Der Bundespräsident ist “lebendiges Symbol” des Staates.
Seine Aufgabe: „Über den Parteien stehend, wirkt er durch Ausübung seiner verfassungsrechtlichen Befugnisse, in Reden, Ansprachen, Gesprächen, durch Schirmherrschaften und andere Initiativen integrierend, moderierend und motivierend.“
So steht es auf der Homepage des Bundespräsidenten.Werbung
Mit seiner Aussage am 29.01.2024 auf einem Empfang vor Gewerkschaften, Wirtschaftsverbänden und Betriebsräten, “Wir lassen uns dieses Land nicht von extremistischen Rattenfängern kaputtmachen.”, hat Frank-Walter Steinmeier bestimmte Teile der Bevölkerung, die er zwar nicht definiert hat, als extremistischen Rattenfänger bezeichnet. Damit hat er in die demokratischen Prozesse unseres Landes eingriffen, wozu er überhaupt keine Berechtigung hat. Solche Redensweisen sind dem Amt und der Würde eines Bundespräsidenten nicht angemessen. Damit sind Millionen von Wählern indirekt Ratten, wenn sie nicht in dem Sinne des Bundespräsidenten gewählt haben. Eine wahre Demokratie besteht aus Gegensätzen und erträgt auch Gegensätze. Frank-Walter Steinmeier als Bundespräsident hetzt mit seiner Aussage „extremistischen Rattenfängern“, gegen bestimmte Teile unserer Gesellschaft, statt neutral gemäß seines Amtes zu offenem Dialog in unserer Gesellschaft beizutragen und „integrierend, moderierend und motivierend“ zu wirken.
Durch das Amt des Bundespräsidenten ist Frank-Walter Steinmeier verpflichtet, sich grundsätzlich neutral zu verhalten. Hetze und Spaltung zu schüren, ist ihm in jeder Hinsicht untersagt. Es ist ihm nicht erlaubt, demokratische Prozesse in Deutschland in irgendeiner Form zu diskriminieren und dadurch Volksverhetzung zu betreiben. Deshalb haben einige Unterstützer der Bürgerinitiative GemeinWohl-Lobby Strafanträge beim Generalbundesanwalt in Karlsruhe eingereicht.
Nuclear weapon activists sounded the alarm last Friday, Feb. 2, in reaction to recent evidence that the U.S. is planning to station nukes in the United Kingdom for the first time in more than 15 years, a move that government critics said would only intensify the danger of a nuclear war.
The U.S. pulled out more than 100 nuclear bombs from the Royal Air Force base in Lakenheath (RAF Lakenheath) in western Suffolk in 2008 after continuous protests from U.K.-based anti-nuclear weapons groups, including the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND).
«We encourage both the media and the public to increase pressure on the British government to be honest about this deployment,» said Kate Hudson, CND’s general secretary.
The Telegraph recently reported that «procurement contracts for a new facility at RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk confirm that the U.S. intends to place nuclear warheads three times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb at the air base.»
«The return of American weapons to the U.K. is part of a NATO-wide program to develop and upgrade nuclear sites in response to heightened tensions with the Kremlin in the wake of the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine,» the U.K. newspaper added. «Russia has stated that the placement of U.S. weapons in Britain would be viewed by Moscow as an ‘escalation’ and would be met with ‘compensating countermeasures.'»
Lakenheath base is being prepared for the return of U.S. nuclear weapons
CND said Friday it has «strongly suspected» that the Lakenheath base was being prepared for the return of U.S. nukes for almost two years, and with construction of the nuclear storage facilities expected to start in June 2024 and end in February 2026.
Documents collected since 2022 have presented evidence that nuclear weapons will return, and these include the upgrade of nuclear storage locations at RAF Lakenheath to store the new B61-12 guided nuclear bomb; plans to construct a new «surety dormitory» to house U.S. Air Force staff for a nuclear mission; and just recently, contracts to establish ballistic protection sites at the base, designed to protect troops from strikes on «high-value assets» in the country.
CND, represented by law firm Leigh Day Solicitors, has questioned the U.K.’s Ministry of Defense (MoD) and local officials about the «lawfulness of the planning rights used to allow the building of the surety dormitory.»
«The Lakenheath upgrades form part of a wider effort to upgrade U.S./NATO nuclear infrastructure across Europe, which has preceded – and likely provoked – Russia’s deployment of its own nuclear weapons to Belarus. Despite this, neither the U.S. nor the U.K. government had given information to the public about this deployment,» the organization said.
«Far from making us safer, this deployment has escalated the dangers, brought Russian nukes to Europe, and made us a nuclear target. It’s shameful that our government continues to take us for fools on this serious matter. They are refusing to give us crucial information about our security,» Hudson said.
Meanwhile, Leigh Day environment team solicitor Ricardo Gama said: «The MoD says that the Lakenheath development won’t lead to significant environmental effects, but in coming to that conclusion our client argues they have ignored the potential environmental effects of stationing nuclear weapons at the airbase, including the potential for nuclear accidents.»
Gama emphasized that to allow the local planning authority, West Suffolk Council, and members of the community to conclude whether the MoD is going through the right process and whether the potential effects of the development are acceptable, the U.K. Defense Ministry «needs to provide transparent information about what the purpose of the development is.»
Follow NuclearWeapons.news for more stories about American nuclear bombs being deployed abroad.
German farmers who carried out a peaceful protest against cuts to their subsidies have been branded conspiracy theorists by a German fact-checking site, and it’s not surprising — considering who funds the fact checkers.
The protests in question brought Berlin to a near standstill, with more than 10,000 farmers taking to the streets with their trucks and tractors. At the Brandenburg Gate, 500 tractors lined up in a convoy every day for a week. Road blockages were reported in multiple cities, including Munich, Hamburg, Nuremberg, Bremen and Cologne, each involving thousands of tractors and trucks.
The protests broke out after the German government decided that it would phase out a tax break on agricultural diesel in an attempt to balance its budget for 2024 after a ruling by its constitutional court forced it to go back to the drawing board with its spending plans. Many farmers argued that cuts to subsidies would leave them bankrupt. Although the government has since backtracked slightly on this and said that they would spread the agricultural diesel subsidy cut across a period of several years, most farmers felt it was not enough.
Although it may be true that some of the farmers have other concerns that go beyond the subsidy cuts, such as COVID-19 restrictions, not all of them share the same beliefs. Correctiv did not explain what type of “disinformation” the farmers were spreading about the virus, nor did they supply any proof supporting their claims that they are somehow linked to the Russian government. They only noted that some accounts on X that support the farmers also had posts that “coincided with the methods of a pro-Russian propaganda network,” which is a pretty weak argument.
The German media has also been quick to point out that a neo-Nazi group endorsed the protests, even though the German Farmers Association has rejected the group’s support in no uncertain terms.
The farmers likely struck a nerve with the government by blaming the government’s climate policy for the subsidy cuts as the budget reshuffle that led to the cuts was driven by a need to unlock funds for climate action projects. Some of the protestors even called for the dissolution of the German government and new elections.
Follow the money
It should come as no surprise that one of Correctiv’s backers is Meta, owners of Facebook, who were all too happy to go along with the U.S. government’s insistence that they censor posts that went against the official government COVID-19 narrative. They also get funding from Open Society Foundations, a nonprofit organization that was founded by globalist George Soros, as well as the current German government.
The use of fact checkers to smear those who voice unpopular opinions is nothing new. It’s been going on for years, and it ramped up quite a bit during the pandemic, when fact checkers were used to discredit anyone who dared to suggest that COVID-19 came from a lab leak or that vaccines are risky. Freedom of Information Act-requested documents and the Twitter Files have both proven that governments and other entities often bankroll fact checking groups to help them further their political agendas.
Jeffrey A. Tucker explained the relationship between governments and fact checkers in an exposé for The Epoch Times, writing: «Government wants to censor but cannot so it turns to the social-media company to do the dirty work. To make this hand-in-glove racket less obvious, the companies would outsource to a fact-checking organization, making the lines of control even more blurry.»
A bipartisan group of legislators have asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to provide Congress with information on illegal marijuana growing operations in the United States that are suspected to have connections to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
«Chinese nationals – including those with potential ties to the Chinese Communist Party –are reportedly operating thousands of illicit marijuana farms across the country. The thousands of illicit Chinese marijuana-growing operations pose a direct threat to public safety, human rights, national security and the addiction crisis gripping our nation,» the lawmakers wrote. (Related: CCP TAKEOVER: Real estate mogul sold over 130,000 acres of Texas farmland to a Chinese billionaire and former PLA captain.)
According to the legislators, Chinese marijuana-growing operations have been found in California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon and Washington.
«In some cases, the grow operators were also engaged in human trafficking, forced labor, drug trafficking and violent crime. These farms are most commonly in states with legal marijuana programs where illicit growers try to disguise their operations in communities where law-abiding Americans live and work,» the letter added.
Over 2,000 marijuana farmers linked to China found in Oklahoma
Just in the state of Oklahoma, investigators have uncovered over 2,000 marijuana farmers who «are linked to China.» These farmers are engaged in other illicit activities, including human and sex trafficking, ketamine trafficking, illegal gambling operations and international money laundering.
«Experts believe there is substantial evidence implicating the CCP in directly supporting illicit marijuana grow operations across the United States. Whether located in retrofitted residential homes or on farmland, state regulatory and law enforcement entities appear unable to address these potentially CCP-supported grow operations despite their significant threat to local communities across the country,» the lawmakers wrote.
Back in September, media outlets reported that one group of Chinese illegal immigrants filed a lawsuit claiming they were enticed to come to northern New Mexico under pretenses, after which they were then forced to work 14 hours a day on an illegal marijuana farm.
«Allowing illicit marijuana farms tied to the CCP is a continued threat to national security, public safety and human rights,» the lawmakers concluded.
The lawmakers wanted Garland to answer several questions before Feb. 23, including the number of CCP-related marijuana farms in America, and whether state legalization of marijuana has «affected the proliferation of CCP-affiliated marijuana farms.»
«How many CCP-affiliated marijuana farms have obtained state-issued licenses to grow marijuana, either directly or through a shell company?» the legislators asked in the letter.
Chinese nationals who are either legal residents of America or have asylum claims that prevent them from being deported from the country are often engaged in the grow operations, a federal law enforcement source revealed.
Follow CommunistChina.news for more stories about illicit CCP operations within the United States.
Watch the video below about the China land grab near a U.S. Air Force base in California.
Bis 2026 erwartet die Ampel 67,2 Milliarden Euro an Einnahmen durch den CO₂-Preis, so die Antwort von Habecks Ministerium auf meine Anfrage. Pro Kopf sind dies rund 800 Euro, bei einer vierköpfigen Familie also über 3.000 Euro. Eigentlich sollte ein Großteil davon als Klimageld wieder an die Bürger zurückgezahlt werden – doch daraus wird erst einmal nichts. Ich finde es maximal unehrlich, den Bürgern und Betrieben zig Milliarden aus der Tasche zu ziehen und dann nicht einmal das versprochene Klimageld auszuzahlen. Diese ganze Abzocke unter dem Vorwand des Klimaschutzes muss endlich beendet werden!
Diplomatie statt Panzer für die Ukraine
Während immer mehr darauf hindeutet, dass die USA sich aus dem Ukrainekrieg zurückziehen, will die Ampel offenbar eine ganze Panzerbrigade an die Ukraine liefern. Berichten zufolge bereitet die Bundesregierung den Export von 105 Leopard-Kampfpanzern sowie von 30 Marder-Schützenpanzern vor. Dabei hat Deutschland schon seit Kriegsbeginn gut 30-mal mehr Geld für Waffenlieferungen an die Ukraine ausgegeben als Frankreich. Ich finde diese Politik unverantwortlich. Statt im Interesse von Panzerfabrikanten wie Rheinmetall nur das Blutvergießen zu verlängern, sollten wir versuchen, durch Diplomatie zu einem Waffenstillstand zu kommen.
Wir sind bereit — packen wir es an! Das Bündnis Sahra Wagenknecht – Vernunft und Gerechtigkeit ist jetzt offiziell als Gruppe im Bundestag vertreten. Auch wenn uns nur begrenzte Rechte eingeräumt wurden, werden wir uns nicht hindern lassen, massiv Druck zu machen für eine bessere Politik! Falls ihr einen schnellen Eindruck gewinnen wollt, wer wir sind und was wir wollen: Hier ein Video mit Impressionen von unserem letzten Parteitag, das ihr gerne teilen und verbreiten könnt:
Politischer Aschermittwoch in Passau Die Politik der Ampel bringt unser ganzes Land in Katerstimmung. Um dem etwas entgegenzusetzen, organisiert das BSW am 14. Februar seinen ersten politischen Aschermittwoch in Passau. Ich werde dort sprechen, zusammen mit Klaus Ernst und dem Passauer Stadtrat Josef Ilsanker. Kommt gerne vorbei – wir starten um 10 Uhr im Gasthaus Öller, Einlass ist ab 9 Uhr.
Gegen Filz und Korruption Wir klären auf über Steuer- und Finanzskandale und bekämpfen Filz und Korruption. In dieser spannenden Doku über die Geschäfte der SIGNA-Gruppe spricht unser Spitzenkandidat für die Europawahl, Fabio de Masi, über die engen Kontakte, die (nicht nur) Kanzler Scholz zu dem dubiosen Immobilienunternehmer René Benko gepflegt hat.
Unser Plan für Europa Wir wollen weniger Bürokratie und weniger Abhängigkeit von den USA und großen Wirtschaftslobbys und dafür mehr Diplomatie, faire Steuern und Investitionen in wichtige Industrien. Mehr zu unserem Programm für die EU-Wahlen findet ihr in einer Analyse von Peter Wahl bei Telepolis.
A ship in stormy seas needs steady anchors, and today there are none. The world used to be anchored by U.S. hegemony. Those unipolar days are now behind us. But after a unipolar age comes a multipolar age, which requires a multipolar anchor. This anchor — and the stability it provides — must be built on reformed multilateral institutions. Indeed, such an overhaul of the global architecture is the only way to repair a global liberal order that is now neither global nor liberal nor orderly — and to overcome a geopolitical recession that has given us a global no man’s land of ungoverned spaces.
A multilateral reform agenda is all the more important because alternative world orders envisaged by commentators are hardly inclusive and thus not viable. A U.S.-led free trade zone is likely to be opposed not only by those excluded from it but by the more protectionist U.S. Congress.
Washington has yet to fully comprehend the sheer scope and power of three seismic geopolitical shifts — what Chinese President Xi Jinping calls “great changes unseen in a century” — that are creating a fractured and fragmented world in which Pax Americana is no more.
The first seismic shift is, of course, recognized by U.S. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, at least as far as it affects the White House’s domestic ambitions. Neoliberal economics, dominant for three decades, bequeathed a globalization that was open but not sufficiently inclusive. That economic order, in which half the world enjoyed higher living standards but many in the United States and the West stagnated, is being replaced by neo-mercantilist economics as states redefine their economic self-interest in terms of security protection. Resilience now trumps the old desire for efficiency; guaranteed supply trumps cost; and “just in case” matters more than “just in time.” Where once economics drove politics, politics is now driving economics — as evidenced by the trade, technology, investment, and data protectionism gripping the globe.
The second shift is not so well understood in Washington. Policymakers have failed to wake up to the full implications as the 30-year-old certainties of a unipolar world are giving way to the uncertainties of a multipolar world. This is not, of course, a world that can be described as “multipolar” in the narrow sense that three or more countries have equal power and status — and some writers have therefore concluded that there is still a “partial unipolarity.” Rather, multipolarity means a world of multiple and competing centers of power, with huge implications for future U.S. relationships around the globe. We have seen this at work in dramatic form in the resistance of half the world — most non-Western countries — to supporting Ukraine in its war against Russia. Only around 30 are imposing sanctions against Moscow.
Yet another more menacing measure of multipolarity reflecting the growing group of multiplayers, as described in Ashley J. Tellis’s book Striking Asymmetries, is the possible proliferation of nuclear weapons. If Iran secures a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Egypt will all likely seek to go nuclear. And as China’s nuclear weapons arsenal expands from around 400 warheads to more than 1,500 by 2035, South Korea and Japan will need more definitive assurances from the United States if they are not to become nuclear weapon states in their own right.
Multipolarity means a world of multiple and competing centers of power, with huge implications for future U.S. relationships around the globe.
Mainly as a result of the move away from neoliberalism and unipolarity, from one hegemon and one hegemonic world-view, a third seismic shift is underway. The hyperglobalization that characterized much of the last 20 years is being superseded by a new kind of globalization. It is not deglobalization, for trade is still growing (not at twice the rate of the world economy, as before, but keeping pace with it). In fact, global merchandise trade hit record levels in 2022. Global exports of digital services reached $3.8 trillion in 2022, or 54 percent of total export services.
This resurgent nationalism is expressed in an even more aggressive way. More and more governments and peoples are thinking in terms of a struggle between “us and them”: insiders versus outsiders.
The geopolitical fallout from these seismic changes gives us a world in flux — or worse, one that is fracturing and in danger of breaking up. The old global architecture that gave us fixed allegiances and unbreakable alliances is under strain. A new global pathway is being laid, and old alliances are being reassessed, with the notable exception of an expanded NATO through which the United States has, to its credit, brought trans-Atlantic security cooperation back to life. The G-7, not the G-20, is now seen by Sullivan as the “steering committee of the free world.” But that leaves a G-180+ feeling unimpressed and unrepresented. And with other long-enduring relationships under strain, the geopolitical landscape is strewn with ragged, overlapping, and competing arrangements. Without any new plan to bring people together, we face a decade of disorder before the cement will set.
Already countries released from the unipolar straitjacket are enjoying and making a virtue of their distance from the great powers, practicing what the Singapore-based scholar Danny Quah calls “Third Nation agency” — not only breaking free from traditional loyalties and partnerships but creating new and often transitory alliances.
It is not just in the interests of Africa, the Middle East, and Europe to promote a more stable multilateralism. To be more effective globally, the United States must start by losing its bias against the international institutions it created and has led. Why? Because the lure of the old version of Pax Americana is no longer strong enough to entice the rest of the world to respond to U.S. power.
I have found over the years that even when reforms have been urgently needed to recognize, for example, the rising economic strength of emerging countries on the boards of the IMF and World Bank and to recapitalize these institutions, the United States has had a habit of dragging its feet. Too often, Washington has been silent as calls have grown even from its closest allies such as the U.K. to update global institutions or end stalemates at the U.N., and the reason for this is almost certainly the survival of a unipolar mindset long after it has become anachronistic and even naive. Today, the United States lacks the power it had in the past to direct these unreformed institutions through the back door when, as most members are painfully aware, the institutions cannot flourish without fundamental reforms upfront.
Consider this: It is because the United States is too often trapped in the old mindset of the unipolar era that it walked away from the very trade agreement — the Trans-Pacific Partnership — that the Obama administration forged to contain China. It is indeed an irony that the group the United States envisioned to exclude China is now under pressure to bring China on board. It makes sense for an America that has pivoted to the Pacific to be part of the continent’s biggest trade partnership; however, it continues to give the impression that it will not join any club it does not create and control.
The international architecture assembled in the 1940s must be reimagined for the needs of the 2020s, when in a more economically integrated economy, a more socially interconnected and geopolitically interdependent world, every country’s independence is qualified by global interdependence. We may not be able to build a wholly new Parthenon, but we must find a way to avoid camping out in the ruins of an Acropolis. To avoid that, change must follow, Gordon Brown stresses.
Eine Bankrotterklärung für die Nachrichten-Redaktion: Über sieben Minuten interviewt Dunja Hayali vom ZDF den „Militärexperten“ Carlo Masala im heute journal. Thema: Der Ukraine-Krieg. Sieben Minuten lang spielen sich die beiden die Bälle zu. Sieben Minuten, in denen Hayali und Masala im Gleichklang von einer „Allianz der Willigen“ sprechen. Mehr Waffen für die Ukraine? Selbstverständlich. Zweifel? Keine. Kritischer Journalismus? Unter den Rädern. Ein Kommentar von Marcus Klöckner.
Das Interview, das das ZDF am Dienstag den Gebührenzahlern vorgesetzt hat, könnte inhaltlich direkt aus der NATO-Pressestelle kommen. Carlo Masala, Politikwissenschaftler von der Bundeswehr-Universität in München, ist im Hinblick auf den Ukraine-Krieg als Hardliner bekannt. Ginge es nach dem Spezialisten für Internationale Politik, würde die NATO die Ukraine mit maximaler Kraft „unterstützen“. Wer als Journalist Masala interviewt, weiß: Geliefert wird, was der Bestellung entspricht. Differenzierung, Grautöne, kritische Hinterfragung westlicher Tiefenpolitik und NATO-Märchen zum Krieg? Fehlanzeige! Dafür: Ein klar strukturiertes Feindbild.
Wer als Journalist für eines der Nachrichtenflaggschiffe des öffentlich-rechtlichen Rundfunks einen Experten wie Masala interviewen will, muss sich die Frage gefallen lassen: Warum solch ein Interview? Welchen Neuigkeitswert haben die in dem Interview getätigten Aussagen Masalas? Zusammengefasst hört sich das so an: Wenn die USA ihre „Unterstützung“ für die Ukraine zurückziehen, muss Europa mit genügend Kraft einspringen. Aber: Europa ist gespalten, „es muss Bewegung da reinkommen“, auf dem Schlachtfeld fehlt der Ukraine Munition.
Neuigkeitswert? Null. Das wurde alles schon von zahlreichen, den NATO-Erzählungen nahestehenden Experten, Journalisten und Publizisten gesagt. Nur: Vielleicht wurde es noch nicht von allen Bürgern gehört. Vielleicht hat die heute-journal-Redaktion deshalb Masala zum Interview gebeten. Doch wenn das die Motivation war, dann stinkt es nach Propaganda – die bekanntlich jeden Bürger erreichen will.
„Es braucht eine Allianz der Willigen“
Was auch immer die Motivation der verantwortlichen Redakteure war: Aus journalistischer Sicht wäre eine kritische Auseinandersetzung mit Masalas Standpunkt eine zwingend gebotene Notwendigkeit gewesen. Mehr Waffen? Warum? Sind hunderttausende tote, verstümmelte, schwer traumatisierte ukrainische und russische Soldaten noch nicht genug? Was bewirken mehr Waffen? Ist es nicht so, dass die „Eskalationsdominanz“ bei Russland liegt? Kann Russland nicht immer härter gegen eine durch Waffen stärker gemachte Ukraine vorgehen und durchgreifen – bis gegebenenfalls hin zum Einsatz von Atomwaffen? Wie viel Blut soll noch fließen, bevor die Waffen schweigen? Warum soll sich Deutschland überhaupt an einem Stellvertreterkrieg beteiligen? Oder handelt es sich etwa nicht um einen Stellvertreterkrieg? Welche Begründung würde der Experte anführen? Und vor allem: Wie würde so eine „Begründung“ aussehen, wenn man sich dabei nicht bis auf die Knochen blamieren möchte?
Nichts von alledem ist in Hayalis Interview zu hören. Stattdessen fragt die Journalistin:
„Bräuchte es dann eine Allianz der Willigen (…)?“
Masala antwortet:
„Es braucht eine Allianz der Willigen (…).“
Zwei Mal im Gleichklang die einprägsame Formulierung angeführt. Käme dieses Wortkonstrukt von einem NATO-PR-Berater: Er hätte zufrieden genickt. Und: „Allianz“ – der Begriff erinnert an Krieg der Sterne. Die „Allianz“, das waren „die Guten“. Irgendwo schwingt bei einem, vielleicht der Werbung nicht abgeneigten Zuschauer im Hinterkopf der Werbespruch mit: „Hoffentlich Allianz versichert“, schließlich: Versichert zu sein, das ist schon etwas Feines.
Anders gesagt: Auch in der Wahl der Formulierungen bestand Einigkeit. Genauso wie Aussagen, die in ihrer Banalität und ihrer beschönigenden Wirkung eigentlich nicht in eine seriöse Nachrichtensendung gehören: „Also ohne Material und ohne Mensch, also ohne Soldaten, kann man natürlich auch keinen Krieg gewinnen“, so die erfahrene Moderatorin.
Wo waren, so darf man fragen, die kritischen Redakteure im Hintergrund der Sendung, die Hayali wenigstens nach zwei Jahren Krieg vor der Sendung erklärt haben, dass Kriege nicht gewonnen werden können? Wenn erst einmal tausende, zehntausende und hunderttausende Soldaten blutgetränkt auf dem Schlachtfeld getötet wurden, dann sprechen allenfalls noch unverbesserliche Diplom-Euphemisten von einem „Gewinnen“. Mit „Gewinnen“ hat die Situation in der Ukraine schon lange nichts mehr zu tun. Verlierer sind alle. Doch es ist genau diese Sicht, der das heute journal Raum geben müsste.
Journalisten, die ihren Auftrag ernst nehmen, sind zur Abbildung der Realität verpflichtet. Die direkte oder indirekte Kriegstreiberei, sei es aus Unwissenheit oder welchen Gründen auch immer, gehört, allgemein gesprochen, nicht zur Aufgabe von Journalisten. Stattdessen tropft in diesem Interview aus allen Poren, was der US-amerikanische Soziologe Charles Wright Mills einmal als „militärische Metaphysik“ benannt hat. Das heißt: Die Logik des Kampfes und des Krieges hat die Wahrnehmung auf die Realität übernommen. Die Worte „Frieden“ und „Friedensverhandlungen“ kommen in dem gesamten Interview übrigens genau null mal vor. Das heute journal hat mit der Ausstrahlung dieses Interviews eine journalistische Bankrotterklärung abgegeben.
Dekadenz, Selbsthass und eine überforderte „drittklassige Elite“: Die Tageszeitung „Daily Telegraph“ sieht schwarz für Europa. Zu viele Krisen würden den Kontinent belasten – ob Migration, Demokratiedefizit, Geburtenrückgang, umfinanzierbarer Sozialstaat, katastrophale Wirtschaftspolitik. Ehrgeizige Europäer sollten woanders hinziehen.
Stefan Beig8. Feber 2024 14:15
Macron, Von der Leyen, Scholz: Kann Europas jetzige Führung den Niedergang aufhalten? Eine britische Tageszeitung sagt Nein.
Diesmal ist es zu spät, Europas Niedergang lässt sich nicht mehr aufhalten. „Der Kontinent ist nicht in der Lage, sich von seiner derzeitigen wirtschaftlichen, militärischen und demografischen Krise zu erholen“, schreibt der Redakteur Allister Heath in einem Leitartikel für die renommierte britische Tageszeitung „Daily Telegraph“. „Die Fäulnis ist zu weit fortgeschritten, der Niedergang zu ausgeprägt, der Wohlfahrtsstaat, die Dekadenz, der Pazifismus und der Selbsthass zu tief verwurzelt, die Spirale des Untergangs unaufhaltsam.“
Der „Telegraph“-Leitartikel listet zahlreiche Probleme auf, die sich permanent verschlimmern, aber nicht gelöst werden. Gleichzeitig spart er nicht mit scharfer Kritik an den heillos überforderten europäischen Politikern.
Kurz: Wirtschaftspolitisch versage Europa, geopolitisch sei es bedeutungslos. Die EU leide unter einem Demokratiedefizit. An einer Lösung der Migrationskrise scheitere sie. Gleichzeitig würde die Zerstörung erfolgreicher Industrien und eine Verarmung der Bürger in Kauf genommen, um den Planeten zu retten.
Zum wirtschaftlichen Niedergang geselle sich noch der Geburtenrückgang hinzu. Die europäischen Wohlfahrtsstaaten würden implodieren, Pensionen könnten nicht mehr ausgezahlt und die Gesundheitsheitsversorgung nicht mehr aufrechterhalten werden. Damit werde auch Wohlstand einbrechen, und Europa noch mehr gegenüber den Vereinigten Staaten ins Hintertreffen geraten. Als internationaler Akteur ist es ohnehin schon irrelevant.
Seit 2015 nimmt der Zustrom illegaler Migranten in die EU kein Ende.
Nihilismus und „soziale Explosion“
Das alles habe sich Europa selbst eingebrockt, seine „selbstverschuldeten Pathologien“ würden sich „metastasenartig ausweiten“: „Sie sind zu komplex geworden, zu entmutigend für Europas drittklassige Eliten, um sie auch nur in Erwägung zu ziehen“. Die „selbstsüchtigen, demagogischen Politiker“, würden mit „Sorglosigkeit über den sozialen Zerfall“ herrschen. „Deutschland, Frankreich, die Niederlande und andere Länder stehen am Rande einer sozialen Explosion“. Der europäische Kontinent habe sich von seinen eigenen Errungenschaften verabschiedet, es herrscht „Nihilismus, postchristliches Heidentum, Illiberalismus“.
Europas Eliten werden der Lage nicht Herr. Im Bild: Roberta Metsola, die Präsidentin des EU-Parlaments.
Dazu liefert der Leitartikel ein paar Fakten: Die EU-Bevölkerung altert, gleichzeitig wird sie laut Eurostat in zwei Jahren mit 453,3 Millionen ihren Höchststand erreichen „und dann bis zum Jahr 2100 trotz massiver Einwanderung auf 419,5 Millionen schrumpfen“. Um das Gesundheitssystem und die Pensionen für die Alten zu finanzieren, werden die Steuern für die Jungen in die Höhe schießen. „Die einzige Antwort der Euro-Eliten, noch mehr Migration, wird potenziell gefährlichen Extremisten Auftrieb geben.“
Gleichzeitig vergrößert sich die Kluft im Lebensstandard zwischen Amerika und Europa. „Im vergangenen Quartal 2023 wuchs das US-BIP um annualisierte 3,3 Prozent, die Eurozone wuchs um null Prozent und die deutsche Wirtschaft schrumpfte erneut. … „Das Hochsteuer- und Hochregulierungsmodell des Kontinents hat zu jahrzehntelanger Leistungsschwäche geführt“. Gleichzeitig „zerstören die Deutschen ihre Autoindustrie, und Europa wird stattdessen chinesische Elektrofahrzeuge importieren.“
Zurzeit kümmern sich noch die USA um die militärische Verteidigung Europas. Wie lange noch? Im Bild: Macron (l.) und Trump (r.)
Europas Verteidigung werde zurzeit „von den leidgeprüften US-Steuerzahlern geschultert“ – wie lange noch? „Die Franzosen sind im Kampf gegen die Houthis nirgends zu sehen; ihre Armee ist nur noch ein Schatten ihrer selbst und würde in einem echten Krieg nicht lange durchhalten.“ Gleichzeitig sei „das deutsche Militär ein Witz“: „All die großen Versprechungen zum Wiederaufbau der europäischen Armeen im Jahr 2022 haben nichts gebracht. Der Kontinent ist fast vollständig entmilitarisiert“.
Desolate Bundeswehr? Im Bild: der deutsche Verteidigungsminister Boris Pistorius (SPD)APA/AFP/Tobias SCHWARZ
Besser in die USA ziehen – trotz aller Probleme dort
Fazit: „Jeder junge, ehrgeizige Europäer wäre besser dran, wenn er nach Amerika ziehen würde, vor allem nach Florida oder Texas“ – zwei besonders erfolgreiche, konservative US-Bundesstaaten. Dort werden sie „weniger Steuern zahlen. Sie werden ein besseres, glücklicheres und freieres Leben führen. Sie werden mit geringerer Wahrscheinlichkeit einem totalen Krieg ausgesetzt sein. Ihr Lebensstandard wird drastisch höher sein.“
Zwar sei auch Amerika „krank“. Das zeige „sein eigener sozialer Verfall, der Aufstieg der ‚Woke‘-Ideologie und die absurde Neuauflage des Geriatrie-Wettstreits zwischen Donald Trump und Joe Biden“. Allerdings sei noch genügend „kapitalistischer Geist, Dynamik, Unternehmertum, Liebe zur Wissenschaft, zur Leistungsgesellschaft und zur Technologie übrig geblieben, um die gegenwärtigen Schwierigkeiten zu überstehen“ – im Gegensatz zu „Paris, Berlin, Rom oder Brüssel“.
Somit stehe fest: „In dem 248 Jahre währenden innerwestlichen Wettstreit zwischen den USA und Europa hat es nur einen Gewinner gegeben.“
President Vladimir Zelensky’s decree on Russian lands “historically inhabited by Ukrainians” opens a hornet’s nest
At the end of January, Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky signed a decree on “Russian Territories Historically Inhabited by Ukrainians,” which includes measures aimed at “preserving the national identity of Ukrainians” in Russia.
“This is the restoration of the truth about the historical past for the sake of Ukraine’s future,” Zelensky said in a video address on his country’s annual Day of Unity.
The published decree states that the Kiev government has been instructed to develop and submit an action plan to the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine concerning a number of historical Russian borderlands – namely, Kuban Region and Starodubshchyna, as well as northern and eastern Slobozhanshchyna, which correspond to Russia’s present-day Krasnodar, Belgorod, Bryansk, Voronezh, Kursk, and Rostov regions.
The government will also have to “debunk Russian myths about Ukraine” and “develop interaction between Ukrainians and the peoples enslaved by Russia.”
“For centuries, Russia has systematically committed and continues to commit acts aimed at destroying [Ukrainian] national identity, oppressing Ukrainians, violating their rights and freedoms, including on lands which they had historically inhabited,” Zelensky said.
Despite its declarative tone, the decree caused fierce controversy in both Ukrainian and Russian media. Although the document is mainly informational (especially given the failure of last year’s counteroffensive and the difficult situation at the front), it demonstrates that, for Ukraine’s political elite, the military conflict isn’t the only problem; there is also the issue of the two conflicting “visions” of the post-Soviet space and its political, cultural, and economic transformation. Russia’s vision is multinational, conservative, and focused on sovereignty, while Ukraine’s is mono-ethnic, Westernized, and focused on globalization.
Below, RT explores why Vladimir Zelensky started a territorial dispute with Russia two years into the military conflict, explains who had historically inhabited the border regions and who resides there today, and comments on what makes Ukraine’s “imperial” project vulnerable.
From the San river to the Don river
For Ukrainians, Vladimir Zelensky’s decree is mostly a PR step intended to compensate for failures at the front – an attempt that does not change the critical situation in the country in any way. However, the decree is quite significant for the Russian side, since it is the first document to have legally set Ukraine’s claims to a number of Russian territories.
Of course, this is not Ukraine’s first attempt to alter the map of neighboring historical lands inhabited by both Russians and Ukrainians.
Back in 2019, right after Vladimir Zelensky came to power and the parliamentary elections were held, the “Kuban” inter-factional association was created. This organization was supposed to “return ethnic Ukrainian territories into the cultural, political, and social fields [of Ukraine.]”
Incidentally, this association was created by Alexei Goncharenko – a former member of the pro-Russian Party of Regions who studied at the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration in Moscow. He had often spoken in favor of the Russian language, and even wore a “St. George ribbon” [commenorating Soviet veterans of World War Two] on his lapel while posing for a photo next to ex-Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych.
This is not surprising in itself, since Ukrainian politicians occasionally try to boost their ratings by speaking out on the subject of “protecting Ukrainians” in Russia.
The Kuban association was clearly driven by PR goals. This is evident from the fact that, in November 2020, the Ukrainian government adopted a resolution that stated that Russian passports issued in Krasnodar and Rostov regions would not be recognized by Ukraine.
The idea was to “punish” residents of Crimea and the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics who made a choice in favor of Russia. It also affected people living in Rostov and Krasnodar regions, including notably Kuban Cossacks – descended from the Zaporozhye Cossacks –who weren’t able to visit their historical land.
Ukraine’s former deputy prime minister for European and Euro-Atlantic integration, and current Minister of Foreign Affairs Dmitry Kuleba also laid claim to Russian territories. For example, in December 2019, he said Ukraine could expand at the expense of “several regions” of Russia. “In order to restore historical justice and democratic governance, and introduce European standards of living,” as Kuleba said at the time.
Kuleba accompanied his words with a map that eloquently illustrated the scale of Ukraine’s territorial ambitions. On it, Ukraine’s western borders stretched as far as the central regions of Poland, and the eastern ones approached the Caspian Sea, “swallowing up” Kuban.
The creator of this “Overview Map of the Ukrainian Lands” was Stepan Rudnitsky (1877-1937) – a Ukrainian nationalist and adviser to the government of the West Ukrainian People’s Republic. In the Soviet years, he was engaged in geographical and cartographical research in Kharkov, and is considered the founder of Ukraine’s geographical science.
Rudnitsky was the ideologist“responsible” for Ukraine’s subsequent territorial claims to Kuban, Rostov, Voronezh, Belgorod, and Kursk regions, and even Stavropol Region and part of the Caucasus.
Like many Ukrainian nationalists, he was born in Austria-Hungary and was educated at Lviv University, where he met historian Mikhail Grushevsky – the author of the concept that Ukraine is the sole heir of Kievan Rus. Under Grushevsky’s influence, Rudnitsky became interested in history but, failing to become a historian, took up geography instead.
In Ukraine, Stepan Rudnitsky is considered a “great intellectual” who declared the “geopolitical rights” of the Ukrainian people, and whose work in this regard has been referred to for 100 years. However, his actual contribution to geographical science is highly doubtful. For the most part, Rudnitsky’s activities dealt with propaganda and were devoted to justifying the right of a then-non-existent country to independence and to proving the “exclusively Aryan worldview of the Ukrainian people.”
Based on the population censuses of Austria-Hungary in the years 1867-1910, the census held in the Russian Empire in 1897, statistical data, information from ethnographic maps, as well as his own expeditions, Rudnitsky determined the “ethnographic borders” of Ukraine in the 1910s. His map was based on these borders. “Ukraine is a land entirely inhabited by Ukrainians, or, as it is also called, Ukrainian national (ethnic) territory,”wrote Rudnitsky while creating his controversial map.
Nevertheless, Ukraine’s subsequent territorial claims to Russian lands were all based on Rudnitsky’s research. For example, the map “From the San river to the Don river” was published in France and presented by the delegation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR) at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919-1920. This map included Rostov-on-Don – the largest city in Russia’s southern region – as well as Crimea, Kuban, and the Sochi coast.
“Ancestral” lands
Modern Ukrainian politicians and public figures also refer to Stepan Rudnitsky’s map and research.
But speaking of the “native Ukrainian lands” claimed by modern Ukraine, we must note the episodic nature of Ukrainian statehood in the period between the Pereiaslav Agreement of 1654 (when representatives of the Zaporozhye Cossacks along with Hetman Bogdan Khmelnitsky pledged allegiance to Russian Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich — RT) and the collapse of the USSR in 1991. According to Ukrainian nationalists, “Ukrainian lands” are any lands where ethnic Ukrainians had once resided, as well as lands officially claimed by the UPR after WWI.
In other words, the grounds are either ethnic (“Ukrainians lived there, and later these lands were ‘Russified’”) or (less often) historical. Obviously, looking at things this way leads to an extremely broad interpretation of the term “ancestral lands.”
First, let’s look at the historical justification of these territorial claims.
The historical region known as Sloboda Ukraine, or Slobozhanshchina (a historical region that was tax-free and mainly inhabited by refugees from the Polish nobility — RT) used to include some lands that are now part of Russia’s Belgorod Region. Between the 16th and 18th centuries, many people settled in this border region of the “Wild Fields steppe.” These were mainly Cossacks from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth who fled from persecution. The settlers served as military guards and defended the border area, blocking the road to Moscow for the Crimean Tatars.
The region was formed between the Cossack Hetmanate (which later became known as Malorussia or Little Russia) and the Don Host Oblast, and was mainly inhabited by Cossacks. But, unlike the Cossack Hetmanate, Slobozhanshchina was never ruled by hetmans and did not take part in the Pereiaslav Agreement of 1654, since it was already part of the Russian Kingdom (as part of Belgorod) and was under the administration of the Belgorod voivode.
Later, in 1718, Slobozhanshchina was divided between the Kiev (Akhtyrsk and Kharkov regiments) and Voronezh (Izyum and Ostrogozhsk) provinces. In 1765, the Sloboda Ukrainian Governorate was formed, with a center in Kharkov. Until 1917, these lands constantly changed administrative and territorial affiliation, but remained part of one country.
For a certain period of time, Bryansk lands (i.e. the above-mentioned Starodub region) were indeed part of the Cossack Hetmanate (officially called the Zaporozhian Cossack Army). After many years of armed confrontation with the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, in the 1640s-1650s the Cossacks of Little Russia turned to Russia with a request for them to be accepted into the Tsardom of Russia. Later, the lands of the former Starodub Regiment belonged to the Novgorod-Seversk viceroyalty, and then to Chernigov province. After the establishment of Soviet power and lengthy party disputes, including discussions with the Belarusian side, which also laid claim to the land, some of these border territories were passed on from the Ukrainian SSR to the RSFSR.
Ukraine also lays claims to Voronezh and Taganrog, although Voronezh was founded during the times of Ivan the Terrible by boyar Mikhail Vorotynsky, and Taganrog was established by Peter the Great. Voronezh was part of Azov Province until 1708, and then became the center of Voronezh Province. For many years, Taganrog had been governed directly from St. Petersburg as a strategic fortress and a port on the Sea of Azov. In 1888, it ceased to be part of Yekaterinoslav Province and became the center of the Taganrog District of Don Host Oblast.
As for Kuban, which used to be part of the Ottoman Empire until Russia’s victory over it, cossacks from the Black Sea Cossack Army were sent to this region at the end of the 18th century in order to form a cordon and protect against Circassian raids. From 1860 to 1918, the lands of the Kuban army became known as Kuban Region. During the chaos of the revolution, the independent Kuban People’s Republic (KPR) – which fought for a united and indivisible Russia – sprang up on the territory of Kuban Region.
Revolutionary chaos
The turning point, which paved the way for Ukraine’s future independence and the revision of borders, was the coming to power of the Bolsheviks in 1917. At that time, Ukraine’s Central Rada announced the creation of the Ukrainian People’s Republic (UPR) – i.e. the first Ukrainian state – which prior to these fatal events had declared autonomy within a democratic, federal “Russian Republic.”
For the most part, the territories claimed by the UPR at the time corresponded to Ukraine’s modern borders (minus Crimea). The fate of the disputed regions (parts of Slobozhanshchina, Starodub and Voronezh regions) was to be decided later, “according to the organized will of the peoples.”
Modern-day Ukrainian historians erroneously claim that in 1918, the Kuban People’s Republic (just like the Don Cossacks) concluded an alliance with the UPR against the Bolsheviks. Supposedly, this was a step towards the creation of a federal state, one that would justify Ukraine’s territorial claims. But in reality, it was only a military alliance, aimed at countering the Bolshevik threat.
Meanwhile, Ukraine forgets another event that happened in those same years. In 1918, the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic (DKSR) was formed in Kharkov, as part of the RSFSR. DKSR was supposed to act as a “counterbalance” to the “bourgeois” UPR. At the time, DKSR territory included large parts of modern Ukraine – including the Kharkov and Yekaterinoslav provinces, part of Kherson province, some districts of the Taurida province up to the Crimean isthmus, and the adjacent industrial districts of the Don Host Oblast.
In reality, during the Revolution, there was no time for the boundary delimitation of any quasi-state, including Ukraine.
After the Revolution, Ukraine’s struggle for independence ended in failure. Most national formations in Ukraine became part of the USSR. But, despite the fact that there was no independent state, the Ukrainian national movement continued to develop. Moreover, the formation of the USSR in the shape and form that was proposed by Vladimir Lenin played a decisive role in establishing Ukraine’s independence 70 years later.
In the early 1920s, the authorities intended to clearly define the borders of the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR. The Bolsheviks divided the territory of Don Host Oblast (presently Russia’s Rostov Region, and Donetsk and Lugansk regions) between the RSFSR and the Ukrainian SSR. In 1926, Ukraine transferred parts of Taganrog district (along with the city of Taganrog) and Shakhty district over to Russia (these regions were initially given to the Ukrainian People’s Republic of Soviets in 1918), and received territories in Kursk and Voronezh provinces in return.
Things were constantly changing. For example, due to the constant disputes over Belgorod, there were attempts to implement “reverse Ukrainization” in the region, in line with the Bolshevik principle of “supporting small nations.” These efforts started under Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin (until 1933), and continued under Nikita Khrushchev.
At a rural level, territories were transferred back and forth between the RSFSR and Ukrainian SSR for several decades, and usually, no one asked the local population whether they wanted to be part of this or that republic. Such was the case when Nikita Khrushchev transferred Crimea Region over to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954.
For these reasons, due to the constantly changing borders and the fleeting nature of Ukrainian statehood, Ukraine’s “historically based” territorial claims look extremely unconvincing.
Ethnic borders
The ethnic justifications of Ukraine’s territorial claims are also out of touch with reality.
In the first half of the 20th century, one’s ethnic identity largely depended on the political decisions made by the authorities. Alexey Miller – a historian and expert on nations and nationalism – wrote that the “gray zone” also persisted in Soviet times. A person could easily “become” either Russian or Ukrainian depending on the situation, as well as educational and national policies.
“While Leonid Brezhnev lived in Dnepropetrovsk, his passport stated his nationality as ‘Ukrainian.’ After he moved to Moscow, it was changed to ‘Russian.’ After 1991, many people changed their national identity the other way around. For example, according to the 1989 Soviet census, there were 11.3 million Russians in Ukraine. However, by 2001, when Ukraine’s only census was held, there were only 8.3 million [Russians] left. Three million people just vanished. Most of them did not move to Russia, but changed the nationality in their passports,” the expert said.
The “korenization” (nativization) policy particularly influenced the formation of the Ukrainian national identity and the subsequent creation of the Ukrainian SSR. The Bolsheviks set out to eliminate the consequences of “Russification” carried out by the Russian Empire. They encouraged the local elites, assigned official status to minority languages, and financed culture and media in these languages. As a result, Belarusians and “Little Russians” (Ukrainians) – two ethnic groups that formed the core of the Russian nation – created “independent” nations and pursued their own ideologies within state borders that had never existed before.
The korenization policy was implemented for practical reasons: after the end of the Civil War, the Bolsheviks needed to win the sympathy of the rural population and show that the Soviet government was different from the “imperialistic chauvinistic White Guard.” During the Stalin years, Ukrainization was gradually curtailed. However, in all schools of the Ukrainian SSR (including Russian ones), students were required to study the Ukrainian language (although one could request to be “exempt” from these classes). Books and newspapers were published in Ukrainian, and later there were Ukrainian-language programs on radio and television.
At the time, the borders between the two republics were mostly a formality. Russians and Ukrainians intermingled and lived on both sides of the administrative border (as they do now). However, the party-endorsed priority of Ukrainian culture over Russian culture was evident. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Ukrainian Bolsheviks oversaw the Ukrainization of Kuban and Rostov regions, and certain districts of Kursk and Voronezh regions. Just like in the Ukrainian SSR, schools, enterprises, and organizations in these regions had to transition to the Ukrainian language.
As a result, even in those territories that were not part of the Ukrainian SSR – such as the southern parts of Voronezh Region, Kuban, Taganrog, etc. – the former “Little Russians” (or, “hokhly,” as they called themselves before “korenization”) refer to themselves as “Russian hokhly” [Russian Ukrainians], even though most of them consider themselves to be Russian.
One fact in particular plainly illustrates how vague the “ethnic” justification of Ukraine’s territorial claims really is.
Until the fall of 1924, the above-mentioned city of Taganrog was part of the Ukrainian SSR, but then it was transferred to the southeastern region of the RSFSR. The distance between Taganrog and Mariupol, which remained part of the Ukrainian SSR, is 100km.
According to the 2010 census, 93% of the population in Taganrog identified as Russian. According to the 2001 census, in Mariupol, 48% of the population called themselves Ukrainians, while 44% identified as Russian. At the same time, 89.5% of the population said Russian was their native language.
The fact that part of Mariupol’s population said Russian was their native language but identified as Ukrainian is the direct result of Soviet-era Ukrainization. Meanwhile, in Taganrog, “Ukrainization” must have been quickly curtailed, since the people who spoke Russian continued to identify as Russian.
The only “difference” between the population of Mariupol and Taganrog (and that of all other border towns) comes down to the line between the Ukrainian SSR and the RSFSR, which was drawn up by the Soviet government.
***
Vladimir Zelensky’s decree on the preservation of Ukrainian national identity in Russia is a good reason to have an earnest conversation about Ukrainian identity. After all, the concept of identity is perhaps the main issue in the current conflict. The historical region that includes both Ukraine and Russia is a territory of constantly changing identity. Considering the fact that, for centuries, these lands were constantly transferred from one side to another, this is hardly surprising.
As a result, people in these regions may naturally change their “national identity” more than once throughout the course of their lives. Moreover, the authorities can influence self-identification through propaganda and education. So while one day, Russians and Ukrainians are considered “one people,” the next day they are called “different peoples,” or vice versa.
Nations are formed and created anew, they do not have fixed and predetermined borders. If the Bolsheviks had incorporated Kharkov into the RSFSR, it would’ve now been a lot like Belgorod; and if Belgorod were a part of the Ukrainian SSR (as some people in Soviet Ukraine had suggested in the 1920s), its inhabitants would now have a different view of Russia.
In this sense, constructing such an “imperial” project and playing around with Russia’s national identity can end badly for Ukraine, which is still home to millions of Russians. Due to the peculiarities of the macroregion, Ukraine’s national identity is subject to swift (by historical standards) changes. In the modern context, this does not imply the denial of Ukrainian identity as such, but only the denial of the nationalist version of Ukrainian identity, which is encouraged by the country’s authorities – in other words, the hostility towards Russia and the failure to recognize the existence of the Russian population in Ukraine.
*Petr Lavrenin, an Odessa-born political journalist and expert on Ukraine and the former Soviet Union
Woher dieser Wunderknabe nur immer das Geld hernimmt, um ein blutiges Faß ohne Boden zu stopfen!
Bundeskanzler Olaf Scholz (SPD) will bei seinem Besuch in den USA für eine anhaltende Unterstützung der Ukraine werben.
“Es geht jetzt darum, wie Europa, aber auch die Vereinigten Staaten, die Unterstützung für die Ukraine verstetigen können”, sagte Scholz am Donnerstag vor seiner Abreise. “Das ist notwendig, denn der russische Angriffskrieg wird unverändert mit großer Härte vorgetragen.” Er führe zu großer Zerstörung in der Ukraine.
“Wir wissen, dass die Ukraine sich wirklich mit allem, was sie hat, verteidigt, aber sie braucht dafür, dass sie das auch weiter tun kann, die Unterstützung”, so Scholz. Und da sei das, was bisher in Europa, aber auch durch die Beschlüsse des US-Kongresses zugesagt sei, noch nicht genug. “Wir müssen also einen Weg erreichen, wie wir alle zusammen mehr tun.”
Scholz reist von Donnerstag bis Freitag in die USA. Nach seiner Ankunft ist unter anderem ein Abendessen mit Mitgliedern des US-Kongresses geplant. Mit US-Präsident Joe Biden trifft er sich am Freitag. Dabei sollen nach Angaben der Bundesregierung der Ukraine-Krieg sowie die Lage im Nahen Osten im Mittelpunkt stehen.Werbung
Die USA wird Scholz den Stinkefinger zeigen und so wird der Ampel nichts anderes übrig bleiben, als ihre Untertanen noch mehr auszusaugen. Damit der Ukraine-Krieg auch immer schon noch ein wenig in die Länge gezogen werden kann. Bis dort nichts mehr steht und Deutschland pleite ist.
Und diese werte Dame ist jetzt natürlich auch im Panik-Modus gelangt:
Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann (FDP) zeigt sich nach der Blockade der Ukraine-Hilfe im US-Kongress besorgt und fordert die Bundesregierung auf, die Führungsrolle in Europa zu übernehmen. “Die Entscheidung des Senats ist eine bittere Aufforderung an Europa und Deutschland, mögliche US-Ausfälle so gut wie möglich selbst zu kompensieren”, sagte die Vorsitzende des Verteidigungsausschusses dem Nachrichtenportal T-Online.
“Deutschland muss hier in Europa die Führungsrolle übernehmen, die von Deutschland erwartet wird, insbesondere vom Bundeskanzler bisher aber ignoriert wurde.” Strack-Zimmermann nimmt auch die EU in die Pflicht: “Es ist erstaunlich, dass Ursula von der Leyen, die immerhin sechs Jahre lang Verteidigungsministerin war, dieses Szenario nicht auf den Kommissionstisch gelegt hat und Europa nun unvorbereitet auf die USA starrt.”
Europa müsse sich bewusst sein, dass die USA zukünftig bei der Unterstützung der Ukraine ausfallen könnten – auch unabhängig davon, wie die Wahl im November ausgehe, so Strack-Zimmermann. “Uns allen muss bewusst sein: Ist die Ukraine nicht erfolgreich, sind Frieden und Freiheit in ganz Europa gefährdet.” So, oder vielleicht doch andersrum? (Mit Material von dts)
Der Friedensstifter 
