FEBRUARY 11, 2022
“The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars– the First, the Second and Cold Wars– has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” George Friedman, STRATFOR CEO at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs
The Ukrainian crisis has nothing to do with Ukraine. It’s about Germany and, in particular, a pipeline that connects Germany to Russia called Nord Stream 2. Washington sees the pipeline as a threat to its primacy in Europe and has tried to sabotage the project at every turn. Even so, Nord Stream has pushed ahead and is now fully-operational and ready-to-go. Once German regulators provide the final certification, the gas deliveries will begin. German homeowners and businesses will have a reliable source of clean and inexpensive energy while Russia will see a significant boost to their gas revenues. It’s a win-win situation for both parties.
The US Foreign Policy establishment is not happy about these developments. They don’t want Germany to become more dependent on Russian gas because commerce builds trust and trust leads to the expansion of trade. As relations grow warmer, more trade barriers are lifted, regulations are eased, travel and tourism increase, and a new security architecture evolves. In a world where Germany and Russia are friends and trading partners, there is no need for US military bases, no need for expensive US-made weapons and missile systems, and no need for NATO. There’s also no need to transact energy deals in US Dollars or to stockpile US Treasuries to balance accounts. Transactions between business partners can be conducted in their own currencies which is bound to precipitate a sharp decline in the value of the dollar and a dramatic shift in economic power. This is why the Biden administration opposes Nord Stream. It’s not just a pipeline, it’s a window into the future; a future in which Europe and Asia are drawn closer together into a massive free trade zone that increases their mutual power and prosperity while leaving the US on the outside looking in. Warmer relations between Germany and Russia signal an end to the “unipolar” world order the US has overseen for the last 75 years. A German-Russo alliance threatens to hasten the decline of the Superpower that is presently inching closer to the abyss. This is why Washington is determined to do everything it can to sabotage Nord Stream and keep Germany within its orbit. It’s a matter of survival.
That’s where Ukraine comes into the picture. Ukraine is Washington’s ‘weapon of choice’ for torpedoing Nord Stream and putting a wedge between Germany and Russia. The strategy is taken from page one of the US Foreign Policy Handbook under the rubric: Divide and Rule. Washington needs to create the perception that Russia poses a security threat to Europe. That’s the goal. They need to show that Putin is a bloodthirsty aggressor with a hair-trigger temper who cannot be trusted. To that end, the media has been given the assignment of reiterating over and over again, “Russia is planning to invade Ukraine.” What’s left unsaid is that Russia has not invaded any country since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and that the US has invaded or toppled regimes in more than 50 countries in the same period of time, and that the US maintains over 800 military bases in countries around the world. None of this is reported by the media, instead the focus is on “evil Putin” who has amassed an estimated 100,000 troops along the Ukrainian border threatening to plunge all of Europe into another bloody war.
All of the hysterical war propaganda is created with the intention of manufacturing a crisis that can be used to isolate, demonize and, ultimately, splinter Russia into smaller units. The real target, however, is not Russia, but Germany. Check out this excerpt from an article by Michael Hudson at The Unz Review:
“The only way left for U.S. diplomats to block European purchases is to goad Russia into a military response and then claim that avenging this response outweighs any purely national economic interest. As hawkish Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, explained in a State Department press briefing on January 27: “If Russia invades Ukraine one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” (“America’s Real Adversaries Are Its European and Other Allies”, The Unz Review)
There it is in black and white. The Biden team wants to “goad Russia into a military response” in order to sabotage NordStream. That implies there will be some kind of provocation designed to induce Putin to send his troops across the border to defend the ethnic Russians in the eastern part of the country. If Putin takes the bait, the response would be swift and harsh. The media will excoriate the action as a threat to all of Europe while leaders around the world will denounce Putin as the “new Hitler”. This is Washington’s strategy in a nutshell, and the whole production is being orchestrated with one goal in mind; to make it politically impossible for the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to wave NordStream through the final approval process.
Given what we know about Washington’s opposition to Nord Stream, readers may wonder why earlier in the year the Biden administration lobbied Congress NOT to impose more sanctions on the project. The answer to that question is simple: Domestic politics. Germany is currently decommissioning its nuclear power plants and needs natural gas to make up for the energy shortfall. Also, the threat of economic sanctions is a “turn-off” for Germans who see them as a sign of foreign meddling. “Why is the United States interfering in our energy decisions,” asks the average German. “Washington should mind its own business and stay out of ours.” This is precisely the response one would expect from any reasonable person.
Then, there’s this from Al Jazeera:
“Germans in the majority support the project, it is only parts of the elite and media who are against the pipeline…
“The more the US talks about sanctioning or criticizes the project, the more it becomes popular in German society,” said Stefan Meister, a Russia and eastern Europe expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations.” (“Nord Stream 2: Why Russia’s pipeline to Europe divides the West”, AlJazeera)
So, public opinion is solidly behind Nord Stream which helps to explain why Washington settled on a new approach. Sanctions are not going to work, so Uncle Sam has flipped to Plan B: Create a big enough external threat that Germany will be forced to block the opening of the pipeline. Frankly, the strategy smacks of desperation, but you have to be impressed by Washington’s perseverance. They might be down by 5 runs in the bottom of the 9th, but they haven’t thrown in the towel just yet. They’re going to give it one last shot and see if they can make some headway.
On Monday, President Biden held his first joint-press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the White House. The ballyhoo surrounding the event was simply unprecedented. Everything was orchestrated to manufacture a “crisis atmosphere” that Biden used to pressure the chancellor in the direction of US policy. Earlier in the week, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki repeatedly said that a “Russian invasion was imminent.” Her comments were followed by State Department flak Nick Price opining that the Intel agencies had provided him with details of an alleged Russian-backed “false flag” operation they expected to take place in the near future in east Ukraine. Price’s warning was followed on Sunday morning by national security advisor Jake Sullivan claiming that a Russian invasion could happen at any time maybe “even tomorrow.” This was just days after Bloomberg News agency had published its sensational and utterly-false headline that “Russia Invades Ukraine”.
Can you see the pattern here? Can you see how these baseless claims were all used to apply pressure to the unsuspecting German chancellor who seemed oblivious to the campaign that was aimed at him?
As one might expect, the final blow was delivered by the American president himself. During the press conference Biden stated emphatically that,
“If Russia invades … there will no longer [be] a Nord Stream 2.. We will bring an end to it.”
So, now Washington sets policy for Germany???
What insufferable arrogance!
The German chancellor was taken aback by Biden’s comments which clearly were not part of the original script. Even so, Scholz never agreed to cancel Nord Stream and refused to even mention the pipeline by name. If Biden thought he could sandbag the leader of the world’s third biggest economy by cornering him in a public forum, he guessed wrong.
“The primordial interest of the United States, over which for centuries we have fought wars– the First, the Second and Cold Wars– has been the relationship between Germany and Russia, because united there, they’re the only force that could threaten us. And to make sure that that doesn’t happen.” George Friedman, STRATFOR CEO at The Chicago Council on Foreign Affairs
The Ukrainian crisis has nothing to do with Ukraine. It’s about Germany and, in particular, a pipeline that connects Germany to Russia called Nord Stream 2. Washington sees the pipeline as a threat to its primacy in Europe and has tried to sabotage the project at every turn. Even so, Nord Stream has pushed ahead and is now fully-operational and ready-to-go. Once German regulators provide the final certification, the gas deliveries will begin. German homeowners and businesses will have a reliable source of clean and inexpensive energy while Russia will see a significant boost to their gas revenues. It’s a win-win situation for both parties.
The US Foreign Policy establishment is not happy about these developments. They don’t want Germany to become more dependent on Russian gas because commerce builds trust and trust leads to the expansion of trade. As relations grow warmer, more trade barriers are lifted, regulations are eased, travel and tourism increase, and a new security architecture evolves. In a world where Germany and Russia are friends and trading partners, there is no need for US military bases, no need for expensive US-made weapons and missile systems, and no need for NATO. There’s also no need to transact energy deals in US Dollars or to stockpile US Treasuries to balance accounts. Transactions between business partners can be conducted in their own currencies which is bound to precipitate a sharp decline in the value of the dollar and a dramatic shift in economic power. This is why the Biden administration opposes Nord Stream. It’s not just a pipeline, it’s a window into the future; a future in which Europe and Asia are drawn closer together into a massive free trade zone that increases their mutual power and prosperity while leaving the US on the outside looking in. Warmer relations between Germany and Russia signal an end to the “unipolar” world order the US has overseen for the last 75 years. A German-Russo alliance threatens to hasten the decline of the Superpower that is presently inching closer to the abyss. This is why Washington is determined to do everything it can to sabotage Nord Stream and keep Germany within its orbit. It’s a matter of survival.
That’s where Ukraine comes into the picture. Ukraine is Washington’s ‘weapon of choice’ for torpedoing Nord Stream and putting a wedge between Germany and Russia. The strategy is taken from page one of the US Foreign Policy Handbook under the rubric: Divide and Rule. Washington needs to create the perception that Russia poses a security threat to Europe. That’s the goal. They need to show that Putin is a bloodthirsty aggressor with a hair-trigger temper who cannot be trusted. To that end, the media has been given the assignment of reiterating over and over again, “Russia is planning to invade Ukraine.” What’s left unsaid is that Russia has not invaded any country since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and that the US has invaded or toppled regimes in more than 50 countries in the same period of time, and that the US maintains over 800 military bases in countries around the world. None of this is reported by the media, instead the focus is on “evil Putin” who has amassed an estimated 100,000 troops along the Ukrainian border threatening to plunge all of Europe into another bloody war.
All of the hysterical war propaganda is created with the intention of manufacturing a crisis that can be used to isolate, demonize and, ultimately, splinter Russia into smaller units. The real target, however, is not Russia, but Germany. Check out this excerpt from an article by Michael Hudson at The Unz Review:
“The only way left for U.S. diplomats to block European purchases is to goad Russia into a military response and then claim that avenging this response outweighs any purely national economic interest. As hawkish Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Victoria Nuland, explained in a State Department press briefing on January 27: “If Russia invades Ukraine one way or another Nord Stream 2 will not move forward.” (“America’s Real Adversaries Are Its European and Other Allies”, The Unz Review)
There it is in black and white. The Biden team wants to “goad Russia into a military response” in order to sabotage NordStream. That implies there will be some kind of provocation designed to induce Putin to send his troops across the border to defend the ethnic Russians in the eastern part of the country. If Putin takes the bait, the response would be swift and harsh. The media will excoriate the action as a threat to all of Europe while leaders around the world will denounce Putin as the “new Hitler”. This is Washington’s strategy in a nutshell, and the whole production is being orchestrated with one goal in mind; to make it politically impossible for the German Chancellor Olaf Scholz to wave NordStream through the final approval process.
Given what we know about Washington’s opposition to Nord Stream, readers may wonder why earlier in the year the Biden administration lobbied Congress NOT to impose more sanctions on the project. The answer to that question is simple: Domestic politics. Germany is currently decommissioning its nuclear power plants and needs natural gas to make up for the energy shortfall. Also, the threat of economic sanctions is a “turn-off” for Germans who see them as a sign of foreign meddling. “Why is the United States interfering in our energy decisions,” asks the average German. “Washington should mind its own business and stay out of ours.” This is precisely the response one would expect from any reasonable person.
Then, there’s this from Al Jazeera:
“Germans in the majority support the project, it is only parts of the elite and media who are against the pipeline…
“The more the US talks about sanctioning or criticizes the project, the more it becomes popular in German society,” said Stefan Meister, a Russia and eastern Europe expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations.” (“Nord Stream 2: Why Russia’s pipeline to Europe divides the West”, AlJazeera)
So, public opinion is solidly behind Nord Stream which helps to explain why Washington settled on a new approach. Sanctions are not going to work, so Uncle Sam has flipped to Plan B: Create a big enough external threat that Germany will be forced to block the opening of the pipeline. Frankly, the strategy smacks of desperation, but you have to be impressed by Washington’s perseverance. They might be down by 5 runs in the bottom of the 9th, but they haven’t thrown in the towel just yet. They’re going to give it one last shot and see if they can make some headway.
On Monday, President Biden held his first joint-press conference with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz at the White House. The ballyhoo surrounding the event was simply unprecedented. Everything was orchestrated to manufacture a “crisis atmosphere” that Biden used to pressure the chancellor in the direction of US policy. Earlier in the week, White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki repeatedly said that a “Russian invasion was imminent.” Her comments were followed by State Department flak Nick Price opining that the Intel agencies had provided him with details of an alleged Russian-backed “false flag” operation they expected to take place in the near future in east Ukraine. Price’s warning was followed on Sunday morning by national security advisor Jake Sullivan claiming that a Russian invasion could happen at any time maybe “even tomorrow.” This was just days after Bloomberg News agency had published its sensational and utterly-false headline that “Russia Invades Ukraine”.
Can you see the pattern here? Can you see how these baseless claims were all used to apply pressure to the unsuspecting German chancellor who seemed oblivious to the campaign that was aimed at him?
As one might expect, the final blow was delivered by the American president himself. During the press conference Biden stated emphatically that,
“If Russia invades … there will no longer [be] a Nord Stream 2.. We will bring an end to it.”
So, now Washington sets policy for Germany???
What insufferable arrogance!
The German chancellor was taken aback by Biden’s comments which clearly were not part of the original script. Even so, Scholz never agreed to cancel Nord Stream and refused to even mention the pipeline by name. If Biden thought he could sandbag the leader of the world’s third biggest economy by cornering him in a public forum, he guessed wrong.
Germany remains committed to launching Nord Stream regardless of potential flare-ups in far-flung Ukraine. But that could change at any time. After all, who knows what incitements Washington might be planning in the near future? Who knows how many lives they are prepared to sacrifice in order to put a wedge between Germany and Russia? Who knows what risks Biden is willing to take to slow America’s decline and prevent a new “polycentric” world order from emerging? Anything could happen in the weeks ahead. Anything.
For now, Germany is in the catbird seat. It’s up to Scholz to decide how the matter will be settled. Will he implement the policy that best serves the interests of the German people or will he cave in to Biden’s relentless arm twisting? Will he chart a new course that strengthens new alliances in the bustling Eurasian corridor or will he throw his support behind Washington’s crazed geopolitical ambitions? Will he accept Germany’s pivotal role in a new world order— in which many emerging centers of power share equally in global governance and where the leadership remains unflinchingly committed to multilateralism, peaceful development and security for all– or will he try to prop up the tattered post-War system that has clearly outlived its shelf-life?
One thing is certain; whatever Germany decides is bound to affect us all.
For now, Germany is in the catbird seat. It’s up to Scholz to decide how the matter will be settled. Will he implement the policy that best serves the interests of the German people or will he cave in to Biden’s relentless arm twisting? Will he chart a new course that strengthens new alliances in the bustling Eurasian corridor or will he throw his support behind Washington’s crazed geopolitical ambitions? Will he accept Germany’s pivotal role in a new world order— in which many emerging centers of power share equally in global governance and where the leadership remains unflinchingly committed to multilateralism, peaceful development and security for all– or will he try to prop up the tattered post-War system that has clearly outlived its shelf-life?
One thing is certain; whatever Germany decides is bound to affect us all.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The organisation existed since the end of the second world war - but who is in the group and what exactly do they do?
By Heather Carrick
Monday, 7th February 2022, 2:04 pm
NATO is at the centre of world politics once again as tensions continue to rise between Ukraine and Russia.
Russia has asked for assurance that Ukraine will not join the group’s defence alliance and asked that they do not expand any further east.
However, the West has rejected Russia’s demand, stating that any independent country is free to join the defence alliance.
Although, western leaders - including President Joe Biden - have offered negotiations on NATO’s positioning within Europe.
With fears over a potential conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said: “We are very clear, together with our allies in the G7, with our allies in Nato, that if there is an incursion by Russia into Ukraine, it would come at a massive cost.
“We are prepared to put very severe sanctions in place.”
But what exactly is the purpose of NATO and which countries are a member?
What is NATO?
NATO stand for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and was established in the aftermath of World War Two.
The origins of the organisation trace back to March 1947, when France and the United Kingdom signed the ‘Treaty of Dunkirk’ to create an alliance in the event that Germany of the Soviet Union attack.
This treaty was expanded over the next few years, eventually encompassing more countries in the North Atlantic Treaty - also known as the Washington Treaty - which was signed in April 1949.
The purpose of the organisation is that of a collective security to its member states.
This means that if a member state is threatened by an external country, a mutual defense will be given in response.
NATO has intervened in conflicts such as that seen in Bosnia & Herzegovina, Kosovo and Libya.
Which countries are in NATO?
There are currently 30 member states of NATO, with 3 aspiring states.
The 12 founding states, who signed the initial 1949 treaty, are:
United States
United Kingdom
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
France
Iceland
Italy
Luxembourg
The Netherlands
Norway
Portugal
Greece and Turkey joined the alliance in 1952, with Spain joining in 1982.
West Germany joined in 1955, with East Germany assimilating into the alliance upon the reunification of Germany in 1990.
Since 1997, NATO has expanded east to include more countries such as:
Hungary
Czech Republic
Poland
Bulgaria
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Romania
Slovenia
Albania
Croatia
Nato’s expansion into eastern Europe since 1997. (Credit: Mark Hall/JPIMedia)
The most recent additions to the alliance are Montenegro in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020.
The three countries who are currently classed as ‘aspiring members’ are Bosnia & Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine.
NATO currently allows any country to join its ranks, with the group saying that they have an “open door policy”.
The groups states on their website: “Any European country in a position to further the principles of the Washington Treaty and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area can become a member of the Alliance at the invitation of the North Atlantic Council.
“Countries aspiring for NATO membership are also expected to meet certain political, economic and military goals in order to ensure that they will become contributors to Alliance security as well as beneficiaries of it.”
Does Russia want to invade Ukraine? Conflict explained, will it lead to war - and what Putin has said on Nato
Russia and Ukraine: Britain unlikely to send troops if Putin invades - could there be a war in the region?
Will UK go to war with Russia? Tensions in Ukraine explained as Moscow expected to invade, and UK signs deal
The most recent additions to the alliance are Montenegro in 2017 and North Macedonia in 2020.
The three countries who are currently classed as ‘aspiring members’ are Bosnia & Herzegovina, Georgia and Ukraine.
NATO currently allows any country to join its ranks, with the group saying that they have an “open door policy”.
The groups states on their website: “Any European country in a position to further the principles of the Washington Treaty and contribute to security in the Euro-Atlantic area can become a member of the Alliance at the invitation of the North Atlantic Council.
“Countries aspiring for NATO membership are also expected to meet certain political, economic and military goals in order to ensure that they will become contributors to Alliance security as well as beneficiaries of it.”
Does Russia want to invade Ukraine? Conflict explained, will it lead to war - and what Putin has said on NatoRussia and Ukraine: Britain unlikely to send troops if Putin invades - could there be a war in the region?Will UK go to war with Russia? Tensions in Ukraine explained as Moscow expected to invade, and UK signs dealNATO Summit 2021: what is the defence alliance, meaning, member countries - and what will happen at meeting?
Who is the leader of NATO?
The NATO organisation is headed by former Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, who took up the role of Secretary General in 2014.
Admiral Rob Bauer of the Royal Netherlands Navy serves at the Chairman of the Nato Military Committee.
The alliance’s headquarters are based in Brussels, Belgium.
Who is the leader of NATO?
The NATO organisation is headed by former Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg, who took up the role of Secretary General in 2014.
Admiral Rob Bauer of the Royal Netherlands Navy serves at the Chairman of the Nato Military Committee.
The alliance’s headquarters are based in Brussels, Belgium.
xxxxxxxxx
Despite their wartime alliance, tensions between the Soviet Union and the United States and Great Britain intensified rapidly as the war came to a close and the leaders discussed what to do with Germany. Post-war negotiations took place at two conferences in 1945, one before the official end of the war, and one after. These conferences set the stage for the beginning of the Cold War and of a
divided Europe.
Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin (left to right) at the Yalta Conference.
THE YALTA CONFERENCE
In February 1945, when they were confident of an Allied victory, U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Stalin met near Yalta, Crimea, to discuss the reorganization of post-WWII Europe.
Each country’s leader had his own set of ideas for rebuilding and re-establishing order in the war-torn continent.
Roosevelt wanted Soviet participation in the newly formed United Nations and immediate support from the Soviets in fighting the ongoing war in the Pacific against Japan.
Churchill argued for free and fair elections leading to democratic regimes in Central and Eastern Europe, especially Poland.
Stalin, on the other hand, wanted Soviet “sphere of influence” in Central and Eastern Europe, starting with Poland, in order to provide the Soviet Union with a geopolitical buffer zone between it and the western capitalist world.
Clearly there were some key conflicting interests that needed to be addressed.
After much negotiation, the following outcomes of the Yalta Conference emerged:
After much negotiation, the following outcomes of the Yalta Conference emerged:
Unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany, the division of Germany and Berlin into four occupational zones controlled by the United States, Great Britain, France and the Soviet Union.
Germans, civilians and prisoners of wars, would be punished for the war (reparations) partially through forced labor to repair the damage they caused to their country and to others.
Poland was reorganized under the communist Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland, and Stalin promised to allow free elections there (but failed to ever follow through on it).
The Soviet Union agreed to participate in the United Nations with a guaranteed position as a permanent member of the Security Council.
Stalin agreed to enter the Pacific War against Japan three months after the defeat of Germany.
The Potsdam Conference
Soon after the conference it became clear that Stalin had no intention of holding up his end of negotiations. He eventually allowed for elections in Poland, but not before sending in Soviet troops to eliminate any and all opposition to the communist party in control of the provisional government. The 1947 “elections” solidified communist rule in Poland and its place as one of the first
Soviet satellite states.
Attlee, Truman and Stalin (seated left to right) at the Potsdam Conference. Wikimedia Commons: U.S. National Archives
A second conference was held from July 17 to August 2, 1945, in Potsdam, Germany.
A second conference was held from July 17 to August 2, 1945, in Potsdam, Germany.
Roosevelt had died in April, so his successor, President Harry Truman, represented the United States.
Churchill returned to represent Great Britain, but his government was defeated midway through the conference and newly elected Prime Minister Clement Attlee took over.
Stalin returned as well. Stalin’s actions in Poland, and other parts of Eastern Europe were well known by this time, and it was clear that he was not to be trusted to hold his end of the bargain.
In light of this, the new representatives from the United States and Great Britain were much more careful with their negotiations with Stalin.
Truman in particular believed Roosevelt had been too trusting of Stalin, and became extremely suspicious of Soviet actions and Stalin’s true intensions.
The final agreements at Potsdam concerned:
The decentralization, demilitarization, denazification and democratization of Germany
The division of Germany and Berlin, and Austria and Vienna into the four occupations zones outlined at Yalta
Prosecution of Nazi war criminals
Return of all Nazi annexations to their pre-war borders
Shifting Germany’s eastern border west to reduce its size, and expulsion of German populations living outside this new border in Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary
Transformation Germany’s pre-war heavy-industry economy (which had been extremely important for the Nazi military build-up) into a combination of agriculture and light domestic industry
Recognition of the Soviet-controlled Polish government
Announcement of the Potsdam Declaration by Truman, Churchill and Chinese leader Chiang Kai-sheck outlining the terms of surrender for Japan: to surrender or face “prompt and utter destruction”
Annexation: Soviet Socialist Republics
As per its Yalta agreement, the Soviet Union was set to invade Japan on August 15.
While the Potsdam declaration did not specifically mention the newly developed atomic bomb, Truman had mentioned a new powerful weapon to Stalin during the conference.
The timing of the bombings, on August 6 and 9 suggest that Truman preferred to keep the Soviet Union out of the Pacific War and out of post-war dealings with Japan.
Moreover, this show of nuclear prowess on the part of the United States was also a warning to the Soviet Union, and effectively ended either side’s desire to continue working together, and marked the start of the nuclear arms race that underscored geopolitical considerations of both the United States and the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War.
The Soviets annexed their first territories in eastern Poland on September 17, 1939, under the terms of the Non-Aggression Pact made with Nazi Germany. Soon after, the Red Army went to war with Finland in order to secure a buffer zone of protection for Leningrad (St. Petersburg). When the war was over, Finland ceded the territories demanded by the Soviets plus Karelia.
The Soviets annexed their first territories in eastern Poland on September 17, 1939, under the terms of the Non-Aggression Pact made with Nazi Germany. Soon after, the Red Army went to war with Finland in order to secure a buffer zone of protection for Leningrad (St. Petersburg). When the war was over, Finland ceded the territories demanded by the Soviets plus Karelia.
The Soviet Union subsequently annexed the Baltic States, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as well as Moldova in 1940.
Several other territories (modern-day Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Armenia) had been annexed prior to 1939.
In addition to the Republics, several countries in Eastern Europe operated as Soviet satellite states. These countries were not officially part of the USSR, but their governments were loyal Stalinists, and therefore looked to and aligned themselves with the Soviet Union politically and militarily via the Warsaw Pact.
In addition to the Republics, several countries in Eastern Europe operated as Soviet satellite states. These countries were not officially part of the USSR, but their governments were loyal Stalinists, and therefore looked to and aligned themselves with the Soviet Union politically and militarily via the Warsaw Pact.
A DIVIDED GERMANY
After the Potsdam conference, Germany was divided into four occupied zones: Great Britain in the northwest, France in the southwest, the United States in the south and the Soviet Union in the east.
After the Potsdam conference, Germany was divided into four occupied zones: Great Britain in the northwest, France in the southwest, the United States in the south and the Soviet Union in the east.
Berlin, the capital city situated in Soviet territory, was also divided into four occupied zones. Germany also lost territory east of the Oder and Neisse rivers, which fell under Polish control.
About 15 million ethnic Germans living in this territory were forced to leave, suffering terrible conditions during their expulsion. Many froze or starved to death on over-crowded trains, while others were subject to forced labor camps under Polish and Czechoslovakian governments.
West Germany, or the Federal Republic of Germany, was officially established in May 1949. East Germany, or the German Democratic Republic, was established in October 1949. Under their occupying governments, the two Germanys followed very different paths. West Germany was allied with the U.S., the U.K. and France and became a western capitalist country with a market economy.
West Germany, or the Federal Republic of Germany, was officially established in May 1949. East Germany, or the German Democratic Republic, was established in October 1949. Under their occupying governments, the two Germanys followed very different paths. West Germany was allied with the U.S., the U.K. and France and became a western capitalist country with a market economy.
In contrast, East Germany was allied by the Soviet Union and fell under highly centralized communist rule. More information about the socioeconomic paths of the two Germanys, as well as those of Western and Eastern European countries can be found in later sections.
Video: Germany After WWII
Credits: This page was curated by CES.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Video: Germany After WWII
Credits: This page was curated by CES.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Union Minister Jaishankar speaks during the annual Munich Security Conference (Image: Reuters)
The course of the conversation indicates that the agenda was to show India’s position on Ukraine as two-faced, a trap Dr Jaishankar dismantled bit by bit.
LAST UPDATED:FEBRUARY 21, 2022,
SHUBHANGI SHARMA
Dr Jaishankar is a diplomat par excellence, and Indian foreign policy is in his reliable hands. In fact, Dr Jaishankar is inspiring an Indian foreign policy discourse that is brilliantly astute and lucid, leaving little room for foreign policy ‘gaslighters’ to manoeuvre.
This was visible at the Munich Security Conference, 2022. On Saturday, Indian External Affairs Minister Dr Subrahmanyam Jaishankar sat with the foreign ministers of France, Australia and Japan and discussed a wide range of foreign policy issues with a focus on the Indo-Pacific. However, the highlight of the event was the nature of questions posed to Dr Jaishankar by the panel moderator, and his shrewd eloquence while politely dismantling the implied premise of those queries.
HOW IS INDIA CONTRIBUTING TO EUROPEAN SECURITY?
Lynn Kuok, the panel moderator, started with a rather provocative question, “We just heard about how France and European generals are contributing to Indo-Pacific security, but since we are in Europe, I’d like to ask you how India is contributing to European security.” She pointed out how India has spoken out “vociferously against China” but abstained from voting on Ukraine in the United Nations Security Council.
She went on, “Could you please help me understand if India’s position is that different principles should apply in different parts of the world?”
Of course, if the panel moderator were honest with herself she would have known that India’s China problem is different from the current tensions between the West, Ukraine and Russia. Nevertheless, the question does represent a leading Western assessment, no matter how simplistic, of India’s stand on Ukraine and Dr Jaishankar made sure to give them an answer.
The Indian EAM was quick to point out that the “situations in the Indo-Pacific and the Transatlantic” were not analogous and said, “certainly the assumption in your question that somehow there’s a trade-off and one country does this in the Pacific so in return you do something else— I don’t think that’s how international relations work.”
Dr Jaishankar stressed that the two regions have distinct challenges and “if there was a connection, by that logic, you would’ve had a lot of European powers very early taking very sharp positions in the Indo-Pacific and we didn’t see that. We haven’t seen that since 2009.”
He went on and highlighted the fact that France, Germany and the Netherlands pivoting towards the Indo-Pacific are very recent developments, while the problem in the Indo-Pacific is not recent.
“You really need to look at that question again,” Dr Jaishankar concluded.
But Lynn Kuok pressed on, asking, “So you disagree that principles, international rules-based order, international law should apply across the world uniformly?”
Advertisement
To this, highlighting the hypocrisy of Western nations, Dr Jaishankar retorted, “No, I would say principles and interests are balanced and if people were so principled in this part of the world, they’d have been practising their principles in Asia or Afghanistan before we have actually seen them do.”
While Western thinkers insinuate a simplistic requisite that India must pay for the Indo-Pacific security push made by the United States and its Western allies against China, Dr Jaishankar has rightly resisted the flawed premise by way of which India should adopt a radical stand against Russia mirroring that of the United States to express its loyalty and gratitude. With such a suggestion, the strategists forget that it is as much, if not more, in the West’s interest to contain the Chinese threat as it is in the interest of India. So, Western intervention in its current form in the Indo-Pacific does India no undue favours and does not warrant unconditional support from India in other theatres.
HAS THE GALWAN CLASH PUSHED INDIA CLOSER TO THE WEST?
Another flawed question tossed at the foreign minister was about the June 2020 Galwan clash between the Indian Army and the Chinese PLA, where a significant number of casualties were seen on both sides. Lynn Kuok seemed to suggest that India pivoted towards the West as a consequence of the border clash with China. She asked if the event meant a “decisive and enduring shift towards the West.”
Again, this has been a view of amateur watchers of India-China relations, especially those without a primer on history, and it is also a view that China itself likes to propagate.
Dr Jaishankar caught the flawed basis of the question yet again. He outlined the situation with China at the border. “It’s a problem we are having with China… that for 45 years there was peace, there was stable border management. There were no military casualties at the border since 1975. That changed."
Slamming China, Dr Jaishankar said that India had agreements with China not to bring forces to the Line of Actual Control (LAC), the de-facto border with China. “The Chinese violated those agreements," he went on. “The state of the border will determine the state of the relationship."
Dr Jaishankar then proceeded to question the premise of Kuok’s question, saying, “Obviously, relations with China are right now going through a very difficult phase. But I would honestly question your question, that therefore our relations with the West are better.” He pointed out that India’s relations with the West were “quite decent” before June 2020. “So again, I’d challenge that correlation you’re making.”
‘THE QUAD IS NOT A POST-2020 DEVELOPMENT’
As a follow up to her question on China and the West’s ties with India, the panel moderator sought to assert that India strengthened bilateral relations with Quad members “at the very least” as a post-Galwan answer to China but Dr Jaishankar reminded the audience that the “incarnation of the Quad” started in 2017 and that it is not a post-2020 development. India’s relations with the Quad partners “have steadily improved in the last 20 years,” he said, adding, “Again, as I said, you are making it seem like cause-and-effect. I would challenge that.”
The entire course of the conversation indicates that the agenda at hand was to show India’s position on the Russia-Ukraine tensions as hypocritical and manoeuvre India into perceivably admitting the same. Lynn Kuok, who comes from the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a British think tank, sought to do her job first by posing a direct question on whether India believed in “different principles for different parts of the world” and when that did not throw Dr Jaishankar off, she seemingly sought to establish the notion that the West had done undue favours for India in the Indo-Pacific and so, in turn, India should return the love in Europe. But that ‘trap’ too did not reap any success with India’s astute foreign minister.
Words are the weapon of a diplomat, especially a foreign minister- and how he or she wields them can make or break a country’s justification of its foreign policy stands. Any unsuspecting rookie would have taken the kind of bait laid out for Dr Jaishankar, but his words were calculated to the T and his stand was not compromised at any given time.
