Atrox schrieb:Ist das auch so ein
Fierna schrieb:
Bauchgefühl.
?
Ne, man müsste sich nur ein wenig mit dem Konflikt beschäftigen und mit den russischen Aussagen diesbzgl und weniger Zeit damit verbringen, sich selbst bzgl der eigenen komplexen Denkweise und der Fähigkeit "Grautöne" und "gaaaaaanz objektiv" zu sehen zu inszenieren.
“You don’t have to worry. We will help you. We will provide [European] security.” RIA Novosti noted at the time: “Europe’s allergy to gunpowder can allow us to develop a profitable business. It is not without reason that Vladimir Putin has offered Russia’s services to ensure European security. […] To paraphrase Lord Ismay, we can say that the common security space discussed by Macron and Putin at the St. Petersburg forum can be built according to the formula: ‘The United States must be kicked out of Europe, Russia’s interests in Europe must be taken into account, Europe’s independence must be supported.’“1
[...]
The evolution of the Kremlin’s European policy follows that of its domestic policy: at first co-optation by bribery and blackmail, then an increasing role for intimidation. This can be seen in the construction, against all odds, of the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline, which is at the same time an instrument for recruiting German politicians and businessmen, an instrument for the geopolitical downgrading of Ukraine and for the ruin of this country, and a means of ensuring Europe’s submission to the Kremlin, especially when the gas argument is reinforced by military intimidation.
[...]
“The United States and Germany will be left empty-handed with their sanctions. This will be a good lesson for them as well”. “In 2023, a freezing Europe will burn its libraries in the chimneys,” svpressa gloats.
[...]
On November 4, Jean-Yves Le Drian and his German counterpart, Heiko Maas, responded in a joint letter to Sergei Lavrov that Moscow’s draft contained assessments that Germany and France did not share, notably, the description of an “internal Ukrainian conflict” and the role of “facilitator” claimed by Russia, alongside the OSCE, between the belligerents. Outraged by the Franco-German refusal, the Russian Foreign Ministry made public on November 17, 2021, the confidential notes exchanged with France and Germany. This resistance by the representatives of the two European countries, usually the most complacent towards Moscow, was considered outrageous.
[...]
Well, let’s turn that Ukrainian lever against NATO, let’s break up NATO by pressuring Ukraine. The whole crisis that followed stemmed from this reasoning: the troops massed on the borders of Ukraine; the threat of an invasion of that country, or even a war with the West, if NATO did not give Russia “security guarantees” that amounted to Alliance suicide and the total discrediting of the United States as guarantor of European security.
[...]
RIA sums up the Kremlin’s calculation even better: “Our proposals-demands are the signal for a new time. The United States must begin to withdraw willingly, because in any case it will have to give up its positions (this process is already underway), including in the post-Soviet space, which, whatever happens, will return in the medium term to the sphere of our unconditional influence. The Americans would do better to prepare themselves and carry out their withdrawal in an orderly fashion rather than suffer further damage later from a chaotic Afghan-style collapse.”
[...]
This argument was repeated ad nauseam by Vladimir Putin in his press conference after the meeting with President Macron on February 7: “Do you want France to be at war with Russia? That is what will happen! Do you understand or not that if Ukraine is in NATO and wants Crimea back by military means, European countries will automatically be drawn into a military conflict with Russia?” […] There will be no winners. And you will find yourselves dragged into this conflict against your will. You will not even have time to blink when you implement Article Five of the Treaty of Rome.”
[...]
“The current diplomatic activity of the Europeans, who this time have delegated to France, invested with the EU presidency, the powers of the chief negotiator, can be explained simply: the member countries of the EU are not interested in being caught between a rock and a hard place and risking their well-being, albeit modest, for the sake of slogans put forward by non-Europeans and in the name of a Ukraine that is completely and infinitely foreign to the Europeans. […] Germany knows exactly what could happen if the Russians, as a countermeasure and only because of the threat of an attack on their country, decided to speak to the Germans in military language. Not to mention the fact that Russian gas and other energy sources will loudly say auf wiedersehen and go to Asian markets, where they are expected — and eagerly awaited. Macron’s situation is similar to Scholz’s, though more complicated: after having taken a beating in Africa, forced (also for this reason) to withdraw the military contingent there, the French president, as commander-in-chief, can only know that in case of a confrontation with the Russians, his armed forces will not last for a day. […] Selfishly afraid for his very small self and realizing (well, to the extent given by nature and circumstances) that a conversation with Russia would have to be conducted on Russia’s terms, Macron sent his emissary Pierre Vimont, a trusted person with the rank of ambassador plenipotentiary, to Moscow.”
https://en.desk-russie.eu/2022/02/11/how-to-train-europe-the-kremlins.html (Archiv-Version vom 13.02.2022)Die "Angst" springt einen quasi aus jeder Zeile an.
Faktisch sieht man die NATO im Zuge von Afghanistan sogar in einer Schwächephase und die Chance auf den Tisch zu hauen und die Vorzeichen zu drehen.
Auch solche Machwerke:
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181zeugen von nichts als einem hegemonischen Anspruch und sind nebenbei natürlich Geschichtsrevisonismus.
Vllt kann man sogar sagen, dass man im Kreml Angst hat....aber sicher nicht vor NATO-Truppen sondern höchstens vor geopolitischem Machtverlust oder dass in Russland Leute (westliche) Demokratie fordern könnten.
Hier gibt es mittlerweile einen ganzen Pulk an Leuten, die völlig argumentationslos irgendwie die Schuld "des Westens" und allen voran der dunklen Sith-Lords aus den USA in der Causa suchen, deren genuine Bösartigkeit natürlich gar nicht mehr diskutiert werden muss.
So richtig artilkulieren kann man es zwar nicht.....irgendwas mit Irakkrieg und die haben ja schonmal gelogen....und Syrien und irgendwas mit Nordstream....man traut ihnen halt einfach nicht.
Alles Andere wäre halt nicht neutral und "zu einfach".
Hier wird ein Artikel gepostet, in dem drinsteht, man habe Hinweise auf den Beginn einer Invasion nächste Woche....sofort geht ein Raunen durch den Thread "Mmmmh, ob das denn wirklich stimmt....vllt will die USA nur den Konflikt befeuern"
Welchen Sinn ergibt das?
Während man in Moskau von Genoziden in der Ukraine fantasiert, dass die USA da Giftgas hinliefert und die Regierung ja aus Nazis besteht.
Sicher könnten solche Behauptungen keinen Krieg rechtfertigen, denn das wäre in der Historie noch nie vorgekommen.
Man ist nur sehr verängstigt.
Atrox schrieb:Frag mal die Zivilbevölkerung Syriens.
Ach, die sind da vor der NATO und der Ukraine geflohen und nicht, weil sie Assad mit Giftgas beworfen hat und zusammen mit Putin ihre Häuser, Schulen und Infrastruktur in die Luft gejagt hat, Erdogan mit Annektionen und ethnischen Säuberungen beschäftigt war und zu allem Überfluss iranische Milizen Amok liefen?
Da haben wir ja wieder was gelernt.
Optimist schrieb:danke für deine Erklärung.
Klingt einerseits plausibel. Andererseits schließe ich mich Atrox an.
Atrox hatte bis dahin nur eine Frage gestellt, aber es wundert natürlich nicht, dass deine Sicht der Dinge da trotz durch die naive Fragerei bezeugter Ahnungslosigkeit und auch Argumentationslosigkeit felsenfest ist und du wieder nur Bestätigung derer suchst.