[Please note that I have made deliberate heavy use of the letters ‘f’, ‘d’, ‘m’ and ‘s’ as part of a linguistic process called alliteration.]
The tragedy which has been going on in Ukraine for nearly six weeks is leaving death and destruction for Ukrainian soldiers and civilians; for the Russians, it is a very grim harvest of young men in the prime of manhood. And I shall say nothing about those who have been left maimed for life (whether soldiers or civilians), those civilians who have experienced the trauma of shelling, of seeing dead bodies or simply of having had to flee their home in winter and subsequently see pictures or footage of their block eviscerated by the shelling aimed at dislodging the hardcore elements of the Ukrainian army who had directed fire at the Russian soldiers from the former lodgings of fellow nationals. All this mess could have been averted if reason had prevailed and the president of Ukraine had not been egged on to follow such an unfortunate and foolish course by fiendish foreigners who are keen to see the country fight until the last Ukrainian soldier so as to create, in pure Zbigniew Brzezinski fashion, another Afghanistan for Russia.
According to an independent analyst, much of the blame for the above lies with Germany’s newly appointed (and thus inexperienced) as well as rather rash chancellor Olaf Scholz. In the following excerpt of a recent videocast of the UK-based co-host of The Duran show, Alexander Mercouris picks up on the recent claim made in an article published in the Wall Street Journal that the German chancellor Olaf Scholz had told the president of Ukraine Volodymyr Zelensky on 19th February to forget about joining Nato and to work towards securing ‘a wider European security deal between the West and Russia’ to lay the blame for the present conflict squarely on the shoulders of the German chancellor.
However, I believe that this WSJ article is another of the West’s many propaganda hit pieces against the Russian president, with no evidence provided to substantiate hardly any of the claims made in it – and the thoughts and words attributed to some of the key players in the article are without the shadow of a doubt FICTIONAL.
As such, does Mr Mercouris’s claim that responsibility for the war rests fully with the German chancellor go down the drain together with this new (and umpteenth) instance of shoddy journalism from the West? Well, I would not go as far as dismissing all of what Mr Mercouris says in the transcript I provide below because the current German leadership is clearly adding fuel to the Ukrainian fire. Where I also depart from Mercouris’s point of view is that, although I agree with him when he says that ‘Macron deserves much blame for allowing the situation to spiral out of control to the extent that he did: his unwillingness to break with the Germans neutered his diplomatic initiatives in the run-up to the war’, I am of the opinion that Macron’s ‘diplomatic initiatives’ were only aimed at securing more time for the Ukrainians to prepare for the war. Anybody who has been willing to find out about the French president’s curriculum vitae can only come to the conclusion that Emmanuel Macron is not working for the French people (or their EU or Ukrainian counterparts) but for the ‘forces’ that have put him in his current position. The ‘English’ three-time prime minister Benjamin Disraeli once wrote in a novel of his ‘that the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes’ [source]…
If it does not, click on https://seed1sjt3.bitchute.com/ezb3JsFunUTi/IPF-iP3fE9k.mp4#t=1555.
For the original clip, click on the following link: https://youtu.be/IPF-iP3fE9k. The clip’s original title was ‘Russia strikes Odessa, discusses 'evacuation of Westerners' from Mariupol, WSJ reveals Scholz failure pre-war negotiations’.
Alexander Mercouris’s BitChute account is https://www.bitchute.com/channel/ezb3JsFunUTi/.
MY TRANSCRIPT OF THE ABOVE CLIP EXCERPT:
[Please note that any word, phrase or sentence in bold, green and/or yellow highlight indicates emphasis of my making.]
Now that brings me back to the topic of Olaf Scholz because, of course, if it is true, as the Wall Street Journal says – and as I believe –, that Scholz told Zelensky to drop his demand for Ukraine’s demand for membership of Nato, then when Zelensky refused, it was incumbent upon Scholz, in order to avoid this crisis, to come out publicly alongside Macron and to say openly and frankly that Ukraine would not be joining Nato, that the invitation to Ukraine to join Nato – which was made in the 2008 Bucharest summit, Nato summit – was a massive mistake and that, in [the] light of this, uh the question of Ukraine’s Nato membership had been taken off the agenda. And it was also incumbent upon Scholz, as Germany’s Chancellor, to then join with Macron to support the proposal which both Macron and Scholz were made making in private – but which were unwilling to flesh out and which were unwilling also to make him public – for a negotiated restructuring of Europe’s security architecture, as requested by the Russians. Now Macron deserves much blame for allowing the situation to spiral out of control to the extent that he did: his unwillingness to break with the Germans neutered his diplomatic initiatives in the run-up to the war. But the greatest blame and the biggest fault lies with Olaf Scholz because he was prepared to say these things to Zelensky in private. When Zelensky refused to listen, then it was incumbent upon Scholz – in order to preserve peace in Europe and to ensure the preservation of Germany’s and Europe’s economic position –, it was incumbent upon Scholz to come out in public and to say what the position, the true position was. And that might have put pressure on his government, it might have made the Greens in Germany unhappy, but in a matter of war or peace, again that is the obligation, that is the duty of a leader to come forward and to do what is right in order to preserve peace. If any one individual therefore must take the greatest responsibility for this war in my opinion it is Olaf Scholz, whatever devilry was being committed by others in Washington and London and potentially in Brussels too.
Lausanne, the above was posted on the fifth day of the fourth month of the year two thousand and twenty-two.
