harlekin.me

Eli­ot A. Cohen at the CSIS six days ago: “Putins poli­ti­cal objec­ti­ve in fos­te­ring the cri­sis is to chip away at Natos unity and pur­po­se - expec­ting the ger­mans to stand up and ther­eby fatal­ly wea­ke­n­ing an alli­ence that [in his mind] doesnt exist”.

Kot­kin at the Hoo­ver Insti­tu­te 4 Days ago: “You know, the rea­son why the West is now so uni­fied is becau­se our (US) secu­ri­ty brie­fings were so spot on” - which is essen­ti­al­ly impos­si­ble as an argu­ment taking into account how the cri­sis deve­lo­ped. see click

SH*T: They are making this stuff up, as they are going along!

To sum­ma­ri­ze: After Rus­sia sent over more sup­port tro­ops without mili­ta­ry insi­gni­as into the Don­bas regi­on, and at the Nato the famous “Its and inva­si­on, yet its not an inva­si­on” speech was held and Uvdl rejec­ted to use the word inva­si­on in a CNN inter­view, the Ger­man posi­ti­on chan­ged to “Nord Stream 2 is now fro­zen” - swift­ly. After see­ing that, (the Selenz­kyj speech that cal­led for rus­si­an anti-war acti­vism in rus­si­an on Tele­gramm fol­lo­wed and) Putin deci­ded to move in with rocket strikes and the 30.000 peop­le inva­si­on for­ce becau­se -- “he expec­ted the ger­mans to stand up, and ther­eby fatal­ly wea­ke­n­ing the alliance”.

Con­do­lez­za Rice, has an addi­tio­nal argu­ment, for why the ger­mans being impres­sed by US intel­li­gence capa­bi­li­ty might be true, though - “Ger­mans were among the first, that brought up Swift sys­tem sanc­tions.” The Swift sys­tem sanc­tions that exclu­ded Gaz­prom­bank and Sber­bank?

- on a panel, I’ve seen.

edit: Second good reflec­tion I’ve seen:

Ukraine’s top diplo­mat tells CNN that “all wes­tern com­pa­nies must with­draw from Russia”
From CNN’s Emmet Lyons in London

Ukraine’s For­eign Minis­ter Dmy­t­ro Kule­ba has told CNN that “all wes­tern com­pa­nies must with­draw from Rus­sia” on huma­ni­ta­ri­an grounds. 

src: click

Thats app­lied CSR!

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

Ists durch­aus auch wert hier ver­linkt zu werden.

for the war.

This one might be just enough non mono cau­sal, though.

Oh and its what con­ser­va­ti­ve dads usual­ly tell them­sel­ves in terms of child education.

Oh, and what a Femen acti­vist told Aus­tri­ans about a week ago.

Femen-Aktivistin Schewt­schen­ko: “Putin ist nicht plötz­lich ver­rückt geworden”
Die in Paris im Exil leben­de Ukrai­ne­rin Inna Schewt­schen­ko wirft der EU vor, Putins Krieg gegen demo­kra­ti­sche Wer­te lan­ge igno­riert zu haben. Jetzt brau­che es Waf­fen und huma­ni­tä­re Hilfe

src: click

You tell me the path of infor­ma­ti­on dis­se­mi­na­ti­on on that one.

Pro­bab­ly sounds good, and easy to remem­ber and repeat, right? With a ker­nel of truth.

Oh, and CNN is also inter­viewing a rus­si­an news direc­tor, who knows how mil­li­ons of rus­si­ans feel. Mil­li­ons! Thats at least more than a million!

- against Maers­hei­mer? Seven his­to­ri­ans views against Mearsheimers.

One of which has just publis­hed a book about Nato enlar­ge­ment, has media trai­ning, smi­les at the men­ti­on of now the­re having been a war thats bro­ken out, twice - becau­se of an under­pin­ning noti­on, that her book will sell well (or may­be becau­se she values the prai­se so much) - and then over­en­un­cia­tes reac­tions for the came­ra, becau­se she had Zoom trai­ning as well, oh and did I men­ti­on the fil­ler laughs?

Sor­ry dont know a thing about the rea­so­ning in the video yet, I pre­su­me it is excel­lent, when the Hoo­ver Insti­tu­te car­ri­ed in seven peop­le to speak on the topic, and this is only part one of an ongo­ing deba­te in a new ongo­ing series.

The intro­duc­tion state­ment is, that Mear­s­hei­mer is fake news though. Know your audience.

edit: Oh sor­ry, reached the con­tent part. Mear­s­hei­mers the­sis is not true becau­se of mono­cau­sa­li­ty. So by that logic, Nato expan­si­on doesnt mat­ter pro­por­tio­nal­ly to how many other rea­sons you can come up with, right?

Die neue Macht der Union
Der Ein­marsch Russ­lands in die Ukrai­ne führ­te zur ver­spä­te­ten Geburt eines geo­po­li­ti­schen Europas

Wla­di­mir Putins Krieg stellt Euro­pa vor eine neue Her­aus­for­de­rung. Gewinnt der rus­si­sche Prä­si­dent die Ober­hand, wer­de es für nie­man­den Sicher­heit geben, sagt der EU-Außenbeauftragte Josep Bor­rell im Gastkommentar.

src: click

Irgend­wo zwi­schen, die US erwar­ten 2% des GDP in der Nato, wir machen aber unser eigens Ding, wäh­rend sich die Ame­ri­ka­ner immer noch ver­mehrt gen Pazi­fik ori­en­tie­ren, und eigent­lich sind wir gezwun­gen… Begrün­dung: Putin

Und als Attrac­tor Macht! Na da ham­mas doch jetzt!

Ich glaub ich geh mich beim nächs­ten Boo­mer bedanken!

Moment, wir ret­ten damit natür­lich Frei­heit, Unab­hän­gig­keit des Ein­zel­nen und Demokratie.

Oh, und wir haben end­lich die posi­ti­ven Aspek­te zusam­men, die ich bei Vic­to­ria Ken­ne­dy auf­grund ner Pay­wall nicht lesen konnte.

Josep Bor­rell delivers.

Natür­lich steht das neue geo­po­li­ti­sche Euro­pa eng an der Sei­te sei­ner trans­at­lan­ti­schen Part­ner, die jetzt Flug­zeu­ge nach Polen liefern, …

Drit­tens brau­chen wir in einer Welt der Macht­po­li­tik die Fähig­keit, Zwang aus­zu­üben und uns zu ver­tei­di­gen. Ja, dazu gehö­ren auch mili­tä­ri­sche Mit­tel, und wir müs­sen sie wei­ter aus­bau­en. Aber der Kern des­sen, was die EU in die­ser Woche getan hat, bestand dar­in, alle poli­ti­schen Maß­nah­men und Hebel – die nach wie vor haupt­säch­lich wirt­schaft­li­cher und ord­nungs­po­li­ti­scher Natur sind – als Macht­in­stru­men­te ein­zu­set­zen. Dar­auf soll­ten wir in den kom­men­den Wochen auf­bau­en, in der Ukrai­ne, aber auch anders­wo, je nach Bedarf.

End­lich wie­der Zwang in der Euro­päi­schen Tool­box. Auch anderswo.

Putin!

(Nach Josep Bor­rell, via Pro­ject Syn­di­ca­te, 6.3.2022)

Nur bei der Oxford Uni­on war man wie­der schnel­ler und hat­te schon mal pro­ak­tiv die ein­heit­li­che Meinung:

Gegen­po­si­ti­on gabs aus gege­be­nem Anlass kei­ne zu ver­tei­di­gen. *Wink, wink* *nudge, nudge*

in exchan­ge for US mili­ta­ry air­crafts for poland (that part is still being look into).

This is what “give us a no fly zone” was down­si­zed to.

edit: Ulti­mate­ly did­n’t hap­pen, US had legal concerns.

im rus­si­schen Staatsfernsehen.

Und noch­mal die Medi­en Zen­sur die mitt­ler­wei­le auf die Ver­wen­dung der Begrif­fe Angriff, Krieg, und Inva­si­on im Inter­net aus­ge­dehnt wurde.

Issu­es: You are inten­ding to match
- eco­no­mic sanc­tions with
- poli­ti­cal pro­test move­ments over­thro­wing the government in rus­sia with
- “the agen­cy of Ukrai­ni­ans” means, that they can actual­ly win - to get a desi­red outcome.

or you only try to meet
- the agen­cy of Ukrai­ni­ans means, that they can actual­ly win - which, accord­ing to the eco­no­mist in the video would mean, that Rus­sia would have to retract to rus­si­an spea­king are­as in the east - shortterm.

The last one you coin an achie­ve­ment for Ukrai­ni­ans and their agen­cy, but as a result would have rus­sia try­ing to con­tain Ukrai­ne in a fai­led sta­te sta­tus long term…

On the other goals - eco­no­mic sanc­tions take six mon­ths to take any effect, poli­ti­cal move­ments over­thro­wing the government would take a deca­de or two, to take effect, all the while the Ukrai­ne is still “win­ning”, achie­ving free­dom and full­fil­ling their agen­cy of not being a “bloo­d­sta­te” (who­se fate is eit­her deci­ded in Ger­ma­ny, or Russia).

And then when all tho­se things align a deca­de in the future (lets cut some slack and give them a decisi­on 10 years ear­lier), you have rus­sia eco­no­mi­c­al­ly under peril, poli­ti­cal­ly libe­ra­ted, still a coun­try with low for­eign debt and access resour­ces to be used respon­si­b­ly, hig­her yiel­ds in the agri­cul­tu­ral sec­tor, by then a 20 year lag in terms of tech­no­lo­gi­cal deve­lo­p­ment - but you know just the guys to deve­lop it from that point for­ward. The rus­si­an peop­le themselves.

And to get to that point, you com­mit euro­pe to nega­ti­ve -1% to -2% points in GDP growth long term, per­ma­nent­ly hig­her ener­gy pri­ces, a tra­de eco­sys­tem thats pret­ty bifur­ca­ted by then, hig­her depen­den­cy on key resour­ces from fewer sources to get them - added to the poten­ti­al that Chi­na might coor­di­na­te more with Rus­sia in stra­te­gic pla­ning of spe­cia­li­zed mar­kets. And Ukrai­ni­ans to a 10 year civil war (at an incre­a­sing chan­ce of it beco­m­ing more bru­tal out of des­pa­ra­ti­on). And you also cant for­get tra­jec­to­ries for the deve­lo­ping world.

And thats your best case scenario.

Values, per­so­nal agen­cy and free­dom. Is the­re any other sce­n­a­rio I have missed?

Or is this what we are dealing with in the upco­m­ing 10 years, becau­se the US ambassa­dor in Aus­tria also sees it that way?