[HSMW]

Mafarrico, tanto texto sem uma pequena descrição do assunto não se torna apelativo de ler...

[mafarrico]

O último texto que publiquei apareceu cortado. Voltei a colocá-lo na totalidade. Não é assim tão grande.
É um texto que dá matéria para reflectir sobre a actual rússia, nada mais.

um abraço

[mafarrico]

[mafarrico]

http://www.crescent-online.net/2013/09/ ... icles.html

Armenia in the Russia-US power play

by Tahir Mahmoud

September, 2013

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US has been trying to woo the former Soviet republics with limited success. Armenia is unlikely to fall into the US sphere simply because its alliance with Russia is far more beneficial to it than to Moscow.

Since the collapse of the USSR, the US has been trying to distance the countries of the former Soviet Union from Russia and establish strategic dominance over Central Asia and the Caucasus. Considering the unimpressive geopolitical, military and political achievements of the US in the region of the former Soviet Union it is unlikely that Washington would be able to establish a strong presence in Armenia. Yerevan and Moscow are historically strategic allies bonded through religion and the geopolitical realities of the Caucasus.

After 1990, Washington managed to achieve a limited degree of success in gaining strategic influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus but none of these accomplishments was of strategic importance. In Georgia the US has achieved its best results so far. However, since the October 2012 parliamentary elections, when the staunchly pro-Western Mikheil Saakashvili’s United National Movement Party (UNMP) was defeated by the Georgian Dream (GD) coalition led by Bidzina Ivanishvili, US influence in Georgia has started to weaken.

In June 2013, the US Congress-funded Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) initiated a discussion speculating about the loosening of ties between Armenia and Russia. RFERL and other Western media outlets attached much significance to the fact that Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian decided not to attend an “informal summit” of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) on May 28 due to Armenia’s Republic Day holiday and a visit to Yerevan by Britain’s Prince Charles. In March 2013 Western corporate media and think-tanks also read too much into Armenian hesitation in announcing its participation in the Russian established Customs Union of Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus.

Eurasia.net explained the Armenian reluctance in the following manner, “joining the Russian-led union would essentially preclude the signing of a comprehensive Association Agreement between Armenia and the European Union.” A key element of that agreement is the creation of a “deep and comprehensive free trade area,” which envisages not only the lifting of all trade barriers, but also harmonization of Armenian and EU economic laws and regulations. A spokesperson for Catherine Ashton, the EU foreign and security policy chief, told RFE/RL in December 2012 that Armenian entry into the Moscow-led Customs Union “would not be compatible with the Association Agreement.”

Our (Crescent International) assessment of a potential Armenian withdrawal from its strategic relationship with Russia is highly unlikely in the near or medium term. Armenia’s unequal alliance with Russia serves greater strategic interests of Armenia than its politically and economically uncertain future within the Western bloc. Considering that Armenia’s strategic political orientation is of nationalistic-mythological nature similar to Zionism and Serbian nationalism, rooted in its occupation of Karabakh, sustainable only due to Russian military support, Armenian distancing from Russia would be political and economic suicide. Historically Armenia has served as a Russian outpost into the Muslim dominated Caucasus and as a military pressure point against Turkey. Moscow is very sensitive in losing the territories of the former USSR to Western domination as its actions in Georgia and Tajikistan have shown where Moscow did not hesitate to use both hard (aggressive) and soft power to safeguard its influence over the past ten years.

In 2011, Armenia not only extended the lease of the Russian military base in Gyumri to 2044, but also upgraded Russian influence by increasing Russian military responsibilities within Armenia. Economically, landlocked Armenia is also highly dependent on Russia, as its trade relations with two of its immediate neighbors, Turkey and Azerbaijan, are minimal due to Armenian occupation of Karabakh. Russian state-owned Unified Energy System (RAO UES) controls six of Armenia’s nine hydroelectric facilities accounting for about 33% of Armenian energy. Moscow also owns Armenia’s Metsamor nuclear power plant which supplies Armenia with about 40% of its domestic energy.

If we consider just some of the strategic factors mentioned above that make Armenia dependent on Russia, any talk of Armenian abandoning Russia for the US and its Western allies looks highly unrealistic. Strategic change may occur in the Russian-Armenian alliance if Azerbaijan Republic makes it costly for Russia to support Armenian nationalist ambition in the Caucasus, a scenario that will not materialize under the current unelected kleptocratic regime of Ilham Aliyev.

Barring political changes in Azerbaijan, the Armenian lobby in the West may potentially serve as another factor in creating a breach in the Russian-Armenian alliance. One of the strengths of Armenia as a state today is its lobbying power in France, South America and the US. In 2006, former US National Security Advisor and influential US statesman, Zbigniew Brzezinski ranked the Armenian lobby in the US on par with the Zionist lobby. In fact it could be said that the Armenian lobby enjoys a strategic advantage over the Zionist lobby in that it operates invisibly. The lobby’s strength of invisibility is due to the fact that many Muslims worldwide are unaware of the Armenian massacres in Azerbaijan and occupation of Karabakh by Armenian nationalists. This relieves the Armenian lobby in the West from the need to win over or confront the anti-Armenian nationalist sentiment among immigrant Muslim populations in the US, France and South America. Even though the Armenian lobby is a powerful political player within Armenian politics, it does not dominate politics in Armenia.

That area of politics in Armenia is dominated mainly by Armenian nationalists from Karabakh. The current and past presidents of Armenia are both from Karabakh and played an active role in the ethnic cleansing of Azeris from there. The “Karabakh clan” as they are referred to in Armenia, understands well that in order to maintain the unifying mythological nationalist ideology of Armenia and preserve this dogma’s key victory in Karabakh, Yerevan needs Moscow. The Russian-Armenian alliance, therefore, will remain intact with some minor natural disagreements between the two parties until the situation in the occupied Karabakh changes and this will only occur after the political shake up within Azerbaijan.

[listadecompras]

http://rt.com/politics/official-word/pr ... embly-177/

[listadecompras]

a personalidade de 2013 em operacao de charme

amnistia para khodorkovsky,pussy riot, greenpeace entre outros. quem disse que o crime nao compensa? vao para a russia...

[listadecompras]

ainda nao vi tratado aqui no forum o que se esta a passar na ucrania.
quando nao se faz a vontade aos europaistas, o caldo entorna.
decisoes de fundo devem ser tomadas pelo povo. verdade seja dita ha muito tempo que ja nao se via tanto vip europaista a mexer-se, a provocar.
so por causa disso, espero bem que o putin lhes de mais uma licao

What really happened in the Ukrainian crisis
Putin scores a new victory in the Ukraine
By Israel Shamir
 
It is freezing cold in Kiev, legendary city of golden domes on the banks of Dnieper River – cradle of ancient Russian civilisation and the most charming of East European capitals. It is a comfortable and rather prosperous place, with hundreds of small and cosy restaurants, neat streets, sundry parks and that magnificent river. The girls are pretty and the men are sturdy. Kiev is more relaxed than Moscow, and easier on the wallet. Though statistics say the Ukraine is broke and its people should be as poor as Africans, in reality they aren't doing too badly, thanks to their fiscal imprudence. The government borrowed and spent freely, heavily subsidised housing and heating, and they brazenly avoided devaluation of the national currency and the austerity program prescribed by the IMF. This living on credit can go only so far: the Ukraine was doomed to default on its debts next month or sooner, and this is one of the reasons for the present commotion.
A tug-of-war between the East and the West for the future of Ukraine lasted over a month, and has ended for all practical purposes in a resounding victory for Vladimir Putin, adding to his previous successes in Syria and Iran. The trouble began when the administration of President Yanukovich went looking for credits to reschedule its loans and avoid default. There were no offers. They turned to the EC for help; the EC, chiefly Poland and Germany, seeing that the Ukrainian administration was desperate, prepared an association agreement of unusual severity.
The EC is quite hard on its new East European members, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria et al.: these countries had their industry and agriculture decimated, their young people working menial jobs in Western Europe, their population drop exceeded that of the WWII.
But the association agreement offered to the Ukraine was even worse. It would turn the Ukraine into an impoverished colony of the EC without giving it even the dubious advantages of membership (such as freedom of work and travel in the EC). In desperation, Yanukovich agreed to sign on the dotted line, in vain hopes of getting a large enough loan to avoid collapse. But the EC has no money to spare – it has to provide for Greece, Italy, Spain. Now Russia entered the picture. At the time, relations of the Ukraine and Russia were far from good. Russians had become snotty with their oil money, the Ukrainians blamed their troubles on Russians, but Russia was still the biggest market for Ukrainian products.
For Russia, the EC agreement meant trouble: currently the Ukraine sells its output in Russia with very little customs protection; the borders are porous; people move freely across the border, without even a passport. If the EC association agreement were signed, the EC products would flood Russia through the Ukrainian window of opportunity. So Putin spelled out the rules to Yanukovich: if you sign with the EC, Russian tariffs will rise. This would put some 400,000 Ukrainians out of work right away. Yanukovich balked and refused to sign the EC agreement at the last minute. (I predicted this in my report from Kiev full three weeks before it happened, when nobody believed it – a source of pride).
The EC, and the US standing behind it, were quite upset. Besides the loss of potential economic profit, they had another important reason: they wanted to keep Russia farther away from Europe, and they wanted to keep Russia weak. Russia is not the Soviet Union, but some of the Soviet disobedience to Western imperial designs still lingers in Moscow: be it in Syria, Egypt, Vietnam, Cuba, Angola, Venezuela or Zimbabwe, the Empire can’t have its way while the Russian bear is relatively strong. Russia without the Ukraine can’t be really powerful: it would be like the US with its Mid-western and Pacific states chopped away. The West does not want the Ukraine to prosper, or to become a stable and strong state either, so it cannot join Russia and make it stronger. A weak, poor and destabilised Ukraine in semi-colonial dependence to the West with some NATO bases is the best future for the country, as perceived by Washington or Brussels.
Angered by this last-moment-escape of Yanukovich, the West activated its supporters. For over a month, Kiev has been besieged by huge crowds bussed from all over the Ukraine, bearing a local strain of the Arab Spring in the far north. Less violent than Tahrir, their Maidan Square became a symbol of struggle for the European strategic future of the country. The Ukraine was turned into the latest battle ground between the US-led alliance and a rising Russia. Would it be a revanche for Obama’s Syria debacle, or another heavy strike at fading American hegemony?
The simple division into “pro-East” and “pro-West” has been complicated by the heterogeneity of the Ukraine. The loosely knit country of differing regions is quite similar in its makeup to the Yugoslavia of old. It is another post-Versailles hotchpotch of a country made up after the First World War of bits and pieces, and made independent after the Soviet collapse in 1991. Some parts of this “Ukraine” were incorporated by Russia 500 years ago, the Ukraine proper (a much smaller parcel of land, bearing this name) joined Russia 350 years ago, whilst the Western Ukraine (called the “Eastern Regions”) was acquired by Stalin in 1939, and the Crimea was incorporated in the Ukrainian Soviet Republic by Khrushchev in 1954.
The Ukraine is as Russian as the South-of-France is French and as Texas and California are American. Yes, some hundreds years ago, Provence was independent from Paris, - it had its own language and art; while Nice and Savoy became French rather recently. Yes, California and Texas joined the Union rather late too. Still, we understand that they are – by now – parts of those larger countries, ifs and buts notwithstanding. But if they were forced to secede, they would probably evolve a new historic narrative stressing the French ill treatment of the South in the Cathar Crusade, or dispossession of Spanish and Russian residents of California.
Accordingly, since the Ukraine’s independence, the authorities have been busy nation-building, enforcing a single official language and creating a new national myth for its 45 million inhabitants. The crowds milling about the Maidan were predominantly (though not exclusively) arrivals from Galicia, a mountainous county bordering with Poland and Hungary, 500 km (300 miles) away from Kiev, and natives of the capital refer to the Maidan gathering as a “Galician occupation”.
Like the fiery Bretons, the Galicians are fierce nationalists, bearers of a true Ukrainian spirit (whatever that means). Under Polish and Austrian rule for centuries, whilst the Jews were economically powerful, they are a strongly anti-Jewish and anti-Polish lot, and their modern identity centred around their support for Hitler during the WWII, accompanied by the ethnic cleansing of their Polish and Jewish neighbours. After the WWII, the remainder of pro-Hitler Galician SS fighters were adopted by US Intelligence, re-armed and turned into a guerrilla force against the Soviets. They added an anti-Russian line to their two ancient hatreds and kept fighting the “forest war” until 1956, and these ties between the Cold Warriors have survived the thaw.
After 1991, when the independent Ukraine was created, in the void of state-building traditions, the Galicians were lauded as 'true Ukrainians’, as they were the only Ukrainians who ever wanted independence. Their language was used as the basis of a new national state language, their traditions became enshrined on the state level. Memorials of Galician Nazi collaborators and mass murderers Stepan Bandera and Roman Shukhevych peppered the land, often provoking the indignation of other Ukrainians. The Galicians played an important part in the 2004 Orange Revolution as well, when the results of presidential elections were declared void and the pro-Western candidate Mr Yuschenko got the upper hand in the re-run.
However, in 2004, many Kievans also supported Yuschenko, hoping for the Western alliance and a bright new future. Now, in 2013, the city's support for the Maidan was quite low, and the people of Kiev complained loudly about the mess created by the invading throngs: felled trees, burned benches, despoiled buildings and a lot of biological waste. Still, Kiev is home to many NGOs; city intellectuals receive generous help from the US and EC. The old comprador spirit is always strongest in the capitals.
For the East and Southeast of the Ukraine, the populous and heavily industrialised regions, the proposal of association with the EC is a no-go, with no ifs, ands or buts. They produce coal, steel, machinery, cars, missiles, tanks and aircraft. Western imports would erase Ukrainian industry right off the map, as the EC officials freely admit. Even the Poles, hardly a paragon of industrial development, had the audacity to say to the Ukraine: we’ll do the technical stuff, you'd better invest in agriculture. This is easier to say than to do: the EC has a lot of regulations that make Ukrainian products unfit for sale and consumption in Europe. Ukrainian experts estimated their expected losses for entering into association with the EC at anything from 20 to 150 billion euros.
For Galicians, the association would work fine. Their speaker at the Maidan called on the youth to ‘go where you can get money’ and do not give a damn for industry. They make their income in two ways: providing bed-and breakfast rooms for Western tourists and working in Poland and Germany as maids and menials. They hoped they would get visa-free access to Europe and make a decent income for themselves. Meanwhile, nobody offered them a visa-waiver arrangement. The Brits mull over leaving the EC, because of the Poles who flooded their country; the Ukrainians would be too much for London. Only the Americans, always generous at somebody’s else expense, demanded the EC drop its visa requirement for them.
While the Maidan was boiling, the West sent its emissaries, ministers and members of parliament to cheer the Maidan crowd, to call for President Yanukovich to resign and for a revolution to install pro-Western rule. Senator McCain went there and made a few firebrand speeches. The EC declared Yanukovich “illegitimate” because so many of his citizens demonstrated against him. But when millions of French citizens demonstrated against their president, when Occupy Wall Street was violently dispersed, nobody thought the government of France or the US president had lost legitimacy…
Victoria Nuland, the Assistant Secretary of State, shared her biscuits with the demonstrators, and demanded from the oligarchs support for the “European cause” or their businesses would suffer. The Ukrainian oligarchs are very wealthy, and they prefer the Ukraine as it is, sitting on the fence between the East and the West. They are afraid that the Russian companies will strip their assets should the Ukraine join the Customs Union, and they know that they are not competitive enough to compete with the EC. Pushed now by Nuland, they were close to falling on the EC side.
Yanukovich was in big trouble. The default was rapidly approaching. He annoyed the pro-Western populace, and he irritated his own supporters, the people of the East and Southeast. The Ukraine had a real chance of collapsing into anarchy. A far-right nationalist party, Svoboda (Liberty), probably the nearest thing to the Nazi party to arise in Europe since 1945, made a bid for power. The EC politicians accused Russia of pressurising the Ukraine; Russian missiles suddenly emerged in the western-most tip of Russia, a few minutes flight from Berlin. The Russian armed forces discussed the US strategy of a “disarming first strike”. The tension was very high.
Edward Lucas, the Economist's international editor and author of The New Cold War, is a hawk of the Churchill and Reagan variety. For him, Russia is an enemy, whether ruled by Tsar, by Stalin or by Putin. He wrote: “It is no exaggeration to say that the [Ukraine] determines the long-term future of the entire former Soviet Union. If Ukraine adopts a Euro-Atlantic orientation, then the Putin regime and its satrapies are finished… But if Ukraine falls into Russia's grip, then the outlook is bleak and dangerous... Europe's own security will also be endangered. NATO is already struggling to protect the Baltic states and Poland from the integrated and increasingly impressive military forces of Russia and Belarus. Add Ukraine to that alliance, and a headache turns into a nightmare.”
In this cliff-hanging situation, Putin made his pre-emptive strike. At a meeting in the Kremlin, he agreed to buy fifteen billion euros worth of Ukrainian Eurobonds and cut the natural gas price by a third. This meant there would be no default; no massive unemployment; no happy hunting ground for the neo-Nazi thugs of Svoboda; no cheap and plentiful Ukrainian prostitutes and menials for the Germans and Poles; and Ukrainian homes will be warm this Christmas. Better yet, the presidents agreed to reforge their industrial cooperation. When Russia and Ukraine formed a single country, they built spaceships; apart, they can hardly launch a naval ship. Though unification isn’t on the map yet, it would make sense for both partners. This artificially divided country can be united, and it would do a lot of good for both of their populaces, and for all people seeking freedom from US hegemony.
There are a lot of difficulties ahead: Putin and Yanukovich are not friends, Ukrainian leaders are prone to renege, the US and the EC have a lot of resources. But meanwhile, it is a victory to celebrate this Christmastide. Such victories keep Iran safe from US bombardment, inspire the Japanese to demand removal of Okinawa base, encourage those seeking closure of Guantanamo jail, cheer up Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons, frighten the NSA and CIA and allow French Catholics to march against Hollande’s child-trade laws.
***
What is the secret of Putin’s success? Edward Lucas said, in an interview to the pro-Western Ekho Moskvy radio: “Putin had a great year - Snowden, Syria, Ukraine. He checkmated Europe. He is a great player: he notices our weaknesses and turns them into his victories. He is good in diplomatic bluff, and in the game of Divide and Rule. He makes the Europeans think that the US is weak, and he convinced the US that Europeans are useless”.
I would offer an alternative explanation. The winds and hidden currents of history respond to those who feel their way. Putin is no less likely a roguish leader of global resistance than Princess Leia or Captain Solo were in Star Wars. Just the time for such a man is ripe.
Unlike Solo, he is not an adventurer. He is a prudent man. He does not try his luck, he waits, even procrastinates. He did not try to change regime in Tbilisi in 2008, when his troops were already on the outskirts of the city. He did not try his luck in Kiev, either. He has spent many hours in many meetings with Yanukovich whom he supposedly personally dislikes.
 
Like Captain Solo, Putin is a man who is ready to pay his way, full price, and such politicians are rare. “Do you know what is the proudest word you will ever hear from an Englishman's mouth?”, asked a James Joyce character, and answered: “His proudest boast is I paid my way.” Those were Englishmen of another era, long before the likes of Blair, et al.
While McCain and Nuland, Merkel and Bildt speak of the European choice for the Ukraine, none of them is ready to pay for it. Only Russia is ready to pay her way, in the Joycean sense, whether in cash, as now, or in blood, as in WWII.
Putin is also a magnanimous man. He celebrated his Ukrainian victory and forthcoming Christmas by forgiving his personal and political enemies and setting them free: the Pussy Riot punks, Khodorkovsky the murderous oligarch, rioters… And his last press conference he carried out in Captain Solo self-deprecating mode, and this, for a man in his position, is a very good sign.

[sidonio]

Sei que a notícia não é propriamente novidade mas... A Sérvia entrou como observador no "organização do tratado de segurança colectiva", aliança militar defensiva chefiada por Moscovo.

 Poderemos ver bases militares russas na Sérvia? Estratégicamente ficam bem dentro do "coração" da OTAN, e se os EUA pós Obama quiser avançar com a defesa anti-míssel, a Rússia pode sempre responder ao colocar ICMB em Belgrado.

[napoleonverrugas]

Artigo de opinião do qual não concordo ao 100%:

"
Os interesses nacionais da Alemanha, no mundo atual, e os europeus
A análise de Manuel Amaral, investigador, sobre o que nos ensina a história com os erros do passado no caso Ucrânia-Rússia.
16 de Abril 2014

Em maio e junho de 1991 os governos nacionalistas das repúblicas jugoslavas da Croácia e da Eslovénia, após as eleições parlamentares de abril e os referendos pró-independência de dezembro de 1990 e maio de 1991 declararem a separação da Jugoslávia. Os dois territórios, que fizeram parte do Império Austríaco até 1918 - a Eslovénia regressou ao território austríaco, integrado na "Grande Alemanha" nazi, no decurso da 2ª Guerra Mundial, sendo uma das últimas anexações alemãs, em 1943 -, decidiram aproveitar o processo de dissolução da União Soviética e a abertura política nos países do leste europeu, dirigidos por partidos comunistas, para se autonomizarem da Jugoslávia, com base no principio da autodeterminação nacional tão querida a Woodrow Wilson, o presidente dos EUA que promoveu o principio do desenvolvimento autónomo das nacionalidades europeias no final da 1ª Guerra Mundial.

Os partidos nacionalistas, vencedores nas duas repúblicas do norte da Jugoslávia, decidiram separar-se unilateralmente, sem negociações prévias, tendo tido o apoio claro da Alemanha ocidental, que tinha terminado o seu processo de reunificação no decurso do ano de 1990. A decisão levou ao desaparecimento da Jugoslávia, e a guerras sangrentas que provocaram a morte a mais de 130 mil pessoas, os primeiros conflitos em solo europeu desde 1945. Nada se aprendeu com o caso jugoslavo. Possivelmente a Alemanha achou que o padrão aventureiro do fato consumado, já utilizado nos Balcãs, daria resultado no caso da Ucrânia. Assim, aproveitando a decadência militar russa e com base numa "iniciativa" conjunta da Polónia, Lituânia e Suécia, defensores de uma "Parceria Oriental" que lembra a Drang Nach Osten do nacionalismo alemão do século 19, apoiou a política de atração da Ucrânia para o campo da União Europeia sem debate prévio com a Rússia.

Aparentemente a situação está a tornar-se caótica e a guerra civil na Ucrânia uma possibilidade cada vez maior, fazendo regressar o espetro das "terras sangrentas" (Bloodlands que Timothy Snyder recentemente evocou em livro), esses campos de sangue entre o Báltico e o Mar Negro - sobretudo na Ucrânia - onde a Alemanha e a Rússia se confrontaram, de 1933 a 1945, provocando a morte a 14 milhões de pessoas. A Alemanha tem actualmente na Eslovénia e na Croácia aliados seguros. Daqui a alguns anos, a seguir a que sacrifícios do povo ucraniano ainda não se sabe, terá possivelmente na Ucrânia uma nova e fiel aliada, integrada ou não na União Europeia. Neste ano, em que se evoca o centenário do início da Grande Guerra (1914-1918), valerá a pena lembrar que é consensual que o eclodir do conflito teve como principal responsável a Alemanha imperial de Guilherme I.

De fato, ao não ter vontade de controlar os ímpetos bélicos da Áustria-Hungria, provocada por uma monarquia Sérvia irresponsável - que na terminologia atual se poderá considerar um Rogue State (um estado vilão) -, sabia que iria entrar em guerra com a Rússia, aliada da Sérvia, e que, de acordo com os seus próprios planos militares, teria de atacar a França antes de apoiar a Áustria contra a Rússia, sendo que a invasão da Bélgica, considerada necessária para vencer a França, obrigaria o Reino Unido a entrar no conflito ao lado da França e da Rússia. O conflito iniciado em 1914 podia não ter acontecido? Podia.

O conflito jugoslavo também não, assim como a atual crise ucraniana. Era tão-só manter os canais diplomáticos abertos. De fato, se a guerra é geralmente considerada a continuação da diplomacia por outros meios, a verdade é que é sobretudo o fim do método civilizado - político - de relacionamento entre estados soberanos e o regresso a uma maneira "selvagem" - violenta - de resolver os conflitos.

Nos casos mais recentes teria sido necessário um maior empenho americano nos assuntos da Europa e, por isso, um maior protagonismo da OTAN. De fato, de acordo com o seu primeiro secretário-geral, o general britânico Hastings Ismay, a OTAN devia servir sobretudo para manter os americanos na Europa, os russos fora e os alemães em baixo. O seus atuais dirigentes esqueceram-se deste principio. Não podendo os europeus - sobretudo os estados do sul, os únicos interessados - lutar contra a Alemanha, de novo a potência continental dominante, deveriam ser os EUA a controlar as políticas alemãs. Uma subsecretária de Estado americana, mulher do teórico neoconservador Frederick Kagan, deu o mote: "f.. the Europeans".

A Parceria Oriental opõe-se claramente à Parceria Euro-mediterrânica, aos interesses nacionais dos países meridionais. O problema é que em Portugal temos uma elite governativa que é dirigida, com Pedro Passos Coelho, por uma espécie de pastor de seita suburbana de tipo religioso com tendências presbiterianas, que acha, aos quarenta anos em vez do início da adolescência, que teve uma espécie de expiação definitiva (um atonement) das faltas incorridas pelos antecessores, seguindo uma tendência unitarista, que a leva a pensar primeiro no centro da seita - a Alemanha - e só depois em Portugal.

( http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/notic ... s-europeus )

[mafarrico]

http://rt.com/news/159804-putin-china-visit-interview/

Russia-China ties at highest level in history – Putin

Russia-China cooperation has reached its highest level ever, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said in an interview with Chinese media on the eve of his visit to Shanghai, where a record package of documents is expected to be signed by the two nations.

Below is the full transcript of the Russian president’s interview with Chinese Central Television, Xinhua news agency, China News Service, The People's Daily, China Radio International, and Phoenix Television.

Question: What are your expectations concerning the upcoming visit to China? What results do you expect from the Summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia in Shanghai?

Vladimir Putin: I am always happy to visit hospitable China. It is a pleasure to see how our neighbour is transforming right before our eyes. Shanghai is a vivid illustration of this.

Establishing closer ties with the People’s Republic of China – our trusted friend – is Russia's unconditional foreign policy priority.
Now Russia-China cooperation is advancing to a new stage of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction. It would not be wrong to say that it has reached the highest level in all its centuries-long history.

I am looking forward to a new meeting with President of China Xi Jinping, with whom I have good working and personal relations. We will discuss how previous agreements are being implemented and outline new objectives for the future. I am sure that the upcoming talks will give a powerful impetus to further strengthening of bilateral cooperation in all areas and deeper coordination in the international arena. The summit’s results and future plans will be reflected in the Joint Statement by the Heads of State and a strong package of documents expected to be signed during the visit.

Russia and China have actively advocated establishing a new security and sustainable development architecture in the Asia-Pacific. It should be based on the principles of equality, respect for international law, indivisibility of security, non-use of force or threat of force. Today this task is becoming increasingly important. The forthcoming Summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia (CICA) serves to contribute to addressing this task.

CICA is a well-established cooperation mechanism. It has been successfully working in such spheres as security, new challenges and threats, economy, environmental protection and humanitarian issues, all of which are important for the region.

Russia has taken an active part in CICA’s activities. In mid-April 2014, members of the Conference approved the Statute of the CICA Business Council sponsored by Russia. I am confident that the launch of the Council will enhance practical ties between business communities of the Asian countries.

At the upcoming summit, the Secretariats of CICA and SCO are expected to sign a Memorandum of Understanding. That would serve as another step towards shaping a framework of partnerships between this region’s organisations and forums.

Q: China is consistently making progress towards the "Chinese dream", i.e. a great national rebirth. Russia has also set a goal of restoring a powerful state. How, in your opinion, could our countries interact and help each other in fulfilling these tasks? What areas can be prioritised in this regard?

VP: Promotion of friendly and good-neighbourly partnership relations is fully consistent with the interests of both Russia and China. We do not have any political issues left which could impede the enhancement of our comprehensive cooperation.
Through joint efforts, we have established a truly exemplary collaboration, which should become a model for major world powers.

It is based on respect for the fundamental interests of each other and efficient work for the benefit of the peoples of our two countries.

Russia and China successfully cooperate in the international arena and closely coordinate their steps to address international challenges and crises. Our positions on the main global and regional issues are similar or even identical.

It is encouraging that both sides are willing to further deepen their cooperation. Both Moscow and Beijing are well aware that our countries have not exhausted their potentials. We have a way to go. The priority areas of collaboration at the current stage include the expansion of economic ties and cooperation in science and high-technology sector. Such pooling of capacities is very helpful in fulfilling the tasks of domestic development of our countries.

Q: Cooperation between China and Russia has been steadily increasing, but uncertainties in global economy persist. The emerging markets are faced with new challenges and slowdown of economic growth. How can our two countries help each other to counter these challenges? How can we ensure steady increase of mutual trade and reciprocal investments?

VP: In the context of turbulent global economy, the strengthening of mutually beneficial trade and economic ties, as well as the increase of investment flows between Russia and China are of paramount importance. This is not just a crucial element of socioeconomic development of our countries, but a contribution to the efforts aimed at stabilising the entire global market.
Today, Russia firmly places China at the top of its foreign trade partners.

In 2013, the volume of bilateral trade was close to $90 billion, which is far from being the limit. We will try to increase trade turnover to $100 billion by 2015 and up to $200 billion by 2020.

Our countries successfully cooperate in the energy sector. We steadily move towards the establishment of a strategic energy alliance. A large‑scale project worth over $60 billion is underway to supply China with crude oil via the Skovorodino-Mohe pipeline.

The arrangements on export of Russian natural gas to China have been nearly finalised. Their implementation will help Russia to diversify pipeline routes for natural gas supply, and our Chinese partners to alleviate the concerns related to energy deficit and environmental security through the use of "clean" fuel.

At the same time, we are working actively to reduce dependence of bilateral trade on external market conditions. Therefore, in order to develop trade and economic cooperation we pay particular attention to the breakthrough areas such as higher energy efficiency, environmental protection, production of drugs and medical equipment, developing new information technologies, as well as nuclear energy and outer space.
We implement a list of joint projects in 40 priority areas with total investments of about $20 billion.

These areas include civil aircraft industry. An agreement has been reached on joint design of a wide-body long-range aircraft. In the future we will develop a heavy helicopter. I am sure that our companies can manufacture and supply competitive products to the world markets.

We also intend to actively develop investment cooperation, the scope of which obviously does not meet real capacities and needs of our countries yet. We have examples of successful projects. I would like to note the participation of Chinese capital in the reconstruction of an airport in the Kaluga Region and building of plants for production of automotive parts and construction materials in that Russian constituent entity.

To our mind, there are many other promising areas for investments. We can point to different branches of machine engineering, processing of agricultural products, mining operations, and development of transport and energy infrastructure.

We must also strengthen financial cooperation and protect ourselves from exchange-rate fluctuations among the world's major currencies. Therefore, we are now considering how to increase mutual settlements in national currencies.

Q: Russia has recently announced the creation of a special economic zone in Vladivostok. What could, in your view, be the role of China in its creation and in the development of the Russian Far East as a whole?

VP: Accelerated socioeconomic development of Siberia and the Far East is one of Russia's key national priorities for the 21st century. We are now implementing a whole package of programmes to modernise and upgrade transport, energy and social infrastructure in these regions.
We are aiming at the creation of special areas of advanced economic development with an investment-friendly environment.

Competitive conditions for launching export-oriented enterprises in non-primary sectors have been created.

In the areas of advanced development, new companies will enjoy some substantial benefits. These are tax holidays with respect to a number of taxes and reduced insurance premium rates; liberalisation of the customs regime, including free customs zones; special rules for access to land and for connecting to infrastructure facilities.

Today, the relevant federal law is being finalised. Development institutions are being created and promising centres are being selected. One of them will probably be established in Vladivostok on Russky Island where the APEC 2012 Summit took place.

Obviously, we are interested in Chinese businessmen making use of these opportunities and becoming one of the leaders here, since both Russia and China will benefit from an accelerated development of the Russian Far East.

It is important not to limit our relations to trade. It is essential to establish strong technological and industrial alliances; attract investments to the infrastructure and energy sectors; to jointly promote scientific research and humanitarian contacts; lay a solid foundation for a sustainable long-term development of our trade and economic relations. And the Russian Far East can and must become a natural venue for the said efforts.

Q: How would you rate the present level of cooperation between our countries in the humanitarian sphere and its prospects? Which projects within the framework of reciprocal theme years (national, language, tourism, youth exchanges) have impressed you most?

VP: The humanitarian contacts between Russia and China are in keeping with the steady development of the whole complex of strategic partnership relations between our countries. At the moment, their level is as high as never before. The major projects of national, language and tourism theme years in which millions of our citizens participated, have played a significant role in that.

It is noteworthy that a number of events are now being carried out on a regular basis. These are festivals of culture, film weeks, youth sports games, student festivals, camps for schoolchildren and students, fora for university principals, exhibitions of educational services and many other events.

An intergovernmental project of the Russia-China Youth Friendly Exchanges Years planned for 2014–2015 was launched this March. The performance of the recently created Russian-Chinese philharmonic youth orchestra, headed by the artistic director and principal conductor of the Mariinsky Theatre Valery Gergiev, has become a highlight of the theme years’ launch in St Petersburg.

Of course, we are not going to settle down. The mutual interest of youth in history, culture and traditions of the peoples of China and Russia is increasing. It is an objective process, and we are committed to fully supporting it in the future.

Q: In 2015, our countries will celebrate the 70th anniversary of Victory over fascism. What is the impact of joint Russian-Chinese efforts to oppose the attempts aimed at challenging the results of World War II?

VP: It is true that the attempts to rewrite and distort history are becoming more frequent.

Four years ago Russia and China adopted a Joint Statement on the 65th Anniversary of Victory in the Second World War.
We share an idea that it is unacceptable to revise the results of the war, as the consequences will be extremely grave.

It is clearly evident from the tragic events currently unfolding in Ukraine, where violent neo-Nazis are waging a real campaign of terror against civilians.

I would like to express my gratitude to our Chinese friends for cherishing the memory of thousands of our compatriots, who sacrificed their lives to liberate Northeast China from invaders.

Next year we will hold a range of joint events to mark the 70th anniversary of Victory both in the bilateral and the SCO format. During these events, youth will be in the focus of our work.

We will certainly continue to oppose attempts to falsify history, heroize fascists and their accomplices, blacken the memory and reputation of heroic liberators.

[mafarrico]

http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_07_1 ... trip-0049/

President Putin arrives in Argentina on Latin American tour


12 July 2014, 13:32

Russia’s President, Vladimir Putin, has arrived in Argentina on an official visit. He will hold negotiations with Argentinean President, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner. Following the negotiations the countries are expected to sign several bilateral agreements. Reporters will be waiting for the leaders to give a news conference. This is  Vladimir Putin's first visit to Argentina.

The Russian president has been touring Latin American countries. He has already been to Cuba and Nicaragua. After a day-long visit to Argentina, Putin will head for Brazil, TASS reports.

The Russian President, Vladimir Putin, has changed the schedule for his Latin American tour and arrived a brief working visit in Nicaragua. Making his way from Cuba to Argentina on Saturday, the Russian leader decided on a stopover in Managua, where he had earlier been officially invited. At Managua airport, he was welcomed by Nicaraguan President, Daniel Ortega.

"Much is yet to be done to develop our relations, especially in the economic area, but we have a good basis for that," Putin said, adding that Russia and Nicaragua had long-standing good relations. "We admire personal courage and the courage of your people," he told Ortega. The Russian leader recalled that the year 2014 is a jubilee for Russia and Nicaragua, which established diplomatic relations 70 years ago.

The Nicaraguan leader called Putin’s visit to his country a historic event. "This is the first-ever visit by the Russian president to Nicaragua, and we are very happy to welcome you here," he said.

Ortega reassured Putin that Nicaragua supported Russia's peace efforts. "We are ready to take part in Russia’s initiatives on maintaining peace for the entire planet and its regions," he said. "Conflict settlement lies not in bombing but in reasonable approaches. The most vital thing is to lend an ear to the will of the people".

The Russian delegation included Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, presidential aide, Yuri Ushakov, and oil major Rosneft's CEO, Igor Sechin.

Nicaragua's delegation included the Nicaraguan president's envoy for trade-and economic and investment cooperation with Russia, Laureano Ortega, Deputy Foreign Minister, Valdrak Jaentschek, co-chairman of the Russian-Nicaraguan intergovernmental commission on economic and technical research cooperation, Commander-in-Chief of the Nicaraguan Army, Julio Cesar Aviles, and President of energy company Enatrel, Salvador Mansell.

Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that Russia will help Cuba to overcome the illegal blockade imposed on it by the United States. This he said after a meeting with the President of the Council of State of Cuba Raul Castro. Also, Vladimir Putin said that Russia is interested in placing GLONASS system in Cuba.

"Russia is interested in placing GLONASS ground stations in Cuba. And in this case, the Cuban side will have access to services and satellite communications technologies in the area of the station," said the President after talks with the chairman of the State Council of Cuba Raul Castro.

According to RIA Novosti, the Russian-Cuban intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in the space sector was signed in February 2013. It is expected that it will come into force shortly. Thus, there will be legal basis for the work on the creation of GLONASS ground stations in Cuba.

Also Vladimir Putin said to reporters after a meeting with the President of the Council of Ministers of Cuba and of the Council of State of Cuba Raul Castro that Construction cost of four units for thermal electric power station built by Russia "Maxime Gomez" and "East of Havana" will amount to 1.2 billion Euros.

""Inter RAO" Company " intends to build four thermal generating units for power plant "Maxime Gomez" and "East of Havana" total cost of 1.2 billion Euros," - said the president. Following the talks, in the presence of Putin and Castro "Inter RAO - Export" and Union Electrica signed a memorandum of understanding on the signing of the contract for construction in Cuba four units with a capacity of 200 megawatts.

[mafarrico]

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/23137

[mafarrico]

30 Julho 2014
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=10877&start=945

Sobre o buk, uma certeza: russos nao sao pois estes nunca iam fornecer nada que os relacionasse com os separatistas. Sempre disse (e se tem duvidas va reler), que ou sao ucranianos ou georgianos, mas da mesma forma que ainda nao sei quem mentiu sobre o buk da tal placa, arvoredo e entroncamento, desconheco a 100% qual a nacionalidade de quem os opera (tenho as minhas suspeitas como tambem ja aqui revelei).

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine ... 71143.html
James Rupert: Russia may launch a new invasion in spring, analysts say

http://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/op-ed/j ... 71142.html

[HSMW]

[mafarrico]