imagine a ‘nuclear war’ of information

Russia vs. US: Total War is the Obliteration of Reality

fort russ blog
By: Joaquin Flores
When the methods of Information War in Fourth Generation Warfare are used in Total War, it results in a war upon the psyche, a war upon cognition, a war upon our very conception and understanding of reality.  This will be an increasing feature of our relationship with reality.
As global conflict increases qualitatively and quantitatively, it is important to understand the new methods of warfare in which the conflict in Ukraine serves as an excellent case study.  Understanding these methods, in combination with a syncretic approach to various competing schools and across several otherwise or previously unrelated fields, has been the key to our ability to accurately forecast any number of events and dynamics in the situation in Ukraine.
The struggle between the Atlanticist and Eurasianist spheres not only acquires forms in the traditional areas of diplomacy, trade, intelligence, and military strength – but also in the increasingly dominating realm of synthetic, manufactured hyper-reality.  These are important elements of fourth generation warfare (4GW) in the realm of information war and also what is termed ‘hybrid warfare’ – a feature of 4GW which blurs the lines between civilian and military groups, and allows power groups to dissemble the reality of their role in support.  This creates the element of plausible deniability, that power groups are not involved when in fact they are.
Following the various media reports and statements from the various official spokespeople of the groups involved in the Ukrainian conflict, it is problematic to take these at face value and equate statements about their role or position as being the actual role or position.
In a manner similar to ISIS or Al Qaeda – which are largely US-Saudi-Israeli joint projects, it is typical to hear statements from the Pravy Sektor that they oppose NATO, imperialism (whether US or Russian), and propose instead other elements of platform which confuse the discourse and disguise their actual supporters.  Of course, like with ISIS and the like, most all of the commanders and all of the rank and file supporters and fighters completely believe they are opposed to the very power groups which support them.  It only requires one or two decision makers at the very top to align the actual activities with US control or influence.
Naturally like ISIS, Pravy Sektor and similar are also developed to be self-sustaining projects to a large extent, can subsist for long periods of time using the standard methods of apparent self-funding, including organized crime or the seizure of businesses and enterprises. They can also, as we have written previously, be used and swayed by other actors not including the US, and in certain moments may act – willingly or unwillingly – against the US’s actual interests (not just stated interests).  This may occur for reasons which are complex but imaginable.
US and Russian approaches to the conflict in Ukraine are based in discernible desired positions, but the strategies change in various stages based upon real-world changes and results, push-back, and the actions of the other players. Thus, strategies are employed in relation to changes, and tactics evolve in real-time.   This is why many contingency plans are built into general planning.  Indeed, the various and even contradictory contingencies themselves should be considered ‘the plan’.
The US exerts degrees of control and influence upon several distinct power groups in Ukraine, such as various volunteer battalions, the government itself, mainstreamed opposition to that government, and Pravy Sektor related groups up to and including Yarosh himself.  These wane and wax in relation either to the US’s need or to the US’s ability to exert its power.  These are not unidirectional; US attempts to exert influence or control do not necessarily result in a success in that endeavor: the targets of influence and control may be compelled to act – either in an instance or in a general pivot – contrary to the needs of the US for reasons of their own survival, and/or as a result of Russian successes to exert influence and control.
Difficulties in assessing the situation then arise from this: an established method in 4GW as it works through media and new-media (information war) is to dissemble actual reality, and to manufacture a new reality.  The US can exert fluctuating degrees of influence and control over its proxies.
It is difficult to use language to describe reality because words have definitions which often exclude that which they are contrasted with. Reality on the other hand is fluid and real situations can be simultaneously described by more than one word, even if such words when counterpoised to each other may seem to have opposite meanings.  Reality can morph into conditions that are better described by some words, only to shift at any time later into a condition which is better described otherwise.  Thus, without special care, a syllogistic or axiomatic approach will usually fail.
**
In October of 2014, we wrote:
“From the syncretic work we have produced on this subject, drawing from numerous schools such as Baudrillard’s post-structuralism and Kuhn’s theory of the structure of scientific revolutions […] we have attempted to explain both some features of the information war and how the present schema or paradigm is constructed, and how that construct contains certain features which can be manipulated and exploited through the use of simulacrum and hyper-reality.”
“More to the point, we have based much of our understanding on the premise that societies composed of managers and the managed must create a paradigm which has exploitable features for the purpose of social control.  The Ukraine civil war is the first war in history in which both actual sides (US and Russia) struggle for supremacy using similarly derived theories of new media and their connection to 4GW.  While the use of proxies has long been a feature of war, that both sides use proxies in the sense of 4GW doctrines, and that the ‘stories’ being told extend from new media, is a new phenomenon.”
“There are some problems, however, for both the US and Russian information and reality managers.  Being able to create hyper-reality does not, in the first place, require having a solid footing in the actual reality.  In many ways, ‘actual reality’ may be an ever-elusive thing which can never fully be grasped.  We are, as human beings, a species which is already born into a reality comprised of the previous generation’s interwoven combination of actual reality and hyper-reality.”
“Our society, a social construct, is an outgrowth of our genetic potential.  The creation of various primitive forms of hyper-reality is as natural to humanity as the bird constructing its nest.  But just as the invention of the train or automobile changed forever our relationship with distance, and even the relative size of the earth, the invention of new media has changed our relationship with actual reality and the kinds of reality and hyper-reality we construct. “
“It is not difficult, then, for even the agent of social control, working at the think tank, to lose sight of reality itself.  What was that individual’s origin point?  Everyone working today on these projects was already born into a world of machines, production of the means of creation and destruction, automated wars, electricity, and mass media.”
“From an analytic point of view, this creates a conundrum.  Analysis, discourse, map-drawing etc. are themselves a form of hyper-reality creation.  Analysis is done in the mind of the analyst, and is drawn from, at best primary sources, but are generally not the primary source itself.  It must go through the medium of language and contrived/presented imagery (photos, etc.) before it gets to the analyst.  Additionally, even when the analyst is the witness percipient, their interpretations and written or spoken analysis reflect their prior biases, beliefs, prejudices, and thought processes; which in short can be described as defective by way of their subjectivity.”
“Thus from the analyst:  all words, language; things signifying and signified; which pertain to actual reality, are themselves indistinguishable from hyper-reality.  Analysis based on interpreting actual reality and analysis based in interpreting the simulacrum are both, in many ways, hyper-real presentations.  The map is not the terrain.”
“To problematize ‘objective’ reporting and analysis, is really to lay-out the problems with the concept of objectivity, which leaves us with only a remaining intersubjective agreement [20].  Therefore we can see the power of new-media (which is based on the echoing of information through many subjects, peer to peer), and the transformation of the simulacrum from being a distinct hyper-reality unto itself, into a totalizing entity which subsumes, devours, and overtakes reality into itself.  It becomes, then, within the liberal, emotional state, of the Popperian ‘critical rationalist’ paradigm, most appropriate and ‘reasonable’ to uphold the hyper-reality as the actual reality [21]. “
**
In conclusion, we might imagine a ‘nuclear war’ of information. The fall-out also contaminates information managers and builders.  In an increasing way, even the reality and information managers themselves are suffering from the ‘radiation poisoning’ of information war; they can no longer distinguish between the reality they are creating, or that was created by their opponent, from the reality which they began to work from.  It increasingly becomes one and the same.
If this is true for them, who have access to much more real information than we do, then it is even more true for us; we who have all along been working largely with information which by definition is manufactured and itself is a social construct.
Understanding the world then becomes increasingly difficult and creates very real epistemic problems.
Liberalism and its sub-ideology of pragmatism is steeped in anti-intellectualism and a misuse of Ockham’s razor or lex parsimoniae (law of parsimony).  It is wrongly used as an arbiter between two theories, in which the simplest theory is viewed as more accurate even when not accounting for all the information, as opposed to a heuristic technique in the development of a model.
It is an attractive idea that the complexities of war and strategy can be explained away as being the product of random accidents; that the divergence between stated aims and actual results are a product of blunder and incompetence and not intrigue and dissemblance.
Analyzing the motives of conscious actors is not like observing other phenomena in a few important ways; conscious actors may have a strong motivation to conceal their real aims or methods, whereas basic physical, chemical, or biological processes can be observed empirically and claims made about these are falsifiable.
Rather, we must look at circumstantial and other non-physical evidence; known theories, past practice, the body of scholarly work on the subject, and instead approach the questions from a prosecutorial perspective.
To understand one epistemic dilemma in the use of Ockham’s Razor to describe phenomena, let us look at these well known quotes about this heuristic tool.
“Entities should not be multiplied without necessity.” (William of Ockham)
“Nature operates in the shortest way possible.” (Aristotle)
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” (Albert Einstein)
Warfare does not generally operate on the basis of ‘nature’ in the sense that Aristotle describes – as there are consciously acting players being observed who do not want to be accurately observed, nor upon the economy of modeling that Ockham proposes.
In warfare, most entities should be multiplied and made as complex as possible for a number of reasons.  One radar tower may cover an entire area, but many radar towers for a single area are preferable because then radar coverage is not lost when the opponent successfully neutralizes one of them.
Likewise in strategy:  a simple strategy may at first seem preferable in terms of viability and execution,  but in the context of a conscious opponent, the complexity of a strategy will aid tremendously in keeping it from being understood and unraveled.  In that sense, as with the radar example, more layers are better.
The science of economy and efficiency takes on entirely different applications in the context of a struggle between strategic players.  One aspect of victory in a war is production, but not only physical production of soldiers and hardware, but in the production of complex strategy, relying on more virtual resources, theories, etc.  The side which can afford more inefficiencies has a strategic advantage in any number of scenarios.
We must not approach reality at face value, but as a consciously created illusion itself which is constructed specifically with the aim of pursuing a long-term strategic objective, one that includes both the accidental and intentional creation of a false, distorted, manufactured hyper-reality built upon layers of both real and hyper-real foundations.
**
Joaquin Flores is a Mexican-American expat based in Belgrade. He is a full-time analyst and director at the Center for Syncretic Studies, a public geostrategic think-tank and consultancy firm, as well as the co-editor of Fort Russ news service, and President of the Berlin based Independent Journalist Association for Peace. His expertise encompasses Eastern Europe, Eurasia, and he has a strong proficiency in Middle East affairs. Flores is particularly adept at analyzing ideology and the role of mass psychology, as well as the methods of the information war in the context of 4GW and New Media. He is a political scientist educated at California State University. In the US, he worked for a number of years as a labor union organizer, chief negotiator, and strategist for a major trade union federation.
Advertisements

Modi, Obama’s Snake Charmer, Tries Seduction In Central Asia

[SEE:  Obama Trying To Make Rape Look Like Seduction]

[Indian military writers always rely upon what I call “strategic hopefulness.” They always seek to explain how the current American paradigm in east Asia can be worked-out, as long as India continues to play the leading role that Pentagon planners have cut-out for her. even doubling-down upon that. The current paradigm is a formula for failure and no amount of twisting and spinning will change that.

Mr. Gokhale is correct that Russia will never return in force to Afghanistan. India thinks that Pakistan can be replaced and a deal worked out with the Taliban to enable TAPI to proceed. There will be NO TAPI, until Pakistan exerts pressure on Taliban, or Pakistani troops are brought-in to protect the pipeline. Anyone who thinks that Pakistan does not maintain ultimate control over the Taliban should consider where the relatives of the Taliban are. Most are in Pak. Afghan refugee camps. The rest live in known locations. Control the families to control the fighters who fight for them.]

India, Central Asia and Afghanistan

abp live

Prime Minister Narendra Modi has now set his eyes on recalibrating New Delhi’s outreach to the resource-rich Central Asian Republics (CARs) in an attempt to limit if not match China’s dominant presence in those countries. His current sojourn to the five  countries in Central Asia is clearly designed to build upon last 25 years of India’s diplomatic  investment in the region.

In the 1990s, when the CAR countries had just broken away from the Soviet Union, New Delhi had made it a point to immediately establish diplomatic relations with them. Prime Minister Narasimha Rao, architect of India’s economic liberalisation, realised the importance of charting out a relationship with the newly-independent republics and was first off the block to visit a couple of them in the mid-1990s.Since then Central Asia has been part of India’s ‘extended neighbourhood.’ Although India has had ancient civilisational links with some those countries (because of the famous Silk Route which linked India to the vast expanse of what is now Central Asia), contemporary relations with them are largely driven by two major factors: security and counter-terrorism cooperation on one hand and economic ties and connectivity on the other.

Since then, New Delhi has steadily engaged with the CARs, offering them assistance in Information Technology, education, health care and infrastructure and supplying them with tea, garments, drugs and pharmaceuticals.

In return, these republics have been a major source of supply of uranium, non-ferrous metals,isotopes, radioactive chemical elements, oil and petroleum products.  And yet, India’s overall trade with the Central Asian Republics has remained at a paltry 500 million dollars, mainly constrained by the lack of direct land connectivity.

However, of late many new factors have entered the equation. The breakthrough in nuclear talks between the big powers and Iran has allowed India a little more manoeuvring space in its dealing with Tehran. India has promptly re-activated its assistance to improving the Chabahar port in eastern Iran which serves as a crucial link between Iran and Afghanistan and further into Central Asia. The port, when fully developed, will give India a crucial sea-land link into Afghanistan bypassing Pakistan. Iran has already constructed a number of smaller roads to the Afghanistan border where it can be linked to the Zaranj-Delaram Highway, constructed by India. The Zaranj-Delaram Highway is connected to the Garland Highway that leads into Central Asia.

Chabahar is not the only port though that will enable India to connect to Central Asia and Eurasia. Bandar Abbas, Iran’s other important port that is likely to emerge as a key link in a major north-south  corridor.

At the moment New Delhi cannot match China’s economic clout and its ability to pour in money into smaller countries but by undertaking the proposed connectivity projects more vigorously, it can provide an alternative to the Central Asian Republics in order to lessen their dependence on ‘big brother’ China.

Which brings us to the situation in Afghanistan and India’s diminishing role in Kabul. As long as President Hamid Karzai was in power in Kabul, India was assured of a firm foothold in that country. New Delhi’s 2 billion dollar worth of assistance to Afghanistan for non-security sectors has earned a lot of goodwill but all that benevolence is in danger of being lost after President Abdul Ghani has taken over the reins of power.

Decidedly cold towards India and friendlier to Pakistan than Karzai, Ghani has introduced an element of uncertainty in the India-Afghanistan relations as well India’s foray into Central Asia since New Delhi was hoping to use Afghanistan as a springboard for its outreach into CARs. Afghanistan is also crucial for the TAPI (Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India) gas pipeline. It was bad enough that India-Pakistan relations are fraught, now even Afghanistan may not be India’s friend.

So despite optimism expressed by India’s Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), there is a major question mark over the operationalisation of TAPI gas project in the near future.

So what should India do to remain relevant in Afghanistan and step up its involvement in CAR? Three essential aspects stand out. One, to keep its foothold in Kabul intact, India must work with Washington, Beijing and Moscow to limit the Pakistani Army’s role in Afghanistan. India, China and Russia in fact agreed to back a “broad and inclusive peace and reconciliation in Afghanistan that is Afghan-led and Afghan-owned, as well as to help Afghanistan’s integration into the region through its expanded trade and transport networks and regional connectivity.”

Two, India, must realise that it has–more than Russia and China–a larger stake in Afghanistan simply because any instability in Kabul and the return of Taliban would spell trouble for India’s security environment. China, in the Indian policymakers’ eyes, is using the minor unrest in Xianjiang province as an excuse to remain relevant in any Afghan solution but is unwilling to do much beyond paying lip service while Moscow, it feels, will not like to return to Kabul in any significant role given its past bitter experience in Afghanistan. And three, at the moment Ashraf Ghani may have put all his eggs in the Pakistani basket but he will sooner than later realise that Islamabad’s narrow objective of gaining a ‘strategic depth’ against India in the form of Afghanistan, is not compatible with what Kabul wants, i.e, peace and reconciliation with the Taliban.

In the near and long term, India and to a lesser extent Washington, must do all it can, to help the Afghan people. India’s cultural and civilisational ties with the majority Afghan people are strong and notwithstanding the temporary setback India has suffered in Kabul, it will eventually prevail. India must therefore continue with its development programmes in Afghanistan and think of helping Kabul in capacity building of its human resource as well as that of its armed forces.

Have Russian Researchers Eliminated US Edge In Advanced Weaponry?

[SEE: Russian Advances In Electronic Warfare and Encryption Have NATO Worried]

Russia developing system capable of ‘switching off’ foreign military satellites

tass russian news

“The system will be used against cruise missiles and will suppress satellite-based radio location systems. It will actually switch off enemy weapons”, Russia’s KRET Deputy CEO said.

© TASS/Vitaliy Nevar 

MOSCOW, June 25. /TASS/. Russia’s Radio-Electronic Technologies Group (KRET) is developing a fundamentally new electronic warfare system capable of suppressing cruise missile and other high-precision weaponry guidance systems and satellite radio-electronic equipment, KRET Deputy CEO Yuri Mayevsky told TASS on Thursday.

“The system will target the enemy’s deck-based, tactical, long-range and strategic aircraft, electronic means and suppress foreign military satellites’ radio-electronic equipment,” Mayevsky said.

The system will be mounted on ground-based, air-and seaborne carriers, he added.

“It will not be based on satellites as this is prohibited by international rules and we comply with this rule,” he said.

Adviser to the KRET first deputy CEO Vladimir Mikheyev told TASS the integrated multifunctional electronic warfare system designed to target enemy aerospace vehicles would operate within the air defense and missile shield control contour.

“It will fully suppress communications, navigation and target location and the use of high-precision weapons,” Mikheyev said.

“The system will be used against cruise missiles and will suppress satellite-based radio location systems. It will actually switch off enemy weapons.”

The system’s ground component will be tested soon, hec said. “Ground tests are now going on in workshops. At the end of the year, the system’s component will leave the factory gates for trials at testing ranges,” he said.

Kremlin Kicks-Out Soros/NED NGOs Fomenting Revolution

George Soros | Photo by EPA

Russia to bar Soros, other foreign NGOs

politico

 

Kremlin threatens anyone working with a dozen pro-democracy NGOs with up to six years in prison.

By Karen Shainyan

 

MOSCOW — Russia is moving to ban the MacArthur Foundation, George Soros’s Open Society Institute and 10 other foreign groups under a law on “unwelcome organizations” adopted this spring.

The Federation Council, the upper house of the Russian parliament, on Tuesday unveiled the initial names on what the Kremlin and its allies call a “Patriotic STOP-list.”

President Vladimir Putin in May signed the law, the latest step by the Kremlin to restrict the activities of non-governmental organizations in Russia.

The others on the ban list are Freedom House, a U.S. democracy advocacy group; the U.S.-government backed National Endowment for Democracy; two arms of the main American political parties that help parties abroad, the National Democratic Institute and the International Republican Institute; the Michigan-based Charles Stewart Mott Foundation; the Education for Democracy Foundation and the East European Democratic Center, which are both in Warsaw; the Toronto-based Ukrainian World Congress; the International Ukrainian Coordination Union in Kiev; and the Crimean field mission for human rights, which is overseen by the Ukrainian parliament.

The list, which is to be voted on Wednesday, would be forwarded to the Prosecutor General’s office and the foreign ministry for inclusion on the official “unwelcome” register.

Under the law, anyone in Russia who works for or collaborates with these banned groups faces financial penalties as well as up to six years in prison.

Since the 2011 mass protests in Moscow against fraudulent elections for parliament, the Kremlin has steadily moved to crack down on dissent. The Russian parliament has passed laws that require any Russian NGO or charity that gets funding from abroad register as a “foreign agent” and that bloggers register with the state.

Authors:

Karen Shainyan

NATO “Blind” In Eastern Ukraine, Reliant Upon Social Media for Intel

US NATO envoy: ‘I get most info on Ukraine conflict from social networks’

Russia-Today
Douglas Luteimages

US Perm. Rep. to NATO, Douglas Lute, or Herman Munster?

The US Permanent Representative to NATO, Douglas Lute, has admitted that his knowledge about the ongoing conflict in eastern Ukraine comes mostly from social networks rather than intelligence reports.

“We should all ask ourselves: why is it that we know so little really about what is going on in Donbass,” the US ambassador to NATO told “Friends of Europe” forum in Brussels.

“I mean, frankly, I read more on social media about what is going on in the Donbass than I get from formal intelligence networks. This is because the networks don’t exist today,” Lute said.

READ MORE: Busted: Kiev MPs try to fool US senator with ‘proof’ of Russian tanks in Ukraine

The US envoy to NATO then backtracked, reacting to a comment made by Elena Donova, a member of the Russian delegation to NATO.

“I didn’t say that we ignored our intelligence sources. I just said that compared to the Cold War the systems that we once had twenty years ago have atrophied,” he said, adding that the “things have fundamentally changed.”

The reliability of social media as a source of information has been questioned throughout the conflict in Ukraine.
The latest example is an April tweet by US ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt claiming that Russia’s military were continuing to expand their presence in eastern Ukraine. As for proof, Pyatt posted a two-year-old picture of an air defense system from an air show near Moscow.

Last July, Russia’s Defense Ministry questioned the authenticity of the satellite images of alleged shelling of Ukraine from Russian territory. It said the images were “created by US counselors” and posted by Pyatt on his Twitter microblog in an “informational merry-go-round” of fake pictures.

In August, Russia’s Defense Ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov ridiculed another so-called NATO proof, saying: “If earlier, someone would at least put their names on those images, be it Breedlove, Rasmussen, or even Lungescu, now, they are hesitant. It makes no sense to seriously comment on this,” he said.

Yet, this February, Ukrainian MPs followed the line, presenting a US senator with photos of what they said were Russian military hardware columns on Ukrainian territory. However, it turned out that the photos had been taken during Russia’s conflict with Georgia in South Ossetia back in 2008.

 

The Ukrainian conflict erupted in April 2014 after Kiev sent troops to the Donetsk and Lugansk Regions after civilians there refused to recognize the new coup-imposed authorities in the capital. The Minsk accords, brokered by Russia, Germany and France in February of this year, brought several weeks of calm to the region, but ceasefire violations by both sides have been growing, hampering the peace process.

According to the UN human rights office, at least 6,116 people have been killed and 15,474 have been wounded during a year of fighting. Many fear that the true numbers could be much higher, however.

“Soldiers for Peace” (Soldaten für den Frieden)–Text

heinz-kessler-y-fritz-streletzHeinz Kessler y Fritz Streletz

Theodor Hoffmann
Admiral Theodor Hoffmann (Photo: SRK)

Horst Stechbarth2
Horst Stechbarth

cosmonaut Sigmund Jena
Cosmonaut Sigmund Jena

“Experience shows that Russians better friend than enemy.”

Soldiers for Peace

jung welt

Documented: The leadership of the former East German Forces warns of war and calls for cooperation rather than confrontation with Russia

As military personnel who were employed in responsible positions in the GDR, we turn seriously concerned for the preservation of peace and the survival of civilization in Europe to the German public.

In the years of the Cold War, in which we experienced a long period of confrontation and militarization under the threshold of open conflict, we have used our military knowledge and skills for the maintenance of peace and the protection of our socialist state GDR. The National People’s Army has been involved in a single day armed conflicts, and it has played a leading part in the events in 1989-90 that no weapons were used. Peace has always been the most important maxim of our actions. That is why we are firmly opposed to the military factor is again the determining instrument of policy. It is a secure experience, that the burning questions of our time can not be solved by military means.

It should be recalled here that the Soviet Army has borne the brunt during the crackdown of fascism in World War II. Only 27 million Soviet citizens gave their lives for this historic victory. You as well as the Allies, applicable on the 70th anniversary of the liberation of our thanks.

Now we note that the war has once again become a constant companion of mankind. Run by the US and its allies reorganization of the world has led in recent years to wars in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen and Sudan, Libya and Somalia. Nearly two million people were victims of these wars, and millions are fleeing.

Now the war events, in turn, reached Europe. Obviously, the US strategy aims to eliminate Russia as a competitor and to weaken the European Union. In recent years, NATO has approached ever closer to Russia’s borders. With an attempt to make the Ukraine in the EU and in NATO, the cordon sanitaire should be concluded by the Baltic states to the Black Sea in order to isolate Russia from the rest of Europe. Under American calculus also a German-Russian alliance would be difficult or impossible.

In order to influence the public in this sense, takes place an unprecedented media campaign in the incorrigible politicians and corrupt journalists stir the drums of war. In this heated atmosphere, the Federal Republic of Germany should play a supportive role for peace. The areas both its geopolitical situation and the historical experiences of Germany and the objective interests of its people. This is contradicted by the requirements of the Federal President for more military responsibility and stirred up in the media war hysteria and Russophobia.

The accelerated militarization of Eastern Europe is not playing with fire – it is a game of war!

Being aware of the destructive forces of modern wars and in discharge our responsibilities as citizens we say in all clarity: Here already a crime against humanity begins.

Are the many dead of World War II, the vast destruction throughout Europe, the refugees and the endless suffering of the people already forgotten? Have the recent wars the United States and NATO have not already brought enough misery and demanded many lives?

Understand you do not, which would mean a military conflict on the densely populated continent of Europe?

Hundreds warplanes and armed drones, equipped with bombs and missiles, thousands of tanks and armored vehicles, artillery systems would be used. In the North and Baltic Sea, the Black Sea träfen another modern combat ships and in the background stands the nuclear weapons in readiness. The boundaries between front and hinterland would blur. Million mothers and children would order their men to cry their fathers and brothers. Millions of victims would be the result. From Europe a ruined desert landscape would be.

Can we get here? No, no!

Therefore, we turn to the German public:
Such a scenario must be prevented.
We do not need war rhetoric, but Friedenspolemik.
We do not need Bundeswehr missions abroad and also no army of the European Union.
We do not need more funds for military purposes, but more funds for humanitarian and social needs.
We do not need war agitation against Russia but more mutual understanding and peaceful coexistence and cooperation.
We do not need military dependence on the US, but the ownership of the peace. Instead of a “Rapid Reaction Force of NATO” on the eastern borders, we need more tourism, youth exchange and peace meetings with our Eastern neighbors.
We need a peaceful Germany in a peaceful Europe.
May recall in this sense, our generation, our children, grandchildren and great grandchildren.

Because we know very well what war means, we raise our voices against the war, for peace.

Army retired general. Heinz Kessler

Retired Admiral Theodor Hoffmann

The Supreme General aD Horst Stechbarth; Fritz Streletz; Fritz Peter

The Lieutenant Generals retired. Klaus Baarß; Ulrich Bethmann; Max Butzlaff; Manfred Gehmert; Manfred Gratz; Wolfgang Kaiser; Gerhard Kunze; Gerhard Link; Wolfgang Neidhardt; Walter Paduch; Werner Rothe; Artur Seefeldt; Horst Skerra; Wolfgang Steger; Horst Sylla; Ehrenfried Ullmann; Alfred Vogel; Manfred Volland; Horst Zander

Vice Admiral retired. Hans Hofmann

The major generals retired Olivier Anders; Heinz Bilan; Bernhard Beyer; Günter Brodowsky; Kurt Brunner; Heinz Calvelage; Sebald thumb; Willi Dörnbrack; Alfred Dziewulski; John Fritzsche; Egon Gleau; Otto Gereit; Roland Large; Peter Herrich; Karl-Heinz Hess; Günter Hiemann; Lothar Hübner; Siegmund Jähn; Günter year; Manfred Jonischkies; Günter Kaekow; John Kaden; Helmut Klabunde; Klaus Klenner; Raimund Kokott; Kurt Kronig; Manfred Lange; Bernd Leistner; Hans Leopold; Klaus Listemann; Heinz Lipski; Hans Georg Löffler; Rudi Mädler; Manfred Merkel; Günter Moeckel; Dieter Nagler; John Oreschko; Rolf Pitschel; Hans Christian kingdoms; Fritz Rothe; Günter Sarge; Dieter Schmidt; Horst Schmieder; Gerhard Schoenherr; Gerhard Seifert; Kurt summer; Erich Stach; Manfred Thieme; Wolfgang Thonke; Henry Thunemann; Walter Tzschoppe; Günter Voigt; Gerd Weber; Dieter Wendt; Klaus Wiegand; Henry Winkler; Heinz-Günther Wittek; Erich Wöllner; Werner Zaroba; Manfred Zeh; Alois Zieris

The retired Rear Admirals. Herbert Bernig; Eberhard Grießbach; Hans Hess; Werner Henninger; Klaus Kahnt; Werner Kotte; Helmut Milzow; Gerhard Müller; Joachim Münch

Name a large number of colonels and captains at sea aD Volker Bednara; Frithjof Banisch; Bernd Biedermann; Karl Dlugosch; Thomas Förster; Günter Gnauck; Günter Leo; Friedemann Munkelt; Werner Murzynowski; Gerhard Matthes; Lothar Matthäus; Friedrich Peters; Helmut Schmidt; Fritz Schneider; Heinz Schubert; Helmar Tietze; Wilfried Wernecke; Rolf Zander; Lieutenant Colonel Günter Ganßauge

Other members of the NVA from the ranks of officers, ensigns, sergeants and soldiers express their consent.

The Odessa Trade Union House Fire Tragedy/Massacre

A work-up with many open questions.

lauffeuer

Release:
There are already a number of meeting and demonstration appointments planned. Initiatives, groups and cinemas can continue to report. A list of the Terminin is published as soon as possible.
In mid-March, the film appear online free for all (also with English. Subtitles). Until then, it’s there already for download Veranstalter_innen.

The film:
On May 2, a group of anti-government activists to flee after violent clashes with supporters of Euro-Maidan in the Trade Union House in Odessa. They barricade windows and doors with everything they find in the house to protect themselves from the outside standing attackers. When they start throwing Moltow cocktails at the building, the location is beyond redemption. The building catches fire, 48 people coming on that day killed. Half a year later: Relatives of the victims hold regular vigils in front of the house from. Hundreds flock to the house on the large square. They bring flowers and signs to commemorate their loved ones. May 2, was for many people in Odessa a traumatic experience. But what exactly happened that day and how could it happen?

The government seems to care little for education and the major European media are hardly gone in their reporting in depth. It remains a tragedy, a key event at the beginning of the Ukrainian civil war and a turning point in the recent East European history at the now the ghosts. Why the police did not intervene? Why the fire department came only after 40 minutes? Even after 2 May Why disappeared still many people who had survived May 2? Were there any organizers, which have brought about this trend conscious?

This documentary approaches cautiously this difficult subject and tried to take eyewitness seriously. 16 interviews helped to sort the day and the large amounts of Youtube videos and left ultimately a fairly complete picture of the events. The role of police and politics is critically examined – the film goes more tracks to and must still leave some questions unanswered.

Ultimately, show up at the events in Odessa several aspects that allow a better understanding of the divisions in this country. A town in the middle of the country, with a colorful ethnic composition, was like no other for a pluralistic Ukraine – until it was torn apart by the political developments of the past year and the tragedy of 2 May. Also revealing are the reactions of politicians, experts and citizens of the city that allow the viewer to see the whole thing in a larger political context.

Wildfire – is a film that will go from 2 May in Odessa on the ground – to better understand and to all subsequent developments.

 

Eine Aufarbeitung mit vielen offenen Fragen.

lauffeuer

Veröffentlichung:
Es sind bereits eine Reihe von Veranstaltungs- und Vorführungsterminen in Planung. Initiativen, Gruppen und Kinos können sich weiterhin melden. Eine Liste mit den Terminin wird sobald wie möglich veröffentlicht.
 Mitte März wird der Film online für alle kostenlos erscheinen (auch mit engl. Untertiteln). Bis dahin gibt es ihn bereits zum Download für Veranstalter_innen.
 
Der Film:
Am 2. Mai flüchtet sich eine Gruppe von regierungskritischen Aktivisten nach heftigen Auseinandersetzungen mit Anhängern des Euro-Maidan in das Gewerkschaftshaus in Odessa. Sie verbarrikadieren Fenster und Türen mit Allem, was sie in dem Haus finden, um sich vor den draussen stehenden Angreifern zu schützen. Als diese anfangen, Moltow-Cocktails auf das Gebäude zu werfen, ist die Lage nicht mehr zu retten. Das Gebäude fängt Feuer, über 48 Menschen kommen an diesem Tag ums Leben. Ein halbes Jahr später: Angehörige der Opfer halten regelmäßig Mahnwachen vor dem Haus ab. Hunderte strömen zu dem Haus auf dem großen Platz. Sie bringen Blumen und Schilder, um ihre Angehörigen zu gedenken. Der 2. Mai war für vielen Menschen in Odessa eine traumatische Erfahrung. Doch was genau geschah an diesem Tag und wie konnte es dazu kommen?
Die Regierung scheint sich für eine Aufklärung wenig zu interessieren und auch die großen europäischen Medien sind bei ihrer Berichterstattung kaum in die Tiefe gegangen. Es bleibt eine Tragödie, ein Schlüsselereignis zu Beginn des ukrainischen Bürgerkrieges und eine Zäsur in der jüngeren osteuropäischen Geschichte an der sich nun die Geister scheiden. Warum schritt die Polizei nicht ein? Warum kam die Feuerwehr erst nach 40 Minuten? Warum verschwanden auch nach dem 2. Mai noch viele Menschen, die den 2. Mai überlebt hatten? Gab es Organisatoren, welche diese Entwicklung bewusst herbeigeführt haben?
Dieser Dokumentarfilm nähert sich behutsam diesem schwierigen Thema und versucht Augenzeugen ernst zu nehmen. 16 Interviews halfen dabei den Tag und die großen Mengen an Youtube-Videos zu sortieren und hinterlassen letztlich ein recht vollständiges Bild der Ereignisse. Auch die Rolle von Polizei und Politik wird kritisch untersucht – der Film geht mehreren Spuren nach und muss doch einige Fragen offen lassen.
Letztlich zeigen sich an den Ereignissen in Odessa mehrere Aspekte, die ein besseres Verständnis für die Spaltungen in diesem Land ermöglichen. Eine Stadt in der Mitte des Landes, mit einer bunten ethnischen Zusammensetzung, stand wie keine zweite für eine plurale Ukraine – bis sie durch die politischen Entwicklungen des letzten Jahres und die Tragödie vom 2. Mai zerrissen wurde. Ebenfalls aufschlussreich sind die Reaktionen von Politikern, Experten und Bürgern der Stadt, die dem Zuschauer ermöglichen, das Ganze in einem größeren politischen Kontext zu sehen.
Lauffeuer – ist ein Film, der dem 2. Mai in Odessa auf den Grund gehen will – auch um alle darauf folgenden Entwicklungen besser verstehen zu können.

 

lauffeuer2014@gmail.com