En poursuivant votre navigation sur ce site, vous acceptez l'utilisation de cookies. Ces derniers assurent le bon fonctionnement de nos services. En savoir plus.

lundi, 24 mars 2014

The NATO Syndrome, the EU’s Eastern Partnership Program, and the EAU

LM_NET - EN BREF opération de l'OTAN en Libye (2013 11 20) FR.jpg

Kto Kogo?*


The NATO Syndrome, the EU’s Eastern Partnership Program, and the EAU


Ex: http://www.lewrockwell.com

In 2009, Poland and Sweden, ever attentive to the US’s geostrategic goals of isolating Russia and gaining control of China thereafter, initiated the Eastern Partnership program, which its sponsors said was intended to tighten ties with former Soviet Republics, such as Moldova, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Ukraine.  A trade pact is a part of the Partnership’s Association Agreement (AA) deal.

What the Russians saw in the EU initiative was a repeat of the “NATO Syndrome,” in that what was promised would soon be betrayed, i.e. no NATO expansion in exchange for a Soviet agreement to the reunification of Germany.

To Russian eyes, NATO’s 1999 expansion throughout Eastern Europe and the subsequent celebratory bombing campaign against Serbia, inaugurated just one month later, and the still later Albanian annexation of Serbia’s heartland province of Kosovo, were altogether the Clinton Administration’s triple-combo opening salvos in an American campaign to recreate the Versailles Treaty’s cordon sanitaire.  And the 2009 Association Agreement is but a Trojan horse whose only practical purpose is to advance US and EU interests at the expense of the former Soviet republics’ naïve hopes and Russian security.

Dangling the Association Agreement’s implied – but not certain – right of eventual EU membership before the economically struggling former Soviet republics was but a means to beguile them into the EU orbit and thus US control with a future as NATO base hosts and IMF lab rats.

When the terms of the AA are examined, Russian skepticism is understandable.  The 350 laws alone that Ukraine would be required to institute over a ten-year period at a cost of twice the nation’s projected GNP in the same time period would overwhelm the struggling country, few of whose industrial and manufacturing products are either wanted or needed in the EU.

But whether or not Ukraine ever managed to fulfill EU conditions for membership would be of no importance to the U.S.  Once bound tight with IMF conditions and saddled with World Bank loans and perpetual debt, thereafter the west could leave the AA’s signatories to rot in limbo for years while their territory, cheap labor and resources were put to other, alien purposes.

The Russians saw as well that both the countries of the former Soviet Union and Russia, sandwiched as they are between large geopolitical units (China and the EU,) are disadvantaged when negotiating trade treaties and other matters.  Thus was born the idea of a new structure, the Eurasian Union (EAU), which began with the establishment of a Customs Union between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan in 2010.  The Russian plan was to inaugurate the Eurasian Union in 2015 with the inclusion of Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Ukraine.

It is the Russian EAU initiative which is said to be Putin’s ham-fisted attempt to re-establish the Soviet empire, and not the plan of a man who accepts the world’s current political configuration and is attempting to place his country within that configuration as advantageously as possible.  It’s been a hard sell.

Without Ukraine, a Eurasian Union is at risk of never coalescing usefully, leaving the former republics and Russia vulnerable to neocon and globalist raids and incursions, possibly under cover of staged terrorist events.  In effect, the consequences might not be dissimilar from the days when Russian princes were run ragged repelling Tartar incursions from the south or the east, only having to turn and race westerly to beat back Lithuanian or Polish brigands.

By the week of the EU’s Eastern Partnership’s signing debut at the end of November 2013, Vladimir Putin had told Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovich that he could continue flirting with the EU, if he wished.  But if Ukraine wanted a trade agreement with Russia, with whom the lion’s share of Ukraine’s trade actually occurs, $15 billion in the coming year, cut-rate gas prices, industrial co-operation projects, and possible further credits, the country would agree to the EAU.  Compared to the $200 million the EU offered out of a total of $799 million for all eight targeted Association Agreement signers and a certain decade in EU cold storage while the country underwent an IMF-directed mauling, Yanukovich made the prudent choice.

When the Ukrainian president informed the EU that Ukraine’s participation in the AA would require further discussion, a reasonable position considering the AA as drafted, and that the country had agreed to the join the EAU, thousands of misguided and confused protestors appeared in the Maidan.  Once the terms of the Russian offer were made public, the protests began petering out.

But in both the Russians’ EAU game plan and that of the US’s effort to sabotage the EAU, Ukraine is key.  Protest crowds on the Maidan began to grow again amid reports that many in the crowd were working for a daily wage.  Whether paid or unpaid, bussed in from Moldova or fresh off the Kiev city tram, it’s certain Ukrainians were not demonstrating for the establishment of NATO bases or IMF agreements, a number of which have already floundered and failed.

Recent events are not the first time the US has used Ukraine in an attempt to displace Russia as a significant power by piercing its sphere of influence.

In 2004, Putin and then Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovich had begun to tackle the politicized supply structure Stalin created to make permanent the Soviet Union.  By changing national borders and spreading key industrial components over two or more republics, Stalin bound the Soviet empire together.  When the 15 constituent republics that made up the Soviet Union became independent nations in 1992, this cross-border supply structure created havoc.

Mighty Soviet aluminum smelters were located in Siberia, but supplies of bauxite were to be had only in Ukraine.  A component an electronics manufacturer in Kharkiv needed could only be obtained from a manufacturer in Vilnius.  Multiplying the complications for obtaining key inputs throughout the industrial and manufacturing sectors of 15 nascent and bankrupt governments gives a fuller understanding of why the former republics have failed to successfully restructure their national economies.

Putin’s and Yanukovich’s initial efforts were beneficial, particularly to eastern Ukraine, in which the republic’s industrial sector is concentrated.  In 2004, Ukraine experienced a 12% increase in GNP, and the national currency, the hryvnia, enjoyed a modest appreciation.

The US-sponsored 2004 Orange Revolution put paid to the Putin-Yanukovich initiatives, and the Ukrainian cycle of state officials’ theft and oligarchical favoritism began anew under US-presidential pick Viktor Yushchenko, a recent tradition of sorts which Yanukovich was eager to honor, as well.

Fast forward to 21 February 2014, the day of the Yanukovich government’s violent ouster.  Earlier that day, Germany, France and Poland had brokered a compromise agreement between the elected Ukrainian government and the protestors’ spokesmen.  Having already agreed and executed much of the protestors’ agenda, the pre-2004 Ukrainian constitution was to be restored and Yanukovich, in turn, would stay in the diminished office of the presidency until new elections could be organized.

Within 12 hours of the agreement’s signing, dozens of corpses of demonstrators and police killed by sniper fire were reported in the Maidan.  On Saturday, in an un-constitutional procedure the Ukrainian parliament impeached Yanukovich, who then fled to Russia in fear of his life.

The Russian Foreign Ministry Russian Foreign Ministry observed that the Friday agreement was used “with the tacit consent of its external sponsors” as a “cover to promote the script of a forced change of power in Ukraine.”  In other words, the Russians smelled a high-stakes trick.

Now that the Ashton-Paet tape has leaked, and despite its being obediently ignored by the mainstream media, one wonders what other actions the west may have known about, but left unremarked on that Friday. Did the EU negotiators know that the opposition they were then championing in accordance with US preferences had possibly directed snipers into the Maidan to murder demonstrators and policemen alike?

Russian warnings to the US and the EU about the rough crowd in Kiev they’d taken up with were ignored. An arrogant Washington, in accord with a famous Leninism regarding the expediency of temporary alliances, sees no problem.  Once Ukrainian hotheads and thugs have been bled of all possible utility, they will be eliminated. Think Egypt.

In response to the coup, Moscow swiftly drew a red line so bright it might as well have been flashing in neon: within a day of Yanukovich’s shambolic impeachment 150,000 Russian soldiers were engaged in military exercises not so very far from Russia’s border with eastern Ukraine, almost overnight Crimea was under Russian military control, a bottled-up Ukrainian navy was registering little alarm at their predicament, and further payments on the remaining $12 billion of the $15 billion cash infusion and cut-rate prices for Russian gas Putin had earlier agreed with the overturned Yanukovich government were shelved.

What the US and the EU immediately claimed was a Russian invasion of Ukraine was a long term leaseholder’s defense of its property right.  Even with 16,000 troops in Ukraine, Russia is not in violation of the terms of its lease on the Sevastopol naval base.  The lease, a treaty in fact, permits the stationing and multiple movements on Crimean territory of as many as 25,000 Russian troops.

The west’s claim of a Russian invasion of Crimea is intended to support Ukrainian control of the Kerch Strait, a waterway at the northern end of the Black Sea which separates Ukraine’s Crimea Peninsula from the coast of Southern Russia and is one of Ukraine’s three potentially oil-producing provinces. Gas reserves lie offshore of the peninsula.

The US believes Ukraine’s long term needs for energy and income can be satisfied by cutting deals with Big Oil to drill for oil and gas, which can then be shipped through Ukrainian pipelines to the EU, and Europe’s dependence on Russian gas a forgotten inconvenience.

Complicating western media scripts, the Crimean parliament voted on 6 March to rejoin the Russian Federation.  A public referendum on Sunday, 16 March, confirmed the parliament’s earlier vote and the 96.7% of the electorate that voted its approval tallies with a 93.2% approval when the same question was put to the electorate in a 1991 referendum.  In the run-up to the recent public vote, 1000s-strong pro-Russian demonstrations erupted in the eastern Ukrainian cities of Donetsk and Lugansk at which possibly western mercenaries hired by wealthy Ukrainian oligarchs played the role of spoilers.

Without foreign largesse, the new Ukrainian coup government can’t even pay the nation’s light bill much less a single Ukrainian soldier’s combat pay.  In fact, the cost of tidying up a Ukraine that has been criminally misgoverned for over two decades in order to accommodate EU standards and procedures is in the neighborhood of a $200 billion, years-long taxpayer liability.

To date, the US has pledged $1 billion and the EU is planning a $1.5 billion emergency transfer to tide the coup government over prior to an IMF agreement and all before the 25 May elections.  Within a week of their elevation-by-mob, interim government leaders embarked on a palms-out Grande Tour of sorts.  A combined sum of $35 billion in promised IMF loans is now the west’s opening bid.

US policy achievements on behalf of American taxpayers for their $5 billion investment to date:  State Department-approved Ukrainian coup government officials have asked for money to finance an “independent Ukraine,” the US and the EU have offered up a promise of $35 billion to insure an “independent Ukraine,” and an “independent Ukraine” has agreed to take the money.

Where are the Pravy Sektor defaulters when you need them?  Hmm?

Over the horizon lies a propaganda campaign devoted to browbeating at least some of the Ukrainians’ requested billions from Russia’s earlier deal with the Yanukovich government on what will be said to be a “humanitarian” basis.  Rather like the ancient practice of the condemned paying the executioner’s fee, it will be an effort to maneuver Russia into paying the initial costs of Ukraine’s first steps towards EU membership.

When the Ukrainian people understand that the price for daydreams of strolling the Champs d’Elysées with a pocketful of euros is an IMF restructuring that entails the devaluation of the hryvnia, cuts in pensions, benefits and salaries to state employees, raising of the retirement age, the removal of subsidies to coal and other underperforming industries, the growth of natural gas prices, and other toxic rules and conditions that will translate into a life harder and colder than it now is, more turmoil is guaranteed.

Turmoil is the very aim of contemporary US statecraft.  In the “divide and rule” political schemata of empire, US blunders are but new opportunities to tighten the screws on what the US policymakers regard not as nations, but as subject territories.

What is extraordinary is that EU officials are persisting in the attempt to squeeze agreement with the IMF and to the Eastern Partnership from Ukraine’s coup government prior to the 25 May elections, and thereby secure their agents’ permanent presence in the country as a thing done.  The EU rush speaks to the insincerity and weakness of any substantial EU commitment to aid Ukraine or her people.

The Russians’ refusal to recognize the coup government is correct; doing so would only work to support the inevitable US effort to trade a Ukrainian agreement to the AA to Russia in return for Ukraine’s acceptance of the loss of Crimea.

In the wake of the Crimean referendum, a hysterical western and specifically US-aligned media has been shouting warnings of a sudden Russian grab for eastern Ukraine.  Stalin could have written the script – for the Americans, who without any foreign influence whatsoever long ago established their own history of provoking attacks.

Confused overnight media reports of the death of a Ukrainian soldier in Crimea, which imply that Russian troops are responsible, but which locals say was a tragic consequence of a dust-up with Crimean self-defense forces and an unknown sniper,  are indicative of the Russians’ concern that the west will create the evidence that compels Putin to make good his promises of protection of Russians in western Ukraine.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said that Russian support for an OSCE observer mission in Ukraine is based on the need “of preventing provocations by ultranationalist and radical forces against Russian speakers and our compatriots in southeastern Ukraine and other regions.”

Contrary to western media’s repeated provocations, Russia has no interest in a divided Ukraine.  A divided country would only open Russia to endless enmity from western Ukrainians, and ongoing cross-border violence.  A division would be a tragedy for western Ukraine, which would bring increased economic misery and leave the country subject to a possible Polish annexation.

In truth, US scheming and bellicosity in Ukraine have only worked to drag the world back to the tired rhetoric of the cold war and to that era’s nuclear dangers and destructive tit-for-tat policies of economic sanctions, asset freezes, and boycotts.  The only bit of “new” is the threat of kicking Russia out of the irrelevant G-8’s treehouse.

The experience is rather like watching dinosaurs crashing about in a Steven Spielberg film.

The world is de-centralizing, and neither the rapidly changing times nor the world’s finances favor out-of-date multinational organizations, run-a-muck central banks, or rolling superpower seditions and military aggressions.

If so, then what explains Germany’s support of the US lead?  Since Russia supplies a third of the gas for Germany’s economy, risking Russia’s alienation seems unwise.

The cat western media doesn’t let out of the bag is the fact that Germany has a full tank of gas, and there’s plenty more from where that came from.

Gazprom’s Baltic Sea ‘Nord Stream’ project is complete and is now transporting Russian gas to Germany through a pipeline that transverses the bottom of the Baltic Sea, and the pipe’s capacity is double the amount of gas Germany purchased from Russia in 2012.  Since 2005, the chairman of the supervisory board of the management company of Nord Stream is Gerhard Shröder, the former German chancellor.

Gazprom in conjunction with Italy, France and Germany is building a second pipe, South Stream. The former SPD mayor of Hamburg, Henning Voscherau, plays the same supervisory role at South Stream Transport AG as Shröder does at Nord Stream.

Interestingly, the Financial Times reported that the City’s skittishness in the wake of John Kerry’s idiotic ultimatum to Putin to renounce in advance the results of the referendum in Crimea put ‘half a dozen live deals to fund some of Russia’s biggest companies” in limbo.”  But the FT article highlighted one deal that was not put in limbo:  “South Stream announced that it had signed a contract worth about EUR2 billion with Saipem of Italy to build the offshore stretch of the route under the Black Sea from Russia to Bulgaria. Construction is scheduled to start in June.”

Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller has been quoted as saying that the two projects in combination with the already-existing Belorussian “Beltansgaz” pipe would turn Ukraine’s network of gas pipelines and biggest strategic asset into “scrap.”

In other words, Germany’s verbal support for the west’s initiatives costs Germany exactly nothing.  Any actions beyond the symbolic would cost Germany.  Therefore, there will be no EU sanctions of consequence.  Even were Germany on side for a US-decreed suicide mission, twenty-eight nations’ governments are not going to agree to economic policies that will take the cost out of their own hides. In other words, no State Department neo-con princess is going to ‘’F**k the EU.”

With the Nord and South stream projects in hand, Germany, which has prospered mightily from the euro, but whose taxpayers are weary of bankrolling the sinking Mediterranean countries’ loans made by the prosperous north’s banks, has positioned itself remarkably well; in an EU financial pile-up, exiting the EU wouldn’t amount to much more than a fender bender.

Now that west has adopted Bolshevik political tools, the Russians ought to keep turning the tables and counter with what the west advocates only with words, i.e. freedom and economic competition.

An EAU based on free trade in which there are no tariffs, no quotas, and no favoritism by or for any member and which allowed for associate members would put the Soviet boogieman back in the closet.  A free trade pact would allow Russia and the former republics to reap the benefits of the spontaneous order that the world’s people are building daily on the internet without any state’s direction or even much of an awareness of what they are doing.

There would be costs to Russia for such an arrangement, and a subsidized energy program for certain former republics would have to be included initially, (and would be difficult to retire when no longer needed.)  But those initial costs would be less than the long term ones of state-managed trade agreements at which literally thousands of government lawyers and bureaucrats labor continually in order to first design and then police the treaties, which protect and favor individual nation’s corporate political funders at consumers’ expense.

An unhindered market-driven trade block would quickly rationalize the last vestiges of Stalin’s cross-border supply system at no cost to the Kremlin.  Endemic corruption would diminish since no bribes need be paid for permissions no longer required.  Overall, commerce and enterprise would be favored throughout the EAU.

A trade apparatus in which competing private entities provide reliable and efficient transport, short and intermediate term trade finance, goods insurance, and rapid dispute resolution in private courts would work to swell EAU membership rolls.  An EAU supportive of co-operative and unfettered trade would draw foreign investment, and new applicants for membership both within and outside of the CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States).

Would Russia ever initiate such a system?

The Russian love of everything big rather than the small and the quick argues against.  An unfortunate predilection towards monopoly, a modern manifestation of the legacy of the votchina structure of property rights established in the ancient Kievian state of ‘Rus, also posits a no.  Ditto the exhaustively detailed agreements covering every right and every duty between contracting parties. These elements all boil down to, for instance, Gazprom’s cultural and business preference for signing a single, complex, multi-year contract with Germany’s Ruhrgas, and not many agreements with a plethora of independent suppliers.

Still, the west would be wrong to write off the possibility of having to compete with a lean and mean EAU trade block.  Russia has demonstrated a capability for surprise.

After all, who would have thought in 2001 that the president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, would liberate the greatest number of people on the planet?

“Say what!?” you ask.

If any reader knows of another leader of a major power, who instituted a flat tax of 13% or less, and thereby liberated his people from the necessity of burdensome record keeping and government tracking, while eliminating from households’ budgets the grievous costs of accountants, tax lawyers, offshore scams, and sparing everyday life the social costs inherent in a society riven by the divisiveness that comes of progressive taxation, then, dear reader, please do email me that name.


Kto kogo? was one of Vladimir Lenin’s favorite expressions. Literally, the phrase means “Who of whom,” and is perhaps best translated as “Who will triumph (over whom)?”  The ‘g’ in kogo is pronounced as a ‘v’.


Corporate Interests Behind Ukraine Putsch


Corporate Interests Behind Ukraine Putsch

Behind the U.S.-backed coup that ousted the democratically elected president of Ukraine are the economic interests of giant corporations – from Cargill to Chevron – which see the country as a potential “gold mine” of profits from agricultural and energy exploitation, reports JP Sottile.

By JP Sottile

On Jan. 12, a reported 50,000 “pro-Western” Ukrainians descended upon Kiev’s Independence Square to protest against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych. Stoked in part by an attack on opposition leader Yuriy Lutsenko, the protest marked the beginning of the end of Yanukovych’s four year-long government.

That same day, the Financial Times reported a major deal for U.S. agribusiness titan Cargill.

Despite the turmoil within Ukrainian politics after Yanukovych rejected a major trade deal with the European Union just seven weeks earlier, Cargill was confident enough about the future to fork over $200 million to buy a stake in Ukraine’s UkrLandFarming. According to Financial Times, UkrLandFarming is the world’s eighth-largest land cultivator and second biggest egg producer. And those aren’t the only eggs in Cargill’s increasingly-ample basket.

On Dec. 13, Cargill announced the purchase of a stake in a Black Sea port. Cargill’s port at Novorossiysk — to the east of Russia’s strategically significant and historically important Crimean naval base — gives them a major entry-point to Russian markets and adds them to the list of Big Ag companies investing in ports around the Black Sea, both in Russia and Ukraine.

Cargill has been in Ukraine for over two decades, investing in grain elevators and acquiring a major Ukrainian animal feed company in 2011. And, based on its investment in UkrLandFarming, Cargill was decidedly confident amidst the post-EU deal chaos. It’s a stark juxtaposition to the alarm bells ringing out from the U.S. media, bellicose politicians on Capitol Hill and perplexed policymakers in the White House.

It’s even starker when compared to the anxiety expressed by Morgan Williams, President and CEO of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council — which, according to its website, has been “Promoting U.S.-Ukraine business relations since 1995.” Williams was interviewed by the International Business Times on March 13 and, despite Cargill’s demonstrated willingness to spend, he said, “The instability has forced businesses to just go about their daily business and not make future plans for investment, expansion and hiring more employees.”

In fact, Williams, who does double-duty as Director of Government Affairs at the private equity firm SigmaBleyzer, claimed, “Business plans have been at a standstill.”

Apparently, he wasn’t aware of Cargill’s investment, which is odd given the fact that he could’ve simply called Van A. Yeutter, Vice President for Corporate Affairs at Cargill, and asked him about his company’s quite active business plan. There is little doubt Williams has the phone number because Mr. Yuetter serves on the Executive Committee of the selfsame U.S.-Ukraine Business Council. It’s quite a cozy investment club, too.

According to his SigmaBleyzer profile, Williams “started his work regarding Ukraine in 1992” and has since advised American agribusinesses “investing in the former Soviet Union.” As an experienced fixer for Big Ag, he must be fairly friendly with the folks on the Executive Committee.

Big Ag Luminaries

And what a committee it is — it’s a veritable who’s who of Big Ag. Among the luminaries working tirelessly and no doubt selflessly for a better, freer Ukraine are:

–Melissa Agustin, Director, International Government Affairs & Trade for Monsanto

–Brigitte Dias Ferreira, Counsel, International Affairs for John Deere

–Steven Nadherny, Director, Institutional Relations for agriculture equipment-maker CNH Industrial

–Jeff Rowe, Regional Director for DuPont Pioneer

–John F. Steele, Director, International Affairs for Eli Lilly & Company

And, of course, Cargill’s Van A. Yeutter. But Cargill isn’t alone in their warm feelings toward Ukraine. As Reuters reported in May 2013, Monsanto — the largest seed company in the world — plans to build a $140 million “non-GM (genetically modified) corn seed plant in Ukraine.”

And right after the decision on the EU trade deal, Jesus Madrazo, Monsanto’s Vice President for Corporate Engagement, reaffirmed his company’s “commitment to Ukraine” and “the importance of creating a favorable environment that encourages innovation and fosters the continued development of agriculture.”

Monsanto’s strategy includes a little “hearts and minds” public relations, too. On the heels of Mr. Madrazo’s reaffirmation, Monsanto announced “a social development program titled “Grain Basket of the Future” to help rural villagers in the country improve their quality of life.” The initiative will dole out grants of up to $25,000 to develop programs providing “educational opportunities, community empowerment, or small business development.”

The well-crafted moniker “Grain Basket of the Future” is telling because, once upon a time, Ukraine was known as “the breadbasket” of the Soviet Union. The CIA ranks Soviet-era Ukraine second only to Mother Russia as the “most economically important component of the former Soviet Union.”

In many ways, the farmland of Ukraine was the backbone of the USSR. Its “fertile black soil” generated over a quarter of the USSR’s agriculture. It exported “substantial quantities” of food to other republics and its farms generated four times the output of “the next-ranking republic.”

Although Ukraine’s agricultural output plummeted in the first decade after the break-up of the Soviet Union, the farming sector has been growing spectacularly in recent years. While Europe struggled to shake-off the Great Recession, Ukraine’s agriculture sector grew 13.7% in 2013.

Ukraine’s agriculture economy is hot. Russia’s is not. Hampered by the effects of climate change and 25 million hectares of uncultivated agricultural land, Russia lags behind its former breadbasket.

According to the Centre for Eastern Studies, Ukraine’s agricultural exports rose from $4.3 billion in 2005 to $17.9 billion in 2012 and, harkening the heyday of the USSR, farming currently accounts for 25 percent of its total exports. Ukraine is also the world’s third-largest exporter of wheat and of corn. And corn is not just food. It is also ethanol.

Feeding Europe

But people gotta eat — particularly in Europe. As Frank Holmes of U.S. Global Investors assessed in 2011, Ukraine is poised to become Europe’s butcher. Meat is difficult to ship, but Ukraine is perfectly located to satiate Europe’s hunger.

Just two days after Cargill bought into UkrLandFarming, Global Meat News (yes, “Global Meat News” is a thing) reported a huge forecasted spike in “all kinds” of Ukrainian meat exports, with an increase of  8.1% overall and staggering 71.4% spike in pork exports. No wonder Eli Lilly is represented on the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council’s Executive Committee. Its Elanco Animal Health unit is a major manufacturer of feed supplements.

And it is also notable that Monsanto’s planned seed plant is non-GMO, perhaps anticipating an emerging GMO-unfriendly European market and Europe’s growing appetite for organic foods. When it comes to Big Ag’s profitable future in Europe, the stakes couldn’t be higher.

For Russia and its hampered farming economy, it’s another in a long string of losses to U.S. encroachment — from NATO expansion into Eastern Europe to U.S. military presence to its south and onto a major shale gas development deal recently signed by Chevron in Ukraine.

So, why was Big Ag so bullish on Ukraine, even in the face of so much uncertainty and the predictable reaction by Russia?

The answer is that the seeds of Ukraine’s turn from Russia have been sown for the last two decades by the persistent Cold War alliance between corporations and foreign policy. It’s a version of the “Deep State” that is usually associated with the oil and defense industries, but also exists in America’s other heavily subsidized industry — agriculture.

Morgan Williams is at the nexus of Big Ag’s alliance with U.S. foreign policy. To wit, SigmaBleyzer touts Mr. Williams’ work with “various agencies of the U.S. government, members of Congress, congressional committees, the Embassy of Ukraine to the U.S., international financial institutions, think tanks and other organizations on U.S.-Ukraine business, trade, investment and economic development issues.”

As President of the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council, Williams has access to Council cohort — David Kramer, President of Freedom House. Officially a non-governmental organization, it has been linked with overt and covert “democracy” efforts in places where the door isn’t open to American interests — a.k.a. U.S. corporations.

Freedom House, the National Endowment for Democracy and National Democratic Institute helped fund and support the Ukrainian “Orange Revolution” in 2004. Freedom House is funded directly by the U.S. Government, the National Endowment for Democracy and the U.S. Department of State.

David Kramer is a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs and, according to his Freedom House bio page, formerly a “Senior Fellow at the Project for the New American Century.”

Nuland’s Role

That puts Kramer and, by one degree of separation, Big Ag fixer Morgan Williams in the company of PNAC co-founder Robert Kagan who, as coincidence would have it, is married to Victoria “F*ck the EU” Nuland, the current Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.

Interestingly enough, Ms. Nuland spoke to the U.S.-Ukrainian Foundation last Dec. 13, extolling the virtues of the Euromaidan movement as the embodiment of “the principles and values that are the cornerstones for all free democracies.”

Nuland also told the group that the United States had invested more than $5 billion in support of Ukraine’s “European aspirations,” meaning pulling Ukraine away from Russia. She made her remarks on a dais featuring a backdrop emblazoned with a Chevron logo.

Also, her colleague and phone call buddy U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt helped Chevron cook up their 50-year shale gas deal right in Russia’s kitchen.

Although Chevron sponsored that event, it is not listed as a supporter of the Foundation. But the Foundation does list the Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil and Raytheon as major sponsors. And, to close the circle of influence, the U.S.-Ukraine Business Council is also listed as a supporter.

Which brings the story back to Big Ag’s fixer — Morgan Williams.

Although he was glum about the current state of investment in Ukraine, he’s gotta wear shades when he looks into the future. He told the International Business Times, “The potential here for agriculture/agribusiness is amazing … production here could double.  The world needs the food Ukraine could produce in the future. Ukraine’s agriculture could be a real gold mine.”

Of course, his priority is to ensure that the bread of well-connected businesses gets lavishly buttered in Russia’s former breadbasket. And there is no better connected group of Ukraine-interested corporations than American agribusiness.

Given the extent of U.S. official involvement in Ukrainian politics — including the interesting fact that Ambassador Pyatt pledged U.S. assistance to the new government in investigating and rooting-out corruption — Cargill’s seemingly risky investment strategy probably wasn’t that risky, after all.

JP Sottile is a freelance journalist, radio co-host, documentary filmmaker and former broadcast news producer in Washington, D.C. His weekly show, Inside the Headlines w/ The Newsvandal, co-hosted by James Moore, airs every Friday on KRUU-FM in Fairfield, Iowa and is available online. He blogs at Newsvandal.com or you can follow him on Twitter, http://twitter/newsvandal.

dimanche, 23 mars 2014

Crimea’s Reunification with Russia and National Self-Determination Trends in Europe


Crimea’s Reunification with Russia and National Self-Determination Trends in Europe, Time for Peoples to Decide Their Own Fates

Dmitry MININ

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

The Crimea’s return to Russia is a hot issue, but it’s not something absolutely extraordinary for Europe. Pretty soon the international community’s attention will switch over to other important and unexpected events related to the desire of peoples to implement their right to self-determination. 

As European history shows, the national states normally appear as a result of big wars: Germany and Italy were unified in the 70s of XIX century and new states emerged in the Balkans. As WWI and WWII ended, Europe has been facing vibrant events leading to the creation of new states and reshaping of borders. I thought that the period of 1989 -1992 was the time of the fourth wave of European map reshaping as the Cold War was over and a number of former socialist states dismembered. 23 states have appeared, or 24 entities if Kosovo is counted, in the place of Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia as of 1989. The whole Slav world actually has gone through a transition period leading to the emergence of national states. The number is 13 now, but the figure is believed to bring bad luck, something that makes experts believe one more addition to the count – a state of Carpathian Rusyns - would just hit the spot as this is the only Slav nation still destitute of statehood and national identification. 

A group of Western states led by the United States and other NATO members actually inspired the fourth wave using the energy of nationalism to weaken a geopolitical adversary. But once started, a chain reaction is hard to stop. It has not been extinguished during all these twenty years but was rather shouldering waiting for the time to come. Back in history, a national partition used to happen after two-three generations, nowadays one generation is enough. Now the fifth wave of national identification is striking Europe and it is not necessarily linked to wars. Some peoples, especially in the West, continue to face the trends to partition, while others are in the process of unification, like in the case of Russia, for instance. Crimea is a more a left-over from the 1990s, and the main events are expected to take place soon not in the post-Soviet space, but rather in the «united» Europe. The Crimean referendum may influence the situation to some extent, but, in essence, it’ll be a backlash to the process launched by the West. These are the whims of Nemesis, the goddess of revenge. 

First of all, new tensions are getting high where national problems are still waiting for final solutions, or in the states of the Western Europe, and it is a heavy burden to be shouldered by Brussels. The risk of the use of force is high. Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina have been dreaming about a national entity - the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia - or joining Croatia since the days of the war. Serbs still cherish plans for the Republic of Srpska to become independent or become part of Serbia. Bosnian Muslims have been staging social protests for a few months, it’s not about economy only, they also raise the issue of national identity. The regional Muslim movement for autonomy in the Sanjak situated between Montenegro and Serbia would like to unite with the people of the same religion living in the north to make Greater Bosnia emerge. 

Serbs in In Kosovo-Mitrovica are especially elated by the Crimea events. They intend to intensify the pressure on Belgrade to make it insist they stay out of Pristina control. The Albanians in western Macedonia proclaimed the foundation of the Republic of Illirida in 1990, now they want the status of federal entity. In Bulgaria the trend to claim the larger part of eastern Macedonia is on the rise. Bulgarians believe the land rightfully belongs to them. Romania sets its eyes on Moldavia. Inside Romania the Székely Hungarians have intensified their activities. Almost all of them have Hungarian passports and demand self-determination for a large part of Transylvania as the first step on the way of unification with motherland. Slovakia and Serbian Voevodina face the same problems with Hungarian population. Formally Poland unambiguously supports the Kiev government, but experts have already expressed the opinion that the time has come to return the eastern kresy (borderlands in western Ukraine which is a former territory of the eastern provinces of Poland) into Rzeczpospolita (Poland). 

In Western Europe separatism has two trends: non-recognition of existing borders (in Belgium, Spain, Great Britain, Italy, France, Denmark and Germany) and negative attitude towards the EU itself. The November 2012 survey held in the UK showed the majority (56%) say «no» to the European Union and would prefer to leave. Prime Minister David Cameron has already said it’s a cut-and dried decision to hold a referendum on the issue. Germany follows the trend: 49% respondents there said they would be better off without the EU. Adding the sinking Ukraine to the pile of EU burdens will obviously strengthen the trend. The introduction of large-scale sanctions against Russia will inevitably lead to the general deterioration of economic situation in Europe putting the EU on the brink of disintegration. Some scenarios envision Europe as a federal state comprising 75 national states. This vision belongs to Daniel Cohn-Bendit of Germany’s Green Party and Guy Verhofstadt, former Prime Minister of Belgium, an author of a popular manifest on federal Europe. 

Talking about individual states, the partition of Great Britain is seen as inevitable. Simon Thomas, a Welsh Plaid Cymru party politician, believes that the 2014 referendum in Scotland will become an icebreaker moving across all the parts of the UK. According to him, the promulgation of Scotland’s independence means the partition of Great Britain. He believes that Scotland is the best example. Still Northern Iceland and Wales are in for changes. Simon Thomas thinks that it would be better for Wales to stay in the united Europe in case it leaves the UK. Not much time is left till the referendum slated for September 18 takes place. Scotland is attentively following the events in Crimea. It would be relevant to ask why something allowed once should be forbidden in other cases? Is it that "Gods may do what cattle may not»?

Germany still remains one state due to the inertia of recent unification, but it may not be immune to partition in the long run. It consists of different parts with the dialects that differ more than Russian and Ukrainian languages, for instance. 

The trend is on the rise – those who live in Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg don’t want to share with «hangers-on» from other, less prosperous, German lands. Wilfried Scharnagl, a high-standing member of the ruling Bavarian Christian Social Union party, has recently published his sensational book Freedom from Germany trying to wake up the Bavarian political establishment which has been surreptitiously dreaming about independence. 

In Italy the Northern League (Lega Nord) has been gaining strength since the 1960-70s cherishing dreams about separating from loafers, mafiosi and hedonists in the south by uniting into Padania, the land of hard working northerners. These kinds of ideas have become most popular as the crisis set in making the regions tighten their belts to increase aid to southern provinces deep in debt. Alto Adige (South Tyrol) is mainly populated by Austrians; it became part of Italy after WWII. The separatist trends there are on the rise. Venice has already launched a five-day referendum on splitting from Rome. The poll was organized by local activists and parties, who want a future state called Republic of Veneto. This would be reminiscent of the sovereign Venetian republic that existed for more than 1,000 years. 


In France, the voices calling for autonomy or even secession from Paris are heard louder in Corse, Alsace and Bretagne. 

In Spain Catalonia is demanding independence with Galicia and the Basque country ready to follow suit. A referendum in Catalonia is slated for November 4, no matter the central government in Madrid opposes the action. Barcelona has no intention to retreat. Here is a one more precedent relevant to the referendum just held in Crimea. 

 The attempts to keep Flanders and Wallonia together as parts of Belgium stymie, and Brussels, the European capital, risks remaining an entity with vaguely defined status. 

There are overseas forces that have fostered the separatist trends guided by the good old «rule and divide!» principle. Of course, the USA would like to see divided the West and the East of the continent. The separatist sentiments, limited by the West against the background of opposite trends picking up steam in the East, hardly meet the Washington’s goals. The US has failed to take into consideration just one thing. The peoples’ right to self-determination does not only presuppose a partition in case they don’t want to live together, but also unification if it meets the prevailing aspirations. Russia has overcome the negative trends emerged as a result of imposed disintegration and stepped on the different path of consolidation. That’s why the White House is so vibrant in its opposition to what is happening around Ukraine. The great strategic plan of «continents big game» is getting frustrated. As the history goes to show – Crimea is just the first step. 

Para Londres “los votos de Crimea no valen”, pero “los de Malvinas y Kosovo si"

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

El Reino Unido respeta el derecho de los pueblos a la autodeterminación cuando eso conviene a sus intereses, según afirmó la analista política Nana Yakovenko.

Ante la negativa de Occidente a reconocer la legitimidad del referéndum en Crimea, la experta, citada por el portal Inosmi, recordó que la postura del Reino Unido sobre otros ejemplos de plebiscito, como el referéndum en las islas Malvinas, fue absolutamente contraria a la que mantiene ahora.

El embajador británico en la ONU, Mark Grant, afirmó en el  Consejo de Seguridad el 7 de agosto pasado: "En marzo pasado los residentes de las Malvinas aprovecharon su derecho a la autodeterminación mediante un referéndum y apoyaron en su mayoría su permanencia como territorio de ultramar del Reino Unido. No se puede ignorar la opinión de los isleños. El asunto de la soberanía de las Malvinas no se puede decidir en contra de sus deseos".

Otro ejemplo de la inconsistencia de Londres es la declaración unilateral de independencia de Kosovo en el año 2008.  

"La secesión de una parte de Estado de por sí no contradice a las leyes  internacionales", reza el memorándum del Gobierno británico presentado al Tribunal Internacional de Justicia al respecto de este caso.  

"En general, las leyes internacionales no prohíben la secesión ni prestan garantías de integridad a los Estados ante movimientos internos que puedan llevar a la separación o independencia apoyados por sus pertinentes pueblos", según el documento.

Resulta que en el caso de las Malvinas y Kosovo, Londres  prioriza la democracia y el derecho de los pueblos a la autodeterminación, "ideas a las que Rusia propone que se atenga la comunidad internacional en lo que se refiere a Crimea", resaltó Yakovenko.

La analista recordó que en el pasado, la inclinación prorrusa también prevalecía en la mayor parte de la opinión pública de los residentes de Crimea.

samedi, 22 mars 2014

La sombra de BHL planea sobre Ucrania

por Adriano Erriguel

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

El peligro existe… ¿Qué digo? La masacre ya ha comenzado. Ya han empezado, como en Kosovo, a mutilar, decapitar y ejecutar de un tiro en la nuca a los habitantes de pueblos enteros. Y entonces, sí, tenemos buenas razones para intervenir y detener la carnicería (…) Será precisamente al dejar el regazo ucranio cuando algunos de los mencionados crimeos – y pienso en primer lugar en los tártaros – correrían el riesgo de ser asesinados”. Así se explicaba en un reciente artículo (publicado en España por El País) el millonario y filósofo Bernard-Henry Levi (“BHL”, marca registrada) sobre la crisis en Ucrania. Cabe suponer que se ha quedado a gusto. Ser capaz de deslizar – con subterfugios de retórica alambicada – una patraña de gran calibre y conseguir que los medios internacionales la recojan tiene que producir un gozo megalómano. Y si con ello además hace lo mejor que sabe hacer, incitar a la guerra, entonces tiene que ser el clímax.

La última gran gesta de este personaje tuvo lugar durante la guerra en Libia, país al que, aprovechando su conexión personal con el Eliseo, BHL contribuyó como pocos a destruir. En la presente crisis en Ucrania, como era previsible, no le ha faltado tiempo para acudir a Kiev a chupar cámara y a aportar el solaz de su palabra a los demócratas de turno: invocaciones a la Bastilla, a las barricadas, a la sangre que se vertirá “si llega lo peor”, despedida “con el corazón en un puño” y avión de vuelta a casa antes de que las balas comiencen a silbar.

BHL ha olido sangre. Y si viviéramos en la zona habría motivos para estar más que preocupados: la aparición en el horizonte de este pájaro de mal agüero suele marcar la hora fatídica en la que las bombas empiezan a caer y los cadáveres comienzan a apilarse. BHL es un turista universal de las guerras que él contribuye a atizar, y a las que acude con un enjambre de cámaras, estilistas y majorettes para hacerse la foto en pose de intelectual engagé con melena al viento y fondo de muerte y destrucción. Y es que, según sus propias palabras, “el arte de la filosofía sólo vale si es un arte de la guerra”.

BHL no es anécdota, es categoría. Porque como intelectual al servicio de los poderes hegemónicos representa la vacuidad de la moralina que esos mismos poderes utilizan para formatear un orden internacional a su servicio. ¿Cómo es el mundo según BHL? Una lucha cósmica en la que los defensores de la sociedad abierta, de la ilustración, de la ciudadanía universal y del libre mercado como fuente suprema de felicidad se enfrentan a los tiranos sanguinarios que se interponen en el camino de ese sueño libertario. Una lucha a muerte en la que BHL pone el verbo florido y otros ponen los muertos. Y en la que los derechos humanos – sabiamente administrados por su sumo sacerdotiso BHL – aportan con su uso selectivo la legitimación necesaria para hacer y deshacer países, en aras a un modelo de globalización unipolar y en beneficio de una elite transnacional globalizada. “Pequeño telegrafista del Imperio”, llamó hace tiempo un político francés (Jean-Pierre Chevènement) a BHL. La función de este sultán de la rive gauche consiste en aportar un marchamo intelectual de preciosa ridícula parisina a los designios estratégicos de la CIA.

Claro que en este caso no se trata de un país de chichinabo de esos que el Imperio está acostumbrado a avasallar. Un dato éste que no resta brío al delirium tremens belicista de un filósofo-millonario que ya está amagando con la “intervención” (¿y por donde empezamos BHL, por un desembarco en Sebastopol o directamente por un bombardeo de misiles nucleares tácticos?). Pero dadas las circunstancias no es descartable que en este caso la realpolitik prevalezca y que BHL tenga que mantenerse a raya del proceso de toma de decisiones. Esperemos por el bien de todos que su intervención directa en esta crisis no vaya más allá de su impagable aparición en Kiev hace unas semanas para predicar la democracia y la sociedad abierta ante los neonazis armados de Pravy Sektor y Svobodna que atiborraban la plaza del Maidán (y que seguramente estarían preguntándose de dónde salió este gilipollas).

Decíamos que BHL no es anécdota, es categoría. Es la demostración de que – como decía Braudillard – la realidad ha sido asesinada por lo virtual y de que vivimos en la sociedad del simulacro. En el imperio de lo banal o en la edad del vacío. En su mitología personal el millonario-filósofo se sueña Byron o Malraux, y sólo consigue ser… ¡BHL!


Peter Scholl-Latour: Die Krim ist russisch

Peter Scholl-Latour: Die Krim ist russisch




Claudio Mutti

Ex: http://www.eurasia-rivista.org


In seguito ai risultati referendari con cui una decina d’anni fa l’elettorato francese e olandese respinse la bozza della “Costituzione europea”, “Eurasia” pubblicò un breve dibattito tra me e Costanzo Preve sul tema Che farne dell’Unione Europea?

Il nostro compianto collaboratore scriveva tra l’altro: “Per poter perseguire la prospettiva politica, culturale e geopolitica di un’alleanza strategica fra i continenti europeo ed asiatico contro l’egemonismo imperiale americano, prospettiva che ha come presupposto una certa idea di Europa militarmente autonoma dagli USA e dal loro barbaro dominio, bisogna prima (sottolineo: prima) sconfiggere questa Europa, neoliberale (e quindi oligarchica) in economia ed euroatlantica (e quindi asservita) in politica e diplomazia. Senza sconfiggere prima questa Europa non solo non esiste eurasiatismo possibile, ma non esiste neppure un vero europeismo possibile”.

Da parte mia osservavo come nel risultato del voto francese e olandese si fossero manifestati non tanto il rifiuto dell’occidentalismo e del neoliberismo, quanto quei diffusi orientamenti “euroscettici” che, essendo espressione di irrealistiche nostalgie micronazionaliste se non addirittura del tribalismo etnico e localista, non solo non possono essere considerati alternativi alla globalizzazione mondialista, ma sono oggettivamente funzionali alla strategia dell’imperialismo statunitense. La mia conclusione, che qui ripropongo, era la seguente.

“La prima cosa da fare, sarebbe cominciare a gettare le basi per la formazione dei quadri di un movimento continentale che agisca per l’unità politica dell’Europa, in relazione solidale con tutte quelle forze politiche (governi, partiti, gruppi ecc.) che negli altri grandi spazi dell’Eurasia lottano per la nascita di un blocco eurasiatico capace di porre termine al tentativo statunitense di conquista del mondo. Solo un movimento politico strutturato su scala europea potrebbe avere la forza necessaria per sviluppare, nei confronti dell’Europa dei burocrati e dei tecnocrati, un’opposizione di senso algebrico opposta a quella degli euroscettici, un’opposizione cioè che sia finalizzata sì a buttar via l’acqua sporca del neoliberismo, ma anche a salvare il bambino europeo, per curarlo, riplasmarlo ed infondergli un’anima migliore”.

* * *

Oggi, a distanza di circa un decennio, l’acqua sporca è più sporca che mai e il bambino sta rischiando di morire. Siamo alla vigilia dell’elezione del nuovo Parlamento e i sondaggi dicono che il 53% dei cittadini europei non si sente europeo. A quanto pare, il “patriottismo costituzionale” teorizzato da Habermas non ha suscitato un grande entusiasmo.

D’altronde l’Europa liberaldemocratica, anziché sottrarsi all’egemonia statunitense ed avviare la costruzione di una propria potenza politica e militare nel “grande spazio” che le compete nel continente eurasiatico, stabilendo un’intesa solidale con le altre grandi potenze continentali, sembra impegnata a rinsaldare la propria collocazione nell’area occidentale ed a perpetuare il proprio asservimento nei confronti dell’imperialismo nordamericano.

L’Unione Europea e le cancellerie europee, dopo aver collaborato con Washington nel tentativo di ristrutturare il Nordafrica e il Vicino Oriente in conformità coi progetti statunitensi, si sono allineate col Dipartimento di Stato nordamericano nel sostenere la sovversione golpista in Ucraina, al fine di impedire che questo Paese confluisca nell’Unione doganale eurasiatica e trasformarlo in un avamposto della NATO nell’aggressione atlantica contro la Russia.

In tal modo l’Unione Europea coopera attivamente alla realizzazione del progetto di conquista elaborato dagli strateghi della Casa Bianca, secondo il quale l’Europa deve svolgere la funzione di una “testa di ponte democratica” [the democratic bridgehead] degli Stati Uniti in Eurasia. Scrive infatti Zbigniew Brzezinski: “L’Europa è la fondamentale testa di ponte geopolitica dell’America in Eurasia [Europe is America's essential geopolitical bridgehead in Eurasia]. Il ruolo dell’America nell’Europa democratica è enorme.

Diversamente dai vincoli dell’America col Giappone, la NATO rafforza l’influenza politica e il potere militare americani sul continente eurasiatico. Con le nazioni europee alleate che ancora dipendono considerevolmente dalla protezione USA, qualunque espansione del campo d’azione politico dell’Europa è automaticamente un’espansione dell’influenza statunitense. Un’Europa allargata e una NATO allargata serviranno gl’interessi a breve e a lungo termine della politica europea. Un’Europa allargata estenderà il raggio dell’influenza americana senza creare, allo stesso tempo, un’Europa così politicamente integrata che sia in grado di sfidare gli Stati Uniti in questioni di rilievo geopolitico, in particolare nel Vicino Oriente. Un’Europa politicamente definita è essenziale per assimilare la Russia in un sistema di cooperazione globale. (…) Un’Ucraina sovrana è una componente di importanza critica in una politica di questo genere, poiché costituisce un sostegno per Stati strategicamente decisivi [strategically pivotal states] come l’Azerbaigian e l’Uzbekistan”1.

Da Mackinder in poi, la strategia geopolitica della potenza talassocratica è sempre la stessa: occorre frazionare la regione-perno, puntando sull’effetto disgregante insito in quelle linee di faglia che corrono all’interno dei cosiddetti “paesi divisi”, cioè di quei paesi in cui consistenti gruppi di popolazione appartengono a culture diverse. Un anno prima che Brzezinski teorizzi la “testa di ponte democratica” in Eurasia, Samuel Huntington, prospettando la possibilità che l’Ucraina “si spacchi in due diverse entità e che la parte orientale del paese venga annessa alla Russia” (2), considera necessario “un forte ed efficace sostegno occidentale, che a sua volta potrebbe giungere solo qualora i rapporti tra Russia e Occidente si deteriorassero come ai tempi della Guerra fredda” (3).

L’interesse vitale dell’Europa non coincide coi piani di conquista nordamericani. L’Europa e la Russia, se vogliono esercitare un peso decisivo sulla ripartizione del potere mondiale, devono instaurare una stretta intesa che obbedisca agl’imperativi della loro complementarità geoeconomica e stabilire un’alleanza politico-militare che contribuisca alla difesa della sovranità eurasiatica. Solo così sarà possibile controbilanciare le iniziative intese a destabilizzare il Continente, risolvere le questioni territoriali, mantenere il controllo delle risorse naturali e regolare i flussi demografici disordinati.

Quando l’Europa lo capirà, una “rifondazione” dell’Unione Europea sarà inevitabile.

1. Zbigniew Brzezinski, A Geostrategy for Eurasia, “Foreign Affairs”, Sept.-Oct. 1997, pp. 53-57.
2. Samuel P. Huntington, Lo scontro delle civiltà e il nuovo ordine mondiale, Garzanti, Milano 2001, p. 241.
3. Samuel P. Huntington, op. cit., p. 242.

XXXIII (1-2014)  

Rifondare l’Unione Europea



Claudio Mutti, Rifondare l’Unione Europea

Dossario – Rifondare l’Unione Europea

Alessandra Colla, Il ritorno dell’antica fanciulla

Ali Reza Jalali, L’UE: evoluzione storica, istituzioni, rapporti con gli Stati membri

Spartaco A. Puttini, Stati Uniti d’Europa o Europa degli Stati Uniti?

Fabio Falchi, Europeismo contro euroatlantismo

Aldo Braccio, Europa non sovrana: il ruolo della Commissione

Stefano Vernole, La Germania e la tentazione dell’Europa a due velocità

Andrea Turi, Dove Europa nacque, l’Europa muore

Alessandro Lattanzio, I Gruppi Tattici ed altre formazioni

Antonino Galloni, Europa, dove ci porti?

Giuseppe Cappelluti, Europa e Russia: un rapporto da ricostruire

Maria Amoroso, Le Relazioni dell’UE con la Russia

Giovanni Armillotta, Multipartitismo e frontismo nell’Europa socialista

Katalin Egresi, Esperienze costituzionali ungheresi e italiane

Giacomo Gabellini, Sciacalli e sicari all’assalto dell’Europa


AA. VV., Il ratto di Europa

Jean Thiriart, La geopolitica, l’Impero, l’Europa

Progetto per una più grande Europa


Intervista a Vaqif Sadiqov, Ambasciatore della Repubblica dell’Azerbaigian in Italia a cura di Giuliano Bifolchi

Crimée-Serbie: le fait nationaliste


Crimée-Serbie: le fait nationaliste
La démocratie mondialiste butte sur l’histoire des peuples

Jean Bonnevey
Ex: http://metamag.fr
Poutine est un nationaliste russe qui refuse la normalisation mondialiste. Il défend tous les Russes et indirectement ceux qui se sentent aujourd’hui plus Russe que Bruxellois.

Le référendum de Crimée illustre en fait la résistance nationaliste des patries de chair et de sang face au mondialisme du fric et au nivellement politique et sociétal. Nombreux sont ceux, dans le monde, qui pensent que la défense de l’héritage d’une culture enracinée et du sang de l’histoire mérite d’être pour le moins aussi respectée que la défense des pulsions sexuelles érigées en valeurs démocratiques supérieures ou la défense des lois du marché.

« Le nationalisme, c’est la guerre », disait François Mitterrand, certes, mais la démocratie aussi (guerre contre la Serbie – l’Irak – la Libye- guerres idéologique face au refus de la normalisation politique). La Crimée est la réponse légitime au péché originel du Kosovo où les frontières nationales ont été jugées moins importantes que les revendications communautaires. Les Kosovars redevenus albanais et musulmans, ce serait formidable et les Criméens voulant redevenir russe et orthodoxes, épouvantables. … On a  tout compris. 

Les peuples ont le droit de disposer d’eux-mêmes et les Etats de défendre les frontières acquises par l’histoire. Le mondialisme est une utopie dévastatrice qui débouche sur des désordres mondiaux notamment depuis la fin  de l’Urss. Les soviétiques croyaient avoir détruit le sentiment national. Dans tous les pays de l’est, il est de retour, en Russie plus qu’ailleurs. Il est même de retour dans la Serbie voulant malgré tout se rapprocher de Bruxelles pour des raisons économiques. Mais Bruxelles est un totalitarisme qui  refuse les volontés politiques divergentes de son carcan bureaucratique qui lui sert de patriotisme.

Aleksandar Vučić, nouveau patron élu de la Serbie, est un ancien ultranationaliste reconverti à l’Europe, défenseur à ses heures du chef de guerre Ratko Mladic, mais qui a policé son image, et qui promet désormais de mener des réformes pour lutter contre la corruption et le chômage. Le Premier ministre socialiste Ivica Dacic est présenté comme le grand perdant. On lui prédit trois fois moins de voix que son rival, du jamais vu depuis la chute de Slobodan Milosevic. Les médias s’inquiètent des scores annoncés pour Aleksandar Vucic qui, lorsqu’il était ministre de l’Information sous Milosevic, musela la presse hostile.  Mais c’est aussi un homme à poigne, une qualité appréciée des Serbes, inquiets pour leur avenir économique.

Deux leçons électorales, Crimée et Serbie, montrent que la carotte économique est forte certes, mais que la motivation nationaliste ne peut être ignorée. C’est en respectant l’identité historique des peuples qui la composent que l’Europe a un avenir de l’Atlantique à l’Oural, certainement pas en  se présentant comme l’exécutrice des basses œuvres du modèle américain à  prétention uniforme et mondiale.

Le Kosovo a permis la Crimée. Le vote serbe vient, dans son pragmatisme sans reniement,  nous le rappeler.

vendredi, 21 mars 2014

Menaces sur la vente des Mistral à la Russie


Menaces sur la vente des Mistral à la Russie: qui M. Fabius veut-il punir?
par Pierre Le Vigan
Ex: http://www.bvoltaire.fr
Dans l’attitude de M. Laurent Fabius, il y a un problème de fond et un problème de forme.

« La crise en Crimée est la plus sérieuse depuis la guerre froide », vient de déclarer Laurent Fabius, ministre des Affaires étrangères. Il demande à la Russie « d’éviter une escalade dangereuse. » Il va pourtant falloir que les dirigeants français et M. Jean-Marie Colombani (« Le retour de la guerre froide », slate.fr, 3 mars 2014) s’y fassent : la Crimée, c’est une affaire finie.

Il ne fait guère de doute que l’immense majorité de ses habitants ont voulu la séparation d’avec l’Ukraine. Et même ont voulu le rattachement à la Russie, car c’est la seule garantie pour que l’Ukraine ne remette pas la main sur la Crimée. Il n’y a d’ailleurs pas de « crise en Crimée », mais une crise « à propos de la Crimée ». Nuance. Poutine a rassuré les Tatars, conforté l’usage de la langue ukrainienne et assuré « ne pas vouloir la partition de l’Ukraine ». Ce n’est pas rien quand on sait à quel point les habitants de Kharkov, de la région du Don et du bassin du Donetsk, de Lougansk, mais aussi d’Odessa, de la Transnistrie (soit l’ensemble de la région entre le Dniestr et le Boug) et du Boudjak ne se sentent pas ukrainiens.

Selon les autorités autoproclamées de l’Ukraine, ce pays a reçu « des coups inacceptables à son intégrité ». « Le conflit entre dans une phase militaire », disent-elles encore. C’est toujours assez maladroit de qualifier d’inacceptables des choses que l’on devra de toute façon accepter. Viktor Ianoukovitch était certainement d’une grande impopularité, mais ceux qui l’ont remplacé sont d’une irresponsabilité qui finira vite par les rendre tout aussi impopulaires, mettant l’Ukraine dans une impasse.

Quoi qu’il en soit, M. Fabius menace de ne plus vendre des navires porte-hélicoptères Mistral à la Russie si « Poutine continue ce qu’il fait en Ukraine ». Les porte-hélicoptères, c’est 1.000 emplois pendant quatre ans à Saint-Nazaire (non loin de chez M. Jean-Marc Ayrault). Voilà une bonne idée qu’a eue M. Fabius. La France n’ayant aucun problème d’emploi et, encore moins, de balance commerciale, quel besoin avons-nous en effet de vendre nos navires de guerre ? Revenons sur terre : les échanges entre l’Union européenne et la Russie sont de plus de 320 milliards d’euros, l’Europe a besoin du gaz russe et la Russie a besoin des devises de l’Europe. Voilà la réalité.

Dans l’attitude de M. Laurent Fabius, il y a un problème de fond et un problème de forme. Le fond, ce sont les relations entre la France et la Russie. La forme est presque aussi importante : M. Fabius sort de la ligne de Jean-Marc Ayrault. On sait que M. Fabius ne fait pas grand cas du Premier ministre, mais il y a une logique des institutions que l’on n’aimerait pas voir bafouée d’une manière aussi indécente. Au fait, le 27 mars 1854, il y aura tout juste 160 ans, la France et la Grande-Bretagne déclaraient la guerre à la Russie pour bloquer sa poussée vers le sud. Objectif : stopper une expansion russe qui ne menaçait aucunement les intérêts français, mais gênait les intérêts britanniques. La France roulait pour l’Angleterre. À savoir : l’alliance anglaise ne nous fut d’aucun secours face à l’Allemagne en 1870-71.

jeudi, 20 mars 2014

La crise de l’euro frappera-t-elle bientôt l’Europe du Nord?

La crise de l’euro frappera-t-elle bientôt l’Europe du Nord?

Une étude avertit les Européens: la crise de la monnaie unique s’étendra probablement à la Belgique et à la Finlande

Le “Centre de Politique Européenne” (CPE) vient de publier un rapport qui suscite l’inquiétude. Selon cette étude, la crise de la dette, malgré le calme relatif qui règne aujourd’hui sur les marchés financiers internationaux, pourrait très bien s’étendre, notamment à des pays d’Europe du Nord. Pour la première fois, deux pays d’Europe du Nord, la Finlande et la Belgique sont frappés par une capacité déclinante à obtenir des crédits, tout comme les pays d’Europe méridionale.

Certes, la Belgique est considérée depuis longtemps comme un pays potentiellement en crise, à cause de la dette de l’Etat qui frise les 100% du PIB mais, pour la Finlande, l’alerte est nouvelle bien qu’elle étonne encore. Ce pays du Nord avait été considéré jusqu’il y a peu comme un roc inébranlable dans la tempête.

Même si ces deux pays, peu peuplés, ne doivent pas être considérés comme des poids lourds sur le marché, on a tout lieu de s’inquiéter de voir des pays du Nord se joindre à la liste des pays à problèmes, déclare le président du CA du CPE, Lüder Gerken. Dans les deux pays, on peut constater une involution, un ressac. Certes, les deux Etats nord-européens peuvent encore contracter des dettes; cette position, dont ils bénéficient, n’est pas encore véritablement menacée mais le taux de consommation est encore trop élevé en Belgique comme en Finlande.

(article paru dans “zur Zeit”, Vienne, n°9/2014; http://www.zurzeit.at ).

Der Westen, Russland, China und die Ukraine


«Rechtzeitig die bereits brennende Lunte aus dem Benzinfass nehmen»

Der Westen, Russland, China und die Ukraine

Ex: http://www.zeit-fragen.ch

von Willy Wimmer, Staatssekretär des Bundesministers der Verteidigung a.D., Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages 1976–2009

Die Nachrichten wegen der Ukraine überschlagen sich und der schöne Schein von Sotschi mit den glänzend gestimmten Sportlern ist schneller zerstoben, als das allen lieb sein konnte.
Dennoch sollten wir in der Flut der Nachrichten über Ereignisse gut 700 Kilometer von Berlin entfernt die Meldung über ein fürchterliches Massaker in der chinesischen Stadt Kunming nicht übersehen oder falsch einordnen. Kunming als Hauptstadt der chinesischen Provinz Yünnan beeindruckt eigentlich durch seinen Charme, der an lebenslustige Gebiete am Mittelmeer erinnert. Am letzten Wochenende kam der Tod nach Kunming, als fast 30 Menschen ermordet und mehr als 100 Menschen schwer verletzt wurden. Weit weg?
Erinnern wir uns an den Vorabend des völkerrechtswidrigen Krieges gegen die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien, dessen Beginn sich in diesen Tagen zum 15. Male jährt. Über Monate hatte es im chinesischen Westen Anschlag über Anschlag gegeben. Tote und Verletzte waren die Folge. Prominente Schauspieler aus Hollywood eröffneten eine Kampagne wegen Tibet. Es war so dramatisch, dass eine kriegerische Auseinandersetzung wegen Tibet erwartet wurde. Nicht nur im Spiegel konnte jeder lesen, dass wohl amerikanische Dienste hinter den Ereignissen im Westen Chinas stünden.
Das, was losbrach, waren die Bombenangriffe auf Belgrad, mitten im europäischen Kerngebiet, und das Vehikel war die albanische Terrororganisation UÇK, auf die die Vereinigten Staaten und später die gesamte Nato gesetzt hatte, um ihre Ziele in der Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien durchzusetzen.

Zeichen an der Wand sind häufiger zu sehen, als uns lieb sein kann. Das bedeutet für uns, dass wegen der gleichzeitig stattfindenden Umbrüche in der Ukraine das Gesamtbild nicht aus den Augen gelassen werden darf.

Es ist etwas ganz Grosses im Gange, das uns alle zerreissen kann. Wer heute Russland aus den G 8 schmeissen will, der hat keine Hemmungen, morgen China mit dem Rauswurf aus der Welthandelsorganisation zu drohen und die Drohung auch wahrzumachen. Es ist Endspiel-Zeit, und es ist geradezu spektakulär, wie der amerikanische Aussenminister John Kerry sich als Schutzengel des Völkerrechtes aufspielt.

Dennoch ist das amerikanische Verhalten seit dem völkerrechtswidrigen Krieg gegen Belgrad und die folgenden, ebenfalls klassischen Aggressionskriege gegen den Irak u. a., keine Ausrede für andere, in amerikanische Muster der letzten Jahrzehnte zu verfallen. Aber tun sie das? Man ist heute schnell bei der Hand, den russischen Präsidenten Putin mit Adolf Hitler zu vergleichen, wie es in diesen Tagen ein ehemaliger tschechischer Aussenminister getan hat. Fürst Schwarzenberg hat gut reden, waren es doch die Russen, die gnadenlos unter Adolf Hitler ihr Blut vergiessen mussten. Peinlicher geht es nicht mehr.

Aber die Ukraine wird uns um die Ohren fliegen, auch wenn es seit Joschka Fischer einen Nato-Modus zu geben scheint, wenn Ziele angeleuchtet werden. Janukowitsch ist weg, und wer will ihm eine Träne nachweinen? Bei den Protzvillen? Als wenn das bis zum Ringen um das Assoziierungsabkommen irgend jemanden in Brüssel, Berlin, London oder Washington gestört hätte. In der Staatskasse noch knapp 300 000 Euro? Wo waren die peniblen Brüsseler Schlaumeier bei der Überprüfung der Kiewer Daten vor dem angepeilten Abkommen zwecks grösserer Nähe der Ukraine zur Europäischen Union?

Von ganz neuer Qualität dürfte jedoch sein, dass nicht nur die US-amerikanische Staatssekretärin Nuland den Überlegungen zur Manipulation der neuen Regierung in der Ukraine freien Lauf gelassen hat. Hier wurde zum ersten Mal in der neueren Geschichte eine Regierung, die nach Bekundungen aller – von der OSZE bis zum Europa-Rat – durch faire und freie Wahlen zustande gekommen war, aus dem Amt geputscht, und alle Abkommen zur Krisenbeilegung wurden beiseite gefegt.

Das geschah wohlgemerkt auch und gerade durch Kräfte, die einen gesamteuropäischen Aufschrei der Abscheu hätten hervorrufen müssen. Noch in der Nacht der Machtergreifung wurde gegen die russischsprachigen Bewohner der Ukraine mobil gemacht. Man hatte nichts Eiligeres zu tun, als ihnen die Zerstörung ihrer Bürgerrechte in Aussicht zu stellen. Es war eben auch der ­politische Mob, der anschliessend drohte, durch die gesamte Ukraine zu fegen.

Wegen des unmittelbar drohenden Finanzkollapses der Ukraine droht sich dort ein Furor breitzumachen, der zwar heute nach dem Westen ruft, aber dem Heulen und Zähneknirschen drohen, wenn ihn die westeuropäische und amerikanische Realität erreicht.
Washington scheint zu den letzten Mitteln vor einer Kriegserklärung an die Russische Föderation greifen zu wollen, wenn man die Herren Obama und Kerry hört. Wäre es wegen der Dimension des von der Ukraine ausgehenden Urknalls für ganz Europa nicht sinnvoller gewesen, die Fäden zusammenzuhalten? Schliesslich war es Moskau, das der maroden Ukraine noch mehr Geld nachwerfen wollte, als der in diesen Dingen äusserst penible Westen.

Und Putin? Hätte er zuwarten sollen, bis die Kiewer Machtübernahme die russische Grenze erreicht hätte? Die Träger des neuen Geistes waren alle auf dem Weg. Was in Teufels Namen hat nach der Kiewer Machtübernahme die neuen Machthaber dazu veranlasst, nun jeden wichtigen Amtsträger im ganzen Land aus dem Amt zu jagen und durch eigene Günstlinge zu ersetzen? Der russische Präsident Putin hat durch die Form seiner Reaktion diesem Tun ein Halt-Signal gesetzt, für das man ihm vielleicht noch einmal sehr dankbar sein wird. Die Souveränität und territoriale Integrität auch der Ukraine stehen ausser Frage. Rechtzeitig die bereits brennende Lunte aus dem Benzinfass zu nehmen, wie es Putin gemacht hat, sollte dann als Chance begriffen werden, wenn das russische Handeln nicht als Gefährdung der eigenen westlichen Absichten gesehen wird.    •

Westeuropäische Medien wie gleichgeschaltet unter US-Oberbefehl?

Offener Brief an die Staats- und Regierungschefs der EU zur Sitzung vom 6. März 2014

Sehr verehrte Damen,
sehr geehrte Herren,
nach den Standards, die in der Europäischen Union bei schwierigen Entwicklungen üblich sind, müssten die Staats- und Regierungschefs bei ihrem Treffen in Brüssel wegen der Lage in der Ukraine festlegen, dass
1.    zu den neuen Machthabern in Kiew auf der Regierungsebene keine Kontakte stattfinden, solange es ernsthafte und begründete Zweifel an der Rechtmässigkeit der neuen Organe in Kiew gibt,
2.    so lange davon ausgegangen werden muss, dass in hohen und höchsten Ämtern der neuen Organe in Kiew sich Personen befinden, deren politische Haltung in ganz Europa Abscheu wegen ihres Gedankengutes hervorruft, sollte ein Boykott der EU […] über die Organe in Kiew so lange verhängt werden, bis diese Personen nicht mehr den im Amt befindlichen Organen in Kiew angehören. Für die Bundesregierung in Berlin ist es nicht akzeptabel, dass vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht in Karlsruhe ein Verbot der NPD durchgesetzt werden soll, während man gleichzeitig in Kiew mit denen unter einer Decke steckt, die engste Kontakte zur NPD pflegen.
Es ist in hohem Masse bedauerlich, dass in Westeuropa die Medien auf die krisenhafte Entwicklung so reagieren, als wären sie gleichgeschaltet und unterstünden amerikanischem Oberbefehl. […]
In der letzten Woche drohten die Flammen des Maidan in Kiew auf die ganze Ukraine überzugreifen. Eine im Bürgerkrieg versinkende Ukraine hätte ganz Europa mit in den Untergang gerissen. Diese Gefahr ist immer noch nicht vom Tisch, weil die wirtschaftlichen Gefahren erst noch auf alle zukommen. Das besonnene und deutliche Auftreten der russischen Regierung unter Präsident Putin hat Europa und der Welt eine Chance gegeben, Souveränität und territoriale Integrität der Ukraine zu erhalten und uns vor dem Furor eines Bürgerkrieges in der Ukraine zu bewahren.
Die Russische Föderation hat in den Jahren, die mit dem ordinären Angriffskrieg der Nato gegen die Bundesrepublik Jugoslawien vor fast genau 15 Jahren und zu einem friedensbedrohenden und völkerrechtswidrigen Verhalten der USA auch in anderen Teilen der Welt führten, sich zum Völkerrecht und seinen tragenden Grundsätzen bekannt. Ohne dieses Völkerrecht und vor allem die Charta der Vereinten Nationen wird das Schicksal Europas mehr denn je ungewiss sein. […]

Willy Wimmer, Staatssekretär des Bundesministers der Verteidigung a.D., Mitglied des Deutschen Bundestages 1976–2009

mercredi, 19 mars 2014

La Crise ukrainienne et la troisième voie géopolitique


La Crise ukrainienne et la troisième voie géopolitique

par Jure Vujic

Ex: http://www.polemia.com

«L’Eurasisme russe aurait tout intérêt à ménager les nationalismes européens de cet espace centre-européen et de l’espace pontique de la mer Noire y compris l’Ukraine, plutôt que de nier leurs identités nationales et d’attiser leurs positions russophobes.»

♦ Polémia a reçu de son contributeur franco-croate, Jure Georges Vujic, une analyse géopolitique de la crise ukrainienne. Donner accès à la diversité des points de vue fait partie de notre ligne éditoriale. Nous la soumettons donc à la réflexion de nos lecteurs.

Il semblerait que la crise ukrainienne divise la mouvance nationale et eurasiste en deux camps, le premier soutenant l’opposition nationaliste ukrainienne en tant que vivier identitaire et vecteur national-révolutionnaire, le second, le camp des «eurasistes» russophiles, qui, pour des raisons géopolitiques anti-atlantistes, soutiennent l’intervention russe en Crimée. Pourtant, cette vision binaire  demeure quelque peu simplificatrice. C’est pourquoi je réitère « qu’il faut savoir raison garder » et que la démesure dans l’analyse géopolitique, le jusqu’au-boutisme et l’engouement belliciste ne font que conforter une fois de plus l‘hybris  et le conflit entre des peuples européens et, une fois n’est pas coutume, sur la terre européenne.

Bien sûr, il faut rappeler que  suite à la décision du gouvernement élu de ne pas signer d’accords commerciaux avec l’Union européenne, le camp atlantiste et américain a tenté d’orchestrer une seconde « Révolution orange » cette fois-ci en s’appuyant et en manipulant des groupes ultranationalistes ukrainiens aux fins  d’installer un pouvoir pro-occidental à Kiev. Le nationalisme ukrainien extrêmement dynamique est autant antirusse qu’antioccidental alors que les arguments de l’adhésion à l’UE servent uniquement de levier d’émancipation de la tutelle russe. Par ailleurs, l’expérience de la Hongrie de Orban démontre très bien que l’on peut être dans l’UE et mener une politique nationale et souverainiste.

D’une part, je ne suis pas convaincu qu’il s’agisse d’une confrontation entre une vision eurasiste pro-russe et un nationalisme ukrainien pro-atlantiste. Il faut  avoir à l’esprit la question de la légitimité des manifestations du peuple ukrainien systématiquement spolié et paupérisé par des régimes corrompus et oligarchiques successifs, tour à tour pro-occidentaux et pro-russes (la famille du présidentViktor Ianoukovitch s’est enrichie de près de 8 milliards d’euros par an). D’autre part, l’opposition entre le sud-est russophone de l’Ukraine et l’EuroMaidan s’est cristallisée en raison du ressentiment antirusse qui s’est développé dans la partie occidentale de l’Ukraine. Si une partie des habitants s’est organisée en formations paramilitaires et a manifesté contre le nouveau gouvernement de Kiev, c’est parce que la révolution a gagné à ses yeux une connotation antirusse plutôt que pro-européenne.

Il est en effet déplorable que l’Ukraine soit entre le marteau et l’enclume, et  n’ait finalement que le choix entre l’intégration européenne pro-atlantiste et la soumission au voisin russe. C’est dans les leçons de l’histoire européenne qu’il faut peut-être chercher la solution. « L’Ukraine a toujours aspiré à être libre » a écrit Voltaire dans son Histoire de Charles XII, à propos de l’hetman Mazeppa. L’identité ukrainienne s’est cimentée il y a une dizaine de siècles et n’est pas près d’être russifiée, quand bien même son histoire reste étroitement liée à la Russie. L’Ukraine est et restera un pays écartelé entre le géant eurasiatique qu’est la Russie à l’est, et l’Europe centrale beaucoup plus proche de l’Occident. Etymologiquement le nom d’’Ukraine est associé à celui de « marche », et c’est ainsi qu’il faut la traiter en tant qu’espace géopolitique pontique et médian. C’est pourquoi la Russie aurait tout intérêt à traiter le peuple ukrainien et l’identité ukrainienne sur un pied d’égalité et de réciprocité plutôt qu’obstinément nier leur existence nationale, les associer à des «petits Russes», ce qui ne fera qu’exacerber le sentiment ukrainien antieurasiste et antirusse.

La Crimée se prononce pour son rattachement à la Russie

L’identité ukrainienne tout comme l’histoire des peuples cavaliers, de souche européenne, fait partie intégrante de notre héritage indo-européen le plus ancien tout comme le constitue l’héritage slavo-russe et orthodoxe. Il faut rappeler que c’est un chercheur ukrainien Iaroslav Lebedynsky, qui enseigne à l’Institut national des langues et civilisations orientales, qui nous a livré de remarquables  récits historiques sur les Scythes, les Sarmates, les Saces, les Cimmériens, les Iazyges et les Roxolans, les Alains, etc. qui témoignent de l’identité pluriséculaire de ces peuples de souche européenne sur cet espace eurasiatique qui va de l’Europe centrale jusqu’aux confins de la Sibérie orientale, espace qui ne possède pas de frontières naturelles comme l’expliquait le général Heinrich Jordis von Lohausen dans son traité de géopolitique. En effet, l’importance géostratégique pontique de l’Ukraine, bordée par la mer Noire et la mer d’Azov au sud et située entre l’Europe occidentale et la masse continentale eurasiatique, dépend en majeure partie de sa configuration frontalière. Les régions historiques ukrainiennes, comme la Volhynie et la Galicie (jadis polono-lituaniennes), la Bukovine (jadis moldave) ou la Méotide (jadis tatare criméenne), s’étendent  également sur les pays voisins, ouvrant ainsi une profondeur stratégique à la Russie au nord et à l’est, à la Biélorussie au nord, à la Pologne, à la Slovaquie et la Hongrie à l’ouest et à la Roumanie et la Moldavie au sud-ouest.

Bien sûr, il convient d’un point de vue géopolitique de soutenir le projet eurasiste russe comme facteur de rééquilibrage multipolaire face aux menées néo-impériales atlantistes, mais ce projet géopolitique grand-européen eurasiste doit être avant tout un projet fédérateur, de coopération géopolitique, fondé sur le respect de tous les peuples européens, sur le respect des souverainetés nationales et sur le principe de subsidiarité. L’affirmation agressive et exclusiviste de la composante slavo-orthodoxe et « grand-russe » dans le projet eurasiste, surtout dans les territoires centre-européens et du sud-est européen catholiques qui gardent un mauvais souvenir de l’expérience soviétique, ne fera au contraire que raviver les tensions entre les peuples européens, ce qui fait le jeu de la stratégie atlantiste qui divise pour régner. Par ailleurs, tout comme il convient de dénoncer la fragmentation ethno-confessionnelle qui est à l’œuvre au Moyen-Orient en tant qu’instrument de domination atlantiste, il convient aussi de se méfier des constructions annexionnistes ou irrédentistes linguistiques « grand-russes » sous prétexte d’unification « des terres russophones » qui peuvent à long terme avoir les mêmes effets dissolvants en Eurasie dans le Caucase et en  Europe centrale, car le même argument linguistique pourrait justifier la revendication séparatiste d’ethnies ou de populations non-européennes sur le sol européen. En effet, le déchaînement du nationalisme ethno-confessionnel à l’ouest de l’Ukraine inquiète les minorités ethniques et notamment les Polonais, les Hongrois et les Roumains. Les Tatares de Crimée qui semblent avoir déjà choisi leur rattachement à la Russie ne peuvent pas rester à l’écart de la recomposition en cours à l’ouest et au sud-ouest d’Ukraine. Ainsi le groupe  ethnique des Gagaouzes qui forment une communauté homogène en Moldavie s’est déjà prononcé par référendum pour l’intégration eurasienne. On assiste également à une montée en puissance du facteur turcophone dans la région du Caucase et dans les Balkans (en Bosnie Herzégovine), plus particulièrement dans le contexte des processus d’intégration dans l’espace eurasien.

Il faut rappeler que l’Ukraine, au-delà du contexte très particulier de ce pays (en réalité constitué de deux ensembles historiquement antagonistes, l’un catholique-uniate, tourné vers l’ouest et l’autre orthodoxe proche de la Russie), constitue un exemple des possibilités de manipulation d’un sentiment national. Pourtant je ne suis pas certain qu’un recentrage « grand-russe » de l’Ukraine constitue un pôle de stabilité géopolitique eurasiatique à long terme dans la mesure où le sentiment antirusse en Ukraine est fortement enraciné et cela depuis plusieurs siècles. La perception du projet eurasiste vu de Paris, Moscou, Vienne, Berlin, Zagreb, Kiev est très différente et variable. Dans les ex-pays du bloc soviétique, l’eurasisme est souvent perçu comme une idéologie néocoloniale «  grande russe  » et post-soviétique, car ces pays ont retrouvé leur indépendance nationale et étatique dans les années 1990 après la chute du Mur de Berlin (et non au XVIIIe ou XIXe siècle), et il est compréhensible qu’ils restent récalcitrants à tout projet fédérateur, multinational et/ou néo-impérial, alors que d’autres pays européens qui ont vécu « leur printemps des peuples » en 1848 ou avant, sont plus ouverts au discours eurasiste grand-continental. Il faut alors tenir compte de ces variables pondérables de psychologie collective (au même titre que les fameuses guerres de représentation) lorsqu’on adopte une position géopolitique  pan-européenne. L’eurasisme ne devrait pas évoluer vers un projet néocolonial et impérialiste (L’idée d’empire n’est pas réductible à l’impérialisme) mais rester fidèle à l’idéal de l’empire en tant qu’unité organique et œcuménique dans la diversité. Cet eurasisme géopolitique n’a jamais été aussi cohérent et  stable que lorsqu’il a été respectueux des idendités, et des diverses composantes impériales comme cela a été le cas lors de l’alliance austro-franco-russe du XVIIIe siècle, de la Sainte-Alliance et de l’Union des Trois Empereurs, voire en tant que projets d’alliance franco-germano-austro-russe de Gabriel Hanotaux (1853-1944), avant 1914.

Il convient également de constater que le projet eurasiste « grand-européen » ne peut reposer uniquement sur un pôle russo-centré, et que si l’on raisonne en termes de continent (de l’Atlantique à la Sibérie), il semblerait que ce projet soit à double vitesse, l’un russo-centré autour de l’union eurasiatique qui s’articule autour de la composante russo-slavo-orthodoxe et l’autre que l’on peut qualifier d’eurasiste-médian ou centre-européen (voire germano-slave mitteleuropéen) qui s’étend de l’Europe occidentale héritière de l’empire Carolingien (héritière de l’Empire romain) et l’eurasisme central-danubien qui s’étend le long de l’ancien limes danubien, à son embouchure dans la mer Noire, jusqu’à l’espace scythien de la Dobroudja, à la charnière de la Roumanie et de la Bulgarie actuelles. Le point de jonction de l’Eurasie russo-centré et de cette Eurasie centre–européenne est l’Ukraine qui de par sa position pontique relie et verrouille ainsi l’espace centre-européen pannonien et la profondeur eurasiatique vers l’est. Pourtant ce qui différencie àl’heure actuelle ces deux projets eurasiens complémentaires, c’est l’héritage historique de l’Union soviétique. En effet l’ensemble des peuples rattachés à la couronne austro-hongroise (Croates, Slovaques, Hongrois, Tchèques) gardent un mauvais souvenir de la férule communiste et des Etats multinationaux fantoches tels que la Yougoslavie titiste et la Tchécoslovaquie en tant que zones tampons et cordons sanitaires créés par la politique britannique dans les Balkans. C’est la raison pour laquelle l’Eurasisme russe aurait tout intérêt à ménager les nationalismes européens de cet espace centre-européen et de l’espace pontique de la mer Noire y compris l’Ukraine, plutȏt que de nier leurs identités nationales et d’attiser leurs positions russophobes.

Ainsi la crise ukrainienne peut être l’occasion ou jamais de réfléchir et de peut-être redéfinir les axes géopolitiques d’une Eurasie triarchique reposant sur la triplice géopolitique carolingienne-occidentale/catholique autro-hongroise et centre-européenne/slavo-orthodoxe eurasiatique.

Jure Georges Vujic

Correspondance Polémia – 16/03/2014

Turkey and Crimea


Turkey and Crimea

Nikolai BOBKIN

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

On 16 March, the people of Crimea will independently determine their own future. Opinion polls show that the overwhelming majority of Crimeans (75-80 percent) have already decided in favour of becoming part of the Russian Federation. Crimea is being given a unique opportunity to reunite with its historic homeland. Several days ago, Barak Obama called the overthrow of the legitimate authorities in Kiev a triumph of democracy. Now Crimea will give President Obama a lesson in democracy... 

By supporting the coup, the US has laid the foundations for a broad restructuring process of the Ukrainian state into a looser confederation of regions. The principle of self-determination, to which the people of Crimea are adhering, is enshrined in international law, while non-recognition of the results of the people’s will would be the latest evidence of the American establishment’s commitment to the project of creating a ‘Ukrainian Reich’ within former Ukraine. The Western media are lying when they talk about the so-called full solidarity of all NATO countries with the American position. In truth, Washington’s position is not supported by many of those with a special interest in Crimea and these include Turkey, since Crimea is home to Crimean Tatars, who are ethnically close to Turks.

Ankara is worried about the risk of deepening the political crisis in Ukraine. While offering to accept the preservation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity as a basis for resolving the conflict, the Turkish Foreign Ministry is nevertheless warning Kiev against creating military tension in Crimea, where «our kinsmen – the Crimean Tatars» live. In the past, Ankara has done much for Crimea to become the Tatars’ homeland again. Kiev, however, has never given the development of Crimea much attention, removing up to 80 percent of the autonomous republic’s revenue and giving nothing back in return. For Turkey, with its highly-developed tourism industry, the deplorable state of tourism in Crimea, as well as the peninsula’s infrastructure, which has fallen into complete disrepair and has not been modernised since Soviet times, are compelling evidence of Kiev’s disdain for the fate of the Crimean people. Many in Turkey well understand why Crimea becoming part of Russia is the natural desire of the overwhelming majority of those living on the peninsula. Turkey’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Ahmet Davutoğlu, believes that «Crimea should not be an area of military tension; it should be a centre of prosperity, tourism, and intercultural relations».

At the same time, the Turkish government is being forced to consider its own position with regard to Crimea, and the internal forces that adhere to the opposite point of view. In some parts of the country, the compatriots of Crimean Tatars are organising demonstrations against Crimea becoming part of Russia. Zafer Karatay, a Tatar member of the Turkish Assembly, is calling for Ankara to intervene in Crimea and a confrontation with Russia. His opponents respond: «What business do we have in Crimea? Why is Crimea so important?» Well, the Kiev scenario of the illegal overthrow of President Yanukovych may well be used by the Americans to change the leadership in Turkey. In this regard, Prime Minister Erdoğan has clearly stated that it is not a case of Turkey choosing between Moscow and Washington or Ukraine and Russia, it is a case of choosing between a tool of destabilisation like the pro-American Maidan protests and adhering to the fundamental principles of international law. 

Many Turkish politicians disliked Davutoğlu’s hasty trip to Kiev immediately following the coup. Given that Ankara does not have an answer to the question «What should Turkey do now?», such a visit is definitely cause for bewilderment. Davutoğlu’s statement, meanwhile, «that Crimean Tatars are currently the main apologists for Ukraine’s territorial integrity» shocked many observers. They reminded the minister of the number of Turkish compatriots in the 46-million strong Ukraine, as well as the fact that Turkey had a strategic partnership with the previous legitimate authorities in Kiev to which neither Turchynov nor Yatsenyuk are able to add anything except a hatred of Russia. Davutoğlu’s assurances regarding the fact that the new regime in Kiev «will take all necessary measures to protect the rights of Turks living in Crimea» has also given rise to scepticism. It is unlikely that the fascist authorities in Kiev currently threatening Ukraine’s multimillion Russian population are going to concern themselves with the fate of the relatively small Crimean Tatar community. Pragmatists in the Turkish government have warned the head of the Turkish Foreign Ministry, who has promised Kiev «political, international and economic support to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity», against any hasty actions and even statements towards Moscow. 

Commenting on events in Kiev, the Turkish Minister for EU affairs, Mevlut Çavuşoğlu, referred to the European’s approach towards Ukraine as completely wrong, and that asking Ukrainians to choose between Europe and Russia was a grave political mistake. «Russia»,Çavuşoğlu pointed out, «is part of the European continent.» Turkey still does not understand why Brussels, which thinks that Turkey does not meet its high democratic standards and for many years has refused Turkey’s accession to the EU, has decided that the new Ukraine is more democratic than Turkey – and that is even after the bloody coup carried out by Western stooges. There is the feeling that supporting the new regime in Kiev could cost Erdogan’s government dearly.

Should Turkey join sanctions against Moscow, the country’s economists are predicting the collapse of the national economy, which is closely tied to Russian hydrocarbon supplies. They consider energy exports from Russia to be «a national security issue» and are warning that even Europe, which is also dependent on Russian gas, has not allowed itself to cross the line of open hostility to Moscow, despite unprecedented pressure from Washington. Turkey is still a growing market for Russia, and its gas supplies to the country increase by 4-5 percent annually and exceed 30 billion cubic metres. There is a desire to diversify Ankara’s sources, but there is no real alternative to Russian blue-sky fuel. America’s promises to replace Russian gas with its own shale surrogate in connection with calls to support anti-Russian sanctions are eliciting a smile from Turkish experts. The infrastructure needed for the supply of liquefied fuel would be more expensive than the cost of Russian supplies for the next 5-7 years. And it is not just Turkey’s energy economy that will lose out. Trade between Russia and Turkey exceeds 33 billion dollars, and nearly four million Russians visit Turkey every year, leaving behind at least USD 4 billion. 

The Turkish media has also made explicit references to the fact that the significance of Ukraine and Russia for Turkey’s foreign policy is incomparable. Turkish political observer Fuat Kozluklu, meanwhile, writes that Russia’s decision to use force if necessary to protect Ukraine’s Russian and Russian-speaking population was a good deterrent to the Ukrainian radicals and the Western politicians watching over them. Putin’s determination to stand up for the interests of Russians in his neighbouring country has revealed Russia’s real strength, while Moscow’s actions have the sole intention of preventing the further escalation of tensions in Ukraine. It is also from this point of view that many Turkish analysts are regarding the forthcoming referendum in Crimea.


Russland und die Krim

Russland und die Krim

von Gereon Breuer

Ex: http://www.blauenarzisse.de

Kriegsspiele. Was haben Merkel und Steinmeier gemeinsam? Ihnen fehlt jede Vorstellung des strategischen Werts der Geopolitik für außenpolitisches Handeln. Das Ergebnis: Außenpolitischer Dilettantismus.

Ohnehin genießt die Geopolitik in Deutschland seit dem Ende des II. Weltkriegs einen eher schlechten Ruf. Dieser ist vor allem auf der Missinterpretation politischer Intellektueller gegründet, dass die Wahrnehmung eigener Interessen per se als „böse“ gelte. Das zeigt nun auch wieder die „Krim-​Krise“. Schon allein von einer Krise zu sprechen offenbart die schlichte Natur dessen, der sich bemüßigt fühlt, die Wahrnehmung von Interessen mit einer Krise zu assoziieren. Denn Russland unternimmt auf der Krim, bei der es sich noch dazu um eine autonome Republik handelt, nichts anderes, als in Zeiten unsicherer politischer Verhältnisse in der Ukraine die eigene Einflusssphäre zu wahren. Das heißt konkret: Den Stützpunkt der Schwarzmeerflotte und damit die maritime Herrschaft über das Schwarze Meer zu sichern.

In geostrategischer Hinsicht ist das ein sehr kluges und umsichtiges Verhalten. Dass die EU – und vor allem Deutschland – Russland deshalb nun mit Sanktionen drohen, zeigt, dass die bürokratischen Führer in Berlin und Brüssel nicht verstanden haben: „Staaten haben keine Freunde, nur Interessen.“ Dieses unter anderen dem britischen Premierminister Ewald Gladstone zugeschriebene Diktum lässt ahnen, dass Außenpolitik vor allem egoistisch funktioniert oder eben nicht. Wladimir Putin scheint das verstanden zu haben und in seinem Handeln äußert sich, was Halford Mackinder (18611947) in seiner „Heartland-​Theory“ beziehungsweise „Herzland-​Theorie“ niederlegte: „Wer Osteuropa beherrscht, kommandiert das Herzland, wer das Herzland beherrscht, kommandiert die Weltinsel, wer die Weltinsel beherrscht, kontrolliert die Welt.“

Bedeutung der „Herzland-​Theorie“

Der britische Geograph und Geopolitiker verstand unter der Weltinsel Eurasien und den afrikanischen Kontinent. Das Herzland sah er in Sibirien und im europäischen Russland konstituiert.Heartland Er ging davon aus, dass unter anderem die Rohstoffreserven der Weltinsel es ermöglichen würden, von dort aus alle anderen Länder zu beherrschen, also solcher in kontinentaler Randlage und langfristig auch den amerikanischen Kontinent, Japan und Australien. Für Mackinder ist damit die Beherrschung des Kernlandes Eurasien der Schlüssel zur Weltmacht. In Deutschland fand seine Theorie so gut wie keine Rezeption und sein 1904 erschienenes Werk Democratic Ideals and Reality, in dem auch der für die Herzland-​Theorie grundlegende Aufsatz The Geographical Pivot of History erschien, hat bis heute keine deutsche Übersetzung erfahren.

In den USA beispielsweise war die Rezeption eine völlig andere. Dort werden Mackinders Ausführungen bis auf den heutigen Tag sehr ernst genommen. Mackinder selbst ging sogar so weit zu behaupten, dass nur durch den I. Weltkrieg verhindert werden konnte, dass Deutschland sich die Herrschaft über Herzland und Weltinsel sicherte. Dass die USA das um jeden Preis verhindern wollten, ist hinlänglich bekannt. Unter anderen stehen heute Zbigniew Brzezinski oder Henry Kissinger als prominente Vertreter der politischen Kreise, die das außenpolitische Handeln der USA im Wesentlichen an Mackinders Herzland-​Theorie ausrichten – theoretisch und auch in praktischer Hinsicht. Ein Blick auf die Weltkarte zeigt auch ohne umfassende geographische Kenntnisse, dass Russland heute immer noch einen wesentlichen Teil des Herzlandes abdeckt. Am Rande des Herzlandes befindet sich auch die Krim. Ihr geostrategischer Wert für Russland ist daher offensichtlich.

Böse geopolitische Realität

Während nun in Moskau und Washington bezüglich den aktuellen politischen Entwicklungen in der Ukraine Geopolitik betrieben wird, beschränken sich die EU-​Bürokraten auf die Ankündigung von Sanktionen. Unter anderem soll ein Drei-​Stufen-​Plan im Gespräch sein, den die EU durchführen möchte, sofern Russland seine Truppen nicht von der Krim abzieht. Auf eine solche Idee würden Staatsmänner nie kommen. Das ist Sache von Bürokraten, denen die Realität nur aus Erzählungen bekannt ist. Vielleicht sollten die Schreibtischtäter in Brüssel stattdessen mal über einen Drei-​Stufen-​Plan der EU nachdenken, sofern die USA ihre Truppen nicht aus Deutschland zurückziehen. Aber nein, das wäre dann doch wieder zu viel Geopolitik. Und die ist ja böse.

Bild 2: Mackinders Herzland (Pivot Area), Abbildung in seinem 1904 erschienenen Text The Geographical Pivot of History

Ukraine: Regime change à la USA


Ukraine: Regime change à la USA

Aufflammen eines neuen kalten Krieges

von Thomas Kaiser

Ex: http://www.zeit-fragen.ch

Die erste Woche der Frühjahrssession des Menschenrechtsrats in Genf gehört den ­politischen Vertretern der einzelnen Länder. Häufig kommen die Aussenminister selbst oder deren Stellvertreter, um für zehn Minuten den Schwerpunkt ihrer Menschenrechtspolitik darzulegen. So auch in der letzten Woche, und es bot sich den Zuhörern ein interessantes Bild. Während die afrikanischen und asiatischen Staaten mehrheitlich die Menschenrechtslage in ihren jeweiligen Ländern zum Thema machten und wie sie diese verbessern könnten, waren es vor allem die EU- und Nato-Staaten, die die Situation in der Ukraine, in Syrien oder auch in Venezuela aufgriffen und auf äusserst ­polemische Weise kommentierten. Dabei wurden zum Teil scharfe Töne angeschlagen.

Sehr auffallend war am Dienstag die Rede des estnischen Aussenministers Urmas Paet, derjenige, der das inzwischen weithin bekannte Telefonat mit der EU-Aussenbeauftragten Catherine Ashton führte, in dem er erwähnte, dass die Scharfschützen in Kiew sowohl Polizisten als auch Demonstranten ins Visier genommen hatten (vgl. «Neue Zürcher Zeitung» vom 7. März). Ein ähnliches Vorgehen, das auch der französische Journalist und Publizist Tierry Meyssan aus Venezuela berichtete. Auch hier wurden sowohl Sicherheitskräfte als auch Demonstranten mit den gleichen Waffen getötet. Urmas Paet versuchte in seiner Rede, die Krise in der Ukraine als eine Gefahr für den Frieden in Europa heraufzubeschwören, und forderte die internationale Gemeinschaft zum Handeln auf. Es sollten «alle möglichen Massnahmen» gegen Russ­land ergriffen werden.

Nato-Osterweiterung gegen das Versprechen von George Bush sen.

Was mit der Nato-Ost-Erweiterung Mitte der 90er Jahre begann, nämlich gegen das Versprechen von George Bush sen. gegenüber Michail Gorbatschow, dass es keine Erweiterung der Nato auf die ehemaligen Sowjetrepubliken und Warschauer-Pakt-Staaten geben werde, sollte im ersten Jahrzehnt des 21. Jahrhunderts mit der Ausdehnung auf Georgien und die Ukraine weitergeführt werden. Die konsequente Einschnürung Russlands und damit eine starke Schwächung dieses aufstrebenden Landes, das sich in den letzten Jahren seit der Präsidentschaft Vladimir Putins verstärkt gegen die US-amerikanischen Hegemonialbestrebungen gestellt hat, besonders im Fall von Syrien, wird hiermit immer offensichtlicher.

Plötzlich aufflammende innere Konflikte

Es ist auffallend, dass verschiedene Länder, die sich bisher unabhängig vom US-Imperium auf ihre eigene Art entwickelten, mit plötzlich aufflammenden, inneren Konflikten zu kämpfen haben, sei es in Libyen, Syrien, Venezuela und nicht zuletzt in der Ukraine. Was Libyen anbetrifft, berichtete die «Neue Zürcher Zeitung» am 7. März, das Land drohe auseinanderzubrechen und im Chaos zu versinken. Ist das das Resultat einer «humanitären Intervention» für Freiheit, Demokratie und Menschenrechte, die von der Uno sanktioniert und durch die von ihr beauftragte Nato durchgeführt worden war? Damals hatten sich Russland und China der Zustimmung im UN-Sicherheitsrat enthalten. Was nach der Resolution folgte, hat ihre Haltung mehr als nur bestätigt. Es war ein notwendiges Signal an alle Staaten, dass nicht eine kleine Gruppe von Nationen nach ihrem Gutdünken einen Staat überfallen und dessen Regierung absetzen darf.

Ukraine aktuelles Opfer genau dieser amerikanischen Destruktionspolitik

Hört man sich auf den Gängen der Uno in Genf um, sind es vor allem die lateinamerikanischen Staaten, die ein Lied auf US-amerikanische Interventionen für Demokratie und Menschenrechte singen können, und eine klare Position zu den Vorgängen in Syrien, in Venezuela und in der Ukraine einnehmen. Hier besteht kaum Zweifel, dass die Ukraine aktuelles Opfer genau dieser amerikanischen Destruktionspolitik ist.

Doppelte Standards

Besonders zynisch war die Rede der US-Amerikanerin vor dem Menschenrechtsrat. Sie beschwor die edlen Bestrebungen der USA, sich für Freiheit, Demokratie und Menschenrechte einzusetzen, und kritisierte das Eingreifen Russlands in die inneren Angelegenheiten der Ukraine. «Wir haben darauf zu bestehen, dass alle Staaten die territoriale Integrität der Ukraine zu respektieren haben», und sie betont, dass das ukrainische Volk das Recht habe, «seinen eigenen politischen Weg zu bestimmen». Kennen wir nicht diese Worte? Wie sagte 1965 Präsident Johnson als Rechtfertigung für die militärische Intervention der USA in Vietnam, die in einem völligen Desaster endete: «Vietnam muss die Gelegenheit bekommen, seinen eigenen Weg beschreiten zu dürfen.» Wie sah dieser «eigene» Weg aus? Ein völlig zerstörtes und ein mit Agent Orange verseuchtes Land mit über 2 Millionen Toten. Das ist die Realität, wie es in der Ukraine weitergehen wird, wird sich zeigen.

USA haben am Staatstreich in diesem Land von Anfang an mitgearbeitet

Gerade in den letzten Wochen und spätestens seit dem Telefonat, als die Beauftragte für Osteuropa des US-Aussenministeriums Victoria Nuland im Gespräch mit dem US-amerikanischen Botschafter in der Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, ihren Unmut über die mangelnde Entschlossenheit der EU beim Sturz des ukrainischen Präsidenten Janukowitsch zum Ausdruck brachte und unter anderem den viel zitierten Satz «Fuck the EU» äu­s­serte, ist bekannt, wer sich hoch offiziell in die inneren Angelegenheiten eines anderen Staates einmischt. Während sich die Medien vor allem über die verbale Entgleisung empörten, gab es keinen Aufschrei über den Inhalt des Telefonats, in dem für die gesamte Weltöffentlichkeit deutlich wurde, dass die USA am Staatsstreich in diesem Land von Anfang an mitgearbeitet haben.

Bei Syrien hat US-Strategie nicht erfolgreich funktioniert

Was unter George W. Bush mit brutaler militärischer Intervention erreicht wurde, nämlich ein sogenannter Regime change von aussen, wird unter Obama mit Smartpower betrieben und verfolgt das gleiche Ziel: Sturz von Regierungen, ob demokratisch gewählt wie im Falle Janukowitsch oder nicht. Es spielt für die US-Politik keine Rolle, wenn es um die eigenen politischen und wirtschaftlichen Interessen geht. Wenn der Wechsel nicht durch einen Bürgerkrieg erlangt werden kann, dann durch eine militärische Intervention, am besten natürlich mit einem erschlichenen Uno-Mandat wie im Fall Libyens.
Russland und China haben dort ihre Lektion endgültig gelernt. Bei Syrien hat die US-Strategie schon nicht mehr erfolgreich funktioniert, abgesehen von der Zerstörung des Landes und dem Töten vieler Unschuldiger. China und Russland haben damals im Uno-Sicherheitsrat das Veto eingelegt. Welches Schicksal die USA der Ukraine jetzt noch bereiten wollen, wird sich weisen. Sicher ist, Russland soll weiter in die Enge getrieben werden. Wenn man unsere Medien liest, kann man dem Irrtum aufsitzen, alle seien sich einig, dass Russland der «Bösewicht» sei, wenn man jedoch die Stimmen anderer Länder hört und liest, die bei uns verschwiegen werden, bekommt man ein ganz anderes Bild. Die US-EU-zentrische Sicht der Dinge ist naiv und einfältig. Es wird Zeit, dass wir unseren Horizont wirklich erweitern.     •

«… gegen jedes Ausnützen humanitärer Krisen …»

Auszug aus der Rede von Marcos Timermann, Aussenminister von Argentinien

«Herr Präsident, die Welt leidet noch immer unter dauernden und wiederholten Beispielen brutaler Unterdrückung grundlegender Menschenrechte. Der Schrecken, der über die Leben derjenigen gekommen ist, die in Ländern leben, die Opfer interner bewaffneter Konflikte sind, beschämt uns alle, und aus diesem Grund verurteilt mein Land aktiv, an Splittergruppen Waffen zu verkaufen, um diese Länder auseinanderzureissen, Waffen, die sehr oft von genau denjenigen Ländern kommen, die den Horror verurteilen, während sie vom Tod profitieren.
Auf diese Art und Weise möchte ich die Einstellung meines Landes zum Ausdruck bringen gegen jedes Ausnützen humanitärer Krisen, um eine ausländische militärische Intervention zu rechtfertigen, die nicht mehr ist als geopolitische Manöver in einem Spiel, in dem die Interessen der Opfer nicht zu den Prioritäten gehören.»

Quelle: www.un.org
(Übersetzung Zeit-Fragen)

«Die Intervention der westlichen Mächte muss aufhören …»

Vize-Aussenminister Abelardo Moreno Fernández zitiert am 6. März im Uno-Menschenrechtsrat in Genf Kubas Staatspräsident Raúl Castro

«Wo immer es eine Regierung gibt, die den Interessen der Machtzirkel in den USA und einigen ihrer europäischen Aliierten nicht entspricht, wird sie zum Ziel subversiver Kampagnen. Jetzt werden neue Zermürbungsmethoden angewendet, subtiler und verschleierter, ohne allerdings auf Gewalt zu verzichten, um den Frieden und die innere Ordnung zu zerrütten und zu verhindern, dass die Regierungen sich auf die ökonomische und soziale Entwicklung konzentrieren können, falls es ihnen nicht gelingt, sie niederzuringen.»
«Es lassen sich nicht wenige Analogien in den Manualen für nicht-konventionelle Kriegsführung finden, wie sie in verschiedenen Ländern unserer Region Lateinamerika und Karibik zur Anwendung kommen, so wie es heute in Venezuela geschieht und sich nach ähnlichem Muster auf anderen Kontinenten abgespielt hat, vor einiger Zeit in Libyen und gegenwärtig in Syrien und in der Ukraine. Wer daran zweifelt, den lade ich ein, das Trainings-Zirkular 1801 der US-amerikanischen Spezialeinsatzkräfte durchzublättern, veröffentlicht im November 2010 unter dem Titel ‹Der unkonventionelle Krieg›.»
«Die Intervention der westlichen Mächte muss aufhören, damit das ukrainische Volk auf legitime Art sein Recht auf Selbstbestimmung ausüben kann. Man sollte nicht vergessen, dass diese Vorgänge sehr schwerwiegende Konsequenzen für den Frieden und die internationale Sicherheit haben können.»

Quelle: www.un.org 
(Übersetzung Zeit-Fragen)

Fabius prend la tête de la guerre froide anti Poutine

Fabius prend la tête de la guerre froide anti Poutine

par Jean-Paul Baquiast

Ex: http://www.europesolidaire.eu/

Fabius.caricature-jpg.jpgHier, au mépris du droit international et du simple droit commercial, il a menacé la Russie d'une non livraison des deux BPC de type Mistral presque achevés à Saint Nazaire, et déjà payés par les Russes. Il condamne ce faisant toute coopération militaire avec la Russie, renvoyant des milliers de travailleurs français au chômage.

Aujourd'hui, parlant (de quel droit?) au nom du G8, il annonce que la Russie est suspendue de la prochaine réunion de celui-ci. Plus généralement il s'affiche comme le premier de ceux qui veulent sanctionner la Russie, au mépris de tous nos intérêts, pour avoir encouragé le rattachement de la Crimée à la Russie, rattachement manifestement désiré comme l'a montré le référendum du 16 mars par une grande majorité de la population.

Entre Fabius et John Kerry, c'est à qui se montre le plus acharné pour combattre Poutine. Kerry, encore, on le comprend, puisqu'il poursuit le combat multi-décennal destiné à refaire de l'Amérique la seule super-puissance, face à une Russie insupportable du fait qu'elle dispose de l'arme nucléaire et de nombreux atouts naturels. Mais Fabius? Quels intérêts sert-il? A-t-il été missionné par François Hollande et Jean-Marc Ayrault pour transformer  la France en une ennemie définitive de la Russie? Il devrait, s'il avait un minimum de sens stratégique, militer au contraire pour une alliance euro-russe dont la France pourrait être un des pivots. Veut-il laisser  Angela Merkel, bien plus prudente, se préparer à piloter seule  un rapprochement euro-russe qui deviendra vite inévitable.

Les mauvaises langues diront que Fabius, pris d'ambitions tardives, veut se positionner comme futur premier ministre, voire futur président de la République. Mais il n'ajoutera pas à sa popularité en s'agitant pour conforter un lobby anti-Poutine bien moins populaire en France que les médias pénétrés d'atlantisme ne le prétendent.


mardi, 18 mars 2014

France : le scénario yougoslave?


France : le scénario yougoslave?

par Joris Karl
Ex: http://www.bvoltaire.fr
La présence de véritables « enclaves » de populations étrangères (Sevran, Montreuil, Roubaix, Marseille, etc.) rend la situation, à terme, ingérable

L’Histoire, si elle ne se répète jamais exactement, nous enseigne les processus qui conduisent à l’éclatement des nations.

Parce qu’en certains points les ressemblances sont frappantes avec la France, le cas de la Yougoslavie est fascinant. Nous reproduisons les mêmes erreurs, l’État central cède aux mêmes forces centrifuges (revendications religieuses, linguistiques, scolaires)… Sans parler que, pour les municipales à venir, commencent à fleurir des listes ouvertement communautaires…

Mais sans qu’on y prenne garde, l’érosion est causée par de minuscules détails, gouttes insignifiantes qui, à force de s’accumuler, se transformeront en pluie torrentielle.

L’an passé, la victoire de Naöelle, candidate d’origine maghrébine, dans l’émission « Top Chef » sur M6, fut à mon avis révélatrice : dans les minutes qui ont suivi son triomphe, les réseaux sociaux ont explosé de haine envers la gagnante. Résumons : la jeune femme, dont le comportement fut certes peu recommandable (caractère exécrable, pleurnicheries régulières), se trouva soudain assaillie par des milliers de posts et de tweets assassins. À vue de clavier, c’était près de 90 % des internautes (sites de la presse nationale ou page Facebook de M6) qui la vouaient aux gémonies !

Peu ou pas de paroles xénophobes, du moins en surface. Mais on sentait quand même le net rejet communautaire ! Un peu comme lorsque votre coiffeur ou votre boucher parlent nonchalamment de « ces gens-là » qui posent toujours problème… Le plus significatif était le fait que, parmi les rares soutiens de Naöelle, on trouvait essentiellement des internautes dont le nom était à consonance musulmane…

Nous pouvons observer dans cet exemple — apparemment anodin — le symptôme d’un mal profond. L’impression déjà vue dans d’autres domaines d’une « scission » dans la communauté dite nationale. En Yougoslavie, cela a commencé par des engueulades dans les bals, des petits différends entre clubs de supporters de foot. Qui se transformèrent en violentes bastons les soirs de match, qui finirent en bain de sang et en explosion du pays.

La présence de véritables « enclaves » de populations étrangères (Sevran, Montreuil, Roubaix, Marseille, etc.) rend la situation, à terme, ingérable. Nous n’avions pas de « républiques autonomes » sur le modèle titiste, nous les avons importées ! Pour le moment, chaque camp s’affronte, virtuellement, sur des sujets périphériques. Sur le terrain, on vit autant que possible des existences séparées : Français d’origine européenne et arabo-africaine se mélangent extrêmement peu, fréquentent des écoles différentes, n’écoutent pas les mêmes musiques, ne s’habillent pas de la même façon ! Le vote lui-même est devenu ethnique. Sur Facebook, des sites appellent à la haine contre les beurettes qui fréquentent les blacks. Repli général. Les Chinois de Belleville manifestent contre la violence dont ils sont victimes… Peu à peu, des micro-nations émergent dans cette République de moins en moins réelle. Un jour, la fiction ne prendra plus.

L’Union Européenne et l’Ukraine : une diplomatie à la BHL!


L’Union Européenne et l’Ukraine : une diplomatie à la BHL!

Frédéric Dalmas

Ex: http://www.voxnr.com



Dans la crise ukrainienne, il est désolant de constater l’inefficacité crasse de la diplomatie de l’Union européenne, qui préfère mettre la pression sur la Russie plutôt que d’apaiser les tensions. Tout ça parce que l’UE, à l’instar des États-Unis, a développé une vision manichéenne des relations internationales : en Ukraine, ce sont les « gentils » Ukrainiens défenseurs de la démocratie contre les « méchants » Russes qui veulent récupérer la Crimée. Cette diplomatie qui caricature la réalité est une diplomatie à la BHL (1)!

Samedi 1er Mars 2014 : la Chambre haute du parlement russe, le Conseil de la Fédération, à la demande du Président Vladimir Poutine, vote à une très large majorité la décision de recourir aux "forces armées de la Fédération de Russie sur le territoire de l'Ukraine jusqu'à la normalisation de la situation sociopolitique dans ce pays".

Face à cette situation, que font les occidentaux ? Plutôt que de se mettre autour d’une table avec la Russie, ils la menacent de sanctions ! Nous allons suspendre le G8 de Sotchi ! Nous allons limiter les importations de gaz russe ! Nous allons bloquer les avoirs des oligarques ! Le 11 mars sur France Inter, Laurent Fabius déclarait que « les Russes n’ont pas encore répondu à notre proposition de désescalade ». Mais quelle proposition ? Les décisions prises par les occidentaux, en mettant la pression sur la Russie, ne sont pas des propositions de désescalade, plutôt que d’apaiser les tensions, elles contribuent à les favoriser !

Et maintenant, dans la perspective du référendum de dimanche sur le rattachement de la Crimée à la Russie, tous crient que ce référendum est illégal ! Que la Russie ne peut pas bafouer la « légalité internationale » en menaçant l’intégrité du territoire ukrainien ! Oui, tout cela est vrai, mais à quoi ces cris d’orfraie vont-ils servir ? En quoi cela va-t-il changer quelque chose à la situation ? Que peuvent les Nations Unies, quand la Russie fait partie du Conseil de Sécurité ?

Non, tout cela est totalement inefficace et nous mène droit à la guerre ! La méthode la plus efficace serait la négociation gagnant-gagnant : dans le business comme en diplomatie, l’objectif de cette méthode est que toutes les parties aient l’impression d’avoir gagné quelque chose. Pour cela, il convient d’étudier à tête reposée les intérêts de chacun, et les « lignes rouges » à ne pas franchir. Or, cela n’a pas été fait dans la crise ukrainienne. Pour revenir à des bases de négociation saines, il faudrait accorder deux choses à la Russie : le retour en arrière du Parlement ukrainien de transition sur sa décision de supprimer l’enseignement obligatoire du russe, et un moratoire sur l’adhésion de l’Ukraine à l’OTAN. Voici les deux « lignes rouges » pour la Russie.

Il y a 3 éléments essentiels constitutifs d’une nation : des frontières communes bien sûr, mais aussi une culture commune, et une langue commune (ou plusieurs langues reconnues à égalité sur l’ensemble du territoire). Les occidentaux accusent les Russes de vouloir remettre en cause les frontières de la nation ukrainienne, mais le Parlement ukrainien de transition, lui, s’en est pris à la langue ! En remettant en cause l’enseignement obligatoire du russe, il a remis en cause la langue russe elle-même comme langue officielle, à parité avec l’ukrainien. Inacceptable pour les ukrainiens russophones qui se sentent ainsi exclus de la nation ukrainienne, et donc pour la Russie qui est naturellement solidaire de cette population qui partage avec elle une langue, une histoire et donc une culture commune. Imaginons qu’un jour les Flamands se révoltent et prennent le pouvoir au Parlement belge. Que dirait la France si le Parlement belge remettait en cause l’enseignement obligatoire du français pour les Wallons ?

La perspective de voir renaître les velléités d’adhésion de l’Ukraine à l’OTAN est également inacceptable pour la Russie, qui se retrouverait ainsi complètement entourée par une coalition militaire largement au service des intérêts US, jusqu’au cœur-même de sa sphère d’influence naturelle. A mon sens, l’occupation de la Crimée par l’armée russe est une réaction de la Russie pour signifier tout simplement qu’elle ne se laissera pas faire. Comment en effet envisager que la Crimée, où la Russie possède une base navale d’intérêt stratégique crucial, se retrouve un jour dans l’OTAN !

Certes, Vladimir Poutine est un président autoritaire, qui utilise des méthodes dignes du KGB (à ce propos, voir le livre d’Alexandre Litvinenko, Le Temps des Assassins (2), mais il faut tenir compte des réalités géostratégiques. Et plutôt que de se positionner par rapport à la réalité, les occidentaux campent sur des positions de morale ! Des positions binaires, manichéennes, réductrices, alors que la réalité est plus complexe… Soulignons au passage que parmi les « défenseurs de la Russie », certains tiennent également des positions binaires : la crise ukrainienne, si on les écoute, serait une lutte entre les « gentils » Russes et les « méchants Ukrainiens fascistes », ce qui est tout aussi ridicule ! Bien sûr, il y a avait des fascistes dans le mouvement de révolte, mais les fascistes étaient une minorité, une minorité bien visible certes, mais une minorité quand même. Le mouvement de la place Maïdan était hétéroclite, comme le soulignait la rédaction du Monde diplomatique dans l’émission Là-bas si j’y suis du 6 Mars 2014 (3). Il n’y a pas eu de Coup d’État en Ukraine, juste une révolution comme toutes les autres, qui ne peut pas aboutir du jour au lendemain au régime idéal.

Mais revenons à des considérations diplomatiques. Dans la situation actuelle, nous voyons les États-Unis « négocier » avec la Russie, alors que les 2 parties ont des intérêts totalement contradictoires : les États-Unis veulent étendre leur sphère d’influence à l’Ukraine par l’intermédiaire de l’OTAN et la Russie ne le veut pas. On ne doit pas s’étonner, dans ces conditions, que ces « négociations » s’apparentent à un dialogue de sourds. L’Allemagne ou la France auraient pu se positionner comme arbitre, pour favoriser la recherche d’un compromis acceptable, mais non, comme pendant la Guerre froide, l’UE se soumet à la diplomatie US, alors que s’il y a une guerre en Ukraine, c’est l’UE qui sera en première ligne et subira les dégâts. Les États-Unis, géographiquement isolés, ne craignent rien. Rappelons que pendant la Guerre froide, l’OTAN était un système permettant aux États-Unis de créer un tampon avec l’URSS : en installant des missiles en Europe, les États-Unis avaient l’assurance qu’en cas de déflagration nucléaire, ce sont leurs alliés européens qui prendraient en premier ! Aujourd’hui, on dirait que rien n’a changé !

Et après le « référendum » de dimanche en Crimée, c’est la guerre qui se profile ! Si la Crimée se détache de l’Ukraine, qui empêchera les autres russophones ukrainiens de demander la même chose ? Le rattachement de la Crimée à la Russie, ou la reconnaissance de son indépendance, risque d’avoir les mêmes effets qu’en ex-Yougoslavie, où la reconnaissance de l’indépendance de la Croatie par l’Allemagne en 1992 a déclenché la guerre. Alors que la crise ukrainienne aurait pu être l’occasion de rapprocher diplomatiquement l’UE et la Russie, toute cette histoire vire au gâchis ! Pour moi, la meilleure option pour l’Ukraine serait d’en faire une confédération à la suisse, un état tampon neutre, comme un pont entre l’UE et la Russie. Car c’est la neutralité de la Suisse qui a garanti sa stabilité pendant les deux guerres mondiales. Si la Suisse n’avait pas été neutre, imaginez ce que cela aurait donné entre les parties francophone, germanophone et italophone !

Si la guerre éclate la semaine prochaine, nous constaterons une fois de plus qu’on ne fait pas de diplomatie avec de la morale, mais avec des principes. Le premier d’entre eux étant le principe de réalité !



1 Et oui, je veux bien sûr parler de Bernard-Henry Lévy, le grand « philosophe » germanopratin qui a courageusement lutté les armes à la main contre l’infâme Kadhafi en Lybie, et le cruel Milosevic en Yougoslavie.

2 Alexandre Litvinenko. Le Temps des Assassins, Éditions Calmann-Lévy.

3 http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/carnet/2014-03-06-La-bas

dimanche, 16 mars 2014

The War on Russia in its Ideological Dimension


The War on Russia in its Ideological Dimension

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru
The coming war as concept
The war against Russia is currently the most discussed issue in the West. At this point it is only a suggestion and a possibility, but it can become a reality depending on the decisions taken by all parties involved in the Ukrainian conflict – Moscow, Washington, Kiev, and Brussels.
I don’t want to discuss all the aspects and history of this conflict here. Instead I propose to analyze its deep ideological roots. My conception of the most relevant events is based on the Fourth Political Theory, whose principles I have described in my book under the same name that was published in English by Arktos Media in 2012.
Therefore I will not examine the war of the West on Russia in terms of its risks, dangers, issues, costs or consequences, but rather in an ideological sense as seen from the global perspective. I will therefore meditate on the sense of such a war, and not on the war itself (which may be either real or virtual).
Essence of liberalism
In the modern West, there is one ruling, dominant ideology – liberalism. It may appear in many shades, versions and forms, but the essence is always the same. Liberalism contains an inner, fundamental structure which follows axiomatic principles:
-   anthropological individualism (the individual is the measure of all things);
-  belief in progress (the world is heading toward a better future, and the past is always worse than the present);
-   technocracy (technical development and its execution are taken as the most important criteria by which to judge the nature of a society);
-   eurocentrism (Euro-American societies are accepted as the standard of measure for the rest of humanity);
-   economy as destiny (the free market economy is the only normative economic system – all the rest types are to either be reformed or destroyed);
-   democracy is the rule of minorities (defending themselves from the majority, which is always prone to degenerate into totalitarianism or “populism”);
-  the middle class is the only really existing social actor and universal norm (independent from the fact of whether or not an individual has already reached this status or is on the way to becoming actually middle class, representing for the moment only a would-be middle class);
-   one-world globalism (human beings are all essentially the same with only one distinction, namely that of their individual nature – the world should be integrated on the basis of the individual and cosmopolitism; in other words, world citizenship).
These are the core values of liberalism, and they are a manifestation of one of the three tendencies that originated in the Enlightenment alongside communism and fascism, which collectively proposed varying interpretations of the spirit of modernity. During the twentieth century, liberalism defeated its rivals, and since 1991 has become the sole, dominant ideology of the world.
The only freedom of choice in the kingdom of global liberalism is that between Right liberalism, Left liberalism or radical liberalism, including far-Right liberalism, far-Left liberalism and extremely radical liberalism. As a consequence, liberalism has been installed as the operational system of Western civilization and of all other societies that find themselves in the zone of Western influence. It has become the common denominator for any politically correct discourse, and the distinguishing mark which determines who is accepted by mainstream politics and who is marginalized and rejected. Conventional wisdom itself became liberal.
Geopolitically, liberalism was inscribed in the America-centered model in which Anglo-Saxons formed the ethnical core, based upon the Atlanticist Euro-American partnership, NATO, which represents the strategic core of the system of global security. Global security has come to be seen as being synonymous with the security of the West, and in the last instance with American security. So liberalism is not only an ideological power but also a political, military and strategic power. NATO is liberal in its roots. It defends liberal societies, and it fights to extend liberalism to new areas.
Liberalism as nihilism
There is one point in liberal ideology that has brought about a crisis within it: liberalism is profoundly nihilistic at its core. The set of values defended by liberalism is essentially linked to its main thesis: the primacy of liberty. But liberty in the liberal vision is an essentially negative category: it claims to be free from (as per John Stuart Mill), not to be free for something. It is not secondary; it is the essence of the problem.
Liberalism fights against all forms of collective identity, and against all types of values, projects, strategies, goals, methods and so on that are collectivist, or at least non-individualist. That is the reason why one of the most important theorists of liberalism, Karl Popper (following Friedrich von Hayek), held in his important book, The Open Society and Its Enemies, that liberals should fight against any ideology or political philosophy (ranging from Plato and Aristotle to Marx and Hegel) that suggests that human society should have some common goal, common value, or common meaning. (It should be noted that George Soros regards this book as his personal bible.) Any goal, any value, and any meaning in liberal society, or the open society, should be strictly based upon the individual. So the enemies of the open society, which is synonymous with Western society post-1991, and which has become the norm for the rest of the world, are concrete. Its primary enemies are communism and fascism, both ideologies which emerged from the same Enlightenment philosophy, and which contained central, non-individualic concepts – class in Marxism, race in National Socialism, and the national State in fascism. So the source of liberalism’s conflict with the existing alternatives of modernity, fascism or communism, is quite obvious. Liberals claim to liberate society from fascism and communism, or from the two major permutations of explicitly non-individualistic modern totalitarianism. Liberalism’s struggle, when viewed as a part of the process of the liquidation of non-liberal societies, is quite meaningful: it acquires its meaning from the fact of the very existence of ideologies that explicitly deny the individual as society’s highest value. It is quite clear what the struggle opposes: liberation from its opposite. But the fact that liberty, as it is conceived by liberals, is an essentially negative category is not clearly perceived here. The enemy is present and is concrete. That very fact gives liberalism its solid content. Something other than the open society exists, and the fact of its existence is enough to justify the process of liberation.
Unipolar period: threat of implosion
In 1991, when the Soviet Union as the last opponent of Western liberalism fell, some Westerners, such as Francis Fukuyama, proclaimed the end of history. This was quite logical: as there was no longer an explicit enemy of the open society, therefore there was no more history as had occurred during the modern period, which was defined by the struggle between three political ideologies (liberalism, communism and fascism) for the heritage of the Enlightenment. That was, strategically speaking, the moment when “unipolar moment” was realized (Charles Krauthammer). The period between 1991 and 2014, at the midpoint of which Bin Laden’s attack against the World Trade Center occurred, was the period of the global domination of liberalism. The axioms of liberalism were accepted by all the main geopolitical actors, including China (in economic terms) and Russia (in its ideology, economy, and political system). There were liberals and would-be liberals, not-yet liberals, not-liberal-enough liberals and so on. The real and explicit exceptions were few (such as Iran and North Korea). So the world became axiomatically liberal according to its ideology.
This has been the most important moment in the history of liberalism. It has defeated its enemies, but at the same time it has lost them. Liberalism is essentially the liberation from and the fight against all that is not liberal (at present or in what has the potential to become such). Liberalism acquired its real meaning and its content from its enemies. When the choice is presented as being between not-freedom (as represented by concrete totalitarian societies) or freedom, many choose freedom, not understanding it in terms of freedom for what, or freedom to do what… When there is an illiberal society, liberalism is positive. It only begins to show its negative essence after victory.
After the victory of 1991, liberalism stepped into its implosive phase. After having defeated communism as well as fascism, it stood alone, with no enemy to fight. And that was the moment when inner conflicts emerged, when liberal societies began to attempt to purge themselves of their last remaining non-liberal elements: sexism, politically incorrectness, inequality between the sexes, any remnants of the non-individualistic dimensions of institutions such as the State and the Church, and so on. Liberalism always needs enemy to liberate from. Otherwise it loses its purpose, and its implicit nihilism becomes too salient. The absolute triumph of liberalism is its death.
That is the ideological meaning of the financial crises of 2000 and of 2008. The successes and not the failures of the new, entirely profit-based economy (of turbocapitalism, according to Edward Luttwak) are responsible for its collapse.
The liberty to do anything you want, but restricted to the individual scale, provokes an implosion of the personality. The human passes to the infra-human realm, and to sub-individual domains. And here he encounters virtuality, as a dream of sub-individuality, the freedom from anything. This is the evaporation of the human, and brings about the Empire of nothingness as the last word in the total victory of liberalism. Postmodernism prepares the terrain for that post-historic, self-referential recycling of non-sense.
The West is in need of an enemy
You may ask now, what the Hell does all of this have to do with the (presumable) coming war with Russia? I am ready to answer that now.
Liberalism has continued to gain momentum on a global scale. Since 1991, it has been an inescapable fact. And it has now begun to implode. It has arrived at its terminal point and started to liquidate itself. Mass immigration, the clash of cultures and civilizations, the financial crisis, terrorism, and the growth of ethnic nationalism are indicators of approaching chaos. This chaos endangers the established order: any kind of order, including the liberal order itself. The more liberalism succeeds, the faster it approaches its end and the end of the present world. Here we are dealing with the nihilistic essence of liberal philosophy, with nothingness as the inner (me)ontological principle of freedom-from. The German anthropologist Arnold Gehlen justly defined the human as a “deprived being,” or Mangelwesen. Man in himself is nothing. It takes all that comprises its identity from society, history, people, and politics. So if he returns to his pure essence, he can no longer recognize anything. The abyss is hidden behind the fragmented debris of feelings, vague thoughts, and dim desires. The virtuality of sub-human emotions is a thin veil; behind it there is pure darkness. So the explicit discovery of this nihilistic basis of human nature is the last achievement of liberalism. But that is the end, and the end also for those who use the liberalism for their own purposes and who are beneficiaries of liberal expansion; in other words, the masters of globalization. Any and all order collapses in such an emergency of nihilism: the liberal order, too.
In order to rescue the rule of this liberal elite, they need to take a certain step back. Liberalism will reacquire its meaning only when it is confronted once more with non-liberal society. This step back is the only way to save what remains of order, and to save liberalism from itself. Therefore, Putin’s Russia appears on its horizon. Modern Russia is not anti-liberal, not totalitarian, not nationalist, and not communist, nor is it yet too liberal, fully liberal-democrat, sufficiently cosmopolite, or so radically anti-communist. It is rather on the way to becoming liberal, step by step, within the process of a Gramscian adjustment to global hegemony and the subsequent transformation this entails (“transformismo” in Gramscian language).
However, in the global agenda of liberalism as represented by the United States and NATO, there is a need for another actor, for another Russia that would justify the order of the liberal camp, and help to mobilize the West as it threatens to break apart from inner strife. This will delay the irruption of liberalism’s inner nihilism and thus save it from its inevitable end. That is why they badly need Putin, Russia, and war. It is the only way to prevent chaos in the West and to save what remains of its global and domestic order. In this ideological play, Russia would justify liberalism’s existence, because that is the enemy which would give a meaning to the struggle of the open society, and which would help it to consolidate and continue to affirm itself globally. Radical Islam, such as represented by al-Qaeda, was another candidate for this role, but it lacked sufficient stature to become a real enemy. It was used, but only on a local scale. It justified the intervention in Afghanistan, the occupation of Iraq, the overthrow of Gaddafi, and started a civil war in Syria, but it was too weak and ideologically primitive to represent the real challenge that is needed by liberals.
Russia, the traditional geopolitical enemy of Anglo-Saxons, is much more serious as an opponent. It fits the needed role extremely well – the memory of the Cold War is still fresh in many minds. Hate for Russia is an easy thing to provoke by relatively simple means. This is why I think that war with Russia is possible. It is ideologically necessary as the last means to postpone the final implosion of the liberal West. It is the needed “one step back.”
To save the liberal order
Considering the different layers of this concept of a possible war with Russia, I suggest a few points:
1. A war with Russia will help to delay the coming disorder on a global scale. The majority of the countries that are involved in the liberal economy, and which share the axioms and institutions of liberal democracy, and which are either dependent upon or directly controlled by the United States and NATO, will forge a common front once more behind the cause of the liberal West in its quest to oppose the anti-liberal Putin. This will serve to reaffirm liberalism as a positive identity when this identity is beginning to dissolving as a result of the manifestation of its nihilistic essence.
2. A war with Russia would strengthen NATO and above all its European members, who will be obliged once more to regard American hyperpower as something positive and useful, and the old Cold War stance will no longer seem obsolete. Out of a fear of the coming of the “evil Russians”, Europeans will again feel loyal to the United States as their protector and savior. As a result, the leading role of the U.S. in NATO will be reaffirmed.
3. The EU is falling apart. The supposed “common threat” of the Russians could prevent it from an eventual split, mobilizing these societies and making their peoples once again eager to defend their liberties and values under the threat of Putin’s “imperial ambitions”.
4. The Ukraine junta in Kiev needs this war to justify and conceal all the misdeeds they carried out during the Maidan protests on both the juridical and constitutional levels, thus allowing them to suspend democracy, that would impede their rule in the southeastern, mostly pro-Russian districts and would enable them to establish their authority and nationalistic order through extra-parliamentary means.
The only country that doesn’t want war now is Russia. But Putin cannot let the radically anti-Russian government in Ukraine to dominate a country that has a population that is half-Russian and which contains many pro-Russian regions. If he allows this, he will be finished on the international and domestic levels. So, reluctantly, he accepts war. And once he begins on this course, there will be no other solution for Russia but to win it.
I don’t like to speculate regarding the strategic aspects of this coming war. I leave that to other, more qualified analysts. Instead I would like to formulate some ideas concerning the ideological dimension of this war.
Framing Putin
The meaning of this war on Russia is in essence the last effort of globalist liberalism to save itself from implosion. As such, liberals need to define Putin’s Russia ideologically – and obviously identify it with the enemy of the open society. But in the dictionary of modern ideologies there are only three primary iterations: liberalism, communism and fascism. It is quite clear that liberalism is represented by all the nations involved in this conflict except for Russia (the United States, the NATO member states, and Euromaidan/the Kiev junta). This leaves only communism and fascism. Therefore Putin is made out to be a “neo-Soviet revanchist” and “a return of the KGB”. This is the picture that is being sold to the most stupid sort of Western public. But some aspects of the patriotic reaction emanating from the pro-Russian and anti-Banderite population (i.e., the defense of Lenin’s monuments, Stalin portraits and memorials to the Soviet involvement in the Second World War) could confirm this idea in the minds of this public. Nazism and fascism are too far removed from Putin and the reality of modern Russia, but Russian nationalism and Russian imperialism will be evoked within the image of the Great Evil that is being drawn. Therefore Putin is being made out to be a “radical nationalist”, a “fascist” and an “imperialist”. This will work on many Westerners. Under this logic, Putin can be both “communist” and “fascist” at the same time, so he will be depicted as a “National Bolshevik” (although this is a little bit too complicated for the postmodern Western public). It is obvious that in reality, Putin is neither – he is not a communist nor a fascist, nor both simultaneously. He is a political pragmatist in the realm of International Relations – this is why he admires Kissinger, and why Kissinger likes him in return. He has no ideology whatsoever. But he will be obliged to embrace the ideological frame that he has been assigned. It is not his choice. But such are the rules of the game. In the course of this war on Russia, Putin will be framed in this way, and that is the most interesting and important aspect of this situation.
The main idea that liberals will try to advance to define Putin ideologically will be as the shadow of the past, as a vampire: “Sometimes they come back.” That is the rationale behind this attempt to prevent the final implosion of liberalism. The primary message is that liberalism is still alive and vital because there is something in the world that we all must be liberated from. Russia will become the object from which it must be liberated. The goal is first to liberate Ukraine, and by extension Europe and the rest of humanity, who will likewise be depicted as being under threat, from Russia, and in the end Russia itself will be said to be in need of rescue from its own non-liberal identity. So now we have an enemy. Such an enemy gives to the liberalism its raison d’etre once more. So Russia is being made out to be a challenger from the pre-liberal past thrown into the liberal present. Without such a challenge there is no more life in liberalism, no more order in the world, and everything associated with them will dissolve and implode. With this challenge, the falling giant of globalism acquires new vigor. Russia is here to save the liberals.
But in order for this to happen, Russia is being ideologically framed as something pre-liberal. She must be either communist, fascist or at perhaps National Bolshevist Russia. That is the ideological rule. Therefore, in fighting with Russia, or in considering to fight her, or in not fighting her, there is a deeper task – to frame Russia ideologically. It will be done from both the inside and the outside. They will try to force Russia to accept either communism or extreme nationalism, or else they will simply treat Russia as if it were these things. It is a framing game.
Post-liberal Russia: The first war of the Fourth Political Theory
In conclusion, what I propose is the following:
We need to consciously counter any provocation to frame Russia as a pre-liberal power. We need to refuse to allow the liberals to save themselves from their fast-approaching end. Rather than helping them to delay it, we need to accelerate it. In order to do this, we need to present Russia not as a pre-liberal entity but as a post-liberal revolutionary force that struggles for an alternative future for all the peoples of the planet. The Russian war will be not only be for Russian national interests, but will be in the cause of a just multipolar world, for real dignity and for real, positive freedom – not (nihilistic) freedom from but (creative) freedom for. In this war, Russia will set an example as the defender of Tradition, conservative organic values, and will represent real liberation from the open society and its beneficiaries – the global financial oligarchy. This war is not against Ukrainians or even against part of the Ukrainian populace. Nor is it against Europe. It is against the liberal world (dis)order. We are not going to save liberalism, per their designs. We are going to kill it once and for all. Modernity was always essentially wrong, and we are now at the terminal point of modernity. For those who rendered modernity and their own destiny synonymous, or who let that occur unconsciously, this will mean the end. But for those who are on the side of eternal truth and of Tradition, of faith, and of the spiritual and immortal human essence, it will be a new beginning, Absolute Beginning.
The most important fight at present is the fight for the Fourth Political Theory. It is our weapon, and with it we are going to prevent the liberals from realizing their wish of framing Putin and Russia  in their own manner, and in so doing we will reaffirm Russia as the first post-liberal ideological power struggling against nihilistic liberalism for the sake of an open, multipolar and genuinely free future.

US Pushes Georgia into NATO


US Pushes Georgia into NATO: MAP is Option Again

Andrei AKULOV 

Ex: http://www.strategic-culture.org

As Russian Kommersant daily reports citing its own NATO and US State Department sources, the idea of granting Georgia a Membership Action Plan (MAP) is getting wide support in the Alliance, as the events in Ukraine unfold. On his recent visit to Washington on February 25 Georgian Prime Minister Garibashvili got the assurances that his country will get a MAP at NATO September 2014 session in Cardiff, Wales, in case Crimea votes for joining the Russian Federation at the March 16 referendum. The article notes that only Germany may hesitate a bit while the foreign department is headed by Franc-Walter Steinmeier prone to show restraint towards Russia.

US administration takes stance to support Georgia’s NATO’s bid

The U.S. State Department endorsed granting Georgia its long-coveted status as an aspiring NATO member. This is the first time in recent history that the U.S. has explicitly come out in favor of MAP. Before the visit State Department officials had shied away from making the US stance definite. President Barak Obama and State Secretary John Kerry met the Georgian Prime Minister. After the meeting Kerry mentioned the possibility of his visit to Georgia for the first time (before May). The Secretary also announced «additional assistance» to Georgia: «Today I am announcing additional assistance by the United States to help support Georgia’s European and Euro-Atlantic vision, specifically to help Georgia achieve visa-free travel with the EU and to mitigate the hardships caused by borderization along the occupied territories»

Georgian Defense Minister Irakli Alasania said Russia’s campaign in Ukraine creates a need for more decisive NATO policy in Eastern Europe. «Speeding up the process of Georgia joining NATO should be one of the essential elements of the new policy approach that will better contribute to ensuring [the] stability of the European and Euro-Atlantic area», Alasania wrote in an emailed response to questions posed by EurasiaNet.org. «Speeding up the process of Georgia joining NATO should be one of the essential elements of the new policy approach that will better contribute to ensuring [the] stability of the European and Euro-Atlantic area», he wrote in an emailed response to questions posed by EurasiaNet.org.

«There is now a wave of support building here for the idea of giving Georgia a MAP to protect against Russia», says Caucasus expert Thomas de Waal, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, DC.

In late 2008 NATO embarked on an intensive cooperation program intended to strengthen the Georgian military. A NATO-Georgia Commission was established and tasked with overseeing implementation of successive Annual National Programs intended as a substitute for a MAP. At the NATO's Lisbon summit in 2010 participants reaffirmed the commitment enshrined in the Bucharest summit communique that Georgia would eventually join the alliance. Georgia has made an outsized contribution to the NATO effort in Afghanistan. 

In March 2013, the Georgian parliament passed a unanimous resolution reconfirming Georgia's NATO and EU aspirations. Last year NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen for his part lauded Georgia's progress toward meeting NATO membership requirements. Visiting Tbilisi in June 2013, he said Georgia had «moved a lot closer to NATO» and «is on the right path» to «NATO's open door». «With consistent and determined efforts, you will reach your destination», Rasmussen assured the hosts.

Georgia is situated in the strategically vital Caucasus region, which links Europe and the West to resource-rich Central Asia and beyond to China and India. A growing network of sea ports, air and land corridors put Georgia at the emerging nexus for Asian and European economies. As NATO and the US scale down their presence in Afghanistan, the West is going to need strong partners in this region. When it comes to the EU, Brussels is working to accelerate the signing of accords that will eventually make the country’s laws, economy and political system EU-compatible. The agreements, expected later this year, are subject to legislative approval by both the EU and Georgia, and require more reforms. But for the first time Brussels has hinted that its overtures to Georgia will not stop there. 

Sergi Kapanadze, a deputy foreign minister under former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili, believes that showing a strengthened commitment to Georgia on NATO membership would be one of the best ways to show Russia how resolute the West is to oppose it, «Based on other situations, such as Syria, [Russian President Vladimir] Putin now feels that the West is weak and its warnings taper off without translating into something that can actually hurt Russia», said Kapanadze. «If the West does not take real steps, such as expelling Russia from the G8 and making Georgia a NATO member, Putin will think he can get away with Ukraine».

US lawmakers strongly push for granting MAP 

While the events in Ukraine dominate headlines, congressmen in Washington are pressuring the administration to take a more aggressive stand toward allowing NATO membership for Georgia. 

In February 2014, 40 lawmakers from both sides of the aisle wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry stressing that the U.S. and its allies «have reached a critical point in which action is necessary to ensure NATO’s future relevance and viability». They encouraged continued efforts to make enlargement a key priority for the United States and urged him to support NATO membership for Macedonia and Montenegro, encourage continued progress in implementing the MAP for Bosnia-Herzegovina. 

The Feb. 5 letter, drafted by the office of Rep. Mike Turner Ohio Republican and chairman of the U.S. Delegation to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, specifically called on the Secretary of State to advocate granting Georgia a MAP at NATO’s 2014 summit, which is slated for September.

In response to the letter, the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State of Legislative Affairs Julia Frifield wrote, «We believe Georgia deserves credit at the upcoming NATO Summit for the progress it has made and its demonstrated commitment to NATO operations and standards. We stand ready to support Georgia's own efforts to build a consensus within the Alliance for granting it a Membership Action Plan».

Republicans say President Barack Obama has been too passive in responding to the crisis in Ukraine. 

US Senator Mario Rubio (R-FL), who is widely viewed as a 2016 presidential contender, called for a renewed push for NATO membership for Georgia.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham told CNN on March 2 that Obama should «stop going on television and trying to threaten thugs and dictators». Graham added that «Every time the President goes on national television and threatens Putin or anyone like Putin, everybody’s eyes roll, including mine. We have a weak and indecisive president that invites aggression». As to him, «Georgia is trying to seek NATO admission through the membership action plan. Let’s accelerate Georgia’s admission into NATO», said Graham. «We abandoned our missile defense agreements with them to protect Europe from a rogue missile attack coming out of the Mid East. Russia backed Obama down. If I were President Obama, I would reengage Poland and the Czech Republic regarding missile defense».

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers told Fox News that «Putin is playing chess and I think we’re playing marbles». The Michigan congressman added that the Russians have been «running circles around us» in negotiations on issues like missile defense and Syria. Rogers said the White House should not attend the G-8 summit and should seek international sanctions.

And Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona – Obama’s 2008 general election opponent and a frequent critic of the President’s foreign policy – said in a statement that he is «deeply concerned» that Russia’s presence in Ukraine could grow if Obama does not go into detail about what exactly he’s going to do. McCain called on the U.S. to give economic aid to Ukraine and to install U.S. missiles in the Czech Republican. «President Obama said that Russia would face ‘costs’ if it intervened militarily in Ukraine», McCain said. «It is now essential for the President to articulate exactly what those costs will be and take steps urgently to impose them».

Imponderables and factors to reckon with

There are imponderables as the issue is considered, for instance, it remains unclear to what extent the Georgian Army as a whole meets NATO standards, as opposed to the battalions that have served since 2009 with the NATO-led mission in Afghanistan. NATO has been enthusiastically engaged in the Alliance extension for the very idea of extension game. Now it has become an alliance of rag tag members with different potentials and different interests complicating to utmost any decision making process. Georgia will add more headache and burden without giving anything on return. Giving a MAP to Georgia is like cutting off the nose to spite the face. After all it was Georgian President Saakashvili who launched an attack in 2008. If Georgia were a NATO member those days, it would have done a real lip service to the Alliance putting it in an awkward position nobody needed, to put it most mildly. 

Russia still maintains a military presence within the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and regards NATO advancement as an immediate threat. Giving MAP to Georgia means constant confrontation with Russia adamant to stay firm asserting its foreign policy interests and ready to rebuff any attempts to intimidate or exert pressure on it. 

Speaking at a news conference in Brussels after the NATO-Russia Council on December 8, Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said, «I noticed that yesterday’s communiqué, which was adopted by the NATO foreign ministers, contains a term ‘aspirant countries’ and among them was named Georgia too. I openly warned our colleagues not to again push, wittingly or unwittingly, the current regime in Georgia towards repeating an adventure similar to the one of August, 2008… it was shortly after the [April, 2008 NATO] Bucharest summit, during which [NATO] imperatively stated, that Georgia will join NATO», Lavrov said.

Riccardo Alvaro, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center on the United States and Europe, noted that as a general rule,NATO is unwilling to accept countries with such unresolved disputes because it «involves the risk of NATO being drawn into a military confrontation». «Common sense has it that NATO’s enlargement should take place wherever it enhances NATO’s security», he added. «If enlarging the Alliance means a spillover of insecurity into it, what’s the point?» 

The very process of NATO expansion is an irritant negatively affecting the security situation in Europe in general and bringing no dividends; NATO has no axe to grind here. 

This is the time to come up with well thought over and balanced initiatives to find a common understanding and ways to calm the tensions down, not pouring more fuel to the fire. Granting a MAP to Georgia is an obvious wrong step in the wrong direction at the wrong time. 

vendredi, 14 mars 2014

Lavia mediterranea

Les nationalismes en Ukraine et en Crimée


Au-delà de l’affaire…

Michel Lhomme
Ex: http://metamag.fr
Parler de l’affaire ukrainienne, c’est aussi parler de ce pays et de sa population, de ses forces vives. En fait, l'Ukraine peut-elle devenir un pays indépendant ? Doit-elle forcément être inféodée à l'Europe  ou à la Russie ? Le destin de ce pays ne nous est-il pas commun ?

Il faut évoquer la fierté combattante du peuple ukrainien, comme quelque chose d'inestimable. C'est tellement vrai qu'à Paris, on « hitlérise » ce peuple, on le pestifère. Les nationalistes ukrainiens seraient d'extrême-droite et en plus, d'affreux antisémites. Cela n'a pas gêné Bernard Henri-Lévy tant qu'on pouvait manipuler Maïdan ! Or, les nationalistes ukrainiens, ce sont les  ( le ''Secteur Droit'', rassemblement de plusieurs mouvements nationalistes ukrainiens comme Tryzub ou l’UNA-UNSO, NDT) et un parti nationaliste jugé plus «modéré», Svoboda. Ce sont les militants de ces partis qui sont morts à Maïdan. Or, les nationalistes ukrainiens sont morts pour Kiev pas pour Poutine.
Poutine avait confié l’Ukraine à une minorité ethnique qui a profité du pouvoir pour s’imposer et russifier. C'était une minorité corrompue qui a utilisé la pire des propagandes, l'ancienne propagande soviétique à savoir l'anti-fascisme, l'anti-nazisme et qui en a abusé pour faire taire aux Ukrainiens l'amour de la patrie. Mais, victorieux, les nationalistes ukrainiens ont gagné une première manche ! D'abord, ils ont obtenu la libération de toutes les personnes arrêtées lors des émeutes, le licenciement de cinquante juges accusés de corruption, la grâce d’un père et de son fils condamnés pour avoir abattu un magistrat, symbole de la corruption post-communiste et l’octroi à un membre du parti Svoboda du poste de procureur général de toute l’Ukraine. Pendant ce temps, la rue, dominée par le Praviy Sektor a poussé Yulia Timochenko à la retraite anticipée en lui faisant retirer sa candidature et a clairement fait savoir que l’Ukraine n’est pas disposée à devenir une colonie américaine.
C’est d'ailleurs toujours le Praviy Sektor, décrit dans les médias occidentaux comme une bête immonde qui a réussi à faire rejeter la candidature au poste de Premier ministre du champion des Américains, Vitaliy Klitchko. Le fait est que le Praviy Sektor a été maître de la négociation et ne regarde pas comme Svoboda en direction de l'Ouest. Car qu'est-ce qu'un regard confiant vers  l’Ouest (dixit Svoboda),  dans une zone de frontière, si ce n'est une allégeance ? 

Si Svoboda et le Praviy Sektor entrent en conflit , si les fonctionnaires de Svoboda s’abaissent devant les hommes de Soros, le Praviy Sektor sera le mouton noir sacrifié sur l’autel de l’occidentalisation. Les nationalistes ukrainiens doivent au plus vite demander des garanties dans leurs nouvelles relations économiques, énergétiques et diplomatiques avec la Russie. Les relations internationales ne se bâtissent pas sur la sympathie entre partenaires ou sur la défense d'une cause commune. Elles sont basées sur des intérêts communs, lorsque les parties contractantes sont dans un rapport de force à peu près égal. Paradoxalement, c'est parfois aussi dans la haine réciproque que se bâtissent les meilleures alliances, ce qui est le cas actuellement en Ukraine, entre nationalistes ukrainiens et nationalistes russes. Il n’est pas inconcevable que, dans les prochains mois, il incombe précisément aux nationalistes ukrainiens de gérer leurs relations avec la Russie. Le pire serait une polarisation Svoboda contre Praya Sektor, source potentielle d'une guerre civile profitable à beaucoup selon le vieux principe machiavélien du ''diviser pour régner''. 

Le retour au calme en Ukraine ne se fera pas sans un consensus fort avec les nationalistes radicaux qui ont débordé l’opposition parlementaire et sont  la force vive de l'eurasisme à construire, cet espoir de bâtir un nouvel Etat au frontière de l’Europe, un Etat, nationaliste et orthodoxe. Sinon, l’Ukraine se dirigera vers une scission de fait, se transformera en une grande Moldavie à l’Ouest et une Nouvelle Ossétie à l’Est (et en Crimée notamment). L’Ukraine aura alors été sacrifiée au sein d’une féroce lutte géopolitique des grands ensembles sur le continent. Elle sera alors réduite à n'être qu'une sorte de colonie dont on aurait instrumentalisé les nationalistes afin de briser un espoir européen plus grand, un espoir de constituer un réel pays indépendant. 

On peut alors imaginer que ces micro-nationalismes, ces régio-nationalismes n'auront servi qu'à assurer l’extension de l’Otan et l’intégration des nations européennes dans un conglomérat sous domination américaine. Priver l’Europe d’une alliance avec la Russie, c’est aussi empêcher le grand retour européen vers l'Est, vers la Sibérie, l'Asie centrale.

On the Russian Annexation of Crimea


On the Russian Annexation of Crimea

By Guillaume Faye 

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

Translated by Greg Johnson

The Crimean parliament has called for independence from Ukraine and a referendum over joining the Russian Federation. Thunder in the chancelleries! The Crimean authorities are illegitimate because they are self-proclaimed. Who is right, who is wrong?

Barack Obama said on March 6 that the planned referendum for joining Russia would be undemocratic and illegal. (See previous articles on this point). He was followed in this analysis by the European governments. So, the decisions of the people are supposed to be  illegitimate if they do not support the interests and ideology of what the Russians call the “Western powers.” Democracy is, therefore, a rubber standard.

Here we encounter a very old problem: the principle of nationality in the ethnic sense against the same principle in the political sense. Let me explain. Politically, the detachment of Crimea from Ukraine is actually illegal under the constitution of Ukraine, a Republic “one and indivisible” like France. But Ukraine is a very unstable, indeed divided nation state. Imagine that tomorrow in France a majority of Bretons or Corsicans wanted to unconstitutionally secede.[1] Worse still, imagine a future region of France populated after decades of colonization migration by an Arab-Muslim majority desiring autonomy or attachment to an overseas Mediterranean country . . .

The same problem happens all over the world: in Spain with the Catalans, in Britain with the Scots, in Belgium with the Flemings, in Israel with Muslim citizens who have higher rate of population growth. Many examples exist in Africa and Asia. Remember Kosovo, torn away from Serbia because Albanians became the majority? In that case, the Americans and the West agreed to the partition of Serbia! They are no longer for partition in Crimea. A double standard.

Americans would do well proclaiming their principles carefully. For what if a Hispanic majority emerges in the Southwestern states (through immigration and high fertility) and demands to rejoin Mexico? That is a real risk in the next 20 years . . . This brings us to the old conflict between legality and legitimacy, thoroughly analyzed by Carl Schmitt. And it also makes us reflect on the concept of the multiethnic state (imperial/federal), which historically has always been difficult to manage and quite unstable.

In the minds of Putin and the Kremlin, Crimea historically belongs to Russia: it is predominantly Russian-speaking and houses part of the fleet. Putin wants to restore Russia, not to the borders of the USSR but to those of Catherine the Great, the Russian Empire, which the ambitious Vladimir wishes to defend. Then what? Of course, Vladimir Putin wants to appear to his people as the one who brought back the (formerly Russian) Crimea to the motherland and wants to restore the Russian international power.

Putin handled the crisis smoothly, using good judo to turn to his advantage the aggressive moves of his opponents, including the EU, NATO, and the U.S., to draw Ukraine into their fold.[2] It is a major geopolitical mistake to provoke Russia instead of respecting its sphere of influence, pushing it into the arms of China. It is stupid to revive the Cold War. Russophobia is not in the interests of Europeans. Russian power is not a threat, it is an opportunity. Presenting Putin’s Russia as a threat to “democracy” is the sort of lazy propaganda championed by the attention whore and professional dilettante Bernard-Henri Lévy. Of course, Washington’s policy (which is logical) is both to prevent Russia  from once again becoming a great power and decoupling the EU and Russia: it is a general trend.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian crisis is just beginning. This improbable country will probably not find a stable balance. Crimea will probably end up being part of Russia. Eastern and Southern Ukraine may become quasi-protectorates tied to Russia. The Western region, under the influence of “nationalist” and pro-Western Ukrainians has a more complicated fate. Indeed, Ukrainian nationalism faces a fundamental contradiction, for they are attracted to the EU, but it is committed to a cosmopolitan ideology opposed to all nationalism. And all “ethnic hatred.” This cannot be overcome. There is an inherent incompatibility between Ukrainian nationalism and the EU’s ideological vulgate, which many do not understand.

In history, there are often insoluble problems. My Russian friend Pavel Tulayev, who has published me in Russia, understands this well: the union of all peoples of European descent from the Atlantic to the Pacific is the only way, regardless of political organization. The Ukraine crisis is a resurgence of the 19th and 20th centuries. But we are in the 21st century.


1. Already the “Red Hats” present Breton autonomist claims against the French State tax, yet they do not belong to the traditional Breton autonomy and independence movement. Good food for thought . . .

2. In addition, Putin played upon the new authorities in Kiev’s measures against Russian speakers.

Article printed from Counter-Currents Publishing: http://www.counter-currents.com

URL to article: http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/03/on-the-russian-annexation-of-crimea/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/crimea_from_space.jpg

jeudi, 13 mars 2014

China's Xi Jinping urges US to show restraint over Ukrainian crisis


China's Xi Jinping urges US to show restraint over Ukrainian crisis

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru

China feels that all parties related to the situation in Ukraine should show restraint to avoid fomenting tension, the President of the People’s Republic of China, Xi Jinping, said in a statement. "China has taken an unbiased and fair stand on Ukraine’s issue. The situation in Ukraine is involved, so all parties should retain composure and show restraint, to prevent tension from making another upward spiral”, the Chinese leader said in a telephone conversation with his US counterpart Barack Obama.

Xi Jinping pointed out that the crisis should be settled politically and diplomatically. He said he hoped that all the parties interested would be able to reconcile their differences in a proper way, through contact and consultation, and would bend every effort to find a political solution to the problem.

President Xi said the situation in Ukraine is "highly complicated and sensitive," which "seems to be accidental, (but) has the elements of the inevitable."

He added that China believes Russia can "push for the political settlement of the issue so as to safeguard regional and world peace and stability" and he "supports proposals and mediation efforts of the international community that are conducive to the reduction of tension."

"China is open for support for any proposal or project that would help mitigate the situation in Ukraine, China is prepared to remain in contact with the United States and other parties interested”, the Chinese President said.

The Xinhua news agency said earlier in a comment that Ukraine is yet another example for one and all to see of how one big country has broken into pieces due to the unmannerly and egoistic conduct of the West.

Pour le rattachement de la Crimée à la Russie?


Pour le rattachement de la Crimée à la Russie?

par Guillaume Faye

Le Parlement de Crimée s’est prononcé pour un détachement de l’Ukraine et un référendum de rattachement à la Fédération de Russie. Tonnerre dans les chancelleries : les nouvelles autorités de Crimée seraient illégitimes parce qu’autoproclamées. Qui a raison, qui a tort ?

 Barack Obama a déclaré le 6 mars  que ce référendum prévu pour le rattachement de la Crimée serait antidémocratique et illégal. (Voir articles précédents sur ce point).  Il a été suivi dans cette analyse par les gouvernements européens.  Donc, les décisions du peuple sont supposées illégitimes si elles ne vont pas dans le sens des intérêts et de l’idéologie de ce que les Russes appellent les ”puissances occidentales ”. La démocratie est donc à géométrie variable. 


On se heurte ici à un très ancien problème : celui du principe de nationalité au sens ethnique contre le même principe au sens politique. Expliquons-nous. Politiquement, le détachement de la Crimée de l’Ukraine est effectivement illégal par rapport à la constitution de l’Ukraine, république ”une et indivisible” comme la France. Mais L’Ukraine est un État-Nation très instable, de fait partagé. Imaginons que, demain, en France, une majorité de Bretons ou de Corses veuillent, inconstitutionnellement, faire sécession. (1) Pis : imaginons dans l’avenir une région de France, finissant par être peuplée après des décennies de colonisation migratoire, d’une majorité d’Arabo-musulmans et désirant une autonomie ou un rattachement à un pays d’outre Méditerranée… 

 Le même problème est récurrent dans le monde entier : en Espagne avec les Catalans, en Grande-Bretagne avec les Écossais, en Belgique avec les Flamands, en Israël avec les citoyens musulmans en croissance démographique supérieure. De multiples exemples existent en Afrique et en Asie. Rappelons-nous du Kossovo, arraché de la Serbie parce que les Albanais y étaient devenus majoritaires : dans ce cas-là d’ailleurs, les Américains et les Occidentaux étaient d’accord pour le détachement de la Serbie ! Et ils ne le sont plus dans le cas de la Crimée. Deux poids, deux mesures.

Les Américains feraient bien de se méfier avant de proclamer leurs grands principes. Car se passera-t-il si les États du sud, de plus en plus hispanophones (immigration et effet démographique) exigent un jour leur rattachement au Mexique ? Il s’agit d’un risque réel dans les 20 ans à venir… Cela nous renvoie au vieux conflit entre légalité et légitimité, bien analysé par Carl Schmitt. Et cela nous fait réfléchir aussi à la notion d’État pluriethnique (impérial/fédéral) qui a toujours été dans l’histoire difficile à gérer et très instable. 


  Dans l’esprit du Kremlin et de Poutine, la Crimée appartient historiquement à la Russie : elle est majoritairement russophone et abrite une partie de la flotte. Poutine veut rétablir la Russie, non pas tant dans les frontières de l’URSS que dans celles de la Grande Catherine, de l’Empire russe, dont l’ambitieux Vladimir se veut le défenseur.  Et alors ? Bien évidemment,  Vladimir Poutine veut apparaître auprès de son peuple comme celui qui a fait revenir la Crimée (jadis russe) à la mère patrie et qui veut restaurer la puissance internationale russe.   

Il a joué sur du velours en bon judoka qui utilise à son profit, par retournement, l’agressivité de son adversaire : notamment les manœuvres de l’UE, de l’Otan et des USA pour attirer l’Ukraine dans leur giron, ce qui constitue une erreur géopolitique majeure. (2) Provoquer la Russie au lieu de respecter sa sphère d’influence, c’est la pousser dans les bras de la Chine. C’est relancer stupidement la guerre froide. La russophobie n’est pas dans l’intérêt des Européens. La puissance russe n’est pas une menace, c’est une chance. Présenter la Russie de Poutine comme un danger contre la ”démocratie” relève d’une propagande sommaire dont BHL, avide de notoriété, maître en amateurisme et en romanisme cuistre, se  fait le chantre.  Bien entendu, la politique de Washington (ce qui est logique) vise doublement à empêcher la Russie de redevenir une grande puissance et à découpler l’UE de la Russie : c’est une tendance lourde.

En attendant, la crise ukrainienne ne fait que commencer. Il est peu probable que ce pays improbable retrouve un équilibre étatique. La Crimée va sans doute finir par être rattachée à la Russie. L’Est et le Sud de l’Ukraine peuvent devenir une sorte de protectorat lié à la Russie. L’Ouest du pays, à la fois sous l’emprise des ”nationalistes” ukrainiens et pro-occidental aura un destin plus compliqué : en effet, ce nationalisme ukrainien va se heurter à une contradiction fondamentale. Car il est attiré par l’UE mais cette dernière développe une idéologie cosmopolite opposée à tout nationalisme. Et à tout ”ethnicisme”. Cela ne pourra pas être surmonté.  Il y a une incompatibilité de nature entre le nationalisme ukrainien et la vulgate idéologique de l’UE, ce que beaucoup ne comprennent pas.

Dans l’histoire, il y a souvent des équations insolubles. Mon ami russe Pavel Toulaëv, qui m’a édité en Russie, a bien compris les choses : l’union de tous les peuples d’origine européenne de l’Atlantique au Pacifique est la seule voie possible, quelle qu’en soit l’organisation politique. La crise ukrainienne est un resurgissement des XIXe et XXe siècles. Or nous sommes au XXIe siècle. 



1. Déjà les ”bonnets rouges” bretons présentent des revendications autonomistes contre l’État français fiscaliste, alors qu’ils n’appartiennent pas à la mouvance traditionnelle des autonomistes et indépendantistes bretons. Bon sujet de réflexion…

2. De plus, Poutine a joué sur les mesures anti-russophones prises par les nouvelles autorités de Kiev.