steinmeier5_Armend Nimani_AFP_Getty Images_soldiers

Politics

重整欧洲军备控制

Aug 26, 2016 Frank-Walter Steinmeier

柏林—欧洲安全，出乎许多人意料，再一次受到了威胁。因此，再一次，欧洲安全必须成为我们的政治日程重点。

即使在2014年乌克兰冲突爆发前，也已经有越来越多的信号表明对立阵营之间正在酝酿冲突。但是，这一新冲突并非由共产主义与资本主义的对立决定，而是由社会和政治秩序纠纷——关于自由、民主、法治和人权的纠纷——以及由地缘政治势力范围斗争决定。

俄罗斯吞并克里米亚违反了国际法，也让欧洲安全架构的基础受到了考验。此外，如乌克兰所表明的，冲突的性质已经发生了剧变。所谓的混合战争和非国家行动方所起的作用越来越大。

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Subscribe now to gain greater access to Project Syndicate – including every commentary and our entire On Point suite of subscriber-exclusive content – starting at less than $5 per month.

Subscribe Now

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 32 Comments on this article

M M Sep 13, 2016

As a first and immediate step and since Germany is contributing only an estimated 1.19% of its GDP into NATO, which is by far below the threshold of 2%, whilst Greece which is contributing and has always contributed over 2% of its GDP into NATO, it is only fair for Germany to grant the differential between the 1.19% of the German GDP and the 2% of the Greek GDP in debt write-off to Greece. Bearing on mind that Germany shall remain a winner since Germany had made huge profits by selling Greece defunct armouries in the first place.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Rafiq Tschannen Aug 30, 2016

The main problem with such agreements is that institutions such as the CIA, MOSSAD, 'Special Forces' (of any nation), think they are outside of any laws. For whom are these agreements then? May be for the small players such as the Swiss arms industry.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Brian Shannon Aug 30, 2016

Hi Frank,

I'm a fan of yours, but I'm not a fan of war.

The only threats to the EU are internal threats.

Russia, the U.S., China, India, the man in the Moon, or any other entity *are not* interested in invading and occupying Europe. Full stop.

NATO was created, not to punish the former USSR (and today's Russia) every time they did something that Europeans didn't like. Rather, NATO was created to maintain the peace in Europe by providing sufficient deterrence to Moscow, so that they wouldn't attack.

And yes, they might have won, had they actually attacked.

Without NATO resorting to nuclear weapons, NATO would've lost the battle for Europe in 3-4 days, at any given point through the entire Cold War. That's how numerically superior the Soviets were compared to NATO. (You know that)

But NATO was never about winning -- it was about creating a cost (and not just in rouble terms) that was too high for the Soviets to stand.

Ergo, we had peace.

My advice, stay with what has worked for 70 years! Continue to make both conventional war and nuclear war too costly for the Russians to contemplate, and let's hope they return the favour to the EU.

Yes, by all means, sign up some Arms Control agreements with Russia. But remember, the EU will be expected to live by the terms of those agreements -- not just Russia.

And the EU won't have America around forever to backstop every incident.

America is leaving *the American Sector in Europe* for the PacRim nations, which currently represent 58% of the global economy ($91 trillion+ by 2020)

Before the EU begins to create an EU army to enable it to punish Russia every time it does something the EU doesn't like, I respectfully suggest that the EU gets its socio-economic house in order. Another World War in Europe is just what we don't need.

It was a pleasure reading your fine essay. Thank you for posting it at ProSyn.

As always, very best regards, JBS
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
john Fahy Aug 29, 2016

Surely part of the problem is Western Europe's continued bear baiting?
We are continuously being informed "Russia," beating down on the Ukraine?
However, history tells us the Ukraine is part of Russia and geographically still is.
The main reason that Western Europe appear to covert the Ukraine is for its grain and sun flower seeds.
After all both the British and Dutch became rich shipping grain from the Baltic to the Mediterranean countries.
Hence, although arms control seems to be in fashion maybe better to pay the piper?
- John Brian Shannon Aug 31, 2016
  
  Hi Vidvuds Beldavs,
  
  You state:
  
  "EU actions are defensive and definitely not 'bear baiting'. Russia could choose to resolve the problem of Crimea by referring the matter to the International Court and abiding by the decision of the Court." -- Vidvuds Beldavs
  
  So, why would Russia (or any country) choose to resolve a matter in International Court, when the Crimean people voted 97.1% in favour of re-joining Russia?
  
  It's been decided by the people, for the people.
  
  Courts and International Courts exist to enforce the will of the people when the decisions of the people *aren't* being respected.
  
  And if you know anything about Democracy, it's that the will of the majority of citizens far exceeds the mandate of any court.
  
  Best regards, JBS
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Aug 29, 2016
  
  @vidvuds
  
  'Relations between Ukraine and the European Union (EU) are currently shaped through the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP), a foreign policy instrument of the EU designed for the countries it borders. The EU is seeking an increasingly close relationship with Ukraine, going beyond co-operation, to gradual economic integration and deepening of political co-operation. Ukraine is a priority partner within the ENP' wiki
  
  AKA expansion
  
  'The Black Sea Fleet (Chernomorsky Flot) is a large operational-strategic command of the Russian (and formerly Soviet) Navy, operating in the Black Sea and the Mediterranean Sea since the late 18th century. Its ships are based in various harbors of the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov, while its aviation and infrastructure is based in various locations in Crimea and Krasnodar Krai.' wiki
  
  'A bit more than a couple of years ago Washington and Brussels had plans to make Sevastopol a NATO naval base' strategic-culture.org 2016
  
  There was some opinion prior to the event that Putin would not let the Crimea naval base go
  
  For Ukraine join the EU all members have to agree
  
  'The Dutch Ukraine–European Union Association Agreement referendum was a referendum on the approval of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine, held in the Netherlands on 6 April 2016. The referendum question was: "Are you for or against the Approval Act of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Ukraine?
  
  With a turnout of 32.28%, the threshold for a valid referendum was met. 61% of votes were against the Approval Act. As the Act was rejected, the States General has to enact a follow-up law to either repeal the Act or put it into effect after all.' wiki
  
  Whilst the option of a referendum was available to the Dutch citizen the hurdle of 300,000 signatures to trigger one was in the opinion of some deliberately made near impossible to achieve. 427,000 valid signatures where collected digitally bypassing traditional methods, otherwise the referendum would not have occurred
  
  I will leave you to draw your own conclusions but I suggest it is geopolitical and not supported by EU voters, in fact it is not even discussed with EU voters
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Vidvuds Beldavs Aug 29, 2016
  
  The Russian Federation and Ukraine both have long histories but they are also newly sovereign states that gained their independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. One could say that a sovereign Ukraine was recognized before a sovereign Russia insofar as Ukraine was a founding member of the United Nations and the Russian Federation was not.
  If Russia had not chosen to violate international law and norms fundamental to the security of Europe there would be no sanctions against Russia. EU actions are defensive and definitely not "bear baiting."
  Russia could choose to resolve the problem of Crimea by referring the matter to the International Court and abiding by the decision of the Court.
  Russia could choose to resolve the conflict in Eastern Ukraine in a series of steps starting with permitting OESC observers unfettered access to the border of Ukraine with Russia in occupied areas of Ukraine.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Petey Bee Aug 28, 2016

"principles... recognition of international law – that are non-negotiable for us in the West"

from an alternate universe, I suppose.

Good article anyway.
- Steve Hurst Aug 28, 2016
  
  I am just waiting for Frank-Walter and Valdimir to duet 'Midnight Train to Georgia'
  ...
  Said he's going back
  (Going back to find)
  To a simpler place and time, oh yes he is
  ...
  On that midnight train to Georgia...
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Aug 28, 2016

In this commentary Germany's foreign minister Frank Walter Steinmeier is seeking to re-launch arms control in Europe, as a "tried and tested means" to reduce risk, and to promote "transparency, and confidence building between Russia and the West." Germany is chairing the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe this year, and the author says, despite the annexaton of Crimea and the hybrid warfare in Eastern Ukraine, "Russia has repeatedly called for a new debate on conventional arms control in Europe." He insists we all should "take Russia at its word!"
Ahead of the NATO summit on July 8-9 in Warsaw, Steinmeier had warned against "warmongering", after the military alliance carried out exercises in Eastern Europe. It conducted a 10-day drill in June simulating a Russian attack on Poland. He said that extensive Nato manoeuvres were counterproductive to regional security and could inflame tensions with Russia. He urged the NATO to replace the exercises with more dialogue and co-operation with Russia.
But how true is Russia to "its word?" While Steinmeier says the West shouldn't inflame the situation further through "sabre-rattling," which wouldn't bring security, Russia has been strengthening its military presence near its borders, holding exercises near areas of eastern Ukraine controlled by pro-Russian rebels. During the NATO exercises Russian warplanes swirled in the Baltic region, seeing the Alliance as an aggressor. But Steinmeier still believes that creating "pretexts" would renew an old confrontation, saying not military solutions but a policy of deterrence would help resolve a conflict. But the West is not at war with Russia.
Needless to say many didn't share his bona fides. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said Russia was seeking to create "a zone of influence through military means", with "massive militarisation" at NATO borders. The commander of US troops in Europe said the Alliance could not rapidly deploy large forces to Eastern Europe like the Russians, who are said to be able to move huge formations and lots of equipment a long distance very fast. However Russia has repeatedly complained about the presence of NATO troops near its borders being a threat to its security.
Steinmeier points out that "the West has followed a two-track approach to its relations with Russia: deterrence and détente." Despite tensions "NATO renewed its commitment to this dual strategy at its Warsaw Summit," adopting the "necessary measures to provide military reassurance," while reaffirming its "political responsibility for cooperative security in Europe."
The myriad of arms-control agreements Russia had signed with the West had been reneged on. The 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE) limits the number of heavy weapons deployed between the Atlantic Ocean and the Urals mountains. In 2007 Putin suspended the pact, marking the sign of a worsening relationship between the US and Russia. With the annexation of Crimea in 2014 Russia violated the 1994 Budapest memorandum, which stated that the US, UK and Russia would guarantee Ukraine's security and territorial integrity if it gave up its nuclear arsenal.
Indeed, Steinmeier insists on reaching out to Russia, because he sees unity more crucial than division "to avoid an upward spiral of antagonism and confrontation." For security reasons the West ought to take Russia on board to tackle problems like "Islamist terrorism, savage conflicts in the Middle East, failing states, and the refugee crisis." Since "security capabilities on both sides are stretched to the limit. Nobody wins and everyone loses if we exhaust ourselves in a new arms race."
But he should - to start with - revive the dialogue with Russia through the NATO-Russia Council, set up in 2002 to demonstrate new relations between Russia and the Alliance. Putin at that time seemed have no objection to the Baltic States joining NATO. But the practical co-operation had been suspended, following the annexation of Crimea in 2014.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hayda do Baydy Aug 28, 2016

A well sounded article, but with a reality flaw

You ask yourself, why Germany’s Foreign Minister is recruiting a former well known politician of the Bonner Republic, Willy Brandt, and with this he doesn’t take into account the new geopolitical relevancy of the reunited Germany?
Mr. Frank-Walter Steinmeier begins from 2004, but the war in Ukraine is a copy of the Chechen war. End even after the Chechen war has the reunited Germany helped Moscow to build its armed forces. Without this help and training, Putin couldn’t have invaded Ukraine. And look now, what a terrible dictatorship you have in Chechnya with leading connections to ISIL-ISIS, despite the observers of the OSCE, where the Moscowian dictatorship has also a say.
It’s remarkable, that German security services have warned before a false detection of chemical weapons in Iraq, but couldn’t warn about an invasion into Ukraine. And in Syria “were” plenty of chemical weapons.
If Berlin can’t take lessons from the Chechen war, it is doubtable, if Mr. Steinmeier thinks about an arms regulation for the right reasons, which he also calls “arms control”, what is in-itself a question, from where such a term might have even involved.
At the end, it might be a getaway for the new global responsibility of a reunited Germany.
Such an escaping is typical for Steinmeier’s party, the SPD, which couldn’t after the Cold War find itself in a new reality.
So, the former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, and now employee of Gazprom, might lay aside, that, in times of the Third Reich, the German fugitives of the SPD were all murdered in the Soviet Union. Willy Brandt had luck, that he fled instead to Scandinavia.
A better understanding of the situation might have the current Chancellor Angela Merkel, who is herself aware about the danger of Moscow’s propaganda machine. Mr. Steinmeier doesn’t assess this cognition with one word.
Of course, Mr. Steinmeier is right with his arms regulation on the background of the Yugoslavian war, or the so-called Baltic conflict, were from arms “trade”, or smuggling, have benefited post-Soviet elements in Moscow, Ukraine, Romania… But, it seems, that Steinmeier hasn’t this in mind, referring to Cuba in this matter, and not towards the arms trade between Berlin and Moscow, even or just in relation to the Chechen conflict.
I don’t want here breed suspicion against Berlin. Rather, you should take into account that the Berlin of the reunited Germany was built on the neoliberalism after the Cold War, which is now under scrutiny.
And now we find ourselves in such a situation in Germany, were millions of so-called Russian-“Germans” and former SPD-voters, vote in the former West Germany for right-wing parties like AfD, which are backed from Moscow, and are supported thanks Moscow’s propaganda machine. It reminds you, sometimes more or less, of the days of Stalin’s propaganda machine.
---
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Aug 28, 2016

The German political establishment has come back from the summer holiday fully charged and firing like an AK47 in all directions. Herr W. Schäuble said today there must be no more new debts from 2017, therefore sorry Frank-Walter, the EU & US tax payers have run out of money, and you may need to look elsewhere.
- Steve Hurst Aug 28, 2016
  
  @M M
  
  I think Herr Schauble is waiting to see the Italian Job outcome in a couple of months. The probability of that being a headache is higher than all the EU Nato members paying the 2% GPD that their military budget is supposed to be or Russia invading. Anyway Herr Schauble has to expect another 300,000 (German estimate) migrants in Germany in 2016, which may be an optimistic figure
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Aug 28, 2016

Unfortunately you only have to pull out a few maps to see how far back the current mindset goes

The map of the Holy Roman Empire, centred on Germany and Austria, 11th century onward until Napoleon ended it

The Mitteleuropa map of the 19th century German project, effectively behind the idea of WW1 and WW2

The map of the Visegrad group which also has a correlation to a regional project way back

The roots of seeing Russia as a threat go way back and Napoleon and Hitler both mounted invasions of Russia

As much as anything this looks like a cultural issue

Germany may or may not have “Innere Führung” but do others
- M M Aug 28, 2016
  
  Steve, the current political and financial establishments will never listen because they are not used to listening. They live in a world of their own, they have the M. Qaddafi syndrome. When Qaddafi was captured he asked his captors, what have I done to you? After more than four decades, he was still oblivious to what he had done to his own people and to others!
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Aug 28, 2016

There are already multiple armies (regular and irregular) in the EU. Setting up an additional army and another central military command to mirror the dysfunctional EU Commission is put simply, a big waste of time and of money that does not exist. Assuming such an army or a military command is formed, how is it going to work among 28 nation states that speak several languages with different mind sets and different agendas in todays’ cyber age where they can easily be hacked? Setting up such an army or central military command is like handing the “Nuclear Button” to a mental asylum. And where is this central military command going to be based? Not in Germany, to add to its already existing numerous military installations? Greece and Turkey who are part of NATO are constantly in a near state of war and this proposed army shall act against whom, the illegal unarmed migrants or Russia with its extensive nuclear arsenal? Putting aside all these arguments, in today’s times when no one is willing to pull the trigger or to push the button, since this shall lead to everyone’s destruction, it is best to pursue the policy of peace. The EU and the US leaders are better focus their attention and energy on promoting “Peace and Prosperity and Real Freedom for all”, to stop the non-sense of “Austerity” and “Unrealistic Reforms”, and the people should vote for no one that deviates from promising of achieving these aims.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Yury Mechkovsky Aug 28, 2016

US missile defence system to be deployed in East Europe was not pointed by the author. But for the Russians it is an unilateral step that also reduce the truth. As Putin wants in response to put on service new short range nuclear missiles in Kaliningrad/Konigsberg the US/EU defence initiative conducts to the further escalation also. As for me it's more serious issue than drones control.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
portocala mechanica Aug 27, 2016

In my opinion no one of the States in the actual EU will survive alone in the history storm which come.
That for we have to stay united, even more integrated, if we hope to preserve our identity, not to be passed in anonymity and dissipation.
And yes it is obvious we need an army to protect us, at whatever cost.
Sooner or later this will happened, this army will be built, so better start now.
Of course the subject is Europe and the close danger but I think we forget the far east danger.
We forget the Mongolians reach France some time ago.
it is not impossible the history to repeat itself.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Aug 27, 2016

You will have the same problem with an EU army as you have with the EZ. Factions within the arrangement wanting to warp collective action to suit their individual agenda. Dont pick on me and tell me to stop shouting or my big brother will come down to the playground. Until some EZ members display more sense I would not give them a toy gun let alone an EU army. Reviving arms control is directly opposite to what some of the localise calls are for at the moment. Before there is any effective call for arms control there has to be a unified position within the EU and there isnt one.

As far as Crimea goes. There was opinion well before the event that Putin would not be prepared to lose the Russian Black Sea Naval Base so please tell me if this outcome was a surprise to you I would be most interested. EU siren songs are part of the problem and there is a long list of them. The Arab Spring, Ukraine, Migrants welcome, no not welcome. Then there is Syria - Assad is not acceptable, but then in reality neither is the likely outcome if Assad goes, so what exactly is it the EU wants

If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem
- Steve Hurst Aug 27, 2016
  
  @M M
  
  Not a good idea to forget the ballot box
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- M M Aug 27, 2016
  
  Steve, this is what is currently being negotiated with all the shuttling diplomacy between the US and Russia, Germany and the other EU countries, the Turkish parliament voting this week-end on re-normalising ties with Israel, etc. They will find the money. They managed to find it (print it) during the last 8 years. They have become experts at it by now. Ultimately, the EU tax payers will have to fund it, a bit like the Brits when they renewed Trident with the US a few weeks ago among the confusion, the Brits tax payers will have to fund this one. The questions that arise are what are the positions of Iran and Israel in all of this? And how much or what is being asked as a price by the Russians and Turkey, possibly a few more million refugees into Germany? A compromise on the “Burquini”? Who knows…
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Aug 27, 2016
  
  @M M
  
  There is not enough money in the system to subsidise all the buffer states or surrogate buffer states that Germany would like to build around it within and without the EU - which now include N Africa. Apart from anything else the negative contributions half the EU members make will come under stress as EZ imbalances grow.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- M M Aug 27, 2016
  
  Steve, there are two elephants in the room, (1) the US with the question of the “free riders” and this includes Germany who is housing over 50 declared US Military Bases, (2) “Turkey’s Erdogan” which continues to shift orbits like a misguided satellite. If the rumours in the ME become reality, one could see the re-emergence of the Ottoman Empire (back to the 20s’-30s’) to keep the ME in Check, under the hospices of “Turkey’s Erdogan” with its new Sponsor “Russia”. Recent events on the ground in Syria and in Iraq, would confirm this theory. Now, if “Turkey’s Erdogan” shifts to the East Orbit (and the recent military coup was just a cover up and a perfect excuse for this shift) and it is still part of NATO, this will give the EU and especially Germany one of its worst nightmares but very welcomed news for the US who shall use it as an excuse to pull its military out, downsize and let the current “Free Riders” pick up the tap, in other words, the EU tax payers shall ultimately have to pick up the defence bill (especially the one of Germany) or the Germans themselves will have to pay for it (in addition to housing the millions of Turkish Citizens) and most certainly Greece shall be again in the spotlight being on the front line of all of this new geopolitical nightmare with no money (another reason why “Brexit means Brexit”, so the British tax payers are off the hook regarding any such scenario). Merkel and Mr Steinmeier have decided to start from now lobbying for customers to pay for their defence bill in the event of NATO’s going belly up since the UK has now confirmed on who’s side they are and “Turkey’s Erdogan” shifting Eastward with a huge “lucrative price tag” attached to it. The US shall be in a win - win situation again, shall pursue its plans of retrenchment and of withdrawal militarily from the world stage and focussing on “Free Trade” (this “Free” word keeps on popping up again) and nothing but. In summary, Merkel and Co are better focus their attention on the “Burquini” issue, this is a matter of extreme national importance and yet it cost nothing to resolve and is not even “Made In Germany”.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Aug 27, 2016

There is NATO, no need for new armies. What is needed is proper, transparent and fair distribution (allocation) of the Defence Budgets in the EU. A new EU army will take us back to the “Cold War”, to the 30s’. Why is this number 30 keeps on popping up lately? Is it because the ammunitions of the 80s’ have run out? A fifth term of the Clinton Administration is more than certain to take the world back to the 30s’.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Peter Schneider Aug 26, 2016

As painful as it is to say but we feel more threatened by our own government than by Putin. Putin might be a security risk for Europe but Steinmeier is certainly a much bigger security risk - as painful as it is to say. He was one of the chief architects of Willkommenskultur which led to illegal mass immigration of millions of people (most of them muslims) into our country last year. Later, 1.2 million immigrants were officially admitted but the dark figure could be much higher because most of them were not even registered upon entering the territory. This year, the numbers remain high. Whatever you may think about Putin, at least his actions seem to be rational - but you cannot say that about our own government.

They seem to be more interested in the territorial integrity of foreign countries than in the territorial integrity of their own country. They call for weapon ceilings but reject immigration ceilings (everybody is invited to come). They ask for recognition of the law while they themselves are in permantent breach of the rule of law (GG art. 16a, TFEU art. 125 etc.). They try to stabilize foreign countries while destabilizing their own country. They blather about arms control while in their own country the authorities cannot keep up with the demand for weapon licences and anti-animal spray is now sold at the drugstore (which might sound ridiculous for Americans who buy their guns in the supermarket but in Germany the state monopoly on violence was sacrosanct until very recently).

So if our government now makes a commitment to "shoulder responsibility for Europe's security" - then it can be only seen as real-life comedy. What other reaction than gallows humour is to be expected? The Bataclan victims cannot laugh any longer however. But our political class even dares to campaign for better security in the rallies for the upcoming regional elections - while everybody knows that they themselves are responsible for the bad security situation in Germany.

To be honest - what would really improve the security situation in Europe would be their deselection in 2017 because this might be the only language they understand and Europe understands. What Putin does is of secondary importance in comparison to that.
- M M Aug 27, 2016
  
  Peter, they seem to detest the Burquini as well because they cannot produce it and export it, someone in Australia has thought of it before them.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Aug 26, 2016
  
  @Peter
  
  I hope you understand that by questioning the EU elite and their local Pontifex Euro Maximus this makes you in their eyes a stupid plebian populist and a risk to the right sort of quality controlled IS9000 benchmarked democracy. However you will be in growing company. You should note that the British Empire from peak to the start of break up was only circa 50 years. The Roman Empire lasted a great deal longer but they had more effective management techniques for the plebs which didn't make it into IS9000
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Public Aug 26, 2016

Drivel. Invasion of Iraq was a contravention of international law. How many died in Crimes vs in Iraq? Russia was quite ready to work with the west in the early Putin years but duplicity by the west re chechnya pushed Russia back to its old ussr style antagonism. I can only suppose it was intentional by the west, with arms industry lobbyists, like the author to the left seemingly is, pushing Bush to antagonise Russia as that is how projects like the F22 get bankrolled.
- dan baur Aug 27, 2016
  
  @Steve
  Indeed, Bush fits neatly between his buddies Clinton and Obama. But facts are facts - he had decent relations with Russia.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- Steve Hurst Aug 27, 2016
  
  @dan
  
  You cannot continually postulate that all things Republican are good and all things Democrat are bad, it is highly illogical as Spock would say, and weakens your arguments. Furthermore a lot of folks who are not American do not even identify the difference and just see it as a continuum of usually poor US foreign policy. If you get out more and try the macadamised roads and cafe society of Europe you will find this out
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
- dan baur Aug 27, 2016
  
  Blame it on Bush? Turns out icy relations are more recent. Obama /Clinton recent.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Steve Hurst Aug 26, 2016

I believe it is called escalation. There are EU members who are loud in calling for troops to be deployed to the East. And it was the EU that was overtly calling on Ukraine to look to the EU. It takes two to tango
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/PSwKtOazh

重整欧洲军备控制

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

重整欧洲军备控制

Introductory Offer: Save 30% on PS Digital

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification