Civil War in Ukraine: Western Empire vs Russia

[luc]

Oligarchical topography of Ukraine: Andrei Fursov

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXLUJpqaQpY

The analysis is in Russian with English subtitles.
High level intelligence on the Ukrainian rat's nest.

Watched this yesterday - wow, what a wealth of information! I found the background on the different clans in Ukraine and their interests fascinating.

Who is this Andrei Fursov? In one video it is stated that he's the director of the Center for Russian Studies IFPI MosGu, but I couldn't find a lot on him in English. Is he one of Putin's advisors?

Interestingly, there's another video where he talks about planetary/earth changes:

_https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg-h9KplJ5U

But Gulfstream is not even the worst of our problems; there is something much worse, and that is - a "Planetary Adjustment"

It happens once every 12-13 thousand years and lasts for about 250 years.

It began in the 20th century, and will be over, unless there is a global catastrophe, at the beginning of the 22th century. However, the most intensive phase of the planetary adjustment occurres in the period of 1999 to 2035.

What might we experience in this intensive phase? According to the report of the Candidate of Military Sciences, Mr. Smotrinov, we might experience:

- Change of the magnetic poles of the planet;
- Displacement of the Earth's orbit
- Decrease of the orbit and the velocity of the planet;
- Restructuring of all the internal mechanisms of the planet

We are talking about the possible restructuring of the circulation of Magma. This process causes an increase of heat fluxing to the surface of the planet, causing earthquakes.

Over the past 30 years, we have seen half of the most destructive earthquakes of this millennium.

 

[axj]

I must say, I'm a little surprised at your comments here. I think of Schröder more as the "German Tony Blair", with all that this entails - remember the Schröder-Blair-paper [1][2]?

What he and his administration have done is basically:

- dragging Germany into the first war (Kossovo) since the Nazi times, using outrageous lies and media manipulation [3]. As we all know, this war was illegal and caused many innocent lives and misery.

Schroeder admitted that joining the Kosovo war was a mistake. Compare that to the true psychopaths like Cheney, Bush or Blair who cannot admit any mistake, ever.

Hartz IV is probably better characterized as THE destruction of the welfare state of the last decade! See, since Hartz IV, people on social welfare are hardly able to survive. What's worse, they have to file paper work for every little thing and can be forced to do senseless jobs for no money at all. For many, all the bureaucracy has become nearly a full time job! Add to the mix the harrassment by the bureaucrats of the "Agency for Work", who are entitled to "sanction" recipients of welfare to the point where they cannot buy food anymore, you can see that it's a cruel system that breaks people psychologically. I think only psychopaths can come up with something like that.

Despite the cuts to the welfare system, I'm sure that the German welfare state still offers much more than in the U.S. and in most other countries.

Another thing to consider is whether a very extensive welfare system lures people into abusing it instead of taking self-responsibility for their lives. I do think that a system with a guaranteed minimum income from the state (without working) is an interesting idea. Those who want to work can earn more and those who don't just make do with the little they get. It sounds nice in theory and is close to what Germany used to have. Whether it can be sustainable is another question.

[...] However, it seems that those reforms were what got the German unemployment significantly down and the economy up again for years to come. Was it worth the cost of reducing the welfare state? I am undecided on this. Without the reforms and with the economy going down, the end result might have been even worse for even more people.

...or so the neo-liberal narrative goes. It's basically the same old "trickle-down economics": Make the rich richer, and the poor will somehow benefit from that - which of course, never happens. It's the same thing the IMF does: "We rent you money, but you have to cripple the welfare state, and give the money to the rich instead". Did the unemployment go down in Germany? We all know how fake and unreliable these statistics are. But even if it went down a little - there's now a huge low-wage-sector where people have to work many underpaid jobs to survive, or get additional welfare payment to make ends meet.

Again, even the poor in Germany are not poor when compared to many other countries. Also, I don't think that it is as black-and-white as you describe it. Of course the economy has a lot of influence on whether the unemployment goes up or down. And the unemployment in Germany went down quite a lot - if they could have just fake the numbers, they could have done this before when the economy was in the dumps.

Of course I agree that it was good of Schröder not to join the Iraq war. But did it make any difference? Hardly. German troops would have played no significant role, it really was more about "public support". And, as I said, Germany did support the war logistically. I imagine Schröder telling US diplomats "pff, you know, it's all a show for the upcoming elections, you know we support you! Now, is there any favor I can do for you?"

I don't think your imagination is correct in this case. It was a very real and huge rift between the German and American administrations. Schroeder and Bush stopped talking altogether and there were open admissions from the U.S. administration that "regime change" in Germany was on the top of their agenda.

As for the Putin-connection - I see it this way: Putin knew how important the German-Russian business relations are (as we can clearly see today), and catered to Schröder's narcissism and greed by giving him attention and the prospect of earning a lot of money after his term. So Schröder & friends got very busy in the German-Russian business relations at a time where Russia was not so much "on the radar" and indeed made a lot of money. While that was smart from Putin's side, it doesn't make Schröder and his policies any better.

When I look at Putin and Schroeder together, I see a true friendship and not just Putin "catering to Schroeder's narcissism". You seem to have quite an abhorrent attitude towards people earning a lot of money. Do you think that money corrupts everyone or that it is impossible to earn a lot of money without being a crook? Schroeder did not become an oligarch but just made a good income as the figure head of that Russian-German oil transit company. What's wrong with that?

 

[Yozilla]

Ridiculous sanctions keep coming, and Russian officials keep showing that they have a sense of humor.

http://www.sott.net/article/278234-US-keep-shooting-oneself-in-the-foot-with-ridiculous-sanctions-US-should-send-astronauts-to-space-station-by-trampoline-Russian-official

Still camarilla d'coup has no reason for fun:

The announcement of a special tactical exercise, which was posted today – April 30 – on the official website of the Kiev city administration has nothing to do with the activities of the Defense Ministry and the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces

_http://rt.com/news/155908-ukraine-drills-kiev-military/

Maybe one of main tasks of this drill could be to exercise the shortest path to airport...

 

[Siberia]

The latest news:

The Wall Street Journal, April 30, 2014

Defense Intelligence Agency Chief Michael Flynn to Step Down

WASHINGTON—The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency will step down this year, after a tenure pushing for broad changes in how military intelligence is collected and used, the Defense Department said.
...
Gen. Flynn's expertise is in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency, officials said. While he had begun to shift his agency's focus beyond those areas, some lawmakers have criticized the DIA for failing to predict Russian President Vladimir Putin's takeover of the Crimean peninsula.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303948104579534011155511236?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303948104579534011155511236.html

Bravo, Mr. Putin.

 

[Minas Tirith]

Schroeder admitted that joining the Kosovo war was a mistake. Compare that to the true psychopaths like Cheney, Bush or Blair who cannot admit any mistake, ever.

Hartz IV is probably better characterized as THE destruction of the welfare state of the last decade! See, since Hartz IV, people on social welfare are hardly able to survive. What's worse, they have to file paper work for every little thing and can be forced to do senseless jobs for no money at all. For many, all the bureaucracy has become nearly a full time job! Add to the mix the harrassment by the bureaucrats of the "Agency for Work", who are entitled to "sanction" recipients of welfare to the point where they cannot buy food anymore, you can see that it's a cruel system that breaks people psychologically. I think only psychopaths can come up with something like that.

Despite the cuts to the welfare system, I'm sure that the German welfare state still offers much more than in the U.S. and in most other countries.

Another thing to consider is whether a very extensive welfare system lures people into abusing it instead of taking self-responsibility for their lives. I do think that a system with a guaranteed minimum income from the state (without working) is an interesting idea. Those who want to work can earn more and those who don't just make do with the little they get. It sounds nice in theory and is close to what Germany used to have. Whether it can be sustainable is another question.

[...] However, it seems that those reforms were what got the German unemployment significantly down and the economy up again for years to come. Was it worth the cost of reducing the welfare state? I am undecided on this. Without the reforms and with the economy going down, the end result might have been even worse for even more people.

...or so the neo-liberal narrative goes. It's basically the same old "trickle-down economics": Make the rich richer, and the poor will somehow benefit from that - which of course, never happens. It's the same thing the IMF does: "We rent you money, but you have to cripple the welfare state, and give the money to the rich instead". Did the unemployment go down in Germany? We all know how fake and unreliable these statistics are. But even if it went down a little - there's now a huge low-wage-sector where people have to work many underpaid jobs to survive, or get additional welfare payment to make ends meet.

Again, even the poor in Germany are not poor when compared to many other countries. Also, I don't think that it is as black-and-white as you describe it. Of course the economy has a lot of influence on whether the unemployment goes up or down. And the unemployment in Germany went down quite a lot - if they could have just fake the numbers, they could have done this before when the economy was in the dumps.

Of course I agree that it was good of Schröder not to join the Iraq war. But did it make any difference? Hardly. German troops would have played no significant role, it really was more about "public support". And, as I said, Germany did support the war logistically. I imagine Schröder telling US diplomats "pff, you know, it's all a show for the upcoming elections, you know we support you! Now, is there any favor I can do for you?"

I don't think your imagination is correct in this case. It was a very real and huge rift between the German and American administrations. Schroeder and Bush stopped talking altogether and there were open admissions from the U.S. administration that "regime change" in Germany was on the top of their agenda.

As for the Putin-connection - I see it this way: Putin knew how important the German-Russian business relations are (as we can clearly see today), and catered to Schröder's narcissism and greed by giving him attention and the prospect of earning a lot of money after his term. So Schröder & friends got very busy in the German-Russian business relations at a time where Russia was not so much "on the radar" and indeed made a lot of money. While that was smart from Putin's side, it doesn't make Schröder and his policies any better.

When I look at Putin and Schroeder together, I see a true friendship and not just Putin "catering to Schroeder's narcissism". You seem to have quite an abhorrent attitude towards people earning a lot of money. Do you think that money corrupts everyone or that it is impossible to earn a lot of money without being a crook? Schroeder did not become an oligarch but just made a good income as the figure head of that Russian-German oil transit company. What's wrong with that?

Yep, that sums it up very well, thanks!

By all means, I never tried to picture Schroeder as a super politician or flawless individual in my original post. He just seemed a little bit "more real", can't really describe it. And the constant "smear-campaigning" in the press while he was Chancellor spoke for itself, imho.

M.T.

 

[angelburst29]

While going over recent news coverage of activities in Ukraine, I came across something that seems odd and not sure what to make of it?

In this first article, Merkel called Putin "to ask assistance" in freeing the seven OSCE observers "being held" by pro-Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine.

The second article states, the “European monitors" which in fact included no OSCE monitors are actually NATO Officers. That the “pro-Russia insurgents/separatists" being blamed for the capture are actually "anti-fascist eastern Ukrainians" who support the unelected regime in Kiev. Then there's the issue that Merkel asks Putin's assistance in freeing seven, when the second article states Bloomberg reported, "They were holding 13 people hostage in Slovyansk," It gets really confusing trying to figure out, who's who and the associated positions of the different players?

Vladimir Putin calls for Ukrainian troops to withdraw from south-east
_http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/01/vladimir-putin-ukraine-troops-withdrawal-angela-merkel

In phone call with Angela Merkel, Russian president says military withdrawal and national dialogue are key issues in Ukraine.

Vladimir Putin has called for Ukrainian troops to pull out of the south-east of the country, in a conversation with Angela Merkel on Thursday.

The Russian president said military withdrawal, an end to violence and a national dialogue were the key issues in Ukraine, according to a Kremlin briefing on the phone conversation.

A spokesman for Merkel said the focus of the call had been the German chancellor asking for Putin's assistance in freeing seven observers from the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe who are being held by pro-Russia separatists in eastern Ukraine. The Kremlin said Merkel initiated the call.


Western Military "monitors" turn up in Eastern Ukraine
_http://www.activistpost.com/2014/05/western-military-monitors-turn-up-in.html

Bloomberg reported in their article, “Russia Faces More Sanctions as Monitors Held in Ukraine,” that:

In Ukraine, pro-Russian militants yesterday captured a bus carrying observers sent by member states of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, a 57-nation group that includes Russia and the U.S. focusing on conflict prevention and preserving human rights, Ukraine’s Interior Ministry said in a statement on its website. They were holding 13 people hostage in Slovyansk, it said.

The observers — who include four Germans and citizens of the Czech Republic, Denmark, Poland and Sweden — were sent under the Vienna Document on military transparency and included no OSCE monitors, according to the Vienna-based organization. They were accompanied by Ukrainian military officers.

That the team members, all drawn from NATO member states, are not actual OSCE monitors, raises doubts over the legitimacy of their mission. NATO has decisively sided with the unelected regime currently occupying Kiev. The objectivity therefore of "monitors" drawn from NATO states presents an immense conflict of interest.

Just as other international organizations, including the United Nations itself, are used by the West as cover for covert extraterritorial operations, it appears that the OSCE Vienna Document on military transparency has been abused in an effort to support Kiev’s unelected regime and its on going armed operations in the east of Ukraine.

Leading the rather muted propaganda campaign is the US State Department’s Voice of America, which stated in their article, “Captured European Monitors in Ukraine say They are Well,” that:

A group of European monitors detained by pro-Russia insurgents in eastern Ukraine appeared in public Sunday to give assurances they are not being mistreated, even as negotiations began to secure their release.

With armed rebels watching as they spoke, the leader of the monitors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, German Colonel Axel Schneider, assured reporters in Slovyansk they were in good health.

Voice of America’s rhetoric, calling NATO officers “European monitors,” strains credibility. Calling anti-fascist eastern Ukrainians “pro-Russia insurgents” also presents a factual discrepancy - an insurgent being defined as “a person who fights against an established government or authority,” and the regime currently occupying Kiev being neither an “established government” nor an “authority.”

A genuine OSCE monitoring mission to Ukraine, considering the broad membership of the OSCE which includes the Russian Federation, might include members from nations backing not only the unelected regime in Kiev, but also those backing anti-fascist Ukrainians in the eastern and southern regions of the country. That all the team members for the mission originated from NATO countries, many of which have in fact arrayed military assets against both eastern Ukrainians and neighboring Russia in recent weeks, indicates not only an immense conflict of interest, but obvious resulting improprieties.

It would stand to reason that the OSCE’s inclusion of Russia among its membership is a symbolic gesture, and the organization itself is but another appendage of NATO and therefore an extension of its regional and global agenda. It is, if anything, reprising its role as facilitator of NATO vis-à-vis Russia, just as it had done in Kosovo.

 

[axj]

While going over recent news coverage of activities in Ukraine, I came across something that seems odd and not sure what to make of it?

In this first article, Merkel called Putin "to ask assistance" in freeing the seven OSCE observers "being held" by pro-Russian separatists in Eastern Ukraine.

Merkel asked Putin for assistance because she thinks that he can have some influence on the Eastern-Ukrainians (Ukrainian Russians) who are holding the hostages.

The second article states, the “European monitors" which in fact included no OSCE monitors are actually NATO Officers.

They were there on a different mission which was authorized through a different OSCE program, not the current OSCE monitoring one where Russia is also participating.

That the “pro-Russia insurgents/separatists" being blamed for the capture are actually "anti-fascist eastern Ukrainians" who support the unelected regime in Kiev.

They don't support the regime in Kiev. The regime in Kiev is the one that is considered fascist because of a extreme-right wing group being a part of the government and this right-wing group also has a a sort of small army of thugs.

Then there's the issue that Merkel asks Putin's assistance in freeing seven, when the second article states Bloomberg reported, "They were holding 13 people hostage in Slovyansk," It gets really confusing trying to figure out, who's who and the associated positions of the different players?

They were 7 from what I recall. Several army officers from Germany and other NATO countries and only one from a non-NATO country (Sweden). They agreed to let that one go because he has diabetes.

 

[Altair]

I think it is must see for everyone: Battleground Ukraine: A comprehensive summary http://www.sott.net/article/278319-Battleground-Ukraine-A-comprehensive-summary. There are many interesting details which I was not familiar with, although I lived 25 years in Ukraine. Highly recommended.

 

[SeekinTruth]

I think it is must see for everyone: Battleground Ukraine: A comprehensive summary http://www.sott.net/article/278319-Battleground-Ukraine-A-comprehensive-summary. There are many interesting details which I was not familiar with, although I lived 25 years in Ukraine. Highly recommended.

Yeah, it's got many intriguing details about who's who. This was being posted and discussed in the comments section of The Vineyard of the Saker blog in the last few days.

 

[Windmill knight]

The latest from Ukraine. The blog includes pictures and videos:

Ukraine Begins Army Offensive To Regain Slavyansk; Separatists Fight Back, Shoot Down Helicopters

_http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-02/ukraine-begins-army-offensive-regain-slavyansk-separatists-retaliate-shoot-down-heli

After a few days of extended verbal foreplay, it was only a matter of time before Ukraine finally snapped and resumed a military operation to regain the lost cities in the east, especially once the warmongering IMF made it explicitly clear that should Ukraine lose control of pro-Russian controlled cities the $17 billion bailout package would be lost too. Sure enough, early this morning Kiev launched a military operation to regain control of the pro-Russian separatist stronghold of Slovyansk, overrunning numerous roadblocks and surrounding the city, officials said, but meeting stiff resistance from militants who managed to shoot down at least one helicopter.

According to WSJ reporters, Ukraine's Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said militant fighters fought back against the advancing Ukrainian units with heavy weaponry, including grenade launchers and shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles. There was no immediate sign that Ukraine's forces were moving further into the city.

Separatist leaders claimed to have shot down four Ukrainian helicopters in the clash, Russian state media reported, but Ukraine's defense ministry said two helicopters had been shot down and that two soldiers were killed and several more wounded. Ukraine's state security service confirmed only one Mi-24 chopper was taken down, with one pilot killed and the other taken captive. A spokeswoman for the separatists said one person was killed and another wounded on their side.

Reuters adds that a third helicopter, an Mi-8 transport aircraft, was also hit and a serviceman wounded, the Defence Ministry said. The SBU security service said this helicopter was carrying medics.

Yet even this appears merely a preview of the event to come, which on request of western powers, may wait until after the market is closed on Friday afternoon.

Eight hours after Reuters journalists in Slaviansk heard shooting break out and saw one helicopter opening fire, the city of 130,000 was quiet, with shops shut and armed separatists in control of the streets while Ukrainian forces in armored vehicles had taken up positions on the outskirts of town.



Ukrainian officials said troops overran rebel checkpoints around the city in an operation launched before dawn and it was now "tightly encircled". They pointed to the heavy fire that hit the helicopters as proof of the presence of Russian forces, despite repeated denials from Moscow that it has troops on the ground or is controlling the uprising.

And then the Russian warnings started:

Putin's spokesman heaped blame on the Ukrainian government, which took power two months ago after pro-Western protests forced the Kremlin-backed elected president to flee to Russia. Noting that Putin had warned before that any "punitive operation" would be a "criminal act", Dmitry Peskov told Russian news agencies that this was what had now happened at Slaviansk, where separatists seeking independence or annexation by Moscow are holding seven foreign European military observers.



Saying Putin had sent an envoy, Vladimir Lukin, to southeast Ukraine to negotiate their release, Peskov said that Lukin had not been heard from since the Ukrainian operation began.



"While Russia is making efforts to de-escalate and settle the conflict, the Kiev regime has turned to firing on civilian towns with military aircraft and has begun a punitive operation, effectively destroying the last hope of survival for the Geneva accord," he said, referring to a deal on April 17 signed by Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the European Union.

Reuters is also reporting that Russian President Vladimir Putin's spokesman said on Friday that Kiev would be held responsible "first of all by its people" for its decision to launch a "punitive operation" in south-east Ukraine.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, speaking on Rossiya 24 television, called on Europe and the United States to give their assessment of the situation in the area, where "aviation is being used against the population" and urged Kiev to think again about its actions, according to the report.

About as clear a warning as one can get that Russia is about to cross the border in a "peacekeeping" mission and get involved as well: hardly the de-escalation the priced to global pax Americana, and climatic perfection rigged and manipulated markets desire.

For now, however, the eye of the military hurricane may be passing over Slavyansk:

Reuters journalists in the city heard shooting from shortly after 4 a.m. (9 p.m. EDT Thursday) and saw a military helicopter open fire. Towards midday, the city was quiet, shops were shut but rebel gunmen appeared to be still in tight control of the streets. Ukrainian troops were at a halt in the suburbs.



The SBU said the deadly use by the separatists of shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles was evidence that "trained, highly qualified foreign military specialists" were operating in the area "and not local civilians, as the Russian government says, armed only with guns taken from hunting stores".



Armed groups seeking union with Russia have seized a number of government buildings in towns in eastern Ukraine. The action in Slaviansk appeared to mark the heaviest military response by Kiev since it tightened a cordon around the city a week ago.



"They wanted to carry out some small-scale tactical operations just to scare the people," said a militant manning a checkpoint leading to the army-held airfield. "But so far things have not worked out the way they wanted."

The irony of course is that East Ukraine is for all intents and purposes lost to Kiev, and with the IMF ultimatum hanging over the acting government's head, a civil was is now all but inevitable, a war which will most certainly end up involving both Russia and NATO eventually:

"Shells came into my garden," said one local man, Gennady. "They say that they have come to defend us. But who from?" he said of the Ukrainian forces. "Civilians must stop them." On the town's southern outskirts, eight Ukrainian armored personnel carriers cut off the road but faced a cordon two deep of local residents shouting at them to go home.

So while we await the final escalation, here is some media coverage of what really happened.

Amateur footage from a resident in Slavansk shows a plume of smoke rising from the city on Friday morning. [...]

 

[Siberia]

I think it is must see for everyone: Battleground Ukraine: A comprehensive summary http://www.sott.net/article/278319-Battleground-Ukraine-A-comprehensive-summary. There are many interesting details which I was not familiar with, although I lived 25 years in Ukraine. Highly recommended.

Highly recommended, indeed. Thank's, Altair. As you have said, there are many interesting details which I also was not familiar with. A must read not only for Russian speakers, but for everyone. A very scrupulous analysis of world geopolitics in generel, not only the situation about the Ukraine.

 

[luc]

Hi axj,

thanks for the reply. What I tried to do was to provide some data on why I think that Schröder's policies were really rather destructive. Did you consider this data and the broader picture of his policies? I have the impression that you picked only a few of my points in your reply and sometimes changed topics.

But let me answer you:

Despite the cuts to the welfare system, I'm sure that the German welfare state still offers much more than in the U.S. and in most other countries.

So because in other countries the situation is much worse, this justifies bad policies?

Another thing to consider is whether a very extensive welfare system lures people into abusing it instead of taking self-responsibility for their lives. I do think that a system with a guaranteed minimum income from the state (without working) is an interesting idea. Those who want to work can earn more and those who don't just make do with the little they get. It sounds nice in theory and is close to what Germany used to have. Whether it can be sustainable is another question.

I agree with you in that I also don't like the idea of giving up all responsibility to the state. Maybe it's even true that in a perfect system, there wouldn't be any need for a welfare state at all. It could be handled on a tribal level, or via networks between friends, family and like-minded. However, this is a rather philosophical discussion. When we assess Schröder's reform, I think it's better to ask: Did it actually help the people in some way? Who benefited from it, and who lost? I know from many friends who had to deal with the post-Schröder system either directly or through their work, and from many well-documented articles on the topic, that the system breaks people not only financially, but psychologically as well. It is simply not designed to help anyone, instead it causes misery for millions - systematically. Can this be any good? Basically, Schröders reforms were, as so many other neo-liberal reforms, designed to take money and power from the poor/middle class and transfer it to the rich, or so I think.

I don't think your imagination is correct in this case. It was a very real and huge rift between the German and American administrations. Schroeder and Bush stopped talking altogether and there were open admissions from the U.S. administration that "regime change" in Germany was on the top of their agenda.

Interesting. Maybe I really played down this issue somehow. Do you have any information on how this rift affected US policy towards Germany or vice-versa? Do you have any link on the topic of "regime change"?

Schroeder admitted that joining the Kosovo war was a mistake. Compare that to the true psychopaths like Cheney, Bush or Blair who cannot admit any mistake, ever.

Well, in a recent interview he said (paraphrasing): "I critizise Russia's policies in Ukraine, but I don't want to condemn Putin either. The annexion of Crimea was against international law, but during my term I also violated international law". While this is certainly a step in the right direction, he still compares the peaceful reunification of Crimea and Russia based on the people's will with an illegal aggressive war that killed thousands of people and caused misery for years.

Again, even the poor in Germany are not poor when compared to many other countries. Also, I don't think that it is as black-and-white as you describe it. Of course the economy has a lot of influence on whether the unemployment goes up or down. And the unemployment in Germany went down quite a lot - if they could have just fake the numbers, they could have done this before when the economy was in the dumps.

Why not use and manipulate statistics to justify your policies du jour? Whether the economy went up because of Schröder's reforms or not, I can't really tell (though I doubt it), and I think you'll find experts arguing both for and against this thesis. What I do know however, is how the reforms affected millions of Germans and society as a whole in a very bad way.

When I look at Putin and Schroeder together, I see a true friendship and not just Putin "catering to Schroeder's narcissism". You seem to have quite an abhorrent attitude towards people earning a lot of money. Do you think that money corrupts everyone or that it is impossible to earn a lot of money without being a crook? Schroeder did not become an oligarch but just made a good income as the figure head of that Russian-German oil transit company. What's wrong with that?

I'm not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that I have an "abhorrent attitude towards people earning a lot of money" based on what I've written, but let me make it clear: I have nothing against people making money. My point was and is this: Based on Schröder's track record as a politician and anecdotal evidence of his power-hungry and opportunistic behavior, his affiliation with Putin can be much easier and better explained by "making some bucks" and "feeling important after his term" than by his being a "good politician" or "having a backbone" or "because they are real friends".

Yep, that sums it up very well, thanks!

By all means, I never tried to picture Schroeder as a super politician or flawless individual in my original post. He just seemed a little bit "more real", can't really describe it. And the constant "smear-campaigning" in the press while he was Chancellor spoke for itself, imho.

M.T.

Well, I think the question is not whether he "seems" real or not, but what his actual track record says. And to me, it looks rather devastating. Again, what do think about cutting social welfare on all fronts while privatizing many important sectors to the benefit of some mega-corporations and individuals, including the health sector which led to a sell-out of medical care to big pharma once and for all? About convincing the public to participate in illegal and devastating wars, using outrageous lies? And so on...

By the way, I don't see that the media were hostile towards Schröder at all. On the contrary, without the help of the media, Schröder would have never been able to push his neo-liberal and war agenda the way he did. He got full-scale support, and many of his buddies helped organize it all. I think this profoundly changed Germany's media landscape: The "real left" had to flee and the few voices of dissent disappeared from the mainstream media. Schröder was even called "the media chancellor" for his ability to use the media to his ends. He was probably the first chancellor who used spin doctors, PR firms and a whole network of media contacts to his benefit. Yes, the media talked about his wives and his hair color and stuff, when they should have had discussed banking regulation, the lies about Milosevic or who profits from various privatizations. Today, of course, he gets bashed for his affiliation with Putin.

Some more things that seem to support a rather negative picture:

- his behavior on TV when Merkel was elected ("Elefantenrunde"): Incredible disconnect from reality and arrogance
- the Maschmeyer affair: It showed a rat nest of corruption and how Schröder and friends had excessive parties and a good time with future beneficiaries of his policies (privatization etc.), and what kind of people got him in power
- his posing in magazines with expensive cloths after his election which many perceived to be a bit off
- as mentioned previously his "rattling on the fence" of the chancellery when he was young, and his extreme careerism

To sum it up: The way I see it, Schröder and his gang have played a devastating role in German politics, and the two positive things - abstinence from the vastly unpopular Iraq war and his support for Putin - can be very easily explained by his need to win the elections to push his reforms and by the opportunity to make some money (it has been said as well that he was in need of money due to his divorces) and "be someone" after his term.

So no, I wouldn't want to have a beer with Schröder, and not only because I don't drink beer :)

Sorry again of the OT discussion...

 

[Vic]

Luc, I thank you for your intelligent, rational, and informed responses to axj's points. Not only do you open up the bigger picture in terms of Schroeder, and by extension the vast majority of politicians, but you do so without succumbing to any emotional reaction to, what might be construed as, questions about your motivation.

For me you have provided an example of the level of communication that I aspire to. That involves communication generated through the integration of both the intellectual and emotional centres, rather than one or the other.

I also thank axj for enabling an interaction that has benefited my own development in terms of the Work.

 

[Yozilla]

House of Trade Unions in Odess was set on fire, resulting in 38 fatalities.

_http://rt.com/news/156480-odessa-fire-protesters-dead/

 

[axj]

Hi axj,

thanks for the reply. What I tried to do was to provide some data on why I think that Schröder's policies were really rather destructive. Did you consider this data and the broader picture of his policies? I have the impression that you picked only a few of my points in your reply and sometimes changed topics.

Hi luc,

I think the most important question was whether Schroeder is a pathological type who intentionally made the rich richer and the poor poorer. Therefore, I provided some data that was missing in your assessment and which contradicts the notion that he is a pathological type:

- he admitted his mistake regarding joining the war in Kosovo
- there was a real rift between him and Bush when he did not join the Iraq war
- he does not jump on the bandwagon of vilifying Putin and instead demonstratively supports him

Whether or not he made mistakes which lead to a worsening of the situation is a different question, in my opinion. The legacy of Schroeder's policies is a much bigger topic and it may be that overall, he made things worse for Germany.

In my opinion he did the reforms that he thought were necessary in order to get the German economy back on track again and therefore benefit the whole country. With his policies the German economy did indeed become stronger again and the unemployment levels sunk significantly. On the other hand, the overall income levels of most people have stagnated or became lower when compared to earlier decades.