Nazio Batuen Erakundea (NBE) eta Nazioarteko Arlo Penaleko Epaitegia (NAPE) (39)

Mundu multipolarra versus unipolarra

NBE (Nazio Batuen Erakundea) gaindituta, ICC (NAPE) (International Criminal Court) alboratuta, eta Mossad nagusi… aspalditik gainera…

******

Suppressed Voices@supressedvoic

oooooo

Ramy Abdu| رامي عبده@RamAbdu

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2025503328931807508

oooooo

oooooo

Margarita Simonyan@M_Simonyan

oooooo

ooooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2025732424311951631

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2025661709340594497

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2025261592716234922

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2025573014155227301

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2026855052686557440

oooooo

oooooo

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2025515721137201208

oooooo

oooooo

Jackson Hinkle @jacksonhinklle

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2025411367960809666

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2025291766136532999

oooooo

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2025732528297185443

oooooo

Ounka@OunkaOnX

Bideoa: https://x.com/i/status/2025535339457368456

oooooo

Media Manipulation in the Ukraine War: Glenn Diesen at the UN Security Council

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=rTB_0TkJRlE&t=1242s)

Professor Glenn Diesen presents at the UN Security Council: “The Information Dimension of the Ukrainian Crisis: How Media Narratives Shape Conflict”. The text of the speech can be found on my Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/p/th.

Transkripzioa:

0:00

The following is my speech given at the

0:03

UN Security Council in New York. I was

0:06

supposed to be there in person, although

0:08

my flight was cancelled without any

0:11

replacement flights to get me there on

0:12

time. Nonetheless, uh here is my speech

0:16

and afterward I will give some comments

0:18

to further extend upon my argument.

0:21

And now I would like to give the floor

0:23

to our first briefer. You will hear from

0:25

Professor Glenn Diesson, a political

0:28

analyst, expert on European security and

0:31

Russian foreign policy, who has

0:33

published extensively on geopolitics.

0:36

Today, he will discuss how the conflict

0:38

in Ukraine unfolds not only on the front

0:40

line, but also in the information space,

0:43

examining how media narratives shape

0:45

public perception and influence the

0:47

risks of escalation. Mr. and we wanted

0:50

to welcome you here in New York, but

0:53

please have the floor.

0:57

Uh thank you. I wish I could have been

0:58

there in person, but uh thank you for

1:00

the invitation and it’s a great

1:01

privilege to speak here today. I want to

1:04

address how the conflict in Ukraine

1:05

takes place as you said both on the

1:07

battlefield and in the information space

1:10

and why we should be concerned about the

1:12

media manipulating narratives as well as

1:15

demonizing the adversary.

1:17

Some of the most insightful literature

1:19

about political propaganda comes from

1:21

Walter Litman following his work for the

1:24

US government during the first world

1:26

war. Uh Litman recognized that liberal

1:29

democracies tended to present conflicts

1:31

as a struggle between good and evil to

1:34

mobilize public support for war. The

1:37

great risk according to Litman was that

1:39

once the public believed that the

1:41

adversary was pure evil. Well then the

1:44

public and the politicians would also

1:46

then reject any workable peace because

1:50

in a struggle between good and evil

1:52

compromise is a peacement and peace

1:55

demands that uh war is fought as good

1:58

must defeat evil. So this is deeply

2:02

problematic because the point of

2:03

departure in international security is

2:06

the recognition of the security

2:08

competition as efforts by one country to

2:11

enhance its security can diminish the

2:13

security of others. So the first step

2:16

toward a common peace is therefore to

2:18

place ourselves in the shoes of our

2:20

opponent and recognize these mutual

2:23

security concerns.

2:25

However, in a struggle between good and

2:27

evil, even understanding the opponent

2:29

becomes treasonous. We should therefore

2:32

be terrified that our political leaders

2:34

as well as the media no longer even

2:36

discuss the security concerns of

2:38

adversaries.

2:40

Those attempting to see the world from

2:41

the other side are simply denounced as

2:44

Putinists, panda huggers, or Ayatollah

2:46

apologists.

2:48

If the generations before us had this

2:50

level of maturity, it’s highly unlikely

2:53

we would have survived the Cold War.

2:56

So, it’s very evident that the media

2:58

does not always report on objective

3:00

reality. H convinced that they’re

3:03

fighting the good fight, uh the media

3:05

often socially constructs its own

3:07

reality and journalists become

3:09

information warriors. For example,

3:12

recognizing the losses of the Ukrainian

3:14

armed forces threatens to reduce public

3:17

support for the war. Similarly,

3:19

recognizing that sanctions do not work

3:22

threatens to reduce public support for

3:24

sanctions. So, the media often ignores

3:27

these realities and instead stay loyal

3:29

to the narratives to ensure that the uh

3:32

that that the public remains committed

3:34

to the conflict. But as Litman noted,

3:37

thereby they also remove all pathways

3:40

toward a workable peace. We therefore

3:43

see that Russia must play this dual role

3:45

in the media as we’ve all seen. On one

3:47

hand, it has to be both hope hopelessly

3:49

backwards and weak. Yet, it’s also an

3:53

overwhelmingly powerful threat to the

3:55

West. So, we’re told that Russia is

3:58

unsuccessful in Ukraine, yet it can also

4:00

conquer Europe if we don’t stop it. This

4:03

is intended to communicate to the

4:05

western public that the adversary is

4:07

very dangerous yet also reassure the

4:09

public that Russia can easily be

4:11

defeated if we just keep the war going.

4:15

So the foundational narrative in the

4:18

media during this conflict has been the

4:20

so-called unprovoked invasion by Russia.

4:24

This is an important narrative because

4:26

it implies that Russia is an

4:27

expansionist and imperialist power as

4:30

opposed to responding to security

4:32

threats. There is no debates about the

4:35

narrative of an unprovoked invasion in

4:37

the media and any challenge to this

4:39

narrative is usually smeared and

4:40

censored for allegedly legitimizing the

4:43

invasion.

4:45

And I say that the unprovoked invasion

4:47

narrative is dangerous because it

4:49

implies that any compromise is a

4:51

peacement that rewards the aggressor,

4:53

which then incentivizes further

4:55

aggression. Thus, we’re told that peace

4:57

demands supplying weapons to elevate the

5:00

costs. Now, as with any other conflict

5:04

after the cold war, we see that the

5:05

media described the opponents as uh yet

5:08

another reincarnation of Hitler to

5:11

remind the public that war is peace and

5:14

uh diplomacy is a peacement or as the

5:17

former NATO secretary general argued,

5:20

the weapons are the path to peace.

5:22

Again, this is a dangerous narrative

5:24

because if this conflict was provoked,

5:27

then we are escalating and getting

5:29

directly involved in a war against the

5:32

world’s largest nuclear power, which

5:34

considers itself to be in an existential

5:37

conflict.

5:39

And we’ve seen that since the 1990s,

5:42

many leading Western politicians,

5:43

intelligence chiefs, ambassadors, and

5:46

other diplomats warned exactly about

5:48

these consequences of expanding NATO.

5:51

NATO expansion entailed cancelling

5:54

agreements for pan European security and

5:57

instead redivide the continent, restart

5:59

the logic of the cold war and then fight

6:02

in the shared neighborhood over where to

6:04

draw the new dividing lines. Again, none

6:07

other than George Kennan stated in an

6:09

interview back in 1998 that NATO

6:12

expansionism would start a new cold war.

6:14

And he predicted, quote, “Of course,

6:17

there’s going to be a bad reaction from

6:19

Russia.” And then the NATO expanders

6:21

will say, “We always told you that is

6:24

how the Russians are, but this is just

6:26

wrong.” However, we do see that the

6:29

media cannot recognize the obvious that

6:31

NATO expansion provoked this conflict

6:33

because this then risks legitimizing

6:36

Russian military actions.

6:39

Yet, NATO countries crossed the ultimate

6:42

red line by pulling Ukraine into the

6:44

NATO orbit and developing it into a

6:46

frontline state against Russia. Keep in

6:49

mind, Angela Merkel once recognized that

6:52

offering NATO, sorry, offering Ukraine a

6:54

membership action plan for NATO would be

6:57

interpreted by Moscow as quote a

6:59

declaration of war. The former British

7:02

ambassador to Russia, Rodrik Line, said

7:04

the following about pulling Ukraine into

7:06

NATO. Quote, it was stupid on every

7:09

level at that time. If you want to start

7:11

a war with Russia, that’s the best way

7:13

of doing it. In a note by the CIA

7:17

director will burn Burns, he also argued

7:19

that attempting to pull Ukraine into

7:21

NATO would likely trigger a Russian

7:23

military intervention, which Burns noted

7:25

was something Russia would not want to

7:27

do. Now, these all seems like excellent

7:30

definitions of the word provoked. Yet,

7:32

we cannot use this word.

7:36

And in February of 2014, NATO countries

7:38

nonetheless backed a coup to pull

7:41

Ukraine into the NATO orbit. Armenia

7:43

nonetheless sold the coup as a

7:45

democratic revolution even though

7:47

Yonukovich was elected in a free and

7:49

fair election. His removal and even the

7:51

riots in on the Maidan did not have

7:54

majority support among Ukrainians and it

7:57

violated the Ukrainian constitution.

8:00

And for a brief moment in 2014, the

8:03

western media reported that the new

8:05

authorities in Kev were attacking

8:06

Donbas, killing civilians who rejected

8:09

the legitimacy of the coup. and CNN even

8:12

questioned if the people of Donbas would

8:14

ever again allow Kiev to rule over them.

8:17

Yet soon thereafter, full media

8:19

conformity was implemented and the

8:22

resistance in Donbas was portrayed as a

8:25

mere Russian operation uh aiming to

8:28

oppose Ukraine’s democraticization.

8:31

Now, we have now learned that on the

8:33

first day after the coup, American and

8:35

British intelligence agencies set up a

8:37

partnership with the new intelligence

8:38

chief in Kiev to rebuild Ukrainian

8:41

intelligence services from scratch as a

8:43

proxy against Russia. We learned that

8:45

the Ukrainian general prosecutor argued

8:48

that the US was running Ukraine as a

8:50

fifth after the coup. We learned that

8:53

members of parliament were arrested.

8:54

Some were stripped of their citizenship.

8:56

The media was purged. The Russian

8:58

language was purged. The Orthodox church

9:00

was purged. And civilians in Donbas were

9:03

killed for year after year. Nationalists

9:06

and Western financed NOS’s undermined

9:09

the Minsk 2 peace agreement and set

9:11

clear redlines for Sinski not to

9:13

implement the peace mandate which he had

9:15

won in 2019.

9:18

And we saw that a top adviser to the

9:20

former president of France argued that

9:22

the signing of the US Ukraine Charter on

9:25

strategic partnership in November 2021

9:29

quote convinced Russia that it must

9:31

attack or be attacked. I think it’s safe

9:34

to say that had Russia or China done any

9:37

of these things, say Mexico, we would

9:39

have surely have defined it as

9:41

provocative. Yet we can’t do this in our

9:44

media. So to sell the story of a Russian

9:47

war of conquest, the media from day one

9:50

promoted the notion of a fullscale

9:52

invasion, suggesting that Russia uses

9:54

full military might to conquer Ukraine

9:57

as opposed to forcing UK Ukraine to

9:59

restore its neutrality. And for this

10:01

reason, we see that the media they can’t

10:03

inform the public that the low Russian

10:05

troop levels and initial actions were

10:07

completely inconsistent with conquest.

10:09

Rather, it indicated the intention of

10:12

keeping Ukraine out of NATO. The media

10:14

can’t inform the public that on the

10:16

first day of the invasion, Sinsky

10:18

confirmed that they had been contacted

10:20

by Moscow to discuss peace peace

10:22

negotiations based on Ukraine joining

10:24

not joining NATO, which Silinski agreed

10:26

to. The media can’t inform the public

10:29

about how Silinski himself said in March

10:32

of 2022. Quote, “There are those in the

10:35

West who don’t mind a long war because

10:38

this would mean exhausting Russia, even

10:40

if this means the demise of Ukraine and

10:43

comes at the expend, sorry, comes at the

10:45

cost of Ukrainian lives.

10:49

So the media can also not inform the

10:50

public about the sabotage of the

10:52

Istanbul peace negotiations after which

10:55

the Turkish foreign minister concluded

10:57

quote I had the impression that there

10:59

are those within NATO member states that

11:02

want the war to continue. Let the war

11:04

continue and Russia gets weaker. They

11:06

don’t care much about the situation in

11:08

Ukraine.

11:10

So instead of having the media discuss a

11:13

European security architecture that

11:15

could mitigate the security competition

11:17

and prevent Ukraine from being a

11:19

battlefield in a redivided Europe, the

11:21

media instead has demonized Russia as

11:24

pure evil sold the story that even

11:26

diplomacy should be rejected. Even as

11:29

hundreds of thousands of men died in the

11:31

trenches, the media pushed the narrative

11:34

of Ukraine winning, of Russian efforts

11:36

to restore the Soviet Union, downplaying

11:39

the losses of the Ukrainian army, and

11:41

ignoring the dassification policies and

11:43

the brutal conscription of Ukrainian

11:45

men. All of this was done under the

11:47

banner of standing with Ukraine,

11:50

irrespective of what Ukrainians actually

11:52

wanted. Even as Ukraine now faces

11:55

disaster and we could end up in a direct

11:57

war with Russia, there is no willingness

12:00

to recognize that Russia has any

12:01

legitimate security concerns. Instead,

12:04

everything happens in a vacuum and the

12:07

media remains committed to the narrative

12:09

of an evil Russian enemy and the logical

12:11

conclusion is therefore further

12:13

escalation rather than exploring paths

12:16

towards a workable peace. So if you want

12:19

to understand why it’s become impossible

12:21

to even discuss peace, why diplomacy has

12:24

been criminalized, I advise that we look

12:26

towards the very dangerous media

12:28

coverage and remember the warnings of

12:30

Walter Litman about simplifying complex

12:33

conflicts into a simple struggle between

12:37

good and evil. So thank you for your

12:39

attention.

12:42

Thank you Glenn for your statement but

12:44

not only for participation in making uh

12:48

this speech but also for your scientific

12:51

uh work and public work and I would

12:54

suggest to colleagues to uh look into

12:58

your books and uh articles and also the

13:02

podcast that you have.

13:05

Let me add some further comments which

13:08

there was no time to make during my

13:10

speech. So resolving conflicts and wars

13:14

can be extremely difficult as human

13:17

nature and the condition of human of a

13:21

conflict resolution often clash because

13:24

human beings are a group animal. We are

13:28

we’re largely organized by groups uh for

13:31

meaning and security and it’s also

13:34

therefore in human nature to divide

13:36

ourselves into the inroup us versus the

13:39

outgroup them the other. So when human

13:44

beings experience an external threat,

13:46

it’s in human nature to seek solidarity

13:48

within the group for security and to

13:51

survive. And we create therefore clear

13:54

divisions between the in-roup and

13:56

outgroup uh by contrasting our virtue

13:59

with our opponent’s evil nature.

14:02

When the white gets whiter, the black

14:04

gets blacker. Uh we see that the gray

14:07

area disappears. And this is what

14:09

prevents the individual from diverging

14:11

too much from the group. And essentially

14:14

people conform to their own inroup and

14:17

do not even discuss uh the concerns and

14:22

interests of the out groupoup as this

14:24

could be seen as having sympathies for

14:27

the adversary. Now this is an instinct

14:30

in human nature which can be exploited

14:32

uh further by political propaganda and

14:35

indeed political propaganda is largely

14:38

organized around uh developing the

14:40

stereotypes for the in-group versus the

14:43

out group and all the complexities of a

14:46

conflict is simplified into a mere

14:48

struggle between the good guys and the

14:50

bad guys.

14:52

So this is human nature. The problem is

14:55

this framing prevents conflict

14:57

resolution because as I said in my

15:00

speech, the point of departure in

15:02

international security is to reduce the

15:05

security competition. And to do so, we

15:07

have to recognize the security concerns

15:09

of the opponent.

15:12

Especially when you’re fighting a

15:13

nuclear power that considers itself uh

15:17

to be facing an existential threat and

15:20

fighting a war for survival.

15:24

Now a key case study has been uh the

15:28

first world war when the US government

15:30

presented Germany as pure evil in order

15:34

to mobilize a reluctant public for war.

15:38

Now this then was sold to the public as

15:41

the war against the ultimate evil uh

15:44

dehumanized German adversary.

15:47

This was the war that would quote uh be

15:50

the war to end all wars. It was the war

15:53

to make the world safe for democracies.

15:57

Essentially with such a framing only

16:00

total victory can create peace. And here

16:04

is why people like Walter Lipman went

16:06

from being well to a large extent

16:10

supporters of the use of propaganda to

16:12

becoming critics

16:16

because it resulted in ignoring possible

16:19

diplomatic solutions to end the war.

16:21

workable peace as uh Litman framed it.

16:26

And even after Germany had been

16:28

defeated,

16:30

we saw that uh this prevented uh lasting

16:34

peace because when you fight pure evil,

16:37

you can’t restore a balance of power

16:39

such as was done with bringing France,

16:43

you know, giving it a seat around the

16:45

table after the Napoleonic war. Instead,

16:48

we saw that the Germans had to be

16:51

properly defeated. It was given a

16:54

humiliating defeat after the first world

16:56

war. And it was also um a defeat which

17:00

was intended to keep Germany permanently

17:03

weak. And as we later learned, this set

17:06

the conditions for another world war. So

17:09

while it might seem very patriotic

17:11

patriotic to present the adversary as

17:14

pure evil in order to signal loyalty to

17:17

the inroup, it definitely goes against

17:20

our own interest to the extent it

17:22

undermines stability to create a

17:24

permanent peace.

17:26

Now let me quote some of uh the work of

17:30

Raymond Aaron who famously warned in the

17:35

1962 about dividing states into good and

17:38

evil. Uh he wrote quote idealistic

17:43

diplomacy slips often into fanaticism.

17:47

It divides states into good and evil

17:50

into peaceloving and bilicos. It

17:52

envisions a permanent peace by the

17:55

punishment of the latter and the triumph

17:57

of the former. The idealist believing he

18:01

has broken with power politics

18:03

exaggerates its crime.

18:07

Now this has also been my main concern

18:10

after the cold war when the west

18:12

established itself as a collective

18:14

hedgeimon and insisted it was a force

18:17

for good. All conflicts were then framed

18:19

as being liberal democracies versus

18:22

authoritarians, which is a nice

18:24

placeholder for good guys versus bad

18:26

guys. Indeed, after I gave my speech

18:28

there at the UN Security Council, uh

18:31

some critical comments predictably came

18:33

from the European delegations.

18:36

And to summarize, uh this was

18:38

essentially me making excuses for

18:40

Russia. Uh the West is not the problem.

18:44

And um the decision of going to war was

18:47

solely made by Russia. In other words,

18:50

the the entire assessment is we what are

18:53

you saying? Which narratives are you

18:55

pushing? The only way they are assessed

18:57

is are you legitimizing us or them?

19:02

But my point is this is not about taking

19:04

one side or the other. It’s about the

19:06

inability to even discuss security

19:08

concerns of our opponents.

19:11

And this is necessary to take the

19:14

security concerns our opponents into

19:16

account is required to predict their

19:18

reactions and thus calibrate our foreign

19:21

policy accordingly in order to maximize

19:23

our security. It was very hard to

19:27

convince anyone that the policies we

19:29

have pushed now have enhanced our

19:31

security or done anything good for

19:33

Ukraine.

19:35

There’s also this assumption uh that the

19:38

west does not actually do propaganda

19:40

because the west consists of liberal

19:42

democracies and uh propaganda is what

19:45

authoritarian states do.

19:48

Now this is an amazing u demonstration

19:53

of propaganda itself because propaganda

19:56

used to be considered a normal state

19:59

craft. uh people would refer to

20:00

themselves as propagandists

20:03

and uh it only became a dirty word as

20:05

the Germans used it in the 1930s.

20:09

Uh Edward Bernese which is considered

20:11

the to be the main author of the initial

20:14

literature on political propaganda

20:16

therefore contributed to uh essentially

20:19

rebrand it as public relations because

20:22

what our adversaries do is propaganda.

20:25

What we do is public relations and this

20:27

is to a large extent what propaganda

20:29

also does. It changes the language to

20:32

convince the public as opposed to using

20:34

rational arguments. So we create one set

20:37

of language for what we do versus

20:39

another for what our adversaries are

20:42

doing.

20:43

Again, it uh helps to boost the

20:46

legitimacy of the in-group and

20:48

delegitimize the out groupoup, which is

20:50

good for internal solidarity, but

20:52

terrible for resolving conflicts if we

20:54

can’t even compare our policies with our

20:57

opponents.

20:59

Now it can also be said that there was a

21:01

near complete consensus among the

21:03

original scholars on political

21:05

propaganda a century ago that liberal

21:07

democracies were actually more reliant

21:10

on propaganda

21:13

because when sovereignty is transferred

21:16

to the people it would then become more

21:18

necessary to manage the masses from

21:21

Edward Bernese Walter Litman this was

21:24

not a controversial statement indeed

21:26

there was a clear correlation between

21:28

expanding the voting rights and the need

21:31

to simplify political discourse um to

21:35

present conflicts as well complex the

21:38

complexity of politics as a simple

21:39

struggle between good and evil. We saw

21:41

this correlation uh as it became more

21:44

challenging to manage the masses

21:47

and even the during the cold war it was

21:50

also recognized by many scholars that

21:52

the US and the UK had more efficient

21:54

propaganda because a key component of

21:56

propaganda is source credibility.

22:00

And while the Soviets uh only relied on

22:02

state apparatus and they everyone could

22:05

see who was delivering the messages uh

22:08

for the British and the Americans they

22:10

could then u well white whitewash or or

22:15

siphon their uh propaganda through

22:19

non-governmental institutions, private

22:21

industries and indeed this is how

22:23

propaganda is also done today. We we use

22:26

non-government organiza organizations

22:29

and other institutions to make it sound

22:31

more credible.

22:34

And last, let me just say that it’s

22:36

extremely frustrating uh for an academic

22:39

like myself uh who has for more than 20

22:41

years warned against this war we’re now

22:44

seeing in Ukraine, which I’ve been

22:46

warning would destroy Ukraine and

22:48

possibly instigate a direct war between

22:51

NATO and Russia, which could then

22:53

develop into a nuclear exchange.

22:56

In such a scenario, we would all lose.

22:58

Yet, every time I’ve warned about this

23:01

over the past 20 years, it’s essentially

23:03

met the wall. It’s interpreted solely as

23:06

then taking the side of Russia because

23:09

by recognizing the Russian security

23:11

concerns and how they will respond, it’s

23:14

then simply dismissed as taking uh the

23:17

side of the out group and thus even

23:20

seeing as a betrayal of the ingroup.

23:23

So, this is what I’ve seen over the past

23:25

years indeed. The warnings about NATO

23:28

expansion, cancelling the pan European

23:30

security architecture was dismissed as

23:33

being pro-Russian, warning that the

23:35

orange support for the orange revolution

23:37

in 2004 uh would result in uh only

23:42

conflicts with Russia and war also

23:44

denounced as pro-Russian

23:46

in 2008 when NATO promised to expand

23:49

NATO to Ukraine and Georgia even though

23:54

there was only a small minority of

23:55

Ukrainians who wanted to join. join

23:57

NATO. Um, and knowing that this would

24:00

likely trigger a war and even possibly

24:04

breaking uh Russia, thus why breaking

24:06

Europe, it was also seen as pro-Russian.

24:11

In 2014, when NATO countries backed the

24:13

coup to remake Ukraine into an front

24:18

line against Russia, the disaster was

24:21

already evident and but this was also

24:24

seen as pro-Russian, something that

24:26

could legitimize the opponent

24:28

during the seven years of sabotaging the

24:30

Minsk agreement. This was also

24:32

pro-Russian because if anything if you

24:35

um if you support us that is uh your own

24:39

country then you should always blame

24:41

Russia even though the consequence will

24:44

be war.

24:46

In 2019 criticized the sabotage of

24:49

Sinsk’s peace mandate by NATO countries.

24:52

This was also pro-Russian in 2021 when

24:55

the warnings became more and more

24:58

evident that the war would happen. Uh

25:00

this was then I even wrote an article by

25:03

the way in November of 2021 with the

25:05

title something along the line that war

25:08

will soon be unavoidable.

25:10

This was simply denounced as

25:11

legitimizing the military actions by

25:15

Russia. So again there can be no

25:17

recognition of the opponent because this

25:20

is then considered to be support.

25:23

in 2022 criticized the many several

25:27

western countries sabotaging the

25:28

Istanbul negotiations. This was also

25:31

seen as pro-Russian anti- Ukrainian even

25:33

though it then predictably resulted in

25:36

the destruction of Ukraine which also

25:38

Sinski had warned about. And over the

25:41

past four years, I’ve seen lie after lie

25:43

intended to create the conditions for a

25:45

long war as hundreds of thousands of

25:48

Ukrainians were sacrificed in a war that

25:50

could not be won under the banner of

25:53

standing with Ukraine.

25:55

And I’ve listened to leaders arguing

25:58

that weapons are the path to peace while

26:00

they criminalized diplomacy. There’s no

26:03

way this can be explained as being in

26:05

our interest or being even in the

26:07

Ukrainians interests. But nonetheless,

26:09

it all operates under the banner of

26:11

being pro- US. And if you desent, then

26:14

you’re pro-Russian.

26:17

And what was this all for?

26:19

Very predictably, Ukraine is being

26:21

destroyed with with horrible

26:24

humanitarian consequences. And in the

26:27

wider strategic framing, we see that

26:29

relations with Russia is destroyed for

26:32

decades and decades to come at this

26:34

critical point in time when the world is

26:36

shifting into multiparity. and we would

26:38

definitely have been in our interest to

26:40

keep Russia on our side of the ledger.

26:43

We see Europe now being in systemic

26:46

decline with economic uh problems which

26:49

can’t be fixed without ending the

26:51

division of Europe, security problems

26:53

and of course political fragmentation

26:56

which we will see in the months to come.

26:59

Now we also see that the international

27:01

system is falling apart, international

27:04

law itself disintegrating and the future

27:06

of the UN no longer being clear.

27:10

So time and time again there has been

27:13

many pathways towards a workable peace.

27:16

Yet every time this is rejected as uh

27:19

Putin is presented as Hitler and Russia

27:22

is an evil adversary which we can’t even

27:25

make peace with. And it always goes back

27:27

to the same original problem, the

27:30

inability to even discuss the security

27:33

concerns of their opponent. And this, as

27:35

I mentioned in my speech, also applies

27:37

to China, Iran, or whatever country we

27:40

now see as being the bad guy. So, thank

27:43

you for your attention.

oooooo

Geure herriari, Euskal Herriari dagokionez, hona hemen gure apustu bakarra:

We Basques do need a real Basque independent State in the Western Pyrenees, just a democratic lay or secular state, with all the formal characteristics of any independent State: Central Bank, Treasury,

proper currency¹, out of the European Distopia and faraway from NATO, being a BRICS partner…

Euskal Herriaren independentzia eta Mikel Torka

eta

Esadazu arren, zer da gu euskaldunok egiten ari garena eta zer egingo dugun

gehi

MTM: Zipriztinak (2), 2025: Warren Mosler

(Pinturak: Mikel Torka)

Gehigarriak:

Zuk ez dakizu ezer Ekonomiaz

MTM klase borrokarik gabe, kontabilitate hutsa

Anthony Anastosi: Estatu dirua, Klase borroka

---