In Current Concerns No. 5 of 1 March 2022 Eberhard Hamer analysed the background to the Ukraine conflict.
Russia, personified by Vladimir Putin, unfortunately saw no other way out after years of systematic provocation and humiliating breaches of promise. The ongoing armament and incorporation of the Russian-murdering Azov regiments, the announcement of the conquest of Crimea and the Donbass, the massing of troops on the ceasefire line to the Donbass, the request for nuclear weapons, the covert activity of US and NATO military advisers, the existence of biological weapons laboratories, etc. left no choice from the Russian military’s point of view. They did not want to be completely encircled and defenceless and hoped for a blitzkrieg as well as a relenting of the USA and its puppets in Ukraine. Therefore, in contrast to the US-NATO wars, the Russians spared infrastructure (electricity, telecommunications, transport and water) where it was strategically responsible. They could have easily interrupted the railway connections and arrested Mr. Zelensky by means of a commando execution, but they still did not want and do not want martyrs. The question is: for how much longer?
This strategy is being prevented by the USA and its vassals in NATO through the supply of weapons, the deployment of the hate-filled Azov regiments, reconnaissance aid and an unprecedented media campaign. The psychological warfare – above all with false-flag atrocities – in which the USA and NATO are masters, has created mass hysteria that goes as far as ostracising Russian culture. Heinrich Heine already warned: “Where books are burned, people will soon be burned.”
The Western media campaign reminds me of Josef Göbbels’ speech of 18 February 1943 in the Sportpalast in Berlin, where he asked the 15,000 people gathered the demagogic question: “Do you want total war? Do you want it – if necessary, more total and more radical than we can even imagine today?”
This “total war” is now being accepted by continuously intensifying the economic war against Russia (called “sanctions”) and humiliating Russia by flatly disregarding its understandable and justified proposals for peace and its security and by massively arming against Russia.
One of the smartest military analysts, the editor-in-chief of the oldest military magazine in the world, Brigadier Mag. Dr Wolfgang Peischel, has always admonished that one should not project one’s world of thoughts into the opponent, but rather think one’s way into it in order to come to a reasonable decision.
If we now put ourselves in the position of the Russians, then a desperate liberation strike against the ongoing encirclement and defamation is obvious. In military comparison with the other world powers, Russia has only the advantage of its highly armed nuclear forces. Do we Western Europeans, in suicidal blindness, want to provoke their use?
Let us finally think! Sapere aude! And also understand the backgrounds.
Sir Halford Mackinder, who is still compulsory literature in US military academies, developed the so-called Heartland Theory, in which he shows that the domination of Eastern Europe (“hub area”) and the blocking of a connection of Western Europe with Russia prevents the emergence of a power bloc rich in technology and raw materials stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Then the maritime-based world domination strategy of England and its successor, the USA, would have played out (“The geographical pivot of history”, 1904).
This policy pervades the entire 20th century and the 21st century that has begun.
Another source for recognising the continuous building of artificial antagonisms – especially with regard to Russia – are the two books by Thomas P. M. Barnett from 2003 and 2005 “The Pentagon’s New Map – War and Peace in the Twenty-First Century” and “The Pentagon’s New Map – Blueprint for Action”. The Pentagon’s concern that with the end of the Soviet threat (end of the Cold War) the funds for the European and North Asian bases will be cut is explained there. Therefore, new threatening scenarios and reasons for war are needed. We have allowed ourselves to be drawn into this strategy of the military-industrial and financial establishment of the USA and its military arm, NATO, which is dying without a built-up opponent, and we have gone along with the provocation of the Russians to the death instead of contributing to a balanced, fair peace. Since the USA has not been affected in its own territory by all the wars it has sparked, the warmongering elites still think that this will continue – especially that a war with Russia would occur in Europe. But this is a blatant misjudgement, because desperate strikes by the Russians would be intercontinental.
But the main devastating damage would hit Europe.
Do we want to allow ourselves to be drawn into this danger instead of listening to and acting on the increasingly urgent ways to peace?
I am thinking in particular of the proposals made before the start of the war in Ukraine within the framework of the International Progress Organization headed by the experienced Professor Dr Dr hc. mult. Hans Köchler. By accepting the triad of “perpetual neutrality, non-alignment and federal structure”, all interests (except those of the warmongers) would be served; above all the Ukrainian people, who would benefit from being courted by East and West instead of being exploited unilaterally.
There is an old English warning: Don’t drive them to despair. Let us therefore end vassalage and take the road of reason instead of staggering into a war of extermination! •
cc. Heinrich Wohlmeyer was accommodated by farmers after his father died before being deported to a concentration camp. His parental home was destroyed by bombs and his mother became ill. He went to grammar school “on his own”, studied law, international business law in the US and England, as well as agriculture and food technology at the University of Soil Science Vienna. Back in Austria, he made himself available as regional developer and industrial manager for the Waldviertel (the northwestern region of the northeast Austrian state of Lower Austria) and became director of the Austrian Agricultural Industry. After having himself “talked apart”, he went to university and taught resource economics and environmental management.
In all these activities, he realised that the hubs of unsustainable development are trade and financial policies that undermine regional economic cycles. “We need regional solutions for the best possible regional prosperity,” he says.
km. In an interview with the German Press Agency (dpa) on 12 April 2022 (www.stern.de of 12 April 2022), Erich Vad, former German Brigadier General of the German Armed Forces and Security Advisor to Chancellor Angela Merkel, spoke out against the delivery of heavy weapons to Ukraine. He also warned against denying Russian President Vladimir Putin humanity and labelling him a pathological despot with whom one could no longer talk. He said: “We are doing a lot of war rhetoric at the moment – out of good intentions. But the road to hell, as we know, is always paved with good intentions. We have to think about the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine from the end. If we don’t want World War III, sooner or later we have to get out of this military escalation logic and start negotiations.”
Harald Kujat, Chief of Defence of the Bundeswehr from 2000-2002 and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee from 2002–2005, wrote in response: “I agree with Brigadier General Dr Vad on every single point. The train of lemmings has started moving – politics is on a war course. Why do so many politicians and journalists want to bring war to our country?” (https://lnkd.in/dbJV6JiQ of 12 April 2022)
If you want to prevent the setting of cookies (for example, Google Analytics), you can set this up by using this browser add-on.