La crise ukrainienne accélère la recomposition du monde

 

par Pierre Charasse

 

La crise ukrainienne n’a pas changé radicalement la donne internationale, mais elle a précipité des évolutions en cours. La propagande occidentale, qui n’a jamais été aussi forte, cache surtout la réalité du déclin occidental aux populations de l’Otan, mais n’a plus d’effet sur la réalité politique. Inexorablement, la Russie et la Chine, assistés des autres BRICS, occupent la place qui leur revient dans les relations internationales.

Réseau Voltaire | Mexico (Mexique) | 29 avril 2014

Ex: http://www.voltairenet.org

Español  English  Português  italiano 

 

La crise ukrainienne a mis en évidence la magnitude de la manipulation des opinions publiques occidentales par les grands media, les chaines de TV comme CNN, Foxnews, Euronews et tant d’autres ainsi que par l’ensemble de la presse écrite alimentée par les agences de presse occidentales. La manière dont le public occidental est désinformé est impressionnante, et pourtant il est facile d’avoir accès à une masse d’informations de tous bords. Il est très préoccupant de voir comment de très nombreux citoyens du monde se laissent entraîner dans une russophobie jamais vue même aux pires moments de la Guerre froide. L’image que nous donne le puissant appareil médiatique occidental et qui pénètre dans l’inconscient collectif, est que les Russes sont des « barbares attardés » face au monde occidental « civilisé ». Le discours très important que Vladimir Poutine a prononcé le 18 mars au lendemain du référendum en Crimée a été littéralement boycotté par les médias occidentaux [1], alors qu’ils consacrent une large place aux réactions occidentales, toutes négatives naturellement. Pourtant, dans son intervention Poutine a expliqué que la crise en Ukraine n’avait pas été déclenchée par la Russie et présenté avec beaucoup de rationalité la position russe et les intérêts stratégiques légitimes de son pays dans l’ère post-conflit idéologique.

Humiliée par le traitement que lui a réservé l’Occident depuis 1989, la Russie s’est réveillée avec Poutine et a commencé à renouer avec une politique de grande puissance en cherchant à reconstruire les lignes de force historiques traditionnelles de la Russie tsariste puis de l’Union soviétique. La géographie commande souvent la stratégie. Après avoir perdu une grande partie de ses « territoires historiques », selon la formule de Poutine, et de sa population russe et non russe, la Russie s’est donné comme grand projet national et patriotique la récupération de son statut de superpuissance, d’acteur « global », en assurant en premier lieu la sécurité de ses frontières terrestres et maritimes. C’est précisément ce que veut lui interdire l’Occident dans sa vision unipolaire du monde. Mais en bon joueur d’échecs, Poutine a plusieurs coups d’avance grâce à une connaissance profonde de l’histoire, de la réalité du monde, des aspirations d’une grande partie des populations des territoires antérieurement contrôlés par l’Union soviétique. Il connaît à la perfection l’Union européenne, ses divisions et ses faiblesses, la capacité militaire réelle de l’Otan et l’état des opinions publiques occidentales peu enclines à voir augmenter les budgets militaires en période de récession économique. À la différence de la Commission européenne dont le projet coïncide avec celui des États-Unis pour consolider un bloc politico-economico-militaire euro-atlantique, les citoyens européens dans leur majorité ne veulent plus d’élargissement à l’Est de l’UE, ni avec l’Ukraine, ni avec la Géorgie, ni avec aucun autre pays de l’ex-Union soviétique.

Avec ses gesticulations et ses menaces de sanctions, l’UE, servilement alignée sur Washington, montre en fait qu’elle est impuissante pour « punir » sérieusement la Russie. Son poids réel n’est pas à la hauteur de ses ambitions toujours proclamées de façonner le monde à son image. Le gouvernement russe, très réactif et malicieux, applique des « ripostes graduelles », tournant en dérision les mesures punitives occidentales. Poutine, hautain, se paye même le luxe d’annoncer qu’il va ouvrir un compte à la Rossyia Bank de New-York pour y déposer son salaire ! Il n’a pas encore fait mention de limitation dans la fourniture de gaz à l’Ukraine et l’Europe de l’Ouest, mais tout le monde sait qu’il a cette carte dans la manche, ce qui contraint déjà les Européens à penser à une réorganisation complète de leur approvisionnement en énergie, ce qui mettra des années à se concrétiser.

Les erreurs et les divisions des occidentaux mettent la Russie en position de force. Poutine jouit d’une popularité exceptionnelle dans son pays et auprès des communautés russes des pays voisins, et on peut être sûr que ses services de renseignement ont pénétré en profondeur les pays auparavant contrôlés par l’URSS et lui donnent des informations de première main sur les rapports de force internes. Son appareil diplomatique lui donne de solides arguments pour retirer à l’« Occident » le monopole de l’interprétation du droit international, en particulier sur l’épineuse question de l’autodétermination des peuples. Comme on pouvait s’y attendre, Poutine ne se prive pas de citer le précédent du Kosovo pour vilipender le double langage de l’Occident, ses incohérences, et le rôle déstabilisateur qu’il a joué dans les Balkans.

Alors que la propagande médiatique occidentale battait son plein après le référendum du 16 mars en Crimée, les vociférations occidentales ont subitement baissé d’un ton et le G7 lors de son sommet à la Haye en marge de la conférence sur la sécurité nucléaire n’a plus menacé d’exclure la Russie du G8 comme il l’avait claironné quelques jours plus tôt mais simplement a annoncé « qu’il ne participerait pas au sommet de Sotchi ». Ceci lui laisse la possibilité de réactiver à tout moment ce forum privilégié de dialogue avec la Russie, crée en 1994 à sa demande expresse. Première reculade du G7. Obama de son côté s’est empressé d’annoncer qu’il n’y aurait aucune intervention militaire de l’Otan pour aider l’Ukraine, mais seulement une promesse de coopération pour reconstruire le potentiel militaire de l’Ukraine, composé en grande partie de matériel soviétique obsolète. Seconde reculade. Il faudra des années pour mettre sur pieds une armée ukrainienne digne de ce nom et on se demande bien qui va payer compte tenu de la situation catastrophique des finances du pays. De plus, on ne sait plus exactement quel est l’état des forces armées ukrainiennes après que Moscou ait invité, avec un certain succès semble-t-il, les militaires ukrainiens héritiers de l’Armée rouge, à rejoindre l’armée russe en respectant leurs grades. La flotte ukrainienne est déjà entièrement passée sous contrôle russe. Enfin, autre marche arrière spectaculaire des États-Unis : il y aurait des conversations secrètes très avancées entre Moscou et Washington pour faire adopter une nouvelle constitution à l’Ukraine, installer à Kiev à l’occasion des élections du 25 mai un gouvernement de coalition dont les extrémistes néo-nazi seraient exclus, et surtout pour imposer un statut de neutralité à l’Ukraine, sa « finlandisation » (recommandée par Henry Kissinger et Zbigniew Brzezinsky) [2], ce qui interdirait son entrée dans l’Otan, mais permettrait des accords économiques tant avec l’UE qu’avec l’Union douanière eurasiatique (Russie, Biélorussie, Kazakhstan). Si un tel accord est conclu, l’UE sera mise devant le fait accompli et devra se résigner à payer la facture du tête-à-tête russo-US. Avec de telles garanties Moscou pourra considérer comme satisfaites ses exigences de sécurité, aura repris pied dans son ancienne zone d’influence avec l’accord de Washington et pourra s’abstenir de fomenter le séparatisme d’autres provinces ukrainiennes ou de la Transnistrie (province de Moldavie peuplée de russes) en réaffirmant très fort son respect des frontières européennes. Le Kremlin offrira par la même occasion une porte de sortie honorable à Obama. Un coup de maître pour Poutine.

Conséquences géopolitiques de la crise ukrainienne

Le G7 n’a pas calculé qu’en prenant des mesures pour isoler la Russie, outre le fait qu’il s’appliquait à lui-même une « punition sado-masochiste » selon la formule d’Hubert Védrine, ancien ministre des Affaires étrangères français, il précipitait malgré lui un processus déjà bien engagé de profonde recomposition du monde au bénéfice d’un groupe non occidental dirigé par la Chine et la Russie réunies au sein des BRICS. En réaction au communiqué du G7 du 24 mars [3], les ministres des Affaires étrangères des BRICS ont fait connaître immédiatement leur rejet de toute mesures visant à isoler la Russie et ils en ont profité pour dénoncer les pratiques d’espionnage états-unien tournées contre leurs dirigeants et pour faire bonne mesure ils ont exigé des États-Unis qu’ils ratifient la nouvelle répartition des droits de vote au FMI et à la Banque Mondiale, comme premier pas vers un « ordre mondial plus équitable » [4]. Le G7 ne s’attendait pas à une réplique aussi virulente et rapide des BRICS. Cet épisode peut donner à penser que le G20, dont le G7 et les BRICS sont les deux principaux piliers, pourrait traverser une crise sérieuse avant son prochain sommet à Brisbane (Australie) les 15 et 16 novembre, surtout si le G7 persiste à vouloir marginaliser et sanctionner la Russie. Il est à peu près sûr qu’il y aura une majorité au sein du G20 pour condamner les sanctions à la Russie, ce qui de fait reviendra à isoler le G7. Dans leur communiqué les ministres des BRICS ont estimé que décider qui est membre du groupe et quelle est sa vocation revient à placer tous ses membres « sur un pied d’égalité » et qu’aucun de ses membres « ne peut unilatéralement déterminer sa nature et son caractère ». Les ministres appellent à résoudre la crise actuelle dans le cadre des Nations unies « avec calme, hauteur de vue, en renonçant à un langage hostile, aux sanctions et contre-sanctions ». Un camouflet pour le G7 et l’UE ! Le G7, qui s’est mis tout seul dans une impasse, est prévenu qu’il devra faire d’importantes concessions s’il veut continuer à exercer une certaine influence au sein du G20.

En outre, deux événements importants s’annoncent dans les prochaines semaines.

D’une part Vladimir Poutine se rendra en visite officielle en Chine en mai. Les deux géants sont sur le point de signer un accord énergétique d’envergure qui affectera sensiblement le marché mondial de l’énergie, tant sur le plan stratégique que financier. Les transactions ne se feraient plus en dollars, mais dans les monnaies nationales des deux pays. En se tournant vers la Chine, la Russie n’aura aucun problème pour écouler sa production gazière au cas où l’Europe de l’Ouest déciderait de changer de fournisseur. Et dans le même mouvement de rapprochement la Chine et la Russie pourraient signer un accord de partenariat industriel pour la fabrication du chasseur Sukhoï 25, fait hautement symbolique.

D’autre part lors du sommet des BRICS au Brésil en juillet prochain, la Banque de Développement de ce groupe, dont la création a été annoncée en 2012, pourrait prendre forme et offrir une alternative aux financements du FMI et de la Banque Mondiale, toujours réticents à modifier leurs règles de fonctionnement, pour donner plus de poids aux pays émergents et à leurs monnaies à côté du dollar.

Enfin il y a un aspect important de la relation entre la Russie et l’Otan peu commenté dans les média mais très révélateur de la situation de dépendance dans laquelle se trouve l’« Occident » au moment où il procède au retrait de ses troupes d’Afghanistan. Depuis 2002, la Russie a accepté de coopérer avec les pays occidentaux pour faciliter la logistique des troupes sur le théâtre afghan. À la demande de l’Otan, Moscou a autorisé le transit de matériel non létal destiné à l’ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) par voir aérienne ou terrestre, entre Douchambé (Tadjikistan), l’Ouzbekistan et l’Estonie, via une plateforme multimodale à Oulianovk en Sibérie. Il s’agit rien de moins que d’acheminer toute l’intendance pour des milliers d’hommes opérant en Afghanistan, entre autre des tonnes de bière, de vin, de camemberts, de hamburgers, de laitues fraîches, le tout transporté par des avions civils russes, puisque les forces occidentales ne disposent pas de moyens aériens suffisants pour soutenir un déploiement militaire de cette envergure. L’accord Russie-Otan d’octobre 2012 élargit cette coopération à l’installation d’une base aérienne russe en Afghanistan dotée de 40 hélicoptères où les personnels afghans sont formés à la lutte anti-drogue à laquelle les occidentaux ont renoncé. La Russie s’est toujours refusé à autoriser le transit sur son territoire de matériel lourd, ce qui pose un sérieux problème à l’Otan à l’heure du retrait de ses troupes. En effet celles-ci ne peuvent emprunter la voie terrestre Kaboul-Karachi en raison des attaques dont les convois sont l’objet de la part des talibans. La voie du Nord (la Russie) étant impossible, les matériels lourds sont transportés par avion de Kaboul aux Émirats Arabes Unis, puis embarqués vers les ports européens, ce qui multiplie par quatre le coût du repli. Pour le gouvernement russe l’intervention de l’Otan en Afghanistan a été un échec, mais son retrait « précipité » avant la fin de 2014 va accroître le chaos et affecter la sécurité de la Russie et risque de provoquer un regain de terrorisme.

La Russie a aussi d’importants accords avec l’Occident dans le domaine de l’armement. Le plus important est sans doute celui signé avec la France pour la fabrication dans les arsenaux français de deux porte-hélicoptères pour un montant de 1,3 milliards d’euros [5]. Si le contrat est annulé dans le cadre des sanctions, la France devra rembourser les montants déjà payés plus les pénalités contractuelles et devra supprimer plusieurs milliers d’emplois. Le plus grave sera sans doute la perte de confiance du marché de l’armement dans l’industrie française comme l’a souligné le ministre russe de la Défense.

Il ne faut pas oublier non plus que sans l’intervention de la Russie, les pays occidentaux n’auraient jamais pu aboutir à un accord avec l’Iran sur la non prolifération nucléaire, ni avec la Syrie sur le désarmement chimique. Ce sont des faits que les médias occidentaux passent sous silence. La réalité est qu’en raison de son arrogance, de sa méconnaissance de l’histoire, de ses maladresses, le bloc occidental précipite la déconstruction systémique de l’ordre mondial unipolaire et offre sur un plateau à la Russie et à la Chine, appuyée par l’Inde, le Brésil, l’Afrique du Sud et bien d’autres pays, une « fenêtre d’opportunité » unique pour renforcer l’unité d’un bloc alternatif. L’évolution était en marche, mais lentement et graduellement (personne ne veut donner un coup de pied dans la fourmilière et déstabiliser brusquement le système mondial), mais d’un seul coup tout s’accélère et l’interdépendance change les règles du jeu.

En ce qui concerne le G20 de Brisbane il sera intéressant de voir comment se positionne le Mexique, après les sommets du G7 à Bruxelles en juin et des BRICS au Brésil en juillet. La situation est très fluide et va évoluer rapidement, ce qui va demander une grande souplesse diplomatique. Si le G7 persiste dans son intention de marginaliser ou exclure la Russie, le G20 pourrait se désintégrer. Le Mexique, pris dans les filets du TLCAN et du futur TPP devra choisir entre sombrer avec le Titanic occidental ou adopter une ligne autonome plus conforme à ses intérêts de puissance régionale à vocation mondiale en se rapprochant des BRICS.

Pierre Charasse

Source
La Jornada (Mexique)

 

 

[1] « Discours de Vladimir Poutine sur l’adhésion de la Crimée », par Vladimir Poutine, Réseau Voltaire, 18 mars 2014.

[2] « Henry Kissinger propose de finlandiser l’Ukraine », Réseau Voltaire, 8 mars 2014.

[3] « Déclaration du G7 sur la Russie », Réseau Voltaire, 24 mars 2014.

[4] “Conclusions of the BRICS Foreign Ministers Meeting”, Voltaire Network, 24 March 2014.

[5] « La France vendra-t-elle des armes à la Russie ? », Réseau Voltaire, 20 mars 2014.

Traité transatlantique: le dessous des cartes...

Traité transatlantique: le dessous des cartes...

Ex: http://metapoinfos.hautetfort.com

Nous reproduisons ci-dessous un entretien avec Jean-Michel Quatrepoint, cueilli sur Figaro Vox et consacré au Traité transatlantique en cours de négociations entre les États-Unis et l'Union européenne. Journaliste, Jean-Michel Quatrepoint vient de publier Le Choc des empires - États-Unis, Chine, Allemagne: qui dominera l'économie-monde? (Gallimard, 2014).

 

Le traité transatlantique qui est négocié actuellement par la Commission européenne pourrait consacrer la domination économique des États-Unis sur l'Europe. Pourquoi l'Union européenne n'arrive-t-elle pas à s'imposer face au modèle américain?

La construction européenne a commencé à changer de nature avec l'entrée de la Grande-Bretagne, puis avec l'élargissement. On a privilégié la vision libre-échangiste. Libre circulation des capitaux, des marchandises et des hommes. Plus de frontières. Mais en même temps on n'a pas uniformisé les règles fiscales, sociales, etc. Ce fut la course au dumping à l'intérieur même de l'espace européen. C'est ce que les dirigeants français n'ont pas compris. Dès lors qu'on s'élargissait sans cesse, le projet européen a complètement changé de nature. Ce qui n'était pas pour déplaire aux Américains qui n'ont jamais voulu que l'Europe émerge comme une puissance, comme un empire qui puisse les concurrencer. L'Europe réduite à une simple zone de libre-échange, qui se garde bien de défendre des champions industriels européens, les satisfait. Un Airbus leur suffit. Les Américains défendent leurs intérêts, il faut comprendre leur jeu. Ils ont une vision messianique de leur rôle, celle d'apporter la démocratie au monde, notamment à travers les principes du libre-échange.

Selon vous, le traité transatlantique est aussi pour les États-Unis un moyen d'isoler la Chine. Pouvez-vous nous expliquer la stratégie américaine?

La force des États-Unis, c'est d'abord un dynamisme, un optimisme qui leur donne une capacité de rebond extraordinaire. C'est une jeune nation. Ils se sont endormis sur leurs lauriers d'hyperpuissance dans les années 1990 et ont commencé à rencontrer des résistances. Il y a eu le choc du 11 Septembre. Mais Bush s'est focalisé sur l'ennemi islamiste, sans voir que la Chine était pendant ce temps-là en train de monter en puissance. Cette dernière est entrée dans l'OMC quelques jours après le 11 Septembre alors que tout le monde était focalisé sur al-Qaida. Mais quand on analyse les courbes du commerce mondial, c'est édifiant: tout commence à déraper en 2002. Les excédents chinois (et aussi allemands) et les déficits des autres puissances. La Chine est entrée dans l'OMC, car c'était à l'époque l'intérêt des multinationales américaines qui se sont imaginé qu'à terme elles pourraient prendre le marché chinois. Pari perdu: celui-ci est pour l'essentiel réservé aux entreprises chinoises.

Un protectionnisme qui a fait s'écrouler le rêve d'une Chinamérique…

La Chinamérique était chimérique, c'était un marché de dupes. Dans ce G2 les Américains voulaient être numéro un. Les Chinois aussi. Les Américains s'en sont rendu compte en 2006, lorsque les Chinois ont rendu public un plan baptisé «National medium and long term program for science and technology development» dans lequel ils affichaient leur ambition d'être à l'horizon 2020 autonomes en matière d'innovation, et en 2050 de devenir le leader mondial: non plus l'usine mais le laboratoire du monde! Là, les Américains ont commencé à s'inquiéter, car la force de l'Amérique c'est l'innovation, la recherche, l'armée et le dollar. Si vous vous attaquez à la recherche, que vous mettez en place une armée et une marine puissantes et que vous développez une monnaie pour concurrencer le dollar, là vous devenez dangereux. Lorsque les Chinois ont affiché leur volonté de faire du yuan l'autre monnaie internationale pour pouvoir se passer du dollar, notamment dans leurs accords commerciaux bilatéraux, cela a été la goutte d'eau de trop.

Toute attaque sur le dollar est un casus belli. Lorsqu'ils ont créé l'euro, les Européens ont fait très attention à ne pas en faire une monnaie concurrente du dollar, même si les Français le souhaitaient au fond d'eux-mêmes. Les Américains ont laissé l'Europe se développer à condition qu'elle reste à sa place, c'est-à-dire un cran en dessous, qu'elle reste une Europe atlantiste. Avec une monnaie surévaluée par rapport au dollar. Cela tombe bien puisque l'économie allemande est bâtie autour d'une monnaie forte. Hier le mark, aujourd'hui l'euro.

Le traité transatlantique peut-il néanmoins être profitable à l'Europe?

Les principaux bénéficiaires de ce traité seront les multinationales américaines et l'industrie allemande, notamment automobile. L'Amérique se veut plus que jamais un empire, qui règne à la fois par le commerce, la technologie et la monnaie, mais aussi par l'idéologie.

D'où les traités transpacifiques et transatlantiques initiés par Hillary Clinton. Celle-ci vise la présidence en 2016. Elle est à la manœuvre depuis 2010 dans une stratégie de containment vis-à-vis de la Chine, mais aussi de la Russie. L'idée est de fédérer les voisins de la Chine et de la Russie, dans une zone de libre-échange et de faire en sorte que les multinationales américaines y trouvent leur compte afin que progressivement le modèle américain s'impose et que les États-Unis redeviennent le centre du monde. C'est pourquoi les États-Unis ont empêché le Japon de se rapprocher de la Chine, la querelle entre les deux pays sur les îles Diaoyu-Senkaku ayant opportunément surgi pour casser toute velléité de rapprochement. Le Japon avec le nouveau premier ministre conservateur Abe est revenu dans le giron de Washington.

Le principal levier de pression de cette stratégie élaborée par Hillary Clinton est l'énergie. Grâce au gaz et au pétrole de schiste, l'objectif des Américains est de ne plus dépendre des importations pétrolières (et donc de se détacher du bourbier oriental), de donner un avantage compétitif aux entreprises américaines, de rapatrier la pétrochimie sur le sol américain. Les industriels américains ont désormais une énergie beaucoup moins chère que les industriels européens, notamment allemands. L'objectif est de devenir non seulement indépendant, mais aussi exportateur d'hydrocarbures, pour faire en sorte notamment que l'Europe ne soit plus dépendante du gaz russe.

L'énergie est la clé pour comprendre le traité transatlantique. On donne aux Allemands ce qu'ils veulent, c'est-à-dire la possibilité non seulement de développer leur industrie automobile aux États-Unis, mais aussi d'avoir les mêmes normes des deux côtés de l'Atlantique. Ils pourront produire en zone dollar avec des coûts salariaux inférieurs, des modelés qu'ils pourront vendre en zone euro, voire dans le Pacifique. Cette uniformisation des normes profitera également aux multinationales américaines. Elles sont directement à la manœuvre et participent aux négociations. Leurs objectifs: uniformiser les règles, les normes en les alignant si possible sur le niveau le moins contraignant. Notamment dans la santé, l'agriculture, les industries dites culturelles. Faire en sorte que les Etats ne puissent pas remettre en cause ces normes. Ces traités délèguent en fait une part des souverainetés populaires aux multinationales. Si les Européens acceptent cette sorte de mise sous tutelle, alors les Américains condescendront à nous exporter du gaz et surtout du pétrole de schiste à bon prix. Merkel a un plan: passer de la dépendance au gaz russe à la dépendance au charbon et au gaz américain, tout en ne froissant pas les Russes, qui restent avant tout des clients. À l'opposé de Schröder, elle est américanophile et russophobe.

Et la France dans tout ça? Comment peut-elle tirer son épingle du jeu?

La France n'a rien à gagner à ce traité transatlantique. On nous explique que ce traité va générer 0,5 point de croissance, mais ces pourcentages ne veulent rien dire. Le problème de la France c'est: comment et où allons-nous créer de l'emploi? Et pas seulement des emplois de service bas de gamme. Notre seule chance aujourd'hui est de créer des emplois à valeur ajoutée dans le domaine de l'économie numérique, ce que j'appelle «Iconomie», c'est-à-dire la mise en réseau de toutes les activités. L'Allemagne traditionnellement est moins portée sur ces secteurs où la France est relativement en pointe. La France crée beaucoup de start-up, mais dès qu'elles grossissent un peu, elles partent aux États-Unis ou sont rachetées par des multinationales. Il faut que l'on développe nos propres normes. La France doit s'engager dans la révolution numérique. Je suis partisan de doter tous les enfants d'une tablette, ça ne coûte pas plus cher que les livres scolaires, et si on les faisait fabriquer en France (11 millions de tablettes, renouvelées tous les trois ans), cela créerait de l'emploi. Et dans le sillage des tablettes, d'innombrables applications pourraient naitre et se vendre sur le marché mondial.

Il n'y a pas de raisons de laisser Google et autres Amazon en situation de monopole. La visite de l'Opéra Garnier en live numérique, c'est Google qui l'a faite! La France avait tout à fait les moyens de le faire! Si nous n'y prenons pas garde, la France va se faire «googeliser»!

Il y a un absent dans votre livre: la Russie. Celle-ci, avec Vladimir Poutine, semble pourtant avoir renoué avec le chemin de la puissance…

Les Américains avaient un plan, il y a 20 ans: démanteler totalement l'URSS, la réduire en de multiples confettis, pour contrôler la Russie et ses matières premières, avec pour ambition de donner l'exploitation des matières premières russes en concession aux multinationales. Si Khodokovski a été victime de la répression poutinienne, c'est bien parce qu'il allait vendre le groupe pétrolier Ioukos aux Anglo-Saxons pour 25 milliards de dollars. Et qu'il pensait s'acheter la présidence de la Russie avec cet argent. Poutine est alors intervenu. À sa manière. Brutalement. Un peu comme en Géorgie hier et en Ukraine aujourd'hui. On peut le comprendre. Il défend ce qu'il considère être les intérêts de son pays. Mais il faut aussi lui faire comprendre qu'il y a des lignes à ne pas franchir.

Ce pourrait-il qu'elle devienne un quatrième empire?

Pour le moment non. Le sous-titre de mon livre c'est: qui dominera l'économie monde? La Russie est un pétro-État, c'est sa force et sa faiblesse. Poutine n'a pas réussi pour le moment à diversifier l'économie russe: c'est la malédiction des pays pétroliers, qui n'arrivent pas à transformer la manne pétrolière en industrie dynamique.

Jean-Michel Quatrepoint, propos recueillis par Eugénie Bastié et Alexandre Devecchio (Le Figaro Vox, 25 avril 2014)

The Iran/Iraq War: Mutual Assured Destruction

by Dean Henderson 

 

Ex: http://deanhenderson.wordpress.com

(Excerpted from Chapter 10: The Iran/Iraq War: Big Oil & Their Bankers…)

In 1979, as Iranian revolutionaries were taking charge in Tehran, Carter National Security Adviser, Afghan Frankenstein godfather and Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski was in Kuwait City meeting with Kuwaiti Emir Sheik Jaber Ahmed al Sabah, House of Saud envoys and Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.  The group decided that Saddam’s Republican Guard would seize the oil-rich Iranian province of Khuzistan.

In 1980 Iraq invaded Iran.  That same year Kuwait’s Ambassador to the UN shed light on the forces which used Brzezinski to goad Hussein into his attempt to partition Iran’s oilfields.  He informed the UN General Assembly of, “a cabal which controls, manipulates and exploits the rest of humanity by controlling the money and wealth of the world”.

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

The cabal which Kuwait’s UN Ambassador was referring to controls the JASON Society which, according to author William Cooper’s book Behold a Pale Horse, emerged from a 1952 alliance between Europe’s Black Nobility, the Illuminati and the Vatican.  The JASON Society is also known as The Order of the Quest, the exact name of the Afghan Roshaniya “all-seeing ones”.  The power structure for JASON is recruited from Skull & Bones, Scroll & Key, Britain’s Group of Oxford and the German Thule Society.  JASON has close ties to the Trilateral Commission and the CFR. [1]  Its name comes from the story of Jason and the Golden Fleece, which denotes a search for truth.

President Eisenhower commissioned JASON to investigate the UFO question. Many of the group’s top scientists came from the Manhattan Project which developed the atomic bomb.  The group was behind the advent of submarine warfare and President Reagan’s Star Wars initiative.  JASON is the driving force behind secret US military technology being developed at places like Area 51 near Groom Lake, Nevada.

Cooper, a former Naval Intelligence officer, states that JASON scientists have come to the conclusion that the greenhouse affect may actually lead to a new Ice Age.  The Pentagon Papers revealed that JASON was behind an electromagnetic barrier placed over the DMZ (demilitarized zone) during the Vietnam War. [2]  JASON, through the Black Nobility, serves the Bilderberger Group, whose Policy Committee, at its first known meeting in 1954, endorsed a JASON document titled Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars.  Research for the document was done at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Harvard Economic Research Project.  What follows are excerpts of the document, which Cooper claims to have had in his possession:

“This publication marks the 25th anniversary of the Third World War, called the ‘Quiet War’, being conducted using subjective biological warfare…implying extensive objectives of social control and destruction of human life, i.e., slavery and genocide…dominance revolved around the subject of energy sciences…bookkeeping can be made king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology…it was agreed that a nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals…Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent…consequently …it was decided to privately wage a quiet war…shifting the natural and social energy of the undisciplined and irresponsible many into the hands of the self-disciplined, responsible and worthy few.

In order to achieve a totally predictable economy, the low-class elements of the society must be brought under total control, i.e., must be housebroken, trained and assigned a yoke…the lower class family unit must be disintegrated by the process of increasing preoccupation of the parents…The quality of education given to the lower class must be of the poorest sort…with such an initial handicap, even the bright lower class individuals have little hope of extricating themselves from their assigned lot in life.  This form of slavery is essential to maintaining some measure of social order, peace and tranquility for the ruling upper class.

The public cannot comprehend this weapon, and therefore cannot believe they are being attacked and subdued.  The general public…has become a herd of proliferating barbarians…a blight upon the face of the earth…it is possible to program computers…(to) bring about the complete control and subjugation of the public…the simplest form of economic amplifier is advertising.  If a person is spoken to by a TV advertiser as if he were a 12-year-old, then…he will reach into his economic reservoir to buy that product…achieved by disengaging their minds…engaging their emotions…the more confusion, the more profit.  Create problems, then offer solutions…keep the public entertainment below the 6th grade level…keep the public busy…back on the farm with the other animals…silent weapons technology is an outgrowth of a simple idea discovered, succinctly expressed and effectively applied by…

Mr. Mayer Amschel Rothschild…Rothschild discovered the missing passive component of economic theory known as economic inductance…That principle is ‘when you assume the appearance of power, people soon give it to you’…Rothschild discovered that currency or deposit loan accounts had the required appearance of power that could be used to induce people into surrendering their real wealth in exchange for a loan of promissory notes (paper money).

Mr. Rothschild loaned his promissory notes to individuals and governments.  Then he would make money scarce, tighten control of the system, and collect collateral through the obligation of contracts (debt)…The pressures could be used to ignite war.  Then he would control the availability of currency to determine who would win the war.  That government which gave him control of its economic system got his support…balanced by the negation of population (genocide)…war is therefore the balancing of the system by killing the true creditors…the politicians are publicly hired hit men that justify the act (of war)…take control of the world by the use of economic silent weapons in the form of ‘quiet warfare’ and reduce economic inductance of the world to a safe level by the process of benevolent slavery and genocide…if the lower classes can be postponed long enough, the elite can achieve energy dominance…the ‘Presidential’ level of commander-in-chief is shared by the international bankers.”

Arming the Iranians

While Brzezinski gave Saddam the green light to invade Iran, CIA Director Bill Casey met Iranian Shah loyalist Cyrus Hashemi in Madrid, ostensibly to plan a new round of “energy domination” and “economic inductance”.  The US would now arm both Iran and Iraq then send them to war, hoping to decimate both oil price-hawk nations.

In 1981 while Hashemi was panhandling Princess Ashraf, the Shah of Iran’s sister, for $20 million to launch Hardy Boy John Shaheen’s Hong Kong mujahadeen fronts, brother Jamshid bought a Greek freighter and made four trips between the Israeli Port of Eliat and the Port of Bandar Abbas on Iran’s Arabian Sea coast.  His cargo was $150 million in weapons and ammunition produced by Israeli Defense Industries under US license.

Arif Durfani, a Pakistani arms dealer, ran another Enterprise cell that delivered hundreds of millions of dollars in weaponry to the Iranians.  Durfani was a close friend of BCCI-founder Aga Hasan Abedi, whose bank financed the operation.  He was also tight with the Saudi Gokal brothers, who shipped the weapons from Israel to Iran. [3]  While the Iranian port at Bandar Abbas was humming with activity, other shipments of TOW missiles were entering Iran from the north at Tabriz.

Overseeing the arming of Iran was Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Armitage, the Far East Trading Company godfather and Valerie Plame leaker.  Armitage was assured a steady supply of weapons by Chief White House Liaison to Saudi Arabia Richard Secord.  In 1985 Ted Shackley met with Cyrus Hashemi in Hamburg, where Hashemi introduced him to Manucher Gorbanifar, another former SAVAK agent who now worked for Israeli Mossad.  Gorbanifar was a friend of Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani, whose family owned pistachio groves in Iran.  He worked with BCCI’s Black Network and often procured financing for his weapons deals from Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi.  Gorbanifar became the key Iranian contact to Secord’s Enterprise.

BCCI paid Southern Air Transport pilots like Eugene Hasenfus to fly Enterprise weapons to both the Nicaraguan contras and the Iranian mullahs.  In 1978 42% of Southern Air’s CIA contracts were for flights to Iran.  In 1997 the Mobile Register reported an incident in that Alabama city involving a Southern Air Transport plane.  The aircraft landed at Mobile Aerospace Technologies.  Mechanics working on the plane popped off a fiberglass panel and found hundreds of kilos of cocaine.  The Southern Air flight had originated in Latin America and was en route to Miami, but had taken a rather circuitous detour to Germany along the way. [4]

The US sent Hawk and Phoenix missiles to protect Iran’s oil installations, especially the vast Kharg Island facility which includes the massive Abadan refinery at the strategic mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway on the Persian Gulf.  Mansur Rafizadeh, former SAVAK intelligence officer and CIA liaison, said the US had thrown its support behind Ayatollah Khomeini, thinking Islamic fundamentalism the best defense against communism in the Middle East.  This strategy was certainly playing out in Afghanistan, where the CIA was funding the most fanatical faction of mujahadeen Assassins.

Despite releasing the US hostages the day Reagan was inaugurated, the Iranians had saved a powerful trump card.  Iran is the main supporter of Hezbollah, the militia group battling Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon.  The Israelis continually thumb their noses at UN Resolution 3236, which calls for a Palestinian state. They have seized additional Arab lands in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon through invasions in 1956, 1967 and 1973.  In 1978 Israeli troops marched into southern Lebanon where they remained until 2001.  In 1984 the US vetoed a unanimous UN resolution calling on Israel to respect international law and pull out of Lebanon.  In June 2006 Israel bombed Beirut and sent troops into Lebanon after two of its soldiers were allegedly kidnapped.  Over 500 Lebanese civilians were killed.

Lebanon was for decades an offshore banking haven utilized by the CIA via Edmund Safra’s Republic Bank and a web of Beirut drug and gold smugglers. Henry Kissinger is a friend of Safra. Both sat on the board of American Express.  When Syrian-backed Arab nationalists took control of Lebanon they cracked down on drug money laundering.  Republic moved its headquarters to New York where it continued to be a major player in the gold market.  In 1999 Republic was bought by a bigger goldfish- HSBC.

British, Israeli and American bankers were forced to move their operations to Dubai and Bahrain, while their MI6, Mossad and CIA goons harassed the new Lebanese government.  In 1982 the USS New Jersey shelled Beirut in its backing of pro-Israeli Lebanese militia leader Amin Gemayel. That same year Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, now the country’s prime minister, oversaw the massacre of hundreds of Lebanese at Sabra and Shatila.  In January 2002 Gemayel, who took part in the massacre under Sharon’s command, was gunned down as he was about to testify on the ordeal before a Belgian court. [5]  The court indicted Sharon for war crimes anyway.

Hezbollah retaliated to the massacres by kidnapping CIA Chief of Middle East Operations William Buckley.  Buckley had been the CIA contact to the mid-1970’s Argentine fascists, who tossed 30,000 suspected leftists into the Atlantic Ocean. [6]  Buckley was tortured and left for dead, but not until Hezbollah made videotapes of Buckley singing about CIA black operations in the region.  Hezbollah was still holding five other CIA agents as hostages.

In 1983 Hezbollah bombed a US Marine barracks in Beirut killing 283 American soldiers and precipitating a US withdrawal from Lebanon.  The CIA countered with a March 1985 car bomb in a crowded Shi’ite suburb of Beirut, killing 80 civilians and injuring 200.  Few people will ever know what Buckley confessed to his Hezbollah interrogators, but apparently the CIA thought the tapes embarrassing enough to cut a deal with Hezbollah’s Iranian backers.

Former SAVAK agent and CIA liaison Mansur Rafizadeh said the CIA was pursuing a two-track strategy in Iran.  On the one hand they were arming the Ayatollah and helping him crush the Iranian left.  On the other hand they were working to destabilize the Khomeini regime in a variety of ways.  The CIA was funding Iranian exile groups like the Paris-based Front for the Liberation of Iran and the Cairo-based Radio Nejat.

In 1986 the CIA recruited the Shah’s exiled son to deliver an 11-minute derision of the mullahs which was piped into Iran with CIA help and shown on the nation’s television networks.  Robert Sensi, a CIA agent who worked with BCCI money launderer Faisal Saud al Fulaij’s Kuwaiti Airways, set up CIA front companies in Iran with the help of Habib Moallem.  Through these fronts, they recruited Iranian agents who would spy on the mullahs and help destabilize the government.

Arming the Iraqis

The Saudis and Kuwaitis agreed to fund Saddam Hussein’s attack into Iran’s oil-rich Khuzistan Province at Brzezinski’s request.  The idea was to sever Khuzistan from the rest of Iran, then install a pliable government with which the Four Horsemen could do business.  Khuzistan contains the strategic Shatt al-Arab Waterway, which flows into the Persian Gulf and forms the Iran/Iraq border.  Kharg Island, in the waterway’s delta, is home to the bulk of Iran’s oil processing facilities, including the Abadan and Ahwaz refineries.

Khuzistan is also home to 90% of Iranian oil reserves and most of Iran’s significant natural gas reserves, which are surpassed only by those in Russia and Turkmenistan.  Khuzistan is the stronghold of the Tudeh and People’s Mujahadeen Parties, thorns in the side of the Ayatollah, the Shah and Big Oil alike.  The population of the province is largely Arab and Kurdish, while Persians predominate elsewhere in Iran.  The CIA hoped to exploit these ethnic differences as it so often does.

Brzezinski told Saddam that his Revolutionary Guard would be seen entering Khuzistan as, “great Arab liberators”.  Hussein was also assured control of the Shatt al-Arab, which former Iraqi President al-Bakr had ceded to Iran under the 1973 Algiers Agreement in return for a cessation of Shah and CIA backing of Iraqi Patriotic Union of Kurdistan rebels.  In 1980 Hussein’s troops invaded Iran.  Iraq gained control of the prized Shatt al-Arab only briefly. Its troops were seen by the Khuzistanis for what they really were- tools of US imperialism.  The real US goals were quite different from what Brzezinski had told Saddam Hussein.

While the CIA was funneling information to the Ayatollah and his goons on Iranian nationalists, Saddam Hussein’s troops now pounded the leftists as a rear guard.  Iranian dissidents, who had backed Mohammed Mossadegh’s calls to nationalize Iran’s oil in the 1950’s, and who later launched the oilfield strikes against the Iranian Consortium that brought the Shah to his knees, were now caught in a crossfire of the CIA’s making.

Iraqi forces also targeted Iran’s oil infrastructure.  MIG-27 fighters strafed the refineries at Abadan and Ahwaz on Kharg Island, while Revolutionary Guard troops laid waste to facilities at Iran’s largest port of Khorramshahr on the Persian Gulf. [7]  By disrupting Iranian oil exports, the CIA hoped to starve the mullahs of foreign exchange, a situation which would lead to a devaluation of the Iranian rial and subsequent hyperinflation.  The CIA could then exploit the economic decay to turn the country against the Khomeini government.  Iran, which had become a modern nation state, saw decades of progress destroyed during the war with Iraq.  The nation was literally de-modernized.

The CIA’s goals toward Iraq were no different.  Throughout the war GCC members Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE provided Saddam with interest-free loans.  The Saudis and Kuwaitis sent Iraq over $120 billion. [8]  Kuwait, the UAE and Jordan all made their ports available to the Iraqi Navy.  Saudi Arabia and Oman provided landing rights for Iraqi MIG-27 fighters.  The US was joined by Israel, Russia, Italy, France, Egypt and Brazil in sending Iraq weapons through the Jordanian Port of Aqaba.  US corporations such as Honeywell, Rockwell, Unisys and Hewlett Packard sent over $40 million in dual-use items to both Iran and Iraq during the war.

The CIA took a shine to Saddam Hussein for the same reason they worked with Ayatollah Khomeini.  In 1974, as Revolution Command Council Internal Security Chief, Hussein attacked leftist political parties in Iraq. Jalal Talabani’s Patriotic Union of Kurdistan worked for CIA and the Shah of Iran in attacking the al-Bakr government in Baghdad.  Al-Bakr was an influential OPEC price hawk leader who railed against Big Oil dominance over Arab oil.

Saddam was doing everything he could to suppress these voices.  From 1974-75 250,000 Iraqi Kurds fled to Iran.  In April 1979, while his Ba’ath Party thugs were brutalizing Shi’ite Muslims, leftists and renegade Kurd factions, Saddam signed a security agreement with Saudi Arabia.  By 1980 Saddam, a Sunni Muslim, banned two major Shi’ite political parties in Iraq- al-Dawah al Islamiyya and al-Mujahidin.  Iranian-born Shi’ites were deported, along with 3,000 leftists.  Twenty-two Ba’ath leaders accused of collaborating with Syria were executed. [9]

Hussein’s purges looked so similar to the ones being conducted by the Ayatollah that one had to wonder if Saddam had not also received a Company hit list.  Thrilled with Saddam’s fascist killing spree, Western multinationals flocked to Iraq where a massive agricultural privatization was under way.  Cooperative land that had grown staple foods for Iraqi peasants for decades was now for sale to the highest bidder.  A handful of wealthy Iraqis got most of the land and their diras (estates) began cultivating crops for export.

Iraq was forced to import basic foods like wheat and rice to feed its suddenly landless people.  Western grain giants Cargill and Continental Grain (now merged), Louis Dreyfus, Andre and Bunge & Born moved in to fill the void.  In 1982 Iraq imported 820,000 tons of US grain. [10]

Other segments of Iraq’s economy were ceded to multinationals as well.  Had Saddam cut a deal with the West, whereby US corporations got greater access to Iraq’s economic spoils in return for US support in his war with Iran?

Until 1984 the US publicly favored Iran in the war with Iraq.  Then Iran reclaimed the Shatt al-Arab Waterway and Khuzistan Province.  The tide of the war was turning in Iran’s favor.  In 1984 the US began re-flagging Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf which, it claimed, came under attack by Iranian gunboats.  Actually it had been the Iraqis who started the tanker war that year.  By 1987 the Iraqi Navy had damaged 219 oil tankers. [11]

The shift was on. In 1984 Reagan removed Iraq from the State Department list of nations that support terrorism.  That year marked the beginning of the War of Cities, when numerous major cities in both countries were reduced to rubble, including the capitals Tehran and Baghdad.  Both countries targeted the economic infrastructure of the other.  A 1985 CIA memo to Director Casey stated, “Our tilt to Iraq was timely when Iraq was against the ropes and the Islamic Revolution was on a roll”.

In 1987 85,000 Iranian troops overran Fao, Iraq’s main oil terminal for its vast Rumaila oilfields near the Kuwaiti border.  Under the pretext of a US Navy re-flagging operation, forty-two US Naval vessels arrived in the Persian Gulf.  US gunboats shelled Iranian oil installations at the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab and shot down an Iranian passenger jumbo jet, killing everyone on board.  When Iraq used mustard gas against its own Kurdish people in 1987, the US looked the other way and began to arm Saddam Hussein.

The House of Saud, which had been bankrolling the Iraqi war effort all along, now began to work through BCCI to arm the Iraqis.  In addition to the $1 billion/month they were sending Saddam, the Saudis now provided intelligence, logistics and weapons, including NK-84 helicopters.  The Saudis entered a joint venture to help strengthen Baghdad’s nuclear capabilities, which the Israelis had wiped out in a 1981 bombing raid commanded by Ariel Sharon. [12]

Saudi Arabia and Iraq set up Gulf International Banks to supplement the BCCI channel.  A 1989 Defense Department study showed US military aid to the Saudis landing in Iraqi accounts in Switzerland.  US AWAC surveillance planes flew from Saudi bases and gathered intelligence for Iraq.  The US/Saudi collaboration was so blatant that many believed the Americans were directing Saudi security agencies. [13]

Mutual Assured Destruction

The US continued to play both sides in the Iran/Iraq War, backing one country until it had a military advantage, before switching sides to back the other.  The US resisted any moves to negotiate a peace treaty. Both countries saw their infrastructure leveled, their economies crippled and their people decimated.  In Iraq 750,000 people were killed.  A 1979 memo to President Carter from NSA Brzezinski, explains the US policy, “the Iran-Iraq conflict is a unique opportunity to consolidate our security position”.

The Export Import Bank provided $200 million in taxpayer insured loans to Iraq, most of which were funneled through Banco Nacionale de Lavoro.  The Commodity Credit Corporation provided a similar amount of taxpayer-insured loans so Iraq could buy grain from Cargill and Continental Grain.  As much as 20% of the US rice crop was sold to Iraq. By the first quarter of 1990 Iraq was the United States’ third largest trading partner. [14]  Iraq owed $241 billion to global creditors: $120 billion to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, $9 billion to Russia and $3 billion to Japan.  In 1989 Japan cut Iraq off.

Carter NSA Gary Sick, said later that, “the US has resisted all moves in the United Nations toward a negotiated settlement of the tanker war”. [15]  The US Navy’s re-flagging operation established a permanent US presence in the Persian Gulf.  Reagan Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, who was later Knighted by Queen Elizabeth II for his genocidal efforts, characterized the re-flagging as a “trade-off for basing rights”, in GCC countries.  The monarchs had been slow to cooperate with US security plans in the region.  The Iran/Iraq War had the effect of scaring the daylights out of the emirates and getting them on board with US plans to modernize bases in Saudi Arabia and to build new ones in the other GCC emirates.

Saudi/US relations became very cozy during this time, especially on the military front.  The Saudis became the biggest annual recipient of US military aid.  In 1983 the Saudis received $17 billion in US military hardware.  In 1984 that jumped to $22.7 billion.  Richard Secord was in the thick of it- brokering the sale of five AWACs to the Saudis the night Reagan was sworn into office.  Hidden in the $8.5 billion package was a provision that beefed up the Kingdom’s C3 system at bases, some of which contain underground nuclear command centers that only US personnel can control.

By 1993 the Saudis had spent $156 billion on the joint Saudi/US military buildup within the Kingdom.  The US now effectively occupied Saudi Arabia, guarding the 261 billion barrels of Four Horsemen oil.  Many members of Congress were not even aware of what was going on.  As Rep. Howard Metzenbaum (D-OH) said, “The US/Saudi relationship is different because only a tiny White House club is in the know”. [16]

Iran and Iraq are the only two OPEC nations with large enough oil reserves to challenge Saudi/GCC control over oil prices.  Iraq is second only to the Saudis with 112 billion barrels of oil reserves and much of the country remains unexplored.  Iran has close to 100 billion barrels of crude.  Both are firmly in the camp of the OPEC price hawks.  By disrupting oil flows from these two nations, Big Oil eliminated competition and kept the price hawks busy rebuilding their shattered economies instead of rallying for OPEC unity.

Both Iran and Iraq’s primary oil exporting facilities- Khorramshahr and Fao respectively- were demolished during the war.  Iran’s entire Kharg Island facilities were leveled.  Iraq was now deeply in debt to the Saudis and Kuwaitis.  Many of both nations’ oil tankers were damaged in the tanker war.  The cities of both countries required billions of dollars and a decade to be rebuilt as a result of the war of the cities.  It was a war of attrition with each side suffering untold loss of life and $25-35 billion worth of damage.

In CIA-think, a decisive victory by either Iran or Iraq would have left the winner in a position to take on the Saudis militarily.  A staggering defeat by either might breed internal revolutionary forces who would challenge the Ayatollahs or Saddam, who had been quite useful to the CIA in wiping out nationalistic elements and in providing a pretext for the US military buildup in the Persian Gulf.  But a long war of attrition would leave both nations crippled and focused on rebuilding.  Neither would have the luxury of mounting any sort of challenge to Four Horsemen control over Persian Gulf oil.

Big Oil used the war as another excuse to hike gas prices in the US.  The GCC sheiks filled the oil shortfall which the war created, pumping out more than enough crude to move wholesale prices lower on world markets.  The Four Horsemen pocketed the difference, while stockpiling crude oil.  A memo uncovered by Edwin Rothschild, energy adviser for the group Public Citizen, sums up US policy towards Saudi/GCC overproduction and the misery it brings the poor countries of OPEC.  The memo, sent by Undersecretary of State Richard Murphy to the Saudi government, said simply, “Let the market rule”.

Lower wholesale prices made it more difficult for Iraq and Iran to rebuild. In 1988 Iran earned 90% of its hard currency through oil exports. Iraq gained 99% of its foreign exchange from oil.  Both the Iraqi dinar and the Iranian rial plummeted.  In 1994 the rial lost 100% of its value.  Before the war Iraq had $40 billion in hard currency reserves. Afterwards, it had zero and huge debts to pay.

The Israelis worked hand-in-hand with the US to destroy both nations.  While supplying Mustafa Barzani’s Kurds in their attacks on Iraq, the Israelis duplicitously provided missile targeting to Saddam Hussein for his attacks on Iranian cities via US spy satellites.  In 1988 Mossad launched Operation Brush Fire, a psychological warfare campaign designed to draw the US military further into the Middle East conflagration.  Their ultimate goal was to have the US destroy Iraq’s powerful military, while leaving their “perfect villain” Saddam in power.

The campaign was launched when Israeli commandos bombed an Iraqi weapons plant at Al-Iskandariah in at attempt to make “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction” a global household phrase.  Mossad set up a London Observer freelance journalist named Farzad Bazroft to take the story international.  Bazroft had been investigating the death of Shah-loyalist tuned Mossad arms dealer Cyrus Hashemi and had gotten too close to the truth, which was that Mossad had eliminated Hashemi.  Knowing Bazroft would be seen as a foreign spy by Baghdad after the Mossad terrorism at the weapons plant, they sent him into Iraq.  Saddam took the bait and Bazroft was hung as a spy creating an even bigger international incident.  To speed things along, Mossad leaked secret documents on Iraqi weapons programs to ABC News.

US and Israeli arms merchants made a killing during the war.  The US refused to supply spare parts to either side, so when a weapons system broke Iran or Iraq would be expected to buy a whole new system.  This policy bolstered the bottom lines of US defense contractors and assured that battlefield weapons malfunctions could not be fixed on the spot, thus negating the momentum which the side on the offensive had attained. This helped keep the war in a constant state of stalemate.

Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon used the conflict as an opportunity to bomb Baghdad’s nuclear facilities in 1981.  In 1982 Sharon declared that Israel was siding with Iran, but his exact words were more revealing.  Sharon declared at a conference in Paris that, “Israel has a vital interest in the continuing war in the Persian Gulf and in Iran’s victory.”  In 1986 retired Mossad Chief General Aharon Yariv declared the US and Israeli position more succinctly when he stated bluntly, “It would be good if the Iran/Iraq War ended in a tie, but it would be better if it continued”.

[1] Behold a Pale Horse. William Cooper. Light Technology Press. Sedona, AZ. 1991. p.81

[2] Ibid. p.83

[3] The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride into the Secret Heart of BCCI. Jonathan Beaty and S.C. Gwynne. Random House. New York. 1993. p.268

[4] The Spotlight. June 1997

[5] BBC World News. January 2002

[6] The Great Heroin Coup: Drugs, Intelligence and International Fascism. Henrik Kruger. South End Press. Boston. 1980. p.217

[7] The Reign of the Ayatollahs: Iran and the Islamic Revolution. Shaul Bakhash. Basic Books, Inc. New York. 1984. p.193

[8] Iraq and Kuwait: A History Suppressed. Ralph Schoenman. Veritas Press. Santa Barbara, CA. 1990. p.21

[9] Beyond the Storm: A Gulf Crisis Reader. Phyllis Bennis and Michel Monshabeck. Olive Branch Press. Brooklyn, NY. 1991. p.31

[10] Iraq Since 1958: From Revolution to Dictatorship. Marion Farouk-Sluglett and Peter Sluglett. I.B. Tauris & Company, Inc. 1990. p.260

[11] “The Gulf Between Pretense and Reality”. Larry Everest. In These Times. 7-20-88. p.9

[12] “The Arming of Saudi Arabia”. Frontline. PBS. 2-16-93

[13] The Gulf: Scramble for Security. Raj Choudry. Sreedhar Press. New Dehli. 1983. p.108

[14] March to War. James Ridgeway. Four Walls Four Windows. New York. 1991. p.13

[15] Everest. p.9

[16] Frontline

Dean Henderson is the author of five books: Big Oil & Their Bankers in the Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network, The Grateful Unrich: Revolution in 50 Countries, Das Kartell der Federal Reserve, Stickin’ it to the Matrix & The Federal Reserve Cartel.  You can subscribe free to his weekly Left Hook column @ www.deanhenderson.wordpress.com

Le torchon brûle entre la Bulgarie et la Commission sur South Stream

Ex: http://www.euractiv.fr

 

 

South Stream map

Le ministre bulgare de l'Énergie compte maintenir la construction du gazoduc South Stream, malgré les mises en gare de Bruxelles sur ses incompatibilités avec la législation européenne.

Le projet South Stream ne sera pas arrêté, a affirmé le ministre bulgare de l'Énergie, Dragomir Sotynev à l'issue d'une entrevue avec le commissaire européen Günther Oettinger. 

À la suite de la crise ukrainienne, le Parlement a décidé de susprendre l'autorisation du projet de gazoduc paneuropéen. Selon les eurodéputés, l'UE doit s'approvisionner auprès d'autres fournisseurs que la Russie.

Mais le ministre bulgare, un économiste proche de Sergueï Stanichev, chef du parti socialiste bulgare, a assuré que le chantier allait commencer en juin, comme prévu, repoussant ainsi les demandes du Parlement européen de suspendre la construction.

Il a par ailleurs accusé l'opposition de centre-droit d'avoir apporté de fausses informations à la Commission européenne sur le projet afin de faire capoter sa mise en oeuvre. 

Le ministre bulgare a déclaré que la première station terrestre du South Stream serait construite à deux kilomètres de la côte de la mer Noire, et non à vingt kilomètres comme l'a affirmé l'opposition aux services de la Commission. Ce qui fait une « énorme différence », a-t-il indiqué.

Dragomir Stoynev a expliqué que les directives européennes sur la libéralisation du marché de l'énergie ne sont applicables qu'aux tronçons terrestres et non à ceux situés en mer. Il a certifié que Sofia informera, le cas échéant, la Commission sur les amendements apportés à une loi nationale controversée sur South Stream, avant qu'elle ne soit définitivement adoptée.

En effet, le 4 avril, le Parlement bulgare a adopté en première lecture des amendements à loi sur la politique énergétique qualifiant South Stream d'un interconnecteur et non de gazoduc. Grâce à cette modification, le projet porté par Gazprom échapperait au champ d'application du troisième paquet énergie.

Autre problème de taille, plusieurs pays européens - l'Autriche, la Bulgarie, la Croatie, la Grèce, la Hongrie et la Slovénie - avaient conclu des accords bilatéraux avec la Russie dans le cadre de la construction du gazoduc. Mais le 4 décembre dernier, la Commission européenne a affirmé que ces accords enfreignaient la législation européenne et devaient être renégociés dans leur intégralité.

Gazoduc maritime ou pas ?

Les explications du ministre Bulgare ne semblent pas avoir apaisé les craintes de la Commission au sujet de l'impact de la loi énergétique en cours de discussion. Selon le texte législatif, le projet South Stream serait « un gazoduc maritime » qui ne serait donc pas couvert par les directives européennes. 

Mais pour la Commission, la loi européenne s'applique aux infrastructures qui tombent sous la juridiction européenne, a insité Sabine Berger, porte-parole du commissaire à l’énergie. Et les eaux territoriales bulgares en font partie, ainsi que les zones économiques exclusives du pays.

« La longueur du tronçon terrestre du « gazoduc maritime » n'est pas pertinente dans le cadre de l'évaluation de la Commission de l'amendement proposé [par le Parlement bulgare] au regard de sa compatibilité avec les modalités de la directive sur le gaz », a-t-elle clairement expliqué. L'argument du ministre bulgare sur le lieu de construction par rapport à la côte serait donc irrecevable.

Selon la porte-parole, la Commission s’inquiète également de l'accord intergouvernemental de la Bulgarie signé avec la Russie dans le cadre du projet. L’exécutif européen le considère non conforme à la législation européenne, comme ce fut le cas pour tous les autres accords intergouvernementaux signés par les autres États membres engagés dans South Stream.

Les griefs de la Commission

EurActiv a consulté la lettre envoyée par la Commission aux autorités bulgares, datée du 14 août 2013, qui apporte une analyse détaillée de l'accord conclu entre la Bulgarie et la Russie. Le document de six pages adressé à la vice-ministre de l'Énergie bulgare, Evgenia Haritonova, n'a jamais été rendu public, malgré les pressions exercées par certains députés bulgares.

Cet accord enfreint non seulement les règles relatives au marché européen de l'énergie qui interdisent aux producteurs d'énergie d'être aussi à la tête d'un réseau de transmission, selon le principe de découplage. Cet élément est un point litigieux récurrent dans les sept accords intergouvermentaux conclus avec la Russie. Outre ces griefs, la lettre isole d’autres infractions :

• La Bulgarie s'est engagée à assurer un régime fiscal privilégié à Gazprom, ce qui, selon la Commission, n'est pas conforme aux règles sur les aides d'État de l'UE ;
• L'accord intergouvernemental stipule, selon les cas, que la sous-traitance s’applique aux entreprises grecques et bulgares ou que la préférence est donnée aux entreprises des deux parties signataires (la Bulgarie et la Russie), ce qui enfreint là encore aux règles de concurrence européenne ;
• L'accord intergouvernemental énonce que les tarifs d'exploitation du gazoduc seront fixés par la société établie, ce qui entre, selon la loi européenne, en contradiction avec l'existence même des organes de surveillance nationaux chargés d’approuver les tarifs de transmission.

La porte-parole de la Commission européenne a mis en garde la Bulgarie et a assuré que si les conditions de construction ou d'exploitation du gazoduc n'étaient pas conformes à la législation européenne, alors la Commission se réservait le droit de faire en sorte que la Bulgarie applique la législation européenne.

Liens externes: 

Press articles:

• Dnevnik, partenaire d'EurActiv en Bulgarie : "Южен поток" няма да бъде спрян, обяви Стойнев след разговор с Йотингер
• Dnevnik, partenaire d'EurActiv en Bulgarie : Вигенин пред ИТАР-ТАСС: България ще направи всичко, зависещо от нея, за да бъде реализиран "Южен поток"
• Dnevnik, partenaire d'EurActiv en Bulgarie : Според Вигенин евродепутатите са реагирали емоционално с призива да се спре "Южен поток"

Georgi Gotev | EurActiv.com - traduction de l'anglais

Entretien géopolitique et économique avec Pierre-Yves Rougeyron

Entretien

géopolitique et économique

avec Pierre-Yves Rougeyron

Ex: http://www.lebreviairedespatriotes.fr

Dans cet entretien au "Bréviaire des patriotes" réalisé le 22 avril 2014, Pierre-Yves Rougeyron, président du Cercle Aristote et fondateur de la revue Perspectives Libres, aborde les thèmes suivants : déclin des États-Unis, place de la Chine, de la Russie, la France dans le monde, l’impérialiste et l’anti-impérialisme français, la sortie de l’euro, la dette, l’ultra-libéralisme et le socialisme.

The Crimea and the Eurasianist idea as resistance geopolitics

Bruno De Cordier

 

Ex; http://www.geopolitica.ru

 

Professor Bruno De Cordier from the Department of Conflict and Development Studies of Gent University examines the perception and realities behind an aspired ‘great space’.

 

“I know one thing and I’ll tell you: if Russia survives this period and is eventually saved, it will be as a Eurasian entity and through the Eurasianist idea”, said the Russian ethnographer, historian and geographer Lev Gumilyev in an interview which he gave shortly after the demise of the USSR and briefly before passing away himself in the summer months of 1992.  Back then, it were dire years of decay, unraveling and loss of self-esteem in Russia and the rest of the enormous space that used to be the USSR shortly before. Even the existence of the Russian Federation, the USSR’s core entity, had become uncertain with the rise of separatism in the North Caucasian republics of Dagestan and Chechnya and with the rise of local and provincial potentates on which Yeltsin’s Kremlin hardly had any real influence left. So now, Crimea is set to join Russia. How things can turn.

 

The 1990s trauma

 

I have been thinking often of Gumilyev and his Eurasianist idea lately, for it indeed explains quite a lot of what had been going on. In brief, it states that the old USSR and the tsarist imperial space that preceded it are essentially grafted in an old cultural sphere in which Slavic and Turkic cultures, Orthodox Christianity, and Sunni and Shi’ite Islam have been cohabiting and interacting for centuries. The core of this sphere, of this ‘great space’ as the Russian political scientist Alexander Dugin calls it, is Russia which, indeed, geographically spreads out over the European and Asian continents and has, through the adoption of Byzantine Christianity in the 980s – after contact first established with Greek bishops on the Crimea by the way – and its incorporation in the system of the Khanate of the Golden Horde (1240-1502), is anchored in the Orient as well as in the West. The whole notion that Russia thus forms a separate sphere around which crystalizes a greater Eurasia, seems also to be present and well alive at the grassroots up to this day.

 

In a survey conducted among the Russian population in spring 2007 for example, the thesis that Russia is a Eurasian entity in its own right with its own societal and developmental ways, was agreed upon by almost three-quarters of the respondents.[1] Of course, it is more an indicator yet it’s also reflecting a reality. In a similar but much more recent survey last year about the question how Russia will look like in fifty years’ time, the largest share of respondents after the ‘don’t-know/no-answer’ category answered, that its technology and sciences will be quite similar to that of the West but that Russian society and culture will be entirely different from it.[2] Furthermore, as another survey conducted last fall learns, the share of those in Russia who regret the demise of the USSR is high: 57 percent, understandably higher among age categories with active memories of that period (which involves still a fair share of people of active age), yet still amounting to up to one-third among the categories of respondents who were not yet born in 1991 or who were too young to have active memories.[3]

 

The impact of what we could call the ‘1990s trauma’ caused by the dire years following the unraveling and eventually demise of the USSR should really not be underestimated. In a matter of a couple of years, a decent human capital, a high level of social safety, and a fair level of social infrastructure were squandered and destroyed to make way for a particularly rapacious form of capitalism – dubbed ‘market reforms’ by foreign consultants and scores of profiteers – an acute identity crisis, a dramatic demographic downturn and general degradation and loss of status. The mid-nineties were actually the period when I started to work in Eurasia. Back then, I understood already that all this was going to backlash one day. And indeed it did. Since the beginning of this century, not a small part of public opinion and opinion makers and officials blames an abstract ‘West’  – where certainly the US is being increasingly negatively perceived[4] – and, especially, local and regional liberals in Eurasia itself.

 

Economic great space

 

So, what are the different fibers still connecting Russia with its wider historical sphere, and with the rest of the region formerly known as the USSR, in particular? Let us first take a look at the economic substructure, starting with foreign trade. Officially, in the year 2013, almost 21 percent of Russia’s overall foreign trade was with other former states of the USSR, without the three Baltic countries. Some three-quarters of its trade within Eurasia was, in that particular order, with Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The latter two are also part of both the customs’ union and the Eurasian Economic Community which are being led and promoted by Moscow. Attempts to also integrate Ukraine in these structures actually sparked the protest movement in Kiev last year. Furthermore, more than 50 percent of Russia’s external commerce takes place with the EU, almost 10 percent with China and some 3 percent with the US. Russia’s external trade pattern is thus primarily oriented towards the EU, which also implicates something else by the way: that economies and corporations from the EU need the Eastern European market.

 

Hence economic sanctions against Moscow will first of all affect an EU which has primarily acted as an extension and aid of the US in the whole episode of the Ukraine crisis. For those keen on stressing the importance of energy policies, well, there is also the position and activities of Gazprom in Eurasia.  This parastatal corporation, which is closely connected to the Kremlin, controls about one-third of the world’s production of natural gas and also has interests and activities in other sectors like transport, oil, banking and media. It is actively present in all former Soviet countries including the Baltics who actually depend on it for most of their supply in natural gas. Gazprom also participates, in one form or another, in oil extraction and in upgrading infrastructure in gas- and oil-exporting countries like Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Gazprom’s sheer weight explains why Russia, together with Iran and Qatar, has taken the lead in mid-2001 in the establishment of the so-called Forum of Gas-Exporting Countries. The structure, which currently has 11 member states and in which Kazakhstan is an observer, is to be a blueprint of some sort of ‘gas OPEC’.

 

Migrant workers and oligarchs

 

Let us go back to society and everyday life. One of the most important sociocultural vectors of Russian influence in greater Eurasia is, of course, the Russian language. The historical aversion against it is by far not as strong as it was in the Baltics and Central Europe in the nineties or as it is in Western Ukraine at the moment. Despite the righteous promotion of local or national languages other than Russian in the 1988-91 period, the Russian language still, or again, has official or semi-official status in Ukraine (although its future in ‘rump Ukraine’ is uncertain), Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The use of Russian in the societies concerned usually goes well beyond the people of Russian origin and ethnicity. Even in countries where it does no longer have official status, such as Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan, it is still the idiom of the political and intellectual elites, part of the more urbanized population segments, ethnic minorities and it often serves as the language of inter-ethnic communication. Its position also sustains the influence of the Russian mass media, popular culture and opinion makers.

 

A very important binding agent in Eurasia, one situated on the interface of the grassroots and macro-economics, is seasonal as well as permanent labor migration to Russia. The vast majority of some one and a half million of guest workers who officially stayed in Russia in the year 2011 came from other countries of Eurasia.  The largest group, some 510,000, were from Uzbekistan.  Additionally, in the same year, some 280,000 guest workers were from Tajikistan, 193,000 from Ukraine, 110,000 from Kyryzstan, 80,000 from Moldova, 71,000 from Armenia, 68,000 from Azerbaijan and 53,000 from Georgia. Besides the old USSR countries, the second-largest country of origin of labor migrants in Russia is China. Kazakhstan and Belarus have also become host countries for migrant workers form southern Eurasia.

 

They visibly form a large portion of the bazaar traders, construction workers, cleaners and maintenance and catering personnel in the metropolises as well as of the seasonal workers in the agricultural sector. Many have double citizenship.  The infrastructure of the recent winter games in Sochi, for instance, has largely been built by workers from southern Eurasia and Moldova. This sort of migration feeds a remittance economy, which in countries like Armenia, Moldova and Tajikistan for instance, contributes a large GDP share amounting from 21 to 48 percent. The remittances of the hundreds of thousands of migrant workers, a majority of them men, are a vital financial lifeline for their families and areas of origin. Socially and psychologically, the impact of migration and the remittance economy is a mixed bag. They have revitalized regions but also disrupted local societies, yet do ensure a permanent interaction at the basic popular level within Eurasia.

 

At the other end of the social pyramid, there is something peculiar going on. A number of industrialists and oligarchs from Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Georgia with connections to the upper echelons of power in Russia are based in Moscow or Saint-Petersburg. Through patronizing sociocultural associations and through media, several of them try to build a political base among the diasporas in Russia of their respective countries or origin. On the mid-term, this is important since several of the personalities concerned have ambiguous if not outright tense relationships with the regimes, or with specific personalities or fractions therein, in their respective countries. Personally, I consider it likely that Moscow will try to steer or recuperate regime change in some Eurasian  countries – Uzbekistan for example – with unreliable or fractionalized regimes and a large potential for social unrest, before pro-Western of Western-backed figures and networks do so.  In this sense, the personalities concerned as well as they movements and networks form ‘replacement elites’.

 

Military imperialism?

 

The navy base in Sebastopol was a hotspot and departure point in Russia’s recent intervention in, or, depending on how you look at it, invasion, of the Crimean peninsula. Yet how can one characterize Moscow’s military cooperation with the rest of Eurasia?  Since fall 2002, the institutional framework has been the Collective Security Treaty Organization, a sort ‘contra-NATO’ which, beside Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan, has Armenia, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan as its members. Serbia, amongst others, is an observer to the organization. With the exception of Georgia and, increasingly, also Azerbaijan, Eurasia’s respective national armed forces are still psychologically and technically quite oriented towards Russia and purchase most of their military technology and weaponry from it. The Russian armed forces, for their part, have bases and military advisors in Tajikistan, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. Additionally, they co-manage the space launch facility of Baykonur is Kazakhstan and radar stations in Belarus and, until last year, also in Gabala in Azerbaijan. And since mid-1992, Russia has also a 9,200 strong peacekeeping force in Transnistria, an area seceded from Moldova in 1990. Beyond the territory of the old USSR, Russia has one naval base on the Mediterranean, in the Syrian port of Tartus. To put things in perspective, the US has some nine-hundred bases or other forms of military presence outside of its territory, including in Eurasia.

 

Since about a decade, Russia has also become, like the USSR used to be, a donor of various forms of development and humanitarian aid.[5] It has channeled its aid, for instance, multilaterally through a number of UN organizations and also donated aid to contexts of high political and symbolic significance, such as Syria, Serbia and the Serbian minority in Kosovo. The bulk of Russia’s foreign aid, however, is destined for Eurasia. During the 2007-13 period, about 57 percent went to Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and South Ossetia. The latter brings up the existence and the role of Eurasia’s so-called quasi-states, areas that seceded in one form or another between 1989 and 1993, which have many if not all characteristics and attributes of states but that are not recognized as such by other countries and the UN, or only by a handful of countries.[6] There are currently four such entities in the former USSR:  the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan, previously-mentioned Transnistria, and South Ossetia and Abkhazia which both seceded from Georgia in the early nineties and officially declared themselves independent after the 2008 South Ossetia War. In some way, the Crimea also fits into this category.[7]

 

The said four quasi-states largely sustain on an informal economy, on financial and other material aid, pensions and migrant remittances from Russia. In most of these entities, there is also a strong identification with and favorable opinion of Russian among local public opinion. Just like Kosovo, which is in fact a protectorate, is an important pivot and hold of NATO-US presence in the Balkans,  they form a core element of Moscow’s presence in greater Eurasia. In that sense, Transnistria, in particular, along with Sebastopol and the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad (an old part of Prussia which was annexed by the USSR after the Second World War and is still part of the Russian Federation), is perceived to be a necessary outpost of Eurasian resistance on the western frontier against a NATO that is perceived to be increasingly aggressive and expansionist. A few days after the Crimean referendum, the parliament of Transnistria, which like the peninsula has a Russian or at least Russia-speaking majority, proposed to also accede to the Russian Federation.[8]

 

Bismarck and the ‘neo-USSR’

 

So, to conclude, Moscow definitely has aspirations in this enormous space between the Baltic Sea and Alaska. But contrary to the American neo-empire these aspirations of dominance are not planetary.[9] Following Russia’s military intervention on the Crimea, which was, amongst others, legitimized by the necessity to protect the peninsula’s Russian population, some suggested that Kazakhstan, with its large Russian minority of about one quarter of the population and in the majority in a number of districts bordering Russia itself, might be next in line. This is quite improbable though. When one looks at the pattern of Russian military intervention over the last few years, one notices that these have taken places in countries  – South Ossetia and Georgia, where Russians form barely 1.5 percent, and now Ukraine and the Crimea – which have been the setting of so-called ‘color revolutions’ which eventually largely championed a pro-NATO and generally pro-Western societal and political project.

 

Much more than something driven and inspired by aggressive expansionism or access to resources, the recomposing of a greater Eurasia is perceived to be a necessary resistance movement against forces and centers of power the eventual aim of which is nothing less than the dismantling of Russia itself, or its reduction to a submissive and obedient entity.[10] To prevent this, a ‘great space’ has to be formed that takes the lead in the formation of the multi-polar world order which has to succeed to American neo-imperial hegemony. There will eventually be no replica of the USSR. The customs’ union between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan is definitely meant to be a blueprint for more in-depth integration or reintegration in Eurasia though, quite similar to the way the Prussian Zollverein from 1839 laid the bases for the unification of the German states and principalities which was achieved by Otto von Bismarck by the year 1871. And this design is certainly not less legitimate than the EU, the Gulf Cooperation Council or the US’ free-trade area for the Americas are. Whether the national elites involved, especially those of Kazakhstan, will eventually be willing to transfer power to a supra-national entity in the near future remains to be seen. Yet the perception of a process and threat of externally steered chaos, regime change and further balkanization of Eurasia, and, especially, the objective interests and advantages of a more multi-polar world order could definitely offer the necessary psychological impetus to do so.

 

[1]Аналитический Центр Юрия Левады-YuriLevadaAnalyticalCentre, «Л.А. Седов: Россия и мир», 2007, http://www.levada.ru/press/2007081001.html

[2]Аналитический Центр Юрия Левады-YuriLevadaAnalyticalCentre,  «Россия-2063», 2013, http://www.levada.ru/22-08-2013/rossiya-2063

[3]Аналитический Центр Юрия Левады-YuriLevadaAnalyticalCentre, «Россияне о распаде СССР», http://www.levada.ru/14-01-2014/rossiyane-o-raspade-sssr

[4]Аналитический Центр Юрия Левады- YuriLevadaAnalyticalCentre, «Россияне об отношении к другим странам», www.levada.ru/11-10-2013/rossiyane-ob-otnoshenii-k-drugim-stranam

[5]For more on Russia and a donor of aid, see the study by Oxfam International which is available both in Russian and English at http://www.oxfam.org/en/policy/russia-humanitarian-aid-donor

[6]For a more in-depth examination of quasi-states in the former USSR and elsewhere, see the excellent special issue of Diplomatie: affaires strategiques et relations internationales by Francois Grunewald and Anne Rieu, ‘Entre guerre et paix: les quasi-etats’, Diplomatie: affaires strategiques et relations internationales, №30, 2008.

[7]The first to recognize Crimea’s referendum on independence besides Russia itself were Nagorno-Karabakh, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Kazakhstan, Armenia and the Bolivarian republic of Venezuela had followed at the time of writing.

[8]Joris Wagemakers ascertains the existence of an outright resistance identity among both the authorities and much of the population of Transnistria. For those interested, see Joris Wagemakers, ‘National identity in Transnistria: a global-historical perspective on the formation and evolution of a ‘resistance identity’’. Journal of Eurasian Affairs, 1(2), 2014, pp. 50-55.

[9]I use the term neo-empire because unlike the Roman, Frankish, Napoleonic and British empires, to name a few examples, it does not consider nor calls itself one and actively maintains an illusion of equality between itself and its subjects.

[10]The fact that well before to the Ukraine and Crimea crisis, the person of Vladimir Putin and Russia on the whole have been demonized for months with almost hysterical international media campaigns supported by a some transnational corporations, celebrities and foreign parliamentarians about a non-issue like the arrest of a nihilist rock band, and about the so-called persecution of homosexuals, has certainly strengthened this perception.

 

Source

Раздел: 

Наука и образование

Регион: 

Россия

Le positionnement diplomatique de l’Arménie l’éloigne de l’Union européenne

Auteur : Egalité & Réconciliation 

Ex: http://www.zejournal.mobi

Le président de l’Arménie, Serge Sarkissian, espère pouvoir inscrire son pays dans une position médiane entre la Russie et l’Union européenne.

Afin de punir l’Arménie de sa future adhésion à l’Union douanière (regroupant la Russie, la Biélorussie et le Kazakhstan) et de ne pas souscrire à la position atlantiste dans l’affaire ukrainienne, l’Union européenne a décidé de ne pas signer d’accord majeur avec Erevan.

Mécontent, le chef de l’État arménien a interpellé les autorités de Bruxelles, lors d’un rassemblement du programme de partenariat oriental de l’UE qui s’est tenu à Prague :

« Nous nous engageons à prendre de nouvelles mesures avec nos partenaires de l’UE, afin de créer une fondation juridique régissant nos relations, qui d’une part reflètera le contenu de précédentes discussions entre l’Arménie et l’UE, et qui d’autre part sera compatible avec d’autres formats de coopération. Notre conviction : aucun des pays partenaires ne devrait être forcé de payer un prix parce qu’il décide de participer à tel ou tel autre processus d’intégration. Nous ne voulons pas faire un choix entre nos différents alliés : nous voulons avoir autant d’amis que possible. »

L’Arménie a sollicité plusieurs fois en 2013 l’Union européenne afin de parvenir à un accord d’association. Bruxelles a systématiquement rejeté ces demandes, y compris la plus récente : une version identique à celle que l’Ukraine a signé avec l’Union européenne après le changement de pouvoir à Kiev.

- Source : Egalité & Réconciliation

El interés norteamericano por Crimea no era altruista

El interés norteamericano por Crimea no era altruista

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

 

 

El 5 de septiembre de 2013 en la web de inversiones estatales de los EEUU era publicado  el anuncio de la búsqueda de un contratista para la reconstrucción de la escuela №5 de Sebastopol.

En sus 124 páginas se detallan sus especificaciones, con los esquemas y las fotografías de cómo había que reformarlo y que era necesario hacer. Por ejemplo, reconstruir los techos, sustituir las ventanas, cambiar las puertas a los excusados. Etcétera. Con la escrupulosidad inherente a todo contrato estatal.

El coste declarado: de 250 hasta 500 mil de dólares.

Podríamos pensar en la “bondad” de los amigos americanos con los ucranianos, que paseando el verano pasado en Sebastopol, tropezaron casualmente con la escuela №5 y han mirado dentro. Se han espantado del abandono y la han decidido renovar. Ya que pasean a menudo por las ciudades ajenas y observan para ayudar a los aborígenes. Allí repararán una escuela, aquí reequiparán el hospital, en algún sitio restaurarán la iglesia. Claro, a expensas del propio presupuesto,  es decir, con dinero de los contribuyentes americanos. Como en este caso. Así por el altruismo de los EEUU se ve que han llegado a la crisis económica.

Pero todo esto parece poco creíble. Lo más probable, lo han buscado con unos objetivos secretos. ¿Por qué? Gastar tanto dinero en una escuela ucraniana solo se explica en caso de que en ella estudiarán sus hijos americanos, acostumbrados a los estándares americanos.

¿Cómo es que de repente los gringos el año pasado comenzaron a fijarse en Crimea y pensar en acomodarla, acaso en vez de la base de la Flota del Mar Negro rusa querían instalar en Sebastopol sus dotaciones de la Armada? Mirando el anuncio, la propuesta para la licitación es un mando militar. De la inteligencia de la Navy de los EEUU. Dicho mando militar se encuentra en destinado en la ciudad italiana de Nápoles (Contracting Office Address: Naples, United States). Posiblemente, se trataba de preparar una escuela en perfecto estado para los niños de los oficiales.

¿Hay que asombrarse que Barack Obama se haya ofendido con Vladímir Putin y  sus hombres amables?

Posteriormente a la publicación el anuncio, como las “condiciones” de Crimea han cambiado la licitación es anulada. Ya no importan los niños ucranianos.

Pero hay otro hallazgo. Los americanos también querían reparar el hospital infantil de Simferopol, también a su propia cuenta. La licitación era publicada el 12 de diciembre y cancelada el 14 de abril. Se ve que el interés de los EEUU por los aborígenes ucranianos se ha “perdido” por alguna razón.

Inglaterra apoya a Azerbaiyán contra Armenia

Inglaterra apoya a Azerbaiyán contra Armenia

 

 

Ex: http://www.elespiadigital.com

El embajador británico solicitó a Armenia que "devuelva" a Azerbaiyán los territorios circundantes a Nagorno-Karabaj "tomados" durante la guerra.

El Reino Unido apoya firmemente los principios del arreglo pacífico del conflicto de Nagorno-Karabaj a través de la mediación del Grupo de Minsk de la OSCE . Así lo manifestó el embajador británico en Azerbaiyán Irfan Siddig en una entrevista con 1news.az.

"Los territorio de Azerbaiyán de Nagorno-Karabaj y la tierra circundante son reconocidos internacionalmente. Pero está claro que la situación de Nagorno-Karabaj la disputan Armenia y la población armenia de Nagorno-Karabaj. Así, en la práctica, esto significa que un acuerdo sobre el futuro estatus de Nagorno-Karabaj debe lograrse sobre la base de los principios de Helsinki -no uso de la fuerza, el respeto a la integridad territorial y la igualdad de los pueblos y su derecho a la libre determinación. Este es el elemento más difícil del conflicto, que debe ser acordado entre todas las partes", dijo el Embajador.

"Sin embargo, el estatuto de los territorios que rodean Nagorno-Karabaj, que las fuerzas armenias continúan manteniendo bajo ocupación como consecuencia del conflicto militar, no puede ser negado. Es Territorio de Azerbaiyán, y en cualquier solución pacífica las fuerzas armenias deben retirarse de estas tierras, ya que la continua ocupación de estos territorios es uno de los obstáculos para la paz, y el Reino Unido apoyó la pronta devolución de esas tierras a Azerbaiyán en el marco de un acuerdo de paz global", concluyó Siddig.

Will Japan and Russia Escape the New Cold War?

TRENIN, Dmitri

Ex: http://valdaiclub.com

 

Related News

• Gang of Two: Russia and Japan Make a Play for the Pacific
• Russian-Japanese relations: What lies ahead?
• Japan and Russia shouldn't miss the opportunity to have a better relationship

As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was visiting Beijing last week, it was announced that the visit to Moscow by Japan's foreign minister Fumio Kishida was being postponed. The announcement, of course, came amid the rising tensions in Ukraine and the continuing fundamental deterioration of the West's relations with Russia. Japan, after all, is a loyal ally of the United States.

Yet, both Tokyo and Moscow have gone to some lengths to limit the damage. The joint announcement was couched in most polite phrases. The Russian foreign ministry spokesman, Alexander Lukashevich, allowed no criticism in his public comments on the postponement decision. Clearly, with the threats of economic sanctions against Russia still on the table in Washington and in EU capitals, even after the recent Geneva agreement on Ukraine, Moscow looks to Tokyo to make up for the likely losses in Europe and North America.

Japan's Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, for his part, has not yet given up on Russia. As a geopolitical thinker, he needs Russia in an effort to balance China's rise. As a pragmatist, he thinks of going beyond simply importing energy from Russia, and seeks a stake in Russia's energy projects. As a strategist, he does not want Moscow to step up too much the technological level of its arms transfers to China's People's Liberation Army, by delivering, in particular, the S-400 air defense systems. Ideally, Shinzo Abe would also want to become the prime minister to finally resolve the almost 70-year-old territorial issue between Tokyo and Moscow.

None of this is going to be easy, but none of this is totally impossible either-provided the Japanese do their part by becoming what Germany, until recently, has been to Russia: a major technological partner, a leading investor, and a gateway to the wider region. Doing this will be exceedingly difficult, of course, in the current environment of intensifying U.S.-Russian rivalry. However, Abe may have a few useful arguments to offer to President Barack Obama when he comes to Tokyo.

Why should the US-Russian rivalry be allowed to strengthen Beijing? Who benefits when the United States is less comfortable and Japan feels less safe? In this new cold period in Russian-Western relations, there are already a few protected areas of collaboration, like non-proliferation. Why not a vibrant Japan-Russia link too? After all, wasn't it the one missing piece, even a strategic oversight in the original U.S. "pivot to Asia" concept?

Dmitri Trenin is Director of the Carnegie Moscow Center.

This article was originally published on www.carnegie.ru

Haut diplomate américain: la Russie a trahi le "Nouvel Ordre Mondial"

Auteur : www.infowars.com (traduit par Christ Roi) 

Ex: http://www.zejournal.mobi

Le refus de Moscou d'acquiescer à l'OTAN sur l'Ukraine signale nouvelle guerre froide

Le haut diplomate Christopher R. Hill déclare que la réponse de la Russie sur la crise ukrainienne signifie que Moscou a trahi le "nouvel ordre mondial" dont il a fait partie ces 25 dernières années.

Dans un papier pour l'influente publication Project Syndicate, Hill, un ancien ambassadeur américain en Irak et en Corée, écrit que l'annexion par la Russie de la Crimée est une "campagne d'intimidation" contre Kiev qui a mis fin à une période historique de 25 ans, accusant Moscou de s'engager dans la "régression, la récidive, et le revanchisme".

La définition par Hill du "nouvel ordre mondial" est la participation post-glasnost de la Russie dans "les institutions occidentales, une économie de marché, et une démocratie parlementaire multipartite."

"Ce nouvel ordre mondial qui s'est tenu près de 25 ans. Sauf pour une brève guerre de la Russie contre la Géorgie en août 2008 (un conflit généralement considéré comme créé à l'instigation de dirigeants géorgiens téméraires), l'acquiescement et l'engagement de la Russie pour le "nouvel ordre mondial", quoique problématique, fut l'une des grandes réalisations de l'après-guerre froide", écrit Hill.

Hill, qui est un conseiller à la Albright Stonebridge Group, une "société de la stratégie globale" avec des tentacules profonde au sein de la Maison Blanche et le Département d'Etat, continue d'accuser Moscou de faire revivre les jours de l'empire soviétique, ajoutant que "la Russie ... . ne semble plus intéressée par ce que l'Occident a offert ces 25 dernières années: un statut spécial avec l'OTAN, une relation privilégiée avec l'Union européenne, et le partenariat dans les efforts diplomatiques internationaux".

Arguant que les sanctions occidentales sont peu susceptibles d'avoir un impact, Hill affirme que l'OTAN doit se préparer sur le long-terme, avertissant que la Russie "cherchera à faire des ennuis similaires chez les anciens alliés soviétiques", invoquant l'invasion allemande de la Pologne en 1939 pour proposer que Moscou puisse lancer une agression contre d'autres nations de l'Europe de l'Est .

L'affirmation de Hill selon laquelle la Russie a tourné le dos au "nouvel ordre mondial" illustre comment Moscou cherche à mener une autre alliance de pays pouvant constituer une menace majeure pour l'avenir unipolaire envisagé par les Etats-Unis et l'OTAN.

En d'autres termes, que la Russie le veuille ou non, l'élite de l'Ouest est en train de fabriquer une nouvelle guerre froide et le monde peut pénétrer dans la période la plus dangereuse de son histoire depuis la crise des missiles de Cuba

*********************
Paul Joseph Watson est éditeur et écrivain pour Infowars.com et Prison Planet.com. Il est l'auteur de l'ordre du chaos. Watson est aussi un membre contributeur des Nouvelles d'Infowars Nightly.

- Source : www.infowars.com (traduit par Christ Roi)

 

Author: Andrei Boldyrev

Crimean factor in the Russia-Turkey relations

Ex: http://journal-neo.org

 

Until the Ukrainian crisis Turkey preferred to maintain a balanced approached to the Black Sea region without speeding up the process of accepting Georgia and Ukraine as NATO members up.

The Montreux Convention was of strategic importance for both Russia and Turkey since it suggested that in the nearest future the status quo between the two will remain unchanged. When Crimea joined the Russian Federation some analysts assumed that it can change the balance of forces in the region in favor of Russia, making a closed “Turkish- Russian pond” even more closed, leaving little place for Turkey to play the Black Sea – Caucasus card in NATO talks.

On the other hand, one cannot disregard Turkey’s own interests in the Ukrainian crisis. In the 90s and especially in the 2000s the political and economic ties between Ankara and Kiev evolved incrementally, reaching in this decade to a level of strategic partnership. Crimea occupied a special place in Turkish-Ukrainian relations, by being the first best bet for Turkish investors and by providing Turkey with a foothold in the region through the Crimean Tatars. Over the last two decades Ankara has provided them with substantial financial support, by promoting cultural and educational projects. Important role here was played by the Turkish International Cooperation Agency (TICA) .

The importance of the Crimean Tatar factor can hardly be overestimated. The reputation of the Crimean Tatars in Turkey is high, since the Turkic identity developed trough the famous Tatar thinkers such as Ismail Gasprinski and Yusuf Akchura, who are respected by not Turks alone, but well across the Turkic world . One can also name a lot of Crimean Tatar among the Turkish authorities. Finally, the very possibility of the creation of a geopolitical conflict zone near Turkey ‘s border is an extremely unpleasant surprise for Ankara, that is forcing Turkish authorities to seek ways to minimize the consequences of the “Crimean incident”. This was the thinking behind the negative attitude of Ankara towards the Crimean referendum and the loud statements made by the Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu in March in Kiev, when he promised to provide “political, international and economic support for the territorial integrity of Ukraine”.

It is doubtful, however, that anything of the above mentioned would have a negative impact on the Russian-Turkish relations, largely due to Turkey’s position that some foreign analysts qualify as “an observer’s”. The official Turkish standing is so indistinguishable due to the fact that Ankara is simply unable to take sides on the Crimean issue. Turkey’s role as a patron of the Crimean Tatar population along with NATO membership ticket implies that Ankara should hop aboard the anti-Russian sanctions ship. However, even before the referendum Erdogan received guarantees from Putin that the rights of the Tatar minority would be observed.

Turkey could express solidarity with the United States if it didn’t fear that the United States would use the Straits as a means of pressuring Russia, bringing naval forces on a “rotating basis” and thus creating a permanent grouping of NATO naval forces in the Black Sea region. In this sense, an example of the USS  ”Truxtun” that arrived in early March 2014 in the Black Sea for a one-day exercise with Bulgarian and Romanian ships and stayed there for an indefinite time can be demonstrative. According to the commander of  the USS “Truxtun”, its mission was extended due “to the situation in Crimea”. On April 10 the USS missile destroyer “Donald Cook” entered the Black Sea, on April 11 a French spy ship F.S. “Dupuy de Lome”. From late March to mid-April a French diving support ship FS “Alize” was stationed in the Black Sea and in the nearest future it is expected to be replaced by a French anti-submarine frigate F.S. Thus, we can talk about the fact of attempts to apply political pressure against Russia, however, it is unlikely for Turkey to support its allies in this matter as it provokes an unnecessary confrontation with Russia and reduces the value of Ankara as a regional military leader .

There’s a handful of different opinions in Turkey towards the Crimean situation. First of all, Turkish media outlets don’t see the joining of Crimea to Russia as an act of annexation . Turkish newspapers urged their government to properly evaluate the country’s capacities in determining its policy towards Russia , pointing out to the need to address the systemic crisis in the country firsthand. Foreign observers also note that the corruption scandals and failures of Turkey on the Syrian front dictate caution to Turkish diplomacy in relations with Russia.

Secondly (and most importantly), Turkish economists are predicting Turkey to suffer serious economic consequences, should Ankara join the pro-sanctions camp. Turkish economy is relying heavily on the supply of Russian hydrocarbons. Moreover Russian-Turkish turnover exceeds $33 billion annually, around 4 million of Russian tourists are visiting Turkey every year, leaving behind at least $4 billion. There’s little wonder that Turkish media outlets underline the fact that the value of Ukraine and Russia for Turkey’s foreign policy is not comparable .

Third, the pragmatists in the Turkish government warned the Turkish Foreign Ministry against any harsh actions and statements against Moscow. Turkish Minister for EU Affairs Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu has called the EU approach towards Ukraine a mistake, underling the fact that by presenting Ukrainians with a choice between Europe and Russia — Europe has committed a political mistake. Immediately after the visit of Ahmet Davutoğlu to Kiev, his deputy Feridun Sinirlioglu informed his Russian counterpart Grigory Karasin about the outcome of negotiations in Kiev. The parties stressed that they “will continue their joint efforts to normalize the socio-political situation in Ukraine.”

There is a reason to believe that Turkish analysis of the situation in Ukraine is pretty close to the Russian one. This conclusion can be drawn from from the words of Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu, that accused Brussels of provoking a civil conflict in Ukraine. Thus, it is possible that Turkey itself tends to blame external forces of interfering in its internal affairs, fearing the execution of the Kiev scenario on its own land.

Thus we can conclude that Turkey will not join the anti-Russian sanctions. Under these circumstances, it is likely that Turkey will encourage the parties to engage in a dialogue and will be trying to maintain the integrity of Ukraine. It saves face for Turkey as a NATO member but will not spoil relations with Russia, as the latter itself is not interested in further disintegration of this country. Such balance between Russia and NATO is the most convenient option for Turkey, as its influence on the Crimean Tatars in any case remains unchanged, and its relations with Russia will be maintained at the same level. And since Crimea has now joined Russia, the role of Turkey in NATO as a regulator of the straits may increase, however, in this case Turkey, as it was during the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict in 2008, would have to “filter” the passage of NATO ships trough the Black Sea, in order to preserve the naval balance of forces in the region. While frequent visits of NATO warships in the Black Sea may complicate Russian-Turkish relations, the events of 2008 show, that such complications will not last for long.

Andrei Boldyrev , Ph.D, Research Fellow in the Turkish Department of the Institute of Oriental Studies RAS, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Islamist Fifth Column in Gaza based on Gulf and Western Strings: Egypt and Syria

Islamist Fifth Column in Gaza based on Gulf and Western Strings: Egypt and Syria

Boutros Hussein and Lee Jay Walker

Modern Tokyo Times

If individuals want to see the dead end path of radical Takfiri Islam then look no further than the mantra of hatred and discord in Gaza because this estranged reality says everything about the international reality of this brand of Islam. Takfiri Islamism cares little about issues related to national identity therefore killing fellow nationals is part of the course alongside destroying respective civilizations. This reality means that nations like America, France, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom, can pull the strings by manipulating various agendas. The upshot of this is that “international jihadists” can be manipulated in the short term while “internal jihadists” become a fifth column and this can be seen in Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Pakistan and Syria.

In Egypt and Syria both internal militant Islamists view killing fellow Egyptians and Syrians with glee because in their schizophrenic world view they are serving Takfiri and Muslim Brotherhood indoctrination. It would have been unthinkable in the past that Palestinians would desire jihad against Egypt and Syria rather than being focused on the Palestinian issue. However, the petrodollars of the Gulf and the spread of militant Salafi ideology have altered the religious and political landscape.

Of course, militant Islamists in Gaza are not powerful enough to change events on the ground in either Egypt or Syria. Despite this, it is clear that Islamists in Gaza can cause mayhem in the Sinai region and in Syria based on supplying arms and partaking in terrorism. Similarly, if Islamists don’t abide by the tune then new pied pipers will emerge in order to sow the seeds of more division. Alas, in modern day Syria various Takfiri Islamist terrorist groups in 2014 are now butchering each other and this reality is replicated in Afghanistan and in other nations where this virus is let loose.

Gulf petrodollars are sowing the seeds of crushing indigenous Sunni Islam, creating destabilization, spreading sectarianism, empowering terrorism and targeting non-Muslim minorities. America, France, Israel, Turkey and the United Kingdom are “riding this Islamist ticket” in order to destabilize nations they want to crush. Of course, Afghanistan was the springboard in the 1980s and early 1990s but the evolution and spread of Salafism is much more potent in the modern world.

In Libya the power of NATO was needed in order to bomb from the skies and of course covert operatives were involved on the ground whereby they were allies of various militias and al-Qaeda affiliated groups. Similarly, in Syria it is clear that al-Qaeda affiliates, various terrorist groups and Salafi ideologues are working hand-in-hand with Gulf and NATO powers. Therefore, in Libya and Syria it is mainly fellow Arabs alongside international jihadists who are doing the bidding of America, France, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Kingdom.

Colonel Gaddafi in Libya never envisaged that fellow Libyans would openly work hand-in-hand with NATO forces and that international jihadists would deem him to be an apostate. Yet, Libya was crushed based on the manipulation of internal discontent which was manipulated by outside nations, the role of NATO and Gulf powers – and the third trinity, the role of international jihadists and Salafi preachers which incite hatred. Syria is witnessing the same trinity despite events on the ground being very different based on the persistence of the armed forces of Syria and because of other important factors.

It is interesting to note that while mayhem and chaos abounds in many nations because of the so-called “Arab Spring,” which really should be named the “Western and Gulf ticket;” the nations of Israel and Saudi Arabia have emerged unscathed. Also, while international jihadists and internal militants in Syria are busy fighting and killing in the name of Allah; it is apparent that they aren’t concerned about Israel in the south and NATO Turkey in the north. Indeed, on several occasions Israel bombed Syria and this mustered no real mass demonstrations nor created political convulsions within the Middle East. Likewise, it is noticeable that al-Qaeda affiliate groups are notably strong in northern Syria whereby they can utilize the terrain of NATO Turkey and the supply lines for military arms.

In a video speech which was played to militants in Gaza the Islamist Sheikh Ahmad Oweida is inciting hatred towards Syria. He reportedly states “the time is for blood and destruction. The time is for invasions. The time is for battles.” Other comments in the video and during the demonstration in Gaza are aimed at Egypt and Syria. Suddenly, the role of NATO and Israel appears a very distant second and clearly for power brokers in the Gulf and West then this is a remarkable achievement. After all, it implies that militant Islam can be used like “a Trojan horse” in order to cause internal destabilization. Therefore, when the times are right international jihadists can do the bidding of Gulf and Western powers.

Oweida stated about Egypt that the “spear of Islam in the chest of despicable secularism….You are our hope that Shariah returns to what it was before.”

The Investigative Project on Terrorism reports that “Posters on jihadist bulletin boards have suggested that now was the time for jihadists to go to Egypt to exact revenge against the Egyptian military.”

“It is no longer possible to turn a blind eye to the obvious fact that they [secularists and the idolatrous disbelievers] are hostile to Islam and they wage war against it and they hate it,” Abdullah Muhammad Mahmoud of the jihadi group Dawa’at al-Haq Foundation for Studies and Research wrote in a jihad forum, the Long War Journal reported. “If jihad isn’t declared today to defend the religion, then when will it be declared?!” He continued: “Will Muslims wait until they are prevented from praying in mosques?! Will they wait until the beard becomes a charge that is punishable by imprisonment?! Will they wait until their sons enter prisons in the tens of thousands to be tortured and spend tens of years of their lives in their depths?!”

“O Muslims of Egypt, if you don’t do jihad today, then only blame yourselves tomorrow.”

Egypt is much more complex because while Gulf and Western powers are all anti-Syrian government the same doesn’t apply to this nation. Therefore, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations (apart from Qatar which is pro-Muslim Brotherhood and terrorism) are supporting Egypt financially and in other ways because they fear losing their internal powerbases. Indeed, Saudi Arabia even turned against the pro-Muslim Brotherhood agenda of the Obama administration which resulted in a rare clash between Riyadh and Washington. However, the issue of spreading Salafism is a real problem for Egypt and other nations like Tunisia. Therefore, Gulf petrodollars need to cease when it comes to spreading Islamist ideology. In other words,  indigenous Muslim clerics need to tend to spiritual matters. Issues related to the Muslim Brotherhood also need to be resolved because this Islamist movement desires to enforce its ideology on all the people of Egypt.

Al Ahram Weekly reported during a pivotal period last year that: “Mohamed Gomaa, a specialist on Palestinian affairs at Al-Ahram Centre for Political and Strategic Studies, says that while the “organic relationship” between Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood has long been common knowledge, Hamas is taking a risk by parading those ties in Al-Qassam Brigades’ marches through Gaza. There are, Gomaa says, differences within Hamas over how to respond to developments in Egypt. Some within the movement urge restraint and the avoidance of any rhetoric that might be viewed as provocative by the Egyptian army. The appearance of Al-Qassam convoy, he argues, suggests that such voices are losing out to the zealously pro-Muslim Brotherhood contingent.”

“The Hamas government viewed Sinai as its backyard,” says Gomaa, “a safe corridor for arms and other strategic needs. This is why the movement supported strikes against Egypt’s security forces in Sinai. It explains why so many Palestinian elements were discovered to have taken part in operations against the army.”

The Syrian government meanwhile is currently fighting for its survival because of the unholy trinity being used against this nation. Likewise, Egypt faces internal political convulsions and a terrorist threat within the Sinai region and in other parts of the country.

Libya succumbed to the trinity and clearly Syria faces the same combination of forces despite the internal situations being very different. After all, Libya was just “abandoned to the wolves” but several powerful nations have stood by Syria despite their support being insufficient compared to what the enemies of Syria are doing. In other words,  if powerful Gulf and Western powers collectively decide on destabilization then clearly nations in North Africa and the Middle East are very vulnerable. The one saving grace for Egypt is that most Gulf nations oppose the administration of Obama when it comes to this nation. However, Syria is not so lucky because this nation faces outside manipulation and a brutal trinity which refuses to let go.

Gaza Islamists openly celebrate killing Syrians and inciting hatred towards this secular nation. At no point do they show the same willingness to die against Israel or against NATO Turkey. Likewise, Palestinian Takfiri jihadists are involved in spreading terrorism and mayhem in the Sinai region and more recently the Shia in Lebanon are being targeted by the same forces that have abandoned the Palestinian cause. Therefore, Islamist Salafi schizophrenia is a great tool for America, France, Israel, Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom in the short-term providing the above nations all share the same vision.

Islamists are now whipping up hatred in Gaza aimed mainly at Syria but also against Egypt. The Long War Journal reported last year: “the marketplace of jihad opened in Syria, the youth of Islam rose from every direction to fight” against the Assad regime. The narrator similarly boasted that “convoys of mujahideen” from Gaza have gone to Syria to fight and that some have died while there.”

In other words, militant Islam is a convenient tool to be manipulated by outside forces which desire to alter the political and military landscape. Of course, if Afghanistan and Libya are viewed in the long-term – just like the destabilization of Iraq and the self-destructive policies of Pakistan – then the long term is very different unless you support failed states, terrorism, sectarianism, putting women in the shadows and crushing religious and cultural diversity.

Gaza Islamists are only one piece in a very complex jigsaw. However, if they can forsake their homeland while killing fellow Muslims and Arabs – alongside persecuting religious minorities and becoming embroiled in anti-Shia policies in Syria; then this highlights the new force being backed within Gulf and Western circles. Indeed, outside nations don’t need boots on the ground like in Afghanistan and Iraq. Instead, the trinity can do everything from a distance and if extra support is needed then powerful ratlines will be increased alongside more Salafi indoctrination.

http://www.investigativeproject.org/4126/egypt-warns-hamas-over-jihadi-threats

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/3904/17/Sinai—no-longer-a-proxy-battle.aspx

www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2013/09/salafi_jihadists_hol.php#ixzz2eMcmf0z9　

[e-mail]

http://moderntokyotimes.com

La route des Varègues aux Grecs

La route des Varègues aux Grecs : à l’origine du tropisme russe pour les mers chaudes

by Yannick Harrel

Ex: http://www.alliancegeostrategique.org

En l’an 862, et sur les berges de l’Ilmen, Rurik vient de gagner un territoire qu’il pressentait sans limites, et dont Holmgard, l’inexpugnable forteresse le toisant derrière le rideau brumeux, serait le premier jalon. C’est ainsi que débute vraiment la longue route vers le sud, dite des varègues aux grecs, d’une longueur totale de près de 1700 kilomètres des rives de la Baltique jusqu’à l’embouchure du Dniepr.

C’est à partir de Novgorod, implantation varègue à proximité d’un village slave que l’axe nord-sud va prendre progressivement tout son sens. Car ce choix relevait de tout sauf du hasard puisque la forteresse permettait un déploiement, un contrôle et un ravitaillement se situant au tout début de cette fameuse route (trajet en violet sur la carte). Un axe commercial nord-sud à la fois fluvial et terrestre particulièrement lucratif pour ce peuple de marchands qu’étaient ces scandinaves venus de l’actuelle Suède et dont les qualités guerrières étaient appréciées à leur juste valeur jusqu’à la cour de l’Empereur Byzantin : ce dernier fut souvent fort ravi de disposer de sa garde varangienne, une unité de choc et d’élite qu’eurent à craindre les adversaires de l’Empire romain d’Orient pendant près de deux cents ans jusqu’à leur dissolution par les nouveaux maîtres croisés de Constantinople en 1204. Pour en revenir à cet axe, ce cheminement et la sécurisation de cette voie fut aussi à l’origine de la prise de Kiev par Oleg, fils de Rurik en 882.

À ce titre, cette progression vers le sud ne se fit pas sans difficultés. Cette expansion territoriale ne pouvait que tôt ou tard heurter les intérêts de peuples disposant de structures déjà bien établies tels l’Empire byzantin ou encore l’Empire khazar, bordant la Mer Noire et bénéficiant d’un rayonnement civilisationnel très étendu. Enfin et tout naturellement, des complications logistiques inhérentes à la topologie du terrain puisqu’un coup d’oeil attentif au tracé fait clairement surgir l’absence de voie d’eau directe entre le Nord et le Sud. La réponse est simple : lorsqu’il n’était plus possible de remonter le cours d’eau, les hardis guerriers-commerçants transportèrent leurs navires jusqu’à un autre afin de poursuivre leur chemin.

De la sorte, ils arrivèrent à proximité de la zone d’influence byzantine, et plus particulièrement des avant-postes de Kherson et Theodosia, villes grecques de Crimée. Pour mieux en découdre… Singularité de ces affrontements avec les héritiers de l’Empire romain qui mèneront les rus’ jusqu’aux portes de Constantinople : les combats se solderont très souvent par des traités… commerciaux [1]. Le premier affrontement entre les deux puissances semblerait avoir eu lieu extrêmement tôt : en 860. Laquelle « rencontre » semble avoir été un raid rondement mené avec butins et prisonniers pendant que la majeure partie des forces de la capitale guerroyait en Asie mineure.

Pour leur part, les khazars, peuple semi-nomade turcophone de religion juive, s’opposèrent avec moins de succès à la poussée des rus’. Les richesses de leurs cités ne manquaient pas d’attiser l’intérêt des souverains du nord. Jusqu’à Sviatoslav qui harassa cet Empire qui s’étendait de la Mer Noire à la Mer Caspienne jusqu’à prendre Sarkel en 965 puis Ittil en 968, clôturant de fait l’existence indépendante d’un gigantesque territoire.
La victoire et l’emprise sur la Mer Noire n’étaient pourtant pas acquises : la fortune de la guerre en décidèrent autrement. Les conflits envers les pétchénègues et les byzantins les siècles suivants aboutirent à ce que le territoire ne fut jamais sérieusement considéré comme terre Rus’ permanente même si les revendications perduraient.

Une situation fragile qui perdura jusqu’à l’arrivée de la Horde tataro-mongole qui disloqua la Rus’ de Kiev (assauts de 1223 puis de 1237) et l’assujettit à son joug pendant près de trois cents années. Tout ce qui avait été âprement disputé pendant des siècles appartenait désormais au grand Khan. Et même si la Moscovie prit le relais de la Rus’ de Kiev à partir du XVème siècle, elle vit se dresser devant ses ambitions de reconquête les puissants descendants de cette invasion regroupés autour du Khanat de Crimée sans réussir à reprendre pied sur les bords de cette mer intérieure. Furent décisives l’ouverture vers le monde extérieur (et les technologies utiles) et la pugnacité de plusieurs souverains russes pour revenir enfin sur ces berges.

Pour ce faire, tant Pierre le Grand qu’Anne Ière et pour finir Catherine II emploieront au XVIIIème siècle l’ensemble des moyens humains, financiers et militaires à leur disposition pour reprendre pied sur les bords de la Mer Noire, avec des fortunes diverses mais toujours selon la même abnégation. Ils n’ont fait en cela que reprendre une marche inexorable des russes vers le sud commencée des siècles auparavant.

Et cet attrait peut encore se comprendre dans les années 2010 même s’il est désormais plus militaire que commercial. Ainsi le point d’appui naval de Tartous en Syrie (en cours de modernisation) ne manqua pas de peser sur la décision ferme du Kremlin d’empêcher toute intervention occidentale dans le pays en proie à la guerre civile. Cet exemple appuie davantage le fait que de disposer d’une flotte opérationnelle en Méditerranée demeure un objectif stratégique pour les autorités. Et si la Russie entend aussi peser sur les décisions qui se jouent dans la zone Pacifique, la Mer Noire comme tremplin vers la Méditerranée reste à la fois un symbole fort de l’imaginaire russe mais aussi une nécessité pour prendre part aux décisions géopolitiques en Europe et au Proche Orient. Quant à la Crimée, tout observateur se penchant sur une carte acquiescera au fait que celle-ci est le promontoire idéal des ambitions russes dans la région.

 

[1] Le dit de la campagne d’Igor, long poème épique exhumé à la fin du XVIIIème siècle relate notamment l’une de ces campagnes par le souverain de Kiev, Igor (1ère moitié du Xème siècle). Par la suite, et comprenant tout l’intérêt de bénéficier de telles lames, les Empereurs byzantins s’efforceront à s’entourer de mercenaires varègues jusqu’au tout début du XIIIème siècle : ces derniers devenant de plus en plus essentiels quant aux affaires étatiques non seulement en tant que troupe d’élite parfois même décisive sur le champ de bataille (bataille de Beroia en 1122) mais aussi comme garde personnelle. L’un des épisodes de la saga d’un Harald III Hardrada, mercenaire et roi de Norvège étant particulièrement éclairant quant à cet aspect de la vie byzantine.

Pour approfondir le sujet :

Arrignon Jean-Pierre, La Russie médiévale, Éditions Belles Lettres, 2003

Vodoff Vladimir (sous la dir.), Histoire des slaves orientaux – des origines à 1689, Éditions CNRS, 2001

A CounterPunch Special Report: Reflections on the Wages of “Immoderate Greatness"

The Ukraine Imbroglio and the Decline of the American Empire

by ARNO J. MAYER

 

Ex: http://www.counterpunch.org

When discussing the Ukraine-Crimea “crisis” it might be hygienic for Americans, including their political class, think-tank pundits, and talking heads, to recall two striking moments in “the dawn’s early light” of the U. S. Empire: in 1903, in the wake of the Spanish-American War, under President Theodore Roosevelt America seized control of the southern part of Guantanamo Bay by way of a Cuban-American Treaty which recognizes Cuba’s ultimate sovereignty over this base; a year after the Bolshevik Revolution, in 1918, President Woodrow Wilson dispatched 5,000 U. S. troops to Arkhangelsk in Northern Russia to participate in the Allied intervention in Russia’s Civil  War, which raised the curtain on the First Cold War.  Incidentally, in 1903 there was no Fidel Castro in Havana and in 1918 no Joseph Stalin in the Kremlin.

It might also be salutary to note that this standoff on Ukraine-Crimea is taking place in the unending afterglow of the Second Cold War and at a time when the sun is beginning to set on the American Empire as a new international system of multiple great powers emerges.

Of course, empires have ways of not only rising and thriving but of declining and expiring.  It is one of Edward Gibbon’s insightful and challenging questions about the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that is of particular relevance today.  Gibbon eventually concluded that while the causes for Rome’s decline and ruin were being successfully probed and explicated, there remained the great puzzle as to why “it had subsisted for so long.”  Indeed, the internal and external causes for this persistence are many and complex.  But one aspect deserves special attention: the reliance on violence and war to slow down and delay the inevitable.  In modern and contemporary times the European empires kept fighting not only among themselves, but also against the “new-caught, sullen peoples, half-devil and half-child,” once these dared to resist and eventually rise up against their imperial-colonial overlords.  After 1945 in India and Kenya; in Indochina and Algeria; in Iran and Suez; in Congo.  Needless to say, to this day the still-vigorous

U. S. empire and the fallen European empires lock arms in efforts to save what can be saved in the ex-colonial lands throughout the Greater Middle East, Africa, and Asia.

There is no denying that America’s uniquely informal empire, without settler colonies, expanded headlong across the globe during and following World War Two.  It did so thanks to having been spared the enormous and horrid loss of life, material devastation, and economic ruin which befell all the other major belligerents, Allied and Axis.  To boot, America’s mushrooming “military-industrial complex” overnight fired the Pax Americana’s momentarily unique martial, economic, and soft power.

By now the peculiar American Empire is past its apogee.  Its economic, fiscal, social, civic, and cultural sinews are seriously fraying.  At the same time the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) and Iran are claiming their place in the concert of world powers in which, for a good while, one and all will play by the rules of a new-model mercantilism in a globalizing soit-disant “free market” capitalist economy.

America’s splendid era of overseas “boots on the ground” and “regime change” is beginning to draw to a close.  Even in the hegemonic sphere decreed by the Monroe Doctrine there is a world of difference between yesteryear’s and today’s interventions.  In the not so distant good old times the U. S. horned in rather nakedly in Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1962), Dominican Republic (1965), Chile (1973), Nicaragua (1980s), Grenada (1983), Bolivia (1986), Panama (1989), and Haiti (2004), almost invariably without enthroning and empowering more democratic and socially progressive “regimes.”  Presently Washington may be said to tread with considerably greater caution as it uses a panoply of crypto NGO-type agencies and agents in Venezuela.  It does so because in every domain, except the military, the empire is not only vastly overextended but also because over the last few years left-leaning governments/“regimes” have emerged in five Latin American nations which most likely will become every less economically and diplomatically dependent on and fearful of the U. S.

Though largely subliminal, the greater the sense and fear of imperial decay and decline, the greater the national hubris and arrogance of power which cuts across party lines.  To be sure, the tone and vocabulary in which neo-conservatives and right-of-center conservatives keep trumpeting America’s self-styled historically unique exceptionalism, grandeur, and indispensability is shriller than that of left-of-center “liberals” who, in the fray, tend to be afraid of their own shadow.  Actually, Winston Churchill’s position and rhetoric is emblematic of conservatives and their fellow travelers in the epoch of the West’s imperial decline which overlapped with the rise and fall of the Soviet Union and Communism.  Churchill was a fiery anti-Soviet and anti-Communist of the very first hour and became a discreet admirer of Mussolini and Franco before, in 1942, proclaiming loud and clear: “I have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.”  By then Churchill had also long since become the chief crier of the ideologically fired “appeasement” mantra which was of one piece with his landmark “Iron Curtain” speech of March 1946.  Needless to say, never a word about London and Paris, in the run-up to Munich, having willfully ignored or refused Moscow’s offer to collaborate on the Czech (Sudeten) issue.  Nor did Churchill and his aficionados ever concede that the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact (Nazi-Soviet Pact) of August 1939 was sealed a year after the Munich Pact, and that both were equally infamous ideologically informed geopolitical and military chess moves.

To be sure, Stalin was an unspeakably cruel tyrant.  But it was Hitler’s Nazi Germany that invaded and laid waste Soviet Russia through the corridor of Central and Eastern Europe, and it was the Red Army, not the armies of the Western allies, which at horrendous cost broke the spinal cord of the Wehrmacht.  If the major nations of the European Union today hesitate to impose full-press economic sanctions on Moscow for its defiance on Crimea and Ukraine it is not only because of their likely disproportionate boomerang effect on them.  The Western Powers, in particular Germany, have a Continental rather than Transatlantic recollection and narrative of Europe’s Second Thirty Years Crisis and War followed by the American-driven and –financed unrelenting Cold War against the “evil empire”—practically to this day.

During the reign of Nikita Khrushchev and Mikhail Gorbachev NATO, founded in 1949 and essentially led and financed by the U. S., inexorably pushed right up to or against Russia’s borders.  This became most barefaced following 1989 to 1991, when Gorbachev freed the “captive nations” and signed on to the reunification of Germany.  Between 1999 and 2009 all the liberated Eastern European countries—former Warsaw Pact members—bordering on Russia as well as three former Soviet republics were integrated into NATO, to eventually account for easily one-third of the 28 member nations of this North Atlantic military alliance.  Alone Finland opted for a disarmed neutrality within first the Soviet and then post-Soviet Russian sphere.  Almost overnight Finland was traduced not only for “appeasing” its neighboring nuclear superpower but also for being a dangerous role model for the rest of Europe and the then so-called Third World.  Indeed, during the perpetual Cold War, in most of the “free world” the term and concept “Finlandization” became a cuss word well-nigh on a par with Communism, all the more so because it was embraced by those critics of the Cold War zealots who advocated a “third way” or “non-alignment.”  All along, NATO, to wit Washington, intensely eyed both Georgia and Ukraine.

By March 2, 2014, the U. S. Department of State released a “statement on the situation in Ukraine by the North Atlantic Council” in which it declared that “Ukraine is a valued partner for NATO and a founding member of the Partnership for Peace . . . [and that] NATO Allies will continue to support Ukrainian sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity, and the right of the Ukrainian people to determine their own future, without outside interference.”  The State Department also stressed that “in addition to its traditional defense of Allied nations, NATO leads the UN-mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan and has ongoing missions in the Balkans and the Mediterranean; it also conducts extensive training exercises and offers security support to partners around the globe, including the European Union in particular but also the United Nations and the African Union.”

Within a matter of days following Putin’s monitory move NATO, notably President Obama, countered in kind: a guided-missile destroyer crossed the Bosphoros into the Black Sea for naval exercises with the Romanian and Bulgarian navies; additional F-15 fighter jets were dispatched to reinforce NATO patrol missions being flown over the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; and a squadron of F-16 fighter bombers and a fulsome company of “boots on the ground” was hastened to Poland.   Of course, theses deployments and reinforcements ostensibly were ordered at the urging of these NATO allies along Russia’s borders, all of whose “regimes” between the wars, and especially during the 1930s, had not exactly been paragons of democracy and because of their Russo-cum-anti-Communist phobia had moved closer to Nazi Germany.  And once Hitler’s legions crashed into Russia through the borderlands not insignificant sectors of their political and civil societies were not exactly innocent by-standers or collaborators in Operation Barbarossa and the Judeocide.

To be sure, Secretary of State John Kerry, the Obama administration’s chief finger wagger, merely denounced Putin’s deployment in and around Ukraine-Crimea as an “act of aggression that is completely trumped up in terms of pretext.”  For good measure he added, however, that “you just do not invade another country,” and he did so at a time there was nothing illegal about Putin’s move.  But Hillary Clinton, Kerry’s predecessor, and most likely repeat candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Presidency, rather than outright demonize Putin as an unreconstructed KGB operative or a mini-Stalin went straight for the kill: “Now if this sounds familiar. . . it is like Hitler did back in the ‘30s.”  Presently, as if to defang criticism of her verbal thrust, Clinton averred that “I just want people to have a little historic perspective,” so that they should learn from the Nazis’ tactics in the run-up to World War II.

As for Republican Senator John McCain, defeated by Barack Obama for the Presidency in 2008, he was on the same wavelength, in that he charged that his erstwhile rival’s “feckless” foreign policy practically invited Putin’s aggressive move, with the unspoken implication that President Obama was a latter-day Neville Chamberlain, the avatar of appeasement.

But ultimately it was Republican Senator Lindsey Graham who said out loud what was being whispered in so many corridors of the foreign policy establishment and on so many editorial boards of the mainline media.  He advocated “creating a democratic noose around Putin’s Russia.”  To this end Graham called for preparing the ground to make Georgia and Moldova members of NATO.  Graham also advocated upgrading the military capability of the most “threatened” NATO members along Russia’s borders, along with an expansion of radar and missile defense systems.  In short, he would “fly the NATO flag as strongly as I could around Putin”—in keeping with NATO’s policy since
1990.  Assuming different roles, while Senator Graham kept up the hawkish drumbeat on the Hill and in the media Senator McCain hastened to Kiev to affirm the “other” America’s resolve, competence, and muscle as over the fecklessness of President Obama and his foreign-policy team.  He went to Ukraine’s capital a first time in December, and the second time, in mid-March 2014, as head of a bipartisan delegation of eight like-minded Senators.

On Kiev’s Maidan Square, or Independence Square, McCain not only mingled with and addressed the crowd of ardent anti-Russian nationalists, not a few of them neo-fascists, but also consorted with Victoria Nuland, U. S. Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs.  Too much has been made of her revealing or unfortunate “fuck the EU” expletive in her tapped phone conversation with the local U. S. Ambassador Geoffrey Ryatt and her distribution of sweets on Maidan Square.   What really matters is that Nuland is a consummate insider of Washington’s imperial foreign policy establishment in that she served in the Clinton and Bush administrations before coming on board the Obama administration, having close relations with Hillary Clinton.

Besides, she is married to Robert Kagan, a wizard of geopolitics who though generally viewed as a sworn neo-conservative is every bit as much at home as his spouse among mainline Republicans and Democrats.  He was a foreign-policy advisor to John McCain and Mitt Romney during their presidential runs, respectively in 2008 and 2012, before President Obama let on that he embraced some of the main arguments in The World America Made (2012), Kagan’s latest book.  In it he spells out ways to preserve the empire by way of controlling with some twelve naval task forces built around unsurpassable nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, its expanding Mare Nostrum in the South China Sea and Indian Ocean.

As a disciple of Alfred Thayer Mahan, quite naturally Kagan earned his spurs and his entrée to the inner circles of the makers and shakers of foreign and military policy by spending years at the Carnegie Endowment and Brookings Institution.   That was before, in 1997, he became a co-founder, with William Kristol, of the neo-conservative Project for the New American Century, committed to the promotion of America’s “global leadership” in pursuit of its national security and interests.  A few years later, after this think tank expired, Kagan and Kristol began to play a leading role in the Foreign Policy Initiative, its lineal ideological descendant.

But the point is not that Victoria Nuland’s demarche in Maidan Square may have been unduly influenced by her husband’s writings and political engagements.  Indeed, on the Ukrainian question, she is more likely to have been attentive to Zbigniew Brzezinski, another highly visible geopolitician who, however, has been swimming exclusively in Democratic waters ever since 1960, when he advised John F. Kennedy during his presidential campaign and then became national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter.  Heavily fixed on Eurasia, Brzezinski is more likely to stand on Clausewitz’s rather than Mahan’s shoulders.  But both Kagan and Brzezinski are red-blooded imperial Americans.  In 1997, in his The Great Chessboard Brzezinski argued that “the struggle for global primacy [would] continue to be played” on the Eurasian “chessboard,” and that as a “new and important space on [this] chessboard . . . Ukraine was a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia.”  Indeed, “if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its [then] 52 million people and major resources, as well as access to the Black Sea,” Russia would “automatically again regain the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”  The unwritten script of Brzezinski, one of Obama’s foreign policy advisors: intensify the West’s—America’s—efforts, by means fair and foul, to detach Ukraine from the Russian sphere of influence, including especially the Black Sea Peninsula with its access to the Eastern Mediterranean via the Aegean Sea.

Presently rather than focus on the geopolitical springs and objectives of Russia’s “aggression” against Ukraine-Crimea Brzezinski turned the spotlight on the nefarious intentions and methods of Putin’s move on the Great Chessboard.  To permit Putin to have his way in Ukraine-Crimea would be “similar to the two phases of Hitler’s seizure of Sudetenland after Munich in 1938 and the final occupation of Prague and Czechoslovakia in early 1938.”  Incontrovertibly “much depends on how clearly the West conveys to the dictator in the Kremlin—a partially comical imitation of Mussolini and a more menacing reminder of Hitler—that NATO cannot be passive if war erupts in Europe.”  For should Ukraine be “crushed with the West simply watching the new freedom and security of Romania, Poland, and the three Baltic republics would also be threatened.”  Having resuscitated the domino theory, Brzezinski urged the West to “promptly recognize the current government of Ukraine legitimate” and assure it “privately . . . that the Ukrainian army can count on immediate and direct Western aid so as to enhance its defense capabilities.”  At the same time “NATO forces . . . should be put on alert [and] high readiness for some immediate airlift to Europe of U. S. airborne units would be politically and militarily meaningful.”  And as an afterthought Brzezinski suggested that along with “such efforts to avoid miscalculations that could lead to war” the West should reaffirm its “desire for a peaceful accommodation . . . [and] reassure Russia that it is not seeking to draw Ukraine into NATO or turn it against Russia.”  Indeed, mirabile dictu, Brzezinski, like Henry Kissinger, his fellow geopolitician with a cold-war imperial mindset, adumbrated a form of Finlandization of Ukraine—but, needless to say, not of the other eastern border states—without, however, letting on that actually Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, had recently made some such proposal.

Of course, the likes of Kagan, Brzezinski, and Kissinger keep mum about America’s inimitable hand in the “regime change” in Kiev which resulted in a government in which the ultra-nationalists and neo-fascists, who had been in the front lines on Maidan Square, are well represented.

Since critics of America’s subversive interventions tend to be dismissed as knee-jerk left-liberals wired to exaggerate their dark anti-democratic side it might help to listen to a voice which on this issue can hardly be suspect.  Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and renowned inquisitor of anti-Semitism, concedes that “there is no doubt that Ukraine, like Croatia, was one of those places where local militias played a key role in the murder of thousands of Jews during World War II.”  And anti-Semitism “having by no means disappeared from Ukraine . . . in recent months there have been a number of anti-Semitic incidents and there are at least two parties in Ukraine, Svoboda and Right Sector, that have within them some extreme nationalists and anti-Semites.”

But having said that, Foxman insists that it is “pure demagoguery and an effort to rationalize criminal behavior on the part of Russia to invoke the anti-Semitism ogre into the struggle in Ukraine, . . . for it is fair to say that there was more anti-Semitism manifest in the worldwide Occupy Wall Street movement than we have seen so far in the revolution taking place in Ukraine.”  To be sure, Putin “plays the anti-Semitism card” much as he plays that of Moscow rushing to “protect ethnic Russians from alleged extremist Ukrainians.”  Even at that, however, “it is, of course, reprehensible to suggest that Putin’s policies in Ukraine are anything akin to Nazi policies during World War II.”  But then Foxman hastens to stress that it “is not absurd to evoke Hitler’s lie” about the plight of the Sudeten Germans as comparable to “exactly” what “Putin is saying and doing in Crimea” and therefore needs to be “condemned . . . as forcefully . . . as the world should have condemned the German move into the Sudetenland.”

Abraham Foxman’s tortured stance is consonant with that of American and Israeli hardliners who mean to contain and roll back a resurgent great-power Russia, as much in Syria and Iran as in its “near abroad” in Europe and Asia.

As if listening to Brzezinski and McCain, Washington is building up its forces in the Baltic states, especially Poland, with a view to give additional bite to sanctions.  But this old-style intervention will cut little ice unless fully concerted, militarily and economically, with NATO’s weighty members, which seems unlikely.  Of course, America has drones and weapons of mass destruction—but so does Russia.

In any case, for unreconstructed imperials, and for AIPAC, the crux of the matter is not Russia’s European “near abroad” but its reemergence in the Greater Middle East, presently in Syria and Iran, and this at a time when, according to Kagan, the Persian Gulf was paling in strategic and economic importance compared to the Asia-Pacific region where China is an awakening sleeping giant that even now is the globe’s second largest economy—over half the size of the U. S. economy—and the unreal third largest holder of America’s public debt—by far the largest foreign holder of U. S. Treasury bonds.

In sum, the unregenerate U. S. empire means to actively contain both Russia and China in the true-and-tried modus operandi, starting along and over Russia’s European “near abroad” and the South China Sea and Taiwan Strait connecting the South China Sea to the East China Sea.

Because of ever growing budgetary constraints Washington has long since complained about its major NATO partners dragging their financial and military feet.  This fiscal squeeze will intensify exponentially with the pivoting to the Pacific which demands steeply rising “defense” expenditures unlikely to be shared by a NATO-like Asia-Pacific alliance.  Although most likely there will be a cutback in bases in the Atlantic world, Europe, and the Middle East, with the geographic realignment of America’s global basing the money thus saved will be spent many times over on the reinforcement and expansion of an unrivaled fleet of a dozen task forces built around nuclear-powered aircraft carriers.   After all, the Pacific and Indian oceans combined being easily more than twice the size of the Atlantic and though, according to Kagan, China is not quite yet an “existential threat” it is “developing one or two aircraft carriers, . . . anti-ship ballistic missiles . . . and submarines.”  Even now there are some flashpoints comparable to Crimea, Baltic, Syria, and Iran: the dustup between Japan and China over control of the sea lanes and the air space over the potentially oil-rich South China Sea; and the Sino-Japanese face-off over the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea.  Whereas it is all but normal for Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea to have tensions, even conflictual relations, with China and North Korea, it is something radically different for the United States to NATOize them in the pursuit of its own imperial interest in the furthest reaches of its now contested Mare Nostrum.

The Pacific-Asian pivot will, of course, further overstretch the empire in a time of spiraling fiscal and budgetary constraints which reflect America’s smoldering systemic economic straits and social crisis, generative of growing political dysfunction and dissension.  To be sure, rare and powerless are those in political and academic society who question the GLORIA PRO NATIONE: America the greatest, exceptional, necessary, and do-good nation determined to maintain the world’s strongest and up-to-date military and cyber power.

And therein lies the rub.  The U.S.A. accounts for close to 40% of the world’s military expenditures, compared to some 10% by China and 5.5% by Russia.  The Aerospace and Defense Industry contributes close to 3% oi GDP and is the single largest positive contributor to the nation’s balance of trade.  America’s three largest arms companies—Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing—are the world’s largest, employing some 400,000 hands, and all but corner the world’s market in their “products.”  Of late defense contracting firms have grown by leaps and bounds in a nation-empire increasingly loathe to deploy conventional boots on the ground.  These corporate contractors provide an ever greater ratio of contract support field personnel, many of them armed, over regular army personnel.  Eventually, in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom private contract and regular military personnel were practically on a par.

This hasty evocation of the tip of America’s military iceberg is but a reminder of President Dwight Eisenhower’s forewarning, in 1961, of an “immense military establishment” in lockstep with “a large arms industry. . . [acquiring] unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,” injurious to democracy.  At the time Ike could hardly have imagined the gargantuan growth and political weight of this military-industrial complex or the emergence, within it, of a corporate-contract mercenary army.

The formidable oligarchy of arms makers and merchants at the heart of the military-industrial complex fields a vast army of lobbyists in Washington.  In recent years the arms lobby, writ large, spent countless millions during successive election cycles, its contributions being all but equally divided between Democrats and Republicans.  And this redoubtable octopus-like “third house” is not about to sign on to substantial cuts in military spending, all the less so since it moves in sync with other hefty defense-related lobbies, such as oil, which is not likely to support the down-sizing of America’s navy which, incidentally, is far and away the largest plying, nay patrolling, the world’s oceans—trade routes.

There is, of course, a considerable work force, including white-collar employees, that earns its daily bread in the bloated “defense” sector.  It does so in an economy whose industrial/manufacturing sectors are shrinking, considerably because of outsourcing, most of it overseas.   This twisted or peculiar federal budget and free-market economy not only spawn unemployment and underemployment but breed growing popular doubt about the material and psychic benefits of empire.

In 1967, when Martin Luther King, Jr., broke his silence on the war in Vietnam, he spoke directly to the interpenetration of domestic and foreign policy in that conflict.  He considered this war an imperialist intervention in far-distant Southeast Asia at the expense of the “Great Society” which President Johnson, who escalated this war, proposed to foster at home.  After lamenting the terrible sacrifice of life on both sides, King predicated that “a nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.” He even intimated that “there is nothing except a tragic death wish to prevent . . . the richest and most powerful nation in the world . . . from reordering our priorities, so that the pursuit of peace will take precedence over the pursuit of war.”

Almost 50 years later President Obama and his staff, as well as nearly all Democratic and Republican Senators and Representatives, policy wonks and pundits, remain confirmed and unquestioning imperials.  Should any of them read Gibbon they would pay no mind to his hunch that “the decline of Rome was the natural and inevitable effect of immoderate greatness” which by blowback corroded the polity, society, and culture that carried it.  Of course today, with no barbarians at the gates, there is no need for legions of ground forces so that the bankrupting “defense” budget is for a military of airplanes, ships, missiles, drones, cyber-weapons, and weapons of mass destruction.  Si vis pacem para bellum—against whom and for which objectives?

In the midst of the Ukraine “crisis” President Obama flew to The Hague for the third meeting of the Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) chartered in 2010 to prevent nuclear terrorism around the world.  The NSS was Obama’s idea and project, spelled out in an official statement issued by the White House Press Secretary on the eve of its founding meeting in April 2010 in Washington.  This statement stressed that “over 2,000 tons of plutonium and highly enriched uranium exist in dozens of countries” and that there have been “18 documented cases of theft or loss of highly enriched uranium or plutonium.”  But above all :”we know that al-Qaeda, and possibly other terrorist or criminal groups, are seeking nuclear weapons—as well as the materials and expertise needed to make them.”  But the U. S., not being “the only country that would suffer from nuclear terrorism” and unable to “prevent it on its own,” the NSS means to “highlight the global threat” and take the urgently necessary preventive measures.

Conceived and established in the aftermath of 9/11, by the latest count the NSS rallies 83 nations bent on collaborating to head off this scourge by reducing the amount of vulnerable nuclear material worldwide and tightening security of all nuclear materials and radioactive sources in their respective countries.  At The Hague, with a myriad of journalists covering the event, some 20 heads of state and government and some 5,000 delegates took stock of advances made thus far in this arduous mission and swore to press on.  But there was a last minute dissonance.  Sergey Lavrov, the Foreign Minister of Russia, and Yi Jinping, the President of China, along with 18 other chief delegates, refused to sign a declaration calling on member nations to admit inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to check on their measures to rein in the menace of nuclear terrorism.

Inevitably the standoff over Ukraine-Crimea dimmed, even overshadowed, the hoped-for éclat of the Nuclear Security Summit.  President Obama’s mind was centered on an ad hoc session of the G 8  in the Dutch capital; a visit to NATO Headquarters in Brussels; an audience with Pope Francis at the Vatican, in Rome; and a hastily improvised meeting with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia in Riyadh.  Except for his visit with the Holy Father, from which he may have hoped to draw a touch of grace and indulgence, in his other meetings the President reasserted and proclaimed that America was and meant to remain what Hubert Védrine, a former French Foreign Minister, called the world’s sole “hyperpower.”  The Ukraine-Crimea imbroglio merely gave this profession and affirmation a greater exigency.

It is ironical that the scheduled Nuclear Security Summit was the curtain-raiser for the President’s double-quick imperial round of improvised meetings in the dawn of what Paul Bracken, another embedded and experienced geopolitician, avers to be The Second Nuclear Age (2012), this one in a multipolar rather than bipolar world.  Actually Bracken merely masterfully theorized what had long since become the guiding idea and practice throughout the foreign policy-cum-military establishment.  Or, as Molière’s Monsieur Jourdain would put it, for many years the members of this establishment had been “speaking prose without even knowing it.”

The negotiated elimination or radical reduction of nuclear weapons is completely off the agenda.  It is dismissed as a quixotic ideal in a world of nine nuclear powers: U. S., Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea—and Israel.  It was on Obama’s watch that the U. S. and post-Soviet Russia agreed that neither would deploy more than roughly 1,500 warheads, down from many times that number.  But now, with Russia’s reemergence as a great power and China’s prodigious forced-draft renascence, in a multipolar world the U. S. seems bent on keeping a considerable nuclear superiority over both.  Whereas most likely Washington and Moscow are in the throes of “modernizing” their nuclear arsenals and delivery capabilities, in this sphere China is only beginning to play catch-up.

Standing tall on America’s as yet unsurpassed military and economic might, Obama managed to convince his partners in the G 8, the conspicuous but listless economic forum of the world’s leading economies, to suspend, not to say expel, Russia for Putin’s transgression in Ukraine-Crimea.  Most likely, however, they agreed to make this largely symbolic gesture so as to avoid signing on to ever-stiffer sanctions on Moscow.  With this American-orchestrated charade the remaining G 7 only further pointed up the prepossession of their exclusive club from which they cavalierly shut out the BRICS.

The decline of the American Empire, like that of all empires, promises to be at once gradual and relative.  As for the causes of this decline, they are inextricably internal / domestic and external / foreign. There is no separating the refractory budgetary deficit and its attendant swelling political and social dissension from the irreducible military budget necessary to face down rival empires.  Clearly, to borrow Chalmers Johnson’s inspired conceptually informed phrase, the “empire of bases,” with a network of well over 600 bases in probably over 100 countries, rather than fall overnight from omnipotence to impotence risks becoming increasingly erratic and intermittently violent in “defense” of the forever hallowed exceptional “nation.”

As yet there is no significant let-up in the pretension to remain first among would-be equals on the seas, in the air, in cyberspace, and in cyber-surveillance.  And the heft of the military muscle for this supererogation is provided by a thriving defense industry in an economy plagued by deep-rooted unemployment and a society racked by a crying income and wealth inequality, growing poverty, creeping socio-cultural anomie, and humongous systemic political corruption.  Notwithstanding the ravings of the imperial “Knownothings” these conditions will sap domestic support for an unreconstructed interventionist foreign and military policy.  They will also hollow out America’s soft power by corroding the aura of the democratic, salvific, and capitalist City on the Hill.

Whereas the Soviet Union and communism were the polymorphic arch-enemy during the First Nuclear Age terrorism and Islamism bid well to take its place during the Second Nuclear Age.  It would appear that the threat and use of nuclear weapons will be even less useful though hardly any less demonic today than yesterday.  Sub specie aeternitatis the cry of the terrorist attack on New York’s World Trade Center and Boston’s Marathon was a bagatelle compared to the fury of the nuclear bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.  It is, of course, commendable that so many nations now seek to prevent “nuclear terrorism” by way of the Nuclear Security Summit.  However, there being no fail-safe systems of access control this endeavor is bound to be stillborn without a simultaneously resolute drive to radically reduce or liquidate the world’s staggering stock of nuclear weapons and weapons-grade nuclear materials.  After all, the greater that stock the greater the opportunity and temptation for a terrorist, criminal, or whistle-blower to pass the Rubicon.

According to informed estimates presently there are well over 20,000 nuclear bombs on this planet, with America and Russia between them home to over 90% of them.  No less formidable are the vast global stockpiles of enriched uranium and plutonium.

In September 2009 Obama adjured the U. N. Security Council that “new strategies and new approaches” were needed to face a “proliferation” of an unprecedented “scope and complexity,” in that “just one nuclear weapon exploded in a city—be it New York or Moscow, Tokyo or Beijing, London or Paris—could kill hundreds of thousands of people.”  Hereafter it was not uncommon for Washington insiders to avow that they considered a domestic nuclear strike with an unthinkable dirty bomb a greater and more imminent security risk than a prosaic nuclear attack by Russia.  All this while the Nuclear Security Summit was treading water and the Pentagon continues to upgrade America’s nuclear arsenal and delivery capabilities—with chemical weapons as a backstop.  With the cutback of conventional military capabilities nuclear arms are not about to be mothballed.

Indeed, with this in mind the overreaction to Russia’s move in Ukraine-Crimea is disquieting.  From the start the Obama administration unconscionably exaggerated and demonized Moscow’s—Putin’s—objectives and methods while proclaiming Washington’s consummate innocence in the unfolding imbroglio.   Almost overnight, even before the overblown charge that Moscow was massing troops along Ukraine’s borders and more generally in Russia’s European “near abroad” NATO—i. e., Washington—began to ostentatiously send advanced military equipment to the Baltic counties and Poland.   By April 4, 2014, the foreign ministers of the 28 member nations of NATO met in Brussels with a view to strengthen the military muscle and cooperation not only in the aforementioned countries but also in Moldova, Romania, Armenia, and Azerbaijan.  In addition NATO air patrols would be stepped up while anti-missile batteries would be deployed in Poland and Romania.  Apparently the emergency NATO summit also considered large-scale joint military exercises and the establishment of NATO military bases close to Russia’s borders which, according to Le Figaro, France’s conservative daily, would be “a demonstration of force which the Allies had themselves foregone during the years following the collapse of the Soviet Union.”  Would tactical nuclear weapons and nuclear-capable aircraft—or nuclear-capable drones—be deployed on these bases?

To what end?  In preparation of a conventional war of the trenches, Guderian-type armored operations or a total war of Operation Barbarossa variety?   Of course, this being post Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there must be a backup or contingency plan for nuclear sword play, with both sides, should reciprocal deterrence fail, confident in their first and second strike capabilities.  Not only Washington but Moscow knows that in 1945 the ultimate reason for using the absolute weapon was transparently geopolitical rather than purely military.

With the weight of the unregenerate imperials in the White House, Pentagon, Congress, the “third house,” and the think tanks there is the risk that this U. S.- masterminded NATO “operation freedom in Russia’s European “near abroad” will spin out of control, also because the American Knownothings are bound to have their Russian counterparts.

In this game of chicken on the edge of the nuclear cliff the U. S. cannot claim the moral and legal high ground since it was President Truman and his inner circle of advisors who unleashed the scourge of nuclear warfare, and with time there was neither an official nor a popular gesture of atonement for this wanton and excessive military excess.  And this despite General Eisenhower’s eventual plaint that the “unleashing of the atomic infernos on mostly civilian populations was simply this: an act of supreme terrorism (emphasis added) . . . and of barbarity callously calculated by the U. S. planners to demonstrate their country’s demonic power to the rest of the world—and the Soviet Union in particular.”  Is there a filiation between this cri de coeur and the forewarning about the toxicity of the “military industrial complex” in President Eisenhower’s farewell address?
This is a time for a national debate and a citizen-initiated referendum on whether or not the U. S. should adopt unilateral nuclear disarmament.  It might be a salutary and exemplary exercise in participatory democracy.

Arno J. Mayer is emeritus professor of history at Princeton University. He is the author of The Furies: Violence and Terror in the French and Russian Revolutions and Plowshares Into Swords: From Zionism to Israel (Verso). 

VS drijft conflict verder op door Putins privévermogen te willen blokkeren

VS drijft conflict verder op door Putins privévermogen te willen blokkeren

 

Ex: http://xandernieuws.punt.nl

Amerikaans schaliegas voor Europa komende 10 jaar geen alternatief voor Russisch gas – Rusland en Oekraïne beschuldigen elkaar van breken bestand

Bij Slavyansk vond gisteren het eerste echte vuurgevecht plaats waarbij 2 tot 3 doden vielen. Rusland en Oekraïne geven elkaar de schuld.

Van de afgesproken de-escalatie van het conflict in en rond Oekraïne is nog altijd geen enkele sprake. Het Witte Huis van president Obama is niet alleen blijven dreigen met nieuwe sancties, maar wil volgens de Times of London nu ook het privévermogen van de Russische president Vladimir Putin, die zo’n $ 40 miljoen op Zwitserse bankrekeningen zou hebben staan, blokkeren. ‘Dit betekent oorlog,’ is de conclusie op Zero Hedge. (1)

 

Het Witte Huis heeft nog geen officiële reactie op het bericht in de Times gegeven, maar maakte opnieuw duidelijk dat Russische individuen, officials, leidinggevenden en oligarchen potentieel het doelwit van sancties kunnen worden.

 

Het Westen dreigt tevens met verdergaande economische sancties als Rusland geen stappen onderneemt om de spanningen te verminderen. Afgelopen week gebeurde juist het tegendeel; nadat de VS aankondigde militairen naar Polen te sturen, verklaarde het Kremlin dat het zijn troepenmacht aan de grenzen met Oekraïne verder heeft versterkt.

 

Weinig effect

 

Tot nu toe hebben de Amerikaanse en Europese dreigementen niet veel effect. Economische sancties zouden het Westen namelijk minstens zo zwaar treffen als Rusland zelf. Zo zullen de Russische gasleveranties via Oekraïne in gevaar komen, en vreest Bulgarije dat de South-Stream-Pipeline door de EU zal worden geblokkeerd. (2)

 

Amerikaanse schaliegas geen optie

 

President Obama kondigde onlangs aan om in het geval van een Russische gasblokkade Europa te compenseren met Amerikaans (schalie)gas, maar analisten hebben dat idee onmiddellijk weggewuifd. Voordat de VS überhaupt in staat is om grote hoeveelheden schaliegas naar Europa te exporteren, zullen er minstens 10 jaar zijn verstreken. Daarnaast worden steeds meer schaliegasprojecten opgegeven omdat ze onrendabel zijn. (3)

 

VS niet langer enige wereldleider

 

Enkele dagen geleden zei Putin tijdens een open Vraag&Antwoord debat op TV dat ‘de VS... op een bepaald moment de enige wereldleider in een unipolair systeem was. Dat lijkt nu niet het geval. Alles in de wereld is afhankelijk van elkaar, en zodra je iemand probeert te straffen, dan snij je uiteindelijk je eigen neus eraf om jezelf in je gezicht te spugen.’ (1)

 

Eerste vuurgevecht, Rusland en Oekraïne beschuldigen elkaar

 

Gisteren vonden bij Slovyansk de eerste vuurgevechten plaats sinds het uitbreken van het conflict in Oekraïne. Oekraïense militanten van de Rechtse Sector vielen een pro-Russische controlepost aan. Hierbij zouden twee tot drie mensen om het leven zijn gekomen. De Oekraïense geheime dienst beweerde echter dat de aanval in scene was gezet door ‘buitenlandse provocateurs’ die zouden bestaan uit ‘Russische special forces’. (4)

 

De pro-Russische militanten lijken niet van plan hun wapens te willen inleveren, zoals enkele dagen geleden was afgesproken. Rusland en Oekraïne geven elkaar de schuld van het breken van het bestand. (5)

 

Xander

 

(1) Zero Hedge
(2) Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten
(3) KOPP
(4) CTV News
(5) Reuters (via Infowars)

 

Cybergeopolitica

Por Leonid Savin*

 

Ex: http://elespiadigital.com

Desde nuestra red de alianzas con think-tanks acercamos el análisis del intelectual ruso Leonid Savin. Siguiendo el objetivo de acercar diferentes perspectivas desde diversas capitales del mundo, compartimos conceptos sobre la evolución de la geopolítica en la interpretación de Leonid Savin sobre “cybergeopolítica” y otro espacio para la disputa de intereses.

Este año se podría llamar un punto de inflexión para el surgimiento de una nueva tendencia que yo llamo cybergeopolítica. El impacto de las redes sociales es cada vez más palpable. La divulgación de Edward Snowden destacó la importancia y la instrumentalidad del cyberespacio para la seguridad nacional y los procesos de la política internacional.

Si la geopolítica ya tiene definiciones y aparatos científicos muy desarrollados, operados por los políticos, expertos y académicos, el cyberespacio ha sido la «terra incognita». Y para la posesión de este espacio, se despliega la lucha muy activa.

Es muy significativo la confrontación entre diferentes Estados en la regulación del espacio de Internet. Esta dicotomía literalmente reproduce el deslinde megacivilizacional que se ha operado entre los países y pueblos  pertenecientes al Poder Marítimo (Sea Power) y al Poder Terrestre (Land Power), según la geopolítica clásica. EE.UU., los países de la UE y sus satélites  velan por el “Internet libre”, lo que es una hipocresía evidente, mientras que Rusia, Irán, China, India, Brasil y algunos otros Estados requieren que Internet fuera soberano y estuviera bajo la jurisdicción del derecho internacional, o bien de la Unión Internacional de Telecomunicaciones en el sistema de las Naciones Unidas. En este caso, la distinción claramente encaja en el esquema de Carl Schmitt, indicador fiable de lo Político, -  las categorías duales “amigo” y “enemigo”. Estas categorías no son las morales, sino las características técnicas que se manifestaron en las posiciones acerca del funcionamiento del espacio de Internet.

El cyberespacio tiene una diferencia significativa respecto con la tierra, mar, aire y espacio cósmico, o sea, no es creado por la naturaleza sino es una construcción artificial que tiene componentes que pueden cambiarse con el tiempo.

Sin embargo, todas las vías de comunicación, servidores y sitios industriales que están relacionados con Internet tienen una ubicación geográfica. En segundo lugar, ciberáreas tienen cierta identidad nacional en el sentido de las zonas de dominio, del control estatal y del lenguaje utilizado. En tercer lugar, el cyberespacio hace hincapié en la geografía física de una manera especial – con sensores de diferentes servicios, dispositivos de navegación, dispositivos técnicos y dispositivos móviles que incorporan un mapa interactivo con los flujos cruzados de la información, la tecnología y las personas.

El cyberespacio arregla y homogeniza el espacio físico de modo especial -  con el uso de la tecnología GPS y otras herramientas, la globalización se mete en los rincones más recónditos del planeta.

¿Qué es la cybergeopolitica? Creo que tenemos que entender este neologismo en doble sentido:1) como la nueva disciplina científica que estudia lo que pasa con una interfaz hombre-máquina en el contexto de la política y la geografía, incluyendo, pero no limitándose, con la interacción interactiva de las redes sociales, el espacio virtual, la diplomacia web.2.0 y 2) como la actividad corriente que afecta e incluye los principios de relación retroactiva en los sectores sociales, políticos y militares, y donde el establecimiento y la propagación del poder, aunque sea en la forma más sofisticada, es el imperativo.

Es importante entender que el prefijo “cyber” significa algo más amplio que lo que algunos creen, o sea, la comunicación via Internet y el espacio virtual. Por supuesto, esta palabra se deriva de la cybernética. Como en el caso de la geopolítica, el surgimiento del término “cybernética” viene de la Grecia antigua. La palabra Κυβερνητική era mencionada por primera vez por Platón en su obra “Las Leyes”. Se traduce como “el arte del timonel”. En el tercer libro de aquel filósofo griego del período tarde, quizás el más sólido en la redacción y la estructura de la obra, el Estado se compara con el barco, y su timoneles son el Dios, el destino y el buen tiempo. La imagen del Estado-barco y el soberano-timonel se encuentra también en otras obras de Platón. Además, hay una expresión similar en la poesía griega de Alceo, utilizada más adelante por el poeta romano Horacio. El físico y matemático francés Andre-Marie Ampere en su estudio “Ensayo sobre la Filosofía de la Ciencia” llamó de cybernética a la ciencia sobre el gobierno, que debería proporcionar una variedad de beneficios a los ciudadanos. Ampere escribió: “(el gobierno) tiene que elegir constantemente entre las diversas medidas más adecuadas para lograr el objetivo, y sólo con el profundo estudio y comparación de los diferentes elementos aportados por los conocimientos de todo lo que tiene que ver con la nación, es capaz de gobernar de acuerdo con su propio carácter, costumbres, medios de vida y la prosperidad, las leyes de la organización, que pueden servir como las normas generales de conducta y que estaba actuando en cada caso particular. Así, sólo después de todas las ciencias que se ocupan de estos diferentes objetos, es necesario poner esta ciencia que ahora está en cuestión y que yo lo llamo de cybernética; la palabra tomada al principio en el sentido restringido del arte de navegación, en los mismos griegos ya cobró el contenido mucho más amplio del arte de gestión en el sentido general.

 

Stuart Umpleby destacó que la cibernética ha desarrollado los estudios relacionados con una amplia gama de procesos, incluyendo a las personas como organizadores activos, comunicadores, los que intercambian información y son personas responsables.
Como la geopolítica, la cybernética también se aplica a muchas áreas de la vida pública. Por lo menos, a ella se dedicaron y desarrollaron sus definiciones no sólo los físicos y matemáticos, sino también los políticos, sociólogos, teóricos de la gestión y la educación, antropólogos, lingüistas, filósofos y estrategas militares.

Alguien puede preguntar – ¿qué pasa con la política, también considerada por los filósofos griegos antiguos como el arte de la administración del Estado? Hay que señalar la diferencia fundamental. La cybernética trata más bién con la gestión eficaz (el timonel del barco, y en un sentido más amplio el gobernador  es el cibernético), pero no con todos los casos que involucran la participación de la gama mucho más amplia de los ciudadanos (residentes de la ciudad o los súbditos del imperio). El principio fundamental de la política es tener un oponente, y en el caso límite, el enemigo. No por casualidad, las palabras griegas antiguas «guerra» πόλεμος y “política” πολιτική tienen la misma raíz.

En 1987 el profesor Larry Richards, eminente estudioso norteamericano cibernético, dijo que la cybernética deben aprender algo “nuevo” de la interacción dinámica del sujeto y la práctica de la comunicación, independientemente de sus intereses en el campo de la electrónica, la vida, la sociedad, o lo que toman de la ciencia, el arte o la política.

Jeff Dooley sugirió el nombre “cybernética” para la ciencia sobre el comportamiento intencional. Nos ayuda a explicar el comportamiento como una acción continua de alguien (o algo) en el proceso, tal como lo vemos, manteniendo ciertas condiciones cercanas a la situación de la meta.

La cybernética se dedicó activamente a la ciencias políticas en los años 90 del siglo pasado. Se vio afectado por una serie de nuevos conceptos, como los de la evolución política, del ecosistema político, synergetics, biopolítica, etc. Peter Corning del Instituto del Estudio de Sistemas Complejos menciona que la característica más importante de un sistema cybernético es que está controlada por la relación entre tareas endógenas y medio ambiente externo… Cybernética habla de la viabilidad, los objetivos, los flujos de información, la toma de decisiones en la gestión y la retroalimentación (bien definido) en todos los niveles de los sistemas vivos. Hay muchas otras definiciones de la cybernética, que se interpreta incluso como “el estudio de la intervención bien fundada”.

Ya en estos ejemplos se puede encontrar mucho en común con la geopolítica: la forma de vida, el proceso de control, la propagación del poder, la dinámica del cambio político, el diseño de los objetivos y de su posterior aplicación, e incluso las circunstancias de fuerza mayor.

Sin embargo, en los últimos treinta años se ha vuelto más común la primera parte de la palabra – “cyber”, que se hizo la narrativa en la política, la cultura, los medios de comunicación y las distintas ciencias.

Daniel Coelho, profesor de la Universidad Nacional EE.UU. de Defensa, sugirió dividir esta palabra en tres elementos distintos. Primero, comunicación-red, segundo, el contenido -mensaje, y tercero, el concepto del efecto obtenido a partir del mensaje. Esta deconstrucción muestra cómo se diferencian las habilidades de individuos y organizaciones, que van desde las operaciones en una red informática hasta los asuntos públicos, que también están involucrados en la gestión de la información, ya que éste pasa entre la máquina y el hombre.
En consecuencia, no se trata tanto de las redes de información computarizada como de los procesos sociales más amplios. Y puesto que con el advenimiento de Internet, y más recientemente, debido a la disponibilidad de los aparatos técnicos para el público en general y la institucionalización de la cybergeopolitica, estos procesos se hicieron internacionales, podemos hablar con certeza de su escala geopolítica y global.
Así, la geopolítica cobró otra área, la cybernética, a la cual sus axiomas básicos se han extendido; al mismo tiempo, es la realidad de otro nivel, donde operan nuevas reglas, y existen otros niveles, zonas, límites y posibilidades.

 

*Jefe editor de revista Geopolítica, Moscu, Rusia.

 

elespiadigital.com

La información más inteligente

Geopolitics has never gone

Alberto Hutschenreuter

 

Ex: http://www.geopolitica.ru

 

The crisis between Ukraine and Russia reinstalled geopolitics in the center of interstate relations. Suddenly, the old discipline seems to be the key to understand what is happening in that geography of the globe.

It is right to be so, because while the conflict approach concentrates on multiple factors, geopolitics, i.e. the political interest on a particular land, sea or air space with purposes commonly associated to the increase of national power, certainly gives us the best tools when thinking about the main causes and courses of it.

It is misguided, on the other hand, to talk about the "return" of geopolitics; It is even more if those who talk are not amateurs but versed people in international relations.

There is enough truth in that experience is not too favorable to geopolitics as a contributing discipline to the primacy of principles of international law; but while the world retains certain features (basically, absence of entity or international governance), states, as Churchill warned us, "will never allow an intergovernmental organization adopts decisions by them", they will continue under its own regionalized and margin of power. From this logic, unchanged until today, the use of space in the direction of these purposes will continue to be capital.

It is possible that the end of the Cold War has "relaxed" the importance of geopolitics as a factor in the protection and increase of interstate power, since invariably all end-of-cycle drives favorable expectations for the establishment of an international order more subject to the law and, therefore, more fair.­­­­­

But globalization, the process which seemed to ensure this course of action, ended being a regime of power that benefits those actors who knew how to use "soft resources" which allowed them to penetrate national spaces that until then had been closed or protected. In this sense, the "Clinton doctrine" (that promoted democracy but above all, it promoted the economic openness) served as one of the most effective strategies of ascending national power on a global scale.

Because of this, more than the transit "from geopolitics to geoeconomics" as claimed Edward Luttwak, the nineties led to the predominance of one "posgeopolitics" conception that never ceased to associate space (in this case on a planetary scale) with maximization of national power.

But then, the classical geopolitical practice was not abandoned neither, because the projection of power or "geopolitics of one party" that was practiced by the United States in solitary supremacy meant mostly its establishment not in "antigeopolitics spaces", i.e. spaces without relationship with the national interest, but in selective spaces or of high "geopolitics condensation”.

The last years of the twentieth century and the first of the new century have been prodigal in geopolitical issues: since the nuclear testing in Southern Asia to the enlargement of NATO or the very same attacks perpetrated by the transnational terrorism in the more protected national space of the globe, Passing through aerospace conceptions that explicitly threatened to impede, when not denying, access to outer space to those states or non-state actors that could challenge the U.S. national security in this new geopolitical dimension, all have meant cases that were framed in thoughts that conclusively associated national interest with geographical space.

More recently, the conceptions of China in relation to the "active defense of the coast"; the spatial reorientation of Japan regarding the challenges to its security; the NATO "New Strategic Concept" (which in Latin America lifted very few alerts, including the former Minister of Defense of Brazil Nelson Jobim); The importance of the Indian-Pacific space as a new United States’ selective area of interest; the Russian "Operation of counter offensive defense" in sensitive areas such as the Caucasus; and the profuse activity of states mostly preeminent in ocean spaces, maritime and continental with the purpose of establishing presence in "global commons", etc., are some of the cases that show the vitality of this misnamed "cursed discipline".

Geopolitics is not back because of the existence of major international crisis that is explained largely by homogeneous interest. Geopolitics was always there and will continue to be in almost all the spaces of the globe. Only that is activated when players choose to make movements, something which can never be seen by observing the attractive and immobile planisphere.

Poutine «Nouveau Tsar» ou chef d'Etat populaire ?

Poutine «Nouveau Tsar» ou chef d'Etat populaire ?

Christian Combaz*

Ex: http://synthesenationale.hautetfort.com

Dans le fayotage systématique à l'égard des intérêts américains notre gouvernement nous a fait honte à plusieurs reprises, jusqu'à refuser le survol du territoire à Edward Snowden, un épisode dont les manuels d'histoire se souviendront certainement. L'empressement ultra-suspect avec lequel le président français a en outre devancé les thèses américaines sur les armes chimiques syriennes (dès le mois qui a suivi son élection, c'est à dire à froid) , fut un autre sujet de doute et d'inquiétude. On nous a dit ensuite que la Russie, qui était déjà le pays plus vaste de la terre, voulait s'agrandir aux dépens de la Crimée, mais la France est mal placée, après avoir laissé voter Mayotte pour le rattachement en 1976, pour reprocher aux Criméens de vouloir se détacher de l'Ukraine, dont l'économie ne sera bientôt guère plus brillante que celle de la grande Comore .

Et puis il y a l'influence de cette Cinquième colonne qui s'arroge toujours une place «à la Une», pour reprendre le titre d'un magazine d'information des années 60. L'émission Complément d'Enquête, sur Poutine trahissait un tel changement de réglage de l'artillerie médiatique qu'on peut l'imaginer inspiré par l'entourage du Pouvoir afin d' accompagner les négociations en cours à Genève. On vise désormais moins bas mais les projectiles sont les mêmes. On ne s'attaque pas au train de vie de Vladimir Poutine pour le présenter comme un émule de Moubarak. Les artifices déployés pour nous faire croire qu'il achète des robinets en or, circule en voiture de milliardaire ou se fournit en call girls auprès des oligarques n'ont jamais mordu sur l'opinion parce qu'on n'a pas trouvé grand-chose. La corruption, les budgets d'équipement délirants des Jeux olympiques n'ont pas permis non plus de mettre en cause l'entourage direct du président. Même la question homosexuelle a été éludée lors des Jeux, c'est tout dire. Et pourtant tout avait l'air au point. La place centrale de Kiev surpeuplée, survoltée, quadrillée par les télévisions internationales comme en Egypte, la foule s'emparant du palais d' un dirigeant cupide et névrosé, devaient être la dernière étape avant un printemps de Pétersbourg. Après l'Ukraine on voyait le système Poutine s'effondrer sur une émeute géante pendant les Nuits Blanches.

C'est là qu'il faut souligner la navrante naïveté de la diplomatie américaine, qui a probablement cru, il y a trois  ou quatre ans, pouvoir se «payer» le Président russe comme un vulgaire Ben Ali, et qui n'a pas compris que le Peuple russe , à cause de son passé prodigieux, gardait une unité d'âme qu'elle vient de décupler.

Du coup, le nouvel angle choisi par les médias occidentaux n'est plus la corruption, mais la Grande Russie comme on parlait naguère de «Grande Serbie» ou de «Grande Syrie». Comme le soulignait l'ambassadeur Orlov à l'oreille de son interlocuteur pendant l'émission, la Russie est déjà le pays le plus grand de la terre, on se demande à quoi rimerait un désir d'expansion territoriale. N'importe, insistait le journaliste, «on voit désormais de jeunes recrues à qui, dès l'enfance, on inculque l'amour de leur pays et qui prient».

Ah bon? Et les jeunes Américains des Summer Camps du Minnesota, ils ne saluent pas le drapeau et ne vont pas à l'office? Et les jeunes Chinois n'aiment pas leur pays dès l'âge de douze ans? Il n'y a guère que dans le nôtre qu'on n'inculque rien aux enfants, ni dans ce domaine, ni dans les autres.

Donc, Vladimir Poutine a une haute idée de son pays qui a désormais une haute idée de lui-même: on mesure le scandale. Mais il y a pire: dans la rue de son enfance, les journalistes essaient de trouver la trace d'un culte de la personnalité or il n'y a rien. Pas la moindre plaque. Ce Poutine est vraiment très fort. Il ne se teint pas les cheveux, sa vie privée est opaque, il ne traverse pas Moscou en scooter, il parle un russe châtié, il ne dit pas oui et non en même temps, il n'a rien de «normal» et tout cela n'est pas un handicap pour plaire à son peuple. Un jour ou l'autre, le nôtre va s'en souvenir.

Hélas! l'émission étant diffusée sur internet, malgré des efforts assidus, pendant l'intervention de Bernard Henri Lévy le système de diffusion en streaming du réseau FranceTV Pluzz, comme chaque fois, s'est mis en rideau. Chaque tentative pour relancer l'image obligeait le spectateur à s'infliger une publicité Fleury-Michon -d'ailleurs très fluide mais fastidieuse, surtout la cinquième fois. La bande passante n'était donc pas en cause, c'est le service public qui ne fait pas son métier sur la chaine Pluzz (et si le CSA pouvait faire le sien cela nous arrangerait). La publicité sur le surimi Fleury-Michon apportait donc une touche de fantaisie à l'intervention de BHL qui en est très avare - de fantaisie, parce que côté interventions c'est le contraire. Pour l'anecdote, le Danube de la pensée avait convoqué le journaliste au bord de la Seine, conversation dont j'ignore tout mais il n'est pas certain que j'aie raté grand chose.

En revanche les propos de l'ambassadeur de Russie méritaient qu'on y prête l'oreille parce qu'il n'a pas écarté le danger d'une guerre civile liée aux tensions inter-communautaires que déchaîne l'influence de l'OTAN en Europe. Dans tout cela, la question de la langue nous a été présentée, à juste titre, comme primordiale. Les malheureuses questions du journaliste à propos de Sarajevo et du déclenchement de la guerre de 14 n'ont pas pu cacher le principal: si la ligne de partage est désormais tracée entre Russophones et Ukrainophones, il est probable que le prochain pays à faire parler de lui en Europe, cette fois au sein de l'Union , ce sera la Hongrie. Le traité de Trianon ayant privé le peuple hongrois des deux tiers de son territoire et exilé une grande part de sa population hungarophone hors frontières, l'OTAN sera bientôt obligée de lutter contre les partisans de la réunification , lesquels risquent d'aller chercher leurs recettes en Crimée.

La prochaine décennie promet donc d'être assez fatigante et Poutine n'y sera pour rien. Toutes ces fadaises sur «le nouveau Tsar» sont là pour nous faire oublier que ce sont les Peuples qui décident de leur sort, et la seule habileté de Poutine est de mener le sien où il veut aller.

(*) Christian Combaz est un excellent écrivain et essayiste. Dernier ouvrage paru : Gens de Campagnol, Flammarion, 2012.

Source Le Journal du Chaos cliquez là

Germans Attitude towards Putin’s Policy: «Mysterious Sympathy»

Natalia MEDEN

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

Ukraine has a special place in German media’s reporting. The US- defined pattern prevails at present. Russia is blamed for instigating the growing unrest in the south-east part of the country. The US State Secretary put forward such an accusation on April 8 saying there would be a heavy price to pay. The German Left Party is the only political force that recognizes Russia’s right to defend its interests. 

Unlike the Left Party members, independent critics of Germany’s foreign policy are destitute of chances to make public appeals. The New Rhenish Newspaper (the Neue Rheinische Zeitung) was the only one to publish a letter signed by 200 representatives of German intelligensia. Russian media told about it (1), but the fact was largely ignored in Germany. At that, the Putin’s policy has significant support. According to the poll conducted at the beginning of April (2), around 49% (60% in the East) of respondents do not approve tough treatment of Russia, they support Germany’s role as a mediator between Russia and the West. 37% think the present policy is the one of a go-between, while 63% believe it has an obvious pro-US taint. German analysts try to explain the «mysterious sympathy» that Germans feel towards Russians… Liana Fix, an expert from the German Foreign Policy Society, defines the following reasons:

- the enrooted pacifism and skeptical view of NATO;

- dissatisfaction with the USA and the European Union;

- economic interest in cooperation with Russia;

- disapproval of the way German media paints the Russian President (3). 

It’s hard to counter the reasons listed. Take the military aspect, for instance. True, Germans find a military solution or US interference into Ukrainian affairs unacceptable. Even such a limited measure as intensified air flights in Eastern Europe is supported by 40%, while 53% say «no». There is an even stronger opposition to the idea of Bundeswehr’s involvement: 61% reject it. The majority (56%) believe the NATO expansion to the East was a mistake. (4) The West’s protests over the concentration of Russian troops near the Ukraine’s borders are perceived as under-substantiated, the evidence produced not very convincing. In 2003 US Secretary of State Colin Powell resorted to tricks in order to convince the United Nations Security Council the US military intervention in Iraq was justified. 

In view of public opinion and taking into consideration the realities of the situation in Ukraine, German media has somewhat cooled down the anti-Russian rhetoric. An ARD publication (5) called into doubt the Ukraine’s prosecutor’s office conclusions related to the snipers case. The authors of journalists’ investigation believe it is absurd to say that the shooting from the rooftop of hotel Ukraine could take place on Yanukovych’s orders, while the building was in the hands of Maidan protesters. According to International Republic Institute, a US research center, one third of the population in the East supports the ideas of federalization. Federalization is a familiar thing for Germans, they live in a federal state and they have gone through a long historic period of existence as separate countries. The German example proves that federalization and prosperity go hand in hand. German media was sympathetic towards those who are still inside the Kiev city hall building, but the author if the story (6) comes to conclusion those people have nowhere to go and need psychological help. The yesterday’s revolutionaries are not needed by the regime today; the author compares it with a shipwreck: they keep on saying about the desire to stay till the end but are not able to explain what the «end» actually means. Perhaps, the end they are talking about is to come after the election, when the authorities will start implementation of the austerity measures prescribed by the International Monetary Fund and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. Europe is not going to feed Ukrainian nationalists. Neither Germany, nor anybody else needs extra burdens. Speaking in parliament on April 8, German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said the events in Ukraine are a signal for implementation of reform in the European Union but it does not mean the EU should launch material aid as the revolutionaries expected while going to Maidan to fight for, as they perceived it, the «European choice». The author says the hopes of Maidan protesters were nothing but a naïve utopia. 

What about the results of the coup, as Europeans see it? 10 years ago the European Commission defined the European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) to surround the EU by a ring of secure and prosperous nations (well-governed countries, as they say). As we see it today, the stability in these countries is to large extent undermined; the EU has hotbeds and crisis stricken neighbors around the perimeter. Was it that the Brussels policy pursued the goal of sowing the seeds of chaos around under the slogans of good neighborhood? The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace – Germany has recently published a report Time to Reset the European Neighborhood Policy (7) which puts the EU neighboring countries into four risk categories: insignificant, low, medium and high. Listing Armenia and Israel as the states in the category of low risk is an iffy conclusion. So much the worse for other neighboring states once the expert believes the situation there is less stable than in Israel located in the volatile Middle East region. 

I believe Europeans realize that the new EU Ukraine policy may end up in failure. It makes them view with caution what the new government in Kiev does. Europe faces a grave problem of refugee flows from Arab countries. Now there is a looming prospect of displaced persons waves hitting Europe from Ukraine. One of Ukraine’s «acting officials» Turchinov said Ukrainians would soon be able to travel across Europe without visas. There was no response from Germany, as in other cases concerning the aftermath of the coup called «Ukraine’s revolution» in the West. But Germans are not indifferent. Willy-nilly the events in Ukraine evoke parallels with the Germany’s own history – the tragic events of XX. A prominent nationalist murdered – is it not the repetition of the long knives night? The same mysterious arsons that Communists are blamed for are repeated as it was back then. For instance, Tyahnybok, the leader of Ukraine’s extreme right-forces – the Svoboda political party, said the Communists put on fire their own Kiev office on April 9. He never mentioned other interested parties, who could have done it, like the Lustration committee and the Chancellor Hundred of Maidan. Finally, the lustration bill approved by Rada (parliament) on April 8 to be signed into law by the acting President. The fact was ignored by German media. According to it, the judges, who took offices after 2010 (during the tenure of Yanukovych), must be fired. Every one of them! No exclusions from the rule. Others have to report on their incomes, including family members. In my case, it made me recall the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service that came into effect in Germany after Hitler came to power. 

Endnotes:

(1) 200 Germans declared their support of Putin/vesti.ru, 04. 11. 2014.

(2) ARD-Deutschlandstrend, April 2014. S. 3-4.

(3) Jan David Sutthoff. 6 Gründen für die merkwürdige Sympathie der Deutschen für Putin und Russland/ The Huffington Post, 04.04.2014. 

(4) ARD-Deutschlandstrend, April 2014. S. 5.

(5) Neue Hinweise auf Maidan-Schützen/tagesschau de, 10.04.2014.

(6) Filipp Piatov. Die Gestrandeten vom Maidan/Die Tageszeitung, 11.04.2014.

(7) Stefan Lehne. Time to reset the European Neighborhood Policy. February 2014. 

 

Dilema shakespeariano de Obama: ¿guerra fría contra Rusia o China?

por Alfredo Jalife-Rahme

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

Hoy el “nuevo muro” entre Washington y Moscú se recorrió de Berlín a Kiev: al borde de la balcanización entre la parte “occidental” (eurófila) de Ucrania y su parte “oriental” (rusófila), cuando la superestratégica Crimea ha retornado a la “madre patria” rusa.

Después de su sonoro fracaso en Crimea, con su política de asfixiante cerco a Rusia y su pretendido “cambio de régimen” con disfraz “democrático” en Moscú, Zbigniew Brzezinski comenta en Twitter (19/3/14): “Si Occidente apoya, Ucrania libre (sic) puede sobrevivir (sic). Si no lo hace, Putin puede desestabilizar toda Ucrania”.

El fulminante revire del zargeoestratégico global, Vlady Putin, tiene hoy a la parte “oriental” en jaque con su exquisito movimiento de ajedrez en Crimea, que colocó a la defensive a Zbigniew Brzezinski, ex asesor de Seguridad Nacional de Carter, íntimo de Obama y connotado rusófobo, quien tendió la letal trampa jihadista a la URSS en Afganistán que, por sus metástasis, derrumbó el Muro de Berlín y mutiló al imperio soviético.

Los ciudadanos de Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña no desean más aventuras bélicas en Siria ni en Ucrania, cuando sus multimedia se olvidan de las bravatas atómicas de John McCain, quien goza la menor aceptación como senador, y explotan una amenaza de Dmitry Kiselyov, presentador de la televisión Rossiya-1, quien espetó que Rusia podría “convertir a Estados Unidos en ceniza radiactiva”(http://news.yahoo.com/state-tv-says-russia-could-turn-us-radioactive-212003397.html ).

Sí existen líneas rojas, no sólo de Estados Unidos, sino también de Rusia, lo cual es susceptible de desembocar en una guerra nuclear de “destrucción mutua asegurada” (MAD, por sus siglas en inglés), cuando las “cenizas radiactivas” serían “mutuas”.

Un editorial del rotativo chino Global Times (http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/849399/Putin-faces-war-of-attrition-with-West.aspx) comenta que las sanciones, de corte sado-masoquista, para lastimar la economía de Rusia, “señalarán el grado de determinación de Occidente para contener a Rusia”, cuando Putin”ha mostrado su dedicación para asegurar los intereses de Rusia, que han impresionado al mundo entero (sic)”.

El rotativo considera que Obama no ha tomado aún “una decisión final en la forma de contener a Rusia estratégicamente”, cuando “Putin despedazó las ofensivas (¡supersic!) de Occidente en el este de Europa, que empezaron al final de la guerra fría”.

Hoy “el límite estratégico entre Rusia y Occidente está siendo redefinido”: Rusia, “estrangulada durante un largo periodo, ha acumulado demasiada fuerza para lanzar una contraofensiva” y puede “enfrentar una guerra de desgaste con Occidente”.

El rotativo chino tampoco se hace ilusiones y sentencia que “la fuerza de Rusia es limitada (¡supersic!). Ni tiene la fuerza nacional de la anterior URSS ni la ayuda del Pacto de Varsovia. Si Occidente está determinado a emprender una confrontación prolongada (sic) con Moscú, Rusia sufrirá desafíos sin precedente”. Sin duda. Pero es mucho mejor que el “cambio de régimen” preprogramado de Estados Unidos en Moscú.

Su pronóstico es adverso: las”sanciones económicas desembocarán en una situación perder-perder. Occidente compartirá el peso de las pérdidas económicas, mientras Rusia estará sola” (¡supersic!), cuando “la estabilidad de Rusia no está garantizada”.

Por lo pronto, “Moscú le ha dado a Occidente y a sus seguidores una lección, obligándolo a reconsiderar el papel de Ucrania en Europa” y aconseja que “Putin debe dejar algún espacio para que Occidente se retire en una manera elegante, lo cual maximizará los intereses de Rusia”. De acuerdo.

El editorial chino arguye que”Occidente se percató que ha perdido la batalla por Crimea”, que “puede ser una victoria para Moscú o el inicio de una confrontación sin fin entre Rusia y Occidente”.

Juzga que a Putin le conviene”mantener el pleito en baja (sic) intensidad, que se acomode a los intereses de largo plazo de Rusia”.

El editorial no se jacta que el gran triunfador resultó China (a mi juicio, junto a Irán e India), lo cual expresa sin tapujos el investigador geoestratégico Artyom Lukin: “el triunfador en Ucrania… es China” (http://www.fpri.org/articles/2014/03/ukraine-and-winner-china ).

Juzga que las sanciones de Occidente contra Rusia “empujarán inevitablemente a Moscú a los brazos de Pekín”, lo cual “incrementará la probabilidad de que sus políticas se alineen frente a Occidente”, lo cual, a su vez, “reforzará las posiciones estratégicas de China en Asia”.

China “se sentirá más confiada en su rivalidad con Estados Unidos para su primacía en la región Asia/Pacífico, después de haber adquirido a Rusia como una zona estratégica segura en su espalda, así como un acceso privilegiado a su abundante energía, a su base de minerales y a sus tecnología militar avanzada”, a juicio de Artyom Lukin, en la visita de Putin a China en mayo “será muy visible cuando los eventos de Ucrania ayudarían a concretar el proyectado gasoducto de Rusia a China”.

No soslaya que los comentarios de la prensa oficial china son “simpáticos a Moscú”, al enfatizar la”determinación de Putin para proteger los intereses de Rusia y los ciudadanos rusófilos”, mientras los ciudadanos chinos expresan su admiración (¡supersic!) por Putin y su desafío a Occidente en portales como Weibo.

Artyom Lukin aduce que existe una”probabilidad cero (sic) para que Pekín apoye cualquier castigo político y económico en contra de Moscú”: algo así como una “neutralidad benevolente” de China con el Kremlin.

Cita a “algunos estrategas de Estados Unidos quienes lamentan que una presión excesiva (¡supersic!) de Occidente puede alterar el equilibrio geopolítico al empujar a Rusia más cerca de China”.

Artyom Lukin arguye que ahora Estados Unidos se encuentra en una posición delicada para confrontar a dos grandes potencias en Eurasia en forma simultánea y “tendrá que decidir cuál región es más importante a sus intereses: la Europa oriental post soviética (cuyo corazón es Ucrania) o Asia oriental”.

Considera que una batalla sin compromisos en Ucrania oriental de Estados Unidos contra Rusia, “en 10 o 15 años puede significar la pérdida de Asia oriental”.

Concluye en forma optimista que la “presente situación en Ucrania no resultará en una guerra, pero puede convertirse en un paso mayor hacia la transformación del orden internacional a una bipolaridad confrontativa” entre “Occidente, encabezado por Estados Unidos, frente al eje China/Rusia”, lo cual se subsume en mi tesis del “G-7 frente a los BRICS” (ver Bajo la Lupa, 16/3/14): el nuevo “muro de Kiev” de la bipolaridad metarregional.

Si no malinterpreto a Artyom Lukin, Rusia exhorta a Occidente a la cesión de “Ucrania oriental” a cambio de no arrojarse a los brazos de China y, por extensión, a los BRICS e Irán.

Mientras Michelle Obama llega con sus hijas a una visita de siete días a Pekín, por invitación de la esposa del <mandarín Xi, no hay que soslayar la búsqueda de Zbigniew Brzezinski de un acercamiento de Estados Unidos con China para castigar a Rusia, como sucedió con Nixon hace 43 años.

Entramos a la “teoría de juegos”, con tres rivales geoestratégicos, de característica no lineal hipercompleja.

Obama se encuentra ante el shakespeariano dilema geoestratégico de su vida: ¿quién será el máximo competidor geopolítico de Estados Unidos: Rusia o China, o los dos?

www.alfredojalife.com

Twitter: @AlfredoJalife

Facebook: AlfredoJalife

Syrie/Ukraine/OTAN : analyse géopolitique

Syrie/Ukraine/OTAN : analyse géopolitique Entretien avec Robert Steuckers

Merci au "Cercle des Volontaires" de Belgique:

http://www.cercledesvolontaires.fr/2014/04/18/syrie-ukrai...

 

Dans le cadre d’un sujet de mémoire d’une étudiante à Bruxelles, Robert Steuckers nous délivre une brillante analyse historique et géopolitique sur la Syrie et l’Ukraine.

Il est revenu sur les révolutions tunisienne et égyptienne ainsi que sur les tentatives de déstabilisation de ces pays. L’Algérie, dont le régime militaire socialiste tente de résister, est sans doute la prochaine tentative de déstabilisation en Afrique du Nord. La Syrie reste une particularité dans ce qu’on appelle le « printemps arabe » et Robert Steuckers expose le rôle de l’armée et du régime baassiste dans le fonctionnement du pays. Nous apprenons aussi que le cas de la Syrie et de la Crimée sont liés historiquement,  ce depuis le XIXe siècle, l’enjeu principal étant le contrôle de la Méditerranée orientale.

L’instrumentalisation d’un islam « radical » par le courant wahhabite dans le Caucase est aussi traité dans cet entretien, mais aussi le rôle que devait jouer l’Union Européenne dans la conférence de Genève II, ainsi que les réformes qui s’imposent dans le cadre des nominations des membres permanents du Conseil de Sécurité de l’ONU.

Ce brillant exposé de Robert Steuckers nous permet de disséquer les enjeux qui se déroulent dans le bassin méditerranéen oriental et le Moyen-Orient.

Pour rappel, Robert Steuckers est une grande figure de ce qu’on appelle la « Nouvelle Droite », ancien membre du mouvement GRECE et fondateur du mouvement « Synergies européennes ».

A diffuser très largement.
E.I.Anass

Geopolítica, geografía sagrada, geofilosofía

Geopolítica, geografía sagrada, geofilosofía

por Claudio Mutti

Ex: http://paginatransversal.wordpress.com

De acuerdo con una definición integral, que intenta sintetizar aquellas proporcionadas por diversos estudiosos, la geopolítica puede ser considerada como “el estudio de las relaciones internacionales en una perspectiva espacial y geográfica, en el que se toman en cuenta la influencia de los factores geográficos sobre la política exterior de los Estados y la rivalidad de poder sobre territorios en disputa entre dos o más Estados, o entre diferentes grupos o movimientos políticos armados” (1).

Por cuán grande sea el peso atribuido a los factores geográficos, aún sigue existiendo la relación de la geopolítica con la doctrina del Estado, por lo que es natural plantearse una interrogante que hasta el momento no parece haber sido tema de reflexión de los estudiosos. La pregunta es la siguiente: ¿Sería posible aplicar también a la geopolítica la famosa afirmación de Carl Schmitt, según la cual “todos los conceptos sobresalientes de la moderna doctrina del Estado son conceptos teológicos secularizados”? (2) En otras palabras, ¿Es posible suponer que la misma geopolítica represente un eco moderno, si no una derivación secularizada de los conceptos teológicos vinculados con la “geografía sagrada”?

Si así fuese, la geopolítica se encontraría en una situación similar no sólo como la descrita sobre la “ciencia moderna del Estado”, sino también con la generalidad de la ciencia moderna. Para ser más explícito, recurramos a una cita de René Guénon: “Queriendo separar radicalmente las ciencias de todo principio superior, so pretexto de asegurar su independencia, la concepción moderna les quita toda significación profunda, e inclusive todo interés verdadero desde el punto de vista del conocimiento, y ella no puede desembocar más que en un callejón sin salida, puesto que las encierra en un dominio irremediablemente limitado” (3).

En cuanto atañe particularmente a la “geografía sagrada”, con la cual -según nuestra hipótesis- se relacionaría de algún modo la geopolítica, es de igual manera Guénon quién nos proporciona una sintética indicación al respecto: “Ahora bien, efectivamente existe una «geografía sagrada» o tradicional que los modernos ignoran tan completamente como los restantes conocimientos del mismo género; existe un simbolismo geográfico en la misma medida que existe un simbolismo histórico y es el valor simbólico de las cosas lo que les da su significado profundo dado que así queda establecida su correspondencia con las realidades de orden superior; no obstante, para que esta correspondencia quede determinada de forma efectiva, es preciso ser capaz de un modo u otro de percibir en las propias cosas el reflejo de tales realidades. Así ocurre que existen lugares particularmente aptos para servir de «soporte» a la acción de «las influencias espirituales» y este es el fundamento que siempre ha tenido el establecimiento de ciertos «centros» tradicionales principales o secundarios, cuyos más claros exponentes fueron los «oráculos» de la Antigüedad así como los lugares de peregrinación; también existen otros lugares particularmente propicios a la manifestación de «influencias» de un carácter completamente opuesto y pertenecientes a las regiones más inferiores del ámbito de lo sutil” (4).

Se ha dicho que rastros de la “geografía sagrada” son reconocibles en algunas características de las nociones geopolíticas, por lo tanto, éstas podrían ser consideradas schmittianamente como “conceptos teológicos secularizados”. Consideremos, por ejemplo, los términos mackinderianos como Heartland y pivot area, los cuales, invocan de manera explicita el simbolismo del corazón y el simbolismo axial, reproducen de alguna manera la idea de “Centro del Mundo” que los antiguos representaban por medio de una variedad de símbolos, geográficos y no geográficos. Muchas veces se ha ofrecido la ocasión para observar que, si la ciencia de las religiones ha demostrado que el homo religiosus “aspira a vivir lo más cerca posible del Centro del Mundo y sabe que su país se encuentra efectivamente en medio de la tierra” (5), esta concepción no ha desaparecido con la visión “arcaica” del mundo, al contrario, ha sobrevivido en una forma más o menos consciente en contextos históricos y culturales más recientes (6).

Por otra parte, dentro de los términos geográficos y geopolíticos existen algunos que las culturas tradicionales han utilizado para describir la realidad perteneciente a la esfera espiritual. Este es el caso del término polo, que en el léxico del esoterismo islámico indica el vértice de la jerarquía iniciática (al-qutb); es el caso de istmo, que en la forma árabe (al-barzakh) indica aquel mundo intermedio al que también se refiere la expresión geográfica de origen coránica: “la confluencia de dos mares” (majma’ al-bahrayn), “confluencia, es decir, del mundo de las Ideas puras con el mundo de los objetos sensibles” (7).

Pero también el concepto de Eurasia puede ser asignado a la categoría de “conceptos teológicos secularizados”.

De hecho, el más antiguo texto teológico de los Griegos, la Teogonía de Hesíodo, nos cuenta que: “Europa ( … ) y Asia” (8) constan entre las hijas de Océano y Tetis, “una sagrada estirpe de hijas (thygatéron hieron genos) que por la tierra se encargan de la crianza de los hombres, en compañía del soberano Apolo y de los Ríos, y han recibido de Zeus este destino” (9).

Cabe destacar que entre las hermanas Europa y Asia también figura Perseis, cuyo nombre está significativamente relacionado no sólo con el griego Perseo, sino también con Perses, su hijo y progenitor de los persas. Escuchemos ahora al teólogo de la historia: “Pero cuando Perseo, hijo de Dánae y de Zeus, llegó al reino de Cefeo, hijo de Belo, y se casó con su hija Andrómeda, tuvo en ella un hijo a quien puso el nombre de Perses, y le dejó allí, porque Cefeo no había tenido hijo varón. De este Perses, pues, tomaron el nombre” (10).

El estrecho parentesco entre Asia con Europa es finalmente proclamado también por el teólogo de la tragedia, quien en la parodia de los Persianos nos presenta a Persia y Grecia como dos “hermanas de sangre, de una misma estirpe (kasignéta génous tautou)” (11), mostrándonos “absolutamente distintas (las dos que, en Herodoto, no pueden evitar ir a la guerra) como de raíz inseparables” (12). Este es el comentario de Massimo Cacciari, para quien la imagen esquilea, representativa de la radical conexión de Europa y Asia, le ha proporcionado el motivo para crear una “geofilosofia de Europa”.

Fabio Falchi intenta ir más allá: en este volumen, él traza las líneas de una “geofilosofía de Eurasia”. Acogiendo la perspectiva corbiniana de Eurasia, cual lugar ontológico teofanico (13), el autor aspira para hacer de la posición geofilosófica el grado de pasaje para aquella “geosófica”, lo cual es completamente inteligible si, y sólo si, se coloca en relación con la perspectiva metafísica” (14).

(Traducción: Francisco de la Torre)

1 Emidio Diodato, Che cos’è la geopolitica, Carocci, Roma 2011.

2 Carl Schmitt, Teología política. Editorial Struhart & Cía. Buenos Aires, 1985, p. 95.

3 René Guénon, La Crisis del Mundo Moderno. Ediciones Obelisco. Barcelona. 1982, p. 44.

4 René Guénon, El Reino de la Cantidad y los Signos de los Tiempos. Ediciones Paidós Ibérica S.A.. Barcelona. 1997, p. 122 y 123.

5 Mircea Eliade, Lo sagrado y lo profano, Guadarrama/Punto Omega, Madrid, 1981, p. 43.

6 Claudio Mutti, La funzione eurasiatica dell’Iran, “Eurasia”, 2, 2012, p. 176; Geopolitica del nazionalcomunismo romeno, in: Marco Costa, Conducǎtor. L’edificazione del socialismo romeno, Edizioni all’insegna del Veltro, Parma 2012.

7 Henry Corbin, Templo y contemplación. Ensayos sobre el Islam iranio. Editorial Trotta, Madrid, 2003, p. 262. Sobre el barzakh, cfr. Glauco Giuliano, L’immagine del tempo in Henry Corbin, Mimesis, Milano-Udine 2009, pp. 97-123.

8 Hesíodo, Teogonía, 357-359.

9 Hesíodo, Teogonía, 346-348.

10 Herodoto, VII, 61, 3.

11 Esquilo, Los persas, 185-186. Sobre esta imagen: cfr. C. Mutti, L’Iran in Europa, “Eurasia”, 1, 2008, pp. 33-34.

12 Massimo Cacciari, Geofilosofia dell’Europa, Adelphi, Milano 1994, p. 19.

13 “Eurasia es, hoy y para nosotros, la modalidad geográfica-geosófica del Mundus imaginalis” (Glauco Giuliano, L’immagine del tempo in Henry Corbin, cit., p. 40).

14 Glauco Giuliano, Tempus discretum. Henry Corbin all’Oriente dell’Occidente, Edizioni Torre d’Ercole, Travagliato (Brescia) 2012, p. 16.

Ukraine: Geopolitics & Identity

Ukraine: Geopolitics & Identity

by Mikhail Smolin

Ex: http://souloftheeast.org

The 2014 crisis in Ukraine serves as a reminder that in the quest for strategic advantage, the Western powers will not only exploit popular discontent to carry out regime change, but they also will manipulate currents of nationalism for their globalist agenda. Russian conservative author and publisher Mikhail Smolin shares an in-depth perspective on the origins of Ukrainian nationalism and its relation to the Great Game.

Translation by Mark Hackard.

In 1912 the outstanding Russian jurist, professor and doctor of international law Pyotr Evgenievich Kazansky wrote:

We live in a bewildering time, when artificial states, artificial peoples and artificial languages are founded.

In our own age, old historical fictions are again returning from nothingness. One of the most dangerous is “Ukrainianism,” which attempts to give an ideological and historical-political basis for the dismemberment of the Russian body, separating from it the Little Russians, having self-defined them as “Ukrainians” unknown to history. Such “national formations” have no ethno-historical roots; they are a product of the modern era. Before the Revolution the Russian nation was one, and the terms Velikorus (Great Russian), Malorus (Little Russian) and Belorus (White Russian) were perceived as concepts determining the geographic location of origin of one or another Russian citizen of the Russian Empire. National separatists appropriate ethnographic meanings to these names, at odds with the historical reality of their origin.

The appearance of such concepts as Little Russia, Great Russia, Little Russian, Great Russian, etc., must be related back to the time after the Tatar invasion. A united Rus was dismembered by the enemy into Northern Rus, Vladimir-Suzdal, transformed later into Moscow, and Southwest Rus – Galicia-Volynia – which then entered the Russo-Lithuanian state, and after the union with Poland, into the Rzeczpospolita. Yet under these conditions, political life and the life of the Church among the dismembered parts of the one Rus did not cease. The religious authority of the Patriarchate of Constantinople over the Russian Orthodox Church, which then existed as a bishopric of this patriarchate, was recognized both in Northern Rus and in the Southwest. Political relations between both parts of Rus with the Byzantine Emperor also continued to exist. The necessity of communication with a Rus fragmented in two forced the churchmen and statesmen of Byzantium to differentiate one Rus from the other in their documents, having given each a certain designation. The Byzantines applied ready geographical terms of classical antiquity: the little country and the great country. These geographical terms signify that initial metropole of a given people is called the little land, and the lands colonized by the metropole of this people are named the greater lands.

In Greek pronunciation, u was replaced by o, and therefore the Byzantines called the Russian people Ρώσοι, and our country was known as Ρωσσία. Proceeding from that, Byzantine men of letters termed Galicia-Volynia and Kievan Rus Little, and Northern Rus, Vladimir-Suzdal and Muscovy Great. Through Russian scholars, this terminology penetrated to Rus and became natural both in Little and Great Rus. As such, the historical understandings of Little Russia and Great Russia came to us as the cultural property of the Byzantine Empire.

Now let us cross over to the historical roots of Ukrainian nationalism. Whence appeared “Ukrainians” and “Ukraine” in place of the historical terms Little Russian and Little Russia?

We shall begin from the fact that the word “Ukraine” and “Ukrainian” in Russian chronicles are encountered only in the sense of borderlands, not as a land populated by an unknown “Ukrainian” people. The word Ukraina is only another form of the word okraina (borderland).

Researchers of Ukrainian nationalism relate the appearance of the word Ukraina, in the sense of a proper noun rather than common, to the end of the seventeenth century, when after the Pereyaslavl Rada of 1654 and the “eternal peace” concluded in 1686 between the Russian state and Poland (according to which left-bank Malorussia with Kiev went into the eternal possession of the Russian state), the Poles understood what a real danger the common faith and ethnicity among the residents of the Polish borderlands and the Russian state carried. Aiming to suppress the wish of Russian people living in Poland to reunite with the Russian state, Polish scholars directed all their efforts at proving that there were no Russians in Poland, only a special “Ukrainian” nationality. In historiography, there is a most widespread consensus on the role of Polish influence in divorcing Little Russia from Russia and in the formation of a Ukrainophile movement.

Summing up these opinions, we can repeat along with one of the researchers of this question that the Poles “took upon themselves the role of a midwife during the birth of Ukrainian nationalism and a nanny during its upbringing.”

The Twentieth Century

“Anti-Russian Rus,” founded by the Poles in the nineteenth century under the guise of Ukrainophilism for the national end of struggle against the Russian Empire over their lost sovereignty, changed masters a number of times in the twentieth century. Among them were the Austrians, the Germans and the Americans, but the goal of the movement’s existence was always the same: the dismemberment of the Russian nation.

For its part, Austro-Hungary dreamed of creating an allied Kievan kingdom headed by one or another branch of the Hohenzollerns or Habsburgs. Germany, as the stronger power, outstripped in her designs an Austro-Hungary weakened by internal dysfunction, as the latter empire thought sooner how to preserve what was already in her possession.

Germany’s wish to tear away the entire south of the Russian Empire (the coal of Donetsk, the oil of Baku, etc.) conformed to longtime dreams of a breakthrough to the East – here one can recall the project of a railroad from Berlin to Constantinople to Baghdad, and also the choice of allies for the First World War – Austro-Hungary, Bulgaria and Turkey – again an attempt to create a line from Berlin to Baghdad. Hence the desire to weaken Russia as much as possible before decisive world-scale battles, for which Germany was already preparing over several decades. And so, for example, under the German General Staff long before the First World War, there was organized a section engaged in Ukrainian affairs. This section executed projects and organized disunity inside the Russian nation.

As researcher of Ukrainian nationalism Prince A. M. Volkonsky wrote:

Germany needed to rupture the linguistic ties between the Little Russian and the Great Russian, for having torn away the cultured class of Russia’s south from the Russian literary and academic language, it would be easier to impose her German culture upon the country. The Germans began to support the artificial ‘Ukrainian mova.’ They acted in German fashion, systematically and not losing any time. From the first year of the Great War, Malorussian prisoners were separated into special camps and subjected there to ‘ukrainization’; for the most susceptible, something along the lines of a ‘Ukrainization Academy’ was set up in Koenigsberg. Hundreds of thousands of propagandized prisoners of war returning home to Little Russia in 1918 became the main instrument of spreading the Ukrainian idea in the peasant medium. (Prince A. M. Volkonsky. Historical Truth and Ukrainophile Propaganda. Turin, 1920. Page 129.)

The February Masonic conspiracy of 1917 did not allow Emperor Nicholas II carry out the general spring offensive along the entire front and once and for all break the forces of the exhausted enemy. After several months, Germany was able to bring her protégés to power in Russia – the Leninist Bolsheviks – and Grushevsky’s Mazepites in “independent Ukraine.” Thus Germany received a deferment from unavoidable defeat in the First World War for an entire year.

The south of Russia was vitally important for Germany. Matthias Erzberger, a German minister, said at an institutional gathering:

The Russian question is nothing less than part of a great debate the Germans are conducting with the English over the goal of world domination. We need Lithuania and Ukraine, which should be Germany’s forward positions. Poland should be weakened. And if Poland is in our hands, then we shall close all routes to Russia, and she will belong to us. Is it not clear that only on this path lies Germany’s future?

German statesmen acted completely consciously and systematically on that path, as evidenced by German Chancellor Michaelis in June of 1917:

We should be very careful that the literature by which we hope to strengthen the process of Russia’s collapse does not achieve exactly the opposite end… The Ukrainians still nonetheless reject the idea of total separation from Russia. Open interference from our side in favor of an independent Ukrainian state can doubtless be used by the adversary for the goal of exposing extant nationalist currents as created by Germany.(Zeman, Z. A. Germany and the Revolution in Russia 1915-1918. New York, 1958. P 65-67.)

But all hesitations were cast aside when the question of Germany’s fate became more acute. Hence the notion suggested by the Germans to the ideologues of Ukrainianism about an “independent Ukraine from the Carpathians to the Caucasus without master or servant.” And the Germans considered that from the Caucasus, they themselves could reach the Middle East.

At that time there also appeared ideas of a union from the Black to the Baltic Sea (the restoration of the Rzezcpospolita at a new stage of history?) – the alliance of Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belorussia, and Malorussia. This possibility is now foreseen in further plans in the struggle with Russia: the separation of “Asiatic” Moscow from “civilized” Europe by a wall of “second-class” Europeans…

Ukrainian separatism in the twentieth century becomes ever more unprincipled – it is ready to reconcile with any regime as long as it was on its side, i.e. in one or another fashion supported the Ukrainian movement. And so many advocates for independence, headed by M. Grushevsky, finally ended up in the camp of the Bolsheviks, who recognized the terms “Ukrainian,” “Ukraine” and the “Ukrainian language.” In 1923, after the Twelfth Congress, the Communists declared a policy of indigenization, the development of all non-Russian nationalities (and those considered non-Russian), a program expressed in the Ukraine through the ukrainization of the population and the introduction of the Ukrainian language beginning with state and party officials. Having come to power, the Bolsheviks generally created all the conditions for the growth and maturation of Ukrainian nationalism, which upon the death of its Communist overseer shredded the unity of the Russian people, threatening in time to become a forward bulwark of anti-Russian forces in the world.

The modern state of Ukraine adopts in all manifestations of its policies a consistently anti-Russian position. As at the beginning of the twentieth century, Ukrainian separatism is tasked with founding a nation of “Ukrainians” through the formation of a Ukrainian ideological elite, which should fashion a single nation from the ethnographic distinctions of the Malorussian population of various provinces and from the myth of a unified Cossack tribe. An artificial willed ethnogenesis is created in the cauldron of the Ukrainian state. M. Grushevsky would write that “Ukrainianism in Russia should go beyond the boundaries of ethnographic nationality to become a political and economic factor and attend to the organization of Ukrainian society as a nation now if it doesn’t wish to be several generations late.”

Russian history has shown that the most terrible enemies of the Russian people have been of an internal nature. Russians in their placidity cannot fully believe that among their own might be traitors. Therefore the Ukrainian question is so important, for it is a matter of internal unity of the nation and a new gathering of lands that awaits our national-political awakening. So wrote the ideologue of discord, Dmitry Dontsov:

As a rule, the Ukrainian question appears like a comet over Europe’s political skies every time that a critical moment ensues for Russia.

The national goals of peoples who have matured to activity on a world scale are always directed toward the full mastery of their natural territory and influence upon vital lands adjoining the nation. Therefore, on the one hand, the task of the nation consists in defining the natural borders of the spread of its dominion and in the establishment of necessary influence upon vital neighboring regions. On the other hand, it follows to be wary of ideas such as the notion of world hegemony, as they inevitably lead to an extreme squandering of the nation’s energies and do not bring about the desired result.

For the achievement of the set objectives, the spiritual health and internal unity of the nation are necessary. The former is reached through support of the belief that is truth for the nation. Russians confess Orthodoxy, the only true and saving faith, and therefore the preservation of the Orthodox faith is the main task both for the Church and the state and for every Russian. The latter is reached by correct organization and support of the sovereign, social and cultural life of the nation, which it is necessary to protect from harmful outside influences, especially if they are aimed at, for example, Ukrainianism, the schism of the Russian nation.

La stratégie de l’Anaconda

  La stratégie de l’Anaconda

par Eduard RIX

Pour le géopoliticien allemand Karl Haushofer les Anglo-saxons pratiquent la politique de l’Anaconda, consistant à enserrer progressivement sa proie et à l’étouffer lentement.

Dans Terre et Mer, Carl Schmitt rappelle que les cabbalistes du Moyen-Age interprétaient l’histoire du monde comme un combat entre un animal marin, une puissante baleine, le Léviathan, et un animal terrien, éléphant ou taureau, le Behemoth (1). Ce dernier essaie de déchirer le Léviathan avec ses défenses ou ses cornes, tandis que la baleine s’efforce de boucher avec ses nageoires la gueule du terrien pour l’affamer ou l’étouffer. Pour Schmitt, derrière cette allégorie mythologique se cache le blocus d’une puissance terrestre par une puissance maritime. Il ajoute : « l’histoire mondiale est l’histoire de la lutte des puissances maritimes contre les puissances continentales et des puissances continentales contre les puissances maritimes » (2), axiome que reprendront les géopoliticiens anglo-saxons.

Le Sea Power de Mahan

Premier d’entre eux, l’amiral Alfred T. Mahan (1840-1914), qui estime que la puissance maritime (Sea Power) s’est révélée déterminante pour la prospérité des nations. Pour lui, la Mer peut agir contre la Terre - alors que l’inverse n’est pas vrai - et finit toujours par l’emporter. Profondément persuadé que la maîtrise des mers assure la domination des terres, il énonce : « L’Empire de la mer est sans nul doute l’Empire du monde » (3).

Dans The problem of Asia (1900), il applique à l’Eurasie son paradigme géopolitique, insistant sur la nécessité d’une coalition des puissances maritimes pour contenir la progression vers la haute mer de la grande puissance terrestre de l’époque, la Russie. En effet, sa position centrale confère un grand avantage stratégique à l’Empire russe car il peut s’étendre dans tous les sens et ses lignes intérieures ne peuvent être coupées. Par contre, et là réside sa faiblesse, ses accès à la mer sont limités, Mahan ne voyant que trois axes d’expansion possibles : en Europe, pour contourner le verrou des détroits turcs, vers le Golfe persique et sur la Mer de Chine. C’est pourquoi il préconise un endiguement de la tellurocratie russe passant par la création d’un vaste front des puissances maritimes, des thalassocraties, qui engloberait les USA, la Grande-Bretagne, l’Allemagne et le Japon.

Heartland contre World Island

L’universitaire britannique Halford John Mackinder (1861-1947) s’inspirera de Mahan. Une idée fondamentale traverse toute son œuvre : la confrontation permanente entre la Terre du Milieu ou Heartland, c’est-à-dire la steppe centre-asiatique, et l’Ile du Monde ou World Island, la masse continentale Asie-Afrique-Europe.

C’est dans sa célèbre communication de 1904, « The geographical pivot of history » (Le pivot géographique de l’histoire), qu’il formule sa théorie, que l’on peut résumer ainsi : 1°) la Russie occupe la zone pivot inaccessible à la puissance maritime, à partir de laquelle elle peut entreprendre de conquérir et contrôler la masse continentale eurasienne; 2°) en face, la puissance maritime, à partir de ses bastions (Grande-Bretagne, Etats-Unis, Afrique du Sud, Australie et Japon) inaccessibles à la puissance terrestre, encercle cette dernière et lui interdit d’accéder librement à la haute mer.

Pour lui, la steppe asiatique, quasi déserte, est la Terre du Milieu (Heartland), entourée de deux croissants fortement peuplés : le croissant intérieur (inner crescent), regroupant l’Inde, la Chine, le Japon et l’Europe, qui jouxte la Terre du Milieu, et le croissant extérieur (outer crescent), constitué d’îles diverses. Le croissant intérieur est soumis régulièrement à la poussée des nomades cavaliers venus des steppes de la Terre du Milieu. L’ère « colombienne » voit l’affrontement de deux mobilités, celle de l’Angleterre qui amorce la conquête des mers, et celle de la Russie qui avance progressivement en Sibérie.

Avec le chemin de fer, la puissance terrestre est désormais capable de déployer ses forces aussi vite que la puissance océanique. Obnubilé par cette révolution des transports, qui permettra à la Russie de développer un espace industrialisé autonome et fermé au commerce des thalassocraties, Mackinder conclut à la supériorité de la puissance tellurique, résumant sa pensée dans un aphorisme saisissant : « Qui tient l’Europe continentale contrôle le Heartland. Qui tient le Heartland contrôle la World Island ». Effectivement, toute autonomisation économique de l’espace centre-asiatique conduit automatiquement à une réorganisation du flux des échanges, le croissant interne ayant alors intérêt à développer ses relations commerciales avec la Terre du Milieu, au détriment des thalassocraties anglo-saxonnes.

Dans Democratic Ideals and Reality (1919), Mackinder rappelle l’importance de la masse continentale russe, que les thalassocraties ne peuvent ni contrôler depuis la mer ni envahir complètement. Concrètement, il faut selon lui impérativement séparer l’Allemagne de la Russie par un « cordon sanitaire », afin d’empêcher l’unité du continent eurasiatique. Politique prophylactique suivie par Lord Curzon, qui nomme l’universitaire Haut commissaire britannique en « Russie du Sud », où une mission militaire assiste les Blancs de Dénikine et obtient qu’ils reconnaissent de facto la nouvelle république d’Ukraine… Pour rendre impossible l’unification de l’Eurasie, Mackinder préconise la balkanisation de l’Europe orientale, l’amputation de la Russie de son glacis baltique et ukrainien, le « containment » des forces russes en Asie.

Le Rimland de Spykman

L’idée fondamentale posée par Mahan et Mackinder, interdire à la Russie l’accès à la haute mer, sera reformulée par Nicholas John Spykman (1893-1943), qui insiste sur l’impérieuse nécessité de contrôler l’anneau maritime ou Rimland, cette zone littorale bordant la Terre du Milieu et qui court de la Norvège à la Corée. Pour lui, « qui maîtrise l’anneau maritime tient l’Eurasie, qui tient l’Eurasie maîtrise la destinée du monde » (4).

Alors que chez Mackinder le croissant intérieur est un espace de civilisation élevé mais fragile, car toujours menacé de tomber sous la coupe des « barbares dynamiques » du Heartland, chez Spykman le Rimland constitue un atout géopolitique majeur, non plus à la périphérie mais au centre de gravité géostratégique. Pour lui, la position des territoires du Rimland « par rapport à l’Equateur, aux océans et aux masses terrestres détermine leur proximité du centre de puissance et des zones de conflit; c’est sur leur territoire que se stabilisent les voies de communication; leur position par rapport à leurs voisins immédiats définit les conditions relatives aux potentialités de l’ennemi, déterminant de ce fait le problème de base de la sécurité nationale » (5). Après 1945, la politique extérieure américaine va suivre exactement la géopolitique de Spykman en cherchant à occuper tout le Rimland et à encercler ainsi le cœur de l’Eurasie représenté désormais par l’URSS et ses satellites. Dès le déclenchement de la Guerre froide, les Etats-Unis tenteront, par une politique de « containment » de l’URSS, de contrôler le Rimland au moyen d’une longue chaîne de pactes régionaux : OTAN, Pacte de Bagdad puis Organisation du traité central du Moyen-Orient, OTASE et ANZUS.

Toutefois, dès 1963, le géopoliticien Saül B. Cohen proposera une politique plus ciblée visant à garder uniquement le contrôle des zones stratégiques vitales et à remplacer le réseau de pactes et de traités allant de la Turquie au Japon par une Maritime Asian Treaty Organization (MATO) (6).

Le Grand Echiquier

La géopolitique classique tenait l’Eurasie pour le pivot du monde. Avec la disparition de l’URSS en 1991, la superpuissance unique que constituent désormais les USA est devenu le pivot géopolitique mondial et l’arbitre du continent eurasiatique. L’on aurait pu s’attendre à un redéploiement stratégique de l’Amérique et à une rupture avec la vulgate mackindérienne. Il n’en a rien été. A tel point qu’aujourd’hui encore, le conseiller officieux de politique étrangère le plus écouté du président Obama se révèle être un disciple zélé de Mackinder. Il s’agit de Zbigniew Brzezinski, ami de David Rockefeller avec qui il cofonda la Commission Trilatérale en 1973, et ex conseiller à la sécurité nationale du président Carter de 1977 à 1980. Son œuvre théorique majeure, Le Grand Echiquier (1997), reprend la doxa géopolitique anglo-saxonne. En prélude, Brzezinski rappelle que « l’Eurasie reste l’échiquier sur lequel se déroule la lutte pour la primauté mondiale » (7). Les chiffres parlent d’eux-mêmes : « On dénombre environ 75% de la population mondiale en eurasie, ainsi que la plus grande partie des ressources physiques, sous forme d’entreprises ou de gisements de matières premières. L’addition des produits nationaux bruts du continent compte pour quelque 60% du total mondial. Les trois quarts des ressources énergétiques connues y sont concentrées » (8).

Pour que la suprématie américaine perdure, il faut éviter qu’un Etat ou un groupe d’Etats ne puisse devenir hégémonique sur la masse eurasiatique. Considérant que la principale menace vient de la Russie, Brzezinski préconise son encerclement - toujours cette stratégie de l’Anaconda - par l’implantation de bases militaires, ou à défaut de régimes amis, dans les ex- républiques soviétiques. Selon Brzezinski, l’effort américain doit porter sur trois régions clés. D’abord l’Ukraine, car écrit-il « Sans l’Ukraine la Russie cesse d’être un empire en Eurasie » (9). Il ajoute : « Pour Moscou, en revanche, rétablir le contrôle sur l’Ukraine – un pays de cinquante-deux millions d’habitants doté de ressources nombreuses et d’un accès à la mer Noire -, c’est s’assurer les moyens de redevenir un Etat impérial puissant » (10). Autre cible, l’Azerbaïdjan qui, « en dépit de ses faibles dimensions et de sa population limitée, recouvre une zone névralgique, car elle contrôle l’accès aux richesses du bassin de la Caspienne et de l’Asie centrale » (11). Brzezinski précise les enjeux : « Un Azerbaïdjan indépendant, relié aux marchés occidentaux par des pipes-lines qui évitent les territoires russes, permet la jonction entre les économies développées, fortes consommatrices d’énergie, et les gisements convoités des républiques d’asie centrale » (12). A ces deux pivots géopolitiques sensibles, il ajoute l’Asie centrale musulmane qu’il s’agit de désenclaver afin de transporter vers l’ouest et vers le sud le gaz et le pétrole du Turkménistan et du Kazakhstan sans passer par la Russie, l’Etat-clé de la région étant l’Ouzbékistan. Ce dernier, « le plus dynamique et le plus peuplé des pays d’Asie centrale serait l’obstacle majeur à une restauration du contrôle russe sur la région. » (13). Il ne s’agit plus pour l’Amérique de pratiquer l’endiguement de la guerre froide mais le refoulement (roll back).

Conclusion de Brzezinski : « Pour la première fois dans l’histoire, la scène principale du monde, l’Eurasie, est dominée par une puissance non eurasienne » (14), l’Amérique. Cependant « un scénario présenterait un grand danger potentiel » pour le Grand Jeu américain, « la naissance d’une grande coalition entre la Chine, la Russie et peut-être l’Iran » (15). N’assiste-t-on pas à la naissance d’une telle coalition « anti-hégémonique » à l’occasion de la crise syrienne ?

Edouard Rix, Réfléchir & Agir, automne 2012, n°42, pp. 45-47.

Notes

(1) Les noms de Léviathan et de Behemoth sont empruntés aux chapitres 40 et 41 du Livre de Job.

(2) C. Schmitt, Terre et Mer, Le Labyrinthe, Paris, 1985, p. 23.

(3) A.T. Mahan, The problem of Asia an its effect upon international policies,, Sampson Low-Marston, London, 1900, p.63.

(4) N. Spykman, The geography of the peace, Harcourt-Brace, New-York, 1944, p. 43.

(5) Ibid, p.5.

(6) Saül B. Cohen, Geography and politics in a World divided, Methuen, Londres, 1963, 2^e édition 1973, p.307.

(7) Z. Brzezinski, Le Grand Echiquier, Bayard éditions, Paris, 1997, p. 24.

(8) Ibid, p. 59.

(9) Ibid, p. 74.

(10) Ibid, p. 75.

(11) Ibid.

(12) Ibid.

(13) Ibid, p. 160.

(14) Ibid, p. 253.

(15) Ibid, p. 84.