This text is replaced by the Flash movie.
ro en
Publicatii » Brief Analysis » Europa dub asalt din Est



Dr. Mihail E. Ionescu



         La 16 martie s-a desfasurat in Crimeea, republica autonoma in cadrul Ucrainei- un referendum privind ratasarea acestei peninsule la Rusia. Istoric, Crimeea este desigur leaganul puterii maritime rusesti la Marea Neagra, asigurand un control asupra acvatoriului acesteia ( de aici formula istorica “Marea Neagra-lac rusesc”, utilizata de unii si azi), ea fiind cedata de liderul comunist rus, N. S. Hrusciov, in 1954, Ucrainei. Desigur, transferul de teritoriu era facut in cadrul URSS, asadar o simpla schimbare administrativa, dar prabusirea URSS a facut din Crimeea un dosar contencios intre Moscova si Kiev. Referendumul amintit a dat un raspuns afirmativ majoritar intrebarii referitoare la alipirea Crimeei la Rusia ( intrebarile au fost astfel formulate, incat potrivit afirmatiei ministrului de Externe francez, L. Fabius, alegatorii aveau a opta intre “da “ si “da” ), dar el este nerecunoscut de comunitatea internationala. Este asteptat, acum , cand scriem aceste randuri, pozitia Rusiei , in functie de care vor evolua lucrurile. Daca Rusia anexeaza Crimeea vor intra in functiune sanctiunile Vestului , inclusiv economice, iar reactia Ucrainei poate fi chiar potrivit dreptului la autoaparare, daca in Estul tarii agresiunea rusa continua sa produca astfel de efecte; daca Moscova negociaza doar drepturi largite pentru republica autonoma a crimeei in cadrul Ucrainei , atunci nvom asista la o gestiune calma a acestei crize grave.

         Noua editie a “Filtrului” se va focusa, in mod firesc , asupra acestui dosar incandescent. Dar va cuprinde si alte teme:


1.De ce Ukraina si nu…. Siria ?


         Comentatorul de relatii internationale al prestigiosului « Financial Times », Gideon Rachman, scrie pe blogul sau ( 14 martie ) o provocatoare analiza intitulata  «  Ukraine, Syria and global attention-deficit-disorder » :

         “How do we decide what matters in the world?

         The question is prompted by the coincidence of the crisis in Ukraine and the third anniversary of the outbreak of war in Syria.

         There is no doubt that it is Ukraine that is dominating the attention of world leaders and the media. John Kerry, US secretary of state, is meeting Sergei Lavrov, his Russian counterpart, in London today to discuss Ukraine, while Angela Merkel has been working the phones with Vladimir Putin to try to defuse the crisis.

The front-pages of newspapers blare about the build-up of troops on the Russian-Ukrainian border. My own work has reflected these priorities, with my last three FT columns on the Ukrainian crisis.

But are we right to be so focused on Ukraine rather than Syria?”


         Doua reactii ale cititorilor acestui blog la postarea mentionata se cuvin redate aici . Indeobste, cititorii care au reactii la postarile lui Rachman sunt versati in chestiuni de politica internationala si vin cu perspective novatoare la intrebarile ridicate de bloger.


JM | March 14 2:56pm | Permalink

"So why has the world decided that, this week, Ukraine matters and Syria doesn’t?".....
         GR, you seem to be hinting on but skirting the obvious answers - and it seems deliberately.

         There are of course those obvious answers about Russia being major world power, nuclear armed etc. And of course Ukraine is taking center stage because Europe/the West is faced with a potential for devastating war that could make WW2 look like an passing storm. Any Western war with Russia is almost certainly destined to end nuclear and there is no winner in that. So the West is faced with a dilemma of carefully calibrating their confrontation with Russia. Economically, any sanctions on Russia are going to hurt Western countries just as much. Asset freezes will be reciprocated with asset freezes and Western companies standard to lose billions as well. We may see a return of the 2008 recession across the EU and the US as a result which would have far reaching economic, political, social and other consequences in the West (and probably less of the same in Russia).
Finally, you talk about Russian containment policy as if that policy died with the cold war when we all it is still alive and well - the tactics changed but not the goal. NATO enlargement and encirclement of Russia is still an openly acknowledged goal. Russia is very well ware and actively thwarting that attempt - and it will continue doing so even if it means going to war with NATO with all the potential consequences highlighted.

         I guess that explains why humanitarian crises in Syria and other places take the back - they are far away from Europe's door step. Ukraine is real and still has the potential to blow up into an even bigger crisis that could present and existential threat to Europe.”



“jose oscategui | March 14 3:47pm | Permalink

         I believe Mr Rachman does not get it. The Syrian and Ukrainian problems are part of the same issue. The US and its Western partners want to push Russia out of Europe and the Middle East to condemn them to oblivion struggling with China and the muslims.

         They do not want Russia interfering with US and partners' hegemony in world affairs...and the economic benefits of such a situation. They want to take a hold of the Eurasian space where Russia is at the center. If they get rid of Assad in Syria they will weaken Iran and push Russia out of the Middle East and may be from the Mediterranean. Mr Rachman surely knows who Z. Brzezinski is. He was interviewed for the National Interest in June 24, 2013, he said:

"In late 2011 there are outbreaks in Syria produced by a drought and abetted by two well-known autocracies in the Middle East: Qatar and Saudi Arabia. He all of a sudden announces that Assad has to go—without, apparently, any real preparation for making that happen. Then in the spring of
2012, the election year here, the CIA under General Petraeus, according to The New York Times of March 24th of this year, a very revealing article, mounts a large-scale effort to assist the Qataris and  the Saudis and link them somehow with the Turks in that effort. Was this a strategic position? Why  did we all of a sudden decide that Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown? Had
it ever been explained to the American people? Then in the latter part of 2012, especially after the elections, the tide of conflict turns somewhat against the rebels. And it becomes clear that not all of  those rebels are all that “democratic.” And so the whole policy begins to be reconsidered."

         It means that the Syrian crisis was created basically by the US. One of the objectives of such a move was Iran but the other was Russia and its port in the Mediterranean Sea, Tartus.

         With respect to Ukraine it is part of the same push by the West to corner Russia to have its back facing the chinese and the muslims in the Khazakastan, Kirgistan, etc and its front facing NATO.
This is, from my point of view (which I deem realistic), how we can make sense of what is going on in Syria and Ukraine.”








Stress-ul este un insotitor al vietii cotidfeine, mai ales in aceasta era a accelerarii istoriei, a comunicatiilor instantanee dincolo de barierele spatiale si temporale. El poate sa aiba si efecte pozitive – te poate motiva/ambitiona sa finalizezi un anume plan /lucru sau sa-ti depasesti anumite temeri altfel greu de depasit, dar , practic, sta la baza a circa 90 la suta dintre toate bolile cunoscute.

Dar care sunt simptomele stress-ului ? Si, mai ales, o data ce le cunoastem , cum le tratam ? Iata unul dintre aceste simptome, intr-un articol care merita neaparat citit pentru a aplica la nevoie remediile recomandate ( de medici renumiti ):



“ You’re having trouble concentrating.

         When you’re too overwhelmed to focus on what’s in front of you, or you can’t remember simple things like a coworker’s name, it could be a sign you’re overworked. Research has connected long-term exposure to excess amounts of cortisol to shrinking of the hippocampus, the brain’s memory center, says Tuit. Studies have shown that long-term stress stimulates growth of the proteins that might cause Alzheimer’s disease.

         What to do: If you find that you’re experiencing this during the workday, taking a few long inhales and exhales can help when faced with a high-pressure situation. “Deep, even breathing not only affects whether or not our thoughts control us or we control them, but it also affects the bodily sensations that are experienced when faced with a high-stress situation,” says Tuit. This type of breathing can help control the heart rate and blood flow, as well as muscle tension, she says.”




Ne-am obisnuit in ultima vreme – de fapt de vreo doi-trei ani- sa auzim constant vorbindu-se despre drone. Fie ca anumite tinte teroriste sunt lovite de aceste “vehicule aeriene fara pilot” ( UAV- Unmanned Aerial Vehicules ) – telecomandate de la mi de Km. departare de operatori asezati comod in fata ecranelor computerelor; fie ca utilizarea lor permite urmarirea in timp real a desfasurarilor de evenimente la mare distanta; etc. etc. Un articol recent arata o alta perspectiva de utilizare a acestor UAV-uri care au schimbat decisive cateva domenii de mare importanta , precum purtarea razboiului modern sau  culegerea de informatii:

         “Ominous code-names like 'Predator' and 'Global Hawk' have entered the popular lexicon.

With hundreds of them operating overseas — either watching over or obliterating the enemy on a 24-hour, 7-day schedule — it seems the novelty of flying killer robots has actually worn off.

         Well, I'm glad to say there's a whole other side to this story of man's triumph over technology, and that's the often-overlooked corner of the unmanned air vehicle family known as a miniature, or man-portable, UAV.

The Better to See You With

         The reason it's exciting isn't because these little monsters are as deadly as their 10-ton, multi-million-dollar counterparts (although at least one apparently now is), but that their biggest prospective market is right here on our own home turf.

         Local police forces and security firms might not be able to afford a $17 million reaper drone nor have a need for its laser-guided bombs, but they do have room for things like the Qube by AeroVironment, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVAV).


















It may look like a toy, but this is actually a very serious piece of equipment with a very serious price tag.

         Weighing 5 lbs. and featuring the ability to take off and land vertically, this quad-rotor device is exactly the sort of thing you will see used more and more by domestic government and private security agencies.

Unit price: $50,000.”

La 16 martie a avut loc referendumul din Crimeea, marcandu-se astfel un ‘varf’ a; crizei grave in ansamblul sistemului international intervenita dupa 21 februarie curent. Taberele sunt bine delimitate. De o parte se afla Rusia condusa de presedintele Vladimir Putin. De cealalta parte, se afla toti cei care respecta legea internationala so condamna actiunea Rusiei in Crimeea, vadita agresiune militara impotriva unui stat independent. Saptamana trecuta, o rezolutie in Consiliul de Securitate al ONU care condamna acest act agresiv a intrunit adeziunea tuturor delegatilor prezenti , chiar China, spre deosebire de alte imprejurari, nefiind de partea Kremlinului ( votul sau de abtinere, ceea ce spune enorm ). Doar Rusia si-a folosit dreptul de veto pentru a nu face aceasta rezolutie obligatorie sistemic. Moscova nu poate sa nu realizeze ca , global, este practic singura. Un punct de vedere foarte interesant fata de aceasta problematica ofera o analiza a cunoscutei reviste britanice “The Economist”:


         “NOBODY, apart from Vladimir Putin, Russia’s president, knows what awaits Ukraine. If the Kremlin stops at the annexation of Crimea, the rest of Ukraine may survive and reform itself into a modern European state. If, on the other hand, Mr Putin moves deeper into Ukraine, the country may descend into a bloody partisan war. Russian troops were reported to be massing on the eastern border of Ukraine as The Economist went to press.

         Worryingly, the Kremlin justifies its actions in Crimea by citing a need to protect the Russian-speaking population, which would equally justify a military operation in the south and east of the country. Mr Putin sees himself as not just the president of Russia, but as a protector of the “Russian World”, an ill-defined conglomerate. His idea of gathering historic Russian lands into his own fief has pushed Kiev, the cradle of Russian cities, farther away from Moscow than it has ever been.

         Yet it is not just Ukraine that faces a threat from the Kremlin. So does Russia itself. And whereas Ukraine may yet shake off the Kremlin’s grip, the chances of Russia’s becoming a modern, civilised country, open to the world and respectful of its citizens, are diminishing with every outburst of war hysteria on Russian television.

         This marks a new period in Russia’s post-Soviet history, rather as the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 marked a new chapter in the Soviet empire’s post-Stalinist history. The tanks in Prague crushed not only Czech reformers, but also hopes among Russians of building a more humane socialism at home. Similarly, Russia’s escapade in Ukraine entrenches its own authoritarian, oil-dependent and fundamentally weak state.

         The Ukrainian revolution last month posed an existential threat to Mr Putin’s paternalistic and kleptocratic system by prompting the question: if Ukraine can cut itself off from the Soviet legacy, why can’t Russia? As one person close to the Kremlin says, the most frequent comment echoing around those walls during the protests on Maidan was: “Do we want this to happen in Moscow?”

         Comentariul citat mai jos si apartinand unui cititor informat a obtinut unul dintre cele mai mari scoruri de aprobare:

Budulinek Mar 14th, 18:18

         Dear pro-Putin readers. Dear West-haters (both in Russia and in the West). Please stop comparing Crimea with Kosovo (1999), Iraq (2003) or Grenada (1983).
The USA never intended to annex Iraq. Did Iraq become 51st state of the US? NO! The last time USA used its military power to annex a part of a neighboring country was in 19th century when they annexed part of Mexico.
The same holds for Kosovo. The declaration of Kosovo independence violated international law. But did NATO wage war in Kosovo in order to annex Kosovo? Of course no. NATO violated Serbian sovereignty. But did any NATO country intended to annex Kosovo or any other part of Serbia? No!! In 1999 Hungary was a member of NATO which attacked Serbia. Did Hungary use the opportunity for the annexation of those parts of Serbia (in Vojvodina) where the sizeable Hungarian minority lives)? No! Many people argue about the (un)constitutionality of the "Maidan revolution". OK, lets admit that there was an anticonstitutional coup in Ukraine. Does that give Russia the right to annex part of Ukraine? Of course NO! Does one violation of Ukrainian constitution ("coup") give Russia the right to conduct another violation of Ukrainian constitution (+ violation of international law)? NO! The West did many mistakes in the past. But NONE of the Western states used its military power to annex part of a neighboring country!!!
What Russia did (or is doing) is without precedent. European ("civilized") state, heavily armed (with nuclear weapons) annexing territory of another European state!! Using the most stupid justification of "protecting ethnic Russians". Please could you come up with a precedents? I can only think of one precedent:
Germany in 1930s. The same scenario. Annexing neighboring countries in order to "protect ethnic compatriots". I see no difference between German foreign policy in 1930s and Russian foreign policy in 2014. Just remember.... Hitler promising to "protect Germans wherever they live". German propaganda machine and Hitler's outcry how Germans are "oppressed" in Czechoslovakia. Cheerful crowds in Austria in 1938, most Germans in Sudetenland welcoming Hitler as "liberator". And the story continues. Gdansk (Danzig)... What is the difference between "Danzig ist deutsch" (1939) and "Crimea is Russia" (2014)? Revisionist power annexing territory of neighboring states under the pretext of "protecting ethnic compatriots"...
No wonder that Merkel eventually emerged as the strongest critic of Mr. Putin. It must be some kind of déjà vu for Germans ... Listening to Putin today, German leadership clearly hears the echoes of their own past...
There is no easy solution... Whatever the West does will probably strenghten Russian nationalism. When threatened, ordinary Russians will rally around their fuhrer. Nationalism is a disease of nations. Sure there are nationalists in Ukraine. But it will take time before Russians realize that they are also infected...



         Exploatarea intensiva de catre SUA a rezervelor de gaz de sist – o veritabila revolutie globala in dosarul energetic- a determinat indiscutabil o schimbare fundamentala de perspectiva asupra evolutiilor globale. Influentele geopolitice sunt indiscutabil enorme la nivel planetar, avandu-se in vedere importanta energiei in evolutia civilizatiei umane. O recenta carte aparuta in SUA arata ca, daca prima era masinista caracterizata de utilizarea energiei aburului a dat lumii infatisarea de azi ( revolutia industriala ), a doua era masinista in care am intrat- care va ridica exponential forta ‘creierului’ prin utlizarea cyber-ului- consemneaza provocari uriase lumii post-industriale. Or, in contextul in care dosarul energetic ramane decisiv si in aceasta era masinista secunda, schimbarea de ierarhie in ce priveste exportul de hidrocarburi ridica si coboara state si regiuni, determina noi alinieri geopolitice, clasifica noi castigatori sau perdanti la esalon economic si politic. Sunt noi fatete ale geopoliticii. Interesantul blog “European Strategy”- ale carui postari sunt asigurate de eminenti specialisti in securitatea si strategia Uniunii Europene- are o ultima analiza in domeniulmai sus relevat. Ea se intituleaza “Trouble brewing in Europe’s backyard” si este semnata de Sijbren de Jong, Willem Auping, M. De Ridder, Joris van Esch. Analiza consemneaza principalul aspect de modificare de azimut geopolitic global:

          “Two major trends in global energy markets can be observed today. First, countries such as China, India, and other emerging economies currently not members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are gradually attaining middle-income status with an equivalent rise in their appetite for energy.

Second, the large scale exploration of shale gas and oil in the US has turned the US into a net exporter of natural gas, and, according to the International Energy Agency, has put it on course to overtake Saudi Arabia, becoming – at least temporarily –the world’s largest oil producer by mid-2020 and a net oil exporter by 2030.

         Spurred by this development, the US is reorienting its foreign and security policy from the Middle East towards the Asia Pacific. The consequence of this reconfiguration is that Europe will need to start taking more responsibility for its own security, and to ensure stability in its own ‘neighborhood’. However, at a time of declining defense and foreign policy spending, European Union (EU) countries are ill-equipped to deal with this challenge. (s.n. )”

         Iar, din aceasta perspective , arata autorii- care fac si trimitere la studii foarte aplicate in domeniu- Europa are de asteptat tensiuni din partea a doua state:

         “The greater availability of liquefied natural gas (LNG) worldwide has spurred looking at ways in which LNG can be used in commercial transport. Moreover, gas can also substitute oil for use in power stations, (petro)chemical plants, and domestic and industrial heating systems. The onset of shale gas could thus act as a catalyst for shifting from oil to natural gas in energy-intensive sectors of the economy. This could result in downward pressure on the price of oil, a development which may be amplified due to the increased energy efficiency of our economy, known as decoupling. Most vulnerable to these developments are young democracies suffering from high youth unemployment with limited financial buffers in place to cope with a lower oil price. Examples include Algeria and Russia.

         Therefore, the EU could face heightened instability in two of its most important natural gas and oil providing countries. This could potentially lead to situations in which reduced oil rents cause a worsening of national economic circumstances, causing rising youth unemployment, and, when food and fuel subsidies need to be cut, strongly reducing the purchasing power of the population. In many cases, a worsening of these variables has led to severe internal unrest, eventually leading to regime change.”

         Analiza subliniaza in context si rolul major pe care il dobandeste in noile conditii forta militara:

         “Stepping up intelligence gathering is one way of strengthening the anticipatory function of the armed forces. However, it is also necessary to prevent instability from affecting our economic security and the international rule of law. This can be achieved through having a maritime presence around maritime chokepoints, similar in the way this is done by the EU and NATO anti-piracy missions. Yet, one should also consider the direct support to foreign security organisations – so-called Security Sector Reform (SSR).

         Countries and regions which would be suitable for heightened monitoring are Algeria, Russia, and Venezuela given their vulnerabilities for transitions on international energy markets. On top of this, it could be beneficial to engage in a combination of SSR and monitoring activities in countries flanking strategic waterways, such as Egypt.”

         Deci , actuala criza din Ucraina si agresiunea rusa pentru a tine Ucraina- practic tara de transit a resurselor energetice rusesti catre UE, iar Crimea un avanpost al controlului Marii Negre- pe unde tranziteaza pipeline-urile rusesti, cum ar fi   South Stream- are , din punctul de vedere al Moscovei , o mult mai larga perspectiva.


         Changes shaping global energy markets are fueling geopolitical tensions, and heightening the risk of instability within oil and gas exporting countries around Europe. Two reports recently published by The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies (HCSS) on the economic security of The Netherlands and the Geopolitical Implications of the United States’ (US) Shale Gas Revolution call for a more prominent role for the armed forces on this issue.