a special place

I’ve recently been tö an extremely special place, it is actually unusual and I believe yöu ll think it is attractive. Take a löök open message

Cheers, President-AGBC-Berlin

From: udo von massenbach-wordpress [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2017 2:35 PM
To: mg@ggpartner.de
Subject: 800 spm? I call bs.

That’s the point I was making, regardless of whether you make money from YouTube or not, most gamers making videos on YouTube (big or small) do it because they like it. There is a bias, however, if someone is considered ‚too big‘ they get banned from posting anything on reddit because they are seen as self-promoting. I have seen you repost your videos here on multiple occasions (this is not a insult to your YouTubing, which is great, but to your redditing), if anybody who was considered a ‚big‘ YouTube did that they’d probably get banned. It’s a double standard, and one that reddit struggles with. If someone like LSG isn’t allowed to post even a single one of his own videos here then you aren’t allowed to post your vidoes here *on multiple occasions*. And sorry about the slow reply, forgot to check notifications.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Advertisements

Massenbach-Letter. NEWS 05.09.17

Massenbach-Letter. News -Neue Zürcher Zeitung: Augen zu, CDU – Angela Merkels Wohlfühldeutschland

Next edition will be sent Sept 21, 2017

Massenbach*Neue Zürcher Zeitung: Augen zu, CDU –

Angela Merkels Wohlfühldeutschland

Gastkommentar von Hans-Hermann Tiedje 28.8.2017

Das Herrschaftsprinzip von Angela Merkel ist simpel. Sie wird nicht von einer grossen Idee angetrieben. Sie hat keine.

Merkel wird Deutschland weiter verwalten. Ohne jeglichen Veränderungswillen.

Merkels Konzept ist sonnenklar: Fehler unter den Tisch kehren, allen ein gutes Gefühl geben,

Zufriedenheit verbreiten. – Spreeufer-Idylle beim Berliner Dom.

In der Nachkriegszeit kursierten in Deutschland Anti-Nazi-Witze, zum Beispiel dieser: Der Enkel fragt seinen Grossvater: «Du hast mir doch immer erzählt, dass du gegen die Nazis warst.» Der Opa: «Richtig.» Der Enkel: «Aber nun habe ich im Album ein Bild gesehen, da fährt Hitler an einer jubelnden Menschenmenge vorbei, und mittendrin stehst du und machst den Hitlergruss. Wie soll ich denn das verstehen?» Der Grossvater: «Um mich herum standen Hunderte, die jubelten. Ich war der Einzige, der die ganze Zeit rief: ‹Moment mal, Herr Hitler, Moment mal.› Leider hat keiner auf mich gehört.»

Die Botschaft: Irgendwie sind wir doch alle dabei gewesen, der eine mehr, der andere weniger verstrickt, wir ahnen es doch voneinander, und deswegen wollen wir es hinterher so genau gar nicht mehr wissen. Das war 1945 so und 1990, beim Untergang der DDR, genauso. Man kannte sich, man wusste voneinander, man war Nachbar, später verbunden im Schweigen über einen Staat, den es glücklicherweise nicht mehr gab.

Merkel zum Vierten

Womit wir bei Angela Merkel wären, die am 24. September – 27 Jahre nach dem Verschwinden ihres Heimatlandes DDR – ihre vierte Bundestagswahl gewinnen und danach weiter Kanzlerin der Bundesrepublik Deutschland sein wird. In welcher Konstellation auch immer, mit Rot, Grün oder Gelb, an Merkel führt kein Weg vorbei.

Deutschland im Wahljahr

Dann ist es vorbei mit der «mächtigsten Frau der Welt»

von Hans-Hermann Tiedje 9.5.2017, 16:08

Keine Experimente – warum auch? Die Wirtschaft boomt, die Sonne scheint, der Gegenkandidat Martin Schulz ist Realsatire. Während die Welt aus den Fugen fällt, gondelt Frau Merkel in den Alpen mit der Seilbahn, und der Kandidat aus Würselen besucht in Eckernförde eine Fischfabrik. Die Bilder mit Brille, Bart und Plastic-Haube machen die Runde. Schulz kämpft. Vor allem mit sich selber. «Ich werde Bundeskanzler», sagte er dieser Tage im Fernsehen. Welches Jahr er meinte, sagte er nicht. Die Wahl ist entschieden, die Deutschen haben sich entschlossen: Augen zu, CDU!

Schulz kämpft. Vor allem mit sich selber.

Und das, obwohl weder im Umgang mit Erdogan noch der Migrantenfrage, noch den Stromtrassen durch herrliche Landschaften, noch mit Griechenland irgendetwas wirklich gelöst ist. Gar nichts ist gelöst in Deutschland – vor allem nicht die Zukunftsfragen: Maschinenintelligenz, Auswirkungen von Industrie 4.0 auf den Arbeitsmarkt, Elektromobilität, Digitalisierung – alles aufgeschoben auf irgendwann. Die vergangenen zwölf Merkel-Jahre sind einfach so dahingeplätschert. Ein Volk hat sich entpolitisiert. «Mutti» (Merkel) richtet das schon – das ist die Stimmung im Land.

Video starten

Play video content

Noch mehr Merkel? – Deutschland hat die Wahl

Die SPD wird nicht gebraucht, und Martin Schulz schon gar nicht. Leidet der Mann an Selbstüberschätzung? Selten hatte ein Kanzlerkandidat eine derart geringe Kompetenz. Sigmar Gabriel hat Schulz rechtzeitig das Feld überlassen. Der ist als Tiger gesprungen – und als Bettvorleger gelandet. Jetzt schimpft er sich über die Marktplätze und durch die Hallen, Frau Merkel beschuldigt er eines «Anschlags auf die Demokratie». Anschlag? Wie bitte? – Verwundert reiben sich viele die Augen.

SPD-Kanzlerkandidat Martin Schulz

Der Pechvogel der deutschen Politik

von Eric Gujer 11.8.2017, 15:26

Die Identität von etwa 50 000 Menschen, die fälschlich vorgeben, Flüchtlinge zu sein, ist in Deutschland ungeklärt. Von vielen dieser Personen droht die Gefahr eines Anschlags auf die Demokratie, vor allem auf Menschen, Hunderte sind brandgefährlich. Aber um wen genau handelt es sich?

Deutschland hat sich mit Fragen wie diesen abgefunden, Antworten gibt es nicht, und wenn, dann solche: «Ich sage dazu jetzt weiter nichts mehr, ein Teil dieser Antworten würde die Bevölkerung verunsichern» – Innenminister de Maizière. Bizarre Realität: Wer heute nach Deutschland kommt, braucht keine Papiere, aber ohne Papiere kann er nicht abgeschoben werden. Über ein neues Asylrecht – dringend erforderlich – wird (noch) nicht gesprochen, obwohl breite Mehrheiten dafür sind.

Aus dem Nichts gekommen

Ich habe Angela Merkel das erste Mal 1990 getroffen, da war sie stellvertretende Regierungssprecherin des DDR-Bestatters Lothar de Maizière. Die Gesichter der damaligen SED-Resteverwerter sind mir noch gut in Erinnerung: Gregor Gysi, Wolfgang Berghofer, Lothar Bisky, Sabine Bergmann-Pohl, Wolfgang Schnur, Hans-Joachim Böhme, Rainer Eppelmann, Markus Meckel. Sie nahmen unterschiedliche Wege. Merkel kam aus dem Nichts. Sie nahm den Weg in die CDU, mehr oder minder zufällig.

Bizarre Realität: Wer heute nach Deutschland kommt, braucht keine Papiere, aber ohne Papiere kann er nicht abgeschoben werden.

Man hat das später einen Irrtum genannt oder einen Fehler. Die Frau, die fünfzehn Jahre später die Christlichdemokratische Union Adenauers und Kohls entgräten sollte, wurde nicht als Camouflage mit einer fragwürdigen Vita erkannt. Sie wurde einfach durchgewunken, ohne dass man sie gescannt hätte. Der damalige Kanzler, Helmut Kohl, war bei Personen mit DDR-Vergangenheit sehr grosszügig. Vergangenheit interessierte ihn besonders im Hinblick auf die Frage, was man künftig besser machen könne.

Angela Merkel, heute 63, war zur Zeit der Wende, 1989, genau 35 Jahre alt. Sie arbeitete in der DDR am Zentralinstitut für Physikalische Chemie der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Ostberlin. Sie war nicht in der SED, sie hatte mit der Stasi nichts zu tun. Sie war nur Sekretärin für Agitation und Propaganda der Freien Deutschen Jugend (FDJ). Die FDJ war der einzig zugelassene Jugendverband in der DDR, und er war kommunistisch.

Helmut Kohl und Angela Merkel

Der Unterschied

von Hans-Hermann Tiedje 8.8.2016, 14:13

Was hat sie da gemacht? «Kulturbeauftragte» sei sie gewesen, sagte sie später, sie habe Theaterkarten beschafft oder Buchvorlesungen organisiert. Die Biografie der Autoren Günther Lachmann und Ralf Georg Reuth behauptet jedoch, sie sei Sekretärin für Agitation und Propaganda gewesen. Merkel bestreitet dies. Merkel wäre somit zuständig für die Beeinflussung der jüngeren Menschen im Sinne des Staates DDR gewesen: die Bundesrepublik der Klassenfeind, der Kapitalismus als Ideologie der Ausbeutung, die DDR als friedliebend, fortschrittlich, der Zukunft zugewandt.

Mitgeschwommen im Strom der Zeit

Zeitzeugen erinnern sich immerhin, dass sie Michael Gorbatschow als Hoffnung empfand. Die DDR nahm Angela Merkel damals wahrscheinlich als alternativlos wahr. Sie ist mitgeschwommen im Strom der Zeit. Mimikry? Versteckte Gegnerschaft? Davon hat aus ihrer Umgebung niemand etwas bemerkt. Es gibt keine Zeugnisse dafür, nicht die geringsten, nicht einmal ein Schnipsel Papier. Wann hat sie sich von ihrem Staat entfremdet? Keine Erklärung, bis heute. Als dann die DDR unterging, war Merkel selbst wahrscheinlich am meisten davon überrascht, wie sehr sie eigentlich schon immer dagegen gewesen war.

Als Merkel noch Mitläuferin war, riskierte Orban schon Kopf und Kragen.

Zum Vergleich Viktor Orban, Ungarns Ministerpräsident, von Merkel wegen seiner Migrantenabwehrpolitik in Europa unter Druck gesetzt. Orban war im Abendlicht des zerfallenden Ostblocks in Ungarn Vorsitzender der Jugendorganisation der Ungarischen Sozialistischen Arbeiterpartei (Kommunistischer Jugendbund). 1988 hielt er, und das war eine Sensation, eine öffentliche Rede, in der er die UdSSR aufforderte, umgehend ihre Truppen aus Ungarn abzuziehen.

Leserdebatte

Sind die Deutschen geblendet vom «Merkelismus»?

28.8.2017, 10:49

Als Merkel noch Mitläuferin war, riskierte Orban schon Kopf und Kragen. Warum dieser Vergleich? Orban wurde über Nacht bekannt, ein Held in Ungarn. Merkel blieb lange im Schatten. Der Rest der Geschichte ist bekannt. 1990 kam sie in den Bundestag, 1991 wurde sie Familienministerin, dann Umweltministerin, dann – zum Erstaunen aller – die Erbin Helmut Kohls. Den Altkanzler erledigte sie über die «FAZ»: Er habe der Partei «Schaden zugefügt» (Spendenaffäre). Vor dem Hintergrund ihres eigenen Lebenslaufes war der Umgang mit Helmut Kohl, dem Kanzler der Einheit, schon ein starkes Stück. Kohl ist tot. Seit 2005 sitzt sie nun in Deutschland an den Hebeln der Macht.

Wer aber ist diese Angela Merkel wirklich oder wie viel wovon? Fest steht ihr Hintergrund als Kind einer sozialistischen Pfarrersfamilie. Wie schön, dass so eine Frau den Absprung aus der grauen DDR-Welt an die Spitze der Bundesrepublik geschafft hat, könnte man meinen. Aber niemand lebt ohne Herkunft und eigene Geschichte, sie beeinflussen Denken und Handeln.

Die deutsche Politik redet die Probleme klein

Die deutsche Politik redet die Probleme klein

von Eric Gujer 14.7.2017, 14:08

Pro bono, contra malum. Merkels Kampagne 2017. «Für ein Deutschland, in dem wir gut und gerne leben.» Wer wollte dem widersprechen? Dass das Land, zum Beispiel in der Flüchtlingsfrage, in zwei Lager (zwei Drittel dagegen, ein Drittel dafür) gespalten ist, kann man getrost ausklammern, so-lange nicht der nächste unregistriert eingereiste Islamist ein Attentat begeht.

Wer freilich an diese Aussicht erinnert, stört den vorgegebenen öffentlichen Frieden, verkörpert durch Merkel, und stellt sich ins Aus. Die für ihre Politik wichtigen Medien und das Juste Milieu sind genau auf dieser Linie. An der Stelle sei auch die CSU zur Vorsicht gemahnt. Merkel wird nicht zögern, Seehofer und seine Freunde in die rechte Ecke zu stellen, wenn ihr das nutzt. Was Gegenkandidat Schulz meint, ist belanglos. Er hat die falschen Themen, kommt damit meist zu spät und wirkt wie ein Mann von vorgestern.

Wohlfühldeutschland

Wohlfühldeutschland – was hat Angela Merkel persönlich dazu beigetragen? Sehr viel, vor allem in der Innenpolitik. Sie hat strittige Fragen meist auf Kosten ihrer eigenen Partei aus dem Weg geräumt (Mindestlohn, AKW, Ehe für alle). Sie hat den Spielraum der SPD eingeengt, indem sie die CDU zur zweiten Sozialdemokratie transformierte. Ihre Europapolitik hat die Vorbehalte gegenüber Deutschland befördert – das wäre Vorgänger Kohl nicht passiert. Wahrscheinlich hat sie auch den Brexit mitverursacht, so wie sie den Grexit zulasten des deutschen Steuerzahlers abgesagt hat.

Merkel hofft darauf, dass die Menschen ihre Fehlleistungen vergessen – und damit ist sie gut gefahren.

Sie hat in ihren zwölf Jahren Kanzlerschaft manches unterlassen, was die deutsche Wirtschaft zukunftsfester gemacht hätte. Sie ist weder Thatcher noch Schröder, noch Kohl.

Ihr Herrschaftsprinzip ist ganz simpel. Merkel wird nicht angetrieben von einer grossen Idee. Sie hat keine. Europa, deutsche Einheit, Marktwirtschaft – das alles war schon erledigt, bevor sie kam. Sie hofft darauf, dass die Menschen ihre Fehlleistungen vergessen – und damit ist sie gut gefahren.

Merkel in der Krise

Starrsinn im Kanzleramt

von Eric Gujer 9.9.2016, 12:25

Aber verantwortliche zukunftsorientierte Staatsführung geht anders. Man hätte gerne gewusst, wie sie das Thema Migration lösen will. Millionen von Menschen nehmen in Afrika Anlauf, um nach Europa zu gelangen, insbesondere ins gelobte Deutschland, das seit Merkels Selfies bei Flüchtlingen, Schutzsuchenden, Asylbetrügern, echten und falschen Migranten und anderen Eindringlingen das allererste Ziel ist.

Das Paradoxon: Merkel bekämpft jetzt aktiv den Schaden, den sie selber Deutschland 2015 zugefügt hat. «Die Situation von 2015 darf sich nie wiederholen», sagt sie heute. Das ist etwa so, wie wenn der Technikchef von VW erklärte: «Diese Herumschraubereien am Diesel dürfen sich nie wiederholen.» Aber die Deutschen, die schon an ihrer Kanzlerin zweifelten, hören es gern.

Kein Flüchtling, nirgendwo

Ein Blick in die aktuelle Wahlkampagne der CDU zeigt: Das Grossthema Flüchtlinge, das die nächsten Jahre bestimmen wird, kommt überhaupt nicht vor. Kein Flüchtling, nirgendwo. Es hätte ja schon das Versprechen gereicht, vor den weiteren anstehenden Migrationswellen einmal anzukündigen, den Bundestag zu fragen. Nichts, nirgendwo. Kein Wort auch zur «Obergrenze» der Schwesterpartei CSU.

Deutschland und die Flüchtlingskrise

Merkeldämmerung

von Hans-Hermann Tiedje 2.11.2015, 06:49

Jeder Konflikt wird ausgeklammert oder verschwiegen. Die Vorlage dieser Politik war Armenien. Da hatte sich die Parteivorsitzende Merkel im Bundesvorstand der CDU für eine Armenienresolution des Bundestages ausgesprochen, um dann bei der Sitzung zu fehlen und hinterher mitteilen zu lassen, sie habe ja nicht dafür gestimmt – nur um ihren Hals gegenüber Erdogan zu retten. So geht Politik heute.

Augen zu, CDU! Martin Schulz hat schon recht, wenn er Merkels Entpolitisierungspolitik beklagt. Dem Land tut das nicht gut. Aber Schulz ist der falsche Herausforderer. Sein Amtsvorgänger Gabriel, der den Absprung ins Aussenministerium nahm, ist viel facettenreicher und interessanter als Schulz in seiner Eindimensionalität. Einen Wahlkampf «Gabriel gegen Merkel» hätte man gern erlebt.

CDU und CSU präsentieren ihr Wahlprogramm

Merkels Träumerei

von Christoph Eisenring 3.7.2017, 22:17

Merkel verwaltet das Land, ohne Veränderungswillen. Sie lobt Amtsvorgänger Schröder für die Agenda 2010, die ihr eine solide Wirtschaftslage beschert hat. Das hört sich gut an, aber in diesem Zusammenhang ist es hilfreich, nachzulesen, was Angela Merkel 2003 als Oppositionsführerin Schröder entgegenschleuderte, als dieser die Agenda auf den Weg brachte: «Trippelschritte.» – «Stückwerk.» – «Gift für das, was Deutschland jetzt braucht.»

Einen Rückschluss auf Merkels innere Verfassung liefert auch das Personal, mit dem sie sich umgibt. Statt wie einst Gerhard Schröder mit Schwergewichten (Steinmeier, Eichel, Clement, Müntefering, Steinbrück) die Politik umzugestalten, pflegt sie an ihrer Seite Personen, die vor allem die Eigenschaft der Willfährigkeit haben: die gescheiterte Verteidigungsministerin von der Leyen, der Schönredner Altmeier, der hilflose Innenministerdarsteller de Maizière und Fraktionschef Kauder, eine Art Vollzugsbeamter. Der einzige andere Hauptdarsteller im Grossformat ist Wolfgang Schäuble, aber der wird demnächst 75 und ist, so ein CDU-Grande, «leider zu loyal».

Allen ein gutes Gefühl

Merkels Hoffnung liegt sonnenklar zutage: Fehler und Versäumnisse unter den Tisch kehren, allen ein gutes Gefühl geben, Zufriedenheit verbreiten, Sedativa verteilen und darauf hoffen, dass Schulz sich wund schimpft. Sie wird auch die Fernsehdiskussion Anfang September mit ihm gut überstehen, eben weil er nicht die Alternative ist. Die Leute lechzen ja nach einem Sheriff, gegebenenfalls auch nach einem roten, der den Staat säubert, Kriminelle hinauswirft und die Ordnung verteidigt. Aber diesen Staat will Schulz selber nicht – stattdessen predigt er, Migranten über Europa zu verteilen. Kopfschütteln. Wo die Bevölkerung Schutz einfordert, zum Beispiel in Form von Registrier- und Aufnahmezentren in Nordafrika, da verlangt Schulz, ein Gesicht des Brüsseler Europas, Gerechtigkeit. Sein Wahlkampf liegt völlig neben der Sache.

Die Leute lechzen ja nach einem Sheriff, gegebenenfalls auch nach einem roten.

Und was passiert nach dem 24. September? Gefahrlos kann man prognostizieren: Aus No-Bail-Out wird die Vergemeinschaftung der Schulden Europas mit Deutschland als Schuldenpatron, alles für die Bevölkerung natürlich eingepackt in eine Sprache aus Watte. Die Lösung von Problemen durch Fassadenmalerei – das ist der eigentliche Kern des Merkelismus, den ihre Partei mit geballter Faust in der Tasche mitträgt, weil sie nur so an den Töpfen der Macht verbleibt.

Schon Talleyrand wusste: «Kein Abschied auf der Welt fällt schwerer als der Abschied von der Macht.» Wann Merkel den einleitet, liegt nicht nur an ihr, sondern auch an der Partei. Sicher ist nur: Wer zu spät aufhört, den bestraft das Leben. Frei nach Gorbatschow, ihrem früheren Idol.

Hans-Hermann Tiedje war Chefredaktor von «Bild» und persönlicher Wahlkampfberater von Bundeskanzler Helmut Kohl. Heute ist er Aufsichtsratschef der Kommunikationsagentur WMP EuroCom AG mit Sitz in Berlin.

https://www.nzz.ch/meinung/kommentare/augen-zu-cdu-angela-merkels-wohlfuehldeutschland-ld.1312722

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

see our letter on: http://www.massenbach-world.de/41259.html

*Herausgegeben von Udo von Massenbach, Bärbel Freudenberg-Pilster, Joerg Barandat*

*****************************************************************************************************************************************

UdovonMassenbachMailJoergBarandat

Massenbach-Letter. NEWS Alert 02.09.17

Massenbach-Letter. News – Trump to Nominate Grenell as Ambassador to Germany –

Massenbach*Trump to Nominate Grenell as Ambassador to Germany

By John Gizzi
Wednesday, 19 Jul 2017 01:14 PM

Foreign affairs commentator Richard Grenell is set to be nominated by President Donald Trump as U.S. ambassador to Germany, a White House source confirmed to Newsmax.

Grenell, who was the longest-serving U.S. spokesman at the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration, has been an international news analyst on Fox News and heads his own media communications firm.

Once confirmed, the new ambassador will face challenges. The Trump administration’s relations with Germany have been strained and the president has complained to Chancellor Angela Merkel that her open-door policy for refugees created an opening for potential terrorists. Trump also indicated that Germany has not paid its fair share of military spending on NATO.

By picking Grenell, 50, an early supporter of his presidential campaign, Trump is signaling to Merkel that she will have a direct conduit to the White House.

"The president wanted a seasoned foreign affairs person who conveys his messaging to the Germans and other Europeans," a White House source said. "Grenell was the right person to do that."

Grenell has an extensive resume in domestic politics as a prominent gay Republican. On the international front, he has long been a hardliner in dealing with terrorism and rogue states like Iran and North Korea.

In 2012, Mitt Romney picked him as his top national security adviser during his presidential bid. Previously Grenell advised Sen. John McCain, former New York Gov. George Pataki, and former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp of Michigan.

In 2001, Grenell was tapped by Bush to be director of communications and public diplomacy for the U.S. delegation to the United Nations, serving under four U.S. ambassadors.

At the U.N. he also held status as an alternative voting member of the Security Council. In that capacity, Grenell worked closely with the German delegation on issues ranging from international sanctions for weapon proliferation to reform of the U.N. bureaucracy.

Though he been touted as the U.S. ambassador to NATO, Grenell is now expected to be the White House’s key point man for European matters.

Grenell’s appointment comes at a time when the Trump administration has been widely faulted for failing to fill some 67 ambassadorial slots. These have included such key posts as the ambassadorships to Italy, Greece, France, Mexico, and Germany.

John Gizzi is chief political columnist and White House correspondent for Newsmax.

https://www.newsmax.com/JohnGizzi/trump-grenell-ambassador-germany/2017/07/19/id/802596/

For more see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Grenell

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

see our letter on: http://www.massenbach-world.de/41259.html

*Herausgegeben von Udo von Massenbach, Bärbel Freudenberg-Pilster, Joerg Barandat*

*****************************************************************************************************************************************

UdovonMassenbachMailJoergBarandat

Massenbach-Letter. NEWS 01.09.17

Massenbach-Letter. News

  • WSJ: Stabbings in Russia Claimed by ISIS Raise Terror Concerns
  • Asia Times: China – Party push for influence stirs fear among foreign firms in China
  • Haaretz: Washington, Riyadh Urge Syrian Opposition to Accept Assad Role
  • BDI: Für eine moderne Sicherheitspolitik: Handlungsempfehlungen der deutschen Industrie
  • IISS_IRIS_RUSI: Brexit and the European arms industry
  • Die Presse, Wien: China treibt ein schändliches Doppelspiel in der Nordkorea-Krise

Massenbach*China:Party push for influence stirs fear among foreign firms in China

Executives from more than a dozen top European companies in China recently met to discuss concerns about Communist Party interference, say sources

Late last month, executives from more than a dozen top European companies in China met in Beijing to discuss their concerns about the growing role of the ruling Communist Party in the local operations of foreign firms, according to three people with knowledge of the discussions.

President Xi Jinping’s efforts to strengthen the party’s role throughout Chinese society have reached the China operations of foreign companies, and executives at some of these entities don’t like the demands they are facing as a result.

The party’s presence has long been a fact of doing business in China, where party organizations exist in nearly 70% of some 1.86 million privately-owned companies, as enumerated by the official China Daily last month.

Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule long regarded by many executives as symbolic rather than anything to worry about.

One senior executive whose company was represented at the meeting told Reuters some companies were under “political pressure” to revise the terms of their joint ventures with state-owned partners to allow the party final say over business operations and investment decisions.

  • Companies in China, including foreign firms, are required by law to establish a party organization, a rule long regarded by many executives as symbolic rather than anything to worry about

He said the company’s joint venture partner was pushing to amend their agreement to include language mandating party personnel be “brought into the business management organization,” that “party organisation overhead expenses shall be included in the company budget,” and that board chairman and party secretary posts be held by the same person. Changing joint venture agreement terms is the main concern, the executive said, noting that his company had thus far resisted.

“Once it is part of the governance, they have direct rights,” he said.

The State Council Information Office (SCIO), which doubles as “spokesman” for the party, told Reuters in a faxed statement that there was no interference by party organizations in the normal operating activities of joint venture or foreign-invested companies.

However, it added, “company party organizations generally carry out activities that revolve around operations management, can help companies promptly understand relevant national guiding principles and policies, coordinate all parties’ interests, resolve internal disputes, introduce and develop talent, guide the corporate culture, and build harmonious labour relations.”

“They are widely welcomed within companies,” the SCIO said.

Major decisions

Of the 13 executives, all from different foreign companies, interviewed by Reuters, eight expressed concerns about increasing demands from the party or noted increased activity from party groups. They all spoke on the condition that they and their companies not be identified given the sensitivity of discussing relations with the party.

Just two of 20 major multinationals queried by Reuters – South Korea’s Samsung and Nokia, of Finland – confirmed having party units in their China operations. Most did not respond to questions on the subject. Only the German chemicals giant Bayer AG acknowledged participating in the meeting, organised by the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, but declined to comment on what was discussed.

Carl Hayward, general manager and director of communications at the European Chamber’s Beijing chapter, acknowledged the meeting was held to “understand from our members if party structures are being formally introduced into the governance of joint ventures.”

He said: “We have not noted any formal change of policy that reflects this. This is as we would expect since such a change would act as a deterrent to foreign investment in China.”

Real muscle

Under Xi, the party has sought to address the “weakening, watering down, hollowing out and marginalization” of party leadership at state enterprises, the party’s official People’s Daily wrote in June. The paper cited an official with state-owned oil giant Sinopec as saying the company had demanded all its foreign joint venture partners “specify the requirement for party-building work” in their articles of association.

While plans to expand party organizations in foreign companies have been a quiet concern for several decades, only under Xi has “some real muscle” been put behind the goal, said Jude Blanchette, who studies the party at The Conference Board’s China Center for Economics and Business in Beijing.

A significant number of major foreign companies operate in China through joint ventures with state enterprises. Foreign business groups have complained that their members are forced to allow Chinese partners access to their technology or risk losing market access.

Many Chinese state enterprises listed on the Hong Kong stock exchange have this year altered their articles of association to give an explicit role to internal party committees.

One country head at a major European manufacturer with a southern China joint venture said that late last year it allowed a party unit to meet on company premises – after hours. The party unit asked for overtime pay to hold the meeting, which the company rebuffed. But then it also demanded the company hire more party members, and even tried to weigh in on investment decisions.

“That’s when we said this is a no-go zone. We didn’t anticipate that they would discuss investment decisions,” the manager told Reuters.

A sales and marketing head in China for a major US consumer goods firm said its party cell had recently become more active, and had pushed for locating a new facility in a district where the local government was promoting investment, a move the company made.

Still, several executives with foreign companies in China said the role of party units was benign and could help to resolve issues with officials. A party member at a US-based Fortune 500 company in Shanghai said her firm’s unit was not involved in business matters and instead engaged in activities such as planting trees and sponsoring children.

“They will give you some tickets to see movies together. When the State Council has a meeting and there’s some news they will send bullet points by email,” she said.

http://www.atimes.com/article/partys-push-influence-stirs-fear-foreign-firms-china/?utm_source=The+Daily+Brief&utm_campaign=b0c2eec542-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_08_24&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_1f8bca137f-b0c2eec542-28273647

**********************************************************************************************************************

From our Russian News Desk. (The views expressed are the author‘s own.)

  • How to Tame the Cyber Beast?
  • The Western Guide to Understanding the Russian Mind
  • IAEA Low Enriched Uranium Bank Launches in Kazakhstan
  • Why do March 8 parties want Lebanon to join the Iranian-Syrian axis?
  • Is a “Convergence of Necessity” behind Iranian Chief of Staff’s Visit to Turkey?
  • Alternative Alliances -Why Is Hamas Seeking Stronger Relations with Iran?
  • "The Terrorism of the Possible" sweeping Europe

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Wall Street Journal:*** Stabbings in Russia Claimed by ISIS Raise Terror Concerns ***

  • Killing of police officer is latest incident trumpeted by Islamic State; investigators can be slow to label attacks –

Russian officers stand by the body of a man who was shot by police after stabbing people in Surgut on Aug. 19.

MOSCOW—A knife attack on police officers in the Russian republic of Dagestan left one officer dead, following a stabbing spree in Siberia this month, adding to worries here about the spread of improvised terrorist attacks like those that have been claimed by Islamic State in Europe.

On Monday, two unidentified attackers struck police officers with knives at a filling station in the city of Kaspiisk, the local branch of the federal Investigative Committee said. One officer was killed and the other was wounded before a third shot and killed the attackers.

Video footage from the scene showed a black jihadist banner said to have been found on the attackers, and Islamic State claimed responsibility, according to SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors extremist activity.

The Investigative Committee, a federal agency charged with probing high-profile crimes, didn’t describe the incident as a terrorist attack, and said a criminal investigation was under way.

The incident came days after a man roamed the streets of the Siberian city of Surgut with a knife, slashing seven bystanders before he was killed by police. The attack was also claimed by Islamic State.

Russian authorities declined to label the Aug. 19 incident as terrorism, but said terrorism wasn’t being ruled out by investigators. Authorities initially described the attacker as mentally ill.

Following the attack, Islamic State released a video describing the man as a holy warrior and showing a masked man identified by the nom de guerre “Masud of Surgut,” seated next to a hatchet and an Islamic State flag, vowing to attack nonbelievers.

“Soon blood will flow like the sea,” a voice chants in the video.

While Islamic State has declared itself to be behind numerous attacks that investigators also attributed to the group, ISIS has a record of falsely claiming responsibility, and it remains unclear if the group had any operational link to the latest incidents in Russia.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has responded with force to some past terrorist attacks. He came to power on a promise to wipe out militants in the north Caucasus region, and he launched a military campaign in Syria in 2015 that he described as an effort to defeat Islamic State.

But Russian officials have on occasion been cautious about playing up terrorism threats. When a passenger plane flying to St. Petersburg went down over Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula in 2015, killing all 224 people on board, Russian officials initially dismissed an Islamic State claim and reports that a bomb brought down the plane.

It took Moscow over two weeks to say they had evidence it was a terrorist attack.

The response by authorities in playing down the possibility of terrorism in the Aug. 19 attack in Surgut indicated worries about public perception, said Alexey Malashenko, a Moscow-based researcher.

“If they admit it’s a terrorist act, then you have to ask the question of what the authorities are doing” to combat it, he said. “It’s convenient to describe it as a criminal act.”

Mr. Malashenko said he believed the Surgut stabbing spree was terrorism. “It’s a repeat of what’s happened in Finland and Spain,” he said, referring to a knife attack in the Finnish city of Turku that is being investigated as terrorism, and vehicle attacks in Barcelona and the Spanish town of Cambrils.

Over the past two decades, Russia has seen a number of terrorist attacks led by Islamist militants, from a siege in a Moscow theater in 2002 to a horrific hostage-taking in a school in the southern Russian town of Beslan.

More recently, Russian authorities identified a man from the Central Asian republic of Kyrgyzstan as the suicide bomber who caused a deadly subway-train blast in St. Petersburg, Russia’s second-largest city.

The Caucasus Emirate, a militant group that pledged loyalty to Islamic State in 2015, continues to fight a low-level insurgency in the north Caucasus region. In a separate incident on Monday in Dagestan, a member of the security services was killed and two were wounded in a shootout with militants near the town of Khasavyurt, Russian news agencies reported.

Over 2000 miles away, Surgut, a city of 360,000 in Khanti-Mansy Autonomous Okrug and a major center for oil and gas production, has seen an influx of job-seeking migrants from Muslim-majority regions of Central Asia and the north Caucasus.

The arrival of migrant workers has raised tensions in cities in the region, according to a 2015 report by the Carnegie Moscow Center think tank.

Cities in the Khanti-Mansy region, the report added, “remain hotbeds of the Salafist movement,” shorthand for an austere brand of Islam that experts say isn’t traditional in the region. Russia has a substantial and diverse Muslim population, but authorities are wary of the rise of what they deem religious fundamentalism.

Arkady Dubnov, an expert on Central Asia, said local authorities needed to more responsive to possible terror incidents, making it clear to the public when they happen.

“You need to establish the diagnosis in order to prescribe the medicine,” he said.

Terrorism and Russia

Russia has seen numerous attacks in recent decades, including:

· July 1994: Terrorists seize a helicopter and take hostages in the southern city of Mineralnye Vody. During a rescue operation, 19 people are wounded and four are killed.

· June 1995: Separatists led by Chechen commander Shamil Basayev capture several buildings in the southern city of Budyonnovsk; 129 people are killed, 415 wounded.

· January 1996: A group of Chechen militants led by Salman Raduyev capture a hospital in Kizlyar, in the southern republic of Dagestan; hostages are taken to the village of Pervomayskoye. A total of 78 people are killed and several hundred are wounded in the hostage-taking and fighting.

· June-July 1996: Explosions on public transportation in Moscow kill and injure dozens.

· June 1997: An explosion on a train from Moscow to St. Petersburg kills five people.

· March 1999: An explosion at a market in Vladikavkaz, southern Russia, kills 64 people.

· September 1999: A series of apartment blocks are bombed in the cities of Moscow, Bunaiksk and Volgodonsk, killing around 300 people and setting off a national panic.

· August 2000: Explosion in the underpass at Moscow’s Pushkin square kills 13 people and wounds dozens more.

· March 2001: A series of car bombings in southern Russia kills 21 people and wounds 140.

· October 2002: Around 800 spectators, actors and musicians are held hostage at a theater in Moscow. During the siege, all the terrorists are killed and 130 hostages die.

· December 2002: A government building in Grozny is hit by a suicide bomber, killing 71 people and wounding several hundred.

· May 2003: A truck bomb is set off in the village of Znamenskoye in Chechnya, killing 52.

· July 2003: Suicide bombers attack a music festival in Moscow, killing 16 people and wounding 59.

· February 2004: An explosion in the Moscow subway kills 40 people and wounds 134.

· June 2004: Chechen militants attack government buildings in Nazran, Ingushetia, killing 98 people.

· August 2004: Two female suicide bombers board domestic flights and blow themselves up in midair, killing 90 people.

· September 2004: Terrorists capture a school in Beslan, North Ossetiya. A total of around 330 people are killed.

· October 2005: An attack on Nalchik, Kabardino-Balkariya, kills 35 law enforcement officers and 12 civilians.

· March 2010: An explosion in Moscow metro stations kills 40 and wounds 90.

· January 2011: A suicide bombing at Moscow’s Domodedovo airport kills 37 and wounds 172.

· May 2012: An attack involving a suicide car bomb in Makhachkala, Dagestan, kills 13 and wounds 100.

· October 2013: A female suicide bomber detonates on a bus, killing seven.

· December 2014: An attack by insurgents in the capital of Chechnya kills 14 policemen and 1 civilian. A total of 11 insurgents are killed.

· October 2015: A Russian passenger jet crashes in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, killing 224. Islamic State affiliate claims responsibility for planting a bomb on board.

· April 2017: A suicide bomber detonates on a St. Petersburg subway train, killing at least 14.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/stabbings-in-russia-claimed-by-isis-raise-terror-concerns-1503941182

************************************************************************************************************************

Policy= res publica

Freudenberg-Pilster*

Wien.

China treibt ein schändliches Doppelspiel in der Nordkorea-Krise

Anstatt Nordkoreas Diktator energisch unter Druck zu setzen, macht Peking seinem Verbündeten im Zweifel immer die Mauer.

Christian Ultsch
29.08.2017 um 18:04

Es hätte schlimmer kommen können. Das nordkoreanische Regime kalkuliert seine Provokationen kühl. Es dosiert den Wahnsinn. Hätte Machthaber Kim Jong-un, wie vor ein paar Wochen angedroht, eine Rakete in Richtung der US-Pazifikinsel abgefeuert, wäre die Welt vor einem neuen Krieg gestanden. Denn dann wäre dem US-Präsidenten, Donald Trump, fast nichts anderes übrig geblieben, als seinen martialischen Drohungen erste Taten folgen zu lassen. Doch die Nordkoreaner ballerten ihre Hwasong-12 nicht gen Guam im Südosten, sondern über die im Nordosten gelegene japanische Insel Hokkaido hinweg. Das Geschoss landete nach 2700 Kilometern Flug im Pazifik; das amerikanische Eiland Guam ist 3000 Kilometer von Nordkorea entfernt, nicht viel weiter also.

Auch wenn die Richtung nicht stimmte: Adressat der Raketengrüße aus Pjöngjang war einmal mehr Washington. Der nordkoreanische Diktator verfolgt ein klares Ziel mit seiner verhaltensauffälligen Außenpolitik. Er will von den USA auf Augenhöhe als Herrscher einer Atommacht anerkannt werden. Diplomatische Schützenhilfe erhielt Kim Jong-un von seinen zunehmend entnervten chinesischen Verbündeten. Anstatt den Raketentest ohne Wenn und Aber zu verurteilen, hatte die Sprecherin des chinesischen Außenministeriums für die USA und deren Alliierte einen kleinen pädagogischen Tipp für den Umgang mit dem nordkoreanischen Dr. Seltsam parat: „Druck, Sanktionen und Drohungen“ seien nicht hilfreich gewesen, um das Problem zu lösen. Entspannen lasse sich die Situation nur durch eine Rückkehr an den Verhandlungstisch.

Das Gespräch zu suchen kann nie verkehrt sein. Doch kriegslustiges Verhalten postwendend zu belohnen ist eine zweifelhafte Strategie, um einem Aggressor beizukommen. Abschreckung ist die einzige Methode, um das nordkoreanische Regime zumindest einzudämmen. Andernfalls wird sich der nordkoreanische Despot ermuntert fühlen, der internationalen Gemeinschaft die Atombombe an die Brust zu setzen und ein Zugeständnis nach dem anderen abzupressen. Wer nicht zögert, eine Rakete über die Köpfe von Millionen Japanern abzufeuern, wird auch künftig wenig Skrupel zeigen, um Gegner einzuschüchtern und sich Vorteile zu verschaffen.

Über kurz oder lang wird Nordkorea das militärische Gleichgewicht in dieser für die Weltwirtschaft so wichtigen Region durcheinanderschütteln. Der Rüstungswettlauf hat schon begonnen. Vor nicht allzu langer Zeit hat ein Präsidentschaftskandidat namens Donald Trump laut darüber nachgedacht, ob sich demnächst nicht auch Japan und Südkorea Atomwaffen zulegen sollten. In Seoul wird darüber bereits debattiert. Und Tokio erwägt, die militärische Zurückhaltung aufzugeben und die Pazifismusklausel aus der Verfassung zu tilgen. Gleichzeitig bekräftigen beide Staaten vehement ihre Militärallianz mit den USA. Für China, das seinen Einfluss in Asien ausweiten will, kommen die nordkoreanischen Spielchen mit dem Feuer ganz und gar ungelegen. Dennoch ist die Führung in Peking nicht in der Lage, den ungestümen Genossen in Pjöngjang in Zaum zu halten. Der nordkoreanische Zauberlehrling tanzt auch der chinesischen Supermacht auf der Nase herum.

Peking hat sich zwar zuletzt überraschend harten Sanktionen gegen Nordkorea angeschlossen. Doch zu weit wollen es die Chinesen auch nicht treiben. Ein Sturz des Regimes in Pjöngjang kommt für sie nicht infrage: erstens aus Prinzip und zweitens, weil sich dann die Balance in der Region zugunsten des Westens verschieben könnte. China ist in einem strategischen Dilemma gefangen: Es lehnt die atomare Bewaffnung Nordkoreas ab, denn die Dauerkrise festigt Amerikas Asien-Bündnis. Gleichzeitig scheut China aus Angst vor Instabilität zurück, ernsthaft gegen Kim vorzugehen. Es wirft ihm immer wieder politische und wirtschaftliche Rettungsleinen zu.

Doch auch mit seinem Doppelspiel wird China den Status quo nicht ewig aufrechterhalten. Es muss seinen Beitrag leisten, um Nordkorea von Massenvernichtungswaffen abzuschrecken. Kim wird der Welt nicht den Gefallen tun, alle seine Raketen ins Meer zu schießen. Er hat mehr als 1000 davon.

http://diepresse.com/home/meinung/kommentare/leitartikel/5276780/Leitartikel_China-treibt-ein-schaendliches-Doppelspiel-in-der?from=newsletter&xtor=EPR-20003-[rss-newsletter]&xt_at=19a3541173c1e954d8f29a4336100cf84f9f2ebb2143ab2a3163018858528438

****************************************************************************************************************** Politics: From Vision to Action

Barandat* IISS_IRIS_RUSI: Brexit and the European arms industry

A year after the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union, the consequences of Brexit for European defence have yet to take shape. A group of experts from France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom – including Bastian Giegerich, IISS Director of Defence and Military Analysis – have mapped what Brexit might mean for the European armament industry.

Their report covers issues such as British access to EU funds, the impact of Brexit on European institutions and bilateral and multilateral European defence programmes, and negotiations on UK-EU defence company agreements. It analyses how these issues might develop in a range of possible future scenarios.

Read this new report from the Armament Industry European Research Group. ( or see att.)

http://www.iiss.org/en/expert%20commentary/blogsections/2017-4431/august-b9c0/brexit-and-european-arms-industry-2a7f

http://www.iris-france.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Ares-19-Brexit-25-August-2017-IRIS.pdf

*******************************************************************************************************************

Middle East

Washington, Riyadh Urge Syrian Opposition to Accept Assad Role

As the Syrian regime makes military advances, Western and regional actors have ceased to call for Assad’s removal and instead seek mediation toward a ’new vision‘ that would include dictator.

As Damascus reverses military losses in much of the country’s strategically important west, and foreign states cut support for rebel forces, diplomats from Washington to Riyadh are asking representatives of Syria’s opposition to come to terms with President Bashar Assad’s political survival.

The country’s civil war has crossed the halfway point of its seventh year and Assad and his allies are now in control of Syria’s four largest cities and its Mediterranean coast. With the help of Russian air power and Iranian-sponsored militias, pro-government forces are marching steadily across the energy-rich Homs province to reach the Euphrates River valley.

Western and regional rebel patrons, currently more focused on advancing their own interests rather than accomplishing regime change in Damascus, are shifting their alliances and have ceased calls on Assad to step down.

"There is no conceivable military alignment that’s going to be able to remove him," said former U.S. Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, now a fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, D.C. "Everyone, including the U.S., has recognized that Assad is staying."

The war has settled into a familiar, lower-intensity grind, with the Syrian government now in control of most of the populated west while Islamic State group militants and al-Qaida affiliates, U.S.-backed Kurds and Turkey-backed rebels hold on to remaining pockets in the north, east and south. Russia-sponsored so-called de-escalation zones have significantly reduced violence in rebel-held territory although fighting continues to rage in some areas.

With another round of U.N. mediated peace talks on the horizon in Geneva, the opposition’s chief representative group, the High Negotiations Committee, is being told by even its closest patrons it risks irrelevance if it does not adapt to the new realities.

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir, according to an interlocutor briefed on the matter, told the opposition it was time to formulate "a new vision."

"He didn’t explicitly say Bashar (Assad) is going to stay, but if you read between the lines, if you say there needs to be a new vision, what is the most contentious issue out there? It’s whether Bashar stays," said the interlocutor, who mediates between the opposition and state capitals and requested anonymity so as not to compromise his work.

It is a difficult pill to swallow for the opposition, which has been holding a series of meetings as part of a months-long stock-taking process in which its members are expected to narrow their aims and refresh their leadership.

However, at a two-day meeting in Riyadh this week that was meant to try and bridge differences between the three main political opposition groups and come up with a unified vision based on the new political and military reality, divisions were once again on full display.

The opposition’s chief representative group, the Saudi-based High Negotiations Committee (HNC), publicly held on to its position that Assad must step down before any political transition. In a statement, it said the opposition group known as the "Moscow Platform" insisted Assad’s departure must not be a precondition for talks.

"We refuse any role for Assad during a transitional period," insisted spokesman Ahmad Ramadan of the National Syrian Coalition, the leading bloc in the HNC, which has always staked out a maximalist position against Assad.

But internally, there is talk of restructuring the HNC to give weight to the more conciliatory voices among the opposition — representatives based in Cairo and Moscow that groups within the HNC have long derided as the "internal opposition" for their perceived cozy relations with Damascus.

It comes at the urging of the U.N.’s top Syria envoy, Staffan de Mistura, who spent much of the last Geneva talks trying to reconcile the HNC and the Cairo and Moscow groups.

De Mistura set expectations last week that those efforts would bear fruit. He said the opposition was in the midst of "intensive internal discussions" in order to come up with "a more inclusive and perhaps even more pragmatic approach" to negotiations, saying he hoped an outcome could materialize by October.

The shifts reflect the changing priorities of the opposition’s chief backers — the United States, Europe, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia — which are now more concerned with preserving their own, narrowly conceived strategic interests, than they are with unseating Assad.

For the U.S., that means focusing on fighting the Islamic State group and containing Iran’s influence in Syria, to protect its ally Israel. Saudi Arabia, too, wants to contain its regional archrival, Iran, as well as wrest influence away from Qatar, which is seen as a key backer to the HNC and some rebel groups on the ground. Ankara’s top priority is to contain the U.S.-backed Kurdish PYD party in northern Syria, which it fears will inspire Kurdish separatism in east Turkey.

Indeed, these nations have never seriously challenged Assad’s hegemony militarily, leaving Russia and Iran holding the cards.

Former President Barack Obama fastidiously avoided striking Assad’s forces, even after his administration concluded Damascus had trespassed the president’s "red line" against chemical warfare; U.S.Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is reported to have told the U.N.’s general secretary in July that President Donald Trump’s administration would leave Syria’s fate in Russia’s hands.

Syrian government forces have blocked aid agencies from delivering relief to several areas they have held under siege, and while the U.N. has condemned the tactic as "barbaric" and "medieval," it has been criticized for paying dividends to Damascus, which has seen these areas capitulate one by one. Russia’s own leverage over the opposition comes from negotiating cease-fires for besieged areas, which are otherwise pounded mercilessly by air strikes and artillery.

It’s not clear what the truces achieve in the long term. The same can be said about the opposition’s reorientation, if such a thing indeed happens.

At a rare public speech before Syrian diplomats in Damascus this week, a confident Assad derided the West and declared Syria will look east when it comes to political, economic and cultural relations.

"We will not give them (our enemies) in politics what they failed to take in war," he said.

http://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/syria/1.808837

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

*Massenbach’s Recommendation*

Für eine moderne Sicherheitspolitik: Handlungsempfehlungen der deutschen Industrie

Welt im Wandel: Globale Risiken

Die weltweiten Risiko-, Bedrohungs- und Konfliktszenarien haben sich in den vergangenen Jahren wieder einmal stark gewandelt, die Sicherheitslage hat sich deutlich erkennbar verschärft. Die Destabilisierung von Regionen, z. B. im Nahen und Mittleren Osten, der Konflikt zwischen Russland und der Ukraine, Migrationsbewegungen, internationaler Terrorismus, Wirtschaftsspionage, die Störung globaler Wertschöpfungsketten – all diese Faktoren haben unabhängig von ihrer geografischen Verortung unmittelbaren Einfluss auf die Sicherheit Deutschlands und auf die geschäftlichen Aktivitäten deutscher Unternehmen.

Diese Entwicklungen stellen altbekannte und neue Anforderungen an die deutsche Sicherheitspolitik. Sie erfordern ganzheitliche, ressortübergreifende und langfristige Antworten im Sinne eines „umfassenden Sicherheitsbegriffs“. Denn Sicherheit bildet in jeder Gesellschaft die Voraussetzung für Wohlstand sowie politische und soziale Stabilität. Sie gewährleistet die Rahmenbedingungen, in denen sich Kultur, Handel und Wirtschaft überhaupt erst entwickeln können Selbstverständnis und Interessen

Trotz seines wirtschaftlichen und politischen Gewichts hat Deutschland immer noch Schwierigkeiten, seine internationale Rolle zu definieren.

Für eine umfassende und strategische Sicherheitspolitik ist es an der Zeit, dass Deutschland seine Bedeutung im internationalen Gefüge anerkennt und ausfüllt. Es ist gerade das wirtschaftliche und politische Gewicht, welches Deutschland verpflichtet, gemeinsam mit Partnern, mehr Verantwortung für die Sicherheit und Stabilität Europas zu übernehmen.

Mit dem aktuellen Weißbuch 2016 formuliert die Bundesregierung die sicherheitspolitischen Herausforderungen und Ziele und stellt auch den Zusammenhang zwischen sicherheitspolitischen und wirtschaftlichen Interessen her. Nun gilt es die Handlungsabsichten zu konkretisieren und notwendige Folgemaßnahmen umzusetzen. Gemeinsame Sicherheitsinteressen und die Mittel zu ihrer Verfolgung müssen durch Politik, Gesellschaft und Wirtschaft definiert und ausgestaltet werden.

Die Rolle der deutschen Industrie

Deutsche Industrieunternehmen quer durch alle Branchen können durch ihre internationale Vernetzung, ihre Expertise auf globalen Märkten und Ortskenntnisse einen wichtigen Beitrag für die Sicherheit leisten. Diese Stärken der deutschen Industrie sollten durch die Politik intensiver genutzt werden.

Technische Fähigkeiten und Produkte deutscher Unternehmen bilden einen unverzichtbaren Bestandteil für innere Sicherheit und damit auch für souveräne Handlungsfähigkeit nach außen. Die deutsche Industrie ermöglicht mit ihrem technologischen Know-how, hochwertigen Produkten und Dienstleistungen eine anforderungsgerechte Ausrüstung staatlicher Sicherheits-, Zivilschutz- und Streitkräfte. Sie entwickelt und produziert maßgeschneiderte Ausrüstungsgegenstände, Security- und Safety-Systeme für den Eigenschutz und sicheren Betrieb der Unternehmen und leistet damit einen strategischen Beitrag für die internationale Handlungsfähigkeit Deutschlands. …..

(for more see att.)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

At last: Zum „Positionspapier des BDI "Für eine moderne Sicherheitspolitik" gibt es Anmerkungen, die in ihrer Deutlichkeit gern auf Nachfrage zur Verfügung gestellt werden.

Die Herausgeber sind sich einig, dass beide Papiere, sowohl das aus deutscher als auch aus britischer Herkunft, dem Zweck dienen wollen, an der Neuausrichtung der Militärausgaben

angemessen beteiligt zu werden. Ob die Intellektualität (insbesondere des BDI-Papieres) ausreichend ist, mag hier nicht diskutiert werden.

Für die Herausgeber: Udo von Massenbach, Berlin.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

see our letter on: http://www.massenbach-world.de/41259.html

*Herausgegeben von Udo von Massenbach, Bärbel Freudenberg-Pilster, Joerg Barandat*

*****************************************************************************************************************************************

UdovonMassenbachMailJoergBarandat

08-17 BDI_Position_Fuer_eine_moderne_Sicherheitspolitik_2017.pdf

08-25-17 IRIS_IISS-Brexit and the European arms industry .pdf

08-29-17 How to tame the cyber beast – The Terrorism of the Possible sweeping Europe – IRAN_Lebanon -Western Guide to Understanding the Russian Mind – IAEA Low Enriched Uranium Bank Launches in Kazakhstan -.docx

💰A personal example that I use

One of the ways I earn money on this website is through an affiliate partnership I have with a service. In short, that is how I make money using affiliate programs on this very website you’re on. Check out the link below for a further explanation of how affiliate marketing works.

reading more here our website

Massenbach-Letter. NEWS 25.8.17

Massenbach-Letter. News

· Coal Makes a Comeback – Trump’s policies and exports to Europe are helping the industry.

· Dmitri Trenin (Carnegie Moscow): Ideological, Geopolitical, and Economic Drivers of Russian Foreign Policy

· Guadalcanal: The Battle That Sealed the Pacific War

· Japan woos Russia with deeper economic ties in face of rising China ( September 1, 2016 / 6:45 AM / a year ago )

·

· Mattis and Tillerson: “We’re Holding Pyongyang to Account”

·

· VATIKAN UND RUSSLAND.

·

· DB-Research- Staat oder Private, Umverteilung oder Wachstum: Wer gewinnt beim Steuerpuzzle der Parteien?

Massenbach*Coal Makes a Comeback – Trump’s policies and exports to Europe are helping the industry.

Not long ago liberals hailed the demise of coal as inevitable while the Obama Administration strangled the industry with regulation. But don’t look now, Tom Steyer, because coal is showing signs of a revival and breathing economic life into West Virginia and other coal states.

Former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy proclaimed in 2015 that coal “is no longer marketable.” She planned to be the lead undertaker. The Obama Administration worked tirelessly to fulfill her mission and may have succeeded had Hillary Clinton become President. “We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of work,” the 2016 Democratic nominee famously promised.

Yet the Trump Presidency seems to have lifted animal spirits and coal. Weekly coal production has increased by 14.5% nationwide over last year with even bigger bumps in West Virginia (19%), Pennsylvania (19.7%) and Wyoming (19.8%). Exports were up 58% during the first quarter from last year. Apparently coal can be marketable if regulators let it be.

***

The Obama Administration first targeted coal consumption with rules on mercury emissions and ash disposal that would have made it next to impossible to build a new coal-burning power plant. Then came the 2015 Clean Power Plan that would have forced the existing fleet of coal plants into early retirement.

Finally, the Obama anti-coal warriors sought to shut down coal’s export potential. Thick-seamed coal on federal land in the Powder River Basin overlying Wyoming and Montana is relatively clean-burning and inexpensive to mine. The Obama Interior Department suspended new coal leases on federal land last winter and then reassessed royalty payments—thereby reducing investment and profitability. In December came the coup de grâce: Interior’s stream rule usurping state authority over permitting.

WSJ

President Trump has called a cease fire to his predecessor’s “war on coal.” In February he signed a resolution repealing the stream rule under the Congressional Review Act. The Supreme Court stayed the Clean Power Plan in February 2016, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is dismantling the power rule as well as the ash and mercury rules. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke has re-opened leases and rescinded the royalty revaluation.

Meanwhile, coal is becoming more competitive as a fuel source relative to natural gas, whose price has risen 63% since March 2016 amid an expanding market. The Energy Information Administration says the U.S. will be a net exporter of natural gas this year.

Growing pipeline networks have boosted gas exports to Mexico and are providing new domestic outlets for gas trapped in the Marcellus and Utica Shales. Pipeline export capacity to Mexico is expected to nearly double by 2019. Several interstate pipelines are under review to deliver gas to the Midwest, eastern Canada and Gulf Coast for export. Liquefied natural gas exports have increased six-fold in the last year, and five new terminal projects are expected to be completed within three years. While coal and natural gas compete as electric power fuels, they can both prosper if energy markets expand.

This is all horrifying to the climate-change lobby, but they might note that U.S. coal exports are rising to countries that claim climate-change virtue. Exports to France increased 214% during the first quarter of this year amid a nuclear power plant outage. Other European countries like Germany and the U.K. are utilizing U.S. coal to stabilize unreliable renewable sources and make up for electric capacity lost from the shutdown of nuclear plants. First-quarter coal exports were up 94% to Germany and 282% to the U.K. Et tu, Angela Merkel ?

Coking coal used to make steel is also currently a hot commodity, and its price can soar whenever a storm hits Australia and shuts down mines as one did this spring. Metallurgical exports to China rose 357% during the first quarter. As much as Mr. Trump denounces China’s overproduction of steel, U.S. coal miners are benefitting.

***

The bigger story is that there’s still demand for U.S. coal if regulators allow energy markets to work. The Energy Information Administration in June projected that U.S. coal power generation will increase by 13% by 2025 “as the existing fleet of coal-fired generators can be more fully utilized and fewer coal-fired generators are retired.” With the Obama Clean Power Plan, the EIA had forecast a 2% to 16% decline.

Coal production will likely never return to its heyday of decades ago. Recent bankruptcies that have made coal companies leaner and more competitive also mean that fewer workers are needed to produce the same output. But even the current modest rebound is helping coal states.

During the first quarter, West Virginia (3%) ranked second in the nation in GDP growth after Texas (3.9%), according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. New Mexico, another heavy mining state, came in third (2.8%). Mining resurgences began in West Virginia, Kentucky and New Mexico last summer after the Clean Power Plan was stayed. After plummeting last year, Wyoming and Montana’s mining industries grew during the first quarter.

Two or three quarters of economic data don’t make a long-term trend, but all of this is still good news for coal states that have experienced two years of little or negative growth and years of political assault.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/coal-makes-a-comeback-1502926053?mod=djemMER

**********************************************************************************************************************

From our Russian News Desk. (The views expressed are the author‘s own.)

Carnegie Moscow Center: Looking out Five Years – Ideological, Geopolitical, and Economic Drivers of Russian Foreign Policy

By Dmitri Trenin

Putin has embraced patriotism and Eurasianism, but Russia must soon confront economic, security, and demographic headwinds, as well as the imperative of reform.

  • In the near to medium term, Russia is likely to face the challenge of Islamist radicalism on its southern borders. The Middle East is generating instability that is already spreading to other parts of the Muslim world, including Central Asia and areas of the Caucasus.
  • Moscow’s main current concern and policy driver is the setting in of the long cycle of low energy and other commodity prices.. This situation objectively pushes the Kremlin toward diversifying the Russian economy.
  • Reform, however, would be exceedingly difficult under conditions of confrontation with the United States, which are unlikely to ease considerably in the next five years. Even if the EU sanctions are formally lifted, the political risks for Europeans of doing business with Russia will be high, resulting in continuing serious impediments to economic relations. Japan’s willingness to reach out to Russia as a hedge against China’s rise will be tempered by Washington’s opposition to such rapprochement. Ways around the sanctions regime will have to be found that operate below Washington’s radar.

This is the third article in a series looking ahead at the drivers of Russian foreign policy from 2017 to 2022.

In 2016, Putin came up with Russia’s national idea: patriotism. In the Kremlin’s version, Russian patriotism is above all about the state, which is the highest civic value. Attitudes toward the state have become the main criteria in judging historical and contemporary figures and ordinary citizens. The Russian state is believed to be the center of a Russian world, a civilization that traces its spiritual and temporal roots to Byzantium and Orthodox Christianity. Besides the Russian Federation, the Russian world encompasses Ukraine (minus its Greek Catholic western regions), Belarus, and Moldova, as well as the Russian diaspora around the world. Its central pillar and main source of cohesion is the Russian Orthodox Church. For Putin, his continued presidency is a God-given mission.

Thus, Russia has pivoted away from the European choice that Putin announced in the early 2000s and that the country had de facto pursued since the toppling of the Communist system in 1991. This pivot to Russia’s own cultural and historical heritage, with an emphasis on the imperial period, is often described as Eurasianism. The European cultural influence remains, but in its classical rather than the contemporary, EU-shaped form. The Kremlin’s current attitudes to the EU can be compared with the views on Europe exhibited in the nineteenth century by Emperor Alexander III and his grandfather, Emperor Nicholas I: Russia is in, but not of, Europe. The present-day Russian Federation sees itself as occupying a unique central position in northern Eurasia, equidistant from Asia, North America, the Middle East, and Europe.

While calling themselves conservatives, Russian leaders essentially remain pragmatic. They are prepared to do deals with anyone, irrespective of their counterparts’ ideology, which they privately view with cynicism. What they vehemently reject is revolution. In the Kremlin’s view, U.S. and EU support for democracy and human rights is a tool of foreign policy that is more effective in destroying authoritarian regimes than in subsequently building democratic systems of governance on their ruins. One reason many Russian officials preferred Donald Trump to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. presidential election is that they expected Trump, when elected, to stop meddling in Russian domestic affairs.

In Russia, the Kremlin employs a number of liberals in the economic policy department, consistent with Putin’s basic preference for the market over total state control of the economy. With his policies in Crimea and Ukraine, Putin has been able to turn himself into a hero for nationalists, who are also managed on the Kremlin’s behalf by veteran political operator Vladimir Zhirinovsky and his Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR). The Communist Party is thoroughly domesticated in the Duma, while its founder, Vladimir Lenin, is often reviled as a traitor for his collusion with Germany against the domestic Russian regime during World War I. All these groups basically support the Kremlin’s current foreign policy.

Moscow’s main current concern and policy driver is the setting in of the long cycle of low energy and other commodity prices. The sharp drop in the oil price in 2014 and 2015 has markedly devalued Russia’s geopolitical importance vis-à-vis its principal customers in Europe and Asia. The idea of an energy superpower, popular in the mid-2000s, has been finally and completely dispelled. This situation objectively pushes the Kremlin toward diversifying the Russian economy. Successful diversification, however, would require the country to adopt a wholly different politico-economic model, with a business-friendly environment, support for entrepreneurship, and an emphasis on technological innovation.

Such a model would end the domination of the ruling moneyed elites and therefore cannot be adopted by them. Thus, Russia finds itself again at a crossroads with a three-way choice: reform the economy and dismantle the existing politico-economic setup; go for a wholesale economic mobilization dominated by the state; or keep the system intact and face the prospect of continued decline and possibly an upheaval in the end. It is likely that the choice will be put off for as long as possible, given its consequences for the elites. It may not be made by the end of the present decade, but it can hardly be postponed beyond 2025 or 2030.

In the near to medium term, Russia is likely to face the challenge of Islamist radicalism on its southern borders. The Middle East is generating instability that is already spreading to other parts of the Muslim world, including Central Asia and areas of the Caucasus. Former Soviet countries in the region that have survived their first twenty-five years of independence exhibit some of the features that helped produce the Arab Spring. In Afghanistan, the Islamic State has built a presence with a view to expanding its influence through the whole country and beyond. Russia, which since 2015 has been directly involved in the war in Syria, may have to fight closer to home, always mindful of the dangers of Islamic State–induced extremism and terrorism in Russia itself. In 2017, Russia experienced its first major terrorist attack in three and a half years in the Saint Petersburg Metro attack of April 3.

In the long term, demographics remain one of Russia’s main concerns. The rate of population decline has slowed down, and the incorporation of Crimea has added over 2 million people to Russia’s total population, which now stands at 144 million. But there is a growing shortage of workers, strategically important regions such as the Russian Far East remain sparsely populated, and immigration from Central Asia presents both an integration and a security challenge.

Geopolitically, Putin has become used to punching far above Russia’s economic weight. This has produced some stunning successes, but it is not sustainable in the long term without reforms that would unchain Russia’s still huge potential for growth and development, or economic mobilization, which would produce a short-term effect but would ultimately result in Russia’s economic and political collapse.

Reform, however, would be exceedingly difficult under conditions of confrontation with the United States, which are unlikely to ease considerably in the next five years. Even if the EU sanctions are formally lifted, the political risks for Europeans of doing business with Russia will be high, resulting in continuing serious impediments to economic relations. Japan’s willingness to reach out to Russia as a hedge against China’s rise will be tempered by Washington’s opposition to such rapprochement. Ways around the sanctions regime will have to be found that operate below Washington’s radar.

With economic ties to the West constrained by politics, Russia has moved actively to explore opportunities elsewhere. This has not been easy, as current Russian exports to non-Western countries are dominated by products whose price structures have collapsed and will not recover much in the foreseeable future. It is not clear whether Russia and China will be able to significantly upgrade their economic relations by 2021. However, if Russia manages to come up with more products that can find markets in China, India, Iran, Southeast Asia, and the Gulf Arab states, it can partly compensate for the losses in trade with the West and diversify its economic relations.

http://carnegie.ru/commentary/?fa=72812&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiTlRSa05tTXdOVFUxWlRaaCIsInQiOiJiK2pvOW9nV2V5eFpLSjM4bUpVZzNjSEhCXC82eFFPb1dCTGE1VTZkNlJNeUpDXC9JVG1CRjI5RHBuWHkybUtwazc5RERQdjJObm1zK1NtNWNaeXRGOEhNSDdyQnhEWjY2dUREa3pRQ1F2M0hBV0lydXR0aE9ESXlWK3pjOVBtV29rIn0%3D

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

VATIKAN UND RUSSLAND:

Vatikanischer Kardinalstaatssekretär in Moskau eingetroffen Der zweithöchste Vertreter des Vatikans nach Papst Franziskus, Kardinalstaatssekretär Pietro Parolin, hat an diesem Montag seinen dreitägigen Staatsbesuch in Russland begonnen. Er traf in Moskau nach Angaben russischer Medien zuerst mit dem Außenamtschef der russisch-orthodoxen Kirche, Metropolit Hilarion, zusammen. Höhepunkte seines Besuchsprogramms in Russland sind ein Treffen mit Staatspräsident Wladimir Putin am Mittwoch in Sotschi und eine Begegnung mit dem russisch-orthodoxen Patriarchen Kyrill I. am Dienstag in Moskau.

(rv/kna/ria nowosti)

Hier mehr in Text und Ton (Link:

)

Fortschritte und Konflikte

Mit Blick auf das Verhältnis von Vatikan und Russland spricht der Außenamtschef des Moskauer Patriarchates von einem „bedeutenden Fortschritt in den letzten zehn Jahren“. In einem Interview mit der italienischen Zeitung „Il Sole 24 Ore“, das wenige Tage vor der Russland-Reise des vatikanischen Kardinalstaatssekretärs Pietro Parolin veröffentlicht wurde, verweist er auf den gemeinsamen Ursprung des Glaubens und Herausforderungen wie Extremismus und Christenverfolgung, die beide Kirchen umtreiben. Das Verhältnis habe sich intensiviert; in dieser Optik sei auch der Besuch von Kardinalstaatssekretär Pietro Parolin in Russland zu sehen, der an diesem Montag beginnt.

Krisengebiete Syrien und Ukraine

Was den Kampf gegen Extremismus in Syrien betrifft, spricht Hilarion in dem Interview von „ähnlichen Positionen“ Russlands und des Vatikan. Er nennt den Brief des Papstes an Wladimir Putin vom September 2013, in dem Franziskus den Präsidenten zum Friedenseinsatz für das zerrüttete Land aufrief. Es sei „zu großem Teil der damals übereinstimmenden Position Russlands und des Vatikan zu verdanken, dass es gelang, eine Militärintervention in syrischem Territorium zu vermeiden“, formuliert der Metropolit, ohne auf die international umstrittenen Luftangriffe einzugehen, die Russland seit September 2015 in Syrien durchführt.

Im Ukraine-Konflikt habe der Heilige Stuhl eine „ausgewogene Position“ eingenommen, so der Metropolit weiter – „indem er unilaterale Bewertungen vermieden hat“. Der Vatikan trete für das Ende der Kämpfe in der Ostukraine ein, rufe zu Dialog auf und beharre auf dem Einhalten des Minsk-Abkommens. Gleichwohl sieht Hilarion den Krieg an Russlands Rand sowohl als derzeit größte Herausforderung in den Beziehungen beider Kirchen.

(rv/ilsole24ore)

Hier lesen Sie mehr (Link:

************************************************************************************************************************

Policy= res publica

Freudenberg-Pilster* DB-Research- Staat oder Private, Umverteilung oder Wachstum: Wer gewinnt beim Steuerpuzzle der Parteien?

Seit 2010 ist das Steueraufkommen in Deutschland um ein Drittel auf EUR 706 Mrd. gestiegen. Wenn Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich mit einer Aufkommensquote von 22,9% des BIP gleichwohl als Niedrigsteuerland erscheint, trügt das Bild, weil der deutsche Sozialstaat weitgehend über zusätzliche Abgaben finanziert wird. Bei der Gesamtbelastung liegt Deutschland über dem OECD-Durchschnitt und die Steuerstruktur ist ungünstig. Es erscheint sinnvoll, v.a. die steile Progression der Einkommensteuer bei geringeren und mittleren Einkommen abzuflachen. Mit Reformvorschlägen für die Einkommensteuer werben die Parteien um die Medianwähler und die eigene Klientel. Unter dem Strich ergeben sich unterschiedliche Entlastungseffekte.

http://www.dbresearch.de/MAIL/DBR_INTERNET_DE-PROD/PROD0000000000449407.pdf

****************************************************************************************************************** Politics: From Vision to Action

Barandat*Guadalcanal: The Battle That Sealed the Pacific War

By George Friedman

About 75 years ago, U.S. Marines landed on the islands of Guadalcanal, Tulagi and Florida in the British Solomon Islands. Their mission was to block the Japanese from building an airfield on the island and, after blocking them, to build their own base to fly from while the Marines drove the remaining Japanese out. The U.S. Navy would land the Marines on the island, block Japanese resupply and reinforcements from landing, and secure the American line of supply from Australia and New Caledonia.

Two months earlier, the Japanese had suffered a strategic defeat at Midway, losing a substantial portion of their fleet in the process. Japan was not without resources, but its primary thinking was now the strategic defensive. It sought to secure its gains by two means: reinforcing the layers of islands it had, and conducting regional offensives in defense of its holdings.

The American fleet wasn’t ready for major operations, nor did the U.S. Air Force yet exist in force, but the U.S. strategy had become obvious. There were two lines of attack available. First, there was a western offensive, running from Australia to New Guinea to the Philippines to Taiwan and Okinawa. Second, there was an offensive from the east: Hawaii-Gilbert Islands-Carolines-Marshalls-Marianas-Bonin-Okinawa. Put in terms of the critical and famous islands, this was an offensive through Tarawa, Saipan and Iwo Jima to Okinawa – and many other brutal but less famous islands.


(click to enlarge)

Two island groups were the key: New Caledonia and Fiji. Together, they made both offensives possible. They were directly on the line of supply to Australia and to the southern flank of any attack on the Gilberts. Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto had considered a direct assault on these islands as an alternative to Midway, but he had hoped to force the U.S. fleet into defending Midway, destroying the fleet and later taking the southern islands. He succeeded in getting Adm. Chester Nimitz to engage his fleet. He didn’t anticipate defeat.

Two months after Midway, the importance of New Caledonia and Fiji to Japan was greater than ever, but its available force had shrunk. The Japanese had to move away from large-scale carrier operations, but they had a solid alternative. On both sides, land-based aircraft based on the small Pacific islands made the movement of naval vessels dangerous. Airfields built on select islands enabled aircraft to block critical passages and make enemy offensives dangerous.

American strategy later in the war was to neutralize Japan’s land-based aircraft and take the islands as bases for their own aircraft. The U.S. Navy delivered the firepower and troops who landed on an island, and in many cases the airfield was seized or created, blocking forces for hundreds of miles around. This was the island-hopping strategy the U.S., always on the offensive after Midway, adopted. It was the strategy that Japanese land-based aircraft tried to resist. The naval war undergirded an air war, the bases won by the blood of the infantry.

The Battle Begins

In August 1942, Japan was still on the offensive. It wanted to isolate Australia and then flank the assault on the Gilberts. It wanted to capture New Caledonia and Fiji. But the key to that was Vanuatu, and the only asset the Japanese had to support an offensive was an air base in the Solomon Islands. The ideal spot for an island base was Guadalcanal. If Japan couldn’t mount an invasion on New Caledonia or Fiji, aircraft from Guadalcanal could interdict supplies to Australia by threatening New Caledonia.

Australian coast watchers – plantation owners who stayed behind after the Japanese had landed in the Solomons – observed the movement of ships and noted the construction underway on Guadalcanal. They recognized that Japan was building an airfield there, and they knew that if it were completed, a strategic threat might materialize. They also realized that if they waited until the airfield was finished, an invasion would be incredibly costly, if not impossible.

The Americans weren’t ready for such an operation. The Marines available for it were unseasoned and few in number. Army support was not yet available. The U.S. Navy consisted of cruisers and destroyers and too few aircraft carriers to risk any of them. The only positive was that Japanese intelligence had underestimated the size of the available U.S. force.

Nimitz and Gen. Douglas MacArthur understood the potential significance of the Japanese move, and they understood that they were in no position to launch a counterattack. They also knew that if they waited until they were ready, an invasion would be impossible. Japanese aircraft would devastate the landing force, and no carrier would be able to get close without being sunk.

If Japan established its air base in Guadalcanal, it could launch a massive operation against U.S.-Australian supply lines, forcing the U.S. to abort the future New Guinea attack and exposing the western flank of any future U.S. offensive. Japan would then be able to concentrate on the islands of the Central Pacific, making the eastern offensive problematic for the United States.

Nimitz, in strategic command and a meticulous planner, had to shoot from the hip. He had to launch the first Allied offensive of the Pacific War.

The Invasion

The plan was that the Marines would land nearby on Tulagi and the island of Florida as well as on Guadalcanal. Their mission was to capture the airfield before it was activated by the Japanese. Having done that, Navy construction brigades known as Seabees would land and prepare the base for American aircraft, which would then support the Marines in holding the island and, after reinforcement, project power northward.

The Americans didn’t want to take the island, and they didn’t want to start the offensive here. It was the Japanese that forced the Americans’ hand. The Japanese forces on the island were unequal to the task, but the Marines were in even worse shape. The Marines had a huge advantage, however. Their mission was to take and hold Henderson Field, the name they gave the airfield under construction. Then they would be on the defensive. The Japanese would have to dislodge them, moving through the swamps and elephant grass that could slice a man open. Given the available forces and the tactical and strategic reality, the Marines were in a powerful position.

The Japanese understood as much. They realized that if they lost the airfield, the situation in the Solomons would reverse, New Caledonia would be secure, and any hope of isolating Australia would be lost. They had to reinforce Guadalcanal and keep sending supplies to it. The U.S. had to do the same. This was a naval problem, and the Japanese navy had the cruisers and destroyers to protect supply ships. The Americans focused on cutting off Japan’s supply route.

During the invasion, the Americans and Australians sent in cruisers and destroyers. The U.S. also sent in an aircraft carrier to provide air support for the Marines. But the commander withdrew the carrier, afraid to lose it. He was bitterly chastised by the Marines, who felt abandoned, but in my view he did what was strategically necessary. It would be almost a year before a large number of carriers were available. The U.S. could not afford to lose any, lest Yamamoto take another shot at the Central Pacific. But though he was right, the decision left only surface vessels and some submarines to maintain the U.S. lines of supply and to sever the Japanese line of supply.


The U.S. Navy aircraft carrier USS Wasp (CV-7) burning and listing after she was torpedoed by the Japanese submarine I-19, on Sept. 15, 1942, while operating in the Southwestern Pacific in support of forces on Guadalcanal. U.S. NAVY

Most of the attention around Guadalcanal focuses on the Marines, but it was fundamentally a naval battle. This is because the Japanese had concentrated on naval technology before the war. They had a torpedo with a much greater range than American torpedoes. They also had flashless powder. When the U.S. fired, the Japanese could count the guns and the range. When the Japanese fired, the Americans couldn’t see them. The water off Guadalcanal was nicknamed Iron Bottom Sound because of the number of ships sunk.

In spite of all this, the supplies, from bullets to aviation fuel, made it in. The Marines pushed forward toward Japanese lines, with or without air support. They moved to tactical defensive positions during the night and absorbed countless Japanese attacks, slowly winning a war of attrition. The Japanese sent replacements, but the U.S. Navy and aircraft slowly choked the Japanese supply effort. Finally, the Japanese evacuated the island of surviving troops.

The Beginning of the End

This ended Japanese strategic operations, which were already sparse after Midway. The U.S. no longer had to defend the line of supply to Australia, and American troops surged to Australian bases. As important, the U.S. had its first taste of amphibious warfare on any scale. The lessons learned about the need for air superiority and massive naval support, as well as the importance of not getting bogged down in attritional warfare, were all carried forward.

This was the moment that Japan might have sought out truce terms. It’s possible they would have gotten them. Guadalcanal made clear that the Japanese, even in defeat, could exact an enormous price – and the Japanese lines of defense hadn’t been pierced yet. There would be almost three years of war yet, and in 1942 the Americans could reasonably think there would be many more. The U.S. dreaded a separate peace between Russia and Germany and eagerly wanted to create a second front in Europe and lend-lease for the Russians.

For Japan, however, it was unthinkable – culturally and conceptually – to seek a truce. The Japanese had lost a battle on a Godforsaken island. Far from the Japanese leadership’s mind was any notion that Midway had closed to door to victory or that Guadalcanal had locked it.

The war went on for two and a half years. The United States never lost the initiative. Japanese forces were scattered on small islands, and the Japanese navy could not sortie to their defense. Having turned amphibious warfare into a replicable model, the U.S. chose which island to assault and never withdrew forces after it had landed. From this point on, the Japanese were simply waiting for the end, with many on both sides waiting to die.

Midway and Guadalcanal, in retrospect, ended the Pacific War, if not the death or the fear on both sides. Those battles would give the United States control of the Pacific, a control that has been in place for the past 70 years or so. And they would lead, in the circuitous path of history, to North Korea today. Whatever fears we have in 2017, they would have been very different had the battles of so many decades ago gone differently. That is the measure of the importance of these battles.

1942 was the year the outcome of World War II was defined. Two more battles, El Alamein and Stalingrad, came later in the year but not in importance.

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/guadalcanal-battle-sealed-pacific-war/

*******************************************************************************************************************

Japan woos Russia with deeper economic ties in face of rising China

(September 1, 2016 / 6:45 AM / a year ago)

TOKYO (Reuters) – Japan is hoping the lure of deeper economic ties with Russia will strengthen strategic relations in the face of a rising China, but skeptics question whether the approach will generate a breakthrough in a decades-old territorial dispute.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will meet Russian President Vladimir Putin on the sidelines of a business conference in Vladivostok to discuss, among other things, closer economic cooperation in such areas as energy and technology…

Japan has been eyeing closer ties with Russia to counter China’s growing clout, as well as its interest in Russia’s natural resources. In a sign of the focus on economic ties, Abe has given his trade minister Hiroshige Seko an additional portfolio in charge of economic cooperation with Russia, the main government spokesman in Tokyo said on Thursday.

Earlier attempts to schedule a visit by Putin were derailed by Russia’s 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimea region, which prompted Tokyo to join the United States and other Western countries in imposing sanctions on Moscow.

Former lawmaker Muneo Suzuki said broadening economic ties with an eye to the eventual resolution of the territorial row over islands in the western Pacific made sense because Russia’s energy resources and Japan’s technological expertise and investments were a good fit.

"What President Putin is hoping for is Japan’s technology. If Japan’s technology is sought after for the development of Russia’s Far East, we should make it available," said Suzuki, who has advised Japanese prime ministers on Russian relations.

"As for Japan, we are importing oil and gas from the Middle East, which is some 10,000 km away. It would be in our national interest to procure them stably from Vladivostok or Sakhalin, which are just a stone’s throw away," Suzuki told Reuters.

CONCESSION "UNTHINKABLE"

Japan claims sovereignty over a string of Russia-controlled western Pacific islands, called the Northern Territories in Japan and Southern Kuriles in Russia.

The row over the island chain, seized by troops of the former Soviet Union at the end of World War Two, has prevented a formal peace treaty between the two countries.

Critics say it is unlikely that economic cooperation would prompt Putin to hand over what Moscow regards as its own territory. Putin enjoys high approval ratings after the Crimea annexation despite Russia’s economic difficulties.

"The Crimea annexation painted him as a great leader who took back territory that was once lost, and triggered an upturn in his support rating," said Shigeki Hakamada, professor emeritus at Japan’s Aoyama Gakuin University.

"It is rather unthinkable that Putin makes a concession on what he himself said became Russian territory as a result of World War Two," he said.

Increased infrastructure investments on the disputed islands signal a clear reluctance on Russia’s part to hand the islands over, James Brown, associate professor at Temple University’s Japan campus, told reporters this week.

Hakamada said some promising comments could come from bilateral talks "to keep economic cooperation from Japan coming".

"But I don’t think there will be a real concession," he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-vladivostok-forum-japan-idUSKCN1173KO

*********************************************************************************************************************

*Massenbach’s Recommendation*

U.S. Embassy Berlin / Amerika Dienst

https://de.usembassy.gov/de/wir-ziehen-pjongjang-zur-verantwortung/

Der folgende Gastbeitrag von US-Verteidigungsminister Jim Mattis und US-Außenminister Rex Tillerson erschien am 15. August 2017 zunächst im Wall Street Journal.

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

August 14, 2017

Mattis and Tillerson: “We’re Holding Pyongyang to Account”

“In response, the Trump administration, with the support of the international community, is applying diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea to achieve the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and a dismantling of the regime’s ballistic-missile programs. We are replacing the failed policy of ‘strategic patience,’ which expedited the North Korean threat, with a new policy of strategic accountability.”

We’re Holding Pyongyang to Account
By Jim Mattis and Rex Tillerson
Wall Street Journal
August 14, 2017

In the past few months, multiple illegal North Korean ballistic-missile and ICBM tests—coupled with the most recent bellicose language from Pyongyang about striking the U.S., Guam, our allies and our interests in the Asia-Pacific region—have escalated tensions between North Korea and America to levels not experienced since the Korean War.

In response, the Trump administration, with the support of the international community, is applying diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea to achieve the complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and a dismantling of the regime’s ballistic-missile programs. We are replacing the failed policy of “strategic patience,” which expedited the North Korean threat, with a new policy of strategic accountability.

The object of our peaceful pressure campaign is the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The U.S. has no interest in regime change or accelerated reunification of Korea. We do not seek an excuse to garrison U.S. troops north of the Demilitarized Zone. We have no desire to inflict harm on the long-suffering North Korean people, who are distinct from the hostile regime in Pyongyang.…

While diplomacy is our preferred means of changing North Korea’s course of action, it is backed by military options. The U.S. alliances with South Korea and Japan are strong. But Pyongyang has persistently rebuffed Seoul’s attempts to create conditions whereby peaceful dialogue can occur, and has instead proceeded on its reckless course of threats and provocation.
As a result of these dangers, South Korea’s new government is moving forward with the deployment of U.S. Terminal High-Altitude Area Defense against the threat. We commend South Korea’s decision to deploy this purely defensive capability.

Installing Thaad launchers on the Korean Peninsula and conducting joint military exercises are defensive preparations against the acute threat of military actions directed against the U.S., our allies and other nations. China’s demand for the U.S. and South Korea not to deploy Thaad is unrealistic. Technically astute Chinese military officers understand the system poses no danger to their homeland.…

The U.S. will continue to work with our allies and partners to deepen diplomatic and military cooperation, and to hold nations accountable to their commitments to isolate the regime. That will include rigorous enforcement of sanctions, leaving no North Korean source of revenue untouched. In particular, the U.S. will continue to request Chinese and Russian commitments not to provide the regime with economic lifelines and to persuade it to abandon its dangerous path.

As always, we will embrace military preparedness in the defense of our homeland, our citizens and our allies, and in the preservation of stability and security in Northeast Asia. And we will say again here: Any attack will be defeated, and any use of nuclear weapons will be met with an effective and overwhelming response.

North Korea now faces a choice. Take a new path toward peace, prosperity and international acceptance, or continue further down the dead alley of belligerence, poverty and isolation. The U.S. will aspire and work for the former, and will remain vigilant against the latter.

Read the full op-ed here. ( https://www.wsj.com/articles/were-holding-pyongyang-to-account-1502660253 )

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/08/14/mattis-and-tillerson-were-holding-pyongyang-account

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

We appreciate / wir freuen uns über dieses like:“Many thanks for your newsletter, fantastic compilation of real and relevant news&trends.”

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

*****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

see our letter on: http://www.massenbach-world.de/41259.html

*Herausgegeben von Udo von Massenbach, Bärbel Freudenberg-Pilster, Joerg Barandat*

*****************************************************************************************************************************************

UdovonMassenbachMailJoergBarandat

08-21-17 B_Research- Staat oder Private, Umverteilung oder Wachstum_Wer gewinnt beim Steuerpuzzle der Parteien _ PROD00449407.pdf

✔yahoo! interesting info

Yo!

I’ve suddenly found that information and thought it could be ideal for you, read more here please continue reading

Be well, President-AGBC-Berlin

From: udo von massenbach-wordpress [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 2:56 AM
To: mg@ggpartner.de
Subject: Preparee Americain

In a moment of anger, I had considered doing so. But I think they know. I have it from reliable sources in our field that he was accused of the same thing there, but the accusations didn’t stick (he fired the grad student who made the accusations). Showing up at his old institution without his major funding in hand anymore has to be a clue to some major malfeasance. I’m guessing he called in every last favor to get his old job back.

Sent from Mail for Windows 10