Was will Putin?

1997 unterzeichnete Rußland die NATO-Rußland-Gründungsakte . in der Rußland den ehemaligen Ostblockstaaten, also auch Georgien und der Ukraine das Recht auch auf NATO-Mitgliedschaft zugestand, während die NATO im Gegenzug zusagte, keine permanenten Truppenstationierungen östlich von Westdeutschland vorzunehmen.Rußland hat diesen Vertrag bis heute nicht aufgekündigt, obgleich es von einer Einkreisung Rußland spricht, die es aber in diesem Vertrag akzeptierte.Putins Außenpolitik kann man im wesentlichen in 2 Phasen untergliedern. In der ersten Phase von 2001 bis 2007 versuchte er die Staaten der EU noch auf freundliche Weise aus der NATO zu lösen und eine Freihandelszone von Lissabon bis Wladiwostok zu errichten, wie auch durch Erdgaslieferungen und Pipelinebau energieabhängig zu machen, wobei er in Gerhard Schröders deutscher Regierung und dem Northstreamprojekt eifrige Förderer einer engeren Anbindung fand.. Klar formulierte er dies in seiner Rede vor dem deutschen Bundestag 2001: „„Niemand bezweifelt den grossen Wert Europas zu den Vereinigten Staaten. Aber ich bin der Meinung, dass Europa einen Ruf als mächtiger und selbständiger Mittelpunkt der Weltpolitik langfristig nur festigen wird, wenn es seine eigenen Möglichkeiten mit den russischen menschlichen, territorialen und Naturresourcen sowie mit den Wirtschafts-, Kultur- und Verteidigungspotentialen Russlands vereinigen wird.“. In den Folgejahren aber wurden immer neue Staaten Mitglieder der NATO und der EU, die erhoffte Freihandelszone nahm auch keine Fahrt auf–im Gegenteil: Einige europäische Staaten dachten über eine transatlantische Freihandelszone, zuerst NAFTA, dann später TTIP nach und sein Freund Schröder war inzwischen auch durch die Transatlantikerin Merkel ersetzt worden. Dies führte dazu, dass Putin auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz 2007 mit seiner Rede auf offene Konfrontation umschaltete. Hatte der Chef der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz Teltschik eine NATO-Mitgliedschaft Rußlands vorgeschlagen, so lehnte dies Putin offen ab und ging auf offene Konfrontation mit dem Westen:

„A breeze of Cold War

Vladimir Putin’s inflammatory speech terrifies the audience at the Munich Security Conference 2007.

By Oliver Rolofs

The audience at the Munich Security Conference 2007 was most eager to hear the speech of Russian President Vladimir Putin. However, hardly any of the conference participants expected that Mr. Putin’s fiery speech would stir up the conference venue at the „Hotel Bayerischer Hof“ the way they did. In a dramatic way, he vigorously warned the audience against the United States‘ global supremacy, declared the eastward expansion of NATO a provocation and threatened that Russia had weapons on hand that could neutralise the anti-missile defence shield planned to be installed by the US in Eastern Europe.

Prior to his speech, the senior politicians from the fields of foreign affairs and defence were still cheerful. However, the following remark made by Mr. Putin, who participated for the first time in the Munich Security Conference, made them sit up and take notice: Mr. Putin said he hoped that Mr. Teltschik, then-Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, would not turn off the microphone during his speech. He announced that he was going to make clear his real position on international security challenges without any „diplomatic inhibitions.“ Shortly after, he started his almost 20-minute speech on „the Russian role in international politics“. He came to the point immediately. The casual ambiance in the conference hall noticeably cooled down when Mr. Putin launched a rhetoric attack from the very beginning of his speech. The faces of the American delegates in the front row started to freeze soon. They already expected to be hearing harsh words in the next few minutes. The overall criticism voiced by Mr. Putin about the status of the international system was directly aimed at them. Mr. Putin criticized the United States‘ monopolistic status quo seeking „global predominance through a system which had nothing in common with democracy.“ He continued by telling the conference participants that everybody in the Western world was keen to teach Russia about democracy, however, the Westerners did not want to learn themselves.

Massive criticism raised against the US

Mr. Putin continued by criticising that the end of the Cold War had produced by far more casualties and armed conflicts than ever before. In his opinion the attempt to resolve problems by unilateral action caused human tragedies. „We are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of military force in international relations.“ According to Mr. Putin, this force caused disdain for the basic principles of international law and stimulated a new arms race in the world. Stunned, the conference participants stared at the podium. Putin continued: „The US has overstepped its national borders in almost all spheres.“ He asked – „Who could be pleased with this?“ – and added that „nobody can feel secure“ in this political landscape.

Warning against US anti-missile shield and expansion of NATO to the East

Mr. Putin went on attacking the Western world. According to Mr. Putin, US plans to deploy an anti-missile defence shield in Eastern Europe equalled an arms race not beneficial for Europe. He could not see the benefits of such a defence capability, as it would remain ineffective against Russia anyway. Mr. Putin pointed out: „We have weapons on hand which can neutralize this shield.“ In the subsequent round of discussions, Mr. Putin stated on the dispute about the US anti-missile defence shield that the Charter of the United Nations would, ultimately, also give Russia the inherent right to defend itself in the case of an escalation of the situation.

In addition, the Russian President massively criticized the expansion of NATO to the East. In his speech, he ask countries to keep NATO’s promise not to deploy troops to East Germany. With reference to the call for NATO membership of former Warsaw Pact countries, he directly addressed the conference audience by asking: „And where is this guarantee now?“ The President explicitly warned the audience that NATO’s continued pursuit of expansion to the East was apt to „provoke“ his country and lower mutual confidence. „New dividing lines and walls are intended to be imposed on us, which, again, will cut through the continent.“

Announcement of a Russian comeback?

Notwithstanding the traditional open dialogue practices at the Munich Security Conference – such an open-mindedness was demonstrated on rare occasions only by politicians in Munich. The Russian President must have even terrified those participants who, since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, had longed for a long time for a response by Russia to its humiliating role of a declining world power. Now, this response had been given. A breeze of Cold War was in the air through the Hotel Bayerischer Hof for the rest of the conference day. The alerting call by Moscow was aimed at demonstrating the more important role of Russia on the global stage and supposed to be a warning to other countries not to make unilateral, go-it-alone approaches in international relations. Mr. Putin successfully achieved this aim. Did, however, everybody understand his warning? While some sceptical security strategists predicted a noticeable rupture in the relationship between NATO and Russia and “the beginning of a new Cold War,” US Secretary of Defence Robert Gates, among others, refuted such assumptions the next day. He tried to alleviate confrontations through humour. „Former spies usually come straight to the point. However, one Cold War was enough,“ Mr. Gates stated. He underlined the fact that they all shared many common problems and challenges which had to be tackled in a spirit of partnership together with other countries including Russia. This seemed to be rather a helpless appeal. Mr. Gates did not seriously take up Mr. Putin’s speech. However, in summer 2008, at the latest, the harsh words spoken by the Russian President were remembered – when, in the wake of the Caucasus crisis, Russia, which had grown stronger through the global boom in energy, became a driving force in bringing about the decisive turning point in the relationship with the Western world.One year after Mr. Putin had delivered his speech at the Munich Security Conference, Russia once again issued an indirect warning against go-it-alone foreign policy approaches, this time in more conciliatory tones. The First Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian Federation, Sergej Ivanov, stated on the forthcoming independence of Kosovo: „A unilateral declaration of independence will open Pandora’s box in the Caucasus.“ The speech delivered by Mr. Putin in 2007 was not only a liberation strike launched by Russia, but also the harbinger of a serious crisis in Russian-Western relations.“

https://www.securityconference.de/en/about/munich-moments/a-breeze-of-cold-war/

Obwohl Putin die NATO-Rußlandgründungsakte von 1997 nicht infrage stellte, so warnte er doch vor weiteren NATO-Erweiterungen. Desweiteren gründete er die Eurasische Union, die eine Mitgliedschaft der Ukraine vorsah, also auch eine EU-Mitgliedschaft der Ukraine ausschloß.Ein Jahr nach der Münchner Putinrede ereignete sich 2008 der militärische Konflikt zwischen Georgien und Rußland, in dessen Folge Rußland Südossetien und Abchasien annektierte. Ebenso reagierte Putin, als die Ukraine das EU-Assoziationsabkommen abschließen wollte mit der Annektion der Krim und mit einem Stellvertreterkrieg in der Ostukraine. Dennoch halten die USA, GB und andere NATO-Staaten an Kontakten zu Georgien und der Ukraine im Rahmen des sogenannten 28-2-Rahmenabkommens fest, wie auch die USA mit Großbritannien trilaterale Manöver in Georgien abhalten- so berichtet die Jamestown Foundation:

„A ship carrying United States military equipment arrived at the Georgian Black Sea port of Poti, on May 5. The equipment, which included US M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks and Bradley Fighting Vehicles, was ferried from the Bulgarian port of Varna and will take part in “Noble Partner 2016”—the first trilateral military exercise involving armed forces from the US, the United Kingdom and Georgia (Civil Georgia, May 5).

Upon arriving in Georgia, the tanks and armored fighting vehicles were further transported via railroad to the capital, Tbilisi. Large military exercises are taking place from May 11 to 26, at the former Russian military base in Vaziani, a suburb of Tbilisi’s suburbs. An estimated 650 US, 150 UK and 500 Georgian troops will take part in the exercises. According to the Ministry of Defense of Georgia, Noble Partner is being run for the second year in a row—though this marks the first time that UK forces have also taken part. “The objective of the exercise is to increase the interoperability of Georgia’s light infantry company, which participates in the NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] Response Force (NRF) with NATO and US forces. The scenario of the exercise is based on stability/defensive operations,” the defense ministry said in a statement (Mod.gov.ge, May 5).

Apart from the military ground equipment, several C-130 “Hercules” aircraft will also be used during the exercises. The maneuvers will conclude on May 26, Georgian Independence Day, the country’s main national holiday. Last year, a US military unit marched along Tbilisi’s central square with the Georgian military to mark Independence Day. Bradley Fighting Vehicles also took part in the parade, attracting significant attention from locals (Kommersant, July 8, 2015).

This year, Georgian public interest in the joint military exercises is expected to be even higher because the US Army has brought M1A2 Abrams Main Battle Tanks. Official sources do not specify how many of such tanks will participate in the exercises. But Irakly Aladashvili, the editor-in-chief of the independent military analysis journal Arsenal, said, in a May 6 interview with this author, that according to his information, 14 M1A2 Abrams tanks and about the same number of Bradley Fighting Vehicles have been dispatched to Georgia.

Aladashvili noted that the Vaziani training ground, where Noble Partner 2016 is taking place, is only 35 kilometers away from South Ossetia, occupied by the Russian army since the August 2008 war. “The Russian military stationed old T-72 tanks in South Ossetia. However, in Abkhazia, which is also occupied by Russia, Moscow has stationed 42 of the latest T-90A “Vladimir” tanks. Thus, today, Georgia is the only country in the world on whose territory the two best known modern tanks—the M1A2 Abrams and the T-90A “Vladimir”—will be stationed simultaneously. Many people would be curious to compare their capabilities,” Aladashvili posited (Author’s interview, May 6).

The commander of US Army Europe, Lieutenant General Ben Hodges, personally unveiled plans to hold Noble Partner 2016 exercises back in fall 2015. While visiting the international conference “The New Geopolitical Landscape of Europe: Security, Economic Opportunities, Freedom and Human Dignity for the Frontline States” in Tbilisi, Lt. General Hodges stated that the primary objective of the future exercises would be “to check how quickly American military equipment and servicemen can arrive on Georgian soil, if necessary” (Kommersant, July 8, 2015).

A number of Georgian analysts say that holding trilateral military exercises in a Tbilisi suburb and bringing M1A2 Abrams tanks to Georgia for the first time sends a “strong message” for all pro-Western forces in Georgia that favor the country’s further integration into Euro-Atlantic structures. “Georgia failed to receive a MAP [Membership Action Plan] at the NATO summit in Wales, in 2014. Georgia did receive, however, a ‘substantial package of cooperation,’ which envisaged holding intensive joint military exercises. Hence, Georgia’s partners are now demonstrating that they intend to make good on their promises,” GHN news agency columnist David Avalishvili explained. According to Avalishvili, “under the present conditions, when Georgia is unlikely to receive the road map for joining the alliance at NATO’s upcoming summit in Warsaw, the American military command in Europe is trying to demonstrate to Georgian society that the United States–Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership allows bilateral and trilateral formats of military cooperation, including with Great Britain. The Charter was signed back when George W. Bush was the president of the United States” (Author’s interview, May 6).

NATO is also offering new projects for Georgia. The North Atlantic Alliance’s Deputy Secretary General Alexander Vershbow recently spoke in favor of giving Georgia and Ukraine the status of “associated partners of NATO” and working out a military-political cooperation format on the Black Sea region, according to the formula “28 + 2” (Kommersant, April 17).

Vakhtang Maisaia, a doctor of military sciences, told this author that NATO is trying to fill in the third stage of Georgia’s integration with the Alliance with actual content. The stage is called “intensive dialogue.” Maisaia said that “Georgia has been at the third stage of integration since 2006. MAP would represent a fourth stage, but because several influential European NATO countries—particularly France, and Germany—are still opposed to providing a ‘road map’ to Georgia, other partners, including the US and Great Britain, have proposed intermediate programs, such as the 28 + 2 format on the Black Sea and ‘associated partnership.’ Apart from that, they are intensifying the holding of joint exercises” (Author’s interview, April 4).

The majority of local observers agree that the Noble Partner 2016 exercise will significantly enhance the position of pro-Western forces inside Georgia in the run-up to the parliamentary elections, scheduled for October 8. Specifically, the trilateral military drills will signal that Georgia’s main Western partners—particularly the US—still have an interest in the South Caucasus country. “This is a strong argument during an election period because domestic pro-Russian forces will try to make the case that the US forgot about Georgia,” noted Giorgi Lebanidze, an analyst with the newspaper Prime-Time (Author’s interview, May 6). But after nearly a decade of waiting for MAP, it remains to be seen whether initiatives like Noble Partner 2016 will be enough to keep the Georgian population from giving up on Euro-Atlantic integration.“

Putin sieht, dass immer mehr Staaten der NATO und der westlich-demokrtaischen Werrtegemeinschaft beitreten wollen. Dies gilt es zu unterminieren. Während die NATO nicht so einfach ntergraben werden kann, ist sein erstes Ziel vor allem die EU, die er zertrümmern will mittels rechtsnationailistischer Kräfte wie dem Front National, der UKIP und anderen europäischen Nationalisten. Diesen Sachverhalt schildert der Artikel „Pution´s War on Europe“sehr deutlich:

„The times, they seem to be a-changin‘

The vibe at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum was distinctively different this year, with European Commission President Jean Claude Juncker, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, and former French President Nicolas Sarkozy making high-profile appearances.

The noises coming out of European capitals are also taking on a different tone, with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier calling for a phasing out of sanctions and decrying what he called NATO „warmongering“; Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz suggesting a rapprochement with Moscow; and Italy insisting on a formal review of the European Union’s policy toward Russia before agreeing to extend sanctions.

Additionally, on the 75th anniversary of Adolf Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union on June 22, more than 100 German intellectuals penned an open letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel, calling on her to „learn the lesson from this most terrible war“ and „pursue a policy of mutual understanding with Russia.“

And a recent poll by the Pew Research Center showed that a plurality of 48 percent of Europeans believe „having a strong economic relationship with Russia“ is more important that „being tough“ with Moscow in foreign-policy disputes.

Spooked by Brexit and the migrant crisis, many European politicians are increasingly concluding that a conflict on their eastern flank is the last thing they need. And lured by Kremlin cash, entrepreneurs and industrialists are chomping at the bit to get back to business as usual with Russia.

But here’s the thing. Seeking to undermine European unity is business as usual for the Kremlin. It predated the Ukraine crisis and Moscow’s current standoff with the West — and it is not going to stop no matter what Brussels does now.

„The struggle against the European Union cannot end,“ Yale University historian Timothy Snyder, author of the books Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler And Stalin and Black Earth: The Holocaust As History And Warning, said in a recent talk.

„If sanctions are ended tomorrow,“ Snyder added, Russia will not stop supporting and encouraging far-right leaders like France’s Marine Le Pen and Britain’s Nigel Farage.

„They won’t stop inviting the Nazis of Europe to St. Petersburg for annual conferences. If sanctions stop tomorrow, all that stuff continues because the problem with Europe is fundamentally a domestic problem for Russia. The existence of Europe is a domestic problem for Russia.“

Put another way, Vladimir Putin regime’s problem isn’t with what Europe is doing — but with what Europe is.

Europe presents a transparent and democratic model of governance close to Russia’s borders that directly challenges the authoritarian kleptocracy in the Kremlin.

The European Union provides a model of integration based on consensus that is far more appealing than Moscow’s, which is based on coercion.

And the EU has a magnetic pull on Russia’s neighbors, undermining Putin’s dream of a sphere of influence in the former Soviet space.

And as long as that remains the case, as long as Europe remains Europe, Putin’s war on Europe will continue.

Indeed, in a recent column for Bloomberg, political commentator Leonid Breshidsky noted that despite Putin’s efforts to charm the Europeans at the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, „the Russian regime is not thawing, and there’s no retreat from its geopolitical assertiveness or its dogged economic statism.“

Nor is there any retreat from the active measures designed to sow division and discord in Europe.

These include efforts to manipulate the Brexit campaign in the United Kingdom, providing covert — and sometimes overt — support to the far right and extreme left, and financing „alternative“ online media outlets across the continent that aim to undermine faith in European institutions.

„As long as Putin is in power, they are not going to stop trying to undo the European Union,“ Snyder said.

http://www.rferl.org/content/putins-war-on-europe/27815878.html

Putin sieht die EU und ihre Magnetwirkung auf osteuropäische Staaten sowie als liberal-demokratisches Gegenmodell zu seinem konservativen Autoritarismus als Bedrohung, die es zu beseitigen gilt–er hasst die EU nicht für das, was sie tut, sondern für das, was sie ist.Neben den rechtsnationalkistischen europäischen Parteien sieht er hier auch wirtschaftliche Lobbygruppen, die gerne Osthandel betreiben sowie auch die mehr prorussische Linke als seine potentiellen Unterstützer. Frank Walter Steinmeiers Kritik an dem NATO-Manöver Anaconda kommt ihm daher sehr gelegen, da nun auch die Sanktionsfront in Europas wichtigstem Land, Deutschland Risse bekommt. Betrachten wir uns das polkitische Umfeld, in dem Steinmeiers Äußerungen fallen. Zum einen beginnen die Sanktionen zu wirken: Rußland musste den Militärhaushalt kürzen, ist jetzt gezwungen Rosneftanteile an China und Indien zu verkaufen, um Geld zu erlösen, Putins Drohmanöver haben dazu geführt, dass die osteuropäischen Staaten sowie die skandinavischen Staaten näher an die NATO denn jemals zuvor gerückt sind. Anaconda zeigte Putin ganz klar, dass seine Drohmanöver an der polnischen und baltischen Grenze nicht unbeantwortet bleiben. Putins wesentliche Hoffnung ist es nun nationalistische Kreise in der EU zu fördern, die EU von innen heraus zu zersetzen, wobei Frankreich und der Front National sowie Sarkozy ( im Gegensatz zu Juppe, der Sanktionen befürwortet)hier Haupztielland sind und auf einen Wahlsieg Trumps und einen Brexit zu hoffen. Alljährlich hat wieder der St. Petersburng International Economic Forum getagt, auf dem Sarkozy als Hauptredner aller Sanktionsgegner auftrat, zumal auch die deutsche Wirtschaft über die Lobbyorgnaisation Business Europe versucht alle Sanktionsgegner in Europa zusammenzubringen. EU-Kommissionspräsident Juncker hat dem eine klare Absage erteilt und die EU hat nun die Sanktionen verlängert, zusätztlich zu den niedrigen Energiepreisen, die Russlands Staatshaushalt auszehren.Es steht nicht gut für Putin im Moment. Dennoch könnte bei weiterer Eskaltation die europäische Bevölkerung, vor allem die deutsche Zweifel am Kurs der NATO haben. Zum einen muss man sehen, dass die Unterstützung der NATO durch die deutsche Bevölkerung auf historischen Tiefstwerten oszilliert.Merkels Ankündigung nun auch den Verteidigungshaushalt auf die von der NATO anvisierten 2% des BSP ansteigen zu lassen, erwecken auch Widerstand. Zwar herrschte in der deutschen Bevölkerung noch vor 1-2 Jahren Konsens, dass die Bundeswehr kaputtgespart wurde, dennoch scheint die Bereitschaft dafür auch zahlen zu wollen, sehr begrenzt. Merkel hat jetzt den Verteidigungshaushalt um moderate 5 Milliarden erhöht, die 2% würden aber 62 Milliarden Euro pro Jahr bedeuten und es fragt sich wie man die jährlich zusätzlichen 20-25 Milliarden Euro finanzieren soll. Schon jetzt ist die Bevökerung angesichts Kosten für die Flüchtlinge (26 Milliarden Euro), Griechenland- und Eurorettungsschirme sehr ungut gelaunt, nun auch weitere Kosten zu tragen. Zudem sich auch die soziale Verteilungsfrage stellt und ebenso die Frage, inwieweit es angesichts dieser Kosten dann noch zu einem ausgeglichenen Haushalt mit schwarzer Null kommen soll.Die Rußlandpolitik könnte also leicht der AfD in die Hand spielen, die sich dann als Putinversteher und als Friedenspartei präsentieren könnte.Diesen Unmut über die NATO-Politik scheint nun auch Steinmeier bedienen zu wollen, mit Unterstützung der Linkspartei und der Grünen. Nachdem Seehofer mit Stoiber seinen anbiederischen Putinbesuch absolviert haben, folgt nun Gabriel.Zwar hat Merkel hier scheinbar noch die Unterstützung des Großteils der CDU, aber der Gegenwind wird stärker.Gabriels Lobbytum für North Stream II ist auch eine klare Verletzung der Beschlüsse der Energieunion der EU.Es ist schon berechtigt, dass Erler und Steinmeier vor einer Eskalationsspirale „bis hin zum Krieg“(Ehrler) warnen und man sich Gedanken macht, wie man die Sitaution deeskalieren könnte, doch darf man Aktion und Reaktion nicht verwecheseln. Selbst wenn man Putin die Krim zugestehen würde, bleibt doch festzustellen, dass er Drohmanöver an der polnischen und baltischen Grenze ohne NATOaktion einseitig abgehalten hat, dass er in der Ostsee Drohmanöver gegen skandinasvsische Staaten vollführt hat–von daher sind die Anacondamanöver und die Entsendung des 4000 Mann starken Batalilons ins Baltikum eine sehr moderate Gegenreaktion der NATO.

Doch Putins Vision, die EU zu zertrümmern, ein Europa wie im 19. oder 20. Jahrhundert wiederherzubekommen, bei denen er dann die Nationalstaaten gegeneinasnder ausspielen kann, geht noch weiter. Russland soll als Leuchtturm, als 4.Rom konservativ-autoritärer Werte aufsteigen und zugleich ein Greater Eurasia als Gegenmodell zum transatlantisch-demokratisch-liberalen Westen dienen. Dies kommt in einer Studie des russischen Council on Foreign and Defense Policy „, „Russia’s Foreign Policy: From The Late 2010s – To The Early 2020s“ klar zum Ausdruck:

„In comparison with the former Soviet Union and early Russia, the makeup of Russian social morale has changed. The irreligion and dying communist ideology of the 1980s and the situation of the 1990s when the revolutionary minority imposed the locally nonviable (as it subsequently became clear later) ‚liberal ‚values on the majority, have been replaced with patriotism, state nationalism and more or less normal traditional values, that are globally widespread . They are generally supported by the vast majority of the population and a large part of the elite; they feel that their country’s position is morally right. This is a fundamental change compared to the shame and desire to please of the late 1980s-1990s.
(…) Russia, in fact, began offering most of the world’s people , including even those in the West, a viable set of values. They are, for the most part, inherited from the past, but the past is returning. It is political and cultural pluralism, freedom of choice instead of western universalism, state sovereignty, national dignity, non-interference in internal affairs; reliance on traditional social, individual and family values, support of religions, rejection of militant secularism.(…)The prerequisites now exist for the emergence of another center – Greater Eurasia(…) The option of creating a single economic and human space with the EU countries over the long term, should not be dropped from the agenda. Of course, [this will] not [be predicated] on the previously suggested Brussels principles, but in a larger Eurasian context. The EU has lost its strategic vision, it does not have any large project. This is one reason for the crisis. One should consider the European-Eurasian prospect an open possibility.“

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/memorandum-russian-council-foreign-defense-policies-raymond-demourot?published=u

Russland als Leuchtturm autoritären Konservatismus und Greater Eurasia–als wesentliche Schwäche der EU wird festgehalten, dass sie kein größereres Projekt und keine größere Vision mehr habe und untergehen werde. Das ist es, was Putin will.

Desweiteren setzt Putin auf eine andere US-Außenpolitik unter Trump und hat als seinen Einflußagenten seinen Mann mit besten Gazpromkontakten als Rußlandberater Trumps installiert: Carter Page. Bloomberg widmete Putins Mann im Trumpteam denn auch einen ausführlichen Artikel:

„A globe-trotting American investment banker who’s built a career on deals with Russia and its state-run gas company, Carter Page says his business has suffered directly from the U.S. economic sanctions imposed after Russia’s escalating involvement in the Ukraine. When Donald Trump named him last weak as one of his foreign-policy advisers, Page says his e-mail inbox filled up with positive notes from Russian contacts. “So many people who I know and have worked with have been so adversely affected by the sanctions policy,” Page said in a two-hour interview last week. “There’s a lot of excitement in terms of the possibilities for creating a better situation. Over the course of his campaign, Trump has been a contrarian on Russia, floating the idea of reducing the American commitment to NATO and calling Russian President Vladimir Putin  a „strong leader“ “I think I would have a very good relationship with Putin,” he said last year. So it makes sense that Trump tapped Page for his foreign-policy team. In writings posted online, Page is a reliable defender of Russian intentions, and portrays U.S. policymakers as stuck in an outdated Cold War mindset.“(…)

Page’s interest in Russia dates to his youth in New York’s Hudson Valley. Watching a TV news program on arms control talks, he says he noticed that the adviser sitting behind President Ronald Reagan wore a Navy uniform. A few years later, Page enrolled in the U.S. Naval Academy. He later worked in arms control at the Pentagon and completed a fellowship at the Council on Foreign Relations in New York. Over his career, he’s earned three graduate degrees, including a Ph.D from SOAS University of London.

In 2000, Page took up investment banking, getting a job at Merrill Lynch’s capital-markets group in London. After impressing a colleague with his relationship with Victor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian billionaire, he says he was dispatched to help open the firm’s Moscow office in 2004.In Russia, Page developed relationships with executives at Gazprom, the former Soviet gas ministry that was partially privatized in the 1990s. By the time Page arrived, Putin was consolidating his grip on the country’s economy, and in 2005 the government boosted its stake so that it again owned a majority of the stock.

Page says he advised Gazprom on its largest deals during this period, such as buying of a stake in the Sakhalin oil and gas field in the Sea of Okhotsk. He also helped the company court Western investors, assisting in setting up the first regular meetings with shareholders in New York and London. Before he moved back to New York in 2007, he says, many of its top officials showed up at his going-away party, at a restaurant near the Kremlin. (…)

After returning to New York, Page says he took a buyout from Merrill in 2008 to start his own firm, known as Global Energy Capital LLC. He traveled to Turkmenistan that year, talking about raising a $1 billion private equity fund to buy assets in the former Soviet republic, and meeting with top government officials.

The fund never materialized—the global financial crisis struck later that year—and since then, Page says he’s mostly done low-profile advisory assignments, such as counseling foreign investors on buying assets in Russia. In some of the deals, he’s worked with Sergey Yatsenko, a former deputy chief financial officer at Gazprom who is now an official adviser to Page’s firm.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-30/trump-russia-adviser-carter-page-interview

Über Ralf Ostner

Ralf Ostner geboren 1964 in Frankfurt am Main, 1984 Abitur in Bayern--Leitungskurse: Physik und Kunst/ Schülerzeitung. Studium der Physik (Nebenfächer: Mathematik, Chemie), Wirtschaftsgeographie (Nebenfächer: BWL, VWL) und Studium der Sinologie. 1991 Abschluss als staatlich geprüfter Übersetzer in der englischen und chinesischen Sprache am Sprachen- und Dolmetscher-Institut/München (Leiter der Chinesisch-Abteilung: Herr Zhang, ehemaliger Dolmetscher von Deng Xiaoping und Franz-Josef Strauß).Danach 5 Jahre Asienaufenthalt: China, Indien, Südostasien (u.a. in Kambodscha während des ersten Auslandseinsatzes der Bundeswehr, Interviews mit Auslandschinesen, Recherche im Karen-Guerillagebiet in Burma, Unterstützung einer UNO-Mitarbeiterin während den Aufständen in Nepal und bei UNO-Arbeit in Indien), Australien. Danach 5 Jahre als Dolmetscher, Delegationsbegleiter und Übersetzer in München. Abendstudium an der Hochschule für Politik /München (Schwerpunkt: Internationale Beziehungen). Abschluss als Diplom-Politologe (Diplomarbeit: Die deutsch-chinesischen Beziehungen 1989-2000 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der SPD-Grünen-Regierung). Delegationsbegleitung von Hu Ping, Chefredakteur der chinesischen Dissidentenzeitung "Pekinger Frühling" (New York)und prominentester Vertreter eines chinesischen Liberalismus bei seiner Deutschlandtour (Uni München, Uni Mainz, Berlin/FU-Humboldt) bei gleichzeitigem Kontakt mit Liu Liqun (Autor des Buches "Westliches Denken transzendieren"/ heute: Deutschlandberater der chinesischen Regierung).Chefredakteur der Studentenzeitschrift UNIPOL . Projekte am Goethe-Institut und bei FOCUS TV. Seit 2000 Übersetzer (chinesisch-deutsch), Graphiker, freier Schriftsteller und Blogger.
Dieser Beitrag wurde unter Allgemein veröffentlicht. Setze ein Lesezeichen auf den Permalink.