Carvão—Sines e Pego—dois erros crassos

Central Elétrica do Pego - notícia

Em Portugal, o fecho das centrais a carvão de Sines e do Pego foi uma decisão precipitada e provavelmente um erro grande, provavelmente estimulada pelos defensosres vanguardistas do inicático e problemático hidrogénio.

Segundo Rui Rodrigues: 

— estas duas centrais a carvão produziam por ano 20% da electricidade consumida em Portugal. Em 2022, no mês de fevereiro, foi a importação de electricidade produzida pelas centrais a carvão reabertas e pelas centrais nucleares espanholas, assim como a importação de energia elétrica francesa que impediram os apagões no nosso país. Naquele mês as barragens não tinham água e não havia vento.

A decisão de fechar as centrais a carvão foi um erro histórico.

Galamba diz que a Barragem do Tâmega iria substituir as duas centrais a carvão, mas essa afirmação é falsa. Todas a novas barragens juntas produzem 3% da electricidade consumida em Portugal. A do Tâmega é uma parcela destes 3%.

Em 2022, o aumento da despesa com a importação de electricidade elevou-se a mais de mil milhões de euros. Importou-se diretamente mais eletricidade de Espanha e França, e comprou-se mais gás natural, responsável por 55% da eletricidade consumida no nosso país.

Ainda segundo RR, a nossa Imprensa é que está calada...

Entretanto na União Europeia...

EURACTIV — “In our forecast, despite the recent decline in gas prices, until 2025, coal is still more competitive than gas,” said Carlos Fernández Alvarez, who heads the IEA’s division on gas, coal and power markets.

Growing demand for coal was driven chiefly by the war in Ukraine and the need to reduce gas consumption following Russia’s decision to diminish supplies to Europe, according to the IEA’s 2022 coal report, published in December.

Alvarez said that the demand for coal in Europe was also pushed up by the decline in nuclear power generation coming from France, Germany, and Belgium.

“There is a gap [in power generation capacity] that needs to be filled. And with high gas prices, it’s coal” filling the gap, the IEA analyst said at a meeting organised by the industry association Euracoal.

As a result, coal demand in Europe is set to grow for the second year in a row in 2022, the IEA indicated in its December report.

With Russian gas gone, coal makes EU comeback as ‘traditional fuel’
By Frédéric Simon | EURACTIV.com
26 Jan 2023 (updated:  8:39)

TTIP sujeito a tribunal público

Que pensam os partidos indígenas sobre o TTIP?

Bruxelles envisage l'option d'un tribunal public pour le TTIP
EurActiv, Published: 20/03/2015 - 10:18

La commissaire en charge du commerce a soutenu l’idée d’un tribunal permanent pour remplacer le mécanisme de RDIE. « J'ai déjà demandé à mon équipe de travailler là-dessus », a-t-elle annoncé lors d'une réunion avec les eurodéputés au Parlement européen, le 18 mars. « Je crois néanmoins que nous devrions pencher pour un tribunal qui va au-delà du TTIP », a-t-elle continué.

Parece que há uma comissária europeia (Cecilia Malmström) com juízo. A ideia peregrina de substituir os tribunais por arbitragens 'ad hoc' financiadas por baixo da mesa pelos interessados e envolvidos nos assaltos de soberania é uma perversão jurídica e sobretudo democrática intolerável, que os piratas de ambos os lados do Atlântico desejam (Monsanto e outra corja da mesma laia), mas que as pessoas sensatas devem rejeitar liminarmente.

O TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership) é um tratado comercial que tem vindo a ser negociado entre os Estados Unidos e a União Europeia de forma nada transparente e sobre o qual há fortíssimas suspeitas de o mesmo ser um Cavalo de Tróia destinado a infetar a economia, a segurança alimentar e as democracias de ambos os lados do Atlântico. Curiosamente, um dos grandes defensores desta parceria, e que nela trabalhou enquanto foi deputado 'socialista' europeu, é o ex-comunista Vital Moreira. Muito gostaríamos de o ler sobre as matérias polémicas desta negociação.

Também gostaríamos de saber o que pensa o governo destas negociações.

---

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

No Grexit

Jornal cooperativo alemão —taz.de—ridiculariza teimosia de Schaueble.

Grécia—1, Alemanha—0

Rebatismos

• "troika": "the institutions"
• "current programme": "current arrangement"

A Alemanha acaba de engolir um sapo, cortesia do Syriza, do BCE, da Rússia, do Podemos, dos EUA, e da NATO. Que estranha constelação esta, aparentemente formada para prejudicar a estratégia alemã e a arrogância do neo-Nosferatu Schäuble.

O mínimo que se pode dizer é que a Troika no seu formato conhecido acabou.

A Grécia terá um período de carência de quatro meses, que lhe permitirá uma extensão, sem novo resgate, de famoso Programa, agora designado current agreement, da não menos famosa Troika, agora chamada the institutions.

Até final de abril muita água irá correr debaixo das pontes.

Pergunta cínica: em que posição ficam os indígenas do Governo de Lisboa e o traste de Belém depois disto?

A comparação entre as duas últimas versões do acordo entre a Grécia e o Eurogrupo são elucidativas.

A Grécia deixou uma pegada política provavelmente irreversível na instituição europeia.

O Eurogrupo deixou de ser uma coutada da Alemanha, por vontade da Grécia (seria feio atribuir o mérito a outros), por vontade do BCE (Goldman Sachs, etc.), por vontade dos Estados Unidos/NATO, e com a ajuda just in time da Rússia/Ucrânia.

Entretanto, a diarreira neo-neo-neo-keynesiana do BCE, conhecida por Expanded Asset Pucrchase Program, e muito saudada por alguma imprensa americana (The Wall Street Journal, por exemplo), vai ocupar as cachas dos média, e manter os especuladores, os rendeiros e os devoristas do buraco negro das finanças europeias nada preocupados com os senhores Yanis Varoufakis e Alexis Tsipas, salvo se for para lhes pedirem acesso VIP aos casinos de banhos de Atenas.

O Nosferatu de Friburgo terá em breve que expor ao resto da Europa a parte escondida do icebergue da dívida pública alemã. E ainda o buraco sem fundo que o Deutsche Bank (1) esconde nos seus livros de especulação com derivados. Apesar da sua arrogância, que deu da Alemanha, outra vez, uma péssima imagem, a terceira tentativa teutónica de dominar a Europa entrou hoje em mais uma rampa descendente.

Será bom para a União Europeia? Provavelmente não. Mas há uma coisa de que a Alemanha terá um dia que se convencer de vez: jamais dominará a Europa enquanto não aprender a usar a linguagem de uma forma civilizada.

POST SCRIPTUM — Grécia—1, Alemanha—0

A questão da derrota da Alemanha protagonizada ontem pela Grécia, que o resto dos PIIGS agradece entre protestos hipócritas de fidelidade ao dono alemão, é simples de equacionar:

— a Alemanha sempre disse que a Grécia só tinha um caminho:

1a) continuar a negociar com a Troika e
1b) negociar um novo resgate, ou seja, trocar dívida-lixo, impagável, por outra putativamente pagável, para assim safar a exposição da banca alemã e em particular do Deutsche Bank, que andaram a especular com o sofrimento alheio, dum bail-in.

Mais austeridade seria o corolário do ultimato alemão. Ora bem, o ultimato esvaziou-se, nomeadamente por imposição do BCE e dos Estados Unidos. O resto é ruído mediático para alegrar o povo que paga isto tudo com juros.

Sempre defendi a posição alemã em matéria de controlo da despesa pública. Mas não defendi nunca, não defendo e estarei sempre frontalmente contra os sonhos imperiais da Alemanha. Deram sempre, e darão sempre mau resultado.

NOTAS

1. Enquanto revíamos este post chegou-nos (via Zero Hedge) mais uma notícia americana sobre o estado preocupante do maior e mais antigo banco alemão [e já agora, também, do Santander!):
   
   U.S. Units of Deutsche Bank, Santander Likely to Fail Fed Stress Test—The Wall Street Journal, 20-02-2015
   
   Large European banks including Deutsche Bank AG and Banco Santander SA are likely to fail the U.S. Federal Reserve’s stress test over shortcomings in how they measure and predict potential losses and risks, according to people familiar with the matter. Failing the stress tests would likely subject the U.S. units of Deutsche Bank and Banco Santander to restrictions on paying dividends to their European parent companies or other shareholders.

---

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

Yanis Varoufakis, a esperança do momento

Gustave Moreau. Europa e o touro (c. 1869).

A Grécia é o centro da Europa!

Vivemos tempos simultaneamente épicos e medonhos. Há uma crise mundial, e certamente europeia, das dívidas—das dívidas soberanas, mas também das dívidas empresariais e familiares.

Estamos todos endividados até aos cabelos, mesmo quando não pecebemos que uma parte deste endividamento é invisível, e não parece, assim, ser coisa que nos diga respeito.

O grande buraco da dívida não seria um grande problema se as perspetivas de crescimento mundial, no modelo que conhecemos de há uns 200 ans para cá —muita energia e barata—, continuassem a ser expectáveis. Mas o problema é que o futuro reserva-nos uma era de menos energia, e de energia mais cara. Ora é este cenário —até hoje rejeitado pelos cegos da macro-economia— que tudo muda e exige uma nova abordagem dos problemas.

A crise grega, que tomou uma nova e radical direção depois da chegada do Syriza ao poder, veio confrontar a Europa inteira com as suas responsabilidades. O problema não é da Grécia, nem de Espanha, ou de Portugal, mas de todo o continente, mais precisamente, é um problema global, cuja negação apenas tornará os desenlaces locais, regionais e globais, muito mais ameaçadores e potencialmente catastróficos.

Nada melhor para começarmos a mudar a nossa percepção dos problemas de fundo, do que esta viragem radical na crise grega. E nada melhor do que ir escutando e lendo o que Yanis Varoufakis pensa sobre o seu país e sobre a Europa.

Yanis Varoufakis: No Time for Games in Europe

THE NEW YORK TIMES

By YANIS VAROUFAKISFEB. 16, 2015

ATHENS — I am writing this piece on the margins of a crucial negotiation with my country’s creditors — a negotiation the result of which may mark a generation, and even prove a turning point for Europe’s unfolding experiment with monetary union.

Game theorists analyze negotiations as if they were split-a-pie games involving selfish players. Because I spent many years during my previous life as an academic researching game theory, some commentators rushed to presume that as Greece’s new finance minister I was busily devising bluffs, stratagems and outside options, struggling to improve upon a weak hand.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

[...]

As finance minister of a small, fiscally stressed nation lacking its own central bank and seen by many of our partners as a problem debtor, I am convinced that we have one option only: to shun any temptation to treat this pivotal moment as an experiment in strategizing and, instead, to present honestly the facts concerning Greece’s social economy, table our proposals for regrowing Greece, explain why these are in Europe’s interest, and reveal the red lines beyond which logic and duty prevent us from going.

[...]

One may think that this retreat from game theory is motivated by some radical-left agenda. Not so. The major influence here is Immanuel Kant, the German philosopher who taught us that the rational and the free escape the empire of expediency by doing what is right.

Grexit? (3)

Topol M ICBM — uma arma nuclear infernal

BCE—0, Grécia—1 

“About 700 units of military equipment, including launchers are deployed in the positioning areas in the Tver, Ivanovo, Kirov, Irkutsk regions, as well as in Altai Territory and the Mari El republic.”  — TASS

Ontem o BCE tentou humilhar a Grécia. Hoje a Rússia forçou o BCE a adiantar 60 mil milhões de euros aos gregos, e de caminho colocou armas nucleares em regime de prontidão em vários pontos do seu território. O casal Merkel-Hollande sai amanhã disparado em direção a Moscovo!

Mais do que uma simples expulsão da Grécia da Eurolândia, o que está em causa é muito maior e muito mais perigoso: trata-se de saber como irá decorrer o braço de ferro entre Moscovo e Washington em volta da magna questão dos corredores do gás natural em direção à Europa.

É hoje evidente que os americanos pretendem isolar a Rússia para tolher a China. E uma das formas de o fazer é atacar as exportações de petróleo e gás natural. Primeiro prepararam um Inferno na Ucrânia, e outro na Síria. Objetivo: cortar ao meio os gasodutos que ligam a Rússia à Europa através do território ucraniano; e depois apoiar o Qatar, a Arába Saudita e Israel a lançarem novos gasodutos em direção à Europa, dificultando ao mesmo tempo a construção do pretendido gasoduto entre a Rússia e a Grécia, com passagem única pela Turquia.

Este garrote, se funcionasse até ao fim, acabaria com Putin e lançaria a Rússia numa nova bancarrota e na agitação social. É este o objetivo da diplomacia levada a cabo pelos emissários de Obama na Arábia Saudita e na Ucrânia—com o apoio óbvio de Israel, que lançou uma ofensiva militar terrorista contra a Palestina. É percebendo esta manobra que se entenderá o aparecimento e ação psicológica global do famoso Estado Islâmico, uma criação, tal como a Al Qaida, dos serviços secretos militares norte-americanos (com a ajuda mais do que provável dos ingleses e dos israelitas).

É possível que Obama tenha um rebuçado para Putin: se deixares cair Bashar al-Assad, essencial à construção dos gasodutos Árabe e Islâmico, deixaremos a Ucrânia em paz e ao teu cuidado.

É neste teatro bélico potencial, a que os dirigentes eurolandeses assistem com ar bovino, que os ortodoxos gregos e os ortodoxos russos se encontram neste momento.

Vladimir Putin, que ameaçou já fechar o fornecimento de gás natural à Europa através da Ucrânia, oferece, porém, uma alternativa: um gasoduto através da Turquia com entrada na União Europeia pela Grécia. Mas se for assim, como poderá a Alemanha deixar cair os ortodoxos gregos?

A Turquia não se oporá, obviamente, à proposta russa.


FILME DO DIA

Rússia avisa EUA que fornecer armas à Ucrânia causará “dano colossal” às relações
Jornal de Notícias

“Nos nossos contactos com representantes da administração norte-americana sempre sublinhámos que as informações sobre a intenção de Washington de entregar a Kiev armas modernas letais nos causam grande preocupação”, disse o porta-voz do Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros russo, Alexander Lukashevich.

Merkel, Hollande, Putin to discuss end to Ukraine’s civil war at Moscow talks
RT. Edited time: February 05, 2015 16:26

The French president and the German chancellor are set to visit Moscow on Friday after a trip to Kiev, in order to find a peaceful solution to the escalating violence in Ukraine, the Kremlin has confirmed.

“I can confirm that indeed tomorrow [Friday] Putin, Merkel and Hollande will have talks. The leaders of the three states will discuss what specifically the countries can do to contribute to speedy end of the civil war in the southeast of Ukraine, which has escalated in recent days and resulted in many casualties,” Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said.

Putin Invites Tsipras To Visit Russia
Zero Hedge. Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/05/2015 10:45 -0500

While Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis’ comments that “we will never ask for financial assistance in Moscow,” which notably does not deny acceptance of aid if offered, and Greek Minister of Energy Panagiotis Lafazanis adding that Athens opposes the embargo imposed on Moscow, “we have no disagreement with Russia and the Russian people,” it is perhaps not surprising that, as Vedemosti reports, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke by phone with the new Prime Minister of Greece Alexis Tsipras, congratulated him on taking office, and invited him to Russia.

[ANA]

The situation in Ukraine and other international issues, among them, “the South Stream and Turkish Stream pipeline projects, dominated a telephone call between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras earlier on Thursday, the Kremlin announced.

Putin invited Tsipras to visit Moscow on May 9 when celebrations will take place, commemorating the peoples’ victory over fascism. On his part, the Greek prime minister underlined the importance he attributes to the fight against Nazism, expressing his intention to accept the invitation.

The Russian leader’s top foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov said that Putin congratulated Tsipras on his victory in last month’s general elections and on the assumption of his duties as the new prime minister of Greece.

The discussion was very warm and constructive, he said, noting that President Putin invited Tsipras to Russia. He also said that the will for a more active development of bilateral relations was reaffirmed.

The Russian ministers of foreign affairs and defence have already invited their Greek counterparts to visit Moscow.

Tsipras talks to Putin while US urges Greece to cooperate with its partners, IMF
ekathimerini, Thursday February 5, 2015 (14:55)

The United States has urged Greece to work closely with its European partners and the International Monetary Fund, a senior American official said late on Wednesday.

“We do believe that in the case of Greece it is very important for the Greek government to work cooperatively with its European colleagues, as well as with the IMF. And we have advised it to do so, and we are hopeful that these conversations are now moving to a place with some cooperation and mutual understanding.” noted the official during a conference call regarding US Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Belgium and Germany which begins on Thursday.

The comments followed President Obama’s recent remarks with regard to austerity in Greece, in which he argued that countries could not go on being “squeezed.”

Russia Deploys Nuclear ICBM Launchers On Combat Patrol
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 02/05/2015 12:56 -0500

Perhaps it is a coincidence that a day before John Kerry’s arrival in Kiev (a visit which “coincided” with a 35% devaluation of the local currency) where among other things the US statesman discussed the possibility of official (as opposed to unofficial) deliveries of US “lethal support” to the civil war torn and now hyperinflation country, that Russia decided to put its nuclear ICBMs on combat patrol missions in various Russian regions. Specifically, according to Tass, “About 700 units of military equipment, including launchers are deployed in the positioning areas in the Tver, Ivanovo, Kirov, Irkutsk regions, as well as in Altai Territory and the Mari El republic.”

ARTIGOS RELACIONADOS NESTE MESMO BLOG

• Grexit?
• Grexit? (2) 
• Grexit? (3)
• Grexit? (4)
• Grexit? (5)
• Grexit? (6) 
• Tragédia grega em números
• Grexit? (7)

Guerra e Gás (IV)

Clicar para ampliar

A corrida dos gasodutos—afinal o petróleo desce por causa do gás!

As guerras, as sanções, as tensões, as degolações espetaculares, em suma, o Inferno que temos visto no Médio Oriente desde as guerras no Afeganistão e no Iraque marcam o início do grande conflito estratégico do século 21: a luta pelo gás natural.

Estão em causa os acessos e o fornecimento de gás natural à Europa, mas também à China, à Índia e ao Paquistão. As maiores reservas encontram-se na Rússia, Irão, Qatar, Turquemenistão, EUA, Arábia Saudita, Iraque, Venezuela, Nigéria, Argélia, em suma, nos sítios do costume.

Neste momento a Rússia compete com os projetados gasodutos Árabe e Islâmico na primazia do fornecimento à Europa — pretendendo chegar à Europa através da Turquia e da Grécia. A guerra de secessão em curso na Ucrânia é imprevisível e poderá acabar na redução drástica da passagem de gás russo por aquele país.

Por outro lado, parece que a Arábia Saudita resolveu dar uma ajudinha à estratégia de Obama e dos caniches europeus, promovendo os interesses estratégicos do Qatar/Irão, mas também de Israel do Egito e os seus próprios na corrida dos gasodutos. O jogo é perigoso, pois Putin pode recordar aos alemães o que lhes sucedeu em Estalinegrado quando intentaram conquistar a Rússia.

Saudi Oil Is Seen as Lever to Pry Russian Support From Syria’s Assad
By MARK MAZZETTI, ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICKFEB. The New York Times, 3, 2015

WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia has been trying to pressure President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to abandon his support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, using its dominance of the global oil markets at a time when the Russian government is reeling from the effects of plummeting oil prices.

Saudi Arabia and Russia have had numerous discussions over the past several months that have yet to produce a significant breakthrough, according to American and Saudi officials. It is unclear how explicitly Saudi officials have linked oil to the issue of Syria during the talks, but Saudi officials say — and they have told the United States — that they think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability to reduce the supply of oil and possibly drive up prices.

“If oil can serve to bring peace in Syria, I don’t see how Saudi Arabia would back away from trying to reach a deal,” a Saudi diplomat said. An array of diplomatic, intelligence and political officials from the United States and the Middle East spoke on the condition of anonymity to adhere to protocols of diplomacy.

Continue reading the main story

Clicar para ampliar

Clicar para ampliar

Sobre este mesmo tema n'O António Maria

• Guerra e Gás (3)
• Guerra e Gás (2) 
• Guerra e Gás

Good morning Mr. Tsipras

Alexis Tsipras, Primeiro Ministro da Grécia

O que irá amaciar a esquerda radical grega

Como bem observou Paulo Rangel, a diferença entre o Syriza de Alexis Tsipras e os nossos estalinistas, maoistas e trotsquistas revisionistas, é que o primeiro queria e obteve o poder, enquanto que os segundos se entretêm há décadas numa espécie de macumba anti-sistema. O protesto conjugado com o utopismo infantil é a sua chave para a sobrevivência burocrática nas fraldas orçamentais da democracia. Por isto mesmo, o eleitorado nunca os levou a sério, nem levará enquanto permanecerem nesta espécie de suspensão ideológica oportunista.

O que o Syriza quer (ver artigo do Observador), nem parece nada de extraordinário.

Parte do seu programa tem sido realizado, em Portugal, pelo próprio Pedro Passos Coelho e a sua coligação pragmática. Exemplos: a captura de milhares de milhões de euros que escapavam da receita fiscal, por exemplo, em IVA e IRS por pagar; energia, casa e alimentação de borla, ou quase, para dezenas de milhar de portugueses em situação desesperada; IRS abaixo dos 112€ para mais de 65% dos contribuintes, etc.

Por sua vez, na UE, também encontramos alguns dos desideratos do programa radical do Syriza, seja nas medidas dissimuladas de reestruturação das dívidas soberanas europeias, sucessivamente anunciadas e implementadas pelo BCE, seja nas promessas de um novo Plano Marshall por parte do recém empossado presidente da Comissão Europeia.

Quanto à manutenção de empresas públicas mal geridas, despesistas e corruptas até ao tutano, que pesam sistematicamente na dívida pública a crescer, veremos o que fará Alexis Tsipras. Eu faço uma aposta: se não as privatizar, terá que proceder a reestruturações draconianas, separando a prestação de serviços à comunidade do capitalismo de estado burocrático e indolente.

Vamos, pois, ver como é que a esquerda radical grega fará, ou não fará, as reformas indispensáveis à recuperação do país.

Se espreitar o que foi feito em Espanha, Portugal e na Irlanda, encontrará seguramente muita inspiração!

Desde logo, para conduzir um indispensável combate contra os setores rendeiros e devoristas da sociedade grega, os quais, como sabemos, vão da direita à esquerda, dos patrões aos sindicatos, dos parasitas profissionais às burocracias partidárias sem fim...

Por fim, o novo poder grego aprenderá, mais depressa do que julga, a ponderar sobre as complexidades objetivas —que não são nem ideológicas, nem maiqueístas— do mundo atual. Um mundo onde o fim do colonialismo e a globalização, a par do arrefecimento da explosão demográfica e consequente envelhecimento das populações, mudança do paradigma energético e entrada numa era duradoura de crescimento lento e deflacionista, exigem ideias frescas e coragem executiva.

Boa sorte Senhor Tsipras!

Alemanha trava apetite pavloviano da 'esquerda' europeia

Schaeuble não desiste de proteger a Europa da sua deriva suicidária

Quem não fizer reformas fica sem fundos

Alemanha quer cortar fundos a países que não cumpram reformas
Jornal de Negócios, 02 Novembro 2014, 16:22 por Lusa

A Alemanha quer reforçar o controlo do processo de reformas na Zona Euro e defende que as recomendações da Comissão Europeia sejam vinculativas e que os países que não as cumprem num determinado prazo sejam penalizados com cortes de fundos.

A proposta consta de um documento subscrito pelos ministros alemães das Finanças, Wolfgang Schäuble, e da Economia, Sigmar Gabriel, publicada este domingo, 2 de Novembro, pela revista Der Spiegel.

Segundo a publicação, o Governo alemão entregou a proposta em finais de Outubro à Comissão Europeia, ao presidente do Eurogrupo e à presidência rotativa da União Europeia (UE), actualmente ocupada pela Itália.

Lá se vai o sonho despesista dos populistas da 'esquerda' e do cheque em branco António Costa e seus patrões, Mário Soares, Almeida Santos e José Sócrates. A família Espírito Santo já era.

O pessoal já andava a salivar o QREN que nem Porquinhos-da-Índia. A guerra partidária de há quase um ano para cá resumia-se, aliás, a uma disputa pelo controlo, em 2015, dos famosos fundos comunitários. A receita orçamental já não pode crescer mais, apesar do fascismo fiscal em curso, e o crescimento da economia ainda menos, ou seja, sem a massa que vem de fora, do BCE, do FMI, de outros países europeus e dos emigrantes, o país voltaria a caminhar rapidamente para a bancarrota, arrastando na implosão uma parte substancial da partidocracia e do regime. Até lá, a demagogia, o populismo e o golpismo institucional tenderiam a agravar-se.

A menos que a Alemanha tome ela mesma a decisão de abandonar o euro, jamais permitirá a continuação do deboche orçamental nas corruptas partidocracias europeias, nomeadamente do sul da União Europeia. No entanto, se Berlim perdesse este braço de ferro, o resultado seria um tiro na cabeça da Europa, à semelhança daquele que a cleptocracia japonesa acaba de dar no seu sacrificado povo. A Rússia, Israel e a América agradeceriam certamente encarecidamente esfe favor da descerebrada e oportunista 'esquerda' europeia. Podemos, aliás, começar a olhar para o exemplo ucraniano como se de um espelho se tratasse.

Se a pseudo esquerda portuguesa ganhar as próximas eleições, criando expetativas infundadas e irrealizáveis, todo o sacrifício até agora feito será deitado à rua e a consequência de tamanha cegueira coletiva será um novo resgate bem mais duro do que aquele que tivemos, a par do descrédito completo da democracia populista que afundou o país. Nessa altura, se formos por aí, talvez surja então um movimento parecido com o espanhol Podemos, só que de sinal contrário!

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

India and Israel to supply meat and dairy to Russia

AFP Photo / Sajjad Hussain

Os portugueses têm que brincar às sanções contra a Rússia, a mando dos idiotas de Washington, mas Israel não!

Four Indian food suppliers have been given access to Russian markets, and Israeli meat and dairy products are expected on Russian shelves as early as in the end of 2014.

India and Israel to supply meat and dairy to Russia — RT Business

Portugal: que crescimento?

Clique para ampliar

E quem pode afirmar que vai fazer Portugal crescer, sem que o nariz lhe cresça desmesuradamente? 

20 years of the European single market: growth effects of the EU integration
by Bertelsmann Stiftung Future Social Market Economy (PDF)

The ongoing European integration has increased the eco- nomic growth of participating national economies. Calculating the cumulative gains in the real gross domestic product per capita resulting from the integration of Europe between 1992 and 2012, every national economy under considera- tion realized income gains from the European integration. Denmark and Germa ny saw the greatest gains per resident. If the values from only 1992 and 2012 are compared, every country except for Greece has been able to achieve a higher per capita income due to the European integration.

De Hollande a Seguro, passando pela viragem eleitoralista do governo de Passos Coelho, amparados todos pela promessa de facilidade monetária anunciada por Mario Draghi, embora orientada quase exclusivamente para socorrer bancos, governos, empresas e famílias sobre-endividadas, todos procuram acalmar as populações furiosas e ganhar votos, prometendo mais um shot de endividamento e confisco nas veias dos atordoados cidadãos europeus. Como se isto não fosse já uma tragédia anunciada, americanos, judeus sionistas radicais e europeus inconscientes empurram a Europa para uma situação política ameaçadora da sua própria estratégia comunitária.

Em 20 anos de integração europeia (1992-2012) a Alemanha viu o seu PIB real per capita aumentar 9000 euros. Portugal, no fim da tabela (só ultrapassado pelo Reino Unido), apenas melhorou 400 euros per capita. Ou seja, uma democracia capurada por rendeiros e devoristas não pode dar bom resultado.

Apesar de tudo, o gráfico deste sucinto mas esclarecedor estudo demonstra que não há alternativa ao processo de integração europeia, pois apenas este poderá diminuir as fortes assimetrias regionais e nacionais ainda existentes, sobretudo quando a inércia dos poderes indígenas, preguiçosos e parasitários, for finalmente varrida do lugar privilegiado que ocupa junto das tetas orçamentais.

As cleptocracias nacionais, os carteis e os rentistas que vivem em união de facto com os estados paquidérmicos e ineficientes que temos —verdadeiras reservas eleitorais das partidocracias dominantes— resistem à mudança e atrasam a Europa. Mas o seu prazo de validade chegou ao fim.

Está na hora de exigir e provocar uma alteração profunda nas instituições democráticas da União: desde o presidente da Comissão Europeia aos presidentes das Juntas de Freguesia.

Cuidado, em suma, com as promessas de crescimento, e vigilância redobrada sobre o uso dos dinheiros do próximo quadro comunitário de apoio!

Quatro novos gráficos sobre Portugal

Estes quatro gráficos sobre Portugal dizem quase tudo, mostram que, em geral, temos seguido as tendências económicas do Ocidente. Só que em registo quase sempre medíocre e indigente.

 

 

 

 Todos os gráficos (exceto o último) in: Desvio Colossal, de Pedro Serrano (grazia tanta ;)


Atualização: 6/9/2014, 16:04 WET

Foreigners Bought Half Of All London Homes Selling For Over £1 Million | Zero Hedge

A UE e o euro são as únicas vias de futuro à disposição dos europeus

Está em curso uma deslocação extraordinária de riqueza das periferias, parte delas em decomposição, para a Europa. O ritmo deste aluvião só poderá acelerar nos próximos anos. Prevejo que a decomposição das periferias chegue aos Estados Unidos antes de 2020, e que portanto o afluxo de liquidez à zona euro venha a adquirir então proporções gigantescas.

Temos pois que preparar as nossas economias para acomodar tamanho tsunami. Setores a privilegiar:

1. defesa desburocratizada, descentralizada e eficiente do bem comum;
2. garantir a segurança, a solidariedade e a paz social na Europa;
3. reforçar as liberdades democráticas e o sistema de justiça europeu;
4. instaurar rapidamente a união bancária e defender intransigentemente o euro como moeda de reserva mundial;
5. modernizar radicalmente as infraestruturas de transportes;
6. promover a eficiência e inovação energéticas na Europa, a par do desenvolvimento de uma política de paz no acesso às fontes primárias de energia fóssil;
7. defesa da água, da terra e da qualidade ambiental como bens estratégicos inalienáveis de primeira importância
8. alívio fiscal e recuperação dos danos causados às classes médias durante a grande crise sistémica do Capitalismo iniciada em 2007-2008. 

PS: a libra, tal como ocorreu ao franco suíço, será em breve indexada ao euro ;)

Foreigners Bought Half Of All London Homes Selling For Over £1 Million | Zero Hedge

Actually, according to the first detailed estimate of international
purchase activity in London by Knight Frank, the percentage of all
central London homes that sold for more than 1 million pounds to
foreigners in the 12 months through June 2013, was 49% to be exact. And
as we showed yesterday when we put China's loan creation in the context of US and Japanese QE, keeping in mind the use of proceeds of
all this newly created inside money has to ultimately go somewhere -
that somewhere in this case being London and other global luxury real
estate, said percentage is only going to get higher. Especially when one
adds Russian, the middle east and other various regions whose oligarchs
are desperate to park their money in "safe" havens.

Ainda sobre este mesmo tema

Com que rapidez a sorte dos mercados emergentes mudou. Até há bem pouco tempo, eram tidas como a salvação da economia mundial - os motores dinâmicos de crescimento que iriam dar conta do recado à medida que as economias dos Estados Unidos e da Europa se engasgavam. Os economistas da Citigroup, McKinsey, PricewaterhouseCoopers e de outras empresas previam uma era de crescimento ampla e sustentada, da Ásia até à África.

Mas agora, a depressão dos mercados emergentes está de volta. A grande derrota que as moedas destes países sofreram quando a Reserva Federal dos EUA começou a apertar a política monetária é apenas o começo; para onde quer que olhemos, ao que parece, há problemas profundos.

in Dani Rodrik, Morte por causas financeiras, Público, 16-02-2014.

O magnetismo do euro sobre os países petrolíferos e emergentes deve-se também a algo que poderá em breve reforçar ainda mais os investimentos estrangeiros na Europa. Refiro-me concretamente ao fim da progressão rápida do crescimento nos países emergentes.

in O António Maria, Seguramente um zero à esquerda (24-01-2014).

Última atualização: 17 fev 2014, 16:17 WET