Atitudinea Germaniei…

Recomand sa cititi articolul lui George Friedman, de pe Stratfor, privind Germania:

„Germany Emerges is republished with permission of Stratfor.”

Se arata ca:

„By George Friedman

German Chancellor Angela Merkel, accompanied by French President Francois Hollande, met with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Feb. 6. Then she met with U.S. President Barack Obama on Feb. 9. The primary subject was Ukraine, but the first issue discussed at the news conference following the meeting with Obama was Greece. Greece and Ukraine are not linked in the American mind. They are linked in the German mind, because both are indicators of Germany’s new role in the world and of Germany’s discomfort with it.

It is interesting to consider how far Germany has come in a rather short time. When Merkel took office in 2005, she became chancellor of a Germany that was at peace, in a European Union that was united. Germany had put its demands behind it, embedding itself in a Europe where it could be both prosperous and free of the geopolitical burdens that had led it into such dark places. If not the memory, then the fear of Germany had subsided in Europe. The Soviet Union was gone, and Russia was in the process of trying to recover from the worst consequences of that collapse. The primary issue in the European Union was what hurdles nations, clamoring to enter the union, would have to overcome in order to become members. Germany was in a rare position, given its history. It was in a place of comfort, safety and international collegiality.

The world that Merkel faces today is startlingly different. The European Union is in a deep crisis. Many blame Germany for that crisis, arguing that its aggressive export policies and demands for austerity were self-serving and planted the seeds of the crisis. It is charged with having used the euro to serve its interests and with shaping EU policy to protect its own corporations. The vision of a benign Germany has evaporated in much of Europe, fairly or unfairly. In many places, old images of Germany have re-emerged, if not in the center of many countries then certainly on the growing margins. In a real if limited way, Germany has become the country that other Europeans fear. Few countries are clamoring for membership in the European Union, and current members have little appetite for expanding the bloc’s boundaries.

At the same time, the peace that Germany had craved is in jeopardy. Events in Ukraine have aroused Russian fears of the West, and Russia has annexed Crimea and supported an insurgency in eastern Ukraine. Russia’s actions have sparked the United States’ fears of the re-emergence of a Russian hegemon, and the United States is discussing arming the Ukrainians and pre-positioning weapons for American troops in the Baltics, Poland, Romania and Bulgaria. The Russians are predicting dire consequences, and some U.S. senators are wanting to arm the Ukrainians.

If it is too much to say that Merkel’s world is collapsing, it is not too much to say that her world and Germany’s have been reshaped in ways that would have been inconceivable in 2005. The confluence of a financial crisis in Europe that has led to dramatic increases in nationalism — both in the way nations act and in the way citizens think — with the threat of war in Ukraine has transformed Germany’s world. Germany’s goal has been to avoid taking a leading political or military role in Europe. The current situation has made this impossible. The European financial crisis, now seven years old, has long ceased being primarily an economic problem and is now a political one. The Ukrainian crisis places Germany in the extraordinarily uncomfortable position of playing a leading role in keeping a political problem from turning into a military one.

The German Conundrum

It is important to understand the twin problems confronting Germany. On the one hand, Germany is trying to hold the European Union together. On the other, it wants to make certain that Germany will not bear the burden of maintaining that unity. In Ukraine, Germany was an early supporter of the demonstrations that gave rise to the current government. I don’t think the Germans expected the Russian or U.S. responses, and they do not want to partake in any military reaction to Russia. At the same time, Germany does not want to back away from support for the government in Ukraine.

There is a common contradiction inherent in German strategy. The Germans do not want to come across as assertive or threatening, yet they are taking positions that are both. In the European crisis, it is Germany that is most rigid not only on the Greek question but also on the general question of Southern Europe and its catastrophic unemployment situation. In Ukraine, Berlin supports Kiev and thus opposes the Russians but does not want to draw any obvious conclusions. The European crisis and the Ukrainian crisis are mirror images. In Europe, Germany is playing a leading but aggressive role. In Ukraine, it is playing a leading but conciliatory role. What is most important is that in both cases, Germany has been forced — more by circumstance than by policy — to play leading roles. This is not comfortable for Germany and certainly not for the rest of Europe.

Germany’s Role in Ukraine

The Germans did play a significant part in the fall of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich’s government. Germany had been instrumental in trying to negotiate an agreement between Ukraine and the European Union, but Yanukovich rejected it. The Germans supported anti-Yanukovich demonstrators and had very close ties to one of the demonstration leaders, current Kiev Mayor Vitali Klitschko, who received training in a program for rising leaders sponsored by the Christian Democratic Union — Merkel’s party. The Germans condemned the Russian annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s support for the Ukrainian secessionists in the east. Germany was not, perhaps, instrumental in these events, but it was a significant player.

As the Germans came to realize that this affair would not simply be political but would take on a military flavor, they began to back away from a major role. But disengagement was difficult. The Germans adopted a complex stance. They opposed the Russians but also did not want to provide direct military support to the Ukrainians. Instead, they participated in the sanctions against Russia while trying to play a conciliatory role. It was difficult for Merkel to play this deeply contradictory role, but given Germany’s history the role was not unreasonable. Germany’s status as a liberal democracy is central to its post-war self-conception. That is what it must be. Therefore, supporting the demonstrators in Kiev was an obligation. At the same time, Germany — particularly since the end of the Cold War — has been uneasy about playing a direct military role. It did that in Afghanistan but not Iraq. And participating in or supporting a military engagement in Ukraine resurrects memories of events involving Russia that Berlin does not want to confront.

Therefore, Germany adopted a contradictory policy. Although it supported a movement that was ultimately anti-Russian and supported sanctions against the Russians, more than any other power involved it does not want the political situation to evolve into a military one. It will not get involved in any military action in Ukraine, and the last thing Germany needs now is a war to its east. Having been involved in the beginnings of the crisis, and being unable to step away from it, Germany also wants to defuse it.

The Greek Issue

Germany repeated this complex approach with Greece for different reasons. The Germans are trying to find some sort of cover for the role they are playing with the Greeks. Germany exported more than 50 percent of its gross domestic product, and more than half of that went to the European free trade zone that was the heart of the EU project. Germany had developed production that far exceeded its domestic capacity for consumption. It had to have access to markets or face a severe economic crisis of its own.

But barriers are rising in Europe. The attacks in Paris raised demands for the resurrection of border guards and inspections. Alongside threats of militant Islamist attacks, the free flow of labor from country to country threatened to take jobs from natives and give them to outsiders. If borders became barriers to labor, and capital markets were already distorted by the ongoing crisis, then how long would it be before weaker economies used protectionist measures to keep out German goods?

The economic crisis had unleashed nationalism as each country tried to follow policies that would benefit it and in which many citizens — not in power, but powerful nonetheless — saw EU regulations as threats to their well-being. And behind these regulations and the pricing of the euro, they saw Germany’s hand.

This was dangerous for Germany in many ways. Germany had struggled to shed its image as an aggressor; here it was re-emerging. Nationalism not only threatened to draw Germany back to its despised past, but it also threatened the free trade essential to Germany’s well-being. Germany didn’t want anyone to leave the free trade zone. The eurozone was less important, but once they left the currency bloc, the path to protectionism was short. Greece was of little consequence itself, but if it demonstrated that it would be better off defaulting than paying its debt, other countries could follow. And if they demonstrated that leaving the free trade zone was beneficial, then the entire structure might unravel.

Germany needed to make an example of Greece, and it tried very hard last week to be unbending, appearing to be a bit like the old Germany. The problem Germany had was that if the new Greek government wanted to survive, it couldn’t capitulate. It had been elected to resist Germany. And whatever the unknowns, it was not clear that default, in whole or part, wasn’t beneficial. And in the end, Greece could set its own rules. If the Greeks offered a fraction of repayment, would anyone refuse when the alternative was nothing?

Therefore, Germany was facing one of the other realities of its position — one that goes back to its unification in 1871. Although economically powerful, Germany was also extremely insecure. Its power rested on the ability and willingness of other countries to give Germany access to their markets. Without that access, German power could fall apart. With Greece, the Germans wanted to show the rest of Europe the consequences of default, but if Greece defaulted anyway, the only lesson might be that default works. Just as it had been in the past, Germany was simultaneously overbearing and insecure. In dealing with Greece, the Germans could not risk bringing down the European Union and could not be sure which thread, if pulled on, would unravel it.

Merkel’s Case in Washington

It was with this on her mind that Merkel came to Washington. Facing an overwhelming crisis within the European Union, Germany could not afford a war in Ukraine. U.S. threats to arm the Ukrainians were exactly what she did not need. It wasn’t just that Germany had a minimal army and couldn’t participate or, in extremis, defend itself. It was also that in being tough with Greece, Germany could not go much further before being seen as the strongman of Europe, a role it could not bear.

Thus, she came to Washington looking to soften the American position. But the American position came from deep wells as well. Part of it had to do with human rights, which should not be dismissed as one source of decision-making in this and other administrations. But the deeper well was the fact that for a hundred years, since World War I, through World War II and the Cold War, the United States had a single rigid imperative: No European hegemon could be allowed to dominate the Continent, as a united Europe was the only thing that might threaten national security. Therefore, regardless of any debate on the issue, the U.S. concern about a Russian-dominated Ukraine triggered the primordial fear of a Russian try at hegemony.

It was ironic that Germany, which the United States blocked twice as a hegemon, tried to persuade the United States that increased military action in Ukraine would not solve the problem. The Americans knew that, but they also knew that if they backed off now, the Russians would read it as an opportunity to press forward. Germany, which had helped set in motion both this crisis and the European crisis, was now asking the United States to back off. The request was understandable, but simply backing off was not possible. She needed to deliver something from Putin, such as a pledge to withdraw support to Ukrainian secessionists. But Putin needed something, too: a promise for an autonomous province. By now Merkel could live with that, but the Americans would find it undesirable. An autonomous Ukrainian province would inevitably become a base for undermining the rest of the country.

This is the classic German problem told two ways. Both derive from disproportionate strength overlying genuine weakness. The Germans are trying to reshape Europe, but their threats are of decreasing value. The Germans tried to reshape Ukraine but got trapped in the Russian reaction. In both cases, the problem was that they did not have sufficient power, instead requiring the acquiescence of others. And that is difficult to get. This is the old German problem: The Germans are too strong to be ignored and too weak to impose their will. Historically, the Germans tried to increase their strength so they could impose their will. In this case, they have no intention of doing so. It will be interesting to see whether their will can hold when their strength is insufficient.”

Am pus tot articolul deoarece chiar vreau sa-l am pe blog, un articol foarte important, unul din cele mai bune scrise de Dl. Friedman, si care cauta sa explice atat atitudinea Germaniei cu privire la problemele Zonei Euro si ale Europei, dar si cu privire la Ucraina. Am stat si m-am tot gandit la ideile expuse in acest articol… Ar trebui sa expun concluziile la care am ajuns, numai ca nu e foarte usor de tras concluzii. Autorul subliniaza atitutidinea contradictorie a Germaniei atat in privinta chestiunilor legate de Zona Euro, cat si in privinta problematicii Ucrainei, aceste cuvinte fiind edificatoare:

„It is important to understand the twin problems confronting Germany. On the one hand, Germany is trying to hold the European Union together. On the other, it wants to make certain that Germany will not bear the burden of maintaining that unity. In Ukraine, Germany was an early supporter of the demonstrations that gave rise to the current government. I don’t think the Germans expected the Russian or U.S. responses, and they do not want to partake in any military reaction to Russia. At the same time, Germany does not want to back away from support for the government in Ukraine.

There is a common contradiction inherent in German strategy. The Germans do not want to come across as assertive or threatening, yet they are taking positions that are both. In the European crisis, it is Germany that is most rigid not only on the Greek question but also on the general question of Southern Europe and its catastrophic unemployment situation. In Ukraine, Berlin supports Kiev and thus opposes the Russians but does not want to draw any obvious conclusions. The European crisis and the Ukrainian crisis are mirror images. In Europe, Germany is playing a leading but aggressive role. In Ukraine, it is playing a leading but conciliatory role. What is most important is that in both cases, Germany has been forced — more by circumstance than by policy — to play leading roles. This is not comfortable for Germany and certainly not for the rest of Europe.”

Este adevarat ca Europa este inca in criza. Autorul evidentiaza somajul catastrofal al tarilor din Sudul Europei si faptul ca rolul Germaniei nu mai e vazut ca fiind unul benign. Dimpotriva. Si eu am o impresie similara cu a D-lui. Friedman, si anume ca Europa D-nei. Cancelar, sau, poate mai bine zis, „Lumea” D-nei. Merkel, e cu totul diferita de ceea ce a fost si parca nu mai daruieste nicio speranta de mai bine. Pentru ca e o lume in colaps. Iata un mic pasaj din ceea ce spune despre Grecia:

„This was dangerous for Germany in many ways. Germany had struggled to shed its image as an aggressor; here it was re-emerging. Nationalism not only threatened to draw Germany back to its despised past, but it also threatened the free trade essential to Germany’s well-being. Germany didn’t want anyone to leave the free trade zone. The eurozone was less important, but once they left the currency bloc, the path to protectionism was short. Greece was of little consequence itself, but if it demonstrated that it would be better off defaulting than paying its debt, other countries could follow. And if they demonstrated that leaving the free trade zone was beneficial, then the entire structure might unravel.”

El spune ca Germania s-a luptat sa scape de imaginea de „agresor”. Spune ca nationalismul ameninta Germania s-o duca in trecutul sau dispretuit, dar de asemenea ameninta ci comertul liber, esential pentru bunastarea Germaniei. Arata ca Eurozona a fost mai putin importanta, dar odata ce Grecia ar parasi Zona Euro, calea catre protectionism e scurta. El arata ca daca Grecia ar demonstra ca e mai bine daca da faliment decat sa-si plateasca datoriile, alte tari ar putea s-o urmeze. Iar daca demonstreaza ca e un lucru benefic daca parasesc zona de comert liber, atunci intreaga structura se poate desira, adica toata Zona Euro.

La noi multa lume intelege foarte superficial economia… Putini isi pun problema filozofiilor economice, ideologiilor etc. Austeritatea este o ideologie economica, promovata de Germania. Dar se vede ca aceasta nu e benefica Uniunii Europene, din aceasta cauza este si blamata. S-ar putea sa nu fie benefica nici Germaniei pana la urma… Si atunci de ce? De ce Cabinetul Merkel o sustine cu atata ardoare? Pentru ca nici nu-i aduce o glorie de bun augur…

E foarte greu de tras o concluzie, pana nu intelegi foarte exact politica aceasta contradictorie pe care o duce Germania. Repet, Germania… Dar voi face cateva comentarii…

Sa incepem mai intai cu Ucraina. Problema acestei tari foarte sarace trebuia, intr-un fel sau altul, transata… Dupa parerea mea, Ucraina nu mai renta pentru Rusia, cu atat mai mult cu cat ei nu puteau sa plateasca gazul livrat de rusi la preturi promotionale. Pe de alta parte, Rusia ar fi avut nevoie de Ucraina din considerente geopolitice. De dominatie si dictat. Dar, pe de alta parte, Ucraina e o tara mare, atat ca suprafata dar si ca populatie (aprox. 45 milioane de locuitori), ceea ce facea ca problema sa fie destul de dificila pentru Rusia. De aceea evenimentele (revolutie sau lovitura de stat) care l-au dat jos de la Putere pe fostul Presedinte al Ucrainei, Viktor Ianukovici, omul agreat de Kremlin n-au constitutit o surpriza pentru Rusia. S-ar putea ca ele sa fi fost tratate intr-o intelegere secreta intre Rusia si Germania.

Se vede foarte clar ca Rusia a iesit castigata prin Acordurile de la Minsk.

Mediafax

Ce prevede acordul de pace privind Ucraina. Cele 13 puncte ale acordului de la Minsk

Se arata ca:

„Negocierile de la Minsk s-au încheiat, joi, cu un acord de încetare a focului care urmează să intre în vigoare în noaptea de sâmbătă spre duminică, relatează Russia Today, prezentând cele 13 puncte ale acestui document.

1. Încetarea focului în estul Ucrainei va intra în vigoare duminică, 15 februarie, la ora 00.00 (ora Kievului).

2. Retragerea armamentului greu. Părţile au convenit asupra unei zone demilitarizate, de-a lungul liniei de front care era în vigoare în septembrie. OSCE va monitoriza această zonă care va avea o întindere cuprinsă între 50 şi 150 de kilometri, în funcţie de raza de acţiune a armelor. Retragerea se va încheia la 1 martie.

3. OSCE îşi va folosi dronele şi observatorii pe teren, precum şi imagini din satelit şi date radar pentru a se asigura că ambele părţi respectă acordul.

4. Kievul şi rebelii vor negocia termenii viitoarelor alegeri locale în zonele rebele, ceea ce îi va readuce în cadrul legal al Ucrainei. Kievul va adopta o legislaţie privind autoguvernarea care să fie acceptabilă pentru republicile autoproclamate.

5. Kievul va declara amnistie generală pentru rebeli.

6. Un schimb de prizonieri trebuie să aibă loc la cinci zile de la retragerea completă, respectiv în 19 zile dacă retragerea armamentului se va face în perioada maximă prevăzută de acord.

7. Convoaiele cu ajutor umanitar vor primi acces neîngrădit în zonele afectate de război. Va fi pus în funcţiune un mecanism internaţional de monitorizare.

8. Kievul va relua legăturile economice, plăţile sociale şi serviciile bancare în zonele separatiste, întrerupte anterior ca răspuns la alegerile organizate în republicile autoproclamate. Această prevedere este subiectul unor negocieri ulterioare.

9. După organizarea alegerilor locale în regiunile Doneţk şi Lugansk, Kievul va reinstaura controlul asupra graniţelor lor cu Rusia. Tranziţia ar putea dura, perioadă necesară unei reforme constituţionale cuprinzătoare în Ucraina.

10. Toate trupele străine, armamentul greu şi mercenarii vor fi retraşi din Ucraina. Grupările armate ilegale vor fi dezarmate, dar autorităţile locale din Doneţk şi Lugansk vor putea avea unităţi de miliţie legale.

11. Kievul va implementa o reformă constituţională cuprinzătoare până la sfârşitul anului, care va descentraliza sistemul politic ucrainean şi va oferi privilegii regiunilor Doneţk şi Lugansk. Privilegiile includ autodeterminare în privinţa limbii, libertatea de a numi procurori şi judecători şi stabilirea unor relaţii economice cu Rusia.

12. Observatorii OSCE la alegeri vor verifica dacă alegerile locale din republicile autoproclamate corespund standardelor internaţionale. Procedura exactă pentru alegeri este subiectul unor negocieri ulterioare.

13. Discuţiile în cadrul „grupului de contact” (format din liderii autoproclamatelor republici Doneţk şi Lugansk, un reprezentant al OSCE, fostul preşedinte ucrainean Leonid Kucima şi ambasadorul rus în Ucraina) se vor intensifica în diverse moduri.”

In primul rand Rusia a scapat de o povara: Ucraina. In al doilea rand, printr-un mic razboi, pozitia geopolitica a Rusiei a ramas nealterata. Rusia are Crimeea, a carei importanta strategica la Marea Neagra este evidenta si un control autoritar in Estul Ucrainei (Donetk-Lugansk) – uitati-va, va rog, la punctul 11. din Acord. Este limpede ca Estul Ucrainei va tine de Rusia iar importanta acestui lucru e foarte mare in raport cu o eventuala primire a Ucrainei in NATO, lucru de care Rusia se teme. Cu alte cuvinte, avand Estul Ucrainei sub control (pentru ca acolo sunt oameni care sunt gata sa raspunda oricand la comanda Kremlinului, nu a Kievului) si Crimeea, o eventuala integrare in NATO a Ucrainei este, desigur, dificil de realizat. In orice caz, Rusia poate reactiona repede, imediat. Ceea ce arata George Friedman o iau de buna:

„The Germans did play a significant part in the fall of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovich’s government. Germany had been instrumental in trying to negotiate an agreement between Ukraine and the European Union, but Yanukovich rejected it. The Germans supported anti-Yanukovich demonstrators and had very close ties to one of the demonstration leaders, current Kiev Mayor Vitali Klitschko, who received training in a program for rising leaders sponsored by the Christian Democratic Union — Merkel’s party. The Germans condemned the Russian annexation of Crimea and Moscow’s support for the Ukrainian secessionists in the east. Germany was not, perhaps, instrumental in these events, but it was a significant player.”

si anume ca Germania a furnizat suport si pregatire liderilor care l-au rasturnat pe Ianukovici, iar programul de ridicare de noi lideri a fost sponsorizat de partidul D-nei. Merkel, CDU… Insa D-na. Merkel nu a sustinut interventia militara la agresiunea Rusiei, care a urmat. De unde se vede foarte clar ca D-na. Merkel a actionat, de fapt, in favoarea Rusiei!! Trebuie sa remarcam acest lucru. Iar rezultatul Acordului de la Minsk, cum aratam mai sus, confirma acest lucru.

In privinta Uniunii Europene. Eu cred ca e mai mult decat evident ca pe D-na. Merkel nu o intereseaza de fapt flancul sudic al UE. Din partea dumneaei: duca-se! De unde rezulta ca pe D-na. Merkel nu o prea intereseaza Uniunea Europeana, nici Zona Euro. Ci mai mult o relatie buna cu Rusia, unde sa poata avea si o imensa piata de desfacere pentru produsele germane. Nici Ucraina n-o intereseaza! Si s-a vazut ca nu a dorit sa ajute financiar Ucraina, decat cu sume nesemnificative, daca asta inseamna ajutor. Si ajunsi aici ar trebui sa ne gandim la altceva. La o realitate a Germaniei, a acelei Germanii de dupa 1989…

Ce se intampla? Germania inainte de 1989 era impartita in doua: Germania Federala, capitalista, si RDG, tara comunista, facand parte din Tratatul de la Varsovia si gravitand in jurul Kremlinului. Pentru cei tineri astea sunt povesti dintr-o alta era. Stiu asta. Insa problema e alta. In RDG erau multi comunisti si au ramas si in zilele noastre. Mai mult, spionajul, inclusiv cel politic, al serviciilor rusesti era foarte activ in RDG. Eu cred ca intr-un mod aproape sigur aceste legaturi au ramas si pana in zilele noastre, cu atat mai mult cu cat liderii la varf mai pot fi si cumparati intr-un fel sau altul, fara sa se poata demonstra ca ar fi vorba de coruptie, pentru ca nu se doreste asta. Dupa parerea mea, poate nu D-na. Merkel, dar nu se stie niciodata, sunt oameni la varf, in Germania, vizibili sau care stau in umbra, cumparati prin serviciile de spionaj rusesti de catre Puterea de la Kremlin. Sa nu ne miram daca Germania, prin politica aceasta „contradictorie” pe care o promoveaza in Europa, ar dori sa-i faca Rusiei cadou tot Sudul neperformant economic al Europei, aratand cu degetul asupra coruptiei din tari ca Italia, Romania, Bulgaria, dar camufland perfect coruptia interna din Germania care se traduce prin cardasia mascata cu rusii. Evident, nu pot sa faca lucrul acesta dintr-o data, inteleg asta. Iata insa un articol aparut in The Washington Post si semnat de catre Anne Applebaum:

Forget left and right: Europe’s divisions lie elsewhere

Se arata ca:

„For those who want a happy ending or an easy moral to the story, the election of a new Greek government last month poses some interesting quandaries. Progressives of various kinds at first hailed what appeared to be a victory for the radical left-wing party Syriza, but they were caught off guard when Syriza instantly struck a coalition deal with the Independent Greeks, a radical right-wing party that Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a legendary European leftist, bluntly described as “ultranationalist” with a “homophobic, anti-Semitic, racist” leader.

Many of those who rooted for Syriza because of its campaign against the budget-cutting “austerity” program imposed on Greece by its creditors were also taken aback when other, more urgent priorities appeared on the new leaders’ agenda. Both parties turn out to have close connections to the authoritarian Russian government, and both have curious links to a notorious Russian fascist ideologue, Alexander Dugin, who among other things has called for a “genocide” of the “race of Ukrainian bastards.” Accordingly, the new Greek government’s first foreign policy act was not a protest against European economic policy but a protest against sanctions on Russia. Only then did it launch negotiations with its European creditors by announcing that it would refuse to negotiate with its European creditors.

In truth, Greece makes nonsense out of all of the political categories we normally use in Europe. Our notions of “left” and “right” are ancient, dating to the French revolution: In 1789, the nobility sat on the right side of the Assemblée Nationale, and the revolutionaries sat on the left. Since then, “people who want change” are supposedly leftist, and “conservatives” are rightist. This typology hasn’t really worked for a long time — there have been plenty of revolutionary right-wing movements, and an equal number of conservative leftists. But this language now obscures what is happening in Europe altogether.

The most important division in Europe is not right vs. left. Nor is the main issue even “austerity” vs. “anti-austerity.” Some of the countries hit hardest by the 2009 financial crisis have pursued “austerity” with great success. Ireland has restructured and is once again growing. Latvia found ways to cut government spending without cutting pensions and is growing at one of the fastest rates in Europe.

The real division in Europe is between what I would call established, integrationist politics and isolationist, nationalist politics. It was visible last year in Britain, during the Scottish independence referendum. The Scottish Nationalists were unlike Syriza in many, many ways, but they were using similar language of “national renewal,” and they were calling for a similar reassertion of national control: Control over the economy, over political decisions, over borders. Syriza gets along well with the Greek far right because, in essence, both want to reassert national control. Perhaps the right would prefer a higher emphasis on immigration, but it shares Syriza’s furious hatred of the “troika” that control the bailout fund which has been extended to Greece — the European Central Bank, the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund.

Both parties want decisions about Greece to be made inside Greece. Foreigners, especially bankers, should go away and keep their opinions to themselves. As it happens, Russia is now led by a man who voices exactly the same views: Vladimir Putin has also isolated his country, politically and economically, from the rest of Europe. Hence the warmth between him and the Greeks.”

Sa explicam pe intelesul tuturor. Se stie ca Germania doreste sa impuna Greciei o cura de dura austeritate. Ca noul guvern, cel al lui Alexis Tsipras – Syriza – nu e de acord, toata lumea stie… Numai ca D-na. Applebaum spune ca primul Act de politica externa pe care l-a emis acest nou guvern nu a fost acela de a protesta impotriva politicilor economice duse in Europa, ci acela de a protesta impotriva sanctiunilor impuse Rusiei! Cu alte cuvinte, D-na. Merkel prin politica inflexibila pe care o duce fata de Grecia, impunand o austeritate fata de care toata Grecia e impotriva, impinge aceasta tara in bratele Rusiei. Politica D-nei. Merkel este o politica pro Rusia si antieuropeana! Rusia, dupa sfarsitul Razboiului Rece, in 1989, a pierdut aliati – tarile din fostul Tratat de la Varsovia sunt acum in NATO – de aceea Rusia are nevoie de noi aliati, iar Germania Angelei Merkel cauta sa-i faca niste cadouri cat mai placute. Mai mult, D-na. Applebaum arata un lucru foarte interesant: Syriza este intr-o coalitie cu un partid de extrema dreapta, Grecii Independenti, carcaterizat de catre Daniel Cohn-Bendit, legendar om de stanga din Europa, drept „ultranationalist”, cu un lider „homofob, antisemit si rasist”. Interesant este ca ambele partide au legaturi cu notoriul lider fascist rus, omul de casa al Kremlinului, Alexandr Dughin, care, printre altele, indemna la „genocidul rasei ucrainene de bastarzi”. Iar austeritatea pe care Germania a impus-o Greciei a condus la o astfel de situatie care pune probleme si in interiorul NATO. Este corect sa sesizezi diviziunea Europei intre politicile integrationiste si cele izolationiste, nationaliste. Insa comunitarismele acestea nationaliste au aparut ca urmare a crizei din Zona Euro, care inca mai bantuie Europa, si sunt intretinute de politicile de austritate promovate de Germania, pentru ca inainte, dupa cum observa George Friedman, nu era asa. Este limpede ca daca Zona Euro, care se bazeaza pe o moneda unica, euro, expresie limpede a integrationismului, incepe sa functioneze foarte prost datorita in principal noii ideologii economice, austeritatea, incepe sa apara izolationismul sau nationalismul, pentru ca moneda proprie unei tari are un astfel de caracter, unul national. Integrationismul acesta, de care vorbeste D-na. Applebaum, nu trebuie confundat cu liberalismul. Euro, spre deosebire de US dollar, este o moneda unica pentru un grup de mai multe tari. In felul asta un grup de tari se integreaza monetar si economic. Insa asta nu inseamna ca intr-o tara ce are moneda sa proprie nu poti sa ai libertate economica. Una e libertatea economica si alta e integrationismul prin intermediul monedei unice, euro. Libertatea economica este atunci cand esti liber, cand nu te ingradeste cineva sau statul, cand statul nu-ti impune ceva, implicarea sa in economie fiind minimala. Integrationismul nu inseamna neaparat libertate economica, de vreme ce ti se impune de la centru o ideologie, prin Tratatul de Guvernanta Fiscala, pe care n-ai incotro si trebuie, fortat, s-o accepti. Pentru ca aici e vorba de integrarea ideologica, nu neaparat de libertate, iar George Friedman puncteaza excelent: Germania se comporta ca un stapan, celelalte tari incep sa le cam fie frica de Germania. Deci acest integrationism presupune un stapan de temut: Germania. Or, asta nu mai este libertate. Nationalismul, atunci, nu e decat o reactie de impotrivire la o astfel de politica promovata de Germania, ce tinde sa devina dictatoriala. O impartire a Europei intre Germania si Rusia? N-ar fi exclus sa se urmareasca un asemenea lucru. De aceea SUA trebuie sa supravegheze ce se intampla aici, iar Germania, oamenii de la varf din Germania, indiferent ca se afla la Putere sau in Opozitie, trebuie supravegheati informativ pentru ca pericolul de derapaj e mare, coruptia, mascata in diverse feluri, e de asemenea mare, iar Germania, prin politicile sale pe care le practica, poate pune in pericol NATO si securitatea SUA.

Recomand citirea integrala si in original a tuturor articolelor.