US-Soldaten in Afghanistan

The American Conservative


suche-links1 2 3 4 5 6 7suche-rechts


"Who ‘Lost’ Crimea?"

US-Präsident Trump hat seinem Amtsvorgänger Obama vorgeworfen, die russische Übernahme der Krim "erlaubt" zu haben, da Obama von Präsident Putin nicht ausreichend respektiert worden sei. Daniel Larison hält diese Interpretation der Vorgänge für "bizarr". "The assumption that Russian actions hinge on their leader’s attitude towards ours is bizarre and ignores that Russia has agency and interests that have nothing to do with us or our presidents. (...) Trump talks about 'losing' Crimea as if it were ours to lose. The language of 'losing Crimea' is itself a throwback to the dumbest Cold War-era rhetoric that promoted the fantasy that it was within America’s power to 'keep' or 'lose' entire countries. That sort of thinking is delusional, and it’s very dangerous if this is how the president looks at international crises. Obama didn’t 'lose' Crimea, and it was never the responsibility of the U.S. government to stop what Russia did. Russia’s action was aggressive and illegal, but the U.S. was under no obligation to risk a war with a nuclear-armed state to undo it."

Mehr lesen


"Midterms Show America Isn’t Done Dividing"

Innenpolitisch hätten die Kongresswahlen nur bestätigt, wie geteilt das Land heute tatsächlich sei, meint Daniel DePetris. "The House will now be at the center of the #Resistance in Washington. Democrats will wield committee chairmanships and subpoena power, and you can bet that several major investigations will be launched against the administration when the next Congress is officially sworn in. The GOP Senate, however, will provide the White House with an ally on Capitol Hill and a formidable check on whatever bills soon-to-be Speaker Pelosi jams through the chamber. At the risk of sounding melodramatic, the United States has never been as divided politically as it is right now. (...) After tonight’s split decision, the next two years could very well be even more divisive than the last two."

Mehr lesen


"Will Congress Have the Spine to Defy Trump on a Russian Nuke Treaty?"

Bruce Fein macht darauf aufmerksam, dass der von Präsident Trump angekündigte Austritt der USA aus dem INF-Vertrag auch von einigen republikanischen Senatoren abgelehnt wird. Theoretisch könnte der Kongress demnach eine amerikanische Abkehr vom Vertrag zumindest bremsen. "The power of the purse (...) is the ultimate congressional trump card. Congress could approve legislation that prohibits the expenditure of any funds of the United States to deploy weapons or in any other respect contravene the INF treaty. The House passed a comparable spending measure in 1988 to prohibit President Ronald Reagan from acting contrary to the never-ratified SALT II agreement with the Soviet Union. (...) Congress will be required to take up a new spending measure for several government departments and agencies whose appropriations expire on December 7. That would be a wonderful opportunity for our elected representatives to display a little backbone by prohibiting any expenditure of funds that would run afoul of the INF treaty, a landmark nuclear arms agreement that is as much to be marveled at as imitated."

Mehr lesen


"Why Jamal Khashoggi Was Killed"

Mark Perry meint, dass es Jamal Khashoggis Verteidigung des politischen Islams der Muslimbruderschaft und seine Kritik bestimmter Allianzen zwischen den USA und Saudi-Arabien waren, die letztlich zu seiner Ermordung geführt haben. "Last August, Khoshoggi authored a Washington Post article cataloguing these stumbles, and offering a solution. Khoshoggi wrote that America’s failure in the Middle East was the result of its failure to recognize the importance of the region’s Islamist parties — primarily the Muslim Brotherhood. 'There can be no political reform and democracy in any Arab country without accepting that political Islam is a part of it,' he wrote. Khashoggi’s critique was both eloquent and controversial. (...) what Khashoggi was telling us (and what he wrote in his August in the Washington Post) is that the U.S. has gotten the Middle East terribly wrong. That we have miscast our enemies and misidentified our friends. That the forces for change in Cairo and Riyadh are not in its governments, but in its prisons. That America is not only losing in the Middle East, it’s on the wrong side. That Mohammed bin Salman is not a friend of democracy, but its enemy. Khashoggi was right. Which is why he was murdered."

Mehr lesen


"The Overdue Backlash Against Saudi Arabia Has Started"

Angesichts der Reaktion führender US-Politiker auf das Verschwinden des saudi-arabischen Journalisten Jamal Khashoggi hofft Daniel Larison, dass der "überfällige backlash" gegen das Königshaus begonnen habe. "Sen. Paul’s proposal is consistent with the 'fundamental break' with Saudi Arabia that Sen. Chris Murphy spoke about a few days ago. It is a break that has needed to happen for many years, and the Saudis’ latest crime may prove to be the last straw for many people in Congress. The rest of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee sent a letter to the White House triggering an investigation into Khashoggi’s murder under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act (...) The backlash against Saudi Arabia is long overdue, and it is likely to intensify in the weeks and months to come. The crown prince has brought this on himself and his government with his pattern of reckless, destabilizing actions, and it is about time that the U.S. starts holding him responsible for the crimes carried out on his orders."

Mehr lesen


"Nikki Haley: Trump’s Baghdad Bob"

Harry J. Kazianis zieht ein wenig schmeichelhaftes Fazit der Arbeit von Nikki Haley als UN-Botschafterin der USA. "'She was picked for UN Ambassador for one reason,' explained a senior GOP political consultant to me, reacting to the news that Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina, had just resigned from the Trump administration. 'She was supposed to present a feminine, or supposedly softer version of Trump’s America First message. Instead she became the administration’s national security sledgehammer.' 'Haley was a great spokesperson for the administration; in fact, she was great at parroting whatever lines Trump wanted her to deliver,' the consultant continued. 'But for anyone who has ever interacted with her, one thing became very clear. The second she left the land of talking points, any time she was asked to discuss any issue in any depth, it was apparent there was nothing there. And that is not what we need as ambassador at the UN.' Perhaps I can come up with a better description of Nikki Haley. She was Donald Trump’s very own 'Baghdad Bob,' the propaganda chief under Saddam Hussein who appeared on TV during the 2003 Iraq invasion and said anything the regime wanted, no matter how inflammatory or wrong."

Mehr lesen


"The War in Afghanistan is Enabling Pedophilia"

Jack Hunter wirft US-Politikern vor, mit ihrer weitgehend bedingungslosen Unterstützung der afghanischen Regierung auch eine Kultur des massenhaften Kindesmissbrauchs zu tolerieren. "Why aren’t we sounding the alarm on this? Why isn’t anyone trying to stop it? In December, Congressman Walter Jones sent a letter to Secretary of Defense James Mattis noting that the report exposes 'rampant pedophilia among high-ranking Afghan military and police leaders' and that the 'American people must know the entire truth about this horrific issue.' This abuse 'has been going on for years and we’ve been supporting it financially,' Jones told NBC News. Last week, Senator Rand Paul offered an amendment in committee that would withhold all American funding of Afghan forces until a 'U.S government watchdog in Afghanistan could verify those forces were not using children as child soldiers or sex slaves.' (...) Paul’s amendment was by blocked by Senators Bob Corker and Bob Menendez. Corker said that while he agrees with Paul in spirit, withdrawing U.S. funding of Afghan forces to verify 'zero cases of sexual slavery' was impractical from a 'broad U.S. national security standpoint.' In other words, not even rampant pedophilia enabled by U.S. taxpayer dollars is enough to stop funding our unwinnable war in Afghanistan."

Mehr lesen


"NATO Welcomes Another Military Midget"

Mit Mazedonien könnte die NATO trotz des gescheiterten Namensreferendums bald durch einen weiteren "militärischen Zwerg" erweitert werden, schreibt Doug Bandow in seinem kritischen Kommentar. "Small, mountainous Montenegro is most notable for being the movie set for James Bond’s Casino Royale. With a military of just a couple thousand, it looks like a modern version of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick, the fictional protagonist in the novel The Mouse that Roared. Unfortunately, despite the extravagant claims made by NATO officials on Podgorica’s behalf, the micro-state won’t be able to do much to protect Western civilization from the barbarian hordes. Although Montenegro isn’t likely to start a war by invading Russia, as the president seemed to suggest, smaller states can trigger wars. In 1888, Germany’s famed Iron Chancellor, Otto von Bismarck, accurately prophesied, 'One day the great European War will come out of some damned foolish thing in the Balkans.' Serbia became the fuse for World War I."

Mehr lesen


"The Increasingly Repressive 'New' Saudi Arabia"

Daniel Larison schreibt, dass das von Kronprinz Mohammed bin Salman geführte vermeintlich "neue" Saudi-Arabien mit aller Härte gegen Kritiker und Abweichler im eigenen Land vorgehe, darunter auch Wirtschaftswissenschaftler: "The economist, Essam al-Zamil, is being prosecuted because he had the temerity to question one of Mohammed bin Salman’s grandiose plans for the future of the country. As it happens, the Aramco IPO isn’t happening and was reportedly shut down by the king himself, but that isn’t stopping the crown prince from having an innocent man charged with terrorism for questioning the wisdom of his agenda. Zamil is one of a number of intellectuals and dissidents who were rounded up in last year’s September crackdown. (...) This man’s year-long detention and prosecution on spurious charges are more proof of the increasing repression and authoritarianism of Saudi Arabia under Mohammed bin Salman’s de facto rule. This is not a government that the U.S. should be indulging and backing to the hilt, but unfortunately under this administration that has been the policy and will continue to be unless Congress does something to change it. The prince that Western politicians and businessmen feted just a few months ago is a cruel despot and a war criminal, and it is long past time that he was treated accordingly."

Mehr lesen


"Crying ‘Fascist’ in Eastern Europe"

Will Collins meint, dass viele westliche Beobachter die politische Entwicklung in osteuropäischen Ländern wie Polen und Ungarn falsch einschätzen. Premierminister Orban lege zweifellos illiberale Tendenzen an den Tag, dies bedeute jedoch nicht, dass Ungarn sich auch auf dem Weg zu einem autoritären Staat nach russischem Vorbild befinde. "The recent Hungarian elections (...) were vigorously contested by parties on both the left and right. Opposition billboards and signs were abundantly evident in Budapest and across the country. Public protests have not been suppressed. The internet is still an open forum for debate. And while Orbán remains in office, Fidesz did lose a consequential mayoral election in the run up to the national vote (in a country of 10 million, mayoral elections do count as significant). Critics of Orbán tend to gloss over these facts. According to Vox, the recent Fidesz victory is entirely attributable to Orban’s stranglehold on the media and the country’s political institutions. Left unmentioned is the relatively strong state of the Hungarian economy and the fragmented state of the opposition. (...) Lumping in Poland and Hungary with genuinely authoritarian regimes is not only wrong, it may actually prove counterproductive to the gradual spread of liberal institutions."

Mehr lesen


"The Coming Sino-American Internet Schism"

Die geopolitische Rivalität zwischen den USA und China wird sich nach Ansicht des früheren Google-Chefs Eric Schmidt auch in der Zukunft des Internets niederschlagen. Schmidt zufolge könnte sich das Netz in einen von den USA und einen von China dominierten Teil aufspalten. Nach Ansicht von James P. Pinkerton würde sich der liberale Westen in diesem Fall auf neuem geistigen Territorium bewegen: "Most obviously, it seems destined to reverse the basic presumption of liberal thinking over the past few centuries, which held that the world was converging towards a parliament of man. (...) any yearned-for universalism will likely soon enough have a collision with particularism. By such a reckoning, the looming U.S.-China split of the early 21st century — seemingly made all the more inevitable by roiling disputes over trade, tariffs, and the territory of the South China Sea — will be seen as a kind of cosmic comeuppance."

Mehr lesen


"The 'Isolationist' Slur and 'International Order'"

Daniel Larison reagiert auf den Beitrag von Robert Kagan in der New York Times, in dem der Vordenker der Neokonservativen US-Präsident Trump u.a. internationalen "Isolationismus" vorgeworfen hat. Larison meint, dass Kagan diesen Begriff undifferenziert verwendet, um jede Abweichung von seinen eigenen Vorstellungen zu diskreditieren. "Kagan is not interested in accurately describing the views of the people that he is attacking, and so he calls every foreign policy view he doesn’t like 'isolationist' without ever defining what it is supposed to mean. 'Supporting fewer wars than Bob Kagan' does not make someone an 'isolationist,' but that is what he wants us to think, and he wants us to feel very bad about it. We are supposed to come away from the piece feeling very worried that we are repeating grievous mistakes of the past, but the attempt at guilting us into supporting more unnecessary wars doesn’t work. (...) He opens the op-ed with a quote that says Trump 'doesn’t value the rules-based international order,' but this accusation is particularly rich coming from a leading proponent of preventive war and 'benevolent hegemony.' Kagan is a huge fan of U.S. primacy and frequent American interference in other countries’ affairs, but it is hard to take seriously that he values a 'rules-based international order.'"

Mehr lesen


"America Prime No Longer: In Syria, Regional Powers Step Up"

Daniel DePetris hält es für eine gute Nachricht, dass die USA nicht direkt an den jüngsten Verhandlungen über die Zukunft Syriens beteiligt waren. In Washington habe sich der falsche Konsens durchgesetzt, dass die USA auf jeden Konflikt in der Welt reagieren müssen, um die eigene globale Dominanz zu bestätigen. "Neoconservative Republicans and internationalist Democrats on Capitol Hill — of which there are many — simply can’t fathom that the United States shouldn’t respond in some way when bad things are happening around the world. If innocent people are being killed or American competitors stepping into voids with solutions, the U.S. can’t afford to sit on its hands and be complacent. To even suggest such a thing is labeled by this camp as unconscionable, bordering on traitorous — a direct challenge to the idea of America as the indispensable nation. American primacy has been etched into the psyche of Washington’s foreign policy establishment ever since the Berlin Wall was chiseled away by thousands of freedom-loving Germans. And it’s been with us ever since. Primacy is an addictive drug. The American people, after all, are ambitious: if there’s a problem that needs solving, they want to solve it. (...) If you dare to question their wisdom, you’re branded as an isolationist or an appeaser who hasn’t learned from Neville Chamberlain’s Munich experience. It is the primacists, however, who haven’t learned the lessons history has to offer. One of those lessons, even if we as Americans are uncomfortable admitting it, is that the United States doesn’t have all the answers."

Mehr lesen


"Washington Quietly Increases Lethal Weapons to Ukraine"

Die US-Regierung plant offenbar, die Ukraine mit weiteren Waffenlieferungen zu unterstützen. Ted Galen Carpenter berichtet, dass dies neben den Anti-Panzer-Raketen vom Typ Javelin auch Waffensysteme für die Marine und die Luftverteidigung betreffen könnte. "One suspects that Americans would be incensed at comparable actions by Moscow if the geo-strategic situations were reversed. Imagine if Russia (even a democratic Russia) had emerged from the wreckage of the Cold War as the undisputed global superpower, and a weakened United States had to watch as the Kremlin expanded a powerful, Russian-led military alliance to America’s borders, conducted alliance war games within sight of U.S. territory, interfered in Canada’s internal political affairs to oust a democratically elected pro-American government, and then pursued growing military ties with the new, anti-U.S. government in Ottawa. Yet that would be disturbingly similar to what Washington has done regarding NATO policy and U.S. relations with Ukraine."

Mehr lesen


"The Terrifying Take-Away From Maduro Assassination Attempt"

Das fehlgeschlagene Drohnen-Attentat auf den Präsidenten Venezuelas müsse als "game changer" betrachtet werden, ist Michael Horton überzeugt. "As these flying machines become a part of our everyday lives they will also become more of a threat. With what is likely to be hundreds if not thousands of drones in the skies above major cities, the opportunities for terrorists and militants to make use of them will only increase. Even the most secure and advanced can be hacked, as was demonstrated by the Iranians hacking one of the United States’ most advanced and stealthy drones (...) in December 2011. (...) Apart from the danger from hackers, the idea that drones will become 'normal' is a real fear. It will be very hard for individuals and government security services to distinguish between the drone dropping off a package and one that is dropping a bomb. A hacked or modified drone can easily join other drones in what drone manufacturers are calling 'drone corridors.' (...) The drones that were used to target Maduro are primitive compared with what will soon be on the market. Yet, one of them came very close to injuring, if not killing, a head of state."

Mehr lesen


"The Death of the Nation-State Was Greatly Exaggerated"

Noch vor wenigen Jahren waren viele Experten der Überzeugung, dass ein Kollaps des Sykes-Picot-Systems im Nahen Osten nur eine Frage der Zeit sei. Geoffrey Aronson schreibt, dass sich diese Prognosen heute zumindest als voreilig herausgestellt hätten. "The assumption that the national identities forged from Sykes-Picot’s template over the last century could be swept away like so much dust was, shall we say, premature. Washington, against its instincts, was forced to save Iraq from the Islamic State assault — in league with Iran no less — and to vote with Baghdad against the quixotic Kurdish quest for independence. (...) In Syria, Obama declared open season on Assad and the Baath Party, but failed to understand Assad’s secret to maintaining power (with critical Russian and Iranian support). That secret was that Assad reaffirmed the essential and enduring truth recognized and unleashed by Sykes-Picot, the superior evocative power of Syrian nationalism in the hearts of its people. Still, Washington, unlike Moscow, has yet to be convinced of the enduring value of Sykes-Picot and the primacy of state sovereignty. (...) The challenge posed by ISIS in Iraq and Syria has been contained if not annihilated. Before our very eyes, and whatever our preferences, the idea of the state is prevailing against the naysayers and those making war against it. This idea, and the single-minded drive to reaffirm sovereignty and authority against challengers, is the preeminent legacy of Sykes-Picot. Washington, take note."

Mehr lesen


"What if Russiagate is the New WMDs?"

Die "Russiagate"-Debatte in den USA erinnert Jack Hunter an die Diskussion über irakische Massenvernichtungswaffen vor der Invasion im Jahr 2003. Diesmal seien es die US-Demokraten, die ihren Standpunkt mit einer religiös wirkenden Parteilichkeit vertreten und ihren Gegnern "Verrat" vorwerfen. "With Russia, as with WMDs, left and right have elevated slivers of legitimate security concerns to the level of existential threat based mostly on their own partisanship. That kind of thinking has already proven to be dangerous. We don’t know what evidence of collusion between the Trump camp and Russia might yet come forth, but it’s easy to see how, even if this narrative eventually falls flat, 15 years from now some liberals will still be clinging to Russiagate not as a matter of fact, but political identity. Russia-obsessed liberals, too, could end up on the wrong side of history. No one can know the future. Republicans would be wise to prepare for new, potentially damaging information about Trump and Russia that may yet emerge. Democrats should consider that Russiagate may be just as imaginary as Republicans’ Iraq fantasy."

Mehr lesen


"The Costs of Reneging on the Nuclear Deal"

Der iranische Religionsführer Ayatollah Ali Chamenei hat neuen Verhandlungen mit den USA eine unmissverständliche Absage erteilt. Daniel Larison ist von dieser Reaktion auf das amerikanische Auftreten seit dem Ausstieg aus dem internationalen Atomabkommen nicht überrascht. "Violating our government’s obligations under this agreement has a cost for the U.S., and part of that cost is that the possibility of negotiating with Iran about anything is dead for the foreseeable future. It isn’t possible to trash one of the most significant diplomatic agreements of the last several decades and then get the other parties that you just betrayed to come back to the table. (...) The danger for the U.S. is that many other governments in addition to Iran’s will be wary of making agreements with our government, at least as long as Trump is the president. That will cause the U.S. to miss numerous opportunities to secure and advance our interests, and it will give other states currently negotiating with the U.S. good reason not to believe the promises this administration is making to them."

Mehr lesen


"Why America’s Allies Should Develop Nuclear Weapons"

Doug Bandow vom Cato Institute würde es dagegen begrüßen, wenn amerikanische Verbündete wie Deutschland oder Japan eigene Atomwaffen entwickeln. "While friendly proliferation could create instability and encourage competing arms build-ups, it would also be the most effective way to constrain China without forcing the U.S. into a military confrontation over primarily allied interests with what will be soon a great power, perhaps eventually even a superpower. Enabling more nuclear states would be unfortunate, but it still might be the best among bad options. If nothing else, Americans should debate Washington’s multiple nuclear guarantees. Recipient nations increasingly recognize that the nuclear umbrella offers an imperfect defense at best. And the U.S. government’s nuclear commitments create enormous, disproportionate costs and risks for Americans. When the issue is nuclear war, without question America must come first."

Mehr lesen


"Trump’s Latest Weird Offer to Meet Rouhani"

Daniel Larison ist sicher, dass dem überraschenden Gesprächsangebot des US-Präsidenten an den Iran kein neues Gipfeltreffen folgen wird. Ein ähnliches Angebot sei von Teheran bereits im November abgelehnt worden, da Trump nicht wirklich an einem Kompromiss interessiert sei. "Trump has routinely feigned interest in getting a 'better' deal from Iran while making maximalist demands that amount to calling for Iran’s surrender. He is not interested in any compromise that Iran would be willing to accept, and Iran’s government cannot agree to the demands that he and Pompeo have made. Trump has already proven to the Iranian side that he will violate past agreements for no good reason, so there is no reason for them to negotiate anything with a president who can’t be trusted."

Mehr lesen


"The Subtle Return of German Hegemony"

Will Collins hält den Aufstieg Deutschlands zur europäischen Hegemonialmacht für unaufhaltsam und erwartet, dass dies künftig auch auf außenpolitischer Ebene stärker zum Vorschein treten wird. "A newly assertive Germany does not mean the return of a Nazi- or even Wilhelmine-era foreign policy. Traditional spurs to German expansionism no longer exist. (...) Besides, why resort to crude political or military pressure when such areas are already accessible to German capital and amenable to German influence through the mechanisms of the European Union? Instead, the return of German hegemony on the European continent will be subtle, incremental, and largely benign. Germany’s economic clout is already masked by the European Union, and there is ample scope to expand this influence through pre-existing 'multilateral' institutions. (...) In the constellation of American foreign policy relationships, Germany may come to resemble a country like India or Brazil: not overtly hostile, inclined to amicability by shared political traditions, and willing to cooperate on areas of mutual interest without slavishly adhering to Washington’s dictates."

Mehr lesen


"Trump Calls Off Cold War II"

Patrick J. Buchanan zieht im Gegensatz zu vielen anderen Kommentatoren in den USA ein positives Fazit des Gipfeltreffens in Helsinki. Donald Trump habe einem "Kalten Krieg 2.0" eine klare Absage erteilt und eine "historische Wende" in der US-Außenpolitik vorangetrieben. "With his remarks in Helsinki and at the NATO summit in Brussels, Trump has signaled a historic shift in U.S. foreign policy that may determine the future of this nation and the fate of his presidency. He has rejected the fundamental premises of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War and blamed our wretched relations with Russia, not on Vladimir Putin, but squarely on the U.S. establishment. (...) Trump thereby repudiated the records and agendas of the neocons and their liberal interventionist allies, as well as the archipelago of War Party think tanks beavering away inside the Beltway. Looking back over the week, from Brussels to Britain to Helsinki, Trump’s message has been clear, consistent and startling. NATO is obsolete. European allies have freeloaded off U.S. defense while rolling up huge trade surpluses at our expense. Those days are over. Europeans are going to stop stealing our markets and start paying for their own defense. And there will be no Cold War II."

Mehr lesen


"The Helsinki Debacle and U.S.-Russian Relations"

Daniel Larison kritisiert das Auftreten des US-Präsidenten in Helsinki, weil das groß angekündigte Gipfeltreffen mit dem russischen Präsidenten einmal mehr keine handfesten Vereinbarungen hervorgebracht habe. Trumps "unterwürfige" Haltung während der abschließenden Pressekonferenz werde künftige Verständigungsversuche mit Russland weiter erschweren, so seine Befürchtung. "Improving the relationship with Moscow has been and continues to be a worthwhile goal, but Trump has made it politically impossible to pursue that goal in the near term. The U.S. and Russia could and should have a more constructive relationship, but it can’t be based on the denial of reality and ignoring the genuine disagreements that exist between our governments. If there is to be genuine improvement in U.S.-Russian relations, it will come from facing up to these disagreements and finding a way to work through or around them."

Mehr lesen


"The Media’s Brazen Dishonesty About North Korean Nuclear Violations"

Gareth Porter wirft führenden US-Medien vor, mit ihrer Berichterstattung über Nordkorea alles daran zu setzen, um US-Präsident Trumps Verhandlungen mit Kim Jong-un zum Scheitern zu bringen. "In late June and early July, NBC News, CNN, and The Wall Street Journal published stories that appeared at first glance to shed a lurid light on Donald Trump’s flirtation with Kim Jong-un. They contained satellite imagery showing that North Korea was making rapid upgrades to its nuclear weapons complex at Yongbyon and expanding its missile production program just as Trump and Kim were getting chummy at their Singapore summit. In fact, those media outlets were selling journalistic snake oil. By misrepresenting the diplomatic context of the images they were hyping, the press launched a false narrative around the Trump-Kim summit and the negotiations therein. (...) A media complex so determined to discredit negotiations with North Korea and so unfettered by political-diplomatic reality seriously threatens the ability of the United States to deliver on any agreement with Pyongyang. That means alternative media must make more aggressive efforts to challenge the corporate press’s coverage."

Mehr lesen


"Why NATO Needs a MAGA Foreign Policy"

Anlässlich des NATO-Gipfels empfiehlt Bruce Fein dem US-Präsidenten, den in Artikel 5 vertraglich festgelegten Bündnisfall praktisch für ungültig zu erklären. Die USA sollten demnach deutlich machen, dass sie ohne Zustimmung des Kongresses keinen Krieg zur Unterstützung anderer NATO-Länder erklären werden. "President Trump should tell the other NATO nations that the United States will no longer defend them from external aggression unless Congress declares war as is constitutionally required by the Declare War Clause of Article I, section 8, clause 11. Then Trump should announce a Make America Great Again (MAGA) doctrine of 'Invincible Self-Defense.' That means he will engage the armed forces only in self-defense against actual or imminent aggressors towards the United States, and only if Congress declares war or directs the offensive use of the military. (...) Article V of the NATO treaty, which requires signatories to treat an attack on one as an attack on all, cannot override the Constitution. (...) Contrary to what the critics might say, the MAGA doctrine of Invincible Self-Defense would not give birth to existential threats caused by Chinese or Russian aggression."

Mehr lesen


"For Peace With Putin, End America’s Pointless Wars"

George D. O'Neill Jr. hofft, dass US-Präsident Trump beim Gipfeltreffen mit Präsident Putin nicht auf das außenpolitische Establishment in Washington hört und die Gelegenheit für einige diplomatische Fortschritte nutzt. "President Trump should propose a drawdown of American troops in Afghanistan in exchange for a drawdown of Russian troops in Syria (along with a pledge that America has no interest in reengaging in the Syrian Civil War). This would be consistent with Trump’s oft-stated observation that America’s wars (declared and undeclared) in the Middle East have been a waste. Trump need not 'recognize' the Russian annexation of Crimea but he should assert that a resolution to the situation on the ground in Ukraine is a European matter — to be settled by bilateral negotiations between Russia and Europe. (...) The American public is not interested in diplomatic and media theater. They know two things to be true: the failing 'Trump-Russia collusion' hysteria is proving baseless (and distracting from concerns over economic growth and jobs); and whatever America’s international security interests are in the Middle East, we are all better protected with allies that face similar threats."

Mehr lesen


"Another Saudi Coalition Wedding Massacre in Yemen"

In Jemen ist Berichten zufolge erneut eine Hochzeitsgesellschaft durch einen saudi-arabischen Luftangriff getroffen worden. Daniel Larison weist darauf hin, wie häufig diese Angriffe auf Zivilisten vorkämen. "The coalition has illegally treated all of Saada as a military target for three years, and it has routinely struck civilian targets ever since. (...) The coalition has consistently shown flagrant disregard for the lives of civilians in Yemen. A similar wedding massacre in a small village in Hajjah in April of this year killed 23 people, including the bride. (...) The Trump administration frequently complains about Yemeni missile attacks on Saudi Arabia, but no one from this administration ever says anything about the numerous documented war crimes committed by the Saudis and Emiratis against innocent civilians in Yemen. The U.S. simply ignores the evidence of coalition war crimes in order to continue providing military assistance to them, and the result is that hundreds and thousands of Yemeni civilians are killed with our help."

Mehr lesen


"Bolton’s Iran Regime Collapse Fantasy"

Der Nationale Sicherheitsberater im Weißen Haus John Bolton glaubt offenbar immer noch, dass das Regime in Teheran auf tönernen Füßen stehe und durch einen "kleinen Tritt" zum Kollaps gebracht werden könnte. Daniel Larison hält dies für Wunschdenken und warnt zudem vor den Folgen eines Zusammenbruchs der staatlichen Ordnung in Iran. "Iran is one of the last relatively stable countries in the region, so it is insane to want to foment more upheaval and disorder there. Trying to collapse of a government in a country of more than eighty million people would have huge and unforeseen consequences for the population and for Iran’s many neighbors. Having set much of the rest of the region ablaze, the U.S. would be trying to burn down one of the few structures in the neighborhood that hasn’t yet caught on fire. If Bolton really thinks that all it will take is 'one little kick' to bring down the Iranian government, he is more deluded than I thought."

Mehr lesen


"The Destructive Iran Obsession Gets Even Worse"

Daniel Larison hält den Plan der US-Regierung, Importe von iranischem Erdöl global zu verhindern, für "irrational" und "unnötig". Es sei kaum zu erwarten, dass z.B. China und Indien der amerikanischen Forderung nachgeben werden. "Many of the countries that import Iranian oil won’t comply with this diktat, and we should expect some of them to respond to U.S. sanctions with retaliatory measures. The U.S. isn’t just proposing to wage economic war on Iran, but threatens to extend that war to all of Iran’s major trading partners. India has already indicated that it isn’t going to respect U.S. sanctions on Iran, and I can’t imagine that China will be any more cooperative on this front. (...) When the U.S. was working with its allies and other major powers to pressure Iran to agree to restrictions on its nuclear program, other governments cooperated with U.S. requests by reducing their purchases of oil from Iran, but they never stopped them all together. The U.S. under Trump has reneged on the nuclear deal that came from that, and now our government is back demanding that other countries forego Iranian oil entirely just because Washington says so."

Mehr lesen

suche-links1 2 3 4 5 6 7suche-rechts

Hier finden Sie die Redaktion der Sicherheitspolitischen Presseschau.

Mehr lesen



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

Mehr lesen


Informationsportal Krieg und Frieden

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

Mehr lesen auf


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


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