Massenbach-Letter. NEWS 18.8.17

Massenbach-Letter. News

A Report of the CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program and the Russian International Affairs Council

  • For Pakistan, China’s huge energy investments may have serious political costs
  • Shell’s strategic move into electricity
  • Clickbait for Marxists – Just like Trump, the New York Times should condemn a hateful ideology.
  • U.S. Army_West_Point-CTC – Britain on Alert.
  • Zur Diskussion über den sog. Traditionserlass des Bundesministeriums der Verteidigung, Berlin –
  • Menschen zeigen: Die Welt der Supermodels

Massenbach*Nick Butler, FT: Shell’s strategic move into electricity

Shell’s CEO Ben van Beurden

Royal Dutch Shell’s decision to sell electricity direct to industrial customers is an intelligent and creative one. The shift is strategic and demonstrates that oil and gas majors are capable of adapting to a new world as the transition to a lower carbon economy develops. For those already in the business of providing electricity it represents a dangerous competitive threat. For the other oil majors it poses a direct challenge on whether they are really thinking about the future sufficiently strategically.

The move starts small with a business in the UK that will start trading early next year. Shell will supply the business operations as a first step and it will then expand. But Britain is not the limit — Shell recently announced its intention of making similar sales in the US.

Historically, oil and gas companies have considered a move into electricity as a step too far, with the sector seen as oversupplied and highly politicised because of sensitivity to consumer price rises. I went through three reviews during my time in the industry, each of which concluded that the electricity business was best left to someone else.

What has changed? I think there are three strands of logic behind the strategy.

First, the state of the energy market. The price of gas in particular has fallen across the world over the last three years to the point where the International Energy Agency describes the current situation as a “glut”. Meanwhile, Shell has been developing an extensive range of gas assets, with more to come. In what has become a buyer’s market it is logical to get closer to the customer — establishing long-term deals that can soak up the supply.

Given its reach, Shell could sign contracts to supply all the power needed by the UK’s National Health Service or with the public sector as a whole as well as big industrial users. It could agree long-term contracts with big businesses across the US. To the buyers, Shell offers a high level of security from multiple sources with prices presumably set at a discount to the market. The mutual advantage is strong.

Second, there is the transition to a lower carbon world. No one knows how fast this will move, but one thing is certain: electricity will be at the heart of the shift with power demand increasing in transportation, industry and the services sector as oil and coal are displaced.

Shell, with its wide portfolio, can match inputs to the circumstances and policies of each location. It can match its global supplies of gas to growing Asian markets while developing a renewables-based electricity supply chain in Europe. The new company can buy supplies from other parts of the group or from outside. It has already agreed to buy all the power produced from the first Dutch offshore wind farm at Egmond aan Zee. The move gives Shell the opportunity to enter the supply chain at any point — it does not have to own power stations any more than it now owns drilling rigs or helicopters.

The third key factor is that the electricity market is not homogenous. The business of supplying power can be segmented. The retail market — supplying millions of households — may be under constant scrutiny with suppliers vilified by the press and governments forced to threaten price caps but supplying power to industrial users is more stable and predictable, and done largely out of the public eye. The main industrial and commercial users are major companies well able to negotiate long-term deals.

Given its scale and reputation, Shell is likely to be a supplier of choice for industrial and commercial consumers and potentially capable of shaping prices. This is where the prospect of a powerful new competitor becomes another threat to utilities and retailers whose business models are already under pressure.

In the European market in particular, public policies that give preference to renewables have undermined other sources of supply — especially those produced from gas. Once-powerful companies such as RWE and EON have lost much of their value as a result. In the UK, France and elsewhere, public and political hostility to price increases have made retail supply a risky and low-margin business at best. If the industrial market for electricity is now eaten away, the future for the existing utilities is desperate.

Shell’s move should raise a flag of concern for investors in the other oil and gas majors. The company is positioning itself for change. It is sending signals that it is now viable even if oil and gas prices do not increase and that it is not resisting the energy transition. Chief executive Ben van Beurden said last week that he was looking forward to his next car being electric. This ease with the future is rather rare. Shareholders should be asking the other players in the old oil and gas sector to spell out their strategies for the transition.


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

A Report of the CSIS Russia and Eurasia Program and the Russian International Affairs Council

  • At a time when tension between the US and Russia is higher than it has been in decades, we cannot forget that the relationship between these two countries is among the most important for global security. On any number of issues, from arms control to the Middle East, failure of the U.S. and Russia to communicate will make things much, much worse, with repercussions that will last for generations and affect the entire world. For this reason, CSIS and RIAC convened some of Russia’s and America’s top experts to think through the future of the bilateral relationship. The result is a series of papers that identify both the spheres where coordination is crucial and those where it may be possible, responding to mutual interests and potentially helping to stabilize the relationship and buffer against conflict in the future. For both, they offer concrete recommendations and a clear-eyed take on what can, and what cannot be done.
  • The analyses that follow examine prospects for Russia-U.S. cooperation in several crucial regions and fields: economics, energy, the Arctic, Euro-Atlantic security, the Middle East, strategic stability, cybersecurity, and countering terrorism and extremism. They offer actionable recommendations in each area, some of which can, and should be undertaken today, and some of which should be considered by policymakers in Moscow and Washington as they chart a course through dangerous and uncertain times.
  • Contributors: Heather A. Conley, Ambassador William Courtney, R. Kim Cragin, Lynn E. Davis, Ambassador James Dobbins, Suzanne Freeman, Andrei Korneyev, Sarah Ladislaw, James A. Lewis, Sergey Rogov, Pavel Sharikov, Sharon Squassoni, Ekaterina Stepanova, Victor Supyan, Mikhail Troitskiy, Andrei Zagorski, Irina Zvyagelskaya.
  • A Roadmap for U.S.-Russia Relations, 9.9 Mb


Wall Street Journal: Clickbait for Marxists

Just like Trump, the New York Times should condemn a hateful ideology.

Sunday marked the anniversary of the construction of the Berlin Wall, erected in 1961 by East Germany’s Communist government to prevent its captive citizenry from fleeing to the West. In 1989 Germans tore down the wall and then the regime. Germany was reunified in 1990 and in the years since its people have not forgotten the horrors of totalitarianism. On Friday German Chancellor Angela Merkel sought to honor the memory of communism’s victims with a visit to the former Hohenschoenhausen prison operated by East Germany’s Stasi secret police. The New York Times for its part chose to offer a different take on Saturday, publishing a piece arguing that women in the former East Germany had better sex than those in West Germany.

Deutsche Presse-Agentur offers some background on Hohenschoenhausen:

Opened in 1951, the prison provided the setting for the 2006 Academy-award winning drama “The Lives of Others” that documented the Stasi’s power and its callous intrusion into people’s lives.

More than 11,000 prisoners were incarcerated at Hohenschoenhausen during its more than 40 years of operations. Those held at the prison faced physical torture and psychological abuse.

Many were dissidents, while others were sent to the prison for the simple crime of trying to leave the communist country.

Some of those who ended up in Hohenschoenhausen were critics of the communist regime who were kidnapped on the streets of West Berlin by East German secret service operatives.

But how was the sex? Veering again into self-parody with another in its series on the lighter side of an ideology that killed an estimated 100 million people, the Times has found another Ivy League professor willing to defend the indefensible. This time someone named Kristen Ghodsee from the University of Pennsylvania must surely be making Quaker alums proud with her argument that there were orgasms galore behind the Iron Curtain.

Ms. Ghodsee sees the Communists as pioneers of sexual equality and writes, “The Soviets extended full suffrage to women in 1917, three years before the United States did.” Having studied life under communism, can Ms. Ghodsee possibly believe this propaganda? A Penn website affirms that she is a professor in the university’s Department of Russian and East European Studies. Even the most cursory study of the Soviet Union would quickly confirm that neither male nor female citizens in Russia or any of the other captive nations of the empire enjoyed the right to choose their leaders.

Later in her piece, Ms. Ghodsee implies that she doesn’t actually believe that “full suffrage” existed in the Soviet empire when she contrasts the former Communist governments with the “now democratic” ones in Europe. But her admiration for the apparatchiks is clear:

Because they championed sexual equality — at work, at home and in the bedroom — and were willing to enforce it, Communist women who occupied positions in the state apparatus could be called cultural imperialists. But the liberation they imposed radically transformed millions of lives across the globe, including those of many women who still walk among us as the mothers and grandmothers of adults in the now democratic member states of the European Union. Those comrades’ insistence on government intervention may seem heavy-handed to our postmodern sensibilities, but sometimes necessary social change — which soon comes to be seen as the natural order of things — needs an emancipation proclamation from above.

Heavy-handed is one way to describe the managers of the Soviet empire. They were willing to imprison women as well as men without due process. Just a year after the “full suffrage” celebrated by Ms. Ghodsee, the Soviets launched another innovation. According to a 2004 Pulitzer Prize citation:

The Gulag was first put in place in 1918 after the Russian Revolution. In 1929, Stalin personally decided to expand the camp system, both to use forced labor to accelerate Soviet industrialization and to exploit the natural resources of the country’s barely inhabitable far northern regions. By the end of the 1930s, labor camps could be found in all twelve of the Soviet Union’s time zones. The system continued to expand throughout the war years, reaching its height only in the early 1950s. From 1929 until the death of Stalin in 1953, some 18 million people passed through this massive system. Of these 18 million, it is estimated that 4.5 million never returned.

Just as the President did today, the Times should explicitly and unequivocally condemn a hateful ideology.************************************************************************************************************************

Policy= res publica

Freudenberg-Pilster* Menschen zeigen

Veröffentlicht am 16. August 2017

Er gehört zu den Berühmtheiten im Mode-Business: Peter Lindbergh. Seine Bilder kennt jeder. Oder besser, man kennt vielleicht nicht seinen Namen, aber sein Stil ist unverkennbar. Harte schwarz/weiß Modefotografie (vor allem s/w), starke Frauen, keine auf Perfektion getrimmten Schönheiten sondern gerne auch mit Macken. Seine Bilder haben eine neue Art Model geschaffen, die Supermodels aus den 90ern, die Turlingtons, Moss, Schiffers, Macphersons.

Er wollte eben Menschen zeigen, nicht Abziehbilder, mag man seine Einstellung zusammen fassen. Und die Fotos in der Ausstellung in München in der Kunsthalle sind genau so: direkt, offen, in die Kamera schauend (meistens), stylisch aber nicht ästhetisiert. So wirken sie jedenfalls und so sollen sie auch wirken.

Es sind einfach fantastische Fotos von nicht nur schönen Menschen, er kann mit seiner Kamera Charakter einfangen und zeigen und inszenieren.

Die Welt der Supermodels

Kunsthalle München: Werbung für Lindbergh

Man kann kaum anders als all die schönen Menschen bewundernd anzusehen. Und genau an dieser Stelle befallen mich da meine Zweifel. Was für Menschen zeigt uns da Lindbergh? Denn bei allem künstlerischen Anspruch darf man doch nicht vergessen, dass das alles einen Zweck hat: Werbung!

Es ist eine künstliche Welt, die Lindbergh zeigt und in die er uns hinein nimmt. Es ist eine Konsumwelt, wenn der potentielle Käufer soll ein Gefühl bekommen, das zu Konsum anregt.

Lindbergh zeigt Selbstbewusstsein und Individualität, gar kein Zweifel. Aber der Zweck der Bilder ist eben der, dass man meint, genau dieses Selbstbewusstsein und diese Individualität habe mit Kleidung und Stil zu tun. Und lasse sich kaufen.

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

Barandat*For Pakistan, China’s huge energy investments may have serious political costs

July 14, 2017 7.18am BST

Dr. Amiera Sawas and Dr Nausheen H. Anwar

A massive protest against the Gorrano Dam on January 26 2017 in Islamkot, Tharparkar. Bheem Raj /Thar Voice Forum

In Pakistan, there’s no topic hotter than the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC), a multi-billion dollar bilateral development project that will, officials promised in 2015, “usher in an era of unprecedented progress and prosperity”.

The CPEC is not only Pakistan’s first big injection of foreign direct investment in a while, its focus on energy development is also desperately needed in a country that has suffered worsening energy shortages for two decades.

With renewables constituting much of the US$33 billion earmarked for energy, the CPEC is also set to make Pakistan a global player in meeting its Paris agreement commitments to fight climate change. And for its bulging, skilled youth population, development promises something truly critical: jobs, jobs, jobs.

To mitigate possible hostility from local residents, the government set up a public consultation in Sindh, July 13 2017. Vikram Ghamwani

The land and the losers

At least, that’s the theory. Not everyone sees the changes wrought by the CPEC so positively.

On July 13, the Sindh Environmental Protection Agency, in the southern province of Sindh, held a consultation with locals concerned about coal expansion in Ranjho Noon, Thar, a desert region shared with India’s Rajasthan state.

The meeting concerned the fourth of 13 planned blocks of CPEC coal projects in Thar, and where serious resistance has already greeted Block 2, now underway.

Based on our fieldwork with those being impacted by CPEC-funded energy projects, growing citizen mobilisation in Sindh and Punjab may be turning into a political problem for Pakistan.

Projects planned for some of the poorest rural areas, including one of the world’s biggest solar parks (Qaid-e-Azam park, in Punjab) and coal and gas exploration in Thar (Sindh) promise prosperity through infrastructural progress, livelihood opportunities and climate resilience.

But while CPEC projects are already benefiting the national economy, the boon is less assured for those living in the project regions. To start with, for such projects, you need land and lots of it. Many of the residents in CPEC target areas are homesteaders, pastoralists and small business owners who hold customary land rights, inherited over decades or centuries.

Often, community members have no official deed to their property or to the common grazing land their livelihoods depend on. Without official papers, their land is seen as government-owned, and ripe for the taking.

The United Nations’ Free, Prior and Informed Consent norm is meant to keep people facing such situations, whether in Pakistan or Bolivia, from being dispossessed and displaced. But in Pakistan, where the CPEC is helping the economy revive from stagnation, development aid has long been politicised, and proper consultation and compensation will be difficult to ensure.

A CPEC road in Tharparkar District, Sindh. Amiera Sawas, Nausheen Anwar

We found that, so far, many of the initiatives have been carried out without free, prior and informed consent, creating unnecessary tensions between environmental projects and local people and raising concerns about maladaptatation as the country progress towards its Nationally Determined Contributions climate plan.

For example, one farmer in Muzaffargarh, Punjab, told us that his community had seen displacement, severe pollution and a surge in waterborne diseases since a geothermal project started there in 1994.

Nor did the community receive promised benefits, such as electricity and employment. In these mega-projects, jobs in construction, driving, engineering and especially management seem rarely to be offered to locals. Instead, Pakistanis from all over the country are brought in to fill them.

The farmer told us about ongoing resistance to a planned CPEC project that the government had thus far failed to heed. At this point, he said, they should expect violent opposition.

“We will stand and fight,” he warned. “We are a hundred thousand people, not just a few thousand.”

Lower Punjab has seen a disproportionate amount of energy development in recent years, housing six major energy plants within a 28-kilometre radius. The region is inhabited by the Seraiki population, a marginalised ethnic group that is all but invisible to the state.

Even when inhabitants are not directly displaced by infrastructure projects, their livelihoods are often endangered. Livestock routes are truncated by construction; streams and rivers are suddenly polluted.

One woman from Sindh reported that five pipelines had been run through her village, and that construction noise had become unbearable.

“They even blocked our access to hospitals”, she said, also lamenting that when strange men appeared in the fields, “we must cover our faces”.

Such incursions feel like a threat to local culture, particularly regarding gender norms. A man from the same village complained that while local men are not recruited as labourers, developers have sought to train women as drivers.

“We told them we won’t allow our women to do this!” he said with disbelief. “We don’t trust [the developers]”.

The net result for women is that their lives have now become more restricted, both by ongoing construction and by the male response to it.

Fear and anxiety

Many Pakistanis we spoke with in both Punjab and Sindh perceive CPEC development as just another form of oppression: a way to grab land and resources, further marginalising already vulnerable populations.

The CPEC agreement was designed primarily to ensure the security of Chinese investments and citizens. To keep the 8,000-plus Chinese CPEC workers in Pakistan safe, the government is securing concerned areas using invasive monitoring tools such as internet surveillance, stop-and-search policing and phone jammers.

The Qaid-e-Azam plant in Punjab, the biggest solar project in the world. Vikram Ghamwani

No such steps ensure Pakistani citizens’ well-being. The result of all this change, anxiety and resentment is a burgeoning resistance.

In February 2017, representatives from 12 Sindhi villages affected by the Gorano Dam, a reservoir intended to collect the waste water from coal and gas exploration, held a “patriotic” protest calling for the dam to be relocated to prevent poisoning local people and their livestock.

“No one is listening to us,” one of the protest’s coordinators told us. “Our basic rights are being snatched.”

He estimated that 15,000 people, 2,000 animals and 200,000 trees depended on the land now designated for destruction, as well as “fresh-water wells [and] our ancestors’ graveyard”.

If Pakistan’s government and CPEC developers continue to ignore these citizens, anxieties will fester. Already, discontent around the CPEC is being used by local political parties to bolster separatist narratives in Sindh, which has long-standing grievances over resource-sharing with the upper-river province of Punjab.

To secure truly sustainable, safe and equitable development, the governments of both China and Pakistan must improve consultation and communication with impacted local populations. Otherwise, the price of Chinese investment may be too high for Pakistan to pay.


Middle East

Britain on Alert.

U.S. Army_West_Point-CTC Sentinel | Volume 10, Issue 7 (August 2017)

Published by Combating Terrorism Center

Cover Story Overview

After a respite from mass-casualty terrorism for more than a decade, the United Kingdom this past spring suffered three such attacks in the space of just 73 days, making clear it faces an unprecedented security challenge from jihadi terrorism.

In our cover article, Raffaello Pantucci outlines what investigations have revealed so far about the March attack on Westminster Bridge, the bombing at a pop concert in Manchester in May, and the June attack on London Bridge and Borough Market. The early indications are that the Westminster attacker, Khalid Masood, had no contact with the Islamic State and the Manchester and London Bridge attackers were, at most, loosely connected to the group. The current threat environment, Pantucci writes, continues to be mostly made up of individuals and smaller scattered cells planning lower-tech attacks with very short planning and operational cycles—sometimes remotely guided by the Islamic State—rather than cells trained and dispatched by the Islamic State to launch large-scale, Paris-type attacks, but this could change as more British Islamic State recruits return home.

Our interview this month is with Edward You, a Supervisory Special Agent in the Biological Countermeasures Unit in the FBI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate. While the full liberation of Mosul last month effectively ended the Islamic State’s caliphate pretensions, Michael Knights warns the Islamic State and other jihadis are already bouncing back in several parts of Iraq and more strongly and quickly in areas where the security forces are either not strong enough or not politically flexible enough to activate the population as a source of resistance. As the Islamic State transitions from administering territory to a renewed campaign of terrorism and insurgency, Charlie Winter and Devorah Margolin examine the Islamic State’s apparent lifting of its moratorium on using women as suicide bombers. In a commentary, Aaron Brantly argues that creating back-doors in encryption, or banning it, would create significant societal costs without stopping terrorists from accessing the technology.


*Massenbach’s Recommendation*

Marine fuels and sulphur regulation



Discussions of “peak oil demand” tend to focus of passenger vehicles, often from a US and European perspective, and they ignore other markets, such as marine transport, which collectively would also need to show a reduction in demand if oil consumption as a whole were to reach an inflection point.

This report explores the outlook for marine bunkers, a niche market that accounts, depending on estimates, for up to 7 percent of the demand barrel. It focuses on the impact of new environmental restrictions that aim to drastically reduce sulfur oxide (SOx) emissions from ships as of January 2020, placing them against the background of past innovations that have been reshaping ships’ fuel consumption patterns and assessing their likely impact on future innovation in the sector.

Of the three main compliance options available to ship owners ahead of the new “global sulfur cap,” two—installing “scrubbers” to capture SOx emissions from shippers’ current fuel of choice, high-sulfur fuel oil (HSFO), and switching from oil-based bunker fuels to liquefied natural gas (LNG)—are more capital intensive and require more advanced planning than the third, switching from HSFO to lower-sulfur products, such as low-sulfur fuel oil (LSFO) or marine gas oil (MGO). Analysts reckon that most shippers will opt to run low-sulfur fuels, but they fear that rising demand for these fuels will bump against refining capacity limits and cause price spikes that might spread to other markets, notably diesel and even crude oil. Some analysts have suggested that delays could help the industry better prepare for the new rules. This report challenges these findings.

Key takeaways include the following:

– New restrictions on marine sulfur emissions are occurring against the background of sweeping changes in the shipping industry, the impact of which is poorly captured in statistics and underappreciated in most assessments of the rules’ impact. Whereas forecasters assume steady growth in shipping fuel demand, oil consumption from the sector actually contracted in recent years and looks set to keep doing so—or, at least, grow more slowly than expected. Oil price swings and weak freight margins have served as catalysts of change, reducing the oil intensity of shipping through innovations in vessel design and fleet management and relentless industry consolidation. Digitalization holds the promise of further fuel savings, while LNG is making inroads in the sector.

– Industry participants have taken a cautious approach to capital-intensive measures to comply with the global cap. As the 2020 deadline looms, and given long lead times for scrubbers and LNG engines, low-sulfur bunkers will become the industry’s new de facto fuel of choice. This wait-and-see approach is no accident but, rather, a prudent response to the uncertain long-run costs and benefits of the various options. Potential feedback effects have exacerbated the inherent uncertainty of oil and gas markets, while regulatory uncertainty about future nitrate oxide (NOx) and greenhouse gas (GHG) restrictions further clouds the options’ economics. Delaying the rules’ implementation would not in and of itself change the industry’s incentives.

– Performance standards such as the global sulfur cap are normally seen as supportive of innovation, unlike technical standards that “pick a winner” among available technologies. By making low-sulfur fuel the default compliance option of industry, however, the global cap effectively entrenches oil’s role in shipping for decades to come. A more integrated approach to marine emissions, one that would have regulated SOx, NOx, and GHG, would have accelerated the switch to LNG, and it would have been a good way to curb all emissions at once.

– Shippers’ choice of lower-sulfur fuels as their default compliance option shifts the burden of innovation onto the refining industry, but it will likely prove a lesser challenge for refiners than is commonly understood. Although some analysts have drawn parallels with the 2008 oil rally, when the desulfurization of road diesel helped cause imbalances in distillate markets and propelled oil prices to record highs, that is not an apt analogy. Unlike in the 2000s, diesel demand is far from booming. Furthermore, due in part to viscosity and lubrication requirements, the new bunkers will not be diesel look-alikes but new fuel hybrids, the production of which will entail as much blending as actual refining.

– Noncompliance will further alleviate product market pressures. Given the lack of environmental police on the high seas, enforcement is a daunting challenge for the global cap’s implementation. Efforts to beef up enforcement currently focus on tightening paperwork checks at ports, which is a cheaper but less effective approach than actual emission checks by flyover or satellite.

– While the global sulfur cap will be less disruptive than feared, the loss of one of the last remaining market outlets for HSFO might be the death knell for some of the less competitive refineries with high HSFO yields. Falling HSFO prices will also adversely affect producers of high-sulfur crude oil, whose price is often indexed to that of HSFO, such as Mexico.


Zur Diskussion über den sog. Traditionserlass des Bundesministeriums der Verteidigung, Berlin.


  • Wie Tradition erlassen werden soll
  • Von einem deutschen Notar ( i.e. Parlamentarischer Staatssekretär Markus Grübel, Fachberater bei sächsischen Liegenschaftsämtern)
  • Und einer Begründung von Geschichtsklitterung (weil sich ja immer etwas in der Betrachtung von Geschichte ändert… )

Der Parlamentarische Staatssekretär Markus Grübel (teilte) in dieser Woche dem Verteidigungsausschuss mit:

„Die Bundesministerin der Verteidigung hat eine Überarbeitung und Fortschreibung der „Richtlinien zum Traditionsverständnis und zur Traditionspflege in der Bundeswehr“ angeordnet. Das kurz „Traditionserlass“ genannte Dokument ist seit 35 Jahren unverändert geblieben – nicht zuletzt, weil Tradition und Traditionspflege belastbarer Kontinuität bedürfen, um langfristige Orientierung zu bieten. Die wertorientierte Bindung der Tradition der Bundeswehr hat sich bewährt. Sie wird auch künftig den Wesenskern des Traditionsverständnisses und der Traditionspflege bilden.

Andere Axiome und Rahmenbedingungen haben sich seither jedoch in einem Maße verändert, dass eine Überarbeitung des Traditionserlasses angemessen und notwendig erscheint. So ist dem faktischen Wegfall der Wehrpflicht und dem Übergang zu einer Freiwilligenarmee ebenso Rechnung zu tragen, wie dem Ende des Kalten Kriegs, der deutschen Wiedervereinigung (Armee der Einheit) und der Beteiligung der Bundeswehr an Auslandseinsätzen im Rahmen der Vereinten Nationen, der NATO und der Europäischen Union (Armee im Einsatz).

Die damit einhergehende vertiefte internationale Integration, etwa durch die Aufstellung multinationaler Großverbände, aber auch die Aufstellung neuer Militärischer Organisationsbereiche, wie der Streitkräftebasis, des Zentralen Sanitätsdienstes und des Cyber- und Informationsraums sind bei der Überarbeitung genauso zu berücksichtigen, wie die Öffnung aller Laufbahnen für Frauen und die wachsende Diversität in den Streitkräften.

Vor allem aber ist 60 Jahre nach ihrer Gründung die eigene Tradition der Bundeswehr stärker zu betonen und eindeutiger zu fassen. Dazu zählen zum einen ihre Bewährung im Kalten Krieg und ihr Beitrag für die Bewahrung von Freiheit, Frieden und Demokratie sowie ihr Beitrag für die friedliche Wiederherstellung der staatlichen Einheit Deutschlands. Sie sind in den Mittelpunkt der künftigen Traditionspflege der Bundeswehr zu stellen. Zum anderen zählt dazu die Führungskultur der Inneren Führung, deren Bedeutung so hoch ist, dass sie zum Kernbestand der Traditionspflege in der Bundeswehr gehören muss.

Zu den neueren Entwicklungen gehören auch die Auslandseinsätze der Bundeswehr. Sie stellen eine besonders herausgehobene Form der Bewährung und soldatischen Auftragserfüllung dar, in der beispielhafte Leistungen von Verbänden und einzelner Soldaten Traditionen begründen können.

Mit einer Auftaktveranstaltung im Bundesministerium der Verteidigung am 12. Juni 2017 wurde der Überarbeitungsprozess begonnen. In vier Workshops an wechselnden Orten und zu unterschiedlichen Themenkreisen soll er bis in den späten Herbst in einem offenen und inklusiven Prozess fortgesetzt werden. Die Workshops dienen dem Austausch und der Diskussion mit Fachleuten, der Einbindung und Nutzung interner und externer Expertise, der Transparenz des Prozesses sowie der Vorbereitung der späteren Erstellung neuer Richtlinien. Sie werden durch Informations- und Diskussionsveranstaltungen in der Fläche ergänzt.

Der erste Workshop findet am 17. August 2017 an der Führungsakademie der Bundeswehr in Hamburg statt und widmet sich der Frage, inwieweit aus der Einbindung der Bundeswehr in multinationale Strukturen und durch die internationalen Einsätze internationale Traditionslinien erwachsen und was dies für die Tradition der Bundeswehr bedeutet. Für diesen Workshop sind bereits Einladungen, auch an Mitglieder des Verteidigungsausschusses, versandt worden.

Der zweite Workshop im September 2017 am Zentrum für Innere Führung in Koblenz behandelt den Themenkomplex Tradition und Identität.

Der dritte Workshop am Zentrum für Militärgeschichte und Sozialwissenschaften in Potsdam thematisiert im Oktober 2017 die Funktion der älteren deutschen Militärgeschichte für die Tradition der Bundeswehr. Im vierten und voraussichtlich abschließenden Workshop in Berlin steht die bundeswehreigene Tradition im Mittelpunkt. Vor allem wird es darum gehen, wie die Bundeswehr ihr eigenes Erbe bewahren und tradieren kann und soll.
Die Ergebnisse der Workshops sollen veröffentlicht werden. Auch den Verteidigungsausschuss des Deutschen Bundestages werde ich in regelmäßigen Abständen informieren.

Möglichst vielen Angehörigen der Bundeswehr, dem politisch-parlamentarischen Raum, der Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft sowie den Medien soll die Gelegenheit gegeben werden, sich am Prozess der Überarbeitung des Traditionserlasses aktiv zu beteiligen.“

Anmerkung UvM:

Hoffentlich wird bei dem Versuch, einen „Traditionserlass“ zu erstellen, nicht gleich Tradition erlassen.

Wenn von „Wertorientierung“ die Rede ist, warum nicht gleich „Sprachregelung“?

Bevor ich es vergesse; Die Bundesbesoldungsverordnung sollte als zusätzliches Kriterium nicht vergessen werden.




see our letter on:

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



08-17 Slow_Steaming_to_2020_Innovation_and_Inertia_in_Marine_Transport_and_Fuels_Clumbia Uni.pdf

08-15-17 Britain_on_Alert_CTC-Sentinel_Vol10Iss7.pdf