Die gemeinsame Russland-Politik?!?!?!?!? Ich will dem ins Gesicht brüllen:

"Noch sitzt ihr da oben, ihr feigen Gestalten, vom Feinde bezahlt und dem Volke zum Spott. Doch einst wird wieder Gerechtigkeit walten, dann richtet das Volk und dann Gnade Euch Gott."

Dann Sack über den Kopf und dort rauslassen, wo er sieht, was seine dreckigen Protofaschistenkampfgenossen anrichten, die wir finanzieren.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElRtv0C0PEM&feature=youtu.be

Erschreckend auch in diesem Zusammenhang, was Hörstel hier schreibt und ich hoffe wirklich, dass der gute Mann übertreibt, bzw. überinterpretiert. Bei Gott ich hoffe es!
Hörstel:
“Flurfunk” Berlin: Ukraine-Krieg im März! Bis dahin: Kriegshetze! Jetzt: Widerstand vorbereiten!
In Berlin wird geredet, dass der Krieg im März in der Ukraine startet. Bis dahin hat Washington mit europäischer Hilfe genügend Material dorthin geschafft – und alle angrenzenden Länder und die Nato-Präsenz dort “hochgefahren”. Rechtzeitig scheitert der ganze Minsker Friedensmechanismus. Damit wir uns nicht missverstehen: Washingtons korrupte Elite befindet sich seit Ende 2014 mit Russland im Krieg; Schauplatz: Ukraine etc.. (Hörstel-Facebook)

Ich könnt schon wieder mehr kotzen als ich gegessen habe (War eh nur ein Salat heut Mittag)!

Gruß, Bernadette

Damit macht er sich sehr mächtige Feinde, wie man bereits überall merkt:

"So, from the early 1980s onwards, the main game in Washington was how to reinforce U.S. financial capital through the creation of a highly deflationary international environment.

By extension, the rest of the world supplies the United States with com-
modities at noninflationary prices and, meanwhile, the United States
(unlike every other country, including Europe and Japan) does not have to
deal with its deficit. This is very similar to the situation that Britain established in relation to India. From the end of the nineteenth century until the Great War, Britain ran a huge balance of payments deficit. The way it managed to maintain it was by having India export to the rest of the world and by taxing away, in one way or another, the surplus that India generated
through its exports. These capital flows and taxes made it back to the City
of London thus clearing the deficit. This is the model that the United States
has been emulating in the last twenty years. Instead, however, of using this policy with a single country (as Britain had done), they applied it to the
rest of the world (especially so after the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellites).

A brief perusal of the Federal Reserve’s research papers over the past ten years would easily convince the reader that the U.S. authorities see the greenback as a strategic asset. The drive to dollarize whole foreign
economies, especially in Latin America, is to be understood as part of the
same mindset. Dollarization means that the U.S. dollar becomes the
country’s de facto local currency. The main effect, from the U.S. per-
spective, of this move is that the demand for dollars then depends not
only on the international transactions of other countries but on the
domestic transactions of the dollarized economies as well. This gives the
United States added political leverage and reduces further the preoccu-
pation with external debt. The reason is simple: as dollars are now being
increasingly demanded by foreigners for their own domestic purposes,
the U.S. balance of payments plays a decreasing role in shaping the dol-
lar’s value in the international money markets. "

"In November 2000, Richard Haass, the current director of policy plan-
ning in the State Department, strengthened our argument by writing an
essay advocating that the United States adopt an “imperial” foreign policy.
He defined the latter as “a foreign policy that attempts to organize the
world along certain principles affecting relations between states and con-
ditions within them.” This would not be achieved through colonies but
through what he termed “informal control” which would require military
might (if necessary). Global mechanisms such as international financial
markets, the WTO, and the IMF were earmarked as essential devices for
ensuring the dominance of U.S. interests, with the military iron fist back-
ing up the invisible hand of the market (Richard Haass, www.brook.edu)"

"Put simply, the latest U.S. economic miracle has nothing to do with the
flexibility of its labor markets and the entrepreneurship of the average
American; it is simply a direct product of industries that grew out of its
global geostrategic hegemony. Who are the pillars and, at the same time,
the beneficiaries of this strategy? One thing we know for sure is that the
beneficiaries are not the average Americans. In fact, never before have so
few Americans had so much while the many had to survive on relatively so
little. No, the beneficiaries are three sectors of the U.S. economy: energy
multinationals (mostly oil companies), the financial institutions handling
the capital flows from the rest of the world, and the ACE industries hooked
into the U.S. military. As for the rest of the U.S. domestic economy, and the
rest of the world, they are in a state of permanent crisis."

Kompletter Text, 19 höchst lesenswerte Seiten, absolut weitere Verbreitung wert.

Hut ab vor Varoufakis!