has stopped the expansion of NATO to the east?
di Mauro Gemma
L'esempio dell'Ucraina
In una recente intervista concessa all’agenzia russa Interfax, il Sottosegretario statunitense per gli Affari Politici William Burns torna sulla questione dell’adesione di Ucraina e Georgia alla NATO, ribadendo la tradizionale posizione USA, secondo cui “anche Ucraina e Georgia hanno il diritto di essere membri NATO” since "every sovereign nation has the right to take their own decision and choose their allies."
At the same time, Burns states that when "Ukraine and Georgia not ready for joining NATO, making the final decision on the application for accession to the fact that" all members of NATO agree, and that the citizens of that country, the decision support it. "
that certainly does not escape the cautious approach of the latest "official" to the question of further enlargement of NATO to the east, which captures, as well as that of Burns, also in other recent statements politicians and diplomats, is largely due to the results "disastrous" for the U.S. administration of the Caucasus crisis last summer, which ended with the Georgian side of the provocation to Russia's borders, following the harsh reaction and victorious army of the Kremlin .
E 'in particular from that moment that the U.S. approach to the enlargement of NATO had obviously taken into account (eg, Burns said in his interview) that obviously not all the European NATO partners (in particular, Germany, France and Italy itself, which played a relatively autonomous role in seeking a settlement of the crisis between Russia and Georgia) appaiono disponibili ad acuire gli elementi di tensione con Mosca nell’attuale momento di profonda crisi economica che attraversa il “vecchio Continente” e in una situazione di acuta dipendenza dalle risorse energetiche del mercato russo.
Ma tutte queste considerazioni ci permettono di affermare con sicurezza che ci troviamo di fronte a una frenata o, addirittura, al definitivo arresto dei piani di allargamento ad Est del sistema di alleanze militari e politiche imperialiste, che ebbero proprio in esperti e potenti sostenitori delle amministrazioni democratiche USA passate e presente (Brzezinski, Soros, Albright) i principali ispiratori e strateghi?
Uno sguardo più attento all’evolversi della situazione in affected areas, should lead to greater caution many enthusiastic supporters of an alleged "vocation" of the new U.S. administration to resolve conflicts ongoing with Russia and with other players on the international scene, which take for granted its unconditional acceptance of horizon of a new multipolar international relations, in which there is no place for adventurous choices that characterized the previous Bush presidency.
If we limit ourselves, for example, to examine some of the developments of events in Ukraine, the largest European country considered to be more strategic to U.S. interests and location, for many years, external pressures and constraints, we can draw the conclusion that the attempt to "force the issue" of his Western orbit integration has certainly not been definitely stopped, that the hopes of accelerating the projects of "colonization" and military subjugation in its time undertaken continue to be grown, taking advantage of the deep economic crisis facing the former Soviet republic to the brink of bankruptcy.
The remarkable development of the anti-NATO (the initiative, in particular, the Communist Party of Ukraine and other leftist forces), to which we have witnessed in recent days, with large demonstrations in different parts of the country ( particularly in the Crimea, scenery potential for a dangerous confrontation between the naval forces of Moscow and Washington), is there to show that awareness of the danger of final submission to the "American car" is present in broad sectors of the Ukrainian public, which certainly has not lowered the guard, even after the advent of Obama for president.
Disclosing uncertainty for a future of "relaxation" of U.S. policy in this area, it appears, for example, the interview with French newspaper Le Figaro, in which, in recent days, the main promoter of foreign policy "democratic "toward the former Soviet world, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has spoken to the opening of "forums for dialogue" with Moscow, but has also indicated that the approach to the negotiations must take place within the context of a conception of relations with Russia and the former USSR, which leaves no room for doubt of interpretation: " The beginning of dialogue with Russia can not be at the cost of limiting the aspirations of those countries who want to join NATO - like Ukraine and Georgia - especially for Ukraine, as a member of NATO, would pave the way for democratization of Russia. " Once again, Ukraine, Georgia (and other states of the former Soviet Union) led by elites loyal to the values \u200b\u200bof "civilizing mission" of U.S. power, integrated militarily in the imperialist bloc, is the guarantor of U.S. interests against Russia reduced to a more merciful and willing to deal with (or rather, to work) under the conditions imposed. E ', among other things, not without significance that the interview was broadcast simultaneously to the spread of rumors about the appointment of the son of the same Brzezinski ambassador to Warsaw, the capital of a country that for centuries nourished hegemonic ambitions on the Slavic states neighboring European Russia (Belarus and Ukraine) and, above all, has operated in recent years in favor of an aggressive policy towards the Russian administration, in perfect harmony with the policy guidelines U.S. foreign.
In mid-February, during a visit to Georgia, the U.S. State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, albeit with less aggressive tone than those that characterized the Bush era, when asked to advise on a possible change of the attitude Obama's new administration towards the accession of Georgia and Ukraine to NATO, said that the United States "are still engaged in improving and strengthening NATO's relations" with the two countries. He concluded: "as far as I know, there has been no change in position relative to the Bucharest Declaration (of NATO leaders in April 2008) it is clear that these two countries will be members of NATO. "
Another sign that the maneuvers aimed at integrating Ukraine into NATO is not coming under deceleration from recent visit (February 21) of the Ukrainian Deputy Foreign Minister Volodymyr Handogyi in Romania for consultations on how to facilitate access to 'Atlantic Alliance and the development agenda of commitments regarding the implementation of decisions taken at the summit in Bucharest's accession to Kiev.
Meanwhile, continuing the ongoing close cooperation with the U.S. government in Kiev (which is facing a serious crisis of credibility with the public in your country) per garantire, come sottolinea il 21 febbraio l’analista politico ucraino Viktor Pirozhenko nel sito russo del “Fondo di Cultura Strategica” (http://www.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1936), “un’adesione silenziosa, non formale alla NATO dell’Ucraina”, che viene considerata “membro de facto dell’alleanza, anche in assenza di una formalizzazione giuridica”. A tal scopo, sottolinea Pirozhenko, è previsto un drastico incremento del numero degli osservatori statunitensi e una sostanziosa crescita dell’appoggio finanziario da parte USA a innumerevoli organizzazioni non governative ucraine (quelle, tanto per intendersi, che hanno svolto un ruolo decisivo nella vittoria della “rivoluzione arancione” alla fine del 2004).
In effetti, pur non essendo formalmente membro della NATO, con la presidenza di Juschenko, l’Ucraina assolve praticamente agli stessi obblighi previsti per i membri a pieno titolo dell’alleanza militare. Ad esempio, lo spiegamento ai confini della Russia di parte consistente delle formazioni militari di Kiev, ha rappresentato, come ha dichiarato, nel dicembre 2008, il Capo di Stato Maggiore S. Kirichenko, “il rafforzamento delle frontiere della NATO, fino alla linea di confine ucraino-russa”. Un altro passo che sancisce l’adesione di fatto alla NATO si è registrato con l’accordo, siglato dal ministro della difesa Jekanurov, che permette transit and deployment of alliance forces and personnel throughout the country.
Another example is the ratification, on February 18 by the Ukrainian Parliament of the "additional protocol" to the "Memorandum of Understanding" signed by the government and NATO, which includes the installation of a "Centre of Information and Documentation NATO and the deployment throughout the country liaison officers of the military bloc.
"If Ukraine will continue to faithfully fulfill the obligations for all member countries of NATO, while continuing to be out by the alliance" - concludes the analysis of Pirozhenko - "At the end, the European partners (reluctant) of the United States are convinced that Ukraine will be admitted without complying with the procedures normally required, but merely legitimizing the status quo."
http://www.lernesto.it/index.aspx?m=77&f=2&IDArticolo=18040
0 comments:
Post a Comment