Cold War Reloaded - Der neue Ost-West Konflikt

    Zitat von Marner

    Ah geh, seitdem wollte doch Kadyrov die Wagnerianer in Bachmut ablösen, und mittlerweile siegen sie doch schon weiter rückwärts..

    Ich frage mich, ob dieser "offene Brief" an Russlands Führung im russischen Fernsehen ausgestrahlt wurde.

    https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr…s-frappes-russes-16-05-23


    Zitat

    La France condamne avec la plus grande fermeté les frappes de missiles et de drones de grande intensité qui ont de nouveau visé la capitale ukrainienne cette nuit.


    Ces frappes ont une nouvelle fois délibérément ciblé des objectifs civils, en violation flagrante du droit international humanitaire, et marquent la volonté de la Russie de poursuivre l’escalade dans sa guerre d’agression contre l’Ukraine.


    :rolleyes:


    Ihre eigene Übersetzung:


    https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr…n-air-strikes-16-may-2023


    Zitat

    France condemns in the strongest possible terms the high-intensity missile and drone strikes that again targeted the Ukrainian capital last night.


    These strikes once again deliberately targeted civilian objectives in flagrant violation of international humanitarian law. They underscore Russia’s desire to continue escalating its war of aggression against Ukraine.


    Über ein Jahr schon diese Zumutungen.

    In mehr Durchstecher-News sollen US-Vertreter das Patriot-System in Kiev inspiziert und geringe Schäden festgestellt haben:


    https://edition.cnn.com/2023/0…ot-missile-damage-ukraine


    Zitat

    The damage to a Patriot air defense system following a Russian missile attack near Kyiv on Tuesday morning is minimal, three US officials tell CNN, with one official describing it as “minor” damage.


    The US sent inspectors to examine the system on Tuesday after being told by Ukrainian forces that the system appeared to have been damaged, one official said.


    The system itself is still operational, the officials said, and the radar component of the Patriot, one of its most important elements, was not damaged. US officials do not believe the Patriot will need to be removed from the battlefield for repairs.


    Wobei der letzte Satz nicht so klingt, als wenn die Einschätzung abgeschlossen ist.


    Finde ich immer noch merkwürdig, dass die USA das so bereitwillig inoffiziell rausgeben.

    Die CIA hat einen Telegram-Kanal gestartet, um Russen zu rekrutieren:


    https://www.cia.gov/stories/st…aunches-telegram-channel/


    Zitat

    CIA Launches Telegram Channel


    On Monday, for the first time, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) established a presence on Telegram to reach individuals in countries who have no access to other social media or independent media. CIA's inaugural post includes a video in Russian to encourage courageous Russians to share information safely with the Agency.


    Die haben da zwei Videos, die ich dank Webanwendungslimitierungen nicht sehen kann. Aber hier schwärmt jemand von der tollen Botschaft in den/dem Video/s.


    https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1658583690639704067



    Zitat

    The video is not propaganda. Instead, it uses a set of recruitment techniques that nudge people.


    Also keine Propaganda nur Manipulation? Wird immer besser von da an.


    Eine der besten Stellen, falls ihr nicht so weit kommt:


    https://twitter.com/Mylovanov/status/1658583709967347712



    ^^


    Ich meine, wenn wir sowieso alle dem US empire Treue schulden, ist die Zusammenarbeit mit der CIA ja praktisch Dienst am höheren Vaterland.


    Übervaterland über alles. :/

    Zitat von Wemir

    Das soll der Livestream der Kamera sein, die den Masseneinsatz von Abfangraketen gefilmt hat. Nicht mehr verfügbar. In den Kommentaren beschweren sich Leute.


    [...]


    https://www.bbc.com/ukrainian/articles/cxxy63jk1r6o



    Via Google Translate:


    Dieses Bild, das vom finnischen Grenzzaun veröffentlicht wurde, kam wohl nicht so gut an:


    fc2ad76356d4016eb341d34c04be7124.jpg


    (Bildunterschrift: Rajavartiolaitoksen julkaisema kuva aidasta. Aidan päältä puuttuu vielä piikkilankaeste. Aidan korkeus on noin kolme metriä. - Vom Grenzschutz veröffentlichtes Bild des Zauns. An der Spitze des Zauns fehlt noch immer ein Stacheldrahtzaun. Die Höhe des Zauns beträgt etwa drei Meter.)


    https://www.is.fi/kotimaa/art-2000009592315.html



    Via Google Translate:


    Zitat

    - Es ist kein Spielplatz.


    Das sagt Ari Joronen aus Imatra, auf dessen Gelände der finnische Grenzschutz derzeit eine Barriere an der Grenze zwischen Finnland und Russland errichtet.


    Der Zaun hat in der Öffentlichkeit starkes Feedback erhalten. Es wurde aufgrund seines Aussehens kritisiert, beispielsweise als Spielplatzzaun.


    Joronen entpuppt sich als Fan. Obwohl er offenbar denkt zu seinen Lebzeiten ist der Zaun bedeutungslos?



    Via Google Translate:


    Zitat

    – In meiner Zeit wird kaum etwas passieren, aber für die Zukunft ist es toll, dass es so einen (Zaun) gibt. Es wäre besser, wenn es bis zum Norden einen Zaun gäbe, sagte er im April zu Ilta-Sanom.

    Also laut Seymour Hersh gibt es eine Kabale von Osteuropäern, die die Ukraine in einen Waffenstillstand oder sowas manövrieren wollen:


    https://seymourhersh.substack.…-ukraine-refugee-question

    Zitat

    But something else is cooking, as some in the American intelligence community know and have reported in secret, at the instigation of government officials at various levels in Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Estonia, the Czech Republic, and Latvia. These countries are all allies of Ukraine and declared enemies of Vladimir Putin.


    This group is led by Poland, whose leadership no longer fears the Russian army because its performance in Ukraine has left the glow of its success at Stalingrad during the Second World War in tatters. It has been quietly urging Zelensky to find a way to end the war—even by resigning himself, if necessary—and to allow the process of rebuilding his nation to get under way. Zelensky is not budging, according to intercepts and other data known inside the Central Intelligence Agency, but he is beginning to lose the private support of his neighbors.


    Wirklich?


    Für mehr müsste ich abonnieren, aber ich schätze Titel und Anreißer verraten das Motiv dahinter:


    Zitat

    THE UKRAINE REFUGEE QUESTION


    Ukraine's neighbors push for Zelensky to pursue peace as millions of displaced people flow into Europe

    Zur Feier des Männertages mal wieder ein schöner Whataboutism über Männer die auf Waffen starren, in welchem die amerikanischen Autoren die historische Entwicklung des Konflikts nachzeichnen und zu Schlüssen kommen, die man in Deutschland wohl als antiamerikanisches Putin-Narrativ abkanzeln würde:

    Why Are We in Ukraine?

    On the dangers of American hubris


    Zitat von Benjamin Schwarz & Christopher Layne - Harper's Magazine (Juni 2023)

    [...] From the early Nineties, when Washington first raised the idea of NATO expansion, until 2008, when the U.S. delegation at the NATO summit in Bucharest advocated alliance membership for Ukraine and Georgia, U.S.-Russian exchanges were monotonous. While Russians protested Washington’s NATO expansion plans, American officials shrugged off those protests—or pointed to them as evidence to justify still-further expansion. Washington’s message to Moscow could not have been clearer or more disquieting: Normal diplomacy among great powers, distinguished by the recognition and accommodation of clashing interests—the approach that had defined the U.S.-Soviet rivalry during even the most intense stretches of the Cold War—was obsolete. Russia was expected to acquiesce to a new world order created and dominated by the United States.

    The radical expansion of NATO’s writ reflected the overweening aims that the end of the Cold War enabled Washington to pursue. Historically, great powers tend to focus pragmatically on reducing conflict among themselves. By frankly recognizing the realities of power and acknowledging each other’s interests, they can usually relate to one another on a businesslike basis. This international give-and-take is bolstered by and helps engender a rough, contextual understanding of what’s reasonable and legitimate—not in an abstract or absolute sense but in a way that permits fierce business rivals to moderate and accede to demands and to reach deals. By embracing what came to be called its “unipolar moment,” Washington demonstrated—to Paris, Berlin, London, New Delhi, and Beijing, no less than to Moscow—that it would no longer be bound by the norms implicit in great power politics, norms that constrain the aims pursued as much as the means employed. Those who determine U.S. foreign policy hold that, as President George W. Bush declared in his second inaugural address, “the survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.” They maintain, as President Bill Clinton averred in 1993, that the security of the United States demands a “focus on relations within nations, on a nation’s form of governance, on its economic structure.”

    Whatever one thinks of this doctrine, which prompted Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to dub America “the indispensable nation”—and which Gorbachev said defined America’s “dangerous winner’s mentality”—it lavishly expanded previously established conceptions of security and national interest. In its crusading universalism, it could be regarded by other states, with ample supporting evidence, as at best recklessly meddlesome and at worst messianically interventionist. Convinced that its national security depended on the domestic political and economic arrangements of ostensibly sovereign states—and therefore defining as a legitimate goal the alteration or eradication of those arrangements if they were not in accord with its professed ideals and values—the post–Cold War United States became a revolutionary force in world politics.[...]

    "Messianically interventionist" beschreibt eigentlich auch ganz gut die Haltung der EU-Kommission und führender VertreterInnen einer wertebasierten deutschen Außenpolitik gegenüber Russland, China und deren Verbündeten. Auch wenn US-Interessen nicht unbedingt immer mit deutschen oder europäischen Interessen deckungsgleich sind, hat man sich in Berlin und Brüssel offenbar dennoch zumindest die Hybris und den Chauvinimus des westlichen Hegemenons zu eigen gemacht - allerdings ohne dabei über den selben militärischen Gewaltapparat zu verfügen, dessen gewaltiges Abschreckungspotenzial für die US-Führungen auch nach dem gewonnenen kalten Krieg stets die eigentliche Macht hinter der Regelsetzung in der "regelbasierten Ordnung" war.


    Zitat von Harper's Magazine - ebd.

    [...] To be sure, any power imposing a sphere of influence is necessarily behaving in an implicitly aggressive manner. For a power to define an area outside its borders and impose limits on the sovereignty of the states within that area is contrary to the Wilsonian ideals that the United States has professed since 1917. In one of his last speeches as vice president, in 2017, Biden condemned Russia for “working with every tool available to them to . . . return to a politics defined by spheres of influence” and for “seek[ing] a return to a world where the strong impose their will . . . while weaker neighbors fall in line.” Because of America’s commitment to a just and moral world order, Biden insisted, quoting his own words from the Munich Security Conference in 2009, “we will not recognize any nation having a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have the right to make their own decisions and choose their own alliances.”

    That straight-faced stance fails to recognize the spheres of influence, historically unprecedented in their sweep, that the United States claims for itself. Since promulgating the Monroe Doctrine two centuries ago, the United States has explicitly arrogated to itself a sphere of influence extending from the Canadian Arctic to Tierra del Fuego. But its globe-girdling sphere of influence also takes in the expanse, east to west, from Estonia to Australia and right up to the Asian mainland. Missing from the current discussion of the war in Ukraine, then, is any appreciation for how the United States would respond—and has responded—to foreign powers’ incursions into its own sphere of influence. [...]

    Am Beispiel der Kubakrise zeigen die Autoren auf, wie die Kennedy-Administration damals höchst aggressiv auf ein Eindringen der Sowjetuinion in die unmittelbare Einflussspähre der USA reagierte und mit ihrer Seeblockade vor Kuba beinahe den dritten Weltkrieg auslösten. Die Kuba-Krise wurde schliesslich diplomatisch beigelegt, indem die Sowjets ihre atomaren Mittelstreckenwaffen wieder von der karibischen Kommunisteninsel abzogen, und die Amerikaner im Gegenzug ihre eigenen kurz zuvor stationierten Raketen aus der Türkei und Italien.


    Zitat von Harper's Magazine - ebd.

    [...] Washington’s endorsement of Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky’s goal of recovering the “entire territory” occupied by Russia since 2014, and Washington’s pledge, held now for more than fifteen years, that Ukraine will become a NATO member, are major impediments to ending the war. Make no mistake, such an accord would need to make allowances for Russia’s security interests in what it has long called its “near-abroad” (that is, its sphere of influence)—and, in so doing, would require the imposition of limits on Kyiv’s freedom of action in its foreign and defense policies (that is, on its sovereignty).

    Such a compromise, guided by the ethos of the old diplomacy, would be anathema to Washington’s ambitions and professed values. Here, again, the lessons, real and otherwise, of the Cuban Missile Crisis apply. To enhance his reputation for toughness, Kennedy and his closest advisers spread the story that they forced Moscow to back down and unilaterally withdraw its missiles in the face of steely American resolve. In fact, Kennedy—shaken by the apocalyptic potentialities of the crisis that he had largely provoked—secretly acceded to Moscow’s offer to withdraw its missiles from Cuba in exchange for Washington’s withdrawing its missiles from Turkey and Italy. The Cuban Missile Crisis was therefore resolved not by steadfastness but by compromise.

    But because that quid pro quo was successfully hidden from a generation of foreign policy makers and strategists, from the American public, and even from Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy’s own vice president, JFK and his team reinforced the dangerous notion that firmness in the face of what the United States construes as aggression, together with the graduated escalation of military threats and action in countering that aggression, define a successful national security strategy. These false lessons of the Cuban Missile Crisis were one of the main reasons that Johnson was impelled to confront supposed Communist aggression in Vietnam, regardless of the costs and risks. The same false lessons have informed a host of Washington’s interventions and regime-change wars ever since—and now help frame the dichotomy of “appeasement” and “resistance” that defines Washington’s response to the war in Ukraine—a response that, in its embrace of Wilsonian belligerence, eschews compromise and discrimination based on power, interest, and circumstance.

    Even more repellent to Washington’s self-styling as the world’s sole superpower would be the conditions required to reach a comprehensive European settlement in the aftermath of the Ukraine war. That settlement, also guided by the old diplomacy, would need to resemble the vision, thwarted by Washington, that Genscher, Mitterrand, and Gorbachev sought to ratify at the end of the Cold War. It would need to resemble Gorbachev’s notion of a “common European home” and Charles de Gaulle’s vision of a European community “from the Atlantic to the Urals.” And it would have to recognize NATO for what it is (and for what de Gaulle labeled it): an instrument to further the primacy of a superpower across the Atlantic. [...]

    Letztendlich wird eine Rückkehr zur "alten Diplomatie" gefordert. Vermutlich vergeblich, weil wir jetzt eine neue Generation von "Diplomat*innen" haben, die es für besonders fortschrittlich halten, nach der #Zeitenwende mutig auf dem umgekehrten Zeitstrahl voran zu schreiten, und die diplomatische Praxis des kalten Krieges auf dem Rückweg in die 10er Jahre des letzten Jahrhunderts hinter sich zu lassen.

    Ja die Amis haben furchtbar aggressiv drauf reagiert, dass man ihnen einen Revolver ins Gesicht gehalten hat.

    Nur Europäer haben die Coolness (un sind belämmert genug) sich in Kaliningrad eas hinhalten zu lassen ohne zu reagieren...

    Zitat von Marner

    Ja die Amis haben furchtbar aggressiv drauf reagiert, dass man ihnen einen Revolver ins Gesicht gehalten hat.

    Es ist ratsam, die chronologische Abfolge von Ereignissen nochmal zu recherchieren, wenn man sich unsicher ist. Bewahrt mitunter vor ungewolltem Geschichtskitten.

    🕊 57657220646173206c696573742c2064656b6f6469657274206765726e652053616368656e

    Gefällt mir 3

    https://www.democracynow.org/2…aine_war_diplomacy_letter


    (open letter: https://eisenhowermedianetwork.org/russia-ukraine-war-peace/)


    Zitat

    More than a dozen former U.S. national security officials have released an open letter calling for a diplomatic end to the Russia-Ukraine war. The call for peace was published as a full-page ad Tuesday in The New York Times and organized by the Eisenhower Media Network. They called the war an “unmitigated disaster” that the U.S. should work to end before it escalates into a nuclear confrontation. We speak with Dennis Fritz, director of the Eisenhower Media Network and a retired command chief master sergeant of the U.S. Air Force. “The majority of my life has been in and out of the Pentagon, and this is probably the most fearful I’ve ever been with a nuclear escalation,” says Fritz [...]


    A group of former high-ranking national security officials published an open letter in The New York Times Tuesday calling for a diplomatic end to the Russia-Ukraine war. The letter was signed by 15 retired military officials and national security experts, including Ronald Reagan’s ambassador to the USSR. [...]

    Zitat

    As you already have discussed about the devastation and the number of killings that have happened so far, I can only see it continuing. And as we continue to introduce more weapons, it only causes more death and destruction. And this is, you know, to be quite frank with you, in support of the Ukrainian people. You know, it really disturbs me — and I’m just going to have to be candid with you, Amy — that, you know, at the expense of the Ukrainian people, we are fighting a proxy war with Russia to weaken them. And at the same time, the death and destruction is occurring in Ukraine and its people. And that’s devastating.

    Zitat

    AMY GOODMAN: So, now Russia has invaded Ukraine. It’s been a year. What do you think the terms of the negotiations should be? [...]

    DENNIS FRITZ: Well, Amy, that would actually be up to the Ukrainian leadership and President Zelensky, along with negotiating with Russia. But let me just first say that, you know, in negotiations, you’re always going to have to give up something. So, I will think the first thing would be, let’s stop the fighting, and then let’s listen and to see what Russia’s needs and security needs are. And I think that’s what led us here, is because of the fact as Russia was expressing their security needs of us expanding closer to the borders of Russia.

    [...]

    So, the first step in the negotiation process should be actually listening to Russia. They’ve been trying to warn us for years that the expansion of NATO is a concern of theirs. And so, the first thing we have to come to the table is to actually listen to Russian needs, and then whatever decisions abided by. You know, one of the biggest things right now is the Donbas eastern region, where we have Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Those needs must be addressed. You know, there’s been a war going on there for the longest, and Russia, you know, tried to stay out of it, with the Minsk accords, and they tried to abide by it. And, you know, the Ukrainian government at the time was still bombarding the Donbas region. So that has to be discussed. The issue of Crimea will need to be discussed, because I think that needs to be a part of the negotiation table, because the Black Sea is an important part of the world for Russia. And so, you know, the first step will be to actually sit down at the table and have an opportunity to listen to what Russia’s security needs, as well as Ukrainians’ needs and also NATO.

    Zitat

    And let me just mention one other thing, too, as we keep prolonging this war, because one of the things we’re really concerned about, as well, as we continue to prolong this war — well, guess what. That is more death and destruction in Ukraine. It could get to the point where there will be no country for there to be peace, because Russia, if they so desired, could destroy every piece of infrastructure in Ukraine. Do we want to see that?



    Podoljak schließt sich Budanow an:


    https://twitter.com/Podolyak_M/status/1659095840361725952



    Wobei der etwas zurückgerudert war nach seiner Einlassung, dass man Russen überall auf der Welt umbringen will:


    https://english.nv.ua/nation/u…ukraine-war-50325115.html


    Zitat

    Ukrainian military intelligence chief Kyrylo Budanov said that his quote in a recent interview with Yahoo News about killing Russians “anywhere in the world” was misinterpreted, in an interview with Ukrainian media outlet ISLND TV on May 16.


    “This is a cut version,” he explained.


    “The most important part was cut from it: only Russians who are war criminals, who have committed crimes against humanity, crimes such as gang rapes, rapes of minors, murders... It was about them. That clarification was removed from the quote.”

    Jetzt haben die US-Amerikaner sogar offiziell bestätigt, dass das Patriot-System getroffen wurde, gleichzeitig haben sie behauptet, es sei repariert:


    https://www.defense.gov/News/T…y-holds-a-press-briefing/


    Zitat

    Q: Yeah, the -- do you have any insight how the Patriot system in -- in Ukraine failed to capture or to intercept the incoming missile...


    MS. SINGH: I would refer you to the Ukrainians to speak more on how they're operating the Patriot. All I can tell you is - if you're referring to the Patriot that was damaged, you know, it was -- it was temporarily or there was minor damage to the Patriot. It has been repaired, it is fully back online and operational, but for any more specifics on that, I would refer you to the Ukrainians to speak to that.

    Zitat

    Q: I have a couple very quick follow-ups to questions already asked during this briefing. One, in the repair of the Patriot system, to the best of your knowledge, did U.S. help remotely? You know how we've talked about sometimes the U.S. would provide maintenance and stuff, suggestions? And do you know if they -- if the U.S. was able to provide assistance to repair the Patriot remotely?


    MS. SINGH: We have been able to provide assistance in the past with different capabilities. That's something that we've offered in training, and I believe the United States did provide some assistance when it came to the repair of the Patriot.

    Zitat

    Q: When you said the U.S. provided, quote, "some assistance to Ukraine" regarding the Patriot repair work, is that on the ground there in Ukraine? Because that's where the repairs were done. Or was it done remotely or -- can -- could you be sort of -- specify a little bit about how -- what the level of assistance you guys provided?


    MS. SINGH: I'm not going to get into more specifics on the assistance that was provided, only that we did offer our support and provide assistance. But this is not just, you know, one case. We have done this before with other U.S.-provided systems. And again, we have offered training to the Ukrainians that you are aware of both at Fort Sill and in Grafenwoehr that helps them maintain these weapon capabilities on the battlefield.

    Zitat von Marner

    Ja die Amis haben furchtbar aggressiv drauf reagiert, dass man ihnen einen Revolver ins Gesicht gehalten hat.

    Könnten wir mal festhalten, dass das Prinzip, dass sich eine Grossmacht umgehend und rücksichtslos über sämtliche Völkerrechtsnormen hinwegsetzt, wenn sie sich ihrer Einschätzung nach unzulässig bedroht sieht, sich mit der Kubakrise als Standardkerze im geopolitischen Umgang etabliert hat? Die dazumal gesetzten Normen sind: Blockade, Invasion, Mordversuch im Angesicht des nuklearen Armageddons.


    Et voilà. Wieso wir denn ständig angenommen, dass das im umgekehrten Fall nicht genauso kommt und dann auch noch von denen, die das etabliert haben? Und im Vgl zum Irak ist die Kubakrise gepolitisch völlig nachvollziehbar.


    Mehr gibts zur ganzen Situation prinzipiell nicht zu sagen. Der Rest ist Deko und Befindlichkeiten.

    Ukraine could join ranks of ‘frozen’ conflicts, U.S. officials say

    How Ukraine could become the next South Korea.


    Zitat von Marner

    Ja die Amis haben furchtbar aggressiv drauf reagiert, dass man ihnen einen Revolver ins Gesicht gehalten hat.

    Nur Europäer haben die Coolness (un sind belämmert genug) sich in Kaliningrad eas hinhalten zu lassen ohne zu reagieren...



    Achso ja um Kuba auf einzelne Partikel zu reduzieren haben wir auch was im Angebot. Passenderweise von den selben Jungs, die dir schon Korea reduziert haben, wenn du es zugelassen hast auch schon den Irak und hier nun eben auch Kuba. Ganz bald dann ja zum Glück auch noch Afghanistan. Vllt kommen sie ja dann auch in paar Jahren noch zur Ukraine.


    https://blowback.show/Season-2


    Zitat


    After a critically-acclaimed retelling of the Iraq War, season two of Blowback presents the unlikely story of the Cuban Revolution: America’s Cold War crusade brings the world to a nuclear-tipped showdown between the Kennedy brothers, Fidel Castro, the Soviet Union, the CIA, and the Mafia. Co-hosted by Brendan James and Noah Kulwin, season two is a 10-part account of how the United States tried and failed to thwart the creation of a socialist government less than a hundred miles to its south.



    Season two includes 10 bonus episodes, featuring exclusive interviews. Like season one, about the Iraq War, season two is available wherever you get your podcasts.



    https://blowback.show/S2-Sources



    https://open.spotify.com/show/2pibBnPuHqKr07hxEMZE41

Jetzt mitmachen!

Du hast noch kein Benutzerkonto auf unserer Seite? Registriere dich kostenlos und nimm an unserer Community teil!

Benutzerkonto erstellen Anmelden