ヴォルゴグラードは第２次大戦の最大の激戦地スターリングラードのことである。ナチスの敗退の大きな原因になった闘い。
ヤルタはヤルタ会談のヤルタ。
(視点) NATOとアメリカ イギリスでのロシア元スパイの神経ガス物質による暗殺未遂事件は、大きな波紋を投げかけている。英露のあいだでは外交官23名の国外追放処分が決定され、両方とも一歩も引かない姿勢をとっている。 そうしたなか、ドイツ、フランス、そしてNATOは、イギリスの主張に全面的な賛成を示し、連帯を強調している。 ここにおいてきわめて奇妙な反応を見せているのがアメリカである。国連大使ニッキー・ヘイリー、国防長官ティラーソン、さらにマックマスター、さらにトランプ政権のうちトランプをのぞいた論調は、メイの主張、立場に全面的に賛成し、ロシアを厳しく非難している。１人対照的なのがトランプである。例のツイッターでは一言もこの事件に言及することはなく無言である。受けた記者からの質問にたいしては、言葉を濁して答えることに終始しており、ロシアを批判することはない（ましてプーチンを批判することはない）。 つまり、この事件をめぐり、トランプ政権は完全に矛盾する姿勢をとっているのである。政権閣僚レベルではロシアを明瞭に非難してメイの立場にたっているのにたいし、長であるトランプ自身は、言葉を濁したコメントを口頭でしているだけである。メイ首相とも話す、と述べていたが、実際に電話会談が行われた保障もないのが現状である。 イギリスについては、ロンドンでイスラム系のテロが生じた時、まっさきにツイッターでこの件をやり玉にあげていたのとは、まったく対照的である。 アメリカではトランプをめぐり、ロシアとの大統領選妨害問題が、ミュラーを中心に調査が進み、いまはトランプ財団にまで迫っている。この件とは別に、アメリカの議会で公式に表明されていることだが、「ロシアによるわが国の原発、電力などのインフレへのハッキングが執拗に行われてきている」ことにたいするロシアへの非難が登場している。これらにたいしてもトランプが何の処置もとらないとなると（選挙干渉は、いまも行われているというのがアメリカの諜報機関が公表しているところであるが、トランプはだんまりを続けている）、「アメリカ、ストロング」はぼろぼろに崩れてしまう。 ところで記事では、NATOのトップが、ロシアの攻勢にたいする一段と結束した防衛システムの強化の必要性を強調しているが、２つの問題がある。 １つは次の発言である。 Stoltenberg listed as evidence of Russia’s threat its 2014 annexation of Crimea, support for separatists in Ukraine, military presence in Moldova and Georgia, meddling in western elections and involvement in the war in Syria. これは西側が一貫して主張してきていることであるが、この20年間の地政学的な展開を視野に入れてみるとき、それはかなりバイアスのかかったものであるという点である。 もう１点は、これまでと異なり、トランプはNATOをほとんど味方としてみておらず、そしてNATOのこれまでの東進を最も嫌っているプーチンに頭があがらないのである。これではNATOは軍事力として著しくパワーを喪失してしまっていることになるが、これはプーチンが最も望んでいることなのである。 さらにもう１点、重大な問題がある。トルコである。トルコは古くからのNATOのメンバー国であり、軍事力としては２番目に位置しているほどである。このトルコが最近はアメリカとの関係が、例のシリア内戦でのクルド族をアメリカが強力に支援する立場にたっていることで、険悪化している（トルコにとってはアサドや反アサドよりも、クルド族がテロリストとして深刻な対象である）。それだけではない、トルコはロシアとの関係を強化しており、最近、ロシアから軍事設備を大量に購入することを決定しているほどである。これはNATOがさらに脆弱な組織になっていることを意味している。 Who to believe on UK spy attack: official condemnation or Trump's equivocation? The nerve agent attack in Salisbury has highlighted the president’s tendency to adopt a tone strikingly at odds with US government policy Julian Borger in Washington Thu 15 Mar 2018 05.45 GMT The US envoy to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, delivered a powerful speech at the UN on Wednesday in support of the UK in its showdown with Russia over the nerve agent attack on the former spy Sergei Skripal. The question facing London, however, is whether she really spoke for her country. Haley’s clear statement that the “US believes that Russia is responsible for the attack” was striking in part because of the difference in tone from Donald Trump’s own remarks on the issue. The US president has not so far used Twitter – by far his preferred tool of communication – to pass judgment on the incident, in marked contrast to his fast responses to earlier attacks in the UK linked to Islamic extremism. Those gut responses were so hasty they earned a rebuke from Theresa May. Spy poisoning: why Putin may have engineered gruesome calling card Read more Trump has been relatively taciturn on the Salisbury attack, in line with his consistent reluctance throughout his campaign and presidency to cast blame on Vladimir Putin or the Kremlin. As has frequently been the case, criticism has come from official statements and from other members of the administration, but not from the president’s mouth or Twitter feed. The Salisbury nerve agent attack, which Theresa May called an “unlawful use of force by the Russian state” against a Nato ally, has brought that longstanding dissonance into sharp focus. The White House press secretary, Sarah Sanders, ducked questions on Monday about whether the US agreed with the UK assessment that Russia was behind the attack. By Wednesday night she had issued a statement that said the US stood in solidarity with its closest ally, the United Kingdom, and “shares the assessment that Russia is responsible for the reckless nerve agent attack”, calling the decision to expel Russian diplomats a just response. Sign up for Guardian Today US edition: the day's must-reads sent directly to you Read more “This latest action by Russia fits into a pattern of behavior in which Russia disregards the international rules-based order, undermines the sovereignty and security of countries worldwide, and attempts to subvert and discredit western democratic institutions and processes,” Sanders’ statement said. Trump himself has been low key on the matter. Questioned about the Salisbury poisoning on Tuesday, he equivocated. “It sounds to me like they believe it was Russia and I would certainly take that finding as fact,” he said at first, but he quickly introduced an element of doubt. “We’re speaking with Theresa May today and, as soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with them, we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be,” the president told reporters. On Wednesday night the White House put out its clearest statement to date, in line with Haley’s remarks. “The United States stands in solidarity with its closest ally, the United Kingdom,” the statement said, adding that the US “shares the UK’s assessment that Russia is responsible for the reckless nerve attack on a British citizen and his daughter, and we support the UK’s decision to expel Russian diplomats as a just response”. But Trump himself said and tweeted nothing about the call, nor about May’s announcement of retaliatory measures against Moscow. His tweets on Wednesday were about the business climate, infrastructure and international trade relations. Thomas Wright, the director of the centre on the US and Europe at the Brookings Institution thinktank, said: “There are two national security strategies operating in parallel: the official one that the cabinet supports and is largely in the official documents is an internationalist, pro-alliance strategy, and Haley is very much a part of that. “The second is the ‘America first’ strategy, that Trump champions, which is much more nationalistic, pro-Russian and hostile generally to alliances,” Wright added. “They have very little to do with each other. Haley’s comments just show that continues to be the case, because it’s a completely different tone and substance than what Trump has said this week, which has been much more conditional and hesitant.” Some critics of the president argue that the huge national security risk of the nerve agent attack will make it hard for Trump to take shelter behind ambiguity. Nicholas Burns, who was ambassador to Nato and under secretary of state for political affairs in the Bush administration, said the UK attack was “Judgment day for Donald Trump”. May can’t rely on Trump and Europe against Russia – and Putin knows it Simon Tisdall Read more “Will he support Britain unequivocally on the nerve agent attack?” Burns asked in a tweet. “Back Nato sanctions? Finally criticize Putin? Act like a leader of the West?” Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, tweeted: “For real friends, this should be obvious: At a time of fake news spreading, meddling in our elections, and attacks on people on our soil with nerve agent, the response must not be transatlantic bickering but transatlantic unity.” Rex Tillerson’s last major act as secretary of state was to issue a tough statement on Monday, quite at odds with White House hesitancy, saying the attack “clearly came from Russia”. He was fired hours later, but the real reasons for the dismissal and its timing remain unclear. Wright, the author of a recent book on geopolitics, All Measures Short of War: The Contest for the 21st Century and the Future of American Power, said that Trump was now trying to eliminate some of the ambiguities in the administration’s foreign policy, in line with his gut instincts. “This is the defining moment for the administration,” he said. “He now wants to impose his will on it, and replace ‘the adults in the room’ with people he thinks will be more loyalist.” *** Nato must improve defences against a 'more aggressive' Russia, says chief Secretary general Jens Stoltenberg says alliance must revamp its approach given Russia’s new military capabilities Reuters Sun 18 Mar 2018 04.42 GMT Nato must improve its defensive capabilities and willingness to act in the wake of increasingly aggressive and unpredictable actions by Russia, the head of the transatlantic alliance said in a German newspaper interview published on Sunday. The Nato secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, said he expected the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and other Nato leaders to revamp their approach at the next Nato summit this summer, given a risk that Russia could gradually give more weight to nuclear weapons in its doctrine, exercises and new military capabilities. “I think Chancellor Merkel and her colleagues will face new decisions at the Natosummit in July in Brussels. We must be alert and resolute,” Stoltenberg was quoted saying by Welt am Sonntag. May is right: Russia is testing whether the west’s ties still bind Gaby Hinsliff Read more The Nato leader last week accused Russia of trying to destabilise the west with new nuclear weapons, cyber attacks and covert action, including the poisoning of a Russian former double agent and his daughter in the British town of Salisbury. “We can always do more and must reflect on that now. Salisbury follows, by all appearances, a pattern we’ve observed for some years – Russia is becoming more unpredictable and more aggressive,” he said. Russia denies any involvement and says it is the US-led transatlantic alliance that is a risk to peace in Europe. “Russia must not miscalculate,” Stoltenberg told the newspaper. “We are always ready to respond when an ally is attacked militarily. We want credible deterrence. We don’t want any war. Our goal is de-escalation.“ Timeline Poisoned umbrellas and polonium: Russian-linked UK deaths Show Stoltenberg said hybrid warfare could be added to the agenda of the next Nato-Russia council, a forum that brings together Nato ambassadors and Russia’s top diplomat to the alliance, despite the suspension of joint exercises and peacekeeping operations. Vladimir Putin watches display of Russian firepower near EU border Read more “Hybrid warfare is a possible topic for the Nato-Russia council. We are now preparing the next meeting, so I don’t want to say too much,” he told the newspaper, referring to increased use of “hybrid tactics” such as soldiers without insignia. “It’s important that we sit together at the table and speak to each other,” he said, urging Russia to abide by nuclear arms control treaties. Stoltenberg listed as evidence of Russia’s threat its 2014 annexation of Crimea, support for separatists in Ukraine, military presence in Moldova and Georgia, meddling in western elections and involvement in the war in Syria. |
