harlekin.me

Kule­ba at Davos.

Kule­ba: The­re are now no pre­con­di­ti­ons for ent­e­ring peace nego­tia­ti­ons, apart from Ukrai­ne “fee­ling” that “they are held in good faith”. And “rus­sia will only come for­ward to hold peace nego­tia­ti­ons [no in good faith used in that phra­sing] - if they are star­ting to lose, and are covering their los­ses, that I can pro­mi­se you.”

Selen­sky­js requi­re­ments for peace nego­tia­ti­ons on May 7th (Chat­ham House speech):

Ukrai­ne will only reen­ter peace talks with Rus­sia if the Krem­lin gua­ran­tees the res­to­ra­ti­on of pre­inva­si­on bor­ders and returns thousands of Ukrai­ni­ans who were force­ful­ly evacua­ted to Rus­sia, Ukrai­ni­an Pre­si­dent Volo­dym­yr Zelen­sky said Friday.

src: click

Selen­sky­js requi­re­ments for peace nego­tia­ti­ons on May 24th (the same World eco­no­mic forum Kule­ba is spea­king at today):

Ukrai­ni­an Pre­si­dent Volo­dym­yr Selen­sky insists on direct talks with Rus­si­an lea­der Vla­di­mir Putin. In an address to the World Eco­no­mic Forum in Davos, he again rejec­ted con­sul­ta­ti­ons through media­tors. If Putin unders­tood rea­li­ty, the­re would be a chan­ce to find a diplo­ma­tic way out of the con­flict. The lea­ders­hip in Moscow should with­draw its tro­ops to the lines befo­re it began its inva­si­on of Ukrai­ne on 24 Febru­a­ry, Selen­skyj deman­ds. “This could be a first step towards talks.” Ukrai­ne will fight until it has regai­ned all its ter­ri­to­ry, he said.

src: click (APA/AFP)

I’m sure no media out­let will report any con­tra­dic­tion here.

Second point: In the press con­fe­rence with Kule­ba, he put a new spin on the “we need time to inte­gra­te the brain­wa­s­hed peop­le in the tem­pora­ry occu­p­ied ter­ri­to­ries” messaging Selen­skyj has put for­ward in the Zaka­ria inte­view befo­re, and spun it into “it will take time to find peop­le who would be wil­ling to live in regi­ons next to rus­sia again, which is why it is hard to gage how long a pro­cess of rebuil­ding Ukrai­ne will take”.

Two aspects. First the are­as cur­r­ent­ly occu­p­ied by rus­sia are now exten­ding into Ukrai­ne past more than half of said bor­der ter­ri­to­ry. Second “we need to find peop­le who want to live the­re”, sounds much nicer, right?

Third point. Kule­ba is now open­ly for other nati­ons enga­ging in hel­pful diplo­ma­tic talks that could bring about the end of the war. It is just that “they cant impo­se “new lines of con­ta­ct””, or “touch the ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty of Ukrai­ne, as a who­le - at all”.

Apart from this being a per­fect quag­mi­re on its own, three days ago Poli­ti­co publis­hed the following:

Poland’s pre­si­dent told Ukrai­ni­an law­ma­kers that “only Ukrai­ne has the right to deci­de about its future,” in a speech that was the first in-person address by a for­eign head of sta­te at Ukraine’s par­lia­ment sin­ce the Rus­si­an invasion.

“Not­hing about you without you,” Andrzej Duda told the assem­bly in Kyiv on Sunday, while slamming the “worry­ing voices” that have been cal­ling on Ukrai­ne to make con­ces­si­ons to end the war.

Duda recei­ved a stan­ding ova­ti­on and pho­tos pos­ted on Twit­ter show­ed him embra­cing Ukrai­ni­an Pre­si­dent Volo­dym­yr Zelen­skyy. Poland has wel­co­med around 3.5 mil­li­on Ukrai­ni­an refu­gees and sup­ports Ukraine’s bid to join the EU.

Duda’s comments came as Ukrai­ne said it would refu­se a cease-fire and will not give up ter­ri­to­ry to Rus­sia. In an inter­view with Reu­ters, Ukrai­ni­an nego­tia­tor Mykhailo Pod­olyak said con­ces­si­ons would back­fire and only encou­ra­ge Rus­sia to hit harder.

“The war will not stop [after any con­ces­si­ons]. It will just be put on pau­se for some time,” said the pre­si­den­ti­al adviser.

“After a while, with rene­wed inten­si­ty, the Rus­si­ans will build up their wea­pons, man­power and work on their mista­kes. … And they’ll start a new offen­si­ve, even more bloo­dy and large-scale,” he said.

src: click

With this (pres­su­re to not influ­ence ukrai­ni­an decisi­on making) being the cau­se both for the ger­man governments posi­ti­on of “the Ukrai­ne has to deci­de on its own, when it wants to con­tem­pla­te ending the war”, as well as the same posi­ti­on fea­tured in the UvdL speech in Davos yesterday.

Tho­se are respon­ses to that voi­ced need to not be influ­en­ced by out­side pres­su­res which now doesnt exist any­mo­re accord­ing to Kule­ba, as long as tho­se out­side pres­su­res dont try to nego­tia­te a new con­ta­ct line, or touch the ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty of the Ukraine.

Also the argu­ment of the Ukrai­ni­an nego­tia­tor you might noti­ce, calls for a seve­re dete­rio­ra­ti­on of rus­si­an mili­ta­ry capa­bi­li­ty (usual­ly the phra­se “so they cant con­tem­pla­te a simi­lar attack for at least 30 years” is used). Which coin­ci­dent­al­ly is the US posi­ti­on Nina Khrush­che­va sta­ted that she hears from US gene­rals in pri­va­te con­ver­sa­ti­ons, but not when they are spea­king to media.

Now wait to read none of this in tomor­rows news­pa­per. Becau­se they are our heroes.

Spea­king of the usu­al heroes, just for refe­rence, here is Kis­sin­gers Posi­ti­on from two days ago: click
And here is the ukrai­ni­an response.

But dont worry, that was just ano­t­her old guy respon­ding who was brought up on the noti­on, that Nato expan­si­on was a threat.

edit: Short asi­de on ita­lys peace talks initia­ti­ve being rejec­ted by russia.

Ita­lys peace initia­ti­ve in broad out­lines: click
Rus­sia pulls diplo­ma­tic core from ita­ly: click
Reu­ters reports the rus­si­an for­eign minis­try spo­kes­wo­man sta­ting that the ita­li­an peace plan for Ukrai­ne was a “fan­ta­sy”.

“If they hope that the Rus­si­an Fede­ra­ti­on will sei­ze on any Wes­tern plan, then they haven’t unders­tood much.”

So the rus­si­ans aren’t exact­ly inte­res­ted in peace nego­tia­ti­ons either.

Kule­bas posi­ti­on on the ita­li­an peace plan in Davos can be found in the video at 28min in. And it actual­ly was what promp­ted Kule­ba to go into lay­ing out “his new rules for peace nego­tia­ti­ons, faci­li­ta­ted by other coun­tries”. Pre­fa­cing that with “Lui­gi Di Maio is a friend, so in princi­pal I will not have anything against [some­thing] pro­po­sed by a friend”.

In total­ly unre­la­ted news, ger­man pre­si­dent Frank-Walter Stein­mei­er was quo­ted say­ing the fol­lowing yesterday:

Ger­man Pre­si­dent to Putin: “With­draw your troops!”

Ger­man Pre­si­dent Frank-Walter Stein­mei­er has cal­led on Rus­si­an Pre­si­dent Vla­di­mir Putin to with­draw from Ukrai­ne immedia­te­ly at the Katho­li­ken­tag in Stutt­gart. “Respect Ukraine’s sov­er­eig­n­ty, stop the figh­t­ing,” Stein­mei­er appealed at the ope­ning cere­mo­ny of the church fes­ti­val on Wed­nes­day evening.

src: click

We have to be a moral power. We have to stop com­pro­mi­sing. We have to under­stand this as a chan­ce. We have to let us be gui­ded by values. We have to be strong. We have to be force­ful and not let our­sel­ves be divi­ded. With an hono­r­able men­ti­on for the repre­sen­ta­ti­ve of the euro­pean com­mis­si­on making a pledge, that she doesnt want to hear the word appease­ment anymore.

ECB brings in the immense power of pen­sionfunds that still could be lever­aged to a much grea­ter extent. And sees the usu­al dan­gers of eco­no­mies that are too expo­sed to inter­na­tio­nal trade.

So lets go through this. Moral power means, lets go back to a world whe­re we have eco­no­mic blocks. And not ask the Khash­og­gi ques­ti­on, becau­se at least tho­se issu­es dont touch our moral sphe­re, by vir­tue of being far enough away from our bor­ders. It also means to look more clo­se­ly into the cur­rent Xin­jiang leaks, becau­se our new public MO is that of being moral, strong and united. We have to stop com­pro­mi­sing means, remo­val of vetos or the unani­mi­ty princi­pal, in mat­ters of EU for­eign and secu­ri­ty poli­cy. We have to let us be gui­ded by values means -- some­thing, some­thing legal tra­di­ti­on. We have to be strong means, to use this moment to estab­lish the noti­on of beco­m­ing an inter­na­tio­nal mili­ta­ry power as well (hel­ping the Nato 80% but also being able to con­duct our own inter­ven­ti­ons, and secu­ring our own bor­ders), becau­se of the poten­ti­al uphea­vals we cant dodge any­mo­re as a result of the cur­rent war, thats pret­ty much a given, we have to be force­ful and not let our­sel­ves be divi­ded is the new man­tra for my genera­ti­on. Becau­se you have to see this as a chan­ce, right? No appease­ment is the new posi­ti­on of the euro­pean com­mis­si­on, becau­se if you’d go the appease­ment rou­te, all the other nice catch­phra­ses wouldnt work. And game theo­ry is for pussies.

(Which btw. is also what the prime minis­ter of slo­va­kia seems to have lear­ned almost exclu­si­ve­ly from the cur­rent cri­sis - he is very into this idea. To the point, whe­re he pushes it to beco­me the second to last point of rhe­to­ri­cal­ly con­struc­ted applau­se lines.)

The ECB is now at the point, were it wants to leverage pen­si­on funds more force­ful­ly and also is into redu­cing expo­sure to inter­na­tio­nal tra­de, becau­se of incre­a­sed risk of insta­bi­li­ty (cli­ma­te chan­ge, food secu­ri­ty), becau­se of the US not caring about secu­ring tra­de rou­tes for free any­mo­re, and becau­se of ever­yo­nes favo­ri­te term, resi­li­en­ce. So essen­ti­al­ly the aspects that cli­ma­te acti­vism was allo­wed to pro­mo­te in Davos in the past years.

The­re is also ano­t­her trend you can gage from the peop­le that have been put on the panel, and that is - make nort­hern euro­pean coun­tries, and the coun­tries in the east expo­sed to rus­sia, mat­ter more wit­hin the euro­pean uni­on to keep ger­man and french inte­rests in check. “Do you belie­ve that ger­ma­ny will take the role, to bind all tho­se inte­rests tog­e­ther to make a cohe­si­ve euro­pean uni­on” - was one of the rhe­to­ri­cal ques­ti­ons asked, to which the ans­wer of cour­se was “we have to - at least when it comes to the defen­se union”.

(Hig­her depen­den­cy in terms of ener­gy pro­du­ced by nort­hern euro­pean sta­tes, hig­her depen­den­cy in terms of the secu­ri­ty infra­st­ruc­tu­re pro­vi­ded by nort­hern sta­tes, more per­ma­nent NATO tro­ops (plan­ned) in the eas­tern euro­pean sta­tes, rai­sing their pro­fi­le wit­hin the NATO alli­an­ce, as well as the EU…)

And then end on an inspi­ra­tio­nal “we know this is not easy, we know we cant take demo­cra­cy for gran­ted, so lets do this”!

Phoe­nix also has com­men­ta­ry, if you want to con­su­me this with more sug­ar­coa­ting and ambi­gui­ty. (ger­man)

Schlüs­sel­fra­ge “was von dem was Euro­pa will - hat Scholz begriffen”?

Aaaa­ama­zing.

edit: Kris­ta­li­na Geor­gi­e­wa (IMF direc­tor) doesnt par­ti­cu­lar­ly like the “new iron curtain trend” - too bad ever­yo­ne else does.

Cli­ma­te risks, food secu­ri­ty issu­es, and the US not caring about secu­ring tra­de rou­tes all over the world, par­ti­cu­lar­ly, is a hell of a combination.

Pro­mi­se!
Pin­ky promise!

So just to get things strai­ght here. The mode­ra­tor doesnt know what the cur­rent end goal of the war is, every repor­ter ques­tio­ned dod­ges the ques­ti­on except for the very inves­ted ukrai­ni­an repor­ter who real­ly con­ju­res up an argu­ment of “we cant loo­se any cities any­mo­re - becau­se that would mean that more peop­le have to suf­fer through what But­cha (a libe­ra­ted city) suf­fe­red through”. Now thats gre­at logic, that cer­tain­ly rec­ti­fies an end­less war. Without moun­ting any oppo­si­ti­on, or giving any cla­ri­fi­ca­ti­on on that argu­ment, naturally.

Half of the panel admits that repor­ting in their coun­try is one sided, but takes it with a smile.

The ger­man par­ti­ci­pant has a very suc­cinct way of exp­lai­ning what good jour­na­listic per­for­mance is. “Bild was sur­pri­sin­gly good here, becau­se they went on gui­ded, embe­ded jour­na­lism tours (my wor­d­ing, but its dis­cus­sed later on, on the panel) into the war­zo­ne, and hired ukrai­ni­an jour­na­lists, and even jour­na­lists from alter­na­ti­ve rus­si­an media. So thats “good jour­na­lism” in her mind. She repeats it three times - hiring peop­le clo­se to one side, and then taking the press trips, orga­ni­zed by one side - makes it, per defi­ni­ti­on, excel­lent journalism.

The group then later gets into the dis­cus­sion that they dont have any repor­ting on the other sides action, but that would of cour­se only be the case, becau­se rus­sia doesnt allow for embed­ded jour­na­lism on their side of the war­zo­ne, and becau­se rus­sia has denied jour­na­lists visas who tried to tra­vel into rus­sia for repor­ting pur­po­ses, and has enac­ted dra­co­ni­an laws against jour­na­lists working wit­hin the coun­try (up to 25 years of pri­son for publi­shing the wrong word).

So one sided repor­ting is fine I guess (not my inter­pre­ta­ti­on, but the inter­pre­ta­ti­on of three peop­le on the panel).

And to coun­ter­act it, and the emo­tio­nal pri­ming and good/bad nar­ra­ti­ves, and not exp­lai­ning any actions taken by poli­ti­cal actors in any sort of depth, or pro­vi­ding any sort of con­text or pro/contra argu­ments on likely out­co­mes, that at least one jour­na­list in the panel laments, is total­ly fine - becau­se jour­na­lism will “reflect on it” once the war is over.

Sad­ly, the mode­ra­tor doesnt qui­te under­stand what that means (“the war being over”, so what sta­te has to be reached), and she has a con­cep­tu­al pro­blem with it, but after you see half a dozen repor­ters sim­ply dodge that worry, put into an actu­al ques­ti­on for the panel, in a row - you start to be ok with it, right?

Oh, and the other rea­son named for the fac­tu­al one sided­ness of repor­ting is “we as a nati­on, and espe­cial­ly the public took a side in this con­flict, very ear­ly on”.

So any jour­na­listic cri­te­ria goes out of the win­dow -- of cour­se. Becau­se we can take sides.

So let me sum­ma­ri­ze what hap­pens, until jour­na­lism finds its way to eva­lua­te its may­be one sided per­for­mance, after the war.

Ener­gy cos­ts dou­ble. Growth rate is redu­ced by 0.5% points per year. About 100 peop­le die every day (cur­r­ent­ly), what “win­ning the war means” is unclear. But ever­yo­ne is for it. Becau­se the­re is no alter­na­ti­ve. Becau­se values. We are on the ver­ge of a new glo­bal hun­ger cri­sis, if the EU and Nato dont get out Ukrai­nes next har­vest via land rou­tes going through poland, or ship­ping from Ukrai­nes black sea ports (Nego­tia­ti­ons are in pro­gress at the UN level - becau­se its fair­ly unli­kely, that they will start using the sea­rou­te, that the rus­si­ans just ope­ned (clea­red of mines) from Mariu­pol), we cant talk about initia­ti­ves to end this war, if that means, that Ukrai­ne doesnt get total ter­ri­to­ri­al inte­gri­ty back. Chi­nas manu­fac­tu­ring sec­tor going off­line cur­r­ent­ly will incre­a­se infla­ti­on spikes, green tran­si­tio­ning as a pro­ject takes the back­se­at to enab­ling ener­gy secu­ri­ty, and the sta­te minis­ter of for­eign affairs of Paki­stan just sta­ted in Davos, that if this means, that her coun­try gets into ano­t­her hun­ger cri­sis, sti­cking to values, to her doesnt seem like the right move here… And of cour­se - tal­king about com­pro­mi­ses right now, would just embol­den the aggres­sor, so we nee­ded to make that a tabu as well. Until the Ukrai­ni­an lea­ders­hip reached their mili­ta­ry goals, which are unclear. Or unli­kely. Or super fair, but we cant find out, becau­se we cant talk about them, becau­se we need to let them deci­de, without out­side influ­ence. Just with out­side wea­pon shipments.

No worries though, jour­na­lism will reeva­lua­te their repor­ting, once the war is over.

Oh, and one more thing. The Ukrai­ni­an jour­na­list in the panel got it estab­lis­hed, that “embed­ded jour­na­lism” in con­flict zones, real­ly is the only kind of jour­na­lism thats even moral­ly rec­ti­fia­ble, becau­se of the inherent dan­ger to lives, and the risk of other­wi­se ret­rau­ma­ti­zing peop­le jour­na­lists might inter­view. With tho­se kinds of argu­ments you can get a “you are so right” out of the cri­ti­cal minds at Pres­se­club Con­cordia - every day of the week.

Next time on Pres­se­club Con­cordia, we invi­ted two high rank US diplo­mats to tell us what the US is doing in this war, and what its goals are… (9th of June 4pm MEZ, keep the date.)

Becau­se we didnt watch to see what Nina Khrush­che­va sta­ted on this very topic six days ago…

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das Letzte.

Etwas weni­ger als 50 Tagen um genau zu sein. War wohl gut, dass die Medi­en die EU Posi­ti­on zum Ukrai­ne Krieg am 06.04. aus der Bericht­erstat­tung aus­ge­spart haben.

UvdL in Davos, war voll auf Selen­skyj Linie, nur noch die Bevöl­ke­rung Russ­lands hät­te es in der Hand die­sen Krieg zu been­den.

In der Fra­ge­run­de nach der Ansprache:

Aaama­zing.

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das Letzte.

Ich muss jetzt aber nicht heu­cheln und so tun als sei das alter­na­tiv­los, oder für die Bevöl­ke­rung das Bes­te, oder die Cor­po­ra­te social Respon­si­bi­li­ty in Davos, die das ein­lei­ten wird, oder bereits ein­ge­lei­tet hat, oder? Oder muss ich? Ich weiß das heu­te nicht mehr so genau.

edit: Die die Selek­ti­on der Panels am ers­ten Tag von Davos heu­er ist gene­rell aaa­ama­zing. Pre­mier Minis­ter von Spa­ni­en ver­spricht Food secu­ri­ty für die Welt, Glo­bal ESG Panel ver­spricht einen Push für mehr Resi­li­enz, im Panel zum geo­po­li­ti­schen Out­look sit­zen lau­ter Unbe­kann­te, sor­ry ich mei­ne natür­lich nur unbe­kann­te, und ansons­ten Außen­mi­nis­ter die zur Staats­rä­son ver­pflich­tet sind. Nach der Uvdl Rede kommt Stol­ten­berg, dann eine Pres­se­kon­fe­renz zu “Spee­ding up the Road to Net-Zero” bei der alle sehr zuver­sicht­lich sind. Dann ein Safe­guar­ding Our Pla­net and Peop­le panel zwecks social respon­si­bi­li­ty, ein Latein Ame­ri­ka Pre­si­den­ti­al Panel, zwecks Ein­bin­dung ihrer Ölför­de­rung, dann kommt schon ein gefea­tur­tes Gespräch mit dem CEO von You­tube, dem von Micro­soft, und dann zum Aus­klang Gates zum The­ma wie wir uns für die nächs­ten Pan­de­mie vor­be­rei­ten. Aaama­zing. Ich würd sagen, das wird ein erfüll­tes Jahr­zehnt. Also wenn die rus­si­sche Bevöl­ke­rung den Krieg beendet.

Des is so erstaun­lich wie intel­lek­tu­ell elas­tisch die heu­ti­ge jun­ge intel­lek­tu­el­le Eli­te Öster­reichs so ist…

Stell dir vor du beginnst dein poli­ti­sches Leben als Event­ma­na­ger bei der IG Alp­bach Wien (kein Beleg, die IG Web­sei­te auf archive.org auf Ände­run­gen zu durch­stö­bern, war mir dann doch irgend­wie zu stal­ke­risch…), dann wirst du irgend­wann mal Prä­si­dent der sel­ben Ver­ei­ni­gung, dann gehst du in die Pres­se und ver­laut­barst, dass du als einer von zwei Grün­dern Fri­days for Future Öster­reich mit­ge­grün­det hast “Weil wir sowas in Öster­reich auch brau­chen”, also im Jahr nach­dem die Oppen­hei­mer Funds in Alp­bach den Kamin­talk mit dem Schluss­fa­zit “Zu vie­le Inves­to­ren glau­ben noch Kli­ma­schutz sei Phil­an­thro­pie, wir haben noch viel Arbeit vor uns” gehal­ten haben, als dann Gre­ta popu­lär wur­de. Du machst dann (im Jahr dar­auf) dafür die Face­book PR und freust dich zusam­men mit dem Orga­ni­sa­tor des Forums dar­über “dass Fri­days for Future (die du ja mit­ge­grün­det hast) auch ihren Weg nach Alp­bach gefun­den haben”, stell dir ein­fach vor die Qua­li­täts­zei­tun­gen schrei­ben das ab. Stell dir vor, zwei Jah­re spä­ter sitzt du bei einem Kli­ma Panel in Alp­bach, und ant­wor­test auf eine Publi­kums­fra­ge, ein­fach so rich­tig schön mit ordent­lich viel Bra­va­do, dass wenn beim Kli­ma­schutz nichts wei­ter­geht, man die Unter­neh­men ein­fach zwin­gen wird müs­sen. Stell dir vor dich pfeift dann das Panel zurück, weil das dann für eine Demo­kra­tie doch zu akti­vis­tisch war, und muss dann dei­ne Aus­sa­gen öffent­lich rela­ti­vie­ren. Was heißt rela­ti­vie­ren… Zurück­neh­men. Stell dir vor du gehst dann in dei­ner Rol­le als Kli­ma­ak­ti­vist so rich­tig auf, und wirst fort­an von brutkasten.com (die in Alp­bach im letz­ten Jahr enga­giert wur­den um die Mor­gen­run­den zu pro­du­zie­ren und zu mode­rie­ren) als “drei Daten­ak­ti­vis­ten und Kli­ma­schüt­zer Johan­nes Stangl” geführt, weil du Taferl hoch­hal­ten und über öko­lo­gi­sche Nach­hal­tig­keit spre­chen kannst, wie kein zwei­ter.
Stell dir vor Alp­bach fea­tured dich in ihrem News­let­ter, weil du auch auf die COP in Sau­di Ara­bi­en fah­ren und von dort berich­ten wolltest.
Stell dir vor du machst dann mit den Daten­ak­ti­vis­ten ein Kli­ma­da­sh­board (immer noch brut­kas­ten) und malst neben­bei Blu­men neben Bal­ken­gra­phen und das gefällt Com­ple­xi­ty Sci­ence Hub Vien­na, also denen die in der Ple­na­ry ses­si­on des EFATEC Pro­gramms in Alp­bach 2021 den Chair der Debat­te zu “The com­ple­xi­ty of gre­at green trans­for­ma­ti­ons” stel­len, also, was heißt stel­len, mit ihrem Prä­si­den­ten beset­zen - also denen gefällt das so gut, dass sie dir gleich eine For­schungs­stel­le am Insti­tut bereit stel­len, damit du dort dei­nen Dok­tor machen kannst.

Stell dir vor es ver­geht ein Jahr.

Stell dir vor du gibst dann Pres­se­kon­fe­ren­zen, also - so mehr jetzt, also aktu­ell, und zwar dazu wie sich die Euro­päi­sche Uni­on sehr wohl ein Gas Boy­kott gegen Russ­land leis­ten kön­ne - und zwar in indem du der Bevöl­ke­rung fol­gen­des rätst:

Laut den For­schern um Anton Pich­ler und Ste­fan Thur­ner las­sen sich aus den Ergeb­nis­sen kla­re Emp­feh­lun­gen ablei­ten. Durch eine gleich­mä­ßi­ge Ver­tei­lung des übri­gen Gases in Euro­pa und den Import von Flüs­sig­gas aus den USA oder den Golf­staa­ten könn­te der Weg­fall der rus­si­schen Impor­te zu einem gro­ßen Teil abge­fe­dert werden.

Ins­ge­samt erge­be sich dadurch für jedes Mit­glieds­land ein durch­schnitt­li­cher Eng­pass von 17,4 Pro­zent. Damit wür­de es Staa­ten geben, die ihren Ver­brauch redu­zie­ren müs­sen, obwohl sie selbst kein Gas aus Russ­land impor­tie­ren. Trotz­dem mache es Sinn, beson­ders expo­nier­te Län­der wie Öster­reich zu schüt­zen, sagt Mit­au­tor Johan­nes Stangl. “Die wirt­schaft­li­chen Ein­brü­che pflan­zen sich ja über den gemein­sa­men Markt fort.”

Gro­ßes Poten­zi­al besteht laut den For­schern auch bei der Umstel­lung von Gas­kraft­wer­ken auf Öl. Ins­ge­samt könn­te Öster­reich damit rund zehn Pro­zent des Gas­ver­brauchs redu­zie­ren. Und auch Pri­vat­haus­hal­te könn­ten ihren Bei­trag leis­ten: Sen­ken sie ihre Raum­tem­pe­ra­tur um ein Grad, wür­de Öster­reich 1,2 Pro­zent des Ver­brauchs ein­spa­ren. Indi­rekt kön­ne man so wirt­schaft­li­che Ein­bu­ßen ver­rin­gern und Arbeits­plät­ze sichern, beto­nen die Autoren. Daher brau­che es Anrei­ze für die Bevöl­ke­rung, sich aktiv am Gas­s­pa­ren zu beteiligen.

Ver­lus­te in “begrenz­tem Ausmaß”
Auch wenn die EU-Staaten koope­rie­ren, wären die Ver­lus­te durch einen Gas­lie­fer­stopp Russ­lands oder ein Embar­go für die öster­rei­chi­sche Wirt­schaft “spür­bar”, sagen die For­scher. Sie wür­den aber “in begrenz­tem Aus­maß” aus­fal­len. Die Pro­duk­ti­ons­ver­lus­te wür­den sich pro Monat auf 1,11 Mil­li­ar­den Euro belau­fen und wären damit “signi­fi­kant klei­ner als die wirt­schaft­li­chen Aus­wir­kun­gen der ers­ten Wel­le der Covid-19-Pandemie”.

Seit Kriegs­be­ginn hat die EU rus­si­sches Gas im Wert von rund 24 Mil­li­ar­den Euro impor­tiert. Vier Mil­li­ar­den Euro gin­gen an finan­zi­el­ler und mili­tä­ri­scher Unter­stüt­zung an die Ukrai­ne. “Auch Wie­der­auf­bau­kos­ten wer­den auf Mil­li­ar­den Euro geschätzt, ganz zu schwei­gen vom mensch­li­chen Leid in der Ukrai­ne”, sagt Thur­ner. Ange­sichts der immensen Schä­den des Krie­ges kön­ne ein EU-weites Embar­go daher auch eine “wirt­schaft­lich ver­tret­ba­re Stra­te­gie sein”.

Meh­re­re Studien
In den ver­gan­ge­nen Mona­ten haben auch ande­re Insti­tu­te Stu­di­en zu einem mög­li­chen Gas­stopp ver­öf­fent­licht. Im April berech­ne­te etwa die Oes­ter­rei­chi­sche Natio­nal­bank (OenB), dass ein kom­plet­ter Aus­fall rus­si­scher Gas­im­por­te 3,1 Pro­zent des Brut­to­in­lands­pro­dukts (BIP) kos­ten wür­de. Bei einem pro­gnos­ti­zier­ten Wachs­tum von 3,5 Pro­zent wäre die Bilanz dem­nach aber immer noch leicht positiv.

Von einem etwas stär­ke­ren Ein­bruch ging zuletzt der wirt­schafts­li­be­ra­le Think­tank Agen­da Aus­tria aus. In einem “opti­mis­ti­schen Sze­na­rio” kom­me es dem­nach zu einem Rück­gang der Wirt­schafts­leis­tung um 1,5 Pro­zent­punk­te, in einem “pes­si­mis­ti­schen Sze­na­rio” zu einem Rück­gang um 4,5 Pro­zent­punk­te. Die Wirt­schaft wür­de im Fall eines Gas­em­bar­gos laut Agen­da Aus­tria “bes­ten­falls sta­gnie­ren”. (Jakob Pflügl, 24.5.2022)

src: click

Ich bin so nei­dig auf die­se Prin­zi­pi­en­treue, dass ich mir gera­de die Hand abkaue.

Zei­ten­wen­de.

Die­se Gesell­schaft ist das Letzte.

edit: Es fehlt noch die dum­me Fra­ge des Tages, viel­leicht an einen Kom­ple­xi­täts­for­scher - in Öster­reich. Ob das den Selen­skyj sehr freut wenn dank 20 Jah­res­ver­trä­gen bald kein rus­si­sches Gas mehr durch die Ukrai­ne fließt? Wobei, die haben ja selbst Vor­kom­men… (edit: Für 15 Jah­re. 1.09 Bil­lio­nen / 73 Mil­li­ar­den )
*räus­per*

Die Ukrai­ne ist der sechst­größ­te Erd­gas­ver­brau­cher der Welt, ihr Ver­brauch beträgt etwa 73 Mil­li­ar­den Kubik­me­ter jähr­lich. Etwa 25 Pro­zent ihres Erd­gas­be­darfs pro­du­ziert die Ukrai­ne selbst, wei­te­re 40 Pro­zent bezieht sie über Russ­land aus Turk­me­ni­stan. Der Rest kommt aus rus­si­scher Produktion.

src: click

Das macht dann die “CEOs für die Ukrai­ne” Initia­ti­ve des World Eco­no­mic Forum mit Invest­ments für Green Tran­si­tio­ning in die Ukrai­ne wie­der wett. 

(Flüs­sig­gas also.)