Der Westen sollte seine eigenen roten Linien setzen und nicht nur die von Putin akzeptieren, argumentiert der erfahrene Diplomat

https://www.politico.eu/article/west-should-set-its-own-red-lines-not-just-accept-putin-wolfgang-ischinger-veteran-diplomat-munich-security-conference/?utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter

35 comments

  1. If you make threats you better be prepared to follow through. Russia’s “red lines” are just them trying to scare people and not something to mirror.

  2. It’s pointless for the west to set a redline. Russia hasn’t “logic-ed” itself into this position, and it’s going to be an unpredictable end IMO. I could also see it happening in 2025.

  4. Russia have crossed all possible red lines, don’t forget they have done countless war-crimes and is doing stuff like torturing kids to death. So setting up some reasonable red lines now that Russia haven’t already crossed is impossible

  5. Attacking another sovereign nation IS the damn red line.

  6. Red lines, as a concept, have been rendered meaningless. The West doesn’t need to waste time on meaningless posturing. That’s something weak countries do. Don’t bother announcing what your enemy can or can’t do, just announce what *you* will do and *fucking do it*!

  8. From the article:
    He sees India’s prime minister, Narendra Modi, as someone who can play a key role as an intermediary in a contact group, which would need to include the Europeans, the Chinese, the Saudis, Qataris and Turks.

    Can anyone explain to me why these nations in particular would be placed in intermediary roles? I understand China is a massive force on the world stage in economic and military terms, but why is India, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey named as opposed to others?

  11. A red line is just permission to do anything you want before that line. The West should say “ we have a red line, you’ll know when you’ve crossed be because of the fireball”

  12. I (random Redditor typing this from his couch) disagree. Russia setting and ultimately having to ignore its own red lines constantly is destroying their credibility. It costs the West nothing to not follow suit.

  13. Wasn’t the red line “don’t invade a sovereign nation.”

    Hard to put more lines down when you let murderous tyrants shit all over yours and you do nothing

  14. The west already have set red lines? Don’t attack NATO and don’t nuke / destroy nuclear power plants close to NATO.

  15. Who give a sh*t about Putin “redlines”? I dare him to invade us.

  16. “Red lines” don’t work when everyone knows you’re bluffing. Most of us realize this once we hit our tweens, but evidently Western leaders never learned the lesson.

  17. We already have. We told Russia if they use a tactical nuclear weapon, or cause a nuclear incident at one of the plants, we will be removing them from Ukraine.

  18. but why? what happens if russia crosses it? are we leaving the descision to go to war to another country? we would we do that?

  19. Putin and the rest of the world knows that there’s no red line the West will actually enforce beyond actually invading a NATO member state wrt Russia. Putin could nuke Kiev and we’d see a lot of posturing but zero military response.

    No point in making a threat you won’t back up, and this guy doubtlessly knows it, but he wants to do some pointless posturing of his own.

  20. West don’t need red lines because Putin can pretty much bully them and the west never responds. Even with red lines they won’t do anything

  21. You don’t repeat a red line, just thereafter, if someone approaches,
    You sound the alarm and aim when someone nears it.

    You surrender the choice to fire, you already made it, its not yours anymore; if the line is crossed you *must* fire.

    if you want the option to not fire, you don’t give a red line.

  22. I’d prefer to not have red lines, but full consequences lined up for Russia.  If they hit a hospital, here’s 100 long range missiles free of charge for Ukraine to use as they wish. See how long Russia keeps up at targeting hospitals.

  24. they should have a tit-for-tat program. for every shahed drone, we give two other drones. for every cruise missile, we allow one long distance strike. etc. if every action has direct consequences, it’s the only language he’ll understand.

  25. There are red lines. They are just pretty far of and Russian hasn’t crossed them. One of them is using nuclear weapons in Ukraine, which would trigger USA destroying the Russia crimean fleet via a massive airstrike. Another is direct strike to nuclear power plant which would trigger article 5 since the fallout would spread to NATO-countries.

  26. Trumps about to bend over for Putin…what are even talking about here. The US is about to be a Russian satellite country

  27. The red line should been the invasion of Crimea but neither Obama, Merkel or any other western leader at the time had the guts to do anything about it.

  28. The problem with this is you tie your own hands and lose diplomatic flexibility. If Russia acts unilaterally, you have a variety of response options. If you say, “if you do x we will do Y” you are locked into a course of action and your opponent is dictating the outcome.

  30. So instead of sword vs sword it’s red line vs red line? Hum!

  31. “…not just accept…”

    I think ever since the war started, literally all red lines so far have been crossed…

  32. Red lines just make you look weak when you fail to react on them. FAFO is a better strategy, as it keeps the aggressor guessing, they never know what will be reciprocated with a proportional response.

  33. The west does have red lines. But fewer and they aren’t broadcast as much.

    Nuclear bombs is the big one. Russia understands if they used nukes the US would fully commit to retaliating with conventional attacks on a large scale.

  35. Finally someone who speaks the rules of the game Putin has forced upon us!

    Nukes are scary, but living a life of constant threat of attack isn’t tolerable so let’s not tolerate it then!!

Leave a Reply