This text is replaced by the Flash movie.
ro en
 
 
 
 
Newsletter
 
 
 
 
Publicatii » Brief Analysis » Ucraina la inceput de martie 1914
 
 
UCRAINA LA INCEPUT DE MARTIE 1914
 
Dr. Mihail E. Ionescu

  

          Europa se afla in aceste zile in cea mai grava criza inregistrata de la sfarsitul Razboiului Rece.  Iar astfel de crize nu a lipsit. Trebuie sa ne amintim ca , practic, in sfertul de secol consumat de atunci, batranul continent a transferat istoriei tragedia razboaielor de secesiune din fosta Iugoslavie ( declansate in 1993 si sfarsite, partial,  prin acordul de la Dayton abia in 1995 ), precum si razboiul dintre Iugoslavia-Serbia si Muntenegru- si NATO din 1999, cand liderul de la Belgrad,  S. Milosevic , a preferat conflictul unei negocieri privind provincia Kosovo si revolta albanezilor kosovari.

          Dar actuala criza ucraineana, acutizata brusc printr-o baie de sange la Kiev la Euro-Maidan, soldata cu circa 100 de morti, se pare ca depaseste in amploare si consecinte posibile tot ce s-a intamplat pana acum. Pentru ca, intai de toate , este vorba de conflictul geopolitic intre Rusia si Occident , miza caruia este orientarea externa a Ucrainei. Euro- Maidanul a reprezentat -si este inca functional- revolta impotriva respingerii de catre guvernul presedintelui Yanukovic , la 21 noiembrie 2013, a incheierii acordului de asociere cu Uniunea Europeana sub presiunea puternica si diversificata a Moscovei. Imediat in Piata Independentei din Kiev s-au strans protestatarii , care la 30 noiembrie au fost brutalizati de politia si fortele speciale ale regimului. A fost doar inceputul crizei si confruntarilor . La 21 februarie 2014 s-au consemnat atat baia de sange amintita, dar si fuga presedintelui Ianukovich si instituirea unei noi conduceri politice a Ucrainei, acceptata de Euro-Maidan. Rusia nu a acceptat aceasta evolutie a evenimentelor , a procedat la actiuni sofisticate de natura militara , cu deosebire in Crimeea, pe care actuala conducere de la Kiev le- a asemuit unei declaratii de razboi. Criza a devenit una europeana si – se poate spune , globala, pentru ca un conflict ruso-ucrainean poate declansa ,prin efect de domino, unul mondial-, Occidentul respingand , la inceput sovaielnic si neincrezator intr-o reeditare in era actuala a comportamentelor de secol XIX din partea Moscovei, apoi condamnand tot  mai hotarat agresiunea rusa. Pe langa diplomatia la vedere sau confidentiala , intrata in plin in functiune imediat dupa 21 februarie, care a implicat actorii principali- Rusia , SUA, Uniunea Europeana , Franta, Germania, Anglia, Polonia si, bineinteles, Ucraina- , dar si organizatiile internationale –ONU, NATO, OSCE, Consiliul Europei-, presa internationala a acordat o atentie extraordinara- pe potriva gravitatii crizei- invaziei militare rusesti in Ucraina si, in fapt , intregului dosar ( cauze, desfasurare, evolutii, scenarii de desfasurare, etc. ). Iata cateva dintre cele mai recente luari de pozitii in domeniu:

 
 
 

1.      Pozitia lui Henri Kissinger

 

Cel caruia ii place sa fie asemuit cu vestitul cancelar austriac Metternich, arhitectul la Congresul de la Viena ( 1815 ) al ordinii europene pentru urmatoarea suta de ani, si-a expus pozitia fata de criza ucraineana intr-un articol publicat in cotidianul “The Washington Post” la 6 martie, intitulat “How the Ukraine Crisis End”. El , intemeiat pe experienta sa, propune ca solutie o ‘neofinlandizare’ a Ucrainei pentru a se disipa pericolul unui razboi”

“Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides:

1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe.

2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up.

3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia.

4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea’s relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine’s sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea’s autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol.

These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough.”.

Unul dintre primii comentari dintre cititorii acestui articol a replicat imediat, fiind impotriva “cancelarului Mettternich” al zilelor noastre:

         

“I really admire Henry Kissinger, who is a great Idol of mine since I was a little child and the Helsinki Conference went on in 1975. But as a Finn/German I have to fundamentally disagree. The policy stated here is cold war thinking. The world has changed though. I believe the Ukraine, Finland, Georgia and Sweden should join NATO as soon as possible. We are not dealing with a communist Russia now, there is no dualism of systems this time around. We are dealing with an upcoming dictatorship in Russia - where the leadership of an autocrat has left the realm of rationality. The Soviets were cruel, but they had several correction loops in their system; the KGB, the politbureau, and last but not least the communist party. Putin has no correction loop left what so ever. The party is completely submissive to him. So is the Russian "parliament". Nobody dares to challenge the great leader - and if you follow closely Russian state media these days it sounds and looks like straight out of North Korea. Therefore rationality is no longer the basis of Russian decision making, but dictatorship and submission are. I think, we cannot sacrifice the people of neighboring countries to Russia as a "buffer zone". These people want and deserve freedom, human rights and the wealth of capitalism just as all the other eastern European countries which joined the EU and NATO in the 1990s. The West must keep up the pressure and help the Ukrainian people to free itself from the hollow grip from Moscow. Putin won't listen to anything but power. Mrs. Clinton is right.”/ Doamna Clinton a asemuit intr-un articol in acelasi ziar actiunea rusa in Ucraina cu actiunile lui Hitler in anii ’30 ai secolului trecut-n.n/

 
 
 
 

2.      Blogurile au luat foc in contextual crizei ucrainene. Atat cele rusesti si ucrainene, cat si cele occidentale. Una dintre chestiunile preocupante in actualul context este aceea privind soarta Crimeei , unde se concentreaza efortul invadatorilor. Peninusla este importanta strategic pentru ca este baza Flotei ruse la Marea Neagra, inchiriata de Ucraina pana in 2042 Rusiei. Asadar , Rusia are forte militare dislocate legal pe terioriul Ucrainei, iar peninsula se bucura de autonomie in cadul statului. In blogul sau consacrat relatiilor internationale, adapostit pe situl ‘Financial Times’  , editorialistul acestui influent ziar publica o consemnare intitulata “Should We Leave Crimea to the Russians ?” ( 5 martie ). Bine informat si deopotriva cu opinii impartasite larg acesta scrie:

 

“A referendum on sovereignty would also have to decide on the options on the ballot. Would Crimean citizens be faced with a simple choice between Russia and Ukraine- or would they be asked to vote on independence? And, if there were three choices, what happens if none of them command 50%? Finally, what would be the position of the Crimean Tatars – a substantial Muslim minority that has been brutalised by Russia in the past. What if they suddenly found themselves transferred into a new state that they did not accept? That would be a dangerous outcome, even from Moscow’s point of view.

For all those reasons, while a referendum sounds like a superficially good option, it would probably open a dangerous Pandora’s box, under current circumstances. It would be far more workable to continue with a version of the current situation in which Crimea is part of Ukraine- but with Russia allowed to retain its naval base, by agreement, and with special protections for Russian-speakers. If Russia presses ahead with a plan to hold an independence referendum in Crimea, it is very hard to see the outside world accepting the outcome.

 
 
 
 
 

3.Un alt blog apartinand unui influent analist military britanic, Lindley-Franch, infatiseaza propria opinie referitoare la declamnsarea acestei crize. La 3 martie , Lindley –Franch , intr-o consemnare masiva , intitulata “Why Russia Is Invading Ukraine” ,  arata ca:

 The Russian invasion this past weekend is blatant flouting of international law. It is also a long-planned intervention that has been sitting in the files of the Russian Defence Ministry since at least 1991. The grand strategic reason for the intervention is the determination of Moscow to reassert control over what it sees as Russia’s ‘near abroad’ with Ukraine as its lynchpin.”

Pe langa acest motiv cardinal, el mai adauga alte cinci ratiuni pentru care Rusia a ales acest mod de actiune acum, anume: istoria;strategia militara, capabilitatile militare, politica, oportunitatile. Iata , de pilda, ce scrie privind “oportunitatile”

 
 

“Opportunity: The Kremlin under Putin is first and foremost a strategic opportunist. The withdrawal of two US Brigade Combat Teams from Europe may seem small in and of itself. However, taken together with the ‘pivot’ to Asia and President Obama’s uncertain grip of grand strategy the US is no longer the stabilising force in Europe it once was. The Kremlin also has contempt for ideas of ‘civil power’ built around Germany and the EU.  Moreover, Russia’s military renaissance has taken place in parallel with the West’s failures in both Afghanistan and Iraq. The Kremlin is also acutely conscious of Europe’s economic travails and de facto disarmament with total defence spending in Europe down by minus 1.8% per annum since 2001. Moreover, the refusal of all but two NATO European states to meet their obligation to spend 2% of GDP on defence has also led Moscow to conclude that Europeans lack the will and capability to block Moscow’s regional-strategic ambitions.”

 

Lindley –French isi incheie consemnarea cu ‘implicatii pentru Rusia si Ucraina’ si ‘recomandari’. O lectura extrem de instructiva.

 
 
 
 

4. Dosarul crizei ucrainene – ca orice eveniment istoric de mari dimensiuni- are numeroase pete albe ( istoricii viitorului vor avea mult de cotrobait prin ungherele intunecate ale acestui lant de evenimente care a pus acum Europa si lumea pe jar). Una dintre aceste pete este aceea a adevarului privind masacrul de pe Euro-Maidan din 21 februarie. Pana acum se stia ca klunetistii presedintelui Yanukovici au fost cei care au impusca manifestantii , inregistrandu-se insa si morti prin impuscare din randurile polititi si trupelor Berkut. La 5 martie a aparut insa pe “ Russia Today” o inregistrare a unei conversatii telefonice intre ministrul de Externe al Estoniei, Urams Paet,  si Cathrine Ashton, inalt reprezentant al UE pentru politica externa din 26 februarie. In acea zi , oficialul estonian se afla la Kiev si , cum se observa din relatarea sa, a mers pe Euro- Maidan, unde a cules uluitoarea informatie ca lunetistii care au tras asupra manifestantilor , dar si politistilor ar fi apartinut opozitiei radicale a Euro-Maidan-ului, acum reprezentata si in guvernul legitim al tarii. Paet o informeaza pe Ashton ca

“there is now stronger and stronger understanding that behind the snipers, it was not Yanukovich, but it was somebody from the new coalition.”;  
“all the evidence shows”  ca “same snipers au tras in ambele tabere, politie si protestatari.

 
Ministrul de Externe estonian a recunoscut autenticitatea  inregistrarii convorbirii (
http://rt.com/news/estonia-confirm-leaked-tape-970/) ; lady ashton a reactionat spunand ca   aceasta ipoteza teribila trebuie investigata.

 
 
 

5. Unul dintre argumentele ministrului estonian referitoare la aceasta extraordinara ipoteza ( trebuie sa tinem insa cont ca circula diferite manipulari ai intoxicari in presa internationala, fiecare tabara incercand sa puncteze in veritabilul razboi mediatic in desfasurare) era marturia unui medic la postul de prim ajutor   improvizat pe Euro-maidan la 21 februarie. Olga Bogomolova - acesta este numele medicului- a facut urmatoarea declaratie, consemnata in presa britanica:

"Myself I saw only protesters. I do not know the type of wounds suffered by military people," she told The Telegraph. "I have no access to those people."

But she said she had asked for a full forensic criminal investigation into the deaths that occurred in the Maidan. "No one who just sees the wounds when treating the victims can make a determination about the type of weapons. I hope international experts and Ukrainian investigators will make a determination of what type of weapons, who was involved in the killings and how it was done. I have no data to prove anything.

"I was a doctor helping to save people on the square. There were 15 people killed on the first day by snipers. They were shot directly to the heart, brain and arteries. There were more than 40 the next day, 12 of them died in my arms.

"Our nation has to ask the question who were the killers, who asked them to come to Ukraine. We need good answers on the basis of expertise."

Este cu adevarat stupefiant. Asadar, doctorita neaga a fi spus cele afirmate de ministrul de Externe estonian, iar marturia ei are credibilitatea logicii . Unde se afla adevarul ? Vom mai afla cu siguranta amanunte ale acestei bizare ipoteze.