No es Putin quien construye un imperio, sino la OTAN - It’s Nato that’s empire-building, not Putin
Two sides are required for a New Cold War — and there is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe
Peter Hitchens en su artículo para el periódico británico 'The Spectator' expresa su opinión revelando las raíces de la reciente tensión entre Occidente y Rusia acerca de Ucrania, concluyendo que quien realmente construye un imperio es la propia OTAN.
El periodista Peter Hitchens en su artículo 'No es Putin quien construye un imperio, sino la OTAN', en el periódico'The Spectator', considera que la nueva Guerra Fría empezó en el año 2011 cuando Putin se opuso a los planes de Occidente en Siria para derrocar a Bashar al Assad, lo que provocó un gran enojo en Washington.
He aqui el articulo original:
"ust for once, let us try this argument with an open mind, employing arithmetic and geography and going easy on the adjectives. Two great land powers face each other. One of these powers, Russia, has given up control over 700,000 square miles of valuable territory. The other, the European Union, has gained control over 400,000 of those square miles. Which of these powers is expanding?
There remain 300,000 neutral square miles between the two, mostly in Ukraine. From Moscow’s point of view, this is already a grievous, irretrievable loss. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the canniest of the old Cold Warriors, wrote back in 1997, ‘Ukraine… is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.’
This diminished Russia feels the spread of the EU and its armed wing, Nato, like a blow on an unhealed bruise. In February 2007, for instance, Vladimir Putin asked sulkily, ‘Against whom is this expansion intended?’
I have never heard a clear answer to that question. The USSR, which Nato was founded to fight, expired in August 1991. So what is Nato’s purpose now? Why does it even still exist?
There is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe. Even if Russia wanted to reconquer its lost empire, as some believe (a belief for which there is no serious evidence), it is too weak and too poor to do this. So why not invite Russia to join the great western alliances? Alas, it is obvious to everyone, but never stated, that Russia cannot ever join either Nato or the EU, for if it did so it would unbalance them both by its sheer size. There are many possible ways of dealing with this. One would be an adult recognition of the limits of human power, combined with an understanding of Russia’s repeated experience of invasions and its lack of defensible borders."
algunas de las citas transcritas:
"Cuanto más independiente es la política exterior de Moscú, más la considera Occidente como una agresión", afirma el periodista.
Hitchens se pregunta por qué Occidente sigue ampliando las fronteras en la "Europa exsoviética" sin dar ninguna explicación a la razonable pregunta de Putin lanzada en 2007: ¿Contra quién está prevista esta expansión? Ya que la OTAN fue creada para luchar contra la URSS.
Tras constatar que ciertos territorios de la antigua Unión Soviética ahora forman parte de la Unión Europea, el periodista pregunta: "¿Cuál es la potencia que se expande?"
"Después de 23 años de paciencia con respecto a Occidente, Moscú ha dicho: ¡Basta ya!", concluye Peter Hitchens.
Two sides are required for a New Cold War — and there is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe
Peter Hitchens en su artículo para el periódico británico 'The Spectator' expresa su opinión revelando las raíces de la reciente tensión entre Occidente y Rusia acerca de Ucrania, concluyendo que quien realmente construye un imperio es la propia OTAN.
El periodista Peter Hitchens en su artículo 'No es Putin quien construye un imperio, sino la OTAN', en el periódico'The Spectator', considera que la nueva Guerra Fría empezó en el año 2011 cuando Putin se opuso a los planes de Occidente en Siria para derrocar a Bashar al Assad, lo que provocó un gran enojo en Washington.
He aqui el articulo original:
"ust for once, let us try this argument with an open mind, employing arithmetic and geography and going easy on the adjectives. Two great land powers face each other. One of these powers, Russia, has given up control over 700,000 square miles of valuable territory. The other, the European Union, has gained control over 400,000 of those square miles. Which of these powers is expanding?
There remain 300,000 neutral square miles between the two, mostly in Ukraine. From Moscow’s point of view, this is already a grievous, irretrievable loss. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the canniest of the old Cold Warriors, wrote back in 1997, ‘Ukraine… is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire.’
This diminished Russia feels the spread of the EU and its armed wing, Nato, like a blow on an unhealed bruise. In February 2007, for instance, Vladimir Putin asked sulkily, ‘Against whom is this expansion intended?’
I have never heard a clear answer to that question. The USSR, which Nato was founded to fight, expired in August 1991. So what is Nato’s purpose now? Why does it even still exist?
There is no obvious need for an adversarial system in post-Soviet Europe. Even if Russia wanted to reconquer its lost empire, as some believe (a belief for which there is no serious evidence), it is too weak and too poor to do this. So why not invite Russia to join the great western alliances? Alas, it is obvious to everyone, but never stated, that Russia cannot ever join either Nato or the EU, for if it did so it would unbalance them both by its sheer size. There are many possible ways of dealing with this. One would be an adult recognition of the limits of human power, combined with an understanding of Russia’s repeated experience of invasions and its lack of defensible borders."
algunas de las citas transcritas:
"Cuanto más independiente es la política exterior de Moscú, más la considera Occidente como una agresión", afirma el periodista.
Hitchens se pregunta por qué Occidente sigue ampliando las fronteras en la "Europa exsoviética" sin dar ninguna explicación a la razonable pregunta de Putin lanzada en 2007: ¿Contra quién está prevista esta expansión? Ya que la OTAN fue creada para luchar contra la URSS.
Tras constatar que ciertos territorios de la antigua Unión Soviética ahora forman parte de la Unión Europea, el periodista pregunta: "¿Cuál es la potencia que se expande?"
"Después de 23 años de paciencia con respecto a Occidente, Moscú ha dicho: ¡Basta ya!", concluye Peter Hitchens.