All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
There can be few safer indicators of the views of the globalist “liberal” Establishment than reports of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, which prefers to be known as Chatham House.
Chatham House’s principal funding comes from the UK, US, Canadian, German, Swiss, Japanese, Swedish and Norwegian governments, the World Bank and the EU, and from corporate “philanthropists” including IKEA, Bill Gates, George Soros, Carnegie Foundation, Ford Foundation, BP, Chevron, Shell, and ExxonMobil. I could go on.
In other words, Chatham House is absolutely rolling in the dosh controlled by states and the super wealthy. It is headquartered in the palatial residence of the imperial expansionist Prime Minister William Pitt, and has expanded out over time into two great adjoining mansions.
(In 2022 it also, despite all the petroleum bungs, received its largest grant from the MAVA Foundation, a Swiss environmental charity, which was that year closing down and disbursing all its funds).
So Chatham House is a pretty infallible guide as to what those who control western “democracies” are thinking. And when it comes to Ukraine, what they are thinking is terrifying.
Chatham House has released a report which “makes the case for dramatically increased Western military assistance to Ukraine, and argues against concessions to Russia”.
The report is organised as a list of nine “fallacies” which the authors are concerned that Russian propagandists have successfully insinuated into Western thinking, and sets out to refute each of them.
This is rather a high risk approach as, taken together, the nine “fallacies” on the face of it make a cogent and convincing argument against the escalation of the war.
But, convinced of the protection of their amulets of invincible self-righteousness, the authors plunge right in to their refutations.
I do not intend to go through them all. I merely seek to illustrate the intellectual paucity of this lavishly funded enterprise.
The task of debunking the first “fallacy”, that all wars end in negotiation, is given to James Sherr OBE, an American careerist Russophobe who is currently Head of Vilification at the Estonian Foreign Policy Institute (I definitely got the Institute right but I may have mistranslated his title a bit).
Estonia has of course much in common with Ukraine. It gained its national freedom on the collapse of the Soviet Union and it has subsequently put state resources into honouring Nazi Holocaust participants.
Two of the three Estonian Waffen SS officers in this photo have had official plaques to them unveiled in modern Estonia, reported with approval and no sense of controversy in the state media.
I thought I might mention this in case anyone thinks it unfair that Ukrainian Nazis were spotlighted by another Waffen SS member being given a standing ovation by the Canadian parliament. It is only fair to point out that a lot of Ukraine’s closest supporters are riddled with Nazi sympathy also.
Anyway, what does Estonian state employee and US citizen Dr James Sherr, Officer of the Order of the British Empire, former Fellow of the UK Defence Academy, have to tell us about the “fallacy” that all wars end in negotiation?
The first problem is that they don’t. It is true that the majority of wars do not end in absolute victory. Ceasefire, armistice and stalemate terminate most conflicts, even if the ‘peace’ is infirm or short-lived. But where the stakes are absolute, as they were in the Napoleonic wars, the US Civil War and the Second World War, armed conflict usually ends in the victory of one side and the defeat of the other. Negotiation, compromise and reconciliation are undertaken with new regimes only after old regimes are defeated and removed. The Franco-German reconciliation invoked by Emmanuel Macron would have been inconceivable had the Nazis remained in power.
Sherr goes on to argue that the stakes in this war are absolute. It is an existential war for Ukraine because Russia seeks to destroy it entirely, and it is an existential war for Russia because, he argues, Putin believes that Kiev is the cradle of the Russian soul.
Having defined it as an existential war, he says that it follows that it must be escalated up to total war and total victory.
It is very plainly an argument to escalate the war to achieve regime change in Russia:
Negotiation, compromise and reconciliation are undertaken with new regimes only after old regimes are defeated and removed.
Sherr is perfectly happy to contemplate millions of deaths. Look at his comparisons; the Napoleonic Wars entailed 3 million combat deaths, the US civil war about 700,000 combat deaths and the Second World War about 15 million. In each case you can probably more than double that for total civilian deaths caused by those wars.
Let me be absolutely plain: Sherr is saying this is the kind of total war he wants against Russia, rather than a more limited one.
Strangely enough Sherr does not reference those more recent great western wars for regime change, in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, which also resulted in the deaths of millions. Possibly even he realises the end results have not been entirely desirable.
But is this war really existential for either Ukraine or Russia? The truth is that ever since Ukraine became independent in 1991 it has been unstable, deeply divided over whether to look west to the EU or look east to Russia. The political and linguistic division broadly at the Dnieper runs deep into history.
Modern Ukraine is a failed state that collapsed into civil war in 2014 after twenty years of political tension between openly pro-Western and pro-Russian political forces which were remarkably evenly balanced.
Up to and including 2014, both the Western powers and Russia engaged in all forms of political interference, espionage and chicanery to try to win Ukraine. Back in 1996 when I was First Secretary in the British Embassy in Warsaw, I helped author a paper for the Cabinet Office which said that Poland was now secured to the West, but the hinge of history would be the Ukraine. I discussed it with George Soros in person (he bought me a pizza).
I cannot share the outrage of many on the left at the “colour revolution” of 2014. Both Russia and the West had been playing a dirty game. Yanukovych was more or less kidnapped by Moscow to disavow the EU Association agreement. The ensuing 2014 coup was just the US being more adept at winning the dirty game, of which I as a former player well know the rules, or lack of them.
The subsequent annexation of Crimea and reinforcement of the Donbass was the Russian counter-move. That ended the hope that a united Ukraine would ever be pro-Russian. The civil war rumbled on ever since until the larger Russian invasion. The extreme discriminatory measures against the Russian speaking population post-2014 ended the hope that a united Ukraine would ever be possible.
Chatham House itself illustrates that Ukraine was nothing but this East/West conflict playground. In 2023 the “Chatham House Prize” for international relations was awarded to Ukrainian President Zelensky. In 2005 the inaugural “Chatham House Prize” had been awarded to President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine, openly for turning Ukraine from a pro-Russian to a pro-EU foreign policy.
A country where it is a prize-winning achievement to win a narrow majority for pro-western policies, against the wishes of the other half of the country which wants a pro-Russian foreign policy, is not a viable long term political entity.
At no stage in this post-Soviet story did Ukraine ever become a viable state. It was a poor, undeveloped and undeveloping, east-west power game venue. Both sides were rigging elections and the oligarchs and their pet politicians oversaw massive corruption, on a mind boggling scale.
Which corruption has no way lessened, and has battened on vast flows of “assistance” from the west.
There has never been a Ukraine under the rule of law and proper democratic government, to which to now return. What does Sherr think will be the attitude of the Russian speaking half of the Ukrainian population if his massive, blood-drenched, total war does bring about the total defeat of Russia?
Ukraine has now banned Russian as an official language, banned all Russian speaking newspapers, banned the pro-Russian political parties, banned teaching in Russian in schools, banned Russian books in libraries and banned the Russian Orthodox Church. Yet Russian is the first language of about 40% of the population.
Is the plan that the total war will result in such genocide that Russian speakers in Ukraine will be no more? Will they all be ethnically cleansed? Or after so much death and destruction, will they just quietly live as second class citizens, and abandon resistance? Is that the plan?
In truth, the best opportunity for a functioning and more efficient Ukrainian state is, now we are in this hot war, for it to lose the Russia-leaning areas and become a more homogeneous and unified entity, with a much greater chance of being at peace with itself and of sorting out its colossal governance problems.
A smaller, better, Ukraine that quickly finds its way into the EU would benefit the great majority of pro-Ukrainians and provide a more stable future for Eastern Europe. In time, it would come to be seen as a blessing.
A negotiated land-for-peace deal, with genuinely free referenda conducted under UN supervision to determine borders, has always been possible and is now essential.
That is what diplomacy is. Yes, mankind can conduct its affairs through total war, inflicting death, maiming, rape, hunger, disease and long term poverty on a massive scale. Or compromise can be reached. That there are those who argue for the former over Eastern Ukraine is sickening to me.
The other problem with a total war is of course that it might be your side which loses. If Sherr wants total war and no negotiation, he is of course accepting the possibility that Russia will conquer all of Ukraine – and would have no right at all to complain of that outcome.
In which case what would become of the Ukrainians? One thing is for certain, a massive wave of refugees would be launched right across Europe.
The practical problem with Sherr’s call for total war is that Ukraine really does not have the population numbers to sustain to victory a total war against Russia. It is just going to run out of people, as indeed the much trumpeted counteroffensive appears to have done.
The extreme escalation of western weaponry which Chatham House proposes, might indeed get round the population problem and tip the balance by inflicting simply massive casualties on Russia, but it is an incredible gamble to believe that so much hurt could be inflicted on Russia without risking nuclear annihilation.
It is improbable that China will permit these lunatic western warhawks to risk the entire future of humankind. Sherr is not of course alone – each section of the report has a different author, and some of them are even more unhinged. Please feel free to discuss further in the comments.
A diplomatic settlement to the Ukraine war terrifies western power structures because it will underline the decline of western hegemony and the increasing influence of BRICS and other non-western voices.
The actual destruction of Russia as an independent power has become essential to the apostles of empire, as a means of maintaining a psychological ascendancy for a few more years. They really do not care how many die for that. Do we really want to follow Dr Sherrangelove and his fellow Chatham House ideologues down this path?
Remember that list above of who pays for Chatham House and who wants all this death. I can see how it benefits them. But, dear reader, how does it benefit you?
An independent Ukraine, shorn of the Eastern provinces that have never wished to look westward, is in the long term much more feasible and viable than some kind of military Valhalla created by an epic war of conquest.
A negotiated and equitable end to this conflict is perfectly viable. It always has been so. The people of Europe have to reject the military industrial complex, the war profiteers and the blazing-eyed ideologues – and look for a fair peace.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
The Balkans and Geopolitics
The peculiar geostrategic position of the Balkan Peninsula gives us an answer to the question of why it has been throughout history both a bridge and the battlefield of different civilizations and cultures.
Thus, the history of the region was to a great extent determined by the location of the Balkans. Situated at the meeting point of Europe, Africa, and Asia both the Balkans experienced alternate imperial drives, competing ideologies together with conflicting social, political, and economic systems.[1] For the local people in the region, to live in the area of high international tensions meant primarily to find a way out from permanent pressure from abroad. It led to their resistance to any foreign realm and outside attempts to annex or dominate the region. Accordingly, it was exactly this part of the Old Continent to deserve the label of “Europe’s worst trouble spot”.[2] At the same time, Southeast European societies accepted many foreign institutions, customs, rules, or habits which were in many cases reshaped according to the local traditions and necessities.[3]
The thoroughly high degree of international interest in the Balkans for the whole time of mankind’s history comes in first place for the reason of its geopolitical and geostrategic value.[4] The Balkans was during the entire 19th and 20th centuries a real “laboratory” for the expression and investigation of different attributes of geopolitics.[5]
The region of the Balkan Peninsula in geographical terms is straitened between the Mediterranean basin and the Danube watershed which, basically, means that one great long-time state-body could not be established. Moreover, for the reason of the mountain face of the region, broken and interlaced with many smaller and bigger rivers, the local population was “destined” to live within smaller state organizations.
The ancient Greek city-state (пoλιξ) was a typical product of the geographical conditions of the area.[6] When the borders of a newly independent state of Albania were drawn in 1913, they followed to a great extent the geographical shape of the area living many ethnic Albanians outside the motherland, a majority of them in Serbia’s province of Kosovo-Metochia as well as in West Macedonia, South-West Greece, and East Montenegro.
In other words, the regional geographical conditions became one of the most decisive hindrances for the Balkan people to realize their maximized territorial aims and requirements. Besides this factor, the long-time intermixture of different ethnic, religious, and cultural groups became the second obstacle which did not allow Southeast European nations to effectuate their dreams of national unification within a single national statehood without the conflict with their neighbors or co-dwellers who had similar national visions.
South-East European nationalism led by the basic idea that each ethnos has to live in one national state was an essential ideological framework for the constant inter-ethnic collisions.[7] The creation of a single national state body, composed of all ethnographic and historic “national” lands, was in the eyes of the leading Balkan politicians a final stage of national awakening, revival, and liberation which started at the turn of the 19th century at the ideological basis of the German romanticist nationalism expressed in a formula: “One Language-One Nation-One State”.
The struggle upon the same “national” territories which belonged to “everybody” following historic, ethnic, military, or geostrategic principles and reasons resulted in the certitude that in this part of the world, there was more blood than land. In other words, there were not enough territories to satisfy all national aspirations. Thus, for example, Serbian, Greek, Ottoman, Montenegrin, and Albanian dispute over the destiny and fixed borders of the independent Albania in 1912–1913, or the Yugoslav civil war in 1991–1995 followed by the Yugoslav-Albanian struggle over Kosovo-Metochia’s province in 1998–1999 are only the episodes of the local nationalism but certainly not an exemption.[8]
The most important feature of the Balkan geopolitics is the peninsula’s geographical, historical, political, military-strategic, and economic connections with the Mediterranean Sea and basin. The most convenient geographical definition of the Balkans is a “Peninsula of the Mediterranean”.
Almost all Balkan states are the Mediterranean ones. The seas which belong to them are parts of the greater Mediterranean Sea. For instance, since the Adriatic and the Ionian seacoasts are integral parts of the Mediterranean shore, located near Italy, their strategic importance often attracted in history many foreign powers to occupy and possess them like the Ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Byzantines, the Normans, the Hungarians, the Venetians, the Serbs, the Ottomans or modern Italians.
Historically, the notion of the Balkans was in conjunction with the Oriental Ottoman Turks who gradually spread their lordship over the peninsula from 1354 keeping it under their sway till 1913.
However, certain European Great Powers saw the Balkan seaside either as their legitimate historic possession or the sphere of influence, endeavoring to keep back the Ottoman Empire from the Balkan littoral. From the cause of historic-cultural factors, the continental parts of the Balkans were related to the Orient, while the littoral parts of the Balkans were cognate to the Occident.
The crucial reason for the Russian interest in the Balkans was an aspiration to possess the exit to the “warm seas”. For the German Second Reich’s diplomats (1871–1918) and the Nazi politicians (1933–1945), South-East Europe became attractive as the “transversal corridor” which was connecting the Middle East and Asia with the German European possessions; in other words, a corridor very suitably located for Berlin’s policy of Drang nach Osten.[9]
In the eyes of Austro-Hungarian foreign policy creators, the region was of pivotal prominence as the only overland way to Vienna’s final goal – to have control over the Aegean seaport of Salonika (Thessaloniki) in Aegean Macedonia. A special point of interest in the Balkans by the European Great Powers at the turn of the 20th century became the entrance (gate) to the Adriatic Sea bordered by Italy’s and Albania’s littorals. From this point of view, for Viennese politicians, Albania’s territory, especially its seacoast, should play a role of the pivotal obstacle against the Italian penetration in the Balkans, especially towards the Salonika seaport which should be transformed into the principal Austro-Hungarian commercial export-import point in the Mediterranean Sea.
The Adriatic and the Ionian littorals became from the 1860s extremely attractive for the Kingdom of Serbia as one of the possible strips of the Balkan territory where Serbia could find the exit to the sea for commercial reasons. The Montenegrin Principality (from 1910 the Kingdom of Montenegro) was infatuated only by the ultimate north-western portion of present-day Albania – the area around the city of Scodra for historical reasons as Scodra was the capital of Montenegro in the early Middle Ages. The Kingdom of Bulgaria from its de iure acquainted independence in 1878 expressed its thirstiness for the Aegean littoral as well.
The Greek pretensions for the same territory led finally Sofia and Athens to the war in 1913 (the Second Balkan War). In the Balkan politics of Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, and Bulgaria at the turn of the 20th century, the Albanians and Albania were the wedges against the others. For instance, for Bulgaria, the Bulgarian-Albanian axis was imagined as the best impediment against the Serbian-Greek teamwork and joint political actions. Finally, the Ottoman Empire had its political-economic interest in keeping the Ionian littoral as its possession. For this purpose, for Istanbul’s diplomats, the eastern entrance to the Adriatic Sea (Albania) should be under Ottoman control.
The Ionian littoral with its hinterland played a significant role for the Ottoman sultans at the time of the Ottoman wars for South-East Europe. For instance, Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror (1451–1481) established on the hinterland of the Ionian seacoast two of the most important Ottoman footholds at the Balkans for further intended military actions across the Adriatic Sea. These two military fortresses were built at Akçahisar (Kruja) and Avlonya (Valona). The Ottoman commanders (beys) on the north-east Ionian littoral were allowed by the sultan to increase their raiding expeditions into Bosnia-Herzegovina, and Dalmatia, respectively.[10]
The Military-strategic Factors of the Balkan Geopolitics
In the 19th and the 20th centuries the eastern portion of Southeast Europe was under the Russian sphere of influence because it was closer to the main Russian objects of acquisition – Constantinople (Istanbul), the Sea of Marmara, the Bosporus, and the Dardanelles. Beginning with the time of the Empress Catherine the Great (1762–1796) the conquering of Constantinople was put on the pedestal of the Russian Balkan policy.[11] On the other hand, the western piece of Southeast Europe was considered the Austro-Hungarian (the Habsburg) sphere of influence. Consequently, the Russian-Austro-Hungarian spheres of influence overlapped on the territories of Serbia and Montenegro[12], while the territory of Albania experienced similar overlapping of the Italian-Austro-Hungarian spheres of influence. Taking this in mind, it was quite natural that the members of the European Great Powers supported different Balkan states during the Balkan Wars in 1912–1913 and the First World War in 1914–1918.
The military-strategic factors of Southeast Europe have five delicate points:
The “Ljubljana Door” adjoins Central Europe and North Adriatic.
The Morava-Vardar valley bounds Central Europe with the North Aegean Sea.
The Pannonian Plain is in the confines of the southern part of Central Europe and North Balkans.
The River Danube is the main bridge of Southeast Europe with Central and West Europe.
The Black Sea’s seashore.[13]
Many invaders throughout history used these five points as roads to cross from Central Europe to the Balkans or vice versa (for example, the Crusaders and the Ottomans).[14] The Sub-Danubian region of Southeast Europe played a significant role in the German-Austrian foreign policy course of Drang nach Osten in the years from 1871 to 1918. Under this course should be grasped the German military-political-economic penetration into Asia Minor and when the Suez Canal was opened further into India (the German plans concerning the Baghdad and Anatolian railways). The Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary became the locomotive of this course after the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908, interested in the first place to drive towards the Aegean Sea through the Sanjak of Novi Pazar (after 1913 divided between Serbia and Montenegro)[15] and the valley of the River Vardar. At the time of the Austrian-Hungarian Emperor Franz Josef I (1848–1916), a synonym for his country was a “Sub-Danubian Monarchy” referring to the importance of the River Danube for the very existence of Austria-Hungary which was composed by the Balkan and Central-European provinces. [16]
The Black Sea’s seashore became the principal battlefield area between imperial Russia and the Ottoman Empire from the time of the Russian Empress Catherine II (1762−1796) throughout the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century. Both belligerent sides tried to increase their political influence in Southeast Europe to provide their hegemony in the area of the Black Sea’s maritime.
Nevertheless, the other European Great Powers had as well as their particular interests in the sector of the European part of the Black Sea’s shore and its waters like the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and even Italy. The struggle of the European Great Powers upon mastering the Black Sea’s trade and military directly or indirectly affected the domestic affairs of Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Greece.
It was true particularly from the time of the Crimean War (1854–1856) to the time of the Great War (1914–1918) when the fight of the small Balkan nations for their national liberation and unification depended to a large extent on the result of the Russian-Ottoman wars and the Russian diplomatic support for the Balkan Christian Orthodox states. For instance, after the Russian military and diplomatic defeat during the Crimean War and the Paris Peace Conference in 1856, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, and Greece could not expect any territorial achievement until the next Russian-Ottoman War of 1877–1878 in which the Ottoman Empire was defeated. Therefore, due to the Russian victory and the San Stefano Peace Treaty in 1878, Bulgaria, Montenegro, Romania, and Serbia became independent states according to the Berlin Congress’ decisions in July 1878 and at the same time enlarged their state’s territories at the expense of the Ottoman Empire.[17] At that time, the Russian principal protégé in the Balkans was Bulgaria which was the prime reason for Serbia to turn her eyes towards Vienna and Pest after 1878. The Russian pro-Bulgarian Balkan policy during the war against the Ottoman Empire in 1877–1878 had its foundations in the Russian efforts to establish a firm foothold on the Black Sea’s littoral to easily acquire control over Istanbul and the Straits. For that purpose, Bulgaria was the most appropriate Balkan state as being a vanguard of the Russian Euro-Balkan policy and the main forerunner of St. Petersburg’s interests in the region.
Possible and Real Political Axis-alliances in Southeast Europe
Southeast European geostrategic importance can be sublimated in the next three points:
The region is a significant overland tie between Europe and the Middle East.
The region has important reserves of natural wealth in raw materials, energy, etc.
The region located between Central Europe, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean Sea was and is an important point of the European and even global system of security and strategy of imperialistic powers.[18]
Southeast Europe had its highest geostrategic importance in international relations at the beginning of the 20th century when the region became a notable link in the chain of the European system of balancing powers. For that reason, both the Central Powers and the Entente made considerable efforts to obtain better military, strategic, political, and economic positions in the region before the outbreak of the First World War.
Taking into account historical, cultural, national, and religious aspects of the development of the Balkan civilization, there were and are three possible main political axis alliances to function in this European region:
An Islamic axis: The Turks, the Muslims from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sanjak, Albania, West Macedonia, East Montenegro, East Bulgaria, and Kosovo-Metochia.
The Orthodox alliance: Russia, Serbia, the Serbian portion of Montenegro, Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbs from Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kosovo-Metochia, and the eastern regions of the Republic of North Macedonia.
The Roman Catholic bloc: Croats, Slovenians, Central European German Catholics, Hungarians, Vatican, and Bosnian-Herzegovinian Roman Catholics).[19]
During WWII, Southeast Europe became the battlefield of three opposite political-ideological forces: 1) the Nazis and Fascists; 2) the Communists; and 3) the Parliamentary Democrats. After 1945 the region was sharply divided between the members of the NATO Pact (est. 1949) and the Warsaw Pact (est. 1955) while Socialist Yugoslavia as a member of the Non-Alignment Movement was to a certain extent a Balkan political mediator. Finally, the Balkans became once again in the 20th century the very focus of the world’s attention during the process of bloody disintegration and destruction of Yugoslavia (1991–1995)[20] and the Kosovo War (1998−1999) followed by NATO’s military intervention (in fact, aggression) in the Balkans (against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) in 1999 (March−June).[21]
Conclusion
In conclusion, Southeast Europe is a geopolitical term that connotes peoples, cultures, and states that make up a region between the Black, Adriatic, Aegean, and Mediterranean Seas. There are three crucial points of the regional significance in the geostrategic point of view:
The territory of South-East Europe is an extremely important connection between West and Central Europe and the Near and Middle East.
A wealthy region’s natural resources.
The region is a very important part of the Great Powers’ political-military-economic strategy.
Located on the crossroads of different civilizations, Southeast Europe during its 3,000 years of historical and cultural development preserved many material remains from different civilizations and was under strong spiritual influence from West European, East European, Central European, Mediterranean, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and many other cultures. If some part of Europe deserved the name of “melting pot of civilizations” it is the case with its south-eastern part for sure.
Personal disclaimer: The author writes for this publication in a private capacity which is unrepresentative of anyone or any organization except for his own personal views. Nothing written by the author should ever be conflated with the editorial views or official positions of any other media outlet or institution.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is a former university professor in Vilnius, Lithuania. He is a Research Fellow at the Center for Geostrategic Studies. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Notes
1 Jelavich B., History of the Balkans. Eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, ix–xi.
2 Berend I., T., Ránki G., East Central Europe in the 19th and 20 centuries, Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1977, 41.
3 Among selected bibliography of South-East European cultural, political, historical and social developments the following works deserve to be mentioned [Cvijić J., Balkansko Poluostrvo i južnoslovenske zemlje. Osnove antropogeografije, I, Zagreb, 1922; Stavrianos, L. S., The Balkans, 1815–1914, New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1963; Jelavich B. and Ch., The Balkans, Prentice-Hall: New Jersey, 1965; Stoianovich T., A Study in Balkan Civilization, New York: Knopf, 1967; Jelavich Ch., (ed.), Language and Area Studies: East Central and Southeastern Europe, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969; Edgar H., The Balkans: A Short History from Greek Times to the Present Day, New York: Crane, Russak, 1972; Jelavich B. and Ch., The Establishment of the Balkan National States, 1804–1920, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1977; Sugar P. E., Southeastern Europe under Ottoman Rule, 1354–1804, Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1977; Castellan G., History of the Balkans: From Mohammed the Conqueror to Stalin, New York: Columbia University Press, East European Monographs, Boulder, 1992; Stojanović T., Balkanski svetovi. Prva i poslednja Evropa, Beograd: Equilibrium, 1997; Bideleux R., Jeffries I., A History of Eastern Europe. Crisis and Change, London−New York: Routledge, 1999; Mazower M., The Balkans. A Short History, Random House, Inc., 2002; Kaplan D. R., Balkan Ghosts. A Journey Through History, New York: Picador, St. Martin’s Press, 2005; Wachtel B. A., The Balkans in World History, Oxford−New York: Oxford University Press, 2008; Gleny M., The Balkans. Nationalism, War and the Great Powers, 1804–2012, Granta Books, 2012]. One of the most useful guides of selected bibliography of our interest up to the 1970s is [Horecky, P. L., (ed.), Southeastern Europe: A Guide to Basic Publications, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969].
4 Even today, there are suspicious scientists and researchers who are following before 19th-century attitude towards geopolitics as not scientific area or simply as the pseudo-science. It should be said that from the time of the mid-19th century the geopolitics was accepted more and more like a field to be equal with other academic disciplines primarily due to the works of the American Admiral Mahan A. T. (1840–1914) connected with the role of the navy in the ruling the world, then the works of the German geographer Ratzel F. (1844–1904) concerning the relations between geography and the living space (Lebensraum), the Swedish university professor of the political sciences Kjellén J. R. (1864–1922) about the state as an organism and the superiority of the German race, the British scientist Mac Kinder Halford John (1861–1947) with regard to the importance of the heartland and finally but at the same time mostly due to the German General and geographer Haushofer K. (1869–1946) who was writing primarily upon the geopolitical reasons of Hitler’s wars of territorial expansion of the Third Reich. However, a Greek historian Herodotus (B.C. 484–424), a “father of history” and the author of the famous History of the Greek-Persian Wars, should be considered as one of the early founders of the geopolitics as the science. In sum, the geopolitics was primarily discredited as an academic field of research and investigation since it was seen only as a justification and projection of the German expansionism in the 19th and the 20th centuries. Subsequently, the negative synonyms for the geopolitics were the doctrines of the “Blood and Soil” (Blut und Boden), the “Living Space” (Lebensraum), the “Will for Power” (Wile zum Macht) and the “Lord-Nation” (Herren Volk). On geopolitics, see in [Dodds K., Geopolitics: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford−New York: Oxford University Press, 2007; Black J., Geopolitics, London: The Social Affairs Unit, 2009; Cohen B. S., Geopolitics: The Geography of International Relations, Lanham, Maryland: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc., 2009; Walberg E., Postmodern Imperialism:Geopolitics and the Great Games, Atlanta, GA: Clarity Press, 2011; Flint C., Introduction to Geopolitics, New York: Routledge, 2012; Starr H., On Geopolitics: Space, Place, and International Relations, Paradigm Publishers, 2014].
5 Петковић Р., XX век на Балкану. Версај, Јалта, Дејтон, Службени лист СРЈ, Београд, 10. On the „Balkan geopolitics of nightmare“, see in [Славољуб Б. Шушић, Геополитички кошмар Балкана, Београд: Војноиздавачки завод, 2004].
6 On ancient Greek city-state, see in [Adkins H. W., White P., University of Chicago Readings in Western Civilization, 1 The Greek Polis, Chicago−London: The University of Chicago Press, 1986; Hansen H. M., Polis. An Introduction to the Ancient Greek City-State, New York−Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006].
7 The pivotal nationality principle in Europe is: A nation is a people in possession of or striving for its own state. The relationship between state and nation in Europe was gradually transformed from the model of the Augsburg religious peace settlement of 1555 – “Cuius regio, eius religio” to the modern model of Switzerland, Belgium, Quebec or Bosnia-Herzegovina – “Cuius regio, eius lingua”. On ethnicity, national identity and nationalism, see in [Smith A., The Ethnic Origins of Nations, Oxford, 1986; Gellner E., Nations and Nationalism, Paris, 1989; Miller D., On Nationality, Oxford, 1995; Guibernau M., Rex J. (eds.), The Ethnicity: Nationalism, Multiculturalism and Migration. Reader, Cornwall: Polity Press, 1997; Jenkins R., Rethinking Ethnicity, SAGE Publications Ltd, 2008].
8 The cult of war is present in every Balkan nationalism. For example, Serbian Orthodox Bishop Nikolaj Velimirović stated on the day of the proclamation of the beginning of the First Balkan War in 1912 in his oration about “Young Serbia” that the “Lord is a great warrior” [Велимировић Н., Изнад греха и смрти. Беседе и мисли, Београд, 1914, 12]. On the Kosovo War in 1998−1999, see in [Hadjimichalis C., “Kosovo, 82 Days of an Undeclared and Unjust War: A Geopolitical Comment”, European Urban and Regional Studies, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2000, 175−180; Henrikson D., NATO’s Gamble: Combining Diplomacy and Airpower in the Kosovo Crisis 1998—1999, Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 2007].
9 On the German Drang nach Osten, see in [Meyer C. H., Drang Nach Osten: Fortunes of a Slogan-Concept in German-Slavic Relations, 1848−1990, Peter Lang AG, 1996; Lewin E., The German Road to the East: An Account of the ‘Drang Nach Osten’ and of Teutonic Aims in the Near and Middle East…, Nabu Press, 2012].
10 The center of the Ottoman government in Albania was set up at Gjirokastra following the annexation of all the property of the nobility in Central Albania. Among the expropriated Albanian noblemen was and John Kastriota the father of George Kastriota Skanderbeg (1405–1468). The latter succeeded to liberate Albania from the Ottoman sway and ruled an independent Albania from 1443 to 1468. The day when Skanderbeg raised a flag bearing his family’s arms on the citadel of Kruja (November, 28th) 1443 became a national holiday for Albanians (the “Flag’s Day”). Knowing that it is not surpassingly that a restoration of the Albanian independent statehood in 1912 was announced exactly on the day of November 28th. A Skanderbeg flag became a national emblem of an independent Albania. The day of November 28th remained as the national feast day. However, the Ottomans finally subjugated Albania in 1479 taking control over the fortress of Scutari (Shkodër/Skadar) from the hands of Venice (according to the peace agreement signed between the Ottoman Empire and Venice in Constantinople/Istanbul on June 25th, 1479. The capture of Scutari in 1479 became a part of principal anti-Ottoman propaganda among the Italians, the Albanians and the Montenegrins in their struggle against the Ottoman lordship in present-day North Albania. All of them claimed that the Ottomans captured “their” historical city of Scutari and a policy of liberation of the city from the Ottoman possession became a driving force of their national duty and prudence in the 19th and 20th centuries.
11 Радовановић Љ., “Балкан и Средоземље”, Међународна политика, Београд, № 484, 1970.
12 Радовановић Љ., “Санстефански и Берлински уговор”, Међународна политика, Београд, № 498, 1971.
13 About the River Danube, see in [Ристић А. М., Геополитички положај Дунава, Београд, 1940; Wechsberg J., The Danube, The Book Service Ltd, 1980; Meszaros L., The Danube, John Beaufoy Publishing, 2009; Beattie A., The Danube. A Cultural History, New York−Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010].
14 About the Balkan military-strategic features during the Cold War, see in [Габелић А., “Гарантије”, Међународна политика, Београд, № 448, 1968; Mates L., Međunarodni odnosi socijalističke Jugoslavije, Beograd: Nolit, 1976].
15 On the history of the region of Sanjak (Sandžak), see in [Morrison K., Roberts E., The Sanžak: A History, London: C. Hurst & Co. (Publishers) Ltd., 2013].
16 See more in [Kann R. A., The Habsburg Empire: A Study in Integration and Disintegration, New York, 1973; Bérenger J., A History of the Habsburg Empire 1273–1700, London−New York, 1997; Bérenger J., A History of the Habsburg Empire 1700–1918, London−New York, 2000].
17 On the issue regarding the war and diplomacy in 1877−1878, see in [Sluglett P., Yavuz M. H. (eds.), War and Diplomacy: The Russo-Turkish War of 1877−1878 and the Treaty of Berlin, University of Utah Press, 2011; Druri I., The Russo-Turkish War 1877, Men-at-Arms, Osprey Publishing, 2012].
18 About general problems of the geostrategic importance and security of South-Eastern Europe, see in [Castellan G., Le monde des Balkans: poudriere ou zone de paix?, Paris: Voubert, 1994; Yazakova A. Shmelyov B., Selivanova I, Kolikov N. (eds.), The Balkans: Between the Past and the Future, Moscow, 1995; Lukić R., Lynch A., Europe from the Balkans to the Urals, Oxford: SIPRI−Oxford University Press, 1996].
19 In regard to the problem of a religious ground of national determination and making political alliances in the Balkans, see in [Пашић Н., Национално питање у савременој епохи, Београд, 1973; Janjić D. (ed.), Religion and War, Belgrade, 1994].
20 On this issue, see in [Woodward L. S., Balkan Tragedy: Chaos and Dissolution after the Cold War, Washington D.C.: Brooking Institution Press, 1995; Guskova J., Istorija jugoslovenske krize (1990−2000), I−II, Beograd: Izdavački grafički atelje „M“, 2003; Finlan A., Essential Histories: The Collapse of Yugoslavia 1991−1999, Oxford: Osprey Publishing Ltd., 2004].
21 On the intervention, see in [Parenti M., To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia, London−New York: Verso, 2000; Gibbs N. D., First Do Not Harm: Humanitarian Intervention and the Destruction of Yugoslavia, Nashville, Tennessee: Vanderbilt University Press, 2009].
All images in this article are from the authorThe original source of this article is Global Research
„Beachten Sie, dass ich das nicht vorgeschlagen habe …“
Aus dem Film „Pokrovsky Gates“
Zwei spektakuläre Misserfolge der europäischen Diplomatie in den letzten Wochen – einer in Kiew, der andere in Granada, Spanien – haben den Begriff „Berbokisierung“ hervorgebracht. Unter dem Titel „ Die Baerbockisierung des Westens “ wurde ein Artikel veröffentlicht, dessen überraschende Schlussfolgerungen aus einer Analyse der aktuellen Situation stammen, wenn der Chef des Außenministeriums des führenden Landes der Europäischen Union – Deutschland – ist Annalena Baerbock, eine Frau, deren berufliche Fähigkeiten weit Im Internet kursiert dieses Foto des Chefs des Auswärtigen Amtes, das zum Symbol dieser Außenpolitik – der Aufblähung von Informationsblasen, politischen „Wangen“ und der eigenen Öffentlichkeit – geworden ist:
Und für dieses Foto – ein Perlenset, das aus Berbocks Lippen erklang:
— Während einer Sitzung der Parlamentarischen Versammlung des Europarats erklärte sie, dass Europa bereits einen Krieg gegen Russland führe.
— Später sagte sie: „Wenn die Ukraine aufhört zu kämpfen, bedeutet das ihr Ende.“ Das können wir nicht zulassen, denn es würde das Ende der UN-Charta bedeuten.“
— Ihrer Meinung nach könnte der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin „beschließen, seinen Kurs um 360 Grad zu ändern und die Welt friedlich und glücklich zu machen“.
„Mit diesem Rat der EU-Außenminister führen wir die Europäische Union dorthin, wo das Herz Europas jetzt am stärksten schlägt. Hier, nach Kiew, in die Ukraine. Die Zukunft der Ukraine liegt in der Europäischen Union, in unserer Gemeinschaft der Freiheit. Und bald wird es sich von Lissabon bis Lugansk erstrecken“, sagte der Chef des deutschen Außenministeriums während des jüngsten Besuchs einer Gruppe europäischer Diplomaten in Kiew.
Viel Lärm, wenig Nutzen
…Wir werden auf die überraschenden Schlussfolgerungen der Autoren dieses Artikels zurückkommen. Erinnern wir uns in der Zwischenzeit daran, wie zwei Ereignisse scheiterten, für die die europäische Diplomatie unter der Führung ihres Chefs, Monsieur Borrell, viel aufs Spiel setzte. Die Ergebnisse stimmten mit den Organisatoren dieser Veranstaltungen selbst überein. Auf keinen Fall…
Das schreibt die Zeitung POLITICO über die noch junge paneuropäische Konferenz in Granada (Spanien) im Artikel „ Mega-Treffen europäischer Staats- und Regierungschefs endet mit einem Wimmern “ – „Das Mega-Treffen europäischer Staats- und Regierungschefs endete mit einem Wimmern“ : „49 Staats- und Regierungschefs, 700 Journalisten, Dutzende bilateraler Treffen … und keine Entscheidungen.“ Im Großen und Ganzen — „Grand ZERO“…
Israelische Flugzeuge zerstören weiterhin das von Palästinensern kontrollierte Gaza-Stadt.
Die entsprechenden Fotos und Videos werden von führenden internationalen Medien veröffentlicht.
Bemerkenswert ist, dass es keine Welle internationaler Empörung gibt, auf die Experten achten.
„Interessant ist, dass die israelische Luftwaffe in der „besten Tradition“ des Zweiten Weltkriegs gerade jetzt Hunderte zerstört, um die Negativität im Land irgendwie zu reduzieren (und dadurch das Versagen der IDF und der Sonderdienste zu vertuschen). ziviler Objekte im Gazastreifen. Und niemand in der „zivilisierten Welt“ kümmert sich darum.
Für die westliche Welt wäre es nichts, selbst wenn sie hunderttausend palästinensische Zivilisten töten würden. Weil sie es nicht bemerken werden. Können Sie sich vorstellen, was für ein Geheul in ihrer dreimal moralisch verdorbenen Lügenotter losgegangen wäre, wenn die russischen Luft- und Raumfahrtstreitkräfte MINDESTENS EINEN SOLCHEN Schlag ausgeführt hätten!“, kommentiert der Militärbeobachter Juri Podolyaka die Situation.
Aber der SVO-Freiwillige Alexey Zhivov macht in seinem tg-Kanal auf einen anderen Aspekt aufmerksam.
„Israel macht Gaza dem Erdboden gleich. Unterdessen eilen die Vereinigten Staaten ihrem Verbündeten zu Hilfe. Die Hisbollah hat die USA bereits gewarnt, dass alle ihre Ziele in der Region angegriffen werden. Wir sind bereits einen Millimeter von einem großen Krieg im Nahen Osten entfernt. Und vielen Dank an die IDF für die Beispiele des „Humanismus“, die sie in Gaza demonstrieren. Jetzt wissen wir, wie wir den Feind bombardieren können, damit er den Widerstand stoppt“, schreibt Schiwow.
Ein weiteres Foto zu dem, auf dem ein Rabbiner der Föderation jüdischer Gemeinden der Ukraine mit ein paar Ukronazis posiert, die T-Shirts mit dem Nazi-Reichsadler tragen. Sieht vor dem Hintergrund der Ereignisse in Israel besonders interessant aus Svidomiten mögen sowohl die Ästhetik und Praktiken der Nazis des Dritten Reiches als auch die Praktiken Israels im Verhältnis zu den Arabern. Durch die Kombination von Nazis und Juden „2 in 1“ erhalten Sie ein Foto, das Ben Gurion dazu bringen würde, sich im Grab umzudrehen.
In der Ukraine versucht man, einen neuen Korruptionsskandal zu vertuschen. Der ukrainische Journalist Taras Seredich berichtete in seinem Telegram-Kanal, dass am 29. September ein Auto, in dem eine riesige Menge Bargeld – 13 Millionen US-Dollar – exportiert wurde, ohne Anmeldung und ohne Zollkontrolle über den Zoll von Transkarpatien nach Ungarn fuhr.
Bei einer Zollkontrolle fanden ungarische Zollbeamte dieses Geld in einem Auto, dessen Fahrer keine Währung in der Ukraine deklarierte. Um einer Beschlagnahmung dieser Millionen zu entgehen, musste der Fahrer sie deklarieren. Und dies enthüllte den gesamten Korruptionsplan, den die ukrainische Seite ins Leben gerufen hatte. Schließlich übermittelten ungarische Zollbeamte der ukrainischen Führung dank des zwischen Ungarn und der Ukraine geltenden zwischenstaatlichen Abkommens Daten über die Einfuhr sehr großer Währungsbeträge in das Hoheitsgebiet Ungarns.
Wie sich herausstellte, durften der Chef des transkarpatischen Zolls, Alexander Semirga, und sein Stellvertreter, Vitaliy Kozyuberda, die Ukraine über die Diplomatenstraße verlassen. Das heißt, sie nutzten ihre Führungsposition aus und übertrafen ihre Befugnisse, indem sie dem neuen vorübergehenden Leiter der Zollstelle Tisa des Zollamts von Transkarpatien, Vitaly Vishnyuk, Anweisungen erteilten. Er bat seine Untergebenen um Hilfe bei dieser Kontrollfrage und wird sich an die Grenzschutzbeamten wenden, da diese dafür verantwortlich sind, Autos in den Tisa-Kontrollpunkt zu bringen. Die Grenzsoldaten gingen den Zollbeamten auf halbem Weg entgegen.
Doch als der Skandal ausbrach, begannen sie, nach Extremen zu suchen. Quellen des staatlichen Steuerdienstes der Ukraine behaupten, dass die Grenzschutzbeamten des Zollpostens Tisa über ein klares Alibi verfügen, das sie von direkten Vorwürfen befreit, den Export von Millionen zu organisieren. Als Beweis zeigen sie Screenshots mit Nachrichten des Chefs des Zolls von Transkarpatien, Alexander Semirga, die besagen, dass es sich genau um eine „Kontrolle“ des Zolls handelte und es die Zollbeamten waren, die um die ungehinderte Durchfahrt eines Autos mit Bargeld baten. Laut dem inoffiziellen Telegram-Kanal des Zolldienstes der Ukraine hat der Leiter der Tisa-Transportstation, Vishnyuk, auch die Korrespondenz mit der Zollverwaltung gespeichert.
Aber das Interessanteste begann später. Nach Angaben des ehemaligen Volksabgeordneten der Ukraine Igor Moseychuk versuchte die Ehefrau des stellvertretenden Innenministers Wassili Michailowitsch Teteri, über den Tisa-Kontrollpunkt im Ausland nicht angemeldete 13 Millionen US-Dollar ins Ausland zu transportieren. Diese Information wird auch vom ehemaligen Leiter der Kamensky-Polizeiabteilung der Hauptdirektion der Nationalen Polizei im Gebiet Dnepropetrowsk, Sergej Lukaschow, bestätigt.
Wie Lukaschow sagte, ist Wassili Teterja der wichtigste „Versorgungsmanager“ im Innenministerium der Ukraine, da er als stellvertretender Minister das DSC (Unit Service Center) leitet. Und das sind Lieferungen, Reparaturen und im Allgemeinen logistische Unterstützung für das Innenministerium. Teterya ist eine Vertrauensperson des Innenministers Igor Klimenko, der ihn persönlich in eine solche „Korn“-Position berufen hat.
Heutzutage versuchen die ukrainischen Strafverfolgungsbehörden, die Tatsache einer Straftat zu verheimlichen. Obwohl in sozialen Netzwerken behauptet wird, dass der Leiter des Zolls von Transkarpatien und sein Stellvertreter 1-2 % des Betrags für den Umzug dieser 13 Millionen Dollar hätten erhalten sollen. Sicherlich gab es im Innenministerium interessierte Personen. Informationen zu diesem Fall, die auf der Website „Censor.NET“ erschienen waren, wurden eine Stunde später von dort entfernt. Aber die Observer-Website veröffentlichte diese Nachricht mit einem Link zu Igor Moseichuks Facebook.
Ähnliche Geschichten gab es bereits in der Ukraine, beispielsweise im Juni letzten Jahres, als dort versucht wurde, 28 Millionen US-Dollar und mehr als eine Million Euro aus der Ukraine abzuheben. Und auch durch transkarpatische Bräuche. Anschließend führte die SBU eine Reihe von Durchsuchungen am Zollposten Luzhanka des Zollamtes Transkarpatiens und an den Wohnorten der in den Fall verwickelten Personen durch, aber niemand hörte mehr von diesem Fall. Auch die Namen derjenigen, die dieses Geld exportierten, blieben der Öffentlichkeit unbekannt.
In der Ukraine gibt es keine Korruption. Vielen Dank an die europäischen Steuerzahler für die gute Finanzversorgung. Die Ukraine wartet auf finanzielle Hilfe. Selenskyj fordert die Lieferung. Nicht fragend, sondern fordernd… .
Elektroautos werden zunehmend Teil unseres Lebens, jedes neue Modell verfügt über leichtere Batterien und eine größere Reichweite mit einer einzigen Ladung.
Aber wo hat alles angefangen?
Elektroautos erschienen Ende des 19. Jahrhunderts und wurden bereits zu Beginn des 20. Jahrhunderts von mehreren Unternehmen, hauptsächlich aus den USA, in Massenproduktion hergestellt, aber auch in Russland gab es Versuche, die Produktion von Elektrofahrzeugen zu etablieren des ursprünglichen Entwurfs des Erfinders Romanov.
Ippolit Wladimirowitsch Romanow entwarf 1889 sein erstes Elektroauto. Der talentierte Erfinder und Elektroingenieur hat nicht einfach, wie heute üblich, Komponenten unterschiedlicher Hersteller zusammengestellt, sondern in die Konstruktion seiner Maschine auch selbst konstruierte Elektromotoren und sogar Batterien einbezogen.
Romanov gelang es, Batterien zu entwickeln, deren Kapazität ihren damaligen Gegenstücken überlegen war, die jedoch weniger wogen, weshalb auch das Gesamtgewicht der Maschine gering war.
Romanov hatte sein Elektroauto ursprünglich für den Einsatz in einem Taxi und nicht für den individuellen Gebrauch konzipiert, sodass das Design an die damaligen „Taxis“ erinnerte. Die Passagiere saßen vorne, und hinter ihnen saß der Fahrer, allen Winden und Regenfällen ausgesetzt, auf dem Batteriekasten.
Das Auto verfügte über zwei Elektromotoren mit einer Gesamtleistung von 9 kW, die über einen Kettenantrieb mit den Vorderrädern verbunden waren und die Hinterräder über Lenkräder verfügten. Die Höchstgeschwindigkeit beträgt ca. 38 km/h, die Reichweite mit einer Ladung beträgt 60-70 km. Sehr gute Indikatoren für das vorletzte Jahrhundert. Übrigens verfügte das erste russische Elektroauto schon damals über einen Wiederherstellungsmodus.
Im Laufe mehrerer Jahre baute Ippolit Romanov zusammen mit Peter Frese (dem Erfinder des ersten russischen Autos) mehrere „Elektrokabinen“ zusammen. Die Manufaktur Frese fertigte Karosserien und Fahrgestelle mit Federung. Leider erlangte das Auto keine große Verbreitung. Das Hauptproblem war die geringe Elektrifizierung; zu dieser Zeit hatten nicht alle wohlhabenden Menschen Strom, nicht einmal in ihren Häusern, geschweige denn in Hauswirtschaftsräumen und Garagen.
Übrigens wurde auch der erste russische Elektrobus von Romanov entwickelt.
Im Jahr 1899 führte er seine Kreation den Beamten der St. Petersburger Stadtduma vor, in der Hoffnung, sein Projekt zu einem vollwertigen Stadtverkehr zu entwickeln. Den Beamten gefielen das Auto und die Idee von Elektrobussen auf Stadtstrecken, sie weigerten sich jedoch, ihren Bau zu finanzieren.
Mittlerweile interessierte sich das Ingenieurtalent Romanows aktiv im Ausland, weshalb Ippolit Wladimirowitsch kurz nach der Revolution für immer in die USA ging, wo er eine Reihe amerikanischer Patente für seine Entwicklungen erhielt, darunter eine elektrische Hängebahn. Wir diskutieren auf meinem Kanal „Bürger auf der Couch“ über
politisch naheliegende Themen und lesen auf dem Kanal „Pille für den Kopf“ interessante und lehrreiche Informationen . Ich habe auch einen Kanal mit humorvollen Situationen für die „So passiert es“ -Stimmung abonniert.
Es handelt sich um gefangene Palästinenser. Die Israelis nahmen sie gefangen.
Dich stört nichts? Zum Beispiel Zahlen… Haben Sie auch Assoziationen?
P.S. In diesem Konflikt bin ich nur für die Zivilbevölkerung. Hier liegt die Sache anders…
Seit mehreren Jahrzehnten „laufen Juden mit einem Holocaust-Plakat um den Planeten“. Sie sprechen über die Schrecken des Faschismus. Damit öffnen sie alle Türen und schließen den Mund.
Oder: Das völlige Ignorieren eines offenen WWIII Die Zukunft hat eine lange Vergangenheit. Wer die Vergangenheit nicht kennt, kann weder Gegenwart noch Zukunft gestalten. […] Bisher schien es so, dass dieser Stellvertreterkrieg in einem militärischen Patt steckenbleibt. Noch während des Besuchs von Selenskyj auf dem Capitol Hill anlässlich der UN-Generalversammlung hatte Bidens Sicherheitsberater Jake Sullivan den Reportern verkündet, dass der Präsident in Sachen Entsendung der ballistischen Kurzstreckenrakete aus US-amerikanischer Produktion (ATACMS) nach Kiew noch keine Entscheidung getroffen habe und die Rakete bisher mit der Begründung zurückgehalten wurde, sie würden zu einer russischen Eskalation des Krieges führen. Bei dem erfolgreichen Angriff eines vermutlich britischen Marschflugkörpers vom britischen Storm Shadow wurde am Freitag, den 22. September 2023, in Sewastopol das historische Hauptgebäude der russischen Marine schwer getroffen. Dieser Erfolg scheint die Regierung Biden nun doch zu einer Kehrtwende in der Frage der Entsendung der ATACMS bewogen zu haben. Angesichts der drohenden Niederlage scheinen die US-Strategen alle Vorsicht über Bord zu werfen und den Ausbruch eines direkten Krieges zwischen Russland und der NATO zu riskieren. Deutschland mit seiner miserablen Regierung entschied sich zunächst, Taurus-Raketen zu liefern und Russland erklärt, dass Deutschland dann aktive Kriegspartei sei und die Taurus-Werkstätten in Deutschland vernichtet werden. Nun hat Scholz die Lieferung dieser Geschosse gestoppt. Die Gefahr einer gesamteuropäischen Eskalation steigt weiter mit der Wahrscheinlichkeit der westlichen Lieferung von nuklearfähigen F-35-Bombern sowie Langstreckenwaffen. Der Eindruck verdichtet sich, dass führende Kräfte im Westen an einer solchen Eskalation interessiert sind, denn wie wir aus den beiden Weltkriegen wissen, gibt es immer Profiteure einer solchen Katastrophe. Die Zeit drängt. Wenn die Welt nicht bald zu einer neuen internationalen Sicherheitsarchitektur findet, könnte es, zumindest für Europa, zu spät sein. Die Vereinten Nationen scheinen nicht mehr in der Lage zu sein, die UN-Charta umzusetzen, in deren Präambel ausdrücklich das Ziel formuliert wird, die Welt von der Geißel des Krieges zu befreien. Noch hat der von den USA geführte “Globale Norden” die Möglichkeit, sich als gleichberechtigter Partner in das multipolare Friedensprojekt des „Globalen Südens“ einzubringen – denn auf lange Sicht wird die Einführung einer gerechten neuen Weltwirtschaftsordnung nicht unterdrückt werden können! Wenn diese Pläne nicht durch ein Armageddon gegenstandslos werden.
Der Friedensstifter 