By GLOBSEC Policy Institute, AMO, Freedom House Lithuania, and the GMFUS.
Good to know that not only China is buying influence by courting smaller countries within the EU (*wave bundle of cash emoji*) for political motives. Just throw in the word democracy about 200 times and you should be fine.
Sh*t, a former US ambassador is not on message.
Better not report any of it in the mainstream of western media. Better not ask him to comment. Better make up talking points (to be used in polit talkshows), that the issue started in the early nineties. Better finance thinktanks and entire institutes fully. Better push for statements of non german politicians about germanys politics, and take over the media circuit to make the inquiry “if germany is not in line with US announcements” an accusation and the most pressing issue over the past week.
Better go with western propaganda.
Matlock has taught diplomacy at Duke University, Princeton University, Columbia University and Hamilton College. In a 1997 interview, Matlock offers some advice to prospective diplomats: have an optimistic nature, get a liberal education, do not expect to change the world, know the country, know your own country, faithfully represent your government, find the mutual interests, and remember that timing is everything.[13]
[…]
Since leaving government service, Matlock has occasionally joined with other experts to criticize U.S. foreign policy. On June 26, 1997, he signed an Open Letter to President Bill Clinton criticizing plans for NATO expansion.[60] His reason for opposition, as given in testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, was his belief that NATO expansion would preclude significant nuclear arms reduction with Russia, and consequently increase the risk of a nuclear attack by terrorists.[61]
Matlock drew the ire of many Republicans during the 2004 presidential election campaign when he signed the Official Statement of Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, which criticized the policies of President George W. Bush and endorsed Senator John Kerry for president.[62]
On Jan 4, 2007, Matlock joined with George Shultz, William Perry, Henry Kissinger and Sam Nunn to advocate a goal of a world free of nuclear weapons.[63] On 23 September 2008 after a two-day conference at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, he joined several other former ambassadors to issue a joint statement on how Russia and the United States might move forward in their relations.[64] He has endorsed the Global Zero Initiative, a plan to eliminate all nuclear weapons by 2030.[65] Matlock has also signed an open letter of May 13, 2011 asking the implementors of the New START treaty between the U.S. Russia to make public the locations and aggregate numbers of nuclear weapons, in order to promote transparency and reduce mistrust.[66][67]
On Jan 18, 2011 he co-signed an open letter to President Obama urging a United Nations resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the occupied territory.[68]
Matlock has been openly critical of the American mass media’s coverage of the Ukraine crisis. On Jan 26, 2022 he published an review of Richard Sakwa’s article “Whisper it, but Putin has a point in Ukraine” on his personal blog, stating agreement that Russia desires a neutral Ukraine and pushing back against claims that Russia seeks to annex Ukraine.[69] On Feb 15, 2022, he published an op-ed in Antiwar.com, questioning the validity of the media narrative around the current state of Russia–Ukraine relations, stating “Maybe I am wrong – tragically wrong – but I cannot dismiss the suspicion that we are witnessing an elaborate charade, grossly magnified by prominent elements of the American media, to serve a domestic political end.”[70]
src: click
Josep Borrell says it’s ‘quite reasonable and quite clear’ that controversial pipeline would be stopped in event of a Russian invasion.
[…]
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today program about potential sanctions on Russia, Borrell said it was “quite reasonable and quite clear” that Nord Stream 2 “will not” be allowed to operate in the event of a Russian strike.
src: click
Without words.
Überschrift bezieht sich auf den selben Komiker, der unten die Rüstungsstrategie der US auch für den Laien begreifbar macht - und soll in etwa ausdrücken - die US sind so von ihren leider nicht wählbaren Eliten indoktriniert und in Sachzwängen gebunden, dass sie gerne für die Mobilisierung ihrer Wählerschichten im mittleren Westen einen degenerierten ultrakonservativen Gottesprediger an die Staatsspitze wählen, der im Idealfall glaubt Gottes Werk zu vollenden. Weil dann hat er genug Demut und schaut auch auf die Leute - oder irgend ein Bullsh*t den niemand beim zweiten Hinsehen auch nur annähernd glaubt, aber der die emotionale Entscheidungsfindung der Wähler highjackt.
Das war vor 30 Jahren. So alt war der Sager des Komikers. Heute ist das alles noch ein wenig degenerierter…
Was war nochmal Bidens Ticket ins Oval Office? Jahrzehntelange prozedurale Erfahrung in Politik und Verwaltung, sowie Sachkompetenz, oder?
Für NBC reichts.
Oh bitte und auch inhaltlich dranbleiben. “There was no way, we would ever going to unite Afghanistan, no way that was gonna happen.” Oh REALLY? Geschichtsstunde? Kurzzusammenfassung der Pressemitteilungen des Außenamtes seit 2001? Größter Fehler im Wiederaufbauprozess des Iraks? Aber wenns der Gottkaiser voll der Gnaden, dem Idioten von NBC in nem persönlichen Interview verzählt wie alternativlos das war, dann muss das wohl schon immer die Wahrheit gewesen sein. Bloß nicht die Position bei Kriegsbeginn nachschlagen.
Das war der Moment in dem die Position geändert wurde -
und das hier war die Position zu Kriegsbeginn (im zweiten Absatz angerissen).
Für NBC reichts.
… future scenarios of Nato development in Europe - report released today. Roughcut, how to get Europe more resilliant under war/proxy war conditions.
With it also being paramount that Nato will grow and change in the coming years. With Europe potentially being under war.
Fun.
And so sensitive in regards to the situation currently evolving.
edit:
“Now on Ukraine, where the rules based order is under direct assault, we suggest a more proactive, strategy driven approach to NATO partnerships, including the Ukraine deterrence initiative. That would make it a strategic priority for the alliance, to do everything possible, short of an article five guarantee, to help Ukraine and other partners, that are threatened by Moskow, to defend themselves and deter aggression. This Ukraine deterrence initiative could be an extension of the enhanced opportunities partners program, at a time when NATO membership of the Ukraine is really not on the agenda.”
Ah, a NATO build-up without a NATO membership. Excellent.
“As Julian outlined in his overview - we argue, that the new strategic concept must commit the alliance to a step change in the balance of responsibility between the United States and the european members of the alliance, to include Canada as well. This is no longer just a matter of overcoming long standing disputes over burden sharing in defense spending, between the United States and Europe - its now a strategic necessity, because the rise of china as a strategic competitor creates US need to shift its strategic focus to the indopacific region. And under these circumstances, Nato can no longer afford it excessive reliance on the United states, either for collective defense, or for crisis management and cooperative security missions beyond europes borders. Clearly - in an article five contingency between russia in the baltic or black sea regions, the United States may not always be able to deploy adequate reinforcements to Europe, because of competing demands on its forces in the indo-pacific. So european allies will need to be able to pick up most of the slack. Now similarly resource constraints and shifting priorities may also lead the US to limit its involvement in the middle east, africa, and south asia. Or at least to be more selective in when and where it engages. That means, that the United States will increasingly look to the european allies and the european union to shoulder more of the burden for crisis management and partner capacity building in their own neighborhood.”
Same stance - as announced by Peter Zeihan and mentioned in this blog, one year ago.
This is somewhat important, as the (transatlantic) thinktank circuit is currently trying to establish that Putin (himself probably) is trying to drive a wedge into the US/European coalition, while in reality the strategic focus of the US has shifted to the indo-pacific and will do more so in the future regardless of what happens in these parts of the world. An expansionist China is too much of a strategic threat to the US - while Europe doesnt hold the same value anymore (not militarily, not regarding energy security, not in terms of trade (US developing Mexico and India to be consumer economies), not in terms of innovation either (has more to do with the fact that energy security in the US in the coming three decades is not relying on anything that Europe produces. They’ve become net exporters.)
Why is the first thing that comes to mind “Fare well a**holes? And thanks for all the hell raising in the past days!”?
