harlekin.me

in exchan­ge for US mili­ta­ry air­crafts for poland (that part is still being look into).

This is what “give us a no fly zone” was down­si­zed to.

edit: Ulti­mate­ly did­n’t hap­pen, US had legal concerns.

im rus­si­schen Staatsfernsehen.

Und noch­mal die Medi­en Zen­sur die mitt­ler­wei­le auf die Ver­wen­dung der Begrif­fe Angriff, Krieg, und Inva­si­on im Inter­net aus­ge­dehnt wurde.

Issu­es: You are inten­ding to match
- eco­no­mic sanc­tions with
- poli­ti­cal pro­test move­ments over­thro­wing the government in rus­sia with
- “the agen­cy of Ukrai­ni­ans” means, that they can actual­ly win - to get a desi­red outcome.

or you only try to meet
- the agen­cy of Ukrai­ni­ans means, that they can actual­ly win - which, accord­ing to the eco­no­mist in the video would mean, that Rus­sia would have to retract to rus­si­an spea­king are­as in the east - shortterm.

The last one you coin an achie­ve­ment for Ukrai­ni­ans and their agen­cy, but as a result would have rus­sia try­ing to con­tain Ukrai­ne in a fai­led sta­te sta­tus long term…

On the other goals - eco­no­mic sanc­tions take six mon­ths to take any effect, poli­ti­cal move­ments over­thro­wing the government would take a deca­de or two, to take effect, all the while the Ukrai­ne is still “win­ning”, achie­ving free­dom and full­fil­ling their agen­cy of not being a “bloo­d­sta­te” (who­se fate is eit­her deci­ded in Ger­ma­ny, or Russia).

And then when all tho­se things align a deca­de in the future (lets cut some slack and give them a decisi­on 10 years ear­lier), you have rus­sia eco­no­mi­c­al­ly under peril, poli­ti­cal­ly libe­ra­ted, still a coun­try with low for­eign debt and access resour­ces to be used respon­si­b­ly, hig­her yiel­ds in the agri­cul­tu­ral sec­tor, by then a 20 year lag in terms of tech­no­lo­gi­cal deve­lo­p­ment - but you know just the guys to deve­lop it from that point for­ward. The rus­si­an peop­le themselves.

And to get to that point, you com­mit euro­pe to nega­ti­ve -1% to -2% points in GDP growth long term, per­ma­nent­ly hig­her ener­gy pri­ces, a tra­de eco­sys­tem thats pret­ty bifur­ca­ted by then, hig­her depen­den­cy on key resour­ces from fewer sources to get them - added to the poten­ti­al that Chi­na might coor­di­na­te more with Rus­sia in stra­te­gic pla­ning of spe­cia­li­zed mar­kets. And Ukrai­ni­ans to a 10 year civil war (at an incre­a­sing chan­ce of it beco­m­ing more bru­tal out of des­pa­ra­ti­on). And you also cant for­get tra­jec­to­ries for the deve­lo­ping world.

And thats your best case scenario.

Values, per­so­nal agen­cy and free­dom. Is the­re any other sce­n­a­rio I have missed?

Or is this what we are dealing with in the upco­m­ing 10 years, becau­se the US ambassa­dor in Aus­tria also sees it that way?

This time, wit­hin the Ukrai­ne, final­ly (!) with a rough descrip­ti­on of con­tent clas­ses, dis­tri­bu­ti­on pat­terns, as well as coun­ter efforts to get eye wit­ness accounts cir­cu­la­ting (pro­bab­ly using also emo­ti­on based hooks).

While he is tal­king, a text insert is being scrol­led in rea­ding: “Zelen­sky: Nuclear plant attack could have been like six Cher­no­byls”. (BBC News.)

edit: The logic jumps in the state­ments after, to me are more clear­ly pro­pa­gan­da dri­ven. (As in also play to good vs. evil con­cepts.) So bewa­re of that.

edit: Mear­s­hei­mer was now allo­wed to publish an arti­cle in the Eco­no­mist.