Während die westlichen Medien die Treffen zwischen Merkel-Erdogan, Putin-Erdogan und Merkel-Putin sehr kritisch bewerteten, fasste der EU-Berater von Gazprom, Prof. Alexander Rahr, das Merkel-Putin-Treffen als „Durchbruch von einer wertorientierten zu einer interessenorientierten Politik“ zusammen – Realpolitik -Merkel erkannte, dass eine Lösung der Flüchtlingskrise, die Stabilisierung des Großen Mittleren Ostens, das Iran-Abkommen ohne Russland und die Türkei nicht zustande kommen kann, da sich die USA aus dem Nahen Osten zurückziehen, mit Ausnahme des Iran, mehr der Unruhestifter sind und die Europäer sind derzeit gelähmt und können nur eine Vermittlerrolle und Scheckbuchdiplomatie spielen. Ich würde jedoch nur von einem möglichen Beginn eines Durchbruchs in Richtung Entspannung gegenüber Russland, einer neuen Ostpolitik, sprechen, und es ist unklar, ob dies ein echter Durchbruch sein wird, da eine solche neue Politik nach Merkels Rückzug nach dem Ende ihrer Regentschaft nach den nächsten Wahlen 2021 mittels einer schwarz-grünen Koalition unter der Führung von AKK / Merz / Habeck / Baerbrock stabilisiern müsste und Deutschland müsste sich mit Macron und anderen Europäern zusammenschließen. Und es hängt auch vom Wahlergebnis der USA ab, ob Trump einen Handelskrieg mit der EU beginnt und der Entwicklung des Konflikts zwischen den USA und dem Iran.

Aber die Eurasier sehen das Putin-Merkel-Treffen und Macrons Aussagen als positive Zeichen. Und dass Friedrich Merz, Konkurrent von Krampf-Karrenbauer um die Merkelnachfolge. ehemaliger Blackrock- Angehöriger und ehemaliger Vorsitzender der transatlantischen Organisation Atlantikbrücke, die Errichtung einer transasiatischen Chinabrücke unterstützt, die vom ehemaligen CSU-Minister Friedrichs vorangetrieben wird, wird auch als Verschiebung der Weltordnung gesehen. Kein Wunder, dass Putin nun die Regierung absetzt, sich mittels Verfassungsreform verewigen will und zudem der russische Aussenminister Lawrow die Aufnahme Indiens in den UN-Sicherheitsrat fordert-in der Hoffnung, dass Indien mehr die eurasischen Kräfte Russland und China nach dem BRI-Triademodel Eurasiens von Primakovs gegen das exklusive, China ausschliessende Indopazifikkonzept der USA stützen will, zumal Indien eben auch MItglied der SCO wurde. Momentan also ein Tauziehen um Indien und die Türkei seitens Russland , der USA und der EU angesichts positiver Signale in Sachen Eurasien.

Während Prof. Rahr behauptet, die NATO werde sich auflösen, höre man mal Trump. Was ist seine Idee? Das Interessanteste war sein Tweet, dass die NATO Länder des Nahen Ostens einbeziehen sollte. Dies würde bedeuten, dass sich die NATO von einem wertebasierten Militärbündnis in ein rein interessenbasiertes Militärbündnis verwandelt, dem dann nichtdemokratische und autoritäre Mitglieder angehören würden, zumal auch aus dem muslischen und nicht streng transatlatsichen Bereich. . Sehr unwahrscheinlich. Da Macron und sogar die Briten oder die AKK (weniger) wollen, dass sich die NATO mehr auf den Süden als auf den Osten und gegen Russland konzentriert und Russland sogar als potentiellen Partner im Greater Middle East betrachtet, scheint dies in den deutschen Medien niemand zu erkennen. Trumps Fokus liegt auf dem Iran und China, nicht auf Russland und Nordkorea. Die NATO ist für ihn nur dann wertvoll, wenn sie dieser Idee dient. Dies war auch der Grund, warum China auf dem 70-jährigen Treffen der NATO erstmals als potentielle Bedrohung für die NATO erwähnt wurde. Und niemand nimmt seine Idee, die NATO solle auf den Nahen Osten ausgeweitet werden, ernst.

Oder ist Trumps Erweiterungsgespräch nur ein Weg, um die Unterstützung der NATO für seinen Iran-Krieg zu finden, und wie würden die Türkei und Russland reagieren, wenn die NATO in die MENA-Region eingreifen würde? Ist das realistisch? Oder möchte Trump den Test machen und die NATO durch eine bilaterale US-Sicherheitsarchitektur für Europa und den Großen Nahen Osten mit einigen willigen Schlüsselstaaten ersetzen, falls seine Vorstösse nichts bringen?

Trump meint eher den operativen Bereich als die Mitgliedschaft von Staaten des Nahen Ostens. In der Talkshow im deutschen Fernsehen ARD Hart aber fair war die Politik von Iran und Trump das Thema. Interessant war die Einschätzung von Trump durch Trittin (Grüne Partei) und Röttgen (CDU). Trittin widersprach der Einschätzung, Trump wolle sich aus dem Nahen Osten zurückziehen. Trittin sagte, dass Trump die NATO in diesem Bereich einsetzen wolle und diesbezüglich auch die USA, obwohl er diesmal auch die Europäer hinzukommen lassen wolle. Röttgen sagte, dass die EU keinen Konsens für eine Nahost-Mission erzielen würde, aber die E3, Deutschland, Großbritannien und Frankreich voran gehen sollten. Das klingt ein bisschen größenwahnsinnig, zumal Russland noch im Osten lauert. Meiner Meinung nach würde dies zu einer Koalition der Willigen anstelle der NATO führen und eine Entspannung mit Russland im Osten und im Nahen Osten zur Voraussetzung haben, um Ressourcen für ein NATO-Engagement oder ein europäisches Engagement im Süden zu haben. Und was soll die spezifische Mission sein? Und wie könnte die NATO auch mit UN-Mandat ein neutraler Vermittler sein, wenn die Türkei immer noch ein NATO-Mitglied ist, das sich Russland erneut nähert? Oder sollen alle zusammen kooperieren? Im Moment sind dies jedoch eher theoretische Fragen, da Europa nicht auf ein militärisches Engagement vorbereitet ist. Deshalb hat Merkel den realpolitischen Ansatz, zu akzeptieren, dass Russland und die Türkei die Hauptstabilisierungskräfte in der MENA-Region sind, während die USA eher der troublemaker sind.

Prof. Rahr prognostiziert sogar eine eurasische Koalition aus Europa, Russland und China über den Iran-Deal und sogar die Schaffung eines eurasischen Finanzsystems gegen US-Sanktionen, was auch zu einem eurasischen Finanzsystem gegenüber dem anglosaxonischen Finanzsystem des Petrodollars und der Wall Street und der City of London führen könnte . Es ist jedoch ungewiss, ob Merkel und die Europäer sich so intensiv mit den USA für den Iran auseinandersetzen werden, da die USA nach wie vor ein wichtiger Markt sind, der US-Dollar nach wie vor die führende Reservewährung der Welt ist und ob Petro-Euro, Petro-Euro Rubel oder Petro-Yuan das von den USA geführte globale Finanzsystem ersetzen können , ist fraglich. Es würde auch von den USA als offene Kriegserklärung wahrgenommen.

Nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg wurde der Dollar vom Bretton-Woods-System als die weltweit führende Reservewährung definiert und garantiert den USA, dass sie Geld drucken und ihre rasch wachsenden Staatsschulden bezahlen können. Nach dem Zusammenbruch des Goldstandards hat die Nixon / Kissinger-Regierung mit Saudi-Arabien und der OPEC die Vereinbarung getroffen, Öl in US-Dollar zu frakturien, wodurch das Petrodollar-System geschaffen wurde. Der Petrodollar ist eine wichtige Säule des von den USA dominierten globalen Finanzsystems. Aber nicht nur Öl wird im US-Dollar frakturiert, sondern auch andere Rohstoffe, Industrieprodukte und Dienstleistungen. Deshalb bleibt der Petrodollar wichtig und die USA mochten es nicht, als Saddam Hussein, Chavez und Maduro oder Ghaddafi versuchten, den Euro für Ölzahlungen zu verwenden. Manche sehen hier auch den eigentlichen Grund für diese Kriege.

Oder dass Russland und China ihre Währungn anstatt des Petrodollars zu diesem Zweck benutzen. Und 2019 dachte Saudiarabaia über die Abschaffung des Petrodollar-Systems nach, als der US-Kongress ein NOPEC-Gesetz vorlegte, das weder in den beiden Häusern eine Mehrheit fand noch vom US-Präsidenten unterstützt wurde. Aber es braucht mehr als Petrodollar, um eine globale Weltwährung zu werden. Die Dominanz der US-Währung basiert teilweise auf dem Petrodollar, aber nicht nur oder hauptsächlich. Und eine andere Frage wäre, was ein solches eurasisches Finanzsystem, falls es jemals eintreten sollte, für Folgen für die Weltwirtschaft haben würde und wer dieses eurasische Finanzsystem beherrscht – der Euro, der Rubel (unwahrscheinlich), der Yuan oder es müsste einen Währungskorb geben. Das klingt eher nach einer unrealistischen illusionären Utopie.

Und es geht nicht nur um Öl oder Währungen, sondern die treibende Kraft ist die Technologie, die die neue Weltordnung, ihre Gesellschaften und ihre Beziehungen zueinander neu strukturieren wird. Egal, ob man es Digitalisierung, 4. industrielle Revolution/ Industrie 4.0, zweites / drittes Atomzeitalter oder Posthumanismus und Singularität als Ray Kurzweil nennt. Es gibt viele Studien über disruptive Technologien, aber nicht so viele, wie sie die Weltordnung dadurch verändern könnte. Einige Thinktanks haben es versucht, auch in Russland wie etwa Dr. Kulikovs Dialog der Zivilisationen, der zumal auch die demographische entwicklung neben der Technologie als Haupttriebkraft für die Strukturierung der Weltordnug des 21. Jahrhunderts sieht, aber all dies findet auf höherer Ebene nicht viele Anhänger. Russland und die EU sind in diesem Sinne nicht wichtig.

Es ist hauptsächlich ein Kampf zwischen Silicon Valley / neuen US-Technologien und Made in China 2025. Und selbst die Hitech-Apologeten wissen nicht, wie die Zukunft aussehen wird. Technologisch entscheiden die USA und China über die neue Weltordnung und sind mit ihren Quantencomputern wieder die digitale Erfindung der Dampfmaschine, aber auch neuer Gesellschaften, wie sie in Xi-Chinas Einsatz der Digitalisierung für ein soziales Bonussystem und eines neuen Totalitarismus im Wettbewerb mit einer liberalen Weltordnung hervortreten. Russland und die EU haben nichts Vergleichbares in Bezug auf KI, Blockchain-Technologie, Quantencomputer, Nanotechnologie, Gentechnik, erneuerbare Energien, alternative Mobilität und vor allem einen kreativen Humankapitalpool oder genügend Risikokapital und / oder staatliche Investitionen durch die Industriepolitik.

While Western media were very critical about the meetings between Merkel-Erdogan, Putin-Erdogan and Merkel-Putin, EU adviser to Gazprom Prof. Alexander Rahr summarized the Merkel-Putin-meeting as a „breakthrough from value-based policy to interest-based real politics“ Merkel realized that a solution of the refugee crisis, the stabilization of the Greater Middle East, the Iran deal cannot materialize without Russia and Turkey as the USA is withdrawing from the Middle East with the exception of Iran, more the trouble maker and the Europeans are paralyzed at the moment and can only play a mediator role and checkbook diplomacy. However, I would speak of the possible beginning of a breakthrough towards detente to Russia, a New East policy and it is unclear if this will be a real breakthrough as such a new policy would have to become common sense after Merkel´s retreat after the next elections in 2021 by  a black-green coalition under the leadership of AKK/ Merz/?- Habeck/Baerbrock.and Germany would have to team up with Macron and other Europeans. And it also depends on the US election results, whether Trump will start a trade war with the EU and the development of the conflict between the USA and Iran.

But the Eurasians perceive the Putin-Merkel meeting and Macron’s statements as positive signs. And that Friedrich Merz, former chairman of the transatlantic organization Atlantic Bridge and competitor of Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer as a candidate for the next chancellor, supports the construction of a China bridge, which is being pushed forward by the former CSU minister Friedrichs, is also seen as a shift in the world order. No wonder Putin is now deposing the government, wanting to immortalize himself through constitutional reform, and Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov is also demanding India’s admission to the UN Security Council – in the hope that India will increase the Eurasian forces of Russia and China according to the BRI triad model of Eurasia invented by Primakov wants to support against the exclusive, China-excluding Indo-Pacific concept of the USA, especially since India also became a member of the SCO. So right now a tug of war over India and Turkey on the part of Russia, the USA, China and the EU is taking placer in view of positive signals regarding Eurasia.

While Prof. Rahr claims that NATO will dissolve,  listen to Trump. What is his idea? The most interesting thing was his tweet that NATO should incorporate Middle East countries. This would mean that NATO transforms from a value-based military alliance in a pure interest-based military alliance which would then have non-democratic and authoritarian members. Very unlikely. As Macron and even, the British or AKK want NATO to concentrate more on the South than to the East and against Russia, even see Russia as a potential partner in the Greater Middle East, nobody seems to recognize this in German media. Trump´s focus is on Iran and China, not on Russia and North Korea. NATO for him is only valuable if it serves this idea. This also the reason that China for the first time was mentioned as a potential threat for NATO at the 70 year meeting. And nobody takes his idea that NATO should enlarge to the Middle East a serious idea. Or is Trump´s enlargement talk just a way to find NATO support for his Iran war and how would Turkey and Russia react if NATO would intervene in the MENA region? Is this realistic? Or wants Trump to make the test and replace NATO by a bilateral US security architecture for Europe and the Greater Middle East with some willing key states?

Trump is meaning more the operational area than membership of Middle East states. In the talk show on German television ARD  Hard but fair, Iran and Trump´s policy was the topic. Interesting was the assessment of Trump by Trittin (Green Party)  and Röttgen (CDU). Trittin contradicted the assessment that Trump wanted to withdraw from the Middle East. Trittin said that Trump wanted to use NATO in this area and that also includes the USA, although this time expanded to include Europeans. Röttgen said that the EU would not achieve a consensus for a Middle East mission, but the E3, Germany, GB, and France would have to go ahead. This sounds a bit megalomaniac, especially since Russia is still lurking in the east. In my opinion, this would result in a coalition of the willing instead of NATO and would have a detente with Russia in the east and the Middle East as a precondition to have resources for a NATO engagement or a European engagement the South. And what should the specific mission be? And how could NATO be a neutral mediator, even with UN mandate, if Turkey still is NATO member which reapproaches Russia? However, at the moment, these are more theoretical questions as Europe is not prepared for a military engagement. Therefore Merkel has the real policy approach to accept that Russia and Turkey are the main stabilization forces in the MENA region while the USA is more the trouble maker.

Prof. Rahr even predicts an Eurasian coalition of Europe, Russia and China about the Iran deal and even the creation of an Eurasian financial system against US sanctions which might also lead to an Eurasian financial system vis a vis the Anglosaxon- financial system of the petrodollar.and the Wall Street and the City of London. However it is unsure if Merkel and the Europeans will engage so intensive in a confrontation with the USA for Iran as the USA is still an important market, the US dollar is still the world´s leading reserve currency and if petro-Euro, petro-Rubel or petro-Yuan can replace the US-led global financial system is questionable. It would also been perceived by the USA as an open war declaration. After WW 2 the dollar was defined by the Bretton Woods system as the world´s leading reserve currency and guarantees the USA that it can print money and pay its rapidly expanding state debts. After the collapse of the gold standard, the Nixon/Kissinger administration made an agreement with Saudi Arabia and the OPEC to fracture oil in US dollar which created the petrodollar system. The petrodollar is an important pillar of the US-dominated global financial system. But not only oil is fractured in the US dollar, but also other commodities, industrial products and services. Therefore the petrodollar remains important and the USA didn´t like it when Saddam Hussein, Chavez and Maduro or Ghaddafi tried to use the Euro for oil payments. Or that Russia and China use the currency fort hat purpose. And in 2019 Saudiarabaia thought about abolishing the petrodollar system when the US Congress pushed a NOPEC bill that didn´t find a majority in the houses or support by the US president. And it needs more than petrodollar to become a global world currency. The US currency dominance is partly based on the petrodollar, but not only or mainly. And another question would be what such a Eurasian financial system if it ever materializes would have on the global economy and who dominates this Eurasian financial system-the Euro, the Rubel (unlikely), the Yuan or would there have to be a currency basket. This sounds more like an unrealistic illusionary utopia.

And it is not only about oil or currencies, but the driving force is technology that will restructure the new world order, its societies and their relations to each other. Whether you call it digitalization, 4 th industrial revolution, Second/Third Nuclear age or posthumanism and singularity as Ray Kurzweil. Some think tanks have tried it, including in Russia, such as Dr. Kulikov’s Dialogue of Civilizations, which also sees demographic development alongside technology as the main driver for structuring the global order of the 21st century, but all of this does not find many followers at a higher level. Russia and the EU are not important in that sense. It is mostly a fight between Silicon Valley/new technologies and Made in China  2025. And even their apologetics don´t know what the future will be.

Technologically it is between the USA and China who decide the new world order and with their quantum computers are the digital invention of the steam engine again, but also of new societies as you see in Xi-China´s use of digitalization for a new bonus system and a new totalitarianism in competition with a liberal world order. Russia and the EU have nothing comparable in AI, blockchain technology, quantum computers, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, renewable energies and more importantly a creative human capital pool or enough venture capital and/or state investment by industry policy..

Während der Russlandexperte Prof. Rahr vorhersagt, dass sich die NATO auflösen wird, ist es interessant, Trump zuzuhören. Was ist seine neue Idee? Das interessanteste, was ich gestern gehört habe, war sein Tweet, dass die NATO Länder des Nahen Ostens einbeziehen sollte. Da Macron und sogar die Briten oder teilweise AKK wollen, dass sich die NATO stärker nach Süden als nach Osten und gegen Russland konzentriert (AKK weniger und die Osteuropäer überhaupt nicht), man vielleicht auch Russland selbst als potentiellen Partner im Großen Nahen Osten für möglich halten könnte, ist dies den deutschen Medien, die lieber ellenlang über Zoobrände und betrunkene Raser in Südtirol berichten, keine Vertiefung wert. Trumps Fokus liegt auf dem Iran und China, nicht auf Russland und Nordkorea. Die NATO ist für ihn nur dann wertvoll, wenn sie dieser Idee dient. Dies war auch der Grund, warum China auf dem 70-jährigen Treffen erstmals als potentielle Bedrohung für die NATO erwähnt wurde. Und niemand nimmt seine Idee, die NATO solle auf den Nahen Osten ausgeweitet werden, ernst. Oder ist Trumps Erweiterungsgerede nur ein Weg, um die Unterstützung der NATO für einen Iran-Krieg zu bekommen, und wie würden die Türkei und Russland reagieren, wenn die NATO in der MENA-Region eingreifen würde, falls es da nicht zu einem Verwürfnis über diese Frage wie beim Irakkrieg 2003 kommt? Ist das realistisch? Oder möchte Trump den Test machen und die NATO durch eine bilaterale US-Sicherheitsarchitektur für Europa und den Mittleren Osten mit einigen bereitwilligen Schlüsselstaaten ersetzen, da das gemeinsame Sicherheitsinteresse durch zentrifugale Interessen in der NATO nicht mehr erfüllt werden kann?

While Russia expert Prof. Rahr predicts that NATO will dissolve, it is interesting to listen to Trump. What is his new idea? The most interesting thing I heard yesterday was his tweet that NATO should incorporate Middle East countries. As Macron and even the British or partly AKK want NATO to concentrate more to the South than to the East and against Russia (AKK less and the East Europeans not at all), even see Russia as a potential partner in the Greater Middle East, nobody seems to recognize this in German media. Trump´s focus is on Iran and China, not on Russia and North Korea. NATO for him is only valuable if it serves this idea. This also the reason that China for the first time was mentioned as a potential threat for NATO at the 70 year meeting. And nobody takes his idea that NATO should enlarge to the Middle East a serious idea. Or is Trump´s enlargement talk just a way to find NATO support for his Iran war and how would Turkey and Russia react if NATO would intervene in the MENA region? Is this realistic? Or wants Trump to make the test and replace NATO by a bilateral US security architecture for Europe and the Greater Middle East with some willing key states as the centrifugal interest in NATO can´t be met anymore?

After the counter-strike against revolutionary general Solemeini´s increasingly aggressive expansion efforts and the prevented occupation of the US embassy in Iraq, many experts now assumed that all Iranians, Iraqis, and Muslims would become nationalists against the United States. While the withdrawal of US troops and all foreign military personnel are now being demanded from all sides in Iraq, Iran is now experiencing a different development. After Khameini and Rouhani mobilized their supporters to mournings for Solmeini, the Iranian counterstrike remained very limited to an Iraqi military with some US soldiers, especially with warning and without deaths or injuries, mass demonstrations are now spreading in almost all cities in Iram which use the shooting down of the Ukrainian Boeing as an excuse to demand the resignation of the Supreme Spiritual Leader Khameinis now after the elimination of the top military leader Solmeini. Trump has now officially backed the protesters, whom he calls the Iranian people like the other side, and is calling for an open regime change.

But you have to see the history of the protests. The Green Revolution came first. which supported reform mullahs, wanted to stay within the system and was brutally crushed by Khameini, which resulted in two terms of office for the fanatic Ahmadinejad, who primarily organized Holocaust conferences, promoted expansionism, the Hizbollah war against Israel and expanded the nuclear weapons program, which lead to western sanctions and many people in Iran critizised the costs for military expansion and armament along with immense corruption in the supposedly clean mullah system. Ahmadinejad’s rule led to a dead-end, which then led to the election of reform ayatollah Rouhani. The latter promised to bring Iran out of its economic misery by moving closer to the West and to bring Iran back into the international community-

The USA, the EU. Germany, the UK, F, China, and Russia then decided the Iran deal to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, but the deal left Iran foreign military expansion in the Middle East, as well as medium and long-range missile programs and limited the accession of nuclear weapons only for 10 years. Trump, Israel and Saudi Arabia were not satisfied with the fact that Iran was expanding, holding missile tests that could also get the nuclear warheads after the expiry of the Iranian deal. Trump replied with the termination of the Iran deal, starting an economic strangulation of Iran through economic sanctions, which should induce it to a new deal that would ultimately give up nuclear weapons, stop the expansion in the Shiite crescent, end missile programs and stop endanger Israel and the US -allies.

The economic sanctions then also had their effect. After the increase in gasoline prices, massive protests followed in Iran, which took place not only in the cities but also in the rural areas and the countryside by broad sections of the population from the lower to middle classes and not only the more pro-western bourgeois population of Northern Tehran, students or the few organized workers, on whose mobilization the previous regime change thinkers of the USA such as the neoliberal Neocon think tank American Enterprise Institute hoped as they suddenly discovered the working class and hoped for an Iranian Üolish-style Solidarity movements including general strikes, after John Bolton’s failed attempt to build up the People’s Mujahedeen as a game changer visiting their meetings in Europe, last visit Paris. But these protests only lasted 3 weeks and then vanished. Nevertheless, the Islamist regime was amazed at the breadth of the movement.

Since Iran believed that the United States was no longer willing to go to war after the drone strike on Saudi Arabia, they intensified their attacks on US bases and allies and wanted to force their withdrawal from Iraq, most recently with the attempted occupation of the US embassy, which created a nightmare experience and dejavu of the 1980 US Embassy occupation, especially since then-President Carter was overthrown in the election campaign to make room for Ronald Reagan, who then made his sort of Deal -Irangate Trump did not want to experience this fate and that’s why he ordered the drone strike against Iran’s top symbol of aggressive expansion Solmeini. Now that the Iranian regime has hoped for a national solidarity effect, mass protests of the Iranian opposition, which go far beyond students, the more bourgeoise neighborhoods of Northern Tehran and the People’s Mujahedeen, are now openly supported by Trump, following the support of anti-government demonstrations, with the British ambassador who was arrested.

How all of this will develop remains unclear. If Khameini let the Revolutionary Guards shooting at the people, if he mobilizes his own masses of people, if Iran becomes new Syria, if the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia arm the opposition, as was the case in Syria at the time, if the protesters will calm down again- we have to wait. An expert said that perhaps the most optimistic outlook is that the Iranian military makes a coup d’état. But the Iranian military has been cleansed, subordinated to Islamic commissioners, the Shah-loyalist military fled to the United States, those who stayed and wanted to serve the mullah regime were mostly murdered, and since the Iranian military was virtually non-existent after 1979, the Iranian-Iraq war in 1980 led to to a rebirth of the military and restructured it and had to rely on the strategy of human waves in order to be able to counter Saddam Hussein’s military with any military force after the Iranian military had effectively been dissolved. The Iraqi war is actually the new birth of the Iranian military and this had to be reorganized as the Bolsheviks under Trotsky improvised with the Red Army. There are hardly any publications in Iranian literature on how the Iranian military has developed since then. But to assume that an Iranian charismatic or even secular young officer ala Ghaddafi, Nasser or Attaturk might act and bring about order in Iran is highly doubtful.

The problem is also that the opposition is no longer demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Rouhani, but the resignation of the Supreme Spiritual Leader Khameini. It is doubtful that this opposition wants a new reform leader, but aims at the abolition of the Islamist dictatorship, just a regime change. Whether this will take place or not will result in a new Syria. if the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia would also arm the opposition, Khameini would rather make a Trump deal or resign before his own deposition and leave it to a successor, or if a regime change fails, a U.S.-Iranian war will follow, we will see. In any case, Putin, Xi and Erdogan should see that foreign policy expansion can also lead to an imperial overstretch, which can then no longer be alleviated by stirring up nationalism, but could lead to a loss of power.

Nach dem Gegenschlag gegen Revolutionsgeneral Solemeinis zunehmend aggressive Expansionsbestrebungen und der verhinderten Besetzung der US-Botschaft im Irak, nahmen viele Experten nun an, dass es zu einer nationalistischen Solidarisierung aller Iraner, Iraker, Muslime gegen die USA kommen werde. Während im Irak nun der Abzug der US-Truppen und aller ausländischen Militärs allseitig gefordert wird, erlebt man nun im Iran selbst eine andere Entwicklung. Nachdem Khameini und Rouhani ihre Anhänger mobiliserten zu Trauerfeiern für Solmeini, der iranische Gegenschlag sehr begrenzt blieb auf eine irakische Stellung von US-Soldaten, zumal mit Vorwarnung und ohne Tote oder Verletzte, breiten sich nun im Iran Massendemonstrationen in nahezu allen Städten aus, die den Abschuss der ukrainischen Boeing als Vorwand nehmen, nun nach Ausschaltung des obersten militärischen Führers Solmeini nun den Rücktritt des Obersten geistigen Führers Khameinis zu fordern. Trump hat sich nun offiziell hinter die Demonstranten gestellt, die er wie die Gegenseite das iranische Volk nennt und ruft damit zum offenen regime change auf.

Man muss aber den Vorlauf der Proteste sehen. Zuerst kam die Grüne Revolution. die Reformmullahs unterstützte, innerhalb des Systems bleiben wollte und seitens Khameinis brutal niedergeschlagen wurde, was 2 Amtszeiten des Fanatikers Ahmadinedschads brachte, der vor allem Holocaustkonferenzen veranstaltete, das Atomwaffenprogramm vorantrieb und expansiontisch wirkte, was dann aufgrund westlicher SAnktionen und Kosten für die militärische Expansion und Aufrüstung nebst immenser Korruption im angeblich so sauberen Mullahsystem in eine Sackgasse führte, die dann zur Wahl des Reformajatollahs Rouhani führte. Dieser versprach den Iran durch eine Annäherung an den Westen aus seiner wirtschaftlichen Misere zu bringen und den Iran wieder in die internationale Staatengemeinschaft zurückzubringen.

Die USA, die EU. Deutschland, GB, F, China und Rußland beschlossen daraufhin den Irandeal, um zu verhindern, dass sich der Iran Atomwaffen zulegen würde.Der Irandeal liess dem Iran aber die außenpolitische und außenmilitärische Expansion im Nahen Osten, Mittel- und Langstreckenraketenprogramme , wie er auch nur den Verzicht auf Atomwaffen für 10 Jahre festschrieb.Dies war Trump, Israel und Saudiarabien nicht genug, sie sahen, dass der Iran expandierte, Raketentests abhielt, die dann auch noch die atomaren Sprengköpfe nach Ablaufen des Irandeals bekommen können. Hierauf antwortete Trump mit der Kündigung des Irandeals, fing eine wirtschaftliche Strangulierung des Irans mittels Wirtschaftssanktionen an, die diesen zu einem neuen Deal bewegen sollte, der einen endgültigen Verzicht auf Atomwaffen, auf Aussenexpansion im schiitischen Halbmond, Beendigung der Raketenprogramme und der Bedrohung Israels und US-Verbündeter beiinhalten sollte.

Die Wirtschaftssanktionen entfalteten dann auch ihre Wirkung. Nach der Erhöhung der Benzinpreise folgten im Iran plötzlich massenhafte Proteste, die nicht nur in den Städten, sondern auch auf dem Land stattfanden und von breiten Bevölkerungsgruppen von Unter- bis Mittelschicht und nicht nur der priviigerten, mehr prowestlichen bourgeoisen Nordteheraner Bevölkerung, Studenten oder den wenigen organisierten Arbeitern ausgingen, auf deren Mobiliisierung die bisherigen regime change- Vordenker der USA wie der neoliberale Neocon- Thinktank American Enterprise Institute, nun die Arbeiterklasse entdeckte und auf eine iranische Solidarnosc samt Generalstreiks hoffte, nach John Boltons gescheiterten Versuch, die Volksmudjahedin als gamechanger aufzubauen und dazu auch deren Treffen in Europa, zuletzt Paris besuchte. Aber diese Proteste dauerten nur 3 Wochen und flauten dann wieder ab. Dennoch war das islamistische Regime erstaunt über die Breite der Bewegung.

Da der Iran der Ansicht war, dass die USA nach dem Drohnenschlag auf Saudiarabien nicht mehr kriegswillig seien, verschärtfen sie ihre Angriffe auf US-Basen und US-Verbündete, wollten ihren Abzug aus dem Irak forcieren, zuletzt mit der versuchten Besetzung der US-Botschaft, die in den USA Albtraumerlebnisse der Besetzung der US-Botschaft von 1980 hervorrief, zumal der damalige US-Präsident Carter im Wahlkampf darüber gestürzt wurde, um Ronald Reagan Platz zu machen, der dann seine Sorte von Deal Irangate einfädelte. Dieses Schicksal wollte Trump nicht erleben und deswegen ordnete er den Drohnenschlag gegen Irans oberstes Symbol der Aussenexpanison Solmeini an. Nachdem nun das iranische Regime auf einen natioanlen Solidarisierungseffekt hoffte, brechen nun nach anfänglichen Staatsdemonstrationen Massenproteste der iranischen Opposition allerortens aus, die weit über Studenten, die mehr boruegoisen Viertel Nordtehnrans und der Volksmudjahedin hinausgegehen, nun offen von Trump unterstützt werden, wobei der britische Botschafter dabei auch noch kräftig mitmischte und verhaftet wurde.

Wie sich all dies weiter entwicklen wird, bleibt unklar. Lässt Khameini die Revolutionsgarden auf das Volk schiessen, mobilisiert er eigene Volksmassen, wird Iran zum neuen Syrien, falls die USA, Israel und Saudiarabien diese Opposition wie damals in Syrien auch bewaffnen sollten, beruhigen sich die Demonstranten wieder. Ein Experte meinte, vielleicht sei noch der optmistischste Ausblick, dass das iranische Militär putscht. Doch das iranische Militär wurde seit der iranischen Revolution 1979 gesäubert,islamsitsichen Kommisaren unterstellt, die einen Schahtreuen Militärs flohen in die USA, die, die blieben und sich dem Mullahregime andienen wollten, wurden zumeist ermordet.Da es das iranische Militär nach 1979 faktisch nicht mehr gab, wurde es im Iran-Irakkrieg von 1980 wiedergeboren und neu srukturiert und musste erst einmal auf die Strategie der Menschenwellen setzen, um Saddam Husseins Militär überhaupt eine militärische Kraft nach faktischer Auflösungdes iranischen Militärs entgegestellen zu können. DEr Irak-Irankrieg ist eigentlich die Neugeburt des iranischen Militärs und dies musste so reorganisert werden wie es die Bolschewiki unter Trotzki improvisierend mit der Roten Armee machten. Wie sich das iranische MIlitär seitdem entwickelt hat, darüber gibt es in der Iranliteratur kaum Publikationen. Aber anzunehmen dass ein iranischer charismatischer oder gar noch säkularer Jungoffizier ala Ghaddafi, Nasser oder Attatürk ranputscht und für Ordnung im Iran sorgen könnte, ist höchst zweifelhaft.

Das Problem ist auch, dass die Opposition nun nicht mehr den Rücktritt des Ministerpräsidenten Rouhanis fordert, sondern eben den Rücktritt des Obersten Geistigen Führers Khameini. Zu bezweifeln ist, dass diese Opposition einen neuen Reformführer will, sondern eben auf die Abschaffung der islamistischen Diktatur abzielt, eben einem regime change. Ob dieser stattfinden wird oder nicht, ein neues Syrien die Folge ist . falls die USA, Israel und Saudiarabien ide Opposition vielleicht auch noch bewaffnen würden, Khameini vor seiner eigenen Machtabsetzung lieber noch einen Trumpdeal eingehen wird oder zurücktritt und dies einem Nachfolger überlässt oder beim Scheitern eines regime changes ein US-iranischer Krieg die Folge ist, bleibt völlig offen. Jedenfalls sollten Putin, Xi und Erdogan sehen, dass aussenpolitische Expansion auch einen imperial overstretch herbeiführen kann, der dann nicht mehr mittels Schüren eines Nationalismus abgelindert werden kann, sondern zum eigenen Machtverlust führen könnte.

Siemens CEO Joe Kaeser is considered an economic leader among the CEOs, who often positions himself publicly differently from his colleagues and makes polarizing political statements. Be it that he openly criticized the AfD and considered headscarf girls to be better than BDM girls, although he is cautious about criticizing the Chinese Communist Party like all managers and remains silent or about the Uyghur concentration camps, which just shows that like VW and every capitalist, he is a real political businessman who does not want to miss out on any contracts in neo-totalitarian China – despite all other Sunday speeches on human rights..ecology and whatever is stressed again and again. This should not be a moral critisism, but should only clarify once what the social responsibility of companies is and what limits are incumbent on them and not to take them as face value.

Kaeser has now offered the spokeswoman for the German Friday for Future movement and member of the Green Youth Luisa Neubauer a supervisory board post worth 30,000 euros. Kaeser is likely to pursue three goals here: on the one hand, the moral undermining, corruption and integration of the ecological icon, which is intended to show that ecology and economy are not contradictory. Secondly, Luisa should stand as a green seal of approval for the multinational company and an image upgrade as an environmentally sustainable, future-oriented group that is rejuvenating and seeking dialogue and a common future with the youth. Thirdly, the integration and re-education of the young movement, which then learns to think in terms of economic constraints, corporate balance sheets and profit generation.

The most important thing about it is that Kaeser wants to create the impression that a Green New Deal, green capitalism is possible. a new model of capitalism which neutralizes the antagonism of profit maximation and ecological or other standards. He wants to be the multicultural gender- ecological, sustainable forerunner of a capitalism that neutralizes these antagonisms like Henry Ford was raising the wages of his workers that they will buy his Thin Lizzy and thereby bring a new Fordanian era, now a green capitalism with unconditioned basic income. Therefore he stands out of the front of other German CEOs who reject his ideas or openly speak out about political and societal questions. .Maybe he will find more supporters for his ideas in the Silicon Valley or Elon Musk, but that´s not sure as similar companies in the USA support renewable energies, but not many other things Kaeser supports beyond genderism and multiculturalism.

The Greens have long been role models for green seals of approval. Be it Kretschmann’s commitment to the automotive industry and electric cars, for which Joscha Fischer also drives for BMW in advertising clips or Rezzo Schlauch in the Baden-Württemberg energy industry. But Luisa is considered young, unspoiled, idealistic, not corruptible, an innocent virgin in this matter like Greta or Joan of Arc and just yet not as a corrupt angry white, old and dirty man or gray-haired 68er Realo-elder statesman. If she refuses, it would be quite possible to be portrayed as an immature, ideological, incompetent, cowardly denying reality angry citizen who cannot be taken seriously. Perhaps not, either, because these qualities are also positively attributed to the youth and do not want to be accused of the abuse of minors. It remains to be seen whether Greta or other Friday for Future kids receive similar offers or whether this remains the exception and how Luisa Neumann and the FFF movement react to it.

A Christian who is in the Protestant church circles of Margot Käßmann and Bedford-Strohm commented this as follows:

„I classify Kaeser differently. He has often leaned out of the window, also in terms of refugees and has also received death threats. As CEO, he sees his political responsibility. With the position of a member of the superadvisory board he certainly wants to show Luisa that there is also responsibility for a company. He is moving the Friday for Future movement from the simple protest level to the much more complex decision level. ”

Besides the question if Luisa had any power to make decisions or to be decisive in the group or is not pure window dressing, one has to keep in mind: It should be clear that Kaeser is by no means so unselfish as claimed here. He is a businessman, above all committed to his shareholders and the share holder value, and speaking out for refugees during the welcome culture phase was rather mainstream. For him, refugees are cheap workers with whom you can lower wages. Admittedly, other entrepreneurs are politically opportunistic or reluctant, do not go public, but it should not be forgotten that companies are profit-maximizing units, which commitments to „social responsibility“ usually have to be wrested with great effort via trade unions, state regulations and under pressure from political movements. and once the pressure drops, they behave as before. This is not because they are evil or bad guys (of course in their ranks there will be also asholes and narcissistic characters like in the rest of the society), but because the economic system and its competition and struggle for profit maximation forces them to act as they act despite all Sunday speeches. They also maintain financially strong public relations departments that only disseminate positive images of them, whereby the much-cited social responsibility is also factored in more under business-related image and advertising reasons. In addition, the renewable energy, electromobility, mobility and urban planning concepts sector is also a profitable business area of ​​self-interesest.

Luisa Neubauer has now rejected the offer on the 40th anniversary of the founding of the Greens on the grounds that she is not interested in positions, which is why Joschka Fischer looked a little stunned, dismayed, concerned and angry at the same time. Luisa did not do the Gazprom-Schröder or Nabuco-Joschi, especially since these are carbon pipeline projects. Corruption at such a tender age and as a member of the Green Youth is bad for the image and the much-propagated ideal of the undamaged and idealistic youth, unspoiled of materialism, especially since it could also cost votes and support for the movement, and could also be seen as treason. At such an age, Realo is not befitting in view of the social ideals of youth. This is more appropriate for figures such as the former NRW JuSo chairman and successor of Andreas Nahles, who then became head of Goldmann Sachs Germany and is now adviser to finance minister Scholz and has made a steep career in the SPD through the Seeheimer Circle. It is too early for Luisa. Especially since such figures as a Blackrock-Merz want to go through with entrepreneurial parties like the CDU / CSU / FDP as hope bearers, but with a party with the ideal olf of social justice and as former workers party like the SPD, on the other hand, the voters approve accordingly. But the older party members will probably still quote Willy Brandt: „If you are not a communist at 15, you have no heart, if you are still a communist with 35 you have no mind“. And in the socio-ecological Green version in the teenage age, the fundi has to be mimicked in order to give the realo the better later.

Siemens-Chef Joe Kaeser gilt unter den CEOs als Wirtschaftsführer, der sich desöfteren anders als seine Kollegen öffentlich politisch positioniert. Sei es nun, dass er die AfD offen kritisierte und Kopftuchmädel als für besser als BDM-Mädel hielt, wenngleich er sich bei Kritik an der Kommunistischen Partei Chinas wie alle Manager bedeckt zurückhält und schweigt oder zu den Uiguren-KZs, was eben zeigt, dass er wie VW und jeder Kapitalist ein realpolitischer Geschäftsmann ist, der sich keine Aufträge im neototalitären China verscherzen will-trotz alles sonstigen Sonntagsreden zu Menschenrecht. Ökologie und was auch immer gearde mal wieder betont wird.Das soll kein moralischer Vorwurf sein, sondern eben nur einmal verdeutlichen, was es mit der gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung von Unternehmen auf sich hat und welche Grenzen ihnen obliegen und sie nicht zum face value zu nehmen.

Kaeser hat nun der Wortführerin der deutschen Friday for Future-Bewegung Luisa Neubauer einen mit 30 000 Euro dotierten Aufsichtsratsposten angeboten. Kaeser dürfte hier wohl drei Ziele verfolgen: Zum einen die moralische Untergrabung , Korrumpierung und Einbindung der ökologischen Ikone, die zeigen soll, dass Ökologie und Ökonomie kein Widerspruch ist. Zum zweiten soll Luisa als grünes Gütesiegel des multinationalen Konzerns stehen und eine Imageaufwertung als ökologisch-nachhaltiger Zukunftskonzern , der sich verjüngt und mit der Jugend den Dialog und die gemeinsame Zukunft sucht bewirken. Drittens die Umerziehung und Reeducation der jungen Bewegung, die dann in Sachzwängen der Ökonomie, Konzernbilanz und Profiterzielung zu denken lernt.

Das Wichtigste dabei ist, dass Kaeser den Eindruck erwecken möchte, dass ein Green New Deal, ein grüner Kapitalismus möglich ist. ein neues Modell des Kapitalismus, das den Gegensatz von Gewinnmaximierung und ökologischen oder anderen Standards versöhnt. Er will der multikulturelle genderökologische, nachhaltige Vorläufer eines Kapitalismus sein, der diese Gegensätze neutralisiert, wie Henry Ford die Löhne seiner Arbeiter anhob, damit sie seinen Thin Lizzy kaufen und damit eine neue fordanische Ära einleiten, jetzt ein grüner Kapitalismus mit bedingungslosen Grundeinkommen. Nur hat Siemens dazu allein nicht die ökomische Macht, zumal sich fragen würde, wie es opder er sich im Falle einer Wirtschaftskrise verhalten würde. DIe deutschen neuen Industrien in der Weimarer Republik wie Siemens oder die IG Farben unterstützten ja vor der Wirtschaftskrise die demokratischen Kräfte, um dann bei der Wirtschaftskrise umzuschwenken und die Papens, Schleichers und dann Hitler zu unterstützen. Damit hebt er sich von anderen deutschen CEOs ab, die seine Ideen ablehnen oder sich nicht offen zu politischen und gesellschaftlichen Fragen äußern. Vielleicht findet er mehr Anhänger für seine Ideen im Silicon Valley oder bei Elon Musk in den USA als in Deutschland, aber das ist nicht sicher, da ähnliche Unternehmen in den USA zwar erneuerbare Energien und andere Innovationen unterstützen, aber nicht viele andere Dinge, die Kaeser unterstützt, über Genderismus und Multikulturalismus hinaus.

Vorbilder für grüne Gütesiegel gibt es seitens der Grünen schon längst. Sei es Kretschmanns Einsatz für die Autoindustrie und Elektroautos, für die auch Joscha Fischer für BMW in Werbeclips fährt oder Rezzo Schlauch in der badenwürtembergischen Energiewirtschaft. Aber Luisa gilt als jung, unverdorben, idealistisch, nicht korrumpierbar, unschuldig, in dieser Sache jungfräulich wie Greta oder Jean D´Arch und eben noch nicht als korrupter und saturiert-vollgefressener angry white , old and dirty man oder ergrauter 68er Realo-elder statesman. Sollte sie ablehnen, wäre es durchaus möglich, dass man sie als unreife, ideologische, inkompetente, feige Realitätsverweigerin und Wutbürgerin darstellt, die man nicht ernst nehmen kann. Vielleicht aber auch nicht, da man der Jugend ja diese Qualtitäten auch positiv zuspricht und nicht des Mißbrauchs von Minderjährigen bezichtigt werden will. Bleibt abzuwarten, ob Greta oder andere Friday for Future-Kids ähnliche Angebote erhalten oder dies die Ausnahme bleibt und wie Luisa Neumann und die FFF-Bewegung darauf reagiert.

Ein in evangelischen Kirchenkreisen einer Margot Käßmann und Bedford-Strohm verkehrender Christ kommentierte dies noch so:

„Kaeser ordne ich anders ein.Er hat sich hier und in Sachen Flüchtlingen schon öfters aus dem Fenster gelehnt und dafür auch Morddrohungen erhalten.Er sieht als Konzernchef seine politische Verantwortung . Mit dem Aufsichtsratposten will er aber sicher auch Luisa zeigen, dass es eben auch die Verantwortung für ein Unternehmen gibt. Damit zieht er die Friday for Future- Bewegung von der einfachen Protestebene auf die viel komplexere Entscheidungsebene“

Mal abgesehen davon, ob Luisa überhaupt irgendwelche Entscheidungen in dem Gremium bestiummend fällen könnte oder nicht einfaches Windwodressing für die Konzernoptik ist, wäre zu konstantieren, dass Kaeser keineswegs so uneigennützig ist, wie hier dargestellt. Er ist Geschäftsmann, vor allem seinen Aktionären und dem share holder value verpflichtet und während der Willkommenskulturphase sich für Flüchtlinge auszusprechen, ist ja eher Mainstream gewesen. Dazu sind Flüchtlinge für ihn billige Arbeiter, mit denen man Löhne drücken kann. Zugegeben sind andere Unternehmer politisch opportunistisch oder zurückhaltend, treten nicht so an die Öffentlichkeit, aber man sollte nicht vergessen, dass Unternehmen Profitmaximierungseinheiten sind, denen Bekenntnisse zur „gesellschaftlichen Verantwortung“ zumeist über Gewerkschaften, staatliche Regulierungen und auf Druck politischer Bewegungen mühselig abgerungen werden müssen- und sobald der Druck abnimmt, verhalten sie sich wie zuvor. Nicvht weil sie böse sind, sondern weil die Konkurrenz im Wirtschaftssystem sie dazu zwingt. Ebenso unterhalten sie finanzstarke Public- Relations-Abteilungen,die nur positive Images von ihnen verbreiten, wobei die vielzitierte gesellschaftliche Verantwortung da eben auch mehr unter geschäftsbringenden Image- und Werbegründen einkalkuliert wird. Zudem ist der Sektor erneuerbare Energien, Elektromibilität, Mobilitäts- und Stadtplanungskonzepte ja auch ein profitabler Geschäftsbereich von Eigeninteresse.

Lusia Neubauer hat nun auf dem 40. Gründungstag der Grünen das Angebot zurückgewiesen mit der Begründung, dass es ihr nicht um Posten gehe, worauf der anwesende Joschka Fischer etwas fassungslos, bestürzt, betroffen und ärgerlich zugleich reinblickte. Luisa hat nicht den Gazrom-Schröder oder Nabuco-Joschi gemacht, zumal das ja auch noch karbone Pipelineprojekte sind. Korrumpierung in solch zartem Alter und als MItglied der Grünen Jugend ist schlecht fürs Image und das vielpropagierte Ideal der vom Materialismus noch unversauten, unverdorbenen und idealistischen Jugend einkalkuliert werden muss, zumal es auch Wählerstimmen und Unterstützung der Bewegung kosten könnte, ja auch als Verrat angesehen werden könnte. In solche einem Alter schon Realo geziemt sich angesichts des gesellschaftlichen Jugendwahns nicht. Dies geziemt sich eher für solche Gestalten wie den ehemaligen NRW-JuSo-Vorsitzenden und Nachfolger Nahles, der dann Chef von Goldmann Sachs Deutschland wurde und nun Finanzberater von Finanzminister Scholz ist und durch den Sehheimer Kreis steil Kartriere in der SPD gemacht hat. Dafür ist es für Luisa noch zu früh. Zumal solche Gestalten wie ein Blackrock-Merz ja bei Unternehmerparteien wie CDU/CSU/ FDP als Hoffnungsträger durchgehen mögen, bei einer nach Selsbtsansprcuh der sozialen Gerechtigkeit und ehemaliger Arbeiterpartei wie der SPD hingegen entsprechend von den Wählern goutiert wird. Aber wahrscheinlich werden ihnen die älteren Parteimitglieder doch noch Willy Brandt zitierend sagen: „Wer mit 15 kein Kommunist ist, hat kein Herz, wer mit 35 noch einer ist keinen Verstand“. Und in grüner Version: Also in jungen Jahren gilt es den Fundi zu mimen, um dann etabliert desto besser den Realo zu geben.

I am currently working on the influences of hippie culture beyond music on the Californian ideology of Silicon Valley, Tel Aviv, and Bangalore, and in part also on the start-up culture in Berlin. A totally fascinating panopticon from Maria Shelly (Frankenstein), Lord Byron. Ada Lovelace, Charles Baggage to Hermann Hesse, Aldous Huxley, all the Asian and Indian influences, Timothy O Leary to the Grateful Dead and Barlow and others which result in a new own universe.
With regard to the influence of hippie culture, I would also like to refer to the German rights and their most exposed representative, Ernst Jünger. Jünger was a kind of a right-wing hippie. He loved the borderline experience, the martial experience that goes wild in the war (Steel storm/Stahlgewitter), on the production front (The worker /Der Arbeiter) and in the spiritual-psychological borderline experiences. He contacted the LSD inventor Hoffmann at an early stage and wanted to experience this sort of borderline experience before Timothy O Leary later visited Hoffmann as a left-wing hippie. The first right hippie for me is Jünger. And as paradoxical as it sounds, I would see Heinrich Himmler and his organization Ancestral Heritage (Ahnenerbe) as a right-winged hippie: anti-materialism, spirituality, neo-paganism, Zen Buddhism and borderline experience in alpinism or their people´s sexual liberation from Christianity morale, the Lebensborn. However, a leftwing hippie never would accept that you call Himmler and Jünger hippies as pacifism, multiculturalism, Make love not war, liberal sexual liberation and gender equality are their objectives. But if you define a hippie by the borderline experiences this definition fits. And Ernst Jünger even wrote a book “ The World state“(Der Weltstaat), in which he is propagating a One-Wolrd vision that never would be part of the other right-winged extremists. But as the term hippie is monopolized by the image of the marijuana smoking, longhaired peacenik ala John Lennon we don´t want to introduce the term of the right-winged hippie, but only to show some similarities.

The SPD and the Greens are calling for the immediate withdrawal of the Bundeswehr mission from Iraq, most of the CDU / CSU are against it.

Does Germany and Europe increasingly want to stay out of the Greater Middle East or like AKK should become more active? Do you have any significant influence in the case of Iraq? The official legitimation of the Bundeswehr mission in Iraq is to support the anti-IS coalition and to stabilize or at least make a contribution to the stabilization of the Iraqi military and Iraq or has Germany has already written off the vision of a pro-Western or neutral Iraq or a stable Iraq and let Iraq now sink to the pro-Iranian colony? As Trump has claimed that the Islamic State is defeated, part of this legitimation is gone.
The foreign military in Iraq is increasingly perceived as part of the escalating conflict between the United States and Iran, whose battlefield and venue is increasingly Iraq. Would a withdraw perceived as a political symbol that Germans and Europeans or the West will always run away in the emergence of a potential threat and are cowards or will it be perceived as a wise real politician or even anti-imperialist decision? Probably the German or European engagements would be perceived under its political, economic and military position in the event of a US-Iran war, but radical extremists might interpret this differently and more ideologically.

And in the case of Iraq: Whom are the 150 Bundeswehr military trainers training in Iraq? Foot soldiers or do they have access to the Iraqi officer corps, which could possibly be an important factor in the coming balance of power if they don’t start a military coup? Do you only train reliable, non-Islamist and anti-Iranian or neutral forces or do you not also strengthen your opponent, especially since the pro-Iranian militias are supposed to be integrated into the Iraqi armed forces or are already in part. Isn’t there a situation similar to that of the Chinese Whampoo Academy, where the KMT and KP military were trained at the same time? Especially since there are enough historical examples that military personnel trained by the West or the USA are switching to the opposite side, such as Mengistu Haile Miriam in Ethiopia (a US military adviser who trained him at the time was my mother’s girlfriend’s American husband), and so too the reverse cases exist such as Sadat, Egypt and Camp David.

The question arises: Can the Bundeswehr training mission bring a positive development of Iraqi military and political forces in the interest of Germany and Europe or even the West, or is this a more symbolic goodwill policy that is more related to diplomacy? Conversely, wouldn’t there be a danger if Germany interferes too much in Iraq,this is seen in a similar way to the interference of the United States, or is it even equated with US interests?

The fact that Bundeswehr troops could be targets of possible attacks or kidnapping is not an argument at first, it is also part of the occupational risk. There is also the question of withdrawal and if Iraq should stabilize of a return. But the anti-Iranian democratic forces can recognize real friends especially in times of crisis and need, that is, the question of whether a German withdrawal is not perceived like the USA which were not a reliable ally of the Kurds.

The mood among the German population is likely to be strong on the part of the SPD, the Greens and the Left Party, as there are fears that they will be drawn into foreign policy adventurers and a new Gulf War, as Trump is considered the bad guy, the experiences of the Iraq war in 2003 are still having an impact and it is unclear is whether the argument that one has to fight the causes of flight and refugee waves does work here even with more independent European military means which rely more on the UNO and not the USA. In addition, Germany can certainly not go it alone, but the reactions to AKK’s proposal for a security zone in northern Syria or the failure to establish a European military mission to protect shipping in the Persian Gulf show how little this is currently desired – despite all the Sunday speeches that Europe should play a more independent role. It remains to be seen how the UK and France will position themselves. Especially since the question is whether a candidate for chancellor would have any prospect of success in the upcoming election campaign in 2021, who is suspected of wanting to involve Germany in foreign policy adventures.

The question is also what interests Germany and Europe actually have in the Greater Middle East.

1) Energy – the EU and especially Germany hve made itself largely independent of the oil and gas of this region since 1973, especially since Germany does not have its own oil multinationals like the 7 sisters beyond BASF / Wintershall and is only marginally represented there. The reorientation has more led to an interdependency with Russia, especially since the USA has become an oil and gas exporter since the fracking boom, it is no longer as dependent on the region in terms of energy and carbon which are increasingly being replaced by renewable energies. But the North Sea oil of Great Britain and Norway will dry up in the foreseeable future and then the question arises whether one wants to become even more dependent on Russia or on US LNG, , Egypt’s LNG or the pipeline Eastmed now decided between Israel, Cyprus and Greece, Qatar or other suppliers from the MENA region, especially since the fracking boom in the United States could dry up, but conversely, new huge oil fields were discovered in Texas, Venezuela and Guyana.

2) Refugee flows. An important argument. But isn’t it possible to aggravate this situation through military intervention, that the supposed stabilizing effect of which could also produce the opposite? Especially since the USA with the exception of Iran is withdrawing from the Greater Middle East and such UN security zones could be quite fragile and not very robust.

3) The southern flank of NATO, the Suez Canal, the Persian Gulf and the Mediterranean region. Russia, Turkey and Iran could gain important military bases and areas of political influence that could also be used against the West in the medium and long term in the event of a crisis or war. Probably the most important argument, also with regard to the transition phase to a more multicentric or multipolar world, in which it represents an important region in Russia and China’s redistribution of the world.

4) The security of Israel. Verbally, according to Merkel, Israel’s security is part of the German raison d´etat, but there are different policy approaches in matters of Iran, Palestine and the MENA region, and Germany would never be able to intervene militarily on the part of Israel, especially since Israel can defend itself better. Nevertheless, possible attacks of Iran and its proxies such as Hezbollah on Israel could make the Holocaust and Hitler arguments quite effective.

Also, the question is whether the West, which is questioned by Trump, is not militarily holding back from the Greater Middle East, perhaps supporting training missions and supporting and equipping proxy forces, waiting until the other powers have let off steam and after this strategic withdrawal, patiently waiting for a re-engagement after event of a clarified balance of power or at the event of a foreseeable new balance of power or looming decision phase could be an alternative. Strategic patient waiting while consolidating the EU after the Brexit and the results of the US election and after this reconsolidation, a possible re-engagement might be the better option. The question will be if the USA under Trump in the event of a war with Iran let the EU a reconsolidation phase or splits it in the new and old Europe like during the Iraqi war 2003, is even threatening in the worst case with the dissolution of NATO or other measures or if the Europeans stay united.

SPD und Grüne fordern den sofortigen Abzug der Bundeswehrmission aus dem Irak, Grossteile der CDU/CSU sind dagegen.Meiner Ansicht nach gilt es bei dieser Entscheidung da um folgende richtungsweisende Fragen:

Will sich Deutschland und Europa nun zunehmend heraushalten aus dem Greater Middle East oder wie AKK eher mehr aktiv werden. Hat man im Falle des Iraks wesentliche Einflussmöglichkeiten? Die offizielle Legitimation der Bundeswehrmission im Irak ist ja die Anti-IS-Koalition zu unterstützen und das irakische Militär und den Irak zu stablisieren oder zumindenstens einen Beitrag dazu zu leisten.Wäre ein Abzug nicht ein Signal an die Iraker, dass man einen prowestlichen oder zumindestens neutralen Irak oder einen stabilen Irak schon abgeschrieben hat und diesen nun zur proiranischen Kolonie absinken lässt? Da Trump behauptet hat, der Islamische Staat sei besiegt, ist ein Teil dieser Legitimation verschwunden. Die ausländischen Militärs im Irak werden immer mehr als Teil der eskalierenden Auseinandersetzung zwischen den USA und dem Iran wahrgenommen, dessen Schlachtfeld und Austragungsort eben vermehrt der Irak ist. Würde ein Rückzug als politisches Symbol dafür wahrgenommen, dass Deutsche und Europäer oder der Westen immer vor einer potenziellen Bedrohung davonlaufen und Feiglinge sind, oder würde er als weiser realpolitische oder gar als antiimperialistische Entscheidung wahrgenommen werden?

Und im Falle des Irak: Wen bilden die 150 militärischen Trainer der Bundeswehr im Irak aus? Fußsoldaten oder haben sie Zugang zum irakischen Offizierskorps, was möglicherweise ein wichtiger Faktor für das kommende Kräfteverhältnis sein könnte, wenn sie keinen Militärputsch starten? Wen trainieren eigentlich die 150 Bundeswehrausbilder im Irak? Fußtruppen oder haben sie Zugang zum irakischen Offizierskorps, das eventuell einmal wenn sie nicht gar einen Militärputsch starten auch einmal eine wichtige Grösse im kommenden Kräftegleichgewicht bilden könnte?

Bildet man nur zuverlässige, nicht-islamistische und anti-iranische oder neutrale Kräfte aus oder stärkt man da nicht auch den Gegner, zumal die proiranischen Milizen ja in die irakischen Streitkräfte integrert werden sollen oder zum Teil schon sind. Kommt man da nicht in eine ähnliche Situation wie bei der chinesischen Whampoo-Alkademie, in der das Militär der KMT und der KP gleichzeitig ausgebildet wurde? Zumal es ja auch genug historische Beispiele gibt, dass vom Westen oder der USA ausgebildete Militärs zur Gegenseite wechseln wie etwa Mengistu Haile Miriam in Äthiopien ( ein US-Militärberater,der ihn damals ausbildete war der amerikanische Mann der Freundin meiner Mutter), wobei es auch die umgekehrten Fälle gibt wie etwa Sadat, Ägypten und Camp David.

Für mich stellt sich die Frage: Kann die Bundeswehrausbildungsmission eine im Sinne Deutschlands und Europas oder gar des Westens positive Kräfteentwicklung ergeben oder ist dies mehr symbolische Goodwill-Politik, die mehr bei der Diplomatie angesiedelt ist? Umgekehrt: Bestünde nicht die Gefahr, wenn Deutschlkand sich zu sehr im Irak einmischt, dies ähnlich wie die Einmischung der USA gesehen wird oder gar mit dieser als interessensidentisch gleichgesetzt wird?

Dass Bundeswehrtruppen Ziele möglicher Anschläge oder Geißelnahmen sein könnten, ist erst mal kein Argument, zudem gehört dies zum Berufsrisiko.Es stellt sich auch die Frage eines Abzugs und sollte sich der Irak wieder stabilisieren einer Rückkehr. Aber seine eigentlichen Freunde erkennt man ja gerade in Zeiten der Krise und der Not, also die Frage, ob dies nicht auch so gewertet wird, dass Deutschland wie die USA mit den Kurden kein verlässlicher Bündnispartner sind.

Die Stimmung in der deutschen Bevölkerung dürfte stark auf Seiten der SPD, Grünen und Linkspartei sein, da man befürchtet, in außenpolitische Abenteurer und einen neuen Golfkrieg hineingezogen zu werden, Trump als der eigentlich Böse gilt, die Erfahrungen des Irakkriegs 2003 noch nachwirken und selbst unklar ist, ob das Argument, man müsse die Fluchtursachen bekämpfen, auch mit mehr eigenständigem militärischen Mitteln hier auch nicht zieht. Hinzu kommt, dass Deutschland hier sicherlich keinen Alleingang machen kann, aber die Reaktionen um AKKs Vorschlag einer Sicherheitszone in Nordsyrien oder das Nichtzustandekommen einer europäische Militärmission zum Schutz des Schiffsverkehrs im Persischen Golf zeigen, wie wenig dies momentan gewünscht ist–trotz aller Sonntagsreden, dass Europa eine mehr eigenständige Rolle spielen müsste. Auch bleibt abzuwarten, wie sich GB und Frankreich positionieren werden. Zumal auch die Frage ist, ob ein Kanzlerkandidat im kommenden Wahlkampf 2021 Aussicht auf Erfolg haben würde, der im Verdacht steht Deutschland in außenpolitische Abenteuer verwickeln zu wollen.

Die Frage ist auch, welche Interessen Deutschland und Europa eigentlich am Greater Middle East hat.

1) Energie-die EU und vor allem Deutschland hat sich seit 1973 ganz wesentlich vom Erdöl- und Erdgas dieser Region unabhängig gemacht, zumal Deutschland über BASF/Wintershall hinaus keine eigenen Ölmultis wie die 7 Schwestern hat und dort auch nur ganz marginal vertreten ist. Die Umorientierung hat mehr zu einer wechelseitigen Abhängigkeit mit Russland geführt.Zumal die USA nun auch seit dem Frackingboom Öl- und Gasexporteur sind, von der Region energiemäßig auch nicht mehr so abhängig und Karbone zunehmend durch erneuerbare Energien ersetzt werden. Doch das Nordseeöl Großbritanniens und Norwegens werden in absehbarer Zukunft versiegen und dann stellt sich auch die Frage, ob man sich noch mehr von Russland abhängig machen will oder auf US-LNG, die jetzt zwischen Israel, Cypern und Griechenland beschlossene Pipeline Eastmed, Ägyptens LNG oder Katar oder anderen Zulieferen aus der MENAregion zurückgreifen will.Zumal auch der Frackingboom in den USA einmal versiegen könnte, aber umgekehrt in Texas, Venezuela und Guyana neue riesige Ölfelder entdeckt wurden.

2) Flüchtlingsströme. Wohl ein wichtiges Argument. Aber verschlimmert man dies Situation nicht eventuell durch ein militätrisches Eingreifen, dessen vermeintliche Stabilisierungswirkung ja auch das Gegenteil produzieren könnte? Zumal die USA sich ja mit Ausnahme Irans wieder aus dem Greater Middle East zurückziehen und solche UN_Sicherheitszonen recht fragil und wenig robust sein könnten.

3) Südflanke der NATO, der Suezkanal, Persischer Golf und der Mittelmeerraum  Russland, die Türkei und Iran könnten wichtige militärische Basen und politische Einflußgebiete gewinnen, die sich mittel- und langfristig wohl auch gegen den Westen nutzen lassen könnten im Krisen- oder Kriegsfall. Wohl das gewichtigste Argument, auch im Hinblick auf die Transformationsphase zu einer mehr multizentrischen Welt, die in Russlands und Chinas Neuaufteilung der Welt eine wichtige Region darstellen.

4) Die Sicherheit Israels.  Verbal ist zwar laut Merkel die Sicherheit Israels Teil der deutschen Staatsraison, aber in Fragen Iran, Palästina und MENAregion bestehen ja da unterschiedliche Politikansätze und Deutschland wäre nie imstande militärisch auf Seiten Israels einzugreifen, zumal Israel sich selbst besser verteidigen kann. Dennoch könnte bei Angriffen des Irans oder seiner Stellverterter wie der Hisbollah auf Israel das Holocaust- und Hitlerargument recht wirksam werden können.

Auch ist die Frage, ob sich der Westen, den es ja so auch nicht mehr gibt, militärisch nicht eher aus dem Greater Middle East zurückhält, vielleicht Ausbildungsmissionen unterstützt und Stellvertreterkräfte unterstützt und ausrüstet, wartet bis die anderen Mächte sich ausgetobt haben und nach diesem strategischen Abwarten sich nach geklärten Machtverhältnissen oder bei absehbaren neuen Kräfteverhältnissen oder sich abzeichenden Entscheidungsphase sich wieder reengagiert?

Strategisches geduldiges Warten auf während einer Konsolidierung der EU nach dem Brexit und den Ergebnissen der US-Wahlen und nach dieser Konsolidierung eine mögliche Wiederaufnahme des Engagements könnte die bessere Option sein.

Die Frage wird sein, ob die USA unter Trump im Falle eines Krieges mit dem Iran die EU in eine Konsolidierungsphase lassen oder sie in ein neues und altes Europa wie während des Irak-Krieges 2003 spalten, im schlimmsten Fall sogar mit der Auflösung dre NATO NATO oder anderen Maßnahmen drohen oder ob die Europäer in diesem Falle sich doch noch vereinigen.

I thought that I could make a prognosis for 2020. I thought that the main issues were the US elections, the Brexit, a possible US-EU trade war, a decisive year between NATO and Russia and maybe a new refugee crisis. And after that, the USA would turn to China and try to bring the decision that it will be long term No.2 in an America first pax Americana. However, with the beginning of the New Year, it turns out that we suddenly face a new North Korean and Iranian crisis which threatens to escalate in the coming year. As the  USA under Bush jr. or Obama the Trump or another administration could be drawn in a new Gulf war which undermines their hoped Asian Pivot policy. maybe China will be the laughing third. Maybe it is wrong to make prognosis anymore as the world constellation is more dynamic as the bipolar Cold war and maybe more comparable to the 30s and 40s and prognosis want to give some sort of security you can plan your foreign policy, but which might no longer be possible. A former German diplomat wrote to me:

“The current situation development confirms that we can no longer forecast events and trends. We have to enter the new decade, aware of the lack of reliable forecasts! The escalation spiral has started. It is not certain whether it can be stopped. Everything is possible.”

A Russian world system analytic wrote to me in response:

„The collapse of world-system analyses? I don’t think so, just had quite a sincere talks with a good PR manager who’s a bit younger than me. He confirmed the idea that those who need practical analyses and forecast nowadays are about 40 years old and their wording is different. And what they are interested in is not what my generation is interested in. They don’t look for stability or long term forecasts and they will act quite actively out from small facts and achievements.

As a voice from my age group: the naval exercise about to be held in the Indian Ocean by fleets from 3 countries brought American “think tanks” to the idea that they should hold a preemptive strike. Quite naturally as in the 70-s otherwise, they will lose the ocean strategy – a 500-year long advantage of the West. So who provoked what?“

However it seems that the USA has lost its ability to control the world anymore and the question will be if it adapts to the new situation and find a new place in the transition towards a new world order or try to escalate and hopes to fight a decisive battle with fury and fire and even is not thinking about fighting adversaries, but destroy them sustainably. That, of course, could be a paradigm shift, but everything is possible.

My Russian friend answered:

„The battle of nerves will not be won by Americans. Not necessarily won by China, Iran or Russia. A paradigm shift requires rethinking imho. No one seems to be in favor of accepting it before a war test. „

Till now Trump had nerves in his first term. The US attack on Syria was well-calibrated, so that Russia didn´t have to react. However. the question is also if Trump wouldn´t losing nerves and go beyond the Mother of All Bombs like in Afghanistan. Does he want to be the less effective and worst president of the USA  since Bush jr. and a lame duck? Till now he was a good poker player to mention the game theory, but he question is if Trump couldn´t lose nerves. The conflict was caused because the Iraqi Hisbollah attacked US bases and the US reacted by airstrikes. The Iranians, their pro-Iranian militias and the Iraqi government crossed the first red line by attacking the US embassy–bringing up the old US trauma of the Iranian US embassy in 1979. However, Trump crossed another red line when he was liquidating Solemeini. The Iranians will revenge–the question will be if they choose a new 9-11, which I don´t think, a high US representative or a soft symbolic target. Hard to say. However he the US will react again and maybe escalate. And another question is if Trump is impressed by the joint maritime drills by Russia, China and Iran in the Persian Gulf. Hard to say where this all ends.

Some in the West fear more. The new term is : Overload! While they are worried about the possibility that Trump might draw NATO or Europe in a new Gulf war and that you had a decision like 2003 backfiring to the transatlantic ties, they also voice fears that after Iran and North Korea try to make use of the US election year, China and Russia could also make use of it in the South Chinese Sea, Hongkong and in the Baltic Gap, just to „overload the USA and the  West“ and paralyze him. A limited local hybrid war by Putin in the Baltic Gap is seen as a possibility. Foreign Policy thinks that NATO´s focus on the Baltic Gap might be misleading as Putin´s next local hybrid operation might a non-NATO state within the EU thereby splitting the West even more. And as Trump even questions to protect Baltic states or Montenegro this could work even better than attacking a NATO-state in the EU. Of course the worst case, but the international situation seems now so unstable and fragile that some in the West fear a decisive breakthrough by Russia and China for its new world order. Or in a near future.

After the new law about Kashmir, the BJP and the RSS and other Hindu nationalists now question Gandhi’s role and praise his assassin Ghandse and Modi is now pushing for a new legislation in form of the Civil Amendments Act (CAA) and a National Registration law which stigmatizes Muslims, Christians and other religions. There are now mass protests aginst this law as the Indian Supreme Court is not reliable anymore and the secular character oft the Indian state, its society and constitution is questioned. A good article explaining this is:

„India belongs to all

Shyam Saran
Former Foreign Secretary and senior fellow, Centre for Policy Research

It is ironic that the year in which we celebrate the 150th anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi, the Father of the Nation, we are locked in a debate about what kind of country should India be. Was not this issue settled when, after intense, but always civilised debate, a Constitution for the Republic of India was adopted on January 26, 1950? All the diverse communities of India, all shades of opinion and political persuasions were represented in the Constituent Assembly. They worked under the shadow of the trauma of the Partition and the assassination of Gandhi. This was an India still in the making. Its future was uncertain. Yet, the leaders of independent India were still able to put together a charter to guide the newborn nation, at once practical but also visionary. The Constitution draws inspiration from what is best among India’s own civilisational attributes, but also acknowledges the imperatives of a modern, egalitarian and enlightened society. In the past seven decades, India has often fallen short of the benchmarks it set for itself. But today is different because the benchmarks themselves are being questioned, derided and violated. It is some reassurance that those who undermine the Constitution still feel compelled to swear by it. Nehru may have been discarded but Gandhi still enjoys residual shelf life.

The Citizenship Act Amendment (CAA) is significant not for this or that specific clause but because it announces an imagining of India starkly different from what the Constitution envisioned. For the very first time, there is a law which introduces a distinction based on religious faith with respect to citizenship. This is irrespective of the claim that existing Muslim citizens will be unaffected by it. This is not the same as affirmative action based on social or economic infirmities accepted in the Constitution. It is possible that the arcane technicalities will be found by courts to validate it but that will be papering over the grievous wound inflicted on the very fabric of the Constitution.

The alternative imagining of India is a country that privileges the adherents of the Hindu faith. It is based on the as yet untested assumption that an overarching Hindu identity, ranging across sectarian, caste, regional and linguistic differences can be constructed on a Hindu-Muslim binary. The Hindu rashtra concept builds on this assumption. The case of Assam may suggest otherwise. The Constitution also strives to create an overarching Indian identity but one which is based on citizenship which transcends, but does not seek to either privilege or suppress these separate identities, including religious identities. Citizenship, as defined in the Constitution, is individual based and has nothing to do with other affiliations or identities that an individual may have. He enjoys fundamental rights as a citizen and this is not subject to his affiliation with any social or religious community. It is this concept of citizenship which the CAA has violated.

The CAA is a matter of concern also because of what has preceded it and what is intended to follow it. On August 5, Article 370 was suspended, J&K was bifurcated into Union Territories, and a virtual lockdown was imposed in the Muslim-majority Valley which mostly remains in place. Internet access has been denied to the residents of the Valley but they may now take consolation from the fact that this is also occasionally the fate of fellow citizens in several other parts of the country, including UP. Then came the historic SC judgment on the Babri Masjid case. Curiously, the acts of placing idols in the precincts of the masjid and the subsequent demolition of the masjid itself were held to be criminal acts, and yet, the judgment was in favour of a Ram temple being constructed at the same location. Decisions by the ruling party to make Yogi Adityanath the Chief Minister of UP despite his record of deep antipathy towards Muslims and the nomination of Pragya Thakur, who glorifies Gandhi’s assassin, Godse, as a candidate for election to the Lok Sabha, which she won handsomely, all point to an unmistakable pattern, an incontrovertible direction. If there are doubts about where we are headed one should see the video, which has been widely circulated, of schoolchildren in Puducherry re-enacting the demolition of Babri Masjid as a glorious historic achievement and being applauded by the Lt Governor. The government’s obfuscation over the updating of the National Population Register which has commenced, the creation of a National Register of Indian Citizens which is to follow and the construction of detention centres where those of doubtful citizenry may be held, seek to camouflage an intent to create an India very different from what we signed to as ‘We the People of India’ in 1950. This is what lies at the heart of the struggle unfolding on the streets across India. It is heartening that it is young students belonging to different faiths, who are together defying the power of a coercive state to reclaim peacefully the vision of India enshrined in the Constitution.

Good governance needs credibility, transparency and accountability. These attributes are becoming hard to find in the current ruling dispensation, whether in respect of political or economic decision making. Above all, in a democratic country, the state must not raise its fists to rain blows on its citizens. ‘Sabka Saath, Sabka Vikas’, and the additional element the PM has now added, ‘Sabka Vishwas’, should not remain a politically expedient slogan. It should become the benchmark for all government action, for it truly imbibes the spirit of the Indian Constitution.

https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india-belongs-to-all-19928

Now Modi makes a military reform and so called experts claim that this is a very democratic measure:

„India’s 1st commander-in-chief takes over sans powers

By appointing first chief of defense staff with curtailed powers, premier Modi ensures civilian supremacy, say experts

As India recently appointed its first commander-in-chief — a single point authority to head all the three defense services — the powers of the post have been curtailed sufficiently to avoid the possibility of any military take over and to ensure civilian supremacy.

https://m.yenisafak.com/en/world/indias-1st-commander-in-chief-takes-over-sans-powers-3508739

Sounds for me similar to the measures Erdogan was taking against the Turkish military to weaken it and to prevent any potential coup d´etat against the AKP and himself. The EU and NATO´ at this time were so stupid to praise Erdogan for these democratic reforms and didn´t understand that he was just weakening the military to the point that he could establish his islamofascist leadership. And the joint staff of chief and the higher echelons of the Turkish officers were weakened further by the Ergenekon trial and get corrupted by new armenstprograms and anti-Kurdish nationalism, that they didn´t support the desperate young officers when they tried to make their failed coup d´etat.

And sounds similar for me like Hitler when the German military was coming under his control, even with an oath on the Führer and the German generals with the exception of General Beck supported his rearmament program, the coming war till Stalingrad. When parts of the German military and national conservatives discovered that the war was lost, they tried a desperate coup d´etat but failed. This Stauffenberg and his supporters were also just rats who supported Hitler as long as he won.

One important question which was never a topic of Western analysis is how the Indian army recruited and on which ideological base. Everybody thought that Ghandi was a pacifist and that the Indian army was recruited from a democratic peaceful mainstream. However, in the Indian army Gandhi, Nehru are as much as respected as Indian Nazi collaborator and nationalist Chandra Bose.

Bose was for the armed struggle, for a war and the Indian Army on the one side recruited from the former British trained elements, but also from Bose elements as they could not recruit that much from Ghandi pacifists, but had to rely on nationalists. Of course, the Indian army is yet secular, but it is nationalistic on a high degree and authoritarian. I would compare these Bose elements with the German national conservatives, the Wehrmacht and the Prussian military. which cooperated with Hitler and his Nationalsocialists as he met their nationalistic demands. Same with the Turkish army now. And if it is against the Treaty of Versailles, Kurds or Pakistan, they will march along with a non-secular and authoritarian party and its leaders.

However, I hope that Modi´s Kashmir and Pakistan policy is not leading to war as I had an interview with the retired General Asthana who supported „out- of the box-thinking“ including that he claimed that Pakistan’s nuclear weapons were just a bluff. I hope that nobody in India is so mad to risk a war with Pakistan as nationalism and anti- Muslim resentments are growing.Hopefully, they remember that they are both nuclear powers. The difference is to Hitler and Erdogan is that Modi doesn´t want a Hinduist Greater Indian Empire as the neo-Ottomanian empire or the Great German Reich with the exception of Kashmir and Pakistan.Modi isn´t such an expansionist and revisionist power.

The comment of a Russian India expert:

„Well, that remains to be seen and will test his ability to control things „

As a German I want to address Ajmal Sohail’s blog article on RIAC

Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer and her revolutionary foreign policy objectives for Germany

„The end of Second World War followed by the collapse of Nazi Germany, US and its allies began to neutralize fascist elements and pressed on denazification (entnazifizieren) of the German society [to be honest the US and its allies have not done their home work properly to denazify the German society if they really denazified the society, we wouldn’t have had robust fascist elements, right extremists, AFD… in the German society today], the country hasn’t had a preponderate and independent foreign policy.“

https://russiancouncil.ru/en/blogs/Ajmalsblog-en/annergret-krampkarrenbauer-and-her-revolutionary-foreign-policy-object/

On the one side he is portraying AKK as the brute force of German neomilitarism, on the other side he wants to have a neutral Germany-at best without weapons and independent from the USA. Both are not acceptable as a neutral Germany couldn´t be in an equal position with highly militarized and armed Russia on its own and on the other side he is criticizing AKK for its neomilitarism which could give Germany the position to become neutral and independent from the USA and Russia.

We don´t know exactly what Putin-Russia wants: A German NATO exit and militarily weak Germany he can control or take over, a highly militarized Germany which will ally against the USA and the West together with Russia, maybe China or some sort of Eurasia. However the German party for this would be the AfD, but it would also not be sure if a rearmed AfD-Germany would automatically team up with Russia or unite with the Trump-USA. But all this is more theoretical talk, let´s look at the facts.

The article claims that Germany would make a U-Turn and could become some sort of neofascist and neomilitarist country under AKK. First: the Germaný army is so underfinanced that you need some sort of reconstruction. Secondly: That Germany has to play a more important military role in the future struggle for a new world order is also undisputed, but there is still a lot of opposition to it from the Green Party, the Social democrats or the Left Party. On the one side, it is good that AKK is pronouncing this hardcore approach, on the other side one has really to keep in mind what the capacities of the Germans and their military could be. First Germany is a country that is prohibited to have arms of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, air craft carriers and so on. Secondly, the budget for such a rearmament program is limited and will have many opponents. Third, AKK is not automatically the next chancellor in Germany but disputed in her own party. Fourth it is a question of capacities. The German army is not prepared to establish a security zone in Northern Syria, could only send two little vessels and maybe 1 submarine to the Indo-Pacific. Germany nowadays is not the Germany of Wilhelm 2 or Adolf Hitler, a Wehrmacht able to fight at all fronts, with a military culture like under Hindenburg and Ludendorff,  when the Prussian military controlled large parts of the society. Today you don´t even have a joint staff of chiefs, an integrated military command or charismatic military leaders which could influence German politics or society. Germany conversely is dominated by post-war pacifism questioning the military and even each of its operations. The German army is a parliamentarian army and its generals and officers are not known to the German public or youth as that has been in former times.

The German army is now not a conscript army anymore, but a voluntary army. And its role is also not clear: Defense of its own or NATO territory in Europa or out- of -area operations like in Afghanistan, Iraq or Mali. AKK cannot find even support for a robust mandate for the German army in Mali. Therefore the U-turn is not the revival of German militarism, but the strengthening and normal reconstruction of underfinanced structures of the German military. No German politician with the exception of the right-winged AfD wants to see a revival of German militarism. It is necessary that the underfinanced German military is strengthened, but this doesn´t make Germany a new military power, especially compared with the USA, China, Russia, France, Britain or other militaries.

Even when the Germans play the vanguard troops of NATO in the Baltic this doesn´t mean that they will be that powerful that they could start a war without the USA. At best they are a supplementing power, but not a power on its own or a major force. Germany even doesn´t want to get out of NATO or to replace NATO by a European military. Germany is a mostly militarily castrated country that tries to want to get some reputation. Germany has not the capacity nor the political will or the will of its partner that it could develop in Germany before WW1 or WW2. Same with Japan in Asia. Germany and Japan became the losers of the last world war and are so restricted in their military capacities that they won´t become a new military power that could seriously challenge Russia or the USA. Germany tries now to get more positions within NATO and on the second track push a European pillar within NATO, but Germany won´t ever become a leading military power.

Manfred Weber, the former candidate oft he European conservatives (EVP) is now propagating a European cybercommand as the first step to a European army, but this is also empty talk as the German military has just 150 cyber command officers and compared to US, Russian or Chinese standards this is nothing, even f you team up with other European forces. Instead of trying to push a ridiculous fake militarisation with big talk about the German army to be sent in security zones in Syria or the Indo-Pacific.  Germany should more concentrate on diplomacy and to try a New East Policy with Russia. Of course, Russia will only make a compromise, it feels that it cannot split NATO or the West, but on the other side, Russia won´t be impressed by a fake German neomilitarism which speaks out loud, but has no hard power and is mostly empty talk.

A former German diplomat summarizes the so called U-turn of AKK towards allegedly neomilitarism as follows:

“ Of course, there can be no talk of neo-militarism etc.

AKK’s initiatives seem to suggest something different, namely that a politician without previous knowledge and experience listens to an ambitious adviser (Nico Lange), who was once a professional soldier, but also has no profound expertise and resilient networks.

In other words: not neomilitarism, but the activist, poorly advised and foreseeable doomed attempt to profile yourself as a security politician and future candidate for chancellor. „

And if the German military was marching out of area it was with Prussian Glory on the Red Square in Moscow like the music corps under the Putin-Schröder friendship , but there won´t be a new war if Russia and NATO and especially the USA don´t want it:

Mainstream media and the editor-in-chief of the Münchner Merkur, South Germany´s most influential newspaper Georg Anastasiadis now want to hold Putin and Assad responsible for all refugee waves and war crimes in Syria. As much as one should reject this massacre from a humanist point of view and also criticize Putin and Assad, the extreme one-sidedness of the reporting is striking, which embezzles and wants to conceal one’s own responsibility and imperialist interests in the Greater Middle East. The fact that Russia and Assad want to conquer Idlib is as logical as the United States has freed Fallujah from Sunni Islamist militias or Mosul from the Islamic State. Counterjihad at its best! And the Russians and Assad do no differently than the United States and its allies, and no consideration is given to civilians or human shields from hospitals to kindergartens. War crimes yes, but equally clear double standards and there is no need to ask: why?

Or forget the shock and awe campaign of the United States‘ war of aggression in 2003, which opened the whole box of the pandora of civil wars and refugee flows alongside NATO’s intervention to overthrow Ghaddafi in Libya or the U.S. ally Saudi Arabia in the Yemeni genocidal war, which also doesn’t care about civilians and that Assad and Russia have offered the Islamist homicide militias supported by Turkey and Saudi Arabia free withdrawal from Idlib and that they could simply move to the Turkish-occupied zone and calm down for once is not mentioned. But that is not what the Islamists and Erdogan want, who are still dreaming of a Neo-Ottoman Empire throughout MENA and not just Syria.

As the Turkish economy is weakened and could be collapsing, Erdogan is pushing for foreign adventures for the establishment of his neo-Ottomanian empire. He visits Tunesia in order to prepare a Muslim brotherhood take over in Tunesia with Ennaddah Muslim brother Ghanouchi with whom he in 1979 together visited Hekmatyar in Afghanistan, a strengthening of the Muslim Brotherhood in Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Syria, be it by no-fly zones, ceasefires, support of the UNO or sending own troops and warships as proclaimed. The best the West could do is support secular despots like Assad, General Al Sissi and General Haftar or anti-Islamist forces as they would be a counter jihadist secular counterweight against Islamism. They won´t be anti-Western or pro-Putin if the USA and the EU would support them, but as the West relies on human rights, value-based policy and multicultural support for Islamists as the Libyan Tripolis government or NATO partner Erdogan , it is doomed to fail.

The chief editor of the Münchner Merkur Anastasiadis, like most mainstream media, is so one-sided that it also ignores the responsibility of the West and Germany in the Syrian war. In 2012, the Foundation for Science and Politics (Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik/SWP) held a conference of the Syrian exile opposition in Berlin, which was financed by the German and US foreign ministeries to establish a post-war order for Syria. Significantly, there were not so many secular-democratic forces represented, but the other half Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist homicide militias, which Turkey and Saudi Arabia equipped to dismantle Syria to rubble and ashes. And the West is ignoring the fact that Putin´s intervention on the side of Assad prevented that the Islamic State seized power in Syria and expand its Califate.

The plan „The Day After“, which had been decided on, had meanwhile been removed from the SWP’s website in order to disguise the genocidal intervention policy of the USA and Germany in Syria on the part of the Islamists. And where is the criticism of NATO partner Turkey, who has equipped all Islamist homicide militias against Assad, is largely responsible for the flow of refugees before Putin intervened. wants to establish a neo-Ottoman empire and now also wants to send troops and warships to Libya. This one-sidedness of reporting is exactly what people now hate about the supposedly serious quality journalism, mainstream media and Putin-bashers.

However, the question is what Putin wants to gain from Erdogan. On the one side, a NATO exit, would be the best option for Putin after Macron´s brain-death proclamations to get a new space for a multipolar world. Could Erdogan and Putin agree on reliable spheres of influence in the Greater Middle East, let Turkey become a member of the SCO and the New Silkroad and freeze his neo-Ottomanian ambitions, become Eurasia? Or would Erdogan become a troublemaker in the SCO as he is already in NATO and fuel neo-Ottomanian ambitions of the Muslims in Central Asia and Xinjiang/East Turkestan? Would he be satisfied? Or could the West make an alliance with Russia, General Haftar, Assad, General Al Sissi and anti-Islamist forces in the Greater Middle East and a New East Policy, maybe together with India?

Mainstreammedien und auch der Chefredaktueur des MÜnchner Merkurs Georg Anastasiadis wollen nun Putin und Assad für alle Flüchtlingswellen und Kriegsverbrechen in Syrien verantwortlich machen. So sehr man vom humanistischen Standpunkt dieses Gemetzel ablehnen und auch Putin und Assad kristisieren sollte, so fällt doch die extreme Einseitigkeit der Berichterstattung auf, die die eigene Verantwortlichkeit und eigene imperialistische Interessen im Greater Middle East unterschlägt und verschweigen will. Dass Russland und Assad Idlib erobern wollen, ist so folgerichtig, wie die USA Fallujah von sunnitschen Islamistenmilitzen oder Mossul vom Islamischen Staat befreit haben. Counterjihad at its best! Und die Russen und Assad gehen da nicht anders vor als die USA und ihre Verbündeten und da wird auch keine Rücksicht genommen auf Zivilisten oder menschliche Schutzschilde von Krankenhäusern bis Kindergärten. Kriegsverbrechen ja, aber ebenso klar erkennbare Doppelmoral und man braucht gar nicht zu fragen : Warum?

Oder schon die shock and awe-Kampagne des US-amerikanischen Aggressionskriegs 2003 vergessen, der die ganze Büchse der Pandorra der Bürgerkriege und Flüchtlingsströme neben der NATO-Intervention zum Sturz Ghaddafis in Libyen öffneten oder des US-Verbündeten Saudiarabiens im genozidialen Jemenkrieg, der auch keine Rücksicht auf Zivilisten nimmt.Verschwiegen wird, dass Assad und Russland den von der Türkei und Saudiarabien unterstützten  Islamistenmordbrennermilizen freien Abzug aus Idlib angeboten hat und sie sich einfach in die türkische besetzte Zone absetzen und einmal Ruhe geben könnten. Doch das wollen sie und Erdogan nicht, die immer noch von einem neoosmanischen Reich im gesamten MENA und nicht nur Syrien träumen.  Und der Westen ignoriert die Tatsache, dass Putins Intervention auf Assads Seite verhindert hat, dass der Islamische Staat die Macht in Syrien eroberte und sein Kalifat ausbaute.

Da die türkische Wirtschaft geschwächt ist und zusammenbrechen könnte, drängt Erdogan auf ausländische Abenteuer für die Errichtung seines neo-osmanischen Reiches. Er reist nach Tunesien, um die Muslimbruderschaft in Tunesien vorzubereiten, die Ennaddah seines muslimischen Brudera Ghanouchi, mit dem er 1979 gemeinsam Hekmatyar in Afghanistan besuchte, er stärkt die muslimische Bruderschaft in Algerien, Libyen, Ägypten und Syrien. Flugzonen, Waffenstillstände, Unterstützung der UNO oder Entsendung eigener Truppen und Kriegsschiffe wie angekündigt. Das Beste, was der Westen tun kann, ist, weltliche Despoten wie Assad, General Al Sissi und General Haftar oder antiislamistische Kräfte zu unterstützen, da sie ein weltliches Gegengewicht gegen den Islamismus darstellen. Sie werden nicht antiwestlich oder pro-putinisch sein, wenn die USA und die EU sie unterstützen würden, aber da der Westen auf Menschenrechte, wertebasierte Politik und multikulturelle Unterstützung für Islamisten wie die libysche Tripolis-Regierung oder NATO-Partner Erdogan orinetiert ist, es ist zum Scheitern verurteilt.

Anastadsiadis ist da wie die meisten Mainstreammedien so einseitig, dass er auch die Verantwortung des Westens und Deutschlands bei dem Syrienkrieg weglässt. Die Stiftung für Wissenschaft und Politik veranstaltete siegesgewiss 2012 in Berlin eine Konferenz der syrischen Exioloppsoition,die seitens des deutschen und US-amerikanischen Aussenministriums finanziert wurde,  um eine Nachrkriegsordnung für Syrien zu errichten. Bezeichnenderweise waren da gar nicht so viele säkular-demokratische Kräfte vertreten, sondern zur anderen Hälfte Muslimbrüder und andere islamistische Mordbrennermilizen, die von der Türkei und Saudiarabien ausgerüstet wurden, um Syrien in Schutt und Asche zu zerlegen.

Der dabei beschlossene Plan „The Day After“ wurde inzwischen von der Webseite des SWPs genommen, um die vökermörderische Interventionspolitik der USA und Deutschlands in Syrien an Seiten der Islamisten zu verschleiern.  Und wo bleibt da die Krtikik am NATO-Partner Türkei, der so alle islamistischen Mordbrennermilizen gegen Assad ausgerüstet hat,wesentlich für die Flüchtlingsströme verantwortlich ist bevor Putin eingriff. ein neoosmanisches Reich errichten will und nun auch Truppen und Kriegsschiffe nach Libyen schicken will. Diese Einseitigkeit der Berichterstattung ist gerade das was die Leute inzwischen an dem angeblich seriösen Qualitätsjournalismus ,Mainstreammedien und Putin-Bashern hassen.

Die Frage ist jedoch, was Putin von Erdogan gewinnen will. Auf der einen Seite wäre ein NATO-Austritt die beste Option für Putin nach Macrons Hirntod-Proklamationen, um einen neuen Raum für eine multipolare Welt zu bekommen. Könnten sich Erdogan und Putin auf verlässliche Einflusssphären im Großen Nahen Osten einigen, die Türkei Mitglied der SCO und der Neuen Seidenstraße werden lassen und seine neo-osmanischen Ambitionen einfrieren, zu Eurasien werden?
Oder würde Erdogan ein Störenfried in der SCO werden, wie er es bereits in der NATO ist und neo-osmanischen Ambitionen der Muslime in Zentralasien und Xinjiang / Ostturkestan schüren? Würde er zufrieden sein? Oder könnte der Westen ein Bündnis mit Russland, General Haftar, Assad, General Al Sissi und antiislamistischen Kräften im Großen Nahen Osten und einer neuen Ostpolitik eingehen, vielleicht zusammen mit Indien?

The year 2020 will be the year oft he US election campaign and the world public will watch breathlessly if Trump is reelected or not and which course the greatest superpower of the world will take in the next 4 years. This will be a very fierce and emotional campaign. Besides the US election, Boris Johnson wants to leave the EU on January 31st and the question will be if it will be a hard or a soft Brexit.

With the agreement between China and the United States on December 13, the conflict between the two world powers seems to have lost its drama. At least that suggests the reaction of the world stock exchanges to the phase I deal. They post price gains worldwide. Nevertheless, the forecast institute Oxford Economics comes to the conclusion that a renewed escalation of the trade war remains the greatest danger for the capital markets in the new year.

Much of the phase I agreement between China and the United States remains vague, the essentials remain open, and only a few of the tariffs introduced are reduced. In the past two years, no major breakthrough has become real, and the Chinese have interpreted what the Americans thought they agreed differently. Nothing has been signed anyway.

Regardless of the actual importance of the Phase I Agreement, it is likely just a ceasefire with China, and then, after re-election, Trump may begin a Phase 2 and Phase 3 trade war against China, and should it not accept Trump´s America First long-term condition to be world power No. 2 a Sino-American war and a sea blockade based on the TX Hammes Offshore Control model as a continuation of the economic war with military means according to Clausewitz may be the result. But at the moment the Europeans have cause for concern because the Americans now want to turn to them. In the new year, they could be at the center of the trade war.

A warning shot for Europe was an interview by Robert Lighthizer at Trump’s favorite Fox channel this week. The trade commissioner, who also negotiated the deal with China, made it clear that the Americans are bothered by the European trade surpluses vis-à-vis the United States. They should add up to $ 180 billion this year.

In this context, Lighthizer spoke of a “very unbalanced relationship”. There are many barriers to trade with Europe and many other issues that need to be addressed: „It is very important to deal with Europeans, and the President is now focusing on them,“ said the US Trade Representative.

After the Trump-USA renegotiated NAFTA in his favor, the phase 1 agreement with China is only a short ceasefire with the Chinese before the elections and the Trump-USA is now concentrating on the World Trade Organization, blocking its arbitrary bodies, opening it up for the front against the last central success project of European industry policy, the Airbus for the own icon of American aviation industry Boeing, which has been hit by plane crashes, urge the Europeans to take US 5 G technology instead of Chinese Huawei and, in addition, the Northstream 2 project is now being attacked. In addition, the USA tries to portray the Northstream 2 project as the German First project, although there was an EU decision after France’s objection, which approved the project, especially since France afterwards also agreed to the compromise.

Gazprom’s EU advisor, Dr. Alexander Rahr believes that the US intends to divide Europe in energy matters, with Western Europeans preferring Russian gas, Eastern Europeans US LNG gas. Nevertheless, the question arises where the Eastern Europeans have so far obtained their gas from and whether they are willing and able to buy more expensive US gas in addition to increased NATO armaments expenditure and also to invest billions of dollars in the necessary infrastructure. Rahr also believes that the Trump-USA would give up NATO in favor of some core defense key states, such as Great Britain, Romania, Poland, and Bulgaria. After Trump protected NATO against Macron’s European plans and accusations of brain death, most Europeans don’t seem to share this view. It is significant, however, that Trump does not start a new trade war with the entire EU for the time being, but above all tries to attack Northstream and thereby portray the Germans as real parasite and enemy.

The advocates of Nordstream 2 reject the argument that this project makes Europe dependent on Russia in terms of energy issues by pointing out that Europe is already dependent on Russia in terms of gas and oil supplies, so this project does not produce the current dependency. Furthermore, reference is made to the fact that even the Soviet Union never ceased its energy supplies under communist rule, although the confrontation was much more extreme and Putin would risk the bankruptcy of his own state budget in the event of an embargo, which he had no interest in.

Furthermore, there is still no European Energy Union, which was so passionately demanded in Sunday speeches after the last Ukraine gas crisis. Especially the higher economic and ecological costs for US LNG fracking gas together with the enormous investments for the associated infrastructure are brought as an argument, as well as that Germany’s energy transition needs the Russian gas quickly, because the construction of power lines for renewable energies, above all wind power from the North Sea is not making good progress due to construction delays and civil lawsuits, only 800 kilometers of 6,500 kilometers have been built, and the energy transition threatens to fail without fast Russian gas and there could be blackouts after the shutdown of nuclear and coal power.
In addition, Britain and Norway’s North Sea oil reserves will dry up in the foreseeable future and most Europeans, especially Germany, have long since become independent from the Greater Middle East energy supplies since the oil price shock and OPEC boycott in 1973.

The German energy transition could fail without Russian gas. That is why the Greens are at odds over this question, and Greens like Jürgen Trittin are speaking up and are calling for German and European sanctions against the USA as a countermeasure for their sanctions against Northstream.
Although Trittin emphasizes that Northstream 2 would not actually be needed if the energy transition were pursued more consistently, he takes into account the de facto political majority and what is feasible and is more Green realo than fundamentalist. Die-hard core transatlantists, in turn, would favor both the 2% NATO benchmark and US LNG as the price of good overseas relationships. The German and European economy associations are divided about Northstream 2. Leading business circles fear that the US could expand the trade war beyond Northstream 2 against all of Germany and the EU, and consideration is being given to accepting US LNG and a stop to Norsthstream 2 as a price if the US would nor imposes punitive tariffs on the German and the European auto industry, mechanical engineering, aerospace industries and other sectors.

However, some also argue in reverse that such appeasement would only make Trump lick blood. Conversely, the Russian trade is just 5% of German foreign trade, while the USA, China and the EU remain the main markets and Trump so far has only called for Northstream 2 to be stopped, but not for other Russian energy supply projects and projects for Europe and not yet declared a trade war against the EU. However, there are fears that giving in to this question could be an example and could lead to further demands. However, Trump could hesitate to start such a trade war as the costs for his electorate might be high and cost him votes as he wants to be reelected and a trade war against the EU might be relatively short and not that extensive as Trump´s main object is China as the real challenge for the America First No. 1 position of a world power and not the EU. In addition, the question is to what extent Trump will wage a trade war against the entire EU or not concentrate more on Germany as the leading power of the EU because he hopes to divide the Europeans, as Putin and Xi-China do. A trade war with the EU or, above all, Germany could also lead to a relatively quick agreement like the renegotation with NAFTA or Japan , especially since the EU cannot be a central state like China, the world’s number one powerhouse, especially since no European military will replace US-led NATO in short or even midterm and the EU is also no high-tech power that has a Made in China 2025 and could become a serious high-tech superpower in terms of artificial intelligence, quantum computers and essential disruptive future technologies in the foreseeable future.

It also depends on how Russia behaves now. The signals between Russia and the West are currently mixed. On the one hand there was the Ukraine Summit in the Normandy format between Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine, which ended in a compromise, which has yet to be implemented. At the same time, a Ukraine-Russia gas deal was brokered through the EU, which was demanded by the Northstream opponents as a condition so that Ukraine would not go bankrupt due to missing transit fees. Especially since Ukraine has just received an IMF loan because it is financially tight. Gazprom’s EU advisor, Dr. Rahr, believes that the Trump-USA is not interested in financing a bankrupt Ukraine, which can also be seen as a geopolitical statement and Putin’s calculation that it would then have a free hand in Ukraine.

It is striking that Putin personally inaugurated the railway bridge to the Crimea immediately after the Ukraine summit and the Ukraine-Russia gas deal, which the EU legitimately protests, as this continues to question Ukraine’s territorial integrity and cemented the status of Crimea as Russian territory. At the same time, after the Russian deployment of medium-range missiles and after the USA canceled the INF treaty, the United States was testing a new medium-range missile, emphasizing that it was tested only with conventional warheads while Russia reported the test of a hypersonic missile.

In addition, the NATO Secretary-General has now proposed to hold new talks with Russia, prompting Putin to say that NATO has expanded its aerial reconnaissance vis-à-vis Russia, while NATO emphasizes that Russia has increased its flight maneuvers to the NATO border and that there were also reports on Christmas time about increased Russian submarine activity in the Baltic and North Seas around the Northstream area. Now Putin is also talking about „anti-Russian tendencies“ in NATO. Right now saber rattle and testing positions. But should this not change. both sides could quickly slip back into a New Cold War. It would now be time to come to a settlement in Ukraine and to restart talks about an arms control agreement before a definitive NATO decision, similar to the NATO decision 1979, is reached. Putin should take advantage of the NATO Secretary General’s offer of talks.

If the year 2019 was mainly characterized by the topics of the trade dispute between the USA and China, as well as climate protection, Greta and Friday for Future, in 2020 the topics the US elections, the Brexit,  trade disputes between the USA and the EU, the relations NATO- Russia and a new wave of refugees might be the main issues. It remains to be seen to what extent the dispute over Northstream 2, Airbus and Huawei will then further expand into a trade war between the USA and the EU.

Tensions between Russia and NATO are also increasing and it will be important whether Putin accepts the NATO Secretary General’s offer of talks or whether the conflict continues to develop in the direction of the New Cold War and mutual rearmament. Interesting in this context is the announcement by the Secretary of Defense of the United States to reduce its worldwide commitment, which already began with the US withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan, especially since the Trump administration is trying to cope with the exploding US public debt. It remains to be seen to what extent this will affect NATO’s presence and relations with Russia. Especially since 2020 is also the year of a US presidential election campaign, all of these discussions and decisions will take place in an emotionally polarized atmosphere.

The situation in Syria, Algeria, Libya and Iraq is also worrying. The Arab Spring is in its second phase and the fermentation processes are far from over, as a new wave of refugees could be coming to Europe, if Russia and Turkey don´t come to an agreement about spheres of influence in Syria and Libya, which could bring the unprepared EU back into old disputes about refugee policy and give right-wing parties a boost. Significantly, Merkel will meet Erdogan in January to talk about the refugee question and developments in the MENA region. After his invasion of Syria and the final battle for Idlib, NATO partner Erdogan now wants to send troops and warships to Libya to expand his neo-Ottoman empire, especially since the fight for natural gas reserves in the Mediterranean is gaining momentum and the USA is pulling out of West Africa and the rest of the world in the fight against terror, which will give the Islamists a boost.Erdogan just visitzed Tunesia to broker a ceasefire in Lybia ad tries to support the Muslimbrotherhoods in Lybia and the North African and Arab states.

A glimmer of hope is Iran’s declaration to contractually assure the United States that it will not develop nuclear weapons and then the Iranian foreign minister’s meeting with Houthi rebels in Oman. There seems to be some movement in the Iran conflict, although one should always be careful with overly optimistic forecasts.as the Israeli military claims a military confrontation was possible, Russia, China and Iran have joint maritime manuvreuses and the USA and Japan are sending more war ships tot he Persian Guilf.

And it remains to be seen whether China intervenes in Hong Kong or does something in the South China Sea, or is now rather glad that it is currently no longer on the US radar after the breathing phase in the trade war with the USA.

Das Jahr 2020 wird das Jahr des US-Wahlkampfs sein und die Weltöffentlichkeit wird atemlos zusehen, ob Trump wiedergewählt wird oder nicht und welchen Kurs die größte Supermacht der Welt in den nächsten 4 Jahren einnehmen wird. Dies wird eine sehr heftige und emotionale Kampagne sein. Neben den US-Wahlen will Boris Johnson die EU am 31. Januar verlassen und die Frage wird ein harter oder weicher Brexit sein.

Mit der Vereinbarung zwischen China und den USA vom 13. Dezember scheint die Auseinandersetzung der beiden Weltmächte an Dramatik verloren zu haben. Das zumindest suggeriert die Reaktion der Weltbörsen auf den Phase-I-Deal: Sie verbuchen weltweit Kursgewinne. Dennoch kommt das renommierte Prognose-Institut Oxford Economics zum Schluss, eine erneute Eskalation des Handelskriegs bleibe die grösste Gefahr für die Kapitalmärkte im neuen Jahr.

Vieles im Phase I-Abkommen zwischen China und den USA bleibt vage, Wesentliches bleibt offen, und nur wenige der eingeführten Zölle werden abgebaut. In den letzten beiden Jahren hat sich mancher scheinbare Durchbruch als Irrtum herausgestellt, und was die Amerikaner vereinbart zu haben glaubten, haben die Chinesen anders interpretiert. Unterzeichnet ist ohnehin noch nichts.

Doch unabhängig von der tatsächlichen Bedeutung des Phase-I-Abkommens, das wahrscheinlich nur ein Waffenstillstand mit China ist, um dann nach einiger etwaigen Wiederwahl eine Phase 2 und Phase 3 eines Handelskrieges gegen China zu beginnen, und sollte dieses nicht auf die America First-Bedingung eingehen sich langfristig als Weltmacht Nr. 2 abzufinden, ist auch ein sinoamerikansicher Krieg und eine Seeblockade Chinas nach dem Modell von TX Hammes Offshore Controll als Weiterführung des Wirtschaftskrieges mit militärischen Mitteln ganz nach Clausewitz denkbar: Aber Grund zur Sorge haben jetzt vorerst die Europäer, denn die Amerikaner wollen sich nun ihnen zuwenden. Im neuen Jahr könnten sie im Zentrum des Handelskriegs stehen.

Ein Warnschuss für Europa war ein Interview von Robert Lighthizer bei Trumps Lieblingssender Fox in dieser Woche. Der Handelsbeauftragte, der auch den Deal mit China ausgehandelt hat, machte dort deutlich, dass sich die Amerikaner an den Handelsüberschüssen der Europäer gegenüber den USA stören. Im ablaufenden Jahr dürften sie sich auf 180 Milliarden Dollar summieren.

Lighthizer sprach in diesem Zusammenhang von einer «sehr unausgeglichenen Beziehung». Es gebe viele Hindernisse im Handel mit Europa und viele andere Probleme, die nun angegangen werden müssten: «Sich mit den Europäern zu befassen, ist sehr wichtig, und der Präsident fokussiert jetzt darauf», erklärte der US-Handelsbeauftragte.

Nachdem die Trump-USA NAFTA neu abgeschlaossen haben zu ihren Gunsten, mit dem Phase-1-Abkommen mit China nun erst einmal eine Verschnaufpause mit der chineischen Front vor den Walen angedeutet haben, konezntrieren sie sich nun  auf die Welthandelsorganisation ,blockieren deren Gerichtsbarkeit, eröffnen die Front gegen zentrale Erfolggsprojekt europäischer Industriepolitik, den Airbus gegen die aufgrund der Flugzeugabstürze in Bedrängnis gekommen Ikone US-amerikanischer Luftfahrt Boeing, drängen die Europäer US-5G-technolgie statt chinesischer Huaweiinfarstruktur zu nehmen und zudem wird zentral gegen das Northstrewam 2-Projekt nun mittels Sabktionen vorgegangen. Northstream. Zudem versucht man das Northstreamprojekt als alleinien deutschen Sonderweg darzustellen, obgleich es nach dem Widerspruch Frankreichs dazu einen EU-Beschluss gab, der das Projekt absegnete, zumal auch Frankreich auf den Kompromiss einging.

Der EU-Berater von Gazprom, Dr. Alexander Rahr ist der Ansicht, dass die USA beabsichtigten Europa in Energiefragen zu spalten, wobei die Westeuropäer Russengas bevorzugen würden, die Osteuropäer US-LNG-Gas. Dennoch fragt sich, woher die Osteuropäer bisher ihr Gas beziehen und ob sie willig und imstande sind neben erhöhten NATO-Rüstungsausgaben auch teuereres US-Gas zu kaufen und zudem auch die Milliardeninsvestitionen in dazu nötige Infrastruktur zu investieren. Rahr glaubt darüber hinaus, dass die Trump-USA die NATO zugunsten einiger verteidigunspolitischer Kernstaaten, wie Großbritannien, Rumänien, Polen und Bulgarien aufgeben würde. Nachdem Trump die NATO gegen Macrons europäischen Pläne und Hirntodvorwurf in Schutz nahm, scheinen die meisten Europäer diese Ansicht nicht zu teilen. Bezeichnend ist jedoch, dass Trump sich vorerst nicht mit der gesamten EU einen neuen Handelskrieg anfängt, sondern vor allem versucht Northstream anzugreifen und hierbei die Deutschen als eigentliche Schurken und Parasiten darzustellen.

Die Befürworter von Nordstream 2 weisen das Argument, dass dieses Projekt Europa von Russland in Energiefragen abhängig mache damit zurück, dass sie darauf hinweisen, dass Eurpa in Sachen Gas- und Öllieferungen ohnehin schon von Russland abhängig ist, dieses Projekt also den Zustand nicht erst hervorbringt, zumal man im Ernstfall auch auf andere Gaslieferungen ausweichen könnte. Desweiteren wird darauf verwiesen, dass selbst die Sowjetunion unter kommuinistischer Herrschaft ihre Energielieferungen nie einstellte, obgleich die Konfronattion viel extremer war und Putin im Falle eines Embargos die Pleite seines eigenen Staatshaushaltes riskieren würde, woran er kein Interesse habe.

Desweiteren gibt es bisher auch noch keine europäische Energieunion, die ja in Sonntagsreden nach der letzten Ukrainegaskrise so leidenschaftlich beschworen wurde. Zumal werden auch noch die höheren ökonomischen und ökologischen Kosten für US-LNG -Frackinggas samt der enormen Investitionen für die dazugehörige Infrastruktur als Aegument gebracht, wie auch, dass Deutschlands Energiewende schnell das Russengas braucht, da der Bau der Stromtrassen für erneuerbare Energien, vor allem der Windkraft aus der Nordsee aufgrund Bauverschleppungen und Bürgerklagen nicht recht vorangeht, erst 800 Kilometer von 6500 benötigten Kilometern gebaut sind und die Energiewende ohne schnelles Russengas droht zu scheitern und es zu Blackouts nach der Abschaltung der Atom- und Kohlekraft kommen könnte. Hinzu kommt,dass Großbritanniens und Norwegens Nordseeölreserven in absehbarer Zeit versiegen werden und sich die meisten Europäer, allen voran Deutschland schon länger aus dem Greater Middle East mit Energielieferungen seit dem Ölpreisschock und OPEC-Boykott 1973 unabhängig gemacht haben.

Kurz. Die deutsche Energiewende könnte ohne Russengas scheitern. Deswegen sind auch die Grünen über diese Frage zerstritten und Alt-Grüne wie Jürgen Trittin melden sich zu Worte und fordern deutsche und europäiosche Sanktionen gegen die USA als Gegenmassnahme für deren Sanktionen gegen Northstream. Zwar betont Trittin, dass es Northstream 2 eigentlich nicht bräuchte, wenn die Energiewende konsequenter vorangetrieben würde, er berücksichtigt aber die faktischen politischen Mehrheitsverhältnisse und was machbar ist, ist also hier mehr Realo denn Fundi. Eingefleischte Transatlantikler wiederum würden sowohl 2%- NATO-Benchmark und US-amerikanisches LNG als Preis der guten Überseebeziehungen befürworten. Die Wirtschaft ist über Northstream gespalten. Zum einen befürchten führende Wirtschaftskreise, dass die USA den Handelskrieg über Northstream 2 hinaus gegen ganz Deutschland und die EU ausweiten könnten und man überlegt, US-LNG und einen Stopp von Norsthstream 2 als Preis zu akzeptieren, wenn die USA dafür auf Strafzölle gegen die deutsche und europäische Autoindustrie, Maschinenbau- und Luftfahrtindustrie und andere Sektoren verzichten würden.

Wobei etliche auch umgekehrt argumentieren, dass solches Appeasment Trump erst Blut lecken lassen würde. Umgekehrt beträgt der Russlandhandel gerade mal 5% am deutschen Aussenhandel , während die USA, China und die EU die Hauptmäkte bleiben und Tump bisher nur den Stopp von Northstream 2 gefordert hat, nicht aber anderer russischer Energieliefeungen- und projekte für Europa und noch nicht offiziell den Handelskrieg gegen die EU erklärt hat. Doch einge befürchten, dass ein Einlenken in dieser Frage dann Beispiel sein und weitere Forderungen nach sich ziehen könnte.

Trump könnte jedoch zögern, einen solchen Handelskrieg zu beginnen, da die Kosten für seine Wähler möglicherweise hoch sind und ihn Stimmen kosten könnten, wenn er wiedergewählt werden möchte. Falls doch: Ein Handelskrieg gegen die EU könnte jedoch relativ kurz und nicht so umfangreich sein, da Trumps Hauptziel China ist, da dies die eigentliche Herausforderung für die America First Position als Weltmacht Nummer 1 darstellt und nicht die EU. Zudem auch die Frage ist, inwieweit Trump überhaupt einen Handelskrieg gegen die gesamte EU führen wird oder sich nicht eher auf Deutschland konzentriert als Führungsmacht der EU und innerhalb der EU da auf Spaltungsmöglichkeiten unter den Europäern hofft wie dies ja auch Putin und Xi-China tun. Aber ein Handelskrieg mit der EU oder vor allem Deutschland könnte auch zu einem relativ schnellen Abkommen wie bei der NAFTA oder dann Japan führen, zumal die EU nicht wie China Weltmacht Nr. 1, noch ein Zentralstaat sein kann, zumal militärisch die US-geführte NATO nicht ersetzen wird und zudem keine Hochtechnologiemacht, die ein Made in China 2025 hat und zur ernsten Hightechsupermacht in Sachen Künstlicher Intelligenz, Quantencomputern und wesentlichen disruptiven Zukunftstechnologien in absehbarer Zeit werden könnte.

Zudem hängt es auch davon ab, wie sich nun Russland verhält. Momentan sind die Signale zwischen Russland und dem Westen gemischt. Zum einen gab es den Ukrainegipfel im Normandiefomramt zwischen Deutschland, Frankreich, Russland und der Ukraine, der in einem Kompromiss endete, der aber erst noch umgesetzt werden muss. Gleichzeitig soll ein Ukraine-Russland-Gasdeal unter Vermittlung der EU unterzeichnet werden, der seitens der Northstreamgegner als Bedingung gefordert wurde, damit die Ukraine wegen ausfallender Transitgebühren nicht pleite geht. Zumal die Ukraine gerade einen IWF-Kredit erhielt, da sie finanziell klamm ist. Der EU-Berater von Gazprom Dr. Rahr ist der Ansicht, dass die Trump-USA kein Interesse hätten eine bankrotte Ukraine zu finanzieren, was man aber auch als geopolitische Aussage und Putins Kalkül sehen kann, dann freie Bahn in der Ukraine zu haben.

Auffällig ist, dass Putin nun die Eisenbahnbrücke zur Krim gleich nach dem Ukrainegipfel und dem Ukraine- Russland-Gasdeal persönlich eingeweiht hat, worauf die EU berechtigterweise protestiert, da dies die terrioritale Integrität der Ukraine weiter infrage stellt und die Krim als russisches Territorium, das nie mehr zur Disposition steht zementiert. Gleichzeitig kündigten die USA nach der russischen Stationierung von Mittelstreckenraketen das INF-Abkommen und kündigten nun selbst an eine neue Mittelstreckenrakete getestet zu haben, wobei betont wird, dass diese mit konventionellen Sprengköpfen getestet worden sei. Zudem hat der NATO-Generalsekretär nun die Bereitschaft erklärt mit Russland neue Gespräche zu führen , worauf Putin erklärt, die NATO  habe ihre Luftaufklärung gegenüber Russland ausgeweitet, während die NATO betont, Russland habe seine Flugmanöver zur NATO-Grenze erhöht und auch zur Weihnachtszeit gab es Meldungen über erhöhte russische U-Bootaktivitäten in Ost- und Nordsee um das Gebiet von Northstream. Nun redet Putin auch von „antirussischen Tendenzen „ in der NATO. Momentan noch Säbelgerassel und Austesten von Positionen. Sollte sich dies aber nicht ändern. könnten beide Seiten schnell wieder in einen Neuen Kalten Krieg hineinrutschen. Zeit wäre es jetzt zu einem Ausgleich in der Ukraine zu kommen und zu einem Neustart über ein Rüstungskontrollabkommen zu kommen, bevor es zu einem mit dem NATO-Doppelbeschluss ähnlichen Entscheidung der NATO kommt. Putin sollte das Gesprächsangebot des NATO-Generalsekretärs nutzen.

War das Jahr 2019 vor allem durch die Themen des Handelsstreits zwischen den USA und China, sowie Klimaschutz, Greta und Friday for Future geprägt, so dürften im nächsten Jahr 2020 vor allem die Themen US-Wahlen, Brexit, ein möglicher Handelsstreit ziwischen den USA und der EU, die Beziehungen NATO-Rußland sowie eine neue Flüchtlingswelle die wesentlichen Themen werden. Inwieweit der Streit um Northstream 2, Airbus und Huawei sich dann weiter zum Handelskrieg ausweitet, bleibt abzuwarten.

Ebenso nehmen die Spannungen zwischen Rußland und der NATO zu und es wird wichtig sein, ob Putin das Gesprächsangebot des NATO-Generalsekretärs annimmt oder der Konflikt weiter in Richtung Neuer Kalter Krieg samt etwaiger Aufrüstung geht. Interessant ist in diesem Zusammenhang auch die Ankündigung des US-Verteidigungsministers das weltweite Engagement der USA zu reduzieren, was ja schon mit dem US-Abzug aus Syrien und Afghanistan begann, zumal die Trump-Regierung versucht der explodierenden Staatsverschuldung der USA Herr zu werden. Inwieweit sich dies auch auf die NATO-Präsenz und das Verhältnis zu Rußland auswirkt, bleibt abzuwarten. Zumal 2020 auch noch US-Präsidentschaftswahlkampf ist, werden alle diese Diskussionen und Entscheidungen in einer emotionalöisierten und polarisierten Atmosphäre stattfinden.

Desweiteren ist die Lage in Syrien, Algerien ,Lybien und dem Irak besorgniserregend. Der arabische Frühling tritt in seine zweite Phase und die Gärungsprozesse sind bei weitem noch nicht abgeschlossen.Da kommt möglicherweise eine neue Flüchtlingswelle auf Europa zu, sollte die Türkei und Russland in Syrien und Libyen zu keiner Waffenruhe finden, die die unvorbereitete EU wieder in alte Streitigkeiten über die Flüchtlingspolitik bringen und rechtsradikalen Parteien Aufwind geben könnte. Bezeichenderweise möchte Merkel Erdogan noch im Januar treffen, um über die Flüchtlingsfrage und die Entwicklung in der MENA-Region zu reden. NATO-Partner Erdogan will nach seiner Syrieninvasion und den Endkampf um Idlib nun auch Truppen und Kriegsschiffe nach Lybien schicken, um sein neoosmanisches Reich voranzutreiben, zumal auch der Kampf um die Erdgasvorkommen im Mittelmeer an Fahrt gewinnt und die USA ziehen sich aus Westafrika und dem gesamten Raum im Terrorkampf zurück,was den Islamisten Aufwind verschaffen wird. Erdogan besuchte gerade Tunesien, um einen Waffenstillstand in Libyen zu vermitteln und versucht, die Muslimbruderschaften in Libyen sowie den nordafrikanischen und arabischen Staaten zu unterstützen.

Ein Lichtblick ist nun die Erklärung des Irans den USA vertraglich zusichern zu wollen, dass er keine Atomwaffen entwickeln werde und dann das Treffen des iranischen Aussenministers mit Houthirebellen im Oman.Da scheint etwas Bewegung in den Irankonflikt zu kommen,wenngleich man immer vorsichtig mit allzu optimistischen Prognosen sein sollte,da das israelische Militär behauptet, eine militärische Konfrontation sei möglich, Russland, China und der Iran gemeinsame Marinemanöver abhalten und die USA und Japan mehr Kriegsschiffe imndem Persischen Golf schicken.

Und es bleibt noch abzuwarten, ob China in Hongkong interveniert oder etwas im Südchinesischen Meer unternimmt oder nun eher froh ist, dass es nach der Atempuase im Handelskrieg mit den USA momentan nicht mehr so auf dem Radar der USA ist.

Author: Qiuyu Gaovan

Introduction

In recent years, with the dramatic increase in Chinese Outward Foreign Direct Investment (OFDI), the topic on how political risk in host countries influences the locational choices of Chinese multinational enterprises (MNEs) has drawn the attention of many scholars. In this paper, I investigate the political risk distribution (PRD) of Chinese OFDI from 2006 to 2017 using a new measurement on political risk by a composite index (GaoYan 2019)— Political Risk Index (PRI). Meanwhile I use the firm-level CGIT data (https://www.aei.org/china-global-investment-tracker/) as the measurement of Chinese OFDI. I first analyse the general trend and then present the distribution of Chinese OFDI in low-, moderate- and high-risk countries.

General Trend

According to Figures 1, 2 and 3, I observed that Chinese MNEs do not follow the incremental internationalization pathway suggested by traditional theories such as the Uppsala Model and life-cycle theory (Jiménez 2010 and Jiménez et al. 2014) but expand at a much faster pace. From 2006 to 2017, Chinese OFDI destinations nearly tripled, increasing from 28 in 2006 to 80 in 2015 and declining to 59 in 2017 (see Figure 1), while the annual number of Chinese large-scale FDI projects (those with a single investment of more than US$ 100 million, regardless of construction contractor direct investment) shot up from 49 in 2006 to 408 by 2016, only to fall to 157 in 2017 (see Figure 2). I also found that the annual outflows of Chinese OFDI increased six-fold, from US$ 40.23 billion in 2006 to US$ 261.1 Billion in 2016, and then dropped to US$ 132.24 billion in 2017 (see Figure 3). Regarding industrial distribution, according to Figure 4, I found that from 2006 to 2017, Chinese investment in energy, transport, real estate, raw materials, and metals exceeded 70% of its total investment. This finding reflects that Chinese OFDI is mainly concentrated in the field of natural resource development, energy, and infrastructure construction.

Figure 1. Political Risk Distribution of Chinese OFDI Destinations, 2006-2017.

Source: Calculate by the author.

Figure 2. Political Risk Distribution of Chinese OFDI Large-scale projects, 2006-2017.

Source: Calculate by the author.

Figure 3. Political Risk Distribution of Annual Chinese OFDI Outflows (Million USD), 2006-2017.

Source: Calculate by the author.

Figure 4: Political Risk Distribution of Chinese OFDI at sectorial level

Source: Calculate by the author.

The decade’s long expansion of Chinese MNEs can be divided into two different stages: the “Going Global” phase from 1999 to 2012 and the “Belt and Road” phase from 2013 onwards. The “Going Out Policy” phase (1998 to 2013) was marked by clear aims of pushing Chinese domestic enterprises into global business activities to acquire strategic resources and expand into foreign markets. At this stage, the Chinese government encouraged large-scale state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and powerful privately owned enterprises to acquire strategic resources, expand into foreign markets and invest in key “sensitive” industries defined by the 12^th and 13^th Five-Year Plans. The Chinese government steadfastly supported Chinese MNEs’ overseas activities through political backing, subsidies, preferential tax concessions, the reformation and relaxation of the regulatory process and the easing of foreign exchange controls.

When President Xi Jinping announced the Belt and Road initiative (BRI) in 2013, it was believed to be an updated version of the “Going Global Strategy”, with a clear aim of better integrating the Chinese economy with the economies of its neighbouring countries in Central Asia, Southeast Asia, and South Asia as well as those of Eastern Europe and the Baltics through infrastructure and production capacity cooperation. Through 2018, more than 86 sovereign states and international organizations have signed BRI cooperation agreements with China, and the majority of these countries have favoured the “Beijing consensus” and have been more likely to let “both formal and informal institutions develop under the role of the state“ (Lattemann et al. 2017).

Distribution of Chinese OFDI in Low- and Moderate-risk Countries

As seen from my figures, from 2006 to 2017, over 11 years, moderate-risk countries continue to be Chinese MNEs’ priority targeting investment economies, comprising 45% to 56% of annual investment destinations and hosting 37% to 53% of annual large-scale overseas projects. Regarding annual capital flows, the percentage of annual Chinese OFDI in moderate-risk countries fluctuates between 28% and 66%. Despite drastic changes, moderate-risk counties continued to absorb the majority (over 45%) of China’s annual OFDI flows between 2006 and 2015. Regarding sectorial distribution, I found that moderate-risk countries host more than half of China’s aggregate investment in the energy, transportation, metals, utilities, and chemical industries. The real estate sector is somewhat unique, with China’s total investment being evenly distributed between moderate- and low-risk countries. During the same period, low-risk countries accounted for 11% to 25% of Chinese MNEs’ annual investment destinations, hosted 18% to 42% of China’s annual overseas large-scale projects and absorbed 14% to 64% of China’s annual OFDI outflows. At the sector level, more than 56–65% of China’s total investment in agriculture, science and technology, and finance was located in low-risk countries; for industries such as tourism and entertainment, this number exceeds 70%.

The fact that the majority of Chinese OFDI is located in low- and moderate-risk countries proves that the level of political risk in host countries is not ignored by Chinese MNEs, thus verifying that traditional FDI theories can sufficiently explain the locational choices of Chinese MNEs. However, other reasons may also help explain this phenomenon. On the one hand, troubled transactions have taught Chinese MNEs to thoroughly evaluate the possible political risk in host countries and to take more cautious procedures and steps before making OFDI decisions. On the other hand, through effective government guidance, Chinese MNEs avoid making wrong decisions. The first type of guidance is “information guidance“. By providing Chinese enterprises with detailed, specific, and up-to-date information on the targeting host countries, the Chinese government helped reduce the PRD of Chinese OFDI. The second type of guidance is “policy guidance“. Through explicit policies, the Chinese government has helped improve the PRD of Chinese OFDI. The Chinese government has made use of the fact that Chinese OFDI is mostly carried out by SOEs and is therefore in a better position to implement its OFDI guidance.

Distribution of Chinese OFDI in High-risk Countries

From 2006 to 2017, high-risk countries comprised 15% to 31% of Chinese MNEs’ annual investment destinations and absorbed 7% to 32% of Chinese annual OFDI outflows. Additionally, approximately 15% to 30% of China’s annual overseas large-scale projects were located in high-risk countries. However, in the energy, transportation and utility industries, high-risk countries hosted approximately 30% of total Chinese investment.

According to traditional assumptions, high levels of political risk have been understood as a threat to MNEs; however, many studies have found that Chinese MNEs prefer to invest in high-risk countries. According to the results, the majority (over 90%) of large-scale projects in high-risk countries are undertaken by SOEs. This result can be explained by the institutional factors in China, especially the unique “state ownership advantage” brought by the unique “government–business” relationship between SOEs and the central government. This relationship has made SOEs less dependent on their own and even on other Chinese firms’ prior host country experience because under this “government–business” relationship (Quer, Claver and Rienda 2018), SOEs come under the direct supervision of the SASAC and the government provides them with political backing while SOEs are put in place to implement the government’s “Going Out” policy and Belt and Road initiative.

Second, the results also show that the OFDI undertaken by SOEs has achieved satisfactory performance (only 32% are classified as troubled transactions), proving that institutional factors are not the sole reasons for the reduced PRD of Chinese OFDI. As Holburn and Zelner (2010) show, because there are weaker institutional constraints on policymakers and greater redistributive pressures associated with political rent-seeking in China’s business environments, all companies, regardless of their ownership, have developed strong political capabilities through organizational learning and cognitive imprinting. Thus, they know how to operate in the challenging institutional environment—comprising a high level of direct state intervention, opaque corporate governance, unpredictable and burdensome regulations, cumbersome bureaucracy, and discontinuity in government policies—that characterizes the Chinese business environment. As a result, they are more capable of dealing with burdensome regulations and navigating opaque political constraints (Buckley et al. 2007). For many Chinese firms, their familiarity with the more difficult institutional conditions of developing countries and their expertise in managing such environments have helped them develop strong political capabilities, such as the negotiation of entry conditions, lobbying, litigation, campaign contributions, and coalition formation, leading to preferential conditions, reduced environmental uncertainty, reduced transaction costs and increased long-term sustainability for the firm, which reduce the deterrent effect of political risk on their foreign entry decisions. Sometimes, they even obtain a better competitive advantage over their Western competitors, as the latter are not used to the absence of a well-established infrastructure and a well-developed contracting and intellectual property rights regime in high-risk countries (Cueruo-Cazura and Genc 2008).

Conclusion

By increasing its foreign investment linkages with other countries, China has integrated rapidly with the world economy. It is found that through continuing international economic policy reform, effective government guidance and the continuing development of political capabilities within Chinese MNEs, Chinese OFDI has witnessed a substantial increase in the last ten years, while the political risk of Chinese OFDI has declined rapidly.

To summarize, the following conclusions can be drawn: first, by applying this PRI, I found that between 2006 and 2017, low-risk and moderate-risk countries remain Chinese companies’ predominant investment destinations; however, the majority of Chinese OFDI is undertaken by Chinese SOEs. Second, I observed that until 2017, the value of China’s overseas investment and construction combined was approaching US$ 1.6325 trillion. During the same period, Chinese MNEs invested in a total of 2276 large-scale projects worldwide. Of these, 677 large-scale projects were located in low-risk countries, another 1066 took place in moderate-risk countries, and 533 occurred in high-risk countries. In terms of aggregate investment, low-risk countries were found to host 33% of the total stock of Chinese OFDI, while moderate-risk countries accounted for 45%, and the remaining 22% of Chinese OFDI was in high-risk countries. The majority of Chinese OFDI is therefore directed towards moderate- and low-risk countries. Third, during the same period, low-risk and moderate-risk countries account for more than 70% of total Chinese OFDI in 12 different industries. Only in industries such as energy, transportation, and utilities did high-risk countries host approximately 30% of total Chinese OFDI. Among the remaining nine industries, high-risk countries attracted only a small proportion of China’s total OFDI.

My conclusion proves that the importance of the political risk level in host countries has never been neglected by Chinese MNEs when making investment decisions because troubled transactions have taught them to take more cautious procedures and steps in their OFDI; at the same time, governmental efforts, such as effective guidance, consultation and real-time investment information, have prevented Chinese enterprises from investing in troubled projects and high-risk-level countries. Most importantly, the political capacities developed by Chinese MNEs in the Chinese business environment have helped them overcome many difficulties in their internationalization.

References

1. Buckley, P., Clegg, L., Cross, A., Liu, X., Voss, H. and Zheng, P. (2007). The determinants of Chinese outward foreign direct investment. Journal of International Business Studies, 38(4), pp.499-518.
2. Cuervo-Cazurra, A. and Genc, M. (2008). Transforming disadvantages into advantages: developing-country MNEs in the least developed countries. Journal of International Business Studies, 39(6), pp.957-979.
3. Holburn, G. and Zelner, B. (2010). Political capabilities, policy risk, and international investment strategy: evidence from the global electric power generation industry. Strategic Management Journal, 31(12), pp.1290-1315.
4. Jiménez, A. (2010). Does political risk affect the scope of the expansion abroad? Evidence from Spanish MNEs. International Business Review, 19(6), pp.619-633.
5. Jiménez, A., Luis-Rico, I. and Benito-Osorio, D. (2014). The influence of political risk on the scope of internationalization of regulated companies: Insights from a Spanish sample. Journal of World Business, 49(3), pp.301-311.
6. Lattemann, C., Alon, I., Spigarelli, F. and Marinova, S. (2017). Dynamic Embeddedness in Chinese Firm Internationalization. Thunderbird International Business Review, 59(4), pp.547-559.
7. Quer, D., Claver, E. and Rienda, L. (2018). The influence of political risk, inertia and imitative behavior on the location choice of Chinese multinational enterprises. International Journal of Emerging Markets, 13(3), pp.518-535.
8. Цюйюй Гаоянь, “Распределение политических рисков при вложении прямых иностранных инвестиций Китаем (эмпирическое исследование на основе данных за 2006–2017”, Гуманитарные науки. Вестник Финан​сового университета., 2019 No.4

https://russiancouncil.ru/en/blogs/qiuyugaoyan/political-risk-distribution-of-chinese-outward-foreign-direct-investme/

Author: General Sashi Asthana

Key Points

·        Chinese adventurism in South China Sea and expeditionary design in Indo-Pacific is a global concern.

·        Quad being looked at as one of the instruments for ensuring free and open, rule-based Indo-Pacific.

·       Quad needs teeth to effective in such expected role, along with other global        efforts.

The ‘Incremental Encroachment Strategy’ of China exhibited in South China Sea (SCS) is a serious concern not only to the countries directly affected by losing their influence  over overlapping EEZ, but also to rest of the world as China can exert illegitimate monopoly over SCS global Sea Lane of Communication (SLOC).  The countries directly affected do not have adequate muscle power to stand up to China; hence will have no choice but to succumb to one sided arrangement like China driven “Code of Conduct” (COC).  Chinese adventurism therefore needs to be checked by other prominent maritime powers in global interest. The Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) which groups Australia, India, Japan, and the United States is often being looked at as a potential instrument to check further adventurism of china in Indo-Pacific, however it currently does not have requisite teeth and traction.  The fact that China could convert features into military base in SCS despite presence of US Navy indicates that it does require global condemnation and effort of higher order to ensure that SCS does not become ‘China’s Lake’.  Although Quad may not have requisite teeth as of now, but there is no other alternative but to have potential arrangement of this kind between likeminded maritime powers having common strategic interests in Indo-Pacific Region in relation to freedom of navigation (FON), flights and rule-based order. 

Differing Perceptions regarding Role of Quad

The Quad has repeatedly been subject of varying perceptions regarding its role, viability and prospects. Quad by nomenclature is a security dialogue forum and not a military alliance; hence the expectations from Quad have to be appropriately restricted for the time being.  Media often traces the Quad back to the expanded Malabar Naval Exercise in September 2007, that originated from the U.S.-India bilateral relationship, wherein ships of all four Quad countries participated for the first time, which was held off the Japanese island of Okinawa. It appeared to be a military and maritime arrangement revolving exclusively around four democracies. The initial impetus/usefulness of Quad it in fact emerged following the devastating tsunami in Indian Ocean back in 2004 as the so-called Tsunami Core Group, which came together to fashion a credible Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) response to it. This role for Quad, along with anti-piracy was noticed and counted, as such a role was much easier to sell to the world community including the stakeholders, which were excluded in the grouping. 

Many give the credit of the idea of Quad to Prime Minister Abe who mooted his proposal within the framework of the “confluence of the two seas”, joining the Indian and the Pacific Oceans. This would enable a “broader Asia” to emerge, which would encompass the Pacific, where Japan felt that partnership with the US and Australia would be integrated into its ambit besides Japan – India strategic partnership. The four democratic countries of the Quad project themselves to be committed to an open and transparent network which “will allow people, goods, capital, and knowledge to flow freely”. Quad is therefore yet to acknowledge that it has a role to check the adventurism of China in Indo-Pacific region and could ever operate jointly as a military force for it. In fact, Quad has chosen to be diplomatically correct to say that it is not directed towards any particular country.

Problems/Divergences

To take the dialogue forward, the Quad needs to urgently converge existing divergences regarding their individual definitions of the Indo-Pacific. While Indian and to some extent Japanese focus would be to include western Indian Ocean touching Africa and Gulf countries along with the Eastern Indian Ocean, Northern and Eastern Pacific, which perhaps other members of Quad would see as the main focus of attention. 

 All Quad members have different threat perceptions in the Indo-Pacific. This impacts their prioritization in dealing with challenges in Indo-pacific as well as the areas of focus. It also includes their approach towards dealing with flash points like SCS or upholding the freedom of navigation along the sea and air routes of communication, connectivity and rule-based order in the Indo-Pacific. An important issue for effective maritime security cooperation amongst the navies of Quad is while three of the navies (Australia, US and Japan) operate within NATO military alliance framework, India is not part of any military alliance, although a strategic partner of two of them. The trilateral dialogue between the three NATO allies is continuing since 2002 without India. India is the only country amongst Quad members which has unsettled land border with China; hence will have a different approach in dealing with China. This does create some apprehension in mind of the rest three partners as China -India relations keep fluctuating between tension and harmony with incidents like Doklam, Wuhan and reorganization of Jammu and Kashmir. This brings up the question of military decision-making by the Quad as a group.

The centrality of ASEAN in the Indo-Pacific has been emphasized by the Quad, hence their inclusion into it is another debatable issue, due to Chinese influence over them. There are differences within ASEAN in response to Chinese claim over nine dash line in SCS (based on its unilateral interpretation of history), between the countries which have overlapping EEZ and the ones not facing such problem. Generally, some of the affected ASEAN countries have occasionally raised a feeble voice against Chinese aggression (Philippines, Vietnam), expecting world powers to check Chinese adventurism, without themselves standing up against the Chinese might. They have generally tried to get the best of US and China without being seen to be taking sides. This has emboldened China to continue incremental encroachment in SCS and the region up to a point that it has become a global concern. China has also tried its best to deal with each of the country in this region on bilateral terms and lure/influence it through ‘Chequebook/Purse/Infrastructure diplomacy’.

Strengthening/Upgradation of Quad

 It is being increasingly realized that equal participation of all four Quad countries in maritime security cooperation is crucial for a ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific region’. Between 2007 to 2017, meetings of Quad officials were extremely limited, that too at Joint Secretary/equivalent level. 2017 onwards it had four meetings, the last one being at Foreign Minister level, indicates the incremental seriousness of the countries involved in such engagement. Increasing convergence in focus and roles is also being noticed. In last meeting hosted by US earlier this year, besides ‘Free and Open Indo-Pacific’ to ensure freedom of navigation; maritime security cooperation; connectivity; good governance; countering terrorism and proliferation; HADR; promoting a rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific; and cyber security were some common areas of interest. Concerns like use of global commons in international water and nuclear adventurism of North Korea were also subjects of discussion. Consensus on centrality of ASEAN was also a sign of convergence.

The common focus of Quad to implement its idea of a Free and Open Indo-Pacific on a “rules-based” legal framework to secure freedom of navigation in the global SLOC in Indo-Pacific needs some introspection and strengthening. Three members of Quad namely Australia, India and Japan, have ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), however US is yet to ratify the same. This ratification will be necessary to have a moral high ground to implement the same. It is still not sure that any legal framework can compel China to accept it in SCS in future, as it had rejected the PCA’s decision earlier. This is a serious global concern because China continues to make/improve infrastructure in SCS, with a view to convert features/atolls into military bases, expect others to accept them as islands and apply ‘Baseline principle’ under UNCLOS-III to claim its 200 nautical miles of EEZ to conveniently convert SCS into ‘Chinese lake’ over a period of time. If it is not resented by global community, it may lead to some restrictions like ADIZ on SCS which is a global SLOC. 

Considering the prevailing international strategic scenario, China is reasonably confident that US or any other country will not use military force to dismantle their infrastructure made in SCS. It is also increasing its naval capability as part of its comprehensive national power (CNP) to make best use of inaction by other countries in Indo-Pacific. In this context it is necessary that Quad strengthens itself beyond Malabar exercises and forum for dialogue and gets some teeth in the form of maritime capacity building of its members, further improvement of interoperability and dominate choke points sensitive to China. Chinese adventurism of recent intrusion like Vanguard episode in Vietnam waters need to be taken seriously.  

Quad members must continue freedom of navigation exercises and military posturing in Indo-Pacific as China continues to do so. Global community must continue to condemn Chinese encroachment in SCS and conversion of features into bases. These features should never be recognized as islands in consonance with PCA decision. If the strategic situation worsens there may be a need to position ‘UN Maritime Military Observers Group’ in future, which must be thought of, as prevention of accidental triggering of conflict is possible in a region having high density of combat ship on FON missions.  Some of the countries whose EEZ is being compromised by Nine dash line claims must start speaking for themselves before expecting other powers to help them. The countries who have their SLOC passing through Indo-pacific should also be consulted in finalization of China driven Code of Conduct (CoC) as they also have stakes in SCS. Any action by any country to restrict freedom of navigation/flight or violation of rule of law must be challenged in UN Security Council. Support of other navies like France for free and open Indo-Pacific is  encouraging step in this direction. Quad in its present form may not be effective enough to check Chinese adventurism, but it certainly has potential to become one of the effective instruments to do so, provided the affected countries and the global community also plays its role against common concerns.

Major General S B Asthana

(The views expressed are personal views of the author, who retains the copy right). The author can be reached at Facebook, LinkedIn, and Google+ as Shashi Asthana, @asthana_shashi on twitter, and personnel sitehttps://asthanawrites.org/email shashiasthana29@gmail.comLinkedIn Profilewww.linkedin.com/in/shashi-asthana-4b3801a6Youtube linkS B Asthana