by Karl-Jürgen Müller

Almost 20 years ago, from 2–4  September 2005, the “Mut zur Ethik” association held its annual congress on the topic of “What is needed to promote peace in the world?”. More than 50 experts and several hundred participants from all over the world were discussing the highly multifaceted question of the conditions for more peace. Anyone leafing through the 500-page conference proceedings1 will recognise from the table of contents: firstly, that the question of these conditions encompasses almost all areas of life and politics. And, secondly, that we are much further away from peace today than we were then. Even though the year 2005 and the years before were by no means peaceful: NATO’s war of aggression against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 in violation of international law, NATO’s war of aggression against Afghanistan since 2001 in violation of international law, the US-led “coalition of the willing” war of aggression against Iraq since 2003 in violation of international law.
  Even then it was clear that the Western oligarchs had no qualms regarding using the means of power at their disposal to expand and enforce their claims to power. And that these oligarchs’ claims to power also encompassed all areas of life and politics – from questioning the institution of family to the most brutal use of weapons in wars that violate international law.
  I am using the term “oligarch” here in reference to the French historian and anthropologist Emmanuel Todd, who in his book “Der Westen im Niedergang. Ökonomie, Kultur und Religion im freien Fall” [The decline of the West. Economy, culture and religion in free fall] (2024, ISBN 978-3-86489-469-5), he speaks of “liberal oligarchies” with regard to Western states. Although these states are liberal democracies according to their constitutions, they have for many years in reality been systems in which economic, social and political life is largely determined by just a few powerful people. “Liberality” exists mainly in relation to minorities: the few very rich and all “woke” people. He contrasts this with the term “autocratic democracy” for Russia, because although the country is run centrally, this leadership has the interests of the country’s citizens in mind.

Putin’s contradiction and the consequences

Just under a year and a half after this “Mut zur Ethik” congress, Western governance experienced a significant public objection: Russian President Vladimir V. Putin’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007.2
  Up until 2007, Western policy had focussed on the creeping domination of Russia without openly engaging in war. The chapters on Russia in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard”3 bear eloquent witness to this. The pursuit of such domination has existed since the end of the Cold War; it has ranged from the direct control of Russian policy by US emissaries in Moscow, the targeted impoverishment of the people, the plundering of Russian raw materials and the covert support of separatist forces (for example in the two Chechen wars) to the expansion of NATO to the East, the cancellation of disarmament treaties and the plans for the stationing of so-called missile “defence” positions in Eastern Europe.
  After 2007, there was a move towards open confrontation, primarily in the form of sanctions and proxy wars: as early as 2008, for example – failed miserably – in South Ossetia. The war that began in eastern Ukraine in 2014 and the escalation in February 2022 were very much along these lines. There is ample evidence for the statement that the West provoked this war in order to isolate Russia internationally, ruin it economically and inflict a decisive “strategic defeat”, carry out a regime change and perhaps even break up the country into many ungovernable but easily exploitable parts – similar to the plans for the “reorganisation” of West Asia.4

It was never just about Ukraine

Thus, it was never just about Ukraine and certainly not about its fate, but about the fundamental interests of Western oligarchs. This explains the ferocity of the war in Ukraine (“to the last Ukrainian”) and the constant Western escalation with aggressive narratives about their own innocence and victimhood.5 The “Joint Declaration of the Foreign Ministers of Germany, France, Poland, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom in Warsaw” and the “Resolution of the European Parliament on strengthening the EU’s unwavering support for Ukraine in the face of Russia’s war of aggression and the increasing military cooperation between North Korea and Russia” are exemplary and topical examples of this.6 It also explains the great Russian mistrust of the Western talk of a ceasefire that can now be heard.
  With defeat now looming in the Ukrainian proxy war, the long-term Western plans are in danger of failing. However, the Western oligarchs’ quest for power is still unbroken. On 27 November, former US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregorspoke of ignorance and arrogance in a video interview7 with regard to the attitude of the current and future US leaders – leading the world to the brink of a third world war. – And it is to be feared that the recent developments in Syria will once again give the Western warmongers a boost.

Talk of a ceasefire under the microscope

The official Western calls for a ceasefire that are now increasingly being heard must therefore be scrutinised very closely. Where is there a real interest in ending the war in Ukraine and reaching an agreement between equal negotiating partners? Where is the focus on creating a foundation for a security order in Europe that respects the security interests of all European states? Are the US oligarchs really prepared to end the decades of the not at all peaceful pax americana? Where do we recognise a deceptive package designed to conceal the obvious failure of the Western war effort and, in the long term, to rely on war and further Western domination?
  If we examine the new proposals by Volodimir Zelensky, for example, as well as those of Donald Trump’s upcoming Ukraine envoy Kellogg with these questions in mind, the scales are still tipped in favour of deception.

Ending the war, but how?

It would be a blessing for the soldiers on the front line in Ukraine, for the people in the country, in Europe and all over the world, if the weapons were silent – better today than tomorrow. However, we must add in the direction of the West: Russian policy is not an all-or-nothing policy, but the country’s leaders know what they want, and they also know what drives the Western oligarchs. Russia is acting with an open visor. The country will not make rotten compromises. And this is not only in Russia’s interests.
  Yes, Russia is currently also demonstrating its military superiority! But have the oligarchs of the West understood any other language?
  Russia will insist on its conditio sine qua non: a Ukraine that no longer poses a threat of war for Russia. A Ukraine that gives up its claim to the territories in which the majority of people have decided or are deciding in favour of Russia. A Ukraine that is not part of any military alliance against Russia, official or otherwise. A Ukraine that does not continue to discriminate against Russian-speaking citizens. There can only be peace if the ceasefire is followed by a sustainable security order.
  At the beginning of genuine diplomatic efforts to find a peace solution, the goals of the negotiating partners will not be identical. It will probably be the case that the Western negotiating partner initially pursues completely different goals from the Russian. That is not a tragedy. However, there will be no negotiated solution if ignorance and arrogance persist.

Abandon the enemy image of Russia

The anti-Russian agitation of recent years in Ukraine, as in almost all Western countries, has poisoned Western-Russian relations. This will not be cured by a ceasefire or peace agreement. But the example of Franco-German history shows that this does not have to result in eternal enmity. If those responsible in the West really switch to peace, this will also result in a great deal of antidote.
  However, peace would be best served if the citizens of the Western states – in many small steps – turned their countries into liberal democracies (again). •

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2024/nr-26-10-dezember-2024/russland-und-die-westlichen-oligarchien

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.

HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.

On 28 November [2024], the European Parliament passed a second Ukraine resolution with the martial-sounding title “Strengthening the EU’s Unwavering Support for Ukraine Against Russia’s War of Aggression and the Increasing Military Cooperation Between North Korea and Russia.” This resolution was adopted by a majority from the political groups of conservatives, socialists, liberals, and greens. The demands contained therein make even a neutral observer’s blood run cold.
  Back in July, the parliament had passed a resolution that essentially called for a total war against Russia. But this new resolution goes even further – it is a virtual call for World War III.
  Most significantly, in this latest resolution the European Parliament demands that European states provide Ukraine with the long-range cruise missiles needed to carry the war deep into Russia, and calls on member states not to be deterred by any Russian threats to respond to this with nuclear weapons. More specifically, it calls on member states for the immediate delivery to Ukraine of fighter jets able to carry long-range cruise missiles, including Taurus cruise missiles with a 500 km range. It further calls for the ATACMS, Strom Shadows SCALP cruise missiles already supplied by the US, UK and France, each with a 300 km range, to be freely deployed against military targets inside Russia.
  What the resolution completely elides is the fact that launching such missiles would need qualified NATO military staff and that any decision to deploy these cruise missiles would thus make NATO an active war party. This would hence profoundly change the character of this war and would turn this from a proxy war to a direct NATO-Russia engagement. With this, the European Parliament dangerously ignores the fact that this could trigger a Third World War, and that such a war would likely be nuclear in character.
  No consideration is given as to how Russia might respond to NATO escalation, nor to the fact that a Third World War would inevitably be fought on European soil with unimaginable horrific consequences for European citizens. It proves once again that the members of the European Parliament operate in an insulated bubble, seemingly long detached from the reality outside their institution.
  The 13-page resolution is a laundry list of accusations, threats, demands for weapons and ammunition deliveries, pleas for more money for the war, and calls for further sanctions. But one aspect is completely missing: any approach to peacefully resolving the conflict. Not a single mention is made of diplomatic steps or negotiations with which to prevent the risk of an all-out nuclear war in Europe. The goal of the parliamentary majority is clear: victory over Russia – at all costs. Even if these involve the lives of hundreds of millions of European civilians?
  How mad all of this is shows in another aspect: during the debate, some deputies emphasized the need to take advantage of the small time-window to bring Russia to its knees before the inauguration of Donald Trump on 20 January 2025. This is insanity on every conceivable level. Although the resolution calls on EU member states to engage with a future President Trump to convince him of the necessity of a victory over Russia, it all sounds unconvincing. More likely is a bizarre situation in which Trump will save us from our own European war-crazed politicians.
  This resolution is a document full of hatred, panic, and hysteria, It is a disgraceful expression of irresponsibility and lack of empathy for the many victims of such war fever. There is nothing in it for us Europeans to be proud of here. Fortunately, this resolution will likely have little direct political impact on the Ukraine war. The European Parliament has once again proven that it acts as nothing more than a talking shop. In this case, that may even be a blessing for all of us.
  For me, who has always been a supporter of the European idea, it is painful to witness the debates of a war-crazed and hate-filled EU parliamentary majority. And I ask myself: What kind of war mongering monster have we created with the EU? •

* Michael Sergius Graf von der Schulenburg (born 16 October 1948 in Munich) was an OSCE and UN diplomat. From 2009 to 2012, he was the UN’s highest representative in Freetown, Sierra Leone, and head of the world’s first integrated peacebuilding mission. He was elected to the European Parliament for the Sahra Wagenknecht Alliance (BSW) in the 2024 European elections.

https://www.zeit-fragen.ch/en/archives/2024/nr-26-10-dezember-2024/das-europaeische-parlament-dreht-durch

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.

HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME YOURSELF.

Zelensky accused of lying in New Year’s address
The Ukrainian leader has received flak for allegedly misrepresenting South Korean weapons as domestically produced Sapsan missiles...

Vladimir Zelensky has been accused by several media outlets of presenting South Korean missiles as Ukrainian-made in his New Year’s address for 2025.

In the 20-minute speech released on Tuesday, Zelensky touted what he described as the country’s success in developing a variety of weapons, calling them “arguments for a just peace” with Russia.

”Ukraine is once again building its own, its own missiles. And for the first time, it produces over a million drones in a year. Forcing the enemy to learn Ukrainian. Palianytsia, Peklo, Ruta. Making them tremble at the words Neptune and Sapsan. All these are our missiles. Ukrainian.” he said.

As he was naming the types of weapons, his address featured footage of drones and missiles in action, either during testing or combat scenarios. When he mentioned the Sapsan missile, the video showed the projectile launch.

However, the Ukrainian outlet Strana, as well as Russian media outlets, pointed out that the clip shown in Zelensky’s address was suspiciously similar to footage of the South Korean military launching a Hyunmoo-2A cruise missile in 2017.

In light of this, the Russian Telegram channel ‘Operation Z: War reporters of Russian Spring’ accused Zelensky of “blatant lies.” Another Telegram channel, ‘Voyenny Osvedomitel’, described the incident as “the first joke of 2025” and speculated that the video editor responsible might face a harsh punishment, such as being sent to the front line.

Sapsan has been under development since 2006, but the process has been hampered by delays and funding shortfalls. In 2018, Ukraine unveiled a mock-up of the system during a military parade. The complex is said to have an intended range of 500km, which is more than the ATACMS supplied to Kiev by the US, and Ukrainian experts have touted it as a potential game-changer in the conflict with Russia. However, there are no credible reports that it has ever been used on the battlefield.

https://www.rt.com/russia/610272-zelensky-lie-ukraine-missile-south-korea/

READ FROM TOP.

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

HYPOCRISY ISN’T ONE OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS SINS.

HENCE ITS POPULARITY IN THE ABRAHAMIC TRADITIONS…

PLEASE DO NOT BLAME RUSSIA IF WW3 STARTS. BLAME ZELENSKY.