Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Are there are still hopes in Ukraine ?

There are still hopes in Ukraine?

Despite the tension for the unfounded rumor of the Russian invasion, even remote signals appear at the end of hostilities in Ukraine: hope or illusion? 
By: [Patrick Boylan]

Friday, August 29, 2014 01:39

For months, the media denouncing the "aggression of Putin" against Ukraine, and now they see a smoking gun issue : the alleged satellite photos of Russian troops. Four authoritative voices, however, invite us to rethink the official narrative. In Ukraine's NATO even if you do not see: he wants to install its missiles on the Russian border, stop the bombardier multipolarity and bipolarity in the Cold War.

On July 1, Henry Kissinger , former Secretary of State and notoriously right-wing politician, has surprised everyone with an article in the Washington Post in which he asked the cessation of hostilities between the parties in the east of Ukraine and between Washington and Moscow . "Enough with the demonization of Putin and the politics of confrontation, you have to deal with," he warned Kissinger.

Then, in August, appeared in three other articles on Ukraine in the same vein, all written by authoritative representatives of the 'establishment Europe and the United States:

" Ukraine: the West is on the wrong track "by Gabor Steingart , Director of the Handelsblatt , the Sole 24 Ore German (08/08/2014:Original in English - translation of Megachip );
" The way out of the crisis in Ukraine - the Finlandisation "by Jeffrey Tayler , Moscow correspondent of The Atlantic , which is considered one of the ten most influential publications in American Foreign Policy (12/08/2014: Original in English - Google translation );
"The Ukrainian crisis is the fault of the West - not Putin" by John Mearsheimer , academic and one of the brains of the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank that guides American foreign policy (Foreign Affairs , 23/8/2014: Original in English - report on Megachip).
These experts go even further Kissinger and completely debunk the report of the Ukrainian conflict so far touted in the media. That is, it would be Vladimir Putin , driven by an alleged desire to grab more and more countries to recreate the former Soviet empire, the attacker dangerous that we must isolate and put in line.

We learn, however, that it was the 'West, through NATO , the real aggressor in Ukraine . In fact, the West has created an armed coup in Kiev in February, behind the smokescreen of the events in the square, using the Ukrainian pro-Nazi militia, trained in the barracks NATO of Poland, to storm the presidential palace and forced to escape the then President Yanukovych . This has allowed Washington to take possession of the country and to bring to power, not the people for whom they were beating the protesters in the square, but the men wanted by the Pentagon and the International Monetary Fund - and already chosen some time.

Purpose of the operation: 1) NATO to install missile bases along the Russian border, the threat Kiev and Washington deny they want to implement, but that is confirmed by the statements of the NATO-Ukraine Commission and the visits to Ukraine of the Missile Defense Agency of the Pentagon; 2) deprive Russia of supplies of specialized industries in eastern Ukraine, from which the Russian army depends on forever; 3) deprive Russia of its strategic naval base in Crimea; 4) allow the IMF to reduce the Ukraine to subordination, carrying his (infamous) economic shock therapy - one that Italy did somersaults to avoid so far.

The increasing poverty of the Ukrainians that will follow, will then give the developed European countries (Germany in particular) access to a large pool of workers with very low cost - such as that of South-East Asia but much closer and more educated. It will also allow the dumping in Russia, European products produced and sold at a loss by the Ukrainian branch (economic warfare conducted by proxy).

The Ukrainian crisis was caused, therefore, not from Russia but from the West who, to put difficulties in Russia militarily and economically, has committed two illegal: it has violated international standards prohibiting the implementation of coups in third countries and violated Patti founding in 1997 which included a Ukraine neutral and out of any military alliance. Countermoves of Putin - annex the Crimea with its naval base and support the rebellion in the east of Ukraine - should be therefore seen less as "unwarranted invasion" carried "by the hungry Russian bear" and more like attempts to salvage after 'Invasion of Ukraine - this means unjustified - by NATO.This concept has been shown, however, in a sign of the Network NOWAR for a rally held outside the Embassy of Ukraine 17 May 2014: see below.

But the knowledge of the falsity of the official narrative of the events in Ukraine allows us then to get out of the conflict. Instead of the inevitability of the battle, we see the possibility of a negotiated the terms hypothesized by Kissinger July 1 and incorporated in August, with variations, by the three authors listed above.

According to these experts, the West could skip the installation of missile bases in Ukraine and to block supplies from industries in the east, Russia to obtain from the end of the rebellion in the east of the country and the renunciation of sovereignty over Crimea - naturally Behind mechanisms that guarantee the permanence of the Russian naval base on the peninsula. For its part, Russia could accept the entry of Ukraine into the European Economic Area, as long as it remains neutral on the political-military ("finlandizzandosi") and behind anti-dumping adequate safeguards to protect the Russian economy. To this we might add the concession, not of independence, but of an extensive regional autonomy east , military (with a Guard Regional instead of the dreaded National Guard), economic (with control over their exports) and cultural (protection linguistic and religious).

It would be peace.

Here, then, appear suddenly in the summer of 2014, four authoritative publications, a new vision of the events in Ukraine, diametrically opposed to the misleading official narrative. A vision that, revealing the real issues at stake, allows us to move to stop the hostilities on the field and between governments. But how?

The editorial by Gabor Steingart ce indicates: evokes the figure ofWilly Brandt , mayor of Berlin (and later Chancellor) at the time of construction of the Wall by the Soviets in 1961 That wall could mean the end of any dialogue between East and West. But Brandt has worked hard for conciliation between the parties and, step by step, he succeeded. Refusing reprisals. In recognition of the status quo in order to change it. Reconciling interests. Promoting rapprochement.And most importantly, by trial and experience the compassion - even to his enemies.

Brandt could serve as a model for our today's leaders - Merkel, Obama, Poro? Enko, Putin - with regard to the Ukrainian crisis?Steingart seems to encourage the German chancellor to follow the example of his predecessor and already Merkel is keeping constant phone contact with the leaders that unless they speak to one another (a tactic Brandt). Putin, while not renouncing to provide "assistance" to the Russian-speaking Ukrainians, has declared its willingness to deal with all at any time. Even Poro? Enko has agreed, on the sidelines of a regional summit in Minsk on August 26, to deal with Putin face to face for two hours - negotiation "tough and complex," he confided, but that has perm it to the two statesmen to create acontact group standing to proceed with the negotiations. The beginning of a dialogue, then. (For Details of the possible place in Minsk, see this analysis of Giulietto Church .)

But what about the fourth protagonist, the stone guest in Minsk,Barack Obama ?

Unfortunately, in Washington, the neoc on , councilors ultra-conservative driven by the White House with the defeat of Bush Jr., are now back from the window and now push the Obama administration to promote, again, the polarization of the world (the famous "either with us or against us" Bush jr.). Just the opposite of reconciliation.

The reasons for this insistence on the polarization of the world are two. In foreign policy, the neocons (and the powers that sponsor them) do not take kindly to the gradual rapprochement occurred in recent years between Europe and Russia, with the construction of more and more oil and gas pipelines ("threads" that sew together the two continents), and the intensification of trade relations with the joint development of new technologies, and so on. Why all this will lead to a genuine multipolarity , ie, a future "euro-Russian bloc" with the same weight in the USA or China. Instead of implementing the coup in Ukraine to instigate Russia to react, the neocons and their sponsors have managed to get the fight to revive the rhetoric of the Cold War bipolar and breaking part of the euro-Russian ties by:

- The sanctions against Russia economic interrupting some of the economic and technological exchanges with the EU that country, replacing them with Atlantic exchanges set up under the TTIP , theTreaty on the transatlantic trade and investment - a cage rules which make the American and European industries to multinational companies which will probably be approved later this year;

- the block of the construction of new oil and gas pipelines Russia-EU , such as the South Stream, replacing them with the supply of liquefied natural gas American, now produced in excess due to fracking (at least, so they say). This means that, alongside the economic dependence (TTIP), Europe, the USA will depend on the level of energy.

In practice, foreign policy neocons reject the multipolarity and ridivide the world in the two blocks : on the one hand, Russia, Iran and China (the SCO : Shanghai Organization of Cooperation) ; on the other hand, l ' ' West ' , that is, all the other countries behind theleadership of the USA. The SCO becomes, therefore, the new Axis of Evil . And by "bad" it is not.

Obama, therefore, rejects dialogue with Putin and requires Poro? Enko not to deal with the separatist leaders. It replaces the dialogue with the sanctions, with the exclusion of Russia from Western encounters with the suspension of joint scientific and policy initiatives, and with the increase of NATO troops along the borders of Russia. On August 26 there was a partial thaw in the Minsk surprise between Poro? Enko and Putin and therefore, on time, two days later, NATO took out the now famous satellite photos of Russian troops (similar to others that had long but never shown), and instigating the Ukrainian President to interrupt his journey and to sound the alarm over "the Russian invasion," he threatened war. Efforts of conciliation, efforts to understand the reasons of the other, of calls for calm, even the shadow.

This bi-polarization of the world and the demonization of the opponent is also functional to the American domestic policy desired by theneocons . The SCO provides the United States government an enemy of weight to hold up - as was the Soviet Union during the Cold War - to justify a state of permanent emergency and the creation of a police state.Already, thanks to the September 11 attacks, the neocons were able to: (1) to approve the Patriot Ac t "to punish the terrorists," but, in reality, in order to imprison without trial any dissident; (2) strengthen the NSA to "discover the terrorists" but really to spy on every citizen; (3) militarize local police "to prevent terrorist acts" but in reality to prevent any protest, as seen in Ferguson in August. In the face of perceived threats of an enemy (the SCO) even more powerful jihadist terrorists, therepression will become total .

It will be possible to reverse this trend, stop the propaganda in favor of bi-polarization of the world and push for a peace agreement in Ukraine and free trade between Europe and Russia? It will not be easy, given the disparity in resources available (the sponsor of the neocons have much influence in the world, both in governments and in the mass media). But it is worth groped, even with petitions asthat of Alex Zanotelli and Alfonso Navarra on PeaceLink .

Above all, we remind our rulers the method of reconciliation put in place successfully by Willy Brandt, at the time of the Berlin Wall, as he did on Steingart Handelsblatt . In addition, we urge our mass media, otherwise the boycott, to stop with the applicant demonization of our opponents and instead of making us understandeven their own reasons . We reject the vote for parties that do not have a comprehensive foreign policy and seek, by activists, to affect that of others.

We do all this while aware that it will be much more difficult today, compared to 1961, pass - with appeals for reconciliation and mutual understanding - the new Berlin Wall that is being built on the east border of Ukraine. Because this time , to build the wall, we are .

No comments:

Post a Comment