Monday, November 24, 2014

Anissa Naoui stands up to Christiane Amanpour! Not to be missed! Propagandawarfare ( video and soundtrack CNN/RT)

RT offers a complete video of Naouai's answers, as well as the full transcript of the discussion below.
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Mr. Kasyanov, Anissa Naouai in Moscow, thank you both very much indeed for joining me. Let me first ask you, Mikhail Kasyanov, Mr. Putin, President Putin seems to believe that Russia has an image problem and wants to change the way Russia is portrayed around the rest of the world. It is an image problem or is there a problem, a policy problem?
MIKHAIL KASYANOV: That's a deep problem of the policy. The problem of Mr. Putin, because Mr. Putin believes that such a policy he pursues internally and externally, that's normality in 21st century, which is absolutely not. And therefore he is sometimes even angry on the Western society, why the Western society doesn't accept his regime as normal one. Therefore that's a problem of mentality rather than of image.
AMANPOUR: Anissa, let me ask you, do you feel that "Russia Today" and other state-sponsored media is specifically designed to counter what your government, your president believes is a bad image problem, an unfair shake in the West?
ANISSA NAOUAI: Just to be clear he's not my president. I'm an American. He's the Russian president. And "Russia Today" airs to a global audience. So it's not really watched in Russia; it's in English; many people across Russia don't really turn to Russia Today to get their news. And I certainly don't represent the Russian media as a whole. I represent RT and more so myself. But I think specifically about RT – because it's been in the media quite a lot recently to focus on that – I think the thing about RT which is misunderstood by a lot of people, not our viewers, because they know very well, is that we have nothing to hide. People know where our funding comes from. We're "Russia Today." We're funded by the Kremlin, despite the sort of addressing by foreign media that it's some kind of revelation of investigative journalists. Our budget is completely open. It's completely transparent, even though it's misquoted very often. And so it's interesting to us that these kind of questions are asked by the mainstream media, by a channel like CNN, who has journalists that have left the channel because documentaries on Bahrain haven't been run like "I-Revolution" a couple of years ago, which air programs like "Eye on Georgia," "Eye on Kazakhstan," "Eye on Lebanon," which are essentially government-sponsored programs. And that's barely, very, very secretly disclosed to the audience. You really have to go on the site and dig for it to find that these are not sort of just basic, unbiased reporting on the ground. These are government sponsored programs aired on television. So it's interesting to have questions asked of us, staff at "RT," how do we feel about kind of representing the Russian government. Our viewers know that we're funded by the Kremlin. They watch RT with this in mind. And this is why we're getting viewers. Because if you actually turn on RT, you'll see that we cite the Ukrainian government. We cite NATO. We cite the State Department. We cite the American side. Yes, of course, we also cite the Russian perspective, and of course maybe even more so because that's the perspective that we feel is being sidelined.
AMANPOUR: Anissa, you have now had a long preamble. But I didn't actually get you to answer my question and that is does one believe – do you believe that you're there specifically to counter a weight problem when it comes to the weight of information? And let me ask you specifically about the whole idea, which is one of the big issues at play inside Russia and RT’s representation of it abroad, and that is describing the nature of what's happening in Ukraine. For months and months and months now, Russians and Russian state media and Kremlin-funded media, such as yourself, have portrayed Ukraine as sort of phobic to pro-Russian separatists or minorities there as neo-Nazis, fascists who just want to abuse and assault them. And that has appeared on your channel. And President Putin has said it several times. My question obviously is what is the point of that? And let me first just play this piece of an interview from President Putin not to your channel, but he said it before to a German channel just this weekend. [TECHNICAL PROBLEMS] From President Putin, this past Sunday: "We're truly concerned that the wish to start ethnic cleansing may soon arise there." He's talking about Ukraine. "We're afraid that the Ukraine will become immersed in neo-Nazism. You can see people wearing swastikas on their sleeves and the SS insignia on the helmets of some units fighting in the Eastern Ukraine at the moment." And of course, you all remember the big – the big sort of billboards that Russian television and media put up during the Crimea referendum, equating, you know, Russia – or rather saying the choice is Russia or neo-Nazism. So I guess, Anissa, my point to you is, why go to such efforts to brand Ukraine as such, when the polling data itself says that less than two percent of the people actually voted for any kind of far right group? You know, I'm asking you because it's so important in the way people understand what's happening in Eastern Ukraine.
NAOUAI: Yes, I agree it's important. I think what you're trying to say is that it's perhaps being exaggerated, the threat of neo-Nazis, which perhaps is true. I'm not Russian. The Russian people lost almost 30 million people fighting fascism during the Second World War. Who am I to say that this is a made-up threat? There's clear documentation, Christiane, which obviously you have access to, obviously your audience, our audience has access to. There are people that walk through the streets of Kiev with swastikas on. There are – there is this trend of tying in this kind of glorification of Nazism with the anti-Russian sentiment that is trying to be up in the West. And there's also, I think what Putin was referring to there was not so much the Nazi trends, but the civilians being killed, which organizations like Human Rights Watch, like Amnesty International, like your own reporter – one of my, I think, one of the most powerful reports I've seen from the East, to be quite frank, was not from Russia Today. It was from your reporter, Diana Magnay. And she's in the East. And basically it's a phenomenal report. I mean, it's horrific and it was civilians in the East calling themselves Ukrainians and saying stop killing us, Petro Poroshenko. Stop killing us. So to imply that this is not going on, that civilians are not being killed by the Ukrainian army – let's be very specific here – and this is what you have on camera. Was this report run on CNN around the clock? No!
AMANPOUR: But that’s not what I was asking, Anissa. Anissa, I was asking - obviously there's a war going on and we understand there are hundreds if not thousands of people have been killed. I'm talking about the specific characterization of a policy of fascism and neo-Nazism, which your president – or rather the Russian president – and the foreign minister and other senior officials keep repeating. So let me turn to Mr. Kasyanov, who used to be prime minister there. Is there, do you believe – Anissa admitted there might be exaggeration. Is it more than exaggeration? And as such, is it a fair interpretation of what's going on and what are the consequences?
KASYANOV: That's not –
NAOUAI: I didn't admit that it was an exaggeration. I said who are we to say that it’s an exaggeration as non-Russians. 30 millions of them were killed in World War II. I said, “Who are we to say it’s an exaggeration?” That’s what I said exactly.
AMANPOUR: No, you didn't say that. You said they may – that might be an exaggeration, but then who are we to say that fears are exaggerated? I've got that on record. So don't worry about it. That's going to be played.
NAOUAI: Yes, I didn’t admit that it was an exaggeration.
AMANPOUR: All right. But you actually did and I'll play it and you can dispute it afterwards if you like. But I will play it and it's not a problem. It's what you said. Now I'm putting it to you, Mr. Kasyanov. What are the consequences of inflating these numbers? And I will say that there is a huge attempt to tar the Ukrainian government as neo-fascist when two percent, less than two percent, voted for far right groups in the last elections in May.
KASYANOV: I will say that’s not exaggeration, that’s deliberate policy of Mr. Putin. And just all these reasons and arguments Mr. Putin provides, they are simply bizarre. How can –
AMANPOUR: But it’s designed for something, Mr. Kasyanov. What is it designed to do?
KASYANOV: Yes, exactly. Just Mr. Putin thinks just all people just simply just idiots all over the world. Just you have just mentioned nice figures, just less than two percent voted for far right people, politicians in Ukraine. And what the reason for annexation for Crimea, what the reason of acceleration of these military conflict in the Eastern Ukraine? That is, as you said, correctly, that’s some kind of imagination that there is a danger for Russian-speaking people and for just pressing them and just putting them in a just bad position. That’s absolutely lie.
AMANPOUR: How successful, though, has Anissa's channel been and other Kremlin-sponsored state-funded media in Russia? How successful are they?
KASYANOV: All these channels, they never describe reasons why just this annexation and the war started. They prefer to describe what's going on now, there. Hundreds of people killed and just problems – other people just having problems because of the war.
AMANPOUR: Right, but my question to you is how successful is it in convincing people in Russia or around the world?
KASYANOV: In Russia, it’s absolutely successful. People are fooled by state propaganda. All media under full control of Mr. Putin. And this enhanced adoration by him and his team and in fact they popular social – sociological poll for 85 percent of support of Putin's policy in Ukraine, that is a result of – that's the result of this propaganda. And unfortunately, I have to admit that even educated people who understand that it's not possible to behave in 21st century in this manner Mr. Putin does, they think that annexation or just joining of Crimea to Russia is fair, because of the simple reason – all people living in Russia today, they got their information through their textbooks in schools, history that Crimea was always Russian. And they don't support Mr. Putin. But they believe Mr. Putin will disappear but Crimea will still be part of Russia. That's why that there is a such a - I wouldn’t say consensus, but popular view on what's going on in Ukraine.
AMANPOUR: Anissa, can I come back to you? Because that's one issue. But another gathering fear, certainly in the West – and the Financial Times has been writing about it – is the idea that President Putin, either publicly or with certain individuals who he talks to and other powerful figures in Russia, are, quote-unquote, "putting the nuclear gun on the table now." And let me read you a few things that have been written over here. Apparently President Putin has told domestic audiences that outsiders should, quote, "not mess with us, because Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers." Does it worry you, that kind of thing? And when Russians start to talk about their nuclear arsenal, do you – does your sensibility start getting heightened? How do you decide to cover this when you have your editorial meetings?
NAOUAI: Again, Russia Today airs to the West. So we have a global audience. And we cover stories that we think affect a global audience and especially with the Ukraine crisis, a lot of the mainstream narrative dictates what exactly we cover. We come to work and we see a lot of holes in the stories that you're telling your audience, holes that can be easily closed by just going online, trying to verify videos, trying to get kind of different sorts of perspectives on the air. So that helps a lot in trying to decide what we're going to cover. And I think it's careful when – you need to be careful when you start bringing these sort of nuclear threats taken out of context. This is a very serious issue. And as journalists, we need to be careful when we pick and choose what quotes we want to give to a global audience. I have to say I do not know what you're referencing specifically about this Russian – what Putin said to a Russian television. To be honest, I work a lot and I don't exactly watch the Russian media every night. RT airs to a global audience.
AMANPOUR: I know you keep saying that, but RT is –
NAOUAI: I’m not sure exactly what channel you’re referring to or what speech you're referring to. But I do know – but I want to – I want to make this clear, that I do know that Putin has made it very clear to the Russian people that he's not looking for war, but he will continue to protect Russian interests. And when you're talking about military aggression and about perspectives of Russia around the world, all you need to do is look at a map. Look at a map and look where Ukraine is and look where Russia is and look where the United States is and then look at all of the countries and bases surrounding Russia. And tell the audience again that Russia is the aggressor here.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, because you brought up verifying video – and again it's on a state-run television, it's not RT, but it's state-run television. And let's be – let's be fair also – RT and all its other incarnations does get traction inside Russia. But anyway, Channel 1 made international headlines last week because it broadcast, quote, "sensational photographs of what it said were satellite images of a Ukrainian fighter jet shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17." As we know, what happened then, 289 people on board. Now critics immediately pointed out discrepancies in this imagery. Apparently it displayed the wrong markings for the Malaysian flight and it just was a fake image. When that happens, do you feel that it's in your realm of responsibility also to point that out?
NAOUAI: Again, I have to point out that I don’t represent the Russian media, but RT. I know the image you're talking about, of course. It should be pointed out also that that image was on the Internet for quite a couple of months – unfortunately this channel took the bait. They didn't verify it. We did, of course. That's why we didn't show it. But to sort of condemn the First Channel for mistakes that we've all make – and I remember very well Jim Clancy of CNN showing a video in Donetsk in May of this year of a supposed helicopter being downed by these anti-Kiev fighters. We went online; we checked the video. The video was from Syria. We never even saw a retraction from CNN. So it's a little difficult to judge. Obviously this is a market, they were trying to perhaps have a scoop. It's a dangerous thing. It's very unfortunate that they took the bait and it's a very dangerous trend. So all I can do as a journalist is, yeah, condemn it. It was a mistake. But they're certainly not the only journalists in the world that make mistakes like that.
AMANPOUR: Alright, point taken. Let me ask you, Mr. Kasyanov, what I just started to talk to Anissa about. And this is a sort of a gathering private sending out messages of, “hey, we are a nuclear power, too”. And the NATO commander has said that Russia has moved weaponry into Crimea that is nuclear capable, should is so choose to make it such. Let’s face it. This is Europe; this is a hot war right now, and it’s between a major nuclear power, Russia, and a nuclear alliance. How dangerous is that right now? What message is President Putin trying to send?
KASYANOV: I think it’s very dangerous. That is absolutely irresponsible and reckless policy. I don’t want the president of my country to behave this way and just use us as some kind… getting people scared about just Russia’s behavior in the near future. Therefore, there’s perhaps such a tension between the West and Russia. And Mr. Putin simply destroys the future of our country. And through this policy he’d like to achieve some kind of acceptance that his policy and his behavior is normal.
AMANPOUR: Could this kind of rhetoric, though, this kind of chest beating or quiet warnings in private – could it have unintended consequences? I mean, one of the worst things in history is the tragic miscalculation.
KASYANOV: It could. That’s why I’m saying that’s reckless and irresponsible, because just the leader of such a country, a member of the Security Council, a prominent member of the Security Council responsible for global security, cannot behave this way, and cannot use this rhetoric just in settling other issues, which are absolutely of different nature.
AMANPOUR: All this really is to ask both of you or anybody whether we know what President Putin wants. Anissa, do we know what President Putin wants? There was a ceasefire agreed in Minsk, there was an agreement, it’s been violated, there are Russian forces moving again into Eastern Ukraine. What does President Putin want? What do you think he wants, given that you are a Kremlin funded sanctioned media? We cannot get Russian officials to talk to us.
NAOUAI: I think President Putin has made it very clear to both Russia and to the international community that what he wants is for Russia to be respected, mutually respected on an equal playing base, and that he wants dialogue to prevail. And so I think it’s very dangerous to sort of talk about these kind of warnings in secret. I mean, there’s nothing secret. All of this gets out. Obviously you went and found this apparent secret nuclear conversation that he had to Russian media that wasn’t supposed to get out. Everything is available.
AMANPOUR: I didn’t say secret.
NAOUAI: There are so many perspectives available. You can go online. You can analyze Russian media. You can analyze CNN. And the audience can go and view for themselves. But I think Putin has made it very clear that he wants stability in his – for his country, and in this region, and he wants to get there through dialogue.
AMANPOUR: Mr. Kasyanov, what do you think President Putin wants?
KASYANOV: In fact, I think Mr. Putin doesn’t want just to build up a new Russian empire. What he wants, the main motivation for all these aggressions – first talking about for in Georgia and Mr. Putin at that time tested waters. And as we all remember, three months after this aggression, so-called just peace plan of Mr. Sarkozy – at that time he was chair of European Union – was destroyed. None of the points, none of the obligations of Russian government were implemented by Russian government. And three months after, the whole relations between the West and the Russian Federation stand on the point as business as usual.
AMANPOUR: But what's him aim?
KASYANOV: The aim is now…
AMANPOUR: The end game?
KASYANOV: - first just to strengthen his support inside Russia, to keep power. For authoritarian regime it's important always to have external enemy and quick victories. Georgia was one victory, which helped him to establish his own strengthening inside Russia. Now just Ukraine. And secondly, he, of course, wants to – the West to accept his regime as normal.
AMANPOUR: And what do you think his takeaway is about Western leaders, given how they've reacted over the last, I don't know, several months?
KASYANOV: That was a real shock for him. He didn't expect, first of all, transatlantic unity, which is absolute basis right now for all, I would say, just talking of normalization of all this environment, of all this situation. And secondly that European Union just taken just such unified position, together with the United States. And of course Mr. Putin spent quite a lot of efforts to have a – to divide the policy and to divide countries inside European Union. But when major European Union countries just initiated and directly supported those sanctions – sanctions I would underline, not against the Russian Federation, Russian people, but against individuals who are responsible for all just these misdeeds. And also against just instruments, which is in the hands of Mr. Putin, like state corporations and state banks.
AMANPOUR: Listen, last question and then we'll say goodbye and you can get back to your work, because I know you have your show coming up. So here we go. Anissa, you told me that you're American and so I want to know from you what your thoughts are about the whole media landscape because there are less and less independent media there, certainly less and less independent television, more and more of them being shut down. I mean, even the Russian government is legislating to make it impossible for CNN and other external broadcasters to actually broadcast because of the tough terms they're putting on us. Do you think that's a good thing? Is that healthy or bad? I mean, if everything is state controlled media, is that healthy for the society or not?
NAOUAI: I don't think that's a really accurate picture of what's happening. I can’t name one television station that’s been shut down, first of all.
AMANPOUR: But it is…
NAOUAI: What - I can't name one television station which has been shut down. I just came back from News Exchange, where we asked CNN executives why they were supposedly stopping their broadcast in Russia. And they said it was a technical glitch with the cable companies.
AMANPOUR: Well, I'm telling you right now…
NAOUAI: You're announcing right now that the Russian government is making it difficult to work in Russia.
AMANPOUR: Alright. I'm telling you right now that there is legislation underway that makes it difficult for us to broadcast. And it's not just us. It's television all over the place. But my real question to you is: do you feel that it's healthy for a society just to get a diet of one side rather than the other? And that is what's happening.
NAOUAI: I disagree that that's what's happening. Certainly at Russia Today, like I said, we always cite the Ukrainian government. We always cite Western governments, Europe. If you want to analyze internal Russian news, I'm not sure I'm the best person to do it, to be honest. But certainly, at Russia Today, we always try to show both sides of a - do we show more of a Russian perspective? Of course we do, because that's the perspective that's being sidelined. But it's an absurd question coming from someone that's propagated the line of the State Department for over 15 years. I mean, it's absolutely absurd.

AMANPOUR: Well, are you talking to me?
NAOUAI: Yes. Absolutely I'm talking to you. Who else would I be talking to?
AMANPOUR: Are you talking to me?
NAOUAI: Absolutely.
AMANPOUR: You've got to be kidding me…
NAOUAI: You've propagated the line of the State Department for over 15 years, starting with Yugoslavia and all the way into Syria. And now you're doing it for Ukraine, essentially. Absolutely, I’m talking to you.
AMANPOUR: Oh, my goodness. Have you seen any of my reports about Syria? Have you seen any of my reports about Syria?
NAOUAI: I've seen lots of your reports and in not one report where you find you questioning the United States government and their policy. And we, with our Russian propaganda, question those arms to the FSA, question those arms to al-Nusra and other leagues. And now today we have ISIS.

AMANPOUR: Anissa, I'm really now - listen, I invited you on this program - I invited you on this program to have an adult discussion.
NAOUAI: Absolutely. But your audience should be aware of this, Christiane. Your audience should be aware of this. You should disclose this to them.
AMANPOUR: And I would like you to go back and… Oh, yes. They are aware of it, which is why they've been watching me for a long time. But listen to me, I would like you seriously…
NAOUAI: I’m glad they do, and I’m sure they know who James Rubin is, I’m sure they watch your work in Yugoslavia.
AMANPOUR: - as an act of research and as an act of education, go back and find all my work on Yugoslavia and all my work on Syria and match that with the - with the - with the policy of the United States government and furthermore, go back and watch what launched me and that was a to-and-fro with President Clinton challenging his policy on Bosnia and Yugoslavia. So Anissa, listen, I have respected you but I really don't think that you should be doing this to me, of all people, on this - on this broadcast and on this satellite link. And you're wrong. And I challenge you to go back…
NAOUAI: Yes, how dare someone tell CNN to check who their sponsors are, what governments they are working with!
NAOUAI: How dare someone come on CNN and say that!
AMANPOUR: No! Hey, excuse me, no, no, no, you just said whatever you wanted to say. When you become ad hominem to me, that's a problem, because you're not doing it from a basis of knowledge.
NAOUAI: Well, let your viewers decide, Christiane. I think that's the fairest way out of this debate.
AMANPOUR: You're doing it - I don't know why you're doing it. But you're not doing it from a basis of knowledge.
NAOUAI: Let your viewers decide. Let them go back to your work in Yugoslavia.
AMANPOUR: What did you say?
NAOUAI: Let your viewers decide. Let them go back to your work in Yugoslavia and see if it doesn't fall exactly in line with the State Department’s line.
AMANPOUR: I tell you what. You just go and see the interview with President Clinton and then you'll be able to choose, because you can be sure I'm not putting this on the air, Anissa. It's a personal attack.
NAOUAI: I know that interview very well. I know that interview very well, Christiane, and you were propagating war.
AMANPOUR: You're… Exactly. Good.
NAOUAI: You were basically encouraging Bill Clinton to go to war.

AMANPOUR: Oh, and that was what Bill Clinton wanted, was it?
NAOUAI: I don’t know what Bill Clinton wanted. I'm talking about your work as a journalist.
AMANPOUR: Anissa, come on; you've lost me, babe. Thank you very much. Thank you very much indeed. I really appreciate it. I'm sorry; I thought we could have an adult discussion. And we can't. Thank you so much. Alright. Now I have to pretend to thank you.
Anissa, Mikhail Kasyanov, thank you very much indeed for joining me.
KASYANOV: Thank you.

On the Pentagon’s Biological Laboratories in Ukraine. Leonid SAVIN | 24.11. und mehr infos von Annette Klebrig zusammengestellt

 On the Pentagon’s Biological Laboratories in Ukraine. Leonid SAVIN | 24.11.
Despite international agreements that regulate activities in the field of biological research, on this subject, just as on the subject of chemical weapons, the US remains a US of double standards. It is not reliably known what kind of research, especially research related to deadly viruses, is being carried out by the American military, or where.   -   Following the terrorist attacks in New York in September 2001biological threats were used to frighten America. The situation with the sending of letters containing powder with spores of anthrax was blown up to the level of public hysteria. It happened approximately a week after the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, which created the illusion that there was a link between the two events, united by the theme of the threat of ‘Islamic fundamentalism’. Ten years later, in 2011, declassified FBI documents showed that the spores of anthrax were developed at the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases.
In ten years, the number of American laboratories engaged in developing ways to protect against bioterrorism, according to the official version, has grown from 20 to 400. Secret biological centres....      ....In Ukraine in 2013 alone, biolaboratories were opened in Vinnytsia, Ternopil, Uzhhorod, Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Simferopol, Kherson, Lviv (three laboratories at once in this town!) and Lugansk with the support of the US.   Today, the Pentagon’s biolaboratories are gathered around Russia in a semicircle....
  • Washington Is Pushing NATO toward Expansion in All Directions
  • US to Turn Ukraine into Second Chernobyl
  • Source:

    "Hübsches Totschlagwort".doc: DER SPIEGEL 48/2014, Seite 85 Politikjournalismus;„Hübsches Totschlagwort“ 

    Hubert Seipel, 64, über sein kritisiertes Putin-Interview bei "Günter Jauch"
    SPIEGEL: Ihr Interview mit dem russischen Präsidenten war ein journalistischer Scoop. Allerdings wurden Sie von Kollegen und Zuschauern dafür geprügelt, dass sie nicht kritisch nachgefragt haben.
    Seipel: Der Vorwurf kam vorrangig von einigen der lieben Kollegen, weniger von den fünf Millionen Zuschauern, und ich finde ihn absurd. Es geht doch nicht darum, wie ich mich darstelle. Es geht darum, wie Putin sich darstellt. Was hat der Zuschauer davon, wenn ich mich als journalistisches Alphamännchen aufbaue und eine Wunschliste der Political Correctness abarbeite? Ich bin weder bei Amnesty International und auch nicht der Vorposten des Westens, der als Kämpfer für Freiheit und Gerechtigkeit aufzutreten hat. Ich bin gelernter Dokumentarist. Mich interessiert, das Interesse des anderen zu dokumentieren – und das kriege ich nicht heraus, wenn ich den Bad Guy spiele....

    Westen rüstet Kiew auf. Reinhard Lauterbach 

    USA liefern Feuerleitsysteme, Kanada bot Kampfflugzeuge an. Poroschenko wirft Russland vor, Hungersnot im Donbass hervorzurufen 
    Westliche Staaten haben ohne große Diskretion begonnen, die ukrainische Armee aufzurüsten. Die USA teilten am Samstag auf der Pentagon-Webseite mit, dass sie der Ukraine Feuerleitsysteme für Granatwerfer überlassen. Bisher seien drei von 20 geplanten Anlagen geliefert worden. Die Systeme erlauben die Ortung von Granatwerfern, die aus der Deckung heraus schießen. Nach US-Darstellung vom Samstag hat Washington den ukrainischen Streitkräften ausdrücklich die Entscheidung darüber überlassen, ob diese die Systeme an der Front im Donbass einsetzen. Damit wird also zu rechnen sein.
    Ebenfalls am Samstag teilte ein Beamter des ukrainischen Verteidigungsministeriums im Fernsehen mit, dass Kanada der Kiewer Regierung die Lieferung von »F-18«-Kampfflugzeugen angeboten habe....
    Merkel in Sachsen nicht willkommen – man versteht sie als amerikanische Kanzlerin 
    Was in den Medien nicht berichtet wird. Bestimmendes Thema der Protestierenden bei einem Auftritt von Angela MerkelWer Merkel wählt, der wählt den Krieg mit Russland!  
    Wir zeigen euch das, was die GEZ-Mafia dem Bürger vorenthält. Wie schon vor einigen Tagen in Bautzen kam es auch in Dresden zu massiven Protesten gegen die amerikanische Kanzlerin Angela Merkel, die sich momentan auf Wahlkampftour in Sachsen befindet, um die sächsische CDU zu unterstützen. Aber egal wo die Mutti in diesen Tagen aufschlägt, ihr bläst der pure Volkszorn entgegen. Wer Merkel wählt, der wählt den Krieg mit Russland! Besonders dreist: Für Merkels Auftritt wählte man den Platz vor der Dresdner Frauenkirche. Jenes Gotteshaus also, dass uns Deutsche und insbesondere die Dresdner Bürger bis heute mahnend daran erinnert, was Krieg wirklich bedeutet. Zwischen 13. und 15. Februar 1945, nur wenige Wochen vor Kriegsendeermordeten angloamerikanische Bomberverbände rund 250.000 Dresdner Zivilisten.
       Brisbane: Niederlage im miesen Spiel für weitergehende Sanktionen gegen Russland. 
     “Der G-20-Gipfel in Brisbane sichtbarer Erfolg der russisch-deutschen Diplomatie” Luz María De Stéfano Zuloaga de Lenkait Juristin und Diplomatin a.D.
    Einige deutsche Journalisten, erwartungsgemäß natürlich auch in der SZ und FAZ, sind untauglich, diesen eindeutigen Erfolg einzusehen und anzuerkennen, denn sie schüren ständig feindselige Stimmung gegen Russland.Diese miese feindselige Anti-Russland-Propaganda nimmt umso mehr zu, je offensichtlicher das Scheitern der angelsächsischen Hardliner in Brisbane wird, das jene deutschen Leitmedien mit allen Mitteln zu vertuschentrachten. Dabei reichen einige wenige genaue Beobachtungen der Ereignisse, um dieses eklatante Scheitern von Barack Obama und David Cameron bloßzustellen.
    In klarer realistischer Einschätzung der feindseligen Umgebung fand das Gespräch zwischen der Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel und dem russischen Präsident Wladimir Putin in seinem Hotel hinter verschlossenen Türen statt. Natürlich war dieses persönliche Treffen im Voraus zwischen dem Bundeskanzleramt und dem Kreml genauestens abgestimmt worden. Auf das angesetzte Treffen angesprochen reagierte die deutsche Delegation in Brisbane trocken und zurückhaltend.....
    Neue Perspektiven der Kooperation sieht Frank Walter Steinmeier nach Gespräch mit Präsident Putin in Moskau. von Irene Eckert18.11. 2014
    Neue Töne? Hoffentlich und endlich sagen wir, denn  der Konflikt der „westliche Wertegemeinsschaft“ mit Russland ist künstlich und in frevelhafter Manier   von genau dieser  in  bedrohlich  selbsschädigender  Weise hochstilisiert worden.  -   Nicht Putin stand in Brisbane wie ein begossener Pudel da, sondern die “westliche Werkgemeinschaft” hat sich vor aller Welt blamiert und ihre dünne Maske ein für alle Mal fallen lassen. Bar jeglicher diplomatischer Rücksichtnahme haben sich vor allem Australien, Kanada und die Vereinigten Staaten in beleidigender Weise hervorgetan, um...    ....Vor der ganzen Welt macht die Geste des Entgegenkommens beider Seiten  sichtbar  deutlich, dass  eine Lösung des zerstörerischen Chaos, das der Westen in der Ukraine verbrochen hat, nur mit und nicht gegen Russland in den Griff zu bekommen.  -  Friedenskräfte müssen diesen Moment als Chance  aufgreifen und auf dem Weg der Diplomatie mit Nachdruck bestehen. Sie müssen ein Ende der Sanktionspolitik und ganz im Sinne Matthias Platzecks die Bereitschaft zu einem wirklichen Kurswechsel einfordern.
    Ehemaliger US-Sicherheitsberater für Lieferung letaler Waffen an Ukraine
    Für die Lieferung letaler Waffen an die Ukraine hat sich Stephen Hadley, ehemaliger Sicherheitsberater des US-Präsidenten, ausgesprochen. 
    „Wenn ich jetzt in meinem früheren Amt wäre, hätte ich dies erwogen“, sagte Hadley laut bei einer Diskussionsrunde im Aspen-Institut. „Gerade zu diesem Zweck existiert die CIA mit ihren Geheimoperationen. Ich hätte dann überlegt, ob wir das offen machen und damit ein Signal an Putin senden möchten? Oder möchten wir das geheim machen? Ich denke, wir sind geneigt, zu viel zu reden und zu wenig zu handeln.“
    US-Vizepräsident Joe Biden hatte am Freitag in Kiew bekannt gegeben, dass das Weiße Haus in Erwartung einer Zustimmung des Kongresses 20 Millionen Dollar für die Unterstützung einer tiefgehenden Reform der Rechtsschutzorgane und Gerichte, darunter einer Staatsanwaltschaftsreform und einer gegen Korruption gerichteten Reform, bereitstellt, hieß es aus dem Weißen Haus. Biden teilte auch mit, dass die USA zusätzlich....
    "Volksrepublik Donezk" will Kiew das gesamte Gebiet abverlangen. 

    STIMME RUSSLANDS Die eigenmächtig proklamierte "Volksrepublik Donezk" (VRD) wird bei Verhandlungen mit Kiew darauf bestehen, dass das gesamte Territorium des Gebiets Donezk unter ihre Kontrolle übergeben wird. Das sagte der Vizevorsitzende des Volksrates der VRD, Denis Puschilin.  
    Seiner Meinung nach soll diese Frage „am Verhandlungstisch, ohne Waffen“ entschieden werden.  -   Zuvor hatte der VRD-Chef, Alexander Sachartschenko, wiederholt erklärt, dass das gesamte Territorium des ukrainischen Gebiets Donezk in den Bestand der "Republik" eingeschlossen werden soll.----------------------------------------------------------------
    Lugansk und Donezk nach Artilleriebeschuss durch ukrainisches Militär. FOTOS ! 
    Putin: Kein neuer Eiserner Vorhang.

    STIMME RUSSLANDS Trotz des angespannten Verhältnisses mit dem Westen hat Russland laut Präsident Wladimir Putin nicht vor, sich von der übrigen Welt abzuschirmen. Russland wird seine geopolitischen Interessen ohne einen neuen Eisernen Vorhang verteidigen.

    „Wir verstehen, dass ein eiserner Vorhang uns zum Verhängnis werden könnte", sagte Putin in einem Interview für die Agentur Tass. Versuche, sich von der übrigen Welt abzuschirmen, könnten zu Verfall führen. „Wir werden diesen Weg auf keinen Fall gehen und niemand wird eine Mauer um uns errichten.“ Zugleich betonte Putin, dass Russlandseine geopolitischen Interessen weiter verteidigen werde. Er beschuldigte den Westen, Russland nur dann zu akzeptieren, wenn es "brav" sei. „Wenn Russland auf die Beine kommt und sich das Recht nimmt, seine Interessen zu verteidigen, ändert sich das Verhältnis sofort."

    DPR to Lay Claims Over Whole Donetsk Region's Territory: Deputy PM
    The Donetsk People's Republic should be within the borders of the former Donetsk Region, DPR deputy prime minister said, pointing out that the issue should be addressed "at the negotiating table, without any weapons in hands."
    DONETSK, November 23 (Sputnik) — The self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic (DPR) is going to lay territorial claims over the entire territory of Ukraine's Donetsk Region, should the talks with Kiev occur, DPR Deputy Prime Minister Denis Pushilin said Sunday.
    "We will insist on a full territorial integrity of the republic. It is within the borders of the former Donetsk Region,"Pushilin told reporters, pointing out that the issue should be addressed "at the negotiating table, without any weapons in hands."  -  "Some people do not believe now that we will bring the whole territory of the region under control. But many people also did not believe that the republic would appear,...

    America’s Dangerous Double Standard on Air and Sea «Provocations»

    EDITOR'S CHOICE | 24.11.2014 | 10:56
    The United States and its NATO allies are mightily agitated about the increase in Russian air and naval activity near the Baltic republics. According to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, alliance warplanes have scrambled 400 times in 2014 in response to Russian military flights, an increase of 50 percent over 2013. Western officials repeatedly denounce Moscow’s maneuvers as dangerous and provocative.
    Statements by U.S. and NATO leaders, along with Western media accounts, foster the impression that Russian ships and aircraft arrogantly penetrate the airspace and territorial waters of alliance members. But when pressed, officials concede that the vast majority of incidents do not involve such illegality. Stoltenberg stated that most of the flights “are close to NATO airspace,” but he admitted that there were “a very limited number of violations.”
    Reading the fine print of other Western complaints reveals similarly misleading imagery. Baltic leaders express anger that a Russian warship entered Latvia’s exclusive economic zone, but it turns out that the location was still some nine nautical miles outside the country’s territorial waters. Latvia’s Ministry of Defense fumed that Russian warships had “approached” Latvian waters some fifty times in 2014 and had “come close” to Latvian airspace some 200 times. Yet the Ministry did not cite verifiable violations of its territorial waters or airspace.
    The actual substance of other episodes likewise seems far less dramatic than the scare headlines that have become routine in the Western press. NATO F-16 jets intercepted a Russian Ilyushin transport plane over the Baltic Sea on November 12, after it “approached” Estonian and Lithuanian airspace. Similar incidents took place between NATO aircraft and Russian Su-27 fighter planes on November 15 and 17. Again, the Russian offense was that its aircraft were found “near Latvia’s territorial seas” in the former case and had “approached Estonian and Lithuanian airspace” in the latter. Despite such complaints, the encounters indisputably took place over international waters, Western governments acknowledged.
    Calling the Russian actions provocative has some merit. Nations understandably become jittery when foreign ships and aircraft operate near their territory. That nervousness mounts when the foreign power has tense relations with one’s own country, and that is certainly the case, given the deterioration of relations between Russia and the NATO states in response to the Ukraine crisis. Adding to the tension is that Russian military planes are operating without activating their transponders, thereby increasing the hazard to commercial air traffic.
    But one might at least expect the United States and its allies to be consistent about their attitude toward provocative air and naval maneuvers. Instead, the United States has adopted a blatant double standard when it comes to the actions of its own armed forces. China, for example, has asked that U.S. (as well as Japanese and South Korean) military aircraft respect Beijing’s air defense identification zone in the East China Sea and provide timely information about flights entering that area. Washington and its allies not only refuse to do so, they refuse even to recognize the legitimacy of that zone. Yet such resistance is not considered to be provocative or creating a threat to aircraft safety.
    In addition, the United States routinely operates reconnaissance flights barely outside China’s territorial airspace, including near a major Chinese submarine base on Hainan Island. Those flights, and China’s dispatch of fighter planes to intercept them, have led to a number of nasty incidents, including a near collision earlier this year and an actual collision in 2001. Yet Washington has brushed off Beijing’s complaints, noting that the reconnaissance planes are operating in international airspace. Indeed, U.S. officials chastise China for trying to intercept and harass the spy flights.
    All parties need to adopt a more prudent approach and recognize that what may be legitimate under international law is not necessarily wise. The United States has a legal right to send its spy planes near the Chinese coast to monitor sensitive Chinese military installations. And Russia has every legal right to operate military ships and planes in areas close to the boundaries of NATO member states. But such actions by both countries are also provocative and dangerous. As the 2001 U.S. incident with China confirmed, the risk of an accident or miscalculation is unacceptably high. That episode created a major crisis between Washington and Beijing. An incident involving Russian and NATO planes in the Baltic region could easily escalate, leading to a frightening military confrontation between the West and Moscow.
    One would hope that all relevant governments would step back and seek ways to reduce the level of risk. In addition, the United States needs to examine its own actions before it smugly denounces those of rival powers. As matters now stand, Washington is guilty of hypocrisy, as well as provocative behavior regarding air and naval maneuvers.
    Ted Galen Carpenter,

    Wladimir Putin zieht Millionen an - fragwürdige Nacharbeitung der Jauch-Schau von gestern Abend durch den Tagesspiegel

    Talk mit Günther Jauch Wladimir Putin, die Zweite


    Er schlägt im TV süße Tiere und kleine Kinder - quotenmäßig.Bild vergrößern
    Er schlägt im TV süße Tiere und kleine Kinder - quotenmäßig. - FOTO: DPA
    Vergessen Sie bitte alles, was Sie mal über vermeintliche Regeln darüber gehört haben, was im Fernsehen funktioniert und was nicht. Kleine Kinder und süße Tiere – das ist lange her, und interessiert nur noch eine Minderheit. Was heute funktioniert ist: Putin. 

    Wladimir Putin zieht. Deshalb wohl machte Günther Jauch am Sonntagabend seine zweite Talkshow hintereinander zu diesem Mann, nachdem vor einer Woche zunächst ein Interview und dann die Interpretation des Interviews gezeigt wurde. Und weil da fast sechs Millionen Menschen zuschauten, kann man das ja noch mal wiederholen – allerdings ein bisschen anders, es musste ja schon eine neue Sendung sein.nd der ehemalige Lyriker Wolf Biermann, der immerhin vor drei Wochen ein großes Comeback im Bundestag gefeiert hat.
    Deshalb hatte man als Zuschauer zu Beginn noch etwas Hoffnung. Doch nachdem Biermann am Anfang meinte, der „Spiegel“ würde mit seinem aktuellen Titelbild lügen, zog sich der Mann aus der Runde zunächst zurück, die dann vor allem von Gabriele Krone-Schmalz beherrscht wurde, die das Putin-Interview „authentisch“ nannte und sich daraufhin kleine Spitzen mit Lambsdorff lieferte. 

    Eine lähmende, ausgewogene Stunde

    Was fehlte, war der Elan, das Tempo, vor allem Platzeck zog immer wieder die Bremse, um darauf hinzuweisen, er wolle vor allem „vernünftig und sachlich Politik machen“. Das ist in der Politik sicherlich von Vorteil, leider aber nicht in einer Talkshow und auch Jauch versuchte vor allem die Balance zu halten, weil er wahrscheinlich ahnt, dass die eine Hälfte seiner Zuschauer eher auf Putins Seite ist und die andere Hälfte nicht. Und so saß er dann auch in der Mitte, links vom Zuschauer Platzeck und Krone-Schmalz, die Putin in Teilen verstehen, rechts vom Zuschauer Biermann und Lambsdorff, die das nicht tun. Keine Seite wird den unbefangenen Zuschauer für sich gewonnen habe, dafür fehlte das Feuer, das auch von Jauch, eventuell zurecht, nicht geschürt wurde.
    So wurde es eine lähmende Stunde, in der sich Platzeck beklagte, dass er von allen falsch verstanden wurde und Krone-Schmalz „präzise“ sein will, was dann allerdings in ihrem Fall sehr viel mit dem Wort „ich“ und mit Rechthaberei zu tun hatte – ihre Ausführungen zum Völkerrecht werden Juristen interessant gefunden haben; die Zuschauer verwirrend. Biermann scheint in dieser Phase der Sendung bereits eingeschlafen zu sein. Einigkeit gab es zweimal, einmal als Platzeck, der nicht nur für Vernunft und Sachlichkeit ist, sondern auch für „Realismus“, meinte, Putin sei noch das kleinere Übel, keiner könne sagen, was danach käme (was man allerdings auch über jeden Amtsträger sagen könnte), und einmal, als es um Frank-Walter Steinmeier ging, den alle Anwesenden lobten. Mit der Einigkeit war es aber dann vorbei, als Krone-Schmalz sagte, dass sich Russland bedroht fühlen würde – da war Biermann auch wieder da, dem die letzten drei Minuten gehörten. In denen erzählte er einen Witz, den keiner verstand, sagte den guten Satz „Meine Toleranz gegenüber Unterdrückern ist sehr schwach“ und bemühte leider noch einen bescheuerten Hitler-Vergleich, der Krone-Schmalz sehr empörte.
    Sonst irgendwelche Erkenntnisse? Kaum. Außer vielleicht, dass man jetzt weiß, warum man Gabriele Krone-Schmalz so gar nicht vermisst hat im Fernsehen. Und dass Talkshows nicht wie Serien funktionieren: Man kann nicht einfach da weitermachen, wo man letztes Mal aufgehört hat. Nächste Sendung vielleicht doch mal über süße Tiere sprechen?