RPG-Maker Quartier

Woher kennst du denn das Konsumverhalten des Autors?

...

[The fossil fuel divestment movement] prompted ExxonMobil and Shell to take the unusual step this year of writing to investors to argue there is little to fear. A growing global population means demand for fossil fuels will stay high for decades, they said, and the immense existing energy infrastructure means even if governments do boost their climate actions, it will take decades for any effect to be felt.

This is an important consideration, as is the fact that few investments offer the yield, scale and growth of oil and gas equities, a point made eloquently in a recent paper by Nathaniel Bullard of the Bloomberg New Energy Finance research group.

...

...

“One year ago no socialist in Germany had ever been thinking of [the arbitration system],” [Kommissar für Handel in der EU-Kommission Barroso II.] Mr [Karel] De Gucht said. “I cannot convince the German public. It’s up to the German politicians; it’s up to Ms Merkel and Mr Gabriel to convince their population, that’s their task. I know she has been speaking out in favour, but she should make a political point of it, that there’s a clear position of the government on [the US deal].”

...

The forward positioning of U.S. troops is useful for shoring up the effectiveness of American extended deterrence in the region and should be done immediately. But that step alone will not deter Russia. The deterrent aspect of this forward posture is that it puts U.S. assets and manpower in a vulnerable position—creating a so-called tripwire—thus showing commitment and creating the incentive to defend the allied country. The loss of American soldiers to an initial attack by the enemy would, so the argument goes, create powerful pressures for Washington to respond. As French general Ferdinand Foch reportedly said when asked before World War I how many British troops would be needed for the security of France, “Give me one, and I will make sure he gets killed on the first day of the war.” Or, as Thomas Schelling put it in more recent times, the purpose of placing thousands of American troops on our allies’ territory is so that “bluntly, they can die.” But what if they do not die? What if they’re never even involved because the attack is so limited—a “jab and pause” like that in Crimea—that it does not come near American forces? If the aggressor establishes a quick fait accompli, then the U.S. forces would have to be used not to defend an ally’s territory, but rather to attack an enemy that has already achieved its territorial goal and, in all likelihood, has ceased military operations. As Henry Kissinger put it, “Once the aggressor is in possession of his prize . . . the psychological burden [das bezieht sich wirklich auf die bevölkerungen der involvierten nationen] shifts in his favor. The defender must now assume the risk of the first move. The aggressor can confine himself to outwaiting his opponent.”

(...)

Fazit: Es gibt Leute, die sagen kluge Dinge, aber das sind nicht alle, die etwas sagen.