harlekin.me

Exper­te: Bis 150.000 Sol­da­ten für Frie­dens­si­che­rung in der Ukrai­ne nötig

Für Minen­räu­mung und ande­re Auf­ga­ben wäre ein hoher Kraft­auf­wand nötig, sagt Oberst Mar­kus Reis­ner. Die Euro­pä­er allei­ne könn­ten eine ent­mi­li­ta­ri­sier­te Zone in der Ukrai­ne nicht sichern.

src: click (Die Presse)

Gut, das muss man ver­ste­hen, die Pres­se wuss­te ja auch dass Russ­lands Eli­te vor Bür­gen­stock nur einen Frie­den anbie­tet, um Selen­skyj dar­an zu hin­dern erfolg­reich einen Frie­dens­gip­fel abzuhalten.

Gehen sie wei­ter, hier gibt und gab es nie etwas zu sehen.

edit: Das ist schon etwas mehr als HTS in Syri­en in guten Jahren…

~31,000 (est. 2017)^[24]
15,000–30,000 (est. 2018)^[25][26]
12,000–15,000 (est. 2020)^[27]
15,000 (est. 2022)^[28]

src: click (Wiki­pe­dia)

Gut, jetzt hat Syri­en aber auch dop­pelt so vie­le Ein­woh­ner wie Österreich.

Hat irgend­wer viel­leicht noch Kaser­nen zu vermieten?

Ukrai­ne tauscht offen­bar Kom­man­deur an kri­ti­schem Front­ab­schnitt aus

Befehls­ha­ber Olex­an­der Luzen­ko stand nach mili­tä­ri­schen Rück­schlä­gen im Osten der Ukrai­ne in der Kri­tik. Laut Medi­en­be­rich­ten wird er nun ersetzt – durch einen sehr bekann­ten Topmilitär.

[…]

Der Kom­man­deur der ukrai­ni­schen Hee­res­grup­pe Donezk, Olex­an­der Luzen­ko, ist nach meh­re­ren emp­find­li­chen Nie­der­la­gen Kiews über­ein­stim­men­den Medi­en­be­rich­ten zufol­ge abge­löst wor­den. Ersetzt wer­de er durch Olex­an­der Tar­naw­skyj, berich­te­te das Inter­net­por­tal »Ukra­jins­ka Praw­da« unter Beru­fung auf eine Quel­le bei den Streitkräften.

Offi­zi­ell wur­de die Neu­be­set­zung bis­lang nicht ver­mel­det. Die Kri­se der ukrai­ni­schen Trup­pen im Osten des Lan­des hat sich in den ver­gan­ge­nen Wochen verschärft.

src: click (Spie­gel)

Naja, nur das Chris­ti­an Broad­cas­ting Net­work in den US.

Künst­le­ri­sche Frei­heit, sie verzeihen.

Die ukrai­ni­sche PR woll­te vor drei Tagen wohl vie­len Chris­ten in den Ver­ei­nig­ten Staa­ten in die See­le sprechen.

Das trump­sche TIME Maga­zi­ne Inter­view kam danach.

edit: Oh, für die ganz Lang­sa­men, nach dem Sich­ten des Vide­os - das ist Frie­dens­prä­si­dent Selen­skyj mit sei­ner Frie­dens­for­mel - deren Teil ja neu­er­dings auch der Sie­ges­plan ist.

Das wie­der­ho­len sie aber jetzt bit­te noch drei­mal selbst lei­se im Geiste…

Der Münk­ler hat gera­de im Schloss Elmau Luxu­ry Spa, vor fünf Tagen her­aus­ge­fun­den, dass Putin zuerst das Azov­sche Meer und spä­ter das Schwar­ze Meer beherr­schen woll­te, und des­halb die Ukrai­ne ange­grif­fen hat -- damit sei der Kon­flikt mit Erdo­gan vorprogrammiert.

Jetzt ist es halt blöd, dass es einen sol­chen Kon­flikt nicht nur nicht gibt, son­dern die Tür­kei sich als neu­tra­ler Mitt­ler geriert, für die USA ein­deu­tig über Gebühr -- siehe:

und Putin extra schnell aus Syri­en abge­zo­gen ist, als die Tür­kei dort regio­na­le Ansprü­che zu ver­fol­gen im Stan­de war. Und der Erdo­gan bei der ers­ten Pres­se­kon­fe­renz zum Syri­en Kon­flikt drein­ge­schaut hat, als wärs ihm stän­dig übel -- aber sonst stimmt eh alles.

Ach­ja, und bis auf das hier…

src: click

Ich sag mal, Haupt­sa­che der Münk­ler kommt in sei­ner Kar­rie­re noch vom “das Schwar­ze Meer wird eine Rol­le gespielt haben” Sager als Kriegs­be­grün­dung für den Ukrai­ne­krieg weg…

Man wecke mich bit­te, wenn Erdo­gan gegen Putin oppor­tu­niert - bis dahin…

Next.

Was für ein selbst­vor­teil­ha­schen­des Aas.

Gut der Spie­gel­re­dak­teur dane­ben ist nicht bes­ser und ergeht sich in einem Schein­nar­ra­tiv nach dem ande­ren, war­um man die west­li­che Welt durch mehr “Truth” resi­li­ent machen müs­se, gegen die Mani­pu­la­ti­on unse­rer Medi­en­nara­ti­ve durch Auto­kra­ti­sche Regime… Da hat er sie ja die Wahr­heit (Trade­mark) - gesagt hat er nichts, aber jetzt wis­sen sies alle - von der deutsch­pra­chi­gen Intel­li­gen­zia des höchs­ten Levels, frisch aus dem Schloss Elmau Luxu­ry Spa --

Putin hat die Ukrai­ne ange­grif­fen, da er sich mit Erdo­gan anle­gen woll­te. Wegen dem put­in­schen Impe­ria­lis­mus, sie ver­ste­hen schon…

Gut und nicht nur mit dem Erdo­gan, der dort die Mon­treux Con­ven­ti­on durch­setzt, son­dern auch unbe­dingt mit Rumä­ni­en (NATO), Bul­ga­ri­en (NATO), der Tür­kei (NATO), Geor­gi­en (so gut wie NATO) und der Ukrai­ne (unwie­der­bring­lich NATO), die ja alle ans schwar­ze Meer gren­zen, bald dann - ich glaub so schnell hab ich noch nie einen Men­schen per­spek­ti­visch die Nato angrei­fen sehen, wie Putin als er sich mit Erdo­gan um die Vor­herr­schaft im schwar­zen Meer strei­ten wollte!

Aber defi­ni­tiv nicht anders rum, also dass die Nato lang­sam Stück für Stück die Staa­ten am Schwar­zen Meer auf­ge­nom­men hat, bis Russ­land dort iso­liert ist und sei­nen wich­tigs­ten Export­ha­fen (40%) und sei­nen wich­tigs­ten Hafen für die Power Pro­jec­tion in die Black Sea, das Mit­tel­meer und Afri­ka ver­liert (alles Fak­ten genannt von einer ukrai­ni­schen Minis­te­rin im Glob­sec Video oben), NEIN!

Die fünf Freun­de - Rumä­ni­en (NATO), Bul­ga­ri­en (NATO), Geor­gi­en (so gut wie NATO) und die Ukrai­ne (unwie­der­bring­lich NATO), woll­ten ja zusam­men mit dem Spre­cher aus den US bei der Glob­sec Kon­fe­renz von oben, die von der Tür­kei durch­ge­setz­te Mon­treux Con­ven­ti­on so sehr ehren, dass sie 5 Mal im obri­gen Video auf der Glob­sec Kon­fe­renz auf die Tür­kei ein­ge­prü­gelt haben, ob sie das noch allei­ne schaf­fe, und war­um sie sich das über­haupt antä­te, und ob ihr nicht lie­ber die NATO unter den Arm grei­fen solle.…

Jaja, so ist der der Münk­ler, kon­ter­fak­tisch - wenn grad prak­tisch. Für die Karriere.

Was für ein Schwein.

Aber gut vor­tra­gen kann er ja.

PS: Da kön­nen sich die rus­si­schen Geo­stra­te­gen gleich drei­mal bekreu­zi­gen, dass die nicht län­ger in Syri­en geblie­ben sind. Bei den Vor­zei­chen vom 8. Dezem­ber auf Elmau…

It is to disap­pe­ar, while you are dri­ving the ent­i­re thing - whenever some folks would want that to happen.

So

- When the pod­cas­ter with the lar­gest fol­lowing in the world says, that he’s afraid - when the US sends rockets into rus­sia, that prompts the ukrai­ni­an PR to make Wla­di­mir Klitsch­ko pro­du­ce a “JOE, WHY YOU BELIEVED IN RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA!” video.

- When the desi­gna­ted US pre­si­dent does the same, four days later in his TIME - 2024 per­son of the year inter­view, its world news and the ent­i­re­ty of euro­pe starts to talk about forming a euro­pean peace for­ce for Ukraine.

- but then when you go into detail - and lis­ten to Micha­el Kof­man in the initi­al video abo­ve, the sto­ry always con­ti­nues on as follows:

- but then in the nego­tia­ti­ons the US will lose all its agen­cy, and will not get what it nee­ded - which we never need to talk about in detail, becau­se Rus­sia will want more. Regard­less of what it is. So then the nego­tia­ti­ons obvious­ly fail, and then Trump will reco­gni­ze that he doesnt get what he wants so easi­ly, and then he will react like a mad­man of cour­se -- and switch his ent­i­re stance to the oppo­si­te, becau­se he likes win­ning so much -

and this will still allow us to pro­long the war, which gives us a chan­ce to put Ukrai­ne back into a more favor­able posi­ti­on and then…

- the ent­i­re plan we fol­lo­wed for two years, just gets post­po­ned by 6 mon­ths, and of cour­se ger­ma­ny has to pay more - becau­se Trump real­ly is the type that will want to pay less.

Whats mis­sing from the ent­i­re­ty of this projection?

Any US agency.

We dont know what they want. We dont know what Rus­sia wants “more” just that it does so, and the­re­fo­re nego­tia­ti­ons will fail. We dont know why Trump will switch posi­ti­ons at that point, just that he does, becau­se he’s that impul­si­ve, but hes not impul­si­ve to that point befo­re, or later, or when it comes to remin­ding the ger­mans, that they have to pay more.

So - now that it is ent­i­re­ly obvious, that Ukrai­ne isnt dri­ving any of this - what is the US position?

What agen­cy does the US have?

Here is the only likely ans­wer in my mind.

Trump wants to end this war.

What he wants doesnt mat­ter. (See also: NZZ 22.11.2024: click)

Becau­se as soon as he talks to Putin about half of his advi­sors will tell him, that he got a bad deal, and he cant pos­si­b­ly want that - and then, why using the rockets that Trump didnt want to use - is just the way out of this, he was loo­king for.

And about 100% of the US Experts that are part of the US for­eign poli­cy estab­lish­ment think, that they - or the situa­ti­on as they repre­sent it, will dri­ve the ent­i­re situa­ti­on back to whe­re it was the past two years, regard­less of Trump or not.

So - when you see the events pro­gres­sing in that sort of way - you can instant­ly think about the substo­ry such a plot would be embed­ded in in some bad novel.

Now we are in the peri­od of strugg­le. The ger­man socie­ty is unsu­re. The media eco­sys­tem is real­ly worried about the future of Ukrai­ne, but dont you worry - the bad, bad Putin will make it impos­si­ble that the nego­tia­ti­ons will be suc­cess­full - and then the true King will see the wrongs of his ways, and under­stand, that he must be King, and act tough - and then he will final­ly beat the evil Ork-Lord, and socie­ty never has to come to terms with the fact, that the ent­i­re media nar­ra­ti­ve so far didnt repre­sent what hap­pen­ed, and in lar­ge parts was dri­ven by US gene­ra­ted “coun­ter naratives”.

So thats the spe­cial power of the US. It has no agen­cy. Ever­y­ti­me it does some­thing, the ent­i­re rea­li­ty just instant­ly chan­ges arround the US posi­ti­on, so that the US just didnt have agen­cy, in the last thing that hap­pen­ed. It just was the obvious thing that would hap­pen. And the­re­fo­re the US posi­ti­on also never has to be explained.

Wether it ist, that US rockets fly­ing into Rus­sia is bad, or if that is just Rus­si­an pro­pa­gan­da, doesnt get deci­ded by the public argu­ment, or the time in the con­flict - it sim­ply gets deci­ded by “when the US picks that as a nar­ra­ti­ve” -- and then it is bad.

When the US comes up with a set of deman­ds, its never that set of deman­ds, that would cau­se nego­tia­ti­ons to fail, or the reac­tions of the mili­ta­ry advi­sors to sub­se­quent coun­ter­c­laims, no its always - that Putin didnt want to talk anyhow.

And when Donald Trump sub­se­quent­ly chan­ges his posi­ti­on again, and goes full Pills­bu­ry Dough­boy on the world sta­ge, and rache­ts up the esca­la­ti­on lad­der, its not becau­se he is unsta­ble, no - it is becau­se that would be whats obvious­ly, likely to hap­pen - and the only way the Ukrai­ne still can get to a favoura­ble posi­ti­on six mon­ths later than hoped, with ger­ma­ny spen­ding more money on it. With the US doing less to sup­port this out­co­me - but its the only way to free­dom, really.

Its not that Ukrai­ne is dri­ving this - becau­se its obvious­ly not --

its just that when the peop­le that dri­ve that in the US get into sto­ry­tel­ling mode -- the ent­i­re world chan­ges around them, just so the US never has any agen­cy - anything that they want. Anything that would be their red lines. It eit­her hap­pens like they want it to - or it was obvious, that it was never meant to be that way anyhow.

Espe­cial­ly when you have someo­ne at the helm who­se decisi­on making is seen as transactional.

And its not just in this case - with a per­son like Trump, its the ent­i­re “this is how it will work in the future” the Ame­ri­can Aca­de­my in Ber­lin pro­mo­ted two days ago:

So -- if the youn­ger peop­le in the US (genz and mil­le­ni­als named) dont want the US to play World Hege­mon, its of cour­se becau­se they never bene­fi­ted from that finan­cial­ly, and they grew up in a dif­fe­rent time, and we told them that brin­ging back indus­try to ame­ri­ca was the solu­ti­on, you real­ly have to under­stand them, and build a who­le new nar­ra­ti­ve on what US for­eign rela­ti­ons are around them. [con­text: click] This is your task as a pro­po­nent of the Ame­ri­can Aca­de­my in Ber­lin, as you open­ly tell every Ber­li­ner that is in the cap­ti­ve audi­ence there.

But then -- when you get an audi­ence ques­ti­on to the effect, that Chi­na real­ly tri­es to dri­ve the “euro­pe divi­ded” gam­bit right now, and that Euro­pe isnt able to end the war on its own, but that the US is always deman­ding deals that are zero sum game (becau­se you have to under­stand, thats Trumps tran­sac­tio­n­al natu­re), and that the US might demand, that Euro­pe has to deci­de bet­ween Chi­na and the US during a peri­od of war the US is just detatching more from --

you of cour­se get the ans­wer, that IF Euro­pe is always try­ing to dri­ve the bar­gain that is best for it, Euro­pa had it com­ing, and the Euro­peans real­ly just have to suf­fer a bit more (so your mil­le­ni­als get bet­ter eco­no­mic con­di­ti­ons, but that you dont men­ti­on of cour­se, becau­se you dont have any agency).

See -- is not the US agen­cy that dri­ves this, its the world forming around the US argu­ment, as soon as it is fixed into posi­ti­on, just so the US real­ly had no agen­cy - this was just the nor­mal way things would develop.

And this is what you call “us for­eign poli­cy”, or deep sta­te, if you are a rightwing nut in the US, or Friends of Alp­bach, if you are in Austria.

The only thing you real­ly have to do is to set up the media nar­ra­ti­ve, so that anything the US does real­ly isnt some­thing the US does, but some­thing that Ukrai­ne has to deci­de, and then not tell the public, that the Ukrai­ne doesnt deci­de shit. And then make the tran­si­ti­ons fast enough to whe­re the public can retain in a “I always belie­ved we should stick with Ukrai­ne” just long enough, for this to make sen­se again -- once you got rid of what your pre­si­dent wan­ted, or what the nego­tia­ti­ons real­ly fai­led on and just remain tel­ling the world, that its all becau­se Putin is a cra­zed being hell­bent on recon­que­ring the rus­si­an empi­re -- with ent­i­re­ly too few tro­ops and tanks for that.

But you see - the only thing we can do - is stick with what we are doing, so Ukrai­ne can get the upper hand again, and then this final­ly can result in a just peace -- with ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty. In the future, through poli­ti­cal means. When Ukrai­ne is in Nato, which sad­ly it should be in alrea­dy, but cant be until Rus­sia is beaten.

You see - this is not US agen­cy (oh, and fuck ger­ma­ny during all of this), no - it is just the logi­cal pro­gres­si­on of things.

And the world once more starts to revol­ve and evol­ve around the only pos­si­ble framing, whe­re the US just had no agency.

Then the US had not­hing to do with the coup in Syria at all - accord­ing to US offi­cials and its next desi­gna­ted pre­si­dent also wants to have not­hing to do with it - but then the US for­eign minis­ter flys into Anka­ra to dis­cuss the situa­ti­on with tur­key - but not into Isra­el, becau­se - see, you real­ly had no agen­cy. It was just logi­cal, that the world revol­ved around you like this, while we have to wait how things will work out for Syria - becau­se of cour­se - we have no agen­cy in any of this, as Syria has a vibrant and vivid civil society.

Also - of cour­se the cau­se for the Syri­an revo­lu­ti­on was Iran, as ever­yo­ne knows, of cour­se, that took a set of bad decisi­ons in octo­ber of 2023 - as the Woo­d­row Wil­son Cen­ter spea­ker fea­tured in the thumb­nail of this video [edit: they chan­ged thumb­nails, more women, more click] will tell us today:

edit: It also hel­ps immen­se­ly if your sworn enemy of the Leo Strauss per­sua­si­on, is ALWAYS dri­ven by per­so­nal agen­cy only. So - hes always cra­zy, corupt, insa­ne, out for reven­ge. Just becau­se its such an attrac­ti­ve emo­tio­nal con­trast to you just having no agen­cy in all of this.

Well, demo­cra­cy pro­mo­ti­on, may­be… - or you are doing it for “suc­cess” if you are real­ly pres­sed for an ans­wer. Or “the­re has to be an adult in the room, and thats the US” as the Woo­d­row Wil­son Cen­ter fel­low puts it in the video abo­ve. Even though Syria has to mana­ge this on its own. Becau­se the US has no agen­cy. And then, when the youn­gest panelist asks you, but how can the US play a role in all of this, becau­se it would just result in a bet­ter out­co­me, you of cour­se ans­wer -- its not that a ques­ti­on of “how can we be a part of this, it is that the cir­cum­s­tan­ces will always draw us in (becau­se - later in the argu­ment, the rus­si­ans could grab power again so easi­ly)”. As we sim­ply have no agency.

Sla­va.

Sla­va Ukraine.

Do I still have to say that? Well, bet­ter safe than sorry, …

Sla­va Ukrai­ne, Glo­ry to our heros.