Kontext
Kremlnahe Fake-Anrufer legen Polens Präsidenten Duda rein
Nach dem Einschlag einer Rakete in Polens Grenzgebiet zur Ukraine ist Präsident Duda in einem Telefonat von den russischen Komikern Vovan (Wladimir Kusnezow) und Lexus (Alexej Stoljarow) hereingelegt worden.
Das Duo gaukelte Duda in dem auf der Plattform Rutube veröffentlichten Gespräch vor, er spreche mit Frankreichs Präsidenten Macron. Die Präsidialverwaltung bestätigte dies auf Twitter mit. In dem siebenminütigen Gespräch berichtet Duda dem vermeintlichen Macron von dem Raketeneinschlag im Grenzgebiet zur Ukraine.
[…]
src: click
Volltextübersetzung der russischen Untertitel via Deepl:
C: Hello?
X: Hello.
C: Hello, friend, how are you?
X: Hello, Emmanuel, is that you? I have Andrzej Duda on the line.
C: Yes, yes, it’s me.
D: Hello, Emmanuel, thank you, thank you for calling. You must be aware, the situation is very complicated. We had an explosion in Poland, near the ukrainian border this afternoon. On our territory. And it was a rocket.
Without any doubt it was a rocket. Who launched it, we don’t know. It was launched somewhere to the east. And it was probably a russian rocket, russian-made. And the explosion was very large. The crater from the explosion was about 20 to 25 meters long and five meters deep. A big crater.
I had a conversation with Jens Stoltenberg tonight. I told him that tomorrow our ambassador, will probably initiate a paragraph 4 procedure. And we also had a conversation with President Joe Biden…
C: What is he saying? Is he blaming Russia?
D: No. He’s not.
C: Do you think it’s possible that a ukrainian missile hit a russian missile, and it…
D: I don’t know. I don’t know. President Biden said that he will be sending american experts to assist our investigation. They will probably join the investigation, but I’m waiting, waiting for the results…
C: Yes. And what position has Zelensky taken? Is he accusing Russia?
D: He, yes, Vlodimir blames the russians. He says they are completely sure, that it was a russian missile launched by the russians. And he says it couldn’t have been a ukrainian missile launch.
C: Can’t be.
D: That’s what he said to me. But after all, you know his position. He keeps asking for arms deliveries.
Emmanuel… Believe me, I’m extremely careful. I don’t blame the russians.
Emmanuel, this is war. I think both sides will blame each other in this - for this act of war.
C: I think we don’t want an escalation, an escalation between NATO and Russia. We don’t need that.
D: Emmanuel, do you think I want a war with Russia? No. Believe me, I don’t want that. I don’t want war with Russia, and I’m extremely careful, believe me. Extremely careful. We’re only talking about article four on my part, I’m not talking about article five.
C: What are you going to do if that missile turns out to be a russian missile?
D: We’re going to talk to our allies, to you, to the Americans, to President Biden. And I think we’re going to have to find a solution to this difficult situation. A common solution. But they’re in a different situation than me.
C: Yes, I agree, I agree. It’s terrible, but I saw in the news that your ministry said that the missile was russian. The russian missile, your ministry. It’s just…
D: Our foreign minister, he said in his statement, that it was a russian missile - of course, because it was made in Russia.
C: Yes!
D: The missile was made in Russia. That said, you know that both sides have russian-made missiles in this war. Both were made in Russia.
C: The S-300, yes, I know.
D: Perhaps, but you see, there is no clear evidence that it was S-300. It’s speculation, as far as I know right now… [Duda later publicly confirmed that it had been two S-300 missiles.]
C: What do you think about dirty bombs? The dirty bombs that Russia is claiming…
D: I’m more afraid of problems at ukrainian nuclear power plants than I am of some dirty bomb. I’m more afraid of…
C: And what did Vlodimir tell you?
D: I’m more afraid of a nuclear catastrophe because of an attack on a nuclear power plant. That’s what worries me.
C: So what did Vlodimir tell you? What’s his plan? Does he really want more escalation?
D: He told me about his certainty that it was a russian missile and that the Russians launched it. And that’s pretty much it.
C: But he didn’t provide any evidence?
D: He said they had evidence.
President Biden said he would send experts to participate in the investigation. That’s all I can say.
C: But don’t you have your own experts? For this?
D: We have our own experts. We have experts. There’s already an investigation. And tomorrow morning it’s likely to be joined by American experts - tomorrow morning.
C: Okay. [Chuckles] Thank you, friend. I’m getting very tired of both of them. Especially of Vlodimir Zelensky.
D: Thank you, thank you! Have a good day.
C: Thank you.
Das erklärt die offene, mit den europäischen Partnern abgestimmte Position der US in den letzten Tagen (Polen hat bei der Nachbereitung mitbekommen, dass Duda nicht mit dem tatsächlichen Macron gesprochen hat -). Aber die erklärt sich auch aus dem Sachverhalt, dh. eigentlich heißt das auch wieder nichts.
Bei der Gelegenheit habe ich auch gleich die Untertitel des Fake Anrufs mit Kuleba vom 14.10. OCRed (selbes kremlnahes “Komikerduo” - Kontext: click).
Vorsicht beim Extrapolieren von Kontext, das Video weist eine metric shitton an Schnitten auf.
K: Okay, okay, that’s good. Moreover, I hope to visit several African countries in the first half of October, where Russian war narratives dominate.
C: Tell me, what about Africa? What is the problem there now? And I heard there was a problem. This is what I read on Twitter. Zakharova said that President Zelensky had not talked to the President of Ghana. What does it mean? What is the problem?
K: Not Ghana, but Senegal, I guess.
C: Ah!
K: Well, she, well, that’s a separate subject of conversation, to be honest, because…
You know, all of a sudden, our partners, the United States and the Europeans, a few months ago started talking about how important it is to work with Africa and to have Africa on our side.
I understand the meaning of this discussion in the context of solving the food problem. But this problem has been solved, well, on some kind of… in a very narrow format but solved.
But the trend continued, and they say, let’s get Africa on our side.
There is another school of thought that says that you need to talk a lot with Africans, convince them of something and gradually win them over to your side. But I see that… I see two processes now.
Firstly, I see some countries in Africa that, well, let’s say, you can really convince of something, and they are open to conversation.
But I also see countries that have clearly taken either an openly pro-Russian, a hard-line pro-Russian stance, or a hard-line neutral stance.
You can’t convince them of anything, no matter how much time you spend with them. That’s it.
C: What kind of interesting things could be happening in Africa now?
K: Of course, you know how it is… The rising price of African… of attention by African leaders.
That is, if he, so to say, is the president of country X in Africa, he sees that Russians suddenly rush to him asking to support them, and then they are immediately followed by Europeans, Americans, Ukrainians asking for support as well.
That is, well, in such a situation it would be a good idea for him to start raising the stakes and ask what price they are paying for support.
Russia, what do you give me for supporting you? Then he would approach the Europeans and say, “Well, okay, you said, you give me 100, and the Russians offer 150.”
So, it’s just that we… I think that in this pursuit of Africa we rather motivate a number of African leaders to try to cash in on this situation, and not to take one side or another based on objective facts about the guilt and innocence of this or that country.
And it seems to me that with Africa we are going a little too far in this regard. All of a sudden, they stated a race for the attention of Africa.
C: What are the goals now? Who do you want to win over to your side from the African continent?
There was Kenya, I know. And who can be? What is your goal? And our country, it… Have you spoken to Secretary Blinken about this?
How can we make this happen?
K: Yes, yes, we are talking with him, and, in fact, the argument that we need to work more with Africa came, first of all, from the European Union and the United States that started telling us that Africa is important, Africa is not with us, we need to win over Africa, let’s do this.
Therefore, in this situation, several interests converge for us: The first interest is, well, basically, getting to know sub-Saharan Africa again - that is, the first task is to return to Africa.
The second task is, of course, to probe these countries for a possible purchase of certain weapons from their soviet-made stocks.
Well, the third task is, in fact, to promote our narrative - explain who is right, who is wrong, and secure… In order to maintain their support in political formats; primarily in the UN General Assembly, and in others, at other levels, in the African Union and so on. But for now, these are the tasks.
C: Tell me, what is the situation at the front now? I know about the counteroffensive. I am aware that your intelligence is working well, and in Crimea… And about your plans,.. From your perspective, how long will this last? What does your situation look like now? What is your take on that?
K: Well, I’ll tell you frankly that in close cooperation with our partners, primarily with the United States, Great Britain - when the Russians start an offensive, they move in the classic “soviet style” massive head-on, frontal assault. We are trying… As one British general said, you cannot win over Russia if you fight like a little Russia.
Well, that’s why we are trying to act differently, and because of this, our counter-offensive operations do not look as impressive as Russian ones— moved forward and captured some territory but, by and large, as far as I understand, we are moving forward, moving forward in the south.
The goal is to liberate at least part of the Kherson region on the right bank of the Dnieper. But, you know, the war taught me not to make projections.
What looks like a successful offensive today may stop tomorrow. And what looks like a small local operation can develop into a large-scale offensive. So, we pray…
C: And what do you think about Crimea? Is Crimea an immediate goal right now or not?
K: No. I think Crimea is not an immediate operational target.
C: But there are attacks, there are attacks. Yes, I know, and there is a sabotage unit… there is intelligence, and there are sabotage cases.
I am aware that some operations are underway there at the moment as well. And I see that there are also many intelligence people in Russia.
*cut* [A very obvious one, so I’m indicating it]
K: But, for example, if you ask me who is blowing up something in Crimea or Belgorod, then in a private conversation, to the extent of how private a Zoom call can be, I will tell you that yes, it’s us.
Well, firstly, Crimea is a source of ammunition for the Russian army in Ukraine and an air base for their aircraft from which they perform sorties.
Accordingly, the destruction of bases, ammunition depots, and aviation in Crimea has a direct impact on our combat readiness, Russia’s combat readiness on the mainland part of Ukraine.
That is, this has a definite military purpose. Moreover, it also has a psychological goal as it sends a very clear signal that there are no untouchable territories. But there is no goal to liberate Crimea, say within a month, this is not about that. Now we are talking about undermining the combat capability of the main Russian troops deployed, which are fighting in the mainland part of Ukraine, and about the psychological effect, a clear signal that we will return, we have already returned with weapons, and after that we will return with troops.
C: How can we help you? What can our country do?
K: I think there are two matters… three matters where the United States should continue to have the leading role. I say “continue” because, well, objectively, no one has done more than the United States. That is, the first matter is, of course, weapons. And it seems to me that the United States should now overcome their psychological barrier. I just cannot explain their refusal with another rationale behind it. They should provide weapons to Ukraine in one of the following aid packages… at least announce the transfer to Ukraine of the Patriot air defense systems and long-range missiles in one of the following packages.
That is, we guarantee that we will not use them against the territory of the Russian Federation, but if we have them, then we will be able to shoot through the occupied territories of Ukraine to the maximum depth, destroying Russian reserves there.
Well, the third thing in the long term is, of course, the Abrams tanks. Even some old ones, we will gladly take them. But we see that somewhere in Washington, well, we suspect where specifically, they are blocking these supplies. You can provide HIMARS systems, but for some reason you cannot provide Patriots. Although, so to say, three months ago you could not supply HIMARS systems either.
The second matter is, of course, to designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism. It would be very, very serious and a powerful deterrent factor, a deterrent step against Russia, it would be the best way to stop and, so to say, demotivate international trading companies from circumventing sanctions,
because they would all bear the risk of secondary sanctions to be imposed by the United States. Thirdly, the third matter is, of course, macro-financial support for the economy because you can only fight as long as you have money, money for the war. The mobilization…
C: Well, what is your take on the current situation? You… How long will your reserves last you?
I think that with the current… with the money already promised to us by the United States, the European Union as a union and a number of countries of the European Union individually, we will hold out till the end of the year more or less.
Well, we will be able to maintain the financial balance, but after that we will need to enter the IMF program. That is, in fact, the partners finance us till the end of the year, and we must use this time till the end of the year to finalize the program with the IMF and have a large-scale IMF program next year.
(Vorsicht, die inhaltliche Integrität der in den Videos zur Verfügung gestellten Untertitel kann von mir nicht geprüft werden.)
