domingo, 16 de marzo de 2014


Como el 90% de la prensa occidental se dedica a exponer un solo punto de vista en relación con los sucesos de Ucrania, acá ofrecemos visiones alternativas. Reproducimos entonces un reciente artículo de Vladimir Nesterov para el sitio web Strategic Culture Foundation. En el mismo se enfatizan las contramarchas y estrategias cruzadas entre Europa y Estados Unidos; si bien la nota se refiere a Ucrania, el sentido de la misma podría hacerse extensivo a muchos otros casos. En síntesis, lo que se dice es que las agendas de Occidente no son coincidentes, ni mucho menos.

Título: Ukraine: Pawn in Game Played by Others

Texto: "In early February the world discussed the news coming from Germany. Berlin said it planned to adopt a more active role on the world stage. Partly the reason was the growing interest of Germany towards Ukraine. Pretty soon after US Assistant State Secretary Victoria Nuland talked on the phone with the US Ambassador to Ukraine letting the whole world know what Washington thought about the European Union. At the same time, she authorized the Ambassador to make head or tail of what was happening before they do so in Moscow, so that the US would have time to take measures.

The lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the US military might had its strict limitations, so Washington adopted other methods to guarantee the US global dominance, including simultaneous adoption of new policy towards two large states of Eurasia – Russia and Germany.

The adopted approaches boil down to taking advantage of existing interstate contradictions in order to hinder the emergence of new regional powers wherever it could take place. Syria is an example, Washington does its best to keep the fire burning, and it will have the final word to say when the belligerents get exhausted.

There is nothing new here. In the summer of 1941, when fascist Germany attacked the USSR, US Vice President Harry Truman said, «if we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible..»

Following the same course, the US decided to render financial and ideological aid to those in Ukraine who used the refusal of President Yanukovych to sign the neocolonial agreement with the European Union as a pretext for toppling legal authorities. Washington»s active diplomatic involvement prevented the President and the government of Ukraine from quelling the coup. The indecisiveness of President Yanukovych and political discords inside his team also played an important role leading to tragic outcome.

The United States had its own game to play in Ukraine; it opposed Germany’s new foreign policy approach. Commenting the vulgar words pronounced by Victoria Nuland, Angela Merkel tried to make Catherine Ashton tackle the situation, but everyone in Europe understood that the four-letter word was addressed to the German Chancellor.

A pro-US government coming to power in Ukraine is a serious challenge for Russia. The routes, including gas pipelines, to Europe, the naval base in Sebastopol, transit ports in the Black Sea – it all serves as reasons for Moscow» concern over the situation.

* * *

One way or another, the February 21 agreement was not taken seriously by Washington from the very start. Otherwise Geoffrey Pyatt would have honored the historic moment by his personal presence. Laurent Fabius, the old fox of diplomacy, understood well what was happening. He did not wait for the talks to finish and used the visit to China as a pretext to leave. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier fell into the trap and had to stay through, no matter he was hardly a greenhorn in such matters.

The very «settlement» was forgotten the next day. The President seemed to keep aloof, the Maidan «civil society», or a bunch of armed militants, refused to disarm and leave. When Alexander Turchinov tried to make Maidan comply with the agreement terms, he heard the very same words Nuland said about the European Union.

At the same time Kiev took in stride the «imperial» authority granted to Turchinov, who illegally concentrated the executive and legislative powers, as well as the appointment of Arseniy Yatsenyuk as new Prime Minister, the man who just a few days ago had been disrespectfully compared by the «society» members with a well-known breed of rodents while being in Zhulyany airport. The matter is Yatsenyuk was persistently told to become Prime Minister by those who led him along the career path providing funds for his activities having spent $5 billion through State Department channels.

* * *

For three months the United States did its best to make the situation shaky and it believes the outcome brings decisive advantages, the regime change in Kiev has drastically changed the situation. Chaos and anarchy have spread across the major part of Ukraine giving a rise to the movement of resistance in the south-eastern part of the country, especially in Crimea. Today the peninsula practically remains to be the only haven of law and order in the country.

Many Ukrainians believe that what has happened is the result of greed and mistakes committed by the country»s leadership. They have a reason. But there is a more fundamental cause triggering the tragedy suffered by the 45-million nation – Ukraine has become a pawn in the geopolitical game played by the United States on the Eurasian chessboard… On February 28 in Rostov-on-Don, President Yanukovych said at a conference, «This bloody scenario was not written in Ukraine». Now is the time for the scenario is to be reviewed…

No hay comentarios:

Publicar un comentario