Die Ampel macht arm. Die steigenden Preise haben die hart erkämpften Lohnerhöhungen längst aufgefressen, wobei die mickrigen Erhöhungen bei Renten und Mindestlohn die Inflation nicht annähernd ausgeglichen haben. Sieben Prozent weniger Kaufkraft für die Mittelschicht seit 2021 sind ein historischer Wohlstandsverlust, für den die Ampel mit ihren Wirtschaftssanktionen gegen Russland und ihrer ideologiegetriebenen Energiepolitik hauptverantwortlich ist. In der Talkshow von Markus Lanz begründe ich, warum die Sanktionen gegen Russland gescheitert sind und die Ampel sich für ein Ende des Wirtschaftskriegs, einen sofortigen Waffenstillstand und anschließende Friedensverhandlungen einsetzen sollte:
Wie viel Rückgrat braucht Politik? Vom Kreißsaal über den Hörsaal direkt in den Plenarsaal – mit dem Tübinger Oberbürgermeister Boris Palmer spreche ich über die typische Rekrutierung von politischem Personal, über Abhängigkeiten in der Politik, die Entfremdung von ehemals linken Parteien, das Selbstbestimmungsgesetz der Ampel und warum Identitätspolitik dazu führt, dass es illiberal wird und Diskurse vergiftet werden.
Aufbruchstimmung in Brandenburg Ob es um das Thema Krieg und Frieden geht, um Corona oder Migration – wir wollen, dass es endlich wieder eine offene Debatte gibt in unserer Gesellschaft. Außerdem setzen wir uns im BSW für eine Politik der wirtschaftlichen Vernunft, für Frieden und soziale Gerechtigkeit, für bezahlbare Energiepreise und den Erhalt von Arbeitsplätzen ein. Hier ein Ausschnitt aus meiner Rede auf dem Landesparteitag in Brandenburg, wo wir am letzten Wochenende unser Programm zur Landtagswahl verabschiedet und mit dem Arbeitsrichter Robert Crumbach einen tollen Spitzenkandidaten gewählt haben. Damit wir zu den Wahlen antreten können, brauchen wir aber wieder Eure Hilfe in Form einer Unterstützungsunterschrift. Bitte helft uns und leitet diese Information auch an Unterstützer und Sympathisanten aus Brandenburg weiter.
Interview der Woche im Deutschlandfunk Im Interview der Woche mit dem Deutschlandfunk erläutere ich, was wir nach den Landtagswahlen im Osten konkret ändern wollen, warum Lars Klingbeil gefährlichen Unsinn vertritt und warum wir bei Anträgen nach Inhalt und nicht nach Antragsteller entscheiden werden. Außerdem begründe ich, warum das BSW bislang nur wenige Mitglieder hat und auch nur langsam wachsen kann.
Rente wie in Österreich statt Altersarmut für die Mehrheit Knapp 720.000 Rentner in Deutschland müssen Sozialhilfe beziehen – so viele wie noch nie und 40 Prozent mehr als im Jahr 2015. Dies ist ein Armutszeugnis für die Ampel und zeigt, dass das deutsche Rentensystem viele alte Menschen zu entwürdigender Armut verdammt. 1.505 Euro Rente im Schnitt nach 40 Jahren Arbeit: Das hat mit einer gerechten Leistungsgesellschaft nichts mehr zu tun! Daher kann ich die Stimmen von üppig mit Steuergeld bezahlten Professoren wie der sogenannten Wirtschaftsweisen Veronika Grimm nicht mehr hören, die nun ein höheres Renteneintrittsalter und damit de facto die nächste Rentenkürzung fordern. Sollen solche Leute doch erst mal selbst verpflichtend in die gesetzliche Rente einzahlen! Maloche bis zum Tod für die hart arbeitende Mehrheit propagieren, während man selbst der Allgemeinheit mit überhöhten Pensionen auf der Tasche liegt – so darf das nicht weitergehen! Wir als BSW setzen uns für eine Volksabstimmung über die Rente ein: Wollen wir eine Mehrheit der Beschäftigten in Altersarmut schicken oder lieber eine Rente nach dem Vorbild Österreichs, wo alle in die Rentenkasse einzahlen? Wenn ein Rentner dort im Schnitt 800€ im Monat mehr bekommt, muss das auch in Deutschland möglich sein.
Keine Profite mit der Pflege Die Kosten für einen Platz im Pflegeheim explodieren, gleichzeitig werden aber auch Familien, die sich um ihre pflegebedürftigen Angehörigen kümmern, von der Politik im Stich gelassen. Ich finde: Eine Ampel, die sich nicht auf einen Plan einigen kann, wie eine gute Pflege bei einer steigenden Zahl von Pflegebedürftigen finanziert werden kann, hat abgewirtschaftet und sollte abdanken. Es kann doch nicht sein, dass die meisten Menschen, die sich heute aufopferungsvoll um Pflegebedürftige kümmern, sich selbst im Alter keinen Pflegeplatz leisten können, da dafür derzeit im Schnitt knapp 2.600 Euro im Monat als Eigenanteil fällig werden. Es kann auch nicht sein, dass Familien mit einer irren Bürokratie um jede Pflegestufe kämpfen müssen, während private Investoren üppige Gewinne u.a. mit Pflegeimmobilien machen. Es braucht eine solidarische Pflegeversicherung, in die alle einzahlen, sowie deutlich mehr Unterstützung für pflegende Angehörige. Außerdem muss die Pflege als gemeinnützige Daseinsvorsorge organisiert werden, aus der niemand Profite ziehen darf.
Das 49-Euro-Ticket muss bleiben
Wenn Christian Lindner das Geld der Steuerzahler nicht so sinnlos verschleudern würde, müsste er nicht Diskussionen über Investitionskürzungen und Preiserhöhungen anzetteln. Zumal 49 Euro für das, was die Bahn aktuell an Zustand, Verlässlichkeit und Sicherheit bietet, eher noch zu viel als zu wenig sind. Statt das 49-Euro-Ticket zu verteuern oder überfällige Investitionen in unser Schienennetz weiter zu verschleppen, sollte die Ampel lieber die endlosen Kriegsmilliarden für die Ukraine in Frage stellen und die unkontrollierte Migration stoppen.
Hände weg vom Streikrecht Kaum erkämpfen die Beschäftigten bei der Bahn oder in der Pflege etwas höhere Löhne, kommt Herr Lindner wieder mit dem Vorschlag um die Ecke, das Streikrecht einzuschränken. Ich finde das ungeheuerlich. Sollen die zig Millionen Beschäftigten in der Pflege, in Kitas und Krankenhäusern, bei der Bahn, der Feuerwehr und Müllabfuhr künftig um ihre Löhne betteln? Und was kommt danach, womöglich die erzwungene Sechstagewoche wie in Griechenland, weil es angeblich an Fachkräften fehlt bzw. man diese nicht bezahlen will? Alle sozialen Standards und Rechte, die wir noch haben, mussten erst bitter erkämpft werden, deshalb: Hände weg vom Streikrecht!
The Donald’s “trump card” for peace in Ukraine is another worthless deuce, Finian Cunningham writes.
Donald Trump seems to have hit on a winning plan for returning to the White House – by convincing voters he is the candidate to prevent World War Three.
The Republican candidate is lately pitching the importance of ending “the horrible war” in Ukraine to prevent the United States from sliding toward a nuclear conflagration with Russia.
Trump is slamming Democrat rival Joe Biden for fueling the conflict by recklessly supplying U.S. weapons that are provoking Russia and risking the start of World War Three. That’s true enough.
After Biden’s disastrous TV debate with Trump last week, the polls are showing Trump slightly pulling ahead. The Democrat campaign is in panic mode after the incumbent president’s shaky performance confirmed public misgivings about his deteriorating mental health.
Still, however, Trump has not capitalized on taking a decisive lead in the polls. The Republican is at most a couple of points ahead of Biden – even after the latter’s slow-motion car-crash TV debate.
Trump could pick up a lot of ballots among large numbers of undecided voters and propel his return to the White House by posing as the “anti-war candidate”.
At election rallies, the former president is touting his supposed ability to bring an immediate end to the war in Ukraine. Trump is saying he would cut off military aid to Ukraine and call on the Kiev regime to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Trump is boasting that he could broker an immediate peace deal if he wins the election in November and implement a settlement even before his inauguration in the Oval Office in January 2025. Thereby preventing World War Three between the nuclear-armed U.S. and Russia.
That might seem like a sound campaign plan. A large majority of Americans – some 70 percent – want their government to find a diplomatic solution to the two-and-a-half-year war in Ukraine. This reflects public opposition to the perception of another endless American war and the growing apprehension over an escalation in the conflict between nuclear powers.
Astutely, Trump is tapping into those legitimate concerns.
On the other hand, Biden’s administration is pushing ahead with military support for the Kiev regime in a way that seems insanely reckless. This week, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin announced another $2.3 billion in military aid to Ukraine. Biden has said he will support Ukraine for as long as it takes and shows no sign of backing away from military confrontation. The president has approved the supply of longer-range missiles to Ukraine and given his permission to strike Russia.
The issue of war and peace – and without exaggeration the issue of world peace and survival of the planet – could be the one that wins the White House for Trump.
Biden does not have a reverse gear when it comes to his policy of supporting Ukraine in a futile war that it is losing badly and only provoking Russia.
Such madness is bound to be a vote loser and yet Biden and his administration appear to have no way back from the abyss. Combined with Biden’s appalling policy of supporting Israel – especially for younger American voters who would normally lean toward a Democrat – Trump could exploit the anxiety over Ukraine to his electoral advantage.
It’s not just about the danger of an all-out war with Russia. The American public is rightly incensed by the vast amounts of taxpayer money – over $100 billion at least – being shelled out for a corrupt regime in Kiev while so much public need is neglected at home.
The trouble is Trump’s lack of credibility. Ordinarily, a presidential candidate declaring his opposition to starting World War Three would be a clear winning platform, one would think.
Recall the first time Trump ran for the White House back in 2016 when he promised all sorts of splendid things about making America great again by stopping endless U.S. wars around the world and putting an end to “American carnage” at home.
Trump did not deliver then despite all his braggadocio about “draining the swamp”. During his presidency, Trump broke the taboo of supplying lethal weapons to Ukraine. In 2018, he approved sending $47 million worth of Javelin anti-tank missiles to the Kiev regime while it was attacking the ethnic Russian population in the former Ukrainian territory of Donbass. That military backing of the Kiev regime led to the current conflict after Moscow intervened in February 2022 to stop the merciless killing of the Russian population.
On Trump’s recent bragging about how he would quickly end the war in Ukraine, Russia’s ambassador to the United Nations, Vassily Nebenzia, dismissed it as empty “subjective” talk. That’s a diplomatic way of saying Trump hasn’t a clue about resolving the conflict.
Trump is all about the expedient winning of votes, not about winning genuine peace. The only way to create a peaceful resolution in Ukraine and elsewhere is for the U.S.-led NATO military bloc to scale back from Russia’s borders and eventually disband in conformity with international law. NATO is a self-appointed war machine to serve Western imperialist power and one that is in flagrant violation of the UN Charter and the upholding of international law. NATO exists to enforce U.S. power unilaterally without any respect for international law – despite the American and European rhetoric about “rules-based order”.
The war in Ukraine is but one symptom of the United States as a failing and frustrated imperialist power. Washington’s hostility towards Russia is consonant with its relentless belligerence towards China and its support for Israel’s genocide in a desperate bid to control the Middle East. Trump is on board with U.S. imperialist power projection against China and slavishly supporting the Israeli regime. His talk about criticizing NATO expenditures is just carping to get Europeans to pay more for the American protection racket. The only thing different from Biden is a superficial matter of style and a seemingly more reasonable view of the conflict in Ukraine.
Posing as a candidate to avert World War Three over Ukraine might be enough to get Trump back to the White House. It might work as an electioneering ploy. But it won’t change a damn thing about stopping U.S. imperialist violence and the constant threat to world peace that Washington and its NATO war machine engender. The Donald’s “trump card” for peace in Ukraine is another worthless deuce.
It is as unthinkable that the Zelenskys, Johnsons, Camerons, Obamas and Clintons should walk away unscathed from Kiev than Hitler, Bormann, Goebbels and the others could have walked away unscathed from Berlin.
Russia Today reports that Mad Dog Zelensky is barking his coke-filled head off again. This time, he is demanding ex POTUS Trump come clean on how Trump intends to finish the war between Zelensky’s backers and the Russians NATO failed to exterminate to Kiev’s east. Neither Trump nor anyone else in authority has to explain anything to Zelensky, whose acting and begging bowl skills are now totally irrelevant to Ukraine’s end game.
To see that, all we must do is recall what were NATO’s war’s objectives and what were their means to obtaining those objectives. The objective was for BlackRock and similar predatory firms to own Ukraine and lands to its east, and for Ukraine’s armed forces to be the tip of the spear NATO would use to rend Russia’s asunder.
To that end, Zelensky and his cronies were given almost unlimited lines of credit in exchange for the deeds to Ukraine, which Ukrainian battlefield successes would underwrite. Sadly, this was not to be and Russia’s Armed Forces continue to send their Ukrainian counterparts to early graves at what are unsustainable rates.
This is not to write Ukraine’s Armed Forces off, but it is to say that, like the Wehrmacht after Kursk, they have no chance of prevailing. In that regard, it is worth recalling that Hitler’s former Chief of Staff Hans Guderian, remarked that, following Kursk, “There were to be no more periods of quiet on the Eastern Front. From now on, the [Russian} enemy was in undisputed possession of the initiative”.
And so it is in Ukraine, where the Ukrainian Armed Forces are broken and there is no great general or group of generals, who can turn the tide. Ukraine’s army is akin to Robert Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia after Sherman’s March to the Sea, or Hannibal’s after Scipio sacked Carthage. The game is up, and Zelensky’s backers know it, even if that fool is as stupid as Hitler was in his bunker.
This is not me sounding off , or putting on a cocked hat, pretending I am another Napoleon who, lest we forget, had a rough time of it against the very same enemy Zelensky’s press-ganged unfortunates now face, Even The Economist, the World Bank, the IMF and all of Zelensky’s other main collaborators are calling time on this sordid, little huckster.
The Economist, which has long played chief soap box for NATO’s Russophobic shot callers, is telling us Zelensky has less than a month to avoid default. Though Zelensky may still be able to squirrel long term loans out of gullible international financiers, the lights will be soon going out all across the rump Reich and we are unlikely to see them being switched on again, until Zelensky and his shopaholic wife stand in the dock of a Moscow court.
Zelensky’s former friends at the World Bank are just as bearish. They tell us that Russia’s “unprovoked” war has set Ukraine back 15 years and that the world economy has also taken a battering “in the face of steep interest rates, record-high debt levels, and a climate of escalating fragility and conflict”.Although the World Bank estimates that “the cost of reconstruction and recovery stands at $486 billion”, there is no explanation why more good money should be thrown into the money burning furnace that is the Ukrainian war machine. Quite simply, Ukraine has no prospect of any recovery until they sit down and negotiate with Russia on Russia’s terms. The longer Ukraine feels emboldened to murder Russian children, the longer will Russia’s Armed Forces feel obligated to target Ukraine’s infrastructure and the longer will there be no return to be had on investing in Ukraine.
Russia, meanwhile has inked a lucrative deal to supply India with coke, not the sort that goes up Zelensky’s nose by the bucket full, but the sort that powers India’s power stations. Deals like that indicate Russia can continue the process of putting manners on Zelensky’s rump reich for as long as it takes.
Indeed, if one were to hazard a guess at Russia’s strategic war aims, it seems to be that they intend to pummel Ukraine until its leaders are forced to come to their senses.
Although the IMF have not yet come to their senses, that seems to be fine with Russia, which is prepared to continue to hit targets within Ukraine for as long as the IMF continues to fund them.
Nor is Russia alone in this. Iran, China and North Korea are duty bound to pay very close attention to Russia’s tactics because they are in much the same boat themselves, with Hezbollah, in particular, playing a similar cat and mouse game with Israel, and tiny Yemen keeping NATO’s armada on the back foot in the Red Sea.
Although the US Center for Strategic & International Studies expressed its satisfaction with the last tranche of US taxpayers’ money Zelensky extorted, there is no evidence that subventions like that can stem the tide. In June 2024 alone, the World Bank’s International Financial Corporation (IFC) gave Zelensky a further $1.4 bn “for a green and resilient reconstruction in Ukraine”.
But, as things currently stand, this green-tinged Marshall Plan for Ukraine makes no sense. The original Marshall Plan had two overriding objectives: firstly, to keep American factories busy, so there would be no post-War slump and, secondly, to make the Soviet option unattractive to Western Europe by giving it significant investment injections (to buy American goods).
The two reasons Black Rock, Pimco, Amundi and NATO’s other predatory companies rallied behind the NATO flag were to buy Kiev’s assets on the cheap, and to use it to strip Russia of its resources. But, as with Hitler and Napoleon before them, things have not worked out as planned, and, despite being given a two-year freeze on paying interest on its debt, the best Kiev can do is to tell its investors to take further massive write offs for supporting it.
Ukraine wants to write off 60% of its current debt value, while creditors argue a 22% hair cut would be “more reasonable.” When faced with a loss of 60% or 22%, neither option makes sense if one has the opportunity to bolt.
Ukraine has been a debacle NATO will only recover from, if the Zelensky, Biden and allied organised crime families, as well as their European collaborators get their day in a military court, before which these rogues should beg for their lives, just as they begged for billions to end the lives of so many others.
Although that will not end matters, it would send out a signal that there is hope that some form of justice might prevail. It is as unthinkable that the Zelenskys, Johnsons, Camerons, Obamas and Clintons should walk away unscathed from Kiev than Hitler, Bormann, Goebbels and the others could have walked away unscathed from Berlin. Ukraine is finished, and those like Zelensky, Khan, Clooney, Penn and the Bidens, who are responsible for destroying it, should answer in the same way Hitler’s lackeys answered in Nuremberg.
Some foreign policy experts want Ukraine to move closer to joining the alliance, while others say it would rupture the military bloc.
Moving Ukraine toward NATO membership could backfire, according to a letter penned by dozens of foreign policy experts on Wednesday. | Laurent Cipriani/AP
The possibility of Ukraine’s future NATO membership is being hotly debated ahead of the alliance’s upcoming summit in Washington.
Dozens of foreign policy experts on Wednesday called on NATO members to avoid advancing toward Ukrainian membership at the summit, warning that it would endanger the U.S. and allies and rupture the coalition. If Ukraine is admitted, the group argues, Russia attacking Ukraine in the future would trigger NATO’s Article 5, which calls on allies to defend the member attacked.
The Article 5 argument is common among those opposing Ukraine’s membership, but such a public stance from more than 60 analysts provides a sneak peek at the arguments likely to be levied at the three-day event starting on Tuesday.
“The closer NATO comes to promising that Ukraine will join the alliance once the war ends, the greater the incentive for Russia to keep fighting the war,” reads the letter, obtained by POLITICO. “The challenges Russia poses can be managed without bringing Ukraine into NATO.”
Moving Ukraine toward membership could backfire, the letter continues, “turning Ukraine into the site of a prolonged showdown between the world’s two leading nuclear powers” and play into Russian leader Vladimir Putin’s narrative that it’s Moscow versus the West. The letter was organized by William Ruger, president of the American Institute for Economic Research, and Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Other analysts aren’t in agreement. Last week, RAND Corp. researchers wrote that allies would benefit from offering Ukraine clarity about conditions for its future membership at the summit. The Atlantic Council has also been pushing for NATO membership for Ukraine, arguing that it would prove to Kyiv that Western support won’t waver.
Think-tankers and college professors aren’t the ones making NATO policy decisions, but they often contribute to the foreign policy debate by writing opinion pieces and hosting panels — especially in the lead-up to and during major events like the upcoming summit.
The Biden administration has refrained from supporting Kyiv’s immediate membership, but multiple top officials recently said a “bridge” into the alliance would be offered to Ukraine during the summit. Officials say NATO will also offer Ukraine a new headquarters to manage its military assistance — a gesture of good faith that the West will have the country’s back for the long term, even if it’s not afforded membership right now.
Writing in Foreign Affairs today, outgoing NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg didn’t explicitly mention Ukraine membership but alluded to Kyiv’s future alongside the alliance and concerns about the matter: “We want to make it clear that we are in this for the long haul. … Stepping up our support does not make NATO a party to this conflict.”
Ukraine isn’t expecting much movement on its membership at the summit. Rather, security guarantees are what they’re looking for.
An official invitation aside, “we also expect specific decisions regarding Ukraine’s membership in NATO, in a package with other guarantees of continuity of military aid and increased interoperability,” Olga Stefanishyna, Ukrainian deputy prime minister on EU and Euro-Atlantic integration, told POLITICO last month.
There are already hopeful signs for Kyiv: NATO members agreed to Stoltenberg’s request to keep military funding for the country at $43 billion in 2025, the same level of funding the alliance has provided since Russia’s invasion, Reuters reports. On Tuesday, the U.S. announced a new $2.3 billion security package for Ukraine.
Ukrainians say they need the West to provide additional weapons and ammunition more than they need accession into NATO, according to a European Council on Foreign Relations poll released on Wednesday. Only 22 percent of Ukrainians are in favor of accepting NATO membership in exchange for giving up territory occupied by Russia, while 71 percent are against such a deal.
Ukraine is still pursuing its maximalist objectives against Russia to recapture all of the territory it has lost in the war, Andriy Yermak, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s top adviser, told a small group of reporters Tuesday night. Ukraine was “not ready to compromise,” even as some U.S. and European allies quietly whispered to officials in Kyiv that talks with Russia should begin.
Kyiv is willing to negotiate only based on its 10-point peace formula which, Yermak said, would lead to a “just peace” for his country.
Alexander Ward contributed to this report.
Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s National Security Daily newsletter.
Après avoir dupé le ministre britannique des Affaires étrangères David Cameron en lui faisant avouer que l’Ukraine ne serait pas invitée à rejoindre l’OTAN lors du prochain sommet de l’alliance, le duo de farceurs russes Vovan et Lexus a réussi à duper Hillary Clinton.
Malgré sa défaite écrasante face à Donald Trump lors des élections présidentielles américaines de 2016, Hillary Clinton a catégoriquement refusé de se laisser mettre au placard ou d’être écartée de la politique. D’où sa tentative actuelle de s’immiscer dans le conflit par procuration en cours en Ukraine. Il n’est pas surprenant que l’ancienne secrétaire d’État américaine ait accepté avec empressement l’offre de s’entretenir avec «l’ancien président ukrainien Petro Porochenko». Elle ne se doutait pas qu’elle dévoilait son jeu politique concernant les États-Unis et l’Ukraine au célèbre duo de farceurs russes, Vovan (Vladimir Kuznetsov) et Lexus (Alexey Stolyarov).
Clinton est entrée directement dans la conversation, assurant à Porochenko que l’aide américaine avait été positionnée pour atteindre l’Ukraine «très rapidement». À ce stade, son interlocuteur s’est plaint d’une autre «menace» imminente, face au candidat à la présidence Donald Trump, qui pourrait «nous poser des problèmes» s’il était élu, car il «déteste l’Ukraine», a-t-elle ajouté : «Vous avez raison. C’est terrible. Et je fais tout ce que je peux pour faire réélire le président Biden. Et j’ai bon espoir que ce soit le cas en novembre».
Clinton a critiqué Trump, le qualifiant de «candidat très dangereux» et affirmant qu’il serait «mauvais pour les États-Unis, ainsi que pour le reste du monde, y compris l’Ukraine».
Malgré le premier débat désastreux de Joe Biden contre son principal adversaire, Clinton est convaincue que Trump va perdre. De plus, elle a semblé indiquer que le chemin vers un second mandat de Biden devrait être pavé de cadavres de soldats ukrainiens.
Elle a assuré que Washington «leur donnerait les moyens dont ils ont besoin pour se soutenir et essayer non seulement de tenir la ligne mais aussi de lancer une offensive. Et puis, évidemment, beaucoup d’entre nous dans ce pays feront tout ce qu’ils peuvent pour réélire le président Biden».
«Plus l’Ukraine pourra continuer à démontrer sa résilience et sa détermination et faire ce qu’elle fait sur le champ de bataille, faire ce qu’elle fait sera un message très fort au reste du monde, (…) avancer du mieux qu’elle peut… le reste d’entre nous fera tout ce qu’il peut pour continuer à vous soutenir, et à soutenir le président Biden», a réitéré Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton soutient également sans réserve les aspirations de l’Ukraine à l’«adhésion à l’OTAN affirmant que «nous travaillons très dur pour persuader les Allemands et les Américains d’avancer dans ce sens. Je ne sais pas quelle sera la décision finale, mais comme vous le dites, Rasmussen et Yermak, et d’autres, travaillent très dur». Il s’agit d’une référence à l’ancien secrétaire général de l’OTAN Anders Fogh Rasmussen et au chef d’état-major de Zelensky Andriy Yermak, qui dirigent un groupe de travail pour obtenir le soutien de l’ensemble de l’Alliance à la candidature de Kiev à l’OTAN.
Clinton a souligné que «tout le monde a intérêt à ce que vous réussissiez à repousser les Russes aussi loin que possible». «Porochenko» a plaisanté à ce moment-là en disant que «les dictateurs n’ont pas retenu la leçon après Kadhafi», en référence à l’ancien dirigeant libyen renversé par l’OTAN en 2011.
À l’époque, en tant que chef de la politique étrangère de Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton était la personnalité phare du projet et avait ri aux éclats lors d’une interview télévisée après que les forces rebelles soutenues par l’OTAN eurent capturé et tué Mouammar Kadhafi.
Clinton avait eu cette ironie célèbre : «Nous sommes venus, nous avons vu, il est mort !»
«Oui, je pense que c’est vrai», a répondu Clinton à l’imposteur de Porochenko.
Revenant à la «principale menace», à savoir Trump, les farceurs ont prévenu qu’il «demanderait à être remboursé, et ce serait un désastre», car il «veut mettre fin au conflit aux conditions de la Russie».
«C’est un très mauvais gars, comme je le sais personnellement pour avoir dû me présenter contre lui», a réitéré Hillary Clinton, applaudissant l’offre d’aide de la partie ukrainienne pour déterrer de nouvelles informations sur Trump. «Eh bien, je suis entièrement pour tout ce que vous pouvez faire pour l’attaquer. Parce que c’est un homme très dangereux», a réitéré Clinton.
Elle a conclu la conversation avec enthousiasme en prononçant «Slava, Ukraina» («Gloire à l’Ukraine»), un salut fasciste de guerre adopté à l’origine par l’Armée insurrectionnelle ukrainienne (UPA), un groupe militant nationaliste tristement célèbre qui a collaboré avec les nazis pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, et désormais largement utilisé par les groupes paramilitaires ukrainiens, promus par le régime de Kiev.
Most geopolitics’ nerds know George C. Marshall as President Harry S. Truman’s Secretary of State, 1947-49, and Secretary of Defense, 1950-51, credited with initiating $13 billion Marshall Plan for rebuilding European economies devastated by the war.
But few people know that as Chief of Staff of the US Army during World War II, Gen. George C. Marshall organized the largest military expansion in the US history, inheriting an outmoded, poorly equipped army of 189,000 men that grew into a force of over eight million soldiers by 1942, a fortyfold increase within the short span of three years.
Rumors circulated by the end of the war that Marshall would become the Supreme Allied Commander for the Allied invasion of Normandy in June 1944. However, Franklin D. Roosevelt selected relatively modest Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower for the momentous march to victory, because Roosevelt felt threatened by Marshall’s power and ambitions.
Image: President Dwight D. Eisenhower (National Archives)
Thus, after the war, Eisenhower was hailed as liberator of Europe from the Nazi occupation who subsequently rose to prominence as the president, whereas the principal architect of the US deep state and a military genius who was instrumental in making the United States a global power died in relative obscurity.
Ever since Marshall, however, the United States has been ruled by the top brass of the Pentagon while presidents have been reduced to the ceremonial role of being public relations’ representatives of the deep state, pontificating and sermonizing like priests to gullible audiences at home and abroad on the virtues of supposed American democracy, rule of law and civil liberties.
Though a clarification is required here that US presidents indeed have the power to order withdrawal of troops from inconsequential theaters of war, such as the evacuation of US forces from Iraq as directed by former President Obama in 2011 or the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan as ordered by President Biden in 2021, as the perceptive military brass is courteous enough to bow to sane advice of purported chosen representatives of the people and ostensible commander-in-chief of the armed forces in order to maintain the charade of democracy in the eyes of the public.
But in military oligarchy’s perpetual conflict with other major world powers deemed existential threats to the US security interests, such as arch-rivals Russia and China, as in the Ukraine War, civilian presidents, whether Biden or Trump, don’t have the authority to overrule the global domination agenda of the Pentagon.
In fact, the deep state has murdered US presidents in cold blood for appeasing adversaries and daring to stand up to the deep state, for instance the assassination of the Kennedy brothers in the sixties after the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.
Though credulous readers of mainstream media designate alternative media’s erudite writers casting aspersions over perfectly “natural murders” of John and Robert F. Kennedy that were nothing more than “coincidences” as cynical “conspiracists.”
The gullible sheeple believe the Kennedy brothers didn’t die at all. In fact, they were raised from the dead by the Almighty and ascended alive into heaven like Jesus Christ and will be resurrected on the Day of Judgment to give credible testimony regarding their real executioners. Religiously held beliefs regarding the purported strength of American democracy are just beliefs, no matter how absurd, hence there is no cure for “the united state of denial.”
Sarcasm aside, it’s noteworthy the national security and defense policies of the United States are formulated by the all-powerful civil-military bureaucracy, dubbed the deep state, whereas the president, elected through heavily manipulated electoral process with disproportionate influence of corporate interests, political lobbyists and billionaire donors, is only a figurehead meant to legitimize militarist stranglehold of the deep state, not only over the domestic politics of the United States but also over the neocolonial world order dictated by the self-styled global hegemon.
All the militaries of the 32 NATO member states operate under the integrated military command led by the Pentagon. Before being elected president, General Dwight Eisenhower was the first commander of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE).
The commander of Allied Command Operations has been given the title Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), and is always a US four-star general officer or flag officer who also serves as the Commander US European Command, and is subordinate to the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The incumbent Godfather of the Cosa Nostra is Gen. Charles Q. Brown since October 2023 following the retirement of Gen. Mark Milley who completed his tenure of four tumultuous years, including the Ukraine War and the Capitol riots, in September as the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Although officially the CIA falls under the Department of State, the FBI under the Department of Justice and the NSA under the Department of Defense, all of these security agencies take orders from the Pentagon’s top brass, the de facto rulers of the imperial United States.
Moreover, it’s worth pointing out that although the Pentagon is officially headed by the Secretary of Defense, who is typically a high-ranking retired military officer, the Secretary is simply a liaison between the civilian president and the military’s top brass, and it’s the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff who calls the shots on military affairs, defense and national security policy.
In Europe, 400,000 US troops were deployed at the height of the Cold War in the sixties, though the number has since been brought down after European clients developed their own military capacity following the devastation of the Second World War. The number of American troops deployed in Europe now stands at 50,000 in Germany, 15,000 in Italy and 10,000 in the United Kingdom.
Since the beginning of Ukraine War in 2022, the United States has substantially ramped up US military footprint in the Eastern Europe by deploying tens of thousands of additional NATO troops, strategic armaments, nuclear-capable missiles and air force squadrons aimed at Russia, and NATO forces alongside regional clients have been provocatively exercising so-called “freedom of navigation” right in the Black Sea and conducting joint military exercises and naval drills.
Regarding the global footprint of the United States troops, 275,000 US military personnel are currently deployed across the world, including 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East, in addition to the aforementioned number of US troops deployed in Europe.
Clearly, through the transatlantic NATO military alliance, the overseas deployment of US forces in client states and the presence of aircraft-carriers in the international waters that are similar to floating air bases, the deep state rules not only the imperial United States but the entire unipolar world.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based geopolitical and national security analyst focused on geo-strategic affairs and hybrid warfare in the Middle East and Eurasia regions. His domains of expertise include neocolonialism, military-industrial complex and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor of diligently researched investigative reports to Global Research.
Featured image: General of the Army George Catlett Marshall, Chief of Staff. U.S. Army, 1 September 1939-18 November 1945 (From the Public Domain)
The original source of this article is Global Research
In December 1998, during an official visit to New Delhi, then-Prime Minister of Russia E. M. Primakov proposed the creation of a strategic triangle between Russia, India and China, which would be a counterweight to the hegemonic policies of the US and the West, that force their position unto other states. Primakov’s proposal was the first signal vis-à-vis the transformation of the unipolar world that had formed following the fall of the Soviet Union.
Admittedly, the initial reaction to the idea of a Russia-India-China (RIC) triangle was rather sceptical. Even in Moscow, many believed that such a trilateral format was not viable, primarily due to significant differences between India and China. Moscow’s relations with Delhi and Beijing in the post-Soviet period remain quite strong and fit the description of a real strategic partnership, however two of the world’s oldest civilizations, neighbours separated by the Himalayas for a long time, have shown elements of rivalry in becoming the regional leader. Since the middle of the last century, India and China have been unable to reach an agreement on the division of the border territories of Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh.Nevertheless, subsequent events have shown that Primakov’s idea is not just an interesting concept, but must also be implemented as soon as possible. RIC not only became an independent format, but also served as the basis for the creation of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) – the largest association of developing economies in the world.Cooperation within the scope of the RIC format began in 2002, when the first meeting of foreign ministers took place during the UN General Assembly. Since 2006, regular meetings have been held between Brazil, India, Russia and China, and since 2010 South Africa has joined this quartet.In 2023 BRICS expanded to consist of 10 members with Egypt, Iran, Ethiopia, Saudi Arabia and the UAE joining.Being a major statesman, Evgeny Maksimovich Primakov, has always been an outstanding scientist, whose ideas and works have always paved the way for the future. At the beginning of the 21st century, he repeatedly warned that the survival of mankind rests upon uniting all states and peoples without exception, as we face a large number of global problems and challenges from the threat of terrorism and the possibility of using weapons of mass destruction to rapid climate change and the growth of appalling material inequality. In this regard, he placed special emphasis on the inadmissibility of a new division of the world, this time along religious and civilizational lines.E. M. Primakov authored the maxim that the world will certainly become multipolarThe fact is that in the early 90s, the famous US political scientist S. Huntington put forth the idea of a clash of civilizations, which, according to him, would replace the Cold War. He theorised that, for the given time period, the source of future conflicts in the world would not be ideological and economic contradictions between countries, rather socio-cultural differences between civilizations due to the peculiarities of religion, shared values etc. Civilization is explained both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs and social institutions, as well as by the subjective self-identification of people. The most significant conflicts of the future (in terms of their consequences) will occur due to the schisms separating civilizations. At the same time, Huntington noted that, in the 90s, the conflict between the West and the Islamic world was the most pronounced, yet in the future it will be the Western civilization that confronts everyone else.Differences in the volume of power and the struggle for military, economic and political power are thus a source of conflict between the West and other civilizations. Another source of conflict is differences in culture, basic values and beliefs.Some scientists of that time assumed that the West would dominate for a long time. The famous Trinidadian writer and Nobel Prize winner V. S. Naipaul argued that Western civilization is universal and suitable for all peoples.Singaporean scientist and politician K. Mahbubani said that the central axis of world politics would be the conflict between the West and the rest of the world in the form of a reaction of non-Western civilizations to Western power and values. He expressed the hope that the world would follow the path of convergence.BRICS – a union of all non-Western civilizationsE.M. Primakov emphasised that – even in the conditions of a noticeable aggravation of contradictions in the modern world – one cannot talk about the inevitability of a conflict of civilizations. Moreover, politicians around the world must express their will and focus on solving the most acute problems facing all mankind. He is the author of the expression “partnership of civilizations”.Also, while analysing the challenges of American identity, Huntington noted back in 2005 that disintegration processes were gaining momentum in the United States, calling into question the very fact of the future existence of the phenomenon of American identity. The US, the scientist convincingly showed, is at a turning point, and the future of not only the US, but also the entire world system, depends on which way the pendulum will eventually swing.Currently, BRICS is a union of all non-Western civilizations: Chinese, Hindu, Islamic, Russian (Eurasian), African and Latin American.Despite numerous failures and problems, the West – primarily the United States – is still trying to dictate its way unto all other states. This can be observed in the incitement of conflict in all parts of the world, the imposition of various kinds of sanctions and restrictive measures against those who want to live as they please, in accordance with their own vision. Examples of such include Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and other countries.Because of their attempts to maintain their elusive dominance, Western powers are facing an increasing number of domestic political difficulties; in the US, polarisation has reached an astounding new level (some observers write about ‘two Americas’). In the UK, the bankruptcy of the conservatives’ 14-year rule has become so obvious that, according to many observers, it will clearly manifest itself in the parliamentary elections on July 4.However, the crisis of Western civilization is most clearly witnessed in France, where most political forces talk about the ‘death of Macronism’, which will be seen during the election campaign in early July. The French example will be contagious for many other countries, as France has always been the birthplace of revolution; both Russian and US politicians have always been impressed by radical French transformations.The majority of political observers also predict that the German government will soon change.In June 2024, the UN General Assembly unanimously decided to celebrate June 10 each year as the ‘International Day for Dialogue among Civilizations’, the main purpose of which is to introduce people to the diversity of civilizations.E. M. Primakov liked to repeat that humanity was able to cope with the division of the world according to an ideological principle, and will eventually be able to cope with the clash of civilizations.In the current conditions, the further development of E. M. Primakov’s legacy is becoming particularly relevant. It is no coincidence that dozens of countries in Asia, Africa and Latin America have announced their desire to join BRICS. In October, Kazan will host the next summit of this grouping, which is becoming the most attractive international organization. Our successes in the Special Military Operation in Ukraine give us ample opportunity to propose new global initiatives that will pave the way to resolving existing conflicts and solve pressing global problems.Veniamin Popov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary, PhD in History, especially for online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”Tags: BRICS, China, Geopolitics, Historical Memory, History, India, Politics, RussiaRelated articles:
Ce n’est qu’en comprenant et en prenant au sérieux les avertissements nucléaires russes que nous pourrons exclure le risque d’entrée en jeu des armes nucléaires.
Le G7 et la «conférence du Bürgenstock» qui a suivi en Suisse peuvent – rétrospectivement – être considérés comme une préparation à une guerre prolongée en Ukraine. Les trois principales annonces du G7 – le pacte de sécurité de 10 ans pour l’Ukraine, le «prêt pour l’Ukraine» de 50 milliards de dollars et la saisie des intérêts sur les fonds gelés par la Russie – le montrent bien. La guerre est sur le point de s’intensifier.
Ces prises de position visent à préparer l’opinion publique occidentale avant les événements. Et en cas de doute, la belligérance cinglante à l’égard de la Russie exprimée par les dirigeants électoraux européens était suffisamment claire : ils ont cherché à donner l’impression que l’Europe se préparait à la guerre.
Que nous réserve l’avenir ? Selon John Kirby, porte-parole de la Maison-Blanche, «la position de Washington à l’égard de Kiev est absolument claire» :
«Ils doivent d’abord gagner la guerre. Donc, premièrement : nous faisons tout ce que nous pouvons pour nous assurer qu’ils y parviennent. Ensuite, lorsque la guerre sera terminée, Washington aidera l’Ukraine à se doter d’une base militaro-industrielle».
Comme si cela ne suffisait pas, le conseiller à la Sécurité nationale, Jake Sullivan, a souligné l’intention des États-Unis de prolonger la guerre et de l’étendre à la Russie : «L’autorisation pour l’Ukraine d’utiliser des armes américaines pour des attaques transfrontalières s’étend à tout endroit d’où les forces russes traversent la frontière». Il a également affirmé que l’Ukraine pouvait utiliser des F-16 pour attaquer la Russie et utiliser les systèmes de défense aérienne fournis par les États-Unis «pour abattre des avions russes – même s’ils se trouvent dans l’espace aérien russe – s’ils sont sur le point de tirer dans l’espace aérien ukrainien».
Les pilotes ukrainiens ont la latitude de juger de «l’intention» des avions de combat russes ? Il faut s’attendre à ce que les paramètres de cette «autorisation» s’élargissent rapidement, jusqu’aux bases aériennes d’où décollent les chasseurs-bombardiers russes.
Comprenant que la guerre est sur le point de se transformer radicalement – et de manière extrêmement dangereuse – le président Poutine (dans son discours devant le conseil d’administration du ministère des Affaires étrangères) a expliqué comment le monde en était arrivé à ce tournant décisif – un tournant qui pourrait aller jusqu’à des échanges nucléaires.
La gravité de la situation exigeait de faire l’offre de la «dernière chance» à l’Occident, qui, selon Poutine, n’était «pas un cessez-le-feu temporaire permettant à Kiev de préparer une nouvelle offensive ; il ne s’agissait pas non plus de geler le conflit» ; ses propositions visaient plutôt l’achèvement final de la guerre.
«Si, comme auparavant, Kiev et les capitales occidentales le refusent, c’est leur affaire», a déclaré Poutine.
Pour être clair, Poutine ne s’attendait certainement pas à ce que ses propositions soient accueillies en Occident autrement que par le mépris et la dérision dont elles ont fait l’objet. Poutine n’aura pas non plus cru un seul instant que l’Occident ne reviendrait pas sur un accord, si un arrangement devait être conclu dans ce sens.
Dans ce cas, pourquoi le président Poutine a-t-il fait une telle proposition le week-end dernier, si l’on ne peut pas faire confiance à l’Occident et si sa réaction était si prévisible ?
Peut-être devrions-nous chercher à l’intérieur de la poupée Matryoshka, plutôt que de nous concentrer sur l’enveloppe extérieure : l’«achèvement final» de Poutine ne sera probablement pas réalisé de manière crédible par le biais d’un médiateur de paix itinérant. Dans son discours au ministère des Affaires étrangères, Poutine rejette les dispositifs tels que les «cessez-le-feu» ou les «gels». Il recherche quelque chose de permanent : un arrangement qui ait des «jambes solides», qui soit durable.
Une telle solution – comme Poutine l’a déjà laissé entendre – nécessite la mise en place d’une nouvelle architecture de sécurité mondiale ; et si cela devait se produire, une solution complète pour l’Ukraine ferait implicitement partie d’un nouvel ordre mondial. En d’autres termes, le microcosme d’une solution pour l’Ukraine découlerait implicitement de l’accord macrocosmique entre les États-Unis et les puissances du «Heartland», qui fixeraient les frontières en fonction de leurs intérêts respectifs en matière de sécurité.
Cela est manifestement impossible aujourd’hui, les États-Unis étant, dans leur état d’esprit psychologique, bloqués à l’époque de la guerre froide des années 1970 et 1980. La fin de cette guerre – l’apparente victoire des États-Unis – a jeté les bases de la doctrine Wolfowitz de 1992, qui soulignait la suprématie américaine à tout prix dans un monde post-soviétique, ainsi que «l’éradication des rivaux, où qu’ils se trouvent».
Parallèlement, la doctrine Wolfowitz stipulait que les États-Unis inaugureraient un système de sécurité collective dirigé par les États-Unis et la création d’une zone de paix démocratique. La Russie, quant à elle, a été traitée différemment : le pays a disparu des radars. Elle est devenue un concurrent géopolitique insignifiant aux yeux de l’Occident, car ses propositions d’offre pacifique ont été repoussées – et les garanties qui lui avaient été données concernant l’expansion de l’OTAN ont été perdues.
Moscou ne pouvait rien faire pour empêcher une telle entreprise. L’État successeur de la puissante Union soviétique n’était pas son égal et n’était donc pas considéré comme suffisamment important pour être impliqué dans le processus décisionnel mondial. Pourtant, malgré la réduction de sa taille et de sa sphère d’influence, la Russie a continué à être considérée comme un acteur clé dans les affaires internationales.
La Russie est aujourd’hui un acteur mondial de premier plan dans les sphères économique et politique. Pourtant, pour la strate dirigeante des États-Unis, il est hors de question d’accorder un statut égal à Moscou. La mentalité de la guerre froide imprègne encore le Beltway de la confiance injustifiée que le conflit ukrainien pourrait d’une manière ou d’une autre entraîner l’effondrement et le démembrement de la Russie.
Dans son discours, en revanche, Poutine a envisagé l’effondrement du système de sécurité euro-atlantique et l’émergence d’une nouvelle architecture. «Le monde ne sera plus jamais le même», a déclaré Poutine.
Implicitement, il laisse entendre qu’un tel changement radical serait le seul moyen crédible de mettre fin à la guerre en Ukraine. Un accord émergeant du cadre plus large du consensus sur la division des intérêts entre le Rimland et le Heartland (pour parler comme Mackinder) refléterait les intérêts de sécurité de chaque partie – et ne serait pas obtenu au détriment de la sécurité des autres.
Et pour être clair : si cette analyse est correcte, la Russie n’est peut-être pas si pressée de conclure les affaires en Ukraine. La perspective d’une telle négociation «globale» entre la Russie, la Chine et les États-Unis est encore lointaine.
Ce qu’il faut retenir, c’est que la psyché collective occidentale n’a pas été suffisamment transformée. Il n’est toujours pas question pour Washington de traiter Moscou sur un pied d’égalité.
Le nouveau discours américain est le suivant : pas de négociations avec Moscou pour l’instant, mais elles deviendront peut-être possibles au début de l’année prochaine, après les élections américaines.
Poutine pourrait surprendre à nouveau, non pas en sautant sur l’occasion, mais en la repoussant, et en estimant que les Américains ne sont toujours pas prêts à négocier la «fin complète» de la guerre, d’autant plus que ce nouveau discours coïncide avec l’annonce d’une nouvelle offensive ukrainienne prévue pour 2025. Bien entendu, beaucoup de choses sont susceptibles de changer au cours de l’année à venir.
Toutefois, les documents décrivant un nouvel ordre sécuritaire supposé ont déjà été rédigés par la Russie en 2021 – et dûment ignorés par l’Occident. La Russie peut peut-être se permettre d’attendre les événements militaires en Ukraine, en Israël et dans la sphère financière.
Quoi qu’il en soit, tous ces événements vont dans le sens de Poutine. Ils sont tous interconnectés et ont le potentiel d’une grande métamorphose.
En clair : Poutine attend que le Zeitgeist américain prenne forme. Il semblait très confiant, tant à Saint-Pétersbourg que la semaine dernière au ministère des affaires étrangères.
La toile de fond de la préoccupation du G7 pour l’Ukraine semble être davantage liée aux élections américaines qu’à la réalité : cela implique que la priorité en Italie était l’optique des élections, plutôt que le désir de déclencher une véritable guerre chaude. Mais ce n’est peut-être pas le cas.
Les orateurs russes qui se sont exprimés lors de ces récents rassemblements – notamment Sergueï Lavrov – ont largement laissé entendre que l’ordre de déclencher une guerre contre la Russie avait déjà été donné. L’Europe semble, aussi improbable que cela puisse paraître, se préparer à la guerre, avec de nombreuses discussions sur la conscription militaire.
Tout cela s’évanouira-t-il au terme d’un été électoral brûlant ? Peut-être.
La phase à venir semble susceptible d’entraîner une escalade de la part de l’Occident, avec des provocations à l’intérieur de la Russie. Cette dernière réagira vivement à tout franchissement de (vraies) lignes rouges par l’OTAN, ou à toute provocation sous faux drapeau (désormais largement attendue par les blogueurs militaires russes).
Et c’est là que réside le plus grand danger : dans le contexte de l’escalade, le mépris américain pour la Russie constitue le plus grand danger. L’Occident dit maintenant qu’il considère les notions d’échange nucléaire potentiel comme un «bluff» de Poutine. Le Financial Timesnous dit que les avertissements nucléaires de la Russie «fatiguent» l’Occident.
Si cela est vrai, les responsables occidentaux se méprennent totalement sur la réalité. Ce n’est qu’en comprenant et en prenant au sérieux les avertissements nucléaires russes que nous pourrons exclure le risque d’entrée en jeu d’armes nucléaires, au fur et à mesure que nous progresserons sur l’échelle de l’escalade avec des mesures de riposte.
Même s’ils disent qu’ils croient qu’il s’agit d’un bluff, les chiffres américains insistent néanmoins sur le risque d’un échange nucléaire. S’ils pensent qu’il s’agit d’un bluff, c’est parce qu’ils présument que la Russie n’a pas beaucoup d’autres options.
Ce serait une erreur. La Russie peut franchir plusieurs étapes dans l’escalade, avant d’atteindre le stade de l’arme nucléaire tactique : contre-attaque commerciale et financière ; fourniture symétrique d’armement avancé à des adversaires occidentaux (correspondant aux livraisons américaines à l’Ukraine) ; coupure de la distribution d’électricité en provenance de Pologne, de Slovaquie, de Hongrie et de Roumanie ; frappes sur les passages frontaliers de munitions ; et s’inspirer des Houthis qui ont abattu plusieurs drones américains sophistiqués et coûteux, mettant hors service l’infrastructure de renseignement, de surveillance et de reconnaissance de l’Amérique.
Washington. Das Weiße Haus hat einen Bericht der New York Times vehement zurückgewiesen, in dem behauptet wird, US-Präsident Joe Biden ziehe einen Rückzug aus dem Rennen um die Präsidentschaft in Erwägung. Ein Sprecher der Regierungszentrale erklärte auf Anfrage: „Diese Behauptung ist absolut falsch.“ Weiter fügte er hinzu, dass die New York Times keine ausreichende Zeit zur Stellungnahme gegeben habe: „Wenn uns die New York Times mehr als sieben Minuten Zeit gegeben hätte, das zu kommentieren, hätten wir ihnen das auch so gesagt.“
Der Bericht der New York Times behauptet, Biden habe mit einem „wichtigen Verbündeten“ über seine Kandidatur gesprochen und eingeräumt, dass seine Kampagne möglicherweise nicht mehr zu retten sei, wenn er die Öffentlichkeit in den kommenden Tagen nicht von seiner Eignung als Präsidentschaftskandidat überzeugen könne.
Um Unterstützung zu sichern, plant Biden in den nächsten Tagen mehrere politische Aktivitäten. Am Mittwoch wird er sich mit demokratischen Gouverneuren treffen, am Freitag ein Fernsehinterview geben und zudem Wahlkampfauftritte in Wisconsin und Pennsylvania absolvieren. In der kommenden Woche ist eine Pressekonferenz beim NATO-Gipfel in Washington geplant.
Kurz nach Veröffentlichung des New York Times-Berichts veröffentlichte auch der US-Sender CNN einen ähnlichen Bericht, ebenfalls unter Berufung auf einen Verbündeten. Es ist unklar, ob beide Berichte auf derselben Quelle basieren.
Who’s on charge of the White House? Hunter or Jill?Just when you thought the Biden problem couldn’t get any weirder, it turns out Hunter Biden is attending meetings at the White House. That’s right. Joe invited his drug-addled, convicted felon son to hear matters of the state. After all, Joe considers Hunter to be ‘the smartest man I know.”White House aides have expressed shock, and it must make leaders in the Democrat Party even more nervous. What’s next, will Hunter light up a crack pipe in the Oval Office? He probably already has.You can be sure both Hunter and Jill Biden don’t want Joe to drop out, there is too much at stake.—Ben GarrisonJoe and Jill went up the (Capitol) Hill to fetch a pail of money…
Der Friedensstifter 