Former German chancellor Schmidt criticizes West's Russia policy.
Source: Xinhua English News
BERLIN, March 26 (Xinhua) -- Former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt has criticized the West for its Russia policy of imposing sanctions and stopping cooperation in the G8 amid the Ukraine crisis, according to media reports on Wednesday. Schmidt told German newspaper Die Zeit that sanctions adopted by the European Union and the United States against Russia were "nonsense", saying further economic sanctions would fail to achieve their goal. Economic sanctions mainly have symbolic meaning and would also hit Western countries, he noted.
The ex-chancellor also criticized the decision to suspend cooperation with Russia in the framework of the G8. "It would be ideal to get together now," he said. The situation in Ukraine, Schmidt said, is "dangerous" because the West is "terribly upset," which leads to the same reaction in Russia.
As for the policy of the German government, the 95-year-old politician praised Chancellor Angella Merkel's caution while handling the Ukraine issue. Schmidt, who served as chancellor from 1974 to 1982 in what was then West Germany, is one of the most respected statesman in Germany.
Criticism of EU's Ukraine policy also came from former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder. He said the EU made "a mistake" by putting Ukraine, a culturally divided country, in an "either/or" situation with an association agreement, noting that sanctions would hurt Germany more than other countries.
Read more: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2014-03/27/c_126320586.htm
I wonder why we haven't seen much mention of this on CNN, CNBC or in the New York Times? Guess it just doesn't fit very well with someone's predetermined script for how to report on the sanctions regime which we are pushing so hard right now.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Bernardo de La Paz
(48,964 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I don't quite follow your logic there?
Gore1FL
(21,102 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Better still, though, would be to not waste any of either, mind our own business and stop letting a crowd of greedhead, billionaire mega-bankers run our foreign policy for their own benefit.
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)The gist of the comments is that the gentleman feels sanctions will not reverse Russia's course, and may back-fire. That is common knowledge, akin with the wide understanding water is wet, and that things do not always work out as intended.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Is of "no consequence?" Really?
How about his contention that the move to expel Russia from the G-8 was counter productive, that we should instead be finding new ways to engage them at this time. Is that also beneath your lofty perception of what is consequential?
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I would not have overthrown Yanukovich in the first place. I would have honored the truce agreement we, the EU, and most of the protest leaders had reached with him to wait until early national elections could be held and a democratically elected replacement government could have been properly chosen by the Ukrainian people.
That is, of course, no longer exactly possible. What we can do is negotiate with the Russian government for the dismissal of our "interim government" and offer to temporarily reinstate Yanukovich in power, if, in turn, Russia agrees to rescind its annexation of Crimea. A national election (including voters in Crimea) in May or June could then properly decide if President Yanukovich, our interim puppet President or some third party should lead a reunited Ukraine. The question of whether Ukraine would lean East or West could then also be made by the Ukrainians themselves.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Regardless, your second point is reasonable, but the Russian government, which is really Putin, is not going to negotiate with us. Yanukovich is Russia's puppet, and by all appearances they are going to insure he is put back into power.
cosmicone
(11,014 posts)He had originally agreed to the EU customs treaty until he found out how brutal the austerity measures would be for the Ukrainians and then took a sweeter deal from Moscow.
EU's brutal austerity measures have yet to hit and the Ukrainians will have a rude awakening re: the cost of the EU love.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The Ukrainian people will get by far the worst of it, and it is hard to imagine how they will like that.
cprise
(8,445 posts)...a stone's throw from Moscow at that, as an economic windfall in itself: Economic stimulus by way of military installations and contracts.
Whose military spending and arms manufacturing 'pie' would they rather have a slice of?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Spending your national budget on an unnecessary military is like blowing your paycheck on fireworks. You get one big, loud bang, and then it's all gone.
Surely we here on Democratic Underground realize that truth?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)One never knows what the opposite number may agree to until one starts to talk. We could end up getting a great deal more than now seems likely. Who knows until we at least try?
One thing is certain, however, our current "big stick" style brinkmanship is taking that part of the World (and perhaps the whole World) far too close to armed conflict.
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)He is a German party hack who lost his position because the left wing of his coalition rebelled against his austerity policies, and he has not held office for nigh on thirty years.
"Buildings, whores, and politicians all become respectable if they last long enough."
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Unless, of course, you have sufficiently convincing sources to support that evaluation?
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)If you knew anything about events over the last forty odd years (and they have been damned odd), you would not be whimpering for a link in regard to plain statement of common knowledge.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I thought surely you could come up with something? Didn't you even try a search?
(sigh)
The Magistrate
(95,243 posts)I understand your surprise that people actually know things about political events that took place during their lifetime....
Ex Lurker
(3,811 posts)and has been sharply criticized for his conflicts of interest, both while in office and after. He's not exactly a disinterested party when it comes to Russian matters.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)We are, however, hardly in a position to criticize anyone for "conflicts of interest." Our whole purpose in overthrowing the Yanukovich Presidency was to install our hand-picked "technocrat" replacement, and pave the way for Western economic exploitation of Ukraine.
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)Ukraine?
Gore1FL
(21,102 posts)I'm going to need to see a link.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Tape Reveals State Department Officials Plotting Covert Intervention to Overthrow Government of Ukraine (Feb 20)
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/2/20/a_new_cold_war_ukraine_violence
My comment from Feb 20:
I'm glad someone has finally covered the real story in the leaked recording of Victoria Nuland, undersecretary at the State Department, discussing strategy for Ukraine with the ambassador at the U.S. embassy in Kiev. Only in the reality-show world of the mass media is it a story that Nuland in passing happened to say, "Fuck the E.U." (oooh, how terrible!).
It also matters little who released the tape, since its authenticity is not in dispute.
What the tape reveals is that Nuland and the ambassador are involved in the management of a covert intervention aimed at overthrowing Ukraine's democratically elected government. Without any prior public discussion or announcement of a U.S. government policy in the supposedly democratic United States, Nuland and Pyatt discuss how the U.S. government should
1) open a channel to the Ukrainian president to negotiate his resignation;
2) forestall efforts by one of the opposition leaders (Klitschko) to resolve the crisis in parliament by joining the government coalition;
3) get their preferred opposition leader (Yatsenyuk) into power; and
4) keep the opposition leaders they don't like (Klitschko, who is perhaps disliked because he is too German-influenced, and Tyahnybok, leader of the extreme right party supported by John McCain) outside power but in a stable alliance with Yatsenyuk.
In this unannounced, secret, hostile intervention to overthrow and replace the government of another country, the U.S. is expecting to have a say in the micromanagement of who sits in the new cabinet: "What [Yatsenyuk] needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week. You know, I just think Klitsch going in, he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk. It’s just not going to work."
Why the love for Yats, as Nuland calls him--whether she gives these nicknames condescendingly or familiarly is unclear. "I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience," she says.
More importantly, when did any Ukrainians vote for Nuland and her CIA-infested State Department to play kingmakers for their country? When did any Americans even get to know let alone discuss this policy, which ultimately will be put down as having been pursued in their name, with their tax money?
In the same clip from Democracy Now!, Yats is shown, to his credit, admitting that he cannot control and has little idea of who is in charge at this point among the protesters battling the police on the street level.
(Note: That proved quite important, as extreme right parties took over key ministries in the new government, which on the day after the coup d'etat passed a law to abolish the status of the Russian language, triggering the Crimea crisis.)
I wish to emphasize that by posting this here, I take no position on the Ukrainian struggle. I am an American and a democrat and I am talking about my own government making secret policy on my behalf. I oppose that on principle.
I oppose it ten times over if this government policy involves--as it typically does--a mere handful of self-appointed geostrategists like Nuland using U.S. public resources to intervene covertly in faraway countries on the basis of whatever they imagine are legitimate U.S. interests.
go west young man
(4,856 posts)cosmicone
(11,014 posts)arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)as a "self-appointed geostrategist".
I believe she answers to Obama. He sent her to Kiev on a mission.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)Insofar as they execute a foreign policy that is secret (not announced, not debated in public, therefore not democratic) and do so by covert means (a.k.a. hostile action, a.k.a. political war by whatever name, by definition illegal in the country in which it is done), they are self-appointed geostrategists, even if they were elected to office. Election is not a carte blanche to define "U.S. interests" in secret and devise a secret policy. No body of government in the U.S. had a public debate about spending taxpayer funds to support overthrowing the prior Ukrainian government (which is what Nuland is discussing in the videotape). It was not found by a majority of the parliament that this is the country's interest, or that hostile covert action should be taken. (Not that this make it right, either, but it would at least have the veneer of democracy and rule of law.) So it's rogue, a parastate action, even if the parastate includes the president. Even if it's a "good" idea in the first place, even if it actually is a "U.S. interest." Obviously that is also not so. It's an interest of a segment of the U.S. ruling class and otherwise a burden on Americans who get no benefits from the resulting natural resource and arms constracts and debt/tribute payments, and who later will be surprised and puzzled to discover that they have new enemies they never heard of. (Why, o why, do they hate us? It must be for our freedoms!)
arewenotdemo
(2,364 posts)I just want it stressed, as much as I despise Victoria Nuland (and her neocon husband), that it is Obama's policy that she was executing.
Many of us voted for Obama, hoping, if not expecting that he would discontinue precisely this sort of thing.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)but they are both furrners, so whatever.
Ex Lurker
(3,811 posts)go west young man
(4,856 posts)saying this was a bad idea. Of note on record so far are Gorbachov, Schroeder and now Schmidt. These are influential leaders who have been hailed for their leadership during times of crisis in the past. All saying this was not a good idea and putting a stick in Russia's eye was unwise.
Cha
(296,859 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)an "either/or" situation....Even though all the old-school cold warriors have been stepping out of their coffins in anticipation, there is no simple solution to all of this...
The media pundits seem to be falling along the lines of "Stern words and sanctions are enough", and "Send in NATO"... The real solution lies somewhere in the middle...
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)This escalation of tensions and brinkmanship is far too dangerous a game. We are not the masters of the whole World, and we should not even want to be.
rickyhall
(4,889 posts)always seem to hurt the powerless more than the powerful. Did they not kill 1/2 million children in Iraq under Clinton but Saddam was still there? Just sayin'. . .
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Sanctions are especially cruel when we use them to punish people who are no more guilty than ourselves of doing what we say those sanctions are meant to punish (that is, violating the sovereignty of Ukraine).
jakeXT
(10,575 posts)Here is another old guy, but it's all in German
http://www.focus.de/politik/ausland/fuck-the-eu-scholl-latour-schockt-mit-drastischer-meinung-zur-krim-krise_id_3710639.html
soundsgreat
(125 posts)very influential politician in the Brandt administration and highly respected
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFmediathek/beitrag/video/2105668/Egon-Bahr-Keine-legale-Basis-in-Kiew#/beitrag/video/2105668/Egon-Bahr-Keine-legale-Basis-in-Kiew
mentions McCain in Kieve, Radio Free Liberty, Republicans pushing a new Cold War, and the illegitimacy of the new Ukrainian government
