Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Russia

Russia. Riserve Valutarie 462.4 mld Usd, auree a 1,857.7 ton.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-19.

2018-0201__Russia_Riserve__001

The Central Bank of the Russian Federation ha rilasciato il dato relativo alla riserve valutarie russe: 462.4 miliardi di dollari americani.

2018-04-19__Russia_Riserve__002

L’11 gennaio 2018 tali riserve ammontavano a 432.6 miliardi.

2018-04-19__Russia_Riserve__003

Il 12 gennaio 2017 le riserve erano 377.7 miliardi Usd.

2018-04-19__Russia_Riserve__004

*

Le riserve auree sono salite a 1,857.7 tonnes, a tutto marzo 2018.

 

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Russia, Unione Europea

Russia e Germania. Un sondaggio reclama più diplomazia.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-12.

2018-04-09__Infratest__001

Infratest dmap ha rilasciato i risultati di un interessante sondaggio:

ARD-Deutschland Trend. Verhältnis zu Russland.

Il tema proposto affronta le relazioni che la Germania e l’Occidente hanno con la Russia.

Le risposte evidenziano un enorme buon senso nella popolazione intervistata.

Buon senso e Realpolitik che i Governi occidentali potrebbe ben prendere in considerazione.

2018-04-09__Infratest__002

*

«Der Blick auf das Verhältnis Russlands zum Westen erfüllt sechs von zehn Deutsche (61 Prozent) mit sehr großen bzw. großen Sorgen. Die Bürger fordern im Verhältnis zu Russland von beiden Seiten Dialogbereitschaft: Eine große Mehrheit (86 Prozent) fordert, dass sich der Westen stärker um einen Dialog mit Russland bemühen sollte. Noch mehr sehen aber auch Russland in der Pflicht zum Gespräch (91 Prozent). Jeder zweite Deutsche (48 Prozent) kann nachvollziehen, dass sich Russland vom Westen bedroht sieht. Drei Viertel der Bürger (72 Prozent) glauben allerdings auch, dass dem russischen Präsidenten Wladimir Putin jedes Mittel recht ist, um die Interessen seines Landes durchzusetzen.»

*

«Sei tedeschi su dieci (61 per cento) sono molto preoccupati o molto preoccupati per il rapporto della Russia con l’Occidente.

I cittadini chiedono la volontà di impegnarsi nel dialogo con la Russia da entrambe le parti: una grande maggioranza (86%) chiede che l’Occidente faccia maggiori sforzi per impegnarsi nel dialogo con la Russia.

Ma la Russia dovrebbe aprirsi maggiormente al dialogo (91 per cento).

Un tedesco su due (48 per cento) può capire che la Russia si senta minacciata dall’Occidente.

Tre quarti dei cittadini, (72 per cento), tuttavia, ritengono anche che il presidente russo Vladimir Putin abbia il diritto di utilizzare tutti i mezzi per affermare gli interessi del suo paese.»

*

Ricapitoliamo.

– Il 61% dei tedeschi guarda preoccupato il deteriorarsi dei rapporti tra Occidente e Russia. Già questa presa di coscienza è fatto degno di nota.

– La grande maggioranza degli intervistati vede come unica soluzione la ripresa di un dialogo da ambo le parti.

– L’86% vorrebbe che l’Occidente si impegnasse maggiormente in questi colloqui: nel contempo il 91% vorrebbe che anche la Russia facesse sforzi in questa direzione.

*

Se queste risposte denotano un consistente senso dell’equilibrio che porta sempre a favorire la negoziazione diplomatica, ancor più stupiti si resta delle ultime due risposte.

– Il 48% dei tedeschi comprende che la Russia si senta minacciata.

– Ben un 72% riconosce al Presidente Putin il diritto di difendere gli interessi del proprio paese.

* * * * * * *

Il popolo è quasi sempre più saggio dei propri governanti.

Un primo passo potrebbe essere quello di rimuovere dai discorsi e dagli atti tutto ciò che possa suonare minaccioso ai russi. Questo non significa non essere fermi nel patrocinare le posizioni occidentali, significa esclusivamente smorzare i toni ed eliminare le asperità.

Per esempio, un arretramento bilaterale delle difese avanzate potrebbe essere un ottimo segno di iniziale distensione degli animi.

La quasi totalità degli intervistati desidererebbe un maggiore impegno diplomatico, e noi siamo perfettamente di accordo con loro.

Nel condurre colloqui non si perde nulla, e la reciproca comprensione si sviluppa solo quando il dialogo è diventato una abitudine.

Pubblicato in: Armamenti, Cina, Geopolitica Militare, Russia, Stati Uniti

Russia. Chiaroscuri di una potenza militare.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-04-11.

Machete 001

Parlare di problemi militari può essere estremamente semplice oppure assurdamente complesso, a seconda che l’interlocutore sia uno del mestiere (ossia un venditore oppure un acquirente di armi), ovvero una persona semplicemente interessata al problema.

Questa ultima categoria, dignitosissima si intende, fatica non poco a vedere le cose nel loro insieme e quasi di norma si perde nei dettagli tecnici: solitamente sono incantati dal grado di sofisticazione di un particolare sistema di arma.

L’arma che ha fatto più morti nelle guerre combattute negli ultimi trenta anni è stata la baionetta ed il machete. Questo dato di fatto è tenuto sempre presente da quanti siano deputati all’addestramento di una forza combattente: l’addestramento al corpo a corpo è più rilevante che il maneggio di armi altamente sofisticate. Esso implica anche un lavorio continuo e profondo sulla volontà combattiva, senza la quale non esiste armamento che tenga.

*

Un secondo aspetto che stranamente pochi sembrerebbero aver compreso a fondo, è la differenza degli obbiettivi stratetici delle grandi superpotenze, America, Cina e Russia.

Mentre l’America ha interessi a livello mondiale e deve quindi disporre di forze armate a tale livello, Cina e Russia hanno una visione strategica locoregionale. Sicuramente si sono dotate di sistemi di arma atomici strategici, intercontinentali, sottomarini atomici e via quant’altro, ma la loro preoccupazione maggiore è quella della sicurezza nazionale. In questa ottica, in una eventuale guerra tra Stati Uniti e Russia la marina militare americana svolgerebbe un ruolo secondario, eccetto i sommergibili atomici.

Un altro aspetto che resta inspiegabilmente incomprensibile a molti è il rapporto beneficio / costo. Ogni sistema di arma richiede investimenti dalla fase di progettazione, costruzione, messa a punto e testaggio. Quindi si apre il capitolo delle spese di manutenzione. Una guerra non è la fiera delle novità, bensì quella della efficienza. Cercheremo di spiegarci con un esempio: costa meno disporre di un missile antiaereo preciso al 100% ma molto costoso, oppure disporre di molti missili antiaerei relativamente poco precisi ma producibili a costi bassi?

*

Russia e Cina non hanno per esempio delle flotte strategiche per il semplice motivo che loro non servono. E le flotte americane avrebbero ben poca utilità in una guerra contro queste nazioni: di fatto non possono entrare nei Mar della Cina, né quello Nord né quello Sud. E le distanze di sicurezza sono talmente ampie da lasciare i territori continentali fuori dal raggio di azione delle armi caricate sulle navi.

«However, the military expert warns that ranking countries by military power is “more or less useless” as armed forces’ effectiveness depends on the goals set by the nation’s leaders.»

*

«This point of view is echoed by Russian journalist and military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, who warns that real-life conflicts depend on many different variables, including the geography and the people involved.»

*

«These problems were exacerbated by the 2014 Crimean crisis, according to the analyst. In the years leading up to the showdown with the West, Moscow was spending at least $500 million in the US shopping for the so-called double-use merchandize, which can be used for both military and civilian purposes.»

*

«It was electronic components for Russian weapons and satellites, different kinds of special glass and steel»

*

«In addition to the nuclear arsenal, there is one area in which Russia is clearly number one. Recently, the Kremlin announced that Russia had more tanks than any other nation in the world …. 20,000 tanks»

* * * * * * * *

Una ultima considerazione.

Le guerre si svolgono tra almeno due belligeranti. La risultante finale è determinata dal comportamento di ambedue.

È davvero caso raro di una guerra combattuta esclusivamente con i criteri di uno dei contendenti. Di conseguenza, sistemi d’arma studiati per un ben determinato impiego potrebbero risultare essere ininfluenti. Un caso da manuale è stata la guerra in Vietnam: la superiorità tecnologica americana fu sconfitta dalla tecnica di guerriglia.

Ci si pensi bene:

«20,000 tanks»


Deutsche Welle. 2018-04-08. The strengths and weaknesses of Russia’s military

Russian armed forces provide Moscow with clear military superiority in the post-Soviet region, despite Russia’s troops not being able to match the whole of NATO. The Kremlin is busy modernizing its army, experts told DW.

*

The US, Russia, and China are considered the world’s strongest nations when it comes to military power, with the US the undisputed number one. Even so, Russia’s still has plenty of arrows in its quiver, most notably the massive nuclear arsenal of some 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads.

Leaving the nuclear weapons aside, however, the US has an overwhelming advantage in conventional forces, including a much stronger navy and air force, Russian military analyst Aleksandr Golts told DW.

China, according to Golts, would also have the advantage of numbers in any conventional showdown with Russia. In other areas, however, things are not as clear-cut.

“Russia’s air force is much stronger than the Chinese for now,” he told DW. “It questionable about the navy, as the Chinese are now undertaking a very ambitious program of ship building and they are much more successful in building a [global] blue Navy fleet than Russia.”

Still, while Russia’s battleships are old, they are often equipped with very modern cruise missiles, according to Golts.

However, the military expert warns that ranking countries by military power is “more or less useless” as armed forces’ effectiveness depends on the goals set by the nation’s leaders.

‘We don’t always know where the target is’

This point of view is echoed by Russian journalist and military analyst Pavel Felgenhauer, who warns that real-life conflicts depend on many different variables, including the geography and the people involved.

“It’s like predicting a result of a soccer match: Yes, basically, Brazil should beat America in soccer, but I have seen Americans beat Brazil in South Africa, at the Confederations Cup,” he told DW. “You never know the result until the game is played.”

Felgenhauer notes that Russia is lacking in many areas of modern military technology, including drone design and production, electronic components, as well as radar and satellite reconnaissance. For example, Russia is currently producing surveillance drones under an Israeli license, and it is completely lacking in assault drone capability.

Russia is also working on modernizing its command and control centers, which serve to process information from the battlefield and feed it to the troops.

“That’s what the Russian military is talking about: Yes, we have weapons, including long-range weapons, but our reconaissance capabilities are weaker than our attack capabilities,” Felgenhauer said. “So we have-long range, sometimes precision guided weapons, but we don’t always know where the target is.”

No more German and French satellites

These problems were exacerbated by the 2014 Crimean crisis, according to the analyst. In the years leading up to the showdown with the West, Moscow was spending at least $500 million in the US shopping for the so-called double-use merchandize, which can be used for both military and civilian purposes.

“It was electronic components for Russian weapons and satellites, different kinds of special glass and steel,” Felgenhauer says.

Similarly, “France and Germany were making double-use satellites, which were basically military satellites, recon satellites, for Russia. And all that kind of stopped.”

Good old Soviet weapons

Faced with the West’s embargo, Russia is also working to develop its own drones and close the technological gap in other areas. However, the breakdown of the Soviet Union left Moscow not only weaker in terms of territory and the number of troops, but also when it comes to military suppliers, according to the experts.

“The Soviet Union had an idiotic, but at least very logical economy,” Aleksandr Golts says. “It had nothing to do with market economy, but the main goal for any enterprise on Soviet territory, whether it was designated as military or civilian, was to be ready to produce military goods and equipment in case of war. After the fall of the Soviet Union, these systems disappeared.”

On the other hand, the legacy of the Soviet Union is still very much present in the modern Russian army, as many of its cutting edge systems “are the development of good, old Soviet systems and the modernization of that type of technology,” says Golts.

One such weapon is the decades-old Su-25 attack plane, designed to support ground troops. Russia recently announced that the latest version of the aircraft has entered production.

“It is very well known to all the people who participated in the (1980’s) Afghan war, such as myself,” he told DW. “But, its designers insist it only looks like the old Su-25, that all the avionics are absolutely modern […] and it has shown how good it was during the Syrian war.”

20,000 tanks

In addition to the nuclear arsenal, there is one area in which Russia is clearly number one. Recently, the Kremlin announced that Russia had more tanks than any other nation in the world, notes Felgenhauer.

“Unofficially, I have seen figures of up to 20,000, which would mean that Russia has more tanks than all the NATO countries put together.”

Most of the European powers reduced their tank capabilities after the end of the Cold War, focusing instead on conflicts with terrorist and guerilla groups. This, according to Felgenhauer, puts them at a massive disadvantage in the event of a ground war in Europe.

“Germany has only 300 tanks left right now,” he says. “Britain has, I think, 250, and France also something close to that.”

In the event of all-European war, Russia also holds a logistical advantage over the West, according to Felgenhauer. Where NATO would need months to mobilize it full strength, Russia would be able to bring in reinforcements on a much tighter schedule.

Pubblicato in: Armamenti, Russia, Stati Uniti, Unione Europea

Polonia. Acquista quattro unità Patriot.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-03-31.

Varsavia 001

«The MIM-104 Patriot is a surface-to-air missile (SAM) system, the primary of its kind used by the United States Army and several allied nations. It is manufactured by the U.S. defense contractor Raytheon and derives its name from the radar component of the weapon system. The AN/MPQ-53 at the heart of the system is known as the “Phased Array Tracking Radar to Intercept on Target” which is a backronym for PATRIOT. The Patriot System replaced the Nike Hercules system as the U.S. Army’s primary High to Medium Air Defense (HIMAD) system, and replaced the MIM-23 Hawk system as the U.S. Army’s medium tactical air defense system. In addition to these roles, Patriot has been given the function of the U.S. Army’s anti-ballistic missile (ABM) system, which is now Patriot’s primary mission. The system is expected to stay fielded until at least 2040.» [Fonte]

*

Del sistema Patriot sono state costruite numerose versioni con differenti caratteristiche. Si va da quella con raggio di azione di 70 km e velocità massima di Mach 2.8, fino a quella con capacità operativa di 160 km e velocità massima di Mach 4.1.

Tuttavia nessuno si stupirebbe se gli Stati Uniti disponessero di versioni ancor più performanti ma ancora coperte da segreto militare.

La Polonia si dota quindi di un sistema anti aereo ed anti missile di provata tecnologia, che dovrebbe fornirle una copertura ragionevole nel caso di conflitto.

È una manovra con dei pro e dei contro.

Gli aspetti favorevoli sono evidenti: lo spiegamento di Patriot gestiti direttamente da personale polacco costituiscono un deterrente di non poco peso. Nel converso, sembrerebbe essere del tutto verosimile che un potenziale nemico farebbe di tutto per cercare di neutralizzare questi sistemi: in altri termini, potrebbe anche scatenare una risposta anche ben maggiore di quella teoricamente necessaria.

Se poi è vero che il sistema Patriot è stato testato nel corso di conflitti locoregionali, sarebbe altrettanto vero constatare che gli avversari avevano armamenti decisamente scadenti. Sembrerebbe essere verosimile che i russi siano meglio armati degli irakeni.


Deutsche Welle. 2018-03-28. Poland buys $4.75 billion Patriot missile system from US

The Polish president described it as “an extraordinary, historic moment.” The purchase will allow the country to coordinate its anti-missile operations with NATO allies Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Greece.

*

Poland on Wednesday inked a deal to buy a US-made Patriot anti-missile system for $4.75 billion (€3.8 billion).

“It is an extraordinary, historic moment; it is Poland’s introduction into a whole new world of state-of-the-art technology, modern weaponry, and defensive means,” Polish President Andrzej Duda said during the signing ceremony.

The deal with US defense company Raytheon will see Poland acquire four Patriot missile units, which are designed to shoot down incoming missiles and aircraft, with first deliveries expected to be made in 2022.

Following Germany’s footsteps

The acquisition will allow Poland to co-ordinate its anti-missile operations with other NATO allies that already have the Patriot system, including Germany, the Netherlands, Spain and Greece.

The purchase is part of the country’s effort to modernize its armed forces amid heightened tensions with Russia.

“We are signing today a contract to deliver a modern system that has proven itself in numerous countries and thanks to which we are joining an elite group of states which have an efficient weapon that guarantees security,” Polish Defense Minister Mariusz Blaszczak said.

More to come?

The deal also included the option for Poland to sign a second phase agreement to purchase more missile units, a new 360-degree radar and an interceptor missile.

“We do expect that Poland will move pretty quickly with Phase II,” Wes Kremer, president of Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems, told Reuters news agency. He added: “They have a stated desire to complete that by the end of the year.”

Pubblicato in: Armamenti, Geopolitica Militare, Russia, Stati Uniti

Russia. Nuovo arsenale atomico. – The Diplomat.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-03-30.

2018-03-28__Russia_Armamenti atomici 001

«Con l’espressione “Stati con armi nucleari” si indicano quelle nazioni che hanno costruito, hanno testato e sono attualmente in possesso di armi nucleari di qualunque tipo; in termini colloquiali, spesso ci si riferisce a questi Stati con l’espressione “club nucleare”. In base ai termini del Trattato di non proliferazione nucleare (TNP), entrato in vigore il 5 marzo 1970, sono considerate ufficialmente “Stati con armi nucleari” (nuclear weapons states o NWS) quelle nazioni che hanno assemblato e testato ordigni nucleari prima del 1º gennaio 1967: Stati Uniti d’America, Russia (succeduta all’Unione Sovietica), Regno Unito, Francia e Cina, ovvero i cinque membri permanenti del Consiglio di sicurezza delle Nazioni Unite.

Oltre a queste, altre quattro nazioni, non aderenti al TNP, hanno sviluppato e sono in possesso di armamenti nucleari: India, Pakistan, Corea del Nord (aderente al TNP nel 1985 ma ritiratasi da esso nel 2001) ed Israele (sebbene il governo israeliano non abbia mai confermato ufficialmente di possedere un arsenale nucleare); lo status di queste nazioni circa gli armamenti nucleari non è formalmente riconosciuto dagli organismi internazionali, ma è contemplato nelle pianificazioni strategiche dei principali Stati nucleari. Il Sudafrica allestì un arsenale nucleare tra la metà degli anni settanta e la fine degli anni ottanta ma scelse spontaneamente di smantellarlo nel 1991; i neo indipendenti Stati di Bielorussia, Kazakistan ed Ucraina si ritrovarono a gestire armi nucleari ex sovietiche dopo la dissoluzione dell’URSS, smantellandole o restituendole alla Russia entro il 1997.» [Fonte]

*

Le armi atomiche sono un deterrente tale da mantenere le forze in equilibrio, anche se labile. Diciamo che da un punto di vista di Realpolitik interessano sicuramente il numero delle testate, ma soprattutto che le possibili potenze concorrenti abbiano potenzialità ragionevolmente eguali.

Sicuramente negli ultimi lustri sono stati progettati e costruiti sistemi di arma in grado di neutralizzare i missili di potenziali assalitori, ma quanto poi essi siano funzionali sul campo di battaglia è tutto da vedere, anche se si spera che mai lo si debba constatare.

Parlando a spanne, la quantità di armamenti attualmente in linea è tale da poter distruggere completamente il mondo e la vita su di esso.

Negli ultimi tempi la dottrina atomica ha virato dalle bombe di elevata potenza a quelle di potenza molto più limitata, si direbbero quasi di uso tattico, anche se il termine è improprio, pur rendendo l’idea.

A quanto sembrerebbe di capire, ma il condizionale è d’obbligo, Stati Uniti e Russia hanno sviluppato missili vettori ipersonici. Questi vettori sarebbero molto più difficilmente intercettabili.


The Diplomat. 2018-03-22. Russian Nukes: Facts vs. Fiction

2018 has already became a huge year for nuclear weapons-related developments all over the world, with a new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review published, the Russian and U.S. achievement of New START Central Limits, and the Doomsday Clock moved 30 seconds closer to midnight. Last but not least, Russian President Vladimir Putin rather unexpectedly showcased a number of new nuclear delivery vehicles during his annual (although postponed) Address to the Federal Assembly.

Russia remains a key figure for both worldwide nuclear arsenals as well as strategic stability, so it is important to understand the existing and future capabilities of Strategic Rocket Forces and their sea- and air-based companions.

Land

Regarding the land-based leg of Russian nuclear triad, the important part is rather evolutionary: deliveries of new Yars (SS-27 Mod 2) intercontinental-range ballistic missiles or ICBMs (as well as yet to be specified Yars-S) in road-mobile and silo-based variants have led to the complete rearmament of up to three missile divisions, with rearmament ongoing for three. The development of the Barguzin rail-mobile ICBM project has been finished, but deployment was canceled, which back in the day seemed a good sign, as this system was obviously excessive.

Another future system, the Sarmat (SS-X-29) heavy liquid-fuel ICBM faced a number of problems, but eventually reached the ejection test stage, which was deemed successful. This missile is said to be more powerful than the renowned Satan (SS-18). However, using it as delivery vehicle for multiple (10+) warheads looks like an unnecessary capability given the existing New START limits (700 deployed launchers and 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads).

Now we come to the “gliding cruise bloc” Avangard, a hypersonic glider previously known as “Project 4202” or “Yu-71.” This type of payload, said to enter serial production, is capable of precise hits on any target, avoiding any existing or future missile defenses. The mating of Avangard and Sarmat (probably up to five gliders per missile, but likely less) seems the most appropriate way to use those new toys.

There were six ICBM test launches over 2017, related both to life extension and new payload types. As usual, the number was lower than previously announced; the same dynamics will probably remain in 2018.

Overall, Strategic Rocket Forces (RVSN) commander Sergei Karakayev remains committed to the 400 ICBMs at his disposal, but this number obviously includes nondeployed missiles, as otherwise there’s no chance for Russia to get under New START limits. It’s important to note that, given the rapid decline of the provisional “warheads-per-vehicle” coefficient over the last year, there’s a chance that “un-deployment” for existing heavy ICBMs (the SS-18 and SS-19) had already taken place.

Coming back to Putin’s nuclear weapons extravaganza, there’s one more system possibly related to the ground leg, the nuclear-powered cruise missile (possibly 9M730, but no one knows for sure) with unlimited range. Its current status, research, and deployment schedules are yet to be disclosed (or not), but it is worth noting, that “examples” given during the address were the sea-launched Tomahawk and air-launched Kh-101. However, the launcher used during the test shown in the relevant video resembles several types of self-propelled launchers for tactical surface-to-surface and anti-ship missiles combined.

Sea

The sea leg of the nuclear triad launched several SS-N-23A Sinevas and a single SS-N-32 Bulava in 2017. The latter fact raises some concern, as we are yet to witness the possibility of salvo fires with this missile system. The Tula (Delta-IV class) nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) returned from repairs to the Northern Fleet, while Bryansk of the same type (praised for a successful submarine-launched ballistic missile launch during strategic exercises by the fleet commander), left in turn for Zvezdochka to undergo work to repair, modernize, and restore its combat readiness.

Judging from the official photos, two Borei and 3 Delta-III SSBNs are ready for combat duty in the Pacific Ocean. The first 955A (Borei-A), Prince Vladimir, took to the water in 2017 as well. The original Borei class used the hulls from the Soviet reserve, so this ship is the first of entirely new construction. It’s worth noting that over the past year there were a number of confirmations regarding plans to develop an even more advanced underwater cruiser, Borei-B, within the framework of the State Armaments Program-2027 (GPV-2027).

There were a number of disclosures and an eventual statement by Putin on new unmanned underwater “drones,” namely Status-6 (or Kanyon) and Klavesin-2P (Harpsichord). It is rather strange that those two systems appeared in the same video and now are waiting for “public” designations together as well, because they obviously have different purposes. The main task of Klavesin-2P is believed to be expanding situational awareness for submarines, while Status-6 is an “intercontinental nuclear-tipped torpedo,” capable of destroying coastal infrastructure and (at least as shown in the video rendering) surface ship strike groups. It is yet to be understood how such a system, supposedly carrying a multimegaton nuclear warhead, should be factored into existing and future arms control agreements. Status-6 is a strategic system, so it seems appropriate to include this beast into some future START-type treaty, but one must keep in mind that long-range nuclear-tipped submarine-launched cruise missiles, which are still in service in the Russian Navy (and possibly will see a return for the U.S. Navy as well), are not covered by existing treaties, while having strategic implications.

Air

The most important “material” event for the Russia Air Force’s Strategic Aviation over the last year happened in 2018: first “new” Tu-160 (“Blackjack”) Heavy Bomber took its maiden flight. Of course one must remember that it was built using anunfinished body and it is yet to be understood which types (Tu-160M/160M1/160M2) will be produced and when, but this is an important milestone nevertheless. A contract for 10 planes was signed. A proper “future bomber,” PAK DA is yet to be disclosed; the only specification we may be sure about is that it will be based on a “flying wing” scheme. There’s word that some level of unification regarding avionics and weapons will be achieved for new Blackjacks and the PAK DA.

As for today, the main capability increase for the air leg of Russia’s nuclear triad is being achieved by the modernization of existing Tu-160 and Tu-95MS (Bear-H) aircraft, so they can use Kh-101 cruise missiles. This long-range stealthy cruise missile (Kh-102 for nuclear-tipped variant) will remain the main armament for new heavy bombers as well.

Heavy bombers remain an important signalling tool. Blackjacks and Bears routinely visit faraway airspace and airdromes, serving as a reminder of Russian strategic capabilities. Also, they are the only part of the triad (Luckily) that has seen real action: there were at least 66 air-launched cruise missiles launched at Islamic State terrorists in Syria.

During Vladimir Putin’s address, the air-based hypersonic weapons system “Kinzhal” (“Dagger”) was demonstrated, and even said to have entered test service in the Southern Federal (sic) District of Russia. The easiest way to describe this system is an Iskander-M (SS-26 Stone) solid-fuel aeroballistic missile (probably a 9M723 derivative) mated to MiG-31 (Foxhound) interceptor. The system is capable of hitting ground and sea-surface targets, avoiding missile defenses, and serves as a good example how existing technological marvels may produce synergy. It is yet to be determined if the stated 2,000 kilometer range means the missile only or the system as a whole. Kinzhal does not fall under New START definitions for strategic air leg, as Foxhound is hardly a heavy bomber, and the missile is obviously not cruise-type, but this is an important topic for discussion among experts and policymakers.

Stability or Escalation?

Russia remains fully capable of destroying the United States, and, most importantly, U.S. Strategic Command capabilities are roughly the same. This balance remains a pillar of global peace, even under the currently strained relations between the great powers. Discussions on limited nuclear use will likely remain unrelated to reality; any nuclear use will lead to full-scale retaliation.

What is important is how other nuclear-weapons states may be factored into the equation. Russia has until recently insisted that any further reductions can’t be achieved on a bilateral basis, while “third parties” have speculated that they can’t “join the game” while Russian and U.S. arsenals are bigger by such a great margin. Another issue in the strategic arms debate is U.S. Missile Defense, an overhyped problem for both the domestic audience and some military experts in Russia. Showing a great number of new “penetrating” nuclear delivery vehicles must be seen not as “saber-rattling” but as a therapy for the audience both within Russia and abroad.

However, an unusual statement was made by Vladimir Putin during his interview for NBC, which may show a way to overcome both problems. He said that Russia is ready to continue the dialogue on existing and new strategic arms control treaties, and added that, given new weapons’ missile defense penetration capabilities, “We no longer consider the reduction of ballistic missiles and warheads to be highly critical.” He indicated that new strategic weapons also will be included in the grand total.

Such an attitude is yet to see implementation in detailed strategic stability talks (it’s possible that this may have been a subject of the recently postponed meeting), but the parties seem ready for discussion. Future reductions may open the way for third parties to join the process – initially by agreeing to some level of transparency and confidence-building measures.

Military planners in every country think about waging and winning nuclear war, but testing their calculations remains superfluous.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Russia, Unione Europea

Austria. Non espellerà diplomatici russi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-03-29.

2018-03-29__Austria. Non espellerà diplomatici russi.__001

Con il Cancelliere Kurz ed il nuovo governo che escluse la socialdemocrazia, l’Austria ha subito una appariscente mutazione. Le linee guida politiche ed economiche che erano tipiche dell’Austria sono state abbandonate e lentamente stanno emergendo quelle nuove. Non che il Cancelliere fosse stato poco chiaro nell’enunciare i propri programmi, ma erano in molti a dubitare che avrebbe poi potuto mantenere ciò che erano state le promesse elettorali.

Si direbbe quasi che il Cancelliere Kurz stia sviluppando un piano politico strategico che stia precorrendo i tempi: presto o tardi anche il resto dell’Europa potrebbe allinearsi al suo modo di intendere la situazione attuale e su come operare.

Di sicuro, il Cancelliere Kurz ha visioni politiche molto differenti da quelle delle attuali cancellerie e della dirigenza dell’Unione Europea.

Intanto l’Austria si è visibilmente emancipata dalla tutela tedesca. Fenomeno questo iniziato anni or sono, ma ora chiaramente visibile. I recenti summit dei capi di stato e di governo dell’Unione Europea sono più che eloquenti. In questo Herr Kurz ha ampiamente precorso i tempi avendo previsto il crollo dei socialisti francesi, poi l’esito delle elezione politiche tedesche ed infine di quelle italiane. Il Cancelliere Kurz considera, non a torto, molti attuali governi come dei walking dead: sembrerebbe aver compreso appieno la portata della devoluzione dell’idealismo liberal e socialista. È segno di acume politico il precorrere i tempi, senza voler strafare. È molto verosimile che le sue posizioni attuali saranno in un futuro non troppo lontano fatte proprie dagli altri stati membri dell’Unione Europea.

*

Molto significativo il titolo di fondo dell’Ahram Online:

‘Neutral’ Austria won’t expel Russian diplomats

«Austria is a member of the European Union but is officially neutral and is not part of the NATO military alliance»

*

«Austria said Monday that it would not follow a number of other EU countries in expelling Russian diplomats over the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain, stressing its neutrality.»

*

«”We stand behind the decision to recall the EU ambassador, but we will not take any national measures,” Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl said in a joint statement.»

*

«”Indeed, we want to keep the channels of communication to Russia open,” they added. “Austria is a neutral country and sees itself as a bridge-builder between East and West.”»

* * *

La reazione dei paesi dell’Unione Europea era prevedibile.

«Austria is drawing criticism from parts of the European Union for saying it couldn’t expel Russian diplomats on account of its neutrality»

*

«Austria, which has gotten most of its natural gas from Russia for 50 years, has a history of trying to moderate the EU’s approach to Moscow»

* * * * * * *

Herr Kurz ha anche un retaggio storico di non poca importanza.

«In declining to take further measures, his government cited Austria’s neutrality, which the country adopted as a condition for ending its post-World War II occupation by the U.S., the Soviet Union, the U.K. and France in 1955»

*

La Realpolitik è arte solo per persone di grande intelligenza e cultura: sia come parte agente sia anche come spettatori. Nessuno però si stupirebbe se la minuscola Austria acquisisse nel tempo una statura politica molto maggiore di quanto ci si potrebbe aspettare da una nazione oggettivamente piccola.

Potrebbero tornare alla mente i tempi di Josef Klaus prima e di Bruno Kreisky dopo.


Bloomberg. 2013-03-28. Austria Draws Scorn for Sitting Out Russian Diplomat Expulsions

– Government includes nationalists friendly with Putin’s party

– Sweden’s Bildt questions if Austria is ‘part of the West’

*

Austria is drawing criticism from parts of the European Union for saying it couldn’t expel Russian diplomats on account of its neutrality.

Chancellor Sebastian Kurz’s government, which includes nationalists that cooperate with Vladimir Putin’s party, declined to join the tough international response to a nerve-agent attack on a former Russian spy in England. Austria is a “builder of bridges between East and West” and wants to “keep channels open” to Moscow, it said.

That position is “hardly compatible with EU membership” and there’s “a big difference between being part of the West and being a bridge between the West and the East,” former Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt said Tuesday on Twitter.

Artis Pabriks, a former Latvian foreign minister who’s a member of the European Parliament, called Austria’s decision a “bad joke.” He asked: “Which other EU policies/decisions Kurz does not apply to Austria?”

Kurz, whose People’s Party is part of the same political family as the parties of Bildt and Pabriks, said Monday that Austria backs the EU’s decision to pull its ambassador to Russia.

In declining to take further measures, his government cited Austria’s neutrality, which the country adopted as a condition for ending its post-World War II occupation by the U.S., the Soviet Union, the U.K. and France in 1955.

United Russia

Austria, which has gotten most of its natural gas from Russia for 50 years, has a history of trying to moderate the EU’s approach to Moscow. Social Democrat Werner Faymann was one of the more skeptical EU leaders when initial sanctions were imposed on Russia in 2014 over the annexation of Crimea.

Kurz’s coalition partner, the Freedom Party, led by Vice Chancellor Heinz Christian Strache, signed a “working agreement” with Putin’s United Russia party in Moscow in 2016, saying it would like to roll back the sanctions.


Ahram Online. 2013-03-28. ‘Neutral’ Austria won’t expel Russian diplomats

Austria said Monday that it would not follow a number of other EU countries in expelling Russian diplomats over the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain, stressing its neutrality.

“We stand behind the decision to recall the EU ambassador, but we will not take any national measures,” Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and Foreign Minister Karin Kneissl said in a joint statement.

“Indeed, we want to keep the channels of communication to Russia open,” they added. “Austria is a neutral country and sees itself as a bridge-builder between East and West.”

Fourteen European Union countries are to expel a total of 30 Russian diplomats in a coordinated international response to Moscow over the poisoning of Sergei Skripal in the English city of Salisbury, according to an AFP tally.

Germany, France and Poland led the way with four expulsions each and EU President Donald Tusk warned that more diplomats could be thrown out in the coming days.

Austria is a member of the European Union but is officially neutral and is not part of the NATO military alliance.

The right-wing Kurz visited Russia in late February and his coalition partners, the far-right Freedom Party (FPOe), have a “cooperation pact” with President Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party.

Slovakia, while condemning the Skripal poisoning, also said it was not throwing out Russian diplomats at present but will summon the Russian ambassador “without delay”.

“The development of the situation, as well as Russia’s response to the calls addressed to it by the EU countries — including Slovakia — will influence the next steps that we are prepared to consider in this case,” the Slovakian foreign ministry said.

Pubblicato in: Russia, Unione Europea

Unione Europea che si sgretola. Un altro summit inconcludente.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-03-23.

Unione Europea 049

È in corso un summit dei leader politici dell’Unione Europea.

A quanto sembrerebbe, nemmeno una parola sarebbe stata fatta sull’ultimatum scaduto nei confronti della Polonia.

Per tutto il resto:

«The first day of a two-day summit in Brussels

however ended without a conclusion»

*

Alcuni elementi potrebbero essere da valutarsi.

«European Union leaders sided with the U.K. and said it’s “highly likely” that Russia was behind the nerve agent poisoning in Britain of a former double agent»

A parere di molti ci sarebbe grande differenza tra un qualcosa di altamente probabile ed un qualcosa di certamente provato.

Ci sarebbe poi la situazione della Finlandia.

«Sauli Niinisto, who has forged a close working relationship with his Russian counterpart over the years, discussed international developments with Putin, his office said in a statement (Niinisto had already sent Putin a congratulatory message on Monday).»

*

«In Brussels for an EU summit, Finland’s prime minister appeared to question the evidence that the Kremlin was behind the poisoning of a Russian spy in London»

*

Mr Niinisto, primo Ministro finlandese non sarebbe nemmeno l’unico a mettere in dubbio che il coinvolgimento del Kremlin sia ancora non accertato.

Molti sono anche alquanto stupiti che l’ospedale ove la ex spia russa era stata ricoverata avesse a disposizione l’antidoto al veleno riferito essere stato usato, ed anche in confezioni non scadute. Sembrerebbe essere alquanto strano detenere un simile costosissimo farmaco contro un veleno mai usato.

«Greece and Hungary are still skeptical, and it seems so is Finland»

*

«Prime Minister Juha Sipila said that the “information we’ve got so far is not enough to make decisions, this kind of decisions need to be assessed through careful processes”»

*

«Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis was asked if he was sure the Russians were 100 percent involved. And here is how he responded: “Is there any evidence of this? I don’t know, of course we trust our allies.”»

*

Lots of solidarity that is falling short of commitments to action. Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel had this to say: “I want to listen, don’t ask me to say if there is evidence or not.”

* * * * * * *

Sembrerebbe cosa evidente che i pubblici bollettini non riportino appieno gli argomenti trattati.


Bloomberg. 2018-03-23. Finland’s President Congratulates Putin, Not Once But Twice

Finland’s president has congratulated Vladimir Putin on his election victory for the second time in the space of three days.

Thursday’s phone call between Helsinki and Moscow came as U.S. President Donald Trump continued to face criticism at home for complimenting the Russian leader on his re-election.

Sauli Niinisto, who has forged a close working relationship with his Russian counterpart over the years, discussed international developments with Putin, his office said in a statement (Niinisto had already sent Putin a congratulatory message on Monday).

Finland and Russia share a 1,300-kilometer (800-mile) border and have focused on forging pragmatic relations after fighting each other in two wars in the 1940s.

In Brussels for an EU summit, Finland’s prime minister appeared to question the evidence that the Kremlin was behind the poisoning of a Russian spy in London.

Russia’s contribution is “essential” in bringing clarity to the nerve agent attack in the U.K., Niinisto told Putin.


Bloomberg. 2018-03-23. EU Blames Russia, Expulsions Now in Sight: EU Summit Update

European Union leaders sided with the U.K. and said it’s “highly likely” that Russia was behind the nerve agent poisoning in Britain of a former double agent.

It’s an outcome that will please Prime Minister Theresa May. The language of the bloc was toughened significantly: It could find “no other plausible explanation” for the attack and believes it’s “highly likely” Russia is to blame.

Some countries are considering expulsions of their own in coming weeks — Lithuania has hinted as much. Germany’s Angela Merkel said “we are united in our language, but if necessary also to react together with further action.”

The first day of a two-day summit in Brussels however ended without a conclusion on tariffs — with the EU left in limbo on whether Donald Trump had formally signed off on exemptions.

We followed developments as they unfolded. Time stamps are in Brussels time.

May Sticks Around Another Day to Discuss Trade (2:03 a.m.)

May was planning to fly back to the U.K. in the early hours of Friday but changed her plan after the intense dinner debate over the Salisbury attack overran, resulting in a tougher EU stance against Russia.

Merkel Says Waiting for U.S. Decision on Tariffs (1:47 a.m.)

They day began very promisingly with the EU believing it was on track to be exempted from imminent U.S. tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum. That belief appeared confirmed in Washington — except Europe is still waiting for the announcement. The news cycle quickly became dominated by the president’s decision to appoint a new national security adviser.

Merkel had this to say about it all: “We will have to wait overnight how exactly the decision of the U.S. government will look like.”

Will Some Countries Expel Russian Diplomats? (01:43 a.m.)

Finland’s Sipila told reporters that “a couple of countries spoke about their readiness” to follow up today’s statement with some expulsions. In the meantime, the EU ambassador to Moscow was recalled for consultations.

May ordered 23 Russian operatives — who she said were undeclared spies — to leave Britain in retaliation for the attack on Sergei and Yulia Skripal. Russia responded by booting out 23 British diplomats.

A Bit of Brexit Talk Saved for the End (12:18 a.m.)

May got the chance to update fellow leaders on Brexit at the end of the meal. She hailed the progress negotiators made on reaching a transition deal, saying it took “compromise on both sides.”

She also acknowledged that fixing the vexed issue of the Irish border will now be a key priority as talks move on to discuss the future trade relationship. Britain has always argued that it’s impossible to resolve the question of what kind of border will exist on the island of Ireland until the trade and customs rules are clear. Now these rules can be discussed.

“We have the chance, now, to create a new dynamic in the talks, to work together to explore workable solutions — in Northern Ireland, in our future security cooperation and in order to ensure the future prosperity of all our people,” May said, according to extracts released by her office. “This is an opportunity it’s our duty to take and to enter into with energy and ambition.”

After dinner, she was due to be holding a brief meeting with Irish premier Leo Varadkar.

What the Leaders Ate While Discussing Russia (12:01 a.m.)

On the menu: pan-fried scallops with artichokes and seaweed coulis, rack of lamb with young veg, and iced lemon parfait.

It was during this meal that the language on Russia was sharpened. A German official said the while the tone was indeed tougher, there was still no consequences as such.

The final text of the conclusions says the bloc “agrees with the United Kingdom government’s assessment that it is highly likely that the Russian Federation is responsible and that there is no plausible alternative explanation. We stand in unqualified solidarity with the United Kingdom in the face of this grave challenge to our shared security.”

To see how much has changed, compare the before and after here.

EU Agrees ‘Highly Likely’ Russia to Blame (10:45 p.m.)

After almost two hours of talks, a tweet from Tusk signals the direction of travel: the EU has hardened it’s language and now see it as “highly likely Russia is responsible for #SalisburyAttack and that there is no other plausible explanation.”

It’s a shift from their earlier language, which was more cautious and spoke of “unqualified solidarity” and “takes extremely seriously the United Kingdom government’s assessment.” The 28 nations now agree with the U.K. Question is, what will they do about it?

Belgium Evasive on Possible Action on Russia (8:26 p.m.)

Belgian Prime Minister Charles Michel was asked on next steps on Russia. Sanctions? Expulsions?

“It’s not my intention today to give an answer because I consider it is important to have a free and open exchange of views on this issue,” he said. “It is very sensitive because the stability is very important for the future. And it is very important to try to be able to show unity on this issue and we will see in a few hours if it’s possible to show this unity.”

Macron, May and Merkel Huddled and Agreed (8:21 p.m.)

The French tweeted out a photo of the three leaders — May in the middle dressed in a blue suit with her signature leopard print heels. Though smiling the topic at hand was serious. There was an exchange of information about the nerve agent attack in Salisbury, England that left a Russian double agent and his daughter were left in critical condition.

Here is another picture of the three, sent by Merkel’s spokesman.

The three agreed that Russia was guilty of the poison attack and on the need to send Vladimir Putin a message, according to May’s office.

From a U.K. spokesman: “The U.K., Germany and France reaffirmed that there is no plausible explanation other than that the Russian state was responsible. The leaders agreed on the importance of sending a strong European message in response to Russia’s actions and agreed to remain in close contact in coming days.”

Slovak Prime Minister Makes His Debut (8:04 p.m.)

It’s literally his first day on the job. Peter Pellegrini began his stint as prime minister of Slovakia by attending an EU summit. At his news conference he was asked about Russia and his message seemed to be: no one should go rogue.

His full quote: “We fully agree with the draft of text which will be presented during the meeting later on. So we fully support this, but when we speak about some actions against Russia I will repeat once more, if there will be agreement of all member states then Slovakia will be part of it, but we don’t like to support any individual actions.”

A Reminder of Where Russia Stands on Allegations (7:48 p.m.)

Earlier in the day, Russian Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko went on the attack. Here are some more excerpts of what he had to say. He picks up on remarks made by Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson comparing Russia hosting the World Cup to the Nazi Olympics.

While some of it seemed like political theater, it speaks to level of tension between the two nations. Their relationship is at its worst since the end of the Cold War.

“The British government is free to make a decision about its participation in the World Cup,” he said. “But nobody has the right to insult the Russian people – who defeated Nazism and lost most than 25 million people – by comparing our country to Nazi Germany.”

EU’s Tusk Is Not Impressed with Facebook (7:32 p.m.)

Tusk spelled out that “it was clear to all leaders that citizens’ privacy and personal data must be fully protected.” According to the summit’s three-page conclusion, the bloc will revisit the Facebook problem at a May summit in Sofia.

Read more about the EU’s reach in our BusinessWeek story earlier today.

Long Arm of Europe’s Data Law Is About to Get Even Longer

Tusk, Juncker Won’t Be Drawn on Stance on Russia (7:20 p.m.)

EU President Donald Tusk and European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker came to the podium and the first question they were asked about was what the EU planned to do on Russia. They both said they would answer that question later on, once a discussion was had.

Separately, at a news conference, Finland’s Sipila restated that “May did not present any exact demands at least at this phase. We showed our solidarity to the U.K., and this discussion will continue tonight.”

Here is Finland’s position, which is probably shared by others like Greece too:

– The incident must be investigated until the very end and after that it is possible to move to the next phase

– Not yet in a phase where one could talk about sanctions

– Ultimately will Finland fall in line with the rest of the bloc? “Yes.”

The best comments on Russia from earlier are below for readers catching up.

Ireland Stands ‘Right Beside’ May on Russia (2:45 p.m.)

Some of the strongest language on Russia came from Ireland, who is in deep disagreement with the U.K. over Brexit, but stands by its neighbor when it comes to Russian aggression. To be sure, the wording is strong but May will be looking for some firmer commitments from her colleagues. At least Leo Varadkar didn’t dwell on needing to see more evidence.

Here was the Irish prime minister, one of the last to arrive: “I think what occurred in Salisbury was loathsome and reprehensible and we’re going to stand right beside the U.K. on that issue. An attempted assassination or a chemical attack — no matter who does it, no matter where it happens — is something we are going to condemn and condemn outright.”

Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borissov, when asked whether he believes the U.K.’s version of events seemed not to be so sure: “I’m a cautious person… When we know who did it then I’ll comment. Who would say for sure now?”

Russians on Offensive, Say May Can’t Be Trusted (2:09 p.m.)

In London, Russian Ambassador Alexander Yakovenko told reporters “we cannot take British words for granted.” He cited conflicts in Iraq and Yugoslavia as further examples of Britain “taking international law for granted.”

In Brussels, Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras arrived moments before May. After tweeting earlier that he had congratulated Vladimir Putin on his re-election, Tsipras was non-committal about where he stood on the poisoning incident: “we need to investigate Salisbury event with great responsibility.”

May reiterated that she would be talking to her counterparts about Russia’s “pattern of aggression” in the region, not just the isolated attack earlier this month.

Lithuanian President Dalia Grybauskaite signaled that the EU is going to weigh its options. Asked by a reporter about the possibility the bloc will agree to booting out Russian officials from their own countries, Grybauskaite said “all of us, we are considering.”

Czechs Wavering Between Support and Caution (12:43 p.m.)

Czech Prime Minister Andrej Babis was asked if he was sure the Russians were 100 percent involved. And here is how he responded: “Is there any evidence of this? I don’t know, of course we trust our allies.”

He went on to say: “If U.K. is sure then I am sure also. We will discuss it. This attack is a big problem but we hope that U.K. is really convinced that this is the case that Russia is behind it.”

Another Nation Strikes Cautious Note on Russia (12:22 p.m.)

On Russia, it’s clear May has her work cut out for her. Lots of solidarity that is falling short of commitments to action. Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel had this to say: “I want to listen, don’t ask me to say if there is evidence or not.”

Finns Need More Information from May on Russia (12:13 p.m.)

May needs to convince a few countries tonight about just how damning the evidence is against Russia and its alleged use of a nerve agent to poison a former spy outside London. Greece and Hungary are still skeptical, and it seems so is Finland.

Speaking exclusively to Raine Tiessalo, Prime Minister Juha Sipila said that the “information we’ve got so far is not enough to make decisions, this kind of decisions need to be assessed through careful processes.”

Question: Have you received any formal request to expel Russian diplomats?

Answer: “If she has this kind of thoughts she will probably present them when we’ ll meet today.”

In fact, British officials say May will make a strong case at the dinner.

 

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Geopolitica Mondiale, Putin, Russia

La colpa è di Putin. Il delirio di persecuzione e del nemico.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2016-03-16.

2018-03-16__Russia__001

Da qualche anno è invalso in Occidente il vezzo di additare alla Russia ed a Mr Putin ogni qualsiasi cosa che abbia contrariando l’attuale dirigenza pro tempore.

Dare la colpa agli altri è solitamente un residuo di infantilismo.

A scuola il bambino ha preso un cattivo voto perché la maestra sarebbe indisposta nei suoi confronti, oppure perché i compagni lo disturbano.

Il nodo fondamentale è una cattiva percezione del reale ed un incapacità di fare revisione critica del proprio pensato ed operato.

Ma se questo aspetto fisiologicamente non passa entrando nella età adulta, allora tende ad assumere aspetti di patologia psichiatrica.

Per un tifoso la sconfitta della squadra del cuore sarà sempre colpa dell’arbitro.

Ma mica sempre ci si limita a situazioni che, tutto sommato, fanno sorridere.

*

Il disturbo delirante (MeSH D012563, eMedicine 292991, ICD-10 F00-F99) è tutt’altro che infrequente.

«In psichiatria, il disturbo delirante è una forma di delirio cronico basato su un sistema di credenze illusorie che il paziente crede vere (resistenti a ogni critica) e che ne alterano l’approccio con la realtà. Queste credenze sono in genere di tipo verosimile, come la convinzione di essere traditi dal proprio partner o di essere infettati da una malattia contagiosa. A parte l’incapacità di valutare oggettivamente il sistema di credenze illusorie che danno origine al delirio, il paziente mantiene le proprie facoltà razionali e in genere le sue capacità di relazione sociale non sono compromesse. Alcune forme di disturbo delirante (in particolare quelle basate su convinzioni a tema persecutorio, come la convinzione di essere spiati o di essere vittima di un complotto di qualche genere) vengono tradizionalmente indicate come casi di paranoia, termine che oggi è in disuso nella comunità scientifica internazionale.

Un disturbo delirante può essere basato su qualunque sistema di credenze erronee, ma alcune forme sono più frequenti di altre. I pazienti con disturbi di tipo erotomaniaco credono di essere segretamente amati da qualcuno; in alcuni casi il presunto amante è un personaggio famoso (sindrome di de Clerambault). Nei deliri di tipo megalomaniaco, il paziente è convinto di essere depositario di una capacità o di una conoscenza di grandissima importanza (per esempio, di avere una missione affidatagli direttamente da Dio). Nei deliri di tipo somatico il paziente è convinto di avere una deformità, una malattia o un altro difetto fisico grave, come un cattivo odore o parassiti. I deliri di tipo persecutorio (spesso genericamente indicati come paranoia) sono caratterizzati dal fatto che il paziente è convinto di essere vittima di un complotto o di una persecuzione (per esempio di essere spiato, di essere progressivamente avvelenato, o di trovarsi in procinto di essere assassinato).» [Fonte]

*

Ma non esiste limite al peggio.

Dal disturbo delirante a quello paranoide il passo è breve (MeSH D010260, MedlinePlus 000938)

«Il disturbo paranoide è un disturbo di personalità caratterizzato da diffidenza e sospettosità che spingono a interpretare le motivazioni degli altri sempre come malevole per la propria persona o per le persone a cui il paranoico vuole bene (figli, genitori, famigliari…). Gli individui che maturano questa struttura di personalità sono dominati in maniera rigida e pervasiva da pensieri fissi di persecuzione, timori di venir danneggiati, paura continua di subire un tradimento anche da persone amate, senza che però l’intensità di tali pensieri raggiunga caratteri deliranti. L'”esame di realtà” rimane, infatti, intatto.

Secondo la prospettiva psicodinamica, queste caratteristiche di personalità sono prevalentemente attribuibili ad un massiccio uso del meccanismo di difesa della proiezione, attraverso il quale le caratteristiche ritenute cattive appartenenti alla propria persona vengono attribuite, proiettate all’esterno, su altre persone, o sull’intero ambiente, che verrà così percepito come costantemente ostile e pericoloso per la sopravvivenza dell’individuo.» [Fonte]

*

Il quadro non trattato ha un decorso naturale che sfocia in una forma di schizofrenia.

L’assunzione di alcune sostanze stupefacenti o farmaci sembra causare o peggiorare i sintomi.

Sono altresì frequenti i casi di abuso di sostanze (riscontrabili in quasi il 50% dei pazienti)

Circa la metà di questi pazienti erano cocainomani. Un quadro particolareggiato è stato pubblicato da:

Buckley PF, Miller BJ, Lehrer DS, Castle DJ, Psychiatric comorbidities and schizophrenia, in Schizophr Bull, vol. 35, nº 2, marzo 2009, pp. 383–402, DOI:10.1093/schbul/sbn135, PMC 2659306, PMID 19011234.

* * * * * * *

Le poche persone che siano riuscite a leggere fino in fondo il Mein Kampf oppure i Discorsi di Lenin vi avranno immediatamente riconosciuto questi due personaggi.

Era stata fatta un’elaborazione religiosa del delirio, ove il presunto nemico, per uno l’Ebreo e per l’altro il Borghese, erano considerati alla stregua del male assoluto, di satana. Un male così malvagio e così potente che nulla sarebbe stato sufficientemente perverso per fermarli: tutto sarebbe stato giustificato e giustificabile pur di annientarli.

Come conseguenza sequenziale, del resto ovvia, questo delirio forniva anche la ragione necessaria e sufficiente alla proprie esistenza ed al proprio agire. Il nazionalsocialismo esisteva per controbattere l’Ebreo, il comunismo per contenere le brame capitaliste del borghese.

E nella mente di Hitler e di Lenin diventava naturale il considerarsi dei benefattori della umanità, alla stregua dei santi.

* * * * * * *

Il delirio schizofrenico ha il grande vantaggio di essere facilmente comunicabile, comprensibile nella sua essenza e, soprattutto, di essere auto assolutorio: la colpa sarà sempre degli “Ebrei” oppure dei “Borghesi“.

*

Se gli esempi storici del nazionalsocialismo e del comunismo dovrebbero essere auto evidenti lo stesso potrebbe essere riferito all’ideologia liberal ed a quella del socialismo ideologico.

Ambedue giustificano la propria esistenza additando un nemico: per loro non esistono avversari politici. Esistono solo nemici.

Come Hitler e come Lenin si reputano salvatori del’umanità, filantropi è il termine che usano a proposito ed a sproposito. E come questi due dittatori restano stupefatti del fatto che la gente non li ami.

Negli Usa Mr Trump e ciò che rappresenta ha preso il posto di “Ebrei” o “Borghesi“. In Europa questo ruolo è stato addossato ai “populisti“.

È evidente quanto questa costruzione sia scazontica, se ne rendono conto gli stessi liberal e socialisti.

Ecco quindi, quasi a voler far buon peso, l’aggiunta della Russia.

Sicuramente questa esiste e fa di tutto per esistere al meglio: perché poi non dovrebbe?

Altrettanto sicuramente il suo Presidente cura gli affari della federazione: perché un russo non dovrebbe fare gli interessi della Russia?

Che i russi nel tutelare i propri interessi non guardino il pelo nell’uovo sembrerebbe non essere una loro peculiare caratteristica: più o meno tutte le nazioni si difendono e difendono i loro interessi con ogni mezzo, ivi compresi quelli illegali, dall’omicidio al ricatto.

Ma di qui al demonizzarli sistematicamente ce ne passa molto.

Alla fine si arriva al ridicolo.

Il buon Stalin soleva dire:

«Dicano pure che sono crudele, ma non che io sia ridicolo».

* * * * * * *

L’ambasciatore russo in Vaticano: quel gas nervino e gli Usa.

Che cosa può dirci della crisi con il governo britannico dopo il tentato omicidio dell’ex spia russa Serghej Skripal e di sua figlia Yulia nel centro di Salisbury?

«La storia è davvero molto strana. Secondo la stampa inglese il gas era di fabbricazione sovietica. Beh, anche se supponiamo l’impossibile – se l’attentatore fosse russo sarebbe stato proprio stupido a usare un gas sovietico rendendo immediatamente palese da dove proviene l’autore. Questo gas speciale era prodotto da una fabbrica chimica militare in Uzbekistan. Questa fabbrica è stata controllata dagli americani che l’hanno chiusa e hanno verificato che tutta produzione venisse distrutta. Un altro particolare: l’autore della formula di questo gas è un grande chimico russo  [Vil Mirzanyanov] , immigrato negli Stati Uniti 26 anni fa, che per tutto questo tempo ha lavorato nei laboratori americani. In Inghilterra questa ex spia russa scambiata nove anni fa, era stata dimenticata. Ma una settimana prima dell’attentato, la televisione britannica ha trasmesso un film sulla sua storia. Poi c’è stato il tentato omicidio. Ancora, è molto strano che proprio nell’ospedale vicino dove Skripal e sua figlia sono stati ricoverati avessero un antidoto per il gas adoperato».

Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Russia

Russia. Riserve Valutarie a 455.2 miliardi Usd. Oro ad 80.582 mld.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2016-03-16.

2018-03-16__Russia__002

Il 2018-03-15 la The Central Bank of the Russian Faderation ha rilasciato il valore delle riserve valutarie detenute: 455.2 miliardi Usd.

Il primo gennaio 2018 esse ammontavano a 432.68 miliardi Usd.

Il primo gennaio 2017 esse ammontavano a 377.70 miliardi Usd.

*

Sempre la Banca Centrale Russa ha comunicato che con il 31 gennaio 2018 le riserve auree erano stimabili ad 80.582 miliardi Usd.

Un anno or sono, il 28 febbraio 2017, esse valevano 66.863  miliardi.

2018-03-16__Russia__003