Explained: Why Centre has opposed Odisha’s plans for landmark Lingaraj Temple

Explained: Why Centre has opposed Odisha’s plans for landmark Lingaraj Temple

The Central government has told the Odisha government that its ordinance to bring the 11th-century Lingaraj temple in Bhubaneswar and its associated temples under a special law is outside the legislative competence of the state legislature. It also said the ordinance is in conflict with the rules laid down under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act).
🗞️ Subscribe Now: Get Express Premium to access the best Election reporting and analysis 🗞️
What is the Lingaraj Temple Ordinance, 2020?
Lingaraj temple, the largest in Bhubaneswar, was constructed by King Jajati Keshari in the 10th Century and completed by King Lalatendu Keshari in the 11th Century.
In December 2019, the Odisha Government had announced a development plan for the temple and its peripheral area in Bhubaneshwar. The 66-acre “Ekamra Kshetra” development plan was launched to preserve the heritage and development of the nine sites and their nearby areas at a cost of around Rs 700 crore.

The first phase of the project includes outer access road development, Lingaraj entry plaza, Bindusagar revival plan, parking space, heritage complex, development of amenities for Kedar Gouri- Mukteswar complex, e-auto project, relocation project and a state-of-the-art interpretation centre.
The Lingaraj Temple Ordinance of 2020 was introduced to manage the rituals and other activities of the temple and eight other associated temples. This was intended to be on similar lines of the special Act which manages the affairs of the Jagannath temple in Puri, one of the four dhams in India. At present, the Lingaraj temple is being governed under the Odisha Hindu Religious Endowment Act.
The ordinance proposed the formation of Lingaraj Temple Managing Committee with a full-time administrator looking after day-to-day affairs of the shrine. Under the Act, a fund creation was proposed to deposit income derived from immovable and movable properties of the temple. The temple has around 1,500 acres in various parts of the state and the land in most of the places are under encroachment.
Introducing the ordinance, state Finance Minister Niranjan Pujari had said, “A special law for management of the Shri Lingaraj Temple will ensure its better functioning, quality facilities to the pilgrims, devotees and worshipers. It will also empower the committee to safeguard the properties of the ancient temple.”
The ordinance was passed by the state cabinet on December 15, 2020. The ordinance vested the management of the temple in a 15-member committee that will administer the temple and its properties including temples outside the premises and mathas. Since the Assembly was not in session, the new law was proposed to be enacted through an ordinance.
In a letter to the Odisha Governor, the ministry has pointed out that the state government has already violated the AMASR Act around Lingaraj temple by building modern structures (Odisha Tourism)
Why has the Centre opposed the ordinance?
The Ministry of Home Affairs has said several sections of the proposed ordinance were in conflict with the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains (AMASR) Act. The AMASR Act provides for preservation of ancient and historical monuments and archaeological sites and remains of national importance.
In a letter to the Odisha Governor’s office, the ministry has pointed out that the state government has already violated the AMASR Act around Lingaraj temple by building modern structures.
The ministry contended that since the ordinance covers 12 centrally protected monuments including the Lingaraj temple and three tanks, it was outside the legislative competence of the state legislature as it violates the provisions of AMASR Act, 1958. The ministry has further said that an independent Act vesting administrative powers to a managing committee, thus facilitating dual administrative authorities will result in conflict.
Specifying certain points of contention, the ministry pointed out that clause 15(2) of the Odisha ordinance has a provision for retail shops for sale of commodities inside or outside of the temples. But as per AMASR Act a monument should not be used for any other purposes not consistent with its character.

Similarly, as per clause 17(3) of the Odisha ordinance, the managing committee will oversee the lease or sale of movable or immovable property attached with the Lingaraj temple. But the ministry contended that movable property may include archaeological or artistic object (meaning antiques) and in that case, it will be in conflict with the AMASR Act, 1958.
Under clause 22(2d) of the ordinance which provides for certain powers to the temple committee to undertake repairs, for which the Archaeological Survey of India is responsible. Therefore, this clause is also in contradiction with the provision of the AMASR Act, 1958, the ministry said.
Another clause which facilitates special darshan on payment of a fee was also found in violation of the existing agreement between ASI and temple management; which clearly stipulates the public would have free access to the monument.
The ordinance also provides for repair and construction of new buildings while the centre contended that constructions can only be allowed by the National Monuments Authority.
Newsletter | Click to get the day’s best explainers in your inbox

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,’script’,
‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
fbq(‘init’, ‘444470064056909’);
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);
.

Explained: Why Russia and Japan never officially declared peace after WWII

Explained: Why Russia and Japan never officially declared peace after WWII

On September 2, 1945, the allied forces accepted Japan’s formal surrender, marking the end of the most destructive global conflict of all time — World War II. But nearly eight decades later, Japan and Russia technically remain at war.
The two countries are yet to formally sign a peace treaty to end World War II hostilities. At the heart of the conflict is a group of tiny islands located just off Japan’s northernmost island of Hokkaido.
🗞️ Subscribe Now: Get Express Premium to access the best Election reporting and analysis 🗞️
Now peace talks between the two countries have hit yet another stumbling block — Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. After Japan joined the West in imposing hefty sanctions on Moscow, the Russian foreign ministry announced that it was withdrawing from treaty discussions, accusing Japan of “consciously choosing an anti-Russian course”.
Moscow further announced that it was halting all joint-economic programs between the two countries.

Why has Moscow halted peace talks?
After Russia invaded Ukraine, Japan announced that it was revoking ‘most-favoured nation’ (MFN) trade status as part of its economic sanctions against the country. MFN status is a key principle of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). It ensures non-discriminatory trade between all partner countries of the WTO.
Japan Prime Minister Fumio Kishida’s decision came soon after similar announcements were made by the US, the EU, and the United Kingdom. But since Tokyo and Moscow aren’t major trading partners, the move is unlikely to have too much of an adverse impact on Russia, according to a report by Japan Times.

Kishida further announced that Japan was expanding the scope of asset freezes against Russia and banning the imports of certain products, Reuters reported. Apart from a wide range of luxury products, Japan has banned the export of about 300 semiconductors, computers and communications devices to Russia and Belarus, according to Japan Times.
Soon after Japan’s announcement, Russia asserted that it would not be continuing talks with Japan. “The Russian side, in the current conditions, does not intend to continue talks with Japan on the peace treaty,” the Russian Foreign Ministry said in a statement. It said this was “due to the impossibility of discussing the core document on bilateral relations with a country that has taken an openly hostile position and is striving to cause harm to the interests of our country”.
Russia called off several joint-economic programs and ended a visa-free regime that allowed Japanese people to visit the disputed Kuril islands that were claimed by the Soviet Union towards the fag end of World War II, AFP reported.
Why haven’t Japan and Russia declared peace yet?
Japan and Russia have had a complicated relationship for over a century. But one of the lowest points in Russia-Japan relations played out during the final days of the Second World War, right before Japan’s Emperor Hirohito announced his country’s surrender.

The Soviet Union declared war on Japan and seized a group of islands located near the coast of Hokkaido. All 17,000 Japanese residents were expelled at the time. The islands — known as the southern Kurils in Russia and the Northern Territories in Japan — are at the centre of an ongoing standoff between the two countries.
Since then, while Russia insists that the islands fall under its jurisdiction, Japan maintains that they are an inherent part of its territory and are presently under illegal occupation. The territorial dispute has caused deep rifts between the countries and has kept them from finalising a peace agreement.

After WWII, the Soviet Union refused to sign the formal Treaty of Peace with Japan. Instead, in 1956, the two countries signed a joint declaration “that would technically “end the state of war”. The declaration included an agreement to sign a peace treaty in the future. But this is yet to be achieved.
Why do these islands matter?
Apart from being home to rich fishing grounds, the islands are significant from a strategic perspective. It is here that a large chunk of Russia’s pacific fleet is docked. In fact, over the last few years, Russia has been increasing its military presence on the islands.
In 2016, Russian anti-ship and missile defence systems were stationed here, according to a report by ABC. It has also deployed fighter jets to the islands, much to the ire of Japan’s Foreign Affairs ministry.
 

Have Japan and Russia tried to negotiate?
Yes, several times. Between 2012 and 2020, leaders of the two countries have held 25 meetings, according to a report by Bloomberg.
Things were starting to look up for Japan in 2018 when Russian President Vladimir Putin and Japan’s former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe agreed that their negotiations should be based on the joint declaration of 1956, which called for the transfer of two of the four islands to Japan. But Russia said Tokyo would first have to acknowledge its sovereignty over the islands.
Then in 2020, Russia amended its constitution, making it illegal to hand over any of its territories.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,’script’,
‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
fbq(‘init’, ‘444470064056909’);
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);
.

Explained: What is NATO, and why is Russia so insecure about Ukraine joining the US-led alliance?

Explained: What is NATO, and why is Russia so insecure about Ukraine joining the US-led alliance?

Among the top reasons for the ongoing war in eastern Europe is the desire of Ukraine to become part of NATO, a Western military alliance led by the United States. To President Vladimir Putin, Ukraine becoming part of NATO poses an existential threat to Russia that is serious enough for him to start a war of the scale that Europe has not seen since the end of World War II in 1945.
Collective defence
NATO, or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, was set up in 1949 by the US, Canada, and several western European nations to ensure their collective security against the Soviet Union. It was the US’s first peacetime military alliance outside the western hemisphere.
🗞️ Subscribe Now: Get Express Premium to access the best Election reporting and analysis 🗞️
Thirty countries are members of NATO currently. NATO is headquartered in Brussels, Belgium. The headquarters of the Allied Command Operations is near Mons, also in Belgium.

Members of NATO are committed to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party. Collective defence lies at the very heart of NATO, “a unique and enduring principle that binds its members together, committing them to protect each other and setting a spirit of solidarity within the Alliance”.

This is laid out in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, the founding treaty of NATO.
Article 5 reads: “The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.”
Origins and rationale
At the end of WW II, as battered European nations started to rebuild their economies, the US, which believed that an economically strong, re-armed, and integrated Europe was critical to prevent the westward expansion of communist USSR, embarked on a programme to supply economic aid to the continent on a massive scale.

The European Recovery Programme, known as the Marshall Plan after President Harry S Truman’s Secretary of State George C Marshall, promoted the idea of shared interests and cooperation between the US and Europe. The USSR declined to participate in the Marshall Plan, and discouraged eastern European states in its sphere of influence from receiving American economic assistance.

In the 1946-49 Greek Civil War, the US and UK worked to thwart the Soviet-backed communist takeover of Greece. The Western nations threw their weight behind Turkey as it stood up to Soviet pressure over control of the Bosporus and Dardanelles Strait (which connect the Black Sea and Sea of Marmara and the Sea of Marmara and Aegean Sea respectively) — and in 1947-48, the US committed itself to containing the communist uprisings in Turkey and Greece.
In 1948, Stalin’s government sponsored a coup in (erstwhile) Czechoslovakia, which led to the installation of a communist regime in a country sharing borders with both Soviet-controlled East Germany and the pro-West West Germany. In 1948-49, the Soviets blockaded West Berlin to force the US, UK, and France to give up their post-war jurisdictions in the country, leading to a major crisis and an 11-month airlift of supplies by Western countries to keep their part of the city going.
All these events led the US to conclude that an American-European alliance against the USSR was necessary. The Europeans too were convinced of the need for a collective security solution, and in March 1948, the UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Luxembourg signed the Brussels Treaty of collective defence, which meant that if any of the signatories faced an attack, they would be defended by all the others.

A few months later, the US Congress passed the Vandenburg Resolution, a landmark action “advising the President to seek US and free world security through support of mutual defence arrangements that operated within the UN Charter but outside the Security Council, where the Soviet veto would thwart collective defence arrangements”.
The Vandenburg Resolution was the stepping stone to NATO. The US believed the treaty would be more effective if it included, apart from the signatories of the Brussels Treaty, countries of the North Atlantic — Canada, Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, and Portugal. From the American perspective, these countries were the links between the two shores of the Atlantic Ocean, and could help facilitate military action if it was needed.
The treaty was signed in Washington DC on April 4, 1949. It had 12 signatories initially: the US, UK, Canada, France, Denmark, Belgium, Norway, Portugal, the Netherlands, Italy, Iceland, and Luxembourg.
Expansion of NATO
Greece and Turkey were admitted in 1952, and the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) in 1955. Spain joined in 1982, and in 1999, a decade after the collapse of the USSR, the former Soviet bloc countries of Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland became part of NATO.

Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia joined in 2004, Albania and Croatia in 2009, Montenegro in 2017, and North Macedonia in 2020, taking the membership of the alliance to 30.
Tensions with Russia
Hostility to the USSR was the reason NATO came into being, and in 1955, the Soviet Union signed its own collective defence treaty, known as the Warsaw Pact, with seven eastern European countries — Poland, Czechoslovakia, Albania, Bulgaria, East Germany, Hungary, and Romania.

The Warsaw Pact collapsed with the end of the Cold War, and was formally declared disbanded in February 1991. Among its signatories, the USSR, Czechoslovakia, and East Germany no longer exist, and the remaining five countries are part of NATO.
Newsletter | Click to get the day’s best explainers in your inbox
Barring a brief period after the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia under Putin has been suspicious and insecure about the West. The three Baltic states, now part of NATO, share borders with Russia, and only Belarus and Ukraine among the countries that were once in its sphere of influence are now outside of the western military alliance.
From the perspective of the Kremlin, keeping a buffer between NATO and Russia along its southern and western border is critical to its security. A hostile Ukraine, protected by NATO’s nuclear umbrella, could potentially have missile launchpads within a few hundred kilometres of Moscow, and cut off Russia’s access to the warm water ports of the Black Sea — it was in part to pre-empt this eventuality that Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,’script’,
‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
fbq(‘init’, ‘444470064056909’);
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);
.

Explained: What’s made Germany shed its pacifism after the invasion of Ukraine

Explained: What’s made Germany shed its pacifism after the invasion of Ukraine

Subscribe Now: Get Express Premium to access the best Election reporting and analysis
While many people were expecting this of Germany from the outset, over the last 70 years it has been a marginal military power, adopting a post-war identity of pacifism. In 2016, Frank Steinmeier, Germany’s Foreign Minister at the time, wrote an article for Foreign Affairs Magazine outlining the rationale behind such an approach. He states that, “since Germany sits at the center of Europe, neither isolation nor confrontation is a prudent policy option. Instead, Germany tries to use dialogue and cooperation to promote peace and end conflict.”
Pacifism has been the underlying doctrine behind German foreign policy since the Second World War and the fact that Berlin has finally decided to change course, speaks volumes to the gravity of Putin’s actions.immigration imageimmigration image

Germany since World War II
German troops have mainly been involved in peacekeeping missions since 1945, with notable exceptions being their participation in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s and in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. This muted approach is favoured by both policymakers and the public, with annual surveys consistently revealing that most Germans believe diplomatic relations are the best tools to resolve conflict. One caveat that is worth mentioning, and that has come under significant scrutiny, is that despite its pacifist bent, Germany is the third largest arms exporter in the world, although its output is dwarfed by Russia and the US.

Germany’s reluctance to embroil itself into international conflicts, stems from its deep national shame over its actions during the two World Wars. When Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich collapsed in 1945, reminders of his reign were hastily scrubbed away. Even today, denying German complicity in the Holocaust is a punishable offence in the country, and until recently, Hitler’s magnum opus, Mein Kampf, was forbidden from being sold in German bookstores. In the rubble of the War’s aftermath, Germany began the slow and difficult process of rebuilding itself as a nation while remaining cognizant though weary of its complicated past.

Germany was aided in this endeavour by the Allied Nations — the US , the UK, Russia, and France. In the years following the capitulation of the Nazi regime, the German military was thoroughly disbanded, with France in particular, having been invaded by Germany twice in the 20th century alone, adamantly in favour of German demilitarisation. In 1952, following the onslaught of the Cold War, Germany was divided into two federal republics, with West Germany under the control of the US and its allies, and East Germany under Soviet occupation.
Realising that Germany was a key point of defence for the West, grudgingly, in 1955, it was granted its own army, although it served only as a deterrent against the Soviet Union. That same year, Germany joined NATO and gradually proceeded to rearm the Bundeswehr, which was later described by Cold War historian, John Lewis Gaddis, as “perhaps (the) world’s best army.” For years, the two German Republics were constantly at loggerheads, with both competing to establish a collective German national identity based on conflicting ideologies. That changed when West Germany’s Chancellor, Willy Brandt, implemented a foreign policy known as Neue Ostpolitik, aiming to improve Bonn’s relations with the Soviet Union and its allies, under the banner of change via rapprochement.

Ostpolitik would loom large over the next few decades, with its watershed moment occurring in 1975, during the Helsinki Conference. The resulting ground-breaking agreement, involving concessions from both the Eastern and Western blocs, would later be credited with playing an important role in the elimination of communism in Europe.
However, since the passage of the Helsinki Act, Germany’s Ostpolitik has undergone a significant shift. Whereas human rights provisions had previously played a crucial role in Germany’s approach to Moscow, Brandt’s successor, Helmut Schmidt, interpreted the doctrine to be more along the lines of non-interference. Schmidt maintained that Germany’s strategic goal must be to maintain peace via good relations with all governments, including those with questionable human rights records. Subsequently reproachment through trade has been the cornerstone of German foreign policy.

Since the end of the Cold War, Germany has been directly involved in only two conflicts, notably remaining absent from the US invasion of Iraq. However, it still remained a veritable diplomatic and economic force in its own right. Germany provided the third largest contingent of troops to Afghanistan, accepted over a million Middle Eastern refugees after the Arab Spring, negotiated the Minsk Agreement between Ukraine and Russia following the latter’s annexation of Crimea and was a key supporter of the Iran nuclear deal.

As the US reeled from the effects of the Iraq War, Germany went from being the sick old man of Europe to the statesman of the free world. Through all of this, it continued to favour diplomacy over militancy and as such, maintained good working relationships with the unlikely trio of Washington, Moscow, and Beijing. Due to its ability to juggle the interests of competing nations, Foreign Policy columnist Stephen Walt argued that Germany deserved to win the 21st century “gold medal” for foreign policy.
Germany and Russia
Along with Berlin’s post-war commitment to pacifism, it also has a host of economic and security concerns that influences its relationship with Moscow.
The most important factor, and one which is often referred to, is Germany’s reliance on Russia to meet its energy needs. Russia provides 27% of Germany’s energy supply, accounting for two thirds of its natural gas consumption. Even at the height of the Cold War, Russia had always been a reliable source of gas for Germany, but the current German Finance Minister has warned that this could change if Scholtz attempts to punish Russia for its actions in Ukraine.

Were Moscow to shut off the pipes, the economies of Germany, and the rest of Europe, could be massively derailed. Energy prices have already skyrocketed since the invasion and there are very few short-term measures that can rectify Russia’s energy monopoly over Europe. In the event of a prolonged conflict, tougher Western sanctions and disruptions to Russia’s oil and gas exports would deliver an even bigger energy shock, possibly even resulting in a European recession.
Germany also has high trade volumes with Russia. According to 2019 data, Germany exports $30 billion to Russia and imports $19 billion. Moreover, given that the value of trade with Russia exceeded $80 billion in 2013, Germany is reluctant to suffer any more losses due to the Ukraine issue. China is also Germany’s second largest trade partner, and biggest importer of cars, and Berlin will be weary of setting a precedent that may comprise its relationship with nations that are friendly towards the Kremlin.
Germany’s third fear is Russia’s nuclear arsenal. Moscow’s military doctrine allows it to use nuclear weapons to end a conflict as part of its strategy to ‘escalate to de-escalate.’ So, when Putin put strategic forces on high alert on Sunday, powers in the West took it seriously. While conflicts between India and Pakistan, both nuclear states, put the world on high alert in the early 2000s, and Israel threatened to use nuclear weapons during the Yom Kippur War, Putin’s decision is the first time a recognised nuclear state has made preparations like this since the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. While Washington is separated from Moscow by a significant distance, Germany has no such protection in the event of a nuclear strike.
These considerations likely influenced Germany’s perceived apathy towards Ukraine in the early months of the conflict but as we are about to see, since then, Putin has arguably escalated tensions to a level that even passive Germany cannot ignore.
How has Germany reacted to the crisis
Initially, Germany reacted to the Ukraine crisis with its traditional diplomatic approach. On February 15, Scholtz visited Moscow in an attempt to salvage the Minsk Agreement but was soon made aware that Putin had closed off the paths to diplomacy. Germany continued to shuffle its feet with the Wall Street Journal lambasting the country for being “NATO’s weakest link” and the New York Times describing Scholz as the “invisible chancellor.”
Domestically, although polls reveal that few Germans want open conflict with Russia, Scholz was heavily criticised by the opposition, with one parliamentarian accusing him of seriously damaging Germany’s reputation abroad. It is also significant that on February 27, 100,000 Germans took to the streets to protest Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Polls are often outdated, and it seems as though recent events have caused the mood to change in Germany.

Perhaps aware of shifting sentiments, Germany has made a dramatic U-turn in its foreign policy. Right before Putin formally invaded Ukraine, Scholz declared at a White House press conference that it was willing to suspend the crucial Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would bypass Ukraine in bringing Russian natural gas to Germany. After Russian forces advanced into Ukraine, Scholtz made good on that promise.
It then abandoned its resistance to suspending some Russian lenders from the Swift financial system and allowed other countries to send Germany weaponry into Ukraine. Recently, it announced its own plans to send missiles, armoured vehicles, fuel, and weapons to help the Ukrainian government. Additionally, Germany vowed to speed up efforts to reduce its reliance on Russian oil and gas.
Newsletter | Click to get the day’s best explainers in your inbox
Most significantly, Scholz unveiled a 100 billion Euro fund to modernise the military and promised it would raise spending on defence from 1.5 per cent of GDP to the NATO target of 2 per cent. US Presidents have long called on Germany to meet its defensive obligations, but despite promising to do so in 2014, it has largely continued along the lines of 1.5 per cent.
Scholz justified the change in an address to parliament, even going as far as to propose that this commitment be enshrined in the German Constitution. This reveals a particularly futuristic line of thinking. It seems as though Germany is aware of the long-term risks posed by Russia and is bracing itself to deal with them accordingly. Like it was forced to do after World War II, Germany is once again revisiting its relationship with the world, this time seemingly opting for interventionism over pacifism.

!function(f,b,e,v,n,t,s)
{if(f.fbq)return;n=f.fbq=function(){n.callMethod?
n.callMethod.apply(n,arguments):n.queue.push(arguments)};
if(!f._fbq)f._fbq=n;n.push=n;n.loaded=!0;n.version=’2.0′;
n.queue=[];t=b.createElement(e);t.async=!0;
t.src=v;s=b.getElementsByTagName(e)[0];
s.parentNode.insertBefore(t,s)}(window, document,’script’,
‘https://connect.facebook.net/en_US/fbevents.js’);
fbq(‘init’, ‘444470064056909’);
fbq(‘track’, ‘PageView’);
.