Autorenarchiv

First absolute hate post in a while…

06. Februar 2022

Arti­cle: Why the EU needs Rus­si­an ener­gy giant Gazprom

Ang­le:

Gaz­prom uses its mar­ket power by influ­en­cing pri­ces through the amount of gas that it sup­plies to Euro­pe,” ener­gy expert Georg Zach­mann from the Brussels-based Brue­gel think tank told DW.”

Rea­so­ning:

The­re is a kind of com­pe­ti­ti­on bet­ween the Euro­pean regu­la­tors who are try­ing to crea­te a mar­ket with uni­fied pri­ces and Gaz­prom which is try­ing to impo­se dif­fe­rent pri­ces in dif­fe­rent coun­tries,” exp­lai­ned Zachmann.

While Gaz­prom insists that it has hono­red all its long-term sup­ply com­mit­ments, Zach­mann said that the com­pa­ny was actual­ly sup­ply­ing less gas to the mar­ket with short-term contracts. 

Zach­mann said that the short-term mar­ket had beco­me incre­a­singly important in recent years becau­se the­re was an attempt to beco­me less depen­dent on Gaz­prom in the long run.

So, that Gaz­prom and with it rus­sia doesnt want to rely on short term con­trac­ting, becau­se it encom­pas­ses an attempt to beco­me less depen­dant on Gaz­prom over­all is… wait for it…

Gaz­prom is ful­fil­ling its con­tracts, that is true, but only at the lowest level of its com­mit­ments,” Euro­pean Com­mis­si­on Pre­si­dent Ursu­la von der Ley­en poin­ted out recent­ly. She said that other sup­pliers had incre­a­sed their deli­ve­ries in view of the rapidly rising demand and record prices. 

Von der Ley­en added that Gaz­prom was beha­ving in a stran­ge way, con­si­de­ring that more gas was not being sup­plied des­pi­te high demand. She also told the Ger­man dai­ly Han­dels­blatt that the fact that the com­pa­ny belon­ged to the Rus­si­an sta­te rai­sed doubts as to its reliability.

STRANGE BEHAVIOR con­si­de­ring that not more gas was sup­plied, given the high demand.

But Gaz­prom is ful­fil­ling its con­tracts, thats true.

But this is all rai­sing doubts, becau­se rely­ing on the Rus­si­an sta­te rai­ses doubts on relia­bi­li­ty overall.

But Gaz­prom is ful­fil­ling contracts.

Yes, but we expec­ted more than just ful­fil­ling contracts.

While threa­tening sanc­tions at the same time.

edit: Short inter­lu­de, to dilu­te the hate in this pos­ting with a litt­le bit of comedy.

And then, when ger­man sup­pliers final­ly put in a big­ger order a few days ago, Gaz­prom reports, that capa­ci­ty on the Ukrai­ne pipe­line was boo­ked wit­hin a day, and deli­very star­ted wit­hin a day or two…

But its stran­ge beha­vi­or, that it was­n’t more, befo­re that happened.

Becau­se Gaz­prom was just ful­fil­ling their contracts.

Becau­se of this excel­lent effing logic, and cer­tain­ly not becau­se of any alte­rior moti­ves, UvdL announ­ced the fol­lowing in the same Inter­view with the “Han­dels­blatt”.

If Gaz­prom were to recei­ve inst­ruc­tions from the Krem­lin to stop sup­ply­ing gas to the EU, the­re could be signi­fi­cant shortages.

Von der Ley­en said that she did not belie­ve it would come to that. Sin­ce the Rus­si­an eco­no­my is so depen­dent on ener­gy exports, it would not make sen­se to jeo­par­di­ze its rela­ti­ons­hip with its big­gest cli­ent and investor.

But she told Han­dels­blatt that the EU and the US were working to incre­a­se sup­plies of lique­fied natu­ral gas from Qatar or the US. Nego­tia­ti­ons are to take place this com­ing Mon­day in Washing­ton DC

So becau­se we dont belie­ve, that Rus­sia would cau­se signi­fi­cant shor­ta­ges of gas sup­plies in Euro­pe out of their own voli­ti­on, basi­cal­ly becau­se of the ent­i­re eco­no­mic design of the ven­ture to begin with, the EU now has to work with the US to incre­a­se sup­plies of LNG from Qatar, or the US.

AM I GOING INSANE, OR IS IT THE WORLD AROUND ME?

edit: Bloom­berg arti­cle has more details:

Tra­ders are watching every move by Europe’s top sup­plier, focu­sing on how much gas is deli­ve­r­ed bey­ond con­trac­ted volu­mes. Auc­tions of pipe­line capa­ci­ty for Decem­ber run next Mon­day, which will cast a light on whe­ther extra ship­ments could mate­ria­li­ze. Addi­tio­nal boo­kings may be likely if Gaz­prom sees pro­gress in the cer­ti­fi­ca­ti­on of the con­ten­tious Nord Stream 2 pipe­line, ana­lysts have said.

News arti­cle was from Novem­ber 10th 2021. That was after Gaz­prom boo­ked pipe­line capa­ci­ty over Ukrai­ne to deli­ver accord­ing to con­tract obligations.

So lets sum­me­ri­ze. Becau­se Euro­pe moved away from long term pro­cu­re­ment deals, end­an­ge­ring ener­gy secu­ri­ty, while Ger­ma­ny set into action plans to exit from coal and nuclear ener­gy simul­ta­ne­ous­ly, and stop­ped North Stream 2, on the poli­ti­cal level, becau­se of U.S. inter­ven­ti­on at the licen­sing sta­ge, Gaz­prom stop­ped to sup­ply spot mar­kets with (by then more expen­si­ve) natu­ral gas - at “expec­ted volu­mes”, expec­ted, becau­se it was the inten­ded goal of the EU to decre­a­se ener­gy depen­den­cy on rus­sia, so they went into day tra­ding it in lar­ger volu­mes, and spot mar­kets ins­tead -- which now has cau­sed UvdL to anoun­ce, that this would have been “stran­ge beha­vi­or” of Gaz­prom - that they didnt just sup­ply the dayt­ra­ding sec­tor with the same amount as befo­re, and ther­eby causing ques­ti­ons over rus­si­an relia­bi­li­ty in the ener­gy pro­cu­re­ment sec­tor - while at the same time sta­ting, that the rus­si­an eco­no­my would fal­ter, if they ever did so (at any extent that would end­an­ger EU ener­gy secu­ri­ty), and that it wasnt very likely -- and becau­se of that, its now in the inte­rest of ener­gy sup­ply sta­bi­li­ty to diver­si­fy pro­cu­re­ment, and go with LNG from the US or Qatar (who knows, cer­tain­ly not UvdL), which needs an exten­si­on of the LNG infra­st­ruc­tu­re wit­hin the EU, which the EU is backing, but which is usual­ly pri­va­te­ly fun­ded (with invest­ment gua­ran­tees given out), and only just beca­me inte­res­ting for inves­tors in the sec­tor, becau­se of rising gas pri­ces. Oh and that on its own (diver­si­fi­ca­ti­on) will rai­se effec­ti­ve pro­cu­re­ment pri­ces. Also slowing down the sus­tainab­le ener­gy tran­si­ti­on - which still is the main pro­ject of the UvdL pre­si­den­cy, apparently.

No - checks out. Why should jour­na­lism report anything else. Or ask any questions.

Oh, and btw. the LNG indus­try has a new lea­ding expor­ting nati­on.

Oh, and the sin­gu­lar cau­se for hig­her US natu­ral gas pri­ces was “the arc­tic cold snap”, of course.

The­res good news in all this as well, of course -
Gold­man: Ukrai­ne Con­flict Could Dou­ble EU Natu­ral Gas Prices

WAIT THE UKRAINE CONFLICT? I THOUGHT IT WAS RUSSIAS UNRELIABILITY ON THE SPOTMARKETS! (Becau­se if it wasnt, it would have been EU thre­ats of sanc­tions, play­ing a major role, surely…)

AM I GOING INSANE, OR IS IT THE WORLD AROUND ME? (Sh*t they are lying to us!™)

14th paragraph from the top

06. Februar 2022

DW news story:

Ger­ma­ny must cut reli­an­ce on Rus­si­an gas, minis­ter says

Germany’s Eco­no­my Minis­ter Robert Habeck war­ned against Europe’s No.1 eco­no­my beco­m­ing a “pawn” in Russia’s game. Natu­ral gas stock­pi­les across the EU are at their lowest in years as ten­si­ons over Ukrai­ne intensify.

What did Habeck say?
“We must impro­ve our pre­pa­red­ness for next win­ter,” the Green Par­ty poli­ti­ci­an told the news­pa­pers of the Fun­ke Media Group and the French regio­nal dai­ly Ouest-France.

Habeck said the Ukrai­ne cri­sis is for­cing Ger­ma­ny to “crea­te other import oppor­tu­nities and to diver­si­fy its sup­ply, inclu­ding infra­st­ruc­tu­ral issues.”

We have to act here and bet­ter secu­re our­sel­ves. If we don’t, we beco­me a pawn in the game [of Russia].”

[…]

Ger­ma­ny remains reli­ant on Rus­si­an gas for over a third of its needs as it pha­ses out coal and nuclear energies.

14th para­graph from the top:

He went on to cri­ti­ci­ze the gas mar­ket for being com­ple­te­ly dere­gu­la­ted and hin­ted that the government may have to play a grea­ter role.

src: click

Why is this important?
Becau­se this is how RT (via fefe, don’t read them other­wi­se :)) is repor­ting the same story:

Gaz­prom hat den Gas­hahn wie­der aufgedreht.

while some EU offi­cials are accu­sing Gaz­prom of deli­ber­ate­ly with­hol­ding sup­plies. Howe­ver, Gaz­prom says addi­tio­nal sup­plies were not boo­ked befo­re Febru­a­ry 2. 

Na sowas. Stellt sich raus: Wenn man bei denen was kauft, dann lie­fern die das auch. Und zwar frist­ge­mäß und in vol­ler Höhe.
Kön­nen wir viel­leicht jetzt auf­hö­ren so zu tun, als sei das Schuld der Rus­sen, dass unse­re Kon­zer­ne die für unse­re Bür­ger gemein­ten Gas­re­ser­ven zwecks Pro­fit­ma­xi­mie­rung auf dem Spot­markt ver­hö­kert haben?

src: click

RT goes into more detail as well:

Gaz­prom has resu­med gas sup­plies to Euro­pe through Ukrai­ne, boo­king 109 mil­li­on cubic meters of dai­ly pipe­line capa­ci­ty, Bloom­berg repor­ted on Tues­day. Under the five-year con­tract, which expi­res in 2024, the com­pa­ny is expec­ted to deli­ver 40 bil­li­on cubic meters of gas per year to Euro­pe via Ukrai­ne. The news trig­ge­red a long-anticipated decli­ne in gas pri­ces, with March futures drop­ping below $900 per thousand cubic meters.

Janu­a­ry sales of Rus­si­an natu­ral gas out­side the for­mer Soviet Uni­on saw a mas­si­ve drop of 41.3% year-on-year, while the country’s over­all pro­duc­tion has incre­a­sed, Rus­si­an ener­gy major Gaz­prom repor­ted on Tuesday.

Euro­pean inven­to­ry levels have repor­ted­ly sunk to his­to­ric lows over the past several mon­ths, sen­ding ener­gy pri­ces in the regi­on soa­ring, while some EU offi­cials are accu­sing Gaz­prom of deli­ber­ate­ly with­hol­ding sup­plies. Howe­ver, Gaz­prom says addi­tio­nal sup­plies were not boo­ked befo­re Febru­a­ry 2.

The Company’s gas deli­ve­ries are car­ri­ed out as reques­ted by con­su­mers in full com­pli­an­ce with con­trac­tu­al obli­ga­ti­ons,” Gaz­prom said in a press release.

Gaz­prom said ear­lier this mon­th it hadn’t boo­ked any mon­th­ly tran­sit capa­ci­ty via the Yamal-Europe gas pipe­line [the one going through Ukrai­ne] for Febru­a­ry. Howe­ver, the com­pa­ny may still book the rou­te via dai­ly auctions.

The pipe­line, which usual­ly accounts for about 15% of Russia’s annu­al gas exports to Euro­pe and Tur­key, has been working in rever­se mode sin­ce late Decem­ber, put­ting addi­tio­nal pres­su­re on Euro­pean ener­gy prices.

Mean­while, working gas invent­ories in Europe’s under­ground gas sto­rage faci­li­ties were lag­ging behind last year’s level by 27.2% as of Janu­a­ry 30, Gaz­prom said on Tues­day, citing data from Gas Infra­st­ruc­tu­re Europe.

Over 81% of the fuel deli­ve­r­ed during the sum­mer is alrea­dy pum­ped out from the faci­li­ties, accord­ing to the com­pa­ny, while “the total amount of working gas invent­ories in Euro­pean UGS faci­li­ties was as low as 38.1 bil­li­on cubic meters on Janu­a­ry 30, fal­ling by 2.7 bil­li­on cubic meters below the his­to­ri­cal mini­mum for this date.”

Mea­ning, as gas pri­ces soared, euro­pean pro­vi­ders stop­ped orde­ring, becau­se they were bet­ting on lower pri­ces on spot­mar­kets, becau­se it was indi­ca­ted, that the pri­ce shock had exter­nal cau­ses, part of which would have been rela­ted to acts of natu­re bey­ond human con­trol. So the­re was an expec­tancy of pri­ces fal­ling again, over time. Rus­si­an gas wasnt going through the Ukrai­ne for that peri­od of time, becau­se rus­sia had enough capa­ci­ty over the remai­ning pipe­line net­work to deli­ver the boo­ked amounts without ship­ping them through Ukrai­ne. This now chan­ged, on the same day, or the day after (unclear) euro­pean sup­pliers incre­a­sed orders.

Three more steps to ful­ly under­stand the logic here.

Ener­gy pri­ces for gas incre­a­sed in the US as well, (ope­ning up the Yamal-Europe pipe­line actual­ly incre­a­sed them fur­ther), as - again acts of natu­re bey­ond con­trol are cited to be a cau­se the­re as well. In fact, U.S. Natu­ral Gas Pri­ces Jum­ped by 10% on Wed­nes­day alo­ne, cited cau­se: “Fri­gid weather”.

That was fol­lowing the sin­gle most rapid climb in gas pri­ces ever, in a sin­gle day in the US, a week earlier.

Ope­ning up the Yamal-Europe pipe­line has also incre­a­sed the gas pri­ce - after a mini slump, becau­se again rus­sia saw 41.3% less demand year on year, des­pi­te hit­ting an all time high in gas pro­duc­tion. (What drop­ped accord­ing to RT were the futures, so spe­cu­la­ti­on on long term pri­ce increases.)

At the same time this happens: 

The Glo­bal Gas Cri­sis Has Made Ame­ri­can LNG Hot Again

The glo­bal gas crunch and sky­ro­cke­ting pri­ces in Euro­pe and Asia are lay­ing the foun­da­ti­ons for a revi­val in final invest­ment decisi­ons in new lique­fied natu­ral gas (LNG)

src: click

That was step one.

Step two is now loo­king at Habecks quo­te in context.

Germany’s Eco­no­my Minis­ter Robert Habeck war­ned against Europe’s No.1 eco­no­my beco­m­ing a “pawn” in Russia’s game. Natu­ral gas stock­pi­les across the EU are at their lowest in years as ten­si­ons over Ukrai­ne intensify.

Who stop­ped orde­ring gas?

We must impro­ve our pre­pa­red­ness for next win­ter,” the Green Par­ty poli­ti­ci­an told the news­pa­pers of the Fun­ke Media Group and the French regio­nal dai­ly Ouest-France.

Habeck said the Ukrai­ne cri­sis is for­cing Ger­ma­ny to “crea­te other import oppor­tu­nities and to diver­si­fy its sup­ply, inclu­ding infra­st­ruc­tu­ral issues.”

Diver­si­fy­ing”, is only pos­si­ble if Ame­ri­can LNG mar­kets are set­ting invest­ment decisi­ons right now, and they are set­ting them based on: 

The Glo­bal Gas Cri­sis Has Made Ame­ri­can LNG Hot Again

The glo­bal gas crunch and sky­ro­cke­ting pri­ces in Euro­pe and Asia are lay­ing the foun­da­ti­ons for a revi­val in final invest­ment decisi­ons in new lique­fied natu­ral gas (LNG)

src: click

As well as the 14th para­graph from the top for DW.com:

He [Habeck] went on to cri­ti­ci­ze the gas mar­ket for being com­ple­te­ly dere­gu­la­ted and hin­ted that the government may have to play a grea­ter role.

src: click

Third step is to under­stand the “new role governments should play in co-regulating ener­gy markets”.

The Ger­man Mar­shall Fund of the United Sta­tes released a press state­ment two days ago.

EU-US Ener­gy Coope­ra­ti­on to Address Cli­ma­te Change

In 2022, the big­gest exis­ten­ti­al thre­at to the health, pro­spe­ri­ty, and exis­tence of humans on Earth is cli­ma­te chan­ge. Mas­si­ve efforts are nee­ded to urgent­ly miti­ga­te green­house gas emis­si­ons and, in par­al­lel, sup­port adap­t­ati­on mea­su­res for tho­se alrea­dy affec­ted by its nega­ti­ve impact. On the occa­si­on of the EU-US Ener­gy Coun­cil mee­ting in Febru­a­ry 2022, it is use­ful to recall the dra­ma­tic impact of the Euro­pean Reco­very Program—the Mar­shall Plan—on the recon­struc­tion of Euro­pe; that the finan­cial, tech­ni­cal, and poli­ti­cal sup­port of the United Sta­tes to both for­mer friends and foes in Euro­pe were essen­ti­al in re-establishing demo­cra­cy and growth in a Euro­pe devas­ta­ted by inter­nal stri­fe and war. Seventy-five years sin­ce Secreta­ry of Sta­te Geor­ge Mar­shall announ­ced the plan, and 50 years sin­ce the Ger­man Mar­shall Fund was estab­lis­hed to build grea­ter trans­at­lan­tic and inter­na­tio­nal coope­ra­ti­on, it is a time­ly moment to reflect on how the Euro­pean and Ame­ri­can powers can work tog­e­ther glo­bal­ly to address cli­ma­te chan­ge immedia­te­ly, ade­qua­te­ly, and inno­va­tively to ensu­re glo­bal pro­spe­ri­ty and demo­cra­cy. The coope­ra­ti­on of the trans­at­lan­tic powers to trans­fer regu­la­to­ry best prac­ti­ces and new tech­no­lo­gies in the clean ener­gy tran­si­ti­on can help all glo­bal part­ners attain net-zero emis­si­ons by 2050. In addi­ti­on, tech­ni­cal and finan­cial assi­s­tance to tho­se suf­fe­ring most from the con­se­quen­ces of cli­ma­te chan­ge must be pro­vi­ded to help them to urgent­ly take mea­su­res to adapt and pro­tect themselves.

[…]

Hydro­gen
Fol­lowing on from bet­ter manage­ment of electri­ci­ty grids and grea­ter sup­ply of rene­wa­ble ener­gy, “excess” rene­wa­ble electri­ci­ty can be used to gene­ra­te clean hydro­gen. The United Sta­tes and the EU have alrea­dy begun coope­ra­ting bi- and mul­ti­la­te­ral­ly on dri­ving for­ward a hydro­gen mar­ket and need fur­ther impe­tus from regu­la­to­ry, infra­st­ruc­tu­re, and invest­ment per­spec­ti­ves to ensu­re that this com­po­nent of the ener­gy mix is in place and ope­ra­tio­nal at sca­le. Hydro­gen sto­rage can be used to off­set varia­bi­li­ty in rene­wa­ble electricity. 

With respect to hydro­gen gene­ra­ted from natu­ral gas, bet­ter and more effi­ci­ent car­bon cap­tu­re and sto­rage tech­no­lo­gies at a lower cost should be encou­ra­ged to ensu­re that “blue” hydro­gen can be ram­ped up as a tran­si­ti­on fuel in par­al­lel to the deve­lo­p­ment of “green” hydro­gen. The cost-benefit ana­ly­sis will depend to a lar­ge degree on the mar­ket pri­ces of natu­ral gas; its avai­la­bi­li­ty; car­bon cap­tu­re, use, and sequestra­ti­on (CCUS) cos­ts; and alter­na­ti­ve sources for hydro­gen pro­duc­tion. None­theless, for many coun­tries, hydro­gen will be an important part of the future ener­gy mix and efforts to encou­ra­ge and help with regu­la­to­ry and tech­no­lo­gy impro­ve­ments can dri­ve for­ward this development.

Natu­ral Gas
Natu­ral gas will con­ti­nue to play a key role as a tran­si­ti­on fuel in the clean ener­gy future. Repla­cing coal with natu­ral gas can hal­ve green­house gas emis­si­ons, but access to sup­ply, and at a rea­son­ab­le pri­ce, will be an important fac­tor. Given the cur­rent high cost of natu­ral gas in many parts of the world, grea­ter sup­ply at lower cost will be nee­ded to encou­ra­ge that displacement.

Gas as a sto­rage and back-up fuel for electri­ci­ty sup­ply will also con­ti­nue to be important during the tran­si­ti­on peri­od, and joint efforts to redu­ce metha­ne emis­si­ons (as announ­ced at COP26) will be cru­cial in crea­ting grea­ter public accep­t­ance of natu­ral gas use while ram­ping up the genera­ti­on of rene­wa­ble sources.

Sourcing natu­ral gas and the role of inter­na­tio­nal mar­kets are essen­ti­al to the smooth func­tio­n­ing and app­li­ca­ti­on of natu­ral gas as a tran­si­ti­on fuel; the United Sta­tes and the EU should both con­ti­nue to rein­for­ce regu­la­to­ry pro­vi­si­ons to encou­ra­ge the effi­ci­ent func­tio­n­ing of tho­se markets.

src: click

Now - how is what Habeck is doing not sim­ply lying to peop­le? How is what DW is doing not sim­ply copy­ing lies, without set­ting them in context?

The truth”, should it exist, is some­whe­re is bur­ried in the 14th para­graph in the arti­cle, while the fact, that soa­ring gas pri­ces are enab­ling LNG pro­duc­tion to begin with, is not even men­tio­ned. Ger­man Mar­shal Fund of the United Sta­tes is sta­ting that for the green tran­si­ti­on mode­ra­te gas pri­ces are para­mount, and Habeck is “incre­a­sing ener­gy secu­ri­ty” for ger­ma­ny by making “diver­si­fi­ca­ti­on of sources” mandatory?

This only makes sen­se, if you accu­se Gaz­prom of inten­tio­nal­ly incre­a­sing gas pri­ces, for poli­ti­cal rea­sons (which no one does open­ly, btw - other­wi­se, fact che­cking would come in), to the point whe­re they’­ve lost 41.3% of exports year on year - and from then on it stops making sen­se, becau­se if you diver­si­fy by buil­ding out LNG ter­mi­nals or try to pro­cu­re lar­ge quan­ti­ties from other sources, you do that with a pri­ce expec­ta­ti­on of todays pri­ce levels of gas. Not lower ones. US is par­ti­ci­pa­ting in this trend to the ful­lest extent (Inte­res­tin­g­ly enough OPEC did­n’t flood the mar­ket with cheap natu­ral gas this time around, to com­pen­sa­te for “mar­ket pri­ces”, with expert opi­ni­on most­ly sta­ting, that this had occu­red in lar­ge parts becau­se “green tran­si­ti­on” as the fore­mo­st goal in their most important con­su­mer mar­kets made them bind tog­e­ther with rus­si­an ener­gy pro­du­cers). Mar­kets so far dont care about poli­ti­cal inter­ven­ti­on in the least, that goes for the US as well (or at least?). At the same time Habeck pro­mo­tes “hig­her ener­gy pri­ces” as a way to acce­le­ra­te the tran­si­ti­on towards green ener­gy” publicly, while the peop­le respon­si­ble for his actu­al poli­ci­es (how could that be mis­sed by now…) out­right sta­te, that lower natu­ral gas pri­ces would be nee­ded in the mid term, to enab­le the ener­gy tran­si­ti­on. And if you think “diver­si­fy­ing natu­ral gas pro­cu­re­ment” means some­thing other than hig­her gas pri­ces - think again.

UK Gas Pro­duc­tion Could Plun­ge 75% By 2030

The UK could beco­me much more vul­nerable to pri­ce shocks and geo­po­li­ti­cal events unless new off­shore fiel­ds are appro­ved and developed—and the UK’s gas pro­duc­tion could plum­met by 75 percent

src: click

Diver­si­fy­ing natu­ral gas pro­cu­re­ment, means hig­her natu­ral gas pri­ces. Is only pos­si­ble with hig­her natu­ral gas pri­ces in place. Is not in the inte­rest of rus­sia (If not for incre­a­sing the pri­ce of natu­ral gas over­all.). And accord­ing to Habeck was cau­sed by mar­ket mecha­nisms. (Para­graph 14 in the DW arti­cle.) Becau­se what was in the inte­rest of rus­sia, was ful­fil­ling their stan­ding obli­ga­ti­ons, and doing so wit­hin one or two days after the order amounts incre­a­sed again. (At a hig­her pri­ce, but look at US gas­mar­kets at the same time at least - when making the state­ment that diver­si­fy­ing pro­cu­re­ment would be the way out of this.)

This time I pro­vi­ded the through­li­ne. I hope ever­yo­ne is hap­py with it as is. I just cant stand the lies anymore.

What a difference a day makes…

04. Februar 2022


US says Rus­si­an attack no lon­ger ‘immi­nent’

Now who saw that one com­ing? Anyone?

edit: Bonus - if you want the con­tra­dic­ting infor­ma­ti­on released by a US Sta­tes Depart­ment spo­kes­per­son, a few hours earlier:

Must-watch exchan­ge bet­ween @APDi­plo­Wri­ter Matt Lee and @StateDeptSpox:

Repor­ter: “It’s an action that you say they have taken, but you have shown no evi­dence to con­firm that. […] This is like - cri­sis actors? Real­ly? This is like Alex Jones ter­ri­to­ry you’re get­ting into now.”

src: click
Rus­si­as reac­tion: click

The european unity you’ve been waiting for

02. Februar 2022

US incre­a­sed mili­ta­ry sup­port spen­ding and is about to incre­a­se tro­ops sta­tio­ned in Nato mem­ber sta­tes, Gre­at Bri­tain and Poland are now incre­a­sing mili­ta­ry aid and poli­ti­cal sup­port by hol­ding smal­ler sum­mits as well - the Dut­ch Prime Minis­ter will visit Ukrai­ne tomor­row, and for­mer Prime Minis­ter of Swe­den, Carl Bildt, now co-chair of the Euro­pean Coun­cil on For­eign Rela­ti­ons (thats pos­si­ble?) is put­ting out “sca­re tac­tics” tal­king­points as well.

You know you have a genui­ne euro­pean effort going, when the US, Gre­at Bri­tain, Poland, and the Co Chair of the ECFR, are put­ting out the “we stand with Ukrai­ne” rhe­to­ric, and hol­ding spee­ches at sta­te visits in the Ukrai­ne cur­r­ent­ly, oh and dont for­get the Prime Minis­ter of the Nether­lands (It worked! -- on a more serious note: 

The King­dom of the Nether­lands beca­me a foun­ding mem­ber of NATO in 1949 and its unaba­ted com­mit­ment to the inter­na­tio­nal legal order gave it a much lar­ger role in inter­na­tio­nal affairs than its size would nor­mal­ly jus­ti­fy. It also exp­lains why Dut­ch lea­ders let NATO mem­bers­hip, as well as its mem­bers­hip of the Euro­pean Uni­on and the United Nati­ons, shape a lar­ge part of the country’s for­eign poli­cy and why Atlan­ti­cism for­med a cor­ner­stone of its secu­ri­ty poli­cy during the ent­i­re Cold War period.”

src: click)!

The Ukrai­ne mean­while, has the best mas­ter­plan you could think of in this instance - incre­a­se armed for­ces capa­ci­ty by 100.000 units wit­hin three years.

Wait - wit­hin three years? For how long does the coali­ti­on of the wil­ling think this con­flict should be held acti­ve again? Rus­sia basi­cal­ly loo­ses advan­ta­ge in late febru­a­ry… And from then on their nego­tia­ting posi­ti­on gets suc­ces­si­ve­ly worse.

So in three years from now, when the Ukrai­ne final­ly has a stan­ding army of 100.000 units more, and an ener­gy depen­den­cy of about 70% on rus­si­an oil exports… Their eco­no­mic growth will streng­t­hen, so they can final­ly aim at poli­ti­cal or ener­gy inde­pen­dence? Oh no, I for­got, the US will invest hea­vi­ly in green ener­gy infra­st­ruc­tu­re in the Ukrai­ne, and then - they’ll do an infra­st­ruc­tu­re build up with oil and shale­gas ship­ped in from half around the glo­be, becau­se “the pro­spects of buil­ding green infra­st­ruc­tu­re in the Ukrai­ne” are out­right rosy - with them now having built up their army signi­fi­cant­ly, having suf­fe­red oca­tio­nal ener­gy outa­ges and sup­ply shocks (during the transition).

Someo­ne draw me the through­li­ne here again?

Some­thing might be mis­sing from this ana­ly­sis, like - rus­si­an gas on its way to euro­pe goes through which coun­tries (if we pre­su­me Nord Stream 2 stays inactive)?

edit: Oh, Brussels (as the home base of NATO) is ent­i­re­ly impar­ti­al as well, of cour­se - no con­flict of inte­rest whatsoever. (The peace move­ments, inter­view­ed here, his­to­ri­cal­ly are seen as aiding the rus­si­an sphe­re of influ­ence.)

edit2: Short state­ment by the Ukrai­ni­an Pre­si­dent: “We are loo­king for­ward to taking the Krim back [or other ter­ri­to­ries?], and that bila­te­ral tra­de bet­ween the UK and Ukrai­ne incre­a­sed by 60% over the last years is gre­at, and a gre­at suc­cess, and we should talk more about free tra­de [Wait what? So the bila­te­ral tra­de agree­ment beco­mes worth less?]. Dont quo­te me on that who­le com­plex, becau­se I havent sourced mul­ti­ple sources, but thats liter­al­ly what the trans­la­tor said. (Source is The Tele­graph.) Ah - the best of the best as heads of the sta­te again, I see…

Update: El Pais has acces­sed the some of the US and NATO nego­tia­ti­on docu­ments and is publi­shing details. Click and click.

edit: The US is cur­r­ent­ly signa­ling, that Ger­ma­ny is not depen­da­ble. Oh, so sad… did the litt­le trick of “spea­king for the who­le of euro­pe” Vic­to­ria Nuland pul­led off not work… *sniff* So sad. Second source: DW as par­ti­al as ever.

edit2: Whats this? The Ukrai­ne con­fir­ming, that the num­bers of rus­si­an troups near the bor­der are too small for a full sca­le inva­si­on - at this point? click How can that be pos­si­ble? The next step would be them ack­now­led­ging, that Kiev is not likely under risk of being taken by a par­ti­al inva­si­on. The insanity!

German Marshall Fund of the United States and Starr Forum

28. Januar 2022

Panel on Streng­t­he­ning the Secu­ri­ty Resi­li­en­ce of Ukrai­ne: Mili­ta­ry, Ener­gy, Cyber

High­light: Mode­ra­tor asks, if Ukrai­ne would be able to beco­me a net ener­gy exporter wit­hin the next five years to redu­ce eco­no­mic depen­dance - expert fol­lows up with a sli­de that reads:

Pos­si­ble addi­tio­nal thre­ats [to Ukrai­ne] in 2022:

Phy­si­cal attacks
- phy­si­cal dama­ge to infra­st­ruc­tu­re - gas pipe­lines, to for­ce NS2 operation
- electri­ci­ty net­work to pre­vent joi­ning ENTSO-E (Euro­pean asso­cia­ti­on for the coope­ra­ti­on of trans­mis­si­on sys­tem ope­ra­tors (TSOs) for electricity)

Cyber attacks on infrastructure
- gas pipe­lines to for­ce NS2 operation
- electri­ci­ty net­work to pre­vent joi­ning ENTSO-E

Attacks on coal mines/nuclear plants to crea­te evi­ron­men­tal dis­as­ters, risk to people’s health

Infor­ma­tio­nal attacks
- alrea­dy happening

Eco­no­mic attacks
- Blo­cka­ge of coal/gas supply
- Blo­cka­ge of oil pro­ducts supply

Fol­lo­wed up by a plea, to the US minis­try of ener­gy to help Ukrai­ne with imple­men­ting a sus­tainab­le ener­gy infra­st­ruc­tu­re, because 

The US has real­ly, real­ly gre­at ener­gy resi­li­en­ce sys­tems, star­ting with trai­nings, com­mu­ni­ca­ti­on, and buil­ding capa­ci­ty of dif­fe­rent sta­ke­hol­ders. It would be real­ly good, if the US depart­ment of ener­gy and the US government, would help the Ukrai­ne minis­try of ener­gy and other sta­ke­hol­ders, to build this capa­ci­ty here in the Ukrai­ne. I belie­ve this is a real­ly gre­at chan­ce to enhan­ce our coope­ra­ti­on, thank you very much.”

What a nice invi­ta­ti­on - I might actual­ly vaca­ti­on the­re, next summer!

[First pro­blem being Bela­rus is cur­r­ent­ly not sup­ply­ing electri­ci­ty to the Ukrai­ne, with it being up in the air, if they will recon­nect in the near future.] “The second pro­blem is sup­ply of oil pro­ducts to Ukrai­ne, becau­se Rus­sia and Bela­rus sup­ply up to 70% of oil pro­ducts to Ukrai­ne now, and if they stop this sup­ply, well, the­re will be a pos­si­bi­li­ty to replace this fuel, but the time will mat­ter. So Bela­rus can play some nega­ti­ve role, even des­troy­ing lets say ener­gy secu­ri­ty of Ukraine.”

--

Starr Forum (MIT Cen­ter for Inter­na­tio­nal Studies)

Pri­ma­ri­ly sees “saber ratt­ling”. Then fol­lo­wed up by a collec­tion of all the US think­tank lead pro­po­sals dis­sec­ted here in the last days. Eura­si­on eco­no­mic uni­on, Putin beha­vio­ral ana­ly­sis and cha­rac­ter cen­te­red moti­va­ti­on fin­ding for the con­flict, pain­ting the Ukrai­ne as an eco­no­mic power­house, tel­ling peop­le its Putins fear of peop­le power, pin­ning it on ego/status, … Ever­ything except for crea­ting a secu­ri­ty infra­st­ruc­tu­re along­side rus­si­as bor­ders that would sus­tain a com­ing demo­gra­phic nar­ro­wing. First and fourth spea­kers at least touch upon it. Fourth spea­ker then also pro­po­ses some­thing along tho­se lines, detail­ed talks about a new secu­ri­ty infra­st­ruc­tu­re as “the best pos­si­ble solu­ti­on, and the one thats cur­r­ent­ly being pur­sued”. All in all the best panel I’ve scree­n­ed so far, watching it is recommended.

edit: Pas­send dazu der öster­rei­chi­sche Fal­ter: “Nie­mand hat wirk­lich ein Inter­es­se an Kämp­fen in der Ukrai­ne. War­um trom­meln dann trotz­dem alle nach Krieg?”

edit2: Fifth spea­ker in the Starr Forum Panel goes into the thre­at from a mili­ta­ry tro­ops sta­tio­ned at the bor­der ang­le. Cur­r­ent­ly about 56.000 com­bat units and sup­port units to fill up the 100.000 repor­ted by other out­lets befo­re. Thats about 40% of rus­si­as cur­rent com­bat poten­ti­al, now near the bor­der (120-200 miles from the ukrai­ni­an bor­der). About half the num­ber are bri­ga­des, that are regu­lar­ly sta­tio­ned the­re. That inclu­des most of the sup­por­ting ground tro­ops. (Almost no addi­tio­nal sup­port tro­ops were added.) 15-20 SPTGs have moved pri­ma­ri­ly into Bela­rus, equa­ling 50% of the total eas­tern groups com­bat poten­ti­al, that has now moved near the Ukrai­ne. Posi­tio­ning would make it pos­si­ble to occu­py the east or the south of Ukrai­ne, or to encir­cle Kiev, pro­bab­ly not take Kiev “becau­se that’s hard”. A total occup­a­ti­on is unli­kely, but the­re is a pos­si­bi­li­ty to use a limi­ted mili­ta­ry vic­to­ry to attain poli­ti­cal goals. Sus­tai­ned par­ti­al occup­a­ti­on also seems unli­kely accord­ing to the speaker.

edit3: Two new major takea­ways. The panel agrees that rus­sia has lar­ge­ly deco­u­pled its abi­li­ty to take mili­ta­ry action from the public sen­ti­ment of its peop­le, and also agrees, that the con­flict is about lar­ger con­ces­si­ons in the ori­en­ta­ti­on of the secu­ri­ty based order of the wes­tern alli­an­ce. Con­ces­si­ons that would exceed “pre­ven­ting Ukrai­ne from beco­m­ing a mem­ber of Nato”, becau­se that wasnt very likely wit­hin the next years any­how, accord­ing to the panelists.

72 days of Kafka

28. Januar 2022

17.11.2021: Sky News UK talks to the ukrai­ni­an ambassa­dor to the United King­dom, Vadym Prystaiko:

At 7:30 in:

Vadym Prys­ta­iko: “What I’m here to say [is], that [the] ukra­ni­an pipe­line could pro­vi­de [the] euro­pean uni­on, all euro­pean nati­ons with the gas easi­ly. We have enough capa­ci­ty. For the rus­si­ans are doing this -- they [are] just rather wea­po­nizing the gas.”

Sky News: “But you think that this is the play by Rus­sia to get this pipe­line appro­ved, and then perhaps they’d back off?”

Vadym Prys­ta­iko: “Obvious­ly they will use this gas, they wont use [the] ukrai­ni­an pipe­line, which will untie their hands in Ukrai­ne, in the ukrai­ni­ni­an cam­pai­gn, which is yet ano­t­her risk [for] a real mili­ta­ry invasion.”

Sky­news: “Are you worried about the ger­man atti­tu­de to this, I mean the pipe­line, in the main will start sup­ply­ing ger­ma­ny. We hear that out­go­ing chan­cellor Ange­la Mer­kel has con­ti­nuing decent rela­ti­ons with the krem­lin and that in actu­al fact has over­rid­den pre­si­dent Biden in his oppo­si­ti­on to North Stream 2?”

Vadym Prys­ta­iko: “I am worry­ing, becau­se the ger­mans were not under­stan­ding, for all the­se years and years. They tried it [?] befo­re. I remem­ber the pre­de­ces­sor of mother Mer­kel who pro­mi­sed to help us with that, but then beca­me a depu­ty chief of gas­prom hims­elf. So when we are tal­king about ger­mans, we have to under­stand how clo­se­ly they are con­nec­ted eco­no­mi­c­al­ly to rus­si­ans, and how much of their own cal­cu­la­ti­ons of whats going on in their neigh­bor­hood actual­ly depends on rus­si­an gas, or some­thing else from the rus­si­an federation.”

src: click

72 days later:

28.01.2022: NPR talks to the spo­kes­man for the United Sta­tes Depart­ment of Sta­te, Ned Price:

I want to be very clear: if Rus­sia inva­des Ukrai­ne one way or ano­t­her, Nord Stream 2 will not move for­ward,” Pri­ce told Natio­nal Public Radio. “I’m not going to get into the spe­ci­fics. We will work with Ger­ma­ny to ensu­re it does not move forward.”

src: click

Someo­ne paint me the through­li­ne here.

1. Did Rus­sia esca­la­te mili­ta­ry ten­si­ons to get North Stream 2 appro­ved? Ans­wer: [Implied: Yes - Then expli­ci­tly:] Well obvious­ly it redu­ces their invol­ve­ment in day to day poli­tics in the Ukrai­ne, which is ano­t­her risk for invasion.

Mea­ning - rus­sia esca­la­ted ten­si­ons, to get North Stream 2 appro­ved (wait what?!), so it can deco­u­p­le from Ukrai­ne eco­no­mi­c­al­ly, which incre­a­ses the risk of inva­si­on? So this isnt about Rus­sia wan­ting to pre­vent Ukrai­ne from beco­m­ing a Nato part­ner, becau­se Ukrai­ne wants Rus­sia invol­ved in their domestic poli­tics, which would pre­vent them from (most likely - ever) beco­m­ing a Nato mem­ber state?

Reflec­ting on the ECFRs posi­ti­on of “Euro­pe needs to deco­u­p­le from Rus­si­as ener­gy mar­kets long­term”, this means, what?

2. It’s bet­ter for lower mili­ta­ry ten­si­ons in the Ukrai­ne, to have Rus­sia invol­ved actively in their day to day poli­tics for as long as possible?

It’s bet­ter for lower poli­ti­cal ten­si­ons in the Ukrai­ne, to have Rus­sia invol­ved in their day to day poli­tics for as long as possible?

If Rus­sia inva­des in the Ukrai­ne, the US will make sure, that North Stream 2 never is ope­ned, so rus­si­an gas com­ing into the EU has to go through the ukrai­ni­an pipe­line, not redu­cing through­put - but incre­a­sing Ukrai­nes poli­ti­cal depen­den­cy on Rus­sia? Rus­si­as poli­ti­cal depen­den­cy on Ukrai­ne? Redu­cing the EUs poli­ti­cal depen­den­cy on Russia?

I thought Rus­sia esca­la­ted the con­flict to get Nord Stream 2 appro­ved? *sar­casm*

3. In actu­al fact, Ger­ma­ny has over­rid­den Bidens con­cerns (Wait, and Ted Cruz sent the memo?) on North Stream 2 to ensu­re, that it beco­mes active.

In actu­al fact, the United Sta­tes Depart­ment of Sta­te has over­rid­den Ger­ma­nys con­cerns on North Stream 2 to ensu­re, that it never beco­mes active.

Nach­trag: Tat­säch­lich. Das alles muss wohl so sein, denn die öster­rei­chi­sche Qua­li­täts­zei­tung der Stan­dard fin­det schon wie­der auf wun­der­sa­me Wei­se Kom­men­ta­to­ren (vom Insti­tu­te for Euro-Atlantic Coope­ra­ti­on) die dafür eine ganz ein­fa­che Erklä­rung haben:

Ent­ge­gen sei­nen Reden ficht Putin nicht die Nato-Erweiterung an, son­dern das Recht der Ukrai­ne, selbst­be­stimmt Ent­schei­dun­gen zu tref­fen und Bünd­nis­se zu schmie­den, die dem Land zu einem Auf­schwung verhelfen.

src: click

Alles klar jetzt?

Nach­trag 2: Es wird noch bes­ser - Nach­dem die US auf NPR ges­tern “ange­kün­digt” hat eine Red Line “North Stream 2 kommt nicht, wenn eine Inva­si­on der Ukrai­ne statt­fin­det” mit den euro­päi­schen Part­nern “zu ver­han­deln”, und zwar so - dass man sich sicher sein kann - dass das in der Form kommt und gilt, egal was die Euro­pä­er sagen - hat jetzt eine ehe­ma­li­ge Spre­che­rin des US Außen­mi­nis­te­ri­ums ange­kün­digt, dass dies eine gemein­sa­me Posi­ti­on der US und der EU sei.
(DW: US and Ger­ma­ny step up pipe­line warnings to Rus­sia”)

Euro­news hat das aktu­ell mit “Washing­ton droht Mos­kau mit dem Ende der Gas-Pipeline” im Ticker. Es gibt bis jetzt noch kein State­ment eines Regie­rungs­ver­ant­wort­li­chen in Deutsch­land, oder auf EU Ebe­ne dazu. DW über­nimmt es, ohne Quel­len im Euro­päi­schen oder Deut­schen Raum zu nen­nen, und schal­tet anstatt des­sen zu einem Kor­re­spon­den­ten in Kiev, und die tat­säch­li­che Ände­rung der Posi­ti­on ent­spricht der Grö­ßen­ord­nung von “vor eini­gen Tagen spricht Biden noch von Unter­schie­den zwi­schen einer klei­nen und einer grö­ße­ren Inva­si­on”, und “Deutsch­lands Posi­ti­on bis dato war, dass es sich bei Nord Stream 2 um ein Wirt­schafts­pro­jekt hand­le, und es nicht von poli­ti­schen Sank­tio­nen betrof­fen sein würde”.

Was hat die­se Posi­ti­on geän­dert? Mora­li­sche Argu­men­te? Dürf­te die die Euro­päi­sche Bevöl­ke­rung auch mal hören, oder…

Nein? Ok - dann halt nicht. Eine ehe­ma­li­ge Spre­che­rin des US Außen­mi­nis­te­ri­ums reicht ja völ­lig… (DW dazu: “A clea­rer pic­tu­re is emer­ging.” Deus Ex machi­na. Nie­mand wars. Plötz­lich wars da. Es gebiert sich sozu­sa­gen aus dem Schau­me der Bran­dung selbst.) Nach­fra­gen wie sie denn dazu kommt das anzu­neh­men von US Repor­ter­kol­le­gen wur­den abge­schmet­tert. Sie­he Link.

Nach­trag 3: BBC to the res­cue:

Ques­ti­ons remain over how the US could stop it (‘it’ being NS2 in Under Secreta­ry of Sta­te for Poli­ti­cal Affairs, Vic­to­ria Nulands state­ment that “If Rus­sia inva­des in Ukrai­ne, one way or ano­t­her, Nord Stream 2 will not move for­ward”, and that being a joint posi­ti­on of the US and the EU) but its the kind of bul­lish talk one nort­hern euro­pean Nato ally thinks is their best bet at stop­ping an attack.”

What a nice SNAFUUS tal­ked to one nort­hern euro­pean nati­on (won­der which one), then went in front of the press and announ­ced, that this would be “the joint euro­pean posi­ti­on”, when it was­n’t. One nati­on, the EU - what does it mat­ter, right?

Nach­trag 4: Die offi­zi­el­le Posi­ti­on Deutsch­lands ver­bleibt aktu­ell beim State­ment von Baer­bock von vor zwei Tagen, dass die Zukunft von Nord Stream 2 ein Teil einer brei­ten Rei­he an Sank­tio­nen auf Rus­si­sche Aggres­sio­nen sein könn­te. Sie­he: click

Qualitätszeitung für Klima und Gesundheit

27. Januar 2022

Stan­dard mal wie­der… Arti­kel bezahlt mit EU-Fördermitteln, aber in der redak­tio­nel­len Ver­ant­wor­tung des Stan­dard (Kate­go­rie: “Ich nehm das Geld schon, sags auch dem Redak­teur von wem er bezahlt wird, aber der schreibt dann unbefangen.”).

Euro­ba­ro­me­ter: Jun­ge Euro­pä­er sehen Kli­ma­wan­del als wich­tigs­te Herausforderung

[…]

In der Grup­pe der 15- bis 24-Jährigen glau­ben sat­te 91 Pro­zent, die Ein­däm­mung des Kli­ma­wan­dels kön­ne zur Ver­bes­se­rung ihrer Gesund­heit eben­so bei­tra­gen wie zu ihrem Wohlergehen.

src: click

Dazu klimafakten.de (bezug­neh­mend auf Her­man Lotze-Campen und das Potsdam-Institut für Kli­ma­fol­gen­for­schung (PIK) (*hust*)):

Kli­ma­wan­del und Gesund­heit - bringt die Ver­bin­dung zusätz­li­che Aufmerksamkeit?

Die übli­chen Öko-Kampagnen zum Kli­ma­schutz errei­chen vie­le Men­schen nicht oder nur wenig. Eine Alter­na­ti­ve wäre, ande­re Aspek­te des Kli­ma­wan­dels stär­ker zu the­ma­ti­sie­ren, etwa sei­ne Fol­gen für die mensch­li­che Gesund­heit. Diver­se Stu­di­en deu­ten dar­auf hin, dass dies funk­tio­nie­ren könnte

src: click

Nicht, dass es rele­vant, oder ein wesent­li­cher Aspekt wäre - nein, bit­te exakt lesen - Stu­di­en dazu, dass es funk­tio­nie­ren könn­te. (Ande­re Argu­men­ta­ti­ons­ebe­ne (die persuasive).)

klimafakten.de, das muss man wis­sen, wird von der sel­ben Per­son betrie­ben, die auch Clean Ener­gy News Wire betreibt (sie­he: click), und die dann in Alp­bach von als “Mode­ra­to­ren” bezahl­ten Standard-Redakteuren, öffent­lich in nem Dialog-Event dazu befragt wird, wel­che PR denn die Bes­te wäre um sei­ne Fami­lie (die des Jour­na­lis­ten und aller Zuhö­rer) von der Rele­vanz des Kli­ma­the­mas zu über­zeu­gen, aber mehr so auf der inter­per­so­nel­len Ebe­ne, wor­auf dann ein fünf Punk­te Plan folgt, und der Jour­na­list sich dann artig für die PR (den Akti­ons­plan) bedankt. Auf einen Kom­men­tar im Chat, dan­ke für soviel PR, von einem Ver­tre­ter des Jour­na­lis­mus - zuckt dann noch mal kurz was im Gesicht des Stan­dard­jour­na­lis­ten (könn­te schlech­tes Gewis­sen gewe­sen sein, aber viel­leicht auch Abscheu) - und das wars dann.

Sor­ry für den Exkurs, schnell wie­der zurück zum The­ma. Na wie sol­lens die 15- bis 24-Jährigen denn wis­sen, dass das pri­mär Framing ist (in Mit­tel­eu­ro­pa, für sie ihre Kin­der und ihre Enkel), wenns ihnen selbst die Qua­li­täts­me­di­en nicht sagen?

Im Arti­kel zur Euro­ba­ro­me­ter Umfra­ge ist das dann natür­lich kein Wort wert, denn da gehts erneut dar­um Effek­te die PR gene­riert hat, so umzu­deu­ten, alls sei­en Sie gesell­schaft­lich all­ge­mein aner­kannt und ‘wenns die Jugend­li­chen mei­nen - die Zukunft Euro­pas’. Das ist manu­fac­tu­ring con­sent nach Chom­sky (Pro­pa­gan­da Model).

Wer noch mehr Mate­ri­al braucht:

Im Fly­er klimabündnis.at ist Gesund­heit ein non sequi­tur und Füllwort.

So sieht das Messaging beim PIK aus. (dh. das ist die Logik­fol­ge um das Framing argu­men­tie­ren zu kön­nen - dar­in ein­fach mal nach Mit­tel­eu­ro­pa suchen) Gelis­tet in der Rubrik ‘For­schung > Kli­ma­re­si­li­enz > Arbeits­grup­pen’. Die Wir­kungs­stu­di­en die sie fah­ren, gibts dann etwas weni­ger pro­mi­nent - auf klimafakten.de.

The youngest DW correspondent is on the case again!

25. Januar 2022

The spe­cial cor­re­spon­dent sta­tio­ned in Brussels thats often cal­led upon if you need the most mat­ter of fact state­ments, bland, without con­text, thought, or logic behind them is on the job again!

Who said nai­ve? I did­n’t say nai­ve. Cer­tain­ly not as a job pre­re­qui­si­te for a jour­na­list in that position!

Fol­lo­wed up with - oh, and bet­ter ask the Euro­pean Coun­cil on For­eign Rela­ti­ons as well. (Run­ning gag on this blog: Euro­pean CFR - Thats pos­si­ble?) Also my first instinct, when being on the edge of a war. Ask a think­tank. Pre­fer­a­b­ly the one spon­so­red by NATO, Mer­ca­tor and Micro­soft (Con­text). Sh*t it’s Alp­bach all over again!

For advan­ced rea­ders, how do you get a head­line on this, with ‘unity’ in quo­tes - to the point of publi­shing?

edit: Den­mark is sen­ding two figh­ter­jets, Hol­land is sen­ding one ship! (Peop­le inter­view­ed are from this frac­tion.)

edit2: Vice News of all out­lets, has the most level hea­ded approach to repor­ting here so far? (DW also broad­cast street inter­views, but cut them tog­e­ther with dif­fe­ring opi­ni­on pie­ces, and didnt actual­ly inte­gra­te much of it into an edi­to­ri­al opinion/positon.)

Exkurs: Der Stan­dard macht unter­des­sen mit der Angst der Ukrai­ne­rIn­nen Pro­gramm, und führt magi­sche Ver­glei­che zu Pro­zent­wer­ten der Angst in Umfra­gen zur Zeit der Kri­min­va­si­on. Qua­li­täts­jour­na­lis­mus halt. Ein Schelm, wer das mit den Äuße­run­gen des zukünf­ti­gen Lei­ters der Münch­ner Sicher­heits­kon­fe­renz in Ver­bin­dung bringt. Was für ein inte­grer Mann. Sogar auf den Jugend­bil­dungs­ver­an­stal­tun­gen der Har­vard Ken­ne­dy School unter­wegs. (Trup­pen­grö­ße und For­ma­tio­nen, pas­sen für sein Argu­ment aktu­ell noch nicht so ganz (bei Time­code 1:20 in). Aber sehr integer.)

Exkurs2: Huch, der Stan­dard (Arti­kel von einer Redak­teu­rin inhouse ver­fasst) wet­tert gegen öffent­li­che Mei­nungs­ma­che (PR) durch pri­va­te Denk­fa­bri­ken! (click). Lei­der nur im Umfeld des Momen­tum Insti­tuts, und nicht in der Ukrai­ne Cau­sa, wo “die Stim­mung auf Social Media in der Ukrai­ne” als Indi­ka­tor für kom­men­de Aktio­nen gewer­tet wird. Nicht die in Russ­land, wo der Aggres­sor die eige­ne Bevöl­ke­rung über­zeu­gen müss­te, nein - in der Ukrai­ne, wo man mit “das Volk glaubt der eige­nen Regie­rungs­spit­ze nicht mehr, da die US anhal­tend ein ande­res Sze­na­rio malen - und die Sor­ge in der Bevöl­ke­rung zunimmt von ihrer Regie­rung belo­gen zu wer­den” auf­ma­chen kann. Ohne den Kau­sal­zu­sam­men­hang her­zu­stel­len - da in dem Fall die Leu­te auf Social Media ja unab­hän­gi­ge Mei­nungs­bil­dung reprä­sen­tie­ren. Dop­pel­mo­ral? I wo… Qualitätsjournalismus.

edit3: This (src: The Tele­graph) is also not what jour­na­lism loo­ks like. Even though I’ll use it to under­line my posi­ti­on. Two jour­na­lists babb­ling to them­sel­ves on air, lear­ning and making up rela­ti­ons­hips on the job and on the fly - so to speak, com­ing to the con­clu­si­on, that “the most alar­ming assess­ments are com­ing from tho­se wes­tern capi­tals” [Lon­don and Washing­ton]. A hur­ray for “Podcast-Journalism”, as some peop­le at repu­ta­ble media out­lets would call it.

edit4: The Agen­da with Ste­ve Pai­kin on the topic. (I love the god damn framing of the aus­tri­an par­ti­ci­pant. “Putin” (as in who knows who), wan­ted to wea­ken the euro­peans, by tal­king to the US direct­ly - and lea­ving the impres­si­on, that euro­pe does not mat­ter in said con­flict, ther­eby see­ding divi­si­on. Mean­while, José Bor­rell is on tape begging the US on a video call, that they should also be inclu­ded in the (by then only) bila­te­ral talks. So the incredi­b­ly devious plan of “Putin” beco­mes - showing rea­li­ty on the pro­ce­du­ral level, ah f*ck it, on the fac­tu­al level, pro­vo­king state­ments from Josef Jof­fe, that Euro­pe doenst mat­ter from any secu­ri­ty poli­tics ang­le whatsoever, and that that is self­in­flic­ted. Devious plan. How dare “Putin” to show Euro­pe, how the US would react! José was begging.

Also gre­at argu­ment by her at around 15:30 in, that diplo­ma­cy never mat­ters in for­eign poli­tics. Which isnt at all con­tra­dic­to­ry. (If thats true, the euro­peans posi­ti­on, is how strong exact­ly? Oh - I’m sor­ry, I for­got we resort to dou­ble stan­dards again…). That per­son is flip­ping payed for her ana­ly­sis. You can make money by con­tra­dic­ting your posi­ti­on wit­hin the same 15 minu­tes, and tel­ling ever­yo­ne inva­si­on was com­ing sin­ce 2014, the prae­to­ri­an guards of the Ukrai­ne would be able, wil­ling and rea­dy and… You can get payed for that… You and your ent­i­re institute. 

edit5: Oh, so sor­ry - she is actual­ly payed to ral­ly the tro­ops around, that this will beco­me a bipo­lar world of demo­crats against com­mu­nists, and who knows figh­t­ing com­mu­nists bet­ter than Nato, so love Nato, figh­t­ing will be saving Demo­cra­cy! If you pay her, and her ent­i­re insti­tu­te, you pay to get an action­ab­le PR mes­sa­ge (and the f*cking bra­va­do in her voice), not just exper­ti­se. Other­wi­se you’d be paying for not­hing, accord­ing to her own argu­ment. Mul­ti­po­lar? Ts. Bipo­lar, Bipo­lar! Grab your wea­pons now! Copy her speech and tell others! Its about the future of the rules based order! (So was TTIP btw.) Aus­tri­an Insti­tu­te for euro­pean and secu­ri­ty poli­tics. (Goog­le AIES and Alp­bach in your spa­re time, I cant be bothe­red to post a link.))

edit6: DW final­ly has an edi­to­ri­al posi­ti­on! The cor­re­spon­dent even reminds the news anker of the back­ground now (What do I care about my chit­chat from yes­ter­day? — Kon­rad Ade­nau­er). I’m sho­cked, sho­cked I tell you, that its the same tal­king point of “14.000 peop­le have been kil­led in the Don­bas regi­on sin­ce 2014” we see in the pep talk towards mili­ta­ry (re-)action, dis­se­mi­na­ting from Hawks in the cur­rent situa­ti­on. Broad­cas­ting street inter­views on the mood (towards war) of the gene­ral public goes two ways (isnt irrele­vant for ger­ma­ny eit­her), you know. Cant let it hap­pen, that in euro­pe the public sen­ti­ment moves towards “give in to some of the deman­ds” (which are always impos­si­ble to be met of cour­se, as Nato cant say - that it wont admit Ukrai­ne - when, wait a second, the US did so in infor­mal talks around the end of the soviet uni­on?), that would be bad for our nego­tia­ting posi­ti­on. So lets stick to red lining, and then war… Bet­ter pre­pa­re the public! (Of the Ukrai­ne of cour­se, becau­se for wes­tern euro­pe its just ‘tougher sanc­tions, and hig­her ener­gy cos­ts’.) Oh, and stick around for todays state­ment of the ECFR (Thats pos­si­ble?) as well. They’­ve a per­ma­nent­ly boo­ked spot in DWs repor­ting by now.

edit7: The ECFRs posi­ti­on “short and long term deco­u­pling of midd­le euro­pe from rus­si­as ener­gy sec­tor” becau­se… Wait for it… “Rus­sia can only sur­vi­ve this cen­tu­ry if it has indus­tri­al power­house nati­ons like the Ukrai­ne (Wait, what? Want to look into the EU invest­ments post 2014 again? The cur­rent IMF reports? Or goog­le Ukrai­ne struc­tu­ral depen­den­ci­es?) in its fold” so wes­tern nati­ons should aim at des­troy­ing rus­sia, at the cost of their eco­no­mic deve­lo­p­ment, as well as not being able to rea­li­ze the green tran­si­ti­on (becau­se thats lin­ked to a hea­vy incre­a­se of natu­ral gas con­sump­ti­on mid­term, to fas­track the rene­wa­ble infra­st­ruc­tu­re build up). Just as a remin­der for ever­yo­ne - thats the think­tank that is the euro­pean coun­cil on for­eign rela­ti­ons (Thats possible?).

edit8: Gute Nach­rich­ten, Lanz hat jeman­den gefun­den zu dem er “aha” sagen und mit dem Kopf nicken kann, der jetzt aber mal wirk­lich klar­stellt, dass es beim Ukrai­ne Kon­flikt gar­nicht um die Ukrai­ne geht, son­dern eigent­lich um ein Pro­blem der Sicher­heits­ord­nung Euro­pas das seit den spä­ten Neun­zi­gern besteht. (Wie konn­te ich eigent­lich eine unbe­schwer­te Kind­heit genie­ßen, in einem Euro­pa das sich damals Fran­cis Fuku­ya­ma “Ende der Geschich­te” ange­nä­hert hat, wo doch die­se Sicher­heit­ar­chi­tek­tur immer schon, so pro­ble­ma­tisch war? So pro­ble­ma­tisch dass das Aus­wär­ti­ge Amt noch 2021 in Rze­cz­pos­po­li­ta (pol­ni­schen Zei­tung) fol­gen­des zu Pro­to­koll gab: “Unser Ziel ist es, ein prag­ma­ti­sches Ver­hält­nis zu Russ­land auf­zu­bau­en, wo dies geht, und im Dia­log mit Russ­land zuzu­hö­ren und unse­re eige­nen Inter­es­sen zu arti­ku­lie­ren.” und selbst die Grün­der­vä­ter der EU “eco­no­mic co-dependence” als Prä­mis­se ver­an­kert hat­ten, und wie­so besteht das Pro­blem seit den spä­ten 90ern, wenn das French Insti­tu­te of For­eign Rela­ti­ons “Chan­ges of Per­cep­ti­on” erst seit 2012 wahr­nimmt? Ich bin mir sicher, Lanz hin­ter­fragt das gründ­lich.) Pro­ble­me in der Sicher­heits­ar­chi­tek­tur Euro­pas seit den spä­ten 90er Jah­ren ist ein “rai­se” im Ver­gleich zur groß ange­leg­ten Ukrai­ne Inva­si­on, die ja schon seit 2014 fak­tisch täg­lich statt­fin­den hät­te kön­nen (Posi­ti­on des AIES). Wäh­rend die Grö­ße ver­scho­be­ner Trup­pen für eine groß­an­ge­leg­te Inva­si­on bis heu­te um den Fak­tor 3+ zu gering aus­fällt.

(Russ­land hat 1,25 Mil­lio­nen akti­ve Ein­hei­ten, sowie 380.000 Reser­vis­ten. Die Ukrai­ne berich­tet seit mehr als 10 Tagen von 120.000 Ein­hei­ten in Grenz­nä­he, davon ein Drit­tel bereits län­ger­fris­tig sta­tio­niert. Rand hat in einem war­ga­me sce­n­a­rio vor mehr als zwei Jah­ren eine Teil­in­va­si­on der Ukrai­ne mit 130.000 Sol­da­ten simu­liert. Wer Pen­ta­gon Spre­cher um die­sen Punkt (Inva­si­on, oder Teil­in­va­si­on?) her­um­ei­ern sehen möch­te: click Der Tal­king­point des “almost com­ple­ted build-ups” rührt daher: click Die BBC hat ihn heu­te über­nom­men und aus­staf­fiert: click.)

Zur Erläu­te­rung, im bei Lanz gebrach­ten Argu­ment geht es dar­um Russ­land und Deutsch­land öko­no­misch zu ent­kop­peln (ECFR Vor­schlag), denn dann hät­te man eine kla­re Sicher­heits­ord­nung. Und ein rie­si­ges Kon­flikt­po­ten­ti­al mehr (also, bis Russ­land dann - nach ECFR Pro­jek­tio­nen, öko­no­misch das nächs­te Jahr­zehnt nicht mehr über­lebt, das ist tat­säch­lich die pro­ji­zier­te Lösung des Pro­blems in dem Theo­rem) das dann auf grö­ße­rer Flam­me köchelt. Aber end­lich wäre die Nato dann wie­der rele­van­ter. Wirt­schafts­wachs­tum ist doch eh über­be­wer­tet. Die EU könn­te ja auch ein Mili­tär­bünd­nis wer­den, und damit der Nato Kon­kur­renz machen… Ne, Moment, das geht auch nicht, weil dann wäre die Sicher­heits­ord­nung Euro­pas wie­der pro­ble­ma­tisch. Ich würd sagen, ein­fach der Wil­le dazu die Wirt­schafts­leis­tung rück­zu­bau­en reicht. Das shale gas aus den USA wird ja sicher bald bil­li­ger, wenn es kei­ne Markt­kon­kur­renz mehr gibt. Kann jemand das Nicken beim Lanz noch ein wenig in der Fre­quenz stei­gern? Zu mei­ner und der kol­lek­ti­ven Beru­hi­gung der Wählerschaft.

Es wäre viel­leicht auch noch rele­vant anzu­mer­ken, dass es die “Long Term” Posi­ti­on gibt, dass “Putin” aktu­ell eine Sicher­heits­ar­chi­tek­tur für die Grenz­re­gio­nen Russ­lands baut, da aus demo­gra­phi­schen Grün­den aktu­ell (und spä­ter nicht mehr) die Mili­tä­ri­sche Kapa­zi­tät vor­han­den ist (dafür, aber nicht für mehr) und es öko­no­misch weit weni­ger rosig aus­sieht. Denn Alex­an­der Graf Lambs­dorff sieht die nicht, und baut statt­des­sen bei Lanz eine ande­re. “Das Spal­ten Euro­pas, das Her­aus­drän­gen der atlan­ti­schen Alli­anz aus Euro­pa, das sind die Fra­gen um die es Putin wirk­lich geht”. (Wäh­rend die US ihren Fokus geo­po­li­tisch auf den Pazi­fi­schen Raum ver­la­gert haben.) Exper­ten für das Volk. Ver­schwö­rungs­theo­rien für das Volk. Heu­te lässt sich das nicht mehr ganz so genau tren­nen. Die Rus­sen kom­men. Beim Lanz.

Europe, the billiard ball in a great geoeconomical game between China and the US

20. Januar 2022

Final­ly the necessa­ry infor­ma­ti­on reached the poli­ti­cal level. First step defi­an­ce. Soon to be fol­lo­wed by anger, reco­gni­ti­on, accep­t­ance, … What hits me, deeply - is the obvious natu­re of the poli­ti­cal lie on dis­play here. So you are suck­ling on the tit of inter­na­tio­nal invest­ment funds (coi­ned ‘intel­li­gent money’) to put in invest­ments, that you and your deve­lo­p­ment banks need to leverage to gene­ra­te even clo­se to enough inte­rest (six­ty­six bil­li­on to tril­li­ons, and then to the moon!), inter­na­tio­nal invest­ment groups are open­ly sta­ting that they are wai­t­ing for regu­la­ti­on to beco­me law faci­li­ta­ting invest­ment pro­tec­tions, befo­re they’ll con­si­der fun­ne­ling funds into anything coi­ned sus­tainab­le, so cur­r­ent­ly you are depen­ding on your own public to absorb risk, and act as ear­ly sta­ge inves­tors to get the who­le thing jump­star­ted, which accord­ing to our finan­cial insti­tu­ti­ons they arent doing on a broad enough basis, so now you are crea­ting nud­ging laws (EU laws tar­ge­ting ‘finan­cial insti­tu­tes and invest­ment advice’) and finan­ce PR initia­ti­ves, becau­se as sta­tes you maneu­ve­r­ed yourself into the posi­ti­on, whe­re actu­al Moonshot pro­grams (lar­ge sta­te invest­ment initia­ti­ves), arent rea­liz­ab­le any­mo­re. Then you look at the inves­tors who are deman­ding invest­ment pro­tec­tion, and see pri­va­te US funds just wai­t­ing for the oppor­tu­ni­ty to buy out deve­lo­p­ments that achie­ve mar­ket matu­ri­ty, car­ry­ing none of the risk - to be cer­tain, that none of it gets manu­fac­tu­red in Euro­pe, which is about the worst place on earth to mass pro­du­ce goods at this point in time, so this beco­mes ano­t­her play bene­fi­cial for a high tech indus­tri­al sec­tor, which you then sell to voters as the pro­gress they were aching for. Becau­se as a for­mer SPD minis­ter you sud­den­ly belie­ve in trick­le down on the inter­na­tio­nal poli­ti­cal stage.
But you will pro­ve the cri­tics wrong, dear Olaf - sin­gle­han­ded­ly, with a speech in Davos, by men­tio­ning none of that. Bra­vo. And thanks to all the mouth­pie­ces, that see­ded, “if we arent doing this right now - the US will sur­pass euro­pe on its tra­jec­to­ry of beco­m­ing a first mover”. Oh, I’m tremb­ling, shi­vering - at this very minu­te, wai­t­ing for anything even clo­se to that to materialize.

Loo­king for­ward to watching the spee­ches of UvdL and the talk on res­to­ring trust in glo­bal tra­de and sup­ply chains. Wait, isnt that against trend? Oh no it isn’t, of cour­se they are the ones first impac­ted by cli­ma­te shocks, so now we have to put more money and good­will towards making glo­ba­lists more resi­li­ent, that by ever­yo­nes accounts fai­led at giving a fly­ing H-E-double hockey­sticks about what hap­pen­ed to our socie­ties the past years - what joy, that they also are inves­ted hea­vi­ly in the cli­ma­te move­ment. But on a posi­ti­ve note, its real­ly a neces­si­ty for the indus­tri­al power­house, that fai­led to invest at sug­gested ECB levels for the past ten years, that is germany…

When does socie­ty have enough of tho­se lies? I know that I am tired of hea­ring them.

We have a chan­ce of a new renais­sance, if we do this responsibly.”

edit: Accord­ing to the intro­duc­tion por­ti­on of the UvdL talk, the­re is ‘a new euro­pean spi­rit’ that she mana­ged to crea­te wit­hin the past two years. Oh eff me, I’m going to bed for today.

edit2: FRIGGGING UvdL goes on a SALES TOUR GRANDIOSO in the video lin­ked abo­ve, to talk up the very FRACKING inves­tor gua­ran­tees descri­bed abo­ve. In the most des­pi­ca­ble man­ner ima­gin­ab­le. What a hap­py coincidence. 

Gre­at. Now I cant sleep.

Con­text: click
Back­ground: click

Oh no, next level is fractals upon fractals!

18. Januar 2022

Sor­ry. Bad joke… 😉 It’s just that the “New Euro­pean Bau­haus” update on goals, thanks to the Davos PR cir­cuit from three days ago, is so - wor­dy? When peop­le start thro­wing around ‘frac­tal’ and ’next level’ for no rea­son, you know your pro­ject is going well.

Back­ground: click

Bonus: Social Entre­pre­neurs­hip gues­sing game: Do the­se peop­le belie­ve in what they are sel­ling? If you are bored by that, you can also count how often the term ‘holistic’ is thrown around.