Search

The conventional arms control architecture in Europe is falling apart. This article argues that classic arms control theory fails to explain this continuing process. I suggest that its underlying stability paradigm, based on reciprocity and technical measures for war prevention, has forestalled a full understanding of actual arms control practices, particularly in Europe. In this context, I illustrate that conventional arms control has evolved in three historical stages. In each of these, state actors pursued different ideal-type purposes depending on the concrete geostrategic situation: the pursuit of politico-military advantages, the formal creation of crisis stability, and the transformation of international relations. In the last decade, the overall political focus has shifted once again to the first factor. Amidst new strategic competition, states are increasingly unwilling to agree to arms control regulations and transparency measures, as these could yield advantages to adversaries.

Die russische Außenpolitik ist Präsidialpolitik. Gesellschaftliche Kräfte haben traditionell wenig Einfluss. Während in der Sowjetunion ein institutionalisiertes System der politischen Beratung und Forschung bestand, löste sich dieses nach 1991 weitgehend auf. Anstatt dessen entwickelten sich neue private Netzwerke und Einzelpersonen erhielten sporadisch Zugang zu politischen Entscheidungsträgern. Seit Ende der 2000er bemüht sich der Staat zunehmend um die Konsolidierung der russischen Expertenlandschaft. Im Zuge des militärischen Konfliktes in der Ukraine und der Annexion der Krim ist jedoch vor allem der Bedarf an politischer Legitimation durch Experten gestiegen.

30 Jahre nach seiner Entstehung stehen das europäische Rüstungskontrollregime und die militärische Vertrauensbildung am Scheideweg. Moskau ist bereits seit Dezember 2007 nicht mehr an der Umsetzung des Vertrags über konventionelle Streitkräfte in Europa (KSE-Vertrag) beteiligt. Die Reform des Wiener Dokuments über vertrauens- und sicherheitsbildende Maßnahmen (WD) stockt seit 2011. Auch die Zukunft des Vertrags über den Offenen Himmel (OH-Vertrag) ist seit dem angekündigten Austritt der USA gefährdet. Ohne eine Verbesserung der politischen Beziehungen zwischen der NATO und Russland wird die militärische Stabilität in Europa weiter geschwächt.

Dieser Beitrag untersucht die Rahmenbedingungen russischer Ausenpolitik. Er geht dabei auf die grundsatzlichen Akteure ein und unterstreicht die dominante Position der Prasidialadministration. Daruber hinaus werden kurz vier ausenpolitische Denkschulen vorgestellt. Es wird argumentiert, dass, trotz einer konservativen Re-Ideologisierung, die russische Ausenpolitik weiterhin von einem realistischen Mainstream gepragt wird. Zuletzt werden in Hinblick auf die russische Ukrainepolitik die beteiligten Personen und ihre Bedeutung im politischen Prozess angedeutet.

Since 2017, the Study Group “European Security and Peace” of the Federation of German Scientists (VDW) has been working on the central interrelationships and challenges of European and global security. In doing so, it continues the VDW‘s tradition in the field of cooperative security and peace policy, in which science played a particular role. At the beginning of the VDW‘s foundation, questions of nuclear disarmament and arms control were at the forefront, which is reflected in particular in the “Gottingen Declaration of 1957 on Nuclear Armament” as well as in its participation in the international Pugwash movement. In the meantime, new security risks, complex conflict dynamics and crisis constellations have emerged alongside nuclear armament, from digitalisation to climate change. This development is accelerated by technical-scientific progress and its ambivalence as well as by economic and social processes of globalization. Under the changing conditions of the 21st century, the (apparent) stability of the previous world order is dissolving; the challenges for peace and security in and around Europe are increasing. The opportunities for a cooperative world order are dwindling. Nationalist power politics is fuelling a chaotic dynamic that increases the danger of a new uncontrollable arms race, weakens established forms and institutions for dealing with conflicts and clouds the prospect of a sustainable European peace order. Following in the tradition of the VDW, the study group aims at contributing to a better understanding of the complex conflict dynamics through analyses, statements and events and to draw constructive conclusions for an appropriate peace policy. As its first project, the study group has analytically examined some “myths of established security policy”. Here, the ambiguous term “myth” refers to beliefs that have solidified into dogmas. They promote political decisions that are based on premises that need to be problematized. It is the task of science to critically question, interpret and examine the plausibility of assumptions underlying political decisions. It is evident that even highly problematic decisions can result from faulty assumptions. Widespread myths can block the path to appropriate social discourse and good politics. The goal the study group has set itself is to address some of these certainties as myths and to deconstruct them in order to break them up and thus correct them. Specific recommendations for action, however, take second place. The draft papers were discussed extensively and in part controversially in the study group. However, the responsibility for the deliberately pointed texts lies solely with the authors. The first delivery contains individual papers on the following topics: the cooperative world order (Lothar Brock), Russia and the European peace order (Sabine Jaberg), the effectiveness of robust military interventions in the Global South (Hans-Georg Ehrhart), the inadequate equipment of the German Federal Armed Forces (Michael Brzoska), the current relevance of arms control (Michael Staack) and the threat to security posed by climate change (Jurgen Scheffran). Further papers are in preparation. With the publication of the “Myth Papers” and related comments, a scientific discussion is to be initiated which – so the authors of the papers and the editors of the Friedens-Warte hope – will lead to critical reflection, but also to new ideas for a better, scientifically informed peace and security policy.