César e Francisco

El papa Francisco, durante la rueda de prensa en el avión de regreso a Roma.
ALESSANDRA TARANTINO (AP)/ cropped

O meu reino não é deste mundo

El cinismo del papa Francisco 

La neutralidad del Vaticano en la crisis venezolana sirve de apoyo a Maduro
RUBÉN AMÓN
El País, 5 FEB 2019 - 15:30 CET 

No es Irán la única teocracia contemporánea que abjura del presidente Guaidó. Se resiste a reconocerlo el Vaticano, tanto por la idiosincrasia bolivariana del papa Francisco como porque su actual secretario de Estado, Pietro Parolin, fue el artífice de la reconciliación —de la comunión— entre el chavismo y la Santa Sede en los tiempos idólatras del mariscal Hugo. 

Es la razón por la que Nicolás Maduro ha pedido la mediación moral y política del sumo pontífice. Pretende involucrarlo como árbitro de una conferencia de países “neutrales” —México, Uruguay— convocada en Montevideo este jueves como salida al aislamiento del tirano venezolano.

Interessante, esta análise! É um facto que as ditaduras nunca assustaram o Vaticano. Basta lembrar a Itália de Mussolini, a Espanha de Franco, o Portugal de Salazar, e o Chile de Pinochet. Porque haveria então o Papa Francisco, que encanta o hedonista Marcelo, de se preocupar com o chavismo e o seu desastrado herdeiro, Nicolás Maduro? A Deus o que é de Deus, a César o que é de César. Foi este negócio com as autocracias que garantiu a esta, como a outras igrejas, a longevidade do atavismo religioso. Secundariamente, esta posição 'simpática' para com o ditador Maduro, até permitirá ao Vaticano fazer a mediação que o resto dos europeus já não é capaz.

Russos e chineses acharam que poderiam avançar pelo Atlântico e pelas Américas dentro. Não podem. Mas lá que os Estados Unidos e os caniches europeus lhes deram pretexto, nomeadamente na forma hipócrita, interesseira e estúpida como lidaram com o colapso da União Sovética, e mais recentemente com a Ucrânia, ou ainda com a soberania sobre o mar do Sul da China, deram...

Agora vai ser preciso reequilibrar os dispositivos de forças, quer a leste de Berlim, quer no quintal latino-americano dos gringos. Voltamos sempre ao mesmo: a paz futura depende da realização dum Novo Tratado de Tordesilhas. Dum lado deve ficar a Euro-América, do outro a China. No meio, precisamos dum continente independente, próspero e neutral: a África.

Dito isto, a posição diplomática assumida pelo governo português é absolutamente correta. Não se defendem os interesses de Portugal, nem dos portugueses emigrados na Venezuela, apoiando um ditador alimentado com sinodólares e euros de Moscovo.

Vamos provavelmente assistir a um prolongado braço de ferro, sobretudo porque dependerá de concessões a fazer ao longo da antiga cortina de ferro, na Síria e... no Irão. Já agora, um Irão nuclear será um player decisivo no Médio Oriente, podendo mesmo afastar o espectro de Putin na região. Daí que seja tempo de os americanos e europeus darem corda aos snickers!


REFERÊNCIAS

El Papa sobre Venezuela: “Temo un derramamiento de sangre” 

DANIEL VERDÚ
El País, A bordo del avión del Papa 28 ENE 2019 - 14:23 CET 

La posición del Vaticano en el conflicto de Venezuela ha sido siempre ambigua y discreta. Su frustrado papel como mediador lo requirió en su momento. Pero ahora, en pleno ultimátum de un nutrido bloque de países a Nicolás Maduro para que convoque elecciones, millones de venezolanos y los propios mandatarios implicados —con Juan Guaidó a la cabeza de la oposición— se preguntan cuál es la opinión del Papa y la postura que adoptará la Santa Sede, con enorme influencia en la comunidad católica del país, en un conflicto que camina peligrosamente hacia la violencia. El Papa, tras varios días de silencio, pidió en el Ángelus del domingo en Panamá “una solución justa y pacífica”. Pero, ¿qué quiere decir eso? 

Los hombres de Pinochet en el Vaticano 

JUAN JOSÉ TAMAYO
El País, 2 MAR 1999 

Desde su toma de poder en Chile, tras el golpe de Estado contra el presidente Salvador Allende, el general Pinochet buscó denodadamente el apoyo del Vaticano a su dictadura militar alegando como credenciales su fe católica y su cruzada contra el marxismo, llevada a cabo en plena sintonía con Juan Pablo II, antimarxista como él. Mientras el arzobispo de Santiago de Chile, cardenal Silva Enríquez, denunciaba los atentados de Pinochet contra los derechos humanos -incluido el derecho a la vida- a través de la Vicaría de Solidaridad, el Vaticano legitimaba las actuaciones del dictador, sobre todo a través de la nunciatura.Tras los resultados adversos del plebiscito de octubre de 1988, que le obligaron a abandonar el poder, Pinochet redobló sus esfuerzos por asegurarse el aval del Vaticano, confiando en que saliera en su defensa en caso de que fuera procesado. Y la larga sombra del general se extendió hasta la curia romana, donde hoy ocupan puestos de responsabilidad de primera línea personalidades eclesiásticas afines a él.

Qual Islão? É o gás, estúpido!

Quem vai fornecer gás à Europa, e por onde passarão os gasodutos, eis a questão.

Rússia suspende fornecimento de gás à Ucrânia 

A petrolífera estatal russa Gazprom anunciou esta quarta-feira que suspendeu o fornecimento de gás à Ucrânia depois de Kiev ter falhado um novo pré-pagamento para obter mais entregas. i online 

Russia Says Turkey's Attack On Jet Was "Planned Provocation" As Ankara Moves Tanks Near Syrian Border. Zero Hedge 

On Tuesday evening, we took a close look at the circumstances surrounding Turkey’s decision to shoot down a Russian Su-24 near the Syrian border. The incident was the most meaningful escalation in the conflict to date and marks the first time a Russian or Soviet plane has been downed by NATO since 1953.

A temperatura da escalada bélica entre Turquia e a Rússia, quer dizer, entre a Turquia + NATO + EUA (+ Arábia Saudita + Qatar + ISIS) e a Rússia + Síria (+ Irão + China) continua a subir.

Em causa não está nenhuma divergência religiosa no seio do Islão, ou entre o Islão, o Judaísmo e o Cristianismo, mas antes saber por onde passará ou passarão o(s) futuro(s) gasoduto(s) proveniente(s) da Rússia (em alternativa à passagem cada vez mais problemática pela Ucrânia), e/ou do Mar Cáspio e/ou do Golfo Pérsico em direção à Europa, sendo que o acesso europeu às reservas do Cáspio e/ou do Golfo Pérsico  implicam passagens obrigatórias pela Turquia e/ou pela Síria e Líbano.

Clique p/ ampliar

O gás russo, cuja passagem pela Ucrânia está cada vez mais ameaçada, tem procurado chegar à Europa através de uma passagem pela Turquia e Grécia, mas os incidentes em curso poderão ter fechado esta hipótese por tempo indeterminado.

A Turquia é também um país indispensável ao projetado gasoduto proveniente do Mar Cáspio.

Por sua vez, o maior depósito de gás natural conhecido situa-se no Golfo Pérsico e é partilhado pelo Irão, xiita, e pelo Qatar, sunita. Neste caso, luta-se pelo trajeto do gasoduto até ao Mediterrâneo, ou via Arábia Saudita, Jordânia, Líbano (que o Irão jamais aceitará); ou através da projetada rede de gasodutos que atravessarão o Irão, o Iraque, a Síria e o Líbano, até chegar ao Mediterrâneo.

Percebe-se, pois, porque é que a Síria é hoje um Inferno.

Rússia e China unem-se contra o belicismo americano

O presidente da França, François Hollande, se encontra com Fidel Castro em Havana.
(Foto: Alex Castro / AP Photo) Globo

A desgraça anunciada dos vassalos europeus de Washington

“...unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future.” — Paul Craig Roberts

Se há personagem caricata na política europeia, Hollande é certamente a mais deprimente. Só depois de Obama ter anunciado o desmantelamento progressivo do cerco que há mais de meio século os Estados Unidos mantém contra Cuba é que o presidente francês, representante do estado terminal do 'socialismo' europeu, teve a brilhante iniciativa de visitar Cuba. Ou seja, a Europa continua a ser uma mão cheia de estados vassalos do falido e declinante império americano.

Entretanto, a ocorrência mais importante da semana passada foi a resposta dada pela Rússia e pela China ao expansionismo provocatório e belicista dos Estados Unidos e da sua cauda militarista, a NATO, de que faz parte uma mão cheia de estados sem espinha dorsal, a começar pela França.

Washington tem feito tudo para montar um cenário de guerra global. Russos e chineses concluíram que esta inércia belicista está a rolar a toda a velocidade, e preparam-se para o pior: uma guerra nuclear.

Quem mais sofreu e quem realmente venceu a Alemanha nazi e o Japão? 

Ao contrário do que reza a mentira americana e inglesa, foram a ex-União Soviética e a China. Hoje estes dois grandes países estão unidos numa nova aliança estratégica contra a ameaça americana, cada vez mais provocatória e belicista, e que tem arrastado na sua cauda os vassalos imbecis e sem vergonha da Europa.

Vale a pena ler a este propósito:

War Threat Rises As Economy Declines
Paul Craig Roberts, Keynote Address to the Annual Conference of the Financial West Group, New Orleans, May 7, 2015

Ex-URSS e China pagaram a mais pesada fatura da II Guerra Mundial

EXCERTOS:

Wolfowitz Doctrine:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

...

When Russia blocked the Obama regime’s planned invasion of Syria and intended bombing of Iran, the neoconservatives realized that while they had been preoccupied with their wars in the Middle East and Africa for a decade, Putin had restored the Russian economy and military.

The first objective of the Wolfowitz doctrine–to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival–had been breached. Here was Russia telling the US “No.” The British Parliament joined in by vetoing UK participation in a US invasion of Syria. The Uni-Power status was shaken.

This redirected the attention of the neoconservatives from the Middle East to Russia. Over the previous decade Washington had invested $5 billion in financing up-and-coming politicians in Ukraine and non-governmental organizations that could be sent into the streets in protests.

When the president of Ukraine did a cost-benefit analysis of the proposed association of Ukraine with the EU, he saw that it didn’t pay and rejected it. At that point Washington called the NGOs into the streets. The neo-nazis added the violence and the government unprepared for violence collapsed.

Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt chose the new Ukrainian government and established a vassal regime in Ukraine.

...

The real reason for Quantitative Easing is to support the banks’ balance sheets. However, the official reason is to stimulate the economy and sustain economic recovery. The only sign of recovery is real GDP which shows up as positive only because the deflator is understated.

...

[o novo protecionismo, interessante...]

To restore the economy requires that offshoring be reversed and the jobs brought back to the US. This could be done by changing the way corporations are taxed. The tax rate on corporate profit could be determined by the geographic location at which corporations add value to the products that they market in the US. If the goods and services are produced offshore, the tax rate would be high. If the goods and services are produced domestically, the tax rate could be low. The tax rates could be set to offset the lower costs of producing abroad.

e...

...unless the dollar and with it US power collapses or Europe finds the courage to break with Washington and to pursue an independent foreign policy, saying good-bye to NATO, nuclear war is our likely future.

Washington’s aggression and blatant propaganda have convinced Russia and China that Washington intends war, and this realization has drawn the two countries into a strategic alliance. Russia’s May 9 Victory Day celebration of the defeat of Hitler is a historical turning point. Western governments boycotted the celebration, and the Chinese were there in their place. For the first time Chinese soldiers marched in the parade with Russian soldiers, and the president of China sat next to the president of Russia.

...

As the years have passed without Washington hearing, Russia and China have finally realized that their choice is vassalage or war. Had there been any intelligent, qualified people in the National Security Council, the State Department, or the Pentagon, Washington would have been warned away from the neocon policy of sowing distrust. But with only neocon hubris present in the government, Washington made the mistake that could be fateful for humanity.

---

Se gostou do que leu apoie a continuidade deste blogue com uma pequena doação

O nó grego. Alemanha isolada?

Alexei Tsipras visitou em Kaisariani a campa dos duzentos ativistas gregos, na sua maioria comunistas, fuzilados pelos nazis em maio de 1944.

Parece que a Alemanha vai perder mais uma guerra

A Alemanha, que é tão extraordinária em tanta coisa, como no fabrico de automóveis e lentes fotográficas, ou na sua Filosofia, tem, no entanto, o mesmo problema do Francisco Louçã: pensa de maneira quadrada. Ou seja, a sua sensibilidade e capacidade de manobra são iguais a zero. Sempre que é conveniente contornar um obstáculo, o quadrado mal se move, pois, para chegar a qualquer um dos outros três lados do polígono, precisa de realizar um esforço enorme para vencer a inércia.

Todos sabemos que os oportunistas do sul da Europa se aproveitaram do súbito mas falso enriquecimento proporcionado pela entrada numa zona monetária forte. Sem produzirem o suficiente para o poder aquisitivo que lhes saiu na rifa, de um dia para o outro, desataram a comprar Golfs, Audis, BMWs, Mercedes e Porshces. E não ficaram por aqui. Especularam com terrenos e construiram milhares de empreendimentos imobiliáros para nada, construiram pontes para lado nenhum, autoestradas vazias, fecharam e venderam empresas em catadupa porque, de repente, o que produziam ficou mais caro do que sul-americanos, africanos e asiáticos exportavam para a Europa. Dedicaram-se aos casinos financeiros, que davam mais proveitos e prestígio do que a maçada de criar valor. E, para culminar tudo isto, endividaram os respetivos estados até à ruína, em nome de excelentes serviços de saúde, educação para todos, pensões de reforma para quem trabalhou e não trabalhou, e ainda mordomias sem fim e salários milionários para os principais rendeiros e devoristas dos novos e mui populistas regimes democráticos (outra aquisição repentina e mal digerida, claro). Em cima de tudo isto, a cereja da corrupção galopante—uma consequência previsível do abandono da ética, e da arrogância, protagonizados desde logo e em primeiro lugar pelas partidocracias instaladas.

Isto é tudo verdade, mas falta acrescentar um ponto: a Alemanha e os países ricos da Eurolândia contribuiram e beneficiaram como ninguém desta mentira económica, social e ética.

“...the conclusion is that Greece’s crisis is the EU’s fault, and the EU should “pay” via the debt write-offs that Syriza wants.” — Steve Keen, “It’s All The Greeks’ Fault”, Forbes, 21/1/2015.

Os gráficos (aqui e aqui) mostram que

1. antes do euro a produção industrial da Grécia, Espanha e Itália cresciam mais depressa que a produção alemã, mas mais devagar do que esta última assim que foi criada a zona euro; e
2. que o desemprego, a dívida pública, e o rácio da dívida privada face ao PIB se agravaram, e o desendividamento privado foi mais acentuado na Grécia e na Espanha do que nos Estados Unidos, quando comparados os gráficos homólogo, única e exclusivamente por efeito da austeridade. 

Mas há mais:

Por um lado, não podemos isolar o problema do endividamento e sobretudo das responsabilidades financeiras futuras do estado social grego, do resto da Eurolândia, como no gráfico seguinte bem se demonstra. 418% do PIB alemão são qualquer coisa como $15 592 490 980 000, enquanto que 875% do PIB grego são algo parecido com $2 115 058 750 000, ou seja, mesmo considerando as responsabilidades por cabeça, os números são desfavoráveis à Alemanha: $193 055/hab na terra da senhora Merkel, contra $192 418 /hab na terra do senhor Alexei Tsipras.

E mais ainda:

O sistema bancário grego está sob um enorme e orquestrado ataque financeiro especulativo. Teme-se pela segurança bancária grega, dizem. Mas a verdade é outra: o que se realmente se teme é que a crise grega possa revelar o grau de exposição criminosa da banca alemã, nomeadamente do Deutsche Bank, ao buraco negro dos derivados especulativos. Se não, reparemos no gráfico seguinte:

Vale a pena ler o comentário publicado pelo Zero Hedge sobre o artigo do The Wall Street Journal sobre esta bomba-relógio:

NY Fed Slams Deutsche Bank (And Its €55 Trillion In Derivatives): Accuses It Of "Significant Operational Risk"

Zero Hedge. Submitted by Tyler Durden on 07/22/2014 20:41 -0400

First it was French BNP that was punished with a $9 billion legal fee after France refused to cancel the Mistral warship shipment to Russia (which promptly led to French National Bank head Christian Noyer to warn that the days of the USD as a reserve currency are numbered), and now moments ago, none other than the 150x-levered NY Fed tapped Angela Merkel on the shoulder with a polite reminder to vote "Yes" on the next, "Level-3" round of Russia sanctions when it revealed, via the WSJ, that "Deutsche Bank's giant U.S. operations suffer from a litany of serious problems, including shoddy financial reporting, inadequate auditing and oversight and weak technology systems."

What could possibly go wrong? Well... this. Recall that as we have shown for two years in a row, Deutsche has a total derivative exposure that amounts to €55 trillion or just about $75 trillion. That's a trillion with a T, and is about 100 times greater than the €522 billion in deposits the bank has. It is also 5x greater than the GDP of Europe and more or less the same as the GDP of... the world.

Que se passa então para lá da poeira e do fumo criados pela artilharia mediática?

Infelizmente só há uma explicação: a Alemanha tentou, mais uma vez, conquistar a Europa, usando desta vez uma estratégia sobretudo financeira. Uma vez mais falhou. E uma vez mais falhou porque traíu simultaneamente os compromissos com os aliados atlânticos, e com a Rússia!

Tal como nas anteriores tentativas de hegemonia, a Alemanha procurou resolver simultaneamente o problema do acesso ao mar e o problema da energia. Aceder à Eurásia, ao Atlântico e ao Mediterrâneo sem pedir licença, nem pagar taxas a ninguém, foi sempre um desejo racional, mas ilegítimo. Desta vez, caiu na armadilha americana de tentativa de isolamento da Rússia, aceitando expandir a NATO para os antigos países da Cortina de Ferro, ignorando que tal movimento seria sempre avaliado por Moscovo como uma ameaça intolerável.

A resposta de Moscovo foi estrategicamente contundente: interromper o fornecimento de gás natural (a energia rainha do século 21) à Europa via Ucrânia, e apostar num novo gasoduto a sul, com entrada europeia pela... Grécia!

A complicação está montada, e não é nada interessante para a Alemanha, a Holanda, e os países do Báltico.

Sinais eloquentes: os dois primeiros atos do novo governo grego foram uma homenagem aos comunistas fuzilados pelos nazis em Kaisariani, em 1944, e a receção do embaixador da Rússia, que já prometeu fornecer alimentos à Grécia, e o mais que for preciso.

A Rússia ameaçou o Ocidente com uma escalada sem precedentes da tensão existente se Wall Street, Londres e Frankfurt se atreverem a expulsar o país de Putin da SWIFT, a Sociedade para Telecomunicações Financeiras Interbancárias Globais.

A Rússia e a China são dois poderes globais a que a Grécia certamente recorrerá no seu desafio à arrogância paternalista do senhor Schauble.

Como em tempos escrevi, em vez de a Grécia sair do euro, pode acontecer que seja a Alemanha a regressar ao marco.

NATO vs Rússia: alerta, fricção e risco

Preparativos para quê?

Caught On Tape - NATO Intercepts Russian Jets Over Baltic Sea

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 12/10/2014 17:40 -0500. Zero Hedge

In Top-Gun-esque imagery, NATO has released video of a Dutch Air-Force F-16 fighter engaging with numerous Russian planes (more than 30!) including fighter and transport aircraft, over the Baltic Sea. This was filmed this last weekend as activity, according to NATO, continues to increase.

Entretanto o Departamento do Tesouro norte-americano faz consultas para forneciemnto de kits de sobrevivência destinados aos seus funcionários destacados em missões de inspeção aos principais bancos do país. Para que efeito, pergunta-se? Reflexos das alterações climáticas, ou algo mais?

Treasury Department Seeking Survival Kits For Bank Employees
Emergency masks, solar blankets to be delivered to every major bank in the U.S.
BY: Elizabeth Harrington   
December 10, 2014 1:00 pm. The Washington Free Beacon

The Department of Treasury is seeking to order survival kits for all of its employees who oversee the federal banking system, according to a new solicitation.
The emergency supplies would be for every employee at the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which conducts on-site reviews of banks throughout the country. The survival kit includes everything from water purification tablets to solar blankets.


CONSULTA A FORNECEDORES

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is seeking survival kits for its employees with the follow contents: • Waist f anny - pack or backpack (all of the items below must fit in the fanny - pack/backpack) • 2400 - calorie food bar (minimum 5 - year shelf life) • 3 - pack 8.5 oz. water (minimum 5 - year shelf life) • 50 water purification tablets (minimum 5 - year shelf life) • Reusable solar blanket 52” x 84” • Dust mask • One - size fits all poncho with hood • 12 hr. light stick • 1 pair of latex gloves • Whistle with lanyard • 33 piece personal first aid kit: o 1 – antibiotic ointment pack o 2 – extra strength non - aspirin tablets o 2 – ibuprofen tablets o 2 – decongestant tablets o 4 – alcohol cleansing pads o 2 – antiseptic cleansing wipes (sting free) o 6 – ¾” x 3” adhesive plastic bandages o 1 0 – 3/8” x 1 ½” Junior plastic bandages o 1 – large butterfly wound closure o 1 – 1 ½” x 1 ½” patch plastic bandage o 1 – first aid guide o 1 – Carry anywhere case • 5 Wet Naps • Dynamo rechargeable lantern with AM/FM radio • Air - Aid emergency mask.

A palavra e a ação de Putin

Caça europeu e bombardeiros russo, 29-30/10/2014

A Rússia não é o Iraque

F-16 interceptam e identificam bombardeiros russos
Jornal i, 29 Out 2014 - 21:24

A agência noticiosa francesa AFP noticiou hoje que a NATO anunciou que detetou “manobras aéreas incomuns” e de “grande escala” da Rússia no espaço aéreo sobre o Oceano Atlântico e os mares Báltico, do Norte e Negro, nos últimos dois dias.

Segundo a NATO, os aparelhos russos não tinham apresentado planos de voo, não estabeleceram qualquer contacto com as autoridades de aviação civil e não corresponderam às comunicações, o que “representa um risco potencial para os voos civis”.

Em comunicado, citado pela agência noticiosa AFP, a NATO adianta que “detetou e controlou quatro grupos de aviões militares russos a realizarem manobras militares significativas no espaço aéreo europeu”, entre terça-feira e hoje.

No dia 24 de outubro Vladimir Putin fez uma importante comunicação em Sochi, que a imprensa europeia de serviço ignorou quase por completo. No dia 28 de outubro uma missão espacial destinada à estação orbital internacional explode 11s depois de o foguetão descolar de uma torre de lançamento da NASA. No dia 29 a Rússia testou com sucesso o seu novo míssil estratégico intercontinental Bulava (alcance: 10 mil Km), cujo lançamento, a profundidade submarina não revelada, teve origem num submarino nuclear da classe Borey. No mesmo dia e no dia seguinte mais de uma dúzia de aeronaves de guerra russas passearam-se pelos céus atlânticos da Europa, mostrando que o poder de projeção russa existe, está bem de saúde e é capaz de colocar a Europa de gatas em menos de doze horas. Angela Merkel, e bem, desvalorizou a histeria dos comandos da NATO sobre o assunto, afirmando que se trataram de exercício militares conhecidos e legítimos por parte de um país soberano, em território seu, ou em céus internacionais.

Submarino nuclear russo K-535 Yuriy Dolgorukiy, da classe Borey

29/10/2014: lançamento do míssil intercontinental Bulava (vídeo)

Ou seja, o tempo em que os americanos punham e dispunham do planeta como coisa sua acabou. Agora, ou há costumes e leis internacionais a respeitar, e a ONU vela pelas regras estabelecidas, ou então a Rússia deixa de ter em conta a ONU e segue mais claramente a defesa dos seus interesses, não permitindo mais coboiadas diplomáticas e provocações nas imediações das suas fronteiras: Ucrânia, Bielorússia, Afeganistão, Cazaquistão, Mongólia, Mar Cáspio, Mar de Barents, Mar de Bering, Mar da Sibéria, região de contato com o Japão, etc, dispondo-se, por outro lado, a cruzar e percorrer os espaços internacionais com o mesmo à vontade que qualquer outro país, nomeadamente os Estados Unidos, o faz.

“Pardon Us For Our Country’s Existence in the Middle of Your Military Bases” – Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov’s Speech at the UN

Mapa irónico sobre a hipocrisia americana e europeia ocidental

O que se passou neste mês de outubro é um aviso sério à decadente potência imperial e aos anões europeus: a Rússia tem território e energia que cheguem, aposta na cooperação global, quer ligar Lisboa a Vladisvostoque (tal como Pequim quer uma linha férrea da China à Europa, passando por Moscovo) apostando na aproximação da União Europeia à União Económica Euroasiática, defendendo os BRICS e a SCO, mas não aceita imposições, nem mais desconsiderações arrogantes, seja de quem for. A semana que passou serviu para explicar isto mesmo a quem tem andado a dormir na forma.

NATO Tracks Large-Scale Russia Air Activity in Europe
NATO Says Russian Air Activity Poses Potential Risk to Civilian Flights
in The Wall Sreet Journal

Russian military aircraft conducted aerial maneuvers around Europe this week on a scale seldom seen since the end of the Cold War, prompting NATO jets to scramble in another sign of how raw East-West relations have grown.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization said that more than two dozen Russian aircraft in four groups were intercepted and tracked on Tuesday and Wednesday, an unusually high level of activity that the alliance said could have endangered passing civilian flights.

Military jets from eight nations were scrambled to meet the Russian aircraft, which a NATO spokesman said remained in international airspace and didn’t violate NATO territory.

Putin denuncia a manha americana quando em 2002 os Estados Unidos decidiram acabar com o ABMT, para acelerar unilateralmente um sistema de defesa-ataque nuclear mais avançado —SDI—, nomeadamente usando órbitas terrestres e bases militares em terra para o lançamento de mísseis de precisão. A Rússia quer o desarmamento nuclear, mas ou há um compromisso sério nesta matéria ou o medo da destruição mútua assegurada regressará como fiel de uma nova balança do terror, cujos principais responsáveis serão os Estados Unidos e a NATO.

Vale a pena ler o discurso de Sochi, uma peça de bom senso, ao contrário da histeria securitária, do autoritarismo e do militarismo crescentes dos americanos e de uma parte dos europeus.


Discurso de Vladimir Putin, XI sessão do Clube de Valdai, Sochi, 24 outubro 2014.

Text of Vladimir Putin’s speech and a question and answer session at the final plenary meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club’s XI session in Sochi on 24 October 2014.

It was mentioned already that the club has new co-organizers this year. They include Russian non-governmental organizations, expert groups and leading universities. The idea was also raised of broadening the discussions to include not just issues related to Russia itself but also global politics and the economy.

An organization and content will bolster the club’s influence as a leading discussion and expert forum. At the same time, I hope the ‘Valdai spirit’ will remain – this free and open atmosphere and chance to express all manner of very different and frank opinions.

Let me say in this respect that I will also not let you down and will speak directly and frankly. Some of what I say might seem a bit too harsh, but if we do not speak directly and honestly about what we really think, then there is little point in even meeting in this way. It would be better in that case just to keep to diplomatic get-togethers, where no one says anything of real sense and, recalling the words of one famous diplomat, you realize that diplomats have tongues so as not to speak the truth.
 
We get together for other reasons. We get together so as to talk frankly with each other. We need to be direct and blunt today not so as to trade barbs, but so as to attempt to get to the bottom of what is actually happening in the world, try to understand why the world is becoming less safe and more unpredictable, and why the risks are increasing everywhere around us.


Today’s discussion took place under the theme: New Rules or a Game without Rules. I think that this formula accurately describes the historic turning point we have reached today and the choice we all face. There is nothing new of course in the idea that the world is changing very fast. I know this is something you have spoken about at the discussions today. It is certainly hard not to notice the dramatic transformations in global politics and the economy, public life, and in industry, information and social technologies.

Let me ask you right now to forgive me if I end up repeating what some of the discussion’s participants have already said. It’s practically impossible to avoid. You have already held detailed discussions, but I will set out my point of view. It will coincide with other participants’ views on some points and differ on others.

As we analyze today’s situation, let us not forget history’s lessons. First of all, changes in the world order – and what we are seeing today are events on this scale – have usually been accompanied by if not global war and conflict, then by chains of intensive local-level conflicts. Second, global politics is above all about economic leadership, issues of war and peace, and the humanitarian dimension, including human rights.

The world is full of contradictions today. We need to be frank in asking each other if we have a reliable safety net in place. Sadly, there is no guarantee and no certainty that the current system of global and regional security is able to protect us from upheavals. This system has become seriously weakened, fragmented and deformed. The international and regional political, economic, and cultural cooperation organizations are also going through difficult times.

Yes, many of the mechanisms we have for ensuring the world order were created quite a long time ago now, including and above all in the period immediately following World War II. Let me stress that the solidity of the system created back then rested not only on the balance of power and the rights of the victor countries, but on the fact that this system’s ‘founding fathers’ had respect for each other, did not try to put the squeeze on others, but attempted to reach agreements.

The main thing is that this system needs to develop, and despite its various shortcomings, needs to at least be capable of keeping the world’s current problems within certain limits and regulating the intensity of the natural competition between countries.

It is my conviction that we could not take this mechanism of checks and balances that we built over the last decades, sometimes with such effort and difficulty, and simply tear it apart without building anything in its place. Otherwise we would be left with no instruments other than brute force.

What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called ‘victors’ in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition. 
 
Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group’s ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

The very notion of ‘national sovereignty’ became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world’s sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime’s legitimacy.

We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of ‘supra-legal’ legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that ‘big brother’ is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

Let’s ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States’ exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

A unilateral diktat and imposing one’s own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists’ invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region’s countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

Only the current Egyptian leadership’s determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?  



As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state’s institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don’t forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels’ ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states’ affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organizations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR’s old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world’s biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: “We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defense, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course.” In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US’] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world’s diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one’s own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as “the homeland is in danger”, “the free world is under threat”, and “democracy is in jeopardy”? And so everyone needs to mobilize. That is what a real mobilization policy looks like.

Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalization based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalization. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States’ prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalization are visible now in many countries.  

The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries’ or their regional groups’ desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone’s door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalizing our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe – such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions – and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today’s demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.


Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this ‘soft power’ resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.


At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns. So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.


Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world’s major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states’ geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

Ukraine, which I’m sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defense system.

Colleagues, friends, I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favor of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design ‘color revolutions’ to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear program, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can’t we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges? What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonizing basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one’s partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a “greenfield,” especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It’s not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody’s complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonizing positions.

This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalization of such new poles, creating powerful regional organizations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centers would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy.  But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centers and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

I would like to remind you of the last year’s events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine’s association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn’t even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine’s main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia’s accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine’s association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine’s association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilized manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilized dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That’s it. Everyone’s at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn’t have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilized way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new ‘color revolutions’ consider themselves ‘brilliant artists’ and simply cannot stop.

I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union’s formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organization rules.

I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbors, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasize this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.


We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today’s turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

Thank you very much for your attention.

Transcrito no dia 2 de novemebro do blogue CLUBORLOV

Resposta a uma msg de Barack Obama

I'm sorry Mr. President

[28/8/2014]

Antonio — I'm emailing you again because the Senate is at stake.

If the GOP gains just six seats, the same Republicans who just voted to sue me will control both houses of Congress.

Republicans will control everything in Congress from Medicare to education. I don't need to tell you how devastating the consequences would be.

That's why the DSCC is building an enormous voter mobilization program to win. But I know first hand: Launching field offices and recruiting new volunteers takes time and work, and it's not cheap.

I need you today. Will you pitch in to stop a Republican Senate takeover? Gifts will be triple matched for a single day only.

Pitch in $3 IMMEDIATELY >>

Pitch in $8 IMMEDIATELY >>

Pitch in $17 IMMEDIATELY >>

Pitch in $25 IMMEDIATELY >>

Pitch in $35 IMMEDIATELY >>

Or donate another amount >>

The election is in just 68 days. That means we have very little time — just over two months — to knock on doors, register voters, and win this thing.

What you do right now will determine what direction our country takes: Will you let Republicans take charge of everything from the future of Medicare to education? Or will you make sure Democrats stay in charge?

Join me in this fight — pitch in and your gift will be triple matched before midnight.

Thank you,

Barack Obama

Dear President Barack Obama,

Even if I could help you, I wouldn't before you'd be able to get the neocons upper hand out of your foreign policy.

Before sending you a penny I would ask you to leave Europe and Russia in peace.

Russia is a peaceful country and has never invaded other countries but for obvious defensive reasons. We Western Europeans did, as your country is doing for more than a century.

USA has been a stealth intruder and deadly presence over the entire planet for too many years now. So please stop it.

USA will need Europe and Russia more than Russia and Europe will ever need USA.

All empires have passed away so far. USA is a deprecated virtual empire and should learn to live with it, like many others did.

My country, Portugal, was once a world empire. It last for about 600 years (1415-1999), though the deprecating phase took more than four centuries — 469 years since our old Escudo stop being a world reserve currency. From 1999 onwards we returned to our 1143 national boundaries. The same has happened to all other empires before.

I think, Mr Obama, that overthrowing the elected government of Ukraine as you did, is not only illegal but a very stupid move against USA own long-term interests. You should have supported Russia, Turkey and Ukraine integration in the European Union instead. Making of NATO a transvestite of American offensive power against Russia is a very serious mistake that can cause another big war in Europe.

There is not much oil, we all know now. We need to learn how to share this precious resource without killing millions of innocent people as has been the case for so many years. We need to work hard for a new transitional economy, and for a new resilient society.

If I could one day hear from you other news than war news, then I would send a couple of euros to your campaign.

Sincerely,

Antonio Maria

Portugal-Angola: a simbiose vai bem, obrigado!

Isabel dos Santos, a primeira bilionária africana.

A América e o Reino Unido estão falidos, Angola e Macau (China), não.

Isabel dos Santos negoceia participação de Amorim no BIC — Empresária angolana quer comprar 25% do capital e assim passar a controlar metade do banco que comprou o nacionalizado BPN, noticia o "Diário Económico". Jornal de Negócios, 2/5/2014

Cresce a simbiose entre Portugal e Angola. Como todos os processos biológicos tem zonas claras e bonitas e zonas escuras e sujas.

Sejamos pragmáticos: Angola tem ajudado Portugal, e Portugal tem ajudado Angola.

Os inimigos principais desta simbiose, ou são neocons americanos, ou são amigos de Mário Soares.

A bonita Isabel dos Santos, primeira bilionária africana, é filha do presidente angolano, José Eduardo dos Santos, por sua vez filho da mestiçagem que Portugal promoveu por onde andou desde 1415.

Mas Isabel dos Santos é também filha de uma azeri do tempo em que o Azerbeijão era uma das repúblicas da URSS.

Mais uma razão para nos distanciarmos das ações belicistas e provocatórias da NATO.

O futuro de Portugal não é a decadente América de Bush e Obama, mas a Eurásia, o Brasil e África.

E a mais velha aliança do mundo?

A aliança com a Inglaterra mantem-se. Se a Inglaterra for atacada e pedir ajuda a Portugal, como Churchill fez ao invocar a mais velha aliança entre países independentes que existe no planeta solicitando a instalação de uma base militar em Santa Maria, tê-la-à. Se Portugal for atacado, e pedir ajuda à Inglaterra, contaremos com ela.

A NATO, de que fazemos naturalmente parte, é um campeonato diferente, no qual devemos ter a maior cautela, não comprometendo as nossas amizades transcontinentais, que vão da China e Japão ao Brasil, passando pela Rússia, Venezuela, Angola e Moçambique, entre outros países charneira da crise global em curso.

Por outro lado, sendo Portugal parte da UE e do euro, devemos velar pelos interesses desta união contra quem quer que conspire conta ela.

Portugal, pela sua geografia e dimensão, pelas suas amizades, pela sua história, deveria posicionar-se como um dos principais intermediários diplomáticos mundiais, rejeitando liminarmente participar em ações de guerra, limitando-se, pois, a integrar missões de paz e auxílio humanitário.

F-16 portugueses na resposta NATO à crise ucraniana

Quatro F-16 portugueses integrados na força de contenção NATO (Zero Hedge)

Já alguém informou os portugueses, ou será só depois das eleições?

Quatro F16 da FAP integrarão força NATO de “contenção” anti-russa no próximo mês de setembro, e até ao fim do ano. Os portugueses sabiam?

Presumivelmente este lote de quatro aviões de combate sairá da esquadrilha de seis F-16 mobilizados, desde 2011-2012, para a base NATO da Islândia. O senhor Passos de Coelho, o senhor Machete e o senhor Aguiar Branco talvez nos pudessem esclarecer.

Em nossa opinião a crise ucraniana é uma provocação americana, e é uma provocação muito perigosa. A União Soviética ruíu, e desde então os Estados Unidos procuraram, quer através de ofensivas financeiras, quer através das chamadas revoluções coloridas em vários dos países da antiga “cortina de ferro”, cercar a Rússia e reduzi-la a uma espécie de vegetal.

Como seria de esperar a Rússia acabaria por reagir, usando a sua principal arma tática: o petróleo (maior exportador mundial, à frente da Arábia Saudita) e o gás natural.

A Alemanha, demasiado ocupada em gerir a pocilga europeia, descurou a questão russa até ao dia em que esta interrompeu pela primeira vez, e por razões políticas, o fornecimento de gás ao centro da Europa.

A União Europeia, em vez de apoiar economicamente a Ucrânia, nomeadamente na questão energética, deixou que esta continuasse dependente dos favores de Moscovo.

A crise estalou e, enquanto os Estados Unidos prosseguiram o seu plano de desestabilização da zona, a Alemanha e o resto da União Europeia exibiram uma vez mais a sua fragilidade política e militar.

A Europa só pode ter a Rússia como aliada, não como inimiga. Ter a Rússia como inimiga é empurrar a Rússia para os braços da China, cumprindo-se assim a grande manobra americana cujo objetivo é encontrar o pretexto adequado para um confronto nuclear contra a China antes de esta se tornar imbatível militarmente.

Os EUA querem desesperadamente recuperar a supremacia ameaçada do dólar. Para isso precisam de fazer rapidamente uma demonstração de força global, e depois reforçar o seu controlo militar e diplomático sobre as principais regiões ricas em petróleo e gás natural: Irão, Iraque, Cáspio e o grosso do continente africano (este também por outras motivações esttratégicas...)

Bruxelas (quer dizer, Berlim, Paris e Londres) e Moscovo devem negociar diretamente esta crise, em vez de serem o eterno pau de cabeleira da NATO, quer dizer, dos Estados Unidos.

Chegou o momento de a Europa perceber que ou ganha juízo ou desaparece do mapa!

Quem ameaça quem?

ÚLTIMA HORA

CIA, FBI agents 'advising Ukraine government': report (AFP, 4/5/2014)

Berlin (AFP) - Dozens of specialists from the US Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation are advising the Ukrainian government, a German newspaper reported Sunday.
[...] Last month the White House confirmed that CIA director John Brennan had visited Kiev as part of a routine trip to Europe, in a move condemned by Moscow.

É oficial: a CIA e o governo americano estão envolvidos até ao pescoço na desestabilização da Ucrânia e na guerra civil em curso. Não é a NATO, é a CIA e o FBI. Capiche?!
O governo português deverá deixar bem claro que os F16 estacionados na Islândia estão onde estão para defender a Islândia de qualquer violação do seu espaço aéreo, ou de qualquer ataque a este país. Não para engordar as tropas informais que o senhor Obama colocou na Ucrânia sem pedir licença à NATO ou a qualquer aliado! Que diz a isto o pascácio da Defesa, e o zombie dos negócios estrangeiros?

...

E mais:

Warning: Ukraine Is At A Flashpoint (in ZeroHedge)
O envolvimento americano na guerra civil em curso na Ucrânia é tão evidente quanto ilegal.
O vídeo supostamente espontâneo de uma inocente rapariga ucraniana que se manifestava em Kiev, que correu mundo (Youtube), não é mais do que um sofisticado produto de propaganda viral das Operações Especiais das FFAA americanas. Washington não olha a meios e anda de mãos dadas com extremistas de todo o mundo: dos fundamentalistas islâmicos aos neo-nazis ucranianos. É incrível, mas é verdade :(


REFERÊNCIAS

• Congressista americana pede a Portugal que defenda a Ucrânia - Expresso, 6 de março de 2014
• Força aérea portuguesa patrulha céus da Islândia - Sol, 1 de Setembro, 2012

Última atualização: 5/5/2014 01:23 WET

O amigo americano

Portugal, uma espécie de Suíça diplomática?

Air Force One com Barack Obama aterra na Portela (Foto —pormenor— de Rui Spotter)

Com a 10ª maior ZEE do mundo em perspectiva, Portugal passará a deter um domínio estratégico na ordem dos 3.119.799 Km2. Só para termos uma ideia do que isto é, basta pensar que corresponde mais ou menos à superfície da Índia. Embora o Portugal à tona dos mares (continental e insulares) ocupe a modestíssima posição 109 entre todos os países do mundo, já quando medimos o território nacional e a sua ZEE, ficaremos certamente entre os 10 maiores países do mundo!  — in O António Maria, 22 nov 2008.

Escrevi há exactamente dois anos atrás que Portugal voltará a ter um papel de charneira diplomática entre o Ocidente e o Oriente. A formulação de um novo Tratado de Tordesilhas aproxima-se rapidamente. Previ então que a nova Rússia penderia para Ocidente. Vamos ver o que nos reservam a segunda viagem de Medvedev a Portugal e esta crucial Cimeira da NATO (1).

Pensemos por um momento nesta coincidência: Durão Barroso tornou-se presidente da Comissão Europeia na era Bush, e viu renovado o seu cargo já com Obama no poder; Vítor Constâncio é chamado a ocupar o cargo de vide-presidente do Banco Central Europeu no pico da maior crise financeira mundial desde 1929, e certamente naquela que é a maior ameaça à consolidação do euro como nova moeda de reserva mundial; Portugal venceu o Canadá na corrida para a posição de membro não-permanente do Conselho de Segurança da ONU; António Borges é o novo director para a Europa do FMI; António Horta Osório tornou-se recentemente presidente executivo do Lloyds Bank, deixando o Santander; Hu Jintao decidiu fazer uma viagem relâmpago a Lisboa poucos dias antes da cimeira da NATO, a que se seguiria uma viagem igualmente relâmpago de Sócrates a Macau, para se encontrar com o primeiro ministro chinês Wen Jiabao; Obama, enfim, escolhe Portugal para aquela que é já uma das mais importantes reuniões da NATO de sempre — pois, ao contrário dos inúmeros obituários já escritos sobre a organização, esta poderá ser dado neste encontro à beira Tejo o pontapé de saída para uma nova partilha do planeta entre os hemisférios ocidental e oriental. É o que venho chamando há já alguns anos o novo Tratado de Tordesilhas.


Tal como quando a Inglaterra viu bloqueados os seus acessos ao Oriente e ao Norte de África, por causa do fiasco das Cruzadas e da Guerra dos Cem Anos, teve que se virar para a praia lusitana, casando a sua Princesa Filipa de Lencastre com João I de Portugal, como meio expedito de lançar uma ponte em direcção ao Golfo da Guiné (a célebre Costa do Ouro), onde se encontrava o metal de que tanto precisava, nomeadamente para pagar a guerra contra os franceses, também agora a América e o Reino Unido, ambos falidos até à medula, e de quem a Alemanha, a Rússia, a China e 4/5 do planeta desconfiam, precisam hoje de Portugal e do seu imenso mar territorial, para segurar o Atlântico Norte e Sul, impedir a expansão descontrolada da China e garantir os bons ofícios de um amigo nos corredores da diplomacia do euro.


Portugal é um país pequeno, mal governado e coberto de dívidas. Mas se houver alguém lúcido entre as nossas desmioladas elites, verá que está na hora de arregaçar as mangas e de disciplinar a burguesia clientelar, as corporações profissionais e partidárias, e a burocracia, por forma a podermos tirar real vantagem da nossa nova centralidade geo-estratégica. É preciso acantonar imediatamente a corrupção, o desperdício e a balbúrdia parlamentar. Só depois, poderemos renegociar as nossas dívidas em paz, sem assassinar a classe média, nem humilhar os pobres, os desempregados e os idosos. Só depois poderemos cobrar à vontade, de Washington a Pequim, a nossa boa vontade e experiência diplomáticas. Um pequena quermesse entre os grandes colocará as nossas finanças públicas em ordem num ápice. Mas antes de tudo o mais teremos que despedir o imprestável Sócrates, e o imprestável Cavaco, mais as procissões de inúteis e corruptos que os seguem.

NOTAS

1. Pouco depois de publicado este texto, veio a confirmação (ler notícia do DN) de que a Rússia iniciou oficialmente um processo de convergência com os países da NATO. O cenário de um dia destes estar entalada entre a China e o Irão foi seguramente determinante para a nova estratégia de Moscovo.