harlekin.me

Peak Demo­kra­tie.

Peak Kampf gegen Fake News.

src: click

Wie jetzt - wir sol­len Kon­text brin­gen und weni­ger lügen?

Denkt denn kei­ner an die Clickzahlen!?

Hier: Müt­ter für ukrai­ni­schen Mineralienabbau:

src: click

Was wären wir nur ohne Mine­ra­li­en - ich mei­ne Mütter.

Nichts.

So liess Bes­sent die For­de­rung von Prä­si­dent Trump fal­len, die USA müss­ten aus dem neu zu schaf­fen­den Fonds für die bereits geleis­te­te Mili­tär­hil­fe ent­schä­digt wer­den. Nun sol­len nur künf­ti­ge ame­ri­ka­ni­sche Waf­fen­lie­fe­run­gen als US-Zustupf zum Fonds betrach­tet wer­den. Swiri­den­ko erwähn­te in die­sem Zusam­men­hang Luft­ver­tei­di­gungs­sys­te­me aus ame­ri­ka­ni­scher Produktion.

Ich könnt nur noch Schreien…

Johan­nes Pucher vor 5 Stunden

Russ­land spricht von Frie­dens­ge­sprä­chen ohne Vor­be­din­gun­gen - stellt aber trotz­dem Bedingungen

In der Mitt­lei­ung, dass man eine Feu­er­pau­se von 8. bis 10. Mai abhal­ten wol­le, hat der Kreml auch erklärt, dass man zu Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen mit der Urkai­ne bereit - und zwar ohne Vor­be­din­gun­gen. Gleich­zei­tig erklär­te der rus­si­sche Außen­mi­nis­ter Ser­gej Law­row in einem Inter­view mit der bra­si­lia­ni­schen Zei­tung “O Glo­bo”, dass Russ­land wei­ter­hin dar­auf bestehe, dass die ukrai­ni­schen Gebie­te Krim, Luhansk, Donezk, als rus­sisch aner­kannt wer­den. Außer­dem müs­se das Nach­bar­land bünd­nis­frei blei­ben und dür­fe nicht der Nato bei­tre­ten, sag­te Law­row in dem Inter­view, das auch vom Außen­mi­nis­te­ri­um in Mos­kau ver­öf­fent­licht wurde.

src: click

Gut Vor­be­din­gun­gen für Frie­dens­ver­hand­lun­gen und Vor­be­din­gun­gen für Frie­den, was ist der Unterschied?

Kei­ner, hat der Stan­dard herausgefunden!

Wir brau­chen wie­der mehr Qua­li­täts­jour­na­lis­mus­för­de­rung für den Stan­dard! Viel, Viel mehr.

Im Sin­ne von Mea Cul­pa - wer hier ein Pos­ting gese­hen hat, das hier nicht mehr zu fin­den ist. am and pm are a hell of a thing… Das trump­sche Truth Social Pos­ting wur­de 12 Stun­den nach sei­nem Selen­skyj Tref­fen abgesetzt.

Wenn man nicht alles dop­pelt prüft… Hät­te man glatt mei­nen kön­nen, es wäre davor gewesen.

Ukrai­ni­scher Ex-Aussenminister Dmi­tro Kule­ba: «Die Ame­ri­ka­ner kön­nen tun, was sie wol­len – der Krieg geht weiter»

Kei­ne Chan­ce für Donald Trumps Frie­dens­plan, die Ukrai­ne wer­de nicht kapi­tu­lie­ren, sagt der frü­he­re Aus­sen­mi­nis­ter des Lan­des. Alles hängt nun von den Euro­pä­ern ab und davon, wie schnell sie bei der Unter­stüt­zung der Ukrai­ne an die Stel­le der USA tre­ten können.

src: click (NZZ)

So here is how the mee­tings in Rome, must have went:

Hey Donald - Its a me Macron, with me bud­dy Star­mer, and our prop depart­ment from the Vati­can! Ear­ly in the day, lets do this pho­to op - whe­re Selen­skyj talks to you about HORRIFYING rocket attack with 9 civi­li­an deaths - which is two below the nor­mal dai­ly average for civil deaths per day.

Then it was con­fir­med, that Trump was swar­med by at least a dozen other world lea­ders during the rest of the day - and slow­ly (!) “tur­ned around” opi­ni­on wise.

The alter­na­ti­ve sto­ry here is, that the posi­ti­on chan­ge came more from wit­hin the Trump depart­ment, and that the Mear­s­hei­mer - Kara­ga­nov inter­view was instru­men­tal for that. Whoever told Kara­ga­nov to dou­ble down on “Cra­zy Ivan who can demand it all” was respon­si­ble for a “rus­sia will con­ti­nue the war” shift in “rus­si­an friend­ly US repor­ting”, which could have spoo­ked the Trump admi­nis­tra­ti­on - if it inde­ed loo­ked at public pol­ling figu­res dro­ping at that time - or the rea­liz­a­ti­on of the immense issue of sel­ling a con­ti­nuing war to its own popu­la­ti­on spoo­ked the Trump team.

Issue: If you pres­su­re rus­sia into a tem­pora­ry sei­ze fire - at least for 30 days, which will only be a bene­fit to Ukria­ne but 30 days MAYBE could be short enough, so struc­tu­ral battle­field chan­ges may be small enough so rus­sia could be seen to be pres­su­red into this -- Trump can sell it to his domestic audi­ence as the 100 day suc­cess of his war diplo­ma­cy. Now the issue:

A con­ti­nua­tion past said 30 days is almost impos­si­ble, and all sides should under­stand this, but by then the euro­pean nar­ra­ti­ve would have got­ten enough trac­tion in US media to be swap­ped over to -- with the bla­me being put on Rus­sia for having moved too litt­le, to keep peace talks alive.

The bla­me stacking is alrea­dy under­way (“if rus­sia doesnt grab this oppor­tu­ni­ty now, it doesnt want peace”), and the euro­pean coun­ter pro­po­sal sim­ply means 2-4 years of more war, in its cur­rent form.

Euro­pe will pre­vent against more con­ces­si­ons being extrac­ted from the ukrai­ni­an side - and will make sure, that de jure annex­a­ti­on of Cri­mea will not be put into play--

and then the key poli­ti­cal game turns back to get­ting Ukrai­ne finan­ced for ano­t­her 2-4 years, with US sup­port, becau­se by now the US and Euro­pean nar­ra­ti­ve is shared again.

So ways for rus­sia to work against this resul­ting in the mess it will result in?

Play along. Use bet­ter PR than what Lav­rov put out the­re in the past few days, sim­ply to sta­te, whe­re you are pres­su­red towards NEW con­ces­si­ons, and how you have ful­fil­led ever­ything that Trump deman­ded from you pri­or. Minus the “the ener­gy infra­st­ruc­tu­re sei­ze fire we stuck to -” talk becau­se that doesnt play well. Focus on post “his­to­ri­cal moment, with US pho­to­gra­pher” changes.

Issue - Kiew might sabo­ta­ge the sei­ze­fire in every way ima­gin­ab­le - if it is inde­ed limi­ted to 30 days. So nar­ra­ti­ve domi­nan­ce might be hard to attain.

But if Rus­sia can get it - Trumps “flip” will beco­me so obvious, that essen­ti­al­ly he gets an issue in the messaging to his core voter base, with the fact of him flip­ping mea­ning, that now the war will con­ti­nue for ano­t­her two to four years.

Which it likely will.

But the US is working on the flip to “the Trump posi­ti­on chan­ge was Rus­si­as fault” as we speak. (See video.) So - a coun­ter stra­te­gy would have to be clean, fast, and clo­se to pas­si­ve aggres­si­ve, but not pas­si­ve aggres­si­ve - which is not easy to pull off.

And which If I am not mista­ken Rus­sia doesnt have the trai­ned talent for.

The alter­na­ti­ve is to instill in Trump the fear, that his base will under­stand what he is pul­ling here, and that it will pro­long the war, and he knew it, and they will know, that he knew it.

Which would break ties earlier.

All pre­su­med on that Rus­sia might expe­ri­ence serious hardships wit­hin the next two years, battle­field, or eco­no­my rela­ted. Which it loo­ks like it likely might.

(If it doesnt. The respon­se is very simp­le. Pull a “Trump went too far -” right about now.)

Rus­sia run­ning into serious pro­blems in my under­stan­ding (well thats not right: as far as I can fathom) is the only explana­ti­on for why the EU is cur­r­ent­ly pushing for posi­ti­ons that will make it very hard for rus­sia to retain the occu­p­ied ter­ri­to­ries after 10 years.

edit: Part one - done:

src: click (Der Standard)

10th, 11th, who cares, right? Cer­tain­ly not Der Standard.