The German president believes the contacts should be maintained despite the differences over Ukraine. The talks ranged from economic ties to the conflicts in Ukraine and Syria as well as other international crises. President Putin for his part said Moscow was ready to develop ties with Germany, adding that German businesses were interested in expanding their footprint in Russia. "Despite some certain political difficulties Russian-German ties are not at a standstill," he added.

German direct investments in Russia are growing to reach $312 million in the first quarter of 2017. It significantly exceeded the total volume of German investments in 2016, which amounted to $225 million. Over 5,500 companies with the German capital are operating in Russia.

Steinmeier has long called for increased engagement with Moscow, and has advocated the easing of EU sanctions against Russia over events in Ukraine. The German president is also behind a disarmament initiative designed to push Russia and the US into reducing their arsenals of conventional weapons. In November, 2016, he came out with a proposal to launch discussions with Russia on a new arms control agreement. The idea was backed by fifteen other members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Before that he slammed NATO for «saber-rattling and war cries» and provocative military activities in the proximity of Russia’s borders.

Steinmeier is not the only politician in Germany who calls for better relations with Moscow. Christian Lindner, the leader of Germany’s Free Democratic Party (FDP), which is a likely candidate for joining a ruling coalition, has called for setting the problems related to Ukraine aside to make progress in the relations with Russia. According to him, “The security and prosperity of Europe depends on its relationship with Moscow.” The President of the Socialist Party in the German parliament, Sahra Wagenknecht, supported Lindner in his demand for a rapprochement with Russia. 'We should return to a policy of relaxation in relations with Russia in order to preserve peace and security in Europe,' Wagenknecht said.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker also advocates better relations between the West and Russia. He believes that Europe must improve its relationship with Russia, and should not let this be something decided by Washington. The countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) are calling for changing the European policy on Russia.

Speaking after the NATO-Russia Council meeting on October 26, Jens Stoltenberg, the alliance’s Secretary General, said, “Our dialogue is not easy, but that is exactly why our dialogue is so important.” The NATO chief described the latest session of the NATO-Russia Council as a "frank and open discussion" on Ukraine, Afghanistan, transparency, and risk reduction. It was the third time the council met this year. Despite the deterioration of relations with Russia, the West realizes the need for dialogue.

Russia and Germany have a history of special relationship. Steinmeier’s arms control initiative should not be swept under the rug. Outlines of a possible document can be worked out. The Russian-German dialogue could contribute to working out step-by-step measures to address the issues of European security and restore a climate of mutual trust and cooperation.

Russian and NATO unofficial experts could explore the outlines of future Euro-Atlantic security architecture and the ways to address the challenges on this path. They could come up with a program to gradually ease the present-day tensions. They could also discuss how the OSCE’s Vienna Document could be expanded to include a broader agenda.

With Islamic State routed, the problem of Syria’s future comes to the fore. The situation in Libya and other places may dictate the need for joint action. Russia and NATO need to cooperate in Afghanistan. Taking into consideration the desire of CEE states to improve the relations with Russia, it would be interesting to examine the possibility of a non-nuclear zone in Central (Eastern) Europe.

Russia and NATO could launch discussions on sub-regional transparency and confidence-building measures, especially in the Black Sea and the Baltic region, where tensions are running high. The talks could focus on developing new steps to prevent incidents, establishing constant channels of communication between the militaries, and on developing new rules of conduct to prevent dangerous military activity. No military exercises or stationing forces close to each other borders (no forces increase zone) can also be added to the security agenda. The very fact that the discussion process is launched could stabilize the situation in Europe.

Russia remains an indispensable part of European security. Like it or not, it will remain a key European state and thus an inevitable partner and interlocutor for NATO despite all persistent problems in the relations. There is increasing realization of this reality in the West. Steinmeier’s visit and the resumption of NATO-Russia Council’s regular meetings confirm this fact.

He was elected at a combined assembly of the Bundestag, the lower house of parliament, and the Bundesrat, the upper house, which represents Germany’s 16 regions.

While the role is mostly ceremonial, German presidents have some influence in setting the tone on foreign policy as well as retaining powers to veto laws they believe violate the constitution. A German president has little executive power, but Mr. Steinmeier is one of the country’s most popular politicians considered as a moral compass for German people.

As former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's chief of staff, he was associated with Schroeder's 2003 package of economic reforms and welfare cuts to make the German economy more robust. A prominent Social Democrat was an opposition leader and served twice as foreign minister. The new president is liked and respected in Germany despite losing out as the SPD's chancellor candidate in 2009. In 2010, he took a break from politics to donate a kidney to his sick wife. It boosted his popularity.

Chancellor Angela Merkel described Steinmeier as an outstanding candidate for the presidency, saying «Mr. Steinmeier is a person representing a political center. He is well-respected by the business community, by the society, both in our country and abroad». «For this reason, I believe that he is an outstanding candidate for the position of the federal president», she said.

Steinmeier criticized Donald Trump as a «hate preacher» during the election campaign and warned that US foreign policy would become «more unpredictable» after the Republican candidate’s victory.

Steinmeier’s election means a change in Germany’s policy on Russia. Steinmeier is widely expected to be friendly to Moscow. His predecessor, President Joachim Gauck, severed all ties with his Russian counterpart and never visited Russia. In 2013, he boycotted the Sochi Winter Olympics. Unlike Mr. Gauck, the president-elect seeks to continue the Social Democratic tradition of investing in dialogue with Moscow.

He has criticized NATO military exercises in Eastern Europe as «warmongering» and called for phasing out the European Union sanctions against Russia if there is substantial progress in the peace process in Ukraine. «What we should avoid today is inflaming the situation by warmongering and shrill war cries», German Foreign Minister Steinmeier told Bild in an interview. According to him, «What we shouldn't do now is to inflame the situation by loud saber-rattling». «Whoever believes that symbolic tank parades on the alliance's eastern border will bring more security is mistaken», he said. «We are well-advised not to create pretexts to renew an old confrontation».

In a separate interview, Steinmeier said the European Union sanctions against Russia should be gradually eased if there is substantial progress in the peace process. «Sanctions are not an end in themselves. They should rather give incentives for a change in behavior», Steinmeier told the Redaktions Netzwerk Deutschland, a network of local newspapers. In October, 2016, he opposed the imposing of the new sanctions against Moscow over the situation in the Syrian Aleppo. The idea was floated at the EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Luxemburg. The president-elect believes Russia has a key role to play in managing crises across the world, especially in Syria.

Steinmeier has spoken out in favor of bringing Russia back into the G8. The president-elect boasts good working relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Personal chemistry is a very important factor for improving relations.

It’s worth emphasizing that as President Steinmeier can contribute into addressing the burning security problems against the background dangerous of arms control erosion. Last August, he published an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily which put forward proposals to negotiate a new multilateral treaty on conventional arms control in Europe. In November, 2016, his arms control initiative received support from more than a dozen leading European nations.

Russia withdrew from the original Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (the CFE treaty) in 2015. At present, the OSCE Vienna Document and the Treaty on Open Skies are the only mechanisms still effective but they are too limited in application to curb the rising tensions.

Steinmeier’s rich foreign policy experience will stand him in good stead at a time global politics is in flux, the EU’s future looks more than uncertain, especially after Brexit, the problem of migrants is unsolved, Italy, Germany, the Netherlands and France are facing key and likely turbulent elections, and the Eurozone crisis can be repeated at any moment. Germany is facing troubled times and Mr. Steinmeier, a man who is so popular and respected by the German people, appears to be the right choice. 

On December 7^th, was posed the biggest test so far of the mettle of America’s President-Elect, Donald Trump.

He had said several times during his campaign, that if elected as President, he would seek a new, less-hostile, relationship between the U.S. and Russia. Now the moment has come when he must either make his first move forward with that historic commitment, or else — by his own inaction when the circumstances (such as right now) demand immediate action on this very promise — set his future U.S. Presidential Administration onto exactly the opposite path: following through with and accepting the existing hostilities, even when they are the most blatantly irrational and counter-factual on their American basis (as now is the case).

The precipitating event here is this: NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg and German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said on December 7^th that they want to continue the existing hostilities against Russia: specifically the economic sanctions that U.S. President Barack Obama initiated against Russia after Russia had accepted the overwhelming (90%+) request of the residents in Crimea to restore Crimea’s pre-1954 status, of being for hundreds of years an integral part of Russia.

The way Steinmeier phrased it was, “The necessary significant progress” by Russia in the implementation of the Minsk Peace Agreement for Ukraine, has not been achieved, and so the sanctions against Russia “will continue to exist.”

By “the necessary significant progress” he was referring actually to the thing that has been blocking the carrying-out of the Minsk agreements: the Ukrainian Government’s refusal to adhere to provision #11 of the Minsk II Accords, the provision that says Ukraine will pass an amendment to its Constitution so as to provide “special administrative status” within Ukraine to the two breakaway regions, Donbass (where 90% of the residents had voted for the Ukrainian President whom U.S. President Barack Obama’s Administration had overthrown in a bloody coup in February 2014, which coup sparked Donbass’s breakaway), and Crimea (where 75% had voted for that deposed President, whose bloody removal by Obama’s operation sparked Crimea’s breakaway on 16 March 2014, three weeks after that coup).

What Stoltenberg and Steinmeier ought to be demanding, then, certainly is not continuation of sanctions against Russia for something that Russia isn’t responsible for and actually opposes (a breaking of that promise by the Ukrainian Goverment), which is Ukraine’s refusal to comply with provision #11 of the Minsk II Accords, but, instead, sanctions against the Ukrainian Government itself, and perhaps also against the U.S. Government, for their opposing and blocking implementation of that key provision of the Accords (and, perhaps belatedly, also for that coup).

However, since NATO and Germany are not (such as they’re claiming to be) demanding Ukraine’s compliance with the Minsk Accords, perhaps other nations should instead consider imposing economic sanctions against NATO and Germany, as a possible alternative way of achieving implementation of those Accords, by penalizing NATO and Germany for pushing forward with this lie and moving in the opposite direction — toward war — from the direction (ending the West’s confrontation with Russia) which the U.S. President-Elect had said he wants. And, of course, economic sanctions against the United States Government, for its having illegally imposed a coup-government in Kiev, and so precipitated the entire confrontation, might also be considered. Those options could be rational, but what Steinmeier and Stoltenberg are demanding is certainly not.

U.S. President-Elect Donald Trump can eliminate any such necessity, however, and also fulfill his basic campaign promise regarding U.S.-Russian relations, by informing both NATO and Germany that, unlike his immediate predecessor in the U.S. White House (Obama), a President Donald Trump will push for an immediate end to the Obama-sanctions against Russia.

This move on Trump’s part needn’t necessarily be accompanied by any official repudiation of his predecessor’s actions regarding Ukraine and regarding Russia, but it would, in and of itself, establish a new and far more peaceful future course in international relations, in which all nations will be able to unify around the common goal for international security, of wiping out jihadists — no longer any trumped-up accusations and hostilities that extend and needlessly continue old-style big-power rivalries, which unnecessarily drain the world’s resources and kill thousands of people, for merely partisan, and clearly counter-productive and potentially catastrophic, purposes.

If President-Elect Trump declines to take advantage of this “blatant” opportunity to change course in a constructive direction on U.S. foreign relations, then what realistic expectation can there be that he ever will do so? Can a more “blatant” instance to initiate his promised change-of-direction be even imagined?

Also on December 7^th, Mr. Trump named a passionate opponent of regulations against global warming, to become the head of America’s Environmental Protection Administration, which enforces those regulations. The appointee is Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who is no scientist and who even denies that there is any significant scientific consensus that global warming exists or has any human involvement in its cause if it does exist, and has fought against regulations to reduce or prevent runaway global heating. Unless he would reverse those positions of his, approval by the U.S. Senate of his appointment would make any concerted international agreements against runaway global heating, such as as the recent Paris agreement to reduce greenhouse gases, impossible to achieve or enforce. This would be yet further reason for imposing economic sanctions against the United States — but this reason would be due to Mr. Trump’s own international malfeasance, rather than to Obama’s.

Consequently, the real test now isn’t only for Trump; it’s also going to be a test for every government on this planet. And not only international peace is at stake; our livable planet also is.

washingtonsblog.com

«Europe's security is in danger», German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told Die Welt newspaper in an interview published on November 25. «As difficult as ties to Russia may currently be, we need more dialogue, not less».

Steinmeier, a Social Democrat nominated to become German president next year, first called for a new arms control deal with Russia in August to avoid an escalation of tensions in Europe.

Fifteen other members of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) – have since joined Steinmeier's initiative: France, Italy, Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, the Czech Republic, Spain, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Romania, Sweden, Slovakia, Bulgaria and Portugal.

The group plans to discuss the issue on the sidelines of a December 8-9 ministerial level OSCE meeting in Hamburg. Germany is holding the rotating presidency of the organization.

Mr. Steinmeier first floated the idea of an arms control agreement with Moscow in August amid rising tensions between Russia and NATO. He has also slammed NATO for «saber-rattling and war cries» and provocative military activities in the proximity of Russia’s borders.

Russia withdrew from the original Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (the CFE treaty) in 2015. Signed in 1990 by NATO and the Warsaw Pact, the agreement set ceilings for the level of conventional arms systems signatories were allowed to deploy and established verification and confidence-building measures.

The treaty had long been undermined by NATO expansion, leading to imbalance of forces. The alliance has accepted 12 Eastern European countries since 1999 with Montenegro invited to join. In 1999, signatories agreed an adapted version, but this was never ratified because NATO insisted Russia had to withdraw all its troops from former Soviet territories such as Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdniestria as a precondition for the ratification. Although Russia had withdrawn almost all its troops, there remained some insignificant contingents but the alliance stubbornly sought to pursue its line.

According to the Adapted CFE, the quota for the number of forces practically did not change. The agreed limits for NATO exceeded three times the ones established for Russia. The flanking zone limitations for the Russian Federation were not reconsidered. The three Baltic States refused to join the treaty when they became NATO members. The adapted version of the treaty did not address the problem of NATO’s superiority in naval forces. A number of NATO countries have essentially breached its requirements, periodically refusing to provide information to the Russian side or allow inspections. The alliance has stepped up provocative activities near Russia’s borders.

NATO failed to take into account Russia’s concern over ballistic missile defense (BMD) plans. This policy implemented by NATO actually finished off conventional arms control in Europe. In 2007, Moscow suspended its participation in the treaty to finally withdraw in 2015.

As a result, the OSCE Vienna Document and the Treaty on Open Skies are the only mechanisms left in place but they are too limited in application to curb the rising tensions.

The goal of creating a «Greater Europe» stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok seemed to be achievable some years ago. Now it has become a far-fetched dream. A quarter of century has passed since the Soviet Union’s collapse. The Russia-West dialogue has failed to translate into some kind of strategic relationship.

It’s important to note that the initiative to relaunch the negotiation process does not belong to Germany. The West has rejected Russia’s proposal to discuss a new European Security Treaty. The Russia-proposed draft document was published in 2009. In March 2015, Russia expressed its readiness for negotiations concerning a new agreement regarding the control of conventional weapons in Europe. It never rejected the idea of launching talks to address the problem.

New security arrangements should take into consideration the realities of the fast changing world, including new technologies. Any arrangement should cover long range conventional strike capabilities, the weapons based on new physical principles, tactical nuclear weapons, the NATO’s naval and conventional superiority, the bloc’s further expansion and a host of other problems. No deal is possible without an agreement of NATO’s BMD program.

The process should not be limited to weapons systems only. The confidence-building and security measures (CBSMs) contained in the Vienna Document should be further developed to reduce the risk of a new armed conflict sparked as a result of an accident – something NATO has refused to do so far.

A new agreement should address the security agenda in a broader sense. The debate is long overdue. The problem should not boil down to bilateral Russia-NATO relationship. It should eventually feed into a broader conversation on the overall European security system based on a new architecture.

Europe is facing a host of security challenges. Launching a meaningful discussion with Russia is logical step to take. Russia and the West have plenty of possibilities for cooperation besides arms control and military activities in Europe. The possible areas of cooperation include the fight against terrorism, especially the Islamic State group, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, the Arctic, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and countering piracy to name a few. Respect for mutual concerns and interests is a prerequisite for success.

With all the differences dividing Russia (the Soviet Union) and the West at the height of the Cold War, those days diplomacy worked well to prevent the worst. It can be done now. The significant support for the proposal launched by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier provides a serious opportunity to turn the tide. This chance should not be missed.

In Germany, the president is elected by secret ballot for a term of five years by the Federal Convention which mirrors the aggregated majority situation of the Bundestag and the parliaments of the 16 German federal states. The vote will take place on February 12. With the conservative Union’s support behind him, Mr. Steinmeier seems certain to become president as the ruling coalition commands an absolute majority in the Federal Assembly

The agreement on a common candidate is a clear signal for continuation of the governing coalition comprising the CDU/CSU and SPD after the federal elections in autumn 2017.

Chancellor Angela Merkel described Steinmeier as an outstanding candidate for the presidency. «Mr. Steinmeier is a person representing a political center. He is well-respected by the business community, by the society, both in our country and abroad», Merkel told reporters in Berlin. «For this reason, I believe that he is an outstanding candidate for the position of the federal president», she said. The Chancellor is widely expected to run for a fourth term in office and a poll last week showed more than half of Germans want her to do so.

Media reports say that Steinmeier could be replaced by European Parliament president Martin Schulz, a Social Democrat, as foreign minister.

The ruling coalition’s desire to show a unified front gained new urgency after the election of Trump, at a time when anti-establishment parties are taking root across Europe and the anti-immigrant Alternative for Germany has made rapid gains.

The decision means a change in Germany’s policy on Russia. Steinmeier is widely expected to be friendly to Moscow. His predecessor, the outgoing President Joachim Gauck, has severed all ties with his Russian counterpart and never visited Russia. In 2013, he boycotted the Sochi Winter Olympics.

Indeed, Russia and Germany have been going through hard times in their relationship but Mr. Steinmeier has made a significant contribution to prevent it from sliding to the lowest ebb. The would-be president boasts good working relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. Personal chemistry and is a very important factor for improvement of relations.

In 2008, Steinmeier initiated the concept for a German-Russian partnership for modernization. He often visits Russia to supervise the pet project. The foreign minister is an honorary doctor of Ural Federal University, where he is a frequent visitor.

Mr. Steinmeier advocates gradual easing of anti-Russian restrictive measures. In late October, he opposed the imposing of the new sanctions against Moscow amid situation in the Syrian Aleppo. The idea was floated at the EU foreign ministers’ meeting in Luxemburg. The presidential candidate believes Russia has a key role to play in managing crises across the world, especially in Syria.

As president of the leading European country, Mr. Steinmeier can contribute into turning the tide and putting an end to the process of arms control erosion to enhance European security.

In late August, the German foreign minister published an article in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung daily which put forward proposals to negotiate a new multilateral treaty on conventional arms control in Europe. He called for «concrete security initiatives» including regional caps on armaments, transparency measures, rules covering new military technology such as drones, and the ability to control arms even in disputed territories. His proposals are on the OSCE agenda now. This is a right initiative to come up with at the time when arms control and security regime in Europe has weakened so much.

In his comments on NATO’s increased presence and activities near Russia’s borders, Mr. Steinmeier accused the alliance of «warmongering» against Russia. He spoke out against NATO military exercises in Poland and the Baltic States in summer, describing them as «saber-rattling». «The one thing we shouldn’t do now is inflame the situation with loud saber-rattling and warmongering», the foreign minister told Bild am Sonntag newspaper. «Anyone who thinks a symbolic tank parade on the alliance’s eastern border will bring security is wrong», he noted.

The approval of Mr. Steinmeier’s candidacy is another event to indicate the trend towards better relations between the West and Russia. It took place after Mr. Trump’s victory at the presidential election in the United States. Pro-Russia candidates have just won in Bulgaria and Moldova.

The opposition to the anti-Russia sanctions policy is growing stronger in Europe. With Mr. Steinmeier in office, the chances for significant improvement of the relations between Russia and the West will significantly grow. More and more Western politicians who call for better relations with Moscow come to power – the trend that augurs positive changes to take place for the common good. 

The entire system of existing arms control agreements is being eroded. With almost every channel of negotiation deadlocked, the Old Continent is facing the most challenging crisis it cannot ignore. The danger of a new arms race looms large. History has many examples of international crises and tensions that developed a momentum of their own and resulted in conflict. The voices calling to urgently address the issue are getting louder.

Germany’s foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier says, European security is at risk unless a new arms control agreement is in force.

In an article published by German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on August 26, Steinmeier called for «concrete security initiatives» including regional caps on armaments, transparency measures, rules covering new military technology such as drones, and the ability to control arms even in disputed territories.

New military capabilities, including the use of drones, must be taken into account, the foreign minister insisted, adding that «true verification» of arms would be vital to any successful pact, along with the inclusion of regions «whose territorial status is controversial». The minister suggested that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) could be the forum for talks.

Steinmeier has previously criticized NATO for staging military maneuvers in Eastern Europe, which he said amounted to «saber-rattling and shrill war cries» that could worsen tensions with Russia.

Mr Steinmeier is not alone. His proposal dovetails with what a group of former foreign and defense ministers said on August 24.

Russia and NATO must agree on common rules to handle unexpected military encounters to reduce the risk of inadvertently triggering a war between Moscow and the West. Calling for a high-level NATO-Russia meeting, the group of 14 – including former Russian foreign minister Igor Ivanov, ex-German defense minister Volker Rühe and colleagues from Britain, France, Spain and Turkey – said rules for communication at sea and in the air were paramount.

The issues related to security and conventional arms are actually not covered by any comprehensive agreement in force. There is a dangerous void here, especially since the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) became a thing of the past. Initially signed by representatives from 16 NATO states, as well as by six members of the Warsaw Pact, on Nov. 19, 1990 in Paris, the CFE went into effect in 1992. It established comprehensive limits on key categories of conventional military equipment in Europe (from the Atlantic to the Urals) and mandated the destruction of excess weaponry. The treaty proposed equal limits for the two «groups of states-parties», the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact. NATO’s expansion at the expense of the Soviet Union’s former allies has created an imbalance of forces. The Adapted CFE Treaty was drawn up in 1999 to replace the treaty’s established limits for each bloc with a system based on national and territorial ceilings on arms and equipment for each signatory state. The quota for the number of forces practically did not change. The agreed limits for NATO exceeded three times the ones established for Russia. Unlike the Russian Federation, NATO countries did not ratify the agreement. The flanking zone limitations for Russia were neither cancelled, nor reconsidered. NATO required the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria – absolutely insignificant contingents – as a condition for the ratification of the treaty. Russia slammed the condition as an «artificial linkage». The three Baltic States refused to become parties to the treaty when they joined NATO. The Adapted CFE did not encompass naval forces where NATO has substantial superiority. Over the last few years, Russia has followed policies to fulfill the terms of the treaty, while at the same time, a number of NATO countries have essentially breached its requirements, periodically refusing to provide information to the Russian side or allow inspections. Pouring oil on the flames was the decision to deploy a missile defense system in Europe. This is not a breach of the CFE Treaty but goes strongly against its spirit. 

In 2007, Russia «suspended» its participation in the treaty and on 10 March 2015, citing NATO’s de facto breach of the treaty, Russia formally announced it was «completely» halting its participation in it.

The West rejected Russia’s initiative to discuss a new European Security Treaty with the draft document made public in 2009.

As a result, the Vienna Document is the only mechanism in place at present, but it’s certainly not enough to curb the rising tensions.

The OSCE’s Treaty on Open Skies, too, is limited in application.

The gist of the problem is that over twenty years of cooperation have never translated into the type of strategic relationship that NATO and Russia had hoped for and formally enshrined in numerous political documents.

The initiative to relaunch the negotiation process does not belong to the West. In March 2015, Russia expressed its readiness for negotiations concerning a new treaty regarding the control of conventional weapons in Europe.

It has never rejected further talk on Conventional Arms Control in Europe (CACE).

New security arrangements should take into consideration the changes the world is going through. A new arms control treaty should be expanded to new technologies. Long range conventional precision guided weapons, armed unmanned aerial vehicles (drones), offensive cyber capabilities, robots, and the weapons based on new physical principles need to be addressed by any agreement to come. Naval forces have been so far excluded from the process. The time has come to rectify this omission and include sea-based weapons and carrier-based aircraft into the agenda.

And it’s not about weapons only. What Europe needs is further development of the confidence-building and security measures (CBSMs) contained in the Vienna Document. Dangerous military activities and excessive build-up of conventional arms exacerbate the risks of new armed conflicts that should be prevented by multilateral transparency mechanisms in a timely detection of destabilizing build-up of arms and in creation of opportunities for a dialogue to lift concerns.

A new deal should not boil down to the correlation of conventional and nuclear weapons only. It should address the issue of European security in a broader sense. The debate over the European security order is long overdue but goes well beyond NATO. The Russia-NATO dialogue should eventually feed into a broader conversation on the European security order, through existing institutional arrangements between NATO and the European Union, as well as NATO and the OSCE facilitated by the Secretary General’s new representative to the OSCE announced at the NATO summit held in Warsaw. NATO-Russia talks could usefully contribute to the agenda of others, and get the ball rolling on a much needed exercise of reestablishing the rules of the European security order. It’s a pity that the discussions within the OSCE never amounted to a new architecture – something long sought by Moscow.

Europe is facing significant internal as well as external challenges, security is paramount and the moment is right to launch a meaningful discussion with Russia on the European security order in a realistic manner taking into account mutual concerns and interests. Respect for each other’s views and interests is a prerequisite for success. It should not be a dialogue of the deaf – something demonstrated at the recent Russia-NATO Council’s meetings. The would-be talks should recognize a strong self-interest on both sides in transparency and predictability to avoid miscalculations and reduce risks as the relationship has clearly become confrontational. The conditions should be created to work out differences without the threat of military force.

Obviously Russia and NATO have plenty of possibilities for cooperation, including the situation in Afghanistan, preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, countering piracy, cooperation in the Arctic, combating terrorism to name a few. This is the time to reactivate the negotiating track. After all, diplomacy worked well even at the height of the Cold War. The Initiative launched by German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier provides the opportunity not to be missed.

But its activities are not limited to the deployment of troops and ships. The bloc’s leadership states that it may now have grounds to use force if a major cyberattack is launched against it by persons in a non-alliance country like Russia. Such an action could trigger a collective response by NATO. «A severe cyberattack may be classified as a case for the alliance. Then NATO can and must react», NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg said in an interview published by Germany’s Bild newspaper on June 16.

He spoke after the June 14 decision was made by NATO defense ministers to designate cyber as an official operational domain of warfare, along with air, sea, and land.

The NATO meeting stressed that a cyberattack could rise to the level of a military assault and could trigger the Article 5, which allows the alliance to go to the collective defense of another member that has been attacked.

Specifically, the West is alleging that Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton’s home computer.

It’s well known that Hillary Clinton broke the rules and used an unsecured home computer. Now if somebody took advantage of her negligence, it might constitute an attack against the United States and require 28 NATO member states to go to war, if the US government decides it is the right thing to do!

The recent attack on the Democratic National Convention servers, which leaked the Democrats confidential files on Trump and Hillary donors’ lists, was blamed on Russian hackers who allegedly worked for the government.

Later it surfaced that it was done by a hacker, who had no relation to Russia.

NATO’s story about Russia threatening the West is questioned by a Foreign Minister of a leading alliance member who has criticized NATO military exercises in Eastern Europe as «warmongering» and called for phasing out the European Union sanctions against Russia if there is substantial progress in the peace process in Ukraine. «What we should avoid today is inflaming the situation by warmongering and stomping boots», German Foreign Minister Steinmeier told Bild in an interview.

Sharply criticizing the ongoing NATO war games in Eastern Europe, Steinmeier said that inflaming the standoff with Russia would endanger European security and increase risk of reviving an «old confrontation». The statement was made ahead of the upcoming NATO summit in Warsaw to kick off on July 8. The Minister believes that the ongoing large-scale Anakonda-16 NATO military exercise in Poland, simulating the repulsion of «Russian aggression» against the country, is counterproductive. The training event was the first time German tanks crossed Poland from west to east since the WWII.

«Let me be clear: there will be more NATO troops in Poland after the Warsaw Summit» Jens Stoltenberg said last month. «Anyone who thinks you can increase security in the alliance with symbolic parades of tanks near the eastern borders is mistaken», he added.

Rather than inflaming the situation further «through saber-rattling and warmongering», there ought to be more space for dialogue and cooperation with Moscow, Steinmeier said contradicting NATO’s leadership. It would be «fatal to now narrow the focus to the military, and seek a remedy solely through a policy of deterrence», German FM said, calling to give way to diplomacy instead of military posturing.

In a separate interview also published on June 19, Steinmeier said, the European Union sanctions against Russia should be gradually eased if there is substantial progress in the peace process. 

«Sanctions are not an end in themselves. They should rather give incentives for a change in behavior», Steinmeier told the Redaktions Netzwerk Deutschland, a network of local newspapers.

The comments by Steinmeier were the sharpest indications of a division within Germany’s ruling coalition over policy towards Russia. Steinmeier’s Social Democrats have backed a more conciliatory stance toward Moscow than Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative bloc, the Christian Democrats. Merkel has repeatedly said that sanctions imposed against Russia can only be lifted once a peace agreement, known as the Minsk accords, is fully implemented.

Steinmeier’s stance also testifies to the fact that there is no unity on Russia’s policy inside NATO.

For instance, right after his statement, Stephen Sestanovich, the George F Kennan Senior Fellow for Russian and Eurasian Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, demanded Steinmeier’s resignation.

Aleksey Pushkov, the head of the foreign affairs committee in Russia’s lower house of parliament, welcomed Steinmeier's comments as a «voice of reason». «Steinmeier spoke against Stoltenberg's course for scaring Russia. Some voices of reason could be heard from behind the curtain of threats and hysterics», Pushkov said in a tweet July 17.

Speaking at the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) on June 17, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that NATO has «an absolutely slapdash attitude to our position on anything», adding that it was the US that had unilaterally quit the missile defense treaty, which was initially signed to «provide strategic balance in the world».

NATO «needs a foreign enemy, otherwise what would be the reason for the existence of such an organization», the Russian President concluded.

Putin assured his audience that he does not want to proceed to a new Cold War, as «no one wants it». «However dramatic the logic of the development of international relations might seem on the outside, it’s not the logic of global confrontation», he explained.

NATO’s bellicosity towards Russia appears to go far enough to split the alliance. It’s serious enough to make the disagreements surface and become public domain right before the NATO summit expected to take a number of decisions doomed to provoke Russia and give rise to tensions in Europe. Steinmeier’s statement reflects a growing concern among leading Western politicians over the wisdom of the anti-Russian stand.

Prominent people who described the eventsof WWI forthwith,like, for instance, Grand AdmiralAlfred Friedrich von Tirpitz, have provided irrefutable evidence of the fact that European politicians had underestimated the threat of all-out war till the last moment. A number of warnings on this account have already been voiced in Germany. In early December, 60 prominent German personalities from the realms of politics, economics, culture and the media signed a letter published by Die Zeit "War in Europe Again? Not in Our Names!" All the politicians who signed the paper have been ranking officials in the past: a former federal president, a former chancellor, former federal ministers and former prime ministers of federal lands. Only former big shots – never incumbents. That’s life. That’s what German politics is about – the rules are strict and nobody wants to doom his or her political career. The idea to publish the letter was initiated by influential representatives of leading political parties: Christian Democrat Horst Teltschik, Social Democrat Walther Stützle, Antje Vollmer, a member of the Green Party. Dr. Horst Teltschik is a German politician and business manager. He served as national security advisor to Chancellor Helmut Kohl and held a number of other important positions in the German government. From 1999 to 2008, he chaired the Munich Conference on Security Policy, which hosts the premier global international security event bringing security professionals and decision-makers together. As Teltschik explained, he put his signature to prevent the loss of what has been achieved during the recent 25 years as the relationship with Russia developed, though the letter is mainly devoted not to the bilateral relations but rather to serious consequences to be entailed by further escalation of conflict. The authors say the people are scared of another war. (1)

The appeal is addressed to the government, members of parliament and media. What is striking – the federal TV channels ARD and ZDF never said a word about this important public initiative! Die Zeit was the only German newspaper to publish the document. Like if trying to make up for the committed mistake, the newspaper soon introduced its readers to the opinion of those who angrily lambasted the letter of 60. The article written in response was called Putin Closes the Window to Europe (2). Newspapers Frankfurter Allgemeine and Süddeutsche Zeitung published materials containing harsh criticism of the appeal of 60 without publishing the letter itself! You’re welcome to condemn it without reading first! Lutz Bachmann, the leader of the movement which involves more and more people into the protests against Islamization of Germany, flatly refused to talk to journalists.

The posts published in reaction to the anti-letter responses are more interesting than the articles themselves. There are many of them. For instance, a thousand of newspaper’s readers commented on the Die Zeit publication. Many condemn the West blaming it for absence of self–criticism and inability to take on at least some responsibility for starting and escalating the conflict in Ukraine. Some say Western politicians lead Europe to war and they want this madness stopped. (3) Around a half of posts contain harsh criticism of West’s policy. By and large, the public surveys say the same thing. For instance, in December 51% of responders in comparison with 41% in September said that in their opinion Russia really believed it was threatened by the West. It strikes an eye that the number of those who supported a more active participation of NATO in Ukrainian conflict dwindled by 16%. It’s a pity that 40% have not changed their views. It means the idea still has a considerable support. (4) It is even more worrisome that 61% of Germans endorse the Berlin’s tougher stance on Russia in its dialogue with Moscow. The same survey says Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has a modest lead over Chancellor Angela Merkel. 70% of respondents approve his work (the survey puts the Angela Merkel’s approval rating at 67%) while 23% disapprove it (in comparison 32% do not approve of the job the Chancellor is doing). Perhaps the stances adopted by the politicians on Ukraine make difference: Steinmeier wants to sound soft on the issue unlike the Chancellor who keeps on insisting the anti-Russia sanctions are necessary. She has even let know the sanctions could be toughened. That’s what one of the posts send to Märkische Oderzeitung forum says about the Merkel’s policy toward Russia, “The frenzied rhetoric of this woman is unbearable. Her rule has nothing to do with politics. She does not care about German people.” “13 years ago Putin offered the Russian heart to us (meaning his speech delivered in Bundestag in 2001). And how did we respond to it?” “May 8 is the latest date for Merkel to lend a hand to Russia! All other things are nothing else but fuelling hatred and spurring further escalation!” (5)

The differences between Steinmeier and Merkel on Russia periodically get into the German media’s radar screen, though it’s hard to grasp the gist of it. Social Democrat Steinmeier is concerned over possible deterioration of economic situation. So what? German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble of the ChristianDemocratic Union of Germanyis also concerned over the anti-Russia sanctions but does not support the idea of lifting or at least easing them. The rhetoric of Social Democrats appears to be a bit less tough but it has no influence on Berlin.

There is an impression that Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier just put on an act – a badly played amateur performance. It’s not even “a bad cop-good cop” classic game but rather it’s “a bad cop (Merkel) – a not so bad cop (Steinmeier)” version. Such performances lack of taste and depth. Anyway, playing such roles will hardly enhance the German liberals’ credibility.

_____________

1) "Wieder Krieg in Europa? Nicht in unserem Namen!"/ Zeit, 5. Dezember 2014.

2) Putin schließt das Fenster zu Europa/Zeit, 8. Dezember 2014.

3) http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2014-12/russland-ukaine-putin-aufruf-ruprecht-polenz?commentstart=1#comments

4)ARD survey – DeutschlandTREND Dezember 2014. S. 8, 13. Such surveys are conducted every month.

5) http://www.moz.de/kommentare/mc/1354581/216/1/. Russia is the only country Germany never officially apologized to for unleashing WWII. At that the anti-historic version of the events is spread in Germany as well as in the West in general. It says that “two dictatorships” clashed and there was no difference between Hitler and Stalin. 

In Warsaw Poroshenko did discuss the issue of holding a tripartite meeting in Minsk but the issues of arms supplies provided by Poland and the prospects for Ukraine’s NATO entry dominated the Ukraine-Poland summit agenda. Poland is open to hold talks with Ukraine regarding potential sales of arms, «I have never heard of any embargo on arms sales to Ukraine,» Polish President Bronislaw Komorowski said at a joint press conference with his Ukrainian counterpart Petro Poroshenko on December 17. Let’s assume that Poland does not care if the loans for arms deal will ever be repaid. Let’s suppose that Poland can allow itself the luxury of such largesse. No doubt the Polish President understands well what his Ukrainian counterpart wants the weapons for. The «peace plan» that Poroshenko promised during the election campaign brought great suffering to Ukrainian people – the death toll around 5 thousand and a great number of populated areas destroyed. The US-sent rations for military are stolen, the money provided by Europe has gone to fill somebody’s pockets – that’s how Ukraine fights corruption. Protests are taking place near the building of Ukrainian parliament. People want credits restructured as the currency rate changes. They want medicine which is impossible to buy as the shelves of pharmacies in Kiev are half empty, they want the government to take an action against the banks that refuse to repay deposits… Constant protests take place in Kiev’s bedroom communities left without hot water. During his sixth (in 2014) visit to Ukraine Frank-Walter Steinmeier met Foreign Minister Klimkin, Prime Minister Yatsenyuk and President Poroshenko. He emphasized the importance of reaching an agreement on delivering humanitarian cargo to the eastern areas of Ukraine as winter approaches. (1) So what? The Dnepropetrovsk Oblast (region) does not let the humanitarian aid pass through its territory. The region is ruled by tycoon Igor Kolomoisky who does not believe that the orders coming from Kiev are obligatory and must be carried out. Actually the Ukrainian rulers don’t care about common people and Germans may be promised anything – the Ukraine’s government will do things its way. Rolling electricity black outs have started this autumn. In Kiev they occur in accordance with the schedule. It’s much worse in province – there black outs may last as long as 9 hours. 

It’s important for Americans not to let the events deviate from the scenario worked out in Washington. It is confirmed by the simultaneous visit to Ukraine paid by presidents of Belarus and Kazakhstan. As soon as Chancellor Merkel mentioned the possibility of talks between the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union including Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, Poroshenko invited the Belarusian and Kazakh leaders to visit Kiev. Besides it’s a signal sent to Germans saying they should not go that far. 

While meeting Lukashenko and Nazarbaev the Ukrainian President talked with US Vice President Joe Biden. The statements made by some Ukrainian politicians provide a clue to the US strategy in Europe. For instance, Yatsenyuk said the Organization for Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in Europe is an obsolete institution that should be abolished. It was said on purpose to be heard in Berlin – Germany is to chair the OSCE in 2016. On October 1, the German cabinet agreed that Germany would apply for chairmanship of the OSCE in 2016. On this occasion Foreign Minister Steinmeier issued the following statement on the candidacy in Berlin, «The OSCE has proved in the Ukraine crisis how important it is for a pan-European peace order. It is in our own best interests to strengthen the OSCE as a forum for dialogue, as a bridge between East and West, as an operative instrument for European crisis prevention, and as an institution that plays a concrete active role».  (2)

By and large Ukrainian politicians don’t care about the Germany’s vision of prospects for peaceful solution to Ukraine’s crisis. The only thing they want from the European Union is money. Some Germans realize that. «Kiev chooses a military solution… the United States is to deliver arms while Europe is to prevent the Ukraine’s bankruptcy», (3) one of Spiegel’s readers writes in his post. But German media prefers to keep mum about it. To avoid stories about Ukrainian politicians try to wheedle out credits and assume an offended air when refused. German media outlets avoid stories about the suffering of Ukrainians who live near the battle front. They avoid stories about the abrupt deterioration of living conditions in Ukraine. But one cannot hide an awl in a sack. As a result, Germans start to lose trust in their national media, especially when it comes to reporting on Ukraine. 

The attitude towards media splits over to the streets. Federal President Joachim Gauck is known for his anti-Russia rhetoric. On December 13, four thousand people staged an anti-war protest near his residence to be joined by demonstrators in Bochum, Heidelberg and Hamburg. Naturally, the «established» German media outlets shied away from mentioning the «minor» events. 

Thousands have lost lives as the war in Ukraine continues. German Bild, the largest-selling German national newspaper, published an interview with Czech President Milos Zeman who rejected the idea of providing Ukraine with the support it requests. Perhaps the newspaper’s editorial board started to understand it was unwise to rub shoulders with the regime which uses Nazi rhetoric. Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko also gave an interview to Bild saying «I am not afraid of a war with Russian troops». He added, «We are prepared for a scenario of total war». (2) Perhaps he believes that the terminology used by Nazi will make him sound more understandable for Germans. It was German General Erich Ludendorff who developed the theory of «total war» after WWI. The General played a prominent role as a military leader during the First World War and then became close to Hitler. Ludendorff was an ardent supporter of the idea to make Ukraine an independent state as the war was coming to the end. He could not imagine then that the state entity created by German military will soon end its inglorious existence. The German puppet Hetman (head of state) Pavlo Skoropadsky ended his life in Bavaria a few days before the end of WWII. 

The geopolitical project of creating independent Ukraine in order to destroy the Russian statehood was not a brainchild of US strategists. The idea belonged to German ideologists. No need to fall prey to illusions, it should be understood that the people who take foreign policy decisions in Berlin today are hardly ready for a compromise with Russia on Ukraine. 

Speaking at the G20 summit in Australia (Brisbane) Angela Merkel came up with three fundamental principles to define the EU policy on Ukraine: the political and economic support of Kiev, looking for the ways to resolve the crisis by diplomatic means while holding talks with Moscow and maintaining the pressure of sanctions regime against it for as long as required to accomplish the set goals. (3)

The internal differences within the ruling coalition between the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats look more like a good cop/bad cop play. Good cops Social Democrats have guts only to offer a combination of steps to influence Russia (Sigmar Gabriel, Minister for Economic Affairs, Energy and Vice Chancellor and Chairman of the Social Democratic Party of Germany). No easing, or, all the more, lifting of sanctions is implied. Another Social Democrat Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, has raised a hypothetical question about the criteria for ending the sanctions regime against Russia. According to him, «it is important that we begin discussing the criteria for relieving sanctions». (4) Perhaps Europeans should have thought about it before introducing the measures? 

In her Brisbane address the Chancellor said the goal of Western political efforts was sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine. It should be noted that the Chancellor expressed concern over the impending threat to the security of Moldova and Serbia. Such public statements heighten tensions at the time the relations between Russia and the West are already strained. This rhetoric espouses the idea of adopting a «Monroe doctrine for NATO» or expanding the Alliance’s area of responsibility beyond the borders of the organization’s members. For instance, US journalist James Kirchick writes in an article published in the internet edition of Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung that NATO should apply a new «Monroe doctrine,» to lay claim to hegemony over Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus. (5)

If the European Union follows the way shown by Berlin, then the chances for a compromise with Russia will be really slim. 

Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, espouses the wait and see strategy. It’s hard to understand what it means exactly. A child burnt once dreads the fire, so Germans are very sensitive at home. If, for instance, people stage protests against immigration – it should be banned as the spread of Nazi ideology! But if a great fire is sparked in Ukraine – nobody cares about getting burnt. Andrei Beletskiy, the commander of Azov punitive battalion and a member Pravy Sector, a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist political party, believes that the «historic mission of Ukrainian nation at this critical moment is to lead the White Races of the world in a final crusade for their survival. A crusade against the semite-led subhumans». (1) And with such views he is invited to join the military council led by Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk! It is considered to be an internal affair of Ukrainian freedom fighters. What do we, Germans, care about some Beletskiy! We are playing the wait and see game. 

Czar Alexander III probably had a reason to turn to the wall the picture of German Emperor, who was his uncle, while calling Iron Chancellor Otto von Bismarck «ober-swine». No matter that, the great German politician cared about the fate of his people. That’s what a wise foreign policy is about. Germans themselves should decide if they want a war in Europe. They should think about it and not forget that the United States pursues its own goals. For instance, last month Americans made their European allies take part in the military exercise Noble Justification (October 13-26) with deployment of B-52H Stratofortress bombers.