US-Soldaten in Afghanistan

The National Interest


»http://nationalinterest.org«

suche-links1 2 .. 22suche-rechts

14.03.2019

"Russia Is Winning the Sanctions Game"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/russia-winning-sanctions-game-47517

Die westlichen Sanktionen gegen Russland haben Judy Twigg zufolge den unbeabsichtigten Effekt gehabt, den russischen Nahrungsmittelsektor massiv weiterzuentwickeln. "The countersanctions were a gift to the Russian agrifood industry. They legitimized and catalyzed an import substitution strategy whose broad objective had been in place since the late 2000s: to become self-sufficient in food. In other words, the sanctions paved the way for Putin to overcome a long-standing embarrassment dating back to the collapse of the sector in the 1990s. (...) Russia’s food industry has seized this opportunity. Many investors who had not previously bothered with agriculture suddenly became interested in farming. High-end oligarchs also got the message, with the agriculture sector becoming a point of national pride and patriotism for some. (...) And the growth continues. Russia now produces almost twice as much grain as it consumes, and it’s nearly self-sufficient in sugar and meat products. Domestic production has completely displaced imports of pork and chicken. By 2016, Russia had become the world’s largest exporter of grains, which had overtaken arms sales to become Russia’s second-largest export commodity (after oil/gas) to the tune of almost $21 billion."

Mehr lesen


12.03.2019

"Trump-Kim Summit"

http://https://nationalinterest.org/tag/trump-kim-summit

Das Magazin The National Interest hat in seinem Dossier zum Gipfeltreffen in Hanoi einer Reihe von Experten ebenfalls die abschließende Frage gestellt, wie die Verhandlungen zwischen den USA und Nordkorea nach dem Scheitern des Treffens weitergehen könnten. Ankit Panda vermutet, dass die maximalistische Strategie von US-Präsident Trump an ihr Ende geraten sei. Er empfiehlt stattdessen, einen Prozess des Gebens und Nehmens in die Wege zu leiten. "In the days since Hanoi, we’re seeing what might be the beginning of the end for this process, which began with no fundamental basis of agreement between Washington and Pyongyang on the mere definition of terms as central as 'denuclearization.' (...) Washington was wrong to walk away from Hanoi with no deal, assuming it was better than a deal that wouldn’t meet its ridiculously high standards for success. It’s time to enter a process of give-and-take with North Korea if this process is to survive. Sadly, one week after Hanoi, its survival would require something of a miraculous shift in American temperament."

Mehr lesen


09.03.2019

"Why a So-Called 'Limited' Nuclear War Between India and Pakistan Would Devastate the Planet"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-so-called-limited-nuclear-war-between-india-and-pakistan-would
-devastate-planet-46532

Sebastien Roblin erläutert, warum ein angeblich "begrenzter" atomarer Konflikt zwischen Indien und Pakistan neben den zu erwartenden direkten Folgen für die Bevölkerung vor Ort auch katastrophale ökologische und wirtschaftliche Konsequenzen für die ganze Welt haben würde. "Studies in 2008 and 2014 found that if one hundred bombs that were fifteen-kilotons were used, it would blast five million tons of fine, sooty particles into the stratosphere, where they would spread across the globe, warping global weather patterns for the next twenty-five years. (...) India and Pakistan account for over one-fifth world’s population, and therefore a significant share of economic activity. Should their major cities become irradiated ruins with their populations decimated, a tremendous disruption would surely result. A massive decrease in consumption and production would obviously instigate a long-lasting recessionary cycle, with attendant deprivations and political destabilization slamming developed and less-developed countries alike. Taken together, these outcomes mean even a 'limited' India-Pakistan nuclear war would significantly affect every person on the globe, be they a school teacher in Nebraska, a factory-worker in Shaanxi province or a fisherman in Mombasa."

Mehr lesen


02.03.2019

„Misunderstanding Trump’s “Failed” Hanoi Summit„

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/misunderstanding-trump’s-“failed”-hanoi-summit-45967

Graham Allison widerspricht in seiner Nachbetrachtung zum Gipfeltreffen Donald Trumps mit Kim Jong Un dagegen dem Eindruck, dass der US-Präsident mit seiner Nordkorea-Diplomatie gescheitert sei. Trump verfolge eine Strategie, die sich deutlich von der seiner unmittelbaren Amtsvorgänger abhebe. Vorbild sei offenbar Präsident Reagan, der sich nach dem Gipfeltreffen mit Gorbatschow in Reykjavik 1986 ebenfalls Kritik gegenübersah. "To understand Trump and Kim in Hanoi, remember Reagan and Gorbachev in Reykjavik. In 1986, what Reagan described as a 'beautiful' letter from Gorbachev led an American president to announce a two-day summit on short notice in an out-of-the-way place in Iceland. (...) The two leaders met for an hour one-on-one before pulling in their advisors for successive rounds of negotiations. But when it became clear that there were key differences in their positions, Reagan 'walked away' without an agreement. The press berated him and the summit was declared by the press to be a failure. But as Reagan’s Secretary of State George Shultz said at the time, 'Reykjavik came unexpectedly close to an unexpectedly ambitious agreement.' The meeting was not a failure, but a critical opportunity for both sides to understand each other’s bottom lines."

Mehr lesen


28.02.2019

"The True Story of How Russia's Foreign Policy Process Evolved"

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/true-story-how-russias-foreign-policy-process-evolved-45812

Valeriy Solovey vom Moscow State Institute of International Relations erläutert die Hintergründe der russischen Außenpolitik der vergangenen 15 Jahre. "Russia has developed a clear-cut style in its foreign-policy mentality over the past ten to fifteen years. It is the prism through which Russian leaders view the outside world, the unwritten rules and motives for decisionmaking of which the Kremlin itself is not always even aware, as well as specific foreign-policy lines of communication. This foreign-policy style has taken shape because of the joint and synergistic influence of the following factors: Russia’s traditional strategic culture, the professional social growth of a key group of the Russian elite, and the individual profile of President Vladimir Putin. (...) The idea of strategic patience is probably the most important and prominent ingredient in Russian strategic culture. The Russian elite is confident that the Russian people are ready to endure deprivation and suffering indefinitely in the face of an external threat. The Russian economy is not dynamic, but it is stable; it adapts to new sanctions and has a high level of resilience. The thinking is that patience will lead to a window of opportunity opening for Russia sooner or later, and the country will achieve its goals."

Mehr lesen


26.02.2019

"Forget North Korea: Pakistan's Nuclear Weapons Program Is Truly Terrifying"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-north-korea-pakistans-nuclear-weapons-program-truly-terrify
ing-45632

Anlässlich der aktuellen Konfrontation der beiden Atommächte Indien und Pakistan veröffentlicht The National Interest einen Beitrag aus dem Jahr 2017, in dem Kyle Mizokami erläutert, warum das Atomprogramm Pakistans für die internationale Sicherheit so gefährlich ist. "Pakistani nuclear doctrine appears to be to deter what it considers an economically, politically and militarily stronger India. The nuclear standoff is exacerbated by the traditional animosity between the two countries, the several wars the two countries have fought, and events such as the 2008 terrorist attack on Mumbai, which were directed by Pakistan. Unlike neighboring India and China, Pakistan does not have a 'no first use' doctrine, and reserves the right to use nuclear weapons, particularly low-yield tactical nuclear weapons, to offset India’s advantage in conventional forces. (...) Pakistan and India are clearly in the midst of a nuclear arms race that could, in relative terms, lead to absurdly high nuclear stockpiles reminiscent of the Cold War. It is clear that an arms-control agreement for the subcontinent is desperately needed."

Mehr lesen


25.02.2019

"Why Peace With North Korea Makes Sense Even Without Disarmament"

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-peace-north-korea-makes-sense-even-without-disarmament-45532

Beim Gipfeltreffen zwischen Donald Trump und Kim Jong Un in Hanoi wird es nach Erwartung vieler Experten wohl keine Einigung in der Frage der Denuklearisierung Nordkoreas geben. Ein offizieller Friedensvertrag zwischen beiden Ländern wäre nach Ansicht von Henri Féron trotzdem möglich und auch wünschenswert. "In a stand-off, agreeing to lower guns is already progress. Peace at least ensures that the nuclear power we are facing is not hostile anymore. All-or-nothing demands for the full denuclearization of North Korea clash with existing intelligence. (...) While it makes little sense for North Korea to sacrifice its bombs, the country has plenty of reasons to still want peace. (...) There are more and more hints that Trump is pursuing peace as an end in itself, rather than as a means to denuclearize. Perhaps he is doing this for a Nobel Peace Prize, perhaps he just takes his inspiration from the way former President Richard Nixon made peace with a hostile communist nuclear power. The bottom line is that this approach is much easier to reconcile with the negative intelligence on disarmament prospects."

Mehr lesen


22.02.2019

"We Are All Realists Now"

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/we-are-all-realists-now-45352

Im Washington der Trump-Ära sei es in außenpolitischen Kreisen mittlerweile üblich, sich als "prinzipientreuen Realisten" zu bezeichnen, schreibt Curt Mills. Allerdings sei unklar, wie verlässlich die neuen "Verbündeten" der langjährigen Kritiker der US-Außenpolitik seit dem Ende des Kalten Krieges tatsächlich sind. "In short, to crib from President Nixon, it would seem that we’re all realists now. But does the current moment represent co-option more than it does cooperation? What is the path forward? (...) it is in the Middle East, more than anywhere else, where this seeming consensus could all break down. 'The Middle East?' a Defense Department official told me. 'We can’t see straight there, man.' Bluntly: among this 'realist' cohort, there are those who want to take sides, and those who want fuller extrication. Even the Eurasia Group Foundation research breaks realists — or anti-Wilsonians — into two principal groups, Jacksonians and Jeffersons, a template originally outlined by Wall Street Journal editorial writer Walter Russell Mead, a favorite of many in the White House orbit. (...) it’s a battle of emphasis — with major implications. Embracing those Sunni autocracies means streamlining normalization of modern Israel in part of the Middle East; it also means knifing Iran. And with this administration, that’s the view that’s winning out."

Mehr lesen


18.02.2019

"Munich Conference Exposes the Decline of the West"

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/munich-conference-exposes-decline-west-44922

Die Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz hat nach Ansicht von Jacob Heilbrunn die These bestätigt, dass sich der Westen im Niedergang befinde und die USA und Europa sicherheitspolitisch künftig zunehmend getrennte Wege gehen werden. "Trump has accelerated America’s drift away from Europe, which took place under President Barack Obama. Obama took no particular interest in Europe, other than regretting that he led a NATO coalition into Libya in March 2012. He later called it the 'worst mistake' of his presidency. But unlike Trump, Obama never heaped public contempt on Europe as does Trump for whom the failure to pay adequately for their defenses served as a fine pretext to condemn the entire project. Of course, the Europeans are doing a fine job of sabotaging themselves. (...) No matter what Biden or Pence may say, Europe knows that it is increasingly on its own. Munich did not create any new transatlantic policies or clashes. It simply exposed them."

Mehr lesen


14.02.2019

"Who Benefits from the Rift Between Germany and America?"

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/who-benefits-rift-between-germany-and-america-44547

Der Politikwissenschaftler Maximilian Terhalle wirft Bundeskanzlerin Merkel vor, mit ihrer Unterstützung für die Gaspipeline Nord Stream 2 den Graben zu den USA weiter zu vertiefen und damit Russland in die Hände zu spielen. "Notwithstanding Merkel’s achievements, the record of her strategy vis-à-vis Putin must now lead to a recognition that Berlin’s appeasement policy has failed. (...) While there may come a time to talk to Putin or his successor at some point in the future, now is not the time. Merkel should therefore change course now and use the pipelines as coercive tools. In other words, Germany (and others) should blockade the pipelines and open them only if Moscow dramatically alters its overall view of, and approach to, Europe. In the meantime, U.S. gas is readily available. (...) Some suggest that, after fourteen years in power, she may be burnt-out and thus no longer able to undertake a strategic turnaround of her longstanding policy regarding Russia. But by far the biggest obstacle for change is that she wholeheartedly despises Trump and his domestic and foreign worldviews. (...) But outright dismissing any proposals of 'the Donald' is not a strategy."

Mehr lesen


10.02.2019

"How the Taliban Would Take Over Afghanistan"

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-taliban-would-take-over-afghanistan-44087

Seth G. Jones meint, dass US-Präsident Trump die Aussichten der Friedensverhandlungen mit den Taliban durch die Ankündigung eines Truppenabzugs verschlechtert habe. In dem von Jones entworfenen Szenario würde sich die Machtbalance in Afghanistan ohne die US-Truppen schnell und deutlich zugunsten der Taliban verschieben. Er spricht sich deshalb für eine dauerhafte Stationierung von US-Soldaten und verbündeter Truppen aus. "(...) a Taliban overthrow of the Afghan government — or even control of significant portions of the country — would have several implications for U.S. national security. First, it would almost certainly be viewed by jihadist groups as a major victory. (...) Second, Afghanistan could become a terrorist sanctuary with a Taliban victory (...). Third, a successful Taliban-led insurgency would deal a severe blow to human rights development in the country. (...) Fourth, a Taliban victory could increase regional instability and security competition, as countries like India and Pakistan support a mix of central government forces, sub-state militias and insurgent groups. (...) the United States could keep a force of roughly 7,000 to 14,000 U.S. soldiers, with European and other international partners. While this force size and posture is probably not sufficient to defeat the Taliban, it is likely sufficient to prevent a Taliban takeover of the government and control of urban areas."

Mehr lesen


06.02.2019

"North Korea and America’s Second Summit: We Asked 76 Experts to Predict the Results"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/north-korea-and-america%E2%80%99s-second-summit-we-asked-76-expert
s-predict-results-43787

Das Magazin National Interest hat zusammen mit dem Center for the National Interest 76 Korea-Experten nach ihren Prognosen für das bevorstehende zweite Gipfeltreffen zwischen Donald Trump und Kim Jong Un gefragt. "Could a comprehensive deal be struck, changing the trajectory of U.S.-DPRK relations once and for all away from confrontation and threats of nuclear war? Is a smaller or interim deal where both sides embrace an action-for-action formula a more likely result, say trading the Yongbyon nuclear facility for sanctions relief? Or, is all this simply a waste of time and we are destined to return to the days of 'fire and fury'? (...) Below you will find a multitude of different perspectives from around the globe. Please note that these responses were collected over roughly one week with a filing date of Tuesday, February 5, 2019. We have done our best to ensure all content is timely and up to date."

Mehr lesen


05.02.2019

"Trump's Nationalism Was MIA During the State of the Union Speech"

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/trumps-nationalism-was-mia-during-state-union-speech-43547

In seiner diesjährigen Rede zur Lage der Nation habe US-Präsident Trump auf seine nationalistische Botschaft weitgehend verzichtet, stellt Jacob Heilbrunn fest. Den außenpolitischen Teil der Rede fasst er folgendermaßen zusammen: "When it came to foreign policy, his most audacious statement was that 'Great nations do not fight endless wars,' a signal that he continues to seek to exit Syria and Afghanistan. But he only treated relations with Russia and China cursorily. 'We really have no choice' but to repudiate the INF treaty, he said. His statement about where America is headed on arms-control was pure Boltonism. 'We will outspend and out-innovate all others by far' — in essence Trump was threatening a new arms race with China and Russia. At the same time, he painted a rosy picture of events in North Korea, stating if 'I had not been elected president of the United States we would be in a major war with North Korea' — an outlandish statement given that previous American presidents have all viewed the prospect of a fresh land war in Asia with horror. A second summit in Vietnam, we were told, would go a long way to solving any remaining difficulties with Pyongyang. Meanwhile, Iran, which 'does bad, bad things,' remains a target of his ire even though it has not developed nuclear weapons in contrast to North Korea."

Mehr lesen


28.01.2019

"Peace in Afghanistan? Don't Count On It."

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/peace-afghanistan-dont-count-it-42732

Lyle J. Goldstein vom China Maritime Studies Institute des United States Naval War College zeichnet in diesem Beitrag ein eher düsteres Bild von der Situation in Afghanistan. Trotz der Meldungen über eine Annäherung bei den Verhandlungen in Doha hält er einen "würdevollen" Abzug der US-Truppen für unwahrscheinlich. "The odds of peace talks yielding a successful outcome are very low. A much higher probability is that the whole edifice of American involvement will come crashing down amidst considerable chaos and violence — think Saigon circa 1975. True, U.S. diplomat Zalmay Khalilzad is hard at work negotiating with the Taliban and some kind of agreement could be forthcoming very soon. Still, it’s worth recalling that the Paris Peace Accords that the U.S. signed with North Vietnam in 1973 had little appreciable impact on the ground other than to provide a 'fig leaf' of honor to allow the full withdrawal of American forces. Within less than two years, the American-sponsored regime in South Vietnam was no more. (...) Afghanistan now requires the 'tough love' of being required to stand on its own, even if that entails intensified civil strife in the short run. After all, Americans have much more pressing needs than pouring more of its precious blood and treasure into the remotest and most forbidding part of Inner Asia."

Mehr lesen


25.01.2019

"It's Time to Acknowledge the PKK's Evolution"

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/its-time-acknowledge-pkks-evolution-42482

Michael Rubin vom American Enterprise Institute ist der Ansicht, dass sich die kurdische PKK, die von der Türkei, der NATO und der EU als terroristische Vereinigung eingestuft wird, von ihrer früheren radikalen Ideologie ausreichend distanziert habe. Eine amerikanische Kooperation mit kurdischen Organisationen in Syrien sollte deshalb nicht kategorisch ausgeschlossen werden. "Much of Öcalan’s political philosophy might be gobbledygook, but it is not the Soviet-tinged Marxism feared during the Cold War. And, while an Öcalan personality cult may still remain, it is really little different than the Atatürk cult in Turkey or Barzani cult in Iraqi Kurdistan. More importantly, PKK tactics have changed: There remains low-level military insurgency, but gone are the days when the PKK targets Turkish civilians (...). To refuse to acknowledge let alone appreciate the evolution of the PKK and to refuse to recognize the achievements and stability of Syrian Kurdish governance against the backdrop of a horrendous civil war not only does an injustice toward the Kurds, but it also signals that in order to achieve their basic human rights, they must fight to the death in Turkey for otherwise, absent that fait accompli, there can be no political or diplomatic solution in Turkey, in Syria, or elsewhere."

Mehr lesen


19.01.2019

"Stop the Summit: Trump Should Not Meet with Kim Again"

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/stop-summit-trump-should-not-meet-kim-again-42112

Gordon G. Chang empfiehlt dem US-Präsidenten, einem neuen Gipfeltreffen mit Staatschef Kim Jong Un erst nach echten Zugeständnissen Nordkoreas zuzustimmen. "Trump’s core mistake is to believe that a relaxation of pressure would lead to the 'complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula,' as the June 12, 2018, Joint Statement promises. The Kim family does not reciprocate gestures of friendship; they take advantage of them. (...) Trump should let sanctions enforcement do the talking. He needs to make Kim realize he has to make a choice: keep weapons or keep power. Washington’s message to the North Korean leader must be he cannot have both."

Mehr lesen


13.01.2019

"The Bosnia Boondoggle: This Is Why Sarajevo Can't Join NATO"

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/bosnia-boondoggle-why-sarajevo-cant-join-nato-41287

Sean Maguire und Ryan Scherba halten eine NATO-Mitgliedschaft Bosnien-Herzegowinas unter den aktuellen Umständen für unmöglich. Dies werde sich erst ändern, wenn die EU und die USA die Fehler des Dayton-Friedensabkommens korrigieren, die das Land bis heute auch innenpolitisch lähmten. "The United States must work with the EU, the UN and most importantly the Bosnian people and their representatives in an earnest effort to reform the country, starting with abandoning Dayton and legalized ethnic divisions. So long as power lies along ethnic lines it will continue to create exploitable divisions. The United States, in concert with its partners, must work towards a system that successfully and rationally embodies the principles of federalism, decentralization and legitimate representation that the EU has stated are prerequisites for ascension."

Mehr lesen


08.01.2019

"Meet 'Dead Hand': This Might Be Russia's Most Terrifying Nuclear Weapons Idea Yet"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-dead-hand-might-be-russias-most-terrifying-nuclear-weapons-id
ea-yet-40937

In Reaktion auf den INF-Ausstieg der USA haben einige russische Experten Michael Peck zufolge Überlegungen zur Einführung eines atomaren Waffensystems angestellt, das auf einen mutmaßlichen Atomangriff vollautomatisch reagieren würde. Entsprechende Pläne habe es bereits im Kalten Krieg gegeben. "Perhaps the most terrifying was a Cold War doomsday system that would automatically launch missiles — without the need for a human to push the button — during a nuclear attack. But the system, known as 'Perimeter' or 'Dead Hand,' may be back and deadlier than ever. (...) There have been cryptic clues over the years that Perimeter still exists. Which illustrates one of the curiosities of this system, which is that the Soviet Union kept its existence secret from the American enemy whom it was supposed to deter. What is unmistakable is that Perimeter is a fear-based solution. Fear of a U.S. first-strike that would decapitate the Russian leadership before it could give the order to retaliate. Fear that a Russian leader might lose his nerve and not give the order. And if Russia is now discussing Perimeter publicly, that’s reason for the rest of us to worry."

Mehr lesen


08.01.2019

"Syria Policy: The Hawks’ Talons Sink Deeper into Trump"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/syria-policy-hawks%E2%80%99-talons-sink-deeper-trump-41017

Die schrittweise Abkehr Präsident Trumps von seiner ursprünglichen Ankündigung eines zügigen Truppenabzugs aus Syrien bestätigt nach Ansicht von Paul R. Pillar, dass die "Falken" in der US-Außenpolitik nach wie vor das Sagen haben. "National Security Advisor John Bolton has in effect overruled President Donald Trump’s troop withdrawal decision. This will have fateful consequences for America’s national interests, and none of them are good. (...) The de facto reversal of Trump’s withdrawal decision is a victory only for those who — like Bolton, who still avers that the Iraq War was a good idea — never met a U.S. military intervention in the Middle East they didn’t like and never stop seeing regimes they would like to change with force. (...) The episode involving withdrawal and non-withdrawal of U.S. troops in Syria should be a lesson for those who mistakenly placed hopes in Trump for a more restrained and less militaristic U.S. foreign policy."

Mehr lesen


08.01.2019

"The German Military Might Soon Have a New Feature: Non-German Soldiers"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/german-military-might-soon-have-new-feature-non-german-soldiers-40
997

Michael Peck betrachtet die deutsche Debatte über eine mögliche Öffnung der Bundeswehr für Ausländer im internationalen und historischen Kontext. "Though recruiting non-citizens has aroused fears that Germany is creating a mercenary army, it is not uncommon for nations to recruit non-citizens into their armies. The most notable example is Britain, which draws in citizens of other Commonwealth nations such as Australia. The Israel Defense Forces also allows non-citizens, such as Americans, to serve in its ranks. The U.S. military also allows non-citizens to serve, which is seen as a path to earning citizenship. However, under the Trump administration, the Pentagon has been accused of discharging immigrants who had been promised citizenship for enlisting. Indeed, Germany has a tradition of recruiting foreigners, though it’s a tradition that many Germans would as soon forget. Prussian emperor Frederick the Great’s eighteenth-century armies contained recruits from across Europe. And during World War II, the SS recruited 'Aryan' volunteers from Denmark, Norway and other conquered nations, who were dispatched to the Eastern Front to battle the Russians."

Mehr lesen


07.01.2019

"Enforce the Monroe Doctrine on Russian Moves in Latin America"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/skeptics/enforce-monroe-doctrine-russian-moves-latin-america-40912

Angesichts der russischen Kooperation mit der Regierung in Venezuela empfiehlt Ted Galen Carpenter der US-Regierung, sich Russland in Lateinamerika mit Bezug auf die Monroe-Doktrin stärker entgegenzustellen. Im Gegenzug müsse Washington Moskau eine Einflusssphäre in Osteuropa zugestehen. "Washington and Moscow need to establish clear rules of the road regarding conduct in Latin America and Eastern Europe. U.S. leaders should stress to Moscow that establishing or maintaining military ties with unfriendly regimes like those in Venezuela and Cuba creates unacceptable security headaches for the United States. If the Kremlin wishes to improve relations with Washington, it must cease such provocations and confine its hemispheric ties to normal diplomatic and economic relations. At the same time, Washington should inform Moscow that the days of trying to project U.S. power deep into Eastern Europe are over. The Trump administration then needs to abandon aspirations of adding Ukraine and Georgia to NATO, end arms sales to Kiev, and phase-out U.S. participation in NATO military exercises in such places as Poland, the Baltic republics, and the Black Sea. The other alliance members are unlikely to continue such provocative actions without U.S. involvement."

Mehr lesen


07.01.2019

"The Acid Test for Trump-Kim 2.0 Summit: No Nuclear Inventory, No Meeting."

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/acid-test-trump-kim-20-summit-no-nuclear-inventory-no-meeting-40887

US-Präsident Trump sollte ein neues Gipfeltreffen mit Staatschef Kim Jong Un von der Bereitschaft Nordkoreas abhängig machen, den USA ein "Inventar" des eigenen Atomprogramms zur Verfügung zu stellen, meint Robert E. Kelly. Künftige Gespräche ergäben nur Sinn, wenn beide Seiten wüssten, worüber sie eigentlich verhandeln. "Indeed, that seems like a fair trade, if not actually balance-positive for the North Koreans: they get the pictures and the legitimation, and Trump gets the inventory. If Trump, who markets himself as a great negotiator, cannot pull even this small step out of Pyongyang, he should not go. And the North Koreans need to guarantee that in writing before Trump assents to a second summit. The Singapore summit was Trump’s big chance to pull a major concession out of the North Koreans because North Korea had desperately sought a U.S. summit for decades. Trump missed this opportunity to bargain for at least the inventory back then. He should not make that mistake again."

Mehr lesen


05.01.2019

"Hypersonic Weapons are No Game-Changer"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/hypersonic-weapons-are-no-game-changer-40632

Die Einführung russischer und chinesischer Hyperschallraketen wird die strategischen Grundlagen der US-Militärplanung nicht so stark verändern wie von einigen Experten erwartet, meint Jyri Raitasalo von der Finnish National Defence University. "There are many reasons why hypersonic weapons will not revolutionize strategy or warfare in the future. Not at least for the United States, which is the hub of hypersonic frenzy these days. Firstly, the military power of the United States will remain second to none for years — and more likely for decades to come. Hypersonic threats do not require hypersonic responses. (...) The second aspect that will mitigate the threat posed by hypersonic weapons is related to the fact that in many future scenarios, the projections of adversaries’ possibilities to develop and field hypersonic weapons ignore or downplay one’s own efforts to do the same. (...) Finally, the strategy of deterrence — based on real warfighting capabilities — should not be underestimated when trying to prevent adversaries from using their  'hypersonic edge'  against the United States. (...) Hypersonic missiles will not become a panacea or a silver bullet, which could give Russia or China an edge against the United States on the battlefield. Nor will hypersonic weapons derail the United States from the top position of the global military power pecking order."

Mehr lesen


05.01.2019

"Forget North Korea: Is the Next Showdown in Asia Japan vs. South Korea?"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-north-korea-next-showdown-asia-japan-vs-south-korea-40692

Sebastien Roblin empfiehlt, bei der Beobachtung der Konflikte in Ostasien auch die Rivalität zwischen Japan und Südkorea im Auge zu behalten. Am 20. Dezember sei es zu einer Begegnung zwischen einem japanischen Kampfflugzeug und einem südkoreanischen Zerstörer gekommen, die bestätigt habe, wie angespannt die Beziehungen beider Länder nach wie vor seien. "Neither South Korea or Japan is seeking an armed conflict. However, militaries cohabiting international waters are capable of downplaying or covering up faux pas when they wish to do so, particularly when they are allied in a common cause such as defense against nuclear-armed ballistic missiles from North Korea. Several retired military officials have informally indicated the incident shouldn’t be made out to be such a big deal. Instead, first Japan and then South Korea have chosen to escalate the diplomatic conflict while using accusatory language and issuing demands for apologies. This is due to a combination of unresolved historical tensions related to Japanese colonial occupation of Korea, nationalistic theater designed for domestic consumption, and genuine divergences in foreign policy."

Mehr lesen


02.01.2019

"We Don’t Owe Syria’s Kurds"

https://nationalinterest.org/node/40392

Donald Trumps Ankündigung eines Truppenabzugs aus Syrien ist u.a. kritisiert worden, weil die USA in diesem Fall die verbündeten Kurden vor Ort "im Stich lassen würden". Christian Whiton schreibt, dass dieses Argument in Washington besonders von bekannten Neokonservativen vorgebracht worden sei, um deren andauerndes Ziel eines Regimewechsels in Damaskus zu kaschieren. "This is a half-clever way to achieve the neocons’ long-held goal of not merely defeating ISIS, but also getting America into the Syrian Civil War. Ultimately, they would like to conduct regime change against Assad and install a liberal democracy, despite failures to do so in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan. (...) To assure the security of the Kurds, we would in effect have to help establish another de facto Kurdish state like the one we helped create in northern Iraq. (...) Students of history may conclude that the Kurds deserve exactly that. But such a U.S. dependency was never part of President Trump’s strategy in Syria or the broader Middle East. Even just supporting the Kurds in Syria, much less fighting for them for the indefinite future, has never been put to the American people. I highly doubt it was ever presented clearly to Trump, and there has been no formal or informal consent to the idea from Congress."

Mehr lesen


01.01.2019

"The Iraq Exit Strategy Will Not Work in Afghanistan"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/middle-east-watch/iraq-exit-strategy-will-not-work-afghanistan-40022

Tanya Goudsouzian warnt davor, die geplante Halbierung des US-Truppenkontingents in Afghanistan nach dem Vorbild der im Irak verfolgten Abzugstrategie durchzuführen. Im Fall Irak hätten mehrere Faktoren zum Sieg über den IS beigetragen, die auf Afghanistan nicht zuträfen. "(...) by 2017, the country declared victory against the terrorists which today remain no more than a localized terrorist organization — hardly the significant, almost existential threat it posed to Baghdad in 2014. While many factors came into play, three stand out as most consequential to the Iraqi success. First, when the military failed to stop Daesh from moving virtually uncontested towards Baghdad and the politicians had no answers, the clerics stepped in. Iraq’s religious Marjiyah establishment issued fatwas for young men to rise and join the militias, and they did. (...) Second, the Iraqi military was purged of its corrupt, politically connected leaders who had been installed by former Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki. (...) Third, Daesh overplayed its hands and lost the support of the citizens of their self-proclaimed caliphate. (...) None of the conditions essential to success in Iraq 'travel well' to Afghanistan and cannot be incorporated into a new Afghanistan strategy post-U.S. withdrawal."

Mehr lesen


13.12.2018

"India has 140 Nuclear Warheads – And More Are Coming"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/india-has-140-nuclear-warheads-–-and-more-are-coming-38612

Einer neuen Untersuchung des Nuclear Information Project der Federation of American Scientists zufolge besitzt Indien heute etwa 140 Atomwaffen und wäre zudem in der Lage, diese Zahl schnell auf 200 zu erhöhen. "In addition, 'India continues to modernize its nuclear arsenal, with at least five new weapon systems now under development to complement or replace existing nuclear-capable aircraft, land-based delivery systems, and sea-based systems.' Unlike the missile-centric U.S. and Russian nuclear forces, India still heavily relies on bombers, perhaps not unexpected for a nation that fielded its first nuclear-capable ballistic missile in 2003. (...) India’s nuclear missile force is only fifteen years old, but it already has four types of land-based ballistic missiles: the short-range Prithvi-II and Agni-I, the medium-range Agni-II and the intermediate-range Agni-III. (...) What remains to be seen is what will be the command and control system to make sure these missiles are fired when — and only when — they should be. And, of course, since Pakistan and China also have nuclear weapons, Indian leaders may find that more nukes only lead to an arms race that paradoxically leaves their nation less secure."

Mehr lesen


13.12.2018

"Why Israel Doesn’t Crush Hamas"

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-israel-doesn’t-crush-hamas-38627

Zaki Shalom und Jacob Aaron Collier schreiben, dass Israel ohne Zweifel in der Lage wäre, die palästinensische Hamas militärisch zu zerschlagen. Diese Option sei von der israelischen Führung sorgfältig erwogen und dann aus mehreren Gründen verworfen worden. "Notably, Israel feels that it lacks the legitimacy to utilize its full capabilities against Hamas, and this is largely due to concerns over its image in world public opinion. (...) Additionally, there is high certainty that utilizing the full firepower of the Israel Defense Forces would necessarily bring about severe devastation to the Gaza Strip and its civilian population, as collateral damage is more or less unavoidable in such a densely populated environment. (...) Furthermore, utilizing military means to bring about the downfall of Hamas might lead to one of the following possible scenarios, all of which are highly dangerous to Israel’s national interests. The first scenario that is of particular concern to Israel is that should the Hamas regime fall, the Gaza Strip may collapse into a state of anarchy. (...) Secondly, in the event that Hamas is removed from power in Gaza, Israel might again have to undertake the enormous responsibility of governing the Gaza Strip and its 2 million inhabitants in order to prevent the scenario of anarchy mentioned above. (...) Thirdly, the downfall of Hamas could bring about the rule of the Palestinian Authority, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, over the Gaza Strip. This development would pose a significant threat to Israel, as there is no certainty whatsoever that the Palestinian Authority would be capable of managing the security situation there."

Mehr lesen


11.12.2018

"Coming Soon: Russian Submarines in the Gulf of Mexico?"

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/coming-soon-russian-submarines-gulf-mexico-38442

Michael Peck berichtet, dass ein US-Kriegsschiff am 5. Dezember in den Küstengewässern vor Wladiwostok aufgetaucht sei, um zu demonstrieren, dass die USA russische Hoheitsansprüche in diesem Teil des Japanischen Meeres nicht anerkenne. Ein russischer Journalist hat nun angedeutet, dass die russische Kriegsmarine den "Gefallen erwidern" könnte. "Russia’s message to the United States: Sail your warships into Russian coastal waters, and we’ll send our warships into yours. (...) 'Our submarines, too, might have surfaced suddenly some place in the Gulf of Mexico to shock America,' [Igor Korotchenko, the editor-in-chief of Russian magazine Natsionalnaya Oborona (National Defense),] said. 'We have the corresponding forces of our submarine fleet there. We do not do that for the simple reason our purpose is not to show off in such a silly way, but to cope with the assigned tasks.'"

Mehr lesen


10.12.2018

"Here's Why U.S. Tactical Nukes Are a Bad Idea."

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/heres-why-us-tactical-nukes-are-bad-idea-38372

Kristin Ven Bruusgaard vom Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) der Stanford University meint, dass die Einführung taktischer Atomwaffen für das US-Militär aus strategischer Perspektive nicht sinnvoll wäre. Die von US-Politikern und Experten vorgebrachte Begründung für die Entwicklung dieser Waffen beruht ihrer Ansicht nach auf einer Fehlinterpretation der russischen Atomstrategie. "Russian declaratory strategy is not one of 'escalate to de-escalate' or nuclear preemption. Official communications, including the last three iterations of Russian military doctrine and several statements made by President Putin, Defense Minister Shoigu and General Staff Chief Gerasimov, point to Russian attempts to reduce their reliance on nuclear weapons. In October, Putin explicitly sought to clarify Russian nuclear doctrine to a Western audience: 'Nuclear preemption is not in our doctrine.' Still, U.S. policymakers continue to assert that Russian doctrine is one of preemption. (...) New American low-yield nuclear warheads is a strategic response based on not the most likely, but the most dangerous possible interpretation of Russian strategy, one directly at odds with Russian declaratory nuclear strategy."

Mehr lesen


suche-links1 2 .. 22suche-rechts

Hier finden Sie die Redaktion der Sicherheitspolitischen Presseschau.

Mehr lesen

Internationales

Internationales

Europa, Asien, Afrika, Amerika und weltweite Phänomene und Institutionen. Die bpb bietet ein breites Angebot zu internationalen Themen.

Mehr lesen

Online-Angebot

Informationsportal Krieg und Frieden

Wo gibt es Kriege und Gewaltkonflikte? Und wo herrscht am längsten Frieden? Welches Land gibt am meisten für Rüstung aus? Sicherheitspolitik.bpb.de liefert wichtige Daten und Fakten zu Krieg und Frieden.

Mehr lesen auf sicherheitspolitik.bpb.de

Dossier

Innerstaatliche Konflikte

Vom Kosovo nach Kolumbien, von Somalia nach Süd-Thailand: Weltweit schwelen über 280 politische Konflikte. Und immer wieder droht die Lage gewaltsam zu eskalieren.

Mehr lesen

Zahlen und Fakten

Globalisierung

Kaum ein Thema wird so intensiv und kontrovers diskutiert wie die Globalisierung. "Zahlen und Fakten" liefert Grafiken, Texte und Tabellen zu einem der wichtigsten und vielschichtigsten Prozesse der Gegenwart.

Mehr lesen

Publikationen zum Thema

Coverbild Internationale Sicherheit im 21. Jahrhundert

Internationale Sicherheit im 21. Jahrhundert

Die internationale Sicherheit ist fragil und bedroht. Wie können und müssen demokratische Systeme ...

Internationale Sicherheitspolitik Cover

Internationale Sicherheitspolitik

Seit Ende des Ost-West-Konflikts hat sich die internationale Sicherheitspolitik deutlich verändert....

Zum Shop