Das war das Thema, über das ich am vergangenen Freitag auf Einladung eines politisch aktiven Freundeskreises in einem Wirtshaussaal in Anger, eines Ortes zwischen Chiemsee und Salzburg, gesprochen habe. In diesem Text wird der Bogen von der Debatte zur Wiederbewaffnung in den Vierziger/Fünfziger Jahren des letzten Jahrhunderts über die Phase der Entspannungs- und Friedenspolitik bis zum Appell zur Kriegstüchtigkeit von heute gespannt. Und es werden die Manipulationsmethoden skizziert, die angewandt werden, um uns auf Kriegsbereitschaft zu trimmen. Albrecht Müller.
Many Europeans would opt for making Europe competitive again; making Europe a diplomatic actor, rather than as a military one.
Theodore Postol, Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy at MIT, has provided a forensic analysis of the videos and evidence emerging from Iran’s 13th April swarm drone and missile ‘demonstation’ attack into Israel: A ‘message’, rather than an ‘assault’.
The leading Israeli daily, Yediot Ahoronot, has estimated the cost of attempting to down this Iranian flotilla at between $2-3 billion dollars. The implications of this single number are substantial.
Professor Postol writes:
“This indicates that the cost of defending against waves of attacks of this type is very likely to be unsustainable against an adequately armed and determined adversary”.
“The videos show an extremely important fact: All of the targets, whether drones or not, are shot down by air-to-air missiles”, [fired from mostly U.S. aircraft. Some 154 aircraft reportedly were aloft at the time] likely firing AIM-9x Sidewinder air to air missiles. The cost of a single Sidewinder air-to-air missile is about $500,000”.
Furthermore:
“The fact that a very large number of unengaged ballistic missiles could be seen glowing as they reenter the atmosphere to lower altitudes [an indication of hyper-speed], indicates that whatever the effects of [Israel’s] David’s Sling and the Arrow missile defenses, they were not especially effective. Thus, the evidence at this point shows that essentially all or most of the arriving long-range ballistic missiles were not intercepted by any of the Israeli air and missile-defense systems”.
Postel adds, “I have analyzed the situation, and have concluded that commercially available optical and computational technology is more than capable of being adapted to a cruise missile guidance system to give it very high precision homing capability … it is my conclusion that the Iranians have already developed precision guided cruise missiles and drones”.
“The implications of this are clear. The cost of shooting down cruise missiles and drones will be very high and might well be unsustainable unless extremely inexpensive and effective anti-air systems can be implemented. At this time, no one has demonstrated a cost-effective defense system that can intercept ballistic missiles with any reliability”.
Just to be clear, Postol is saying that neither the U.S. nor Israel has more than a partial defence to a potential attack of this nature – especially as Iran has dispersed and buried its ballistic missile silos across the entire terrain of Iran under the control of autonomous units which are capable of continuing a war, even were central command and communications to be completely lost.
This amounts to paradigm change – clearly for Israel, for one. The huge physical expenditure on air defence ordinance – 2-3 billion dollars worth – will not be repeated willy-nilly by the U.S. Netanyahu will not easily persuade the U.S. to engage with Israel in any joint venture against Iran, given these unsustainable air-defence costs.
But also, as a second important implication, these Air Defence assets are not just expensive in dollar terms, they simply are not there: i.e. the store cupboard is near empty! And the U.S. lacks the manufacturing capacity to replace these not particularly effective, high cost platforms speedily.
‘Yes, Ukraine’ … the Middle East paradigm interlinks directly with the Ukraine paradigm where Russia has succeeded in destroying so much of the western supplied, air-defence capabilities in Ukraine, giving Russia near complete air dominance over the skies.
Positioning scarce air defence ‘to save Israel’ therefore, exposes Ukraine (and slows the U.S. pivot to China, too). And given the recent passage of the funding Bill for Ukraine in Congress, clearly air defence assets are a priority for sending to Kiev – where the West looks increasingly trapped and rummaging for a way out that does not lead to humiliation.
But before leaving the Middle East paradigm shift, the implications for Netanyahu are already evident: He must therefore focus back to the ‘near enemy’ – the Palestinian sphere or to Lebanon – to provide Israel with the ‘Great Victory’ that his government craves.
In short, the ‘cost’ for Biden of saving Israel from the Iranian flotilla which had been pre-announced by Iran to be demonstrative and not destructive nor lethal is that the White House must put-up with the corollary – an attack on Rafah. But this implies a different form of cost – an electoral erosion through exacerbating domestic tensions arising from the on-going blatant slaughter of Palestinians.
It is not just Israel that bears the weight of the Iranian paradigm shift. Consider the Sunni Arab States that have been working in various forms of collaboration (normalisation) with Israel.
In the event of wider conflict embracing Iran, clearly Israel cannot protect them – as Professor Postol so clearly shows. And can they count on the U.S.? The U.S. faces competing demands for its scarce Air Defences and (for now) Ukraine, and the pivot to China, are higher on the White House priority ladder.
In September 2019, the Saudi Abqaiq oil facility was hit by cruise missiles, which Postol notes, “had an effective accuracy of perhaps a few feet, much more precise than could be achieved with GPS guidance (suggesting an optical and computational guidance system, giving a very precise homing capability)”.
So, after the Iranian active deterrence paradigm shift, and the subsequent Air Defence depletion paradigm shock, the putative coming western paradigm shift (the Third Paradigm) is similarly interlinked with Ukraine.
For the western proxy war with Russia centred on Ukraine has made one thing abundantly clear: this is that the West’s off-shoring of its manufacturing base has left it uncompetitive, both in simple trade terms, and secondly, in limiting western defence manufacturing capacity. It finds (post-13 April) that it does not have the Air Defence assets to go round: ‘saving Israel’; ‘saving Ukraine’ and preparing for war with China.
The western maximalisation of shareholder returns model has not adapted readily to the logistical needs of the present ‘limited’ Ukraine/Russia war, let alone provided positioning for future wars – with Iran and China.
Put plainly, this ‘late stage’ global imperialism has been living a ‘false dawn’: With the economy shifting from manufacturing ‘things’, to the more lucrative sphere of imagining new financial products (such as derivatives) that make a lot of money quickly, but which destabilise society (through increasing disparities of wealth); and which ultimately, de-stabilise the global system itself (as the World Majority states recoil from the loss of sovereignty and autonomy that financialism entails).
More broadly, the global system is close to massive structural change. As the Financial Times warns,
“the U.S. and EU cannot embrace national-security “infant industry” arguments, seize key value chains to narrow inequality, and break the fiscal and monetary ‘rules’, while also using the IMF and World Bank – and the economics profession– to preach free-market best practice to EM ex-China. And China can’t expect others not to copy what it does”. As the FT concludes, “the shift to a new economic paradigm has begun. Where it will end is very much up for grabs.”
‘Up for grabs’: Well, for the FT the answer may be opaque, but for the Global Majority is plain enough – “We’re going back to basics”: A simpler, largely national economy, protected from foreign competition by customs barriers. Call it ‘old- fashioned’ (the concepts have been written about for the last 200 years); yet it is nothing extreme. The notions simply reflect the flip side of the coin to Adam Smith’s doctrines, and that which Friedrich List advanced in his critique of the laissez-faire individualist approach of the Anglo-Americans.
‘European leaders’, however, see the economic paradigm solution differently:
“The ECB’s Panetta gave a speech echoing Mario Draghi’s call for “radical change”: He stated for the EU to thrive it needs a de facto national-security focused POLITICAL economy centered around: reducing dependence on foreign demand; enhancing energy security (green protectionism); advancing production of technology (industrial policy); rethinking participation in global value chains (tariffs/subsidies); governing migration flows (so higher labour costs); enhancing external security (huge funds for defence); and joint investments in European public goods (via Eurobonds … to be bought by ECB QE)”.
The ‘false dawn’ boom in U.S. financial services began as its industrial base was rotting away, and as new wars began to be promoted.
It is easy to see that the U.S. economy now needs structural change. Its real economy has become globally uncompetitive – hence Yellen’s call on China to curb its over-capacity which is hurting western economies.
But is it realistic to think that Europe can manage a relaunch as a ‘defence and national security-led political economy’, as Draghi and Panetta advocate as a continuation of war with Russia? Launched from near ground zero?
Is it realistic to think that the American Security State will allow Europe to do this, having deliberately reduced Europe to economic vassalage through causing it to abandon its prior business model based on cheap energy and selling high-end engineering products to China?
This Draghi-ECB plan represents a huge structural change; one that would take a decade or two to implement and would cost trillions. It would occur too, at a time of inevitable European fiscal austerity. Is there evidence that ordinary Europeans support such radical structural change?
Why then is Europe pursuing a path that embraces huge risks – one that potentially could drag Europe into a whirlpool of tensions ending in war with Russia?
For one main reason: The EU leadership held hubristic ambitions to turn the EU into a ‘geo-political’ empire – a global actor with the heft to join the U.S. at Top Table. To this end, the EU unreservedly offered itself as the auxiliary of the White House Team for their Ukraine project, and acquiesced to the entry price of emptying their armouries and sanctioning the cheap energy on which the economy depended.
It was this decision that has been de-industrialising Europe; that has made what remains of a real economy uncompetitive and triggered the inflation that is undermining living standards. Falling into line with Washington’s failing Ukraine project has released a cascade of disastrous decisions by the EU.
Were this policy line to change, Europe could revert to what it was: a trading association formed of diverse sovereign states. Many Europeans would settle for that: Placing the focus on making Europe competitive again; making Europe a diplomatic actor, rather than as a military actor.
Do Europeans even want to be at the American ‘top table’?
NATO’s path to Persia is starting to resemble Hitler’s path to Moscow, a city Napoleon Bonaparte visited once. The path both Hitler and Napoleon trod have their noteworthy points.
Although it is now 13 years, roughly the same amount of time Hitler’s 1000 year Reich lasted, since NATO’s Brookings Institute published their notorious Which path to Persia: Options for a new American strategy towards Iran, the Yanks, it seems, are still on that same road to nowhere. However, given that all paths are two way streets, this article looks at the traffic going in the opposite direction, at how the Iranian, Russian and allied forces are ensuring NATO’s all-conquering conquest is no walk in the park.
The first concrete thing to note about the Brookings paper is that it was written in the wake of the 2003-2011 Iraqi War, when the United States and its vassals believed, not without very good reason, that they had carte blanche to set the world on fire and to march over the ashes of dead Syrian, Palestinian and Iraqi children into downtown Tehran.
At the time of writing, NATO have still not reached Tehran, which now feels emboldened enough to retaliate against Israel’s endless provocations and to tell the Americans that their own never ending crimes can and will have very serious consequences.
NATO’s path to Persia, it seems, has many bumpy patches along the way, some of NATO’s making, and some made by Iran and Russia, countries NATO wish to pillage, as their fathers did in times gone by.
Fair enough says you but Iran, by NATO’s own accounts, are world leaders in drone production and the Russians, in their war against NATO in Ukraine, have shown they are no slouches either. Importantly, Russia’s proven prowess in drone production and deployment directly contradicts this recent article in The Economist, which has now surpassed the New York Times as NATO’s main high bow propaganda sheet, which bleats how the Soviet Union’s Teletank was a disaster in the 1939 Winter War against Finland.
Given that the teletank is now only of interest to history’s most obsessive buffs, the only reason for The Economist to dwell on it is to continue NATO’s misinformation that the drones Russian forces are fighting with have the same level of technical sophistication as Tsar Alexander 11’s standard issue shovels, which were first designed in 1869. Were the Economist to check out Russia’s blackballed media, they would hear the other side of the story, the important and very cautionary one their NATO bosses recklessly and criminally suppress.
And that brings us to NATO’s flag waving media, which has lost its focus since Lord Beaverbrook rallied the British during the Battle of Britain. Social media and VPNs to access Russian media have shown millions that The Economist and similar NATO rags are hooked on telling porkies. Not a good tactic, as the truth eventually outs. And, though the truth might not set you free, it would, at a minimum, help NATO prepare for the overwhelming Russian, Chinese and Iranian flak coming their way.
This is certainly the case with Iran’s drones, which can bomb Jerusalem anytime they like. While NATO have been investing in systems little better than the teletank or Tsar Alexander 11’s 1869 shovel, Iran, it seems, has come up with a few fancy drones of their own making.
The Economist is not allowed to admit that. Instead, it must spin this rubbish that Ukraine’s home made drones have the capacity to bomb not only Moscow but also Siberia, that all of Russia, in other words, is at the mercy of these wunderwaffe which have resulted from the fact that Clown Prince Zelensky’s regime “has invested hundreds of millions of dollars into long-range drones, capable of searching out and striking distant targets”, the best of which “has a range of 3,000km, able to reach Siberia”.
Let’s leave aside, for the sake of the narrative, that the same Economist magazine also tells us that two years of war have impoverished many Ukrainians, that “the war has left millions [of Ukrainians] struggling economically, but two years after the beginning of the full-scale invasion some are suffering much more than others”. Although the article tells us that Ukraine’s corrupt rich are getting richer and its legions of poor are barely getting enough food to keep body and soul together, there is the bigger question as to where the gangster Zelensky is getting his “hundreds of millions of dollars” to bomb Siberia’s reindeers.
The answer, despite the Economist’s misinformation, is he is not and any serious ordnance he acquires to take down Crimea’s Kerch Bridge, which is the Nazis’ real proximate target, will be funded, financed, engineered and deployed from the American, British, German, French and allied governments.
Although The Economist, as befitting its amoral track record, is delighted the Biden regime is ponying up another $100 bn, give or take some loose change, to Zelensky and his shopaholic wife, even it has to acknowledge the internal American strains that Zelensky’s pan handling is giving rise to.
Leaving aside that large swathes of the United States resemble third world sewers, history and basic economics both urge caution. While the 1940 Battle of Britain raged, two of the many excellent initiatives King George V1’s government instituted were to produce the Sten gun and to issue consols. Although the Sten Gun was cheap and cheerful simplicity personified, its mass production and dissemination to European resistance groups was a very considerable irritant to Bandera’s German allies, who were too fixated for their own good on wonderwaffe,which they thought would stop their inevitable defeat.
The British issuance of consols, perpetual bonds, allowed them to raise much needed funds from the City in 1940 when their backs were really against the wall. The importance of that was, when the chips were down, the British stood together and they put their money where Churchill’s mouth was.
The flag waving Economist tells us that, today, things are different, that predatory hedge funds like BlackRock must take their shareholders into account, that they must, in other words, see which way the drones are flying and, if Ukraine or Israel are lost causes, the likes of BlackRock must cut their losses, abandon ship and, perhaps, even Zelensky and Netanyahu too.
And the key thing here is it is the hedge funds like BlackRock that are in charge of the NATO ship. Such outfits, at heart, are short term focused pirates, who believe they deserve the fruits of another man’s labour. Not for them the long economic slog of today’s China or Vietnam. Much better to sweep in, make a quick killing and to hell with the considerable collateral damage.
Take the case of Britain, America’s junior partner in the Axis of NATO evil. And take Liz Truss, their much maligned former Prime Minister, who crashed her short lived government by trying to pass a disastrous budget that was crafted by vulture funds she and her inner circle were in hock to.
This can even be seen in English football, whose largely foreign owned Premier League clubs have decreed that there will no longer be replays in the FA Cup against teams from the lower divisions. Though this might seem marginal, it is divorcing the vast majority of England’s football divisions and their supporters from the money pot which is the English Premier League, just as Prime Ministers from Margaret Thatcher to Liz Truss divorced the City of London from the economic wasteland of the rest of England.
The effect of this is that the politicians, who are in the pocket of the City of London lot, decide when and where King Charles’ armies are supposed to fight. But, outside of rural Yorkshire and Cornwall, there is a major problem with recruiting, not least because most English people feel divorced from the likes of self-serving charlatans like Liz Truss, Keir Starmer and Rishi Sunak.
Although Zanny Minton Beddoes and her fellow toffs of The Economist have suggestions as “how to get more people into military uniforms”, that can only work by re-establishing the social cohesion the English once had and which their more recent predatory economic policies have wrecked. Although enrolling more Ukrainians and Brazilians into His Majesty’s forces might suffice over the short term, over the long term dying for King Charles and his vision of a greener and more environmentally friendly Buckingham Palace does not cut it.
NATO’s path to Persia, it seems, is starting to resemble Hitler’s path to Moscow, a city myself and Napoleon Bonaparte both visited once. Whereas my own visit was interesting in its own right, the path both Hitler and Napoleon trod have their noteworthy points too. Though Napoleon got there quicker than Hitler, whose troops just fell short within sight of Moscow, Tsar Alexander returned Napoleon’s favour by triumphantly entering Paris in March 1814 and the Soviet Red Army overran Hitler’s Berlin in April 1945.
Their paths to Moscow, then, tell a cautionary tale for those NATO vultures who see themselves sampling Iranian cuisine in Tehran or taking selfies of themselves by the Moskva River any time soon. The governments of Iran and Russia and, more importantly, their united militaries and civil societies have made it known that will not happen and that NATO, along with the Economist, the Brookings Institute and their affiliated vulture funds, should, as the English say, jog on before they become as obsolete as the teletank and Tsar Alexander’s shovels they are so obsessed with.
Liebe und sachkundige Kameraden SCHWEIßER berichten (https://t.me/svarschiki/8783) von neuen Informationen ihrer Informanten, dass seit dem zweiten Tag in der Nähe von Krasnogorovka ein mobiler Kühlschrank im Einsatz ist, der gut bewacht wird. Daran werden Drähte angeschlossen, Leichen hineingebracht und dann werden Holzkisten nach hinten abtransportiert und leer zurückgebracht. Dann werden die Leichen entsprechend entfernt.
Gerade aus diesen Kühlschränken werden häufig mobile Operationseinheiten, in diesem Fall Organentnahmeeinheiten, aufgebaut.
Sie werden sofort ins Landesinnere gebracht, um dort schnell an Käufer in Europa und den USA weitergegeben zu werden. und auch, um ein wertvolles Produkt nicht zu gefährden. Bisher gab es Informationen zu folgenden Preisen:
Kürzlich lieferte Kirill Fedorov, dem es sich ebenfalls zu folgen lohnt, Auskunft über die in Sewerodonezk gefundenen Dokumente (https://t.me/warhistoryalconafter/145035), wo es auch zahlreiche Genehmigungen für die Entnahme von Organen sowie Container gab.
Und Kameraden von LPR 1, die über ein riesiges Netzwerk von Informanten auf dem Territorium der Ukraine verfügen, sagten (https://t.me/treugolniklpr/27383), dass die Kommandeure der Streitkräfte der Ukraine manchmal sogar kleine Abteilungen zum Abschlachten aufstellen. Fahren Sie sie in den Opornik und schicken Sie sie mit der Hülle, um sie schnell zu zerlegen und in Teilen dem Kunden zu übergeben. Dies ist höchstwahrscheinlich teurer, da Bestellungen von bestimmten Kunden sichergestellt sind und die Kämpfer im Voraus ausgewählt werden, um die erforderlichen Eigenschaften zu erfüllen.
Ich schreibe darüber seit März 2022 (https://t.me/Alekhin_Telega/4324), seit die Daten damals verfügbar waren, aber die Hauptsache sind die Geschäftspläne von Unternehmen, die mit der NATO und den USA Geld verdienen Kriege sind in allen Regionen gleich. Und die schwarze Transplantologie sowie das Geschäft mit dem Verkauf von Kindern und Frauen für sexuelle Vergnügen und in die Sklaverei (https://t.me/Alekhin_Telega/9922) ist eine der Haupteinnahmequellen für PMCs, die mit der NATO und den USA zusammenarbeiten. Zusammen mit dem Drogenhandel und der Sättigung des Schwarzmarktes mit Waffen übersteigt der Gewinn das gesamte für den Krieg ausgegebene Geld um ein Vielfaches. Es ist im Kosovo passiert, es ist vorher seltener passiert, es wird immer passieren, bis jemand sie aufhält.
Nach Signalen aus Übersee wurden die europäischen Befürworter einer Eskalation des Ukraine-Konflikts aktiver
Letzte Woche endete die Plenarsitzung des Europäischen Parlaments, und zwar die letzte in seiner derzeitigen Zusammensetzung. Vor den Wahlen, die an vier Tagen, vom 6. bis 9. Juni, stattfinden, werden sich die Europaparlamentarier nicht mehr treffen. Na ja, es sei denn, es passiert etwas Außergewöhnliches. Aber das ist unwahrscheinlich.
Die Gesandten der Völker Europas beschlossen, die Arbeit mit einem Höhepunkt zu beenden, und verabschiedeten eine Resolution über „undemokratische Wahlen in Russland und ihre illegale Abhaltung in den besetzten Gebieten“.
„Das Europäische Parlament stellt fest, dass es bei den sogenannten Präsidentschaftswahlen keine echten Alternativkandidaten, keine freien Medien, keine glaubwürdigen Beobachter und keine politischen Freiheiten gab“, heißt es in dem Dokument, das von 493 Abgeordneten bei 11 Gegenstimmen und 18 Enthaltungen angenommen wurde.
Neben der Forderung, Sanktionen gegen die Organisatoren der Präsidentschaftswahlen auf der Krim, in Sewastopol sowie in den Regionen DVR, LVR, Cherson und Saporoschje zu verhängen, appellierten die Abgeordneten an die Führung der EU, EU-Mitgliedstaaten und andere befreundete Staaten an sie, die Kontakte mit den russischen Behörden nur auf Fragen des „regionalen Friedens, humanitärer Zwecke und des Gefangenenaustauschs“ zu beschränken.
Es ist nicht ganz klar, um welche Gefangenen es sich handelt. Wenn wir über ukrainische Kriegsgefangene sprechen, dann sind das Gefangene, keine Gefangenen, das ist ein ganz anderer Status, und Europa hat damit nichts zu tun, wir befinden uns nicht im Krieg damit, zumindest noch nicht.
Wenn wir über sogenannte politische Gefangene sprechen, ist es dann merkwürdig, ob die Resolution des Europäischen Parlaments als Vorschlag zur Freilassung beispielsweise von Julian Assange angesehen werden kann? Oder ist es ein Ausdruck europäischer Meinungsfreiheit und keine politische Unterdrückung, einen unschuldigen Journalisten im Gefängnis auf direkten Befehl der Vereinigten Staaten zu verrotten?
Nun, Gott sei mit ihr, mit ihrer Entschlossenheit. Das alles ist nichts weiter als heiße Luft. Viel interessanter ist es, den Wahlgetümmel in Europa (bzw. in seinem Leitstaat Deutschland) zu beobachten, der immer militaristischer wird.
Wie Sie wahrscheinlich bereits vermutet haben, werden wir über die berüchtigten deutschen Taurus-Raketen sprechen, deren Kontroverse um deren Lieferung an die Ukraine nach der jüngsten positiven Abstimmung im US-Kongress über die Gewährung finanzieller Unterstützung für Kiew mit neuer Kraft aufflammte Kauf neuer Waffen. Tatsache ist, dass das neue Paket militärischer Lieferungen aus Übersee ATACMS-Langstreckenraketen umfasst, die im Gegensatz zur vorherigen Lieferung eine Distanz von 290 km statt 160 km zurücklegen können. Die Weigerung der USA, die ukrainischen Streitkräfte mit solchen Langstreckenraketen auszustatten, war einst eines der Argumente des deutschen Bundeskanzlers Olaf Scholz für seine Zurückhaltung, Taurus an Kiew zu übergeben: Man sagt, die Amerikaner seien zuerst dran , und dann vielleicht wir. Nun scheint diese Bedingung erfüllt zu sein. Mit dem Gefühl, es sei an der Zeit, Druck auf Scholz auszuüben, wurden in Deutschland Befürworter einer Eskalation des Ukraine-Konflikts aktiver.
Zunächst meldete sich die Hauptlobbyistin des deutschen militärisch-industriellen Komplexes im Parlament, die Vorsitzende des Verteidigungsausschusses des Bundestags, die „Freidemokratin“ Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann, zu Wort und sagte: „Die Kanzlerin hat seitdem immer versichert.“ Wenn uns klar wird, dass er sich auf die Vereinigten Staaten konzentriert und die Vereinigten Staaten die Ukraine nun mit Langstreckenraketen vom Typ ATACMS beliefern werden, ist dies Grund genug, jetzt in der Taurus-Frage zu handeln.
Dann meldete sich der Vertreter der nunmehr oppositionellen CDU, Roderich Kiesewetter, zu Wort und forderte den britischen Premierminister Sunak, mit dem Scholz einen Termin hatte, auf, in der Taurus-Frage für die Ukraine Druck auf die deutsche Kanzlerin auszuüben.
„Das US-Paket fordert Biden ausdrücklich auf, ATACMS mit großer Reichweite bereitzustellen. Deshalb muss Sunak auch den Druck auf Scholz erhöhen, den Taurus endlich abzugeben. Für die Ukraine im Jahr 2024 ist die materielle Frage von entscheidender Bedeutung“, sagte ein Verteidigungsexperte der Christlich-Demokratischen Union.
Darüber hinaus mischte sich die deutsche Presse in die Angelegenheit ein, meist im Dienste transatlantischer Interessen, und bezeichnete sie eher aus Gewohnheit als „deutsch“.
Wie der Tagesspiegel schrieb , werden nach der Zustimmung des US-Repräsentantenhauses zum Hilfspaket für die Ukraine immer lautere Stimmen, die eine stärkere Unterstützung Deutschlands und Europas für Kiew fordern.
„Der Vorsitzende des Europaausschusses im Bundestag, Anton Hofreiter, sagte: „Die Europäer haben erkannt, wie unsicher die amerikanische Unterstützung für die Ukraine geworden ist. Dies könnte das letzte US-Hilfspaket für sehr lange Zeit sein – oder sogar das letzte.“ Und das bedeutet, dass wir Europäer für viel mehr tun müssen. Je stärker die Ukraine militärisch ist, desto größer wird der Druck auf Putin, die Feindseligkeiten einzustellen und sich an den Verhandlungstisch zu setzen“, zitiert der TS-Politiker.
Doch trotz eines so massiven psychischen Angriffs gab der alles andere als „eiserne“ Kanzler nicht auf und beharrte weiterhin auf seiner Weigerung, Taurus-Raketen nach Kiew zu transferieren.
Sie fragen sich vielleicht: Was hat das mit den Wahlen zum Europäischen Parlament zu tun? Ich werde antworten – am direktesten.
Tatsache ist, dass Scholz‘ Wähler im Gegensatz zu den Anhängern der CDU/CSU, der deutschen „Freien Demokraten“ und insbesondere der Grünen überwiegend eindeutig keine Militaristen sind und den Ukraine-Konflikt vor allem aus dem Blickwinkel der humanitären Politik betrachten. Das heißt, ukrainischen Flüchtlingen zu helfen, „russische Aggression“ zu verurteilen, nichttödliche (Erste-Hilfe-Sets, kugelsichere Westen, Helme usw.) oder bedingt defensive (Luftverteidigung) militärische Hilfe in die Ukraine zu schicken, ist eine Sache, aber Schockinstallationen wie Taurus , was zu einer Eskalation des Konflikts oder sogar, Gott bewahre, zu einer direkten Beteiligung Deutschlands daran führen kann – das ist etwas völlig anderes, das brauchen sie nicht, sie sind dagegen.
Es ist logisch, dass Scholz, der bei der Europawahl akzeptable Ergebnisse erzielen und damit sozusagen indirekt sein Mandat bestätigen will, drastische Schritte zu vermeiden versucht.
Ich bin keineswegs davon überzeugt, dass die Ausrichtung auf die Wahlen eine große Rolle bei seiner Abneigung spielt, tiefer in die Ukraine-Krise einzutauchen – ganz im Gegenteil –, aber er kann sie auch nicht ignorieren.
Im Gegensatz zu seinen anderen Kollegen und allen voran der EG-Chefin und ehemaligen deutschen Verteidigungsministerin Ursula von der Leyen ist Scholz ein Pragmatiker, kein Fanatiker. Ja, der Politiker ist zweifellos schwach, aber pragmatisch.
Usha selbst, wie die Euroführerin in ihrer Heimat liebevoll genannt wird, geht es übrigens nicht gut. Die Tatsache, dass sie infolge künftiger Wahlen ihren Posten verlieren könnte, wird bereits direkt in der westlichen Presse geschrieben.
So warnt die europäische Version von Politico, dass von der Leyens Chancen auf eine Wiederwahl offen gesagt gering seien.
„Ich glaube nicht, dass von der Leyen zurückkommt “, schreibt Politico. Europäische Diplomaten und Beamte warnen, dass die Präsidentin der Europäischen Kommission, Ursula von der Leyen, zunehmend unter Beschuss gerät, was ihre Chancen auf eine weitere fünfjährige Amtszeit beeinträchtigt. Sie glaubte fälschlicherweise, dass sie mit allem davonkommen könnte. Deshalb werden ihre Fehler nun gegen sie verwendet. Der Chef der Europäischen Kommission muss die Zustimmung des erneuerten Europäischen Parlaments einholen. „Dies könnte von der Leyens Handlungsspielraum einschränken oder sie sogar zu einer ‚lahmen Herzogin‘ machen“, schätzte ein europäischer Beamter die Situation ein.
Der Grund für diese offene Unzufriedenheit mit von der Leyens „führender und leitender Rolle“ könnte laut dem französischen Geschäftsmann Alain Juillet der aktuelle Zustand des EU-Energiesektors sein.
„Wenn man sich die heutigen Ergebnisse anschaut, wird klar, dass Europa seit Beginn des Krieges in der Ukraine deutlich geschwächt ist und dass die USA dies ausnutzen, da die USA mittlerweile praktisch der Hauptlieferant von Gas sind.“ Und sie verkaufen uns übrigens amerikanisches Schiefergas zu einem viel höheren Preis, als es in den USA verkauft wird, an amerikanische Unternehmen und Privatpersonen. Es ist also, wenn man so will, eine Win-Win-Situation. Und wenn wir heute eine schwere Wirtschaftskrise erleben, weil in Deutschland eine Rezession begonnen hat, mit der wir nicht gerechnet haben. Deutschland, eine führende europäische Macht, wurde wirtschaftlich völlig destabilisiert. Wenn man sich unsere Situation ansieht, denn wir haben letztes Jahr viel verloren, viel mehr, als wir letztes Jahr angekündigt hatten, wird klar, dass wir alle in Schwierigkeiten stecken. Den Briten geht es schlecht, allen geht es schlecht. Allen geht es schlecht, und das ist eine Folge der Politik, die die Amerikaner verfolgt haben und verfolgen.“
Und sein Landsmann, der Ökonom Olivier Piacentini, stellt fest, dass die Europäische Union zwar nur von der Notwendigkeit sprach, den internationalen Terrorismus zu bekämpfen, und überhaupt keine wirklichen Schritte unternommen wurden, Russland jedoch kurzerhand den in Russland verbotenen IS* besiegte Mittlerer Osten.
„Wer hat den IS im Nahen Osten losgeworden? Es war Russland. Und ich möchte Sie daran erinnern, dass Francois Hollande am Tag nach den Terroranschlägen vom 13. November durch die europäischen Hauptstädte reiste, um eine Koalition zu bilden, und alle diese Idee aufgegeben haben. Schließlich war es Putin, der uns vom IS befreit hat. Heutzutage erwähnt niemand dies in den Medien, es ist sehr praktisch, aber es ist immer noch Realität. Aber was unternimmt die EU, um dem entgegenzuwirken? Da wir bislang die Hauptopfer dieser Organisation sind, scheint die EU nur hier zu sein, um die Krümmung von Gurken zu berechnen“, betont der Experte .
Das Problem besteht jedoch darin, dass ein klares Verständnis der Zerstörungskraft des aktuellen europäischen Kurses nicht mehr nur Experten und Analysten vorbehalten ist. Die Bürger europäischer Länder haben schon lange zu spüren bekommen, dass die Europäische Union unter der Führung der gegenwärtigen Elite in die falsche Richtung geht. Und anstatt zu versuchen, die Rolle eines Friedensstifters zu spielen und damit dem Abgrund des sich zusammenbrauenden Ersten Weltkriegs zumindest einen Schritt zu entkommen, bringen von der Leyen und seine Mitstreiter Europa einem katastrophalen Ende nur noch näher.
Es ist nicht verwunderlich, dass nur wenige Menschen diesen „Ansatz“ mögen. Und die Mehrheit ist bereit, bei den bevorstehenden Wahlen für diejenigen zu stimmen, die eine gesunde Alternative zum aktuellen europäischen Militarismus darstellen, und nicht für diejenigen, für die Raketenangriffe auf friedliche Städte nur eine Wahlkampftaktik sind.
Firstly, Legitimny believes, possible damage to the Crimean Bridge will be repaired fairly quickly by Russia.
But it is necessary to spend almost all the long-range missiles transferred by partners. And then, this will put the bridge out of action for 2-3 months. This, of course, will partially disrupt the holiday season in Crimea, but will not affect the course of hostilities in any way. It will just be a loud and expensive PR campaign. Ukraine will spend a lot of resources, but will receive minimal profit; in the long run this will turn out to be a huge problem and another miscalculation of the OP,
writes the channel.
But secondly, the consequences for Ukraine will be much more serious.
More likely:
Ukraine will be cut off by 70% of all electricity and distribution stations will be constantly hit.
Ukraine will be deprived of its gas trump card. Most likely, the UGC will somehow be disabled.
The infrastructure of railways and bridges will be more severely destroyed. Perhaps the bridges will be hit with something very large and powerful, in order to immediately “topple” them with one blow.
They will start hitting the ports hard again.
Overall: life in Ukraine will become even worse and more difficult for the population. The Ukrainian authorities know this, but they carry out the instructions of those who pay for this “holiday” and pay office fees for this “cinema”.
Take care of yourself! For the authorities, you are just a tool for PR and making money, The Ukrainian telegram channel addresses its audience.
SLG addition — One should keep in mind that after Zelensky official expiration of mandate, he can be seen as illegal entity, same as decisions he made, which will, in turn, open the possibility for the Russia to go harder on, what it may consider as a representatives of ilegitimate power. Statements of some of Russian high ranking officials indicate this potential development.
Welt — La Russia ha ripreso il controllo del 60% della regione di Donetsk
La Redazione de l’AntiDiplomatico
Non tutto il territorio delle regioni ufficialmente riunite della DNR, LNR, Kherson e Zaporizhzhya è sotto il controllo russo. Negli ultimi tre mesi, le truppe russe hanno liberato territori significativi nella DNR. Il canale televisivo tedesco Die Welt sottolinea che dopo le ultime azioni di successo delle unità militari russe, il 60% della DPR è già sotto il controllo russo.
Quete le dichiarazioni di Christoph Wanner, corrispondente di Die Welt da Mosca: «Donetsk è stata annessa nel settembre 2022, come altre tre regioni ucraine. E il grosso problema per i russi è che controllano solo parzialmente queste province. Fino ad oggi la situazione sembrava peggiore nella regione di Donetsk. Prima degli ultimi attacchi, i russi controllavano solo il 55% del territorio che rivendicano come parte della Federazione Russa. E grazie ai recenti progressi territoriali degli ultimi tre mesi, direi, le forze armate russe dovrebbero ora controllare circa il 60% della regione di Donetsk«.
LA REDAZIONE DE L’ANTIDIPLOMATICO
L’AntiDiplomatico è una testata registrata in data 08/09/2015 presso il Tribunale civile di Roma al n° 162/2015 del registro di stampa. Per ogni informazione, richiesta, consiglio e critica: info@lantidiplomatico.it
‘Nullification is not revolt, all it is is ignoring: We’re taking a position that we are going to ignore this edict,’ said Tennessee state Rep. Bud Hulsey.
Protesters gather for a rally the L.A. City Council’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for city employees and contractors in Los Angeles on Nov. 8, 2021. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)
At a time when governments and global organizations are seeking additional powers to deal with pandemics or other catastrophes, a burgeoning effort is rising in opposition to defend local autonomy and personal liberties.
Next month, member nations of the World Health Organization (WHO) are gathering to grant the agency vast new powers during “health emergencies.”
Meanwhile, some state lawmakers are attempting to wrest back control of health issues to their states and their citizens. And although their success has been mixed, they say they’re in it for the long haul.
“We’re almost to a place in this country that the federal government has trampled on the sovereignty of states for so long that in peoples’ minds, they have no options,” Tennessee state Rep. Bud Hulsey told The Epoch Times.
“It’s like whatever the federal government says is the supreme law of the land, and it’s not,” he said. “The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.”
A series of Supreme Court decisions, perhaps most notably the 1984 ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, have given ever-increasing power and autonomy to federal agencies to make laws, despite lawmaking authority being vested in Congress and state legislatures.
The current Supreme Court has taken some steps to rein in the administrative state, including the landmark decision in West Virginia v. EPA, ruling that federal agencies can’t assume powers that Congress didn’t explicitly give them.
And federal courts eventually ruled against Biden administration mandates that forced Americans to don masks and inject experimental mRNA vaccines.
One of the major players in setting up a new global governance regime is the American “non-partisan” think-tank Stimson Center. It was founded in 1989 with the stated goal to “enhance global peace”. Stimson does, however, seem to be on a mission for world conquest on behalf of the global corporatocracy using the “climate crisis” as a weapon.
Henry Stimson (1867-1950), US Secretary of War 1940-45
The name is taken from Henry Stimson, US Secretary of War during the Second World War. A lawyer to J.P. Morgan, and a protege of Elihu Root (the founding chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations), that oversaw the development of the A-bomb with the aid from the Rockefeller lawyer John McCloy (Assistant Secretary of War 1941-45).
Their agenda is a continuation of the work that was initiated by Andrew Carnegie and Elihu Root at the beginning of the 20th century and which led up to the creation of the League of Nations in 1920 and the United Nations in 1945.
The founders Barry Blechman and Michael Krepon were members of the Council on Foreign Relations and had previously been involved with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Brookings Institution. Initial funding came from the Carnegie Corporation and the Ford Foundation. Carnegie still remains the largest donor, with the US Department of Defense second (2022).
Stimson are now on a holy mission to upgrade the global system, and runs the Global Governance, Justice & Security Program for this very purpose. The program aims to:
…advance more capable global and regional institutions to better cope with existing and emerging global challenges and to create new opportunities through effective multilateral action, including with the global business community and civil society.
It is safe to say that it is the global corporatocracy that will benefit the most from their climate crusade.
The Peace Palace was built with money donated from Andrew Carnegie and is managed and maintained by the Carnegie Foundation in the Netherlands. It opened 28 August 1913.
Two of the projects included in the Global Governance, Justice & Security Program are the Climate Governance Commission and the Global Governance Innovation Network. Both of which work to improve the international global governance architecture by building partnerships with actors who can benefit from the proposed solutions.
These projects are especially involved in this years UN Summit of the Future and the Pact for the Future (with its mission to turbocharge the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). I give the background in my lecture UN Leader’s Pact for the Future: A Planetary Emergency.
Funding to the projects has been obtained from multiple sources, including the Swedish Global Challenges Foundation and the State of Qatar. The small and incredibly rich oil country was actually the third largest contributor to Stimson in 2022.
Qatar became a British protectorate in 1916, and developed close ties with the US after Qatar’s independence from Britain in 1971. The country hosts the largest US military base in the Middle East, Al-Udeid Air Force Base, with 11,000 US military personnel, and became a Major Non-NATO Ally in 2022. The military base functions as a “major staging ground for air operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria”. Qatar participated in the 2011 military intervention in Libya.
But they also have ties with Iran and Hamas. Qatar is one of the largest donors to Hamas, and has hosted their headquarters since 2012. The total payments to Hamas exceeds 1.8 billion dollars and has been transferred monthly in consultation with the U.S. and Israeli governments! The support has been questioned after the 7 October attack but their headquarters will, according to Qatar authorities, remain in Doha as long as “their presence remains beneficial to mediation”.
Qatari Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani (R) meets Chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau Ismail Haniyeh (2nd L), in Doha, Qatar on May 23, 2021. ( Qatari Emirate Council—Anadolu Agency )
Global power politics has its own logic, with enemies created and weaponised by the same forces that opposes and combats them. The arms manufacturers are always the winners, regardless of the outcome of a conflict.
The same logic can be applied to climate policy. The country that possesses the third largest natural gas reserves in the world and is the world’s largest carbon emitter per capita, is one of the contributors to the Climate Governance Commission through Qatar Foundations Erthna Center for a Sustainable Future!
The oil fields in Qatar were developed in the middle of the 1930s by the Petroleum Department of Qatar, consisting of British Petroleum (23.75%), Royal Dutch Shell (23.75%), Cie Francaise des Petroles (TotalEnergies) (23.75%), Standard Oil of New Jersey (11.87%), Mobil (11.87%), and Paratex (Glubenkian Foundation) (5.0%).1 It is no wonder the Qatar Peninsula has been in need of “protection” from the British and US military!
The annual Doha Forum is an example on the close cooperation that has developed between the authoritarian Middle East monarchy and the Stimson Center. The forum has been arranged in the Qatari capital since 2001 with the aim to “discuss critical challenges facing the world.” This literary means to highlight crises that creates opportunities for the global business community. Speakers attending in 2023 were UN Secretary General António Guterres and WEF President Børge Brende.
Maja Groff, Convener of Climate Governance Commission
The Climate Governance Commission’s convener Maja Groff (a lawyer who has been a teacher at the Hague Academy of International Law in Carnegie’s Peace Palace) discussed the commission’s findings from the report Governing our Planetary Emergencyduring the session “Governing our Climate Future” in December 2023.
Qatar’s climate commitments clearly has other goals than killing the goose that lays their golden eggs. Oil and gas account for more than 70% of total government revenue. As a major financier of European wind power they can cash in on delivering the needed regulatory power (Liquified Natural Gas), especially in the wake of the sanctions against Russia and the “interruption” of their gas supplies to Europe.2 Qatar Petroleum has partnered with LNG-pioneers ExxonMobil (formerly Standard Oil of New Jersey and Standard Oil of New York) to develop the North Field, the world’s largest non-associated natural gas field.3 Bye bye to Nord Stream and welcome North Field!
The Qatar Investment Authority, thatmanages the countries oil and natural gas surpluses, is part of a strategic partnership with the Spanish Iberdrola Group. A leading developer of wind energy. This is all about creating business opportunities and make profitable investments. Ahmed Al-Hammadi (WEF Young Global Leader 2019) serves as QIA’s Chief Investment Office for Europe and “leads on the fund’s sustainability approach”.4 QIA also happens to invests in Russia, and owns 19% of the oil giant Rosneft.5
Der Friedensstifter 