Ok

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.

mercredi, 26 mars 2014

Putin’s Triumph

youll-never-catch-putin-in-a-skirt-in-fact-his-persona-is-more-like-that-of-a-lumberjackwarrior-here-putin-recharges-on-a-visit-to-the-siberian-khakasiya-region.jpg

Putin’s Triumph

Ex: http://orientalreview.org/

By Israel SHAMIR (Israel)

Nobody expected events to move on with such a breath-taking speed. The Russians took their time; they sat on the fence and watched while the Brown storm-troopers conquered Kiev, and they watched while Mrs Victoria Nuland of the State Department and her pal Yatsenyuk (“Yats”) slapped each other’s backs and congratulated themselves on their quick victory. They watched when President Yanukovych escaped to Russia to save his skin. They watched when the Brown bands moved eastwards to threaten the Russian-speaking South East. They patiently listened while Mme Timoshenko, fresh out of gaol, swore to void treaties with Russia and to expel the Russian Black Sea Fleet from its main harbour in Sevastopol. They paid no heed when the new government appointed oligarchs to rule Eastern provinces. Nor did they react when children in Ukrainian schools were ordered to sing “Hang a Russian on a thick branch” and the oligarch-governor’s deputy promised to hang dissatisfied Russians of the East as soon as Crimea is pacified. While these fateful events unravelled, Putin kept silence.

He is a cool cucumber, Mr Putin. Everybody, including this writer, thought he was too nonchalant about Ukraine’s collapse. He waited patiently. The Russians made a few slow and hesitant, almost stealthy moves. The marines Russia had based in Crimea by virtue of an international agreement (just as the US has marines in Bahrain) secured Crimea’s airports and roadblocks, provided necessary support to the volunteers of the Crimean militia (called Self-Defence Forces), but remained under cover. The Crimean parliament asserted its autonomy and promised a plebiscite in a month time. And all of a sudden things started to move real fast!

The poll was moved up to Sunday, March 16. Even before it could take place, the Crimean Parliament declared Crimea’s independence. The poll’s results were spectacular: 96% of the votes were for joining Russia; the level of participation was unusually high – over 84%. Not only ethnic Russians, but ethnic Ukrainians and Tatars voted for reunification with Russia as well. A symmetrical poll in Russia showed over 90% popular support for reunification with Crimea, despite liberals’ fear-mongering (“this will be too costly, the sanctions will destroy Russian economy, the US will bomb Moscow”, they said).

Even then, the majority of experts and talking heads expected the situation to remain suspended for a long while. Some thought Putin would eventually recognise Crimean independence, while stalling on final status, as he did with Ossetia and Abkhazia after the August 2008 war with Tbilisi. Others, especially Russian liberals, were convinced Putin would surrender Crimea in order to save Russian assets in the Ukraine.

 

Vladimir Putin delivering his address on reunification with Crimea. Source: Kremlin.ru

Vladimir Putin delivering his address on reunification with Crimea. Source: Kremlin.ru

But Putin justified the Russian proverb: the Russians take time to saddle their horses, but they ride awfully fast. He recognised Crimea’s independence on Monday, before the ink on the poll’s results dried.  The next day, on Tuesday, he gathered all of Russia’s senior statesmen and parliamentarians (video) in the biggest, most glorious and elegant St George state hall in the Kremlin, lavishly restored to its Imperial glory, and declared Russia’s acceptance of Crimea’s reunification bid. Immediately after his speech, the treaty between Crimea and Russia was signed, and the peninsula reverted to Russia as it was before 1954, when Communist Party leader Khrushchev passed it to the Ukrainian Soviet Republic.

This was an event of supreme elation for the gathered politicians and for people at home watching it live on their tellies. The vast St George Hall applauded Putin as never before. The Russians felt immense pride: they still remember the stinging defeat of 1991, when their country was taken apart. Regaining Crimea was a wonderful reverse for them. There were public festivities in honour of this reunification all over Russia and especially in joyous Crimea.

Historians have compared the event with the restoration of Russian sovereignty over Crimea in 1870, almost twenty years after the Crimean War had ended with Russia’s defeat, when severe limitations on Russian rights in Crimea were imposed by victorious France and Britain. Now the Black Sea Fleet will be able to develop and sail freely again, enabling it to defend Syria in the next round. Though Ukrainians ran down the naval facilities and turned the most advanced submarine harbour of Balaclava into shambles, the potential is there.

Besides the pleasure of getting this lost bit of land back, there was the additional joy of outwitting the adversary. The American neocons arranged the coup in Ukraine and sent the unhappy country crashing down, but the first tangible fruit of this break up went to Russia.

A new Jewish joke was coined at that time:

Israeli President Peres asks the Russian President:

-        Vladimir, are you of Jewish ancestry?

-        Putin: What makes you think so, Shimon?

-        Peres: You made the US pay five billion dollars to deliver Crimea to Russia. Even for a Jew, that is audacious!

Five billion dollars is a reference to Victoria Nuland’s admission of having spent that much for democratisation (read: destabilisation) of the Ukraine. President Putin snatched victory from the jaws of defeat, and US hegemony suffered a set-back.

The US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power screaming at the Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin after Russia has blocked the US draft resolution "on situation in Ukraine" at the Security Council meeting on March 15, 2014.

The US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power screaming at the Russian counterpart Vitaly Churkin after Russia has blocked the US draft resolution “on situation in Ukraine” at the Security Council meeting on March 15, 2014.

The Russians enjoyed the sight of their UN representative Vitaly Churkin coping with a near-assault by Samantha Power. The Irish-born US rep came close to bodily attacking the elderly grey-headed Russian diplomat telling him that “Russia was defeated (presumably in 1991 – ISH) and should bear the consequences… Russia is blackmailing the US with its nuclear weapons,” while Churkin asked her to keep her hands off him and stop foaming at the mouth. This was not the first hostile encounter between these twain: a month ago, Samantha entertained a Pussy Riot duo, and Churkin said she should join the group and embark on a concert tour.

The US Neocons’ role in the Kiev coup was clarified by two independent exposures. Wonderful Max Blumenthal and Rania Khalek showed that the anti-Russian campaign of recent months (gay protests, Wahl affair, etc.) was organised by the Zionist Neocon PNAC (now renamed FPI) led by Mr Robert Kagan, husband of Victoria “Fuck EC” Nuland. It seems that the Neocons are hell-bent to undermine Russia by all means, while the Europeans are much more flexible. (True, the US troops are still stationed in Europe, and the old continent is not as free to act as it might like).

The second exposé was an interview with Alexander Yakimenko, the head of Ukrainian Secret Services (SBU) who had escaped to Russia like his president. Yakimenko accused Andriy Parubiy, the present security czar, of making a deal with the Americans. On American instructions, he delivered weapons and brought snipers who killed some 70 persons within few hours. They killed the riot police and the protesters as well.

The US Neocon-led conspiracy in Kiev was aimed against the European attempt to reach a compromise with President Yanukovych, said the SBU chief. They almost agreed on all points, but Ms Nuland wanted to derail the agreement, and so she did – with the help of a few snipers.

These snipers were used again in Crimea: a sniper shot and killed a Ukrainian soldier. When the Crimean self-defence forces began their pursuit, the sniper shot at them, killed one and wounded one. It is the same pattern: snipers are used to provoke response and hopefully to jump-start a shootout.

Novorossia

While Crimea was a walkover, the Russians are far from being home and dry. Now, the confrontation moved to the Eastern and South-Eastern provinces of mainland Ukraine, called Novorossia (New Russia) before the Communist Revolution of 1917. Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his later years predicted that Ukraine’s undoing would come from its being overburdened by industrial provinces that never belonged to the Ukraine before Lenin, – by Russian-speaking Novorossia. This prediction is likely to be fulfilled.

Who fights whom over there? It is a great error to consider the conflict a tribal one, between Russians and Ukrainians. Good old Pat Buchanan made this error saying that “Vladimir Putin is a blood-and-soil, altar-and-throne ethno-nationalist who sees himself as Protector of Russia and looks on Russians abroad the way Israelis look upon Jews abroad, as people whose security is his legitimate concern.” Nothing could be farther away from truth: perhaps only the outlandish claim that Putin is keen on restoring the Russian Empire can compete.

Putin is not an empire-builder at all (to great regret of Russia’s communists and nationalists). Even his quick takeover of Crimea was an action forced upon him by the strong-willed people of Crimea and by the brazen aggression of the Kiev regime. I have it on a good authority that Putin hoped he would not have to make this decision. But when he decided he acted.

The ethno-nationalist assertion of Buchanan is even more misleading. Ethno-nationalists of Russia are Putin’s enemies; they support the Ukrainian ethno-nationalists and march together with Jewish liberals on Moscow street demos. Ethno-nationalism is as foreign to Russians as it is foreign to the English. You can expect to meet a Welsh or Scots nationalist, but an English nationalist is an unnatural rarity. Even the English Defence League was set up by a Zionist Jew. Likewise, you can find a Ukrainian or a Belarusian or a Cossack nationalist, but practically never a Russian one.

Putin is a proponent and advocate of non-nationalist Russian world. What is the Russian world?

Russian World

Pavel Ryzhenko "A photo in memoriam" painting (2007) depicting the last Russian Emperor Nikolay II with family visiting a military camp during WWI.

Pavel Ryzhenko “A photo in memoriam” painting (2007) depicting the last Russian Emperor Nikolay II with family visiting a military camp during WWI.

Russians populate their own vast universe embracing many ethnic units of various background, from Mongols and Karels to Jews and Tatars. Until 1991, they populated an even greater land mass (called the Soviet Union, and before that, the Russian Empire) where Russian was the lingua franca and the language of daily usage for majority of citizens. Russians could amass this huge empire because they did not discriminate and did not hog the blanket. Russians are amazingly non-tribal, to an extent unknown in smaller East European countries, but similar to other great Eastern Imperial nations, the Han Chinese and the Turks before the advent of Young Turks and Ataturk. The Russians did not assimilate but partly acculturated their neighbours for whom Russian language and culture became the gateway to the world. The Russians protected and supported local cultures, as well, at their expense, for they enjoy this diversity.

Before 1991, the Russians promoted a universalist humanist world-view; nationalism was practically banned, and first of all, Russian nationalism. No one was persecuted or discriminated because of his ethnic origin (yes, Jews complained, but they always complain). There was some positive discrimination in the Soviet republics, for instance a Tajik would have priority to study medicine in the Tajik republic, before a Russian or a Jew; and he would be able to move faster up the ladder in the Party and politics. Still the gap was small.

After 1991, this universalist world-view was challenged by a parochial and ethno-nationalist one in all ex-Soviet republics save Russia and Belarus. Though Russia ceased to be Soviet, it retained its universalism. In the republics, people of Russian culture were severely discriminated against, often fired from their working places, in worst cases they were expelled or killed. Millions of Russians, natives of the republics, became refugees; together with them, millions of non-Russians who preferred Russian universalist culture to “their own” nationalist and parochial one fled to Russia. That is why modern Russia has millions of Azeris, Armenians, Georgians, Tajiks, Latvians and of smaller ethnic groups from the republics. Still, despite discrimination, millions of Russians and people of Russian culture remained in the republics, where their ancestors lived for generations, and the Russian language became a common ground for all non-nationalist forces.

If one wants to compare with Israel, as Pat Buchanan did, it is the republics, such as Ukraine, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Estonia do follow Israeli model of discriminating and persecuting their “ethnic minorities”, while Russia follows the West European model of equality.

France vs Occitania

In order to understand the Russia-Ukraine problem, compare it with France. Imagine it divided into North and South France, the North retaining the name of France, while the South of France calling itself “Occitania”, and its people “Occitans”, their language “Occitan”. The government of Occitania would force the people to speak Provençal, learn Frederic Mistral’s poems by rote and teach children to hate the French, who had devastated their beautiful land in the Albigensian Crusade of 1220. France would just gnash its teeth. Now imagine that after twenty years, the power in Occitania were violently seized by some romantic southern fascists who were keen to eradicate “800 years of Frank domination” and intend to discriminate against people who prefer to speak the language of Victor Hugo and Albert Camus. Eventually France would be forced to intervene and defend francophones, at least in order to stem the refugee influx. Probably the Southern francophones of Marseilles and Toulon would support the North against “their own” government, though they are not migrants from Normandy.

Putin defends all Russian-speakers, all ethnic minorities, such as Gagauz or Abkhaz, not only ethnic Russians. He defends the Russian World, all those russophones who want and need his protection. This Russian World definitely includes many, perhaps majority of people in the Ukraine, ethnic Russians, Jews, small ethnic groups and ethnic Ukrainians, in Novorossia and in Kiev.

Indeed Russian world was and is attractive. The Jews were happy to forget their schtetl and Yiddish; their best poets Pasternak and Brodsky wrote in Russian and considered themselves Russian. Still, some minor poets used Yiddish for their self-expression. The Ukrainians, as well, used Russian for literature, though they spoke their dialect at home for long time. Nikolai Gogol, the great Russian writer of Ukrainian origin, wrote Russian, and he was dead set against literary usage of the Ukrainian dialect. There were a few minor Romantic figures who used the dialect for creative art, like Taras Shevchenko and Lesya Ukrainka.

Solzhenitsyn wrote: “Even ethnic-Ukrainians do not use and do not know Ukrainian. In order to promote its use, the Ukrainian government bans Russian schools, forbids Russian TV, even librarians are not allowed to speak Russian with their readers. This anti-Russian position of Ukraine is exactly what the US wants in order to weaken Russia.“

Putin in his speech on Crimea stressed that he wants to secure the Russian world – everywhere in the Ukraine. In Novorossia the need is acute, for there are daily confrontations between the people and the gangs sent by the Kiev regime. While Putin does not yet want (as opposed to Solzhenitsyn and against general Russian feeling) to take over Novorossia, he may be forced to it, as he was in Crimea. There is a way to avoid this major shift: the Ukraine must rejoin the Russian world. While keeping its independence, Ukraine must grant full equality to its Russian language speakers. They should be able to have Russian-language schools, newspapers, TV, be entitled to use Russian everywhere. Anti-Russian propaganda must cease. And fantasies of joining NATO, too.

This is not an extraordinary demand: Latinos in the US are allowed to use Spanish. In Europe, equality of languages and cultures is a sine qua non. Only in the ex-Soviet republics are these rights trampled – not only in Ukraine, but in the Baltic republics as well. For twenty years, Russia made do with weak objections, when Russian-speakers (the majority of them are not ethnic Russians) in the Baltic states were discriminated against. This is likely to change. Lithuania and Latvia have already paid for their anti-Russian position by losing their profitable transit trade with Russia. Ukraine is much more important for Russia. Unless the present regime is able to change (not very likely), this illegitimate regime will be changed by people of Ukraine, and Russia will use R2P against the criminal elements in power.

The majority of people of Ukraine would probably agree with Putin, irrespective of their ethnicity. Indeed, in the Crimean referendum, Ukrainians and Tatars voted en masse together with Russians. This is a positive sign: there will be no ethnic strife in the Ukraine’s East, despite US efforts to the contrary. The decision time is coming up fast: some experts presume that by end of May the Ukrainian crisis will be behind us.

Source: CounterPunch

Neocons’ Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit

Neocons’ Ukraine-Syria-Iran Gambit

by Robert Parry

Ex: RINF Alternative News

You might think that policymakers with so many bloody fiascos on their résumés as the U.S. neocons, including the catastrophic Iraq War, would admit their incompetence and return home to sell insurance or maybe work in a fast-food restaurant. Anything but directing the geopolitical decisions of the world’s leading superpower.

But Official Washington’s neocons are nothing if not relentless and resilient. They are also well-funded and well-connected. So they won’t do the honorable thing and disappear. They keep hatching new schemes and strategies to keep the world stirred up and to keep their vision of world domination – and particularly “regime change” in the Middle East – alive.

Now, the neocons have stoked a confrontation over Ukraine, involving two nuclear-armed states, the United States and Russia. But – even if nuclear weapons don’t come into play – the neocons have succeeded in estranging U.S. President Barack Obama from Russian President Vladimir Putin and sabotaging the pair’s crucial cooperation on Iran and Syria, which may have been the point all along.

Though the Ukraine crisis has roots going back decades, the chronology of the recent uprising — and the neocon interest in it – meshes neatly with neocon fury over Obama and Putin working together to avert a U.S. military strike against Syria last summer and then brokering an interim nuclear agreement with Iran last fall that effectively took a U.S. bombing campaign against Iran off the table.

With those two top Israeli priorities – U.S. military attacks on Syria and Iran – sidetracked, the American neocons began activating their influential media and political networks to counteract the Obama-Putin teamwork. The neocon wedge to splinter Obama away from Putin was driven into Ukraine.

Operating out of neocon enclaves in the U.S. State Department and at U.S.-funded non-governmental organizations, led by the National Endowment for Democracy, neocon operatives targeted Ukraine even before the recent political unrest began shaking apart the country’s fragile ethnic and ideological cohesion.

Last September, as the prospects for a U.S. military strike against Syria were fading thanks to Putin, NED president Carl Gershman, who is something of a neocon paymaster controlling more than $100 million in congressionally approved funding each year, took to the pages of the neocon-flagship Washington Post and wrote that Ukraine was now “the biggest prize.”

But Gershman added that Ukraine was really only an interim step to an even bigger prize, the removal of the strong-willed and independent-minded Putin, who, Gershman added, “may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad [i.e. Ukraine] but within Russia itself.” In other words, the new hope was for “regime change” in Kiev and Moscow.

Putin had made himself a major annoyance in Neocon World, particularly with his diplomacy on Syria that defused a crisis over a Sarin attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. Despite the attack’s mysterious origins – and the absence of any clear evidence proving the Syrian government’s guilt – the U.S. State Department and the U.S. news media rushed to the judgment that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad did it.

Politicians and pundits baited Obama with claims that Assad had brazenly crossed Obama’s “red line” by using chemical weapons and that U.S. “credibility” now demanded military retaliation. A longtime Israeli/neocon goal, “regime change” in Syria, seemed within reach.

But Putin brokered a deal in which Assad agreed to surrender Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal (even as he continued to deny any role in the Sarin attack). The arrangement was a huge letdown for the neocons and Israeli officials who had been drooling over the prospect that a U.S. bombing campaign would bring Assad to his knees and deliver a strategic blow against Iran, Israel’s current chief enemy.

Putin then further offended the neocons and the Israeli government by helping to facilitate an interim nuclear deal with Iran, making another neocon/Israeli priority, a U.S. war against Iran, less likely.

Putting Putin in Play

So, the troublesome Putin had to be put in play. And, NED’s Gershman was quick to note a key Russian vulnerability, neighboring Ukraine, where a democratically elected but corrupt president, Viktor Yanukovych, was struggling with a terrible economy and weighing whether to accept a European aid offer, which came with many austerity strings attached, or work out a more generous deal with Russia.

There was already a strong U.S.-organized political/media apparatus in place for destabilizing Ukraine’s government. Gershman’s NED had 65 projects operating in the country – training “activists,” supporting “journalists” and organizing business groups, according to its latest report. (NED was created in 1983 to do in relative openness what the CIA had long done in secret, nurture pro-U.S. operatives under the umbrella of “promoting democracy.”)

So, when Yanukovych opted for Russia’s more generous $15 billion aid package, the roof fell in on him. In a speech to Ukrainian business leaders last December, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Victoria Nuland, a neocon holdover and the wife of prominent neocon Robert Kagan, reminded the group that the U.S. had invested $5 billion in Ukraine’s “European aspirations.”

Then, urged on by Nuland and neocon Sen. John McCain, protests in the capital of Kiev turned increasingly violent with neo-Nazi militias moving to the fore. Unidentified snipers opened fire on protesters and police, touching off fiery clashes that killed some 80 people (including about a dozen police officers).

On Feb. 21, in a desperate attempt to tamp down the violence, Yanukovych signed an agreement brokered by European countries. He agreed to surrender many of his powers, to hold early elections (so he could be voted out of office), and pull back the police. That last step, however, opened the way for the neo-Nazi militias to overrun government buildings and force Yanukovych to flee for his life.

With these modern-day storm troopers controlling key buildings – and brutalizing Yanukovych supporters – a  rump Ukrainian parliament voted, in an extra-constitutional fashion, to remove Yanukovych from office. This coup-installed regime, with far-right parties controlling four ministries including defense, received immediate U.S. and European Union recognition as Ukraine’s “legitimate” government.

As remarkable – and newsworthy – as it was that a government on the European continent included Nazis in the executive branch for the first time since World War II, the U.S. news media performed as it did before the Iraq War and during various other international crises. It essentially presented the neocon-preferred narrative and treated the presence of the neo-Nazis as some kind of urban legend.

Virtually across the board, from Fox News to MSNBC, from the Washington Post to the New York Times, the U.S. press corps fell in line, painting Yanukovych and Putin as the “black-hat” villains and the coup regime as the “white-hat” good guys, which required, of course, whiting out the neo-Nazi “brown shirts.”

Neocon Expediency

Some neocon defenders have challenged my reporting that U.S. neocons played a significant role in the Ukrainian putsch. One argument is that the neocons, who regard the U.S.-Israeli bond as inviolable, would not knowingly collaborate with neo-Nazis given the history of the Holocaust (and indeed the role of Ukrainian Nazi collaborators in extermination campaigns against Poles and Jews).

But the neocons have frequently struck alliances of convenience with some of the most unsavory – and indeed anti-Semitic – forces on earth, dating back to the Reagan administration and its collaboration with Latin American “death squad” regimes, including work with the World Anti-Communist League that included not only neo-Nazis but aging real Nazis.

More recently in Syria, U.S. neocons (and Israeli leaders) are so focused on ousting Assad, an ally of hated Iran, that they have cooperated with Saudi Arabia’s Sunni monarchy (known for its gross anti-Semitism). Israeli officials have even expressed a preference for Saudi-backed Sunni extremists winning in Syria if that is the only way to get rid of Assad and hurt his allies in Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah.

Last September, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren told the Jerusalem Post that Israel so wanted Assad out and his Iranian backers weakened, that Israel would accept al-Qaeda operatives taking power in Syria.

“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc,” Oren said in the interview. “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”

Oren said that was Israel’s view even if the other “bad guys” were affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Oren, who was Israel’s point man in dealing with Official Washington’s neocons, is considered very close to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and reflects his views. For decades, U.S. neocons have supported Netanyahu and his hardline Likud Party, including as strategists on his 1996 campaign for prime minister when neocons such as Richard Perle and Douglas Feith developed the original “regime change” strategy. [For details, see Consortiumnews.com’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

In other words, Israel and its U.S. neocon supporters have been willing to collaborate with extreme right-wing and even anti-Semitic forces if that advances their key geopolitical goals, such as maneuvering the U.S. government into military confrontations with Syria and Iran.

So, while it may be fair to assume that neocons like Nuland and McCain would have preferred that the Ukraine coup had been spearheaded by militants who weren’t neo-Nazis – or, for that matter, that the Syrian rebels were not so dominated by al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists – the neocons (and their Israeli allies) see these tactical collaborations as sometimes necessary to achieve overarching strategic priorities.

And, since their current strategic necessity is to scuttle the fragile negotiations over Syria and Iran, which otherwise might negate the possibility of U.S. military strikes against those two countries, the Putin-Obama collaboration had to go.

By spurring on the violent overthrow of Ukraine’s elected president, the neocons helped touch off a cascade of events – now including Crimea’s secession from Ukraine and its annexation by Russia – that have raised tensions and provoked Western retaliation against Russia. The crisis also has made the continued Obama-Putin teamwork on Syria and Iran extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Like other neocon-engineered schemes, there will surely be much collateral damage in this latest one. For instance, if the tit-for-tat economic retaliations escalate – and Russian gas supplies are disrupted – Europe’s fragile recovery could be tipped back into recession, with harmful consequences for the U.S. economy, too.

There’s also the certainty that congressional war hawks and neocon pundits will press for increased U.S. military spending and aggressive tactics elsewhere in the world to punish Putin, meaning even less money and attention for domestic programs or deficit reduction. Obama’s “nation-building at home” will be forgotten.

But the neocons have long made it clear that their vision for the world – one of America’s “full-spectrum dominance” and “regime change” in Middle Eastern countries opposed to Israel – overrides all other national priorities. And as long as the neocons face no accountability for the havoc that they wreak, they will continue working Washington’s corridors of power, not selling insurance or flipping hamburgers.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his new book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). For a limited time, you also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

Who Has Been More Aggressive?

Bush-Krieger_Spiegel.jpg

Who Has Been More Aggressive?

Who has been more aggressive, George H.W. Bush in Panama or Vladimir Putin in Crimea? Who has been more aggressive, the U.S. in its actions against Noriega or Russia with respect to Crimea?

These two situations differ but they are comparable in important respects. The U.S. launched a full-scale invasion of Panama. Russia, whatever it did in Crimea, it didn’t launch a full-scale invasion. The U.S. was trying to get rid of Noriega for some years. Russia had not been trying to annex Crimea. It acted in response to Ukraine events in a region it deemed very important just as the U.S. acted in a region it deemed important for reasons of its own. What were they? I won’t go into the detail this invasion deserves. Let’s see what George H.W. Bush’s invasion message said.

“For nearly two years, the United States, nations of Latin America and the Caribbean have worked together to resolve the crisis in Panama. The goals of the United States have been to safeguard the lives of Americans, to defend democracy in Panama, to combat drug trafficking and to protect the integrity of the Panama Canal Treaty. Many attempts have been made to resolve this crisis through diplomacy and negotiations. All were rejected by the dictator of Panama, Gen. Manuel Noriega, an indicted drug trafficker. Last Friday, Noriega declared his military dictatorship to be in a state of war with the United States and publicly threatened the lives of Americans in Panama. The very next day forces under his command shot and killed an unarmed American serviceman, wounded another, arrested and brutally beat a third American serviceman and then brutally interrogated his wife, threatening her with sexual abuse. That was enough.”

The Russians have made the claim too of safeguarding Russians as well as their bases. They too have made the claim of safeguarding democracy and there has been a vote to back that claim up. No drug trafficking is involved in Crimea, but that was a poor excuse for Bush to have used anyway. Russia has made the claim that the coup in Ukraine introduced a rogue government just as the U.S. made claims against Noriega. Bush mentioned the failure of negotiations. Whatever they were or weren’t or how they were handled, let’s note that the Ukrainian government had reached an agreement on Feb. 21 that was soon broken by violent mob activity. This was in Ukraine, not Crimea, but there is a political link and it does provide Russia with a parallel rationale that it has used.

These comparisons suggest, at a minimum and understating the case, that the Russians have not behaved in a way that differs that much from how the U.S. has behaved. But in fact the Russian actions have been much milder. There has been no big invasion. A vote was held. The Russians had standing treaty rights in Crimea.

Bush also claimed that Noriega declared war against the U.S. This claim inverted the truth. Noriega said that the U.S. had declared war on Panama. See author Theodore H. Draper’s work on that claim. I quote Draper:

“As I have now learned, Bush’s statement was, at best, a half-truth, at worst a flagrant distortion. On December 15, Noriega had not simply declared war on the United States. He said, in effect, that the United States had declared war on Panama, and that, therefore, Panama was in a state of war with the United States. Just what Noriega said was known or available in Washington by December 16 at the latest. How Noriega’s words came across as a simple declaration of war is a case history of official management of the news and negligence by the press.

“The key passage in Noriega’s speech on December 15 accused the President of the United States of having ‘invoked the powers of war against Panama’ and ‘through constant psychological and military harassment of having created a state of war in Panama, daily insulting our sovereignty and territorial integrity.’ He appealed for ‘a common front to respond to the aggression,’ and stressed ‘the urgency to unite as one to fight against the aggressor.’

“The resolution on December 15 by the Panama Assembly also took this line—’To declare the Republic of Panama in a state of war for the duration of the aggression unleashed against the Panamanian people by the US Government.’”

This war item may appear to digress from the comparison because the Crimean situation doesn’t involve antagonism between Russia and Crimea, whereas the Panama-U.S. situation did. Its relevance is that the U.S. went considerably further militarily in Panama than Russia did in Crimea, using a false and exaggerated claim as an important reason.

Let us reach a conclusion. If the U.S. could launch a large-scale aggression against the government of Panama for some reasons similar to those invoked by Russia (protection of citizens and democracy) and for one unjustifiable reason (drugs), and also with a lie or half-truth (Noriega unilaterally declaring war on the U.S.), then do not the Russian actions in Crimea, where it has treaty rights for bases and military personnel and where it has a longstanding interest in an adjacent strategic region, appear not to be anything excessive as such things go and far milder than the U.S. action in Panama? This seems to be an inescapable conclusion.

If Russia is the big bad bogeyman in Crimea, what was the U.S. in Panama in 1989? If the U.S. claimed noble aims and getting rid of a criminal in Panama’s government, how far different are the Russian claims that the Crimeans have a right to dissociate from a criminal gang in Kiev and to do so by a peaceful vote? Whose actions are milder, those of the Russians in Crimea or those of the U.S. in Panama? Whose actions are more aggressive, those of the Russians in Crimea or those of the U.S. in Panama? It may be that the Russians will invade Ukraine itself, in which case they will be open to much greater and more severe criticism. For the moment, we are addressing Crimea.

There is a difference between Panama and Crimea in that Crimea has voted to join the Russian Federation whereas Panama was a separate country and remains so. However, the U.S., having once invaded the country, obviously has reserved its option, by violence if necessary, to make and unmake Panama’s government at its will and according to its interests.

Seen against this comparison, the statements being made by top U.S. officials or former officials like Hillary Clinton, that Putin is a new Hitler, are wild exaggerations. If Russia has violated international law through its activities surrounding the Crimean vote, as the warmongers in the U.S. shout, how much more did Bush’s invasion of Panama violate international law? And, by the way, how could Bush invade Panama and then inform Congress when it is Congress that must declare war? And how could Bush invade Panama without a U.N. Security Council Resolution authorizing it? This U.S. invasion was not even a case of applying the already-expansive Monroe Doctrine, for there was no foreign force invading this hemisphere.

I have not explained why Bush invaded Panama or why the U.S. was so concerned about Noriega in the years preceding that invasion. I have limited the discussion to one question, which is this. Who has been more aggressive, George H.W. Bush in Panama or Vladimir Putin in Crimea? I think it’s evident that Bush was far more aggressive.

Before too many U.S. officials get too upset over Putin, before they absorb too much of the neocon warmongering nonsense and exaggerations, before they lead the U.S. into dangerous confrontations for which there is no need, before they shock the world’s economy with armed confrontations, it would pay them on behalf of Americans in this land to study their own history as well as that of Russia and to gain some much needed perspective so that they can behave with at least some degree of maturity and statesman-like wisdom.

The time is long past for those in Washington and throughout this land who understand and despise the neocon ideas to stand up against them and marginalize them. The neocons should be viewed, not as a constraint on appropriate political actions and responses, but as a spent moral force lacking in moral standing that has been wrong time and again in recommending actions that supposedly benefitted Americans but in reality have dragged this country further and further down.

Remaking the world, freeing peoples, playing global saviour, acting as the world’s policeman, and attempting to be the world’s conscience have all got to be seen as bad and wrong for any state. States cannot do any of these things without becoming monsters of power who are creatures of their own interests and their own bureaucracies who oppress the people they rule. The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya and Syria should all attest to that. Even the Vietnam War should attest to that.

A  state that has the power to do supposedly good things will invariably have the power to do very bad things, and it will. This is both basic human nature and the basic outcome of bureaucratic governments. Power corrupts. Of equal importance is that any such state will consist of bureaucracies that do the actual ruling, and they become self-perpetuating and separated from the interests of the people for whom they are supposedly doing good. Instead, they become unjust, out for themselves, corrupt, slow to act, inconsistent in their actions, and impervious to accountability.

The basic neocon idea is that of an expanding U.S. hegemony according to U.S. political ideas and blueprints. The idea is a monopoly of power, a superpower. This is the basic idea of empire, and it is both bad and wrong, practically and morally. A monopoly on power is the wrong way to strive for the good. The good needs to be constantly discovered and re-discovered at a decentralized level, within each person’s mind and conscience. A person’s own life and willing associations with others provide more than ample scope for challenging a person to figure out what is good and bad as well as what is right and wrong. No one person and certainly no one powerful state knows the good or can achieve it. The good is not provided in any blueprint. It is always a work in progress, dependent on local and individual details and conditions that are unknown to state powers. The attempts by states to achieve the abstract good must fail. They are going against the nature of the human condition.

America has a very serious problem, which is that both parties stand for the empire and the neocon ideas are very much tied in with the ideas that ground the empire. Right now, the empire is viewed by far too many people as good and right. As long as those who might separate themselves from neocon ideas and criticize them strenuously remain locked in support of the empire and/or reluctant to take issue with it, both parties are going to be tools of neocon thinking.

mardi, 25 mars 2014

La Crimée épicentre d’un séisme mondial… Vers la guerre ?

le-drapeau-de-la-crimee-photo-afp-alisa-borovikova.jpg

La Crimée épicentre d’un séisme mondial… Vers la guerre ?

par Jean-Michel VERNOCHET
Ex.: http://www.bvoltaire.fr

Ex-chef des Services de Renseignement ukrainien, le général Smeshko ne mâche pas ses mots : « Poutine place l’Europe au bord d’une Troisième guerre mondiale ».

Ce n’est pas un quelconque tabloïd qui publie ce propos mais Le Figaro, et le jour du printemps ! N’est-ce pas un peu vite dit ? En tout cas Paris, toujours aussi bien avisé, se propose d’envoyer des avions de combat en Pologne aux abords de la frontière ukrainienne à l’instar du Pentagone qui a déjà acheminé douze F16 et 300 GI’s… au prétexte de manœuvres.

« On » voudrait faire monter la tension que l’on ne s’y prendrait pas autrement. Au demeurant on ne se prive pas de dire que « Poutine ne comprend rien à l’Ukraine » [ibid.Smeshko]. Il n’en demeure pas moins que ce sont les gens de Bruxelles qui ont mis le feu aux poudres en aguichant les Ukrainiens avec un accord de partenariat que l’Union voulait exclusif, cela sans tenir le moindre compte des réalités géopolitiques et historiques.

Bravo donc Catherine Asthon qui a su faire miroiter aux Ukrainiens une manne céleste pourtant aujourd’hui introuvable… mais que distribuait naguère, et avec largesse, les eurocrates aux pays du Sud de l’Europe… ceux qui justement, Grèce, Portugal, Espagne, Italie des Pouilles et de la Calabre, tous à présent dans la plus noire panade.

Bref, n’y avait-il pas là, de la part de du Moloch bruxellois, une sorte d’escroquerie morale qu’il convient d’épingler ? Comment en effet une Europe envasée dans l’actuel marasme structurel qui est le sien, aurait-elle pu utilement venir au secours de Kiev ?

Cependant, ce serait faire une injure trop grande aux technocrates que de leur imputer une erreur aussi grossière consistant à sous-estimer la capacité de réaction du Kremlin. Surtout après l’annexion manquée d’août 2008, celle de l’Ossétie du Sud par la Géorgie.

Il va de soi que nul, en tel domaine, ne refait deux fois les mêmes erreurs. Notons que, suite à leur déconfiture géorgienne, les Européens échaudés – à rebours – par la « crise du gaz » de l’hiver 2008/2009, ont pris dès cette époque des dispositions pour réduire à la fois leur dépendance vis-à-vis des fournitures russes, mais également pour palier toute éventuelle rupture d’approvisionnement en modifiant en conséquence les réseaux de gazoducs en Europe orientale.

Deux autres conflits gaziers russo-ukrainiens – en 2005/2006 et en 2007/2008 – avaient précédé l’épisode de 2009. Épisodes qu’il serait d’ailleurs vain d’interpréter ou d’analyser en faisant abstraction du contexte géopolitique régional et de l’attraction déjà exercée par la sphère occidentaliste sur les Ukrainiens et plus encore sur leurs puissantes oligarchies.

Pendant que la classe dirigeante française joue à la bataille navale et règle leurs comptes dans ce qui ressemble de plus en plus furieusement à une « voyoucratie » politicienne, le séisme dont l’épicentre se situe sur la Péninsule de Crimée, commence ainsi à faire sentir ses inquiétantes répliques un peu partout… à Venise et en Transnistrie tentées à leur tour par l’autodétermination. Cette dernière, entité séparatiste pro-russe de Moldavie – l’État qui n’existe pas – donne des sueurs froides à Kiev, et pas seulement.

Ici la question se pose de savoir si un détramage général de l’Europe n’a pas été enclenché pas sur le Maïdan de Kiev ?

Comment en effet ne pas penser aux Flandres, à la Catalogne, au Pays basque ? Samedi 22 mars des soldats russes investissaient la base aérienne de Belbek en Crimée. Les choses vont vite, très vite. Pour l’heure, l’Union européenne n’a à opposer aux forces qu’elle a libérées que sa mauvaise humeur et sa mauvaise foi.

Tel est pris qui croyait prendre : la ville de Donetsk, capitale économique et industrielle du Donbass et de l’Ukraine, se mobilise, bannières russes flottant au vent. La foule ne demande pour l’instant que le retour du président déchu Viktor Ianoukovitch, mais les choses pourraient aussi ne pas en rester là !

lundi, 24 mars 2014

Lavrov alerte les Algériens et met en garde les Tunisiens

Lavrov alerte les Algériens et met en garde les Tunisiens

Ex: http://www.tunisie-secret.com

La Russie hausse le ton. On ne touchera pas à l'Algérie, avertit Sergueï Lavrov, ministre des Affaires étrangères de la Russie, qui, soit-dit en passant, a été accueilli à Tunis avec le drapeau Serbe, une bourde de la diplomatie tunisienne qui ne sait plus faire la différence entre un drapeau russe et un drapeau serbe. La conspiration contre l’Algérie n’est plus un secret pour personne. Tout est prêt pour déstabiliser ce pays coincé entre une Tunisie sous mandat islamo-atlantiste, un Maroc sous influence israélienne, et une Libye en voie d’afghanisation. A Tunis, les cinq conditions sont réunies pour mener à bien ce plan anti-algérien : la base militaire américaine qui se trouve à un vol d’oiseau des frontières algériennes, le siège de Freedom House qui est la pépinière des cybers-collabos, les rats palestiniens du Hamas qui ont creusé des dizaines de tunnels aux frontières tuniso-algériennes, la mini armée de djihadistes tunisiens, algériens, libyens et tchétchènes disséminés en Tunisie, et les cellules dormantes d’Al-Qaïda. TS.


Lavrov alerte les Algériens et met en garde les Tunisiens
En visite éclair en Tunisie, il y a quelques jours, le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères, Sergueï Lavrov, a soutenu lors de sa visite, il y a quelques jours à Tunis, que des «parties étrangères» veulent mettre l'Algérie à feu et à sang à travers la commercialisation d'un printemps algérien. Sans les nommer, le diplomate russe a ajouté que ces mêmes parties «ont ouvert plusieurs fronts près des frontières algériennes depuis la Libye, la Tunisie et le Mali». Etant des alliés traditionnels, M.Lavrov a notamment réitéré le soutien de son pays à l'Algérie. Le chef de la diplomatie russe a dévoilé, lors de son passage en Tunisie, que l'Algérie est devenue la cible des instigateurs et autres fomenteurs qui insistent pour y écrire le dernier épisode d'un supposé printemps arabe. Aussi, a-t-il mis en garde les autorités algériennes contre les instigateurs de ce qu'on appelle «printemps arabe».

Le ministre russe des AE incrimine directement ceux qui ont été à l'origine des bouleversements provoqués délibérément en Tunisie, en Libye et au Mali, d'où parvient la plus grande menace contre l'Algérie. Il estime que les conspirateurs du nouvel ordre mondial établissent leurs plans à base d'une politique d'influence en misant sur les minorités populaires et les réseaux terroristes.

Cependant, cette menace soulignée par Moscou n'est pas nouvelle pour les services de renseignements algériens, pas une menace qu'ignorent les services de renseignements algériens. Soumis à une très forte pression depuis le début de la guerre civile en Libye, les forces de sécurité algériennes ont misé sur leur expérience acquise sur le terrain de la lutte antiterroriste. En un temps relativement court, des milliers d'informations et de témoignages de première main ont été analysés et recoupés par les services du DRS engagés dans une course contre la montre contre tous genres de menaces, notamment des groupuscules criminels nés à l'ombre d'une crise libyenne qui aura servi de catalyseur au mouvement jihadiste. Un mouvement relativisé et parfois banalisé par l'ensemble des parties entrées en guerre contre le régime d'El Gueddafi, dont la France, la Grande-Bretagne et les USA. Dans leur banque de renseignements les services de sécurité ont réussi à identifier des réseaux nouvellement constitués composés de Marocains et de Libyens.

L'arrestation de plusieurs agents du Mossad en Algérie en est la preuve tangible. Ne jugeant pas nécessaire de dévoiler le véritable scénario programmé contre l'Algérie, des sources très au fait du contexte confient que l'Algérie constitue «un terreau fertile» pour les grands appétits occidentaux. Le rapport du département d'Etat américain sur les droits de l'homme qui épingle paradoxalement l'Algérie et l'analyse du Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) de l'Académie militaire de West Point qui a mis sous la loupe tout ce qui se passe dans le sud de l'Algérie, prétextant que cette région névralgique de l'économie du pays, serait l'épicentre d'un éclatement populaire à cause de la marginalisation des minorités, ne peuvent être considérés que comme une introduction aux véritables visées des Occidentaux.

Une perception initiatrice de ce qui se prépare. «L'Algérie est-elle dans le collimateur des USA?» s'interrogeait L'Expression dans l'une de ses précédentes éditions! La réponse a été révélée dans les colonnes du Los Angeles Times. Le journal rapporte que «des troupes de forces spéciales américaines se sont installées en Tunisie». Cette présence dont nous avons fait foi, mais démentie par les autorités tunisiennes est justifiée, souligne le même organe de presse par le fait «d'entretenir les forces militaires tunisiennes en matière de lutte contre le terrorisme».

Les marines dont le nombre serait d'une cinquantaine ont pris position au sud de la Tunisie à un vol d'oiseau des frontières algériennes depuis le mois de janvier 2014. «Un avion de type hélicoptère s'y est installé aussi», précise encore le Los Angeles Times. Ce n'est que l'aspect visible de l'iceberg et de l'énorme stratégie de guerre annoncée contre l'Algérie.

En effet, depuis la fin de l'année précédente, des informations vérifiées font état d'une forte présence d'agents des services de renseignement américains et d'agents de l'Africom dans le Sud tunisien. Jalouse de sa souveraineté, l'Algérie avait agi en un temps record pour libérer plus de 600 otages tout en sécurisant le périmètre. L'Unité spéciale appelée à mener l'opération avait impressionné le monde entier par son professionnalisme! Même si les USA prétextent leur mobilisation en Afrique pour une coordination de lutte contre le terrorisme et pour préserver leurs intérêts, il est tout de même difficile de ne pas croire que les USA n'ont pas un intérêt pour une partie de l'Algérie dont les réserves de gaz de schiste, de gaz conventionnel et d'autres minéraux comme l'uranium. Des clans complaisants sont déjà sur le terrain pour la mise en marche de la locomotive de déstabilisation.

L’Expression algérien, du 12 mars 2014. 

dimanche, 23 mars 2014

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

20140303PHOWWW01238.jpg

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. 

samedi, 22 mars 2014

RIFONDARE L’UNIONE EUROPEA

unieur.png

RIFONDARE L’UNIONE EUROPEA

Claudio Mutti

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

SOMMARIO DEL NUMERO XXXIII (1-2014) [1]

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

SOMMARIO

Editoriale

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

Documenti

AA. VV., Il ratto di Europa

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

Progetto per una più grande Europa

Interviste

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

vendredi, 21 mars 2014

Algérie : ça va mal finir

timthumb (2)_8.jpg

Algérie : ça va mal finir

Tout le monde ne parle que de la crise Ukraine-Russie, mais il faut se pencher sur ce qui se passe en Algérie. On critique beaucoup M. Poutine, figure emblématique du tyran pour un Occident auto satisfait, mais on semble négliger le régime algérien, ubuesque, incompétent, oligarchique. Avec lequel pourtant la France entretient les meilleures relations, à la limite de la servilité, n’osant pas émettre contre lui la moindre critique (1).

Le 17 avril, le président Bouteflika, 77 ans, rendu impotent par un AVC, se présente pour un 4e mandat, après 15 ans de pouvoir. Évidemment, il ne pourra pas gouverner, mais il est la marionnette d’un clan, ou plutôt de plusieurs. L’Algérie danse sur une poudrière. Le 15 avril, une manifestation a eu lieu à Alger, avec le mouvement ”Barakat” (”Ça suffit !”), dénonçant une mascarade électorale. Dans le même temps, éclataient à Ghardaïa, à 600 km au sud de la capitale, des affrontements interethniques très violents. Ils opposaient les Mozabites (Berbères) et les Châambas (Arabes). Il y eut plus de 100 blessés graves et des pillages ou incendies de commerces et de maisons berbères. Ce n’est qu’un début.  L’Algérie se dirige vers une très grave crise.

Une nouvelle guerre civile couve, avec trois types d’antagonisme : 1) Islamistes contre laïcs ; 2) Berbères contre Arabes ; 3) luttes de pouvoir au sein de l’appareil d’État, impliquant le FLN, le RND et l’Armée. Depuis son indépendance, l’Algérie, qui aurait pu être la Californie de l’Afrique du Nord, est un pays de malheur. En dépit de ses ressources primaires pétro-gazières qui sont techniquement gérées par des Occidentaux et qui amènent à l’Algérie la majorité de ses devises, ce pays n’a su développer aucun secteur économique national performant. Le chômage y est endémique, la pauvreté persistante, la bureaucratie pachydermique. À l’inverse des pays d’Asie. Il y a donc bien un problème intrinsèque à ces populations. 

 Tout le monde le sait et le murmure mais personne n’ose le dire : du temps de la présence française, les populations d’Algérie vivaient bien mieux qu’aujourd’hui. D’ailleurs, l’importance de l’immigration des Algériens en France témoigne de leur fuite hors de leur propre pays pour venir vivre chez l’ancienne puissance coloniale. C’est à la fois une schizophrénie (ils restent nationalistes algériens tout en détestant le régime de leur pays) et un terrible aveu d’impuissance.

En Algérie, ça va éclater. Une guerre civile, extrêmement compliquée (comme dans tous les pays arabo-musulmans et de l’arc proche-oriental), se prépare. La raison profonde en est une instabilité psycho-ethnique de ces populations, incapables de vivre dans l’harmonie. L’islam ne fait qu’aggraver les choses. La même chose se remarque en Amérique du Sud, zone d’intenses mélanges  ethniques : mais elle est géopolitiquement décentrée, donc  de bien moindre importance que le Maghreb et le Proche Orient.

Pour ne rien arranger, la Libye voisine sombre dans le chaos : effondrement de la production pétrolière, délitement de l’État, éclatement du pays en zones néo-tribales, montée des affrontements, installation de bases armées islamistes. Bravo à ceux qui ont aidé à renverser le régime de Kadhafi. Quant à la Tunisie, les suites du ”printemps arabe”, véritable duperie, s’annoncent sous de très mauvaises augures. (2)

La prédiction que l’on peut faire, c’est que l’Algérie présente de grands risques de s’embraser, encore plus violemment que dans les années 90. Avec, à ses portes la Tunisie et la Libye, elles aussi menacées d’incendie. Et, partout en embuscade, l’islamisme. Pour la France, qui comporte de très nombreuses communautés originaires de l’Algérie et du Maghreb, la nouvelle est inquiétante et les conséquences peuvent être gravissimes. 

Notes:

(1) Deux causes : la mauvaise conscience coloniale de la repentance, fabriquée par les idéologies de gauche, et la présence en France de populations d’origine algérienne qu’il faut ménager.

(2) Pour l’instant, à part le Maroc et les monarchies du Golfe (qui sont toutes des autocraties héréditaires), tous les pays arabo-musulmans, Algérie, Tunisie, Libye, Égypte, Syrie, Liban, Irak sont dans une situation explosive. À l’échelle du monde, 80 % des pays où l’islam est majoritaire ou très présent connaissent un état endémique d’instabilité pouvant dégénérer à tout moment. 

jeudi, 20 mars 2014

Der Westen, Russland, China und die Ukraine

Ukraine-en-e.jpg

«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

LB_Ukraina_s_ndag_291339c.jpg

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.
Polémia

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
11/03/2014

Correspondance Polémia – 16/03/2014

Turkey and Crimea

Turkey_Ukraine_Russia.JPEG-01030_t607.JPG

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

rioters-maidan-the-ukraine-19-01-14.jpg

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)

mardi, 18 mars 2014

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

cri.jpg

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

Frédéric Dalmas

Ex: http://www.voxnr.com

r

 

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 !

 

notes

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

lundi, 17 mars 2014

Iraq Blames Qatar and Saudi Arabia for Terrorism

irak-al-qaida-m_0.jpg

Iraq Blames Qatar and Saudi Arabia for Terrorism: Re-run of Afghanistan and Pakistan

Salma Sribi and Michiyo Tanabe

Modern Tokyo Times

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki of Iraq denounces Qatar and Saudi Arabia for supporting terrorism and sectarianism against Iraq. Maliki made it abundantly clear that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are involved in the destabilization of Iraq based on Gulf petrodollars, their geopolitical ambitions, sectarian factors and other negative realities. Of course, this highlights the sham of Saudi Arabia that often claims it is fighting terrorism but in reality this nation turns this clock on and off when it suits the elites in Riyadh.

Indeed, the only real fear for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states is to keep internal terrorism at bay. Therefore, exporting terrorism and spreading sectarianism is the mantra. Of course, major Western powers also conveniently use terrorism and sectarianism when the time suits. This reality applies to fighting on the same side in Afghanistan (1980s/1990s); Bosnia; Libya and currently in Syria. However, it is Gulf petrodollars, Salafi ideology, exporting militancy and funding sectarian ventures based on the intrigues of feudal kingdoms, where all the barbaric synergy comes together.

Maliki spoke frankly to France 24 about Qatar and Saudi Arabia supporting the brutal terrorist and sectarian insurgency in Iraq. Maliki says: I accuse them of inciting and encouraging the terrorist movements. I accuse them of supporting them politically and in the media, of supporting them with money and by buying weapons for them…I accuse them of leading an open war against the Iraqi government.”

Lee Jay Walker at Modern Tokyo Times says: “This reality is like a re-run because in Afghanistan it is clear that Pakistan is involved in many murky terrorist and sectarian dealings against this nation. In other words, the allies of America and the United Kingdom are the same nations assisting terrorism against governments and nations they are meant to be supporting. Of course, this equally entails that many British and American soldiers have been killed and maimed because of the collective intrigues of so called allies. Despite this, what is the comeback against Pakistan, Qatar and Saudi Arabia?”

President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan is saying the same with regards to Pakistan destabilizing his country. The New York Times reports “Mr. Karzai charged that elements of the Pakistani government were still supporting Islamic militants, as they had in the past, and that if such sources of terrorism were not defeated, Afghans and international soldiers would continue to die.”

The above was stated in 2006 yet in 2011 Karzai made it clear that nothing had changed. In the Washington Post they quote Karzai saying: “Pakistan has pursued a double game toward Afghanistan, and using terrorism as a means continues.” Of course, in 2014 this same opinion is held by many in Afghanistan but at no time is Pakistan worried about becoming a pariah – just like Qatar and Saudi Arabia don’t have to worry. Therefore, what is going on in the corridors of power in Washington and London?

While Maliki was accusing Qatar and Saudi Arabia yet another barbaric terrorist attack killed over 30 Iraqi nationals. The latest terrorist attack took place at a checkpoint in Hilla. Like usual, Sunni Islamic jihadists attacked Hilla because this area is predominantly Shia and Takfiri hatred towards this community knows no boundaries.

France 24 reports: Maliki went on to say that not only did Saudi Arabia support terrorism in countries such as Iraq and Syria, but around the world.”

Lee Jay Walker says: “Afghanistan and Iraq are paying a heavy price because of the respective intrigues of Qatar, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. India knows full well that being the largest democracy in the world doesn’t appear to resonate in London and Washington. After all, for decades Pakistan is exporting terrorism to Kashmir and many brutal terrorist attacks in India can be traced back to Pakistan. Yet, despite this reality, and the obvious connection linking Pakistan with many terrorist and sectarian factions in Afghanistan, this still doesn’t prevent America and the United Kingdom from supporting Pakistan in the field of economic and military support. Indeed, it appears that just like American and British soldiers are expendable to political elites in Washington and London; the same can clearly be said about Pakistan soldiers being killed based on the intrigues of Pakistan.”

In 2013 just below 9,000 people were killed in Iraq because of sectarian and terrorist forces. This figure is the highest since 2007 and says much about the bankruptcy of President Obama in America. Indeed, France 24 should be asking why France is involving itself along with Turkey against the government of Syria. After all, like Maliki says about Qatar and Saudi Arabia: “They are attacking Iraq through Syria, and in a direct way.”

Until Gulf and Western powers are held accountable then sadly the destabilization of nations will continue whereby terrorism is a useful tool. Obviously, this reality is being ignored by the United Nations therefore the same methodology will continue to be utilized by the same Gulf and Western powers – along with Turkey and Pakistan that continue to switch the terrorist clock on.

Lee Jay Walker gave guidance to both writers

http://www.france24.com/en/20140308-france24-exclusive-interview-iraq-maliki/

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26501610

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/world/asia/13afghan.html?_r=0

leejay@moderntokyotimes.com

http://moderntokyotimes.com

dimanche, 16 mars 2014

The War on Russia in its Ideological Dimension

war406301.jpg

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

gruzja-nato.jpg

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. 

samedi, 15 mars 2014

Grand Puppetmaster Brzezinski

brz7087677_303,00.jpg

Grand Puppetmaster Brzezinski

Directing War Strategies from the Shadows

by MIKE WHITNEY
Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

“From the moment the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the United States has relentlessly pursued a strategy of encircling Russia, just as it has with other perceived enemies like China and Iran. It has brought 12 countries in central Europe, all of them formerly allied with Moscow, into the NATO alliance. US military power is now directly on Russia’s borders…This crisis is in part the result of a zero-sum calculation that has shaped US policy toward Moscow since the Cold War: Any loss for Russia is an American victory, and anything positive that happens to, for, or in Russia is bad for the United States. This is an approach that intensifies confrontation, rather than soothing it.”

- Stephen Kinzer, “US a full partner in Ukraine debacle”, Boston Globe

“We have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals” and “reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas — a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.”

- Russian President Vladimir Putin, Munich Conference on Security Policy, February 2007

The Obama administration’s rationale for supporting the fascist-led coup in Ukraine collapsed on Wednesday when a “hacked” phone call between EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton and Estonian foreign minister Urmas Paet revealed that the snipers who fired on protestors in Maidan Square in Kiev were not aligned with President Viktor Yanukovych, but with the protest leaders themselves. The significance of the discovery cannot be overstated since the Obama team has used the killing of protestors to justify its support for the new imposter government. Now it appears that members of the new government may be implicated in the killing of innocent civilians. This new information could force Obama to withdraw his support for the coup plotters in Kiev, which would derail the administration’s plan to remove Russia from the Crimea and expand NATO into Ukraine. Here’s a short recap of the details from an article in Russia Today:

“Estonian foreign ministry has confirmed the recording of his conversation with EU foreign policy chief is authentic. Urmas Paet said that snipers who shot at protesters and police in Kiev were hired by Maidan leaders.

During the conversation, Paet stressed that “there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition.”….

The Estonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs also issued a statement on its website, saying that the recording of the leaked telephone conversation between Paet and Ashton is “authentic.” (“Estonian Foreign Ministry confirms authenticity of leaked call on Kiev snipers“, Russia Today)

To its credit, the UK Guardian published an article reporting the basic facts, but there’s been no coverage by the New York Times, the Washington Post or any of the major TV News networks. America’s elite media are engaged in a coordinated news blackout to keep people from seeing that the Obama administration and their EU collaborators are supporting a group of far-right extremists who were directly involved in the killing of civilians in order to topple a democratically-elected government. Here’s more from the same article:

“…there is a stronger and stronger understanding that behind snipers it was not Yanukovych, it was somebody from the new coalition,” Paet says…the same handwriting, the same type of bullets, and it’s really disturbing that now the new coalition, that they don’t want to investigate what exactly happened.” (“Ukraine crisis: bugged call reveals conspiracy theory about Kiev snipers“, Guardian)

There won’t be an investigation because an investigation would reveal the truth, and the truth would undermine Obama’s plan to install a puppet regime in Kiev. The new government has already shown that it is more than willing to do Washington’s bidding, that is, to impose austerity measures on the working people of Ukraine, to pay off fatcat bondholders in Berlin and Brussels via more extortionist IMF loans, to extend NATO to Russia’s border in contravention of agreements made with Bush the Elder following the fall of the Berlin Wall, and to pursue the crackpot dreams of global hegemony laid out in “The Grand Chessboard” by New World Order fantasist Zbigniew Brzezinski. These are the primary objectives of the present policy which could be upended by the allegations of foul play.

The smoking gun revelations of the hacked phone call came just hours before US officials indicated they were planning to increase their military footprint in Eastern Europe. According to the World Socialist Web Site:

“Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said the Pentagon will boost joint training of NATO forces in Poland and step up NATO air patrols in the Baltics…US military officials said they were deploying six F-15 fighter jets and KC-135 transport planes. ….One guided-missile frigate, the USS Taylor, is still in a Black Sea port in Turkey after patrolling the region during the Sochi Olympics…

Turkish officials confirmed that they had given a US Navy warship permission to pass through the Bosphorus straits into the Black Sea, which borders Ukraine.” (“Amid Ukraine crisis, US launches military escalation in Eastern Europe”, World Socialist Web Site)

Also Russia Today reports that: “The guided missile destroyer, the USS Truxton, is heading to the Black Sea, for what the US military said is a “routine” deployment…The ship has a crew of about 300 and is part of an aircraft carrier strike group that left the US in mid-February.” (“US navy confirms missile destroyer USS Truxton approaching the Black Sea”, RT)

“Routine deployment”? So provoking a war with Russia is “routine”? Talk about understatement.

The military escalation occurs in an atmosphere of heightened tension between the two nuclear-armed powers and will certainly add to their mutual distrust. Hagel’s deployment is consistent with a plan for antagonizing Moscow that was proposed just days earlier in the Washington Post by the Obama administration’s ideological godfather, Zbigniew Brzezinski. Here’s a bit of what Brzezinski had to say in the article titled “What is to be done? Putin’s aggression in Ukraine needs a response”:

“…the West should promptly recognize the current government of Ukraine as legitimate. Uncertainty regarding its legal status could tempt Putin to repeat his Crimean charade…

“…the West should convey.. that the Ukrainian army can count on immediate and direct Western aid so as to enhance its defensive capabilities. There should be no doubt left in Putin’s mind that an attack on Ukraine would precipitate a prolonged and costly engagement, and Ukrainians should not fear that they would be left in the lurch.

Meanwhile, NATO forces, consistent with the organization’s contingency planning, should be put on alert. High readiness for some immediate airlift to Europe of U.S. airborne units would be politically and militarily meaningful. If the West wants to avoid a conflict, there should be no ambiguity in the Kremlin as to what might be precipitated by further adventurist use of force in the middle of Europe.” (“What is to be done? Putin’s aggression in Ukraine needs a response”, Washington Post)

“Adventurist”? Dr. Strangelove is calling the Kremlin adventurist when his recommendations would put NATO, the US and Moscow on hairtrigger alert increasing the chances of an error in judgment that could lead to thermonuclear war. Isn’t that the pot calling the kettle black?

But listen to the tone of Brzezinski’s op-ed. In just a few short paragraphs, the author–who many respect as a restrained and brilliant global strategist–refers to Putin as a thug, a Mafia gangster, Mussolini, and Hitler. I imagine if he had another paragraph to work with, he would have added Beelzebub Satan to the list.

This isn’t politics; it’s hysterics. It’s incendiary, jingoistic mumbo-jumbo intended to rouse the public and fan the flames of nationalism. It’s the same kind of self-righteous raving that precipitated the invasion of Iraq.

And what is Brzezinski saying?

Is he saying that events in the Crimea are a threat to US national security? Is he saying that the US should now feel free to apply the Monroe Doctrine everywhere across the planet, sticking our big nose wherever the president sees fit?

The trouble in the Crimea has nothing to do with the United States. We have no dog in this fight. This is about military expansion into Eurasia, this is about pipeline corridors and oil fields, this is about dismantling the Russian Federation and positioning multinational corporations and Wall Street investment banks in Asia for the new century. And, finally, this is an ego-driven crusade by an old man who wants to see his looneybin NWO global hegemony vision enacted before they cart him off on a marble slab. That’s what this is really about; the glorious new world disorder, the dystopian wetdream of thinktank patricians everywhere whose only purpose in life is to initiate wars that other-peoples-sons will have to fight.

Entering Ukraine into the corporate-western alliance is a critical part of Brzezinski’s masterplan. The basic strategy has been underway since the fall of the Berlin Wall when neoliberal carpetbaggers from the US assisted in the looting of the former Soviet state leaving Russia politically broken and economically destitute. Since then, US policy towards Russia has been overtly hostile, making every effort to encircle the oil-rich nation while positioning nuclear missile installations on its perimeter. Now Washington is using its fascist-backed coup in Ukraine to force Moscow to relinquish its grip on a region that is vital to its national security.

Here’s a brief excerpt from an interview with Stephen Cohen, professor of Russian studies and history emeritus at New York University on Monday on PBS Newshour. Cohen helps to clarify what is really going on viv a vis the US and Russia:

“What we’re watching today is the worst kind of history being made, the descent of a new Cold War divide between West and East in Europe, this time not in faraway Berlin, but right on Russia’s borders through Ukraine. That will be instability and the prospect of war for decades to come for our kids and our grandchildren. The official version is that Putin is to blame; he did this. But it simply isn’t true. This began 20 years ago when Clinton began the movement of NATO toward Russia, a movement that’s continued.

…the fundamental issue here is that, three or four years ago, Putin made absolutely clear he had two red lines…One was in the former Soviet republic of Georgia. (Putin would not allow NATO in Georgia) The other was in Ukraine. We crossed both. You got a war in Georgia in 2008, and you have got today in Ukraine because we, the United States and Europe, crossed Putin’s red line.” (PBS News Hour)

There’s no doubt who is to blame for the present conflict in Cohen’s mind. It’s Washington.

So, here we are, between a rock and a hard place: Putin cannot back down on an issue that’s crucial to national security, and Washington is more determined than ever to pull Ukraine into –what Henry Kissinger calls–”a cooperative international system.” (aka–global capitalist rule) That means there’s going to be a war.

On Thursday, Crimea MPs voted unanimously to hold a referendum on whether the region should become a part of Russia or not. The balloting will take place in 10 days although Obama has already said that he will not honor the results. Apparently, other countries need to get the green-light from Washington before they conduct their elections now. This is how ridiculous things have gotten.

In 2008, Brzezinski revealed the real motives behind US aggression in Central Asia in an article that appeared in the Huffington Post that dealt primarily with the dust up in Georgia. (where Putin deployed Russian troops to defend Russian speaking civilians in South Ossetia.) Here’s what Brzezinski had to say:

“The question the international community now confronts is how to respond to a Russia that engages in the blatant use of force with larger imperial designs in mind: to reintegrate the former Soviet space under the Kremlin’s control and to cut Western access to the Caspian Sea and Central Asia by gaining control over the Baku/Ceyhan pipeline that runs through Georgia.

In brief, the stakes are very significant. At stake is access to oil as that resource grows ever more scarce and expensive and how a major power conducts itself in our newly interdependent world, conduct that should be based on accommodation and consensus, not on brute force.

If Georgia is subverted, not only will the West be cut off from the Caspian Sea and Central Asia. We can logically anticipate that Putin, if not resisted, will use the same tactics toward the Ukraine. Putin has already made public threats against Ukraine.” (“Brzezinski: Russia’s invasion of Georgia is Reminiscent of Stalin’s attack on Finland”; Huffington Post)

Huh? It sounds a lot like Brzezinski thinks that oil should be his. Or maybe he thinks it belongs to the western oil giants; is that it?

So we’re not dealing with national security, sovereignty or spheres of influence here. What we’re really talking about is “access to oil.” Not only that, but Brzezinski is being quite blunt in his assertion that “the West” –as he calls it–has a legitimate claim to the resources on other people’s land. Where’d he come up with that one?

In another interview on Kavkacenter.com, in 2008, Brzezinski sounded the same alarm with a slightly different twist. Here’s an excerpt from the article titled ”Russia tends to destabilize Georgia”:

“Brzezinski said the United States witnessed “cases of possible threats by Russia… motivated not by some territorial disputes….but caused by intention to take control over the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline”.

“If Georgia government is destabilized, western access to Baku, Caspian Sea and further will be limited”, said Brzezinski …. he stated that Russia will try to consolidate its monopoly on these markets and will use all existing political and economic levers, including “politically motivated cessation of energy supplies” in Europe and Baltic states.

“Russia actively tends to isolate the Central Asian region from direct access to world economy, especially to energy supplies”, considers the political scientist.” (“Zbigniew Brzezinski: ”Russia tends to destabilize Georgia” kavkacenter.com)

Putin is not isolating anyone and he’s certainly not taking over anyone’s damned pipeline. He’s the president of Russia. He sells oil and makes money, that’s how the system works. It’s called capitalism. But the oil is theirs. The natural gas is theirs. The pipelines are theirs. Not ours. Get over it!

Don’t kid yourself, it’s all about oil. Oil and power. The United States imperial ambitions are thoroughly marinated in oil, access to oil, and control of oil. Without oil, there’s no empire, no dollar hegemony, no overbloated, bullyboy military throwing weaker countries against the wall and extorting tribute. Oil is the coin of the realm, the path to global domination.

Putin has audacity to think that the oil beneath Russian soil belongs to Russia. Washington wants to change his mind about that. And that’s why the situation in Ukraine is so dangerous, because the voracious thirst for oil is pushing us all towards another world war.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at fergiewhitney@msn.com.

vendredi, 14 mars 2014

Lavia mediterranea

jeudi, 13 mars 2014

Pour le rattachement de la Crimée à la Russie?

IDE_UKRAINE-CRIMEE.jpg

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. 

Notes:

 

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.

Brzezinski about Ukraine: Underlying Meaning of Finland Option

brz.jpg

Brzezinski about Ukraine: Underlying Meaning of Finland Option

Sergey MAXIMOV

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

 
A coup took place in Kiev of February 22, 2014. The same day the Financial Times published the Russia Needs to be Offered a ‘Finland Option’ for Ukraine article by Zbignew Brzezinski. The editorial board found that the piece was important enough to reprint it again the next day with the changed title Russia Needs a ‘Finland Option’ for Ukraine. It makes one wonder what the author of Game Plan and Grand Chess Board really means by all of a sudden turning to the theme of Ukraine with his offer of «Finlandization»? 

Mr. Brzezinski has a long history of giving advices to many US administrations. Now he comes up with an offer to lend a helping hand to the new government in Kiev and deter Russia from taking resolute steps to defend its interests of vital importance in Ukraine. He recommends, «Washington to use its influence internationally to prompt steps that would be economically costly to Moscow» as he believes that contemporary Russia is vulnerable to such actions. 

Since long ago Brzezinski has been affirming that Ukraine is a key country for the control of the entire Russian (post-Soviet) geopolitical space. Until now the United States has not succeeded much in its endeavors to get hold of the key. The «big Zbig» explained the recent predicaments the US has encountered on the way while playing on the Grand Chess Board by the «President Vladimir Putin’s «nostalgic dream of the Eurasian Union». Ukraine is considered to be important by the US foreign policy savvy because by defending its national rights it makes the states of Central Asia, in particular Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, realize they need to be tougher while resisting the ongoing attempts by Moscow to take away their independence. 

The Brzezinski’s idée fixe is the further fragmentation of Eurasia’s political map (along the former Yugoslavia lines) that’s why he virulently opposes any form of integration in the post-Soviet space… The inveterate enemy of Russia and seasoned master of geopolitical intrigue he pins hope on rescuing the «new Ukrainian democracy» (as he calls the regime which grabbed power in Kiev after the coup), «So, irrespective of what happens in the near future, I continue to believe: «Sooner rather than later, Ukraine will be truly a part of democratic Europe. Later rather than sooner, Russia will follow unless it self-isolates itself and becomes a semi-stagnant imperialistic relic».

The Brzezinski’s Financial Times piece has strictly defined the core goal for those who set store by political recommendations of Polish American strategist and are ready to follow through. According to him, the rapprochement between Ukraine and the post-Soviet states united in the Customs Union with an eye to create the Eurasian Union in future must be prevented at any price, even if it will lead to great human losses the Yarosh-Turchinov-Yatsenyuk regime’s staying in power bodes for Ukrainian people. 

As Brzezinski puts it, «The West, however, can play a constructive role in containing the exploding violence. That will take concerted action by the US and the EU. The US could and should convey clearly to Mr. Putin that it is prepared to use its influence to make certain that a truly independent and territorially undivided Ukraine pursues policies towards Russia similar to those so effectively practiced by Finland: mutually respectful neighbors, wide-ranging economic relations both with Russia and the EU, but no participation in any military alliance viewed by Moscow as directed at itself – while also expanding its European connectivity. In brief, the Finnish model as the ideal example for Ukraine, and the EU, and Russia». 

At that, why Finland? The neutral status of Finland has been gradually eroded by involvement of Finnish armed forces into the NATO «Partnership for Peace» program as well other forms of military cooperation with the alliance. This is only one side of the matter. It should be added by the fact that Finland is used as a springboard for subversive actions against neighboring Russia. 

For instance, the terrorist organization Imarat Kavkaz enjoys safe haven of the territory of Finland, its Kavkaz Center website openly operates there. Islamists and separatists from the Russian Federation and other post-Soviet states have gone through the training course of ideological brainwashing and the ways to wage «war for democracy» under cover of different kinds of «scientific conferences», seminars and trainings. Finland connives at such activities. It also supports the Kavkaz Center under the pretext that the state boundaries should not limit efforts to defend «democratic values». 

Something like this is planned for Ukraine, but this time it’s not the «soft» Finnish option, but rather its tough «Slav» version. 

Andriy Parubiy, former Maidan commandant, has been appointed Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine by putschists. In 1991 together with Oleh Tyahnybok he founded the Social-National party of Ukraine. Being too close to German national-socialism, the party was renamed in 2004 to become the All-Ukraine Union Svoboda (Freedom). Since 1996 he heads the «Patriots of Ukraine» paramilitary nationalist youth organization which is part of Pravy sector movement – the striking force of the coup. Dmitry Yarosh, the leader of Neo-Nazi assault groups, has become his deputy. 

Yarosh is a professional revolutionary (they said he has never worked). In 1994 he joined Trezub (named after Stepan Bandera) created under the aegis of Ukrainian abroad-based organization the Brotherhood of OUN – UPA (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists- Ukrainian Insurgent Army). He heads Trezub since 2005. Yarosh has a long experience of working together with Valentin Nalivaychenko appointed new head of Security Service of Ukraine, as well as Ukrainian (US and Canada nationals) experts on guerilla warfare. He is an ardent supporter of the theory which says that a war against Russia «to liberate Ukrainian territories occupied by Russia empire», including the Kuban and the Far East, is inevitable. 

Under the circumstances the «Finlandization of Ukraine» offered by Brzezinski will not lead to friendship and good neighborly relations but rather will turn Ukraine into an outpost of subversive activities against Russia and its allies. 

mercredi, 12 mars 2014

Pour la paix en Ukraine et la réconciliation avec la Russie

ukrruss.jpg

 

Pour la paix en Ukraine et la réconciliation avec la Russie

par Thomas Ferrier

Ex: http://thomasferrier.hautetfort.com

Cela fait plusieurs semaines maintenant que la crise ukrainienne occupe nos écrans radar, avec son lot de suspens et de retournements. Désormais, la Russie s’apprête à lancer une intervention armée, non pour rétablir le sinistre Yanoukovitch, démonétisé de Paris à Moscou, mais pour protéger ses intérêts en Crimée et éventuellement dans les autres régions dans lesquelles les russophones sont nettement majoritaires. Une telle action unilatérale, acceptée lorsque la France souhaite intervenir en Centrafrique ou au Mali, devient inacceptable dès lors que c’est la Russie qui est à la manœuvre. Le gouvernement ukrainien provisoire, qui parle d’un casus belli et annonce mobiliser, n’est probablement pas menacé.

Cette crise présente plusieurs dimensions qu’il faut bien avoir à l’esprit lorsqu’on prétend l’analyser. Il faut se garder d’un jugement partisan de principe, pro-ukrainien ou pro-russe, car qui ne voit que la position d’un des camps ne voit rien.

Du point de vue ukrainien

D’un côté, des manifestants mobilisés, réunissant des citoyens de l’extrême-gauche à l’extrême-droite, en passant par tout le spectre politique, veulent chasser un président certes élu mais qui a tout d’un autocrate, corrompu à l’extrême, et au bilan économique des plus médiocres. Sa volonté de s’aligner sur la Russie, en rompant tout rapprochement avec l’Union Européenne, a mis le feu aux poudres. Certains militants sont prêts à des actions violentes auxquelles répond une contre-offensive gouvernementale encore plus violente. Le sang coule et c’est par dizaines, peut-être par centaines, que des Ukrainiens  meurent. Il s’agit surtout de militants de Svoboda ou du « Pravyi Sektor », des nationalistes radicaux prêts à en découdre avec le pouvoir.

Même si l’Ukraine et la Russie prennent leurs racines communes dans la Rus’ de Kiev, au Xème et XIème siècles, elles ont connu de longues périodes où elles étaient séparées. Si l’ukrainien et le russe ne diffèrent guère, ce sont tout de même deux langues distinctes. Et sous les tsars et plus encore sous le régime soviétique, une russification linguistique et culturelle a été très vigoureuse. L’identité ukrainienne est celle d’un peuple meurtri, et s’apparente à la situation des Irlandais face à l’empire britannique.

Pour toutes ces raisons et pour bien d’autres, l’Ukraine est coupée en deux, entre les russophones qui se sentent indéfectiblement liés à la Russie voisine, et des ukrainophones qui tentent de se rapprocher de l’Europe occidentale et prétendent rejoindre l’Union Européenne, même si les nationalistes de Svoboda sont en vérité des souverainistes, pour marquer une rupture plus nette avec la Russie.

Mais ce nationalisme reste animé d’un esprit revanchard et la preuve en est la décision du parlement de supprimer le statut de langue officielle du russe au profit du seul ukrainien. C’est un acte d’une maladresse extrême, alors qu’il fallait au contraire rassurer les russophones dès la chute de Yanoukovitch. L’effondrement du Parti des Régions ne devait pas faire place à des vexations outrancières contre les russophones.

Du point de vue russe

Pour Vladimir Poutine, aucun doute n’est permis, les russophones d’Ukraine et les russes de Crimée sont potentiellement menacés d’une répression à leur encontre. La chute de Yanoukovitch a amené à des manifestations de soutien de nombreux Ukrainiens des régions orientales du pays en faveur d’une action russe, voire d’une sécession.

Poutine n’entend pas perdre la Crimée, qui bénéficie d’un statut particulier et qui a conservé des liens politiques et même militaires avec la Russie, abritant sur son sol de nombreux soldats russes et des navires de combat. Il a tout à gagner à une intervention armée, qui permettra de stabiliser sa frontière occidentale, d’unir par un élan patriotique le peuple russe derrière lui, faisant taire les contestations internes, et de rappeler aux occidentaux que dans son espace il entend être respecté.

L’Union Européenne a été très mal avisée de négliger la susceptibilité russe en la matière. En apportant un soutien sans discernement aux manifestants de Maïdan, dont certains expriment une russophobie explicite, au-delà de la question du départ d’un dirigeant médiocre, en laissant faire une forme de coup d’état à Kiev, sans respecter les accords mis en œuvre dans lesquels les Russes avaient été partie prenante, les occidentaux ont gravement attenté aux intérêts vitaux de la Russie. Poutine devait donc réagir et il ne pouvait le faire par des demi-mesures. Même s’il n’a pas encore donné son feu vert officiel à une intervention que son parlement soutient, maîtrisant les risques à provoquer d’une manière trop brutale les USA, il ne fait aucun doute qu’il entend se faire respecter. S’il annonce vouloir conserver l’unité de l’Ukraine, refusant ainsi de céder à toute tentative d’annexion, on sent bien se profiler une Transnistrie II, un partage non officiel de l’Ukraine en deux parties, la seconde pouvant être limitée à la Crimée ou élargie à Donetsk et même Kharkiv.

Rappelons dans le cas de la Crimée que son rattachement à la république soviétique d’Ukraine en 1954 était purement arbitraire car ne tenant pas compte du caractère massivement russe de la population de cette presque-île. Lorsque l’URSS s’est effondrée, la nouvelle Ukraine a conservé les frontières dont elle disposait sous le régime précédent. C’était une erreur qui aujourd’hui est en train d’être réparée au forceps.

Des accusations d’extrémisme qui sonnent faux

Toute crise comme celle que vit l’Ukraine apporte son lot de discours extrémistes. Mais il serait trop facile d’opposer de bons russes à des néo-nazis, ou de bons patriotes ukrainiens à des communistes. Aux  provocations extrémistes du « Pravyi Sektor » où s’affiche le portrait de Stepan Bandera, répondent les nostalgies néo-communistes, certains vieux membres de l’Armée Rouge allant jusqu’à monter la garde devant une statue de Lénine, pourtant responsable de la mort de nombreux ukrainiens… et russes. Ni le drapeau à croix gammée ni le drapeau soviétique ne devraient être brandis, ça n’a aucun sens.


En fait, les extrémistes sont l’alibi que chaque camp envoie à l’autre pour justifier l’un de son éloignement de la Russie, l’autre de son action militaire. L’antifascisme promu par certains russophones sonne faux. L’anticommunisme de certains ukrainiens sonne tout autant faux. C’est la preuve d’une immaturité politique profonde de certaines franges de la population, dans un pays pauvre, miné par la crise économique, et tiraillé entre deux tendances lourdes agissant comme deux centrifugeuses.

Une Europe absente, des USA trop présents

Dans cette équation, il ne faudrait pas non plus négliger le rôle détestable des Etats-Unis, qui récupèrent à leur profit cette crise ukrainienne pour continuer leur stratégie d’endiguement de la Russie, finissant par celle de l’anaconda, de l’étranglement pur et dur. A Washington, on s’interroge déjà sur des sanctions à prendre contre Moscou. Mais la Russie n’agit pas d’une manière différente de celle des USA qui interviennent lorsque leurs intérêts sont menacés sans se préoccuper de l’opinion internationale. On peut regretter que Moscou ait choisi cette voie et on aurait pu espérer une démarche plus rassurante. Mais la Russie s’adapte à ses interlocuteurs d’en face.

Or l’Union Européenne, une fois de plus, est incapable de répondre d’une seule voix, et se montre impuissante. C’est bien sûr le cas des pantins de Bruxelles, qui n’ont que le pouvoir que les gouvernements leur accordent, c'est-à-dire aucun, mais c’est surtout celui des dirigeants même des Etats. Hollande a eu un rôle totalement marginal, Cameron et Merkel ont été dépassés. Ils ont laissé leur « allié » américain mener la dance. On se souviendra du mot d’une responsable américaine disant en privé que l’Union Européenne pouvait « aller se faire foutre ».

Tant que l’Union Européenne ne sera pas capable de se doter à sa tête d’autres personnes qu’un Barroso aujourd’hui ou un Schulz demain, elle ne sera pas prise au sérieux et n’aura son mot à dire en rien. Elle assistera démunie, si ce n’est complice, aux actions des USA sur son sol ou à ses frontières.

Seul un européisme pur et dur pourra ramener la paix

Il n’y a qu’une seule position tenable dans ce conflit, une voix de la raison à faire entendre, c’est celle de la paix et de la réconciliation en Ukraine et entre Ukrainiens et Russes. Ce n’est de l’intérêt de personne que ce pays implose, créant des séquelles pouvant mettre des décennies à être digérées. Nous devons reconnaître à la fois la pleine légitimité du peuple ukrainien dans sa volonté de chasser du pouvoir un président corrompu et celle des russophones qui expriment une inquiétude non feinte quant à leur avenir dans l’Ukraine actuelle. Il aurait été nécessaire qu’ils soient rassurés et ménagés, associés de plein pied dans la reconstruction politique du pays.

Vouloir régler le problème ukrainien sans associer la Russie à cette démarche était non seulement illusoire mais relevait d’une faute d’analyse grave. C’est autour d’une table que les responsables du mouvement « Euromaïdan », des représentants sérieux de l’Union Européenne et des représentants de la Russie que l’avenir du pays devait se décider. Les inquiétudes russes devaient être écoutées et prises en compte. Le statut de la Crimée devait être garanti, tout comme celui de la langue russe.

L’absence d’Europe politique, l’inféodation des dirigeants des Etats européens de l’ouest ou des « dirigeants » de l’Union Européenne aux USA, tout cela est détestable. C’est malheureux de voir l’Europe, une fois de plus, manipulée et instrumentalisée afin de la maintenir divisée.

Si, comme je le pense, l’avenir de l’Europe se joue dans une convergence Union Européenne/Russie, jusqu’à la fusion qui transformerait notre continent en première puissance mondiale, alors cette division au cœur de l’Ukraine n’est pas acceptable. Et tout doit être fait pour y remédier dans les meilleurs délais et avec le moins de victimes possible. Il n’y a qu’une seule façon de décourager Poutine de mener une intervention armée, c’est de lui proposer une alternative acceptable pour lui comme pour les russophones. Mais surtout, il faut que ce soit les Européens ensemble, Russes et membres de l’UE, qui dialoguent, les USA devant être écartés de toute discussion et réduits à un rôle de spectateur extérieur.

Contrairement à ce que prétendent les souverainistes, la crise ukrainienne montre qu’une Europe divisée sera toujours une proie et l’instrument de sa propre destruction. Une démarche vraiment européiste, c’est de défendre tous les Européens, et donc de défendre et les positions ukrainiennes et les positions russes en même temps. On peut dire que cela demande un certain talent d’équilibriste, mais c’est la seule attitude responsable. C’est ainsi que nous pourrons garantir une paix sincère et durable, et ensuite une réconciliation dans l’honneur.

Si la Russie intervient en se limitant à des objectifs légitimes, la protection de la Crimée et des régions russophones, il faudra considérer cette action comme un mal, mais comme un mal nécessaire. Il faudra trouver les mots pour que cette situation temporaire trouve une résolution acceptable par tous.

Poutine a tendu la main depuis 2005 à l’Union Européenne, évoquant l’Europe « de l’Islande à l’Oural et par extension jusqu’au Pacifique ». Mais cette main, personne n’a pu et n’a su la saisir. Au contraire, la Russie a le sentiment, à tort ou à raison, que le reste de l’Europe est dans une situation de décadence bien plus avancée, qu’il est sous tutelle, et qu’il s’efforce de refouler la Russie en Asie. C’est notre faiblesse qui inquiète les Russes, non « nos » menaces pathétiques dictées par « nos » maîtres.

Face à une Europe politique unie, puissante, responsable, libre et souveraine, la Russie pourra dialoguer d’égal à égal, en toute franchise, et nous trouverons ensemble des solutions qui satisferont tous les citoyens de notre continent. Et l’Ukraine redeviendra un pont de l’amitié entre nous. Alors la Russie et le reste de l’Europe s’uniront pour forger le XXIème siècle européen, pour la paix et la prospérité, de Reykjavik à Moscou.

Je ne peux que souhaiter que les Ukrainiens et les Russes trouvent assez de ressources en eux pour sortir grandis de cette crise. Ils méritent mieux. Et je ne peux qu’inviter les dirigeants des autres pays européens à agir avec davantage de prudence à l’avenir, à respecter nos frères de l’est et à se libérer de chaînes « outre-atlantiques » de plus en plus insupportables. Malheureusement, je sais que ceux qui actuellement président à nos destinées n’en feront rien. C’est pourquoi il faudra les chasser du pouvoir, tout comme les Ukrainiens ont su chasser Yanoukovitch. Vive la Russie, vive l’Ukraine et vive l’Europe libre, bientôt libre !

 

Thomas FERRIER (PSUNE/LBTF)

mardi, 11 mars 2014

UKRAINE : VERS UNE SECONDE GUERRE DE CRIMEE?

crimee-ukraine-jumelles-reuters.jpg

UKRAINE : VERS UNE SECONDE GUERRE DE CRIMEE?
 
Un nouveau risque de conflagration en Europe orientale

Gérard DUSSOUY *
Ex: http://metamag.fr
Un nouveau risque de conflagration en Europe orientale, voilà où nous a conduit l'incurie diplomatique et stratégique de l'Union européenne et de tous les dirigeants des Etats européens. Tous incapables de mener une véritable réflexion géopolitique. Au lieu de faire de l'Ukraine un "pont" entre l'Europe et la Russie, ils en ont fait une pomme de discorde aux dépens des Ukrainiens eux-mêmes.
 
Il ne fallait pas présenter l'association de l'Ukraine à l'UE comme une victoire sur la Russie, et emboîter le pas des Etats-Unis en laissant entendre que cette association était l'antichambre à une adhésion à l'Otan! Une organisation qui devrait avoir été dissoute depuis belle lurette, à la suite de celle du Pacte de Varsovie. Au contraire, tout en négociant son association avec l’Ukraine, il fallait en parallèle construire avec Moscou un véritable partenariat.
 
L’impasse géopolitique dans laquelle se trouve cet Etat aujourd'hui est la conséquence d'un manque de compréhension du changement mondial, de la prévalence de concepts idéologiques devenus obsolètes et d'une incapacité, des uns et des autres, à dépasser leurs ethnocentrismes. Les perceptions mutuelles des Européens de l’ouest et des Russes demeurent déplorables.
 
Dans l'état actuel des choses, une partition provisoire de l'Ukraine sera peut-être la solution pour éviter la guerre civile. Tout au moins faudra-t-il qu’elle accepte, et les Occidentaux avec elle, que la Crimée, qui ne lui appartient que depuis la deuxième moitié du vingtième siècle, du fait de la volonté de Khrouchtchev qui était lui-même ukrainien, soit détachée d’elle. De toutes les façons, les franco-britanniques n’ont pas les moyens de mener une guerre en Crimée comme ils l’ont fait en 1853-1856 pour, déjà, essayer d’enlever Sébastopol aux Russes ! Quant aux Américains, malgré les rodomontades de leur président, il est clair que leurs priorités géostratégiques sont ailleurs que du côté de la Mer Noire.
 
Il serait temps de faire preuve de réalisme et d’être rationnel (même si cela est difficile à envisager en politique). Il serait temps que l'ensemble des Européens prennent conscience que leur intérêt à tous est de s'unir pour faire face ensemble aux défis du monde. Dans cette perspective, il serait heureux de convoquer une conférence paneuropéenne sur l'avenir du vieux continent, afin de faire tomber les préventions et de revenir à ce qui aurait dû être une démarche collective et solidaire.

*Professeur émérite à l'université de Bordeaux, auteur de "Contre l'Europe de Bruxelles, fonder un Etat européen", Editions Tatamis, Blois, 2013. 
 

couv-bd.gif

Le Martyre du Kosovo

kovoso.gif

« Le Martyre du Kosovo » de Nikola Mirković

par Camille Galic

Ex: http://aucoeurdunationalisme.blogspot.com

« Les Serbes résiduels n’y constituent plus qu’une infime minorité assiégée et menacée de disparition résultant d’un véritable “nettoyage ethnique” ».

Il n’est question que de la Crimée et de son séparatisme qui, encouragé par le Kremlin, provoque l’indignation de toutes les chancelleries occidentales. « Il faut que l’Europe soit très ferme », déclare Laurent Fabius cependant que Washington réclame l’envoi « immédiat » d’observateurs de l’OSCE (Organisation pour la coopération et la sécurité en Europe) pour « veiller au respect de l’intégrité territoriale » de l’Ukraine. Et si l’on reparlait du Kosovo, foyer national arraché à la Serbie par les mêmes Occidentaux qui y tolèrent parfaitement les persécutions infligées à ses occupants légitimes, désormais ultra-minoritaires, et sa transformation en plaque tournante de tous les trafics, y compris la traite humaine ?

Ignorance crasse ou omerta, les médias, qui, aujourd’hui, félicitent le président Obama et son secrétaire d’Etat John Kerry pour leur fermeté vis-à-vis de la Russie menacée de sanctions économiques si elle ne met pas immédiatement un terme à ses menées en Crimée, semblent avoir oublié comment les Etats-Unis d’Amérique, nonLivre contents de s’être emparés de la Californie et du Texas hispaniques, suscitèrent une insurrection armée dans la province colombienne de Panama, qui fit bientôt sécession et devint indépendante, puis chassèrent les Espagnols de Cuba en 1898 à la faveur d’une provocation annonçant Pearl Harbour et les armes de destruction massive attribuées à l’Irak. De la vieille histoire ? Certes, mais l’invasion américaine, intervention la plus importante depuis la Guerre du Vietnam, sur l’île antillaise de la Grenade, indépendante depuis 1974 et où les intérêts nationaux états-uniens n’étaient nullement menacés, ne date, elle, que de 1983.

Une partition plébiscitée : celle de la Serbie

Quant à l’éventuelle partition de l’Ukraine, que redoutent tant nos démocrates qui, dès le 25 février, y mettaient un veto formel, elle a un précédent plus récent encore : celle de la Serbie, amputée du Kosovo (que, dans les années 1970, on appelait encore Kossovo, traduction du cyrillique Kocobo, avant que ne prime la graphie anglo-saxonne), proclamé indépendant le 17 février 2008 par le toujours premier ministre Hashim Thaçi avec la bénédiction de la « communauté internationale » et sous la protection de la KFOR, force d’interposition otanesque.

Le Martyre du Kosovo, titre de l’indispensable livre du Franco-Serbe Nikola Mirković *, dure maintenant depuis plus de six siècles. Depuis ce jour de juin 1389 où, à Kosovo Polje, le Champ des merles, les armées du prince Lazare furent défaites par celles du sultan turc Murat Ier. En quelques décennies, cette « Vieille Serbie » riche et prospère, sur laquelle la dynastie des Némanjides a édifié plus de quinze cents églises et monastères – dont ceux, admirables, de Gracanica et de Veliki Decani –, se voit occupée et en partie ruinée. La situation s’aggrave encore après la chute de Byzance, le joug ottoman n’ayant alors plus de freins. Soumis à des tributs extravagants et au système du devchirmé – l’enlèvement d’enfants mâles déculturés et islamisés pour alimenter le corps des janissaires – le pays s’étiole et pâtit d’un important exode vers le nord, 37.000 familles s’exilant pour échapper aux exactions, aux conversions forcées et au massacre.

Substitution de population

Et le pire est à venir : à partir du XVIIe siècle, les voisins albanais jusqu’ici chrétiens se convertissent en masse à l’islam et, en récompense, reçoivent « les terres fertiles des Serbes » et « des postes importants dans le gouvernement ottoman ». Dès lors, commente Nikola Mirković, « la physionomie religieuse et ethnique du Kosovo et de la Métochie (province ecclésiastique autour du patriarcat de Peć) commence à changer sensiblement. Quarante-deux grands vizirs du régime sont albanais et font preuve d’une brutalité et d’une violence inouïes à l’égard de leurs anciens coreligionnaires chrétiens ». De plus, ils encouragent évidemment l’afflux des « Shkipetars » (fils du Pays des Aigles) sur le territoire serbe. Pourtant peu favorable aux orthodoxes, l’archevêque catholique Mathieu Massarek déplore cette substitution de population à la vue des villes désormais « pleines de mahométans albanais turcisés, de bandits et de tueurs qui se déchirent entre eux, exerçant la terreur » sur les chrétiens. Il est à noter que, depuis la plus haute antiquité, le Kosovo n’avait jamais été albanais et la meilleure preuve en est que le nouvel Etat porte toujours son nom slave évoquant les merles, Kosova, une seule lettre ayant été changée. Il s’agit donc non d’une reconquête mais d’une spoliation pure et simple, le gouvernement communiste de Tito ayant poursuivi l’entreprise des Turcs en favorisant la ruée des Albanais vers le Kosovo, et en accordant à celui-ci, par la constitution de février 1974, un statut autonome dans une « égalité de droit » avec la Serbie, toujours suspectée de nationalisme.


Une « guerre juste » menée par un « Ange miséricordieux » ?


Est-ce pour cela que, quand Belgrade tenta en 1997-98 de « briser des velléités séparatistes » dont les conséquences allaient se révéler incalculables sur les plans historique, économique et géopolitique, l’Armée de libération du Kosovo (UÇK, dont le futur premier ministre Thaçi était l’un des chefs) bénéficia de tant de protections bien qu’elle fût considérée, aux USA notamment, comme une organisation terroriste ? Toujours est-il que, sous prétexte de prévenir un « nouveau génocide » contre lequel les opinions publiques occidentales étaient ameutées depuis des mois, l’OTAN lança de mars à juin 1999, et « sans mandat de l’ONU », une guerre aérienne qui ravagea la Serbie : « 82 ponts sont détruits, toutes les raffineries pétrolières, 14 centrales thermoélectriques, 13 aéroports, 20 gares ferroviaires et 121 usines sont anéantis », rappelle l’auteur. Et il faudrait ajouter des milliers d’immeubles abattus lors de ces frappes dites « chirurgicales » – ainsi que, à Belgrade, la tour de la télévision, l’ambassade de Chine et une partie de la cathédrale russe. Le pays tel qu’il m’apparut en août 1999, alors que je m’y étais rendue régulièrement depuis 1965 (y compris au Kossovo), était méconnaissable. Et dire que l’opération avait pour nom de code « Ange miséricordieux»!


Un Etat riche… et mafieux


Reste à connaître les motifs d’un tel acharnement, qu’avait précédé une telle accumulation de mensonges. Car « Fer à cheval », le fameux « plan génocidaire » prétexte à l’agression était un faux, concocté à Berlin sous l’égide du chancelier SPD Schröder. Quant aux « immenses charniers » décrits par le Français Kouchner et Bernard-Henri Lévy promus ministres de la (propagande de) guerre, les Américains Madeleine Korbel-Albright, William Cohen (respectivement secrétaire d’Etat et secrétaire à la Défense de Bill Clinton) ou James Rubin, les observateurs de l’ONU (que l’on s’efforcera de faire taire) constateront plus tard, trop tard, qu’ils ne contenaient en fait que quelques dizaines de corps chacun – de guérilleros de l’UÇK et non de civils. Reprenant l’analyse d’Aymeric Chauprade selon laquelle, avec « Ange miséricordieux », l’OTAN a tracé une « ligne continue » visant de l’Adriatique à l’Afghanistan à « ceinturer la Russie » pour la priver de tout accès aux mers chaudes, Méditerranée et mer Noire, Nikola Mirković y ajoute d’autres raisons : la dépendance de nos pays vis-à-vis des Etats pétroliers du Golfe qui ont importé le wahhabisme au cœur des Balkans et la richesse minière du Kosovo lorgnée par les compagnies internationales et singulièrement américaines, celles-ci préférant négocier avec des gouvernements profondément corrompus, qu’elles tiennent en outre par leur connaissance de leur lourd passé terroriste et mafieux. Car si, voici cinquante ans, le pavot était l’emblème du Kosovo, sa culture est maintenant généralisée et fonctionne à plein régime, sous l’œil indifférent de la KFOR, les usines assurant sa transformation en héroïne, qui envahit l’Europe et rapporte au nouvel Etat « plus de 3 milliards d’euros par an ». De même les « filles de l’Est », qui forment désormais les gros bataillons de la prostitution dans l’Union européenne, sont-elles souvent sous la coupe de Kosovars, également très actifs comme passeurs d’immigrés en Italie et, de là, sur tout notre continent.


Thaçi, grand manitou du trafic d’organes


Et pendant ce temps, le martyre du Kosovo perdure. En 2008, la Suissesse Carla del Ponte, ancien procureur général au Tribunal pénal international pour l’ex-Yougoslavie créé à seule fin de juger les crimes de l’ancien président serbe Slobodan Milosevic (mort en mars 2006 en détention aux Pays-Bas) sortait, sous le titre La Chasse, moi et les criminels de guerre (**), une véritable bombe. Elle affirmait dans ce livre, preuves à l’appui, que « des Serbes et des non-Albanais ont été transportés en 1999 du Kosovo jusqu’en Albanie où […] des chirurgiens prélevaient leurs organes ensuite envoyés depuis l’aéroport de Tirana vers des cliniques à l’étranger ». « Les dirigeants des deux niveaux : intermédiaires et élevés de l’UÇK, étaient […] impliqués de manière active dans la contrebande des organes », précisait Mme Del Ponte, dont les accusations ont été confirmées par son compatriote Dick Marty, sénateur et rapporteur au Conseil de l’Europe, qui a officiellement adopté son rapport, accablant notamment pour Hashim Thaçi. L’indéboulonnable premier ministre, accusait M. Marty, « doit sans aucun doute son ascension au soutien politique et diplomatique des Etats-Unis et d’autres puissances occidentales » – dont, pour notre plus grande honte, la France. Submergée par l’immigration, la France devrait en effet réfléchir au destin du Kosovo où les prolifiques Albanais, qui ne formaient que 2% de la population au XIVe siècle, sont aujourd’hui ultra-majoritaires (90%) au Kosovo. Tandis que les Serbes résiduels, de plus victimes de la « peste blanche » qu’est la dénatalité, n’y constituent plus qu’une infime minorité assiégée et menacée de disparition résultant d’un véritable « nettoyage ethnique ».


Camille Galic, 6/03/2014


http://www.polemia.com/le-martyre-du-kosovo-de-nikola-mirkovic/


Notes :


(*) Nikola Mirković, Le Martyre du Kosovo, Editions Jean Picollec, novembre 2013, préface de Jean-Louis Tremblais, avec deux cartes, index, 196 pages.
(**) Carla del Ponte, La Chasse, moi et les criminels de guerre, Editions Héloïse d’Ormesson, 2009, 648 pages

 

lundi, 10 mars 2014

Le origini interne della strategia geopolitica statunitense

full_0a95180e-e874-4520-bb02-e8cc6ae5ea49.jpg

Le origini interne della strategia geopolitica statunitense

di Giulia Micheletti

Fonte: eurasia [scheda fonte]

 

“[…] ma se dobbiamo usare la forza, è perché noi siamo l’America: siamo la nazione indispensabile.”

Le parole di Madeleine Albright, Segretario di Stato durante la seconda amministrazione Clinton, sono state analizzate, criticate, citate in innumerevoli articoli, saggi e libri sugli Stati Uniti. Sebbene estrapolata dal contesto in cui venne usata, questa frase descrive con grande precisione e puntualità non solo il pensiero comune retrostante la politica estera statunitense, ma anche e soprattutto una visione del mondo, unica nella storia delle relazioni internazionali contemporanea.
È inoltre un buon punto di partenza per ripensare la strategia geopolitica degli Stati Uniti, visualizzandola come prodotto di processi più interni che internazionali. Le teorie classiche delle relazioni internazionali considerano solo Stati e organizzazioni come agenti che interagiscono con la struttura internazionale. Poco spazio è dedicato all’analisi dei processi formativi di politica estera, considerata variabile indipendente e non rilevante a fini esplicativi e di teorizzazione. Utilizzando invece l’analisi della politica estera si può comprendere la genesi e la natura della politica estera di un singolo Paese, e come agisce sul campo internazionale. Esaminando le variabili che intervengono nei processi decisionali, si può interpretare l’azione esterna degli Stati Uniti, e la loro postura geopolitica, come risultato di dinamiche e modelli comportamentali domestici. Si può dunque ipotizzare che, utilizzando le teorie dell’analisi della politica estera, e particolarmente il modello della rivalità burocratica e il modello del processo decisionale elitario, si possano meglio comprendere le difficoltà che gli Stati Uniti incontrano nell’operare un riassetto strategico e geopolitico che vada oltre schemi decisionali residui della Guerra Fredda.

 

Uno di questi residui cognitivi ed emotivi è perfettamente riflesso nelle parole della Albright: gli Stati Uniti si sono assunti il compito di “poliziotto del mondo”, e nella coscienza collettiva statunitense la percezione di essere “eccezionali” è forte e ben radicata. L’eccezionalismo americano è un concetto fondamentale per l’identità statunitense: un Paese nato da una guerra di liberazione coloniale non può non essere destinato, agli occhi dei cittadini, a essere un modello di libertà per il resto del mondo e ad avere la missione di rimodellare il mondo a propria immagine. È da quest’idea di “eccezionalità” che deriva la propensione “missionaria” degli Stati Uniti di promozione della democrazia; né d’altro canto è sorprendente che da essa derivi anche un’enfasi persistente sulla propria supremazia nell’ordine globale. Le ultime due affermazioni sono tra di loro collegate: un Paese eccezionale, che, secondo l’ottica occidentale, godrebbe del miglior sistema democratico del mondo, ha non solo la responsabilità di essere un buon esempio per gli altri Paesi, ma ha anche la responsabilità di controllare e sorvegliare l’ordine internazionale. Non è dunque un caso che in ogni National Security Strategy, il documento che delinea l’indirizzo strategico statunitense, obiettivo costante è il mantenimento dell’influenza globale (intesa sia come soft power che come tradizionale proiezione del potere) degli Stati Uniti; influenza che garantirebbe, dunque, autorità agli Stati Uniti e permetterebbe loro di legittimare le proprie azioni a livello internazionale.

 

Questo particolare modo di concepire se stessi e la realtà internazionale spiega l’atteggiamento unilaterale che gli Stati Uniti privilegiano negli affari internazionali: gli interventi internazionali, le guerre in Iraq e in Afghanistan, la gestione ambigua e discontinua della questione iraniana, e una certa propensione a considerare con distacco le regole e normative imposte dalla struttura internazionale. Certi atti di politica estera possono essere interpretati come sintomi di imperialismo o effetti di una cultura politica realista; si può invece ipotizzare che la costanza e la coerenza di tali atti sia dovuta a un mancato ripensamento di schemi cognitivi e interpretativi. Ciò avviene a causa di modalità di decisione disfunzionali che hanno luogo a livello dell’esecutivo, e in particolare nei gruppi e dipartimenti burocratici preposti a definire la politica estera statunitense.

 

Molto è stato scritto in tempi recenti sui cosiddetti BRICS, sulla loro ascesa nell’arena internazionale, sul ruolo che in essa possano avere, e sull’incertezza che Paesi come la Cina, la Russia o anche il Brasile possano accettare di entrare a far parte di una struttura internazionale la cui architettura è di origine prevalentemente statunitense. Questo dibattito è spia di un processo in atto, di cui difficilmente si potrà invertire la rotta: il passaggio da un sistema unilaterale a un sistema multilaterale. Questo passaggio comporta sicuramente una nuova dimensione diplomatica, che sia inclusiva e negoziale, nell’approccio agli affari internazionali; potrebbe comportare una ridefinizione delle norme che ne regolano lo svolgimento. La politica estera statunitense nell’ultima decade ha segnalato una certa confusione riguardo a questo processo: la “dottrina Bush” era su un versante completamente unilateralista, mentre l’amministrazione Obama ha prodotto dei cambiamenti, ma non ha chiarito il ruolo degli Stati Uniti in un nuovo mondo multilaterale. La mancanza di chiarezza sul ruolo statunitense (nazione indispensabile o partner multilaterale?) ha impedito un serio ripensamento della postura geopolitica e strategica degli Stati Uniti: in questo senso il pivot verso l’Asia è la ripetizione di un vecchio schema, che ha come obiettivo il mantenimento di una posizione di supremazia, mascherato da cambiamento strategico. Gli Stati Uniti si muovono sullo scacchiere internazionale secondo una logica da Guerra Fredda, che impone supremazia militare ed economica e strategie regionali tese a proteggere incondizionatamente i Paesi alleati. Cosa impedisce un ripensamento di questo modello anacronistico di concepire le relazioni internazionali?

 

La fine della Guerra Fredda non ha solo lasciato gli Stati Uniti nella posizione di unica superpotenza globale, ma ha riportato in vita conflitti etnici, nazionali e religiosi rimasti sopiti per oltre quarant’anni. Questa situazione di micro e macro-conflittualità regionale ha lasciato perplessa una nazione entrata nella scena internazionale con la prima grande guerra, e divenuta superpotenza dopo la seconda: l’approccio statunitense è sempre stato globale, non regionale. La difficoltà nell’interpretare fenomeni vecchi e nuovi, slegati da un contesto di balance of power internazionale, ha causato una grande confusione strategica negli anni ’90, confusione che è solo peggiorata dopo l’attacco terroristico dell’11 settembre 2001. Incapaci di interpretare il terrorismo come un fenomeno tattico, e non strategico, gli Stati Uniti lo hanno sostituito al comunismo come nuova minaccia esistenziale e hanno dato il via alla disastrosa politica mediorientale di inizio millennio. Il contesto mediorientale si presta bene all’analisi di una politica estera restia a ripensamenti strategici e ideologici, poiché alla difficoltà di creare un nuovo ruolo per gli Stati Uniti nella regione si aggiunge un radicato “orientalismo” come ulteriore complicanza. Il concetto di orientalismo, sviluppato dal teorico post-colonialista Edward Said, ripensa la contraddizione tra Est e Ovest interpretandola come il risultato di una distorsione intellettuale operata da scrittori, teorici e politici occidentali, i quali hanno contribuito a creare una percezione dell’Oriente (e del Medio Oriente) come insieme di realtà “altre”, stereotipate e immutabili. L’orientalismo americano, ben presente nella coscienza collettiva dei gruppi decisionali, segue questa teorizzazione classica e vi aggiunge elementi di profonda sfiducia e diffidenza nei confronti della religione islamica.

 

Vecchi schemi cognitivi sono dunque vivi e persistenti nella politica estera statunitense. La difficoltà nel sostituirli trova una spiegazione nel particolare modello decisionale adottato dagli Stati Uniti, modello che esalta la funzione dell’esecutivo, in primo luogo nella figura del presidente, e ne incoraggia la natura elitaria, favorendo dunque fenomeni come rivalità burocratiche e “groupthink”. Combinati con la pervicacia del Congresso nella difesa della natura “eccezionale” degli Stati Uniti, questi modelli possono gettare luce sulle modalità disfunzionali con cui la politica estera viene decisa e dunque, di conseguenza, su quanto la stessa politica estera sia, una volta implementata, fallace o fallimentare.

 

Il concetto di groupthink è stato elaborato da Graham Allison nel 1969, e prende come esempio la crisi missilistica cubana per esaminare le dinamiche decisionali in un gruppo elitario. In questo modello, gli individui che operano in un gruppo ristretto tendono a conformarsi al pensiero maggioritario, eliminando l’elaborazione critica e la valutazione oggettiva dei dati. Diverse variabili intervengono in questo processo, e il suo risultato dipende anche dalla personalità del presidente, dall’accessibilità o meno di agenti esterni al gruppo, dal tipo di gerarchie che si stabiliscono e dalla sua struttura interna. Questo modello è utile soprattutto in caso di crisi internazionali, dove il potere è nelle mani del presidente e del suo entourage, che consiglia e fornisce informazioni. La presenza di groupthink è più probabile in gruppi coesi, ed è stato notato che il modello si adatta bene all’esecutivo statunitense. Ovviamente i consiglieri presidenziali sono stakeholder nel gruppo: ognuno di loro avanza la proposta che meglio si accorda con i propri interessi (siano essi politici, economici, ideologici, personali) ed entra in conflitto con gli altri. La soluzione di questo conflitto può essere il compromesso, o la paralisi decisionale, in casi di minore coesione interna. Se il gruppo è invece più coeso, la soluzione di politica estera è spesso una decisione maggioritaria. Dunque la conformità, o il minimo comun denominatore, determinano la politica estera: in entrambi i casi il dissenso e la ricerca di nuovi metodi e interpretazioni sono ostacolati dal groupthink.

 

Il modello della decisione politica elitaria spiega molte delle decisioni prese dagli Stati Uniti riguardo la regione mediorientale. Nel suo ultimo libro, Fawaz Gerges pone l’accento sulla cronica mancanza di esperti di area nell’entourage presidenziale. Ciò è vero per ogni area del mondo, e dunque anche per il Medio Oriente; cosa comporta per lo sviluppo di una politica estera efficace? Gli esperti di area conoscono le sfaccettature e le dinamiche di una regione, e sarebbero dunque in grado di fornire una valutazione corretta delle informazioni e di suggerire risposte complesse a problemi complessi. Rappresentano però una parte minoritaria dei gruppi decisionali, dove il prevalere di un processo decisionale conforme impedisce la ricerca di nuove soluzioni e lo sviluppo di nuove strategie.

 

Al modello del groupthink va aggiunto il modello delle rivalità burocratiche. In presenza di rivalità burocratiche, la politica estera è la soluzione o la mediazione di un conflitto tra diversi rami e dipartimenti governativi: ciascuno di essi ha un’idea precisa, e diversa, di cosa sia l’interesse nazionale e di come dovrebbe essere perseguito: da queste differenti definizioni nascono i conflitti burocratici. Il Congresso, il Dipartimento di Stato, il personale diplomatico, la comunità dell’intelligence sono spesso in conflitto con e di fronte all’esecutivo per quanto riguarda la politica estera. Un facile esempio è l’approccio alla questione del nucleare iraniano: in questo caso, il Congresso, dove la pratica del lobbismo è diffusa (in questo caso fu forte la spinta all’intervento da parte dell’American Israel Public Affairs Committee) fece pressioni per un intervento armato, durante l’amministrazione Bush, mentre la CIA e il Dipartimento di Stato si espressero duramente contro questo tipo di soluzione. Le rivalità burocratiche, in ogni caso, emergono più facilmente in contesti di rilevanza minore, quando è assente la pressione dettata dall’urgenza di una crisi internazionale. Questo tipo di modello può essere utilizzato per spiegare i contrasti che spesso dividono esecutivo e Congresso, e può spiegare l’estrema riluttanza da parte di quest’ultimo a partecipare alla stesura di norme internazionali, e di conseguenza a rispettarle. Innumerevoli trattati, che diplomatici statunitensi hanno contribuito a redigere, non sono mai stati ratificati dal Congresso, una mancanza giustificata da una presunta minaccia alla sovranità nazionale degli Stati Uniti. Sembra dunque logico affermare che il Congresso crede prioritario il mantenimento dello status di nazione super partes nel consesso internazionale.

 

Unendo le due teorie, emerge la grande complessità del processo decisionale di politica estera statunitense. La rivalità tra Congresso ed esecutivo, aggravata nell’ultimo decennio dall’inasprimento della lotta partitica, è parte della difficoltà nel generare una postura geopolitica corretta: la supremazia statunitense e la superiorità alle regole internazionali mal si adattano a uno scenario globale multilaterale. A questo malfunzionamento politico si aggiungono gli effetti del groupthink e l’impatto deviante che hanno sull’elaborazione di una politica estera efficace e dinamica. Conformità, mancata elaborazione critica, difetti di informazione e persistenza di schemi cognitivi usurati guidano la politica estera seguendo schemi di comportamento familiari e non problematici. Nuove soluzioni, originate da schemi cognitivi rinnovati, non sono né cercate né trovate.

 

La strategia geopolitica statunitense può dunque essere interpretata come prodotto di processi domestici. È a causa loro che gli Stati Uniti faticano a ridefinire l’idea di se stessi e del loro ruolo nel mondo e, di conseguenza, ad adottare una nuova visione strategica che tenga conto delle esigenze e dei problemi di un mondo multipolare.

 

*Giulia Micheletti è laureata in Geopolitics and Grand Strategy presso la University of Sussex


Tante altre notizie su www.ariannaeditrice.it