L’Ukraine, territoire stratégique

Scris de RAPTOR Lun Mai 19, 2014 4:00 pm

http://www.realpolitik.tv/2014/05/lukraine-territoire-strategique/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+realpolitiktv+%28Realpolitik.tv+%3E+la+g%C3%A9opolitique+sur+le+net%29

Périphérie disputée entre la Lituanie, la Pologne et la Russie, l’Ukraine n’a guère connu que trente-deux ans d’indépendance en plusieurs siècles d’histoire. Il ne faut donc guère s’étonner que des volontés d’assujettissement réapparaissent à intervalles réguliers. Intéressée par l’Ukraine en raison de sa profondeur stratégique, de son rôle d’intermédiation gazière et de son accès aux mers chaudes, la Russie a profité de l’affaiblissement de l’Europe pour tenter de faire revenir la Petite-Russie, dans son aire d’influence traditionnelle. – Par Thomas Flichy de la Neuville, Professeur à l’École Spéciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr.

Pourquoi vouloir contrôler l’Ukraine ?

Vue de Russie, l’Ukraine présente trois intérêts stratégiques. En premier lieu, il donne une profondeur stratégique à la Russie. D’un point de vue historique, la Russie s’est défendue des invasions grâce à la profondeur. C’est pour cette raison qu’elle avait déplacé ses frontières vers l’Ouest : afin de dissuader des agresseurs éventuels de l’envahir. En second lieu, l’Ukraine joue un rôle d’intermédiaire entre la Russie, riche en gaz et l’arrière-pays européen, consommateur d’énergie. Pour la court-circuiter, la Russie favorise depuis plusieurs années la construction de grandes infrastructures de transport de gaz russe vers l’Europe et qui contournent l’Ukraine. A l’inverse, les États-Unis souhaiteraient concurrencer le gaz russe en exportant du gaz liquéfié vers l’Europe centrale à l’horizon 2020. Le troisième enjeu de la conquête du territoire ukrainien est celui de l’accès aux mers chaudes. Historiquement, l’Ukraine constitue le volet méridional de la « fenêtre sur l’Ouest » voulue par Pierre le Grand. Enfin, n’oublions pas l’enjeu mémoriel : la Russie orthodoxe et slave est née en Ukraine avant de se déplacer vers le nord-est sous la pression des invasions.

Pour la Russie, une prise de risque calculée

La Russie s’est certainement interrogée sur la possibilité de contre-mesures de la part des États industriels occidentaux. Elle sait que l’Union européenne, qui promeut depuis des décennies une politique d’apaisement, critiquera les mesures russes, mais exclura catégoriquement toute intervention militaire. Qui plus est, la Russie a appris du conflit géorgien de 2008 que l’usage de la force militaire à l’encontre de ses voisins lui permettait d’atteindre rapidement ses objectifs de politique étrangère avec un coût stratégique faible à long terme. En réalité, le monde occidental dispose de peu de leviers lui permettant de dissuader Moscou. Le président Obama, le Premier ministre Cameron et d’autres leaders occidentaux ont averti la Russie que son action militaire aurait un « coût ». Il est toutefois très difficile de mettre en œuvre des sanctions d’une importance suffisante pour être prises au sérieux par Moscou, sans qu’elles nuisent simultanément à ceux qui les prennent. L’Occident peut protester et annuler des sommets conjoints, mais Moscou n’a jamais considéré que les insultes vaillent la peine d’être prises en considération. Fort de son veto aux Conseil de sécurité des Nations-Unies, la Russie n’a guère à se soucier d’une action potentielle des Nations-Unies. Qui plus est, la Russie peut se fonder sur les expériences antérieures pour en déduire que les sanctions imposées seront de courte durée. En 2008, l’Occident s’est enflammé verbalement au sujet de la Géorgie. L’année suivante, les États-Unis déclaraient l’annulation des sanctions.

Thomas Flichy de la Neuville

Professeur à l’Institut d’Études Politiques de Bordeaux, à l’École Navale puis à l’École Spéciale Militaire de Saint-Cyr, Thomas Flichy de La Neuville est spécialiste de la diplomatie au XVIIIème siècle. Ancien élève en persan de l’Institut National des Langues et Cultures Orientales, agrégé d’histoire et docteur en droit, ses derniers travaux portent sur les relations françaises avec la Perse et la Chine à l’âge des Lumières.

Scris de MIKUTZA CE KURAI Mar Mai 20, 2014 9:03 am

http://www.george-damian.ro/sa-intelegem-rusia-1-putin-se-lupta-cu-sfarsitul-istoriei-5828.html

Am citit cartea lui Aleksandr Dughin „A patra teorie politică”, apărută la Chişinău în traducerea lui Iurie Roşca anul acesta, publicată la Moscova în urmă cu 5 ani, în 2009. Pe vremuri, diplomaţii aveau obiceiul să fie la curent cu lumea ideilor din ţările în care erau acreditaţi, nu ştiu care mai este situaţia în ziua de azi. Spun asta pentru că în această carte Aleksandr Dughin defineşte destul de precis traseul urmat de Rusia în ultimii ani şi ar fi constituit un semnal destul de limpede pentru atitudinea Rusiei faţă de ce se petrece în Ucraina.

Mai trebuie să spun că îi sunt recunoscător lui Iurie Roşca pentru traducerea oferită, însă din păcate volumul nu a beneficiat de o corectură profesionistă şi nici de un redactor de carte care să netezească asperităţile unei traduceri dificile, ca orice traducere. Apar tot felul de întreruperi ale cursivităţii lecturii, fie sub forma unor greşeli gramaticale, formulări neinspirate sau concepte traduse greşit. Cartea ar fi meritat mai multă atenţie.

Voi mai reveni la această carte, deocamdată o primă concluzie: conflictul din Ucraina nu îşi va găsi o rezolvare foarte curând. Şi asta din cauza faptului că Rusia lui Putin (aşa cum este prezentată de Aleksandr Dughin) se plasează pe o poziţie ireconciliabilă faţă de Uniunea Europeană şi Statele Unite ale Americii. Pur şi simplu nu sunt posibile discuţii, Rusia lui Dughin a intrat într-o luptă pe viaţă şi pe moarte cu Occidentul.

Pe scurt: Aleksandr Dughin susţine că în Statele Unite şi Uniunea Europeană s-a ajuns la „sfârşitul istoriei” (Francis Fukuyama) şi că nu mai există o altă dezvoltare posibilă a omenirii dacă nu se opune nimeni răspândirii modelului occidental. Mai mult, procesele „sfârşitului istoriei” par să fie scăpate de sub control şi Leviathanul puterilor maritime a căpătat o viaţă proprie. (Raţionamentul acesta îmi aminteşte de inevitabilitatea evoluţiei istorice pe calea materialismului dialectic şi condamnarea la dispariţie a capitalismului fără drept de apel; Dughin schimbă termenii şi conceptele, însă linia lui de gândire este identică cu cea a marxiştilor sovietici: putredul Occident este condamnat la dispariţie.)

Aleksandr Dughin ne anunţă şi vestea bună: „sfârşitul istoriei” poate fi înfrânt de Rusia, Behemothul eurasiatic se poate ridica şi poate lupta (mai mult, are datoria să facă asta!). În cazul în care conflictul din Ucraina este perceput de guvernarea Rusiei în această formulă a unei lupte pe viaţă şi pe moarte, o luptă în care Vladimir Putin conduce cruciada împotriva „sfârşitului istoriei” – ei bine, în acest caz lupta pentru pace din Ucraina se va duce până nu va mai rămâne piatră peste piatră.

Scris de **Admin** Mar Mai 20, 2014 10:06 am

https://sites.google.com/site/incatareakremlinului/full-text-of-the-appeal-of-the-commander-of-the-militia-of-donetsk-people-s-republic-igor-strelkov

Scris de ana morosana Mar Mai 20, 2014 5:00 pm

http://www.realpolitik.tv/2014/05/sanctions-americaines-quel-impact-pour-les-russes-fortunes/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+realpolitiktv+%28Realpolitik.tv+>+la+géopolitique+sur+le+net%29

Par Arnaud Leclercq – www.arnaudleclercq.com. Cadre dirigeant reconnu dans le monde de la gestion de fortune, plus particulièrement avec les marchés émergents, Arnaud Leclercq est à titre privé un spécialiste en géopolitique de la Russie. Il a publié chez Ellipses l’ouvrage La Russie puissance d’Eurasie. Histoire géopolitique des origines à Poutine.

Le citoyen russe qui dispose d’un patrimoine substantiel se pose aujourd’hui beaucoup de questions. Écartons d’emblée de cette réflexion le Politically Exposed Person (PEP) ou l’employé de l’État. Certaines réglementations restrictives les concernent directement, aussi bien en Russie qu’en Suisse ou ailleurs. Écartons également les Oligarques dont la puissance provient essentiellement des privatisations et dont les armées d’avocats qui les conseillent font que chaque cas demeure très particulier. Pour les autres, l’origine de la fortune actuelle est variée mais est le plus souvent directement liée à l’excellente croissance de l’économie russe : +7% par an de moyenne entre 2003 et 2008, fourchette entre +4 et 2,5% les trois dernières années. Comme dans tous les pays développés, import-export, entrepreneurs, immobilier, introductions en bourse sont les sources qui leur ont permis de dégager des profits personnels élevés. Comme pour beaucoup de pays qui ont connu une Histoire difficile, il est fréquent que le Russe aisé dispose d’actifs à l’étranger prenant la forme soit de comptes bancaires soit d’immobilier commercial ou résidentiel de prestige. Ces placements à l’étranger ne sont habituellement pas réalisés pour éviter l’impôt russe dont les taux très raisonnables font rêver nombre d’Occidentaux. L’objectif est à la fois d’en profiter pour les loisirs ou ses enfants mais également « na tchornyi den ». Et voilà que depuis quelques années et plus encore depuis la crise ukrainienne, ce joli tableau est menacé.

La Fédération de Russie s’est alignée sur les normes de l’OCDE, notamment en restreignant la détention de structures off-shore sans que l’on connaisse les ayants droits économiques, autrement dit les propriétaires réels. C’est donc un critère de transparence internationale qui s’applique désormais. De même, de nouvelles lois et réglementations limitent l’utilisation de comptes à l’étranger pour organiser des investissements vers ou depuis le territoire russe. Cela est certes une situation nouvelle pour l’individu fortuné Russe mais n’a rien de nouveau, et depuis longtemps, pour son homologue Français ou Allemand. Seuls les Britanniques ont maintenu certaines traditions de détentions d’actifs comme les trusts mais là-aussi les choses changent rapidement. Chaque situation de famille est différente et nécessite un bon conseiller, banquier privé ou avocat : un ou plusieurs mariages, enfants ou pas, leurs nationalités ou leur lieu de résidence deviennent un facteur vraiment déterminant, impôts, droits de succession, divorces… Pour éviter cette difficulté, l’erreur fréquemment faite est de chercher toujours la dernière idée à la mode comme déplacer ses investissements à Dubaï ou Hong Kong, plutôt que les lieux traditionnels d’expertise en gestion de fortune que sont la Suisse ou Londres, mais sans véritablement comprendre que malgré certains avantages, ces places sont plus compliquées et, en général peu adaptées, par exemple loi islamique Charia qui s’applique aux successions, distance et culture très différente en Chine. Autre exemple tendance : les statistiques de la Banque Centrale de Russie annoncent en ce moment que de nombreux citoyens vendraient des quantités de roubles pour acheter du dollar. Par définition, nul ne peut prédire l’avenir mais cette décision peut se révéler fatale.

Il y a bien aujourd’hui un sujet qui inquiète unanimement la majorité des Russes fortunés, quelle que soit leur situation personnelle. Les sanctions des États-Unis en réaction à l’annexion de la Crimée et à la situation à l’est du Dniepr. N’ayant aucun précédent historique de cette ampleur, il est peu probable voire impossible qu’un pays puisse geler les comptes de tous les citoyens d’un autre pays, sur son territoire ou partout dans le monde. En revanche, comme l’affaire des sociétés de cartes de crédit américaines l’a montré, il serait assez facilement possible de gêner durablement les gens grâce au dollar. Cette monnaie est bien sûr LA devise internationale mais l’on oublie trop souvent qu’elle est, comme toutes les monnaies, le privilège de l’État qui l’émet. Chaque transfert de dollars, même depuis la Russie ou la Suisse, passe invariablement par une banque correspondante aux États-Unis. Idem pour un transfert en euros qui doit passer par un pays de l’Union. C’est la règle. En théorie, il serait donc techniquement facile d’interdire tout paiement en dollars pour des citoyens ou sociétés d’un pays, simplement en donnant l’instruction à ses banques de ne pas exécuter un transfert si le donneur d’ordre est ciblé ou bien en provenance ou à destination du pays en question. A priori, pas besoin de grandes décisions ou révisions constitutionnelles, juste un ordre donné par le régulateur à ses sociétés financières. Sous cet angle, vendre en quantité des roubles pour acheter du dollar est non seulement négatif pour les grands équilibres de la Russie, et donc antipatriotique, mais aussi à l’évidence une très mauvaise réponse à la menace exprimée. Afin de s’en protéger, plutôt que d’aller à Hong Kong ou la planète Mars, il est beaucoup plus facile et rapide de diversifier ses avoirs en un panier de monnaies de qualité comme le franc suisse, la couronne norvégienne et le dollar singapourien. Un bon banquier privé saura ensuite comment protéger ces réserves des fluctuations, notamment grâce aux « hedges » et offrir une bonne performance grâce à une gestion dynamique. Pour le surplus, le citoyen inquiet des sanctions américaines peut sortir de tout investissement en action ou obligation US. Même si des capitaux sont détenus tout à fait légalement en dehors de la Russie, faut-il alors pour autant les rapatrier pour les protéger ? A condition que le droit russe soit respecté, la réponse est avant tout personnelle mais l’on ne doit pas oublier l’objectif initial vis-à-vis de ses propres besoins et ceux de sa famille, y compris sur le long terme et même encore plus loin si l’on pense à sa succession car nul n’est immortel. Il est en revanche un dernier risque possiblement court terme à ne pas négliger. Si la situation des réserves en devises de la Russie devait continuer à se détériorer, il serait normal et légitime que la Banque Centrale prenne alors la décision de mettre en place un contrôle des changes visant à limiter les ventes de dollars ou les sorties de capitaux. Cela est certainement contraignant pour les citoyens et les entreprises mais s’est déjà produit il n’y a pas si longtemps dans bon nombre de pays. C’est une réaction habituelle d’un État de droit pour protéger ses grands équilibres stratégiques.

Afin de déterminer le niveau de risque auquel on s’expose, il est fondamental de comprendre la différence entre des sanctions grandioses et peu probables par rapport à ce que peut décider très facilement et rapidement un État. Il faut diminuer le niveau émotionnel ou les solutions miracle, écouter les précédents historiques et rester pragmatique.

Arnaud Leclercq

Scris de EMIR AMIR Joi Mai 22, 2014 10:48 am

Armata Federației Ruse a executat în aceste zile, la ordinul comandantului ei suprem, o retragere strategică în interiorul Rusiei, luând o distanță de circa o sută cincizeci de kilometri de frontierele Ucrainei. Mișcarea a fost prezentată opiniei publice ruse drept o victorie rusă.
Cu toate acestea, niște simple calcule făcute la rece, adică fără nici un fel de implicare emoțională, arată că îndepărtarea de granițele Ucrainei a armatei a costat Federația Rusă de cinci ori mai mult decât dacă Armata Rusă ar fi ocupat prin război toată

L’Ukraine, territoire stratégique A-STALIN-242x300

partea de sud-est a Ucrainei. Acesta ar fi aspectul financiar al retragerii.
Aspectul politic constă în faptul că Uniunea Europeană a salutat călduros gestul cavaleresc al președintelui Putin și a declarat că retragerea Armatei Ruse i-a alungat din temeri și spaime și că se simte ceva mai în siguranță.
Nu se știe precis la ce distanță de frontierele Ucrainei trebuie să se retragă Armata Rusă pentru ca Europa să se simtă eliberată complet de toate temerile și spaimele ei față de ruși. Având în vedere faptul că spaimele și temerile UE legate de Rusia sunt foarte multe, probabil că Europa s-ar elibera de ele numai dacă Armata Rusă s-ar retrage în Siberia sau chiar dincolo de Cercul Polar.
Aspectul militar al problemei este mult mai complicat. Nimeni nu știe de ce se retrage Armata Rusă din moment ce nici o forță străină nu o atacă. Ea se află pe propriul teritoriu. Adică la ea acasă. Deci atâta timp cât această armată se află pe pământ rusesc, ea stă unde vrea ea și cât vrea ea fără să ceară la nimeni socoteală. Faptul că ea se retrage la 150 de kilometri distanță de frontierele Ucrainei ca să fie Europa liniștită, arată că Guvernul Rus nu mai are libertate de mișcare între granițele Rusiei. În termenii strategiei militare asta înseamnă că Rusia a pierdut deja războiul cu Ucraina înainte să-l înceapă.
Este un lucru foarte curios că președintele Putin nu-și face deloc probleme în legătură cu mareșalii și generalii care vin la el și în afară de retrageri nu-i propun nimic altceva.
Nici Stalin nu și-a făcut nici un fel de probleme cu mareșalii și generalii lui care și ei îi propuneau tot retrageri din fața armatelor hitleriste, până când și-a dat seama că de fapt era ceva în neregulă cu comandanții lui. Interesându-se mai îndeaproape de ei a aflat că unii corespondau în secret cu Hitler, iar alții (precum Andrei Andreievici Vlasov) trecuseră deja de partea naziștilor cu toate trupele pe care le comandau. Ce-a urmat se știe: Marea Epurare. Dacă Stalin ar vedea astăzi cât de liniștit privește președintele Putin retragerile absolut bizare ale Armatei Ruse și-ar pune, în mod sigur, mâinile în cap.
O altă problemă este cea a statutului de superputere al Rusiei. Două provincii din Ucraina de Est, locuite de ruși, s-au declarat republici independente după toate regulile legislației internaționale. Ele au organizat pe teritoriile lor refendumuri, și-au organizat armate și guverne. După aceea au cerut sprijinul Rusiei. Aceasta a răspuns făcând la stânga împrejur. Armata Rusă a părăsit în viteză granițele Ucrainei, iar Moscova a declarat că nu are de gând să se amestece în problemele interne ale Ucrainei.
Asta în timp ce Garda Națională Ucrainiană bombardează orașele și satele prorușilor din Donețk omorând oameni nevinovați.
În principiu, atitudinea Moscovei și declarațiile conducătorilor ruși sunt corecte. Nimeni nu trebuie să se amestece în afacerile interne ale altui stat. Dar când ești superputere și când te numești Superputerea Rusia o faci! Te amesteci în afacerile interne ale altui stat atunci când statul acela bombardează satele și orașele proruse de acolo și când douăzeci de milioane de ruși cer să le vii în ajutor!
Dacă nu te amesteci și nu le răspunzi în nici un fel acelor oameni, atunci nu te mai numești Superputerea Nucleară Rusia ci te numești simplu, Rusia. Iar când te duci la Națiunile Unite, atunci te așezi cuminte pe scaun între Republica Kosovo și Republica Muntenegru, ca egală cu ele și nu mai ai pretenția să ocupi un scaun de membru al Consiliului de Securitate al ONU, pentru că nici Muntenegru și nici Kosovo nu au o asftel de dorință.
Și dacă ești Superputerea Rusă și tot susții cu tărie că nu te amesteci în treburile interne ale altui stat, atunci mai faci ceva: ceri frumos scuze Kievului și dai Crimeea înapoi Ucrainei. Asta e.
Abandonarea de către Moscova a republicilor Donețk și Lugansk, arată că generalii și mareșalii ruși nu se ridică la ora actuală din punct de vedere valoric nici măcar până la carâmbii cizmelor generalilor sârbi ai lui Miloșevici. Probabil că Stalin își pune mâinile în cap pe lumea cealaltă și strigă la președintele Putin: ”-Dă-i afarăăăăă!”

Ilie Ilia MIHAILOVICI

Scris de fabio Sam Mai 24, 2014 5:57 pm

Courtesy of Scott.net

For Zionist machinations, including the murderous plot of Eretz Israel, it is acceptable to slaughter innocents. Filthy world Jewry, it is this cabal which is behind the slaughter of unarmed, as well as armed (military), Ukrainian nationals.

Those dead protestors, whether pro-coup or anti-coup, which were shown on the national news – those individuals were slaughtered by Zionist Jews.

Yet, the Ukrainian Mossad and its assets have been sloppy in their criminal actions, just as was the case of that vile blood-letter, Moshe Dayan, when he attacked the USS Liberty, murdering in that instance US soldiers.

The Shaker Report is an excellent kind of documentation of what is really going on in Ukraine. Either the Ukrainians will submit to the Zionist schemes or they will be slaughtered. They may well be slaughtered even if the submit. This is how rabid and vile the tyrannical Zionist criminal elements truly are.

As in Egypt it is such filthy Zionist extremists who were behind the slaughter of Ukrainian innocents, including sniper attacks against not only protestors but also Egyptian conscripts. In the case of Egypt the Zionists, through their proxy Israeli agents, orchestrated a coup against the sitting Presisdent, Mohammed Morsi. In his stead they installed a fellow Jew, Mizrahi agent Abdul Fattah El-Sisi.

In the Ukraine many of the actions of the coup are being orchestrated by the wretched, oppressive Zionist agent, Ihor Kolomoisky. Operating out of Switzerland it is he who has specifically ordered the murder of the Ukrainian people. In an act similar to the attack on the USS Liberty Kolomoisky struck the unsuspecting conscripts by surprise. Yet, he blundered severely. In his haste to murder these innocents he used vehicles which bore the mark of one of his entities, Privat Bank.

Some of these vehicles were destroyed by the Ukrainian conscripts who fought back against the sneak attack valiantly. In an attempt to purge this residue – which would tie the murders to him – this deceptive one sent in helicopter gunships in an attempt to destroy the vehicles.

He is a coward. Let him face the protesters and the freedom loving Ukrainians directly.

L’Ukraine, territoire stratégique Igor_Kolomoisky-350x357

The corrupt evil-doing Billionaire will not hesitate to any degree to slaughter innocents if it suits his wretched, pro-Israeli agenda. Let him smirk and smile now, let him enjoy his wicked, temporary life. He will rot in the misery of hell, soon enough.

At nodisinfo.com we stand in solidarity with the good, God-fearing people of Ukraine. God bless these conscripts for standing up for the truth and for refusing to murder their own people. Despite their being martyred they did the right thing. May we all be so fortunate to do right thing regardless of the consequence, even if it means the premature loss of our own lives.

The Saker’s Ukraine situations report May 22th – Ukraine death squad murders conscripts who refuse to attack civilians

Scris de EMIR AMIR Dum Mai 25, 2014 4:10 am

The West supported anti-constitutional coup d'état, not just by giving away cookies, but by giving political support, support in the media, using all sorts of tools. And are you blaming us?

Posted May 24, 2014

Friday, May 23rd

WHERE: CNBC

Following is the unofficial transcript of a CNBC EXCLUSIVE interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Video from the interview is available on CNBC.com.

All references must be sourced to CNBC.

GEOFF CUTMORE: Mr President, thank you very much for your address and I think there was a lot in there that we can come back to on the economy, but I think it would be useful at this point for me to ask you a few questions about Ukraine. Obviously Ukraine is going into presidential elections at the weekend. An awful lot has been written, and an awful lot has been said, about your position on Ukraine, but let's be honest, most of it not by you. A lot of those who have written have said you are nostalgic for a Russia of the past. President Obama said you are "on the wrong side of history." Those who have written and spoken widely talk about you rebuilding the past and wanting to create a buffer state between NATO and the EU and yourself. Can I ask you what has motivated your actions through this crisis?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Well I was planning to talk more about economy, but if that is what you desire, let us talk about this topic. Look, what happened. Let us make a general overview of what happened. Ukraine was supposed to sign an association agreement with the European Union. And we using diplomatic ways tried to prove that the document on the table was contrary to our interests here in Russia. We're referring to the close cooperation and economic ties we have with Ukraine. Look at the defence industry, only 245 Ukrainian enterprises supply their products to Russia. What happens if we stop procuring from them? Well, they will have to stop production because we will not be procuring agents for theaid or our marine ships because no-one else in the world needs them. And it's so difficult to enter the global market military components. And we proved using very specific data that this agreement would be detrimental to the economy. And I want you to understand, I want you to hear me, we suggested that they engage in a very civilised and open discussion with us to try and find some solution. We were told, "It is not about business." I'm not trying to offend anyone, but I haven't seen such a snobbish attitude in years. (audience applause) They just refused to talk. Full stop, saying it's not about business. Well if it is indeed not about business, and we tried to prove to the Ukrainian partners that we had the point. We asked them to try and calculate implication consequences, I tried to convince President Yanukovych to postpone deciding, what happened later was coup d'état. Name it what you may, but force was used, rebels were used, who is on what side now? Who is in the past? Who is in the future? What tools are we using to attain our goals? One needs to be very careful and cautious when dealing with constitutions and any changes or transformations in newly-born states. What happened in Ukraine now is chaos, the country is sliding into chaos. Yanukovych agreed to do anything, whatever, had it all been done legally, we'd continue subsidising them, we'd keep gas prices low, we'd allocate the 15 billion we'd promised. Let us be frank, we're all grownups in the room, we're all smart and educated people. The West supported anti-constitutional coup d'état, not just by giving away cookies, but by giving political support, support in the media, using all sorts of tools. And are you blaming us? What we suggested was dialogue. We were denied. When I last came to Brussels we agreed that dialogue would continue but that was before the coup d'état. And now Mr Ulyukaev, who sits opposite me, he is a well-respected man, speaks decent English, by the way. He's got market economy way of thinking, he's one of our top economic experts. So Mr Ulyukaev came to Kiev for (unclear) consultations, well ask him, no real discussion ever took place, they were just spitting out mottos. And now what happens next? Coup d'état took place, they refused to talk to us, so we think the next step Ukraine is going to take, it's going to become NATO member for the past two decades, they've refused to engage in any dialogue. We're saying military, NATO military infrastructure is approaching our borders, they say not to worry it has nothing to do with you. But tomorrow Ukraine might become a NATO member, and the day after tomorrow missile defence units of NATO could be deployed in this country. And again they would say we refuse to talk to you, it's none of your business. We're sick and tired of discussing, because it's not a real discussion. Look, we have concerns, both economic and security concerns for that matter, what are we supposed to do? People in the southeast of Ukraine, in Crimea in particular were frightened by the development and people of the Crimea opted for a referendum on accession to Russia. All we did, we guaranteed freedom of, expression of their will and I'm sure you'll all agree, and the majority of people in this room, and most people in the world, they understand because no one's stupid. Had we not done that in Crimea, the situation in Crimea would have been even worse than the situation in Odessa, where people were burned alive. No one's trying to give any explanation or condemn those who are to blame for the Odessa tragedy. Now you tell me who is stuck in the past, and who is acting, taking into account the realities of today's world.

CUTMORE: President Putin, I think we've all been astonished at how quickly relations between apparent former friends have broken down as this crisis has escalated. There is an opportunity here for statesmanship. There is an opportunity for you to step up and say something. Is there something you can do at this stage, or at this point, to encourage pro-Russian groups in Ukraine now to reduce the level of tension and the violence to allow the democratic process to go ahead on Sunday and perhaps come back to a settlement or a resolution that would be acceptable to you?

PUTIN: We believe and we always believed, I was and remain committed to theidea. We've been repeating this mantra over and over again. Any clashes end up in negotiations, eventually, inevitably. So the sooner the better. We always tried to push opposing parties to engage in direct contact. The first contact already took place through our mediation and unfortunately the situation is aggravated by the fact that Kiev authorities continue punitive operations in southeast of Ukraine. Military action continues. They're using artillery, heavy equipment, armoured vehicles, tanks. They shell presidential buildings, civilians die, unarmed people die. We do hope, and very sincerely so, that these direct contacts that were initiated will eventually yield some positive results. This is my true desire but a condition for such positive outcome would be putting an end to violence no matter from which side it originates.

CUTMORE: You've said we're a room full of adults, so let's have an adult conversation. President Obama has accused you as you know of untruths when it comes to supporting some of the separatist groups in the Ukraine.

PUTIN: Who is he to judge? Who is he to judge, seriously? If he wants to judge people, why doesn't he get a job in court somewhere? I don't think he accused me, it's his point of view. And I have my point of view when it comes to certain things you know. What is it that interested you about what he said?

CUTMORE: President Putin you appear to now accept that the election will take place on Sunday. At least this is what I read, but as I said to you at the beginning, I read an awful lot about what you think but I don't hear it from you necessarily directly. Can I ask you just to put this on the record for our audience here, do you accept the legitimacy of the election that is going to take place on Sunday in Ukraine?

PUTIN: Oh come on, really. He's a difficult man to deal with, where did you get the guy? We all understand and we all see that people in Ukraine want to see their country emerge from this protracted crisis. And we will have respect for the choice that the Ukrainian people will make. We will watch very closely what will happen but it would be wiser to do what President Yanukovch and opposition agreed in Kiev back on February 21st. And they agreed to hold the referendum and adopt a new constitution, and then in accordance with this new constitution, elect parliament and president. Imagine election, presidential election takes place in Ukraine today. I don't know if you know that, but in accordance with today's constitution, that would not be legitimate, because Yanukovch remains president. He hasn't been withdrawn from power legitimately, so there only four grounds. Either death, although some might have wanted him dead. Illness, impeachment, and no impeachment took place under constitution. And fourth, resignation. And president is supposed to ask resignation from parliament, so none of that happened. So according to the constitution he remains president. So why create new problems that would question the legitimacy of election? Wouldn't that be so much easier to hold referendum first? Make sure rights of people in the south and the east are protected. Explain, give them guarantees of the protection of their legitimate rights. And after that stage elections and that proper mandate and national support to rule the country. But those that are in power in Kiev today chose to do it differently. But I want to stress we want to see some appeasement of the situation, and we will have every respect for the choice the Ukrainian people will make.

CUTMORE: The frontrunner at the moment in the voting I'm told, is Mr Poroshenko. He's told CNBC that he would happily engage with Russia if elected. Is he a man that you could do business with despite his desire for stronger ties to western Europe?

PUTIN: Where is the money? Where is the money you know? It's a business forum. Let us be very specific. They owe us 3.5 billion. Give us our money back. You know that would create a very good environment for further discussions.

CUTMORE: You'll forgive me Mr President, if I have one more go on this before I move you on. But I'm not quite clear whether I heard you say that you will accept and work with the outcome of the election.

PUTIN: Like I said, and I'm not kidding and I'm not being ironic, what we want for Ukraine is peace and calm. We want this country to recover from crisis and conditions are to be created for that. We, and I'm again not being ironic. It's a sister nation and we want it to enjoy peace, order and we already cooperate with people that are in power and after the election of course we will cooperate with the newly-elected head of state. But just to make it clear I hope that after the election all military action will stop and national dialogue will begin. Imagine, just imagine, how can one engage in peaceful discussions while there are tanks shelling peaceful civilians or journalists being seized? Our journalists were detained and for three days now they've been kept somewhere, we don't know where, we're refused access to them. How can you call that proper environment for the election? We all see that this is not up to the modern democratic standards. Well, go help them. At least election happens.

CUTMORE: Can I move you on to the international reaction? I think 2009 we were all very excited to see the reset in relations with the United States. Today that reset lies in tatters. What went wrong?

PUTIN: Well, it's the result of unilateral action. There are some US allies whom you can act (?) to the principle of "if you're not with us, you're against us". You can create coalitions to justify certain actions but this is not what we do in Russia. We believe that countries need to agree on certain rules and act in accordance with international law, take on board each other's interests. And in that sense we always were and will always remain a reliable partner.

CUTMORE: So given the level of hostility at least that seems to be played out in the international media. Is there a road back in the relationship with President Obama and his current administration?

PUTIN: We never did anything to ruin our relationship and despite very rushed rhetoric and opposing approaches to some very topical matters, our cooperation continues. Our American partners announced that they were… they refused to cooperate in military domain. But look, they do really have any military cooperation. Well, we countered piracy. And we're prepared to continue to do so. And our help is needed. And Americans are interested in military transit to Afghanistan. Still are. They say we are suspending military to military cooperation. But they're not suspending transit of military cargo to Afghanistan because this is something they need and we don't refuse. We continue cooperation on the Iranian nuclear programme. I just met the Iranian President in Beijing on the sidelines of an international forum and we spoke about further joint action involving Iran, and taking onboard US position on the Iranian nuclear issue. Syria remains an important issue. And although our views diverge sometimes we still hope we will come to some agreement. Then we have common agenda confronting terrorism. This effort also continues. So we have many points of convergence that of interest to both Russia and US. We are not trying to fence ourselves out from the rest of the world. But you can't force people to like you, as we say in Russia. But we hope that common sense, good sense, and national interest will push our European and American partners to continue cooperation with United States.

CUTMORE: If I could just ask one more question on this situation now with Washington. Did President Obama misunderstand the depth of feeling in Russia about Ukraine and the situation there or was the relationship already breaking down over things like the Snowden affair?

PUTIN: Well you know, with regards to Mr. Snowden I said many times we do not have any direct relations to this problem. He turned up on our territory because of non-professional actions of the Americans themselves who tried to catch him. You know I used to work in special services why should… why did they scare the entire world? They… downed the planes with Presidents onboard and the plane with Snowden onboard. They could down anywhere. So he arrives in our transit zone and then it turned out that nobody is going to accept him. That's the problem. If they didn't scare anyone, I mean the American special services, he would fly to some other country, he would be downed in some other countries. And he would be sitting in jail some place. But they scared everyone. He stayed in our transit zone and what are we to do in that situation? Russia is not a country that is… ready to extradite fighters for human rights. And… but in reality, our reaction… well thank you for this reaction on the part of the auditorium… Mr. Snowden considers that he is a champion of human rights. He built his life around it. He is a young man. I don't know how he is going to live further. I am not trying to joke. How is he going to live further? He is sitting in Russia now. But he has chosen his fate himself. We given… we gave him a refugee. He is not our agent. He didn't give us any secrets. We gave him a refuge, but he didn't tell us anything. He tells us something when he wants to publish something – as far as … is concerned, this is of vital importance for us. While for the US, these issues relate to Ukraine were solved at a technical level and I was involved personally. As many people sitting in this room. Because for us it is vital importance, for the US it is different. But you know, the general style should be such that we should have a direct dialogue, trusting each other. Taking into account each other's interests. We are experts and following international relations. And it is everyday in the press, every day, we express concern about the expansion of NATO to the East. But nobody listen to us at all. They told us any country can choose the way of ensuring its security. Yes it is, but why do they deprive us of the opportunity to evaluate this or that set of actions from the point of view of our security? There are many ways to ensure your security. United States may enter into bilateral agreements and friendships and assistance including military assistance. What is the difference between such an agreement and entering NATO? No difference. Of course you can make members of the alliance to contribute to the general budget of the alliance but they don't do those contributions anyway. Americans are trying to push them but they… it doesn't work well. The same happens with anti-missile defense. They are telling us all the time, this is not against you. President Medvedev who did a law to not to streamline the relations with the United States. It was his initiative. Let us sign a legal paper which is worth nothing that it is not against us, just confirm what you say orally. But they disagree entirely. What kind of dialogue this is, just general words and hot air. If we find our, you know, force to take into account our military interest… but I am an optimist, I'm not losing hope. And I'm not losing confidence that the situation with Ukraine will calm sooner or later and we will find forces to streamline our relations.

CUTMORE: I'd like to move on to the economy. I'd like to talk a bit about the business conditions in Russia and how some of the sanctions that have been imposed from the West may be having an impact and I'm pleased that we have with us a panel of international business people who work very closely with Russian companies and have their own investments here. So I'd like to involve them and I would like to them to feel comfortable, also asking questions of you, perhaps you can offer some guidance to them, as to how they work here in Russia. Last year, Angela Merkel sat here on stage with you, she appeared to be bulked.. at sanctions, driven mainly from Washington. Yet ultimately, the sanctions are imposed. Today, many companies are wondering how they're going to get funding. What implications it has for the extension of credit from foreign banks. Can I just ask you very briefly just to give us your thoughts are on what the immediate impact has been so far on the sanctions that has taken place on the economy?

PUTIN: You know, I've given you my version of what's happening in Ukraine. What happened there, to a large extent, the responsibility is to be borne by our European and US partners who supported this coup d'etat, submerging this country in chaos. Now they want us to clean up for the mess they created and this is the purpose of sanctions. But now all the sanctions are to pick up… people from my immediate circle, as they say, and punish them. On their.. if I were them I would file a case in court a long time ago because they don't haveany relations to the events in Ukraine or Crimea and as always … they choose two Jews and one Ukrainian. Yes, they are my friends, I am proud of having such friends. They are absolutely… patriotic and are feeling people. Their business is orientated towards our country. Yes of course, they felt the impact of those sanctions, we should be frank about that. It damaged them. But they are entrepreneurs with some experience. Before the sanctions, they moved all their money to Russia so don't be worried for them too much. But their businesses of course, sustained certain damages. I think that this is unfair and unlawful. That sanctions can be imposed on a country… that the decision of the Security Counsel of the United Nations and there is no such decision and in that sense, these sanctions are absolutely illegal and unlawful. And of course they, make our relations worse. We are now hearing about a third package of sanctions and I have a question in that regard: why? Ok. They don't like… our partners didn't like something about our… at a certain stage af the development of the crisis about Crimea… the sanctions were imposed. Now they are trying to make us to blame about something else. And they are saying there will be a second package, a third package… I don't understand why. Not long ago there was an earthquake in Thailand and people perished. Maybe we are to blame for that. But in Ukraine, civil war is breaking out. But what does this have to do with us? This is an attempt with useless means. Of course this destabilises the situation in our relations with the US and the EU. But we, in the US we… our trade turnover, we have a turnover of about 28 billion dollars, in Europe it is about 400. The difference is huge. And insisting upon sanctions with regards to Russia, I'm thinking our US, American friends want just to get certain competitive advantages in their relations with Europe. I don't see any other reasons behind that, that would be profound, and serious. But I think that common sense will prevail. And no further damage will be made to our trade relations. But we are fulfilling whatever we need to fulfil. If we take the real damage, well it does exist for the economy as a whole. How is it manifested? The access to resources for our companies has become more difficult but it hasn't done… it hasn't made a significant systemic impact on our economy and I hope it won't be the case.

Scris de gitana Joi Mai 29, 2014 4:03 pm

Au prix d’une élection laborieuse et « bananière », ce qui reste de l’Ukraine s’est doté du « moins pire » des candidats, Piotr Porochenko.

De par son déroulement, ce scrutin peut être considéré comme moins légitime que les référendums du Donetsk et de Lougansk. Aucun des candidats n’a pu faire campagne dans l’ensemble de l’Ukraine. Deux d’entre eux ont été attaqués et battus à plusieurs reprises. Le parti communiste a été interdit. Il était le seul à avoir osé résister, au péril de la vie de ses membres, aux intimidations des bandes armées néo-nazies, alliés encombrants mais irremplaçables de la junte oligarchique. À Odessa, les fraudes ont été flagrantes et la participation faible, malgré le bourrage d’urnes.

Piotr Porochenko n’est pas une oie blanche, il fut co-fondateur du Parti des Régions, et ministre de Ianoukovitch, de Youchenko, de Koutchma… L’ « opposant » milliardaire est la garantie pour l’Ukraine de belles décennies de corruption à venir. Il faut cependant quelqu’un avec qui discuter, et surtout, remplacer le psychopathe Tourtchinov qui, en l’espace de trois mois, a réussi à mettre le pays à feu et à sang. Le Kremlin le sait et voit dans cette élection une occasion de mettre les puissances européennes face à leurs responsabilités. Porochenko est en effet leur candidat, même s’il se trouve dans une position très fragile. Son problème ne se trouve ni en Russie, ni à Lougansk, ni dans le Donbass, mais à Washington. L’objectif du département d’État américain n’a pas changé et il consiste toujours à provoquer une intervention russe dans l’est de l’Ukraine. Le scénario américain est parfaitement clair désormais :

- Premièrement : s’appuyer sur Yulia Timochenko, dont le parti contrôle, en plus de la présidence intérimaire, les postes clés du gouvernement de la junte :

ministère de l’intérieur,
direction du conseil national de sécurité (aux mains du transfuge néonazi de Sboboda, Andrei Paruby),
direction du SBU avec Nalivaïchenko,
contrôle du parquet par le néo-nazi Magnitski.

- Deuxièmement : s’appuyer sur les candidats néo-nazis de Svoboda et Pravy Sektor, qui ont certes été humiliés par leurs scores minables, mais qui ne sont pas prêts à déposer les armes. Les médias russes ont d’ailleurs publié un piratage des courriels de Kolomoïski, prouvant que l’oligarque comptait provoquer un coup d’État afin de mettre le chef néo-nazi Tiagnibok, à la tête de la junte.

- Troisièmement : provoquer un bain de sang dans l’est de l’Ukraine. Il apparaît en effet que la garde nationale ne veut pas pénétrer dans les villes du Donbass, de peur de subir le sort de l’armée russe à Grozny en 1995. Kiev a donc décidé de s’attaquer aux populations civiles afin de les démoraliser, appliquant ainsi la doctrine américaine utilisée en Yougoslavie et en Géorgie. Pour ce faire, la junte évacue progressivement l’armée de laligne de front, les soldats réguliers refusant la plupart de temps de tirer sur les populations civiles. Ces troupes sont remplacées par la Garde Nationale, financée par l’oligarque Kolomoïski, et composée essentiellement des néo-nazis de « Pravy Sektor », encadrés et équipés par des mercenaires de l’OTAN. Ils viennent d’ailleurs de perdre leur premier drone. L’essentiel des opérations de représailles consiste donc en des bombardements aériens et des tirs d’artillerie, provoquant majoritairement des pertes de civils. Ces derniers jours, la junte et l’OTAN ont détruit des habitations civiles, des hôpitaux, des écoles, des logements étudiantset ont tué de simples passants. La garde nationale tire également délibérément sur les journalistes, même sur les étrangers (soyons rassurés, la bienveillance du journal Le Monde pour les groupuscules néo-nazis devrait mettre ses correspondants à l’abri de ce genre de désagréments !). La junte tente de cette manière de permettre au Département d’État américain de disposer de nouveau du monopole de l’information, mis à mal notamment par les médias russes.

- L’objectif de l’OTAN est toujours le même : en massacrant les civils ukrainiens, provoquer une intervention russe, afin d’entraîner une rupture entre la Russie et le reste de l’Europe. Les bombardements sont donc le meilleur moyen pour obtenir cet effet, dans la mesure où la garde nationale s’est révélée incapable de tenir longtemps une zone urbanisée. Les insurgés ont ainsi repris l’aéroport de Donetsk en moins de 24 heures.

C’est à cette détermination américaine que Porochenko doit désormais faire face. L’OTAN a d’ailleurs déclenché son offensive la plus violente, en même temps que l’élection présidentielle, afin de mettre le futur Président devant le fait accompli. Élu, mais pas encore investi, Porochenko n’a d’autre choix que de couvrir les exactions de la Garde Nationale. Une fois officiellement Président, sa marge de manœuvre restera extrêmement étroite et sous la menace d’un nouveau Maïdan. C’est aussi le cas du maire de Kiev, Klitschko, dont Maïdan vient de refuser l’injonction de quitter la place.

Il semble que Porochenko puisse compter sur le soutien de l’Allemagne et de la France, qui commencent à s’opposer aux États-Unis. C’est le cas de la question du gaz. Alors que le commissaire européen à l’énergieavait annoncé le paiement d’une partie de sa dette de l’Ukraine à la Russie, il a été contredit dès le lendemainpar Iatsenouk. Les États-Unis n’ont que faire des problèmes d’approvisionnement de gaz de l’Allemagne et de l’Europe de l’est. Leur seul intérêt est (répétons-le pour les journalistes français toujours plus lents à la compréhension) de briser la relation de la Russie avec le reste de l’Europe.

La position actuelle de Porochenko peut se résumer en paraphrasant Cocteau : « Puisque ces événements me dépassent, feignons d’en être l’organisateur. » Il a de toute façon été élu, y compris par l’ouest de l’Ukraine, pour apporter la paix dans le pays, et pas pour intensifier les opérations de représailles dans l’est. Il a la réputation d’un homme habile et avisé. Ce sont de précieuses qualités face à l’administration américaine, à Youlia Timochenko et ses nouveaux alliés néo-nazis.

Saint-Pétersbourg parle français

Le forum économique de Saint-Pétersbourg qui s’est tenu la semaine dernière a été l’occasion pour la communauté d’affaires française de montrer sa détermination de continuer de travailler avec la Russie. Malgré les pressions du Département d’État américain, les sociétés françaises, y compris leurs grands patrons, ont tenu bon. L’Allemagne s’est soumise aux injonctions de John Kerry et un seul grand patron avait fait le déplacement. Il faut désormais s’attendre à des représailles de la part de Washington, déjà engagé dans ladestruction de l’économie française, notamment celle de la BNP. Les Russes ont été impressionnés par la quantité et la qualité de la délégation française. La rencontre entre Vladimir Poutine et François Hollande, le 5 juin prochain, pourrait être l’occasion d’un renouveau de notre relation. Ces derniers mois ont dû permettre aux dirigeants français de faire leurs comptes et de comparer la sagesse de la position russe sur la crise ukrainienne à la duplicité des États-Unis.

Cette détermination des milieux d’affaires français est une victoire du pays économique réel sur le pays médiatique fictif et sur l’extrême-droite atlantiste de l’UMP, prête à sacrifier notre industrie au nom de leur idéologie.