Volgens Henk Hofland in De Groene Amsterdammer van 4 maart 2015 is door de moord op de Russische politieke activist Boris Nemtsov 'opnieuw duidelijk geworden dat Rusland een diepe crisis nadert.' Hoewel de nestor van de polderpers de schuld van de aanslag bij Poetin legt door te stellen dat
berichtte zelfs de anti-Poetin website 'Meduza, a Riga-based online newspaper and news aggregator in Russian language' de dag na de aanslag, op 28 februari 2015, het volgende over Nemtsov en de Unie van Rechtse Krachten, de inmiddels ter ziele gegane politieke partij, waarvan hij van 2000 tot 2003 de leider was:
In the 2003 and 2007 elections, Union of Right Forces failed to clear the 5 percent barrier, losing its seats in the Duma. Many still remember a campaign ad from that era, perhaps one of the biggest public relations disasters in Russian political history, where Nemtsov and two colleagues lay out their election platform while lounging on board a private jet.
In what turned out to be the final years of his life, Nemtsov participated in elections (he ran for mayor of Sochi in 2009, winning only 13.6 percent of the vote, and was elected to the Yaroslavl regional parliament in 2013) and in street protests… In 2012, he was elected to the short-lived Opposition Coordinating Council.
Sources tell Meduza that Nemtsov struggled with severe depression in the months before he was killed. He thought he deserved more than a seat in the Yaroslavl regional parliament, but he knew he had no chance of winning national elections.
Deze essentiële informatie, benevens het feit dat Boris Nemtsov een uiterst kleine aanhang had, verzweeg Hofland omdat dit niet paste in zijn complottheorie. Die complottheorie is noodzakelijk om tegenover het lezerspubliek van De Groene de demonisering van 'Poetin' te kunnen continueren. Het moet erin gehamerd worden dat 'Poetin,' niet deugt. Dat volgens opiniepeilingen tenminste 80 procent van de bevolking in de Russische Federatie van mening is dat 'Poetin' wel degelijk deugt, is voor Hofland en zijn 'politiek-literaire elite' in de polder een te verwaarlozen detail. Het volk vindt van alles, maar weet niets, is de gedachte van de Hollandse zelfbenoemde 'elite.' Dat de grijze eminentie door zijn mainstream-collega's werd uitgeroepen tot de 'beste journalist van de twintigste eeuw' kenmerkt het kwaliteitsniveau in het polderland. Feiten zijn onbelangrijk, meningen daarentegen zijn in het voormalige gidsland van doorslaggevend belang, met als resultaat dat argumenten definitief plaats hebben gemaakt voor sentimenten. Dat proces begon met de opkomst van de massamaatschappij. Al op 5 oktober 1871 wees Gustave Flaubert erop dat
De hele droom van de democratie bestaat uit het verheffen van de proletariër tot het domheidspeil van de burgerman. Die droom is al gedeeltelijk verwezenlijkt. Hij leest dezelfde kranten en heeft dezelfde hartstochten.
Zijn scherpzinnige opmerking heeft nog steeds niets aan actualiteit verloren. De wijd verspreide veronderstelling dat een democratische politicus en de 'vrije pers' de gedachten van de kiezers verwoorden, is een grote misvatting. Allereerst omdat het volk als massa nooit gedachten heeft, nooit heeft gehad en nooit zal hebben. Zij wordt gedreven door instincten, door vaak geconditioneerde reflexen, niet door weloverwogen ideeën, die zijn te abstract. De massa zoekt ook geen oplossing maar een ontlading en wel omdat
in de ontlading de verschillen [worden] afgeworpen en allen zich gelijk [voelen]… De verlichting hierover is kolossaal. Ter wille van dit gelukkige ogenblik, waarin niemand méér, niemand beter is dan de ander, worden de mensen tot massa.
De formulering is van Elias Canetti in zijn fenomenale studie Massa en Macht (1960). De Nobelprijswinnaar voegde hieraan toe:
Maar het zo begeerde en zo gelukkige ogenblik van ontlading draagt zijn eigen gevaar in zich. Het lijdt aan een fundamentele zinsbegoocheling: de mensen die zich plotseling gelijk voelen zijn niet werkelijk en voor altijd gelijk geworden.
Ten tweede wantrouwt een mainstream-journalist de gezichtsloze massa die hij als solist van nature niet anders kan dan minachten. Henk Hofland figureert daarom als de populistische poseur, een rol die hij al een héél werkzaam leven lang naar behoren speelt, en zodoende tot een duizelingwekkende media-hoogte wist te klimmen. De opportunistische houding die hij al vroeg in zijn carrière aannam, is niet vreemd, zij karakteriseert de poseur. Voor hem is de inhoud altijd ondergeschikt aan de vorm. Belangrijk daarbij is te weten dat een poseur, in tegenstelling tot wat algemeen wordt aangenomen, geen aansteller is. Integendeel zelfs, tot op grote hoogte meent hij wat hij zegt op het moment dat de woorden uit zijn mond rollen of op zijn computerscherm verschijnen. De pose is zijn overlevingsstrategie. Gelijk een kameleon van kleur verandert, wisselt hij (of zij) moeiteloos van rol. De ene dag is de poseur hervormingsgezind, de andere dag reactionair, soms is hij de politicus, vervolgens de literator, maar altijd blijft hij onderdeel van de angstige, kleinburgerlijke 'elite.' Elk moment en in telkens weer veranderende omstandigheden moet hij zichzelf opnieuw uitvinden. Hij is de hoofdpersoon in zijn eigen pulp-roman, een barokke dandy, een kitsch-figuur, wiens optreden naadloos aansluit bij de behoeften van deze tijd, want één ding is duidelijk: een poseur kan alleen in een — van zichzelf vervreemde — massamaatschappij functioneren. Die vormt zijn toneel, de massa zijn publiek. In een gesloten gemeenschap, gedragen door samenhangende identiteiten, zou hij allang door de mand zijn gevallen, daar zou hij niet meer zijn dan de dorpsgek.
De poseur en de media kunnen niet zonder elkaar, als parasieten leven ze van elkaar, ze vormen een zichzelf vernietigende symbiose in het almaar uitdijende rijk van de kitsch. Eén van de wezenlijke kernmerken van kitsch is dat het fenomeen meer wil lijken dan het is. Zijn gecodeerde taal appelleert slechts aan de reflexen, is uitsluitend gericht op effect. En omdat gedachten in een massacultuur niet het ultieme effect kunnen teweegbrengen bedient de poseur zich van sentimenten, verpakt in makkelijk te verteren meningen. Hij grossiert in frasen. Voor de poseur en zijn publiek tellen niet de feiten, maar de opinies, niet de hersenen maar de onderbuik. Hij wil de massamens niet aan het denken zetten, maar wil zijn eigen meningen miljoenvoudig weerspiegeld zien. Het gaat de poseur om macht, niet om inzicht. En zodoende krijgt men Hoflands gezwollen taal als deze: 'De politieke moord op Boris Nemtsov, praktisch voor de deur van het Kremlin, is de volgende stap naar de ontmaskering van president Poetin als een nietsontziende dictator,' en 'Uit de protestdemonstratie van tienduizenden die daarop volgde kunnen we opmaken dat Poetins streven naar de alleenheerschappij nog niet voltooid is. Het is opnieuw duidelijk geworden dat Rusland een diepe crisis nadert,' met als apotheose dat 'opnieuw duidelijk [is] geworden dat Rusland een diepe crisis nadert.'
Nogmaals, voor alle duidelijkheid: als onafhankelijke journalist heb ik geleerd dat geen enkele politicus deugt, want zoals de negentiende eeuwse Lord Acton terecht opmerkte: 'Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Dat geldt niet alleen voor 'Poetin,' maar ook voor Obama, en alle anderen die naar macht streven. Het probleem met opiniemakers als Henk Hofland is alleen dat hij in het geval van 'Poetin' blijft herhalen dat de Russische president niet deugt, zonder dat de 87-jarige opiniemaker van de gevestigde wanorde serieus ingaat op de motieven van de macht in Moskou. Juist door te blijven hameren op 'Poetin als een nietsontziende dictator' probeert Hofland het politieke aspect van het Russische beleid weg te moffelen. In Hoflands Koude Oorlogs-versie van de werkelijkheid kent de 'nietsontziende dictator' slechts één motief: het 'streven naar de alleenheerschappij.' Dat de Russische bevolking vandaag de dag van elke kant omsingeld is door NAVO-bases, het Westen expansionistisch blijft en met niets en niemand ontziend geweld intervenieert zodra zijn economische belangen moeten worden bevorderd, zijn argumenten die in Hofland's criminalisering van 'Poetin' bewust verzwegen. Bovendien verzwijgt de de propagandist van het neoliberale model fundamentele vragen, zoals:
waarom zou de neoliberale vleugel van de regering Obama, bij monde van Victoria Nuland - 'Assistant Secretary of State for Europe and Eurasian Affairs' op 13 december 2013 publiekelijk hebben verklaard dat:
Since the declaration of Ukrainian independence in 1991, the United States supported the Ukrainians in the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government - all that is necessary to achieve the objectives of Ukraine’s European. We have invested more than 5 billion dollars to help Ukraine to achieve these and other goals,'
en dat de VS zal doorgaan met het 'bevorderen van de toekomst die Oekraine verdient,' terwijl volgens een 'revealing study from the Russell Sage Foundation' de 'Median wealth has dropped, stunningly, by 43 percent since 2007. Only the richest 10% of the country gained wealth since 2003.'
En een
Oxfam report tells us that 85 individuals own as much as half the world. The U.S. is the biggest reason for that, with 5% of the world's population and 30% of the wealth. China, India, and Africa, on the other hand, combine for about half the world's population and just 12% of the wealth.
In the U.S., the richest 30 individuals own about $792 billion, while the bottom half of Americans own 1.1% of our country's wealth, also about $792 billion. That's 30 people owning as much as 157,000,000 people.
This information is derived from the Global Wealth Databook and the Forbes 400 List. More details are provided at Us Against Greed.
The Bottom Half of America Owns a Smaller Percentage of National Wealth than Almost All Other Countries and Continents.
North America's Bottom Half Has Less Chance to MOVE UP than Any Other Region of the World
America's MIDDLE CLASS is Further from the Top than in All Other Developed Countries
Extreme inequality means that people without homes are freezing to death in America. On a winter day in 2012 over 633,000 people were homeless in the United States. Based on an annual single room occupancy (SRO) cost of $558 per month, a little over $4 billion would provide shelter for every homeless person for the entire year.
The stock market grew by $4.7 trillion in 2013. A wealth tax of just a one-tenth of 1 percent (one dollar out of every thousand) would have provided the $4 billion needed to shelter every homeless American for 365 days.
But we have no wealth tax. And the wealth just keeps growing for the wealthiest Americans.
H.J.A. Hofland zou, als hij eerlijk was geweest antwoord hebben gegeven op de voor de hand liggende vraag waarom Washington bereid is miljarden te besteden aan 'the development of democratic institutions and skills in promoting civil society and a good form of government' in Oekraïne, terwijl al een halve eeuw lang meer dan 40 procent van de Amerikaanse kiesgerechtigden niet meer stemt tijdens de presidents- en Congres-verkiezingen, omdat men weet dat het zinloos is, aangezien, in de woorden van de Amerikaanse onderzoeker en auteur Paul Buchheit:
We're near the bottom of the developed world in children's health and safety
According to a 2007 UNICEF report, the U.S. ranked last among 21 OECD nations in an assessment of child health and safety. The assessment measured infant mortality, immunization, and death from accidents and injuries.
A related 2009 OECD study generally agreed, placing the U.S. 24th out of 30 OECD countries for children's health and safety. It also showed the devastating effects of inequality in our country. Despite having the second-highest average income for children among the 30 OECD countries, the U.S. ranked 27th out of 30 for child poverty (percentage of children living in households that are below 50% of the median income).
2. We've betrayed the young people who were advised to stay in school
Over 40% of recent college graduates are living with their parents, dealing with government loans that average $27,200. The unemployment rate for young people is about 50%. More than 350,000 Americans with advanced degrees applied for food stamps in 2010.
As Washington lobbyists endeavor to kill a proposed bill to reduce the interest rates on student debt, federal loans remain readily available, and so colleges go right on increasing their tuition.
Meanwhile, corporations hold $2 trillion in cash while looking for investments and employees in foreign countries, and American students are forced to accept menial positions. Yet delusions persist about our new generation of would-be workers. Conservatives are all bubbly about today's young entrepreneurs creating their own jobs -- jobs that "don't yet exist."
3. The main source of middle-class wealth has been largely wiped out
American homeowners owe almost as much as the students, with $700 billion of debt over and above the value of their homes.
This removes the only source of wealth for middle America, especially for blacks and Hispanics. Remarkably, for every dollar of NON-HOME wealth owned by white families, people of color have only one cent.
So when minority families were specifically targeted for high-risk, subprime loans that could be re-packaged and sold for a quick short-term profit, most of their assets were erased.Median wealth fell 66% for Hispanic households and 53% for black households. For whites the decline was 16%.
With a disturbing note of irony, Sanford Weill, the banker largely responsible for the reversal of the mortgage-protecting Glass-Steagall Act, was elected to the American Academy of Arts & Sciences for 'extraordinary accomplishment and a call to serve.'
4. We give prison sentences for smoking marijuana, but not for billion-dollar fraud
About half of our world-leading prison population is in jail for non-violent drug offenses. Americans have also been arrested for handing out free food in a park. Mothers in Ohio and Connecticut were jailed for enrolling their kids in out-of-district schools. As of 2003 in California there were 344 individuals serving sentences of 25 years or more for shoplifting as a third offense, in many cases after two non-violent offenses.
How does the market deal with this steady tide of petty crime? It strives for more. The new trend of private prisons is dependent on maintaining a sizable prison population to guarantee profits, with no incentive for rehabilitation.
As the number of inmates has surged, the people who devastated countless American lives 'get out of jail free.' The savings and loan fraud cost the nation between $300 billion and $500 billion, about 100 times more than the total cost of burglaries in 2010. The financial system bailout has already cost the country $3 trillion. Goldman Sachs packaged bad debt, sold it under a different name, persuaded ratings services to label it AAA, and then bet against their own financial creation by selling it short. Other firms accused of fraud and insider trading were Morgan Stanley, Bear Stearns, Bank of America, Countrywide Financial, and Wells Fargo. The New York Times reported in 2008 that the Justice Department had postponed the bribery or fraud prosecutions of over 50 corporations, choosing instead to enter into agreements involving fines and 'monitoring' periods.
5. You can have health care, if you pay for it
A recent Commonwealth Fund study compared U.S. health care spending to 12 other OECD countries. The data shows that reducing our costs to the median level of spending among the OECD countries would save us $1.5 trillion a year, more than our entire deficit.
Unfortunately, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies and hospital administrators won't hear of it. There's too much money to be made. Bypass surgery in the U.S. costs 2 to 3 times more than in Great Britain, Canada, France, and Germany. Cataract surgery costs 4 times more.
That's if you can pay for it. There are currently about 50 million uninsured Americans. At the other extreme are $2,400 oxymoronic penthouse hospital suites complete with butler and grand piano. Or, for those who don't get out much, emergency rooms in the home, with private cell-phone access to "concierge doctors."
Inequality in our country is so severe that 120,000 health care workers could have been hired with the salary paid to one man. That's a $40,000 salary for 40 health care workers for every one of the 3,000 counties in the United States. Instead, $5 billion dollars went to one man who reportedly made his first big haul ($4 billion, in 2007) by conspiring with Goldman Sachs in the above-mentioned short sale subterfuge.
The result of ignoring the health needs of the greater population, according to a report in theAnnual Review of Public Health, is that "the health rankings of the United States have declined substantially when compared with other nations."
Conclusion
Privatization simply hasn't worked for health care, mortgage banking, higher education, or prison management. There is little incentive for profit-motivated firms to invest in disadvantaged or underemployed Americans. That's why taxes are necessary -- to provide for the common good, and to return some of the gains from 60 years of productivity to the great majority of Americans who contributed to our growth. Unfortunately, the golden door on the Statue of Liberty seems to have an invisible hand holding it shut.
Bovendien is ook het volgende bekend:
5 Facts That Show Half of America Is Seriously Struggling
The media celebrates 'economic growth,' while new data shows most Americans are barely surviving.
Half of our nation, by all reasonable estimates of human need, is in poverty. The jubilant headlines above speak for people whose view is distorted by growing financial wealth. The argument for a barely surviving half of America has been made before, but important new data is available to strengthen the case.
1. No Money for Unexpected Bills
A recent Bankrate poll found that almost two-thirds of Americans didn't have savings available to cover a $500 repair bill or a $1,000 emergency room visit.
A related Pew survey concluded that over half of U.S. households have less than one month's income in readily available savings, and that ALL their savings -- including retirement funds -- amounted to only about four months of income.
And young adults? A negative savings rate, as reported by the Wall Street Journal. Before the recession their savings rate was a reasonably healthy 5 percent.
2. 40 Percent Collapse in Household Wealth
Over half of Americans have good reason to feel poor. Between 2007 and 2013 median wealth dropped a shocking 40 percent, leaving the poorest half with negative wealth (because of debt), and a full 60% of households owning, in total, about as much as the nation's 94 richest individuals.
People of color fare the worst, with half of black households owning less than $11,000 in total wealth, and Hispanic households less than $14,000. The median net worth for white households is about $142,000.
3. Cost of Living Surges as Income Falls
Official poverty measures are based largely on the food costs of the 1950s. But food costs have doubled since 1978, housing has more than tripled, and college tuition is eleven times higher. The cost of raising a child increased by 40 percent between 2000 and 2010. And despite the gains from Obamacare, health care expenses continue to grow.
As all these essential costs have been going up, median household income has been going down since 2000, with the greatest drop occurring since 2009, as 95 percent of the post-recession income gains have gone to the richest 1%.
4. Lots of New Jobs (Below Living Wage)
'Amazing' jobs report, apart from wages — Marketwatch
Amazing at the top and at the bottom. According to the Federal Reserve Bank, there have been job gains at the highest paid level -- engineering, finance, computer analysis; and there have been job gains at thelowest paid level -- personal health care, retail, and food preparation.
But the jobs that kept the middle class out of poverty -- education, construction, social services, transportation, administration -- have seen a decline since the recession, especially in the northeast. At a national level jobs gained are paying 23 percent less than jobs lost.
Worse yet, the lowest paid workers, those in housekeeping and home health care and food service, have seen their wages drop 6 to 8 percent (although wages overall rose about 2 percent in 2014).
5. Our Greatest Shame: Half of the Children Feeling Poverty
Over half of public school students are poor enough to qualify for lunch subsidies. There's been a stunning70 percent increase since the recession in the number of children on food stamps. State of Working America reported that almost half of black children under the age of six are living in poverty.
The celebratory quotes about a booming economy seem so far away.
http://www.alternet.org/economy/5-facts-show-half-america-seriously-struggling
En:
Congress doesn’t seem to recognize, or doesn’t care, that the system is horribly distorted in favor of a small group of people who need to do very little to take most of the wealth.
It was shown in a recent report that the richest Americans have made millions from their stock holdings since the recession.
It's getting worse. The facts are summarized here and presented in greater detail at Us Against Greed.
- Just 13 Americans Made More from Their Investments in 2013 than the Entire SNAP Budget
Some wealthy Americans like to refer to themselves as "makers," and food stamp recipients as "takers," even though most of the latter are children, the elderly, or low-wage workers. Many of the top 13 on the Forbes list did not make anything of significance in 2013. Yet by being heavily invested in the stock market they were able to take $80 billion among them, more thana year of food stamps for almost 50 million people.
2. The Richest 400 Took $300 Billion in 2013, Approximately the ENTIRE Safety Net
The total budget for SNAP, WIC (Women, Infants, children), Child Nutrition, Earned Income Tax Credit, Supplemental Security Income, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and Housing is less than the $300 billion 'earned' by the Forbes 400.
3. The Richest 12,000 Families are Estimated to have Each Made $40 Million in the Past Year
The stock market grew by $4.7 trillion in 2013. The richest 1 percent owns about 38 percent of all stocks, or about $1.8 trillion of the 2013 gain.
At the lofty levels of the unimaginably rich, the takings of the .1 percent (120,000 households), and even moreso of the .01% (12,000 households), become progressively greater and greater for the very richest households (unlike their taxes). According to wealth data compiled by Kopczuk and Saez, each member of the elite .01 percent group owns about 40 times the wealth of an average member of the richest one percent. Assuming that this ratio holds for accumulated 2013 wealth, each of the 12,000 super-rich American families made about $40 million in just one year. This is not an unreasonable conclusion, in light of the average gain of $750 million for each member of the Forbes 400.
4. The Richest 400 Individuals Own More Than Three-Fifths of America
The richest 400 now own over $2 trillion among them, or about 2.8 percent of the country's wealth of $72 trillion. This is more than the holdings of three-fifths of America, or 72 million families.
Conclusion: The System Is Broken
The overall calculations reveal that, to the best approximation:
--The richest 400 individuals made an average of $750,000,000 each in 2013.--The .01% (12,000 families) made about $40,000,000 each.--The .1% (120,000 families) made about $3,600,000 each.--The rest of the 1% (1,068,000 families) made over $830,000 each.--The 2-5% (4,800,000 households) made about $300,000 each.--The 6-10% (6,000,000 households) made about $95,000 each.--The 11-20% (12,000,000 households) made about $39,000 each.--The 21-40% (24,000,000 households) made about $13,000 each.--The 41-60% (24,000,000 households) made about $4,000 each.--The 61-80% (24,000,000 households) made about $333 each.--The bottom 20% (24,000,000 households) made nothing.
Capitalism is supposed to provide everyone the opportunity to benefit from our country's productivity. But it hasn't worked that way for the past 35 years. Today only the people who already have money can increase their wealth. Congress doesn't seem to recognize, or doesn't care, that the system is horribly distorted in favor of a small group of people who need to do very little to take most of the wealth.
Opiniemaker Henk Hofland met zijn zelf gefröbelde speelgoed. Seniliteit moet niet beloond worden, maar genegeerd.
Als Koude Oorlogsprofeet mag de columnist van De Groene dan wel voorspellen dat 'opnieuw duidelijk [is] geworden dat Rusland een diepe crisis nadert,' maar de vraag is nu: waarom verzwijgt Hofland zo angstvallig dat het Westen zelf nu al in 'een diepe crisis' zit? Ik begrijp wel dat een hoogbejaarde zzp'er moeilijk kan rondkomen van een karige AOW, en dat hij voor enkele honderden euro's er graag bijklust, maar waarom dit moet leiden tot neoliberale NAVO-propaganda, ontgaat mij volledig. Omdat Hofland kennelijk niet beseft wat oorlog in de praktijk betekent, blijft hij doorgaan met het mobiliseren van zijn publiek voor een mogelijke Derde Wereldoorlog. Als hij zich evenwel breder informeerde dan had hij het volgende artikel in Der Spiegel gelezen:
General Philip Breedlove, the top NATO commander in Europe, stepped before the press in Washington. Putin, the 59-year-old said, had once again 'upped the ante' in eastern Ukraine -- with 'well over a thousand combat vehicles, Russian combat forces, some of their most sophisticated air defense, battalions of artillery' having been sent to the Donbass. 'What is clear,' Breedlove said, 'is that right now, it is not getting better. It is getting worse every day.'
German leaders in Berlin were stunned. They didn't understand what Breedlove was talking about. And it wasn't the first time. Once again, the German government, supported by intelligence gathered by the Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany's foreign intelligence agency, did not share the view of NATO's Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR).
The pattern has become a familiar one. For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US Congress and in NATO.
The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as 'dangerous propaganda.' Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently to bring up Breedlove's comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.
The 'Super Hawk'
But Breedlove hasn't been the only source of friction. Europeans have also begun to see others as hindrances in their search for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. First and foremost among them is Victoria Nuland, head of European affairs at the US State Department. She and others would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans as well as many powerful Democrats.
Indeed, US President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind Merkel's diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to quiet those who would seek to increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine. Sources in Washington say that Breedlove's bellicose comments are first cleared with the White House and the Pentagon. The general, they say, has the role of the 'super hawk,' whose role is that of increasing the pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.
But it is the tone of Breedlove's announcements that makes Berlin uneasy. False claims and exaggerated accounts, warned a top German official during a recent meeting on Ukraine, have put NATO -- and by extension, the entire West -- in danger of losing its credibility.
There are plenty of examples. Just over three weeks ago, during the cease-fire talks in Minsk, the Ukrainian military warned that the Russians -- even as the diplomatic marathon was ongoing -- had moved 50 tanks and dozens of rockets across the border into Luhansk. Just one day earlier, US Lieutenant General Ben Hodges had announced 'direct Russian military intervention.'
Senior officials in Berlin immediately asked the BND for an assessment, but the intelligence agency's satellite images showed just a few armored vehicles. Even those American intelligence officials who supply the BND with daily situation reports were much more reserved about the incident than Hodges was in his public statements. One intelligence agent says it 'remains a riddle until today' how the general reached his conclusions.
Much More Cautious
'The German intelligence services generally appraise the threat level much more cautiously than the Americans do,' an international military expert in Kiev confirmed.
At the beginning of the crisis, General Breedlove announced that the Russians had assembled 40,000 troops on the Ukrainian border and warned that an invasion could take place at any moment. The situation, he said, was 'incredibly concerning.' But intelligence officials from NATO member states had already excluded the possibility of a Russian invasion. They believed that neither the composition nor the equipment of the troops was consistent with an imminent invasion.
The experts contradicted Breedlove's view in almost every respect. There weren't 40,000 soldiers on the border, they believed, rather there were much less than 30,000 and perhaps even fewer than 20,000. Furthermore, most of the military equipment had not been brought to the border for a possible invasion, but had already been there prior to the beginning of the conflict. Furthermore, there was no evidence of logistical preparation for an invasion, such as a field headquarters.
Breedlove, though, repeatedly made inexact, contradictory or even flat-out inaccurate statements. On Nov. 18, 2014, he told the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that there were 'regular Russian army units in eastern Ukraine.' One day later, he told the website of the German newsmagazine Stern that they weren't fighting units, but 'mostly trainers and advisors.'
He initially said there were 'between 250 and 300' of them, and then 'between 300 and 500.' For a time, NATO was even saying there were 1,000 of them.
The fact that NATO has no intelligence agency of its own plays into Breedlove's hands. The alliance relies on intelligence gathered by agents from the US, Britain, Germany and other member states. As such, SACEUR has a wide range of information to choose from.
Influencing Breedlove
On Nov. 12, during a visit to Sofia, Bulgaria, Breedlove reported that "we have seen columns of Russian equipment -- primarily Russian tanks, Russian artillery, Russian air defense systems and Russian combat troops -- entering into Ukraine." It was, he noted, 'the same thing that OSCE is reporting.' But the OSCE had only observed military convoys within eastern Ukraine. OSCE observers had said nothing about troops marching in from Russia.
Breedlove sees no reason to revise his approach. 'I stand by all the public statements I have made during the Ukraine crisis,' he wrote to SPIEGEL in response to a request for a statement accompanied by a list of his controversial claims. He wrote that it was to be expected that assessments of NATO's intelligence center, which receives information from all 33 alliance members in addition to partner states, doesn't always match assessments made by individual nations. 'It is normal that not everyone agrees with the assessments that I provide,' he wrote.
He says that NATO's strategy is to 'release clear, accurate and timely information regarding ongoing events.' He also wrote that: 'As an alliance based on the fundamental values of freedom and democracy, our response to propaganda cannot be more propaganda. It can only be the truth.' (Read Breedlove's full statement here.)
The German government, meanwhile, is doing what it can to influence Breedlove. Sources in Berlin say that conversations to this end have taken place in recent weeks. But there are many at NATO headquarters in Brussels who are likewise concerned about Breedlove's statements. On Tuesday of last week, Breedlove's public appearances were an official item on the agenda of the North Atlantic Council's weekly lunch meeting. Several ambassadors present criticized Breedlove and expressed their incredulity at some of the commander's statements.
The government in Berlin is concerned that Breedlove's statements could harm the West's credibility. The West can't counter Russian propaganda with its own propaganda, 'rather it must use arguments that are worthy of a constitutional state.' Berlin sources also say that it has become conspicuous that Breedlove's controversial statements are often made just as a step forward has been made in the difficult negotiations aimed at a political resolution. Berlin sources say that Germany should be able to depend on its allies to support its efforts at peace.
Pressure on Obama
German foreign policy experts are united in their view of Breedlove as a hawk. 'I would prefer that Breedlove's comments on political questions be intelligent and reserved,' says Social Democrat parliamentarian Niels Annen, for example. 'Instead, NATO in the past has always announced a new Russian offensive just as, from our point of view, the time had come for cautious optimism.' Annen, who has long specialized in foreign policy, has also been frequently dissatisfied with the information provided by NATO headquarters. 'We parliamentarians were often confused by information regarding alleged troop movements that were inconsistent with the information we had,' he says.
The pressure on Obama from the Republicans, but also from his own political camp, is intense. Should the ceasefire in eastern Ukraine not hold, it will likely be difficult to continue refusing Kiev's requests for shipments of so-called 'defensive weapons.' And that would represent a dramatic escalation of the crisis. Moscow has already begun issuing threats in anticipation of such deliveries. 'Any weapons deliveries to Kiev will escalate the tensions and would unhinge European security,' Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of Russia's national security council, told the Russian newspaper Komsomolskaya Pravda on Wednesday.
Although President Obama has decided for the time being to give European diplomacy a chance, hawks like Breedlove or Victoria Nuland are doing what they can to pave the way for weapons deliveries. 'We can fight against the Europeans, fight against them rhetorically,' Nuland said during a private meeting of American officials on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference at the beginning of February.
AP
US diplomat Victoria Nuland: Paving the way for weapons deliveries.
Nuland Diplomacy
Nuland, who is seen as a possible secretary of state should the Republicans win back the White House in next year's presidential election, is an important voice in US policy concerning Ukraine and Russia. She has never sought to hide her emotional bond to Russia, even saying 'I love Russia.' Her grandparents immigrated to the US from Bessarabia, which belonged to the Russian empire at the time. Nuland speaks Russian fluently.
She is also very direct. She can be very keen and entertaining, but has been known to take on an undiplomatic tone -- and has not always been wrong to do so. Mykola Asarov, who was prime minister under toppled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, recalls that Nuland basically blackmailed Yanukovych in order to prevent greater bloodshed in Kiev during the Maidan protests. 'No violence against the protesters or you'll fall,' Nuland told him according to Asarov. She also, he said, threatened tough economic and political sanctions against both Ukraine and the country's leaders. According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the protesters on Maidan Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the country would be made public.
Nuland has also been open -- at least internally -- about her contempt for European weakness and is famous for having said 'Fuck the EU' during the initial days of the Ukraine crisis in February of 2014. Her husband, the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, is, after all, the originator of the idea that Americans are from Mars and Europeans, unwilling as they are to realize that true security depends on military power, are from Venus.
When it comes to the goal of delivering weapons to Ukraine, Nuland and Breedlove work hand-in-hand. On the first day of the Munich Security Conference, the two gathered the US delegation behind closed doors to discuss their strategy for breaking Europe's resistance to arming Ukraine.
On the seventh floor of the Bayerischer Hof hotel in the heart of Munich, it was Nuland who began coaching. 'While talking to the Europeans this weekend, you need to make the case that Russia is putting in more and more offensive stuff while we want to help the Ukrainians defend against these systems,' Nuland said. 'It is defensive in nature although some of it has lethality.'
Training Troops?
Breedlove complemented that with the military details, saying that moderate weapons aid was inevitable -- otherwise neither sanctions nor diplomatic pressure would have any effect. 'If we can increase the cost for Russia on the battlefield, the other tools will become more effective,' he said. 'That's what we should do here.'
A massive troop training range is located in Yavoriv in western Ukraine near the Polish border. During Soviet times, it served as the westernmost military district in the Soviet Union. Since 1998, though, it has been used for joint exercises by Ukrainian forces together with the United States and NATO. Yavoriv is also the site where US soldiers want to train members of the Ukrainian National Guard for their future battle against the separatists. According to the Pentagon's plans, American officers would train the Ukrainians on how to use American artillery-locating radar devices. At least that's what US Army in Europe commander Lt. Gen. Hodges announced in January.
The training was actually supposed to start at the beginning of March. Before it began, however, President Obama temporarily put it on hold in order to give the ceasefire agreement reached in Minsk a chance. Still, the hawks remain confident that they will soon come a step closer to their goal. On Tuesday, Hodges said during an appearance in Berlin that he expects the training will still begin at some point this month.
By Matthias Gebauer, Christiane Hoffmann, Marc Hujer, Gordon Repinski, Matthias Schepp, Christoph Schult, Holger Stark and Klaus Wiegrefe.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/germany-concerned-about-aggressive-nato-stance-on-ukraine-a-1022193.html
Israel Shamir reporting from Moscow offers his view on Who Killed Nemtsov
Israel Shamir reporting from Moscow offers his view on Who Killed Nemtsov:
Who Killed Nemtsov
By Israel Shamir
By Israel Shamir
The alleged killers of Boris Nemtsov are apprehended, and they are (a dramatic pause) some Muslims from Chechnya who allegedly desired to punish the politician for his Je suis Charlie position. There is no official report available yet, but this implausible version is being promoted in Moscow. What’s that, a poor man’s 9/11? Indeed the Russian politician’s assassination seems to be produced by the same great studio that gave us 9/11, Boston marathon, Charlie killings. These crimes in New York, Boston, Paris and now Moscow have two common features: Muslims are accused of committing them, and there is a very strong and widely spread lack of belief in this accusation and in the details of the crime as published.
These doubtful crimes have an additional common quality: their striking visual aspect. Nemtsov’s death wasn’t on the Twin Towers scale, but the flamboyant playboy and an opposition politician was dispatched in style. Fluffy snow falling upon the bridges over Moscow River with brightly-lit polychrome domes of St Basil’s Cathedral and the red crenelated walls of Kremlin provided a perfect background. Add six bullets, a white American car the assassins used to flee the scene, and a Ukrainian beauty model Anna, 23, stooping over the prostrated body of her dead lover, and you’ll get a haunting picture Raymond Chandler could script and Howard Hawks direct. Or perhaps James Cameron of the Titanic would be a better choice.
A tinge of envy may be felt in my description. Nemtsov had a charming life, and a beautiful timely death, too. A young physics graduate, he was elevated by the revolution of 1991, made a governor of a major city, a deputy prime minister, a claimant to presidency, a dollar millionaire. Since 2000, his life in politics went downhill by virtue of his previous success. Nemtsov was generally considered an enabler of the grand larceny of Russia by the oligarchs, a promoter of “robber privatisation”. This was confirmed by Mr Ponomaryev MP, his friend and a prominent oppositionist. Some Yeltsin’s cadres retained important positions in Putin’s Russia to this very day, but Nemtsov was not among them.
His attempts to get elected a mayor or a parliament member all failed. He had little to do, but to enjoy life, womanising, drinking, dining and nursing his resentment of Putin he was on first-name-terms with. Still, he wasn’t bitter but cheerful. At 55, he was a has-been, nothing to expect, but going to demos and repeating the same dreary slogan of Down with Putin as he did on the US-owned and financed channels. He was killed Friday night, and on Sunday he was supposed to go to Maryino, a dreary suburb of Moscow, to demonstrate against inflation. The assassination saved him from this tedious task: he died still youngish, still slim and lithe, still a curly gypsy boy, in the arms of a delectable young thing.
His death also saved the demo, a first pro-Western demo in Moscow for months, from the expected debacle. Not many people were supposed to come, the white-band movement was practically gone. With his death, the Sunday demo was cancelled and instead, a mourning march took place that attracted some fifty thousand citizens, a respectable number. However, the march was peaceful, and no violent confrontations issued.
The Western mainstream media went to full attack mode, like they did at the Malaysian airliner crash. They accused Putin for sending his henchmen to kill, for he was afraid of Nemtsov’s political clout. This story could work for external use only: Russians would never believe that Putin sent the killers. It is not his style. And Nemtsov was not a threat to anybody. Internally, pro-Western Russian media said that Putin is responsible for Nemtsov’s death because he ignited hatred to “the fifth column”.
The Western mainstream media went to full attack mode, like they did at the Malaysian airliner crash. They accused Putin for sending his henchmen to kill, for he was afraid of Nemtsov’s political clout. This story could work for external use only: Russians would never believe that Putin sent the killers. It is not his style. And Nemtsov was not a threat to anybody. Internally, pro-Western Russian media said that Putin is responsible for Nemtsov’s death because he ignited hatred to “the fifth column”.
Actually, there is much of mutual hatred between ordinary Russians and pro-Western opposition. The oppositionists call their fellow citizens “vermin” and “rednecks” (“vata”), claiming in rather racist way that they belong to different species. Their chances to gain power by elections are nil. They are useful for Putin, as they solidify his popular support by their hatred. He is aware of it, and he is not likely to kill these useful props.
Many Russians believe (on the qui bono basis) the killing being ordered by Nemtsov’s competitors within the pro-Western opposition, such as Mr Khodorkovsky, a ruthless oligarch with many dead bodies at his trail and nine years of jail behind his back. But majority ascribes the murder to the Western secret services attempting to destabilise Russia.
Russia is not an Arab state, but the organisers of Nemtsov’s assassination could forget this geographic fact. During the Arab Spring, killing of an opposition figure invariably triggered popular uprising in the capital, the uprising caused a harsh government response, more bloodshed, international condemnation, government collapse and establishment of a new ruler, more pleasing to the revolution sponsors. This routine was scripted in the booklet by Gene Sharp, the wise man of NED (The National Endowment for Democracy), a semi-clandestine branch of the US intelligence in charge of “colour revolutions”.
You can’t always rely upon generosity of the government, oppressive it may be, that they will kill a right sort of person in the right time and place. That’s why les forces obscures behind the revolutions prefer to make the killing themselves and blame in on the government. This is called a ‘sacrifice routine’. An improved form of the sacrifice script was activated in the Ukraine last year, when few dozen activists were shot by mysterious snipers. The snipers disappeared, but international condemnation led to the President’s flight, and to the coup d’état, establishing pro-Western nationalist regime.
Russians were wise to this scheme. During the 2011 wave of unrest, the government was cautious to create no martyrs, and the revolutionary crowd was timid enough to comply. Now, in 2015, there was no visible reason for worry. Vast majority (86%) of Russians support the President, while pro-Western opposition dwindled. The activists were lazy and greedy, the Western emissaries said. They were angry at the opposition leaders for not trying hard enough to remove Putin. If you take our cookies you should do some work for us, this line was attributed to the State Department people in Moscow. John Tefft, the US Ambassador to Russia, was widely quoted as saying a week before the assassination, that “Messrs Navalny and Nemtsov will make a great contribution to our cause in the nearest future”. Mr Alexey Navalny, the most visible opposition leader, avoided “making a contribution” by getting himself imprisoned for a small offence for the crucial week. Perhaps he got the hint, people say.
Anyway, while the mourning and the funeral did not cause any breach of peace, the march did not turn into a Maidan or Tahrir, and Bernard Henri Levi did not land on the Red Square, the Putin’s government got cold feet. For a long eight days Russian police looked for the murderers, and meanwhile the Yeltsin’s cadres, people of nineties assaulted Putin from within and the Western media and officials from without. President Putin is not a Genghis Khan, he is a non-confrontational bloke whose great ambition is to live in peace and harmony with the West while defending Russia’s vital interests, and observing interests of Russia’s wealthies and worthies. He also wants to be accepted as an equal among the world’s great, East and West. His desire to be popular and accepted abroad never reached the sick extreme of Mikhail Gorbachev or Anwar as-Sadat, but he was upset the Western public being convinced he personally shot Nemtsov from his bedroom window in Kremlin for the heck of it. Discovering the assassins of Nemtsov received their brief from a Mrs Nuland of this world would never pass the muster in the West.
“Muslim extremists” are patsies nobody can reasonably object to. If they killed cartoonists in Paris and dropped the Towers in New York, they could kill a minor politician in Moscow. Prescient Mr Eduard Limonov, a writer and a revolutionary, predicted this choice on March, 3d: “the Russian administration would prefer Nemtsov being killed by an Islamic extremist. It is most improbable, but this version would allow to get close to the West. Islamic extremists are a common enemy… Russia wants to get closer to the West while preserving its own dignity. And what could be better for this purpose than a still warm dead body of a common victim killed by a common enemy?”
This version is not entirely fanciful: Russia’s pro-West liberal opposition is Islamophobe and Zionist. Late Mr Nemtsov was true to form: he hated ‘gooks’, spoke in favour of Charlie Hebdo, supported Israel’s bombardment of Gaza, and had a nice old Jewish mother. In his last text he referred to Russia’s FBI as ‘filth’ and suggested they should go and fight Islamic terrorists in Chechnya instead of bothering liberals. (A macho man, he described Putin’s party as ‘buggers’ in this interview).
Nemtsov was not worse than any other leader of Russia’s liberal opposition. Khodorkovsky (now the leader) called upon every Russian newspaper to print a daily Prophet Muhammad cartoon; Echo Moskvy Ganapolsky called Muslims “non-human”; the voice of the opposition Makarevich went to Israel to support Liberman, the far-right Jewish nationalist; Julia Latynina blessed Jewish cannons destroying Arab vermin of Gaza. Still, one has to start somewhere, supposedly mused the “Muslim extremists” and started with Mr Nemtsov.
Many people doubt this version. Are they “truthers”? ‘Truthers’ are not a small sect anymore: people disbelieve what they are told, they distrust pictures they are being shown and they reject explanations being given. But the Russian Truthers are embraced by the Western media that shied from the Western Truthers. Vladimir Milov, a leading oppositionist questioned the details of Nemtsov’s assassination in much the same vein as Truthers doubted the Charlie or Marathon killings. He arrived to the same conclusion as Truthers: killings were done by Secret Services. But in a CNN interview, Christiane Amanpour calls a Russian politician Sergey Markov “a conspiracy theorist” for refusing to accept Russian Truthers’ version of events. So your freedom fighter is my terrorist, while your official version is my conspiracy theory.
Will Nemtsov’s murder have an impact on developments in Russia? It is plausible that Putin will try to be more accommodating towards the West and towards Kiev regime. The Russians are worried that pro-Western neoliberal party will regain the positions they lost after 2000, and dead Nemtsov will indeed be more useful for his cause than alive one.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten