A European Union powerless destabilize Ukraine and asks for help to the USA.
A European Union (EU) impotent has helped to destabilize the Ukraine, has ignited a clash international, has been challenged by Vladimir Putin with the annexation of the Crimea to Russia. He finally entrusted to the United States of America the solution to the crisis despite the humiliations suffered by wiretaps and the beats of the Undersecretary USA Victoria Nuland.
With regard to the European Union, the conduct of all its political actors during the entire course of the crisis were disconcerting and dropouts. With reference to the European institutions, any democratic government in charge who behaved with the same incompetence would have to answer for it in front of their parliament, and certainly would have received a vote of no confidence. For their part, the media, responding to criticism of their duty, they would condemn the conduct of the executive and the citizens themselves would have had every right to take to the streets and activate forms of civil protest.
In the European Union-led Intergovernmental everything was not seen for a long time and the public does not sanction the absence of a European foreign policy, as sanctioned by force the reluctance of the European institutions to intervene for the completion of the 'economic and Monetary Union and the relaunch of the constituent Assembly. Nor can it be said that the behavior of the European institutions and the main countries shall, in respect of the Ukrainian question, has moved the national political forces and the great European families of the parties, in a politically sensitive time for the approach of the European elections in May . Faced with such inanity and incompetence it's no wonder the widespread distrust of Europe, the spread of Euroscepticism and populist nationalism.
* *
The EU has shown on this issue for months ignava Ukrainian despite the terms of the problem had been known for a long time both in Brussels and in the main European registries. [1] For years, because of its access to independence in 1991 following the dissolution of USSR, Ukraine was a country politically, economically and socially divided European option and guarded by Russia for its possible slipping into the EU and NATO. Given the sensitivity Russian, Brussels has always been considered a priority, until recently, the partnership relations with Moscow and has set relations with Kiev only on a subordinated basis, specifying the limits of its intervention in the internal affairs. It is worth remembering that in the face of the "Orange Revolution" of 2004, driven by electoral fraud aimed at preventing the victory of Viktor Yushchenko, the pro-Western candidate for the presidency of the Republic, the then High Representative for the CFSP, Javier Solana, he went to Kiev to affirm the European interest to the regularity of elections but excludes the existence of any European project for Ukraine's accession to the EU. [2]
It should be added that Solana had published the previous year documentoUn'Europa secure a better world, approved by the European Council of 12 December 2003, in which he defined a European security strategy essentially still valid today. After noting the global challenges in the course (security, availability of natural resources and energy dependence), the High Representative gave directions for action on two axes: the creation of a multilateral world organized and effective, and the construction of security in the areas border. Then identified the major European partners worldwide (USA, Russia, NATO and the UN) and regional ones (OSCE and Council of Europe) and recommended, specifically, an effective and balanced relationship with Russia, described as "a component of primary importance to our security and our prosperity, "for which advocated a strategic partnership with it on the basis of respect for the" common values ". [3]
Despite the lesson of 2004, a year in this part, the European Council is made conditional, however, limited by the interests of the middle eastern countries and in particular from Poland and Lithuania, President of the European Semester July-December 2013 European Council President Herman van Rompuy, Commission President José Manuel Barroso, and EU High Representative for foreign Affairs and security Policy Ashton europeaCatherine Union have all gone along with the negotiations on the Association Agreement and the Free Trade Agreement of 'Ukraine to the EU, ignoring the reactions of Moscow; which, between the summer and autumn 2013, he had already scored with barbed wire on the border with Ukraine, formerly free, and almost doubled the controls stuck in customs imports from Ukraine. The main national governments in Paris, Berlin and Rome [4] have not spoken for months, and the phone calls of Chancellor Merkel to President Putin when the situation was falling they only showed the margins to zero international influence of European nation no longer relevant.
The first step to groped to solve the crisis, after the overthrow of President Yanukovych in Kiev in February and the pro-Russian Crimean referendum on 6 March, was entrusted to direct contacts between the Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Russian Sergei Lavrov.
A second step, not decisive, diplomatic action enabled to overcome the crisis was the Joint Statement, Statement on Geneva Ukraina, signed April 17, 2014 in Geneva, representatives from the EU, the USA, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Ukraine. The document committed the signatories on the cessation of violence and provocation, has mobilized an OSCE mission for the implementation of the measures of peace, under the supervision of American and Russian, and has opened in a constitutional process, based on the internal dialogue between the political forces in Ukraine, respectful of all regions and the interests at stake. [5] the agreement, the result of the Russian-American contacts, was immediately called inadequate by President Barack Obama, while Russian President Vladimir Putin in his television interview April 17 has always made it clear that it would maintain its freedom of action. [6] However, the moves by the Russian President appeared aimed at not further inflame the conflict. Has asked the Ukrainian pro-Russian breakaway of the eastern provinces to postpone the referendum announced for May 11, in truth without being heard; has eased the Russian military presence on the border of Ukraine and announced that he would respect the outcome of the Ukrainian elections on 25 May.
The third step, which is also the interim, it has had with the direct and informal meeting between Presidents Obama and Putin's June 5, 2014 in France, on the sidelines of the celebration of the seventieth anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy, in a climate of due willingness to talk to a diplomatic game still to play and especially direct, for the moment, to monitor the developments of the crisis as it emerged in the G7 meeting of 4 June in Brussels. From the western part called on Russia to remove its support for separatists in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk and to start a dialogue with the new President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, elected May 25, to find a political solution to the insurgency. In turn, Russia calls for an end to repression the movement's military splinter group from Kiev and the opening of negotiations sull'assetto federal Ukrainian state that respects the internal differences of the population in terms of ethnicity, language and religion.
Both in Geneva, and in Normandy, we are faced with attempts to lull inconclusive fundamental questions, but the thing certain, at the moment, is that the game is led by the President of the Russian Federation which has increased its room for maneuver with the agreement signed with China on May 21 for a thirty-year supply of gas by 400 billion dollars and with the foundation del'Unione Eurasian occurred on May 29, even with the absence of Ukraine. [7]
2. Ukraine, a country divided and disputed.
The criteria for assessing the Ukrainian situation already in possession of Brussels and the European registries, and were the basis for the European line during the "Orange Revolution" of 2004, were also confirmed by recent events. Ukraine remains a country divided between the option pro-Western and pro-Russian. The components of either party have difficulty in mutual dialogue and understanding.
The divisions are likely to emerge out of the complex and dramatic story of a border region between Central Europe and Eastern Europe, and especially of the numerous events of the twentieth century. The country has seen a swing western frontier as a result of the events of the First World War and the Peace of Brest Litovsk (1917), the Polish-Soviet War (1919-1921) and the Second World War. At the end of the Second World War the USSR was definitively incorporated parts of Galicia in Ukraine (Lviv), Ruthenia and Bukovina (Cernowitz), all Habsburg territories passed between the two World Wars, respectively, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania. In addition, after the Bolshevik Revolution, the central and eastern part of the country was the scene of events that have left their mark: the clash between the White Army General Anton Denikin Tsarist and the Red Army of Leon Trotsky; Soviet industrialization of the eastern provinces, where it still focuses the great coal and steel industry, mechanical engineering, chemical and aerospace industries of the country; the forced collectivization of the land and the repression of the peasants wealthy owners or average (kulaks); the famine years of 1932-33 determined by the same disorder in the countryside. The whole territory was still dramatic theater of the war between 1941 and 1944, by the advance of Germany and the Soviet counter-offensive, and the Holocaust. The Germans also formed Ukrainian departments of the Wehrmacht and the SS in particular that, among other things, were used in the suppression of the uprising of the Warsaw Ghetto (1943). Unfortunately, traces of the past that have emerged in the demonstrations in favor of the Association Agreement and the EU in particular in Lviv, where 27 January 2014, as a day of remembrance anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, have appeared praising protesters Stepan Bandera, a nationalist leader between the two world wars.
Both in the tsarist period, both in the Soviet nobody has ever questioned in Moscow the relationship with Ukraine, which is considered an integral part of the political system and of Russian history. Ukrainian personality of relief, as Khrushchev and Brezhnev, are joined at the top of the Soviet Union. Kruschev in 1954 attributed the Crimea, historically Russian, Ukraine as part of a transfer of powers considered administrative in nature, given the centralization of Moscow led by the Communist Party. It should be noted that the Soviet Ukraine in 1924 was formally a federal republic in the USSR with its government structures and national, such as Belarus, with its own representation at the UN since 1946.
The independent Ukraine took part in the founding of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in 1991 but has never ratified the Treaty of Accession on 19 March 2014 and canceled, finally, finally this commitment. After the dissolution of the USSR, all governments Ukrainians have always engaged in their programs of EU membership, including those led by members of defined pro-Russian, as President Viktor Yanukovich, in office since 2010 and toppled on February 22 2014 by the vote of the parliament in Kiev as a result of the pressures of the square. It 'was just the President Yanukovich to conduct negotiations with the EU, but then suspended in December 2013, the signing of the Association Agreement and free trade, as a result of the pressing invitations, and programs of aid promised by Russia for participation in the alternative project of the Eurasian Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan. The demonstrations in Kiev, started just last fall for the growing trend in favor of Yanukovych in Moscow, which offered immediate economic aid to $ 15 billion purchase of Treasury securities Ukrainian and price reductions for supplies of gas from 400 to 268.50 U.S. dollars per thousand cubic meters. Previously, when he was in opposition, Yanukovych had always spoken out against the openings to Europe.
Yanukovych was clumsy in relations with the EU, with street demonstrations repressed with brutal harshness, and finally appeared clumsy even against the same Putin who, after his flight from Kiev in late February has completely abandoned.
It should be added that the attempt of the mission in Kiev February 21, 2014 the three ministers Fabius (France), Sikorski (Poland) and Steinmeier (Germany), to promote dialogue between government and opposition, has failed and the next day there was the immediate overthrow of the Yanukovych presidency by a parliamentary majority, which also included members of his own party (party of Regions). The Parliament has almost unanimously took the decision under pressure from a popular event that was heading towards his home and in which, as already seen for days, teams were armed and violent movements of the right Pravij Sektor eSvoboda. In the weeks before there were even occupations of police headquarters, seizures belonging to the police, armed clashes between demonstrators and police departments with dead and wounded on both sides.
In the new provisional government, formed in anticipation of the elections to elect the new President of the Republic, replacing Yanukovych, convened for 25 May and headed by the Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenjuk party Patria, [8] came representatives of Svoboda. These episodes have allowed Russia to define a coup overthrowing Yanukovych and in any case there is no reason, as in other cases (Yushchenko in 2001), [9] that the behavior of the square and the sudden conversion of the Parliament against Yanukovych, where he possessed a majority following the free elections of 2010, never challenged in the country, has taken place under pressure from the power system of the oligarchs.
The escape of Yanukovich in Russia and the establishment of a new interim government in Kiev, launched one of the worst political crises in the post-Cold War era. Immediately after the military forces "unidentifiable" took control of the Crimean peninsula, a region with a majority Russian population, that Sunday, March 16 voted massively in favor of the annexation in a referendum in Moscow. [10]
3 A State "fragile" to re-establish.
Ukraine is a country "fragile", if not "failed." From the declaration of independence in 1991 to date, no government has raised the issue of consolidating the political-institutional and economic modernization. Despite its formal autonomy within the Soviet Union, the country has never developed a political class as a truly national Kiev government bodies were the drive belt orders from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. With independence, the country found itself divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian, and this has prevented the introduction of robust reform by exposing it to fluctuations in international politics. In the period 1991-2000, Ukraine has seen to reduce by two-thirds its GDP due to the repercussions of the financial crisis of 1998 Similarly, after the crisis of 2007-08 has registered a fall in GDP of a third party, in part then recovered. Currently, the nominal GDP of about $ 190 billion, is twice the value of 1991 ($ 90 billion), while the Russian has tripled and that of Poland will be multiplied by 7.5 times. [11] Ukraine has a population of over 45 million people, with a product per capita among the lowest in Europe a little over $ 4,000 a year, uncompetitive industries with high rates of energy consumption and highly polluting. Not by chance more than 5 million Ukrainians migrated.
Privatization, as in the nineties in Russia and other countries are already members of the Soviet Union, were made hastily for the benefit of a group of oligarchs from the former Communist Party hierarchy. Even the political class that has so far underpinned the country comes from the files of the former Communist Party openly and is conditioned by the oligarchic power. The transition to a market economy has resulted in a labor-political acute, with rapid concentration of wealth in the hands of a narrow circle of power and the lowering of the living conditions of the majority of the population, among other private services health and welfare first issued by the State, because of their privatization. The exchange political parties-oligarchs-voters were right so far on the policy of subsidies dished out by the government and controlled prices for domestic and industrial uses of gas imported from Russia and the coal produced in the Donbass basin. The Department of Energy is free to allocate the subsidies that reduce to 1/5 the price of gas and half those of coal, feeding, thus, corruption and waste. The network of gas distribution was privatized without controls, does not produce profits and tax revenue for the state. Is not subject to efficient maintenance and is subject to loss and theft that also affect transit flows to Western Europe.
The cheap energy is a legacy of the Soviet system. However, after the country's independence, together with the existence of a parallel market fueled by subsidies, this policy has generated a strong flow of income, up to 5% of the national GDP in some years, which has been monopolized by oligarchic groups through the sale to Europeans and industries, such as steel or the production of fertilizers, energy-intensive. The flow of income has produced a ruling class, politics and business, interested in maintaining the status quo. The well-known protagonists of the current policy, Yanukovych, Tymoshenko, Turchynov, Poroshenko, Yatsenjuk are the protagonists of the "Orange Revolution" of 2004 and constitute the executive team which has alternated in power in the last twenty years. Nobody had any interest in reducing dependence on Russian gas imports and disagreements within the family oligarchic concerned the distribution of the annuity. The reduction of external energy dependence from 50% to 40% is the result of the consideration in March 2010, signed by then Prime Minister Julia Tymoshenko (previously enriched with brokerage gas) with the Russian supplier Gazprom. [12 ] This explains the process which was then subjected Tymoshenko and it seems, finally, that the revolt of the power system against Yanukovich was determined by the reaction of the other oligarchs in his attempt to capture a higher yield on Russian supplies cheap deals by Putin.
The benefits for the population and the production system due to the low prices of energy have always been canceled in the post-Soviet period by poor governance, widespread corruption, high intensity of CO2 emissions and abandonment of agriculture.
For years, there are no significant investments to enhance the gas fields in the country. The state budget, finally, is burdened by deficits and public debt, both elevated and containment impossible given the state of the economy bankrupt.
Today, Russia has a claim for unpaid deliveries of gas, [13] has led to March, the price of gas at about $ 500 after the establishment of the interim government of Arseny Yatsenjuk, claims the payment of supplies still unresolved, the return of the discounts granted in the past and threatens to close the gas tap. Moreover, in the face of this threat, the alternative hypothesis to supply gas to Ukraine by the EU network has two Slovak constraints. The first constraint is the fact that the EU is largely deficient of this resource and should still import it to turn itself from Russia, Algeria or in the future from Cyprus / Israel or the United States (shale gas); the second constraint is due to the time needed for the intervention on the systems of the network direct to reverse the flow of gas flows eastward since they were conceived in terms unidirectional.
It 'clear that the country lacked a strong leadership, able to lead the transition after the Soviet collapse, as it is partially occurred in Russia as a result of the financial crisis of 1998 As a result, the political system remains credible and subjected to blackmail of the major industrial and banking oligarchs. Not surprisingly important Western economic commentators are asking how can rehabilitate the country. [14]
The Treaty of association and free trade agreement with Ukraine provides for the immediate abolition of customs duties on 90% of imports by the European Union and the temporary suspension of Kiev adaptation to EU standards of production. This is not just because the country needs € 35 billion by the beginning of 2016, and you have to wonder who is ready to pay among the countries of the European Union after the resistances that arise with respect to aid for Greece, which also is a member country.
The EU has conditioned further their plans for aid, valued at € 11 billion, the consolidation measures set out by the IMF for the granting of loans: direct measures to remove the subsidy system and fighting corruption. A part of the same industrial system is concerned the opening of the EU and the consequent commercial competition. The Treaty of association, in fact, will certainly have consequences on exports in 2012, according to media sources, it is directed to 12.9 billion euro to the EU and to 12.3 billion to Russia. Today, however, Moscow promises barriers able to reduce by 24% the flow while you do not have an immediate effect on increasing exports to the EU given the quality of the products, far from European standards. Imports from Russia account for one third of imports and national amounted to $ 18.8 billion primarily for gas. Data updates prices, and the industry, both families, given the levels of income, they are not able to bear the burden of the gas bill at international market prices.
For the moment, March 21, 2014 was signed in Brussels only the first part, the policy of the Association Agreement and the Free Trade Agreement between the EU and Ukraine. [15] It includes chapters on democratic values and foreign policy and security, in particular provides enhanced cooperation on regional issues, conflict prevention, crisis management, weapons of mass destruction and disarmament. EU leaders have pledged to sign later, after Ukraine's presidential election in May, the remaining chapters, economic and trade, energy, and those for visa liberalization. The new President of Petro Poroshenko, in his inaugural address on May 7, said he was ready to sign immediately with the remainder of the agreement, but the real problems to be solved are the ongoing destabilization in regions russofile, the game of Russia, and the possible negotiations between Brussels, Kiev and Moscow.
4 The option negotiation and the absence of a policy by the EU.
Europe can not afford the new explosion of violence in the country; nor can it accept that Russia will push Ukraine to a destructive civil war and internationally dangerous as you are still emerging.
About the secessionist demonstrations, bE can not forget the fact that they are in part fueled the approach monocultural and assimilationist monolinguista adopted by Ukrainian nationalists. The challenge is to maintain the unity of the Ukrainian state, thanks to its federalization of ethnic-linguistic-religious guaranteed at the international level, [16] alleviate social hardship due to the economic transition and at the same time guaranteeing civil rights and Russian political minority (about 20% of the population) and the Russian-speaking (another 20% of the population) of the country [17] as well as minorities Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar passed to Russia. Regarding the latter, it must realistically recognize the difficulty of his return under the sovereignty of Kiev after the referendum of 16 March and the Geneva Accords of 17 April 2014 silent on the issue. Russia can not give up direct control of the military naval base of Sevastopol and return to the condition of the tenant before the crisis. She knows that no one is willing to face a conflict for the Crimea. Russia also tends to take instrumentally protection of minorities in Ukraine and could extend this role arsonist in the Baltic republics, [18] with sizeable Russian minorities with limited political rights that conflict with the European treaties and the contents of the Charter of Fundamental Rights' EU. It is therefore necessary to offer reasons to avoid interference in Ukraine as in the Baltic countries.
As for the game of Russia, and especially in light of the negotiations concluded at Geneva, the point to be clarified is right where he wants to push the limits of President Putin and his brinkmanship. [19] He wants to split Ukraine to annex the regions russofile, branches of big industry with strategic assets for economic recovery in the Eurasian and the interconnections productive with the Russian arms industry, or want to build up a basis for the negotiations to obtain in the near future, from the western world and the Ukrainians' adherence to his plan of Eurasian Union? The first way is fatal and no political outlet, can open a new Cold War, a wound in the European context unbearable for the democratic West and capable of fostering terrorism and other forms of political instability and security. It will freeze on the EU's relations with Russia with mutual damage and the same design Putin's Eurasian Union would finally cracked. Become an imperial design and autocratic Russian, without aggregating capacity.
It 's on the limited room for maneuver in Moscow that the EU can and should play its role independently negotiating with Russia to establish long-term innovative arrangements, to strengthen mutual security and to save the fruitful cooperation in trade and technology. At the same time, to avoid the authoritarian impulses of the Kremlin, will be able to block the pro-Russian separatist provinces of eastern and southern Ukraine, so as to support the unity of the country by promoting inside the affirmation of the rule of law and well-being. Europe will therefore need to treasure the affirmation of Henry Kissinger: "For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy but an excuse for the lack of it". [20] demonize Putin, in fact, means just do not have a policy. And the absence of a policy is in itself a factor of internal disintegration for the EU since it pushes the individual members to divergent behavior in international relations according to their own national interests. Pushes the Baltic countries and Central and Eastern European (brought to put in their eastern border security that feel threatened, because of their historical experiences and the weak point left by the long Soviet rule) to take refuge under the protective umbrella of NATO, which is thus encouraged to project its expansion even in the former Soviet Union, causing the reactions of Moscow. On the other hand, the absence of a European policy destabilizes Russia also because it strengthens the authoritarian forces internal to the detriment of the affirmation of the liberal-democratic bodies within it.
Russia is not the Soviet Union nor the tsarist empire. It 'a country just come out and laboriously from the post-Soviet transition, with declining population and an economy that fails to diversify and become competitive in the globalized world, unable to escape the bonds of dependence on exports of energy sources and of arms and has a production potential not yet fully exploited. The current framework Russian leader wants to ensure external security for internal purposes. Globalization has weakened the instruments of sovereignty and Putin knows he can not isolate himself or suffer a multipolar international structurally unstable equilibrium. Today's Russia does not want to risk falling into the trap of good intentions as it did for the Western Gorbachev. [21] Moscow also has the constraint of control of a vast territory, with vast natural resources and sparsely populated, where there are temptations secessionist. Needs to restore structural interdependence established in the days of the USSR, as well as maintain their access to the seas and to have secure borders in Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. The Eurasian Union project has, first of all, the geopolitical importance for the revival of the CIS, otherwise the whole area of the former Soviet Asia could become the subject of contention with other neighbors, in particular with China. The EU can not ignore the extent stabilizer of this project and should actually support it with a good neighborhood policy and a strong driving force and model development.
Therefore, on the European side we need a change of political vision and strategy. It 's very important to respect the reflection expressed in a document of the Senate in 2008: "It is impossible to deny the difficulties faced by today's relations between Russia and the West. [...] Both have an interest in these cooperative ties are not broken. As for the European energy interdependence is by far the main factor that plays against a further worsening of relations, but it is not the only one. The EU most of the United States considers Russia a party to be treated equally and has a great interest in improving relations with Moscow and indeed widen to new areas of common interest. Ultimately, the best guarantee for a pragmatic rapprochement between Russia and the West is that between the EU and between Europeans and Americans can find a more coherent common approach on how to manage relations with Moscow and address the pending disputes. This implies in all probability a greater attention to the interests of Russian security and some inevitable concession to the demands of Moscow. The Kremlin has not, however, sufficient resources to successfully oppose a united front transatlantic enough. As long as can play on the divisions in the Western camp will be able to maintain the initiative on a number of issues. But if those divisions were to be overcome on the basis of a line that combines firmness and openness, should inevitably appear more willing to compromise and cooperation ". [22] It is clear from reading this that the EU must not only return dialogue with Russia but must also assume a role in relation to the USA. Must assume its responsibility without taking refuge under the protective umbrella of American powerless before being despised by Washington. We go half its international credibility, its independence, its cohesion.
5 The urgency of an equal partnership with the United States of America: the conditions.
The absence of a European foreign policy, understood in the broadest sense, is therefore the problem to be solved by the EU also with regard to relations with the United States of America, which can not, of course, be based on dependency and subordination. The definition of an independent political line, founded sullaequal partnership with Washingon, is the necessary condition for the EU to be able to deal with leading a constructive negotiation with Russia without leave to others the role of mediator.
In fact, it is reported that, after having triggered a crisis in relations between the West and Russia, the Europeans have asked for help to the United States, already engaged with Russia in a difficult diplomatic action to get out of the civil war in Syria and to negotiate the future of the Iranian nuclear issue. Both primary themes of European interest.
Answers on Ukraine by President Barack Obama, urged by the Europeans, were, the evidence shows, modest and not incisive Moscow, such as the suspension of Russia from the G8 with the cancellation of the summit in Sochi, the launch of limited sanctions such as the denial of visas for a limited number of Russian personalities. On the contrary, the bill presented by President Obama to the Europeans imploring protection was much more insidious and revealing. In particular, it should be noted that Obama has asked the Europeans concluded within one year of negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership has (TTIP), increased their spending on armaments, and has shown a willingness to sell their shale gas. Three offers on which Europeans should definitely consider.
The negotiation TTIP is, in fact, a complex negotiation whose outcome is likely to disrupt the supply chains infraeuropee that have emerged with the internal market and monetary union and could increase European technological dependence from the United States of America. European companies large or small would eventually be attracted to the cooperation with the sisters over the Atlantic, which have greater financial and technological opportunities, to the detriment of their co-operation and mutual reinforcement. Consequently, the cooperation with the United States would ultimately affect the cohesion infraeuropea, involving companies and European regions more competitive and marginalizing businesses and regions lagging behind. [23] Next, as regards the expenditure on armaments, individual European countries must priority rationalize their military systems and select the model best suited to defend a strategic concept truly European and supranational before increasing military spending today can not afford to fiscal consolidation in which they are engaged. Especially must decline the concept of defense in terms of safety (see document Solana 2003), which involves an independent foreign policy, democratic legitimacy, and aimed at strengthening the conditions for stability. Europeans must draw lessons from the end of hegemonies in progress and then commit to strengthen the structures of international governance partial to a regional or global; and try to create new ones, if necessary, for the construction of world peace according to the Kantian imperative.
In the context of globalization (without government), the balance multipolar world (fragile) and state sovereignty (unsustainable) there is no room for dangerous against power. The availability of weapons of mass destruction raises the risk of the Holocaust all mankind and the same conventional conflicts have proven not to solve problems but to exacerbate them (Iran-Iraq War, Afghanistan, Iraq, but also the civil wars, see Syria).
America, in turn, can not afford military commitments after the lost war in Vietnam, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It has no political reasons, nor resources, to support armed intervention. It can only monitor the level of international security with some muscle flexing as he did with the Ukrainian case, then trying to compromise. [24] On the basis of this perspective, President Obama called Russia a "regional power" and then carries of the dangers of second rank.
The United States considers, in fact, the Pacific theater of the most strategically important Eastern European because they are concerned about the expansion of China, a candidate country to bypass them as the first world power. [25] They also have the problem of protecting South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, South East Asia, and especially to avoid the dangerous temptations assert in Tokyo reset.
Finally, just to complete the analysis, the supply of shale gas is equivalent to the promotion of an alternative supply is available between years, that does not solve the crucial problem of the immediate dependence on external European Union.
* *
From these considerations, it clearly shows the need for rapid strengthening political institutions of the EU and the implementation of the federal government to give Europe its autonomy technology, production, efficiency and safety. Without autonomy becomes foolish servants, does not dominate the process and undermining the foundations of internal democracy as is happening in Europe with Euroscepticism and populism.
E 'for these reasons that it is necessary, urgent, an equal partnership with the United States of America.
The openings on the transatlantic trade and investment, you can do it from a position of equal strength, not with the Europeans in order. It is therefore essential to the completion by the European Economic and Monetary Union in its articulations banking union, fiscal, economic. The completion is not only a goal aimed to boost the credibility of the European process, but it is also a point of support for a structural economic and financial cooperation with the dollar area in terms of monetary stability and for a reform of the international monetary system which basis for the government of the processes of globalization. In addition, the EU should exceed the inter-governmental decision-making structure and give the federal structures of supranational government democratically legitimized for the efficiency of its capacity for decision and action.
The EU must be, moreover, clear development goals, consistent with the expectations of European citizens and the global environmental compatibility, [26] large European projects, as has happened in the past with Airbus, Ariane, the high-speed rail, and invest heavily in research, innovation and education. The analyzes are, the projects also must be activated. Europe must be able to impose its model of the world peace and sustainable development, attentive to the problems of compliance with environmental, health of humans, animals and plants, careful saving and energy efficiency and the dissemination of energy renewable for the reduction of CO2 emissions and to save and bequeath to future generations the current availability of hydrocarbons and coal mining. They can not, finally, be left out of the European reserves on nuclear power, after Fukushima and Chernobyl, and on the prospects offshore, after the disaster of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig off the coast of the United States of America in the Gulf of Mexico. Neither the European geological fragility may allow the exploitation of deposits of shale gas.
6 The limits of brinkmanship in Moscow.
The reflection on these points is especially strategic for the relationship with Russia. The EU needs to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their own and Russia to find a solution by negotiation of the Ukrainian question that he take away the risk of intensifying the fight, the civil war in Ukraine, a new east-comparison west fatal to democracy and the welfare of all.
The brinkmanship of Vladimir Putin has its limits, though the rapid annexation of the Crimea has temporarily strengthened in Moscow fueling Russian nationalism. Its weak point is not even considered by Western sanctions, difficult to achieve given the European dependency on Russian oil and gas imports. Its weakness lies in Russia that can not be closed and isolate themselves from the world if he wants to continue on the path of modernization and consolidation of the political, economic and social post-Soviet.
The base of domestic support of President Putin stands today sull'avvenuto reorganization of the state and of the Russian economy after years of disbandment of the presidency of Boris Yeltsin that led to the financial crisis of 1998 [27] The entire economy and administration public were then disbanded for lack of structural interventions. The dismantling of state capitalism and the planned economy had enriched a group of unscrupulous oligarchs come out of the nomenclature of the former CPSU. Civil servants and members of the armed forces had to wait months to receive his salary, companies traded on the basis of barter due to lack of circulation of money and the backwardness of the credit system, the investments were non-existent or nearly so. The very survival of the Russian Federation as entia state was at risk, threatened by the danger of disgregazone; in Chechnya had established a separatist revolt and terrorism also struck the city of Moscow. The Russian economy between 1991 and 1998 had fallen by 40% [28] and only then began a recovery that led to 123% relative to the initial reference. The recovery since 1991 has been only in 2007.
However, the recovery has failed to cope with the structural weaknesses of the economy inherited from the Soviet era. The growth of these years is attributable to exports of oil and gas, for which the country is respectively the first and the second largest producer in the world, and the export of armaments. The export of energy expressed by only 25% of national GDP. The rest of the productive economy is not internationally competitive, operates within a protected domestic market, is not supported by an adequate structure of financial services and business services, is in the hands of an oligarchic structure that domestic investment rather financial transactions around the world.
Putin with good and with bad manners is partially managed to put the bridle on the neck of the oligarchs and did condemn Mikhail Khodorkovsky and other more unruly, but has not released them. In addition, the analysis centers that support the government realize that you do not live in eternal export of oil and gas and have long set the objective of increasing the technological capabilities and competitiveness of the productive apparatus, foster innovation management of product and process. On the other hand, Russia is well aware that not only has to deal with the West, because in the south-east of Siberia, there is a China that year shows a high economic dynamism. However, the development in Russia continues to be insufficient. In 2013, she had to settle for a growth of only 1.23% and the current tensions caused the collapse of the international price of the ruble and fueled a flight abroad of Russian capital and foreign investment. By the end of 2014, the bleeding could reach $ 150 billion, according to Western estimates, equal to 7% of the nominal GDP of the Federation.
Russia, moreover, has always suffered from the whole of the siege, and therefore reacts more sensitively to signs of slipping of his neighbors into the EU and NATO. It should also be noted that, when Gorbachev discussed the reunification of Germany, is said to have obtained from the Western partners the verbal assurance that there would be no expansion of the NATO area in the event of dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Which, however, took place in Moscow and today finds himself in direct contact with NATO along the border of the Baltic countries and reacts strongly to any further NATO membership for countries already under Soviet control.
7 The EU's negotiating leeway for Ukraine.
The EU has, however, considered in its entirety as their strengths are higher than those of Russia and that there is interest nor European, nor Russian, dust off an atmosphere of Cold War. Apart from the interest in the European economic strategic cooperation with Russia, there are many other reasons that can allow a negotiating table for the definitive overcoming of the crisis in Ukraine.
The plan to build Eurasian Union has its foundation and meets the objective of calling in organic communication and on the basis of market measures the integrated production system already operating in the years of the Soviet Union. European cooperation is necessary for the exchange of technology and innovation drivers, including those in support of saving, efficiency and alternative energy production, environmental protection, and is also an endorsement to increase the decisive external 'domestic private investment, given that today the Russians direct their capital abroad instead.
The result will be that the emergence of a more pluralistic society, as has happened in our country with the process of European integration. A society structurally more oriented to demand democracy, rule of law and social equality, and then direct to counteract the forces in the increasingly centralized authoritarianism reason of the Muscovite state. The same process can open up in Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and other countries of the former USSR.
To achieve these objectives, the external role of the EU can begin to offer their own solutions to the crisis on the Ukrainian political and economic terms. The whole of Ukraine, in fact, has become a link between the two systems, rather than becoming a country divided by a partition wall between Europe and Eurasia, able to destabilize even Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan and so on. Ukraine may become a country hinge, however, only with the consent of the two areas to be related. On the political level, the compromise with Moscow revolves around guarantees to be provided for the holding of a federal structure of the Republic of Ukraine proposed by the Geneva agreements and guarantees for the levels of autonomy of the eastern and southern regions of Russia and Russian-speaking majority. In economic terms, the relations of Kiev with the EU are yet to be determined, but just in this area you can find a compromise with Russia, to establish the levels of openness to the west and east, and the launch of a joint plan of salvation economy Ukrainian. As argued by the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, the EU has made a critical mistake in asking Ukraine to renounce participation in the Eurasian Union. [29] On the other hand the issue of Ukraine's accession to the 'EU was not included in the EU-Ukraine programs, and this is also due to the fact that an accession treaty would be unlikely to be ratified by all 28 member countries. E'indubbio, at this point, that if you want to keep open the borders of Ukraine in the two directions, the association of Kiev EU membership once ruled, must be organized in the framework of the future that you want to say with the Russia and the Eurasian Union as a whole, emphasizing the interdependencies possible.
To this end, the EU should declare solemnly that there is a project of Ukraine's accession to the EU, that Europe's borders are defined and that the enlargement process will end with the accession of the Western Balkan countries residues. The European relations with neighboring countries will be classified by the partnerships.
In this approach, as already indicated for the equal partnership with the United States, is strategically decisive completion by the European Economic and Monetary Union, [30] the strengthening of political and institutional terms in federal efficiency of its capacity decision-making and action and the launch of an internal strategy of sustainable development, reducing dependence on external energy and technological upgrading of their employment. Europe can not sit at the negotiating table have in their bag without a credible package of offerings aimed at providing assistance to make it more efficient and competitive production systems Eurasian, more environmentally friendly, more energy saving and energy efficient to avoid accelerated consumption and indiscriminate use of hydrocarbon resources and coal required for future generations of Russia and the rest of the world.
8 The structural conditions for the evolutionary relationships US-EU-Russia: the OSCE framework.
The days of the Ukrainian crisis have taught us that you can not look to the relationship between the United States, Europe and Russia as at the time of the bipolar. You need to have a constructive and developmental, aimed at promoting the transition of the former Soviet Union countries to a market economy organized, internationally competitive, as a precondition for the establishment of fully democratic political system combined to possibly federal commitments.
Just to avoid that Moscow might suspect attempts hegemonic Western and other expansion of NATO, it is necessary to build a new structural framework of shared relationships and framework already available, within which a negotiated global open and insert the new relationship between the United States, the EU and Russia , is offered by the Organization for security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The OSCE is the largest international organization of security at regional, was born in 1995 by the Helsinki Accords of 1975 to the union of the relations between Western countries (I also belong the United States and Canada) and former Soviet countries. [31] Up to now it has not been adequately evaluated given the hegemonic role that they wanted to play the United States in its relations with Russia and given the prolonged inaction European Union. [32]
To ensure that the OSCE can become an appropriate framework of new relationships between the three areas, however, should be reformed on the institutional and policy instruments. Should first strengthen their skills in order to create a comprehensive system security policy. The NATO-Russia Council should be absorbed by the OSCE to eliminate the impression that it maintains hegemony of Washington; without considering that, if the EU was capable of becoming an actor driving the OSCE, the role of the Board would empty automatically. It would also be very important that the Organization for Security and Cooperation was equipped with a parliamentary assembly of the second level to foster political dialogue and specialized agencies to protect the freedom of competition in the three integrated areas (North America, Europe and Eurasia ) and, especially, to govern the production and distribution of energy with the objectives of reducing energy consumption pollutants. It could even be argued that, in order to avoid reactions from other world powers - the OSCE area collects the global North - the military conventional and nuclear OSCE countries were all placed at the disposal of the UN. This of course would change the current strategic concepts and encourage savings for the military spending of the actors involved with positive effects for humanity and for peace. In a framework of this kind of cooperation, the EU would secure the eastern borders, Russia would not suffer the whole of the siege and disagreements in recent times (such as the Crimea and, in general, protection of Russian minorities abroad) would be resized. The United States of America would have the advantage of being able to reduce its military spending in favor of internal programs of social assistance they need.
In a framework of this type pacified, the participation of Ukraine, Belarus, and together with another of a certain size, such as Kazakhstan, contribute to the revival of a CSI is not entirely conditioned by Moscow. Finally, it can not be overlooked the role of the EU external balancer. The EU could affect their trade openings and their technological cooperation to progress made by the CIS countries in terms of civil liberties and the rule of law. Political pressure and values of the structural framework of the OSCE and of the political model of liberal-democratic EU would be very strong on the wing and progressive social Eurasian area. As was the case with the process of European construction, the conservative forces present in the former USSR would be put in the corner. [33]
The European role is therefore crucial and Russia must realize that alone can not carry out his plan of Eurasian Union for a revival of the CSI prelude to the affirmation of a federal union. Without the backing of the European External and inclusion in the structural framework guaranteed by the OSCE, the project appears to be the revival of the imperial dream of Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union. Only Europe can give the project the brand name of peace, security, democracy and the protection of rights.
9 Conclusions.
A Europe-led Intergovernmental ignava impotent and has only been able in recent months to destabilize itself, relations with Eastern Europe and the rest of the world. It is not capable of expressing a policy bearer of its core values, enshrined in the Treaties (Articles. 2 and 3 of the Treaty of European Union).
The responsibility lies with the institutional leaders of the EU, the governments of the Member States, the political forces represented in Parliament and on the same company used for years in a Washington delegate decisions about their own development and their own safety. For years, European society applauds the launch of numerous smug "springs" in the world and then not take action to build the structural conditions so that they can succeed in an evolutionary way. It suffers the consequences. The recent cases are those of the "Arab Spring" and Ukraine.
The European Union complaining for some time a political deficit both internally and on that of external relations. Must immediately give signals of new guidelines on both sides and without delay to reduce dangerous tensions that have accumulated in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa. To reduce social tensions and intra generated by a monetary union without the support of a fiscal union and budget needed to support development.
The node is structural and can not be dissolved with small steps. The possibility of having the next President of the Commission appointed by a majority vote by the European Council on the basis of the election results makes this a realistic prospect. This is the crucial point of intervention of the new European Parliament and of the federalist and democratic forces represented in it to open the legislature from 2014 to 2019. Europe must choose democracy, say the federal method in place of the intergovernmental method.
This means that the new Parliament elected in May will also quickly take the initiative to convene a constitutional convention, open to all Member States available to discuss and approve a reform of the treaties aimed at giving the Union the supranational democratic discipline they need. Will affect his confidence in the new Commission sharing by the latter constituting the relaunch.
This is the only way that can allow you to show up at the table of international negotiations on overcoming the crisis in Ukraine and relations with Russia with a political project of cooperation in the building of peace, development and democracy.
This is dictated by the Nobel prize for peace that was awarded in 2012
A European Union (EU) impotent has helped to destabilize the Ukraine, has ignited a clash international, has been challenged by Vladimir Putin with the annexation of the Crimea to Russia. He finally entrusted to the United States of America the solution to the crisis despite the humiliations suffered by wiretaps and the beats of the Undersecretary USA Victoria Nuland.
With regard to the European Union, the conduct of all its political actors during the entire course of the crisis were disconcerting and dropouts. With reference to the European institutions, any democratic government in charge who behaved with the same incompetence would have to answer for it in front of their parliament, and certainly would have received a vote of no confidence. For their part, the media, responding to criticism of their duty, they would condemn the conduct of the executive and the citizens themselves would have had every right to take to the streets and activate forms of civil protest.
In the European Union-led Intergovernmental everything was not seen for a long time and the public does not sanction the absence of a European foreign policy, as sanctioned by force the reluctance of the European institutions to intervene for the completion of the 'economic and Monetary Union and the relaunch of the constituent Assembly. Nor can it be said that the behavior of the European institutions and the main countries shall, in respect of the Ukrainian question, has moved the national political forces and the great European families of the parties, in a politically sensitive time for the approach of the European elections in May . Faced with such inanity and incompetence it's no wonder the widespread distrust of Europe, the spread of Euroscepticism and populist nationalism.
* *
The EU has shown on this issue for months ignava Ukrainian despite the terms of the problem had been known for a long time both in Brussels and in the main European registries. [1] For years, because of its access to independence in 1991 following the dissolution of USSR, Ukraine was a country politically, economically and socially divided European option and guarded by Russia for its possible slipping into the EU and NATO. Given the sensitivity Russian, Brussels has always been considered a priority, until recently, the partnership relations with Moscow and has set relations with Kiev only on a subordinated basis, specifying the limits of its intervention in the internal affairs. It is worth remembering that in the face of the "Orange Revolution" of 2004, driven by electoral fraud aimed at preventing the victory of Viktor Yushchenko, the pro-Western candidate for the presidency of the Republic, the then High Representative for the CFSP, Javier Solana, he went to Kiev to affirm the European interest to the regularity of elections but excludes the existence of any European project for Ukraine's accession to the EU. [2]
It should be added that Solana had published the previous year documentoUn'Europa secure a better world, approved by the European Council of 12 December 2003, in which he defined a European security strategy essentially still valid today. After noting the global challenges in the course (security, availability of natural resources and energy dependence), the High Representative gave directions for action on two axes: the creation of a multilateral world organized and effective, and the construction of security in the areas border. Then identified the major European partners worldwide (USA, Russia, NATO and the UN) and regional ones (OSCE and Council of Europe) and recommended, specifically, an effective and balanced relationship with Russia, described as "a component of primary importance to our security and our prosperity, "for which advocated a strategic partnership with it on the basis of respect for the" common values ". [3]
Despite the lesson of 2004, a year in this part, the European Council is made conditional, however, limited by the interests of the middle eastern countries and in particular from Poland and Lithuania, President of the European Semester July-December 2013 European Council President Herman van Rompuy, Commission President José Manuel Barroso, and EU High Representative for foreign Affairs and security Policy Ashton europeaCatherine Union have all gone along with the negotiations on the Association Agreement and the Free Trade Agreement of 'Ukraine to the EU, ignoring the reactions of Moscow; which, between the summer and autumn 2013, he had already scored with barbed wire on the border with Ukraine, formerly free, and almost doubled the controls stuck in customs imports from Ukraine. The main national governments in Paris, Berlin and Rome [4] have not spoken for months, and the phone calls of Chancellor Merkel to President Putin when the situation was falling they only showed the margins to zero international influence of European nation no longer relevant.
The first step to groped to solve the crisis, after the overthrow of President Yanukovych in Kiev in February and the pro-Russian Crimean referendum on 6 March, was entrusted to direct contacts between the Secretary of State John Kerry and Foreign Minister Russian Sergei Lavrov.
A second step, not decisive, diplomatic action enabled to overcome the crisis was the Joint Statement, Statement on Geneva Ukraina, signed April 17, 2014 in Geneva, representatives from the EU, the USA, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Ukraine. The document committed the signatories on the cessation of violence and provocation, has mobilized an OSCE mission for the implementation of the measures of peace, under the supervision of American and Russian, and has opened in a constitutional process, based on the internal dialogue between the political forces in Ukraine, respectful of all regions and the interests at stake. [5] the agreement, the result of the Russian-American contacts, was immediately called inadequate by President Barack Obama, while Russian President Vladimir Putin in his television interview April 17 has always made it clear that it would maintain its freedom of action. [6] However, the moves by the Russian President appeared aimed at not further inflame the conflict. Has asked the Ukrainian pro-Russian breakaway of the eastern provinces to postpone the referendum announced for May 11, in truth without being heard; has eased the Russian military presence on the border of Ukraine and announced that he would respect the outcome of the Ukrainian elections on 25 May.
The third step, which is also the interim, it has had with the direct and informal meeting between Presidents Obama and Putin's June 5, 2014 in France, on the sidelines of the celebration of the seventieth anniversary of the Allied landings in Normandy, in a climate of due willingness to talk to a diplomatic game still to play and especially direct, for the moment, to monitor the developments of the crisis as it emerged in the G7 meeting of 4 June in Brussels. From the western part called on Russia to remove its support for separatists in the eastern regions of Donetsk and Luhansk and to start a dialogue with the new President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko, elected May 25, to find a political solution to the insurgency. In turn, Russia calls for an end to repression the movement's military splinter group from Kiev and the opening of negotiations sull'assetto federal Ukrainian state that respects the internal differences of the population in terms of ethnicity, language and religion.
Both in Geneva, and in Normandy, we are faced with attempts to lull inconclusive fundamental questions, but the thing certain, at the moment, is that the game is led by the President of the Russian Federation which has increased its room for maneuver with the agreement signed with China on May 21 for a thirty-year supply of gas by 400 billion dollars and with the foundation del'Unione Eurasian occurred on May 29, even with the absence of Ukraine. [7]
2. Ukraine, a country divided and disputed.
The criteria for assessing the Ukrainian situation already in possession of Brussels and the European registries, and were the basis for the European line during the "Orange Revolution" of 2004, were also confirmed by recent events. Ukraine remains a country divided between the option pro-Western and pro-Russian. The components of either party have difficulty in mutual dialogue and understanding.
The divisions are likely to emerge out of the complex and dramatic story of a border region between Central Europe and Eastern Europe, and especially of the numerous events of the twentieth century. The country has seen a swing western frontier as a result of the events of the First World War and the Peace of Brest Litovsk (1917), the Polish-Soviet War (1919-1921) and the Second World War. At the end of the Second World War the USSR was definitively incorporated parts of Galicia in Ukraine (Lviv), Ruthenia and Bukovina (Cernowitz), all Habsburg territories passed between the two World Wars, respectively, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania. In addition, after the Bolshevik Revolution, the central and eastern part of the country was the scene of events that have left their mark: the clash between the White Army General Anton Denikin Tsarist and the Red Army of Leon Trotsky; Soviet industrialization of the eastern provinces, where it still focuses the great coal and steel industry, mechanical engineering, chemical and aerospace industries of the country; the forced collectivization of the land and the repression of the peasants wealthy owners or average (kulaks); the famine years of 1932-33 determined by the same disorder in the countryside. The whole territory was still dramatic theater of the war between 1941 and 1944, by the advance of Germany and the Soviet counter-offensive, and the Holocaust. The Germans also formed Ukrainian departments of the Wehrmacht and the SS in particular that, among other things, were used in the suppression of the uprising of the Warsaw Ghetto (1943). Unfortunately, traces of the past that have emerged in the demonstrations in favor of the Association Agreement and the EU in particular in Lviv, where 27 January 2014, as a day of remembrance anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz, have appeared praising protesters Stepan Bandera, a nationalist leader between the two world wars.
Both in the tsarist period, both in the Soviet nobody has ever questioned in Moscow the relationship with Ukraine, which is considered an integral part of the political system and of Russian history. Ukrainian personality of relief, as Khrushchev and Brezhnev, are joined at the top of the Soviet Union. Kruschev in 1954 attributed the Crimea, historically Russian, Ukraine as part of a transfer of powers considered administrative in nature, given the centralization of Moscow led by the Communist Party. It should be noted that the Soviet Ukraine in 1924 was formally a federal republic in the USSR with its government structures and national, such as Belarus, with its own representation at the UN since 1946.
The independent Ukraine took part in the founding of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in 1991 but has never ratified the Treaty of Accession on 19 March 2014 and canceled, finally, finally this commitment. After the dissolution of the USSR, all governments Ukrainians have always engaged in their programs of EU membership, including those led by members of defined pro-Russian, as President Viktor Yanukovich, in office since 2010 and toppled on February 22 2014 by the vote of the parliament in Kiev as a result of the pressures of the square. It 'was just the President Yanukovich to conduct negotiations with the EU, but then suspended in December 2013, the signing of the Association Agreement and free trade, as a result of the pressing invitations, and programs of aid promised by Russia for participation in the alternative project of the Eurasian Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan. The demonstrations in Kiev, started just last fall for the growing trend in favor of Yanukovych in Moscow, which offered immediate economic aid to $ 15 billion purchase of Treasury securities Ukrainian and price reductions for supplies of gas from 400 to 268.50 U.S. dollars per thousand cubic meters. Previously, when he was in opposition, Yanukovych had always spoken out against the openings to Europe.
Yanukovych was clumsy in relations with the EU, with street demonstrations repressed with brutal harshness, and finally appeared clumsy even against the same Putin who, after his flight from Kiev in late February has completely abandoned.
It should be added that the attempt of the mission in Kiev February 21, 2014 the three ministers Fabius (France), Sikorski (Poland) and Steinmeier (Germany), to promote dialogue between government and opposition, has failed and the next day there was the immediate overthrow of the Yanukovych presidency by a parliamentary majority, which also included members of his own party (party of Regions). The Parliament has almost unanimously took the decision under pressure from a popular event that was heading towards his home and in which, as already seen for days, teams were armed and violent movements of the right Pravij Sektor eSvoboda. In the weeks before there were even occupations of police headquarters, seizures belonging to the police, armed clashes between demonstrators and police departments with dead and wounded on both sides.
In the new provisional government, formed in anticipation of the elections to elect the new President of the Republic, replacing Yanukovych, convened for 25 May and headed by the Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenjuk party Patria, [8] came representatives of Svoboda. These episodes have allowed Russia to define a coup overthrowing Yanukovych and in any case there is no reason, as in other cases (Yushchenko in 2001), [9] that the behavior of the square and the sudden conversion of the Parliament against Yanukovych, where he possessed a majority following the free elections of 2010, never challenged in the country, has taken place under pressure from the power system of the oligarchs.
The escape of Yanukovich in Russia and the establishment of a new interim government in Kiev, launched one of the worst political crises in the post-Cold War era. Immediately after the military forces "unidentifiable" took control of the Crimean peninsula, a region with a majority Russian population, that Sunday, March 16 voted massively in favor of the annexation in a referendum in Moscow. [10]
3 A State "fragile" to re-establish.
Ukraine is a country "fragile", if not "failed." From the declaration of independence in 1991 to date, no government has raised the issue of consolidating the political-institutional and economic modernization. Despite its formal autonomy within the Soviet Union, the country has never developed a political class as a truly national Kiev government bodies were the drive belt orders from the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet. With independence, the country found itself divided between pro-Western and pro-Russian, and this has prevented the introduction of robust reform by exposing it to fluctuations in international politics. In the period 1991-2000, Ukraine has seen to reduce by two-thirds its GDP due to the repercussions of the financial crisis of 1998 Similarly, after the crisis of 2007-08 has registered a fall in GDP of a third party, in part then recovered. Currently, the nominal GDP of about $ 190 billion, is twice the value of 1991 ($ 90 billion), while the Russian has tripled and that of Poland will be multiplied by 7.5 times. [11] Ukraine has a population of over 45 million people, with a product per capita among the lowest in Europe a little over $ 4,000 a year, uncompetitive industries with high rates of energy consumption and highly polluting. Not by chance more than 5 million Ukrainians migrated.
Privatization, as in the nineties in Russia and other countries are already members of the Soviet Union, were made hastily for the benefit of a group of oligarchs from the former Communist Party hierarchy. Even the political class that has so far underpinned the country comes from the files of the former Communist Party openly and is conditioned by the oligarchic power. The transition to a market economy has resulted in a labor-political acute, with rapid concentration of wealth in the hands of a narrow circle of power and the lowering of the living conditions of the majority of the population, among other private services health and welfare first issued by the State, because of their privatization. The exchange political parties-oligarchs-voters were right so far on the policy of subsidies dished out by the government and controlled prices for domestic and industrial uses of gas imported from Russia and the coal produced in the Donbass basin. The Department of Energy is free to allocate the subsidies that reduce to 1/5 the price of gas and half those of coal, feeding, thus, corruption and waste. The network of gas distribution was privatized without controls, does not produce profits and tax revenue for the state. Is not subject to efficient maintenance and is subject to loss and theft that also affect transit flows to Western Europe.
The cheap energy is a legacy of the Soviet system. However, after the country's independence, together with the existence of a parallel market fueled by subsidies, this policy has generated a strong flow of income, up to 5% of the national GDP in some years, which has been monopolized by oligarchic groups through the sale to Europeans and industries, such as steel or the production of fertilizers, energy-intensive. The flow of income has produced a ruling class, politics and business, interested in maintaining the status quo. The well-known protagonists of the current policy, Yanukovych, Tymoshenko, Turchynov, Poroshenko, Yatsenjuk are the protagonists of the "Orange Revolution" of 2004 and constitute the executive team which has alternated in power in the last twenty years. Nobody had any interest in reducing dependence on Russian gas imports and disagreements within the family oligarchic concerned the distribution of the annuity. The reduction of external energy dependence from 50% to 40% is the result of the consideration in March 2010, signed by then Prime Minister Julia Tymoshenko (previously enriched with brokerage gas) with the Russian supplier Gazprom. [12 ] This explains the process which was then subjected Tymoshenko and it seems, finally, that the revolt of the power system against Yanukovich was determined by the reaction of the other oligarchs in his attempt to capture a higher yield on Russian supplies cheap deals by Putin.
The benefits for the population and the production system due to the low prices of energy have always been canceled in the post-Soviet period by poor governance, widespread corruption, high intensity of CO2 emissions and abandonment of agriculture.
For years, there are no significant investments to enhance the gas fields in the country. The state budget, finally, is burdened by deficits and public debt, both elevated and containment impossible given the state of the economy bankrupt.
Today, Russia has a claim for unpaid deliveries of gas, [13] has led to March, the price of gas at about $ 500 after the establishment of the interim government of Arseny Yatsenjuk, claims the payment of supplies still unresolved, the return of the discounts granted in the past and threatens to close the gas tap. Moreover, in the face of this threat, the alternative hypothesis to supply gas to Ukraine by the EU network has two Slovak constraints. The first constraint is the fact that the EU is largely deficient of this resource and should still import it to turn itself from Russia, Algeria or in the future from Cyprus / Israel or the United States (shale gas); the second constraint is due to the time needed for the intervention on the systems of the network direct to reverse the flow of gas flows eastward since they were conceived in terms unidirectional.
It 'clear that the country lacked a strong leadership, able to lead the transition after the Soviet collapse, as it is partially occurred in Russia as a result of the financial crisis of 1998 As a result, the political system remains credible and subjected to blackmail of the major industrial and banking oligarchs. Not surprisingly important Western economic commentators are asking how can rehabilitate the country. [14]
The Treaty of association and free trade agreement with Ukraine provides for the immediate abolition of customs duties on 90% of imports by the European Union and the temporary suspension of Kiev adaptation to EU standards of production. This is not just because the country needs € 35 billion by the beginning of 2016, and you have to wonder who is ready to pay among the countries of the European Union after the resistances that arise with respect to aid for Greece, which also is a member country.
The EU has conditioned further their plans for aid, valued at € 11 billion, the consolidation measures set out by the IMF for the granting of loans: direct measures to remove the subsidy system and fighting corruption. A part of the same industrial system is concerned the opening of the EU and the consequent commercial competition. The Treaty of association, in fact, will certainly have consequences on exports in 2012, according to media sources, it is directed to 12.9 billion euro to the EU and to 12.3 billion to Russia. Today, however, Moscow promises barriers able to reduce by 24% the flow while you do not have an immediate effect on increasing exports to the EU given the quality of the products, far from European standards. Imports from Russia account for one third of imports and national amounted to $ 18.8 billion primarily for gas. Data updates prices, and the industry, both families, given the levels of income, they are not able to bear the burden of the gas bill at international market prices.
For the moment, March 21, 2014 was signed in Brussels only the first part, the policy of the Association Agreement and the Free Trade Agreement between the EU and Ukraine. [15] It includes chapters on democratic values and foreign policy and security, in particular provides enhanced cooperation on regional issues, conflict prevention, crisis management, weapons of mass destruction and disarmament. EU leaders have pledged to sign later, after Ukraine's presidential election in May, the remaining chapters, economic and trade, energy, and those for visa liberalization. The new President of Petro Poroshenko, in his inaugural address on May 7, said he was ready to sign immediately with the remainder of the agreement, but the real problems to be solved are the ongoing destabilization in regions russofile, the game of Russia, and the possible negotiations between Brussels, Kiev and Moscow.
4 The option negotiation and the absence of a policy by the EU.
Europe can not afford the new explosion of violence in the country; nor can it accept that Russia will push Ukraine to a destructive civil war and internationally dangerous as you are still emerging.
About the secessionist demonstrations, bE can not forget the fact that they are in part fueled the approach monocultural and assimilationist monolinguista adopted by Ukrainian nationalists. The challenge is to maintain the unity of the Ukrainian state, thanks to its federalization of ethnic-linguistic-religious guaranteed at the international level, [16] alleviate social hardship due to the economic transition and at the same time guaranteeing civil rights and Russian political minority (about 20% of the population) and the Russian-speaking (another 20% of the population) of the country [17] as well as minorities Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar passed to Russia. Regarding the latter, it must realistically recognize the difficulty of his return under the sovereignty of Kiev after the referendum of 16 March and the Geneva Accords of 17 April 2014 silent on the issue. Russia can not give up direct control of the military naval base of Sevastopol and return to the condition of the tenant before the crisis. She knows that no one is willing to face a conflict for the Crimea. Russia also tends to take instrumentally protection of minorities in Ukraine and could extend this role arsonist in the Baltic republics, [18] with sizeable Russian minorities with limited political rights that conflict with the European treaties and the contents of the Charter of Fundamental Rights' EU. It is therefore necessary to offer reasons to avoid interference in Ukraine as in the Baltic countries.
As for the game of Russia, and especially in light of the negotiations concluded at Geneva, the point to be clarified is right where he wants to push the limits of President Putin and his brinkmanship. [19] He wants to split Ukraine to annex the regions russofile, branches of big industry with strategic assets for economic recovery in the Eurasian and the interconnections productive with the Russian arms industry, or want to build up a basis for the negotiations to obtain in the near future, from the western world and the Ukrainians' adherence to his plan of Eurasian Union? The first way is fatal and no political outlet, can open a new Cold War, a wound in the European context unbearable for the democratic West and capable of fostering terrorism and other forms of political instability and security. It will freeze on the EU's relations with Russia with mutual damage and the same design Putin's Eurasian Union would finally cracked. Become an imperial design and autocratic Russian, without aggregating capacity.
It 's on the limited room for maneuver in Moscow that the EU can and should play its role independently negotiating with Russia to establish long-term innovative arrangements, to strengthen mutual security and to save the fruitful cooperation in trade and technology. At the same time, to avoid the authoritarian impulses of the Kremlin, will be able to block the pro-Russian separatist provinces of eastern and southern Ukraine, so as to support the unity of the country by promoting inside the affirmation of the rule of law and well-being. Europe will therefore need to treasure the affirmation of Henry Kissinger: "For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy but an excuse for the lack of it". [20] demonize Putin, in fact, means just do not have a policy. And the absence of a policy is in itself a factor of internal disintegration for the EU since it pushes the individual members to divergent behavior in international relations according to their own national interests. Pushes the Baltic countries and Central and Eastern European (brought to put in their eastern border security that feel threatened, because of their historical experiences and the weak point left by the long Soviet rule) to take refuge under the protective umbrella of NATO, which is thus encouraged to project its expansion even in the former Soviet Union, causing the reactions of Moscow. On the other hand, the absence of a European policy destabilizes Russia also because it strengthens the authoritarian forces internal to the detriment of the affirmation of the liberal-democratic bodies within it.
Russia is not the Soviet Union nor the tsarist empire. It 'a country just come out and laboriously from the post-Soviet transition, with declining population and an economy that fails to diversify and become competitive in the globalized world, unable to escape the bonds of dependence on exports of energy sources and of arms and has a production potential not yet fully exploited. The current framework Russian leader wants to ensure external security for internal purposes. Globalization has weakened the instruments of sovereignty and Putin knows he can not isolate himself or suffer a multipolar international structurally unstable equilibrium. Today's Russia does not want to risk falling into the trap of good intentions as it did for the Western Gorbachev. [21] Moscow also has the constraint of control of a vast territory, with vast natural resources and sparsely populated, where there are temptations secessionist. Needs to restore structural interdependence established in the days of the USSR, as well as maintain their access to the seas and to have secure borders in Europe, the Caucasus and Central Asia. The Eurasian Union project has, first of all, the geopolitical importance for the revival of the CIS, otherwise the whole area of the former Soviet Asia could become the subject of contention with other neighbors, in particular with China. The EU can not ignore the extent stabilizer of this project and should actually support it with a good neighborhood policy and a strong driving force and model development.
Therefore, on the European side we need a change of political vision and strategy. It 's very important to respect the reflection expressed in a document of the Senate in 2008: "It is impossible to deny the difficulties faced by today's relations between Russia and the West. [...] Both have an interest in these cooperative ties are not broken. As for the European energy interdependence is by far the main factor that plays against a further worsening of relations, but it is not the only one. The EU most of the United States considers Russia a party to be treated equally and has a great interest in improving relations with Moscow and indeed widen to new areas of common interest. Ultimately, the best guarantee for a pragmatic rapprochement between Russia and the West is that between the EU and between Europeans and Americans can find a more coherent common approach on how to manage relations with Moscow and address the pending disputes. This implies in all probability a greater attention to the interests of Russian security and some inevitable concession to the demands of Moscow. The Kremlin has not, however, sufficient resources to successfully oppose a united front transatlantic enough. As long as can play on the divisions in the Western camp will be able to maintain the initiative on a number of issues. But if those divisions were to be overcome on the basis of a line that combines firmness and openness, should inevitably appear more willing to compromise and cooperation ". [22] It is clear from reading this that the EU must not only return dialogue with Russia but must also assume a role in relation to the USA. Must assume its responsibility without taking refuge under the protective umbrella of American powerless before being despised by Washington. We go half its international credibility, its independence, its cohesion.
5 The urgency of an equal partnership with the United States of America: the conditions.
The absence of a European foreign policy, understood in the broadest sense, is therefore the problem to be solved by the EU also with regard to relations with the United States of America, which can not, of course, be based on dependency and subordination. The definition of an independent political line, founded sullaequal partnership with Washingon, is the necessary condition for the EU to be able to deal with leading a constructive negotiation with Russia without leave to others the role of mediator.
In fact, it is reported that, after having triggered a crisis in relations between the West and Russia, the Europeans have asked for help to the United States, already engaged with Russia in a difficult diplomatic action to get out of the civil war in Syria and to negotiate the future of the Iranian nuclear issue. Both primary themes of European interest.
Answers on Ukraine by President Barack Obama, urged by the Europeans, were, the evidence shows, modest and not incisive Moscow, such as the suspension of Russia from the G8 with the cancellation of the summit in Sochi, the launch of limited sanctions such as the denial of visas for a limited number of Russian personalities. On the contrary, the bill presented by President Obama to the Europeans imploring protection was much more insidious and revealing. In particular, it should be noted that Obama has asked the Europeans concluded within one year of negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership has (TTIP), increased their spending on armaments, and has shown a willingness to sell their shale gas. Three offers on which Europeans should definitely consider.
The negotiation TTIP is, in fact, a complex negotiation whose outcome is likely to disrupt the supply chains infraeuropee that have emerged with the internal market and monetary union and could increase European technological dependence from the United States of America. European companies large or small would eventually be attracted to the cooperation with the sisters over the Atlantic, which have greater financial and technological opportunities, to the detriment of their co-operation and mutual reinforcement. Consequently, the cooperation with the United States would ultimately affect the cohesion infraeuropea, involving companies and European regions more competitive and marginalizing businesses and regions lagging behind. [23] Next, as regards the expenditure on armaments, individual European countries must priority rationalize their military systems and select the model best suited to defend a strategic concept truly European and supranational before increasing military spending today can not afford to fiscal consolidation in which they are engaged. Especially must decline the concept of defense in terms of safety (see document Solana 2003), which involves an independent foreign policy, democratic legitimacy, and aimed at strengthening the conditions for stability. Europeans must draw lessons from the end of hegemonies in progress and then commit to strengthen the structures of international governance partial to a regional or global; and try to create new ones, if necessary, for the construction of world peace according to the Kantian imperative.
In the context of globalization (without government), the balance multipolar world (fragile) and state sovereignty (unsustainable) there is no room for dangerous against power. The availability of weapons of mass destruction raises the risk of the Holocaust all mankind and the same conventional conflicts have proven not to solve problems but to exacerbate them (Iran-Iraq War, Afghanistan, Iraq, but also the civil wars, see Syria).
America, in turn, can not afford military commitments after the lost war in Vietnam, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It has no political reasons, nor resources, to support armed intervention. It can only monitor the level of international security with some muscle flexing as he did with the Ukrainian case, then trying to compromise. [24] On the basis of this perspective, President Obama called Russia a "regional power" and then carries of the dangers of second rank.
The United States considers, in fact, the Pacific theater of the most strategically important Eastern European because they are concerned about the expansion of China, a candidate country to bypass them as the first world power. [25] They also have the problem of protecting South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Philippines, South East Asia, and especially to avoid the dangerous temptations assert in Tokyo reset.
Finally, just to complete the analysis, the supply of shale gas is equivalent to the promotion of an alternative supply is available between years, that does not solve the crucial problem of the immediate dependence on external European Union.
* *
From these considerations, it clearly shows the need for rapid strengthening political institutions of the EU and the implementation of the federal government to give Europe its autonomy technology, production, efficiency and safety. Without autonomy becomes foolish servants, does not dominate the process and undermining the foundations of internal democracy as is happening in Europe with Euroscepticism and populism.
E 'for these reasons that it is necessary, urgent, an equal partnership with the United States of America.
The openings on the transatlantic trade and investment, you can do it from a position of equal strength, not with the Europeans in order. It is therefore essential to the completion by the European Economic and Monetary Union in its articulations banking union, fiscal, economic. The completion is not only a goal aimed to boost the credibility of the European process, but it is also a point of support for a structural economic and financial cooperation with the dollar area in terms of monetary stability and for a reform of the international monetary system which basis for the government of the processes of globalization. In addition, the EU should exceed the inter-governmental decision-making structure and give the federal structures of supranational government democratically legitimized for the efficiency of its capacity for decision and action.
The EU must be, moreover, clear development goals, consistent with the expectations of European citizens and the global environmental compatibility, [26] large European projects, as has happened in the past with Airbus, Ariane, the high-speed rail, and invest heavily in research, innovation and education. The analyzes are, the projects also must be activated. Europe must be able to impose its model of the world peace and sustainable development, attentive to the problems of compliance with environmental, health of humans, animals and plants, careful saving and energy efficiency and the dissemination of energy renewable for the reduction of CO2 emissions and to save and bequeath to future generations the current availability of hydrocarbons and coal mining. They can not, finally, be left out of the European reserves on nuclear power, after Fukushima and Chernobyl, and on the prospects offshore, after the disaster of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig off the coast of the United States of America in the Gulf of Mexico. Neither the European geological fragility may allow the exploitation of deposits of shale gas.
6 The limits of brinkmanship in Moscow.
The reflection on these points is especially strategic for the relationship with Russia. The EU needs to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their own and Russia to find a solution by negotiation of the Ukrainian question that he take away the risk of intensifying the fight, the civil war in Ukraine, a new east-comparison west fatal to democracy and the welfare of all.
The brinkmanship of Vladimir Putin has its limits, though the rapid annexation of the Crimea has temporarily strengthened in Moscow fueling Russian nationalism. Its weak point is not even considered by Western sanctions, difficult to achieve given the European dependency on Russian oil and gas imports. Its weakness lies in Russia that can not be closed and isolate themselves from the world if he wants to continue on the path of modernization and consolidation of the political, economic and social post-Soviet.
The base of domestic support of President Putin stands today sull'avvenuto reorganization of the state and of the Russian economy after years of disbandment of the presidency of Boris Yeltsin that led to the financial crisis of 1998 [27] The entire economy and administration public were then disbanded for lack of structural interventions. The dismantling of state capitalism and the planned economy had enriched a group of unscrupulous oligarchs come out of the nomenclature of the former CPSU. Civil servants and members of the armed forces had to wait months to receive his salary, companies traded on the basis of barter due to lack of circulation of money and the backwardness of the credit system, the investments were non-existent or nearly so. The very survival of the Russian Federation as entia state was at risk, threatened by the danger of disgregazone; in Chechnya had established a separatist revolt and terrorism also struck the city of Moscow. The Russian economy between 1991 and 1998 had fallen by 40% [28] and only then began a recovery that led to 123% relative to the initial reference. The recovery since 1991 has been only in 2007.
However, the recovery has failed to cope with the structural weaknesses of the economy inherited from the Soviet era. The growth of these years is attributable to exports of oil and gas, for which the country is respectively the first and the second largest producer in the world, and the export of armaments. The export of energy expressed by only 25% of national GDP. The rest of the productive economy is not internationally competitive, operates within a protected domestic market, is not supported by an adequate structure of financial services and business services, is in the hands of an oligarchic structure that domestic investment rather financial transactions around the world.
Putin with good and with bad manners is partially managed to put the bridle on the neck of the oligarchs and did condemn Mikhail Khodorkovsky and other more unruly, but has not released them. In addition, the analysis centers that support the government realize that you do not live in eternal export of oil and gas and have long set the objective of increasing the technological capabilities and competitiveness of the productive apparatus, foster innovation management of product and process. On the other hand, Russia is well aware that not only has to deal with the West, because in the south-east of Siberia, there is a China that year shows a high economic dynamism. However, the development in Russia continues to be insufficient. In 2013, she had to settle for a growth of only 1.23% and the current tensions caused the collapse of the international price of the ruble and fueled a flight abroad of Russian capital and foreign investment. By the end of 2014, the bleeding could reach $ 150 billion, according to Western estimates, equal to 7% of the nominal GDP of the Federation.
Russia, moreover, has always suffered from the whole of the siege, and therefore reacts more sensitively to signs of slipping of his neighbors into the EU and NATO. It should also be noted that, when Gorbachev discussed the reunification of Germany, is said to have obtained from the Western partners the verbal assurance that there would be no expansion of the NATO area in the event of dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. Which, however, took place in Moscow and today finds himself in direct contact with NATO along the border of the Baltic countries and reacts strongly to any further NATO membership for countries already under Soviet control.
7 The EU's negotiating leeway for Ukraine.
The EU has, however, considered in its entirety as their strengths are higher than those of Russia and that there is interest nor European, nor Russian, dust off an atmosphere of Cold War. Apart from the interest in the European economic strategic cooperation with Russia, there are many other reasons that can allow a negotiating table for the definitive overcoming of the crisis in Ukraine.
The plan to build Eurasian Union has its foundation and meets the objective of calling in organic communication and on the basis of market measures the integrated production system already operating in the years of the Soviet Union. European cooperation is necessary for the exchange of technology and innovation drivers, including those in support of saving, efficiency and alternative energy production, environmental protection, and is also an endorsement to increase the decisive external 'domestic private investment, given that today the Russians direct their capital abroad instead.
The result will be that the emergence of a more pluralistic society, as has happened in our country with the process of European integration. A society structurally more oriented to demand democracy, rule of law and social equality, and then direct to counteract the forces in the increasingly centralized authoritarianism reason of the Muscovite state. The same process can open up in Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan and other countries of the former USSR.
To achieve these objectives, the external role of the EU can begin to offer their own solutions to the crisis on the Ukrainian political and economic terms. The whole of Ukraine, in fact, has become a link between the two systems, rather than becoming a country divided by a partition wall between Europe and Eurasia, able to destabilize even Belarus, Georgia, Kazakhstan and so on. Ukraine may become a country hinge, however, only with the consent of the two areas to be related. On the political level, the compromise with Moscow revolves around guarantees to be provided for the holding of a federal structure of the Republic of Ukraine proposed by the Geneva agreements and guarantees for the levels of autonomy of the eastern and southern regions of Russia and Russian-speaking majority. In economic terms, the relations of Kiev with the EU are yet to be determined, but just in this area you can find a compromise with Russia, to establish the levels of openness to the west and east, and the launch of a joint plan of salvation economy Ukrainian. As argued by the former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, the EU has made a critical mistake in asking Ukraine to renounce participation in the Eurasian Union. [29] On the other hand the issue of Ukraine's accession to the 'EU was not included in the EU-Ukraine programs, and this is also due to the fact that an accession treaty would be unlikely to be ratified by all 28 member countries. E'indubbio, at this point, that if you want to keep open the borders of Ukraine in the two directions, the association of Kiev EU membership once ruled, must be organized in the framework of the future that you want to say with the Russia and the Eurasian Union as a whole, emphasizing the interdependencies possible.
To this end, the EU should declare solemnly that there is a project of Ukraine's accession to the EU, that Europe's borders are defined and that the enlargement process will end with the accession of the Western Balkan countries residues. The European relations with neighboring countries will be classified by the partnerships.
In this approach, as already indicated for the equal partnership with the United States, is strategically decisive completion by the European Economic and Monetary Union, [30] the strengthening of political and institutional terms in federal efficiency of its capacity decision-making and action and the launch of an internal strategy of sustainable development, reducing dependence on external energy and technological upgrading of their employment. Europe can not sit at the negotiating table have in their bag without a credible package of offerings aimed at providing assistance to make it more efficient and competitive production systems Eurasian, more environmentally friendly, more energy saving and energy efficient to avoid accelerated consumption and indiscriminate use of hydrocarbon resources and coal required for future generations of Russia and the rest of the world.
8 The structural conditions for the evolutionary relationships US-EU-Russia: the OSCE framework.
The days of the Ukrainian crisis have taught us that you can not look to the relationship between the United States, Europe and Russia as at the time of the bipolar. You need to have a constructive and developmental, aimed at promoting the transition of the former Soviet Union countries to a market economy organized, internationally competitive, as a precondition for the establishment of fully democratic political system combined to possibly federal commitments.
Just to avoid that Moscow might suspect attempts hegemonic Western and other expansion of NATO, it is necessary to build a new structural framework of shared relationships and framework already available, within which a negotiated global open and insert the new relationship between the United States, the EU and Russia , is offered by the Organization for security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). The OSCE is the largest international organization of security at regional, was born in 1995 by the Helsinki Accords of 1975 to the union of the relations between Western countries (I also belong the United States and Canada) and former Soviet countries. [31] Up to now it has not been adequately evaluated given the hegemonic role that they wanted to play the United States in its relations with Russia and given the prolonged inaction European Union. [32]
To ensure that the OSCE can become an appropriate framework of new relationships between the three areas, however, should be reformed on the institutional and policy instruments. Should first strengthen their skills in order to create a comprehensive system security policy. The NATO-Russia Council should be absorbed by the OSCE to eliminate the impression that it maintains hegemony of Washington; without considering that, if the EU was capable of becoming an actor driving the OSCE, the role of the Board would empty automatically. It would also be very important that the Organization for Security and Cooperation was equipped with a parliamentary assembly of the second level to foster political dialogue and specialized agencies to protect the freedom of competition in the three integrated areas (North America, Europe and Eurasia ) and, especially, to govern the production and distribution of energy with the objectives of reducing energy consumption pollutants. It could even be argued that, in order to avoid reactions from other world powers - the OSCE area collects the global North - the military conventional and nuclear OSCE countries were all placed at the disposal of the UN. This of course would change the current strategic concepts and encourage savings for the military spending of the actors involved with positive effects for humanity and for peace. In a framework of this kind of cooperation, the EU would secure the eastern borders, Russia would not suffer the whole of the siege and disagreements in recent times (such as the Crimea and, in general, protection of Russian minorities abroad) would be resized. The United States of America would have the advantage of being able to reduce its military spending in favor of internal programs of social assistance they need.
In a framework of this type pacified, the participation of Ukraine, Belarus, and together with another of a certain size, such as Kazakhstan, contribute to the revival of a CSI is not entirely conditioned by Moscow. Finally, it can not be overlooked the role of the EU external balancer. The EU could affect their trade openings and their technological cooperation to progress made by the CIS countries in terms of civil liberties and the rule of law. Political pressure and values of the structural framework of the OSCE and of the political model of liberal-democratic EU would be very strong on the wing and progressive social Eurasian area. As was the case with the process of European construction, the conservative forces present in the former USSR would be put in the corner. [33]
The European role is therefore crucial and Russia must realize that alone can not carry out his plan of Eurasian Union for a revival of the CSI prelude to the affirmation of a federal union. Without the backing of the European External and inclusion in the structural framework guaranteed by the OSCE, the project appears to be the revival of the imperial dream of Tsarist Russia and the Soviet Union. Only Europe can give the project the brand name of peace, security, democracy and the protection of rights.
9 Conclusions.
A Europe-led Intergovernmental ignava impotent and has only been able in recent months to destabilize itself, relations with Eastern Europe and the rest of the world. It is not capable of expressing a policy bearer of its core values, enshrined in the Treaties (Articles. 2 and 3 of the Treaty of European Union).
The responsibility lies with the institutional leaders of the EU, the governments of the Member States, the political forces represented in Parliament and on the same company used for years in a Washington delegate decisions about their own development and their own safety. For years, European society applauds the launch of numerous smug "springs" in the world and then not take action to build the structural conditions so that they can succeed in an evolutionary way. It suffers the consequences. The recent cases are those of the "Arab Spring" and Ukraine.
The European Union complaining for some time a political deficit both internally and on that of external relations. Must immediately give signals of new guidelines on both sides and without delay to reduce dangerous tensions that have accumulated in Ukraine, the Middle East and Africa. To reduce social tensions and intra generated by a monetary union without the support of a fiscal union and budget needed to support development.
The node is structural and can not be dissolved with small steps. The possibility of having the next President of the Commission appointed by a majority vote by the European Council on the basis of the election results makes this a realistic prospect. This is the crucial point of intervention of the new European Parliament and of the federalist and democratic forces represented in it to open the legislature from 2014 to 2019. Europe must choose democracy, say the federal method in place of the intergovernmental method.
This means that the new Parliament elected in May will also quickly take the initiative to convene a constitutional convention, open to all Member States available to discuss and approve a reform of the treaties aimed at giving the Union the supranational democratic discipline they need. Will affect his confidence in the new Commission sharing by the latter constituting the relaunch.
This is the only way that can allow you to show up at the table of international negotiations on overcoming the crisis in Ukraine and relations with Russia with a political project of cooperation in the building of peace, development and democracy.
This is dictated by the Nobel prize for peace that was awarded in 2012
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento