Category Archives: 2009

Berlin 2009 .. Vers le monde multipolaire

2 Replies
Ici, à Berlin, nous espérons que la période de la confrontation est révolue. Le passage à un nouveau monde multipolaire est très important pour la plupart des pays” au moment où la communauté internationale fait face à de nouvelles menaces globales qu’on peut écarter uniquement par des efforts conjugués. 

Il y a 20 ans, Berlin est devenu un symbole de la réunification des peuples et des pays, a indiqué le président russe.
L’URSS a joué le rôle clé dans la victoire sur le nazisme et, 44 ans plus tard, dans la réunification pacifique de l’Allemagne, a souligné le président russe. Ces deux événements ont apporté la liberté et le progrès à l’Europe et ont changé les destins du monde, selon lui.

WORKING WITH RUSSIA TO PREVENT EURASIAN COLLAPSE

1 Reply

The Eurasian region continues to disintegrate, and neither Russia nor the West has been able to arrest the destabilizing dynamics. Evidence of rising instability throughout the region include the August 2008 Russia-Georgia war, renewed terrorist attacks in the North Caucasus, the persistent failure of Western forces to stabilize Afghanistan, the inability of Central Asian rulers to reign in local clans and drug lords, and the paralysis of legitimately elected bodies of power in Ukraine and Moldova. 
Violence is gradually spreading, waiting for an opportunity to erupt into a large-scale conflict. 
Transregional transportation routes may soon be choked due to Russia‘s conflicts with Ukraine, Georgia, and Turkmenistan. 
The West’s attempts to secure and stabilize Eurasia after the end of the Cold War must be recognized as a failure. In the mid-1990s, U.S. geostrategists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski recommended that the United States pursue a policy of replacing Russia as the referee and protector of the newly established non-Russian states in the region. After initial hesitation, the United States and other Western states followed this advice. Yet Eurasia has not become stable or peaceful and continues to disintegrate. The bureaucrats in Washington and Brussels have failed to understand that they lack the resources, the will, and the experience to stabilize the complex region. Today — after the Iraq war and the global financial crisis — the United States is beginning to recognize its overextension, but it is not at all clear if Washington and Brussels are prepared to act differently in Eurasia.


Russia‘s Absence Felt.


Russia, too, has contributed to the Eurasian meltdown. The Soviet collapse and the subsequent retreat of Russia from the region have greatly destabilized the area. By the time Vladimir Putin assumed power in 2000, Moscow‘s severely undermined position in the region was obvious to everyone, especially after a wave of terrorist attacks took place in Chechnya and other parts of Russia. The relative recovery of the Russian economy during the post-Yeltsin decade began to revive Russia‘s standing in Eurasia, yet Moscow could ill afford serious efforts to stabilize and pacify the region. At best, the Kremlin could defend its core interests abroad and begin to escape the alternative of an unstable society, dwindling population, and truncated sovereignty. By capitalizing on high oil prices, it could also advocate multilateral arrangements in the region and strengthen its presence in neighboring economies and energy companies worldwide. Preventing a collapse in Eurasia requires recognizing Russia‘s role in stabilizing the region. 

Once this is done in practice, and not rhetorically, many pieces of the region’s puzzle may start falling into place. Energy supplies may become more reliable; governments in politically contested areas — like Georgia, Ukraine, and Moldova — may obtain a greater legitimacy; and the so-called frozen conflicts may have a better opportunity to be resolved. Russia‘s recent resurgence is a response to its lacking recognition as a vital power and partner of the West. If Russia chooses to dedicate itself to obstructing Western policies in Eurasia, we will see more of the collapsing dynamics in the region. Ukraine and Moldova may disintegrate, as did Georgia. Central Asia and Azerbaijan are likely to be subjected to a much greater degree of instability with unpredictable consequences. Russia too will suffer greatly as its modernization processes will be derailed. In short, the region may change beyond recognition — and possibly through the use of force. 


Spirit Of Cooperation

Non-Russian powers too must become involved as participants in establishing a collective-security arrangement in Eurasia. From a security perspective, it is important that the two most prominent actors in the region — NATO and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) — develop a joint assessment of threat and closely coordinate their policies. Instead of expanding its reach further, NATO ought to learn its limitations. 
Without the full-fledged involvement of the SCO, Afghanistan is likely to turn into another version of Iraq, with additional negative implications for the U.S. reputation in the world. Another key issue is energy security. A new, shared understanding of energy challenges must be reached that would encourage mutual respect for each side’s critical interests. 
Viewing Russia as a potentially reliable alternative to traditional Middle Eastern sources of energy may serve the West and members of the region better than the image of a “neo-imperialist” bully that only seeks to subvert its neighbors’ policies. Trying to persuade European countries to invest additional billions into the Nabucco pipeline in order to bypass Russia may well turn out to be a waste of money and time. A more important and potentially unifying idea for all the parties would be to engage in the development of acceptable rules and principles of energy security among Eurasia‘s powers. Finally, to restore the region’s capacity to function and perform basic services for its residents, it is critical to curb Russophobic nationalism. While rebuilding a Russia-centered empire would be very dangerous, there is hardly an alternative to the emergence of an economically and culturally transparent community of nations with strong ties to the former metropole. Russians and other ethnic minorities must be able freely to travel, develop their linguistic and religious traditions, and celebrate their historically significant events. The overall objective of the outside world should be to strengthen Russia‘s confidence as a regional great power, while discouraging it from engaging in revisionist behavior. 


Andrei Tsygankov is a professor of international relations at San Francisco State University. The views expressed in this commentary are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect those of RFE/RL

Stronger than you think !

Leave a reply
Un article très intéressant paru hier , sous forme d’une interviw de Gleb Pavloski

02 November 2009
By Gleb Pavlovsky
Western leaders and observers persistently repeat, like a mantra, that Russia is “weak.” This judgment is based on a flawed comparison between Russia and the Soviet Union.  Measured by Soviet standards, Russia has weakened, but as former United States National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft noted, Russia still “has enormous capacities to influence the U.S. security strategy in any country.”
A country with such influence over a military superpower cannot be considered weak. In fact, the issue is not Russia’s strength per se, but whether Russia intelligently concentrates and applies it.
The new Russia has transcended its Soviet identity and managed to put down uprisings in the post-Soviet space as far away as Tajikistan. It has dealt with a new generation of security threats on its own territory — most prominently Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev — and prevented them from turning into a global force like al-Qaida.
Moreover, Russia has helped other new nations in Eastern Europe create their own identities.
Does this not demonstrate Russia’s global know-how? Is it not a contribution to international security?
The United States has recognized the Russian factor in post-Soviet state-building processes. Russia has not been the only beneficiary of its activities in the Caucasus, especially since 2000. By bringing recalcitrant minorities into a new security consensus, Russia helped transform local ethnic conflict into a constructive process of nation building.
So Russia’s claim to being a central element in Eurasian security, on par with the United States and the European Union, is not the blustering of a spent Leviathan. Rather, it is a demand for a fair international legal order.
The debate about whether the United States should allow Russia to have “special interests” in Eastern Europe is pointless. Russia’s interests are by necessity becoming global. The agenda of U.S.-Russian relations includes issues such as treaties on the reduction of strategic weapons and on nuclear nonproliferation, NATO, Afghanistan, Iran, Central Asia, North Korea and the post-Soviet space. These are all global issues, not local ones.
Russia can be effective in dealing with these issues only if it becomes a competent global actor.  Yet many assume that world politics should be designed to bypass Russia. Everywhere Russians are expected to support something without participating in creating it. We are supposed to help stabilize the region around Afghanistan, for example, but only in order to create a “greater Central Asia” that will not include Russia.
It is clear that modern Russia lacks a “global status” in the Soviet sense. But the United States has also been unable to achieve the global status of a “Yalta superstate.” The U.S. global military power is undisputed, although it is used with decreasing frequency.
Sprawled over 11 time zones — five of which border China — it is impossible to expect Russia to remain merely a regional power.
A state that is involved in four global regions — Europe, Central Asia, the Far East and the Arctic — and borders several others cannot be considered “regional.”
Moreover, because the regions in which Russia has interests face a number of problems, it must seek influence over the strategies for those regions pursued by other powers of various sizes, from China and the United States, to the EU and Iran. Russia is expected to act in ways that are beneficial to U.S. and Western interests. But it is in Washington’s interest to enhance Moscow’s capacity to act and to strengthen a globally competent Russia. This would be a Russia that acts in pursuit of its own interests — the same way that the United States and the EU act.
Americans sometimes suggest that Russia has a hidden strategic agenda. But the consensus that Vladimir Putin has created in Russia since he became president in 2000 is more than a question of interests. It is a value-based reality. It is based on the possibility of a free life in a secure environment — something that Americans take for granted.
For many years, we had to deal with the problem of Russia’s very existence rather than that of the quality of its governance.
Putin’s consensus made it possible to resolve both problems without foreign assistance and interference.
Now in order to solve other problems, we need to go beyond Russia.
Gleb Pavlovsky is head of the Russia Institute. © Project Syndicate

We are facing a time of harsh decisions, mobilization, and common fight for survival.

Leave a reply
In the first part of his interview, Sergej Chelemendik, PACE member from Slovakia, spoke about the impact of the global financial crisis on Europe, about Russia’s image in European eyes and liberal superstitions influencing European mind. In the second part of his talks in Bratislava with RPMonitor’s senior staff writer Marine Voskanyan, Mr. Chelemendik presents his view on Russia’s potential role in the post-crisis world and ideas that Europe could borrow from Russia under new historical circumstances.


Q: What do you think Russia could propose to the post-crisis world as an idea, and what is its advantage before neoliberalism?

Sergej Chelemendik: I believe Russia could propose the idea of a strong, organized and militarily supported power that protects its part of the world from rivals. That is what China and the United States cannot propose. China is a self-locked civilization which is uninterested – at least today – in active foreign policy and export of any ideology. China’s ideology is to be China. In the United States, imperial ideas, once imported from Britain, have got into the hands of illiterate and ambitious persons who have distorted its essence. In this degenerate version, this imperial idea is reduced to printing dollars and buying up resources of other nations. Today, their exchange commodity is good for nothing: with banknotes, you could at least fire a stove.

I guess Russians don’t quite understand the change that happened – that money in the definition of Marx does not exist any longer. America has created a world of substitutes. America’s ideology is Coca Cola: we sell you poisoned water and you give us money.

Q: Still, the United States continues to export democracy and the image of “American dream”. Can Russia propose an alternative to this commodity? In fact, Russia has not yet formulated an articulate national idea even for domestic use.

S.C: Some persons in Russia have adopted liberalism but that is a tiny minority, if compared with Europe. Vacuum cannot exist for a long time: it will be filled with an adequate concept. Today’s “sovereign democracy” is not the best formulation but already a claim for an ideology of Russia’s own. Ideas emerge from real life. The new Russian idea is unlikely to develop from the existing constructions – Christian values, or leftist ideas. Today, Europe is interested in Russia as a reliable energy exporter. In a few years, Europe will face the problem of food, and Russia’s resources will become vitally important. In this situation, Russia, if its collects the required political energy, could introduce the idea of strong power.

Q: Will Europe really demand the idea that looks like the very totalitarianism that had been declared the enemy of the civilized society?

S.C: In the Europe of today, power as a possibility to compel someone to do something he wouldn’t like, does not exist. All the European schemes of seeking common solutions – tolerance, multiculturalism etc. are designed for a quiet oasis of well-to-do consumption. It is in fact the same as the consumerist version of communism.

The original concept of democracy was the idea of elected power of warriors which suggested that a person can pay his life and fate for his choice. Today’s European citizen is a person with a certificate, not more.

But in the times when European well-being is coming to an end, harsh decisions will be required – of which nobody in Europe is today capable.

Several months ago, groups of Albanians and Serbs collided in a physical fight in one of the quiet commercial streets of Vienna. Policemen were staying a side, not knowing how to intervene. What is Vienna, with the whole background of its imperial past, can do with this – while every eighth Austrian is an immigrant from the Balkans?

In fact, the Balkans were designed as a detonator for exploding Europe. There will be more mine fields. The European home will start to fall apart. Under these conditions, absence of power is fatal.

Q: Thus, Europe will require the same methods that it had taught Russia to get rid of?

S.C: The Europeans will have no alternative. The nations like France and Germany that have a tradition of strong power will revive it. For the rest of Europe, it will be hard to realize that we are returning to the age of larger and smaller wars.

Today’s France is the only European nation that still has a real military potential, and that is why it was reluctant to re-join NATO for so many years. France has got the Foreign Legion that is involved in real warfare. The Germans are the strongest European nation, but the shape of their army is miserable.

In the post-crisis world, Europe will be strongly interested in the idea of a strong centralized power resting upon a strong army. Russia will attract interest as the center of power of this kind, as it hasn’t lost the understanding of power. Russia will attract interest as a center of military industry, possessing also vital resources including oil, gas, and fresh water.

Therefore, Russia will also be compelled to correspond with this image, as otherwise it will be destroyed.

Q: Unfortunately, the idea of strong power often transforms in arbitrary rule of local officials, and thus discredits itself in the form of corruption.

S.C: This phenomenon is rather an indirect result of liberal influence. Corruption is a typical feature of today’s democracy, which in fact is nothing but division of money, collected from taxpayers, between a few major business players of a particular nation.

Most powerful business structures acquire the possibility to control part of the budget and distribution. Thus, Russians should not believe in the myth that European democracy is a remedy from corruption.

Q: It is true that many Russians believe that civil rights and decent behavior of officials, physicians, police inspectors etc. is available only in a “non-authoritarian” society.

S.C: I know that such illusions exist. But if Russians want to imagine the most refined implementation of today’s democracy, let them look at the powerless disaster of Ukraine.

Q: What would you say to a young Russian who believes that Europe is a society of fair and well-to-do life where individual rights are really guaranteed?

S.C: These young guys could acquire those illusions from a superficial impression of European life. But the world is rapidly changing, and young Russians will have to reassess the reality. They will have to ask themselves why the Russian and European stock markets are simultaneously collapsing, and why the recently powerful oligarchs are going bust one after another. They will have to ask themselves what to do when the American casino that everybody was playing has caught fire, the owners have promptly escaped with cash, the roulette is still turning but the whole thing does not work. And they will make their conclusions. They will change their attitude to the world and their life.

It will be a hard revelation. In my young age, a European citizen could chose between a cozy quiet life and struggle for big success. The youth of today will get a more limited choice .

We are facing a time of harsh decisions, mobilization, and common fight for survival.


La guerre de l’Amérique contre De Gaulle

1 Reply
Alain Peyrefitte : « Attendez-vous quelque chose de la session de l’OTAN ?
De Gaulle – Que voulez-vous que j’en attende ? L’OTAN ne sert à rien : il ne peut rien s’y passer ! Tout ça, c’est zéro, zéro, zéro. C’est fait pour faire vivre des fonctionnaires internationaux qui se font payer grassement à ne rien faire, sans verser d’impôt.
Alain Peyrefitte. – On ne reviendra pas sur le retrait de nos officiers de marine de l’OTAN ?
De Gaulle. – Pourquoi voulez-vous qu’on revienne là-dessus ? Il n’y avait aucune raison pour qu’ils y restent. C’était une anomalie qu’ils soient là. Bien sûr, ils se faisaient payer plus cher que s’ils étaient restés dans la marine française. Ces organismes internationaux sont bons pour y attraper la vérole. Nos représentants oublient le devoir d’obéissance à l’Etat. Ils y perdent le sentiment national.
Alain Peyrefitte. – La chose a été rendue publique à partir de l’Allemagne. Nous les avions prévenus de notre intention, dans le cadre des consultations prévues par le traité de l’Elysée ?
De Gaulle. – Non. Je ne crois pas. Pourquoi voulez-vous qu’on les prévienne ? Non. Il fallait bien que ça se sache un jour ou l’autre.
Alain Peyrefitte. – C’est le journal Die Welt qui a fait la fuite.
De Gaulle. – Les Anglais, qui sont des maîtres dans l’art de manipuler, ont colonisé la presse allemande. Adenauer était le premier à s’en plaindre. Les Allemands sont liés par leur presse aux mains des Anglo-Saxons. Vous savez ce que ça veut dire, la supranationalité ? La domination des Américains. L’Europe supranationale, c’est l’Europe sous commandement américain. Les Allemands, les Italiens, les Belges, les Pays-Bas sont dominés par les Américains. Les Anglais aussi, mais d’une autre manière, parce qu’ils sont de la même famille. Alors, il n’y a que la France qui ne soit pas dominée. Pour la dominer aussi, on s’acharne à vouloir la faire entrer dans un machin supranational aux ordres de Washington. De Gaulle ne veut pas de ça. Alors, on n’est pas content, et on le dit à longueur de journée, on met la France en quarantaine. Mais plus on veut le faire, et plus la France devient un centre d’attraction. Vous nous voyez avaler la supranationalité, nous ? La supranationalité, c’était bon pour les Lecanuet !

Alain Peyrefitte. – On dit que vous allez recevoir Jean Monnet.
De Gaulle. – Pourquoi ne le recevrais-je pas ? Je l’ai toujours reçu quand il me l’a demandé. Il a été mon ministre. Ce n’est pas parce qu’il est devenu l’inspirateur des supranationalistes, c’est-à-dire des antinationaux, que je dois lui fermer ma porte. »

Ria VS euobserver

Leave a reply
On peut lire sur le blog de Alexandra et sur le forum de Arthur cette nouvelle assez étonnante :
The EUObserver affirme que “RIA Novosti aurait conclu un contrat avec une agence de communication Occidentale et cela afin de justifier les ambitions impériales de la Russie et de redorer l’image de Jospeh Staline” ..Rien que ca !

La réponse de Ria Novosti ne s’est pas fait attendre , je souligne les parties intéressantes:

” L’agence russe d’informations RIA Novosti dément catégoriquement les affirmations, avancées le 26 octobre dernier dans un article mis en ligne sur le site EUobserver.com, selon lesquelles l’Agence a conclu un contrat avec une société de communication occidentale afin de lancer “une campagne visant à justifier les ambitions impériales de la Russie et à améliorer l’image de Joseph Staline”.
“C’est du délire. L’auteur de l’article m’a effectivement posé des questions au sujet de la coopération de RIA Novosti avec la société RJI. Pendant une quarantaine de minutes, j’ai évoqué les thèmes des conférences programmées dans le cadre du club de discussions Valdaï, ainsi que les autres projets de l’agence. Or, le journaliste d’EUobserver.com n’a retenu qu’une courte citation qui ne traduisait nullement l’essence de mes propos. Ce facteur atteste sa partialité politique et son manque de professionnalisme“, a déclaré le directeur général adjoint de RIA Novosti, Valeri Levtchenko.
L’article montre que le journaliste d’EUobserver.com a mélangé des informations de différentes provenances, dont les rumeurs qu’il avait recueillies au sujet de RIA Novosti à l’étranger.
RIA Novosti n’a lancé aucun nouveau projet visant à améliorer l’image de marque de la Russie. Elle exerce ses activités courantes liées à la réalisation de différentes mesures en matière d’information et d’expertise aussi bien en Russie que dans les autres pays membres de la Communauté des Etats indépendants (CEI). Ces activités consistent notamment à organiser et à tenir des conférences et des forums, à mettre en oeuvre des projets médiatiques et à promouvoir des sites internet dans 14 langues étrangères.
L’agence a effectivement l’intention de réaliser plusieurs projets mentionnés dans l’article. Par exemple, on tiendra une conférence sur la sécurité au Proche-Orient en décembre en Jordanie, sous l’enseigne du club international de discussion Valdaï, à laquelle participeront des experts russes, de la région et occidentaux. En février 2010, RIA Novosti envisage d’organiser  une importante conférence internationale sur l’Arctique à Moscou.
La société de relations publiques RJI est effectivement partenaire de RIA Novosti dans l’organisation de certains événements à l’étranger, dont la conférence en Jordanie ainsi que la diffusion, dans seize pays du Proche-Orient, du journal en langue arabe Anba Musku (“Les Nouvelles de Moscou”), dont l’édition a été reprise par l’agence après 17 ans d’interruption.
Nous avons des raisons d’estimer que la parution simultanée dans la plupart des pays arabes du journal Anba Musku, prévue pour la semaine prochaine, a été perçue par le journaliste EUobserver.com, du fait de son piètre niveau professionnel et de ses connaissances limitées sur la Russie, comme le lancement d’un projet sur l’image de notre pays dans le monde.
Fait particulièrement cynique, cette campagne informationnelle contre RIA Novosti a été déployée à la veille de la Journée de commémoration des victimes des répressions politiques, une date très sensible pour notre pays. Dans une déclaration, le président Dmitri Medvedev a insisté sur le fait qu’il était inadmissible de justifier la répression stalinienne sous couvert de rétablissement de la justice historique.
Malheureusement, les déclarations incompétentes et irresponsables parues dans l’EUobserver, fondées sur des informations non vérifiées et mensongères, détruisent la confiance internationale en créant de nouvelles barrières informationnelles.
“Dommage que les médias qui ont repris cette information pour la relayer à leurs lecteurs n’aient pas trouvé le temps de remplir leur devoir professionnel, à savoir vérifier les faits exposés et s’adresser à RIA Novosti pour obtenir des commentaires”, a indiqué Valeri Levtchenko.

Je synthétise :

– c’est du délire
– partialité politique
– manque de professionalisme
– piètre niveau professionel
– connaissances limitées sur la russie
– déclaration incompétente et irresponsable

– informations non vérifiées et mensongères
– créations de barrières informationelles
– médias n’ont pas rempli leur devoir informationnel en vérifiant les faits exposés
….

C’est exactement ce que je dis sur mon blog depuis presque 2 ans concernant les journalistes Francais, mais visiblement c’est le cas pour une grande majorité de journalistes Occidentaux ……

L’Eurasie pour les novices ;)

2 Replies
Des lecteurs m’ont demandé “pourquoi” j’avais renommé mon blog en “blog contre les révolutions de couleurs”. Je reviendrais dans les prochains jours sur ce thème des révolutions de couleurs, qui sont des coups d’états déguisés, déguisés par les médias notamment.

Ces révolutions sont des coups d’états déguisés, organisés par l’empire Américain, et cela pour accéder au contrôle du continent Eurasiatique, par fidélité aux thèses géopolitiques de MacKinder et de Spykman qui disaient que la maitrise du monde passait par le contrôle de l’ile monde (l’eurasie), soit en contrôlant son coeur (Mackinder), soit son anneau extérieur (Spykman).

Dans les deux cas, on comprend bien l’extension de l’OTAN à l’est (vers les frontières Russes) et également l’intérêt à la chute de l’URSS et l’occupation en Asie centrale et en Afghanistan, zones situées dans l’anneau (Rimland) et ou sont concentrées la grandes majorité des matières premières du continent. L’occupation de l’Afghanistan puis du Pakistan (?) suit d’ailleurs le tracé du pipeline trans-afghanistan …

J’incite mes lecteurs à lire à titre d’information ces billets sur les “routes du Heartland”, le premier sur Dedefansa.org et le second sur le blog Egea ..

Enfin, ludique et très synthétique, la vidéo ci dessous de Michael Ruppert (son site) qui détaille très clairement les raisons / méthodes / visées de l’empire Américain au coeur de l’Eurasie. A noter l’explication du pillage des ressources financières Russes par les multinationales US (7ième minute …) … A regarder et diffuser !