More from the “no permanent peace in europa unless we have an absence of grey zones” front

24. Juni 2024

20th of June 2024 (Nicht vom Trump thumb­nail scho­cken las­sen. :), Kurt Vol­ker war ehe­ma­li­ger U.S. Spe­cial Repre­sen­ta­ti­ve for Ukrai­ne und U.S. Ambassa­dor to NATO in 2008-2009):

Kurt Vol­ker: “Almost all of the Allies lea­ve asi­de Ger­ma­ny, the US and Hun­ga­ry, all of the other allies sup­port an invi­ta­ti­on for Ukrai­ne to join NATO at the Washing­ton Sum­mit, be an invi­ta­ti­on to start acces­si­on talks. This is what was in the Rasmusen/Jermak working group paper which I was a part of recom­men­ding this approach for NATO, but the US is not in favor of that right now, the Biden Admi­nis­tra­ti­on is not, nor is Ger­ma­ny - and of cour­se Hun­ga­ry is a spe­cial case we don’t have to go into that. Um but he [Biden, when publicly sta­ting (against US poli­cy) the Ukrai­ne should not be part of Nato] was pro­bab­ly thin­king about the pres­su­re that they’­re under now. But in my view and again this is just me I’m a pri­va­te citi­zen I’m not repre­sen­ting the US government but I don’t see a way that you have a per­ma­nent peace in Euro­pe - let alo­ne Ukrai­ne, but a per­ma­nent peace in Euro­pe unless Ukrai­ne is a part of NATO. We have to have clear lines, we have to have an absence of gray zones whe­re Putin is temp­ted to start a war - uh we have to bring Ukrai­ne into NATO as part of the stra­te­gy for res­to­ring peace in Europe.”

Con­text:

Ali­na Polya­ko­va (Pre­si­dent and CEO of the Cen­ter for Euro­pean Poli­cy Ana­ly­sis (CEPA): I think that signals to me that the­re is gro­wing agree­ment that the only way that we can mana­ge Rus­sia is by going back to the Cold War era stra­te­gy of con­tain­ment, that begins first, defea­ting Rus­sia in Ukrai­ne and second, ree­sta­b­li­shing deter­an­ce by deni­al in Euro­pe that means har­de­ning the Eas­tern flank first and fore­mo­st. Third har­de­ning the soft tar­gets of Rus­si­an influ­ence across the glo­be - uh influ­ence ope­ra­ti­ons in the infor­ma­ti­on space, cyber ope­ra­ti­ons that the Rus­si­ans have beco­me very sophisti­ca­ted at, pushing back against Russia’s use of PMC’s [pri­va­te mili­ta­ry con­trac­tors] to prop up aut­ho­ri­ta­ri­an governments across the glo­be and under­mi­ne demo­cra­tic lea­ders­hip - and fourth, under­mi­ning Rus­si­an domi­nan­ce in its for­mer empi­re, becau­se as long as we have so-called grey zone Sta­tes a hor­ri­ble term but, non-allied sta­tes that are not part of NATO that are not part of the EU in the Euro­pean con­ti­nent this is what pro­vi­des fod­der for Rus­si­an aggres­si­on so Mol­d­o­va is very much under thre­at as we speak, cer­tain­ly Bel­la­rus has alrea­dy beco­me a vassel sta­te of Rus­sia and then we have of cour­se Geor­gia and the other coun­tries of the Cau­ca­sus as well.

[…]

And Rus­sia will come back for NATO.

Han­no Pev­kur, Minis­ter of Defence of the Repu­blic of Esto­nia (30.05.2023):

What Rus­sia wants to achie­ve, the poli­ti­cal goals, let’s be honest - and they, the­se poli­ti­cal goals of Rus­sia have never chan­ged, they want to have a grey-zone bet­ween Rus­sia and NATO, they want to have a con­trol over this grey-zone and this is what they want to achie­ve. And they want to have some “secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees” for them­sel­ves, sor­ry this is not the Free World and this is what Ukrai­ne is figh­t­ing for at the moment, that they are figh­t­ing for - the Free World and rule-based world and this is why we sup­port Ukrai­ne so this is obvious and then this is why we can never accept this approach of Rus­sia, loo­king at inter­na­tio­nal law.”

src:

(at 43:50 in)

See also: click

Too bad I’m not at You­tube and cant set an alert fil­ter for “grey-zone” on every panel inter­view video uploa­ded from now on. 😉

Yes you say - but at least ARTE stays impartial

24. Juni 2024

using @VladVexler as an “impar­ti­al expert” in their “Truth and pro­pa­gan­da” seri­es (see video above).

@VladVexler of cour­se being wide­ly known for his gre­at impar­ti­al pod­casts with @AnnafromUkraine (thats Anna from com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons) and @JakeBore [United Sta­tes Air For­ce vete­ran who ser­ved as a Nuclear and Mis­si­le Ope­ra­ti­ons Offi­cer (13N)], as well as that guy from Sili­con Curtain.

See: [Gre­at and impar­ti­al] Friends of Ukrai­ne Round­ta­ble #2

Vlad Vex­ler of cour­se also wide­ly known for publi­ca­ly ridi­cu­ling Chomsky -

[Only legit, with gre­at and impar­ti­al blue ski­es over yel­low sun­flower­field background.]

Becau­se Chom­sky sta­ted that Selen­skyj was open to peace nego­tia­ti­ons, which obvious­ly wasnt true becau­se accord­ing to Vlad Vex­ler Selen­skyj was figh­t­ing for the mere sur­vi­val of Ukrai­ne. Except that it was. (See NYT as of June 15th 2024).

With Vlad Vex­ler you then get pre­sen­ted this in this way:

Putin’s actions are des­troy­ing Russia’s future and incre­a­singly odds that Rus­sia may not exist at all and the­re isn’t even a more striking Omis­si­on in that argu­ment and that is - Ukrai­ni­an agen­cy sin­ce 2014! Ukrai­ne has come tog­e­ther in a Civic Bond powe­red by anti-colonial sen­ti­ment and it’s only an ungroun­ded news­pa­per clip­ping approach to poli­ti­cal under­stan­ding that could lead Norm Chom­sky to say that Ukrai­ne wants peace more than weapons.

For refe­rence, the Inter­view Vlad Vex­ler quo­tes Chom­sky from (and under­lies with sinis­ter music) was held in May 2022 - when accord­ing to Simon Shus­ter - you know - that Simon Shuster:

Simon Shus­ter is a seni­or cor­re­spon­dent at TIME. He covers inter­na­tio­nal affairs, with a focus on Rus­sia and Ukraine. 

src: click

[But also accord­ing to the NYT as of June 15th 2024 of course.]

Selen­ky­js view still was that the Ukrai­ne nee­ded to talk to Putin - to pre­vent a wider war.

He also said at the time, days after the Butscha mas­sa­c­re was dis­co­ve­r­ed in ear­ly April of 2022, he sug­gested that Putin might not be ful­ly awa­re of the warcri­mes that his sol­di­ers are com­mit­ting. And we still need to talk to Putin.

Qui­te quick­ly, but cer­tain­ly over the cour­se of the next weeks that fol­lo­wed, his views, evol­ved part­ly under the influ­ence of his advi­sors. You know this is -- like any admi­nis­tra­ti­on the­re are dif­fe­rent opi­ni­ons, and they were dis­cus­sing what to do, what should be our posi­ti­on in terms of nego­tia­ti­ons and -- the pos­si­bi­li­ty of tal­king to Putin. Is he a mons­ter, is he a sta­tes­men, what is he?! A dic­ta­tor. And their views evol­ved qui­te quick­ly [but cer­tain­ly over the cour­se of the next weeks], to the point whe­re I think by the start of sum­mer cer­tain­ly Selen­skyj had deci­ded, that - NO, it is not pos­si­ble to talk to Putin. (and thats 81 days after Butscha, which beca­me known on April the 1st 2022.)”

src: click (Simon Shus­ter at the Atlan­tic Council)

Arte of cour­se being the demo­cra­tic wes­tern out­let that not only brings you a Selen­skyj Attract Image Docu­men­ta­ry fea­turing Marie­lui­se Beck from the Zen­trum Libe­ra­le Moder­ne - you know, this Zen­trum Libe­ra­le Moderne:

but also the offi­cial war nar­ra­ti­ve of the Wer­te­wes­ten in the form of “we tal­ked to the peop­le in the room” documentaries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reoI_5xssOg
(Ori­gi­nal source: click)

Whe­re at 3min20 in the­re exists this won­der­ful passage:

Spre­cher: “Seit der Beset­zung der Krim 2014 bit­tet die Ukrai­ne die USA ihr Jave­lin Panzer-Abwehrraketen zu lie­fern. Prä­si­dent Oba­ma lehnt zuerst ab, weil er eine Eska­la­ti­on der Span­nun­gen mit Russ­land befürch­tet. Nun [20.06.2017] legt Poro­sche­nen­ko Trump sei­nen Wunsch vor.”

[Con­text: This was the aformen­tio­ned “wish” in Novem­ber of 2019, six mon­ths after the Poro­schen­ko pre­si­den­cy, in the ear­ly sta­ges of the Selen­skyj presidency:

24.11.2019

The aid, inclu­ding counter-artillery bat­te­ry radar, night-vision gear and patrol boats, has sin­ce [in the later parts of the Trump admi­nis­tra­ti­on] been unf­ro­zen and is making a real dif­fe­rence to Ukrai­ni­an for­ces figh­t­ing Russian-backed sepa­ra­tists in eas­tern districts.

But it is the Jave­lin which appears to be a game-changer, Ukraine’s defence minis­ter told CBC News.

In cer­tain are­as, they can make a cri­ti­cal dif­fe­rence,” said Andriy Zagorodnyuk.

src: click (CBC) End of Context]

Fio­na Hill: “Poro­schen­ko schwitz­te buch­stäb­lich und wirk­te sehr ner­vös. ich erin­ne­re mich genau an sei­nen Gesichts­aus­druck als er her­ein­kam - er war sehr beklom­men denn für ihn stand viel auf dem Spiel.”

Poro­schen­ko: “Damals gab es bereits die rus­si­sche Besat­zung. Die Krim war besetzt und der Don­bas war besetzt.”

H. R. McMas­ter (Natio­nal Secu­ri­ty Advi­sor, Trump): “Der Prä­si­dent nahm Poro­schen­ko sehr freund­lich auf. Er war ein erfolg­rei­cher Geschäfts­mann genau wie Trump und auf der Ebe­ne ver­stan­den sie sich.”

Poro­schen­ko: “Ich sag­te: Mr Pre­si­dent wir brau­chen töd­li­che Waf­fen. Jave­lin ist eine sehr wirk­sa­me Panzerabwehrrakete.”

H. R. McMas­ter: “Prä­si­dent Poro­schen­ko gelang es Trump die Aus­wir­kun­gen der rus­si­schen Besat­zung auf die Ukrai­ne dar­zu­le­gen. Prä­si­dent Trump erkann­te die Bedro­hung und die Not­wen­dig­keit der Abschreckung”

Poro­schen­ko: “Als ich das Oval Office ver­ließ, war ich wie beflü­gelt, denn Prä­si­dent Trump hat­te mir das Jave­lin Sys­tem zuge­sagt. Das war ein groß­ar­ti­ger Tag.”

Spre­cher: “Doch die Rea­li­tät sieht anders aus. Als er zwei Wochen spä­ter zum G20 Gip­fel anreist, hat Trump den Ver­trag noch immer nicht unter­zeich­net hier soll er Putin erst­mals per­sön­lich begegnen.”

Fio­na Hill: “Wir erhiel­ten Hin­wei­se von der rus­si­schen Dele­ga­ti­on, dass Prä­si­dent Putin Waf­fen­lie­fe­run­gen an die Ukrai­ne, vor allem Jave­lin Rake­ten sehr kri­tisch sehen würde.”

John Kel­ly (Secreta­ry of Home­land Secu­ri­ty, Trump): “Der Prä­si­dent war sich der Tat­sa­che bewusst dass eine Unter­stüt­zung der Ukrai­ne Russ­land ver­är­gern wür­de und er woll­te wohl oder übel gute Bezie­hun­gen zu Putin aufbauen.”

John Kel­ly: “Trump heg­te die trü­ge­ri­sche Hoff­nung gute per­sön­li­che Bezie­hun­gen zu Putin sei­ne Hal­tung mäßi­gen würden.”

Spre­cher: “Das natio­na­le Sicher­heits­team ver­sucht Trump zu über­zeu­gen sein Ver­spre­chen an Poro­schen­ko zu halten.” 

John Kel­ly: “Ich mach­te klar, solan­ge es kei­nen Angriff gegen die Sou­ve­rä­ni­tät der Ukrai­ne gab, wer­de kein rus­si­scher Pan­zer von Jave­lin Rake­ten getrof­fen und auch kein rus­si­scher Sol­dat von Muni­ti­on aus den USA.”

H. R. McMas­ter: “Mein Argu­ment war dass Schwä­che Russ­land pro­vo­ziert ich glau­be Russ­land hat die Ukrai­ne 2014 ange­grif­fen weil Putin glaub­te die Ame­ri­ka­ner wür­den ohne­hin nicht reagie­ren, des­we­gen war es wich­tig die Ver­tei­di­gungs­fä­hig­keit der Ukrai­ne die Abschre­ckung zu stär­ken. Trump stimm­te zu.”

Spre­cher: “Ende 2017 gibt Trump den Befehl zur Lie­fe­rung töd­li­cher Waf­fen [Jave­lins, the Game­ch­an­ger in the Don­bas] an die Ukraine.”

Andrej Kelin (for­mer Amba­sa­dor of the Rus­si­an Fede­ra­ti­on to the UK): “Aus unse­rer Sicht hat­te Trump mit die­ser Ent­schei­dung eine rote Linie über­schrit­ten, er wur­de dazu über­re­det Jave­lin Rake­ten zu lie­fern und das war nur der Anfang der Auf­rüs­tung der Ukrai­ne. Der Anfang eines sehr gefähr­li­chen Wegs.”

John Bol­ton (Natio­nal Secu­ri­ty Advi­sor): “Putin betrach­te­ten die Lie­fe­rung schwe­rer Waf­fen an die Ukrai­ne als Bedro­hung. Er hielt die Ukrai­ne für ein ille­ga­les Staats­ge­bil­de das der Sowjet­uni­on dass Russ­land zu Unrecht ent­ris­sen wor­den war. Der Zer­fall der Sowjet­uni­on war für Putin die größ­te geo­po­li­ti­sche Kata­stro­phe des 20 Jahrhunderts.”

Chom­sky of cour­se being the intel­lec­tu­al that then prompt­ly finds out through litera­ry ana­ly­sis - and prompt­ly also makes public - that this concession -

John Kel­ly: “Ich mach­te klar, solan­ge es kei­nen Angriff gegen die Sou­ve­rä­ni­tät der Ukrai­ne gab, wer­de kein rus­si­scher Pan­zer von jeve­lin Rake­ten getrof­fen und auch kein rus­si­scher Sol­dat von Muni­ti­on aus den USA.”

- was vio­la­ted by Ukrai­ne in Novem­ber of 2021 (or slight­ly ear­lier), try­ing to free the Don­bas - refe­ren­cing this article:

Ukrai­ni­an Tro­ops Have Been Firing American-Made Jave­lin Mis­si­les At Russian-Backed Forces

The dis­clo­sure that Ukrai­ni­an tro­ops have been employ­ing Jave­lin mis­si­les in com­bat comes as fears grow that Rus­si­an could launch a new invasion.

JOSEPH TREVITHICK

POSTED ON NOV 22, 2021 6:18 PM EST

The head of Ukraine’s top mili­ta­ry intel­li­gence agen­cy has con­fir­med, for what appears to be the first time, that Ukrai­ni­an tro­ops in the country’s eas­tern Don­bass regi­on have fired American-made Jave­lin anti-tank mis­si­les at Rus­si­an or Russian-supported for­ces. The­se mis­si­les, along with other advan­ced wea­pons that the Ukrai­ni­an mili­ta­ry has acqui­red in recent years, such as Tur­kish Bay­raktar TB2 armed dro­nes, would be important fac­tors in the out­co­me of any future major mili­ta­ry con­fron­ta­ti­on with Rus­sia. Fears are gro­wing that the Krem­lin could at least be pre­pa­red to launch a new, large-scale inva­si­on of eas­tern Ukrai­ne as ear­ly as January.

Ukrai­ni­an Bri­ga­dier Gene­ral Kyry­lo Buda­nov tal­ked about the ope­ra­tio­nal use of Jave­lins as part of a recent inter­view with Mili­ta­ry Times, which he con­duc­ted through an inter­pre­ter. Buda­nov, who runs the Chief Direc­to­ra­te of Intel­li­gence of the Minis­try of Defence of Ukrai­ne, also known by its Ukrai­ni­an acro­nym GUR MOU, used the oppor­tu­ni­ty to call for more help from the U.S. government as he sound­ed like the alarm about the Kremlin’s unusu­al deploy­ments of lar­ge num­bers of mili­ta­ry units to are­as oppo­si­te Russia’s bor­ders with Ukrai­ne in recent weeks.

src: click

Second source: Peter Zei­han here at 17min in.

The second big deploy­ment of rus­si­an army units on the ukrai­ni­an bor­der hap­pens from Okto­ber to mid Novem­ber 2021. US deli­ve­r­ed Jave­lins were likely used in Don­bas, by the Ukrai­ne, star­ting from Octo­ber 2021.

The US then prompt­ly covers this up and two mon­ths later allows the Ukrai­ne to dis­tri­bu­te Jave­lins throughout Ukrai­ne more free­ly - and use them - even without an offi­cial Rus­si­an inva­si­on being under­way (but that was a chan­ge from their pre­vious posi­ti­on, that was only imple­men­ted in decem­ber of 2021):

04. 12. 2021 (Poli­ti­co) - Can Ukrai­ne deploy U.S.-made wea­pons against the Russians?

The­re are no geo­gra­phic restric­tions on the deploy­ment of the mis­si­les, which means Ukrai­ni­an for­ces can trans­port, dis­tri­bu­te and use them any time.

As Rus­sia amas­ses the hig­hest num­ber of tro­ops on Ukraine’s bor­der sin­ce 2014, the ques­ti­on for Kyiv now beco­mes: Is it time to start put­ting U.S.-made wea­pons in the field?

Ukrai­ne purcha­sed 210 Jave­lin anti-tank mis­si­les and 37 laun­chers from the U.S. in 2018 for appro­xi­mate­ly $47 mil­li­on, and the Sta­te Depart­ment appro­ved the sale of a second batch of 150 mis­si­les and 10 launch units in late 2019. But with them came a varie­ty of restric­tions on their usa­ge, inclu­ding that they be stored in wes­tern Ukrai­ne, far from the front lines.

The Jave­lin is a shoulder-fired mis­si­le that uses infra­red gui­d­ance to tar­get and des­troy an enemy tank from up to 3 miles away. For­mer Pre­si­dent Donald Trump first appro­ved the sale of the wea­pon to Ukrai­ne after his pre­de­ces­sor, for­mer Pre­si­dent Barack Oba­ma, refu­sed the request, due to fears that pro­vi­ding let­hal aid to Kyiv would pro­vo­ke Moscow.

Wess Mit­chell, who ser­ved as the Trump administration’s top Sta­te Depart­ment offi­cial over­see­ing Euro­pean and Eura­si­an affairs, noted that the Jave­lins and other let­hal wea­pons are desi­gned not for first use but to deter Moscow from encroa­ching on Ukrai­ni­an territory.

But while Washing­ton urges Kyiv to use the Jave­lins only for defen­si­ve pur­po­ses and requi­res that the wea­pons be stored in a secu­re faci­li­ty away from the con­flict, the­re are no geo­gra­phic restric­tions on the actu­al deploy­ment of the mis­si­les, U.S. offi­cials said, which means that Ukrai­ni­an for­ces can trans­port, dis­tri­bu­te and use them at any time.

Jave­lins are defen­si­ve wea­pons and the United Sta­tes expects Ukrai­ne to deploy them respon­si­b­ly and stra­te­gi­cal­ly when nee­ded for defen­si­ve pur­po­ses,” said Pen­ta­gon spo­kes­per­son Mike Howard.

If the Jave­lins were to be moved, it doesn’t necessa­ri­ly mean they’d be used — in Kyiv’s esti­ma­ti­on, the thres­hold for actual­ly firing the wea­pons has not yet been met, accord­ing to two Ukrai­ni­ans fami­li­ar with the dis­cus­sions. The red line, they said, would be if Rus­si­an tanks cros­sed over into Ukrai­ni­an territory.

The cur­rent Rus­si­an move­ment in Eas­tern Euro­pe is exact­ly the kind of sce­n­a­rio the Jave­lin sale was desi­gned to coun­ter, said two for­mer seni­or U.S. defen­se offi­cials fami­li­ar with the agreement.

src: click (Poli­ti­co)

Not only that: 

But while Washing­ton urges Kyiv to use the Jave­lins only for defen­si­ve pur­po­ses and requi­res that the wea­pons be stored in a secu­re faci­li­ty away from the conflict

- but also this was in play at that time:

John Kel­ly: “Ich mach­te klar, solan­ge es kei­nen Angriff gegen die Sou­ve­rä­ni­tät der Ukrai­ne gab, wer­de kein rus­si­scher Pan­zer von jeve­lin Rake­ten getrof­fen und auch kein rus­si­scher Sol­dat von Muni­ti­on aus den USA.”

So ARTE of cour­se doesnt catch this. But Chom­sky does.

So then he gets publicly cha­rac­ter assas­si­na­ted by Vlad Vex­ler, whom ARTE then also prompt­ly fea­tures in their “Truth and Pro­pa­gan­da” Documentary.

After which Vlad Vex­ler shows up in the Friends of Ukrai­ne Round­ta­ble #2 fea­turing Anna from com­mu­ni­ca­ti­ons, which ARTE of cour­se doesnt rea­li­ze, as they are too busy green­ligh­t­ing a Selen­skyj Attract Image Docu­men­ta­ry fea­turing Marie­lui­se Beck from the Zen­trum Libe­ra­le Moder­ne.

As that doesnt work, Chom­sky now real­ly gets on the US Pro­pa­gan­da shit­list, get­ting essen­ti­al­ly the shou­ting down by an idi­ot tre­at­ment - by a Radio Free Europe/Radio liber­ty employee:

You know - Radio Free Europe/Radio Liber­ty, the only us ame­ri­can broad­cas­ter that is publicly fun­ded by the US government and stran­ge­ly enough is only broad­cas­ting abroad - but in the past mon­ths, also stran­ge­ly enough final­ly had secu­red enough fun­ding to also expand to romania:

22th of June 2024 here at 24 min in:

Jamie Fly (For­mer Radio Free Euro­pe / Radio Liber­ty CEO):

I think it’s important uh con­text, his­to­ri­cal con­text for the US Roma­ni­an rela­ti­ons­hip, when I was pre­si­dent of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liber­ty, we retur­ned uh to Roma­nia, relaun­ched our Roma­ni­an lan­guage ser­vice - I had many occa­si­ons whe­re I was able to visit uh Bucha­rest and the thing I think Ame­ri­cans need to under­stand is Roma­ni­ans LOVE Free­dom uh and it’s uh now in their uh DNA uh and that was an important bond given the work of Radio Free Euro­pe uh during the Com­mu­nist era, and it was - I had this expe­ri­ence in many coun­tries I ope­ra­ted in, but Roma­nia was perhaps the most fer­vent. When I went to Roma­nia as pre­si­dent of Radio Free Euro­pe, peop­le would descri­be to me with tears in their eyes the role that Ame­ri­can Broad­cas­ting play­ed during a very dark uh peri­od and uh were always asking us to do more the­re and I was exci­ted that we were able to to return during my ten­u­re um so and I think that rela­tes to why Roma­nia [!] now has sta­ked out such a clear lea­ders­hip role uh in the regi­on, advan­cing uh the values that uh us pro­gramming cer­tain­ly repre­sen­ted during that time so it’s it’s gre­at to be uh with you, so may­be I’ll start broad­ly just with the sta­te of the US Roma­nia uh rela­ti­ons­hip which you kind of touched on at the end but I was struck by your note that US enga­ge­ment needs to be basi­cal­ly reli­able, pre­dic­ta­ble and not to get par­ti­san or - not to say make you say anything too undi­plo­ma­tic but um the US is always dis­trac­ted uh and even though the US is very enga­ged uh in sup­port of Ukrai­ne right now, Chi­na is uh a gro­wing chal­len­ge drawing attention.”

So then Chom­sky and I get a stroke.

Chom­sky for real, and recovering:

Noam Chom­sky Lea­ves Hos­pi­tal After Suf­fe­ring Stroke

The world-renowned lin­gu­ist and dis­si­dent Noam Chom­sky was dischar­ged from a São Pau­lo hos­pi­tal in Bra­zil on Tues­day as he con­ti­nues to reco­ver from a stro­ke last year that impac­ted his abi­li­ty to speak. His wife Vale­ria recent­ly told a news­pa­per in Bra­zil that the 95-year-old Chom­sky still fol­lows the news and rai­ses his left arm in anger when he sees images of Israel’s war on Gaza. Fal­se reports that Chom­sky had died went viral online on Tuesday.

src: click

Me only figu­ra­tively for the sake of com­ing to the end of this posting.

But at least, we can all still watch impar­ti­al ARTE.

Yes you say - but at least universities remain a place for free an critical thought

23. Juni 2024

The Uni­ver­si­ty Vien­na is cur­r­ent­ly boo­king the full ukrai­ni­an “Art and Pro­pa­gan­da” packa­ge (they actual­ly will orga­ni­ze ever­ything, you just book them via your local embas­sy) for its stu­dents, to make sure all minds are pri­med to think the right way, and ever­yo­ne still claps, when 

good old, not at all poli­ti­cal pro­pa­gan­dist Maria Mez­ents­e­va from gre­at Ser­vant of the Peop­le party -

Bildschirmfoto 2024 06 23 um 19 32 56

Bildschirmfoto 2024 06 23 um 19 31 42
src: click

tells your average aus­tri­an uni­ver­si­ty audi­ence, that - quote:

The peace for­mu­la which pre­si­dent Selen­skyj initia­ted alrea­dy in 2022, you know alrea­dy the amount of the warcri­mes, accord­ing to the pro­se­cu­tor gene­ral office and the data we are get­ting wee­kly - we are tal­king about 130.000 regis­tered warcri­mes. And it means not only you know dama­ged pro­per­ties or unfor­tu­n­a­te­ly rela­ted sexu­al vio­lence crime. Amongst vic­tims, by the way the­re are child­ren, boys and girls - which is abso­lute­ly devastating.

And this pro­ves to us, that only in uni­fied efforts we can defeat the Evil. The Evil which influ­en­ced our ener­gy sys­tem - our com­mon food secu­ri­ty. Our dai­ly life. Our peace. On the sub­con­ti­nent of Euro­pe. And affec­ted the pro­ject which euro­peans have been buil­ding for 75 years.

I tru­ly belie­ve that only tog­e­ther, “alles zusam­men”, only like this we can defeat, the hig­hest crime, which is the crime of aggres­si­on, by estab­li­shing inter­na­tio­nal tri­bu­nal for this par­ti­cu­lar crime. Becau­se ever­ything we are tal­king about in terms of war cri­mes, dai­ly com­mit­ted by rus­si­an army - this has a begin­ning, and it began with the first inva­si­on into Ukrai­ne in 2014. Inva­si­on into Geor­gia in 2008. In the nine­ties this was Mol­d­o­va - we dont want this list to continue.

The­re­fo­re I high­ly salu­te also the decisi­on of the aus­tri­an govenrment to join this spe­cial regis­ter for warcri­mes, whe­re Ukrai­ni­ans - the vic­tims, can recei­ve for mate­ri­al and non mate­ri­al los­ses the com­pen­sa­ti­ons. And this is extre­me­ly important friends, becau­se we are all united in the under­stan­ding, that rus­sia has to pay. Not aus­tri­an tax payers! Not french col­leagues, not Ger­mans, not aus­tra­li­ans, or ame­ri­cans - but rus­si­an funds and fro­zen assets should ser­ve that purpose.

Thank you very much, for brin­ging this issue via pho­to­graphs, via images of ukrai­ni­an dai­ly life - and thank you very much for acti­vi­ties of your embas­sy - here in Kiev and else­we­re in the regi­ons, also in my home city Char­kiew, which its­elf and the regi­on of Char­kiew is under dai­ly shel­ling, thats why we call for more sup­port for civi­li­ans. It means air defen­se, you know - that this is not direct­ly lets say an address to Aus­tria, but also to many, many allies - whe­re Aus­tria hel­ps us to lob­by this important issu­es to pro­tect ener­gy infra­st­ruc­tu­re, to edu­ca­ti­on faci­li­ties -- so final­ly child­ren in Char­kiew will come up from under­ground schools in metro sta­ti­ons, and be able to stu­dy offline.

Dear friends, I’m sure todays evening will bring you a litt­le bit clo­ser to the emo­ti­ons we feel dai­ly. I salu­te you from the capi­tol Kiev, whe­re we con­ti­nue to con­duct our par­lia­men­ta­ry ses­si­on, I want to thank the ambassa­dor, and I want to thank of cour­se to the orga­ni­zers, und Vie­len Dank für Uni­ver­si­tät and all the guests who have gathe­red today.

I pro­mi­se to prac­ti­ce my ger­man more and next time to con­duct my speech in german.

Noch ein­mal vie­len Dank für alles - sie machen für unse­re Leu­ten und Kin­der. So about child­ren, and that would be my last -- uhmn red line.

Thank you so much for sup­por­ting the initia­ti­ve to bring kids back, the civi­li­ans and war pri­so­nors who are kept sin­ce 2014 by rus­sia ille­ga­ly -- is devas­ta­ting. The child­ren sto­ries are even more devastating.

I would like to thank you for rai­sing the voice for this 19.000 child­ren who are kept in rus­sia and in Bela­rus illegally.

Thank you for sup­por­ting this initia­ti­ves to bring this child­rens back. I’m sure the num­ber of 500 of them who alrea­dy retur­ned back home will incre­a­se, but we should make it tog­e­ther with respon­si­ble orga­niz­a­ti­ons like UN and ICRC.

Noch ein­mal vie­len Dank, it was a big honor to speak in front of you.”

Just your usu­al, very nor­mal photoart-agent for a bro­ther and sis­ter duo orga­ni­zing a pho­to exhi­bi­ti­on in the Uni­ver­si­ty of Vien­na, I’d say.

Pro­pa­gan­da (weni­ger Inhalt, aber FORM!) hat ja wie­der nie­mand entdeckt.

Am Aller­we­nigs­ten das gesam­te ver­sam­mel­te Rektorat.

Ich stell mir da jetzt vor, wie das ein Jus, oder ein IR Pro­fes­sor in ner Vor­le­sung auf­ar­bei­tet - ohne über den Pro­pa­gan­da Anteil zu stolpern…

Das schafft auch nur mehr ein gelern­ter Österreicher.

edit: Oh groß­ar­ti­ge Neu­ig­kei­ten! Die Öster­rei­chisch Ukrai­ni­sche Gesell­schaft hat ein Buch zum Selbst­kos­ten­preis her­aus­ge­bracht, das bereits in den Ober­stu­fen von öster­rei­chi­schen Gym­na­si­en ver­teilt und behan­delt wird! Manch­mal hat man aber auch ein­fach Glück als neu­er Schulbuchverlag…

edit2: Auch wun­der­schön: “Herr Pro­se­cu­tor Gene­ral, ich weiß nicht ob sie noch zwei Minu­ten haben, aber wie sehen sie eigent­lich ihre Rol­le in der Ukrai­ni­schen Gesell­schaft, mehr so “emo­tio­nal sta­bi­li­sie­rend”, oder --?” “Yes thank you for this very important ques­ti­on. We have 10 more minu­tes. I will try to ans­wer important ques­ti­on.” -- then the Pro­se­cu­tor Gene­ral starts rea­ding the ans­wer from the screen in front of him… (Eye movement.)

Gut wer­den sie an die­ser Stel­le sagen - dann ist es eigent­lich an der Zeit noch­mal vier Jah­re Krieg im Detail zu pla­nen - nicht?

Dan­ke Gus­tav - über­nimm du dich mal - ehm, sor­ry, über­nimm du das mal.

Yes you say - but what is propaganda?

23. Juni 2024

Form­er­ly the rulers were the lea­ders. They laid out the cour­se of histo­ry, by the simp­le pro­cess of doing what they wan­ted. And if nowa­days the suc­ces­sors of the rulers, tho­se who­se posi­ti­on or abi­li­ty gives them power, can no lon­ger do what they want without the appro­val of the mas­ses, they find in pro­pa­gan­da a tool which is incre­a­singly power­ful in gai­ning that appro­val. The­re­fo­re, pro­pa­gan­da is here to stay.

It was, of cour­se, the asto­un­ding suc­cess of pro­pa­gan­da during the war that ope­ned the eyes of the intel­li­gent few in all depart­ments of life to the pos­si­bi­li­ties of regi­men­ting the public mind. The Ame­ri­can government and nume­rous patrio­tic agen­ci­es deve­lo­ped a tech­ni­que which, to most per­sons accus­to­med to bidding for public accep­t­ance, was new. They not only appealed to the indi­vi­du­al by means of every approach-visual, gra­phic, and auditory-to sup­port the natio­nal endea­vor, but they also secu­red the coope­ra­ti­on of the key men in every group -per­sons who­se mere word car­ri­ed aut­ho­ri­ty to hund­reds or thousands or hund­reds of thousands of fol­lo­wers. They thus auto­ma­ti­cal­ly gai­ned the sup­port of fra­ter­nal, reli­gious, com­mer­cial, patrio­tic, social and local groups who­se mem­bers took their opi­ni­ons from their accus­to­med lea­ders and spo­kes­men, or from the perio­di­cal publi­ca­ti­ons which they were accus­to­med to read and belie­ve. At the same time, the mani­pu­la­tors of patrio­tic opi­ni­on made use of the men­tal cli­ches and the emo­tio­nal habits of the public to pro­du­ce mass reac­tions against the alle­ged atro­ci­ties, the ter­ror and the tyran­ny of the enemy. It was only natu­ral, after the war ended, that intel­li­gent per­sons should ask them­sel­ves whe­ther it was not pos­si­ble to app­ly a simi­lar tech­ni­que to the pro­blems of peace. 

(Pro­pa­gan­da - Edward Ber­nays, 1928, Liv­er­light, first edi­ti­on, Chap­ter II - The new Propaganda)

Gut, Pro­pa­gan­da hat natür­lich wie­der nie­mand entdeckt.

The bonus lie

23. Juni 2024

So - we need to get back all Ukrai­ni­an ter­ri­to­ries, becau­se after Butscha, the­re is no way the peace talks could have con­ti­nued. Right?

Sure, if you like to hold on to your self delu­si­ons and fairytales… 

So…

1.

But Mr. Zelen­sky, visi­t­ing Bucha on April 4, said the talks would go on, even as Rus­sia dis­mis­sed the Bucha atro­ci­ties as a sta­ged “pro­vo­ca­ti­on.”

src: click (NYT, June 15th 2024)

Well, that - but…

2.

He also said at the time, days after the Butscha mas­sa­c­re was dis­co­ve­r­ed in ear­ly April of 2022, he sug­gested that Putin might not be ful­ly awa­re of the warcri­mes that his sol­di­ers are com­mit­ting. And we still need to talk to Putin.

Qui­te quick­ly, but cer­tain­ly over the cour­se of the next weeks that fol­lo­wed, his views, evol­ved part­ly under the influ­ence of his advi­sors. You know this is -- like any admi­nis­tra­ti­on the­re are dif­fe­rent opi­ni­ons, and they were dis­cus­sing what to do, what should be our posi­ti­on in terms of nego­tia­ti­ons and -- the pos­si­bi­li­ty of tal­king to Putin. Is he a mons­ter, is he a sta­tes­men, what is he?! A dic­ta­tor. And their views evol­ved qui­te quick­ly [but cer­tain­ly over the cour­se of the next weeks], to the point whe­re I think by the start of sum­mer cer­tain­ly Selen­skyj had deci­ded, that - NO, it is not pos­si­ble to talk to Putin.”

src: click (Simon Shus­ter at the Atlan­tic Council)

You know - that Simon Shuster:

Simon Shus­ter is a seni­or cor­re­spon­dent at TIME. He covers inter­na­tio­nal affairs, with a focus on Rus­sia and Ukraine. 

src: click

You know - that Simon Shuster:

Amid all the pres­su­re to root out cor­rup­ti­on, I assu­med, perhaps nai­vely, that offi­cials in Ukrai­ne would think twice befo­re taking a bri­be or pocke­ting sta­te funds. But when I made this point to a top pre­si­den­ti­al advi­ser in ear­ly Octo­ber, he asked me to turn off my audio recor­der so he could speak more free­ly. “Simon, you’re mista­ken,” he says. “Peop­le are ste­aling like there’s no tomorrow.” 

Even the firing of the Defen­se Minis­ter did not make offi­cials “feel any fear,” he adds, becau­se the pur­ge took too long to mate­ria­li­ze. The Pre­si­dent was war­ned in Febru­a­ry that cor­rup­ti­on had grown rife insi­de the minis­try, but he dithe­red for more than six mon­ths, giving his allies mul­ti­ple chan­ces to deal with the pro­blems quiet­ly or exp­lain them away. By the time he acted ahead of his U.S. visit, “it was too late,” says ano­t­her seni­or pre­si­den­ti­al adviser.

[…]

Amid all the pres­su­re to root out cor­rup­ti­on, I assu­med, perhaps nai­vely, that offi­cials in Ukrai­ne would think twice befo­re taking a bri­be or pocke­ting sta­te funds. But when I made this point to a top pre­si­den­ti­al advi­ser in ear­ly Octo­ber, he asked me to turn off my audio recor­der so he could speak more free­ly. “Simon, you’re mista­ken,” he says. “Peop­le are ste­aling like there’s no tomorrow.” 

Even the firing of the Defen­se Minis­ter did not make offi­cials “feel any fear,” he adds, becau­se the pur­ge took too long to mate­ria­li­ze. The Pre­si­dent was war­ned in Febru­a­ry that cor­rup­ti­on had grown rife insi­de the minis­try, but he dithe­red for more than six mon­ths, giving his allies mul­ti­ple chan­ces to deal with the pro­blems quiet­ly or exp­lain them away. By the time he acted ahead of his U.S. visit, “it was too late,” says ano­t­her seni­or pre­si­den­ti­al adviser.

src: click

Which on Octo­ber 30th 2023 was the FIRST EVER arti­cle in the eng­lish spea­king estab­lish­ment press, that even ack­now­led­ged, that the ukrai­ni­an offen­si­ve might not be going as plan­ned - exact­ly one day befo­re The Eco­no­mist publis­hed its Inter­view with Zaluzhny.

3. Dmy­t­ro Kule­ba on the day after Bucha:

[…] Safa­ri by rus­si­an sol­di­ers against human civi­li­ans, against civi­li­ans - it’s unspeaka­ble. And I was com­mit­ted even befo­re the Bucha mas­sa­c­re, by the way it’s - the right spel­ling is but­cher not buc­ca, I was com­mit­ted to pro­se­cu­ting all rus­si­an atro­ci­ties and war cri­mi­nals, and to doing ever­ything that I could as for­eign minis­ter to bring them to account, but now - uh I will be doing it until my last breath.”

src: click

So - you see, … when nobo­dy at the time actual­ly used the argu­ment that it was “But­cha that was the rea­son why - we have to stop peace nego­tia­ti­ons, to dri­ve out the last rus­si­an from our coun­try - befo­re we can think about talks, becau­se But­cha is how all Rus­si­an sol­di­ers behave in Ukrai­ne!” (or any part of that - at all). And ever­yo­ne actual­ly sta­ted the com­ple­te oppo­si­te in public spee­ches on the record. 

(Lea­ving out that litt­le gem of a “you bet­ter dont tell the public nugget” -- 

https://harlekin.me/allgemein/wie-man-1000-russische-tote-aus-einer-bbc-dokumentation-raushaelt/

Which then lead to secon­da­ry lies - when ukrai­ni­ans hos­ted a Gre­gor Gysi visit, whe­re when asked about why the­re were so many bur­ned out tanks in Bucha - when the Rus­si­ans sup­po­sed­ly left “on their own” his ukrai­ni­an gui­de told Gysi - that tho­se would have been “Wag­ner For­ces”… Some­thing no one ever said, sta­ted, repeated, indi­ca­ted, or even hin­ted at -- in any other instance ever - befo­re or after. What luck for Gysi to get told some­thing no one else has ever publicly sta­ted, during his visit in But­cha - when he pro­bab­ly asked a bit too much.… (It likely was BS on part of the gui­de, but it left an impres­si­on on Gysi - which Clau­dia Major did her utmost best to instant­ly bur­ry under some “yeah - but thats not even important any­mo­re” BS - live in the Spie­gel TV Inter­view Stu­dio. Fun times… src: click)

While it was actual­ly Selen­skyj hims­elf sta­ting on the record that - 

He also said at the time, days after the Butscha mas­sa­c­re was dis­co­ve­r­ed in ear­ly April of 2022, he sug­gested that Putin might not be ful­ly awa­re of the warcri­mes that his sol­di­ers are com­mit­ting. And we still need to talk to Putin.”

an opi­ni­on which then chan­ged “by the start of Sum­mer for sure” (thats 1st of April 2022 (the Bucha mas­sa­c­re beco­mes known) plus 81 days until the 21th of June (start of sum­mer in that year)), “part­ly under the influ­ence of his advisers”

over the cour­se of the next weeks that fol­lo­wed, his views, evol­ved part­ly under the influ­ence of his advisors.

src: click (Simon Shus­ter at the Atlan­tic Council)

-- that opi­ni­on, gets com­ple­te­ly wiped from the wider public record - to just estab­lish the OPPOSITE as being the actu­al rea­son, why Ukrai­ne NEEDED TO BREAK OFF peace talks with russia.

Its becau­se of Butscha, right?!

Two mon­ths ago - from me wri­ting this now, Sabi­ne Adler (long­stan­ding East Euro­pe Expert, Deutsch­land­funk - und Exper­te dem die deut­schen Medi­en ver­trau­en!), actual­ly put this out the­re (at 1:20:00 in):

Sabi­ne Adler: Also die die Ukrai­ne ist in Frie­dens­ge­sprä­che gegan­gen, noch im Febru­ar. [Bonus, Putin asked for them to be estab­lis­hed on the second day of the war. Fun.] Die­se Frie­dens­ge­sprä­che haben ange­fan­gen in Gomel, da hat man sich mehr­fach getrof­fen und die das Ange­bot der Ukrai­ne durch Selens­kij hat gelau­tet - Ver­zicht auf Nato­mit­glied­schaft, Neu­tra­li­tät und Aus­klam­me­rung der Krim, das war also ein rie­sen Zuge­ständ­nis was im im Übri­gen für Selens­kij ein gro­ßes Risi­ko war, weil er gegen die eige­ne Ver­fas­sung ver­sto­ßen hat, in der Ver­fas­sung steht die Nato­it­glied­schaft als Ver­fas­sungs­ziel - er ist damit rein­ge­gan­gen, weil er die­ses wei­te­re Töten auf jeden Fall ver­hin­dern woll­te. Die­se Ver­hand­lun­gen haben unge­fähr geführt, sind gelau­fen zunächst in Weißruss- in Bela­rus und dann in der Tat in der Tür­kei, dazwi­schen wis­sen Sie was Anfang April war? Butscha! Irpin! Ber­d­jansk. All die­se Geschich­ten waren da und da haben die Ukra da haben -- bit­te das ist der

[Ein­wurf des Fragestellers]

Sabi­ne Adler: Genau las­sen Sie mich kurz no jetzt bin ich jetzt mal, sie woll­ten jetzt ihr State­ment und ich wie­der - ich sage jetzt etwas auf ihr State­ment. Und Butscha und Irpin und all das was da deut­lich gewor­den ist, hat für die Ukrai­ne - es unmög­lich gemacht zunächst wei­ter zu ver­han­deln das heißt also und Butscha war Anfang April und Boris Boris John­son war Mit­te oder Ende April [09th of April so eight days after Butscha] in Kiev nur mal das dazu dann hat man wei­ter dann hat man gesagt und und die­se, die­se Ange­bo­te die die ihnen gemacht hat, haben die rus­si­schen Unter­händ­ler jeweils ent­ge­gen­ge­nom­men und sie haben gesagt ja das ist etwas ganz vor­sich­tig vor­sich­tig das neh­men wir mit, das kön­nen wir mal so wei­ter­ge­ben - da sind sie sofort zurück­gefif­fen wor­den als sie nur die­se rela­tiv neu­tra­le Kom­men­tie­rung gemacht haben! [Yeah, the NYT sta­tes, that Putin told the head of his dele­ga­ti­on to quick­ly bring the peace agree­ment fur­ther along at that time and not stall, and that the ukrai­ni­an dele­ga­ti­on lead knew about that - but yeah… Why not invent abso­lu­te bull­shit ins­tead?]. Dann Ende April [9th of April] da sagen sie ist John­son - sie ver­or­ten den sehr viel wei­ter frü­her [yeah and you 20 days later you abso­lut com­ple­te and utter…] war John­son in in in Kiev und John­son hat in der Tat gesagt er fin­det Ver­hand­lun­gen über­haupt nicht gut. Die Ver­hand­lun­gen wur­den zunächst auf Eis gelegt und dann pas­sier­te im Sep­tem­ber etwas näm­lich es es geschah die Ein­ver­lei­bung nicht nur von den soge­nann­ten Volks­re­pu­bli­ken Lug­ansk und Donetzk in die Rus­si­sche Föde­ra­ti­on son­dern auch Cher­son und Sapo­rischsch­ja, die noch nicht mal erobert waren und sie wis­sen es viel­leicht oder sie wis­sen es nicht - was ein­ver­leibt wird hat Ver­fas­sungs­rang in Russ­land das heißt also das ist nicht irgend­was, was da beschlos­sen wur­de und gefei­ert wur­de, son­dern das war der damit ist der schrift­li­che ver­fas­sungs­mä­ßi­ge Auf­trag die­se Gebie­te zu erobern, zu erobern und da hat Zelens­kiJ nicht die Frie­dens­ge­sprä­che abge­bro­chen son­dern er hat gesagt mit Putin ver­hand­le ich nicht mehr!” 

src: click

Even the­re - no men­ti­on of “we need to break off the peace talks and get back all Ukrai­ni­an ter­ri­to­ries, becau­se after Butscha, the­re is no way peace talks could have con­ti­nued” but actual­ly the opposite.

We will not men­ti­on for a minu­te that the actu­al order of events at the time was:

- 29th of March 2022: Pre­si­den­ti­al advi­ser of Selesnkyj deman­ds “hea­vy wea­pons to dri­ve all rus­si­ans out of Ukrai­ne” at a Con­fe­rence in Istanbul

Ukrai­ni­an pre­si­den­ti­al advi­ser calls for hea­vier wea­pon­ry from the West as Rus­sia shifts mili­ta­ry focus

Our part­ners must final­ly under­stand that the ‘Afgha­niz­a­ti­on’ they want and the long-lasting exhaus­ting con­flict for Rus­sia will not hap­pen,” Pod­olyak said. “Rus­sia will lea­ve all Ukrai­ni­an ter­ri­to­ries except the south and east. And will try to dig in the­re, put in air defen­se and shar­ply redu­ce the loss of its equip­ment and personnel.”

src: click

Right around when this was happening:

After each mili­ta­ry set­back, a mem­ber of Ukraine’s nego­tia­ting team said, Mr. Putin “redu­ced his demands.”

src: click (NYT)

- 31st of March 2022 (befo­re But­cha beco­mes known): 

Atlan­tic Coun­cil picks up that Ukrai­ni­an demand and spreads the demand, that “the wes­tern allies now need to deli­ver “hea­vy attack wea­pon­ry”” for the first time EVER, becau­se - and I quo­te “Putin will win unless the West sends Ukrai­ne offen­si­ve weapons!”.

(Thats by the way - when peace talks were pro­gres­sing “excep­tio­nal­ly well” -- accord­ing to the NYT)
src: click

- 1st of April: But­cha beco­mes known.

- 1st or 2nd of April, Selen­skyj makes his speech that peace talks still need to con­ti­nue (accord­ing to the NYT)

- 9th of April Bojo arri­ves and says “some­thing - that sound­ed like “Lets Fight!” to Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia, lea­der of the Ser­vant of the Peop­le fac­tion who led the Ukrai­ni­an dele­ga­ti­on at “peace” talks with the Rus­si­ans in Bela­rus and Tür­ki­ye in 2022.

- 15th of April:

Simi­lar to the month-earlier ver­si­on, the April 15 draft inclu­des text in red high­ligh­t­ing issu­es in dis­pu­te. But such mar­kings are almost ent­i­re­ly absent from the treaty’s first pages, whe­re points of agree­ment emerged.

Nego­tia­tors agreed that Ukrai­ne would decla­re its­elf per­ma­nent­ly neu­tral, though it would be allo­wed to join the Euro­pean Union.

Much of the trea­ty would “not app­ly” to Cri­mea and ano­t­her to-be-determined swath of Ukrai­ne — mea­ning that Kyiv would accept Rus­si­an occup­a­ti­on of part of its ter­ri­to­ry without reco­gni­zing Rus­si­an sov­er­eig­n­ty over it.

But cru­cial sti­cking points remained.

[…]

The big­gest pro­blem, howe­ver, came in Arti­cle 5. It sta­ted that, in the event of ano­t­her armed attack on Ukrai­ne, the “gua­ran­tor sta­tes” that would sign the trea­ty — Gre­at Bri­tain, Chi­na, Rus­sia, the United Sta­tes and Fran­ce — would come to Ukraine’s defense.

To the Ukrai­ni­ans’ dis­may, the­re was a cru­cial depar­tu­re from what Ukrai­ni­an nego­tia­tors said was dis­cus­sed in Istan­bul. Rus­sia inser­ted a clau­se say­ing that all gua­ran­tor sta­tes, inclu­ding Rus­sia, had to appro­ve the respon­se if Ukrai­ne were atta­cked. In effect, Moscow could inva­de Ukrai­ne again and then veto any mili­ta­ry inter­ven­ti­on on Ukraine’s behalf — a see­min­gly absurd con­di­ti­on that Kyiv quick­ly iden­ti­fied as a dealbreaker.

Rus­sia tried to secu­re a veto on Ukraine’s secu­ri­ty gua­ran­tees by inser­ting a clau­se requi­ring unani­mous consent.

The Gua­ran­tor Sta­tes and Ukrai­ne agree that in the event of an armed attack on Ukrai­ne, each of the Gua­ran­tor Sta­tes … on the basis of a decisi­on agreed upon by all Gua­ran­tor Sta­tes, will pro­vi­de … assi­s­tance to Ukrai­ne, as a per­ma­nent­ly neu­tral sta­te under attack…”

With that chan­ge, a mem­ber of the Ukrai­ni­an nego­tia­ting team said, “we had no inte­rest in con­ti­nuing the talks.”

src: click

SO WITH A BUNCH OF CRICIAL STICKING POINTS REMAINING - THIS IS THE POINT WHERE UKRAINIAN NEGOTIATORS DECIDED - NO, NO MORE - THAT ATTEMPT AT SLIPPING IN A VETO IS THHAAAAAA BREEEEAKING POINT! NO MORE PEACE TALKS!

THEN CHRONOLOGICALLY THIS HAPPENS:

Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia: The goal of the­se nego­tia­ti­ons was to crea­te a sen­se of suc­cess in the initi­al phase.

He said that you need to make them feel that they can talk to us. Becau­se if you remem­ber, in the first few mon­ths, the Rus­si­ans pushed the mes­sa­ge that the Zelen­sky government was ille­gi­ti­ma­te, after the Mai­dan, after the coup, and so on. And after the second Ses­si­on it seems Putin came out on TV and said that we reco­gni­ze Zelen­skys government as legi­ti­ma­te and we will nego­tia­te with it. 

Nata­li­ia Mosei­chuk: So this pha­se was successful. 

Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia: Yeah, this was the first goal and the second goal was to buy time. So we were basi­cal­ly buil­ding a smokescreen.

src: click (Not rebu­ked to this day.)

Then the Ukrai­ne starts attacking again. Becau­se the wea­pons arri­ved. Being suc­cess­full in Cher­son (Offen­si­ve: 27. Juli 2022 – 11. Novem­ber 2022).

Then the the Ukrai­ne starts attacking again. being VERY suc­cess­full in Char­kiew (6. Sep­tem­ber 2022 – 2. Okto­ber 2022).

Then on 30th of Sep­tem­ber 2022 Putin decla­res Donetsk, Kher­son, Luhansk and Zapo­rizhzhia oblasts annexed.

And then Selen­skyj still doesnt offi­cial­ly break off the peace nego­tia­ti­ons, they just con­ti­nue ghos­ting every mee­ting of it sin­ce the end of April, so Selen­skyj can remain “the PEACE pre­si­dent” - in all of fuck­ing public dia­log in ger­man media. HORRAY HORRAY. --

Sor­ry - we for­get all of that of course --

and still belie­ve, that the Ukraine

HAD TO STOP NEGOTIATIONS, BECAUSE THEY SAW HOW THE RUSSIAN SOLDIER BEHAVED IN HIS NATURAL HABITAT IN BUTCHA! WHICH IS A BLUEPRINT FOR HOW THE RUSSIAN BEHAVES IN THE ENTIRETY OF UKRAINE! -

Even though Selen­skyj sta­ted this - after Butscha -

He also said at the time, days after the Butscha mas­sa­c­re was dis­co­ve­r­ed in ear­ly April of 2022, he sug­gested that Putin might not be ful­ly awa­re of the warcri­mes that his sol­di­ers are com­mit­ting. And we still need to talk to Putin.

src: click (Simon Shus­ter at the Atlan­tic Council)

And it took the ukrai­ni­an pro­pa­gan­da depart­ment until the start of sum­mer (thats 81 days after Butscha) for the public messaging to change.

Even though - 14 days after But­cha (15th of April), the Ukria­ni­an dele­ga­ti­on knew that it didnt want to con­ti­nue nego­tia­ti­ons, becau­se of Rus­si­as demand for a veto, which was the ACTUAL deal­b­rea­ker (new wes­tern Pro­pa­gan­da line, why not…)

Even though Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia clear­ly stated

Davyd Arak­ha­mi­ia: Yeah, this was the first goal and the second goal was to buy time. So we were basi­cal­ly buil­ding a smokescreen.

src: click (Not rebu­ked to this day.)

Even though Selen­skyj still didnt break off Peace talks “offi­cial­ly” after on 30th of Sep­tem­ber 2022 Putin decla­res Donetsk, Kher­son, Luhansk and Zapo­rizhzhia oblasts annexed.

Quo­te:

Und dann pas­sier­te im Sep­tem­ber etwas näm­lich es es geschah die Ein­ver­lei­bung nicht nur von den soge­nann­ten Volks­re­pu­bli­ken Lug­ansk und Donetzk in die Rus­si­sche Föde­ra­ti­on son­dern auch Cher­son und Sapo­rischsch­ja, die noch nicht mal erobert waren und sie wis­sen es viel­leicht oder sie wis­sen es nicht - was ein­ver­leibt wird hat Ver­fas­sungs­rang in Russ­land das heißt also das ist nicht irgend­was, was da beschlos­sen wur­de und gefei­ert wur­de, son­dern das war der damit ist der schrift­li­che ver­fas­sungs­mä­ßi­ge Auf­trag die­se Gebie­te zu erobern, zu erobern und da hat Zelens­kiJ nicht die Frie­dens­ge­sprä­che abge­bro­chen son­dern er hat gesagt mit Putin ver­hand­le ich nicht mehr!” 

src: click
(Sabi­ne Adler long­stan­ding East Euro­pe Expert, Deutsch­land­funk on the 5th of April 2024)

AND YOU FUCKING BELIEVE THIS?!

YOU FUCKING ASSININE FUCKING IDIOTS,

YOU --

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das abso­lut gro­tesk und abar­tigst ALLERLETZTE.

And the bonus lie always was, that Ukrai­ne did this, becau­se it couldnt bare see­ing the Rus­si­an army beha­ving ever­y­whe­re else just like they did in But­cha, whe­re the Ukrai­ni­an Army kil­led two ent­i­re bat­tali­ons (1000 rus­si­an sol­di­ers) using HIMARS from a forest patch near­by first -- causing the rus­si­ans to go cra­zy. Accord­ing to an assess­ment of Mar­kus Reis­ner - of cour­se not in nor­mal prime Time Tele­vi­si­on --- no, we keep that infor­ma­ti­on for our “bel­lum jus­tum - Impuls­vor­trag Oberst Mar­kus Reis­ner zum Krieg in der Ukrai­ne at the “Platt­form Christ­de­mo­kra­tie”” of course.

YOU FUCKS.

And then we tre­at ever­yo­ne who knows that - like an abso­lu­te fuck­ing Putin apo­lo­gist, tool, idi­ot, leper, …

BECAUSE YOU FUCKING ATE UP THAT PROPAGANDA LIKE A FUCKING KIPFERL AT BREAKFAST - you utter, utter, scumm.

Ach­ja, und da Kai­ser Franz Joseph is ja in den Krieg - weil sie sei­nen Sohn getö­tet haben - net woa? 

Gre­at to final­ly get a grasp on the wider publics - utter, utter intelligence.

Gut, Pro­pa­gan­da hat jetzt aber lei­der wie­der nie­mand entdeckt.

Und die Geschich­te mit den signa­len­den US (“US and NATO offi­cials strugg­le to deci­pher the sta­tus of peace nego­tia­ti­ons bet­ween Rus­sia and Ukrai­ne”), die am 20. März 2022 “plötz­lich nicht mehr gewusst haben wo die Ukrai­ne steht” (hat­te da doch der Prä­si­dent Selen­sky ver­laut­bart eine “neu­tra­le Ukrai­ne” sei etwas wor­über er nach­den­ke), wor­auf am sel­ben Tag (!) der ehe­ma­li­ge ukrai­ni­sche Ver­tei­di­gungs­mi­nis­ter Zago­rod­nyuk, jetzt Atlan­tic Coun­cil Mit­glied, bei Times Radio vor­spre­chen und die ukrai­ni­sche Posi­ti­on erläu­tern musste:

(15 mal “Cant trust Putin!” in 5 Sätzen!)

- die erspar ich dem Leser lie­ber auch noch.