­des Ukraine

US Pre­si­dent Joe Biden has said the­re is no chan­ce of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipe­line pro­ject going should Rus­sia mount an offen­si­ve. Chan­cellor Olaf Scholz, on his first White House visit in office, was more guarded.

src: click

DW.com mana­ged to mis­re­pre­sent ger­ma­nys posi­ti­on (several repor­ters and ankers on record say­ing that “now the poten­ti­al reac­tion from the west and EU coun­tries has beco­me more clear, and uni­fied” in the past days, while none of that was true.). They’­ve mana­ged to miss, that the­re was a dif­fe­rence in posi­ti­ons for the past week. They’­ve mana­ged to miss, that the US announ­ced a “com­mon posi­ti­on of the US and the EU” on this uni­la­te­ral­ly, ther­eby sud­den­ly con­tra­dic­ting the ger­man governments public posi­ti­on. They’­ve mana­ged to miss, that that was seen as an outra­ge by peop­le fol­lowing poli­ti­cal repor­ting on the issue clo­se­ly. They’­ve mana­ged to miss the BBC rebut­tal, that indi­ca­ted, that this wasnt a pre­me­de­ta­ted move by the US, but only a “mista­ke”, after the US spo­ke to some nort­hern euro­pean coun­tries, then announ­cing a com­mon posi­ti­on that never was one. They mana­ged to miss the aggres­si­ve natu­re in the US announ­cing that state­ment in todays announ­ce­ment, again. (Second time in a row isnt a mista­ke any­mo­re.) They’­ve mana­ged to miss asking for fur­ther cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on on part of the ger­man government, becau­se the posi­ti­on “its part of a wide ran­ge of meas­su­res” doesnt necessa­ri­ly mean, we sta­te, that we’ll stop it out­right, if the­re is any kind of con­flict in the com­ing days. Not becau­se thats an important dis­tinc­tion in its­elf necessa­ri­ly, but becau­se it lea­ves room for diplo­ma­cy after the fact, without pro­noun­cing it a red line - like the US just did, again. Without caring for the euro­pean posi­ti­on in the least (as far as I under­stand fran­ce isnt in line with the US announ­ce­ment eit­her, but some of the foun­ding NATO mem­bers wit­hin the EU are). With ques­tion­ab­le juris­dic­tion in the mat­ter. They’­ve mana­ged to pro­long this effing sta­te of “who the f*ck makes euro­pean secu­ri­ty and ener­gy poli­cy decisi­ons” for over a f*cking week, not do any repor­ting on it and now pre­sent ano­t­her pres­su­re play from the US in a “man­ner of fact” way.

What the f*ck?

Past deve­lo­p­ments lay­ed out, with pri­ma­ry sources lin­ked, in here:

edit: DW now (a few hours later) is doub­ling down, ins­tead of admit­ting their mistake:

The Ger­man chan­cellor came to the White House empty-handed. His hol­low reas­suran­ces about Germany’s com­mit­ment to Ukrai­ne will have done litt­le to con­vin­ce his cri­tics in Washing­ton, says DW’s Michae­la Küfner.

src: click

Cal­ling it a mis­sed oppor­tu­ni­ty, still having no idea that they were wrong in repor­ting this all the way. Still showing no signs of cor­rec­ting them­sel­ves, or admit­ting any of it. If you go with the most haw­kish trans-atlantic think tank stance, its your best opti­on in todays jour­na­lism land­s­cape, by pro­xy, it seems. At least for DW.com

Its time for ano­t­her over­view on how trans­at­lan­tic PR works in this case.

1. US teasing, that in case of an attack the North Stream 2 Pipe­line would never beco­me acti­ve, in an NPR Podcast.
DWs repor­ting: Rather mat­ter of fact.

2. US, one day later, uni­la­te­ral­ly announ­cing, that the­re is a joint euro­pean posi­ti­on on that Nord Stream 2 would never beco­me acti­ve, if any form of inva­si­on would take place. Con­tra­dic­ting the ger­man governments posi­ti­on on the issue, at the time - in a public announ­ce­ment. Thats after Biden had to be cor­rec­ted tal­king about a dif­fe­rence bet­ween a smal­ler and a lar­ge form inva­si­on ear­lier. Becau­se appar­ent­ly that dif­fe­rence didnt exist from the US’ point of view. (Even though Biden publicly announ­ced it did.) Thats two pret­ty lar­ge sca­le scan­dals in a row - that none of the pun­dits in any of the wes­tern media out­lets had anything to say about.

DWs repor­ting: “Final­ly a uni­fied stra­te­gy, and a clear posi­ti­on, we are now see­ing con­se­quen­ces emerge”.

3. A day later Ger­ma­ny still not chan­ging their posi­ti­on (Nord Stream 2 will be part of a ran­ge of actions, if an inva­si­on takes place.)

DWs repor­ting: “Still a uni­fied stra­te­gy and a clear mes­sa­ge, that if the­re is an inva­si­on North Stream 2 will never beco­me active.”

4. BBC pro­du­ces a report in which it announ­ces, that the­re still is seve­re uncer­tain­ty over how euro­pe would pro­ceed in detail in case of an inva­si­on, regar­ding what would hap­pen to Nord­stream 2, and only on that stance - men­tio­ning, that the cau­se was the US tal­king to “one nort­hern euro­pean alley” and then having announ­ced a uni­fied Euro­pean and US position.

DWs repor­ting: None existent.

5. The US repea­ting the pri­or made state­ment - with US jour­na­lists ques­tio­ning the spea­ker, on what basis tho­se remarks were made, and why the US had the presump­ti­on that this would be the uni­fied stance. Jour­na­lists are shut down, and not given an answer.

DWs repor­ting: None existent.

6. By now the ger­man talk­show cir­cuit (Anne Will, …) is fil­led with coa­ched pun­dits, that cant talk free­ly on issu­es in the Ukrai­ne, but have very pro­mi­nent tal­king points, that ger­ma­ny is not pul­ling its weight, brin­ging in the gam­bit of the 5000 hel­mets deli­ve­r­ed to the Ukrai­ne only - which Klitsch­ko was on a press cir­cuit for - but which if loo­ked at clo­se­ly was ful­fil­ling a demand for sup­plies the Ukrai­ne had made pri­or, and then tur­ned around into ridi­cu­le to incre­a­se public pres­su­re on the ger­man government, pri­or to the US visit. Ukrai­ne offi­cials later back­tra­cked, and went the poten­ti­al denia­bi­li­ty rou­te of “the num­ber (5000) had been the issue”, and too small, alt­hough they didnt spe­ci­fy a num­ber befo­re, just that they nee­ded helmets.

DWs repor­ting: Ger­ma­ny is being cri­ti­cis­ed by its allies for not pul­ling its weight.

7. Scholz announ­ces his tal­king points for the mee­ting with Biden pri­or to the flight.

DWs repor­ting: By then having swit­ched onto the “Ger­ma­ny is being cri­ti­zi­ced for being too inac­ti­ve, and not pro­vi­ding wea­pon ship­ments” beat, with think tank experts fea­tured cri­ti­ci­zing ger­ma­ny for “being unclear in their stance towards their allies” - which never was the case, becau­se the gam­bit used to announ­ce that was now a com­bi­na­ti­on of “Ger­ma­ny doesnt want NS2 to be used as a red line in threa­tening rus­sia” and ger­ma­ny not deli­vering wea­pon­ry into con­flict are­as. Both of which were long stan­ding posi­ti­ons, for weeks, at that point.

8. Scholz still using a dif­fe­rent wor­d­ing after the mee­ting under­li­ning that ger­ma­nys posi­ti­on hadnt chan­ged. While Biden tri­es to strong arm the red line posi­ti­on once more, by announ­cing, that the US - and not its part­ners, would pre­vent NS2 from beco­m­ing acti­ve in case of an invasion.

DWs repor­ting: NEWSFLASH! Ger­ma­ny is using dif­fe­rent wording!

9. DW repor­ting that the mee­ting had been a flop, becau­se ger­ma­ny went to the US without making any fur­ther con­ces­si­ons coi­ning it as “At every step of the way, Scholz has avoided addres­sing the issue direct­ly. Ins­tead, he sounds like a bro­ken record chur­ning out the same non-committal state­ments the public has beco­me accus­to­med to after his first 62 days in office.”. Not men­tio­ning the 5000 hel­mets stand in for the cri­ti­cism in the least, becau­se that only was used as a pres­su­re point pri­or to the talks, and now has beco­me ent­i­re­ly - useless it seems. As ger­ma­ny hasnt chan­ged posi­ti­on. So… Not an issue any­mo­re, right? Lets just drop repor­ting, without men­tio­ning, that that was a gam­bit employ­ed by the Ukrai­ne, reac­ting outra­ged at the ful­fill­ment of an actu­al request made. (You can see that exchan­ge here: click)

DW never admit­ting the mista­ke on their part. Never loo­king at it from the euro­pean per­spec­ti­ve, never ack­now­led­ging, that the US tried to pull a fast one here, … Plain­ly repea­ting the nar­ra­ti­ve, that Scholz had fai­led in his mis­si­on of out­lining ger­ma­nys posi­ti­on. (Which by then had beco­me a fail­u­re to mer­ge posi­ti­ons, with the US announ­ce­ment.). Which at the time it was made, was ent­i­re­ly made up. Just as made up, as the “uni­fied US and euro­pean posi­ti­on” on making NS2 a red line, which they repor­ted for two days, without cor­rec­ting it - and still haven’t cor­rec­ted up until now.

Also - as DW is ent­i­re­ly rely­ing in their inter­pre­ta­ti­on on think tanks like the Ger­man Coun­cil on For­eign rela­ti­ons (thats pos­si­ble?), may be it would be inte­res­ting to hear their posi­ti­on on future deve­lo­p­ments in the matter.

Which is a not so rea­son­ab­le - Ever­ything short of a war is “very dif­fi­cult to imagine”.


Lets see on that point, how accu­ra­te they turn out to be in the com­ing weeks. Just know that one thing will remain cer­tain. DW will ask them for their assess­ment in a dai­ly seg­ment in the future as well - and then model their edi­to­ri­al posi­ti­on some­whe­re around the state­ments given.

edit: Just so you know what to think and feel, when tal­king about this sto­ry, the aus­tri­an Die Pres­se also is very hel­pful in instil­ling that in you.
Olaf Schol­zes press appearan­ce was “bizar­re”, becau­se he didnt ful­fill haw­kish trans­at­lan­tic think­tank expec­ta­ti­ons. See: click Its so hel­pful to always get told what to think and feel, without get­ting the back­ground on a story.

Hinterlasse eine Antwort