Forum

Il me semble que l’Iran multiplie les déclarations
provocatrices, comme si ce pays désirait la guerre.
C’est peut-être là le piège(ultime ?)qui complètera
celui de l’Irak.N’oublions pas l’existence du traité de Shanghaï.
Quels bénéfices énormes cette coalition économico-militaire trirerait d’un tel conflit !
Et les expéditions militaires contre les pays sud-américains rebelles à la domination US ? Comment
les assumer ?

Aujourd’hui il y avait un bon article qui reproduisait le cycle de ce depression infernale aux USA. Le commentaire est d’autant plus etrange que ce sont des experts sur les strategies militaires et le homeland security aux USA qui parlent de cette situation dans laquelle ils se trouvent. Vous remarquerez aussi que meme si les USA avouent que leur politique exterieure a ete catastrophiques, ils sont incapables encore a ce jour de remettre en question leurs ideaux:

The threats of the new century are international in character and indeterminable in length, and they require an international response. Alone, the United States cannot win the long war against transnational terrorism, nor can it respond effectively to the other emerging national security concerns of the 21st century. America needs allies. America’s greatest strength is strength in numbers: the number of free nations that share its commitment to peace, justice, security, and—above all—freedom.

Building strong alliances requires a proactive strategy that reinforces rather than undermines the sovereignty of the state and at the same time strengthens the bonds of trust and confidence between free peoples, enabling them to act in their common interest. The focus of this strategy should be on building enduring alliances, not just “coalitions of the willing.” As part of a comprehensive alliance-building strategy, the Administration and Congress should undertake initiatives to establish international partnerships that more closely resemble those with America’s traditional long-standing allies during the Cold War.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg2042.cfm

quand j’étais étudiant, j’avais scotché une feuille de papier millimétré sur mon mur pour suivvre la chute du dollar. Chaque manifestation de protestation nous confortait dans l’idée qu’un peuple aussi petit que le Viêt Nam pouvait survire à ce “tigre de papier”.
Non seulement les USA ont parfaitement survécu à cette défaite, mais ils ont recyclé Jimmy Hendricks ou Jerry Rubin en produits du système. La contestation du système américaine est aussi un produit américain.
La crise actuelle n’est pas américaine (provient-elle de 1914?)- elle est occidentale. Elle n’est peut être pas en phase de préparation à l’effondrement, puisque le modèle s’exporte (en Chine, en Inde…)
Le dollar, l’armée US, la diplomatie US, même en crise, même critiqués, ne sont jamais défiés dans la réalité. Chirac n’a pas mis son veto à l’intervention en Irak. Les financiers de l’UE, pas plus que ceux d’Asie n’ont cherché à remplacer le dollar par l’Euro. Et finalement, les Hugo Chavez ou les Bin Laden finissent par jouer un rôle bien utile: qu’il y a bien des “bad guys”, et que les USA sont par effet de symètrie le grand frère protecteur.
Peut-on durer “à bout de souffle”? Combien de temps un empire romain fatigué a-t-il duré?
Par ailleurs, nous, les Européens, ne cherchons-nous pas à nous déculpabiliser de cette crise occidentale en pointant les USA? certes ils le méritent, et c’est logique avec leur position de super puissance. mais ne sommes nous pas en train d’attendre “l’effondrement” des USA, A LA PLACE de tirer un bilan, le bilan désastreux, de notre propre médiocrité?

...nommé ministre de la Défense à la suite de sa victoire au parti Travailliste:

“A 65 ans, il se présente comme étant le seul capable d’être un ministre de la défense crédible “en cas de guerre”.” Le Monde 15.06.07

Curieux mécanisme, qui fait d’une élection interne d’un parti un mandat automatique pour devenir Ministre de la Défense -just now-

Soyons juste, le CV du nouveau ministre fait référence à nombre d’initiatives de paix, mais c’est aussi un ancien général aux brillants états de service.

Alors, on casse la baraque ? (désolé, trop tentant…)

Article intéressant, mais qui montre surtout que les sondages concernant des primaires effectués bien avant les scrutins, n’ont pas de grande fiabilité...

Ceci dit, pour avoir suivi un peu la campagne de John Edwards, il me semble qu’il a su adopter une ligne politique claire et osons le dire progressiste (je pense en particulier à son projet de sécurité sociale universelle, vieux serpent de mer de la politique Démocrate, mais qui semble réaliste puisque basé non pas sur une caisse publique, mais sur des mécanismes de non discrimination et de péréquation tarifaire dans l’accés aux assurances santé privées).

A ceci s’ajoute le fait, que Edwards est issu d’un milieu modeste et qu’il fut l’élu d’un Etat du sud (caroline du nord), et qu’il se distingue ici des élites du nord que “représentent” chacun à leur manière Hilary Clinton et Barack Obama (fils de diplomate). Alors que ces deux dernier jouent en partie sur leur spécificité sexuelle ou raciale, edwards me semble faire une campagne sur des thèmatiques sociales et économiques, et pourrait à ce titre entrer en raisonnance avec les préocupations d’une large part des Etats-uniens…

Certes, il y a bien du chemin jusqu’aux primaires et encore plus jusqu’à lélection présidentielle, mais il semble que Ewards semble dans la plupart des cas de figure la gagant de ces primaires, car s’il n’est pas investi par les militants, il a de de trés grande chance d’être choisi comme collistier (“sudiste”) par Mme Clinton ou M. Obama….

Ca se cristalise comme on dit maintenant.

Cette virtualité s’applique à tous les domaines, et pas seulement politique et militaire.

Au plan économique et financier c’est la même déroute, masquée par des statistiques (“je ne crois qu’aux statistiques que j’ai moi-même bricolées” disait Churchill).

Et sur ces “chiffres” irréels se prennent les grandes décisions.

Les effets attendus ne se réalisent pas ? c’est que nous n’avons pas mis assez de moyens : notre modèle est formel.

Je pense que les USA sont en train de faire faillite pour les mêmes raisons que l’ex URSS.

La projection hollywoodienne de cette virtualité sur le reste du monde ne prend plus : autonomie de l’Amérique du Sud, de l’Asie, de la Russie, et comme l’ogre ne peut plus se nourrir ...

L’OTAN approuve le principe du “bouclier” antimissile américain
LE MONDE | 15.06.07 | 10h13  

Les ministres de la défense de l’Alliance atlantique, réunis jeudi 14 juin à Bruxelles, n’ont émis aucune critique ni réserve sur le projet américain de défense antimissile, qui prévoit l’installation de sites en Pologne et en République tchèque. Au contraire, ils ont approuvé un rapport qui envisage la complémentarité de ce projet avec les propres études de l’OTAN concernant la défense antimissile de territoire.

Ce faisant, ils se sont de facto alignés sur la position des Etats-Unis consistant à accueillir favorablement l’offre de la Russie d’utiliser une station radar russe en Azerbaïdjan, sans pour autant renoncer aux sites antimissile envisagés dans deux pays que Moscou a longtemps considérés comme faisant partie de sa sphère d’influence. Dans la mesure où, il y a peine deux mois, plusieurs pays européens manifestaient leurs réticences face à un projet qui accroît le lien militaire transatlantique et envenime les relations avec la Russie, il s’agit d’une incontestable victoire diplomatique pour Washington. Tous les pays de l’Alliance ont approuvé l’analyse américaine selon laquelle le programme balistique de l’Iran fait courir des risques à l’Europe et aux Etats-Unis, ainsi qu’aux troupes américaines déployées en Europe.

Devant son homologue russe Anatoli Serdioukov, Robert Gates, secrétaire américain à la défense, a confirmé les intentions de Washington : “J’ai dit très explicitement que nous considérions le radar [russe] en Azerbaïdjan comme une ressource supplémentaire, et que nous avions l’intention d’aller de l’avant avec le radar à bande X en République tchèque”, a indiqué M. Gates, en soulignant que M. Serdioukov n’a pas réagi à ses propos. Or l’objet de la proposition faite le 7 juin par Vladimir Poutine visait à remplacer le radar américain prévu en République tchèque par le radar russe en Azerbaïdjan. Cette solution ne supprimait pas la présence des 10 missiles américains en Pologne, mais elle avait un avantage certain pour Moscou : la station radar de Gabala, louée par la Russie à l’Azerbaïdjan, qui fonctionne depuis une vingtaine d’années, ne permet pas de surveiller les forces stratégiques russes. La Russie craint – non sans raison –, que les Etats-Unis ne couplent le radar en République tchèque avec les installations radar d’alerte avancée dont ils disposent déjà à Fylingdales (Angleterre), Thulé (Groënland) et Vardo (Norvège), ce qui leur permettrait de disposer d’un maillage fin pour surveiller les forces stratégiques russes.

Après avoir menacé de pointer ses fusées sur les sites antimissile américains en Europe, la Russie a adopté un ton nettement plus modéré lors de la réunion du G8, la semaine dernière, en Allemagne. C’est à cette occasion que M. Poutine a fait sa contre-proposition portant sur l’utilisation du radar en Azerbaïdjan, reconnaissant ainsi indirectement la réalité d’une menace balistique iranienne. “Je suis très satisfait que le président Poutine ait reconnu l’intérêt d’une défense antimissile et le fait que l’Iran représente un problème qui doit être abordé en termes de défense antimissile”, s’est félicité M. Gates.

Les Américains n’ont pas formellement demandé à l’OTAN d’endosser leur projet (ni d’y contribuer financièrement), mais ils ont obtenu une approbation tacite. Les Alliés ont en effet décidé, jeudi, de lancer une étude pour “évaluer les implications politiques et militaires du système antimissile américain”, a confirmé le porte-parole de l’OTAN. Celle-ci, qui sera finalisée lors du sommet de l’OTAN à Bucarest, en avril 2008, devra notamment envisager une solution pour compléter le “bouclier” américain par le déploiement d’une défense antimissile à courte portée dans les pays du flanc sud de l’Europe qui ne seront pas couverts par les sites de Pologne et de République tchèque (Grèce, Turquie, Bulgarie, sans doute le sud de l’Italie et l’est de la Roumanie). “La feuille de route de l’OTAN est maintenant claire. C’est concret et accepté par tous”, a assuré Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, secrétaire général de l’OTAN. Moscou n’a pas immédiatement commenté le consensus intervenu au sein de l’Alliance atlantique, lequel fait peu de cas des objections russes.

President Putin Interviewed by Journalists from G8 Countries

Global Research, June 11, 2007

Text of report (English) published by the Russian presidential website, 4 June 2007.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Good evening ladies and gentlemen!

I would like to warmly welcome you.

I would just like to say a few words at the beginning of our discussion. We believe that the G8 forum is a useful and interesting event that allows us to synchronise our approaches to key issues linked with the development of the global economy and on the international agenda. And not simply to, shall we say, synchronise our watches but also to coordinate our positions, positions that can then be formalised in G8 documents and, later on, in the documents of other international organizations, including the UN. And this has occurred in the past.

I am very pleased to see that the agreements that were reached in St Petersburg last year have not been forgotten. Many of our agreements are being implemented. Moreover, the German G8 presidency has not forgotten about the major themes of our discussions in St Petersburg. We see clear evidence of what we discussed in Russia in the documents that are now being drafted by experts and sherpas. Of course, this first and foremost refers to energy. But not only that. This also includes development aid and especially aid to African countries. This includes the fight against infectious diseases. Naturally, this also includes our joint efforts concerning climate change.

Of course we will address all of this and, as I have already said, other serious international issues for Europe, such as the Balkans, and other problems. And I am confident that an open, honest discussion between partners on all of these problems - no matter how difficult they are to resolve - will be a useful discussion.

I would like to thank you for the interest you have shown in our work. And I certainly do not have the audacity or the responsibility of speaking for all my G8 colleagues. But I am ready to explain in more detail Russia’s position on issues that you think are of interest to the public.

That was everything I wanted to say at the outset and I will not waste time in a monologue. I am listening to you. Let’s start working.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr President, it seems like Russia is not very fond of the West. Our relations have somewhat deteriorated. And we can also mention the deterioration of your relations with America. Are we once again approaching a Cold War?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: One can hardly use the same terminology in international relations, in relations between countries, that would apply to relationships between people - especially during their honeymoon or as they prepare to go to the Civil Registry Office.

Throughout history, interests have always been the main organizing principle for relations between states and on the international arena. And the more civilised these relations become, the clearer it is that one’s own interests must be balanced against the interests of other countries. And one must be able to find compromises to resolve the most difficult problems and issues.

One of the major difficulties today is that certain members of the international community are absolutely convinced that their opinion is the correct one. And of course this is hardly conducive to creating the trusting atmosphere that I believe is crucial for finding more than simply mutually acceptable solutions, for finding optimal solutions. However, we also think that we should not dramatise anything unduly. If we express our opinions openly, honestly and forthrightly, then this does not imply that we are looking for confrontation. Moreover, I am deeply convinced that if we were able to reinstate honest discussion and the capacity to find compromises in the international arena then everyone would benefit. And I am convinced that certain crises that face the international community today would not exist and would not have had such a dire impact on the internal political situation in certain countries. For example, events in Iraq would not be such a headache for the United States. This is the most vivid, sharpest example but, nevertheless, I want you to understand me. And as you recall, we were opposed to military action in Iraq. We now consider that had we confronted the problems that faced us at the time with other means then the result would have been - in my opinion - still better than what we have today.

It is for that reason that we do not want confrontation; we want to engage in dialogue. However, we want a dialogue that acknowledges the equality of both parties’ interests.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: A follow-up to the previous question. One of the most acute recent problems between Washington and Moscow has been American plans to install elements of a missile defence system in Europe. Since Russia is very radically opposed to this system and the White House confirms that it will go ahead regardless, the confrontation becomes more pronounced…

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Incidentally, that it is the answer to the previous question. I am sorry - please continue.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: ... and the more countries there are that want to participate in this system. What does Russia gain by being so fiercely opposed to this system? Are you hoping that Washington will eventually abandon its plans to install an anti-missile defence system or do you have other goals, since Washington has already said that it will not allow Russia to veto this programme?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would start with the Adapted Conventional Armed Forces Treaty in Europe (ACAF). We have not just stated that we are ready to comply with the treaty, like certain others have done. We really are implementing it: we have removed all of our heavy weapons from the European part of Russia and put them behind the Urals. We have reduced our Armed Forces by 300,000. We have taken several other steps required by the ACAF. But what have we seen in response? Eastern Europe is receiving new weapons, two new military bases are being set up in Romania and in Bulgaria, and there are two new missile launch areas - a radar in Czech republic and missile systems in Poland. And we are asking ourselves the question: what is going on? Russia is disarming unilaterally. But if we disarm unilaterally then we would like to see our partners be willing to do the same thing in Europe. On the contrary, Europe is being pumped full of new weapons systems. And of course we cannot help but be concerned.

What should we do in these circumstances? Of course we have declared a moratorium.

This applies to the missile defence system. But not just the missile defence system itself. Since if this missile system is put in place, it will work automatically with the entire nuclear capability of the United States. It will be an integral part of the US nuclear capability.

I draw your attention and that of your readers to the fact that, for the first time in history - and I want to emphasize this - there are elements of the US nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the whole configuration of international security. That is the second thing.

Finally, thirdly, how do they justify this? By the need to defend themselves against Iranian missiles. But there are no such missiles. Iran has no missiles with a range of 5,000 to 8,000 kilometres. In other words, we are being told that this missile defence system is there to defend against something that doesn’t exist. Do you not think that this is even a little bit funny? But it would only be funny if it were not so said. We are not satisfied with the explanations that we are hearing. There is no justification whatsoever for installing a missile defence system in Europe. Our military experts certainly believe that this system affects the territory of the Russian Federation in front of the Ural mountains. And of course we have to respond to that.

And now I would like to give a definite answer to your question: what do we want? First of all, we want to be heard. We want our position to be understood. We do not exclude that our American partners might reconsider their decision. We are not imposing anything on anyone. But we are proceeding from common sense and think that everyone else could also use their common s ense. But if this does not take place then we will absolve ourselves from the responsibility of our retaliatory steps because we are not initiating what is certainly growing into a new arms race in Europe. And we want everybody to understand very clearly that we are not going to bear responsibility for this arms race. For example, when they try to shift this responsibility to us in connection with our efforts to improve our strategic nuclear weapons. We did not initiate the withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. But what response did we give when we discussed this issue with our American partners? We said that we do not have the resources and desire to establish such a system. But as professionals we both understand that a missile defence system for one side and no such a system for the other creates an illusion of security and increases the possibility of a nuclear conflict.

I am speaking purely theoretically - this has no personal dimension. It is destroying the strategic equilibrium in the world. In order to restore that balance without setting up a missile defence system we will have to create a system to overcome missile defence, and this is what we are doing now.

At that point our partners said: “there’s nothing wrong, we are not enemies, we are not going to work against one another”. We would point out that we are simply answering them: “we warned you, we talked about this, you answered us a certain way. So we are going to do what we said we would”. And if they put a missile defence system in Europe - and we are warning this today - there will be retaliatory measures. We need to ensure our security. And we are not the proponents of this process.

And, finally, the last thing. Again I would not want you to suffer from the illusion that we have fallen out of love with anyone. But I sometimes think to myself: why are they doing all this? Why are our American partners trying so obstinately to deploy a missile defence system in Europe when - and this is perfectly obvious - it is not needed to defend against Iranian or - even more obvious - North Korean missiles? (We all know where North Korea is and the kind of range these missiles would need to have to be able to reach Europe.) So it is clearly not against them and it is clearly not against us because it is obvious to everyone that Russia is not preparing to attack anybody. Then why? Is it perhaps to ensure that we carry out these retaliatory measures? And to prevent a further rapprochement between Russian and Europe? If this is the case (and I am not claiming so, but it is a possibility), then I believe that this would be yet another mistake because that is not the way to improve international peace and security.

DER SPIEGEL: A short additional question: would you be prepared to consider the possibility of deploying a similar, Russian missile defence system somewhere near the United States, for example in Cuba?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, I should have talked about this, but you brought it up before me. We are not planning any such thing and, as is well-known, we just recently dismantled our bases in Cuba. At the same time that the Americans are building new ones in Europe, in Romania and in Bulgaria. We dismantled them because after the fall of the Soviet Union our foreign policy changed a great deal because Russian society itself changed. We do not want a confrontation, we want cooperation. And we do not need bases close to anyone and we are not planning anything of the kind. That is the first thing.

The second. Basically, as a rule, modern weapons systems don’t need such bases. These are generally political decisions.

NIKKEI: I am the only representative here from Asia. I would like to ask about your Asian policy. What is your general position towards Asian countries?

It is possible that you will not like the question but I must nevertheless ask about the Northern Territories and the dispute between Japan and Russia. I just heard from colleagues from Tokyo that Japan and Russia are going to hold a summit on 7 June 200 7. And Prime Minister Abe will evidently raise the issue of the Northern Territories. He has already said very clearly that he wants to make a final decision on this issue with you, Mr Putin. And this means that before the end of your term you will somehow need to address this issue. What is your response to his political intentions?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: As you know, a significant portion of Russian territory is in Asia. The Asian continent is developing extremely quickly and holds great interest for us, especially in economic terms. It is not only interesting because we have a great deal of energy resources, something that Asian countries lack, and therefore the possibility to cooperate in the energy sector. There are also broader possibilities for cooperation. We believe that we have things to talk about and room to cooperate in the high-tech sector. We very much expect that this cooperation will help us develop the Asian part of Russia. Over the past 15 years we have witnessed difficulties in this region, including the depopulation of these territories. We are now adopting programmes to develop these Russian regions and intend to pay the closest possible attention to them. This is all associated with our interest in our Asian partners.

You probably know that our trade with both China and Japan is growing. I think that last year it grew by almost 60 per cent. Japanese investors are coming to the Russian market and not only in the Far East - also to the European part of Russia. We welcome this interest in developing cooperation between our countries.

As to the so-called disputed islands that you mentioned. We do not consider them disputed because this situation was a result of the Second World War and was confirmed in international law and international documents. But we understand our Japanese partners’ motives. We want to dispose of all the arguments from the past and look for a way forward on this issue together with Japan.

I would like to point out that my own impression is that recently there has been less rhetoric on this issue and the discussion has become more business-like and profound. We welcome this. And I would like to say once again that even the Soviet Union showed a great deal of flexibility on this issue in its time and in 1956 signed a declaration according to which two islands were to remain within the Soviet Union and two would go to Japan. The Supreme Council ratified this declaration as did Japan. And as a matter of fact, this document should have come into force. But our Japanese partners suddenly renounced the document even though they had already ratified it. It goes without saying that in such conditions it is difficult to find a mutually acceptable solution. However, we are determined to work with you towards finding one. And I am looking forward to meeting with my Japanese colleague in Heiligendamm. I hope that we will be able to talk about this issue especially since consultations at the working, expert level have not stopped. On the contrary, they have intensified recently.

THE TIMES: Today the British media are mainly interested in two issues concerning Russia. The first is the Litvinenko case. And the second is BP and Shell’s experience in Russia.

I would like to ask you two questions. First, are there circumstances in which Russia would agree to Britain’s request to extradite Lugovoi?

And the second question. In light of BP and Shell’s experience in Russia, should British companies invest in Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Are there circumstances in which Russia would extradite Lugovoi? There are. The Constitution of the Russian Federation would have to change. That is the first thing.

Second. Even if the Constitution were to be amended, one would need, of course, valid reasons to do so. Based on the information I received from the Prosecutor General the British party has not yet provided us with sufficient grounds to do so. There is a request for the extradition of Mr Lugovoi but no materials documenting the grounds on which we should do so. As diplomats say, this request has no substance: it is not supported by the materials that constitute the grounds on which our British colleagues asked us to extradite Lugovoi.

Finally, the third thing. As you know a criminal investigation into Litvinenko’s death is proceeding in Britain. And if our law enforcement agencies gather enough evidence to take anyone to court, if there is enough material in connection with any citizen of the Russian Federation to bring this evidence to court, this will certainly be done. And I very much hope that our British colleagues will assist us effectively. Not simply by demanding the extradition of Lugovoi but also by sending enough evidence so that we could put the case before a court. We will do this in Russia and convict any person found guilty of Litvinenko’s murder.

And now about the request itself. I have very mixed feelings about this request. If the people who sent this request did not know that the Russian Constitution prohibits the extradition of Russian citizens to foreign countries then their level of competency must certainly be questioned. In general the heads of such high-ranking law enforcement agencies should know this. And if they do not know this then their place is not in law enforcement agencies but somewhere else. In parliament, for example, or in journalism. But on the other hand, if they did know this but made the request anyways, then it is just a publicity stunt. In other words, you can look at the problem from any way but in all cases you see stupidity. I do not see any positive aspects to what was done. If they did not know then they are incompetent and we have doubts about what they have been doing there. And if they did know and did it anyway then that is pure politics. Both options are bad.

One last point. I think that after the British government allowed a significant number of criminals, thieves and terrorists to gather in Britain they created an environment which endangers the lives and health of British citizens. And all responsibility for this lies with the British side.

Shell. I would like to clarify the issue. What are you interested in with respect to Shell and BP? Shell in Sakhalin, is that right?

THE TIMES: Yes, it is a question about Sakhalin, about BP’s permit. Will it be necessary to renounce the permit or they may still expect to keep it?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Have you seen the original agreement? Have you ever read it?

THE TIMES: Yes.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Did you like what was written? You know, that is a colonial treaty that has absolutely nothing to do with the interests of the Russian Federation. I can only regret that in the early 1990s the Russian officials allowed such incidents to take place, incidents for which they should have been put in prison. Implementing this treaty resulted in a situation in which, for a long period of time, Russia allowed its natural resources to be exploited and received nothing in return. Almost nothing at all. But if our partners had been fulfilling their obligations correctly then we certainly would have had no chance to rectify the situation. But they are guilty of violating environmental laws and this is a generally accepted fact that is supported with objective data. And I must say that our partners do not even deny it. Environmental experts have corroborated this evidence. Incidentally, Gazprom has received various proposals from its partners to join the project even earlier, before any environmental scandal, but refused to do so. But after the environmental problems arose and there was the threat of fines, I believe that Gazprom’s entry quite simply saved the project.

And, finally, one last point. Gazprom did not simply act as a result of our pressure and take something away, Gazprom paid a huge sum of money to enter the project - 8 billion USD. That is a market price. And, as far as I understood, the partners working on the project were satisfied because all the terms and conditions of the treaty are being met and no one is questioning this treaty’s purpose. Our foreign partners are r eceiving all the resources that they had planned to receive from this project. And I think that this is a good example of cooperation and our responsibility even in the face of situations that arose in the early 1990s, situations that were clearly beyond the pale of law.

As to BP, you know that every country has certain rules about working in the subsoil. These rules exist in Russia as well. If anyone believes that they do not need to observe such rules in Russia, they are mistaken. And this does not only concern BP. If you are referring to the Kovyktinskoye deposit - and you evidently have this in mind - in addition to BP there are also Russian companies participating in the project. And this does not only affect BP but also about Mr Wechselberg’s company and Mr Potanin’s company. They are all Russian economic residents. And for that reason the affair is not limited to BP, to a foreign partner, but to all shareholders that have committed to developing this deposit and, unfortunately, have failed to comply with the terms of their permit. They have not yet started to develop it. According to the permit’s conditions they should have already begun extraction last year. And not simply begun but also extracted a certain amount of gas. Unfortunately, they have not done so.

And one can find a huge number of reasons for this, including that it was necessary to be part of a pipeline system. But they already knew this when they applied for a permit. They knew about these problems and potential limitations. And they nevertheless went ahead and got a permit. I am not even going to talk about how they obtained this permit. We will let it rest in the conscience of those who did this at the beginning of the 1990s.

But I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the gas reserves in the field amount to some 3 trillion cubic metres. To understand the volume and importance for Russia, one might say that this is equivalent to almost all of Canada’s reserves. But if the participants in this consortium are not doing anything to use their permit, how long should we wait?

Obviously the Ministry of Natural Resources raised the issue of withdrawing the permit. Even though, as you can see, negotiations are going on and I don’t know what they will end with. I don’t know what decision the Natural Resources Ministry and the company shareholders will make. I deliberately say company shareholders because if you talk about the company BP, and not simply about the Russian part of the corporation that was preparing to develop the Kovyktinskoye deposit, then to a large or a significant degree its deposits in the world are increasing at Russia’s expense. And if you talk with the past or present BP leadership they will confirm this.

Moreover, 25 per cent of BP’s revenues come from its activities in the Russian Federation. We welcome the company’s participation in the Russian economy and will continue to support and help companies but we want their activities to be executed within existing legislation.

KOMMERSANT: Vladimir Vladimirovich, in my opinion, recently Russia’s relations with the West are developing at a catastrophic speed. If you examine them then you see that everything is very bad and going from bad to worse: the energy dialogue is frozen, no one is even talking about the Energy Charter, the arms race is proceeding. And you acknowledge it yourself. Yesterday you said that, yes, there is an arms race - you used precisely those words. And there is a new word in your vocabulary that was not there before, the word imperialism. That is a word from Soviet times. American imperialism and Israeli militarism were both terms that you must remember. And they were countered only by Soviet peace initiatives, as they are now countered by Russian peace initiatives. I would like to ask: do you not think it is possible to talk about certain compromises, to engage in compromises, to look even occasionally, even for show, at public opinion in Europe, in America and, finally, in Russia? Do you not think that this present course is leading nowhere? It is becoming, even gaining new strength with, this arms race, with these missiles of ours. To what purpose?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Frankly, I find this question quite strange and unexpected. An arms race really is unfolding. Well, was it we who withdrew from the ABM Treaty? We must react to what our partners do. We already told them two years ago, “don’t do this, you don’t need to do this. What are you doing? You are destroying the system of international security. You must understand that you are forcing us to take retaliatory steps.” They said: “okay, no problem, go ahead. We are not enemies. Do what you want to.” I think that this was based on the illusion that Russia would have nothing to answer with. But we warned them. No, they did not listen to us. Then we heard about them developing low-yield nuclear weapons and they are continuing to develop these charges. We understand in the rocks where bin Laden is hiding it might be necessary to, shall we say, destroy some of his asylum. Yes, such an objective probably exists.

But perhaps it would be better to look for other ways and means to resolve the problem rather than create low-yield nuclear weapons, lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons, and thereby put humankind on the brink of nuclear catastrophe. But they are not listening to us. We are saying: do not deploy weapons in space. We don’t want to do that. No, it continues: “whoever is not with us is against us”. What is that? Is it a dialogue or a search for compromise? The entire dialogue can be summed up by: whoever is not with us is against us.

I talked about how we implemented the ACAF, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty. We really have implemented it; I wasn’t inventing anything. And there are inspection groups that come, they go onsite, our western partners check and see everything. We implemented it. And in response we get bases and a missile defence system in Europe. So what should we do?

You talked about public opinion. Public opinion in Russia is in favour of us ensuring our security. Where can you find a public in favour of the idea that we must completely disarm, and then perhaps, according to theorists such as Zbignew Brzezinski, that we must divide our territory into three or four parts.

If such a public did exist, I would argue with it. I was not elected President of the Russian Federation to put my country on the brink of disaster. And if this equilibrium in the world is finally broken then it will be a catastrophe not only for Russia but also for the whole world.

Some people have the illusion that you can do everything just as you want, irregardless of the interests of other people. Of course it is for precisely this reason that the international situation gets worse and eventually results in an arms race as you pointed out. But we are not the instigators. We do not want it. Why would we want to divert resources to this? And we are not jeopardising our relations with anyone. But we must respond.

Name even one step that we have taken or one action of ours designed to worsen the situation. There are none. We are not interested in that. We are interested in having a good atmosphere, environment and energy dialogue around Russia.

We already talked about how we subsidized countries, the former republics of the Soviet Union, by providing them with cheap energy for 15 years. Why did we need to do that, where is the logic, what is the justification for this? We subsidised Ukraine for 15 years, by three to five billion dollars a year. Just think about it! Who else in the world does this? And our actions are not politicized. They are not political actions.

The very best example and proof of this - and I talked about this recently at a press conference - is the Baltic countries that we also subsidised for all these years. When we realised that the Baltic states were engaging in honest economic relations with us and that they were ready to transfer to world, to European pricing, then we met them half way. We said: “fine. We are g oing to continue to deliver energy to you at discounted prices. Let’s agree on a timetable for a transition to European prices”. We agreed with them and signed the relevant documents. Within three years they had gently overcome the transition to European pricing. Even considering the fact that we did not have a border treaty with Latvia and there was a serious political disagreement on this issue, until last year Latvia received cheap Russian gas and, as a whole, the gas Latvia received in 2006 was about a third cheaper then what it was for, for example, Germany. Ask the Latvian Prime Minister and he will confirm this.

When the Ukrainian question arose then we were told that this was a political decision and they accused us of supporting Lukashenko’s regime, a regime that western countries are not very fond of. We said : “listen, first of all, we cannot simply declare war on all fronts. Secondly, we are planning to transfer to market pricing with all of our partners. The time will come when we do this with Belarus as well”. We did this. Yet once we had done so the noise began, including in the western media: what are we doing there, why are we harming small Belarus? Is this a fair and admirable attitude towards Russia? We switched to one pricing regime with all the countries of the Caucasus: with Georgia - with whom we do not have very good political relations - and with Armenia, with whom we have excellent relations and a strategic alliance. Yes, we have heard a lot of criticism including from our Armenian partners but at the end of the day we were able to understand one another and find a way forward. They could not pay the entire price with liquid and therefore are paying in physical assets. With live, real assets and all of this is formalised on paper. No one can accuse us of politicizing these issues. We are not preparing to spend huge amounts of money subsidising other countries’ economies. We are ready to develop integration on the territory of the former Soviet Union, but it must be integration on an equal footing. But you know, they are coming closer and closer to our interests and everyone is increasingly expecting that we are not going to defend these interests. If we want order and international law to prevail in the international arena then we must respect this law and the interests of all members of the international community. That is all.

KOMMERSANT: When I mentioned public opinion in Russia I was referring to the fact that, as I understand it, public opinion in Russia would be strongly opposed to a new arms race after the one the Soviet Union lost.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: And I am also against an arms race. I am opposed to any kind of arms race but I would like to quickly draw your attention to something I said in last year’s Address [to the Federal Assembly]. We have learned from the Soviet Union’s experience and we will not be drawn into an arms race that anyone imposes on us. We will not respond symmetrically, we will respond with other methods and means that are no less effective. This is called an asymmetrical response.

The United States are building a huge and costly missile defence system which will cost dozens and dozens of billions of dollars. We said: “no, we are not going to be pulled into this race. We will construct systems that will be much cheaper yet effective enough to overcome the missile defence system and therefore maintain the balance of power in the world.” And we are going to proceed this way in the future.

Moreover, I want to draw your attention to the fact that, despite our retaliatory measures, the volume of our defence expenditures as a percentage of GDP is not growing. They were 2,7 per cent of GDP and will remain so. We are planning the same amount of defence spending for the next 5 to 10 years. This is fully in line with the average expenditures of NATO countries. This amount is not more than their average defence expenditures and in some cases it is even lower than that of NATO member countries. And we can use our competitive advantages which include quit e advanced military-industrial capabilities and the intellectual capacities of those who work in our military complex. There are good results and good people. In any case, much of this has been preserved, and we will do everything possible in order not only to maintain but also to develop this potential.

CORRERE DELLA SERA: Mr President, two more points about the strategic balance in Europe. I would like to ask you whether you think that the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) is presently at risk and if it could lose force judging by what happened to the ACAF?

And the second point. You said that you do not want to participate in an arms race. But if the United States continues building a strategic shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, will we not return to the situation and times in which the former Soviet Union’s nuclear forces were focused on European cities, on European targets?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Certainly. Of course we will return to those times. And it is clear that if part of the United States’ nuclear capability is situated in Europe and that our military experts consider that they represent a potential threat then we will have to take appropriate retaliatory steps. What steps? Of course we must have new targets in Europe. And determining precisely which means will be used to destroy the installations that our experts believe represent a potential threat for the Russian Federation is a matter of technology. Ballistic or cruise missiles or a completely new system. I repeat that it is a matter of technology.

CORRIERE DELLA SERA: And what about the INF Treaty?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: The Treaty on intermediate-range nuclear forces is a broader problem and not directly related to the United States’ missile defence system.

The issue at hand is that only the US and Russia are prevented from developing intermediate-range missiles and, meanwhile, a lot of other countries are doing so. I already talked about this. They include Israel, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. If this were a comprehensive agreement then it would be clear that all must abide by it. But when almost all countries in the world are developing or planning to develop these missiles, I do not quite understand why there should be limits for either the United States or Russia.

We have non-proliferation agreements. That is clear. These agreements are comprehensive. We find it difficult but until now we have kept the world from taking any steps that might exacerbate the situation or, God forbid, result in disaster.

And I repeat that these agreements are not comprehensive with respect to intermediate-range missiles, so we certainly do think about what we need to do to ensure our safety. I repeat that many countries are doing this, including our neighbours.

And I want to emphasise again that this has nothing to do with the United States’ plans to deploy a missile defence system in Europe. But we will find answers to both threats.

LE FIGARO: Mr President, at the G8 summit you will meet with the newly elected President Sarkozy. You had a close working relationship with President Chirac, the former President of France. How do you imagine relations between Russia and France developing during the Sarkozy presidency, since Mr Sarkozy is regarded as a friend of America’s and expected to focus his foreign policy on human rights?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: You know, I would be very happy if someone were to focus on the problem of human rights. I just read Amnesty International’s report and there are many issues that apply not only to Russia but also to our partners, including within the G8. The criticism is very harsh: issues such as violations of the rights of the media, torture, police that mistreat detainees, migration legislation. I think that we should all pay attention to these issues.

And I can only be happy if someone is a friend of the United States because we also think of ourselves as friends of the United States. I say that without exaggeration even though you could perhaps find a contradiction in light of the fact that we are now discussing problems such as missile defence, the ACAF and others so heatedly. It may not seem convincing but it is the case. Our relations are very different then, shall we say, 20 or even 15 years ago. And when the US President says that we are no longer enemies I not only believe him but I feel the same way myself. Because the issue is not limited to who is whose friend and which friendship is stronger. The issue at hand is how to strengthen the present system of international security, what we need to do to attain this, and what is preventing us from doing so. And in this respect we have different positions and different opinions. We have one point of view, our American partners have another.

As far as I was able to tell when Mr Sarkozy made one of his first public statements, he stressed that he was indeed a friend of the United States. But along with this he said that that did not mean that we must agree on everything, and our friends have to admit that on a range of questions we can have our own views. I can only welcome this because I personally have taken exactly the same approach. And I do not see anything unusual here if we express our views and defend a position on a given issue. How is that unusual?

On the question of our relations with France, they run deep, there are mutual political interests, common interests. We have similar positions on many international issues. There is a large amount of economic cooperation and, most importantly, very high potential further cooperation. All this creates a good basis for the development of future relations. I very much hope that this will take place. In any case, during the conversation I had with the newly elected President of France on the phone, we spoke of how the French leadership intended to embark on similar positive work. We have scheduled a meeting with the President of France in Germany during the G8, we shall get to know each other. I think that we will establish good working and personal relations. In any case, I would very much like to do so and we will work hard to achieve this.

LE FIGARO: Let me ask you a question about gas. It concerns developing the Shtokman deposit with Gazprom. Gazprom has decided to develop the Shtokman deposit on its own, without the consortium. And, as you know, this is a test of the investment climate in Russia. Do you think that there is any possibility that Western oil companies will be involved in this project?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Gazprom did not say that there will be no consortium. Gazprom did announce that it will develop the deposit by itself. These are still things we have to separate. Gazprom will be the sole developer and have sole ownership, but this does not mean that Gazprom does not intend to try to work with foreign partners in fields such as mining. And if we do engage in gas liquification then Gazprom will be ready to continue to engage in broad cooperation with foreign partners, including in the design and construction of a plant to liquefy gas, in distri bution and in se lling gas.

THE GLOBE AND MAIL: Rumours suggesting that Russia should no longer be a member of the G8 continue to circulate. They say that your country is moving away from the values of liberal democracy, has been unable to improve its record in terms of political freedom, transparency, the development of human rights, and so forth. People are saying that part of the Russian economy has moved away from the principles of free economy and is now back in the hands of the state. According to this point of view, your country might no longer be considered as belonging to the ranks of industrialised countries that make up the G8.

How do you respond to such assertions?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would say that this is the usual stupidity and perhaps motivated by a desire to draw attention to oneself, perhaps to gain some political goals, aggravate problems, or to attract special attention to these issues. We ourselves did not ask to join the G8. It was offered to us and we are delighted to be there.

Russia, as you know, is changing and changing very rapidly. Measured in economic terms we are now ninth in the world and by some indicators have already overtaken certain G8 countries. If we consider the magnitude of the economy in a certain way then we have already overtaken some of the G8 countries.

Russia has enormous gold and currency reserves, the third largest in the world. Russia has very sound macroeconomic policies and thereby influences the global financial market. Maybe this is not very significant degree today, but nevertheless important.

Russia is one of the leading players in international energy policy. I said last year that we had moved into first place as an oil producer, ahead of everybody. And we have already been ranked as the largest producer of natural gas for a long time. Russia’s role and significance in the energy sector are increasing and will continue to grow.

After all, Russia is one of the biggest nuclear powers. Let us not forget that Russia is one of the founding members of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council.

If someone wants to turn the G8 into an exclusive club for a few members who will try to resolve humanity’s problems among themselves, I think that no good will come of it.

On the contrary, we are presently examining the idea of extending the G8 club with a view to involving other countries more systematically in the G8: China, India, Brazil, Mexico and the Republic of South Africa.

Let us not be hypocritical about democratic freedoms and human rights. I already said that I have a copy of Amnesty International’s report including on the United States. There is probably no need to repeat this so as not to offend anyone. If you wish, I shall now report how the United States does in all this. We have an expression that is perhaps difficult to translate but it means that one can always have plenty to say about others. Amnesty International has concluded that the United States is now the principal violator of human rights and freedoms worldwide. I have the quote here, I can show you. And there is argumentation behind it.

There are similar claims about Great Britain, France or the Federal Republic of Germany. The same could be said of Russia. But let us not forget that other countries in the G8 have not experienced the dramatic transformations that the Russian Federation has undergone. They have not experienced a civil war, which we, in fact, had in the Caucasus.

And yet we have preserved many of the so-called common values even better than some other G8 countries. Despite serious conflicts in the Caucasus, we have not abandoned our moratorium on the death penalty. And, as we know, in some G8 countries this penalty is applied quite consistently and strictly enforced.

So I think that such discussions are certainly possible, but I am sure they have no serious justification.

Let me say again that, as far as I know, the German presidency of the G8 wants to formulate rules for dealing with some of the major economies of the world on an ongoing basis. I have already listed these countries and we certainly support our German partners. I think this initiative is absolutely valid.

THE GLOBE AND MAIL: A follow-up question. You talked about the problems of a unipolar world. Have you considered the possibility of creating some kind of alliance, some formal relations between countries, which could be seen as an alternative pole in the system of international relations?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I think it would be a dead end, the wrong way to go about development. We advocate a multipolar world. We believe that it should be diverse and respect the interests of the overwhelming majority of the international community. We must create these rules and learn to respect these rules.

DER SPIEGEL: Mr President, former Federal Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder called you a ‘pure democrat’. Do you consider yourself such?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: (laughs) Am I a ‘pure democrat’? Of course I am, absolutely. But do you know what the problem is? Not even a problem but a real tragedy? The problem is that I’m all alone, the only one of my kind in the whole wide world. Just look at what’s happening in North America, it’s simply awful: torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained without trial and investigation. Just look at what’s happening in Europe: harsh treatment of demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear gas used first in one capital then in another, demonstrators killed on the streets. That’s not even to mention the post-Soviet area. Only the guys in Ukraine still gave hope, but they’ve completely discredited themselves now and things are moving towards total tyranny there; complete violation of the Constitution and the law and so on. There is no one to talk to since Mahatma Gandhi died.

DER SPIEGEL: And your country is not moving at all back towards a totalitarian regime?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There is no truth in that. Do not believe what you hear.

DER SPIEGEL: You had very close relations with Gerhard Schroeder. Do you think that Angela Merkel, the new chancellor, is more inclined to seek contact with the United States rather than with Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Every person and every politician chooses their own style of behaviour and sets their own priorities. I do not have the impression that there has been any worsening of our relations with Germany. For all my good relations with Gerhard Schroeder, I can say that I have also established very good and businesslike relations with Ms Merkel. Yes, she shows more persistence in some areas. She is very happy to fight for Polish meat, for example. As I have already said, she does not want to eat it herself: we all know that a delivery of Polish meat was seized in Berlin. But when it comes to the key issues, the questions of principle, there are no problems between us that could get in the way of developing the ties between our countries. We have very pragmatic and consistent relations and we see that there is continuity with regard to the previous government’s policy when it comes to relations with Russia.

KOMMERSANT: Vladimir Vladimirovich, this is perhaps more of a local, specific matter, but I think the issue is nevertheless important. Our newspaper has been writing over the last few days about the fact that, two days ago, the Federal Customs Service banned biological materials from being taken out of the country. It is quite simply not letting them out of the country.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: What are these biological materials?

KOMMERSANT: Samples of biological materials, things such as blood samples, pieces of human tissue, material that is needed for carrying out quality analysis in the West where there are large-scale data bases. This is needed in order to establish the most accurate diagnosis for people in Russia who have cancer, for example, and in order, ultimately, to be able to operate on them and help them. But the customs service is not letting these samples out of the country. Various explanati ons are being circulated as to why this is so, but facts remains facts. The Federal Customs Service even issued a statement today saying that some rules would soon be drawn up on this matter. But the samples are already not being allowed out of the country. What is your view on this matter?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: It is hard for me to say exactly because I do not know very much about this. I think that rules should be drawn up, and the Health Ministry should take part in this work. You say that these samples are sent abroad in order to help people, but my question in this case is: who has been helped through this and what help have they actually received? Are there any statistics? I do not have any such statistics and, overall, I have my doubts as to whether anyone has been specifically helped through these biological samples being sent abroad.

KOMMERSANT: Getting a correct diagnosis is already a form of help, and it is these international data bases abroad that are used to establish the correct diagnosis.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: And where is this diagnosis? Show me statistics proving that someone has received the correct diagnosis as a result of this work?

KOMMERSANT: We can show you these statistics.

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Send them to me then. But one should be working with the Health Ministry on all of this. All countries have rules on issues such as organs, tissues and so on being taken out of the country. This is a sensitive issue and any civilised country should have some rules in this area, Russia too. I do not know all the details of this issue, but rules will be put in place and we will all work within their framework.

KOMMERSANT: But perhaps the border could be opened again while the rules are being drafted? Perhaps the previous rules could continue to be applied over this period?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There are no previous rules. If there had been a set of rules, it would be possible to say whether or not violations have taken place, but there simply was no previous set of rules. Now we need to take steps to bring order to this situation and the Health Ministry’s specialists need to get involved in this work and set out their position.

NIKKEI: Asian people see Russia through the prism of relations with the United States and Europe. I think that we need to look at Russia directly as an Asian country because Russia is a big country and a substantial part of its territory lies in Asia. Now, we are seeing economic growth in Asia taking place at a pace that would have been hard to imagine in the past.

The Asian countries are all growing very fast. Japan has entered a new period of growth and China, of course, is one of the fastest-growing countries. Various bilateral agreements on trade preferences and so on have been signed in Asia alongside the multilateral agreements. Russia is also showing rapid economic growth. How do you plan to take part in the Asian region’s dynamic development and how do you plan to work within the six-party group? Why not make use of the possibilities investment cooperation offers as a form of cooperation?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Could you specify which six-party group you are referring to?

NIKKEI: The six-party talks on resolving the situation in North Korea. Russia is one of the parties in these negotiations, the aim of which is to resolve the North Korean issue. How do you plan to play a more active part in this process?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: We are actively involved in the six-party negotiations on the North Korean nuclear issue. You have probably been able to see for yourself that our position on this complex issue is very productive, and our position has indeed helped to achieve positive results in this area. We have always taken the view that we need to avoid anything that could drive the negotiations into deadlock, and that we need to take North Korea’s interests into account and work towards agreements that all sides can accept. China has worked very hard, of course, to help achieve a positive outcome. I think that all the parties in this process have shown goodwill and have demonstrated that, despite the seriousness of the problem, they all seek an agreement and are willing to look for compromise solutions that can always be found. We will continue our work in this area.

Regarding Asia as a whole, I have already said that Asia is one of our priorities. We will work together within the international organizations and we already take part in many Asian forums and will continue to participate in their work.

As for economic matters, if we take the energy issue, one of the most pressing problems, you know that we are already building an oil pipeline to the Pacific coast and we are looking at building a gas pipeline as well. Active work is underway on plans to build a gas pipeline to China and also to the Pacific coast.

We will also continue to work together in other sectors, in the high-technology sector and in military-technical cooperation. We will develop multilateral cooperation with Asia.

THE TIMES: Tony Blair has finally decided to give his support to Gordon Brown to become the new prime minister. Do you think this is the right choice? For your part, who would you like to see as the next President of Russia?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: If you are hinting at Gordon Brown, for all the respect I have for him, he is not likely to become President of Russia. (Laughter).

The Labour Party’s choice is not our affair. We know Gordon Brown to be a top-class specialist and I hope that if he does indeed become prime minister the positive results obtained over recent years will be taken into account and we will be able to develop further our relations with the United Kingdom. We have many common interests in a wide variety of areas. Tony and I have discussed this on many occasions. We have discussed our cooperation and the prospects for work together between the Russian and British governments.

I remember what a warm welcome I received when I made a state visit to the United Kingdom. All of these things have so many positive elements that can help us to continue moving forward. As for the decisions taken within the Labour Party, we will of course agree with its decision and will work with our new partners whoever they may be.

As for Russia, unlike in the United Kingdom, where the prime minister is chosen within a political party, the President here is elected by Russian voters through direct secret ballot.

THE TIMES: But even so, what kind of person would you like to see, and what kind of qualities should they have?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I would like to see above all someone who is decent and honest, someone with a high level of professionalism and experience who has already proven themselves and achieved positive results at regional or federal level. In other words, I would like to see someone who can inspire confidence in the great majority of Russian voters through the election campaign and the election process.

SPIEGEL: Could this person be someone who has already been president?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: There has been only one previous President of Russia -Boris Yeltsin. Today is a day of memory for Boris Yeltsin -the fortieth day since his passing. There have been no other presidents of the Russian Federation. My term in office is coming to an end. I do not even understand what you are talking about.

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Now that your term in office is coming to an end, how would you like history to remember your presidency? What are the main achievements of your presidency you would like to see remembered? In this respect, which Russian or world leader’s rule would you like your presidency to be compared to?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Starting from the end, why make comparisons? The situation in each historical period and in each country is always unique in its way and I do not see the need to make comparisons. Time will pass and the specialists, the public and the experts will objectively assess what I was able to achieve during these eight years as President of the Russian Federation.

I think there are things of which I and the people who have worked with me can feel deservedly proud. They include restoring Russia’s territorial integrity, strengthening the state, progress towards establishing a multiparty system, strengthening the parliamentary system, restoring the Armed Forces’ potential and, of course, developing the economy. As you know, our economy has been growing by 6.9 per cent a year on average over this time, and our GDP increased by 7.7 per cent over the first four months of this year alone.

When I began my work in 2000, 30 per cent of our population was living below the poverty line. There has been a two-fold drop in the number of people living below the poverty line since then and the figure today is around 15 per cent. By 2009-2010, we will bring this figure down to 10 per cent, and this will bring us in line with the European average.

We had enormous debts, simply catastrophic for our economy, but we have paid them off in full now. Not only have we paid our debts, but we now have the best foreign debt to GDP ratio in Europe. Our gold and currency reserve figures are well known: in 2000, they stood at just $12 billion and we had a debt of more than 100 per cent of GDP, but now we have the third-biggest gold and currency reserves in the world and they increased by $90 billion over the first four months of this year alone.

During the 1990s and even in 2000-2001, we had massive capital flight from Russia with $15 billion, $20 billion or $25 billion leaving the country every year. Last year we reversed this situation for the first time and had capital inflow of $41 billion. We have already had capital inflow of $40 billion over the first four months of this year. Russia’s stock market capitalisation showed immense growth last year and increased by more than 50 per cent. This is one of the best results in the world, perhaps even the best. Our economy was near the bottom of the list of world economies in terms of size but today it has climbed to ninth place and in some areas has even overtaken some of the other G8 countries’ economies. This means that today we are able to tackle social problems. Real incomes are growing by around 12 per cent a year. Real income growth over the first four months of this year came to just over 18 per cent, while wages rose by 11-12 per cent.

Looking at the problems we have yet to resolve, one of the biggest is the huge income gap between the people at the top and the bottom of the scale. Combating poverty is obviously one of our top priorities in the immediate term and we still have to do a lot to improve our pension system too because the correlation between pensions and the average wage is still lower here than in Europe. The gap between incomes at the top and bottom end of the scale is still high here -a 15.6-15.7-fold difference. This is less than in the United States today (they have a figure of 15.9) but more than in the UK or Italy (where they have 13.6-13.7). But this remains a big gap for us and fighting poverty is one of our biggest priorities.

The demographic situation is another priority. We need to do all we can to change the demographic situation. We have adopted a special programme in this area. I will not repeat all the programme’s details now but we are allocating major resources to its implementation and I am sure that it will achieve results.

On the issue of state-building, we are often criticised for centralising state power, but few pay attention to the fact that we have made a whole number of decisions to decentralise state power and have transferred considerable powers to the regional and, most importantly, to the municipal authorities.

It was with amazement that I followed the debate in Germany on what powers to give to the lands. I followed this whole debate with amazement and saw that we have long since already done all of this. It would be simply comical in Russia today to hear a debate on giving the municipal or regional authorities the power to decide , for example, on the opening and closing of shops and so on. Russian municipalities have much broader powers than in many European countries, and we think that this is the right policy. Unfortunately, we had a situation in which the financial resources were not available to back these powers, but we are gradually changing this situation. That is as concerns the general situation in this area now in Russia, though we still have much work to do.

CORRIERE DELLA SERA: Mr President, I promised my colleagues that I would keep silent, but I have one more very brief question for you. I realise that it is Russia’s voters who will elect the next president, but could you perhaps say something about what you, Vladimir Putin, will do after your term in office ends?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: I will work, that is for sure, but where and in what capacity I cannot say at this point. I do have some ideas on this point but it is early as yet to talk about them. Even under current Russian law I am still a long way away from retirement age and it would make no sense to just sit at home and twiddle my thumbs.

But I do not want to talk about my possible future plans at this point. To be honest, I just do not think it right to get public opinion all excited over this matter right now. We have to wait and see how the situation shapes up, how the political process in Russia progresses over this year and the beginning of next year. There are a number of different possibilities.

CORRIERE DELLA SERA: I have a second question on Russian foreign policy. It seems to me that Russian foreign policy does not offer any real alternative to say US or European foreign policy.

One example is Iran. Of course, Russia does not want Iran to become a nuclear state, after all, Iran is very close to Russia’s borders. But what alternative is there to the West’s policy of sanctions, to the policy the West has pursued, including with Russia’s participation, in the UN? Do you see any alternative that Russia could put forward?

Kosovo is another example. I know your position on Kosovo, your position regarding direct negotiations between the Serbs and the Kosovars. But do you not think that the position you have taken against Mr Ahtisaari and the UN could actually encourage Kosovo to unilaterally declare independence?

VLADIMIR PUTIN: Regarding what Russia can propose by way of solutions to complex or at first glance irresolvable problems, I just spoke about the North Korean issue with your colleague, Mr Ota. We all know that despite this problem’s complexity, a solution has been found, and it is possible to settle issues when, rather than dramatising the situation and driving things into a dead end, the parties decide to look for ways out of the deadlock and accept a compromise. Problems can be solved without having to use threats and armed force, and we support this method of settling issues.

Regarding Kosovo, you mentioned that we support the idea of dialogue between Kosovo’s Albanian population and the Serbs. But that does not fully sum up our position. I would like to say a bit more on this point.

First, our position is based on the principles of international law, and one of these main principles is that of a state’s territorial integrity.

Second, our position is also based on United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244, which, I want to stress, was voted for unanimously, and which no one has repealed. This resolution sets out clearly, black on white, that Kosovo is an integral part of Serbia.

If we want to place the principle of a people’s right to self-determination -the principle behind the Soviet Union’s policy during the time when peoples were struggling to free themselves from colonialism -above the principle of territorial integrity, this policy and this decision should be universal and should apply to all parts of the world, and at least to all parts of Europe. We are not convinced by our partners’ statements to the effect that Kosovo is a unique case. There is nothing to suggest that the case o f Kosovo is any different to that of South Ossetia, Abkhazia or Trans-Dniester. The Yugoslav communist empire collapsed in one case and the Soviet communist empire collapsed in the second. Both cases had their litany of war, victims, criminals and the victims of crimes. South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Trans-Dniester have been living essentially as independent states for 15 years now and have elected parliaments and presidents and adopted constitutions. There is no difference.

We do not understand why we should support one principle in one part of Europe and follow other principles in other parts of Europe, denying peoples in the Caucasus, say, the right to self-determination.

I do not rule out that gradual work on the Serbian side could eventually transform their view on Kosovo. I do not want to speak for the Serbs, but ongoing and tactful work could result in some kind of compromise being reached.

I do not understand the need today to force an entire European people to its knees and humiliate it so that an entire nation will then look upon those who have brought about this situation as enemies. These kinds of issues should be settled only through a process of agreement and compromise, and I think that we have not yet exhausted our possibilities in this respect.

We are told that there

Au Nord, du nouveau

Par Stéphane Juffa © Metula News Agency

Les conséquences néfastes pour Israël, liées au fait d’avoir un incapable avéré occupant les fonctions de 1er ministre, atteignent des proportions inquiétantes. Si, dans un pays à l’abri des guerres, l’influence d’un chef de l’Etat médiocre, que personne ne suit ni ne respecte, n’est pas, à proprement dit, la fin du monde, il en va tout autrement dans le cas d’Israël. Lorsque les pressions s’accumulent, il s’avère impératif d’avoir à la barre un timonier expérimenté, capable de se concentrer sur son sujet et qui sache donner des ordres. Nous avions, il y a quelques semaines, exprimé ces craintes dans nos colonnes et nous n’avons pas eu très longtemps à attendre pour assister à leur concrétisation.

Il faut admettre que la situation stratégique d’Israël est plutôt gratinée. Elle doit subir les menaces de deux organisations terroristes paramilitaires sur ses frontières nord et sud, un danger de guerre conventionnelle face à la Syrie, et des appels à son éradication en provenance de Perse. De plus, ces risques ne se calculent pas indépendamment les uns des autres et ne s’additionnent pas non plus : ils se multiplient de façon exponentielle lorsque l’on considère la situation hypothétique d’avoir à gérer une agression combinée de plusieurs de ces composantes hostiles.

C’est dans ce genre de stress qu’il faut pouvoir conserver son sang froid, évaluer correctement – sans les sous-estimer ni les exagérer – les dangers et contrôler les déclarations des ministres et des représentants des courants politiques. Mais comment faire lorsque, comme Ehoud Olmert, on est à la merci politique du lâchage des membres de sa coalition gouvernementale et même d’une partie non négligeable des personnalités de son propre parti ?

Durant la semaine qui se termine, nous avons eu à constater les méfaits causés par le maintien transitoire d’Olmert à la présidence du conseil. Il aura suffi, en fait, à Béchar Al Assad d’envoyer un député de son parlement s’exprimer sur un media international arabe et y déclarer que la Syrie envisageait de déclencher un conflit contre Israël durant l’été.

Déjà, la condition d’un député dans un pays où le président vient d’être élu avec 98.5% des suffrages exprimés devrait pousser à la circonspection. De plus, lors de l’interview, ledit quidam a étalé son ignorance crasse des réalités israéliennes : il a mal récité son texte, s’enflammant, par exemple, contre Amir Meretz, censé être notre ministre de la Défense. On ne lui avait pas dit que Meretz est un parti politique, et que Peretz n’attend que de connaître le nom du vainqueur des primaires travaillistes, la semaine prochaine, pour lui céder sa place. Il faut ajouter qu’aucun parlementaire syrien n’oserait s’exprimer publiquement, particulièrement sur des ondes étrangères, sans avoir été prié de le faire par le dictateur ou son entourage, les geôles de Damas recueillant volontiers les auteurs d’initiatives spontanées.

Reste que dans l’état de fébrilité, à la limite de l’hystérie, qui règne dans les sphères du pouvoir à Jérusalem, il n’en fallait pas plus pour déclencher une cacophonie démentielle de réactions aux propos du député de Damas. La classe politique de l’Etat hébreu, oubliant, en la circonstance, qu’on ne parle jamais de paix avec quelqu’un qui vous menace de guerre, s’est éparpillée dans toutes les directions. La plus courue : il faut engager sans tarder des négociations de paix avec la Syrie. La plus maladroite : Olmert a demandé à nos amis turcs d’informer Al Assad qu’il était prêt à “reprendre les négociations là où elles avaient été stoppées et à faire des concessions substantielles pour parvenir à la paix avec la Syrie”.

L’oculiste de Damas, qui doit être hilare de la réaction qu’il a provoquée, s’est d’abord arrangé pour rendre publique l’offre de reddition d’Olmert – qui, traduite en arabe, signifie : je suis prêt à vous rendre le plateau du Golan -, avant de faire dire à ses media que la Syrie n’avait reçu aucune repartie concrète “aux propositions de paix qu’elle avait formulées, en dehors du commentaire de la radio nationale israélienne”. D’autres media syriens se sont empressés de compléter le camouflet en annonçant que Damas n’avait qu’une confiance très limitée quant aux intentions profondes d’Ehoud Olmert.

Leçon : lorsqu’on vous menace et que vous êtes sûr de vous, surenchérissez, remettez le Tartarin à sa place. Et lorsque ça n’est pas le cas : taisez-vous !

Mais dans un troupeau dans lequel tous les moutons se considèrent comme des experts en stratégie, lorsque le berger, ne sachant plus où il va, est incapable de crier “vos gueules, les brebis !”, chacun y va de sa proposition de négociation.

Cela émane de l’évaluation effectuée par l’armée, selon laquelle il faut calmer le jeu et ne pas participer à la surenchère belliciste dans laquelle l’ennemi entend nous entraîner. Mais le chef d’état-major, Gaby Ashkenazi, n’a jamais dit aux politiques de s’empresser de baisser leur pantalon et de le faire savoir à la cantonade. Au contraire, depuis sa reprise en main de Tsahal, les unités multiplient leurs exercices consistant à s’entraîner à l’invasion de la Syrie. L’une de ces manœuvres, imposante, s’est encore déroulée cette semaine.

Et l’on doit à la vérité et au juste discernement d’affirmer, qu’en cas de conflit, cet été, aucune force au monde ne pourrait empêcher Tsahal de se rendre maître du territoire syrien. En termes stratégique et tactique, le rapport de force entre l’armée israélienne et son adversaire syrienne ressemble aux différences qui existent entre un Boeing 747 et un avion de tourisme.

Dans ces conditions, que craint-on à Jérusalem ? D’abord, et cela pourrait faire l’économie des autres analyses, on craint… la victoire militaire. Occuper Damas, renverser le régime tyrannique des Al Assad, et ensuite ? Se retrouver à devoir gérer un pays, brimé depuis le décret de la loi martiale, en 1963, divisé en une multitude de peuplades, de tribus, de sectes et d’obédiences ? Certaines d’entre elles, fort agressives, au point qu’elles font ressembler, par comparaison, l’enfer irakien voisin à une antenne du Club Méditerranée. Occuper et régir trente millions de Syriens, habitués à n’obéir qu’à la répression sans concession exercée par la famille Al Assad, lorsque l’on est sept millions d’Israéliens ? Ce n’est pas un choix, c’est une hypothèse à écarter.

En fait, si ce facho de Béchar pouvait continuer à gendarmer les Frères musulmans et les chiites déjantés sans nous chercher querelle, ce serait la moins mauvaise des solutions. Reste, s’il ne nous en laisse pas le choix, la possibilité militaire de lui infliger une bonne raclée, en détruisant son armée, les signes de son pouvoir et ses infrastructures. C’est ce qu’on s’efforcera de faire, si Mars parvenait à imposer la guerre, mais en sachant que l’on va encore attiser, avec une incroyable vigueur, la haine à notre égard des 1.2 milliards d’Arabes et de musulmans ; que leur objectif principal demeurera, plus que jamais, de se reconstituer afin de laver, une fois de plus, leur honneur taché ; qu’on repousserait aux calendes grecques l’horizon d’une pacification régionale, et que l’accalmie suivant l’hypothétique conflit et notre hypothétique victoire, ne durerait que l’espace d’un nouveau laps, soit entre quinze et trente ans.

Encore faudrait-il veiller, durant la bataille, à ne pas affaiblir Al Assad au point de persuader ses ennemis de l’intérieur qu’ils peuvent le renverser.

L’état-major de Tsahal doit également tenir compte des nouvelles dotations de l’armée syrienne en matériel russe, qui poussent le dictateur de Damas, surtout spécialisé en ophtalmologie, à croire qu’il peut faire le malin. Le titre de son effort de guerre pourrait être : “Tout aux missiles”. En fait, mais j’ignore jusqu’à quel degré Al Assad en est conscient, c’est Moscou qui le pousse à faire le fier-à-bras et à risquer de perdre son royaume.

Car Poutine est très vivement irrité par l’intégration d’Israël aux premières loges du programme américain d’écran total antimissiles. Si l’on veut être précis, il convient de définir le rôle rempli par Israël dans ce projet comme celui de co-leader ; il colle plus à la réalité que celui d’associé.

En effet, du point de vue tactique, la fonction dévolue par ce programme à l’Etat hébreu est celle de “1er défenseur des capitales européennes contre la menace iranienne”. Mais la part du lion que Washington octroie à Jérusalem se situe avant tout dans l’élaboration même du bouclier : à ce stade du développement, Israël est responsable de la réalisation des défenses relatives à deux des trois niveaux de l’espace que Washington entend protéger. L’on approche d’ailleurs la somme de 5 milliards de dollars que les Américains sont en train d’investir dans les portions israéliennes du projet. Un chiffre considérable, qui en dit long sur les espérances placées par la Maison Blanche et les stratèges du Pentagone dans la technologie israélienne.

Dans le concret, Israël poursuit son développement du Khetz – fabriqué ensuite en série aux USA – et de ses systèmes connexes. Le Khetz, la Flèche, le Arrow, est d’ores et déjà opérationnel. Il est conçu pour anéantir les missiles balistiques en haute altitude, en cours de réalisation en Iran.

Pour contrer les menaces plus proches du sol, les Katiouchas et autres Qassam, et même les obus d’artillerie, les ingénieurs israéliens planchent sur le David’s sling, ou Bride de David, dans la traduction française, qui est proposée ici pour la première fois. Au ministère israélien de la Défense, on espère qu’il sera opérationnel dans deux ans, alors que la date butoir est fixée à 2013. Ce système, destiné, entre autres, à réduire les terroristes paramilitaires du Hamas et ceux du Hezbollah au silence, constitue la déclinaison revivifiée du projet Nautilus.

Le troisième système du bouclier est de conception américaine, s’agissant des Patriot. De fait, la plus récente émulation de ces missiles est censée protéger la tranche intermédiaire du ciel, ou, expliqué en termes plus pragmatiques, arrêter les objets volants offensifs que le Khetz et la Bride de David ne seraient pas parvenus à intercepter.

Entre les 5 et 20 mars derniers, les Américains et les Israéliens ont réalisés les premiers essais pratiques de ce bouclier antimissiles intégré. C’était dans le Néguev, c’était classé ultrasecret et cela portait le nom de Juniper Cobra, soit, en français, Cobra du genévrier, et ne me demandez pas à quoi coïncide le choix de ce nom, ni à qui ressemble celui qui l’a choisi, car je n’en possède pas la moindre idée.

Tout ce que je veux vous dire, c’est que le Cobra du genévrier s’est soldé par des “résultats positifs”, et que cela a rendu furieux Vladimir Poutine. Ce qui expliquerait de façon logique les déclarations aux accents de Seconde guerre froide, dont il a inondé l’éther à la veille du G8.

En termes israéliens, l’intégration au poste de fer de lance du bouclier US n’a pas que des aspects positifs. Pour nous “punir” de nos efforts aux côtés de Washington, Poutine livre, en effet, à l’Iran et à la Syrie des systèmes de missiles en tous points redoutables.

Il y a le 9M113 Kornet : un engin antichars guidé par faisceau laser, aussi efficace contre les personnels que contre les structures (il s’agit de deux ogives différentes et interchangeables), dont Tsahal a fait la pénible connaissance durant la dernière guerre du Liban. Cette arme efficace, livrée par milliers aux commandos de Al Assad, a été développée par le bureau d’ingénieurs KPB.

Contre les avions, Poutine a transféré aux ennemis mortels d’Israël des missiles SAM 15 (Surface to Air Missile), Gauntlet (petit gant), 9K331 Tor, dans leur désignation originale russe. Des fusées, transportées par camions et tirées depuis iceux, capables de prendre en chasse deux cibles simultanément, et se déplaçant à une vitesse vertigineuse de 850 mètres à la secondes. Violent !

Enfin, dans le domaine du sol-sol, issu du même bureau d’études que le Kornet, voici l’Iskander, (Alexandre, en grec, “celui qui protège l’homme”). Désigné SS-26, cette version ultra améliorée du Scud dispose d’une portée de 300 kilomètres et d’une charge utile de 480 kilos. Mais ce qui donne des sueurs froides à ses adversaires, c’est que l’Iskander est, en principe, capable d’éviter ses chasseurs et de déposer sa charge à quelques mètres de la cible qui lui a été désignée. D’après ses concepteurs, ce missile devrait pouvoir échapper aux Patriot PAC 2/3, qui équipent Tsahal. Si cela est vrai, la Syrie pourrait lancer une attaque surprise et démolir, en nombre, des installations militaires de la résolution d’un hangar d’avion, et même d’un avion au sol.

Je traite, parlant de ces missiles russes de la dernière génération livrés par Poutine à Al Assad, d’un élément majeur qui retient évidemment l’attention des stratèges israéliens. Certes, Assad ne remportera pas une guerre sur la base unique de ces missiles. De plus, rien n’empêche Tsahal, si la tension devient insupportable, de se livrer à une opération préventive contre son voisin du Nord-Est, et de les rendre largement inopérants. Au bout de l’équation, l’armée israélienne, plus complète, plus moderne, disposant d’une aviation formidable, de blindés se situant à la pointe de la technologie, d’une artillerie efficace et d’autres moyens offensifs dont je ne parlerai pas, engloutirait son adversaire. Personne, hors de Syrie, ne nourrit de doute à cet égard.

La question cruciale est à nouveau celle du prix à payer, ce, pour accéder à une victoire militaire qui ne résoudrait rien, durablement, dans notre différend avec les Arabes. Vladimir Poutine est assurément au courant de cette équation : en hâtant la livraison des missiles à la Syrie, il contribue à nous dissuader d’emprunter la voie de la confrontation. Elle pourrait nous coûter des milliers de morts, beaucoup parmi notre population civile. Plus que lors de la guerre du Kippour et son cortège, toujours traumatisant, de quelque 2 000 victimes israéliennes. Or, si les armes livrées par la Russie devaient nous obliger – sans tirer un seul coup de feu - à nous asseoir avec Assad à la table de négociation, voire à nous forcer à évacuer le Golan, Poutine serait parvenu à remettre solidement le pied au Proche-Orient, ce que l’on pensait irrémédiablement révolu.

Et si le Hezbollah – qui a reconstitué son arsenal au nord du Litani – participait à un conflit au côté des Syriens, ce dont nous n’avons aucune raison de douter, les populations de Galilée seraient à nouveau touchées. Il nous serait, de plus, difficile de conduire deux offensives majeures de concert, d’autant plus qu’entre Tsahal et le Hezb, au Liban, se trouvent déployés les 15 000 hommes du contingent de l’ONU. Comment réagiraient-ils à des tirs de Katiouchas sur la Galilée ? Deviendraient-ils, à leur tour, des boucliers humains protégeant les terroristes chiites ? On n’en sait encore rien.

Sûr que si les Américains (ou les Européens : c’est une blague !) prenaient en charge la sécurité du territoire syrien après un blitz de Tsahal, le temps d’essayer de mettre en place une démocratie en Syrie, une campagne visant à chasser les Al Assad deviendrait stratégiquement intéressante ; c’est sans parler de l’amélioration gigantesque, au niveau des droits de l’Homme et de la paix durable, que cela apporterait. Mais, en constatant la mélasse dans laquelle ils se dépêtrent en Irak, personne, ici, n’oserait proposer aux Yankees cette nouvelle charge.

Béchar vocifère, alternant les menaces et les propositions de négocier, mais il ne se risquera pas à provoquer le géant militaire qu’est Tsahal ; ce, à moins que ses conceptions stratégiques ne soient celles d’un kamikaze. Le danger vient de voir la tension monter – comme dans un duel de Western au pistolet – et que l’un des protagonistes dégaine parce qu’il aura perdu ses nerfs. C’est exactement ce qui s’était passé à la veille de la guerre des Six jours, que personne n’entendait déclencher.

Comment va le temps ? Il tourne, en l’absence de conflit, en faveur de ceux qui possèdent la meilleure technologie et qui développent la Bride de David, mais à force de slalomer entre des barils de poudre, on ne peut exclure l’éventualité qu’ils explosent prématurément.

C’est le Richistan.
Le pays des riches.
C’était un village. Maintenant c’est une nation.

Selon le journaliste Robert Frank, qui y a consacré un livre, les Etats-Unis comptent maintenant 1000 milliardaires (contre 13 en 1985).
Il y a autant de millionnaires en Caroline du Nord que dans l’Inde entière…

Chacun des 5 enfants de Sam Walton, le PDG de Walmart, possède autant que John D. Rockefeller, le premier milliardaire américain.

Les richistanis ont leur propre système de santé, leurs clubs privés, leurs jets en time-sharing..
Pour ranger leurs placards, ils font appel à des professional organizers.
( Corinne Lesne, http://clesnes.blog.lemonde.fr/
)

... The wealthy weren’t just getting wealthier - they were forming their own virtual country.

They were wealthier than most nations, with the top 1% controlling $17 trillion in wealth. And they were increasingly building a self-contained world, with its own health-care system (concierge doctors), travel system (private jets, destination clubs) and language. (”Who’s your household manager?”)

They had created their own breakaway republic - one I called Richistan.

As a former foreign correspondent, I decided to cover Richistan just as I would cover another country. I wouldn’t judge the rich as heroes or villains, any more than I would judge Indonesians when covering Indonesia. My job would simply be to tell the reader what their world is like and what’s happening there.

... The real story behind all this wealth, however, isn’t in the numbers. It’s in the people, and how they’re changing the culture and character of wealth in America.

( The Wall Street Journal, Robert Frank, http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/wp-print.php?year=2007&monthnum=06&day=05&name=why-richistan-why-now )

Souvent, dans vos articles, la profondeur de l’analyse l’emporte sur l’abondance et le peu de pertinence d’un matériel documentaire étouffant.
Mais peu importe le prétexte, c’est le texte qui compte.
Ce n’est pas le cas lorsque vous tentez de nous rendre intéressant le triste bouffon apatride que les Français se sont vus octroyer comme président, avec comme seul alibi et seule justification les déclarations de ce dernier.
Il ne nous reste plus grand chose à lire, ne vous joignez pas, par pitié, à la claque subtile des grands clairvoyants prudents (même si votre voisin s’appelle Ignacio Ramonet)
En fait de prétexte, pourquoi ne pas gloser sur le fait que la politique étrangère de la France repose officiellement sur un bien étrange trio dont vous n’aurez aucun mal à trouver le point commun : Sarkozy - Lévitte - Kouchner ?

... Le réseau de surveillance de l’espace américain est la référence mondiale en matière de catalogage des satellites ...  Ces informations excluent les satellites américains sensibles, mais ne se privent pas de fournir des données sur les orbites des matériels militaires des autres nations.

...  Mais selon les responsables français, le radar Graves, ainsi qu’un système complémentaire supervisé par le gouvernement allemand, constitue déjà un système capable de détecter précisément l’emplacement, la taille, l’orbite et les fréquences de transmissions de certains satellites américains, informations dont les Etats-Unis préféreraient éviter une divulgation mondiale.

... A l’heure actuelle nous disons à nos amis américains: ‘nous avons vu des choses que vous pourriez souhaiter garder en dehors du domaine public. Nous accepterons de le faire si vous acceptez en retour de cesser de publier l’emplacement de nos satellites sensibles.”

http://www.techno-science.net/?onglet=news&news=4169

Comment vous que l’Europe de l’Est façe confiance à celle de l’Ouest avec ce qui s’est passé en 1938 à Munich et la mise sous tutelle de la Pologne en 1945 ?

Les Etats-Unis sont plus fiables que la France en ce domaine.

Au fait, combien de temps le royaume de Belgique survivrat encore au grand écart entre ses régions ?

Un futur premier ministre d’une nation qui n’a pas de drapeau de son pays dans son quartier général de campagne, c’est une nouveauté.

http://www.courrierinternational.com/article.asp?obj_id=74792

Voici la nouvelle méthode US pour régler son compte à l’insurrection irakienne…
...l’armer encore plus.
Fallait y penser, non?

Intéressant ces réactions Anglaises.