segunda-feira, 30 de março de 2009

G20 sem plano de relançamento

Le G20 n'accouchera pas d'un nouveau plan de relance

Par LEXPRESS.fr, publié le 30/03/2009 11:44 - mis à jour le 30/03/2009 12:21

Une partie des leaders mondiaux présents au G20 en novembre dernier à Washington

REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES).  Une partie des leaders mondiaux présents au G20 en novembre dernier à Washington

Six mois après leur première réunion à Washington, les pays du G20 se réunissent ce jeudi à Londres pour discuter des solutions à apporter à la crise. Selon un projet de communiqué final, publié dans le Financial Times, il n'y aura aucune nouvelle mesure de relance budgétaire... Les bonus seront sur la sellette.

Les dirigeants du G20 renouvelleront leur promesse de lutter contre le protectionnisme mais ne promettront pas de nouveau plan de relance de l'économie, à l'issue de leur sommet jeudi à Londres, affirme ce lundi le Financial Times, citant un projet de communiqué final.

Se disant conscients que "la crise mondiale requiert une solution mondiale", les dirigeants des vingt pays les plus développés et émergents se disent "déterminés à rétablir la croissance, résister au protectionnisme et réformer les marchés et les institutions à l'avenir".

"Nous n'allons pas revenir au protectionnisme financier", promettent-ils, ajoutant: "Nous sommes déterminés à faire en sorte que cette crise ne se répète pas".

Le projet de communiqué en 24 points ne comprend aucune nouvelle mesure de relance budgétaire, une idée défendue par les Etats-Unis et le Royaume-Uni mais combattue par l'Europe continentale, en particulier l'Allemagne. Dans le texte, les dirigeants estiment que les mesures de relance déjà en oeuvre vont permettre une hausse de deux points de la croissance mondiale et la création de plus de vingt millions d'emplois.

Ces mesures, combinées à un accroissement des ressources du Fonds monétaire international (FMI), permettront une reprise de la croissance d'ici la fin de 2010, espèrent les membres du G20 dans ce document.

Le Financial Times cite sans les nommer des sources officielles affirmant que le projet de communiqué ne devrait pas fondamentalement différer dans sa version finale qui sera adoptée à l'issue du sommet jeudi soir.

Dans ce texte, le G20 réaffirme son attachement à "une économie mondiale ouverte basée sur les principes de marché, une régulation efficace et des institutions mondiales fortes".

Les dirigeants du G20 y confirment leur volonté d'accroître les ressources du FMI, mais sans dire comment, et de renforcer la réglementation des hedge funds (fonds spéculatifs). Les paradis fiscaux seront une nouvelle fois montrés du doigt, le G20 promettant des sanctions, non spécifiées, à l'encontre de ceux qui ne coopèrent pas.

Les bonus seront également sur la sellette, le projet de communiqué estimant que la rémunération des dirigeants de société doit "récompenser une performance effective, soutenir une croissance durable et éviter la prise de risque excessive".

JOHN ROBB

PARASITIC PREDATION

Some Boydian logic -- a new construct for decision making -- to brighten your day. Not likely.  However, the aim of this brief is not to convince you.  Instead, it is to get you thinking in new ways, to challenge assumptions, and spur creativity -- all of which is essential to our collective long term success.
__________

Back in 1974, the long running connection between improvements in worker productivity and wage growth was severed.  Median per capita wages for individuals have stagnated since then, replaced with measures of growth in house hold income (two workers instead of one) and growth derived from growing the labor pool (mostly illegal immigration).  During this time, the money derived from productivity improvements over the last decades (which would have doubled the incomes of American workers under the post-WW2 to 1974 social contract), was shunted to capital markets under the ideological assumption (seen in Greenspan's thinking)  that these markets would make better investments in future prosperity than individuals.  That assumption has been proven false.  The money was gambled away or spent on lavish increases in the lifestyles of oligarchs and their underlings.  

However, it would be bad enough if it ended there, with the realization that two generations of American wealth was squandered by capital markets in a frenzy of excess.   It won't.  There is increasing evidence that this group of "oligarchs" has ideologically captured all forms of US governance in a situation similar to what we have seen in emerging markets.   The situation in the US today, particularly to those that saw it first hand while at the IMF, is very similar to what they saw in past crises in Argentina and Russia (in their view, our situation is worse than Japan).  Here's a couple of posts that warrant further reading:

The Quiet Coup by Simon Johnson (the Atlantic)
Re-emerging as an Emerging Market by Desmond Lachman (Washington Post)
Comparing the US to Russia and Argentina by Glenn Greenwald (Salon)

This development has major implications for those of us that think about the future of warfare.  The devolution of the US economic system into crony capitalism, replete with the parasitic predation of oligarchs, paints a picture of warfare punctuated by:
rampant crime, rapidly declining military/government budgets, inopportune withdrawals from foreign adventures/development efforts (money for this dries up), corporate armies, deep urban decay, spot starvation/health crises, broad privatization of public goods (theft or fire-sale prices), widespread poverty, etc.  

To think that a parasitic oligopoly (akin to Russia's) can't happen here, despite factual evidence to the contrary (trillions of $$ given away to bank/hedge funds/etc. without the slightest reform, hope for economic return, or accountability), is a failure of decision making due to doctrinal/ideological rigidity.  However, if it's true, a move to the primary loyalties of manufactured tribes (gang, clan, sect, etc.) by a large segment of the population will be almost inevitable.  Many of these new groups will both defend and advance their interests through violence.  

Wednesday, 25 March 2009

JOURNAL: More on Banksters

I mentioned at the time I wrote this brief, that viral violence targeting the barons of global finance was likely incoming (but that it wasn't here yet).  Here's a small addition to that trend line (that builds on the thousands of death threats that have been received).  In the UK, vandals hit the home of the former CEO of the Royal Bank of Scotland, 'Sir' Fred Goodwin (he and his family have already fled the country).  Windows on the ground floor of the home and his Mercedes S600 were smashed.  E-mails from a group claiming the attacks said,

We are angry that rich people, like him, are paying themselves a huge amount of money, and living in luxury, while ordinary people are made unemployed, destitute and homeless. This is a crime. Bank bosses should be jailed. This is just the beginning.

The Real Systemic Risk 
Debt-trend-breakdown_2This leads me to a broader topic.  The real systemic risk we face isn't from a financial seizure.  That risk is mild in comparison to the risk of a widespread collapse in legitimacy.  Due to excesses (too many to name), legitimacy is rapidly draining from the global financial system and the networked groups that give it their primary loyalty (like Fred above).  In recognition of this, nation-states should hold this system at arms length to limit damage to their own legitimacy.  Given the constraints on resources faced by nation-states, a plan that would bulk up legitimacy would focus on reorganizing financial institutions (not bailing them out) and repairing the balance sheets of individual citizens (the only group in the chart to the left that is still loyal to nation-states).  That isn't happening and the damage incurred from this mistake will be significant.

NOTE: The other thing that the inset chart tells us is that this crisis is due to debt, overreach, and insolvency.  Until the US collectively writes/pays off $20 trillion plus in excess debt, not much will change.  Transferring debt from financial firms to the government (as in the Paulson/Geithner plan), only accelerates the decline of nation-states relative to an already dominant global financial/economic system.  

VER CLARO

Obama em Luanda

in Ver Claro , a Coluna dos sábados no "Correio da Manhã"

domingo, 22 de março de 2009

A Coluna dos Sábados no “Correio da Manhã”

Ver claro

21 Março 2009

 

NABUCCO PERDIDO

Bruxelas rende-se e abandona o projecto para garantir autonomia energética europeia... Como há meses aqui se disse, o Nabucco era o alvo real da invasão da Geórgia. Vitória total de Putin.

EFEITOS DA CRISE

Efeitos da crise na segurança: vários estados preparam planos e dispositivos especiais na área... Em Portugal, porém, nem Ministério da Defesa nem ninguém ainda deu sinais de ter visto que, nos próximos anos, as Forças Armadas e outros dispositivos vão ser cruciais para garantir o Estado de Direito.

FINANÇAS

Guerra. A crise abriu nova frente para os serviços americanos que, além de estudarem os novos riscos para a segurança, também trabalham os meios e formas de tirar daí vantagens competitivas...

FRANÇA

 Sarkozy reforçaa sua informação, com a colocação (em breve) de mais um profissional da sua confiança na direcção da DGSE.

BRITISH TELECOM

British Telecom passa a integrar, ao mais alto nível e em ligação com Gordon Brown, o aparelho de segurança britânico.

CAÇA

Caça ao espião: dirigentes do Goanbu, serviço chinês encarregue da ligação com os norte-coreanos, caíram em desgraça e foram demitidos depois de infiltrações norte-coreanas na sua 'delegação' da embaixada chinesa em Pyonyang...

ARGENTINA

'O mundo afunda-se...', Christina Kirchner, presidente da Argentina.

verclaro.jm@gmail.com

sábado, 21 de março de 2009

A RELAÇÃO RUSSIA-TURQUIA VISTA PELA STRATFOR

Understanding Rising Russia and Turkey

By Reva Bhalla, Lauren Goodrich and Peter Zeihan

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev reportedly will travel to Turkey in the near future to follow up a recent four-day visit by his Turkish counterpart, Abdullah Gul, to Moscow. The Turks and the Russians certainly have much to discuss.

Russia is moving aggressively to extend its influence throughout the former Soviet empire, while Turkey is rousing itself from 90 years of post-Ottoman isolation. Both are clearly ascendant powers, and it would seem logical that the more the two bump up against one other, the more likely they will gird for yet another round in their centuries-old conflict. But while that may be true down the line, the two Eurasian powers have sufficient strategic incentives to work together for now.


Russia's World

Russia is among the world's most strategically vulnerable states. Its core, the Moscow region, boasts no geographic barriers to invasion. Russia must thus expand its borders to create the largest possible buffer for its core, which requires forcibly incorporating legions of minorities who do not see themselves as Russian. The Russian government estimates that about 80 percent of Russia's approximately 140 million people are actually ethnically Russian, but this number is somewhat suspect, as many minorities define themselves based on their use of the Russian language, just as many Hispanics in the United States define themselves by their use of English as their primary language. Thus, ironically, attaining security by creating a strategic buffer creates a new chronic security problem in the form of new populations hostile t o Moscow's rule. The need to deal with the latter problem explains the development of Russia's elite intelligence services, which are primarily designed for and tasked with monitoring the country's multiethnic population.

Russia's primary challenge, however, is time. In the aftermath of the Soviet collapse, the bottom fell out of the Russian birthrate, with fewer than half the number of babies born in the 1990s than were born in the 1980s. These post-Cold War children are now coming of age; in a few years, their small numbers are going to have a catastrophic impact on the size of the Russian population. By contrast, most non-Russian minorities — in particular those such as Chechens and Dagestanis, who are of Muslim faith — did not suffer from the 1990s birthrate plunge, so their numbers are rapidly increasing even as the number of ethnic Russians is rapidly decreasing. Add in deep-rooted, demographic-impacting problems such as HIV, tuberculosis and heroin abuse — concentrated not just among ethnic Russians but a lso among those of childbearing age — and Russia faces a hard-wired demographic time bomb. Put simply, Russia is an ascending power in the short run, but it is a declining power in the long run.

The Russian leadership is well aware of this coming crisis, and knows it is going to need every scrap of strength it can muster just to continue the struggle to keep Russia in one piece. To this end, Moscow must do everything it can now to secure buffers against external intrusion in the not-so-distant future. For the most part, this means rolling back Western influence wherever and whenever possible, and impressing upon states that would prefer integration into the West that their fates lie with Russia instead. Moscow's natural gas crisis with Ukraine, August 2008 war with Georgia, efforts to eject American forces from Central Asia and constant pressure on the Baltic states all represent efforts to buy Russia more space — and with that space, more time for survival.

Expanding its buffer against such a diverse and potentially hostile collection of states is no small order, but Russia does have one major advantage: The security guarantor for nearly all of these countries is the United States, and the United States is currently very busy elsewhere. So long as U.S. ground forces are occupied with the Iraqi and Afghan wars, the Americans will not be riding to the rescue of the states on Russia's periphery. Given this window of opportunity, the Russians have a fair chance to regain the relative security they seek. In light of the impending demographic catastrophe and the present window of opportunity, the Russians are in quite a hurry to act.


Turkey's World

Turkey is in many ways the polar opposite of Russia. After the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, Turkey was pared down to its core, Asia Minor. Within this refuge, Turkey is nearly unassailable. It is surrounded by water on three sides, commands the only maritime connection between the Black and Mediterranean seas and sits astride a plateau surrounded by mountains. This is a very difficult chunk of territory to conquer. Indeed, beginning in the Seljuk Age in the 11th century, the ancestors of the modern Turks took the better part of three centuries to seize this territory from its previous occupant, the Byzantine Empire.

The Turks have used much of the time since then to consolidate their position such that, as an ethnicity, they reign supreme in their realm. The Persians and Arabs have long since lost their footholds in Anatolia, while the Armenians were finally expelled in the dying days of World War I. Only the Kurds remain, and they do not pose a demographic challenge to the Turks. While Turkey exhibits many of the same demographic tendencies as other advanced developing states — namely, slowing birthrates and a steadily aging population — there is no major discrepancy between Turk and Kurdish birthrates, so the Turks should continue to comprise more than 80 percent of the country's population for some time to come. Thus, while the Kurds will continue to be a source of nationalistic friction, they do not constitute a fundamental challenge to the power or operations of the Turkish state, like minorities in Russia are destined to do in the years ahead.

Turkey's security is not limited to its core lands. Once one moves beyond the borders of modern Turkey, the existential threats the state faced in years past have largely melted away. During the Cold War, Turkey was locked into the NATO structure to protect itself from Soviet power. But now the Soviet Union is gone, and the Balkans and Caucasus — both former Ottoman provinces — are again available for manipulation. The Arabs have not posed a threat to Anatolia in nearly a millennium, and any contest between Turkey and Iran is clearly a battle of unequals in which the Turks hold most of the cards. If anything, the Arabs — who view Iran as a hostile power with not only a heretical religion but also with a revolutionary foreign policy calling for the overthrow of most of the Arab regimes — are practically welcoming the Turks back. Despite both its imperial past and its close security association with the Americans, the Arabs see Turkey as a trusted mediator, and even an exemplar.

With the disappearance of the threats of yesteryear, many of the things that once held Turkey's undivided attention have become less important to Ankara. With the Soviet threat gone, NATO is no longer critical. With new markets opening up in the former Soviet Union, Turkey's obsession with seeking EU membership has faded to a mere passing interest. Turkey has become a free agent, bound by very few relationships or restrictions, but dabbling in events throughout its entire periphery. Unlike Russia, which feels it needs an empire to survive, Turkey is flirting with the idea of an empire simply because it can — and the costs of exploring the option are negl igible.

Whereas Russia is a state facing a clear series of threats in a very short time frame, Turkey is a state facing a veritable smorgasbord of strategic options under no time pressure whatsoever. Within that disconnect lies the road forward for the two states — and it is a road with surprisingly few clashes ahead in the near term.


The Field of Competition


There are four zones of overlapping interest for the Turks and Russians.

First, the end of the Soviet empire opened up a wealth of economic opportunities, but very few states have proven adept at penetrating the consumer markets of Ukraine and Russia. Somewhat surprisingly, Turkey is one of those few states. Thanks to the legacy of Soviet central planning, Russian and Ukrainian industry have found it difficult to retool away from heavy industry to produce the consumer goods much in demand in their markets. Because most Ukrainians and Russians cannot afford Western goods, Turkey has carved out a robust and lasting niche with its lower-cost exports; it is now the largest supplier of imports to the Russian market. While this is no exercise in hard power, this Turkish penetration nevertheless is cause for much concern among Russian authorities.

So far, Turkey has been scrupulous about not politicizing these useful trade links beyond some intelligence-gathering efforts (particularly in Ukraine). Considering Russia's current financial problems, having a stable source of consumer goods — especially one that is not China — is actually seen as a positive. At least for now, the Russian government would rather see its trade relationship with Turkey stay strong. There will certainly be a clash later — either as Russia weakens or as Turkey becomes more ambitious — but for now, the Russians are content with the trade relationship.

Second, the Russian retreat in the post-Cold War era has opened up the Balkans to Turkish influence. Romania, Bulgaria and the lands of the former Yugoslavia are all former Ottoman possessions, and in their day they formed the most advanced portion of the Ottoman economy. During the Cold War, they were all part of the Communist world, with Romania and Bulgaria formally incorporated into the Soviet bloc. While most of these lands are now absorbed into the European Union, Russia's ties to its fellow Slavs — most notably the Serbs and Bulgarians — have allowed it a degree of influence that most Europeans choose to ignore. Additionally, Russia has long held a friendly relationship with Greece and Cyprus, both to complicate American policy in Europe and to provide a flank against Turkey. Still, thanks to proximity and trading links, Turkey clearly holds the upper hand in this theater of competition.

But this particular region is unlikely to generate much Turkish-Russian animosity, simply because both countries are in the process of giving up.

Most of the Balkan states are already members of an organization that is unlikely to ever admit Russia or Turkey: the European Union. Russia simply cannot meet the membership criteria, and Cyprus' membership in essence strikes the possibility of Turkish inclusion. (Any EU member can veto the admission of would-be members.) The EU-led splitting of Kosovo from Serbia over Russian objections was a body blow to Russian power in the region, and the subsequent EU running of Kosovo as a protectorate greatly limited Turkish influence as well. Continuing EU expansion means that Turkish influence in the Balkans will shrivel just as Russian influence already has. Trouble this way lies, but not between Turkey and Russia. If anything, their joint exclusion might provide some room for the two to agree on something.

The third area for Russian-Turkish competition is in energy, and this is where things get particularly sticky. Russia is Turkey's No. 1 trading partner, with energy accounting for the bulk of the trade volume between the two countries. Turkey depends on Russia for 65 percent of its natural gas and 40 percent of its oil imports. Though Turkey has steadily grown its trade relationship with Russia, it does not exactly approve of Moscow's penchant for using its energy relations with Europe as a political weapon. Russia has never gone so far as to cut supplies to Turkey directly, but Turkey has been indirectly affected more than once when Russia decided to cut supplies to Ukraine because Moscow felt the need to reassert its writ in Kiev.

Sharing the Turks' energy anxiety, the Europeans have been more than eager to use Turkey as an energy transit hub for routes that would bypass the Russians altogether in supplying the European market. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline is one such route, and others, like Nabucco, are still stuck in the planning stages. The Russians have every reason to pressure the Turks into staying far away from any more energy diversification schemes that could cost Russia one of its biggest energy clients — and deny Moscow much of the political leverage it currently holds over the Europeans who are dependent on the Russian energy network.

There are only two options for the Turks in diversifying away from the Russians. The first lies to Turkey's south in Iraq and Iran. Turkey has big plans for Iraq's oil industry, but it will still take considerable time to upgrade and restore the oil fields and pipelines that have been persistently sabotaged and ransacked by insurgents during the fighting that followed the 2003 U.S. invasion. The Iranians offer another large source of energy for the Turks to tap into, but the political complications attached to dealing with Iran are still too prickly for the Turks to move ahead with concrete energy deals at this time. Complications remain for now, but Turkey wi ll be keeping an eye on its Middle Eastern neighbors for robust energy partnerships in the future.

The second potential source of energy for the Turks lies in Central Asia, a region that Russia must keep in its grip at all costs if it hopes to survive in the long run. In many ways this theater is the reverse of the Balkans, where the Russians hold the ethnic links and the Turks the economic advantage. Here, four of the five Central Asian countries — Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Turkmenistan — are Turkic. But as a consequence of the Soviet years, the infrastructure and economies of all four are so hardwired into the Russian sphere of influence that it would take some major surgery to liberate them. But the prize is a rich one: Central Asia possesses the world& #8217;s largest concentration of untapped energy reserves. And as the term "central" implies, whoever controls the region can project power into the former Soviet Union, China and South Asia. If the Russians and Turks are going to fight over something, this is it.

Here Turkey faces a problem, however — it does not directly abut the region. If the Turks are even going to attempt to shift the Central Asian balance of power, they will need a lever. This brings us to the final — and most dynamic — realm of competition: the Caucasus.

Turkey here faces the best and worst in terms of influence projection. The Azerbaijanis do not consider themselves simply Turkic, like the Central Asians, but actually Turkish. If there is a country in the former Soviet Union that would consider not only allying with but actually joining with another state to escape Russia's orbit, it would be Azerbaijan with Turkey. Azerbaijan has its own significant energy supplies, but its real value is in serving as a willing springboard for Turkish influence into Central Asia.

However, the core of Azerbaijan does not border Turkey. Instead, it is on the other side of Armenia, a country that thrashed Azerbaijan in a war over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh enclave and still has lingering animosities toward Ankara because of the 1915 Armenian "genocide." Armenia has sold itself to the Russians to keep its Turkish foes at bay.

This means Turkish designs on Central Asia all boil down to the former Soviet state of Georgia. If Turkey can bring Georgia fully under its wing, Turkey can then set about to integrate with Azerbaijan and project influence into Central Asia. But without Georgia, Turkey is hamstrung before it can even begin to reach for the real prize in Central Asia.

In this, the Turks do not see the Georgians as much help. The Georgians do not have much in the way of a functional economy or military, and they have consistently overplayed their hand with the Russians in the hopes that the West would come to their aid. Such miscalculations contributed to the August 2008 Georgian-Russian war, in which Russia smashed what military capacity the Georgians did possess. So while Ankara sees the Georgians as reliably anti-Russian, it does not see them as reliably competent or capable.

This means that Turkish-Russian competition may have been short-circuited before it even began. Meanwhile, the Americans and Russians are beginning to outline the rudiments of a deal. Various items on the table include Russia allowing the Americans to ship military supplies to Afghanistan via Russia's sphere of influence, changes to the U.S. ballistic missile defense (BMD) program, and a halt to NATO expansion. The last prong is a critical piece of Russian-Turkish competition. Should the Americans and Europeans put their weight behind NATO expansion, Georgia would be a logical candidate — meaning most of the heavy lifting in terms of Turkey projecting power eastward would already be done. But if the Americans and Europeans do not put their weight behind NATO expansion, Georgia would fall by the wayside and Turkey would have to do all the work of projecting power eastward — and facing the Russians — alone.


A Temporary Meeting of Minds?

There is clearly no shortage of friction points between the Turks and the Russians. With the two powers on a resurgent path, it was only a matter of time before they started bumping into one another. The most notable clash occurred when the Russians decided to invade Georgia last August, knowing full well that neither the Americans nor the Europeans would have the will or capability to intervene on behalf of the small Caucasian state. NATO's strongest response was a symbolic show of force that relied on Turkey, as the gatekeeper to the Black Sea, to allow a buildup of NATO vessels near the Georgian coast and threaten the underbelly of Russia's former Soviet peri phery.

Turkey disapproved of the idea of Russian troops bearing down in the Caucasus near the Turkish border, and Ankara was also angered by having its energy revenues cut off during the war when the BTC pipeline was taken offline.

The Russians promptly responded to Turkey's NATO maneuvers in the Black Sea by holding up a large amount of Turkish goods at various Russian border checkpoints to put the squeeze on Turkish exports. But the standoff was short-lived; soon enough, the Turks and Russians came to the negotiating table to end the trade spat and sort out their respective spheres of influence. The Russian-Turkish negotiations have progressed over the past several months, with Russian and Turkish leaders now meeting fairly regularly to sort out the issues where both can find some mutual benefit.

The first area of cooperation is Europe, where both Russia and Turkey have an interest in applying political pressure. Despite Europe's objections and rejections, the Turks are persistent in their ambitions to become a member of the European Union. At the same time, the Russians need to keep Europe linked into the Russian energy network and divided over any plans for BMD, NATO expansion or any other Western plan that threatens Russian national security. As long as Turkey stalls on any European energy diversification projects, the more it can demand Europe's attention on the issue of EU membership. In fact, the Turks already threatened as much at the start of the year, when they said outright that if Europe doesn't need Turkey as an EU member, then Turkey doesn't need to sign off on any more energy diversification projects that transit Turkish territory. Ankara's threats against Europe dovetailed nicely with Russia's natural gas cutoff to Ukraine in January, when the Europeans once again were reminded of Moscow's energy wrath.

The Turks and the Russians also can find common ground in the Middle East. Turkey is again expanding its influence deep into its Middle Eastern backyard, and Ankara expects to take the lead in handling the thorny issues of Iran, Iraq and Syria as the United States draws down its presence in the region and shifts its focus to Afghanistan. What the Turks want right now is stability on their southern flank. That means keeping Russia out of mischief in places like Iran, where Moscow has threatened to sell strategic S-300 air defense systems and to boost the Iranian nuclear program in order to grab Washington's attention on other issues deemed vital to Moscow's national security interests. The United States is already leaning on Russia to pressure Iran in return for other strategic concessions, and the Turks are just as interested as the Americans in taming Russia's actions in the Middle East.

Armenia is another issue where Russia and Turkey may be having a temporary meeting of minds. Russia unofficially occupies Armenia and has been building up a substantial military presence in the small Caucasian state. Turkey can either sit back, continue to isolate Armenia and leave it for the Russians to dominate through and through, or it can move toward normalizing relations with Yerevan and dealing with Russia on more equal footing in the Caucasus. With rumors flying of a deal on the horizon between Yerevan and Ankara (likely with Russia's blessing), it appears more and more that the Turks and the Russians are making progress in sorting out their respective spheres of influence.

Ultimately, both Russia and Turkey know that this relationship is likely temporary at best. The two Eurasian powers still distrust each other and have divergent long-term goals, even if in the short term there is a small window of opportunity for Turkish and Russian interests to overlap. The law of geopolitics dictates that the two ascendant powers are doomed to clash — just not today.


The above report was provided by Stratfor, the global intelligence news service.

 

INFOGUERRE: ANÁLISE DA ESTRATÉGIA DA CHINA

La Chine face à la puissance militaire américaine, une réponse asymétrique

15-03-2009 dans Matrices stratégiques

La Chine aspire aujourd'hui clairement à devenir une puissance mondiale sur tous les plans. Or, bien qu'étant un géant économique, elle n'en reste pas moins militairement en retard face à son concurrent américain. Ce que ce dernier ne manque pas de lui rappeler en s'interposant vis-à-vis de Taiwan ou en lui bloquant l'accès au Pacifique. La puissance militaire des Etats-Unis reste en effet un argument majeur de leur suprématie mondiale, et de la capacité pour la Chine de la mettre en déroute découlera l'affirmation de sa propre puissance. Or, il semblerait qu'elle ait opté, en parallèle à la modernisation de son armée, pour une stratégie de contournement. Lire la suite…

Na INFOGUERRE

Les techniques de manipulation de l'opinion à l'époque soviétique

16-03-2009 dans Culture et influence, Guerre de l'information

KarlZero.tv propose une interview de Yuri Bezmenov, alias Thomas Schuman ex-agent du KGB passé à l'Ouest dans les années 1970, et qui raconte les techniques de déstabilisation et manipulation de l'opinion occidentale.  Lire la suite…

domingo, 15 de março de 2009

A Coluna dos Sábados no “Correio da Manhã”

Ver claro

14 Março 2009

 

AMEAÇA À BANCA

Para os grandes bancos europeus, o iminente colapso da banca do leste europeu será uma catástrofe pior que a crise do subprime...

FRÁGIL!

A queda das exportações brasileiras, a crise financeira russa, o fracasso da 'segurança' indiana em Bombaim e a crise social da China geram enorme insegurança e afugentam cérebros e capitais! Revela-se a fragilidade oculta dos BRIC...

QUE ACORDO!

Depois de severa investigação do Senado americano, o Liechtenstein cedeu e vai 'colaborar', entregando toda a informação exigida… Muita gente, por todo o globo, claro, ficou, de repente, muito nervosa...

PROTECCIONISMO

Michel Rocard pode, aos 79 anos, falar claro. E que diz o meu velho amigo político, da Paris dos meus 20 anos? 'O mundo suicidou-se, os financeiros fizeram crimes contra a humanidade e agora temos de instaurar um proteccionismo sectorial e temporário. Senão…'

BRONCA NUCLEAR

A Siemens rompeu (em Fevereiro) a sua aliança com os franceses na Areva, líder europeu do nuclear, e ligou-se (em Março) a um partner russo, a Rosatom. A queda da Alemanha para leste muda todo o xadrez energético (e não só...) da Europa.

JAPÃO AVISA

Em vésperas de lançamento de 'satélite' norte-coreano, que abaterá qualquer foguetão lançador que invada o seu espaço...

verclaro.jm@gmail.com

 

José Mateus

sábado, 7 de março de 2009

A Coluna dos Sábados no "Correio da Manhã"

Ver Claro

07 Março 2009

 

Defesa

Defesa precisa modernização: Todo o ministério da Defesa está em reestruturação, que pode ser seguida em site oficial e dedicado, com todas as informações práticas e contactos úteis. Esta reforma da Defesa corresponde à vontade expressa do chefe do governo e vem na sequência de um trabalho sério e já publicado, que mobilizou dezenas de especialistas civis e militares. Calma, não se assustem, aqui "no pasa nada", isto é... em França!

Muito bizarro: Dados dos sistemas do helicóptero oficial de Obama, o 'Marine One', encontrados no... Irão!

Pequim rearma-se: Mais 15% no orçamento militar chinês... Dado oficial.

Patrão da Mossad em Paris, Uzi Arad, vai ser o chefe do conselho nacional de segurança israelita, logo que Benjamin Netanyahu tome posse.

Obama inquieta aliados árabes com a sua vontade de abrir negociações com os persas xiitas do Irão...

75% da cocaína sul-americana distribuída na Europa transita pela Guiné--Bissau, com grandes 'lucros' para oligarcas locais.

Nono mês consecutivo de recuo da actividade económica na zona euro, com quedas maiores, a cada mês...

Exemplar: Com este Governo a chegar ao fim e armada uma grande embrulhada em todas as áreas da Defesa, no gabinete do ministro já se preparam saídas para Bruxelas... As armas e os barões assinalados bem que merecem estas tenças e muitos louvores! E Sócrates, já saberá?

José Mateus

 Consultor de Inteligência Competitiva

verclaro.jm@gmail.com

domingo, 1 de março de 2009

A Coluna dos Sábados no "Correio da Manhã"

Ver Claro

28 Fevereiro 2009

 

Implosão

Défices record e recessão na Alemanha, no Japão, na Inglaterra e nos EUA (Obama já nem sabe que fazer) acompanhados pela escalada do desemprego. Será esta globalização da implosão a implosão da globalização? 2009 é mesmo o "ano negro" que aqui previmos no início de 2008.

Duração. Banca avara e mudança no consumo determinam esta recessão que ninguém sabe quando terminará. A Stratfor já admite... 2020!

Compensação. A erosão da economia exige reforço de outras componentes de potência. Tóquio, Pequim, Moscovo, Paris, Madrid, Washington, apostam na inteligência económica e estratégica e nas 'tecnológicas' de Defesa e Segurança.

Precisão. Para atingir os seus objectivos, Obama quer 'informação oportuna, credível e coerente' da CIA e demais intelligence...

Transformação. Reorganização, novo estatuto e duplicação orçamental fazem dos 'serviços' franceses uma máquina de 'intelligence' para 'saber e antecipar'.

Modernização tecnológica: o KGB recebeu novos armamentos, sistemas de comunicação e transportes, alojamentos e aumento de salários.

Incompreensão. Mexidas à vista nas 'tecnológicas' da Defesa mostram-nos em contraciclo e incapazes de aprender com quem sabe (americanos ou franceses) como fazer a defesa da Economia com a economia da Defesa e garantir o upgrade das arcaicas Defesa e Economia... 

José Mateus

Consultor de Inteligência Competitiva

verclaro.jm@gmail.com