harlekin.me

A few points.

This is not a discussion.

The mode­ra­tor isn’t moderating.

Peop­le arent boun­cing off each other, or even reac­ting to each other.

Half of the panel gets trap­ped in “if I say some­thing with big feels, an intern­al­ly cohe­rent argu­ment will follow”.

More than half of the panel is opti­mi­zing for social media likes, in a for­mat, whe­re the­re are no social media likes.

A panelist sug­gests, that may­be this is all about enter­tain­ment. More entertainment.

No one has any idea how to address the public, becau­se, ever­yo­ne would still very much like to feed it PR, and then not deal with it.

A few peop­le don’t seem to know what the Mon­tan Uni­on was about. 

Peop­le are still cap­tu­red by the ques­ti­on, if the EU should build train tracks to get the grain out of Ukrai­ne. Here is what Putin is pro­bab­ly tel­ling the sou­thern hemi­s­phe­re whe­re you are loo­sing your “war for the hearts and minds of people”.

“We ope­ned har­bors for them, they are not using them. We’d pro­bab­ly ste­al 20% of the grain Ukrai­ne wants to ship through our faci­li­ties, but thats food that you are still get­ting. At a good pri­ce. We cur­r­ent­ly need the cur­ren­cy. When we are cap­tu­ring land, we are sen­ding you the food we cap­tu­red. The euro­peans call that ste­aling. Ukrai­ne will loo­se the capa­ci­ty to pro­du­ce as much grain in the fol­lowing years, we will not. Rus­sia and Chi­na can pro­vi­de you with fer­ti­li­zer next year, Euro­pa can not. The US wont care to. 

Then Pre­si­dent Charles Michel holds a 20 minu­te speech on who sea­m­i­ned Odes­sa. To which the respon­se diplo­ma­ti­cal­ly will be:

Yes. If they demi­ne it, we would have to give up the city in the midd­le of a war and gift them a tra­de rou­te (equip­ment goes in). Do you think thats a likely solu­ti­on to your pro­blem? How about some of our grain and more fer­ti­li­zer next year?”

Here is what Euro­pe is doing:
“We have no gas, we have no cop­per, we have no nickel, how about we build an infra­st­ruc­tu­re to get last years grain out of the Ukrai­ne now?”

I hope this is just an effing PR mess (After all, it’s just the Ers­te Foun­da­ti­on…), and not a reflec­tion of the sta­te we are in right now. Oh god, I sin­ce­rely hope so…

(At least some of the questions/statements are decent.)

edit: Rus­si­as offi­cial stance on grain exports from Ukrai­ne isnt so far remo­ved from my ramb­lings.. 😉 Apart from the Ukrai­ne its­elf cur­r­ent­ly not wan­ting to demi­ne Odessa.

edit2: Turns out the most cohe­rent voice in the “deba­te” was brie­fed. As in repre­sen­ted Car­ne­gie Euro­pe, not just her per­so­nal output/opinions. Oh well… Good to know that at Car­ne­gie Euro­pe some peop­le are still asking rele­vant ques­ti­ons, I guess.

Putin is not attacking the Ukrai­ne to colo­ni­ze its land, or to get res­sour­ces, or to get a buf­fer­zo­ne against Nato, or to keep rus­si­as iceless black sea tra­ding rou­tes open for more than 10 years (when Ukrai­ne would have tried to reinte­gra­te Cri­mea), or to get back a form of soviet uni­on, no - rus­sia is making sure the con­flict lasts, so more refu­gees have to flee to rus­sia, which then means, that when they move towards fami­ly reuni­fi­ca­ti­on Putin gets pro­bab­ly one third more peop­le than tho­se who fled, becau­se of fami­ly reunification!

Becau­se his inten­ti­ons are to pre­vent a demo­gra­phic col­lap­se! But this is some­thing we havent star­ted to talk about in the west.

Ok, ok, new question!

So Euro­pe is making the con­flict last to get more than half of tho­se refu­gees (Rus­sia may­be gets a tenth? edit: A fifth.), which then means, that when they move towards fami­ly reuni­fi­ca­ti­on, Euro­pe can pre­vent demo­gra­phic collapse?

Ok, ok, new question!

Is this also, why Moni­tor has Ukrai­ni­an refu­gees on air, tal­king about fears of fil­tra­ti­on camps, whe­re peop­le get raped (See Radio­Free Europe/Radio Liber­ty) and child­ren get sepa­ra­ted from their par­ents? Becau­se rus­sia cant wait for fami­ly reuni­fi­ca­ti­on to hap­pen insi­de russia?

Oh boy, oh boy, I love this new media rea­li­ty, whe­re Putin needs to beco­me a ratio­nal actor, so the fear of an esca­la­ti­on towards nuclear war goes away. 🙂

Wen aus der von Rau­scher emp­foh­le­nen Run­de hat­ten wir jetzt eigent­lich noch nicht? Timo­thy Sny­der lässt sich von der Vic­tor Pin­chuk Foun­da­ti­on zum Busi­ness Früh­stück ein­la­den, sagt dort “ich bin ein Freund der Ukrai­ne” sitzt neben Kule­ba, und spult das sel­be State­ment, mit dem sel­ben ukrai­ni­schen Ein­stieg wort­wört­lich run­ter, mit dem er zuvor (etwas mehr als eine Woche davor) in der Vic­tor Pin­chuk Foun­da­ti­on auf sich auf­merk­sam gemacht hat. Das qua­li­fi­ziert ihn dann auch dazu der ein­zi­ge Geschichts­wis­sen­schaft­ler (*hust*) zu sein, den auch ukrai­ni­sche Flücht­lin­ge bei Moni­tor ken­nen, denn Zitat “der hat gesagt was mir gefällt” (eigent­lich “doch, doch, das sagen jetzt auch Leu­te, der Sny­der hat das gesagt”), Fio­na Hill, mit ihrer vier Stein-Statuen Theo­rie wie Putin wirk­lich denkt (!), und ihrer kla­ren Dif­fe­ren­zie­rung, dass “Novorus­sia (in rus­si­schen Schu­len gelehr­tes rus­si­sches Geschichts­ver­ständ­nis) refe­ren­zie­ren” noch der ver­rück­te, Covid Iso­la­ti­ons Putin ist, der kom­plett irra­tio­nal han­delt, aber “RUS durch den Patria­chen der rus­sisch ortho­do­xen Kir­che pro­pa­gie­ren”, bereits der berech­nen­de Putin mit con­tin­gen­cy plan­ning (in pet­to) ist, und Kras­t­ev bei Precht, der im Argu­ment die Fil­tra­ti­ons­camps nicht bedacht hat, oder runterspielt?

Dh. die sind jetzt gar­nicht so schlimm? Denn Russ­land möch­te mehr Flücht­lin­ge im Inland? Die dann ihre Män­ner heim­ho­len? Und zer­stört des­halb kom­plet­te Infra­struk­tur im Osten? Die es nach Sny­der aber braucht, weil Russ­land neo­ko­lo­nia­lis­tisch unter­wegs ist. Aber dann am liebs­ten die Kolo­nien abwi­ckeln, und die Leu­te mit Fami­li­en­zu­sam­men­füh­run­gen ins eige­ne Land inte­grie­ren würde?

Ich glaub jetzt hab ichs raus.

Laut dem Rau­scher sol­len die­se drei Leu­te ja die öster­rei­chi­sche Bun­des­re­gie­rung bera­ten. Und die SPÖ. Weil die könn­ten die­se Bera­tung gebrauchen.

Ich merk mir dann, lan­ger Krieg ist gut, der ver­bes­sert euro­päi­sche Demo­gra­phien. Ist ja nicht falsch.

edit: Ich Dum­mer­le ich, ich hab ja noch das gut/böse Nar­ra­tiv nicht drü­ber gestülpt! Also Putin will einen lang­an­dau­ern­den Krieg, um sei­ne Demo­gra­phie auf­zu­bes­sern, denn er ist böse. Deutsch­land will einen kur­zen Krieg, um sei­ne Demo­gra­phie nicht auf­zu­bes­sern (obwohl es dazu in der bes­se­ren Posi­ti­on wäre), denn es ist gut. Aber Deutsch­land will einen ZU KURZEN Krieg, und das ist auch wie­der Böse, weil das hin­dert die Ukrai­ne ja dar­an zu gewin­nen, die aber selbst ent­schei­den muss, was das für sie bedeu­tet. Jetzt hab ichs! End­lich. Ich ver­ste­he die Werte.

edit: Nach­satz zu Wer­ten, Mer­kel habe sich in der Sache nichts vor­zu­wer­fen. Ich sehe das ähn­lich, aber was pas­siert jetzt mit unse­ren Werten?

- Know who to put in any given room. Know, that the audi­ence might not be able to pre­sent an argu­ment ful­ly, play off of that… I lear­ned a bunch today.

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.

Some of us are loo­king at the situa­ti­on - ful­ly, gra­nu­lar­ly. Without the con­cep­tu­al argu­ments of “what would be nee­ded to still respect and fear an inte­rest group after some­thing unpre­ce­den­ted hap­pen­ed in their sphe­re of influ­ence” (“lets teach them a les­son”), becau­se, values…, of cour­se, values - values, human rights, and the rest of the uni­que­ly wes­tern con­cepts (?) you werent pre­pa­red to com­pro­mi­se on in 2014, or ear­lier. But what a mista­ke that was, right? Spea­king of realpolitics…

Here, have the mul­ti­lin­gu­al guy at Davos sum­ma­ri­ze all the values for you. At once!

Values and real­po­li­tics, they go tog­e­ther like but­ter and honey. This has not­hing to do with punis­hing an enti­ty that atta­cked them in your immedia­te sphe­re of influ­ence. Not­hing with making an examp­le out of a situa­ti­on, so that no one ever dares to again… Sor­ry, I was tal­king values a second ago, I think. Like in 2014, but that was a mista­ke. No - no, values of cour­se, I’m cer­tain of it now. It must have been values that geo­po­li­tics is based on. Just lis­ten to the guy in the “The print” video. “He pro­bab­ly didnt defend demo­cra­tic values as stron­gly as he should have in the past but, …”

See, its all about who you put in a given room at a time.

edit: Sum­me­ry for tho­se who dont watch: The US enters wars late, becau­se its still slee­py. It then acts like a Poker play­er (advan­ta­ges in uneven game theo­ry con­fi­gu­ra­ti­ons) becau­se it is slee­py. It doesnt want a Hege­mon in sou­the­ast asia, becau­se thats natu­ral. It left afgha­ni­stan and iraq without con­tin­gen­cy plans of who would take over the power vacu­um (it didnt by the way but…) becau­se the new pre­si­dent did’t like it. Infor­mal inter­na­tio­nal rela­ti­ons­hips without con­tracts are the new “gre­at”, becau­se india isnt as com­pli­ca­ted as euro­pe whe­re ever­yo­ne wants to build a Nato or struc­tures like that. (Gor­bat­schow loves infor­mal con­tracts…) In india - geo­po­li­tics would be much more per­so­nal, this is more modern, this is more fle­xi­ble, this is the wave of the future. The Washing­ton Post cor­re­spon­dent tea­ching a class of young geo­po­li­ti­cal stra­te­gists then goes into a com­pa­ri­son on why some­ti­mes arran­ged mar­ria­ges are bet­ter than love mar­ria­ges, becau­se you then only find out later that the per­son is real­ly someo­ne else entirely. 

Know your audi­ence, know the room you are in. Know their level of edu­ca­ti­on. Then pro­noun­ce com­mon values.

A tea­cher at the side that always just nods with his head hel­ps. End with -- the ame­ri­can indian geo­po­li­ti­cal rela­ti­ons­hip will deepen over time, not becau­se we actively want it to, but we have so many mutu­al inte­rests, whe­re it sim­ply is bene­fi­cial. Then remind ever­yo­ne of your long las­ting histo­ry, and the com­mon enemy in the bri­tish with whom you are in the five eyes alli­an­ce, becau­se no one in the world wants them back in a hege­mo­ni­al role anymore. 

Tell them that Kis­sin­ger and Chom­sky often hold the same opi­ni­on (they don’t click), when they ask a dif­fi­cult ques­ti­on, then side­li­ne both of those.

Then tell them that it is very important for mutu­al under­stan­ding to have stu­dent exchan­ge pro­grams, and that they should dock on at ame­ri­can indian friendship insti­tu­tes to catch a few free semes­ters abroad.

And when they ask about non demo­cra­tic ten­den­ci­es, tell them, that for­eign poli­tics isnt like a for­mu­la, its much more free flow, whe­re ever­yo­ne is bound to make mista­kes some­ti­mes, but you have to find your own con­vic­tion on who is right, and then try to do it bet­ter the next time around.

Thats - youth education.

Sie­he: click

Infra­struk­tur­auf­bau soll­te jetzt begin­nen, auch falls Russ­land den Krieg noch gewin­nen soll­te (dh. unab­hän­gig vom anti­zi­pier­ten Aus­gang des Krie­ges). Es bräuch­te Zuschüs­se (Grants) und kei­ne Kre­di­te. Die­se könn­ten über Import­steu­ern auf Gas in die EU ein­ge­ho­ben wer­den. Die EU allei­ne ist zu klein um die Wie­der­auf­bau­ar­beit zu stem­men. Neben dezen­tra­le Lage­r­infra­struk­tur, stellt man am bes­ten Luft­ab­wehr Waf­fen, und hofft dar­auf, dass Russ­land kei­ne Ver­tei­ler­kno­ten angreift. Auf das ein­ge­fro­re­ne Ver­mö­gen von Olig­ar­chen hät­te man über völ­ker­recht­li­che Mit­tel Zugriff, auf das des rus­si­schen Staa­tes (direkt) nicht. Der Infra­struk­tur­auf­bau müs­se jetzt begin­nen um den Export von Getrei­de und ande­ren Export­gü­tern über den Wes­ten zu ermög­lich. Das Pro­blem sind aber bereits Nach­fol­ge­ef­fek­te, wie dass Chi­na den Export von Phos­phat­dün­ger ein­ge­stellt hat, Russ­land den von Ammo­ni­um­ni­trat (sie­he: click), Euro­pa dann 40 Pro­zent sei­ner Stick­stoff­dün­ger­her­stel­lung wegen hoher Gas­prei­se (sie­he: click), Indi­en dar­auf­hin den Export von Wei­zen ver­bo­ten hat (sie­he: click), daher seit einer Woche die Rei­s­prei­se steil anstei­gen… (click)

Aber jetzt müs­sen halt die Inves­ti­tio­nen in Schie­nen­in­fra­struk­tur in der Ukrai­ne begin­nen, damit man den Wei­zen des letz­ten Jah­res expor­tiert bekommt. Die Ukrai­ne spricht in der Zwi­schen­zeit von einem mög­li­chen Kriegs­en­de in zwei bis sechs Mona­ten. Habeck glaubt dar­an ganz fest. (Sie­he: click)

Blin­ken spricht von einem Krieg der auch noch 2023 andau­ern könn­te (click).

Und die US Gene­ral­schaft vor dem Kon­gress von meh­re­ren Jah­ren. (sie­he: click, sie­he auch: click)

Hof­fen wir mal das die Nahrungsmittel-Produktion im nächs­ten Jahr nicht von aktu­ell expo­nen­ti­ell anstei­gen­den Dün­ger­mit­tel­prei­sen beein­träch­tig wird… Da wir jetzt bereits jetzt dar­an den­ken Infra­struk­tur für den Export der ukrai­ni­schen Ern­te des letz­ten Jah­res zu bauen.

edit: Irgend­wie auch ein biss­chen toll, die Land­wirt­schafts­kam­mer Rheinland-Pfalz muss­te in der Zwi­schen­zeit bei den Ska­len­ni­veaus und beim Zeich­nen der Kur­ven krea­tiv wer­den: click

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.