Visit to Moscow : Maas' new Ostpolitik: A misnomer

Heiko Maas departs today to Moscow to save the INF Treaty for the prohibition of nuclear medium-range missiles. He travels to the Ukraine to discuss ways to end the war, the Russia there for five years. For months, the Federal foreign Minister, again and again of the need for a "new Ostpolitik". The concept builds on a great Tradition: the Ostpolitik of the SPD-led Federal governments in the 1970s.

luck would have it, the Berlin-based Think Tank, "the centre-Liberal Modernity" on the eve of an international conference: "Russia and the West: do we Need a policy towards the East 2.0?" The guests came from Russia, the Ukraine, Poland, the UK, the USA and other countries. There were rules of the Chatham House, in order to allow an open dialogue: It must be reported, what was said, but no one may in particular be cited.

Not German, but European Ostpolitik

Yes, we need a new policy towards the neighbours to the East, was the unanimous opinion. But it must be a pan-European policy, not a German Ostpolitik. You should not concentrate only on Russia, but must have the whole space to the East of Germany.

The attempt to draw a line of tradition of Brandt's Ostpolitik 50 years ago to today, met with a criticism and tongue-in-cheek mockery. The approach was a politically motivated staging of the sad current image of the SPD revamp by the appeal to their Chancellor, Willy Brandt, and Helmut Schmidt. Maas' handle according to the story is misleading in this respect, but a leader. The international situation today is different. And Maas is not a result of the success recipes of the time.

Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik was aimed to change the Status quo - and to arrange it with him. She opened relations with the Soviet Union, to Poland, to East Germany. She was to enforce flanked by the pursuit of a pan-European peace order, which aimed to fundamental rights for the citizens of the Communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe: the so-called "basket 3" of the conference for security and cooperation in Europe (CSCE). Military deterrence was a part of this Eastern policy. With the retrofitting as a response to Nato on the establishment of Soviet medium-range missiles, the West, reaching nuclear disarmament: in the INF Treaty, which is now in question, because Russia is developing the prohibited weapon system, and stationed, and the Maas would like to save.

at that Time, the West was United, strong, consistently

All of these successes have been based on the unity of the West, its Position of strength towards Moscow, and his consistent attitude. The citizens of the Nato countries stood together and were military threats of the Kremlin will not be intimidated. And: The Federal Republic of Germany led to their own national Ostpolitik, but agreed every step with the allies.

Today, however, the analysis of the participants in the conference, was divided on the issue of the West. He always seem to be weak in the conflict with Russia, although he was economically and technically superior. And there is a slope, prefer to look the other way, and to respond resiliently to Russian Aggression, the conflict in Transnistria and Georgia to the Ukraine.

In the retrofitting of dispute, flew Helmut Schmidt to Washington and demanded the US government, you had to place medium-range missiles, in order to force Russia to reduce its missiles. His fear was that the US could adopt from their responsibility for Europe's security. Russia's goal was, in Schmidt's eyes, Europe of America, secede. And he thought it was disastrous.

Russia aimed missiles on Germany, not the USA

What is Heiko Maas would have to do if he wanted to continue the traditions and the recipes for success of the Ostpolitik under Brandt and Schmidt? He would have to seek unity and strength of the West towards Russia. He would have to use an extension of the struggle for "3 basket" of the CSCE for the rights of dissidents in Russia, so they are not murdered or imprisoned. He would have to make the German it clear that the missiles that threaten it and other European allies, Russian missiles, and that the military power of the United States protects you from this risk.

He must, of course, criticize the policies of the US government when he says that the German interests are harmful. Did Brandt and Schmidt. You don't have of course paid attention to the fact that it expresses the criticism of close ally publicly, but behind closed doors. The opponent, however, can and will openly criticise.

America's share of responsibility for Europe's security

He would, as Chancellor Schmidt to Washington flies to and from the United States do not demand that they pull out of their joint responsibility for Europe's security.

He would have to demand the removal of Russian missiles to be louder than the withdrawal of us weapons from Europe. And make it clear that Russian disarmament is a precondition for German consent to American disarmament.

Ostpolitik in the Brandt'shear Tradition would be, not with the occupation of neighboring countries by Moscow to accept troops, but to open ways out of this situation - through a mixture of cooperation and pressure. Russia is not strong, stressed a seasoned German foreign policy. It was weak. In 1990, Russia was gross, social policy is still twice as high as that of China. Today, it amounts to one-tenth of the Chinese. We should offer Russia cooperation. But, if Moscow will increase the negative, the print.

Look the other way in the case of Russian Aggression

The final panel discussion on the evening of the day-long conference was open to the public. The former green member of the Bundestag Marieluise Beck lamented the tendency of the German, Russian attacks on neighbors, "look away" and "say what happened". As well as to appoint a "Shy, Russia as a belligerent opponent". It was understandable that the Germans have not recognised the secession of Transnistria from Moldova in 1990, in its strategic Dimension. No later than the occupation of the Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and later to the Crimea and the Eastern Ukraine, no one would have been allowed to make more illusions.

Sergei Aleksashenko, in the 1990s, Deputy Finance Minister of Russia and today is an expert at Brookings asked: Why does Germany, the Russian Propaganda "Russia Today" in this country, send, without, conversely, attractive frequencies for a content of German designed, Russian-speaking channel in Russia, assure? And why is Germany giving Putin the gas agreements of so much economic Power in the Hand and allow Moscow to the Ukraine cut-off the revenue from the energy transit?

Kadri Liik, a Finnish woman, who works at the European Council on Foreign Relations in London, argued that Europe must stand together, if his voice should have an impact. Policy on Russia must be European, not German.

trump's threat to leave Nato

Julianne Smith, National security Advisor to the Vice-President Joe Biden in the Obama years, and now a guest expert on the Bosch-Foundation in Berlin, and campaigned to strengthen the transatlantic Alliance and Russia to curb. Donald Trump is a Problem. The United States had no uniform policy on Russia. The President, the U.S. government and the parties in Congress have pursued different strategies. Obama sought a "Reset" of relations with Russia. In order to improve the relationship with Vladimir Putin, he sent in 2012, a special envoy to Moscow with seven pages full of suggestions of what they could do together. Putin has rejected all of them.

but Above all, Europe needs to take trump's threat seriously, to stop the Nato-Membership of the USA, warned Smith. What is Europe doing? The Europeans talked of the "strategic autonomy", would do but little, in order to reach you.

80 years after the Hitler-Stalin Pact

Ralf Fücks, the head of Marie Luise Beck, the center-Liberal, Modern, observed a tendency to "nostalgia and Mythologizing of Brandt's Ostpolitik" in the current German debate on foreign policy. You "was not bilateral, but is firmly integrated in the West. They also put on a military deterrent." The common assertion that Nato didn't promise Russia to expand to the East, was historically wrong and "a propaganda figure of Moscow". Also, Gorbachev had confirmed that.

Union Heiko Maas attack "is detrimental to the cohesion of the Nato"

The green MEP Rebecca Harms warned that, in the European Parliament, the debate on a new German Ostpolitik was seen in "with great suspicion". 80 years after the Hitler-Stalin Pact, will not the impression be allowed to arise, as Berlin and Moscow wanted to make the future of Europe.