Die Rede des US-Vizepräsidenten Mike Pence vor dem renommierten Hudson Institute über die Chinapolitik der US-Administration ist wirklich sehr aufschlussreich und interessant für Personen, die sich für geopolitische Zusammenhänge interessieren. Sehr viel in dieser Rede ergibt nach meiner Einschätzung, meinen Kenntnissen und meinen Erfahrungen Sinn. Die Politik der US-Regierung wird in ihren Umrissen und ihrer Konzeption immer klarer. Sie ist weit weniger isolationistisch als angenommen und in ihren Grundzügen keineswegs anti-europäisch. Ich plädiere dafür sich intensiver und vor allem ruhiger mit der Politik der Administration des 45. US-Präsidenten auseinander zu setzen. The story will unfold.
Michael’s opinion: THE EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVE ON US is a MdP Serial in which international speakers or organizations are expressing their views about Germany and its role in Europe and the world.
The first episode is a surprisingly explicit and open speech of George Friedman at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs. Let me point out that I’m a natural-born trans-Atlantic minded person. But I assume it’s good to know how our American friends are internally discussing their role and their strategy in the world.
The Chicago Council on Global Affairs is a highly renowned organization that over the decades was the host for a legion of global statesmen. Click this link to get to their homepage.
The speaker George Friedman was the founder and CEO of Stratfor. Stratfor is a private consultancy on geopolitics and strategic forecasting. Meanwhile, his new entrepreneurial home is Geopolitical Futures (www.stratfor.com and www.geopoliticalfutures.com).
Michael’s opinion: A very interesting comment of the Rand Corporation. Cyber War will be one of the major means used in international conflicts. I don’t think that Germany is prepared well enough.
Analysis by the Rand Corporation
Christopher S. Chivvis, Associate Director, International Security and Defense Policy Center; Senior Political Scientist
Imagine that the United States is hit by a cyber attack that takes down much of the U.S. financial infrastructure for several days. Internet sites of major banks are malfunctioning. ATMs are not working. Banks‘ internal accounting systems are going haywire. Millions of people are affected.The first question that policymakers might debate is whether such an attack deserves a military response. But several problems immediately arise. First, would the U.S. government—and specifically the National Security Agency—know for certain who had conducted the attack?
Without being able to attribute the attack, or if there were some uncertainty about who was responsible, it would be very hard to strike back. Unlike conventional attacks, cyberattacks can be difficult to attribute with precision to specific actors. In the event of a major cyberattack, the pressure to respond would be immediate—and probably intense. But if a country strikes back and the forensics are erroneous, then the retaliation will have unnecessarily and inadvertently started a war.
by: CSIS – Center for International Strategic Studies / Heather A. Conley, Senior Vice President for Europe, Eurasia, and the Arctic; and Director, Europe Program
There was a deeply held assumption that, when the countries of Central and Eastern Europe joined NATO and the European Union in 2004, these countries would continue their positive democratic and economic transformation. Yet more than a decade later, the region has experienced a steady decline in democratic standards and governance practices at the same time that Russia’s economic engagement with the region expanded significantly. Regional political movements and figures have increasingly sought to align themselves with the Kremlin and with illiberalism. Central European governments have adopted ambiguous—if not outright pro-Russian—policy stances that have raised questions about their transatlantic orientation and produced tensions within Western institutions. Are these developments coincidental, or has the Kremlin sought deliberately to erode the region’s democratic institutions through its influence to “break the internal coherence of the enemy system”?
The CSIS Europe Program, in partnership with the Bulgarian Center for the Study of Democracy, recently concluded a 16-month study to understand the nature of Russian influence in five case countries: Hungary, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Latvia, and Serbia. This research determined that Russia has cultivated an opaque web of economic and political patronage across the region that the Kremlin uses to influence and direct decision making. This web resembles a network-flow model—or “unvirtuous circle”—which the Kremlin can use to influence (if not control) critical state institutions, bodies, and economies, as well as shape national policies and decisions that serve its interests while actively discrediting the Western liberal democratic system. The United States can no longer be indifferent to these negative developments, as all members of NATO and the European Union must collectively recognize that Russian influence is not just a domestic governance challenge but a national security threat.
nachstehend der Link zu dem aktuellen
THINK TANK REPORT der KONRAD ADENAUER STIFTUNG