harlekin.me

trifft eam da Schlog. Dem Club, net dem Wehrschütz.

Und die Redak­teu­re vom Pro­fil sol­len sich schleichen.

Wenn die noch ein­mal *hmhmmm* zum Punkt “Selen­kyj hat sei­ne Bevöl­ke­rung bis­her noch in kei­nem Punkt auf mög­li­che Kon­zes­sio­nen vor­be­rei­tet”, sagen höre, grab ich screen­cap­tures, von einem Monat nach Beginn des Krie­ges aus, in denen das Pro­fil 10 fluff Arti­kel auf ein­mal auf der Haupt­sei­te hat­te (lau­ter Hel­den, über­all, so rich­tig aspi­ra­tio­nal). Selbst scrol­len half nichts.

W*chser.

edit: Ah, die Ver­leum­ndung geht los: click

Die­ser Rech­te, war dann auch der Ein­zi­ge in der Club 3 Run­de der sich ein­deu­tig zum Azov Regi­ment geäu­ßert hat.

Selen­skyj: Kön­nen nicht gesam­tes Staats­ge­biet zurückholen

Die Ukrai­ne wird Prä­si­dent Wolo­dym­yr Selen­skyj zufol­ge das von Russ­land in den ver­gan­ge­nen Jah­ren ein­ge­nom­me­ne Staats­ge­biet nicht kom­plett mit Gewalt zurück­ho­len kön­nen. “Ich glau­be nicht, dass wir unser gesam­tes Ter­ri­to­ri­um mit mili­tä­ri­schen Mit­teln zurück­ge­win­nen kön­nen”, sag­te er in einem Inter­view, das sein Büro am Sams­tag in vol­ler Län­ge ins Inter­net stell­te. Bei einem sol­chen Vor­ge­hen wür­den Hun­dert­tau­sen­de Men­schen getötet.

Das Inter­view wur­de am Frei­tag im nie­der­län­di­schen Fern­se­hen gesendet.

src: click

Nach über drei Mona­ten Krieg. Nach hun­der­ten News­mel­dun­gen, dass Selen­skyj für Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen wäre, mit einer Medi­en­land­schaft, die erst in der letz­ten Woche erkannt haben will, dass Selen­skyj nie die ter­ri­to­ria­le Inte­gri­tät als Vor­be­din­gung für Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen auf­ge­ben woll­te - die jede Aus­sa­ge bezüg­lich “Selen­skyj pocht auf Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen”, seit dem ers­ten Monat, nur um den Teil gekürzt wie­der­ge­ge­ben hat. Wäh­rend es in den Quellen-Interviews, die refe­ren­ziert wur­de, immer vor­ge­kom­men ist.

Jetzt kommt die Bericht­erstat­tung, dass Selen­skyj erst­ma­lig sei­nen Kurs geän­dert hat.

Nach Mona­ten der Heldenstilisierung.

Nach dem Abdru­cken von Kom­men­tar­bei­trä­gen aus dem Mer­ca­tor Umfeld die Precht (Prag­ma­tisus) und Franz­o­bel (Pazi­fis­mus) als nicht gang­ba­re Mei­nun­gen im Ukrai­ne Kon­flikt öffent­lich abqua­li­fi­ziert haben.

Nach einem Monat schwe­rer Waffen-Forderungen, die dem spe­zi­fi­schen Wor­d­ing nach, nach einem Auf­ruf des Atlan­tic Coun­cils mit zwei Tagen Ver­spä­tung von ukrai­ni­schen Regie­rungs­spre­chern über­nom­men wur­den. Vor Butscha.

Nach einem Davos Gip­fel auf dem die Schwel­len­län­der Euro­pa als “emo­tio­nal agie­rend” umschrie­ben haben. Mehrheitlich.

Nach einer kom­plet­ten öffent­li­chen Abwer­tung der Posi­ti­on Deutsch­lands und Frank­reichs in Davos (“man sol­le nicht popu­la­ri­sie­ren, dass die Ukrai­ne den Krieg gewin­nen kön­ne” (im Sin­ne von “auch der letz­te rus­si­sche Sol­dat muss das ukrai­ni­sche Ter­ri­to­ri­um ver­las­sen, bevor wir verhandeln”)).

Kommt Selen­skyj - UND MIT IHM die gesam­te west­li­che Medi­en­land­schaft drauf, dass das hun­dert­tau­sen­de Men­schen­le­ben kos­ten würde.

Hat ihm das vor­her nie­mand gesagt, oder…

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das abgrund­tief Letzte.

Zuerst haun wir euch mit der tiefs­ten Pro­pa­gan­da (für Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen aber nur, wenn die Ukrai­ne die Krim zurück erhält, mit Papst im Land, und Pan­zer for­dernd, in einer Woche), und de fac­to Het­ze gegen Alter­na­tiv­po­si­tio­nen zu. Aber spä­ter über­neh­men wir die Mei­nung die wir nie auch nur zulas­sen woll­ten, dann doch, weil jetzt hat sie ja der Held formuliert…

Holy, f*cking shit.

Und wenns ernst gemeint ist - fällt mir trotz­dem ein Stein vom Herzen.

edit: Ach­so… Es ist wohl doch nur das geän­der­te öffent­li­che Nar­ra­tiv, da die US heu­te MLRS ship­ments frei­ge­ge­ben haben. Und es bald ein wenig komisch anmu­ten wür­de, wenn man mit Mul­ti­ple Launch Rocket Sys­tems Städ­te (dh. rus­si­sche Posi­tio­nen in Städ­ten) angreift, und gleich­zei­tig das “wir kön­nen erst auf­hö­ren, wenn die staat­li­che Inte­gri­tät der Ukrai­ne wie­der her­ge­stellt ist” messaging ver­brei­tet. Na dann…

edit2: Wow! Stan­dard dies­mal nur drei Tage zu spät irgend­wo im Ticker…

USA lie­fern moder­ne Rake­ten­sys­te­me an die Ukraine
Die US-Regierung lie­fert der Ukrai­ne im Rah­men eines neu­en Sicher­heits­pa­kets moder­ne Mehr­fach­ra­ke­ten­wer­fer zur Ver­tei­di­gung gegen den rus­si­schen Einmarsch. 

src: click
Wow, so glad to see you! Welcome!

Mehr­fach­ra­ke­ten­wer­fer mit grö­ße­rer Reich­wei­te als die Artil­le­rie der Rus­sen, natür­lich nur zur Ver­tei­di­gung. Ob die nach Nato Desi­gna­ti­on als Defen­siv­waf­fen geführt werden?

Was sagt da eigent­lich der Edi­tor des ‘Brea­king Defen­se maga­zi­ne’ laut der BBC dazu?

But can a mis­si­le real­ly be “defen­si­ve”?

“Any wea­pon is defen­si­ve if you’­re using it to defend yourself or your coun­try,” says Colin Clark, edi­tor of Brea­king Defen­se maga­zi­ne. “And sin­ce Putin is the aggres­sor here, if we sup­ply wea­pons to tho­se figh­t­ing against him they are, by defi­ni­ti­on, defensive.”

But equal­ly, if Pre­si­dent Putin sup­plies the rebels with arms “he might sim­ply say he is ‘defen­ding’ the rights of Rus­si­ans,” Clark adds.

Loo­king at it this way, it would seem almost any wea­pon could qua­li­fy as “defen­si­ve” - ren­de­ring the term meaningless.

In prac­ti­ce, howe­ver, “the­re are dis­tinc­tions” says Clark. In Ukrai­ne, for instance, the US is unli­kely to sup­ply any arms which might “turn the tide of war” and allow Ukrai­ni­an tro­ops to advan­ce or inva­de oppo­si­ti­on territory.

src: click

Dass die sich trau­en das zu fragen…

Wait - “The­re ARE dis­tinc­tions”? Ups, das war ja noch 2015 unter Oba­ma, nicht 2021 unter Biden, als die US im Dezem­ber retro­ak­tiv Jave­lins für den Ein­satz im Don­bas frei­ge­ge­ben haben, die dort schon seit zwei Mona­ten ein­ge­setzt wur­den (was laut Ex-Stratfor Ana­lys­ten den größ­ten rus­si­schen Trup­pen­auf­marsch aller Zei­ten als Gegen­re­ak­ti­on zur Fol­ge hat­te…). Nicht wie im Mai 2022, als die US MLRS-Lieferungen frei­ge­ge­ben haben… Weil das wür­den die ja nie tun.

Oh.. der BBC Arti­kel selbst war die Reak­ti­on auf einen Report von drei US Think Tanks, die mehr Anti Tank mis­si­les für die Ukrai­ne gefor­dert haben? Also Javelins?

A report by three US think-tanks this week calls for more non-lethal aid - such as dro­nes, secu­re com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons equip­ment and armou­red Hum­ve­es - but also “defen­si­ve” let­hal assi­s­tance, spe­ci­fi­cal­ly anti-tank missiles.

Ah, also gehts jetzt doch nicht um die­se Desi­gna­ti­on hier? -

US is unli­kely to sup­ply any arms which might “turn the tide of war” and allow Ukrai­ni­an tro­ops to advan­ce or inva­de oppo­si­ti­on territory

Na nur gut, dass Mobi­le Mul­ti­ple Rake­ten­wer­fer mit grö­ße­rer Reich­wei­te als rus­si­sche Artil­le­rie nicht dazu ein­ge­setzt wer­den kön­nen “gro­ße Explo­sio­nen zu ver­ur­sa­chen und vie­le Men­schen zu töten”. -

Figh­ter jets, hea­vy artil­le­ry and ground tro­ops would all fall into this cate­go­ry [offen­si­ve wea­pons]. But anti-tank mis­si­les - such as the Jave­lin mis­si­le reques­ted by Ukrai­ni­an mili­ta­ry - “would not be much use if you wan­ted to attack someo­ne” says Clark. “They can blow holes in armour but they’­re not going to cau­se huge explo­si­ons and kill lots of people.”

Sonst müss­te man dem Stan­dard glatt vor­wer­fen hier die Bevöl­ke­rung zu verarschen.

moder­ne Mehr­fach­ra­ke­ten­wer­fer zur Ver­tei­di­gung gegen den rus­si­schen Einmarsch

Offen­siv­waf­fen (Desi­gna­ti­on) zur aus­schließ­lich defen­si­ven Nut­zung, im eige­nen (ukrai­ni­schen) Staats­ge­biet, wo nach Defi­ni­ti­on Medi­en jede Nut­zung defen­siv ist. Gelie­fert von einer Schutz­macht, die sich nie ein­mi­schen wür­de um den Aus­gang des Krie­ges signi­fi­kant zu verändern.

Denn wür­den sies tun, wäre der Ukrai­ne Krieg per Defi­ni­ti­on ein pro­xy war.

Pro­xy wars are con­flicts in which a third par­ty inter­venes indi­rect­ly in a pre-existing war in order to influ­ence the stra­te­gic out­co­me in favour of its pre­fer­red fac­tion. - Oxford Dic­tion­a­ry of Poli­tics and Inter­na­tio­nal Rela­ti­ons (4 ed.)

src: click

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKp92a07nQ0
[edit: Davos Press Con­fe­ren­ces are now hid­den from public view.]

Kule­ba at Davos.

Kule­ba: The­re are now no pre­con­di­ti­ons for ent­e­ring peace nego­tia­ti­ons, apart from Ukrai­ne “fee­ling” that “they are held in good faith”. And “rus­sia will only come for­ward to hold peace nego­tia­ti­ons [no in good faith used in that phra­sing] - if they are star­ting to lose, and are covering their los­ses, that I can pro­mi­se you.”

Selen­sky­js requi­re­ments for peace nego­tia­ti­ons on May 7th (Chat­ham House speech):

Ukrai­ne will only reen­ter peace talks with Rus­sia if the Krem­lin gua­ran­tees the res­to­ra­ti­on of pre­inva­si­on bor­ders and returns thousands of Ukrai­ni­ans who were force­ful­ly evacua­ted to Rus­sia, Ukrai­ni­an Pre­si­dent Volo­dym­yr Zelen­sky said Friday.

src: click

Selen­sky­js requi­re­ments for peace nego­tia­ti­ons on May 24th (the same World eco­no­mic forum Kule­ba is spea­king at today):

Ukrai­ni­an Pre­si­dent Volo­dym­yr Selen­sky insists on direct talks with Rus­si­an lea­der Vla­di­mir Putin. In an address to the World Eco­no­mic Forum in Davos, he again rejec­ted con­sul­ta­ti­ons through media­tors. If Putin unders­tood rea­li­ty, the­re would be a chan­ce to find a diplo­ma­tic way out of the con­flict. The lea­ders­hip in Moscow should with­draw its tro­ops to the lines befo­re it began its inva­si­on of Ukrai­ne on 24 Febru­a­ry, Selen­skyj deman­ds. “This could be a first step towards talks.” Ukrai­ne will fight until it has regai­ned all its ter­ri­to­ry, he said.

src: click (APA/AFP)

I’m sure no media out­let will report any con­tra­dic­tion here.

Second point: In the press con­fe­rence with Kule­ba, he put a new spin on the “we need time to inte­gra­te the brain­wa­s­hed peop­le in the tem­pora­ry occu­p­ied ter­ri­to­ries” messaging Selen­skyj has put for­ward in the Zaka­ria inte­view befo­re, and spun it into “it will take time to find peop­le who would be wil­ling to live in regi­ons next to rus­sia again, which is why it is hard to gage how long a pro­cess of rebuil­ding Ukrai­ne will take”.

Two aspects. First the are­as cur­r­ent­ly occu­p­ied by rus­sia are now exten­ding into Ukrai­ne past more than half of said bor­der ter­ri­to­ry. Second “we need to find peop­le who want to live the­re”, sounds much nicer, right?

Third point. Kule­ba is now open­ly for other nati­ons enga­ging in hel­pful diplo­ma­tic talks that could bring about the end of the war. It is just that “they cant impo­se “new lines of con­ta­ct””, or “touch the ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty of Ukrai­ne, as a who­le - at all”.

Apart from this being a per­fect quag­mi­re on its own, three days ago Poli­ti­co publis­hed the following:

Poland’s pre­si­dent told Ukrai­ni­an law­ma­kers that “only Ukrai­ne has the right to deci­de about its future,” in a speech that was the first in-person address by a for­eign head of sta­te at Ukraine’s par­lia­ment sin­ce the Rus­si­an invasion.

“Not­hing about you without you,” Andrzej Duda told the assem­bly in Kyiv on Sunday, while slamming the “worry­ing voices” that have been cal­ling on Ukrai­ne to make con­ces­si­ons to end the war.

Duda recei­ved a stan­ding ova­ti­on and pho­tos pos­ted on Twit­ter show­ed him embra­cing Ukrai­ni­an Pre­si­dent Volo­dym­yr Zelen­skyy. Poland has wel­co­med around 3.5 mil­li­on Ukrai­ni­an refu­gees and sup­ports Ukraine’s bid to join the EU.

Duda’s comments came as Ukrai­ne said it would refu­se a cease-fire and will not give up ter­ri­to­ry to Rus­sia. In an inter­view with Reu­ters, Ukrai­ni­an nego­tia­tor Mykhailo Pod­olyak said con­ces­si­ons would back­fire and only encou­ra­ge Rus­sia to hit harder.

“The war will not stop [after any con­ces­si­ons]. It will just be put on pau­se for some time,” said the pre­si­den­ti­al adviser.

“After a while, with rene­wed inten­si­ty, the Rus­si­ans will build up their wea­pons, man­power and work on their mista­kes. … And they’ll start a new offen­si­ve, even more bloo­dy and large-scale,” he said.

src: click

With this (pres­su­re to not influ­ence ukrai­ni­an decisi­on making) being the cau­se both for the ger­man governments posi­ti­on of “the Ukrai­ne has to deci­de on its own, when it wants to con­tem­pla­te ending the war”, as well as the same posi­ti­on fea­tured in the UvdL speech in Davos yesterday.

Tho­se are respon­ses to that voi­ced need to not be influ­en­ced by out­side pres­su­res which now doesnt exist any­mo­re accord­ing to Kule­ba, as long as tho­se out­side pres­su­res dont try to nego­tia­te a new con­ta­ct line, or touch the ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty of the Ukraine.

Also the argu­ment of the Ukrai­ni­an nego­tia­tor you might noti­ce, calls for a seve­re dete­rio­ra­ti­on of rus­si­an mili­ta­ry capa­bi­li­ty (usual­ly the phra­se “so they cant con­tem­pla­te a simi­lar attack for at least 30 years” is used). Which coin­ci­dent­al­ly is the US posi­ti­on Nina Khrush­che­va sta­ted that she hears from US gene­rals in pri­va­te con­ver­sa­ti­ons, but not when they are spea­king to media.

Now wait to read none of this in tomor­rows news­pa­per. Becau­se they are our heroes.

Spea­king of the usu­al heroes, just for refe­rence, here is Kis­sin­gers Posi­ti­on from two days ago: click
And here is the ukrai­ni­an response.

But dont worry, that was just ano­t­her old guy respon­ding who was brought up on the noti­on, that Nato expan­si­on was a threat.

edit: Short asi­de on ita­lys peace talks initia­ti­ve being rejec­ted by russia.

Ita­lys peace initia­ti­ve in broad out­lines: click
Rus­sia pulls diplo­ma­tic corps from ita­ly: click
Reu­ters reports the rus­si­an for­eign minis­try spo­kes­wo­man sta­ting that the ita­li­an peace plan for Ukrai­ne was a “fan­ta­sy”.

“If they hope that the Rus­si­an Fede­ra­ti­on will sei­ze on any Wes­tern plan, then they haven’t unders­tood much.”

So the rus­si­ans aren’t exact­ly inte­res­ted in peace nego­tia­ti­ons either.

Kule­bas posi­ti­on on the ita­li­an peace plan in Davos can be found in the video at 28min in. And it actual­ly was what promp­ted Kule­ba to go into lay­ing out “his new rules for peace nego­tia­ti­ons, faci­li­ta­ted by other coun­tries”. Pre­fa­cing that with “Lui­gi Di Maio is a friend, so in princi­pal I will not have anything against [some­thing] pro­po­sed by a friend”.

In total­ly unre­la­ted news, ger­man pre­si­dent Frank-Walter Stein­mei­er was quo­ted say­ing the fol­lowing yesterday:

Ger­man Pre­si­dent to Putin: “With­draw your troops!”

Ger­man Pre­si­dent Frank-Walter Stein­mei­er has cal­led on Rus­si­an Pre­si­dent Vla­di­mir Putin to with­draw from Ukrai­ne immedia­te­ly at the Katho­li­ken­tag in Stutt­gart. “Respect Ukraine’s sov­er­eig­n­ty, stop the figh­t­ing,” Stein­mei­er appealed at the ope­ning cere­mo­ny of the church fes­ti­val on Wed­nes­day evening.

src: click

We have to be a moral power. We have to stop com­pro­mi­sing. We have to under­stand this as a chan­ce. We have to let us be gui­ded by values. We have to be strong. We have to be force­ful and not let our­sel­ves be divi­ded. With an hono­r­able men­ti­on for the repre­sen­ta­ti­ve of the euro­pean com­mis­si­on making a pledge, that she doesnt want to hear the word appease­ment anymore.

ECB brings in the immense power of pen­sionfunds that still could be lever­aged to a much grea­ter extent. And sees the usu­al dan­gers of eco­no­mies that are too expo­sed to inter­na­tio­nal trade.

So lets go through this. Moral power means, lets go back to a world whe­re we have eco­no­mic blocks. And not ask the Khash­og­gi ques­ti­on, becau­se at least tho­se issu­es dont touch our moral sphe­re, by vir­tue of being far enough away from our bor­ders. It also means to look more clo­se­ly into the cur­rent Xin­jiang leaks, becau­se our new public MO is that of being moral, strong and united. We have to stop com­pro­mi­sing means, remo­val of vetos or the unani­mi­ty princi­pal, in mat­ters of EU for­eign and secu­ri­ty poli­cy. We have to let us be gui­ded by values means -- some­thing, some­thing legal tra­di­ti­on. We have to be strong means, to use this moment to estab­lish the noti­on of beco­m­ing an inter­na­tio­nal mili­ta­ry power as well (hel­ping the Nato 80% but also being able to con­duct our own inter­ven­ti­ons, and secu­ring our own bor­ders), becau­se of the poten­ti­al uphea­vals we cant dodge any­mo­re as a result of the cur­rent war, thats pret­ty much a given, we have to be force­ful and not let our­sel­ves be divi­ded is the new man­tra for my genera­ti­on. Becau­se you have to see this as a chan­ce, right? No appease­ment is the new posi­ti­on of the euro­pean com­mis­si­on, becau­se if you’d go the appease­ment rou­te, all the other nice catch­phra­ses wouldnt work. And game theo­ry is for pussies.

(Which btw. is also what the prime minis­ter of slo­va­kia seems to have lear­ned almost exclu­si­ve­ly from the cur­rent cri­sis - he is very into this idea. To the point, whe­re he pushes it to beco­me the second to last point of rhe­to­ri­cal­ly con­struc­ted applau­se lines.)

The ECB is now at the point, were it wants to leverage pen­si­on funds more force­ful­ly and also is into redu­cing expo­sure to inter­na­tio­nal tra­de, becau­se of incre­a­sed risk of insta­bi­li­ty (cli­ma­te chan­ge, food secu­ri­ty), becau­se of the US not caring about secu­ring tra­de rou­tes for free any­mo­re, and becau­se of ever­yo­nes favo­ri­te term, resi­li­en­ce. So essen­ti­al­ly the aspects that cli­ma­te acti­vism was allo­wed to pro­mo­te in Davos in the past years.

The­re is also ano­t­her trend you can gage from the peop­le that have been put on the panel, and that is - make nort­hern euro­pean coun­tries, and the coun­tries in the east expo­sed to rus­sia, mat­ter more wit­hin the euro­pean uni­on to keep ger­man and french inte­rests in check. “Do you belie­ve that ger­ma­ny will take the role, to bind all tho­se inte­rests tog­e­ther to make a cohe­si­ve euro­pean uni­on” - was one of the rhe­to­ri­cal ques­ti­ons asked, to which the ans­wer of cour­se was “we have to - at least when it comes to the defen­se union”.

(Hig­her depen­den­cy in terms of ener­gy pro­du­ced by nort­hern euro­pean sta­tes, hig­her depen­den­cy in terms of the secu­ri­ty infra­st­ruc­tu­re pro­vi­ded by nort­hern sta­tes, more per­ma­nent NATO tro­ops (plan­ned) in the eas­tern euro­pean sta­tes, rai­sing their pro­fi­le wit­hin the NATO alli­an­ce, as well as the EU…)

And then end on an inspi­ra­tio­nal “we know this is not easy, we know we cant take demo­cra­cy for gran­ted, so lets do this”!

Phoe­nix also has com­men­ta­ry, if you want to con­su­me this with more sug­ar­coa­ting and ambi­gui­ty. (ger­man)

Schlüs­sel­fra­ge “was von dem was Euro­pa will - hat Scholz begriffen”?

Aaaa­ama­zing.

edit: Kris­ta­li­na Geor­gi­e­wa (IMF direc­tor) doesnt par­ti­cu­lar­ly like the “new iron curtain trend” - too bad ever­yo­ne else does.

Cli­ma­te risks, food secu­ri­ty issu­es, and the US not caring about secu­ring tra­de rou­tes all over the world, par­ti­cu­lar­ly, is a hell of a combination.

edit2: Hear­say com­ment that fran­ce and ger­ma­ny are pri­va­te­ly pro­mo­ting “we should not be say­ing that the Ukrai­ni­ans can win this” stance in Davos (at 8:48 in).

Pro­mi­se!
Pin­ky promise!

So just to get things strai­ght here. The mode­ra­tor doesnt know what the cur­rent end goal of the war is, every repor­ter ques­tio­ned dod­ges the ques­ti­on except for the very inves­ted ukrai­ni­an repor­ter who real­ly con­ju­res up an argu­ment of “we cant loo­se any cities any­mo­re - becau­se that would mean that more peop­le have to suf­fer through what But­cha (a libe­ra­ted city) suf­fe­red through”. Now thats gre­at logic, that cer­tain­ly rec­ti­fies an end­less war. Without moun­ting any oppo­si­ti­on, or giving any cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on on that argu­ment, naturally.

Half of the panel admits that repor­ting in their coun­try is one sided, but takes it with a smile.

The ger­man par­ti­ci­pant has a very suc­cinct way of exp­lai­ning what good jour­na­listic per­for­mance is. “Bild was sur­pri­sin­gly good here, becau­se they went on gui­ded, embe­ded jour­na­lism tours (my wor­d­ing, but its dis­cus­sed later on, on the panel) into the war­zo­ne, and hired ukrai­ni­an jour­na­lists, and even jour­na­lists from alter­na­ti­ve rus­si­an media. So thats “good jour­na­lism” in her mind. She repeats it three times - hiring peop­le clo­se to one side, and then taking the press trips, orga­ni­zed by one side - makes it, per defi­ni­ti­on, excel­lent journalism.

The group then later gets into the dis­cus­sion that they dont have any repor­ting on the other sides action, but that would of cour­se only be the case, becau­se rus­sia doesnt allow for embed­ded jour­na­lism on their side of the war­zo­ne, and becau­se rus­sia has denied jour­na­lists visas who tried to tra­vel into rus­sia for repor­ting pur­po­ses, and has enac­ted dra­co­ni­an laws against jour­na­lists working wit­hin the coun­try (up to 25 years of pri­son for publi­shing the wrong word).

So one sided repor­ting is fine I guess (not my inter­pre­ta­ti­on, but the inter­pre­ta­ti­on of three peop­le on the panel).

And to coun­ter­act it, and the emo­tio­nal pri­ming and good/bad nar­ra­ti­ves, and not exp­lai­ning any actions taken by poli­ti­cal actors in any sort of depth, or pro­vi­ding any sort of con­text or pro/contra argu­ments on likely out­co­mes, that at least one jour­na­list in the panel laments, is total­ly fine - becau­se jour­na­lism will “reflect on it” once the war is over.

Sad­ly, the mode­ra­tor doesnt qui­te under­stand what that means (“the war being over”, so what sta­te has to be reached), and she has a con­cep­tu­al pro­blem with it, but after you see half a dozen repor­ters sim­ply dodge that worry, put into an actu­al ques­ti­on for the panel, in a row - you start to be ok with it, right?

Oh, and the other rea­son named for the fac­tu­al one sided­ness of repor­ting is “we as a nati­on, and espe­cial­ly the public took a side in this con­flict, very ear­ly on”.

So any jour­na­listic cri­te­ria goes out of the win­dow -- of cour­se. Becau­se we can take sides.

So let me sum­ma­ri­ze what hap­pens, until jour­na­lism finds its way to eva­lua­te its may­be one sided per­for­mance, after the war.

Ener­gy cos­ts dou­ble. Growth rate is redu­ced by 0.5% points per year. About 100 peop­le die every day (cur­r­ent­ly), what “win­ning the war means” is unclear. But ever­yo­ne is for it. Becau­se the­re is no alter­na­ti­ve. Becau­se values. We are on the ver­ge of a new glo­bal hun­ger cri­sis, if the EU and Nato dont get out Ukrai­nes next har­vest via land rou­tes going through poland, or ship­ping from Ukrai­nes black sea ports (Nego­tia­ti­ons are in pro­gress at the UN level - becau­se its fair­ly unli­kely, that they will start using the sea­rou­te, that the rus­si­ans just ope­ned (clea­red of mines) from Mariu­pol), we cant talk about initia­ti­ves to end this war, if that means, that Ukrai­ne doesnt get total ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty back. Chi­nas manu­fac­tu­ring sec­tor going off­line cur­r­ent­ly will incre­a­se infla­ti­on spikes, green tran­si­tio­ning as a pro­ject takes the back­se­at to enab­ling ener­gy secu­ri­ty, and the sta­te minis­ter of for­eign affairs of Paki­stan just sta­ted in Davos, that if this means, that her coun­try gets into ano­t­her hun­ger cri­sis, sti­cking to values, to her doesnt seem like the right move here… And of cour­se - tal­king about com­pro­mi­ses right now, would just embol­den the aggres­sor, so we nee­ded to make that a tabu as well. Until the Ukrai­ni­an lea­ders­hip reached their mili­ta­ry goals, which are unclear. Or unli­kely. Or super fair, but we cant find out, becau­se we cant talk about them, becau­se we need to let them deci­de, without out­side influ­ence. Just with out­side wea­pon shipments.

No worries though, jour­na­lism will reeva­lua­te their repor­ting, once the war is over.

Oh, and one more thing. The Ukrai­ni­an jour­na­list in the panel got it estab­lis­hed, that “embed­ded jour­na­lism” in con­flict zones, real­ly is the only kind of jour­na­lism thats even moral­ly rec­ti­fia­ble, becau­se of the inherent dan­ger to lives, and the risk of other­wi­se ret­rau­ma­ti­zing peop­le jour­na­lists might inter­view. With tho­se kinds of argu­ments you can get a “you are so right” out of the cri­ti­cal minds at Pres­se­club Con­cordia - every day of the week.

Next time on Pres­se­club Con­cordia, we invi­ted two high rank US diplo­mats to tell us what the US is doing in this war, and what its goals are… (9th of June 4pm MEZ, keep the date.)

Becau­se we didnt watch to see what Nina Khrush­che­va sta­ted on this very topic six days ago…

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das Letzte.

Etwas weni­ger als 50 Tagen um genau zu sein. War wohl gut, dass die Medi­en die EU Posi­ti­on zum Ukrai­ne Krieg am 06.04. aus der Bericht­erstat­tung aus­ge­spart haben.

UvdL in Davos, war voll auf Selen­skyj Linie, nur noch die Bevöl­ke­rung Russ­lands hät­te es in der Hand die­sen Krieg zu been­den.

In der Fra­ge­run­de nach der Ansprache:

Aaama­zing.

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das Letzte.

Ich muss jetzt aber nicht heu­cheln und so tun als sei das alter­na­tiv­los, oder für die Bevöl­ke­rung das Bes­te, oder die Cor­po­ra­te social Respon­si­bi­li­ty in Davos, die das ein­lei­ten wird, oder bereits ein­ge­lei­tet hat, oder? Oder muss ich? Ich weiß das heu­te nicht mehr so genau.

edit: Die Selek­ti­on der Panels am ers­ten Tag von Davos heu­er ist gene­rell aaa­ama­zing. Pre­mier Minis­ter von Spa­ni­en ver­spricht Food secu­ri­ty für die Welt, Glo­bal ESG Panel ver­spricht einen Push für mehr Resi­li­enz, im Panel zum geo­po­li­ti­schen Out­look sit­zen lau­ter Unbe­kann­te, sor­ry ich mei­ne natür­lich nur unbe­kann­te, und ansons­ten Außen­mi­nis­ter die zur Staats­rä­son ver­pflich­tet sind. Nach der Uvdl Rede kommt Stol­ten­berg, dann eine Pres­se­kon­fe­renz zu “Spee­ding up the Road to Net-Zero” bei der alle sehr zuver­sicht­lich sind. Dann ein Safe­guar­ding Our Pla­net and Peop­le panel zwecks social respon­si­bi­li­ty, ein Latein Ame­ri­ka Pre­si­den­ti­al Panel, zwecks Ein­bin­dung ihrer Ölför­de­rung, dann kommt schon ein gefea­tur­tes Gespräch mit dem CEO von You­tube, dem von Micro­soft, und dann zum Aus­klang Gates zum The­ma wie wir uns für die nächs­ten Pan­de­mie vor­be­rei­ten. Aaama­zing. Ich würd sagen, das wird ein erfüll­tes Jahr­zehnt. Also wenn die rus­si­sche Bevöl­ke­rung den Krieg beendet.

Des is so erstaun­lich wie intel­lek­tu­ell elas­tisch die heu­ti­ge jun­ge intel­lek­tu­el­le Eli­te Öster­reichs so ist…

Stell dir vor du beginnst dein poli­ti­sches Leben als Event­ma­na­ger bei der IG Alp­bach Wien (kein Beleg, die IG Web­sei­te auf archive.org auf Ände­run­gen zu durch­stö­bern, war mir dann doch irgend­wie zu stal­ke­risch…), dann wirst du irgend­wann mal Prä­si­dent der sel­ben Ver­ei­ni­gung, dann gehst du in die Pres­se und ver­laut­barst, dass du als einer von zwei Grün­dern Fri­days for Future Öster­reich mit­ge­grün­det hast “Weil wir sowas in Öster­reich auch brau­chen”, also im Jahr nach­dem die Oppen­hei­mer Funds in Alp­bach den Kamin­talk mit dem Schluss­fa­zit “Zu vie­le Inves­to­ren glau­ben noch Kli­ma­schutz sei Phil­an­thro­pie, wir haben noch viel Arbeit vor uns” gehal­ten haben, als dann Gre­ta popu­lär wur­de. Du machst dann (im Jahr dar­auf) dafür die Face­book PR und freust dich zusam­men mit dem Orga­ni­sa­tor des Forums dar­über “dass Fri­days for Future (die du ja mit­ge­grün­det hast) auch ihren Weg nach Alp­bach gefun­den haben”, stell dir ein­fach vor die Qua­li­täts­zei­tun­gen schrei­ben das ab. Stell dir vor, zwei Jah­re spä­ter sitzt du bei einem Kli­ma Panel in Alp­bach, und ant­wor­test auf eine Publi­kums­fra­ge, ein­fach so rich­tig schön mit ordent­lich viel Bra­va­do, dass wenn beim Kli­ma­schutz nichts wei­ter­geht, man die Unter­neh­men ein­fach zwin­gen wird müs­sen. Stell dir vor dich pfeift dann das Panel zurück, weil das dann für eine Demo­kra­tie doch zu akti­vis­tisch war, und muss dann dei­ne Aus­sa­gen öffent­lich rela­ti­vie­ren. Was heißt rela­ti­vie­ren… Zurück­neh­men. Stell dir vor du gehst dann in dei­ner Rol­le als Kli­ma­ak­ti­vist so rich­tig auf, und wirst fort­an von brutkasten.com (die in Alp­bach im letz­ten Jahr enga­giert wur­den um die Mor­gen­run­den zu pro­du­zie­ren und zu mode­rie­ren) als “drei Daten­ak­ti­vis­ten und Kli­ma­schüt­zer Johan­nes Stangl” geführt, weil du Taferl hoch­hal­ten und über öko­lo­gi­sche Nach­hal­tig­keit spre­chen kannst, wie kein zwei­ter.
Stell dir vor Alp­bach fea­tured dich in ihrem News­let­ter, weil du auch auf die COP in Sau­di Ara­bi­en fah­ren und von dort berich­ten wolltest.
Stell dir vor du machst dann mit den Daten­ak­ti­vis­ten ein Kli­ma­da­sh­board (immer noch brut­kas­ten) und malst neben­bei Blu­men neben Bal­ken­gra­phen und das gefällt Com­ple­xi­ty Sci­ence Hub Vien­na, also denen die in der Ple­na­ry ses­si­on des EFATEC Pro­gramms in Alp­bach 2021 den Chair der Debat­te zu “The com­ple­xi­ty of gre­at green trans­for­ma­ti­ons” stel­len, also, was heißt stel­len, mit ihrem Prä­si­den­ten beset­zen - also denen gefällt das so gut, dass sie dir gleich eine For­schungs­stel­le am Insti­tut bereit stel­len, damit du dort dei­nen Dok­tor machen kannst.

Stell dir vor es ver­geht ein Jahr.

Stell dir vor du gibst dann Pres­se­kon­fe­ren­zen, also - so mehr jetzt, also aktu­ell, und zwar dazu wie sich die Euro­päi­sche Uni­on sehr wohl ein Gas Boy­kott gegen Russ­land leis­ten kön­ne - und zwar in indem du der Bevöl­ke­rung fol­gen­des rätst:

Laut den For­schern um Anton Pich­ler und Ste­fan Thur­ner las­sen sich aus den Ergeb­nis­sen kla­re Emp­feh­lun­gen ablei­ten. Durch eine gleich­mä­ßi­ge Ver­tei­lung des übri­gen Gases in Euro­pa und den Import von Flüs­sig­gas aus den USA oder den Golf­staa­ten könn­te der Weg­fall der rus­si­schen Impor­te zu einem gro­ßen Teil abge­fe­dert werden.

Ins­ge­samt erge­be sich dadurch für jedes Mit­glieds­land ein durch­schnitt­li­cher Eng­pass von 17,4 Pro­zent. Damit wür­de es Staa­ten geben, die ihren Ver­brauch redu­zie­ren müs­sen, obwohl sie selbst kein Gas aus Russ­land impor­tie­ren. Trotz­dem mache es Sinn, beson­ders expo­nier­te Län­der wie Öster­reich zu schüt­zen, sagt Mit­au­tor Johan­nes Stangl. “Die wirt­schaft­li­chen Ein­brü­che pflan­zen sich ja über den gemein­sa­men Markt fort.”

Gro­ßes Poten­zi­al besteht laut den For­schern auch bei der Umstel­lung von Gas­kraft­wer­ken auf Öl. Ins­ge­samt könn­te Öster­reich damit rund zehn Pro­zent des Gas­ver­brauchs redu­zie­ren. Und auch Pri­vat­haus­hal­te könn­ten ihren Bei­trag leis­ten: Sen­ken sie ihre Raum­tem­pe­ra­tur um ein Grad, wür­de Öster­reich 1,2 Pro­zent des Ver­brauchs ein­spa­ren. Indi­rekt kön­ne man so wirt­schaft­li­che Ein­bu­ßen ver­rin­gern und Arbeits­plät­ze sichern, beto­nen die Autoren. Daher brau­che es Anrei­ze für die Bevöl­ke­rung, sich aktiv am Gas­s­pa­ren zu beteiligen.

Ver­lus­te in “begrenz­tem Ausmaß”
Auch wenn die EU-Staaten koope­rie­ren, wären die Ver­lus­te durch einen Gas­lie­fer­stopp Russ­lands oder ein Embar­go für die öster­rei­chi­sche Wirt­schaft “spür­bar”, sagen die For­scher. Sie wür­den aber “in begrenz­tem Aus­maß” aus­fal­len. Die Pro­duk­ti­ons­ver­lus­te wür­den sich pro Monat auf 1,11 Mil­li­ar­den Euro belau­fen und wären damit “signi­fi­kant klei­ner als die wirt­schaft­li­chen Aus­wir­kun­gen der ers­ten Wel­le der Covid-19-Pandemie”.

Seit Kriegs­be­ginn hat die EU rus­si­sches Gas im Wert von rund 24 Mil­li­ar­den Euro impor­tiert. Vier Mil­li­ar­den Euro gin­gen an finan­zi­el­ler und mili­tä­ri­scher Unter­stüt­zung an die Ukrai­ne. “Auch Wie­der­auf­bau­kos­ten wer­den auf Mil­li­ar­den Euro geschätzt, ganz zu schwei­gen vom mensch­li­chen Leid in der Ukrai­ne”, sagt Thur­ner. Ange­sichts der immensen Schä­den des Krie­ges kön­ne ein EU-weites Embar­go daher auch eine “wirt­schaft­lich ver­tret­ba­re Stra­te­gie sein”.

Meh­re­re Studien
In den ver­gan­ge­nen Mona­ten haben auch ande­re Insti­tu­te Stu­di­en zu einem mög­li­chen Gas­stopp ver­öf­fent­licht. Im April berech­ne­te etwa die Oes­ter­rei­chi­sche Natio­nal­bank (OenB), dass ein kom­plet­ter Aus­fall rus­si­scher Gas­im­por­te 3,1 Pro­zent des Brut­to­in­lands­pro­dukts (BIP) kos­ten wür­de. Bei einem pro­gnos­ti­zier­ten Wachs­tum von 3,5 Pro­zent wäre die Bilanz dem­nach aber immer noch leicht positiv.

Von einem etwas stär­ke­ren Ein­bruch ging zuletzt der wirt­schafts­li­be­ra­le Think­tank Agen­da Aus­tria aus. In einem “opti­mis­ti­schen Sze­na­rio” kom­me es dem­nach zu einem Rück­gang der Wirt­schafts­leis­tung um 1,5 Pro­zent­punk­te, in einem “pes­si­mis­ti­schen Sze­na­rio” zu einem Rück­gang um 4,5 Pro­zent­punk­te. Die Wirt­schaft wür­de im Fall eines Gas­em­bar­gos laut Agen­da Aus­tria “bes­ten­falls sta­gnie­ren”. (Jakob Pflügl, 24.5.2022)

src: click

Ich bin so nei­dig auf die­se Prin­zi­pi­en­treue, dass ich mir gera­de die Hand abkaue.

Zei­ten­wen­de.

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das Letzte.

edit: Es fehlt noch die dum­me Fra­ge des Tages, viel­leicht an einen Kom­ple­xi­täts­for­scher - in Öster­reich. Ob das den Selen­skyj sehr freut wenn dank 20 Jah­res­ver­trä­gen bald kein rus­si­sches Gas mehr durch die Ukrai­ne fließt? Wobei, die haben ja selbst Vor­kom­men… (edit: Für 15 Jah­re. 1.09 Bil­lio­nen / 73 Mil­li­ar­den )
*räus­per*

Die Ukrai­ne ist der sechst­größ­te Erd­gas­ver­brau­cher der Welt, ihr Ver­brauch beträgt etwa 73 Mil­li­ar­den Kubik­me­ter jähr­lich. Etwa 25 Pro­zent ihres Erd­gas­be­darfs pro­du­ziert die Ukrai­ne selbst, wei­te­re 40 Pro­zent bezieht sie über Russ­land aus Turk­me­ni­stan. Der Rest kommt aus rus­si­scher Produktion.

src: click

Das macht dann die “CEOs für die Ukrai­ne” Initia­ti­ve des World Eco­no­mic Forum mit Invest­ments für Green Tran­si­tio­ning in die Ukrai­ne wie­der wett. 

(Flüs­sig­gas also.)

It has not asked the right questions!

How dare the ger­man government not tell us, that the­re is a Nato agree­ment not to deli­ver cer­tain kinds of tanks to Ukrai­ne!? We f*cking play­ed the public for suckers for three mon­ths to the f*cking point, whe­re anyo­ne asking about if offen­si­ve wea­pons (as per Nato desi­gna­ti­on, thats a Nato term, that also never was exp­lai­ned to the public, but I f*cking dig­ress) was seen as a moral offen­se, and now the ger­man government DARES to put out, that the­re is such an agree­ment in a public statement!?

Not with this media at the helm! Nobo­dy knows whats what any­mo­re! The media laments. Thats the fault of the government!

I mean we just whip­ped the public up to demand ever­ything it could, fas­ter, to reach an out­co­me that it didnt under­stand, becau­se of a hero, and now you say the­re are Nato agree­ments on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFJsInqHgho

Not while Theo Kroll is in a com­men­ting role!

And all you need to con­tex­tua­li­ze this news item is a snar­ky com­ment, real­ly… Who the f*ck cares, why this agree­ment was put in place? Not the media, while Theo Kroll is still in a com­men­ting role!

Sor­ry --- what? Hen­ry Kis­sin­ger sta­ted at Davos, that the Ukrai­ne may have to con­ce­de some ter­ri­to­ry to rus­sia in order to bring about las­ting peace?

Lets go to our expert for ever­ything and ever­yo­ne - quickly.

Quo­te: “Well, the, tho opt­sh.., it’s ahm, nnn, I hesi­ta­te to quar­rel with Hen­ry Kis­sin­ger, but nevertheless, ..” let me dou­ble down on wha­te­ver posi­ti­on I’ve put out into the public for the past three mon­ths which is, that we, as the UK arent for regime chan­ge, but only for end­less sanc­tions, that cant be rela­xed unless the­re is regime chan­ge, and that the goal here is to humi­lia­te rus­sia so severely, that it never for­gets that it can never have back Cri­mea for three genera­ti­ons at least, which then is obvious­ly true, after the Ukrai­ne has won the war, becau­se Nato enlar­ge­ment will pre­vent Rus­sia from doing so.

So the fund­rai­sing effort for a ukrai­ni­an Mar­shall Plan is com­ing along well in Davos I hear? Look, Bør­ge Bren­de was almost seen as having huma­nist ten­den­ci­es, for the first time ever. Some say - even human ten­den­ci­es, for the first time ever, …

But then the tit­le of the Davos initia­ti­ve sur­fa­ced… “CEOs for Ukrai­ne.” Not that the Spie­gel would com­ment on that the­se days - this is a clas­sic news item you copy from asa/dpa and then move on to the next one.

edit: con­text (ger­man)

“And it fol­lows news ear­lier today, that pre­si­dent Selen­skyj will not agree to a sei­ze fire deal, that invol­ves giving up any territory.”

YOU DONT SAY?!

News “ear­lier today” right?

Not for anyo­ne actual­ly fol­lowing his spee­ches over the past three mon­ths. Like no f*cking jour­na­list out there.

So lets sum­ma­ri­ze. We have a fixed public poli­ti­cal posi­ti­on of “deli­ver the Ukrai­ne the most bes­test offen­si­ve attack wea­pons it could want”, while the coun­try has just exten­ded mar­ti­al law to the end of august, and that inclu­des a gene­ral draft poli­cy (NYT “Ukraine’s Draft Dod­gers Face Guilt, Shame and Reproach”). We have out­sour­ced all of Euro­pes decisi­on making to “the Ukrai­ni­ans have to deci­de when they want to stop on their own”. We’­ve f*cking play­ed the public for a sucker with CONSTANT “no, they just want the pre 24.02. posi­ti­on back”, until this very week. We’­ve made a f*cking mocke­ry out of peop­le say­ing anything against hea­vy wea­pon ship­ments, becau­se we didnt edu­ca­te anyo­ne, that this was an Atlan­tic coun­cil demand at first, which the Ukrai­ne then copied, pre Butscha - or what sup­ply­ing offen­si­ve wea­pons means for the deve­lo­p­ment of the f*cking war. We’­ve hard­ly got­ten out the­re, that the US admi­nis­tra­ti­on is HEAVILY invol­ved in the dai­ly ope­ra­ti­ons of run­ning this war, and went on a public stall out against the ukra­ni­an government, when they flir­ted with “inde­pen­dence of parts of their coun­try” as a way to resol­ve the con­flict - for even a week.

We have cana­ries in both the CFR and on the media front, that con­firm, that the US might have done far too litt­le not to esca­la­te in the begin­ning (not let­ting the Ukrai­ne beco­me a part of Nato was never accep­ta­ble as a part of nego­tia­ti­ons on their part), we have a public that is not edu­ca­ted, that you cant ask for Nato mem­bers­hip (they have no open door policy

Euro­pean coun­tries that wish to join NATO are initi­al­ly invi­ted to begin an Inten­si­fied Dia­lo­gue with the Alli­an­ce about their aspi­ra­ti­ons and rela­ted reforms. Aspi­rants may then be invi­ted to join the Mem­bers­hip Action Plan, a pro­gram­me which hel­ps nati­ons pre­pa­re for pos­si­ble future mem­bers­hip. Par­ti­ci­pa­ti­on does not gua­ran­tee mem­bers­hip, but is a key pre­pa­ra­ti­on mechanism.

src: click
The NATO, as a defen­se uni­on is invi­ta­ti­on based.), but that talks about it are “exten­ded to you as an invi­te”, we have it on record, that tho­se dis­cus­sions in decem­ber con­cer­ning Nato exten­si­on never inclu­ded euro­pean inte­rests, and were uni­la­te­ra­ly ended by the US - that mon­th, while diplo­ma­tic venues were open until the end of febru­a­ry, but a chan­ge in posi­ti­ons was out of the ques­ti­on. On the media front, we have peop­le like Nina Chruscht­schowa on Demo­cra­cy Now con­fir­ming that US gene­rals she talks to are now tel­ling her that the sce­n­a­rio they are aiming for now, is to pro­du­ce a second Afgha­ni­stan for the Rus­si­an lea­ders­hip, while the same gene­rals dont say jack sh*t about that to media.

Media in gene­ral f*cked the public by tel­ling it bull­shit about Selen­sky­js posi­ti­on in gene­ral and over time - up to and until this very week, and not just media, we have EU advi­sers to Josep Bor­rell put­ting out fake “what the Ukrai­ne wants to con­tem­pla­te an end of this war is the the bor­ders of 23. 02. back” messaging this f*cking week. (Fake, becau­se that was never the posi­ti­on of the Ukrai­ne. Isn’t now, never was in the past.) Becau­se they f*cking get “infor­med” through the same trans­at­lan­tic friendship initia­ti­ve chan­nels, that domi­na­te their public position.

No one fuck­ing cor­rects this. No one fuck­ing fact­checks any part of it.

Now the media pivots towards “this (retai­ning the bor­ders of Febur­a­ry 23rd would make it pos­si­ble to enga­ge in sei­ze fire talks is not the defi­ning posi­ti­on) is news from yes­ter­day”, which just sim­ply isnt true, it was infer­red by the usu­al guests in the usu­al media chan­nels, but it was never decla­red that way, at one time it was sim­ply sta­ted to be one of the pre­re­qui­si­tes (edit: 25. 05.: die Wie­ner Zei­tung schafft es ENDLICH nach drei Mona­ten in denen es über­gan­gen wur­de, die kom­plet­te Posi­ti­on Selen­sky­js zu bestä­ti­gen. Wer den Teil war­um Selen­skyj sich unbe­dingt mit Putin tref­fen muss braucht, fin­det ihn, vor zwei Mona­ten, bei Zaka­ria.) -- but only in a con­fi­gu­ra­ti­on, whe­re Selen­skyj would then be able to talk to Putin and dic­ta­te to him a peace, whe­re Putin would have all rus­si­an mili­ta­ry lea­ve the Ukrai­ne and give up Cri­mea, to be mol­d­ed into a self gover­ned zone, as part of the Ukrai­ne, for some time - while Selen­skyj actively thinks about how to reinte­gra­te the brain­wa­s­hed peop­le (his words on CNN, not mine)) and just a way to get the public back on track to anything resemb­ling some­thing clo­se to rea­li­ty -- after all the poli­ti­cal posi­ti­ons are now fixed on the natio­nal and EU level…

And to sum­ma­ri­ze this in one para­graph, you only need to know, that the ent­i­re ger­man spea­king media sys­tem f*cking eat up the cool aid from trans­at­lan­tic think­tank initia­ti­ves, for three mon­ths in a row, the ECFR pit­ched posi­ti­ons for a f*cking mon­th that never were in the euro­pean inte­rest long­term as “the future con­cepts for the euro­pean uni­on”, and pro­vi­ded the f*cking “the public needs to be brought in line to be in favor of a pro­lon­ged war” agen­da set­ting in f*cking head­line arti­cles their CEO wro­te, which the f*cking news­me­dia copied ver­ba­tim, without as much as lea­ving a f*cking word of com­ment on what they were publi­shing at a time. Which as part of their job ethics they arent allo­wed to. This is going agains jour­na­listic best prac­ti­ces. You dont sim­ply let someo­ne else pro­mo­te agen­da set­ting items for an ent­i­re socie­ty at lar­ge, while giving them a plat­form, and not com­men­ting in the least. And they did.

Or even shor­ter, if the US isnt run­ning this war, and the ent­i­re­ty of EU decisi­on makers, and much more the ent­i­re ger­man and aus­tri­an media sys­tem didnt curl them­sel­ves up and into a cor­ner and star­ted to put out their emo­tio­nal sto­ry­tel­ling and pro­pa­gan­da for three mon­ths strai­ght, fai­ling to even lis­ten to Selen­skyj spee­ches in full -- it would be a f*cking monu­men­tal coin­ci­dence lea­ding to the same out­co­me, that took place over the past three months.

Using US friendship initia­ti­ves as cen­tral incu­ba­tors for now domi­nant nar­ra­ti­ves and posi­ti­ons on the topic, that were inven­ted by other US think­tanks mon­ths prior.

Until the f*cking goal of “ever­yo­ne who wan­ted to argue for a com­pro­mi­se - is publicly ridi­cu­led and paci­fists get han­ged for being “old­fa­shio­ned” and cra­zy” and all the decisi­on aspects got dele­ga­ted to a ukrai­ni­an government (that got the “cut all the insa­ne parts out of the spee­ches they are hol­ding” tre­at­ment from the ent­i­re media sys­tem sin­ce the war star­ted), was fulfilled --

and then, after the f*cking G7 mee­ting, and after you had every ger­man offi­cial sta­te in public, that the Ukrai­ne its­elf has to choo­se every aspect, of when and how it wants to enter into peace talks, with a public still not noti­cing that the US is pum­ping in 12x the funds into a mili­ta­ry solu­ti­on of this war, than the EU, ger­ma­ny and fran­ce com­bi­ned, the curtain drops.

Now Ukrai­ne is “more outs­po­ken, becau­se they now think, they have ever­ything they need to win!”.

Now you’­ve got­ten what you wan­ted all along. And ever­yo­ne even taking the word “sei­ze fire” in their mouth is a F*CKING PARIA, thanks to ger­man and aus­tri­an media.

Becau­se, thats not what the Ukrai­ne wants.

And win­ning, real­ly is the only way out of it.

Thank you for ful­fil­ling your demo­cra­tic duty, media sys­tem, tru­ly the insti­tu­tio­nal fourth pil­lar of democracy.

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das Letz­te. Das nächs­te Mal, wenn ihr die Gesell­schaft für drei Mona­te ver­ar­schen wollt, setzt euch wenigs­tens ne lus­ti­ge Kap­pe auf, dann hab auch ich dabei mei­nen Spass…

edit: Oh sor­ry, I f*cking for­got, the f*cking jour­na­listic ques­ti­ons after f*cking bila­te­ral press con­fe­ren­ces bet­ween ger­ma­ny and the ukrai­ne (held by Habeck, becau­se - well, he isnt for­eign minis­ter, so of cour­se you use him to pump the f*cking messaging on bila­te­ral talks with Kule­ba into the ger­man public), that sim­ply got drop­ped and not ans­we­red, when they dar­ed to ask anything about this mat­ter - two weeks ago… I guess some jour­na­listic out­lets did try. Its just that the public at lar­ge didnt noti­ce, that that might be important work, so who the fuck cares, right?

YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES, THIS IS YOUR FUCKING POSITION YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES:

SLEEP TIGHT! Don’t let the bed­bugs bite!
HOW MUCH DID IT TAKE FOR YOU AS A JOURNALIST TO SWALLOW THIS INDIVIDUALLY? 2000 Euro? 1000 Euro? A din­ner with trans­at­lan­tic friends?

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das Letzte.