Munich Security Conference: Russian excuses not to attend the meeting
Russia has announced that it will not attend the Munich Security Conference. First, on the part of Putin adviser Dr. Rahrwho indicated that the MSC did not want to endorse that Putin could speak first, which was a condition for him t attend, while Heusgen preferred Kamal Harris or Anthony Blinken, while Ischinger preferred Anna-Lena Baerbrock or a German representative as a compromise. Then Rahr suggested that Lavrov would come, but that he would also like to speak first and if in full hall , especially since Lavrov felt offended that Ischinger allegedly did the dance around the Golden Calf to Putin and completely ignored him. Now there is a new excuse as to why the Russians could not come: The latest appeal, why the Russians allegedly do not want to take part: that Iischinger made a business group out of the MSC with the help of the Agora consulting group, with associated lobbying and conflicts of interest. An article is quoted on this of the US magazine Politico. There the Serbian Prime Minister Vovic, who is clean of all Russian and Serbian oligarchs, business and political interests, is positioned as a key witness against the evil Kosovo-Ischinger, especially with reference to anonymous sources.
“In diplomacy, Europe’s most powerful ambassador means business
Wolfgang Ischinger has transformed the Munich Security Conference into an elite global gathering — and done rather well for himself in the process.(…)
Ischinger and several of his associates have had leading roles at both Agora and the Munich Security Conference.
SOURCE: Munich Security Conference, Agora Strategy Group, POLITICO research
As a diplomat, Ischinger had worked in the Balkans. But at such gatherings he had more than regional stability on his mind, a former associate said: “He wanted to make money.”
Since his departure from Germany’s foreign service nearly 15 years ago, the ambassador has transformed the Munich Security Conference from a sleepy annual gathering of Cold Warriors and foreign policy wonks into a year-round traveling circus of global elites, populated by dozens of heads of state from Joe Biden to the president of Estonia, titans of Silicon Valley including Mark Zuckerberg, and even the likes of U2 frontman Bono. At this year’s instalment, which gets underway on Friday, U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris will be among the guests of honor.
For Ischinger, however, the proceedings are about more than lofty debates on global issues or high-profile elbow-rubbing. The éminence grise of Germany’s foreign policy establishment, he has parleyed the ready access the conference gives him to the wood-paneled world of high-level politics into a lucrative sideline of peddling advice, access and lobbying to many of the same individuals, governments and institutions involved in the MSC, according to public filings and people familiar with his business dealings.
Those activities have blurred the lines between his public and private roles and created a minefield of conflicts of interest, critics — including some former colleagues — say. Though legally structured as an independent nonprofit, the Munich Security Conference depends on the German government for both funding and legitimacy, making the role of chairman, in practice if not by law, a public one. Not only do government representatives sit on the MSC’s oversight committees, for example, but the German army provides logistics for the event, which is broadcast around the world by Deutsche Welle, a government-owned news channel.
“From a governance perspective, it’s highly questionable because the German government has effectively granted him its official seal of approval, which he has used to meld public and private interests,” said a former associate of Ischinger who, like others familiar with his stewardship of the conference, spoke on condition of anonymity.
Ischinger is critizised to have founded the Agora Strategy Group, a consulting firm for the Munich Security Conference. However, Agora also includes former General Domrosse and former ambassador DR. Seidt which were contributors to Global Review interviews and articles. Interesting to see that Dr. Rahr is critizising the MSC and the Agora Strategy Group because of business interests as he knows that his own Russian Bilderberger conference, the Valdai Club is free of business or Gazprom interests like former German Chancellor Schröder who like Rahr works for Gazprom. However, all this sounds if the Russians just look for a moralistic pretext not to attend the MSCto hide their political eason.
And while Russia first seemed to withdraw some troops from the Ukrainian border, stopped its drills on the Crimea, however the Russian Duma under the instruction of Putin signed a bill to diplomatically acknowledge Donbass and Lugansk.No also referendums for the Cirmea under OSCE supervison . but oly Crimean voters were proposed and then maybe about Donbass and Lugansk. Sounds more kike Novorussia. Howver, tday Lukachenkov also proposed ti deploy Russian suer nuclear weapons in Belarus as he is bankrupt and willing to accept everything, but it is Putins decision if he deploys nuclear weapons in Belarus likehe did in Kalinigrad with the Iskander which might be cause the deployment of US nuclear weapons in Poland or the Baltic states. However. Why not? This power games are a little bit annoying
As I said, we see two imperialist driving forces here – one from the USA, which will not do itvwithout long-term NATO expansion to Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus at all costs, and the other from Putin, who would like to roll back NATO before 1997. First of all, we advocate Ukraine’s neutrality, and find the argument that Ukraine’s right to join NATO to be a mere excuse. Because it can make an application, but vice versa it is up to the NATO countries to approve or reject it. Merkel and France have done the latter, while the US is still pushing for it. Conversely, it’s a joke: Putin knows that NATO doesn’t want a war against him. Firstly, nuclear war would be the immediate result if the first NATO soldier set foot on Russian soil. Secondly, NATO is completely undermanned in the East. And as I said: Weapons of mass destruction – we no longer live in the age of Napoleon and Hitler or Wilhelm, when people want to overrun Russian soil remain unpunished. That’s why all the talk of war threats against Russia, encirclement, Scholl Latour’s „If Ukraine becomes a member, NATO troops would be 300 kilometers from Stalingrad“ etc. are complete nonsense. Because if they were standing there, no one would dare to let them march across the Russian border for fear of a nuclear war. What is critical about NATO is that it has expanded further and further east without consulting Russia and then, by means of the Maidan coup and the storming of the Ukrainian parliament against the neutralist Yanukovych, also wanted to bring about NATO membership for Ukraine and the agreement between Yanukovych, Germany and France was just ignored – or as Victoria Nuland from the Neocon Kagan AEI said: „Fuck the EU“. In essence, these forces were concerned with getting rid of Russia’s Black Sea fleet and its bases in Syria, i.e. the Mediterranean fleet, and then degrading Russia to a real regional power. So it is clear to us that Putin could not accept this. And in this respect we think a counter-reaction is justified.So far a legitimate reaction. But what is happening now, such unrealistic and aggressive demands to roll back NATO before 1997, has nothing to do with it anymore, these are already own imperialist claims, which we do not share either.
And even the most aggressive parts of US imperialism and NATO don´t want a nuclear war with Russia or marching NATO to Russia or Stalingrad or whatever, neither does Putin want that. But with their mutual escalations, they unintentionally risk such a scenario. Even if the former US ambassador John Kornblum, like many liberals and Greens and other regime change supporters, keeps saying that Putin does not fear NATO and its military, but only democracy and freedom, this is also true, but the reverse would be true it is also unclear whether instead of Putin it would be a democrat or a moderate Russian politician or not a nationalist or even worse, of whom there are more than enough in Russia. A Putin will be attacked not only by Democrats but also by more nationalist hardliners. And the experiences of the Arab Spring have also shown that the results of a regime change can be very different from those that were still the case in 1989. Insofar as there is any possibility of de-escalation, the first step is Ukraine’s neutrality. No more, no less, but perhaps not enforceable or wanted by either side. Under these circumstances, however, we think it is wrong to unilaterally choose one side.