Informazione



http://www.occupy.com/article/exposed-globally-renowned-activist-collaborated-intelligence-firm-stratfor


Occupy.com
December 2, 2013


Exposed: Globally Renowned Activist Collaborated With Intelligence Firm Stratfor


Carl Gibson and Steve Horn


Serbia’s Srdja Popovic is known by many as a leading architect of regime changes in Eastern Europe and elsewhere since the late-1990s, and as one of the co-founders of Otpor!, the U.S.-funded Serbian activist group which overthrew Slobodan Milošević in 2000.

Lesser known, an exclusive Occupy.com investigation reveals that Popovic and the Otpor! offshoot CANVAS (Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies) have also maintained close ties with a Goldman Sachs executive and the private intelligence firmStratfor (Strategic Forecasting, Inc.), as well as the U.S. government. Popovic’s wife also worked at Stratfor for a year.

These revelations come in the aftermath of thousands of new emails released by Wikileaks’ “Global Intelligence Files.” The emails reveal Popovic worked closely with Stratfor, an Austin, Texas-based private firm that gathers intelligence on geopolitical events and activists forclients ranging from the American Petroleum Institute and Archer Daniels Midland to Dow Chemical, Duke Energy, Northrop Grumman, Intel and Coca-Cola.

Referred to in emails under the moniker “SR501,” Popovic was first approached by Stratfor in 2007 to give a lecture in the firm’s office about events transpiring in Eastern Europe, according to a Stratfor source who asked to remain confidential for this story.

In one of the emails, Popovic forwarded information about activists harmed or killed by the U.S.-armed Bahraini government, obtained from the Bahrain Center for Human Rights during the regime’s crackdown on pro-democracy activists in fall 2011. Popovic also penned a blueprint for Stratfor on how to unseat the now-deceased Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez in September 2010.


Stratfor’s Global Activist Connector

Using his celebrated activist status, Popovic opened many doors for Stratfor to meet with activists globally. In turn, the information Stratfor intended to gain from Popovic’s contacts would serve as “actionable intelligence”—the firm billed itself as a “Shadow CIA”—for its corporate clients.

Popovic passed information to Stratfor about on-the-ground activist events in countries around the world, ranging from the Philippines,LibyaTunisiaVietnamIranAzerbaijanEgyptTibetZimbabwePoland and BelarusGeorgiaBahrainVenezuela and Malaysia. Often, the emails reveal, Popovic passed on the information to Stratfor without the consent of the activists and likely without the activists ever knowing that their emails were being shuttled to the private security firm.

In the U.S., this investigation’s co-author, Carl Gibson (representing US Uncut), and the Yes Men’s Andy Bichlbaum had a meeting with Popovic shortly after their two respective groups used a media hoax to play a prank on General Electric, ridiculing the company over itsnon-payment of U.S. taxes.

The pair gave Popovic information about both groups’ plans for the coming year and news later came out that Stratfor closely monitored the Yes Men’s activities. (The blow photograph taken by Bichlbaum in April 2011 shows Popovic (L) and US Uncut’s Carl Gibson.)

During the Arab Spring, in Egypt in January 2011, Popovic received an interview invitation for an appearance on CNN. The first people he turned to for talking points were Stratfor employees, who provided him with five talking points to lead with.

Stratfor said Popovic’s main use for the firm was his vast array of grassroots activist contacts around the world.

“A little reminder that the main utility in this contact is his ability to connect us to the troublemakers around the world that he is in touch with. His own ability to discern situation on the ground may be limited, he mainly has initial contact with an asset and then lets them do their own thing,” reads a May 2010 email written by former Stratfor Eurasia Analyst Marko Papic. “He does himself have information that may be useful from time to time. But, the idea is to gather a network of contacts through CANVAS, contacts that we can then contact independently.”

Popovic was so well-received by Stratfor that he even got his wife, Marijah, a job there. She worked for a year from March 2010 through March 2011 as the weekend open source intelligence analyst at Stratfor. The other candidate for the job, Jelena Tancic, also worked for CANVAS.

“The Canvas guy [Popovic] is a friend/source [for Stratfor], and recommended her to us,” Stratfor’s Vice President of Analysis Scott Stewart said in a March 2010 email, leaving out that the two were dating at the time.

Popovic and his wife grew so close to Stratfor, in fact, that Popovic invited numerous members of the Stratfor staff to their wedding in Belgrade, Serbia.


Helping Stratfor Manufacture Revolutions

Stratfor saw Popovic’s main value not only as a source for intelligence on global revolutionary and activist movements, but also as someone who, if needed, could help overthrow leaders of countries hostile to U.S. geopolitical and financial interests. So useful was Popovic to Stratfor that the firm gave him a free subscription, dubbed “legit sources we use all the time as a company” by Papic.

In a June 2011 email, Papic referred to Popovic as a “great friend” of his and described him as a “Serb activist who travels the world fomenting revolution.”

“They…basically go around the world trying to topple dictators and autocratic governments (ones that U.S. does not like ;),” Papic says in one email. Replying to a follow up to that email, he states, “They just go and set up shop in a country and try to bring the government down. When used properly, more powerful than an aircraft carrier battle group.”

In response to the “aircraft battle group” email, Stratfor Vice President of Intelligence Fred Burton sardonically said that perhaps they could be sent into Iran. Emails also reveal Popovic served as an information source intermediary for on-the-ground activists in Iran, also informing Stratfor of the funding struggle for “democracy programs” there, as the U.S. government pushed a “soft power” agenda.

Another March 2010 email from Stewart to Burton said that CANVAS was “trying to get rid of Chavez,” referring to the late Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez. In 2007, CANVAS trained activists to overthrow Chavez.

“If I remember correctly, we use hushmail communication to contact him regarding Venezuela due to the sensitivity of using a revolutionary NGO as a source considering we have clients who operate in country,” Papic said in a January 2011 email of Popovic.

Stratfor grew so enamored of CANVAS’s ability to foment regime change abroad that it invited Popovic to its Austin headquarters in 2010 to give seminars on the subject, and paid for his trip there.


CANVAS’s Goldman Sachs Cash

One of CANVAS’s major funders is Muneer Satter, a former Goldman Sachs executive who stepped down from that position in June 2012and now owns Satter Investment Management LLC. Stratfor CEO Shea Morenz worked for ten years at Goldman Sachs as well, where he served as Managing Director in the Investment Management Division and Region Head for Private Wealth Management for the Southwest Region.

Satter is meanwhile a major funder of the Republican Party, giving over $300,000 to Karl Rove’s Super PAC Crossroads GPS before the 2012 election, and another $100,000 to the Republican Governors Association in the first half of 2013 prior to the 2014 mid-term elections.

Living in a massive, $9.5 million mansion in Chicago’s North Shore suburb of Lake Michigan, Muneer also gave $50,000 toward President Obama’s inaugural fund in 2009.

When it came time to connect Muneer with the global intelligence firm, Popovic served as the middle man introducing Satter to Stratfor Chairman George Friedman.

“Whenever I want to understand the details behind world events, I turn to Stratfor,” reads an endorsement from Satter on Stratfor’s website. “They have the most detailed and insightful analysis of world affairs and are miles ahead of mainstream media.”


Otpor!: A Counter-History

To understand how Popovic came to aide Stratfor in its intelligence-gathering efforts, it’s crucial to examine Otpor! and CANVAS critically. A close examination demonstrates that Popovic was a natural choice to be a Stratfor informant and close advisor.

Often valorized by grassroots activists and Western media, there was far more to the “Bulldozer Revolution” that led to the overthrow of Milošević and subsequent Eastern European regimes than meets the eye.

“In principle, [Serbia] was an overt operation, funded by congressional appropriations of around $10 million for fiscal 1999 and $31 million for 2000. Some Americans involved in the anti-Milosevic effort said they were aware of CIA activity at the fringes of the campaign, but had trouble finding out what the agency was up to,” explained a 2000 investigative piece appearing in The Washington Post.

“The lead role was taken by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, the government’s foreign assistance agency, which channeled the funds through commercial contractors and nonprofit groups such as NDI and its Republican counterpart, the International Republican Institute (IRI).”

Papic’s statement about CANVAS being “more powerful than an aircraft carrier” wasn’t mere hyperbole, but was based on the Otpor! Serbia experience in the late-1990s.

“In fact between 1997 and 2000 the National Endowment for Democracy and US government may have accomplished what NATO’s 37,000 bombing sorties had been unable to do: oust Milosevic, replace him with their favoured candidate Vojislav Kostunica and promote a neoliberal vision for Serbia,” independent scholar Michael Barker wrote for Z Magazine. “In much the same way as corporate front groups and astroturf groups recruit genuinely committed supporters, strategically useful social movements can potentially dominate civil society when provided with the right resources (massive financial and professional backing).”

Otpor! was so successful that it was ushered into Ukraine to help manufacture regime change there in 2004, using the template applied originally in Serbia with $65 million in cash from the U.S. government.

“We trained them in how to set up an organization, how to open local chapters, how to create a ‘brand,’ how to create a logo, symbols, and key messages,” an Otpor! activist told U.S.-funded media outlet Radio Free Europe-Radio Liberty. “We trained them in how to identify the key weaknesses in society and what people’s most pressing problems were—what might be a motivating factor for people, and above all young people, to go to the ballot box and in this way shape their own destiny.”

The overthrow of Milošević was accompanied by U.S.-funding for the creation of a robust media apparatus in Serbia, and Popovic’s wife worked at one of the U.S.-funded radio and TV outlets as a journalist and anchor B92 from 2004-2009.

“By helping Radio B92 and linking it with a network of radio stations (ANEM), international assistance undermined the regime’s direct and indirect control over news and information,” a January 2004 policy paper released by USAID explained. “In Serbia, independent media supported by USAID and other international donors facilitated the regime change.”

Critics point out that what happened in Eastern Europe was regime change, not revolution in any real sense of the term.

“[They] were not revolutions at all; actually, they were little more than intra-elite power transfers,’” Portland State University Professor of Urban Studies and Planning, Gerald Sussman, explained in his book, “Branded Democracy: U.S. Regime Change in Post-Soviet Eastern Europe.”

“Modern tactics of electioneering were employed to cast regime change as populist, which took advantage of the unstable and vulnerable situations in those regions following the breakup of the Soviet Union,” he wrote.

Given Otpor!’s ties to powerful factions in the U.S. government, perhaps it’s unsurprising that Popovic felt comfortable giving a lecture to the Air Force Academy in May 2010, and attending a National Security Council meeting in December 2009.

 A powerful individual who lobbied the U.S. government to give money to CANVAS early on was Michael McFaul, the current U.S. Ambassador to Russia for the State Department and someone who “worked closely with” Popovic while serving as a Senior Fellow at theright-wing Hoover Institution at Stanford University.


Critics Chime In, Popovic Responds

Maryam Alkhawaja, director of the Bahrain Center for Human Rights, said she had known Popovic for several years as an activist and had no knowledge of his outside relationships before the Wikileaks release of Stratfor emails.

“Srdja is someone I’ve met more than once. He was very supportive of the Bahrain revolution, supportive of the human rights fight,” Alkhawaja said in a phone interview. “When he gave me their information, that’s what surprised me the most.”

Alkhawaja said that at the time she wasn’t aware of what kind of firm Stratfor was, but she became immediately suspicious after reading Stratfor’s questions to her. She never corresponded with Stratfor due to what she felt was the suspicious nature of the emails coming from the firm.

“It was a series of really weird intelligence agency-like questions, given that they knew I was working in a human rights group. They were asking questions like, who’s funding the party coalition, how many members do they have, questions that even I didn’t know the answers to,” she said. “The fact that they asked questions like that, made me question the motive behind the email I received. Thats why I never responded.”

“Whenever we get emails like that or were contacted by people who seemed very interested in asking intelligence agency-like questions, we usually block them, because we know they probably work for the government,” Alkhawaja continued. “Journalists know the kind of work we do so they wouldn’t ask those questions in the first place. I just found the email very weird and thats why I actually never responded.”

In a Skype interview, one of Otpor!’s co-founders, who left the movement and asked to maintain his confidentiality, said his primary concern from the Wikileaks emails was that Popovic was giving out activists’ information to a third party without their prior consent.

An interview with Popovic sang a different tune about CANVAS. He stated, “We definitely wouldn’t jeopardize any of our activists’ safety, so we always follow their lead and never expose them to anybody without their consent.”

Popovic also said CANVAS would speak to anyone and everyone—without any discrimination—about nonviolent direct action.

“CANVAS will present anywhere — to those committed to activism and nonviolent struggle, but also to those who still live in the Cold War era and think that tanks and planes and nukes shape the world, not the common people leading popular movements,” he said.

“If we can persuade any decision maker in the world, in Washington, Kremlin, Tel Aviv or Damascus that it is nonviolent struggle that they should embrace and respect – not foreign military intervention, or oppression over own population – we would do that.”

Yet, given Popovic’s track-record—and specifically, who buttered his bread during the long professional career he pursued in activism—critics say Popovic fit like a glove at Stratfor.

“A group of Serbs cannot lead a protest movement anywhere outside Serbia, but his techniques are nonetheless instrumental in helping achieve certain political aims,” Professor Sussman said in an interview. “He also serves as an intelligence gatherer in the process—of use to private and state intelligence agencies. That’s what Stratfor saw as his use.”



(castellano / francais / italiano)


AVANTI UN ALTRO


Le rivendicazioni neo-naziste rivolte dapprima contro la Jugoslavia, adesso prevalentemente contro la Serbia, non hanno fine. Adesso è la volta dell'irredentismo bulgaro. C'è da sperare che non ci mettano lo zampino i paesi NATO, che hanno dimostrato negli ultimi vent'anni di essere sempre pronti ad assecondare e sostenere, anche con la violenza militare, i movimenti disgreganti e di segno reazionario che mirano a ristabilire nell'area balcanica l'ancien régime antecedente la Prima Guerra Mondiale. (a cura di IS)




El partido nacionalista búlgaro Ataka presentó en el Parlamento una declaración en la cual exige devolver a Bulgaria las tierras de Serbia y Macedonia, que perdió tras la derrota en la Primera Guerra Mundial.

De acuerdo con los nacionalistas búlgaros, el Estado que firmó el tratado de paz (Reino de los Serbios, Croatas y Eslovenos) desapareció, lo que significa que las tierras separadas deben ser devueltas a Bulgaria.

Ataka cree que la cuestión de la devolución de estos territorios debe ser resuelta antes de la inclusión de Serbia y Macedonia en la UE, según la declaración.

vl/as/sm




Bulgarie : Ataka revendique les territoires irrédents de Serbie et de Macédoine


News.bg - 8 novembre 2013
Traduit par Jaklina Naumovski

Le souvenir de la Première Guerre mondiale est toujours une plaie ouverte pour les mémoires collectives des populations des Balkans. Le Parti nationaliste Ataka, qui soutient la coalition menée par le Parti socialiste bulgare (BSP), a ainsi jeté un pavé dans la mare en réclamant le retour des territoires cédés par Sofia à l’issu du Traité de Neuilly du 27 novembre 1919. Pas sûr que les voisins serbes et macédoniens se réjouissent de cette initiative...

Par Diliana Panaïotova


Le 27 novembre 1919, le traité de Neuilly était signé entre les Alliés et la Bulgarie. Sofia se voyait obligée de céder certains territoires à titre de compensation de guerre, perdant ainsi ses marges occidentales, octroyées au Royaume des Serbes, des Croate et des Slovènes. Le pays cédait aussi la Dobrudja, accordée à la Roumanie et la Thrace occidentale, qui passait à la Grèce. Ces pertes n’ont jamais été « digérées » par la Bulgarie.

Désormais membre du gouvernement, le parti nationaliste Ataka a ainsi relancé la vieille idée d’un retour des terres perdus dans le giron national. Un des cadres du parti, Adrian Asenov, a déclaré que « les territoires habités par des personnes ayant un sentiment bulgare en Serbie et en Macédoine doivent être restitués à la Bulgarie ».

C’est lors de son allocution à l’occasion du 94ème anniversaire du Traité de Neuilly, qu’Adrian Asenov a déclaré que « la Serbie et l’Ancienne République Yougoslave de Macédoine ne peuvent pas être considérées comme les successeurs du Royaume des Serbes, des Croate et des Slovènes : la Serbie n’a pas été reconnue par l’ONU comme successeur légal de la Yougoslavie et l’ARYM n’est même pas reconnue sous son nom constitutionnel ».

Les nationalistes estiment que le « diktat » de Neuilly n’a donc plus de base légale et qu’il n’est plus valide en raison de la disparition de l’État avec lequel avait été conclu l’accord. Cela signifie que les territoires amputés à la Bulgarie doivent lui être restitués. « Le traité de Neuilly n’est même pas légitime en Bulgarie, il n’a pas été ratifié par le Parlement, comme l’exige la Constitution de Tarnovo », ajoute Adrian Asenov.

Pour le parti Ataka, les régions de l’Ouest doivent être restituées avant l’adhésion de la Serbie dans l’Union européenne. La région de Strumica fera plus tard son retour au sein des territoires bulgares.

« A bas Neuilly ! »

L’organisation de jeunesse du VMRO-BMD a également organisé une marche dans Sofia intitulée « A bas Neuilly ! », dans le but de dénoncer l’illégitimité de ce traité. Depuis des années, l’événement est marqué par le VMRO avec un défilé aux flambeaux à l’anniversaire de la date à laquelle fut signé le Traité de Neuilly, le 27 novembre 1919.

Cette date ne fut pas choisie par hasard par les vainqueurs, elle est considérée par les Bulgares comme un symbole humiliant : jusqu’à la Première Guerre mondiale, cette journée était célébrée comme la journée des victoires bulgares. Le traité de Neuilly est une page noire dans l’histoire bulgare, qui a fragmenté de territoire national et laissé des millions de personnes hors des frontières du nouvel État.





http://voiceofrussia.com/2013_12_02/Kosovo-is-Serbia-NATO-is-an-atavism-Ambassador-Chepurin-3805/

Voice of Russia - December 2, 2013

Kosovo is Serbia, NATO is an atavism – Ambassador Chepurin

John Robles

The Russian Ambassador to Serbia Alexander Chepurin recently gave a speech at the Belgrade Academy for Diplomacy and Security in which he stated that Serbia joining NATO, an almost unbelievable development, would be a red line that in no way suits Russia. During his question and answer session with the students he also mentioned a second red line for Russia, namely that that nobody should pressure Serbia during EU negotiations and that any form of integration "must not interfere with the long tradition of cultural, economic, and political Russo-Serbian ties: because that is primarily in the interest of Serbia."

Media silence

While such statements and in fact the entire speech should have caused quite a stir in the world’s media there was almost no coverage nor reaction in the Western press. This is understandable with the current state of information warfare but further underlines the extent that the western media has been compromised, annexed and continues to hold an anti-Russian line, this time by omission.

It is understandable that the West is desperate and will do anything that it can to stop the spread or development of Russian influence, this is especially true of US/ NATO, especially in light of the their recent failures in Syria and Ukraine, and judging from the coverage of the event in the world’s English language media it would appear that the West is currently winning the information war, with even Russian media sources apparently "afraid" to publicize such stories.

Serbia a NATO member?

During his appearance at the Belgrade Academy for Diplomacy and Security, Chepurin stated that it would be; "utter stupidity if somebody from Serbia were to crawl over and beg (to join NATO), after the bombing that Serbia incurred and which caused damage worth US $120 billion. That's the red line that in no way suits Russia".

That is just one reason why it would be absurd to think of Serbia joining NATO, there are dozens of others, but the fact that US/NATO have never assisted in rebuilding what they destroyed, something they regularly do not do, is a key reason.

Another and perhaps even more monumentally important reason is of course Kosovo which US/NATO have annexed with the help of local Muslim Albanian forces and on the territory of which they immediately built the largest US military base outside of the United States after "recognizing its independence".

Yet another is the International Criminal Court on the Former Yugoslavia which has been completely biased and uneven in its prosecution of Serbs and has proven itself by its track record to be an instrument of the West.

Chepurin reiterated the fact that NATO was created as an alliance against the USSR and that its function in the modern world is questionable, something much of the free and independent world have stated since the dissolving of the Warsaw Pact and which US/NATO officials have also recently all but admitted to in public statements regarding "attempting to stay relevant".

The ambassador stated: "NATO was created against the Soviet Union, which is long gone, and it is absolutely unclear what NATO stands against now; or do you really want to go to war in Iraq, Libya, or Syria? There's no other advantage there or would you like to fraternize with Turkey, which is a NATO member."

The fact that NATO needs countries like Serbia, Ukraine and all of the other countries that it is trying to draw into its alliance more than those countries need NATO is a fact that should be underlined and the primary topic of debate but the West completely keeps that matter off the radar. Not only does NATO need the personnel and the resources of all of the countries it can get as cannon fodder for its endless wars, but it also needs the territories of all of the territories which will tolerate its presence to base its military forces and infrastructure in order to propagate itself and be an effective tool for the "projection of US force", as the Pentagon recently stated.

The ambassador made the very astute observation that countries do not have be members of NATO to be members of the EU, something the West has attempted to present as a given. He gave the examples of Austria, Sweden and Ireland.

Finally with regard to NATO Chepurin reminded the audience that Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu was in Belgrade recently, and received confirmation in all meetings that Serbia will not join NATO."
What NATO is and who controls it were also boldly summed up by the ambassador who said "NATO represents an atavism from the last century," and with regard to attempts to tie EU integration to NATO membership: "…. there are madmen who are trying to make use of that thesis!"

Serbia and the European Union

Regarding Serbia and EU membership the diplomat accepted the fact but made it clear that such should not damage ties with Russia, nor of future organizations: "nor should it additionally complicate its ties with the Eurasian Union, which will be created in 2015, and which considers development of relations with Serbia as very important." He also said "It is unacceptable for us that any form of integration should disrupt our relations, for example, our visa-free regime."

Ukraine

According to the website B92 net, one of the few site reporting on the event: "… on several occasions Chepurin stated that "everyone has an imagination that is shattered when it meets the reality," and mentioned Ukraine as an example of a country that "met the reality when it was supposed to sign the free trade agreement with the EU."

"There was an impression that each year tens of billions of euros would be arriving to Ukraine from the EU, while in fact it was about one billion over seven years. The damage from severing the free trade with Russia would have been a hundred times greater." he said.

This economic reality is of course something the West does not want the world to know about but it is the reality. The US with an actual debt of over $200 trillion and the European Union, whose countries are still reeling from economic crisis and is in fact economically questionable, needs more members to prop up its own house of cards and other than visa free regimes, more regulation, loss of sovereignty, opening internal markets to external exploitation and an outdated military bloc seeking to propagate itself into a worldwide force the EU really has little to offer.

Kosovo

On the key question of Kosovo Chepurin stressed that the Russian Federation continues to offer Serbia "absolute support" when it came to Kosovo, but that he "did not wish to comment too strongly on some internal issues in Serbia."

"There are several possibilities within international law for the thing to be resolved in a way in which Serbia is interested to resolve it. An impression is being created here that everything had fallen through, but this question requires effort and persistence. You must have faith that you are capable of solving that issue. The truth is on your side, and much depends on you," said the Russian ambassador.

Chepurin made it clear in so many words who was really behind the "independence of Kosovo" and likened those forces to the same ones who are backing and funding terrorist groups in the Russian Republic of Chechnya.

According to the site Tanjung speaking about the issue of Chechnya, Chepurin underlined that all secessionist forces cannot possibly endure without backing from abroad, and concerning the decision of ethnic Albanians to unilaterally proclaim Kosovo's independence, he concluded: "friends say: Kosovo is Serbia."

Kosovo is Serbia indeed and for many Serbians, it is their very heart.

---


Beta News Agency/Tanjug News Agency - November 29, 2013

Serbia's NATO membership - "red line for Russia"

BELGRADE: Russian Ambassador in Serbia Aleksandr Chepurin has said that his country would find Serbia's possible future membership in NATO "unacceptable."
Speaking at the Belgrade Academy for Diplomacy and Security, he noted that it would represent "utter stupidity if somebody from Serbia were to crawl over and beg (to join), after the bombing that incurred Serbia damages worth USD 120 billion."
"That's the red line that in no way suits Russia. NATO was created against the Soviet Union, which is long gone, and it is absolutely unclear what NATO stands against now - or do you really want to go to war in Iraq, Libya, or Syria? There's no other advantage there - or would you like to fraternize with Turkey, which is a NATO member, " the ambassador asked. 
He then said that Austria, Sweden and Ireland are all EU members although they stayed away from NATO, and that membership in the EU does not mean a country must also join the military alliance. 
"However, there are madmen who are trying to make use of that thesis," he remarked. 
Chepurin also spoke about Russia's "second red line" when it came to Serbia - that "nobody should pressure Serbia during the negotiations to 'tie itself to something'," and that any form of integration "must not interfere with the long tradition of cultural, economic, and political Russo-Serbian ties - because that is primarily in the interest of Serbia." 
He stated that Russia accepts that EU membership is the main geopolitical goal of a sovereign Serbia, but that this should not damage its ties with Russia - "nor should it additionally complicate its ties with the Eurasian Union, which will be created in 2015, and which considers development of relations with Serbia as very important." 
"It is unacceptable for us that any form of integration should disrupt our relations, for example, our visa-free regime. When Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu was in Belgrade recently, he received confirmation in all meetings that Serbia will not join NATO," he said. 
Responding to a question posed by former mayor of the Montenegrin town of Cetinje, Aleksandar Aleksić, who asked whether Montenegro's accession to the western military alliance "could be stopped," he remarked that there were "monkeys in politics, like everywhere else." 
"Have you seen the media poll about the popularity of foreign politicians in Serbia? If you have not, I will not tell you who is at the number one spot. And the second to last is the one you were probably referring to. It's like fashion. At first somebody is doing it intentionally, and then many who are chasing after that person, hoping for a banana, show up," Chepurin was quoted as saying by Tanjug. 
He also stated that NATO represents an atavism from the last century, and stressed that in his previous answer he "did not mean anyone specifically, but gave a general appraisal," while Serbia's membership in NATO would represent a folly. 
During his lecture to the students, the Russian diplomat on several occasions noted that "everyone has an imagination that is shattered when it meets the reality," and mentioned Ukraine as an example of a country that "met the reality when it was supposed to sign the free trade agreement with the EU." 
"There was an impression that each year tens of billions of euros would be arriving to Ukraine from the EU, while in fact it was about one billion over seven years. The damage from severing the free trade with Russia would have been a hundred times greater," he said. 
Such things usually happen to countries that find themselves in a difficult position, when the appeal of "the western centrism" is great, the diplomat noted, adding that the situation was similar in Russia during the 1990s. 
Chepurin stressed that his country was offering Serbia "absolute support" when it came to Kosovo, but that he "did not wish to comment too strongly on some internal issues in Serbia." 
"There are several possibilities within international law for the thing to be resolved in a way in which Serbian is interested to resolve it. An impression is being created here that everything had fallen through, but this question requires effort and persistence. You must have faith that you are capable of solving that issue. The truth is on your side, and much depends on you," said the Russian ambassador. 
At the end of his lecture, Chepurin noted that the privatization of NIS - Serbia's oil monopoly now owned by Gazprom - was "successful," and that if the country had "five such companies" it would not be facing economic difficulties. 
Commenting on the start of construction works on the South Stream stretch in Serbia, he said that the pipeline should bring the country not only gas transit fees, but also income from storage, launching of gas heating plants, and other forms of industrial production. 
"South Stream will give ten times more than Serbia will get from any donations in the (EU) integration process, and Serbia will control those funds in line with its own wishes. That should be taken into account. Serbia will become the energy hub of the region, and that is an economic, but also a political decision," Chepurin concluded.


====================================================================
SOURCE: Stop NATO Newsletter
E-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages
Website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com
======================================================================



(srpskohrvatski / italiano)

Passato e futuro dell'Ucraina

1) Contributo del Partito Comunista di Ucraina (KPU) al 15° Incontro Internazionale dei Partiti Comunisti e Operai
2) Godišnjica ukrajinske gladi s početka 30-ih XX. stoljeća


=== 1 ===


Ucraina: i comunisti per l'integrazione con Russia e Bielorussia

26 Novembre 2013 11:51 Internazionale - Area ex URSS
da www.solidnet.org | Traduzione dal russo di Mauro Gemma

Contributo del Partito Comunista di Ucraina (KPU) al 15° Incontro Internazionale dei Partiti Comunisti e Operai

Stimati compagni di lotta!

La storia degli ultimi anni ha chiaramente dimostrato: per non annegare tra le onde della crisi crescente del capitalismo mondiale, i principali stati imperialisti tentano di trasformare i paesi borghesi più deboli in donatori che, sotto la pressione dei loro governanti corrotti dall'Occidente, si privano degli organi vitali allo scopo di conservare la salute sociale ed economica dell'Unione Europea e degli Stati Uniti.

Ciò è particolarmente evidente nel caso dell'Ucraina, il cui Partito Comunista ho l'onore di rappresentare al nostro Incontro Internazionale.

Attualmente il mio paese si trova a un crocevia geopolitico Di fronte ad esso ci sono due strade possibili di integrazione. Una è quella occidentale, europea: la firma dell'accordo di associazione con l'Unione Europea e l'ingresso nella sua Zona di libero mercato. L'altra strada è quella orientale, eurasiatica: l'entrata nell'Unione Doganale con Russia, Belarus e Kazakistan.

I comunisti di conseguenza si pronunciano perché l'Ucraina scelga la seconda strada di integrazione, senza dubbio più promettente e attraente dal punto di vista economico. Imboccandola, il nostro paese riceverebbe circa 10 miliardi di dollari di benefici ogni anno. Ciò è dimostrato dai calcoli economici di esperti indipendenti, che nessuno si azzarda a mettere in discussione.

Purtroppo, i politici che propugnano la politica di integrazione europea, non vogliono capire l'evidenza, ad esempio il fatto stesso che l'ingresso nell'Unione Europea non significherebbe affatto la costruzione di un'economia altamente sviluppata, il radicamento degli alti valori europei di libertà, di onesta, concorrenza e democrazia, e neppure potrebbe incidere sulla costruzione in Ucraina di una società civile con un elevato livello di vita e il benessere del popolo.

Un altro fattore obiettivo è anche rappresentato dall'inadeguatezza dell'Ucraina sul piano economico, politico, sociale e umanitario all'integrazione nell'Unione Europea: ad esempio i sistemi per uniformare e sincronizzare tutte le forme dell'economia richiedono l'introduzione di cambiamenti in più di 20.000 aspetti, dal cambiamento degli standard degli elettrodomestici a quello dei programmi statali Twinning, per l'integrazione delle legislazioni attraverso il loro adeguamento agli standard dell'Unione Europea.

L'esperienza dei paesi europei che recentemente si sono uniti all'Unione Europea ci dimostra, per molti aspetti, che l'ingresso nell'Unione Europea non ha significato assolutamente il miglioramento della qualità della vita, ma semmai il contrario. Ci troviamo di fronte l'aumento della disoccupazione, della pressione fiscale, la mancanza di opportunità per l'espansione degli affari con l'introduzione delle quote, la riduzione della sicurezza sociale, la monetizzazione dei benefici ai settori più vulnerabili della società, ecc.

Allo stesso tempo è assolutamente evidente che, come risultato dell'ingresso del nostro paese nella Zona di libero mercato dell'Unione Europea, nella forma ultimativa a cui siamo “invitati” da Bruxelles, verranno poste le basi della rovina di molti settori dell'industria ucraina (in particolare di quelli ad alta tecnologia). I propagandisti di questa strada non possono presentare nessun (io sottolineo, compagni: nessuno!) fattore concreto di beneficio economico, che derivi dalla partecipazione alla Zona di libero mercato. Essi si limitano alle chiacchiere sugli “elevati standard democratici e sociali dell'Unione Europea”.

L'Ucraina interessa a Bruxelles unicamente come appendice politicamente ininfluente, come mercato dei beni e fonte di manodopera a basso costo. E allo stesso tempo, come avamposto orientale dell'Unione Europea e degli Stati Uniti contro la Russia.

Tuttavia, gli oligarchi ucraini, il cui benessere, nella situazione di crisi economica globale, dipende unicamente dai miliardi rubati al popolo e depositati nelle banche occidentali, si sono espressi per una chiara scelta a favore dell'Unione Europea. Sono diventati i custodi degli interessi geopolitici occidentali, sacrificando cinicamente gli interessi nazionali.

Difendendo le posizioni di una ristretta cerchia di oligarchi, tutti, senza eccezione, i partiti borghesi si oppongono categoricamente all'adesione all'Unione Doganale e si pronunciano per la firma dell'accordo di associazione all'Unione Europea e per l'ingresso nella Zona di libero mercato. Compreso quel Partito delle Regioni che sta alla guida dello Stato, arrivato al potere con la promessa di ripristinare relazioni fraterne con la Russia, guastatesi dopo la cosiddetta “rivoluzione arancione”. Insieme all'opposizione nazionalista esso aspira all' “integrazione europea”, ad ogni costo. A qualsiasi condizione, anche la più sfavorevole per l'economia nazionale. E prevede di firmare il relativo accordo nel novembre di quest'anno (gli ultimi sviluppi, dopo la recente visita di Putin in Ucraina, testimoniano della sospensione della firma dell'accordo, ndt).

Oggi il nostro popolo è esposto a una gigantesca operazione di agitazione propagandistica che sconfina nel tentativo di annichilire le coscienze. Il suo obiettivo: con l'aiuto del terrore psicologico per costringere la gente ad accettare la famigerata “scelta europea”, renderlo succube delle scelte della propria borghesia. Tuttavia, i risultati dei sondaggi di opinione dimostrano che gran parte dei miei compatrioti (secondo alcune fonti, la maggioranza) sosterrebbe la strada eurasiatica di integrazione.

Il Partito Comunista di Ucraina ritiene che il popolo, e non gli oligarchi, deve decidere verso quale direzione geopolitica occorra indirizzare il nostro paese. Per questo, abbiamo avviato le procedure di un referendum in merito alla questione della scelta della strada dell'integrazione. Ciò è fatto in armonia con la Costituzione e la legislazione nazionale, nell'osservanza di tutte le procedure giuridiche formali.

Ma i dirigenti borghesi dell'Ucraina, violando pesantemente tutte le norme di diritto vigenti, rifiutano categoricamente di accordare il permesso all'avvio della raccolta delle firme per lo svolgimento del referendum. E i capi dell'Unione Europea, che si vantano continuamente della loro “democraticità”, chiudono volutamente gli occhi davanti a questo oltraggio.

In tal modo, l'Ucraina è trasformata oggi in un poligono, in cui si praticano i metodi per asservire i paesi della “periferia” europea all'imperialismo, trasformandoli in bantustan mendicanti privi di sovranità reale, dove i diritti umani vengono continuamente violati.

Stimati compagni! A conclusione del mio intervento voglio rivolgermi a ciascuno di voi con l'appello a riferire ai lavoratori del vostro paese di come la reazione esterna e interna – non esagero con le parole – stia violentando oggi il popolo dell'Ucraina.

Cari compagni, vi saremmo anche grati per l'aiuto che riterrete di accordare al Partito Comunista di Ucraina e al popolo ucraino sotto forma di supporto informativo alla nostra azione, e anche con interventi e dichiarazioni dei Vostri compagni nei parlamenti e negli organi rappresentativi ad ogni livello, allo scopo di dimostrare al nostro popolo che da altre parti non c'è solo l'Unione Europea a intervenire a sostegno dei sentimenti di integrazione del popolo ucraino.

Il vostro sostegno fraterno avrà un significato per noi inestimabile nella difficile lotta che stiamo conducendo per il futuro della nostra Patria. E, in definitiva, per il futuro dell'Europa e di tutto il mondo.


Nota del traduttore:

In questi giorni, i compagni del KPU sono impegnati in una serie di manifestazioni che si contrappongono alle provocazioni. ai disordini e alle intimidazioni dei gruppi ultra-nazionalisti e para-fascisti (sostenitori dell'ex premier Julia Timoshenko), dopo la decisione del governo ucraino di recedere, almeno per il momento, dalla firma dell'accordo di Associazione con l'Unione Europea. Una di queste manifestazioni dei comunisti si è svolta davanti alla sede dell'ambasciata italiana di Kiev, allo scopo di trasmettere anche alle autorità italiane la contrarietà della maggioranza del popolo ucraino ai progetti di annessione coltivati dalla struttura imperialista europea e dalla NATO.

Nel video il presidio dei comunisti di fronte alle ambasciate di Polonia e Italia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EZ6A-A-lMc


=== 2 ===


Ukrajina


Ovih se dana u nekim krugovima obilježava godišnjica ukrajinske gladi s početka 30-ih XX. stoljeća, tzv. Holodomora. Tvrdi se da je sovjetska vlast namjerno izazvala glad u Ukrajini jer joj je smetao ukrajinski antisovjetski, pa i antiruski, nacionalizam. Protura se teza da je glad bila rezultat mržnje sovjetskog rukovodstva prema ukrajinskom narodu.

Uzroci gladi i stradanja sovjetskog stanovništva su puno kompleksniji od antikomunističkih teza koje dominiraju dijelom povjesničarskih i medijskih krugova. Ruski povjesničari ističu, s pravom, da se glad nije dogodila samo u Ukrajini, već i u ruskom Povoložju, te Kazahstanu. Glad je bila, kao i sve dotadašnje gladi na tom prostoru, prvenstveno posljedica suša koje su se periodično javljale. I u carskoj Rusiji, glad kao posljedica suše s milijunskim žrtvama je bila čest posjetilac. Važno je napomenuti da je glad početka tridesetih posljednja glad izazvana sušom na prostoru SSSR-a. To pak upućuje na tezu da je glad prvenstveno posljedica slabe centralne vlasti koja nije uspjela intenzivirati poljoprivrednu proizvodnju te stvoriti zalihe hrane kakve je SSSR već 1941. godine imao. Dvadesete godine u SSSR-u bile su zlatne godine demokracije, slobode i stvaralačke energije, nesravnjive s bilo kojim drugim dijelom svijeta. Opća sloboda misli i djela imala je svoju cijenu koja se očitovala u anarhiji i u mnogim dijelovima javnog života gdje joj ne bi smjelo biti mjesta. Poljoprivreda je prepuštena tržištu s tim da je centralna vlast financijski podupirala zadrugarstvo. Ta su sredstva najčešće zloupotrebljavana pa efekta od njih, s izuzetkom zadruga Tolstojevaca, nije bilo. Uz to, kao direktna posljedica Prvog svjetskog rata, strane vojne intervencije, te građanskog rata, uz 18 milijuna civilnih žrtava, bio je i egzodus gradskog stanovništva iz gradova u sela. Krajem dvadesetih, postalo je jasno da SSSR sve više zaostaje za zapadnim zemljama koje sa svoje strane nisu odustajale od rušenja socijalističkog sustava u SSSR-u. Pokrenut je ogromni proces industrijalizacije praćen razvojem znanosti te centralizacijom svih znanstveno-tehničkih resursa. Kad se govori o poljoprivredi, dva su puta bila za povećanje njene efikasnosti i oba su uključivala okrupnjavanje poljoprivrednih površina. Prvi je bio povratak na staro, na poljoprivredu baziranu na velikim zemljoposjedničkim imanjima koja su u carskoj Rusiji, premda koristeći zemlju slabije kvalitete, imali bolji urod po jedinici površine od sitnih zemljoposjednika te proizvodili 40 % ruskog zrna. Drugi je bio kolektivizacija za koju se odlučilo Staljinovo rukovodstvo. Kolektivizacija je provedena raznim metodama gdje je velika većina seljaka dobrovoljno ušla u kolhoze, osobito tzv. srednjaci. Problem je bio desetmilijunski sloj kulaka, seljaka koji su u manjoj ili većoj mjeri bili bogatiji od drugih. Osnovna točka prijepora između kulaka i vlasti je bilo njihovo mjesto u društvu. Kulaci, svi a ne samo ukrajinski, su se, po mišljenju rukovodstva SSSR-a, morali podrediti interesima društva. Isti problem sitnog posjednika imala je i carska Rusija koja je proces raskulačenja započela još u prvom desetljeću XX. vijeka. Raskulačenje je provedeno dosta oštro, ponekad i brutalno, te je izazvalo val protesta ruskih intelektualaca nacionalističkog svjetonazora. Isti su ti intelektualci na kraju počeli podržavati ukupnost mjera sovjetskog rukovodstva jer su one rezultirale ekonomskim i kulturnim oporavkom zemlje te njenim dotad neviđenim uzletom. Dotada je, također, svima postalo jasno da se ponovno sprema vanjska agresija na zemlju te da su provedene mjere bile nužan preduvjet za opstanak sovjetskih naroda, pa tako i ukrajinskog. Pripadnici organa državne represije koji su prekršili zakone SSSR-a tijekom raskulačenja su 1937. i 1938. godine bili sankcionirani, njih 800 000, dok je istovremeno dva milijuna seljaka bilo rehabilitirano. Raskulačenje je donijelo ogroman ekonomski, socijalni i kulturni napredak velikoj većini mladih pripadnika raskulačenih obitelji – te su osobe, koje su bile predodređene na mukotrpni život seljaka, postajale sveučilišno obrazovani građani.

Rat povjesničara na temu Holodomora se uglavnom vodi između ukrajinskih nacionalista i ruskih nacional-komunista dok su argumenti klasičnih ruskih nacionalista antikomunističkog smjera nesupstancijalni, odnosno neprincipijelni. Ukrajinski nacionalisti ističu cifru od minimalno 5 milijuna mrtvih što korespondira s demografskim gubicima cijelog SSSR-a, a ne samo Ukrajine, koji se mogu izračunati uspoređivanjem popisa stanovništva u SSSR-u iz 1926. i 1939. godine. Koristeći se tom metodom dođe se do cifre od 5,5 milijuna nedostajućih građana SSSR-a koji su ili umrli ili prebjegli iz SSSR-a. Teško je reći koliko je ljudi emigriralo, no vjerojatno se ne radi o značajnijoj brojci. S druge strane, ruski povjesničari ističu da se primjenom iste metode dođe do 7-8 milijuna demografskih gubitaka u SAD-u tridesetih godina gdje je također harala suša, a bankari provodili proces okrupnjavanja zemljišnih posjeda, odnosno raskulačenja. Do sličnih demografskih gubitaka je došlo u SSSR-u i početkom devedesetih kad je izgubljeno ne manje od tri milijuna ljudi (premda je vjerojatnija cifra od šest milijuna). I tada, kao i tridesetih, muški dio populacije je daleko više postradao što upućuje na nekoliko činjenica. Prvo, to nije bio genocid jer je postradao samo jedan dio populacije, tradicionalno manje otporne na glad i zarazu, na određenom području te da povećana smrtnost nije bila direktna posljedica gladi, već smanjenog imuniteta ljudi kao posljedica pothranjenosti. Obje gladi bile su rezultat slabe centralne vlasti s tom razlikom što je sovjetska vlast poduzela mjere da se eliminiraju svi preduvjeti moguće buduće gladi dok ruska vlast devedesetih to nije. Treba ipak napomenuti da je sovjetska vlast tridesetih vodila, za današnje prilike nepojmljivo, tvrdu državnu politiku te da se na putu do cilja nije obazirala na žrtve. Na račun izvoza sirovina, ali i žitarica, SSSR je trgovinski deficit iz 1929. godine pretvorio u trgovinski suficit 1935. godine. Te mjere su bile nužan preduvjet pobjede sovjetskih, pa tako i ukrajinskog naroda, u nadolazećem ratu.

Ukrajinski nacionalisti, kao i mnogi zapadni povjesničari, vole isticati da je jedna od posljedica Holodomora bila masovna kolaboracija Ukrajinaca s Hitlerovcima. Zaboravlja se pritom da je Ukrajina kakvu danas poznajemo formirana u vrijeme SSSR-a te da je do 1939. cijela zapadna Ukrajina (i Bjelorusija) bila pod vlašću Poljske te da je upravo taj dio Ukrajine, dio koji nije bio dio SSSR-a u vrijeme Holodomora, imao značajnijeg udjela u kolaboraciji s nacistima. Istočni dio Ukrajine pokazao je izuzetno visoku patriotsku svijest u obrani SSSR-a od vanjske agresije. I statistike to potvrđuju jer Ukrajinci čine 15,9 % poginulih Crvenoarmejaca dok je postotak Ukrajinaca u SSSR-u u to vrijeme iznosio 16,4 %. Cijeli istočni dio Ukrajine je tijekom okupacije bio poprište partizanskog otpora okupatoru. Kolaboracija u Ukrajini je bila raširena u nešto većoj mjeri u zapadnoj Ukrajini i nosila je antipoljski karakter. U fašističkoj Poljskoj međuraća, Ukrajinci, Bjelorusi i Židovi bili su građani drugog reda, što u SSSR-u nije bio slučaj.

Današnja Ukrajina je duboko politički, nacionalno, svjetonazorski i ekonomski podijeljena zemlja. Grkokatolički zapad zemlje, pravoslavni istok, te tatarski Krim predstavljaju tri zasebne kulturne cjeline koje u svakom trenutku mogu dovesti do raspada zemlje. No, puno značajnija je ekonomska podijeljenost gdje se zemlja raskolila, kao uostalom i sve istočnoevropske, na tanki sloj političko-ekonomske elite i rastući sloj siromašnih i bijednih. Ukrajina je nakon raspada SSSR-a izgubila status povlaštene nacije u trgovinskim odnosima s Rusijom. Ruski plin, za razliku od jedne Njemačke, plaća se po punoj, odnosno desetostruko većoj od normalne, cijeni što dovodi do progresivnog osiromašenja stanovništva. Ukrajina je pala u duboke dugove u zapadnim bankama tako da mora slušati političke diktate. Ukrajina će na kraju vjerojatno biti vraćena u rusku sferu utjecaja, odnosno kontrole. Prvi znakovi tog procesa su masovni transferi ukrajinskog duga iz zapadnih banaka u ruske banke, poglavito u Sberbank.

Treba na kraju istaći da ruski narod neće imati nikakve koristi od vraćanja Ukrajine u domenu ruske države.

 

Azur Sejdić,

potpredsjednik Socijalističke radničke partije Hrvatske