Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

European Union a Bunch of Losers w Update

by Oui Tue Mar 19th, 2024 at 10:59:56 PM EST

*) is not original, more likely centuries old for going to war.

Bears some resemblance to the sixties with General Westmoreland and Defense Secretary Robert "RAND" McNamara and the evasive domino theory ... we all remember how rhe Vietnam War ended in immense war crimes and genocide in Cambodia ... no one held accountable ... we promised NEVER AGAIN.


'If we want peace, we must prepare for war' -- Charles Michel Fires Up EU Leaders Ahead of Summit | Hungarian Conservative |

In a somewhat self-contradictory way, Michel opines that--although he highlights the failure of Russia's blitzkrieg plan and characterizes the Russian military and political leadership as wholly delusional--Moscow presents a significant military threat to Europe and to global security.

The Belgian politician argues that ...

Europe must, therefore, adopt a 'war economy mode'

... mirroring Russia's approach, in order to `defend the democratic world.'

LIES LIES LIES DAMN LIES  -- OLD WAR TALK IS QUITE STALE

The President of the European Council asserts
that it has now become clear that Russia will not
stop at Ukraine but will continue to destabilize
Moldova, Georgia, the South Caucasus, the
Western Balkans, and Africa.

Michel writes: 'If we do not find an EU response and give Ukraine enough support to stop Russia, we will be next.'

Moreover, the Belgian politician contends that the growing number of Europeans questioning the effectiveness of support for Ukraine, the divisions on the issue, and the economic burden on European citizens are solely ❌ attributable to the Kremlin's propaganda machine. ❌

’These are blatant lies. We must do more to assist Ukraine and strengthen our defence.'

Following French President Emmanuel Macron's recent U-turn on the war in Ukraine, another European leader has adopted a highly hot-tempered pro-war rhetoric. He gets so carried away in the article that he not only includes factually incorrect statements--notably, he repeatedly emphasizes the unshakeable unity of the Council, when in reality, the issue of Ukraine has often divided EU leaders--but it is also dangerously conducive to escalating the conflict and hindering peace negotiations.

Damn old war narrative I quoted this falsehood as early as 2015 ... favorite line of neo-conservatives in the US-UK and with Dutch warmonger VVD leader Mark Rutte.

Dutch Fake News, Warmongering, Anti-Russia Propaganda | 14 Feb 2018 |

What the media in Holland and the political parties refuse to mention. The lies about Russia were placed in the context of the prospects of war initiated by Putin's Russia and the risk of maintaining unity in the European Union.

Halbe Zijlstra spoke at the VVD party congress and positioned his party as anti-Russian by an ugly piece of WARMONGERING. Here is the translation from Dutch - VIDEO.

Speaker Halbe Zijlstra and his lies about a meeting with Vladimir Putin -  VVD Congress in 2016

Halbe Zijlstra started his opening words in the Frisian language, his birthplace ...

Dutch foreign minister admits to lying about meeting Vladimir Putin | Politico |

Halbe Zijlstra previously claimed he overheard the Russian president talking about his expansionist ambitions at a gathering in 2006.

A few days ago, a piece of propaganda shit appeared on Dutch television ...

UA Sourced War Propaganda Funded by SOROS

Broadcast on prime time National news this evening to feed warmongering Dutch society ... a concerted piece of DISINFORMATION for the European suckers for war with Russia.

US War lobby certainly is getting desperate, grasping straws 😡

>> Work in progress  ⚠️  🚸

From the diaries:

[Update-1]

LQD: More Context for the Ukraine Mess by ARGeezer on Mar 17th, 2014

Russia, Crimea and the Consequences of NATO Policy by Jeffrey Sommers & Michael Hudson (H/T Yves Smith)

Originally published at Counterpunch Discussing the peaceful breakup of the Soviet Union the authors note:

Gorbachev for his part recognized that the Warsaw Pact nations needed to be let go, in order to free resources to build up a more middle class consumer economy. Demilitarization was to be achieved by disarmament, all the more remarkable in view of the largest human losses suffered in world history from military invasion had occurred just two generations earlier. Germany became the focus, pending its reunification in 1990. It had invaded its neighbors every generation or so since the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. In World War II it laid waste to the USSR and left 27 million of its people dead. Other East European nations, including Romania (and, along with victims of Stalinist oppression, e.g., the Baltics and Ukrainians, welcomed the Nazis and fought against Russia). The NATO alliance thus remained the main threat that had held the Soviet Union together.

    "It was the Western Allies’ extreme good fortune that the Russians, and not themselves, paid almost the entire ’butcher’s bill’ for [defeating Nazi Germany], accepting 95 per cent of the military casualties of the three major powers of the Grand Alliance," writes British historian Max Hastings.

So Russia had vital security concerns that could only be met by assurances that NATO would not move into the Warsaw Pact states, where so much Soviet blood had been shed in World War II. President George H. W. Bush (#41) made assurances that if the Soviets were to dissolve the Warsaw Pact, Russia must be assured that the NATO would not fill the vacuum. But his successor, Bill Clinton, broke this promise by quickly taking the former Warsaw Pact states into NATO, and then moved into territory formerly occupied and incorporated into the USSR with the Baltics.

It should have been foreseen - and probably was inevitable - that these new entrants wanted NATO, given their own experience with Soviet occupation. But the eagerness of a triumphalist United States to surround Russia militarily rather than disarm led Russian leaders to feel betrayed by the US breaking its word.

END OF UPDATE

PART II


SPD Leader: Freeze Conflict and Negotiate Peace

#WeAreSpd and Not United — A reality check for German warring parties …

German Coalition Cracks Deepen Over Ukraine Policy

Last week’s speech by SPD parliamentary leader Rolf Mützenich, in which he rhetorically asked whether it was not time to “think about how to freeze a war,” sparked controversy in the ruling coalition.

German Coalition Cracks Deepen Over Ukraine Policy | Ukraine Today |

Mützenich’s call for a freeze on the war in Ukraine has also caused considerable backlash from the other coalition partner. Green Party leader Ricarda Lang told Die Welt that his speech marked a “relapse into the old Russia policy of the Social Democrats.”

On Saturday, SPD heads gathered for a party retreat and defended the views of their group leader.

While emphasising her party’s unwavering support for Ukraine, SPD leader Saskia Esken said that the SPD would “naturally also share the longing for peace, which is especially felt by Ukrainians.” She added that the SPD appealed to the Russian president to return to the negotiating table.

  • AfD now sees chance to demand peace negotiations and reparation of Nordstream
  • Display:

    Mützenich now told the "Neue Westfälische" that he did not want to correct his statement: "I am trained in the social and peace sciences. There, freezing is used as a term to enable temporary local ceasefires and humanitarian ceasefires in a special situation, which can be transferred to a permanent absence of military force."

    'Sapere aude'

    by Oui (Oui) on Wed Mar 20th, 2024 at 12:57:21 PM EST
    A single sane person in the hell of devilish warmongers of the younger generation. Just unbelievable ... time to send their sons and daughters to the front in the meat grinder of artillery shells, mines and cluster bombs delivered by NATO.

    Mützenich bleibt dabei | Tagesschau |

    Trotz aller Kritik will SPD-Fraktionschef Mützenich an seinen Äußerungen zu einem "Einfrieren" des Ukraine-Kriegs festhalten. Er erklärt auch, warum. Außenministerin und Verteidigungsminister distanzierten sich von der Wortwahl.

    Mit seiner Äußerung im Bundestag, den Ukraine-Krieg "einzufrieren", hat SPD-Fraktionschef Rolf Mützenich für viel Unverständnis gesorgt. Widerspruch gab es auch in den eigenen Reihen. Dennoch will Mützenich bei seiner Formulierung bleiben.

    Konkret geht es um eine Frage, die der Politiker vergangenen Donnerstag in der Bundestagsdebatte über eine Lieferung der "Taurus"-Marschflugkörper gestellt hatte: "Ist es nicht an der Zeit, dass wir nicht nur darüber reden, wie man einen Krieg führt, sondern auch darüber nachdenken, wie man einen Krieg einfrieren und später auch beenden kann?"

    Zustimmung beider Kriegsparteien nötig

    Es folgte ein Sturm der Entrüstung. Der "Neuen Westfälischen" sagte Mützenich nun, dass er seine Aussage nicht korrigieren wolle: "Ich bin in den Sozial- und Friedenswissenschaften ausgebildet. Dort wird das Einfrieren als Begrifflichkeit genutzt, um in einer besonderen Situation zeitlich befristete lokale Waffenruhen und humanitäre Feuerpausen zu ermöglichen, die überführt werden können in eine beständige Abwesenheit militärischer Gewalt." Das benötige natürlich die Zustimmung beider Kriegsparteien, was man nicht von außen diktieren könne.

    Outrage over Mützenich statements | ZDF.de |

    SPD parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich had thought loudly in the Bundestag about "freezing" the war in Ukraine. Headwind came from all sides, including from within his own party.

    'Sapere aude'

    by Oui (Oui) on Wed Mar 20th, 2024 at 12:59:51 PM EST
    [ Parent ]


    Display:
    Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]