US-Soldaten in Afghanistan



suche-links1 2 3 4suche-rechts


"October Surprise – Will War with Iran Be Trump’s Election Eve Shocker?"

Bob Dreyfuss hält es nicht für ausgeschlossen, dass US-Präsident Trump versuchen könnte, seine Präsidentschaft mit einem Krieg gegen den Iran zu retten. "Over the past four decades, 'October surprise' has evolved into a catch-all phrase meaning any unexpected action by a presidential campaign just before an election designed to give one of the candidates a surprise advantage. (…) Consider it beyond irony if, this October, the latest election 'surprise' were to take us back to the very origins of the term in the form of some kind of armed conflict that could only end terribly for everyone involved. It’s a formula for disaster and like so many other things, when it comes to Donald J. Trump, it can’t be ruled out."

Mehr lesen


"What Will It Take to Defeat Trumpism?"

Im Fall einer Wahlniederlage des US-Präsidenten im November würde den USA nach Ansicht von John Feffer eine Periode der "De-Trumpifizierung" bevorstehen. Das Ende der Konföderation im Amerikanischen Bürgerkrieg, der Sturz von Diktator Saddam Hussein in Irak und die Niederlage Deutschlands im Zweiten Weltkrieg hielten dabei einige wertvolle Lehren bereit, so Feffer. "(…) it's imperative to separate the legitimate grievances of Trump supporters from the illegitimate ones. Yes, 'bad hombres' are attracted to Trump’s racism, misogyny, and xenophobia, but many of the disenfranchised who voted for him were motivated by a disgust at political elites and the raging economic inequality they produced in this land. After the triple whammy of the coronavirus pandemic (and its disproportionate impact on the working poor), the economic semi-collapse that followed its spread (and the disproportionate benefits Amazon's Jeff Bezos and other billionaires drew from it), and an epidemic of police violence (visited on people of color), more and more Americans are coming to feel that the status quo is simply unacceptable. They’re disgusted by Republican duplicity but also by the Democrats’ version of business as usual. Because Trumpism is a cancer on the body politic, the treatment will require radical interventions, including the transformation of the Republican Party, a purge of Trumpists from government, and the indictment of the president and his top cronies as a criminal enterprise. To avoid a second Civil War, however, a second American Revolution would need to address the root causes of Trumpism, especially political corruption, deep-seated racism, and extreme economic inequality."

Mehr lesen


"The New Cold War with China - How Will It Affect You?"

Der von vielen Experten befürchtete neue Kalte Krieg zwischen den USA und China würde die US-Bürger teuer zu stehen kommen, schreibt Michael T. Klare. "For most Americans, the first consequence of an intensifying Cold War could be a weaker than expected recovery from the Covid-19 economic meltdown. Anything that stands in the way of a swift rebound - and a new Cold War with China falls into that very category - would be bad news. Unlike in the original Cold War, when Washington and Moscow maintained few economic ties, the U.S. and Chinese economies remain intertwined, contributing to the net wealth of both countries and benefiting this country’s export-oriented industries like agriculture and civilian aircraft production. (…) And here’s another thing a new Cold War guarantees: a significant increase in military spending at a time of ballooning national debt and a desperate need for investment in domestic economic recovery. (…) And then there’s the issue that should be on the minds of every young man and woman in America (along with their parents, grandparents, and loved ones): the draft. (…) Another feature of the original Cold War that you should expect in a new one is an environment of repression, intolerance, and discrimination. (…) No one can say at what point you or any of us will begin to feel the direct effects of this new Cold War, only that, as tensions and hostile acts heighten, the consequences will prove harsh indeed. So cheer now, if you approve of measures already taken to isolate and punish Beijing, but think carefully before you embrace a full-blown Cold War with China and all that it will entail."

Mehr lesen


"The Coming of a Social-Distancing Version of War"

Danny Sjursen erwartet, dass die Coronakrise die "endlosen Kriege" der USA erkennbar beeinflussen, aber nicht beenden wird. "(…) American social-distancing ways of war will likely operate smoothly enough without suppressing terrorist groups any more successfully than the previous versions of forever war did, or solving local ethno-religious conflicts, or improving the lives of Africans or Arabs. Like their predecessors, future American wars in cold blood will fail, but with efficiency and, from the point of view of the military-industrial complex, lucratively. (…) Still, Covid-19 may prove the death knell of American war as classically imagined. Future combat, even if broadly directed from Washington, may be only vaguely 'American.' Few uniformed citizens may take part in it and even fewer die from it. (…) Moving forward, policymakers and the public alike may treat war with the same degree of entitlement and abstraction as ordering items from Amazon (especially during a pandemic): Click a button, expect a package at the door posthaste, and pay scant thought to what that click-request set in motion or the sacrifice required to do the deed. Only in war, one thing at least stays constant: lots of someones get killed. (…) Taken to its not-unimaginable extreme, Americans should prepare themselves for a future in which their government kills and destroys on a global scale without a single service member dying in combat. After the pandemic, in other words, talk of 'ending' this country’s forever wars may prove little more than an exercise in semantics."

Mehr lesen


"The Wuhan Hoax - Covid-19 and Trump’s War on the U.S. Intelligence Community"

Bob Dreyfuss wirft der US-Regierung die Verbreitung der These vor, dass Covid-19 aus einem chinesischen Forschungslabor in Wuhan stamme. Die Kampagne des Weißen Hauses erinnere an die Vorbereitung des Irak-Krieges, so Dreyfuss. "The run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2002-2003 should be on all our minds today. Then, top officials simply repeated again and again that they believed both Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent ties to al-Qaeda and his nonexistent active nuclear, chemical, and bioweapon programs were realities and assigned intelligence community collectors and analysts to look into them (while paying no attention to their conclusions). Now, Trump and his people are similarly putting their fat fingers on the scale of reality, while making it clear to hopefully intimidated intelligence professionals just what conclusions they want to hear. Because those professionals know that their careers, salaries, and pensions depend on the continued favor of the politicians who pay them, there is, of course, a tremendous incentive to go along with such demands, shade what IC officials call the 'estimate' in the direction the White House wants, or at least keep their mouths shut."

Mehr lesen


"World War III’s Newest Battlefield - U.S. Troops Head for the Far North"

Michael T. Klare hält es für möglich, dass ein Atomkrieg zwischen den USA und Russland im hohen Norden Europas beginnen könnte. "Unbeknownst to most Americans, the Finnmark region of Norway and adjacent Russian territory have become one of the most likely battlegrounds for the first use of nuclear weapons in any future NATO-Russian conflict. Because Moscow has concentrated a significant part of its nuclear retaliatory capability on the Kola Peninsula, a remote stretch of land abutting northern Norway - any U.S.-NATO success in actual combat with Russian forces near that territory would endanger a significant part of Russia’s nuclear arsenal and so might precipitate the early use of such munitions. Even a simulated victory - the predictable result of Cold Response 2020 - will undoubtedly set Russia’s nuclear controllers on edge. To appreciate just how risky any NATO-Russian clash in Norway’s far north would be, consider the region’s geography and the strategic factors that have led Russia to concentrate so much military power there. And all of this, by the way, will be playing out in the context of another existential danger: climate change. The melting of the Arctic ice cap and the accelerated exploitation of Arctic resources are lending this area ever greater strategic significance."

Mehr lesen


"The Pompeo Doctrine - How to Seize the Arctic’s Resources, Now Accessible Due to Climate Change (Just Don’t Mention Those Words!)"

Die kontroversen Überlegungen der US-Regierung zum Erwerb Grönlands sind Michael T. Klare zufolge Teil der "Pompeo-Doktrin", einer vom US-Außenminister vorangetriebenen Strategie zur Ausbeutung der neu zugänglichen Ressourcen in der Arktis. "Under the prodding of Mike Pompeo, the White House increasingly views the Arctic as a key arena for future great-power competition, with the ultimate prize being an extraordinary trove of valuable resources, including oil, natural gas, uranium, zinc, iron ore, gold, diamonds, and rare earth minerals. Add in one more factor: though no one in the administration is likely to mention the forbidden term 'climate change' or 'climate crisis,' they all understand perfectly well that global warming is what’s making such a resource scramble possible. (...) Perhaps no aspect of humanity’s response to the climate crisis is more diabolical than this. The greater the number of fossil fuels we consume, the more rapidly we alter the Arctic, inviting the further extraction of just such fuels and their contribution to global warming. With other regions increasingly less able to sustain a fossil-fuel extraction economy, a continued addiction to oil will ensure the desolation of the once-pristine Far North as it is transformed into a Pompeo-style arena for burning conflict and civilizational disaster."

Mehr lesen


"The American Cult of Bombing and Endless War"

William J. Astore schreibt, dass die USA Teile der Welt im Namen des Antiterrorkampfes mit einem Schirm permanenter Überwachung und immer neuer Luftangriffe überdeckt hätten. In Washington sei ein "Kult des Bombenangriffs" entstanden, der an die irreführende Metrik des "Bodycounts" während des Vietnam-Kriegs erinnere. "Using data supplied by the U.S. military, the Council on Foreign Relations estimated that the U.S. dropped at least 26,172 bombs in seven countries in 2016, the bulk of them in Iraq and Syria. Against Raqqa alone, ISIS’s 'capital,' the U.S. and its allies dropped more than 20,000 bombs in 2017, reducing that provincial Syrian city to literal rubble. Combined with artillery fire, the bombing of Raqqa killed more than 1,600 civilians, according to Amnesty International. (...) This country’s propensity for believing that its ability to rain hellfire from the sky provides a winning methodology for its wars has proven to be a fantasy of our age. Whether in Korea in the early 1950s, Vietnam in the 1960s, or more recently in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria, the U.S. may control the air, but that dominance simply hasn’t led to ultimate success. (...) War’s inherent nature -- its unpredictability, horrors, and tendency to outlast its original causes and goals -- isn’t changed when the bombs and missiles are guided by GPS. Washington’s enemies in its war on terror, moreover, have learned to adapt to air power in a grimly Darwinian fashion and have the advantage of fighting on their own turf."

Mehr lesen


"The Navy’s War vs. Bolton’s War"

Im Gegensatz zu den "Falken" im Weißen Haus bereite sich das US-Militär nicht auf einen Krieg gegen den Iran, sondern auf eine Konfrontation mit China und Russland vor, schreibt Michael T. Klare. "Hawks in the White House, led by National Security Advisor John Bolton, see a war aimed at eliminating Iran’s clerical leadership as a potentially big win for Washington. Many top officials in the U.S. military, however, see the matter quite differently -- as potentially a giant step backward into exactly the kind of low-tech ground war they’ve been unsuccessfully enmeshed in across the Greater Middle East and northern Africa for years and would prefer to leave behind. (...) After years of slogging it out with guerrillas and jihadists across the Greater Middle East, the U.S. military is increasingly keen on preparing to combat 'peer' competitors China and Russia, countries that pose what’s called a 'multi-domain' challenge to the United States. This new outlook is only bolstered by a belief that America’s never-ending war on terror has severely depleted its military, something obvious to both Chinese and Russian leaders who have taken advantage of Washington’s extended preoccupation with counterterrorism to modernize their forces and equip them with advanced weaponry. For the United States to remain a paramount power -- so Pentagon thinking now goes -- it must turn away from counterterrorism and focus instead on developing the wherewithal to decisively defeat its great-power rivals."

Mehr lesen


"'Alexa, Launch Our Nukes!' - Artificial Intelligence and the Future of War"

Michael T. Klare entwirft ein Zukunftsszenario, in dem die militärische Entscheidungsfindung aufgrund der zunehmenden Komplexität der neuen "Hyper-Kriege" immer stärker vom Einsatz Künstlicher Intelligenz geprägt wird. "As the Pentagon and the military commands of the other great powers look to the future, what they see is a highly contested battlefield -- some have called it a 'hyperwar' environment -- where vast swarms of AI-guided robotic weapons will fight each other at speeds far exceeding the ability of human commanders to follow the course of a battle. At such a time, it is thought, commanders might increasingly be forced to rely on ever more intelligent machines to make decisions on what weaponry to employ when and where. At first, this may not extend to nuclear weapons, but as the speed of battle increases and the 'firebreak' between them and conventional weaponry shrinks, it may prove impossible to prevent the creeping automatization of even nuclear-launch decision-making. (...) The question then arises: Would machines make better decisions than humans in such a situation? They certainly are capable of processing vast amounts of information over brief periods of time and weighing the pros and cons of alternative actions in a thoroughly unemotional manner. But machines also make military mistakes and, above all, they lack the ability to reflect on a situation and conclude: Stop this madness. No battle advantage is worth global human annihilation."

Mehr lesen


"After Trump"

Unabhängig von der Zukunft der Präsidentschaft Donald Trumps zieht Andrew J. Bacevich bereits jetzt das Fazit einer "bizarren Episode" der amerikanischen Geschichte und stellt nüchtern fest: "Let me state my own view bluntly: forget the atmospherics. Despite the lies, insults, name calling, and dog whistles, almost nothing of substance has changed. Nor will it. To a far greater extent than Trump’s perpetually hyperventilating critics are willing to acknowledge, the United States remains on a trajectory that does not differ appreciably from what it was prior to POTUS #45 taking office. Post-Trump America, just now beginning to come into view, is shaping up to look remarkably like pre-Trump America. (...) Trump is not the problem. Think of him instead as a summons to address the real problem, which in a nation ostensibly of, by, and for the people is the collective responsibility of the people themselves. For Americans to shirk that responsibility further will almost surely pave the way for more Trumps -- or someone worse -- to come."

Mehr lesen


"Beijing’s Bid for Global Power in the Age of Trump"

Alfred W. McCoy zufolge verfolgen sowohl US-Präsident Trump als auch Chinas Präsident Xi Jinping sehr persönliche Visionen einer neuen globalen Ordnung. Während Trump dabei sei, die bestehende internationale Ordnung unter dem Vorzeichen des amerikanischen Nationalismus zu demontieren, strebe Xi eine wirtschaftliche Integration Asiens mit Europa und Afrika unter chinesischer Führung an. Trotzdem bleibe fraglich, ob China die USA tatsächlich als globalen Hegemon ablösen könne. "If Donald Trump’s vision of world disorder is a sign of the American future and if Beijing’s projected $2 trillion in infrastructure investments, history’s largest by far, succeed in unifying the commerce and transport of Asia, Africa, and Europe, then perhaps the currents of financial power and global leadership will indeed transcend all barriers and flow inexorably toward Beijing, as if by natural law. But if that bold initiative ultimately fails, then for the first time in five centuries the world may face an imperial transition without a clear successor as global hegemon. Moreover, it will do so on a planet where the 'new normal' of climate change (...) could mean that the very idea of a global hegemon is fast becoming a thing of the past."

Mehr lesen


"The Legacy of Infinite War"

Nick Turse zieht ein ernüchterndes Zwischenfazit des "Ewigen Krieges" der USA, der nach den Anschlägen vom 11. September 2001 als "Krieg gegen den Terror" begann und kein Ende zu nehmen scheint. "The idea of Washington being engaged in a 'generational war' was front and center earlier this year when Army General Austin 'Scott' Miller, a career special operations soldier, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. (...) At Miller’s confirmation hearing in June, Arkansas Republican Senator Tom Cotton raised an uncomfortable question that even a cursory examination of the general’s biography should provoke. 'Did you imagine in 2001 that you would be deploying... to Afghanistan in 2018?' he asked. Miller replied that he had not, adding, 'Senator, I actually recall conversations of people who were out over Christmas in 2001 talking about they were doing this so their kids did not have to.' That response led Cotton to call attention to a soldier seated just behind Miller: a young Army 2nd Lieutenant with the 82nd Airborne Division who just happened to be the general’s son, Austin Miller."

Mehr lesen


"The Ultimate Blowback Universe"

Tom Engelhardt erinnert an die Veröffentlichung des Buches "Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of American Empire" von Chalmers Johnson im Jahr 2000. Die Analyse der "nicht enden wollenden Blowback-Maschine" in Washington durch den mittlerweile verstorbenen Johnson habe sich seitdem immer wieder bestätigt. Dies könnte auch auf die Engelhardt zufolge schlimmste Form des Blowbacks zutreffen, den Klimawandel: "In a sense, the two leading forms of blowback of the twenty-first century -- the imperial and fossil-fuelized ones -- came to be focused in a single figure. After all, it’s hard to imagine the rise to power of Donald Trump in a world in which the Bush administration had decided not to invade either Afghanistan or Iraq but to treat its 'Global War on Terror' as a localized set of police actions against one international criminal and his scattered group of followers. As it happened, one form of blowback from the disastrous wars that were meant to create the basis for a Pax Americana planet helped to produce the conditions and fears at home that put Donald Trump in the White House. Or put another way, in the face of the evidence produced by essentially every knowledgeable scientist on Earth, on a planet already feeling the early and increasingly extreme results of a warming atmosphere, millions of Americans elected a man who claimed it was all a 'hoax'".

Mehr lesen


"The Strategy of Maximal Extraction"

US-Präsident Trump verfolge mit seiner Energiepolitik aus historischer Sicht fast schon traditionelle machtpolitische Ziele, stellt Michael T. Klare fest. Er warnt, dass der weitgehende Verzicht auf umweltpolitische Einschränkungen bei der geplanten Ausbeutung fossiler Energieressourcen zu einer Umweltverschmutzung wie in den 1950er Jahren und zu einer verheerenden Beschleunigung der globalen Erwärmung führen könnte. "From the onset of his presidency, Donald Trump has made it clear that cheap and abundant domestic energy derived from fossil fuels was going to be the crucial factor in his total-mobilization approach to global engagement. In his view and that of his advisers, it’s the essential element in ensuring national economic vitality, military strength, and geopolitical clout, whatever damage it might cause to American life, the global environment, or even the future of human life on this planet. (...) In energy terms, what does dominant mean in practice? For President Trump and his cohorts, it means above all the 'unleashing' of the country’s energy abundance by eliminating every imaginable regulatory impediment to the exploitation of domestic reserves of fossil fuels. After all, America possesses some of the largest reservoirs of oil, coal, and natural gas on the planet and, by applying every technological marvel at its disposal, can maximally extract those reserves to enhance national power."

Mehr lesen


"How We Got Donald Trump (And How We Might Have Avoided Him)"

Der Wahlsieg Donald Trumps vor über einem Jahr ist nach Ansicht von Andrew J. Bacevich die Folge einer Reihe von politischen Richtungsentscheidungen in Washington seit dem Ende des Kalten Krieges. "It’s time to look in the mirror, folks. Blaming Trump for being Trump simply won’t do. Like Lenin or Franco or Perón or dozens of other demagogues, Trump merely seized the opportunity that presented itself. Our president is a product and beneficiary of several decades worth of vainglory, cynicism, epic folly, political cowardice, missed opportunities, and a public not given to paying attention. In present-day Washington, no one can deny that the chickens have come home to roost. The biggest fowl of them all has taken up residence in the White House and, in a very real sense, we all put him there."

Mehr lesen


"Mapping a World From Hell"

Eine neue Karte des "Costs of War Project" vom Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs zeigt, dass heute 76 Länder und damit 39% der Welt in den amerikanischen "Krieg gegen den Terror" involviert seien. Tom Engelhardt stellt die Arbeit des Projekts in diesem Beitrag als wichtige Verdeutlichung der heutigen "Ära des permanenten Krieges" vor. "The Costs of War Project has produced not just a map of the war on terror, 2015-2017 (released at TomDispatch with this article), but the first map of its kind ever. It offers an astounding vision of Washington’s counterterror wars across the globe: their spread, the deployment of U.S. forces, the expanding missions to train foreign counterterror forces, the American bases that make them possible, the drone and other air strikes that are essential to them, and the U.S. combat troops helping to fight them. (Terror groups have, of course, morphed and expanded riotously as part and parcel of the same process.) A glance at the map tells you that the war on terror, an increasingly complex set of intertwined conflicts, is now a remarkably global phenomenon."

Mehr lesen


"UnFounding Father"

Tom Engelhardt charakterisiert den politischen Aufstieg von US-Präsident Donald Trump als Folge einer fundamentalen Veränderung der Medienlandschaft, einer jahrzehntelangen neoliberalen Wirtschafts- und Sozialpolitik, und des scheinbar endlosen "Kriegs gegen den Terror". "By the time The Donald set foot on that escalator, our world of news was already devolving into a set of 24/7 zombie apocalypse events. Otherwise, he and his rants, his red face and strange orange comb-over wouldn’t have made much sense at all. He would have been an unimaginable candidate before the media went into crisis (...) If the Republican Party hadn’t been sold to the Koch brothers and the Democratic Party hadn’t gone all neoliberal on us, can you really imagine working class voters putting their faith in a billionaire to make America great again for them? I doubt it. Similarly, if this country hadn’t been pursuing its never-ending war on terror so assiduously and unsuccessfully these last 16 years, while Washington was being transformed into a war capital, the national security state was rising to prominence as a kind of shadow government, and the funding of the U.S. military hadn’t become the only truly bipartisan issue in Congress, Trumpism would never have been conceivable. (...) And until we grasp that, until we understand that he isn’t an aberration but the zeitgeist and that simply removing him from the Oval Office won’t solve our problems, we aren’t anywhere at all."

Mehr lesen


"Autopilot Wars"

Andrew J. Bacevich stellt nüchtern fest, dass sich die USA gegenwärtig international an sieben kriegerischen Konflikten beteiligten und die amerikanische Öffentlichkeit dies weitgehend gleichgültig akzeptiert habe. "Like traffic jams or robocalls, war has fallen into the category of things that Americans may not welcome, but have learned to live with. In twenty-first-century America, war is not that big a deal. (...) Americans don’t attend all that much to ongoing American wars because: 1. U.S. casualty rates are low. (...) 2. The true costs of Washington’s wars go untabulated. (...) 3. On matters related to war, American citizens have opted out. (...) 4. Terrorism gets hyped and hyped and hyped some more. (...) 5. Blather crowds out substance. (...) 6. Besides, we’re too busy. (...) 7. Anyway, the next president will save us. (...) 8. Our culturally progressive military has largely immunized itself from criticism. (...) A collective indifference to war has become an emblem of contemporary America. But don't expect your neighbors down the street or the editors of the New York Times to lose any sleep over that fact. Even to notice it would require them - and us - to care."

Mehr lesen


"Is Trump Launching a New World Order?"

Michael T. Klare verweist in seiner Analyse auf die energiepolitischen Aspekte des Versuchs von US-Präsident Trump, eine neue Weltordnung zu errichten. An den neuen Frontlinien werden sich künftig demnach auch die Petro-Mächte und die "grünen" Mächte gegenüber stehen. "A world dominated by petro-powers will be one in which oil is plentiful, the skies hidden by smog, weather patterns unpredictable, coastlines receding, and drought a recurring peril. The possibility of warfare is only likely to increase on such a planet, as nations and peoples fight over ever-diminishing supplies of vital resources, especially food, water, and arable land. A world dominated by green powers, on the other hand, is likely to be less ravaged by war and the depredations of extreme climate change as renewable energy becomes more affordable and available to all. Those, like Trump, who prefer an oil-drenched planet will fight to achieve their hellish vision, while those committed to a green future will work to reach and even exceed the goals of the Paris agreement."

Mehr lesen


"Avoiding Apocalypse on the Korean Peninsula"

Rajan Menon warnt vor den Folgen eines Scheiterns der diplomatischen Bemühungen zur Lösung der Nordkoreakrise und wehrt sich gegen den oft vermittelten Eindruck, dass Diktator Kim Jong-un nur auf verstärkten Druck reagieren werde. Es gebe immer noch Raum für ernsthafte Verhandlungen und Kompromisse zwischen den USA und Nordkorea, so Menon. "A grand bargain that combines aid and political normalization in return for denuclearization and the pullback and reduction of troops on the Korean peninsula could be made even more attractive to Pyongyang if it included a phased withdrawal of the 28,500 American troops in South Korea. The standard claim - that this would leave South Korea defenseless - is ludicrous. (...) According to the most recent State Department estimate, South Korea spends more than seven times what North Korea does on its armed forces. And given the South’s technological prowess and purchases of American arms, it has a far more modern military than the North, which still uses Soviet and Chinese armor and aircraft developed during the 1950s and 1960s."

Mehr lesen


"The Age of Great Expectations and the Great Void"

Andrew J. Bacevich schreibt in seinem Essay, dass der Wahlsieg Donald Trumps als Ende der "post-Cold War era" in den USA interpretiert werden könne. Die vergangenen 25 Jahre hätten zielgerichtet zu der heutigen "ominösen Leere" geführt. "Note, for example, that [Trump's] mandate is almost entirely negative. It centers on rejection: of globalization, of counterproductive military meddling, and of the post-Cold War cultural project. Yet neither Trump nor any of his surrogates has offered a coherent alternative to the triad of themes providing the through line for the last quarter-century of American history. (...) In all likelihood, his presidency will prove less transformative than transitional. As a result, concerns about what he may do, however worrisome, matter less than the larger question of where we go from here. The principles that enjoyed favor following the Cold War have been found wanting. What should replace them?"

Mehr lesen

suche-links1 2 3 4suche-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