Más repercusiones

Siguen los análisis sobre el significado de la cancelación del proyecto gasífero “South Stream” de Rusia al sudeste europeo. Veamos primero esta nota de Alexander Mercouris, posteada hoy por el “Peregrino” en su sitio web The Vineyard of the Saker (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.ar/):

Título: The Importance Of The Cancellation Of South Stream

Texto: The reaction to the cancellation of the Sound Stream project has been a wonder to behold and needs to be explained very carefully. 

In order to understand what has happened it is first necessary to go back to the way Russian-European relations were developing in the 1990s. 

Briefly, at that period, the assumption was that Russia would become the great supplier of energy and raw materials to Europe. This was the period of Europe's great “rush for gas” as the Europeans looked forward to unlimited and unending Russian supplies. It was the increase in the role of Russian gas in the European energy mix which made it possible for Europe to run down its coal industry and cut its carbon emissions and bully and lecture everyone else to do the same. 

However the Europeans did not envisage that Russia would just supply them with energy. Rather they always supposed this energy would be extracted for them in Russia by Western energy companies. This after all is the pattern in most of the developing world. The EU calls this “energy security” - a euphemism for the extraction of energy in other countries by its own companies under its own control. 

It never happened that way. Though the Russian oil industry was privatised it mostly remained in Russian hands. After Putin came to power in 2000 the trend towards privatisation in the oil industry was reversed. One of the major reasons for western anger at the arrest of Khodorkovsky and the closure of Yukos and the transfer of its assets to the state oil company Rosneft was precisely because is reversed this trend of privatisation in the oil industry. 

In the gas industry the process of privatisation never really got started. Gas export continued to be controlled by Gazprom, maintaining its position as a state owned monopoly gas exporter. Since Putin came to power Gazprom’s position as a state owned Russian monopoly has been made fully secure. 

Much of the anger that exists in the west towards Putin can be explained by European and western resentment at his refusal and that of the Russian government to the break up of Russia's energy monopolies and to the “opening up” (as it is euphemistically called) of the Russian energy industry to the advantage of western companies. Many of the allegations of corruption that are routinely made against Putin personally are intended to insinuate that he opposes the “opening up” of the Russian energy industry and the break up and privatisation of Gazprom and Rosneft because he has a personal stake in them (in the case of Gazprom, that he is actually its owner). If one examines in detail the specific allegations of corruption made against Putin (as I have done) this quickly becomes obvious. 

His agenda of forcing Russia to privatise and break up its energy monopolies has never gone away. This is why Gazprom, despite the vital and reliable service it provides to its European customers, comes in for so much criticism. When Europeans complain about Europe's energy dependence upon Russia, they express their resentment at having to buy gas from a single Russian state owned company (Gazprom) as opposed to their own western companies operating in Russia. 

This resentment exists simultaneously with a belief, very entrenched in Europe, that Russia is somehow dependent upon Europe as a customer for its gas and as a supplier of finance and technology. 

This combination of resentment and overconfidence is what lies behind the repeated European attempts to legislate in Europe on energy questions in a way that is intended to force Russia to “open up” its the energy industry there. 

The first attempt was the so-called Energy Charter, which Russia signed but ultimately refused to ratify. The latest attempt is the EU's so-called Third Energy Package. 

This is presented as a development of EU anti-competition and anti-monopoly law. In reality, as everyone knows, it is targeted at Gazprom, which is a monopoly, though obviously not a European one. 

This is the background to the conflict over South Stream. The EU authorities have insisted that South Stream must comply with the Third Energy Package even though the Third Energy Package came into existence only after the outline agreements for South Stream had been already reached. 

Compliance with the Third Energy Package would have meant that though Gazprom supplied the gas it could not own or control the pipeline through which gas was supplied. 

Were Gazprom to agree to this, it would acknowledge the EU’s authority over its operations. It would in that case undoubtedly face down the line more demands for more changes to its operating methods. Ultimately this would lead to demands for changes in the structure of the energy industry in Russia itself. 

What has just happened is that the Russians have said no. Rather than proceed with the project by submitting to European demands, which is what the Europeans expected, the Russians have to everyone’s astonishment instead pulled out of the whole project. 

This decision was completely unexpected. As I write this, the air is of full of angry complaints from south-eastern Europe that they were not consulted or informed of this decision in advance. Several politicians in south-eastern Europe (Bulgaria especially) are desperately clinging to the idea that the Russian announcement is a bluff (it isn’t) and that the project can still be saved. Since the Europeans cling to the belief that the Russians have no alternative to them as a customer, they were unable to anticipate and cannot now explain this decision. 

Here it is important to explain why South Stream is important to the countries of south-eastern Europe and to the European economy as a whole. 

All the south eastern European economies are in bad shape. For these countries South Stream was a vital investment and infrastructure project, securing their energy future. Moreover the transit fees that it promised would have been a major foreign currency earner. 

For the EU, the essential point is that it depends on Russian gas. There has been a vast amount of talk in Europe about seeking alternative supplies. Progress in that direction had been to put it mildly small. Quite simply alternative supplies do not exist in anything like the quantity needed to replace the gas Europe gets from Russia. 

There has been some brave talk of supplies of US liquefied natural gas replacing gas supplied by pipeline from Russia. Not only is such US gas inherently more expensive than Russian pipeline gas, hitting European consumers hard and hurting European competitiveness. It is unlikely to be available in anything like the necessary quantity. Quite apart from the probable dampening effects of the recent oil price fall on the US shale industry, on past record the US as a voracious consumer of energy will consume most or all of the energy from shales it produces. It is unlikely to be in a position to export much to Europe. The facilities to do this anyway do not exist, and are unlikely to exist for some time if ever. 

Other possible sources of gas are problematic to say the least. Production of North Sea gas is falling. Imports of gas from north Africa and the Arabian Gulf are unlikely to be available in anything like the necessary quantity. Gas from Iran is not available for political reasons. Whilst that might eventually change, the probability is when it does that the Iranians (like the Russians) will decide to direct their energy flow eastwards, towards India and China, rather than to Europe. 

For obvious reasons of geography Russia is the logical and most economic source of Europe’s gas. All alternatives come with economic and political costs that make them in the end unattractive. 

The EU's difficulties in finding alternative sources of gas were cruelly exposed by the debacle of the so-called another Nabucco pipeline project to bring Europe gas from the Caucasus and Central Asia. Though talked about for years in the end it never got off the ground because it never made economic sense. 

Meanwhile, whilst Europe talks about diversifying its supplies, it is Russia which is actually cutting the deals. 

Russia has sealed a key deal with Iran to swap Iranian oil for Russian industrial goods. Russia has also agreed to invest heavily in the Iranian nuclear industry. If and when sanctions on Iran are lifted the Europeans will find the Russians already there. Russia has just agreed a massive deal to supply gas to Turkey (about which more below). Overshadowing these deals are the two huge deals Russia has made this year to supply gas to China. 

Russia's energy resources are enormous but they are not infinite. The second deal done with China and the deal just done with Turkey redirect to these two countries gas that had previously been earmarked for Europe. The gas volumes involved in the Turkish deal almost exactly match those previously intended for South Stream. The Turkish deal replaces South Stream. 

These deals show that Russia had made a strategic decision this year to redirect its energy flow away from Europe. Though it will take time for the full effect to become clear, the consequences of that for Europe are grim. Europe is looking at a serious energy shortfall, which it will only be able to make up by buying energy at a much higher price. 

These Russian deals with China and Turkey have been criticised or even ridiculed for providing Russia with a lower price for its gas than that paid by Europe. 

The actual difference in price is not as great as some allege. Such criticism anyway overlooks the fact that price is only one part in a business relationship. 

By redirecting gas to China, Russia cements economic links with the country that it now considers its key strategic ally and which has (or which soon will have) the world’s biggest and fastest growing economy. By redirecting gas to Turkey, Russia consolidates a burgeoning relationship with Turkey of which it is now the biggest trading partner. 

Turkey is a key potential ally for Russia, consolidating Russia's position in the Caucasus and the Black Sea. It is also a country of 76 million people with a $1.5 trillion rapidly growing economy, which over the last two decades has become increasingly alienated and distanced from the EU and the West. 

By redirecting gas away from Europe, Russia by contrast leaves behind a market for its gas which is economically stagnant and which (as the events of this year have shown) is irremediably hostile. No one should be surprised that Russia has given up on a relationship from which it gets from its erstwhile partner an endless stream of threats and abuse, combined with moralising lectures, political meddling and now sanctions. No relationship, business or otherwise, can work that way and the one between Russia and Europe is no exception. 

I have said nothing about the Ukraine since in my opinion this has little bearing on this issue. 

South Stream was first conceived because of the Ukraine's continuous abuse of its position as a transit state - something which is likely to continue. It is important to say that this fact was acknowledged in Europe as much as in Russia. It was because the Ukraine perennially abuses its position as a transit state that the South Stream project had the grudging formal endorsement of the EU. Basically, the EU needs to circumvent the Ukraine to secure its energy supplies every bit as much as Russia wanted a route around the Ukraine to avoid it. 

The Ukraine’s friends in Washington and Brussels have never been happy about this, and have constantly lobbied against South Stream. 

The point is it was Russia which pulled the plug on South Stream when it had the option of going ahead with it by accepting the Europeans’ conditions. In other words the Russians consider the problems posed by the Ukraine as a transit state to be a lesser evil than the conditions the EU was attaching to South Stream . 

South Stream would take years to build and its cancellation therefore has no bearing on the current Ukrainian crisis. The Russians decided they could afford to cancel it is because they have decided Russia’s future is in selling its energy to China and Turkey and other states in Asia (more gas deals are pending with Korea and Japan and possibly also with Pakistan and India) than to Europe. Given that this is so, for Russia South Stream has lost its point. That is why in their characteristically direct way, rather than accept the Europeans’ conditions, the Russians pulled the plug on it. 

In doing so the Russians have called the Europeans’ bluff. So far from Russia being dependent on Europe as its energy customer, it is Europe which has antagonised, probably irreparably, its key economic partner and energy supplier. 

Before finishing I would however first say something about those who have come out worst of all from this affair. These are the corrupt and incompetent political pygmies who pretend to be the government of Bulgaria. Had these people had a modicum of dignity and self respect they would have told the EU Commission when it brought up the Third Energy Package to take a running jump. If Bulgaria had made clear its intention to press ahead with the South Stream project, there is no doubt it would have been built. There would of course have been an almighty row within the EU as Bulgaria openly flouted the Third Energy Package, but Bulgaria would have been acting in its national interests and would have had within the EU no shortage of friends. In the end it would have won through. 

Instead, under pressure from individuals like Senator John McCain, the Bulgarian leadership behaved like the provincial politicians they are, and tried to run at the same time with both the EU hare and the Russian hounds. The result of this imbecile policy is to offend Russia, Bulgaria's historic ally, whilst ensuring that the Russian gas which might have flown to Bulgaria and transformed the country, will instead flow to Turkey, Bulgaria's historic enemy. 

The Bulgarians are not the only ones to have acted in this craven fashion. All the EU countries, even those with historic ties to Russia, have supported the EU's various sanctions packages against Russia notwithstanding the doubts they have expressed about the policy. Last year Greece, another country with strong ties to Russia, pulled out of a deal to sell its natural gas company to Gazprom because the EU disapproved of it, even though it was Gazprom that offered the best price. 

This points to a larger moral. Whenever the Russians act in the way they have just done, the Europeans respond bafflement and anger, of which there is plenty around at the moment. The EU politicians who make the decisions that provoke these Russian actions seem to have this strange assumption that whilst it is fine for the EU to sanction Russia as much as it wishes, Russia will never do the same to the EU. When Russia does, there is astonishment, accompanied always by a flood of mendacious commentary about how Russia is behaving “aggressively” or “contrary to its interests” or has “suffered a defeat”. None of this is true as the rage and recriminations currently sweeping through the EU’s corridors (of which I am well informed) bear witness. 

In July the EU sought to cripple Russia’s oil industry by sanctioning the export of oil drilling technology to Russia. That attempt will certainly fail as Russia and the countries it trades with (including China and South Korea) are certainly capable of producing this technology themselves. 

By contrast through the deals it has made this year with China, Turkey and Iran, Russia has dealt a devastating blow to the energy future of the EU. A few years down the line Europeans will start to discover that moralising and bluff comes with a price. Regardless, by cancelling South Stream, Russia has imposed upon Europe the most effective of the sanctions we have seen this year.




La siguiente nota es de Andrew Korybko para Sputnik, reproducida hoy en Oriental Review (http://orientalreview.org/2014/12/02/cold-turkey-ankara-buckles-against-western-pressure-turns-to-russia/).

Título: Cold Turkey: Ankara Buckles Against Western Pressure, Turns to Russia

Subtítulo: Russia has abandoned the troubled South Stream project and will now be building its replacement with Turkey. This monumental decision signals that Ankara has made its choice to reject Euro-Atlanticsm and embrace Eurasian integration.

Texto: In what may possibly be the biggest move towards multipolarity thus far, the ultimate Eurasian pivot, Turkey, has done away with its former Euro-Atlantic ambitions. A year ago, none of this would have been foreseeable, but the absolute failure of the US’ Mideast policy and the EU’s energy one made this stunning reversal possible in under a year. Turkey is still anticipated to have some privileged relations with the West, but the entire nature of the relationship has forever changed as the country officially engages in pragmatic multipolarity. 

Turkey’s leadership made a major move by sealing such a colossal deal with Russia in such a sensitive political environment, and the old friendship can never be restored (nor do the Turks want it to be). The reverberations are truly global.


Missing The Signs 

It’s amazing how much the West lost in such a short period of time and due to such major and totally unnecessary political miscalculations, and they owe their roots to the disastrous regime change operations in Syria and Ukraine.


The US In The Mideast:

Nearly four years ago, the US co-opted Turkey to ‘Lead From Behind’ in overthrowing the democratically elected Syrian government. However, things didn’t go as quite as planned and the Syrian people engaged in a fierce Patriotic War to defend the existence of their secular state. Turkey purposely sat out on the anti-ISIL coalition because it wanted solid guarantees of its reward in a regime-changed Syria, but none were forthcoming. Its leadership held firm, so the US started playing the ‘Kurdish Card’ of ethnic nationalism to bully them into submitting – which eventually backfired. The US crossed the line by arming and training the Kurds (some of whom are registered as terrorists by Turkey), and faced with such an existential threat to their state (that would either be unleashed wittingly or unwittingly with time), they knew they had to pivot, and fast.


The EU And Its Energy Policy:

Meanwhile, the EU totally fudged its energy policy with Russia. As a result of the Ukraine Crisis, it began exerting tremendous pressure (which was already building up) on the South Stream project, calling upon EU energy legislation clauses to state that its member states’ cooperation with Russia was illegal. Poorer countries like Bulgaria pleaded for the EU to allow the project, emphasizing how important it was for their national economies (which haven’t received much of Brussels’ largesse since joining), but to no avail, as the EU stonewalled the project. Russia had no choice but to find a replacement route and saw that the only viable stand-in was Turkey, which just so happened to be undergoing its most serious crisis ever with the US.


Ducks In A Row

Let’s look at how this geostrategic masterpiece was set into motion, as the past two months contain the main moves of this political waltz — and they’re all centered on Russian President Putin.

(1) Serbia: Putin’s October visit to Serbia served to inform his counterpart about the plans to scrap South Stream, while still giving him strong assurances that the Russian-Serbian relationship will remain intact going forward, with or without the gas project.

(2) Syria and Sochi: Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem visited Sochi last week and personally met with Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov. The meeting, held behind closed doors, was highlighted for the attention that the Russian leader gave to his guest. Putin could have told him to tell President Assad about his upcoming visit to Turkey in order to reassure his loyal and respected partner of his positive intentions and the bigger picture surrounding his motives.

(3) Turkey: The final step was for Putin to go to Turkey and make the announcement after his meeting with Erdogan. Turkey understands that it has made a definitive move by joining the project and that there is no going back from this decision. It had been rejected by the EU for decades and it now realizes that its closest military ally, the US, had played it for a fool during the entire Syrian War.

Worse still, the Kurdish Card has gotten out of control, and it seems inevitable that sooner or later the insurrection will be rekindled, and with bloody and destabilizing consequences. On a pragmatic note, global events are shifting from the West to the non-West (read: BRICS and G20), so in the national self-interests of the Turkish state, it’s seen as wise to join the new winner’s circle (after being rejected by Europe and betrayed by the US) and try to turn over a new leaf with new friends.


The Aftershocks

The announcement of the New South Stream has global implications, but here’s just a few of them as arranged by region:

Europe:

The EU will now have to pay for expensive LNG (on average 30% higher) that will likely be sold from the terminal at the Greek-Turkish border as well as remain energy dependent on risky Ukrainian routes. But there’s a catch – the poor Balkan countries are able to get in on the deal by building relatively cheaper overland connecting lines and resurrect the project…but only if they leave the EU and its authoritative energy legislation.All that it takes is for Greece or Bulgaria to abandon Brussels (which doesn’t seem improbable), and the project can either go through Macedonia en route to Serbia or via Bulgaria as initially planned, then up to the Hungarian border. At this point, it’s certainly a tantalizing thought for the countries that have paid the most for their ‘integration’ and received scarcely anything in return. Expect the New South Stream to politically divide the EU like never before.


Mideast:

There is no way that Russia would have sold Syria out after so many years of friendship, especially after Putin’s high-profile meeting with Muallem. Thus, Turkey is not forecast to directly invade Syria (although it could continue training some anti-government fighters). It may, however, allow the US to use its airbases and airspace to carry out airstrikes on ISIL.

Since it’s now behaving in a multipolar fashion, Turkey is playing all sides to its advantage, so it will still retain a defense relationship with NATO and the US, but it will no longer behave as an absolute lackey. Taking things further, Turkey’s shift to the East might allow Iran to one day build pipelines through it to access the Western market, and it could also allow Turkmen gas to transit both countries en route to Europe.


Eurasia:

Most significantly, Turkey has shown that it has the political grit to make historical decisions independent of NATO, showing that it is embracing its pivotal geography and combining it with a multipolar policy.The Shanghai Cooperation Organization (importantly encompassing Russia and China) just outlined the specific procedures for admitting new members a few months ago, although at the time analysts thought this was directed towards India and Pakistan.

Now, however, with Turkey already being a dialogue partner, it might make the rapid step to observer status and full-fledged membership just as quickly as it made its decisive pivot. There’s also been talk of the country entering into a free-trade agreement with the Russian-led Eurasian Customs Union, so it might incidentally find its EU replacement with Brussels’ eastern adversary, Moscow.
As Western decision makers are scratching their heads and wondering how it ever got to this point, they’d do well to remember that none of this would have happened had they just allowed the Syrian and Ukrainian people to live in peace with their democratically elected governments.


***


Finalmente, un comentario sobre la furia de los búlgaros respecto de su gobierno, sacados de un sitio ruso (Krasavchik - Live Journal). Aparecen hoy en el sitio web Fort Russ (http://fortruss.blogspot.com.ar/2014/12/we-turned-out-to-be-same-stupid.html): 

Título: "We turned out to be the same stupid prostitutes as the poles" - outrage and anger on Bulgarian forums

Epígrafe: I decided to read the comments on Bulgarian information resources. You can feel for our Bulgarian brothers. Translated a couple dozen of them. The vast majority of the comments, of course were written in the following spirit:

Textos:

Yes, something happened, what I was talking about a long time ago - the South Stream will pass through the territory of the country, which is a more reliable partner than we are! Well, we're a wealthy country, for us 400 million euros... is nothing. We will not even ask for compensation from the EU, you can be sure!

* * *
God, what idiots are in charge right now!

* * *
Are you Bulgarians or are you stupid? We had to fight!!!

* * *
It's very simple. To this point we were led by greedy Prime Minister with BSP party. It is a national disaster!

* * *
BSP, ABV, ATTACK, organize protests in front of the Presidential Palace, the Parliament, in order to prove to them that we are a civil society and not paid sorosoids!

* * *
In a year we will buy Russian gas from Turkey and Greece, only with commission to the Turks and the Byzantines.

* * *
Interesting, how now on forums the sorosoids will tell how dependent are Bulgarian politicians from Putin? The tragedy of Bulgaria is in vassal dependence and colonial administration! That's a reason for protest (if there is any civil society left, and not NGOs)!!!

* * *
What's going to happen to us? Probably, the next step is the placement of Chevron in Dobrudja and beginning of shale gas extraction, the price of which will be poisoned land and water, with the prospect of exchanging it for this paper, worthy of aboriginals.

* * *
How can you comment this treason? Future generations must know who destroyed their state, on whose grave to piss, whose descendants to curse.

* * *
We got to this because of traitors from the Reformation Block. Now, instead of Bulgaria, which could become an energy hub, it will be Turkey and Greece.

* * *
No comment necessary. We deserved such fate, and the definition of "Fool No. 1 in the world."

* * *
It's time to go get some firewood!

* * *
Don't worry, the pipeline will pass through Turkey, Greece, Macedonia, and Serbia. We don't need money for transit, guaranteed deliveries and cheap gas prices.

* * *
The West will never allow Bulgaria to have cheap energy and, as a consequence, a strong economy. They want us just as a colony and a source of cheap labor and cheap resources.

* * *
No Western country will allow us to have so much influence and the pipe. They do not trust us, because we are primitive, but Turks and Greeks are more respected. So everything goes according to plan.

* * *
I don't get it, is someone going to resign? Although Bulgarian "politicians" are not familiar with the words "honor", "dignity" and "resignation".

* * *
It's all over! From the most productive per capita country we have become more pitiful than the Gypsies.

* * *
This month I will not have sex with my wife because it is contrary to European values. First the European Commission should have sex with her. I profess European values.

* * *
We - Bessarabian Bulgarians want to be together with Bulgaria, but Bulgaria outside the EU, Bulgaria is a good friend of Russia! Enough already of European slavery!

* * *
How can you be such an idiot to refuse such a project!?

* * *
The truth is that Putin and Erdogan are statesmen and work for the good of their countries, not like our assholes, unfortunately.

* * *
It was clear to all of us that with the coming to power of an idiot there will be no "South Stream". But he won the majority of the votes, didn't he?

* * *

We got the same stupid prostitutes, as the poles, who were also opposed the "Nord Stream". The Russians went around them and now sell gas to the Germans for $300, at the same time, as these geniuses are paying $515. Didn't we have an example?

Alguien que lo dice

Uno siempre tuvo la intuición de que la política exterior del Imperio del Caos consiste, básicamente, en expandir el caos por toda la galaxia. En tal sentido, reconforta saber que allá en el norte alguien se anima a decir las cosas como son. Leemos en Russia Today:

Título: Ron Paul a RT: "Nadie quiere ser ministro de Defensa de EE.UU."

Epígrafe: El político estadounidense Ron Paul, ex miembro del Congreso de EE.UU., opina que "nadie quiere ser el ministro de Defensa" porque la política exterior estadounidense "no tiene sentido".

Texto: Varias fuentes del Gobierno de EE.UU. citadas por Reuters informan que Ashton Carter, exvicesecretario de Defensa, será "sin duda" el primer candidato a ser el cuarto ministro de Defensa de la presidencia de Obama. 

"La política exterior de EE.UU. no tiene sentido, por eso nadie quiere ocupar la posición del ministro de Defensa", comenta Ron Paul, ex miembro del Congreso de EE.UU., en declaraciones a RT. 

"Participamos en una guerra perpetua, lo que es muy diferente de cuando anunciábamos guerras y sabíamos quién era el enemigo", dijo Paul, subrayando que la administración Obama no está de acuerdo con la idea de que la política de no enviar tropas al extranjero "sería la mejor solución para EE.UU.".

Paul opina que el hecho de que Carter nunca haya estado en las filas del ejército estadounidense, no es lo más importante para un candidato al jefe del Pentágono. "Una idea clara de la diferencia entre participación y no participación en guerras en el extranjero, junto al entendimiento de cómo debemos cooperar con nuestros aliados son las características clave", concluye Paul.

Reacciones

Continúan las reacciones a la decision rusa de suspender el proyecto gasífero South Stream (véase nuestro post de ayer). Acá van algunas de ellas:

Del sitio web griego The Unbalanced Evolution of Homo Sapiens (http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2014/12/fresh-smart-moves-by-putin-in.html)

Título: Fresh smart moves by Putin in the geopolitical field - What do they mean

Texto: The new agreement between Russia and Turkey for the construction of a 63 bcm gas pipeline during Putin's visit in Ankara yesterday, is probably another win of Putin in the geopolitical field.

From RT:

“Gazprom CEO Aleksey Miller said the energy giant will build a massive gas pipeline that will travel from Russia, transit through Turkey, and stop at the Greek border – giving Russia access to the Southern European market. The pipeline will have an annual capacity of 63 billion cubic meters. A total of 14 bcm will be delivered to Turkey, which is Gazprom’s second biggest customer in the region after Germany. Russia’s energy minister Aleksandr Novak said that the new project will include a specially-constructed hub on the Turkish-Greek border for customers in southern Europe.”

“While the pipeline will be registered as a Russian company, Miller said that Gazprom will 'consider offers from Turkish partners if they express an interest in buying into the project.' [...] Moscow will also reduce the gas price for Turkish customers by 6 percent from January 1, 2015, Putin said. Later, Novak said the discount could reach 15 percent, subject to negotiations.”

“Novak later confirmed that Vladimir Putin personally ordered for the South Stream project to be mothballed, and its existing facilities to be repurposed for the new Turkish pipeline. The much-delayed South Stream was supposed to connect underwater Black Sea pipelines with a network in Eastern Europe, with Bulgaria as the entry point.”

The first strong signal from Russia to the EU, is that it has many alternative ways to bypass sanctions and barriers against other projects like the South Stream pipeline. Putin clearly expressed his dissatisfaction about the barriers imposed by the EU concerning the deployment of South Stream (http://rt.com/business/210483-putin-russia-gas-turkey/), and the deal with Turkey showed that he is determined to build alternatives.

So far, the EU forced Greece and Bulgaria to play the game according to the interests of the Western big companies: “Also, the failure of selling the Greek gas company (DEPA) to Russians, was not accidental, since in this case, Gasprom would have become the basic stakeholder of the Greek-Bulgarian pipeline IGB, in which the Greek company participates. And this means that the supply of Bulgaria and Romania with gas from Azerbaijan would be impossible. The 180 degree turn of European Commission is characteristic, since, while appeared at the start supporting fully the Nabucco pipeline, subsequently withdrew its support, since Nabucco was no longer competitive against Russian interests pipeline South Stream.” (http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2013/07/greek-crisis-and-disorientation.html)

However, the details of the new agreement show that Russia probably wants to put Greece back in the game, seeing that there are dramatic changes in the political landscape not only in Greece, but also in Europe that could change dramatically the geopolitical status. (http://failedevolution.blogspot.gr/2014/11/basic-reasons-for-which-us-deep-state.html)

At the same time, Russia sees an opportunity to play a key role, especially in the eastern Mediterranean, therefore seeking agreements which increase the stability in the region and minimise the possibility of various conflicts. There was a tension lately between Greece and Turkey, after Turkey sent a ship to the waters off the coast of Cyprus for oil and gas exploration.

The third and probably most significant gain by Putin, is that shields Russia more effectively from the unpredicted and dangerous expansion of the jihadists of Islamic State to the north and especially to Chechnya which would bring trouble to the door of Russia. Through such deals, Turkey will be forced to defend its soil to protect huge investments that could contribute significantly to the economy, while will consider to support or even tolerate the jihadists as they could grab major energy pipelines.



Del sitio web del Peregrino (http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com.ar/):

Título: Who won? Who lost? You tell me!

Texto: I won't make this one long or analytical.  I am sure that somebody will do that within the next 24 hours.  But I will say this: the Ukrainians blackmailed Russia over gas, and that created North Stream and South Stream.  The Bulgarians decided to cave in to the Eurobureaucrats and that created today's deal with Turkey.  For 63bcm.  Which happens to be the maximal output of South Stream.  But that is all short term.  The long term is this: Russia is creating a unified gas distribution network which will be able to send gas from anywhere in Russia to any part of the Russia border. 

[Sidebar: The real market for Russian gas will not be a dying EU economy, but the growing and energy hungry mega-market of China.  Russia is also selling China it's top-of-the-line S-400 missiles which is a nightmare come true for the US and Taiwan.  And all of this involves huge sums of money, immense projects and a deep strategic alliance for decades into the future.]

As for Turkey, this "faithful" NATO member and US ally, it was more than happy to backstab the EU which had denied it membership for decades.  Not only did Turkey sign a deal with Gazprom, it also agreed to have Russia essentially built its entire nuclear industry.  Russia and Turkey also agreed to boost trade and tourism. Politics is politics, but business is business.  Nothing personal here, but Uncle Sam can go and... well, you know what :-)

As for the clueless Europeans, they appear to be literally speechless.  Especially the clueless Bulgarian and Serbian politicians who look like idiots and will have to do a lot of explaining to their own people.

The German economy is hurting because of the interruption of trade with Russia and Merkel is in very hot water.  Just like Hollande who has to explain why France is now looking at huge losses over the Mistral debacle.

The way I see it, not only did Russia not lose anything, Russia achieved two crucial things: she now firmly put Turkey into her corner (not a trivial achievement if you look at the issues of the future of Iran and Syria) and she created a situation in which EU sanctions only hurt the EU.  How one can present that as a defeat for Russia is beyond me.

As for the bad old USA, they are busy sabotaging their own shale gas industry and undermining Saudi Arabia by keeping the oil prices down.  What kind of long-term strategy is that?  It is sustainable?

Finally, while the Empire still talks about sanctions, Russia is busy buying gold.  Lots of gold.

You might wonder what Kiev is doing.  Cutting it's gas consumption in half (leaving a large part of the population without heat or hot water) and stealing the pensions from the people of the Donbass.  But Kiev has nothing to worry about, Lithuania promises to help :-)

So you still think Russia is losing this one?



Por su parte, en Bulgaria todavía no lo pueden creer. Leemos en RT: 

Título: Bulgarian pres calls for South Stream Euro partner talks

Texto: South Stream's European partners should be allowed have their say in the pipeline project's future, the Bulgarian President has said.

"South Stream is not a project of Russia and Bulgaria; it’s of Russia and the European Union. A decision on it can only be made in the Russia-EU format," Rosen Plevneliev said Tuesday.

"The participant states of South Stream have done serious preparatory work and authorized the European Commission to hold talks with the Russian leadership to take a final decision on the project," he said.

The president stressed that there will be no objections to the gas project if Russia agrees to comply with EU legislation.

"I oppose the idea that a kind of confrontation is happening,” he said. “When laws and regulations are observed, all large and small projects work out. I believe that no one in the EU will say ‘no’ to South Stream if Russia complies with the requirements of European legislation," Plevneliev concluded.

Earlier on Tuesday Bulgaria’s Economy Minister Bozidar Lukarsky said the country will consider South Stream an operating project until it receives an official announcement from Russia.
"For me, the South Stream project isn’t closed yet; we haven’t received any official announcement from Russia. When it comes, then we will comment on this topic," said Lukarsky.
Deputy Prime Minister Meglena Kuneva also declined to comment, but stressed that "Bulgaria supports the idea of having a cost-effective project and at the same time comply with European legislation."

Italian construction company Saipem is involved in South Stream construction and has said it continues to work on the project, since it hasn’t received official notification about a halt to South Stream.

Losses to Europe

The ending of the South Stream project would mean huge losses for countries across Europe.
For Bulgaria, this would mean €400 million in lost transit fees, Russian President Putin said on Monday.

The share in the country's €40 billion GDP to come from South Stream was expected to be 1.5 percent, according to Bulgarian Economic Ministry.

Direct investment was supposed to be around €3 billion creating around 2,500 new jobs. The Northern parts of the country, through which the main pipeline route would be laid, were expected to have significantly improved social infrastructure and become more attractive to investment.

The European Commission is impeding the South Stream pipeline construction; however Serbia is interested in the project, the president of the Serbian Gas Association Vojislav Vuletic said Tuesday.

The gas association head thinks the EU is only hurting itself. “It turns out that the problems are created by bureaucrats from the European Commission, while the real participants of South Stream are very interested in the implementation,” he said.

Vuletic also pointed out the project’s importance for Serbia, as it would provide construction jobs, not to mention jobs operating the pipeline itself, and the income the country would get from transit. He confirmed that the closure of the project would seriously damage the Serbian economy.

Hungary has reacted saying that it will be forced to look for alternative sources of gas to replace South Stream supplies. The country could possibly increase the amount it gets from Azerbaijan to compensate, according to the Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Siyyarto.

"Russia had the right to take such a decision, and Hungary admits it," he said, commenting on Russia's decision to close South Stream. Hungary has been actively supporting the project, and passed a special law early last month allowing construction to begin, bypassing restrictions imposed by the EU.

South Stream

Rusia anunció hoy que cancela el proyecto "South Stream", el gasoducto que hubiera abastecido el sudeste europeo desde el Mar Negro, pasando por Bulgaria. Al mismo tiempo, firma un contrato para suministrar gas a Turquía cruzando el Mar Negro. Detalle: el proyecto contempla una cabecera en la frontera con Grecia. En nuestra opinión, esto significa que el gas va a terminar llegando al sudeste europeo, pero esta vez desde Grecia. Nos resultaba extraño que Rusia no atendiera la demanda de Grecia y de otro aliado histórico, mucho más próximo culturalmente, como Serbia. Posiblemente, grandes perjudicados por este cambio sean Austria y, tal vez, Italia. Austria es probable que se vaya de la Unión Europea. Los tipos están con las bolas llenas de los histéricos de Bruselas. A los efectos de negociar algo, Francia y Alemania continúan demostrando que no sirven para nada. El que manda es USA. Posiblemente caiga el gobierno Búlgaro próximamente. El país se pierde 400 millones de euros anuales en concepto de regalías por permitir el paso del gas.

Nuestra conclusión preliminar es la siguiente: Rusia da por terminada la etapa de advertencias y pasa a la acción. Tómalo o déjalo, o tomátelas. Esta vez, fue tomátelas. Bruselas debe andar con ataques de diarrea en estos momentos. Habrá que ver qué pasa en los próximos días.

Reproducimos dos noticias: la primera es del diario español El País. La segunda es de RT:

Título: Putin cancela la construcción de un gasoducto clave para Europa

Subtítulo: El mandatario ruso acusa a la Comisión Europea de obstaculizar el proyecto del South Stream y ofrece como alternativa un trazado a través de Turquía

Texto: Rusia ha renunciado a la Corriente del Sur (South Stream), el gran proyecto de gasoducto que llegara directamente a Europa meridional a través del mar Negro. En los planes rusos, la Corriente del Sur debería haber complementado la Corriente del Norte (North Stream), que suministra gas a Alemania por el Báltico, y ambos estaban destinados a esquivar los riesgos de tránsito por Ucrania.

En Ankara, donde se encontraba en visita oficial, el presidente Vladímir Putin anunció este lunes que Moscú renuncia a construir la Corriente del Sur debido a la "posición no constructiva" de la Comisión Europea, y que el combustible será redirigido hacia otras regiones y hacia proyectos de licuefacción. "Consideramos que la posición de la Comisión Europea no era constructiva", dijo el líder ruso, que acusó a Bruselas de "poner impedimentos" al proyecto. "Si Europa no quiere realizarlo, quiere decir que no se realizará", afirmó Putin, poniendo así punto y final a uno de los puntales de la estrategia rusa para asegurar el suministro energético hacia Europa.

En una rueda de prensa conjunta con su colega Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Putin manifestó que Rusia no podía comenzar a construir el tramo marítimo del gasoducto porque Bulgaria no ha dado permiso. "Resulta absurdo comenzar a construir para llegar a la costa búlgara y pararse [allí]", subrayó. La Corriente del Sur debería haber llegado al puerto búlgaro de Varna y de allí continuar hacia los Balcanes y bifurcarse en dos ramas, una en dirección a Italia y otra hacia Austria. La capacidad de transporte prevista era de 63.000 millones de metros cúbicos anuales y su coste se calculaba en 16.000 millones de euros.

En abril, sobre el telón de fondo de la intervención rusa en Ucrania y la política de diversificación energética de Bruselas, el Parlamento Europeo instó a renunciar al proyecto. Rusia responde a esta política con sus propios planes de diversificación energética, hacia China y hacia Turquía.

A juzgar por las declaraciones de Putin y de Alexéi Miller, el director ejecutivo de Gazprom (el monopolio ruso de exportación de gas), Moscú ha encontrado un sustituto para la Corriente del Sur y ha llegado a un acuerdo con Turquía para construir un gasoducto submarino con la misma capacidad de transporte que la Corriente del Sur. Turquía se reservará cerca de 14.000 millones de metros cúbicos y el resto irá a la frontera turca con Grecia. Miller manifestó que el proyecto de la Corriente del Sur había quedado "cerrado" y que se había firmado un memorando de entendimiento con la empresa turca Botas para construir un gasoducto. Señaló también que Rusia rebajará el precio del gas a Turquía a medida que se profundice en la cooperación y que a la larga Ankara puede tener el nivel de precios del que disfruta actualmente Alemania.

Putin, a su vez, aconsejó a Bulgaria que exigiera a la Unión Europea una compensación. "Si Bulgaria ha sido privada de la posibilidad de comportarse como un Estado soberano, que por lo menos pida a la Unión Europea dinero por el lucro cesante, porque los beneficios directos del tránsito para el presupuesto de Bulgaria hubieran sido un mínimo de 400 millones de euros al año", señaló.

El líder del Kremlin dijo también que Rusia aumentará sus suministros de gas a Turquía en 3.000 millones de metros cúbicos y le hará una rebaja del 6% en el precio. Por su parte, el ministro de Desarrollo Económico de Rusia, Alexéi Uliukaev, opinó que la construcción del gasoducto ayudará a rebajar los riesgos derivados del tránsito de gas por Europa a través de Ucrania.

***

Ahora, la noticia de RT sobre la construcción de un gasoducto ruso a Turquía:

Título: Gazprom to build new 63 bcm Black Sea pipeline to Turkey instead of S. Stream

Texto: Gazprom CEO Aleksey Miller said the energy giant will build a massive gas pipeline that will travel from Russia, transit through Turkey, and stop at the Greek border – giving Russia access to the Southern European market.

The pipeline will have an annual capacity of 63 billion cubic meters. A total of 14 bcm will be delivered to Turkey, which is Gazprom’s second biggest customer in the region after Germany.

Russia’s energy minister Aleksandr Novak said that the new project will include a specially-constructed hub on the Turkish-Greek border for customers in southern Europe.

While the pipeline will be registered as a Russian company, Miller said that Gazprom will “consider offers from Turkish partners if they express an interest in buying into the project.”

For now, the supply of Russian gas to Turkey will be raised by 3 billion cubic meters via the already operating Blue Stream pipeline, Vladimir Putin said during a joint press conference with his Turkish counterpart, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Last year, 13.7 bcm of gas was supplied to Turkeyvia Blue Stream, according to Reuters.

December 1, 2014. Russian President Vladimir Putin at the concluding news conference in Ankara. (RIA Novosti/Michael Klimentyev)December 1, 2014. Russian President Vladimir Putin at the concluding news conference in Ankara. (RIA Novosti/Michael Klimentyev)

Moscow will also reduce the gas price for Turkish customers by 6 percent from January 1, 2015, Putin said. Later, Novak said the discount could reach 15 percent, subject to negotiations.

Novak later confirmed that Vladimir Putin personally ordered for the South Stream project to be mothballed, and its existing facilities to be repurposed for the new Turkish pipeline.

The much-delayed South Stream was supposed to connect underwater Black Sea pipelines with a network in Eastern Europe, with Bulgaria as the entry point.

The project had run into difficulties, as it violated EU regulations on the same company owning the pipelines and the gas they transported. While several previous governments in Bulgaria, which is wholly dependent on Russian gas lobbied Brussels to make an exception, the current government said it would not give Gazprom a building permit. The cost of the underwater and Eastern European segments of the project was estimated at €23,5 billion, by a senior Gazprom official last month.

The new project will include a specially-constructed hub on the Turkish-Greek border. Russia’s energy minister Aleksandr Novak said it will supply customers in Eastern and Southern Europe.

Prusia Oriental

Curiosa nota de Pepe Escobar aparecida hoy en el Asia Times Online. ¿Chiste? ¿Posibilidad real? ¿Escaramuza? ¿Quién sabe? Pasan tantas cosas en estos días…

Título: Will Russia, Germany Save Europe from War?

Texto: Are the United States, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Russia on a mad spiral leading to yet another war in Europe? Is it inevitable? Far from it. 

The US-propelled vassal currently starring in the oligarch dance in Ukraine, Petro Poroshenko, last week advanced the proposition that Ukrainians in the near future, after his “reforms”, will be asked to vote on whether to join NATO.

Let’s be serious here. Many of you will be familiar with the concept of “shatter belt” – territories and peoples that historically have been squeezed between the Germanic Eagle and the Russian Bear.

As we stand, the whole shatter belt – apart from Ukraine and Belarus – has signed up to NATO. A new Berlin wall, this time US-built – from the Baltics to the Black Sea now runs through Kiev. Were Ukraine to become a NATO member in an albeit remote future, the shatter belt buffer zone would disappear. This means NATO – essentially the US – planted right on Russia’s western border.

Washington has just announced that it will be pre-positioning more military vehicles in Europe to be used in exercises or “potential military operations”. This is perfectly in tune with the relentless US Think Tankland spin that NATO and the US will be “forced” to balance their commitment to security in Eastern Europe against potential Russian “aggression”.

As Ukraine, the Baltic states and Poland persist in compounded hysteria about such “aggression”, the option of a post-MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) US-Russia nuclear war, terrifying as it must be, is now – casually – back on the discussion table. At least there’s a countercurrent: strands of informed Americans are wondering why the US should be paying for Europe’s defense when European GDP is larger than that of the US.


Wanna play war, boy? 

Now for the “threat” of nuclear war in Europe – bogus or otherwise. It’s pointless to compare the strategic nuclear capabilities of the US and Russia based on numbers, but not on quality.
Take the compounded GDP of US, Germany, France and the UK and compare it to Russia; it’s a victory by landslide. Then examine the strategic nuclear scenario, and it’s a totally different story. GDP alone does not “win” anything.

Washington/Wall Street elites are now deep into nuclear war paranoia. A Council on Foreign Relations study basically “found out” what Pravda had already reported (http://english.pravda.ru/russia/politics/12-11-2014/129015-russia_nato_nuclear_surprise-0/). Other pieces such as this at least hint at the obvious – glaring US strategic shortcomings.

Consider some of the basics:

* Russian ICBMs armed with MIRVs travel at about 18 Mach; that is way faster than anything in the US arsenal. And basically they are unbeatable.

* The S-400 and S-500 double trouble. Moscow has agreed to sell the S-400 surface-to-air missile system to China. The bottom line is this will make Beijing impermeable to US air power, ICBMs and cruise missiles. Russia, for its part, is already focusing on the state-of-the-art S-500 – which essentially makes the Patriot anti-missile system look like a V-2 from World War II.

* The Russian Iskander missile travels at Mach 7 – with a range of 400 kilometers, carrying a 700 kilogram warhead of several varieties, and with a circular error probability of around five meters. Translation: an ultimate lethal weapon against airfields or logistic infrastructure. The Iskander can reach targets deep inside Europe.

And then there’s the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA (http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/detail.asp?aircraft_id=782). Talk about a real near-future game-changer.
NATO clowns dreaming of a war on Russia would have to come up with an ironclad system to knock out the Iskanders. They don’t have any. Additionally, they would have to face the S-400s, which the Russians can deploy all over the spectrum.

Think of a hefty batch of S-400s positioned at the enclave of Kaliningrad; that would turn NATO air operations deep inside Europe into an absolutely horrendous nightmare. On top of it, good ol’ NATO fighter jets cost a fortune. Imagine the effect of hundreds of destroyed fighter jets on a European Union already financially devastated and austerity-plagued to death.

As if this was not enough, no one knows the exact extent of NATO’s strategic capabilities. Brussels is not talking. Extra-officially, these capabilities are not exactly a marvel. And Russian intelligence knows it.

Still assuming those NATO clowns would insist on playing war, Moscow has already made it very clear Russia would use their awesome arsenal of 5,000-plus tactical nuclear weapons – and whatever else it takes – to defend the nation against a NATO conventional attack. Moreover, a few thousand S-400 and S-500 systems are enough to block a US nuclear attack.

None of this hair-raising Apocalypse Now scenario is even taking into account the Russia-China alliance – the major, game-changing Eurasian story of the 2010s.

Just in case the “pivoting to Asia” gang starts harboring funny ideas about the Middle Kingdom as well, China is massively investing in bouncing lasers off satellites; satellite-hitting missiles; silent submarines that surface beside US aircraft carriers without prior detection; and a made-in-China anti-missile missile that can hit a reentering satellite moving faster than any ICBM.

In a nutshell, Beijing knows the US surface fleet is obsolete – and undefendable. And needless to add, all of these Chinese modernizing developments are proceeding way faster than anything in the US.


A modest proposal

The spin by the Washington establishment has been relentless: Russia is expanding towards a 21st century empire.

Here, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov explains in detail how this is undiluted rubbish. What has actually happened is that Moscow deftly called the Brzezinski-inspired bluff in Ukraine – with all its overtones. No wonder the Empire of Chaos is furious.

And yet there is a solution to defuse the current, hysterical rush to war logic. Here (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-211114.html) I have examined in some detail how Washington is playing Russian Roulette. Now it’s time to advance a modest proposal – as it has been floated by a few concerned analysts from the US, Germany and Asia.

Essentially, it’s very simple. It’s up to Germany. And it’s all about undoing Stalin.

Stalin, at the outset of World War II, took East Prussia from Germany and moved the eastern part of Poland into Ukraine. Eastern Ukraine was originally from Russia; it is part of Russia and was given by Lenin to Ukraine.

So let’s have East Prussia returned to Germany; the eastern part of Poland returned to Poland; and eastern Ukraine as well as Crimea – which Khrushchev gave to Ukraine – returned to Russia.

Everyone get their share. No more Stalin. No more arbitrary borders. That’s what the Chinese would define as a “triple win” situation. Of course, the Empire of Chaos would fight it to death; there would be no more chaos manipulated to justify a crusade against bogus Russian “aggression”.

The ball is in Germany’s court. Now it’s up to East Prussians to present the facts to Angela Merkel. Let’s see if she’s able to get the message.

El Secretario y la Máquina

La renuncia del Secretario de Defensa de los EEUU, Chuck Hagel (foto), pasó casi desapercibida para la prensa occidental, quien recurrió a la sarta usual de idioteces y nimiedades para explicar una situación que, como mínimo, podríamos calificar de “rara”. Un país embarcado en media docena de guerras al mismo tiempo, de golpe cambia a su Secretario de Defensa (o sea, a su Ministro de Guerra) y nadie dice nada. Curioso, ¿no? Thierry Meyssan reflexiona hoy al respecto, en Red Voltaire:


Título: ¿Tiene todavía Obama una política militar?

Epígrafe: Después de haber sido el primero en anunciar la posible nominación de Chuck Hagel como secretario de Defensa, Thierry Meyssan se interroga sobre las razones de su salida de ese puesto. Y piensa que no hay que buscarlas en los actos del secretario sino en el cambio de política del presidente. En todo caso, observa Meyssan, Washington carece de una política determinada y la administración Obama está emprendiendo acciones peligrosamente contradictorias.

Texto: En lo tocante a determinar la política de seguridad nacional, no queda más remedio que decir que la administración Obama ha perdido la brújula. En mayo de 2013, la Casa Blanca desmanteló el Consejo Consultivo Presidencial en materia de inteligencia, sin renovarlo, y esta misma semana se deshizo de su fiel secretario de Defensa, Chuck Hagel. Pero lo más importante es que la Casa Blanca sigue posponiendo la publicación de la nueva Doctrina de Seguridad Nacional, doctrina que –según estipula la ley– tenía que haber presentado al Congreso hace 7 meses.

Si bien existen directivas claras en materia de objetivos a largo plazo (impedir el desarrollo económico de Rusia y China) y sobre los medios para lograrlo (trasladar al Lejano Oriente las tropas estadounidenses estacionadas en Europa y en la región del Golfo), también es cierto que nadie sabe cuáles son los objetivos fijados ante el estado actual del mundo árabe.

Parece como si en 2010 la «primavera árabe», planificada desde hacía mucho tiempo por el Departamento de Estado para poner a la Hermandad Musulmana en el poder en la mayoría de las regiones del mundo islámico hubiese sido una sorpresa –al menos en parte– para el presidente Obama. Al igual que el cambio de régimen en Ucrania.

En este momento, una parte del aparato estatal de Estados Unidos está luchando contra el Emirato Islámico mientras que otra parte de ese mismo aparato estatal lo apoya y lucha junto a esa organización en la República Árabe Siria.

Chuck Hagel, quien recientemente pidió por escrito una aclaración a consejera de Seguridad Nacional de la Casa Blanca, no sólo no obtuvo respuesta sino que además se ha visto prácticamente expulsado de su cargo sin ninguna explicación.

Es verdad que Hagel no logró imponerse a la burocracia del Departamento que dirigía. Pero nadie dudaba ni de su buen juicio ni del apoyo que tenía entre los oficiales superiores. Antes de llegar al Departamento de Defensa, Hagel se había pronunciado contra la guerra de Bush Jr. contra Irak y al ser nombrado secretario de Defensa se dio a la tarea de reposicionar las fuerzas estadounidenses en función de los objetivos del país, en vez de seguir –como sus predecesores– objetivos privados.

Sus dos principales posibles sucesores, el senador Jack Reed y la señora Michele Flournoy, tiraron rápidamente la toalla. Entendieron que Chuck Hagel no había sido descartado por haber cometido algún error sino precisamente por haber aplicado la política que le había indicado el presidente Obama. El resultado es que las miradas se vuelven ahora hacia personajes secundarios: Bob Work y Ash Carter. En todo caso, no bastará con alcanzar la nominación. También habrá que lograr el visto bueno del Senado –actualmente con mayoría republicana– lo cual no dejará de resultar complicado.

La prensa especializada hace un extraño retrato del secretario saliente. Admite que es un tipo honesto –cualidad bastante difícil de encontrar en Washington– para afirmar de inmediato que no hizo gran cosa. Pero el papel de Hagel, según se definió en el momento de su nominación, era precisamente no emprender nuevas guerras y reformar el Pentágono. Lo cual había empezado a hacer. En primer lugar, cortó bastantes pasarelas entre las fuerzas armadas de Estados Unidos y las de Israel. Después realizó colosales cortes presupuestarios, exceptuando el sector nuclear. Durante su mandato fue constantemente blanco de los ataques de los proisraelíes, los neoconservadores y las organizaciones gays –financiadas por los anteriores.

La confusión reinante en la política estadounidense para el mundo árabe se ha prolongado desde mediados de 2012. En aquel momento, la entonces secretaria de Estado Hillary Clinton y el director de la CIA David Petraeus aprovecharon la campaña electoral previa a la elección presidencial para respaldar una segunda guerra contra Siria, a través de Francia y de Qatar. Después de ser reelecto, Obama se deshizo de esos dos «colaboradores» y nombró una segunda administración cuyo misión consistiría en hacer las paces con Siria. Pero al cabo de unos meses se hizo evidente que la política del tándem Clinton-Petraeus seguía aplicándose, a espaldas de la Casa Blanca y en contra del Pentágono.

Está claro que no es el presidente Obama quien da las órdenes, como tampoco lo era su predecesor George Bush Jr. Y todo hace pensar que poco a poco Obama está alineándose con la política secreta de su propia administración, una administración que evidentemente no controla.

Así que el hombre que había anunciado el fin de la disuasión nuclear, el fin de la guerra en Afganistán y en Irak y el abandono de la guerra contra el terrorismo, está haciendo exactamente lo contrario: está modernizando y desarrollando el armamento nuclear, enviando nuevamente soldados a Afganistán e Irak y está reactivando el gastado concepto de «guerra contra el terrorismo».

La eliminación de Chuck Hagel no es por tanto un castigo por lo que ha hecho sino la prueba del cambio que viene operándose en el presidente Obama.

Queda por entender cuáles son las fuerzas en las que se apoyaban la señora Clinton y el general Petraeus, que son las fuerzas que acaban de triunfar. ¿Es el Estado profundo o se trata de actores económicos? Resulta evidente que la prensa de Estados Unidos no entiende nada de lo que está sucediendo, es incapaz de explicarlo, ni siquiera logra analizarlo y mucho menos contestar la pregunta formulada en este mismo párrafo.

En definitiva, las cancillerías del mundo entero están a la espera de nuevos elementos que les permitan llegar a algún tipo de conclusiones.

Mientras tanto, en el terreno, el Pentágono bombardea al Emirato Islámico mientras que otros estadounidenses garantizan armas y financiamiento… ¡al Emirato Islámico!

En Estados Unidos, al igual que en Francia, los presidentes cambian sin lograr influir sobre los acontecimientos. Poco importa que el presidente de turno sea el republicano Bush o el demócrata, el derechista Sarkozy o el socialdemócrata Hollande. La máquina sigue funcionando inexorablemente, sin que nadie sepa quién define su funcionamiento.