Cold War Reloaded - Der neue Ost-West Konflikt

Zitat von Wemir

Gerade dieses Cluster von Tass-Artikeln gesehen:

https://tass.com/world/1928441

https://tass.com/world/1928455

https://tass.com/politics/1928491

Alles anzeigen

Alles gelogen, denn...

Der Röttgen kann einfach besser russisch, als die Englisch-Übersetzer im Kreml.

Man mag von den ansonsten erzkonservativen, erzkatholischen Ansichten Marco Rubios halten was man will, aber es gelingt ihm hier immerhin - zumindst rein äußerlich - wie ein professioneller Diplomat zu wirken, dem es tatsächlich darum geht den Krieg in der Urkaine zu beenden (und damit natürlich seinem Herrn und Meister, dem goldenen Kaiser, zu mehr Glanz und Gloria als bester Dealmaker und Friedefürst aller Zeiten zu verhelfen).

Sein allerdings eher nichtssagendes Fazit der bisherigen Verhandlungen mit der russischen Seite ist "vorsichtig optimistisch" ("cautiously optimistic").

Der versammelten westlichen Qualitätsjournaille passt es natürlich nicht, dass Rubio nicht öffentlich über Putins grausame Verzögerungstatktik und seine (mutmaßlich) würdelose Behandlung des US-Gesandten Witkoff in Moskau herziehen will - noch bevor derselbe von dort zurück gekehrt ist und Bericht erstatten konnte - so wie es sich für moderne, wertebasierte und feministische Außenolitiker*innen gehören würde.

US envoy is taking Putin’s comments on Ukraine ceasefire proposal to Trump, Kremlin official says

Russian President Vladimir Putin met with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff to discuss details of the American proposal for a 30-day ceasefire in the war with Ukraine, asking him to convey Moscow’s thoughts to Washington, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Friday.

Zitat von Associated Press - 14.03.25

[...] U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Friday he was “cautiously optimistic,” too. Speaking to reporters at the end of a Group of Seven meeting in Canada, Rubio said Trump administration officials plan to spend the weekend debriefing Witkoff on his session with Putin and on next steps.

The talks with Putin did not appear to secure the immediate agreement for a ceasefire that Rubio had said Americans would press Putin for. But, “we certainly feel like we’re at least some steps closer to ending this war,” Rubio said.

U.S. officials have said Washington was set to discuss technical issues related to a possible ceasefire next week. Given the range of issues on the table, and the sharp differences between what Moscow and Kyiv want, it could potentially take weeks or months for the guns to fall silent. [...]

Das hier halte ich für eine ziemlich realistische Eischätzung:

What did we die for?

Zitat von Leonid Ragozin - 13.03.25

[...] The benchmark for what Ukraine would see as a success or failure in the full-out war was spelled out in March 2022 by Oleksiy Arestovych who was Yermak’s aide and one of Ukraine’s top spokesman on all things related to war. Anything worse than the conditions of Minsk agreements, which ended the hot phase of the conflict in 2015, would be deemed as Ukraine’s defeat, he said a few weeks into the full-out war and at the time when Istanbul talks were in full swing. Minsk agreements is what Kyiv effectively rejected in the run-up to full-out invasion, perhaps believing that it was calling Putin’s bluff or that the invasion was doomed to failure.

Ukraine is further away from achieving these goals today than any time during the three years of the full-out conflict. That creates a major headache for war enthusiasts who spent three years promoting delusional expectations in order to make Ukrainians fight a losing battle - effectively for nothing. The bitter pill Ukraine and Europe will have to take will need to be explained to the voters. More than a few political careers will unravel as the blame game ensues.

For Russia, on the other hand, it is the moment when its skilful diplomats, led by foreign policy veteran Sergey Lavrov and the above-mentioned Ushakov, may help it seal what has been achieved on the battlefield over the last three years.

Dancing around ceasefire

On the face of it, ceasefire is disadvantageous for the Russians who have been slowly advancing all along the frontline since the end of 2023, with the notable exception of the debacle in Kursk region where the Ukrainians managed to seize a chunk of rural territory. By the time Jeddah talks happened, however, this area had been all but liberated with remaining Ukrainian troops either trapped without supplies in Russian territory or fleeing across the border.

But the 30-day limit on ceasefire, negotiated by Yermak and Trump’s envoy, may provide an opening for Putin. This term is short enough for any major changes with regards to military capability on either side. There is not much Moscow is losing by agreeing to ceasefire while signalling its willingness to cooperate with Trump. If nothing is achieved, it can resume the offensive. At the same time, it will incentivise Trump to exert more pressure on Ukraine and extract more concessions.

Besides, agreeing to talk about a ceasefire is not the same as agreeing to ceasefire per se. Ceasefire talks will be difficult and highly technical - the separation of troops and effective monitoring of ceasefire violations proved a major sticking point already when Minsk agreements were still alive. Both sides may eventually pull out blaming each other for failing to achieve a result. Ceasefire talks may drag on for months while the Russian army will continue advancing along the frontline. Most crucially, Moscow will be able to bring up any kind of conditions in the meantime steering the conversation towards its desired format of long-term settlement.

Over many months, the Kremlin repeatedly said that it is interested in a comprehensive peace treaty not just with Ukraine but also with the West - not in a ceasefire that could result in the Korean-style freezing of the conflict.

That suggests that it will try to at least agree upon the general framework of the future peace negotiations before committing to the end hostilities. Russia insists on reviving the Istanbul framework which envisaged Ukraine’s neutrality and limiting the size of its armed forces. In addition, Moscow insists on keeping the territory it has occupied so far or even on the Ukrainian withdrawal from the rest of the four regions Russia has formally annexed after sham referendums in 2022. The latter demand shouldn’t be taken too seriously - it is the reaction to similarly unrealistic demands by the Ukrainian/Western side, like deployment of NATO “peacekeepers”.

Peace according to Putin

Territory is not what Putin is fighting for in Ukraine - it is a tool of punishment for intransigence and a bargaining chip in negotiations. What Moscow is going to be focused on in the talks both prior and after the prospected ceasefire is a new security architecture in Europe that will set a red line for NATO’s eastward expansion for decades to come.

As for Ukraine, multiple statements and leaks suggest that Moscow will be satisfied with it attaining the status similar to Finland’s and Austria’s after the World War II. That will effectively mean a return to the status quo prior to Maidan revolution in 2014 when Ukraine was geopolitically equidistant from Russia and the West. Incidentally, it was also more democratic and inclusive.

But Moscow will insist on the removal of all kinds of NATO infrastructure, specifically the CIA listening stations which emerged along the Russian border after 2015, as per reports by the mainstream American media. It will also insist on the de-Americanisation of Ukrainian security agencies, the SBU and the HUR, parts of which are all but run by the CIA, according to investigative reports by Washington Post and New York Times.

This might be the toughest bargain of all for the West because the withdrawal of both the CIA and the MI6 from Ukraine will be the West’s most tangible defeat in its confrontation with Putin’s Russia over Ukraine.

Moscow will also likely to insist on the decriminalisation of political forces representing Russian-speakers as well as on ending the ban on the formerly Moscow-affiliated Ukrainian Orthodox Church. It is also hard to imagine Putin agreeing to peace that doesn’t envisage the end of the culture war on Russian language and all vestiges of Russian culture currently under way in Ukraine.

But this is also something that will be fairly easy for Kyiv to agree with and get a sympathetic response from the public. As the Ukrainian leadership very well understands, rather than harming Ukraine, ditching ethnonationalist policies is what will help make Ukraine genuinely democratic, inclusive and compatible with EU standards. Xenophobia and discrimination will make little sense once the conflict is properly over.

Will Ukraine and the West agree to all of that? Not immediately for sure. But what we saw over the last several months was them slowly backtracking on key issues with regards to the future settlement, starting with the de-facto acceptance of Ukraine’s territorial losses.

Trump administration may try and pressure Putin into accepting what he doesn’t want to accept. Whether that strategy will succeed depends on how Putin sees the prospect of Russia sustaining the war effort for another few years in the face of potentially increasing Western sanctions. All signals so far have indicated that Moscow is ready to engage in fighting for much longer than the West. Unlike the latter, it is genuinely seeing this war as existential. [...]

Alles anzeigen

Interessante Foto-Auswahl...:

Gottseidank, der Russe will nicht! Wir haben es ja immer gewusst, aber der blöde Ami kapiert's leider nicht. Können wir jetzt bitte einfach ohne den weiter machen mit dem Krieg?

Also ich lege mich jetzt fest...

...und spreche offen aus, dass ich Ilko-Sascha Kowalzcuk für den Kopf hinter der social media-Entität "Lena Berger" halte.

Zitat von Professor Bienlein

Drohgebärden, Russeng'schicht?

Bringen sie zum Schweigen nicht.

Jetzt bekommst du, Varvick, Ärger!

Wir sind alle Lena Berger!

Russenknechte, Drückeberger,

fürchten alle Lena Berger.

Weil mit Worten

- wie ein Schwert -

sie der Russenfreunde Ruhe stört.

#IchBinLenaBerger 🤩

https://x.com/Demoguardian/status/1832870755412926964

Alles anzeigen

Das ist auf mindestens drei Ebenen parallel so dermaßen irre, dass man einfach nicht weiß wo man da anfangen soll. Die Gruppe Kowalzcuk hat jedenfalls offenkundig zu viel Zeit.

Ein Erstunterzeichner...:

Ja, und zwar zurück zur antikommunistischen Geschichtsverfälschung, zum völkisch-nationalistischen Russenhass und zur bereitwilligen Unterwerfung unter die Interessen des amerikanischen Imperiums!

Lena Berger-Kowalzcuk ist offenbar nicht alleine mit ihrer Enttarnung der Altbundeskanzlerin als russische Marionette. Auch Deutschlands gewichtigster Exil-Ökonom in Transatlantika hat eine ganz klare Haltung dazu:

Merkel kritisiert Begriff „Putin-Versteher“ – und wirbt für „Diskurs über Interessen Russlands“

Angela Merkel fordert Politiker und Diplomaten dazu auf, sich in Kremlchef Wladimir Putin hineinzuversetzen. Man müsse den Diskurs über die Interessen Russlands zulassen, betont die Altkanzlerin. Den Eklat im Oval Office nennt sie „bedrückend“.

Zitat von WELT - 15.03.25

[...] „Zu verstehen, was Putin macht, sich in ihn hineinzuversetzen, ist nicht falsch“, sagte Merkel der „Berliner Zeitung“. Dies sei eine grundlegende Aufgabe der Diplomatie, und damit etwas anderes als Putin-Unterstützer. „Es gibt keinerlei Entschuldigung dafür, dass er ein anderes Land überfällt. Aber den Diskurs über die Interessen Russlands muss man zulassen.“ Der Vorwurf „Putin-Versteher“ sei ein Totschlagargument.

Ihrer Wahrnehmung nach gehe es Putin sehr um Anerkennung – „gerade von Amerika“. Dieses Denken komme noch aus der Zeit des Kalten Krieges. Für Putin seien die relevanten Größen nicht Deutschland oder die Europäische Union, sondern die USA.

Merkel forderte eine Mitwirkung der internationalen Partner der Ukraine in einem möglichen Friedensprozess ein. „Wann die Stunde der Diplomatie geschlagen hat, kann nicht allein Präsident Selenskyj entscheiden, sondern die Ukraine nur gemeinsam mit ihren Unterstützern“, sagte Merkel mit Blick auf den ukrainischen Präsidenten Wolodymyr Selenskyj. Sie fügte hinzu: „Denn wir als Freunde der Ukraine gehen ja auch ins Risiko für die Ukraine.“

Den öffentlich ausgetragenen Streit von US-Präsident Donald Trump mit Selenskyj im Weißen Haus vor zwei Wochen empfand Merkel nach eigener Aussage als bedrückend. „Ich hätte diese Begegnung so lieber nicht gesehen, zumal wenn man bedenkt, dass sie auch in ganz Russland gesehen wurde, auch von Präsident Putin“, sagte sie mit Blick auf Kremlchef Wladimir Putin. [...]

(Das Original-Interview in der Berlinskaja Prawda, aus dem das Springer-Organ hier zitiert, ist zum Glück hinter einer Paywall versteckt, so dass Merkel nicht so viele LeserInnen mit ihrem Putinismus anstecken kann)