El Oso Ruso vuelve a alzar la zarpa: La confrontación entre éste y el Aguila calva no ha terminado

No estamos ante una nueva guerra, porque la Guerra Fría nunca terminó

'Rusia empezó a no hacer tanto caso de los consejos de Occidente. Y eso no gusta'
'Putin tiene una experiencia enorme, ¿cómo puede permitirse que se jubile?'
'El caso Litvinenko fue la tentativa de desacreditar a Rusia'

[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]

Actualizado sábado 15/12/2007 12:09 (CET)

DANIEL UTRILLA

MOSCÚ.- Delgado y con flequillo monacal, Andrei Lugovoi es, para la policía británica, el responsable del asesinato con polonio radiactivo del ex agente ruso Alexander Litvinenko. Para los rusos, es casi un héroe nacional desde se le señaló como sospechoso. A continuación, un resumen de sus declaraciones en la entrevista que ha concedido a EL MUNDO, la primera en un diario español.

No ha empezado ninguna nueva Guerra Fría porque la Guerra Fría nunca terminó (...) Cuando se descompuso la URSS, Rusia logró gracias a Dios mantenerse en pie, en 2000 llegó otra gente al poder y con el aumento del precio del gas y del petróleo, Rusia es ahora quizá el Estado más rico. Por eso Rusia empezó a no hacer tanto caso de los consejos de Occidente. Y eso no gusta. El caso Litvinenko fue la tentativa de desacreditar a Rusia.

No me preocupa en absoluto la inmunidad de diputado. El que viva tranquila y dignamente me lo permite la Constitución de Rusia (...) Como diputado, mi prioridad será devolver a los oficiales rusos el prestigio de élite perdido en los últimos 15 años.

"Rusia tiene solamente dos aliados: su Ejército... y su flota"

Litvinenko, por su carácter, siempre trataba de participar en provocaciones y de meterse donde "ni el perro mete el rabo". Odiaba tanto al Estado ruso, Putin incluido, que estaba listo para cometer cualquier acción. El polonio es muy engañoso, yo leí mucho sobre él. Si aquí hubiera polonio [señala la mesa], y se cubriera con un papel muy fino, o celofán, ya no habría ninguna radiación. Pero si se quitase el papel, podría empezar a evaporarse (...) Litvinenko pudo descuidarse y entrar en contacto con él.

Yo fui víctima de un ataque terrorista radiactivo en el territorio de Gran Bretaña. Pienso que se preparaba una provocación, pero algo no pasó según las reglas con las que jugaba Litvinenko. No sé el qué (...) Litvinenko me decía que estuvo muchas veces en España y que a algún mafioso lo encarcelaron gracias a sus actividades.

Rusia tiene solamente dos aliados: su Ejército y su flota (...) Putin tiene una experiencia enorme de ocho años al frente del Estado. ¿Cómo puede permitirse que se jubile?

Estados Unidos - Rusia: La guerra nunca terminó

Publicado: 28 jun 2013 | 11:49 GMT


Perspectiva Equilibrium

por elDr. Alberto Hutschenreuter



El arribo a Rusia del exanalista de la CIA Edward Snowden sumó otra nueva instancia de discordia entre Estados Unidos y Rusia, puesto que las autoridades de este último país han informado que Snowden, acusado por Estados Unidos de revelar datos oficiales sensibles, no sería deportado a su país de origen mientras permaneciera en Rusia. El hecho, que sigue a la reciente expulsión de Rusia del funcionario estadounidense Ryan Fugle, acusado de realizar actos de espionaje, precipitó un torrente de notas y análisis de expertos y diletantes sobre la erosión de las relaciones ruso-estadounidenses y el "regreso a una nueva confrontación".



Una mirada menos centrada en los eventos y más atenta a los procesos en las relaciones entre los dos países nos proporcionaría un contexto de continuidad que obedece a una lógica de poder que signó las relaciones entre estos dos singulares actores desde la desaparición de la Unión Soviética, en 1991.

Entonces, el (último) Gorbachov y el presidente ruso, Borís Yeltsin, creyeron haberse unido al bando vencedor de la Guerra Fría: según ellos, sobre todo Yeltsin y su joven canciller, Andréi Kozyrev, Estados Unidos "y Rusia" habían ganado la confrontación porque ambos habían derrotado al comunismo, que había sido una elección muy dañina para los rusos (de allí que la experta francesa Héléne Carrere D’Encausse aludiera a la "Rusia victoriosa").

Pero desde la visión estadounidense, no solamente hubo un único ganador, sino que el fin de la Unión Soviética no implicó dejar de considerar a su "Estado continuador", la Federación de Rusia, como un eventual desafío a su singular estado de supremacía.

Ello explica que Estados Unidos, bajo la pátina de una política de cooperación, confianza e incluso de "asociación estratégica" con Rusia, haya impulsado iniciativas relacionadas con maximizar su poder e impedir la recuperación del de Rusia, por caso, alentando la adopción sin cortapisas de la economía de mercado (en un país carente de tradición en la materia); ampliando la OTAN al este de Europa (sin respetar pactos implícitos que comprometían a Occidente a no hacerlo y sobre los que se habría establecido el fin del conflicto); logrando acuerdos en materia de armas estratégicas y convencionales que desfavorecían a Rusia, etc.

Hasta mediados de los años noventa Rusia no solamente creyó que la cooperación era efectiva, sino que, por vez primera en su historia, desestimó la defensa y promoción de sus intereses nacionales en pos de un orden interestatal basado en la defensa de "valores universales". Pero pronto fue comprendiendo la advertencia de Bismarck, respecto a que "una política exterior sentimental jamás reconoce reciprocidad".

Durante la segunda mitad de aquella década, Rusia asumió una conducta externa proactiva; sin embargo, su profundo grado de debilidad interna solamente le permitió un ejercicio retórico frente a políticas de maximización de poder por parte de Estados Unidos, por caso, en Kosovo, cuando la OTAN intervino sin autorización de la ONU; en países del "extranjero cercano" de Rusia, alentando fuerzas políticas refractarias a Moscú y deseosas de cobertura estratégica occidental; dando impulso a una nueva ampliación de la OTAN , etc.

Durante la década pasada, la percepción de Rusia respecto de las verdaderas intenciones de Estados Unidos para con ella se despejaron, al punto que en ocasión de la celebración del 60 aniversario del fin de la Segunda Guerra Mundial el presidente Putin, sin ambages, sentenció que "La desaparición de la Unión Soviética había sido una catástrofe geopolítica, puesto que no solamente se había perdido la Guerra Fría, sino que Rusia, su heredera, podía perder lo que se había ganado en la Gran Guerra Patria" (es decir, poder, reconocimiento y capacidad de deferencia). Sin duda fue la expresión más contundente y sintetizadora en relación con aquella percepción nacional.

Más recientemente, la política externa rusa se tornó más activa, alcanzando en Georgia y en Siria su mayor afirmación ante las políticas de poder estadounidenses.


En breve, la Guerra Fría nunca terminó. Nunca existió un tratado que pusiera fin a la misma. Por ello, el experto Serguéi Karagánov ha dicho: "La confrontación permanece inacabada. Pese a que el enfrentamiento militar e ideológico de aquellos tiempos ha quedado muy atrás, se lo está sustituyendo por un nuevo punto muerto: entre Rusia, por un lado, y, por otro, Estados Unidos y algunos 'nuevos europeos'. Europa, Rusia y Estados Unidos deben poner fin a la 'guerra inacabada'. Después, tal vez en 2019, año en que se cumplirá el centésimo aniversario del Tratado de Versalles, podremos despedirnos del siglo XX".



Por Dr. Alberto Hutschenreuter
Ciudad de Buenos Aires
Argentina
www.equilibriumglobal.com

La guerra fría nunca terminó

El Mundo 4 Mar 2014 - 9:30 pm

Visión global


Lo que parecía una crisis política interna, difícil para Ucrania pero manejable en términos de sus repercusiones internacionales, se ha convertido en un pulso entre Rusia, Estados Unidos y Europa que recuerda el modus vivendi de la guerra fría, en el que la expansión de cualquiera de las partes se disuadía mediante la amenaza de retaliaciones militares de “baja intensidad” o incluso de tipo nuclear.

Por: Arlene B. Tickner



El actual impasse diplomático hace pensar que la disolución de la Unión Soviética y el fin de la guerra fría nunca dieron muerte a las doctrinas de política exterior que acompañaban a ésta, en especial la contención. Al contrario, podría afirmarse que desde comienzos de los noventa, Estados Unidos, de la mano de Europa occidental, ha buscado expandir su zona de influencia militar, política y económica hasta los límites fronterizos de Rusia (si no también dentro de estos) con el objeto de contener la expansión y la influencia de ese país. Así, Washington ha actuado en términos geoestratégicos como si la guerra fría nunca hubiera terminado.

Una columna reciente del académico y funcionario público, Joseph Nye en el New York Times, sobre la política de Obama en Asia, permite entender por qué la contención no funciona como estrategia frente a Rusia. Además de ser diseñada para otra época histórica en la que el intercambio económico y el contacto social eran limitados, parte de la consideración del “otro” como enemigo o amenaza, lo cual inculca en este conductas de adversario. En reflejo de esto, varias encuestas recientes de Gallup, Levada Center y VTsIOM muestran que las percepciones mutuas entre los habitantes de Rusia y Estados Unidos han empeorado ostensiblemente. Por primera vez en 15 años la mayoría de los estadounidenses consideran a Rusia como un enemigo en lugar de un aliado, teniendo altos niveles de desfavorabilidad tanto el país como Vladimir Putin. Mientras tanto, la mitad de la población rusa ve a Estados Unidos en términos negativos y considera posible una nueva “guerra fría”. A su vez, apoya masivamente la defensa de Rusia frente a intromisiones externas (occidentales liberales), así como la recuperación de su estatus como “gran potencia”.

El lenguaje utilizado en días recientes por Washington frente al despliegue militar ruso en Crimea suena a ultimátum. Dentro de la lógica señalada aquí, la respuesta de Putin, consistente en no sucumbir ante la presión externa y dividir a Europa con el chantaje de cortar su suministro de energía, es completamente “racional”. Pese a la advertencia estadounidense de que “habrá costos que pagar”, no existe amenaza militar creíble que pueda forzar a Rusia a soltar a Crimea, mientras que la de otros tipos de sanción económica y política es similarmente inocua.

La pregunta, entonces, es cómo persuadir a Rusia a hacer lo que quieren Estados Unidos y Europa, dada la inutilidad de la contención y a sabiendas de que la anexión de Crimea es una posibilidad real. Además de tratar a Putin como socio o incluso rival, y no como enemigo o loco, es importante comprender las preocupaciones (no del todo ilegítimas) rusas frente a la crisis en Ucrania. Desde la guerra en Georgia de 2008, Moscú no había enviado señal más fuerte de que la inestabilidad política y económica en sus fronteras son inadmisibles para su “interés nacional”. Obama debe intentar escuchar.

15 marzo 2014
Occidente busca frenar el avance ruso en Ucrania.

Con el esperado triunfo del SÍ en el referendo secesionista de Crimea, Occidente se prepara para tratar de detener las intenciones expansionistas de Rusia.

Ante el ataque de un oso, los expertos recomiendan mantener la calma, no precipitarse y evitar enfrentar a la bestia. El nuevo gobierno de Ucrania, que conoce al dedillo al Oso Ruso, parece haber seguido al pie de la letra esas recomendaciones, pues ha mostrado una contención admirable si se tiene e
n cuenta la magnitud de la pérdida territorial que la amenaza: nada menos que el 5 por ciento de su superficie y el control de su costa sobre el mar Negro. “Considero casi un milagro que se haya evitado un baño de sangre en todo el proceso”, dijo el miércoles pasado el emisario especial de la OSCE para Ucrania, Tim Guldimann.

Si bien en un principio reinó el desconcierto, hoy existe un amplio consenso en cuanto a que los hombres en traje de combate que ocuparon las zonas clave de Crimea a finales de febrero son miembros del Ejército ruso. También en que se realizará el referendo programado para el domingo 16 de marzo, en que ganará por amplia mayoría el Sí a reunificarse con Rusia. Y en que Occidente no está en condiciones de hacer gran cosa para oponerse a esa unión, por lo menos en el corto plazo. “Putin sabe muy bien que está en posición de fuerza, pues tiene claros sus intereses. Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea tienen propuestas que suenan bien, pero que no se pueden llevar a la práctica”, le dijo a SEMANA el escritor y periodista Pierre Lorrain, autor del libro El misterioso ascenso de Vladimir Putin.

La pregunta que hoy se hacen muchos es si, además de haberse salido con la suya, Putin logrará legalizar su zarpazo geopolítico. La respuesta tiene varias capas, algunas de ellas contradictorias. El artículo 73 de la Constitución de Ucrania es bastante explícito al respecto: “Los cambios en el territorio de Ucrania solo podrán resolverse mediante un referéndum en el que participen todos los ucranianos”. En ese sentido, la votación es “ilegítima”, como la calificó el 5 de marzo el presidente de la Rada de Kiev, Alexandr Turchinov, que agregó que “la decisión es una farsa”.

Sin embargo, ‘legal’ y ‘legítimo’ no son lo mismo y la apuesta de los secesionistas consiste justamente en ‘legitimar’ su proceso. Y al respecto los antecedentes de los últimos años les dan una buena artillería diplomática. En particular, el caso de Kosovo deja mal paradas a las fuerzas occidentales, pues presenta semejanzas que podrían llevar a que se vea como precedente. “En la declaración de independencia de Kosovo la Corte Internacional de Justicia encontró que no había nada ilegal aunque había una resolución del Consejo de Seguridad que garantizaba la integridad territorial de Yugoslavia”, dijo a SEMANA Francis Boyle, profesor de la Escuela de Derecho de la Universidad de Illinois.

Lo anterior deja dos cuestiones pendientes. La primera es si Rusia anexionará la península. Aunque por ahora reina la incertidumbre, es poco probable que lo haga, pues Putin cuenta con estrategias ya probadas que le evitarían el oprobio de ser visto como el gran usurpador. Es el caso del territorio separatista de Transnistria –una estrecha franja enclavada entre Ucrania y el río Dniéster de la vecina Moldavia– el cual goza desde 1992 de una independencia de facto blindada por un contingente militar ruso que garantiza que se mantenga el statu quo.

La segunda cuestión está abierta a todas las interpretaciones y consiste en cómo reaccionará Occidente ante el resultado del referendo. Esto dependerá no solo de la habilidad de su diplomacia, sino también de las aspiraciones independentistas de las regiones orientales de Ucrania. Los disturbios en las zonas fronterizas, que el 13 de marzo cobraron dos víctimas fatales, y los ejercicios militares que el Ejército ruso ha emprendido en el área configuran una oportunidad que Rusia difícilmente dejará pasar. Si algo caracteriza a los osos, además de su fuerza física, es su agudo olfato.

[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]
Los cancilleres de Rusia y de Estados Unidos, Sergey Lavrov y John Kerry, conferenciaron en Londres el viernes.

[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]
Un activista reemplaza una bandera de Ucrania por otra de la Federación Rusa en el centro de Donetsk.

[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]
Precedente peligroso El territorio de Transnistria tiene desde 1992 una independencia de facto ligada a la presencia militar rusa.

Obama descarta tomar vía militar ante crisis de Ucrania
EFE| El Universal
18:40 Washington | Miércoles 19 de marzo de 2014

El mandatario explica que se debe reconocer que un enfrentamiento militar con Rusia no sería bueno para nadie

El presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, descartó hoy cualquier acción militar de su país en la crisis de Ucrania tras la anexión de la península de Crimea a Rusia y apostó una vez más por la diplomacia como solución al conflicto.

"No vamos a hacer una incursión militar en Ucrania. Creo que incluso los ucranianos reconocerán que enfrentarnos militarmente con Rusia no sería apropiado para nosotros y tampoco sería bueno para Ucrania", dijo Obama en una entrevista con KNSD, la filial de NBC en San Diego (California, EU) .

Rusia tiene sus propias 'líneas rojas' que Occidente no debería cruzar

Publicado: 25 mar 2014 | 14:07 GMT Última actualización: 25 mar 2014 | 14:07 GMT

La paciencia de Rusia tiene sus límites y existe una serie de 'líneas rojas' que Occidente no debería cruzar si no quiere recibir una respuesta severa, de acuerdo con una publicación en la web 'Vzgliad'.

La expansión de la OTAN hacia el este

La expansión descontrolada de la OTAN hacia el este de Europa puede convertirse en una de las llamadas 'líneas rojas' para Rusia. Cuando la Alianza Atlántica se ha acercado a las fronteras rusas, tales países como Ucrania y Georgia se han convertido en una especie de 'Estados tapón' entre Rusia y Occidente. EE.UU. y sus aliados hacen todo los posible para aumentar su influencia en estos territorios e incluso para imponer Gobiernos que les convengan, como pasó en su momento en Georgia con el presidente Saakashvili, y en Ucrania durante la llamada 'Revolución Naranja', apoyada desde el exterior, y el reciente golpe de Estado financiado y aplaudido por Occidente.
 
Si Ucrania algún día llega a ser miembro de la Alianza esto supondría un cambio radical en el balance de las fuerzas estratégicas y una verdadera amenaza a la seguridad de Rusia. Los elementos del sistema de defensa antimisiles que EE.UU. emplazaría en el territorio ucraniano en combinación con las armas estratégicas convencionales de alta precisión podrían afectar los sistemas de defensa antiaérea y antimisiles de Rusia.

Además los dirigentes de la OTAN ya han comenzado a involucrar a las Fuerzas Armadas de Suecia y Finlandia (que tiene frontera con Rusia) en la estructura  militar de la Alianza. Aunque de momento se trata de una participación limitada de los militares de estos países en las maniobras conjuntas con la OTAN, no se puede excluir que la situación cambie si llegan al poder las fuerzas conservadoras.

La contención nuclear y la carrera armamentista

La confrontación con EE.UU. en el área de las armas nucleares es una de las mayores amenazas a la seguridad y a los intereses nacionales de Rusia. Los esfuerzos diplomáticos y militares de Washington están dirigidos a minimizar la capacidad de respuesta de Rusia a una amenaza nuclear.

Para alcanzar su objetivo, EE.UU. está tratando de imponer a Rusia todo tipo de 'acuerdos de desarme'. Así, por ejemplo, EE.UU. quiere iniciar las negociaciones sobre la reducción de las fuerzas tácticas nucleares, que actualmente garantizan la paridad nuclear entre las dos naciones.

El sistema de defensa antimisiles que Washington está construyendo en diferentes países europeos, cada vez más cerca de las fronteras rusas, es también parte de este plan.

Una situación en la que la capacidad de respuesta nuclear de Rusia estuviese seriamente amenazada sería una 'línea roja' para Moscú.

Conflicto en Oriente Próximo

Una agresión de EE.UU. contra Siria como "respuesta asimétrica" al fortalecimiento de Rusia podría ser otra línea infranqueable para Moscú.

Hace poco Washington cerró la Embajada de Siria y aumentó su presencia militar en el Mediterráneo. A pesar de que en una ocasión Obama ya desistió de atacar a Siria, su fe en las armas sofisticadas podría hacerle optar por ese tipo de agresión.

Teniendo en cuenta las tensiones actuales en la región, no se puede descartar la participación de Irán e Israel en el conflicto y una expansión del mismo que podría llegar a ser mundial.

El Ártico

El Ártico no es solo un objeto de deseo por sus reservas de hidrocarburos, sino también por ser una cómoda cabeza de puente.

Precisamente este último aspecto está en el punto de mira de EE.UU. El Ártico, especialmente la parte situada bajo el  hielo, es vista en los planes estratégicos militares de EE.UU. y la OTAN como un punto de partida ideal para llevar a cabo un ataque nuclear contra Rusia.

La estrategia de la OTAN prevé el emplazamiento de hasta 20 submarinos en el Ártico capaces de realizar un ataque nuclear preventivo contra blancos ubicados en el territorio de Rusia.

Cualquier actividad sospechosa de los submarinos estadounidense en esta región podría servir de 'línea roja' para Moscú.

Cabe destacar que últimamente Rusia ha intensificado su presencia militar en el Ártico y hasta ha llevado a cabo maniobras militares en la región.

Amenaza terrorista

EE.UU. podría redirigir la agresión de los grupos islamistas radicales próximos a Al Qaeda que operan en Afganistán hacia Rusia. A pesar de la lucha armada contra el terrorismo proclamada por EE.UU., los servicios especiales de la nación norteamericana mantienen contactos con los participantes de los grupos radicales. Normalmente se hace con el fin de prevenir atentados, pero este tipo de comunicación también podría servir para fijar otro tipo de blancos (Rusia, en este caso).

El primer atentado llevado a cabo en el territorio ruso en el que se detectase 'una huella estadounidense' serviría de  'línea roja'.

17:46 25/03/2014
Moscú, 25 de marzo, RIA Novosti.



La crisis ucraniana podría hacer que la Alianza Atlántica revise la totalidad de su estrategia, declaró el secretario general adjunto de la OTAN, Alexander Vershbow, en una entrevista que publica hoy el diario Kommersant.

“Tendremos que evaluar las consecuencias de los sucesos en torno a Ucrania y posiblemente revisar toda nuestra estrategia. Seguimos partiendo de que los principales desafíos no solo para nuestra seguridad, sino también para la de Rusia, se producen fuera de Europa”, dijo el funcionario.

Según Vershbow, los futuros objetivos del bloque en Europa dependerán “de cómo vaya a actuar Moscú”.

“Si Rusia cuestiona los principios clave de la seguridad europea plasmados en el Acta Final de Helsinki y viola sus propios acuerdos bilaterales, como en el caso de Ucrania, habrá discusiones serias sobre lo que significaría eso para las prioridades de la OTAN”, aseveró, al subrayar que la seguridad colectiva “siempre ha sido la misión principal de la alianza”.

Al mismo tiempo, el vicejefe de la OTAN descartó la posibilidad de un conflicto con Rusia, y aseguró que ninguno de los países aliados se plantea acciones de guerra directas.

“Creo que ese riesgo es mínimo. Defendemos absolutamente la resolución de la crisis por la vía política. Ninguno de los miembros de la OTAN planea una respuesta militar directa, y todos apoyamos los esfuerzos internacionales para establecer un diálogo político entre Rusia y Ucrania con participación de otros países”, recalcó.

Expresó la confianza asimismo en que Rusia opte por la desescalada y que las consecuencias de “esta crisis muy grave” sean no obstante escasas.


http://sp.ria.ru/revista_de_prensa/20140325/159615766.html

¿Vuelve la guerra fría?

27/03/2014.- Cuando cayó el Muro de Berlín, en noviembre de 1989, muchos festejaron el fin del orden bipolar de la segunda posguerra mundial del siglo XX. El colapso de la Unión Soviética dos años después pareció confirmar la impresión de que surgía la posibilidad de construir un orden internacional estable, más igualitario que el desaparecido, y también más armónico, porque el fin del bloque socialista había acarreado la universalización de la democracia liberal. Pensaban, quienes así pensaban, que si todos los países tenían la misma forma de gobierno, no habría mayor conflicto entre ellos.

La crisis que ha provocado la decisión del gobierno ruso de anexarse Crimea ilustra la banalidad de ese presupuesto, porque parece una provocación de Rusia a las potencias occidentales, para quienes Ucrania es un país soberano en el que una proporción importante de la población se ha manifestado por el ingreso a la Unión Europea. A ojos de ésta, la intervención rusa es una agresión que debe ser frenada y sancionada. No obstante, para entender las acciones rusas habría que tomar en cuenta los intereses estratégicos que la motivan, pues, a su vez, Rusia se siente amenazada por los avances del mundo occidental en su antigua esfera de influencia. Lo que es indiscutible es que el antagonismo histórico entre Rusia y los europeos y Estados Unidos ha renacido.

Para muchos, los acontecimientos de la última semana indican que estamos al borde de una segunda guerra fría. De ser así, me atrevo a prever que será mucho más peligrosa que la anterior, porque así lo dicta la dispersión que caracteriza hoy en día al poder internacional, así como la ausencia de un liderazgo claro. El presidente Obama, de quien se esperaría que asumiera esa responsabilidad, se ha mostrado tímido y dubitativo, para exasperación del ala radical del Partido Republicano. China, la gran potencia en ascenso, no habrá de involucrarse en estos conflictos; los europeos callan o se contradicen, entre otras razones porque no quieren poner en riesgo su aprovisionamiento de gas ruso. De manera que hasta ahora las reacciones han sido sobre todo de carácter declarativo. Antes de enjuiciar a los líderes de los países occidentales, habría que preguntarse si tienen recursos suficientes para presionar al gobierno de Vladimir Putin, porque todo sugiere que no los tienen. De manera que es muy probable que Crimea será rusa, como lo había sido durante siglos.

La historia de los últimos 30 años es un irrefutable desmentido del optimismo –y triunfalismo– democrático. En apariencia, la guerra fría se terminó porque la Unión Soviética, uno de sus principales protagonistas, se vino abajo; sin embargo, ahora vemos que en lugar de que el conflicto soviético-estadunidense se extinguiera definitivamente, en realidad pasó a un estado de latencia. La crisis de Crimea ha dejado al descubierto la fragilidad de la estabilidad internacional. Nada de esto debería sorprendernos. Las últimas décadas del siglo pasado estuvieron marcadas por sangrientos conflictos internos, sobre todo en países africanos; por las trágicas guerras balcánicas, y por el ánimo guerrero con que Estados Unidos emprendió su ofensiva antiterrorista. Es decir, al cabo de un breve periodo de relativa calma en los años 90, dominado por la hegemonía estadunidense, el orden internacional no ha sido tal. El mundo parece encontrarse más bien en una situación de fluidez en que las potencias grandes y medias no han encontrado un acomodo definitivo, como si estuvieran suspendidas en el vacío. La Unión Europea no acaba de encontrar una voz en política internacional; por separado, Francia parece atada de manos por la difícil coyuntura interna que atraviesa; a Gran Bretaña la limitan sus lealtades divididas (o sus intereses encontrados) y Alemania no acaba de asumir el liderazgo político que se deriva de su posición económica, la más sólida de Europa. El ascenso de China añade complejidad a los ya de por sí frágiles equilibrios internacionales.

El regreso a la guerra fría no es impensable. Podemos imaginar, incluso, la reaparición de países divididos por una filiación política distinta: Ucrania occidental y Ucrania del este. Una separación de esta naturaleza estaría desprovista de la carga ideológica característica del mundo bipolar, y la rivalidad entre las potencias habría encontrado un cauce para conjurar un conflicto más amplio. Es posible hasta que con ese reordenamiento el sistema internacional recupere la estabilidad perdida.

Decision taken by foreign ministers discussing crisis triggered by Moscow's occupation and annexation of Crimea region.
Last updated: 02 Apr 2014 04:27


Decision taken by foreign ministers discussing crisis triggered by Moscow's occupation and annexation of Crimea region.

NATO has said it will suspend "all practical civilian and military cooperation" with Russia because of Moscow's occupation and annexation of Ukraine's Crimea region.

The decision was taken on Tuesday by the military alliance's foreign ministers in Brussels who urged Russia in a statement "to take immediate steps ... to return to compliance with international law".

NATO and Ukraine announced in a joint statement after their ministers met that they would intensify cooperation and promote defence reforms in Ukraine through training and other programmes.

The suspension of military cooperation came as NATO said it had seen no sign that Russia was withdrawing troops from the Ukraine border, according to the alliance's secretary-general Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

"Unfortunately, I cannot confirm that Russia is withdrawing its troops. This is not what we are seeing," Rasmussen told reporters in Brussels.

Ministers from the 28 alliance member nations met for the first time since Russia's military occupation and annexation of Crimea triggered the worst East-West crisis since the Cold War.

Al Jazeera's Neave Barker, reporting from Brussels, said: "The relationship is at its lowest since the formation of the NATO-Russia Council in 2002, formed to boost unity on narcotics control and anti-terrorism technology.

"But according to NATO, those joint efforts are now on hold. The message coming from Brussels is that it's certainly no longer business as usual."

Tension between Ukraine and Moscow has continued, with Russian energy giant Gazprom announcing on Tuesday a more than 40 percent increase in the price of gas exports to Ukraine.

Ukraine will now pay a price of $385.5 per 1,000 cubic metres of gas, Gazprom chief executive Alexei Miller said in a statement, raising the price from $268.5 per 1,000 cubic metres which was agreed in December.

Diplomats said the ministers in Brussels would consider options ranging from stepped-up military exercises and sending more forces to eastern member states to the permanent bases of alliance forces in those countries - a step Moscow would view as provocative.

Asked if NATO could station forces permanently in the small former Soviet Baltic states, Rasmussen said: "We are now considering all options to enhance our collective defence, including ... further development of our defence plans, enhanced exercises and also appropriate deployments."

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski told reporters as he arrived that he would welcome "some more prominent NATO presence in Poland".

Financial aid

Meanwhile, the European Union has decided to make a swift payment of financial aid to Ukraine, the bloc's economy chief Olli Rehn said, dismissing the possibility of economic sanctions against Russia unless it takes more action.

Rehn's comments on Tuesday offered the prospect of quick financial backing from Europe for Ukraine, which is grappling with increased gas prices.

The European Union has pledged $15bn as part of a package of support with the International Monetary Fund.

"It is in the interests of Ukraine and Europe to maintain peace and stability on our continent," Rehn told journalists on the sidelines of a meeting of European finance ministers in Athens.

He said the first payment would be "made swiftly", according to the Reuters news agency.

But while he underscored Brussels' desire to back Ukraine, he played down the idea of stiffer penalties on Russia following its annexation of Crimea.

"As regards sanctions, no sensible European would want to see economic sanctions," he said, adding that none should be necessary if Moscow took no action.

"In case Russia would not escalate the crisis, then we should be able to avoid this sanctions," he said.

Los ministros ordenaron a autoridades militares que "desarrollen con carácter de urgencia una serie de medidas adicionales para reforzar las defensas colectivas de la OTAN", dijo un funcionario del grupo.

Las medidas pueden incluir el envío de soldados y equipamiento de la OTAN a aliados de la alianza en el este de Europa, la realización de más ejercicios, pasos para garantizar que la fuerza de reacción de la OTAN pueda desplegarse más rápido y una revisión de los planes militares del grupo.

Las autoridades militares presentarán propuestas detalladas en algunas semanas, dijo el funcionario.

La OTAN y Ucrania anunciaron en un comunicado conjunto, después de que sus ministros de Exteriores se reunieron en Bruselas, que intensificarán la cooperación y promocionarán reformas de defensa en Ucrania a través de entrenamientos y otro tipo de programas. Aliados de la OTAN enviarán más expertos a Kiev.

La OTAN dijo que no había señales de una retirada parcial de las tropas rusas de la frontera ucraniana, como anunció Moscú el lunes.

"Desafortunadamente, no puedo confirmar que Rusia esté retirando sus tropas. Eso no es lo que estamos viendo", dijo Rasmussen a periodistas.

Mientras los ministros de la OTAN debatían, Rusia advirtió a Ucrania de los riesgos de una integración con la OTAN, recordando que los intentos previos de Kiev por acercarse a la alianza habían tenido consecuencias negativas.

Estados Unidos y sus aliados han dejado claro que no tienen planes militares para defender a Ucrania, pero han prometido protección a aliados del este europeo que se unieron al grupo en los últimos 15 años tras el colapso de la Unión Soviética.

(Reporte adicional de Sabine Siebold, Justyna Pawlak y Lesley Wroughton en Bruselas, Jeff Mason, Steve Holland y Phil Stewart en Washington. Traducido por Andrés González y Damián Pérez. Editado en español por Javier López de Lérida)

OTAN no ve señales de retirada rusa de frontera ucraniana
martes 1 de abril de 2014 11:00 GYT

Algunos miembros de la OTAN son cautos acerca de dar pasos que puedan agravar la crisis, particularmente después de que Moscú dijo el lunes que había retirado algunos soldados que estaban apostados cerca de la frontera ucraniana.

Pero un funcionario militar de la OTAN, que habló bajo condición de anonimato, dijo que Rusia aún tenía unos 35.000-40.000 soldados estacionados cerca de la frontera y que no había señales de una reducción significativa en sus números.

Las fuerzas rusas incluyen infantería mecanizada, unidades blindadas, fuerzas especiales, grupos de logística y "números bastante sustanciales" de aviones y helicópteros, añadió el funcionario.
'
También había poca evidencia de que los soldados estuvieran allí para entrenamiento, agregó. Hubo algunos ejercicios, pero otras unidades estaban trasladándose para quedarse en el lugar.

"Es una indicación de soldados que reciben órdenes de desplegarse en un lugar y esperar mayores órdenes", dijo.

Las fuerzas rusas no representan una amenaza a países de la OTAN, pero podrían serlo para Ucrania, agregó el funcionario.

(Reporte adicional de Jeff Mason, Steve Holland y Phil Stewart en Washington. Editado en español por Lucila Sigal)

Por “violación territorial” de Ucrania, la NASA congela toda interacción con Rusia, menos en la EEI

Por: Redacción / Sinembargo - abril 2 de 2014 - 19:25
De revista, Mundo, TIEMPO REAL, Último minuto - 1 comentario


Washington, 2 abr (EFE).- La NASA ha congelado toda interacción con Rusia salvo en la Estación Espacial Internacional (EEI) por la “violación de la soberanía y la integridad territorial” de Ucrania que ha supuesto la intervención rusa en la península de Crimea, informó hoy la agencia espacial de EE.UU. en un comunicado.

Esa suspensión afecta a todos los viajes de los trabajadores de la NASA a Rusia, las visitas de los equipos de la agencia espacial rusa a las instalaciones de la estadounidense, los encuentros bilaterales, correos electrónicos, tele-conferencias y videoconferencias, detalló la agencia.

La noticia de la NASA llegó una semana después de que astronautas rusos y estadounidenses partieran juntos en una nave Soyuz desde el cosmódromo de Baikonur, en Kazajistán, hacia la EEI, en lo que se consideró una muestra de colaboración que superaba las tensiones políticas del momento entre los gobiernos de sus países.

La cancelación de la colaboración con Rusia fue divulgada en un primer momento a partir de un correo electrónico interno de la NASA publicado este miércoles por los medios estadounidenses cuya autenticidad fue confirmada después por la agencia espacial en un comunicado.

“Dada la violación en curso de la soberanía e integridad territorial de Ucrania por parte de Rusia, la NASA suspende la mayoría de sus compromisos vigentes con la Federación Rusa”, indicó la agencia estadounidense en su nota.

Asimismo, la NASA explicó que poner fin su “dependencia” de Rusia en materia espacial ha sido “una prioridad máxima de la Administración (del presidente estadounidense, Barack) Obama durante los últimos cinco años”.

Con este objetivo, la agencia ha diseñado un plan para que las misiones espaciales en las que participan astronautas estadounidenses vuelvan a despegar desde territorio nacional.

“Con los reducidos niveles de financiación aprobados por el Congreso, esperamos despegar desde suelo de EE.UU. en 2017″, señala el comunicado, algo que podría haber ocurrido ya en 2015, según la NASA, si sus planes hubieran estado “plenamente financiados”.

“La elección aquí es entre financiar plenamente el plan para devolver los despegues espaciales a Estados Unidos o continuar enviando millones de dólares a los rusos. Es así de simple. La Administración Obama elige invertir en Estados Unidos y esperamos que el Congreso haga lo mismo”, concluyó la agencia espacial.

As Russian FM pokes fun at EU's role in Ukraine, the bloc's top diplomat urges Moscow to pull troops from border.
Last updated: 04 Apr 2014 19:25

Russia's annexation of Crimea has brought Europe and Moscow into their biggest conflict since the Cold War

The top diplomat of the European Union has said Russia needs to show it is serious about defusing the Ukraine crisis by moving its troops back from the border as Russia's foreign minister ridiculed EU-Ukraine relationship.

Catherine Ashton, foreign policy chief, made the comments on Friday at the start of a two-day meeting in Athens where EU foreign ministers gathered to discuss possible actions against Russia's annexation of Crimea.

William Hague, the British foreign secretary, said EU member states had to remain unted about punitive measures taken against officials in Moscow and in the annexed peninsula.

"It's very important for us to remain strong and united about the sanctions that we have implemented against individuals in Russia and Crimea, and to prepare more far-reaching measures if they become necessary," Hague said ahead of the meeting.

No decision would be made in Athens, he added.

"This moment isn't the moment for phase three of sanctions, but they have to be ready because the situation remains very dangerous, it remains very tense."

Linas Linkevicius, the foreign minister of Lithuania - the country that fears it could be one of the next victims of Russian aggression - said "Europe must stand united" against Moscow as concessions would be perceived as a "weakness" by the Kremlin.

Meanwhile, Sergei Lavrov, Russia's foreign minister, poked fun at the Western leaders and Ukraine, saying "the West has taken on a role of the master of Ukraine's fate while the country's fledging government has not shown much independence so far".

Russia's annexation of Ukraine's Crimea has brought Europe and Russia into their biggest conflict since the Cold War, and is raising questions about the bloc's long-term policy towards Moscow and about the EU's ability to support stability in the region.

Hiking gas price

Ukraine's Western backed leaders scrambled on Friday to find new sources of energy after Russia hiked its gas price by 80 percent in response to the overthrow of Kiev's pro-Kremlin regime.

Yuriy Prodan, the energy minister, called the new rate "political" and vowed to explore solutions that included a heavier reliance on coal.

The country's Prime Minister Arseniy Yatseniuk said on Friday another option the government was trying to chase up was reversing gas from European neighbours like Slovenia, Hungary and Poland.

Reverse flows would involve sending gas back down the pipelines used in the transit of Russian gas through Ukraine to Europe.

"On a technical level, the idea of reverse gas raises no problems, and we hope our European partners make the right decision. If it will be to reverse, then it means the prise for gas will be $150 lower than Russian gas," said Yatseniuk.

Russian president warns Europe could face shutdown of gas supplies if its leaders do not help Ukraine to settle debt.
Last updated: 10 Apr 2014 20:31

Russia warned to cut off gas deliveries to Ukraine which would block supplies to Europe [Reuters]

Russian President Vladimir Putin has urged European leaders to quickly help Ukraine settle its gas debt to Russia, or possibly face a shutdown of Russian natural gas supplies flowing though Ukrainian pipelines to the continent.

Putin's letter to 18 leaders, released on Thursday by the Kremlin, is part of Russia's efforts to keep an upper hand over its struggling neighbour, which is teetering on the verge of financial ruin and is facing a pro-Russian separatist mutiny in the east, the Associated Press news agency reported.

"The fact that our European partners have unilaterally withdrawn from the concerted efforts to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and even from holding consultations with the Russian side, leaves Russia no alternative," Putin said.

Putin's move raises the spectre of a new gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine that could affect much of Europe.

In 2009, Moscow turned off supplies to Kiev, leading to the shutdown of Russian gas moving across Ukrainian pipelines to other European countries.

The amount that Putin claims Ukraine owes is growing by billions every day. In the letter, Putin said Ukraine owes Russia $17bn in gas discounts and potentially another $18.4bn incurred by Ukraine as a minimal take-or-pay fine under their 2009 gas contract.

He added, on top of that $35.4bn, Russia also holds $3bn in Ukrainian government bonds.

The amount is far greater than the estimated $14bn bailout that the International Monetary Fund is considering for Ukraine.

Advance payments

Putin warned that Ukraine's mounting debt was forcing Moscow to demand advance payments for further gas supplies.

He warned that if Ukraine failed to make such payments, Russia's state-controlled gas giant Gazprom will "completely or partially cease gas deliveries".

Putin told the leaders that a possible shutdown of Russian gas supplies will increase the risk of Ukraine siphoning off gas that intended for Europe and will make it difficult to accumulate sufficient reserves for next winter.

He urged quick talks between Russia and European consumers of Russian gas to prevent a looming shutdown of supplies.

He said Russia may decide to help its struggling neighbour "not in a unilateral way, but on equal conditions with our European partners."

"It is also essential to take into account the actual investments, contributions and expenditures that Russia has shouldered by itself alone for such a long time in supporting Ukraine," he wrote in the letter.

"Only such an approach would be fair and balanced and only such an approach can lead to success. "

Putin has been tightening the economic screws on the cash-strapped Kiev government since it came to power in February, after Ukraine's Russia-leaning president fled the country after months of protest sparked by his decision to ditch an EU trade pact in favour of closer ties with Russia.

Starting this month, Russia state energy giant Gazprom scrapped all discounts on gas to Ukraine, meaning a 70 percent price hike that will add to the debt figure.

El Mundo 4 Mar 2014 - 9:30 pm

Visión global


Lo que parecía una crisis política interna, difícil para Ucrania pero manejable en términos de sus repercusiones internacionales, se ha convertido en un pulso entre Rusia, Estados Unidos y Europa que recuerda el modus vivendi de la guerra fría, en el que la expansión de cualquiera de las partes se disuadía mediante la amenaza de retaliaciones militares de “baja intensidad” o incluso de tipo nuclear.

Por: Arlene B. Tickner



El actual impasse diplomático hace pensar que la disolución de la Unión Soviética y el fin de la guerra fría nunca dieron muerte a las doctrinas de política exterior que acompañaban a ésta, en especial la contención. Al contrario, podría afirmarse que desde comienzos de los noventa, Estados Unidos, de la mano de Europa occidental, ha buscado expandir su zona de influencia militar, política y económica hasta los límites fronterizos de Rusia (si no también dentro de estos) con el objeto de contener la expansión y la influencia de ese país. Así, Washington ha actuado en términos geoestratégicos como si la guerra fría nunca hubiera terminado.

Una columna reciente del académico y funcionario público, Joseph Nye en el New York Times, sobre la política de Obama en Asia, permite entender por qué la contención no funciona como estrategia frente a Rusia. Además de ser diseñada para otra época histórica en la que el intercambio económico y el contacto social eran limitados, parte de la consideración del “otro” como enemigo o amenaza, lo cual inculca en este conductas de adversario. En reflejo de esto, varias encuestas recientes de Gallup, Levada Center y VTsIOM muestran que las percepciones mutuas entre los habitantes de Rusia y Estados Unidos han empeorado ostensiblemente. Por primera vez en 15 años la mayoría de los estadounidenses consideran a Rusia como un enemigo en lugar de un aliado, teniendo altos niveles de desfavorabilidad tanto el país como Vladimir Putin. Mientras tanto, la mitad de la población rusa ve a Estados Unidos en términos negativos y considera posible una nueva “guerra fría”. A su vez, apoya masivamente la defensa de Rusia frente a intromisiones externas (occidentales liberales), así como la recuperación de su estatus como “gran potencia”.

El lenguaje utilizado en días recientes por Washington frente al despliegue militar ruso en Crimea suena a ultimátum. Dentro de la lógica señalada aquí, la respuesta de Putin, consistente en no sucumbir ante la presión externa y dividir a Europa con el chantaje de cortar su suministro de energía, es completamente “racional”. Pese a la advertencia estadounidense de que “habrá costos que pagar”, no existe amenaza militar creíble que pueda forzar a Rusia a soltar a Crimea, mientras que la de otros tipos de sanción económica y política es similarmente inocua.

La pregunta, entonces, es cómo persuadir a Rusia a hacer lo que quieren Estados Unidos y Europa, dada la inutilidad de la contención y a sabiendas de que la anexión de Crimea es una posibilidad real. Además de tratar a Putin como socio o incluso rival, y no como enemigo o loco, es importante comprender las preocupaciones (no del todo ilegítimas) rusas frente a la crisis en Ucrania. Desde la guerra en Georgia de 2008, Moscú no había enviado señal más fuerte de que la inestabilidad política y económica en sus fronteras son inadmisibles para su “interés nacional”. Obama debe intentar escuchar.

NATO mulls US troops in eastern Europe
Move suggested to back member states that feel threatened by Russian military build-up near Ukraine.
Last updated: 10 Apr 2014 11:58


NATO's chief military commander in Europe has suggested deploying American troops to alliance member states in eastern Europe as a countermove to the Russian military threat against Ukraine.

US Air Force General Philip Breedlove told the Associated Press news agency on Wednesday that he would not "write off involvement by any nation, to include the United States".

Foreign ministers of the 28-nation alliance have given Breedlove until Tuesday to propose steps to reassure NATO members nearest Russia that other alliance countries have their back.

"Essentially what we are looking at is a package of land, air and maritime measures that would build assurance for our easternmost allies," Breedlove told AP. "I'm tasked to deliver this by next week. I fully intend to deliver it early."

In March, Russian troops took control of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula, whose inhabitants then voted in a referendum to secede and join Russia.


In the most recent development, pro-Russian separatists, suspected to be backed by Moscow, seized government buildings in eastern Ukraine, prompting Kiev to issue threats of using force to regain control over the offices.

The US and other Western countries have accused Moscow of massing troops on Ukraine's border to maintain the pressure on the government in Kiev, and possibly for military use.

Speaking at the end of a NATO conference in Paris, Breedlove told AP the Russian armed presence near Ukraine's frontier continues unabated.

To illustrate his point, hiss staff provided AP with a set of commercial satellite photographs they said showed Russian warplanes, combat helicopters, armor, artillery and a probable airborne or special forces brigade deployed in locations east of the Ukraine-Russian border, including along the coastline of the Sea of Azov.

'Combat readiness'

A defence analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, reviewed the satellite images and said the forces depicted in them do not appear to be involved in training exercises.

They appear to be "in combat readiness," Anthony Cordesman said. But he said it IS unclear from the images how much of a buildup of Russian forces there has been in the border area.

"They show there is a mixture of light and heavy forces and that they could go quickly" if ordered into Ukraine, and that they include forces to provide air mobility, Cordesman said.

"But that's all they show."

"What we see there is a force of about 40,000," Breedlove said.

"I would characterise it as a combined arms army. In other words, this is an army that has all of the provisioning and enablers that it needs to accomplish military objectives if given them."

The force could stand pat and intimidate Ukraine solely by its presence, drive south to create a land bridge with Crimea, push along the Black Sea coast to the Ukrainian port city of Odessa and the largely Russian Trans-Dniester enclave of Moldova, or invade other areas of eastern Ukraine where ethnic Russians are demanding unity with Russia, he said.

Strong support within the G7 on increasing sanctions against Russia if it escalates crisis in Ukraine, official says.

Last updated: 12 Apr 2014 02:29

The G7 includes the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Great Britain [AP]

A group of the world's leading rich nations will support increasing sanctions against Russia if Moscow escalates the crisis in Ukraine, US Treasury Secretary Jack Lew has said.

"There is broad and strong unity within the G7 on increasing sanctions and costs in response to escalating action from Russia," Lew said at a news conference, referring to the Group of Seven industrial nations.

The G7 includes the United States, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Great Britain. Top officials from the group met in Washington on Thursday and discussed the situation in Ukraine at length, Lew said.

"In a discussion that went on for quite a long time in the room, there was no dissent in the room that it was essential that there be unity in taking action if necessary," he said.

Finance ministers and central bankers from around the world are in Washington for the spring meetings of the International Monetary Fund, according to a Reuters news agency report.

The United States and Europe have enacted sanctions against Russia in response to Moscow's annexation of Crimea, which until recently was part of Ukraine.

AP| El Universal
00:29Naciones Unidas | Lunes 14 de abril de 2014

La reunión se llevo se realizó horas después que fuerzas especiales ucranianas se enfrentaran a tiros con un grupo paramilitar pro ruso

El Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas efectuó el domingo una reunión de emergencia en un contexto de creciente violencia en el este Ucrania, a pocas horas de que se venza el plazo para que manifestantes pro rusos entreguen sus armas o sean reprimidos por fuerzas armadas ucranianas.

La misión rusa convocó la sesión horas después que fuerzas especiales ucranianas se enfrentaran a tiros con un grupo paramilitar pro ruso en una ciudad de la región, lo que causó la muerte de un oficial y heridas a otros cinco.

El presidente de Ucrania acusó a su poderoso vecino de incitar la agitación, y anunció el despliegue de fuerzas armadas para acotar la insurgencia pro rusa.

"En este momento Ucrania se balancea al borde del precipicio" , dijo el secretario general asistente de la ONU Oscar Fernández-Taranco, a los integrantes del consejo de seguridad.

Rusos étnicos que habitan en el este de Ucrania temen que el nuevo gobierno pro occidental los oprima y están demandando la realización de referendos sobre la autonomía de las regiones para su eventual anexión a Rusia.

Fernández-Taranco dijo que los supervisores de Naciones Unidas dijeron haber visto a los manifestantes separatistas armados con ametralladoras y fusiles de francotirador.

"El hecho es que muchas de las unidades armadas que hemos visto llevan chalecos blindados y uniformes de camuflaje con las insignias removidas" , dijo la embajadora de Estados Unidos ante la ONU Samantha Powers. "Estas unidades armadas enarbolan banderas rusas separatistas sobre edificios tomados y han convocado a referendos y la anexión a Rusia. Sabemos quién está detrás de esto" .

Rusia tiene decenas de miles de efectivos apostados en la frontera con Ucrania, y hay temores de que Moscú pueda usar la violencia en la región de mayoría rusohablante como pretexto para realizar una invasión, lo que sería una repetición de los hechos registrados en Crimea a principios de año.

"Esta no es una guerra entre ucranianos, esto fue creado artificialmente" , dijo el embajador de Ucrania ante la ONU Yuriy Sergeyev.

El embajador ruso ante la ONU Vitali Churkin refutó las acusaciones de Occidente y Ucrania acerca de que Moscú era artífice de la violencia, y dijo a los diplomáticos de la ONU que Ucrania ha estado usando fuerzas radicales neonazis para desestabilizar la región.

"Es Occidente el que determinará la oportunidad de evitar una guerra civil en Ucrania. Algunas personas, incluidas algunas en este recinto, no quieren ver las verdaderas razones de lo que está pasando en Ucrania y ven repetidamente la mano de Moscú en los acontecimientos" , dijo Churkin. "Ya basta" .

Tras la reunión dijo esperar que las potencias occidentales presionen a Ucrania para que ésta replantee el plazo para enviar a sus tropas.

"Ya sea que vayan a poner fin a esta provocación de Kiev, es su responsabilidad prevenir el escalamiento de esta crisis" , dijo Churkin.

Ukraine Crisis: Russia's Neighbors Are Worried
[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]
Putin decidiendo que parte de Ucrania quiere comerse.

Ian Bond, Brian Carlson, Denis Corboy, William Courtney, John Herbst, Richard Kauzlarich, Ints Silins, William Taylor, Kenneth Yalowitz
|
April 17, 2014

Moscow's aggression against Ukraine has spawned not only an international crisis, but fears throughout Russia's neighborhood. Even countries that cooperate closely with Russia worry they could be next in line for creeping annexation. No former Soviet country endorsed “independence“ of South Ossetia and Abkhazia after the 2008 Russian-Georgian war, and the lack of support for Moscow's annexation of Crimea is striking. Those former Soviet neighbors that lag in economic development or freedoms are more vulnerable. The West should help those willing to help themselves.

The seizure of Crimea on fabricated pretenses of threats to ethnic Russians and the most recent provocations in eastern Ukraine by Russian forces and proxies have sent shock waves from the Baltic states to Central Asia. Kyiv has initiated an “antiterror” security response in the Donetsk region. Even as the outcome of the current crisis in Ukraine remains uncertain, it and the other former Soviet countries are looking at what more they can do to steel themselves against Russian coercion.

Ukraine

In some ways, Crimea was special. Russia has major strategic interests because its Black Sea fleet resides there. Despite a treaty giving it basing rights until 2042, Moscow could not be sure a future Ukrainian government would not seek the fleet’s ouster. Nearly three-fifths of Crimea’s population, or 1.5 million people, are ethnic Russians.

On the other hand, even the relatively pro-Western Yushchenko government, in power from 2005 to 2010, did not jeopardize the Black Sea fleet’s basing rights. Ethnic Russians living in Crimea, as in other areas of Ukraine, have faced no systematic threats or violence before or after President Yanukovych fled his office in February.

The remainder of Ukraine has nearly 7 million ethnic Russians, most of whom reside in the eastern regions, where they are minorities. Ethnic Russians make up only two-fifths of the population in the eastern regions of Luhansk and Donetsk, one-fourth in Kharkiv and Zaporizhya, and one-fifth in Odessa. Elsewhere they are less than one-fifth of the population (in the Kyiv region only 6 percent, and less than 5 percent in every western region). Ethnic tension in Ukraine has been almost nonexistent. Most people are bilingual, and many, whose mother tongue is Russian, identify themselves as Ukrainians.

Ukraine’s problems, apart from Russia’s current interference, stem from a lack of economic reform, extraordinary corruption, and the resulting poverty. According to World Bank data for 2012, based on purchasing power parity, Ukraine’s income per person is $7,180, only a third of Russia’s $22,720. In the World Bank’s ease of doing business index for 2013, Ukraine ranks 112 out of 189 countries; and in Transparency International’s corruption perceptions index for 2013, Ukraine is 144 out of 175 countries. Both indices rank Ukraine as even worse than Russia.

Last month, Ukraine’s parliament passed a set of tough economic reforms, long sought by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in return for its support. Some essential steps, such as slashing natural gas subsidies, will create public unease. Russia is increasing the pressure by raising gas prices to Ukraine and demanding payment for overdue bills. In the current emergency, Ukrainians may realize they have no other choice, but the odds remain slim for reform of an economy suffocated by corruption and Soviet-style regulation.

Ukraine now understands the risks of not having an effective territorial defense that can raise the cost to Russia of aggression, but a wealthier economy will be required for a major change in defense posture. Ukraine must also develop reliable law enforcement and security services; the current ones are corrupt and penetrated by Russia.

Ukraine’s democratic credentials are stronger. Its media is mostly free and it has achieved several free and fair national elections and peaceful turnovers of power. These gains bolster national unity. Successful presidential elections next month, and the devolution of more power to elected officials in regions and localities, will strengthen governmental legitimacy. Moscow’s effort to intimidate Ukraine into creating a radically decentralized political system, misnamed “federalism,” would leave the country unstable and vulnerable to Russian interference. Ukraine should advance its parliamentary elections, now set for 2017. Russian aggression has begun to unite Ukrainians in ways not seen before.

Russia’s provocateurs in eastern Ukraine have so far been unable to mobilize wide, pro-Russian support there. Ukrainian authorities have done little better. People there are disillusioned after two decades of governments that have failed to improve governance or create prosperity for any but a small group of oligarchs. A wealthier economy based on the rule of law is essential for building popular support and funding an effective defense. That retirees in Crimea exult that their pensions will double under Russian rule shows how poverty can erode national loyalty. That Ukraine’s military capabilities suffer from low funding shows how poverty can also weaken a country’s defense posture.

Central Asia

Kazakhstan is next up in the number of ethnic Russians, with some 3.5 million. Nearly a quarter of the population is ethnic Slav, mostly located close to the long border with Russia. The fraction was higher in Soviet times, but Kazakhstan has spurred immigration northward of ethnic Kazakhs, and it moved its capital to the north-central part of the country. Many ethnic Russians have emigrated over the last two decades, but a measure of prosperity has helped stem the outflow. Gross national income per person in Kazakhstan is $11,790, about half the Russian level. Kazakhstan is 140 on the Transparency index, almost as bad as Ukraine.

Kazakhstan’s leadership has fostered ethnic tolerance, although most of the political power lies in ethnic-Kazakh hands. Authoritarian rule and tight limits on media freedom heighten risks of political or social explosions. If Moscow were to turn its propaganda fire on Kazakhstan, the results could be unpredictable; closed politics suppress warning signs of problems.

With its large ethnic-Russian population, Kazakhstan may be the country most vulnerable to Kremlin aggression allegedly aimed at “protecting compatriots”. President Nursultan Nazarbayev shows sensitivity to Moscow’s initiatives that do not unduly impinge on Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan belongs to Putin’s favored Eurasian Customs Union, despite the higher external tariff wall, which raises prices of automobiles and other imports from outside the union, stirring popular resentment in Kazakhstan.

Russian actions in Crimea will cause Kazakhstan to be more careful with Moscow, but Nazarbayev will quietly seek to buttress his country’s security posture. Loyalty and military strength in Kazakhstan benefit from its relative wealth, but are weakened by politics that are closed and discriminate against ethnic Russians.

Uzbekistan, with some 1.5 million Russians, just over 5 percent of the population, has widespread poverty and strict authoritarian rule, but is less vulnerable because it does not share a border with Russia and its economy is less tied to Russia’s. Always leery of Moscow’s intentions, President Islam Karimov viewed the seizure of Crimea with disapproval. Long ago he weeded out ethnic Russians from the military and security services, protecting himself from Moscow’s mischief. Now, Karimov will look with greater skepticism at Russia’s military presence in neighboring Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Any increase could be grounds for alarm in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan’s closed politics make its large Tajik minority an unpredictable factor if the country were to come under greater external pressure or a popular revolt were to occur.

Russia’s new aggression might have the least impact on Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. Russia has a growing air force base in Kyrgyzstan, and Russia has an army division and a large contingent of border guards in Tajikistan. Hundreds of thousands of migrants from the two countries work in Russia, often illegally. Their remittances make up large fractions of the national income of both countries. Both grindingly poor, neither is in a position to challenge Moscow. Turkmenistan has cool relations with Russia, which has long sought to dominate the export of Turkmenistan’s natural gas while offering low prices for it.

Russia has intimated that it could use naval power in the Caspian Sea to impede transport of Kazakh and Turkmen energy to the South Caucasus and world markets. A greater threat to Kazakhstan is that Russia could hamper the export of its oil through the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk. In recent years Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan have begun to export energy via pipeline to China, bypassing Russia. Efforts to build a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan across the Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan have foundered on their disputes over delimitation of borders within the Sea.

Belarus and Moldova

Of the former Soviet countries, Belarus has one of the least developed national identities and it shares a border with Russia. Most Belarusians speak Russian, and Russian influence is strong through economic linkages and energy subsidies that largely keep the unreformed economic system above water. In security terms, Belarus is one of Russia’s only allies. For all his talk of closer ties with Moscow, President Alexander Lukashenko does not want Belarus to be submerged within Russia. He has staked out a nuanced position on Crimea offering to mediate between Russia and Ukraine.

The crisis in Ukraine will have repercussions on Moldova and the Transnistria separatist conflict there. Transnistria’s population is evenly balanced between ethnic Moldovans, Russians, and Ukrainians, but the government depends on Russia. Moscow supplies its forces and allies in Transnistria via a land bridge across Ukraine. One Kremlin goal if it invades eastern and southern Ukraine will be to secure Russia’s position in Transnistria. Separatist calls there for annexation by Russia might influence Kremlin calculations. Moscow claims that Ukraine and Moldova are “blockading” Transnistria, but the European Union, which has an assistance mission there, denies this.

Moldova is also vulnerable to Russian coercion in Gagauzia, a district populated by a Russified Turkic minority. Gagauzia held an illegal referendum in February in which it voted heavily in favor of joining the Eurasian Customs Union and of seceding from Moldova if Moldova “gave up its independence” (a reference to joining the EU).

The South Caucasus

The three South Caucasus countries do not have large Russian minorities but most of their peoples, especially adults, speak Russian. Relations with Russia differ considerably. Armenia has a military pact with Russia. Under pressure it has agreed to join the Eurasian customs union, reluctantly spurning a possible Association agreement with the EU.

Azerbaijan, the wealthiest of the three due to energy exports, has stayed out of military and economic unions with Moscow. It engages the EU only on a limited basis due to its poor record of democracy and respect for human rights. Azerbaijan’s major concern with Moscow is to keep it from interfering with its energy exports outside of Russian pipelines. Azerbaijan is adept at balancing ties with the West and Russia. It may be vulnerable to the growing Islamist insurgency in the Russian republic of Dagestan, on Azerbaijan’s northern border.

Russian troops have occupied the separatist enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in Georgia since the 2008 war, and are encroaching further by constructing barbed-wire fences in Georgia beyond South Ossetia. Moscow bitterly opposes Georgia’s quest for NATO membership and aims to prevent Georgia from signing trade and partnership accords with the EU. Georgia has held democratic parliamentary and presidential elections and undergone peaceful transfers of political power.

Oil and gas pipelines from Azerbaijan across Georgia make it less dependent on Russian resources than are many European countries. Georgia will come under greater Russian pressure not to continue its westward course if Ukraine falls under Moscow’s sway. Russia is trying to find other ways to entice Georgia, such as through relations between the church hierarchies of the two overwhelmingly Orthodox states.

The Baltic States

The Baltic states, members of NATO and the EU, have Western backing and security assurances that are the envy of Russia’s other neighbors. Yet even the Baltics are concerned. In Estonia, only a quarter of the population is ethnic Russian. However, in the Estonian region of Narva (bordering Russia), nearly 90 percent of the 60,000 residents are ethnic Russian. Narva residents prefer Estonia, where conditions are better, but if Russian troops were to occupy the region they might change some Estonians’ minds (as happened in Crimea, where prior to Moscow’s propaganda onslaught and invasion most ethnic Russian residents preferred to remain in Ukraine).

In Latvia, ethnic Russians make up just over a quarter of the population, but they are more evenly distributed, geographically, and better integrated into politics and society. Most have no interest in joining Putin’s Russia. Some have family roots in Latvia that go back centuries. Others settled there during the Soviet era. About 300,000 people, or 14 percent of the population, mostly ethnic Russians, are “noncitizens.” They are often economically marginalized and politically alienated. Latvians make up less than 20 percent of the population of Latvia’s second-largest city, Daugavpils, in the southeastern corner of the country.

While Moscow-directed disinformation claims otherwise, most ethnic Russians in the Baltic states—especially the 18-35-year-old demographic—are generally pro-Europe and proud of their respective countries.

Western Responses

This is not yet a new Cold War, but Russia’s rising threat to the post–Cold War security order raises serious concerns about the Kremlin’s imperial designs. Russia’s neighbors are not just faraway places. The Crimean crisis has energized debate in the West about how much it should get involved in aiding and protecting former Soviet countries on Russia's periphery. All of them now face greater threats of coercion from Moscow. What should the West do to help them reduce these risks?

The best way for most of Russia’s neighbors to bolster deterrence against external aggression is to speed political and economic reforms. An expansion of democratic opportunity is vital to creating citizen loyalty and national consensus. Western aid that encourages reforms must remain a priority.

There is wide consensus that the three Baltic states—all prosperous democracies—deserve strong support consistent with their full membership in NATO and the EU. The elevation of the crisis in Ukraine to the top of the Western political agenda and the dispatch of a large team of OSCE observers to Ukraine show that Western security interests do not stop at NATO’s edge.

Following the popular uprising against the Yanukovych government, Europeans now view Ukraine as more European and thus, meriting special priority. The West’s most effective response to Russia’s threat to Ukraine will be long and multidimensional. To deter further aggression, the West ought to ratchet up asset seizures and visa bans, especially in Europe where they will have the most effect. The West ought to sanction every Russian parliamentarian who voted for Crimea’s annexation. Western governments should not delay in imposing sanctions on key economic sectors, such as energy, finance, and the mining and metals industry. Europe and the United States should make clear that sanctions will increase not only if Russia commits more aggression against Ukraine, but even as it continues to occupy Crimea.

Russia has repeatedly used its regional dominance in gas and oil supplies to pressure or punish Ukraine and the Baltic states. To lessen long-term dependence, the United States should clear the backlog of licensing applications to export liquefied natural gas to Europe. Market economics will determine how many export facilities will be built. Europe should bite the bullet and reduce its energy dependence on Russia.

In terms of military support, NATO has begun to add air surveillance capabilities in the Baltics; this should move forward briskly and become permanent. NATO should deploy forces in the Baltics as well as in Poland. NATO members should respond favorably and quickly to sensible Ukrainian requests for military support and defensive weapons. The aggression in Crimea should remove any barriers to NATO forward deployments that may have emerged from discussions with Russia about expansion of the Alliance. Based on Russia’s actions in Ukraine, France should cancel its sale of Mistral-class amphibious assault vessels to Russia. These helicopter carriers are well suited for rapid attack against neighbors, an evident reason why Russia ordered them after frustrations in conducting its war with Georgia in 2008.

Most of Russia’s other neighbors will welcome close consultations with the West regarding Russian threats and capabilities in the region. Popular support in Western countries for aiding authoritarian governments, however, is low.

Azerbaijan suffers from dictatorial rule and severe corruption, but it is an important energy supplier to Europe. Azerbaijan and Armenia have strategic locations adjacent to Iran. Armenia enjoys strong support from its diaspora in the West. As an energy transit country and an emerging democracy, Georgia remains important to the West. Georgia participates with enthusiasm in programs with NATO and the EU Eastern Partnership.

Central Asia generally has lower priority in the West because of geography. More important, excepting some democratic development in Kyrgyzstan, Central Asia is burdened by dictatorial rule. Central Asia and Azerbaijan will try to use Russia’s threat as a hook to keep the West involved in regional security after NATO draws down troops in Afghanistan, and to spur the West to suppress its appetite for criticizing human rights abuses and political repression.

In Crimea, Russia has violated the widely accepted international norm of not seizing and annexing territory by force. This is also relevant to the purposes of the Minsk Group (co-chaired by France, Russia, and the US), which spearheads the OSCE’s thus far unsuccessful efforts to find a peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. The Minsk Group has opposed referenda on the status of the separatist region.

The Information Space

Russian state television, widely watched in the former Soviet space, because it features better-quality entertainment programs than local stations, dishes out virulently anti-Western propaganda, even more so than in Soviet times. This helps to shape popular views. To counter this, the West should also step up broadcast- and Internet-based informational programming.

The post-Soviet generation that grew up, was educated, and started work after the Soviet collapse in 1991 has no interest in joining the backward-looking Russia that Putin dreams of restoring. The West should give much higher preference to programs that introduce young leaders from the region to the West. As thousands of Fulbright and Rhodes scholars have shown, what counts is not only the formal education foreign students obtain, but the life-long change in mental outlook that comes from sharing ideas with young Westerners in democratic settings.

Conclusion

Russia is no longer a normal country in the international system. The West must sanction it, but will still benefit from cooperation on such issues as nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea. Moscow will likely become less cooperative, yet it has a strategic interest in working with the West to reduce threats that could boomerang against Russia, such as Islamist acquisition of nuclear weapons.

Western assistance to Russia’s neighbors should seek specially to counter the creeping annexation tactics that Moscow is employing in eastern Ukraine, using paid provocateurs and seizure of key facilities. Interestingly, these actions have not led to local popular rebellions against Ukrainian rule.

We are now in a different world. The West must strongly support Ukraine even as it presses for reforms.

Ian Bond was British ambassador to Latvia. Brian Carlson was US ambassador to Latvia. Denis Corboy was EU ambassador to Armenia and Georgia. William Courtney was US ambassador to Georgia and Kazakhstan. John Herbst was US ambassador to Ukraine and Uzbekistan. Richard Kauzlarich was US ambassador to Azerbaijan and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Ints Silins was US ambassador to Latvia. William Taylor was US ambassador to Ukraine. Kenneth Yalowitz was US ambassador to Belarus and Georgia.

Surprise deal reached on Ukraine crisis
EU, US and Russia outline steps designed to ease tensions, but Obama skeptical if Russia would stand by deal.
Last updated: 17 Apr 2014 23:46

Obama said US and its allies are ready to impose new sanctions if Moscow did not follow up on commitments [Getty]

The United States, European Union, Russia and Ukraine have reached an agreement on immediate steps to be implemented to ease the crisis in Ukraine, but US President Barack Obama cautioned it was uncertain if Moscow would stand by the deal.

Thursday’s agreement laid out concrete steps to "restore security for all citizens" and crucially urged "all illegal armed groups" to disarm and vacate "seized buildings". It also puts on hold additional economic sanctions which the West had prepared to impose on Russia if the talks were fruitless, the Associated Press news agency reported.

"All sides must refrain from any violence, intimidation or provocative actions," a joint statement issued after the Geneva talks said.

It also gives amnesty to protesters who comply with the demands, except those found guilty of capital crimes.

US Secretary of State John Kerry called the deal the result of a "good day's work" but emphasised that the words on paper must be followed by concrete actions and that those who had initially armed the groups were now responsible for making sure the disarmament took place.

He said he had warned Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov that Moscow would soon feel the brunt of new sanctions should it not follow through on its commitments under the agreement.

Lavrov, speaking to reporters after the seven-hour negotiation, also spoke about the need for disarmament of unofficial armed groups, saying weapons should only be held by legitimate groups, and that the deal included "all regions of Ukraine".

Obama, however, conveyed skepticism about Russia’s promises to de-escalate the crisis, adding that the US and its allies are ready to impose fresh sanctions if Moscow did not follow up on its commitments.

"The question now becomes, will in fact they use the influence that they've exerted in a disruptive way to restore some order so that Ukrainians can carry out an election, move forward with the decentralisation reforms that they've proposed, stabilize their economy and start getting back on the path of growth and democracy and that their sovereignty will be respected?" said Obama.

He did not say what additional sanctions might be in the offing if commitments made by Russia in Geneva do not materialise. US officials have prepared penalties on wealthy Russians in President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle, as well on the entities they run.

British Prime Minister David Cameron pledged an extra $1.7m for a monitoring mission to Ukraine after speaking to the Obama on Thursday, in order to fortify potential sanctions against Russia.

"The Prime Minister and President agreed that in the meantime the EU and US should continue preparatory work on potential additional sanctions, so that we are ready to respond quickly if the agreement were not implemented," Cameron’s office said in a statement.

International observers

As part of the agreement, monitors with the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe will be tasked with helping Ukraine authorities and local communities comply with the requirements outlined in the agreement.

It said Kiev's plans to reform its constitution and transfer more power from the central government to regional authorities must be inclusive, transparent and accountable, including through the creation of a broad national dialogue.

Despite the moves towards de-escalating the violence in Ukraine, Kerry emphasised there was still a strong disagreement over the future of Crimea.

"We are not giving up but we did not come (to Geneva) to talk about Crimea," he said of the peninsula which was annexed by Russia last month. He added that the aims of the meeting had been to move away from the spiralling violence currently dominating the situation in Ukraine.

"Nobody has left behind the issue of Crimea," he said.

But Pro-Russian separatists occupying a local government building in the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk, however, said on Thursday they would not leave until supporters of Ukraine's new government quit their camp around Kiev's main square, known as the Maidan.

"The people occupying the regional headquarters here in Donetsk have said they are not willing to leave their buildings until the pro-Ukraine protesters in Kiev vacate their building in Maidan. They want to make sure it does not just lead to them losing the gains they have made," said Al Jazeera's Jacky Rowland, reporting from Donetsk.
Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies

Could the Ukraine Crisis Reboot NATO?

Erik Brattberg

April 20, 2014

[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]

Even since the Russian invasion of Crimea began a few weeks ago, a certain degree of triumphalism has been felt throughout NATO security circles. A surprising number of Western leaders and analysts have been quick to declare that, thanks to Vladimir Putin, the United States will now pivot back to Europe again, Europeans will begin to take defense seriously, and NATO will get a renewed strategic purpose.

While all these outcomes are certainly possible, it's still too early to declare such a victory. The crisis in Ukraine is still an ongoing affair. The current crisis could spur a reinvigorated transatlantic alliance in the short term, but there are no guarantees that the effects will be lasting. In fact, if they are not careful, the Ukraine crisis could even undermine the NATO alliance going forward. The allies must therefore take steps to ensure that the opportunity stemming from the current crisis is effectively seized.

Will the United States Pivot to Europe?

For far too long, Washington has chosen to take a backseat role when it comes to European security. Not anymore—the Ukraine crisis will force the United States to boost its military presence on the continent in order to reassure its allies. As a result, NATO is already undertaking plans to reinforce its military presence in Eastern Europe.

Despite these latest troop movements, the United States is not pivoting back to Europe anytime soon. As the new Quadrennial Defense Review makes abundantly clear, the long-term U.S. objective is to downsize its military footprint on the European continent. Ukraine may alter the degree to which this occurs, but it will not fundamentally change the overall strategy. Clearly, the long-term challenge for the United States is not a declining Russia but a rising China. It is no surprise, therefore, that the United States will continue to focus on "rebalancing" to the Asia-Pacific region, despite what is currently going on in Ukraine.

Moreover, the Ukraine crisis could even hurt the U.S. role in Europe. Most European NATO allies still expect the United States to carry the heavy burden while they take a backbench role, if any role at all. NATO's response to Ukraine has mostly been a "U.S. response" thus far, something that may bolster those critics at home who argue that the United States is already doing too much around the world, and that "going to war over Estonia" is not worth it. Western European allies must send a clear message to Washington that they too have some skin in the game by offering to deploy some of their own military assets to Central European neighbors.

Will Europe Start to Take Defense Seriously?

The Ukraine crisis has certainly awakened Europeans from their sleep. There is now a welcomed debate in Europe about defense issues. However, this is not to say that European nations will suddenly lay aside all their differences, both in terms of strategic outlook and threat perception.

On the contrary, rather than prompting Europeans to undertake long-overdue steps to enhance their own security, Ukraine may even further divide Europe. If anything, it has already highlighted major divergences in foreign-policy outlooks between European nations. For instance, while some Central and Eastern European states have advocated for a tougher EU approach, Germany in particular has cautioned against putting too much pressure on Putin for fear of aggravating Moscow and damaging its own economy—a sentiment that is shared by some other EU states.

Nor is it likely that the long-term trend towards shrinking European defense budgets will suddenly be reversed overnight. Over the past decade, European defense spending has declined at a steady, but alarming, rate. As a result, only a handful of NATO states currently spend more than 2 percent of GDP on defense. The U.S. share of NATO spending is now 70 percent, a bizarre situation, considering that the size of the EU economy is bigger than the U.S. economy.

European countries must therefore promote a shared threat perception and strategy for coping with Russia. Meanwhile, European leaders must also use the bully pulpit to explain to their publics that security is something worth investing in.

A New Strategic Rationale for NATO

Until a few months ago the alliance was still struggling to define its new mission following a decade of war in Afghanistan, but today the answer seems pretty obvious. Post-Crimea, NATO's role will look very similar to its old one: to serve as a deterrent to Russian aggression against allies in Europe. Ukraine accordingly provides NATO with a new strategic rationale, at least in the short term.

While the current crisis has underscored the critical importance of NATO to European security, whether re-focusing on territorial defense of Europe is enough to keep NATO globally relevant in the future is debatable. Threats elsewhere, such as in the Middle East and North Africa as well as Asia, beg for a NATO role. An equally important rationale for NATO going forward will be to forge stronger partnerships with countries such as Japan and Australia and groups such as the Gulf Cooperation Council. Of course, managing Russia will be key for NATO going forward, but it cannot be the "be-all and the end-all" for the alliance—focus must also be directed at other issues and regions.

Ultimately, the Ukraine crisis is both a tremendous challenge and a tremendous opportunity for the West. If seized, it could spark a much-needed rejuvenation of the transatlantic alliance, including the United States eventually pivoting back to Europe, a more serious defense debate in Europe, and a new strategic purpose for NATO. But this is in no way an automatic process and will only take place if Europe and America quickly get their acts together. Stronger political leadership, willingness to invest in defense, and readiness to confront Putin's actions are key. What is necessary right now is not ill-grounded optimism, but rather a realistic approach to confronting the greatest challenge to the transatlantic alliance since the Cold War.

Erik Brattberg is a Resident Fellow at the Atlantic Council in Washington, DC.

President Obama says Moscow goes against spirit of Geneva agreement, and that he is considering new sanctions.
Last updated: 24 Apr 2014 05:50

The US president has said Russia has failed to abide by the spirit of a deal to ease tensions in Ukraine, and that new sanctions against Moscow were being “teed up”.

On Thursday, Barack Obama said that “malicious, armed men” continued to occupy buildings in eastern Ukraine - a reference to pro-Russian separatists who have taken over key state buildings in several towns near the border with Russia.

The continued occupation is against an deal agreed last week in Geneva by Ukraine, Russia, the EU and the US to defuse tensions in Ukraine.

"So far we have seen them not abide by the spirit or the letter of the agreement in Geneva," Obama said. If that continues, he said, "there will be further consequences and we will ramp up further sanctions."

However, Obama said he needed support from allies to make sanctions work against Russia and its president, Vladimir Putin.

"How well they change his calculus depends on the co-operation of other countries."

"It is important to emphasise that throughout this process our goal has been to change Mr Putin's calculus, that our preference is to resolve this diplomatically, that sanctions hurt Russia more than anybody else but they are disruptive to the global economy."

Ukraine said on Wednesday it was relaunching a military operation against the separatists, but so far no confrontations have been reported.

On the same day, Sergey Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister, gave warning that Russia would respond if its interests were threatened, and made reference to Russia’s invasion of Georgia in 2008 after Georgian forces attacked separatists in its pro-Moscow region of South Ossetia.

Lavrov's ministry later insisted that Ukraine withdraw its troops from the the southeast of Ukraine.

"The Russian side once again insists on the immediate de-escalation of the situation in Ukraine's southeast, the pullback of units of the Ukrainian army and the start of a genuine internal Ukrainian dialogue involving all of the country's regions and political formations," it said in a statement.

According to Western sources, Russia itself has 40,000 troops massed along the border with Ukraine, and 25,000 in the Crimea region, which Russia annexed last month.

Advierte Obama de sanciones a Rusia si decide invadir Ucrania

25/04/2014.- Seúl–  Estados Unidos y Europa están sentando las bases para sancionar a Rusia en amplios sectores de su economía si Moscú invade el este de Ucrania, advirtió el viernes el presidente Barack Obama, aunque reconoció que esas sanciones podrían ser insuficientes para disuadir a Vladimir Putin.

Las declaraciones de Obama fueron la indicación más clara hasta ahora de qué umbral tendría que cruzar Rusia para desencadenar sanciones reforzadas occidentales. Hasta el momento, Estados Unidos ha impuesto sanciones a individuos, pero se ha abstenido de sancionar a sectores económicos enteros, lo que probablemente sería contraproducente y terminaría perjudicando a los aliados de Estados Unidos en Europa que hacen negocios con Rusia.

"Vamos a seguir manteniendo algunas flechas en nuestra carcaza en caso de que veamos un deterioro mayor" , dijo Obama durante una conferencia de prensa en Corea del Sur, donde el presidente estaba de visita oficial.

El mandatario estadounidense planeaba llamar a líderes europeos clave el viernes para analizar lo que ha ocurrido desde que se alcanzó un acuerdo en Ginebra la semana pasada para tratar de desactivar la crisis.

Haciendo eco de unas declaraciones fuertes de su secretario de Estado, John Kerry, Obama dijo que Rusia no ha cumplido el acuerdo, al abstenerse de pedir a las milicias prorrusas que abandonen los edificios que ocupan en varias ciudades de Ucrania.

Tratando de transmitir un sentimiento fuerte de unidad entre Washington y las naciones europeas, Obama dijo que estaba "profundamente alentado" por la condena consecuente que han emanado de las capitales de Europa, América del Norte y en todo el mundo contra las acciones rusas en Crimea.

Aun así, Obama reconoció que esas declaraciones de condena, así como las sanciones impuestas a Rusia hasta el momento, no han convencido a Moscú a cambiar de rumbo. Sin embargo, insistió en que Putin debe entender el impacto económico que Rusia ya ha sufrido como resultado de sus acciones, y agregó que el presidente ruso "no es tonto" .

Como para subrayar esos costos, la agencia crediticia Standard & Poor's rebajó la calificación crediticia de Rusia el viernes, por primera vez en más de cinco años.

La crisis en Ucrania ha pesado continuamente esta semana en la gira de Obama a través de Asia.

Mientras Obama iniciaba su visita a Corea del Sur el viernes, el ministro de Relaciones Exteriores de Rusia, Serguéi Lavrov, acusó a Occidente de conspirar para apoderarse de Ucrania. Un día antes, Rusia anunció nuevos ejercicios militares cerca de su frontera con Ucrania, en otra indicación de que las tensiones se han incrementado.

Statement condemns Russia's hand in Ukraine unrest, with Kerry criticising Moscow for ignoring international agreement.
Last updated: 25 Apr 2014 08:10


US Secretary of State John Kerry has attacked Russia for its deception and distraction over the Ukraine crisis, warning that the window for Moscow to change course was closing.

In an impromptu briefing, held on Thursday, he told reporters that while Ukraine was working in good faith to restore peace and reduce tension, Russia was putting its faith in "destruction, deception and destabilisation".


"Let’s get real, the Geneva Agreement is not open to interpretation. It is not vague. It is not optional," he said, referring to a pact signed seven days ago between Russia, the US, the European Union and Ukraine to defuse the crisis and work towards constitutional reform.

Ukraine's interim leadership had from "day one" kept their word after agreeing to the Geneva deal but Kerry accused Russia of a "full-throated effort to actively sabotage the democratic process" in Ukraine. "Nobody should doubt Russia's hand in this," he said.

"Let me be clear, if Russia continues in this direction, it will not just be a grave mistake but an expensive mistake. The window to change course is closing."

Kerry said that $70bn of capital had already "fled" Russia in the first quarter of 2014 and that growth estimates had been reduced by two to three per cent.

He reiterated the sentiments of President Barack Obama, who earlier in the week said Russia was failing to abide by the Geneva accord, and that new sanctions against Moscow were being "teed up".

"So far we have seen them not abide by the spirit or the letter of the agreement in Geneva," Obama said. If that continued, he said, "there will be further consequences and we will ramp up further sanctions."
Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies

Move comes as group holding 13 mililary observers in the eastern city of Ukraine dubs them 'NATO spies'.
Last updated: 26 Apr 2014 12:11
[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]
Russia said it would take all possible steps to free the observers held in the Ukrainian town of Slovyansk [Reuters]

US President Barack Obama and top European leaders are moving ahead on a new round of sanctions against Russia, US officials have said.

In a joint statement on Saturday, the Group of Seven nations - Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK and US - said that they will "move swiftly to impose additional sanctions on Russia".

"Given the urgency of securing the opportunity for a successful and peaceful democratic vote next month in Ukraine's presidential elections, we have committed to act urgently to intensify targeted sanctions and measures to increase the costs of Russia's actions," the statement said.

AFP news agency, citing a source close to the issue, reported that the US sanctions could be imposed as early as Monday. The source, a senior US official, added that each country "will determine which targeted sanctions they will impose".

"These sanctions will be coordinated and complementary, but not necessarily identical," the official said.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel said EU foreign ministers would meet soon to discuss the issue after speaking by conference call with Obama, British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Francois Hollande and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi.

"Given the absence of progress, we have to think about - and not just think about, but act on - the option of new sanctions," Merkel said.

"For this purpose, European Union foreign ministers will meet as soon as possible."

Reuters news agency reported that senior EU diplomats would hold an emergency meeting in Brussels on Monday to discuss the sanctions.

Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, told reporters that Washington had been working in "lockstep" with the Europeans.

"It's safe to say we're in the stage of not just preparing but coordinating on sanctions and what's next."

It likely that the third round of sanctions against Russians and Ukrainians blamed for the unrest in the former Soviet satellite will again target individuals and entities, reported AFP.

Both US and EU officials have already blacklisted more than a dozen individuals including the breakaway leaders in Crimea, annexed by Moscow last month.

Obama said earlier on Friday during a visit to South Korea that Washington had already lined up more targeted sanctions against Russia "that are ready to go".

But he also signalled the new sanctions would not involve an attempt to target key areas of the Russian economy such as mining, energy and the financial sectors.

US officials have said those measures would only be considered if Russia sent its regular forces across the border into eastern Ukraine.

"The heads of state and government have called for a rapid reaction by the G7 and raised the prospect of new sanctions by the international community against Russia," the French presidency said in a statement.

'NATO spies'

The developments come as pro-Russian rebels holding a group of military observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) in eastern Ukraine accused them of being "NATO spies" and vowed to continue detaining them.

"Yesterday, we arrested some NATO spies... they will be exchanged for our own prisoners. I don't see any other way they will be freed," Denis Pushilin, the head of the rebels' self-declared Donetsk Republic, told reporters on Saturday.

Pushilin was speaking in front of the SBU security services building in rebel-held Slavyansk, where the OSCE team was being held.

Russia, meanwhile, said it would take all possible steps to free the observers, according to Russian news agencies cited by the Reuters news agency. The news agencies quoted Russia's envoy to the Vienna-based Organisation for the OSCE.

"We think that these people need to be freed as soon as possible," Andrei Kelin said in comments cited by ITAR-TASS.

"Russia as a member of the OSCE will undertake all possible steps in this matter."
Source:
AFP And Reuters

International monitors 'seized' in Ukraine
Bus carrying OSCE observers reportedly seized in eastern Ukraine amid heightened tensions between Kiev and Moscow.
Last updated: 26 Apr 2014 09:22


Armed separatists in the eastern Ukrainian city of Slovyansk have seized a bus carrying international observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Ukraine's Interior Ministry has said.

The separatist leader in Slovyansk told reporters a problem had arisen when the observers tried to pass a separatist checkpoint, and that there was a Ukrainian "spy" among the group. He did not say where they were.

The interior ministry in Ukraine's capital, Kiev, said the group, which included eight OSCE representatives and five members of the Ukrainian armed forces, was being held in the building of the state security agency (SBU) in the city which has been occupied by pro-Russian separatists.

"Negotiations are going on for their release," a ministry statement said.

Slovyansk, a city of around 130,000, has been for two weeks under the control of separatists who, like similar groups elsewhere in eastern Ukraine, oppose the central government in Kiev after the overthrow of a Kremlin-backed president.

Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, the de facto mayor of Slovyansk, told reporters he believed a problem had arisen when the OSCE observers arrived at a checkpoint on the edge of the city manned by separatist fighters, Reuters news agency reported.

"What the situation was I do not know," he said. "It was reported to me that among them (the OSCE group) was an employee of Kiev's secret military staff."

"People who come here as observers bringing with them a real spy: it's not appropriate."

The Vienna headquarters of the OSCE did not immediately confirm the information, but did say that all the observers in its main mission on the ground in Ukraine were accounted for, AFP news agency reported.

'Third world war'

The alleged abduction of the monitors happened amid heightened tensions in Ukraine with Kiev accusing Moscow of trying to trigger a third world war even as its forces pushed to regain territory in the country's east from the pro-Russian separatists.

"The world hasn't forgotten the Second World War and Russia wants to start a third world war," Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said.

"Russia's support for the terrorists in Ukraine constitutes an international crime and we call on the international community to unite against the Russian aggression," Yatsenyuk added.

Ukraine's military on Friday mounted a second phase of an aggressive operation to regain control of Slovyansk even as one of its helicopters was blown up after being hit with rocket fire at a base outside the city.

Officials in Kiev said a rocket-propelled grenade blew up the military helicopter sitting on the tarmac at a base near the eastern town of Kramatorsk.

Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel-Hamid, reporting from the Ukraine border said Slovyansk was still accessible despite claims it had been surrounded.

"We haven't seen any sign of that yet on the ground. Based on what we have seen over the past ten days it seems they have had some false starts it is difficult for them to apply on the ground," she said.
Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies

Russian aircraft 'violated Ukraine airspace'
US defence department says Russian warplanes entered Ukraine's airspace on several occasions in the past 24 hours.
Last updated: 26 Apr 2014 02:21


Russian warplanes violated Ukraine's airspace several times in the past 24 hours, a Pentagon spokesman has said, in the latest sign of a mounting confrontation between Moscow and Kiev.

Pentagon spokesperson Colonel Steven Warren confirmed the breach on Friday, but did not provide more details, including where the incidents occured or what kind of Russian planes were involved.

He urged Russia to take "immediate steps to de-escalate the situation," AFP news agency reported.

With tensions soaring, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel had tried to arrange a phone conversation with his Russian counterpart, Sergei Shoigu, to discuss the crisis, but Moscow has yet to respond to the request, Warren said.

The chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has spoken to his military counterpart in Moscow, Warren said.

After Ukraine announced military operations to counter pro-Kremlin rebels, Russia ordered its troops massed on the border to launch new exercises.

'Observers seized'

The remarks from the Pentagon came hours after armed separatists in the eastern Ukrainian city of Slovyansk reportedly seized a bus carrying international observers from the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

The separatist leader in Slovyansk told reporters a problem had arisen when the observers tried to pass a separatist checkpoint, and that there was an Ukrainian "spy" among the group. He did not say where they were.

The interior ministry in Kiev said the group, which included eight OSCE representatives and five members of the Ukrainian armed forces, was being held in the building of the state security agency (SBU) in the city which has been occupied by pro-Russian separatists.

"Negotiations are going on for their release," a ministry statement said.

Slovyansk, a city of around 130,000, has been for two weeks under the control of separatists who, like similar groups elsewhere in eastern Ukraine, oppose the central government in Kiev after the overthrow of a Kremlin-backed president.

Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, the de facto mayor of Slovyansk, told reporters he believed a problem had arisen when the OSCE observers arrived at a checkpoint on the edge of the city manned by separatist fighters, Reuters news agency reported.

"What the situation was I do not know," he said. "It was reported to me that among them (the OSCE group) was an employee of Kiev's secret military staff."

"People who come here as observers bringing with them a real spy: it's not appropriate."

The Vienna headquarters of the OSCE did not immediately confirm the information, but did say that all the observers in its main mission on the ground in Ukraine were accounted for, AFP news agency reported.

'Third world war'

The alleged abduction of the monitors happened amid heightened tensions in Ukraine with Kiev accusing Moscow of trying to trigger a third world war even as its forces pushed to regain territory in the country's east from the pro-Russian separatists.

"The world hasn't forgotten the Second World War and Russia wants to start a third world war," Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said.

"Russia's support for the terrorists in Ukraine constitutes an international crime and we call on the international community to unite against the Russian aggression," Yatsenyuk added.

Moscow's assurance comes as OSCE sends team to try and secure release of observers being held in eastern Ukraine.
Last updated: 26 Apr 2014 16:50


Russia has pledged to help free a group of international observers being held hostage by pro-Kremlin separatists in eastern Ukraine who accuse them of being "NATO spies".

The Russian assurance came as the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) dispatched a negotiating team on Saturday to try to secure the release of its observers who are being held by in eastern Ukraine.

"We believe that these people should be released as soon as possible," Russia's envoy to the OSCE, Andrei Kelin, told Russia's state RIA Novosti news agency.

"As an OSCE member, Russia will take all possible steps in this case."

Russian's foreign ministry also issued a statement saying Moscow was "taking measures" to resolve the situation but did not provide details.

'Spying mission'

Vyacheslav Ponomarev, the self-proclaimed people's mayor of Slovyansk and leader of a pro-Russian group, said the detained group could be released in exchange for jailed pro-Russian activists.

Ponomarev described the detained observers as "captives" and said that they were officers from NATO member states.

"As we found maps on them containing information about the location of our checkpoints, we get the impression that they are officers carrying out a certain spying mission," Ponomarev said.

The German-led, eight-member team was travelling under the auspices of the OSCE when they were detained on Friday.

Germany's Defence Ministry said it had had lost contact with the team, which it said also included five Ukrainians.

Al Jazeera's Barnaby Philips, reporting from Donetsk, said that a team was en route to negotiate the release of the observers.

"Some sort of OSCE mediation is on its way here to try to talk about this situation," he said.

The foreign observers were sent to Ukraine to monitor an April 17 accord signed in Geneva between Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the European Union that was meant to de-escalate the dangerous crisis in the ex-Soviet republic.

Despite assurances from Russia that it would work to secure the release of the team, interim Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said the seizure was "another proof and evidence that these so-called peaceful protesters with Russian ideas are terrorists."

'Provoke war'

In a briefing with reporters, he lashed out at Moscow, saying Russian military aircraft violated Ukrainian air space late on Friday.

"Russian military aircraft today overnight crossed and violated Ukrainian airspace seven times. The only reason is to provoke Ukraine to start a war," he said.

Russia's defence ministry, however, denied claims that its planes had made any such violation.

"Russia's airspace monitoring systems have not registered any violations of air borders of the states adjacent to Russia, including Ukraine," the defence ministry said in a statement carried by the state ITAR TASS news agency.

Meanwhile, Ukraine's acting defence minister Myhailo Koval said the Ukrainian military will fight if Russia sends in troops under the guise of a peace-keeping operation, the Interfax Ukraine news agency reported on Saturday.

"The United Nations has given no such (peace-keeping) mandate to the Russians. Everybody is already fed up with Russia's games with peace-keeping," the news agency quoted Koval as saying.

"If they come, they'll get what's coming to them: we will conduct combat operations."

Eight monitors held in eastern Ukraine shown to journalists as separatist mayor prepares to negotiate their release.
Last updated: 27 Apr 2014 16:37


A group of eight European military observers being held prisoner by pro-Russia separatists in Ukraine have appeared in public for the first time since their capture and gave assurances that they were not being mistreated.

Seven officers from the observer team and their translator were brought into a room of waiting journalists in the separatist-held administration building in the city of Slovyansk.

Guards in camouflage fatigues and balaclavas, carrying Kalashnikov rifles, were also in the room as journalists spoke to the observers.

Colonel Axel Schneider from Germany, who appeared nervous as he spoke for the group, stressed they were on a diplomatic mission under the auspices of the Organisation of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) when they were detained on Friday and were not spying for NATO as the separatists claim.

Schneider said he understood that the self-proclaimed city mayor, Vyacheslav Ponomaryov, could use the observers as a bargaining chip.

Later, one of the men, a Swedish national, was released by the group on medical grounds.

"He has a mild form of diabetes and so we decided to let him go," Stella Korosheva, a spokeswoman for the separatist mayor told reporters.

Ponomaryov said on Saturday that they could be released in exchange for jailed pro-Russia activists and told reporters that he was heading into talks with the mediators.

"In our town, where a war situation is going on, any military personnel who don't have our permission are considered prisoners of war," he told reporters.

Ponomaryov said he was preparing to meet OSCE mediators to negotiate the terms of the group's release.

"The mayor of this city granted us his protection and he regarded us as his guests," Schneider told journalists in Slovyansk in eastern Ukraine.

"We were accommodated in a cellar. We had to set up conditions for ourselves," said Schneider, describing what happened after they were seized. "Since yesterday we've been in a more comfortable room with heating. We have daylight, and an air conditioner."

"I can tell you that the word of the mayor is a word of honour. We have not been touched."

Schneider told reporters that none of the European delegation were sick.

"We have no indication when we will be sent home to our countries," Schneider said. "We wish from the bottom of our
hearts to go back to our nations as soon and as quickly as possible."

Ponomaryov, who was wearing a pistol in a holster and was escorted by two armed bodyguards, claimed in the interview that the OSCE observers "are not our hostages -- they are our guests".

Asked about Russia's promise to do everything it could to convince the pro-Kremlin rebels in Slovyansk to release the OSCE military observers, Ponomaryov said he had "no direct contact with Moscow."

Captured officers

Ponomaryov also said that pro-Russian separatists had separately "arrested" three Ukrainian officers, a colonel, a major and a captain, he said had been sent towards Slovyansk on a spying mission.

"There were a total of seven in their group and we arrested three of them. We will swiftly get the four others," he said.

The three captured officers were being kept in Slovyansk.

Ukraine's SBU security service confirmed the three officers had been seized. The rebel mayor said there would be no contact with Kiev over the imprisoned Ukrainians because the pro-Kremlin separatists see the capital's Western-backed government as illegitimate.

"There will be no contact with Kiev, only through the intermediary of the OSCE," he said. Ukraine's authorities, he said, "understand only the language of force."
Source:
Agencies

Leader of pro-Russian group says OSCE monitors being held in eastern Ukraine could be exchanged for men held by Kiev.
Last updated: 27 Apr 2014 04:41


Pro-Russia gunmen holding a group of international observers captive in Ukraine say they are willing to carry out a prisoner swap.

The self-proclaimed separatist leader in the city of Slovyansk said he was willing to trade the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) monitors for anti-government activists detained by Kiev.

Separatist leader Vyacheslav Ponomaryov told reporters on Saturday that they had not planned to take the monitors, who the pro-Kremlin group accuses of being "NATO spies."

"That was not our plan to take prisoners for a swap. But you understand that prisoners have always been coins to exchange during times of war. It's an international practice to swap prisoners. There is nothing scary about it," he said.

International efforts are still under way to secure the release of a 13-member mission from the OSCE held hostage in Slovyansk since Friday.

Denis Pushilin, the self-styled leader of the city of Donetsk, also said the monitors would only be released in exchange for men detained by Ukrainian forces.

Meanwhile, Russia's envoy to the OSCE said Moscow would "take all possible steps in this case".

"We believe that these people should be released as soon as possible," Andrei Kelin said.

Russian's foreign ministry also said Moscow was "taking measures" to resolve the situation but blamed the Ukrainian authorities for the hostage crisis.

"They were invited by the Ukrainian authorities" and their safety "rests fully with the receiving side", the foreign ministry in Moscow said.

'Spying mission'

Ponomaryov described the detained observers as "captives" and said that they were officers from NATO member states.

"As we found maps on them containing information about the location of our checkpoints, we get the impression that they are officers carrying out a certain spying mission," he said.

Germany's Defence Ministry said it had had lost contact with the team, which it said also included five Ukrainians.

Al Jazeera's Barnaby Philips, reporting from Donetsk, said that a team was en route to negotiate the release of the observers.

"Some sort of OSCE mediation is on its way here to try to talk about this situation," he said.

The foreign observers were sent to Ukraine to monitor an April 17 accord signed in Geneva between Russia, Ukraine, the United States and the European Union that was meant to de-escalate the dangerous crisis in the ex-Soviet republic.

Despite assurances from Russia that it would work to secure the release of the team, interim Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk said the seizure was "another proof and evidence that these so-called peaceful protesters with Russian ideas are terrorists".

'Provoke war'

In a briefing with reporters, he lashed out at Moscow, saying Russian military aircraft violated Ukrainian air space late on Friday.

"Russian military aircraft today overnight crossed and violated Ukrainian airspace seven times. The only reason is to provoke Ukraine to start a war," he said.

Russia's defence ministry, however, denied claims that its planes had made any such violation.

"Russia's airspace monitoring systems have not registered any violations of air borders of the states adjacent to Russia, including Ukraine," the defence ministry said in a statement carried by the state ITAR TASS news agency.
Source:
Al Jazeera and agencies

BY Elias Groll
APRIL 29, 2014 - 07:05 PM

[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]
It's the most vivid metaphor yet for the divisions between the United States and Europe over how to retaliate against Russian aggression in Ukraine: a photograph of former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder literally embracing Russian President Vladimir Putin at the former's 70th birthday party in St. Petersburg.

On Monday, the same day Washington rolled out its latest sanctions against Russian officials, a smiling Schroeder greeted Putin as he arrived for the party at the Yusupov Palace, hugging the balding Russian strongman as he stepped out of his car.

The awkward embrace came on the same day the United States unveiled a new set of sanctions against officials close to Putin because of Moscow's refusal to curtain its efforts to foment unrest in eastern Ukraine. The new measures were relatively modest, in large part because the leaders of European powers don't want to harm their deep and longstanding commercial ties with Russia.

Schroeder's home country is one of the most ambivalent about taking stronger steps against Russia. In a poll conducted between March 31 and April 1, 45 percent of Germans said that Germany should stay closely aligned with its Western allies, while 49 percent said the country should stake out a "middle position" between Russian and the West.

For German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who has emerged as Europe's de facto leader in dealing with Putin, her predecessor's embrace of the Russian leader is particularly embarrassing. The rough American equivalent would be if Bill Clinton partied with Putin and was seen embracing him in the midst of the crisis. That, too, would surely provoke questions about the unity of America's efforts in responding to Russia.

Schroeder's relationship with Putin has long been controversial, to put things generously. As detailed in the International Business Times, Schroeder, while still chancellor, signed a deal with Russia in September 2004 to build a $4.7 billion oil pipeline called Nord Stream. Five months later, Schroeder resigned his post and took a job with Russian energy giant Gazprom, as the chairman of the Nord Stream project. Rep. Tom Lantos, the then-head of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, derided Schroeder as a "political prostitute."

The reaction within Germany to the new photos has been just as angry and sarcastic. "Our boys suffer on bread and water in the dungeon. Schroeder is celebrating with Champagne and caviar in a ballroom," Andreas Scheuer, general secretary of the ruling Christian Social Union, told the tabloid Bild, referring to the German officers detained, along with several other military observers, by pro-Russian militiamen in eastern Ukraine. "Particularly as former chancellor, he bears great responsibility for peace and freedom."

"The pictures of a laughing Schroeder, being hugged and cuddled by his friend Vladimir in the former tsarist palace, while German army soldiers are held hostage by fanatical Putin admirers, look macabre," Thomas Holl wrote in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung.

On the other hand, it was probably a great party.

The Obama administration's incremental approach to sanctions designates key individuals, but leaves the commanding heights of the Russian economy untouched.

BY Keith Johnson
APRIL 29, 2014

With the latest slate of sanctions on high-profile Russians Monday, the Obama administration argues that it is ratcheting up the pressure on Vladimir Putin and inflicting significant pain on the Russian economy. But the new sanctions stop short of hitting the key energy firms that are the backbone of Russia's economy -- and that are the most vulnerable to sanctions pressure from the West.

The U.S. Treasury designated a number of individuals in Russian president Vladimir Putin's inner circle, including Igor Sechin, a former deputy prime minister of Russia and currently the president of Rosneft, one of the company's largest oil companies, with a market capitalization of about $65 billion.

The designation means that U.S. persons cannot have dealings with Sechin -- but a Treasury spokesperson said that Monday's sanctions don't prevent U.S. and European companies such as ExxonMobil and BP from continuing to do business with Rosneft. That's because Sechin controls less than half the company; if he held a majority stake the company itself would be off-limits. The loophole means that Western firms can continue their multi-billion dollar, multi-year deals with Rosneft. Western Exxon is working with the company on oil-exploration projects in Siberia and the Arctic. BP, meanwhile, owns about 20 percent of the Russian oil giant.

Rosneft shares rose Monday on news that it had not been targeted by sanctions, though Standard and Poor's downgraded the company's credit rating, along with those of natural gas giant Gazprom and pipeline behemoth Transneft. Russian markets also got a boost, with stocks on the Moscow exchange gaining 1.6 percent on the day and the ruble recovering some of the steep losses incurred against the dollar since the outbreak of the crisis in Ukraine.

"We don't have to engage in any deep analysis," said Adrian Karatnycky, a fellow at the Atlantic Council, a Washington think tank, and a managing partner of Myrmidon Group, a consulting firm focused on Eastern Europe. "The Russian markets reacted with relief."

The news was more mixed for Rosneft's Western partners. BP's American Depositary Receipts were down about one percent in midday trading in New York, while Exxon shares were up slightly. Exxon declined to comment, and BP did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Other sanctions made public on Monday include the designations of several companies linked to Gennady Timchenko, a Russian billionaire with a long-standing and extremely close relationship to Putin, a former judo sparring partner. Timchenko had also been targeted in the first round of Ukraine-related sanctions last month. The targeted companies, which include mining and pipeline construction firms controlled through the Volga Group, but appear to do little business with U.S. companies.

A spokesman for the Timchenko's primary holding company, Volga Group, told Bloomberg Businessweek that "none of the companies mentioned by the U.S. Department of the Treasury has any connection to events in Ukraine...There can now be even less doubt that these announcements and measures are politically motivated."

Notably absent from the sanctions list were significant energy firms or other Putin insiders including Alexei Miller, the chief executive of Gazprom, Russia's natural-gas exporting behemoth.

Obama administration officials said Monday that they are keeping the prospect of broader sanctions, such as those that target the financial or energy sectors, in reserve. A senior administration added that they believe European officials will take the plunge to inflict sanctions on significant sectors of the Russian economy "if Russian troops move across the border" with Ukraine.

Taken together, the latest sanctions represent an incremental increase in U.S. pressure that so far has weakened the ruble, accelerated the flight of foreign capital from Russia, and walloped Russia's sovereign credit rating, which makes it harder for Moscow to tap capital on global financial markets.

Seriously targeting the energy sector would be crucial, though, because energy exports make up more than half the Russian government's revenue. Gas sales to Europe, in particular, are a point of vulnerability for Gazprom, since about three-quarters of its sales go to Europe. But Russia's oil firms, especially Rosneft, are also huge producers and long-time partners of big Western firms, with ambitious expansion plans.

Administration officials said Monday that they think the one-two punch of targeted sanctions and the knock-on effects such as the weakening currency that they have so far inflicted on the Russian economy will "affect Russia's calculus," because they show that Putin's annexation of the Crimean peninsula and destabilization of eastern Ukraine have "concrete economic costs."

So far, though, the sanctions to date appear not to have changed Putin's calculus regarding the wisdom of Russian meddling in Ukraine. And by stopping short of blacklisting entire sectors, they have given U.S. and European firms free rein to continue working with Russia, Inc.

Big Oil firms continue to talk up their investments in Russia, and some, such as Royal Dutch Shell, plan to ramp up investments in major energy projects in Russia. European countries continue to plan major deals with Russian nuclear power firms. Big European companies that have long-standing trading ties with Russia, meanwhile, are arguing against a ramping-up of sanctions.

The latest sanctions do deal one potential blow to some of Russia's energy aspirations by specifically designating Stoytransgaz, one of whose subsidiaries is vying to build a portion of a natural-gas pipeline in Bulgaria. But the full impact will only be felt if Europe follows suit with similar designations. U.S. officials said Monday that they don't expect that the latest U.S. and European sanctions lists will coincide exactly.

Stoytransgaz is reportedly part of a consortium seeking a 3.5 billion euro contract to build a portion of the South Stream pipeline across Bulgaria. South Stream is a Putin-backed project that would enable Moscow to ship natural gas from Russia to southern Europe while bypassing Ukraine, reducing Kiev's leverage as a key transit state for Russia's energy exports. But South Stream's future has come under question as a result of the Ukraine imbroglio, because European Union officials have put the project's legal approval on hold.

Hanna Kozlowska contributed to this report.

In Putin's Russia, strategy drives you!

BY James Stavridis
APRIL 25, 2014



TOP SECRET
FROM: Russian Strategic Planner
TO: President Vladimir Putin
SUBJECT: Request for Guidance

1. Mr. President, we are doing very well in executing your strategic direction. After humiliating the West in 2008 by seizing two valuable regions of annoying and tiny Georgia (Abkhazia and South Ossetia), we have consolidated our diplomatic triumph by achieving recognition of them as independent nations by four other countries around the world. True, they are costing us a great deal of hard cash to prop them up, but they are happily independent and will no doubt vote consistently with us in the U.N. General Assembly if they are ever granted membership (perhaps in late 2080).

2. I am even happier with our work in regaining Crimea for Russia! Despite the imposition of some trivial sanctions, our actions were approved by a total of 10 stalwart friends and allies in the U.N. General Assembly (Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, and several others). A fine group of partners. The remaining countries that either condemned us or abstained will no doubt over time see the wisdom in our actions.

3. Clearly our campaign to subvert Ukraine is working well. The Little Green Men of Russia are having enormous impact and will mount a lethal campaign that will at the least create real havoc in Ukraine. NATO slumbers and we move out. What could be better?

4. My request for guidance hinges on the simple question of "what next?"

a) Europe and the West. Though we are essentially a European nation, our rightful annexation of Crimea (along with possible continuing moves to destabilize Ukraine) has turned all of Europe against us (excepting loyal Belarus, of course). So we have not much leverage to the West. Even the French seem inclined to cancel our order of two large warships. When the French will not work with us, it is clear we have trouble in Europe.

b) Looking south to Central Asia. To the south, we have some support from the CSTO nations (some of the "Stans" as they are called in the West), but, frankly, they have little to offer us beyond exporting large numbers of violent extremists and huge quantities of opium. (With over 2 million heroin addicts here in Russia already, this does constitute a slight problem for us.) Not much to attract us there.

c) China. While we continue to court our Chinese colleagues, they seem wary of us these days. They are totally consumed with events in East Asia anyway and do not seem to regard us as particularly important one way or another. So while we will probably not see open hostility, there is not a great deal of support either. And, over time, I am a bit concerned that our tiny population east of the Ural Mountains and the vast empty, hydrocarbon-rich Russian territory there might be tempting to them. Better keep an eye on it and not count on much from China.

d) India. Despite some traditional friendship from the glorious days of the Cold War and lingering military-to-military cooperation (mostly sales), the long-term trend looks west -- language, democracy, economics, and cultural heritage all seem to favor other partners over Russia.

e) Arctic. With four of the five nations on the "front porch" of the high north being NATO members, I doubt we are going to see much up that way that is promising. Also, it is cold.

f) Africa and Latin America. A long, long way away.

5. All of which brings me to my request for guidance. Having burned our bridges to the West with Europe (well done, of course, and the prizes of Crimea, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia are clearly worth it), where shall we focus ourselves as we create the New Russia of the 21st century? We have a strong base to build on with Belarus, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela, of course, but, frankly, most of them are unfortunately international pariahs and offer little in the way of trade and growth. So where should we be focused?

6. I know that Karl Marx said that history always repeats itself, "first as tragedy, then as farce." I am sorry to say that some in the West seem to think that our new geopolitical moves to control nations like South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Crimea, Moldova/Transnistria, and parts of Ukraine are hardly the Warsaw Pact of old; but they are a brave group of satellites that cannot be dismissed as a farce.

7. Hopefully the price of oil will stay high, your PSA will stay low, and we will continue to dominate the news cycle!

8. We anxiously await your guidance!

Photo by ALEXEY DRUZHININ/AFP/Getty Images

BY Jamila Trindle
APRIL 25, 2014 - 02:30 PM


Western leaders say they're readying further sanctions on Russia for meddling in Eastern Ukraine over the past few weeks. Though so far it's just talk, the threats are already having the desired effect of pushing Russia's economy further into recession by making investors wary of what might come next.

Rating company Standard & Poor's downgraded Russia's debt Friday and warned that it could be further demoted to "junk" status if more sanctions are imposed. S&P said the downgrade was a result of increased risk to the Russian economy because people have moved so much money -- $51 billion so far this year -- out of the country. That compares to just $63 billion in all of 2013.

"The tense geopolitical situation between Russia and Ukraine could see additional significant outflows of both foreign and domestic capital from the Russian economy and hence further undermine already weakening growth prospects," the ratings firm said in a statement.

Russian Economy Minister Alexei Ulyukayev dismissed the downgrade, saying it was "partially due to a politically motivated decision," according to a state-run news report.

President Barack Obama spoke with the leaders of France, Germany, Britain, and Italy on Friday about coordinating further costs to be imposed on Russia. The leaders agreed that Russia had failed to live up to a April 17 agreement to lessen tensions by asking pro-Russia militants in eastern Ukraine to lay down their arms, according to a White House statement.

So far, the U.S. and the European Union have levied only limited sanctions against a handful of individuals and one bank, but the threat of further sanctions, especially against the Russian financial sector, has cast a cloud over the Russian economy that has accelerated already poor conditions. While western countries aren't yet expected to sanction whole sections of the Russian economy, Obama said in Seoul, South Korea, on Friday that the U.S. was laying the groundwork for broader sanctions that could be deployed if Russia invades eastern Ukraine.

Following the downgrade of Russian debt, the country's central bank increased benchmark interest rates a half point to seven percent to combat inflation caused by the declining value of the ruble, which has fallen almost eight percent against the dollar so far this year. That's on top of a one and a half point rate hike in March, which the bank had initially said was only temporary. The bank said in a statement Friday that uncertainty about the "international political situation" was holding back production and investment.

Standard Bank analyst Tim Ash said the downgrade was "bad for investment, bad for capital flows, and bad for broader political, economic reform."

But it's unclear whether this bad economic news affects President Vladimir Putin's decision-making. Putin said Thursday that sanctions were hurting the Russian economy, but not critically.

"Overall they are harmful for everyone, they destroy the global economy (and) are dishonorable on the part of those who use those types of tools," Putin said in St. Petersburg, according to Reuters.

Western leaders have said many times that Putin could choose to calm the crisis in Ukraine, but President Obama didn't sound optimistic that would happen. Speaking at a joint press conference with South Korean President Park Geun-hye, he said that a new round of targeted sanctions wouldn't "necessarily solve the problem."

"What we've been trying to do is to continually raise the costs for Russia of their actions while still leaving the possibility of them moving in a different direction," Obama said.

EPA/ARTUR SHVARTS

Washington blacklists more Russian officials, companies over Ukraine.

BY Dan Lamothe , Jamila Trindle
APRIL 28, 2014


The Obama administration moved Monday to ratchet up sanctions against Russian officials and companies, saying Russian President Vladimir Putin and the Kremlin have done "precisely nothing" to meet the terms of a recent agreement to help de-escalate the tense situation in neighboring Ukraine.

The latest round of sanctions includes seven Russian government officials and 17 Russian companies. The short list incrementally deepens earlier sanctions by further restricting politicians and businesspeople close to Putin, but the designation of top oil executive Igor Sechin is a symbolic shot across the bow of an industry that is crucial to the Russian economy and Putin's power.

Obama administration officials specifically noted the inclusion of Sechin and Sergei Chemezov, on Monday, saying the inclusion underscores the severity of the sanctions. Sechin is president of the state-owned Rosneft oil company and a key Putin adviser, according to Treasury. Sechin's personal assets will be frozen, but Treasury officials said the designation wouldn't impact U.S. companies' ability to do business with Rosneft because Sechin does not control the firm.

Chemezov is the CEO of the Russian state development organization Rostec Corp. and the former director general of Rosoboronexport, Russia's state arms dealer. Rostec also is involved in selling some military equipment, however, including helicopters and the ubiquitous Kalashnikov rifle.

"Russia is the world's largest producer of military helicopters," Chemezov told Bloomberg News in an interview in March. "They're cheaper than European or American helicopters, and the quality is no worse."

Monday's move extended the reach of earlier sanctions by adding several banks and firms to the list that the Treasury Department says are controlled by people who were blacklisted last month.

Ratings firm Standard & Poor's downgraded Russia's debt Friday, saying that the economy faced increased risk because people have moved so much money -- $51 billion so far this year -- out of the country. That compares to $63 billion in all of 2013. Following the downgrade, Russia's central bank increased benchmark interest rates a half point to seven percent to combat inflation caused by the declining value of the ruble, which has fallen almost eight percent against the dollar so far this year.

The financial hits, however, have failed to persuade Putin to reverse his annexation of Crimea or remove any of the tens of thousands of troops he's massed along his country's border with Ukraine.

U.S. officials hope the new measures will have more bite. Two banks and a pipeline company were added to the list Monday because they are owned by billionaire brothers Arkady and Boris Rotenberg, who were sanctioned on March 20. Three other firms were listed because they are alleged part of Bank Rossiya, which Treasury said is the personal bank for Putin and his associates, when it was added to the list. Eleven companies belonging to Gennaddy Timchenko were also designated, including at least four construction firms, a company that makes soft drinks and an oil transport business.

Treasury blacklisted Timchenko and his commodities business Gunvor Group in March, saying that Putin had investments in the firm, which the firm has denied. The U.S. effort to pressure Putin through sanctions highlights the murky nature of the Russian leader's financial holdings, which the New York Times reported Sunday could be as high as $70 billion.

Standard Bank analyst Tim Ash, who has followed the Ukraine crisis closely, said the list mainly included smaller "pocket" banks.

"What is striking is the relative absence of any banks/corporates at the ‘commanding' heights of the Russian economy," Ash said in a research note.

Visa and Mastercard shut down service to two banks, SMP Bank and InvestCapitalBank, that were added to the list Monday. The card companies already stopped processing transactions for Bank Rossiya and one of its subsidiaries after that bank was sanctioned last month.

U.S. officials warned that even harsher economic penalties against Moscow - including sectoral sanctions that would likely hurt the global economy if imposed - are still on the table if the Kremlin launches a full-blown invasion of eastern Ukraine. Their implementation could make it illegal for Americans to do business with certain industries, like energy, finance or defense.

"What we're doing is having a very significant impact," one U.S. official said. "These are calibrated and firm moves... that have had significant impact on the Russian economy."

The U.S. Commerce Department also expanded earlier restrictions on what American companies can export to Russia. The department stopped issuing new licenses in March, but will now explicitly deny some applications and could revoke earlier issued permissions. Any applications from U.S. companies that want to export items that could contribute to Russia's military capability will be rejected, Commerce said. Thirteen Russian companies were also added to a further restricted "entity list," which means permission to export to them will likely be denied.

It’s unclear which products will be restricted under the tighter export controls. Commerce oversees so-called “dual use” items, which can be used for civilian or military purposes, so if the new measure were interpreted broadly the restrictions could apply to all the products that the agency controls. A Commerce spokesman did not respond to requests for comment.

Tom Keatinge, an independent finance and security analyst, said the U.S. was probably sending few military items to Russia, even before the tighter measures.

“I cannot imagine that anything is being exported that can’t be sourced elsewhere from China or the like,” said Keatinge, who is also a former J.P. Morgan investment banker, in an email.

While the direct effects may be limited, export lawyer Farhad Alavi said the increased complication of sending products to Russia may discourage smaller companies from even applying for the licenses.

“They’re just going to say screw it, we’re not going to deal with Russia,” said Alavi, a partner with Akrivis Law Group.

President Obama said in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Sunday that the U.S. was opting to coordinate with Europe, rather than charging ahead alone.

"The notion that for us to go forward with sectoral sanctions on our own without the Europeans would be the most effective deterrent to Mr. Putin I think is factually wrong," Obama said at a joint press conference with Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak. "We're going to be in a stronger position to deter Mr. Putin when he sees that the world is unified and the United States and Europe is unified, rather than this is just a U.S.-Russian conflict."

The government in Kiev has pleaded for the United States to offer more military aid to Ukraine, including weapons, but U.S. officials said there is no scenario in which the Ukrainian military is going to be built up to the point that it can withstand Russian military might. The European Union is expected to announce similar economic sanctions soon.

Keith Johnson contributed this this article.

This article has been updated.

Scott Olson/Getty Images

¿Por qué la EU no se aventura en las guerras económicas de EE.UU. contra Rusia?

Publicado: 30 abr 2014 | 5:20 GMT Última actualización: 30 abr 2014 | 7:40 GMT


Pese al empeño de Washington, la UE no está muy interesada en romper sus fuertes relaciones comerciales con Moscú y no se ve preparada para imponer sanciones serias contra Rusia, según los expertos.

Este lunes, siguiendo el ejemplo de EE.UU., la Unión Europea publicó su lista de personas sancionadas por su implicación en la crisis ucraniana, incluyendo medidas contra siete ciudadanos rusos y 17 empresas.

No obstante, los expertos explican que aunque ambos socios internacionales evalúan negativamente la postura de Rusia en la crisis de Ucrania, entre sus posturas hay una clara diferencia. Así, mientras que Washington comienza a extender sus sanciones a las empresas rusas y el sector de la cooperación técnico-militar, los líderes de la UE se muestran más reservados, prefiriendo sanciones específicas contra políticos concretos.

Según destaca el catedrático de la integración europea del Instituto Estatal de Relaciones Internacionales de Moscú, Nikolái Kavéshnikov, citado por la agencia Ria Novosti, las sanciones impuestas tienen un carácter "muy simbólico y no causan graves daños para la economía rusa".

Al mismo tiempo, el experto explica que la reprobación de las acciones de Rusia tiene su 'simbolismo' no solamente en la escena internacional, sino también se considera como un reflejo de la opinión pública dentro de los países de la UE, para no perder el apoyo de sus electores. "Es un símbolo que los políticos europeos presentarán a sus electores, a su opinión pública y la comunidad internacional", acentúa.

Por otra parte, pese a la claramente observada influencia de Washington, que conduce a la gradual reducción de las relaciones con Rusia, de acuerdo con Alexéi Gromyko, director del Centro de Estudios Británicos del Instituto de Europa, los europeos "guardan la esperanza" de que la situación se estabilice y normalice, sin el aumento de sanciones.

Por un lado —resume el experto— la UE depende de la política de EE.UU., pero por el otro, los europeos, aunque hay países "capaces de cumplir todas las exigencias de Washington", ya tienen una cierta autonomía en las relaciones con Rusia. Y EE.UU. está aún muy lejos de superar estas relaciones y "arrastrar a la UE a guerras reales, comerciales, económicas y de inversiones con Rusia".

[Tienes que estar registrado y conectado para ver esa imagen]

29 abril 2014
12:13 PM ET

¿Quién cederá primero: Putin u Occidente?

Por Ulrich Speck, especial para CNN

Nota del editor: Ulrich Speck es especialista visitante del grupo de estudios Carnegie Europe en Bruselas. Síguelo en @uli_speck y@Carnegie_Europe en Twitter.

(CNN) — La toma de Crimea por parte de Rusia, en marzo, tal vez haya transcurrido con la velocidad del rayo, pero Vladimir Putin y Occidente se han enzarzado en duelo de voluntades mucho más pausado en un tablero de ajedrez que se extiende sobre la mayor parte del este de Ucrania.

En vez de buscar el jaque mate, ambas partes parecen conformarse con esperar a que el otro cometa un error. Putin hizo una primera maniobra firme al colocar 40,000 soldados en la frontera… y ubicar a los separatistas, que oficialmente no tienen lazos con Rusia, en el terreno en Ucrania.

Ahora, el gobierno ruso espera a que el gobierno pro-Occidente de Ucrania trate de recuperar las partes del este que al parecer ha perdido. En opinión de Rusia, cualquier maniobra de esa clase legitimaría un contraataque aplastante… se repetiría la crisis de Georgia en 2008, cuando el presidente Mikheil Saakashvili perdió el temple, disparó primero y provocó una invasión rusa.

El problema de Putin es el tiempo: no puede esperar para siempre para atacar. Los soldados no pueden permanecer listos para el combate durante varios meses consecutivos. Los separatistas del este de Ucrania están perdidos sin el apoyo externo y pueden ponerse nerviosos si el tiempo pasa sin que se vea luz al final del túnel.

Al otro lado del tablero están el presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama; la canciller de Alemania, Angela Merkel, y el inmaduro gobierno de Ucrania. El principal reto para Obama y su homóloga alemana es mantener un frente occidental unido. Tienen que sostener la amenaza creíble de sanciones económicas generalizadas que puedan minar los recursos del Kremlin si no hace lo que se espera.

Sin embargo, se pueden ver grietas en la unión de Occidente. A Europa puede preocuparle la agresión de Rusia contra Ucrania, pero el continente no tiene prisa por adoptar una postura más desafiante ante Putin. Algunos países temen la presión de Rusia, especialmente en lo que concierne a su abasto de energía. Muchas personas están nerviosas por el precio que sus países pagarán como resultado del endurecimiento de las sanciones. Nadie está seguro de estar listo para abandonar la idea de tener a Rusia como socio vital.

Por otro lado, Obama tiende más a presionar al gobierno ruso. El gobierno estadounidense está acostumbrado a enfrentarse a Rusia —y a Putin, específicamente— y Estados Unidos está menos conectado económicamente con su viejo rival de la Guerra Fría.

A los líderes de Estados Unidos no solo los motiva su interés por el este de Europa y la inquietud de que Rusia se consolide como una potencia más agresiva y expansionista. Estados Unidos también quiere establecer las normas esenciales del orden internacional, específicamente la integridad territorial y el principio de que la modificación de las fronteras solo puede hacerse con el consentimiento de todas las partes.

Ucrania es una gran oportunidad para indicar tanto a los aliados como a los rivales que Estados Unidos no se retracta de sus compromisos mundiales. El impacto que la crisis de Ucrania ha tenido en China y los diversos conflictos territoriales con sus vecinos también acechan en la mente de los políticos de Washington.
Sin importar las diferencias que haya entre los líderes de Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea, entre más coordinadamente actúen, mayores probabilidades tendrán de lograr su objetivo: frustrar el intento del gobierno ruso por socavar la soberanía y la integridad territorial de Ucrania.

Occidente también tiene que asegurarse de que el gobierno interino de Ucrania no pierda el temple. Aunque para los líderes es difícil ver cómo los separatistas pro-Rusia toman sus edificios, cualquier operación a gran escala en el este de Ucrania podría dar a Putin la oportunidad que ha estado esperando: la de invadir con alguna clase de justificación pseudolegal dudosa.

Es difícil saber quién está en mejor posición. Putin es un estratega consumado. Desde que era agente en la KGB en Dresden, en la década de 1980, adquirió mucha experiencia para encontrar y explotar las debilidades de Occidente. Además, parece que cuenta con un apoyo generalizado en casa gracias a su estilo desafiante en la política.

La debilidad de Putin es que su régimen depende económicamente de Occidente. Sin el flujo constante de ingresos procedentes de la venta de gas y petróleo que controla el Kremlin, el régimen no podría comprar apoyo en casa ni sería capaz de financiar las políticas exteriores arriesgadas y costosas.

Occidente no tiene ganas de enfrentarse a Rusia. Pero si los tanques de Putin entran en el este de Ucrania sin previo aviso, sin legitimidad, provocará que la opinión de Occidente esté aún más en su contra. Esto podría dar a Merkel y Obama el respaldo necesario para endurecer las sanciones.

Si quiere lograr su objetivo principal —evitar que Ucrania se asocie más con Occidente—, Putin tendrá que actuar rápido. Probablemente necesita tener cierta presencia rusa dentro de Ucrania (además de Crimea), ya que controlar a los separatistas del este tal vez no sea suficiente ni sostenible.

Si el gobierno ucraniano combatiera a gran escala a los separatistas, el gobierno ruso tendría el pretexto para introducir al este de Ucrania algunos soldados para "mantener la paz". Una vez que estén dentro del país, se podría crear otro "conflicto congelado" que desestabilizaría al país y evitaría que Occidente intente ayudar a Ucrania a levantarse. Esto podría mantener con vida la ambición de Putin a largo plazo: conducir a Ucrania a una federación o alianza encabezada por Rusia.

Si el gobierno ruso llega a la conclusión de que Occidente no responderá a una maniobra de ese tipo con sanciones dolorosas que podrían dañar al círculo cercano a Putin y podrían tener la fuerza suficiente como para mermar los principales recursos económicos del Kremlin, Putin podría tomar la decisión de actuar en consecuencia o tomar otras vías.

Sin embargo, si Estados Unidos y la Unión Europea demuestran que realmente están listos para recurrir a la guerra económica para contrarrestar a la maquinaria militar rusa, Occidente tal vez pueda evitar que Putin llegue más lejos. Algo tiene que ocurrir pronto.

Las opiniones recogidas en este texto pertenecen exclusivamente a Ulrich Speck

Europa está lista para otra etapa de castigos: Angela Merkel

Afp y Dpa

Periódico La Jornada
Sábado 3 de mayo de 2014, p. 21

Washington 2 de mayo.

El presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, y la canciller federal alemana, Angela Merkel, amenazaron hoy a Rusia con nuevas sanciones, que apuntarían a determinados sectores económicos, en caso de agudizarse la crisis en Ucrania.

Durante una conferencia de prensa conjunta en la Casa Blanca, Obama advirtió a Moscú contra posibles sanciones "sectorizadas", si las elecciones presidenciales del 25 de mayo en Ucrania se ven perturbadas o impedidas por los rebeldes pro rusos.

"No tendremos más opción que seguir adelante con severas sanciones adicionales", dijo Obama.

Merkel advirtió que Europa está lista para lanzar una "tercera etapa" de sanciones económicas contra Rusia, a las que se oponen sectores empresariales de su país. La segunda concernía a individuos y la tercera estaría enfocada a sectores económicos.

"El 25 de mayo no está para nada lejos. De no ser posible estabilizar más la situación las sanciones serán inevitables", advirtió la canciller.

Esas medidas, que expertos en Estados Unidos y Europa ya evalúan, estarían dirigidas a sectores como finanzas, energía y minería, vitales para la economía rusa.

Los dos dirigentes se manifestaron en favor de una solución diplomática a la crisis en Ucrania.

Obama instó también al gobierno del presidente Vladimir Putin a que ayude a la liberación de los observadores de la Organización para la Seguridad y la Cooperación en Europa (OSCE), detenidos en Slaviansk, en el este de Ucrania, por los pro rusos desde hace un mes.

En ese sentido, el Ministerio de Exteriores de Rusia informó que los rebeldes estarían dispuestos a entregar bajo ciertas condiciones a los miembros de la OSCE. En primer lugar, reportó una fuente, los separatistas dijeron que entregarían los rehenes al enviado especial ruso, Vladimir Lukin, quien se encuentra en el este ucranio.

La información fue ofrecida por fuentes rusas luego que el ministro de Exteriores en Moscú mantuvo una conversación telefónica con el presidente de la OSCE, el suizo Didier Burkhalter.

Russia enters recession, IMF says
Sanctions imposed on Moscow for its involvement in Ukraine are to blame, according to the financial organisation.
Last updated: 30 Apr 2014 18:52

The International Monetary Fund says Russia is now in recession.

The IMF cut the country's 2014 growth forecast from 1.3 percent to 0.2 percent.

It said a loss of confidence caused by sanctions imposed on Russia by the US and the European Union because of its involvement in the ongoing Ukraine crisis is largely to blame.

Al Jazeera's Nadim Baba reports from Moscow.