Les angoissés de la surpopulation avaient-ils tout faux ? Ces Huxley, Ehrlich et autres Malthus qui voyaient dans l’hyper-natalité l’ange fatal de l’apocalypse ? Pierre-Antoine Plaquevent en est convaincu : «la théorie de la surpopulation est une pure escroquerie, une arnaque au service des hyper-riches. Rien ne permet de faire croire à une explosion démographique». Accompagné du statisticien Pierre Chaillot, l’auteur de «Covid 19, ce que révèlent les chiffres officiels», cet analyste politique français, co-fondateur du think tank www.strategika.fr, était l’invité des Rencontres de Cara, le 21 juillet dernier à Genève.
L’occasion pour ces deux covido-sceptiques décriés par les grands prêtres de l’Inquisition politico-correcte de distinguer, chacun d’après sa spécialité, entre propagande, manipulations et faits, la crise Covid ayant démontré combien la réalité pouvait différer du narratif véhiculé par les médias et les agences nationales et internationales. L’occasion également de démonter une fois de plus la doxa assénée depuis des années par le «Good Club». Comptant en son sein William dit Bill Gates, Warren Buffet ou Ted Turner, cette coterie de milliardaires profite de la vague environnementale et de l’objectif 0 carbone, pour promouvoir la vaccination tous azimuts, qui n’est autre qu’un «programme de contrôle démographique camouflé : injectée, l’hormone rend stérile».
Ces hyper-riches estiment que l’on vivait mieux au Paléolithique. Voilà pourquoi le chiffre d’habitants idéal serait de 2 milliards sur Terre. L’objectif non avoué est donc d’éliminer 350 000 personnes par jour. Un projet globalitaire en gestation depuis les années 1920, une fédération mondiale gérée au nom de l’eugénisme, qu’il soit de tendance communiste ou national-socialiste. Deux confrontations qui se rejoignent dans la vision d’un gouvernement mondial écologiste et anti-nataliste.
Recent restrictions imposed on the Russian press in the U.S. are aimed at blaming external actors for problems that U.S. authorities have failed to solve domestically.
The internal problems of the United States are getting worse and worse. Due to the electoral process, internal tensions are increasing, with the political and social polarization of the country reaching unprecedented levels. Unable to solve this problem and prevent the U.S. from falling into absolute chaos, the American authorities have simply decided to find the most convenient way out for any failed government: “to blame” someone from outside.
Naming enemies and considering them responsible for a country’s domestic problems is an old tactic, common especially among authoritarian governments. It is a desperate attempt to “pacify” the country after all ordinary policies have failed. It is usually something that is expected especially from politicians in countries considered “failed states”, but this is already becoming the reality in the U.S. itself.
Just as it did in the 2016 election, the Democratic establishment is now trying to blame Russia for the Republicans’ growing popularity. Citing national security concerns, several Russian individuals and entities have been placed on a sanctions blacklist by the U.S. Department of Justice, restricting their activities on American soil, including illegal acts against their bank funds.
The move adds to a series of criminal actions already taken by the U.S. against Russian citizens, companies and media outlets over the past two years. What is most interesting about the current case is the “justification” based on electoral allegations. Washington claims that it has legitimate concerns about the activity of the Russian media – which could supposedly “influence” the final outcome of the presidential election.
The Democrats’ desperation has a simple explanation: Donald Trump’s public willingness to end the war in Ukraine. The former president claims that, if elected, he will end the conflict “within 24 hours,” which obviously generates sympathy among ordinary people in the country – who are already tired of financing a useless and irrational war.
Trump’s promises are mere electoral rhetoric. No American politician has the power to “end the war” simply because it is the winning side, not the losing one, that decides when hostilities in a conflict end. It will be Russia, not any American president, who will decide when the conflict will end – in other words, Moscow will only withdraw its troops from the battlefield once it has concluded that all the objectives of the special military operation have been achieved. All Trump can do, if elected, is to cut off aid to Ukraine and encourage Zelensky to negotiate, but the final word on the conflict will always lie with Russia.
However, it is obvious that ordinary people in the U.S. do not understand this kind of military point of view and act only based on their direct interests. Americans want their money to stop going to Ukraine, so, if Trump promises to end the war, many people will consequently vote for the Republican candidate.
Obviously, the Democratic establishment, which now controls the government and major newspapers, does not want to admit Trump’s growing popularity – which threatens the credibility of the polls that put Kamala Harris ahead. So, the alternative found by the Democrats was the same as in 2016: to say that the Russians are fomenting dissent in the U.S. and interfering in the electoral process.
It is hard for any sane person to believe the fallacious narrative of the official press. However, the U.S. simply seems to no longer care about public opinion. The Biden administration is acting in an authoritarian manner, ignoring any democratic principles to implement censorship measures and ban freedom of expression.
According to several recent intelligence reports, the social situation in the U.S. is extremely serious, with the country being on the brink of a real civil conflict. With the escalation of electoral tensions, the possibility of a collapse is even greater. Instead of admitting the crisis and working to solve it appropriately, the Biden “administration” has decided to act in the most irresponsible and ineffective way possible, pointing to a false enemy and further expanding repression.
The Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok left its mark, much more than in previous years, and opened up the East to a series of economic and geopolitical opportunities that no one expected.
The Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok left its mark, much more than in previous years, and opened up the East to a series of economic and geopolitical opportunities that no one expected. Or, rather, that no one in the West had been able to see, and perhaps now it may be too late. What matters is what has already been done and what will be achieved. Let us try to give an account of the event.
The South-East Asia goes to Multipolarity
The most important panel of the entire Forum was certainly the one organised by the Multipolarity Forum, devoted entirely to South-East Asia going to multipolarity. The speakers present, almost all from countries in the region mentioned, were coordinated by Prof. Aleksandr Dugin and his team, with the exceptional participation of Maria Zakharova, spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. Also present were the Ambassador of India and the Ambassador of North Korea.
For the first time, numerous experts from regional states came together to affirm the strong will their countries have to participate in the advent of a multipolar world. As Prof. Zhang Weiwei of Shanghai’s Fudan University explained, what is happening ‘in the East’ is a real change over a long period of time that we may one day call Pax Multipolaris, and which finds its cradle in Eurasia and its application in Asian Wisdom, which from the time of Confucius until today teaches one to plan over a long period of time, carefully coordinating all the details and working patiently so that each element is ordered in its proper place. A methodology that is alien to most Western countries, where instead an aggressive international policy based on high-speed transitions (and transactions) prevails.
But paradigms are changing, and indeed it is time to rethink the legitimacy of the paradigms that have hitherto dictated the law. The nephew of the South African leader Mandela, Nkosi Mandela, has emphasised that multipolarity is not and must not be a replica of western-centric models, nor the imposition of a stronger on a weaker: it is necessary for countries with greater polarity to help those who ask for it, so as to promote their integral development. And as the former Prime Minister of Nepal, Mudhar Nepal, added, the time has finally come for the tense small states of the East, of which there are many, to find the courage to emancipate themselves from the Anglo-American yoke and begin a path of true self-determination.
Precisely along these lines, journalist Pepe Escobar emphasised the need to control the pace of the multi-polar transition, which is a multi-speed process, and this must not become a reason for any of the countries involved to be overwhelmed. What is happening in Asia and what was seen at the EEF is an example of a development made to the measure of each country, with different times and modalities, because there is a new global trend being traced and it is up to the countries and peoples to define this trend, not the financial elites or transnational potentates.
Man is at the centre of the community and this shift must be understood and strongly reaffirmed, as Konstantin Malofeev specified. A passage of re-humanisation that is possible when the old paradigm of global control, imposed by the U.S. after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is now abandoned and replaced with a rediscovery of the different traditions of peoples. Because multipolarity must be, as Maria Zakharova stressed, a common good, a common work, a common victory, for which the Russian Federation has been striving for years, together with an increasing number of countries that are allies and friends.
Multipolarity is a given now, even for South East Asia, which is finally on the road to independence from the U.S. yoke.
Putin unplugged
The most awaited moment was the plenary session. And there something great happened. We saw Russia, China and South East Asia together. Boom!
President Putin was unplugged. In an extremely precise and posed speech, he got straight to the point: Russia’s Far East is the new frontier and for this reason, long-term expansion is planned, already achieving results in the short term. In fact, even ‘anticipating the needs of the future’, through new energy routes, world record infrastructure and transport, a new Northen Sea Route with a freight capacity that has already grown five times since last year, and then large investments in the technological and scientific sector, from research to construction sites. A programme already completed for the next 25 years, without forgetting one of the most reiterated points during the forum: the reaffirmation of local autonomies, indigenous cultures and traditions.
All this – and much more – paved the way for a process that has taken hold all over the world and which, Putin said, was not wanted by Russia, but was a consequence of American choices: de-dollarisation. The new arrangement of the international markets, which now dialogue with national currencies and are dropping the dollar-standard, is due to the fact that countries that were once subservient to the dollar are now stronger than the dollar itself and therefore have no reason to remain slaves to it. An entirely logical and legitimate reasoning.
Russia will stop at no provocation, no sanction, no Western threat, because, as Putin said, the stakes are global.
Ibrahim got the point
A great new leader, known to few, has entered the scene: Anwar Ibrahim, Prime Minister of Malaysia. A true outsider. Very few words, but all extremely powerful.
Why, Ibrahim asked, do so many people in the world respect and trust Russia? Because it has succeeded in transcending its borders and, as a result, has captivated other peoples, gaining global respect and admiration not with wars and take-away ‘democracy’, but with a solid and careful foreign policy, the proposition of multipolarism as a new paradigm, and a soft power that has motivated people to think differently about the whole international order.
Thanks to Russia’s commitment, the global south is now emerging. And so it is that Malaysia announced right during the plenary session that it will officially apply to join the BRICS+. This is a very clear message to the West: the pawns on the chessboard have changed, the game has changed, it is time to say goodbye and move on. This announcement had a huge impact on Western markets, with big drops the following day, while it benefited Eastern markets that found themselves suddenly strengthened. Why? Simple: because after Malaysia, other countries in the region will demand the same. It is only a matter of time, as long as it takes to end diplomatic and trade agreements and begin to disengage from military and strategic ones.
The words spent by Ibrahim regarding Palestine have a strong impact: it is time to stop acting with political hypocrisy, it is time to consider the Palestinians as human beings, not as animals or second-class people. He called for a common commitment and an outstretched hand towards Palestine, against the occupying Zionist entity. Because truth and freedom must always go together, otherwise they become a deception.
Zheng the Confucian
Finally, the out-of-class Han Zheng, young and promising Vice-President of the People’s Republic of China. Attention ladies and gentlemen, because the precision of his words and the depth of them will be remembered in the future.
China is Russia’s first ally and together they have developed a system of strategic development of relations for a new era, in which ‘multipolarity’ is increasingly meaning ‘peace’. Because that is the goal, Zheng said, and that is the new global trend. A world not controlled by the UK-U.S. is a world that is working towards a shared peace. What does the West do instead? It sanctions, it threatens, it attacks, it corrupts. A way of acting that cannot be accepted because it is bad for the whole world.
That is why a long-term, multilateral, multi-nodal, multipolar development agreement is the only way to open up humanity to a different vision of common life on this planet, with a security that will flourish the moment we are able to abandon the war-without-end mentality typical of the Cold War period, imposed by the USA. Only then will a peaceful world be possible.
The peace of Confucius, the wisdom of Asia, can only be understood by those who embrace its mystery and decide to put themselves in the school of this great master.
Here is the Pact of the East, here is another important building block for a multipolar world.
Durov’s recent statements which indicate that he is labouring under grave illusions about the nature of his predicament.
After being released on bail from a French prison, Russian entrepreneur Pavel Durov made several statements which indicate that he is labouring under grave illusions about the nature of his predicament. He described the action of the French authorities, which resulted in his arrest and detention on French territory, as “surprising and misguided.” He then went on to question the legal premise of his detention and subsequent indictment, which is that he could be held “personally responsible for other people’s illegal use of Telegram.”
It is disappointing to see a thirty-nine years old sophisticated cosmopolitan adult, traumatised as he must be by his recent experiences, reasoning like a child. One should have expected a person of Durov’s wealth to secure competent legal assistance to help him understand the legal “facts of life” pertaining to his case.
There are two basic facts that the lawyer selected by Durov to represent him should have explained to his client. Incidentally, that lawyer is extremely well wired into the French establishment and the judicial system which is persecuting his bewildered protégé. It would not be uncharitable to say that his loyalties are dubious.
The first and most fundamental of these facts is the political nature of the case. Durov’s predicament cannot be properly understood apart from that reality. Recognition of that fact does not exclude entirely the effective use of legal arguments and remedies but it marginalises their practical impact. The second important fact that a conscientious legal professional already in the first interview would have made clear to his client is that in the real world in which Durov is facing grave criminal charges, indulging intuitive notions of justice, including the premise that a person cannot be held criminally liable for third-party acts, is a naïve and utterly misguided approach.
Pavel Durov is a highly intelligent and, in his field, very accomplished individual. But on another level he is just a computer nerd and his incoherent actions and statements are proof of that. Contrary to what he seems to think possible, and as incompatible as that may appear to be with the concept of natural justice, under specific circumstances an individual can be criminally charged for the acts of third parties. Mechanisms that make that possible already are firmly in place. We would not necessarily be wrong to characterise those mechanisms as repugnant to the natural sense of justice, or even as quasi-legal. But formally they are well established and are integral components of criminal law. Tyrannical political systems are free to invoke those instruments whenever they decide to target a bothersome non-conformist such as Pavel Durov.
Whilst on the one track relentless pressure is undoubtedly being applied to the conditionally released but still closely supervised Durov to accede to the demands of deep state structures and turn Telegram’s encryption keys over to security agencies, on a parallel track the legal case against him is being constructed. It will be based on some variant or derivative of the theory of strict liability. The exact contours of that variant are yet to be defined as the case proceeds, and everything will depend on how the defendant responds to the combination of carrots and sticks that are now being put in front of him. Since no evidence is being offered to prove that acting personally in his capacity as Telegram CEO Durov was complicit in any of the incriminating activities listed in the charge sheet, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that some version of strict liability will be the vehicle of choice to make the accusations stick. Unless he capitulates, the objective is to put him away for a long time, or at least to threaten him credibly with such an outcome in order to exact his cooperation. Strict liability is a convenient tool because it offers many shortcuts to the Prosecution. It achieves the desired effect in the absence of proof of specific intent and regardless of the defendant’s mental state, thus eliminating for the prosecution major evidentiary hurdles.
Furthermore, from the beginning of the Durov case groundwork was notably being laid for the application of the Joint Criminal Enterprise [JCE] doctrine as developed by the Hague Tribunal, its category III to be precise. Even seasoned lawyers practicing at the Hague Tribunal were at a loss what to make of that legal improvisation. But their incomprehension did not prevent successive chambers from sentencing defendants to decades of prison, wholly or in part based on it.
Durov is being charged on 12 counts, including complicity in distributing child pornography, drug dealing and money laundering. It should again be recalled that it is not even alleged that Durov personally committed or intentionally participated in the commission of any of those offences. The charges stem from the accusation that Telegram’s lax moderation rules allow for the widespread criminal use of the platform by others, with whom it is not claimed that Durov entertained any direct personal link or that he was even aware of their existence.
But the marvellous feature of the category III JCE doctrine, specially invented by the chambers of the Hague Tribunal to accommodate the Prosecution in situations in which it could not contrive even the semblance of a nexus between the defendant and the crimes being imputed to him, is that it does not require any of those things. A vaguely inferred commonality of purpose, coupled with the assumption that the defendant should have been able to foresee but failed to prevent the illicit conduct of the third parties with whom he is being associated by the Prosecution, and with whom he needn’t have had direct communication or even personal acquaintance, serves as a sufficient link. If in the chambers’ considered judgment the defendant contributed substantially to generating conditions conducive to third-party unlawful conduct, that is enough. Proof that the third parties had committed the charged acts is sufficient basis to convict and no disavowal of criminal liability is practically possible.
If in relation to the third parties the defendant is situated in a position that the court deems culpable, nothing more is needed for liability for their conduct to be imputed to him.
The system’s prosecutors are eager to make those and perhaps some even more ingenious arguments to sympathetic judges. Woe to the person sitting in the dock.
That is precisely the general direction in which the Durov case is moving. In an ominous but highly indicative development, the French prosecutors are highlighting the alleged paedophile offences of an individual user of Telegram, who for the moment is identified cryptically only as “X,” or “person unknown,” and who is suspected of having committed crimes against children. The prosecution’s objective is to individualise and dramatise Durov’s guilt by connecting him to a specific paedophile case, the details of which can be disclosed later. If that sticks, some or all of the remaining charges in due course may even be dropped, without prejudice to the prosecution’s overarching goal of incarcerating Durov for a long period of time, unless he compromises. Paedophilia and child abuse alone merit a very lengthy prison sentence, without the necessity of combining them with other nasty charges.
In that regard, equally ominous for Durov is the activation, as it were on cue, of his ex-whatever in Switzerland, with whom he is alleged to have sired at least three out-of-wedlock children. Prior to his detention in France, Durov had capriciously terminated her 150,000-euro monthly apanage. This was a financial blow which naturally left her disgruntled and receptive to the suggestion of the investigative organs to come up with something to take revenge on her former companion. The woman is now accusing Durov of having molested one of the children that he had conceived with her. That is an independent and serious new charge whose potential for further mischief should not be underestimated.
Pavel Durov should stop wasting his time attempting to lecture his French captors on the wrongfulness of the persecution to which they are subjecting him. They are completely uninterested in the philosophical and legal principles to which Durov is referring. Like their transatlantic colleagues, who display juridical virtuosity by indicting ham sandwiches, with equal facility and with as little professional remorse French prosecutors are prepared to indict bœuf bourguignon, if that is what the system they serve demands of them. Far more than a legal strategy, Durov now needs an effective negotiating position (and perhaps also a crash course in poker) to preserve the integrity of his enterprise and to regain fully his freedom without sacrificing honour. For an excellent introduction to the Western rules based order, Durov need look no further than the woeful predicament of Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, the German-American lawyer who for months has been languishing in a German prison after being targeted on trumped-up charges for exposing the fraud of the recent “health emergency” that we all vividly recall.
Properly understood, the Durov affair should come as a sobering lesson not only for its principal but more importantly for the edification of the frivolous Russian intelligentsia who still entertain adolescent illusions about where the grass is greener and continue to nourish a petulant disdain for their own country, its way of life, and culture.
Novavax was just given the green light by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to start mass producing yet another new «vaccine» for the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19).
This latest jab is protein-based and targets the so-called JN.1 variant of the Chinese virus. Like the many others before it, Novavax’s JN.1 injection was granted emergency use authorization (EUA) from the FDA.
Though there is not a single human clinical trial to back the shot, the FDA says it must be allowed to hit the market immediately based on animal testing data that supposedly supports its use.
«Today’s authorization provides an additional COVID-19 vaccine option that meets the FDA’s standards for safety, effectiveness and manufacturing quality needed to support emergency use authorization,» announced Dr. Peter Marks, the guy in charge of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.
(Related: Have you seen the proof that COVID «vaccine» shedding does, in fact, occur? This means the unvaccinated are at risk, too.)
FDA also approves new mRNA injections from Moderna, Pfizer
So as to not leave out the other major COVID jab players from raking in another windfall, the FDA also granted fresh EUA licenses to the latest modRNA (mRNA) injections from Pfizer and Moderna, which were granted just days prior to Novavax.
The FDA apparently no longer requires human clinical trials to be conducted on the latest and greatest COVID jabs because the «emergency» is just too serious to bother with all that science stuff.
«The assertion rings hollow when FDA has not required manufacturers of the mRNA biological [products] to provide scientific evidence to the public that safety and effectiveness has been demonstrated,» commented Barbara Loe Fisher, co-founder and president of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC).
In support of his company’s new injection, Novavax CEO John C. Jacobs issued a statement claiming that the shot shows «robust cross-reactivity against JN.1 lineage viruses.»
In case you have never heard of JN.1, it is the successor of KP.3, another alleged COVID variant that was circulating the last time Big Pharma needed another easy profit fix.
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is doing its part to keep the variants coming, claiming credit for «sequencing» them every time the vaccine industry needs another excuse to create another high-dollar shot for easy money.
The CDC claims that KP.3 closely resembles another strain of COVID called KP.3.1.1 that was supposedly responsible for four out of 10 new COVID cases in the two weeks ending on August 3. The CDC insists that KP.3.1.1 was the dominant COVID strain during the month of August.
By making these declarations, the CDC communicated to both Pfizer and Moderna to churn out new injections of their own that supposedly target KP.3. The FDA had initially told Big Pharma to make new «vaccines» for JN.1, but later changed its recommendation to KP.3.
The Novavax shot for JN.1 reportedly takes a lot longer to manufacture than Pfizer and Moderna’s mRNA shots because it uses different technology. The FDA has told all of these companies to just go ahead and keep manufacturing whatever shots they have for whatever strains they chose to target because why not when there is money to be made?
«They already paralyzed and killed millions of people and somehow they’re still trying to give people more shots!» one upset commenter wrote.
«The individuals behind all this need to be held accountable for global mass murder,» wrote another. «They won’t stop until everyone has been injected. That’s how AI will be able to keep track of everyone. Revelation coming soon.»
The last thing America needs right now is another COVID «vaccine.» Learn more about why the corrupt FDA keeps unleashing these things at FDA.news.
After 24 years as a food and nutrition journalist, published laboratory scientist, food manufacturer, Food Forensics book author, detox patent holder and publisher of Natural News, I have come to the irrefutable conclusion that the FDA, CDC, USDA and EPA are literally trying to kill off as many Americans as possible.
They are not interested in protecting public HEALTH; they are focused on achieving public DEATH.
This realization is slowly coming to light, as people like RFK Jr. and Rep. Massie fully grasp the real agenda behind government regulators. To say they have been «weaponized» against the American people is an understatement. They are deliberately, meticulously, with sinister intentions, plotting the extermination of the American people with an assault of toxic foods, toxic prescription medications, toxic pesticides and deadly vaccines. They are at war with humanity, and they will use their power in every possible way to poison as many Americans as possible while calling it «public health.»
Soon, they will demand the mass injection of children with reptile venom peptides, from which GLP-1 weight loss drugs are synthesized. These same children will be fed toxic, processed foodstuffs, mass medicated with psychiatric drugs, saturated with toxic chemicals in personal care products, and heavily dosed with gender-bender herbicide chemicals like atrazine.
Recognize this is a WAR against humanity, and protect your children if you want humanity to have any future at all. I created this Counterthink cartoon in 2006, which foretold all of this nearly 20 years ago:
GDP means Gross Death Product
The U.S. likes to tout its GDP (Gross Domestic Product) as a measure of productivity and economy activity, but the problem is that today the majority of economic activity in the USA is focused on the production of DEATH: Processed foods with toxic ingredients, toxic prescription medications and vaccines that kill hundreds of thousands each year, the war industry that builds bombs and missiles to kill, the death media industry that promotes mass abortions, euthanasia and suicides, and more.
Now, GDP actually means Gross Death Product, because the vast majority of America’s GDP is tied to death-related products. It is notable that while most of the rest of the world measures GDP based on what they CREATE, the USA measures GDP on how much they can DESTROY.
The US empire has become a global destroyer of nations and its people. (Just ask Ukraine.) RFK, Jr. and Donald Trump may be able to put an end to this death cycle, but it will take substantial efforts and aggressive reforms of corrupt, criminally-run government agencies such as the FDA, CDC, EPA, USDA, FTC and more.
WARNING to all African nations
Just like the science advisor to the Nixon administration (Lee DuBridge, see link below) wanted to export food to Africa laced with infertility and depopulation chemicals (admitted by NY Times in 1969), the western VACCINES being pushed on your nations are depopulation / ethnic cleansing kill shots. The West is an imperialist predatory medicine regime that disguises genocide as immunization, and seeks the total extermination of your kind.
In America, ABORTION centers are used to exterminate blacks. In Africa, VACCINES are the weapon of choice. If you want your children to live in abundance and prosperity, for future generations to come, REJECT western vaccines and medical experiments on your population.
Download my new audio book, «Resilient Prepping» at ResilientPrepping.com — it teaches you how to survive the total collapse of civilization and the loss of both the power grid and combustion engines.
In einem aktuellen Interview mit dem im Exil lebenden russischen Journalisten und SPIEGEL-Kolumnisten Michail Sygar erklärt die wohl vulgärste Spitzen-Diplomatin Amerikas („Fuck the EU“) recht unverblümt, was die Gründe für den Abbruch der Friedensverhandlungen zwischen Russland und der Ukraine im April 2022 waren. Es seien „die Briten und wir“ gewesen, die Kiew empfohlen hätten, die Verhandlungen von Istanbul platzen zu lassen. Grund laut ihr: Der Vertrag hätte die Begrenzung von Waffensystemen für die Ukraine vorgesehen, nicht aber für Russland. Die Ereignisse von Butscha, die zuvor medial und politisch als Begründung angeführt worden waren, erwähnt sie mit keinem Wort. Von Florian Warweg.
Dieser Beitrag ist auch als Audio-Podcast verfügbar.
Victoria Nuland, deren Familienname eigentlich „Nudelman“ lautete, aber von ihrem Vater, Shepsel Ber Nudelman, 1947 „amerikanisiert“ wurde, galt bis zu ihrem Rücktritt im März 2024, neben Außenminister Antony Blinken und dem Sicherheitsberater Jake Sullivan, als wichtigste und einflussreichste Lenkerin der US-Außenpolitik unter US-Präsident Joe Biden. Besonders starken Einfluss hatte sie auf die Formulierung und Gestaltung der US-Außenpolitik in Bezug auf Ukraine und Russland. Es ist daher keine Kleinigkeit, wenn eine US-Spitzendiplomatin mit diesem Hintergrund in einem Interview, zudem mit einem russischen Exil-Journalisten, für diplomatische Gepflogenheiten sehr deutlich zum Ausdruck bringt, welche Rolle die USA und Großbritannien beim Abbruch der Friedensverhandlungen zwischen Moskau und Kiew in Istanbul im April 2022 spielten. In dem Interview erklärt sie auf die Frage, was denn nun die tatsächlichen Gründe für das Ende der Verhandlungen waren („Was ist Mythos, was ist Wahrheit?“) im Wortlaut:
„Relativ spät im Spiel begannen die Ukrainer, um Rat zu fragen, wohin diese Sache führen würde, und es wurde uns, den Briten und anderen klar, dass Putins Hauptbedingung in einem Anhang zu diesem Dokument, an dem sie arbeiteten, versteckt war. Sie enthielt Beschränkungen für die genauen Arten von Waffensystemen, über die die Ukraine nach der Vereinbarung verfügen durfte, so dass die Ukraine als militärische Macht im Grunde kastriert wäre. Für Russland gab es keine ähnlichen Beschränkungen. Russland wurde nicht verpflichtet, sich zurückzuziehen. Russland wurde nicht verpflichtet, eine Pufferzone an der ukrainischen Grenze einzurichten, und es wurde nicht verlangt, dass seinem Militär, welches der Ukraine gegenüberstand, dieselben Beschränkungen auferlegt werden. Und so begannen die Menschen innerhalb und außerhalb der Ukraine zu fragen, ob dies ein guter Deal sei, und das war der Punkt, an dem er auseinanderfiel.“
Damit bestätigt erstmals ein US-Spitzendiplomat mit direkter Einbindung in die damalige Verhandlungskommunikation der Ukraine mit den USA Aussagen, die zuvor in ähnlicher Form bereits vom ehemaligen israelischen Premier Naftali Bennett, der im Frühjahr 2022 als Pendeldiplomat zwischen dem ukrainischen und russischen Präsidenten vermittelte, sowie von mehreren ukrainischen Teilnehmern an den Verhandlungen getätigt worden waren.
Das gesamte Interview mit Nuland ist hier einsehbar. Auffällig an den Darlegungen der einstigen US-Spitzendiplomatin ist auch, dass sie mit keiner Silbe auf das sogenannte Butscha-Massaker eingeht. Zuvor wurde dies immer wieder als einer der zentralen Gründe für den Abbruch der laufenden Friedensverhandlungen angeführt. Damit steht sie nicht alleine. Sowohl ukrainische wie internationale Teilnehmer an den Verhandlungen verweisen in ihren Erklärungen, wie es zum Ende der Verhandlungen kam, auf den Druck („Empfehlungen“) des Westens und nicht auf Butscha.
Die Version des ehemaligen israelischen Premiers Bennett: Briten und Amerikaner wollten keinen Frieden
Bennett hatte in einem Interview Anfang Februar 2023 erklärt, dass er in Verhandlungen stand zwischen Selenskyj, Putin sowie dem französischen Präsidenten Macron, dem deutschen Kanzler Scholz, dem britischen Premier Johnson und US-Präsident Biden. Laut Bennett waren die Chancen auf eine friedliche Einigung gut, doch vor allem Johnson und die USA hätten schlussendlich „beschlossen, dass es notwendig ist, Putin weiter zu zerschlagen („to smash“) und nicht zu verhandeln. Sie haben die Verhandlungen abgebrochen, und mir schien es damals, dass sie (mit dieser Entscheidung) falsch lagen.“
Das gesamte, fast fünfstündige Interview mit Bennett ist hier einsehbar. Der relevante Part zu den ukrainisch-russischen Friedensverhandlungen und der dekonstruktiven Rolle des Westens kommt ab Stunde 2:37.
Der ehemalige Präsidenten-Berater Arestowytsch: Die Verhandlungen liefen so gut, wir öffneten sogar die Champus-Flasche
Der in die Verhandlungen direkt eingebundene damalige Selenskyj-Berater Oleksij Arestowytsch erklärte in einem Interview vom Februar 2024 mit dem britischen Online-Magazin Unherd sogar, dass die Verhandlungen so erfolgreich gelaufen waren für die Ukraine, dass man eine Champagner-Flasche geöffnet hatte:
„Wir öffneten sogar eine Flasche Champagner, denn es war eine absolut erfolgreiche Verhandlung gewesen.“
You may want to check this video, from yesterday’s UnHerd Interview, in which Arestovych, part of the negotiating team, states that the negotiations were so successful that they popped the champagne. And then Boris came to Kiev. pic.twitter.com/nsDwxVN21C
Das gesamte Interview mit Arestowytsch ist hier einsehbar.
Der ukrainische Botschafter und Verhandlungsteilnehmer Chalyi: „Putin wollte also wirklich ein Friedensabkommen mit der Ukraine schließen“
Der ukrainische Botschafter Oleksandr Chalyi, der zuvor jahrelang die Ukraine im Europarat vertreten hatte, war direkt an den Friedensverhandlungen mit Russland beteiligt. In einem Expertengespräch, organsiert vom Geneva Centre for Security Policy, einer schweizerischen Stiftung und Denkfabrik, die gemeinsam vom schweizerischen Außen- und Verteidigungsministerium gegründet worden war, erklärte dieser:
„Wir, die ukrainischen Verhandler, hatten mit Russland fast zwei Monate, März und April, für ein Waffenstillstandabkommen verhandelt. Und wir haben, wie Sie sich vielleicht erinnern werden, das sogenannte Istanbuler Kommuniqué abgeschlossen Wir standen kurz davor, Mitte April, unseren Krieg mit einer friedlichen Lösung zu beenden. (…).
Dies ist meine persönliche Ansicht: Putin hatte, eine Woche nach seiner Invasion, klar verstanden, dass er einen Fehler begangen hatte. Er versuchte danach, alles zu tun, um ein Abkommen zu schließen. Es war seine persönliche Entscheidung gewesen, den Text des Istanbul-Kommuniqués zu akzeptieren. Wir haben dann wirklich zu einem echten Kompromiss gefunden. Putin wollte also wirklich ein Friedensabkommen mit der Ukraine schließen.“
Wow! Ukraine Ambassador Chalyi, who participated in peace talks with Russia in Spring 2022, states that «we concluded» «Istanbul Communique» & «were very close in… April to finalize our war with some peaceful settlement» & that Putin «tried everything possible to conclude… pic.twitter.com/NxknX9mTgP
Ist Olaf Scholz ein „Vasallenkanzler“? Sahra Wagenknecht hat den Bundeskanzler so bezeichnet. Für Caren Miosga ist das offensichtlich ungeheuerlich. Mehrmals ist die ARD-Moderatorin bei ihrem Gespräch mit der BSW-Politikerin auf dem Begriff herumgeritten. Dabei hat sie unfreiwillig gezeigt: Die Entkernung des Journalismus kommt bei dem milliardenschweren öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunk immer deutlicher zum Vorschein. Ein Kommentar von Marcus Klöckner.
Dieser Beitrag ist auch als Audio-Podcast verfügbar.
Sahra Wagenknecht hat Olaf Scholz als Vasallenkanzler bezeichnet. „Und?“, fragt da jeder politisch einigermaßen auf dem Boden der Realität gebliebene Bürger. „Wo ist das Problem?“ Das Problem liegt darin, dass weite Teile des öffentlich-rechtlichen „Journalismus“ nicht wahrhaben wollen, dass Weltpolitik ein überaus dreckiges Geschäft ist. Die Sphären von Macht und Einfluss kommen bei ihnen im Wesentlichen nur in einer völlig verniedlichten, eindimensionalen Form vor. Dass die USA etwa versuchen könnten, im Sinne ihres Hegemonialmachtanspruchs andere Länder zu kontrollieren, verbietet sich im Denken des öffentlich-rechtlichen Journalismus geradezu. Da ist auch ein „Abhören unter Freunden“ längst vergessen.
Und sollten anständige Haltungsjournalisten hören, dass der Begriff „Vasall“ gegen einen Kanzler verwendet wird, dann kann es wohl nur ihre Pflicht sein, das zu tun, was sie ohnehin tun: die Politik in Schutz zu nehmen. So betrachtet, liegt es nur nahe, dass zur Prime Time des öffentlich-rechtlichen Polit-Talks der Begriff „Vasall“ den „kritischen Journalismus“ aktiviert.
„Unter welcher Knechtschaft steht Olaf Scholz angeblich?“, fragt Miosga Wagenknecht. Wagenknecht sagt, der Begriff beziehe sich darauf, dass Scholz „mal ebenso am Rande eines NATO-Gipfels mitgeteilt hat, dass demnächst in Deutschland US-Raketen stationiert werden sollen. Das ist eine sehr gefährliche Entscheidung für Deutschland. Weil das sind keine Verteidigungswaffen, das sind Angriffswaffen. Und die bringen uns erst recht in das Zielfernrohr russischer Atomraketen.“
An dieser Stelle sollte es selbst Journalisten mit Blickschutz einleuchten, dass das Verhalten der Bundesregierung viele Fragen hinterlässt. Ist der Begriff „Vasall“ tatsächlich so einfach von der Hand zu weisen? Miosga zeigt Begriffsstutzigkeit: „Darf ich nochmal fragen, wessen Vasall ist Olaf Scholz?“
Vermutlich rutschen bei dieser Frage sogar schon politisch eher unbedarfte Zuschauer auf dem Sessel vor und zurück und fragen sich ironisch: „Na, wessen ‚Vasall‘ mag Scholz wohl sein? Der von Burkina Faso? Von Costa Rica?“
Wird es nun spannend?
Wagenknecht beantwortet – wie immer mit stoischer Gelassenheit – selbst Fragen, die allenfalls in ihrer intellektuellen Unreife durch eine eigene Qualität bestechen:
„Na, diejenigen, die ein Interesse an diesen Raketen haben, sind die Vereinigten Staaten. Die Raketen sind ja auch offiziell dafür da, die nationale Sicherheit der Vereinigten Staaten zu verteidigen. Dass ein Bundeskanzler eine solche Entscheidung abnickt – kein anderes europäisches Land stationiert solche Raketen – finde ich wirklich empörend.“
Der Zuschauer mag aus einer Mischung aus Mitleid und Fremdscham hoffen, dass es nun bei Miosga „klick“ macht. Hat es die Frontfrau der deutschen Polit-Diskussion nun verstanden?
Doch auch Wagenknechts weitere Ausführungen reichen Miosga nicht aus: „Sie würden ernsthaft behaupten, Olaf Scholz ist der Vasall der Vereinigten Staaten?”, hakt Miosga nach.
Wagenknecht holt daraufhin nochmal aus, spricht das Verhalten zu Nordstream an. Wir erinnern uns: Biden sagte auf einer Pressekonferenz im Beisein von Scholz, dass Mittel und Wege vonseiten der USA gefunden würden, um das deutsch-russische Energieprojekt zu einem Ende zu bringen. Scholz als Kanzler der Bundesrepublik steht da und sagt: nichts.
Miosga ignoriert Nordstream. Ihr fällt zu Wagenknechts Aussage nur eine Belehrung in Sachen Sprache ein. Im Gestus einer Oberlehrerin sagt Miosga zu Wagenknecht: „Das Wort Vasall insinuiert, dass Deutschland kein souveräner Staat ist.“ Dem Kommentator dieser Szene drängt sich ein Verdacht auf: Der Begriff „souverän“ ist für die von augenscheinlich viel Überzeugung getriebene Moderatorin „zu schwer“. Die Komplexität und Vielschichtigkeit des Ausdrucks in dem veranschlagten Rahmen erfordert die Analyse-Reife, Länder nicht nur als isolierte Einheiten, sondern als Interessensphären und Spielräume außenpolitischer Machtpolitik zu verstehen. Sich mit dem Begriff „souverän“ auf jener Ebene auseinanderzusetzen, auf der sich dieses Interview des ÖRR bewegt, heißt zu erkennen: Es gibt das Formale und es gibt das Faktische. Und zwischen der formalen und der faktischen Ebene liegen Macht-, Geo- und Tiefenpolitik.
Der französische Soziologe Michel Foucault benutzte im Hinblick auf die Grenzen des im öffentlichen Raum Sagbaren die Formulierung: „diskursive Polizei“. Vereinfacht ausgedrückt: Foucault wusste, dass auch in demokratischen Gesellschaften sehr schnell die Sprachpolizei einschreitet, wenn Akteure auf den großen Bühnen der politischen Diskussionen das „Falsche“ sagen. Miosga agiert als Sprachpolizistin. Haltekelle in der Hand und die Anweisung an Wagenknecht: Sofort rechts anhalten – wobei „rechts“ anzuhalten gar nicht gut ist.
Wagenknecht hat also ein böses Wort gebraucht: „Vasall“. Das passt nicht in die Wahrheit des Qualitätsjournalismus unserer Zeit, der sehr viel Kraft dafür aufbringt, die Öffentlichkeit glauben zu machen, die USA würden keinen Einfluss auf Deutschland nehmen. Miosga versucht, Wagenknechts Aussage zu skandalisieren. Und damit dokumentiert sie, wie intellektuell ausgehöhlt das Niveau im Mainstreamjournalismus mittlerweile ist. „Vasall“? Da gilt: Empörung.
1997 war im Spiegel übrigens noch unter der Überschrift „Die Treue des Vasallen“ Folgendes zu lesen: „Statt dessen rechnet auch Clinton lieber fest mit deutscher Vasallentreue in allen wichtigen Fragen.“ Weitere Beispiele hat Norbert Häring aktuell in diesem Artikel aufgeführt.
Deutsche „Vasallentreue“? So steht es im Spiegel. Auch wenn seitdem schon bald drei Dekaden vergangen sind: Miosga war damals alt genug, um den Spiegel gelesen zu haben. Gerade von einer der bestbezahltesten Journalistinnen des Landes darf man erwarten, dass sie Begriffe wie „souverän“ oder „Vasall“ herrschaftskritisch durchdeklinieren kann. Doch an den „Journalismus“ unserer Zeit hat man heute wohl besser gar keine Erwartungen mehr.
Der Friedensstifter 