GAZA: hiltzaileen eta esperantzaren artean (8)

Linda Mamoun@mamoun_linda

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1869150925283324147

ooooooo

Sammy O’Wilson@SammyOWilson1

11 h

Exactly right. ALL government spending is taxation. The government either taxes you directly or, by increasing the money supply, taxes you through inflation. That means the spending bill IS the taxation bill. Very important concept to understand. @RepThomasMassie x.com/chesschick01/s…

oooooo

Mohamad Safa@mhdksafa

Nour Naim| نُور@NourNaim88

oooooo

Jackson Hinkle @jacksonhinklle

?￪ﾔﾋ?￰ﾝﾗﾘ?￪ﾔﾋ ?￰ﾝﾗﾘ?￰ﾐﾌﾉ?@StreetMediaNew

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1869354575284875527

oooooo

Assal Rad@AssalRad

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1869469293228016019

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1869550172650295409

oooooo

James Elder@1james_elder

abe. 16

.@airwars has a major study on Gaza: https://gaza-patterns-harm.airwars.org/?utm It finds Israel’s war on Gaza far more lethal for civilians than other recent wars.The total of 1900 children killed by Israel in Gaza in Oct ’23 was seven times the number killed in a single month in any other war it has studied.

oooooo

oooooo

Drop Site@DropSiteNews·

The world has given up. The world is just allowing this genocide to unfold. You want to go burn your credibility to facilitate more of the genocide, you go ahead and do it, but you don’t actually have to anymore.”

Drop Site’s @ryangrim on the latest New York Times scandal, publishing articles that, without evidence, support Israel’s continued attacks on UNRWA schools sheltering displaced Palestinian families—including those that burned alive scores of children over the weekend. The investigation is detailed in Drop Site News’ story linked below.

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1869492897461989562

oooooo

Before that Tajik militants attacked the Croscus city hall in Moscow, allegedly on Ukranian order … looking back it seems logical. Ukraine literally is involved in that region to hire, train and order terroirs attacks.

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/1869302660282691918

oooooo

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu

ooo

New Merkel Memoirs CONFIRM Russia’s REAL Intentions For Ukraine| Thomas Fazi

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1R4BCM9nuc)

Putin and Russia never wanted the war in Ukraine to spiral into the all-out destruction that it became after 2022. There never was an intention by Putin to aggrandize Russia or to “bring back the Soviet Union.” The new memoir by Angela Merkel “Freedom” despite all its shortcomings, confirms that Russia had a genuine interest in creating a process that would lead to peace and reconciliation in the Donbas and a permanent settlement for Europe.

A discussion with journalist Thomas Fazi.

Transkripzioa:

0:00

even early days of 2022 almost up to the end uh up until the day of the invasion

0:07

we know that Putin did really did try um to to avoid this outcome and

0:12

Merkel um interestingly Merkel does confirm this I mean she does confirm that look at the end of the day Putin

0:19

was committed to uh was committed to peace and was committed to peace was committed to avoiding this war through

0:26

diplomatic means uh she’s very clear about this [Music]

0:37

hello everybody this is Pascal from neutrality studies and today I’ve got the privilege of talking to a colleague

0:45

uh in Europe to Thomas faty who’s a journalist a writer a translator and a

0:51

socialist and Thomas is a colleague from a group that I’m part of and he recently

0:58

they recently told me that Thomas when through the work of reading the 700 page

1:04

Memoirs of Angela Merkel that she just published and uh that that is quite

1:10

quite a big deal and I don’t think I can do that to myself so I I thought I’m going to ask Thomas about what he read

1:17

in the in that work how Angela Merkel portrays herself and what we learn about her time in power um that’s what we’re

1:24

here for today so Thomas welcome to the show hi Pascal thank you for having me

1:30

well thanks for volunteering to do this because like it’s it’s a it’s a huge work and it’s called freedom I that’s

1:38

right um can you tell us first and foremost what you thought of the book your overall impression and then maybe

1:45

why did she call it Freedom right well um it’s not an easy

1:52

read it’s not a light read um as one might imagine uh let’s just say that Pros

1:59

writing isn’t probably merkel’s uh strongest suit uh in a sense that it’s

2:05

uh it’s exactly what you’d expect for Merkel it’s um full of you know full of

2:12

very detailed uh descriptions and um she gets you know she gets bogged down in a

2:19

lot of uh uh often even quite useless details and um and honestly a a large

2:28

part of the book um I found not particularly interesting

2:34

um so when she talks about many of the crisis that she um that she faced as a

2:40

Chancellor so the Euro crisis and then the migration crisis in 2015 Etc she doesn’t really offer much

2:48

in terms of uh sort of a behind the scenes look at what was

2:55

happening um most of it is just Merk trying to defend her track record on

3:00

those crises and uh but what I found most disappointing is that she defends most of those choices in

3:09

kind of you know moral or idealistic terms which comes across as a bit

3:14

disingenuous I mean I’m not saying that she wasn’t um acting in good faith in in

3:20

the way she faced those crisis I mean I’m I’m willing to um to give it the benefit of the doubt but at the same

3:26

time when you know you’re reading Memoir of

3:34

arguably most powerful German Chancellor of the time in European history I mean

3:39

you also want you also want some insight into the sort of deeper structural Dynamics or

3:46

you know the the economic Dynamics the political dynamics that were happening behind the scenes and that maybe led her

3:51

to make certain decisions and instead a lot of a lot of her decisions for example throughout the Euro crisis um

3:58

are really justified in terms of uh I was just doing what I thought was best for Europe and for Germany and working

4:05

within the constraints of German parliamentary politics but ultimately I was just driven by a desire to you know

4:12

save the Blessed European project and I’m glad to say that we succeeded in the end and uh similarly on the migration

4:19

crisis it’s you know all her decisions are Justified on Purely humanitarian grounds um so you get the feeling that

4:26

you know there’s something missing there you know clearly there was her management of those crisis

4:33

was about more than just her feelings and her desire to do what she felt was

4:38

best for you know either the you know these poor migrants or or for the

4:44

European project as a whole clearly she was also acting in um in you know on

4:51

behalf of certain interests national interests vested interests clearly you know we know how much German banks

4:58

benefited from the sort of the German Le management of the Euro crisis etc etc um

5:05

but there is one exception in the book and and that is her coverage of the um

5:11

the Ukraine crisis uh that on the other hand I found very interesting I think it’s not a

5:18

coincidence it’s I think that’s because Merkel herself admits that on that issue

5:24

Russia in particular but foreign policy more in general she adopted uh very much a realist approach um a real political

5:33

as she says um approach uh which is why that part of the book is actually

5:40

interesting and actually reveals quite a bit about what was really going on behind the scenes because she doesn’t

5:46

try to sugarcoat her her policies in moral or idealistic terms as she does on

5:52

almost every other issue on this issue she’s very clear uh foreign policy I

5:57

mean she’s she comes across as very much um a kind of instinctive uh realist I

6:05

don’t think she read the literature I don’t think she she read mimer but she comes across as an as an instinctive

6:11

realist as every politician should be when it comes to foreign policy right uh even if you haven’t read the literature

6:17

that’s just a common sense approach to foreign policy and um so the first thing you get is um is just how

6:26

much I mean compared to what to those that have come after her reading just

6:32

reading her talk about foreign policy is just like a breath of reason and Common

6:39

Sense and just intelligence um really even though you realize that

6:45

she’s not saying anything particularly um you know genius uh but

6:52

of course cons you know compared to what we have now in Europe um you know just

6:57

just her General approach to foreign policy comes across as she comes across as you know an adult just an an adult

7:04

who who is talking about foreign policy and Russia and these issues compared to

7:09

what we have now which I wouldn’t even know how to describe you know psychologic and mentally damage in

7:16

charge of European of European policy so just to give you an example um because I

7:21

think it’s important to hear this from from our own from my own mouth so so what you get is that

7:28

Merkle um already more than 10 years ago um even 15 years ago clearly had a

7:35

pretty good grasp of the fact that the geopolitical balance of power was shifting globally and uh she talks about

7:42

this quite a lot in her book um so she already says how this Global balance of

7:48

power was shifting away away from the rest and towards the at the time really

7:53

emerging bricks um block um and she also says that unfortunately the United

7:59

States struggled with relin with relinquishing power um and she made you

8:06

know she sites for example you know the the the the demand for reforms of international institutions such as the

8:11

IMF and the World Bank that were blocked you know demands that were coming from countries like Russia and China which

8:17

were systematically blocked by the US and she she you know she in a book she says that she regretted that because she

8:23

favored a much less um sort of moral driven approach uh and a much even less

8:29

kind of hegemonic approach um and a much more pragmatic approach and so you know she says that my view of foreign policy

8:36

is that you know this is a it’s a big world and you’ve got a lot of countries with different you know civilizational

8:43

values and economic models and and you know we can’t try to impose our model on everyone so the best we can do is try to

8:49

work together based on Mutual interests that’s kind of that this is how she explains her her foreign policy World

8:55

worldview which might you know might come across as a bit uh a bit crude but at the end of the day

9:03

it makes sense I mean I think this in very general terms is how countries should approach uh foreign policy so she

9:09

comes across as very um as having quite a very healthy understanding I think of

9:15

what um of of how um one should navigate foreign policy and she she makes the

9:22

example of China she speaks quite a bit about China and uh she’s got quite quite of course she

9:29

said yes you know that’s impressive system and blah blah blah but you know

9:35

it exists you know it obviously it exists we’re talking

9:40

about you know a huge uh economy a huge civilization of course we have to engage

9:46

with China so so her book is full of these kind of basic common sensical arguments which which come across as

9:53

incredibly radical in today’s context you know even though you know she she comes across as just a

10:00

as just um you know someone who uh hadn’t yet Fallen prey to the to the

10:07

madness that has swept across the West today that is something that I’ve been wondering about Angela Merkel for a

10:13

while because on the one hand she’s the chancellor who clung to northstream

10:19

which just is was objectively in the interests of Germany to have cheap

10:26

access to Russian oil but that was something she had to defend especially against the Americans right and she did

10:31

that until until she left on the other hand and she’s the chancellor who

10:36

together with uhand frand of France sat down with petro poreno and Wladimir

10:43

Putin and basically you know the four of them in the Normandy format they hammered out that that kind of the the

10:51

the agreements buil on the Min on Minsk that then was supposed to lead to a peace and Reconciliation process in

10:57

Ukraine but then again she’s also the person who after she stepped down and handed over the Reigns in December 2022

11:06

actually gave an interview I think it was to deite and said oh we just did that in order to buy time for Ukraine

11:14

and if she’s if that’s really what she did then well that’s that’s just like I

11:21

mean I I then understand why the Russians felt that they were stapped in the back and if it’s not true that’s

11:27

also an option that she’s just trying to kind of ride the wave of the current uh

11:33

you know the wave of russophobia and everything and just tries to justify her actions retroactively in the new

11:41

framework um in the book did you find any clues on which one it was how does she try to portray that moment is she

11:48

clinging to this idea that it was it was just buying time to arm Ukraine or was

11:54

there a real a real hope that it would lead to something which I think I think there was I don’t think that Angela

12:01

Merkel of 2014 2015 or yeah 1516 actually wanted this kind of escalation

12:08

it’s that that’s a personal impression right

12:14

so I I’ve never been convinced with this interpretation of that famous

12:22

Deeds ey interview so know in writing this article I went

12:28

back to um I I went back to the original

12:33

[Music] German um interview and so what she

12:39

states in the interview is this is all she says about it and

12:44

then people you know built upon that but these are literally the only two things she says about the Minsk agreements she

12:51

says the Minsk agreements were an attempt to give Ukraine time and that

12:57

Ukraine used this time to get stronger as you can see today so this is all that

13:02

she says in the interview so I

13:07

mean she doesn’t exactly say this was all that Minsk was about so a I

13:15

don’t think that what she’s saying is Minsk was just a way to to allow for

13:20

Ukraine to buy time but most importantly nowhere in an interview does she say I was in on this plan so even assuming

13:30

that what she’s saying is this is what the plan was um nowhere in the interview

13:35

I think that she give they she even give any indication really that um that she

13:41

that this is how she viewed the Minsk agreements uh so this was my understanding at the time uh when the

13:47

interview came out everyone started saying oh here’s Merkel admitting that it was just one big ploy to allow for

13:54

Ukraine to uh um rearm uh in order to then go for a kind of military solution

14:01

to the conflict um to me that never really made much sense I mean the idea

14:06

that Merkel somehow would have wanted um this War uh never really

14:15

sat that well with me I mean I just couldn’t I couldn’t wrap my my my my mind around that why would Merkel have

14:21

wanted this War I mean she literally had she and Germany literally had nothing to

14:28

benefit from this war as has become apparent um ever ever since and so the

14:34

idea that this was that Merkel was in on some secret plan to uh to to to allow

14:41

Ukraine to buy time in order to then um you know wage um wage all out war on on

14:48

on Russia or at least you know pick Russia out of the of the dbass and

14:54

potentially I don’t know even Crimea uh never really made much sense to me and in fact

14:59

um she speaks a lot about the Minsk agreements and the whole peace process in the

15:05

book and um the the the feeling you get from reading the book and and honestly

15:12

she I mean the Reconstruction s of rings as as pretty sincere to me um is that

15:19

she really did try I think to um to avoid war um she dedicates a lot to

15:26

talking uh again often in was too much detail about the Minsk agreements and

15:31

you really do get the feeling that she did not at all see it as a PL to just

15:37

allow Ukraine to buy time in fact nowhere in the book does she even hint

15:43

at that possibility which is kind of weird I mean so at the time I also read that

15:49

interview as a way of kind of retroactively justifying her position

15:55

which by then had come under intense

16:01

criticism know supposed appeasement with Russia and should at best be read as just merco

16:08

kind of trying to retroactively justify what she did but then you know why if she was trying to sell the story

16:16

why is it nowhere to be found in the book um especially given you know the echo that that interview had so I think

16:22

that was just something she said you know on the spur of the moment but then when she sat down to tell this story um

16:30

she she you know she goes to a very um she she um she she clearly makes a big

16:37

effort to uh to make the case that she that she really believed in a Minsk agreements and uh but but what she says

16:48

and often implies is that there were very powerful forces in the US in

16:55

Ukraine and even in Europe she often mentions Poland but also the Baltic

17:01

countries uh that wanted a military solution to this

17:08

conflict and we’re not interested in peace um she makes this you know she

17:13

says this quite clearly she she explains how very early on the Obama

17:18

Administration was already putting pressure on other NATO countries

17:27

basically saying ah these agreements they’re not going anywhere so you know we think that we’re going to start

17:32

providing at least defensive weapons to uh Ukraine and Merkel um and again I’m

17:39

gonna maybe quote a passage I mean she she explains in a book that she was

17:44

strongly opposed to this idea of sending even just defensive weapons because she

17:51

understood that any and I’m quoting and from the book any delivery of weapons would strengthen the forces within the

17:57

Ukrainian government who hoped only for a military solution even if that offered

18:02

no Prospect of success in other words she understood

18:07

very well that this would embolden the extremist and Ultra Nationalist and

18:12

Neo-Nazi factions within Ukraine that wanted war and we know that

18:19

these factions were very adamant about um the

18:24

fact about their opposition to the Minsk agreements and um

18:29

and of course you know you can also infer from the book that Merkel is saying these forces also aligned with

18:36

kind of us interests in many respects and because she understands that these for that there were powerful forces even

18:43

in the US that uh and so she understands that there’s she sees this convert this this Alliance forming between ultr

18:50

nationalist factions in Ukraine uh proar factions in the US proar factions in

18:55

Europe and in fact you know she says she she says that she realizes very early on

19:03

that there’s not much hope of these agreements working because of course if you don’t have the US on board you know

19:10

and again she doesn’t say this openly but there’s a lot that you can infer and you can read through the lines and she

19:15

clearly says look if the US isn’t on board with peace like I can’t do this by myself me and

19:23

uh um France we can’t do this by ourselves you know and not even the not

19:28

even and importantly should understands that not even the Ukrainian government can do this by itself even if and of

19:35

course pareno is is a different is a different animal but um it’s pretty clear that

19:43

even from what she says but that’s also I’ve always believed that for example that

19:49

zalinski at first at least was committed to the agreements and Merkel says this

19:55

quite clearly she says you know he was elected on a peace plan platform and he believed in it and at first he really

20:02

did want to try to put an end to this but again he immediately came under very

20:08

intense pressure from again extremist factions within Ukraine and he received no support from

20:16

the US in terms of going forward with the agreements um but I think something that

20:23

Merkel sort of returns to quite often in in the book is this idea which of course

20:31

we which of course has proven true but many had already uh predicted at the

20:37

start of the conflict at the start of the invasion but you know even before that is this idea that there is simply

20:44

no way that Ukraine could ever have won this on the battlefield so you I mean

20:51

again Merkel proves to have a pretty good grasp also of kind of basic

20:57

military strategy in a way um I don’t know if

21:03

this was something that she a conclusion that she came to herself or she was advised by um people who understood

21:09

military strategy but this is something that she returns to very often in the book so for example she she she this is

21:17

something that she says that this is something she says she told the um the

21:22

new the first post uh post 2014 coup government and she said says

21:29

that you know she emphasized the fact that a resolution would not be possible without Dialogue on diplomacy and she

21:36

emphasized and I’m quoting that this did not mean that Ukraine must not defend itself But ultimately diplomatic

21:42

Solutions must be found because I could even go as far as to say there will be no military

21:48

solution and of quote this is what she says she told the um the government that

21:54

came to power in the first government the first Ukrainian government that came to power in 2014 and this is something she often says in

22:00

the book you know I mean like that this will there can’t be a military solution to this and they definitely can’t be a

22:07

military solution in Ukraine’s favor so overall my I mean impression I

22:12

got from the book is that um in fact you know she she really did try to um to

22:19

avoid this War I think she she she did her best well I mean that’s

22:25

maybe going going a bit too far could she have done more probably yes could she have you know could she have been

22:31

more adamant about it could she have made more of a of a fuss about it um yes

22:38

I’m sure there’s a lot more she could have done potentially to to try to avoid this but at the same time I think you

22:43

know especially in in light of what happened after um is this isn’t

22:48

something that Germany could have stopped by itself I mean I think uh uh and I’m not speaking as a Merkel fan um

22:57

but I think it’s pretty clear that you know even even assuming that she was completely in good faith and wanting to

23:02

avoid this war and even assuming that she did all that she could have um you

23:08

know I think it’s it’s pretty clear that she she couldn’t have stopped this thought by herself especially I repeat

23:15

if if the US had other plans and

23:20

um and again when it comes to the other plans she also says quite a bit

23:25

especially when talking about nordstream uh there’s some interesting passages about nordstream in a book so obviously

23:31

she defends nordstream on very basic kind of you know economic um grounds but

23:37

not only so and again I return to merkel’s sort of General approach to

23:44

Russia which was and and I’m going to quote here because I found I found it particularly

23:51

interesting and um a point where she says many Central

23:56

and Eastern European countries seemed to wish that their gigantic neighbor would just disappear from the map simply cease

24:03

to exist but of course Merk understood that Russia and I’m quoting again Russia

24:09

did exist and it was armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons there was no wishing it away geopolitically and there

24:15

still isn’t one might not have liked Putin but that didn’t make Russia

24:21

disappear from the map end of quote so and she often returns to the fact

24:28

that this is a massive country armed with thousands of nuclear

24:33

weapons so it’s clear that for her northstream was clearly motivated by basic sort of German National Economic

24:40

interests but she also clearly viewed nordstream as a tool of diplomacy of Peace

24:47

diplomacy if you want um she understood that increasing economic interdependence

24:55

was also in Europe’s wider security interest because it minimized the risk

25:00

of conflict and I think this is something that is quite well understood even in the literature you know I mean

25:07

this she had a point so this idea that she was that she somehow

25:12

contributed to what had to what happened by doing the nordstream deal uh and

25:20

especially nordstream 2 just makes no sense whatsoever how would that have contributed to what happened if anything

25:27

clearly ger Russia having um clearly through nordstream I

25:34

mean nordstream also meant that not only Germany but also Russia had less of an interest in going to war with Europe um

25:44

to me this is pretty clear and and we know that Russia went to Great Lengths

25:50

to avoid this war and other interesting point merco confirms this in the book merco

25:56

confirms um on more than one occasion in a book that Putin was committed to the

26:02

Minsk agreements so pu so you know he says yeah whenever we whenever we met

26:08

Putin would start you know ranting about NATO and this and that and we would just let him talk because that’s you know

26:14

that’s what he does that’s his gist but but he would always conclude all his rants with but we understand that

26:23

diplomacy is the only way forward which is why we are committed to these agreements and

26:30

and again this aligns with a lot of reconstructions that historians have done you know beginning with merheim and

26:35

many others uh who have been very clear about the fact even according from D reconstruction it’s pretty clear that

26:42

Putin did he did his best to avoid this war we know all the openings he did to

26:48

the all the attempts he he made to engage diplomatically with the us all

26:54

the way up to literally you know the end of 21 even even early days of 2022

27:01

almost up to the end uh up until the day of the invasion we know that Putin did

27:07

really did try um to to avoid this outcome and Merkel um interestingly Merkel does

27:13

confirm this I mean she does confirm that look at the end of the day Putin was committed to uh was committed to

27:19

peace and was committed to peace was committed to avoiding this war through

27:25

diplomatic means uh she’s very clear about this and in fact one sort of

27:30

behind the scenes story and sorry that then I’ll um I’ll shut up that that she tells which I didn’t know about and I’ve

27:36

read a lot about this conflict but I didn’t know that in when is it exactly

27:42

she says that so basically very these are the last months of her chancellorship so mid

27:49

2021 she says that she proposed a European council meeting with Putin

27:58

so I think this is we’re talking about mid 2021 so that’s

28:04

around Poland Estonia and Lithuania it’s around the time when Putin met with with

28:10

Biden isn’t it like that was that was summer 2021 in

28:17

Geneva yes I think that I think that’s more or less when um when this happened but I found it very interesting that

28:23

even at that point when relations were very very you know very strain she was still trying to get them all into a room

28:31

uh and how Merkel often emphasized like for

28:38

example Merkel she says and maybe this is you know her reading too much into it but I think you

28:45

know anyone that understands human nature probably understands that maybe there’s some truth to what she says so she attributes a big responsibility to

28:52

what H what happened also to the pandemic to co so to the fact that no one was meeting in person

28:58

anymore so merel had this very kind of old school approach to diplomacy and international relations which is you get

29:05

around a table and you work things out all through the night you this is how

29:10

she managed the Euro crisis you’ll remember they would have these like meetings through the night you know and

29:17

she goes over this in the book as well you know and then in the morning after 15 hours they would come out and they

29:23

you know hatch hatched some kind of agreement and uh and she remembered you know similar encounters with Putin um

29:32

throughout you know throughout the years sort of really sitting down and and and really trying to work things out face to

29:38

face and uh and you know she she attaches a lot of importance to this kind of old school face to-face

29:44

diplomacy and so she says that you know she almost she literally says Co was

29:49

like the nail and the nail in the coffin of the Minsk agreements and that’s I would say probably reading too much into

29:55

it but but still I think it’s it us an interesting insight into sort of how

30:01

approach to diplomacy and and and clearly it was a I would say a healthy

30:06

approach in sort of general terms especially compared to what we to what we have now which is well zero diplomacy

30:14

basically so um so yeah so so yeah yeah no that does make sense to

30:21

me and you just help help me clarify quite a bit because mer Merkel struck me

30:26

as somebody who was rather pragmatic even if not uh downright realist and

30:33

let’s not forget like people like merheim and so on the realists they didn’t only retro retrospectively try to

30:40

make sense out of Putin they proactively before everything happened predicted look if we if this is the trajectory

30:46

then war will be the outcome and they they ended up being right and in this sense I think Merkel is one of the

30:52

people who maybe instinctively saw this and when she maybe it’s not even bad thing that

30:58

she points out also the pandemic and so on because sometimes we want to attribute

31:04

too much power to individuals right to Joe Biden or to to zalinsky who are responsible for what happens but it’s

31:11

more the amalgamation of like a lot of factors coming together all at certain

31:17

times which then push push things into One Direction so um do you think that

31:25

her coming out with this book now although like writing about 700 Pages even if she had Ghost Riders and so on

31:31

who helped uh that was there was a lot to do but the timing now when the the

31:36

Ukraine war is about to basically to be lost at least to to a good to a good

31:42

extent um one could argue this is opportunistic then again this thing has to had to be completed probably in

31:50

summer in order to be to be out now and the the media narrative about Ukraine has been very very strongly Pro uh well

31:58

Ukraine is winning we’re just waiting for it to happen right is do you interpret this as kind of a a a brave

32:05

kind of thing to say at this point in time coming out with all with with all of these thoughts on the Ukraine war or

32:12

does it still make sense to you within the overall um propaganda narrative that we are living

32:19

in no it very much goes against the um

32:24

the official narrative it goes and clearly obviously she has an interest in

32:32

contrasting that narrative because that narrative has been used to attack her

32:37

Legacy and accuse her of being in fact as I was saying even one of the main

32:43

culprits of Russia’s Invasion o of Ukraine I mean the stuff that’s been said about all this is is

32:49

outrageous um not to mention nordstream and so I think I interpret the book as

32:56

being Merkel trying trying to sort of clean up her Legacy in a way

33:03

um and uh even against the even against the

33:10

current sight Guist the current narrative although if she’s I mean she’s she’s a smart person so she probably

33:17

sees ahead and and sees that in five to six years people will think differently about this time and well look I mean

33:24

she’s got what has she got to lose I mean she’s not in politics anymore she is pretty much retired um I think it you

33:31

know it makes sense even from a human and psychological standpoint that what she is most interested in is is saving

33:38

her Legacy is saving her political Legacy even if that means going against

33:44

the established narrative on um on Ukraine

33:49

um as you say it’s also true that the narrative is Shifting and so I think you

33:56

know I wouldn’t be surprised if uh Merkel is feeling a bit of you know sh

34:01

and Freud if that is the correct pronunciation and seeing what’s happening because you know we know I

34:07

mean in fact it’s already clear that history has proven her right uh you know

34:13

a lot of what she says in the book is clearly already proven to be true you know when she says there’s no way this

34:19

can there can be no military solution there can be no military Victory uh for Ukraine uh this is simply impossible

34:25

hence we have to go for diplomacy this has clearly been proven true when she says that um nordstream made sense from an

34:34

economic standpoint we know the dramatic consequences that decoupling from

34:39

Russian G gas have had for Germany she’s also been proven right so I think in

34:44

this sense I think history will uh at least as far as her Russia policy goes

34:50

will will look upon Merkel quite kindly and so I think her you know her Legacy

34:55

will be it’ll it’ll beat the it’ll be the War Hawks that will go down in

35:00

history uh assuming there will be a future with with future historians will

35:06

go down in history as ones that led us into an absolute tragedy um and I think

35:12

Marco will come across as someone who um tried to to avoid this disastrous

35:18

outcome uh for for straightforward you know and not just for straightforward

35:25

economic reasons but also because she understood and again she says this in her book she understood

35:32

that you know Europe Russia or NATO Russia conflict is pure Madness I mean

35:39

she doesn’t even go too much into that in the book she just assumes it as just basic Common Sense which this was the

35:46

this was sort of the common sensical understanding of this until not

35:52

too long ago and so Merkel is just like sometimes she almost seems baffled by

35:57

what’s happening I mean she says she often returns to this idea to this fact that this is a massive

36:03

neighbor sitting right next to us armed to the teeth with nuclear

36:08

weapons why would anyone even think that it makes remotely sense to want to go to war with with Russia I mean she you

36:17

know it it sometimes she almost comes across as being naive in this respect in

36:24

a sense that she doesn’t you know this is not a strategic calculation she it’s just kind of a sort of a basic common

36:32

sensical uh uh view um and I

36:38

think if one wants to you know find a weak a weak point in

36:45

um in his whole in in merkel’s reconstruction of what

36:51

happened um it’s it’s her approach to Ukraine pre4

36:58

14 so and I think this is and again this was probably more sort of a failure of

37:07

uh strategic thinking on merkel’s part but um she admits that she played an

37:13

important role in in in in in trying to um

37:19

draw Ukraine into the Europe into the EU orbit uh she she you know she admits

37:26

that she played a big role and pushing for the um pushing for yanukovich to to

37:32

sign the the EU Ukraine partnership agreement um and and more you know and

37:40

she and and she see you get

37:45

no um hint in the book that she understood just how much this

37:51

contributed to what later happened um to how much trying to Force Ukraine to make

37:59

a binary geopolitical and even civilizational choice between W the west and Russia um how that would end up

38:07

dividing and fracturing the country um which of course is exactly what happened I mean it’s we know what triggered the

38:13

aom euromid events it was the the the yenish

38:19

government um pulling out of the EU Ukraine economic agreement and

38:25

uh and so in this respect she kind of was I would say indirectly uh

38:32

responsible for for what happened um I don’t think again that this was an

38:37

outcome that she wanted but this was definitely a at the very at the very best a strategic and a very serious

38:45

strategic miscalculation on merkel’s behalf to the extent that that agreement

38:53

played an absolute key role in triggering the events that that then led

38:58

to the 2014 coup that kickstarted all this so on that on that she does bear a lot

39:07

of responsibility even though she doesn’t seem to even be aware of that um in a book or at least she doesn’t admit

39:14

to it uh in the book in fact she keeps accusing Russia of of trying to force Ukraine to make a binary Choice when in

39:20

fact there was very much the opposite uh you know I think Russia understood that

39:26

[Music] Russia was also aware of the consequences of trying to force Ukraine

39:34

to make it you know make this binary choice and in fact I think they were looking for a triangulation between you

39:39

know Ukraine EU and and Russia itself um it was very much the European Union that

39:45

was um presenting this as a zero sum uh

39:50

choice for for Ukraine uh that’s always been my understanding at least and so in this respect um you know Merkel did

39:58

contribute to what happened after but um that said you know once the train was

40:03

was in motion I think she did she did her best to avoid um you know to to avoid the worst possible outcome but you

40:10

know clearly failed well the I thought after this discussion I don’t need to

40:15

read the book anymore but now I’m realizing I have to read her in her own words as well in order to get all of

40:21

this um but thank you very much for your assessment I mean it’s valuable to hear

40:27

here what what you how you read her words um Everybody um I will put links

40:33

to the book and I will put links to Thomas Thomas where can people find you if they want to read more from you uh

40:39

I’m I’m on substack and X mostly so uh yeah they can just Google me okay I’ll

40:45

put I’ll put all the links into the descriptions of this video Thomas faty thank you very much for your analysis

40:51

today [Music]

oooooo

@tobararbulu # mmt@tobararbulu

ooo

Pro-NATO Warmongers Trying To Pull-In Switzerland | Pascal Lottaz

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTC4XfUoVGY)

There’s a little-noticed battle going on in Switzerland about the country’s century-old neutrality. On the one hand, globalist, neocon & neoliberal pro-NATO factions are trying to weaken the institution as much as possible, on the other hand, conservative (left- and right-wing) groups are trying to defend the foreign policy and strengthen it again.

Since the country’s political elites have already severely eroded Swiss neutrality by joining Western sanction regimes, the pro-neutralist groups launched an “initiative” (which, in the Swiss context, means holding a referendum on a constitutional amendment) to define neutrality in the Swiss constitution and ensure that sanctions are (mostly) forbidden.

The initiative successfully gathered the necessary 100k signatures and will now become a mandatory referendum, probably in early 2026. In this talk, Pascal explains the state of the debate inside Switzerland.

This was a talk presented in French at a conference in Lausanne on December 15, 2024, organized by the Swiss Communist Party: https://www.partitocomunista.ch/?p=7792

Transkripzioa:

0:04

hello to all the comrades present today

0:06

in loan my name is Pascal L I’m an

0:09

associate professor for neutrality

0:11

studies in Kyoto Japan and I am one of

0:13

the initiators of the call from leftwing

0:16

and green supporters for the neutrality

0:19

initiative I cannot be with you today

0:21

but I send you my sincere greetings and

0:23

thanks for organizing this important

0:26

conference although I am a member of the

0:28

Social Democratic Party

0:30

I am truly very grateful to all the

0:32

Communists and other leftwing comrades

0:35

who see the signs of the times and want

0:37

to support Genuine Swiss

0:46

neutrality the struggle for the

0:48

initiative on neutrality will be

0:51

difficult but probably one of the most

0:53

important of our time as it could very

0:55

well determine whether in a few years

0:57

our daughters and sons will die in

0:59

Foreign Wars

1:00

or if we will stay at

1:02

home let us refuse the wars of European

1:05

powers that have been exercising Mass

1:07

violence around us for

1:09

centuries this is a decision with as

1:11

great a scope as that of the Fateful

1:13

days of 1815 when our great compatriot

1:16

from Geneva Charles P de rosh mul

1:20

successfully fought for our neutrality

1:21

in Vienna

1:30

the direction that global politics is

1:31

taking at the moment is terrible and the

1:34

fact that our Elites in Burn are trying

1:36

to involve Us in NATO’s warmongering

1:38

through indirect means is even more

1:41

frightening the level of hypocrisy and

1:43

unfair propaganda with which the current

1:46

leaders of the federal Council and our

1:47

two chambers of parliament operate is

1:50

breathtaking however not All Is Lost as

1:54

we still have our precious direct

1:56

democracy and we will bring this issue

1:58

to the people to ask them to support our

2:01

vision of a peaceful and non-threatening

2:03

Switzerland as the ancient fuses said to

2:07

be truly neutral Switzerland must strive

2:09

to be a friend to all and an enemy To

2:19

None to achieve this we must have a

2:22

neutrality that is credible but also

2:24

friendly a neutrality that seeks to make

2:27

friends we cannot achieve this by

2:30

imposing sanctions on only one party or

2:32

by integrating our defense system into

2:34

that of a hostile and aggressive

2:36

military Alliance like NATO that is the

2:39

path to ruin and rupture we must restore

2:42

the original neutrality of Switzerland

2:45

which was well defined and recognized as

2:47

being in Europe’s interest in the

2:49

treaties of

2:50

Vienna but allow me to put on my

2:52

academic hat and tell you where we stand

2:54

today in our national debate on

2:57

neutrality because things are

2:58

complicated as they often

3:08

are on the surface it seems that

3:11

Switzerland remains committed to its

3:13

neutrality annual surveys show that an

3:15

overwhelming majority of 91% of our

3:18

compatriots are in favor of maintaining

3:21

neutrality however these same surveys

3:23

also indicate that there are significant

3:25

differences in views on what this

3:27

neutrality should or should not be

3:31

regarding military cooperation with NATO

3:33

52% of respondents believe that

3:35

Switzerland should cooperate more

3:37

closely with the alliance 30% of

3:40

respondents even agree with the

3:41

statement that Switzerland should join

3:44

NATO this means that at least 21% of

3:46

compatriots do not consider NATO and

3:49

neutrality to be incompatible

4:01

surprising isn’t it moreover there are

4:04

also significant differences within the

4:06

population generally speaking young

4:09

people are less inclined to view NATO or

4:11

cooperation with it favorably while

4:13

respondents with a higher level of

4:15

Education are more likely to support

4:17

cooperation and even membership in this

4:19

Alliance but other political forces are

4:22

also pushing and pulling this debate in

4:24

various directions for example a recent

4:27

study by Edward and effler shows that

4:30

Elites from neutral and non-aligned

4:32

countries tend to view NATO and

4:34

transatlantic integration in general

4:36

much more favorably than opinion polls

4:48

suggest the authors note that

4:50

atlanticist preferences are not only

4:52

widely shared by political Elites but

4:54

also systematically concealed from the

4:56

public in militarily neutral European

4:58

countries

5:00

additionally Elites frequently avoid

5:02

publicly expressing these preferences

5:04

due to the population’s Deep attachment

5:06

to their country’s policy of military

5:08

neutrality or

5:10

non-alignment although this study only

5:12

focuses on Sweden Austria and Serbia it

5:16

is not an exaggeration to infer that in

5:18

Switzerland as well political leaders in

5:20

the federal Administration might view

5:22

NATO more favorably than the broader

5:24

European public after all the federal

5:27

Council has never hidden its

5:39

over the past three years he has

5:40

published four white papers or studies

5:43

in which he has embraced the idea of

5:45

increased cooperation with NATO and the

5:47

EU on security at a level never before

5:50

reached in Swiss history the 2022 report

5:53

states that this is why it that is

5:56

Switzerland has long been striving to

5:58

have both options

6:00

in the event of armed aggression namely

6:02

to defend itself autonomously or to

6:04

organize its defense with other states

6:07

to improve military interoperability and

6:09

thus increase Switzerland’s freedom of

6:11

action the Army must prepare for

6:13

international cooperation to do this

6:16

cooperation opportunities must be used

6:18

to enhance defense capability while

6:21

remaining neutral

6:32

the 2024 report even recommends the

6:34

interoperability of Swiss military

6:36

systems with NATO standards through

6:39

gradual participation in the NATO

6:40

certification process it is suggested

6:43

that if necessary NATO could verify and

6:46

certify the interoperability and

6:48

Military capabilities of certain Swiss

6:51

Army

6:52

formations this means that Switzerland

6:54

not only aims to be compatible with NATO

6:57

but is already ensuring that NATO itself

6:59

certifies its interoperability

7:01

furthermore the report suggests that

7:03

Switzerland participate in NATO’s

7:05

Federated Mission networking project

7:07

which aims to integrate the command and

7:09

communication systems of armed forces

7:12

into a single multinational command

7:14

system to create comprehensive technical

7:16

command

7:27

capability and because the FM serves as

7:30

a Cornerstone for all cooperation with

7:32

NATO hence the necessity of Swiss

7:35

participation there is no doubt that the

7:37

vision of this Federal Council report is

7:39

the transformation of the Swiss Armed

7:41

Forces into an operational part of

7:43

NATO’s overall military

7:45

capability this cooperation would allow

7:48

it if necessary to integrate its own

7:51

systems into NATO’s command and

7:52

communication systems from the start of

7:54

an operation or joint

7:56

exercise whether in the context of

7:58

Defense or military peace promotion NATO

8:02

refers to Day Zero connectivity a

8:04

capability that Switzerland must have if

8:15

needed for me this approach amounts to

8:18

an operational abandonment of

8:20

neutrality but the federal Council

8:22

Claims it is merely preparing for the

8:24

most pessimistic scenario of an armed

8:26

attack against Switzerland in that case

8:30

the legal requirements of neutrality law

8:32

would cease anyway and the country could

8:34

defend itself

8:35

collectively in other words the federal

8:38

Council prefers to lay the groundwork

8:40

for Collective self-defense but only if

8:42

the need arises the fourth and most

8:45

recent report from the study commission

8:47

appointed by the ministry of Defense

8:49

also concluded that cooperation with

8:51

NATO and the EU must go beyond the

8:53

current cooperation

9:02

cooperation should evolve towards a

9:04

common defense furthermore concrete

9:07

efforts have been made over the past two

9:09

years to follow up on these political

9:12

directions notably high level meetings

9:14

between military representatives of

9:16

Switzerland and NATO an agreement on

9:18

opening a NATO liaison office in Geneva

9:21

a memorandum of understanding on

9:23

Switzerland’s accession to the EU Sky

9:25

Shield initiative and more visibly Miss

9:28

amer’s part participation in a meeting

9:30

of the North Atlantic Council which is

9:32

NATO’s political body marking a first in

9:35

Switzerland’s

9:46

history however while the political and

9:49

Military rment between Switzerland and

9:51

NATO is evident and manifest other

9:54

forces within the country’s political

9:56

process are simultaneously working to

9:59

change this

10:00

direction not only did the federal

10:02

Council itself publish a report on

10:04

neutrality policy in October

10:07

2022 concluding that the principles

10:09

announced in 1993 are still valid and

10:12

form the basis of these decisions but in

10:14

the summer of 2024 the National Council

10:17

also adopted a motion prohibiting

10:19

Switzerland’s participation in NATO

10:21

missions that practice Collective

10:23

self-defense under Article 5 of the NATO

10:27

Charter National councilor Fabian Molina

10:30

from the Socialist Party justifies the

10:32

motion as

10:41

follows it is in Switzerland’s interest

10:43

for our country to strengthen its

10:45

collaboration with NATO on a case-by

10:47

casee

10:48

basis at the same time the commission

10:50

recognizes the need to clarify the

10:52

implications for respecting

10:54

Switzerland’s neutrality and freedom of

10:57

Alliance neutrality and freedom of

10:59

Alliance remain relevant and will

11:02

continue to be important and useful

11:04

instruments of Swiss security and

11:06

foreign policy even in these troubled

11:08

times the success of the motion in the

11:10

National Council was made possible by a

11:12

political realignment of NATO skeptical

11:15

factions among left and right parties

11:18

however it did not convince the Council

11:20

of states which rejected it by 29 votes

11:23

to 12 with four extensions

11:35

the motion will now be subject to

11:36

further deliberation in the lower house

11:39

the debate in the Council of States

11:41

shows that there is no consensus among

11:43

parliamentarians on the question of what

11:45

level of cooperation with NATO is

11:48

compatible or not with Switzerland’s

11:50

neutrality this trend is also visible at

11:53

other levels of society particularly

11:55

with this Initiative for a national

11:57

referendum on neutrality

11:59

if adopted the neutrality initiative

12:03

that we all support would clearly

12:04

enshrine the definition of our

12:06

neutrality in the Constitution where it

12:09

is currently only mentioned without

12:11

being

12:20

specified it would be defined as

12:22

Perpetual armed without alliances and

12:25

for the first time in constitutional

12:27

neutrality it would the duty of the

12:30

state to remain economically neutral by

12:32

avoiding imposing sanctions on the

12:34

Waring

12:35

parties if the idea initially gained

12:38

popularity thanks to the support of

12:39

Kristoff blocker the citizen committee

12:42

that drafted the concrete text of the

12:44

initiative is not affiliated with any

12:46

party and includes both left-wing and

12:49

right-wing

12:50

activists during the 18 months allocated

12:53

for collecting signatures our committee

12:56

composed of academics trade unionists

12:58

and politicians from leftwing and green

13:01

parties formed a support group to show

13:03

that even among us there are many voices

13:06

that support this initiative although

13:08

the official Social Democratic party is

13:10

not in favor of this

13:21

redefinition that is why I am so

13:23

grateful to you the Communists for

13:25

fighting for True Swiss

13:27

neutrality in concl clusion I would like

13:30

to tell you that all this means our

13:32

fight for a correct definition of Swiss

13:34

neutrality is neither a lost cause nor a

13:37

settled matter what we need to do is to

13:40

explain again and again to our fellow

13:41

citizens why this initiative and the

13:44

proposed text for our Constitution are

13:46

not harmful in any way but a necessary

13:49

reaffirmation of a useful and

13:51

constructive Swiss

13:53

neutrality I haven’t had the time to

13:55

discuss all our left-wing arguments in

13:57

favor of this initiative but I am sure

13:59

my colleague Professor wolf Linder and

14:01

the other speakers will do

14:11

so I also invite you to review our

14:13

arguments online and contact me

14:15

personally to discuss further we must

14:18

succeed in convincing our fellow

14:20

citizens that although we are not a

14:21

protin initiative it makes perfect sense

14:24

for us to maintain good relations with

14:26

the entire world and that we should

14:28

contribute to DS escalating conflicts

14:30

rather than supporting a party that

14:31

wants to resolve them through

14:34

War dear comrades I wish you strength

14:38

wisdom and well

oooooo