Regaining peacekeeping capabilities by Uwe Froschauer, 6/21

The war could have been settled by the end of March 2022 if the USA had joined in. The question is who is the aggressor here. Vladimir Putin crossed a red line with the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. NATO and the United States under Barack Obama crossed a red line with the Maidan coup they staged in 2014, and even before that with NATO’s eastward expansion.

Regaining peacekeeping capabilities
The abyss of a third and nuclear world war is opening up before us. We can still avert the global disaster.

It all started with the delivery of helmets in 2022. Two years later, there is now open talk in Germany about sending German soldiers to Ukraine. The acceptance of a third world war is being condoned. In general, it seems to be causing little public outcry that Europe, and Germany in particular, is on the “best” way to plunging itself into total ruin for the third time. In an emotional essay, Uwe Froschauer formulated eight theses on regaining the ability to live in peace, which stands in contrast to the currently omnipresent proclaimed “ability to wage war”.
by Uwe Froschauer
[This article posted on 6/21/2024 is translated from the German on the Internet,]

Thesis 1: Orientation towards reason

Homo sapiens, the “knowing” or “rational human being”, is considered the only survivor of the Homo genus (= human being). As a rational being, Homo sapiens has the mental ability to gain insights, to form a judgment about topics in various areas of life, to recognize the associated connections and the underlying order of what is perceived, and to act accordingly. I’m not so sure about that anymore. I wouldn’t necessarily describe warmongers as rational. Quite the opposite.

Some people, such as Annalena Baerbock, who has mutated from a pacifist to a warmonger, seem to operate according to the motto “How can I know what I think before I hear what I say?” Before saying or doing something, you should think about what you are going to say or do for a reasonable amount of time. This can take milliseconds, and in some cases hours, days, weeks or even months.

Under no circumstances should you parrot what is being imposed on you by foreign powers, but rather think about a matter or a specific situation for the good of your own people, to whom you have sworn an oath. Politicians and the state have a duty to serve only the sovereign, the highest authority in a democratic state: the people – and primarily their own people, not someone else’s or their rulers. If they do not, they are not democrats.

The acceptance of a world war – not for their own interests, but in the interests of the USA – is contrary to the interests of the people, who want to live in peace.

The easily seduced people are “tuned in” under false pretences with the help of proven manipulation techniques: These include constant repetition – for example, with words like war, threat of war, military preparedness, defense of democracy in Ukraine and Germany – defamatory and labeling arguments for those who think differently or clearly – such as “Putin sympathizers” – fragmentation and falsification of information – such as that Ukraine is a democracy, or that a victory over Russia is realistic – and the creation of fear, for example through idiotic claims such as: “Russia has not yet had enough after conquering Ukraine”, or: “Russia can also attack other countries in Europe.”

As if “the Russians” had nothing better to do than to attack a small country like Germany, which has no significant natural resources. Be that as it may, our contemporaries, who have been transformed from homo sapiens into homo bellicosus (belligerent man), have erased the words “never again” from their memories and are lacking the gift of reason that is said to be characteristic of homo sapiens. “Creating peace with weapons” may rhyme, but it doesn’t sound very sensible – and it isn’t.

Weapons are objects of utility that serve the purposes of defense and killing. Further arms deliveries are based on a military solution to the conflict, on a victory that is not achievable in this case, and lead to a war of attrition that will send orders to the arms industry skyrocketing – which may well put Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann in a state of ecstasy – and to further unspeakable suffering for the families of the dead and wounded. If the warmongers or their children were in the trenches themselves, the Ukraine conflict would be over tomorrow. Mrs. von der Leyen, you have seven children, so why don’t you send them to the Ukrainian trenches?

I would like to express my utter contempt for all warmongers in Germany. Germany and all other countries do not deserve politicians like you! If you warmongers have paid attention in history lessons – which I doubt in most cases – you have still learned nothing from history. But I assume you have heard of Napoleon or Hitler, who were just as rational as you are.

Conclusion: If we do not succeed in stopping the war and returning to reason – that is, seeking a solution at the negotiating table, which we could have had five weeks after the invasion – this conflict can and will end in Armageddon.

The following theses are ultimately based on the imperative of reason.
Thesis 2: Greater independence from the USA

The USA is the most aggressive empire of all time: it has been involved in 469 military conflicts with other states since its existence (1776), in which the United States of America was directly or indirectly involved. The Russians, in comparison to the USA, can be described as moderate in their “aggressive” behavior. The Russians are no angels either, but the USA is the number one aggressor on this planet – with countless illegal wars since 1945, with more than 20 million dead in 37 countries that have fallen victim to this parasite. When we talk about “the USA”, we do not mean the (manipulated) American people or the entire government, but the “evil” forces in these governments, their puppeteers – the elites – and their media prostitutes.

The elite-instructed regime of the United States of America does not take into account the completely different framework factors of its European “partners” – who are better described as its agents – such as their geographical proximity to, and economically necessary exchange relations with, the East. We could do without America if necessary, but not without Asia. However, most of the governments of the European vassals put the interests of the USA before those of their own country. Most – but not all.

At the end of May 2024, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán called on the peace-loving world population to end the chaos- and war-mongering hegemonic world order in which Washington, London and Brussels call the shots. He said that the Western world was inevitably facing a major upheaval, especially with the landmark elections in the United States and the elections to the European Parliament. Orbán addressed the world public in his impressive speech, which “strangely” received little attention in the mainstream media. Here is the most interesting excerpt from this speech in this context:

“This year, God willing, we can bring an inglorious era of Western civilization to an end. We can end the world order based on progressive liberal hegemony. The progressive liberal world spirit, as it is, has failed. It has brought wars, chaos and unrest, a collapsing economy and confusion to the world, confusion in international politics, impoverishment of families, deterioration of public safety on the streets and in the squares. It was a strange time and a strange spirit. Its adherents proclaimed that it was not their job to represent the people, but to impose their own ideals. And if the facts do not justify their ideals, then so much the worse for the facts. They divided the world into democracies and autocracies, claiming that their task was a crusade against autocracies. They went to war, they exported democracy, and eventually people were fed up with them wherever they appeared. Let’s be honest: this world order has produced leaders who are incapable of leading, who are unfit for the job, who make one mistake after another and who end up running into their own demise. They say that there must be a hegemon, an ideological control to which everyone must submit. And when that happens, they say, peace will come to us and peace will come to the world. My friends, when I listen to them, I think that even the participants in a beauty contest know more about world peace than these clumsy leaders. I would like to say, my dear friends, that this is an irreplaceable opportunity to replace the declining progressive liberal world spirit with another world spirit, a sovereign world order.”

There is nothing to add to that. The statements in this speech are very reminiscent of current German, French, British and US policies and their incompetent, elite-instructed politicians such as Biden, Scholz, Macron, Habeck, Baerbock and the like. Viktor Orbán has summed up the inadequacy, remoteness from reality and simplicity of the prevailing Western ideology, which is represented and led by the elite-contaminated USA.

Thank you, Mr. Orbán, for your clear words. Be careful that you do not suffer the same fate as the Slovakian President Robert Fico. The mafia-like masterminds of the “New World Order” are capable of anything.

Orbán calls for the creation of a multipolar alternative of sovereign nations in which national interests are respected, the people have true sovereignty and there is no global ideology to which the entire world must subordinate itself.

His final, defiant sentence in this impressive, truthful and honest speech:

“The time of the sovereignists is finally coming! Let’s return to the peaceful and secure path that made the West great. Make America Great Again! Make Europe Great Again! Forward, Donald Trump! Forward, European sovereignists! Saddle up, put on our armor, out onto the battlefield and let the electoral battle begin!”
Manova does not collect any user-related data. Unfortunately, we do not yet have any influence on YouTube, Spotify and other platforms. If you would like to play the content, please click on this box. Some of your usage data may then be collected by the respective platform.
View content on original website: YouTube

Conclusion: The USA wants to hold on to its unipolar world order by all means and is opposing a budding and necessary multipolar world order with all its might. The fate of its NATO allies is of little concern to the American “friend” in the pursuit of its goals. Even a world war instigated and beginning on European territory is of no concern to the USA. On the contrary: a war in Europe supports the interests of the USA, which wants to prevent a Eurasia that is growing together. The USA can easily wage war in Europe, which is several thousand kilometers away from the USA, which has never had a war with foreign powers on its own soil. What happens in Europe in human terms is of only peripheral interest to the USA.

Europe must free itself from the stranglehold of the USA if it does not want to perish economically, militarily and socially, and it must reach out to its eastern neighbors. To prevent this from happening, the USA, among others, prepared the war in Ukraine well in advance.

If you would like to know more about this topic, dear readers, here and here are links to two articles, one on the proxy war of the USA in Ukraine, the other on the think tank “RAND Corporation”.

European governments, especially the German government, must finally have the courage to point out the USA’s geopolitical mistakes and not just let the USA criticize them.

But no, then they will pull their tails in again, as Mr. Scholz has done again in the face of the use of German weapons on Russian territory, or in September 2022, when the terrorist attack on the Nordstream pipelines was almost certainly carried out by the USA. The Chancellor has gambled away his credit with his submissive decision regarding the use of German weapons on Russian soil, at least in my opinion. It is not surprising that the Chancellor is occasionally booed at public appearances, such as at the Ukraine vs. Germany international on June 3.

The subservience of the European vassals can only be described as embarrassing and undignified. Here is an example of the poor performance in ORF, ZIB 1, on May 30, 2024:

“The weapons with which Ukraine can or may attack which targets – the decision on this ultimately rests with the USA.”

Europe should stay out of the war between the USA and Russia.

The European and transatlantic warmongers must be stopped. The population should return to a “peace-oriented” state of mind.

Stand up against these warmongers and don’t let yourselves be manipulated by these rat catchers any longer! Do it for the sake of yourselves and your children if you want to have a secure and good future. German democracy does not need to be defended in either the undemocratic Ukraine or in the Hindu Kush, as the then Minister of Defense Peter Struck believed on March 11, 2004, in order to justify NATO’s “defense case” against the aggression of Afghanistan. Germany was also involved in Afghanistan at the time with soldiers because big brother wanted it that way.
Thesis 3: Rethinking NATO as an alleged defense alliance

Despite NATO’s ninefold eastward expansion and other provocations such as the successful Maidan coup in 2014 and the failed coup in Belarus in 2020, Russia remained calm until 2022. At the end of 2021, Putin was still seeking dialogue with the West and demanding security guarantees regarding Ukraine’s neutrality. He demanded the demilitarization and denazification of Ukraine, as well as the right of self-government for the Donetsk and Lugansk regions. To this end, Russia presented the United States and NATO with a draft agreement between the United States and Russia on mutual security guarantees, as well as a corresponding agreement between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, at a meeting in Moscow on December 15, 2021. It was a draft that would undoubtedly have demanded too much of NATO. But that is how it is at the beginning of every negotiation: each party comes to the table with exaggerated ideas, and then negotiations take place and a compromise is agreed upon. A draft agreement is merely a starting point.

The US and NATO rejected the offer of talks and the draft agreement at the time, apparently without closer examination. Instead, at the Munich Security Conference from February 18 to 20, 2022 – six days before the Russian invasion – the rhetoric against Russia was intensified, not least by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who called for his country to be armed with nuclear weapons. In my opinion, NATO, aka the USA, wanted this war. My negative assessment at the time was confirmed by the failed negotiations in Istanbul.

The war could have been settled by the end of March 2022 if the USA had joined in.

The question is who is the aggressor here. Vladimir Putin crossed a red line with the invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. NATO and the United States under Barack Obama crossed a red line with the Maidan coup they staged in 2014, and even before that with NATO’s eastward expansion. The Kiev government crossed a red line with the shelling – more than 14,000 dead – the cutting off of food supplies and the financial isolation of eastern Ukraine since 2014. It is also interesting in this context that Zelenskyy found the desired autonomy of eastern Ukraine in order during his 2019 election campaign. However, this was not in the interests of the USA – and thus NATO, the army of the United States – which wanted to maintain this untenable situation for Russia-friendly eastern Ukraine and Russia in order to ultimately force Russia to take military action.

As early as 1997, the then US President Joe Biden said of the planned NATO provocation against Russia:

“The only thing that could provoke a Russian reaction would be the expansion of NATO to the Baltic states.”

And that is exactly what happened. But Russia held its peace in the face of this and the many subsequent provocations. If the situation had been reversed and Russia had provoked the USA to this extent, there would have been another world war long ago, and I might not even be able to write these lines.

Conclusion: NATO is the real aggressor, not Russia. It is not the one who takes the first step who should be called the aggressor, but the one who forces this step. And that is NATO, or the USA and its military colonies.

In view of the events of recent decades, can NATO still be described as a defensive alliance?

Many people already see NATO as an offensive alliance. Decisions such as the most recent one regarding the use of NATO weapons on Russian soil support this view.

Russia does not want war with Europe. The USA, on the other hand, would have no objection to a war between Europe and Russia, as the laughing third party.

The collective way of thinking and acting of NATO, led by the USA, should be reconsidered and reformed accordingly. Even leaving NATO should be considered if it does not stop its bellicose activities.
Thesis 4: Clear stance of peace-loving nations towards bellicose nations such as the USA, Great Britain and Israel

As mentioned in the last thesis, imperialistic, warmongering power cravings – such as those of the United States – should be stopped. But not only the United States, but also other nations that once looked back on an empire – such as the British – apparently still find it okay to fuel war and, if necessary, to wage it.

The following brief historical review should give you a better understanding of the relationship between Russia and Great Britain.

The relationship between the Russians and the British is historically very diverse. In the mid-18th century, Russia and Britain worked together successfully when France, Prussia and Spain decided to wrest some parts of their empire from the Habsburgs. Through their intervention, the Russians and the English helped the Habsburgs to maintain the general status quo in Europe. In the Coalition Wars (1792–1815), the Russian and British empires fought together against France and its “revolutionary” ideas for almost twenty years. However, their cooperation during this period was interrupted when both powers went from being allies to being adversaries (1800–1801) and later even to being warring parties (1807–1812).

The British were seriously concerned when they saw their British Empire, especially in India, under threat. At the beginning of the 19th century, Russia was constantly expanding its borders and incorporating new territories and peoples in the steppes of Central Asia. In 1836 and 1837, a massive uprising against Russian rule broke out in the Kazakh steppe, disrupting trade between Central Asia and India. The Russians encouraged the new Persian Shah Mohammed to advance on the city of Herat in western Afghanistan. They hoped to open up a new, alternative trade route through the east. To achieve this goal, they provided military and logistical support to the Persian troops.

This did not go down well with the British, who were in a panic. They eyed Russia’s intentions with suspicion and saw Russian expansion in Central Asia as a threat to the defense of British India. In London, a military confrontation with Russia was seriously considered.

Russia continued to court Persia and sought an alliance that could threaten the north-western access to India. The progress that Russia had made in Persia, Central Asia and the Far East put the British under pressure throughout Asia. It was during this period that the term “Russophobia” developed in Great Britain.

In his article of April 24, 2023, Stefan Korinth wrote the following about the origin of the term Russophobia:

“The English term ‘Russophobia’ was coined in the early 19th century in Great Britain, when politicians and leading media there — after the end of Napoleon — placed Russia in the public consciousness as a new, dangerous opponent of the Empire. The phenomenon was not new even then, but a concise term was found for it. The term Russophobia placed fear at the center – fear of Russian expansion into the spheres of influence of the then British Empire, for example in Iran or India. The ‘Russian scare’ took on such proportions that even the remote island state of New Zealand built a series of coastal fortifications in the 1880s to ward off a supposed Russian attack.”

This fear, this hatred, still seems to be in the bones of many Britons today. The unfounded Russophobia is the subject of the next thesis.

Let’s continue with the history of relations between Russia and the UK. When China resisted the colonial powers in the late 19th century, the great powers joined together in the “Eight-Nation Alliance”, which included the USA, Italy, Austria-Hungary, Germany, Japan and France, as well as Great Britain and Russia. The allies crushed the so-called (bloody) Boxer Rebellion and exerted even greater pressure on China than before.

During the First and Second World Wars, Great Britain and Russia also overcame their differences and fought against their common enemy, Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy, in the First World War – and against Nazi Germany and its allies in the Second World War. Relations between Russia and Great Britain deteriorated increasingly shortly after the Second World War, leading to the era of the Cold War.

Today, the British are committed supporters of Ukraine and opponents of Russia. The British believe that this war can be won by Ukraine. As in Germany, everything is being done to increase support for Ukraine, especially with weapons deliveries. The fear of the “evil” Russians is also being stirred up among the British.

The head of the British army, General Sir Patrick Sanders, compared the situation in Ukraine with the crises of 1914 and 1937 and said that only “citizen armies” would be able to repel the coming attack on the “Western way of life”.

What nonsense. Russia is not interested in the Western way of life. Russia does its own thing and is happy to be left alone.

Of course, if Ukraine wants to become a NATO ally and the Americans want to station their nuclear missiles there, then the Russian peace and quiet will be over. That’s why this war – which could have been ended with good conditions for Ukraine by the end of March 2022, but was prevented by the USA and Great Britain. Russia was not yet weakened enough.

Sir Patrick Sanders said:

“This war is not just about the black earth in Donbas or the re-establishment of a Russian empire, but about the political, psychological and symbolic defeat of our system and our way of life. How we, as the pre-war generation, react to this will echo through history. Ukrainian bravery is buying us time, for now.”

Always these die-hard warmongers! Will they never die out? This warmonger would like to see the number of British troops doubled, in particular by introducing conscription – like our German die-hards – which, thank God, the British government has rejected.

Conclusion: The bellicose activities of the British and French governments, which would also have liked to send ground troops to Ukraine, should be stopped. The politicians behind them and their parties should no longer be elected by the people, who should take to the streets and demonstrate peacefully but firmly against the apocalyptic course of the unteachable until none of these warmongers can be seen on the political scene.
Thesis 5: Reduction of the completely unfounded Russophobia controlled by political and media war-mongers

Russophobia is deeply rooted in the subconscious of people in the Western world. It is not in the “rest” of the world. Germans, English, French and especially Americans like to set the bar low in order to be sure of their “moral superiority”. They create enemy images in the population in order to distract from their own, often dishonest machinations and to realize their geopolitical strategies, which are usually aimed at increasing power and wealth.

The ultimate stage in the creation of an enemy image is the dehumanization and demonization of unwelcome individuals – as practiced, for example, in the Western narrative with Vladimir Putin. As early as 2004, the Polish-American political scientist and political advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski described Vladimir Putin as “Moscow’s Mussolini” and four years later as “Hitler”. Of all people, Brzezinski, who in his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives” called for the USA, as “the only global superpower”, to secure its dominance on the “big chessboard” of Eurasia. (1)

Western politicians and journalists mainly — and some exclusively — express negative views about Russia. What a poor show of political, journalistic and human behavior! They insult the Russian president, accuse soldiers of atrocities, accuse the Russian media of propaganda, which is certainly true to a large extent — as is the case with their own media —, and so on.

The aim is to influence public opinion in favor of devaluing Russia, with all its institutions, its inhabitants and its culture. Russia has a very high-standing culture that is in no way inferior to ours.

Propaganda is based on half-truths and lies, not on facts that can be verified. All these pathetic and “small” politicians and hacks have apparently never been to Russia. In the dozen or so times I have been to Russia, I have never had a negative experience with Russians or their system.

Everything that comes from Russia is attacked by the propaganda organs that are primed for war – whether it be the Russian state and its servants, Russian entrepreneurs or ordinary citizens.

What hubris, what a joke these people who think they are morally superior! You elevate yourselves above others so that you no longer have to feel your own worthlessness so much!

From my experience with Russia, I can only tell you: you have no idea and are at a very low level of personal development!

Why is nobody criticizing the Western propagandists who are spreading such hate against a nation that is peaceful compared to the USA? The Western anti-Russian propaganda organs are allowed to bluster, polemicize, label, defame and discredit without anyone getting angry with them.

Over time, the brains of the Western population have been washed by manipulation techniques such as fear-mongering, repetition, knock-down arguments, fragmentation and falsification of information, and by deliberately relying on herd behavior (solidarity). Instead of gray, self-thinking cells, many people have only retained unmovable thought patterns and negative images of Russia. These “backward thinkers”, who have forgotten how to question, are the target group of the propagandists. There are still too many of them.

Conclusion: Just as the vaccinated should try to break down the poison of the mRNA injection in their bodies, the brainwashed should eliminate the virus of Russophobia that has taken root in their minds through propaganda. This irrational, unfounded, prejudiced, distrustful, hostile and hostile mindset – this hatred of Russia – is leading the world into chaos, and in the worst case scenario into a nuclear world war. Stand up and show the hateful and inhuman warmongers the red card. Or do you want a world war? If so, then you’re already lost! Then stay on your couch as long as you still have it!
Thesis 6: To the dustbin of history with the warmongers

Politicians with a primarily transatlantic orientation and a bellicose attitude, such as Roderich Kiesewetter (CDU), Annalena Baerbock (The Greens), Friedrich Merz (CDU), Anton Hofreiter (The Greens), Marie-Agnes Strack Zimmermann (FDP), Boris Pistorius (SPD), Ursula von der Leyen (CDU) — and many more — should no longer have a chance in Germany for their warmongering activities and be punished in the upcoming elections. Voters in other countries should follow suit, so that global “peace thinking” can return and the “war thinking” of the backward can be counteracted.

On the dung heap of history with those who “carry the war to Russia”, with German cruise missiles bombing the Crimean bridge in Russia, making Germany “war-ready” and sending ground troops to Ukraine, who have allowed the delivery of tanks and the use of German weapons on Russian territory, as well as the use of uranium-enriched ammunition and cluster munitions.

It is not the pacifist Sahra Wagenknecht who has lost her marbles, but those who say that about her. Even the Pope is put in the corner to “shame” by these simple-minded, personally underdeveloped warmongers.

The manipulated people remain silent about these events – at least for the time being. The mad lead the blind, as Shakespeare once said.

Conclusion: to the dustbin of history with the warmongers!
7. Drastic reduction of the influence of the elites on politics and the media

All the statements and necessities set out in the various theses are in vain if the mentally ill and insatiable elites who are waging a war against the people are not put in their place. The elites are the root of evil and the main culprits for the chaos in the world. They orchestrate crises such as alleged pandemics, “man-made” environmental disasters and wars, they divide the populations of all countries according to the principle of “divide and rule”, because: they are in possession of the most effective instrument of manipulation – the mainstream media – with the help of which they succeed in directing the global herd in the direction they want. If the sheep recognized the deception being perpetrated on them today, the elites would stop ruling tomorrow and turn the world into chaos.

In his book Hybris und Nemesis, which I consider to be a brilliant work, Professor Rainer Mausfeld describes this phenomenon as follows:

“Silencing people’s natural moral sense requires a significant attack on human consciousness. However, anyone with the necessary media resources can do this relatively easily, at least for a limited period of time and especially in situations that are critical for the stability of the prevailing power structures. Based on a distortion of the entire framework of thought and evaluation, black can be made white and white can be made black at will. Once the entire system of interpretation has been distorted, it is easy to make an act or a set of circumstances appear morally ‘good’ or ‘evil’. In this way, people can be made to accept that there are two categories of state crimes: those that are not crimes at all, but morally justified acts, and those that are to be condemned in the strongest terms. They can be made to believe that morally reprehensible acts, such as torture, drone strikes, the bombing of civilian infrastructure or the use of outlawed cluster bombs and uranium munitions, can be morally justified as long as they are committed by the ‘right people’.” (2)

Conclusion: The mainstream media and most elite-instructed politicians have learned nothing from their total failure in the Corona era – and are making the same mistake again in the Ukraine conflict due to their subservience to the USA. Who should still trust them? Most Western politicians and mass media are elite-instructed and bellicose. If they do not change course in a pacifist direction, they will be complicit in the deaths of many people in the future.

The manipulative distortions of our natural, innate ability to judge by elites, politics and the media are leading society into the abyss if a large part of the population does not recognize its external control and we do not stop these dark forces.
Thesis 8 and overall conclusion: negotiated solution

Anyone who believes that the war could be ended and Russia driven out of eastern Ukraine and Crimea by supplying more weapons is either on drugs or has a complete mental breakdown. Anyone who believes that more weapons will bring Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power, to the negotiating table faster has no idea of history or people.

Those who continue to support the geopolitical, war-oriented goals of the USA are complicit in the deaths of thousands more, which could have been avoided by the West just five weeks after the war began.

Anyone who believes that the undemocratic state of Ukraine is defending Western democracy should take a closer look at the concept of democracy and compare the situation in Ukraine with this concept. Anyone who is seeking a further military solution is a bloodthirsty person. There is only one way to avoid further bloodshed: a negotiated solution! Unfortunately, this alternative is not in the interests of the USA – and therefore not in the interests of NATO and therefore not in the interests of its military colonies, also known as “allies”. Russia is willing to negotiate – the West is not.

Dear readers, I appeal to you to do everything in your power to prevent the existing catastrophe in Ukraine and the impending catastrophe of a third world war. Show the political and media warmongers the red card wherever you can. Do not vote for any party that does not support a quick negotiated solution, but instead advocates further arms deliveries. Take to the streets and demonstrate peacefully against the madness of the warmongers. Punish the warmongers in the upcoming global elections!

I am extending my hand to Russia. I am extending my hand to Putin. I am extending my hand to anyone who is in favor of peace. I cannot extend my hand to a clenched fist.

Sources and notes:

(1) Zbigniew Brzezinski: The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives (1999). Frankfurt am Main, S. Fischer Verlag (English-language edition 1997
(2) Rainer Mausfeld (2023): Hybris und Nemesis, p.28, Frankfurt am Main: Westend Verlag

Uwe Froschauer studied business administration at the Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich, where he specialized in business psychology. He has worked as a management consultant, teaches seminars at vocational training institutions, is the author of several books and runs the blog His passion for traveling the world has made him sensitive to the cultures and problems of other peoples. He is close to nature and loves animals and plants.

Critics of the system often reduce football to being merely “bread and circuses” for the masses. The community-building and health-promoting aspects of the world’s favorite sport are overlooked.
19.06.2024 by Uwe Froschauer

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *