[Skybird]

Focus writes:

Putin wants to break up the clueless EU - his only question is, "Already?"

NATO has moved too close to Russia after the Cold War, Putin says. He feels his sphere of influence is in danger. The U.S. is no longer the sole world power. More distance from Russia is needed. Of course, the U.S. is not only concerned with Ukraine, but above all with geopolitical interests - just like Putin.

For thirty years, the German governments failed to seriously discuss basic questions of the international order and their consequences for German foreign policy and to draw conclusions from them. In other words, not just talking about what kind of world one would like to see, but what kind of global order can realistically emerge.

Former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder's attempt to position Germany in confrontation with the United States (together with France and Russia) did not bear fruit beyond his term in office, which is why he has since propagated the dissolution of NATO. The EU's independence, agreed upon in many documents, was never seriously pursued; the Charter of Paris was never backed up with its own power to act. The fourth wave of democratization in the Middle East and North Africa was cheered without serious support, and its slide into authoritarian regimes was merely registered.

The result of this heedlessness is the current German taciturnity and lack of conception in the conflict with Russia.

It was different in Russia. The Russian leadership has answered for itself the basic questions of international order after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It has openly communicated this and all other governments have known since 2007 at the latest which European order Russia is striving for. However, for 15 years it was pretended that this was less important, because there was no self-education to be able to act in the expected conflicts.

Russia's leadership reaffirms the claim to establish a larger space dominated by Russia to reinforce its importance in world politics. Small states - including Ukraine for Russia's leadership - have no right of their own to choose their political order or alliances in it, but must have their place assigned in the geopolitical balancing of the great powers. In Russia's view, states may not intervene in the internal affairs of other states, let alone support political forces abroad that are working toward a coup d'état or a revolution (i.e., a democratic order).

Russia's view is that the major powers negotiate with each other, in accordance with their respective power and willingness to escalate, where the boundaries between their spheres of influence lie. The smaller states have to fit in there.

In this thinking, the U.S. overstretched its sphere of influence vis-à-vis Russia in its phase of sole world power. They ventured too close to Russia - as well as too close to China in the Pacific. Great powers, however, should strive to maintain distances, establish buffer states and keep their distance because of surprises. In this thinking in geopolitical zones of influence of the determining great powers, it is now appropriate, since the USA is no longer the sole world power, to take back this American overstretching. This could be agreed by treaty, as was done in Yalta in 1945, or it would have to be achieved by force. Whereby force includes both military and civilian means, which can complement each other in the context of hybrid warfare.

Either way: The restoration of a new balance in the zones of influence of the great powers must be achieved. Unbalanced orders always evolve into a new balance. They cannot remain unbalanced. In the process, the stronger states prevail. In this way of thinking, the references to the right of states to self-determination, the inviolability of their sovereignty and the right to freely choose alliances are no more than propaganda behind which the USA hides geopolitical interests.

For the last four federal governments, this thinking should have been overcome. It was dismissed as "19th century". In contrast, for the present and the future, non-interference in the internal affairs of other states should be replaced by the responsibility to protect. It means that states have the right, even the duty, to intervene in other states if the government there threatens the population with the most serious crimes. As it was implemented in Libya when Gaddafi's troops threatened to attack Benghazi. And why now the situation of the Uighurs in China must trigger reactions from the West.

All societies should have the right to shake off authoritarian rule, organize democratically, and receive the support of democracies worldwide in the process. That is why Foreign Minister Westerwelle was in Tahrir Square in Egypt and EU High Representative Ashton was in the Euromaidan in Ukraine. Finally, all states should cooperate in a multilateral order that no longer recognizes zones of influence and regional superpowers. The asymmetric order of great powers and zones of influence should be replaced by an alliance for multilateralism. Tragically for German foreign policy, all three projects never had a chance to be implemented and thus failed, and currently the policy of zones of influence and the ban on intervention is visibly prevailing.

But the enforcement of these three principles: Responsibility to Protect, Democratization, Self-Determination, no federal government had backed them with capabilities. I wonder if they thought that the mindset would be enough to put things in order. In any case, President Putin is now showing the world public that these are empty words that cannot be enforced against the conflicting claims of the great powers that think and act in terms of zones of influence. Unless the U.S. takes up the cause and continues to act as the primary world power, which it no longer is in the eyes of Russia (and China). But the EU states cannot rely on America in the long run.

The politician with the highest approval ratings in the U.S. at the moment demanded that the U.S. government send the mobilized soldiers to the border with Mexico rather than to Eastern Europe. Donald Trump. His prospects of becoming the next president are so good that the federal government should now be forced to provide answers to the basic questions of international governance that it can enforce. President Biden's hands are tied domestically vis-à-vis Russia, as not even a third of citizens would support engagement over Ukraine. And there are elections in November.
Russia wants to gut the EU and divide the NATO countries

Russia will continue to pursue its goals of dividing the NATO states apart, taking away the EU's ability to make political decisions, and bringing Europe under its influence. Unlike in earlier times, it has no effective resistance to expect from European states in this reach for an expanded zone of influence. President Putin has completely upset the diplomatic situation in Europe with forceful troop movements. Turkey is offering to act as a mediator, Hungary is warning against escalation, as is Germany, fear of Russian pressure is rising in the Baltic states, and Sweden and Finland are facing Russian claims to remain permanently neutral. The United States is organizing the cohesion of the NATO states, but the question is how long it will last. In the EU, there seems to be a lack of awareness of the severity of the threat to the independent development of the integration community. Russia wants to gut the EU.

President Putin has clearly and openly communicated his goals in two treaty proposals: The former Soviet republics are to be placed under Moscow's direct influence; Scandinavia and Eastern Europe are to act as buffers to Western Europe; the American and European security space is to be severed. The question he now faces is whether he sees the present moment as favorable to push through his goals, for which he would have to use force and would face some resistance. Or whether he is stalling for time because the U.S. is turning away from Europe anyway, the European states are increasingly at odds with each other, and he can realize his goals successively.


// About the expert

Prof. Dr. Thomas Jäger has held the Chair of International Politics and Foreign Policy at the University of Cologne since 1999. His research focuses on international relations as well as American and German foreign policy. //


Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

https://www.focus.de/politik/ausland..._48157399.html

The European ambitions have no chance, realistically seen. On this topic, and many others as well.