Hard power politics – Clausewitzian influence over alienated state regimes. Some alienated regimes will still exist in 2020 – the key uncertainty here being the Kremlin. If so, we will need to retain a capability to meet their deliberate challenges to our vision of the world. This will require hard military power, but also an increased focus on asymmetrical forms of destruction, notably in the cybersphere. This is of major concern to the Eastern members of the EU, and if the ESDP is unable to provide this then they will turn to NATO or directly to the US.
Quelle: web.archive.org/web/20120111092046/http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/What_ambitions_for_European_defence_in_2020.pdf
Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.There are three additional aspects to this objective: First, the U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role. An effective reconstitution capability is important here, since it implies that a potential rival could not hope to quickly or easily gain a predominant military position in the world.Quelle: http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/excerpts-from-pentagon-s-plan-prevent-the-re-emergence-of-a-new-rival.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Hierzu schweigen die transatlantischen Trolle, die Bussi-Bussi-Stalinfreunde, erwartungsgemäß eisern.
AntwortenLöschenKreuzweis. ich glaub nicht, dass die von Ihnen Gemeinten den Stalin mögen. Der Onkel Joe ist nix für Salonkommunisten, die schwören eher auch Bronstein.
AntwortenLöschen"Kreuzweis. ich glaub nicht, dass die von Ihnen Gemeinten den Stalin mögen. Der Onkel Joe ist nix für Salonkommunisten, die schwören eher auch Bronstein."
AntwortenLöschenIch ärgere diese NATO-Trolle gerne mit dem Hinweis, daß Ihre ach-so-edlen Herren, unsere "Befreier", die Bussi-Bussi-Freunde von "uncle Joe" Josef Stalin waren, dessen Hände schon vor dem Bündnis nur so vom Blut der Ukrainer und anderer Untermenschen trieften. Die Amis hätten sich doch auch mit Hitler gegen die ach-so-edle Sowjetunion verbünden können, dessen Hände waren damals noch viel sauberer.
Nein. Die Hände des pädophilen Herrn Schicklgruber alias „Hitler“ waren schon in dessen jungen Jahren dreckig.
LöschenKommentar von Hayek gelöscht - Löschgrund Nr. 5
AntwortenLöschen