Inarmarea ucrainienilor si reactia Rusiei

Inarmarea ucrainienilor si reactia Rusiei – 6 februarie 2015

Gheorghe Gradinaru

Am mari rezerve ca vor fi atat de destepti sa stie cand sa se opreasca ".Second, on escalation, we believe that we are smart enough to control our engagement. Providing mostly non-lethal assistance and light-anti armor weapons does not automatically or invariably put the United States on a path to sending the 82nd Airborne to Kyiv. Our report made clear that we did not recommend deploying U.S. troops, and we would not do so. Indeed, the Ukrainians are not asking for them."

Arming the Ukrainians and Russia’s Reaction

Brookings scholars continue their debate as to whether the United States and Europe should send lethal aid to Ukraine. Here, Steven Pifer and Strobe Talbott respond to Jeremy Shapiro's concerns about any such armaments program.

brookings.edu

  Alexandru Botu Ei poate nu sunt asa de destepti, asa cum spuneti Dumneavoastra, Domnule Gheorghe Gradinaru. Dar ceilalti?....Ca doar n-or fi de capul lor!...

  Prospectiv A-z .
Din logica interna a complexului militaro-industrial

1. The privatization of war: The U.S. military’s recourse to private contractorshas strengthened the profit motive for war-making and prolonged wars as well. Unlike the citizen-soldiers of past eras, the mobilized warrior corporations of America’s new mercenary moment — the Halliburton/KBRs (nearly $40 billion in contracts for the Iraq War alone), the DynCorps ($4.1 billion to train 150,000 Iraqi police), and the Blackwater/Xe/Academis ($1.3 billion in Iraq, along with boatloads of controversy) — have no incentive to demobilize. Like most corporations, their business model is based on profit through growth, and growth is most rapid when wars and preparations for more of them are the favored options in Washington.
“Freedom isn’t free”, as a popular conservative bumper sticker puts it, and neither is war. My father liked the saying, “He who pays the piper calls the tune,” and today’s mercenary corporations have been calling for a lot of military marches piping in $138 billion in contracts for Iraq alone, according to the Financial Times. And if you think that the privatization of war must at least reduce government waste, think again: the Commission on Wartime Contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan estimated in 2011 that fraud, waste, and abuse accounted for up to $60 billion of the money spent in Iraq alone.

To corral American-style war, the mercenaries must be defanged or deflated. European rulers learned this the hard way during the Thirty Years’ War of the seventeenth century. At that time, powerful mercenary captains like Albrecht von Wallenstein ran amok. Only Wallenstein’s assassination and the assertion of near absolutist powers by monarchs bent on curbing war before they went bankrupt finally brought the mercenaries to heel, a victory as hard won as it was essential to Europe’s survival and eventual expansion. (Europeans then exported their wars to foreign shores, but that’s another story.)
...

6. Defining the world as a global battlefield: In fortress America, all realms have by now become battle spheres. Not only much of the planet, the seas, air, and space, as well as the country’s borders and its increasingly up-armored police forces, but the world of thought, the insides of our minds. Think of the 17intertwined intelligence outfits in “the U.S. Intelligence Community” and their ongoing “surge” for information dominance across every mode of human communication, as well as the surveillance of everything. And don’t forget the national security state’s leading role in making cyberwar a reality. (Indeed, Washington launched the first cyberwar in history by deploying the Stuxnet computer worm against Iran.)
Think of all this as a global matrix that rests on war, empowering disaster capitalism and the corporate complexes that have formed around the Pentagon, the Department of Homeland Security, and that intelligence community. A militarized matrix doesn’t blink at $1.45 trillion dollars devoted to the F-35, a single under-performing jet fighter, nor at projections of $355 billion over the next decade for “modernizing” the U.S. nuclear arsenal, weapons that Barack Obama vowed to abolish in 2009.

http://mondediplo.com/openpage/war-is-the-new-normal

William J. Astore, a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF), is a TomDispatch regular. His D.Phil. is in Modern History from the University of Oxford. He’s just plain tired of war and would like to see the next politician braying for it be deployed with a rifle to the front lines of battle. He edits the blog The Contrary Perspective.

War is the new normal - Le Monde diplomatique - English edition

It was launched immediately after the 9/11 attacks,...

mondediplo.com

  Preda Mihailescu Frankfurter Allgemeine scrie azi doar de pericolul imanent de razboi, deci realitate da sau nu, baietii fierb o ciorba, tulea! In conditiile astea Romania are o singura alegere: nu poate fi decat de partea EU, cauta sa evite conflicte cu Rusia, dar prioritatea este alianta - si ce ramane este sa negocieze cat de poate de lacom si de insistent tot felul de conditii favorabile. Incepand de la eliberarea constrictiilor de nesubventionare agrare si vanzare de pamant la toti bondocii, pana la garantii si ajutoare. Conditii dure - si daca protesteaza si spun ca daca nu vrem ne lasa pe mana Rusilor, le aducem aminte cat au valorat garantiile lor in WWII, si nu ne lasam impreionati!

  A.B   Domnule Preda Mihailescu pentru cine ati vorbit?

  P.M   Alexandru Botu @ Buna intrebare, domnul Botu - cred ca am strigat si eu sa auda codrul, ca daca as sti mai bine unde sa vorbesc pentru ca sa aiba consecinte, as face-o... Dar este evident ca Romania pare sa penduleze de colo colo, tocmai pentru ca nu exista suficienti care sa negocieze in favoarea ei scotand ceea ce se poate totusi scoate si in situatia aceasta.

  Smaranda Dobrescu Domnule Preda Mihailescu, poate un scurt articol publicabil?

  Octavian Lupu Am citit si eu articolul si de abia fraza finala ( "If there’s a better plan for settling the conflict, one that does not amount to wholesale Ukrainian capitulation, we would like to hear it.") mi-a sugerat intrebarea corecta. Pana in prezent atat eu cat si alti prospectivi am criticat atat actiunile Germaniei cat si pe cele ale SUA in raport cu solutionarea conflictului din Ucraina. Or eu cred ca am ajuns intr-o faza cand mai important este, fie si ca simplu joc intelectual, sa dam raspuns la intrebarea cehoviana: ce-i de facut? Care sunt solutiile? Cat de departe i se poate permite lui Putin sa mearga in interiorul Ucrainei si al Europei pentru a-si reintregi cat de cat sfera de influenta? Pana cand si pana unde? Nu vreau razboi (am un baiat de 24 de ani) dar daca ne raportam la experientele trecute putem sa ne dam seama ca revansismul rusesc, justificat sau nu, are sanse minimale de a se opri la granitele Ucrainei. Stiu, ar fi fost preferabil ca tot rahatul asta declansat de occident in Ucraina sa nu se fi intamplat. Si totusi asta este situatia de pe teren. Vorba celor de la defuncta Academie Catavencu: avem o tara, cum procedam?

  P.A-z .
Domnule, eu gandesc la altceva. Personal mi se pare ca se doreste *regime change* la Moscova, calculul fiind ca o parte a elitei ruse il va bascula pe Putin. Am mai spus aici, fie unii, fie ceilalti gresesc in calcule. De la nivelul nostru analiza se infunda, caci noi operam doar cu bun simt si/sau considerente legate de pielea fiecaruia. La alt nivel, elita opereaza deja de un timp bun dupa un plan despre lume despre care noi vom tot afla in ziarul de... maine.

  P.M "La alt nivel, elita opereaza deja de un timp bun dupa un plan despre lume despre care noi vom tot afla in ziarul de... maine." - Nu vei afla! Caci maine se va fi stabilizat unul din sapte variante de plan. Si atunci cine inclina spre complotism, de vreme ce o varianta cel putin apropiata, va fi existat - va striga: ei asta au vrut mereu, si au pregatit si au facut! Dar este o dovada a posteriori, vax! Eu cred ca ei fac si desfac variante ca la bursa. Desiguri, unele linii mari vor exista, dar ...

  O.L  Sigur ca plecarea lui Putin este obiectivul principal al sanctiunilor. Pe mine nu ma intereseaza la ce viseaza aliatii nostrii ci imaginarea unor scenarii de negociere/compromis. La inceputul anului trecut cand conflictul era la inceputurile sale (rusii de abia intrasera in Crimeea) un diplomat occidental de la ONU a declarat sub protectia anonimatului ca acest conflict se va dezamorsa numai atunci cand Rusii vor intelege ca au pierdut Kievul iar Kievul va intelege ca a pierdut Crimeea. Desigur stiu din propria mea experienta ca e mai usor si mai de bon ton sa fii sceptic decat sa fii creativ si sa incerci sa imaginezi solutii. De altfel genul asta de fatalism si anume ca nimic nu se poate face ca suntem victimele destinului nu are mai nimic de a face cu ginta latina ci mai degraba cu sufletul slav.

  P.A-z .
Nu-i vorba de complotisme/conspiratii, ci de faptul ca dela nivelul strazii, nimic nu mai are sens. Dela nivelul elitei, se genereaza intr-adevar mai multe planuri, dar actiunile de maine sunt in general rezultatul planului de azi. Ca elita poate gresi sau pot exista planuri multiple/antagoniste chiar si la nivelul elitei este la fel de adevarat, dar astea-s cazuri particulare...

Dela nivelul nostru nu vad ce am putea face mai mult decat sa iesim in strazi cu mesaje pacifiste. Ce ma intreb este cum de ucrainienii de rand se lasa manevrati/aruncati la inaintare. Ce ma mai intreb este cum tari europene, nu doar proiecte incremenite de tzara, tin isonul belicosilor. Ce ma intreb este cum sa-i mai ceri lui Putin sa se opreasca cu Crimeea cand lazul se tot strange in jurul lor. Ce ma intreb prospectiv este cum vor astia sa arate lumea maine.

  O.L  Cand am vorbit de solutii alternative la cele pe care le criticam m-am referit la faptul ca daca iesim in strada sa o facem in baza unor propuneri de solutii alternative nu asa pe sistem ca noi sunem oricum Gica contra

  P.A-z .
Domnule Lupu, solutii pentru problemele cui? Ne-a spus cineva care este problema reala? Pe bajbaite deduc ca problema reala este lipsa unei iesiri din Criza care sa nu tulbure prea mult lucrurile la varf. Admitand ca aceasta ar fi probelma, ce solutii alternative putem concepe?

Cel putin dela Soci incoace, a discutat careva serios in multiplele campanii electorale din *lumea libera* despre pozitia candidatilor fatza de Ucraina sau pacea mondiala/razboi? Nu cred. Asa ca putem da si pagina liberal-democratiei, acest sistem care in teorie ne fereste de razboi si criza.

  Stefan Kovacs Dle. Octavian Lupu- soluția e simplă. O ”zonă de prosperitate” în care banii să meargă pentru civilizație și nivel de trai- nu pentru provocări gen Maidan sau pentru arme. Zonă în care să bage banii UE, SUA și Rusia. La momentul în care cetățeanul din Donețk va avea un nivel de trai hai să zicem comparativ cu al unui cetățean austriac- în mod sigur că nu îl va interesa cine îl conduce. Schimburi științifice, culturale, etc.

  A.B  In perioada de dupa al doilea RM au fost pornite si sustinute atat de multe razboaie si focare de razboi, au murit atat de multi oameni, militari si civili in aceste conflicte si ca victime colaterale, s-au folosit cantitati imense si feluri atat de diverse de armamente, s-au produs atatea pagube etc etc incat daca s-ar calcula "densitatea" acestora pe durata WW2 si pe ce a trecut de atunci pana acum am fi uimiti vazand ca densitatea acestora in vreme de pace a fost mai mare decat in vreme de razboi.
In ceea ce priveste razboiul din Ucraina este posibil ca unii sa fi gandit la slabirea si sleirea rusilor prin implicarea lor intr-un razboi chiar in interiorul propriului lor spatiu vital.
Solutia inlaturarii lui Putin este una neeficienta, rusii au avut totdeauna efectiv nevoie de conducatori ultraputernici si populatia nu accepta decat astfel de conducatori.
Metoda propusa de domnul Stefan Kovacs nu cred ca ar fi agreata de nimeni. Germania a beneficiat dupa razboi de o astfel de unica politica americana, pentru ca fara regenerarea Germaniei Europa ar fi fost rapid sub papuc rusesc.

  Florin Miron Ce s-ar întîmpla dacă UE ar renunța la ipocrizia politicii americane și ar forma o uniune în care să fie inclusă și Rusia? Mișcări interne în fiecare stat european de tipul Podemos sau Syriza ar putea genera și schimbarea regimului actual aflat sub slugărnicie americană. Ai noștri politicieni tac în privința acest conflict, menționînd doar alinierea conform instituțiilor NATO și UE, marea majoritate a știrilor controlate cu scandaluri interne ce sînt menite în a distrage atenția de la seriozitatea acestui conflict, și în care populația va fi mulțumită de justiția „bine făcută”, timp în care angrenarea României într-un eventual război se va face pe furiș, cînd va fi prea tîrziu.

  P.A-z  .
Domnule Miron, nu cred ca EUropa poate opta pentru o "uniune în care să fie inclusă și Rusia" din acelasi motiv pentru care Romania isi cauta prietenul peste ocean. Este vorba de dimensiunea Rusiei contra principiului egalitatii--adica votul Rusiei fie face la fel cat al Luxemburgului, fie Rusia conduce toata Uniunea.

Tinerea rusilor la distanta vine si ea cu un cost, desigur. Pana in 1991, costul era suportat preponderent de SUA, lucru care a permis EUropenilor de atunci un strat mai gros de unt pe felia de paine. Acest cost si re/distribuirea lui revine acum in forme cu care deocamdata nimeni nu este echipat sa lucreze--iar asta n-o spun sa-i scap pe politicienii si analistii romani de responsabilitatea lucrului bine facut si in sensul acesta.

Domnule Botu, ati scris: " Metoda propusa de domnul Stefan Kovacs nu cred ca ar fi agreata de nimeni. germania a beneficiat dupa razboi de o astfel de politica americana, pentru ca fara regenerarea Germaniei Europa ar fi fost rapid sub papuc rusesc." De acord cu dvs., dar tari ca Romania ar trebui sa bata obrazul celor mari si cel mai bun moment este azi. Ni se spune in fond ca va fi un *quantitative easing* in EUropa, deci se admite in sfarsit ca lipsa capitalului este deja cauza a mentinerii/agravarii Crizei. Neajutorarea tarilor ca Romania arata goliciunea de fond a ideilor de solidaritate EUropeana, unul din motivele principale pentru care romanii au sacrificat atatea--a se retine, Planul Marshall n-avea nimic de-a face cu solidaritatea, ci cu mentinerea unei parti a lumii in sistemul mondial, deci argumentele vor fi 2-dimensionale, 1) moral, 2) economic.

  S.D   Colegul Florin Miron are dreptate dupa parerea mea in partea de final in care evalueaza tembelismul nostru de a ne lasa condusi in aprecierea prioritatilor noastrede toate manipularile prezente pe piata, inclusiv pe net.

  P.A-z  .
Cotidianul are 2 titluri care m-au facut sa caut si in presa de aici detalii dela o intalnire recenta. Iata si perspectiva americana:

Divisions on Display Over Western Response to Ukraine at Security Conference
By MICHAEL R. GORDON, ALISON SMALE and STEVEN ERLANGER

MUNICH — Differences within the Western alliance over whether to send defensive arms to Ukraine were thrust into the open on Saturday whenAngela Merkel, the German chancellor, said she bluntly opposed providing lethal military support to Kiev and called instead for continued efforts to persuade Russia and its separatist forces to cease fire.
“The progress that Ukraine needs cannot be achieved by more weapons,” she told a security conference here.[bine de stiut]
Ms. Merkel’s position was challenged by Senator Bob Corker, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who noted that there was growing support in the American Congress for arming Ukraine.
And Malcolm Rifkind, the former British foreign secretary and conservative politician, asserted that it was unlikely a peace agreement could be reached unless the Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine faced tougher Ukrainian resistance.[nu-i o surpriza]
The effect of the pointed exchanges was to lay bare the divisions within the West’s ranks without providing a sense of how the United States and its European allies hoped to fashion a common strategy that might persuade President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to honor the agreement that was negotiated in Minsk, Belarus, in September. It called for a cease-fire and the removal of Russian weapons and forces from eastern Ukraine.
Ms. Merkel did not say if she he had made any headway in her talks in Moscow on Friday with Mr. Putin and President François Hollande of France. But drawing parallels to the containment policy that brought an end to the Cold War, she suggested that a prolonged period of economic sanctions was the best strategy, though one, she acknowledged, that might not work in the end.[depinde de rusi, ce motiv au sa faca altfel? e in interesul lor sa se amane deznodamantul]
“We have no guarantees that President Putin will do what we expect him to do,” she said. “But I do think that military means will lead to more victims.”[exact]
She even recalled her own history, of growing up in East Germany, where she was seven years old when the Berlin Wall went up in August 1961. Nobody had contemplated liberating East Germans with a military strike against the Soviets, she noted. She added that she did not begrudge that, but that she and millions of others needed patience through 28 years of dictatorship before winning their freedom peacefully when the Wall came down in November 1989.[interesant!]
Ms. Merkel has argued throughout the Ukraine conflict that patience is needed, though whether she believes that should extend to decades is not clear.
Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who has argued forcefully for weapons deliveries to Ukraine, summed up his reaction to Ms. Merkel’s speech with one word: “Foolishness.”[hahaha!]
Mr. Putin, he predicted, would next seize the port of Mariupol in eastern Ukraine with a view to building a land bridge from Russia proper to Crimea, which the Kremlin annexed last March. “I can assure you that he will not stop until he has to pay a much higher price,” said Mr. McCain, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Following her appearance, Ms. Merkel met with Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine.
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
Mr. Biden plans to meet separately with Mr. Poroshenko on Saturday afternoon, and Secretary of State John Kerry has a separate meeting with Sergey V. Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister.
There is little doubt that the Ukraine conflict needs to be solved diplomatically. The question now is how to apply sufficient pressure to persuade the Kremlin to go along with the Minsk agreement.
Economic sanctions have failed to dissuade the Russians from intervening. Since the Minsk agreement was negotiated, Russian-backed separatists have gained 500 square kilometers — about 193 square miles — and taken the airport at Donetsk.
Germany, France and Britain are in one camp, which holds that economic sanctions needs more time. The Obama administration is still debating what to do. The incoming defense secretary, Ashton B. Carter, has said that he is inclined to provide arms to the Ukrainians.
The White House has been much more cautious, and President Obama is waiting until Ms. Merkel visits Washington on Monday before deciding.[vom astepta si noi]
Mr. Kerry, who attended Mr. Biden’s meeting with Ms. Merkel and Mr. Poroshenko, greeted the German chancellor warmly after her address. “You did very well,” Mr. Kerry said at the start of the session, apparently in reference to her appearance here.
Mr. Lavrov delivered a tough speech that was redolent of the Cold War. He complained about NATO’s decision to take in new Eastern European members and suggested that American plans for missile defense might be a drive to achieve “global dominance.”[live with that, Mr. Lavrov!]
On Ukraine, Mr. Lavrov said that he expected the discussions Mr. Putin had with Ms. Merkel and Mr. Hollande to proceed.
“These negotiations will continue as you know,” he said. “We believe there are good grounds for optimism.”
But there was little in his address that suggested how common ground mght be found. He accused the United States of turning a “blind eye to Ukrainian abuses” and complained that the West had supported an “anti-constitutional coup d’etat.”
Mr. Poroshenko was scheduled to speak Saturday afternoon.

  S.D   Un pas pozitiv: Merkel si Kerry au un punct de vedere comun, chiar daca opus armatorilor neoconi americani.

  P.A-z  .
Iata-i si pe ceilalti germani:
(via Luminita Branco)

"Initiatives from within US government circles in Washington, to contemplate supplying anti-armor weapons and drones to the Ukraine's military, are considered by Wolfgang Ischinger, Chairman of the Munich Security Conference, to be "appropriate and important." German parliamentarians - in spite of the Chancellor's negative announcements - have made similar declarations. Washington's contemplations are based on the fact that Kiev has so far proven incapable of leading the West to victory in Ukraine's civil war. Some of Kiev's troops are in a desolate condition. Desertion is on the rise, as well as protests against the murderous combat. For western states, official delivery of lethal weapons to Ukraine is considered an option for turning the tide on the battlefield. Security Conference Director, Ischinger, finds a "division of labor" between Washington and Berlin conceivable."

http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/58824

www.german-foreign-policy.com

german-foreign-policy.com

  Draghi Puterity Am diverse indicii ca tocmai e in curs o schimare de pozitie a Germanie in privintza crizei din Ucraina. Ar putea fi doar de show, pentru a arata populatiei ca "noi am incercat, dar...", insa ar putea fi vorba si de o distantare fatza de pozitia americana. Daca e situatia din urma, ramane de vazut daca el va rezista vizitei de luni a lui Merkel la Obama.

  P.A-z  .
http://www.c-span.org/video/...

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov...

c-span.org

  P.A-z  .
http://www.c-span.org/video/...

Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov at Munich Security Conference

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov delivers...

c-span.org

  O.L   Mie.aceasta declaratie a lui Hollande mi s-a parut scary in contradictie cu tonul inca plin de speranta al lui Merkel si refuzul acesteia de a lua in considerare o solutie militara. Mai mult decat atat am avut impresia ca main stream media a ignorat cu buna stiinta aceasta declaratie.http://www.agerpres.ro/.../ucraina-hollande-vorbeste...

Ucraina: Hollande vorbește despre "una din ultimele șanse" de a ajunge la un...

agerpres.ro

  P.A-z  .
Mult timp n-am vrut sa cred ca Hollande era asa cum il portretizau neprietenii sai, pe care-i suspectam de servicii facute sarkozismului. Intre timp vad ca baiatul a fost si el incovoiat de probleme mult peste capacitatea sa asa ca a trebuit sa *fold*.

Intre timp vad ca a ajuns de-a dreptul *minable*. Vai Franta!

  O.L  Dur dur etre president

  O.L  Putem intrevedea o schisma in interiorul aliantei: Germania pacifista, cu suporterii ei si Franta/UK belicoasa. Klaus cred ca va merge pe mana lui Merkel si-i va face pe americani sa-si muste degetele pentru l-au ajutat sa castige alegerile. Ponta ar fi mers pe mana americanilor fara cracnire.

  P.A-z  .
Nu cred ca schisma e despre pacifism/belicozitate, ci despre viziunea despre iesirea din Criza.

  O.L   Eu cred ca tocmai despre asta e vorba: ori continuam sa-i batem prieteneste pe spate pe Ucraineni ori ii "ajutam" cu arme si blackwater (academi cred ca se numeste acum) sa se faca ca vor sa recucereasca Crimeea pentru ca apoi sa intervina Uncle Sam cu boots on ground. Dupa care bila mea de sticla cu puteri anticipatoare nu mai vede decat o flacara stralucitoare, cu puterea a 1000 de sori ca sa fiu mai exact:)