by Peter Löcke //
"For example, if Russia crosses the border to Ukraine with tanks and troops, Nord Stream 2 will no longer exist." (Joe Biden)
"What has been bothering me for a long time is that we create the possibility of reversing the burden of proof." (Nancy Faeser)
On February 7, 2022, Joe Biden promises (!) the termination of the largest European (!) economic project Nord Stream in the event of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. On March 16, 2022, Nancy Faeser announces her vision of a reversal of the burden of proof in disciplinary and civil service law. In my personal opinion, both the words of the US President and the words of the German Interior Minister have the potential to make it into the history books.
You are welcome to form your own opinion based on the source and the original quotes. Here is the official translation* the press conference in Washington with Olaf Scholz and Joe Biden. Here is Nancy Faeser's statement during a question and answer session in the German Bundestag. Other people may interpret the statements differently, perhaps less dramatically than I do. Then it's exciting to discuss them and exchange arguments. Tough on the matter, but cultivated. I have no problem with that. My problem is a different one. My problem is silence. Can you remember what happened after February 7 or March 16, 2022? Nothing.
Nothing happened for more than half a year. Although Biden was correctly quoted by the Tagesschau and other news outlets, nobody recognized and discussed the literal explosive power of the statement. Only one American journalist was immediately aware of the dimensions and asked the US President about it during the press conference.
"But how exactly do you do that? The project is under the control of Germany."
Biden: "I promise you: We will manage that."
It was only after the attacks on the Nord Stream pipelines on 26 September that the implications of the statement were recognized. Why not before?
The US President's February statements received little attention in Germany, but they were at least mentioned. In contrast to the Faeser quote. A German interior minister has just turned the highest principle of any democratic constitutional state on its head. In future, "In case of doubt for the accused" is to become "In case of doubt for the accuser". The person accused by the state should prove his democratic innocence. That would be less complicated. But Faeser's scandalous announcement went unnoticed. Nobody noticed. It was only when the German Interior Minister repeated this wet legal nightmare on TV after the high-profile raid on the Reichsbürger that her March statement became a political issue. Nine months later. Again, why not before?
I try to answer the question on a meta-level. Because people, including journalists, are inattentive. Unfortunately, so am I. Because very few people go to the actual source and pay too little attention to it. Instead, we rush from news to news and surround ourselves with supposed sources. Online journalism in particular works like this. Some fact checks consist half of links. "Sources used" is now written under many articles. This suggests seriousness and verifiability to the reader.
Are these sources real sources? Are Süddeutsche, NZZ, New York Times and dpa a source? On the one hand, yes. On the other hand, no, because they only tell me where the author of the article copied from. This quickly results in "consistent media reports". Is expert XY a source? On the one hand, yes. But my knowledge gain is limited if this expert is not classified politically. Expert sources are now generally questionable because the same opinion is always presented, while a contrary expert opinion is ignored. Is a press release from the German government a source? On the one hand, yes. And yet it is useless if only the political advertising message is disseminated instead of questioning the press release. The source remains useless if no journalist goes into the small print. It's like a book. Can I judge the book after reading ten reviews of it? Only to a limited extent. I have to read it myself. I have to go to the source. Unfortunately, journalism often stops where it should start.
Take a walk with a small child again. Whether with your daughter, your son, your grandson, your godchild or a neighbor's child. When you pass a stream and the curious child asks you where the water comes from - no informal answer will suffice. The child will probably look at you for a long time and then ask you: "Off to the source!" I would wish this burning curiosity on many a journalist and sometimes on me too.
* If you go to the source, you often discover amazing things. Most readers will have been familiar with Biden's announcement about what would happen with Nord Stream 2. How do you interpret the following statement by the US President, which was also made at the press conference on February 7, 2022?
"But if Germany decides otherwise, then we are ready."
Looking back, Germany made the right decision. In the American sense. Not in the German sense.
Articles identified by name do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the publisher.
English 
German 
Spanish
17 Responses
"The study of sources" hits the mark as a topic! At least for me, who, although I am neither a researcher nor a journalist, am now in my seventeenth year of involvement in the German Wikipedia, so in a way I am definitely a journalistic researcher as a lateral entry hobby. And there, to my chagrin, I follow the same moral decline in standards and can understand harsh criticism of the medium very well. But my thesis on this is simple: Wikipedia largely reflects society. Nothing more. That alone is enough to disqualify it as a medium for all controversial topics or at least to classify it very critically, i.e. at the very back of the queue and by no means as the first port of call. One plus is its openness to deeper "digging" beyond the pure reading function, especially in the version history of the articles, but also in the associated discussions. But this can be very laborious. "The free encyclopedia" itself has long since increasingly degenerated into what was looked down upon with malice in the euphoric early days, namely Google as an "omniscient garbage dump". I am astonished to see that I am not alone in my realization, but that it can already be read quite openly, although it can be changed by anyone at any time, but at least for the time being: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allwissende_Müllhalde#Metaphorische_Verwendung
Dear community,
I always read, also in other media, that "we" must not remain silent, that "we" must reject all these developments, etc. Then I always ask myself what I should and can do. Then I always ask myself the question, what should and can I do? I'm 68, retired, and have spent 42 years in my job trying to "save the world". Well, I can't do it anymore and now I want to save myself...
With best regards.
Hello Mr. Löcke,
on the subject of Nord Stream 2, it should not go unnoticed that President Biden's outrageous statements were made in the presence of Scholz, who stood about 3 meters away and only grinned at the planned destruction of a lifeline for Germany, see e.g. WELT report
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9V4HNGRMwcfrom minute 0:36, Scholz Min 0:45. Please watch carefully !
Why Biden's announcement was not followed by any objection or statement from the head of government representing Germany, Scholz, has hardly been addressed or investigated to date. Although it is the real scandal for German politics and the defense of German interests.
How true!
A completely different perspective, my perspective, on the things that are happening.
It's a theory, it doesn't have to be right, but you should at least think about it.
....What if the USA and Russia work together?
There are several world powers - Russia, the USA, China - and Europe, as an emerging EU, might have had the potential to be one of them.
The Americans are installing Selenski, who can be bought and is as stupid as our current politicians. Without backbone or opinion, but all the more susceptible to blackmail. And therefore easy to control. Under the leadership of these puppets, Ukraine is embroiled in a proxy war with Russia. This could last for years and essentially harm Ukraine and Europe because the Europeans are doing what the Americans expect of them in anticipatory obedience. Without backbone and opinion, but all the more susceptible to blackmail.
Ukraine will break up and the EU will die.
The USA earns money from armaments and then from reconstruction; war is a long way off for them.
I think the Russians, and Putin in particular, are just as dangerous. He earns money by selling his natural resources to other countries, which then find their way back to Europe via detours. Completely overpriced, of course. I think Putin is unscrupulous enough to sacrifice soldiers in Ukraine for this theory. Soldiers have always been increasingly collateral damage in the politics of most countries.
China is watching with interest. And the EU, and Germany in particular, is suffering huge economic damage from this "spectacle".
The old world powers are thus keeping a new rising power at bay.
USA, Russia, China lose nothing.
What do you think of this theory?
It is always alarming to see how the mindset of discussants corresponds to the thinking of the imperial asocials, falsely referred to as "elites". The saying applies, "What I think and do myself - I trust everyone else to do too"!
The Americans are dropping nuclear bombs, so everyone else is dropping these weapons too. The system of the "elites" is corrupt and obsessed with power, so this also applies to China and the Russians.
Could it be that completely different historical experiences play a role here? The Russians lost around 27 million PEOPLE in WW2. Almost every family in this great country mourns the loss of relatives. Should "Putin" collaborate with fascists, he would be lynched in Russia. That is certain for me. Yes - the Ukrainians have also had many victims - but there were also collaborators with fascism, who are revered as heroes today and whose salute is state-supporting and is also preferred by German politicians - the salute of Ukrainian fascists!
Putin is not a god, but he is on the side of anti-fascism. May I remind you that the KPD used the slogan "Whoever votes for Hindenburg, votes for Hitler - whoever votes for Hitler, votes for war" in their election campaign before 1933 - and yes, fascism is almost always associated with war, including the Ukrainian war against RUSSIA, which has been raging since 2014. Only in 2022 will many recognize their humanism and their position against war. Before that, there was hardly any coverage of this criminal war in the state media of the FRG, and certainly not in the private media.
There is NO alliance between the RUSSIANS and the USA, as both want something completely different for the future.
The USA wants sole rule over ALL STATES ON EARTH.
The Russians only wanted to be recognized as a great power, but then realized that a multipolar world with the USA was not possible.
That's the crux of the matter!
Fascists and communists are each responsible for about half of the many millions of victims of the 20th century. We would do well to keep a maximum distance from both dangerous ideologies. Both are equally dangerous and misleading. We should not forget this realization with regard to both the Ukraine conflict and the increasingly asymmetrical domestic political situation in our country.
Dear Mr. Aßmann, your insight is not an insight at all: you formulate the equation of the two drawers in such a general way that everyone can imagine what it means and do not even address the two preceding, opposing points of view.
For my part, I agree with Mr. Wassenaar's objection to the possible collusion of the war enemies USA and Russia and his last sentences as a very good summary.
I don't consider your theory specialized enough, not detailed enough.
All the efforts of the USA, especially the war in Ukraine, which is now openly visible to everyone, are aimed at destroying Germany and erasing it from the world map. This requires German politicians like the ones we have to endure at the moment, who are benevolently "supported" by the USA.
Mr. Löcke, I can only underline your statement "My problem is silence" twice and three times over.
Moments in which the silence is broken provide insights that we should all take seriously. The ZDF program "Putin and the bomb" broadcast last night (see https://www.zdf.de/dokumentation/zdfzoom/zdfzoom-ukraine-russland-putin-krieg-atombombe-100.html) was clearly one of them. Politicians such as Annalena Baerbock, Anton Hofreiter, Marie-Agnes Strack-Zimmermann & Co should be obliged to watch this program on a continuous loop and write the sentence "Nuclear deterrence only works if both sides have something to lose" over and over again until they report: "We have understood the danger we are all putting ourselves in with a constant escalation of this conflict caused by pure irrationality, nationalism and militarism of all nations involved. Placing the sole responsibility for this disaster on Putin is cheap, questionable in terms of content and prevents the deadly spiral of violence from being stopped through negotiations."
If there's one thing I've learned from all my potentially dangerous hobbies such as motorcycling, sailing, canoeing, mountain hiking and skiing, it's that you should never lose respect for real dangers and your innate fear of them. Anyone who loses respect for dangerous animals, road traffic, active volcanoes, the sea, the mountains, the forces of nature and even nuclear powers like Russia will quickly be punished with death. In the interests of us all, we should put an end to the fatalism of these politicians as quickly as possible. Otherwise, our survival will become a game of chance with an open outcome (see ZDF documentary).
My feeling is that, in the face of the unthinking advance of green ideology, we are turning into a lack of freedom in terms of domestic policy and, since the war in Ukraine, we have even been silent to death in terms of foreign policy. You have to pay tribute to ZDF, which has already done this several times (e.g. https://www.zdf.de/verbraucher/wiso/blackout-in-deutschland–reale-gefahr-100.html) to have broken this silence of the ÖRR with regard to controversial topics and suppressed truths.
We can only hope that our civil society will take the ZDF as an example and finally summon up the courage to put an end to the dangerous activities of purely ideologically motivated politicians.
Sir, unlike Western politicians, the Russians have never threatened to use nuclear bombs for the first time. They have put their nuclear forces on alert based on their analysis of the situation of being at war with NATO and that is reasonable from their point of view.
Never say never.....
Official statements and individual opinions mix in the Ukraine conflict (see https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/ukraine-krise/wirre-szene-im-russen-tv-generalleutnant-droht-mit-atomschlag-gegen-berlin_id_149720852.html) into a highly toxic mixture. That makes this nuclear power game what it is: a gamble with a highly uncertain outcome for us all
I am with Mr. Löcke on this. The silence of the majority with regard to the constant escalation of the Ukraine conflict increases the risk of a nuclear conflict and endangers the survival of us all to an unprecedented and almost unimaginable extent. We should urgently and collectively reject the fatalism of some of those involved before it is too late.
Dear Mr. Aßmann, if you are with Mr. Löcke, why do you refer to such a shallow and tendentious Focus text that is not even dated, let alone authorized? The words ("Let's talk about this instead: a fed German citizen whose butt is already freezing in view of the coming winter. He should understand if there is an attack: The most important decision-making center is Berlin.") of a general during a talk show appearance possibly completely misinterpreted? Because by "attack" he means a NATO attack and Berlin would be a second strike target? Which neither meets the Russian custom of strong words nor any other classification? Where I would prefer to check the translation myself for the above reasons? The Focus is in no way inferior to its Hamburg rival as a propaganda catapult. As a reader, you waste your time there. Instead, I look for well-founded information in new media, such as this one from Munich or that one from St. Petersburg:
https://www.anti-spiegel.ru/2022/wer-droht-mit-dem-einsatz-von-atomwaffen/
Your answer is in line with the system. It assumes that going back to the source and greater attention by journalists can help to clarify facts and create transparency and that journalists only need to do better research to get to the truth. But what if journalists are not negligent, but do not want to follow up? Because they know exactly what is being played and also know the impact that digging deeper would have on their lives and careers? Politics is like an iceberg. The public only sees the part above water, if at all. Journalists also know a lot about the part under water. They can only talk about it if they don't care about their future. That's why many insights and confessions come from politicians and journalists who are no longer in the profession. There are no true secret-keepers among them. Betrayal of secrets is punishable by death or at least the destruction of one's livelihood.
The Yanks, and by that I don't mean the majority of Americans, but the current administration will screw us. Remember Mrs. Nuland. Fucking Europe. Anyone who hasn't seen the light yet is a pitiable contemporary.....
I recently read the expression "over-news-ed and under-informed" somewhere, which I find very apt in the context you describe. And it has indeed become difficult to pause, to investigate more deeply, to seek discourse and to review our own attitudes because the pace at which we are being led from one crisis mode to the next is accelerating so rapidly. We are somehow permanently in the eye of the hurricane and it is challenging to maintain any kind of inner balance. And to cry more often instead of reading the next news item. That's how I felt today when I read about an 80-year-old Holocaust survivor who is threatened with forced vaccination.
A quote attributed to the US author John Naisbitt comes to mind. It means: "We thirst for knowledge, but drown in information." A nice example of "studying sources" - in the spirit of Peter Löcke! - are the efforts of some Wikipedians: https://de.wikiquote.org/wiki/Diskussion:John_Naisbitt