Translate

Some opinions

What do they want the European Union and NATO in Ukraine?

Dennis J. Kucinich - Ukrainian citizens have rallied in the bitter cold in the Independence Square in Kiev to demand a better economic future and to protest the fact that President Viktor Yanukovych has signed an economic agreement with the EU.
But while the project " Partnership Agreement " of the EU is being sold as an economic bonanza for Ukrainian citizens , actually seems to be the Trojan Horse of NATO: a massive expansion of the NATO military position in region . What's more , the agreement occurs under the cover of nebulous economic promises for a hungry population of higher wages.
In a country where the minimum monthly average wage stands at around $ 150 , it is not difficult to understand why Ukrainians are in the streets. They do not want to be in the orbit of Russia , nor want to be pawns of NATO.
But the plight of the Ukrainians could be exploiting the beginning of a new military agreement with the pretext of economic reform ?
For NATO , the goal is expansion. The prize is access to a country that shares a border of 1,426 kilometers with Russia. The geopolitical map is drastically amended by the Agreement with Ukraine to serve as the new face of Western missile defense to Russia's doorstep . If the arrangement of U.S. nuclear Iran to crumble , Ukraine could be used in larger , regional conflicts also .
As an EU agreement appears imminent , few people are asking questions about the role of NATO in the operation, which was intended to facilitate the use and trade. The economic conditions in Ukraine are dire : 15 billion IMF loan suspension, the danger of default and a forecast of zero growth.
While NATO is not mentioned specifically in the project " Partnership Agreement " , the proposal, which was published online ( and translated into English here) by the Cabinet of Ukraine in August, is committed to the convergence of foreign policy and security .
For example, in the draft agreement , the terms of foreign policy and security said :
" The Parties shall consider the possibility of military and technological cooperation. Ukraine and the European Defence Agency ( EDA ) established nearby to discuss improving military capability contacts, including technological issues. "
The draft preamble to the Agreement binds Ukraine to " ever closer convergence of views on bilateral, regional and international issues of mutual interest ," including the Defense Policy ( CSDP ) Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP ) of the EU Community and the Common Security and - underscoring the military nature of the agreement .
Since 22 of 28 EU members are NATO membership , there is no doubt that Ukraine is developing in the broad military agreement with EU countries .
If the agreement between the EU and Ukraine ratified, inevitably , a higher percentage of GDP will be spent for military purposes , directing resources essential social programs and job opportunities . In 2012, the military budget and Ukraine increased by 30 % to reach 2 billion , representing a relatively low 1.1% of GDP . NATO members agree that you can not spend less than 2% of GDP on defense .
NATO members are also under pressure to contribute more and more of its GDP to military expenditures. " It is time to go beyond the 2% rule ," says the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Former U.S. ambassador to NATO , Ivo Daalder , in his farewell speech in June 2013 , described the feeling :
"The gap between U.S. and European contributions to the Alliance is expanding at an unsustainable level . We must do something . Trends must be reversed . "
When increasing military spending , domestic spending falls . Winners are unlikely to be the people of Ukraine, but instead the "people" of LocLockheed -Martin , Northrop Grumman, Boeing and other defense interests . Ukrainians were not the Independence Square to protest in favor of NATO. However, the benefit is clear NATO . Less clear is whether the Ukrainians will receive key economic benefits they seek .
Namely, in the preamble of the Agreement is confused about the application of the exemption of visa for citizens of Ukraine, a crucial struggle for workers seeking better jobs incentive. The draft agreement is vague, calling the issue of visas to be introduced " in due time. " Also states that EU countries could block the movement of Ukrainian self to other labor markets.
For Greece , Spain and others, the EU membership has not proved to be a bright economic savior. The return of the austerity policies reminiscent of Naomi Klein 's warning about the dangers of disaster capitalism , in which the instability the door to exploitation by external forces opened.

To the protesters in Kiev, standing for democracy and economic opportunity , there is suddenly a new concern : The disaster of militarism. Ukrainians can be pro - EU, but are the EU and NATO for Ukraine?


Vicky Peláez

Black Hand following demonstrations in Ukraine
Topic: Acts of protest in Kiev
14/12/2013 11:05
Weekly column by Vicky Peláez

Examine everything you see / then ask yourself :/ Who are we this time? ( Taras Shevchenko , " Epistle friendly " )

The eruption of violence in the capital of Ukraine , Kiev emerged since President Viktor Yanukovych and his government decided to postpone the signing of the Association Agreement and Free Trade Agreement with the European Union ( EU) has led the country into a political crisis and economical . Following this , from November 21 square Maidan ( Independence ) in the center of the capital has become a battleground between police and protesters unhappy with the government's decision .

As expected, the global media immediately began the media war against the Ukrainian government accusing him of violation of human rights and of course sympathized with the protesters demand change of government and continue the integration of Ukraine into the EU .
Following the famous saying : a turbulent river fishermen gain ¨ , European and U.S. politicians as unison followed the same trend and not only showed their solidarity with the Ukrainian unhappy , but openly participated in their protest marches . So did the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Germany, Guido Westerwelle , Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird and a number of politicians from Poland, Germany , Lithuania , Georgia , USA and many others. We could imagine what would happen with Russian politicians if they tried to participate in a demonstration of " indignados" in Spain or the United States and their speeches supporting or bring $ 15 million to the opposition parties as did the Secretary of State Victoria Nuland . Also the head of European diplomacy, Catherine Ashton passed Maidan Square to greet the demonstrators concentrated there and met with the opposition leaders .

Of course, long before the 21 November, the many "specialists" foreigners "revolutions color " and " planned chaos " of Serbia, Germany, Great Britain , United States , Georgia invaded Kiev , according to deputy the Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) , Oleg Zarev . Some, like the American Brian Fink advise violent opposition initiate actions such as making government buildings that produce victims to give a decisive impulse to overthrow the current government . Most experts are representatives of the Serbian organization " Otpor " that ended the government of Slobodan Milosevic in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and facilitated the disintegration of the country . According to American journalists Steve Horn and Carl Gibson of publication Counterpunch , the recently deceased leader of " Otpor " , Srdja Popovic , who actively participated in all the " color revolutions " since the collapse of the socialist countries , received money from the Department of State and worked for the Stratfor (Strategic Income forcasting ) , a private U.S. company specializing in intelligence and espionage. Often this "specialist" was invited to the meetings of the National Security Council (NSC ) of the U.S.

The interest of the United States and the European Union to Ukraine Geopolitics has long history which grew after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. Already in the 1980s , former advisor to the U.S. national security Zbigniew Brzezinski concluded that Russia without Ukraine is a normal nation state, but Russia with Ukraine is an empire . Then the principal duty of the West is doing everything possible to keep away from Russia and integrate Ukraine into NATO allowing corral Russia militarily. Since 1989 this policy was devoted to the preparation of the plan of Ukrainian independent status to prevent the resurgence of Russia as a superpower. The "orange revolution" that shook Ukraine in 2004 was part of this plan and that consisted in destabilizing the border regions of Russia.

The strange thing is that the Russian government has never reacted to Brzezinski projects for the future of Russia and has never questioned his attitude towards the country. During his visit to Siberia he launched the idea of ​​separation of this region of Russia and its integration with the United States which supposedly lead to the region 's prosperity and welfare.
The other globalization guru, Henry Kissinger recently spoke in New York at the Forum "The World in 2014 " where he said that American and European politicians are making a strategic mistake jeopardizing Ukraine's integration with the European Union to make a focus on situation of human rights in the country . According to Kissinger , Ukraine is very important for Europe to achieve its attachment to the West would have to unlink the European and American policy towards Ukraine human rights .

All this explains why both the U.S. and the EU does not question the participation of parties with neo -Nazi ideology in Maidan Square demonstrations . One of the most seasoned and vociferous protests in organizations is the " Svoboda " ( Freedom ) party linked closely with the French National Front . The Ukrainian party recently replaced its old emblem - a Germanic rune for a hand with three fingers extended . Its members were the ones who destroyed the statue of Lenin acting style of the Taliban in Afghanistan or members of al - Qaeda in Iraq , Libya and Syria. Their leader Oleg Tyagnibog called on his countrymen to " fight the Moscow Jewish mafia ."
The other party , the Democratic Alliance for Reform ( UDAR - Strike ) calls for the dismissal of the Yanukovich government legitimately elected by its people . Their leader , the professional heavyweight boxer Vitaly Klitchko promises that if Ukraine enters the EU in 15 years will be one of the strongest countries in Europe and the president of the European Commission would be a Ukrainian " . Klitchko is the preferred candidate of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel to replace Yanukovich who is financially pampered by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation. Of course their promises are pure illusions. Were the leaders of the opposition as Klitchko , Tyagnibok , Yazeniuk and some others who sent a letter to Barack Obama for help and economic and political sanctions against the government .

What actually will require the International Monetary Fund (IMF ) and the European Union to the current government of Ukraine to sign the Association Agreement and Free Trade Agreement with the EU , it is immediately adopt neoliberal austerity measures and reforms in the style of sadly known "Washington Consensus " , the same that destroyed entire production infrastructure in Latin America in the 1980s. According to Jozsef Böröcz scholar , the EU also requires Ukraine get rid of all the institutional mechanisms that the country managed to develop for centuries to protect their economies from unfair competition and a possible crisis.
Now the IMF and the European Commission put several conditions for association prominent among them the need to completely restructure its entire production system to adopt European standards. This means the closure of most of its production complexes , supplanting domestic producers in Europe and an increase in unemployment and impoverishment . IMF also demanded an increase of 40 percent in rates of gas and heat , simultaneously with the wage freeze and the elimination of all subsidies .

It is estimated that this restructuring process and standardization require a huge expense that Ukraine can not afford without help from the EU. Initially Prime Minister of Ukraine Azarov said that Ukraine Micola was to receive for his decision to join Europe from 150 to 180 billion euros. Of course it is an unacceptable price for Europe whose economy misses out of the crisis . According to the conclusions of the Forum "The World in 2014 " , in the next year is not expected economic growth in Europe .

 So the only thing at the moment is a promised EU macro-financial assistance loan of 610 million euros and has conditioned the country close a reform program with the IMF in exchange for this loan. Currently Ukraine lowered its claimed 20 billion euros. In response, the European Commission provided an annual grant of 120 million euros and 50 million per year depending on progress in democratic reforms. In fact, from an economic point of view is not a good time for the European Union to take charge of a new country with its 46 million inhabitants. But politics and ideology have greater weight in today's globalized world economic calculations.

For Ukraine it is more profitable at this time to maintain their close business relationship with Russia to integrate with the EU. 60 percent of the Ukrainian export products end up in Russia. But the closer Ukraine to Russia is perceived by European and American globalists as the danger of the consolidation of Russian President Vladimir Putin to create a Eurasian Union with Belarus , Kazakhstan and Ukraine to form a pole of stability in this region project. To prevent this European politicians are trying to separate from Russia to Ukraine and integrate with Europe at a time to take advantage of this country , which is one of the largest grain producers in the world and highly skilled workforce and at the same cheap time.
Given these conditions, the Yanukovich government is oscillating between the signing of the Customs Treaty with Russia or his Association with Europe. Russia puts its conditions and the European Union and the United States pressed the opposite direction . While protesters in Maidan Square and vehement elated but driven by foreign interests , claim entry into the EU without analyzing cheerfully accepting the consequences , demands austerity and neoliberalism required by the IMF.

While all this is happening in Kiev , home to only 2.8 million inhabitants, more than 40 million people living in the rest of the country remain silent and the globalized media has forgotten. However, the will of the 40 million Ukrainians depend on the fate of their country. It's all about time.

http://sp.ria.ru/opinion_analysis/20131214/158782818.html

 Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.
With Poland something similar happened to me (although to a lesser extent) than with Germany. My opinion has gone from a great simpathy to doubt and then to a rather negative as I have more information about its history, facts and reality.

Pawel's article in Gazeta Wyborcza is Sbieboda it´s surprising, with your phrase "... Moscow now has little importance for Poland from a political point of view .." One person don´t  know what response to it, if It´s profound geopolitics ignorance combines with a desire to be nice as a  NATO's pet or a deep hatred for Russia, expressing a desire rather than a reality.
  That phrase is like if Mexico saying that the U.S. has little importance to Mexico from the political standpoint.
And this man is international commentator. Amazing.

Why does the WEST support Kosovo’s main industry- organ trade?



Welfare for Dictators.


Incredible but true


Japanese mayor's sex slaves comments condemned by US

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/17/japan-mayor-sex-slaves

A bad deal for Ukraine and Yanukovich

By Tomas Valasek
Published: April 27 2010 16:05 | Last updated: April 27 2010 16:05
The new Ukrainian president has got off to a bad start in foreign policy terms. Last week, Viktor Yanukovich signed a lease agreement with Moscow that will allow the Russian Black Sea Fleet to stay in Ukraine for at least another 32 years. In doing so, the new president gave up an important piece of Ukrainian sovereignty.
Mr Yanukovich probably thinks he got a good deal. In exchange for the lease extension, Russia promised to cut gas prices to Ukraine by 30 per cent. This is important: Ukraine’s economy is in deep trouble (it contracted by 12 per cent in 2009), and Kiev’s policy of subsidising domestic gas sales is breaking the treasury. It seems like a simple calculation: why not give Russia something it already has (the right to station forces in Ukraine) in return for something the country badly needs (cheaper gas)?
There are at least two good reasons. The presence of the fleet, with its many soldiers and intelligence operatives, allows Moscow to put pressure on Kiev. Whenever Ukraine crosses Russia – as the previous president Viktor Yushchenko did by applying for Nato membership – Moscow responds by hinting at Ukraine’s disintegration. Crimea, the home of the Black Sea Fleet and a largely Russian-populated area, is the most likely place to split off. The fleet’s staff – especially its intelligence operatives – are the catalyst that could stir up unrest on command (not unlike South Ossetian leaders did, leading to the Russo-Georgian war of 2008). Ukraine will not be truly independent until it is free to make its own foreign policy choices, and the presence of the fleet guarantees that it will not have that freedom for a few more decades. That is the true cost of the lease.
Mr Yanukovich is also wrong on the potential benefits of the deal. There was a better way to control the gas bill: he should have sought to reduce demand rather than decrease the cost of supply. Ukraine is one of the most gas-thirsty places on earth. It consumes about $900m worth of gas a month in winter, when demand is at its highest – three times as much as neighbouring Poland, another former communist country of comparable size. Ukraine’s recent governments have not done enough to replace old, energy-inefficient housing or to modernise gas-intensive steel mills and fertiliser plants. If they had, Ukraine could be close to self-sufficiency (it produces much gas domestically).
Last year, the European Union lined up key international finance institutions – the World Bank, the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the European Investment Bank – to help finance gas-sector reforms. The then-Ukrainian prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko, balked at the offer because she would have had to raise gas prices right before presidential elections, in which she herself was a candidate. But the offer has remained on the table and represents a much better way for Ukraine to control its runaway gas bill than the recent agreement with Russia.
So why did the president extend the lease? Some will argue that signing bad deals with Moscow is what pro-Russian leaders do. But contrary to the frequent descriptions of Mr Yanukovich in the media, he is not “pro-Russian”; his foreign policy can be best described as one of balancing between the west and Russia. Seasoned Ukraine watchers, including in the European institutions, did not expect Mr Yanukovich to give in so easily to Moscow’s demand.
It appears that the new president is simply not playing his balancing game very well. He could hardly have chosen a worse time to bargain. Ukraine is dealing from a position of unprecedented weakness: not only has its economy contracted dramatically but the country also needs to roll over some $30bn in debt this year; it badly needs foreign help.
Given the circumstances, the president should have started by shoring up Ukraine’s strengths: reducing its addiction to cheap gas, building a more effective government and undertaking economic reforms to secure help from the International Monetary Fund and the EU with Ukraine’s loan burden. Extending the lease does the opposite: it deepens Ukraine’s weaknesses and prolongs its dependency on discounted energy from Russia. It gives Mr Yanukovich fewer options in his future dealings with Moscow and the west. It is a bad deal for Ukraine, and a bad start for his presidency. But its impact can be mitigated if Ukraine starts to tackle its gas consumption. This is what Europe and the US must urge Ukraine to do and where they should focus their diplomacy.
The writer is director of foreign policy and defence at the Centre for European Reform



Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)