germanic bastardry: an endless supply of crafted eierkuchenshit....

What excited Berliners most in May? Surely soccer! But the reaction was split between “Wessies” and “Ossies”! When a second-to-last-minute goal pushed West Berlin’s legendary “Hertha” team (founded 1892) out of the “top 18” league and down into the second league, with less TV-time, less endorsements, tickets and profits, two-thirds of Berlin groaned. Then East Berlin’s “Union” (no labor union ties but once a GDR team) finally reached so close to the top in that top league (4th) that it can now compete in the European Championships. Thus huge joy, more TV time, more fans, more €€€€!

By Victor Grossman

A different split divided people with a Turkish background (many have dual citizenship), with one and a half million voting at their consulates in Germany for the Turkish elections. Two-thirds, with roots in conservative, religious Anatolian villages, helped Erdogan win while in Berlin, with many professionals, exiles and Kurds, it was fifty-fifty. The vote often reflected less interest in distant politics than a protest at discrimination against those with Turkish names in job hunts, housing or in general.

On a happy note, the 25th “Carnival of Cultures” parade returned to Berlin after a 3-year covid break. Fantastically-costumed dancers, musicians, drummers from twenty nationalities (and from disability groups) snaked, banged or shimmied through Kreuzberg, the most international borough. Lots of color, lots of imagination, no lack of visibly well-shaped bodies (also some less well-shaped) were admired by a few 100,000 on the sunny Sunday. The parades oppose racism, hatred of foreigners, environmental destruction and barbed-wire , tear gas barricading of Europe’s outer borders.

But the weekend was not marked solely by what Germans satirize as “Friede, Freude, Eierkuchen” (“peace, joy, griddle cakes”)! The right to demonstrate peacefully is guaranteed under German law; barely-disguised fascistic marches are not just permitted but protected. But when Palestinians applied for a Berlin rally to commemorate Naqba, the brutal expulsion of at least 750,000 Arabs from their homes and villages in 1948 and all the years since, most recently in East Jerusalem, permission was denied; “It might result in violence or anti-Israel slogans and shouts which could be construed as anti-Semitic.” A small protest rally of Jewish Berliners, many from the Linke party, favoring Palestinian rights, was first permitted (perhaps by mistake), then brutally disrupted by the police and blamed in the media on the befriended (and peaceable) Palestinian guests, misconstruing them as hostile.

Two weeks ago Roger Waters (from the band “Pink Floyd”) gave a big concert in Berlin after failed attempts to prevent him from singing in Frankfurt and Munich based on false, malicious distortions about “a Jewish star on a pig balloon” or his use of a uniform mocking the Nazis. The attacks were really because he opposes Israeli repression of Palestinians and U.S. policies generally. Defying the hypocrisy involved, he countered:

The elements of my performance which were questioned are quite clearly a statement in opposition to fascism, injustice, and bigotry in all its forms… My parents fought the Nazis in World War II, with my father paying the ultimate price.

The concert was sold out!

If not Roger Waters, Berlin’s new Christian Democrat-Social Democrat government could easily find other villains. Avid young adherents of the “Last Generation,” determined to confront the world about continuing destruction of air, earth and water, about climate change and suffocation under mountains of plastic rubble, used methods which angered people instead of winning them, like throwing soup at (glass-protected) masterpieces, smearing buildings or, most upsetting to many, blocking traffic by gluing their hands to the pavement, forcing cops to cut them free. Despite their decision to switch to less anger-provoking methods, cops charged into 15 of their offices in 7 states, also Berlin, hunting for evidence that they were “forming or supporting a criminal organization” (with alarming demands—like lowering speed limits and cheaper rail tickets). Were the raids inspired by Bavarian politicians intent on rescuing their “Christian” party from defeat in their October state elections or one more omen of tightening reins for rougher times ahead? Last Generation’s defiant rejoinder was: “When will they raid the lobby structures and seize the government’s fossil fuel money?”

Tensions were sharply increasing on the national level. The largest member of the governing coalition, the Social Democratic Party, led by Chancellor Olaf Scholz, is torn between seeming socially conscious enough to win back lost working-class support but also proving itself a faithful ally of NATO-USA policy by approving, step by step, every escalation of weaponry and warfare in the Ukraine.

Adding spice with Scholz is a re-awakened scandal about how, as mayor of Hamburg in 2016, he allegedly tipped off the big Warburg bank regarding its tricking the government out of tax money. Was it € 47 mill, € 169 mill—maybe far more? Scholz’ memory somehow failed him about his chats with the head of the bank, but others seem to have better memories, and evidence, which might yet force a skeleton or two out of a cozy closet. Or even a chancellor?

The Greens in the coalition are also trying to revive sagging poll results. Their rescue-the-environment exertions, which meant ending Russian oil and gas imports in favor of far more expensive liquefied gas from North America and costly switches to renewable energy heating systems in most homes are far behind schedule but also hotly attacked as inadequate, overdone or just confused. Nor have their loudest-of-all demands for more and bigger weapons for Ukraine won them many voters. And then their Robert Habeck, who is deputy chancellor, was caught in his own little scandal when it was revealed that his pal, heading a key department job, had lovingly appointed family or friends to other rewarding jobs, with or maybe without Habeck’s knowledge. He may yet survive—to stave off coalition collapse.

The third rub-a-dub-dub man in this leaky tub, Finance Minister Lindner, is head of the smallest partner, the big-biz Free Democrats. He faces no scandals I know of thus far but is strong in black mail pressure against the other two. “Do what we demand or we quit,” he hints, while playing footsie under the table with the Christians, who hope the triple house of cards will fall apart and they can jump in as the winners, just like in Berlin. Their common goal is: “Aid the wealthy, soak the poor!”

But the biggest scandal involves a “Christian”—a privately-managed deal between European Union president Ursula von der Leyen and Pfizer boss Albert Bourla to buy boatloads of anti-corvid vaccine, far too much and now wasting away, but which the EU must pay for. Somehow neither Ursula v.d.L. nor Bourla can find any documents regarding the trifling sum—€ 1.8 billion! Or if they can they’re keeping them well hidden (or shredded). And lurking somewhere in the background is her husband, an expert somehow mysteriously involved with the vaccine market. President Ursula v. d. Leyen could yet land in a Belgian courtroom—or worse. But then, such folks rarely get locked up. That fate is reserved for people like Mumia Abu-Jamal, Leonard Peltier or Julian Assange.

But however these parties, in or out of government, may quarrel and compete, they are quite united in supporting Zelensky’s efforts—and not simply those aimed at defending his country from the Russian invasion.

The Green chair and foreign minister Annalena Baerbock, always aiming to “ruin Russia” made it clearer:

We are fighting a war against Russia…We will hit Putin where the Russian regime must be hit, not only economically and financially but in its power center.

Olaf Scholz again, after urging all-out support for such efforts, stressed that, until victory was won, “We of the European Council must maintain bridges to the representatives of another Russia, another Belarus, and thus the perspective for a democratic, peaceful future for both countries.”

Only rare, unfriendly observers might be heard muttering about “regime change” history or earlier bridges with “peaceful futures“ in places like Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan—or Maidan Square. Such cynics, or hopeless “old leftists,” unmindful of Zelensky-enthusiasm wherever he shows up, worry less about massive government corruption in Kiev than about heroization of wartime killer Stepan Bandera. When Andriy Melnyk, ambassador to Germany, was presented with a Bandera leaflet calling for the annihilation of ”Muscovites, Jews, Poles and Hungarians” and could no longer deny it he snapped: “I am not going to distance myself from it here today. And that’s that!” This was going too far and he had to be recalled from Germany, but was soon appointed Deputy Foreign Minister in Kiev—where the 23-ft heroic statue of Bandera never seems to show up in video reports on visiting dignitaries.

Other items rarely found in the media are references to happy folk like James D. Taiclet, new CEO of Lockheed Martin, whose net worth, estimated at about $360 M, is heading upwards, or Northrup Grumman’s Kathy Warden, whose annual salary already tops $36 million. Not far behind In the second row are Germany‘s armament masters, preservers of long old traditions.

While such men and women rub their hands and grin on the way to the bank (or to background wheelers and dealers like Vanguard and BlackStone), the Ukraine is being wrecked, now flooded! Thousands are dying, millions are suffering and the war is already expanding, with metal and explosives beginning to fly in all directions. The old Ukrainian lady I saw in a recent video said with tears: “We want peace!” The invasion—and the killing—must be stopped! And above all the atomic war danger, ignored by too many good citizens, must be banned! Soon!

Somehow the war dangers are being ignored less in eastern Germany, where perhaps decades of contact with the Soviets, including visits and exchanges, meant that far fewer succumb to mounting campaigns of confrontation ¬¬and pressure to get more deeply involved in a war which “must end in victory,” no matter how much suffering and menace that involves.

But the party which has profited from this unexpected difference is the far-right, quasi-fascist Alternative for Germany (AfD), which has soared up to 18% in national polls, tying with the Social Democrats, ahead of the Greens, while it has achieved top rating at 28% in Saxony and Thuringia and over 25% in the other three eastern, former GDR states. (It is weaker only in Berlin). And elections are looming ahead in three of them.

These far-right gains have various causes: hard times, worsened since Covid by horrific price increases for foods and fuel, lack of affordable homes, soaring rent costs, uncertain job markets, indeed, general disappointment and worry about outlooks for their children, all nourished by distrust of the established parties and their broken promises and demeaning treatment as “poor cousins” from the start—and all augmented by growing fears of possible war.

It has been the AfD which stepped in and made points, advancing itself as the party of protest, of resistance against an “Establishment” which excluded it, and which it opposed in almost everything, even in its sharp anti-Russian development, which had it far easier in West Germany, always built on Russophobia. It also developed local ties in sports groups, volunteer fire departments, jolly concerts, often tolerated or assisted in its violent outliers by local sheriffs, mayors, judges. And always hostile to immigrants, especially non-whites. But it favored a big army, even conscription—and low taxes for the wealthy.

And the Linke? Where was it? Valiant Linke activists put up good fights on some issues, many were active in opposing fascists. But too many, especially those who obtained official positions, had lost militancy and become, for much of the population, just one more wing of the Establishment. Its faithful base, the devoted old-timers who had toiled to build the GDR and regretted its downfall, were dying out by the dozen and polls in East German states, which once gave the Linke over 20%, now stood at about 10%. Even in Thuringia, its stronghold, where it once triumphed with 40%, it is now trembling at 22% and has been overtaken by the most rabid AfD group in all Germany. Except for a freak exception in western Bremen, Germany’s smallest state, where the Linke held on to its long-standing inclusion in coalition rule, the all-German level of the party, hardly 5%, threatens its further existence.

Why, why, why? From the start its pride lay in its being the “one and only party of peace.” This meant voting against sending troops, ships or warplanes to fight in Serbia, Afghanistan, Mali—or any Bundeswehr deployment outside Germany. It meant demanding that the martial, expanding NATO be replaced by a peace alignment extending from Lisbon to Vladivostok.

But over the years it was this issue above all (exacerbated by personal animosities and ambitions) which divided Linke leaders. Too many longed to become respected members of a leftish-leaning national coalition, with Social Democrats , with Greens (and with cabinet seats). The chances for that were never strong, but were non-existent unless the Linke dropped its opposition to NATO and foreign deployments.

Some, like government head Bodo Ramelow in Thuringia and Berlin city leaders, said: “After all, in politics compromises are sometimes necessary.” The left opposition in the party said:

No! Such a retreat breaks with our basic stand; that German policy, especially foreign policy, is still being determined by the same giant forces which waged World War One, built up Hitler and waged World War Two, also in unity with similar forces elsewhere and above all in the USA. Compromises on these basic issues would deprive the Linke of its status as a socialist party, opposed to German imperialism, indeed of its entire meaning. They are impossible!

Some daring souls even pointed to names like Krupp, Siemens, Bayer and BASF, Daimler, BMW, Allianz Insurance and Deutsche Bank and recalled the words of the socialist Karl Liebknecht in 1915, during World War One: “The main enemy is in your own country!” (Four years later, like Rosa Luxemburg, he was murdered for such radical views and actions.)

With internal dissension already dividing the Linke and detracting from street-level militancy on basic working-class issues, the war in Ukraine sent it really spinning! At last year’s party congress the “reformers” won most leadership positions and, with a 60-40 % majority, basically approved Germany’s course, joining Washington and NATO in full support of Zelensky and a continuation of the war until Putin is forced back to pre-2014 positions. It did not succeed in canceling the LINKE program point rejecting weapons shipments, but Ramelow and his friends try to forget or ignore it.

A major breaking point arrived in February, when the party’s best orator, its most popular and most controversial figure, Sahra Wagenknecht, joined with Germany’s most famous feminist, Alice Schwarzer, to frame a manifesto calling on both sides for a cease-fire and peace negotiations in Ukraine. It soon had over 750,000 signatures and led to a rally at Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, which amazed friend and foe by drawing an enthusiastic crowd, most likely over 50,000.

But, just as amazingly, or disgracefully, the Linke leadership nationally and in Berlin not only refused to join in but advised members (luckily in vain) neither to sign nor take part. Why? Like most of the media they charged that leaders of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) also supported the manifesto and the rally. True enough, some far rightists do support Putin and oppose aid to Zelensky, also in France and elsewhere, either to oppose any and every official line, to win over pro-peace voters in East Germany, possibly even to discredit any active peace movement. Who knows? Wagenknecht and Schwarzer welcomed all people wanting peace, rejected any support from the far right, but could hardly forbid “undesirables” from adding their names to the 750,000 signing a public manifesto or from joining a huge outdoor rally. At the latter, a small group of rightists at one far corner of the crowd were peaceably blocked off and isolated. Totally unnoticed by the giant majority, they were headlined by the hostile press and even magnified by “reformer-Linke,” who had organized no peace rallies at all but used their ink or vocal power to distance themselves from this rally because of allegedly invasive fascists and their supposed “toleration” by the organizers. The real reason, without doubt: Such a manifesto and rally would alienate potential Green and Social Democratic partners!

Dismayed members of the Linke responded differently to the twisted opposition to this biggest peace rally in decades. Not a few, some of them prominent, simply quit the party. There were countless angry letters to the few left or leftish periodicals. But far more dramatically, Sahra Wagenknecht raised the possibility of breaking away, of forming a new party to fight militantly for workers’ rights, for peace and a new foreign policy. A newspaper poll found surprisingly that large percentages of Linke voters, but also people from other parties, even in West Germany, even many who had switched to the AfD, might consider voting for a party with Sahra.

Others, like Gregor Gysi, the party’s first leader, in fact its savior in 1989, warned that with none of the offices, resources and connections of the existing party and without even a rudimentary organization, such a break-away would almost certainly mean the demise of both old and new left parties, leaving Germany’s rulers in total, unchallenged control—with no real organized opposition.

At a meeting on May 6th in Hannover about 250 angry delegates met to debate strategy, with Sahra speaking to them briefly per video. Despite many hot-headed demands for a break, there was enough realism present to put off any decision but try to establish a network of leftists genuinely opposed to German imperialism, militarism, expansion and monopoly rule. They would prioritize pressure for negotiations in Ukraine—and against any and every escalation.

There are signs that some party leaders, including both chairpersons and the two Linke caucus chairs in the Bundestag, awed by the Berlin rally and facing fears of a total, fatal split, are trying to reach some kind of truce, at least until the elections to the European Parliament a year from now.

But a decision is due earlier, quite likely at the party congress in November. And while various leftist platforms, circles and groups seek common ground while leaving the door ajar for the always mysterious Sahra, who still avoids concrete plans (and said, perhaps in jest, that she might even retire from active politics), the other side has not been idle. About 40 from the “reformer” wing, deceptively calling themselves “Network of Progressive Leftists,” met on June 3rd in Berlin. No doubt still alarmed by the angry response to their rebuff of the peace rally, and by reports on Wagenknecht’s popularity, their meeting was devoted to nipping all such threats in the bud.

During all the years of disagreement and quarrelling and despite bitter losses in nearly every election in east or west, these same people persistently avoided any in-depth analyses but instead blamed only “stubborn old leftists,” “GDR-apologists” or “outdated Marxists” who reject coalitions, denounce NATO and currently stress peace negotiations instead, like everybody else, of demanding the defeat of Putin’s imperialism. As always their attacks centered on Sahra, with some demanding that she give up her seat in the Bundestag or that she and her backers, whom they mislabel, again deceptively, as the “left conservative camp,” should somehow be punished or excluded before the party congress. Such extreme demands were not maintained but it was clear; the months ahead can be tough and confrontational. It is they whose hold on most leadership positions, offices, publications, websites and financial resources provide a strong position. But so many members are dissatisfied with the leaders’ lack of militancy or principles and fear further catastrophic election defeats that the tables could be turned. In which case it could be the reformers who do the quitting.

Can the party be saved? As with leftist parties in other countries, its problems are closely related to world events, above all the war in Ukraine, and to the success or failure of China, Brazil and countries of the south to defy all the warriors and move toward peace, hopefully aided by growing grassroots pressure in Europe and America.

Starting June 12th, 250 war planes from 20 countries, including F-35 jet fighters manned by 10,000 soldiers from the USA will be roaring and zooming over East German fields and forests. The largest air maneuvers in NATO history will be to “test how quickly American war planes can be deployed to Europe” and to practice “the defense of NATO air space.” That explains why the maneuver is named “Air Defender 2023”. Can any sane person read this item without foreboding—and fear of where such a “defense exercise” can be leading?

How proper it would be to organize at least one or two protests, even modest ones, but with all sides of the Linke, with many groups and grouplets in the peace movement, and many, many unorganized people turning not to fear but to determination! Yes, I know, I am an eternal optimist.

P.S. Just before mailing out this Bulletin, I read that Die Linke has officially called for demonstrations against the maneuvers, and adding that the planned protest will be visible from the sky. Christine Buchholz, a member of its executive committee, writes:

Threatening gestures against a nuclear power on the brink of a terrible war are risky and extremely dangerous. A major war would bring immeasurable suffering to large parts of the world. We stand with those who are suffering from war and its consequences all over the world. War is always part of the problem, not the solution. The Left calls for a ceasefire as soon as possible and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukrainian territory. NATO’s escalation is NATO’s wrong response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and its continued escalation. NATO’s aim is to strengthen its position in the face of global shifts in power. The war in Ukraine is being used by its member states as a pretext to push ahead with the militarization of politics and set in motion a new arms race.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I also watched the latest reports from Ukraine—including today’s statement by Janine Wissler, co-chair of the Left, condemning the horrifying Dnepr dam destruction and calling for humanitarian aid and increased efforts for peace. She is evidently convinced that the Russians are to blame.

The destruction of the Kakhovka Dam means a further escalation in a terrible war in which the Russian army continues to attack Ukraine’s civilian infrastructure. With this attack, the death of thousands of civilians was at least approvingly accepted. This is a terrible war crime. The Russian army must immediately stop attacks on infrastructure and withdraw troops. What is needed now is rapid humanitarian aid. Everything must be done now to end this war as soon as possible. First of all, we need to negotiate protection zones to protect nuclear power plants, dams, hospitals and other civilian infrastructure and to prevent humanitarian, ecological and nuclear disasters.

When will we know the truth?

Here are some random older and contradictory quotations which still might be seen as relevant:

Pres. John F. Kennedy, June 10 1963 (exactly 60 years ago):

Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy—or of a collective death-wish for the world.

***

Williams J. Burns, Ambassador to Russia, now CIA-director, February 1, 2008 /secret cable):

Ukraine and Georgia’s NATO aspirations not only touch a raw nerve in Russia, they engender serious concerns about the consequences for stability in the region. Not only does Russia perceive encirclement, and efforts to undermine Russia’s influence in the region, but it also fears unpredictable and uncontrolled consequences which would seriously affect Russian security interests. Experts tell us that Russia is particularly worried that the strong divisions in Ukraine over NATO membership, with much of the ethnic-Russian community against membership, could lead to a major split, involving violence or at worst, civil war. In that eventuality, Russia would have to decide whether to intervene; a decision Russia does not want to have to face.

***

Pres. William J. Clinton, June 1, 1997 (at WestPoint):

The bottom line to me is clear; expanding NATO will enhance our security. It is the right thing to do. We must not fail history’s challenge at this moment to build a Europe peaceful, democratic, undivided, allied with us to face the new security threats of a new century… NATO enlargement is in our national interests… But because it is not without cost and risk, it is appropriate to have an open, full, national I firmly believe NATO enlargement is in our national interests. But because it is not without cost and risk, it is appropriate to have an open, full, national discussion before proceeding.

***

Petition to Pres. William J. Clinton, June 26, 1997: Signed by 44 prominent retirees, including cabinet secretaries like Robert McNamara, ex-CIA boss Stansfield Turner, senators like Sam Nunn (D.) and Gordon Humphrey (R.), ambassadors, generals, governors and professors, as well as noted anti-Communists like Richard Pipes and Paul H. Nitze:

Dear Mr. President, We, the undersigned, believe that the current U.S. led effort to expand NATO, the focus of the recent Helsinki and Paris Summits, is a policy error of historic proportions. We believe that NATO expansion will decrease allied security and unsettle European stability … will involve U.S. security guarantees to countries with serious border and national minority problems, and unevenly developed systems of democratic government…

Russia does not now pose a threat to its western neighbors and the nations of Central and Eastern Europe are not in danger. For this reason, and the others cited above, we believe that NATO expansion is neither necessary nor desirable and that this ill-conceived policy can and should be put on hold….

***

Mairead Maguire, Irish Nobel Peace Prize Winner, July 9, 2022:

NATO—the U.S.-dominated global war machine—whose policy is ‘full dominance spectrum,’ contrary to its claims, is not a defensive organization. Its purpose has been to act as an instrument for U.S. world domination and to prevent all challenges to U.S. hegemony. It should have been disbanded in 1991 after the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, but instead expanded into 15 new countries…

This relentless eastward expansion of NATO during the past decade has been an existential threat to a nuclear armed Russia and the main cause of the present military conflict in Ukraine. Russia’s military intervention into Ukraine should never have happened and the suffering inflicted upon the Ukrainian people (and Russian) has been horrific and it is right all those who have suffered so much should be helped. However, sending arms into Ukraine only adds fuel to the fire.

***

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, February 19, 1998, Washington:

It is the threat of the use of force and our line-up there (in Iraq) that is going to put force behind the diplomacy. But if we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future, and we see the danger here to all of us. I know that the American men and women in uniform are always prepared to sacrifice for freedom, democracy and the American way of life.

https://mronline.org/2023/06/07/brawling-on-the-brink-berlin-bulletin-no-211-june-7-2023/

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By Gus Leonisky at 12 Jun 2023 - 5:51am
Gus Leonisky's blog
Login or register to post comments

poetischer Scheiß.....

By Victor Grossman

The great author Goethe once caricatured fellow Germans’ chatter:

On holidays there’s nothing I like better
Than talking about war and war’s display,
When in Turkey far away, People one another batter.

Substitute “Ukraine”—or Yemen, Sudan, Sahara, Syria, Palestine … and we are back in Today. But who today is Faust, and who Mephistopheles? I will look to that later on.

Earlier in the same famous play the words of other citizens apply even better—in Berlin:

No, the new mayor doesn’t suit me! … And what’s he done to help the town?…
As always it’s us who must obey, And pay more money down.

Berlin’s new mayor, just inaugurated, has had no time to suit or anger anybody. But the first Christian Democrat to lead this city-state since 2001 inspires few joyous hopes—and will probably want “more money down”. His victory was as suspenseful a drama as any on Goethe’s stage!

First a bungled city-state election had to be fully repeated. The conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) won the most votes, hence the most seats in the legislature, but lacked the necessary majority. The three parties who have ruled Berlin since 2017—Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and LINKE (Left) lost out, the SPD worst by far, yet if the three held together they still had enough to stay on top. But who would then be mayor? Franziska Giffey again, of the SPD? Attractive, always smiling, well-spoken but ever less popular as she leaned ever more rightward, she beat her rival, the Greens leader, after a cliff-hanging recount of the votes, by the skin of her teeth, (279,017 to 278,964—only 53 votes more!) But Giffey led. She could have pasted over past differences and rivalries, praised some thin improvements, and again embraced the Greens and the LINKE to remain Berlin’s mayor.

But then she chose not to! Amazing almost everyone, she switched horses, shoving her shaky Green and LINKE partners onto the opposition benches and aligning instead with the former opponents, accepting the CDU boss as mayor and, for herself, the second-best deputy mayor job plus a cabinet post as economics minister (called Senator here). Still smiling, she told audiences how these old foes, her SPD and the CDU, would now join hands and put Berlin on a new path of happiness and contentment. The new mayor, Kai Wegner, almost fully bald, almost fully unknown, but quite fully conservative, would now win the key job of top man in Germany’s capital and biggest city.

This astonishing turn-around faced two hurdles. SPD rules required approval by the membership, and many, especially members of the affiliated “Young Socialists,” saw this deal as a betrayal of values they still held. How would they vote?

Again a cliff-hanger. After all mailed-in ballots were counted, Giffey and the party officialdom had squeaked through with a meager 54% approval vote. Her smile began to look a little forced.

The last hurdle: The secret ballot vote of approval by the city legislature. 80 “Ja” votes were needed. The two supporting parties, CDU and SPD, had 86 deputies—more than enough. But when the colored ballots were counted—only 71 were in favor, nine short. Which ones voted against their own party? What a scandal! The leaders hustled around, putting pressure on presumed doubters—most likely SPD deputies who had opposed the whole deal. A second vote followed—and with 79 Ja-votes they were still one short of the needed number. This had never ever happened before! Giffey, Kai Wegner, yes, Berlin, too, were butts of ridicule in all Germany. For five bitter hours the legal experts consulted and who knows how many wrists were twisted or juicy offers made? There seemed no choice but to make at least one more attempt. This time the magic number 86 was achieved—just as many as the two parties had delegates! So the two were sworn in, Giffey with no trace of her happy smile, Wegner with as glum a scowl as was ever been seen on a winner’s face as he finally pledged, muttering the customary “With the help of God”. They may need divine help last the course until the next election, not always so certain in European systems.

Incredibly, to make things even worse, the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) claimed that some of its deputies had voted “Ja”. If true, then some renegades, SPD (or CDU?) had voted against their own leader, to the end, and the new city government rested on far-right support, a strict taboo! Wegner quickly labeled this claim a lie, meant to sow discord. But balloting had been secret!

The new Berlin cabinet, mostly inexperienced newcomers, now face the same problems as their predecessors: integrating immigrants (now often Ukrainians), vehicle speed limits, the number and width of new bicycle lanes, a lack of teachers, especially in kindergartens, ecology activists blocking highways by gluing their hands to the pavement, food prices out of reach for modest-salary homes, overcrowded free food pantries, and worst of all, soaring rent prices and lack of affordable housing. Franziska Giffey, always comfy with the gents from big real estate companies, will find common ground with Mayor Wegner, while desperate home-seekers may feel less cozy. The LINKE, like the Greens in the chilly unrewarding opposition could use that position well if they try; it was in coalitions, like in Berlin, that they lost support and votes by becoming part of the “Establishment”.

Many of these questions are also national. A governing trio still rules: SPD, Greens, but instead of an occasionally troublesome LINKE a constantly troublesome Free Democratic Party (FDP). The SPD must try to win back its traditional working-class support, the Greens hope to hold onto ties with intellectuals, professionals and young ecology backers, despite multiplying compromises. But the Free Democrats pull unashamedly toward the right, oppose money for children’s aid or help for the poorest, but also say “Nein“ to tax increases on the wealthy or super-wealthy. The CDU, with similar policies, is salivating about collapsing the trio by pulling the FDP out, then taking over, like in Berlin.

Despite all maneuvers, one glue holds them all together; continuing the war in Ukraine. SPD, CDU, FDP, Greens all agree; Russia must be defeated, Zelenskiy must win, with ever more tanks, howitzers, artillery, drones, aircraft and whatever else he demands. A number of somewhat reluctant people in the SPD—including Chancellor Scholz—have been forced into line, a line dictated in Washington and most vociferously voiced by the Greens, with Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock in the forefront, waving the troops on (but not getting too close to the battlefront; let the Ukrainians do the dying!)

The fearful destruction, the displacement of families, above all the killing and maiming must be deplored, condemned and brought to an end. But the underlying reasons for this terrible war, concealed in the media, must also be mercilessly examined, regardless of well-orchestrated accusations of “Putin-friendship” or “left-over allegiance to a past Soviet Russia”.

As I see it, two pro-war factors are basic. The fossil fuels lobby in the USA, immensely guilty of knowingly heating up the world and concealing its giant crimes with lies, feared any European coexistence, economic or otherwise, which was based on trade or above all, on Russian gas and oil, thus lessening its influence and threatening its huge super-profits. Many conflicts have centered on Saudi, Syrian, Iraqi or Libyan oil. I fear it again played a big role, symbolized by the years of U.S. pressure to prevent the Baltic pipelines. An almost total media effort to ignore Seymour Hersh’s detailed analysis of their destruction is good for laughs, including the very tardy, very ridiculous attempt to blame it on a small yacht rented by mysterious non-Zelenskiy Ukrainians. When that was shown to be impossible dead silence returned—until a sudden Scandinavian recollection of allegedly seeing a Russian ship seen in that area six months ago. The name Hersh remains strangely taboo.

Only a few people dared recall that it was Joe Biden, in February 2022, who clearly warned that if Russia attacked Ukraine “then there will … no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it.” Asked how, since the project is in German control, Biden said: “I promise you, we’ll be able to do it.”

An 8-month media silence on the obvious pressure exerted on Amnesty International to retract its report that Ukraine and Russia both were responsible for civilians’ deaths was one more little sample of how the media seems to be directed by some invisible hands, just like in a marionette theater, certainly in Russia—but not only there. (And what have you read or seen lately about Assange, or Mumia Abu-Jamal?)

Washington’s pressure to break Russian economic ties with Europe, especially Germany, its main center, became all-powerful when the Ukraine war began. But is there another very vital reason?

The USA has opposed Russia since the Bolshevik revolution, when they sent in 13,000 troops in 1918 in a vain effort to strangle the hated system in its cradle. After a brief World War Two interruption, NATO, in 1949, became the main force to stop its spread and defeat it. This was accomplished after 1990. With its downfall it would seem that NATO had become superfluous. But it wasn’t.

On Feb. 9, 1990 Secretary of State Baker said that NATO would not expand “one inch eastward.” A day later Foreign Minister Genscher declared for Germany that NATO “would not be extended eastward.“ Some historians unsurprisingly raise doubts about those pledges, maintaining they referred only to East Germany or were limited in time. Only later did Robert Gates, a CIA director, admit that the Russians had been “misled.” Whatever the facts, the country-by-country advance of a highly militarized NATO membership meant undeniably that while Leningrad was 1200 miles from NATO’s armed edge in 1990, St. Petersburg is less than 100 miles from armed, hostile NATO-Estonia.

The old diplomat George Kennan, who had launched America’s Cold War “containment” strategy, warned in 1997 that this eastward expansion might become “the most fateful error of U.S. policy in the entire post-Cold War era.”

His voice was not heeded. The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a Congress-financed CIA sibling with less cloak-and-dagger methods, indicated U.S. policy in its 2013 “Resource Summary”:

The NED “has been a proud partner of Ukraine’s civil society groups, media outlets, and human rights defenders since 1989 … The objective of the Endowment is helping new democracies to succeed. For Eastern and Southeastern Europe, this goal is best met through these countries’ accession to the European Union and NATO… In the Europe region, the 2013 priority countries will include Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, and Kosovo.”

But when I read about “helping new democracies to succeed” I cannot help but recall earlier samples of it, and the shape of freedom, democracy, or a “rule of order” when the CIA, NED, U.S. Army or its surrogates overthrew fairly elected governments and resulting in murderous dictatorships or chaos: in Guatemala, Iran, Haiti, Brazil, Chile, Congo, Burkina Faso and not a few more!

Yes, the Russian invasion is also murderous and tragic. But hardly unexpected; well before it began the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace had warned:

“It’s important to understand that Moscow’s demands of the United States and NATO are in fact the strategic goals of Russian policy in Europe. Their aim is not to restore the Soviet Union, as some suggest. Rather, the idea is to reframe security in Europe—particularly in Europe’s east—as a contractual relationship between the two principal strategic actors in the region, Russia and the United States/NATO… This is regarded as a vital national security interest. If Russia cannot achieve its goal by diplomatic means, it will need to resort to other tools and methods…Russian officials have said that if the talks fail, Moscow will take military-technical and even military measures…

Having what would amount to an unsinkable aircraft carrier controlled by the United States on Moscow’s doorstep, on hostile territory, even if Ukraine is not officially part of NATO, would be far more serious than the Baltic countries’ NATO membership. This isn’t a full-fledged threat just yet, but it certainly could become one, and what happens then?

Another commentator used (or borrowed) the same analogy:

If Ukraine is turned into an unsinkable aircraft carrier anchored on Russia’s border under American control a few hundred miles from Moscow, it would be no more acceptable to the Kremlin than the other unsinkable aircraft carrier—Cuba—was to the White House almost sixty years ago.

Is it possible that Russia—or Putin—was alarmed last year to read reports like this:

Over 2,000 forces and 30 ships are taking part in exercise Breeze 2021 in the Black Sea. The Bulgarian-led maritime exercise, which began on 12 July … involves forces from 14 NATO Allies and partners—Albania, Belgium, Bulgaria, Georgia, Greece, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Romania, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom, and the USA. The exercise aims to … strengthen NATO’s readiness … ‘The Alliance remains strongly committed to Black Sea security,’ said Deputy Spokesperson Cazalet.

Or to see a photo taken during NATO’s annual “GlobalThunder exercise” showing a soldier loading up a B-52 with (as yet) unarmed cruise missiles. Twelve can fit under the wings; each bomber could deliver 1.8 Megatons of explosive power, the equivalent of 120 Hiroshima bombs.

And to learn that, in another annual nuclear exercise known as Steadfast Noon “more than 50 aircraft practice NATO’s nuclear strike mission … There are currently an estimated 150 B61 bombs deployed at six bases in Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey.”

A broad hint as to motives behind such activities was offered in a new book by John Bolton, once USA ambassador to the United Nations and National Security Adviser to Donald Trump:

After Ukraine wins its war with Russia, we must aim to split the Russia-China axis. Moscow’s defeat could unseat Mr. Putin’s regime. What comes next is a government of unknowable composition. New Russian leaders may or may not look to the West rather than Beijing, and might be so weak that the Russian Federation’s fragmentation, especially east of the Urals, isn’t inconceivable.

Do such ideas differ from those of current political leaders in Washington (and Berlin), aimed at prolonging the war—to the joy of Lockheed-Martin and Northrup-Grumman—but also at recapturing the sole position of leadership and power claimed by post-war USA since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which is world hegemony. Is that behind many fine words about freedom and democracy, about opposing authoritarianism and brutality while ignoring the most likely results: Russia under a Yeltsin or, worse yet, what such liberation brought to Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq, Libya, Congo?

Nothing excuses the inflicting of killing and destruction on another country—with one possible single exception: self-defense. While condemning Putin’s frightful and deathly decision of February 24th a cool examination cannot dismiss the question: Were fears of such a fate—and a belief in the need for “preventive self-defense”—its basic motivation, and not a wish to “rebuild an empire”? Was he recalling the invasions of 1812, 1918, and, most horrifying, 1941?

A nasty side-effect of the Ukraine war: People on the left in many countries have been split sharply, not only about who to blame—Putin, Russia, NATO, the USA, or perhaps Zelensky—but on what course to support and march for. On the right—or center—important people have made their decision, as described by Steven Erlanger in the NY Times (April 17, 2023):

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the costliest conflict in Europe since World War II, has propelled NATO into a full-throttled effort to make itself again into the capable, war-fighting alliance it had been during the Cold War… more troops based permanently along the Russian border, more integration of American and allied war plans, more military spending …

NATO now has deployed a battalion of multinational troops to eight countries along the eastern border with Russia. It is detailing how to enlarge those forces to brigade strength in those frontline states to enhance deterrence and be able to push back invading forces from the start. And it is also tasking thousands more forces, in case of war, to move quickly in support, with newly detailed plans for mobility and logistics and stiffer requirements for readiness…

Previously, the annual exercises of NATO’s nuclear forces, known as Steadfast Noon, were kept quiet. But last year, after Russia’s invasion, the exercise went ahead openly. It was important, a NATO official said, to show Moscow that the alliance wasn’t deterred by nuclear threats.

Mr. Putin has long complained about NATO encirclement and encroachment. But his invasion of Ukraine provoked the alliance to shed remaining inhibitions about increased numbers of Western troops all along NATO’s border with Russia.

For me, such talk borders on insanity! Regardless of all disputes about blame or aim, for people on the left or for anyone, left, right or center, who is fearful of such developments, and the growing danger of atomic incidents or accidents that can lead to the annihilation of all of us, it seems to me there can be only one conclusion.

Continuing the war until a final decisive victory for Ukraine, demanded by so many politicians and so much of the media, is basically impossible. Russia, if it sees itself threatened in its existence as an independent nation, would assuredly with atomic weapons. And a threat of a defeat of the Ukraine would lead either to a long-lasting war of attrition at the cost of multitudes of lives, Ukrainian but also Russian, or to that same atomic Armageddon.

The only real alternative is to fight, internationally, for a cease-fire, for negotiations and some settlement, at least temporary, if possible permanent. This solution seemed possible at Minsk—but was throttled (most likely by the UK-USA). It seemed almost attainable with the unusual help of Israel’s Naftali Bennett and then Turkey’s Recep Erdogan. Both Lula of Brazil and Xi Jinping of China have made proposals and will hopefully continue pushing for them. Pressure—on Putin, Biden, on anyone involved in this war—must be increased in every possible way, even when the results are often disappointing. I took heart at the huge enthusiasm for peace at Berlin’s Brandenburg Gate in February, with perhaps 50,000. And I recall the movement against the Vietnam war which started off with “small bunches of hippies!” There must be a continuing pressure—not to win the war but to win peace—the overwhelming issue of our day and perhaps our lifetime.

This issue is also crucial for the shaky current and future status within the LINKE party in Germany. But I have dealt so long with the Ukraine that I must postpone the matter—and other matters—to my next Berlin Bulletin. Perhaps, to recall Goethe, I have talked too much about mayors—and far-off wars. But as to who, if anyone, plays Mephistopheles, I shall leave that to you.

https://mronline.org/2023/05/04/poetry-politics-and-war-berlin-bulletin-no-210-may-3-2023/

READ FROM TOP.

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

EASY.

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Gus Leonisky at 12 Jun 2023 - 6:16am
Login or register to post comments

schutz der nazis....

BY Hatsh Thakor

Protests erupted across Germany after the Dresden regional court in Germany sentenced the anti-fascist activist Lina E. and three others for several alleged militant actions against fascists and for forming a criminal organization. Lina E. was sentenced to five years and three months in prison. The other accused anti-fascists, Lennart A, Jannis R and Jonathan M, received sentences between 27 months and 39 months imprisonment.

28-year-old female German student Lina E. and three accomplices have been accused of being guilty of carrying out a spurt of attacks on members of Germany’s neo-Nazi scene, in one of the most sensational trials of a group of militant leftists since the days of the Baader-Meinhof group.

The trial known as the Antifa-East trial, which begun in September 2021, has been one of the most intense political trials in Germany in the last decades. Lina was arrested the 5th of November 2020 and within jail walls for almost 2 and a half years.

Three co-accused men aged between 28 and 37 were given sentences ranging from two years and five months to three years and three months, over either membership of or support for a criminal organisation.

At least five more members of the anti-neo-Nazi network, including Lina E’s partner, are assumed to be operating underground, with a report by Germany’s criminal police office attributing the group showed compactness last seen in the days of the Red Army Faction.

Known as the Baader-Meinhof group, the Red Army Faction was a militant leftwing urban guerrilla network that carried out explosives attacks and assassinations in western Germany from 1970 to the early 90s. Many of its members have since vanished in thin air and evaded trial.

The charge sheet against Lina E and her accomplices listed six violent attacks in the eastern states of Thuringia and Saxony between August 2018 and the summer of 2020 that injured 13 people, two of them in a life-threatening manner.

The victims comprised mainly rightwing extremists. Leon R, a barkeeper who was charged earlier this month with forming a rightwing extremist outfit, was attacked with hammers, clubs and pepper spray at his bar in the town of Eisenach in late 2019.

In at least one case the victim’s ideological affiliation seemed to have been misunderstood. Masked attackers beat up a 31-year-old in Leipzig’s Connewitz district in January 2019 because he wore a black hat by Greifvogel, a German clothing brand popular in rightwing extremist circles. In court, the man affirmed the hat as a gift from a friend and insisted that he had rejected the neo-Nazi scene he had belonged to as a teenager.

During the trial, which started in September 2021, Kassel-born Lina E became a most popular figure in German leftwing and anarchist circles. The graffitied slogan “Free Lina” is a regular sighting on buildings in Berlin, Hamburg and Leipzig.

Some of the group’s supporters in the gallery shouted “Fascist friends!” expressing their boiling indignation against the German justice system that has in the past given a leeway or pardoned rightwing militants’ crimes.

The judge himself seemed to acknowledge “deplorable” shortcomings in trials in which neo-Nazi supporters have been let off the hook, mildly. He described rightwing extremism as the greater danger to the country, but said even Nazis had unquestionable rights, however their reactionary ideology may be.

The defence lawyers have claimed that the trial was a politically motivated concoction. They accused the German state of paying a deaf ear to the crimes of fascists, while banging every nail in the wall to discover crimes of “left-extremists”. Only in 2022 there were 23,493 registered crimes committed by the “far right in view o German police,

Since the arrest, Lina has received escalating support from different anti-fascists. All over Germany the slogan “Free Lina” is a routine affair on walls, banners and clothing. When Lina and the other defendants entered the court room before her verdict was announced, around 100 people in the audience saluted her. When Lina was brought in the applause literally swept the audience, with the exception of the journalists. Protest outside of the courthouse in Dresden, with banners with the slogan “Free Lina”.

Demonstrations

In addition to protests in Dresden, there have also been demonstrations against the verdict in engulfing many cities of Germany on Wednesday evening. Protests ignited in cities of Berlin, Hamburg, Bremen, Leipzig, Cologne and Dresden.

In Leipzig around 800 people participated in a demonstration against the verdict. The participants attempted to penetrate the police barriers, and bottles, stones and pyrotechnics were flung against the police.

In Bremen several hundred people clustered spontaneously on the day of the verdict. The police claimed that the demonstrators attacked them “abruptly”. However, the police had immediately started rounding several dozen of demonstrators at the start of the demonstration. The police had also harassed a 12-year-old boy who had shown solidarity and the police prevented residents from giving food and drinks to the detained. The police attempted to intimidate the demonstration by making merciless arrests and pushing the demonstrators to retreat. This attempt was thwarted by demonstrators who relentlessly resisted the police. Slogans like “Freedom for all political prisoners!” and “The FRG is not our state, all power to the proletariat!” were shouted while the demonstrators relentlessly did not shake.

A banner in the demonstration had a quote of the Song of the International Brigades from the Spanish Civil War: “No mercy to the fascist rabble, no mercy to the dog who betrays us.

The right of assembly is defined in the German constitution, but the violated it and attacked people in the area of the demonstrations, including people who were just passing by.

The demonstration in Hamburg had 2.000 to 3.000 participants. After marching only a few meters the police attacked the demonstration. The police attempted this repeatedly, but had to retreat due to the pressure of demonstrators. Halfway through the march it was found that the police were preparing a trap. The organizers of the demonstration handled this by officially disembarking it and telling the participants to retreat in the other direction. The police, antagonised d by the situation, started making arrests and tried to break the unity of the retreating demonstrators. The demonstrators retaliated encircled the police squad and drove them away. Later when the police tried to clear the area, around 100 anti-fascists converged.. The demonstrators shouted slogans, sparked pyrotechnics and constructed barricades while the police chased them until late in the evening.

In Cologne, around 80 to 100 participated in the demonstration, who threw pyrotechnics.

Several hundred people participated in the demonstration in Berlin. Also here it is reported to have been resistance against the police.

Hatsh Thakor is freelance journalist who has studied Liberation Movements .Owes gratitude to inputs from Red Herald, DemVolke dienen, and The Guardian.

https://countercurrents.org/2023/06/anti-fascists-sent-to-five-years-prison-in-germany/

READ FROM TOP.

MAKE A DEAL PRONTO BEFORE THE SHIT HITS THE FAN:

NO NATO IN "UKRAINE" (WHAT'S LEFT OF IT)

THE DONBASS REPUBLICS ARE NOW BACK IN THE RUSSIAN FOLD — AS THEY USED TO BE PRIOR 1922. THE RUSSIANS WON'T ABANDON THESE AGAIN.

CRIMEA IS RUSSIAN — AS IT USED TO BE PRIOR 1954

A MEMORANDUM OF NON-AGGRESSION BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE USA.

EASY.

THE WEST KNOWS IT.

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

By Gus Leonisky at 12 Jun 2023 - 9:04am
Login or register to post comments

end of war....

by Larry Johnson

I know that some in the West are suggesting that there may be a way to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine and I think they do not understand what Russia is now likely to demand to secure such a deal. For starters, will Russia insist on securing the rights to all territory east of the Dnieper River and on a special status for Odessa? I think so. Odessa would no longer be ruled by Ukraine. I also would expect Russia to demand (non-negotiable) the arrest and prosecution of those responsible for the murder of 42 Russian speaking Ukrainians in 2014 who sought refuge in the Trade Unions House.

I also would expect that Russia will demand the dismantling of NATO Aegis missile systems in Poland and Romania and a ban on U.S. or NATO troops being posted in countries that share a border with Ukraine. In light of Russia’s stated goal of de-nazification I would not be surprised if Russia demands the laws of Ukraine be changed and that Nazi-affiliated parties and symbols be banned.

Until Ukraine suffers an irreversible defeat on the battlefield, I think there is little incentive for the United States and its NATO allies to entertain any of the positions outlined above. What worries me is that the Biden Administration has pinned so much of its re-election strategy on a success in Ukraine that it will do something stupid and escalate by using U.S. military personnel to pilot combat aircraft or tanks or Bradley fighting vehicles. This means American military personnel will die in significant numbers in Ukraine and potentially generate political pressure in the United States to expand the war. However, if Biden orders U.S. military troops into battle in Ukraine without Congressional approval I think it will ignite a political firestorm in America that will consume what remains of his Presidency.

The West is failing to grasp the reality that Russia believes it is winning the war in Ukraine and that it is not suffering economic or political damage at home. And, when you factor in the international arena, the war has proven to be a boon for Russia’s efforts to help create a new international financial/trade system that circumvents Washington’s control. In other words, Russia has little incentive to entertain negotiations that would require Russian concessions.

https://sonar21.com/what-could-russia-demand-to-negotiate-an-end-to-the-war-in-ukraine/

Primary links

Search

Recent comments

Democracy Links

Member's Off-site Blogs