Campagne de dons Juin 2024Chers amis lecteurs, Réseau International est en plein chamboulement. Nous sommes en train de déménager vers un serveur plus puissant et plus sécurisé. Comme vous l’avez certainement constaté, nous rencontrons depuis quelques mois des difficultés de toutes sortes rendant le site difficile d’accès. Nous avions besoin de plus de ressources pour une meilleure fluidité de navigation et, surtout, d’une meilleure protection contre les attaques que nous subissons de manière régulière, avec des pics de demandes de connexion dépassant 1 million en 1-2 heures. Chers amis lecteurs, nous avons besoin de vous plus que jamais pour nous aider à garder RI vivant. Avec vos dons, non seulement nous pourrons continuer à lutter pour une information libre, plurielle et réellement internationale, mais aussi continuer à agrandir notre équipe afin de diversifier notre manière de travailler pour une meilleure couverture des évènements.7 027,00 € / 25 000,00 €Participer
par Philippe Rosenthal
Les États-Unis sont lancés dans une nouvelle étape en ce qui concerne la préparation du pays et de la société américaine à une grande guerre. Il s’agit directement de la conscription militaire générale qui est actuellement absente aux États-Unis.
Pourquoi cela est important pour la Russie ?
Aux États-Unis, il a été décidé de mettre à jour le système d’enregistrement militaire, le système de service sélectif. Il s’agit d’une structure chargée de tenir compte du potentiel de mobilisation du pays. Le programme de service sélectif met en place un moyen équitable d’inscrire les hommes éligibles au service militaire. Le service militaire aux États-Unis est volontaire. Mais, la plupart des jeunes hommes doivent s’inscrire auprès du service sélectif. Presque tous les hommes âgés de 18 à 25 ans et vivant aux États-Unis doivent s’inscrire au service sélectif. Ceci comprend : les citoyens américains (nés aux États-Unis, doubles citoyens et naturalisés) ; les citoyens américains qui vivent à l’extérieur du pays, les immigrants (résidents permanents légaux et immigrants sans papiers, les réfugiés et demandeurs d’asile; les personnes transgenres auxquelles le sexe masculin a été attribué à la naissance et les personnes handicapées). Mais, depuis 1973, il n’y a pas de service militaire obligatoire.
En réponse à l’invasion soviétique de l’Afghanistan, Jimmy Carter a réactivé la loi sur le service militaire sélectif par décret du 2 juillet 1980. Même, si elle n’imposait pas le service militaire, elle exigeait que les hommes âgés de 18 à 26 ans s’inscrivent auprès du système de service sélectif.
Système de comptabilité militaire rigide
Un Américain, âgé de plus de 18 ans et âgé d’au moins 26 ans, qui n’a pas été enregistré dans l’état d’immatriculation militaire, peut être condamné à une amende de 250 000 dollars ou à de la prison pendant cinq ans.
Un immigrant qui n’a pas enregistré d’enregistrement militaire ne pourra jamais obtenir la citoyenneté américaine. Soit dit en passant, le serment du nouveau citoyen américain est une promesse de se battre aux côtés des États-Unis dans leurs guerres, et rien de plus. Quiconque est devenu citoyen américain de naissance a prêté serment. Jusqu’en 1990, tous les Américains recevaient la carte de conscrit avec des données contenues dans le système d’enregistrement militaire.
En mai 2024, la loi annuelle sur la défense (essentiellement le budget militaire) adoptée par le Congrès américain comprenait une proposition visant à enregistrer automatiquement tous les hommes présents en permanence aux États-Unis, qu’ils soient citoyens ou immigrés. Toutes les bases de données contenant des données personnelles seront utilisées comme source de données personnelles des futures recrues. Désormais, peu importe que quelqu’un veuille ou non devenir soldat américain, il sera toujours enregistré.
«Les États-Unis devraient-ils rétablir le projet ?», se demandeNewsNation ce 12 juin dernier, la source américaine d’informations engageantes et impartiales qui reflètent l’ensemble des points de vue à travers le pays. «Les États-Unis n’ont pas l’intention d’instaurer une conscription, malgré certaines rumeurs sur Internet», stipule le média US citant une information de l’AP.
Ces rumeurs de recrutement obligatoire intervient car «l’armée US n’a pas atteint ses objectifs de recrutement pour remplir ses rangs, et les déficits affectent désormais certaines branches plus que d’autres». Et, «les hommes politiques des deux côtés s’accordent sur le fait que le déficit de recrutement militaire est préoccupant».
Un rapport du Pew Research Centermontre que seulement 23% des jeunes américains sont qualifiés pour l’armée, et qu’une majorité d’Américains âgés de 18 à 29 ans ont une vision globalement négative des forces armées.
La comptabilité des citoyens américains est toujours maintenue par le système de service sélectif. Comme vu plus haut, de manière secrète le pouvoir politique US commence à former ses troupes, d’abord par le système de service sélectif en ayant décidé de mener une guerre sans en avoir informé les civils. Le service militaire obligatoire US peut, donc, être activé en se basant sur les listes sur les personnes. Cela est le signe que les États-Unis se préparent à une grande guerre.
The EU elections over June 6 to June 9 have presented a chaotically merry picture, certainly for those on the right of politics. Not that the right in question is reliably homogeneous in any sense, nor hoping for a single theme of triumph. A closer look at the gains made by the conservative side of politics, along with its saltier reactionary wings, suggests difficulty and disagreement.
In any case, papers such as The Economist were hopelessly pessimistic about the post-Eden fall, which may suggest that democracy, in all its unpredictable nastiness, is working. The lingering nature of the Ukraine War, the obstinate, enduring presences of such nationalists as Marine Le Pen in France and Viktor Orbán in Hungary, all pointing to “a period of political rudderlessness”. In truth, the rudders are being replaced.
In France, Le Pen has managed to point the gun of discontent at the centre of bureaucratic control and (hideous word) governance. The two prominent targets: President Emmanuel Macron and Paris. She has been aided by the fact that Macron has been inclined to pack key positions in government with loyal, reliable Parisians. Last February, François Bayrou, an early Macron enthusiast and Justice Minister, found it hard to accept that 11 of the 15 important ministers in the government were from the Paris area. This revealed a “growing lack of understanding between those in power and the French people at the grassroots level”.
On June 9, Le Pen proved had every reason to gloat, with the gains made by her party sufficiently terrifying French President Emmanuel Macron to dissolve parliament and call an election. Parties of the far-right came first in Austria, tied for top billing in the Netherlands and came in as runners-up in Germany (where Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s Social Democrats were savaged) and Romania.
The party of Italian Prime Minister, Georgia Meloni, also did well, winning 28.9% of the country’s vote in the elections. Predicted to get 24 seats in the European Parliament, the Fratelli d’Italia (Brothers of Italy) have done a shedding act on neo-fascism in favour of a smoother image, while still insisting that Europe’s identity had to be defended “from every cultural subjugation that sees Europe renounce its history to adopt that of others.” Such messaging has come with slick shallowness on social media, including such posts as those featuring “L’Italia cambia l’Europa” (“Italy changes Europe”), or the voter instruction to “scrivi Giorgia” (“write Giorgia”) on their ballot.
Meloni’s march was so significant as to compel EU Commission chief, Ursula von der Leyen, to become a salivating groupie for the right – of sorts. Her sharp policies on migration have drawn the approval of Meloni. Speaking at April’s Maastricht Debate, organised by POLITICO and Studio Europa Maastricht, von der Leyen openly expressed her interest in linking arms with Meloni’s European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR).
The Italian PM has found herself to be an object of much political interest, indispensable to the chess pieces of Europe’s political manoeuvrings. Italy’s reactionary flame has become, for instance, a matter of much interest to Le Pen. To the Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera, Le Pen emphasised her insistence that a hard-right bloc of parties in the European Parliament could be formed, overcoming the current division between her Identity and Democracy (ID) group and that of Meloni’s ECR.
That said, any union of faux liberal types such as von der Leyen with those of the hard right of Europe is unlikely to be a fragrant one. Von der Leyen has taken heavy shots at Le Pen’s Rassemblement National (National Rally), excoriating its pro-Russian position along with those of Germany’s AfD and Poland’s Konfederacja. “They are Putin’s puppets and proxies and they are trampling on our values.” The promise to Meloni: if you want my dour, camouflaged conservatism, forget the other reactionaries.
What was telling was that the young, having voted in 2019 for parties of the left such as the Greens, had had a change of heart. In May an Ipsos poll revealed that 34% of French voters under the age of 30 were keen to vote for the 28-year old leader of the National Rally in the European Parliamentary elections. In Germany, the 22% of Germans between 14-29 were keen to plump for Alternative for Germany (AfD), just under double from what was registered in 2023.
For Albena Azmanova of the University of Kent, this presents a curious predicament for those on the progressive side of politics (is there such a thing anymore?). Dissatisfaction that would normally be mined by progressives for political advantage is being left over to the opposite wing of politics. “The left is failing to harness that discontent, although its trademark issues – poverty and unemployment – are now more salient for voters than the far right’s flagship of ‘immigration’.”
An unanticipated phenomenon has manifested: younger voters in France, Portugal, Belgium, Germany and Finland folding at the ballot box for parties of the right and far right. The pendulum has well and truly swung. Europe’s right, bulked by the young, is on the march.
Rome had to listen to Nero’s fiddle. Blinken subjected the poor denizens of a Kyiv bar to his skills with the guitar.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken has become the subject of mockery again following the bizarre incident where he took the stage and played electric guitar in the Ukrainian capital. It must have been poor compensation for the soldiers who came expecting reassurance that their return to the front line would not be in vain.
Blinken’s real sin was not his music, even though it was by all accounts subpar. It was what he did not provide – namely, hard truths, and a policy.
Instead, Anthony Blinken offered empty words. Except they were words that came from a man viewed as so inconsequential that they went largely ignored by the locals and unreported by a press corps which instead covered his dive bar rendition of a 1989 Neil Young song. If you wanted to know America’s long-term strategy, or even a vision for the next six months, America’s Secretary of State had platitudes galore. Substance, not so much.
Relationships, whether between individuals or nations, are built on honesty. Little white lies are useful when dealing with strangers, but anyone who has ever been in a relationship will rapidly learn that telling a loved one what they want to hear rather than what they need to hear ensures neither longevity nor the well-being of either party. It might be embarrassing to tell a friend that their fly is unzipped. It would be a betrayal to allow them to attend an important event in public unaware.
During Secretary Blinken’s recent visit to Kyiv, he told his hosts what he thought they and their Western supporters wanted to hear. Yes, things might not be going as well as hoped, but he blamed the delay in aid, promising that not only would it not happen again, but that Ukraine could expect indefinite support. He promised tangible steps toward NATO membership for Ukraine at July’s summit.
Part of the reason for the chilly reception Blinken found is that it is unclear if these were even the words Ukrainians wanted to hear.
After more than two years of war, even they want to hear evidence of a concrete plan, not abstract words of encouragement and promises they don’t believe can be kept. Blinken may have felt that by insisting that American support was unwavering, and that Ukraine’s prospect of NATO membership was real, he was reassuring Ukrainians that they might not have to compromise on the latter to reach a settlement. Instead, he convinced too many Ukrainians that America either had no serious plan for ending the war, or had one and was lying to them in order to disguise a plot to reach a deal with Putin following the election.
Blinken in Kyiv, much like Blinken in Riyadh, Blinken in Beijing, Blinken in Jerusalem, and for that matter, Biden in America, has a credibility problem. John F Kennedy liked to discuss a missile gap between the United States and the Soviet Union when he ran for president, but today the U.S. faces a credibility gap. Whether friend or foe, no one takes the words of the United States seriously, and a large part of the reason why is that no one, at home or abroad, seems to take America’s senior diplomat seriously.
Anthony Blinken, to be fair, had the deck stacked against him. The office of Secretary of State ranks first in the cabinet hierarchy, and Thomas Jefferson was the inaugural holder of the office. George W. Bush gave the role to Colin Powell, who many believed could have been America’s first African American president, and Condoleezza Rice, previously Bush’s National Security Adviser and perhaps the figure closest to him in the administration.
Barack Obama’s first Secretary of State was Hillary Clinton, his defeated rival for the 2008 Democratic nomination, and her successor was John Kerry, the party’s 2004 presidential nominee.
Donald Trump’s first Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, had not held public office, but as CEO of Exxon Mobil, he had in effect run a medium-sized country. Mike Pompeo was a Marine, congressman, and director of the CIA.
Then there is Anthony Blinken.
Who? That was the initial reaction of large parts of the Washington press corps and the American public to his appointment. Blinken was a professional foreign policy staffer, serving on the Clinton National Security Council, and then for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under then-Chairman Joe Biden.
When Biden became vice president, Blinken served as his National Security Advisor before becoming a deputy national security adviser to Obama for two years, and then an assistant secretary of State. What stands out is at no point did he hold elected office or run any agency or staff. He was never Chief of Staff to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Biden’s vice presidential office, or at the State Department. Every role he held involved working for someone else, usually Joe Biden, including his tenure out-of-office, when he ran the University of Pennsylvania’s Biden Center from 2017 to 2019.
The office of secretary of State does, of course, contain the word “secretary,” but for a president or prime minister to appoint what amounts to their own longtime secretary to that position is an act usually associated with authoritarian regimes headed by octogenarians. That comparison likely reflects as poorly upon Biden as it does upon Blinken when the latter meets with his counterparts. That sort of appointment indicates that the leader either cannot find anyone else for the role, or cannot trust anyone else with it, or often both – all of which tends to be inauspicious for the longevity of leaders who resort to scraping the bottom of the barrel that low.
As secretary of State, Blinken has done little to alleviate suspicions that Biden has no real idea what he wants to achieve on the global stage. Yet he is also unwilling to allow anyone else to act. Blinken’s recent stop in Kyiv is typical of an itinerary which for three years has involved flying to foreign capitals in order to provide assurances that Joe Biden remains deeply committed to whatever they care about, and that they can count upon the full, yet unspecified support of the United States to achieve whatever they happen to be doing.
Blinken has been unwavering in his assurances to Israel that the United States stands 100 percent behind the Jewish state in a military campaign and suggested that it would not be in the world’s interest for the war to end before Hamas was eliminated. Until, that is, the Biden administration decided that the military campaign must be brought to a close and Blinken informed Israel that the elimination of Hamas was impossible.
A secretary of State who was a true ally to Israel would have informed Israeli politicians of growing pro-Palestinian sentiment within the Democratic Party. He would have also advised Israel to accelerate the campaign, or to settle for something short of the elimination of Hamas. A figure of stature in the role would have been able to insist to Joe Biden the importance of doing so. Blinken has evidently done neither.
Instead, Anthony Blinken insisted that the United States remained 100 percent committed to the elimination of Hamas and 100 percent confident in Israel’s ability to do so right up until the moment Joe Biden, not Anthony Blinken, let slip to CNN that the U.S. had halted weapon shipments in response to Israel acting on those guarantees. The best read was that Biden had not shared his intentions with Blinken, nor considered him worth consulting. Blinken’s duty was not to convey the position of the United States, or Anthony Blinken, but of Joe Biden – until Joe Biden happened to change his mind.
What must Israel do to appease Joe Biden? Well, to the extent that he has a vision, the president has clearly not shared it with Blinken, merely some of his grievances. Blinken insists Israel “needs a clear and concrete plan for Gaza’s future,” while making clear “We do not and will not support Israeli reoccupation of Gaza” and “ do not support Hamas governance in Gaza.”
What possible “plan” could reconcile these mutually exclusive impulses? Joe Biden has no idea, but until Israel solves Biden’s conundrum, their weapons will not arrive. Unless Biden suddenly changes his mind, in which case odds are Blinken will be among the last to know.
This has served to render Blinken’s assurances worthless to foreign interlocutors, and his presence, as in Kyiv, an interminable bore that distracts from the business of forming a policy without benefit of knowing what Joe Biden intends or desires from them.
The Ukrainians know that American support is neither indefinite nor assured. They just watched an aid package take over six months to pass. Israeli leaders can watch television and access social media. Some of them even partake in both. They know what message Democrats are sending domestically in the U.S. They can compare that message to the one brought by Anthony John Blinken and conclude which they should follow. Xi Jinping must be doubly impatient when Blinken tries to lecture him about whether it is in China’s interests to aid Russia precisely because he knows the very fact Biden sent Blinken means the U.S. president has nothing of substance to say or a policy to announce.
It might seem harsh that Blinken has become symbolic of Joe Biden’s lack of vision, of Joe Biden’s lack of reliability, and of Joe Biden’s unwillingness to devolve decision-making to genuinely independently-minded allies either at home or abroad.
If Joe Biden had a vision, he would be able to identify someone of independent standing who shared it, and could execute it on the global stage, as Nixon did with Henry Kissinger and George H.W. Bush did with James Baker. If Joe Biden was willing to let someone else pursue policy, he would have appointed figures of stature, not Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Merrick Garland, and Anthony Blinken.
Instead, Blinken is trapped in a purgatory of his own making. Having spent his entire career acting as a messenger for others, for the past two decades one Joseph Robinette Biden, he now finds himself traveling the world, making excuses for lacking any message to deliver.
No matter how skillful the strings, or how iconic the track, renditions of Neil Young cannot disguise the fact that Anthony Blinken played because he had nothing to say. Nor, under Joe Biden, does the United States of America on the world stage.
She’s jewish. Married to Robert Kagan. Who is also jewish. And he also happens to be the co-founder of Project For A New American Century. You can never trust a jew in your government. I highly recommend the documentary Europa: The Last Battle to learn more about our jew problem.
Accurate. The jews control most of the media and banking and are able to use these positions of power and influence to manipulate public perception. The 12.5 documentary can be found on Bitchute and Archive.
see a civilian population fenced in and starved and bombed daily, without getting angry. They don’t have an airforce, so it is like shooting fish in a tank. The Indian bitch is signing a bomb to kill the Palestinian kids? Just because she married a joo, she lost her humanity? This bitch wants to be our President WTF?
see a civilian population fenced in and starved and bombed daily, without getting angry. They don’t have an airforce, so it is like shooting fish in a tank. The Indian bitch is signing a bomb to kill the Palestinian kids? Just because she married a joo, she lost her humanity? This bitch wants to be our President WTF?
Amidst an ever-more toxic, loopy MAGA world, it turns out fascist-flag-flying, puerile-grudge-holding, venomous avatar of angry-white-lady privilege Martha-Ann Alito fits right in. In new undercover recordings, the bigoted wife of SCOTUS miscreant Sam Alito implausibly sounds worse than he is. She whines, “I have to look at the Pride flag for the next month,” boasts of her deeply vindictive Nazi roots, and vows, “You come after me, I’m gonna give it back to you.” Sweet Jesus these are ghastly people.
Oblivious of their own ghastliness, MAGA lickspittles were nauseatingly happy to welcome their 34-felon leader for a “pep talk” in his first visit to the capitol since he tried to burn it down. After they serenaded him with “Happy Birthday,” he reportedly rambled like a “drunk uncle”: He called Milwaukee, site of this year’s GOP convention, “a horrible city,” and claimed one of Nancy Pelosi’s four “wacko” daughters suggested, “If things were different, Nancy and I would be perfect together” – to which one daughter, Christine, swiftly responded, “Speaking for all 4 Pelosi daughters – this is a LIE. Trump is unwell, unhinged and unfit” to hold office. Cringey Mike Johnson fawned over His Majesty’s visit: “He said very complimentary things about all of us. We had sustained applause. He said I’m doing a very good job. We’re grateful for that.”
Meanwhile, the Grifter-In-Chief sends out endless hyperbolic money pleas – “I Am A Political Prisoner!” “Haul Out the Guillotine!” – that George Conway dubs “astonishing to behold…There does not seem to be any depth to which the Trump campaign will not sink.” In response to his whining, Ted Lieu lists the legal status of multiple Trump cronies – campaign manager, political adviser, lawyer etc – “Felon” – and notes, “It is not the fault of the DOJ that Trump surrounded himself with criminals.” Also, morons: See shrieky Klan Mom and energy expert MTG, who at a recent rally squawked to the ignorant crowd, “You think gas prices are high now?! Just wait till you’re forced to drive an electric vee-hick-ull!” Stunned, bovine pause, followed by loyal “BOOO!” and “NOOO!” to which she lifts her hands in the triumphant air. “Exactly!” she exclaims. “America is sick of it!”
Then came Martha-Ann, whom one astute political observer deems “a straight-up piece of shit.” Recently, she and Justice (sic) Alito have faced a firestorm over insurrectionist-and-Christo-fascist-themed flags – nothing to see here – they flew at two of their who-knows-how-many homes; with his usual grace, Sam then quickly threw his wife under the flag-flying bus. Now, thanks to audio secretly recorded by liberal filmmaker Lauren Windsor, posing as a Christian conservative at the annual Supreme Court Historical Society dinner, we know Martha-Ann clearly deserves her fate. Windsor had already posted audio of him declaring the country must return to “a place of godliness,” and for that to happen, “One side or the other is going to win” – never mind all that quaint malarkey about equal, impartial, dispassionate justice before the law.
A few days later, Windsor posted the audio of Martha-Ann “unfurled,” a vengeful, bitter, unhinged screed evincing what one observer called “a more catty Elizabeth Taylor in Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf vibe.” It also bore so much haughty, may-I-speak-to-the-manager entitlement many suggested she’s “out-Karened all the Karens…We need to give Karens a break and pass the torch to Martha-Ann.” First reported by Rolling Stone, Alito responded to Windsor’s faux sympathy about media coverage of the flag issue with, “It’s OK, because if they come back to me, I’ll get them.” Bewailing, “I have to look across the lagoon at the Pride flag for the next month,” she launched into a furious tirade about all the flags she plans to fly, she told her husband, “when you are free of this nonsense” – a time, we admit, we likewise look forward to.
For years, Martha-Ann has reportedly feuded with other D.C. elites who found her too much of a theocratic nutjob and right-wing ideologue even for them: “It’s like you turned National Review into a single person.” Her animus runs deep and long: She’s nursed a two-decade grudge against a WaPo style reporter who once trashed her outfit, and she allegedly spit on a neighbor who cited their political differences. Somehow, it all comes down to flags. “You know what I want?” she spat to Windsor. “I want a Sacred Heart of Jesus flag. I’m putting it up and I’m gonna send them a message every day…I designed a flag in my head. This is how I satisfy myself. It’s white and has yellow and orange flames around it. And in the middle is the word ‘vergogna.’ ‘Vergogna’- in Italian it means shame. V-E-R-G-O-G-N-A. Vergogna. “Shame, shame, shame on you.”
What would Jesus do? Maybe not tell a stranger at a dinner party “there is no negotiating with the radical left,” the “feminazis (can) go to hell,” and it’s time to overturn democracy because they “have to look at a rainbow flag for 30 (days) in a year at one of their houses.” Then again, Jesus was Palestinian, not German. “Look at me,” she orders Windsor. “I’m German. I’m from Germany. My heritage is German. You come after me, I’m gonna give it back to you. There will be a way they will know. God – you read the Bible. Psalm 27 is my psalm. Mine. ‘The Lord is my God and my rock. Of whom shall I be afraid?’ Nobody.” In the audio, it’s unclear if she clicks her jackboots together at the end. What is clear: “The Nazis played the long game and got one of their own installed on the Supreme Court…They are every damn thing they say their enemies are.”
“They feel, they don’t think,” says Alito of those who dare to support abortion or same-sex marriage as she vows vengeance on them by flying flaming flags she designs to “satisfy myself.” Of her bonkers “vergogna” rant, Windsor says she “definitely did not see that coming.” But she dismisses “pearl-clutching” critics of her covert recording, arguing Alito is a public figure who “gives a window” into the view of one of five theocratic extremists on a Court “shrouded in secrecy” and stubbornly defying accountability in the face of million-dollar ethical lapses. “I am a fan of accountability,” she says. “I think (if) people in positions of power…refuse to be held accountable, it warrants taking measures you might not otherwise take (to) force a conversation about what’s at stake.” “Fascists,” says one pundit, “should never be allowed to rest comfortably among us.”
The most important thing in his life – his husband and their kids – “only exists by the grace of a single vote on the Supreme Court,” notes Pete Buttigieg. Given their “unbelievable amount of power,” it’s only reasonable to expect justices to “enter into those enormously consequential decisions that shape our everyday lives with a sense of fairness.” Not, of course, today, with a right wing SCOTUS – toss in other right-wing judges, state and federal lawmakers, DeFascist governors, school boards and grievance-laden, take-no-prisoners others intent on doing everything they can to upend decades of progress, impose their hates and fears on the rest of us, and usher in a Christian theocracy to enable their “side” to “win.” Joan Walsh on the ugly ravings of Martha-Ann Alito: “She brings vergogna – shame – upon her family and the Court.”
The author (center) flanked by two members of his security detail and Alexander Zyrianov (right) and Denis (left) at the entrance to the city of Lugansk
As the Special Military Operation enters a critical stage that brings a Russian victory that much closer to fruition, the question as to why it took Russia eight years to intervene on behalf of the Donbass remains a sensitive topic.
On May 26, the Donetsk People’s Republic marked the tenth anniversary of the first battle for the region’s international airport. This was a key clash in the fight between Ukraine and local citizens who opposed the nationalist-dominated government that had seized power in Kiev as a result of the US-backed coup in February 2014. The anniversary was but one in a succession of similar commemorations of events which, together, draw attention to the fact that the war in Donbass has been ongoing for a decade.
Earlier this year I traveled to the Chechen Republic, Crimea, and the New Russian territories of Kherson and Zaporozhye, all locations which comprised what I called Russia’s ”Path of Redemption,” the geographic expression of actions undertaken by Moscow. The fourth –and final– destination of my trip, the two people’s republics of Donetsk and Lugansk that are collectively referred to as the Donbass, brought this journey to a close. By visiting the literal ground zero of the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict, I was able to put a punctation mark at the end of a long and complicated passage which delved into the very essence of modern-day Russia – what it means to be Russian, and the price the Russian nation has been willing to pay to preserve this definition.
When I crossed the border between Zaporozhye and Donetsk, there was no doubt that I was entering a war zone. The bodyguards from the Sparta Battalion that had escorted my vehicle as we drove through Kherson and Zaporozhye were replaced by a heavily-armed detachment of camouflaged Russian soldiers, a constant reminder of the ever-present threat posed by Ukrainian partisans and saboteurs. I was being driven in an armored Chevy Tahoe, the former property of a Bank of Russia executive which had been re-purposed for this trip. My host, Aleksandr Zyryanov, the Director of the Investment Development Agency of Novosibirsk, was at the wheel. My fellow passengers were Aleksandr’s close friend and comrade, Denis, and Kirill, a resident of Saint Petersburg who was our point of contact with several Russian military units in Donbass we were hoping to meet up with.
Our first stop in Donbass was the city of Mariupol, site of a bloody siege in March-May 2022 which saw the combined forces of the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Russian army, including Chechen fighters, defeat thousands of Ukrainian Marines and members of the Azov Regiment, a formation of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists who openly support the ideology of Stepan Bandera, the founder of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, or OUN, which fought alongside Nazi Germany during the Second World War. The last surviving remnants of the Ukrainian garrison which had holed up in a complex of tunnels underneath the sprawling Azovstal iron and steel factory that dominated the center of the city surrendered to Russian forces on May 20, 2022, bringing the battle to an end.
Mariupol suffered horribly because of the siege and the house-to-house fighting required to clear the city of its fanatical occupiers. The scars of war were so deep and prevalent as to leave the casual observer grasping to figure out how, or even if, the city and its population could ever recover. This was especially so when looking at the ruins of the Azovstal plant from the vantage point of the restored monument to the memory of its workers who died during World War Two. And yet, like the patches of green that mark a charred forest after the first rainfall, Mariupol bore the evidence of a city coming back to life. The southern districts of the city had been completely razed, and new apartment complexes constructed which are populated by families whose children frolicked in playgrounds and parks nestled between the bright new buildings. Across the highway from the newly-built neighborhood was a large new hospital complex. And as one drove into the center of the city, row upon row of damaged apartment buildings were undergoing reconstruction and repair work. Shops and restaurants were open, and people scurried about the sidewalks going about their business. Mariupol is very much alive, although the huge swaths of darkened neighborhoods, their buildings still uninhabitable, bear mute testimony to the work that still needs to be done.
The author outside the ruins of the Azovstal Plant in Mariupol
The city of Donetsk, the capital of its eponymous people’s republic, is a living manifestation of the stark contrasts that define a modern metropolitan center during war – shiny high-rise buildings, their glass windows reflecting the morning sunlight, beckon, while in the streets below mothers walk hand in hand with their children, unflinching as the sound of artillery fire – incoming and outgoing – echo around them. Driving through the city, I was struck by the bustling activity at one street corner as families shopped for food and the basic necessities of life in stores fully-stocked with the desired goods, only to drive around the next corner to find the ruins of a similar market scene, destroyed by the random artillery and rocket fire from Ukrainian forces who still treat the citizens of Donetsk as ”terrorists.”
The Donbass Liberator’s Monument
I was taken to the Donbass Liberator’s monument, located in the Donetsk Culture and Leisure Park, next to the city’s arena, where we laid flowers to the memory of the fallen. Afterwards, as I was shown the monuments to the fallen heroes of the ongoing war with Ukraine, the sound of rocket fire shook the grounds. ”It’s ours,” said my guide, an attractive young lady whose calm demeanor belied the reality of her current situation. ”Uragan,” she said, a reference to the Russian 220-mm multiple launch rocket system. ”Don’t worry.”
That a female tour guide was serving as a walking resource for weapons identification to a former Marine intelligence officer who used to specialize in identifying Soviet arms and equipment only underscored the disparity between perception and reality which marked the city of Donetsk – a world where normalcy was randomly punctuated with the horrors of war. It would be easy to allow yourself to become shrouded in the kind of flinching paranoia that seizes you when you are convinced that every step you take could be your last. To prevent yourself from simply fleeing to a basement until the all-clear signal sounds, you can overcompensate by taking on a devil-may-care attitude of ”what happens, happens.”
But, for most, caution is the name of the game in Donetsk – while death may be randomly delivered in the form of Ukrainian artillery and rockets, you do not need to become a willing victim, especially if you know the Ukrainian enemy is actively searching for you in order to deliver a lethal blow.
I have been labeled by the Center for Countering Disinformation, a US-funded Ukrainian government agency, as an ”information terrorist” who deserves to be treated as an actual ”terrorist” in terms of punishment – a not-so-veiled threat to my life. Likewise, my name is on the infamous Mirotvorets (”peacekeepers”) ”kill list” promulgated by the Ukrainian intelligence service. Daria Dugina, the daughter of the famous Russian political philosopher, Aleksandr Dugin, and Maksim Fomin, a Russian military blogger who wrote under the name Vladlen Tatarsky, were both on this list and were murdered by agents of the Ukrainian intelligence services. While I would have to be an egocentric narcissist to believe that the entire Ukrainian war effort would grind to a halt in order to hunt me down during my short visit to Donbass, the fact that Ukraine has on a regular basis attacked the hotels frequented by journalists reporting on the conflict also means that you’d have to have a callous disregard for innocent life by staying at a hotel in Donetsk as long as your name is on such lists.
Denis prepares the evening fare at a safehouse in Donetsk
Discretion being the better part of valor, my hosts eschewed the offered room in a high-end Donetsk hotel for a more spartan setting in a safehouse used during their frequent trips to the region. I traded the fine cuisine of Donetsk that my friend and colleague Randy Credico had bragged about during his visit to the region for the traditional soldier’s fare of fried potatoes and sausage cooked over a gas stove by Aleksandr’s friend, Denis.
Paranoia is the name of the game, however, when it comes to the day-to-day lives of those men and women who govern Donetsk and defend it from the Ukrainian army, if for no other reason than the Ukrainians are, in fact, actively trying to hunt them down and kill them. I had the honor and privilege of meeting with Denis Pushilin, the Governor of the Donetsk People’s Republic, and Aleksandr Khodakovsky, the commander of the legendary Vostok Battalion, one of the first military formations created in the Donbass region in 2014 to fight for independence from Ukraine. On both occasions, extensive security precautions were put in place to forestall any effort by Ukrainian intelligence to discover our meeting, identify its location, and attack it with artillery.
The author with Denis Pushilin, the Governor of the Donetsk People’s Republic
Pushilin and Khodakovsky both recalled their personal histories of the time of the founding of the Donetsk People’s Republic. Pushilin personally led a rally in Donetsk on April 5, 2014, calling for a referendum for the DPR to join Russia. He served as the first head of the DPR before stepping down in July 2014. In September 2018, he was brought back as the head of the DPR following the assassination of then DPR leader Aleksander Zakharchenko in a bombing of a Donetsk restaurant. He has served in that position ever since.
Up until early 2014, Aleksandr Khodakovsky was the commander of the elite Ukrainian police commando unit known as Alpha Group. Following the February 2014 Maidan coup that ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich, Khodakovsky and most of his Alpha Group commandoes defected to the Donbass resistance, where they were reformed into the Vostok Battalion. It was Khodakovsky’s Vostok Battalion which led the attack on Donetsk Airport on May 28, 2014, and which led the way into Mariupol in 2022. Today the Vostok Battalion has been expanded into a brigade-sized force operating as part of the Russian military, where it plays an active role in the ongoing battles for control of the Donbass region.
From left to right: Alexander Zyrianov, Alexsandr Khodakovsky, unidentified, Irina Kirkora, the Author, and Julia Prokhorova
The contrast between Pushilin and Khodakovsky is quite stark. Both men are confident in the righteousness of their cause and the path of history they are embarked on. But while Pushilin brought with him the buoyant optimism of a politician looking forward to a better future, Khodakovsky exuded the quiet resignation of a soldier who knows that the victory he is fighting for can only come at a cost which, over the course of a decade’s worth of war, had become almost unbearable. Both men exhibited a deep love for the Donetsk People’s Republic, and a genuine appreciation for the sacrifice made by the Russian army and nation in coming to their assistance, and for bringing them into the fold of the Russian Federation.
The one thing both men had in common was a look of mental exhaustion whenever the subject of Russia’s military intervention was raised. I couldn’t quite put my finger on what caused this look until later, after our meetings had concluded and I found myself in the city of Lugansk, the capital of the Lugansk People’s Republic. The drive from Donetsk to Lugansk took us through towns and villages that had previously been on the front lines of the war with Ukraine. Some of these population centers showed signs of life. Many, however, did not. War, like a tornado, seemed to have a random character, targeting some places for destruction, while skipping over others.
Today, the city of Lugansk is not on the front line, and its citizens enjoy a life of relative calm when contrasted with their neighbors in Donetsk. But war has visited them in the past, with all the violence and horror that currently unfolds in the regions of Donbass located to the south and west of the city. On June 27, 2017, the citizens of Lugansk unveiled a memorial dedicated to children killed because of the fighting that had been raging since 2014. On that day, 33 white doves were released into the air to symbolize the young lives lost.
On January 17, 2024, I visited this memorial, known as the ‘Alley of Angels.’ There is another, more well-known Alley of Angels located in Donetsk. Because of the proximity of the war to that city, media coverage of the Donetsk monument, which commemorates the more than 230 children killed in the Donetsk People’s Republic by Ukraine since 2014, has been extensive, to the point that much of the world has seemed to have forgotten that the war with Ukraine has ravaged Lugansk as well. Since the unveiling of the Lugansk monument, another 35 children have been killed, raising the total to 68, with more than 190 additional children injured, all due to indiscriminate Ukrainian shelling.
Alexander and I took part in a small ceremony marked by our laying flowers at the foot of the monument. By the time we had finished, a small crowd had gathered around to witness the sight of an American mourning the loss of their children. I was handed a book about the memorial and given an impromptu tour of the sculptures and plaques that were located there. A television crew asked me for a short interview.
“What are your impressions of this memorial?” the interviewer asked.
“It’s a touching tribute to the young lives that were so needlessly lost,” I replied. “And a constant reminder as to why this tragic war needs to be fought and won.”
Afterwards, a lady emerged from the small crowd that had been watching the proceedings. “We thank you for coming to visit our city, and to honor the memory of our children,” she said, tears welling in her eyes.
She held out her hand, and I took it in mine, a gesture of friendship and compassion.
“You must be relieved now that you are part of Russia, and the Russian army is helping drive the Ukrainians back,” I said.
“Yes,” she said, her voice cracking. “Yes, of course. But why did it take them so long? These children,” she said, gesturing toward the memorial, “did not have to die. Why did it take them so long?”
The author (right) with Alexander Zyrianov laying flowers at the ‘Alley of the Angels’ in Lugansk
I looked into her eyes, and immediately was struck by a sense of déjà vu. I had seen that look before, in the eyes of Denis Pushilin and Alexandr Khodakovsky, a mixture of relief and exasperation, of hope and dejection, of happiness and sorrow. Yes, the leadership and people of Donbass are overjoyed by the presence of Russian troops on their territory, and the fact that the region is now legally part of Russia. Yes, Russia loves them now. But where was Russia when the children started dying in 2014? Why did it take so long for Moscow to wake up to the need to bring the Donbass into the fold of the Russian nation?
This is the eternal question, one that Russia today struggles to find an adequate answer for.
Russia’s path of redemption ends in Donbass. Here, the sins, errors, and evil which combined to create the current Russian-Ukrainian conflict are manifest. Questions have been asked to which there may be no adequate answer. Today, the situation on the ground increasingly points to a Russian victory over both Ukraine and its supporters in the collective West. But this victory has come at a huge physical and psychological cost. While the dead may be buried and honored, the living will always have to struggle to come to grips over the sacrifices that have been made in support of the cause they were fighting for.
And, in the end, if they believe that the cause was a just one – and it is my firm position that they do in fact believe this to be the case – then the answer to the question as to why it took Russia so long to intervene on behalf of Donbass will hang there, unanswerable, if for no other reason than that the pain any honest answer will generate may be too much to bear for those who had been fighting for the liberation of Donbass these past ten years.
Note: This article was first published on the RT website, on June 11, 2024. It is part of a four-part series. It is republished here because censorship undertaken by various online platforms has limited the audience for such a far-ranging and important subject.
Geisser/IMAGOFür die Ukraine-Konferenz haben sich Schweizer Armeesoldaten etwas Proviant mitgebracht
Die totale Blamage vermeiden: Das scheint zum Hauptziel der westlichen Staaten für die Schweizer Ukraine-Konferenz geworden zu sein, die lange irreführend als »Friedensgipfel« anpriesen wurde. In Wirklichkeit ging es bei dem Event um anderes. Eigentlich hatten die westlichen Strategien im Sommer vergangenen Jahres vorgesehen, der Ukraine bei ihrer damals angekündigten Offensive zu gewissen militärischen Erfolgen zu verhelfen, um etwaige Verhandlungen aus einer, wie man so sagt, »Position der Stärke« herauszuführen – damit Russland, wie Kanzler Olaf Scholz formuliert, den Krieg zumindest nicht gewinnt. Nun scheiterte die Offensive bekanntlich. Die Ersatzidee, die jetzt aufkam, bestand darin, in der Schweiz so viele Staaten wie möglich hinter einer Erklärung zu versammeln, die der Ukraine demonstrativ den Rücken stärken. Russland politisch in die Enge zu treiben, das war der Plan, und deshalb wurde Moskau gar nicht erst eingeladen.
Nur: Die übergroße nichtwestliche Mehrheit der Welt – soll man sagen: die internationale Gemeinschaft? – spielte nicht mit. Solange die sogenannte Friedensformel des ukrainischen Präsidenten Wolodimir Selenskij als Konferenzgrundlage galt, die faktisch die totale russische Kapitulation voraussetzt, erklärte sich kaum ein nichtwestlicher Staat bereit, zu der Schweizer Politshow anzureisen. Das änderte sich erst ein wenig, als Bern anfing, die Ziele drastisch herunterzuschrauben. Jetzt heißt es, man wolle eine Erklärung verabschieden, die sich auf nur wenige Punkte der Selenskij-Formel konzentriert, in denen es um die Nahrungsversorgung, die nukleare Sicherheit, einen Gefangenenaustausch geht. Dass all das nötig ist, ist unstrittig: Auch der Zwölfpunkeplan, den China im Februar 2023 präsentierte, sieht derlei vor. Druck auf Russland übt man damit nicht aus. Man kann höchstens einem kompletten Gesichtsverlust ausweichen. Dass die Schweiz mittlerweile darauf dringt, bei der nächsten Ukraine-Konferenz müsse Russland mit am Tisch sitzen, zeigt, dass jenseits des harten NATO-Machtkerns die Ungeduld mit dessen Intransigenz wächst.
Dass Russlands Präsident Wladimir Putin am Freitag einen eigenen Vorschlag für einen Waffenstillstand präsentiert hat, das könnte jetzt sogar zu Druck auf den Westen führen. Der Vorschlag sieht – wie die Einigung, die es bereits im Frühjahr 2022 gab – einen neutralen Status der Ukraine vor. Zusätzlich fordert Moskau nun aber die vier Regionen für sich, die es zu Teilen kontrolliert. Bei einer ukrainischen Zustimmung will Putin die Kämpfe sofort beenden. Ob der Westen das billigen wird, das mag man bezweifeln. Nur: Die Alternative ist, das zeigt sich immer klarer, der Eintritt westeuropäischer Staaten in den Krieg, also faktisch ein Weltkrieg. Zeit also, den Druck auf Berlin, Paris, London und Washington von innen zu erhöhen.
Über die Allianz zwischen bürgerlicher und extremer Rechte in Frankreich. Ein Gespräch mit Luc Rouban
Hansgeorg Hermann
Die Rechtsaußenformation Rassemblement National, kurz RN, hat in den vergangenen Wahlen zugelegt, das hat zuletzt die EU-Wahl gezeigt. Wie lässt sich der Erfolg von Marine Le Pen, der früheren Parteichefin und Aushängeschild des RN, erklären?
Der Rassemblement National hat es geschafft, eine wirklich extreme Situation zu schaffen, in der sich die politischen Kräfte Frankreichs vollkommen reorganisieren müssen. Marine Le Pen hat ihrer Rechten, dem rechten Lager insge…
Wahlkampf in Frankreich: Linke schließt sich zur Volksfront zusammen. Chaos im rechten LagerVon Hansgeorg Hermann
Frankreichs Linke bejubelt sich selbst. Sie glaubt, endlich einen echten Grund dafür zu haben: die Konstituierung einer Volksfront (Front Populaire), die bei den vorgezogenen Parlamentswahlen am 30. Juni und 7. Juli mit gemeinsam nominierten Einheitskandidaten antreten wird. Am Donnerstag abend meldeten die Anführer der Kommunisten (PCF), Grünen (EE-LV), Sozialdemokraten (PS) und der Insoumise (LFI, Unbeugsames Frankreich) Vollzug: »Es ist vollbracht!«
Ein »Vertrag für die Legislaturperiode« wurde am Freitag veröffentlicht. Demnach soll die jüngste Rentenreform wieder abgeschafft werden, und Lohnsteigerungen die Inflation wettmachen. Der EU-Stabilitätspakt und Freihandelsabkommen würden aufgekündigt, und man wolle sich für eine EU-weite Reichensteuer einsetzen. Die »Lieferung nötiger Waffen« an die Ukraine solle fortgesetzt werden, die dortigen Atomkraftwerke sollten von UN-Einheiten geschützt werden.
Über die Personalien werde demnach noch entschieden. Das betrifft vor allem die Spitzenkandidatur. Als ausgeschlossen gilt, dass es der LFI-Gründer Jean-Luc Mélenchon sein wird. Der nach wie vor dominante Übervater seiner Partei gilt bei den anderen Volksfrontpartnern als nicht durchsetzbar. Mélenchon selbst erklärte, er werde sich »nicht präsentieren«, aber auch »nicht eliminieren«.
Ohne klare Orientierung scheint unterdessen der französische Staatschef Emmanuel Macron seine Partei Renaissance in die anstehenden zwei Wahlkampfwochen zu schicken. Macron hatte die Nationalversammlung am vergangenen Sonntag aufgelöst und – angesichts einer krachenden Niederlage seiner Zentrumskoalition »Ensemble« bei der Abstimmung zum EU-Parlament – Neuwahlen ausgerufen. Offenbar auch mit der Absicht, weder dem linken noch dem rechten politischen Lager ausreichend Zeit zu geben, sich nach dieser völlig überraschenden Entscheidung neu zu formieren und für die 577 Wahlkreise Kandidaten zu finden, was von der Volksfront allerdings bereits unterlaufen wurde.
Erste Meinungsumfragen sehen das Lager des Präsidenten weit hinter den Rechtsaußen des Rassemblement National (RN) der Marine Le Pen und ihres Spitzenkandidaten Jordan Bardella. Auch die nun vereinigte Linke wird demnach locker an Macrons Renaissance vorbeiziehen. Auf einer Pressekonferenz erledigte der Präsident das Problem am Mittwoch auf seine Weise: Das französische Volk müsse nun »für Klarheit sorgen«. Soll heißen: sich entweder für sein rechtes Zentrum oder für »Extremisten« und »das Chaos« entscheiden.
Zu den »Extremisten« rechne der Staatschef offenbar »alle, die nicht mehr seiner Meinung sind«, höhnte am Donnerstag Libération. Der Präsident, der ohnehin nicht zu Wahl stehe und bis 2027 sein Mandat absitzen werde, bemühe erneut das berühmte »republikanische Lager« (Champ républicain). Wähler der bürgerlichen Parteien also, die in der Vergangenheit Staatschefs wie Jacques Chirac, Nicolas Sarkozy und Macron selbst nur an die Macht brachten, um den RN zu verhindern.
Das wird diesmal offensichtlich nicht klappen. Den rund 50 Millionen Wahlberechtigten präsentiert sich zum ersten Mal seit Jahrzehnten eine vereinte Linke als echte Alternative für das Amt des Premierministers, mit dem Macron zusammenarbeiten müsste. Eine verfassungsrechtlich abgesicherte Konstellation, die in Frankreich »Cohabitation« genannt wird. Um die Linke von der Regierungsmacht fernzuhalten, müssten Macrons Truppen – um mehrheitsfähig zu werden – Partner im rechten bürgerlichen Lager finden. Es bieten sich derzeit nur die Les Républicains (LR) an. Dieser Restbestand einer ehemaligen Mehrheits- und Präsidentenpartei, zuletzt unter Nicolas Sarkozy, versinkt allerdings tatsächlich in eben jenem Chaos, vor dem Macron am Mittwoch seine »lieben Patrioten« warnte.
Angesichts sinkender Zustimmung sogar aus der sich weiter nach rechts orientierenden bisherigen bürgerlich-katholischen Stammwählerschaft versuchte LR-Chef Éric Ciotti am Tag nach der verkorksten EU-Wahl bei Le Pens Rassemblement anzudocken. Mit Marines Kronprinz Bardella vereinbarte er eine Allianz, von der vor allem er selbst profitiert hätte: Im Süden des Landes, wo überwiegend rechts gewählt wird, sollte Bardellas RN den Républicains Raum lassen, also in einigen Wahlkreisen keine eigenen Kandidaten aufstellen, auch in Ciottis Domäne Alpes-Maritimes nicht. Das Exekutivbüro der LR folgte dem nicht und schloss statt dessen den eigenen Vorsitzenden aus der Partei aus. Eine kuriose Nummer – »absurdes Theater«, wie sogenannte Chronisten das Szenario im Live-TV beschrieben –, die vom LR-Bureau zwar mit einer – vorläufigen – generellen Absage an die Rechtsaußenformation Le Pens unterbrochen wurde, aber längst nicht abgeschlossen ist.
Ciotti sieht sich dennoch weiter als Präsident der Républicains und behauptet, die Basis stehe hinter ihm. Er hat außerdem enge Verbindungen zu den Truppen des Faschisten und ehemaligen Präsidentschaftskandidaten Éric Zemmour von der extrem rechten Partei Reconquête. Die hatte bei den EU-Wahlen fünf Prozent der Wählerstimmen gewonnen. Vor der Präsidentschaftswahl im Frühjahr 2022 ließ er wissen, er werde sich eher für Zemmour entscheiden, als die angeblich »linkstendenziöse« Politik Macrons zu unterstützen.
junge Welt gegen Bundesrepublik Deutschland: Achtseitige Extraausgabe zum Prozess kann ab sofort bestellt werdenVon Verlag und Redaktion
Po-Ming Cheung
jW-Extra »Grundrechte verteidigen!«: Pakete mit jeweils 50 Ausgaben können ab sofort bestellt werden unter aktionsbuero@jungewelt.de oder über Telefon 0 30/53 63 55-10. Bitte Stückzahl und Lieferadresse angeben.
Komplett anzeigen
Am Dienstag wird das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz seinen Bericht für das Jahr 2023 vorstellen. Wie in den vergangenen zwei Jahrzehnten wird auch im neuesten Bericht allerlei Unsinn zum Thema junge Welt, Verlag 8. Mai und Genossenschaft LPG junge Welt eG zu lesen sein. Damit soll der Zeitung der Nährboden entzogen werden, wie es 2021 die damalige Bundesregierung in einer Antwort auf eine Anfrage der Bundestagsfraktion der Partei Die Linke offen zugab.
Bis heute ist ihr das noch nicht gelungen. Das haben wir auch der tatkräftigen Unterstützung unserer Leserinnen und Leser zu verdanken, die mit uns für den Erhalt und die Verbreitung unserer Zeitung kämpfen. Gemeinsam schaffen wir, dass unsere Inhalte »wirkmächtig« sind, wie das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz verärgert feststellt. Aber diese Form von Einschränkung der Pressefreiheit erschwert unsere tägliche Arbeit deutlich, weshalb die Verlag 8. Mai GmbH (in der die Zeitung erscheint und die unserer Genossenschaft gehört) im September 2021 Klage gegen die Bundesrepublik Deutschland erhoben hat. Der erste Hauptsache-Verhandlungstermin steht fest: Am 18. Juli 2024 treffen sich um zehn Uhr Klägerin und Beklagte vor dem Berliner Verwaltungsgericht.
Dabei geht es keineswegs nur um die junge Welt. Deshalb erstellen wir gerade eine achtseitige jW-Extraausgabe mit dem Titel »Grundrechte verteidigen«. Sie soll am Sonnabend, dem 29. Juni, diversen Zeitungen beigelegt werden. Mit ihr soll nicht nur der Fall beschrieben und politisch eingeordnet werden: Über dieses Extrablatt wird auch die Tageszeitung junge Welt selbst vorgestellt. Es eignet sich deshalb hervorragend für größere Verteilaktionen oder zum Auslegen in den nächsten Wochen. Die Beilage kann kostenfrei (bzw. gegen Spende) bestellt werden.
Wenn sich Gewerkschafter in Stuttgart zur Friedenskonferenz treffen, prominente Sozialdemokraten einen Strategiewechsel in bezug auf den Ukraine-Krieg einfordern und engagierte Christen für konsequente Verhandlungen, ein Ende des Mordens in der Ukraine und im Nahen Osten eintreten, zeigt das: Viele Menschen lehnen den Kriegskurs und den militaristischen Staatsumbau, der auch Einschränkungen von Grundrechten und der Pressefreiheit zur Folge hat, entschieden ab. Rüstungsgegner kommen in den meisten Medien nicht mehr zu Wort, gerade für sie hat unsere kritische Zeitung einen sehr hohen Nutzwert. Viele von ihnen kennen aber unser journalistisches Angebot noch nicht. Ihnen kann man das zweiwöchige Probeabo empfehlen – oder aber besagte jW-Extraausgabe in die Hand drücken und darüber ein nachhaltiges Interesse an unseren journalistischen Inhalten wecken.
Geisser/IMAGOFür die Ukraine-Konferenz haben sich Schweizer Armeesoldaten etwas Proviant mitgebracht
Die totale Blamage vermeiden: Das scheint zum Hauptziel der westlichen Staaten für die Schweizer Ukraine-Konferenz geworden zu sein, die lange irreführend als »Friedensgipfel« anpriesen wurde. In Wirklichkeit ging es bei dem Event um anderes. Eigentlich hatten die westlichen Strategien im Sommer vergangenen Jahres vorgesehen, der Ukraine bei ihrer damals angekündigten Offensive zu gewissen militärischen Erfolgen zu verhelfen, um etwaige Verhandlungen aus einer, wie man so sagt, »Position der Stärke« herauszuführen – damit Russland, wie Kanzler Olaf Scholz formuliert, den Krieg zumindest nicht gewinnt. Nun scheiterte die Offensive bekanntlich. Die Ersatzidee, die jetzt aufkam, bestand darin, in der Schweiz so viele Staaten wie möglich hinter einer Erklärung zu versammeln, die der Ukraine demonstrativ den Rücken stärken. Russland politisch in die Enge zu treiben, das war der Plan, und deshalb wurde Moskau gar nicht erst eingeladen.
Nur: Die übergroße nichtwestliche Mehrheit der Welt – soll man sagen: die internationale Gemeinschaft? – spielte nicht mit. Solange die sogenannte Friedensformel des ukrainischen Präsidenten Wolodimir Selenskij als Konferenzgrundlage galt, die faktisch die totale russische Kapitulation voraussetzt, erklärte sich kaum ein nichtwestlicher Staat bereit, zu der Schweizer Politshow anzureisen. Das änderte sich erst ein wenig, als Bern anfing, die Ziele drastisch herunterzuschrauben. Jetzt heißt es, man wolle eine Erklärung verabschieden, die sich auf nur wenige Punkte der Selenskij-Formel konzentriert, in denen es um die Nahrungsversorgung, die nukleare Sicherheit, einen Gefangenenaustausch geht. Dass all das nötig ist, ist unstrittig: Auch der Zwölfpunkeplan, den China im Februar 2023 präsentierte, sieht derlei vor. Druck auf Russland übt man damit nicht aus. Man kann höchstens einem kompletten Gesichtsverlust ausweichen. Dass die Schweiz mittlerweile darauf dringt, bei der nächsten Ukraine-Konferenz müsse Russland mit am Tisch sitzen, zeigt, dass jenseits des harten NATO-Machtkerns die Ungeduld mit dessen Intransigenz wächst.
Dass Russlands Präsident Wladimir Putin am Freitag einen eigenen Vorschlag für einen Waffenstillstand präsentiert hat, das könnte jetzt sogar zu Druck auf den Westen führen. Der Vorschlag sieht – wie die Einigung, die es bereits im Frühjahr 2022 gab – einen neutralen Status der Ukraine vor. Zusätzlich fordert Moskau nun aber die vier Regionen für sich, die es zu Teilen kontrolliert. Bei einer ukrainischen Zustimmung will Putin die Kämpfe sofort beenden. Ob der Westen das billigen wird, das mag man bezweifeln. Nur: Die Alternative ist, das zeigt sich immer klarer, der Eintritt westeuropäischer Staaten in den Krieg, also faktisch ein Weltkrieg. Zeit also, den Druck auf Berlin, Paris, London und Washington von innen zu erhöhen.
Der Friedensstifter 