«Карибский кризис» мало кто помнит, но много, кто знает.
И многие из тех, кто знает, и немногие из тех, что помнят, частенько пророчат подобный кризис отношениям теперь России и всегда США.
Однако, если взглянуть на историю эволюции «миротворчества» Дональда Фредовича ...
Цитата:
How the Trump-Zelensky relationship evolved after explosive Oval Office meet.
President Trump's relationship with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has taken a U-turn since the leaders' February meeting devolved into a shouting match, with the two expected to discuss supplying Ukraine with game-changing long-range missiles Friday.
The big picture: Trump repeatedly boasted he could end the Russia-Ukraine war on his first day in office, and nine months later he appears poised to up the ante to force Russia to the negotiating table.
Driving the news: The two leaders are expected to meet at the White House Friday to discuss how to spark meaningful peace talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Here's a timeline of what we know about the relationship between the two men:
Feb. 19: Dictator Zelensky
A few weeks before meeting
Zelensky in the Oval Office, Trump called his counterpart a "dictator without elections."
• Ukraine, similar to the United States, has a law postponing elections during times of war.
• "I love Ukraine, but Zelenskyy has done a terrible job, his Country is shattered, and MILLIONS have unnecessarily died – And so it continues," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
Feb. 28: The explosive shouting match
Zelensky visited the White House shortly after to discuss a potential minerals deal, have lunch and hold a joint press conference.
• The pleasantries shattered after an on-camera discussion about how Putin had violated previous peace agreements devolved into a shouting match, with Trump accusing Zelensky of "gambling with World War III."
• Trump also took issue with Zelensky's wardrobe, which Trump insisted was inappropriate for an Oval Office visit.
International allies
rushed to back Zelensky after he was asked to leave the White House, as did Democrats on the Hill.
• The White House later said it was not a premeditated ambush to make Zelensky more agreeable to America's preferred mineral deal guidelines.
After the visit,
Trump posted on Truth Social that Zelensky had "disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office."
• "He can come back when he is ready for Peace," Trump wrote.
April 23: "GET IT DONE"
Trump said Zelensky
had "no cards to play" after Ukraine rejected a U.S.-backed peace agreement that included recognizing Crimea as a Russian territory and blocked Ukraine from joining NATO.
• "Ukraine will not legally recognize the occupation of Crimea," Zelensky told reporters. "There is nothing to talk about. It is against our constitution."
Trump fired back
in a lengthy Truth Social post.
• "It's inflammatory statements like Zelenskyy's that makes it so difficult to settle this War," he wrote.
• "We are very close to a Deal, but the man with "no cards to play" should now, finally, GET IT DONE."
April 26: 15 minutes in Rome
The two leaders met
a few days later on the sidelines of Pope Francis' funeral to again discuss peace.
meeting inside St. Peter's Basilica was the first time the two had spoken since their explosive argument in February.
• The White House called the brief huddle "very productive."
Later that day, Trump criticized
Putin on Truth Social.
• "It makes me think that maybe he doesn't want to stop the war, he's just tapping me along, and has to be dealt with differently, through 'Banking' or 'Secondary Sanctions?' Too many people are dying!!!" Trump wrote.
May 25: "Everything out of his mouth causes problems"
Trump posted a stinging rebuke
of Putin on Truth Social after the Russian president launched a particularly deadly attack on Ukraine and failed to commit to a ceasefire.
• "He has gone absolutely CRAZY! He is needlessly killing a lot of people, and I'm not just talking about soldiers," he wrote.
Trump didn't spare Zelensky
, writing that "everything out of his mouth causes problems, I don't like it, and it better stop."
July 1: Weapon shipments paused
The Pentagon paused some shipments
of precision munitions, including air defense missiles, following a Defense Department review of U.S. military support to other nations.
• The following week, the Pentagon announced it would be sending Ukraine additional weapons after Trump told Zelensky that America wanted to help Ukraine blunt Putin's escalating attacks.
July 14: 50 days and $10 billion in weapons
Trump announced mid-July
that he will sell $10 billion in weapons to NATO, with the supplies eventually reaching Ukraine.
Aug. 18: Zelensky brings backup to D.C.
Zelensky and a gaggle of European leaders arrived in D.C. the week after Trump and Putin met without the Ukrainian president at an inconclusive summit in Alaska.
• The meeting ended without substantial policy agreements but was significantly more cordial than Zelensky's prior Oval Office visit.
Oct. 16: Zelensky's Back
• Zelensky touched down in D.C. on Thursday, for a trip to both the White House and also to meet with energy companies and members of Congress.
... невольно складывается впечатление, что Дональд Фредович превратил Кризис, как Продукт в Кризис, как Процесс, сознательно создавая предпосылки для серьезного противостояния России и США, на каждом следующем витке развития наших отношений.
_________________
С подозрением и отраслевыми пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
ЗакС разрешил будить петербуржцев звоном колоколов в первом чтении законопроекта.
Законодательное собрание Санкт-Петербурга приняло в первом чтении законопроект депутатов от «Единой России». Он разрешает религиозным учреждениям нарушать тишину по утрам в выходные и праздничные дни.
Инициатива, одобренная 19 ноября, отменяет действующий запрет на шум в многоквартирных домах с 8:00 до 12:00 в эти дни.
...
Цитата:
В Петербурге официально разрешат звонить в колокола по утрам в выходные и праздники.
…
Правда, не все поддержали инициативу. Например, депутат Александр Шишлов предположил, что новые правила могут ущемлять права неверующих горожан.
Но всё же большинство слуг народа, а именно 40 депутатов, поддержали инициативу.
Цитата:
«Кому не нравится, может переехать». Депутаты правят закон о тишине, чтобы не считать нарушением колокольный звон утром в выходные.
...
«Ряд действий, связанных с отправлением религиозных культов, проводится в утреннее время в выходные дни и сопровождается нарушением тишины. Например, утренний звон колоколов является частью христианского храмового богослужения и используется в том числе для призыва христиан к богослужению и для оповещения о времени его начала», — пишут авторы закона, депутаты от «Единой России» Валерий Гарнец, Денис Четырбок, Павел Крупник, Анастасия Мельникова и Вера Сергеева.
...
Цитата:
Кресты — не опция.
О мерах по защите религиозных символов.
История с
«крестопадом»
тянулась уже годами: то исчезнут кресты на куполах храма на выставке, то пропадут с герба на сайте Кремля, то вдруг «упростят» геральдику в региональных структурах. Каждый раз — шум, оправдания, срочное исправление.
После серии таких инцидентов депутаты уже запретили искажать религиозные изображения, а теперь и внесли ключевую инициативу: дополнить официальное описание Государственного герба России,
закрепив в нём наличие крестов над коронами и державой
. Теперь убрать крест «по ошибке» будет невозможно — это станет прямым нарушением закона.
🖍И это отнюдь не косметическая правка. Пока кресты нигде не прописаны жёстко, их можно стирать тихо и безнаказанно. Юридическая фиксация превращает
символ в норму, а норму — в обязательство
.
🚩Кресты на гербе — часть культурного кода страны. Их исчезновение из публичного пространства работает по тому же принципу, что и размывание миграционных требований:
шаг за шагом стирается идентичность большинства
, создавая пространство, где нормы начинает диктовать меньшинство.
❗️Законодательное закрепление крестов —
это защита исторической основы
, а не декоративной детали. Тем самым обозначен четкий сигнал, что государственность нельзя «редактировать» под чьи-то вкусы или идеологические пожелания.
_________________
С удовлетворением и понятными пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
Что и требовалось доказать!
И пусть все, кто считает общественное мнение и огласку в СМИ пустым звуком, стыдливо молчат в стороне!
Дорогу осилит идущий!
Цитата:
Судебная коллегия по гражданским делам Верховного суда РФ постановила: в ближайшее время нижестоящему суду рассмотреть иск о принудительном выселении Долиной.
Цитата:
Долина находится в квартире Лурье незаконно, если она не покинет ее добровольно, суд может выселить ее, сообщили в Верховном суде.
Цитата:
"Теперь у Полины есть дом" — адвокат Лурье заявила, что до последнего верила в победу
Она поблагодарила общественность за поддержку, а также Верховый суд за решение, отметив, что правосудие в России есть.
Согласно решению ВС, нижестоящий суду рассмотрит иск о принудительном выселении Долиной, до решения этого суда певица имеет право на проживание в квартире.
Цитата:
Цитата:
Цитата:
Цитата:
Цитата:
Судебную практику по иску Долиной к Лурье можно сравнить с ожидающейся конфискации активов России.
Представьте себе, что Бельгия поддалась нажиму еврочиновников и передала Евросоюзу имеющиеся у нее замороженные активы Банка России.
Банк России предъявляет иск к бельгийскому депозитарию Euroclear в суде Москвы, а Брюссель отвечает, что мол мы не виноваты, нас заставили, вынудили мошенническим путем.
И суд Москвы, по аналогии с решением по иску Долиной, предлагает Банку России искать российские активы у чиновников ЕС.
Цитата:
На судебном заседании по делу Ларисы Долиной, которое рассматривается в Верховном суде, адвокат певицы потребовал закрыть основную часть процесса по жалобе, ссылаясь на медицинские экспертизы. Суд, однако, отклонил эту просьбу.
В свою очередь истец — покупательница квартиры потребовала принудительно выселить Долину из жилья. По её словам, поведение артистки в момент сделки свидетельствовало о том, что она полностью осознавала свои действия.
Цитата:
Цитата:
Верховный суд РФ проведет трансляцию заседания, на котором будет рассмотрена жалоба Полины Лурье, требующей признать законной сделку купли-продажи квартиры певицы Ларисы Долиной в Хамовниках, сообщили в пресс-службе суда.
Цитата:
Сегодня Верховному суду предстоит вынести решение по делу, о котором без преувеличения слышала вся страна. После рассмотрения жалобы Полины Лурье по разбирательству о продаже квартиры Ларисы Долиной суд либо «засилит» решение нижестоящей инстанции и таким образом легализует «Эффект Долиной», либо отменит и направит дело на новое рассмотрение, подав судьям соответствующий сигнал.
У Верховного суда также есть возможность вынести решение по существу, но пока нет понимания, воспользуется ли он ею.
На фоне ожидания суда число запросов «Схема Долиной» в интернете выросло еще на 209% — с 26,5 тысяч в ноябре против 82,1 тысяч в декабре.
Цитата:
Международная ассоциация юристов вступилась за покупательницу квартиры Долиной.
Нижестоящие суды допустили грубую ошибку, не взыскав денежные средства с продавца, получившего квартиру назад. Об этом сообщает "Коммерсантъ" со ссылкой на ассоциацию.
_________________
С интересом и очевидными ожиданиями, Dimitriy.
Верховный суд разрешил демонстрацию нацистской символики для критики нацистской идеологии.
ВС рекомендовал судам при рассмотрении дел тщательно оценивать контекст, цели и умысел действий. Ключевым условием для привлечения к ответственности остается наличие пропаганды или оправдания нацистской идеологии, а не сам факт демонстрации символики.
Осторожный, боязливый, трудный, но верный шаг к торжеству здравого смысла.
А.п. родился в 65, в детстве, как все дети играл в войну и помнит, как никто не хотел быть «фашистом».
Символы и атрибутика фашизма не были запрещены, свастику, отдельные элементы и символы можно было изображать без опасений. Такое поведение не запрещалось и не преследовалось, но осуждалось и вызывало закономерное удивление, непонимание, моральный и нравственный протест.
Характерным примером общественного осуждения считался простой и понятный довод вида: «твой отец/дед воевал, войну прошел, до Берлина дошел, а ты…!» И того всегда хватало, по тому, что войну проходили очно и заочно все.
...
60-70-е запомнились а.п., прежде всего, взвешенным трезвым отношением к войне.
Разумеется, были и перегибы, и вранье, и много вранья, но советские люди 60-70-х интересовались правдой победы, основанной на реальных исторических событиях, на историческом знании, на документах и фактах.
Война переосмысливалась, проживалась заново, многие события переоценивались и изменяли свою историческую значимость. Вера в победу закономерно дополнялась и восполнялась своим Знанием.
...
СВО очень сильно отличается от ВОВ не столько видами и средствами ее ведения, не только своими политическими, экономическими, социальными, историческими, культурными обстоятельствами, но прежде всего тем, что вера Победы и знание Победы сегодня работают
одновременно
.
В отличии от наших отцов и дедов (прадедов), для нас,
наша война и наш мир реализуются не последовательно, а параллельно
.
Именно поэтому
наша вера в Победу неразрывно связывается окружающей нас войной с нашим о Ней знанием
.
В то же время наше государство, наше оборонное ведомство, наши политики и наши чиновники не могут, не хотят этого понять, всеми силами ограничивая наше знание о Победе сверх всякой меры, оскорбляясь нашими обоснованными вопросами, превращая живую веру в Победу в мертвый догмат, когда одно только подозрение в знании, сиречь сомнение, тут же нарекается ересью и требует своего «костра».
В результате имеем целых три войны: одну религиозную официальную, другую околонаучную народную и третью - настоящую фактическую.
Не много ли войн для одного СВО?
В завершении поста.
Всякая конструктивная критика подразумевает практический совет, позволяющий установить разумный баланс между либеральным Знанием Победы и патриотичной Верой в нее.
Где и как проходит такая граница?
Такая граница проходит по Услуге, точнее по Рекламе, когда для ИСО>ЕСО, например для России:
- Вера в Победу – продукт;
- Знание о Победе - процесс.
И ни один из них не должен подавлять другого: Вера не должна становится Знанием, а Знание Верой.
_________________
С пониманием и отраслевыми пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
Песков: Путин прикладывает все возможные усилия для разрядки на Ближнем Востоке.
…
"Путин, безусловно, будет прикладывать и прикладывает все усилия для того, чтобы способствовать хотя бы незначительной разрядке напряженности. В этой связи практически со всеми собеседниками вчера речь шла о том, что
Путин передаст и глубокую озабоченность в связи с ударами по их инфраструктуре
(выделено а.п.) нашим коллегам в Иране, пользуясь возможностью того диалога, который мы поддерживаем с иранским руководством", - сказал представитель Кремля.
...
Цитата:
Россия готова стать точкой сборки для Персидского залива.
…
На фоне агрессии Израиля и США против Ирана и стремительного расширения конфликта на территорию стран Персидского залива президент России в понедельник провел серию телефонных переговоров с лидерами ближневосточных государств – Бахрейна, Катара, Объединенных Арабских Эмиратов и Саудовской Аравии.
…
В свою очередь, президент ОАЭ обратил внимание, что конфликт уже затронул его страну и создает угрозу мирным жителям, при том что Эмираты «не используются как плацдарм для атак на Иран».
Путин выразил готовность передать данные сигналы в Тегеран
(выделено а.п.).
…
В ответ на воздушные удары Иран предпринял несколько волн ракетных и БПЛА-атак по американским военным объектам в регионе. Взрывы прогремели в Дубае и Абу-Даби (ОАЭ), Дохе (Катар), Манаме (Бахрейн), Эль-Кувейте (Кувейт), а также в Эрбиле (Иракский Курдистан). Помимо этого, были атакованы крупнейшие нефтегазовые объекты региона. Катарская госкомпания QatarEnergy прекратила производство СПГ, а нефтеперерабатывающий завод Saudi Aramco в Саудовской Аравии частично остановил работу. Ормузский пролив, через который осуществляется значительная часть мировых поставок энергоресурсов, оказался под угрозой полного перекрытия, а воздушное пространство над регионом конфликта закрыто для гражданской авиации – перевозки фактически коллапсируют.
...
Цитата:
Истинное миротворчество. Почему весь арабский мир звонил в Кремль, а не в Белый дом?
….
Одним из первых дозвонился президент ОАЭ Мухаммед бен Заид Аль Нахайян. Он сообщил, что ответные удары Ирана по американским целям в Эмиратах уже нанесли серьезный ущерб стране (туристический бизнес на грани коллапса) и создали угрозу мирным жителям. Примечательно, что глава ОАЭ попытался через Путина донести до Тегерана просьбу воздержаться от запуска БПЛА, ведь территория Эмиратов не используется американцами как плацдарм для атак.
Никаких слов осуждения действий иранцев сказано не было. Ситуация крайне печальная и даже трагическая, но все всё понимают. Понимают, кто именно несет ответственность за происходящее.
Президент России выразил готовность передать эти сигналы иранскому руководству и в целом оказать содействие для стабилизации общей обстановки на Ближнем Востоке.
Дальше приблизительно по такому же сценарию — ноль осуждения, 100% понимания, беспокойства и желания, чтобы все это поскорее закончилось — прошли разговоры Путина с другими лидерами стран региона.
В частности, с эмиром Катара Тамимом бен Хамадом Аль Тани. Высказана обоюдная озабоченность рисками расширения конфликта и опасностью вовлечения в него других государств.
Эмир выразил Путину признательность за поддержку в сложной ситуации. Подчеркнул, что сотрудничество с Россией в различных отраслях остается их приоритетом.
Затем российский лидер общался с королем Бахрейна Хамадом бен Исой Аль Халифой, а также с наследным принцем, председателем Совета министров Саудовской Аравии Мухаммедом бен Сальманом Аль Саудом. Он, стоит подчеркнуть, высказал мнение, что «российская сторона в эти дни может сыграть положительную, стабилизирующую роль с учетом ее дружественных отношений как с Ираном, так и со странами Персидского залива».
...
Маловероятно, что бы основной мотивацией лидеров стран Залива был авторитет и практика миротворчества России, в целом и Путина, в частном, в вопросах урегулирования военных конфликтов на Ближнем востоке.
Куда вероятнее, на такой выбор повлияла политика сортировки целей в СВО.
Подобно странам залива, готовых обогатится на войне с Ираном, страны Европы вот уже четвертый год зарабатывают на убийстве россиян обеспечивая Украине бесперебойные поставки оружия, энергии и продовольствия, оказывая военную помощь инструкторами и просто командируя свой спецназ в зону боевых действий.
Но, руководство России, президент России, принципиально воздерживаются от нанесения экономического, политического, военного ущерба третьим странам Европы и Америки откровенно поднимающими свои экономики и политические режимы на крови россиян.
Иран же в отличии от России, с первых дней своего СВО, определил себе совсем другую политику в выборе и приоритете целей.
А.п. сложно себе представить, как Владимир Владимирович собирается попросить персов не делать того, что ему самому надлежало делать с самого начала.
P.S.
Справедливости ради следует отметить, что не только современная Россия, но и её предшественник СССР, в Великой Отечественной войне, в отличии от союзников Британии и США, [url=https://руни.рф/Стратегические_бомбардировки_во_время_Второй_мировой_войны?ysclid=mmbts4hihn710913148]в принципе не практиковал[/url] стратегических бомбардировок/обстрелов стран Европы добровольно/принудительно обеспечивающих жизнедеятельность фашистской Германии.
За исключением ряда операций в «нейтральной» Швеции и в Финляндии, с июня 41 по февраль 44, авиация и артиллерия СССР не наносила ударов по промышленной базе Германии в странах Европы, в принципе.
Но, это не значит, что СССР тогда, подобно России сегодня, закрывал «на это глаза»!
Отнюдь!
Компетентными органами СССР, тогда, в отличии от компетентных органов России, сейчас, велась обширная диверсионно-подрывная деятельность на территории Европы, стоившая Германии очень и очень дорого.
_________________
С сожалением и понятными пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
Спецпосланник президента США Стив Уиткофф заявил, что Вашингтон обращался к российским властям с просьбой прекратить передачу Ирану разведданных для ударов по американским властям.
Цитата:
Цитата:
Цитата:
Russia supplying Iran with intelligence to target US forces, says report.
Moscow is rushing to the support of its ally amid a joint US-Israeli bombing campaign.
Russia is providing Iran with intelligence to help target US forces in the Middle East, according to a report, in a development likely to cause a rift between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
Since the beginning of the war last Saturday, Moscow has been supplying Iran with the locations of US military assets, including warships and aircraft, three officials told The Washington Post.
The conflict has already spread far beyond the Middle East as Iran retaliates against US bases in the region, with attacks reported as far as Azerbaijan and Sri Lanka.
Russia has condemned the conflict as an “unprovoked act of armed aggression” by the US and Israel despite its own brutal ongoing invasion of Ukraine. Moscow has warned that it will mean “forces will emerge in Iran… in favour of doing exactly what the Americans want to avoid – acquiring a nuclear bomb”.
But exactly how far it has assisted Iran with its targeting is not entirely clear. Officials told the Post that the Iranian military’s ability to locate US forces has been degraded in just one week of fighting.
And US forces have shown no sign of letting up, after joint strikes with Israel have killed at least 1,200 people in Iran, according to Iranian authorities.
Mr Trump has warned there will be “no deal with Iran except unconditional surrender” in his latest rant, as the Middle East is embroiled in the seventh day of a deadly conflict.
“There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER,” the president wrote on Truth Social on Friday.
“After that, and the selection of a GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s), we, and many of our wonderful and very brave allies and partners, will work tirelessly to bring Iran back from the brink of destruction, making it economically bigger, better, and stronger than ever before.”
US secretary of defence Pete Hegseth said the “amount of firepower over Iran and over Tehran is about to surge dramatically”, adding: “When we say more to come, it’s more fighter squadrons, it’s more capabilities, it’s more defensive capabilities, and it’s more bomber pulses more frequently.”
Any reports regarding potential Russian involvement in the war could affect Trump’s relationship with Putin, with whom he has held far warmer ties than his predecessors in the White House. Trump has consistently sided with Putin over the war in Ukraine.
White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said the Iranian regime “is being absolutely crushed” without commenting on potential Russian involvement.
“Their ballistic missile retaliation is decreasing every day, their navy is being wiped out, their production capacity is being demolished, and proxies are hardly putting up a fight.”
…
_________________
С сожалением и очевидными пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
«Бессмертный полк» - хорошо, но почему мы используем этот принцип только в одну сторону?
Если мы действительно хотим закончить эту войну и предотвратить следующую, надо показывать историю жаждущего реванша врага в актуальных лицах.
Цитата:
Germans confront Nazi past of family members through new digital archive.
Die Zeit’s online database of individuals’ Nazi membership is prompting a reckoning as people uncover ties to regime.
Olaf Köndgen is 64 years old, a German citizen and a senior European human rights expert who has lived and worked in France for several years. Last month, Köndgen learned that he is also the son of a Nazi.
Despite a strong interest in history and its lessons, Köndgen is typical of many 21st-century Germans in having had only the roughest outlines of his own family’s complicity with Hitler’s regime.
That began to change in early April, when the newspaper Die Zeit launched an online search engine for the vast archives of the National Socialist German Workers’ party (NSDAP), making information about individuals’ Nazi membership easily accessible for the first time.
Die Zeit has described an extraordinary response from the public, reflecting intense interest in unearthing long-buried family secrets more than eight decades after the end of the second world war.
The tool has been accessed “millions of times” and shared “by the thousands”, with more than 1,000 reader comments appearing on the site, according to Christian Staas, the newspaper’s history editor.
He said: “You have two things in play here: the passage of time and new technological possibilities to do research.”
After 1945 the majority of Germans saw themselves as “victims”, he said.
“There was little discussion of their own involvement, of their role as bystanders or accomplices, or of their knowledge of the regime’s crimes.
“Now that the generation of witnesses is passing away, many find it easier to ask critical questions and to verify the stories passed down within their families.”
For Köndgen, the search engine took him from a decades-long academic engagement with the darkest chapters of his country’s history to a highly personal and emotional confrontation with the actions of his own flesh and blood.
His father, Ernst, died when Köndgen was just a teenager, leaving a hole in his family that was filled with a degree of myth-making.
“When you lose your father at 16, you try, to the extent possible, to have a positive image of him,” he said.
The truth, he learned, was more complex.
Ernst grew up in a middle-class educated Catholic household as the son of a stern, distant father who had fought on the front in the first world war.
Köndgen said his grandfather Ludwig had gone on to join the Nazi party with sense among many veterans of “enormous humiliation” over the punishing treaty of Versailles, which Hitler exploited. Ludwig became a member in May 1933, just four months after the Nazis’ rise to power.
Köndgen was also previously aware that his father had volunteered to fight in the second world war.
But it took the online archive to learn that Ernst had also become a party member, on the day of the war’s start on 1 September 1939 – a “truly surprising” fact he said coloured his understanding of his motivations and character.
“I’d always convinced myself that he wanted to escape from this authoritarian home by joining the Wehrmacht [the Nazis’ armed forces],” Köndgen said.
“Now I realise that his main motive was perhaps actually ideological. Maybe, at the age of 17, he was truly convinced that this was a just war for the good of Germany and humanity. So that has now completely changed my perspective.”
Between 1925 and 1945, about 10.2m Germans joined the NSDAP. Women were always a minority in the party, but their ranks grew sharply after the war began in 1939.
One of them was Irmgard Roßberg, the maternal grandmother of Niko Karsten, who, he learned last month, joined the NSDAP on 1 May 1937.
Karsten, 56, an environmental engineer, has vivid memories of Roßberg and the tension her severe presence produced in the family.
He said: “My mother was always at loggerheads with her – she didn’t like her mother because of her bossy, overbearing manner and racist remarks.
“She [Roßberg] would think of her beloved husband, who died far too young, and tears would start rolling down her cheeks,” he said, referring to his grandfather, a prosperous landowner who was also in the party.
Karsten said his interest in the family’s history was also driven by his fears of the current strength of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland, which has urged Germans to draw a line under its Nazi past. “It really upsets me because if you follow that racist way of thinking, history shows you end up in ruin,” he said.
The reasons for Nazi party membership ranged from ideological conviction, as most often seen among those who signed up early on, to opportunism among late joiners who saw a chance for career advancement.
But there is no historical evidence of Germans being forced by the party to join, or being signed up without their knowledge, as many claimed after the war.
While it was possible to be complicit in the Nazis’ crimes without being a party member, historians say its impressive ranks gave them a constant air of legitimacy.
The party kept notoriously precise records and just before the war’s end removed the membership files – an estimated 50 tonnes of paper – from its headquarters in Munich to a paper mill outside the destroyed city.
The mill’s manager, Hanns Huber, narrowly stopped the index cards from being destroyed. That autumn, American forces brought them to the Berlin document centre to assist in the postwar denazification process.
In the 1990s, the cards were entrusted to the German federal archives while microfilm copies went to the US National Archives, which made its holdings available online in late February.
Tight German data protection laws require families to file a request with the federal archives – a hurdle that long thwarted many of those interested. But the Die Zeit tool has now made the US records easily navigable.
Susanne Beyer, a senior editor at Spiegel magazine, published Kornblumenblau (Cornflower Blue) last year, a book about searching for the truth about her grandparents’ generation during the Nazi period.
She said it was time for a reassessment of Germany’s vaunted Erinnerungskultur or the culture of reckoning with its Nazi past.
She said: “Most Germans harbour illusions about their own families.
“Erinnerungskultur taught people what the main war criminals did. But when it comes to one’s own family, it still hits too close to home for many people.”
Beyer noted that the Nazis had deliberately tried to build the biggest base they could, also to make Germans as a nation complicit in their crimes.
She said: “It was so the Germans would continue to fight the war, and to fear defeat and retribution.
“That was also why Jews were rounded up in public places. In that respect, almost every German with German ancestors who lived during the Nazi era must assume that their family was involved in some way.”
Louis Lewitan, a psychologist who has researched the long-term effects of the Holocaust on survivors and their descendants, said he believed the festering secrets in many German families had left often invisible scars. He described the latter-day reckoning as potentially liberating.
He told Die Zeit’s weekly magazine: “A psychological legacy of vague anxiety, an unclear sense of identity and unconscious loyalties can take root – silence is a silent poison that continues to take its toll.
“The longer it persists, the more burdensome it becomes.”
Köndgen, who has now learned of another five Nazi relatives, said he can only speculate at his father’s motivation for joining the NSDAP after years of “unbelievable indoctrination” at home and school. He admitted he couldn’t rule out that he would have made the same choices under similar pressure.
He said his work today as a human rights adviser at the Council of Europe was rooted in the postwar credo “never again”.
“You won’t easily find a more convinced European than me,” he said. “European cooperation to prevent something like this ever happening again is the most important thing.”
Действительно, для Украины такой инструмент применить нельзя, в первую очередь по тому, что современные нам украинцы своим фашистским прошлым гордятся.
А вот против Европы это может и должно сработать, если мы используем имеющиеся у нас архивные материалы, описав в персоналиях наследников, исторические примеры геноцида россиян в XX веке.
Оно конечно, Европа тут же объявят проект пропагандой и запретит к нему доступ, но что-то подсказывает а.п., что в стране победившего «VPN» это станет только вопросом техники.
_________________
С интересом и отраслевыми пожеланиями, Dimitriy.
Meat Market: What Amsterdam’s Advertising Ban Tells Us about the Plant-Based Agenda
…
In 2022, I wrote a book called The Eggs Benedict Option about the plan for a global plant-based diet and how it would be a disaster for our health and our freedom. I chose the Great Reset as the framing for my book because, well, it seemed a pretty obvious thing to do. A central part of the Great Reset vision of the world is the more-or-less complete renunciation of animal foods, to be replaced by “healthier,” “more sustainable” diets built around plant proteins, insects and new high-tech products like “plant-based meat” and “lab-grown meat.” I compared this vision of the future to the first Agricultural Revolution, about ten thousand years ago, which I called the “first Great Reset:” a transformation of every aspect of Neolithic society that took place with the spread of fixed-field agriculture and the growth of the first cities and states.
The adoption of a global plant-based diet, I warned, would continue a trend that has been going on for a century now and made us unhealthier, unhappier and more dependent on government and the medical industry than ever before in human history. Corporations, in particular, would come to control every aspect of the food supply, from field to plate—or bioreactor to plate, as the case may be.
Looking back at that book now, and it was a pretty big success, I can’t help cringing a little because of my use of the Great Reset label. It really does feel anachronistic. Even at the time I tried to distance myself from the more outlandish theories about Klaus Schwab and his supposed plan for world domination, which some tried to link to his father’s Nazi past and his own role working on the Apartheid government’s nuclear-weapons program.
But the Great Reset, and the plan for a global plant-based diet, hasn’t really gone away.
We got a reminder of that over the last couple of days with the news that Amsterdam has now become the first capital city in the world to ban all public advertisements for meat, as well as fossil-fuel products like cars and flights.
BBC News reports, “At one of the city’s busiest tram stops, adjacent to a grassy roundabout bursting with vibrant yellow daffodils and orange tulips, the poster advertising landscape has changed.
“They now promote the Rijksmuseum, the national museum of the Netherlands, and a piano concert. Until last week it was chicken nuggets, SUVs and low-budget holidays.”
The city’s lawmakers say the move is part of a broader initiative to make the city “carbon-neutral” by 2050, which includes encouraging residents to halve their meat consumption by 2050.
“The climate crisis is very urgent,” says Anneke Veenhoff from the GreenLeft Party.
“I mean, if you want to be leading in climate policies and you rent out your walls to exactly the opposite, then what are you doing?
“Most people don’t understand why the municipality should make money out of renting our public space with something that we are actively having policies against.”
Meat and fossil-fuel advertising made up a vanishingly small proportion of advertisements in the city—the former, just 0.1% of total ad spending—but advocates of the new regulation believe it sends a “strong message” and “reframes purely dietary advice to a climate issue.”
An expert interviewed by the BBC said the advertising ban on meat products is a “fantastic natural experiment,” which will provide evidence of whether such measures can be used to change “social norms” and reduce consumption.
“If we see advertisements for fast food everywhere, it normalizes the consumption of behaviour of fast consumption,” says Mackenbach, who is from the Department of Epidemiology and Data Science at hospital Amsterdam University Medical Center.
“So if we take away those types of cues in our public living environments, then that is also going to have an impact on those social norms.”
Amsterdam’s advertising ban is a reminder that incrementalism and manipulation are the order of the day here. That’s how we arrive in a world where no-one—except the globalist 1%¬—eats meat: by inches and with the illusion of popular consent. Many have suggested governments could ban meat and animal products like dairy, but this strikes me as simple-minded. It would be too unpopular—it would smack of tyranny. Even during the pandemic, the appearance of individual choice had to be maintained. The velvet glove was never removed from the iron fist.
Instead, what we’re seeing now and will continue to see is clever strategies that stop well short of outright bans, but reduce consumer choice all the same.
Just look at the way many “alternative” foods are now being marketed. Rather than making appeals to consumers on the basis of taste and health claims most people will simply never believe, companies are trying to sell their products by making you feel guilty.
Look at Oatly. In line with market research, the oatmilk-maker pivoted to a strategy based on emotion and peer pressure—or, rather, child pressure. In its revolting “Help Dad” campaign, hopelessly unwoke fathers are subjected to a fridge-door inquisition from their teenage kids as they reach for a glass of cow’s milk. The message: You should be ashamed of wanting to drink real milk.
Thankfully, in the US you now have Make America Healthy Again, under the leadership of Robert F. Kennedy Jr, beginning a pushback. This year, in one of the most important changes to official health policy in decades, Kennedy flipped the FDA’s food pyramid on its head, making high-quality animal foods the basis of a proper diet instead of grains—as they should be. You also have Republican state governments, like Florida under Ron DeSantis, issuing new laws to support traditional agriculture and ban so-called “foods of the future” like lab-grown meat. Free-market absolutists will, of course, cry foul, but they willfully ignore the ways markets are controlled by governments and big business. The market is not a level playing-field.
All of this is a reminder of a point that was central to The Eggs Benedict Option: Only a determined political movement can now ensure we have access to the nutritious animal foods we need to grow and flourish—and to remain free.
Цитата:
Никаких гамбургеров и авиаперелетов. В Амстердаме запретили рекламу мяса и топлива.
С 1 мая Амстердам стал первой столицей в мире, запретившей наружную рекламу как мяса, так и продуктов, связанных с ископаемым топливом. С городских рекламных щитов, трамвайных остановок и станций метро исчезла реклама гамбургеров, бензина, авиаперелетов и других продуктов и услуг, связанных с высоким уровнем выбросов…
Городские политики объясняют, что такое решение принято для того, чтобы рекламная политика соответствовала климатическим целям Амстердама — к 2050 году стать климатически нейтральным и сократить потребление мяса наполовину.
Инициатором запрета выступила представительница амстердамского отделения Партии животных Анке Бакере, отметив, что ограничения уменьшают возможности крупных компаний постоянно влиять на выбор людей.
До сих пор реклама мяса на улицах Амстердама составляла лишь небольшую долю, а именно около 0,1%, в то время как реклама продуктов и услуг, связанных с ископаемым топливом, — около 4%.
Однако против этого решения выступают представители мясной и туристической отраслей. Нидерландская ассоциация мясной промышленности называет это нежелательным способом влияния на поведение потребителей, а Ассоциация туристических агентств считает, что ограничение рекламы авиаперевозок несоразмерно ущемляет коммерческую свободу предприятий.
Экологические активисты надеются, что Амстердам станет примером для других городов — подобно тому, как когда-то изменилось отношение общества к рекламе табака. Пока, однако, нет прямых доказательств того, что запрет на рекламу мяса в общественных местах изменит пищевые привычки. Тем не менее, исследователи оценивают этот шаг как важный эксперимент, который, возможно, поможет понять, как ограничения на рекламу влияют на социальные нормы и представления общества об устойчивом потреблении.
Цитата:
Amsterdam bans public adverts for meat and fossil fuels
Advertisements for meat products, such as beef burgers, have disappeared from Amsterdam's streets
Amsterdam has become the world's first capital city to ban public advertisements for both meat and fossil fuel products. Since 1 May, adverts for burgers, petrol cars and airlines have been stripped from billboards, tram shelters, and metro stations.
At one of the city's busiest tram stops, adjacent to a grassy roundabout bursting with vibrant yellow daffodils and orange tulips, the poster advertising landscape has changed.
They now promote the Rijksmuseum, the national museum of the Netherlands, and a piano concert. Until last week it was chicken nuggets, SUVs and low-budget holidays.
Politicians in the city say the move is about bringing Amsterdam's streetscape into line with the local government's own environmental targets.
These aim for the Dutch capital to become carbon neutral by 2050, and for local people to halve their meat consumption over the same period.
"The climate crisis is very urgent," says Anneke Veenhoff from the GreenLeft Party. "I mean, if you want to be leading in climate policies and you rent out your walls to exactly the opposite, then what are you doing?
"Most people don't understand why the municipality should make money out of renting our public space with something that we are actively having policies against."
This view is echoed by Anke Bakker, who is Amsterdam group leader for a Dutch political party that focuses on animal rights – Party for the Animals.
She instigated the new restrictions, and rejects accusations of them being nanny state.
"Everybody can just make their own decisions, but actually we are trying to get the big companies not to tell us all the time what we need to eat and buy," says Bakker.
"In a way, we're giving people more freedom because they can make their own choice, right?"
Removing that constant visual nudge, she says, both reduces impulse buying, and signals that cheap meat and fossil heavy travel are no longer aspirational lifestyle choices.
Meat was a relatively small slice of Amsterdam's outdoor advertising market – accounting for an estimated 0.1% of ad spend, compared with roughly 4% for fossil related products.
The advertising was instead dominated by the likes of clothing brands, movie posters, and mobile phones.
But politically the ban sends a message. Grouping meat with flights, cruises and petrol and diesel cars reframes it from a purely private dietary choice to a climate issue.
Unsurprisingly, the Dutch Meat Association, which represents the industry, is unhappy at the move, which it calls "an undesirable way to influence consumer behaviour". It adds that meat "delivers essential nutrients and should remain visible and accessible to consumers".
Meanwhile, the Dutch Association of Travel Agents and Tour Operators says that the ban on advertising holidays that include air travel is a disproportionate curb on companies' commercial freedom.
For activists like lawyer Hannah Prins and her environmental organisation Advocates for the Future, which worked closely with campaign group Fossil-Free Advertising, the ban on meat advertising is a deliberate attempt to create a "tobacco moment" for high carbon food.
"Because if I look now back at like old pictures, you have Johan Cruyff," says Prins. "The famous Dutch footballer.
"He would be in advertisements for tobacco. That used to be normal. He died of lung cancer.
"That you were allowed to smoke on the train, on restaurants. For me, that's like, whoa, why did people do that? You know, that feels so weird.
"So it really is like what we see in our public space is what we find normal in our society. And I don't think it's normal to see murdered animals on billboards. So I think it's very good that that's going to change."
The Dutch capital is not starting from scratch.
Haarlem, 18km (11 miles) to its west, was in 2022 the first city in the world to announce a broad ban on most meat advertising in public spaces. It came into force in 2024, together with a prohibition on fossil fuel adverts.
Utrecht and Nijmegen have since followed with their own measures that explicitly restrict meat (and in Nijmegen's case also dairy) advertising on municipal billboards, on top of existing bans on adverts for fossil fuels, petrol cars and flying.
Globally, dozens of cities have, or are moving to, ban fossil-fuel advertising. Such as Edinburgh, Sheffield, Stockholm and Florence. France even has a nationwide ban.
Campaigners hope that the Dutch approach - linking meat and fossil fuels - will act as a legal and political blueprint others can copy.
Stand at a tram stop in Amsterdam and you might no longer see a juicy burger or a 19 euro ($18.70; £14.90) flight to Berlin on the shelter.
Yet the same eye-catching offers can still pop up in your social media algorithm. And, let's face it, many of us would be looking down at our screens until the tram trundles along.
If municipal bans leave digital platforms untouched, how much real world impact can they have on our habits or are they purely symbolic virtue-signalling?
So far, there is no direct evidence that removing meat advertising from public spaces leads to a shift toward more plant-based societies.
However, some researchers are cautiously optimistic, such as Prof Joreintje Mackenbach who is an epidemiologist - a medical professional who investigates health patterns within populations.
She describes Amsterdam's move as "a fantastic natural experiment to see".
"If we see advertisements for fast food everywhere, it normalizes the consumption of behaviour of fast consumption," says Mackenbach, who is from the Department of Epidemiology and Data Science at hospital Amsterdam University Medical Center.
"So if we take away those types of cues in our public living environments, then that is also going to have an impact on those social norms."
She points to a study which claims that London Underground's 2019 ban on junk food adverts led to less people buying such products in the UK capital.
Smiling on the banks of a canal in the centre of Amsterdam, Prins is adamant smaller specialist tradespeople in Amsterdam will benefit from the new advertising ban.
"Because like everything we love, festivals, nice cheese, a flower shop around the corner. All the stuff that we love, we don't hear from through ads," she says.
"It's usually through people that we know, or we walk past the building. So I think local businesses will be able to thrive because of this.
"I think and I hope that big polluting companies will be extra scared. And maybe will rethink the kind of products they are selling. I think you can really see that change is possible."
Цитата:
In Amsterdam, Meat & Fossil Fuel Ads Are Now Officially Banned
Amsterdam has become the world’s first capital city to ban advertisements promoting meat or fossil fuels, in light of the city’s targets to increase plant-based consumption and lower emissions.
Courtesy: Robert vant Hoenderdaal/Alamy/Vitalii Kraskovskyi/Green Queen
Billboards and metro stations in Amsterdam will no longer feature ads plugging burgers, bitterballen, gas-powered cars, tropical getaways, and other carbon-intensive offerings.
The Dutch capital’s ban on meat and fossil fuel ads came into effect on May 1, as part of the city’s efforts to encourage plant-rich diets and greener mobility to lower its climate impact.
Passed by the city council in January, the law makes Amsterdam the first capital city in the world to prohibit ads for fossil fuel products and meat in public spaces.
Amsterdam has a goal to reach net-zero emissions by 2050, and increase the share of plant-based protein consumed by residents from 40% to 60% by the end of the decade.
Amsterdam’s ad ban exempts private stores, newspapers and digital media
Courtesy: Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP/Getty Images
The law to “stop advertising that contributes to the climate crisis” was first proposed in April 2024 by GreenLeft and the Party for the Animals, and approved by Amsterdam’s city council earlier this year with a 27-17 vote.
It prohibits ads for beef, pork, chicken, and fish due to the livestock industry’s climate harms, as well as for airlines, cruises, petrol and diesel cars, and trips to faraway destinations, because they promote the burning of fossil fuels.
“If you spend lots of tax money and have lots of policies trying to manage climate change in Amsterdam, why would you rent out your public walls to exactly the opposite?” said Anneke Veenhoff, a city councillor from the GreenLeft party, according to the New York Times.
She compared emissions-intensive lifestyles to addictions. “If you’re trying to get rid of an addiction, it’s not very handy to see it everywhere,” she added.
The fossil fuel and agricultural sectors account for the majority of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. Livestock farming alone is responsible for up to a fifth of global emissions, and one recent study argues that meat and dairy production is the leading driver of climate change.
Amsterdam’s ban will apply to city-owned properties and public spaces, such as billboards, bus stops, train and tram stations, and all public transport vehicles. However, it doesn’t extend to privately owned shops, newspapers, radio and digital formats.
That begs the question: in a chronically online world where people tend to look at their phones instead of a billboard while waiting to board a bus, does Amsterdam’s law go far enough to have a tangible impact on high-carbon consumption?
Bans on fossil fuel and meat ads on the rise globally
A La Vie billboard celebrating the Netherlands’s first meat ad ban in Haarlem | Courtesy: La Vie
Even Amsterdam, known worldwide for its live-and-let-live approach to consumption, can’t ignore the climate-harming realities of the fossil fuel and livestock industries. It first passed a motion to ban fossil fuel ads in 2020, though this wasn’t legally binding and didn’t carry any penalties. It also applied only to new contracts and did not effectively cover the majority of the city’s public spaces.
The new law, however, equips the city with enforcement powers, applies to all public spaces, and adds more detail to the framework for banned ads. According to the New York Times, 2026 will largely be considered a grace period, but violators could still face fines.
It has, predictably, received pushback from associations representing meat and fossil fuel producers, as well as advertising companies like JCDecaux, which said the revenue from these ads helps maintain public infrastructure. On the other hand, agencies such as KesselsKramer, Publicis and Wieden+Kennedy, hailed the move.
It comes two years after UN secretary-general António Guterres called on countries and media companies to stop fossil fuel advertising. “Many in the fossil fuel industry have shamelessly greenwashed, even as they have sought to delay climate action – with lobbying, legal threats, and massive ad campaigns,” he said in a speech in New York City.
“They have been aided and abetted by advertising and PR companies. Mad Men – remember the TV series – fuelling the madness,” he added. “Many governments restrict or prohibit advertising for products that harm human health, like tobacco. Some are now doing the same with fossil fuels.”
Globally, over 50 cities have announced their ambition to restrict fossil fuel advertising, and within the Netherlands, 12 municipalities have now banned this practice, including The Hague, Utrecht, Delft and Leiden.
Haarlem, meanwhile, was the first city to ban meat ads in 2022. Since then, seven other Dutch cities have begun working on similar bans, and Amsterdam is the third to implement one. It comes as meat consumption fell to a record low in 2025 in the Netherlands, with the new national dietary guidelines advising citizens to lower their meat intake and replace it with plant-based proteins.
Dutch city becomes world’s first to ban meat adverts in public
Haarlem’s move is part of efforts to cut consumption after meat was found to contribute to climate crisis
A Dutch city will become the first in the world to ban meat adverts from public spaces in an effort to reduce consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.
Haarlem, which lies to the west of Amsterdam and has a population of about 160,000, will enact the prohibition from 2024 after meat was added to a list of products deemed to contribute to the climate crisis.
Adverts will not be allowed on Haarlem’s buses, shelters and screens in public spaces, prompting complaints from the meat sector that the municipality is “going too far in telling people what’s best for them”.
Recent studies suggest global food production is responsible for one-third of all planet-heating emissions, with the use of animals for meat accounting for twice the pollution of producing plant-based foods.
Forests that absorb carbon dioxide are felled for the grazing of animals while fertilisers used for growing their feed are rich in nitrogen, which can contribute to air and water pollution, climate change and ozone depletion. Livestock also produces large quantities of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Ziggy Klazes, a councillor from the GroenLinks party, who drafted the motion banning meat advertising, said she had not known the city would be the world’s first to enforce such a policy when she proposed it.
She told the Haarlem105 radio channel: “We are not about what people are baking and roasting in their own kitchen; if people wanted to continue eating meat, fine … We can’t tell people there’s a climate crisis and encourage them to buy products that are part of the cause.
“Of course, there are a lot of people who find the decision outrageous and patronising, but there are also a lot of people who think it’s fine.
“It is a signal – if it is picked up nationally, that would only be very nice. There are many groups of GroenLinks who think it is a good idea and want to try it.”
The ban also covers holiday flights, fossil fuels and cars that run on fossil fuels. The ban is delayed until 2024 due to existing contracts with companies that sell the products.
There is some opposition within Haarlem’s council to the move, with critics arguing that it restricts freedom of expression.
Sander van den Raadt, the leader of the Trots Haarlem group, said: “It is remarkable that the municipality of Haarlem is holding a large poster campaign that you can be yourself in Haarlem and love whoever you want, but if you like meat instead of soft grass, ‘the partronising brigade’ will come and tell you that you are completely wrong.”
Greenpeace research suggests that to meet the EU target of net zero emissions by 2050, meat consumption must be reduced to 24kg per person per year, compared with the current average of 82kg, or 75.8kg in the Netherlands, which is the EU’s biggest meat exporter.
Цитата:
17.02.2022
TfL junk food ad ban has helped Londoners shop more healthily – study
Researchers estimate a 1,000 calorie decrease in unhealthy purchases associated with the policy
A ban on junk food advertising by Transport for London has contributed to a 1,000 calorie decrease in unhealthy purchases in people’s weekly shopping, a study has estimated.
The biggest effects were seen for chocolate and confectionery with an almost 20% decrease, or 317.9 calories, in average weekly household purchases of energy from these products.
The decrease works out to be about 385 calories a person a week, equivalent to every Londoner in the study buying about 1.5 fewer standard-size bars of milk chocolate each week.
Researchers led by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) compared almost two million weekly grocery purchases of products high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) by households in London and the north of England between June 2018 and December 2019.
Researchers found the policy was associated with an estimated 1,001 calorie (6.7%) decrease in average weekly household purchases of energy from HFSS products compared with what would have happened without the policy.
Dr Amy Yau, from LSHTM and the study’s lead author, said: “Many governments and local authorities are considering advertising restrictions to reduce consumption of HFSS products as part of obesity prevention strategies.
“However, evidence of the effectiveness of such policies, especially away from broadcast media, is scarce.
“Our study helps to plug that knowledge gap, showing TfL’s policy is a potential destination for decision-makers aiming to reduce diet-related disease more widely.”
The team also found some limited indications that the effect of the ban was larger in households with individuals living with obesity.
TfL’s ban on advertising HFSS products, which began in 2019, encompasses the underground, overground, buses, Docklands Light Railway, taxis and on some roadside advertising sites such as roundabouts and bus stops.
London mayor Sadiq Khan said: “I am pleased to see the positive impact these groundbreaking measures have had, leading to a real reduction in the amount of junk food being purchased.”
Barbara Crowther, coordinator of the Children’s Food Campaign, said: “We’re delighted to see that TfL’s healthier food advertising policy is working as intended and is helping to stem the tide of junk food advertising that constantly nudges us towards less healthy options.”
Britain has one of the highest obesity rates in Europe with two in three adults overweight or obese and the NHS spending £6bn a year treating obesity-related ill-health.
In December, the government announced plans to introduce a 9pm watershed on TV and a ban on paid-for advertising online for unhealthy food and drink, plus new restrictions on the promotion of unhealthy food and drink in retail outlets and online.
However, a report commissioned by the government’s own obesity research unit warned that these efforts will fail unless much wider action is urgently taken to transform the entire food environment.
UK to ban junk food advertising online and before 9pm on TV from 2023
Prohibition of adverts for products high in fat, salt and sugar could cost broadcasters more than £200m annually in revenue
The government is poised to announce a ban on junk food advertising online and before 9pm on TV from 2023, as Boris Johnson looks to deliver on his pledge to tackle the UK’s growing obesity crisis.
The new measures, which will be some of the toughest marketing restrictions in the world, will heavily impact the more than £600m spent by brands on all food advertising online and on TV annually.
The 9pm pre-watershed ban on advertising TV products deemed to be high in fat, salt and sugar (HFSS) could cost TV broadcasters such as ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 and Sky more than £200m a year in revenue.
The online ad ban would affect all paid-for forms of digital marketing, from ads on Facebook to paid-search results on Google, text message promotions, and paid activity on sites such as Instagram and Twitter. It is estimated that more than £400m is spent on advertising food products online in the UK annually.
The tough rules, which are expected to be announced as soon as Thursday, follow Johnson changing his view on personal health decisions after his hospitalisation with coronavirus last year. The prime minister is said to blame his own health issues for contributing to his illness. Overweight people are at greater risk of severe illness or death from Covid.
Research has found that one in three children leaving primary school are overweight or obese, as are almost two-thirds of adults in England. Last year, the government’s consultation on proposals to implement a ban estimated that children under 16 were exposed to 15bn junk food ads online in 2019, compared with 700m two years earlier.
However, the new restrictions include a significant number of “carve-outs” and exemptions which mean that they will fall short of the total ban proposed last year, which the advertising and broadcasting industry said was too “indiscriminate and draconian”.
For example, brand-only advertising online and on TV will continue to be allowed. This means a company often associated with poor dietary habits, such as McDonald’s, will be able to advertise as long as no HFSS products appear. Brands will also be allowed to continue to promote their products on their own websites and social media accounts.
The government is also to exempt a range of products from inclusion in the ban after the definition of junk food products proposed last year would have meant that the advertising of items including avocados, Marmite and cream would have been blocked.
These will include products not considered as traditional “junk food”, such as honey and jam, but will also cover zero-sugar drinks and McDonald’s nuggets, which are not nutritionally deemed an HFSS product.
Small and medium-sized companies – those with less than 250 employees – will continue to be allowed to advertise junk food products.
In addition, the business-to-business market – companies that do not target consumers but are part of the food industry supply chain – will still be allowed to advertise HFSS items.
Junk food advertising will still be allowed through audio media, such as podcasts and radio, and there will be no new restrictions for the out-of-home sector, which includes billboards, poster sites, on buses, and in locations such as railway stations and airports.
The list of products, and the ban itself, will be reviewed every few years.
UK set to bring in strict new junk food rules including pre-9pm ad ban
Measures expected to go beyond curbs on advertising to include in-store restrictions
The government is set to implement strict rules on how junk food is advertised and sold in the UK, with restrictions such as a ban on online adverts and TV commercials before the 9pm television watershed.
Sources say that the plans, which have been spearheaded by Boris Johnson following his coronavirus health scare, are yet to be finalised but could be announced as soon as Sunday or early next week.
…
The measures to tackle the growing obesity epidemic are expected to be far-reaching, going beyond curbs on media and advertising to include restrictions on in-store promotions.
Johnson had previously criticised the sugar tax, labelling it a “sin stealth tax”, but is understood to have changed his mind after he was hospitalised with Covid-19 in April. The prime minister is said to blame his own weight issues for contributing to his illness and obesity has been identified as a key factor in whether people are seriously affected by coronavirus.
TV broadcasters have previously said that a pre-watershed ban advertising products high in fat, salt and sugar, commonly referred to as junk food, would cost them more than £200m in revenues annually.
“Brands have partnered effectively with government over the lockdown period to support, develop and amplify public health campaigns as well as safeguard and support employees,” said Phil Smith, the director general of ISBA, which represents the vast majority of major advertisers in the UK. “Just as business begins to chart a course back from the severe impacts of Covid-19, such an ill-thought-out policy cuts across Treasury efforts to support the sector and risks jobs and livelihoods.”
…
Media companies and the food industry have faced the prospect of complete ad bans by the government several times over more than a decade, but in each instance the plans have been abandoned. However, this time executives fear such measures will be introduced, with Johnson saying last month that “we will be happier, fitter and more resistant to diseases like Covid if we can tackle obesity”.
The UK has the highest death rate from coronavirus in Europe, with high rates of obesity and associated lifestyle-related conditions, such as type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure, linked to worse Covid-19 outcomes.
Obesity and coronavirus: how can a higher BMI increase your risk?
Read more
Previous reviews of UK regulations have resulted in a significant tightening of restrictions over the years. In 2007, advertisers were banned from running junk food ads in kids’ programmes or shows with average audiences of more than 20% children. More recently, new online marketing rules stop advertisers from targeting children.
Advertisers say that the such far-reaching rules will go far beyond catching just major brands to dramatically affect thousands of small companies as well.
“Speculation that the government intends to introduce bans on high fat, salt and sugar advertising would be in direct conflict with its own evidence that such restrictions would have a minimal impact on obesity levels,” said Stephen Woodford, the chief executive of the Advertising Association. “These measures, if introduced, would have significant economic impact at a time when the economy is already under strain. The government must reconsider any proposals which could damage the recovery.”
...
_________________
С интересом и очевидными отраслевыми возражениями, Dimitriy.
Уровень доступа: Вы не можете начинать темы, Вы не можете отвечать на сообщения, Вы не можете редактировать свои сообщения, Вы не можете удалять свои сообщения, Вы не можете голосовать в опросах
В 2025 году вектор развития рекламной индустрии изменился: период восстановления сменился этапом оптимизации затрат и повышения окупаемости инвестиций. На фоне инфляции и макроэкономических факторов динамика рынка снизилась, а рекламодатели перераспределили бюджеты в пользу экосистем и инструментов с измеримым возвратом средств. Вадим Мельников, директор Kokoc Performance (входит в Kokoc Group), проанализировал показатели прошедшего года и рассмотрел сценарии развития рынка на 2026 год.
Владимир Нерюев, заместитель генерального директора коммуникационного агентства "Аура" (в составе "Газпром-Медиа Холдинг"). По мнению современных демографов, поколение Z – это молодые люди, которые родились после 2003 года. То есть сегодня им не более 22-23 лет. Они буквально только что закончили обучение в университетах и прямо сейчас выходят на рынок труда. Но насколько готово современное общество, состоящее из представителей других поколений, принять их ценности и их подход к работе?
Александр Комаров, заместитель генерального директора рекламного агентства Аура в составе Газпром-Медиа Холдинга рассказал о трендах классических медиа. В бешеном ритме цифровой трансформации, когда все говорят об алгоритмах, таргетинге и инфлюенсерах, легко списать классические медиа — телевидение, радио, прессу и наружную рекламу — в архив. Но тот, кто из года в год наблюдает и видит все изменения, связанные с рынком рекламы в последнее время можно предположить: именно в 2024-2025 годах мы наблюдаем не упадок, а качественный ренессанс «традиционных» каналов. Их роль кардинально меняется, и грамотные игроки уже используют этот тренд.
Дмитрий Шиманов, основатель и генеральный директор аналитической компании MAR CONSULT, по данным отчета Euromonitor International "Top Global Consumer Trends 2026" спрогнозировал, как будут меняться потребительские ожидания и поведение в течение текущего года под влиянием глобальных трендов и на фоне локальных экономических вызовов.
В контексте глобальной фрагментации рынков и геополитических рисков российские потребители все больше будут ориентироваться на локальные альтернативы импортным товарам, с акцентом на ценовую доступность и практичность.
За последние семь лет каждый десятый москвич перестал включать телевизор. По данным свежего опроса Superjob, в 2025 году почти половина горожан его уже полностью игнорируют.
Advertology побывал на выступлении бизнес-психолога Евгении Хижняк на конференции SM Network 2025 и рассказывает, как оставаться успешным в мире постоянных перемен.
Чего не хватает радио, чтобы увеличить свою долю на рекламном рынке? Аудиопиратство: угроза или возможности для отрасли? Каковы первые результаты общероссийской кампании по продвижению индустриального радиоплеера? Эти и другие вопросы были рассмотрены на конференции «Радио в глобальной медиаконкуренции», спикерами и участниками которой стали эксперты ГПМ Радио.
Деловая программа 28-й международной специализированной выставки технологий и услуг для производителей и заказчиков рекламы «Реклама-2021» открылась десятым юбилейным форумом «Матрица рекламы». Его организовали КВК «Империя» и «Экспоцентр».
28 марта в Центральном доме художника состоялась 25-ая выставка маркетинговых коммуникаций «Дизайн и реклама NEXT». Одним из самых ярких её событий стал День социальной рекламы, который организовала Ассоциация директоров по коммуникациям и корпоративным медиа России (АКМР) совместно с АНО «Лаборатория социальной рекламы» и оргкомитетом LIME.
RSS