305

West should set its own red lines, not just accept Putin’s, argues veteran diplomat (www.politico.eu)

submitted 1 month ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Former German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger says Western leaders should be making more threats and be willing to follow them through.

The West should spend less time fretting about Russian President Vladimir Putin's red lines and set its own, says veteran German diplomat Wolfgang Ischinger.

“Russia keeps saying, if you do this, if you cross this or that red line, we might escalate,” said the 78-year-old onetime chairman of the Munich Security Conference. “Why don't we turn this thing around and say to them: ‘We have lines and if you bomb one more civilian building, then you shouldn't be surprised if, say, we deliver Taurus cruise missiles or America allows Ukraine to strike military targets inside Russia’?”

That way the onus will be on Moscow to decide whether to cross the red lines — or face the consequences.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] drspod@lemmy.ml 53 points 1 month ago

I'm no "veteran diplomat" but in my experience it is only the people without real power who make threats. When you have power, you don't need to make threats. You just respond to events with whatever proportionate response is necessary and within your capability. You don't need to provide a preview of what those responses will be.

Setting "red lines" looks to me like weakness because it is essentially a plea to the other side not to do those things that you don't want them to do, and it invites them to push up to those red lines, do anything but, and test their boundaries to test your commitment to them.

[-] ms_lane@lemmy.world 15 points 1 month ago

Additionally, even if it didn't look weak, setting an established red line means Russia can snuggle right up to the line.

[-] FarceOfWill@infosec.pub 5 points 1 month ago

The us, and perhaps the west in general, hasn't really used red lines since Obama threatened Syria if they used chemical weapons and then didn't follow through.

[-] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I disagree. Scaled down to small and harmless it's like handling kids. You explain what you don't want them to do and what happens/you're going to do if they continue. Now it's crucial you go through with what you threatened them with.

If you either don't deliver on the "threat" or don't act as you said you would, guess what happens? They just continue or it even gets worse.

Of course it's more delicate/difficult when handling with powerful and intelligent adults but it's at least similar. Not issuing threats is just not communicating. If you then just act (violently), things are more likely to escalate.

Edit: or back to the kids analogy: don't tell them anything but smack them once they went too far: may help in that instance but they'll just learn to better avoid you and do shit behind your back.

[-] drspod@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 month ago

If you think that international diplomacy between nation states is like handling kids then you're not a veteran diplomat either.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 51 points 1 month ago

Red line: invasion of Ukraine

Response: F-22s over Ukrainian skies

[-] lnxtx@feddit.nl 44 points 1 month ago

Meanwhile Israel

Red line: no red lines
Response: they have right to defend themself

[-] nogooduser@lemmy.world 28 points 1 month ago

There is a red line. The west keeps saying over and over again that they must defend themselves within international law.

The problem is that they either ignore the red line or deny that it was ever crossed.

[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

They'll dead ass look you in the eye and tell you that the colour red doesn't exist, without a single fuck given.

[-] PugJesus@lemmy.world 17 points 1 month ago

It's insane. Shows how much of international politics isn't "Which country benefits from what", but "What levers of decisionmaking are manipulated by whom". A little lobbying and foreign PR goes a long way.

[-] wildncrazyguy138@fedia.io 10 points 1 month ago

There have been some responses: https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/08/1153656 https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2024/07/experts-hail-icj-declaration-illegality-israels-presence-occupied

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Laws are meaningless if criminals are not held accountable. It doesn't matter that anyone who supports Israel supports fascism — 30% of US voters support fascism. The fact is that as long as the US (and 5 eyes) supports and arms Netanyahu, the genocide will continue; everything they declare to the contrary is nothing more than a virtue signal.

The ICJ and all opposition is meaningless unless they are willing to take collective economic and military action again Israel and its supporters. They will not.

load more comments (6 replies)

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

They have that right tough. It's just what we are all witnessing goes "a little" further than that.

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago

They have that right tough

hard disagree. Maybe if a foreign country wanted to create a Jewish ethnostate it should have set the borders inside its own sovereign lands instead of displacing 300k people it didn't give a shit about and causing an immediate regional war and decades of ongoing conflict?

Maybe then we could consider Israel a real country. Seeing how it didn't go that way? What israel deserves is to dissolve

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

And in your suggested dissolution of the state of Israel, what happens then? And what happens to the Jews that now live there?

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

I think if we're following history and making a point we should put new israel on top of your home. No problem right?

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

That's not an answer to the question though, you are advocating for the dissolution, so let's put it on the table...

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

If your question wasn't a flippant and dismissive response to my position, then neither was my answer.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

No, you made a statement that required a follow up question.. requiring you to elaborate. But I have the feeling that you are answering like this cause you simply refuse to say the quiet part out loud, or are to cowardly to come out and say it. But that's OK. I think most people reading your response get what you mean.

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 month ago

But I have the feeling that you are answering like this cause you simply refuse to say the quiet part out loud, or are to cowardly to come out and say it

Every accusation is a confession

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Sure.. you still are dancing around specifying what your dissolution of the state of Israel would look like.

I'd personally like to see Netanyahu in a small concrete cell in Scheveningen.. just so we're clear.

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago

Im dancing around what i hoped youd eventually figure out: to be clear, i really don't respect your ridiculous red herring)

Go look up red herring, realize how silly you just looked and improve your debate skills.

Elsewhere.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

My red herring? You open by making a statement that could easily mean eliminating all Jews and when asked what you mean you refuse to specify (or concoct some kumbaya alternate reality fiction). Instead you blurt that the question is flippant. And now you say red herring as if that somehow absolves you of taking a position that has no basis in reality or a position that just wishes all Jews to dissapear.

The situation in Israël is neither clear cut nor easy. And since one side (Israël) holds all the power I would expect that side to come up with a just and equitable solution that works for Palestinians too.. and that is not what they are currently doing... We see war mongering genocidal idealogs run their campaign of destruction simply because Bibi needs war to stay out of jail. The reason why these right wing extremist settlers are in the Israeli government in turn has its basis in constant shelling of Israel proper. Which continue because Israël refuses to provide their neighbors with an equitable solution and not keep settling the west bank.

[-] the_post_of_tom_joad@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 month ago

Incorrect. Israel should cease to exist ==mean jew elimination no matter how hard or often you say it. Its frankly appalling you dont get this.

Israel should cease to exist. It never should have existed, and what it deserves is dissolution. Your insulting followup "questions" are based on your personal feelings and are a red herring no matter how strong your feelings are.

Seriously, go look up red herring before you forget.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

No I'm asking, then what. You throw your red herring around as if that means something.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] eacapesamsara@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 month ago

The same thing that happened to the Jews that lived there for millenia before Israel was created, the become normal citizens with no special rights or mandates, and are actually subject to laws intended on keeping all people safe, not just Jews. It worked continuously for millenia through dozens of different ruling states with a half dozen ruling religions, the state of Israel and it's fascism utilizing ng Jewish supremacy as a base ideology fucked that up.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago

Well, that looks like it ignores reality a bit. That the current state of Israel is doing fucked up stuff atm gets no arguement from me, but it did not happen in a vacuum.

Spouting revisionist nonsense about how equal the Jews where treated all over the world also does not help the situation either. Nor does ignoring the current situation and how if the state where to be dissolved and a new state created in its place that would give all people of the region equal rights and protections.. they would magically all get along.

So again.. what then? What would you suggest?

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io -1 points 1 month ago

Nothing??? Just put them and Palestinians in the same place and make them create the equal multiethnic democracy Israel said it would but didn't become.

[-] Badeendje@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Yeah, we tried that. With the neighboring countries intervening and waging war, and the following wars we ended up here. But this time it will be different.

load more comments (4 replies)

[-] kubica@fedia.io 17 points 1 month ago

I'm not sure that is as useful as it sounds. Yes you are trying to establish some pressure but then you might get lost on technicalities of their actions instead of focusing on the bigger picture.

[-] catloaf@lemm.ee 18 points 1 month ago

There's no "might". The US set a red line of an invasion in Rafah. Israel rolled right over that line with tanks and airstrikes. Nothing happened.

[-] spankmonkey@lemmy.world 5 points 1 month ago

Something did happen though, the US gave even more aid and support to Israel.

[-] MelastSB@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Yes, but Russia doesn't have nuclear weap... I mean, Russia doesn't control Congr... Totally different situation ok!

[-] HubertManne@moist.catsweat.com 6 points 1 month ago

putins are fictional and nothing happens. If we do do one it will happen and right now they don't want to get that involved.

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

Who accepts them tho?

[-] OlinOfTheHillPeople@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Republicans.

[-] index@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

Make sure to listen very well to what former germans veteran diplomats have to say and go back to work

load more comments

this post was submitted on 29 Sep 2024

305 points (97.8% liked)

World News

39023 readers

2319 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.