Peace Blog
The views expressed in the blog are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the IIP.
From the beginning on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline – envisaged to transport gas from Russia to Germany – has been contested. Geopolitical arguments were brought forward by Ukraine, Poland and the Baltic countries that cautioned against increased dependence of Germany and other European countries on Russian gas reserves. It would also hurt Ukraine that would lose a source of revenue from transit of Russian gas through its territory.
This year’s Architecture Biennale of Venice goes under the theme “How we will live together?” The question concerns not only this year’s Biennale but all our considerations about deteriorating climate, numerous ongoing conflicts and natural disasters that many of us have experienced, including in Europe this summer. The Biennale is vastly extending the term „architecture“ and defines it as a vital contribution to our natural, built and social environment. Architecture as one way of changing our environment is also affecting our social life. As this year’s Biennale is underlining the togetherness, it presents ideas which are relevant for local communities, for example for relations between different ethnicities in one region or state, or even beyond state borders.
Moldovans will go to polling stations on July 11 to vote in the snap parliamentary elections. It is hoped that the elections will end the prolonged political crisis that has mired the country for months, if not years. The stakes are high and, as it has been put by the country’s former Foreign Minister Nicu Popescu, the outcome of the vote will ‘signal either a multi-generational move toward greater liberty or continued corruption and state capture.’
A month ago, a Ryanair civilian plane flying from Athens to Vilnius was forced to land in Minsk when it was flying through Belarus’ airspace. Belarusian authorities arrested two passengers who were on board of the plane: Raman Pratasevich – a blogger and opposition activist and his girlfriend Sofia Sapega. The incident produced an international scandal, resulting in the immediate closure of the EU’s airspace for Belarusian planes.
The breakup of the Yugoslav Federation was an historic event with many, often horrific, consequences. Some European politicians wanted to stop the dissolution of the state in the Southeast of Europe. Some, on the other hand, supported it, especially those who were eager to see the Serb influence reduced. I saw it pragmatically. The diverging forces inside the country were obviously too strong and the forces to keep the country together too authoritarian and undemocratic to enable a continuation of Yugoslavia. The wars following the dissolution demonstrated this clearly. Thirty years on, people who have been involved in those events, along with younger generations, should use the opportunity to discuss in a more detached way what happened during and after the dissolution. To foster this conversation, the IIP has launched a series of interviews and discussions that explore possibilities and conditions for reconciliation in the region. In this context, reconciliation is understood not so much as a formal procedure but as a „way of life“, as was put by Vesna Pusic – a Croatian political leader and one of respondents in our interview series.
Van der Leyen as President Elect of the European Commission made it clear in her speech in the European Parliament, that she has a geopolitical Commission in her mind. It is not known what kind of strategy and instruments she had in mind when she promoted that vision. As a former minister of defense, she could have thought about military instruments. But the EU has very few military means and that will not be changed soon. So what else could it be? If we think about the great geopolitical powers, the US and increasingly China, it is the economy which gives them strength – besides their military capacity. Certainly, the economic capacity of the EU is an asset which could and should be used geopolitically.
For Ukraine’s president Volodymyr Zelensky 2021 started with a radical turn in his political credo: from a peacemaker and bridge builder to a guardian of Ukraine’s sovereignty. This new approach is aimed to win support of the nationalistically minded public after Zelensky’s moderate electorate has been increasingly turning away from him. Late 2020 saw Zelensky’s and his party’s ratings fall dramatically in the aftermath of the local elections. The president faced a standoff with the constitutional court last December that annulled a number of anticorruption laws. This further undermined Zelensky’s political power. To strengthen his position at home, the president turned to the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) – which he is a head of – to enforce decisions that serve to his political advantage. Thus, citing the NSDC’s concerns about national security threats posed by judges appointed under former President Viktor Yanukovich, he dismissed two constitutional judges in March, including the head of the court.
Stephen M. Walt’s most recent argument for folding the US nuclear umbrella is interesting and troubling at the same time. Interesting, because it admits that extended nuclear deterrence is not only costly but lacks credibility even inside the nuclear logic. “Or, as people used to wonder back in the Cold War,” Walt says, “would a U.S. president really risk Washington or Chicago to save Paris or Berlin?” Probably not. Then what good is extended nuclear deterrence in the first place? That’s an important question to ask.
Spaziergängern wird die Fahne Israels auf dem Dach des Bundeskanzleramts in Wien schon am Freitag aufgefallen sein. Hausherr Sebastian Kurz ließ sie dort hissen – als Zeichen der Solidarität mit Israel, wie der Kanzler verlautbarte. Die Kritik daran ist seither nicht verstummt. Der Politologe Heinz Gärtner vom Internationalen Institut für den Frieden (IIP) in Wien kann sie nachvollziehen.
