|
Thursday, May 7, 2015
Peinlicher Umgang mit dem Gedenken
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Fifteen Years of Putin
As the Russian President looks forward to the fifteenth anniversary of his first election to office, we consider some of the factors that explain his extraordinary political success.
The latest documentary on Putin shown by Russian television appears to be timed to coincide with Putin’s 15 years in office.
I should say that I do not entirely understand the timing. Putin became acting Prime Minister on 9th August 1999. He became formally Prime Minister on 16th August 1999. It was fairly obvious (at least to me) that he was running things and that Yeltsin had been pushed aside thereafter.
Putin then became Acting President on 31st December 1999. He was elected President (with 53% of the vote) on 26th March 2000. He was formerly sworn in as President on 7th May 2000.
None of these dates seem to me to correspond with any anniversary over the last few days and as I have said Putin was actually exercising effective power for some months before he formally became President.
Putting that aside, I don’t think anyone would seriously disagree that he has been far and away the dominant figure in international politics over the last 15 years. Even his many detractors have to agree. The vast literature they produce abusing him shows what an extraordinary hold over the world’s imagination he has.
So what qualities does Putin have that have made him so politically dominant?
The first point to make is that Putin is powerful because he is a Russian who is the leader of Russia, which is one of the world’s most powerful countries.
This banal point is rarely made but the fact is that if Putin had been born in Guatemala or Katmandu or indeed in Britain or France or Japan he would not have made anything like the impact that he has. Much of what people attribute to “Putin” (whether for good or ill) they should correctly attribute to Russia.
I have previously spoken of the danger of the unhealthy conflation of Putin with Russia that is so common in the West. Russia is more than Putin and Russia matters. Indeed it is one of the great powers of this world and the last 15 years have been a lesson proving that. Westerners who treated Russia as down and out and who now rage against Putin are basically angry because he and Russia have proved them wrong.
Putin does nonetheless possess certain essential qualities that explain his success. I would emphasise three:
1. Putin is an exceptional politician who understands the Russian mind. It is no exaggeration to say that his heart beats with Russia’s. That does not mean that all Russians always agree with him or that everything he does is popular. Nonetheless he has an extraordinary instinct (which no amount of opinion polling can ever replicate) for what most Russians want or think.
2. He listens to advice and takes it from the right people. I have never felt with Putin that he makes his decisions on the hoof or on whim.
He has put together a very capable and professional team to which he is intensely loyal and which in turn is loyal to him.
He is careful to take his advice from those who have genuine knowledge of a subject. Thus he takes advice on financial or economic policy issues from people like Ulyukaev and Siluanov (and formerly from Kudrin and Gref) and on security issues from people like Patrushev and Shoigu and not from the enthusiastic amateurs that most other leaders (including previously Gorbachev) like to take advice from. The result is that his decisions are invariably well-informed even if they are not always right.
3. He has the power of decision. We saw this in action last year when he acted decisively over the Crimea. We have seen it again over the last few days when he went to Yerevan to commemorate the Armenian genocide. Contrast this with the contorted obfuscations and over-complicated and pusillanimous evasions of western leaders who have arguably less to lose where relations with Turkey are concerned.
Needless to say, precisely because he makes decisions, leaders of countries like those of Saudi Arabia, Israel or Turkey, respect him even when they oppose him. By contrast Western leaders, who appear to have all lost the power of decision, respond with bafflement and jealousy.
I don’t pick out these three factors as the only ones that explain Putin’s success. Others will point to his high intelligence and his capacity for hard work.
Some of his strengths also reflect weaknesses. His grasp of the hearts and minds of Russians does not extend to the intelligentsia to the same degree, which is why he has been less successful with them (though that is probably to underestimate what difficult people some of them are). This is a pity because his public comments show that he is actually a well read and even erudite man. I suspect that a lot of the trouble is that deep down they feel that he doesn’t pay them enough attention, which given the extraordinary demands on his time must be difficult to do.
Regardless, those are my views about some of the reasons why Putin dominates both Russian and international politics to such an amazing degree with no challenge in sight.
Cohen: Kiev Deliberately Undermining Minsk 2 Agreement
The US-backed Ukrainian leadership is making every effort to sabotage the Minsk accord, Stephen F. Cohen emphasized, warning that the alternative to the Minsk 2 agreement is a larger war between Moscow and Washington
The Ukrainian leadership is deliberately undermining the Minsk 2 agreement, brokered by Germany, France and Russia in February 2015, underscored Stephen Cohen, a prominent American historian and professor of Russian studies at Princeton University and New York University, noting that Kiev can do nothing significant without Washington’s backing.
The historian referred to a number of legislative bills signed by Ukraine’s President Poroshenko, who evidently reversed the promises made by Kiev during the Minsk negotiations. Although Poroshenko himself approved the Minsk accord, since then Kiev has acted in contradiction to the deal.
Furthermore, several days ago the Ukrainian President announced that “any concept of federalization or home rule was a poisonous cancer that would destroy Ukraine,” the professor noted.
Another nail in the coffin of the Minsk deal is the legislation banning Communist ideology and symbols and eventually equating communism to Nazism. The point is that the majority of those civilians who supported the Communist party of Ukraine are living in the East, the historian underscored.
On the other hand, the legislation is not a good sign for democracy in Kiev, since it imposes censorship. The Communist party of Ukraine has long been a very important party, enjoying public support in the country. Now it is banned and anyone who speaks in favor of this party is committing a criminal offense, according to the new law, the historian pointed out.
“Electorally, politically it is undemocratic,” Stephen Cohen noted.
At the same time Kiev is supporting ultra-nationalists, adding fuel to the fire of the political crisis in the country.
Remarkably, Kiev’s anti-Minsk stance is evidently supported by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Washington, the historian emphasized.
The professor noted that Washington continues to blame the Kremlin of the Ukrainian crisis and “military aggression” against Kiev. Still, the US and NATO leaderships failed to provide any evidence of Russia’s alleged engagement in the Ukrainian turmoil.
By aggravating further tensions with Moscow over Ukraine’s crisis, Washington and its allies risk dealing a severe blow to the current geopolitical status quo in Europe. Russia is still an important element of global security and it cannot be isolated, the historian stressed, referring to the fact that since the West imposed sanctions on Moscow, the Kremlin has signed a huge number of international deals, much more that the US itself.
While Washington urges EU leaders to toughen their sanctions policy against Russia, it is obvious that the majority of NATO European allies are against direct confrontation with Moscow and a military resolution of the conflict. The US’ irresponsible policy may lead to an undesirable transformation of geopolitics in the European region, the professor warned.
How the Senate Armed Services Committee Is Undermining Minsk II
A peaceful solution to the crisis in Ukraine may be at risk
By James Carden
The Nation
On April 28 three European foreign ministers—Serbia’s Ivica Dačić, Germany’s Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Switzerland’s Didier Burkhalter—met in their capacities as members of the OSCE’s Ministerial Troika to discuss the latest developments in eastern Ukraine. According to the OSCE, the foreign ministers “reiterated that [the Ukraine] crisis can be resolved only through peaceful means and that the political process in that regard should be advanced without delay” and “called on all sides to fully and unconditionally respect the cease-fire.”
Meanwhile, on April 26, Financial Times reported that Kiev is coming under increased pressure from Western European capitals to do its part to implement the Minsk cease-fire agreement. According to FT, German diplomats expressed frustration that Kiev is “dragging its feet” in implementing the agreement. For his part, French President Francois Holland has warned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that “the only line of conduct is the full implementation of the Minsk accord.”
Yet it seems these calls for a peaceful solution to the crisis are not only falling on deaf ears, but are also purposefully being undermined, in Washington.
To wit: the same day the aforementioned troika met in Belgrade, the 28th, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on “United States Security Policy in Europe,” though perhaps, given the tenor of the hearing, it should have been held under the rubric “The Russians are Coming!”
Armed Services Committee Chairman, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), got right to the point, running down a list of Russia’s sins—real and imagined. He derided the Obama administration’s “so-called reset” policy and warned of Mr. Putin’s “neo-imperial objectives.” McCain accused Russia of violating the Minsk II cease-fire agreement and hectored NATO allies to follow the example of Poland and Estonia and increase its defense expenditures. Unbelievably, McCain closed his remarks by telling the gallery, which included a visiting delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians, that “none of us wants to return to the Cold War.”
Depressingly, there seemed to be little daylight between McCain and the committee’s ranking member, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI). Both he and McCain have called on President Obama to “provide defense lethal assistance” to Ukraine. Only Senators Angus King (I-ME) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) expressed any skepticism towards the idea of sending lethal aid to Ukraine. The situation that pertains in the Washington of 2015, is in stark contrast to the previous Cold War. Today, it would seem, Democrats and Republicans are engaged in a contest of who can ‘out-hawk’ the other on Russia.
McCain and Reed set the tone of Tuesday’s hearing by striking a martial note at the outset, and the witnesses, representing the Council of Foreign Relations, the Fletcher School of Diplomacy and the Atlantic Council, were all too happy to pick up where the Senators left off.
The most hawkish of the three, the Atlantic Council’s Ian Brzezinski (perhaps channeling his father Zbigniew), opined that the United States should impose tougher sanctions on Russia in order to “aggressively shock the Russian economy by shutting off its energy and financial sectors from the global economy.” Further, Washington should “provide military equipment to Ukraine, including air defense and anti-tank weapons as well as key enablers, such as drones…”
Most alarmingly, however, was Brzezinski’s recommendation to grant the NATO supreme allied commander the “authorities necessary to deploy in real time against provocative Russian military operations,” thereby taking the decision to go to war with a nuclear armed power out of the hands of the commander in chief and transferring it to the NATO commander in Brussels.
Two days later, as it happened, it was that very NATO commander’s turn before the Armed Services Committee. US Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, who, according to a recent article in Der Spiegel is viewed by many European diplomats as a serial exaggerator, told the committee that NATO’s principle concern is a “revanchist Russia” which in his view is a “global, not regional” threat.
Since, in his view, the current lull in the fighting in eastern Ukraine is only allowing Russia to “prepare for another offensive” it would “not make sense to take any of our own options off the table.” Indeed, later on in the hearing, in response to a question from Senator McCain, the general said, “I support the use, um, [quickly correcting himself] the consideration, of offensive military aid …” His referencing of “offensive” weapons raised an eyebrow from Senator Reed who quickly interjected to ask if the general had misspoken. Breedlove confirmed that he had not.
Breedlove’s testimony also inadvertently helped confirm the basis of one of Russia’s principal objections to American policy: that it is being hedged in on all sides by the American military. Breedlove testified about what he called a Russia Strategic Initiative which seeks to coordinate the various combatant commands which border Russia: CENTCOM (US Central Command); EUCOM (US European Command); USNORTHCOM (US Northern Command); USPACOM (US Pacific Command), the better to respond to a future Russian offensive.
Breedlove also praised the US European Command’s Ukraine Joint Initiative which has carried out a series of 25 visits to Ukraine with the goal of helping Kiev identify and address its most urgent military needs. Breedlove also noted that NATO is “war gaming and table topping scenarios” in the event the US decides to arm Ukraine. Should we fail to send military assistance to Ukraine, the General warned, somewhat paradoxically, that “inaction is also an action and the Russians will react to that as well.”
And so, it is hard, given the tenor of the policy discussion on Capitol Hill over the past week, to escape the conclusion that President Obama is under intense pressure—not only from both political parties, but also, disturbingly, from the NATO supreme allied commander—to wade ever deeper into the Ukrainian morass.
A peaceful solution to the crisis in Ukraine may be at risk
By James Carden
The Nation
On April 28 three European foreign ministers—Serbia’s Ivica Dačić, Germany’s Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Switzerland’s Didier Burkhalter—met in their capacities as members of the OSCE’s Ministerial Troika to discuss the latest developments in eastern Ukraine. According to the OSCE, the foreign ministers “reiterated that [the Ukraine] crisis can be resolved only through peaceful means and that the political process in that regard should be advanced without delay” and “called on all sides to fully and unconditionally respect the cease-fire.”
Meanwhile, on April 26, Financial Times reported that Kiev is coming under increased pressure from Western European capitals to do its part to implement the Minsk cease-fire agreement. According to FT, German diplomats expressed frustration that Kiev is “dragging its feet” in implementing the agreement. For his part, French President Francois Holland has warned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that “the only line of conduct is the full implementation of the Minsk accord.”
Yet it seems these calls for a peaceful solution to the crisis are not only falling on deaf ears, but are also purposefully being undermined, in Washington.
To wit: the same day the aforementioned troika met in Belgrade, the 28th, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on “United States Security Policy in Europe,” though perhaps, given the tenor of the hearing, it should have been held under the rubric “The Russians are Coming!”
Armed Services Committee Chairman, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), got right to the point, running down a list of Russia’s sins—real and imagined. He derided the Obama administration’s “so-called reset” policy and warned of Mr. Putin’s “neo-imperial objectives.” McCain accused Russia of violating the Minsk II cease-fire agreement and hectored NATO allies to follow the example of Poland and Estonia and increase its defense expenditures. Unbelievably, McCain closed his remarks by telling the gallery, which included a visiting delegation of Ukrainian parliamentarians, that “none of us wants to return to the Cold War.”
Depressingly, there seemed to be little daylight between McCain and the committee’s ranking member, Senator Jack Reed (D-RI). Both he and McCain have called on President Obama to “provide defense lethal assistance” to Ukraine. Only Senators Angus King (I-ME) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) expressed any skepticism towards the idea of sending lethal aid to Ukraine. The situation that pertains in the Washington of 2015, is in stark contrast to the previous Cold War. Today, it would seem, Democrats and Republicans are engaged in a contest of who can ‘out-hawk’ the other on Russia.
McCain and Reed set the tone of Tuesday’s hearing by striking a martial note at the outset, and the witnesses, representing the Council of Foreign Relations, the Fletcher School of Diplomacy and the Atlantic Council, were all too happy to pick up where the Senators left off.
The most hawkish of the three, the Atlantic Council’s Ian Brzezinski (perhaps channeling his father Zbigniew), opined that the United States should impose tougher sanctions on Russia in order to “aggressively shock the Russian economy by shutting off its energy and financial sectors from the global economy.” Further, Washington should “provide military equipment to Ukraine, including air defense and anti-tank weapons as well as key enablers, such as drones…”
Most alarmingly, however, was Brzezinski’s recommendation to grant the NATO supreme allied commander the “authorities necessary to deploy in real time against provocative Russian military operations,” thereby taking the decision to go to war with a nuclear armed power out of the hands of the commander in chief and transferring it to the NATO commander in Brussels.
Two days later, as it happened, it was that very NATO commander’s turn before the Armed Services Committee. US Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove, who, according to a recent article in Der Spiegel is viewed by many European diplomats as a serial exaggerator, told the committee that NATO’s principle concern is a “revanchist Russia” which in his view is a “global, not regional” threat.
Since, in his view, the current lull in the fighting in eastern Ukraine is only allowing Russia to “prepare for another offensive” it would “not make sense to take any of our own options off the table.” Indeed, later on in the hearing, in response to a question from Senator McCain, the general said, “I support the use, um, [quickly correcting himself] the consideration, of offensive military aid …” His referencing of “offensive” weapons raised an eyebrow from Senator Reed who quickly interjected to ask if the general had misspoken. Breedlove confirmed that he had not.
Breedlove’s testimony also inadvertently helped confirm the basis of one of Russia’s principal objections to American policy: that it is being hedged in on all sides by the American military. Breedlove testified about what he called a Russia Strategic Initiative which seeks to coordinate the various combatant commands which border Russia: CENTCOM (US Central Command); EUCOM (US European Command); USNORTHCOM (US Northern Command); USPACOM (US Pacific Command), the better to respond to a future Russian offensive.
Breedlove also praised the US European Command’s Ukraine Joint Initiative which has carried out a series of 25 visits to Ukraine with the goal of helping Kiev identify and address its most urgent military needs. Breedlove also noted that NATO is “war gaming and table topping scenarios” in the event the US decides to arm Ukraine. Should we fail to send military assistance to Ukraine, the General warned, somewhat paradoxically, that “inaction is also an action and the Russians will react to that as well.”
And so, it is hard, given the tenor of the policy discussion on Capitol Hill over the past week, to escape the conclusion that President Obama is under intense pressure—not only from both political parties, but also, disturbingly, from the NATO supreme allied commander—to wade ever deeper into the Ukrainian morass.
Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
http://www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.
Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the earth. - Henry David Thoreau
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
http://www.space4peace.org
http://space4peace.blogspot.
Thank God men cannot fly, and lay waste the sky as well as the earth. - Henry David Thoreau
Tuesday, May 5, 2015
Breslau and Dresden to Be Liberated After Berlin
| Yuriy RUBTSOV | 06.05.2015 | 00:02 |
The last days of the Great Patriotic War the Hitler’s troops often fought in despair realizing that the regime they defended was doomed. What could have saved Breslau (Wroclaw, Poland) encircled by the 1st Ukrainian Front on February 14? …Germany was losing one line of defense after another; the government led by Karl Dönitz replaced the government of Hitler who committed suicide. Berlin fell. But the forces concentrated in Breslau continued to resist. There were different reasons. The Goebbels propaganda promised a “miracle weapon” to change the tide of war. There were hopes the anti-Germany alliance would split apart leading to the start of separate talks between Germany and Anglo-Americans.
Hitlerites were dead scared trying to delay the time they will be held responsible for what they have done. The 1st Ukrainian Front refused to storm Breslau immediately. The 6th Army led byLt. GeneralVladimirGluzdovsky had limited strength but it was strong enough to maintain the encirclement. Other forces went to the west crossing the NeisseRiver to approach Berlin. Two and a half months have passed till the 1st Ukrainian Front cracked down on the 40-thousand strong concentration of forces. The Prague Offensive Operation was conducted in a short period of time (5-12 May, 1945). The Front commander Marshall of the Soviet Union Ivan Konev issued an order to launch offensive on May 4. It said the right flank was to rapidly attack along the both shores of the Elbe River in the direction of Prague to strike the enemy’s forces concentrated in the Dresden-Görlitz area.The forces rapidly advanced. The 4th Tank Guards Army of General D. Lelushenko and the 13th Army led by General N. Pukhov led the way. The sudden strike by the Soviet forces allowed to encircle the group deployed in the area of Breslau.
There were strong lines of defense along the Oder River. Everything was turned into fortifications. Trenches allowed the enemy to freely move forces and defend the suburbs, airports and railway stations. Hitlerites organized an air bridge which happened to be ineffective and did not last long.
Artillery and aviation delivered constant strikes. Storm groups fought incessantly. There were tactical units formed especially for urban warfare. Each consisted of an infantry battalion reinforced by two tanks or self-propelled artillery pieces, a battery of 76mm guns, a group of 14-16 sappers with 800-900 kg of explosives and groups armed with flame throwers. Soviet soldiers used captured panzerfausts to strike the enemy’s fortifications.
Trying to evade bloodshed, the Soviet command issued an ultimatum to guarantee life to those who would surrender. German Field MarshalFerdinandSchoerner, who headed the Army Centre Group, issued the orderto General Hermann forbidding to meet the ultimatum. In early May air strikes precisely delivered by Soviet aviation made Niehoff ask the Soviet command to stop fire and send representatives for talks. An ultimatum was issued to demand immediate surrender. There was no timely reply. Soviet soldiers started an offensive. On May 6, white flags were hoisted over Breslau to be replaced by red banners afterwards. The 1st Ukrainian Front started an offensive as part of Prague Operation. The 5th Guards Army of GeneralAleksei Semenovich Zhadov was ordered to take Dresden. The city was in ruins because on February 13-15 the allied aviation delivered a strike that produced the damage comparable with the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. At least 25 thousand lost lives as a result of this barbarous action. There was no reason for this operation from military point of view - there were no elements of defense industry infrastructure in the city overcrowded with refugees. The allied command did not conceal its plans to show Russians when they get to the city (according to the Yalta Conference decisions, the city was to be taken by Red Army) what the Anglo-American air forces could do.
Encircling Dresden from north-west and north-east, the Red Army captured over a hundred of populated areas. On May 7, it appeared at the outskirts of the city. On May 8, the fighting continued all day and night. By 1400 hours, May 8, the garrison was defeated and capitulated.
Right after the Soviet forces entered the city of Dresden devastated by Anglo-America aviation the suffering population received aid. Foodstuffs were distributed among city dwellers. Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan, First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union and People's Commissarfor Externaland Internal Trade, was sent to the city in the capacity of Special Representative of the State Defense Committee. The 1st Ukrainian Front filled the storages at the disposal of the city’s Oberburgermaster (mayor)with food. Member of the of the military council of 1st Ukrainian Front Lieutenant-General Krainyukov remembers that around 10 thousand tons of grain, over 1, 1 thousand tons of meat, 512 tons of fat and 30 thousand tons of potatoes were allocated as food aid to city dwellers. The Front’s engineers contributed into the restoration of the communal services.
The Soviet soldiers saved the Dresden Picture Gallery famous throughout the whole world. Many important masterpieces were found in a mine in Gross Cotta.The pictures of Rubens, Rembrandt and Titian were in a narrow gauge railway. They were covered by mould. Water was running from the walls. There was a box with the famous “The Sistine Madonna” by Raphael inside. More masterpieces were found in the town of Pockau -Lengefeld. N. Sokolova, an acting corresponding member of the Academy of Arts, rushed to Dresden from Moscow. She remembers how she went to the mine accompanied by soldiers. “Self-Portrait with Saskia” by Rembrandt came into torchlight. The vets were captivated by the view watching the creation of the famous Dutch. The was a long pause. An old sapper asked “Who does the painter offers to raise glasses to? She said, “Rembrandt raises his glass for you, brave soldiers. He is happy that you saved his picture and returned it to people.” Perhaps that was the moment the soldiers felt they did something important for the whole humanity.
The pictures were taken to the USSR for restoration to be returned to Germany in 1955.
…In 2009 Ted R.Bromund, Senior Research Fellow, Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, the Heritage Foundation, and Adjunct Faculty, Strategic Studies, published a paper with recommendations for Barack Obama before visiting Dresden. The fighter for freedom wrote the following, “On June 5, President Obama will visit the German city of Dresden. This visit will be intensely controversial. Dresden is most famous for the Anglo-American bombing raid against it on February 13, 1945. The Dresden raid did cause serious loss of life, but in the Second World War it was not unprecedented or unusual. The myths that have grown up about the raid were fostered by the Nazis and spread by post-war Soviet propaganda. Because of this spurious symbolism, President Obama's decision to visit Dresden is ill-advised. During his visit, the President must absolutely reject any equation of the Western Allies and the Nazis. He must avoid accepting as true the claims of the Nazi and Soviet propagandists about the Dresden raid. Finally, he must stoutly defend the Anglo-American air campaign, which served vital military purposes (! –the exclamation mark by author) and which led to the liberation of Western Europe from the Nazis in 1945.”
These are the examples for comparison: the barbarous bombing of Dresden by Anglo-American aviation and saving Dresden Picture Gallery masterpieces by Red Army. Perhaps, TedBromund and the like would perceive it as Russian propaganda. Let them say so! The Bromunds do not represent the whole world…
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/05/06/breslau-and-dresden-to-be-liberated-after-berlin.html |
Once again, the West fails to understand Russia
| EDITOR'S CHOICE | 05.05.2015 | 18:02 |
On Saturday, President Vladimir Putin will take the salute at a grand military parade in Moscow’s Red Square. Victory Day – 9 May is when Russia commemorates its part in the Allied victory over Nazi Germany – is at once the most solemn and overtly patriotic occasion. It is one of the few public holidays to have made the transition from the Soviet to the post-Soviet calendar intact.
Victory Day was a highlight of the year I spent as an exchange student in Voronezh – a city rarely mentioned without the accompanying phrase “the last front before Stalingrad”. Preparations took weeks: placards were painted; bunting and flags adorned the streets. It was a huge honour to bear the university standard. Food stocks in the shops miraculously improved.
Reporting from Moscow over a decade later, I recall the barriers piled up around Red Square, the overnight arrival of the tanks and, above all, the suffocating stench of their fuel, as the iron monsters waited to join the triumphal formation. The Victory Day parade was something to cling to, even as the Soviet Union neared collapse.
This year’s commemoration will be second to none. As the 70th, it is a round-number anniversary. As with the plethora of Second World War anniversaries being commemorated this year, this is probably the last time that there will be anything like a quorum of those who actually participated in or witnessed these events able to attend.
Then, of course, there is the trickier, most contemporary and specifically Russian, aspect. This year is an opportunity for the Kremlin to demonstrate that Russia, as a great power, is back. The advance of the decadent West has been halted in Ukraine and the sacred territory of Crimea has been returned to the motherland.
All this is why Western leaders – who went to Moscow en masse for Victory Day’s 60th anniversary – are staying away. They do not wish to associate with Putin – certainly not while Ukraine’s very existence as a sovereign state is under threat. They especially do not want to appear at a Russian military occasion, which could be seen as signalling acceptance of the events of the past 18 months.
Strictly speaking there is no Western boycott, and there are degrees of absence. The Czech president will go to Moscow, but not attend the parade. Angela Merkel will arrive a day later and lay a wreath – an act that might anyway seem more appropriate for a German Chancellor at a wartime anniversary. As for the UK, who knows who the prime minister will be by Saturday? Declining the invitation was excusable, regardless of Ukraine.
Some may see the attendance list, headed by the Chinese and Indian leaders – but not by North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, who has just cried off – followed by the autocrats of Central Asia, as evidence of where Russia’s foreign policy is now heading. Maybe. But the Kremlin’s response to the Western stay-away suggests otherwise. It has been peevish, but also shot through with incomprehension. For Russians, what is happening in Ukraine and Russia’s part in the victory of 1945 are qualitatively and quantitatively quite different things.
Each 9 May, Russia does not just celebrate victory over Nazi Germany; it mourns the loss of more than 20 million war dead, and it reconsecrates the idea of Russian suffering to save Europe. In conversation with Russians in recent weeks, I have had to field a stream of injured questions along the lines of “has the West ever understood Russia’s sacrifice?” and: “Will the West ever appreciate it?” The notion that Ukraine is a real stumbling block here is beyond comprehension; the stay-away is rather seen as further proof that Russia will never, ever, be considered “one of us”.
Countries keep memories alive, often unrealistically flattering ones, for many reasons. Last June, in a recognition of the wartime alliance, Putin was controversially invited to join the Allied commemoration of the Normandy landings, at a time when Russia’s seizure of Crimea was even fresher in the memory than it is now. But this offered an opportunity for Western leaders and for Putin to speak their minds, while preserving dignity on either side. One result was the first formal meeting between Putin and Ukraine’s newly elected president – without which Ukraine’s situation might be even worse than it is today.
To join Putin on the podium for Saturday’s parade would not be politic; but to dine in the Kremlin or take part in a wreath-laying would surely not be out of place. Most Westerners might not fear any resurgence of fascism in Ukraine, but discussion with Putin and others – whose fathers fought on that front and others – could afford an understanding of why many Russians might. In recent years, the West has missed one opportunity after another to understand how Russia’s past influences its present. And here is another gone.
independent.co.uk
|
Griechenlands aktuelle Entschädigungsforderungen an Deutschland und das Recht
NS-Zwangsanleihe von 1942, staatliche Reparations- und private Schadensersatzansprüche
u.a. mit Prof. em. Dr. Hagen Fleischer
Dienstag, 12.05.2015 von 18.00-21.30 Uhr | Festsaal der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin | Luisenstraße 56, 10115 Berlin
Wir sind überzeugt, dass es eine friedlichere Welt ohne Stärkung des Rechts nicht geben kann. Dafür setzen wir uns ein – auf vielen Ebenen und Themenfeldern. Dabei bewegt uns auch die Frage, welche Rolle die Geltendmachung und Durchsetzung finanzieller Ansprüche von Opfern militärischer Maßnahmen für die Delegitimierung von Kriegen und die Verhinderung künftiger militärischer Konflikte spielen können.
Dies betrifft nicht nur das Einklagen von Amtshaftungsansprüchen vor deutschen Gerichten, wie im Falle des Kosovo-Krieges ("Brücke von Vavarin") und des Afghanistan-Krieges ("Kundus-Massaker"). Das gilt auch für Entschädigungsansprüche von Einzel-Opfern (wie z.B. im Falle des NS-Massakers in Distomo/Griechenland) und staatliche Zahlungsansprüche. Aktuell geht es dabei u.a. um die Forderungen der neuen griechischen Syriza-Regierung wegen des NS-Zwangskredits von knapp 500 Millionen Reichsmark, der heute umgerechnet einen Wert von ca. 11 Milliarden Euro haben soll. Die deutsche Bundesregierung entzieht sich einer Rückzahlung – wie ihre Vorgängerinnen seit 1949 – weiterhin mit historisch und rechtlich fragwürdigen Argumenten. Das wollen und können wir nicht hinnehmen. Wir suchen deshalb den öffentlichen Dialog mit der Politik.
Die Veranstaltung der IALANA will informieren. Wir wollen ein Forum bieten, kontrovers und öffentlich mit Fachleuten und politischen Entscheidungsträgern über die griechischen Forderungen zu diskutieren.
Das Programm entnehmen Sie bitte dem Anhang oder unter: http://www.ialana.de/aktuell/
Anmeldung: kongress@ialana.de, Betreff: Griechenland
Programm
18.00 Uhr
|
Eröffnung und Moderation
RA Otto Jäckel (Vorsitzender IALANA) Prof. a.D. Dr. Rosemarie Will (Rechtswissenschaftlerin Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin) |
18.15 Uhr
|
Vortrag
Geklärt und abgeschlossen? Die deutsche Besatzung in Griechenland 1941-44/45 und ihre problematische „Bewältigung“ Prof. em. Dr. Hagen Fleischer (Historiker) |
19.00 Uhr
|
Völkerrechtlicher Kommentar zum Vortrag
Dr. Dieter Deiseroth (Richter am BVerwG) |
19.15 Uhr
|
Die Position der Bundesregierung
Bundesfinanzminister Dr. Wolfgang Schäuble (CDU) (aus Termingründen abgesagt) Staatsminister im Auswärtigen Amt Michael Roth (SPD) (aus Termingründen abgesagt) |
19.45 Uhr
|
Kommentar aus Sicht der Regierung der Hellenischen Republik Griechenlands
N.N. (Zusage des Außenministeriums) |
20.00 Uhr
|
Diskussion mit Abgeordneten des Deutschen Bundestags
MdB Katja Keul (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) MdB Wolfgang Gehrcke (DIE LINKE) MdB Dr. Eva Högl (SPD) (angefragt) oder N.N. SPD |
21.30 Uhr
|
Ende
|
--
IALANA
Marienstr. 19/20
10117 Berlin
Tel.: +49 30 20654857
Fax: +49 30 20654858
E-Mail: info@ialana.de
Internet: www.ialana.de
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)