Was soll man machen, Putin glaubt schon wieder er sei ein Zar.
Einmal mehr zog Putin auch eine Parallele zwischen sich selbst und dem russischen Zaren Peter I.: „Das Asowsche Meer ist zu einem innerrussischen Meer geworden. Das sind ernsthafte Dinge. Peter der Große hat noch um einen Zugang zum Asowschen Meer gekämpft.“ Bereits im Sommer hatte Putin den Krieg gegen die Ukraine auf eine Ebene mit dem Großen Nordischen Krieg unter Peter Anfang des 18. Jahrhunderts gestellt.
(Yevgeny Myslovsky, Honourary President of the Anti-Mafia Regional Public Foundation to Combat Organised Crime and Corruption, began his remarks with the statement that “people are expecting results.” He drew attention to the following aspect of the special military operation: the investigation of war crimes by the enemy and the political significance of this investigation. He noted than over 10,000 peaceful civilians had been killed in Donetsk alone. Mr Myslovsky suggested establishing a state commission to investigate these crimes. He also discussed the deployment of law enforcement officers in the newly incorporated territories. For example, he suggested involving experienced veterans.)
Vladimir Putin: Mr Myslovsky, did you mean the results of the special military operation when you said that everyone is expecting results?
Yevgeny Myslovsky: No, I did not mean the special military operation because this is a lengthy process. I meant specific results following the investigation of criminal cases. People say that we are investigating, but that only one verdict has been passed.
Vladimir Putin: I see.
Regarding the lengthy process and the results of the special military operation, this process could be drawn out. You also noted that newly incorporated territories have appeared. Indeed, this is a significant result for Russia, and this is a serious issue. To be honest, the Sea of Azov has become an inland sea in the Russian Federation, and these are serious things.
Yevgeny Myslovsky: This is all correct, but we need to develop this.
Vladimir Putin: Yes, but this is a different issue. In his time, Peter the Great fought to reach the Sea of Azov.
The people living on these territories are the most important thing. The results of the referendum show that people want to live in Russia, and that they consider themselves part of this world, this space, our common culture, traditions and language. This is the most important result, and these millions of people have re-joined us. This is the most important thing.
Regarding criminal investigations, you are right, of course, but to be frank, all of us understand the realities of current developments. It is important to investigate, to record these crimes, especially strikes against civilian and residential areas. You are probably right: perhaps it would be appropriate to set up some joint agency that would address this issue and a state commission.
Let us think about this. I will also ask the Prosecutor-General’s Office and the Investigative Committee to think about this issue. They should consider recruiting veteran law enforcement officers who would like to deal with this issue as mentors or as officials who can look into the available materials. I will instruct the Prosecutor-General’s Office to do this, and we will certainly think about this issue. I completely agree with you that it is necessary to record all this in a professional manner.
Die Breitenmedien haben einfach wieder nicht erkannt, dass das Propaganda ist - obwohl es hier in der Wirkung der Aussage dazu herangezogen wird eine größere historische Bedeutung zu stilisieren, um der Bevölkerung zu verdeutlichen um was für epochale Ereignisse es gehe, und dass man in diesen Größenordnungen die Frage nach “schnelleren Resultaten” nicht stellen könne - dann haben die Breitenmedien den kompletten Lead in Teil der Aussage weggeschnitten, den kompletten lead out Teil der Aussage weggeschnitten (sie hätten ihn kontektualisieren müssen, wenn sie ihn berichtet hätten, da pure Propaganda) und berichtet Putin glaube mal wieder er sei ein Zar.
Erstens stimmts nicht - und zweitens, wer die Propaganda in der Textpassage in einer Fernsehansprache zum “Council for Civil Society and Human Rights meeting” in Russland nicht sieht, der hat einen an der Waffel - und schaut aktiv weg.
Hauptsache “Putin ist verrückt und hält sich für einen Zaren” bleibt hängen.
Das hier war die Originalmeldung der AP - die hat noch neutral formuliert.
edit: Achja, und auch das kann man schon mal unter den Tisch fallen lassen… Nicht dass die Öffentlichkeit zu genau weiß, was hier gesagt wurde -- lasst uns lieber berichten wie die US darauf reagiert haben!
Excuse me, Valery Alexandrovich, excuse me, Vladimir Vladimirovich. I have a very small last piece that I did not warn about. But I cannot but mention the problem that, I think, worries a significant number of people in our country, is that the threat of a world nuclear war now seems real. The prevention of such a threat, it seems to me, is overvalued.
It seems to me that your personal statement, Vladimir Vladimirovich, that Russia would not under any circumstances be the first to use nuclear weapons could become a true gesture of goodwill. And, perhaps, a clarification in connection with this of the Fundamentals of State Policy on Nuclear Deterrence.
Sorry if my last section is off-topic, but it is absolutely impossible to remain silent about what there are so many fears about.
Thank you.
Vladimir Putin: I understand.
About the threat of nuclear war. Svetlana Gennadievna, you are right, such a threat is growing, that it is a sin to hide here.
Regarding the fact that Russia under no circumstances will apply the first. But if he does not use the first one under any circumstances, then the second one will not be used either, because the possibilities of using it in the event of a nuclear strike on our territory are very limited.
Nevertheless, our strategy for the use of means of defense, namely, as a defense, we consider weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons, it is all tuned around the so-called retaliatory strike, that is, when we are struck, we strike back.
There is also what everyone is now discussing, the so-called tactical nuclear weapons. It, American nuclear weapons, is located in large numbers on European territory. We have not, and are not, transferring our nuclear weapons to anyone, but, of course, we will protect our allies with all the means at our disposal, if necessary.
But what’s the point here? The fact is that, just as in the previous case, when they talked about Russophobia, no one notices and does not want to notice and see what is being done and said in neighboring countries, in Western countries. I have already said: we do not maintain our own nuclear weapons, including tactical ones, on the territory of other countries, we do not have them, but the Americans have them both in Turkey and in a number of other European states. They are training on the possibility of using the carriers of these countries for the use of American nuclear weapons. We haven’t done any of this yet. This is the second.
Third. Did we talk about the possibility of application? No. Here’s the former Prime Minister of Great Britain, don’t forget tonight, she said publicly that she was ready to do it. In response to this, I had to emphasize some things too. Immediately, no one noticed her statement, and what we say immediately sticks out, and with these statements the whole world begins to frighten.
Therefore, we have not gone mad, we are fully aware of what nuclear weapons are. We have these means, and they are in a more advanced and more modern form than any other nuclear country. This is obvious, today it is an obvious fact. But we’re not going to run around the world brandishing this weapon like a razor. But, of course, we proceed from the fact that it is. This is a natural deterrent, not provoking to the expansion of conflicts, but a deterrent. And I hope everyone understands this.
US Reaktion, von der dann nur der erste Satz ziziert wird:
US slams ‘loose talk’ on nuclear weapons after Putin comments
The US has denounced “loose talk” on nuclear weapons after Putin mused on rising risks of nuclear war but said Moscow would not strike first.
State Department Spokesman Ned Price said: “We think any loose talk of nuclear weapons is absolutely irresponsible.”
Price said nuclear powers around the world since the Cold War, including China, India, the United States and Russia itself, have been clear that “a nuclear war is something that must never be fought and can never be won”.
“We think any other rhetoric – whether it is nuclear sabre-rattling or even raising the spectre of the use of tactical nuclear weapons – is something that is irresponsible,” Price said.
“It is dangerous and it goes against the spirit of that statement that has been at the core of the nuclear non-proliferation regime since the Cold War,” he said.
Sehr wohl bemerkenswert ist hingegen der Umstand, dass der Rückhalt für den Feldzug in der russischen Bevölkerung offenbar immer weiter schwindet – trotz massiver Beeinflussung der Medien des Landes durch den Staatsapparat. Oder gerade deswegen.
Keine Referenzen, kommt auch nicht im referenzierten Fireside Chat vor, bezieht sich auf aktuelle russische Umfragen wonach bereits weit mehr als die Hälfte aller Russen für Friedensverhandlungen im Konflikt sind (mehr als die Hälfte der Deutschen im Übrigen auch) -- darüber hinaus gibt es keine Indikatoren die mir bekannt sind, und auch keine die Haines nennt.
Avril Haines, die Direktorin der 17 nationalen Geheimdienste der USA, berichtete am Wochenende beim Reagan National Defense Forum in Kalifornien, dass der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin über die – aus seiner Sicht – mangelhafte Bilanz seiner Truppen ganz offensichtlich überrascht sei.
Das werfe die Frage auf, wie gut der russische Präsident informiert sei beziehungsweise informiert werde.
Heynes spricht im Video an dass Putin “überrascht war” ein zeitlicher Horizont wird im Video nicht genannt, das werfe auch nicht die Frage auf, wie gut der russische Präsident informiert sei, oder werde -- denn das war die Frage der Moderatorin im Lead in.
Es war quasi eine Leading Question, mit der üblichen Antwort. Wallisch macht daraus aktuelle News, und folgert was mit der Frage insinuiert wurde, das musst du als Journalist erst einmal zusammenbringen…
“Es ist uns immer noch nicht klar, ob er zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt ein vollständiges Bild hat. Wir sehen Knappheit bei Moral, Munition und Logistik und eine ganze Reihe weiterer Probleme, mit denen sie konfrontiert sind.”
Weitestgehend einwandfrei übersetzt - Problem nichts davon ist neu.
korrekt, aber das korreliert im Firesidechat nicht mit der Uninformiertheit im Satz zu vor. Es ist eine Feststellung, gekoppelt an die Aussage, dass der russische Verbrauch an Raketen die aktuelle russische Reproduktionsfähigkeit von Raketen übersteige, man allerdings nicht wisse auf welche Kapazitäten Russland zurückgreifen kann - Problem, nichts davon ist neu.
Gleichzeitig falle es der politischen und militärischen Führung in Moskau immer schwerer, den Krieg innenpolitisch zu rechtfertigen. Dieses Manko dürfte – zumindest bisher – aber nicht dazu geführt haben, dass im Kreml konkret über eine Adaptierung der politischen Ziele nachgedacht wird, so Haines.
Der wichtigste Teil wird weggelassen. Haines attestiert, dass eine Verschiebung in der Meinung gegenüber dem Krieg vor allem in der Machtelite wesentlich werden könnte, eher nicht in der Bevölkerung. Zusammen mit dem ersten Absatz insinuiert der Standard hier das Gegenteil.
Hammer. Unter dem Artikel ist bisher jedes Kommentar der Meinung, dass sich die Informationen im Artikel auf die jüngste Vergangenheit beziehen, und dass Putins Rückhalt in Russland aktuell weiter schwindet.
Nichts davon wird im Video erwähnt.
Das musst du als Journalist erst mal zusammenbringen.
Gianluca Wallisch, im Standard, der Zeitung für Leser.
Propaganda hat aber immer noch niemand entdeckt.
edit: Wer bezüglich der Bedeutung der Javelins bisher im Unklaren war…
Falls wer den Loaddown on “Democracies vs. Autocracies - und das ist warum wir die Krim zurückerobern müssen” braucht - zweites Video.
Macron says new security architecture should give guarantees for Russia
Reuters
PARIS, Dec 3 (Reuters) - The West should consider how to address Russia’s need for security guarantees if President Vladimir Putin agrees to negotiations about ending the war in Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron said in remarks broadcast on Saturday.
In an interview with French TV station TF1 recorded during his state visit to the United States last week, Macron said Europe needs to prepare its future security architecture.
“This means that one of the essential points we must address - as President Putin has always said - is the fear that NATO comes right up to its doors, and the deployment of weapons that could threaten Russia,” Macron said.
Olaf Scholz has suggested that Europe should go back to its pre-war “peace order” with Russia and resolve “all questions of common security” after the war in Ukraine if President Putin is willing to renounce aggression against his neighbours.
In his most revealing remarks on the subject to date, the German chancellor said he would ultimately like to restore the patchwork of security arrangements stitched together during and after the Cold War, so long as Moscow was ready to honour them.
Ich dachte Putin wäre verrückt, hielte sich für einen Zaren und Deutschlands Außenpolitik müsse von der Willy Brandt Stiftung neu gedacht werden, da sie den Stellenwert der NGO Arbeit in den Ländern des Ostblocks zu sehr unterschätzt habe, die keine Osterweiterung westlicher Bündnisse wollten, sondern eine Westannäherung ihrer durch NGO Arbeit veränderten Staatlichkeit --------
Und nochmal - meine Psychotherapeutin hat mich an dem Tag aus der Betreuung getreten, als ich es nicht mehr ertragen habe, dass die letzte Österreichische Qualitätszeitung auf “Die Ukraine muss gewinnen, weil Verlieren keine Option ist” umgeschwenkt ist, und bekannt wurde, dass österreichische Steuergelder über die EU Peace facility Waffen für die Ukraine finanzieren.
Wie jetzt Russland wollte Sicherheitsgarantien von der NATO? Der neokolonialistische imperialistische Putler wollte doch ein Großreich - oder…?
Wie kann man denn da Nato Sicherheitsgarantien ins Spiel bringen?!
Wo doch jeder weiss, dass der deutsche Bundessicherheitsrat die ersten zwei Monate als Kriegsgrund Revanchismus genannt hat, dann auf Revanchismus und Neonolonialismus gewechselt ist, dann auf Neokolonialismus gewechselt ist, und schließlich auf Imperialismus. Und jetzt überlegen wir uns Nato Sicherheitsgarantien gegen den Imperialismus, ja?
Diese Gesellschaft ist das absolut abgrundtief Allerletzte.
Ich darf zusammenfassen. Die Ukraine sehnte sich nur in die EU, nicht in die Nato - desshalb hat man die Nato Mitgliedschaft in die Verfassung aufgenommen, aber EU Flaggen zum Euromaidan mitgebracht. Russland fürchtete sich nur vor der ökonomischen Kraft einer Ukraine, die der IMF einfach nicht und nicht kommen sehen wollte, nicht vor einer Aufnahme in die Nato. Putin hat mit einer Annexion der Krim reagiert - weil ihm sein Militärstützpunkt egal war und er so neidisch auf die baldige ökonomische Stärke der Ukraine war die zur EU wollte…!
Carl Bildt:
“They are not members of ukraine, and no one has… - of Nato [correcting himself]”
Die erneute Bestärkung des Commitments 2021 die Ukraine in die Nato zu holen wird einfach ignoriert.
Deborah Haynes (Sky News)
So, there’s a couple of questions dealing with Russian activity in the Black Sea over the last few years and currently, and one person asks in particular what additional steps, do you see NATO taking to increase stability in the Black Sea, and also across the Balkans.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
While NATO has been and still is absolutely very much present in the Western Balkans, first of all we have new members from that region, over the last few years, we have demonstrated that NATO’s door is open with getting new members like North Macedonia and Montenegro, that’s important, but we also work with partners in the region, and we have still the KFOR mission in Kosovo. So we are present, we have a history, and we have a responsibility to continue to help stabilize the region. In the Black Sea we have increased our presence. Three of the littoral states in the Black Sea are NATO members: Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania. We have more air policing and more naval presence. We have more exercises, and again the NATO 2030 agenda is also about how can we invest more in deterrence and defense activities, including in the Black Sea region.
And then we have two very important partners, Georgia and Ukraine. And we are stepping up the cooperation with them, including helping Ukraine with developing their naval capabilities. I visited Odessa, some time ago when I saw how NATO trainers helped to educate Ukrainian cadets and naval personnel, and we’re also working with Georgia on Black Sea security.
Deborah Haynes (Sky News)
Actually on Georgia there’s a question here, saying that we’ve heard many times that NATO’s doors are open to Georgia. When exactly will these… will this door open, and can Georgia expect a roadmap in the nearest future?
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg
I expect that NATO Allies today will recommit, confirm the decisions we have taken before.
Not least that at the Bucharest Summit, where we stated clearly that Georgia will become a member, but we didn’t provide any dates, and we will not provide any dates today, either.
Our focus is on the reform, our focus is to continue to support Georgia in modernizing their defense and security institutions, and the message is that, of course, NATO’s door is open, we have demonstrated that over the last couple of years with Montenegro and North Macedonia joining. The other message is that it’s only for the aspirant country, Georgia, and the 30 allies to decide on enlargement of our Alliance. Russia has no right to interfere in that process. It’s a sovereign right of any country to decide his own path including what kind of security arrangements he is going to be part of.
69. We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process; we reaffirm all elements of that decision, as well as subsequent decisions, including that each partner will be judged on its own merits. We stand firm in our support for Ukraine’s right to decide its own future and foreign policy course free from outside interference. The Annual National Programmes under the NATO-Ukraine Commission (NUC) remain the mechanism by which Ukraine takes forward the reforms pertaining to its aspiration for NATO membership. Ukraine should make full use of all instruments available under the NUC to reach its objective of implementing NATO principles and standards. The success of wide-ranging, sustainable, and irreversible reforms, including combating corruption, promoting an inclusive political process, and decentralisation reform, based on democratic values, respect for human rights, minorities, and the rule of law, will be crucial in laying the groundwork for a prosperous and peaceful Ukraine. Further reforms in the security sector, including the reform of the Security Services of Ukraine, are particularly important. We welcome significant reforms already made by Ukraine and strongly encourage further progress in line with Ukraine’s international obligations and commitments. We will continue to provide practical support to reform in the security and defence sector, including through the Comprehensive Assistance Package. We will also continue to support Ukraine’s efforts to strengthen its resilience against hybrid threats, including through intensifying activities under the NATO-Ukraine Platform on Countering Hybrid Warfare. We welcome the cooperation between NATO and Ukraine with regard to security in the Black Sea region. The Enhanced Opportunities Partner status granted last year provides further impetus to our already ambitious cooperation and will promote greater interoperability, with the option of more joint exercises, training, and enhanced situational awareness. Military cooperation and capacity building initiatives between Allies and Ukraine, including the Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian Brigade, further reinforce this effort. We highly value Ukraine’s significant contributions to Allied operations, the NATO Response Force, and NATO exercises.
We stand in solidarity with our valued partners Ukraine and Georgia.
And we will continue to support their reforms, bringing them closer to NATO.
[…]
Sixth, we will substantially step up training and capacity-building for partners. From Ukraine and Georgia to Iraq and Jordan.
NATO Spokesperson Oana Lungescu:
Ok we’ll go to Interfax Ukraine. Second row here.
Interfax-Ukraine (Iryna Somer):
Thank you, Oana. Secretary General, Ukrainian leadership has quite high expectation, regarding membership action plan. But as far as I see from the Summit communiqué here, we are not there yet. After this summit, what will be your main message for Ukrainian leaders, and for Ukrainian people? Thank you.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:
My main message is that NATO stands in solidarity with Ukraine. We provide a strong political support to the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine. And we provide practical support, and we are stepping up our practical support, both within the NATO context but also bilaterally, from different NATO Allies. I had a bilateral meeting for instance with [Prime Minister] Justin Trudeau of Canada and of course, Canada is one of many Allies who are providing bilateral support to Ukraine. And in the communiqué, in the decisions we have taken today we have reiterated our decisions on, that NATO’s door is open on the decision we made back in the, at the Bucharest Summit in 2008. And also that we will step up, and we will do more to help Ukraine, and also Georgia, as another aspirant country to focus on reforms that will move them closer to NATO and Euro-Atlantic integration.
NATO Spokesperson Oana Lungescu:
Ok, we’re going to CBC. Fourth row. Thanks.
CBC News (Murray Brewster):
Secretary General, Murray Brewster with CBC. Thank you for taking the question. Following on what was asked about Ukraine and the Membership Action Plan, do you actually ever foresee any circumstances under which Russia would allow Ukraine to join NATO uncontested? And separately, I wanted to ask whether or not there was unanimity among Allies that China itself is a security threat?
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:
I think it’s extremely important to underline that every nation has the right to choose its own path. And that includes also what kind of security arrangements it wants to be part of, including whether it wants to be part of, a member of NATO or not. So the message is that it is for Ukraine, and the 30 Allies, to decide when Ukraine can become a NATO member. Russia, of course, has no say. Because they cannot veto what neighbours can do. We will not return to an age where we had spheres of influence, where big powers decided what small neighbours could do. And I very often use my own country Norway as an example. Norway is a small country bordering Russia. Of course, Russia -- or the Soviet Union-- disliked that we joined NATO back in 49, 1949. But, since Allies at that time were so strongly in favour of accepting also small neighbours of Russia into the Alliance, of course, Norway was accepted. As the Baltic countries or as Montenegro and North Macedonia, recently. So, this is about fundamental principles of accepting the right of every nation to decide, it’s for the 30 Allies, and Ukraine to decide when Ukraine is ready for membership.
NATO Spokesperson Oana Lungescu:
Thank you. We’ll now go to Iryna Somer from Interfax Ukraine.
Iryna Somer (Interfax-Ukraine):
Thank you, Oana. Secretary General, can you please tell us a little bit more than you already said, what can we expect from the upcoming Summit for partners country particularly for aspirant countries, Ukraine and Georgia. Thank you.
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:
Ukraine and Georgia are two highly valued partners. We provide both political support, and practical support, to Ukraine and Georgia. I think it is important that we continue to strengthen the partnership with these two highly valued partners. And this is important, not least because these partners have been subject to Russian aggressive actions. Georgia, in 2008, and still they occupy part of Georgian territory, and we see the same in Ukraine with the illegal annexation of Crimea and, and continued destabilization of Eastern Ukraine.
I spoke yesterday with President Zelenskiy, and that was a very good conversation. I reiterated NATO’s strong support to [Ukraine’s] territorial integrity and sovereignty. And also, that I expect NATO leaders to reaffirm the decision on the NATO policy on Open Door, which has been a major success, helping to spread democracy and freedom across Europe. And the Summit will demonstrate NATO’s enduring support to Georgia and Ukraine, and their Euro-Atlantic aspirations. The focus is on reform, and we will continue to help and support them in implementing these reforms.
Guided by the April 3, 2008 Bucharest Summit Declaration of the NATO North Atlantic Council and as reaffirmed in the June 14, 2021 Brussels Summit Communique of the NATO North Atlantic Council, the United States supports Ukraine’s right to decide its own future foreign policy course free from outside interference, including with respect to Ukraine’s aspirations to join NATO.
1. The United States and Ukraine intend to continue a range of substantive measures to prevent external direct and hybrid aggression against Ukraine and hold Russia accountable for such aggression and violations of international law, including the seizure and attempted annexation of Crimea and the Russia-led armed conflict in parts of the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine, as well as its continuing malign behavior. The United States intends to support Ukraine’s efforts to counter armed aggression, economic and energy disruptions, and malicious cyber activity by Russia, including by maintaining sanctions against or related to Russia and applying other relevant measures until restoration of the territorial integrity of Ukraine within its internationally recognized borders.
2. The United States does not and will never recognize Russia’s attempted annexation of Crimea and reaffirms its full support for international efforts, including in the Normandy Format, aimed at negotiating a diplomatic resolution to the Russia-led armed conflict in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine on the basis of respect for international law, including the UN Charter. The United States supports Ukraine’s efforts to use the Crimea Platform to coordinate international efforts to address the humanitarian and security costs of Russia’s occupation of Crimea, consistent with the Platform’s Joint Declaration.
3. The United States and Ukraine endorse the 2021 Strategic Defense Framework as the foundation of enhanced Ukraine-U.S. defense and security cooperation and intend to work to advance shared priorities, including implementing defense and defense industry reforms, deepening cooperation in areas such as Black Sea security, cyber defense, and intelligence sharing, and countering Russia’s aggression.
4. The United States and Ukraine are key partners in the broader Black Sea region and will seek to deepen cooperation with Black Sea Allies and partners to ensure freedom of navigation and effectively counter external threats and challenges in all domains.
5. The United States remains committed to assisting Ukraine with ongoing defense and security reforms and to continuing its robust training and exercises. The United States supports Ukraine’s efforts to maximize its status as a NATO Enhanced Opportunities Partner to promote interoperability.
Westliche Bündnisse hätten sich nicht in den Osten ausgedehnt, nein, die Zivilgesellschaften des Ostens hätten sich viel mehr zum Westen orientiert. (NATOOSTERWEITERUNG, EUOSTERWEITERUNG, …) Das muss man schon anerkennen, deshalb muss die Willy Brandt Stiftung gestern auch feststellen, die Ostpolitik Deutschlands sei daran gescheitert, dass es osteuropäische NGOs nicht stark genug in seine Außenpolitik einbezogen habe.
Warum haben die US das ukrainische Militär über Jahre trainiert und mit Waffen versorgt, wie sie einem zukünftigen Nato Staat zustanden. Nochmal - die Ukraine war seit 2014 in einem “Bürgerkrieg” - siehe Javelins.
Die Russen hätten sich doch für die “absehbare Zukunft” keine Gedanken um eine Nato Osterweiterung machen müssen!?
Ja korrekt, es wurde immer an Putin kommuniziert, dass man ihm gerne noch 30 Jahre gebe - und erst dann wenn die Demographie in Russland noch schlechter wäre (Risiko einer militärischen Aktion Russlands geringer) keine verbindlichen Zusagen mehr mache. Nur über eine stabile Friedensordnung wollte man mit Russland nie sprechen.
Da habe Russland immer “überbordende Forderungen gestellt, die von keinem akzeptierbar waren” - nur dass die Europäer die nie gehört haben, bis Russland die von den US abgebrochenen Gespräche im Dezember in Teilen geleakt hat -
das selbe Argument wie heute bei Times Radio -
Nur dass bei Times Radio noch explizit dazugesagt werden muss - mit Putin könne man ja keine stabilen Verträge schließen, der lüge immer. Danke für den emotionalen Impuls wie der Hörer das einzuordnen habe…
Warum hat das Robert Schuhmann Centre das am 18. 06. nochmal verstärkt (zumindest Teile des Publikums)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qciVozNtCDM
Warum wohl?
Warum darf diese Person öffentlich nicht existieren?
Sterbt ihr verfickten Wichserschweine.
edit: Dann gibt es noch einen Moment bei dem Bildt zur Schau stellt, dass er nicht weiß, dass die Javelins im Donbas im Einsatz waren (Originalquelle, Artikelserie des Redakteurs aus jüngerer Zeit, hier sein Twitter Account, er wurde gestern noch zum B-21 Reveal eingeladen.) - und einen Moment bei dem Bildt zur Schau stellt, dass er mit der emotionalen Geschichte von Putin musste den Auslandsgeheimdienstchef runtermachen weil er ihm die falsche Antwort gegeben hat agiert, ohne zu wissen dass PBS am selben Tag sowohl gemeldet hat, dass das Signaling an den Westen gewesen sei, dass der Einfluss des Leiters des Auslandsgeheimdienstes innerhalb der russischen Führungselite nicht mehr bestand (die für die gesamten Bestechungsaktionen in Kiew verantwortlich sein hätte sollen die Putin einen schnellen Sieg bescheren hätten sollen), als auch gemeldet hat, dass das ein Beleg für den wahnsinnigen Putin gewesen sein soll der isoliert und im Wahn handelt. Bildt nimmt die zweite Interpretation und überzeugt das Publikum.
Sterbt ihr Wichserschweine.
edit:
Jeffrey Sachs 02.06.2022:
[…] then after 9/11, of course, Bush pushed the enlargement of NATO to I think, seven countries under his watch. An extraordinary increase of the number of countries, the Baltic States to begin with the Romania, Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, if I remember correctly, all during Bush’s watch.
And then to the shock of the Europeans in NATO in 2008, he said, Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO. And just take a look at a map. And I encourage everybody to take a look at the map of the Black Sea. What was NATO’s idea? What was the US strategic idea? The US strategic idea was basically to own the black sea for NATO, because you’d have Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine, and where’s Georgia all the way over on the Eastern side of the Black Sea, suddenly is going to be a NATO country, whereas NATO was originally to defend against an invasion by a now defunct non-existent country in Western Europe.
So suddenly, it is an expansionary force moving straight across the Black Sea. It reminds me a lot of the Crimean War of the 19th century. Who controls the Black Sea? And well, one thing has led to another and we have the war in Ukraine. And if in our media you say, the United States played a provocative war. You’re immediately targeted. Oh, you’re just purveying Putin’s propaganda. Well, this is really nonsense. We need a serious discussion, some context, some history, and we should not have pushed NATO right up against Russia’s edge and right around the encirclement of the Black Sea. But we did so, and now we’re also paying consequences for this, but especially Ukraine is paying consequences for this.
Diese Webseite verwendet Cookies um die Nutzungserfahrung für seine Besucher zu verbessern. Bitte informiere dich bei Gelegenheit darüber wie sich Cookies auf deine Privatsphäre im Web auswirken.
