Torino-Lione: il Cipe approva la Variante di cantierizzazione del tunnel di base in Italia

http://www.torinoggi.it/2018/03/21/mobile/leggi-notizia/argomenti/attualita-8/articolo/torino-lione-il-cipe-approva-la-variante-di-cantierizzazione-del-tunnel-di-base-in-italia.html

Il nuovo progetto prevede lo spostamento dell’area principale dei lavori da Susa a Chiomonte. Di segno opposto i commenti di Osvaldo Napoli e Daniela Ruffino (Forza Italia) rispetto a Francesca Frediani (M5S)

 Via libera del Comitato interministeriale per la programmazione economica al progetto di Variante di cantierizzazione per la parte italiana della sezione transfrontaliera della Torino-Lione.

Nella seduta di questo pomeriggio il Cipe ha approvato la Variante al progetto definitivo che risponde alla prescrizione 235 del 2015 con cui lo stesso Comitato chiedeva di studiare una localizzazione alternativa dei cantieri del tunnel di base del Moncenisio sul versante italiano per motivi di sicurezza. Con questa delibera del Cipe si concludono tutti gli atti approvativi della Torino-Lione in Italia e in Francia.

Il nuovo progetto prevede lo spostamento dell’area principale dei lavori da Susa a Chiomonte, dove sarà ampliato il cantiere per la costruzione del cunicolo esplorativo della Maddalena il cui scavo è terminato a febbraio 2017. Le modifiche al progetto definitivo prevedono l’eliminazione di ogni lavorazione in Val Clarea e di 6 km di cavidotto, la riduzione della durata dei successivi cantieri nella Piana di Susa e la realizzazione della fabbrica dei conci a Salbertrand, dove oltre il 60% del materiale estratto nei lavori sarà trasformato in rivestimenti di calcestruzzo per il tunnel di base e in materiali per i rilevati ferroviari. Si entra così a pieno titolo nella fase realizzativa dell’opera anche in Italia.

Di segno opposto i primi commenti alla notizia da parte del mondo politico. Osvaldo Napoli (Forza Italia) dichiara: “Con il via libera del CIPE alla variante cantieri TELT della Torino-Lione si sono create le condizioni ottimali per compiere l’ultimo miglio dell’opera infrastrutturale destinata a rafforzare i legami dell’Italia con l’Europa. Il semaforo verde del Comitato interministeriale per la programmazione economica era atteso per consentire di trasferire il cantiere da Susa a Chiomonte, con buona pace di chi gufava e combatteva contro questa prospettiva. Questo consentirà di accelerare gli appalti e di conseguenza l’inizio dei lavori. Un anno di lavoro dell’Osservatorio ha portato buoni frutti”.

Sulla stessa falsa riga anche Daniela Ruffino (FI): “Questa ottima notizia ha un duplice significato. Il primo riguarda l’ottimo lavoro svolto in preparazione dell’atto dal Comissiario Foietta, il secondo è una grande opportunità di crescita che avrà la Valsusa che, ne è testimonianza il voto alle Elezioni Politiche, ha girato pagina e dal no all’alta velocità sta passando ad una visione istituzionale e in linea con il futuro dei valligiani“.

Di parere totalmente contrario Francesca Frediani, consigliera regionale del M5S: “Ultimo (speriamo) colpo di coda di questo governo targato PD.  Incredibile e inusuale intraprendenza di tutti i soggetti coinvolti, dal governo alla Regione fino a TELT. Forse terrorizzati dall’idea che il Movimento 5 Stelle, finalmente con un ruolo di governo, possa porre fine alla realizzazione del TAV Torino Lione. Il tentativo di ipotecare le risorse che dovranno essere gestite dal futuro governo è una grave scorrettezza, in particolar modo a pochi giorni da un voto che ha chiaramente indicato come prima forza politica il M5S, da sempre contrario all’opera”.

“Quanta solerzia nel presentare tutte le documentazioni e nel concludere proprio ora l’iter di approvazione con tanto di ingenti fondi messi a disposizione! Perché non l’abbiamo vista nelle altre occasioni come quando interi paesi sono stati duramente colpiti da terremoti e alluvioni?”, ha concluso la Frediani.

Tav, il cantiere di Chiomonte sarà ampliato: “si entra nella fase realizzativa”

http://www.valsusaoggi.it/tav-il-cantiere-di-chiomonte-sara-ampliato-si-entra-nella-fase-realizzativa/

    

riceviamo da TELT

TORINO – Via libera del Comitato interministeriale per la programmazione economica al progetto di Variante di cantierizzazione per la parte italiana della sezione transfrontaliera della Torino-Lione.

Nella seduta di questo pomeriggio il Cipe ha approvato la Variante al progetto definitivo che risponde alla prescrizione 235 del 2015 con cui lo stesso Comitato chiedeva di studiare una localizzazione alternativa dei cantieri del tunnel di base del Moncenisio sul versante italiano per motivi di sicurezza.

Con questa delibera del Cipe si concludono tutti gli atti approvativi della Torino-Lione in Italia e in Francia.

Il nuovo progetto prevede lo spostamento dell’area principale dei lavori da Susa a Chiomonte, dove sarà ampliato il cantiere per la costruzione del cunicolo esplorativo della Maddalena il cui scavo è terminato a febbraio 2017. Le modifiche al progetto definitivo prevedono l’eliminazione di ogni lavorazione in Val Clarea e di 6 km di cavidotto, la riduzione della durata dei successivi cantieri nella Piana di Susa e la realizzazione della fabbrica dei conci a Salbertrand, dove oltre il 60% del materiale estratto nei lavori sarà trasformato in rivestimenti di calcestruzzo per il tunnel di base e in materiali per i rilevati ferroviari.

Si entra così a pieno titolo nella fase realizzativa dell’opera anche in Italia.

Una NOTA esplicativa relativamente a questa affermazione: 

“Si entra così a pieno titolo nella fase realizzativa dell’opera anche in Italia”

Paolo Prieri

Un Governo battuto :

  • ha approvato attraverso il CIPE (Presieduto da Gentiloni) la Variante al progetto definitivo,
  • vuole cosi portarsi avanti per evitare che il prossimo Governo nelle mani del M5S decida diversamente,
  • manda un messaggio rassicurante alla Francia.TELT :
  • dal canto suo afferma che “Con questa delibera del CIPE si concludono tutti gli atti approvativi della Torino-Lione in Italia e in Francia.,
  • si entra così a pieno titolo nella fase realizzativa dell’opera anche in Italia (come se lo fosse già in Francia).Non credo che da parte nostra sia opportuno avanzare delle ipotesi, ma certo la Francia, prima di comunicare la sua decisione sulla Lyon-Turin, vorrà poterlo fare all’interlocutore naturale: il prossimo Presidente del Consiglio.

    Ad oggi la Francia non ha ancora stanziato alcun importo per realizzare le opere definitive della parte comune italo-francese.

    L’Accordo di Roma 30.1.2012,it prevede all’art. 16 che i lavori delle varie fasi della parte comune italo-francese (tra cui il tunnel) potranno iniziare solo quando entrambi  i partner (Italia, Francia ed Unione europea).
    Accordo di Roma 30 genn 12 Articolo 16 Principi
    A meno che l’Italia, che già si è impegnata a pagare la maggioranza dei costi del tunnel della parte italiana e francese, voglia così procedere nello scavo del tunnel senza l’accordo della Francia.

Comunicato definitivo per sentenza Cassazione processone

Ancora una volta: si parte e si torna insieme, sempre.

L’11 aprile la Cassazione emetterà la sentenza definitiva sul maxi processo notav.

Un processo nel quale sono stati imputati 53 notav per le giornate del 27 giugno, lo sgombero della Maddalena, e il 3 luglio 2011, l’assedio al cantiere.

Un processo tutto politico che ha visto, in un clima surreale visto che il primo grado si è tenuto con udienze settimanali nell’aula bunker del carcere delle Vallette, una feroce accusa al movimento notav tutto, con l’intento di tagliarci le gambe, comminando pene esemplari con tutto l’astio che la magistratura ha dimostrato nei nostri confronti.

 

In primo grado erano state 47 le condanne per un totale di 142 anni e 7 mesi di reclusione in tutto, con pene inflitte dalla corte che hanno superato persino le richieste della Procura.

Una vendetta di stato la chiamammo allora (e lo ribadiamo ancora), perché capace di dare a 53 notav più anni di galera degli autori del disastro del Vajont ( ben 130 anni in più). 

Oltre alle condanne sono state inflitte a vario titolo risarcimenti, provvisionali e spese processuali per cifre enormi.

 

Nel secondo grado le condanne sono scese a 38 con la Corte d’Appello che ha ritenuto importante ribadire nella sentenza che «il comportamento delle forze di polizia è stato pacato, misurato e in linea con le direttive contenute nei provvedimenti dei vertici degli uffici e degli ordini dati sul campo», anche quando i fatti documentati dimostrano che non è proprio andata così (vedi Operazione Hunter o i 4.357 lacrimogeni lanciati contro i noi il solo 3 luglio 2011)

 

Ora si arriva alla sentenza definitiva e le condanne potranno diventare esecutive (a meno che la corte non accolga, anche in parte, i numerosi ricorsi che se fossero accolti anche in parte potrebbero annullare parte o tutta la sentenza e rinviare gli atti per un nuovo processo)  così come le provvisionali e i risarcimenti, che sono circa 145.000,00€ le provvisionali (a titolo di parziale risarcimento delle diverse parti civili costituite tra cui Telt, sindacati di polizia e Ministeri) e  250.000,00€ di spese legali (parcelle degli avvocati di parte civile).

Per questo non vogliamo far mancare la nostra solidarietà a tutti e tutte, perché ognuno di noi poteva essere imputato in questo processo, perché in quelle giornate c’eravamo tutti, con il corpo e con il cuore.

 

Sono giornate impresse nella nostra storia, collettiva e di popolo, che non troverà mai la giusta verità in un’aula di tribunale perché ci siamo abituati, ma mai rassegnati, a vedere riscritti fatti che ci riguardano secondo la penna e il codice penale di chi, in qualche modo, si è sempre schierato dalla parte dell’opera e del sistema tav.

 

Abbiamo sempre avuto ragione, e anche oggi i fatti lo dimostrano, ma siamo sempre stati trattati come “casi penali” da chi ha molteplici interessi nella costruzione della linea e nella sconfitta di un movimento popolare capace di scrivere la storia di questo Paese, senza paura, con la propria lotta e senza chinare mai la testa. Nemmeno quando hanno provato a piegarci con gli arresti, con centinaia di processi, centinaia di migliaia di euro di risarcimenti e capi d’imputazione sempre più duri fino ad arrivare alle imputazioni per terrorismo.

 

La magistratura è stata un grimaldello della politica, che non avendo veri strumenti e argomenti per contrastarci, ha delegato tutto al piano penale e repressivo, per piegarci e spaventarci, ma non ha mai ottenuto l’effetto desiderato.

Siamo ancora qui, con lo stesso entusiasmo di un tempo, fieri delle nostre battaglie e sempre più convinti (e documentati) delle nostre ragioni.

 

Abbiamo imparato a camminare insieme, e non lasciare indietro nessuno, in nessuna occasione, e per questo anche l’11 aprile vogliamo far sentire la nostra vicinanza ai notav imputati con iniziative in Valle e a Roma, davanti alla Corte di Cassazione, dove verrà letta la sentenza.

 

Per questo chiediamo la collaborazione di tutti e tutte a costruire i due appuntamenti, rilanciando anche un’assemblea popolare per Venerdì 13 Aprile, al Palanotav di Bussoleno.

 

Avanti notav!

Zucca non arretra: “il governo spieghi perché i torturatori del G8 sono ai vertici della polizia”

http://www.globalist.it/news/articolo/2018/03/21/il-pm-zucca-insiste-il-governo-spieghi-i-condannati-a-vertici-polizia-2021351.html

La replica del giudice del processo Diaz alle critiche del Csm e del capo della Polizia

Enrico Zucca

Enrico Zucca

globalist  21 marzo 2018

Enrico Zucca, sostituto procuratore di Genova, ha subito replicato alle critiche del Csm e della Polizia per un suo intervento a un convegno in cui ha fatto un parallelismo tra i torturatori di Giulio Regeni e le violenze compiute dalla polizia durante il G8 del 2001 a Genova: “i nostri torturatori sono ai vertici della polizia, come possiamo chiedere all’Egitto di consegnarci i loro torturatori?”. 
Il vicepresidente dell’organo di autogoverno della magistratura, Giovanni Legnini, e il capo della Polizia, Franco Gabrielli, hanno definito “inappropriate”, “oltraggiose e infamanti” le parole pronunciate da Zucca mentre il procuratore generale della Cassazione, Riccardo Fuzio, ha avviato accertamenti preliminari sul pm e acquisirà tutti gli elementi conoscitivi sulle dichiarazioni del magistrato.
“La rimozione del funzionario condannato – ha detto Zucca – è un obbligo convenzionale, non una scelta politica, e queste cose le ho dette e scritte anche in passato. Il Governo deve spiegare perché ha tenuto ai vertici operativi dei condannati. Fa parte dell’esecuzione di una sentenza. Noi violiamo le convenzioni è difficile farle rispettare ai Paesi non democratici”. 
Poi una considerazione sugli accertamenti avviati sulle sue dichiarazioni. “E’ normale e doveroso, quando succedono queste cose – ha detto Zucca – che Csm e ministero si accertino sui fatti”. 
Il precedente.
Una riga di motivazione e un voto in blocco con altre delibere, senza alcuna discussione. Così due anni fa il Csm chiuse con un’archiviazione un’altra vicenda che aveva visto per protagonista il pm di Genova Enrico Zucca. Anche allora in un dibattito pubblico il magistrato aveva duramente criticato l’operato della Polizia al G8 di Genova: lo fece parlando di una “totale rimozione” di quelle vicende e del rifiuto per anni da parte della polizia italiana, diversamente da quelle straniere, di “leggere se stessa” per “evitare il ripetersi” di errori.
L’allora capo della polizia Alessandro Pansa ritenne lesa l’onorabilità del Corpo. Per questo sollecitò l’avvio di un’azione disciplinare al ministro della Giustizia e trasmise la lettera con le sue doglianze anche al Csm. Un’iniziativa che fece infuriare i consiglieri togati di Area, che chiesero al Csm un intervento di segno contrario: un intervento a tutela del magistrato. Quell’intervento alla fine non ci fu, ma nel novembre del 2016, il Csm archiviò la lettera di Pansa. 
Lo fece inserendola in un ordine del giorno, che solitamente contiene le pratiche minori e di routine e che di norma viene votato tutto insieme in blocco. Succinta la motivazione, comune a due esposti che riguardavano vicende e magistrati differenti: “non ci sono provvedimenti di competenza del Csm da adottare”. Anche a livello disciplinare la vicenda non ha avuto esiti per Zucca: agli atti della Sezione disciplinare del Csm non risulta alcun procedimento a carico del magistrato.

Attacco genocida a Afrin: centinaia di civili sono stati uccisi

http://www.uikionlus.com/attacco-genocida-a-afrin-centinaia-di-civili-sono-stati-uccisi/

UIKI ONLUS

Attacco genocida a Afrin: centinaia di civili sono stati uccisi

I massacri dello stato turco contro la popolazione civile continuano a Efrin. Nell’attacco aereo a Jinderêsê ieri, centinaia di civili sono stati uccisi. Gli attacchi che mirano all’ occupazione ad Efrin hanno raggiunto il centro città nel 58° giorno. Si è appreso che centinaia di civili sono stati uccisi nei bombardamenti fatti sia da terra che dal cielo.

Secondo le informazioni ricevute ieri, un convoglio civile nella regione di Jinderêsê è stato bombardato da aerei da guerra turchi. Si è saputo che 300 persone del convoglio abbiano perso la vita.

Nel bombardamento di insediamenti civili nel centro della città di Efrin, si apprende che molte persone sono state uccise. Tuttavia non è possibile ottenere informazioni chiare perché le linee di trasporto della città sono troncate. Secondo quanto riferito molti civili sono stati rapiti o uccisi dalle forze di invasione.

Tra le informazioni si apprende che le forze di occupazione hanno tagliato la testa di due civili nel centro della città di Efrin.

Negli ultimi due giorni di attacchi, il numero di civili uccisi a Efrin ha superato le 500 persone.

GEOIDEOLOGY – RUSSIA’S EURASIAN IDENTITY (II): ‘RUSSIA’S FOREIGN POLICY. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND’ (LAVROV)

LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE/

Luc MICHEL pour EODE/

Quotidien géopolitique – Geopolitical Daily/

2018 03 21/

LM.GEOPOL - Geoideology russia eurasia II (2018 03 21) ENGL 1

“Incidentally, the need for modernisation based on European achievements was clearly manifest in Russian society under Tsar Alexis, while talented and ambitious Peter the Great gave it a strong boost. Relying on tough domestic measures and resolute, and successful, foreign policy, Peter the Great managed to put Russia into the category of Europe’s leading countries in a little over two decades. Since that time Russia’s position could no longer be ignored.

LM.GEOPOL - Geoideology russia eurasia II (2018 03 21) ENGL 2

Not a single European issue can be resolved without Russia’s opinion.”

– Sergey Lavrov (march 2016).

“Te Russian Empire was the greatest empire of all times in the totality of all parameters – its size, an ability to administer its territories and the longevity of its existence (…) History has imbued Russia with the mission of being a link between the East and the West”

– Hélène Carrère d’Encausse (The Empire of Eurasia).

In a landmark treatise titled “Russia’s Foreign Policy: Historical Background,” published March 3, 2016 in the Russian foreign affairs journal ‘Russia in Global Affairs’, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov “challenged the Western perspective on Russia with an analysis of Russian history”. According to Lavrov, “Russia has played an important role in shaping both European history and contemporary European policies”. He writes that “contrary to the belief widespread in the West that Russia is Europe’s political outsider (…) it is an integral part of the European context”, adding that “while throughout history Russia’s power has been obstructed by European countries, Europe’s geography, and its historical, intrinsic interconnection with Russia, signifies that the former will always have to consider the latter.” Lavrov also sketches out a “bipolar world in which Russia confronts the U.S. by expanding its own realm of political influence and power from the Atlantic to the Pacific, as part of a new political entity – Eurasia.”

* RESUME FRANCAIS:

GEOIDEOLOGIE – L’IDENTITE EURASIENNE DE LA RUSSIE (II):

POLITIQUE ÉTRANGÈRE DE LA RUSSIE. LE CONTEXTE HISTORIQUE ‘

(LAVROV)

« Incidemment, le besoin de modernisation basé sur les réalisations européennes était clairement manifeste dans la société russe sous le tsar Alexis, tandis que le talent et l’ambition de Pierre le Grand lui donnait un coup de fouet. S’appuyant sur des mesures nationales dures et sur une politique étrangère résolue et réussie, Pierre le Grand a réussi à placer la Russie dans la catégorie des principaux pays européens en un peu plus de deux décennies. Depuis lors, la position de la Russie ne pouvait plus être ignorée. Aucun problème européen ne peut être résolu sans l’avis de la Russie »

– Sergueï Lavrov (mars 2016).

« L’Empire russe était le plus grand empire de tous les temps dans la totalité de tous les paramètres – sa taille, sa capacité à administrer ses territoires et la longévité de son existence (…) l’Histoire a conféré à la Russie la mission d’être un lien entre l’Orient et l’Occident »

– Hélène Carrère d’Encausse (L’Empire d’Eurasie).

Dans un article de référence intitulé «La politique étrangère russe:

le contexte historique», publié le 3 mars 2016 dans la revue russe « La Russie dans les affaires mondiales », le ministre russe des Affaires étrangères Sergueï Lavrov a remis en question la perspective occidentale sur la Russie ». Selon Lavrov, « la Russie a joué un rôle important dans l’élaboration de l’histoire européenne et des politiques européennes contemporaines ». Il écrit que « contrairement à la croyance répandue en Occident que la Russie serait l’outsider politique de l’Europe (…), elle fait partie intégrante du contexte européen », ajoutant que « tout au long de l’histoire, la Russie a été contrée par la géographie, l’histoire et son interconnexion avec la Russie, ce qui signifie que le premier devra toujours considérer le second ». Lavrov ébauche également un « monde bipolaire dans lequel la Russie affronte les États-Unis en élargissant son propre domaine d’influence politique et de pouvoir. De l’Atlantique vers le Pacifique, dans le cadre d’une nouvelle entité politique – L’Eurasie ».

# Part 1 –

DOCUMENT/ SERGEY LAVROV:

“RUSSIA’S FOREIGN POLICY: HISTORICAL BACKGROUND”

(‘RUSSIA IN GLOBAL AFFAIRS’, MARCH 3, 2016)

Sergey Lavrov’s article for “Russia in Global Affairs” magazine :

“International relations have entered a very difficult period, and Russia once again finds itself at the crossroads of key trends that determine the vector of future global development.

Many different opinions have been expressed in this connection including the fear that we have a distorted view of the international situation and Russia’s international standing. I perceive this as an echo of the eternal dispute between pro-Western liberals and the advocates of Russia’s unique path. There are also those, both in Russia and outside of it, who believe that Russia is doomed to drag behind, trying to catch up with the West and forced to bend to other players’ rules, and hence will be unable to claim its rightful place in international affairs. I’d like to use this opportunity to express some of my views and to back them with examples from history and historical parallels.

It is an established fact that a substantiated policy is impossible without reliance on history. This reference to history is absolutely justified, especially considering recent celebrations. In 2015, we celebrated the 70th anniversary of Victory in WWII, and in 2014, we marked a century since the start of WWI. In 2012, we marked 200 years of the Battle of Borodino and 400 years of Moscow’s liberation from the Polish invaders. If we look at these events carefully, we’ll see that they clearly point to Russia’s special role in European and global history. History doesn’t confirm the widespread belief that Russia has always camped in Europe’s backyard and has been Europe’s political outsider. I’d like to remind you that the adoption of Christianity in Russia in 988 – we marked 1025 years of that event quite recently – boosted the development of state institutions, social relations and culture and eventually made Kievan Rus a full member of the European community. At that time, dynastic marriages were the best gauge of a country’s role in the system of international relations. In the 11th century, three daughters of Grand Prince Yaroslav the Wise became the queens of Norway and Denmark, Hungary and France.

Yaroslav’s sister married the Polish king and granddaughter the German emperor.

Numerous scientific investigations bear witness to the high cultural and spiritual level of Rus of those days, a level that was frequently higher than in western European states. Many prominent Western thinkers recognized that Rus was part of the European context. At the same time, Russian people possessed a cultural matrix of their own and an original type of spirituality and never merged with the West. It is instructive to recall in this connection what was for my people a tragic and in many respects critical epoch of the Mongolian invasion.

The great Russian poet and writer Alexander Pushkin wrote: “The barbarians did not dare to leave an enslaved Rus in their rear and returned to their Eastern steppes. Christian enlightenment was saved by a ravaged and dying Russia.” We also know an alternative view offered by prominent historian and ethnologist Lev Gumilyov, who believed that the Mongolian invasion had prompted the emergence of a new Russian ethnos and that the Great Steppe had given us an additional impetus for development.

However that may be, it is clear that the said period was extremely important for the assertion of the Russian State’s independent role in Eurasia. Let us recall in this connection the policy pursued by Grand Prince Alexander Nevsky, who opted to temporarily submit to Golden Horde rulers, who were tolerant of Christianity, in order to uphold the Russians’ right to have a faith of their own and to decide their fate, despite the European West’s attempts to put Russian lands under full control and to deprive Russians of their identity. I am confident that this wise and forward-looking policy is in our genes. Rus bent under but was not broken by the heavy Mongolian yoke, and managed to emerge from this dire trial as a single state, which was later regarded by both the West and the East as the successor to the Byzantine Empire that ceased to exist in 1453. An imposing country stretching along what was practically the entire eastern perimeter of Europe, Russia began a natural expansion towards the Urals and Siberia, absorbing their huge territories. Already then it was a powerful balancing factor in European political combinations, including the well-known Thirty Years’ War that gave birth to the Westphalian system of international relations, whose principles, primarily respect for state sovereignty, are of importance even today.

At this point we are approaching a dilemma that has been evident for several centuries. While the rapidly developing Moscow state naturally played an increasing role in European affairs, the European countries had apprehensions about the nascent giant in the East and tried to isolate it whenever possible and prevent it from taking part in Europe’s most important affairs. The seeming contradiction between the traditional social order and a striving for modernisation based on the most advanced experience also dates back centuries. In reality, a rapidly developing state is bound to try and make a leap forward, relying on modern technology, which does not necessarily imply the renunciation of its “cultural code.” There are many examples of Eastern societies modernising without the radical breakdown of their traditions. This is all the more typical of Russia that is essentially a branch of European civilisation.

Incidentally, the need for modernisation based on European achievements was clearly manifest in Russian society under Tsar Alexis, while talented and ambitious Peter the Great gave it a strong boost. Relying on tough domestic measures and resolute, and successful, foreign policy, Peter the Great managed to put Russia into the category of Europe’s leading countries in a little over two decades. Since that time Russia’s position could no longer be ignored.

Not a single European issue can be resolved without Russia’s opinion.

It wouldn’t be accurate to assume that everyone was happy about this state of affairs. Repeated attempts to return this country into the pre-Peter times were made over subsequent centuries but failed. In the middle 18th century Russia played a key role in a pan-European conflict – the Seven Years’ War. At that time, Russian troops made a triumphal entry into Berlin, the capital of Prussia under Frederick II who had a reputation for invincibility. Prussia was saved from an inevitable rout only because Empress Elizabeth died a sudden death and was succeeded by Peter III who sympathised with Frederick II. This turn in German history is still referred to as the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg. Russia’s size, power and influence grew substantially under Catherine the Great when, as then Chancellor Alexander Bezborodko put it, “Not a single cannon in Europe could be fired without our consent.”

I’d like to quote the opinion of a reputable researcher of Russian history, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, the permanent secretary of the French Academy. She said the Russian Empire was the greatest empire of all times in the totality of all parameters – its size, an ability to administer its territories and the longevity of its existence.

Following Russian philosopher Nikolai Berdyayev, she insists that history has imbued Russia with the mission of being a link between the East and the West.

During at least the past two centuries any attempts to unite Europe without Russia and against it have inevitably led to grim tragedies, the consequences of which were always overcome with the decisive participation of our country. I’m referring, in part, to the Napoleonic wars upon the completion of which Russia rescued the system of international relations that was based on the balance of forces and mutual consideration for national interests and ruled out the total dominance of one state in Europe. We remember that Emperor Alexander I took an active role in the drafting of decisions of the 1815 Vienna Congress that ensured the development of Europe without serious armed clashes during the subsequent 40 years. Icidentally, to a certain extent the ideas of Alexander I could be described as a prototype of the concept on subordinating national interests to common goals, primarily, the maintenance of peace and order in Europe. As the Russian emperor said, “there can be no more English, French, Russian or Austrian policy. There can be only one policy – a common policy that must be accepted by both peoples and sovereigns for common happiness.”

By the same token, the Vienna system was destroyed in the wake of the desire to marginalise Russia in European affairs. Paris was obsessed with this idea during the reign of Emperor Napoleon III. In his attempt to forge an anti-Russian alliance, the French monarch was willing, as a hapless chess grandmaster, to sacrifice all the other figures. How did it play out? Indeed, Russia was defeated in the Crimean War of 1853-1856, the consequences of which it managed to overcome soon due to a consistent and far-sighted policy pursued by Chancellor Alexander Gorchakov. As for Napoleon III, he ended his rule in German captivity, and the nightmare of the Franco-German confrontation loomed over Western Europe for decades.

Here is another Crimean War-related episode. As we know, the Austrian Emperor refused to help Russia, which, a few years earlier, in 1849, had come to his help during the Hungarian revolt. Then Austrian Foreign Minister Felix Schwarzenberg famously said: “Europe would be astonished by the extent of Austria’s ingratitude.” In general, the imbalance of pan-European mechanisms triggered a chain of events that led to the First World War.

Notably, back then Russian diplomacy also advanced ideas that were ahead of their time. The Hague Peace conferences of 1899 and 1907, convened at the initiative of Emperor Nicholas II, were the first attempts to agree on curbing the arms race and stopping preparations for a devastating war. But not many people know about it.

The First World War claimed lives and caused the suffering of countless millions of people and led to the collapse of four empires.

In this connection, it is appropriate to recall yet another anniversary, which will be marked next year – the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution. Today we are faced with the need to develop a balanced and objective assessment of those events, especially in an environment where, particularly in the West, many are willing to use this date to mount even more information attacks on Russia, and to portray the 1917 Revolution as a barbaric coup that dragged down all of European history. Even worse, they want to equate the Soviet regime to Nazism, and partially blame it for starting WWII.

Without a doubt, the Revolution of 1917 and the ensuing Civil War were a terrible tragedy for our nation. However, all other revolutions were tragic as well. This does not prevent our French colleagues from extolling their upheaval, which, in addition to the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity, also involved the use of the guillotine, and rivers of blood.

Undoubtedly, the Russian Revolution was a major event which impacted world history in many controversial ways. It has become regarded as a kind of experiment in implementing socialist ideas, which were then widely spread across Europe. The people supported them, because wide masses gravitated towards social organisation with reliance on the collective and community principles.

Serious researchers clearly see the impact of reforms in the Soviet Union on the formation of the so-called welfare state in Western Europe in the post-WWII period. European governments decided to introduce unprecedented measures of social protection under the influence of the example of the Soviet Union in an effort to cut the ground from under the feet of the left-wing political forces.

One can say that the 40 years following World War II were a surprisingly good time for Western Europe, which was spared the need to make its own major decisions under the umbrella of the US-Soviet confrontation and enjoyed unique opportunities for steady development.

n these circumstances, Western European countries have implemented several ideas regarding conversion of the capitalist and socialist models, which, as a preferred form of socioeconomic progress, were promoted by Pitirim Sorokin and other outstanding thinkers of the 20th century. Over the past 20 years, we have been witnessing the reverse process in Europe and the United States: the reduction of the middle class, increased social inequality, and the dismantling of controls over big business.

The role which the Soviet Union played in decolonisation, and promoting international relations principles, such as the independent development of nations and their right to self-determination, is undeniable.

I will not dwell on the points related to Europe slipping into WWII.

Clearly, the anti-Russian aspirations of the European elites, and their desire to unleash Hitler’s war machine on the Soviet Union played their fatal part here. Redressing the situation after this terrible disaster involved the participation of our country as a key partner in determining the parameters of the European and the world order. I this context, the notion of the “clash of two totalitarianisms,” which is now actively inculcated in European minds, including at schools, is groundless and immoral. The Soviet Union, for all its evils, never aimed to destroy entire nations. Winston Churchill, who all his life was a principled opponent of the Soviet Union and played a major role in going from the WWII alliance to a new confrontation with the Soviet Union, said that graciousness, i.e. life in accordance with conscience, is the Russian way of doing things.

If you take an unbiased look at the smaller European countries, which previously were part of the Warsaw Treaty, and are now members of the EU or NATO, it is clear that the issue was not about going from subjugation to freedom, which Western masterminds like to talk about, but rather a change of leadership. Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke about it not long ago. The representatives of these countries concede behind closed doors that they can’t take any significant decision without the green light from Washington or Brussels.

It seems that in the context of the 100th anniversary of the Russian Revolution, it is important for us to understand the continuity of Russian history, which should include all of its periods without exception, and the importance of the synthesis of all the positive traditions and historical experience as the basis for making dynamic advances and upholding the rightful role of our country as a leading centre of the modern world, and a provider of the values of sustainable development, security and stability.

The post-war world order relied on confrontation between two world systems and was far from ideal, yet it was sufficient to preserve international peace and to avoid the worst possible temptation – the use of weapons of mass destruction, primarily nuclear weapons. There is no substance behind the popular belief that the Soviet Union’s dissolution signified Western victory in the Cold War. It was the result of our people’s will for change plus an unlucky chain of events. These developments resulted in a truly tectonic shift in the international landscape. In fact, they changed global politics altogether, considering that the end of the Cold War and related ideological confrontation offered a unique opportunity to change the European architecture on the principles of indivisible and equal security and broad cooperation without dividing lines.

We had a practical chance to mend Europe’s divide and implement the dream of a common European home, which many European thinkers and politicians, including President Charles de Gaulle of France, wholeheartedly embraced. Russia was fully open to this option and advanced many proposals and initiatives in this connection. Logically, we should have created a new foundation for European security by strengthening the military and political components of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Vladimir Putin said in a recent interview with the German newspaper Bild that German politician Egon Bahr proposed similar approaches.

Unfortunately, our Western partners chose differently. They opted to expand NATO eastward and to advance the geopolitical space they controlled closer to the Russian border. This is the essence of the systemic problems that have soured Russia’s relations with the United States and the European Union. It is notable that George Kennan, the architect of the US policy of containment of the Soviet Union, said in his winter years that the ratification of NATO expansion was “a tragic mistake.”

The underlying problem of this Western policy is that it disregarded the global context. The current globalised world is based on an unprecedented interconnection between countries, and so it’s impossible to develop relations between Russia and the EU as if they remained at the core of global politics as during the Cold War. We must take note of the powerful processes that are underway in Asia Pacific, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America. Rapid changes in all areas of international life is the primary sign of the current stage. Indicatively, they often take an unexpected turn. Thus, the concept of “the end of history” developed by well-known US sociologist and political researcher Francis Fukuyama, that was popular in the 1990s, has become clearly inconsistent today. According to this concept, rapid globalisation signals the ultimate victory of the liberal capitalist model, whereas all other models should adapt to it under the guidance of the wise Western teachers.

In reality, the second wave of globalisation (the first occurred before World War I) led to the dispersal of global economic might and, hence, of political influence, and to the emergence of new and large centres of power, primarily in the Asia-Pacific Region. China’s rapid upsurge is the clearest example. Owing to unprecedented economic growth rates, in just three decades it became the second and, calculated as per purchasing power parity, the first economy in the world. This example illustrates an axiomatic fact – there are many development models– which rules out the monotony of existence within the uniform, Western frame of reference.

Consequently, there has been a relative reduction in the influence of the so-called “historical West” that was used to seeing itself as the master of the human race’s destinies for almost five centuries. The competition on the shaping of the world order in the 21st century has toughened. The transition from the Cold War to a new international system proved to be much longer and more painful than it seemed 20-25 years ago.

Against this backdrop, one of the basic issues in international affairs is the form that is being acquired by this generally natural competition between the world’s leading powers. We see how the United States and the US-led Western alliance are trying to preserve their dominant positions by any available method or, to use the American lexicon, ensure their “global leadership”. Many diverse ways of exerting pressure, economic sanctions and even direct armed intervention are being used. Large-scale information wars are being waged. Technology of unconstitutional change of governments by launching “colour” revolutions has been tried and tested. Importantly, democratic revolutions appear to be destructive for the nations targeted by such actions. Our country that went through a historical period of encouraging artificial transformations abroad, firmly proceeds from the preference of evolutionary changes that should be carried out in the forms and at a speed that conform to the traditions of a society and its level of development.

Western propaganda habitually accuses Russia of “revisionism,” and the alleged desire to destroy the established international system, as if it was us who bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 in violation of the UN Charter and the Helsinki Final Act, as if it was Russia that ignored international law by invading Iraq in 2003 and distorted UN Security Council resolutions by overthrowing Muammar Gaddafi’s regime by force in Libya in 2011. There are many examples. This discourse about “revisionism” does not hold water. It is based on the simple and even primitive logic that only Washington can set the tune in world affairs. In line with this logic, the principle once formulated by George Orwell and moved to the international level, sounds like the

following: all states are equal but some states are more equal than others. However, today international relations are too sophisticated a mechanism to be controlled from one centre. This is obvious given the results of US interference: There is virtually no state in Libya; Iraq is balancing on the brink of disintegration, and so on and so forth.

A reliable solution to the problems of the modern world can only be achieved through serious and honest cooperation between the leading states and their associations in order to address common challenges.

Such an interaction should include all the colours of the modern world, and be based on its cultural and civilisational diversity, as well as reflect the interests of the international community’s key components. We know from experience that when these principles are applied in practice, it is possible to achieve specific and tangible results, such as the agreement on the Iranian nuclear programme, the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons, the agreement on stopping hostilities in Syria, and the development of the basic parameters of the global climate agreement. This shows the need to restore the culture of compromise, the reliance on the diplomatic work, which can be difficult, even exhausting, but which remains, in essence, the only way to ensure a mutually acceptable solution to problems by peaceful means.

Our approaches are shared by most countries of the world, including our Chinese partners, other BRICS and SCO nations, and our friends in the EAEU, the CSTO, and the CIS. In other words, we can say that Russia is fighting not against someone, but for the resolution of all the issues on an equal and mutually respectful basis, which alone can serve as a reliable foundation for a long-term improvement of international relations.

Our most important task is to join our efforts against not some far-fetched, but very real challenges, among which the terrorist aggression is the most pressing one. The extremists from ISIS, Jabhat an-Nusra and the like managed for the first time to establish control over large territories in Syria and Iraq. They are trying to extend their influence to other countries and regions, and are committing acts of terrorism around the world. Underestimating this risk is nothing short of criminal shortsightedness.

The Russian President called for forming a broad-based front in order to defeat the terrorists militarily. The Russian Aerospace Forces make an important contribution to this effort. At the same time, we are working hard to establish collective actions regarding the political settlement of the conflicts in this crisis-ridden region.

Importantly, the long-term success can only be achieved on the basis of movement to the partnership of civilisations based on respectful interaction of diverse cultures and religions. We believe that human solidarity must have a moral basis formed by traditional values that are largely shared by the world’s leading religions. In this connection, I would like to draw your attention to the joint statement by Patriarch Kirill and Pope Francis, in which, among other things, they have expressed support for the family as a natural centre of life of individuals and society.

I repeat, we are not seeking confrontation with the United States, or the European Union, or NATO. On the contrary, Russia is open to the widest possible cooperation with its Western partners. We continue to believe that the best way to ensure the interests of the peoples living in Europe is to form a common economic and humanitarian space from the Atlantic to the Pacific, so that the newly formed Eurasian Economic Union could be an integrating link between Europe and Asia Pacific. We strive to do our best to overcome obstacles on that way, including the settlement of the Ukraine crisis caused by the coup in Kiev in February 2014, on the basis of the Minsk Agreements.

I’d like to quote wise and politically experienced Henry Kissinger, who, speaking recently in Moscow, said that “Russia should be perceived as an essential element of any new global equilibrium, not primarily as a threat to the United States… I am here to argue for the possibility of a dialogue that seeks to merge our futures rather than elaborate our conflicts. This requires respect by both sides of the vital values and interest of the other.”  We share such an approach. And we will continue to defend the principles of law and justice in international affairs.

Speaking about Russia’s role in the world as a great power, Russian philosopher Ivan Ilyin said that the greatness of a country is not determined by the size of its territory or the number of its inhabitants, but by the capacity of its people and its government to take on the burden of great world problems and to deal with these problems in a creative manner. A great power is the one which, asserting its existence and its interest … introduces a creative and meaningful legal idea to the entire assembly of the nations, the entire “concert” of the peoples and states. It is difficult to disagree with these words.

Photo:

The five-pointed red star on the towers of Moscow Kremlin, in Stalin and SSSR time, still there now, symbolizing both communism and socialism. This photo accompanied the article in Russia in Global Affairs (Source: Russia in Global Affairs, March 3, 2016). Note that the star is colored not red but purple, the color of the flag of the Eurasian Union …

(Sources: Russian MFA Website – EODE think-Tank)

LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE

* With the Geopolitician of the Eurasia-Africa Axis:

Geopolitics – Geoeconomics – Geoidology – Neoeurasism – Neopanafricanism (Seen from Moscow and Malabo):

SPECIAL PAGE Luc MICHEL’s Geopolitical Daily https://www.facebook.com/LucMICHELgeopoliticalDaily/

________________

* Luc MICHEL (Люк МИШЕЛЬ) :

WEBSITE http://www.lucmichel.net/

PAGE OFFICIELLE III – GEOPOLITIQUE

https://www.facebook.com/Pcn.luc.Michel.3.Geopolitique/

TWITTER https://twitter.com/LucMichelPCN

* EODE :

EODE-TV https://vimeo.com/eodetv

WEBSITE http://www.eode.org/

Democracy in the United States The electoral masquerades

harmattan

ON OUR WEBMAGAZINE :   http://www.les7duquebec.com/7-au-front/la-democratie-aux-etats-unis-les-mascarades-electorales/

image002 ROBERT BIBEAU

Taking for example the endless United States electoral campaign of 2016, we demonstrate, supporting facts, that the bourgeois “democratic” elections – no matter that they are orchestrated and treated discreetly or obviously – are fundamentally anti-labor and aim only at strengthening “the Welfare state” for the rich. They aim only at disarming and at compromising the proletarian class and at inciting him to put back its fate in the hands of the fetish State, the central top management of the big capital. We shall see that the bourgeois democracy is a delusion to distract the proletarian class of its historic mission.

(GIFT) ENGLISH DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES DOWNLOAD FREE  HERE    Democracy in the United States (1)

AUTHOR

Robert Bibeau was militant in left groups in the 70s-80s, then union activist in the 90s. Now he is the publisher of the international webmagazine http://www.les7duquebec.com  and published several works among which National Question and proletarian revolution under the modern imperialism (Harmattan, 2017).  Dowload National Question free here: http://www.les7duquebec.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/bon-NATIONAL-QUESTION-AND-PROLETARIAN-REVOLUTION-UNDER-THE-MODERN-IMPERIALISM-revision.docx                           

SUMMARY

PROLOGUE
CHAPTER 1   AMERICA, A DECLINING CONTINENT- COUNTRY
CHAPTER 2   ELECTORAL MASQUERADES IN THE COUNTRY OF YANKEES
CHAPTER 3   A NEW AMERICAN “REVOLUTION”?
CHAPTER 4   HOW TO “EXPLOIT” A CAPITALIST FIGUREHEAD?
CHAPTER 5   AN ORDINARY PRESIDENT, DONALD WARMONGER
CHAPTER 6   “AMERICA COMES FIRST AGAIN!” EVENTUALITY OR UTOPIA?
CHAPTER 7   THE CONTROVERSIAL SWEARING OF DONALD TRUMP!
CHAPTER 8   HOW TO IMPOSE THE WAR ON WHO DOES NOT WANT TO DO IT?
EPILOGUE.   THE FIRST ROUND OF THE FRENCH ELECTORAL CIRCUS IS  TERMINATED : WHAT CONCLUSIONS CAN BE DRAWN FROM IT?
NOTES

______________________________________________________________

You can order this book directly to your usual bookseller or on our web site:  http://www.editions-harmattan.fr/index.asp?navig=catalogue&obj=livre&no=59199

______________________________________________________________________

EXTRACTS
An electoral campaign for the US presidential election officially begins in February of the election year while the ballot takes place in November. An electoral fair always begins with the preparation of the electorate by the electoral machinery of the main candidates, the third parties serving to assert or repel. An electoral campaign is not about letting voters choose a candidate, but about telling voters what candidate they want. To achieve this, an impressive arsenal of propaganda is set in motion in which several hundred million dollars are squandered. No one will be surprised to learn that “A Gallup poll realized in February 2016 indicated that 76% of US people are dissatisfied for the way in which the policy is going in their country“, euphemism for describing the convulsive resentment of Americans as well the nutty bourgeois class; the impoverished petty bourgeoisie; the precarious proletarian class; as well as the poor and disadvantaged sections of society. (…)

Be despoiled by a prosperous master who drops it out of his charity table some crumbs to be shared – it can always be tolerated -, but to be expropriated by an indebted,  pretentious, arrogant and incompetent banker, this is too much. The former allies distance themselves more and more openly and strike the pose that suits them, that of claiming the quarry.  Here is drawing on the horizon the displayed or hidden defection of allies. The Trump militarist clique is supposed to sort out the mess. (…) What remain to discover to these proletarian of the misery is that if inadvertently one of those admirers of the establishment reached the nirvana of the presidency at the White House, in the Oval Office, he could not change anything, or to solve not the systemic problems of the bankrupt capitalism. Indeed, the problems of America and the capitalist world are not caused by bad governance of a Democratic team compared to a Republican team, or Social Democrat (Bernie Sanders), Socialist or even Communist (!) as demonstrated by so many rigged elections in other countries. (…)  The Democratic Party’s establishment took no risks and the organizers rigged the results of the primaries in favor of their favorite. It was on the right flank of the electoral circus that the fight occurred. A so called atypical candidate acts his own way and threatens to seize the presidential post office, without being submitted to the Executive Board of the Republican faction – the other face of the electoral alternation farce -. This star candidate had run the Primaries marathon without having obtained the approval of the majority of his peers. (…)

The average observer had not be fooled by the media campaign or by the screams of the pathetic go-left and feminists in service, these useful idiots whose mission was precisely to accredit this nonsense in order to provide the candidate with the maximum support of all those who hate the bureaucracy of Washington and the bourgeois state. Donald Trump continued his drive toward the Republican nomination because a whole reactionary and militarist faction of the capitalist class granted him a conditional support. Donald Trump has never been isolated, contrary to what intellectuals and accredited journalists suggested. (…)

______________________________________________________________________

Bibeau.robert@videotron.ca

Éditeur du webmagazine  http://www.les7duquebec.com

GUERRE AU YÉMEN : ‘LA FRANCE VIOLE LE TRAITÉ SUR LE COMMERCE DES ARMES’

EODE/ OBSERVATOIRE GEOPOLITIQUE/

EODE/ 2018 03 21

Avec Le Point/

REVUE DE PRESSE :

GUERRE AU YÉMEN : « LA FRANCE VIOLE LE TRAITÉ SUR LE COMMERCE DES ARMES » (LE POINT, 21 MARS )

EODE - GEOPOL rp france yemen (2018 03 21) FR

INTERVIEW. L’ONG Aser milite pour que la France cesse de vendre des armes aux pays engagés dans la guerre au Yémen. Et s’apprête à saisir le Conseil d’État.

Extraits :

«  Yémen, qui fait rage depuis trois ans, a fait plus de 10 000 morts civiles, quasiment dans l’indifférence générale. À des milliers de kilomètres de là, la France poursuit activement ses ventes d’armes aux pays membres de la coalition emmenée par l’Arabie saoudite et les Émirats, qui soutiennent le président yéménite Abdrabbo Mansour Hadi, reconnu par la communauté internationale, face aux rebelles yéménites houthis, aidés par l’Iran. L’ONG française Aser (Action sécurité éthique républicaines) a engagé le 1er mars une démarche juridique pour obtenir la suspension des licences d’exportation accordées à plusieurs industriels français de l’armement. Elle s’apprête à poursuivre cette procédure devant le Conseil d’État. Interview de son vice-président, Benoît Muracciole.

Le Point : De nombreuses ONG ont lancé une campagne pour demander que la France cesse de vendre des armes aux pays arabes engagés dans la guerre au Yémen. Quelle est votre position ?

Benoît Muracciole : Elle est très claire : l’ONG Aser, soutenue par l’association Droit-Solidarité (section française de l’Association internationale des juristes démocrates, AIJD), a engagé une démarche juridique pour demander que les licences d’exportation accordées par le gouvernement français aux industriels livrant des armes aux belligérants du conflit au Yémen, notamment l’Arabie saoudite et les Émirats arabes unis, soient suspendues. Nous savons que ces licences existent, puisque plusieurs industriels français, dont Dassault et Nexter, ont fait publiquement état des succès opérationnels de leurs productions, précisément dans cette guerre atroce. Ces armes ont donc été vendues et livrées. Elles sont actuellement utilisées dans les combats.

Certes, mais ce que nous dénonçons, c’est l’utilisation de ces armes françaises par des armées qui agissent en contradiction formelle avec les lois françaises et les traités internationaux signés par notre pays. Ces usages illicites sont notamment liés à de nombreuses et graves violations du droit international humanitaire et des droits humains. Ces pratiques, qui sont celles de toutes les parties au conflit, sont sans cesse dénoncées par l’ONU depuis 2014. Cinq ans auparavant, en 2009, Amnesty International avait déjà pointé du doigt les violations exercées par les Émirats arabes unis et l’Arabie saoudite. La France n’a pas été la seule avertie par les ONG. Tous les pays vendeurs d’armes à ces clients l’ont été. Ces ONG, avec l’ONU et le Parlement européen, ont réclamé la mise en place d’un embargo.

Les belligérants s’en prennent à des populations civiles sans défense, de manière totalement indiscriminée.

Les États sont souverains. Ils vendent en fonction de leurs règles et des garanties qu’ils prennent. Que leur reprochez-vous précisément, et à la France en particulier ?

Les États vendeurs sont garants du suivi de leurs ventes et du respect des engagements pris par les acheteurs. Autrement formulé, les États parties au traité sur le commerce des armes (TCA) n’entendent pas cesser d’en vendre, mais ont un intérêt commun à la régulation de ce commerce face à la mondialisation croissante des échanges. Les déplacements massifs de populations, l’accès de plus en plus facile à des armements sur les marchés illicites, de même que le développement du terrorisme sont autant de conséquences néfastes pour les gouvernements d’un marché de l’armement dérégulé. Il devient de plus en plus difficile de justifier aux yeux de l’opinion publique notre inertie face aux horreurs de la guerre et des violations massives du droit international humanitaire.

Or, s’agissant seulement de la France, ces règles contraignantes ne sont pas appliquées. Pire : notre pays viole le TCA. Il écrit dans son préambule qu’il « reconnaît aux États des intérêts légitimes d’ordre politique, sécuritaire, économique et commercial dans le commerce international des armes classiques » ; il n’en souligne pas moins « la nécessité de prévenir et d’éliminer le commerce illicite d’armes classiques et d’empêcher leur détournement vers le marché illicite ou pour un usage final non autorisé, ou encore à destination d’utilisateurs finaux non autorisés, notamment aux fins de la commission d’actes terroristes ». La France sait que, depuis le début de cette guerre, les lois de la guerre sont systématiquement violées.

Les belligérants s’en prennent à des populations civiles sans défense, de manière totalement indiscriminée. Dans un rapport de janvier 2017, l’ONU recensait déjà 987 frappes sur des cibles civiles. La France le sait parfaitement. Et il faudrait que nous laissions passer ça ?

Avez-vous obtenu des réponses officielles à vos questions sur ces ventes ?

Jamais. Pas une seule. C’est pour cette raison que nous nous sommes adressés le 1er mars au Premier ministre et secrétariat général de la sécurité et de la défense nationale (SGDSN), afin de demander la suspension immédiate des licences d’exportation de matériels de guerre et matériels assimilés destinés aux pays impliqués dans la guerre au Yémen. Il s’agit d’obtenir du gouvernement qu’il respecte les engagements internationaux souscrits par la France et de demander à la juridiction administrative qu’elle sanctionne l’action illégale de l’administration ; nous n’obtiendrons rien sans une vaste campagne d’opinion. Le droit reste la traduction d’un rapport de force au sein de la société. Nous convions les représentants des associations dont l’objet social recoupe ces objectifs et les parlementaires à se rassembler pour renforcer notre saisie prochaine du Conseil d’État aux fins de voir la France suspendre ses exportations d’armes destinées aux pays impliqués dans la guerre au Yémen. »

* Lire sur :

http://www.lepoint.fr/editos-du-point/jean-guisnel/guerre-au-yemen-la-france-viole-le-traite-sur-le-commerce-des-armes-20-03-2018-2203928_53.php

ALLER PLUS LOIN SUR LA GUERRE DU YEMEN :

* Voir sur EODE-TV/

LUC MICHEL : GEOPOLITIQUE.

GUERRE DU YÉMEN ET CHOC TEHERAN-RYAD (SUR AFRIQUE MEDA)

sur https://vimeo.com/152874189

* Voir sur EODE-TV/

GEOPOLITIQUE/ LUC MICHEL:

YÉMEN. L’AUTRE GUERRE DU PROCHE-ORIENT

(AFRIQUE MEDIA, LE DEBAT PANAFRICAIN, 27 DEC. 2015)

sur https://vimeo.com/150869206

* Lire sur LUC MICHEL’S GEOPOLITICAL DAILY/ LE ‘VIETNAM’ DES SAOUDS:

YÉMEN LA SECONDE GUERRE CHAUDE DU PROCHE-ORIENT APRES LA SYRIE.

sur http://www.lucmichel.net/2017/12/13/luc-michels-geopolitical-daily-le-vietnam-des-saouds-yemen-la-seconde-guerre-chaude-du-proche-orient-apres-la-syrie/

_____________________

# EODE ORGANISATION :

* EODE-TV :

https://vimeo.com/eodetv

* ЕВРАЗИЙСКИЙ СОВЕТ ЗА ДЕМОКРАТИЮ И ВЫБОРЫ (ЕСДВ)/ EURASIAN OBSERVATORY FOR DEMOCRACY & ELECTIONS

(EODE) :

http://www.eode.org/

https://www.facebook.com/EODE.org/

https://www.facebook.com/groups/EODE.Eurasie.Afrique/

https://www.facebook.com/EODE.africa/

https://www.facebook.com/EODE.russia.caucasus/

* GROUPE OFFICIEL ‘EODE – AXE EURASIE AFRIQUE’ :

https://www.facebook.com/groups/EODE.Eurasie.Afrique/

SOFT POWER FRANCAIS VS SOFT POWER RUSSE : LE DOSSIER GEOPOLITIQUE MECONNU DE L’EXPOSITION ‘PIERRE LE GRAND EN FRANCE’ A VERSAILLE

LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE/

Luc MICHEL pour EODE/

Quotidien géopolitique – Geopolitical Daily/

2018 03 20/

LM.GEOPOL - Pierre à versailles (2018 03 20) FR 2

Le dossier de l’exposition « Pierre le Grand en France » revient dans l’actualité, alors que celle-ci a fermé ses portes. Nous assistons en France au choc de trois ‘soft powers’ : la français, le Russe et l’américain. L’occasion de la mise sous les projecteurs de cette confrontations a été une grande interview de l’historienne Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, d’origine russe, sur la Russie de Poutine au ‘Figaro’ (1). Immédiatement, et grossièrement, agressée par les réseaux BHL, élément-clé du « parti américain » en France, notamment dans sa revue ‘La Règle du Jeu’, et qualifiée de « propagandiste du dictateur Poutine » (2). Le précédent round avait opposé Macron à Poutine, ‘soft power’ français au ‘soft power’ russe, lors de l’ouverture de l’exposition et de la visite du président russe à Versailles.

Le prochain round sera le 3 avril prochain, lorsque Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, secrétaire perpétuel de l’Académie française et historienne de la Russie, donnera une grande conférence à Paris, intitulée … « La Russie de Pierre Le Grand à Vladimir Poutine » !

Mais pourquoi l’exposition « Pierre le Grand en France » focalise-t-elle cette confrontation multiple ?

1026208-prodlibe-emmanuel-macron-et-vladimir-poutine

LA RUSSIE AU CŒUR DE LA CULTURE EUROPEENNE :

L’EXPO ‘PIERRE LE GRAND’ AU CHÂTEAU DE VERSAILLES …

* Château de Versailles

Expo PIERRE LE GRAND, UN TSAR EN FRANCE 1717 Au Grand Trianon du 30 mai au 24 septembre 2017 En partenariat avec le Musée russe d’Etat de L’Ermitage

* Voir sur EODE-TV :

‘PIERRE LE GRAND, UN TSAR EN FRANCE. 1717’

(LE CLIP DE L’EXPOSITION AU CHÂTEAU DE VERSAILLES)

sur https://vimeo.com/260972183

C’est avec le tsar Pierre le Grand, que la Russie est devenue une grande puissance intégrée dans le jeu des puissances européennes.

Jusqu’à devenir LA grande puissance continentale dominante entre 1941 et 1943 (sous sa forme de puissance maximale, la Russie Soviétique de Staline, nouveau Pierre le Grand). Ce qu’elle est toujours aujourd’hui …

REFLEXION GEOPOLITIQUE SUR LA RUSSIE PUISSANCE EUROPEENNE ET L’HERITAGE DE PIERRE LE GRAND

Derrière l’Expo Pierre le Grand à Versailles, il y a les symboles de trois siècle de géopolitique paneuropéenne ! Nous sommes au cœur des fondamentaux de la Géopolitique :

Pendant une période géopolitique de l’histoire européenne (qui était alors l’histoire mondiale), qui va de Louis XIV à Waterloo, la France a été LA puissance continentale européenne, celle de Louis XIV et Louis XV à Versailles précisément, celle qui au bout de ce cycle a tenté l’unification du continent avec Napoléon Ier. C’est « l’Europe française ». Après Waterloo, la main ira à l’Allemagne de Bismarck à 1942, c’est « l’Europe allemande » qui perd son banco géopolitique devant Moscou (piège stratégique tendu par Staline) (3) puis Stalingrad. Dans ce « grand jeu » paneuropéen, la main passe à nouveau. La puissance continentale passe à Moscou en 1942, elle y est toujours et la Russie est l’héritière géopolitique (terriblement amoindrie) de l’URSS !

Face à la puissance continentale, la thalossacratie, la puissance maritime : cet impérialisme anglo-saxon, passés des mains des « cousins » britanniques à celles de Washington et Wall-street (l’impérialisme yankee a deux capitales) entre 1917 et 1944 (4). LE conflit géopolitique classique, qui resurgit périodiquement, car la Géopolitique a horreur du vide, au travers de l’Histoire depuis 2.500 ans (Sparte vs Athènes, puis surtout le conflit de base : Rome vs Carthage, très actuel puisque nous vivons depuis 1792 la longue « quatrième guerre punique » (5), où les USA, après Londres, sont la nouvelle Carthage) …

WATERLOO TOURNANT DE LA GEOPOLITIQUE EUROPEENNE

 Il y a peu de batailles décisives pour orienter le cours de l’Histoire. Moscou (fin 1941, début 1942), puis Stalingrad scellent la défaite du IIIe Reich et empêchent un XXe siècle dominé par Hitler.

Waterloo consacre elle un siècle de domination britannique mondiale, celle de la Finance, suivi d’un siècle de domination américaine, celle de Wall-Street.

Le règne géopolitique et économique des cousins néo-carthaginois anglo-saxons ! Idéologiquement c’est la défaite des forces révolutionnaires pour un siècle aussi, celle du Jacobinisme, matrice des révolutions des XIXe et XXe siècles. Le « long XIXe siècle » (dixit Hobsbawm) sera un siècle de révolutions brisées, vaincues, récupérées, celui des combats désespérés de Mazzini et de Marx, de Blanqui et de Engels, des décembristes et des jacobins russes, de la Seconde Commune de Paris en 1871 … Il y a 135 ans entre la Première Commune de Paris de 1792 (celle de Robespierre et de la Montagne jacobine, dans lesquels se reconnaissait Lenine) et la Grande Révolution d’Octobre bolchevique fin 1917. Le 18 juin 1815 la réaction d’Ancien régime triomphe, le temps de s’agglomérer aux dynasties bourgeoises pour former les oligarchies dominantes contemporaines.

Waterloo, bien au-delà du destin particulier de Napoléon ou même de la France, est un tournant géopolitique et idéologique.

VERSAILLES, VITRINE DE LA PUISSANCE DE LA FRANCE

Versailles, vitrine de la puissance de la France de Louis XIV, symbolise la nostalgie historique de cette « Europe française » qui est morte à Waterloo, qui ne reviendra plus. Une nostalgie qui paralyse l’esprit et l’imagination de toute la classe politique française, qui s’imagine que la France est encore une grande puissance. Ce qu’elle n’est plus internationalement depuis Waterloo

(6) précisément. Mais aussi depuis le grand suicide de la « grande guerre civile européenne », du grand suicide collectif de l’Europe en août 1914 !

C’est à ce miroir de la grandeur française, qui n’est plus qu’une image morte, que s’oppose la réalité de la puissance russe, que Poutine a maintenue et reconstruite sur l’héritage soviétique ! Une puissance russe émergée avec Pierre le Grand il y a tout juste trois siècles. Choc des cycles géopolitiques qui passent au regard de l’Histoire …

POUTINE A VERSAILLES

Vladimir Poutine s’était mis dans les pas de Pierre le Grand à Versailles. Le président russe, reçu par Emmanuel Macron au château de Versailles, avait inauguré l’exposition consacrée à la visite en France du tsar, il y a 300 ans. En mai 1717, le tsar russe Pierre Ier prenait dans ses bras Louis XV, alors âgé de 7 ans. Trois siècles plus tard, Vladimir Poutine, en visite en France, se contentera d’une poignée de main avec le jeune Emmanuel Macron. Si leur rencontre était très attendue sur les plans diplomatique et politique – les relations franco-russes s’étant nettement détériorées –, l’Élysée avait également souhaité lui donner une dimension culturelle et symbolique.

Ce ne fut qu’un bref feu de paille, éteint dès la très sèche conférence de presse commune des deux présidents.

Derrière cette confrontation qu’a été réellement derrière les faux sourires diplomatiques (« la diplomatie est le langage du mensonge » dira Poutine au ‘Club Valdai’ en septembre 2014) la rencontre entre Macron et Poutine, il y avait le choc de deux ‘soft power’ : le français (7), qui est lié à une puissance moribonde et se base sur cette « diplomatie culturelle » dont Versailles précisément et le Louvre sont les symboles, et le Russe, lié à la puissance (derzava) de l’Etat russe restauré par Poutine, puissance continentale réémergente, dont le ‘soft power’ se base à la fois sur la grandeur de l’Empire russe (où domine la figure de Pierre le Grand) et celle de l’Union Soviétique de Lénine et Staline.

LA FIGURE DE PIERRE LE GRAND OU LE DESTIN EUROPEEN DE LA PUISSANCE RUSSE

L’Exposition de Versailles rencontre à la fois tout cela. Le destin européen de la Russie, mais aussi les nostalgies française du temps où le monde civilisé parlait français et où Paris était le « phare du monde » …

Consacrée au séjour de Pierre le Grand à Paris et dans ses environs, en mai et juin 1717, cette exposition au Grand Trianon commémorait du 30 mai au 24 septembre 2017 le tricentenaire de cette visite diplomatique. Fruit d’une collaboration exceptionnelle entre le château de Versailles et le musée d’État russe de l’Ermitage, elle présentait plus de 150 œuvres – peintures, sculptures, arts décoratifs, tapisseries, mais aussi plans, médailles, instruments scientifiques, livres et manuscrits – dont les deux tiers appartiennent aux collections du prestigieux musée de Saint-Pétersbourg.

Issu de la dynastie des Romanov, fils du tsar Alexis Mikhaïlovitch

(1645-1676) et de Nathalie Narychkine (1651-1694), Pierre Ier (1672-1725), vingt ans après la « Grande Ambassade » qui l’a mené une première fois en Europe en 1697-1698, entreprend un nouveau voyage en Occident. Il atteint la France le 21 avril 1717 et y demeure jusqu’au

21 juin suivant. À Versailles où il fait étape deux fois, il est logé au Grand Trianon, du 24 au 26 mai puis du 3 au 11 juin 1717. Le parcours de l’exposition suivait pas à pas ce séjour qui, pour être officiel, n’en est pas moins libre car, force de la nature, imprévisible et peu façonné à l’Étiquette, Pierre Ier bouscule le protocole à maintes reprises. Sa rencontre avec Louis XV marque notamment les esprits : faisant fi du cérémonial de cour, il prend dans ses bras, en un geste spontané, l’enfant roi, tout juste âgé de sept ans. De nombreux mémorialistes, parmi lesquels Saint-Simon, le marquis de Dangeau ou Jean Buvat nous ont laissé de précieux témoignages permettant de retracer ce voyage.

« Si ce séjour a des visées politiques et économiques – un projet d’alliance avec la France contre la Suède d’une part, la signature d’un traité de commerce de l’autre -, le tsar réformateur, fondateur de la Russie moderne, veut par-dessus tout voir ce que la France possède de plus remarquable afin d’en adapter certains modèles à son empire. Durant les deux mois qu’il passe dans le Paris de la Régence, visites et discussions avec les Français nourrissent sa réflexion et infléchissent les travaux qu’il a entrepris depuis 1703 à Saint-Pétersbourg et dans ses environs. À Paris, Pierre se rend à l’Académie des Sciences, dont il devient membre honoraire, à l’Observatoire, à l’Hôtel royal des Invalides et à l’Hôtel de la Monnaie où l’on frappe une médaille en son honneur. Le tsar visite également la manufacture des Gobelins qui lui inspire la création d’une fabrique de tapisseries dans sa nouvelle capitale. Découvrant les marchands parisiens tel un simple particulier, il fait provision de livres, d’instruments scientifiques et techniques. Enfin, comme il est d’usage, ce voyage suscite l’échange de prestigieux cadeaux diplomatiques ; à l’image de la tenture du Nouveau Testament offerte à Pierre le Grand, composée de quatre tapisseries d’après Jouvenet et conservée aujourd’hui au musée d’État de l’Ermitage. »

« Souverain guerrier et voyageur, Pierre le Grand parcourt le monde pendant près de quatre décennies, de la mer Blanche à la mer Caspienne, de la Hollande à la Moldavie et de l’Angleterre à la Perse.

Cette personnalité hors du commun a su s’imposer, au regard de la postérité, comme l’un des monarques les plus marquants de son pays, initiateur d’une nouvelle Russie », entrée dans le jeu des grandes puissances européennes.

EMERGENCE DE MOSCOU SUR LA SCENE EUROPEENNE …

La Commissaire française Pégard explique bien cet aspect de l’exposition :

« L’exposition que le musée de l’Ermitage et le château de Versailles consacrent à ce voyage reflète ces deux aspects de la visite de Pierre le Grand et les deux visages du souverain. Le monarque désormais bien installé sur la scène européenne, qui vient se mesurer à l’héritage du Roi-Soleil ; le réformateur boulimique, dont la curiosité insatiable recherche tout ce qui est nouveau. Le tsar et ses familiers ont emporté de France ou commandé en France une ample moisson de livres, d’objets et d’œuvres d’art, qui reviennent aujourd’hui à leur point de départ. C’est aussi l’œuvre des premiers artistes français installés en Russie que les prêts de l’Ermitage nous permettent d’évoquer dans le cadre merveilleux du Grand Trianon. Le voyage de 1717 est une étape dans le processus de transformation radicale que Pierre le Grand fit subir à la Russie. Il est aussi un puissant révélateur de ce qu’était, pour les autres Européens, la France du Régent, entre Grand Siècle et siècle des Lumières.

… ET NOSTALGIES D’UN AXE PARIS-MOSCOU

Le Commissaire russe Piotrovski écrit que «  les voyages de Pierre à l’étranger témoignent de sa curiosité sans borne et de son goût pour l’étude. Ils ont joué un rôle déterminant dans la formation de sa conception du monde et dans son aspiration à développer la Russie pour qu’elle rattrape puis dépasse l’Europe. Ils ont, à bien des égards, déterminé l’avenir. Même les relations actuelles et la perception mutuelle des Russes et des Européens résultent pour beaucoup des voyages du futur empereur. La Hollande en est une illustration éclatante. La création récente d’un « satellite » de l’Ermitage à Amsterdam est essentiellement le fruit des souvenirs de l’affection et de l’estime particulière qui sont nés entre les deux pays grâce à la personnalité de Pierre. L’exposition de Versailles permet de voir des objets de cette époque, tout à la fois beaux et intéressants, mais aussi de réfléchir à ce qui a le plus attiré Pierre en France, à l’héritage de cette visite dans les relations franco-russes et à ce qui en reste de vivant aujourd’hui. Ce ne sont nullement des questions oiseuses. Les rapports entre la Russie et l’Europe sont aujourd’hui très complexes et difficiles à anticiper. Les relations bilatérales et, surtout, les représentations psychologiques réciproques sont devenues très changeantes. C’est sur ce point que le personnage et les actions de Pierre peuvent servir de repère incontestable, et pas seulement pour les diplomates. Pierre était une grande figure et, par conséquent, un personnage pétri de contradictions. Si bien que ses contemporains et la postérité évaluent de différentes manières les objectifs et les résultats de son action ainsi que les méthodes qu’il a appliquées. Mais nul ne met en doute son rayonnement et son importance historique. »

Il ajoute, dans un commentaire où perce la nostalgie d’un Axe Paris-Moscou et celle de la Grande politique européenne du général de Gaulle (que regrette Hélène Carrère d’Encausse dans son dernier livre)

: « À bien des égards, Pierre et l’exposition qui lui est dédiée aident Russes et non-Russes à comprendre la Russie en général, son passé et son présent, et peut-être aussi son avenir. L’histoire de Pierre raconte l’aspiration du tsar à créer cet avenir avec l’Europe, et avec la France en qui il voyait une alliée et une partenaire de valeur. Pierre est aujourd’hui encore un personnage important sur la scène politique et culturelle russe. C’est bien pourquoi cette exposition est d’un grand intérêt pour les Français comme pour les Russes ».

Hélas la France de Macron n’est pas l’héritière du général de Gaulle mais bien celle du « parti américain » (8). « Je suis un partisan résolu du Bloc occidental » disait Macron, en anglais, à la revue anglo-saxonne ‘Monocle’ en avril 2017 …

NOTES :

(1) Cfr. sur EODE-RUSSIA/ REVUE DE PRESSE :

ENTRETIENS SUR LA RUSSIE DE POUTINE (II): ‘IL NE FAUT PAS JUGER LE POUVOIR AUTORITAIRE DE POUTINE A L’AUNE DE NOS SEULS CRITERES’ (HELENE CARRERE D’ENCAUSSE)

sur http://www.eode.org/eode-russia-revue-de-presse-entretiens-sur-la-russie-de-poutine-ii-il-ne-faut-pas-juger-le-pouvoir-autoritaire-de-poutine-a-laune-de-nos-seuls-criteres-helene-carrere-den/

(2) Voir « Poutine et l’Académie française », in LA REGLE DU JEU (la revue de Bernard-Henry Lévy), n°64, mars 2018.

sur https://laregledujeu.org/2018/03/19/33537/poutine-et-l-academie-francaise/

Extrait : « Dans un entretien au Figaro du 17-18 mars, Hélène Carrère d’Encausse, secrétaire perpétuelle de l’Académie française, embaume de considérations lénifiantes Vladimir Poutine. La réponse de Gilles Hertzog (…) Sait-on bien qui est le principal agent d’influence de Vladimir Poutine en France ? C’est une dame. Cette dame appartient à l’Académie française. Elle en est le (la) Secrétaire perpétuel(le), en charge des quarante Habits verts qui siègent sous la Coupole. Elle se nomme Hélène Carrère d’Encausse. Si l’on ne craignait de lui manquer de respect, on devrait plutôt dire d’Encaustique, tant dans un entretien au Figaro du 17-18 mars, cette zélée compagnonne de route du Kremlin embaume de considérations lénifiantes l’empoisonneur en chef de la Russie, Vladimir Poutine. Cet entretien à l’encaustique est un chef d’œuvre de casuistique, tissé d’un bout à l’autre de sophismes, de minimisations doucereuses, où les tares du régime sont quasiment mises au débit de l’Occident, si intransigeant avec cette pauvre Russie-qui-n’a-pas-nos-critères que l’importunée finit par se braquer et, avec sa démocratie-trop-récente finit par commettre des actes peu orthodoxes mais bien compréhensibles et finalement bénins quand on les compare au redressement national opéré depuis vingt ans sous l’égide de son inspirateur en chef ».

(3) Cfr. Luc MICHEL sur PCN-INFO /

9 MAI 1945 : LA VICTOIRE DU NATIONAL-BOLCHEVISME STALINIEN ! (PARTIE 2) sur http://www.lucmichel.net/2015/05/08/pcn-info-9-mai-1945-la-victoire-du-national-bolchevisme-stalinien-partie-2/

(4) Cfr. sur LUC MICHEL’S GEOPOLITICAL DAILY/ INTRODUCTION TO THE GEOPOLITICS OF BRITISH IMPERIALISM

sur http://www.lucmichel.net/2018/03/16/luc-michels-geopolitical-daily-introduction-to-the-geopolitics-of-british-imperialism/

Et :

ENCORE ET TOUJOURS L’IMPERIALISME ANGLO-SAXON

sur http://www.lucmichel.net/2018/01/05/luc-michels-geopolitical-daily-encore-et-toujours-limperialisme-anglo-saxon/

(5) Les trois guerres puniques opposèrent durant près d’un siècle la Rome antique et Carthage (civilisation punique et pas « africaine », les africains sont ses voisins numides, alliés de Rome). La cause initiale des guerres puniques fut le heurt des deux empires en Sicile, qui était en partie contrôlée par les Carthaginois. Au début de la première guerre punique, Carthage avait formé un vaste empire maritime

(thalassocratie) et dominait la mer Méditerranée, alors que Rome avait conquis l’Italie péninsulaire (puissance continentale). À la fin de la troisième guerre punique, Rome parvint à conquérir les territoires carthaginois et à détruire Carthage, devenant ainsi la plus grande puissance de la Méditerranée.

(6) Cfr. mon analyse géopolitique de la bataille de Waterloo :

WATERLOO, UN TOURNANT DE L’HISTOIRE MODERNE : GEOPOLITIQUE – IDEOLOGIE – REVOLUTION. LE POINT DE VUE DU PCN

sur http://www.lucmichel.net/2015/06/18/pcn-info-waterloo-un-tournant-de-lhistoire-moderne-geopolitique-ideologie-revolution-le-point-de-vue-du-pcn/

(7) Voir sur EODE-TV/ LUC MICHEL:

* SUR LE ‘SOFT POWER FRANCAIS’ ET LA FRANCOPHONIE – (SOFT POWER PARTIE 4)

sur https://vimeo.com/242652111

* A BATONS ROMPUS SUR LE ‘SOFT POWER RUSSE’ ET LA ‘DIPLOMATIE PARALLELE’ D’EODE – (SOFT POWER PARTIE 1)

sur https://vimeo.com/242079030

* Et A BATONS ROMPUS SUR LE ‘SOFT POWER RUSSE’ ET LA ‘DIPLOMATIE PARALLÈLE’ D’EODE – (SOFT POWER PARTIE 2)

sur https://vimeo.com/242637227

(8) Cfr. sur LUC MICHEL’S GEOPOLITICAL DAILY/ FRANCE 2008-2018 (I) : COMMENT LA FRANCE REBELLE DU GENERAL DE GAULLE EST DEVENUE LA FRANCE VASSALE SOUMISE AUX USA DES SARKOZY-HOLLANDE-MACRON !?

sur http://www.lucmichel.net/2018/03/09/luc-michels-geopolitical-daily-france-2008-2018-i-comment-la-france-rebelle-du-general-de-gaulle-est-devenue-la-france-vassale-soumise-aux-usa-des-sarkozy-hollande-macron/

LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE

* Avec le Géopoliticien de l’Axe Eurasie-Afrique :

Géopolitique – Géoéconomie – Géoidéologie – Néoeurasisme – Néopanafricanisme (Vu de Moscou et Malabo) :

PAGE SPECIALE Luc MICHEL’s Geopolitical Daily https://www.facebook.com/LucMICHELgeopoliticalDaily/

________________

* Luc MICHEL (Люк МИШЕЛЬ) :

WEBSITE http://www.lucmichel.net/

PAGE OFFICIELLE III – GEOPOLITIQUE

https://www.facebook.com/Pcn.luc.Michel.3.Geopolitique/

TWITTER https://twitter.com/LucMichelPCN

* EODE :

EODE-TV https://vimeo.com/eodetv

WEBSITE http://www.eode.org/

Allarme sui derivati del Comune: potrebbero costare 100 milioni

ecco perché si pagano i tributi tasse balzelli ed estorsioni varie

La Corte dei Conti: problemi su cassa e riscossioni

Da qui al 2025 – se la situazione resterà invariata – il Comune dovrà pagare 100 milioni per onorare i 18 contratti derivati ancora in pancia, sottoscritti tra il 2000 e il 2005 durante la prima giunta guidata da Sergio Chiamparino. L’allarme arriva dalla Corte dei Conti, nella pronuncia con cui analizza i bilanci della Città nel 2015 e 2016, traccia una prima ricognizione sul 2017 e sul piano di riequilibrio finanziario 2018-2021. I derivati, che risalgono agli anni della febbre olimpica, oggi valgono 586 milioni. Se la Città decidesse di estinguerli adesso pagherebbe un salasso negativo di 148 milioni. Ma anche tenerli potrebbe non essere troppo vantaggioso: colpa dei tassi di interesse molto bassi, attualmente inferiori al tasso fisso che il Comune paga per onorare i suoi 18 contratti. Ecco da dove deriva quel costo di 100 milioni (sempre che i tassi non salgano) nei prossimi sette anni. Ed ecco perché, su indicazione della Corte, la giunta Appendino ha previsto un accantonamento di 6,5 milioni a copertura del rischio derivati.  

LEGGI ANCHE: Il via libera della Corte dei Conti: bene il rigore della giunta Appendino sul piano di rientro

 MULTE E TRIBUTI  

Nelle sessanta pagine inviate in Comune i magistrati della Sezione controllo passano in rassegna ombre e luci dell’amministrazione, in un anno – il 2016 – a metà del quale è avvenuta la staffetta tra Piero Fassino e Chiara Appendino. Rispetto al 2015 i «parametri di deficitarietà» – le voci critiche – sono passati da due a quattro: residui attivi e passivi, anticipazione di cassa e indebitamento. La Corte rammenta che se diventassero cinque si aprirebbe la strada del dissesto finanziario.  

Su alcuni aspetti la situazione è migliore rispetto al passato. Spesa corrente e debito scendono, confermando un trend in corso da anni. Nel 2016 – a differenza che nell’anno precedente, quando i magistrati avevano sollevato il problema – si è verificata una corretta applicazione dell’avanzo di amministrazione. 

Restano problemi sulla cassa: sul conto corrente del Comune non ci sono soldi per far fronte alle spese. Nel 2015 la Città ha chiesto anticipazioni per 337 milioni, chiudendo l’anno con anticipi non restituiti per 120 milioni. Nel 2016 ha fatto ricorso a «prestiti» per 823 milioni e non ne ha rimborsati 272. E a fine 2017 aveva anticipazioni da rendere per 250 milioni. «Se c’è stato un miglioramento, esso è lievissimo», scrivono i giudici. «Per altro non deve dipendere da un’artificiosa contrazione dei pagamenti». I tempi con cui il Comune paga i suoi fornitori nell’ultimo anno sono raddoppiati. 

La Città, nel piano di risanamento, ha previsto azioni incisive per migliorare la situazione della cassa, a cominciare dalla riscossione di multe e tributi. La Corte prende atto e rimanda alla verifica dei risultati, ma sottolinea un dato da correggere: nel 2017 su 447 milioni di crediti da riscuotere Soris ne ha incassati 303; nel 2016 ne aveva riscossi 307 su 371. 

C’è anche un passaggio sul caso Ream, il debito di 5 milioni per l’area ex Westinghouse restituito poche settimane fa anziché a fine 2016 e su cui indaga la procura. I giudici non entrano nel merito ma si dicono d’accordo con il Comune (e non con i vecchi revisori) nel non considerare la somma un debito fuori bilancio. 

I RISCHI DEL PIANO GTT  

Infine, le partecipate. Negli anni scorsi la Corte aveva bocciato sonoramente il piano di ricognizione effettuato dalla giunta Fassino, giudicandolo inadeguato. Appendino viene promossa, tuttavia i giudici le chiedono attenzione nel vendere società usando i ricavati per mantenere i livelli di spesa del Comune. Così si rischia «un definitivo depauperamento del patrimonio: tali decisioni peseranno sulle generazioni future». 

Qualche incognita anche sul piano di salvataggio di Gtt, cui la Città dovrebbe contribuire con una ricapitalizzazione da 25 milioni. Per la Corte va considerata «la delicatezza dell’intervento pubblico in favore di soggetti privati che dovrebbero essere caratterizzati da una gestione economica», senza contare le ripercussioni sul piano di rientro.  

Pubblicato il 07/03/2018 ltima modifica il 07/03/2018 alle ore 10:58 ANDREA ROSSI

http://www.lastampa.it/2018/03/07/cronaca/allarme-sui-derivati-del-comune-potrebbero-costare-milioni-CrVVaYPELt3LhUI35pVDLN/pagina.html