Autorenarchiv

Amanpour has found dissent!

18. März 2022

G.M.F. - The lovely US - european friendship initiative

17. März 2022

thats all about giving the euro­peans just enough rope to hang them­sel­ves, and then watch if their facial expres­si­ons are still the cor­rect ones, des­pi­te com­ing out a bit delay­ed, becau­se the euro­pean on the talk sud­den­ly needs to mask them.

Hey, open talk initia­ti­ves to see if the other side is still in line with your assess­ment of them are gre­at, arent they?

So whats the poten­ti­al sce­n­a­rio here? Biden should be able to tell the chi­ne­se dele­ga­ti­ons in sche­du­led talks star­ting in april, that Euro­pe will set them an ulti­ma­tum on tra­de, if they dont put more pres­su­re on rus­sia, becau­se euro­pe is real­ly in a his­to­ric posi­ti­on here. To loo­se both chi­ne­se imports/manufacturing, and rus­si­an ener­gy exports - while if they dont, and things work out fine, they get demo­ted to “tool sta­tus” in the pro­cess! Sor­ry, “his­to­ric tool status”.

Ah, trans­at­lan­tic friendship initiatives.

Whe­re you have to first mute yourself, then fake your reac­tions not to get ous­ted. Diplo­ma­cy among friends, at its best.

Oh, and btw:

US Sena­te unli­kely to act on House-passed Rus­sia ener­gy import ban

Even though the US House pas­sed a bill last week to impo­se a ban on Rus­si­an ener­gy imports, Sena­te sources say it’s unli­kely their cham­ber will move on the measure.

That’s becau­se sena­tors view the issue as essen­ti­al­ly moot after US Pre­si­dent Joe Biden took exe­cu­ti­ve action to ban the imports.

Moreo­ver, Sen. Joe Man­chin, who chairs the Sena­te Ener­gy Com­mit­tee, has con­t­en­ded that the House bill is wea­ker than the exe­cu­ti­ve action — so they see litt­le rea­son to move on a mea­su­re view­ed as fal­ling short of the cur­rent policy.

src: click

US back from bipar­ti­san sup­port to poli­tics via exe­cu­ti­ve action again.

edit: Oh, what an ent­i­re­ly unex­pec­ted sur­pri­se, DW has found a pun­dit that con­vin­ces them that this would be the exact thing we should sti­ve for at the moment. Last sen­tence in the inter­view, btw - after that its just thank yous and signing off. Logic behind the argu­ment this time? Well, lis­ten, the­re is some­thing we must have the US do, becau­se, the libe­ral rights based order is in dan­ger, and this has to be stop­ped and… You know the drill by now - values. Values other coun­tries are so impres­sed by, that they congra­tu­la­te euro­pean diplo­mats regu­lar­ly on them, or at least have in the past, when they told them to scram without results. The values though…!

Am 30. Juni 2021 schied Heus­gen aus dem Aus­wär­ti­gen Dienst aus.[12] Er ist seit 2020 Hono­rar­pro­fes­sor an der Uni­ver­si­tät St. Gal­len[13] und Vor­sit­zen­der des Stif­tungs­krei­ses der Münch­ner Sicherheitskonferenz.

*shake­fist* src: click

Putin-Zelensky meeting possible “if an agreement is achieved”

17. März 2022

Tur­kish offi­cial claims a Putin-Zelensky mee­ting is pos­si­ble “if an agree­ment is achieved”
From CNN’s Lind­say Isaac

Tur­kish For­eign Minis­ter Mev­lüt Çavuşoğlu met his Ukrai­ni­an coun­ter­part Dmy­t­ro Kule­ba in Lviv on Thurs­day, one day after his visit to Moscow whe­re he met Rus­si­an Minis­ter of For­eign Affairs Ser­gei Lavrov. 

In taped remarks, Çavuşoğlu said: “If an agree­ment is achie­ved about the issu­es that we see a rappro­che­ment about, the­re is a pos­si­bi­li­ty that two lea­ders can come tog­e­ther,” refer­ring to Rus­si­an Pre­si­dent Vla­di­mir Putin and Ukrai­ni­an Prime Minis­ter Volo­dym­yr Zelensky. 

Çavuşoğlu also said his hopes for a cease­fire incre­a­sed after mee­ting with both par­ties, alt­hough “it is hard to talk about it when it comes to war.”

He said Ukrai­ne had sug­gested Tur­key and Ger­ma­ny as gua­ran­tor coun­tries in a pro­po­sed “collec­ti­ve secu­ri­ty agreement.”

In my talks yes­ter­day in Moscow, I saw that the Rus­si­an Fede­ra­ti­on did not have an objec­tion to this and that they could accept such a pro­po­sal,” Çavuşoğlu said. He stres­sed an agree­ment has to be accep­ta­ble for both sides and their people.
Çavuşoğlu also said Tur­kish Pre­si­dent Recep Tayy­ip Erdoğan spo­ke to Putin on Thursday. 

Accord­ing to a state­ment by Turkey’s Direc­to­ra­te of Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons, “Erdoğan rei­tera­ted his offer to host Putin and Zelen­sky in Istan­bul or Anka­ra” during his pho­ne con­ver­sa­ti­on with Putin, say­ing “con­sen­sus on some issu­es may requi­re talks at lea­ders­hip level.”

The Tur­kish pre­si­dent also stres­sed the need of “asses­sing the huma­ni­ta­ri­an situa­ti­on on ground” and of “huma­ni­ta­ri­an cor­ri­dors to ope­ra­te effec­tively in both directions.”

CNN bestä­tigt es vor 20 Minu­ten noch­mal, einer der Haupt­streit­punk­te könn­te die Rück­ga­be­for­de­rung aller ukrai­ni­schen Gebie­te (in den Gren­zen von 1991 inklu­si­ve der Krim), oder zumin­dest der Rück­zug aller rus­si­schen Trup­pen aus vor dem 24. Febru­ar besetz­ten Gebie­ten. vor einem Waf­fen­still­stands­ab­kom­men sein.

Die Wie­ner­zei­tung sieht es eben­falls bereits län­ger “als eine ers­te zar­te Hoff­nung”, der Stan­dard hat mal die Het­ze zurück­ge­fah­ren, schreibt in die Mel­dung aber kei­ne Details rein, der fran­zö­si­sche Außen­mi­nis­ter der vor­ge­bracht hat, die rus­si­schen Ambi­tio­nen sei­en nur vor­ge­scho­ben hat wohl einen Jux gemacht - oder recht, je nach Aus­gang, aber CNN bring­ts vor 20 Minu­ten wie­der im Ticker.
src: click

edit: Die exak­te Defi­ni­ti­on einer etwai­gen Neu­tra­li­tät der Ukrai­ne stellt eben­falls noch ein Dis­kus­si­ons­feld dar:

edit2: Einen Tag spä­ter stehts dann auch im Stan­dard, Zusatz - Mos­kau schließt ein tref­fen der Prä­si­den­ten aus, bis ein Ver­trag aus­ge­han­delt wor­den ist, und die Ukrai­ne pocht auf einen Abzug aller rus­si­schen Trup­pen aus der gesam­ten Ukrai­ne inkl. der Krim. src: click

Aktueller Stand westlicher Postulate/Drohungen

17. März 2022

Der Exper­te von Car­ne­gie Euro­pe hat ja vor drei Tagen im ORF ver­laut­bart, dass es für Russ­land und ins­be­son­de­re Putin sehr ein­fach wäre sich aus dem Krieg zurück­zu­zie­hen. Er kon­trol­lie­re ja die rus­si­schen Medi­en. Eine etwas län­ge­re Reor­ga­ni­sa­ti­ons­pe­ri­ode auf bei­den Sei­ten haben wir auch gera­de hin­ter uns - also was ist hier so der aktu­el­le Stand?

- ICJ (Den Haag) for­dert Russ­land auf die Kriegs­maß­nah­men sofort zu been­den. Das nach einem schnel­len Prü­fungs­ver­fah­ren des vor­ge­täusch­ten Angriffs­grunds und einer pro­vi­so­ri­schen Order die mit zwei Gegen­stim­men (Russ­land und Chi­na) ver­ab­schie­det wurde.

- Biden ver­laut­bart, er den­ke Putin sei ein Kriegs­ver­bre­cher (Hin­ter­grund: Bis­her bestand die theo­re­ti­sche Mög­lich­keit ein­zel­ne Kom­man­dan­ten für Kriegs­ver­bre­chen ver­ant­wort­lich zu machen, das ist eine Off­ramp weniger.)

- Selen­skyj for­dert, dass die Welt Russ­land offi­zi­ell als Ter­ror­staat aner­kennt und Pro­ject Syn­di­ca­te hat prak­ti­scher Wei­se die Argu­men­ta­ti­on dafür ausgearbeitet.

- Die Ukrai­ne for­dert für den Abschluss von Gesprä­chen über Sicher­heits­ga­ran­tien die Ukrai­ne in den Gren­zen von 1991 zurück. Inklu­si­ve Krim und Don­bas. edit: FT arti­cle

- In den öster­rei­chi­schen Medi­en vehöhnt man die ver­laut­bar­ten Ver­hand­lungs­po­si­tio­nen Russ­lands, sowie den Ver­such Russ­lands den Anwurf des Kriegs­ver­bre­chers zurück­zu­wei­sen. Weil Moral wie­der mal alles ande­re aus­sticht und da man wie­der eine ulki­ge Diplo­ma­ten­aus­sa­ge über Putin gefun­den hat, mit dem man öffent­li­chen Hass am köcheln hal­ten kann - eine per­so­ni­fi­zier­ba­re Lüge näm­lich: Putin ist ja gar­nicht wei­se und kul­ti­viert! Und ver­lo­gen ist die Lüge oben­drein! sie­he: click

- Sel­bi­ges gilt für die Gegen­re­ak­ti­on Russ­lands die öffent­li­che Mei­nung im Land nicht kip­pen zu las­sen. Dies­mal kei­ne Medi­en­ge­set­ze die 15 Jah­re Gefäng­nis bei Nicht­be­fol­gung zur Fol­ge haben, nein, die Wort­wahl “Selbst­rei­ni­gungs­pro­zess” wird von Ger­hard Man­gott als “neue Säu­be­rungs­wel­le” inter­pre­tiert, die ent­we­der indi­rekt ange­kün­digt, oder indi­rekt aus­ge­löst wor­den ist. Im OT wars erst mal das Hoch­dre­hen des Chil­ling Effekts bezüg­lich öffent­lich “gedul­de­ter” Mei­nungs­äu­ße­rung und ein Auf­ruf zur Denun­zia­ti­on bestimm­ter Mei­nun­gen, aber klar, eine Säu­be­rungs­ak­ti­on könn­te es auch ange­kün­digt haben. Also war­um gehen wir nicht schon mal davon aus? edit: Video: click

Der Krieg geht dann erst­mal wei­ter. Hat ja auch bereits das bri­ti­sche Außen­mi­nis­te­ri­um ges­tern anklin­gen las­sen.

Putin steht mit dem Rücken zur Wand” stimmt aber suk­zes­si­ve mehr als noch vor eini­gen Tagen.

edit: So sad, laut dem fran­zö­si­schen Außen­mi­nis­ter sei erneu­et aus­schließ­lich die ande­re Sei­te schuld, dass nichts weitergehe:

Le Dri­an: Russ­land “gibt nur vor zu ver­han­deln” - obers­te Prio­ri­tät sei ein Waffenstillstand
Der fran­zö­si­sche Außen­mi­nis­ter Jean-Yves Le Dri­an sag­te am Don­ners­tag gegen­über der Pari­ser Tages­zei­tung “Le Pari­si­en”, Russ­land “gebe nur vor” mit der Ukrai­ne “zu ver­han­deln”, wäh­rend es den Ein­marsch in sein Nach­bar­land in Über­ein­stim­mung mit einer bru­ta­len Stra­te­gie fort­set­ze. Eben die­se Stra­te­gie habe Russ­land bereits frü­her anders­wo angewandt.

Lei­der sind wir immer noch mit der glei­chen rus­si­schen Logik kon­fron­tiert - maxi­ma­lis­ti­sche For­de­run­gen stel­len, die Ukrai­ne zur Kapi­tu­la­ti­on zwin­gen wol­len und den Bela­ge­rungs­krieg inten­si­vie­ren”, führ­te Le Dri­an aus.

Wie in Gros­ny (in Tsche­tsche­ni­en) und Alep­po (in Syri­en) gibt es drei typi­sche Ele­men­te: wahl­lo­se Bom­bar­die­rung, soge­nann­te huma­ni­tä­re ‘Kor­ri­do­re’, die es ihnen ermög­li­chen, die ande­re Sei­te zu beschul­di­gen, sie nicht zu respek­tie­ren, und Gesprä­che, die kein ande­res Ziel haben, als so zu tun, als ob sie ver­han­deln würden.”

Im Gegen­satz zu Russ­land betei­li­ge sich die Ukrai­ne “ver­ant­wor­tungs­be­wusst und auf­ge­schlos­sen an den Gesprä­chen”, sag­te Le Dri­an gegen­über “Le Parisien”.

Im Moment gebe es laut dem fran­zö­si­schen Außen­mi­nis­ter “nur eine drin­gen­de Ange­le­gen­heit - Waf­fen­still­stand, Waf­fen­still­stand, Waf­fen­still­stand”. Russ­land ver­wei­ge­re das im Moment. “Die Sank­tio­nen wer­den also ent­schlos­sen ver­schärft wer­den, bis Putin erkennt, dass der Preis für die Fort­set­zung des Kon­flikts so hoch ist, dass ein Waf­fen­still­stand vor­zu­zie­hen ist, und er ech­te Gesprä­che mit Prä­si­dent Zelen­skyj beginnt.”

src: click

Und ich dach­te es ist die Ukrai­ne, die bei einem lang­an­hal­ten­den Zer­mür­bungs­krieg Vor­tei­le hat, da ihre Sup­port­in­fra­struk­tur leich­ter auf­recht zu erhal­ten ist… Da sieht man mal wie­der wie sehr man sich täu­schen kann.

Naja viel­leicht trifft der Fall ja in zwei Wochen ein, wenn die “ent­schei­de­nen zwei Wochen” laut gut infor­mier­ten US Krei­sen vor­bei sind und das Sze­na­rio in dem die Ukrai­ne einen Vor­teil in einem lan­ge anhal­ten­den Zer­mür­bungs­krieg hat, end­lich eintritt.

Zuge­ständ­nis, einen Waf­fen­still­stand, bei den aktu­el­len Ver­hand­lungs­po­si­tio­nen wird Russ­land defi­ni­tiv nicht wollen.

Am Frei­tag, wis­sen wir dann aber bescheid, denn -

Weiße[s] Haus: Tele­fo­nat von Biden und Xi zu Ukraine-Krieg und Wett­be­werb am Frei­tag geplant

[…]

Laut dem Wei­ßen Haus sei der Anruf Teil der lau­fen­den Bemü­hun­gen der USA eine offe­ne Kom­mu­ni­ka­ti­on zwi­schen den bei­den Län­dern aufrechtzuerhalten.

Peking hat sich gewei­gert, sei­nen engen Ver­bün­de­ten Russ­land auf­grund des Ein­marschs in die Ukrai­ne zu ver­ur­tei­len. Hin­ge­gen hat­te Chi­na die Ver­ei­nig­ten Staa­ten und die Nato-Osterweiterung für die Ver­schär­fung der Span­nun­gen ver­ant­wort­lich gemacht.

src: click

Seht ihr, so ein­fach ist das.

edit: Ach nein, wis­sen wir, doch nicht - weil sich die US aus der Ver­ant­wor­tung gezo­gen hat das tref­fen öffent­lich zu kom­men­tie­ren. Gute Grün­de neh­me ich an.

Seni­or admi­nis­tra­ti­on offi­cials descri­bed the call as “direct,” “sub­stan­ti­ve” and “detail­ed,” but would not offer many details about the leng­thy con­ver­sa­ti­on. The bulk of the lea­ders’ dis­cus­sion cen­te­red on the war in Ukrai­ne and the impli­ca­ti­ons the cri­sis would have for US-China rela­ti­ons and the “inter­na­tio­nal order,” an offi­cial said. But the admi­nis­tra­ti­on refu­sed to publicly detail what tho­se con­se­quen­ces would be.

src: click
Der Stan­dard pos­tet schon das Erwar­tungs­ma­nage­ment für danach, ich mein - natür­lich, sonst wür­den die Leu­te ja selbst über­le­gen was das bedeu­tet… “Mora­lisch ver­lo­gen.” “Muss sich der Wes­ten zu sei­nen Wer­ten besin­nen, sonst…” Ihr kennt den Dreh.

WHO confirms health systems being attacked structurally

17. März 2022

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.

src: click

Less than a week ago the WHO had con­fir­med 18 attacks. src: click

edit: Thats 43 attacks with 12 peop­le being kil­led in total.

What is manufacturing consent?

16. März 2022

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

src: click

Now retrac­ted:

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.

src: click

Back­ground:

[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.

src: click

edit: More back­ground: click

ZDF Frontal hat die Verteidiger Europas gefunden!

16. März 2022

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.”)

Very moving speech by Selenskyj

16. März 2022

from 20 minu­tes ago:

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”.

Will get - ano­t­her 800 mil­li­on USD released as secu­ri­ty assi­s­tance.

edit: Also this:

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.

src: click

and this:

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.

src: click

More military deterrence would have prevented this

16. März 2022

- 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.:

You know - DW and him are good friends.
Oh, and Aman­pour of cour­se… (See click and click.)

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.

The unhinged meeting

16. März 2022

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.

src: click

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.”

france24 via AFP

Wait paints?

Oh, and can I get some mood music for that - and a rea­li­ty TV pro­duc­tion set­up, with peop­le com­men­ting on how they felt, when they saw it?

Thanks.

Subject(s): Social Sci­en­ces, Media stu­dies, Com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on stu­dies, Theo­ry of Communication

Publis­hed by: Факултет по журналистика и масова комуникация, Софийски университет „Св. Кл. Охридски”

Key­words: Rus­si­an tele­vi­si­on; per­so­na­liz­a­ti­on; pro­pa­gan­da; poli­ti­cal talk shows; inter­na­tio­nal rela­ti­ons; public opinion

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.

src: click

Oh, shit, wrong coun­try, wrong country…