Michael Mannheimer’s Final Post?

Hans-Dietrich Genscher

Long-time readers will remember Michael Mannheimer, the German author and activist who was featured here a number of times beginning in 2010 (his archive is here).

A couple of days ago I received this note from a reader:

I think Michael Mannheimer (a.k.a. Karl-Michael Markle) has died. I know you have worked with him in the past.

I noticed he did not blog/comment for a week, I went looking.

His dying comments… He’d been “poisoned”, arsenic.

I don’t know where he lived (in exile), I think maybe Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam or somewhere like that. But he stated he’d never felt so bad, could not get medical assistance. And then all went silent.

It could be that he’s in hospital. But I fear the worst.

Then yesterday an obituary was posted on his website.

I have no independent verification of Mr. Mannheimer’s death. However, Hellequin GB has kindly translated what may be the author’s final post:

NATO expansion to the east: Russia was disgracefully deceived, lied to and duped. Now it is striking back in military self-defense

The reversal of what was once good into absolute evil

After the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, at the time of millions of mass shootings, at the time of the Jewish-run gulags, at the time of the three Ukrainian holodomors and later, in the time of the Cold War, the bad guys were the countries of the Soviet Union. And the countries of the West, above all the USA, were considered the good guys. But the further the Cold War recedes in history, the more information from the past decades emerges, and the more questionable the above-mentioned axiom of the good West and the bad East becomes. There is no question: for the majority of the people living there, the West as a whole was considerably freer than the East. But as far as politics is concerned, I see less and less of a difference between the two power blocs. Not the USSR, but the USA is by far the most warlike country in modern times.

USA: over 200 wars since its inception

In the 231 years since its founding, the United States of America has itself fought a total of 219 wars, intervened militarily or been involved in acts similar to war, for example through secret service involvement in terrorist attacks, attempted coups and coups on the territory of another state. The USA itself was not attacked once. The list below on the sources of this chapter makes it impressively clear that the aggressive policy currently being pursued against Russia in the Ukraine conflict is no exception, but has been a tradition for centuries. The systematic warfare of the USA and its vassals has now developed into an essential and important branch of the economy, comparable to mechanical engineering in Germany. Defense companies and the finance and investment industry earn billions from wars and armed conflicts. So we have every reason to be concerned. Because a war against Russia would be just one more item on a never-ending list of more than 200 acts of war committed. Everyone should now be able to answer their own question as to who is the number one terrorist state in the world. Since the end of World War II, from 1946 to the present, US government wars have claimed nearly seven million lives. Mind you, without the dead of both world wars.

The US has eliminated all of its opponents one by one with the help of the CIA, massive arms shipments, military and economic logistics. The US Vietnam War, which is said to have started with a ridiculous attack by a small Vietnamese boat on a US aircraft carrier in the Gulf of Tonkin, was a clear false flag action by the Americans.

Henry Kissinger launched what is believed to be the largest wave of bombings since World War II in all of world history against North Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. No country in the world, including Germany and Japan, has been as devastated by carpet bombing as tiny Southeast Asian Laos. Without these bombings there would have been no Pol Pot, no Khmer Rouge and no genocide in Cambodia. Nevertheless, Kissinger received the Nobel Peace Prize for his “peacekeeping mission”. This prize should be abolished for all time without ifs and buts. The mass murderer Arafat received it (billions of euros given to him by the EU for the construction of Palestine were found in his private accounts),Obama even received it before taking up his presidency — and as it turned out later, there was no president in US history who waged more wars during his tenure than the “Nobel Peace Prize Laureate” and Muslim-by-birth Barack Hussein Obama.

The current conflict in Ukraine also came primarily from the United States, which wants to weaken Russia and present it as an aggressor. The military media complex of the US Deep State works so perfectly that the vast majority of people fall for the lies of the media regarding alleged Russian atrocities. But it’s exactly the opposite: since Maidan 2015, the right-wing fascist government in Kyiv, which is close to National Socialism, has brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of Russians. ( I reported in detail: Ukraine: “The daily and bestial terror, including mass murder of Russians living in Ukraine, which was hushed up by the West”). All of them are citizens of Ukraine who have been living there for centuries — whereby the fascist government in Kyiv is massively supported by NATO and also by the unspeakable regime of the Federal Republic of Germany, in which the “fight against the right” and against “National Socialism” is evident in a strange way that is only limited to the FRG, while it is courted with all honors in countries like the Ukraine.

Am I now a friend of Putin for defending him? Not at all. Putin is undoubtedly a tyrant, but so was Obama and is Joe Biden, in at least the same, if not as overt, way as Putin. And compared to Churchill and Roosevelt, Putin looks like an orphan. As always, I want to clarify the truth. The truth is that concerning Russia in 1990 we completely lied to each other about the reunification in that we categorically ruled out any eastward expansion of NATO. This is now disputed by NATO countries including Germany. According to the deniers of NATO expansion, there is no written treaty that expressly forbids NATO expansion to the east. But fortunately there are still plenty of sources that support NATO’s sacred promise.

Evidence showing that Russia is correct in its claim that NATO categorically ruled out eastward enlargement in 1990

PROOF A — Video (duration: 25 seconds)

NATO eastward expansion: New find from 1991 supports Russian accusation

PROOF B — (photo)

Der Spiegel editors acted very surprised in view of a meeting transcript from 1991, in which a promise to Russia is actually mentioned not to expand NATO to the east. Although one hates to admit that the Russians are right, the truth has always been discoverable.

All of a sudden Der Spiegel announces an archive find . After all, there are documents showing that assurances about NATO not expanding were part of the two-plus-four negotiations. This fact has been disputed by the Western side for years; To date, NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg has said nothing about it. Now a US political scientist is said to have discovered a document in the British National Archives that supports the “Russian accusation”.

The memorandum to which “Der Spiegel” refers quotes German representative Jürgen Chrobog at a meeting “of the political directors of the foreign ministries of the USA, Great Britain, France and Germany in Bonn on March 6, 1991”. According to the memo, Chrobog said:

“In the two-plus-four negotiations we made it clear that we would not expand NATO beyond the Elbe. We can therefore not offer NATO membership to Poland and the others.”

However, as everyone knows, Poland and the others were accepted into NATO, promises or not. And to crown the audacity, it was and is alternatively claimed that these assurances never existed or that they are not valid because they were not fixed in writing. As if it were about the purchase contract for a used car and not about global security. However, sources have been available here in the West throughout this time, confirming these assurances. So the supposed sensation of Der Spiegel is not a sensation at all.

The American political scientist Michael Mandelbaum, who was after all an advisor to the Clinton administration, devotes an entire chapter in his 2016 book “Mission Failure” to this promise and its breach, under the heading “Russia: The Evil Deed”. He describes Clinton’s decision to admit Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic into NATO, thereby breaking the promise to Russia, as the decisive geostrategic mistake in US policy in recent decades.

According to him, it was Bill Clinton himself who single-handedly decided to walk away from the pledge without consulting his Secretary of Defense — who would have opposed it — or even involving the entire cabinet. The real reason for this decision, according to Mandelbaum, was of a domestic nature. “Americans with roots in the prospective new member countries lobbied for their inclusion in the Alliance. Republican politicians, wanting to maintain their reputation for foreign policy clout that had served them so well during the Cold War, pushed for enlargement.” For example, Clinton wanted to secure the votes of Polish-born US voters.

Mandelbaum not only confirms the existence of these commitments. He also writes: “Russia accepted NATO expansion because it had no choice. She lacked the political or economic strength to stop them, and military resistance was out of the question. But Russians have never seen this expansion as fair, legitimate, or indeed anything other than a betrayal of Western promises and an assault on Russian rights and interests.” All political tendencies in Russia agree on this.

In addition, Mandelbaum is definitely an advocate of US aspirations for power, not for their opponent. One cannot accuse him of being hostile to the West. Nor is he the only source to confirm that the pledge to Russia actually existed. And yet the historically clearly incorrect version had become so successful over time that Der Spiegel now praises the evidence of historical truth as if it had discovered a lost Bach cantata. The question that arises, however, is rather: Why? Or: Why now? It is clear that for real development of relations with Russia in a more peaceful direction, public perception needs to be corrected, certain historical facts need to be reconsidered. But one swallow does not make a summer, and a U-turn by the transatlantic assault gun Spiegel cannot yet be recognized in the supposed discovery. Maybe it was just about polishing up your own image a bit. The future will tell.

Twelve of the former Warsaw Pact countries are now members of NATO, and if Ukraine were included, it would be 13

There would then no longer be any buffer zone between NATO and Russia, and NATO troops would be in army strength only a few kilometers from the Russian border.

In a memorable speech about two weeks ago, Putin made the comparison this way: Imagine Russian troops standing army-strength on the US-Canadian border and army-strength on the Mexican-American border. Mind you, with the most modern weapon systems, including medium- and long-range nuclear missiles, which, in terms of their destructive power, would not be far removed from the famous Tsar Bomba of the 1950s. Ten of these tsar bombs would be enough to transform the entire United States into a lunar landscape. Would the Americans put up with this? They wouldn’t. They would’ve been threatening the USSR with complete annihilation through their own nuclear weapons capability if the Russians don’t withdraw to their vast country from the US border.

Russian TV host threatens nuclear “destruction” of America

This is exactly what is happening in Russia at the moment: A few days ago, one of the most well-known TV presenters threatened the total nuclear destruction of the USA if they wanted to incorporate Ukraine into NATO: March 1, 2022, video (duration: 46 seconds).

A Russian TV presenter, dubbed “Putin’s chief propagandist,” has threatened nuclear destruction of America and NATO countries, asking, “When Russia isn’t there, what do we need the world for?” Dmitry Kiselyov commented on state television only hours after President Vladimir Putin put his nuclear deterrent forces on high alert.

“Our submarines can launch more than 500 nuclear warheads,” Kiselyov said, adding: “It would guarantee the destruction of the United States and all other NATO countries.

The TV presenter took the view that life on earth would be meaningless if Russia no longer existed: “According to the principle: what do we need the world for if Russia does not exist?” Kiselev went on to highlight the strength of Moscow, praising the nuclear arsenal: “Russia’s nuclear weapons are delivered by the world’s fastest strategic bombers. Not to mention the Russian Strategic Missile Forces. Russia’s nuclear potential is the strongest in the world”. Yesterday, Putin ordered his nuclear forces to implement a “special regime of operations” in response to NATO leaders’ “aggressive statements” and economic sanctions. NATO officials described the move as a dangerous escalation, and Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg replied, “That’s dangerous rhetoric.”

Anyone who, like me, can survey the past 60 years politically from my own personal experience will know that such a threat was unprecedented in the decades-long conflict between East and West. And one can assume that Russia, knowing full well that it cannot keep up either economically or with the highly-armed military technology of the West, will heed this warning if it [Ukraine] joins NATO. That would be not just the end of the US, not just the end of Russia, but given the 20,000 nuclear warheads both countries possess, it would be the certain end of homo sapiens on the blue planet.

Throughout the history of wars, false information has been deliberately spread in order to distract people from a country’s true intentions, to manipulate them and incite them against a supposed opponent.

The situation in Ukraine is getting worse. US intelligence services have announced that a Russian invasion is planned for “Tuesday or Wednesday”. Well, if US intelligence claims something, alarm bells should be ringing for the practiced observer of world history! Is it the same intelligence agencies that had “firm leads” to Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (the existence of which was ultimately fictitious) that were then used to justify the second Gulf War? Or is it the same US secret services that had no clues about the attacks of September 11, 2001, but then quickly presented the perpetrators and their IDs? A “false flag operation” (Operation Northwood) was also prepared for the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962 in order to pass the buck on to Russia in the event of an escalation.

Throughout the history of wars, false information has been deliberately spread in order to distract people from a country’s true intentions, to manipulate them and incite them against a supposed opponent. The real intent of US foreign policy is to prevent Russia from rapprochement with Europe. Nothing has been feared more for more than 100 years. Because the USA would then be isolated far away across the Atlantic.

Should Russia and the EU unite, the US world power position would be gone. Therefore, according to US President Wilson’s suggestion in 1918, one must above all prevent a merger. The best way to prevent this is to leave the Eurasian Plate to none of these two powers. And Ukraine is one of the central points of this Eurasian plate.

But what does Russia want? While the real background of US foreign policy is being shrouded, Russia is playing with an open visor. After several NATO eastward expansions, a red line was crossed with offers to Ukraine and Georgia to also join NATO. Everything that is happening now could have been prevented if Russia’s security interests had been taken seriously ten years ago.

The Chronology: How the US Risks World War III Over Ukraine


Western media portray it as if Russia is planning an attack on Ukraine and at the same time hide how the USA is pouring fuel on the fire and escalating the situation to the point of a major war. I want to show that here using the chronology of the last few days.

To understand what the current escalation between the West and Russia is all about, we have to go back six weeks. At the beginning of December there was a phone call between Putin and Biden, during which Putin demanded security guarantees. It was agreed that Russia would put its proposals on paper, which Russia did in mid-December. And not only that, Russia even published them, so they are known to the world’s public; you can read them here.

What Russia proposes

Russia has proposed mutual security guarantees to the US and NATO, the main demands being the following:

1.   No NATO military maneuvers near the Russian border, no Russian military maneuvers near the borders of NATO countries
2.   No stationing of medium-range nuclear-capable missiles in Europe, including in the European part of Russia
3.   No stationing of nuclear weapons outside of one’s own country (which would also mean withdrawing American nuclear weapons from Europe)
4.   Do not allow bombers to patrol so close to each other’s borders that an attack would be possible
5.   Do not get warships so close to each other’s borders that they could attack them with missiles
6.   Return to the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which prohibits permanent stationing of NATO troops in Eastern Europe

The Russian proposals would make a real contribution to security in Europe, because removing arms from the borders and, above all, not stationing medium-range nuclear missiles reduces the risk of an accidental war. The catch is that while all of Russia’s proposals are reciprocal, in practice they mean that the US would have to withdraw its nuclear weapons from Europe and Turkey and its troops from Eastern Europe, where, for example, it has only just built its so-called missile defense system, naturally operated by US soldiers.

The Russian proposals were followed by some saber-rattling on the part of the West, which I have summarized in a timeline of events from mid to late December, which you can find here.

The discussions

From January 10, three rounds of talks between the West and Russia took place in just a few days, but they ended without any results. From the very first meeting, Russia made it clear to the US that Russia is serious and that the most important Russian demands are guarantees that NATO will not be expanded any more, that US troops will withdraw from Eastern Europe and that no US missiles will be within range of the Russian borders; you can read the details here.

It was foreseeable that the USA would not be prepared to accept this. However, Russia has made it clear from the start that there is no point in continuing the talks if there is no progress on these issues. You can understand Russia, because the USA would certainly react very harshly if Russia were to station its nuclear missiles and soldiers in Cuba and on the Mexican border. But the US has never been sympathetic to the security concerns of others.

The talks have therefore been suspended for the time being, and the USA has promised to send Russia its written answers to the Russian proposals this week. If the US shows a willingness to talk about the central issues, the chances for further talks are good, otherwise the talks are likely to be over, especially since Russia has announced a “military-technical” answer in the event of it to ensure its security.

Disinformation in Western Media

In the West rhetoric has intensified, and Der Spiegel and other media now feature several articles a day warning of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, instead of reporting on the heart of the matter, which is the talks of the past week. Westerners are thus distracted from the fact that it was Russia, and not the West, that insisted on the talks on mutual security guarantees and that the West would not budge on anything.

Instead, the Western media are now reporting every day that the EU, NATO and the USA are willing to talk, but Russia doesn’t want to talk. The fact that Russia would very much like to talk if there were anything to discuss is not mentioned. But what should Russia talk about with the West if the West refuses to talk about security guarantees?

Are Europeans suicidal?

You don’t have to share the Russians’ concerns, but the question of whether Ukraine is worth a third World War should start to be asked in the capitals of the West — and especially Europe. Russia seems to be ready for anything in the event of a massive move by NATO forces into Ukraine, so why is the West doing this? Especially since the US clearly says that they do not want war with Russia over Ukraine, which means that in the event of war, NATO will quickly withdraw from Ukraine. The answer should be obvious: the US wants to involve Russia in a new and expensive proxy war right on the Russian border and in the middle of Europe. This is neither in the Russian nor in the European interest — not to mention Ukraine’s.

Afterword from the translator:

The following quote is from Sefton Delmer (1904-1979), former British Chief of ‘Black propaganda’ (he said this after the German surrender, in 1945, in a conversation with the German professor of international law, Dr. Friedrich Grimm). I took the liberty of changing the nationality from German to Russian.

“Atrocity propaganda is how we won the war. And we’re only really beginning with it now! We will continue this atrocity propaganda, we will escalate it until nobody will accept even a good word from the Russians, until all the sympathy they may still have abroad will have been destroyed and they themselves will be so confused that they will no longer know what they are doing. Once that has been achieved, once they begin to run down their own country and their own people, not reluctantly but with eagerness to please the victors, only then will our victory be complete. It will never be final. Re-education needs careful tending, like an English lawn. Even one moment of negligence, and the weeds crop up again — those indestructible weeds of historical truth.”

Sefton Delmer told a new recruit:

“We are waging against Hitler (Putin) a kind of total war of wits. Anything goes, so long as it serves to bring nearer the end of the war and Hitler’s (Putin’s) defeat. We are up to all the dirty tricks we can devise. No holds are barred. The dirtier the better. Lies, treachery, everything.” (Black Boomerang, p. 181)

“I gazed into the mirror… There, staring at me, was the pallid, flabby-mouthed face of a crook” Sefton Delmer, Black Boomerang, p. 218)

I guess everybody gets where I’m going with this.

10 thoughts on “Michael Mannheimer’s Final Post?


    Machine translation of a comment:


    >> Copy of a new comment from MM Blog

    Peter Helmes says:

    MARCH 24, 2022 AT 1:59 PM
    @ Gandalf:

    Unfortunately, we now have certainty:

    Here is the “official certainty” : According to MM’s sister Karin he died on 13.3. of a heart attack, the embassy had informed her because of settlement of the estate etc….

    My comment : So on 28 Feb. poisoned according to MM’s own comments on his blog until March 12. And now finally on 13 March 2022 died of heart attack ?

    Assumption : What MM wrote is correct, but the hospital or the embassy in Hungary have made it easy for themselves. Otherwise they would have had to do an autopsy in case of poisoning and possibly a police report ?
    police report ?!?

    Anyway RIP <<

    • I think arsenic poisoning can lead to a heart attack among other things. The best form of deception is where you can bang on the desk making true statements.

  2. Why would any one bother murdering him?
    It’s not like many people have heard of him.
    Even if he is writing the truth, its not like he was well known around the world.

  3. An excellent article. Pure voice of reason, which sadly will hardly be heard in the cacophony of Russia-bashing hysteria.

    But, please, tell me, are the men and women who govern modern-day Western states as stupid as they seem? Or are pretending to mislead the enemy?

  4. Kiseliov is top propagandist in Russia, his salary is 1 mln USD per month. It’s big money in Russia, is not given for nothing. And evidently he does a good job. The author is poisoned by the likes of Kiseliov:

    ‘right-wing fascist government in Kyiv, which is close to National Socialism, has brutally slaughtered tens of thousands of Russians’
    ‘Putin is undoubtedly a tyrant, but so was Obama and is Joe Biden’
    ‘Compared to Churchill and Roosevelt, Putin looks like an orphan’

    These are 100% russian propaganda words.

    ‘Special regime of operations’ of nuclear forces is another nonsense. As experts explain nuclear forces are always on minute readiness. They can’t be made ‘more’ ready.

    The author starts with millions of mass shootings in 1917 and Holodomor – only later to be explained away by ‘new understanding’ that US is actually worse.

    I know that objects in the distance look prettier. But this is different problem I think. On the right I see mirror image of the left. Whereas the leftists want to portray themselves as the best of the best, the noblest, the most caring, inclusive, tolerant – and the smartest, the right wants to see themselves as evil of the evils, so bad, that no one could even come close, as despicable as one can imagine, only much worse than that.
    Funny, I see that pattern everywhere. And we know what it is – false pride and lack of humility. It is a different way of saying – we are the masters.

    As for Ukraine, things could be solved quickly. And perhaps they will be. Ukraine could counter-attack right now and solve everything in a week. Russians are exhausted. But Ukraine doesn’t have enough heavy arms – tanks, artillery, planes. It’s a stalemate, with positional advantage to Ukraine (because their supply is closer). Why is it so that they don’t have nothing? Well, it’s a corrupt country. They traded their weapons to Africa and elsewhere. Didn’t prepare for the war. No one is perfect.
    But NATO (and Biden admin) is afraid of Russia, and in particular of Russia’s defeat (read Buchanan, he explains it best), so Ukraine is given only guerrilla war weapons (stingers, javelin). The west wants Russia to be weakened, but not defeated. Ukraine was supposed to fall within 72 hours. And people stick to that idea, even if reality clearly contradicts it.

    The situation is made unnecessarily more dangerous. If russia learns, that the red button works so well, they will use it on a daily basis. First to lift off the sanctions. Then for everything else. Sooner or later more serious confrontation will come, inevitably involving nuclear card. The bluff will have to be called. It can be easily done right now. Ukraine is ready to defeat Russia.

    Mind we are not talking about blue-yellow flag over Kremlin. But military defeat must come first, then russian people come to the streets, then special services liquidate Putin, as always happened in the course of Russian history.

    History is unfolding before us. And it is a heap of misunderstandings, as always has been.

    • “west wants Russia to be weakened, but not defeated.”
      agree and biden moved the embadsy from kiev to leopol on 15 february… so they were already confident in leaving at least half of the country to russia.

      “Ukraine is ready to defeat Russia.”
      these kind of wars always involve the border super powers and ukraine has 2 super powers at its borders: russia and the west, who already agreed to leave at least half country to russia. biden and the west do not want direct confrontation, but they would like to transform it in a permanent guerilla more or like syria, lybia or afghanistan, just to weaken their enemy for as long as they can…

      the iron curtain is almost definetly restored and ukraine is simply not a viable country anymore and can no longer exists as it was before.

      countries do not solely exist by themselves and by fighting wars, but always as result of agreements of many other countries at its borders and superpowers…

      • This war is not between Russia and Ukraine. It is between Russia and the US. Zelensky and all his team are nothing more than US puppets. Ukraine is ruled from the US embassy. Ukrainians are used by the US as cannon fodder. Ukraine is a battering ram to destroy Russia. All the rest is propaganda.

  5. Russia has proposed mutual security guarantees to the US and NATO, the main demands being the following:

    1. No NATO military maneuvers near the Russian border, no Russian military maneuvers near the borders of NATO countries
    2. No stationing of medium-range nuclear-capable missiles in Europe, including in the European part of Russia
    3. No stationing of nuclear weapons outside of one’s own country (which would also mean withdrawing American nuclear weapons from Europe)
    4. Do not allow bombers to patrol so close to each other’s borders that an attack would be possible
    5. Do not get warships so close to each other’s borders that they could attack them with missiles
    6. Return to the NATO-Russia Founding Act, which prohibits permanent stationing of NATO troops in Eastern Europe

    If politicians and common people thought like these ideas that are in these proposals, we wouldn’t have had world War I and II. Or the battle Jena.

    ” But people are evil and are designed to stay evil. ”

    That quotation is not mine. I read it in 1965 in an article about WW2 , where the writer was blaming all parties for thwe disaster.

    “Lest we should forget”

    We have forgotten already except those who smelt blood when walking among corpses.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.