dimanche 29 mars 2009
Mother Nature as our partner
Some people, lately Thomas Friedman in the New York Times have written that the present economic crisis has also an ecological crisis, a crisis in our relationship with Mother Nature. I agree. It seems very clear that we cannot continue our business as usual without normalizing our relations with her. She is a peculiar partner. She is absolutely law-abiding, but absolutely uncompromising too. And we cannot negotiate with her. We must accept her conditions. Or to become extinct.
samedi 14 mars 2009
Some months ago I wrote in Eesti Päevaleht, answering the questions of the editors that NATO is not capable of defending Estonia against Russia. I have no feedback, but probably this view irritated some people in our political establishment and some self-proclaimed security experts. Now I find more or less the same thought expressed by the very authoritative voice of Stratfor a couple of days ago. Here it is:
NATO has moved from defending Western Europe to defending most of Europe, as well as using its expansion to slash Russia’s sphere of influence — containing the former Soviet power behind Russian lines. The most controversial of these expansions came in 2004, when NATO took in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (among others). The Baltic states don’t contribute much to NATO militarily, and they are virtually indefensible against a Russian invasion — which undermines the purpose of NATO. But the inclusion of these former Soviet states expanded NATO literally to the Russian border.
My basic idea was simple: if Moscow experiences a setback in a region it considers vital to its security, it can hit back in another region, first of all where the potential adversary is weak. And Estonia and Latvia are certainly the weakest links in the NATO chain. We are under a bigger threat if Ukraine joins NATO. Fortunately, this won't happen in near future. Are we also threatened if Sweden joins NATO that seems quite possible according to the Stratfor analysis?
NATO has moved from defending Western Europe to defending most of Europe, as well as using its expansion to slash Russia’s sphere of influence — containing the former Soviet power behind Russian lines. The most controversial of these expansions came in 2004, when NATO took in Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia (among others). The Baltic states don’t contribute much to NATO militarily, and they are virtually indefensible against a Russian invasion — which undermines the purpose of NATO. But the inclusion of these former Soviet states expanded NATO literally to the Russian border.
This was and is one of Moscow’s greatest fears.
My basic idea was simple: if Moscow experiences a setback in a region it considers vital to its security, it can hit back in another region, first of all where the potential adversary is weak. And Estonia and Latvia are certainly the weakest links in the NATO chain. We are under a bigger threat if Ukraine joins NATO. Fortunately, this won't happen in near future. Are we also threatened if Sweden joins NATO that seems quite possible according to the Stratfor analysis?
samedi 21 février 2009
Россия как наша гарантия
Каждому жителю Эстонии достается около 3,5 гектаров земли. Этого достаточно, чтобы выжить, хотя довольно скромным образом. Но во всяком случае нас не угрожает экологический кризис в том виде, как он угрожает жителям западной Европы, Китая или Индии. Но этот несомненно грядущий кризис угрожает нам косвенно, в наш регион будут стремиться потоки беженцев из южных стран, страдающих от природных катастроф и социальных потрясений. Эти беженцы не объязательно мирные жители, среди них наверно есть бандиты и члены экстремистских религиозных группировок. Нам вполне возможно предстоит бороться против джихадистов. Этим мы сами не справимся, тут нам очень кстати существование сильной России. Россия для нас и для наших соседов буфер, защищающий нас от опасностей с беспокойного Юга. Россия столкнулась с южными угрозами раньше нас и нам следует надеяться, что она с ними справится. Иначе нам предстоят очень тревожные времена. Россия, как Эстония и другие прибалтийские страны негусто заселена, поэтому и ей прямо не угрожает экокризис. И нам не угрожает массовая миграция россиян. Им хватит места и у себя на родине. Экологически мы в схожей ситуации и у нас схожие интересы. Рано или поздно эти интересы должны найти выражение в политике.
vendredi 23 janvier 2009
Против нацизма или против Германии
Читая биографию адмирала Канариса, главы немецкого Абвера, я вдруг понял одну простую вещь. Союзники боролись в Европе не столько против нацизма, сколько против Германии. Англии и Соединенным Штатам угрожала сильная и уверенная в себе Германия, будь то нацистская, будь то демократическая. Германия была опасной соперницей, с ней надо было справиться. Гитлера долго считали не так уж серьезной угрозой, в каком то смысле он был даже полезен, был ненавистной фигурой и скверным полководцем. Если бы союзники хотели избавиться от него, они поддерживали бы Канариса и его единомышленников. Ничего подобного не было, в самом деле англичане его предали, когда вместо того чтобы поддержать отлично выработанный Канарисом и его единомышленниками план переворота, Чемберлен позвонил Гитлеру, чтобы с ним встретиться. Один из американских высших чинов даже сказал, что они не хотят иметь дело ни с какими прусскими генералами. У союзников была ясная политика: никакого сотрудничества с оппозицией в Германии, никакой поддержки заговорщикам. Как будто боялись, что если в Германии придут к власти умеренные, цивилизованные политики, будет не так удобно продолжать войну против нее, войну до полного уничтожения страны. Хочется спросить, не так ли были дела и с борьбой Запада, 'свободного мира' против коммунизма. И тут Запад скорее всего хотел не допустить того, чтобы Советский Союз, Россия стала действительно великой державой. Как во ворой мировой войне, так и в холодной войне Запад добился своей цели. А нацизм и коммунизм служили отличными отличителжными признаками врага, отличным предлогом мобилизации вооруженных и невооруженных сил против него.
mercredi 21 janvier 2009
Writing history
Politics is writing history, politicians are like novelists. But novelists who are not free to write what they would like. They have to continue writing a text other people have written before them, where the personae, the main plot, the style are already given and not too much can be changed. In addition to these restrictions, there are the readers, the audience, the electorate who is following your every word and loudly expressing their likes, dislikes and wishes you must take into account. Which writer would like to be a writer in such conditions?!
lundi 12 janvier 2009
Campaign against Israeli war or against the Jews?
Reading about the anti-semitic acts of terror and vandalism in Europe and America I wonder what do the perpetrators of these acts really want to achieve. Perhaps they don't think too much, just acting, motivated only by hatred. Hatred against the Jews, not just against Israel or Israeli military actions, its occupation of the West Bank or punitive expedition in Gaza. And I cannot but think that the anti-Israeli activists are sometimes simply stupid. If some islamic states or movements want to get rid of the state of Israel as a Jewish state, they shouldn't harass the Jews elsewhere. Quite the opposite: they should try to make it clear that they are not fighting against the Jews, but against Zionism, againsт migration of Jews into what is now Israel and what they call оccupied Palestine. The leaders of Iran shouldn't arm their proxies in Lebanon and Gaza, instead, they should use their money to pay a premium to every Jew who leaves Israel. The Gulf sheikhs who build hockey stadiums and superlux hotels could well pay every Jew willing to emigrate from Israel a decent sum of money enabling him/her to find a new home and begin a new life elsewhere. After all, it was the European anti-semitism that gave rise to Zionism and created the Eretz Israel. Then too, instead of keeping their Jews, giving them some incentives to stay where they lived, the Arab governments in fact banished them, force them to leave for Israel. And if the local Muslims and their non-Muslim henchmen turn to anti-semitism, it will motivate the European and American Jews to move there or support Israel. The Jews go to Israel because they feel safer there. If the opponents of Israel could convince them that they are even safer in Europe, there would be less Jews leaving Europe for Israel and less unconditional support for Israel among the aliyah Jews. So far the opponents of Israel have done just the opposite, making us to ask if they are sincere enough to tell the truth about their motives and if they are intelligent enough to understand what are their real interests and the ways of defending them. Their actions and their rhetoric are unbelievably counter-productive. Once, a Tunesian intellectual, a devote Muslim told me that if the leaders of the Arab states had been less idiots, there would now be peace in the Near East. He meant the time when the Jewish state was born and fought for its survival. I suspect that nowadays the leaders of the Arab states are more intelligent, but the islamist activists and the Arab street hasn't learnt anything. Or sometimes probably the activists are just exploiting the Palestine issue in their own interest. I am sure that even the fiercely anti-Israeli Iranian leaders don't really wish to abolish Israel, all these people would then have to invent another enemy, another Israel.
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)