sexta-feira, 26 de março de 2004

Desenvolvimentos geo-estratégicos para a Última Guerra Mundial

Hipótese: Em todas as guerras todos têm razão mas a guerra faz-se na mesma, estabelecendo-se em cada uma, as condições para que uma ainda maior e mais devastadora, tenha lugar passados alguns anos ou décadas, despoletado sempre por um qualquer acontecimento que parece inesperado e aparentemente não ligado a acontecimentos anteriores - mas é só aparentemente.

Hip 1. Estados Unidos Prontos para Retirar Metade das Forças da Alemanha

"Os planos do Pentágono para um "realinhamento global" das suas forças estacionadas no estrangeiro prevê retiradas maciças da Europa e da Ásia, incluindo metade do contingente de 71 mil soldados na Alemanha, escreveu ontem o "Washington Post", citando fontes da Administração.

Em vez de grandes concentrações de tropas, os Estados Unidos vão preferir bases mais pequenas e menos sofisticadas. No continente europeu, os planos apontam para a Roménia e talvez a Bulgária; mais para leste, manterão as instalações no Uzbequistão, no Tajiquistão e na Quirguízia, estabelecidas para apoiar a intervenção no Afeganistão, em 2001."

Mas estes passos trazem problemas:

Hip 2.
Russia warns NATO with nuclear option

"Russia's defense minister Thursday repeated an earlier warning to NATO that he may order a build-up of the country's nuclear defenses should the US-led alliance continue to expand and take an unfriendly view of Moscow.
Sergei Ivanov said the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was following an aggressive strategy and treating Russia as a threat rather than a partner.

"If NATO continues to keep to its offensive military doctrine, then Russia's military planning and the principles of Russia's military procurement -- including in the nuclear sphere -- will be adequately reevaluated," the Interfax new agency quoted Ivanov as saying.

"Russia is carefully observing the process of NATO's transformation," said Ivanov, who is seen as one of President Vladimir Putin's closest political allies in government.

He said that some new NATO members both "directly and indirectly" display anti-Russian policies.

Russia and NATO have recently come to blows over the alliance's plans to station warplanes in the three Baltic states and former Soviet republics of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.(...)"

E como já é habitual, é Pat Buchanan que vê e recorda a história com mais clareza:

Hip 3.
What Are We Doing in Russia's Neighborhood?

Napoleon III, Emperor of France, saw his opportunity.

With the United States sundered and convulsed in civil war, he would seize Mexico, impose a Catholic monarchy and block further expansion of the American republic. In 1863, a French army marched into Mexico City. In 1864, Maximilian, the brother of Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph, was crowned Emperor of Mexico. The French empire had returned to North America a century after its expulsion in 1763.

Secretary of State Seward did nothing until the Union armies had defeated the Confederacy. Then, he called in Gen. John Schofield, who had wanted to lead an army of volunteers into Mexico to drive the French out, and instructed him instead to go to Paris. "I want you to get your legs under Napoleon's mahogany and tell him he must get out of Mexico," Seward told Schofield. To impress upon Napoleon that the Union was in earnest, President Johnson, at the urging of Grant and Sherman, sent Gen. Sheridan with 40,000 troops to the Rio Grande.

Napoleon got the message. The French army headed for the boats, and Maximilian went before a Mexican firing squad.

Lesson: Nations are unwise to seize upon the temporary weakness of a great power to put military forces inside its sphere of influence.

Which brings us to this headline in last week's Washington Post: "U.S. May Set Up Bases in Former Soviet Republics."
(...)
Query: What are we doing there? What is the strategic interest in Georgia? Tbilisi is about as far away as one can get. Why are we rubbing Russia's nose in her Cold War defeat by putting U.S. imperial troops into nations that only yesterday were a part of that country? Powell anticipated the question: "Are we pointing a dagger in the soft underbelly of Russia? Of course not. What we're doing is working together against terrorism."

But after Iraq, where we invaded an oil-rich country on what the world believes were false pretenses and forged evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, why should Russians not suspect our motives?

After all, the neoconservatives who beat the drums loudest for war, and cherry-picked the intelligence sent to Bush that got us into war, have been braying for years that we intend to create an American empire and impose our "benevolent global hegemony" on all mankind.

Why should Russians, Chinese and Iranians not believe America's crusader castles in Central Asia and the Caucasus are not part of a grand scheme for a Pax Americana?
(...)Have we considered the consequences of planting military bases in countries afflicted by Islamic fundamentalism and ruled by autocrats who, only 15 years ago, were apparatchiks of Moscow?

A U.S. imperial presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus resented by Russia, Iran and China and detested by Islamists is less likely to contain terrorism than to invite it.
(...)
But if we are entitled to our own Monroe Doctrine – i.e., no foreign colonies or bases in our backyard – are not other great nations like China and Russia equally entitled? Why should they not feel as we do, and one day act as we did with Napoleon, and tell us to get out of Central Asia and to get out of the Caucasus?

But, again, why are we going in? Other than empire, what is the vital interest here?"

Hip 4. O que nos leva a outra guerra para acabar com todas as guerras: A Guerra na Crimeia

"In October of the same year, the Ottoman Turks declared war on Russia. War between Russia and Turkey was nothing new, as the Russo-Turkish Wars (1768–74, 1787–92, 1828–29) evidence. They had first clashed over Astrakhan in 1569. Although Constantinople had fallen to the Turks in 1453, the Ottoman Empire was in decline, and Russia, since the time of Peter the Great (1672–1725), had wanted to secure a warm-water outlet to the Mediterranean – at the expense of Ottoman territory. This naturally upset France and Great Britain, which saw Russian ambitions as a threat to the balance of power in the Mediterranean. Russia was given an ultimatum demanding the withdrawal of its forces from the principalities. When Russia refused, France and Great Britain, having already dispatched fleets to the Black Sea, declared war on Russia on March 28, 1854. The Anglo-Franco alliance was a precarious one. France and Great Britain had historically been enemies, but, like Herod and Pilate, who "were made friends together" when they allied to condemn Christ (Luke 23:1–12), they united to check the ambitions of Russia, under the guise of defending Turkey.
(...)
For political or commercial reasons, or both, the war was portrayed in the best possible light. A positive report was needed to counter negative press reports and to encourage the British nation to support the war effort. For this reason, Fenton’s photographs can be considered the first instance of photographic propaganda.

The Crimean War destroyed the lives of over 200,000 men(...)The Crimean War could have and should have been the war to end all wars. Instead, as A. N. Wilson remarks in The Victorians, it was the greatest blunder of the nineteenth century, setting up animosities and alliances that led to World War I and the continuing turmoil of Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and Central Asia."

E a WWI leva a Versailles, a queda das monarquias ao fascismo e comunismo. A crise de 1929 (ele próprio com raízes no fim do padrão ouro provocado pela colapso financeiro na WWI), o perigo comunista (reforçado pelos eventos) e o sentimento de injustiça que alimenta o fanatismo, a Hitler. A WWII leva à vitoria de Estaline e do comunismo. Os Estados Ocidentais não cessam o seu intervencionismo no médio oriente (desde a queda do Império Otomano). O comunismo cai, a Russia está enfraquecida, surgem novos países no seu domínio natural. O conflito territorial na Palestina continua. o Irão é o inimigo. Saddam é apoiado contra este inimigo. Depois o Golfo I e bases na Arábia Saudita, Sanções no Iraque, apoio acritico a todas as acções e ocupações de Israel. Bosnia, Servia e Kosovo tornam a NATO numa organização política abandonando o caracter defenssivo. Depois 11/9, Afeganistão e Golfo II. Ameaça aos regimes da Siria, Irão e Arábia Saudita. Israel tem um arsenal desconhecido e não declarado de armas nucleares. Nato envolvida no Afeganistão. EUA instalam-se na vizinhança da Rússia, e a Nato também. A Rússia e a China começam a acordar economicamente e com capacidade de suportar um maior protagonismo político e militar. EUA enfraquecidos estratégicamente, orçamentalmente, e militarmente. EUA e aliados tornam-se objecto directo de todos as tensões na península árabe e de muçulmanos (não o eram antes) e já não tem volta. E o resto logo se verá...

Hipótese: Em todas as guerras todos têm razão mas a guerra faz-se na mesma, estabelecendo-se em cada uma, as condições para que uma ainda maior e mais devastadora, tenha lugar passados alguns anos ou décadas, despoletado sempre por um qualquer acontecimento que parece inesperado e aparentemente não ligado a acontecimentos anteriores - mas é só aparentemente.

Sem comentários:

Enviar um comentário