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.
… 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.”
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!”?
US vows to stop Nord Stream 2 if Russia invades Ukraine
US President Joe Biden has said there is no chance of the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline project going should Russia mount an offensive. Chancellor Olaf Scholz, on his first White House visit in office, was more guarded.
DW.com managed to misrepresent germanys position (several reporters and ankers on record saying that “now the potential reaction from the west and EU countries has become more clear, and unified” in the past days, while none of that was true.). They’ve managed to miss, that there was a difference in positions for the past week. They’ve managed to miss, that the US announced a “common position of the US and the EU” on this unilaterally, thereby suddenly contradicting the german governments public position. They’ve managed to miss, that that was seen as an outrage by people following political reporting on the issue closely. They’ve managed to miss the BBC rebuttal, that indicated, that this wasnt a premedetated move by the US, but only a “mistake”, after the US spoke to some northern european countries, then announcing a common position that never was one. They managed to miss the aggressive nature in the US announcing that statement in todays announcement, again. (Second time in a row isnt a mistake anymore.) They’ve managed to miss asking for further clarification on part of the german government, because the position “its part of a wide range of meassures” doesnt necessarily mean, we state, that we’ll stop it outright, if there is any kind of conflict in the coming days. Not because thats an important distinction in itself necessarily, but because it leaves room for diplomacy after the fact, without pronouncing it a red line - like the US just did, again. Without caring for the european position in the least (as far as I understand france isnt in line with the US announcement either, but some of the founding NATO members within the EU are). With questionable jurisdiction in the matter. They’ve managed to prolong this effing state of “who the f*ck makes european security and energy policy decisions” for over a f*cking week, not do any reporting on it and now present another pressure play from the US in a “manner of fact” way.
What the f*ck?
Past developments layed out, with primary sources linked, in here: click
edit: DW now (a few hours later) is doubling down, instead of admitting their mistake:
The German chancellor came to the White House empty-handed. His hollow reassurances about Germany’s commitment to Ukraine will have done little to convince his critics in Washington, says DW’s Michaela Küfner.
Calling it a missed opportunity, still having no idea that they were wrong in reporting this all the way. Still showing no signs of correcting themselves, or admitting any of it. If you go with the most hawkish trans-atlantic think tank stance, its your best option in todays journalism landscape, by proxy, it seems. At least for DW.com
Its time for another overview on how transatlantic PR works in this case.
1. US teasing, that in case of an attack the North Stream 2 Pipeline would never become active, in an NPR Podcast.
DWs reporting: Rather matter of fact.
2. US, one day later, unilaterally announcing, that there is a joint european position on that Nord Stream 2 would never become active, if any form of invasion would take place. Contradicting the german governments position on the issue, at the time - in a public announcement. Thats after Biden had to be corrected talking about a difference between a smaller and a large form invasion earlier. Because apparently that difference didnt exist from the US’ point of view. (Even though Biden publicly announced it did.) Thats two pretty large scale scandals in a row - that none of the pundits in any of the western media outlets had anything to say about.
DWs reporting: “Finally a unified strategy, and a clear position, we are now seeing consequences emerge”.
3. A day later Germany still not changing their position (Nord Stream 2 will be part of a range of actions, if an invasion takes place.)
DWs reporting: “Still a unified strategy and a clear message, that if there is an invasion North Stream 2 will never become active.”
4. BBC produces a report in which it announces, that there still is severe uncertainty over how europe would proceed in detail in case of an invasion, regarding what would happen to Nordstream 2, and only on that stance - mentioning, that the cause was the US talking to “one northern european alley” and then having announced a unified European and US position.
DWs reporting: None existent.
5. The US repeating the prior made statement - with US journalists questioning the speaker, on what basis those remarks were made, and why the US had the presumption that this would be the unified stance. Journalists are shut down, and not given an answer.
DWs reporting: None existent.
6. By now the german talkshow circuit (Anne Will, …) is filled with coached pundits, that cant talk freely on issues in the Ukraine, but have very prominent talking points, that germany is not pulling its weight, bringing in the gambit of the 5000 helmets delivered to the Ukraine only - which Klitschko was on a press circuit for - but which if looked at closely was fulfilling a demand for supplies the Ukraine had made prior, and then turned around into ridicule to increase public pressure on the german government, prior to the US visit. Ukraine officials later backtracked, and went the potential deniability route of “the number (5000) had been the issue”, and too small, although they didnt specify a number before, just that they needed helmets.
DWs reporting: Germany is being criticised by its allies for not pulling its weight.
7. Scholz announces his talking points for the meeting with Biden prior to the flight.
DWs reporting: By then having switched onto the “Germany is being critiziced for being too inactive, and not providing weapon shipments” beat, with think tank experts featured criticizing germany for “being unclear in their stance towards their allies” - which never was the case, because the gambit used to announce that was now a combination of “Germany doesnt want NS2 to be used as a red line in threatening russia” and germany not delivering weaponry into conflict areas. Both of which were long standing positions, for weeks, at that point.
8. Scholz still using a different wording after the meeting underlining that germanys position hadnt changed. While Biden tries to strong arm the red line position once more, by announcing, that the US - and not its partners, would prevent NS2 from becoming active in case of an invasion.
DWs reporting: NEWSFLASH! Germany is using different wording!
9. DW reporting that the meeting had been a flop, because germany went to the US without making any further concessions coining it as “At every step of the way, Scholz has avoided addressing the issue directly. Instead, he sounds like a broken record churning out the same non-committal statements the public has become accustomed to after his first 62 days in office.”. Not mentioning the 5000 helmets stand in for the criticism in the least, because that only was used as a pressure point prior to the talks, and now has become entirely - useless it seems. As germany hasnt changed position. So… Not an issue anymore, right? Lets just drop reporting, without mentioning, that that was a gambit employed by the Ukraine, reacting outraged at the fulfillment of an actual request made. (You can see that exchange here: click)
DW never admitting the mistake on their part. Never looking at it from the european perspective, never acknowledging, that the US tried to pull a fast one here, … Plainly repeating the narrative, that Scholz had failed in his mission of outlining germanys position. (Which by then had become a failure to merge positions, with the US announcement.). Which at the time it was made, was entirely made up. Just as made up, as the “unified US and european position” on making NS2 a red line, which they reported for two days, without correcting it - and still haven’t corrected up until now.
Also - as DW is entirely relying in their interpretation on think tanks like the German Council on Foreign relations (thats possible?), may be it would be interesting to hear their position on future developments in the matter.
Which is a not so reasonable - Everything short of a war is “very difficult to imagine”.
See:
Lets see on that point, how accurate they turn out to be in the coming weeks. Just know that one thing will remain certain. DW will ask them for their assessment in a daily segment in the future as well - and then model their editorial position somewhere around the statements given.
edit: Just so you know what to think and feel, when talking about this story, the austrian Die Presse also is very helpful in instilling that in you.
Olaf Scholzes press appearance was “bizarre”, because he didnt fulfill hawkish transatlantic thinktank expectations. See: click Its so helpful to always get told what to think and feel, without getting the background on a story.
Attract images in the youtube preroll (what you’d see when you mouse over this video on youtube) for news clips, with three year olds with cardboard weapons in their hands sounding *piew* *piew* *piew* - which is outright heroic, because its the clip for “US troops arrive in Poland to deter & defend”.
Interviews with the people on the streets containing the following sentiment: “Ukraine has been in a state of war since 2014, some of my friends have not returned from the front, and I’m constantly thinking about it, it touches every family - we are not just preparing for an attack, its happening already. We are not preparing for anything, this - is simply our life.”
Ah, the healthy western propaganda. Child with cardboard automatic weapon and red wool beanie, and psychologically instable young women conflating the death of her friends with purpose - even more so, with it being a necessary part of their daily lives, that will prolong into the future. For the nation, for future generations, for the non resolved part of the trauma that is showing…
Ah… That is good TV. What wonderful sentiments. “For freedom” is so abstract compared to that, wheres the human angle on that…
The demonstration to stop russian aggression then is brought to you as the third element of this very informative clip. Wasn’t “on message” enough, I presume… At least they showed clips of people singing the Ukraine anthem with their fist on their heart, thats at least pathos!
Lets go to our correspondent next, ask them some question about how the EU sees this, that no one is asking. But that for some reason also is their thumbnail title.
No need to contextualize what we just showed.
edit: Just for comparisons sake, this is the attract roll CBS put together. Same news story.
edit2: I’ll also drop this here (Additional information (on what drives public sentiments)).
“Gazprom uses its market power by influencing prices through the amount of gas that it supplies to Europe,” energy expert Georg Zachmann from the Brussels-based Bruegel think tank told DW.”
Reasoning:
“There is a kind of competition between the European regulators who are trying to create a market with unified prices and Gazprom which is trying to impose different prices in different countries,” explained Zachmann.
While Gazprom insists that it has honored all its long-term supply commitments, Zachmann said that the company was actually supplying less gas to the market with short-term contracts.
Zachmann said that the short-term market had become increasingly important in recent years because there was an attempt to become less dependent on Gazprom in the long run.
So, that Gazprom and with it russia doesnt want to rely on short term contracting, because it encompasses an attempt to become less dependant on Gazprom overall is… wait for it…
“Gazprom is fulfilling its contracts, that is true, but only at the lowest level of its commitments,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen pointed out recently. She said that other suppliers had increased their deliveries in view of the rapidly rising demand and record prices.
Von der Leyen added that Gazprom was behaving in a strange way, considering that more gas was not being supplied despite high demand. She also told the German daily Handelsblatt that the fact that the company belonged to the Russian state raised doubts as to its reliability.
STRANGEBEHAVIOR considering that not more gas was supplied, given the high demand.
But Gazprom is fulfilling its contracts, thats true.
But this is all raising doubts, because relying on the Russian state raises doubts on reliability overall.
But Gazprom is fulfilling contracts.
Yes, but we expected more than just fulfilling contracts.
While threatening sanctions at the same time.
edit: Short interlude, to dilute the hate in this posting with a little bit of comedy.
And then, when german suppliers finally put in a bigger order a few days ago, Gazprom reports, that capacity on the Ukraine pipeline was booked within a day, and delivery started within a day or two…
But its strange behavior, that it wasn’t more, before that happened.
Because Gazprom was just fulfilling their contracts.
Because of this excellent effing logic, and certainly not because of any alterior motives, UvdL announced the following in the same Interview with the “Handelsblatt”.
If Gazprom were to receive instructions from the Kremlin to stop supplying gas to the EU, there could be significant shortages.
Von der Leyen said that she did not believe it would come to that. Since the Russian economy is so dependent on energy exports, it would not make sense to jeopardize its relationship with its biggest client and investor.
But she told Handelsblatt that the EU and the US were working to increase supplies of liquefied natural gas from Qatar or the US. Negotiations are to take place this coming Monday in Washington DC.
So because we dont believe, that Russia would cause significant shortages of gas supplies in Europe out of their own volition, basically because of the entire economic design of the venture to begin with, the EU now has to work with the US to increase supplies of LNG from Qatar, or the US.
Traders are watching every move by Europe’s top supplier, focusing on how much gas is delivered beyond contracted volumes. Auctions of pipeline capacity for December run next Monday, which will cast a light on whether extra shipments could materialize. Additional bookings may be likely if Gazprom sees progress in the certification of the contentious Nord Stream 2 pipeline, analysts have said.
News article was from November 10th 2021. That was after Gazprom booked pipeline capacity over Ukraine to deliver according to contract obligations.
So lets summerize. Because Europe moved away from long term procurement deals, endangering energy security, while Germany set into action plans to exit from coal and nuclear energy simultaneously, and stopped North Stream 2, on the political level, because of U.S. intervention at the licensing stage, Gazprom stopped to supply spot markets with (by then more expensive) natural gas - at “expected volumes”, expected, because it was the intended goal of the EU to decrease energy dependency on russia, so they went into day trading it in larger volumes, and spot markets instead -- which now has caused UvdL to anounce, that this would have been “strange behavior” of Gazprom - that they didnt just supply the daytrading sector with the same amount as before, and thereby causing questions over russian reliability in the energy procurement sector - while at the same time stating, that the russian economy would falter, if they ever did so (at any extent that would endanger EU energy security), and that it wasnt very likely -- and because of that, its now in the interest of energy supply stability to diversify procurement, and go with LNG from the US or Qatar (who knows, certainly not UvdL), which needs an extension of the LNG infrastructure within the EU, which the EU is backing, but which is usually privately funded (with investment guarantees given out), and only just became interesting for investors in the sector, because of rising gas prices. Oh and that on its own (diversification) will raise effective procurement prices. Also slowing down the sustainable energy transition - which still is the main project of the UvdL presidency, apparently.
No - checks out. Why should journalism report anything else. Or ask any questions.
WAITTHEUKRAINECONFLICT? I THOUGHTITWASRUSSIASUNRELIABILITYONTHESPOTMARKETS! (Because if it wasnt, it would have been EU threats of sanctions, playing a major role, surely…)
AM I GOINGINSANE, ORISITTHEWORLDAROUNDME? (Sh*t they are lying to us!™)
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.
