Krim und Kanonenboote

Putin und Poroschenko schmilzt die Popularität. Das macht die Sache doppelt gefährlich, denn mit Befeuerung der äußeren Feindschaft lässt sich von innenpolitischen Problemen ablenken.

 Es kann sich nicht bewähren, einer Seite Mut gegen die andere zu machen.

Das jedoch schließt nicht aus, die russische Seite wegen der offenbar scharfen Schüsse auch schärfer zu verurteilen, sofern es eine ordentliche Untersuchung nahe legt.
Desgleichen die Schiffskollision betreffend, ob "Rammen" oder inwieweit "Verletzung seerechtlicher Vorfahrtsregeln".
Desweiteren behauptet Moskau ausdrücklich, dass die ukrainischen Kriegsschiffe in russische Hoheitsgewässer eingedrungen seien, die auch vor der Krim-Annexion russische Hoheitsgewässer gewesen seien. Auch diese Behauptung sollte sich unbefangen beurteilen lassen.

Es braucht Versachlichung bzw. Verrechtlichung der "Zwischenfälle" und des gesamten Konflikts, wenn er politisch statt militärisch eingedämmt und gelöst werden soll. Dass sich solche Forderung schwer tut, wenn den Akteuren an Emotionalisierung, Polarisierung gelegen ist, liegt auf der Hand, ist jedoch kein Gegenargument.
Um der fortgesetzten Selbstjustiz einen diplomatischen Dämpfer zu verpassen, sollten alle Regierungen der Welt unmissverständlich an die Konfliktparteien appellieren: "Wenn sich Eure Kriegsschiffe mal wieder nicht friedlich zu begegnen verstehen, dann sollten sie in Hafenarrest verbleiben."

Zur etwaigen Kündigung des INF-Vertrags:

Das Wesentliche einer INF-Vertragskündigung ist die Wiedervermehrung von Atomwaffen, also ein Unterlaufen der Reduzierungsabkommen strategischer Waffen durch Mittelstrecken-Aufrüstung. Und zwar als Folge der Kündigung des ABM-Vertrages, denn dessen Kündigung führt nicht nur bei den Abfangsystemen, sondern auch bei den Angriffsmitteln zum Wettrüsten, um die Abfangsysteme zu überwinden.

Überdies bedenklich: Nur in den besten Zeiten der Entspannungspolitik schien das (sekundäre) Streben nach einem irgendwie gewinnbaren Atomkrieg vom Tisch. Inzwischen wieder nicht mehr, denn die Logik ist:
- Landgestützte Raketen sind bevorzugte Angriffsziele,
- taugen deshalb weniger zum Gegenschlag als bspw. U-Boot-Atomwaffen,
- folglich sind landgestützte Atomraketen, ob als Lang- oder Mittelstreckler, eher Erstschlagswaffen (in Kombi mit Abfangsystemen).

Atomkriegs-Gewinnbarkeit mag eine dauerhafte Illusion sein, aber wehe der Menschheit, wenn sich eine der Atommächte einbilden sollte, sie könnte es und es sei so weit. - Trotzdem weniger wahrscheinlich als ein "versehentlicher Atomkrieg" jederzeit.

Gegenseitige Diplomatenausweisung

Russland hat nun auch vier deutsche Diplomaten des Landes verwiesen und reagiert somit auf Berlins Ausweisungen im Zusammenhang mit mutmaßlichen Giftanschlag auf einen übergelaufenen Spion des russischen Geheimdienstes in Großbritannien.

Der Kreml ist halt genau gleich bescheuert wie die Regierungen im Westen. Aber okay, wenn es den Leut' hüben wie drüben gefällt, dass man sich gegenseitig die Diplomaten ausweist, dann waren die Diplomaten offenbar überflüssig. - Und daran scheint leider Wahres, weil Diplomatie falsch verstanden wird oder nicht stattfindet, obgleich es jede Menge gemeinsamer Probleme diplomatisch anzugehen gilt.

President Medvedev - Berlin Speech

Speech of President of Russian Federation D.Medvedev at Celebrations Marking the 20th Anniversary of the Berlin Wall’s FallDMITRY MEDVEDEV: Dear Madam Federal Chancellor, Mr President, Mayor of Berlin, ladies and gentlemen,

I am very happy to be with you today and take part in the celebrations in a free and united Berlin.

Today, as we profess the rules of free and open cooperation, as we overcome current difficulties and resolve the problems engendered by the crisis, we understand just how significant the events of 20 years ago were. It was precisely then that the Berlin Wall was demolished, a wall that symbolised a confrontation between people, between close friends. The wall did not simply divide one country – as we understand today it divided all of Europe.

Of course we must not forget that her fall was predetermined, prepared by the transformations that were then gaining strength in the Soviet Union, in other states.

The role of the Soviet Union in Germany's peaceful reunification really was crucial. These events brought freedom and progress to Europe and became pivotal for the fate of the entire world.

We must remember that the process of German reunification was associated with the attitudes of vast numbers of people and, of course, with the position adopted by the Soviet leadership at that time. As a result, families were reunited, people could finally see each other, the iron curtain was dismantled, and borders were eliminated.

Today, neither the Soviet Union nor East Germany exist on the map, but millions of people who lived, worked and brought up their children during that time still do. And we highly value the fact that the 20 years since these events has been a special period for relations between Russia and Germany, a period for constructing new partnerships and establishing very respectful relations.

Our peoples had the historical courage to transcend memories of things past and achieve a historic reconciliation after World War II. They were reasonable enough to preserve the achievements of modern Europe.

Here in Berlin I would like to say that we all hope that this period of confrontation has become a thing of the past. Today's transition to a new multipolar world is very important for most countries, for all European countries and the entire world. And a unifying agenda is very important for everyone, as the planet continues to respond to the most dangerous threats: economic and regional ones, and our common fight against terrorism and crime.

I hope that we have all rejected divisive barriers which separated us in the past.

Today, dear friends, we would like to work on this agenda together, think about our children, our future, our common Europe. This is very important for Russian citizens.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear Berliners, I wish you success, prosperity and all the best.

http://www.russische-botschaft.de

When will the West answer Medvedev's proposals?

MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti political commentator Andrei Fedyashin) - While in Berlin, Dmitry Medvedev has made so many proposals to the West, that it would be very rude to turn them down. It will be interesting to see how long the West ponders over them and which it will accept.

In brief, Medvedev suggested a pause on Kosovo, on NATO's extension (one more step to the East and relations with Russia will be spoilt once and for all), and on new U.S. missile defense elements in Europe. He said that the Russian views should not be tailored to the Western positions, that the UN and the OSCE should not be replaced with other forums, and proposed a universally binding international security agreement on the template of the Helsinki-2 accords.

His proposals will not be accepted as a package, and the West is not likely to give a prompt reply. Moreover, many Europeans are impeded by a blinkered understanding of the recent change of power in Russia. They cannot see that Medvedev is Vladimir Putin's successor, rather than opponent.

The new Russian president's first trip to the West was bound to attract comment, and Medvedev could not but be compared with his predecessor. This is only natural. But these comparisons were made against the background of Putin's speech in Munich on February 10, in which he outlined Russia's grievances. That speech scared the West quite a bit.

Thus, on the eve of his first visit to Berlin, Medvedev was expected to show renewed "liberalism," "restraint," and "gentleness," all the features which Putin had lost by the time he gave his Munich speech (these are all statements from British, German, and American newspapers). It is difficult to say where the West got such "confidential information," not only about the contents of Medvedev's speech but also about his tone.

Nor was it very well informed. Speaking before almost 700 German businessmen, politicians, and public figures, Medvedev set forth in detail the very same ideas Putin had so emotionally voiced in Munich. Indeed, it is difficult to find any differences between the two speeches. In Munich, Putin said "the use of force may be considered legitimate only if a decision is made by the United Nations, and the latter should not be replaced with either NATO, or the European Union (EU)." In Berlin, Medvedev spoke about "attempts to justify NATO's existence by 'globalizing' its mission, which infringes on the UN Security Council's prerogatives, and by inviting new members."

Moreover, Putin said that "NATO's expansion is a serious provocation, which is reducing the level of mutual trust. It is fair for us to ask in plain terms - against whom is this expansion directed?" This sounds much more liberal than Medvedev's warning that if NATO expands any further, "relations with Russia will be spoilt once and for all," and "the price of this will be high."

Putin said that Russia has "the privilege to conduct an independent foreign policy." Medvedev recalled that "our approaches should not be tailored to Western positions," and that we "are seeking truly equitable relations and nothing more than that."

One gets the impression that though many people understand that the era of "Yeltsin's mellowness" has gone for good, they cannot - or will not - accept it. They are trying to subject Russia to some kind of a check-up, to find out who it will make friends with and who it will oppose.

These people seem to think that Winston Churchill's dictum that Britain has neither friends nor enemies, but interests, should not apply to anyone but Britain, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Australia or Canada. They forget that no country has a monopoly on pragmatism.

The business part of the meeting went without a hitch. After all, Germany and Russia enjoy a special relationship going back as far as Peter the Great. For centuries the two countries have had an unwritten agreement under which Germany helps Russia with technologies in exchange for access to its mineral riches. Today, that relationship is as strong as ever. Germany is Europe's biggest consumer of Russian energy, and Russia has always been its most reliable supplier. Today, oil and gas amount to 70% of Russian exports to Germany. Metals and alloys account for another 15%, and timber comes next. Ninety percent of German exports to Russia are machines and equipment, metal ware, chemicals, and electrical equipment.

Asked by a German newspaper what advice he would give to Frau Merkel at the talks with Medvedev, Andreas Schockenhoff, Germany's envoy on German-Russian relations, replied that he would suggest inviting the Russian president to attend the annual security conference in Munich, which is traditionally held in February.

That is a good idea. Medvedev has had his say. Maybe in Munich the Europeans will give him their answer.

The opinions expressed in this article are the author's and do not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.

Russian president calls for binding European security treaty

BERLIN, June 5 (RIA Novosti) -- Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called on Thursday for a legally binding European security treaty to be signed at an all-European conference.
"I am convinced that without addressing all of our concerns in a frank and fair way we will be unable to make any headway in building a Greater Europe," he said, speaking in Berlin after talks with Chancellor Angela Merkel during his first European trip since being sworn into office on May 7
He also added that "organizations operating in the Euro-Atlantic region" could also join it.
He said a new security arrangement should be based on "pure" national interests, not skewed by ideological motives.
The president also said that without cuts in military spending it would be impossible to raise sufficient resources to deal with such global challenges as climate change, illegal migration, and global poverty.
He also said that NATO's further eastward expansion would harm the bloc's relations with Russia, but there would be no confrontation.
Medvedev urged NATO to halt its enlargement and missile defense plans in Europe, adding that it was critical to break the vicious circle of unilateral actions.
He also said earlier on Thursday that Russia was alarmed by "narrowing trends of mutual understanding in Euro-Atlantic policies."

Russia and the EU are to start talks on a new wide-reaching strategic partnership agreement at a summit later this month.

Russian Announcement of Intention to Send More Military Forces into Abkhazia

Press Statement Sean McCormack, Spokesman
Washington, DC May 31, 2008

The United States is dismayed by Russia's Defense Ministry announcement on May 31 that it intends to send more military forces, including railroad construction troops, into the Georgian region of Abkhazia without the consent of the Georgian Government. This announcement is particularly difficult to understand in light of Georgia's forthcoming statement at the UN Security Council on May 30 that it was suspending UAV flights over Abkhazia, as well as the constructive efforts by President Saakashvili and others to invigorate the Abkhazia peace process. We have expressed our concerns to the Russian government and are in touch with the Georgian government about this latest announcement of a Russian military buildup.