The World Health Organization slammed the unprecedented numbers of attacks on global health care systems Wednesday.
“This issue is more important than bricks and mortar. This isn’t just about the destruction of buildings,” Dr. Mike Ryan, executive director of WHO’s health emergencies program, said while discussing Ukraine.
“This is about the destruction of hope. This is about taking away the very thing that gives people the reason to live. The fact that their families can be taken care of, that they can be cured if they’re sick, that they can be treated if they’re injured. This is the most basic of human rights, and it has been directly denied to people and we are then in a position where we can’t send assistance to those people, because the very act of attacking those facilities or not taking care to avoid those facilities means we can’t send the appropriate help when it’s needed,” he said.
Ryan said that attacks on health care, encompassing workers and facilities, means health systems are “becoming a target.”
“We’re only a very short part into this year, we have never seen, globally, never seen this rate of attacks on health care,” Ryan said. “Health is becoming a target in these situations; it’s becoming part of the strategy and tactics of war. It is entirely, entirely unacceptable. It is against international humanitarian law.”
Of the 89 attacks on health systems around the world this year so far, 43 have been in Ukraine, according to WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus.
DW’s Washington bureau chief Ines Pohl, starting at 5 minutes in.
Entry point:
“This was about hearts and minds, if I can put it that way, he hit lots of emotional points, that particularly hit home to americans, he tailored that speech to his audience.”
“Absolutely, ah, ah Phil. He really understands, how to reach a specific audience, I mean - we mustn’t forget, he is a trained comedian [?], and he really knows how -, kind of, you know, which buttons to push to reach, as you say - the hearts and minds of the audience, and he did so - I mean, just by invoking all the tragedies in the american history, like the attack on Perl Harbor, or the 9/11 terrorist attack, with these - images - he invoked in the speech, he didn’t only reach out to the lawmakers and politicians, but also to every single american, and on top of that, he played this - very emotional, ah, video, so he also understands, how to use images. So in a way that was a very, very - modern [?] speech, we just heard from president Selenskyj.”
Advanced course -
Meta Platforms (FB.O) will allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion, according to internal emails seen by Reuters on Thursday, in a temporary change to its hate speech policy.
Reporting by Munsif Vengattil in New Delhi and Elizabeth Culliford in New York; editing by Jonathan Oatis, Stephen Coates, Shri Navaratnam and Kim Coghill
Meta Platforms, the parent company of social media giants Facebook and Instagram, now says users cannot share posts calling for the death of Russian president Vladimir Putin or other heads of state after all.
The move came as Russia’s ban on Instagram came into effect on Monday, blocking access to the social media platform for some 80 million users across the country.
Meta’s latest policy, detailed in an internal company post seen by Reuters, marks a U-turn from a previous decision that was said to temporarily allow some posts on Facebook and Instagram calling for the death of Putin or his Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko.
“We are now narrowing the focus to make it explicitly clear in the guidance that it is never to be interpreted as condoning violence against Russians in general,” Meta global affairs president Nick Clegg wrote on Sunday in a post on the company’s internal platform that was seen by Reuters.
“We also do not permit calls to assassinate a head of state…So, in order to remove any ambiguity about our stance, we are further narrowing our guidance to make explicit that we are not allowing calls for the death of a head of state on our platforms,” Clegg said.
[Walter] Lippman argues that, when properly deployed in the public interest, the manufacture of consent is useful and necessary for a cohesive society, because, in many cases, “the common interests” of the public are not obvious except upon careful analysis of the collected data, a critical intellectual exercise in which most people are uninterested or are incapable of doing. Therefore, most people must have the world summarized for them by the well-informed, and will then act accordingly.
That the manufacture of consent is capable of great refinements no one, I think, denies. The process by which public opinions arise is certainly no less intricate than it has appeared in these pages, and the opportunities for manipulation open to anyone who understands the process are plain enough.… [a]s a result of psychological research, coupled with the modern means of communication, the practice of democracy has turned a corner. A revolution is taking place, infinitely more significant than any shifting of economic power.… Under the impact of propaganda, not necessarily in the sinister meaning of the word alone, the old constants of our thinking have become variables. It is no longer possible, for example, to believe in the original dogma of democracy; that the knowledge needed for the management of human affairs comes up spontaneously from the human heart. Where we act on that theory we expose ourselves to self-deception, and to forms of persuasion that we cannot verify. It has been demonstrated that we cannot rely upon intuition, conscience, or the accidents of casual opinion if we are to deal with the world beyond our reach.
— Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, Chapter XV
The political elite are members of the class of people who are incapable of accurately understanding, by themselves, the complex “unseen environment” wherein the public affairs of the modern state occur; thus, Lippmann proposes that a professional, “specialized class” collect and analyze data, and present their conclusions to the society’s decision makers, who, in their turn, use the “art of persuasion” to inform the public about the decisions and circumstances affecting them.[5]
Public Opinion proposes that the increased power of propaganda and the specialized knowledge required for effective political decisions have rendered the traditional notion of democracy impossible. The phrase “manufacture of consent” was introduced, which the academics Noam Chomsky and Edward S. Herman used as the title of their book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (1988). Chomsky has extensively criticized Lippman’s thesis as deeply opposed to democracy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWL0mxewelk Kritisch, investigativ, unerschrocken. Was der Reporter sonst so gefunden hat: Ein gepanzertes Fahrzeug zum rumfahren. Die Personenschützer in dem Fahrzeug, die aber jetzt humanitär tätig sind, und “Leute aus Kiev herausholen, und Medikamente aus Odessa besorgen”, und nicht mal das ist ihnen jetzt möglich… Russland bekämpft sogar humanitäre Hilfe! Einen ehemaligen bekannten Fernsehmoderator, jetzt in Uniform (Daniel Salem, beliebtes Motiv, der war schon öfter vor der Kamera, Journalistennetzwerke, nehm ich an), eine inspirierende Ansprache (“Wir leben auf einem Planeten, der Erde heißt, …”), die seit den permanenten Ansprachen von Selenskyj populäre Forderung, dass die Nato den ukrainischen Luftraum sichern soll, sogar in populärer Ausprägung - von vielen die das fordern! Agentur Bilder aus dem von Russland beschossenen, westlichen Militärstützpunkt nahe Polen, obwohl der Reporter gerade noch auf dem Weg nach Odessa war, eine Ansprache Selenskyjs, Claudia Major von der Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik in Berlin, Anna und ihre Kinder im Keller in Kiew, Agenturbilder von flüchtenden Menschen, das Philharmonieorchester in Kiew auf dem Freiheitsplatz, das die Europahymne spielt. Ode an die Freude. (Ton aus dem off: “Gegen die Ohnmacht, die Stille und die Angst.”)
Have: Perl Harbour, 9/11, terrorists, I have a dream, a live videofeed directly into US congress on a cinema sized videowall, encrypted video communication out of the Ukraine provided by the US military, preproduced video package (close the sky over Ukraine, scored to violin music);
Need: No fly zone, if not possible, S-300 anti air systems, companies leaving russia, new tools to be created to be able to respond quickly. Justice to history.
Searching for: “Sense in life, if I can not save lives”.
Slovakia has preliminarily agreed to provide Ukraine with a key Soviet-era air defense system to help defend against Russian airstrikes, according to three sources familiar with the matter, but the US and NATO are still grappling with how to backfill that country’s own defensive capabilities and the transfer is not yet assured.
According to two of the sources, Slovakia, one of three NATO allies that have the defense systems in question, wants assurances that the systems will be replaced immediately.
If a country provided its S-300s, the supplying country is likely to receive the US-made Patriot air defense missile system to backfill the capability it would be giving up, according to two other sources familiar with the negotiations.
Germany and the Netherlands have already publicly announced that they are sending Patriots to Slovakia. But integrating a new, complex air defense system into a country’s existing military architecture, as well as training its forces to use it, can take time, one source familiar with the matter cautioned.
US to provide Switchblade drones to Ukraine, sources say
President Joe Biden announced on Wednesday additional US assistance to Ukraine including drones, and two sources familiar with the matter tell CNN that, specifically, the US will be providing Switchblade drones, which are small, portable so-called kamikaze or suicide drones that carry a warhead and detonate on impact.
- need a proponent of that lovely theorem no one can verify, but that usually represents the most hawkish position possible?
Look no further than the former ambassodor to the Ukraine, ousted by Trump, Marie Yovanovitch.
She has a new book out.
Also a proponent of the “Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine, and this is a serious threat for Nato countries” thesis of course --
Oh, and dont forget the CNN moderator that leads in with the following question, referencing a specific paragraph in Yovanovitchs book:
“We have failed to call out Russia’s behavior in a way that Russia finds persuasive or taken steps to stop it that Moscow finds compelling. If we continue to fumble around [always a great sign, when you make arguments non specific], we will someday, maybe soon, find ourselves in a serious confrontation in a context not of our choosing and not to our advantage.”
- then states, that this was prescient, then asks, how is what we are seeing today a consequence of what she wrote - this is the answer that follows:
“I think its the culmination of what we’ve seen coming from the Putin regime, over the last 20 years - 2008, the invasion of Georgia, then we had Ukraine in 2014, and now Ukraine again in 2022, and I think Putin will continue to expand, ah, the russian empire, the former soviet empire as he sees it, unless he is stopped.”
What follows next is a news anchor that starts prancing around and miming a closed fist vs. open hand metaphor into camera, giving an exact image, of how serious the former ambassador was when she wrote
- someday, maybe [we’ll] find ourselves in a serious confrontation in a context not of our choosing and not to our advantage
to then end his inquiry, by finishing his question - “Is this [what we currently see] that, that we are meeting Putin with a closed fist now, instead of an open hand?”
You know - the urgent question, for the public debate, that gets broadcast on CNN these days… Oh, and could I interest you in a book thats indeed very prescient?
Almost as prescient as DWs interview with the former US Army Europe Commander Lt. General Ben Hodges, who understands that the coming two weeks will be decisive, and is also a proponent of the thesis, that… Ah, listen for yourself:
This was Ben Hodges at the Munich Security conference three weeks ago, btw.:
Oh, and the Ukraine will succeed in a war of attrition of course especially longterm:
Which the same CNN moderator then calls “slow annihilation, as US officials were telling Jim Sciutto”. (Probably in this video, if not, limit the youtube search filter to the last month and start digging.)
Yeah, who could want that… Nobody could want that, right?
Now, look at the cute little doggy! Is it a moral obligation?
Look at the doggy once more.
(Theres a second, entirely unrelated, puppy dog shot in the video, btw. just for good measure.)
edit: Two dogs in this report. Very popular motive for camera crews these days. But this time, at least not in the attract image.
Can we get some mood music, and some people admitting in perfect reality TV script style, that that was the moment, when they realized that this would become a war? Maybe add a few “they are afraid” and “he’s unhinged” soundbites to it?
Thank you PBS.
Also - at the same time the official narrative on the scientific side is, that US intelligence circles warned about the strong possibility of a war at least two weeks prior (see: click). Which then is a little bit embezzled by the Hoover Institute for gerneral pundit consumption, and made into the reasoning for the narrative, that the one good aspect that came out of this is, that europe is now closer in terms of policy positions than ever before. Of course some people also call BS on that, because it is unity by necessity, but those are just mad wierdos.
At the same time it is acknowledged, that the entire meeting was made up for PR purposes, that it was prerecorded, yet it shows with absolute certainty, how distant Putin is to his advisers, and how unhinged, even crazy he is, and that everyone in his own “balance of power circles” is afraid of him.
Wait - do I need historical experts for that purpose, that are exactly dumb enough not to understand that should a balance of power in Russia exist, it is not “argued for freely” in the open, in a prerecorded PR production? Do I need experts just dumb enough not to notice, that the fact that Putin put down the SVR intelligence chief, was reported by the same media outlets (PBS) as a public display of the notion, that the foreign security sector within russia has lost influence?
Sorry - not dumb enough, just situated in the right talking circles of course.
People speaking in the video:
“What was especially weird and creepy was the way he dressed down the head of his foreign intelligence service, [Sergey] Naryshkin,” says Daniel Fried, currently a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Poland from 1997 to 2000 and as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs from 2005 to 2009.
“[Putin] seemed to go off the rails, angry and berating his intelligence chief,” recalls Schake, who previously served at the U.S. State Department, the Department of Defense and the National Security Council. “It was such a strange and such an orchestrated performance, that that’s the moment when I realized that Putin was actually going to attack Ukraine.
Oh, just for comparative purposes, lets see how france reacts to stuff similar to this:
US intel paints Putin as aggrieved, angry over Ukraine war
Washington (AFP) – US intelligence chiefs on Tuesday branded Russia’s Vladimir Putin an “angry,” isolated leader grappling for global clout, frustrated about how his Ukraine invasion has not gone to plan, and lobbing provocative nuclear threats at the West.
The long-standing president in Moscow has been “stewing in a combustible combination of grievance and ambition for many years,” CIA Director William Burns told US lawmakers.
He called the invasion of Ukraine a matter of “deep personal conviction” for Putin, his latest defiant clash with Europe and the United States.
“I think Putin is angry and frustrated right now. He’s likely to double down and try to grind down the Ukrainian military with no regard for civilian casualties,” Burns said at a congressional hearing on global threats.
The Russian strongman has encountered a tidal wave of opprobrium for the deadly invasion, leaving him isolated like never before.
The US intelligence community warned of the potential for Putin to lash out, especially noting an elevated nuclear threat.
Lieutenant General Scott Berrier, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, said Russia under Putin has been working overtime to modernize its weaponry, particularly smaller-yield nuclear weapons.
Putin has “invested in tactical nuclear weapons,” Berrier said. “I believe that he thinks that gives him an asymmetric advantage.”
Putin took the shock step last month of putting Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert.
Some US officials have privately expressed concern that, in a worst-case scenario, he might order deployment of such mini-nukes on a city.
Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said “Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling” has put the West on notice.
“We assess Putin feels aggrieved the West does not give him proper deference, and perceives this as a war he cannot afford to lose,” Haines told the panel.
“But what he might be willing to accept as a victory may change over time,” she said.
Putin’s invasion has produced “a shock to the geopolitical order with implications for the future that we are only beginning to understand, but are sure to be consequential.”
With Putin under immense pressure, the “system” the Russian president created of a circle of close advisors is getting “narrower and narrower,” the CIA’s Burns said.
In such a system, “it’s not proven career enhancing for people to question or challenge his judgment.”
Summary/Abstract:This article shows how Russian media use personalization to increase pro-Russian influence on every Russian-speaking community. Based on the examples it gives an understanding, why such manner of representing the news can be dangerous as it increases nationalism and xenophobia, making the stereotypes rule over the facts. The long-term objective of [this] work is to prevent the development of such kind of personalization and to decrease the negative influence upon other countries.
Neun von zehn Ukrainern wären nach Ansicht des UN-Entwicklungsexperten Achim Steiner im Fall eines lang anhaltenden Krieges von Armut bedroht. Im schlimmsten Fall würde die Wirtschaft des Landes zusammenbrechen und das Wachstum von zwei Jahrzehnten zunichte gemacht, sagte Steiner, Administrator des Entwicklungsprogramms der Vereinten Nationen (UNDP).
Ein direkter militärischer Sieg gegen Russland scheint unwahrscheinlich zu sein. Doch je länger Kiew durchhält, desto besser ist die Verhandlungsgrundlage für die Ukraine
Daher [aus dem Text geht in keinster Weise hervor worauf sich daher bezieht - es wird einfach postuliert, die Maximalforderungen Russlands seien nicht umsetzbar - daher bezieht sich auf dieses Postulat…] müsste Moskau bei einem andauernden Krieg auch selbst nach Kompromissen suchen – eigentlich. Denn Russlands Präsident heißt Wladimir Putin – und genau seine mangelnde Rationalität macht das Endszenario des Krieges so unberechenbar.
Der Mörder Putin machts aber nicht, weil er so verrückt ist.
Obwohl ers laut Selenskyj macht - aber zuvor noch ein wenig gekämpft werden muss.
Der ukrainische Präsident Wolodymyr Selenskyj versprüht in einer Videobotschaft so etwas wie einen Funken Hoffnungen über mögliche Friedensverhandlungen mit Russland. Die Verhandlungspositionen Russlands hörten sich “realistischer” an, sagte Selenskyj. Bis die Ukraine zufrieden sein könne, dauere es aber noch. “Wir alle wollen so schnell wie möglich Frieden und Sieg”, meinte der Präsident. “Aber es braucht Mühe und Geduld.”
Es müsse noch gekämpft und gearbeitet werden. Jeder Krieg ende mit einer Vereinbarung. “Die Treffen werden fortgesetzt.”
Wir sehen, die Interessen der Ukraine spiegeln nicht die Interessen der armutsgefährdeten Bevölkerung in der Ukraine wieder. Zumindest nicht mittelfristig.
US-Regierung spottet über russische Sanktionen
Die US-Regierung hat mit Spott auf die von Russland verhängten Einreiseverbote gegen US-Präsident Joe Biden und andere Politiker reagiert. “Als erstes möchte ich anmerken, dass Präsident Biden ein Junior ist, so dass sie vielleicht seinen Vater sanktioniert haben. Möge er in Frieden ruhen”, sagte die Sprecherin des Weißen Hauses, Jen Psaki, am Dienstag weil bei der Sanktionsliste ein “jr.” fehlte. Auch Ex-Präsidentschaftskandidatin Hilary Clinton spottete über ihre Sanktionierung, dass sie der “russischen Academy für die Auszeichnung für ihr Lebenswerk” danke.
Psaki fügte hinzu: “Ich würde sagen, dass es niemanden von Ihnen überraschen wird, dass keiner von uns Touristenreisen nach Russland plant und keiner von uns Bankkonten hat, auf die wir nicht zugreifen können.” Im Gegenzug hätten die westlichen Sanktionen die russische Wirtschaft um Jahrzehnte zurückgeworfen, so Psaki. “Die beispiellosen Kosten, die wir mit Verbündeten und Partnern auferlegt haben, haben 30 Jahre wirtschaftlichen Fortschritt zunichtegemacht”, sagte Psaki.
Und verspotten eine der Kriegsparteien öffentlich.
Während wir für mehr Armut in der Ukraine und weltweit sorgen.
Zum Schutz westlicher Werte.
Von den budgetierten 13.6 Milliarden USD sind bisher erst 200 Millionen als Militärhilfe freigegeben. Da müssen sich die Ukrainer schon noch ein wenig ranhalten - immerhin stabilisieren wir mit dem Rest deren Gesellschaft. Gesamtschadenssumme geschätzt 100 Milliarden und steigend, laut ukrainischen Angaben.
src: click
Aber da kann man dann ja Aufbauhilfe mit westlichen Konzernen nachschießen. Natürlich erst, wenn die Ukraine wieder einen Zugang zum Meer hat. Sonst ist eine separierte Westukraine wirtschaftlich nicht haltbar.
Ich glaube wir brauchen kurz- und mittelfristig noch ein paar mehr Helden.
Historic heroes - mind you, says the majority opinion in Washington DC:
Democracy, freedom, sovereignty against dictatorship, you know the drill… Values.
And the moderator even dares to ask where our values were previously - but then he slowly gets the new narrative (“This is a muscular, patriotic defense of a liberal open society. […] We instinctively understand it in a way that other wars, civil wars, have been much harder to understand -” (- this is whats different this time around).”), and starts nodding…
Is propaganda used to make people understand? Lets say by using emotionally loaded terms in one instance, and 400x less reporting in other instances? (Silly statistic, but you know - its the principle that counts…)
(Die Meldungen stammen bis auf die Einschätzung zu den bisherigen Gesamtschäden aus den letzten beiden Tagen.)
edit: Warum haben die Sanktionen in Russland eigentlich 30 Jahre Wirtschaftswachstum zu Nichte gemacht, der Krieg in der Ukraine jedoch nur 20 Jahre des ukrainischen?
edit2: Der Standard fantasiert sich in dem Zusammenhang jetzt die Aussage herbei, dass die ukrainischen Streitkräfte gegenüber russischen Truppen erstmals im Vorteil wären - “da die russischen Streitkräfte darum kämpften, die Herausforderungen des ukrainischen Geländes zu meistern”. Das steht im Security briefing über das berichtet wird, jedoch nicht drinnen. Also der, dass die Ukraine “im Vorteil wäre” Teil. Naja, man kanns ja mal zur Gewissensberuhigung erfinden.
Wir fassen also zusammen, dass die russischen Streitkräfte (die kampferfahrenen und noch eher motivierten Truppen in den Separatistengebieten) Strassen nach Mykolajiw gesichert haben (dazu der Focus: Alina will nicht im Keller Mutter werden), ist “Russias reluctance to conduct off-road manoeuvres”, was dazu geführt hat, dass “ukraines armed forces adeptly exploited Russias lack of manoeuvre, frustrating russian advance and inflicting heavy losses on the invading forces” konnten - was nicht bedeutet, dass sie im Vorteil sind, aber immerhin liest sichs so ähnlich, also kann mans als Qualitätszeitung schon mal behaupten - weil das britische security briefing angibt “Russian forces are struggling to overcome the challenges posed by Ukraines terrain.” Hach die Vorteile des Gueríllakampfs. So romantisch. “Heavy losses” da Russland den Luftraum nicht komplett kontrolliert, soll heißen, die türkischen Bayraktar Drohnen wirken.
Dazu der Spiegel vor zwei Wochen:
Kiews neugeborener Lemur nach Bayraktar-Kampfdrohne benannt
Nach der Geburt eines kleinen Affen im Zoo von Kiew verkündet Bürgermeister Vitali Klitschko den Namen des Primaten. Er bezieht sich auf den Krieg im Land.
Die Bayraktar-Drohnen werden von der Ukraine als Wunderwaffe im Kampf gegen Russland gefeiert und sogar in einem zweifelhaften Popsong besungen. Die unbemannten Flugzeuge können sich in großer Höhe unbemerkt den Panzerkampfverbänden nähern – und diese dann aus der Luft bekämpfen.
Truss skeptisch bezüglich Friedensgesprächen
Die britische Außenministerin Liz Truss sagte am Dienstag (heute, 16.03.2022), sie sei skeptisch gegenüber Friedensgesprächen zwischen Russland und der Ukraine.
“Ich bin skeptisch gegenüber den Friedensgesprächen, während Putin immer noch Krieg in der Ukraine führt. Er muss einen Waffenstillstand einführen und seine Truppen abziehen, damit diese Friedensgespräche ernst genommen werden können“, sagte Truss gegenüber BBCTV. Putin müsse “um jeden Preis” gestoppt werden, sagte sie.
- and all the while define the upcoming economic and security policy for Europe over the next 20 years?
He even says it three times in a row, just for good measure, its hard to miss - like, you know, when you come up with a thought, and then repeat it three times in a row, because… Oh sorry - no one is going to do that, unless they’d want it to stick - as they didnt at all come up with it on the spot. Oh yes, and like, when you then add a “this is not zero sum, because Japan will still be needing Germany and Germany needs Japan” at the end, just for good measure. Because, you know, you do.
But dont worry - Japan would even be willing to take Ukraine refugees. Hes sure of it, although he doesnt represent the japanese government of course. But with prospects like these…
G.M.F. delivers
(The best thing to do is to do nothing at all (despite keeping the public enemy image up for more than a year, and possibly years), and stick together, even though we fully anticipate this to become a long war of attrition - otherwise China might get ideas in terms of whats feasible, and also Japan is exposed to/dependent on less than a 10th of german energy needs from russian exports, so the best thing really is to be patient and stick this through - then Japan gets the investment Germanys not going to get, while the US will not be exposed at all, while China will not get the idea, that calculating strategies derived from Russias attack costs is a worthwhile thing, and everything can stay like it is, just with Germany getting completely ramrodded in the process, oh and Ukraine of course…)
Want to see a middling US college history professor go into a third round of “keep germany down” rhetorics, and classify it as the first country that would try to break out of a joint Nato position, distinctly even more so than Turkey?
The money quote to look for is “we’ve got to keep our eyes on germany and keep them in line”.
Wonderful.
Also, of course, everyone on the G.M.F. panel can agree, that this is a “patience game” - sorry, war of attrition, that will play out in the Ukraine.
This one is for the (western) values, I think. So much values, Doge amount of much values. Is the pope in Kyiv yet? edit: He has. Finally!
Putin denkt, dass Europa es nicht schafft die Sanktionen langfristig aufrechtzuerhalten! (Also die Sanktionen die so designt wurden, dass Europa sie langfristig aufrechterhalten kann.)
Was?
Ich fasse nochmal zusammen, der in die Ecke getriebene Putin sieht keinen Ausweg, und doubled militärisch down, sieht aber den Ausweg, dass Europa bei den Sanktionen früher einknickt (Früher als was? Als der Krieg zu Ende ist? Als Kiev fällt? Als Russland mittelfristig kollabiert?) -- desshalb müssen wir jetzt zusammenhalten, denn das hat Putin nicht erwartet.
Ach egal, es wird schon stimmen.
edit: Gabriel glaube auch nicht, dass wir vor schnellen Ergebnissen stehen, dafür seien die Positionen zu weit auseinander [ein paar Sätze davor warens noch die Sanktionen die erst langfristig Wirkung zeigen würden], und findet - dass Verhandlungslösungen wichtig sind.
Und sieht gleichzeitig noch viel schlimmeres Leid durch eskalierende Militärgewalt.
Sagt dem mal wer, dass er seine auswendig gelernten Talking Points nicht mit seiner Meinung mischen darf, da da sonst nur in sich widersprüchliche Aussagen dabei rauskommen?
Dem Moderator wärs aber nicht aufgefallen.
edit: Habs noch mal versucht auf einem Zeitstrahl zu ordnen. Zuerst militärische Eskalation und Zunahme von Gewalt, dann Sanktionen die mittelfristig ihre Wirkung entfalten können, dann Gespräche die so wichtig sind, dann ein Putin der eine Lösung des Konfliktes sieht, obwohl er den Konflikt als Lösung sieht, in dem Europa frühzeitig einknickt. Der aber nicht mit der Einigkeit Europas gerechnet hat. Nachdem der Sigmar das laut im Fernsehen angekündigt hat. Wir haben schon gewonnen. Auch wenn die Nato keine militärischen Interventionsmöglichkeiten hat. Weil unser Zusammenhalt so stark ist! Was der Sigmar Gabriel alles weiß… Die Atlantikbrücke hat dazu sicher wieder Studien gemacht.
Diese Webseite verwendet Cookies um die Nutzungserfahrung für seine Besucher zu verbessern. Bitte informiere dich bei Gelegenheit darüber wie sich Cookies auf deine Privatsphäre im Web auswirken.
