www.airpower.at
 FAQFAQ    SuchenSuchen    MitgliederlisteMitgliederliste    BenutzergruppenBenutzergruppen 
 RegistrierenRegistrieren
       ProfilProfil    Einloggen, um private Nachrichten zu lesenEinloggen, um private Nachrichten zu lesen    LoginLogin 

Dieses Thema ist gesperrt, du kannst keine Beiträge editieren oder beantworten.
Seite 1 von 2       Gehe zu Seite 1, 2  Weiter
Autor Nachricht
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Sa Apr 12, 2014 08:36:40 
Titel: Europa - NATO - Sicherheit
Antworten mit Zitat

aus gegebenem Anlass die sehr kompetenten Analysen des (alten) neuen NATO Chefs, des ehemaligen dänischen Premierministers, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.



Zitat:



THE SATURDAY INTERVIEW

Waking Up to the Russian Threat

The head of NATO says Europe has misread Vladimir Putin for years and now must scramble to push back against the Kremlin's widening ambitions.


By SOHRAB AHMARI

April 11, 2014 6:35 p.m. ET

Brussels

Until recently, members of the Russian delegation to NATO were free to roam at will about the Western alliance's headquarters here on the outskirts of the Belgian capital. The Russians had an awkward habit of listening intently to others' conversations at the cafeteria, yet their presence was tolerated in the name of dialogue.

Not anymore. In response to Vladimir Putin's annexation of Crimea, NATO earlier this month suspended all practical cooperation with Moscow. Now most of the 70 or so Russian personnel enjoy about the same level of access to the alliance headquarters as journalists. It's a small but significant sign of what NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen calls "the new security environment" in Europe.

With his salt-and-pepper hair, chiseled jaw and crisply pressed navy suit, Mr. Rasmussen, 61, cuts a handsome figure. The former Danish prime minister is also one of Europe's most serious thinkers on defense matters—a hawkish figure, by European standards, who supported the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan despite considerable opposition at home. His term as NATO secretary-general, which began in 2009, was supposed to come to a close in December but was extended through September 2014 so he might oversee preparations for the alliance's September summit in Cardiff, Wales.

Mr. Rasmussen sits down with me in a meeting room decorated with solemn portraits of his predecessors—men who led NATO through the Cold War and helped usher in "a Europe whole and free," as then-President George H.W. Bush put it in a 1989 speech commemorating the alliance's triumphant 40th anniversary.

Now that vision of Europe is imperiled once more. "I see Ukraine and Crimea in a bigger context," Mr. Rasmussen says. "I see this as an element in a pattern, and it's driven by President Putin's strong desire to restore Russian greatness by re-establishing a sphere of influence in the former Soviet space."

Destabilizing Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus is a pillar of the Kremlin's strategy. "It's in Russia's interest to see frozen, protracted conflicts in the region, such as in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia, Transnistria in Moldova, and Crimea," Mr. Rasmussen says of regions where Moscow has asserted control. "If you look at a map, you will see why it's of strategic importance for Russia."

Moscow's interfering with states on the Continent's eastern periphery prevents them from joining NATO, Mr. Rasmussen says, since the alliance is reluctant to accept new members involved with border disputes. "At the same time," he says, "it plays a role in energy security. The possibility to establish alternative pipelines circumventing Russia—including through Azerbaijan and in the South Caucasus—is very much dependent on peace and stability in that region. All this is part of President Putin's geopolitical and strategic thinking."

The Kremlin needs modern weapons systems and well-trained forces to realize its vision, and Mr. Rasmussen is alarmed by the improvements he has seen in the Russian military during the past few years. Contrasting Russia's military action against Georgia in 2008 with its invasion of Crimea this year, he says, "we have seen an incredible development of the Russian ability to act determinedly and rapidly. We have seen better preparation, better organization and more rapid action. They have also invested in more modern capabilities. We shouldn't underestimate the strength of the Russian armed forces." Now 40,000 of those troops are massed on the border of eastern Ukraine.

Moscow boosted military spending by 79% in the past decade, according to a Brookings Institution estimate, and military spending amounted to 4.5% of Russian gross domestic product in 2012, according to the World Bank. Most Western European states, by contrast, began cutting defense long before the recession and have kept doing so even as their economies have stabilized. France spent 1.9% of its GDP on defense in 2013; Denmark spent 1.4%; Germany, 1.3%; and Spain, 0.9%.

"We in Europe have disarmed too much, for too long," Mr. Rasmussen says. "We can't continue to cut defense budgets deeply while Russia is increasing her defense budget. . . . It has created a growing gap across the Atlantic between the U.S. and Europe. Today the U.S. spends around 75% of the overall NATO defense investment. I'm concerned that in the long run it will weaken the trans-Atlantic alliance if this trend continues."

Then there is Europe's reliance on Russian oil and gas. Mr. Rasmussen thinks the dependency risks interfering with Western self-defense: "There's no doubt that Europe should reduce its dependency on imported energy from Russia," he says. So does the NATO secretary-general endorse shale-gas fracking? The drilling technique that has led to a U.S. energy boom has met much green resistance in Europe. He chuckles and declines to make specific recommendations: "It's a question of a more diversified energy supply, including the establishment of alternative pipelines."

Equally worrying is the West's drive to unilaterally disarm its nuclear arsenal just as the Russian expansionist tide rises. The U.S. Defense Department on Tuesday announced that it will disable 56 submarine-based nuclear-launch tubes, convert 30 B-52 bombers to conventional use, and remove 50 missiles from America's underground silos—all well ahead of the 2018 deadline set by the New Start Treaty with Russia and despite the crisis in Ukraine.

Reductions to Western nuclear forces "must take place in a balanced manner, based on more transparency" from Russia, Mr. Rasmussen says. "The fact is that since the end of the Cold War, NATO nuclear powers have reduced the number of nuclear weapons significantly, while you haven't seen the same on the Russian side."

The result is that "today you have a clear imbalance between the NATO powers and Russia in that respect," Mr. Rasmussen says. "And in the light of ongoing events in Ukraine, I don't think there is the right climate for moving forward when it comes to nuclear disarmament or arms control. There's no sign whatsoever that Russia will provide more transparency." (Following the interview, a NATO spokesman said Mr. Rasmussen wanted to add this clarification: "Reductions in U.S. strategic forces under the New Start Treaty do not affect the significant U.S. commitments to NATO or the U.S. nuclear-force posture in Europe.")

Behind the NATO capability crisis lies a more fundamental problem of entrenched worldviews. In the years after the Cold War, Western leaders came to believe that European security depended not on confronting the Kremlin, but on engaging it. "We were all very enthusiastic after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the removal of the Iron Curtain, and the breakdown of communism and the Warsaw Pact," Mr. Rasmussen says. "It seemed that we could develop a new vision of Europe whole, free and at peace—in cooperation with Russia."

In 1997, the alliance and Russia adopted the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, resolving to "build together a lasting and inclusive peace in the Euro-Atlantic area on the principles of democracy and cooperative security." The NATO-Russia Council was formed five years later. The council opened NATO headquarters to Russian diplomats—a step that would have been unthinkable during the Cold War.

The Kremlin seemed to respond positively at the time. "In my previous capacity as prime minister of Denmark I have met President Putin on several occasions," Mr. Rasmussen recalls. "I still remember when we established the NATO-Russia Council in 2002. I remember a Putin who delivered what I would call a very pro-Western speech. I left with the impression that he felt strongly committed to delivering this relationship between Russia and NATO."

So what changed? "I think he changed his worldview," Mr. Rasmussen says of the Russian leader. "We still remember his famous speech at the Munich Security Conference, at which he stated that the breakdown of the Soviet Union was the biggest tragedy of the last century. That was the first indication that he had changed his worldview, and now we have seen it implemented in practice, first in Georgia in 2008 and now reaffirmed in Crimea."

The Kremlin and its Western apologists attribute the shift in Russian behavior to NATO expansion in the early 2000s. Mr. Rasmussen rejects this line of thinking. "I hope that Mr. Putin doesn't believe his own words," he says. "He can't seriously consider NATO as an enemy, as a threat. We have never had an intention to attack Russia."

States on Europe's periphery are eager to join NATO, Mr. Rasmussen says, "because we represent basic values that people desire to see implemented in their countries, such as individual liberty, democracy, the rule of law and on top of that economic opportunities, because our community of nations also represents economic freedom. . . . So while Putin tries to establish his Eurasian Union using pressure, not to say oppression, people are queuing up to join our organization voluntarily."

NATO's outreach to Russia, meanwhile, didn't stop even after Mr. Putin bared his fangs in the South Caucasus. "Despite the setback in 2008—the Georgia crisis—in 2010 at the NATO-Russia Summit we decided to develop what we call a true strategic partnership between NATO and Russia," he says. "We invited Russia to cooperate on missile defense. You will see during these post-Cold War years we have done a lot to promote NATO-Russia cooperation."

Has NATO's engagement and cooperation with Moscow paid any security dividends? "Obviously not," Mr. Rasmussen replies without hesitation. "We have seen a revisionist Russia trying to redraw the European map by force. That's a wake-up call. That's a completely new security environment and of course we have to adapt to that." He adds: "This goes far beyond Crimea."

Mr. Ahmari is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303603904579492950683945762?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303603904579492950683945762.html


Zuletzt bearbeitet von Viper am So Apr 13, 2014 10:06:40, insgesamt einmal bearbeitet
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Patriot
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 26.07.2004
Beiträge: 239
Wohnort: Wien

BeitragVerfasst am: So Apr 13, 2014 01:48:28 
Titel:
Antworten mit Zitat

Ausgezeichnetes Interview!
Thx for sharing Viper!
_________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum!
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: So Apr 13, 2014 10:08:19 
Titel: hier von der Quelle...
Antworten mit Zitat

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/opinions_109102.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAooIJ_FPmY&feature=youtube_gdata

http://www.nato.int
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Mi Apr 23, 2014 18:52:23 
Titel: ist eine offene Diskussion...
Antworten mit Zitat

die Finnen haben gerade ein neues Abkommen mit der NATO gezeichnet…

In Schweden wird mittlerweile sehr offen über einen NATO Beitritt diskutiert…

http://diepresse.com/home/politik/aussenpolitik/1597044/Krise-in-Osteuropa_Schweden-will-wieder-aufrusten?_vl_backlink=/home/politik/aussenpolitik/index.do

die Frage die sich hierzulande stellt..

was wird Österreich machen ???
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Patriot
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 26.07.2004
Beiträge: 239
Wohnort: Wien

BeitragVerfasst am: Mi Apr 23, 2014 19:45:00 
Titel: Re: ist eine offene Diskussion...
Antworten mit Zitat

Viper hat folgendes geschrieben:
was wird Österreich machen ???


Das ist leider ziemlich leicht erklärt - fürchte ich frown

Da die österreichische "wird-scho-nix-passieren"-Strategie sich bereits im Kalten Krieg "bewährt" hat, wird man daran unbedingt festhalten. Außerdem ist diese geradezu geniale Verteidigungsstrategie nunmehr Dank der Umzingelung durch NATO-Staaten noch um die "Made-im-Speck" List erweiterbar (wozu einem Militärbündnis beitreten, wenn die Staaten im Osten, durch die die Russen erst mal durch müssten, eh um ihr nacktes Überleben alleine kämpfen können und uns damit mitbeschützen - ganz gratis) evil

Außerdem kann der magische Schutzeffekt der "immerwährenden Neutralität" gar nicht genug überschätzt werden (auch wenn nur mehr die Österreicher an die österreichische Neutralität glauben - jaja der Glaube versetzt Berge) Rolling Eyes

Und drittens haben wir keine Knete - sorry. (Schließlich müssen wir die Hypo retten) cry

*Irone aus* (Anm.d.Verf.) keks
_________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum!
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Apr 24, 2014 09:32:12 
Titel: ja, so is es...
Antworten mit Zitat

unseren diversen Regierungen der letzten 15 Jahre haben Österreich auch an den Rand des sicherheits- und verteidigungspolitischen Bankrotts geführt…

damit sind sie alle miteinand einer der ersten Aufgaben einer österreichischen Regierung, verfassungsmässig, nämlich den Schutz der Republik zu garantieren, nicht nachgekommen…haben also in dem Sinne Verfassungsbruch begangen…und die Hoheitsaufgaben der Republik grob fahrlässig ignoriert...

http://www.profil.at/articles/1417/980/374549/bundesheer-2015-zusammenbruch
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Apr 24, 2014 16:19:52 
Titel: wenn er so weiter macht
Antworten mit Zitat

der Putin einfach das nächste Mal die Museumsflieger runterholen..

die Sprache versteht er…



http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article127263846/Nato-faengt-russische-Kampfbomber-ab.html



http://news.sky.com/story/1247985/raf-jet-chases-russian-planes-away-from-uk
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Winston
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 27.08.2012
Beiträge: 188

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Apr 24, 2014 17:58:04 
Titel: Re: wenn er so weiter macht
Antworten mit Zitat

Viper hat folgendes geschrieben:
der Putin einfach das nächste Mal die Museumsflieger runterholen..

das hat nichts mit der aktuellen politischen Lage zu tun, das passiert seit Jahrzehnten immer wieder und gehört zum guten Ton.
Es ist einfach ein austesten der Reaktionszeit des Gegners.

Ich trau einem Mann wie Putin auch nicht übern Weg.
Aber das sind kleine Mätzchen, die es immer wieder gibt.
Hat absolut nix mit einer Kriegsgefahr oder Bedrohung zu tun.
Der will nur spielen.
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Patriot
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 26.07.2004
Beiträge: 239
Wohnort: Wien

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Apr 24, 2014 19:18:07 
Titel: Re: wenn er so weiter macht
Antworten mit Zitat

Winston hat folgendes geschrieben:
Hat absolut nix mit einer Kriegsgefahr oder Bedrohung zu tun.
Der will nur spielen.


Aber sicher Herr Chamberlain Rolling Eyes
_________________
Si vis pacem, para bellum!
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Flanker27
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 29.01.2012
Beiträge: 317

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Apr 24, 2014 23:22:59 
Titel: Re: wenn er so weiter macht
Antworten mit Zitat

Viper hat folgendes geschrieben:
der Putin einfach das nächste Mal die Museumsflieger runterholen..



Dürfte schwierig zu erklären sein.

Nach Angaben Großbritanniens stiegen von der britischen Luftwaffe zwei Eurofighter „Typhoon“ vom Luftwaffenstützung Leuchars unweit der schottischen Stadt Dundee auf.

Laut Sky News sagte ein Sprecher des britischen Verteidigungsministeriums, die russischen Flugzeuge seien die ganze Zeit über im internationalen Lufttraum geblieben. Russische Militärflugzeuge seien noch nie ohne Erlaubnis in britischen Luftraum eingedrungen.

http://www.bild.de/politik/ausland/nato/luftwaffen-krimi-mit-russen-bombern-an-der-nato-grenze-35677488.bild.html
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Apr 25, 2014 07:13:43 
Titel: auch ein lesenswerter Beitrag zum Thema
Antworten mit Zitat

http://www.welt.de/debatte/kommentare/article127262189/Deutsche-ihr-muesst-wieder-Abschreckung-lernen.html
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
AereA
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 12.03.2014
Beiträge: 159

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Apr 25, 2014 07:17:49 
Titel:
Antworten mit Zitat

Kein Problem, Viper könnte das schon erklären. Vielleicht hatten die Flugzeuge ja Antisemiten oder Moslems an Bord, dann kann man beim internationalen Recht vielleicht schon mal ein Auge zudrücken, wenns nach ihm geht. biggrin

Nein, zurück zur ernsten Diskussion, es wäre natürlich rechtlich, moralisch und darüber hinaus auch strategisch nicht besonders intelligent, die Bomber in so einer Situation abzuschießen.
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Apr 25, 2014 07:50:17 
Titel: No..? da schau her...
Antworten mit Zitat

Der Putin befördert die Entwicklungen…

Der neue Saab Gripen E könnt noch, aus der Box, eine sehr gefährliche Kampfwespe werden…und die älteren werden nachgerüstet...

Zitat:
...STOCKHOLM — The Swedish government defended plans Thursday to equip fighter jets with cruise missiles capable of striking targets in Russia, days after announcing a military spending hike linked to the Ukraine conflict.

“In the future the ability to combat longer range targets can be important,” Defence Minister Karin Enstroem told public broadcaster Sveriges Radio, adding that the missiles would have “a high precision which acts as a deterrent.”

“So it would raise our collective defense capabilities and thus raise the threshold effects of our defense.”……..


http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140424/DEFREG01/304240023/

erklärt wohl jetzt im Nachhinein die massiven Cyber Attacken unter denen Saab vor Kurzem von Putin's Seite her zu leiden hatte...
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Di Mai 13, 2014 08:11:28 
Titel: Der Kommentar hier
Antworten mit Zitat

beschreibt das derzeitige sicherheitspolitische Dilemma in Europa recht gut…

Zitat:


Europeans Dither on Defense While Putin Laughs

The Continent's leaders use American inaction as an alibi for their own lack of resolve.

By JOHN VINOCUR

May 12, 2014 12:30 p.m. ET

French President François Hollande, in a radio interview last week, took what I think is a swipe at the Obama administration by suggesting that if the U.S., with French help, had whacked Syria as planned last August, Russia might never have seized Crimea or moved against Ukraine.

Mr. Hollande intimately knows the circumstances of Barack Obama's Big Flinch. He was described as "flabbergasted" when the American phoned him to call off planned U.S.-French airstrikes against Bashar Assad. A French official told me at the time that Iran and Russia, Syria's two big backers, would have been profoundly shaken by the precision and targeting of the attacks.

Now Mr. Hollande has slyly brought into play the issue of U.S. allies' waning confidence in American power as justice's final recourse. "When chemical weapons were used in Syria," he declared in the recent interview, "I said we must intervene even if there was no resolution from the Security Council. The Americans preferred another means. Not having stopped Assad at that moment has been a signal heard by others today." The program's moderator immediately pointed to the situation in Ukraine.

Mr. Hollande's remark illustrated a doubly negative Western predicament in relation to Moscow's aggression against Ukraine. On one hand, there are European countries reasonably bemoaning years of declining American leadership and resolve. On the other, and unjustifiably, many of the same nations are using this as the ideal camouflage for dodging permanent measures, including greater military preparedness, against Russia. It's a self-inflicted chokehold that Vladimir Putin observes at his pleasure.

Gen. Philip Breedlove, the American who is NATO's commander in chief, has questioned what he sees as Alliance members' willingness to run from a long-term, systematic response to Mr. Putin's trampling on Europe's post-1989 order.

Speaking last week in Ottawa about the probability of Russia's continuing destabilization of Ukraine as opposed to a full-fledged Russian invasion, the general argued: "It's the most troublesome for NATO because if the forces do not come across the border, my guess is that many will want to try to quickly go back to business as usual. I, for one, don't believe annexing Crimea is business as usual."

So give the Obama administration credit for acknowledging that, with this Russia, there can be no return to the status quote ante of "modernization partnerships" and "positive agendas." The administration, for now, is more comfortable stating that truth than its allies apart from Poland, Britain and the Baltic states.

Western Europe has a one-off exception in neutral Sweden which is daring to call for "doctrinal change" in its military perspective. It represents recognition of what Foreign Minister Carl Bildt described to me as the "dangerous landscape'" created by an "openly revisionist Russia" seemingly willing to go on redrawing Europe's map. The result, Mr. Bildt said, is a plan to increase Sweden's defense budget by 10% to 15% over the next few years while eliminating or cutting back on projects with Russia.

As to why Russia feels so emboldened, Mr. Bildt added: "Putin has seen the United States absent from the geopolitics of the Eurasian area."

Camille Grand, director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, went further and more darkly in the same direction. He blames a "lack of political leadership from Washington and elsewhere," adding: "NATO can't really do much beyond reassuring Allies and deterring action against NATO territory. The Russians won't really care if we have 10 tanks in the Baltic states. The European Union's transformational agenda is more scary to them."

But there are more worrying signs in the short term about the Alliance's ability to improve its readiness for confronting Russia.

For example, Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans has said his top priority for this fall's NATO summit in Cardiff, unlike America's, is launching a new round of nuclear disarmament in Europe. His counterpart in Germany, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, addressing critics last week who feel Berlin has shown insufficient strength in relation to Ukraine, insisted he was "not willing to think about the use of military means in such a situation"—effectively dismissing as warmongering discussions about a new Alliance force posture to face up to a Putin-changed world.

The context was chilling because beforehand, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung had written in a front-page editorial of "insinuations in Berlin that Washington cannot go ahead fast enough with sanctions because they would possibly damage Europe more than America. Not only economically, but geopolitically.'' Sounding aghast, the newspaper called on Angela Merkel's government to stop "any further running after Moscow."

Now, with Assad nearing victory in Syria and the death toll of 150,000 from his war as a reference point, Europe's take on the Obama administration—seeing it either as ultimately too weak, or currently too pushy and demanding on Ukraine—has this significance: In order to deal with Russia, Washington must urgently repair its reputation as the world's only functional bulwark against chaos and injustice. This demands the kind of determination several of America's friends in Europe doubt is there and rarely have on their own.

Mr. Vinocur is former executive editor of the International Herald Tribune.


http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304081804579557602692066402?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304081804579557602692066402.html
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Do Mai 15, 2014 21:17:02 
Titel: hier eine Wortmeldung
Antworten mit Zitat

eines ehemaligen Innen- als auch Aussenminister von Österreich…

dem Lanc…

In seiner anti-westlichen Einstellung unterscheidet er sich um nichts von einem Strache & Co, und hat sich damals nicht unterschieden von diversen FPÖ'lern und dem antiwestlichen links-aussen Establishment der SPÖ, zu dem ein Blecha gehörte, und wohl auch der heute amtierende Bundespräsident Fischer…

es gab ja damals sowohl inoffizielle als auch offizielle Rot / Blau Koalitionen…( gemischt ergebn diese Farben immer eher ein schmutziges Braun…die diversen nah-östlichen Baathistendikaturen, hier besonders das Syrien der Assads war ein sehr beliebtes Reiseziel…Syrien war auch in der sozilistischen Internationale…dass das Baath Parteiprogramm in Syrien ein direkte Übersetzung des alten NSDAP Programms ins Arabische war, das hat diese Leute nicht gestört…)

es gab böseste Waffendeals zu Sowietklienten im arabischen Raum…es gab nicht zu knapp Tote…österreichische Botschafter etc etc

auch herzliche Beziehungen zu den "Red Mullahs" im Iran….

der Ghaddafi war ein Volksheld hier in Österreich…


Die Jusos sind zum Castro Erntehelfen gefahren…

man darf sich also nicht wundern…

http://diepresse.com/home/meinung/gastkommentar/3806320/Weissagungen-in-Moskau

die ÖVP wiederum hat die anti-westliche Einstellung der G'scherten, bis heute im Raiffeisensektor sehr sichtbar…

Ein Putin hat also in Österreich offenbar ein leichtes Spiel…

man darf sich also wirklich nicht wundern….

das Ganze hat also leider bereits eine sehr lange historische Kontinuität…

Was ist da Alles schiefgelaufen in unserem Land? Dabei sind wir jetzt bald 20 Jahre schon in der EU…..

und wie gesagt es geht heutzutag munter weiter…

Die FPÖ hat nun ihre Liebe zum neuen totalitären System Putin in Russland entdeckt…klar bei Faschisten geht den Blauen ein Achterl ab…

Der UHBP Fischer brennt darauf wieder in den Iran zu fahren und der barterten Mördergang seine Aufwartung zu machen…einem islamofaschistischen Regime..

Die Assads lieben sie alle noch…diese Syntese zwischen Sozialismus und Nationalsozialismus…

Und die USA und das westlich gesinnte Europa sind die Bösen…

So ist es nach wie vor in Österreich mittlerweile Anfangs des 21. Jhdts…

Was zum Teufel ist da schiefgegangen im Land…

Irgendwer Ideen?????
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Fr Mai 16, 2014 12:15:50 
Titel: Notable & Quotable..
Antworten mit Zitat

Tom Enders, CEO, Airbus zum Status in Europa was die Defense Industrie betrifft…

Zitat:


Viewpoint: European Defense Needs To Stand On Its Own

May 12, 2014Tom Enders | Aviation Week & Space Technology

The Sad State Of Defense In Europe

The U.S. has a defense budget of roughly $600 billion. In the EU, it’s around €190 billion ($264 billion) for a region with a higher gross domestic product. Overall, I would say European defense is in an appalling state. There have been a lot of declarations and initiatives since the end of the Cold War, but very little tangible, substantial action on the ground. Between 2001 and 2010, European defense budgets declined by €25 billion. Even the two leading military nations, the U.K. and France, are unable to manage limited military operations—I’m talking about the Libyan conflict of 2011—without massive U.S. support.

Europe has 17 production lines for tanks, armored vehicles and artillery, compared to two in the U.S. There are 16 different naval frigates in Europe versus a single class in the U.S., 89 active weapons programs in the EU versus 27 in the U.S. Those are 2009 numbers, but it is not any better now. By one account, 20% of all development costs in Europe are just for certification, because we have national certification. We have seen some consolidation in the industry in areas such as space, missiles and electronics. But there has been almost none in military aircraft, ships or ground systems. The reasons are quite clear: too many national interests, too much overlap and too much waste.

Then-U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, in his farewell address in Brussels in 2011, pointed out that the U.S. share of NATO defense spending had risen to 75%, up from roughly 50% in the Cold War years. He noted that due to the European shortcomings, NATO faced the “very real possibility of collective military irrelevance.” In his words, if current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted or reversed, future U.S. political leaders may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost. Very blunt words, but from a departing defense secretary. Maybe these messages would make more of an impression on European governments if they were part of an inauguration address, or something like that. Perhaps the events in Ukraine will be more effective; some Eastern European countries have voted to increase their defense spending.

The European defense malaise, if I may say so in my undiplomatic style, has serious consequences for the industry. R&D budgets are significantly smaller. Most investment is still spent on national programs. There is a pretty obvious lack of economy of scale. If the U.S. orders 179 tankers in the first batch, Britain will order 14. Even the big multinational programs are conducted very inefficiently. National requirements, national certification and national procurement rules prevent scarce budgets from being spent wisely and efficiently. These practices certainly do not result in what the Americans call a healthy industrial base. By the way, I have never heard someone in Europe speak about a healthy industrial base, because that means an industry should be allowed to make decent profits and should be incentivized—a rather difficult notion in Europe.

I could not agree more with Linda Hudson [the former CEO] of BAE Systems North America when she said that as an industry we must get much better at recruiting and retaining talent. She said we must be more inclusive, attractive and inspirational. If Linda thinks it’s bad over here, it’s much worse in Europe. In quite a few countries, certainly including mine [Germany], many see defense as kind of a dirty industry. That makes it very difficult to attract and retain talent.

I don’t want to conclude this European chat on too gloomy a note. Not everything is dark and hopeless. For the first time in five or six years, the European Council held a defense summit last September. They discussed concrete projects and have already scheduled a follow-up meeting. In another initiative, nine EU countries plus Norway signed a letter of intent to pool their acquisition for tanker aircraft. But still, we are far, far away from an effective European defense strategy.

We are reminded these days that military power continues to play a role in international relations, like it or not. Diplomacy, soft power, speaking softly can achieve only so much if they are not backed up by credible military options. The aerospace industry stands ready to contribute to our nations’ security— I hope more effectively, and more efficiently.


Tom Enders is the CEO of the Airbus Group. This was adapted from a speech he recently gave to the Atlantic Council in Washington.



http://aviationweek.com/defense/viewpoint-european-defense-needs-stand-its-own
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
CHH
int. Luftfahrtjournalist
int. Luftfahrtjournalist


Anmeldungsdatum: 26.07.2004
Beiträge: 1553
Wohnort: Groß-Enzersdorf

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Aug 18, 2014 15:23:39 
Titel: Wenn gar nix mehr geht, aber DAS geht ...
Antworten mit Zitat

immer noch: MITO
Vor allem die letzte Einstellung...
Gelobt sei, was stark macht...
_________________
Wir sind Österreicher. Was bedeutet, daß grundsätzliche Kurskorrekturen und deutliche Prioritätensetzungen nicht unsere Sache sind. Man ist froh, einigermaßen über die Runden zu kommen und Probleme irgendwie auszusitzen. (Zitat v. Alfred Payrleitner)
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Mo Aug 18, 2014 17:42:01 
Titel: so schaut es aus..
Antworten mit Zitat

Zitat:


A NATO for a Dangerous World

Russian aggression has made it clear.We need an alliance that is fitter, faster and more flexible.


By ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN And PHILIP M. BREEDLOVE

Aug. 17, 2014 7:20 p.m. ET

We both grew up in the shadow of the Cold War, on opposite sides of the Atlantic, and we both remember the extraordinary day when the Berlin Wall came down. Until that day, NATO had kept the Cold War from getting hot. After that day, war in Europe seemed hard to imagine, as former adversaries became NATO allies and we worked to establish a new partnership with Russia.

Now, an unprecedented period of peace has been challenged by Russia's aggression against Ukraine. For the first time since the end of World War II, a European country has grabbed part of another's land by force. Day after day, we see evidence of a disruptive Russian presence inside Ukraine, the massing of combat-ready troops around its borders and a cynical attempt to rebrand Russia as the provider of humanitarian aid. The tragic downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 showed only too clearly the global consequences of Russia's reckless actions.

But the dangers of 2014 differ from the threats of the Cold War. They are multiple and more insidious. Instability rages to the south, with an arc of crises spreading from North Africa to the Middle East. And Russia is resorting to a hybrid war, with snap exercises, secret commandos and smuggled missiles.

In this changed world, NATO's fundamental mission remains the same: to defend the territory, populations and shared values of all its members. Our commitment to collective defense remains rock-solid. And our job, as the top civilian and military representatives of NATO, is to make sure that NATO can defend all allies against any threat.

We have already doubled our air-policing missions, deployed more ships to the Black Sea and the Baltic, and conducted more exercises in Eastern Europe. All 28 allies are contributing to this defensive effort.

In a few weeks, at the NATO summit in Wales, we will take the steps needed to make NATO fitter, faster and more flexible to address future challenges, from wherever they come. This Readiness Action Plan should have three key components.

First, we need to build on the steps we have already taken to assure NATO allies' security, to make them sustainable for the longer term.

Second, we need the presence of NATO forces in Eastern Europe for as long as necessary; upgraded intelligence gathering and sharing; updated defense plans; and an expanded training schedule with more exercises, of more types, in more places, more often.

Third, we need to upgrade elements of our rapid-reaction capability, the NATO Response Force, to make them able to deploy even more quickly and deploy at the first sign of trouble, before a conflict erupts. Speed is of the essence to deter sudden threats along NATO's borders. We also need to pre-position equipment and supplies, so that they can travel light but strike hard if needed.

Having the right capabilities, in the right place, at the right time can make the difference between threat and reassurance, between war and peace.

NATO already has the equipment, capabilities and expertise it needs to make these adjustments, but some changes to our force posture, positioning and infrastructure will be needed. These changes will also require continued investment in modern, deployable forces. The Wales summit is a key opportunity to reverse the trend of declining defense budgets and to share the responsibilities for security more fairly.

We are convinced that these measures are necessary to adapt to a dangerous world and to respond to Russia's double-game.

We continue to urge Russia to make the responsible choice: to pull back its troops, stop using hybrid-warfare tactics, and engage with the international community and the Ukrainian government to find a political solution to the crisis.

But meanwhile we must make the right choices for NATO: to ensure that the alliance remains ready, willing and able to defend our almost one billion citizens. That is our No. 1 job at the Wales summit, and we stand united in our resolve.

We will send an unmistakable message: Today and in the future, NATO means one for all, all for one.

Mr. Rasmussen is the secretary-general of NATO. Gen. Breedlove is NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe and commander of U.S. European Command.


www.wsj.com

ist natürlich klar…

in Österreich haben solche Ansichten keine Mehrheit…

zwischen die Retroansichten von dem Kommunisten UHBP Fischer und den Neonazis vom HC Strache passt kein Blatt…die sind beide anti-westlich…und leben wahrscheinlich neben ihren Beamtengehältern zusätzlich ganz gut davon..

unsere Bauern von der Raika, sorry ÖVP, sind genauso auf dem Retrotrip..

also die Meinung die hier im Tschörnl ausgedrückt wird,
ist sicher hier im Land nicht mehrheitsfähig…

bis es ganz duster wird...
_________________
"don't follow leaders, watch your parking meters…" ( copyright: B. Dylan)
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Di Sep 09, 2014 09:31:03 
Titel: der gute Alexander Golts
Antworten mit Zitat

zur Lage…

[quote]

Russia Has Dangerously Altered the Status Quo

By Alexander Golts Sep. 08 2014 19:13 Last edited 19:14

I never cease to marvel at our president's amazing foresight. After all, in 2007 he warned us of treacherous NATO's intention to encircle Russia with military bases teeming with troops. And now, at the recent NATO summit in Wales, the alliance reached the very decision that Putin so shrewdly saw coming seven years ago.

Of course, NATO only announced its "wicked designs" after Russia brazenly annexed Crimea and stirred up a "hybrid war" in order to establish control over southern and eastern Ukraine. Could Putin really have hatched those plans way back in 2007?

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said the decisions reached at this summit send a clear signal to Russia. As a result of Moscow's intervention in Ukraine, the alliance will form a very high-readiness force that can deploy to conflict zones in a matter of days and that will probably number up to 5,000 troops. That force will spearhead NATO's already-existing Rapid Response Forces consisting of about 26,000 soldiers and officers.

NATO officials stressed several times during the summit that the alliance has begun preparations for carrying out "the entire spectrum of missions." That presumably includes repelling large-scale aggression from the east, a scenario hearkening back to the days of the Cold War.

The list of countries expressing willingness to host NATO infrastructure speaks for itself: the Baltic states, Poland and Romania. And even if only a relatively small number of troops deploy to those countries, their presence indicates that NATO as a whole will respond if Moscow tries to repeat its "Ukrainian scenario" in any of these countries.

That is significant, because prior to the summit, Poland and the Baltic states openly worried that Western leaders might not have the political willpower to act decisively in their defense. And frankly, those fears were justified when considering the West's irresolute response to Russia's actions in Ukraine.

Now, the permanent presence of various NATO troops in the Baltic states and Poland guarantees that, in the event of an attack by Russia, NATO will provide its promised collective defense. And Moscow will now have to reckon with the fact that if it sends its "polite green men" into Latvia or Estonia, they will likely encounter U.S. and British troops there and provoke a direct military confrontation with the leading NATO powers.

Several times during the summit briefing, NATO Deputy Supreme Allied Commander in Europe Adrian Bradshaw made it clear that the newly created "spearhead" forces are intended to deter Russia. He said the current situation in Ukraine has made it necessary for NATO to conduct a complete review of its forces in the coming months.

He also said that NATO might establish additional headquarters in member countries near Russia that would have the authority to act in accordance with Article 5 of the Washington Treaty — that is, to quickly launch a military response to a potential adversary.

The "spearhead" forces will consist of a multinational assemblage of troops drawn from special units from specially designated NATO countries. They will rotate duty, moving between forward-positioned bases. The general also noted that NATO will review the tasks and composition of its entire Rapid Reaction Forces.

He pointed out that, although the planned "spearhead" forces for repelling aggression are relatively few in number, any potential aggressor should keep in mind that the full force of NATO's military might would soon follow.

Most importantly, Bradshaw said the "spearhead" forces might carry "not only conventional weapons." Asked to clarify, he explained that in order to serve as a successful deterrent, the forces must have the same weapons at their disposal as the potential aggressor. In other words, under certain circumstances, the NATO "spearhead" forces might carry nuclear weapons in their arsenal.

And although these are only hypothetical discussions at present, I suspect they are meant as a tough response to swaggering loudmouths in the Russian Defense Ministry who threaten to deploy nuclear-equipped Iskander missiles to the Kaliningrad region or strike future NATO facilities.

I repeat: these are rapid reaction forces with very high readiness. That means NATO is already preparing to deter what it sees as a potential Russian threat. In the wake of Moscow's actions in Ukraine, the West is now poised to take quite seriously whatever nonsense Russian politicians spout off, and to respond accordingly.

The Kremlin's actions in Ukraine have practically destroyed all mutual trust between Russia and the West.

It seems that NATO will no longer consider Russia — much less Putin — a partner for many years to come. U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron published an article in the Times of London on Sept. 3, on the eve of the NATO summit.

Of everything written there, this passage struck me most: "Ultimately by working together we are stronger, whether in standing up to Russia or confronting IS." Thus, Putin's policies have accomplished something earlier considered impossible: the West now views Russia in the same light as the Islamic State, a terrorist organization committing horrendous atrocities in Syria and Iraq.

The NATO summit officially acknowledged that, thanks to Russia, we now live in a new, more dangerous world. And this is a world that I most decidedly do not like.

Alexander Golts is deputy editor of the online newspaper Yezhednevny Zhurnal.[/quote]

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/opinion/article/russia-has-dangerously-altered-the-status-quo/506632.html
_________________
"don't follow leaders, watch your parking meters…" ( copyright: B. Dylan)
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
CHH
int. Luftfahrtjournalist
int. Luftfahrtjournalist


Anmeldungsdatum: 26.07.2004
Beiträge: 1553
Wohnort: Groß-Enzersdorf

BeitragVerfasst am: Di Sep 09, 2014 09:44:58 
Titel: Na, dann ist der Vladi doch ein ...
Antworten mit Zitat

ganz spezieller Hellseher! Er sorgt dafür, dass seine Vorhersagen eintreffen.
"Self-fulfilling prophecy"...
Er sollte besser vorhersagen: "Ich sterbe bei einem Verkehrsunfall" und sich dann in seinen Benz setzen und mit 240 gegen´s Tunnelportal brettern. Da hätten alle was davon...
Sauschädel...
_________________
Wir sind Österreicher. Was bedeutet, daß grundsätzliche Kurskorrekturen und deutliche Prioritätensetzungen nicht unsere Sache sind. Man ist froh, einigermaßen über die Runden zu kommen und Probleme irgendwie auszusitzen. (Zitat v. Alfred Payrleitner)
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden Website dieses Benutzers besuchen
Foxhound
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 27.01.2007
Beiträge: 3072
Wohnort: Zwenkau

BeitragVerfasst am: Sa Sep 13, 2014 23:13:04 
Titel: Re: Na, dann ist der Vladi doch ein ...
Antworten mit Zitat

CHH hat folgendes geschrieben:

Er sollte besser vorhersagen: "Ich sterbe bei einem Verkehrsunfall" und sich dann in seinen Benz setzen und mit 240 gegen´s Tunnelportal brettern. Da hätten alle was davon...

Hatten wir 1997 schonmal in Paris. Etwas mehr Kreativität wenn ich bitten darf ...
_________________
"Es ist okay, eine Benzinschleuder zu fahren, wenn du damit Puppen aufreißt!" - Al Bundy

Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden E-Mail senden MSN Messenger
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Di Sep 16, 2014 09:49:28 
Titel: Der NATO Chef Rasmussen
Antworten mit Zitat

zu den Themen…

Zitat:


The Dual Threats to Western Values

The Islamic State and Vladimir Putin's Russia are enemies of liberty, democracy and the rule of law.


By ANDERS FOGH RASMUSSEN

Sept. 15, 2014 7:25 p.m. ET

The abhorrent beheading of two American journalists and a British aid worker shocked the world. So did the tragic downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine. The deaths of these innocents show the global consequences of two major crises on Europe's doorstep: the advance of the so-called Islamic State terrorist group across Iraq and Syria, and Russia's aggression against Ukraine. The peace and security we enjoy in Europe and North America are under threat like never before.

These challenges will last for years, and we need to face that reality.

With Russia, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization has tried long and hard to build a partnership that respects Russia's security concerns and is based on international rules and norms. Regrettably, Russia has rejected our efforts to engage. Russia has trampled on all the rules and commitments that have kept peace in Europe and beyond since the end of the Cold War. It is now clear that Russia regards the West as an adversary, not a partner.

The terrorist threat is now growing in Syria and Iraq. The Islamic State terrorists are fueling the fire of sectarianism already burning across the Middle East and North Africa, with the risk rising that terror will be exported back to our shores.

We are confronted by forces of oppression that reject our liberal democracy and our liberal, rules-based international order. While their agendas and ideologies are different, they are virulently against the West and what we represent. They will grasp every opportunity to undermine our values of individual liberty, freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights.

In this age of unrest and revisionism, free societies must stand strong and united as a force for freedom. We must be prepared to act when we have to. We must work with like-minded nations. And we must show confidence in our own values.

At the NATO summit in Wales earlier this month, we strengthened our collective defense. We reaffirmed our core commitment to defend each of our 28 allies against any threat. We agreed to maintain a continuous presence in Eastern Europe and to create a spearhead force of several thousand troops that can be deployed at very short notice. We also pledged to halt the decline in defense spending and move toward investing 2% of our gross domestic product in defense over the next decade. Because freedom does not come free, and security is priceless.

Military force is rarely the only response to a crisis, but it is often an essential part of that response. I welcome President Obama's strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIS, working together with other NATO allies and partners. Should the new government in Baghdad request our assistance, NATO as an alliance stands ready to consider a defense-building mission to strengthen the ability of the Iraqi security forces to defend their own country. We could also help coordinate the provision of humanitarian aid and the air transport needed to deliver that assistance. Allied nations will also work closely together to exchange information on returning foreign fighters who can pose a threat to our countries.

Europe and North America are at the core of the global community. Our strength does not come from military might alone, but from the strength of our democracies and our economies. We must strengthen our community of free nations by continuing to reach out to like-minded partners. We should bolster our economies through more trade and investment, creating jobs and setting a strong example for others to follow. We need an even closer partnership between the European Union and NATO and to keep the door open to new members.

Our liberal international order—embracing freedom, democracy, the market economy, common rules and norms, and renouncing territorial conquest—has brought unprecedented peace, progress and prosperity to billions of people. This has been an historic achievement. So we must stand up with greater confidence for our principles and our values.

These values are now under threat. They cannot be taken for granted. As we approach the end of over a decade of fighting in Afghanistan, there is a temptation to turn inward. But the world will not become less dangerous just because we wish it to be. Threats will not go away just because we want to look away. We must keep a global perspective and counter isolationism and retreat.

If we fail to defend democracy, forces of oppression will seize the opportunity. Because appeasement does not lead to peace. It just incites the tyrants. Failure to counter oppression will only invite further oppression. Military action will always be the last resort, but we must be able to use it when we need to. Not to wage war, but to build peace.

This is a time when our values are being challenged and our will is being tested. Keeping NATO strong and North America and Europe united has never been more important. It is the only way to preserve our freedom, protect our people, and promote our values.


Mr. Rasmussen is the secretary general of NATO.


www.wsj.com

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_113063.htm
_________________
"don't follow leaders, watch your parking meters…" ( copyright: B. Dylan)


Zuletzt bearbeitet von Viper am Di Sep 16, 2014 16:14:32, insgesamt einmal bearbeitet
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Di Sep 16, 2014 12:52:55 
Titel: man sollte
Antworten mit Zitat

in diesem Zusammenhang auch endlich mit der Propagandalüge des Herrn Putin aufräumen, der Westen hätte Gorbatschow versprochen, dass die neuen EU Mitglieder aus dem Osten damals nicht zur NATO zugelassen würden..

Der Schwachsinn wird ja in Österreich auch von diversen Propagandisten des Kreml, ideologisch Verirrten, Verschwörungstheoretikern etc etc etc immer wiederholt..

Das Gegenteil ist wahr und richtig wie Aufzeichnungen aus dem Kreml selbst bestätigen..

Diese historischen Aufzeichnungen wurde aber unter Putin weggesperrt, respektive vernichtet..

Pech für Putin, sie waren schon verteilt und sind allen interessierten Historikern im Original zugänglich…

Zitat:


Revealed: the Kremlin files which prove that Nato never betrayed Russia

Secret official records contradict the stab-in-the-back myth that justifies Russian expansionism


Pavel Stroilov 6 September 2014

Nato is taken more seriously in Russia than in the West. Here, Nato is largely seen as yet another international bureaucracy, as useless as the rest of them. But to a former KGB officer like Vladimir Putin, the Cold War has never really ended, and Nato is an exceptionally dangerous and perfidious enemy. You may not criticise corruption in Russia, he says, as that would play into Nato’s hands. Putin had no choice but to invade Ukraine — in the Ukrainians’ own interests, to protect them against a Natotakeover.

Putin’s case against Nato is that it has deceived Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev says he agreed to withdraw from Soviet central Europe only after being promised that ‘Nato would not move a centimetre to the east’. This claim would seem to be corroborated by the handwritten notes of James Baker, the former US Secretary of State. ‘Nato — whose juris. would not move eastward,’ he scribbled during a conversation with Gorbachev in 1990. He then wrote to Helmut Kohl, Chancellor of Germany, that he had offered the Soviets ‘assurances that Nato’s jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position’. Since then, however, as many as ten eastern European countries have joined Nato, and Ukraine seems to be next in line. So Moscow seeks to justify the invasion as no more than a defensive move, taken in response to Nato’s treachery and expansionism.

Baker’s notes and Gorbachev’s recollections are all very interesting, but after all, the Soviets themselves were meticulous note keepers. Every word said by their leaders was recorded, and the transcripts circulated to those who needed to know. If Nato leaders really had given assurances to Gorbachev, the Kremlin would have it in black and white. Ten years ago, it seemed as if these files would be open to the public: Gorbachev’s former aides preserved their own copies, and let historians see them. Putin’s aides intervened to stop this outrageous spreading of state secrets. But not before I had copied the documents and smuggled them out of Russia.

The records show no trace of a promise that Nato would not expand. It’s quite clear that Nato expansion was already on the cards: indeed, Gorbachev was talking about joining the alliance. No promise was broken because none was made. And if the idea of a broken promise is being used as casus belli in Ukraine, it is being used fraudulently.

The records show that, on 25 May 1990, Gorbachev spoke to President François Mitterrand of France, referring to ‘some voices’ in eastern Europe ‘advocating these countries leaving the Warsaw Pact and joining Nato’. He then commented:

My own attitude to such changes is far from dramatic. We have recognised the right of those countries to have such social systems and ways of life as they may freely choose. All the more so since this does not prevent co-operation between us. Let them choose to organise their lives in such forms as they please.


Had Gorbachev demanded assurances of no Nato expansion at the time, they would probably have been readily given. But in fact he demanded the opposite. On 31 May 1990 he told US President George H.W. Bush:

I see your efforts to change the functions of Nato, to try and involve new members into that organisation. If you seriously take a course towards a transformation of the alliance and its political diffusion in the common European process, that, of course, makes it an entirely different matter. But that would raise the question about turning Nato into a genuinely open organisation, whose doors would not be closed to any country. Then, perhaps, we also might think about a Nato membership for ourselves.

On 8 June 1990, Gorbachev told Margaret Thatcher:

Reforming both Nato and the Warsaw Treaty Organisation, and an agreement between them, would lead to a situation when any country would be able to join either of those organisations. Maybe someone else would want to join the Nato. And what if we, the USSR, decide to join the Nato?

On 5 March 1991, Gorbachev told John Major: ‘To subvert Nato from within, we [Russia] are going to write an application to join Nato.’ Major answered: ‘It is better to apply for membership in the European Community.’ To which Mr Gorbachev replied: ‘If we are talking about Europe from Atlantics to Urals, we should look at the military organisations through the same spectacles. You just cannot sit on two chairs at the same time. Parts of you may get pinched between them.’

So where is the naive Gorbachev of the Russian myth, with his gullible acceptance of Nato’s false promises? He was talking of a much wider alliance.

And what of James Baker’s notes? Phrases like ‘not an inch eastwards’ were in fact used in a very different context: an issue which arose out of the unification between West Germany, where Nato troops were stationed, and East Germany, with its Soviet troops. It was agreed that, for a few years’ transitional period, all troops would stay where they were. The Soviets would be given time to prepare their withdrawal, while the Nato troops would not move an inch eastwards into former East German territory.

But there was a bigger deal that Gorbachev wanted (and secured). Nato would be ‘reformed’ into a ‘political’ organisation and open its doors to co-operation with the East, which would result in its eventual ‘political diffusion in the common European process’.

‘If it is not against us that Nato is meant to fight, then against whom? Not against Germany, by any chance?’ asks Gorbachev in one conversation with the US President. ‘As I said, against instability,’ replies Bush.

The promise really given in 1990 was to ‘politicise’ Nato in this way. That promise was faithfully kept, with unfortunate consequences. During the first Cold War, the strength of Nato was its structure as a straightforward defensive alliance. If you attacked one Nato member, you were at war with all others, simple as that. It was this certainty that deterred the Soviet threat and secured peace in Europe for over 40 years. Today, Nato is little more than just one of several international talking shops. It is not keen to spell out what, if anything, it would do if Latvia or Estonia followed Ukraine on to Putin’s hit list.

As Putin actually knows, the West was every bit as good as its word: Nato has been defanged, and is no longer a threat. The consequences of that attempt at appeasement of Russia are now unravelling in eastern Ukraine.

This article first appeared in the print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated 6 September 2014


http://www.spectator.co.uk/features/9304652/russias-nato-myth/
_________________
"don't follow leaders, watch your parking meters…" ( copyright: B. Dylan)
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: Di Okt 14, 2014 15:20:57 
Titel: der gute Engelberg hat Recht….
Antworten mit Zitat

Zitat:


Gegen den Krieg und für Frieden sein: Europäer, das genügt nicht!
Erdoğans Türkei liefert mit teuflischem Kalkül zehntausende Menschen den IS-Mördern ans Messer, Europa sieht tatenlos zu: eine moralische Bankrotterklärung.


13.10.2014 | 18:17 | Martin Engelberg (Die Presse)

An dieser Stelle wurden schon wiederholt einige Punkte festgehalten, die auch im augenblicklichen Kampf um die nordsyrische Stadt Kobane wieder erkennbar sind. Erstens, der türkische Präsident Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ist ein skrupelloser Herrscher, der weitgehend enthemmt inner- und außerhalb der Türkei seine brutale Machtpolitik betreibt. Im aktuellen Konflikt scheut er sich nicht, mit den wahnsinnigen Islamisten zu paktieren und ihnen bei ihrem beabsichtigten Massaker an den syrischen Kurden die Mauer zu machen.

Gleichzeitig unterdrückt Erdoğan die eigene kurdische Bevölkerung und lässt deren Demonstrationen gewaltsam niederschlagen – mit Dutzenden Todesopfern. Geht es jedoch um die Hamas in Gaza, sendet Erdoğan scheinheilig immer gleich eine „Friedensflottille“ los. Es ist eine Schande, dass diese Türkei weiterhin ein Mitglied der Nato, die sich ja auch als eine westliche Wertegemeinschaft versteht, sein darf.

Zweitens: Schon im berühmten Briefwechsel zwischen Albert Einstein und Sigmund Freud unter dem Titel „Warum Krieg?“ wurde eine Weltpolizei gefordert. Ist eine solche im Rahmen der UNO nicht realistisch durchsetzbar, dann ist es die moralische Pflicht der westlichen Welt, die Einhaltung der grundlegenden Menschenrechte auch in anderen Ländern, nötigenfalls auch mit militärischen Mitteln, zu verteidigen.

Wie viele Massaker wie jene von Ruanda 1994 und Srebrenica 1995 brauchen wir denn noch, um endlich zu unseren ethischen und moralischen Verpflichtungen zu stehen? Wollen wir uns weiterhin damit begnügen, immer im Nachhinein peinliche Schuldeingeständnisse abzuliefern und den Hinterbliebenen Schadenersatzzahlungen zu leisten?

Es genügt nicht, selbstgefällig gegen Krieg und für Frieden zu sein. Die Lehre aus „Nie wieder Ruanda und Srebrenica!“ lautet nicht „Nie wieder Krieg!“, sondern die Bereitschaft, allenfalls auch zur Verhinderung einer Wiederholung solcher Verbrechen in einen Krieg zu ziehen. Drittens: Noch jeder, die USA auch nur ansatzweise wertschätzende Kommentar wird hierzulande sofort mit einem Geheul an antiamerikanischen Gehässigkeiten und Vorwürfen bedacht. Europa liebt es, sich den Vereinigten Staaten gegenüber moralisch überlegen zu fühlen und den Amerikanern bei allen ihren Handlungen von vornherein unlautere Motive zu unterstellen.

Aus aktuellem Anlass sei den Europäern aber wieder einmal ins Stammbuch geschrieben: Schande über Europa! Die USA haben wenigstens als Erste tausende Soldaten nach Westafrika geschickt, um bei der Bewältigung der Ebola-Epidemie zu helfen. Sie stehen als Einzige den Kurden bei der Verteidigung Kobanes militärisch bei. Unter einem anderen als dem von den Europäern so geliebten US-Präsidenten Barack Obama wäre Amerika den Islamisten vielleicht sogar noch aktiver entgegengetreten.

Aber wo sind die Europäer? Ist das erste Flugzeug mit Waffen aus Deutschland endlich bei den Kurden angekommen oder sitzt es infolge von zahllosen Pannen noch immer auf dem Weg dorthin irgendwo fest?

Haben wir eigentlich von der moralischen Instanz unseres Landes, unserem Staatsoberhaupt also, schon etwas in dieser Angelegenheit gehört? War es nicht Heinz Fischer, der sich erst vor Kurzem mit Kritik an Israel nicht zurückhalten konnte und auf eine öffentliche Polemik darüber einließ, ob denn das militärische Vorgehen Israels im Gaza-Krieg beträchtlich oder sogar extrem unverhältnismäßig gewesen sei. Fällt dem Bundespräsidenten zum Treiben der IS-Mörder nichts ein?

Es steht zu befürchten, dass sich die passive, ja verantwortungslose Haltung Europas noch bitter rächen wird. Den fürchterlichen Entwicklungen in der islamischen Welt und deren Auswirkungen vor allem auf Europa werden wir – früher oder später – mit viel mehr Entschlossenheit entgegentreten müssen. Je später das aber geschieht, desto höher wird der Preis werden.


http://diepresse.com/home/meinung/quergeschrieben/martinengelberg/3886742/Gegen-den-Krieg-und-fur-Frieden-sein_Europaeer-das-genugt-nicht
_________________
"don't follow leaders, watch your parking meters…" ( copyright: B. Dylan)
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Viper
ist immer hier
ist immer hier


Anmeldungsdatum: 07.08.2004
Beiträge: 8981

BeitragVerfasst am: So Okt 19, 2014 09:46:24 
Titel: weise Worte...
Antworten mit Zitat

der Pole Janusz Reiter ehemals Botschafter Polens In Deutschland zu den Themen..

Zitat:
...Janusz Reiter sitzt im Berliner "Hilton" und sieht so aus, wie man sich einen Diplomaten vorstellt. Vornehm. Zurückhaltend. Dabei hat der 62-jährige Pole eine bewegte Karriere hinter sich. Als Journalist beteiligte er sich an der Opposition gegen das kommunistische Regime; nach dessen Sturz wurde er Botschafter des neuen Polen, zuerst in Deutschland, später in den USA. Und obwohl er sanft spricht, spricht der Germanist in gestochenem Deutsch ganz undiplomatisch unbequeme Wahrheiten aus…...


http://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article133397769/Das-deutsche-Nie-wieder-Krieg-nervt.html?wtrid=socialmedia.socialflow....socialflow_twitter
_________________
"don't follow leaders, watch your parking meters…" ( copyright: B. Dylan)
Nach oben
Benutzer-Profile anzeigen Private Nachricht senden
Beiträge der letzten Zeit anzeigen:    Seite 1 von 2       Gehe zu Seite 1, 2  Weiter
Dieses Thema ist gesperrt, du kannst keine Beiträge editieren oder beantworten.
Gehe zu:  
Du kannst keine Beiträge in dieses Forum schreiben.
Du kannst auf Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht antworten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht bearbeiten.
Du kannst deine Beiträge in diesem Forum nicht löschen.
Du kannst an Umfragen in diesem Forum nicht mitmachen.



Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group