Fórum Defesa Brasil

Bourne escreveu:

Mazocam escreveu:Se a notícia for verdadeira, Xeque-Mate não?

"epartamento de Estado norteamericano, ante la postura rusa con respecto a Ucrania, dio a entender sanciones económicas para aislar a Rusia con la congelación de activos y el bloqueo de la venta de armamento, sin embargo, el ardor estadounidenses se ha extinguido en China. El país asiático ha afirmado que si EEUU no cambia su postura con respecto a Ucrania, puede requerir el pago de las deudas en oro a los Estados Unidos, lo que pondría en jaque a la economía estadounidense."

Isso tem o mesmo nível da visão conspiratória dos "russos malucos" e "vai começar a terceira guerra mundial pela ucrânia"

O sistema financeiro internal foi construída em cima do EUA devido a situação pós guerra. Depois do acordo formas de Bretton Woods ter entrado em colapso, a se aprofundou com endividamento americano interno e externos para sustentar as importações. Beneficio para todos os países emergentes, especialmente os que adotaram a estratégia de crescimento baseada em exportação.

A estrutura financeira é parte de uma sistema de cooperação com financiamento do endividamento e incetivo ao consumo americano, financiamento externo e recursos provenientes do fluxo de comércio dos emergentes e outros que tem reservas em dólar. Como é um sistema sem regras, flutuação tem problemas de especulação, instabilidade, mas é o possível. Haja vista que os americanos não tem condições de impor nada melhor e, os demais, não entram em acordo para construir algo novo devido aos interesses internos conflitantes.

A China é o grande sócio americano no sistema que se formou. Ele tem reservas em dólares enormes e é o principal financiador americano. Porém, o mais importante, é um subproduto da estratégia de enfase nas exportações e programa de transformação estrutural interna. Caso exija pagamento em ouro, a resposta americana é não pagar as importações e rompe o sistema. Essa é a lógica simples. No mundo complexo e real, os títulos são ficções jurídicas com vencimentos para 20-30 anos, estabelecidas com pagamento em dólar.

Se fosse fácil ou vantajoso implodir o sistema. Teria sido feito nos anos 1970 e 1980s quando era possível. No momento ninguém está disposto a pagar o preço. O mais importante é que China se tornou a sócia do sistema. A desgraçada o protege e não permite que reformas avancem.

A Rússia é isolada do mundo. A única ligação econômica real é com as ex-republicas soviéticas, especialmente Ucrânia. No mais, sendo extremamente fechada, tanto que demorou 18 anos para entrar na OMC e está longe de seguir as regras básicas, pois não é relevante para exporta commodities e armas. Enquanto a China, comprou o apoio dos países para entrar na OMC ocorrido em 2002, sem problemas em romper as regras e se autodenominar inocente. É uma visão muito diferente de como se integrar a economia mundial.

Sim. A China entendo. Ainda não passei das reformas pós-mao, mas prometo que até 2020 leio a respeito.

hades767676 escreveu:

EDSON escreveu:Se não pelas armas pode dobrar a Rússia então pela econômica. Agora os movimentos acabaram e os movimentos políticos começam. Quero ver quem tem masi sutileza no jogo de mentes e corações.

Veremos se a UE e EUA terão estômago para sancionar a Rússia. Putin já avisou que pagará na mesma moeda. Petróleo subiu (o que é ótimo pra Rússia) a bolsa de Moscou caiu 10% ontem e hoje já subiu 5%. Até o final da semana irá se recuperar, investimento estrangeiro na Rússia ano passado bateu recorde e a balança comercial de janeiro já teve um superavit de 17 bilhões de dólares. Comércio é a força e a fraqueza do ocidente.

hades767676 escreveu:Presidente chinês disse que as ações da Rússia ajudam a estabilizar a crise na Crimeia, pra quem dizia que Moscou estaria isolado. Agora os russos contam com apoio do motor econômico do mundo.

Rodrigoiano escreveu: Inclusive, quem diria, apareceu um documento supostamente secreto da Inglaterra vetando sanções econômicas aos russos, pois estes tem investimentos bilionários no mercado financeiro inglês!!

Bourne escreveu:A Inglaterra é uma lavanderia. O centro da especulação financeira mundial. Hoje em dia, mais do que Wall Street. E centraliza as operações financeiras, legais e ilegais, russas, oriente médio e outros países ignorados

Bourne escreveu:A Voz da Rússia é a Fox News ou Veja dos russos. Mentem, distorcem e enviesam fatos para seu prazer. Se desmascarados, simplesmente esquecem e acham outro alvo.

Chess in a Minefield

The Global Implications of the Ukraine Conflict
By Uwe Klussmann

The bloody conflict in Ukraine could trigger yet another confrontation between the West and Russia. Dominance in Europe is at stake on the geopolitical chess board. While Ukraine itself could descend into civil war.

The quote printed in SPIEGEL 33 years ago was a noteworthy one, and still sounds remarkably topical: "We have to ensure that this Soviet empire, when it breaks apart due to its internal contradictions, does so with a whimper rather than a bang." The sentence was spoken by US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger during an interview conducted in September of 1981.

This week in Ukraine, one of the core regions of that former empire, it is looking very much like a "bang." Thursday in Kiev has seen bloody violence that has cost the lives of dozens amid gunfire and brutal clashes on Independence Square. Hundreds have been wounded, many seriously. The violence comes on the heels of similar battles on Tuesday -- and mark the beginning of what could become an extended and dramatic conflict over the country's future.

Some of those who have traveled to Kiev to view the situation first hand in recent weeks are fully aware of what a "bang" looks like -- US Senator John McCain, 77, for example, a veteran of Vietnam who was shot down in 1967 and spent over two years as a prisoner of war. In December, he stood on the Independence Square stage in Kiev and called out: "People of Ukraine, this is your moment! The free world is with you! America is with you!"

In other words, the Cold War has returned and Moscow is once again the adversary. The only difference is that the weapons have changed.

It is no longer just the association agreement with the European Union that is at stake. Nor is the future of President Viktor Yanukovych, a man surrounded by rumors of corruption, the focus anymore. Rather, geopolitics has taken center stage and the question as to which power centers in Europe and the Eurasia region will be dominant in the future has become paramount. Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski once compared the region to a chess board. The players, as always, include the US, Russia, the EU and NATO.

Moscow in Checkmate

It's a chess game in a minefield. Just how explosive the country called Ukraine really is became clear from a background interview given by former Russian Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar -- a liberal reformer and friendly to the West -- in 2008, one year before his death. Those wishing to make Ukraine a member of NATO, as was the intention of then-Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, overlook the fact that it would put Russia in an untenable defensive position, he said. The effort, he added, should be abandoned.

Brzezinski would love to have put Moscow in checkmate. In his book "The Grand Chessboard," he writes that without Ukraine, Russia "would become predominantly an Asian imperial state" at risk of being drawn into conflicts in Central Asia. But if Moscow were able to gain control of Ukraine and its resources, Brzezinski wrote, the Russian Federation would be a "powerful imperial state." He saw danger in a potential "German-Russian collusion" and in the possibility of an agreement between Europe and Russia with the goal of pushing America out of the region.

Essentially, Brzezinski's point of view is one that guides American strategy to this day: The US wants to keep Russia as far away as possible. If the Europeans get involved in Ukraine and harm their relations with Moscow, that is fine with Washington.

Indeed, US Deputy Foreign Minister Victoria Nuland's infamous "Fuck the EU" gaffe, can hardly be seen as a mistake. Rather it is a logical, if somewhat vulgar, expression of America's geopolitical stance.

Weakness in the US Strategy

There's a weakness to this strategy though: In contrast to the former Baltic Soviet republics with their small populations, it would be difficult to integrate Ukraine with its 45 million residents in the same way.

The country is also deeply divided. The economically weak regions in the west are bastions of nationalists. And Ukraine's major companies, like its steel mills, ship and turbine building operations are located in the east and are focused on the Russian market.

Russian is the predominant language in daily use in the capital city of Kiev, millions of Russians live in the eastern part of the country and on the Crimea as well. The Black Sea peninsula was first transferred to Ukraine in 1954, and against the will of the people living there.

Indeed, Crimea could soon become the next hot spot in the conflict. Russia's Black Sea fleet is stationed in Sevastopol, a source of irritation for Ukrainian nationalists and friends of the United States.

At an event in Kiev in October, US Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt described a "myriad of opportunities" if Ukraine aligned itself with the United States and said "you have no better friend in this endeavor than the United States. … We stand ready to support you, the Ukrainian people, as you find your place in Europe."

Dangerously Sweet Promises

Sweet promises like that, which seem tantamount to blank checks, have the potential to drive one of Europe's poorest countries into civil war. It's not just a government apparatus suspected of corruption that is on the verge of faltering in Ukraine -- the foundations of a country whose current borders are hardly sustainable at this point are also being shaken. The tactics adopted so far by Yanukovych's regime of alternating between brutal strikes and the temporary retreat will only further radicalize the protest movement.

When field commanders capable of anything lay down the law, the dynamic of secession begins, as we previously saw in the Caucuses. The presidium of the Crimean Supreme Council has already threatened that it may urge residents to "defend civil peace" on the peninsula.

Thus far, the Kremlin hasn't sought to encourage separatist sentiment in eastern and southern Ukraine. And it doesn't appear that Vladimir Putin and his system of power is interested in the prospect of a civil war in his backyard.

But it still has the potential to break out even if Moscow doesn't want it. Those familiar with Ukraine's history know that the militant nationalists in the west of the country have gone time and time again into battles they can't win. After World War II, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army waged a senseless partisan war for five years against the Soviet state, leaving thousands dead on both sides.

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier has called Ukraine a "powder keg" that one cannot allow to be lit. Whatever the case, romanticizing revolution can only end in a "big bang" -- the fallout from which would extend far beyond Ukraine.

URL:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 54724.html

03/04/2014 12:56 PM

Crimean Crisis

All Eyes on Merkel
By Philipp Wittrock and Gregor Peter Schmitz

As the conflict with Russia over Crimea intensifies, Germany is playing a central role in communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin. But the international community has doubts that Chancellor Angela Merkel can pull it off.

Germany had only recently announced the end of its era of restraint. German President Joachim Gauck, Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen of the Christian Democrats and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier of the Social Democrats have all argued that it's time for Germany to play a greater role in the world.

Steinmeier couldn't have expected that he would need to follow-through on his push for an "aggressive foreign policy" so quickly. But the dramatic escalation in Crimea needs quick answers and it has become a focus of Chancellor Angela Merkel's government in Berlin.

"Europe is, without a doubt, in its most serious crisis since the fall of the Berlin Wall," Steinmeier said on Monday. "Twenty-five years after the end of the conflict between the blocs, there's a new, real danger that Europe will split once again."

Partly as a result of Steinmeier's key role in Kiev in February -- in which he, together with his French and Polish counterparts, helped forge a last-minute agreement to ward off a bloodbath in Kiev -- but also because of Germany's traditional role as a go-between with Russia, many are now looking to Merkel as a potentially vital intermediary with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

It is a tremendous challenge. And it isn't just the Europeans who will be watching Berlin closely. The US too is hoping Germany will live up to its new desire to wield influence. According to Fiona Hill of the Brookings Institution, Washington's currently troubled relationship with Russia means that it cannot do much -- and that Germany must therefore play a more important role.

Merkel Dives Into Diplomacy

Ties between Berlin and Moscow have traditionally been constructive. even if Putin and Merkel have a difficult personal relationship. Still, the two continue to talk, with the chancellor phoning Putin several times in recent days to express her view that the "unacceptable Russian intervention in Crimea" is a violation of international law. In parallel, she has also tried to open a channel of communication between Moscow and Kiev. Putin said he was willing to talk about the formation of a "contact group" and a fact-finding mission is supposed to determine the situation on the ground.

Like Merkel, her foreign minister has also spend almost all of his time engaged in crisis diplomacy, including a dinner meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Geneva on Monday night. Steinmeier has been widely praised for his work, particularly for his role in hammering out a peace plan in Kiev, while people were dying on Independence Square.

But therevolutionary dynamic flushed Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych away almost as soon as Steinmeier had boarded his plane for Berlin. The West was almost surely aware that such an eventuality might occur. But Moscow -- not entirely unjustly -- has accused Steinmeier et. al. of not pressuring the opposition in Kiev to stick to its side of the agreement. As a result, Steinmeier now has even more responsibility: If violence breaks out in Crimea, his efforts in Kiev will have been rendered worthless.

International Doubts

In the US, there are now doubts that Germany can fulfill its planned role. CNN's security expert tweeted on Sunday that the German silence about cancelling a preparatory meeting for the June G-8 summit in Sochi is "deafening." The US, Britain, France and Canada cancelled first. Germany only joined later to give the impression of unity. A former US top diplomat in Washington said on Sunday: "The EU is dysfunctional, but Berlin is the real problem." It doesn't help, she argued, that Merkel is a hesitant leader.

In Berlin, such accusations are largely considered to be hackneyed and tired. Of course European crisis diplomacy is difficult, they argue, when a giant country like Russia is creating facts on the ground in Crimea. But while Ukraine is located across the world from the United States, it only takes three hours to fly from Frankfurt to Simferopol.

And then there's Europe's dependency on Russian natural gas. Germany receives 35 percent of its natural gas imports from Russia, and a similar proportion of its oil. The Europeans would be well-advised, the Merkel camp argues, not to fan the flames with Cold War rhetoric.

The United States, of course, has moved forward, taking steps on Monday to impose sanctions on high-level Russian officials and suspending military ties to the country.

European Reluctance

European leaders have been more cautious: Dutch diplomats have stated that they will not impose sanctions, and British Prime Minister David Cameron has said he wouldn't lend his support to punitive trade measures or prevent the flow of Russian money into the UK. And the chancellor, first and foremost, is playing for time, hoping that emotions will cool. She believes that Putin will react heatedly to punitive measures, which is why she is opposed to sanctions or to excluding Russia from the G-8.

The New York Times reported on Monday what Merkel really thinks of the Russian president: The paper wrote that she told Barack Obama via telephone that she is not sure if Putin is "in touch with reality." Berlin did not officially confirm the quote, expressing it in more diplomatic terms -- that Putin and the West have a "very different perception" of the events in Crimea.

The Americans, of course, would rather she had expressed herself a bit more forcefully. And the world is watching to see if she ultimately will.

URL:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/wor ... 56834.html

http://portuguese.ruvr.ru/news/2014_03_ ... meia-1934/

FOXTROT escreveu:http://portuguese.ruvr.ru/news/2014_03_ ... eiro-1602/

Se for verdade, instalar equipamentos do sistema de defesa antimíssil norte americano é o pretexto que Putin precisar para tomar o que sobrou da Ucrânia.

Saudações