That 'peace' manifesto


"“Dog whistle politics” is the practice of sending out coded political messages or subtle signals, which are designed to be understood only by a narrow target audience."

(Political dictionary)

"Plausible deniability is the ability to deny any involvement in illegal or unethical activities, because there is no clear evidence to prove involvement."

(Political dictionary

A couple German celebrities and failed politicians (former left/far left party leaders) have recently promoted a manifesto for peace in Ukraine. I do vehemently disagree with the proposal that compromises should be made with the aggressor Russia (presumably by Ukraine), but that's a matter of opinion. Some people value peace more than freedom, and I do sympathise with the "Lieber rot als tot" (Rather red than dead) attitude of the 80's peace movement, for example.

Another key demand of the manifesto is to stop the "escalation" of arms deliveries. It's rather confusing how supposed peace activists could oppose the remaining arms deliveries escalation stage of delivering combat aircraft that would be used to stop cruise missiles from hitting civilian buildings and installations, including playgrounds.

- - - - -

The manifesto was not received by the news media in a literal sense. In my impression they did largely report that it was against arms deliveries, if they reported contents at all.

That's why I brought up the two quotes first: The manifesto is in my opinion somewhat dirty rhetoric.

The authors wrote a manifesto that says very little, but implies very much. It's not meant to be read as it's written (dog whistle), and the difference between the wording and the message is supposed to provide plausible deniability against charges that it's favouring the aggressor Russia.

It's fair to say that the manifesto and the political demonstration of reportedly 13,000 people were meant to create political pressure against arms deliveries in general, not just against "escalations" of arms deliveries.

That sounds radical and pro-aggression today, but it was actually ordinary German law and practice until we delivered weapons to the Kurds for the fight against daesh a couple years ago. 


BTW, I don't think that the authors of the manifesto were bribed by Russia to do it. I think they're deluding themselves into thinking that what they want is feasible and smart.





  1. How much influence do they actually have?

    1. They signal opposition to the policy, but there's no real political pressure.
      No ruling coalition politician will fear election defeat because of this.

  2. So, "useful idiots" as far as the Russians are concrned?

    1. Yes, but ineffective ones.

      Germany is a democracy with political freedom. It would be conspicuous if there was no voiced opposition to government policy considering that at least 5% of the people of any nation appear to be idiots (in Germany at least 15% of the people are at least partial idiots).

    2. By the 15% are you referring to the cumulative votes for the far-left (Die Linke) and the far-right (AfD) in the 2021 federal election?

    3. I was referring to my long-time assertion that every country has its share of dangerous idiots

      I suppose that all parties receive support by dangerous idiots and some voters of far left and far rights are not dangerous idiots.
      The true share in all countries is likely in the 5...20% range by my estimate, and it could grow to ~40% if the society is under great stress (Germany '31-'33).

      Recovery from turning into a dangerous idiot is unlikely; relapse appears to be likely if the individual is under stress.

  3. The NATO approach seems very middle of the road. Dripping some weapons here and there, promoting in the press that they turn the tide of war feels very wonder weapon like.

    Either provide all necessary weapons and resources and unified political support to actually win, or get to an agreement quick and end it.

    This is just throwing your young men into a meat grinder.

    There is a very big spectrum within "we". The effect of this war for more wealthy people who are safe from the effects of war are very different from the poor young generation who will actually have to die in a ditch when drafted and get hit by inflation hard at home drafted or not .

    The more negatively effected people personally are by government policy, the more the are against it.

    If those points could be addressed it would help. People like to be on the winning side and actually benefit personally as well.