In Deutschland ist man nirgendwo mehr sicher. Auch das haben wir wohl dieser verantwortungslosen Einwanderungspolitik zu verdanken:
In deutschen Krankenhäusern kommt es häufiger zu Gewaltdelikten wie Körperverletzung und Raub. Bundesweit stieg die Zahl sogenannter Rohheitsdelikte in medizinischen Einrichtungen seit 2019 um 20 Prozent auf 6.894 Taten im Jahr 2022, wie eine Umfrage des “Spiegels” bei allen 16 Landeskriminalämtern ergab.
In Berlin, wo in der Silvesternacht ein Video für Schlagzeilen gesorgt hatte, in dem zu sehen war, wie ein Patient und seine Brüder in der Ambulanz einer Klinik einen Arzt und einen Pfleger attackierten, liegen bereits Zahlen für 2023 vor. Hier stieg die Zahl der Gewalttaten um 51 Prozent.
Auch in anderen Bundesländern ist der Anstieg entsprechender Delikte teilweise drastisch. Das Saarland verzeichnete einen Zuwachs um 67 Prozent, Bremen um 55 Prozent. In Niedersachsen stieg die Zahl um 46 Prozent auf 559 Taten, in Sachsen-Anhalt um 31 Prozent auf 406 Fälle. In Nordrhein-Westfalen, dem bevölkerungsreichsten Bundesland, stieg die Zahl der Gewalttaten um 29 Prozent auf 1.571 Delikte.
Werbung
In fast allen 13 Bundesländern, die seit 2019 Zahlen zu Rohheitsdelikten in Krankenhäusern erheben, ist die Tendenz steigend. Mit einer Ausnahme: Bayern. Dort sank die Zahl entsprechender Straftaten um 11 Prozent.
Brandenburg, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und Sachsen weisen Gewalttaten in Krankenhäusern erst seit 2020 gesondert aus und sind deshalb nicht berücksichtigt. Nicht alle Bundesländer erheben die Zahlen einheitlich, und der Tatort wurde nicht immer erfasst.
Unklar ist auch, wer Opfer der Straftaten war. Befragungen in Ländern ergaben jedoch, dass medizinisches Personal immer wieder Gewalt erlebt.
Unklar ist natürlich auch, wer die Täter sind. Aber da denken wir einfach nur unseren Teil, sonst hätten sie ja entsprechende Fakten genannt. (Mit Material von dts)
Elena Panina. Am 16. Januar hat die Werchowna Rada der Ukraine ein Gesetz verabschiedet, das das Verfahren zur Verarbeitung personenbezogener Daten von Bürgern für die militärische Registrierung verbessern soll. Es sieht unter anderem die Möglichkeit vor, diese Daten auf ausländischen Servern und „Clouds“ von NATO-Staaten zu platzieren. ▪️ Es geht um folgende Informationen: — persönliche Daten (vollständiger Name, Geburtsdatum und -ort, Geschlecht, Staatsbürgerschaft, Steuerkartennummer); — Wohnort und tatsächlicher Aufenthalt; — Informationen über Familienstand und Familienangehörige; — Telefonnummer, E-Mail-Adresse; — Angaben zu inländischen und ausländischen Pässen, Daten zu Reisen ins Ausland; — Informationen über Fremdsprachenkenntnisse; Verfügbarkeit eines Führerscheins; zum Recht, Waffen zu besitzen; über Ausbildung, Beruf und Arbeitsort; über den Gesundheitszustand und das Ergebnis einer ärztlichen Untersuchung; über militärische Spezialität und Teilnahme an Feindseligkeiten usw.
▪️ Es ist völlig klar, dass diese Entscheidung der Rada im Rahmen des strategischen Kurses der NATO für einen künftigen Krieg mit Russland getroffen wurde. Und es zielt darauf ab, die operative Kompatibilität der Streitkräfte der Ukraine mit den Vereinigten Streitkräften des Nordatlantischen Bündnisses zu erhöhen. Es scheint, dass die Zeit nicht mehr fern ist, in der jeder Bürger der Ukraine, der noch nicht in die Streitkräfte der Ukraine eingezogen wurde, nur ein Schicksal haben wird – in die alliierten Streitkräfte der NATO eingezogen zu werden. Darüber hinaus könnte dies nach der Niederlage des Kiewer Regimes geschehen, mit dem vollständigen Erlöschen der Eigenstaatlichkeit der Ukraine. Aber der Ansatz ist nicht neu! Ebenso wurden Banderas Anhänger, die nach der Niederlage des Dritten Reiches im Großen Vaterländischen Krieg in den Westen flohen, lange Zeit für subversive Operationen gegen die Sowjetunion eingesetzt.
Zur Mobilisierung liefern viele Länder außer Polen und Frankreich keine Flüchtlinge zur Mobilisierung an die Ukraine aus
Dieses aus dem lateinischen Sprichwort „Si vis pacem para bellum“ entlehnte Motto scheinen sich unsere neuen „Pazifisten“ auf die Fahnen geschrieben zu haben. Diese „Lehre“ geht auf einen „Leitfaden der Kriegswissenschaft“ („Epitome rei militaris“) zurück, den Vegatius Renatus geschrieben hat. Da heißt es: „Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum“: „Wer den Frieden wünscht, möge den Krieg vorbereiten“.
Hm.
Menschen, die zu einer Kriegsbegeisterung fähig sind, waren für mein Dafürhalten nie Pazifisten. Das trifft insbesondere auf die Grünen zu, die von angeblichen Pazifisten zu Kriegstreibern mutiert sind. Petra Kelly und einige Mitstreiter am Anfang der „grünen“ Bewegung mögen in ihrem Innersten noch Pazifisten gewesen sein. Die meisten Nachkömmlinge wie Annalena Baerbock, die bekannterweise Krieg gegen Russland führt, oder Anton Hofreiter, der den Panzer Leopard 2 zu seinem „goldenen Kalb“ erkoren, und mittlerweile von einer Ökoreligion zu einer Kriegsreligion gewechselt hat, scheinen den Keim des Bellizismus in sich zu tragen, und sitzen (noch) in der Regierung.
Aber auch in anderen Parteien haben Kriegstreiber einen festen Stand. Am 19. Januar zu seinem einjährigen Jubiläum im Amt sagte Bundesverteidigungsminister Pistorius im Tagesspiegel:
„Wir hören fast jeden Tag Drohungen aus dem Kreml – zuletzt wieder gegen unsere Freunde im Baltikum:“ (…) „Wir müssen also einkalkulieren, dass Wladimir Putin eines Tages sogar ein Nato-Land angreift“ (…) „Unsere Experten rechnen mit einem Zeitraum von fünf bis acht Jahren, in denen das möglich sein könnte.“
Seiner Meinung nach müsse die Bundeswehr „kriegstüchtig“ werden, und man müsse „unsere Gesellschaft damit auch wachrütteln“.
Das ist kein „Wachrütteln“ Herr Pistorius, sondern gezielte Angstverbreitung. Es ist nach meiner Auffassung massiver Schwachsinn, zu glauben, dass Frieden durch die Vorbereitung auf einen Krieg entstehen kann.
Auch die von ihm gewünschte „modifizierte Wehrpflicht“, sowie die Stärkung der Bundeswehr mit Soldaten ohne deutschen Pass
„Wir wären nicht die ersten Streitkräfte in Europa, die das tun würden“
sind meines Erachtens Optionen eines Kriegsministers.
Zudem müsse man die Rüstungsindustrie leistungsfähiger machen, meinte dieser von einigen Ewiggestrigen als zukünftiger Bundeskanzler gehandelte Mensch.
Sind das ihre eigenen Gedanken, Herr Pistorius, oder wollen Sie der Erwartungshaltung unserer transatlantischen „Freunde“ mit solchen Kundgebungen entsprechen?
Auch Friedrich Merz (CDU) schlägt in dieselbe Kerbe der Kriegstreiber. Bereits April 2022 sagte der CDU-Vorsitzende zur Bild am Sonntag:
„Im Rückblick müssen wir leider feststellen: Alle Verteidigungsminister der letzten 20 Jahre haben bei Ausrüstung und Zustand der Truppe falsche Entscheidungen getroffen.“ (…) „Die gesamte deutsche Außen- und Sicherheitspolitik der letzten 20 Jahre steht vor einem Scherbenhaufen. Wenn dieser Krieg vorüber ist, müssen wir sorgfältig analysieren, wie es dazu kommen konnte.“
Aus Sicht des CDU-Bundesvorsitzenden hätte es spätestens 2014 nach der Besetzung der Krim „eine massive Sanktionierung und Isolierung Russlands gebraucht“.
Merz warnte vor einer Ausweitung des Ukraine-Russland-Konflikts, sollte die Ukraine nicht ausreichend militärisch unterstützt werden:
„Gerade die Verweigerung von schweren Waffen macht die Eskalation und Ausweitung dieses Krieges immer wahrscheinlicher“ (…) „Die letzten Jahre haben gezeigt: Putin macht immer weiter, wenn er nicht gestoppt wird.“
Und Herr Merz, Herr Pistorius, Frau von der Leyen, Frau Baerbock, Herr Hofreiter, Frau Strack-Zimmermann und alle anderen Kriegstreiber: Was haben die umfangreichen Lieferungen schwerer Waffen in die Ukraine außer der Verdreifachung von Aktienkursen wie z.B. von Rheinmetall gebracht? Eine Ausweitung der Eskalation und des Leids insbesondere der ukrainischen Bevölkerung, die unter anderem auch euren bellizistisch verseuchten Gehirnen geschuldet ist.
Und für solche Denk- und Verhaltensweisen werden kriegstreiberische Menschen im Weltkasperle-Theater auch noch geehrt. Der ukrainische Präsident Wolodymyr Selenskyj verlieh den deutschen „Politikern“ Annalena Baerbock, Anton Hofreiter und Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann Anfang Januar 2024 Verdienstorden. Die zwei Grünen-Politiker und die FDP-Politikerin wurden für ihren „besonderen Einsatz für das ukrainische Volk“ ausgezeichnet. Ist es wirklich ein besonderer Verdienst, einen Krieg – der mittlerweile fast zwei Jahre dauert, und bereits nach sechs Wochen am Verhandlungstisch in Istanbul hätte beendet werden können, wenn der Westen dazu „bereit“ gewesen wäre, und mittlerweile mehr als 500,000 Opfer auf beiden Seiten zu beklagen hat – am Leben zu erhalten? Meines Erachtens das krasse Gegenteil von einem Verdienst: ein Verschulden!
32 ausländischen Personen verlieh Selenskyj einen Verdienstorden, da sie „einen bedeutenden persönlichen Beitrag zur Stärkung der zwischenstaatlichen Zusammenarbeit, zur Unterstützung der staatlichen Souveränität und territorialen Integrität der Ukraine“ geleistet hätten.
„Im längsten Frieden spricht der Mensch nicht so viel Unsinn und Unwahrheit wie im kürzesten Kriege. “ Jean Paul
Auch Exaußenminister Joschka Fischer meldete sich bei der Augsburger Allgemeinen zu Wort. Nachfolgend ein paar Auszüge und Stichworte aus diesem – im Zusammenhang mit Donald Trumps möglicher Wiederwahl geführten – Interview.
Augsburger Allgemeine:
„Worauf müssen wir uns genau vorbereiten? Was würde Trumps Wiederwahl für uns bedeuten?“
Fischer:
„Trump ist ein großer „Freund“ Deutschlands – das meine ich natürlich ironisch. Ich weiß nicht warum, aber uns „liebt“ er besonders. Wir müssen uns also sowohl wirtschaftlich als auch sicherheitspolitisch auf einiges gefasst machen. Deshalb wird es Zeit, dass wir aufwachen und unserer Verantwortung gerecht werden. Der wichtigste Beitrag, den Deutschland leisten kann, ist, dass wir unsere Sicherheit stärker in die eigenen Hände nehmen. Das heißt: Wir müssen verstärkt aufrüsten. Ich hätte es mir im Leben nicht träumen lassen, dass ich mit 75 Jahren einmal einen solchen Satz sage. Aber die Welt hat sich geändert. Es ist kein Ausweis von Klugheit, an der eigenen Meinung festzuhalten, wenn sich die äußeren Bedingungen wandeln.“
Ein wahrlich kluger letzter Satz. Aber ich vermute, Herr Fischer, auch Sie lieben Deutschland nicht sonderlich, wie diverse Zitate von Ihnen belegen.
(…)
Die Augsburger Allgemeine weiter:
„Viele hatten gehofft, dass der Überfall des russischen Präsidenten auf die Ukraine uns sicherheitspolitisch erwachsen werden lässt. Ist das nicht geschehen?“
Fischer:
Ein Stück weit ist das gelungen. Aber die versprochenen 100 Milliarden Euro, die die Zeitenwende bringen soll, sind eben nur der Anfang. Wir sind noch lange nicht am Ziel. In Zeiten des Kalten Krieges hat Deutschland drei bis vier Prozent seiner Wirtschaftsleistung in die Verteidigung investiert.
Augsburger Allgemeine:
„Jetzt schaffen wir nicht einmal 2 Prozent, das Versprechen an die Nato…“
Fischer:
„Das ist eine Folge der Politik von Angela Merkel. Und dabei geht es mir nicht um Schuldzuweisungen. Wir müssen die Zeichen der Zeit erkennen: Trump ist für uns ein Sicherheitsrisiko, in der Ukraine tobt ein Krieg, genauso im Nahen Osten. Wir können nicht einfach nur auf das Gute im Menschen vertrauen, das funktioniert nicht. Es gab gute Gründe, warum die Deutschen zu Pazifisten geworden sind, nicht dass man mich da falsch versteht. Aber die Zeit hat sich so radikal geändert, dass es sträflich wäre, wenn wir uns nicht darauf einstellen würden.“
Ja, „es gab gute Gründe, warum die Deutschen zu Pazifisten geworden sind (und das auch bleiben sollten, Anmerkung des Verfassers)“,
meinte Fischer und für die „harten Sachen“ seien nach dem Weltkrieg die Amerikaner zuständig gewesen, Deutschland hätte sich eine pazifistische Grundhaltung leisten können, aber diese Haltung funktioniere nicht mehr, meinte der im Ruhestand lebende Exaußenminister.
„Es ist eine massive Aufrüstung nötig. Glauben Sie mir, das ist nichts, was mir gefällt. Ich würde das Geld gerne anders ausgeben. Aber es ist ein Muss! Wir können Wladimir Putin nicht mehr vertrauen,“ so Fischer.
Das ganze, durchaus interessante Interview, das auch andere Themenkreise ansprach, können Sie sich unter
Nun, man mag Putin nicht vertrauen. Ich halte jedoch Putin für nicht so dumm, beispielsweise Deutschland angreifen zu wollen. Massive Aufrüstung ist in meinen Augen eindeutig der falsche Weg. Im Gegenteil, Deutschland sollte eher Signale der Abrüstung senden, oder den Status Quo beibehalten. Ich glaube nach wie vor, dass Putin an einer guten Beziehung mit Deutschland interessiert ist, was aber den USA ein Dorn im Auge ist. Herrn Fischer würde ich im Gegensatz zu Herrn Pistorius, Frau Baerbock, Herrn Hofreiter, Herrn Merz und dergleichen nicht als Kriegstreiber bezeichnen. Dennoch schürt er für mein Dafürhalten durch seine Aussagen die Angst vor einem möglichen Krieg. Für einen astreinen Pazifisten halte ich ihn ohnedies nicht, da der 1999 frisch ins Amt gekommene Außenminister Joschka Fischer den ersten Kriegseinsatz der Bundeswehr im Kosovo mit Verweis auf „Nie wieder Auschwitz“ rechtfertigte. Angesichts „ethnischer Säuberungen“ durch Serbiens Präsident Milosevic bereitete die NATO einen Militäreinsatz vor. Auch Joschka Fischer sah keine Alternative.
Fazit:
Krieg heißt es, wenn junge Menschen, die sich nicht hassen und nicht kennen, gegenseitig töten, weil ältere Menschen, die sich hassen und kennen – meist aus niedrigen Beweggründen – das so wollen. Unschuldige werden von diesen macht- und geldgierigen Ungeheuern in die Hölle geschickt.
„Der Mensch wird in Kriegen eingesetzt, im Kampf gegen einen Feind gehetzt, da kämpft er dann, o wie dumm und weiß nicht einmal warum.“ Monika Kühn-Görg
Normal tickende Menschen wollen keinen Krieg. Es sind die Regierungen, bzw. die Drahtzieher hinter diesen Marionettenkabinetten mit ihren Politdarstellern, die Kriege schüren, und so unsägliches Leid verursachen. Es ist nicht ihr Blut, das fließt.
Das Buch „Im Westen nichts Neues“ von Erich Maria Remarque beschreibt die Schrecken des Ersten Weltkriegs aus der Sicht eines jungen Soldaten.
„Ich dachte immer, jeder Mensch sei gegen den Krieg, bis ich herausfand, dass es welche gibt, die dafür sind. Besonders die, die nicht hineingehen müssen.“ (Erich Maria Remarque, deutscher Schriftsteller, 1898 – 1970)
Da ist was dran, nicht wahr Frau Baerbock, Frau von der Leyen, Herr Hofreiter, Frau Strack-Zimmermann, Herr Pistorius, Herr Merz und Gleichgesinnte, oder haben Sie ihre Kinder schon in die Ukraine oder nach Israel geschickt?
Durch Machenschaften wie die eurigen wird die Welt an den Rande eines Weltkriegs gebracht.
„Wenn die Führenden der Welt unbedingt diese in einen neuen all umfassenden Krieg stürzen wollen, so sollen sie doch diesmal alleine kämpfen! Nicht die Völker der Welt sind es die keine Lösungen zur Menschlichkeit finden, es sind Politiker des Kapitals die dies nicht wollen!“ Magnus Archivarius
Wollt ihr Kriegstreiber möglicherweise deshalb den Krieg, weil ihr für den Frieden zu dumm seid?
Wenn euch der Beitrag gefallen hat, bitte wieder teilen. Danke dafür Euch eine angenehme Zeit.
Noch ein privates Anliegen, werte Leserinnen, werte Leser,
in diesem Blog, den ich alleine ohne jede fremde Unterstützung – inhaltlich wie finanziell – betreibe, steckt mein Herzblut. Ich möchte meine diesbezügliche – meines Erachtens nutzbringende – Aktivität keinesfalls einschränken. Der Zeitaufwand hierfür reduziert jedoch meine Möglichkeiten für den Broterwerb. Für eine Spende wäre ich Ihnen sehr dankbar.
Spendenkonto:
Uwe Froschauer
IBAN: DE48 7015 0000 0077 1159 54
BIC: SSKMDEMMXXX
Wenn Sie bei der Überweisung im Vermerk „Spende“ eingeben, wäre das sehr hilfreich für eine korrekte Zuordnung.
In yet another successful Houthi coup a US chemical tanker sailing from Saudi Arabia to Kuwait came under attack. President Joe Biden has admitted that the US blasts have not stopped the Houthis, and WILL NOT stop them, but said their own bombing and genocide support will continue.
The Ansar Allah movement (Houthis) have survived a nine year war and naval blockade by Saudi colonists, backed and directed by the US and suffered an estimated 77,000 deaths, and have militant solidarity with Palestinians suffering US backed Israeli genocide.
The Houthis ship attacks have so far reportedly NOT KILLED ANYONE while the US/UK replies have reportedly killed dozens in Yemen.
The attack Wednesday and another on Monday, Tuesday, and Thursday targeted U.S. owned ships, apparently in defiance of the U.S. led strikes conducted last Thursday and an additional three mass bombing attacks by the U.S./UK since then.
U.S. owned bulker Genco Picardy hit by Houthi droneLess than a day after the latest series of US-led airstrikes on Yemen, the Houthis targeted yet another American ship with naval missiles, Saree said in a televised address on Thursday, claiming the attack resulted in “direct hits.”
“The Yemeni Armed Forces confirm that a retaliation to the American and British attacks is inevitable, and that any new aggression will not go unpunished,” he declared.
The Ansar Allah Houthi army have a a long history of developing their own drones and missiles during the 9 year resistance to the US backed Saudi colonial war.
The M/V Chem Ranger, looking the worse for wear.- Houthi militants in Yemen have carried out a missile strike on the US-owned tanker Chem Ranger in the Gulf of Aden, the group’s spokesman Brigadier General Yahya Saree has claimed.
In fact the Houthi drone attacks on the Saudi military across 1000’s of kms were a big factor in finally blocking and defeating the Saudis from installing their candidate Hadi as president, and this despite US technical bombing aid and the Saudi purchase of up to $100 billion in US armaments.
Despite 4 nights already of bombing the US/UK have not stopped the Houthi blockade attacks in defense of Gaza, which is not surprising, as the Saudis could not find their missiles in 9 years of war.
On Monday, Houthi rebels struck another U.S.-owned ship in the Gulf of Aden.– the Gibraltar Eagle, causing a fire, but the vessel remains seaworthy, according to Sky News.
The ZOGRAFIA en route to Israel
16th Jan 24.. Yemen’s Houthis target the ship «Zografía» headed to IsraelM/V Zografia, a Maltese-flagged bulk carrier reported they were struck but still seaworthy, the MT Zografia sustained material damage, but there were no injuries after it was hit near the Yemeni Red Sea port of Saleef,
The US Central Command has confirmed the incident, but reported no injuries . The Ansar Allah Houthi movement, the de facto Yemen government, rebels “launched two anti-ship ballistic missiles at M/V Chem Ranger, a Marshall Island-flagged, US-owned, Greek-operated tanker ship,” CENTCOM posted on X (formerly Twitter), stating that the ship continued its journey after the “crew observed the missiles impact the water near the ship.”
The Yemeni militants have carried out dozens of drone and missile attacks in the region since the beginning of the war in Gaza, vowing to continue targeting Israeli-linked vessels until the blockade of Gaza is lifted, and the killing of Palestinians is stopped.
The increased risks faced by ships in the Red Sea have forced the world’s biggest freight firms to avoid the Suez Canal and sent insurance costs soaring. Instead of Suez – the quickest cargo route from Asia to Europe – many vessels are now diverting round the Cape of Good Hope, incurring higher expenses on fuel, maintenance and wages.
The US reacted by leading airstrikes on Yemen last Thursday, as part of the so-called Operation Prosperity Guardian – an international maritime coalition with the stated goal of protecting commercial shipping.
While US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby claimed the airstrikes had a “good effect,” a New York Times report alleged that the majority of Houthi military assets remained functional.
Today– WASHINGTON, Jan 18 (Reuters) – The Iran-backed Houthi militia launched two anti-ship ballistic missiles at a U.S.-owned tanker ship late on Thursday that hit the water near the vessel but…
In an interview with Russian newspaper Izvestiya published on Friday, Muhammad al-Buheiti – a member of the Houthi politburo – stated that “Israeli ships or those in any way connected with Israel will not have the slightest opportunity to sail through the Red Sea. The attacks on them will continue.”
“As for all other countries, including Russia and China, their ships will not be threatened,” al-Buheiti added. He insisted that the Houthis are prepared to provide “security guarantees for their safe passage through the Red Sea because free navigation plays a significant role in our country.”
Al-Buheiti stressed that the militants’ aim is not to capture or sink any particular ship, but rather “to raise the economic costs for the Jewish state to stop the carnage in Gaza.”
US attacks on Yemen aimed at guarding Israel, not world – Ansarallah
Yemen’s Ansarullah movement has condemned in the strongest terms the “unjustified” US airstrikes on the Yemeni territory, saying they’re aimed at “guarding Israel, not the world.”
Mohammed Abdulsalam, the Ansarullah spokesman, made the comment in an interview with Reuters.
The United States and Britain launched airstrikes on Yemen on January 12 in what they called an intervention to protect international shipping in the Red Sea.
“What the Yemeni people did, in the beginning, was to target Israeli ships heading to Israel without causing any human or even significant material losses, just preventing ships from passing as a natural right,” Abdulsalam said.
“We imposed rules of engagement in which not a single drop of blood was shed or major material losses.”
“It represented pressure on Israel only, it did not represent pressure on any country in the world.”
The Yemeni official said the US intervention has further escalated the situation and that the movement will continue to respond to the US attacks.
“Now, when America joined in and escalated the situation further, there is no doubt that Yemen will respond.”
“The strikes on Yemen, from our perspective, are a blatant violation of Yemen’s sovereignty and a serious aggression against the Yemeni people,” Abdulsalam said.
Yemen, he added, does not intend to expand the attacks on shipping in and around the Red Sea beyond their stated aim of blockading Israel and retaliating against the United States and Britain for airstrikes.
“We do not want the conflict to expand in the region, and we are still working on non-escalation, but the decision is up to the Americans, as long as they continue to attack.”
The Yemeni official said the decision to target Israeli-linked ships was a response to popular demands. “It came after great popular pressure not only in Yemen but in the region, demanding that the governments of the region and their leaders take a position towards the Palestinians facing a genocidal campaign.”
Referring to the Persian Gulf’s Arab countries, the Yemeni official said Ansarullah calls on them “to reject the militarization of the Red Sea or the presence of military forces inside the region.”
Abdulsalam said the Yemenis have made their own decisions in the conflict and do not take orders from Tehran, though they maintain a close relationship.
Ein zweischneidiges Schwert. Auf der einen Seite kann man als arbeitender deutscher Steuerzahler wohl kaum Verständnis dafür haben, dass so viele junge Männer hier in Deutschland durchgefüttert werden müssen. Auf der anderen Seite möchte man natürlich auch nicht, dass Selenski sie als Kanonenfutter für den russischen Gegner verheizt.
Die CDU hat damit aber offensichtlich kein Problem:
Nach Angaben des Bundesinnenministeriums halten sich offiziell rund 190.000 Männer aus der Ukraine im wehrfähigen Alter zwischen 18 und 60 Jahren in Deutschland auf. Seit dem 24. Februar 2022, dem Beginn der russischen Offensive, waren insgesamt 221.571 ukrainische Männer im wehrfähigen Alter nach Deutschland gekommen, ein Teil hat das Land wieder verlassen, berichtet die “Welt am Sonntag”. “Ich habe kein Verständnis dafür, dass sich wehrfähige ukrainische Männer in Deutschland der Verteidigung ihres Landes entziehen”, sagte der CDU-Verteidigungspolitiker Roderich Kiesewetter der Zeitung.
Nicht jeder müsse an die Front, das gehe auch durch Engagement in der Pflege Verwunderter, im Katastrophenschutz oder an anderer Stelle. “Viele der Ukrainer, die man hier sieht, machen einen robusten Eindruck”, sagte der Bundestagsabgeordnete und Generalstabsoffizier außer Dienst. “Rechnet man ihre Zahl hoch, fehlen der ukrainischen Armee allein durch jene Staatsbürger, die sich in Deutschland aufhalten, acht bis zehn Divisionen.”
Angesichts der Verluste an der Front fällt es der Regierung in Kiew zunehmend schwer, verwundete oder getötete Soldaten zu ersetzen. Zu den offiziell erfassten 189.484 Männern kommen nach Schätzungen bis zu 100.000 männliche Ukrainer unter 60 Jahren hinzu, die illegal hierzulande leben. “Dass die Bundesregierung oder die zuständigen Oberlandesgerichte Kriegsdienstverweigerer ausweisen, halte ich für wenig wahrscheinlich, die Folge wäre, dass die Betroffenen Asylanträge stellen”, sagte Verteidigungspolitiker Kiesewetter.Werbung
“Ich appelliere an das Gewissen und den Patriotismus der wehrfähigen Ukrainer in Deutschland: Helfen Sie ihrem Land.” Andrej Hunko, bislang Bundestagsabgeordneter der Linken und nun beim Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht, hält dem entgegen: “Je länger dieser Krieg dauert, desto mehr kriegsunwillige Ukrainer wird es geben. Wir dürfen sie nicht zwingen, in einem Abnutzungskrieg an der Front ihr Leben zu riskieren.”
Die Bundesregierung beziehe sich derzeit auf das Europäische Auslieferungsübereinkommen von 1957, das Auslieferung bei Desertion ausschließe. Das Bundesinnenministerium stellte dazu gegenüber der Zeitung klar: “Über die Zulässigkeit einer Auslieferung entscheiden die Oberlandesgerichte. Die Bundesregierung respektiert deren Unabhängigkeit und äußert sich daher nicht diesbezüglich.”
Bitte wie? Die Bundesregierung respektiert die Unabhängigkeit der Gerichte? Hat hier jemand einen Clown gefrühstückt. Sind die Staatsanwälte etwa nicht weisungsgebunden und die Richter alle recht regierungstreu?
Und es bleibt die Frage, wie viele Russen im wehrfähigen Alter hier in Deutschland eigentlich leben und ob die auch zurück an die Front werden können. (Mit Material von dts)
One of my current X followers posted earlier today:
“I am against the Ukraine war from the very beginning (mainly because for the first time a foreign war can actually get ME killed with Russia’s missiles), but at this point I also think we can’t just let Russia win which means we lose and that would mean a lot of negative things.”
I will not speak to his fears of «Russia’s missiles», except to say I am convinced Russia will not strike anyone that hasn’t done something to provoke it in a manner that warrants such a response — at least not so long as the Putin regime remains in charge.
In any case, Russia WILL win this war. Decisively. She will dictate the terms of its cessation. Russia will emerge from this war significantly more powerful than she was just two years ago, and on a trajectory to become even more powerful in coming years.
«… the Russian armed forces, fighting on their own ground, on and under their adjacent seas, and in the air above their spheres of control, constitute the most potent and battle-hardened military force on the planet.»
As for the US empire’s European vassals: at no point in the last 500 years has Europe been more militarily, politically, socially, and spiritually debilitated. If the entire current military capacity of Europe were combined, it would not stand a chance of defeating Russia in a war. Rather, it would be systematically and comprehensively slaughtered.
And, as I have argued in crescendo over the past several years, the long-pervasive belief in American military supremacy is a myth; a mirage; a fallacious narrative fashioned from fables and Hollywood films.
The US military has not won a war since WW2. They have mercilessly bombed the crap out of many smaller, weaker countries, killed millions of people, and yet never once achieved strategic victory.
Not since WW2 have they faced anything even faintly approximating high-intensity warfare.
Indeed, never at any time in history has the US military fought against a great power adversary at the height of its strength.
And now, here in 2024, the US military has never been in a more weakened state relative to any of its potential great power adversaries — namely, Russia, China, and Iran.
Iranian Shahed-238 loitering cruise missiles, three variants.
As I repeat often, I am convinced the failed US/NATO proxy war against Russia in Ukraine will produce the following results:
— It will greatly accelerate the decline of the American Empire.
— NATO will cease to be a credible military/political alliance.
— The EU will cease to be a credible monetary/political alliance.
And, as the broken hegemon rapidly recedes, political, economic, and social chaos is certain to engulf much of the world as the major and minor players on the planet scramble to secure their respective spheres of influence and establish new centers of global and regional power.
FYI: Over the life of this blog, a few generous people have pledged some money to support it. But I have never required a paid subscription to read my stuff. And I still won’t. However, I have now “enabled” subscriptions purely as a means by which, if people are so inclined, they may support me with whatever amount they so choose. I also include a “Tip Jar” link in every post, if you’d like to go that route. But you don’t have to if you don’t want to. It’s purely voluntary. Everyone will still be able to read everything I write.
For all of you who have previously pledged to support this blog, I express my genuine gratitude. I hope my writing has been informative in some small manner and aided you in your quest to understand our crazy world a little better.
” Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050, – in this supposedly “civil” strategy – are multiple statements about addressing “civil and military nuclear ambitions” together to “identify opportunities to align the two across government”.
Some pesky British scientists have gone badly off script – the naughty troublemakers. Andy Stirling and Philip Johnstoneshould be talking about the wonderful ability of the nuclear industry to fix climate problems and energy needs.
But dammit, these guys don’t seem to understand which side their bread is buttered on. They have blatantly explained what the UK government has quietly acknowledged – THE REAL REASON FOR THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY.
The industry is not economic, not clean, not healthy,not safe, not effective against global heating, - BUT – it provides a good, respectable cover for continuing to use tax-payer to prop up the killing industry - nuclear weapons.
We probably all knew this, underneath. But it is obscured by some comfortable fantasy that we are safer “protected” by mass-killing weapons, than by friendship, understanding, negotiating, with other nations. By the fantasy that “strong” (though stupid) governments care about our survival. The reality is that those in power in government just want to hang on to their prestigious jobs and hope that the bad stuff doesn’t happen until after they retire. In the meantime they’ve got the support of the killing industries and macho military.
Stirling, Johnstone, and also Jonathon Porritt have publicised what the government rather quietly admitted:
” Civil Nuclear: Roadmap to 2050, – in this supposedly “civil” strategy – are multiple statements about addressing “civil and military nuclear ambitions” together to “identify opportunities to align the two across government”.
Jonathon Porritt is probably already persona non grata with the authorities. As for Stirling and Johnstone – telling the truth is probably not a good career move.
On February 20, Julian Assange, the daredevil publisher of WikiLeaks, will be going into battle, yet again, with the British justice system – or what counts for it. The UK High Court will hear arguments from his team that his extradition to the United States from Britain to face 18 charges under the Espionage Act of 1917 would violate various precepts of justice. The proceedings hope to reverse the curt, impoverished decision by the remarkably misnamed Justice Jonathan Swift of the same court on June 6, 2023.Advertisement
At this point, the number of claims the defence team can make are potentially many. Economy, however, has been called for: the two judges hearing the case have asked for a substantially shortened argument, showing, yet again, that the quality of British mercy tends to be sourly short. The grounds Assange can resort to are troublingly vast: CIA-sponsored surveillance, his contemplated assassination, his contemplated abduction, violation of attorney-client privilege, his poor health, the violation of free-speech, a naked, politicised attempt by an imperium to capture one of its greatest and most trenchant critics, and bad faith by the US government.
Campaigners for the cause have been frenzied. But as the solution to Assange’s plight is likely to be political, the burden falls on politicians to stomp and drum from within their various chambers to convince their executive counterparts. In the US Congress,House Resolution 934, introduced on December 13 by Rep. Paul A. Gosar, an Arizona Republican, expresses “the sense of the House of Representatives that regular journalistic activities are protected under the First Amendment, and that the United States ought to drop all charges against and attempts to extradite Julian Assange.”
The resolution sees a dramatic shift from the punishing, haute view taken by such figures as the late Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, who was one of the first political figuresto suggest that Assange be crucified on the unsteady timber of the Espionage Act for disclosing US cables and classified information in 2010. The resolution acknowledges, for instance, that the disclosures by WikiLeaks “promoted public transparency through the exposure of the hiring of child prostitutes by Defense Department contractors, friendly fire incidents, human rights abuses, civilian killings, and United States use of psychological warfare.” The list could be sordidly longer but let’s not quibble.
Impressively, drafters of the resolution finally acknowledge that charging Assange under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) for alleged conspiracy to help US Army intelligence analyst Chelsea (then Bradley) Manning access Defense Department computers was a fabled nonsense. For one, it was “impossible” – Manning “already had access to the mentioned computer.” Furthermore, “there was no proof Mr Assange had any contact with said intelligence analyst.”
Ire is also directed at the espionage counts, with the resolution noting that “no other publisher has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act prior to these 17 charges.” A successful prosecution of the publisher “would set a precedent allowing the United States to prosecute and imprison journalists for First Amendment protected activities, including the obtainment and publication of information, something that occurs on a regular basis.”
Acknowledgment is duly made of the importance of press freedoms to promote transparency and protect the Republic, the support for Assange, “sincere and steadfast”, no less, shown by “numerous human rights, press freedom, and privacy rights advocates and organizations”, and the desire by “at least 70 Senators and Members of Parliament from Australia, a critical United States ally and Mr Assange’s native country” for his return.
REPORT THIS AD
Members of Australia’s parliament, adding to the efforts last September to convince members of Congress that the prosecution be dropped, have also written to the UK Home Secretary, James Cleverly, requesting that he “undertake an urgent, thorough and independent assessment of the risks to Mr Assange’s health and welfare in the event that he is extradited to the United States.”
The members of the Bring Julian Assange Home Parliamentary Group drawCleverly’s attention to the recent UK Supreme Court case of AAA v Secretary of State for the Home Department which found “that courts in the United Kingdom cannot just rely on third party assurances by foreign governments but rather are required to make independent assessments of the risk of persecution to individuals before any order is made removing them from the UK.
It follows that the approach taken by Lord Justices Burnett and Holroyde in USA v Assange [2021] EWHC 3133 was, to put it politely, a touch too confident in accepting assurances given by the US government regarding Assange’s treatment, were he to be extradited. “These assurances were not tested, nor was there any evidence of independent assessment as to the basis on which they could be given and relied upon.”
The conveners of the group point to Assange’s detention in Belmarsh prison since April 2019, his “significant health issues, exacerbated to a dangerous degree by his prolonged incarceration, that are of very real concern to us as his elected representatives.” They also point out the rather unusual consensus between the current Australian Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, and his opposition number, Peter Dutton, that the “case has gone on for too long.” Continued legal proceedings, both in the UK, and then in the US were extradition to take place “would add yet more years to Mr Assange’s detention and further imperil his health.”
In terms of posterity’s calling, there are surely fewer better things at this point for a US president nearing mental oblivion to do, or a Tory government peering at electoral termination to facilitate, than the release of Assange. At the very least, it would show a grudging acknowledgment that the fourth estate, watchful of government’s egregious abuses, is no corpse, but a vital, thriving necessity.
The new Roadmap reads like an outing to a massive nuclear sweet shop. On top of Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, we’ll have one more big one. And then we’ll have lots of Small Modular Reactors, all over the country. And we’ll have a new fuel processing plant. And a new Geological Disposal Facility – at some much more distance point. And so on and on. 24 fantastical Gigawatts to be designed and delivered by 2050.
Jonathon Porritt, 18 Jan 24
After 14 years of Tory mismanagement, the UK finds itself bereft of an energy strategy.Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD
This was finally confirmed in the release last week of the Government’s new Nuclear Roadmap. At one level, it’s just the same old, same old, the latest in a very long line of PR-driven, more or less fantastical wishlists for new nuclear in the UK. But at another, it’s a total revelation.
For years, a small group of dedicated academics and campaigners have suggested that the UK Government’s Nuclear Energy Strategy is being driven more by the UK’s continuing commitment to an “independent” nuclear weapons capability than by any authoritative energy analysis. For an equal number of years, this was aggressively rebutted by one Energy Minister after another, both Tory and Labour.
The new Nuclear Roadmap dramatically changes all that. It sets to one side any pretence that the links between our civil nuclear programme and our military defence needs were anything other than small-scale – and of no material strategic significance. With quite startling transparency and clarity, the Roadmap not only reveals the full extent of those links, but positively celebrates that co-dependency as a massive plus in our ambition to achieve a Net Zero economy by 2050.
“Startling” is actually an understatement. Such a comprehensive volte-face is rare in policy-making circles. Every effort is usually made by Ministers to obscure the scale (let along the significance) of any such screeching handbrake turns. That is so not the case with the new Roadmap.
Courtesy of the latest forensic work done by Professors Andy Stirling and Phil Johnstone at Sussex University (who have been absolutely at the forefront of seeking to bring these links into the public domain over many years – often with mighty little support from mainstream environmental organisations, let alone “independent” commentators), chapter and verse of this volte-face can be laid bare. Just three o examples from the Roadmap:
“Not only does this Roadmap set a clear path for the growth of nuclear fission…it acknowledges the crucial importance of the nuclear industry to our national security, both in terms of energy supply and the defence nuclear enterprise.”
“Government will proactively look for opportunities to align delivery of the civil and nuclear defence enterprises, whilst maintaining the highest standards of non-proliferation.”
“To address the commonalities across the civil and defence supply chains, and the potential risk to our respective nuclear programmes due to competing demand for the supply chain, the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ) is working closely with the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Nuclear Sector.”
And there’s a whole lot more than that! As Andy Stirling has said: “Without any reflection on what this says about previous efforts to suppress discussion of this issue, the Government is now openly emphasising its significance.”
REPORT THIS AD
Indeed!
As usual, the UK’s ill-informed and unbelievably gullible mainstream media would appear to have missed the significance of this gobsmacking inflection point. So one can hardly expect them to have grasped its even more significant implications for UK energy strategy as a whole. In every single particular.
Let me briefly unpack some of those particulars:
Nuclear
The new Roadmap reads like an outing to a massive nuclear sweet shop. On top of Hinkley Point C and Sizewell C, we’ll have one more big one. And then we’ll have lots of Small Modular Reactors, all over the country. And we’ll have a new fuel processing plant. And a new Geological Disposal Facility – at some much more distance point. And so on and on. 24 fantastical Gigawatts to be designed and delivered by 2050.
The reality couldn’t be more different:
We will indeed end up with Hinkley Point C – at a staggering of cost of somewhere between £26 billion and £30 billion, with consumers paying twice as much for its electricity as they will for offshore wind. And it will almost certainly not come online until the end of the decade, 15 years on from the time it was meant to be up and running.
We may possibly get Sizewell C, though the Government cannot currently guarantee the required level of investment. So a Final Investment Decision is unlikely before the next Election. At which point, Starmer may come to his senses and kill off this absurd white elephant.
We will never get a third big reactor. The economics are literally impossible to justify.
We are unlikely to get more than a couple of hugely expensive Small Modular Reactors, at some indeterminate point in the future, even with a new “flexible approach” to planning and financial inducements. Even that may prove to be an illusion. As Professor Steve Thomas has written: “Advocates of Small Nuclear Reactors claim they are cheaper and easier to build, safer, generate less waste, and will create many jobs compared to existing large reactor designs. These claims are unproven, misleading, or just plain wrong. Worldwide, no commercial design of SMR has even received a firm order yet.”
And we may or may not get life extensions for the last five power stations in the “legacy fleet” – subject to regulatory approval, which may not be all that easy given extensive cracking in their reactor cores.
In short, the Roadmap is just a massive diversion from reality. Entailing incalculable opportunity costs. And putting at risk our entire Net Zero by 2050 strategy.
Ministers know all that. But they don’t really care. Our nuclear weapons programme (including upgrading Trident) will be protected as a consequence of this, via an unceasing flow of public money into the civil nuclear cul-de-sac, at a time when our defence budget is already massively overstretched. So who cares about the missing 24GW?
Renewables
We’ll continue to see new investment into renewables here in the UK, despite (not because of) government policy, which has seriously messed up our offshore wind industry, maintained a de facto ban on onshore wind, couldn’t care less about solar, witters on vapidly about tidal without doing anything etc etc.
REPORT THIS AD
Meanwhile, on a global basis, renewables continue to boom. Here are a few facts – in contrast to over-excited sightings of nuclear unicorns:…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Why don’t people see this?
Why don’t our mainstream media offer any serious critique of what’s going on here?
Why don’t our opposition parties rip to shreds this tissue of preposterous illusions?
Ansarallah’s intervention in solidarity with the martyred Palestinian people marked a turning point in the Israeli war of aggression in Gaza.
Ansarallah’s intervention in solidarity with the martyred Palestinian people marked a turning point in the Israeli war of aggression in Gaza. Certainly articulated with the Axis of Resistance, it forced the United States to become directly involved militarily in the conflict, more in aid of international commercial monopolies than in the administration of Benjamin Netanyahu (this will be the first pawn to fall, without any protest from Washington).
But the Americans, who, with the exception of the powerful arms industry, do not want a full-blown war, responded very timidly, attacking only selected targets in Yemen. Ansarallah said that no important infrastructure was hit and that the attacks did not even tickle its military potential. Therefore, it will continue to intercept ships going to or returning from Israel passing through the Bab al-Mandab Strait.
Joe Biden violated American laws by authorizing a military attack without consulting Congress, repeating what Donald Trump did when bombing Syria in 2017. But at that time Syria was defenseless, destroyed and in an internal war, while its ally Russia had not yet as much friction with Trump as there is with Biden. Now it’s different for the U.S.: the Arabs are on the offensive, not on the defensive. And Russia really wants Biden to sink into the mud.
At the same time, Iran seized a U.S. oil tanker in the Sea of Oman in retaliation for the U.S.’s earlier confiscation of a ship it owned. It is clear that it was a politically designed measure.
For now, everyone is testing their opponent. The assassination of leaders of Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iraqi resistance by Israel and the U.S., as well as the terrorist attack claimed by the Islamic State and redolent of Mossad and the CIA, were risky tests against the Iranians. They increased the feeling of revenge on the part of Tehran and its allies.
The U.S. and Iran (in constant communication with Russia and China) are in an increasingly tense chess game right now. In the final months of 2023, several troops were deployed to Iran’s borders with its neighbors. This week, missiles were launched against targets in the regions of Iraq and Syria occupied militarily by the U.S., and also against Pakistan, which hit terrorist groups accused of being responsible for recent attacks in Persian territory.
These attacks by Iran had extremely negative repercussions for Tehran. The governments of Iraq and Pakistan have harshly condemned them and the international press has already increased the anti-Iranian propaganda — which has been growing in recent weeks — even further. Iran obviously considered all of this before taking these unprecedented actions. To risk losing many points with key allies, Tehran certainly imagined it would be worth it, as this was a show of strength to the U.S. and Israel. In fact, terrorist targets are nothing more than an excuse for Iran: the real target was the Pentagon. The Iranians have shown that they are not afraid to burn down the entire region if their enemies really want a war.
Brigadier General Mohammad Reza Ashtiani, Iran’s Defense Minister, made this clear: “We see no limitations in defending our national interests and the people, and will certainly do this authoritatively. No matter where threats against the Islamic Republic come from, we will react and the response will surely be proportionate, decisive and strong.” Repeating: “no matter where threats against the Islamic Republic come from”…
There are increasing signs that the war in Gaza will spread across the Middle East. Israel has apparently reduced operations in northern Gaza, which may suggest that the Zionists are redirecting resources to other fronts — such as the Lebanese, where friction with Hezbollah is only increasing. In Israel, it is admitted that it would be almost impossible for displaced people to return to their homes in the north of the country without Hezbollah being forced to retreat. An article in Haaretz is scathing: “a war with Hezbollah is inevitable.” Its author, Chuck Freilich, a former deputy national security adviser in Tel Aviv, warns that “there is a clear danger of a direct conflict between Israel and Iran and from there to a broader regional conflagration.” The Guardian has the same fears about the U.S. and its British allies.
The U.S., in turn, suspended arms supplies to Ukraine, perhaps to focus on the Middle East, as it is unable to sustain two such difficult fronts at the same time (and this is a confession that Russia has already won the war in Eastern Europe). The U.S. also started importing oil from Venezuela again, perhaps anticipating the impossibility of doing so from the Arabs due to a war.
Following the attacks suffered by the U.S.-UK coalition, the Ansarallah supreme political council issued a statement warning that “all American and British interests are now legitimate targets of Houthi forces.” More than 20 American military bases are within the range of Yemeni missiles, from those in Djibouti to those in Israel, including those in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Jordan and all the countries of the Arabian Peninsula.
There are already more than 130 attacks against U.S. bases in Iraq and Syria, and they occur daily. If the U.S. does not respond in kind, the Iraqi resistance forces will become even more excited. And they are very popular, leading the Iraqi government to publicly declare that it will withdraw imperialist coalition forces from its territory — so as not to be left behind and swallowed up by the popular movement that supports armed resistance.
The great popularity of the entire Axis of Resistance is proven by A+B through numerous opinion polls published in recent months and weeks, which reflect broad support for Hamas and Hezbollah not only among the Palestinians and Lebanese, but throughout the Arab world. This popular support (in addition, of course, to the continuation of the genocide in Gaza) is a decisive impetus for a major offensive against the Zionist and imperialist enemy.
Everyone also knows that the West Bank is “on the verge of explosion”, as many newspapers say. Terrorist attacks themselves are increasingly worrying the Israeli army and police. Because they are unable to fight against such powerful forces on so many fronts — war spending and the Houthi economic blockade are leading Israel’s economy to collapse and Gaza is already quicksand for Israeli soldiers. Therefore, the U.S. would be absolutely obliged to come to Israel’s aid. For the U.S., if Israel falls, the fall of its world domination is certain and almost imminent.
Fewer and fewer boats sail through the Red Sea. More than a fear of intervention by Yemeni revolutionaries, it is a fear of being swallowed up by a real war in the region. News agencies say Germany and Denmark could send their warships there in the coming days. The Red Sea crisis could lead to a reduction in global GDP, according to a new report from the World Bank. This would likely not occur if the crisis ended quickly, but only if it continued, suggesting an escalation and possibly fatal explosion.
All we can do so far is speculate based on the news published by the international press. But the movements indicate that the drums of war are about to beat.
Der Friedensstifter 