harlekin.me

Ers­tens: Die chi­ne­si­sche Jari-USV-Orca ist offi­zi­ell die größ­te Seekriegs-Drohne der Welt

src: click

Ein Umstand der die­se Emp­feh­lung unse­rer trans­at­lan­ti­schen Freun­de vom 22. Novem­ber 2024 gera­de­zu anti­qua­risch anmu­ten lässt:

What, chi­na has 250x the ship buil­ding capa­ci­ty com­pa­red to the US at this time? Tar­ge­ted towards smal­ler more mobi­le ships, which are about what you’d need in the future to secu­re sea routes?

Lets send the ger­mans over the­re to patrol “our backy­ard in south asia”, so they’ll learn what the chal­len­ges the­re are, first hand!

I call this:

Have an unsolva­ble pro­blem again? Plug it with germany!

(May­be tell them they can do the same they did with rus­sia, paci­fy them through tra­de oppor­tu­nities! No, tell them they can learn how to act tough mili­ta­ri­ly the­re! Bet­ter argu­ment for the domestic audience!)

The pro­blem still remains unsol­veab­le, but at least now you have side benefits!

Ger­ma­ny wins, and chi­ne­se pull back more - Win.
Ger­ma­ny loses, and chi­ne­se pull Ger­man tra­de opti­ons - Win.

src: click

Man stel­le sich vor, sie ste­hen als deut­scher Mari­ne Admi­ral auf dem Deck der Gorch Fock, im Süd­chi­ne­si­schen Meer, Steu­er­bord von ihnen die See, Back­bord von ihnen das chi­ne­si­sche Fest­land, und da kommt ihnen soet­was ent­ge­gen. Was tun sie? Grei­fen sie a.) zum Mega­phon um den Kap­tain des feind­li­chen Schif­fes an die gel­ten­den mari­ti­men Rech­te zu erin­nern, oder grei­fen sie b.) zum Satteliten-Telefon um ihre Toch­ter anzu­ru­fen und ihr vor­zu­jam­men, dass die Exper­ten in den US den Schuss noch nicht gehört haben.

Zwei­tens:

Sie erin­nern sich an den guten Rat­schlag von Gen. Ben Hod­ges, dem vier­ten Weltkriegs-Experten dem die Medi­en ver­trau­en - vom 22. Novem­ber 2024 - dass der Ukrai­ne Krieg noch mit Himars zu gewin­nen sei:

Dort [Fran­ce 24] erzählt Ben Hod­ges nun sei­nen per­fek­ten Plan wie er Russ­land, das nicht mehr gewin­nen kann, es sei denn eine Sei­te gibt auf -- schnell und kom­pro­miss­los besie­gen würde:

Also, so Gen. Ben Hod­ges -- Russ­land kann nur machen, was es macht, weil es “Tac­ti­cal Head­quar­ters”, “Rocket Laun­chers”, and “Hund­reds of thousands of ammu­ni­ti­ons” hat. Und wenn man das gezielt ver­nich­ten wür­de, mit Himars näm­lich, also dann hät­te Russ­land also nicht nur nicht gewon­nen, son­dern also defi­ni­tiv verloren.

Ben Hod­ges ist damit der ers­te ehe­ma­li­ge Gene­ral des US Gene­ral­stabs, der nicht mit­be­kom­men hat, was die Tak­tik der US in der zwei­ten Kriegs­pha­se war -- viel­leicht las­sen sie sich das noch­mal von einem ehe­ma­li­gen Strat­for Ana­lys­ten erklä­ren, und der nicht mit­be­kom­men hat, dass Russ­land dar­auf­hin sei­ne Ver­sor­gungs­in­fra­struk­tur so weit wie mög­lich dezen­tra­li­siert hat. Die Ukrai­ne hat­te zu dem Zeit­punkt 80 Himars gefor­dert, da die­se zu Anfang die­ser Pha­se sehr effek­tiv waren, aber nur 20 auf Zeit (über meh­re­re Mona­te) von den US bekommen.

src: click

Und erhö­hen als The right hono­r­able Sir Ben Wal­lace who ser­ved as the bri­tish Secreta­ry of Sta­te for Defence from 2019 to 2023 ges­tern bei Chat­ham House -

auf - nein, also die effek­tivs­te Waf­fe der Ukrai­ne war immer noch die Artil­le­rie­gra­na­te, auf deren Pro­duk­ti­on soll­te sich Euro­pa jetzt foku­sie­ren, und dann rekru­tiert die Ukrai­ne noch Frau­en, und dann machen wir eine Aus­bil­dungs­in­itia­ti­ve von einer Mil­li­on Ukrai­nern die in der EU und Groß­bri­tan­ni­en aus­ge­bil­det wer­den, und dann gewin­nen wir die­sen Krieg, Putin hat kei­ne Chance.

Naja - zumin­dest hat der ehe­ma­li­ge bri­ti­sche Ver­tei­di­gungs­mi­nis­ter ver­stan­den, dass Himars den Krieg nicht mehr dre­hen, und kann rech­nen - wel­ches Waf­fens­sys­tem denn am effek­tivs­ten wäre wenn, ehm so ein Drit­tel der Kriegs­fi­nan­zie­rung im US Senat ste­cken bleibt, und Euro­pa rech­nen müsste.

Und was das erst wie­der für einen Auf­wind in der deut­schen Indus­trie Pro­duk­ti­on bringt! So ein 50 Jäh­ri­ger Engi­neer in der Hoch­tech­no­lo­gie, der end­lich wie­der an der Dreh­bank, im indus­tri­el­len Rah­men Mörser-Rohre dre­hen darf, die durch LNG Ver­stro­mung betrie­ben wird. Da schrumpft sich die deut­sche Wirt­schaft im Nuh gesund.

Nur Pro­pa­gan­da hat immer noch nie­mand von den deutsch­spra­chi­gen Medi­en ent­deckt, was will man machen…

Naja -- dann kann der Krieg ja end­lich wie­der weitergehen.

The for­mer Syri­an for­eign minis­ter is still in place. The Syri­an UN dele­ga­ti­on is still in place and was giving inter­views two days ago that they now would work for the new regime, becau­se they like working for the Syri­an peop­le. And that of cour­se the new regime would still work in tan­dem with the UN, most­ly on huma­ni­ta­ri­an efforts…

Sad­ly I lost the You­tube clip with the inter­view of the lead of the dele­ga­ti­on. Was uploa­ded by an account with an ita­li­ans per­sons name - so pro­bab­ly not easi­ly vet­ted by me - but boy, was that a very well mana­ged coup!

I just lea­ve you with the fol­lowing Fran­ce 24 panel instead:

edit: See also: 

NNA - Syria’s per­ma­nent repre­sen­ta­ti­ve to the UN on Mon­day said his mis­si­on has recei­ved inst­ruc­tions to con­ti­nue doing its job in New York as part of an effort “to main­tain sta­te institutions.”

Kous­say Ald­ah­hak also cal­led on the UN and the Secu­ri­ty Coun­cil to put an end to Israe­li attacks on his country.

“We’re with the Syri­an peop­le. We’ll keep defen­ding and working for the Syri­an peop­le. So we’ll con­ti­nue our work until fur­ther noti­ce,” he said.

The col­lap­se of the Assad regime fol­lo­wed a light­ning offen­si­ve that las­ted less than two weeks. On Sunday, insur­gents swept into the capi­tal Damas­cus to topp­le the regime and send Pre­si­dent Bas­har Assad fle­eing. Rus­si­an news agen­ci­es report that he has been gran­ted asyl­um in Moscow.

src: click (nna-leb.gov.lb)

The main per­son inter­view­ed in the aformen­tio­ned video, was Kous­say Aldahhak.

edit2: Found the video:

A win­ning stra­te­gy to end Russia’s war against Ukraine

As with West Ger­ma­ny, which joi­ned NATO in 1955, NATO’s defen­se gua­ran­tee would app­ly only to that part of Ukrai­ni­an ter­ri­to­ry under con­trol of the Ukrai­ni­an government. The United Sta­tes should reject Russia’s demand for for­ced neu­tra­li­ty and de fac­to dis­ar­ma­ment for Ukraine.

Same sta­tus for anne­xed ter­ri­to­ries pos­si­ble as with crimea.

As a NATO mem­ber, Ukrai­ne would com­mit to res­to­re its ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty wit­hin its inter­na­tio­nal­ly reco­gni­zed bor­ders through peace­ful and diplo­ma­tic means. Befo­re its acces­si­on, allies would take addi­tio­nal steps to inte­gra­te Ukrai­ne into the Alli­an­ce, in par­ti­cu­lar by offe­ring Ukrai­ne a per­ma­nent seat at the North Atlan­tic Coun­cil and a Ukrai­ni­an gene­ral a seat at the Mili­ta­ry Committee.

The rest is all fuck the EU, and US will do the bare minumum.

The United Sta­tes and its allies need a new poli­cy of con­tain­ment of Rus­sia. This also inclu­des main­tai­ning hold on the immo­bi­li­zed Rus­si­an sov­er­eign assets and restric­tions on tech­no­lo­gy, and cau­ti­on in lif­ting sanc­tions. The­re should be no return to reli­an­ce on Rus­si­an ener­gy or other resour­ces. Allies should be pre­pa­red to inten­si­fy eco­no­mic pres­su­re and make Rus­sia pay the pri­ce should it vio­la­te cease­fire terms. 

This lea­ves it open to Ukrai­ne to try to attain advan­ta­ges mili­ta­ri­ly (oh but its not us, its the local rebel groups, with their hate towards the rus­si­an inva­ders…) until it has gai­ned full Nato mem­bers­hip, at which point all Nato coun­tries would com­mit to res­to­re its ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty “through peace­ful means”.

So its par­ti­san war­fa­re until the point whe­re euro­pe per­ma­nent­ly is wil­ling to fuck its­elf as part of its per­ma­nent poli­ti­cal NATO com­mit­ment to res­to­re the ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty of Ukrai­ne. A THING WHICH IS NOT MILITARILY ATTAINABLE FOR THE FORSEEABLE FUTURE. (30 years, then I dont care anymore.)

Some­thing that only the Uni­ver­si­ty of Michi­gan could come up with.… 8006kms away.

edit: No, wait, wait - this gets bet­ter! Hey Japan, and the Phil­ip­pi­nes, can I inte­rest you in a NATO mem­bers­hip? We are the trans­at­lan­tic uni­on, that poli­ti­cal­ly fights for the full ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty of Ukrai­ne! Hey, whe­re are you run­ning? No, no - wait, Ukrai­ne is not a full mem­ber yet, they can still attack rus­sia trough covert means and, … Hel­loo!? Stop! Stop!

Russ­land ist durch Assad-Sturz “zum Bitt­stel­ler gewor­den” - Jäger zu neu­er Situa­ti­on in Nah­ost | ntv

Ups. Rea­li­ty.

Oder wie die Durch­schnitts­be­völ­ke­rung das sehen würde:

Ich wünsch­te wir hät­ten mehr Exper­ten wie Prof. Jäger. Immer freund­lich, sach­lich, mit sach­kun­di­gen Ana­ly­sen und nie­mals pole­misch. Klasse!

(You­tube Kommentar)

Hin­ter­grund: Das ist Teil des Nar­ra­ti­ves, dass Russ­land zu Ver­hand­lun­gen gezwun­gen wer­den müsse.

Was auch stimmt, wenn es nach US Deman­ds in 20 Jah­ren die Krim wie­der an Kiew zurück­ge­ben müss­te. Dem fai­rem Frie­dens­plan von Selen­skyj sei Dank.

Und dann erst das Poten­ti­al als Ver­hand­lungs­mas­se! Russ­land! Wenn du jetzt nicht zum Waf­fen­still­stand bereit bist, dann bekommst du Syri­en nicht wie­der! Ehmn, aja, das bekommst du so und so nicht wie­der ehm… Aber wenn du den Krieg jetzt nicht bin­nen 23 Jah­ren ein­stellst, dann! Jahaaa!

edit: Ah, they might be loo­sing more of a foot­hold than pre­vious­ly thought…

So here is your short track on what rus­si­an dis­in­for­ma­ti­on is accord­ing to a Wil­son Cen­ter panel of experts:

- Not one step east­ward didnt exist
- The­re were no Biolabs
- We did it becau­se of the Nazis, which no one belie­ved, haha
- Its a war with the west
- Mear­s­hei­mer IS BEST WHEN HE IS CANCELED

Thats the ent­i­re know­ledge of the US field of dis­in­for­ma­ti­on stu­dies in four and a half bul­let points.

And here is what I see when I’m watching that video.

- Just belie­ve in yourself, and the coun­try and us being good, as a pre­re­qui­si­te to “coun­ter dis­in­for­ma­ti­on” check

Socie­tal impact of that - hor­ri­ble, terrible.

- Just stone ever­yo­ne who men­ti­ons that “not one step east­ward” did exist as an oral mee­ting nar­ra­ti­ve spiel that was omni­pre­sent in deba­tes around ger­ma­nys uni­fi­ca­ti­on, but that it never was put into wri­ting (nsarchive.gwu.edu), and the­re were no con­tracts that ever said as much.

- Also dont men­ti­on that Mear­s­hei­mer picked that up, not becau­se of rus­si­an pro­pa­gan­da, but becau­se of inter­na­tio­nal rela­ti­ons theo­ry, name­ly the rea­list school of inter­na­tio­nal rela­ti­ons theo­ry -- the one he is the main pro­po­nent of cur­r­ent­ly, and for that was deplat­for­med on March 6th 2022, two weeks after the war star­ted, by an enitre new­ly foun­ded “panel inter­view seri­es” at the Hoo­ver Insti­tu­ti­on for hol­ding that opi­ni­on (three prong stra­te­gy play, see: The New Yor­ker arti­cle)

Socie­tal impact of that - devastating

Why? Becau­se in ger­ma­ny that was a lar­ge mino­ri­ties short­cut on what was hap­pe­ning in for­eign poli­tics over the bet­ter part of 15 years. Name­ly that Mer­kel and her french coun­ter­part pre­ven­ted Nato enlar­ge­ment. Becau­se they - and Mer­kel sta­ted as such, thought that it would pre­vent a mili­ta­ry con­fron­ta­ti­on. (The last time, 11 days ago: click)

Why? Becau­se the inver­se - that Ukrai­ne just should be able to enter NATO, just becau­se they real­ly want to and have writ­ten that into their con­sti­tu­ti­on - just so obvious­ly is not the case.

Why? Becau­se from a nar­ra­ti­ves per­spec­ti­ve, this is the clo­sest nar­ra­ti­ve expres­si­on to “rus­sia iden­ti­fied its black sea har­bors (40% of rus­si­an exports, power pro­jec­tion into the medi­tera­ni­an, black sea regi­ons and afri­ca) as a stra­te­gic asset, and at least part­ly went to war becau­se of tho­se, also becau­se they were under high risk of loo­sing all of that in 20 years time, when their power through mili­ta­ry means con­cept would not work as well any­mo­re becau­se of demo­gra­phic rea­sons.” A stance which Fio­na Hills source at the Broo­kings institution:

Fio­na cares to interject

and

Her­fried Münkler

Spä­te Erkenntnis

and

Stol­ten­berg

Could you plea­se repeat that, Mr. Stoltenberg?

and

Mer­kel

Die­se Gesell­schaft. Gro­tesk, abar­tig, Abschaum.

Have held over time to exp­lain what they have wit­nessed, and as a nar­ra­ti­ve, had impac­ted their decisi­on pro­cess at the time.

Gran­ted, Mer­kel without being bur­den­ed by the majo­ri­ty of ukrai­ni­ans being for NATO mem­bers­hip - but the others even in dis­re­gard of that nuance.

So out of every poten­ti­al nar­ra­ti­ve (inclu­ding Putin wants to be a Tsar and recon­quer Poland, and the Bal­tic Sta­tes, not just Mol­d­o­wa and Geor­gia) out the­re that still is the clo­sest one to a more com­plex nar­ra­tiv inclu­ding detail that doesnt resort to for­tu­ne tel­ling. Or exa­g­ge­ra­ti­on. (Putin is taking parts of euro­pe with 200.000, later 600.000 acti­ve sol­di­ers, … (1.5 mil­li­on ger­man sol­di­ers fought in Poland, someo­ne ought to noti­ce the sub­se­quent­ly nee­ded two more req­rui­te­ment pushes, they just have to…))

So just becau­se its “the rus­si­an tal­king point” you cant for­bid peop­le to think along the lines of that men­tal short­cut. Regard­less of if Gor­ba­chev said thats never been what he agreed on in tho­se nego­tia­ti­ons over the unity of Germany.

- Its a war with the west - is cur­r­ent­ly, as we speak, picked up by wes­tern pro­pa­gan­da, as the next war nar­ra­ti­ve, to coun­ter the ger­man peo­p­les reluc­tance of “causing” or sleep­wal­king into world war 3. Becau­se - and now ever­yo­ne repeat the ZDF nar­ra­ti­ve with me - we alrea­dy are in a war with rus­sia. Just a hybrid one. Which we cant fight, becau­se we wouldnt know how to and which we need a strong NATO for to fight for us.

Socie­tal impact: No one fuck­ing belie­ves it.
At least not right now, when the chan­ces for a fro­zen con­flict are as high as never before.

- Rus­sia did it becau­se of the Nazis was never belie­ved haha -

While true in the west after the start of the full sca­le inva­si­on, it was belie­ved in Cri­mea and the Don­bas after 2014. It was one of the, if not the main func­tio­n­ing pro­pa­gan­da nar­ra­ti­ve during the take over of cri­mea. Put fear into peop­le, then res­cue them.

It was more than to be expec­ted, that rus­sia would use this nar­ra­ti­ve again. As it beca­me obvious, that Ukrai­ne didnt exact­ly wan­ted to be res­cued, that nar­ra­ti­ve went out of the win­dow, as the panel cor­rect­ly states.

Socie­tal impact: None in the west

- The­re were Biolabs

Hor­ray, give your self a pay­ment incre­a­se for figu­ring that one out as a rus­si­an pro­pa­gan­da narrative.

Socie­tal impact: None in the west

- No one should lis­ten to Mear­s­hei­mer, becau­se Fio­na “we all need to invent and tell nar­ra­ti­ves, so the rus­si­an nar­ra­ti­ves dont get trac­tion” - quo­te - this video: 

should be lis­tened to ins­tead, becau­se she told us, she is crea­ting tho­se won­der­ful coun­tern­ar­ra­ti­ves, that are nee­ded for a socie­ty in war?

Socie­tal impact: Oh none, in the short term, it just dri­ves the folks insa­ne, that know that thats hap­pe­ning. Becau­se you con­stant­ly tell peop­le, if they dont belie­ve in what Fio­na says - then you are dis­se­mi­na­ting rus­si­an pro­pa­gan­da. Over time, this is a dis­as­ter in the making. Loss of trust, basically.

Oh, and why do I men­ti­on, that I have was­ted one hour here?

Becau­se all of that is low effort.

The thought of some idi­ots that claim, that their job is to detect Rus­si­an disinformation.

I mean this video released 8 days ago as part of the Woo­d­row Wil­son Cen­ter deba­te track.

For this:

- Not one step east­ward didnt exist

Mear­s­hei­mer was can­ce­led by the Hoo­ver insti­tu­ti­on in week two of the full sca­le war.

- The­re were Biolabs

Was a sto­ry NPR repor­ted as fal­se one mon­th into the war.

- We did it becau­se of the Nazis, which no one belie­ved, haha

Was Part of Putins war speech on the day of the start of the war.

- Its a war with the west

Was iden­ti­fied as a rus­si­an myth by the euro­pean com­mis­si­on after one year of war.

By cepa.org in octo­ber of 2022

And “iden­ti­fied” by Ser­gey Kara­ga­nov in April of 2022 one mon­th after the war started.

- Mear­s­hei­mer IS BEST WHEN HE IS CANCELED

Was lay­ed out in week two after the war star­ted. By the Hoo­ver institution.

So what the fuck, if you par­don my french, did your ent­i­re field do for the past two years, and four months?

Tell the public, that coun­ter nar­ra­ti­ves are so important, becau­se rus­sia is a revi­sio­nist, nay neo­co­lo­ni­al [shit the glo­bal south isnt buy­ing this], nay impe­ria­listic power?

Wel­co­me to the world of coun­te­ring rus­si­an disinformation.

Whe­re coun­te­ring the nar­ra­ti­ves wit­hin the ger­man socie­ty almost crea­tes more pro­blems than it solves.

Aber Haupt­sa­che, man kanns heu­te stu­die­ren und hat dann einen Kar­rie­re­pfad vor sich, sag ich immer. Gut, und wenn in dem Stu­di­en­zweig zwei Jah­re und vier Mona­te nichts wei­ter­geht - wäh­rend eines lau­fen­den Kriegs, dann, ehm -- dann ehm, erzäh­len wir uns ein­fach die tol­len Coun­tern­ar­ra­ti­ve die wir uns im Monat eins nach dem Krieg über­legt haben!

Pfiew! Gott­sei­dank hat der Rus­se bis jetzt nicht reagiert, neue­re hät­te näm­lich ein gesam­tes Panel im Woo­d­row Wil­son Cen­ter vor 8 Tagen nicht entdeckt…

Die­ser Rus­se schon wie­der, immer gefin­kelt wie ein Fuchs, bleibt der ein­fach bei sei­nen Nar­ra­ti­ven, die wir bereits vor zwei Jah­ren und vier Mona­ten ent­kräf­tet haben! Der weiss halt noch, dass Repe­ti­ti­on so wich­tig ist, der Rus­se! [Or your ent­i­re sci­en­ti­fic field is shit.]

edit: At 1:06:50, so 3 minu­tes and 40 seconds befo­re the end of the video, the main “here is the struc­tu­re of it” pro­po­nent of the panel starts her “I’m worried that the world is very con­fu­sing, I’m worried about peop­le thin­king, is the­re a truth, is the­re any truth out the­re, can we belie­ve anything that is out the­re that que­si­ton is very […] If you dont belie­ve that the­re is any truth out the­re, your ent­i­re world view, just - it gives up.” spiel. Just ima­gi­ne get­ting that sto­ry told by ano­t­her ame­ri­can, whos never left their coun­try, in their lives (might be true, might be not) and you con­cep­tual­ly get what I’m see­ing here. Give us SIMPLE, old Voice of Ame­ri­ca lady! The audi­ence screams silently.