The Russian Federation, an old heritage of the new times (I)

First part of interview with Marius Lefter from The first part of the interview relates on the foreign policies and the future challenges of this state.

  • Varianta în limba română poate fi citită aici.

Marius Lefter (M.L.): – What is Moscow’s position regarding the Policy of Neighbourhood of UE?

 Gabriela Ionita (G.I.): – According to the European Commission of Economic and Financial Affairs, European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) – launched in 2003 , this matter provides for the gradual development of trade relations and for traditional cooperation, thus achieving a higher degree of integration between EU and neighbourhood countries. In fact, economically ENP  offers to these states preferential trade relations, participation in the EU internal market, a better relation with the EU ( for the example on transport, telecommunication and energy sector ), none the less the benefit to participate in certain EU programs and some substantial financial support and technical assistance. Although Russia does not fit in this equation, we can easily see that many of the objectives set out in the action plans of partner countries are found in the draft between Russia and EU – Strategic Partnership for Modernization of the Russian Federation and European Union. Moreover, Russia had demonstrated that it has sufficient leverage to influence other countries from its neighbourhood, and the existence in its area of influence of countries that share fundamental values and objectives of EU, countries that have a profound cooperation with member countries, assuming a high level of economic and political integration, which would be a benefit for the Russian economy. Unfortunately, the same levers of power , have demolished neighbourhood states like Belarus and Ukraine. The president of the Russian state , Medvedev recalled that Russian needs the EU technology, economic diversification and new standards to be competitive on a common market. In theory, self-regulation market based on supply and demand. When in the reality is more collared. If we’re speaking of a common economic space between Russia and Europe, we believe that the Russian state will be forced to modernize, if they are looking to be competitive. Normally this should work upon the new markets in the new area. Ukraine and Belarus are not the best references regarding foreign policies for their own interest. About Romania’s role as EU’s border country , the relation with Moldova but also with states like Ukraine or Georgia, and how we could benefit from this context is yet already another story.

ML: – Because you mentioned about Moscow’s leverage on their own interests … how would be seen in this context the problematic of the missile shield and what would be the evolution in this direction ?

 G.I.: – Although no one officially admitted, the security strategy promoted by the President Medvedev seems to have been a failure ( and the return of Vladimir Putin’s to Kremlin, would replace the soft speech of the current president, with a tough and pragmatic discourse famous to the international opinion)  The failure hasn’t come from the wrong strategy, but rather from the perpetuation of mistrust and reluctance between EU chancelleries to Russia, when it comes to security and strategic alliances. In addition,we must not overlook that so controversial, yet only on a theoretical level reformed , blamed for the U.S. influence, Nato brings together top of EU countries. Countries that are trying to get out of the economic crisis since 2008, so limited to security policy proposals that would require even more than do the facts that are already involved. On the other hand,  the restart in the Rusia and U.S. relations has continued to be hunted by the ghosts of the Cold War, in spite of the officials declarations. The refusal of US officials to accept the sectoral responsibility of the anti-rocket shield as it was seen by Moscow, the official issue to put the shield in Romania ( without the discussion with the Russian partners of Nato’s Council ) . The strategic alliance between Romania and U.S. has eroded what was restart. Soon after the election that took place in the Russian Federation , Obama was invited in Kremlin. Many specialists asked themselves, what would both presidents say about the shield issue, one of them is finishing his mandate – Medvedev and another does not knows if he will obtain the second mandate – Obama. Nobody seems to know. All the more Obama, seems busy with the internal situation than the foreign policy. But we must remember that president Medvedev warn regarding the failure of the shield negotiations and the termination of the Second Start Treaty – main objective during the mandates of both presidents. One thing is sure – during the summit that will take place in 2012 in Chicago, the meeting it will be between Obama and the new installed leader of Kremlin – Vladimir Putin.

M.L. : What is the difference between Eurasiatic Union and the Community of Independent States ?

G.I.: The announcement that it will be established a Eurasiatic Union , was received by the occidental media as a headline news, is spite that Kremlin worked very much for the crystallization of it. In this case we face a difference not a vision that has subordinated medium and long-term objectives, theoretically. The reality, the case is not optimistic for the constitution of the Euroasiatic Union, being considered by the Russian economists as a subject for election campaign. Recent, in a interview realized by main television channel in Russia, Vladimir Putin said the reunion of the five economies will create a pole so strong that will be a bridge between European Union and the regional dynamics that all the spotlights of this decade are – Asia. In response, the economist Vladislav Inozemtsev asked rhetorically in a article published by Washington Post, what kind of bridge can be build with the exceeded infrastructure of Russia.  (Full text can be read here)

One response to “The Russian Federation, an old heritage of the new times (I)

  1. A well-designed study of the best specialists in the world economy, but also of strategic military, showed the dangers and vulnerabilities existed at the end of the first decade of XXI century.
    The first plan is position analysis of the global crisis, artificially generated some interest groups that call themselves the leaders of opinion, speculative capital, technical, scientific, cultural, etc.. This issues were brought before the last of those workshops held in secret commissions, away from the press, that world public opinion not know and socio-political analysis and macroeconomic forecast for the next five hundred or a thousand years.
    Considering that most of those leaders are part of the elite banking circles, are owners of large media trusts, monopolies in industry leading genetic information, pharmaceutical, food, industrial, civil and military, to create a current of anti human views, from which it follows that the only solution “exit” would reduce the world’s population – by any means including war – taking small shareholders by large corporations, providing synthetic diet, the reduction in world consumption of goods and services in the Member considered second-class, chemical castration “inferior races”, increasing the total surveillance population by microchips, use cards, specialized satellites to monitor all persons, etc.. Free cancellation desired health benefits, education welfare, drastically reducing pensions and salaries, decriminalization hallucinogens consumption and acts of aggression with armed hand, by amending the legislation, etc.
    There are countries where pilot tests are performed to see the degree of reaction and public opinion, the measures adopted anti-humanitarian and exclusion and physical elimination of pro-humanitarian opinion leaders, amid well-directed media campaigns.
    One of the main aims is the abolition of national values: cultural, religious, scientific, economic, political, media campaigns well directed, but also by increasing global surveillance and unjust criminalization of alleged corruption by specialized institutions, with repressive role, but also by the dissolution of any public protest demonstrations, by strengthening the repressive apparatus and security.
    Another anti-humanitarian component is local or regional conflicts priming for the outbreak of military hostilities, because in the end those conflicts to expand globally, the benefit of owners of banks and corporations that produce military equipment and destruction the table. Initially will produce some popular revolt in some states, eliminating the nation’s political leaders devoted their leaders and replace them with controllable elected “democratic” right to execute orders from the center of world order, even against the interests of the people they represent.
    Expert Group outlined above, in any way want to reduce world population by half, to be better controlled, and be taken over all assets important mineral resources and power in hands of a few transnational corporations. Under the pretext of fighting terrorism or restoring desired dictatorships a new global order based on new principles anti-humanitarian. Very seriously is that it wants the extinction of half the world’s population, most of the poorest countries, and control over those remaining, that a new era neo-slave-owning the council led by a world with harmonic and profound aspirations and quasi-genocidal anti-humanitarian .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s