- need a proponent of that lovely theorem no one can verify, but that usually represents the most hawkish position possible?
Look no further than the former ambassodor to the Ukraine, ousted by Trump, Marie Yovanovitch.
She has a new book out.
Also a proponent of the “Putin is not going to stop with Ukraine, and this is a serious threat for Nato countries” thesis of course --
Oh, and dont forget the CNN moderator that leads in with the following question, referencing a specific paragraph in Yovanovitchs book:
“We have failed to call out Russia’s behavior in a way that Russia finds persuasive or taken steps to stop it that Moscow finds compelling. If we continue to fumble around [always a great sign, when you make arguments non specific], we will someday, maybe soon, find ourselves in a serious confrontation in a context not of our choosing and not to our advantage.”
- then states, that this was prescient, then asks, how is what we are seeing today a consequence of what she wrote - this is the answer that follows:
“I think its the culmination of what we’ve seen coming from the Putin regime, over the last 20 years - 2008, the invasion of Georgia, then we had Ukraine in 2014, and now Ukraine again in 2022, and I think Putin will continue to expand, ah, the russian empire, the former soviet empire as he sees it, unless he is stopped.”
What follows next is a news anchor that starts prancing around and miming a closed fist vs. open hand metaphor into camera, giving an exact image, of how serious the former ambassador was when she wrote
- someday, maybe [we’ll] find ourselves in a serious confrontation in a context not of our choosing and not to our advantage
to then end his inquiry, by finishing his question - “Is this [what we currently see] that, that we are meeting Putin with a closed fist now, instead of an open hand?”
You know - the urgent question, for the public debate, that gets broadcast on CNN these days… Oh, and could I interest you in a book thats indeed very prescient?
Almost as prescient as DWs interview with the former US Army Europe Commander Lt. General Ben Hodges, who understands that the coming two weeks will be decisive, and is also a proponent of the thesis, that… Ah, listen for yourself:
This was Ben Hodges at the Munich Security conference three weeks ago, btw.:
Oh, and the Ukraine will succeed in a war of attrition of course especially longterm:
Which the same CNN moderator then calls “slow annihilation, as US officials were telling Jim Sciutto”. (Probably in this video, if not, limit the youtube search filter to the last month and start digging.)
Yeah, who could want that… Nobody could want that, right?
Now, look at the cute little doggy! Is it a moral obligation?
Look at the doggy once more.
(Theres a second, entirely unrelated, puppy dog shot in the video, btw. just for good measure.)
edit: Two dogs in this report. Very popular motive for camera crews these days. But this time, at least not in the attract image.
Can we get some mood music, and some people admitting in perfect reality TV script style, that that was the moment, when they realized that this would become a war? Maybe add a few “they are afraid” and “he’s unhinged” soundbites to it?
Thank you PBS.
Also - at the same time the official narrative on the scientific side is, that US intelligence circles warned about the strong possibility of a war at least two weeks prior (see: click). Which then is a little bit embezzled by the Hoover Institute for gerneral pundit consumption, and made into the reasoning for the narrative, that the one good aspect that came out of this is, that europe is now closer in terms of policy positions than ever before. Of course some people also call BS on that, because it is unity by necessity, but those are just mad wierdos.
At the same time it is acknowledged, that the entire meeting was made up for PR purposes, that it was prerecorded, yet it shows with absolute certainty, how distant Putin is to his advisers, and how unhinged, even crazy he is, and that everyone in his own “balance of power circles” is afraid of him.
Wait - do I need historical experts for that purpose, that are exactly dumb enough not to understand that should a balance of power in Russia exist, it is not “argued for freely” in the open, in a prerecorded PR production? Do I need experts just dumb enough not to notice, that the fact that Putin put down the SVR intelligence chief, was reported by the same media outlets (PBS) as a public display of the notion, that the foreign security sector within russia has lost influence?
Sorry - not dumb enough, just situated in the right talking circles of course.
People speaking in the video:
“What was especially weird and creepy was the way he dressed down the head of his foreign intelligence service, [Sergey] Naryshkin,” says Daniel Fried, currently a distinguished fellow at the Atlantic Council, who served as the U.S. ambassador to Poland from 1997 to 2000 and as assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs from 2005 to 2009.
“[Putin] seemed to go off the rails, angry and berating his intelligence chief,” recalls Schake, who previously served at the U.S. State Department, the Department of Defense and the National Security Council. “It was such a strange and such an orchestrated performance, that that’s the moment when I realized that Putin was actually going to attack Ukraine.
Oh, just for comparative purposes, lets see how france reacts to stuff similar to this:
US intel paints Putin as aggrieved, angry over Ukraine war
Washington (AFP) – US intelligence chiefs on Tuesday branded Russia’s Vladimir Putin an “angry,” isolated leader grappling for global clout, frustrated about how his Ukraine invasion has not gone to plan, and lobbing provocative nuclear threats at the West.
The long-standing president in Moscow has been “stewing in a combustible combination of grievance and ambition for many years,” CIA Director William Burns told US lawmakers.
He called the invasion of Ukraine a matter of “deep personal conviction” for Putin, his latest defiant clash with Europe and the United States.
“I think Putin is angry and frustrated right now. He’s likely to double down and try to grind down the Ukrainian military with no regard for civilian casualties,” Burns said at a congressional hearing on global threats.
The Russian strongman has encountered a tidal wave of opprobrium for the deadly invasion, leaving him isolated like never before.
The US intelligence community warned of the potential for Putin to lash out, especially noting an elevated nuclear threat.
Lieutenant General Scott Berrier, director of the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency, said Russia under Putin has been working overtime to modernize its weaponry, particularly smaller-yield nuclear weapons.
Putin has “invested in tactical nuclear weapons,” Berrier said. “I believe that he thinks that gives him an asymmetric advantage.”
Putin took the shock step last month of putting Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert.
Some US officials have privately expressed concern that, in a worst-case scenario, he might order deployment of such mini-nukes on a city.
Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines said “Putin’s nuclear saber-rattling” has put the West on notice.
“We assess Putin feels aggrieved the West does not give him proper deference, and perceives this as a war he cannot afford to lose,” Haines told the panel.
“But what he might be willing to accept as a victory may change over time,” she said.
Putin’s invasion has produced “a shock to the geopolitical order with implications for the future that we are only beginning to understand, but are sure to be consequential.”
With Putin under immense pressure, the “system” the Russian president created of a circle of close advisors is getting “narrower and narrower,” the CIA’s Burns said.
In such a system, “it’s not proven career enhancing for people to question or challenge his judgment.”
Summary/Abstract:This article shows how Russian media use personalization to increase pro-Russian influence on every Russian-speaking community. Based on the examples it gives an understanding, why such manner of representing the news can be dangerous as it increases nationalism and xenophobia, making the stereotypes rule over the facts. The long-term objective of [this] work is to prevent the development of such kind of personalization and to decrease the negative influence upon other countries.
Neun von zehn Ukrainern wären nach Ansicht des UN-Entwicklungsexperten Achim Steiner im Fall eines lang anhaltenden Krieges von Armut bedroht. Im schlimmsten Fall würde die Wirtschaft des Landes zusammenbrechen und das Wachstum von zwei Jahrzehnten zunichte gemacht, sagte Steiner, Administrator des Entwicklungsprogramms der Vereinten Nationen (UNDP).
Ein direkter militärischer Sieg gegen Russland scheint unwahrscheinlich zu sein. Doch je länger Kiew durchhält, desto besser ist die Verhandlungsgrundlage für die Ukraine
Daher [aus dem Text geht in keinster Weise hervor worauf sich daher bezieht - es wird einfach postuliert, die Maximalforderungen Russlands seien nicht umsetzbar - daher bezieht sich auf dieses Postulat…] müsste Moskau bei einem andauernden Krieg auch selbst nach Kompromissen suchen – eigentlich. Denn Russlands Präsident heißt Wladimir Putin – und genau seine mangelnde Rationalität macht das Endszenario des Krieges so unberechenbar.
Der Mörder Putin machts aber nicht, weil er so verrückt ist.
Obwohl ers laut Selenskyj macht - aber zuvor noch ein wenig gekämpft werden muss.
Der ukrainische Präsident Wolodymyr Selenskyj versprüht in einer Videobotschaft so etwas wie einen Funken Hoffnungen über mögliche Friedensverhandlungen mit Russland. Die Verhandlungspositionen Russlands hörten sich “realistischer” an, sagte Selenskyj. Bis die Ukraine zufrieden sein könne, dauere es aber noch. “Wir alle wollen so schnell wie möglich Frieden und Sieg”, meinte der Präsident. “Aber es braucht Mühe und Geduld.”
Es müsse noch gekämpft und gearbeitet werden. Jeder Krieg ende mit einer Vereinbarung. “Die Treffen werden fortgesetzt.”
Wir sehen, die Interessen der Ukraine spiegeln nicht die Interessen der armutsgefährdeten Bevölkerung in der Ukraine wieder. Zumindest nicht mittelfristig.
US-Regierung spottet über russische Sanktionen
Die US-Regierung hat mit Spott auf die von Russland verhängten Einreiseverbote gegen US-Präsident Joe Biden und andere Politiker reagiert. “Als erstes möchte ich anmerken, dass Präsident Biden ein Junior ist, so dass sie vielleicht seinen Vater sanktioniert haben. Möge er in Frieden ruhen”, sagte die Sprecherin des Weißen Hauses, Jen Psaki, am Dienstag weil bei der Sanktionsliste ein “jr.” fehlte. Auch Ex-Präsidentschaftskandidatin Hilary Clinton spottete über ihre Sanktionierung, dass sie der “russischen Academy für die Auszeichnung für ihr Lebenswerk” danke.
Psaki fügte hinzu: “Ich würde sagen, dass es niemanden von Ihnen überraschen wird, dass keiner von uns Touristenreisen nach Russland plant und keiner von uns Bankkonten hat, auf die wir nicht zugreifen können.” Im Gegenzug hätten die westlichen Sanktionen die russische Wirtschaft um Jahrzehnte zurückgeworfen, so Psaki. “Die beispiellosen Kosten, die wir mit Verbündeten und Partnern auferlegt haben, haben 30 Jahre wirtschaftlichen Fortschritt zunichtegemacht”, sagte Psaki.
Und verspotten eine der Kriegsparteien öffentlich.
Während wir für mehr Armut in der Ukraine und weltweit sorgen.
Zum Schutz westlicher Werte.
Von den budgetierten 13.6 Milliarden USD sind bisher erst 200 Millionen als Militärhilfe freigegeben. Da müssen sich die Ukrainer schon noch ein wenig ranhalten - immerhin stabilisieren wir mit dem Rest deren Gesellschaft. Gesamtschadenssumme geschätzt 100 Milliarden und steigend, laut ukrainischen Angaben.
src: click
Aber da kann man dann ja Aufbauhilfe mit westlichen Konzernen nachschießen. Natürlich erst, wenn die Ukraine wieder einen Zugang zum Meer hat. Sonst ist eine separierte Westukraine wirtschaftlich nicht haltbar.
Ich glaube wir brauchen kurz- und mittelfristig noch ein paar mehr Helden.
Historic heroes - mind you, says the majority opinion in Washington DC:
Democracy, freedom, sovereignty against dictatorship, you know the drill… Values.
And the moderator even dares to ask where our values were previously - but then he slowly gets the new narrative (“This is a muscular, patriotic defense of a liberal open society. […] We instinctively understand it in a way that other wars, civil wars, have been much harder to understand -” (- this is whats different this time around).”), and starts nodding…
Is propaganda used to make people understand? Lets say by using emotionally loaded terms in one instance, and 400x less reporting in other instances? (Silly statistic, but you know - its the principle that counts…)
(Die Meldungen stammen bis auf die Einschätzung zu den bisherigen Gesamtschäden aus den letzten beiden Tagen.)
edit: Warum haben die Sanktionen in Russland eigentlich 30 Jahre Wirtschaftswachstum zu Nichte gemacht, der Krieg in der Ukraine jedoch nur 20 Jahre des ukrainischen?
edit2: Der Standard fantasiert sich in dem Zusammenhang jetzt die Aussage herbei, dass die ukrainischen Streitkräfte gegenüber russischen Truppen erstmals im Vorteil wären - “da die russischen Streitkräfte darum kämpften, die Herausforderungen des ukrainischen Geländes zu meistern”. Das steht im Security briefing über das berichtet wird, jedoch nicht drinnen. Also der, dass die Ukraine “im Vorteil wäre” Teil. Naja, man kanns ja mal zur Gewissensberuhigung erfinden.
Wir fassen also zusammen, dass die russischen Streitkräfte (die kampferfahrenen und noch eher motivierten Truppen in den Separatistengebieten) Strassen nach Mykolajiw gesichert haben (dazu der Focus: Alina will nicht im Keller Mutter werden), ist “Russias reluctance to conduct off-road manoeuvres”, was dazu geführt hat, dass “ukraines armed forces adeptly exploited Russias lack of manoeuvre, frustrating russian advance and inflicting heavy losses on the invading forces” konnten - was nicht bedeutet, dass sie im Vorteil sind, aber immerhin liest sichs so ähnlich, also kann mans als Qualitätszeitung schon mal behaupten - weil das britische security briefing angibt “Russian forces are struggling to overcome the challenges posed by Ukraines terrain.” Hach die Vorteile des Gueríllakampfs. So romantisch. “Heavy losses” da Russland den Luftraum nicht komplett kontrolliert, soll heißen, die türkischen Bayraktar Drohnen wirken.
Dazu der Spiegel vor zwei Wochen:
Kiews neugeborener Lemur nach Bayraktar-Kampfdrohne benannt
Nach der Geburt eines kleinen Affen im Zoo von Kiew verkündet Bürgermeister Vitali Klitschko den Namen des Primaten. Er bezieht sich auf den Krieg im Land.
Die Bayraktar-Drohnen werden von der Ukraine als Wunderwaffe im Kampf gegen Russland gefeiert und sogar in einem zweifelhaften Popsong besungen. Die unbemannten Flugzeuge können sich in großer Höhe unbemerkt den Panzerkampfverbänden nähern – und diese dann aus der Luft bekämpfen.
Truss skeptisch bezüglich Friedensgesprächen
Die britische Außenministerin Liz Truss sagte am Dienstag (heute, 16.03.2022), sie sei skeptisch gegenüber Friedensgesprächen zwischen Russland und der Ukraine.
“Ich bin skeptisch gegenüber den Friedensgesprächen, während Putin immer noch Krieg in der Ukraine führt. Er muss einen Waffenstillstand einführen und seine Truppen abziehen, damit diese Friedensgespräche ernst genommen werden können“, sagte Truss gegenüber BBCTV. Putin müsse “um jeden Preis” gestoppt werden, sagte sie.
- and all the while define the upcoming economic and security policy for Europe over the next 20 years?
He even says it three times in a row, just for good measure, its hard to miss - like, you know, when you come up with a thought, and then repeat it three times in a row, because… Oh sorry - no one is going to do that, unless they’d want it to stick - as they didnt at all come up with it on the spot. Oh yes, and like, when you then add a “this is not zero sum, because Japan will still be needing Germany and Germany needs Japan” at the end, just for good measure. Because, you know, you do.
But dont worry - Japan would even be willing to take Ukraine refugees. Hes sure of it, although he doesnt represent the japanese government of course. But with prospects like these…
G.M.F. delivers
(The best thing to do is to do nothing at all (despite keeping the public enemy image up for more than a year, and possibly years), and stick together, even though we fully anticipate this to become a long war of attrition - otherwise China might get ideas in terms of whats feasible, and also Japan is exposed to/dependent on less than a 10th of german energy needs from russian exports, so the best thing really is to be patient and stick this through - then Japan gets the investment Germanys not going to get, while the US will not be exposed at all, while China will not get the idea, that calculating strategies derived from Russias attack costs is a worthwhile thing, and everything can stay like it is, just with Germany getting completely ramrodded in the process, oh and Ukraine of course…)
Want to see a middling US college history professor go into a third round of “keep germany down” rhetorics, and classify it as the first country that would try to break out of a joint Nato position, distinctly even more so than Turkey?
The money quote to look for is “we’ve got to keep our eyes on germany and keep them in line”.
Wonderful.
Also, of course, everyone on the G.M.F. panel can agree, that this is a “patience game” - sorry, war of attrition, that will play out in the Ukraine.
This one is for the (western) values, I think. So much values, Doge amount of much values. Is the pope in Kyiv yet? edit: He has. Finally!
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.
