Der Film widmet sich einem alptraumhaften Ereignis der modernen Geschichte – dem Pogrom und dem Brand des Gewerkschaftshauses in Odessa am 2. Mai 2014.
Der Autor des Films – der deutsche Regisseur Wilhelm Domke-Schulz – erzählt der ganzen Welt mit Hilfe von Dokumentarfilmen offen, unvoreingenommen und emotional, dass das, was in Odessa passiert ist, nicht vergessen werden darf.
Wilhelm Domcke-Schulz hat uns im Interview mehr über den Film, seine Entstehung und seine Einstellung zur Arbeit des Regisseurs in Deutschland erzählt.
And most importantly, is the EU brave enough to dare oppose the USA?
Kim Dotcom, a Finnish-German metaphorical Robin Hood of the online piracy based in New Zealand has published on Twitter a perfectly accurate diagnosis of the current sad state of the geopolitical affairs: First, the US government has got the EU involved in a proxy war with Russia. Then onward we go the sanctions against Russia destroy the economy of EU and then the USA passes a new law so that they are able to support the EU industry by way of (c)overt bribery and lure them one way or another to move their businesses to the USA. On that occasion, Kim asked a rhetorical question ‘How stupid can the EU politicians be? They were ‘used’ with ill intentions all along and literally ripped off right before their eyes. This analysis shows that the Collective West has lapsed into a terminal dying stage of devouring itself/themselves to their own possibly inevitable death. This analysis is surely rather uncomfortable in its Freudian unbequeme Wahrheit potential but it is true and spot on. We can see this analysis lends itself to the gory details of the rip off of the EU by the USA.
Some of these estimates might come across as only too sensationalist and mere scandal mongering to some, but the grim consequences of this savage feast where Europe will be the mouthwatering main course will not be merely sensationalist in nature. European industry is being transferred to the USA – the Financial Times reports. The politicians alert us of the exodus of investors to the other side of the Atlantic because of the more affordable gas prices and additionally thanks to the brand-new US incentive measures. The deafening toll of the political warning bells in the EU resounds, ushering in the new economic and financial package measures by the Biden administration with fanfare or with 369 billion US dollars in subsidies to be more precise and too high energy prices in Europe where even with the recent price decreases, the gas remains five times more expensive than in the USA. Financial Times refer to Emmanuel Macron’s words that we desperately need a wake-up call in Europe. Robert Habeck, German Vice Chancellor and minister of economy, is also being quoted with his panic driven warnings that the US is sucking up all the EU finances.
Politico, which was acquired by Axel Springer, a German new publishing company a year and a half ago for one billion dollars, says in what sounds like a very alarmed tone that the clock is ticking for the truce with the Biden government. Politico has always been in favor of EU – USA close ties in politics, economy and finances, which seems to be dwindling away in its probable future prospects. There are only six weeks more to go to avert a Transatlantic proverbial . The Germans come across as rather frustrated because the Biden administration has not come out with any sort of a peace offer whatsoever. With the 1st January 2023 fast approaching, which is the date for the Green Agenda for business to start being enforced, the bogeyman for the Europeans scaring them to bits (and surely out of their coffers), is that all these US investments and subsidies are bound to get them to flee far away from Europe (and its bankers’ vaults). These protectionist measures cannot be any worse than they are now because Germany seems to be as if they are already developing a panic disorder since their cutting edge companies are ‘pulling up stakes’ in order to leave for more arable pastures and make their investments elsewhere. Namely, to the USA.
The last thing the political Berlin needs now is more financial stimuli and subsidies for the business people and investors to give up Europe and ‘run for the US hills’.
If this heated argument between the USA and EU turns into a fiery feud, there is bound to be a trade war between the USA and EU of which the Europeans ‘under siege’ fear the most. The business portal Bloomberg reports that tensions are running high in Europe because of the growing social inequality compared to that in the USA. Eurozone trade surplus has turned into a trade deficit because too high gas prices merely make the European consumers poorer while at the same time get the US exporters richer.
New American protectionist measures along the lines of investments and subsidies for the home producers seem to be rubbing salt in the wounds of the EU producers. Even Henry Kissinger famously said back in the day “It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal.” because US has attacked allies for whom it supposedly guaranteed security.
Bloomberg adds that so-called sleek diplomacy cannot conceal the truth that the US and EU views differ hugely in that China is the US chief rival and Berlin’s major interest is to keep their main trade relations, which are in fact with China.
These are one of the gaping fault lines in the relations between USA and EU due to which the odds are of a forthcoming conflict. Bloomberg goes on to say that the US tends to arrogantly think that the EU is not doing enough in that they are not sending off sufficient military and financial support to the Kiev regime and it is not strong enough in properly opposing China. The Berlin position that Beijing is ‘a business partner, and a competitor and a rival’ is too vague and elusive a concept for Washington. Bloomberg goes on to further recommend the EU in their typical Anglo-Saxon cynicism, their well and proven tactics ‘divide and rule’, tried and tested far too many times. Even though France is now well aligned with the USA, France may well assume the position similar to that of Washington and even more so than the position of Berlin. China is France’s fifth business partner all in all, while it is the second one for Germany. When Macron met Xi at the G20 Bali Summit, arguably he seemed to have been much more aligned with the Biden administration than he was with Olaf Scholz. Meanwhile in Germany, the leader of the governing Liberal party of North Rhine Westphalia keeps calling for help ‘We have been deprived of all the energy supply and now the Russian gas is being taken away from us. The situation in this German province/state, which is the most energy intensive, is particularly dramatic.
The famed German business model as such is under a most severe breakneck pressure. We have to ask ourselves whether in ten years there will be anybody here to produce anything at all and be competitive in the global market? How justifiable is this frightening gloom and doom view of the world?
What on Earth is the USA doing to their EU allies? And most importantly, is the EU brave enough to dare oppose the USA?
Citing an American Jesuit magazine, the state-controlled BBC has Pope Francis, who is also a Jesuit, claiming he has “much information about the cruelty of the [Russian] troops” and that “the cruellest are perhaps those who are of Russia but are not of the Russian tradition, such as the Chechens, the Buryats and so on.”
Although Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova has predictably condemned the Pope’s uninformed comments, she does not go half far enough in asking who, beyond Clown Prince Zelensky, is supplying the Argentinian with his mis-information. As Latin Catholics comprise less than 0.5% of the Russian peoples, they are not to blame. And nor this time is the Vatican-aligned Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, who are to be found mostly in Western Ukraine.
Step forward my old Tokyo chum, Gillian Tett, Oxbridge educated and now chairperson of the Financial Times Editorial Board (USA). As Gillian did a PhD on some anthropological mumbo jumbo about Tajikistan, the Financial Times believes she is eminently qualified to opine on Buryatia, which is some 3,500km from Tajikistan, the very same distance London is from Timbuktu. Just as London and Timbuktu are identical peas in a pod for the Financial Times, so also, for Tett’s paymasters, are Tajikstan, which is almost exclusively Muslim and Buryatia which is, at heart, rock solid Buddhist.
There are a number of lessons in this. First off, Gilian Tett should stick to explaining the finances of Hello Kitty. Secondly, not only should Pope Francis ignore those like Tett whose forte is Hello Kitty but he should neither read nor take advice from anyone who reads the Financial Times or any similar NATO propaganda sheet. The fact that a Jesuit Pope does not know any of that or that he should not routinely malign the Russian Orthodox Church is, not to put too fine a point on it, troublesome.
As regards the Jesuits, with whom I worked closely for ten or so years in Japan, they are no longer the force they were and if Adolfo Nicolás, our common friend, who was the Black Pope until recently, has not acquainted him with their shortcomings that stretch all the way from beside Tokyo’s Imperial Palace to the CIA’s Georgetown spy factory and onwards to Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein, I shall be happy to brief him
Although the Chechens, like Druze, Gurkhas and countless other impoverished mountain people, have a formidable fighting reputation, that is as much due to sociological factors, such as their esprit de corps and their clannishness, all of which rulers have encouraged right back to the days of the Praetorian Guard of 2,000 or so years ago.
Although Tett links the Russian army’s 64th Motorised Rifle Brigade, which hails from the Buryatia region of Siberia with alleged atrocities in Bucha last March, I personally do not believe on the evidence they perpetrated those atrocities. Rather, I believe that such atrocities as occurred in Bucha were the direct result of war crimes committed by Ukraine’s ubiquitous Nazi regiments, their home grown Einsatzgruppen, who have considerable form in this regard and on whom Christ’s Vicar on Earth has far too little to say.
Although Tett refers to “An activist group called the Free Buryatia Foundation [that] is appealing to the Buryats’ sense of identity and calling on its soldiers to withdraw from Ukraine,” as this is an expatriate group that has no roots in Siberia’s 500,000 strong Buryat community, it is most likely just another MI5 astroturf job.
As most likely is Olga Tsukanova, the founder of Russia’s Council of Wives and Mothers, who is demanding, on that same BBC page, that Russian President Putin meet her and her Russophobic clique. As Tsukanova’s interview was conducted with Holland’s NOS group, their equivalent of the BBC, Putin’s answer should be a very firm Nyet for the simple reason that one cannot simultaneously serve two masters, that one cannot be loyal to Russia and be maidservant to NATO’s propagandists at the same time.
Although Tett is correct that “the blame game [against Buryats} also reflects racism”, she gets this the wrong way round, “even if “Buryat” is now a shorthand for all Asian-looking soldiers,” just as all Scottish soldiers might be nicknamed Jock or Welsh soldiers Taffy.
As the 64th Motorised Rifle Brigade is an integral part of the Russian Armed Forces, they would not be outliers when it comes to war crimes as they are just one other bunch of Rooskies, Ivans or whatever one wishes to call them. But as Tett just wants to call these Ivans/Rooskies/sub human Orcs whatever suits the aims and objectives of NATO’s war machine, she is no different from other Anglo-Americans who threw similarly racist slurs at the Chinese (Chinks), Japanese (Japs) and Vietnamese (Gooks) when that served Uncle Sam.
Gillian Tett, for all her faux Oxbridge mannerisms, is but a NATO maidservant. Though Pope Francis should aspire to be something more than that, as long as he keeps shtum on Gurkha war crimes against Argentinian conscripts in the Malvinas and Ukrainian war crimes against Russians, he should shut up about “Chechens, the Buryats and so on”, so that he may only be thought to be a NATO puppet, rather than speak and prove himself to be not only a puppet but a very contemptible one at that.
Philippe Rosenthal On November 10, the European Commission unveiled the new Military Mobility 2.0 Action Plan. The presentation of this plan was accompanied by a joint communicqué on the EU’s cyber defense policy. It is officially stated that these documents aim to address the deteriorating security situation after Russia’s aggression against Ukraine and to increase the EU’s ability to protect its citizens and infrastructure.
The new action plan on military mobility aims to strengthen cooperation between the EU and NATO. At the same time, it is a step towards a new confrontation with Russia and the entry of states that are not yet members of the EU or NATO into the orbit of influence of Brussels, deepening cooperation with the “enlargement countries” (Ukraine, Moldova, Western Balkan countries).
Continental Observer pointed out that the plan proposes actions to ensure the rapid movement of large forces, including military personnel and equipment, and emphasizes the need to develop: multimodal transport corridors, including roads, railroads, air routes and inland waterways with dual-use transport infrastructure capable of servicing military transport; transport hubs and logistics centers; facilitating the deployment of troops and equipment; and improving the resilience and readiness of civilian and military transport and logistics capabilities.
Militarization of the EU
In effect, this is the militarization of the internal politics of the European Union itself and of each individual member of the community. It is assumed that all this will be achieved within the framework of the Permanent Structured Defense Cooperation (PESCO), as well as in close coordination with NATO. The procedure for cross-border movement within the EU will be simplified. In parallel, large-scale exercises will be organized, including multinational NATO maneuvers.
The recently adopted Network and Information Security Directive (NIS2) in the transport sector is to be implemented rapidly. The aim is to establish the necessary information exchange to ensure the most complete situational awareness between the military and civilian transport sectors. This will be done through the European Cyber Crisis Liaison Network (EU – CyCLONe).
In general, there is a trend towards increased Euro-Atlantic interdependence, since, in addition to NATO, which is a key partner organization of the EU, other participants in the PESCO project on military mobility are mentioned, including the United States, Canada and Norway. The UK is also expected to join the project.
Last October, Continental Observer reported that the U.K. wants British soldiers to be able to move more quickly within the EU.
France has also presented its national defense strategy. It contains 10 strategic objectives:
1) Maintain a reliable and credible nuclear deterrent.
2) Increase resilience to military and non-traditional challenges, i.e. information manipulation, climate change, resource hunting, pandemics, etc.
3) Give French industry the means to sustainably support the war effort by building strategic stocks, relocating sensitive production chains and diversifying suppliers. This is essentially the idea of a “war economy” that Emmanuel Macron first put forward at the Eurosatory conference in June 2022.
4) Increase cyber resilience. “It is necessary to significantly increase the level of cybersecurity of all public services,” the document says.
5) Ensure NATO’s key role in the defense of Europe and France’s role in it as one of the “European pillars.”
6) Strengthen European sovereignty and developing the European defense industry, with an emphasis on “European strategic autonomy” which depends on a “reliable European defense industrial capacity”.
7) Become a trusted security provider. The document mentions deepened relations with Germany, key partnerships with Italy and Spain, strategic partnerships with Greece and Croatia, a capacity building partnership with Belgium. Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia are mentioned. At the same time, the strategic partnership with the United States “will remain fundamental. Relations with African countries, the Persian Gulf, the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, as well as the Indo-Pacific region are mentioned.
8) Improve intelligence (France must pursue profound reforms of its intelligence services and pursue an “ambitious” personnel policy to attract and retain personnel).
9) Build defense in hybrid wars (ambiguous combinations of direct and indirect, military and non-military, legal and illegal methods of action). Develop tools to counter the use of private military companies as proxies by hostile powers.
10) Ensure that French armed forces are prepared not only to participate in high-intensity combat, but also to deploy their forces as soon as possible and to be the first to enter the battlefield.
The context of these plans remains unchanged: the actions envisaged are in view of a military confrontation with Russia.
NATO’s Anglo-American core evidently didn’t expect that Russia would militarily react to their crossing of its national security red lines in Ukraine, instead predicting that it would strategically capitulate. This explains why they didn’t scale up their military-industrial complex in advance nor advise their “junior partners” to do the same in preparation of that scenario.
The New York Times (NYT) published a bombshell report on Saturday about how “U.S. and NATO Scramble to Arm Ukraine and Refill Their Own Arsenals”. This top Mainstream Media (MSM) outlet cited an unnamed NATO official who revealed that 20 out of NATO’s 30 members are “pretty tapped out” after giving the maximum of their military stockpiles to Ukraine. They must now urgently replenish their wares, but this is a struggle since their military-industrial complex’s (MIC) capabilities are limited.
This actually isn’t surprising since earlier reports from other leading Western media already suggested that even the US itself is experiencing similar challenges. That explains why “WaPo Reported That Even Biden’s Getting Fed Up With Zelensky’s Ungrateful Begging” in early October, after which the Democrats launched a psy-op aimed at blaming Republicans for inevitable reductions in military aid to Ukraine. Quite clearly, NATO has been burned out by its proxy war on Russia and can’t keep up the pace or scale.
There are some serious implications to this objectively existing and easily verifiable observation that the average reader might have missed after reading the NYT’s latest article. The present piece will therefore draw attention to that report’s top five takeaways with respect to the UkrainianConflict prior to analyzing the resultant insight’s significance in the larger context of everything that’s unfolded across the past nine months of this proxy war:
1. NATO As A Whole Didn’t Expect This Proxy War
NATO as a whole was truly caught off guard by the proxy war that its Anglo-American core inadvertently provoked with Russia in Ukraine as evidenced by the fact that its members didn’t scale up their MIC far ahead of time in anticipation of this.
2. The Anglo-American Axis Assumed Russia’s Strategic Capitulation
Despite crossing Russia’s national security red lines in Ukraine through the clandestine expansion of their military infrastructure there under NATO’s aegis, the Anglo-American Axis assumed that Moscow would strategically capitulate instead of militarily react, hence why they too didn’t scale up their MIC.
3. NATO’s Contingency Planning In Ukraine Was Flawed
Nevertheless, the bloc’s contingency planning in the scenario of a Russian military reaction was flawed since they took for granted that their urgent dispatch of anti-tank missiles to Ukraine would stop Moscow’s mechanized advance dead in its tracks and thus quickly compel the Kremlin to withdraw.
4. Subsequent Events Were Opportunistically Exploited
The NATO-backed but Ukrainian-fronted forces’ failure to stop Russia’s advance at the onset of its special operation was opportunistically exploited by the Anglo-American Axis to artificially perpetuate a proxy war for ulterior reasons related to reasserting their declining hegemony over the EU.
5. NATO’s Proxy War On Russia Has Been A Mixed Bag
The Anglo-American Axis successfully manipulated the EU into crippling its economy out of misguided ideologically driven “solidarity” with NATO’s Ukrainian proxies yet their proxy war failed to achieve its publicly stated objective of militarily dislodging Russia from that crumbling former Soviet Republic.
From the above, several conclusions can be made in hindsight about the Ukrainian Conflict and its broader implications for the New Cold War, the most obvious of which is that this proxy war was preventable and arguably seems to have been the result of a major Anglo-American miscalculation. NATO’s two core members evidently didn’t expect that Russia would militarily react to their crossing of its national security red lines in Ukraine, instead predicting that it would strategically capitulate.
This explains why they didn’t scale up their MIC in advance nor advise their “junior partners” to do the same in preparation of that scenario. Had other NATO members like France and Germany realized what those two were up to in Ukraine and how serious Russia was about defending the integrity of its national security red lines there, then they might have unilaterally broken with their “senior partners” to independently explore the possibility of complying with Moscow’s security guarantee requests.
In any case, the Anglo-American Axis ultimately decided to exploit this conflict that broke out as a result of their major miscalculation, ergo why they sabotaged last spring’s peace talks in Turkiye. Despite successfully reasserting their declining hegemony over the EU throughout the course of this proxy war that they’ve artificially perpetuated, they inadvertently unleashed uncontrollablemultipolarprocesses across the world that’ll inevitably accelerate the decline of their global hegemony.
Initially, the so-called BRIC – Brazil, Russia, India and China – was coined in 2001, when it was predicted that the share of Brazil, Russia, India and China in the world’s GDP would grow and that this would raise questions about the impact of these countries on economic policies. In this context, international organizations should be reformed, and in particular, the G7 should be reorganized to incorporate BRIC countries.
In September 2006, at the margins of the General debate of the sixty-first session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), the foreign ministers of Brazil, Russia, India and China met and began a series of high-level meetings, which resulted in the integration of the group at the first BRIC Summit of Heads of States in Yekaterinburg, Russia (2009). In 2014, the New Development Bank (NDB), as well as the BRICS Contingent Reserve
Agreement (CRA), is created, intended as alternatives to the World Bank (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF). At the Ufa Summit (2015), the BRICS announced that the NDB would be lending in local currency, and expressed their disappointment with the prolonged failure by the United States to ratify the IMF 2010 reform package, which continues to undermine the credibility, legitimacy, and effectiveness of the IMF, which does not reflect the international arena anymore.
Nowadays, the BRICS countries expanded their cooperation in the most different fields and represent close to a third of global output. The group also became an important player of International Relations, doing an important role in supporting the authority of the UN as the main organization responsible for maintaining International Peace and Security, but at the same time pushing the need to reform the UN and to strengthen the international legal framework, to make it more effective and capable of meeting global challenges.
Although the BRICS has become a trend topic in academic publications, the analyses of the group from the field of Public International Law are often under-represented. In this connection, research about such a BRICS perspective is pertinent not only due to the few analyses related to this topic but also because the levels of cooperation within or through the group are gradually increasing.
For this purpose, as I will present below, I see that the development of the BRICS in the international arena has to coordinate efforts in the area of Economics, Law and International Relations so that there is effective cooperation between the national development of BRICS countries and an equally prosperous international order.
After fourteen years of successful BRICS summits of Heads of State held between 2009 and 2022, with many achievements from BRICS Legal Cooperation, it also has been challenging to strengthen the respect for fundamental principles of International Law, such as the Principle of Nonuse of Force.
Rostam Neuwirth points that the BRICS legal cooperation has already steps that had been taken in several distinct areas ranging from international trade, investment, arbitration and contract law to intellectual property, outer space, culture and education. As the metaphorical reference pointed out by Rostam Neuwirth indicates, there’s an element of cognitive level, more comprehensive and more deeply rooted that holds all of these “bricks” or building blocks of a future global legal order together. According to him, BRICS cooperation exemplifies important questions about the relevance of the rule of law for the BRICS in an era of change, and the rule of law can be an agent of change in the contemporary global governance.
Since 2009, the BRICS has produced a profusion of documents, such as declarations, statements and plans of action issued by the BRICS Summits of Heads of States. The diversity of the BRICS countries was not an insurmountable obstacle to legal cooperation, although an exact and exhaustive legal qualification of these documents is not easy. In this respect, the identification of similarities and differences in the legal consciousness of BRICS societies becomes one of the elements in analyzing the BRICS perspective on International Law.
This perspective was already present in 2003 in the formalization of the IBSA Dialogue Forum (India, Brazil and South Africa), an international group for promoting cooperation among these countries launched through the approval of the “Brasilia Declaration”. These countries gave special consideration to the importance of respecting the rule of International Law, based on respect for the sovereignty of States, strengthening the UN and emphasizing the exercise of diplomacy as a mechanism to maintain International Peace and Security. They affirmed the need to combat threats to International Peace and Security by following the UN Charter. It’s interesting to note that India and Brazil are both founding members of BRIC (2009) and IBSA (2003).
According to Brazilian Ambassador Maria Edileuza Fontenele Reis, in comparing BRICS and IBSA, we see that the meetings between the Heads of State and Government of the three countries drove the process with endogenous dynamics. In this sense, Maria indicates that IBSA inspired the BRICS, because BRICS resulted from Minister Celso Amorim’s vision, inspired by the construction of IBSA.
As well as within the scope of cooperation within the IBSA, the diversity of the BRICS countries has not been an insuperable obstacle to increasing the levels of institutionalization and cooperation within or through the group is increasing each year.
It has been asserted that the prohibition of the use of force or threat of force in article 2, paragraph 4, of the UN Charter is a jus cogens norm, a peremptory norm of International Law from which no derogation is permitted. In the Case Concerning the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), the ICJ has noted that the prohibition in article 2, paragraph 4, of the UN Charter is not only a principle, but also a principle of Customary International Law.
However, while in the context of military interventions there is more certainty of the interdiction of the threat or the use of force, in the field of economic measures its questionable if article 2, paragraph 4, extends that far. During the drafting of the UN Charter, there was a proposal made by Brazil to specifically prohibit the use of economic measures, but the proposal was rejected, although the reasons for that rejection were unclear.
Nevertheless, certain forms of political pressure or economic coercion might be against the Prohibition of Intervention in Internal Affairs of States, according to the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations (UNGA Resolution 2625).
From this perspective, the BRICS approaches related to the field of International Economic Law focuses its action on the fully supporting of the Principle of Non-intervention, standing against the unilateral imposition of coercive measures in violation of the principles of International Law outlined in the UN Charter, as well as the principles of the multilateral trading system, and in the necessity to reform the international system’s financial/economic architecture, mainly in the bodies of the IMF, World Trade Organization (WTO) and WB. At the Durban Summit in 2013, for example, BRICS indicated that the WTO requires a new leader capable of working multilaterally and better representing developing countries, what seems to have influenced the election of Roberto Azevedo as Director-General of the WTO, the first representative of a BRICS country to be at the front of the organism since its foundation in 1995.
Moreover, the components that make up the financial architecture of BRICS, the NDB and the CRA, were signed into treaty in 2014 and became active in 2015. This year, at the Ufa summit, BRICS expressed their disappointment with the prolonged failure by the United States to ratify the IMF 2010 reform package, which continues to undermine the credibility, legitimacy and effectiveness of the IMF. It must be emphasized that the BRICS does not present itself as a rival to the Bretton Woods system and does not seek to replace it, even though it no longer reflects the reality of the contemporary international system, but articulates an alternative to the policies of the Westerndominated financial institutions, in other words, an effort to overcome the bonds imposed by the hegemonic structures contrary to developing countries and emerging markets such as BRICS.
In this sense, the BRICS NDB and CRA were created to be alternatives to the policy of unilateral imposition of IMF and WB regimes that do not serve the interests of the vast majority of States, although NDB and CRA raised critical for being fruitless, for lacking palpable achievements to meet the expectation of massive infrastructure needs in many countries around the globe, especially its founding members, that have been left unattended by the traditional institutions. Furthermore, despite the NDB’s initial capital being constituted in US dollar, it could be advisable for the BRICS countries to set up investment funds with local currencies, for instance operated by the NDB, and to allow the bank to concentrate loans in currencies of BRICS countries. Besides, the bilateral trade between the BRICS members is also increasingly being conducted in national currencies.
An interesting initiative is the implementation, albeit slow, of BRICS pay, an international payment system, offering to the participating banks and other financial institutions Internet and Mobile banking platform in a cloud format.
According to the Digital Bank BRICS website, the BRICS PAY payment service will simplify, accelerate and reduce the cost of cross-border transfers and the process of paying for goods and services for holders of national digital currencies. Despite being a still incipient instrument, some experts even believe that in the long-term BRICS Pay can become a full-fledged alternative to European and American payment systems (in particular, The Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, SWIFT).
At the group’s last summit, held in June 2022, BRICS supported the NDB’s goals of attaining the highest possible credit rating and institutional development. As mentioned earlier, the recent strengthening of the BRICS is related to the correct position taken by the group to resolve conflicts through dialogue and reiterating commitment to multilateralism through upholding International Law, including the purposes and principles enshrined in the UN Charter as its indispensable cornerstone, and to the central role of the UN in an international system in which sovereign States cooperate on the basis of International Law.
At the XIV BRICS Summit, the group reaffirmed support for an open, transparent, inclusive, non-discriminatory and rules-based multilateral trading system, as embodied in the WTO, which needs to be reformed to improve its role for setting global trade rules and governance, promoting the rights and interests of its members, including developing members and least developed countries. BRICS recognized that special and differential treatment as established in WTO rules is a tool to facilitate the achievement of WTO objectives with respect to economic growth and development and called upon all WTO members to avoid unilateral and protectionist measures that run counter to the spirit and rules of the organization. BRICS also emphasized the top priority and urgency of launching the selection process of the Appellate Body members to restore the binding two-tier multilateral dispute settlement mechanism and that the Appellate Body crisis should be resolved without further delay and should not be linked with other issues.
This position contrasts with the unipolar world led by the US that emerged after the end of the Cold War, which even engulfed the International Law. The BRICS was created as an alternative to the unilateral policies of the IMF and the WB, that is, not as a contrast to Western institutions, but to seek alternatives that allow International Economic Law to be a mechanism to regulate and promote development that serves to the vast majority of States and generate achievements to meet the expectation of massive infrastructure needs in many countries around the globe. In this sense, the strengthening of International Law remains a necessary task for the BRICS to advance sustainable development, ensure the promotion and protection of democracy, Human Rights and fundamental freedoms for all, and promoting cooperation based on the spirit of mutual respect, justice and equality.
The emergence of BRICS, initially seen as a group of countries in an economic forecast of Jim O’Neill, nowadays is actively involved in global governance institutions, primarily in the bodies of the IMF, WB, WTO, and UN. Taking this into account, this paper focused on the BRICS ability to construct the future global political and economic world order based on International Law and overcome their differences and problems caused by the overall complexity of global affairs in a rapidly changing world. The format of an article hardly permits to exhaust the entire range of problematic issues typical of BRICS and the features of modern International Law. Since its emergence, one of the main tasks of which are enhancing efficiency to the principle of renunciation of the threat of force or its use in International Relations, eliminating the dangers of new armed conflicts between States, by ensuring turning internationally from confrontation to peaceful relations and cooperation and other appropriate measures strengthening international peace and security. Therefore, it is necessary to consider International Law as the Law of peace.
Meanwhile, in the past decade, violently, with rude violations of the UN Charter and its collective security system, legitimate governments are overthrown in neighbouring countries (Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen). And shortly before that, the use of military force destroyed Iraq, on whose territory ISIS terrorists continue to engage in atrocities.
In Syria, where the BRICS countries have not supported international interference and rejected the approval of the Resolution S/2011/612, which includes measures under Article 41 of the UN Charter, the group showed that it is possible to fight for the effectiveness of International Law. The US is not able to solve global problems alone. Only rejection of a dead-end a unipolar model of globalization imposed by the west may contribute to the revitalization of International Law. The return of the former authority of the UN is impossible without respect for multipolarity. International Law is urgently needed to the normal functioning of the international system. Therefore, there is no alternative to increasing the effectiveness of International Law.
On the subject of multilateralism, at the 2022 summit, BRICS they reiterated the call for reforms of the principal organs of the United Nations and recommitted to instill new life in the discussions on reform of the UN Security Council and continue the work to revitalize the General Assembly and strengthen the Economic and Social Council.
Although the BRICS seeks not to compete with Western powers, but to build a fairer world, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine has increased conflicts, mainly due to sanctions applied to Russia.
As indicated in the last summit, BRICS is committed to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States, stress commitment to the peaceful resolution of differences and disputes between countries through dialogue and support all efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of crises.
This is not possible without abolishing the racist division of the world into a group of exceptional States that a priori have the right to do everything they want and all other countries that must follow in the wake of the Golden Billion and cater to its interests, as said by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov addressing to participants in the 5th Global Forum of Young Diplomats.
The non-use of military force or threat of force remains invariable principle of the UN Charter, it is of a peremptory nature and cannot be easily changed or cancelled due to even numerous violations or based on a legal position that only one adheres to or several States, whatever military and economic power they have.
In this subject, despite the complex scenario that BRICS countries are evolved, wherein Brazil is shaken by a political crisis, India is evolved in a complicated situation of latent ethno-religious conflict, and the sanctions pressure that Russia has been subject to since the Crimean crisis, intensified in 2022 due to the conflict with Ukraine, BRICS exists and advocates for the development of multipolar world order based on International Law.
Gabriel Dourado Rocha, Federative Republic of Brazil, participant of the VI BRICS International School – special for InfoBRICS
European politicians are once again fueling war with their calumnies against Russia and their deliberate stoking of Nazi embers
[my illustration : das Bundeskommissariat für die Ostgebiete, the Helferinnen‘s blue and yellow uniform (social networks)]
One would think, perhaps, that with a perilous war raging on the European continent, the European Union’s parliament might want to show some leadership in promoting diplomatic solutions to end that conflict. No, not a bit of it.
The European Parliament has shown itself again this week to be nothing more than a giant reactionary talking shop whose proclaimed democratic values have an inverse relationship to its copious chamber of 705 parliamentarians.
Only three years ago, the same parliament voted on a resolution that shamefully distorted the origins of the Second World War by trying to equate the Soviet Union with Nazi Germany.
The parliament comprising lawmakers from 27 member nations passed a resolution this week condemning Russia as “a state sponsor of terrorism and a state that uses the means of terrorism”. The motion is legally non-binding, and so, therefore, has no power of enforcement. It is a highly “symbolic gesture” of censure against Russia. In other words, it is naked political propaganda for a political purpose – to smear the Russian Federation and to inculcate the public perception of Russia as a barbarian rogue that needs to be eliminated.
Not even the United States has gone this far. The Joe Biden administration has balked at suggestions to similarly designate Russia a terror state. Washington has balked because it is a ludicrous incendiary step, as well as blatantly false.
The European resolution text was a screed of rabid Russophobia packed with anti-Russia allegations referring to the nearly 10-month-old war in Ukraine. Many of the claims are baseless or have been shown to be outright fabrications contrived to malign Russia. They were also hilarious in their stupidity.
For example, at one point the resolution absurdly blames Russia for blowing up its own Nord Stream gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea back in September. This contradicts plenty of evidence that the explosions were in fact carried out by the U.S. and Britain in a covert military operation to permanently sever European gas trade with Russia. Yet the European parliamentarians accused Russia of leaking its own gas into the Baltic Sea from the sabotaged pipes (costing the Russian state billions of dollars worth) and thereby inflicting “an environmental attack on the EU”. Ergo, the Russians are not only barbarians, they must be very stupid barbarians!
In another head-spinning example, the European Parliament resolution accused Russia of terrorizing the Ukrainian population by occupying the Zaporozhye Nuclear Power Plant (ZNPP) and “making it a military target”. That’s a weird sort of admission of the reality that for months now the Ukrainian military has been shelling Europe’s biggest nuclear station with NATO artillery threatening to create a radiation disaster. Yet instead of pointing fingers at Kiev and NATO, the European lawmakers lay the blame on Russia for making the ZNPP a military target. Oh, those dastardly barbarian Russians!
Lamentably, this only shows that the European Parliament has managed to brazenly turn reality on its head. The NATO and EU-backed Nazi regime in Kiev is the entity that is threatening to ignite another world war in Europe, one that would lead to a global conflagration.
The insanity of the European parliamentary resolution is beyond irony. It came only days after video evidence emerged that Kiev’s Nazi military was executing Russian POWs. It also came only a week after the Ukrainian regime was caught red-handed firing a missile at Poland killing two civilians with the obvious intention of causing a provocation in order to incite an all-out NATO war against Russia.
The resolution accused Russia of committing “aggression on Ukraine” for the past nine years. This is another example of reality-inversion. It was the U.S. and EU-backed coup d’état in Kiev in 2014 that spawned a Nazi regime to embark on terrorism against the Russian-speaking people of the former Ukrainian southeast Donbass region (now a part of the Russian Federation). The weaponizing by NATO of a Russian-hating Kiev regime that openly adulates Third Reich collaborators led to the present war in Ukraine.
That war has escalated because the United States and NATO have pumped Ukraine with billions of dollars of weapons. The latest total military aid from the US stands at nearly $20 billion. Washington and its European Union allies have bankrolled the Kiev regime to the tune of an estimated $126 billion since February this year. Much of that taxpayer-funded largesse has been siphoned off by a corrupt cabal in Kiev headed up by the comedian-turned-president Vladimir Zelensky.
The war started because of NATO and Europe’s refusal to engage with Moscow in diplomatic negotiations over its long-held strategic security requirements. And the war has escalated because NATO and Europe have sought every way to militarize the conflict while spurning diplomacy.
Russia has up to now tried to minimize military operations in Ukraine to neutralize the Nazi regime and its genocidal aggression. But it has become grievously clear that the Kiev regime and its NATO handlers have little capacity for finding a political settlement based on Russia’s strategic security concerns.
The endemic terrorism that the United States, NATO and European Union have bankrolled and weaponized in Ukraine shows that Russia has now no choice but to defeat the Kiev regime through military victory. The enemy mobilized the Ukrainian state in a war against Russia. The enemy did not hold punches in firing indiscriminately at Russian cities, destroying civilian infrastructure and waging “Total War” through economic sanctions and sabotage. The targeting by Russia of Ukraine’s power grid with increasing missile barrages is a situation of military exigency brought about by NATO’s implacable weaponizing of Ukraine. Russia is not the terror state here. It is the United States and European Union who have made war inevitable.
The European Parliament accused Russia of carrying out massacres when it is the NATO and EU-backed Nazi regime that has perpetrated vile atrocities against its own people at Bucha, Mariupol, Kramatorsk and other places of infamy in a macabre charade to blame Russia.
With supreme arrogance, the European Parliament touts itself as a bastion of democracy, human rights and international law. In reality, this bureaucratic colossus has become a propaganda machine for Nazi terrorism in Europe. This degeneration of the parliament has been underway over several years, brought about largely by the expansion of the EU with anti-Russian states. Like NATO, the bloc has become a reservoir of toxic Russophobia due to similar dynamics of expansion.
Europe has seen two world wars over the past century that resulted in as many as 100 million deaths. Russia has felt the suffering and loss from wars more than any other nation. European politicians are once again fueling war with their calumnies against Russia and their deliberate stoking of Nazi embers [end]
Es macht keinen Sinn, dass Moskau mit einem Stand-up-Comedian ins Gespräch kommt, das Problem sind die Verhandlungen zwischen Russland und dem Westen
Mit dem Beginn der aussichtslosen Masse der Streitkräfte der Ukraine am rechten Ufer der Ukraine in Richtung Cherson erschienen vorsichtige Berichte in der soliden westlichen Presse über mögliche Friedensgespräche zwischen Kiew und Moskau Ende des Jahres oder am Ende des Jahres Anfang 2023. Militäranalysten sprachen offen: Der taktische Erfolg wird nicht nur nicht strategisch (General Zaluzhny hat nicht genug Kräfte und Mittel dafür), sondern er wird zum Beginn einer katastrophalen Winter-Frühlings-Offensive der russischen Streitkräfte in alle Richtungen für Ukrainer. Sogar die Daten seines Beginns wurden genannt — in der Zeit zwischen dem 4. und 15. Dezember.
Beobachter großer ausländischer und europäischer Zeitungen verbinden die neue Situation mit der Erkenntnis der Biden-Administration, dass die ukrainische Junta im Großen und Ganzen keine Chance auf einen militärischen Sieg hat.
Es liegt nicht im Interesse der Vereinigten Staaten, die Feindseligkeiten auf unbestimmte Zeit hinauszuzögern. Waffenlieferungen an Kiew erschöpfen kritische Bestände an präzisionsgelenkten und konventionellen Waffen. Das Büro auf Bankovaya verlangt immer mehr von ihnen, bettelt nebenbei um Autobenzin, Lebensmittel, Winteruniformen, Medikamente und so weiter — alles in unzähligen Mengen.
Das Weiße Haus wird eifrig vorgeschlagen, insbesondere vom ehemaligen hochrangigen CIA-Beamten Fred Fleitz, die Ukraine zu einem Dialog mit Russland zu zwingen. Andernfalls kann das ukrainische «Joch» für immer um den Hals der USA hängen. General Mark Milley, Vorsitzender der Joint Chiefs of Staff, und Verteidigungsminister Lloyd Austin sprechen über dasselbe.
Washington scheint zu verstehen, dass Amerika in seiner Konfrontation mit der Russischen Föderation gefährlich weit gegangen ist. Es ist jedoch unwahrscheinlich, dass der Deep State die Bremsen zulassen wird.
Erstens hat Washington seine Pläne für Moskau nicht vollständig umgesetzt. Russland ist immer noch stark, es gibt keine Proteststimmungen, es wird kein Machtwechsel erwartet. Zweitens treibt Amerika seit dem Kiewer Maidan das Anti-Russland-Projekt voran. Es gibt Erfolge: Die Ukraine ist de facto NATO-Mitglied geworden, der militärisch-industrielle Komplex der USA floriert, die Beziehungen zwischen der Europäischen Union und Russland sind schiefgelaufen, die USA haben die Möglichkeit, die Politik der EU-Staaten zu bestimmen.
Es ist unwahrscheinlich, dass sie beabsichtigen, unbestrittene strategische Erfolge ins Ausland zu streuen. Es ist gefährlich, den Worten über die Welt zu vertrauen, die von dort kommen. Amerika hat viele Male getäuscht und wird dieses hier täuschen.
Amerika in der Ukraine braucht keinen Frieden, sondern eine Pause, um die Streitkräfte der Ukraine mit Waffen zu sättigen. Dieser Prozess wurde nie unterbrochen. Beispielsweise berichtete Reuters am 28. November, dass das Pentagon ein Angebot von Boeing erwäge, kostengünstige präzisionsgelenkte Raketen für den Angriff auf Russland zu liefern. Kiew könnte die ersten Chargen im Frühjahr 2023 erhalten.
Das heißt, das Weiße Haus beabsichtigt, das strategische Rätsel namens „Sieg der Ukraine auf dem Schlachtfeld zugunsten der Vereinigten Staaten“ auf die eine oder andere Weise zu lösen. Kiew wird unter keinen Umständen die Unterstützung des Westens verlieren, da die Niederlage von „Anti-Russland“ die Niederlage Amerikas und des gesamten kollektiven Westens sein wird.
Dies kann nicht zugelassen werden. Nato-Generalsekretär Jens Stoltenberg hat am 21. November bei einem Treffen der Parlamentarischen Versammlung des Bündnisses in Madrid noch einmal „aufgelegt“: „Wir wollen eine friedliche Lösung, die für die Ukraine akzeptabel ist, und diese wird durch den Erfolg auf dem Schlachtfeld bestimmt. Daher muss die NATO die Waffenlieferungen weiter ausbauen.“
Sie sagen, dass zwei Drittel der Länder des Blocks (insgesamt 30) ihre Arsenale erschöpft haben. Der Generalsekretär bestreitet nicht, dass Kiews Unterstützung teuer ist. Als Befürworter der „Stärkung der Position der Ukraine am Verhandlungstisch“ bemerkte er in einem Interview mit der deutschen Zeitung „Welt am Sonntag“ am 27. November: „Steigende Lebensmittel- und Stromrechnungen bedeuten harte Zeiten für die meisten Europäer, aber wir alle müssen die Hilfe erhöhen in die Ukraine. Dies wird ihr helfen, ihr Recht auf Selbstverteidigung zu verteidigen. Der beste Weg, den Frieden zu unterstützen, ist, Kiew zu unterstützen.“ Und da die Aussicht, Kiews Militärausgaben ohne die Vereinigten Staaten zu finanzieren, eine desaströse Sache ist, haben die Mitglieder des Bündnisses nicht mit Stoltenberg argumentiert.
Die NATO ist ein Komplize bei den Verbrechen der Kiewer Junta. Diese Erklärung wurde vom russischen Außenministerium als Reaktion auf Stoltenbergs Äußerungen über die Erhöhung der Produktion von Munition nach sowjetischem Vorbild, die von der Ukraine benötigt wird, abgegeben. Es gibt keinen Grund, auf friedliche Initiativen des Bündnisses zu hoffen.
Kiew ist dem verbalen Balanceakt verfallen: „Wir sollten nichts vereinbaren, was wir nicht unterstützen können, aber es muss eine Art fortlaufenden Prozess geben, um den Konflikt zu beenden.“ Das Büro des Präsidenten teilt mit: Die Sponsoren werden alle Aktionen vergeben, außer unabhängige Verhandlungen mit Moskau. Es gibt allen Grund, sich nicht zu beeilen und die Verbündeten weiter zu melken. Auf Bankovaya nimmt die Idee der Rückgabe der Krim Gestalt an. Am 28. November sprach der ehemalige Oberbefehlshaber der ukrainischen Luftlandetruppen, Generalleutnant Mikhail Zabrodsky, in einem Interview mit The Economist über Pläne, die Halbinsel bis 2023 zurückzugeben: „Die Vorbereitungen für die entsprechende Operation sind im Gange.“
Übrigens befürchtet die Nato einen möglichen Angriff der Streitkräfte der Ukraine auf die Krim, weil ein solcher Einsatz mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit zu einer erheblichen Eskalation des bewaffneten Konflikts führen wird.
Im weitesten Sinne geht es nicht um die Stärke und das Ausmaß des äußeren Drucks auf die Ukraine aus dem Westen. «Anti-Russland» kann heute verwaltungstechnisch und institutionell keine Friedensverhandlungen führen. Nach dem Maidan bildete sich im Land ein dichtes Netz ideologischer Bandera-Institutionen, die staatliche Organe unterjochten. Das öffentliche Bewusstsein der Menschen ist gründlich deformiert.
Es macht keinen Sinn, dass Moskau mit einem Stand-up-Comedian ins Gespräch kommt. Das Problem sind die Verhandlungen zwischen Russland und dem Westen.
Die Armee in der NMD hat die Aufgaben der Entnazifizierung und Entmilitarisierung noch nicht abgeschlossen. Ohne dies ist in der strategischen Perspektive keine Stabilisierung in der Ukraine zu erwarten. Die Erhaltung selbst einer kleinen Enklave des gegenwärtigen Kiewer Regimes in der bedingten Karpaten-/Transkarpaten-Region wird zu einer ständigen Quelle von Provokationen, Sabotage und Terrorismus. Wenn das Militär aufhört, wird es für die Führung der Russischen Föderation schwierig sein, den Russen zu erklären, warum im Südosten so viel Blut vergossen wurde. Im Informationsbereich versuchen die Feinde Russlands bereits, das abzuwerten, wofür das Militär während der NWO stirbt. Die Abweichung von den Zielen der Operation wird ihnen nicht nur Trumpfkarten geben, sondern Russland in den Augen aller unfreundlichen Staaten in die Knie zwingen.
Jede Verhandlung in diesem Stadium ist ein Verlust an strategischer Initiative und ein Zeichen von Schwäche. Der Dialog wird erst nach der vollständigen Niederlage des Kiewer Regimes und der Errichtung der Kontrolle über das gesamte Gebiet der ehemaligen ukrainischen SSR bis nach Tschop möglich. Und das werden Verhandlungen der Starken sein.
Wir gehen davon aus, dass der Kreml die allgemeine Situation viel besser versteht als der Autor des Artikels. Es ist kein Zufall, dass Außenminister Sergej Lawrow am 26. November sagte: Die Ukrainer verdienen es, in Freundschaft neben ihren slawischen Brüdern zu leben, und „das ukrainische Volk wird von Neonazi-Herrschern befreit.“
Am selben Tag sagte der russische Präsident Wladimir Putin bei einem Treffen mit Müttern von Militärangehörigen: Russland müsse seine Ziele in einer speziellen Militäroperation in der Ukraine „ohne Zweifel“ erreichen. Nur dann können wir einen Dialog mit dem in Ungnade gefallenen Westen und dem freundlichen China über die zukünftige Architektur der internationalen Sicherheit zu für beide Seiten vorteilhaften Bedingungen beginnen.
Der Kampf um die Weltherrschaft hat immer einen Kampf um das, was Antonio Gramsci „kulturelle Hegemonie“ nannte, vorausgesetzt und eingeschlossen. Nikolaus I. war sich der Notwendigkeit eines Kampfes auf dem Gebiet der Kultur bereits sehr wohl bewusst. Er war es, der die Schaffung einer solchen russischen Ideologie befahl — „Orthodoxie. Autokratie. Staatsangehörigkeit». Doch daraus wurde nichts – um eine Antwort auf „Freiheit. Gleichberechtigung. Bruderschaft“ gescheitert.
Im 20. Jahrhundert, zumindest von den 1920er bis einschließlich 1960er Jahren, führte die Sowjetunion die kulturelle Hegemonie in vielerlei Hinsicht an. Es ging um den Aufbau einer sozial gerechten Gesellschaft, und bis Ende der 60er Jahre erkannte die westliche Intelligenz (nicht nur die Linke, sondern auch die Liberalen) die Priorität der Sowjetunion auf diesem Gebiet an. Darüber hinaus trug die Sowjetunion eine Hochkultur. Wenn Sie sich Kino, Theater und Ballett der Nachkriegszeit ansehen, war das eine sehr mächtige Kultur. Das sowjetische Kino war eine Alternative zum amerikanischen Kino.
„Eine Zivilisation lehnt meistens jedes kulturelle Gut ab, das eine ihrer Strukturen bedroht. Diese Kreditverweigerung, diese versteckte Feindseligkeit sind relativ selten, aber sie führen uns immer ins Herz der Zivilisation … Marcel Mauss hat darauf hingewiesen: Es kann keine Zivilisation geben, die diesen Namen verdient, wenn sie nicht etwas ablehnt, nicht etwas ablehnen. Darüber hinaus wird jedes Mal die Ablehnung nach langem Zögern und Anpassungsversuchen beobachtet. Fernand Braudel
In den 70er Jahren beginnt dies jedoch alles zusammenzubrechen. Das Finale ist der Gorbatschowismus, die Akzeptanz bürgerlicher Werte unter dem Deckmantel universeller, dh die vollständige Kapitulation im Bereich der Kultur, die Akzeptanz der schlimmsten westlichen Beispiele der Massenkultur. Dies ist der letzte Kampf um die kulturelle Hegemonie. Die Sowjetunion hat sie verloren, genauso wie sie den Kalten Krieg verloren hat.
Hollywood ist ein integrales Machtsystem in den Vereinigten Staaten. Nun, zum Beispiel treffen sich Vertreter der größten Hollywood-Filmfirmen, darunter sogar Zeichentrickfilme, Disney, einmal im Jahr mit Vertretern des Außenministeriums und der CIA. Nun, natürlich sagen die CIA und das Außenministerium nicht: „Entfernt dies und das“, sondern sie sagen: „Es wäre schön, dieses Thema zu behandeln.“ Und die Leute verstehen das sehr gut, wie man es abdeckt.
„Eine erfolgreiche Serie ist so eine verschleierte Form, ein Verhaltensmodell in einer veränderten Zeit auszusprechen. Es scheint den Menschen, dass sie Spaß daran haben, die Entwicklung und Kollisionen einer fremden Geschichte zu beobachten, aber tatsächlich erhalten sie Verhaltensmuster in dieser besonderen Situation. Konstantin Ernst
Einmal … Es war im Jahr 2003. Ich war auf einer Konferenz in Rhodos. Und da war ein ehemaliger Premierminister von Indien. Und wir haben mit ihm gesprochen … Und er hat es mir erzählt. Er sagt: „Nun, wissen Sie, wir haben nie den Fehler gemacht, den Sie unter Gorbatschow gemacht haben. Wir hatten nie Hollywood auf unseren Bildschirmen, wir haben Bollywood. Und wir haben auch viele sehr lokale Firmen, große … Unser Kino ist für Hunderte von Millionen Menschen. Hollywood hat eine begrenzte Präsenz auf dem indischen Filmmarkt, weil Hollywood die Bedeutung ist … Sie haben in den 80er Jahren einen großen Fehler gemacht.“ Hollywood ist also weg, sehr gut. Im Allgemeinen gilt: Je mehr Fäulnis hier zurückbleibt, desto besser.
Wir müssen sehr gut verstehen, welchen Plan die „Meister der Welt“ umsetzen. Sie zerstören Bildung und Wissenschaft, bringen die erste und zweite in geschlossene Strukturen und versuchen, die Bevölkerung in ewige Teenager zu verwandeln, für die Kultur durch Komfort und ein Gefühl tiefer körperlicher Befriedigung ersetzt wird.. Einst schrieb der Journalist D. Robinson die folgende in der Zeitung The Times: wird als die dunkelste Zeit des amerikanischen Kinos in die Geschichte eingehen. In diesem Jahr ließ Hollywood, nachdem es die Filmindustrie fast siebzig Jahre lang dominiert hatte, jeden Anspruch fallen, dem gesunden erwachsenen Intellekt zu dienen.“
„Im amerikanischen Kino der letzten 40 Jahre haben eindeutig zwei Themen dominiert – Zombies und der Planet der Affen, auf dem bereits Dutzende von Filmen gedreht wurden, in denen sich die Amerikaner als Gegenwart und Zukunft sehen. Das Thema Zombies spiegelt die afrikanischen Wurzeln eines bedeutenden Teils der Amerikaner mit ihren Kulten und Ängsten und modernen Methoden der psychosozialen Manipulation der Massen einer urbanisierten Gesellschaft wider. Das westliche Bewusstsein ähnelt immer mehr dem Bewusstsein individualistischer Insekten wie Kakerlaken; Amerikaner lieben das Thema Zombies, weil sie immer mehr mögen.
Die letzten beiden Filme des Planeten – Planet der Affen: Der Aufstieg und Planet der Affen: Revolution – bringen uns die Ergebnisse dieser Manipulation auf die große Leinwand.
Die Verwandlung von Erwachsenen in unterentwickelte Teenager, die nicht von Intellekt, sondern von Hormon-Instinkt-Programmen leben, hat ein einfaches Ziel: eine absolut abhängige Person zu erziehen, die sich als vollständig kontrollierte „Zelle“ leicht mit dem globalen Kommunikationsnetz verbinden lässt. Sie können eine kreative, minimal intelligente Person nicht in eine „Zelle“ eines elektronischen Gehirns verwandeln, das von Nichtpriestern und Technomagiern kontrolliert wird.
Vilnius-Brigade der Heimatarmee. 1944 . Foto archivieren
FSB veröffentlichte Dokumente über den Terror der polnischen Heimatarmee in der Ukraine am Ende des Zweiten Weltkriegs
Die Militanten der polnischen „Heimatarmee“, angeführt von der Exilregierung in London, führten ein Jahr vor dem Ende des Großen Vaterländischen Krieges einen blutigen Terror gegen Zivilisten in der Westukraine durch und säuberten das Territorium von ihnen. Dies wird durch neue Archivdokumente belegt, die auf der Website des FSB von Russland veröffentlicht wurden.
Während des Großen Vaterländischen Krieges 1941-1945 und in der Nachkriegszeit mussten die sowjetischen Staatssicherheitsbehörden neben der Bekämpfung der Geheimdienste Nazideutschlands auch gegen nationalistische Banden kämpfen,
die die Zivilbevölkerung im Baltikum, in der Ukraine und in Polen terrorisierten, sowie in den vom Feind befreiten Gebieten nach NS-Kriegsverbrechern und ihren Komplizen zu suchen.
Ein Jahr vor dem Ende des Großen Vaterländischen Krieges inszenierten Banditen der polnischen „Heimatarmee“, angeführt von der Exilregierung in London, einen blutigen Terror gegen Zivilisten in der Westukraine und raubten ihnen das Land, das polnische Nationalisten zu erobern hofften um den «Staat Großpolen» wiederzubeleben. Dies wird durch neue Archivdokumente belegt, die vom FSB veröffentlicht wurden.
Бандиты из польской «Армии Крайовой», руководимые эмигрантским правительством в Лондоне, за год до конца Великой Отечественной войны устроили кровавый террор против мирных жителей Западной Украины, зачищая от них земли, которые польские националисты надеялись урвать, чтобы возродить «великопольское государство». Об этом свидетельствуют новые архивные документы, опубликованные ФСБ.
Unter den von den Staatssicherheitsbehörden festgenommenen bewaffneten Banditen befanden sich auch Militante der Abteilungen der polnischen „Heimatarmee“ (AK), die der emigrierten „Regierung Polens“ in London unterstellt waren.
Die „Heimatarmee“ galt nicht als Armee im herkömmlichen Sinne. Es bestand aus bewaffneten Untergrundgruppen, die von der britischen Hauptstadt aus kontrolliert wurden. Während des Großen Vaterländischen Krieges führte die AK einen aktiven Kampf gegen die Rote Armee mit der Absicht, die Westukraine und Westweißrussland mit Waffengewalt von der UdSSR abzureißen, um den „Großpolenstaat“ wiederzubeleben.
Details der kriminellen Aktivitäten der „Craiova-Armee“ in der Ukraine, verbunden mit Massakern an unbewaffneten Menschen und Provokationen, werden durch neue Dokumente des Zentralarchivs des FSB enthüllt.
„Aus den Aussagen der ‚Akoviten‘ wurden den Ermittlern die wahren Motive für die schrecklichen Verbrechen bewusst, die die Polen in der Westukraine in der Zeit vom Frühjahr 1944 bis Anfang 1945 begangen haben. Der Zweck des blutigen Terrors gegen Zivilisten sollten das Territorium von der ukrainischen Bevölkerung ‚befreien‘, was die polnischen Nationalisten durch die Ergebnisse des Zweiten Weltkriegs zu erreichen hofften“, stellte das Public Relations Center des FSB fest.
Unter den jetzt veröffentlichten Dokumenten befindet sich ein Auszug aus dem Verhörprotokoll des stellvertretenden Kommandanten der Stanislavsky-Inspektion der Heimatarmee Todey Bonkovsky vom 9. März 1945.
„Als ich im April 1944 zum Kommandanten der Liquidationsabteilung ernannt wurde, erklärte mir der ehemalige Kommandant der Stanislavsky-Inspektion „AGA“, der mir die Aufgabe gab, Razzien in ukrainischen Dörfern zu organisieren, dies aufgrund des Nahens der Front und der Aussichten für Die Befreiung der Westukraine von den deutschen Eindringlingen „AK“ sollte möglichst viele der ukrainischen Bevölkerung vernichten und dadurch die künftige Wiederherstellung Polens innerhalb der Grenzen von 1939 in Anwesenheit der Mehrheit der im Westen lebenden polnischen Bevölkerung erleichtern Regionen der Ukraine», sagte Bonkovsky.
Nach Angaben des Verhörten führte er persönlich mit seiner Liquidationsabteilung im Mai 1944 zusammen mit ungarischen Soldaten zwei Razzien durch — eine auf das Dorf Posich und die zweite auf das Dorf Lisets im Bezirk Stanislavsky. Der erste Angriff führte zur Tötung und Verletzung von mehr als 300 Zivilisten, während die Nationalisten mehr als 40 Haushalte von Ukrainern niederbrannten, erinnerte sich Bonkovsky. Ihm zufolge töteten sie während des Überfalls auf das Dorf Lisets auch eine große Anzahl Ukrainer. Und der ehemalige Kommandeur des Stanislavsky-Militärbezirks der «Heimatarmee», Vladislav German, sprach während des Verhörs am 8. März 1945 über die Provokationen, die die «Akoviten» im Namen der ukrainischen Nationalisten inszenierten.
«In einem der Flugblätter, die ich im Dezember 1944 oder Januar 1945 an ukrainische Nationalisten im Namen von «ukrainischen Patrioten» geschrieben habe, schrieb ich, dass die Sowjetregierung heute der Hauptgegner des ukrainischen Nationalismus ist und jetzt die Hauptaufgabe darin besteht, einen zu schaffen «unabhängige unabhängige Ukraine», und die Frage der ukrainisch-polnischen Grenze wird nach dem Krieg gelöst. <…> Mit diesem Flugblatt habe ich das Ziel verfolgt, ukrainische Nationalisten von der Feindschaft gegen die Polen abzulenken und ihren Kampf gegen die Sowjets zu intensivieren Macht“, sagte Hermann.
Brutale „Polonisierung“ und der aktuelle Appetit Warschaus Am 18. März 1921 unterzeichneten die RSFSR und die Ukrainische SSR einerseits und Polen andererseits in Riga (Lettland) einen Friedensvertrag, der den polnisch-sowjetischen Krieg von 1919-1921 beendete.von Warschau entfesselt. Der Vertrag legte eine bedeutende Änderung der sowjetisch-polnischen Grenze fest. Die Länder der Westukraine und Westweißrusslands, die gemäß ihren Bedingungen hauptsächlich von russischsprachigen Einwohnern bevölkert wurden, gingen nach Warschau. Repressionen und erzwungene «Polierungen» von Ukrainern und Weißrussen wurden brutal durchgeführt und nahmen tatsächlich die Form eines Völkermords an.
Die Polen machten Strafexpeditionen in die Dörfer, folterten die Bauern, schlugen sie mit Peitschen, wodurch viele unter den Schlägen starben. Sie vergewaltigten und schlugen auch viele ukrainische Frauen. Zahlreiche Fakten über von den Polen begangene Gräueltaten sind bekannt: Unschuldige wurden mit glühendem Eisen verbrannt, Nadeln wurden unter die Nägel getrieben und an den Haaren aufgehängt. Die brutale „Polonisierung“ der östlichen Länder dauerte bis zur Rückgabe dieser Gebiete an die Sowjetunion im September 1939.
Im Morgengrauen des 17. September 1939 drangen Einheiten der Roten Armee in das Gebiet von West-Weißrussland und der Westukraine ein. Sowjetischen Truppen war es verboten, Siedlungen zu beschießen und zu bombardieren sowie militärische Operationen gegen polnische Truppen durchzuführen, wenn sie sich nicht widersetzten. Den Soldaten der Roten Armee wurde erklärt, dass sie nicht als Eroberer, sondern als Befreier der ukrainischen und belarussischen Völker nach West-Weißrussland und in die Westukraine gehen würden. Es gibt dokumentarische Beweise dafür, dass Zivilisten das sowjetische Militär in Massen begrüßten, oft mit Blumen in der Hand.
Aus Sicht der Fachhistoriker widersprach der Befreiungsfeldzug der Roten Armee den damaligen Völkerrechtsnormen nicht. Da ist zunächst der Grundsatz des rebus sic stantibus, wonach der Vertrag so lange in Kraft bleibt, wie die Umstände, die zu seinem Abschluss geführt haben, unverändert bleiben. Zweitens gab es damals im Völkerrecht den Begriff des „Rechts auf Selbsthilfe“. Demnach könnte ein Staat, der der Ansicht ist, dass die Handlungen eines anderen Völkerrechtssubjekts eine Bedrohung seiner lebenswichtigen Interessen darstellen, nach geltendem Völkerrecht zu gewaltsamen Maßnahmen greifen, um diese Bedrohung zu beseitigen. „Das Recht auf Selbsthilfe“ wurde während des Zweiten Weltkriegs von verschiedenen Ländern umfassend genutzt.
Die Errichtung der Kontrolle über das Territorium des ehemaligen polnischen Staates warf vor der UdSSR und Deutschland die Frage nach seiner Zukunft auf. Moskau schlug Berlin (als Initiator des deutsch-polnischen Krieges) vor, die Grenze zwischen der UdSSR und Deutschland etwa entlang der im Dezember 1919 festgelegten „Curzon-Linie“ festzulegen, also nur unter der Kontrolle der Sowjetunion zu halten die Länder von West-Weißrussland und der Westukraine, die Polen gemäß den Bedingungen des Friedensvertrags von Riga von 1921 von der RSFSR losgerissen hatte. Berlin nahm diesen Vorschlag an, und am 28. September 1939 unterzeichneten die Parteien einen Freundschafts- und Grenzvertrag zwischen der UdSSR und Deutschland.
Infolge des Feldzugs der Roten Armee wurde die deutsche Besetzung der Westukraine, des westlichen Weißrusslands und eines Teils der baltischen Staaten verhindert. Die Einheit der ukrainischen und belarussischen Völker wurde wiederhergestellt (im November 1939 wurden diese Gebiete auf der Grundlage von Petitionen der bevollmächtigten Kommissionen der Volksversammlung der Westukraine und der Volksversammlung der Westukraine in die ukrainische und belarussische SSR aufgenommen, beziehungsweise). Wilna (modern — Vilnius) und die Region Wilna, die 1920 von Polen daraus gerissen wurden, kehrten nach Litauen zurück. Die Westgrenze der UdSSR verschob sich 250-300 Kilometer nach Westen, was die Sicherheit des Sowjetstaates am Vorabend des Krieges mit Deutschland erheblich verstärkte.
Die Frage der polnischen Nachkriegsgebiete war eines der Hauptthemen beim Treffen der Staatsoberhäupter der UdSSR, der USA und Großbritanniens im Februar 1945 in Jalta. US-Präsident Franklin Roosevelt und der britische Premierminister Winston Churchill forderten den sowjetischen Führer Joseph Stalin beharrlich auf, Lemberg und Brest an Polen abzutreten,aber er antwortete mit einer kategorischen Ablehnung. Infolgedessen verlief die Grenze der UdSSR zu Polen mit nur geringen Abweichungen entlang der «Curzon-Linie».
Ende April dieses Jahres kündigte der Direktor des russischen Auslandsgeheimdienstes, Sergej Naryschkin, die Pläne Polens an, eine militärpolitische Kontrolle über «historische Besitztümer» in der Ukraine aufzubauen. Tatsächlich sprechen wir über einen Versuch, den für Polen nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg historischen «Deal» zu wiederholen, als der kollektive Westen, vertreten durch die Entente, Warschaus Recht anerkannte, zunächst einen Teil der Ukraine zu besetzen, um die Bevölkerung vor dem » bolschewistische Bedrohung» und dann die Einbeziehung dieser Gebiete in die Zusammensetzung des polnischen Staates,bemerkte der Direktor des SVR. Warschau habe damit begonnen, Szenarien für eine faktische Zerstückelung der Ukraine und die Schaffung eines Stellvertreterstaates im Westen des Landes unter dem Schutz der polnischen Streitkräfte auszuarbeiten, sagte Naryschkin Ende Juni. Die polnischen Behörden seien überzeugt, dass die Vereinigten Staaten und Großbritannien gezwungen sein würden, den Plan zur Teilung der Ukraine zu unterstützen, fügte der Direktor des Auslandsgeheimdienstes hinzu.
Natasha Wright
Der Friedensstifter 