This text is replaced by the Flash movie.
ro en
 
 
 
 
Newsletter
 
 
 
 
Publicatii » Brief Analysis » Europa sub asalt din Est -II
 
Europa sub asalt din Est -II
 
 
 
Dr. Mihail E. IONESCU
 
 

         De la anexarea Crimeei la sfarsitul lunii trecute printr-un act de solemnitate imperiala la Kremlin la sfarsitul lunii trecute, Europa de Est a stat sub semnul unei incertitudini istoric verificate. “Vin rusii ? “ – a fost intrebarea cea mai des auzita . “Daca vin, incotro se indreapta ? “. Catre spatiul baltic sau catre Sud, mai intai spre Transnistria tintind mai departe , catre Republica Moldova si catre.... ?

         Pe de alta parte, NATO si puterile occidentale n-au pregetat sa descurajeze o astfel de miscare a rusilor. Comunicate aproape zilnice in ultimele zile, emise de NATO de la cel mai inalt nivel , au avertizat asupra concentrarilor de trupe ruse la frontierele de Est ale Ucrainei si au cerut Moscovei sa de-escaladeze amplificarea masurilor sale militare. La randul sau, Moscova a aratat ca reduce miscarile truipelor sale pe propriul teritoriu, ceea ce Vestul a aratat ca nu corespunde adevarului. In Europa de Est se constata insa, spre deosebire de pattern-ul istoric o decizie puternica de a zagazui orice avans al fortei militare a Rusiei.

         O trasatura principala a acestor ultime zile este insa ceea ce s-a numit “redescoperirea Europei de Est”. Uitata dupa Razboiul Rece si extinderea NATO si UE , dupa ‘resetul’ SUA-Rusia din 2009 si ‘pivotul asiatic’ al SUA din 2011-2012, aceasta importanta regiune a batranului continent este azi in centrul atentiei. Nu atat datorita crizei ucrainene, cat miscarilor sistemice de mari dimenisuni pe care aceasta le-a pus in miscare. Cum am scris in finalul unei analize publicate recent ( 3 aprilie )  in cotidianul de limba engleza “Nineoclock” : “Eastern Europe rediscovered itself, and was rediscovered after Crimea, and this process was concomitant with the rediscovery of the region by NATO and Western Europe. The process occurred at lightning speed in terms of historic duration and, doubtlessly, it will have huge consequences in the future. It is one of the fundamental consequences of the Russian action in Ukraine and one might suspect that Moscow did not foresee it. Founding it on “gentleman agreements” or other post-Cold War arrangements ignored the fact that, in today’s world, respecting the will of states to choose their own path cannot be stopped anymore with 19th Century methods.”( http://www.nineoclock.ro/rediscovery-of-eastern-europe-iii/ )

 

         Focusul noii editii a “Filtrului” va fi deci in continuare criza ucraineana:

 
 
 

1. O NOUA INREGISTRARE CLANDESTINA PENTRU... DEZINFORMARE Criza din Ucraina ne-a obisnuit cu inregistrari  ale unor convorbiri telefonice  private cu un continut exploziv date publicitatii pentru a demonstra o teza sau alta. Ele au facut si fac deliciul publicului , pentru ca dezvaluie, ca niciodata inainte pentru opinia publica in sens larg ceea ce era cunoscut pana acum doar expertilor si scormonitorilor prin arhive tainuite: cum se desfasoara istoria “ in spatele usilor inchise”. Am vazut cum , de pilda, doi oficiali americani, unul  chiar membru al guvernului american, discutau telefonic in mijlocul evnimentelor cunoscute ca  ‘Euro-Maidan’, la Kiev, la 6 februarie a.c., despre personalitatile politice ucrainene sau despre UE  ori cum ministrul de Externe al Estoniei o incredinta pe lady Ashton , “ministrul de Externe” al UE , ca lunetistii care au ucis peste 100 de oameni la 21 februarie la Kiev ar fi fost.... protestatari !?!

        O ultima ‘productie’ de acest gen este referitoare tocmai la aceasta problematica amintita in prefata baostra, a unei iminente noi  miscari militare a Rusiei. Doi ambasadori rusi in tari africane discuta telefonic situatia. Inregistrarea- un oficial rus nu a confirmat-o , dara spus ca unul dintre interlocutori este deja decedat de un an- releva, ironic si deopotriva serios, cum privesc oficialii rusi situatia. Daca este autentica  conversatia este proba unei superficialitati imense in a privi o situatie de o mare gravitate sistemica. Daca este fabricata , atunci ea transmite  o aroganta imperiala care nu sta defel bine unei mari puteri regionale cum a numit recent Rusia presedintele american B. Obama. La urma urmei, cu asemenea viziune asupra evenimentelor, iresponsabilitati istorice de anvergura pot apare oricand.  

 

     Unul dintre ambasadori, Chubarov, incepe, la un moment dat , in gluma, ca vrea sa transmita mesajul ca anexarea Cimeei este doar inceputul:


"Acum am un obiectiv foarte simplu, sa le repet europenilor: Baieti, am pus mana pe Crimeea, dar nu este sfarsitul (rade - n.red.). In final va vom lua Catalonia, Venetia, la fel si Scotia si Alaska. Si nu ne vom multumi cu asta (rade din nou - n.red.) ".
 

 

     Interlocutorul lui Chubarev,ambasadorul in Malawi, Baharev raspunde la cele de mai sus  : "Ne vom multumi numai in prima instanta".


     Apoi discutia abunda in referiri vulgare la situatia internationala si modul de evolutie intrevazut, in gluma , de catre interlocutori:

 


"De acord, in prima instanta, apoi vom continua. Toti limitrofii aia nenorociti, Letonia, Estonia si alti europeni precum romanii si bulgarii...le vom da un sut in fund in directia corecta, unde le este locul",
replica  Chubarov.

"Nu, e mai bine sa nu ne atingem de ei. Ar fi mai bine pentru noi sa intram in 'Californialand', 'Miamiland', genul acesta de regiuni dezolante".
- i se raspunde



"Deocamdata ii lasam in pace pe romani si bulgari, lasa-i sa mai stea si ei in UE",
spune la un moment dat Chubarov. "La fel si rahatul ala de regiune baltica", vine replica  interlocutorul sau.


Iar apoi, parasind gluma, Chibarov  comunica o informatie colegului sau , anume ca oficiali ai UE i-au spus ca Rusia ar trebui sa ia inapoi Romania si Bulgaria.

 

     Nu poti sa nu fii ingrijorat de evolutia situatiei actuale in Europa de Est!

 
 
 

2. EUROPA CENTRALA SE AMAGESTE . Nu este deloc atunci intamplator si nejustificat ca un expert polonez ( Dariusz Kalan )de la prestigiosul institut de relatii internationale PISM a scris, la 4 aprilie, un articol intitulat semnificativ „ Wake Up, Central Europe”. El porneste in analiza de la comportamentul central-europenilor dupa sfarsitul Razboiului Rece:

 

Several years ago, we Central Europeans started to undertake various programs in the post-Soviet and Western Balkan countries, teaching them democracy and market economics and, in a well-meaning manner, persuading them to follow the paths of transformation that had brought us, as we believed, nothing but material fulfillment, self-satisfaction and a sense of mission. Being so besotted with our post-1989 success, we thought that history had forgotten about us, that we had somehow escaped the guillotine that had been hanging over us for so many centuries.”

Dar, continua el, aceasta atitudine a fost gresita. Cu toate ca a intervenit in 2008 razboiul gigantului rus impotriva Georgiei, ochii central europenilor nu s-au deschis”

So in the following years, we played with Russia as if it were a reasonable player. The first shock came in 2009, after the gas dispute with Ukraine, when our Russian partners brought their unpredictability and restlessness home to us directly. But still, this was only a small bump on the long road to good, pragmatic cooperation, we told ourselves. We thus continued inviting Russian state companies to our countries, foolishly believing in the popular sayings about capital having no nationality and economics being different from politics. We were shaking hands with Putin, who praised us for our smart bilateralism with Moscow.

On these foundations, we quite hastily built in ourselves the belief that we were finally being treated as partners, not as spheres of influence. Indeed, it gave us pleasure to see how gracefully we danced between East and West, being part of the big European family, doing business with Russia and educating the poor devils from post-Soviet countries. It was a level of self-satisfaction that we had never achieved before.”

         Expertul citat conchide:

“But now is the time to wake up, Central Europe. For so many years, we watched calmly as Russia played a game of divide and rule in our region, which was only able to speak with one voice in a few cases. We were sure that, along with our accession to the Western structures, our place in the world, between Germany and Russia, had somehow changed. It has not. We may be wealthier, better educated and better connected than earlier generations, but we are just as exposed to the unpredictability of our eastern neighbor as they were a hundred years ago.

Vezi: http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/wake-central-europe-10183?page=show

 
 

3.  CAPCANA LUI TUCIDIDE SAU CALCULUL LUI HANIBAL. Orice curs de relatii internationale trebuie sa inceapa-oricum sa faca referire atunci cand sunt definite conceptele- cu “Istoria Razboiului Peloponesiac” scrisa de Tucidide in secolul V I.Chr. Recent, aceasta detaliata descriere a competitiei pentru putere in lumea greaca intre Atena si Sparta a inceput sa fie des citata in analizele situatiei internationale, mai ales atunci cand se fac referinte la cresterea exploziva a Chinei din ultimele trei decade ( economica, dar si militara ) si la declinismul SUA. Presedintele Chinei , Xi Jinping , a facut o trimitere directa la “Tucydide’s trap “ atunci cand a evaluat starea sistemului international de state intr-un interviu la inceputul acestui an. El arata ca , in gandirea occidentala, evolutia sistemica este prizoniera acestei “capcane a lui Tucidide “, anume ca razboiul pentru dominatia globala ar fi de neevitat in conditiile in care un competitor se apropie prea mult de cel aflat in frunte. "The argument that

strong countries are bound to seek hegemony does not apply to China," a spus Xi . "This is not in the DNA of the country given our long historical and cultural background/…/We all need to work together to avoid the Thucydides trap - destructive tensions between an emerging power and established powers, or between established powers themselves."

(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/21/xi-jinping-avos_n_4639929.html ).

 

         Analogiile istorice cu trimitere la situatia contemporana, mai ales  privind relatiile dintre SUA si China, s-au multiplicat in ultimul timp, iar comentariile cititorilor au devenit tot mai elaborate si informate. Intr-unul dintre ultimele analize de acest gen, autorul extinde aria analogiei situatiei contemporane in sistemul international de state la evenimente din cadrul ‘Pax Romana’ sau in efortul de impunere a acesteia acum mai bine de 2200 de ani. In articolul intitulat “Rome, Chartage and US –China Relations”, autorul ( James Holmes )  defineste ‘capcana lui Tucidide’: “Thucydides’ claim that the true cause of the Peloponnesian War was the rise of Athens and the fear it inspired in Sparta, the reigning hegemon. Ergo, we have … the ‘Thucydides Trap,’ a geopolitical current supposedly sweeping the United States and China along toward conflict.”. Dar, arata in continuare, mai potrivita pentru situatia de azi ar fi analogia cu al “ Doilea Razboi Punic” , care a opus Romei Cartagina ( 218-201 I. Chr. ). Acest razboi a fost utilizat de Machiavelli pentru a-si fundamenta teoria privind politica si strategia circa 1700 de ani mai tarziu: “Machiavelli’s Discourses do rival Thucydides’ History. In effect Machiavelli uses Titus Livy’s writings about the Second Punic War as the fundamental research for a lengthy commentary on politics and strategy. It’s probably no accident that some, ahem, more ornery types lobby constantly to insert Niccolò’s works into the curriculum in Newport. If those nameless insurgents succeed, Roman analogies may pop up more often.”

Analogia istorica incercata de autor este discutata intens de cititori. Iata cateva dintre comentariile lor:

         “Rome had bigger population than Carthage, but Carthage had a better navy than Rome, and in the end Carthage was doomed; so China has bigger population than US, but US has a better navy than China; does it mean the US is doomed like the Carthage in the US-China contest?”

         “Actually, the Carthaginians did indeed possess the superior navy. It was larger, more experienced, and more established. The Romans were initially stymied by the Carthaginian navy until they did two things: expanded their own and adapted it to their own strengths. The corvus was used to allow legionnaires to assault Carthaginian ships, thereby allowing Rome to exploit her own strength in land combat on the Carthaginians’ main arena, which was the sea. One should also note that if Carthage fought for profit, let us take a look at how the US operates. Wars ostensibly fought for human rights and freedom were only waged in regions with oil. Iraq and Libya? Oil rich. North Korea and Syria? Not so much so. Even US military gear is acquired more upon how many jobs it supports rather than how effective the system is. The A-10, for example, is being phased out in favor of the F-35 even though the F-35 is nowhere near as durable as the A-10./…/Rome’s greatest strength was its adaptability. They used what worked until they encountered something better and then used that or figured out a way to negate it.They were not hidebound. That was their greatest strength. And when they ceased being innovative, they ceased being strong.”

“If there’s a lesson from Rome’s wars with Carthage, it is in the tyranny of distance. Rome, mind you, was able to adapt by changing the way it transported supplies, but the analogy still holds. With that out of the way, the lesson I take from the analogy of the Punic wars is this:If China wants to defeat the U.S in a conflict, it must
a) shape the battlefield to its strengths and
b) ensure that the U.S cannot resupply distant forces or make it too dangerous to do so

If the U.S wants to win, it must maintain a steady flow of supplies and soldiers at all costs, and–as with the PRC–force its opponent to fight disadvantageous battles.”

         Este de observat ca analogiile cu istoria razboaielor romane , mai degraba decat cu  a celor grecesti reflecta o incercare de apropiere mai detaliata de circumstantele de infruntare eventuala (terestra , navala , cu proiectie de forte la mari distante, cu strategii militare aplicate in consecinta de ambele tabere) dintre SUA si China. Razboiul peloponesiac, comparativ cu cel punic,  pare a nu fi avut dimensiunile pe care le va imbraca disputa militara eventuala a  celor doi giganti azi .

 

4.  CORIDOR RUS SPRE TRANSNISTRIA LA ORDINEA ZILEI? Intre tintele eventualei noi miscari de inaintare militara a Rusiei, dupa anexarea Crimeei, a fost des mentionata inca din a treia decada a lunii martie , Transnistria. Aceasta regiune separatista din Republica Moldova, un deja clasic “conflict inghetat” , este o replica in miniatura a vechiului regim sovietic. Sprijinita de Moscova, Transnistria este si gazda unor forte militare ruse de “mentinere a pacii”, instalate aici inca de la inceputul anilor ’90 ( sunt practic forte ale Armatei 14 sovietice, parte a dispozitivului militar a URSS in vremea Razboiului Rece ). Pentru Republica Moldova, existenta Transnistriei reprezinta un pericol existential, intrucat trupele ruse,fara a mai socoti   formatiile militare organizate eventual adhoc din  localnici, dislocate aici depasesc numeric propriile forte militare. In contextul actualei crize ucrainene si anexarii Ucrainei   “The speaker of Transdniestria's parliament has urged Russia to incorporate the region”. Iata de ce , inca de la 23 martie, comandantul-sef al fortelor NATO , generalul Breedlove , a avertizat asupra pericolului unei noi miscari  militare ruse in aceasta regiune: "We need to think about our allies, the positioning of our forces in the alliance and the readiness of those forces ... such that we can be there to defend against it if required, especially in the Baltics and other places," Breedlove said.

Breedlove stated that NATO was very concerned about the threat to Transdniestria, which declared independence from Moldova in 1990, but has not been recognised by any United Nations member state. About 30% of its half million population is ethnic Russian, and more than half speak Russian as their mother tongue.Russia has 440 peacekeepers in Transdniestria, plus other soldiers guarding Soviet-era arms stocks. It launched a new military exercise, involving 8,500 artillery men, near Ukraine's eastern border, 10 days ago.

"There is absolutely sufficient (Russian) force postured on the eastern border of Ukraine to run to Transdniestria if the decision was made to do that, and that is very worrisome," Breedlove said.

         De la acest prim avertisment ca o actiune rusa militara este posibila in Transnistria –desi negata constant de oficiali rusi- atentionarile de acest gen s-au repetat. Mai ales ca, daca initial Rusia anuntase ca va recurge la  retragerea fortelor militare proprii concentrate la granitele  de Est ale Ucrainei, ulterior s-a vadit ca acest proces nu are amploare si continuitate. Asadar, forte ruse concentrate la frontiera de Est a Ucrainei reprezinta o amenintare constanta nu numai asupra regiunilor de Est ale Ucrainei ( unde continua manifestatii violente pro-ruse ale populatiei , chiar la 5 aprilie desfasurandu-se una de amploare la Lugansk ), dar si   impotriva  Republicii Moldova. O astfel de actiune de inaintare rusa catre Transnistria ar putea avea ca tinta stabilirea unui coridor de legatura cu regiunea separatista moldoveneasca.  Mai ales in conditiile in care Uniunea Europeana a anuntat ca intentioneaza sa incheie cat mai curand acordul de asociere cu Republica Moldova. Criza este asadar departe de a se calmat in Estul Europei .

 
Vezi:
 
 
 
 

6 aprilie 2014