Conte: “Non realizzare il Tav costerebbe più che completarlo. Solo Parlamento può decidere di non farlo”

https://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2019/07/23/conte-alla-luce-degli-investimenti-comunitari-non-realizzare-il-tav-costerebbe-piu-che-completarlo/5345778/?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2asKsg1XSNOLqUzJ6XyjK-4IyfpoJhcDcIZ5PQRonBTElYjzVn3xvZyc0#Echobox=1563904884

Conte: “Non realizzare il Tav costerebbe più che completarlo. Solo Parlamento può decidere di non farlo”

A segnare la svolta, secondo quanto riferito dal presidente del Consiglio, è stato il maggiore impegno dell’Europa nel finanziamento dell’opera. E su Toninelli dice: “Ottenuti ulteriori fondi Ue grazie a lui”

“Alla luce degli investimenti comunitari, non realizzare il Tav costerebbe più che completarlo. E soltanto il Parlamento può recedere unilateralmente dal contratto. Questa è la posizione governo, difendiamo interessi nazionali”. La svolta sul Tavarriva in diretta Facebook dal presidente del Consiglio Giuseppe Conte, che annuncia il via libera del governo sulla costruzione della Torino-Lione, da sempre al centro dello scontro tra i partiti di maggioranza, con la Lega favorevole e il Movimento 5 Stelle contrario. E anche ieri, dopo la manomissione della centralina dell’alta velocità, Salvini era tornato all’attacco, accusando Toninelli di ritardi e rinvii e “non solo sulla Tav. Ma quello che trapela dal Mit, è che il ministro sia deciso a tenere duro, nonostante si siano rincorse per tutta la giornata le voci di un suo possibile passo indietro. “Rappresento un governo appoggiato da due forze politiche che sul punto la pensano in maniera opposta – ha aggiunto Conte -. In gioco ci sono tanti soldi, che sono vostri, e vanno gestiti con la massima attenzione. Vanno gestiti come farebbe un buon padre di famiglia”. A determinare la scelta di Conte è stata la decisione dell’Europa di aumentare gli stanziamenti per l’opera. Un risultato per il quale il presidente del Consiglio, durante la diretta sul social, ha pubblicamente ringraziato Toninelli, perché il risparmio di 3 miliardi di euro per l’Italia potrà essere speso in altri opere. Venerdì, ha proseguito Conte, l’Italia dirà quindi sì ai fondi Ue per un progetto che il governo non può fermare per un motivo semplice, scandito dal premier: un’alternativa al Tav non c’è e fermare la Torino-Lione non farebbe gli “interessi nazionali” perché costerebbe di più agli italiani. 

“Europa disponibile ad aumentare fondi” – “Sono pervenuti dei fatti nuovi – ha detto il presidente del Consiglio – elementi da tener conto nella risposta che dobbiamo dare” all’Europa “entro venerdì. L’Ue si è detta disponibile ad aumentare lo stanziamento dal 40% al 55%, questo ridurrebbe i costi” per l’Italia. “La tratta nazionale potrebbe beneficiare di un contributo europeo pari al 50%. Anche qui saremmo di fronte a un forte risparmio. E di questo – ha sottolineato – ringraziopubblicamente il ministro Toninelli“. A queste condizioni, dunque, ha proseguito Conte, “solo il Parlamento potrebbe adottare una decisione unilaterale” per fermare il Tav, visto che la ratifica dell’accordo sul Tav è stata fatta dal Parlamento. Inoltre “la decisione di non realizzare l’opera ci esporrebbe a tutti i costi derivanti dalla rottura dell’accordo con la Francia” che si è espressa per la conferma della realizzazione di quest’opera. Ne consegue che – ha precisato -, se volessimo bloccare l’opera, e se fosse possibile intraprendere un progetto alternativo, non potremmo farlo con la Francia. Non potremmo confidare, come si dice in questi casi, in un mutuo dissenso“. Quindi “i fondi Ue non sarebbero garantiti con impieghi alternativi”.

Resta da vedere quali saranno gli effetti sul ministro delle Infrastrutture Danilo Toninelli, da mesi sotto attacco del vicepremier Matteo Salvini. Rumors interni alla squadra di governo parlavano di un possibile passo indietro del responsabile del Mit nel caso Conte dovesse dare il via libera alla Torino-Lione, una battaglia storica del popolo grillino. Un’altra partita decisiva per Toninelli è quella di Aspi, ovvero lo stop ai Benetton dopo il crollo del ponte Morandi di Genova. Ma in ogni caso, dimissioni o meno, la strada di Toninelli sembra ormai segnata, stando almeno a voci di prima linea nei 5 Stelle. I grillini di governo sarebbero intenzionati a cambiare la casella del Mit quanto prima, con un loro uomo. Fonti di governo assicurano all’Adnkronos che dalla Lega, infatti, non sarebbe arrivata alcuna richiesta sul Mit. Né al momento su altri ministeri.

Una scelta semplice e responsabile per Conte: il progetto va sospeso – Perché l’Italia dovrebbe finanziare la Francia per oltre 2 miliardi di € ?

 

Comunicato Stampa

PresidioEuropa

Movimento No TAV

23 luglio 2019

www.presidioeuropa.net/blog/?p=20390

Torino – Lione

Una scelta semplice e responsabile per Conte

Il progetto va sospeso

Il vantaggio che ne deriverebbe all’Italia

Pare che nelle prossime ore il Presidente del Consiglio Conte farà conoscere il suo pensiero sul futuro del progetto Torino-Lione, ossia del tunnel di base a due canne di 57,5 chilometri a servizio di una linea ferroviaria già esistente e sottoutilizzata.

I lavori geognostici eseguiti da TELT per valutare i costi dei lavori definitivi per scavare e attrezzare i 115 chilometri dei due tunnel di base, finanziati al 50% dalla Ue, sono terminati da anni in Italia e quasi terminati in Francia.

Il finanziamento Ue accordato scadrà il 31 dicembre 2019 mentre i prossimi finanziamenti per il tunnel di base potrebbero essere disponibili nel 2021 se il Parlamento Europeo li approverà entro la fine del 2020 nel quadro del Bilancio Pluriennale Ue 2021-2027.

TELT ha annunciato i bandi che si riferiscono ai lavori per lo scavo del tunnel di base, che tuttavia non possono essere lanciati nel rispetto dell’Accordo di Roma 30.1.2012 con la Francia.

Ciò perché l’Art. 16 non premette di aprire il cantiere del tunnel di base fino a quando i due Stati non abbiano approvato le leggi per finanziare tutti i lavori del tunnel.

La Francia non ha stanziato ad oggi un solo euro, mentre l’Italia ha approvato una buona parte dei fondi che sono serviti e serviranno in parte a coprire le spese che la Francia non finanzia.

Alla luce di questo principio, la scelta di Conte è semplice e responsabile: il progetto va sospeso.

Il Governo italiano potrebbe così dimostrare di essere più ambizioso nel contrasto al cambiamento climatico con l’obiettivo di fare crescere l’Italia assegnando al nostro Paese un posto tra i protagonisti della lotta per il clima che crea occupazione e ricchezza.

Allo stesso tempo potrà dare corso alla ridiscussione con la Francia prevista nel Contratto di Governo “Con riguardo alla Linea ad Alta Velocità Torino-Lione, ci impegniamo a ridiscuterne integralmente il progetto nell’applicazione dell’accordo tra Italia e Francia.”

Il Governo “Salvini” e le opposizioni che sostengono l’indispensabilità della Torino-Lione dovrebbero intanto spiegare agli italiani perché l’Italia dovrebbe finanziare la Francia per oltre 2 miliardi di € per consentirle di realizzare i suoi lavori sul territorio francese.

Il progetto va sospeso affinché TELT non invii alle imprese che sta selezionando i bandi di gara che consentiranno loro di presentare offerte.

Il progetto va sospeso a causa del rischio che le imprese scelte da TELT possano chiedere, in caso di sospensione tardiva dei bandi di gara da parte di Italia e Francia, il risarcimento già solo per le spese sostenute per partecipare alla procedura di offerta e probabilmente per il mancato guadagno per non potere realizzare il tunnel, dato che la clausola di autotutela non produrrà effetti a meno che i due Stati non si accordino nei prossimi giorni per iscritto di non avviare e proseguire i lavori di scavo del tunnel di base.

Il progetto va sospeso perché nei rapporti con la UE l’Italia può rinunciare autonomamente all’attuazione della Torino-Lione e al finanziamento europeo senza alcuna penale applicando lart. 17 del Regolamento CEF.

Il progetto va sospeso perché l’INEA (agenzia della Commissione europea) ha da mesi comunicato a Francia e Italia di voler tagliare i fondi europei già stanziati (Grant Agreement di circa 813 milioni solo in parte utilizzati). L’INEA è perfettamente al corrente che TELT non è stata in grado per sua incapacità di utilizzare i fondi concessi il cui utilizzo scadrà il 31 dicembre 2019.

Il progetto va sospeso perché la richiesta di INEA di annullare i fondi se Francia e Italia non dichiarano entro il 26 luglio 2019 il loro assenso a realizzare il progetto è un ricatto per imporre una visione “amministrativa” e non politica.

Il progetto va sospeso perché l’applicazione del principio “Use it or lose it” (usali o perdili) non ha nulla a che fare in questa fase con la conferma di Francia e Italia di voler proseguire o sospendere il progetto.

Il progetto va sospeso perché su questo tema il Governo italiano dovrebbe avere la capacità di impegnare la prossima Commissione europea e il Parlamento europeo su un fronte politico e non contabile, così come ha fatto il Presidente Giuseppe Conte per la questione del rapporto debito/PIL. Anche con l’obiettivo di dirottare i fondi europei per la Torino-Lione verso una destinazione più utile in sintonia con la lotta al cambiamento climatico.

Il vantaggio per l’Italia, per tutti i contribuenti è assicurato.

Proseguire con il progetto significa che l’Italia finanzierebbe la Francia. Il tunnel di base lungo 57,5 chilometri sarebbe per 45 km di proprietà francese e solo per 12,5 km di proprietà italiana. Di fronte alla proprietà del 21%, l’Italia dovrebbe pagare il 57,9% di tutti i costi.

È un’ipotesi da respingere perché il risultato della “sottomissione” dell’Italia alla Francia stabilita nell’Accordo del 2012 produrrebbe un esborso di risorse pubbliche italiane di oltre € 2,2 miliardi a favore della Francia.

Per essere più chiari, la Francia dovrebbe investire per ogni suo chilometro solo € 60 milioni, mentre l’Italia dovrebbe investirne ben 280, quasi 5 volte di più.

Ecco perché la scelta semplice, inevitabile e unica è la sospensione del progetto che può essere attuata rapidamente e senza penali.

La Torino Lione è climaticida – Sospendere il Progetto – Istruzioni al Governo 13 lug. 2019

Istruzioni al Presidente del Consiglio Conte La Torino-Lione è climaticida, è un progetto nato alla fine del XX secolo che non rispetta gli impegni della riduzione della CO2 accettati dall’Italia con la ratifica dell’Accordo di Parigi del 2015. Il Governo italiano dovrebbe dimostrare di essere più ambizioso nel contrasto al cambiamento climatico con l’obiettivo di fare crescere l’Italia assegnando al nostro Paese un posto tra i protagonisti della lotta per il clima che crea occupazione e ricchezza. Continua a Leggere…

Ricatto della Commissione Europea a fine mandato: da respingere !  10 lug. 2019

La richiesta dell’INEA di conoscere entro il 26 luglio 2019 la posizione che l’Italia e la Francia intendono riservare alla Torino-Lione deve essere respinta dal Governo italiano. L’INEA è un’agenzia della Commissione Europea e agisce solo per l’esecuzione del contratto di finanziamento europeo dal punto di vista dei Regolamenti e non dispone di un potere politico che è prerogativa dei Commissari. A meno che il Governo italiano non abbia già archiviato il progetto Torino-Lione Continua a Leggere…

Prof. Avv. Sergio Foà – Asserita necessità di una decisione di TELT di avviare le procedure di appalto (scavo del tunnel) — Parere  27 feb. 2019

Asserita necessità di una decisione di TELT di avviare le procedure di appalto (scavo del tunnel) – Parere. In merito alla asserita necessità di una decisione di TELT di avviare le procedure di appalto si precisa che: Non solo non esiste l’urgenza di accelerare la decisione, ma mancano i presupposti legali per avviare le procedure d’appalto relative allo scavo del tunnel transfrontaliero e di esecuzione dei lavori definitivi, visti gli esiti dell’Analisi Costi Benefici e visto l’articolo 16, par. 2, dell’Accordo tra Italia e Francia del 2012, che impone la disponibilità dei finanziamenti quale requisito indispensabile per avviare i lavori di qualunque fase, come definita nell’articolo 4 dello stesso Accordo; Continua a Leggere…

Corteo No Tav: razzi, pietre e fuochi contro la polizia. 20 denunciati

https://www.lastampa.it/torino/2019/07/21/news/durante-il-corteo-no-tav-razzi-pietre-e-fuochi-appiccati-contro-la-polizia-20-denunciati-1.37153779

I disordini causati ieri sera dai circa 200 manifestanti partiti da Giaglione e diretti al cantiere di Chiomonte

Duecento partecipanti al «Campeggio studentesco No Tav», in corso a Venaus fino al 24 luglio, hanno violato ieri sera, sabato 20 luglio, la «zona rossa» attorno al cantiere dell’Alta Velocità, istituita con l’ordinanza interdittiva della Prefettura. Azione dimostrativa terminata con il lancio di pietre e di petardi e un principio di incendio nel bosco.

Percorrendo il sentiero Gallo Romano, i manifestanti, tra cui alcuni attivisti del centro sociale Askatasuna, hanno raggiunto la cancellata metallica allestita per sbarrare gli accessi all’area del cantiere Tav. 

Dopo aver ammassato legno e altro materiale infiammabile, hanno dato fuoco alla catasta cercando di sfondare la cancellata metallica utilizzando un grande tronco di legno come ariete.

Subito dopo hanno cercato di aprire un varco con un flessibile elettrico. Respinti con un idrante dalle forze dell’ordine, quindici attivisti, travisati, hanno continuato l’assalto al cantiere lanciando  per circa 10 minuti pietre, petardi, bombe carta e razzi da segnalazione nautica. Gli investigatori della Digos hanno riconosciuto venti militanti antagonisti che saranno denunciati per violazione del provvedimento prefettizio. Alcuni anche per accensioni pericolose. Due dei manifestanti saranno denunciati «per inottemperanza al “foglio di via obbligatorio” dal comune di Giaglione, tra cui una militante catanese e un esponente di Askatasuna».

La Digos sta esaminando le riprese video per «individuare anche gli altri responsabili degli episodi criminosi». Il  lancio di un razzo di segnalazione verso le forze dell’ordine, avrebbe infine innescato un principio di incendio nell’area boschiva. Le fiamme sono state subito domate dal personale del cantiere e dalla polizia con l’impiego di estintori.

Il commento di Salvini
«Chi attacca la polizia e il cantiere della Tav in Valsusa attacca tutta l’Italia: le divise sono il simbolo di chi difende la sicurezza dei cittadini perbene, l’Alta Velocità è l’emblema di un Paese che vuole andare avanti e non indietro. Nessuna tolleranza per i criminali, mi aspetto condanne inequivocabili da tutti gli schieramenti politici. Basta ambiguità: ora controlli a tappeto, arresti e accelerazione dei lavori». Lo dice il ministro dell’Interno Matteo Salvini.

Assalto dei No Tav in Valsusa: razzi, fuochi e petardi. Denunciati 70 attivisti

https://www.lastampa.it/cronaca/2019/07/22/news/assalto-dei-no-tav-in-valsusa-razzi-fuochi-e-petardi-denunciati-70-attivisti-1.37160811

Due notti di attacchi al cantiere della Torino-Lione. Il ministro Salvini: «Adesso arresti e accelerazione dei lavori»

TORINO. Settanta No Tav denunciati in due giorni di protesta in Val di Susa, con lanci di razzi e incendi attorno al cantiere. Un bilancio che consente al ministro dell’interno Matteo Salvini di affondare un colpo contro il movimento che osteggia il treno ad Alta Velocità. «Chi attacca la polizia e il cantiere Tav in Valsusa – afferma – attacca tutta l’Italia: le divise sono il simbolo di chi difende la sicurezza dei cittadini perbene, l’Alta Velocità è l’emblema di un Paese che vuole andare avanti e non indietro. Nessuna tolleranza per i criminali, mi aspetto condanne inequivocabili da tutti gli schieramenti politici. Basta ambiguità: ora controlli a tappeto, arresti e accelerazione dei lavori».

La politica s’infiamma sull’onda dell’estate No Tav rianimata da fuochi e passeggiate notturne nei boschi della Val di Susa in occasione del «Campeggio nazionale studentesco» dei collettivi autonomi: iniziativa annuale, in seno al presidio permanente ai margini del cantiere, che precede il tradizionale festival musicale di opposizione «Alta Felicità», in programma dal 25 al 28 luglio.

Così, nelle due notti dello scorso fine settimana, più di duecento manifestanti, per lo più appartenenti ai centri sociali e alla galassia antagonista, hanno attraversato i boschi di Venaus e Chiomonte per «attaccare» le recinzioni messe a protezione dell’area di cantiere. E visto che il prefetto di Torino, Claudio Palomba, su richiesta della questura, ha esteso dal 18 al 29 luglio, con un ordinanza urgente, la zona rossa di interdizione attorno al cantiere, tutti i manifestanti che si sono spinti alle cancellate per lanciare razzi, appiccare incendi, lanciare pietre e tentare di abbattere le protezioni, oltre ai singoli illeciti, hanno per lo meno violato il provvedimento. Da qui la raffica di denunce.

Il primo attacco nella notte di venerdì e sabato. Tra i manifestanti in marcia nei boschi, la Digos ha identificato 50 appartenenti al centro sociale torinese Asktasuna e alcuni irriducibili del movimento No Tav. L’altra notte, tra sabato e domenica, secondo attacco. Altri venti manifestanti sono stati denunciati. Si sono avvicinati alle cancellata, hanno tentato di abbatterla con un tronco, incendiato una catasta di legno e poi lanciato petardi e razzi pirotecnici contro le forze dell’ordine. Un razzo luminoso, da segnalazione nautica, ha innescato invece un focolaio nel bosco. Poliziotti e personale del cantiere lo hanno spento con gli estintori.

Molte le reazioni politiche. «Non accetteremo nessun atto intimidatorio. Il cantiere della Tav deve andare avanti» dice il presidente della Regione Piemonte, Alberto Cirio. «Questi no sono frutto di ideologie inconsistenti» afferma Alessandro Morelli, della Lega, presidente della commissione Trasporti della Camera. Anche i sindacati di polizia prendo posizione. «Torino – dice Stefano Paoloni, segretario del Sap – è stata per l’ennesima volta teatro di violenze ai danni delle forze dell’ordine. Un fatto gravissimo. Ma è più grave, l’orgogliosa rivendicazione dei No Tav sui social». Mentre Eugenio Bravo, segretario torinese del Siulp afferma: «E’ insopportabile, per non dire incredibile, che a distanza ormai di oltre 10 anni, si continui con il solito copione di aggressioni e violenze contro le forze dell’ordine. Un’opposizione violenta che si tramanda ormai anche alle generazioni successive».

GEOPOLITIQUE DES USA (IV) : VU DES USA, COMMENT ‘COMMANDER A LA MER’ A L’ERE DES MISSILES SUBSONIQUES ? (GEORGE FRIEDMAN)

 

LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE/

Luc MICHEL pour EODE/

Quotidien géopolitique – Geopolitical Daily/

2018 07 19/
LM.GEOPOL - Geopol des usa IV (2019 07 19) FR (4)

« Le commandement de l’espace est en train de devenir le fondement du commandement de la mer. Ceux qui peuvent voir les missiles ennemis peuvent les détruire et le faire rapidement avec des hypersoniques à longue portée. Le déni de l’espace serait donc essentiel pour protéger les navires de commerce des attaques ennemies (…) La maîtrise de la mer s’est déplacée de la surface de la mer vers l’air et passe maintenant de l’air à l’espace. Cela ne change pas la géopolitique fondamentale, mais cela transforme la guerre »

– Georges Friedman (‘Geopolitical Futures’, juillet 2019).

# PARTIE IV

Je viens de clôturer une analyse en trois parties sur « la Géopolitique des USA ». Comment la thalassocratie américaine domine les Mers du globe, s’étant substituée à l’impérialisme britannique », a fait du XXe siècle un « siècle américain » (qu’elle a terminé comme la seule superpuissance mondiale, après avoir remporté les première et seconde mondiale et la Guerre froide. Et comment son programme actuel est de « faire du XXIe siècle un nouveau siècle américain ». Un géopoliticien américain de premier plan, George Friedman, l’ex patron de ‘Stratfor’, nous donne sa vision de la Thalassocratie américaine (pour ‘Geopolitical Futures’). Dans son livre-manifeste, « The next hundred years », il est un de ces partisans d’un « nouveau siècle américain » …

“COMMAND OF THE SEA”

(GEORGE FRIEDMAN, ‘GEOPOLITICAL FUTURES’, USA, 10 JUILLET 2019)

(Extraits Traduit de l’anglais par LM)

Les USA sont une thalassocratie, le « commandement de la Mer est la base essentielle de la puissance américaine : « Le commandement de la mer est le fondement de la sécurité nationale américaine, nous dit Friedman. L’amiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, le plus grand stratège de l’histoire américaine, l’a identifié comme étant le principal intérêt de l’Amérique (bien qu’il l’ait écrit avant le début de la guerre contre le terrorisme et avant le développement de l’arme nucléaire). Les Etats-Unis, a-t-il affirmé, ne peuvent être menacés que par une force navale ennemie capable d’envahir son territoire et de limiter son accès aux océans. Comme pour la Grande-Bretagne, la sécurité nationale des États-Unis devait donc reposer sur le commandement de la mer ».

Le géopoliticien US nous rappelle que les USA, comme jadis Carthage, sont un empire commercial, héritier du commerce anglo-saxon : « Le commandement de la mer garantit la sécurité et le commerce. La Rome antique comprenait certainement tout autant, concentrant ses efforts sur le contrôle de Mare Nostrum (ou de notre mer, se référant à la Méditerranée), qui contraignit les menaces nord-africaines comme Carthage à attaquer Rome sur ses flancs et à garantir l’accès aux ressources agricoles égyptiennes. Les routes terrestres autour de la Méditerranée étaient puissantes mais lentes. Les routes navales étaient rapides mais plus légères et, sur le plan commercial, elles étaient indispensables ». De l’antiquité à notre époque, les fondements géopolitiques sont restés constant, explique Friedman ; « La Chine et l’Iran essaient maintenant de sécuriser leurs voies de navigation, ou du moins d’empêcher les autres d’y accéder. Pour la Chine, qui est désormais une puissance commerciale massive, accéder aux mers du monde est une nécessité économique. Elle craint que les États-Unis ne cherchent à bloquer la Chine et, ce faisant, à étrangler l’économie chinoise (et gardez à l’esprit que le pire des scénarios n’est historiquement pas le moins probable). L’Iran, handicapé par les sanctions américaines, n’a pas le pouvoir politique ou naval de lever le blocus, mais il a les moyens de lancer un contre-blocus du détroit d’Hormuz. Les énormes quantités de pétrole qui coulent dans le détroit sont essentielles pour de nombreux alliés des États-Unis, et le bloquer avec succès provoquerait une crise économique suivie par une crise de l’alliance. Sanctionner l’Iran pourrait donc s’avérer trop coûteux pour les États-Unis. Tant que le commerce se fait sur les mers, le contrôle des mers est essentiel ».

LES EVOLUTIONS DE LA PUISSANCE NAVALE

« Historiquement, le commandement de la mer dépendait de navires de surface, équipés d’avirons, de voiles, de charbon, de pétrole, etc. Le principe opérationnel de la puissance nationale consistait à posséder une flotte suffisante pour submerger l’ennemi principalement en taille et en armement », précise Friedman. « Le point fort de cet ancien concept de guerre navale était le cuirassé, un vaisseau massif et coûteux, transportant une poignée d’armes à feu capable de tirer de grandes munitions à longue portée. La guerre de surface avait atteint son apogée avec le cuirassé. Son coût paralyserait l’économie d’un pays de taille moyenne. Il pourrait vaincre tout navire rencontré, sauver un autre cuirassé. La course était de taille, armure et munitions, et quel que soit le pays le plus à même de protéger ses intérêts maritimes ».

COMMENT LA PUISSANCE AERIENNE A PROFONDEMENT MODIFIE LA GUERRE NAVALE ?

« La tactique navale reposait donc sur la position du navire de surface contre le navire de surface. Cela a été remplacé non par aucune avancée dans la puissance des cuirassés, mais par l’introduction d’un nouveau concept de guerre navale: la puissance aérienne », analyse Friedman. « Alors que les cuirassés combattaient en lançant des salves de gros obus sur leurs ennemis, les avions pouvaient également tirer de petits obus explosifs qui frappaient la surface et les torpilles qui frappaient des navires de guerre sous la ligne de flottaison. Une autre menace est venue des sous-marins. Commençant par l’attaque britannique sur la flotte italienne à Taranto et aboutissant à l’attaque japonaise sur Pearl Harbor, les navires conçus pour transporter des torpilles et des bombes ont dévasté des cuirassés dans les ports. Très rapidement, le centre de gravité de la guerre navale s’est déplacé vers le porte-avions et a été complété par le sous-marin, conçu pour casser la chaîne d’approvisionnement dans l’Atlantique Nord et le Pacifique Ouest ».

Le géopoliticien US étudie les étapes de cette évolution fondamentale, commencée pendant la Guerre des Six jours au Proche-Orient :

« Cette combinaison de porte-avions et de sous-marins était au cœur de la guerre navale depuis près d’un siècle, mais les nouvelles munitions ont fini par remettre en cause leur primauté. Plus précisément, l’introduction de munitions à guidage de précision a accru la vulnérabilité du transporteur. Ce ne sont pas des missiles balistiques; une fois tirés, leur direction pourrait être corrigée, ce qui les rendrait beaucoup plus précis que les anciens missiles. En 1967, un missile soviétique Styx tiré d’Égypte a coulé un destroyer israélien, l’Eilat. La précision était stupéfiante, de même que l’effet de l’ogive. Le naufrage de l’Eilat a obligé de nombreuses personnes à modifier leurs visions des porte-avions ». L’hypothèse était que les chasseurs pourraient protéger les transporteurs. Les avions ennemis ont dû voler dans l’espace de la patrouille aérienne de combat pour livrer des bombes en fer et des torpilles. L’incident d’Eilat a montré que cela n’était pas nécessaire. Une MGP tirée depuis le rivage – ou par un avion se tenant en dehors de l’espace de défense aérienne des combattants, des canons anti-aériens et des missiles – pourrait couler ou détruire des navires ».

On est ainsi passé à de nouvelles tactiques, précise Friedman. « Une façon de se défendre contre cela consistait à élargir l’espace de combat, mais à mesure que cela se produisait, il devenait plus rapide que le nombre de combattants disponibles. L’attention s’est alors tournée du démantèlement des avions d’attaque à la destruction des missiles. Des systèmes tels que l’Aegis américain ont été créés pour le faire à grands frais. Aucun système n’est parfait, il est donc essentiel de maintenir les attaquants à distance. Cela a coûté un nombre considérablement accru de navires perfectionnés conçus pour offrir une capacité de défense aérienne et de lutte anti-sous-marine. Les groupes de combat de porte-avions coûtent plusieurs milliards de dollars en développement initial et en maintenance, pour permettre à 30 à 70 avions d’attaque de voler vers une cible et de tirer des PGM dans un dispositif défensif similaire ».

« Le porte-avions commençait à ressembler au cuirassé, dit Friedman, avec des coûts pyramidaux conçus pour assurer la défense. C’était semblable dans un deuxième sens. Les MGP ont évolué, en partie en précision, mais surtout en vitesse et en agilité. Cela a également obligé les systèmes de défense aérienne à évoluer. Le coût de développement du PGM était bien inférieur au coût de développement du système défensif, de sorte que le coût de maintien de la sécurité du groupement tactique de transporteurs a augmenté, la capacité de frappe – le tonnage pouvant être livré contre un ennemi – n’a pas été conservée ».

COMMENT ASSURER LE COMMANDEMENT DE LA MER A L’ERE DES MISSILES HYPERSONNIQUES ?

Le point critique pour le transporteur a été atteint avec l’émergence de missiles hypersoniques, insiste Friedman, qui peuvent atteindre des vitesses plus de cinq fois supérieures à celles du son, tout en restant maniables (un dossier stratégique où la guerre médiatique prend aussi sa part) :

 

 « La portée de ces missiles a considérablement élargi l’enveloppe de combat, obligeant à améliorer considérablement le système de défense aérienne. Certains prétendent que les explosifs transportés par ces missiles ne pourraient pas couler un porteur. Mais étant donné leur précision, ils pourraient rendre le transporteur inutilisable pendant le combat en attaquant des éléments clés du poste de pilotage. C’est pour cette raison que les Russes et les Chinois ont annoncé leurs systèmes hypersoniques. Ils représentent un défi pour le commandement américain de la mer, tant que le système repose sur des navires de guerre de surface – et même les sous-marins deviennent plus vulnérables à mesure que les océans deviennent plus transparents pour les capteurs de missiles hypersoniques. À mesure que la portée des missiles hypersoniques augmente et que leur coût diminue, les dangers pour les navires de guerre de surface augmentent. Les défenses sont possibles, mais le paradigme missile contre missile devient de plus en plus risqué. Une solution moins risquée consiste à rendre les missiles inutilisables. Cela peut être fait en ciblant le système de guidage, qui nécessite la localisation générale de l’ennemi, et le système de guidage terminal à bord. Ce sont les renseignements sur l’emplacement général du navire qui constituent le point de défaillance ».

VERS LA GUERRE ET LA DEFENSE SPATIALE

J’avais traité ce dossier capital des évolutions stratégiques au XXIe siècle pour ‘Géopolitrique Internationale’ sur ‘Afrique Media’ il y a un an, cette guerre spatiale, cette nouvelle Arme de l’Espace, dont Trump avait annoncé dès 2018 la création au sein des Forces de Défense US. Et dont Macron vient de faire de même ce 14 juillet :

Voir sur EODE-TV/

MILITARISATION DE L’ESPACE:

TRUMP VEUT CREER UNE ARMEE U.S. SPATIALE

(LUC MICHEL SUR ‘GEOPOLITIQUE INTERNATIONALE’)

sur https://vimeo.com/283216170

Et voir sur LUC MICHEL’S GEOPOLITICAL DAILY/

COMMENT LES USA TRANSFORMENT LA COURSE A L’ESPACE EN UNE NOUVELLE COURSE AUX ARMEMENTS :

‘LA MERE DE TOUTES LES COURSES AUX ARMEMENTS’

sur http://www.lucmichel.net/2019/02/18/luc-michels-geopolitical-daily-comment-les-usa-transforment-la-course-a-lespace-en-une-nouvelle-course-aux-armements-la-mere-de-toutes-les-courses-aux-armements/

L’avenir de la stratégie navale c’est l’espace, affirme Friedman !

« Pour localiser une flotte, il est nécessaire de faire de la reconnaissance. Cela peut concerner des aéronefs, des véhicules aériens sans pilote ou des systèmes spatiaux. L’avion peut trébucher dans la zone d’abattage du transporteur. Les drones peuvent être abattus ou, pire encore, leurs composants électroniques corrompus, leurs signaux falsifiés, etc. Rien n’est sans risque, mais la principale plate-forme stratégique de surveillance d’un océan doit être spatiale. Il est le seul à avoir la largeur de vue nécessaire pour fournir des conseils utiles aux missiles hypersoniques qui doivent avoir une vaste portée pour être plus efficaces. Si la clé du contrôle de la mer devient le missile hypersonique, c’est comme un avion basé sur un transporteur ou des canons du cuirassé. C’est le livrable. Mais tout comme les canons d’avions ou de cuirassés basés sur un transporteur doivent avoir des informations de ciblage, le missile hypersonique le doit aussi, quel que soit son emplacement. La principale source de ciblage stratégique doit être basée dans l’espace. Et cela signifie que le commandement de la mer dépendra d’un système spatial qui contrôlera les munitions. Le porte-avions a commencé à séparer la plate-forme et les munitions livrées. Le missile hypersonique radicalise cette situation en éloignant la plate-forme de visée de la mer dans l’espace et la munition à livrer du navire au sol ».

DE LA GUERRE NAVALE A LA GUERRE DANS L’ESPACE !

La conséquence c’est qu’on va passer de la militarisation de l’Espace à la guerre dans l’Espace, ce que j’annonçais déjà il y a un an. Cette guerre spatiale dont Friedman était déjà un ardent partisan dans son livre « The next hundred years ». Cette guerre spatiale dans laquelle le Lobby miliraro-industriel, mais aussi les fonds d’investissement US, voient « la mère de toutes les courses aux armements » et d’immenses profits !

Comment se fera cette guerre selon Friedman :

« Au fur et à mesure que la portée augmente, le déploiement d’hypersoniques en mer ou même sur des sous-marins est dangereux. La mer rend très difficile de cacher une plate-forme de tir. La terre est pleine de plis et de trous et de végétation, le tout complété par une confusion créée par l’homme. Leur identification nécessitera également une reconnaissance spatiale et une portée à frapper. La guerre doit maintenant commencer par aveugler l’ennemi, ce qui implique de prendre des satellites de reconnaissance, puis de combler le fossé avec les UAV. La guerre est déclenchée par des attaques spatiales et le contrôle de l’espace devient le fondement du contrôle des mers. Cependant, les missiles hypersoniques étant situés sur le sol, il doit y avoir des attaques contre des lanceurs basés à terre qui, cartographiés par des satellites, doivent devenir mobiles et furtifs pour survivre. Le commandement de l’espace est en train de devenir le fondement du commandement de la mer. Ceux qui peuvent voir les missiles ennemis peuvent les détruire et le faire rapidement avec des hypersoniques à longue portée. Le déni de l’espace serait donc essentiel pour protéger les navires de commerce des attaques ennemies. Nous ne sommes pas loin de cette réalité. Les satellites et les UAV existent, et les nouvelles générations de missiles hypersoniques apparaissent. La maîtrise de la mer s’est déplacée de la surface de la mer vers l’air et passe maintenant de l’air à l’espace. Cela ne change pas la géopolitique fondamentale, mais cela transforme la guerre » …

(Sources : Geopolitical Futures – infographie GPF – EODE-TV – Afrique Media – EODE Think Tank)

# LE DOSSIER DE REFERENCE SUR

LUC MICHEL’S GEOPOLITICAL DAILY :

LA GRANDE ANALYSE SUR LA GEOPOLITIQUE AMERICAINE …

* GEOPOLITIQUE DES USA (I) :

‘VU DES USA’, COMPRENDRE LA GEOPOLITIQUE AMERICAINE

http://www.lucmichel.net/2019/07/01/luc-michels-geopolitical-daily-flash-video-geopolitique-des-usa-i-vu-des-usa-comprendre-la-geopolitique-americaine/

* GEOPOLITIQUE DES USA (II) :

ANATOMIE DE LA GUERRE AMERICAINE. DEUX SIECLES D’AGRESSIONS

http://www.lucmichel.net/2019/07/02/luc-michels-geopolitical-daily-flash-video-geopolitique-des-usa-ii-anatomie-de-la-guerre-americaine-deux-siecles-dagressions/

* GEOPOLITIQUE DES USA (III) :

DU ‘PRINTEMPS AFRICAIN’ A LA ‘NOUVELLE POLITIQUE AFRICAINE’ DE TRUMP ET BOLTON. COMMENT WASHINGTON ENTEND RECOLONISER L’AFRIQUE ?

http://www.lucmichel.net/2019/07/03/luc-michels-geopolitical-daily-flash-video-geopolitique-des-usa-iii-du-printemps-africain-a-la-nouvelle-politique-africaine-de-trump-et-bolton-com/

LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE

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

Géopolitique – Géoéconomie – Géoidéologie – Géohistoire –

Géopolitismes – 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

LUCMICHEL.ORG-TV https://vimeo.com/lucmichelorgtv

* EODE :

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

WEBSITE http://www.eode.org/

LINKEDIN https://www.linkedin.com/in/luc-michel-eode-600661163/

PUTIN’S INTERVIEW TO OLIVER STONE

 

LM DAILY / 2018 07 22/

LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE

* READ MY ANALYSIS (IN FRENCH) :

LUC MICHEL’S GEOPOLITICAL DAILY/

VLADIMIR POUTINE LEADER GLOBAL DE LA CONTESTATION ANTI-OCCIDENTALE (IV) : GEOPOLITIQUE. ‘LA DETERIORATION DES RELATIONS ENTRE WASHINGTON ET TEHERAN POURRAIT DESTABILISER LA REGION’

Sur https://www.facebook.com/Pcn.luc.Michel/posts/1623208517813560

DOC.GEOPOL - DOCU putin stone (2019 07 22) ENGL 2

# RUSSIAN PRESIDENT WEBSITE’S VERBATIM INTERVIEW AND COMMENTARIES (KREMLIN.RU)

Interview with Oliver Stone :

Vladimir Putin answered questions from American film director, screenwriter and producer Oliver Stone. The interview was recorded on June 19, 2019 in the Kremlin.

Oliver Stone: So, I interviewed Mr Medvedchuk. It was in Monte Carlo. He gave us a very interesting interview. He gave us his view of the Ukraine. I gather that you’re close with him.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: I would not say that we are very close but we know each other well. He was President Kuchma’s Chief of Staff, and it was in this capacity at the time that he asked me to take part in the christening of his daughter. According to Russian Orthodox tradition, you can’t refuse such a request.

Oliver Stone: Oh, you cannot refuse it?

I thought it was a big honour for you to be the godfather of his daughter.

Vladimir Putin: It is always a great honour to be a godfather.

Oliver Stone: Well, how many children are you godfather to?

Vladimir Putin: I will not give a number but several people.

Oliver Stone: Wow. Is it like a hundred or three hundred?

Vladimir Putin: No, no, are you serious? Certainly not. Just a few.

Oliver Stone: Otherwise I would ask you to be the godfather for my daughter.

Vladimir Putin: Does she want to become an Orthodox Christian?

Oliver Stone: Ok, we’ll make her that.

Vladimir Putin: You have to ask her.

Oliver Stone: As long as she stands in church, right?

Vladimir Putin: Of course. How old is she?

Oliver Stone: She is 22 now.

Vladimir Putin: Is she a believer?

Oliver Stone: Yes, she is a believer. She is raised Christian.

Vladimir Putin: I see.

Oliver Stone: You know, young people in America sometimes, they are different.

Vladimir Putin: Young people are different everywhere.

Oliver Stone: They are spoiled to some degree in the western world.

Vladimir Putin: It depends. The older generation always says that about the younger generation.

Oliver Stone: Yeah, I know, I know. That’s true. But I don’t know what is going on with the American culture. It’s very strange right now.

Vladimir Putin: Is there an American culture?

Oliver Stone: As you know, I’ve been very rebel all my life. Still am. And I have to tell you, I’m shocked by some of the behaviours and the thinking of the new generation. It takes so much for granted. And so much of the argument, so much of the thinking, so much of the newspaper, television commentaries about gender, people identify themselves, and social media, this and that, I’m male, I’m female, I’m transgender, I’m cisgender. It goes on forever, and there is a big fight about who is who. It seems like we miss the bigger point.

Vladimir Putin: They live too well. They have nothing to think about.

Oliver Stone: Yeah, but it’s not a healthy culture.

Vladimir Putin: Well, yes.

Oliver Stone: Years ago when we were talking about homosexuality, you said that in Russia we don’t propagate it.

Vladimir Putin: Not exactly. We have a law banning propaganda among minors.

Oliver Stone: Yes, that’s the one I’m talking about. It seems like maybe that’s a sensible law.

Vladimir Putin: It is aimed at allowing people to reach maturity and then decide who they are and how they want to live. There are no restrictions at all after this.

Oliver Stone: Ok. Mr Medvedchuk proposed recently, you know, a plan for solving the tensions in Ukraine between east and west. You know about this?

Vladimir Putin: To be honest, we do not talk so often. He has more free time than I do. But we meet from time to time, especially in connection with his efforts to get detainees released. He devotes much time to this.

He also told me something about his plans on Donbass but I do not know the details. At any rate, I consider it absolutely correct that he calls for direct dialogue with the people who live in Donbass. There is not a single example in recent history when a crisis was settled without direct contact between the sides to the conflict.

He says he thinks it is necessary to fully implement the Minsk agreements and I cannot help but agree with this as well. So, I know the elements of his proposals. He speaks about them in public and I agree.

Oliver Stone: Ok. They have a new president now. Has anything changed in Ukraine? Or still the same?

Vladimir Putin: Not yet. After all, the recent election was clearly a protest vote. A fairly large number of people supported the newly-elect President in central Ukraine, in the east and the south. And these are all people who sincerely seek a settlement in any event. During his election campaign President Zelensky continuously spoke about his readiness to do everything to solve this crisis. And then literally just yesterday, while in Paris, I think, he said suddenly he does not believe it is possible to hold talks with what he called separatists. This is clearly at odds with what he said during his election campaign.

Oliver Stone: So no change?

Vladimir Putin: Unfortunately, none for the time being.

Oliver Stone: Do you think there’s any revulsion? I mean, you were telling me about Ukraine and Russia. Do you think there is any reason for this hatred of Russia in Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: You know, our relationship is not easy at the moment. This is the result of the grievous events linked with the coup d’état. The other part of this story is propaganda by the current government in Ukraine, which blames Russia for all the tragic events that ensued.

Oliver Stone: Well, historically, do you see these two countries coming together again?

Vladimir Putin: I think this is inevitable. At any rate, the cultivation of normal, friendly and, even more than friendly, allied relations is inevitable.

Oliver Stone: Yeah. Mr Medvedchuk would be a good liaison.

Vladimir Putin: I believe so. But our positions, our points of view, differ on many things. Mr Medvedchuk was born in the family of a man that was said to be convicted during the Soviet times for nationalist activities. He was born in Siberia, where his family and his father virtually lived in exile.

Oliver Stone: What’s the connection?

Vladimir Putin: Connection between what?

Oliver Stone: All this story to my question?

Vladimir Putin: The connection is that he has his own ideas about Ukraine and the Ukrainian people. For example, I believe that Russians and Ukrainians are actually one people.

Oliver Stone: One people, two nations?

Vladimir Putin: One nation, in fact.

Oliver Stone: You think it is one nation?

Vladimir Putin: Of course. Look, when these lands that are now the core of Ukraine, joined Russia, there were just three regions – Kiev, the Kiev region, northern and southern regions – nobody thought themselves to be anything but Russians, because it was all based on religious affiliation. They were all Orthodox and they considered themselves Russians. They did not want to be part of the Catholic world, where Poland was dragging them.

I understand very well that over the time the identity of this part of Russia crystallized, and people have the right to determine their identity. But later this factor was used to throw into imbalance the Russian Empire. But in fact, this is the same world sharing the same history, same religion, traditions, and a wide range of ties, close family ties among them.

At the same time, if a significant part of people who live in Ukraine today believe that they should emphasise their identity and fight for it, no one in Russia would be against this, including me. But, bearing in mind that we have many things in common, we can use this as our competitive advantage during some form of integration; it is obvious. However, the current government clearly doesn’t want this. I believe that in the end common sense will prevail, and we will finally arrive at the conclusion I have mentioned: rapprochement is inevitable.

Oliver Stone: I don’t think Mr Medvedchuk would agree. He would say: two nations, similar people. That what he would say, take a strong line on that.

Vladimir Putin: He doesn’t. That is what I am saying.

Oliver Stone: That’s what I’m saying. He does not agree.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, of course. This is what I am saying: our positions on some things, important ones, are different. But at the same time, he speaks in favour of establishing good relations with Russia in order to use these competitive advantages in the economy. He shows how today the Ukrainian economy is completely destroyed because it has lost the Russian market and, most importantly, cooperation in industry. Nobody needs Ukrainian industrial goods on Western markets, and that goes for agriculture too: very few goods are purchased. Round timber is in demand, but soon there will be no timber in Ukraine at all. It’s not like the vast expanses of Siberia.

For example, Europe often takes some steps towards Ukraine – or did so until recently – with, say, permitting purchases of round timber. And this is just one example. In fact, there are many more.

Oliver Stone: Well, someone told me today that Mr Medvedchuk’s party, For Life Party, is up 12 percent in the polls. So he is building a party that has a following, it seems to me.

Vladimir Putin: If so, that is good. To be honest, I don’t know. But if kit is true, that is good.

If so, we can only welcome this because he and his partners in the party stand for restoring relations with Russia. How could we not welcome that? Of course, we welcome it. I have known him for a long time. He keeps his word. If he says something, he does it.

Oliver Stone: So, he is a very courageous man, I think. His villa was bombed, his offices were bombed. He is under threat all the time. He is hanging in there, staying in his country.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, this is true because he has convictions. I mentioned that his father was a Ukrainian nationalist and was convicted by a Soviet court for this. Strange as it may seem but the founders, many founders of Ukrainian nationalism advocated good relations with Russia. They said good relations were necessary for the development of Ukraine itself.

Oliver Stone: When was that?

Vladimir Putin: This was in the 19th century. They came out for Ukraine’s independence but said that Ukraine must preserve good, friendly relations with Russia. Mr Medvedchuk adheres to similar ideas. This is why he has convictions. I may not agree with his position on something but I always respect it.

Oliver Stone: Yeah, two nations he says. When I hear the words “Ukrainian nationalism,” I get worried, because I think of Stepan Bandera and people who have convictions too.

Vladimir Putin: Me, too.

Oliver Stone: Ukrainian nationalism is dangerous too.

Vladimir Putin: In general nationalism is a sign of narrow-mindedness but I do not want to offend Mr Medvedchuk.

Oliver Stone: It’s words.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, but in any event, he is in the category of people who advocate independence, the consolidation of an independent Ukraine, but at the same time believe that it is easier to achieve this by pursuing cooperation with Russia. And I think he is largely right.

Oliver Stone: You’re very clear.

You talked about the coup d’état. Just want to revisit that because there has been a lot more research done. It seems that research has revealed that there were shooters, snipers at the Maidan. The forensics with the angle of shooting, bodies of the police and the protestors. It was all very badly investigated. Not at all really. But what evidence we have seems to point to there being, they say, Georgian shooters, people from Georgia. And I’ve heard that. Have you heard anything more on the Russian front?

Vladimir Putin: No but I know what you are talking about. I know that the authorities headed by President Yanukovych at that time did not use the army and were not interested in giving any excuse to the opposition to use force. And, as Mr Yanukovych told me repeatedly, it did not even occur to him to use force and the military against civilians, even against those who had already taken up arms. I completely rule out that he could have done this, but those who were looking for a pretext to stage a coup could have well done it, of course.

Oliver Stone: I remember you were telling me about the Obama phone call, Obama and you had an agreement that there would be no firing on the last day. And he gave you a promise that he would…

Vladimir Putin: You know, while Obama is no longer President, there are certain things we do not discuss in public. At any rate, I can say that the US did not follow through on the agreements that we reached during this phone call. I will stop there without going into detail.

Oliver Stone: Yes. So recently, you know Russia has been obviously accused and accused over and over again of interference in the 2016 election. As far as I know there is no proof, it has not turned up. But now in the US there has been an investigation going on about Ukraine’s interference in the election. It seems that it was a very confusing situation, and Poroshenko seems to have been very strongly pro-Clinton, anti-Trump.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, this is no secret.

Oliver Stone: Do you think there was interference?

Vladimir Putin: I do not think that this could be interpreted as interference by Ukraine. But it is perfectly obvious that Ukrainian oligarchs gave money to Trump’s opponents. I do not know whether they did this by themselves or with the knowledge of the authorities.

Oliver Stone: Where they giving information to the Clinton campaign?

Vladimir Putin: I do not know. I am being honest. I will not speak about what I do not know. I have enough problems of my own. They assumed Mrs Clinton would win and did everything to show loyalty to the future US administration. That is nothing special. They wanted the future President to have a good opinion of them. This is why they allowed themselves to make unflattering statements about Trump and supported the Democrats in every possible way. This is no secret at all. They acted almost in public.

Oliver Stone: You do not want to go any further on that because you do not have any information?

Vladimir Putin: You know, this would be inappropriate on my part. If I said something more specific, I would have to put some documents, some papers on the table.

Oliver Stone: You understand that it has huge implications because Mr Trump would be very grateful?

Vladimir Putin: I did not interfere then, I do not want to interfere now, and I am not going to interfere in the future.

Oliver Stone: But that is a noble motive. Unfortunately, the world has degenerated in these two years, with all this backbiting and accusations, dirty fighting. Anyway…

Vladimir Putin: There are no rules at all. It is no holds barred.

Oliver Stone: Well, you have rules. You say no interference.

Vladimir Putin: I have principles.

Oliver Stone: Ok. But you seem to have rules based on those principles.

Vladimir Putin: Well, yes.

Oliver Stone: Ok. Well, you are fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

Vladimir Putin: Why? You mean, because of these principles?

Oliver Stone: Yes. If you knew something about the election, it would tilt the balance in a very weird way.

Vladimir Putin: I think this is simply unrealistic. I have said so many times.

Oliver Stone: What is unrealistic?

Vladimir Putin: To change anything. If you want to return to US elections again – look, it is a huge country, a huge nation with its own problems, with its own views on what is good and what is bad, and with an understanding that in the past few years, say ten years, nothing has changed for the better for the middle class despite the enormous growth of prosperity for the ruling class and the wealthy. This is a fact that Trump’s election team understood. He understood this himself and made the most of it.

No matter what our bloggers – or whoever’s job it is to comment on the internet – might say about the situation in the US, this could not have played a decisive role. It is sheer nonsense. But our sympathies were with him because he said he wanted to restore normal relations with Russia. What is bad about that? Of course, we can only welcome this position.

Oliver Stone: Apparently, it excited the Clinton people a lot. The Clinton campaign accumulated the “Steele dossier.” They paid for it. It came from strange sources, the whole “Steele dossier” issue. Some of it comes from Ukraine. They also went out of their way, it seems to me, with the CIA, with Mr Brennan, John Brennan, and with Clapper, James Clapper, and Comey of the FBI. They all seem to have gotten involved, all intelligence agencies, in an anti-Trump way.

Vladimir Putin: They had levers inside the government, but there is nothing like that here. They applied administrative pressure. It always gives an advantage in countries such as the USA, some countries of Western Europe, about 2 percent on average, at a minimum.

Oliver Stone: Two percent? What are you talking about?

Vladimir Putin: Yes. According to experts, those with administrative pressure they can apply always have a 2 percent edge. You can look at it differently. Some experts believe that in different countries, it can vary, but in countries such as the United States, some European countries, the advantage is 2 percent. This is what experts say, they can be wrong.

Oliver Stone: I do not know. I heard of the one percent, but it seems to get more like 12 percent.

Vladimir Putin: That is possible, depending on how it is used.

Oliver Stone: Well, you are not disagreeing. You are saying that it was quite possible that there was an attempt to prevent Donald Trump from coming into office with a soft, I will call it a soft coup d’état?

Vladimir Putin: In the USA?

Oliver Stone: Yes.

Vladimir Putin: It is still going on.

Oliver Stone: A coup d’état is planned by people who have power inside.

Vladimir Putin: No, I do not mean that. I mean lack of respect for the will of the voters. I think it was unprecedented in the history of the United States.

Oliver Stone: What was unprecedented?

Vladimir Putin: It was the first time the losing side does not want to admit defeat and does not respect the will of the voters.

Oliver Stone: I would disagree. I would say it happened in 2000, that the Republicans lost the popular vote, they lost Florida, and they did not accept that, and they had a coup d’état in their way, a soft coup d’état also. And they put Bush in.

Vladimir Putin: But this was a court decision, as far as I remember.

Oliver Stone: Yeah, in a way, but the court decision was blocked. There was a vote going on. And if you remember the Brooks brothers’ riot, all those Republicans rushed to electoral offices in Miami, and they prevented the vote from going through in a county, in one of those major counties. It was a key factor. It was not like the Russian revolution. It was a minor event, but it was big. It shifted the momentum, totally. I remember that night. Then they referred it to the Supreme Court. Also, and the same thing in January 2017, when the intelligence assessment was released, what was it, January 7th,, a few days before Trump was to be inaugurated, the intelligence assessment actually said that the intelligence agencies suspected Trump would have been colluding with Russia. That is even bigger. That is an attempt at a coup d’état, because the electors in America still had the right to overturn the election vote.

Vladimir Putin: This is what they call unscrupulous application of administrative pressure.

Oliver Stone: Ok, ok, ok. Well, listen, it seems to be going on a lot more than we know. Talking about America and Russia, I have not seen you since the Kerch Strait. Any comments on that?

Vladimir Putin: No, I do not, as we have repeatedly said. The former President, Mr Poroshenko, staged this provocation intentionally during the election campaign. He was aware that people in the country’s east and south would not vote for him, and he used this provocation to escalate the situation and then declare a state of emergency there. I have reason to believe that he was going to declare a state of emergency in the entire country, and possibly to postpone the election as a result. Generally speaking, he was trying to hold on to power at all costs, and he was seeking any means to execute this plan. This was the regime’s death throes.

As far as I remember, recently the newly appointed Chief of the Ukrainian army’s General Staff has made a statement that offers roughly the same interpretation of events but perhaps using milder language.

Oliver Stone: Who gave that interpretation?

Vladimir Putin: Chief of the General Staff of the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

Oliver Stone: Ok, but beyond Poroshenko, the United States has a shadow here. The United States knows what he is doing, and supported it.

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely.

Oliver Stone: It is the creation of a strategy of tension that worries me enormously. I have seen this happen in so many places now. I think I read on Monday, the Russian bombers, the Russian SU-57 escorted, what was it, the B-52 bomber, a nuclear bomber, US bomber, close to the Russian borders.

Vladimir Putin: The Su-57 aircraft are just entering service. This is a fifth-generation jet fighter. It was the Su-27 that was mentioned.

Oliver Stone: Do you think that is normal?

Vladimir Putin: Actually, it is sad, probably, but this is common practice. US aircraft did not enter our airspace, and our aircraft did not conduct any high-risk maneuvers.

But generally speaking, this is not great. Just look where the Baltic or Black seas are located, and where the USA is. It was not us who approached US borders, but US aircraft that approached ours. Such practices had better stop.

Oliver Stone: In this continuing strategy of tension, there was a report in The New York Times last week that the Obama Administration, before they left office, put in what they call a cyber warfare device. It was inserted in Russian infrastructure in January 2017.

Vladimir Putin: This is being discussed almost openly. It was said Russia would be punished for interfering in the election campaign. We do not see anything extraordinary or unexpected here. This should be followed closely. That is the first thing.

The second is I believe that we only need to negotiate how we are to live in this high-tech world and develop uniform rules and means of monitoring each other’s actions. We have repeatedly proposed holding talks on this subject to come to some binding agreement.

Oliver Stone: Continuing that theme of strategy of tension, how is Russia affected by the US-Iranian confrontation?

Vladimir Putin: This worries us because this is happening near our borders. This may destabilize the situation around Iran, affect some countries with which we have very close relations, causing additional refugee flows on a large scale plus substantially damage the world economy as well as the global energy sector. All this is extremely disturbing. Therefore we would welcome any improvement when it comes to relations between the US and Iran. A simple escalation of tension will not be advantageous for anyone. It seems to me that this is also the case with the US. One might think that there are only benefits here, but there will be setbacks as well. The positive and negative factors have to be calculated.

Oliver Stone: Yeah. Scary.

Vladimir Putin: No, this is not scary.

Oliver Stone: You sound very depressed, much more depressed than last time.

Vladimir Putin: Last time the situation concerning Iran was not like this. Last time nobody said anything about getting into our energy and other networks. Last time the developments were more positive.

Oliver Stone: The situation is worse now?

Vladimir Putin: Take North Korea, they have also rolled back a bit. Trade wars are unfolding.

Oliver Stone: Venezuela.

Vladimir Putin: Venezuela as well. In other words, regrettably, the situation has not improved, so there is nothing special to be happy about. On the other hand, we feel confident. We have no problems.

Oliver Stone: Well, you are an optimist, and always have been?

Vladimir Putin: Exactly.

Oliver Stone: You are a peacemaker.

Vladimir Putin: Absolutely spot on.

Oliver Stone: So obviously, you have to get together with the Americans, and the Chinese, and the Iranians. I know.

Vladimir Putin: Just do not put the blame on us. Lately no matter what is happening, we always get the blame.

Oliver Stone: Well, the irony is that Mr Trump came to office promising that he was not going to interfere in other countries. He made this overall strategy, he was against the wars that we have started, and ever since he has been in office, it has got worse. Why, one wonders? Is he in charge, or are other people pushing these agendas?

Vladimir Putin: I think he is against this now, too. But life is complicated and diverse. To make the right decision it is necessary to fight for what you believe in.

Oliver Stone: Yeah, conviction.

It is your fourth term, are you getting tired?

Vladimir Putin: No, if I had been tired, I would not have run for the fourth term.

Oliver Stone: Ok. Listen, can I find out something? Let’s take a pause. I just want to ask my director if he wants to ask any more things about Ukraine. Five minutes?

Vladimir Putin: The director always has the final word; after all, he is the one calling the shots.

Oliver Stone: Thank you.

I think we are fine.

Vladimir Putin: Very well. Are we done?

Thank you so much.

Oliver Stone: Thank you, sir.

Vladimir Putin: Are you going back to the States?

Oliver Stone: I am very worried about you.

Vladimir Putin: Why?

Oliver Stone:I can see there are so many problems. It weighs you down. It is sad to see. It is a tough situation.

Vladimir Putin: It is all right. We have seen worse.

Oliver Stone: Russian bombes in Syria. What has happened to Skripal? Where is he?

Vladimir Putin: I have no idea. He is a spy, after all. He is always in hiding.

Oliver Stone: They say he was going to come back to Russia. He had some information.

Vladimir Putin: Yes, I have been told that he wants to make a written request to come back.

Oliver Stone: He knew still and he wanted to come back. He had information that he could give to the world press here in Russia.

Vladimir Putin: I doubt it. He has broken the ranks already. What kind of information can he possess?

Oliver Stone: Who poisoned him? They say English secret services did not want Sergei Skripal to come back to Russia?

Vladimir Putin: To be honest, I do not quite believe this. I do not believe this is the case.

Oliver Stone: Makes sense. You do not agree with me?

Vladimir Putin: If they had wanted to poison him, they would have done so.

Oliver Stone: Ok, that makes sense. I don’t know. Who did then?

Vladimir Putin: After all, this is not a hard thing to do in today’s world. In fact, a fraction of a milligram would have been enough to do the job. And if they had him in their hands, there was nothing complicated about it. No, this does not make sense. Maybe they just wanted to provoke a scandal.

Oliver Stone: I think it is more complicated. You know, you think I am much too much of a conspiracy guy.

Vladimir Putin: I do not believe this.

Oliver Stone: I have seen things. I do.

Vladimir Putin: You should not. Take care of yourself.

Oliver Stone: Can we get a picture?

Remark: This is a great honour for us. Can we take a picture with you?

Vladimir Putin: With pleasure.

LUC MICHEL (ЛЮК МИШЕЛЬ) & EODE

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

Géopolitique – Géoéconomie – Géoidéologie – Géohistoire –

Géopolitismes – 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

LUCMICHEL.ORG-TV https://vimeo.com/lucmichelorgtv

* EODE :

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

WEBSITE http://www.eode.org/

LINKEDIN https://www.linkedin.com/in/luc-michel-eode-600661163/